# In U.S., 44 Percent Say Restrict Muslims



## BraveHeart007 (May 19, 2004)

In U.S., 44 Percent Say Restrict MuslimsPoll: Nearly Half of All Americans Support Restricting Rights of Muslim Americans
The Associated Press

ITHACA, N.Y. Dec 17, 2004 - Nearly half of all Americans believe the U.S. government should restrict the civil liberties of Muslim Americans, according to a nationwide poll.

The survey conducted by Cornell University also found that Republicans and people who described themselves as highly religious were more apt to support curtailing Muslims' civil liberties than Democrats or people who are less religious.

Researchers also found that respondents who paid more attention to television news were more likely to fear terrorist attacks and support limiting the rights of Muslim Americans.

"It's sad news. It's disturbing news. But it's not unpredictable," said Mahdi Bray, executive director of the Muslim American Society. "The nation is at war, even if it's not a traditional war. We just have to remain vigilant and continue to interface."

The survey found 44 percent favored at least some restrictions on the civil liberties of Muslim Americans. Forty-eight percent said liberties should not be restricted in any way.

The survey showed that 27 percent of respondents supported requiring all Muslim Americans to register where they lived with the federal government. Twenty-two percent favored racial profiling to identify potential terrorist threats. And 29 percent thought undercover agents should infiltrate Muslim civic and volunteer organizations to keep tabs on their activities and fund-raising.

Cornell student researchers questioned 715 people in the nationwide telephone poll conducted this fall. The margin of error was 3.6 percentage points.

James Shanahan, an associate professor of communications who helped organize the survey, said the results indicate "the need for continued dialogue about issues of civil liberties" in a time of war.

While researchers said they were not surprised by the overall level of support for curtailing civil liberties, they were startled by the correlation with religion and exposure to television news.

"We need to explore why these two very important channels of discourse may nurture fear rather than understanding," Shanahan said.

According to the survey, 37 percent believe a terrorist attack in the United States is still likely within the next 12 months. In a similar poll conducted by Cornell in November 2002, that number stood at 90 percent.


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

Thats truely sad.


----------



## BraveHeart007 (May 19, 2004)

Im all in favor of all Muslim Americans to register where they lived with the federal government. And profiling to identify potential terrorist threats. And undercover agents should infiltrate Muslim civic and volunteer organizations to keep tabs on their activities and fund-raising.

As long as these muslim terroists want to inflict damage on the US. We need to have requirements like this in place. When we cant tell the difference between foe or friend. We would be foolish not to do these things . Sad maybe but necessary to thwart another attack within the US.


----------



## dwarfcat (Sep 21, 2004)

Most people say that putting the Japanese in camps during WW2 was bad too. I wrote a paper in high school fully supporting the idea. It is a very rational, well written paper if anyone would like a good read.


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

Yes, while were at it, lets restrict all germans in this country too, oh yes and Italians too. How about the French? Oh hell, why dont we just restrict the whole f*cking country. Because really anyone of us could pose a threat and be a possible terrorist.


----------



## dwarfcat (Sep 21, 2004)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> Yes, while were at it, lets restrict all germans in this country too, oh yes and Italians too. How about the French? Oh hell, why dont we just restrict the whole f*cking country. Because really anyone of us could pose a threat and be a possible terrorist.
> [snapback]804124[/snapback]​


If thats what it takes. I am in no way saying any sort of violence is acceptable, but any measure short of that to keep my family and myself safe is fine by me. 
*its kind of hard for me to even take myself seriously when I look at my avatar







*


----------



## BraveHeart007 (May 19, 2004)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> Yes, while were at it, lets restrict all germans in this country too, oh yes and Italians too. How about the French? Oh hell, why dont we just restrict the whole f*cking country. Because really anyone of us could pose a threat and be a possible terrorist.
> [snapback]804124[/snapback]​


What if there was a religion called KILLNATT and they wanted to kill you as part of there religious sacrifice. Would you want the local, state, gov agencies to restrict them from killing you? Or would you say to these agencies, oh please let them be. I wouldnt want you to investigate this religous group. Because out of compassion on my end you might accidently interview the wrong person. Or heavan forbid you might ask them what they do for a living. Or even do some background checks on them.

In my eyes they are death cult. Shall i say "Suicide bombers"

The Israelis know due diligence and understand these concepts all to well. Because there very existence depends on these type of life saving restrictions....


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

Braveheart.. you must excuse Natt.. some times she doesnt think rationally.

I have to agree with you braveheart.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

i think we should Ban their religion.


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

BraveHeart007 said:


> What if there was a religion called KILLNATT and they wanted to kill you as part of there religious sacrifice. Would you want the local, state, gov agencies to restrict them from killing you? Or would you say to these agencies, oh please let them be. I wouldnt want you to investigate this religous group. Because out of compassion on my end you might accidently interview the wrong person. Or heavan forbid you might ask them what they do for a living. Or even do some background checks on them.
> In my eyes they are death cult. Shall i say "Suicide bombers"
> 
> The Israelis know due diligence and understand these concepts all to well. Because there very existence depends on these life saving restrictions....
> [snapback]804142[/snapback]​


I can hardly believe that a cult (much less a religious cult) would target all their attention to one person and the death of that person (IE: me).

I know a lot of muslims and not one of them is a terrorist. Some of them are the sweetest of people.

Like Ive said a million times before, you cant take the actions of few and judge the entire race/culture/religion/people based upon it.


----------



## SirOneEighty (Nov 20, 2004)

Banning the religion itself means we are going to change everything this country is based on. I think that we can't start keeping tabs on people of any religion. I know that we can't trust anyone these crazy days, but you have to see things from the perspective of the good Muslims. They can't control the heretics of their religion any more than Christians can control theirs.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> I can hardly believe that a cult (much less a religious cult) would target all their attention to one person and the death of that person (IE: me).
> 
> I know a lot of muslims and not one of them is a terrorist. Some of them are the sweetest of people.
> 
> ...


See Braveheart?? she didnt even understand your hypothetical scenario.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

SirOneEighty said:


> Banning the religion itself means we are going to change everything this country is based on. I think that we can't start keeping tabs on people of any religion. I know that we can't trust anyone these crazy days, but you have to see things from the perspective of the good Muslims. They can't control the heretics of their religion any more than Christians can control theirs.
> [snapback]804176[/snapback]​


so we should just ignore the muslims in america? even though they are a higher risk then other races/cultures? they cannot be trusted..


----------



## SirOneEighty (Nov 20, 2004)

We don't know that you can be trusted. You don't know that I can be trusted. Today, you can't trust anyone. But you cannot limit someone based upon their religion. That is just as bad, if not worst than limits based upon color of skin. Do you see that correlation at all?


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

SirOneEighty said:


> We don't know that you can be trusted. You don't know that I can be trusted. Today, you can't trust anyone. But you cannot limit someone based upon their religion. That is just as bad, if not worst than limits based upon color of skin. Do you see that correlation at all?
> [snapback]804187[/snapback]​


i disagree.. a religion is a set of moral laws.. its a way to live your life.. and if you believe in a religion, then you must perform the deeds required..

therefore.. its safe to say that people who are muslim are a higher risk then those who are catholic or what ever.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

I believe, if your religion permits you to kill others of a different religion, you should not be able to practice such religion in the USA.. its safer this way.


----------



## SirOneEighty (Nov 20, 2004)

Obviously you don't know very much about the Islamic religion. There are no violent acts required. You are obviously angry at a whole religion because of the crazed acts of a few individuals.

That is just as bad as the craziness in the middle east over the Gaza Strip and Jerusalem. We can't hate people because a few folks do something wrong.


----------



## SirOneEighty (Nov 20, 2004)

Most violent acts from Muslims are honor based and towards other Muslims. Those acts are illegal here, and they know it.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

oh? i dont ??? most of these "peacefull" muslims are performing their religion half-assed.. just like the free masons.

let me look for some stuff.. ill post up in a bit..


----------



## SirOneEighty (Nov 20, 2004)

I just don't see how you can honestly want to cast citizens out in this manner. The future of the US is in a sad state.


----------



## SirOneEighty (Nov 20, 2004)

BTW, this is just my personal opinion. I know Peacock is going to find something to try and prove me wrong and make me look like a fool. Luckily, since most of what I said is my opinion, you can't tell me it's wrong.

Oh, and good job in the Shark thread. Was definately a Mako.


----------



## BoomerSub (Jun 23, 2003)

First, I should say that while I despise Islam (indeed, any religion), this makes me nervous. What's to stop them from going after my political organizations, keeping me under surveillance, detaining me forever as a "material witness"? Nothing. They can't be trusted with that kind of power, not even to keep you "safe" (they did a real good job of that a few years back in New York, didn't they?).

The people you want to empower are a horde of thugs, bureaucrats trying to build their own little empires, neurotic control addicts, and imbeciles incapable of functioning outside of the little bubble that's been created for them at your expense.

I'll take my chances with the terrorists.

-PK
-More later, falling asleep.


----------



## William's (Aug 23, 2004)

BoomerSub said:


> First, I should say that while I despise Islam (indeed, any religion), this makes me nervous. What's to stop them from going after my political organizations, keeping me under surveillance, detaining me forever as a "material witness"? Nothing. They can't be trusted with that kind of power, not even to keep you "safe" (they did a real good job of that a few years back in New York, didn't they?).
> 
> The people you want to empower are a horde of thugs, bureaucrats trying to build their own little empires, neurotic control addicts, and imbeciles incapable of functioning outside of the little bubble that's been created for them at your expense.
> 
> ...


 that's exactly my opinion too..


----------



## shoe997bed263 (Oct 15, 2004)

this goes against what our country was founded on i think it is wrong. i can understand the why u would want to do this but that is not american. would u want that to happen to u. put yourself in their shoes. this is the same thing that we did the japs in ww2 and that was wrong also and the government had to pay for that not that money justified what we did. it is just wrong


----------



## dan-uk (Oct 31, 2004)

I cant see why these fuckin muslims dont f*ck off back to thier own countrys,because here in the u.k they come in thier thousands each year.I think restrictions would be a good idea.

P.S i will be voting for BNP (British National Party) next election......and for anyone who doesnt know what that is its a far rights party in britain who hates muslims haha


----------



## huntx7 (Nov 13, 2004)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> Yes, while were at it, lets restrict all germans in this country too, oh yes and Italians too. How about the French? Oh hell, why dont we just restrict the whole f*cking country. Because really anyone of us could pose a threat and be a possible terrorist.
> [snapback]804124[/snapback]​


Restrict the French? Hey I'm down.


----------



## the grinch (Feb 23, 2004)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> Yes, while were at it, lets restrict all germans in this country too, oh yes and Italians too. How about the French? Oh hell, why dont we just restrict the whole f*cking country. Because really anyone of us could pose a threat and be a possible terrorist.
> [snapback]804124[/snapback]​


Wow Ms natt this is the first time i seen you get this way. 
I totally agree and with you and a few others. The islamic religion is a good religion for the people who follow it the right way. They teach peace, and brotherhood. Respect others and their own religion. There are a few who practice it the wrong way. Like the natzi christians or KKK for example. You cant put restrictions on people based on a religion that goes back since the beginning of religion in this country. Muslims are not a threat to this country or anyone else. Terrorist who happen to be muslim are a threat. Respect muslims they respect you and your beliefs. Do you people understand respect? Many religious people believe athiest (sp) are the big part why god will come to earth and end our existance as we know it. Should "One nation under God" Ban you, or make you register yourself, because you are the reason we will be whiped out? If this country ever did something like this article states we are heading in the wrong direction with our ignorance for certain. I'm done with this bull sh*t!


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

huntx7 said:


> Restrict the French? Hey I'm down.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I, too, will support any law against the Frenchies


----------



## K fizzly (Aug 27, 2004)

dan-uk said:


> I cant see why these fuckin muslims dont f*ck off back to thier own countrys,because here in the u.k they come in thier thousands each year.I think restrictions would be a good idea.
> 
> P.S i will be voting for BNP (British National Party) next election......and for anyone who doesnt know what that is its a far rights party in britain who hates muslims haha
> 
> ...










funny...im the only muslim on the board i think and u crack me up

dont get ur hopes up...u or ne of ur fellow muslim hating friends are not gonna single handedly force all 2 billion muslims back to their country...

and peacock is gonna go to some muslmi hating website and take quotes outta context from the quran which none of it is true...like i said before...u wanna learn about it...get a free english translation of the quran at a mosque read it and learn


----------



## SirOneEighty (Nov 20, 2004)

I agree kfizzly, let them learn before they pass judgement.


----------



## K fizzly (Aug 27, 2004)

at least someone does...if it werent for ppl like u...id be in an internment camp rite now


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

K fizzly said:


> at least someone does...if it werent for ppl like u...id be in an internment camp rite now
> [snapback]804818[/snapback]​


hey, if that's going to prevent you from posting stupid threads in the lounge, let's do it, by all means

I am suprprised Filo hasn't checked in on this topic yet


----------



## KrazyCrusader (Oct 26, 2004)

Everytime there has been a conflict we've stereotyped people and hearded them into camps. In world war 2 we did it to the Japanese, In the Vietnam war we did it too them. It's been going on for a long time. This isn't unusual for the average person to want to take away the rights of people they stereotype as "one of them"


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

KrazyCrusader said:


> Everytime there has been a conflict we've stereotyped people and hearded them into camps. In world war 2 we did it to the Japanese, In the Vietnam war we did it too them. It's been going on for a long time. This isn't unusual for the average person to want to take away the rights of people they stereotype as "one of them"
> [snapback]804853[/snapback]​


did we really do it during Vietnam war ? I haven't heard that


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

So do you guys smile at the irony every time you sing "In the laaaaand of the freeee, and the home of the brave" or is it completely lost on you?


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

How can you ban a religion? especially when it has billions of useless followers?


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

K fizzly said:


> at least someone does...if it werent for ppl like u...id be in an internment camp rite now
> [snapback]804818[/snapback]​


Nah, you'd go to a special torture camp for a few years, then you'd get turned to ash.


----------



## K fizzly (Aug 27, 2004)

lol


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Look over me today, I'm alittle


----------



## K fizzly (Aug 27, 2004)

wuts that smiley mean


----------



## K fizzly (Aug 27, 2004)

wut i dont understand is that everyone postinga buot not liking muslims...do u know ne ...are u friends with ne...or ne thing like that...maybe ud think differently if u did


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

I'm just goofing off... Yes I know two muslims.


----------



## Dr. Giggles (Oct 18, 2003)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> Yes, while were at it, lets restrict all germans in this country too, oh yes and Italians too. How about the French? Oh hell, why dont we just restrict the whole f*cking country. Because really anyone of us could pose a threat and be a possible terrorist.
> [snapback]804124[/snapback]​


Unfortunately Ms. Natt this has already started. You got George Dubya and his religious right already curtailing what we can see and hear on the TV and radio and with the patriot act even if you fart wrong you have some government agency listening in on your phone calls or knocking on your door and confiscating what they feel fit especially your computer....We are definitely in a different era...


----------



## Guest (Dec 18, 2004)

> Cornell student researchers questioned 715 people in the nationwide telephone poll conducted this fall. The margin of error was 3.6 percentage points.


I actually think that 44% number is low.

If the poll was more anonymous, I think you would have a much higher number. People want to be seen as "nice people" so when they get a phone call from a stranger asking, "Mrs. Elenor Smith, do you think Muslims should have their civil liberties restricted?", most people will say "no", regardless of what they believe.

If the poll asked if the immigration of Muslims or anybody from a Muslim-troubled section of the world should be restricted and those who enter be carefully watched by the goverment, the vast majority of people would have said "yes".


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

wow 44% are full of sh*t.


----------



## scrubbs (Aug 9, 2003)

i am not a statistician, but is 715 people out of 300 million or so a valid statistical sample size?


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

scrubbs said:


> i am not a statistician, but is 715 people out of 300 million or so a valid statistical sample size?
> [snapback]805648[/snapback]​


----------



## scrubbs (Aug 9, 2003)

Filo said:


> [snapback]805691[/snapback]​


 this was meant to be a valid question. I hope someone can tell me exactly how this poll was conducted. As i feel there is a part of the population that feels this way, 44% seems absurdly high. To me, this brings to mind several questions.
1) what were the questions asked of the respondants? 
2) How were the respondants selected?
3) were they selected from certain geographic locations( red state/blue state sort of thing)?
4) Cornell university did the study. Although later on in the article, it mentions STUDENT researchers. Were these students qualified to be doing a study of this magnitude? I am in no way saying that they are undergrads or something(if they are, lord help us), just that the term student implies lack of experience. With a poll of this calibre, there could have been things that sckewed the results in one direction or another that an "inexperienced" student might not know.

I am in not way saying that this article has no statistical validity. I have just been taught throughout my schooling to think critically. This is all i am doing. Maybe when i have some more time, i may be able to find the data for this survey on the net.


----------



## scrubbs (Aug 9, 2003)

i got curious and went and found the actual report, not just an AP article. 
http://www.comm.cornell.edu/msrg/report1a.pdf

It appears from the last page, that it is indeed undergrads that completed this survey for a class project. In my view this kind of explains the 715 respondents, as a class project would not allow for a large amount of data to be compiled. I think it is amazing that an undergrad project got picked up by the AP. ALthough, i think that the only reason it got picked up is because it was so alarming, if it is indeed valid.


----------

