44% of Americans are racist assholes

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-12-18 03:48am

Lets review Surah Kafirun which deals with non believers.

In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

Say: O ye that reject Faith!

I worship not that which ye worship,

Nor will ye worship that which I worship.

And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship,

Nor will ye worship that which I worship.

To you be your Way, and to me mine.

Each to their own way it seems.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2004-12-18 05:16am

The title of this thread is quite misleading actually, since Islam is a religion and not a race.

Pcm979 · Post by **Pcm979** » 2004-12-18 05:18am

The title of this thread is quite misleading actually, since Islam is a religion and not a race.

Durr......

Yahoo News wrote:THACA, N.Y. - Nearly half of all Americans believe the U.S. government should restrict the civil liberties of Muslim Americans, according to a nationwide poll.

Now, don't you feel like an idiot?

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-12-18 05:19am

Still not a race.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-12-18 05:20am

But when you realize that those 44% almost assuredly associate "Arab" with "Muslim," then it becomes racist, too.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2004-12-18 05:21am

Pcm979 wrote:
The title of this thread is quite misleading actually, since Islam is a religion and not a race.
Durr......
Yahoo News wrote:THACA, N.Y. - Nearly half of all Americans believe the U.S. government should restrict the civil liberties of Muslim Americans, according to a nationwide poll.
Now, don't you feel like an idiot?

The term "Muslim Americans" just means americans who are Muslims. They don't necessarily have to be of middle-eastern origin to be muslims, what about those who convert to Islam? Don't they count as "Muslim Americans" too?

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-12-18 05:22am

HemlockGrey wrote:But when you realize that those 44% almost assuredly associate "Arab" with "Muslim," then it becomes racist, too.

Point. Actually, in light of the Sikh (was there more than one?) who was attacked because his attacker thought he was a Muslim, conceded.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2004-12-18 05:31am

You guys think this is regression? It's bad, but Jesus, fifty years ago the notion of curtailing a minorities' rights would have met with near-unanimous approval.

Regressing? Nah. We're just not progressing as fast as we should.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-12-18 06:33am

Rogue 9 wrote:
HemlockGrey wrote:But when you realize that those 44% almost assuredly associate "Arab" with "Muslim," then it becomes racist, too.
Point. Actually, in light of the Sikh (was there more than one?) who was attacked because his attacker thought he was a Muslim, conceded.

I believe two were attacked.

Faqa · Post by **Faqa** » 2004-12-18 07:38am

And 29 percent thought undercover agents should infiltrate Muslim civic and volunteer organizations to keep tabs on their activities and fund-raising.

I can agree with that one. Then again, I'm in favor of such things for all religious institutions.

Like it or not, the terrorists underground DOES raise plenty of support in the U.S through such organizations(try reading Terrorist Hunter, gives a better account of such things) . They do have to be watched. Would anyone here be against infiltrating churches if it meant stopping Christian fundies from, say, blowing up an abortion clinic? Didn't think so.

That doesn't mean every or even a siginificant amount of Muslims are even REMOTELY connected to such things, but, like it or not, Muslim organizations ARE used as terrorist cover. I've long failed to understood why religious organizations have any sort of free pass from goverment investigation.

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2004-12-18 08:41am

The Shadow wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote:
HemlockGrey wrote:But when you realize that those 44% almost assuredly associate "Arab" with "Muslim," then it becomes racist, too.
Point. Actually, in light of the Sikh (was there more than one?) who was attacked because his attacker thought he was a Muslim, conceded.
I believe two were attacked.

I wonder how many cases of property damage there were, though. For instance, there was a gas station near where I lived that was shot up right after September 11th, though fortunately no one was hurt. It was owned by Indians, but they're all "sand niggers," "ragheads," and "dot heads" to the stupid. Yes, retaliate against Islamists by shooting an Indian owned gas station in Bumblefuck, Georgia. That'll learn 'em.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-12-18 10:48am

SPOOFE wrote:You guys think this is regression? It's bad, but Jesus, fifty years ago the notion of curtailing a minorities' rights would have met with near-unanimous approval.

Regressing? Nah. We're just not progressing as fast as we should.

'Regression' does not carry the 'At least fifty years' tag. Thank you for saying something stupid, though. There's quota to fill.

irishmick79 · Post by **irishmick79** » 2004-12-18 12:54pm

Wholy shit. I suspected the numbers for a question like this would be bad, but I didn't think they would be this bad. This is deeply disturbing news, and I weep for the future of the country.

This shit seriously needs to be fought, and fought hard.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-12-18 12:59pm

SPOOFE wrote:You guys think this is regression? It's bad, but Jesus, fifty years ago the notion of curtailing a minorities' rights would have met with near-unanimous approval.

Regressing? Nah. We're just not progressing as fast as we should.

You can't use 1950 as a comparison point in order to prove that we are not currently regressing. This is like saying that your car isn't in reverse right now because you're well ahead of where you were last week when you started your trip.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2004-12-19 04:50am

Mrs. CmdrWilkens wrote:How is it inherently violent and hateful?

I wouldn't call it "inherently" violent, but I would call it "historically" violent, given it's rapid spread in it's first hundred years thanks to the sermon of the blade.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2004-12-19 04:53am

Addendum: Regardless, such supposed widespread support for the curtailment of the rights of citizens due to their religious convictions is disturbing.

ArmorPierce · Post by **ArmorPierce** » 2004-12-19 03:03pm

Ma Deuce wrote:
The Islamic religion itself promotes peace. The actions of radical groups have not changed the teachings of the religion.
I fail to see how the commandment "slay the idolaters wherever ye find them" (Quran 9:5) is promoting peace...

Full quote "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

ArmorPierce · Post by **ArmorPierce** » 2004-12-19 03:08pm

To further clarify, the "idolaters" they are referring to are the tribes that attacked Muhammad and his followers first.

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2004-12-19 03:27pm

Joe wrote:
Mrs. CmdrWilkens wrote:
Joe wrote:It would be more appropriate to say that the actions of moderate practitioners of the faith have not changed its inherently violent, hateful nature.
How is it inherently violent and hateful?
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/q ... /long.html

SAB's list of the Quran's hate speech actually promotes the fact that Islam is a religion of peace. After all, there are only 323 entries, as opposed to 705 for the Bible.

Comparitively, Muslims just aren't trying....

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2004-12-19 05:50pm

Vendetta wrote:SAB's list of the Quran's hate speech actually promotes the fact that Islam is a religion of peace. After all, there are only 323 entries, as opposed to 705 for the Bible.

Comparitively, Muslims just aren't trying....

I think they´ve been trying to surpass Christianity for a good, long while now (in action, at least).

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-12-19 06:46pm

The Shadow wrote:Lets review Surah Kafirun which deals with non believers.

<snip>

The Cow of The Qur'an wrote:178 O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female. And for him who is forgiven somewhat by his (injured) brother, prosecution according to usage and payment unto him in kindness. This is an alleviation and a mercy from your Lord. He who transgresseth after this will have a painful doom.

190 Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.

191 And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

193 And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers.

216 Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not.

The Qur'an clearly demands that Muslims fight holy wars if they perceive that they are being attacked, and that war itself is ordained by Allah. This is the point I made earlier, which of course, completely glossed over your head.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-12-19 08:22pm

The Qur'an clearly demands that Muslims fight holy wars if they perceive that they are being attacked, and that war itself is ordained by Allah. This is the point I made earlier, which of course, completely glossed over your head.

Still, the "fight to the death if they attack you but stop if they stop," is at least marginally better than "kill them all, God will know his own."

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-12-19 09:39pm

That's something of an oversimplification. The Koran explicitly orders Muslims to go to war against religious persecution, which it says to be worse than actual killing. And we all know how easy it is for religious fanatics to claim persecution: Judge Roy Moore thinks it's persecution for him not to be allowed to stick a fucking 5-ton Ten Commandments monument in the state courthouse, for fuck's sake.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-12-19 11:35pm

Vendetta wrote:SAB's list of the Quran's hate speech actually promotes the fact that Islam is a religion of peace. After all, there are only 323 entries, as opposed to 705 for the Bible.

Comparitively, Muslims just aren't trying....

Did you ever consider that might have something to do with the small fact that the Koran is only about 1/3 the size of the Bible?

Uther · Post by **Uther** » 2004-12-20 01:03am

Ok, well, first of all, suprise, the news sort of overhyped this story. If you'll read the whole thing: here, you'll find that they asked respondents four questions, including whether mosques should be closely monitored, or Islamic fundraising organizations should be investigated. If you answered "yes" to any of these, whoops, you support curtailing Muslims's rights.

The only objectionable suggestion was that Muslim Americans should be required to register their whereabouts with the US government. 27% of people agree with that one. So it's not 44%. The fact that this teensy tidbit hasn't been brought up in two pages of discussion is a rather sad reflection on the critical thinking of this board, don't you agree? I mean, this is basic Googling skills, people. I know you all want to believe the USA is a goose-stepping shithole, so I guess it's understandable.

Now, I know, I know, you'll object and say, well, it's still 27%, that's hella high. And it is. But, didn't like 5% of Britons think Battlestar Galactica actually happened? I mean, even professional pollsters can't get close to predicting election outcomes, a good example of how well polls can predict results. And it's so innocuously worded. Register with the US government. I bet a lot of people think the feds keep track of people already. If I'm Joe Blow getting a call from some Cornell pollster right before dinner, sure, I mean that doesn't sound like such a bad idea. Keeping track of where people are. Now, if you actually stop to think about it and realize that yeah, that is in fact a restriction on civil liberties or whatever, it becomes less palatable. Ok, that's all.[/quote]

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

44% of Americans are racist assholes

Re: 44% of Americans are racist assholes

Re: 44% of Americans are racist assholes