I realize that you are using bold letters and thus there is no way of really arguing with you. But, I would say that you would get lots of outrage over someone wanting to take the oath of office in anything other than the Bible. If he had taken it over "Maus" or "Finnegans Wake" there would have been outrage. The question is whether we in the US are posed to make the leap into outright, sanctioned, (government or not) violence against Muslims. I don't think that is the case. I think our recent election and other anti Administration positions that many are taking is reflective of the fact that people -- people who matter -- are willing to think twice about translating 9/11 into "Arab bashing". I don't think we have anywhere near the social pressures here in the US because I don't see areas where Muslims are living in specific areas and economically butting heads with whites. To the extent that they do in the Midwest, perhaps that is not true. I see anti-Arab hate as being very similar to antii-immigrant hate -- the further away you get from actual immigrants, the more anti-immigrant you get. Hence, I don't particularly think a bunch of southern dummie types moaning about Muslims and misegenation and whatever they want to moan about matters. What matters is whether Muslims can pursue their livelihoods and remain secure in their homes in a time of turbulence. That seems to be what is happening. Muslims are not being scapegoated because they are taking others jobs. They aren't being denied entry into the armed services or any other service. And if they are they file suit and they win.
Um, by what standard? Where does significant begin? 20% is huge. When was the last time that president won an election by that much?
No American party could ever advertise themselves as [more or less] anti any group of people and not see their numbers plummet...oh wait. Nor do I. Really? I'd say it is a major issue within the Republican party; and within the political landscape as a whole. I see what would amount to a small amount of paranoia, but I definitely don't see hysteria.
This has been addressed, but why would you? The House of Reps doesn't swear their oath on any book, and in no governmental ceremony is a Bible required.
At what point does "fringe" begin? Bear in mind that disapproval for abortion, for example, depending on the way the question is asked, ranges from 11-61%
Beat me to it. You can swear an oath on any old thing you want, including nothing, and I'm sure thousands of people have...I'm sure thousands have taken an oath on the Koran before testifying in court. You have to bring your own Koran though, the court will not provide one.
How about an Orangutang in a zoo? They masturbate anytime on the slightest whim, regardless of their surroundings, and always get a free pass.... Anyway, do these viewpoints actually surprise anyone? I mean you are bound to find a few whack jobs who actually do feel this way for some twisted, misguided reason. Some probsbly are just so full of hate in general, this gave them an outlet to vent with.. Lets not get worked up over a few nut cases.
So, the percentage of votes President-elect Daniel ortega got in the nicaragua elections, I suppose, was insignificant. I think significant is 80%. Anything less is insignificant.
That was a typo of masochistic proportions. I'm not quite sure where I was going with that part of the post.
39% of Americans feel that we should slap a Star of David - I mean, a Crescent - on Muslims here in America. In comparison, just 34% of Americans feel that gay people should be granted no legal recognition of their relationships (ie, no civil union or gay marriage). Yet this is our official policy, and in fact an amendment to the Constitution that would have given this 34% exactly what they wanted had 49 Senators voting on a motion that would have put it to an official "up-or-down" vote. This is definitely a "nut case" position, but it's not "a few" people. It's a lot of people. Way too many of 'em, in fact. I think it's serious enough to - at the very least - raise some eyebrows, if not earn some very serious scrutiny.
Again confirming that you do not read articles that are posted you just jump headfirst into the discussion.
Read the 2nd part. I was looking for the details of the question itself. Depending on how it was phrased I could see that number being way higher or way lower.
The problem with the Republicans is that they're incompetent and out of touch with reality. We haven't felt the effects of supposed Republican bigotry, but we have felt the effects of Republican favoritism of the wealthy and just plain bad decision-making. Contrary to popular belief, Republicans do not come from Mordor. OK, I'll take back "hysteria" but I'll say moderate amount of paranoia. I see you know how to bargain.
Here is the way the question was worded: "As a means of preventing terrorist attacks in the United States do you favor requiring Muslims to carry a special ID?" Still a dispiriting and depressing number of positive respondents. But a tad loaded. However, as a means of preventing OU from ever winning the national championship, I would favor requiring Muslims to carry a special ID.
1 in every 4 or 5 people constitutes a fringe? If so, every minority group in the US is 'fringe' according to that level. (See http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/dp1/2kh00.pdf) I think your definition of fringe is about an order of magnitude too large. I would put the definition of 'fringe' at < 3%.
Oh, and I found this quote from Dennis Prager, a columnist, radio talk show host, and Bush appointee to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council in Washington D.C. "Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress." You can read the article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/04/AR2006120401219.html