A poll released Friday by Cornell University has some pretty scary results. Almost half of respondents in the national poll feel that some civil liberties of Muslim Americans should be curtailed as a precaution against terrorism. As stated in their press release:
About 27 percent of respondents said that all Muslim Americans should be required to register their location with the federal government, and 26 percent said they think that mosques should be closely monitored by U.S. law enforcement agencies. Twenty-nine percent agreed that undercover law enforcement agents should infiltrate Muslim civic and volunteer organizations, in order to keep tabs on their activities and fund raising. About 22 percent said the federal government should profile citizens as potential threats based on the fact that they are Muslim or have Middle Eastern heritage. In all, about 44 percent said they believe that some curtailment of civil liberties is necessary for Muslim Americans.
Conversely, 48 percent of respondents nationally said they do not believe that civil liberties for Muslim Americans should be restricted.
The Media and Society Research Group, in Cornell’s Department of Communication, commissioned the poll, which was supervised by the Survey Research Institute, in Cornell’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations. The results were based on 715 completed telephone interviews of respondents across the United States, and the poll has a margin of error of 3.6 percent.
The survey also examined the relation of religiosity to perceptions of Islam and Islamic countries among Christian respondents. Sixty-five percent of self-described highly religious people queried said they view Islam as encouraging violence more than other religions do; in comparison, 42 percent of the respondents who said they were not highly religious saw Islam as encouraging violence. In addition, highly religious respondents also were more likely to describe Islamic countries as violent (64 percent), fanatical (61 percent) and dangerous (64 percent). Fewer of the respondents who said they were not highly religious described Islamic countries as violent (49 percent), fanatical (46 percent) and dangerous (44 percent). But 80 percent of all respondents said they see Islamic countries as being oppressive toward women.
It just makes me nauseous, but this is why liberals like me believe we have to keep vigilant against the social conservatives in this country and the media organizations that shape their perspectives. Did the poll numbers trend according to political party? You betcha:
Researchers found that opinions on restricting civil liberties for Muslim Americans vary by political self-identification. About 40 percent of Republican respondents agreed that Muslim Americans should be required to register their whereabouts, compared with 24 percent of Democratic respondents and 17 percent of independents. Forty-one percent of Republican respondents said that Muslim American civic groups should be infiltrated, compared with 21 percent of Democrats and 27 percent of independents
There was also a trend in the poll that correlated with TV viewing habits:
Respondents who paid a lot of attention to television news were more likely to favor restrictions on civil liberties, such as greater power for the government to monitor the Internet. Respondents who paid less attention to television news were less likely to support such measures. “The more attention paid to television news, the more you fear terrorism, and you are more likely to favor restrictions on civil liberties,” says Nisbet.
Thats strange, because I am a newshound and yet I don’t really worry about an attack. Perhaps I haven’t been watching the right news.
If true, this is simply horrendous (Abhi’s belief that FoxNews is the mouthpiece of evil aside). I know there are folks out there who are going to jump all over my a** for saying anything else at this point….
BUT, there are some valid questions that have been raised about the methodology since this survey was published… A couple responses in the blogosphere include these which I found travelling through Google here –
or here –
Standard operating procedure for any professional polling organization (Pew, Gallup, etc.) is to include the exact questions w/ the answers / analysis…. Why? Cuz we all know by now that a poller can make his poll say anything he wants it to by careful management of the questions and the subsequent analysis –
LET ME BE CLEAR – IF THIS IS TRUE, ITS A BAD THING WE NEED TO FIX. BUT, it’s going to take stronger data than this to make the case conclusively. Why single out TV News instead of asking about News Awareness in general (cuz Fox is such a dang convenient bogeyman)? Many of the “restrictions” aren’t popularly considered “civil liberties” (for ex., like it or not, law enforcement IS allowed to send in an agent to a church), etc.
two separate points here.
1) yes, civil liberties are good (though some are quite obviously better than others depending on where you stand, conservatives like the freedom to own guns, liberals like the freedom to own porn [unless it is violent or whatever]). a large minority/majority of the public has always reacted negatively to civil liberties, 25% of whites still will tell pollsters interracial marriage should be banned, half of americans think that atheists should not be allowed to be teachers, etc. etc.
2) but…this statement:
“highly religious respondents also were more likely to describe Islamic countries as violent (64 percent), fanatical (61 percent) and dangerous (64 percent)”
well, this is a complicated topic, compared to africa or latin america, many muslims countries are not that violent or dangerious, but compared to the west, they certainly are. additionally, a disproportionate number of muslim countries are fanatical, if by that you take indicators like declaring islam as the official state religion, having an international political organization based around the muslim nature of the majority of the population, or the lesser rights given to minority religions.
3) #2 is laced with generalizations, but it seems that the American Left is fine with generalization about religious evangelicals. after, many secular liberals do not take liberal evangelicals like the ones at sojurners magazine as typical, or baptist ministers like tony campolo on the political left.
4) the above tendencies of religious people, republicans and T.V. watchers are almost certainly accurate. but i believe that the tendency for muslims to be relatively intolerant and anti-female equity are also correct generalizations. not all muslims are like this. and third world conditions of poverty and cultural development are important issues. but if you correct for education and other factors, some, though not all, of the left-right discrepancy in civil liberties will also dissipate.
5) if you are a secular person who stands with the enlightenment, i say be cautious aware of the threats at home and abroad. christian conservatives are more salient in many ways because of their local numbers, but muslims tend to be more extreme in their positions. i think the two, properly weighted, have about the same “theat” value to civil liberties (or isn’t the chilling of speech attempted after the theo van gough affair not immediate enough?)
I got to this sentence and immediately started doubting the premise of the entire article: In all, about 44 percent said they believe that some curtailment of civil liberties is necessary for Muslim Americans.
Was that on the survey? Did the questionnaire READ “I believe some curtailment of civil liberties is necessary for Muslim Americans?” Like Vinod (yay we agree on something! w00t), I wanna see the actual questions before believing such broad conclusions. But I have to ask : how is racial profiling not a restriction of civil liberties?
Must go christma-hanu-kwanzaa-kah shopping now so will save my tirade on FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt…propagated through the media) for another day….
let’s hold on with the outrage for jussst a second.
About 22 percent said the federal government should profile citizens as potential threats based on the fact that they are Muslim or have Middle Eastern heritage
I love the fact that this is just cited and bolded as if it was outrageous. Do you care to attack this suggestion on the facts? No one in their right mind opposes this. The people who attacked us on 9/11 were not Swedish grandmas. The terrorist threat is not equally distributed – there are very few jihadist Japanese teenagers and South American yam farmers.
As Vinod said, without the published questions we cannot evaluate what “restriction of civil liberties” means. It could mean anything from profiling to internment. If it just means disproportionate attention paid to young Muslim men and Muslim “charities”, well, I think far more than 44% of the population is in favor. If it means arbitrary imprisonment and internment in a time short of war, I’d oppose it…but I seriously doubt that was what was asked.
highly religious respondents also were more likely to describe Islamic countries as violent (64 percent), fanatical (61 percent) and dangerous (64 percent).
Violent & Dangerous: What about Pakistan? Iran? Afghanistan under the Taliban? Iraq under Saddam? Chechnya? Palestine? Beirut?
Fanatical: All of the above + Wahabbist Saudi.
You seem not to be evaluating the truth value of the statements before condemning them. All over the world, Islam has bloody borders . Sudan, Chechnya, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Serbia, the Van Gogh murders, the Bali Bombings, the Russian school massacre, and of course the attempted murder of 50000 citizens of the United States in one day.
Just look at a map of ongoing simmering conflicts. Is it really a coincidence that Muslims are involved in almost all the conflicts outside Africa?
I mean, do you really think Islamic countries are not disproportionately violent, fanatical, and dangerous?
(can’t wait… leftist sophistry about how the existence of conservative christians means the USA is fundamentalist and dangerous coming in 3,2,1…)
I donÂ’t really worry about an attack. Perhaps I havenÂ’t been watching the right news.
Yeah. I guess not.
I have to say, though, it’s good to see the true colors come out. You really think that terrorists don’t exist, that they aren’t mainly Muslim, that they aren’t funded by Islamic countries, and that we shouldn’t defend ourselves against this “imaginary” threat.
GC I am way past the point of arguing with your torrets like outbursts. You read whatever you want to read into my posts. Take a look at all my posts and tell me how much commentary I write in them. I never have more than two or three lines of my own text because I like to put the article to the web as objectively as possible and then let readers argue it out. I rarely even leave comments to my own posts. Its true that I boldface certain parts, but thats because those are the parts that stood out to me the most. As far as terrorism goes, I didn’t say I don’t believe in it or that I am not aware of whats happening in the world. I said I “don’t worry about it,” because I am centered enough to know that I am not God and that shit happens. Since your nickname is “Godless,” I think we know how you feel. A good friend of mine died on the 91st floor on September 11th so don’t go and get all uppity on me and think you know me and send me links to the 9/11 digital archive. I however understand people like you. By you I don’t mean right wingers or conservatives. I mean self-haters who fear everything and lash out in all directions with their vitriol. To put it into Star Wars terms (which I love to do), the hate will end up consuming you.
I mean self-haters who fear everything and lash out in all directions with their vitriol.
GC, are you going to commit suicide?
I like to put the article to the web as objectively as possible
“Let’s restrict ’em Musleems” = objective? Gratuitous slam on Fox = objective? Statement that profiling makes you – quote – “nauseous” = objective?
The post wasn’t objective. You put it up in a public forum and invited commentary on it. Don’t get all huffy because you’re being called on to defend bald assertions that you made to an audience of thousands of strangers.
Example: You claimed that profiling makes you “nauseous”. Is that because it won’t work? Do you think we should look at Japanese grandmas and Swedish toddlers as carefully as we look at young Arab Muslim males? Or would it make you “nauseous” if we didn’t?
I “don’t worry about it,” because I am centered enough to know that I am not God and that shit happens.
Well, “shit happens” is not exactly a coherent defense policy. That’s not being “centered”, it’s living in denial.
If you aren’t worrying about security, you’re not going to have security…particularly if your proclaimed lack of worry leads you to actively sabotage and demagogue measures (like profiling young Arab Muslim males) that are among the few tools available to enhance domestic security against a stateless, ruthless adversary.
I mean self-haters who fear everything and lash out in all directions with their vitriol
Hey – I resent that. I think my vitriol is quite directed and targeted, thank you very much! 😉
As for “self-haters” who “fear everything”…well, I’m not the one who habitually slams my own country while warning of the “fascist” administration’s plan to put American Muslims in concentration campus.
btw…as for the implication that wariness of Finsbury-Mosque style fifth columnists during wartime is unwarranted , I suggest you take a look at this or this or this…or THIS.
GC, Not once, I swear not a single time, have I ever followed a link that you have posted in your comments. I promise.
I am also grateful that you were able to get through that last comment without using the word “Communism.” I am sure it took a great deal of restraint.
Dude I have an idea. Hear me out without getting upset. Maybe you should create a blog for people that want to listen to your wisdom. You can create a free website at blogger.com. I suggest reserving the name Ihatecommunistsandarundhatiroy.blogspot.com
You have my word that I will link your new site to SepiaMutiny.
Okay, that will be my last comment on this trivial matter. I hope SM readers have enjoyed the mud wrestling although it would have been more fun and stimulating for me if GC was a hot chick.
Just to pile on a bit w/ GC, this quote is also a fine example of the almost subtle lack of objectivity in the post –
One of the classic left wing Conceits here is that their philosophy is the only True one. They simply can’t begin to recognize that “conservatives” actually have brains and know how to use them. They rather arrogantly assume that everyone else have been led astry or had their perspectives nefariously “shaped” without their knowledge. If only we had the benefit of the superior Lefty perspective, we could all be saved. sigh.
Now, I know that there are right wing bigots out there who are simply closed minded reactionaries. BUT, they aren’t posting on this blog.
Ban GC!
GC won’t be banned. At the very least, he’s very good for our pageviews. 😉
“Now, I know that there are right wing bigots out there who are simply closed minded reactionaries. BUT, they aren’t posting on this blog.”
Vinod, I think that is debatable, but I’m certainly not going to get into it any more than I already have.
As far as the first part, this particular entry was more “left” than my usual entries but thats because I am sick as hell of the right wing minority that visit this website bullying the left wing and moderate majority with their comments. I am left of center and VERY proud of that fact. Your posts for example are clearly to the right of center and on at least one occasion you have had to pull back. There is enough room for a healthy debate without the ridiculous outbursts we have been dealing with.
“One of the classic left wing Conceits here is that their philosophy is the only True one.”
Oh please. The pot calling the kettle…
Liberal Pundit, We are not going to ban GC. That wouldn’t be Fair and Balanced of us.
Your posts for example are clearly to the right of center and on at least one occasion you have had to pull back
Ah, but I didn’t post and then later in the comments swear that the post was “as objective as possible”. That’s where I take difference. Taken literally, you’re almost claiming that “objective = left”.
Sepia Mutiny is opinionated for sure (if it weren’t, it wouldn’t be nearly as much fun). BUT, we’re generally respectful that the other side has a reasoned opinion rather than simply owning an opinion out of ignorance or as a result of being misled.
abhi, tell ya what. Sometimes I can go over the top in my comments and be more sarcastic than strictly necessary. That’s because when I see an opportunity to take a rhetorical flourish to the hoop, I just can’t resist (to mix metaphors).
So if I got your goat this time or was unduly personal, my bad. I think you’re politically misguided, but not a bad guy overall.
I dunno if I can say the same for “liberal pundit” aka Sluggo, though… 😉
Vinod,
There is quite a difference between some of your right of center posts and me highlighting in an article written by someone else what I see fit, as well as throwing in a few subtle references to the right wing and Fox TV. I used snark and wit to get my point across. I still beleive that my post was objective though tinged with a “left viewpoint.”
The only reason I became angry with GC is because he did what he always does which is make vast generalizations and assumptions about whoever posts a comment or an entry that he doesn’t agree with.
“You must be a so and so,” or “you supported the killing of a million such and such,” or “people like you.” Myself and a lot of other readers are sick of that kind of repeated unprofessionalism.
Well, we’re just down to a difference of opinion then. I consider the
More than just a tinge….
Actually, that was me. Though I used the term “b**tch”. How else would you describe someone who said America deserved 9/11?
Arundhati Roy makes her living out of peddling leftist hate – hatred of America, of economic freedom, and of democracy itself:
Translation: if they didn’t vote ArundHATEY’s way, the election was obviously bought and sold.
Anyway, as I understand you…Roy can tell America that “what goes around comes around” while the WTC’s ruins are still smoking, but I’m the bad guy for calling her a bitch?
I’ll tell ya this much: I’d like to see ol’ Roy head down to a NYC firehouse and tell them that “what goes around comes around”. This being New York City, I think she might hear stronger words than “bitch”.
In fact, I guarantee it.
Wait, just so I understand. The polling data, as released thus far, didn’t make you nauseous? Also the media doesn’t shape our perspective? You are the one always arguing how bad the NYTimes is. Was it unreasonable of me to suggest that FoxNews might play to the other side? Also what funny title would you have come up with for this entry? This last question I am most curious about.
what funny title would you have come up with for this entry?
66 million Americans can do a better job than Norman Mineta?
(300 million * 22 percent said the federal government should profile citizens as potential threats based on the fact that they are Muslim or have Middle Eastern heritage)
Wait, just so I understand.
Just so I understand, since you haven’t answered…do you really think we should be looking at Swedish grandmas w/ equal vigor? Or that Islamic countries AREN’T disproportionately theocratic backwaters and/or factories for violent jihadists?
timothy mcveigh wasn’t muslim.
so shouldn’t we also screen for disgrunted white vets? they far outnumber Muslim-Americans.
btw, mcveigh sometimes disguised himself as a swedish grandmother.
The people who attacked us on 9/11 were not Swedish grandmas. The terrorist threat is not equally distributed – there are very few jihadist Japanese teenagers and South American yam farmers
yes. true. but the wahabbists are certainly recruiting nice white looking ladies in chechnya. the kind that blow up theaters and small children. if we make the job ‘easier’ and perhaps…cost effective.. by using profiling, we’re going to let a few timothy mcveighs and khaula nazirovs through the cracks.
vigilance means 100% vigilance…right?
also about objectivity: the ARTICLE wasn’t objective. there ain’t no such thing as objective reporting, depsite what journalism 101 teacher might have told you. the french have learned this… they’re either going to pick up le monde or liberation or le figaro – depending on whether they are right of center, left of center, or really right of center, respectively. journalistic objectivity is a pretty little myth, but it never works out so well in real life.
timothy mcveigh wasn’t muslim.
If there was an organized militia movement going around blowing up buildings, yeah, we’d want to start profiling these guys. But McVeigh and whassisname haven’t been followed by imitators.
In contrast, our friends at the religion of peace have opened up a veritable franchise of terrorism. A far from exhaustive list:
Right now, if you look at the links I proferred (linked under “this” above) – or at the State Department’s report on terrorism…sad to say, but it’s almost entirely Arab Muslims who’re doing the beheadings and bombings.
Tim McVeigh is the exception, not the rule.
if we make the job ‘easier’ and perhaps…cost effective.. by using profiling, we’re going to let a few timothy mcveighs and khaula nazirovs through the cracks.
A few perhaps, but Al Qaeda does not have a large B-team of Johnnie Walkers. He was a news story because he was an exception. In any case, the common denominator is Islam…and if they start sending non-Arab Muslims we can update our Bayesian filter accordingly.
Note that it is fallacious to assume that we can screen “everyone” as well as we can screen a targeted subset. You can theoretically devote infinite resources to screening just one person (background check, family check, monitoring, etc.), so the only way to screen efficiently is to screen a targeted subset.
Those who argue against profiling are arguing that we should not use the one thing we do know about our enemies – that they are overwhelmingly male Islamic fundamentalists of Arab descent.
it’s the end of the world, as i know it and i think i’m fine; while i normally like to cut my poor feet by walking the razor-sharp divide betwixt right and left, this post and the comments beneath it have me agreeeing almost wholeheartedly with…
vinod and gc.
oy. i need a moment.
no, we cannot ban gc. every once in a while, he’s just fantastic to watch. abhi, i thought the title you suggested for his blogspot was amusing, but i hope no one gets the wrong idea here– opposing views are more than welcome. from abhi to vinod, we cover left to right, so not only are you sure to offend someone, you’re sure to equally delight someone else…
abhi, i feel like giving you a hug. it sounds like you were/are really angry. all defenders of liberty and freedom should be so idealistic, unrelenting and passionate. 🙂
back to chrismukkah and its attending insanity…
Anna, I wasn’t angry. You wouldn’t want to see me when I’m angry. I get huge and turn green and everything but my pants tear off as I mete out justice. THAT’s when I’ll need a hug.
Anna: abhi, i feel like giving you a hug…
Abhi: I get huge and turn green and…my pants tear off
dowdification at its most amusing 😉
You laugh, but you’ve never gotten a hug from Anna. It’s pretty common for men to …
Yeh sab kyaan nautanki hein!! Kiss and make up ppl! (gc: you’re an exception though)
-PS: Abhi still rocks.
For those of you that support profiling, what good has it done so far? The Special Registration process which specifically profiled Muslim countries (oh yeah, and North Korea) has only detained and deported thousands of people, none of whom are connected to terrorist activities.
Let’s apply this logic of
“Those who argue against profiling are arguing that we should not use the one thing we do know about our enemies – that they are overwhelmingly male Islamic fundamentalists of Arab descent”
to another context. Most rapists and perpetrators of domestic violence are men. Would you agree then to limit the civil liberties of all men? Far more women are on the receiving end of this type of terrorism then the number of people who are victims of the type of terrorism you are referring to. If you don’t agree to limit the civil liberties of all men, then why restrict the civil liberties of Muslims?
Anjali –
your thought experiment proves one thing – that any tool used clumsily will fail miserably. BUT, no one is suggesting that “ethnic profiles” will be used to the exclusion of everything else (well, except perhaps the ACLU).
Most rapists and perpetrators of domestic violence are men.
Not just any men…you might want to look at the ethnic distributions (table 43) of the FBI uniform crime reports or the California DOJ statistics (these are better b/c they don’t lump Hispanics & whites together like the FBI does).
Might be illuminating.
As for this:
Would you agree then to limit the civil liberties of all men?
Well, OBVIOUSLY the police are going to pay more attention to men…as well as incrementally more attention to males from particularly crime prone groups. That means the FBI is going to have more wanted posters of men. That means the police are going to practice hand-to-hand takedowns on men rather than women. Etcetera.
If that means “limiting their civil liberties”, well, yes.
The point you’re eliding, however, is that the compromise between security and liberty (and please don’t bring up the standard quote on this issue, as it’s always a tradeoff) is going to be tilted in favor of security as the threat increases. One assault is not the same as the attempted murder of 50000 people.