LEFT LAUNCHES PHONY POLL BLITZ: Dubious Polls Say Bush Down, Hillary Up and Islam More Popular Than Ever
|
by Richard Poe Wednesday, July 27, 2005 9:18 am Eastern Time |
Archives 50 Comments |
Pollsters have released a fusillade of new survey results whose counterintuitive findings strain credulity, treating Americans to the statistical equivalent of a trip through Alice’s looking glass. According to these surveys, Americans are turning off to President Bush, but turning on to Islam and Hillary Clinton.
Three of the new polls come from the Pew Research Center – the same folks who gave us the Pewgate scandal, the McCain-Feingold Act and the drive for political censorship on the Web.
One Pew survey, conducted after the July 7 bombings in London, finds that the more innocent civilians the Islamists slaughter, the more kindly disposed we feel toward the religion that inspires them. According to MSNBC.com, “the survey found that the percentage of Americans who have a favorable opinion of Muslim Americans continues to rise, from 45 percent in March 2001 – before the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States – to 51 percent in July 2003 to 55 percent today.” (hat tip, Mr. Beamish)
By contrast, another Pew survey finds that the number of Americans who find Bush “trustworthy” has slipped from 62 percent to 49 percent, from September 2003 to today – a slide which Pew Research Center director Andrew Kohut attributes to a groundswell of ill-feeling toward, uh… Karl Rove.
We are also told that the war in Iraq is losing support among Americans, according to a new CNN/USAToday/Gallup poll, which claims that the proportion of Americans who believe the Iraq war is worth the cost has plummeted from 73 percent to 41 percent, from April 2003 to today.
And, lest we forget the underlying purpose of all this dubious data generation, additional polls inform us that Hillary Clinton’s popularity is soaring, both in New York State and across the nation.
“Polls are power and those who know how to produce and use them are becoming more powerful,” wrote University of Oregon journalism professor Jim Lemert in 1990.
Unfortunately, “those who know how to produce and use” polls appear ever more willing to cook the books in favor of their pet political agendas. It’s time to knock these charlatans from their pedestals. Those who abuse power should be stripped of it, for the public good.
by Richard Poe
July 27, 2005 09:18 AM ET
Cross-posted from MoonbatCentral.com 07.27.05
Comments
50 Responses to “LEFT LAUNCHES PHONY POLL BLITZ: Dubious Polls Say Bush Down, Hillary Up and Islam More Popular Than Ever”Trackbacks
Check out what others are saying about this post...This is why nobody should be allowed to get any college degree without passing a statistics course.
I don’t think polls, even good ones, are accurate anymore. The truth is that PEOPLE LIE to pollsters.
Furthermore, all polls will have a built-in leftwing bias due to the fact that more bored, unemployed people will bother answering polls than will productive, busy people.
Friedrich Knebel:
Smoking is one of the leading causes of statistics.
“Why You Can’t Believe Polls Anymore”
by Dick Morris
September 27, 2002
On the other hand, Morris writes:
“In modern American democracy, every day is Election Day. Every week, every day, a new poll comes out judging the president’s performance and popularity. … When an incumbent president’s job-approval ratings sink below 50 percent, he becomes like a British prime minister who has just lost a vote of confidence in parliament. … He twists slowly in the wind – a helpless, pitiful giant. … [Bush] needs to resume his one-a-day policy announcements… He has to take strong public positions and use them to make his ratings rise again.”
Mr. Morris can’t seem to make up his mind. Are polls everything? Or are they nothing?
“One-a-day policy announcements” – just what this country needs.
I just read a new poll which says that only 36% of Americans believe Islam is conducive to terror, and that roughly the same percentage of Americans (55%) feels positive about Islam as does about Evangelicals.
Yeah, Americans really love Islam. I’m sure a candidate for office who was openly Islamic would score great in an election. What a load of crap.
-MZ
Dick Morris again:
” But this Tuesday, the networks did get the exit polls wrong. Not just some of them. They got all of the Bush states wrong. … To screw up one exit poll is unheard of. To miss six of them is incredible. It boggles the imagination how pollsters could be that incompetent and invites speculation that more than honest error was at play here. … This was no mere mistake. Exit polls cannot be as wrong across the board as they were on election night. I suspect foul play.”
Thanks to Poe for the articles on polling. Who would know more about it than a Clinton Administration man like Dick Morris?
Mr. Ferguson, my 7th grade math teacher, gave us the best lesson on social statistics. This is a somewhat dated example, but the lesson is transcendent:
The USA and USSR have a 2-horse race. The USA wins.
The Americans would say, “There was an international horserace today. America’s horse came in first place and the USSR’s horse came in dead last.”
The Soviets would say, “There was an international horse race today. The USSR’s horse came in second place, and America’s horse came in next to last.”
Too bad there aren’t more teachers nowadays like Mr. Ferguson.
orangeducks
I updated my blog for those interested: http://madzionistblogoff.blogspot.com/
-MZ
Looks like I’m gonna have to post the solution to my penny puzzle soon.
SEVERAL POSTS HAVE BEEN DELETED.
The person calling himself “Irony�? (aka Mikelx) has been zotted. Think of him as a bad dream from which we have thankfully awakened. Now… where were we before we were so rudely interrupted?
I think the results of the 2004 election exit polls say it all. Opinion polls have become a political tool that can’t be trusted and have little resemblance to real opinion.
Richard Poe writes: “The person calling himself `Irony’ (aka Mikelx) has been zotted. Think of him as a bad dream from which we have thankfully awakened.”
I think the troll poll was 100% ban, 0% keep.
Glad that dream is over…
-MZ
I think djb said it best. Just look at the exit polling in 2004 and their uses in media. It is greatly outlined in the book “The Official Handbook of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.”
While news anchors for major networks were calling key states for Kerry when only 49% of precincts were reporting, they also slid by, not calling states for Bush (Ohio in particular) for up to 38 minutes after it was determined he would be victorious. These tactics (especially calling states in favor of Kerry before anything was sure) could have hit the vote for Bush hard, especially those fence sitters who would go out and vote for Bush. If the vote looked as though it would go to Kerry regardless, many of them would stay at home and their vote would be wasted.
I haven’t got the book handy, nor the facts word-for-word in my mind (yet!), but it serves the point of illustration: polls cannot be trusted.
(btw: thanks to Richard for the action taken on the posts that appeared here earlier and were deleted.)
A new poll by the P.U. Foundation for Political Grandstanding says that 76% of people surveyed don’t believe polls. Of course that’s with a +-95% margin of error.
What a Difference Poll Questions Make!
“A new Zogby poll released contrasts with the findings of earlier national surveys on the Terri Schiavo case. When the questions were asked in a way more reflective of the actual situation, the true complexities of the case and the American majority’s clearer moral sensibilities emerge. No one with intellectual…” more…
P.S. The latest ploy the left is using to try and thwart the G.W.O.T., is by reporting that the War on illicit drugs is the “forgotten War!” From what I understand about many people in this country, if it is the forgotten War, that is music to their ears!
I take polls with a grain of salt. However, judging from anecdotal evidence most people I meet regurgitate the old song: “Islam is OK, it’s just those who’ve hijacked the religion.�?
People argue with me when I say Islam is, at its core, problematic and the jihadists embody an orthodox Islamic practice. Even as I leave open, for the moment, the possibility of other legitimate ways of being a Muslim, I get flack for considering that the jihadist tradition is in the mainstream of Islamic history. People know this is a harsh statement about Islam and they recoil. It’s either political correctness or a conservative ecumenical disposition — or both.
When we talk to people like ourselves we many not get the typical American response. I worry that most people are still in deep denial. What have others here found?
Jason, I’m right with you. I fail to understand how anyone can defend islam.
If you are wondering about Moonbat Central, this site is pretty strong in regard to criticizing islam, I assure you. This is a great place for you to express the very views you’ve stated above. I’ve been every bit as uncompromising on islam as you are and feel very welcome here.
I refuse to capitalize “islam”, I refuse to capitalize “moslem”, and I call for islam to be criminalized on a daily basis. I have my own website where my motto is “islam, can’t live with it, can live without it.” Does this sound like someone who’ll “recoil” from your outspoken views against islam?
Feel free to let it rip, Jason; you’re truly amongst friends here (though a lefty troll or two swings by now and then).
-MZ
http://madzionistblogoff.blogspot.com/
The solution to my penny puzzle is up now, see the comments section of my blog at the link Richard Poe gave ya above.
It’s just a penny game, not intended to show anything but the fact that polls can be read more than one way.
Rightminded, you the man! I finally figured out how to embed because of your lesson to orangeduck.
[SOME TEXT HAS BEEN DELETED]
…Richard, before you ban yet another of my accounts, you need to question your integrity on the Political Correctness issue. If you believe that you are not Politically Correct, then you will let my comments stand.
– Mikelx
________________________________________________
EDITOR’S NOTE:
Dear Mikelx:
You and I have very different notions of what constitutes “integrity.”
On one occasion, I found myself posting to a Web site where, quite to my surprise, I discovered that the views I was expressing offended the proprietors of the site. Unlike you, I was presenting my views in a respectful and civil manner, but the proprietors of the site nonetheless took offense. As soon as this became clear to me, I apologized and left the site at once, never to return.
Why did I leave? Why didn’t I stay and challenge my hosts to debate me? Simple. Because it is their site, not mine. I would no more remain on a Web site where I was unwelcome than I would remain at someone’s house after the host had made clear that it was time for me to leave.
To keep returning to a Web site repeatedly, after the moderator has banned you and deleted your account, is not the act of a normal, well-balanced or honorable person. It is the act of a person so wrapped up in his messianic delusions and self-importance that he thinks the ordinary rules of society don’t apply to him.
Such people are not only unpleasant to deal with, but actually present a danger to society when they find themselves in a position of authority where they can force their narcissistic will on others.
What would privacy mean – or private property, for that matter – in a society run by people such as you who refuse to leave a house when the host pointedly shows them the door?
I will delete your account once again, and if you have any lingering sense of common decency remaining from your childhood upbringing, you will not return. Now go.
– Richard Poe
Thanks heaps to Rightminded for taking the time to give a poor schlep like me a lesson on inserting reference links into blog text!
Thanks heaps to Madzionist for mentioning that Rightminded had done so, prompting me to go back to that Jane Fonda article and check out the words of wisdom.
Now – back to the topic:
There are two problems with polls (and political statistics in general):
1) They are more effective means of lies and distortion than most other forms of speech because, a) they use numbers, and people tend to think a number is something infallible and concrete, and, b) generating polls and stats requires many steps, such as question selection, question wording, demographic selection, interview method, etc.
2) As Ayn Rand might say, polls in particular are generally an attempt to get people to sway their own perceptions of reality in favor of the perceptions of others. Should a real leader, such as a president, need polls? To decide timing on a policy initiative you say? OK, that seems to be how it’s done nowadays. But some would say that a policy should be initiated by a leader (or a decision should be made by an individual) based on what they think is right or best, not based on the opinion of a mass of people. Asking experts or friends for advice is one thing, and taking a poll to find out what people need is another. But a poll to find out what the masses think about a given issue so you know how to “stand” on that issue is disgusting to me.
Totally off the subject: many probably know this writer, but check out the website of Victor Davis Hanson here.
(Thanks again, Rightminded)
He’s a great writer and columnist, specializing in the real deal about Western civilization, Islamic Terror, and other topics of interest. I first came across him in National Review.
orangeducks
Dear Madzionist and orangeducks,
You are most welcome, we all learn from each other!
Jason P writes: “I take polls with a grain of salt. However, judging from anecdotal evidence most people I meet regurgitate the old song: `Islam is OK, it’s just those who’ve hijacked the religion.'”
Dear Jason P:
Americans have been conditioned to be extremely wary of expressing any views that might be interpreted by the hypersensitive as hinting at racial or religious bigotry.
To be tagged as a purveyor of such views could cost a person his job or his entire career.
It would be a mistake, I think, to assign too much importance to what people are willing to say in social situations on any topic touching on race, religion or ethnicity. Candor on these subjects is severely discouraged in our society.
The root of political correctness is the entire concept of “offense.”
Why is protection from being offended now considered indispensible to existence? Since when have people become so fragile?
In the civil rights struggle to protect people from REAL threat, such as the coercive use of violence against people who violate racist laws and practices, the Left has, as usual, taken things about 50 steps too far by associating any thought or word critical of the “protected” groups with the very real racism of decades ago.
The struggle went from changing legal and societal practices to trying to change individual thought and expression.
And now it is the Left which ostracizes and punishes people for who they are (political orientation), both in social practice and under government regulation. University campuses are a watered-down version of what small Mississippi towns used to be, where all eyes are on the lookout for any transgression against what is “appropriate” conduct from “those people.” The word “Nazi” is no less derogatory than the word “n-gg-r”. Yet one is commonly used at universities, and the other will guarantee you get carried out on a rail.
And they cloak it under the guise of protecting entire (preferred) categories of people from being “offended.”
The essential tactic of the Civil Rights movement was embracing and accentuating victimhood by peacefully inserting themselves into situations where monsters would abuse them in front of the entire world. Success was only possible thanks to the Christian morality that places peaceful self-sacrifice at the pinnacle of the moral high ground, a la the example of Christ himself.
But the strength of any group through victimhood requires victims and perpetrators. And what was once a fight against flagrant slavery, oppression, murder and torture is now a fight against being “offended.”
Having never embraced victim status, conservatives tend to react to “offense” as a challenge to be met through the expression of reason, logic and core beliefs.
And that’s why any attempt to debate a liberal about affirmative action, gay rights and feminism results in their immediate jump from Reason to insults – “racist, homophobe, mysogynist.” That is their formula for success from the 1950’s and 60’s, and they have no other strategy.
We must point out the transgressions against freedom and expression by the Left, but we must never abandon Reason in the search for victim points.
So please, offend me. The soundness of my reasoned beliefs and the solidity of my tempered character can take it.
orangeducks
I agree, Richard. And thanks, MZ.
The taboo against being critical of a religion is great. It served us well when we only had personal religions but this knee-jerk reaction hampers us in the face of an intrinsically political religious ideology. Top it off with the left’s politically-correct multi-culturalism (which exempts other cultures from criticism and ours from praise) and you get a tremendous social pressure to withhold blanket criticism of Islam.
Given that, I think the polls showing about a 50/50 split towards Islam reveals a very large number of people willing to ignore the cultural taboo. I just don’t meet them here in New York City.
By the way, Jack Wheeler had a recent article about viewing Islam as a religion or political ideology. I thought it was powerful. Perhaps FPM could post it on the front page.
orangeducks writes: “So please, offend me. The soundness of my reasoned beliefs and the solidity of my tempered character can take it.”
Hmmm. Our lurking trollster Mikelx will undoubtedly take that as an invitation to re-register and reappear on this thread for the purpose of testing the “soundness of your reasoned beliefs” and the “solidity of your tempered character.” Are you sure that’s what you want?
Personally, I’m getting tired of parleying with the enemy. There are so many more constructive ways to fill one’s day.
Here’s a piece by a brave soul who ignores the “cultural taboo” of criticizing the “religion” of Islam. Let’s not forget that criticizing Islam can be extremely hazardous to one’s health. This certainly dampens public criticisms of it.
Islam is a hopelessly intertwined mix of religion and politics.
Rocco, great site you referred us to. I added it to my favorites.
-MZ
Richard Poe writes: “To keep returning to a Web site repeatedly, after the moderator has banned you and deleted your account, is not the act of a normal, well-balanced or honorable person.”
People who spread b-llsh-t conspiracy theories about various public figures over the last 12 years, and that is you, could also be a sign of a non-normal, unbalanced and dishonorable person.
I come here to disagree with you. Get over yourself. Consider my actions a civil disobedience.
Richard Poe writes: “It is the act of a person so wrapped up in his messianic delusions and self-importance that he thinks the ordinary rules of society don’t apply to him.”
For f–k’ sake, Richard, you are barely qualified to be a “journalist” – where have you acquired your license to diagnose mental disorders? Go look at yourself in the mirror, d-psh-t. You and the other twits on this site have this uncanny ability to project your nastiness on those that disagree with you.
Now go f–k yourself, you big baby. I will post on this site as I please.
__________________________________________________
EDITOR’S NOTE: Let’s leave this message posted. It serves a useful purpose, by illustrating why certain types of antisocial persons simply cannot be permitted to take part in our discussions. “Open forum” purists, take note. RP
I would like to play devil’s advocate here, if you will permit me. I do this only in the effort to continue dialog in a intelligent and analytical fashion, NOT because I am espousing a certain view. Now to my analysis:
It is argued here that the Koran & Hadith instruct all true-believers to do great harm to non-believers, thus the basis for terrorism is the religion itself, not extremism. It could also be argued, however, that the Koran & Hadith read much like the bible in that the believers are to attack and kill only when attacked, and that the “reward” for disbelievers is “doom.” I quote from the Koran:
2.190] And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.
[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
It could be interpreted that doom, in this case, is equal to saying sinners go to hell in the christian faiths. After all, did not the Christian God flood the earth killing everything simply because some sinned / disbelieved? Didn’t the Catholic faith promote the jihad-like persecution of non-believers (crusades)?
It could also be argued that the christian viewpoint is the one seen as “right” because winners always write the history, no? One could therefore make the case that terrorism is in fact the result of extremism from a small segment of the population.
Interested to hear thoughts. My caveat: my belief is that islam IS the root cause of all these evils. The presence of CAIR and all these other so-called “moderates” is proof to me. With moderates like those, who needs extremists.
Yes, I too highly recommend “Ali Sina’s�? FaithFreedom.org�? — he is especially knowledgeable, forceful, well-reasoned, and patient (he’ll explain slowly once again what the problem is with Islam). Although the website is generally written by ex-Muslims, I was proud he agreed to include one of my polemics last year.
Hey, I’m a freedom fighter too. Can someone please refer me to Rightminded’s lesson on blog insertion and thus improve my weapon resources (need all the help I can get).
Many thanks.
Just discovered by this method: this Ali Sina is fresh music to the ears.
First, I like what you tagged onto the end of “Responsibility’s” post, Richard. Very nice.
What I came here to say was that I have been an avid opponent of Islam since my early days in high school, and have had the distinct displeasure of first-hand experience with both the Qu’ran and several European Muslims who hate America about as mcu has Reagan hated Communism.
After rereading the Qu’ran and revisiting thoughts and ideas about the state and nature of Islam, I read an article that spurred me to do some writing of my own. Hence, I have jumped on the political blog bandwagon.
For those of you interested, a link to the article that spurred me (found on FPM) and the blog itself can be found here.
I hope you enjoy it.
Reaganwuzright,
The desire to equate islam with Christianity by citing the example of the crusades is a very old, tired trick posed by moslem apologists. Yes, terrible things have been done in the name of Christianity, however, there is a difference between a faith which is at times corrupted by evil leadership and an evil faith which in its proper observance incites murder.
Looking at Judaism, as a Jew myself, their has been historical and biblical corruptions which did damage as well. The Temple had been corrupted by the Priesthood many times before the final destruction in 70CE.
The Hasmonean State of Israel in the first and second centuries BCE was corrupted by Hellenized leadership who persecuted observant Jews.
In the time of Jesus, the Temple Priests were handpicked by Rome and twisted the religion, corrupted the religion and persecuted those who didn’t conform to their crooked ways.
Christianity has seen terrible things done in its name by corrupt Popes who issued Bulls of anti-Semitism and conquest. Martin Luther, too, led the protestant reformation with calls to burn the Jews into the earth wherever you find them.
The difference between islam, Christianity and Judaism, therefore, is when Jews behaved badly it was because they were NOT observing Torah. When Christians behaved badly it was because they were not following their scriptures. When moslems behave badly it is because they ARE following the Koran and they ARE observing islam properly.
The difference, therefore, is Jews who are more observant tend to be better and more civil human beings, same holds true for Christians, but the opposite is true for islam. The more islam one follows the more of a criminal one becomes.
Hope this helped!
-MZ
Way to go, MZ. I could add my two cents worth, but why bother when you illustrate your point so succinctly?
dgene,
Click here.
This is a webpage that has a big table showing all kinds of different codes for doing things to web text. The second item in the table is called an Anchor. That’s what you’re looking for to link someone to another site from within your message text.
The table kind of guides you through it. For a litle help, click on the ‘tip’ prompt in the last column.
There’s all these arrows and slashes and CAP letters and quotes. Basically, type everything exactly as the Anchor code line example says, except:
1) The part between quotes needs to be whatever website you want the reader directed to (don’t forget the http:// part – I made that mistake at first)
2) The phrase in the anchor code ‘Visit Our Site’ needs to be changed to whatever word or phrase you want as your link (’click here’ or whatever).
MZ:
Congrats on your post – I have not ever seen the whole thing summed up so incontrovertibly correct.
Back to Devil’s Advocate:
The crusades are not a “trick” of apologists, but rather a real instance of a leader (extremist) reading something else into the dogma of his church. Real christians would argue the same point you did, but do not “real” moslems also argue that theirs is a religion that does not promote terrorism, but rather has been hijacked by extremists.
The prime example of the intellectual dishonesty involved with portraying islam as a violence-prone religion is best demonstrated by the link listed by Rightwinger. In it, the author utilizes the exact same passage (2.191) I listed in my original post as evidence of the brutal nature of islam and the koran. Indeed, this passage is often cited as THE prime example of islamic brutality as a religious more. However, the dishonesty occurs by taking the passage out of context and not including the passages immediately preceding it. Passage 2.190 clearly states that moslems are to fight with nonbelievers that fight with them first. The exact quote:
And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.
Passage 2.193 further goes onto say that if the nonbelievers desist, then there should be no hostility (except to the opressors)
The wrath of allah and “fire & brimstone” stuff is pretty much embellished speech saying that all non-believers are to meet their doom in hell. It is still hard to see much distinction between this concept and that contined in the bible. Exodus 15:3 reads: “The Lord is a man of war”.
Skeptics also riducule the koran for its “ridiculous claims” such as mohammed’s riding of the multi-colored animal (half bird and half something else if I recall at all). Is this any more ridiculous than claiming that an entire sea parted? Or that a man survived being swallowed by a whale for days? Or that a bush can be burned but not consumed?
Again, the argument would contend that islam is a religion whose meanings have been skewed to fit the needs of a group of radicals (albeit a large one).
#32 ReaganWuzRight
“O you who believe! the idolaters are nothing but unclean, so they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year; and if you fear poverty then Allah will enrich you out of His grace if He please; surely Allah is Knowing Wise. Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!” [Quran 9:28-30]
Let’s review:
O you who believe! the idolaters are nothing but unclean, so they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year; and if you fear poverty then Allah will enrich you out of His grace if He please; surely Allah is Knowing Wise.
Don’t worry about losing the money you’d make allowing pilgrims to access the holy site you’ve just stolen from them.
Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection
Fight non-Muslims – those that disbelieve in a final judgement, those that do not keep the laws given by Muhammad, those that do not bow to Islam among the Jews and Christians – until they submit to the authority of Muslims and acknowledge Muslims as masters by paying them for the right to tolerated
And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!”
Jews view their prophet Ezra and Christians view Jesus Christ differently than Muslims do. For that they must die.
You must keep in mind that the Quran is arranged into 114 Surahs, and they are not arranged in a logical, chronological progression, but rather the longest Surah is first and the shortest Surah is last.
Devil’s Advocate:
“..Real christians would argue the same point you did, but do not “real�? moslems also argue that theirs is a religion that does not promote terrorism, but rather has been hijacked by extremists.”
Actually, no, Mr. Advocate. All moslems, both rich and poor, big and small, stand by the principles of Sharia law and Jihad. There is no other interperetation of islam anywhere which contradicts the “pure” islam which advocates murdering and enslaving non-believers. If there is a branch of islam that has a different way of following the koran than the violent and terrorist way we know and despise than I have yet to see it.
In fact, observing islam in any other way is punishable by death. Of course, Judaism and Christianity are completely devoid of this fatwah to kill those who observe their religion
“impurely”.
Heard any Orthodox Rabbis calling for the death and dismemberment of Reformed Jews? Nope. Heard the Pope or any prominent Evangelicals like Pat Robertson or Billy Graham calling for the slaughter of Christians who don’t go to church every Sunday? Nope.
Yet, islam permits no dissent whatsoever. There never has been and there never can be a debate within islam as to what mohammed meant when he said or did something. It is off limits; there is only one view permitted, period.
Look at Judaism. The Oral Law, which Jews accept as the meaning of how to understand Torah Written Law as God transmitted it to Moses and the Jews at Sinai. The written Torah is only one Torah for Jews, because anyone can manipulate words to mean whatever they want it to mean as we’ve established already.
The Talmud codified God’s explanation of Torah so no further misinterperetation that leads to cult formation could happen.
Yet, the Talmud, essentially, is a book of Rabbinical arguments. It has majority and minority Rabbinical opinions and dissenting views imcluded everywhere in the text. It’s volumes of reasoning, yet it is a book of faith in the respect that the entire lineage of how we understand Torah is tracked in a line of succession of commentary beginning with Moses right up to the codification of Talmud in the 5th and 6th centuries. So, one first must accept the premise that Moses received Torah from God, and the way the Torah is observed came from that point forward as documented throughout history by the Profits, Kings, Judges, Sages and Rabbis who followed.
The point that I make is this: Judaism is all about commentary, responsa and more commentary. Everyone is arguing all the time about how to properly understand and explain Torah. Yet, the law is the law. Brilliant Torah sages such as Rashi, Ramban and Rambam have argued amongst each other what the best way of understanding Torah really is, and to this day dissenting views are as numerous as there are Jews, yet the Law is the Law. Yet, the questions of “Why is this the law”, or “what is meant by the Law” are legitimate and accepted discussions that take place everyday wherever there are Jews.
Islam? You question a passage of koran you die! You do what mohammed say and if you ask why you die!
See how different?
Christianity is a faith which is based on faith, yet the faith is meant to be an individual spiritual matter. There is no edict in Scripture telling Christians they must obliterate the world of all non Christians in a Holy War. This is a religion that believes in prosletyzing, yes, and those who don’t believe in Jesus are going to be doomed to Hell according to the Christian Bible, yes, but that doesn’t mean Chrisatians have an obligation to kill and enslave those who they fear are going to hell.
I think Christians would agree that Jews, Moslems, Atheists and all other people in the world are God’s creatures and deserve love for that reason, and they hope and pray others choose the Christian path, but if not they have no
“orders to kill” those who disagree.
Islam is unique in the world as it is a faith of death. No other religion of significance demands death and enslavement of those who disagree, or even agree but not 100% as they are commanded by the koran. Islam is not a good faith corrupted by a few bad apples, therefore, but a criminal practice which a few good apples see through and distance themselves from at their own peril.
That’s enough for now.
Oh, and thanks for the compliment, Reaganwuzright!
MZ
As always, I am impressed with the level at which conservatives discuss and debate matters, even in the “mock” setting I have constructed. Contrasted against the venom spit forth by the likes of Mikelx, the civility displayed by thoughtful conservative thinkers once again demonstrates why we, not the so-called progressive left, are the true party of tolerance.
Great stuff, MZ. Years aog, I had no working knowledge of the palestinian/Israeli (caps and non-caps completely intended) conflict and decided to do some internet research. Any objective study showed me that the the Israeli’s have a historical and legitimate claim to their land, and that the palestinians (philistines) are the true “occupiers.” Our MSM and liberal think-tanks here in the US make me sick with their support of and apologizing for the palestinians / moslems.
Keep up the good work
I’ve never been polled nor have I ever met anyone who has. I think polls are phony and rigged with trick questions. They rig the questions in such a way that no matter which way a person answers, they can skewer them either way they want.I’m sure many of you folks have seen some T.V. man on the street asking dunb questions that you would feel uncomfortable answering yes or no. The way some of those questions are worded are misleading to my thinking. That’s why I think they are phony!
Time-Warner & Tim Burton nutritionally Rape & Exploit children for Corporate Profit.
http://chocolatefactorymovie.warnerbros.com/partners.html
Mad Zionist,
You see Islam much the same way I do – a criminal enterprise to harass, raid, plunder, and eventually conquer the routes of non-Muslim pilgrims ultimately leading to the fall of Mecca into Muslim hands and from there raiding, plundering, conquering non-Muslims leading to the fall of other religion’s holy sites.
I’ve yet to find evidence that contradicts this view.
Mr. B,
We could search until we’re blue in the face and never come up with a form of islam that rejects sharia law and jihad. It IS the religion.
As JasonP said earlier, we are right to be conditioned to recoil from condemning another’s religion or ideology. It is in our conditionied nature, for the better, to wish everyone the freedom to believe as they see fit.
However, islam crosses the line by a nuclear mile by requiring the followers of the religion to destroy all other religions, cultures and ideologies via murder, terror, rape and pillaging.
This we cannot tolerate, and anyone who follows this ideology and actively seeks to make it a reality by raising money and inciting others is guilty of sedition.
Islam is a terrorist organization.
MZ’s Blog
Criticism of the volte-face antics of Dick Morris are well justified, but Lord help me, I do enjoy listening to this little, admitted whore-toe-sucking, former Clinton political adviser – especially when he educates with statements like this:
“The weekly strategy meetings at the White House throughout 1995 and 1996 featured an escalating drumbeat of advice to President Clinton to take decisive steps to crack down on terrorism. The polls gave these ideas a green light. But Clinton hesitated and failed to act, always finding a reason why some other concern was more important.”
Are we positive Islam cannot be reformed with, ahem, “our help?”
“There is a need to form a new religious culture that will lay out the borders of the Shari’a laws in the Koran, will set out what is characteristic of the life of the Prophet, and will clarify when and how the law is absolute for every time and place… Then, there is a need to discuss intensively the issue of abolishing chapters in the Koran [naskh] and [a need to examine] whether it is true that the verse of the sword [Koran 9:5] abolished all mercy, leniency, and forgiveness in the Koran… [Likewise,] there is a need to view the first Muslims as human beings with feelings, aspirations, and political goals [and not as divine]…
“We must uncover the shame of all those who have enlisted the religion and the religious text for their own political and social goals…” more…
[…] In observing the mainstream media, it’s scary to think Americans once thought their free-form op-ed pieces and dubious polls qualified as "news." Indeed, sometimes their front-page stories incorporate left-wing bias in contradiction to the facts. Take today’s coverage of President Bush’s appointment of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. Discussing the threat of a Democratic filibuster, Ron Fournier of the Associated Press wrote, "With no sign of irony, Republicans demanded that Alito get a vote in the Senate – something they denied Miers." […]