The Punning Pundit

That's exactly what I just posted in reply to someone else putting up that link...

Yeah, Joe saw that over the weekend and was outraged at how many people would think that. "Land of the Free" my ass.

This story is bogus. It's slanted for people like you, so you can preen yourself on your moral superiority to the common folk.

Anyone who answered yes to any one question is counted as in favor of restricting civil rights. But in fact only one of the four questions is about a constitutional right at all. For instance, mosques, (or churches or synagogues) have no "right" not to be put under surveillance if they are suspected of crime or terrorism. Only the registry would violate civil rights, and that was only favored by 27%.

Nor do they give us the actual questions. It's easy to slant polls so that you get the answers you want, and no Cornell Prof is going to help his career by discovering that Amereicans are tolerant and decent. That wouldn't even rate a news story.

If you or the writer were honest you would mention that Muslims do NOT have their civil liberties restricted in today's America, and that there is not the least likelihood under current conditions that they will have.

And yet churches that have violent anti-abortion activists are not under surveillance, are they? Double standards abound.

I have no estimate of how much actual surveillance there is of either churches or mosques, and neither has any relevance to my point.

My point was that the article was skewed to the point of being a lie, designed to "show" that Americans are bigoted and intolerant, and thus confirm the predudices of leftish types.

Scorpio,

Do you have specific examples of ones that do/don't? If not, what's your point? There's no double standard if you cannot prove your arguement and since you cannot have access to information from an ongoing investigation it's simply impossible for you to prove your point.

And there's a WORLD of difference between a mosque funneling funds to and from terrorists (in addition to other means of support) and the very few churches that may have violent anti-abortionists amongst it's members. And still you have to prove that the church leader's aided and abbeted said members. Which your statement doesn't infer.