58% of US Muslims Want Free Speech to be Illegal, So Can you Be Muslim AND American?

A recent poll seems to suggest that Muslims living in the USA want to outlaw our god-given right to free speech and a large number even agree that blasphemers of the Muslim god should be executed… not “over there,” but HERE in the USA! It makes one wonder if it is possible to be both a Muslim and a true American?

For years during the invasion of Iraq under George W. Bush some doubters of Bush’s tactics said that Muslims cannot be made to understand western freedoms and constitutional government. In those heady days of nation building in the 1990s, many warned that Islam is incompatible with freedom and modernity.

For his part, President Bush insisted that Iraqis and other Muslims were “just like everyone else” and yearned to be free. Bush moved forward with his foreign policy based on the idea that this normal human yearning would make them understand and welcome our efforts there to help them throw off Islamist tyranny and begin to self govern.

While we’ve certainly had mixed and usually disappointing results from our efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the Middle East, we have certainly seen that Islam is often a stumbling block to our idea of freedom and self government.

But what about American Muslims? We care constantly told that they are “just like every other American” and are peaceful, loyal Americans who love our system.

But, do they?

Now we get this poll* showing that even Muslims who live in America hate America’s most important principles.

…the results of polling data collected by Wenzel Strategies during October 22 to 26, 2012, from 600 U.S. Muslims, indicate widespread support among American votaries of Islam for this fundamental rejection of the basic freedoms of expression and conscience, as guaranteed under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. When asked, “Do you believe that criticism of Islam or Muhammad should be permitted under the Constitution’s First Amendment?, 58% replied “no,” 45% of respondents agreed “…that those who criticize or parody Islam in the U.S. should face criminal charges,” and fully 12% of this Muslim sample even admitted they believed in application of the draconian, Sharia-based punishment for the non-existent crime of “blasphemy” in the U.S. code, answering affirmatively, “…that Americans who criticize or parody Islam should be put to death.”

These are not small numbers. In fact, in the one case it is a majority and in the other it is a significant number want us to be put to death if we criticize their savage god.

So, with this we are forced to ask if it is even possible to be an adherent of the most restrictive, oppressive religion in human history and also be a true American who values freedom and religious liberty? This poll suggests that it is difficult to be both an American and a Muslim.

I’d argue that the same question can be asked of Democrats. Since we are seeing one after another of the left in America lining up against free speech and religious freedom, one has to wonder is it possible to be both a member of the Democrat Party and at the same time be a true American?

These are questions that must be answered by all of us, whether American, Conservative, Democrat or Muslim. We must set the grounds for this debate and quite just dismissing it. Or before we know it we will be just like the liberal fools in England–Londonistan, if you will–throwing away our culture for fits of self-destructive PCism.

If the answer is “yes” you can be both a Muslim and an American then we need to know the parameters of just what that means. What limits on speech is compatible with both? How much freedom can we abandon and still be an American?

*The above except came from Andrew G. Bostom’s interesting piece entitled, “Ten Key Points on Islamic Blasphemy Law.” If you want to know the roots of sharia, read this detailed piece.

Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
RE: Carly Fiorina and Ben Carson
  • JWH

    Could you link the poll itself?

    • Brucehenry

      This poll, found within the link posted by Warner, was commissioned by the always reliable and totally trustworthy World Nut Daily, and was conducted by Wenzel Strategies, a “scientific” polling firm that apparently works exclusively for WND.

      One of the hilarities in the link is the claim that this poll of 600 people has a “margin of error of plus/minus 3.98%”

      http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/guess-who-u-s-muslims-are-voting-for/

      • ravenshrike

        Which is completely correct for a sample size of 600 and a population of around 4000000. Of course, that does assume all else is equal which depending on whether they controlled for geographical location and ‘devoutness’ may or may not be correct, but still. The sample size would not be an issue.

  • jim_m

    So, yes you can be muslim and be American. Being an American is a matter of birth. There are, always have been and always will be people who are Americans who disagree with and oppose the values that this nation was founded upon, whether they be the rolyalists of the 18th century or the communists of the 20th or the muslims of the 21st.

    This just points out that the clear majority of muslims are anti-Amerrican.

    • Commander_Chico

      “Values this nation was founded upon,” Maryland law, 1879:

      Art. 72, sec. 189. If any person, by writing or speaking, shall blaspheme or curse God, or shall write or utter any profane words of and concerning our Saviour, Jesus Christ, or of and concerning the Trinity, or any of the persons thereof, he shall, on conviction, be fined not more than one hundred dollars, or imprisoned not more than six months, or both fined and imprisoned as aforesaid, at the discretion of the court.

      The last U.S. conviction for blasphemy was of atheist activist Charles Lee Smith. In 1928 he rented a storefront in Little Rock, Arkansas, and gave out free atheist literature there. The sign in the window read: “Evolution Is True. The Bible’s a Lie. God’s a Ghost.” For this he was charged with violating the city ordinance against blasphemy. Because he was an atheist and therefore couldn’t swear the court’s religious oath to tell the truth, he wasn’t permitted to testify in his own defense. The judge then dismissed the original charge, replacing it with one of distributing obscene, slanderous, or scurrilous literature. Smith was convicted, fined $25, and served most of a twenty-six-day jail sentence.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_United_States

      • jim_m

        Chico- at every opportunity choosing to trash America. The fake soldier who never served.

      • LiberalNightmare

        So what your trying to say is that no-one sent out a terrorist hit team to kill him in the name of allah?

      • Walter_Cronanty

        I have no idea as to what point you’re trying to make. Until the late 1920’s, and into the 1930’s, the prevailing view was that the First Amendment did not apply to the states [you seem fond of Wikipedia, so look up “Incorporation of the Bill of Rights”]. Thus, your citing of a Maryland law reflects Maryland’s values, not our country’s.
        Second, the article you cite provides that the last conviction for blasphemy in the US occurred almost 90 years ago. We’ve changed as a nation over the last 90 years. Islam, not so much – it seems that a large minority of Islam wants to return to the 1500s. In any event, as put forth in Warner’s article, 58% of Muslims living in the US believe that criticism of Islam should not be protected under the First Amendment, 45% believe that criticism or parody of Islam by US citizens in the US should be criminally punished – with 12% thinking execution is proper.
        Third, the penalty cited for blasphemy was a $25 fine and less than 26 days in jail. As noted above, today many in the US Muslim population believe blasphemy against Islam should be criminalized. In the middle east, the penalty for blasphemy is often a particularly gruesome death, from beheading, to stoning, to setting the infidel on fire.
        Again, I don’t know what point you were trying to make with your comment, other than throwing a turd into the punch bowl. Muslims should assimilate or go back to wherever home is.

      • FrenchKiss

        And your point is that you support the headchopping muzzie filth?

        • jim_m

          No. He just supports anyone who is an enemy of the United States.

  • Commander_Chico

    Warner himself is against the First Amendment, wants to ban freedom of religion, so is he an American?

    I bet you’d get the same or worse results in places outside NYC, SF and Boston substituting “Jesus” and “Christianity” for “Mohammed” in the poll.

    It wasn’t Muslims who wrote the state blasphemy laws still on the books but later struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

    • jim_m

      What I think is funny is that you can’t go a single thread without making an ani-Semitic remark. It was hillarious on the other thread that a new poster took all of one comment from you to peg you as an intollerant anti-Semite.

      If the law was stuck down by the Surpeme Court then it is no longer on the books. There is no necessity to repeal a law that was invalidated by the Supreme Court. Your comment is incoherent at best.

      • Commander_Chico

        The point is that most Americans want blasphemy to be illegal now, as it was in the past. Traditional conservatives would agree.

        Singling out Muslims and framing them as anti-American for something even more Americans want is neocon propaganda.

        • jim_m

          I can’t decide if you are a liar or just a dumbass. If you look at the poll you refer to, only 31.4% actually say that people do not have a right to blaspheme someone else’s religion with 36.8% saying yes you do and 31.7 saying they don’t know.

          So you lied and misrepresented the facts. How unusual.

          • “I can’t decide if you are a liar or just a dumbass.” He has the benefit of being both.

          • Commander_Chico

            Try polling self described Christians with the same poll and substitute “Jesus” for “Mohammed.”

          • jim_m

            Why not take a look at this poll

          • Scalia

            Jim, how do you get a link to automatically scroll down to a specific comment? I can link to a page, but not a section within a page.

          • jim_m

            Right click on the tag that says when the comment was posted and click “copy shortcut”

          • Scalia

            Thanks!

          • Retired military

            So much idioacy in one package.

        • Walter_Cronanty

          If “most Americans want blasphemy to be illegal,” why hasn’t some opportunist populist started up a campaign to amend the Constitution?
          A flag-desecration amendment was tried, but failed. An amendment outlawing blasphemy has never even been tried.

          • Commander_Chico

            The flag desecration amendment failed by one Senate vote. See George Will’s recent column on Lincoln Chafee.

            In response to your point above, there are large populations of Christians within America who would support harsh penalties against blasphemy. Muslims are not unique in this regard.

          • in re:

            there are large populations of Christians within America who would support harsh penalties against blasphemy.

            Show Proof.

        • Retired military

          Blasphemy for the left is anything they dont believe in.
          Their heads would explode if a Muslim baker turned down a job making a wedding cake for a gay couple.

          • Hawk_TX

            Steven Crowder already tested that.

    • LiberalNightmare

      it wasnt muslims that declared those laws to be unconstitutional, Americans did that. The point you are trying to make is deeply flawed.

      • Commander_Chico

        The same Americans that declared a right to pornography and abortion – the Supreme Court.

        Not representative of common American opinion.

    • Liar.

      • Commander_Chico

        Did you not write that the practice of the Muslim religion should be outlawed, in direct contravention of the US Constitution?

  • LiberalNightmare

    Isnt it strange how the same people that would happily destroy a christian bakers life over a cake, are suddenly appalled at the very idea of hurting a muslims feelings?

  • It is too bad that Warner ruined a decent blog post by giving it a featured image that promotes a false claim about Michelle Obama.

    • Commander_Chico

      Warner is all about bullshitting.

      • Retired military

        I fdidnt know that Warner was all about cheeko.

      • FrenchKiss

        Says the Jew-hating POS.

    • At least my posts don’t carry the name David Robertson. That tends to ruin every post.

      • Warner, I didn’t attack you. I criticized your choice of a featured image.

    • jim_m

      What false claim? That she doesn’t love this country? She’s basically confessed to that herself.

    • Hank_M

      The image fits as evidenced by Mrs Obama stating this:

      “Barack knows that we are going to have to make sacrifices; we are going to have to change our conversation; we’re going to have to change our traditions, our history; we’re going to have to move into a different place as a nation.”

      • Constitution First

        BINGO
        And don’t forget: “I was never proud of my country” -Chewie. “The call to prayer is the most beautiful sound i’ve ever heard”, “I visited all 57 states”, bowing to the Saudi king, “Fort Hood was work place violence.” -BHO Christians and Jews are always to blame, but never Islamics… I could go on for pages, but you get the picture. The Obama’s have chosen sides, and it’s never ours.
        It is all from the same book, bet you can guess which one.
        It’s clear, you can’t be devote muslim and a Constitutionally devote American.
        It is becoming increasingly clear the same fanatisim applies to Democrats.

  • Paul Hooson

    A lot of American views on free expression disappoint me. Look at how often in American history someone has been charged with the free speech crime of “obscenity”, and jurors in cities like Los Angeles or New York City have voted to convict a defendant of such a free speech crime. In Europe some states dropped obscenity laws in the 1960’s, but here in the U.S. we are socially and legally running half a century behind the times…

    • WHO’S THE BUSTER

      Obscenity, “I know it when I see it”.

      And I try to see it a lot.

    • Constitution First

      Big urban areas are decidedly Democrat.
      Look how well that is turning out?
      Dependency, corruption, crime, taxes, then blame everyone but themselves when it all goes to Shiite.

    • jim_m

      How many have been charged and convicted in the last 80 years? None . STFU and stop trashing our country today for stuff that our great-great grandfathers did. Unless you are wiling to stand up and make payment for wrongs committed in the time of your ancestors (not even necessarily by your ancestors) just STFU.

      Most obscenity laws were invalidated by the SCOTUS decades ago. Claiming that after they were invalidated they were never repealed is a bogus argument. Legislatures never repeal laws that the courts rule to be unconstitutional. There is no need to.

      • Paul Hooson

        Unlike other laws against theft, rape, murder, etc with more fixed standard of evidence such as an actual victim or a real dead body, obscenity is a matter of opinion crime, which is a bizarre and moving standard. No other legal standard is based on such a moving goalpost notion of law such as this. – Further, it can be argued that such obscenity laws are also based on a religious application of law, which seems unconstitutional. At the insistence of the Catholic Church in NYC, NYC Police were once encouraged to sit with tape recorders in the audiences of comic Lenny Bruce who used to tell what the church considered to be offensive religious jokes.

        The U.S. Supreme Court in a number of decisions has actually allowed states broad powers to seize the entire business assets of businesses under criminal forfeiture as a racketeering offence for the supposed crime of selling as few as two obscene items. Not many years ago, sexually oriented adult comic books as well some rap albums such as Two Man Live Crew faced prosecution in some American cities.

        I don’t know of a single case in which the Supreme Court ever invalidated obscenity laws, rather ruled obscenity laws were constitutional, but laws against sexually explicit, non-obscene materials are not constitutional. But, the standard for obscenity and non-obscene sexually oriented material continue to be a moving standard, and even further are local standards, up to local police or prosecutors, not based on some national standard.

        • jim_m

          Sigh. That was entirely non responsive.

          • Paul Hooson

            It’s a bizarre application of law based on subjective opinions of what constitutes offensive in the minds of prosecutors and juries. That’s a bizarre and non-concrete application of law. – Equally unacceptable is some Muslim support for outlawing free speech that this faith finds offensive. Once again, offensive is a matter of personal opinion. Good law cannot be based on such subjective legal standards. That’s like attempting to nail jello to a tree…

          • jim_m

            My ask, Mr Obtuse, was for you to name one person convicted of violating an obscenity law in the last few decades. It hasn’t happened. You cited instances that run back several generations ago. Give it up. Americans are far more tolerant than you claim. Go set up your strip joint in Saudi Arabia and see how well things go.

          • Paul Hooson

            Controversial Jewish pornographer Ira Isaacs was convicted of obscenity by a Los Angeles jury in 2012 after being placed on trial three times for the same crime of selling some controversial adult films produced or sold by his company, Stolen Car Films.

          • jim_m

            Movies featuring bestiality and feces.

            Yeah. It was a fair cop. He got what he deserved.

          • Paul Hooson

            Movies like that are revolting and disgusting. Very few people would even pay to view such material. However, it’s not up to government to play movie critic and criminalize bad taste. A similar sort of film, “2 Girls 1 Cup? became a gross-out social phenomenon, with many posts on YouTube of grossed-out viewers for the film. Ira Isaacs decided to deal in the same sort of “crap”…

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            The Obscenity Prosecution Task Force (OPTF) was an
            organization created in 2005 during the Bush Presidency by the United States Department of Justice. The OPTF’s job was to investigate and prosecute
            producers and distributors of hardcore pornography that meets the legal tests for obscenity, as defined by the Supreme Court of the United States. The group was led by U.S. Attorney Brent Ward.

            They prosecuted and jailed Max Hardcore (even though the actress testified that she was “acting” and enjoyed the experience) and that the content was clearly outlined to any potential buyer. Furthermore, he was prosecuted in Tampa, even though the movie was produced in California.

            Girls Gone Wild was prosecuted under the same task force, as was John Stagliano.

            While the task force was disbanded, in 2007 Mitt Romney not only said he would vigorously pursue new obscenity cases, but would “put a porn filter on every computer”. Might want to be careful about that as porn traffic on the web is highest in the red states. The highest per capita? Utah. You really can’t make this stuff up.

            What would he have done about hotel rooms as over half the guests avail themselves of an adult-themed movie?

          • Paul Hooson

            Exactly, it’s the same sort of police state morality police as plague nations such as Saudi Arabia that I very much oppose here. – I believe in a principle called the “wisdom of the marketplace”. I believe you trade in very narrow and small interest, controversial garbage, and you suffer the consumer wrath of the martketplace by having very low sales and flirting with financial disaster in business. Even porn has proven that the kooky stuff has very little appeal or financial rewards compared to far more successful mainstream adult material such as PLAYBOY. I have serious doubts that Ira Isaacs tiny STOLEN CAR FILMS company had sales at a very high level at all. – His flawed business formula was little more than a recipe for financial and legal destruction.

  • mezcukor

    The answer to that question is NO

  • Vagabond661

    Ali and Jabaar never killed anyone and they are Muslim. On the other hand I don’t remember cries of “death to the infidels” over blasphemous pictures of Jesus.

    I am tired of those who want to radically change the Constitution or definition of marriage because it doesn’t fit their beliefs. Go start your own damn country.

  • rnot

    seems the pool of ‘moderate’ moslems is shrinking.

  • Can you Be Muslim AND American?

    No, you cannot. Islam commands that its adherents make war on America. Thus, any Muslim within America’s sovereign territory is an enemy combatant.

  • ScienceABC123

    Do not come to America and demand that we change to the system you just left behind. If you don’t want to live under our Constitution, leave and don’t come back until you do!

  • Blessed

    we I mean this country has a founding document that anticipated foreign take overs so revert to the constitution and clearly this is and should be an act of a hostile takeover so that brings us to the 2nd amendment ,looking like religious war,the constitution is worth fighting for,America is a armed to the teeth nation