wow muslim pop. increasing and predicted to be second to christianity in the US

Our demographic projections estimate that Muslims will make up 2.1% of the U.S. population by the year 2050, surpassing people who identify as Jewish on the basis of religion as the second-largest faith group in the country (not including people who say they have no religion).

What do American Muslims believe?

Our 2011 survey of Muslim Americans found that roughly half of U.S. Muslims (48%) say their own religious leaders have not done enough to speak out against Islamic extremists.

Living in a religiously pluralistic society, Muslim Americans are more likely than Muslims in many other nations to have many non-Muslim friends. Only about half (48%) of U.S. Muslims say all or most of their close friends are also Muslims, compared with a global median of 95% in the 39 countries we surveyed.

Roughly seven-in-ten U.S. Muslims (69%) say religion is very important in their lives. Virtually all (96%) say they believe in God, nearly two-thirds (65%) report praying at least daily and nearly half (47%) say they attend religious services at least weekly. By all of these traditional measures, Muslims in the U.S. are roughly as religious as U.S. Christians, although they are less religious than Muslims in many other nations.

When it comes to political and social views, Muslims are far more likely to identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party (70%) than the Republican Party (11%) and to say they prefer a bigger government providing more services (68%) over a smaller government providing fewer services (21%). As of 2011, U.S. Muslims were somewhat split between those who said homosexuality should be accepted by society (39%) and those who said it should be discouraged (45%), although the group had grown considerably more accepting of homosexuality since a similar survey was conducted in 2007.

In the U.S., 65% identify as Sunnis and 11% as Shias (with the rest identifying with neither group, including some who say they are “just a Muslim”).

For one, Muslims have more children than members of other religious groups. Around the world, each Muslim woman has an average of 3.1 children, compared with 2.3 for all other groups combined.

Hmm

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberals just can't seem to decide when they want to be interventionist/non interventionist. It's fascinating, but irritating too.

But not as fascinating as trying to figure out why conservatives are so limited in their thinking. If only the world were as simple as to allow everything to be viewed as binary.

Sometimes you intervene with aid, sometimes with diplomacy, and when all else fails you intervene with force, this is the conservative platform. By decrying our use of force as "interventionist" It seems that it is the liberal platform that is more limited. Clinton refused to use meaningful force to protect US interests abroad and is a very popular president with liberals.

So Hillary is a dove in your mind? Adorable

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberals just can't seem to decide when they want to be interventionist/non interventionist. It's fascinating, but irritating too.

But not as fascinating as trying to figure out why conservatives are so limited in their thinking. If only the world were as simple as to allow everything to be viewed as binary.

Sometimes you intervene with aid, sometimes with diplomacy, and when all else fails you intervene with force, this is the conservative platform. By decrying our use of force as "interventionist" It seems that it is the liberal platform that is more limited. Clinton refused to use meaningful force to protect US interests abroad and is a very popular president with liberals.

My head is spinning. Some have called her a "hawk", and of course, there is the whole "she's responsible for ISIS because she voted for the Iraq war" thing. I don't see her as someone who is against using force.

Trump is against involving the US military when it comes to helping some of our allies in NATO. And yes, NATO is part of our interests abroad.

But, I agree that sometimes you use aid and/or diplomacy, and not always force.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberals just can't seem to decide when they want to be interventionist/non interventionist. It's fascinating, but irritating too.

But not as fascinating as trying to figure out why conservatives are so limited in their thinking. If only the world were as simple as to allow everything to be viewed as binary.

Sometimes you intervene with aid, sometimes with diplomacy, and when all else fails you intervene with force, this is the conservative platform. By decrying our use of force as "interventionist" It seems that it is the liberal platform that is more limited. Clinton refused to use meaningful force to protect US interests abroad and is a very popular president with liberals.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
Certainly we have a responsibility to take in refugees. Leadership requires taking responsibility. I assume those of you who want America to be "great" understand that greatness requires leadership? America cannot be great if it hides behind walls and refuses to engage the rest of the world. If America refuses to share burdens that result from its own leadership, it cannot be great and it cannot be a leader.

Of course I would mind any negative impact of the refugees on the US and I support a process aimed at reducing the risk of such impact as much as possible. I am not naive, however, and recognize that nothing in life is without risk. Similarly, I recognize that there is also risk in not accepting refugees. Opponents of refugees seem unable to recognize that side of the coin.

If you are concerned about dead Americans and raped/molested women and children, there are a number of actions that can be taken with more significant results than opposing refugees. Sadly, I don't think those are your real concerns.

Wait a minute. I thought it was standard liberal bandwagon that the US is not great and that we should not be meddling in the affairs of other countries. The liberal platform on this is to let UN/NATO take the lead and for US to pay the bill. Under republican leadership the US took the "leadership" on ridding the middle east of Saddam Hussein because of the inaction of UN and NATO but do you see any liberals saying that was a good idea? In contrast, the conservative position on foreign affairs is that the US should actually take the lead as a superpower to protect US interests and the interests of our allies.

Welfare on a world scale will be similarly effective as welfare on a local scale. If you absolve others of the responsibility to help themselves and solve their own problems, the world will be happy to dump all their problems on you, while cursing at you for not doing enough. Look at what's happening in Milwaukee, people are rioting, burning stores and businesses in their own neighborhood because they feel oppressed - no sense of personal responsibility, just a victim mentality because liberals made it their mission to tell these people that it's not their fault, everyone else is guilty and will pay. Look at rich middle eastern countries to see what they are doing to help middle eastern refugees. If a people won't help themselves, why is the US responsible for helping them?

I am not the PP but my concern is that I don't want the US to turn into Europe in terms of an immigration crisis. The US has a culture of acceptance and mutual respect - it's not perfect but the US is the best example of a melting pot in the world. We should not let in people who hold beliefs that prevent them from integrating into our society as Americans. If you want to come to the US to live, you must be accepting of our way of life, and it should not be your goal to turn US into something which it is not.

Leadership can take many forms. When it takes the form of invading a country on the pretext of lies, not having a plan for dealing with the post-war situation, and generally making things worse than they were before, of course liberals and all thinking people will oppose it. When it takes the form of helping make the world a better place by reducing war and conflict, liberals support it (or at least they should).

You don't have to worry. 10,000 Syrians will not turn the US into Europe. They won't even turn it into Dearborn.

That's a "hell-bent for leather" liberal way of characterizing how and why we invaded Iraq. There are conditions under which a nation loses its sovereignty, Iraq had met multiple of those yet UN and NATO refused to act. If you think the situation is worse than if we had let things be, go ask the people of Kuwait, go ask the Kurds. The middle east was/is a festering boil of intolerance and medieval beliefs/practices. Perhaps the war could have been prosecuted better, perhaps the commander in chief of an armed force should have had better planning after "victory", perhaps he shouldn't have publicly announce a withdraw date - essentially telling the enemy just to wait it out. No one makes all the right choices in fighting a war. Yes, Bush could have done nothing, doing nothing is easy, just ask UN, NATO, and all of Europe. But when you are the leading superpower of the world and the enemy comes knocking on your door, doing nothing is unacceptable. These types of decision are tough, and sometimes you have to go down a path even though you know it will be fraught with danger. You pray and hope that you have the strength to see it through and the wisdom to make the right decisions.

The US should not knowingly allow in any immigrant or refugee that does not wholeheartedly accept the ties that link the rest of us together, wither its 10,000 or 100.

I just find your words America has to lead but complaints when America leads fascinating.

Anonymous wrote:Liberals just can't seem to decide when they want to be interventionist/non interventionist. It's fascinating, but irritating too.

But not as fascinating as trying to figure out why conservatives are so limited in their thinking. If only the world were as simple as to allow everything to be viewed as binary.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
Certainly we have a responsibility to take in refugees. Leadership requires taking responsibility. I assume those of you who want America to be "great" understand that greatness requires leadership? America cannot be great if it hides behind walls and refuses to engage the rest of the world. If America refuses to share burdens that result from its own leadership, it cannot be great and it cannot be a leader.

Of course I would mind any negative impact of the refugees on the US and I support a process aimed at reducing the risk of such impact as much as possible. I am not naive, however, and recognize that nothing in life is without risk. Similarly, I recognize that there is also risk in not accepting refugees. Opponents of refugees seem unable to recognize that side of the coin.

If you are concerned about dead Americans and raped/molested women and children, there are a number of actions that can be taken with more significant results than opposing refugees. Sadly, I don't think those are your real concerns.

Wait a minute. I thought it was standard liberal bandwagon that the US is not great and that we should not be meddling in the affairs of other countries. The liberal platform on this is to let UN/NATO take the lead and for US to pay the bill. Under republican leadership the US took the "leadership" on ridding the middle east of Saddam Hussein because of the inaction of UN and NATO but do you see any liberals saying that was a good idea? In contrast, the conservative position on foreign affairs is that the US should actually take the lead as a superpower to protect US interests and the interests of our allies.

Welfare on a world scale will be similarly effective as welfare on a local scale. If you absolve others of the responsibility to help themselves and solve their own problems, the world will be happy to dump all their problems on you, while cursing at you for not doing enough. Look at what's happening in Milwaukee, people are rioting, burning stores and businesses in their own neighborhood because they feel oppressed - no sense of personal responsibility, just a victim mentality because liberals made it their mission to tell these people that it's not their fault, everyone else is guilty and will pay. Look at rich middle eastern countries to see what they are doing to help middle eastern refugees. If a people won't help themselves, why is the US responsible for helping them?

I am not the PP but my concern is that I don't want the US to turn into Europe in terms of an immigration crisis. The US has a culture of acceptance and mutual respect - it's not perfect but the US is the best example of a melting pot in the world. We should not let in people who hold beliefs that prevent them from integrating into our society as Americans. If you want to come to the US to live, you must be accepting of our way of life, and it should not be your goal to turn US into something which it is not.

Leadership can take many forms. When it takes the form of invading a country on the pretext of lies, not having a plan for dealing with the post-war situation, and generally making things worse than they were before, of course liberals and all thinking people will oppose it. When it takes the form of helping make the world a better place by reducing war and conflict, liberals support it (or at least they should).

You don't have to worry. 10,000 Syrians will not turn the US into Europe. They won't even turn it into Dearborn.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
Certainly we have a responsibility to take in refugees. Leadership requires taking responsibility. I assume those of you who want America to be "great" understand that greatness requires leadership? America cannot be great if it hides behind walls and refuses to engage the rest of the world. If America refuses to share burdens that result from its own leadership, it cannot be great and it cannot be a leader.

Of course I would mind any negative impact of the refugees on the US and I support a process aimed at reducing the risk of such impact as much as possible. I am not naive, however, and recognize that nothing in life is without risk. Similarly, I recognize that there is also risk in not accepting refugees. Opponents of refugees seem unable to recognize that side of the coin.

If you are concerned about dead Americans and raped/molested women and children, there are a number of actions that can be taken with more significant results than opposing refugees. Sadly, I don't think those are your real concerns.

Wait a minute. I thought it was standard liberal bandwagon that the US is not great and that we should not be meddling in the affairs of other countries. The liberal platform on this is to let UN/NATO take the lead and for US to pay the bill. Under republican leadership the US took the "leadership" on ridding the middle east of Saddam Hussein because of the inaction of UN and NATO but do you see any liberals saying that was a good idea? In contrast, the conservative position on foreign affairs is that the US should actually take the lead as a superpower to protect US interests and the interests of our allies.

Welfare on a world scale will be similarly effective as welfare on a local scale. If you absolve others of the responsibility to help themselves and solve their own problems, the world will be happy to dump all their problems on you, while cursing at you for not doing enough. Look at what's happening in Milwaukee, people are rioting, burning stores and businesses in their own neighborhood because they feel oppressed - no sense of personal responsibility, just a victim mentality because liberals made it their mission to tell these people that it's not their fault, everyone else is guilty and will pay. Look at rich middle eastern countries to see what they are doing to help middle eastern refugees. If a people won't help themselves, why is the US responsible for helping them?

I am not the PP but my concern is that I don't want the US to turn into Europe in terms of an immigration crisis. The US has a culture of acceptance and mutual respect - it's not perfect but the US is the best example of a melting pot in the world. We should not let in people who hold beliefs that prevent them from integrating into our society as Americans. If you want to come to the US to live, you must be accepting of our way of life, and it should not be your goal to turn US into something which it is not.

Liberals just can't seem to decide when they want to be interventionist/non interventionist. It's fascinating, but irritating too.

jsteele wrote:
Certainly we have a responsibility to take in refugees. Leadership requires taking responsibility. I assume those of you who want America to be "great" understand that greatness requires leadership? America cannot be great if it hides behind walls and refuses to engage the rest of the world. If America refuses to share burdens that result from its own leadership, it cannot be great and it cannot be a leader.

Of course I would mind any negative impact of the refugees on the US and I support a process aimed at reducing the risk of such impact as much as possible. I am not naive, however, and recognize that nothing in life is without risk. Similarly, I recognize that there is also risk in not accepting refugees. Opponents of refugees seem unable to recognize that side of the coin.

If you are concerned about dead Americans and raped/molested women and children, there are a number of actions that can be taken with more significant results than opposing refugees. Sadly, I don't think those are your real concerns.

Wait a minute. I thought it was standard liberal bandwagon that the US is not great and that we should not be meddling in the affairs of other countries. The liberal platform on this is to let UN/NATO take the lead and for US to pay the bill. Under republican leadership the US took the "leadership" on ridding the middle east of Saddam Hussein because of the inaction of UN and NATO but do you see any liberals saying that was a good idea? In contrast, the conservative position on foreign affairs is that the US should actually take the lead as a superpower to protect US interests and the interests of our allies.

Welfare on a world scale will be similarly effective as welfare on a local scale. If you absolve others of the responsibility to help themselves and solve their own problems, the world will be happy to dump all their problems on you, while cursing at you for not doing enough. Look at what's happening in Milwaukee, people are rioting, burning stores and businesses in their own neighborhood because they feel oppressed - no sense of personal responsibility, just a victim mentality because liberals made it their mission to tell these people that it's not their fault, everyone else is guilty and will pay. Look at rich middle eastern countries to see what they are doing to help middle eastern refugees. If a people won't help themselves, why is the US responsible for helping them?

I am not the PP but my concern is that I don't want the US to turn into Europe in terms of an immigration crisis. The US has a culture of acceptance and mutual respect - it's not perfect but the US is the best example of a melting pot in the world. We should not let in people who hold beliefs that prevent them from integrating into our society as Americans. If you want to come to the US to live, you must be accepting of our way of life, and it should not be your goal to turn US into something which it is not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don't you think safety and economic impact when it comes to refugees and illegal immigrants are people's real concerns? There is a mechanism for legal immigration, there is a mechanism for refugees. I support both legal immigration and a refugee program--but I think both safety and economic impact ON AMERICANS should be thoroughly examined and mitigated when possible with both of these, and given what has happened in Europe people are asking valid questions about refugees from strife zones. We do not have an obligation to globalization over our own people's needs first--safety, college funding, jobs etc. I am not a Trump supporter, but it does resonate when his camp says Democrats put the needs of everyone else before American citizens.

THIS is what is driving Trump's popularity.

Trump's popularity is nearly nonexistent. The American people are better than for what you give them credit.

Anonymous wrote:Why don't you think safety and economic impact when it comes to refugees and illegal immigrants are people's real concerns? There is a mechanism for legal immigration, there is a mechanism for refugees. I support both legal immigration and a refugee program--but I think both safety and economic impact ON AMERICANS should be thoroughly examined and mitigated when possible with both of these, and given what has happened in Europe people are asking valid questions about refugees from strife zones. We do not have an obligation to globalization over our own people's needs first--safety, college funding, jobs etc. I am not a Trump supporter, but it does resonate when his camp says Democrats put the needs of everyone else before American citizens.

THIS is what is driving Trump's popularity.

Anonymous wrote:Why don't you think safety and economic impact when it comes to refugees and illegal immigrants are people's real concerns? There is a mechanism for legal immigration, there is a mechanism for refugees. I support both legal immigration and a refugee program--but I think both safety and economic impact ON AMERICANS should be thoroughly examined and mitigated when possible with both of these, and given what has happened in Europe people are asking valid questions about refugees from strife zones. We do not have an obligation to globalization over our own people's needs first--safety, college funding, jobs etc. I am not a Trump supporter, but it does resonate when his camp says Democrats put the needs of everyone else before American citizens.

I believe that if you studied the refugee program you would see that both economic impact and safety are top considerations. There are hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees. Obama wants to accept 10,000. If security and economic impact were not concerns, he could open the doors to a lot more than that. Again, there are risks and costs to not accepting refugees. If Jordan collapses under the weight of refugees the cost to the US will be astronomical. I don't want to put the needs of everyone else before American citizens, but I recognize that serving the American interest often requires assisting others. The US commitment to refugees is as best symbolic, but it is an important symbol. Closing the doors would also send a signal, one that would quite likely have very negative consequences.

Why don't you think safety and economic impact when it comes to refugees and illegal immigrants are people's real concerns? There is a mechanism for legal immigration, there is a mechanism for refugees. I support both legal immigration and a refugee program--but I think both safety and economic impact ON AMERICANS should be thoroughly examined and mitigated when possible with both of these, and given what has happened in Europe people are asking valid questions about refugees from strife zones. We do not have an obligation to globalization over our own people's needs first--safety, college funding, jobs etc. I am not a Trump supporter, but it does resonate when his camp says Democrats put the needs of everyone else before American citizens.

Anonymous wrote:
And yes, it does sound like you feel it is our responsibility to take in refugees, even if it results in situations like what's occurring in Germany and Sweden. You don't mind a few dead Americans and raped/molested women and children - collateral damage.

Certainly we have a responsibility to take in refugees. Leadership requires taking responsibility. I assume those of you who want America to be "great" understand that greatness requires leadership? America cannot be great if it hides behind walls and refuses to engage the rest of the world. If America refuses to share burdens that result from its own leadership, it cannot be great and it cannot be a leader.

Of course I would mind any negative impact of the refugees on the US and I support a process aimed at reducing the risk of such impact as much as possible. I am not naive, however, and recognize that nothing in life is without risk. Similarly, I recognize that there is also risk in not accepting refugees. Opponents of refugees seem unable to recognize that side of the coin.

If you are concerned about dead Americans and raped/molested women and children, there are a number of actions that can be taken with more significant results than opposing refugees. Sadly, I don't think those are your real concerns.