Without knowing specifically what the questions are that they were asked, it's impossible to tell whether this is relevant or the result of your usual right-wing persecution complex being fueled with a hackjob poll and repeated ad nauseam without any of the details (I've seen this sort of figure cited multiple times but never seen the original poll it supposedly came from) until everyone else believes it because it's been repeated so often.
Let's take the first one you listed- gays- and run with it.
Do you believe that homosexuality is an abomination?
Oh look, the media has a liberal bias! (We're not going to mention the fact that if you phrase the question like this the entire population would have a liberal bias.)
When it comes to something like this, always, always look at the original from the pollster; or else ignore it because there's no way anyone else can tell whether it's credible or not.
There are at least a half-dozen quotes in the bible saying that unbelievers should be killed, and a bunch more saying that people who perform certain actions (which aren't unethical from a secular perspective) should be killed. And of course, there's "be not yoked with unbelievers".
It's not a Quran-specific thing. All the Abrahamic religions have no respect whatsoever for those outside of the religion. The mentality boils down to nothing more than "hate everyone who's not one of us".
What about the privacy of ordinary people? Mainstream media like the BBC and CNN always uses soft terms like "privacy concerns" to make it seem like a "well it isn't very nice, but its hardly a hard crime" thing. But is this actually the case? Does having to have your likeness recorded for an unknown period of time by CCTV cameras when you go for a stroll past some shops, or having your IP logged by each website you take a glance at not "take" something from you? What about datamining, where computer algorithms try to "figure out" where you are in the world, what kind of person you are, what your interests, consumption habits and preferences look like, what you might be likely to buy or spend? Again, does this not constitute "taking" something from you that you have not voluntarily provided? Would you shop at a creepy record store or bookstore where some scientist in a labcoat follows you from shelf to shelf with a clipboard and notes down the exact time you looked at items, the sequence you looked at them in, and some information that lets the shop know that you, not some new customer is back and browsing for more? Would you consent to bricks and mortar shops coating sidewalks with a special substance that makes your shoeprints stand out in bright colors and let them figure out where you came from or where you went after you checked out?
Is it not "theft" to take something a person cares about and cannot get back once its taken? Is it not "theft" to force a person to leave an "imprint" of their presence behind with every digital step, no matter how casual or insignificant? To record someone's activities as if its "normal" that every step you take should be recorded in some way and become the property of whoever recorded it? To whisk someone's data into some database at a datacenter where the person who effectively OWNS the data will never see it again?
And would labeling privacy invasion "theft" or "stealing" in daily discourse be an effective way to corner those organizations, digital or not, that trample on people's privacy without appology? Should we remind mainstream media organizations that use fluffy terms like "privacy concerns" to add that "privacy infringement is in fact theft"? Should we treat companies that don't take privacy seriously as "thieves" and openly label them as such?"
The Vehicle seats two people side by side, gets 230mpg at 55mph, has a trunk large enough for a surfboard, and goes from 0-60 in less than 10 seconds.
And, it looks like a fish!"
Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source