Minneapolis submits voluntarily

[bilby]

If somebody wanted to persuade people that Muslims are uniquely and especially bad, early morning calls to prayer would not be one of the top ten go-to complaints.

It's not. The OP has chosen dozens of other complaints before arriving at this one. His entire posting history is a litany of attempts to persuade us that Muslims are uniquely and especially bad. Interspersed with attempts to persuade us of the same with regards to women, black people, and "the left".

This is scraping the bottom of the barrel; But that's not evidence against the motivation I am observing from the OP - it's just evidence that they are clutching at straws*.











* Yes, I know. It's a mixed metaphor. Perhaps the barrel was used to store straws at some point, I don't know. You probably wouldn't need to scrape the bottom to get straws out, even if it was. Maybe one hand is clutching straws while they scrape the barrel with the other hand. People can multitask.

 

[laughing dog]

The rest of us can get a good night's sleep and not be so grumpy in the morning about those obnoxious Muslims.

Or you could just grow up and not make mountains out of molehills?

"Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation, has recognized that the overzealous use of sound amplification by its many mosques is an environmental issue and appears to be taking official measures to curb the problem.[18] However, in August 2018, a woman who complained of the volume of her local mosque's speakers was eventually given an 18-month prison sentence for blasphemy, while mobs burned 14 Buddhist temples following the news of her complaint against the loudspeakers.[19] As a direct response to this incident, Indonesia's Ministry of Religious Affairs issued a circular on Adhan or the Islamic call to prayer, with guidelines on when and how it ought to be broadcast by mosques.[20] The issue continues to divide as of March 2022 when the Ministry issued even stricter guidelines, which included restricting sound levels to 100 decibels and any pre-call to prayer sermons to 10 minutes duration, down from the previous 15."

I think everyone in thread recognizes that loud noise is bothersome and that loud noise early in the morning can be a real issue.

However, there is no evidence at this time that the change in the noise ordnance will cause a problem.

Moreover, there was no reported organized opposition in Minneapolis to the change, nor has the been any visible opposition from neighbors.

For some reason(s) known only to the objectors in this thread to this change, they believe that they know more about the imams of those mosques and their relationships with their neighbors than the neighbors do. In addition, the objectors appear to believe they know more about the traditions and mores of Muslims than Muslims do when they propose "simple solutions".

Noise pollution is a universal problem, and a fairly recent issue due to technology, which MUST be regulated because it affects us all, just like AI (Artificial intelligence) MUST be regulated because its going to affect life in all kinds of ways...

As someone is awakened every fortnight by a 5am to 6am recycling pickup (that is not supposed to start before 7am), I agree that actual noise pollution can be a problem. I am well aware that even ordinary conversation or car doors closing at 3am can be extremely vexing. I do not agree is it is a fairly recent issue.

But there is no evidence in this particular instance, that this change will necessarily lead to noise pollution. There are no actual reports that anyone who might be actually affected considers this to be noise pollution. Nor is the any evidence that if these call to prayers become an issue, that the community will fail to resolve the issue either voluntarily or by regulation.

 

[Elixir]

As someone is awakened every fortnight by a 5am to 6am recycling pickup (that is not supposed to start before 7am), I agree that actual noise pollution can be a problem. I am well aware that even ordinary conversation or car doors closing at 3am can be extremely vexing. I do not agree is it is a fairly recent issue.

So what? Everyone supports recycling.
It’s a religious issue. If your god can make noise so can mine. You make noise when your god tells you to, I make noise when mine tells me to. If my god noise hurts your ears or deprives you of sleep, take it up with your god, because you’re doing it wrong.

This is not an “issue” in the sense of turning on aspects of practicality like recycling.

 

[thebeave]

The rest of us can get a good night's sleep and not be so grumpy in the morning about those obnoxious Muslims.

Or you could just grow up and not make mountains out of molehills?

Or the Muslims could just grow up and make a bigger effort to compromise with those who don't share their values.

Care to respond to this:

At least the call to prayer doesn't pound a loud enough bass to rattle the paintings on my wall.

Sincerely,

a Minneapolis resident.

Based on my research(almost 5 minutes of googling) that seems to be the general attitude of the locals. I saw news reports about the ordinance. It passed the city council 12-0. I didn't see any reports of quivering outrage from anyone affected by it.

Perhaps the mosque is simply being more considerate of the neighborhood than we non-locals imagine. If they don't care, I've no reason to.
Tom

I'm hardly a Muslim. And I don't want to live in city as large as Minneapolis, I like things quiet.

But if the mosque's neighbors don't care why do you?

I get that you're annoyed by religious exemptions. I also find them annoying. But this just doesn't seem important to me.
Tom

Well, Jarhyn said it doesn't "pound a loud enough bass to rattle the paintings on my wall". That's a fairly low bar, and not exactly a ringing endorsement. And the law allowing the call to prayer between 10pm and 7am was just signed a couple of days ago. It apparently goes into effect on Friday. So, no one has even been subject to it (legally, anyway) in Minneapolis at night, so its no wonder no one has complained. And that's really the issue isn't it? That its going to start happening at night. I can tolerate a lot of superfulous noises in the daytime that would bother me in the wee hours of the morning while I'm trying to get my beauty sleep. Things like church bells. Or loud concerts.

Maybe we all should just lay off until this issue has had a chance to get some legs. Let's give it a few months and we'll see if there's still no complaints from neighbors. If there aren't, then I will happily have a nice dinner of crow and brown rice and post a picture of it here on this thread.

 

[Toni]

Anyway, what is the point being made? That loud noises can be annoying? That loud noises at night when you're trying to sleep are really annoying? I think everyone participating in this thread has already explicitly agreed on that.

Indeed. So why the thread right now on this uncontroversial topic?

Could it just possibly be that noise pollution, or even religious noise pollution, isn't the cause being promoted, but that instead the OP is attempting to use this real (but not new or particularly urgent) issue as a trojan horse to persuade people that Muslims are uniquely and especially bad?

No, it could not. Did you even read the OP and the author's other thread posts? If somebody wanted to persuade people that Muslims are uniquely and especially bad, early morning calls to prayer would not be one of the top ten go-to complaints.

They're not. They're just as bad as Christians - and just as varied in their degree of 'badness'.

Bingo. And yet the city council and this "woke leftist" forum appear to bestow a higher stack position on Muslims than on Christians. The OP is plainly attempting to use this real issue as a trojan horse to persuade people that "woke utopia" is uniquely and especially bad.

Islam is stupid. If you live in the Middle East, it's stupid to the point of being personally dangerous. But there's zero risk of America becoming an islamic theocracy. The Christians are the Americans we need to worry about.

There's zero risk of America becoming a Christian theocracy. If we're going to worry about religious Americans with theocratic tendencies, Christianity has gone through decay and sustain into terminal release; wokism is still in the attack phase.

I think the risk of the US becoming a Christian theocracy is non-zero. It's extremely small, approaching zero, even. But not zero.

 

[thebeave]

As someone is awakened every fortnight by a 5am to 6am recycling pickup (that is not supposed to start before 7am), I agree that actual noise pollution can be a problem. I am well aware that even ordinary conversation or car doors closing at 3am can be extremely vexing. I do not agree is it is a fairly recent issue.

So what? Everyone supports recycling.
It’s a religious issue. If your god can make noise so can mine. You make noise when your god tells you to, I make noise when mine tells me to. If my god noise hurts your ears or deprives you of sleep, take it up with your god, because you’re doing it wrong.

This is not an “issue” in the sense of turning on aspects of practicality like recycling.

Or emergency vehicles. As annoying as those can be at 4 in the morning, I accept that as a small price to pay for living in a civilized world. Same as recycling and garbage collection. Noisy backwards theists? Eh, not so much.

 

[Elixir]

As someone is awakened every fortnight by a 5am to 6am recycling pickup (that is not supposed to start before 7am), I agree that actual noise pollution can be a problem. I am well aware that even ordinary conversation or car doors closing at 3am can be extremely vexing. I do not agree is it is a fairly recent issue.

So what? Everyone supports recycling.
It’s a religious issue. If your god can make noise so can mine. You make noise when your god tells you to, I make noise when mine tells me to. If my god noise hurts your ears or deprives you of sleep, take it up with your god, because you’re doing it wrong.

This is not an “issue” in the sense of turning on aspects of practicality like recycling.

Or emergency vehicles. As annoying as those can be at 4 in the morning, I accept that as a small price to pay for living in a civilized world. Same as recycling and garbage collection. Noisy backwards theists? Eh, not so much.

Lol! When I built my house, any non-aircraft human noise would wake me up. County Fairgrounds are about 1.5mi away as the crow flies. All summer there’s Wednesday night gymkhana, and when the wind is just right we could hear the announcers. During the fair, bands, more announcers…
Now we get road noise, lots of light pollution, garbage trucks, construction equipment… it’s Effin crazy. But still quiet at night. They built a big contained bleacher on the main fairground arena, so even that is relatively muffled.

 

[Shadowy Man]

The law also says that the noise can only be for "six (6) minutes in any one (1) hour".

https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/Download/FileV2/30594/Noise-Violation-Exemption-Ordinance.pdf

 

[bilby]

And that's really the issue isn't it? That its going to start happening

Well, no. It's not a real issue unless and until it actually does happen.

Reacting to things that you imagine might happen, as though they have actually occurred, is the definition of insanity.

There's an infinite number of things that are not illegal, but which would be very harmful and/or annoying if people started doing them. You can choose to go crazy worrying about them; Or to wait until they happen to you, and then respond in a measured and reasonable way. For example by petitioning with others (who are also affected by the actual thing that's actually happening in reality) to have the laws changed to protect you.

The people of Minneapolis would likely be able to get the law changed again, were a problem to actually arise; Until it does, they don't have any grounds to be upset, and you have even fewer such grounds (If, as I presume, you don't live in Minneapolis).

This guy has some excellent advice:

Maybe we all should just lay off until this issue has had a chance to get some legs. Let's give it a few months and we'll see if there's still no complaints from neighbors.

 

[Shadowy Man]

And that's really the issue isn't it? That its going to start happening

Well, no. It's not a real issue unless and until it actually does happen.

Reacting to things that you imagine might happen, as though they have actually occurred, is the definition of insanity.

There's an infinite number of things that are not illegal, but which would be very harmful and/or annoying if people started doing them. You can choose to go crazy worrying about them; Or to wait until they happen to you, and then respond in a measured and reasonable way. For example by petitioning with others (who are also affected by the actual thing that's actually happening in reality) to have the laws changed to protect you.

The people of Minneapolis would likely be able to get the law changed again, were a problem to actually arise; Until it does, they don't have any grounds to be upset, and you have even fewer such grounds (If, as I presume, you don't live in Minneapolis).

This guy has some excellent advice:

Maybe we all should just lay off until this issue has had a chance to get some legs. Let's give it a few months and we'll see if there's still no complaints from neighbors.

Local news stories state that the council approved it unanimously with the support of both the Christian and Jewish communities in the area. They also state that the council expects they could get noise complaints and that they would consider those when they come.

Given that the previous law restricted the noise to 7am or later, I think they perhaps are testing out the waters as to what will be acceptable to the community. They are erring on the side of religious freedom but nothing I have read indicates that they wouldn't change it back if there were considerable complaints from the community.

 

[Elixir]

The law also says that the noise can only be for "six (6) minutes in any one (1) hour".

https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/Download/FileV2/30594/Noise-Violation-Exemption-Ordinance.pdf

So… 12 Minutes if you split the hours?
That’s unfortunate because my tolerance for obnoxious nocturnal religious noise runs totally out at 8 minutes.

 

[bilby]

So… 12 Minutes if you split the hours?

Almost certainly not, unless you've got a very friendly judge.

Typically such statements about "x minutes in any y hours" are interpreted by courts as meaning x minutes, followed by a break of at least (y hours minus x minutes), regardless of the start time.

You could argue that six minutes from 7:54 until 8:00 is in the "7-8" hour, and that you're then allowed a further six from 8:00 to 8:06 in the "8-9" hour; but then, a judge could call you an idiot, cite precedent from other cases, uphold the complaint against you, and award costs to the plaintiff.

That's the problem with trying to leverage a technicality.

And in the unlikely event that you found a judge to agree with you and set a new precedent, legislators would just respond by using convoluted language that eliminates your preferred interpretation as a possibility.

 

[Elixir]

So… 12 Minutes if you split the hours?

Almost certainly not, unless you've got a very friendly judge.

Typically such statements about "x minutes in any y hours" are interpreted by courts as meaning x minutes, followed by a break of at least (y hours minus x minutes), regardless of the start time.

You could argue that six minutes from 7:54 until 8:00 is in the "7-8" hour, and that you're then allowed a further six from 8:00 to 8:06 in the "8-9" hour; but then, a judge could call you an idiot, cite precedent from other cases, uphold the complaint against you, and award costs to the plaintiff.

That's the problem with trying to leverage a technicality.

Phwew! Guess I can handle it.

 

[thebeave]

So… 12 Minutes if you split the hours?

Almost certainly not, unless you've got a very friendly judge.

Typically such statements about "x minutes in any y hours" are interpreted by courts as meaning x minutes, followed by a break of at least (y hours minus x minutes), regardless of the start time.

You could argue that six minutes from 7:54 until 8:00 is in the "7-8" hour, and that you're then allowed a further six from 8:00 to 8:06 in the "8-9" hour; but then, a judge could call you an idiot, cite precedent from other cases, uphold the complaint against you, and award costs to the plaintiff.

That's the problem with trying to leverage a technicality.

Phwew! Guess I can handle it.

Maybe you should forget about Muslims in Minneapolis and just count your lucky stars that Yoko Ono didn't start her own religion in your neighborhood and blasts her caterwauling every night for just two minutes:

 

[TomC]

Maybe you should forget about Muslims in Minneapolis and just count your lucky stars that Yoko Ono didn't start her own religion in your neighborhood and blasts her caterwauling every night for just two minutes:

Heh...
References to Yoko Ono fall under the "music" subcategory of Poe's Law.
Tom

 

[Politesse]

The rest of us can get a good night's sleep and not be so grumpy in the morning about those obnoxious Muslims.

Or you could just grow up and not make mountains out of molehills?

Or the Muslims could just grow up and make a bigger effort to compromise with those who don't share their values.

They complied with the law when it was weighed against them, but followed the correct process to petition the city council to accomodate their traditions. The council agreed that they had a point, probably not having meant their noise policy to be discriminatory in the first place, and the policy was revised. What part of this is "wrong"? Or by compromise do you mean "If you have a concern but you're a minority, shut the fuck up about it and don't try to change anything?" If so, I think you're confused about what compromise means. In a compromise, both sides state what it is that they want, and seek a solution that maximizes both parties' prerogatives. In this case, the council simply found the request to be reasonable, so no real compromise was needed. But that doesn't mean the mosque community wouldn't have been willing to compromise with the council, and indeed their willingness to exactly follow the law in the meanwhile constitutes evidence that they would have continued to follow the city's noise policy even if it had not changed at all.

Whereas you are not "compromising" with anything. You aren't even a part of this community, and yet are finding it necesary to take personal offense at their solution to a problem that doesn't affect you in the slightest.

 

[thebeave]

The rest of us can get a good night's sleep and not be so grumpy in the morning about those obnoxious Muslims.

Or you could just grow up and not make mountains out of molehills?

Or the Muslims could just grow up and make a bigger effort to compromise with those who don't share their values.

They complied with the law when it was weighed against them, but followed the correct process to petition the city council to accomodate their traditions. The council agreed that they had a point, probably not having meant their noise policy to be discriminatory in the first place, and the policy was revised. What part of this is "wrong"? Or by compromise do you mean "If you have a concern but you're a minority, shut the fuck up about it and don't try to change anything?" If so, I think you're confused about what compromise means. In a compromise, both sides state what it is that they want, and seek a solution that maximizes both parties' prerogatives. In this case, the council simply found the request to be reasonable, so no real compromise was needed. But that doesn't mean the mosque community wouldn't have been willing to compromise with the council, and indeed their willingness to exactly follow the law in the meanwhile constitutes evidence that they would have continued to follow the city's noise policy even if it had not changed at all.

Whereas you are not "compromising" with anything. You aren't even a part of this community, and yet are finding it necesary to take personal offense at their solution to a problem that doesn't affect you in the slightest.

If you look at the top threads of the Political Discussions forum, you'll see other threads discussing things happening in Alabama, Florida, Mississippi. So is it all of a sudden now a problem if someone from outside those states (like you and I) expresses an opinion on what's happening there? Maybe you can enlighten me as to what makes this thread different than those.

The fact is, a lot of people living in the vicinity of the mosques are not going to like getting woken up at ungodly hours. Is this something that really requires some big scientific breakthrough to predict? This is going to go on EVERY night. So why not just go with alarm clocks or the phone app idea like I suggested? I don't understand why the continued push for blasting it out for everyone to hear? It makes no sense when there are alternative solutions that are less intrusive.

 

[Politesse]

If you look at the top threads of the Political Discussions forum, you'll see other threads discussing things happening in Alabama, Florida, Mississippi. So is it all of a sudden now a problem if someone from outside those states (like you and I) expresses an opinion on what's happening there? Maybe you can enlighten me as to what makes this thread different than those

I didn't start any of those threads, nor do I know what they are all about, though if by Alabama you mean the thread about the mass shooting that occurred in that state, that is an issue -our national gun policy - that affects more than just Alabamites.

 

[Politesse]

The fact is, a lot of people living in the vicinity of the mosques are not going to like getting woken up at ungodly hours.

They, too, have the power to petotion the council for a change.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

My dog woke me up 5 times last night. He's black. I blame the Clintons. Not the modern-day Clintons, the ones from the 90's.