Minneapolis submits voluntarily

[Toni]

This is an article from a few years ago about the Somali diaspora, emphasizing on Minneapolis.https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/us/minneapolis-somalis-george-floyd.html?unlocked_article_code=kRHB9ZqGOGc4MvHtezVUY2yxqzkKEedZ57AoKOlKFqCtGddx01XgFcBQVG2ybIzTx7bQxHXDL4gwGv52aZAMm5IHTzzlVykXW6sJF_tb74ogEWsOqi3I9QV93u5IiZjkdUqMql2510dkrXxrEZ2cygpVJzmzC7jBxYZ7OdqisWVAtXMHQzwsettVxwK7XxnhmZEmhxsp2BOizeqIDdcL6owHRtpd9cQkcCxYnbx54skegd6DwBwplDMH3tZ-NPHMt5OIOY9Se2QHa6kuYsummolObLntLEuExcmUaRAOsdpXJM5ih5wkt9spOUTRcy-JxCZyHdW942PlQwhtMQpcOiH4xl-O&giftCopy=3_Independent&smid=url-share

You do know it's easy to make a properly formatted hyperlink? You don't have to just dump an unparsed url like that.
Do this:
In Minneapolis, Somali-Americans Find Unwelcome Echoes of Strife at Home

I think it’s a fairly mild article about some of the issues faced by Somali immigrants in Minnesota.

It's pretty biased. Esp. links with George fucking Floyd. He wasn't even a Somali.
Let's examine, shall we?

“See, I love America, but I’m scared” said Mr. Yusuf, who works as an Uber driver. He started to cry. “Being a black man, I feel it’s not only that you have to die, but when you die, you will not get justice unless you have evidence of video. And then you have to take it to the next level, with protests. And then still you have to destroy properties just to get justice.”

This is a common attitude on the woke left, but completely ridiculous. The chances of anybody, including black people, to be killed by police are very low. If you don't do stupid shit like shoot at police while conducting an illegal gun deal, the chances are infinitesimal. A black person is much more at risk of being killed by his or her fellow blacks than by police or a white civilian.
And of course, people do not have to "destroy properties". That's just apologetics for rioting.

Somali refugees like Mr. Yusuf, facing war and conflict at home, have been emigrating to the United States in large numbers since the 1990s and the country is home to about 7 percent of the Somali diaspora. Minnesota is home to more than 57,000 Somalis, the largest concentration in the country.

As I said before, big mistake. Most Somalis are Islamists and not compatible with western societies.

Since 2012, some stability has been restored because of a new, internationally backed government, but it still faces threats from Al Shabab militants aligned with Al Qaeda.

And many Minnesota Somalis have been joining Al Shabab, as well as ISIS more recently.

“I couldn’t distinguish between being in Somalia and being in St. Paul,” said Omar Jamal, 45, who works in a sheriff’s office in St. Paul and who came to the United States in 1997.

If the 2020 Insurrection resembled the situation in Somalia, that is due to the rioters breaking stuff, looting from stores, setting things of fire and generally being a destructive mob.

Now, “seeing military on the streets, there is only one question that crosses my mind,” he said. “When are they going to start shooting? I’ve seen this before. It’s very scary, and it’s very depressing.”

Quite hyperbolic.

Mr. Jamal has been working with Somali youths who complain to him about being police targets because of their skin color.

Just because they say that, does not mean that's true.

According to the city’s own figures, about 20 percent of Minneapolis’s population of 430,000 is black. But nearly 60 percent of people who are subjected to police violence — kicks, neck holds, punches, shoves, Mace, Tasers or other forms of force — are black. [...]That means the police used force against black people at a rate at least seven times that of white people in the past five years.

And what percentage of crime - esp. violent crime do they commit? Wokesters never ask themselves that question.

Mr. Trump has also tightened sanctions on Somalia and criticized the resettlement of Somali refugees in Minneapolis, calling Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, who is from Somalia, “a disgrace to our country.”

When he's right, he's right.

And tensions — at times fatal — between Somali immigrants and police officers are common. A Somali-American, Isak Abdirahman Aden, 23, was shot to death in July after a standoff with five police officers. Community members questioned whether officers had reason to fire. No charges were filed.

No charges should have been filed, given that he was armed and fired a shot.
No charges in fatal officer-involved shooting following Eagan standoff

Isak Abdirahman Aden was killed July 2 after an hours-long standoff in which he at times held a gun to his head and refused police orders to move away from it. Witnesses say the situation began when Aden pulled a gun on his ex-girlfriend and ordered her to drive them away from her residence. According to a report released Wednesday by the Dakota County Attorney's Office, Aden was shot after he picked up the gun and raised his arm. The report says one officer from Eagan and four Bloomington officers feared for the lives of other officers and fired their weapons. It was later determined that Aden also fired his gun.
[..]
"Three flashbangs were ignited and thrown towards Aden. Less lethal munitions were also fired by two officers and it is believed two of these struck Aden. Unfortunately Aden did not surrender and instead got up from a seated position, lunged for the gun near him, picked it up and began to raise his right hand with the gun in it. It was later determined Aden fired the gun after he picked it up. Fearing for the life of the numerous law enforcement officers at the scene, five police officers at that time fired lethal rounds, a number of which struck and killed Aden. This entire incident, from the time of the deployment of the first flashbang until the lethal rounds were fired, occurred within about six seconds."

Now, why has Kimiko de Freytas-Tamura neglected to mention that fact? Because it does not fit the anti-police narrative that she has been pushing.

“I am George Floyd. I am here today because of him.”

Why? Did Mr. Yusuff rob a pregnant woman at gunpoint too?

So, a pretty ridiculous article. Equating the George Floyd riots with the civil war in Somalia was particularly idiotic. NY Times used to be better than that.

TL/DR right now: Derec, I subscribe to the NYT and thought I'd gift the article so that everyone can read it. So I clicked on the link that said gift, copied it, as instructed, and pasted it. I've done so several times in the past with other articles from publications to which I subscribe. I'm sorry that the formatting displeased you. OTOH, I realize just how much joy you take in correcting other people for the faults you perceive in their writing, typing, grammar, etc. I wish you much joy.

Came back, read through your comments and really don't see the point in wasting my time addressing what you see as valid points and what I see as rank bigotry.

 

[laughing dog]

TL/DR right now: Derec, I subscribe to the NYT and thought I'd gift the article so that everyone can read it. So I clicked on the link that said gift, copied it, as instructed, and pasted it. I've done so several times in the past with other articles from publications to which I subscribe. I'm sorry that the formatting displeased you. OTOH, I realize just how much joy you take in correcting other people for the faults you perceive in their writing, typing, grammar, etc. I wish you much joy.

Came back, read through your comments and really don't see the point in wasting my time addressing what you see as valid points and what I see as rank bigotry.

The irony of calling any article ridiculous by originator of this OP is overwhelming.

 

[thebeave]

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.

True, but how likely is that change to happen? If the current law was passed with a strong12-0, do you really think there is a chance in hell that it would get rescinded?

Absolutely zero chance. Which means that your "solution" to the "problem" in Minneapolis would changing a situation that no one there sees as a problem, and violating the most basic democratic principle of honoring a consensus majority to do it. A minority group brought a concern before the city council, and the council voted unanimously to adjust their policy accordingly. This is exactly how the American system of representative democracy is supposed to work, and the only reason you have presented to object to it is, charitably, anti-religious prejudice.

How do you conclude that from what I have written?

 

[Elixir]

I freely admit to an anti-religious prejudice.
It’s time to move past antiquated superstitious beliefs and ground ourselves in reality, no matter how harsh.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

True, but how likely is that change to happen? If the current law was passed with a strong12-0, do you really think there is a chance in hell that it would get rescinded?

Absolutely zero chance. Which means that your "solution" to the "problem" in Minneapolis would changing a situation that no one there sees as a problem

So let me get this straight. You stipulate that there's absolutely zero chance of rescinding this new policy, and yet you deduce that no one there sees it as a problem just from the observation that there's no organized opposition?!? Seriously? Have you, um, considered the possibility that a lot of the people living in the vicinity of the mosques who are not going to like getting woken up at ungodly hours in fact do see it as a problem, but simply chose not to organize a campaign, precisely because there's absolutely zero chance of rescinding it? People have better things to do with their lives than fight battles they can't win. Duh!

, and violating the most basic democratic principle of honoring a consensus majority to do it. A minority group brought a concern before the city council, and the council voted unanimously to adjust their policy accordingly. This is exactly how the American system of representative democracy is supposed to work, and the only reason you have presented to object to it is, charitably, anti-religious prejudice.

So you have evidence that if the noise ordinance had been changed to accommodate a bunch of transplanted Four Aces guys who wanted to hold 3:30 AM motorcycle races in Minneapolis residential areas, thebeave would have no objection, do you?

How do you conclude that from what I have written?

Charitably? Anti-infidel prejudice.

 

[TomC]

So let me get this straight. You stipulate that there's absolutely zero chance of rescinding this new policy, and yet you deduce that no one there sees it as a problem just from the observation that there's no organized opposition?!? Seriously?

I will grant that "absolutely zero chance" was overly strong wording, coming from someone who lives in a different state. But Jarhyn lives in Minneapolis and he seems to think the same thing. I assume the city council is even more familiar with the issues and their constituents, they voted 12-0 to pass. How about "effectively zero chance"?

If the prevailing culture of Minneapolis is "who cares about a bit more(comparatively melodious) background noise?", then that's almost certainly going to impact the decisions of the local(elected) government. A few curmudgeonly cranks probably won't change their minds.
Tom

 

[Toni]

Minnesota is an interesting state. It is fairly reliably blue, thanks to the couple of blue urban areas but also with union support in the region of the state that was home to iron ore mining. The vast overwhelming portion of Minnesota's geography is rural and is either farming or heavily forested, with logging still an industry. Most of the European based population originated in Norway, with a handful of Swedes and even a few Finlanders in the mix, along with Germans and Polish people and of course, a smattering of French and a bit more from the British Isles. They are heavily Catholic and Lutheran, but are also quite tolerant of other religious affiliations, with a smattering of anti-semetic and anti-Muslim hate crimes over the recent years. With so much of its culture based on farming principles, and by farming, I mean old time farming where farmers got together to help each other out, there is a strong mixture of neighborliness and cooperation and also a strong sense of independence and self reliance. Minnesota has become host to a couple of significant diasporas: Hmong people and Somali immigrants. Hmong people are now relatively well integrated. Somalis are much less so, partially because their immigration is much more recent and also partially because they are darker skinned and Muslim. Many of the Hmong are Christian.

Minnesota schools have the greatest racial disparities among student achievement in the country. While they welcome the Somali immigrants, along with immigrants from other African nations, they are much less tolerant of African Americans whose ancestors have been in what is now the US for 150+ years. The immigrants, you see, came over the 'right' way and want to be here. Indians are also somewhat tolerated and also sometimes horribly discriminated against.

I find it interesting that Minneapolis is so willing to accommodate the calls to prayer of mosques. Of course, this is in Minneapolis, which, along with St. Paul (they are called the twin cities because they sit on either side of the Mississippi River which is the most populated region of the state by a significant amount, and also very significantly more diverse. There are now more than 150 mosques in Minnesota. By contrast there are about 30 synagogues in Minnesota.

 

[TSwizzle]

No but you could just admit that when you said "I don't support the restriction of any faith's customary traditions" is that you didn't really mean it. I don't think for one minute you would support forced marriage of underage girls, do you?

You've taken my statement to mean that I think no religious group should be subject to the requirements of the law.

No, I took your statement "I don't support the restriction of any faith's customary traditions" at face value. There's no mention of within the US/State law in your statement. It's all clear now though.

You found a "face value" you wanted to find, that's all.

Well why would you state you don’t support ANY restrictions when clearly you would support restricting some religious traditions and then pretend the words you wrote don’t mean what they say.

I do not, in fact, support the restriction of any faith's customary traditions, especially in a targeted fashion. That doesn't mean I think religious people should not be subject to the law, or that the law doesn't need to balance between the differing prerogatives of the various cultural and religious communities it is meant to serve. It just means that the law should aim not to be unduly discriminatory when it is possible to avoid. All of the specific issues you bring up are complicated, and worth a discussion on their own that is more complex than a derail to a thread about mosques and loudspeakers.

Oh ffs, of course you do, with the added caveat that you agree that such restrictions are within the law. If FGM wasn't against the law in this country (USA), you'd be all for a restriction on it.

 

[Derec]

Derec, I subscribe to the NYT and thought I'd gift the article so that everyone can read it. So I clicked on the link that said gift, copied it, as instructed, and pasted it. I've done so several times in the past with other articles from publications to which I subscribe. I'm sorry that the formatting displeased you.

I was just trying to help a Boomer out. It's much nicer to have properly formatted links instead of dumping it as unclickable plain text.

Came back, read through your comments and really don't see the point in wasting my time addressing what you see as valid points and what I see as rank bigotry.

Just casting aspersions and accusing me of "rank bigotry" is lazy. What in particular do you find objectionable, and why?
I explained my reasoning as to why the article is bad and unworthy of NY Times standards. You should too explain your reasoning.

 

[IIDB Staff]

Just a friendly reminder to ADDRESS THE ARGUMENT AND NOT THE PERSON. Thank you.

 

[Politesse]

If FGM wasn't against the law in this country (USA), you'd be all for a restriction on it.

Please stop putting words in my mouth. I don't see either male or female circumcision as a problem with an easy or obvious solution, and I don't see that they have anything to do with the topic at hand. If you want to talk about kids' genitals and what you prefer them to look like, start a new thread on that topic.

 

[TSwizzle]

If FGM wasn't against the law in this country (USA), you'd be all for a restriction on it.

Please stop putting words in my mouth.

Am I wrong to assume that you would want to restrict such a tradition? Say it isn’t so.

I don't see either male or female circumcision as a problem with an easy or obvious solution, and I don't see that they have anything to do with the topic at hand.

You have a problem with male circumcision? It has everything to do with you stating you don’t want any restrictions of faith traditions.

If you want to talk about kids' genitals and what you prefer them to look like, start a new thread on that topic.

Not particularly, how about forced marriage or women covering up when out in public. Whose side would you be on in Iran. I’d like to think you’d be on the side of the protesters but you never know.

 

[Politesse]

You have a problem with male circumcision? It has everything to do with you stating you don’t want any restrictions of faith traditions.

There's such a thing as finding something morally wrong, but not believing that authoritarian, top-down solutions are the best way to get across that idea.

 

[Bomb#20]

Of course, people can express whatever opinions they wish, but that does not make them valid or accurate predictions of what will occur.

True. I can't help noticing you declined my invitation to express your own opinion. That might be because your opinion is that thebeave's opinion was valid and an accurate prediction of what would occur in the hypothetical. Do you think he's wrong?

Yes. This is an empirically testable question. There are many locations with church bells in US and Western world. In some locations, they go on each hour, or each fifteen minutes. Uncommon, but they exist as more frequent than Minneapolis. More common is ringing at 6am. We can observe posts in this thread and threads started in the forum. No progressive ever posted a complaint about these Christian noises while excusing Muslim noise pollution. In fact, the exact opposite happened ala Derec and this thread where Derec has ignored Christian noise pollution. Yet here we are at this point in the thread with claims by thebeave as empty as Bill O'Reilly's alleged War On Christmas by atheists...and you defending him.

You're constructing a false analogy, by ignoring the issue of who was there first and by conflating acceptance of the status quo with acceptance of changes to the status quo. Regardless of how we may feel about a church that rings its bells every fifteen minutes, if it's been been doing it since 1880 people who bought into the vicinity were probably warned about it in their houses' real estate disclosures. That's not the same thing as buying into a quiet neighborhood and then having newcomers bring on the insomnia. So if you want to accuse Derec of ignoring Christian noise pollution, find us a news story for him not to have reacted to, about a town changing its noise ordinance because some church that since 1880 has been ringing at 6am now wants to switch to the every-fifteen-minutes-all-night pattern.

I don't think you're going to find one. The long-term trend in America has been for pushy Christians to be reducing their impositions on the rest of us, not increasing them; the mere fact that we're patiently not demanding they cut it to zero on a dime should not be taken as meaning we have to put up with backsliding. Letting a noise source switch its noise pollution from 7AM to 3:30AM is backsliding. Minneapolis churches are bell-ringing like it's 2023; why should the neighbors now have to start waking up for somebody else's dawn prayers just because there are new guys in town who want to make believe it's still 1880?

 

[Jarhyn]

No but you could just admit that when you said "I don't support the restriction of any faith's customary traditions" is that you didn't really mean it. I don't think for one minute you would support forced marriage of underage girls, do you?

You've taken my statement to mean that I think no religious group should be subject to the requirements of the law.

No, I took your statement "I don't support the restriction of any faith's customary traditions" at face value. There's no mention of within the US/State law in your statement. It's all clear now though.

You found a "face value" you wanted to find, that's all.

Well why would you state you don’t support ANY restrictions when clearly you would support restricting some religious traditions and then pretend the words you wrote don’t mean what they say?

If FGM wasn't against the law in this country (USA), you'd be all for a restriction on it.

Please stop putting words in my mouth.

Am I wrong to assume that you would want to restrict such a tradition? Say it isn’t so.

I don't see either male or female circumcision as a problem with an easy or obvious solution, and I don't see that they have anything to do with the topic at hand.

You have a problem with male circumcision? It has everything to do with you stating you don’t want any restrictions of faith traditions.

If you want to talk about kids' genitals and what you prefer them to look like, start a new thread on that topic.

Not particularly, how about forced marriage or women covering up when out in public. Whose side would you be on in Iran. I’d like to think you’d be on the side of the protesters but you never know.

I think you miss an important point that reasonable people recognize as existing, and you seem to be blind to:

When nobody is allowed to do a thing, then it is not "restricting a tradition", it is "restricting a clear behavior".

Hopefully you are not against a tradition of Aztec sacrifice, but rather "all ritual murder".

It's not "restricting a tradition" but restricting ANY tradition in which..."

There's a big difference there, and I have yet to see you parse it cleanly.

 

[Bomb#20]

Not the worst thing a person can hear at 0330. And if it doesn't pertain to you, you'll learn to sleep through it soon enough.

Speak for yourself.

point 1: speak for yourself and your own sleep habits.

You will fall asleep and stay asleep. You will learn to ignore it in very short order. People who don't know this are people who have had a lifetime of largely undisturbed sleep.

Check your sound-sleeper privilege. "You will fall asleep and stay asleep." is yelling "Get a job!" at a blind beggar. People who don't know they will learn to ignore it in very short order might be people who have had a lifetime of largely undisturbed sleep; then again, they might be people who have had a lifetime of insomnia and sleep maybe four hours on a good night and can rarely get back to sleep once something wakes them up.

I have an entire navy I can cite as evidence that human beings will sleep through various noises and lighting, day in, day out, month after month and still be well rested.

At sea if you work at night and sleep during the day, you can expect the following:
-Regular announcements over the PA system
-Preceded by the shrill of the Boatswains pipe
-Ship's bell indicating the hour and half hour if you can see the irony in that
-Locker doors slamming
-Coffin rack lids slamming
-Water tight doors slamming
-Firing of 5" diameter guns
-Lights on while cleaning is going on
-Assholes talking just the other side of your curtains
-And of course copious creative inconceivables

Funny, none of my doctors ever told me the cure was to join the navy.

 

[Bomb#20]

There is no doubt that people pushing for islamic noise pollution are for islamization of America, otherwise they would be content with using alarm clocks.

Based on comments I've seen from Muslim immigrants on this topic, what they appear to be for islamization of isn't America; it's their own kids. The call of the muezzin is a nostalgic memory from their home countries and a lot of them are unhappy about their kids growing up deprived of it. Of course call-to-prayer phone apps exist, and they're heavily used here; but why would a parent be content with that when it means having to have a fight with his teenager to make him turn the app on every night? So much easier and less confrontational when the call comes from outside and none of them have a choice about it and it isn't the parent imposing it.

 

[Bomb#20]

What do you mean when you say the city council and this "woke leftist" forum appear to bestow a higher stack position on Muslims than on Christians?

I and several others here do not believe for a second that Minneapolis would have relaxed its noise ordinance if the organizations requesting permission to amp at 3:30 in the morning had been churches instead of mosques. And if, say, the Jackson, Mississippi city council had relaxed its noise ordinance because churches requested permission to amp at 3:30 in the morning, I and several others here do not believe for a second that Politesse, Patooka, Swami, bilby, Don2, TV, ld, and scombrid would be attacking the iidb posters who criticized it.

Christian churches in America have been allowed to make loud noises for centuries.

But they aren't getting worse.

The city council voted to grant Muslim mosques the same privilege. That's equal treatment under the law, not a higher stack position.

No it didn't and no it isn't. The Muslim mosques already had the same privilege and equal treatment -- they've been operating under the same noise ordinance the Christian churches were complying with. If the mosques weren't asking for greater privileges than the churches had, then they wouldn't have needed any change in the noise ordinance.

Is it the possibility of obnoxious noises at 3:30 am that's bothering you?

A wise person said, "With that said, I think the 3:30am Muslim call to prayer should definitely have a limit on allowable decibels. Really, any noise generated between 9pm and 6am should be limited, including from cars and those obnoxious Harleys."

Why don't we wait and see how loud the call to prayer is before we declare that it's excessive?

Because if the Muslim leaders don't intend to be excessive, why would they have asked the council to remove the limits?

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

Well, if we're going to sweat the mathematical distinction between zero risk and ridiculously small but positive risks approaching zero, the risk of the US becoming an Islamic theocracy is non-zero too. The only thing with zero risk is immortality, tax-free.

 

[Arctish]

What do you mean when you say the city council and this "woke leftist" forum appear to bestow a higher stack position on Muslims than on Christians?

I and several others here do not believe for a second that Minneapolis would have relaxed its noise ordinance if the organizations requesting permission to amp at 3:30 in the morning had been churches instead of mosques. And if, say, the Jackson, Mississippi city council had relaxed its noise ordinance because churches requested permission to amp at 3:30 in the morning, I and several others here do not believe for a second that Politesse, Patooka, Swami, bilby, Don2, TV, ld, and scombrid would be attacking the iidb posters who criticized it.

Christian churches in America have been allowed to make loud noises for centuries.

But they aren't getting worse.

The city council voted to grant Muslim mosques the same privilege. That's equal treatment under the law, not a higher stack position.

No it didn't and no it isn't. The Muslim mosques already had the same privilege and equal treatment -- they've been operating under the same noise ordinance the Christian churches were complying with. If the mosques weren't asking for greater privileges than the churches had, then they wouldn't have needed any change in the noise ordinance.

Is it the possibility of obnoxious noises at 3:30 am that's bothering you?

A wise person said, "With that said, I think the 3:30am Muslim call to prayer should definitely have a limit on allowable decibels. Really, any noise generated between 9pm and 6am should be limited, including from cars and those obnoxious Harleys."

Why don't we wait and see how loud the call to prayer is before we declare that it's excessive?

Because if the Muslim leaders don't intend to be excessive, why would they have asked the council to remove the limits?

I don't know exactly why.

My impression was the Christian and Jewish faith leaders supported the mosque petition to lift the restrictions because they don't have restrictions on their call to prayer or bell ringing and they didn't want the limits on the mosque to be placed on them. I think the city council went along with it because that's a fight they don't need to have right now.

If the Muslim call to prayer becomes a problem, then the city council will have to come up with a limit on decibel levels and a curfew for all the houses of worship doing their worship thing, and the cops will have to enforce them.