Minneapolis submits voluntarily

[laughing dog]

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

Project much?

I can think of a number of reasons. Perhaps they asked for the most lenient outcome because they expected to engage in dialogue to come up with an acceptable limit. Perhaps they did not want a limit because they feared they would be harassed if they were alleged to have exceeded it by 0.0001 decibels. Perhaps a city official told them the city would come up with a limit. I suspect there are more possible innocent reasons.

The fact these Muslims used the proper civic procedures to request a change suggests to a non- reactionary alarmist that they intend to be respectful of their neighbors. After all, they could have blared away and instituted a lawsuit against the infringement against the violation of their 1st amendment rights. Regardless of the merits of such a case, it would be an expense to the city and socially divisive.

As a number of posters have pointed out (and that the reactionaries seem unable to grasp) that if there is a resulting noise issue, the city council can revisit the change and make alterations.

 

[Jarhyn]

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

Project much?

I can think of a number of reasons. Perhaps they asked for the most lenient outcome because they expected to engage in dialogue to come up with an acceptable limit. Perhaps they did not want a limit because they feared they would be harassed if they were alleged to have exceeded it by 0.0001 decibels. Perhaps a city official told them the city would come up with a limit. I suspect there are more possible innocent reasons.

The fact these Muslims used the proper civic procedures to request a change suggests to a non- reactionary alarmist that they intend to be respectful of their neighbors. After all, they could have blared away and instituted a lawsuit against the infringement against the violation of their 1st amendment rights. Regardless of the merits of such a case, it would be an expense to the city and socially divisive.

As a number of posters have pointed out (and that the reactionaries seem unable to grasp) that if there is a resulting noise issue, the city council can revisit the change and make alterations.

And... Why is Bomb trying to argue that things are being done improperly and in a way that violates the needs of a place against... Exactly the two people who have more than 0 stake in the matter?

Like, I'm pretty sure if that mosque is the one I think it is, I've been past it no less than 800 times, met a good number of their worshippers, and am more than able to hear (or more accurately NOT hear because it doesn't exist) any complaints about the call to prayer.

Hell, one of the reasons people live on this end of the city is so they won't be bothered about stupid shit on behalf of Karen. There are a few things I find "too much" but they are far and away more than a call to prayer.

The reason calls to prayer get fucking stupid, especially in the middle east, is when there are two big mosques in proximity to each other each running their own call to prayer, and it's a different call. I also know this from experience.

 

[TSwizzle]

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.

If the city council is made up of a majority of muslims, I doubt they will do anything to help the infidel or kufr.

 

[Shadowy Man]

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.

If the city council is made up of a majority of muslims, I doubt they will do anything to help the infidel or kufr.

City Council

The Council makes the laws that govern the City. Each Council Member is elected from one of thirteen separate wards.

www.minneapolismn.gov

Oh. Did you mean to say “were” instead of “is”?

 

[TomC]

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.

If the city council is made up of a majority of muslims, I doubt they will do anything to help the infidel or kufr.

It isn't.
The number I saw somewhere was 3 of 13 members Muslim.
Tom

 

[Politesse]

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.

If the city council is made up of a majority of muslims, I doubt they will do anything to help the infidel or kufr.

It isn't.
The number I saw somewhere was 3 of 13 members Muslim.
Tom

Very telling error, mistaking common decency for adherence to Islam.

 

[TomC]

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.

If the city council is made up of a majority of muslims, I doubt they will do anything to help the infidel or kufr.

The city council is also an elected body.

If this ordinance is unpopular, the constituents will be quite able to vote the rascals out. Something that they all knew when they voted to pass it, without even a single "nay" vote.
Tom

 

[jonatha]

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.

But mosques don't use bells, chimes, or carillons.

(Not immediately clear why the existing "sounds associated with religious worship" exception didn't already meet the case...)

 

[Toni]

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.

If the city council is made up of a majority of muslims, I doubt they will do anything to help the infidel or kufr.

Really. You think that the Minneapolis Minnesota city council has a majority of Muslim members????

I get that you believe that Muslims all think alike and support this ruling. You’d be wrong about that as well:
At the risk of offending anyone because the gift link didn’t work properly, I’m still providing a link and text from a recent letter to the editor regarding this issue:

Readers Write: The call to prayer, social-justice education in the schools, teachers and unions and literacy

Today's Muslims (including me) have other, unobtrusive options.

m.startribune.com

I am a practicing Muslim, and I totally disagree with Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey's decision to allow all five of the calls to prayer to be broadcast in Minneapolis. I personally find the call to prayer to be very powerful, and it reminds me of my days growing up in a Muslim country. However, I think that the early morning and evening calls to prayer will disturb non-practicing Muslims or non-Muslims. I think that it is entirely inappropriate to foist this "noise" at such a time on people who have no affinity to such a thing and who will be disturbed and annoyed by it. It will just lead to negative feelings about the faith of Islam. I don't think we need any more of that.

 

[TSwizzle]

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.

If the city council is made up of a majority of muslims, I doubt they will do anything to help the infidel or kufr.

Really. You think that the Minneapolis Minnesota city council has a majority of Muslim members????

I have no idea how many members are muslims. I did say "if".

I get that you believe that Muslims all think alike and support this ruling.

You have no idea what I do and do not believe.

 

[TomC]

You have no idea what I do and do not believe.

We do, however, have a good idea about what you're willing to post on the internet.
Tom

 

[Derec]

As a number of posters have pointed out (and that the reactionaries seem unable to grasp) that if there is a resulting noise issue, the city council can revisit the change and make alterations.

Just because they can does not mean they will. It's not politically correct nor "woke" to be against special privileges for Muslims these days. And the city council is composed of 3 Muslims and 9 useful idiots who went along with the maximalist Muslim noise ordinance with no questions asked. Not to mention mayor Jacob the Spineless.

 

[Toni]

As a number of posters have pointed out (and that the reactionaries seem unable to grasp) that if there is a resulting noise issue, the city council can revisit the change and make alterations.

Just because they can does not mean they will. It's not politically correct nor "woke" to be against special privileges for Muslims these days. And the city council is composed of 3 Muslims and 9 useful idiots who went along with the maximalist Muslim noise ordinance with no questions asked. Not to mention mayor Jacob the Spineless.

Minnesota has a large population of Catholics and of Lutherans. Especially Catholic Churches love to ring bells. Does it not occur to you that by accommodating the Muslims’ request to be able to have their calls to prayer that this also strengthens precedent for other religious sounds? I realize that this is primarily an atheist forum but surely you can see the utility here for those who support religious expression.

I strongly suspect you know absolutely nothing about any of the Minneapolis city council members, aside from the fact that three are Muslim, much less what issues and ordinances they support or how they vote on matters that come before the council. Calling 9 non-Muslims useful idiots because they voted a way that you disagree with—in a city located in a state where you do not live and likely have never even visited is hardly evidence of your own thoughtful open mindedness.

 

[laughing dog]

As a number of posters have pointed out (and that the reactionaries seem unable to grasp) that if there is a resulting noise issue, the city council can revisit the change and make alterations.

Just because they can does not mean they will. It's not politically correct nor "woke" to be against special privileges for Muslims these days. And the city council is composed of 3 Muslims and 9 useful idiots who went along with the maximalist Muslim noise ordinance with no questions asked. Not to mention mayor Jacob the Spineless.

Your conjectures and fears reflect on you, not the Minneapolis city council members or the community at large.

 

[scombrid]

All this handwringing over a city lifting an ordinance and not a peep over Texas Senate voting to force all government schools to post the 10C.

 

[Derec]

All this handwringing over a city lifting an ordinance and not a peep over Texas Senate voting to force all government schools to post the 10C.

I doubt anybody here disagrees about that being wrong and stupid. So you won't get much discussion about it, even though it was posted (in the "Republican legislation" thread)
When it comes to Islam though, the usual suspects on here are going to defend it. So we get much discussion on things like 3:30am no dB limit amplified Islamic calls to prayer.

 

[Derec]

Your conjectures and fears reflect on you, not the Minneapolis city council members or the community at large.

You are wrong. They reflect on the city council and the quisling mayor.

Speaking of the city council, one of the members is Jamal Osman, a Somali Muslim. As well as an anti-semite and homophobe.
Minneapolis Councilman Jamal Osman apologizes for anti-gay, antisemitic posts

Osman, who was elected in the 6th Ward in a special election in 2020 and is up for re-election in 2023, took to Facebook in October 2012 to argue in favor of a proposed constitutional amendment that would have banned gay marriage.
He also wrote, “Voting yes means you against this discussing (sic) act” and said gay marriage “will invite end of days.”The following month, Osman wrote in Somali, “May god damn these non-Muslims” and CNN for “kissing Israel’s a**. Jews will never be pleased unless you follow their ways.” After someone agreed with him, Osman replied in Somali, “Where’s Hitler when you need him?” In September 2011, Osman wrote on Facebook, “We live in the United States of Israel” and said former President Barack Obama shouldn’t get the Nobel Peace Prize, calling him a “slave of the Jewish lobby, AIPAC. LONG LIVE PALESTINE!”[...]In January 2013, Osman posted a video from a pro-Palestine website about “Israeli Jews assaulting Africans in Tel Aviv” and wrote “I can see why Palestinians don’t want (to) share land with these dogs.”

Note that the DFL party did not pressure him to resign or anything of that nature. Imagine the outcry if a white Republican wrote something even a fraction this nasty.

 

[bilby]

we get much discussion on things like 3:30am no dB limit amplified Islamic calls to prayer.

Hypothetical 3:30am no dB limit amplified Islamic calls to prayer.

I don't think many people here would support these in actuality. But that doesn't mean they should be illegal.

Things should only be illegal if they will actually happen, and will cause actual harm to actual people, if they're not illegal.

Outrage over 3:30am no dB limit amplified Islamic calls to prayer can wait until there are 3:30am no dB limit amplified Islamic calls to prayer about which to be outraged.

Outrage over non-events is currently a major source of instability in our society. Islamic calls to prayer are not.

 

[Derec]

Minnesota has a large population of Catholics and of Lutherans. Especially Catholic Churches love to ring bells.

Not at 3:30 in the morning. Not at unlimited dB levels.

Does it not occur to you that by accommodating the Muslims’ request to be able to have their calls to prayer that this also strengthens precedent for other religious sounds?

I doubt that had anything to do with why they voted for the Muslim noise ordinance. I think it's a mixture of left-wing ideology (the Minnesota city council is known for being far left) and fear of being called "racist" and "Islamophobic" if one dare oppose the measure.

I strongly suspect you know absolutely nothing about any of the Minneapolis city council members,

I do. I just posted some interesting facts about one of the Muslim councilors.

aside from the fact that three are Muslim, much less what issues and ordinances they support or how they vote on matters that come before the council.

So what do you know about them? I remember this:
Minneapolis City Council members intend to defund and dismantle the city’s police department

Calling 9 non-Muslims useful idiots because they voted a way that you disagree with—in a city located in a state where you do not live and likely have never even visited is hardly evidence of your own thoughtful open mindedness.

That is a good descriptor of what they are: they are being manipulated into advancing Islamist agenda.
As to it being about a different city and state from my own - so what? We often discuss matters from other place on here. How many of us live in Mississippi? And yet there is a thread about the anti-trans law there.

 

[Derec]

Hypothetical 3:30am no dB limit amplified Islamic calls to prayer.

They demanded these things for a reason. Why demand them if you don't plan on using them?
And I have already shown that the pre-dawn prayer occurs before 4AM in Minneapolis in Summer.

I don't think many people here would support these in actuality.

Why not?

But that doesn't mean they should be illegal.

Noise ordinances exist for a reason. Something does not need to have happened already for me to be against it.

Things should only be illegal if they will actually happen, and will cause actual harm to actual people, if they're not illegal.

3:30AM calls to prayer were not happening before because they were illegal. Now they will be happening.

Outrage over 3:30am no dB limit amplified Islamic calls to prayer can wait until there are 3:30am no dB limit amplified Islamic calls to prayer about which to be outraged.

One can express an opinion about a misguided ordinance before it is fully implemented.
This is like saying we should not be against a proposed abortion ban until a woman or a doctor is actually prosecuted under it. It's a silly restriction on debate.

Islamic calls to prayer are not.

Question: are Islamists in Australia allowed to blast the muezzin wailing in the middle of the night? Or are you more sane down under than in Minneadishu?