Minneapolis submits voluntarily

[Elixir]

Do I think everyone in TX is a fascist? Of course not. But too many are, and hiding behind the christo part, which, actually has nothing to do with the fascism.

Hmm. Somehow, lines like “I am the way”…”only through me” … “I alone can fix it” … all get mixed up in my head until fascist and religious figureheads become all the same thing.

 

[scombrid]

The fact that none of the people wringing their hands over MN "submitting voluntarily" are expressing any opposition to christofascism in Texas is taken as tacit approval.

The christofascism in Texas hasn't even been enacted into law -- so far it's just posturing by blowhards. And if an actual law ever actually gets passed it will be overturned in the courts.

Seems pending theocratic law layered on top of other existing and pending theocratic laws is a little more insidious than removing some restriction that may result in noise pollution. I hate noise and love noise ordinances but I just can't be bothered about this accommodation compared to the christofascism being legislated in so many states.

 

[Bomb#20]

The christofascism in Texas hasn't even been enacted into law -- so far it's just posturing by blowhards. And if an actual law ever actually gets passed it will be overturned in the courts.

Seems pending theocratic law layered on top of other existing and pending theocratic laws is a little more insidious than removing some restriction that may result in noise pollution. I hate noise and love noise ordinances but I just can't be bothered about this accommodation compared to the christofascism being legislated in so many states.

It's not as though the bill requires anybody in a Texas school to be punished for having some other god before "me". All the bill would do is remove some restriction on the light pollution schoolchildren get exposed to. Why is making nonvolunteers see Judeo-Christo-Islamic religious commands an iota more of a "theocratic law" than making nonvolunteers hear specifically Islamic religious commands?

As far as insidiousness goes, Christianity is a dying religion and progressivism is an expanding religion. Enacting the progressive stack into law looks a bit more fascist than passing a bill doomed to be overturned in some court of appeals.

 

[scombrid]

Hell of a death rattle from the dying religion. But government posting the 10C in its schools, banning abortion, etc... is definitely preferable to those fascist progressives. And government posting religious commands in its schools is exactly the same as being annoyed by noise from those brown people that annoy you anyway and that is effectively no different than any other loud music or exhaust pipes etc... in a public space.

 

[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?

Um, yeah, the government has done away with limits so many times when I asked them to accommodate my plans.

Non-responsive and stupid. Nice touch.

Does it? Most people who intend to respect their neighbors ask the government to repeal laws requiring them to respect their neighbors, do they?

Assuming facts not in evidence.

Whereas a lawsuit would have been much cheaper for the mosques than asking in advance?

Maybe. Maybe not.

Can does not equal will…..

According to you it does, otherwise you would not argue that the mosques intend (i.e will) to have excessively noisy call to prayers.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Plenty of opposition to the new christofascist abortion laws has been expressed. Labeling it "christofascist" to disagree with TRAs about whether children are capable of informed consent to irreversible body modifications of dubious medical benefit and established medical harm is itself fascist. The In God We Trust law is same-old-same-old -- people get bored of refighting losing battles against "ceremonial deism" -- but it's a stupid and evil law and you may consider this our expression of opposition to it.

There is very little support for irreversible body modifications for minors. Puberty blockers are not irreversible.

And it's not merely ceremonial deism--rather, the intent is to portray Christianity as the standard, accepted practice rather than a choice.

And that's just a senate bill, not a law. Vast numbers of idiocies are passed by one house and disappear into committees in the other house, never to emerge. And Ten Commandments bills that become law usually lose in the courts to First Amendment challenges.

You trust the current SCOTUS to actually respect the 1st?? They've already shit on it with Dobbs, why do you think they won't again?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Opposition may be expressed but law is law and it's not likely to be overturned by this USSC. Also, I believe a Federal judge in TX tried to remove mifepristone from FDA approval. That case is pending and I'm not holding my breath.

Do I think everyone in TX is a fascist? Of course not. But too many are, and hiding behind the christo part, which, actually has nothing to do with the fascism.

So far the mifepristone one is stayed by SCOTUS--but the fact that it was stayed rather than instantly trashcanned is very alarming.

 

[Toni]

Plenty of opposition to the new christofascist abortion laws has been expressed. Labeling it "christofascist" to disagree with TRAs about whether children are capable of informed consent to irreversible body modifications of dubious medical benefit and established medical harm is itself fascist. The In God We Trust law is same-old-same-old -- people get bored of refighting losing battles against "ceremonial deism" -- but it's a stupid and evil law and you may consider this our expression of opposition to it.

There is very little support for irreversible body modifications for minors. Puberty blockers are not irreversible.

And it's not merely ceremonial deism--rather, the intent is to portray Christianity as the standard, accepted practice rather than a choice.

And that's just a senate bill, not a law. Vast numbers of idiocies are passed by one house and disappear into committees in the other house, never to emerge. And Ten Commandments bills that become law usually lose in the courts to First Amendment challenges.

You trust the current SCOTUS to actually respect the 1st?? They've already shit on it with Dobbs, why do you think they won't again?

Puberty blockers do cause some permanent changes. A common use is to stop early puberty, allowing individuals to grow up a bi t and to gain some height. Once the puberty blockers are stopped, the individual goes through puberty and does NOT lose the height gained.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Plenty of opposition to the new christofascist abortion laws has been expressed. Labeling it "christofascist" to disagree with TRAs about whether children are capable of informed consent to irreversible body modifications of dubious medical benefit and established medical harm is itself fascist. The In God We Trust law is same-old-same-old -- people get bored of refighting losing battles against "ceremonial deism" -- but it's a stupid and evil law and you may consider this our expression of opposition to it.

There is very little support for irreversible body modifications for minors. Puberty blockers are not irreversible.

And it's not merely ceremonial deism--rather, the intent is to portray Christianity as the standard, accepted practice rather than a choice.

And that's just a senate bill, not a law. Vast numbers of idiocies are passed by one house and disappear into committees in the other house, never to emerge. And Ten Commandments bills that become law usually lose in the courts to First Amendment challenges.

You trust the current SCOTUS to actually respect the 1st?? They've already shit on it with Dobbs, why do you think they won't again?

Puberty blockers do cause some permanent changes. A common use is to stop early puberty, allowing individuals to grow up a bi t and to gain some height. Once the puberty blockers are stopped, the individual goes through puberty and does NOT lose the height gained.

True, but a bit of extra height is something most people would favor.

 

[Bomb#20]

... is exactly the same as being annoyed by noise from those brown people that annoy you anyway ...

And there it is, the trumped-up baseless accusation of racism, the go-to rhetorical tactic of those who have no substantive argument, and know it.

 

[Bomb#20]

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

Project much?

Um, yeah, the government has done away with limits so many times when I asked them to accommodate my plans.

Non-responsive and stupid. Nice touch.

Are you under the impression that "Project much?" is a content-free pejorative like "Booooo!!!"? You were plainly accusing me personally of having the same attitude toward laws against my behaving antisocially as the attitude I imputed to the Muslim leaders. So it is perfectly responsive for me to point out that I do not wish to behave antisocially and I do not ask the government to remove those laws. Your accusation was a baseless ad hominem.

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.

Does it? Most people who intend to respect their neighbors ask the government to repeal laws requiring them to respect their neighbors, do they?

Assuming facts not in evidence.

You certainly were. What is your evidence that using the proper civic procedures to request permission to run an amplifier at 3:30 AM suggests that they intend to be respectful of their neighbors?

Can does not equal will…..

According to you it does, otherwise you would not argue that the mosques intend (i.e will) to have excessively noisy call to prayers.

The Minneapolis city council has always had the authority to revisit previously chosen policy. It didn't need to ask the state to relax the overarching Minnesota "No revisiting old decisions" law in order to get that authority. If there had been such a state law, and if Minneapolis had requested that it be repealed so that it would be able to revisit its muezzin decision were the need to arise, then I'd be a lot more inclined to believe they will revisit the decision. This is not rocket science.

 

[Bomb#20]

Plenty of opposition to the new christofascist abortion laws has been expressed. Labeling it "christofascist" to disagree with TRAs about whether children are capable of informed consent to irreversible body modifications of dubious medical benefit and established medical harm is itself fascist. The In God We Trust law is same-old-same-old -- people get bored of refighting losing battles against "ceremonial deism" -- but it's a stupid and evil law and you may consider this our expression of opposition to it.

There is very little support for irreversible body modifications for minors. Puberty blockers are not irreversible.

Sure they are. They delay the onset of puberty; they do not compensate by also delaying the end of puberty. If you use puberty blockers for the first half of puberty and then go off them, you irreversibly live with the consequences of having had half as much puberty as you would otherwise have had. IIRC, increased risk of osteoporosis is one of the permanent side effects.

And it's not merely ceremonial deism--rather, the intent is to portray Christianity as the standard, accepted practice rather than a choice.

"Ceremonial deism" is what the SCOTUS calls "In God We Trust". They claim that since it doesn't mention Jesus and since Christians and Jews and Muslims and Deists all believe in God, it's nondiscriminatory and doesn't portray Christianity as the standard, accepted practice. Sure, we atheists see establishing abstract God-belief as still a 1st Amendment violation; and sure, calling it "ceremonial deism" sounds like gaslighting and the government probably really means Christianity; but the point is, they have a story that gives them plausible deniability and they're sticking to it, so fighting against "In God We Trust" is a losing battle and we might as well focus on battles we can win.

And Ten Commandments bills that become law usually lose in the courts to First Amendment challenges.

You trust the current SCOTUS to actually respect the 1st?? They've already ... with Dobbs, why do you think they won't again?

I lost you. Dobbs wasn't a 1st Amendment case. From what I've seen, the justices have generally been pretty supportive of the 1st Amendment, for all their awfulness on other matters. They respect it vastly more than progressives typically do.

 

[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?

Um, yeah, the government has done away with limits so many times when I asked them to accommodate my plans.

Non-responsive and stupid. Nice touch.

Are you under the impression that "Project much?" is a content-free pejorative like "Booooo!!!"? You were plainly accusing me personally of having the same attitude toward laws against my behaving antisocially as the attitude I imputed to the Muslim leaders. So it is perfectly responsive for me to point out that I do not wish to behave antisocially and I do not ask the government to remove those laws. Your accusation was a baseless ad hominem.

You are mistaken. My comment referred to your "if they don't intende to be excessive..." conjecture.

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.

Does it? Most people who intend to respect their neighbors ask the government to repeal laws requiring them to respect their neighbors, do they?

Assuming facts not in evidence.

You certainly were. What is your evidence that using the proper civic procedures to request permission to run an amplifier at 3:30 AM suggests that they intend to be respectful of their neighbors?

You are mistaken once again. Reread the bold-faced italicized portion above. I assumed no facts in evidence. On the other hand, your leading question assumed the mosque leadership did not intend to respect their neighbors. Really, this is not rocket science.

Can does not equal will…..

According to you it does, otherwise you would not argue that the mosques intend (i.e will) to have excessively noisy call to prayers.

The Minneapolis city council has always had the authority to revisit previously chosen policy. It didn't need to ask the state to relax the overarching Minnesota "No revisiting old decisions" law in order to get that authority. If there had been such a state law, and if Minneapolis had requested that it be repealed so that it would be able to revisit its muezzin decision were the need to arise, then I'd be a lot more inclined to believe they will revisit the decision. This is not rocket science. I have no idea why you are bringing up some hypothetical about some mythical state law and the city of Minneapolis asking the state for anything.

I have no idea why you are going on about the city of Minneapolis asking the state about some non-existent state law.

I simply pointed out that your arguments conflate "can" with "will". Noting that mosques can make loud bothersome noise to their neighbors does not mean that they will. Really, this is not rocket science, not matter how hard you try to make it so.

Whether or not these calls to prayer become a noise problem is an empirical question. Despite your illogical claims, there is no evidence at this time to suggest that
1) there will be a problem,
2) that if a problem arises, that the mosques will not be good neighbors, or
3) that if a problem arises and the mosques do not respond in good neighborly manner, that the city council will not revisit the ordnance to effectively address the issue.

I recognize that religion in the US gets outsized deference, regardless of my views on that matter. I don't agree with the change in the ordnance, but I don't see this development meriting the hysterical OP rhetoric nor the attacks on it. On the whole, it seems to me that a wait and see attitude makes the most sense.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You trust the current SCOTUS to actually respect the 1st?? They've already ... with Dobbs, why do you think they won't again?

I lost you. Dobbs wasn't a 1st Amendment case. From what I've seen, the justices have generally been pretty supportive of the 1st Amendment, for all their awfulness on other matters. They respect it vastly more than progressives typically do.

I was referring to Dobbs as ignoring the Constitution in general, rather than any specific part of the Constitution.

 

[TSwizzle]

A Michigan city with an all-Muslim government has banned LGBTQ+ flags from public areas after a bizarre hours-long meeting that saw displays of passion from both sides. The Hamtramck City Council meeting took a turn when a woman wearing a clown nose made a speech mocking the council and its majority-Muslim population before kissing a woman standing next to her Tuesday night. 'Sure, many Hamtramck residents have fled countries where being gay is a death sentence, but nothing says we have to make it 'comforting' and 'welcoming' here,' the woman said on Tuesday night. 'While we can't legally discriminate against LGBTQ people in the United States anymore, the City of Hamtramck can say, 'Ew, no, be proud somewhere else.'' The meeting was so well attended people were listening from the hallways as council members said the Pride flag clashed with the beliefs of some members of their faith. 'You guys are welcome,' council member Nayeem Choudhury said. '(But) why do you have to have the flag shown on government property to be represented? You´re already represented. We already know who you are.' 'We want to respect the religious rights of our citizens,' Choudhury said.

Daily Mail

Fair point.

 

[Shadowy Man]

A Michigan city with an all-Muslim government has banned LGBTQ+ flags from public areas after a bizarre hours-long meeting that saw displays of passion from both sides. The Hamtramck City Council meeting took a turn when a woman wearing a clown nose made a speech mocking the council and its majority-Muslim population before kissing a woman standing next to her Tuesday night. 'Sure, many Hamtramck residents have fled countries where being gay is a death sentence, but nothing says we have to make it 'comforting' and 'welcoming' here,' the woman said on Tuesday night. 'While we can't legally discriminate against LGBTQ people in the United States anymore, the City of Hamtramck can say, 'Ew, no, be proud somewhere else.'' The meeting was so well attended people were listening from the hallways as council members said the Pride flag clashed with the beliefs of some members of their faith. 'You guys are welcome,' council member Nayeem Choudhury said. '(But) why do you have to have the flag shown on government property to be represented? You´re already represented. We already know who you are.' 'We want to respect the religious rights of our citizens,' Choudhury said.

Daily Mail

Fair point.

The problem here is that they are allowing some flags and not others. If they ban *all* flags then they can at least say they are being consistent. Otherwise, I don't see how it survives application of the 1st amendment.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A Michigan city with an all-Muslim government has banned LGBTQ+ flags from public areas after a bizarre hours-long meeting that saw displays of passion from both sides. The Hamtramck City Council meeting took a turn when a woman wearing a clown nose made a speech mocking the council and its majority-Muslim population before kissing a woman standing next to her Tuesday night. 'Sure, many Hamtramck residents have fled countries where being gay is a death sentence, but nothing says we have to make it 'comforting' and 'welcoming' here,' the woman said on Tuesday night. 'While we can't legally discriminate against LGBTQ people in the United States anymore, the City of Hamtramck can say, 'Ew, no, be proud somewhere else.'' The meeting was so well attended people were listening from the hallways as council members said the Pride flag clashed with the beliefs of some members of their faith. 'You guys are welcome,' council member Nayeem Choudhury said. '(But) why do you have to have the flag shown on government property to be represented? You´re already represented. We already know who you are.' 'We want to respect the religious rights of our citizens,' Choudhury said.

Daily Mail

Fair point.

The problem here is that they are allowing some flags and not others. If they ban *all* flags then they can at least say they are being consistent. Otherwise, I don't see how it survives application of the 1st amendment.

Exactly. They're singling out speech based on it's content, the courts will come down hard on that.