Minneapolis submits voluntarily

[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 If the current law was passed with a strong12-0, do you really think there is a chance in hell that it would get rescinded? At least under the current city council. It's easy to give out a priveledge to someone, but a lot harder to take it away once they've gotten accustomed to it.

 

[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?

I think he is wrong because he misses the fundamental issues here. In my view expressed in post 115, the two fundamental issues in this situation are
1) the trade off between religious freedom vs tolerable social behavior , and
2) equal treatment of religious practices.

Come again? What difference does it make whether thebeave "misses the fundamental issues here"? Either the city council would relax the noise ordinance for his hypothetical sect or it wouldn't; either leftists here would support the sect's request or they wouldn't. Thebeave can be as insightful or as oblivious as you please and that has no rational bearing on your expectation of what third parties would do.

If the hypothetical sect practice was a recognized as well-established for the same period of time as Ramadan, I think thebeave's skepticism is unwarranted.

Huh? What's Ramadan got to do with it? The noise ordinance was changed to allow 3:30 AM amped broadcasts year round, not just during Ramadan.

As fas as your fundamental issues go, "tolerable" is in the ear of the beholder; a noise ordinance that allows no one to amp their 3:30 AM broadcasts treats religions equally; and the Holy Quran does not well-establish amplifiers as part of the required rite.

If that hypothetical sect's practice was not recognized as well-established or for a longer period of time or if there was serious organized opposition (which was not the case in Minneapolis, at least according to the reports I saw), then I think the request would likely be denied but that it would not indicate a double standard.

What does "well-established" mean? Are you special-pleading because thebeave's example can't be "well-established" since it's about MAGA? Fine. Suppose it wasn't MAGA Ted Nugent fans but just a band of hippies who put up a Baptist church after they moved to Minneapolis from some town in Texas where for 50 years they'd had a well-established tradition of broadcasting amped Larry Norman albums at dawn to call people to their church service. I think the request would likely be denied. Don't you?

 

[jonatha]

So the sum total of the change to the prior ordinance was to reduce the amount of time a house of worship can make noise from 10 minutes per hour to 6, to include amplified sounds (including amplified bells) in the list of permitted sources of noise, and to eliminate the restriction on permitted hours.

Sombody call out the National Guard

 

[Shadowy Man]

So the sum total of the change to the prior ordinance was to reduce the amount of time a house of worship can make noise from 10 minutes per hour to 6, to include amplified sounds (including amplified bells) in the list of permitted sources of noise, and to eliminate the restriction on permitted hours.

Sombody call out the National Guard

It would seem the elimination of the restriction on the permitted hours is the great offender here. Only time will tell whether and how this impacts the community there.

I personally think the prior 7am restriction seemed reasonable to me and would be against lifting that but I don’t live in that community so it’s not up to my opinion on the matter.

 

[laughing dog]

Fine. Suppose it wasn't MAGA Ted Nugent fans but just a band of hippies who put up a Baptist church after they moved to Minneapolis from some town in Texas where for 50 years they'd had a well-established tradition of broadcasting amped Larry Norman albums at dawn to call people to their church service. I think the request would likely be denied. Don't you?

No.

 

[TSwizzle]

I don't support the restriction of any faith's customary traditions.

That would include FGM.

Derail denied.

Loss of an argument duly noted.

Willing to "lose an argument" in this case. I have no interest in getting into yet another "side discussion" about genitals that becomes the thread.

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?

I think what you really mean is that you support any faith's customary traditions as long as it's not the (white) christian faith and the fact that the 3:00am call to prayer noises up said (white) christians is a plus.

 

[Politesse]

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. This is not the case. But the Minneapolis community has broken no law. And I'm uninterested in getting side-tracked into every Muslim or quasi-Muslim practice you hold an objection to, when none of them are relevant to the situation at hand.

 

[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.

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.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The insane part of all this is this is an easily solvable problem with a "win/win" for both sides. A Muslim (or non-Muslim, even) with very basic programming capability could create a free smartphone app that tracks the sunrises and sunset through out the year at a specific location and sends out a ringtone to all users 5 times time a day at the correct time through out the year. Users could even personalize the app to change the ringtone tune/message or skip some of the notifications in case they are already sleep deprived or keep their baby from waking up, etc. The rest of us can get a good night's sleep and not be so grumpy in the morning about those obnoxious Muslims. And yes, there are likely some low income, recent immigrant Muslims who can't afford a phone or cell service. In that case, the mosque can create a private fund funded by the more well off Muslims to get them phones and train them how to use it. The other functions of the smartphone will help better their lives in other ways. Some may counter this idea by saying that using a phone app is not in keeping with traditional, old school Muslim calls to prayer, but guess what? Neither is blaring it out through a 21st century amplifier and loud speaker in keeping with ancient Muslim ways.

I don't understand why this has become so difficult. There are a lot of social issues we discuss here that don't have any easy satisfying solution for both sides. Such as transpeople using public gyms and restrooms, abortion rights, etc. This one seems like a no brainer.

It's the right solution but they need to be treated the same as church bells. Either all religions or none, you don't get to pick and choose who gets to make noise.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

I think there's also the issue that if they oppose the measure the Muslims will likely sue and win about discrimination.

 

[Elixir]

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.

I think there's also the issue that if they oppose the measure the Muslims will likely sue and win about discrimination.

This is America.
If anyone complains the Council should track them down and shoot them.

 

[Shadowy Man]

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.

I think there's also the issue that if they oppose the measure the Muslims will likely sue and win about discrimination.

If the measure applies to all religions equally (which it did) I doubt they could win on that. However, if “reasonable accommodation” can be made then they should get their religious liberty. The trick, as usual, is in defining “reasonable”.

 

[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.

 

[Politesse]

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.

 

[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?

 

[Rhea]

My nearby town has a whistle that sounds every morning at 7am (and again at noon and 5pm).
I can hear it from inside my house. It is 6 miles away.

The smaller town that lies between me and that whistle, also has a whistle. Theirs blows at 6am, noon and 6pm, plus whenever the firefighters are needed, night or day. I can hear that one, too. It’s 4 miles away.

My own town used to have a whistle. It broke a few years back (15?) it used to blow at 7am, noon and 6pm, and for the firefighters. I miss it, I wish they’d replace it. It’s only 3.5 miles away.

These whistles are obviously pretty loud. But there are not really any complaints. Nostalgia. Except for the poor benighted tourists in the hotel right next to the whistle. They get a little shocked.


That said, I’m not a fan of noisy religions. I would go listen to the various arguments, but someone would have to do some serious convincing to get me to side with “no sound limit.” Also for Harleys. They should be required to muffle. There is no excuse. I like a nice rumbly motor as much as the next hillbilly, but I support a decibel limit.

 

[Politesse]

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.

 

[Derec]

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.

 

[TV and credit cards]

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.

I think there's also the issue that if they oppose the measure the Muslims will likely sue and win about discrimination.

If the measure applies to all religions equally (which it did) I doubt they could win on that. However, if “reasonable accommodation” can be made then they should get their religious liberty. The trick, as usual, is in defining “reasonable”.

"Reasonable accommodation" is based on a need, a need in education, employment, or housing. It is also to ensure access for the disabled all that is available to the public. Reasonable is to set your alarm like every other person will do and has done when they want to be awaken from sleep. Far from being a reasonable, I think a court would consider it an "undue burden" on all who have no intention of observing this religious practice during quiet hours.

 

[Shadowy Man]

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.

I think there's also the issue that if they oppose the measure the Muslims will likely sue and win about discrimination.

If the measure applies to all religions equally (which it did) I doubt they could win on that. However, if “reasonable accommodation” can be made then they should get their religious liberty. The trick, as usual, is in defining “reasonable”.

"Reasonable accommodation" is based on a need, a need in education, employment, or housing. It is also to ensure access for the disabled all that is available to the public. Reasonable is to set your alarm like every other person will do and has done when they want to be awaken from sleep. Far from being a reasonable, I think a court would consider it an "undue burden" on all who have no intention of observing this religious practice during quiet hours.

And if this gets taken to court that may indeed be the outcome. We shall see. Many laws get passed, get challenged, and get overturned in the court system.

I personally think they should have stuck with the 7am restriction as I find that to be reasonable.