Minnesota has a new flag

[laughing dog]

So any exemption granted to anyone to any ordnance is de facto submission to something?

Let me ask you something else.

Why do you evade questions while expecting others to answer yours?

Why is it so important for you and a few others to defend Minneapolis and the Islamists when the policy is so wrong on its face? You'd expect an atheist forum to be more critical of politicians giving special rights to religious institutions. But when it's Islamic institutions, you are suddenly all in favor. Why?

I suggest you read the 1st Amendment to the Constitution with comprehension (unlike the response in this thread).

 

[Politesse]

Where "basic pronoia" is code for accepting that the 1st amendment, and its protection of religious affiliation as a choice that should be able to make freely without becoming government persecution, is a general legal principle in this country?

Which part of the 1st Amendment states that mosques may blast amplified calls to prayers at 3AM?
This was a political decision by a far left city council. It was not a court case before SCOTUS that argued that they had a 1st Amendment right to do this.

Once again, you're trying to divert the conversation to a topic you think is more sympathetic, to deflect attention from what you've actually written about Muslims, Islam, and American culture and law. Even if I gave two shits about Minneapolis' noise ordinances - and I assure that I most certainly do not - they would not be relevant to the issue we're discussing, which is your advocacy for specifically discriminating against Muslim citizens and spreading paranoid conspiracies about anyone whose faith is Muslim or whose patrimony is African.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Gee, I don't know anyone who struggles to cope with not everyone acknowledging the superiority of his culture as he understands it...

Whatever do you mean by this?
Let me ask you concretely: do you think Muslims should have an exception from noise ordinances? Do you think they should have the right to wake people up at 3AM by blasting chants from loudspeakers mounted on towers?

White nationalists are taking over the nation and you are still whining about Muslims.

 

[Derec]

White nationalists are taking over the nation and you are still whining about Muslims.

While I am concerned about the Trump administration, we can discuss more than one problem at he time.

Besides, you leftists were betrayed by Muslims in the 2024 election, and yet you are still simping for political Islam.

 

[Derec]

they would not be relevant to the issue we're discussing, which is your advocacy for specifically discriminating against Muslim citizens and spreading paranoid conspiracies about anyone whose faith is Muslim or whose patrimony is African.

Bullshit, as always.

 

[Derec]

I suggest you read the 1st Amendment to the Constitution with comprehension (unlike the response in this thread).

Which part of it gives exemption from noise ordinances to Muslims?

 

[Toni]

I suggest you read the 1st Amendment to the Constitution with comprehension (unlike the response in this thread).

Which part of it gives exemption from noise ordinances to Muslims?

Apparently Minneapolis ordinances allow Islamic calls to prayer. Can you show me which part of the US constitution forbids cities from enacting noise ordinances? Can you show me where the Minneapolis noise ordinance specifically grants rights to Muslims that it does not give to other citizens?

I live in a town where church bells are rung frequently. They do not bother me and in fact, I barely notice. But it took me a lot of effort and repeated letters to get the local university and the local Catholic high school who uses the university’s football field to quit blasting their football commentary so loud that I could not stand to be in my own yard, blocks away. Btw, each game lasted MUCH longer than any call to prayer —and in fact, were actually painful, bringing to near migraines if I tried to take leaves.

 

[Toni]

I suggest you read the 1st Amendment to the Constitution with comprehension (unlike the response in this thread).

Which part of it gives exemption from noise ordinances to Muslims?

Which part of the noise ordinance gives Muslims rights it dies not grant other citizens?

 

[Derec]

That's too bad because your "It's only fauxgressive internalized islamophilia that blinds you to it." is classic bigoted stupidity.

No, it's not. It's accurate description of what is commonly known as "Islamoleftism".

Yes, Christmas has a long history in the West as a holiday because Islam doesn't have a long history in the West.

And it has been ingrained in the culture that most of the holiday is quite secular. It is in no way comparable to blaring amplified calls to prayer at 3 AM.

Whether you like it or not, Muslims have the right to the free exercise of their religion guaranteed by the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.

They do. They do not have the right to wake up the whole neighborhood while doing it. If they want to be woken up at 3AM, they can set an alarm clock or use a salat app or something. There is no need to blare calls to prayer from minarets.

Really, what are the next steps now that "the camel's nose is in the tent". Be specific,.

Look at what's happening in Europe. Muslims are taking over bit by bit. Even in the US, there are instances of it. Like Hamtramck, which is entirely taken over by Islam.
Michigan city gets ready to inaugurate all-Muslim government
Hamtramck's story of islamization also started with allowing Islamic "calls to prayer" five times a day.
Mich. town upholds Muslim call to prayer
The camel stuck its nose in Hamtramck tent in 2004 with the calls to prayer, took over completely in 2021, and even helped Trump get elected in 2024 because they hate LGBT+ so much.
A Muslim Mayor Endorses Trump, and a City of Immigrants Finds Itself Undone

Only a fool would think that political Islam is not a threat to western liberalism.

You have no clue what I would do or not do. I live peaceably within earshot of the carillions or bells of 8 Christian churches.

How many of them blast amplified calls to prayer at 3 AM in the Summer?

None, but plenty ring their bells early in the morning.

But there are plenty of exemptions in the Minneapolis noise policy that are discriminatory but escape your SJW instincts.

The SJW is you. And give me some concrete examples of these "plenty of exemptions".

Nah, I am not fighting discrimination, you are. Educate yourself - Minneapolis Noise Ordinance. Section 389.60 is the relevant part.

Would I have approved the exemption as written? No.

Then why are you so hell-bent to defend it?

I am not hell-bent on anything. The people of Minneapolis have spoken through their elected representatives. As far as I know, this has not spread throughout the US. So why are you obsessed this? If you think Minneapolis is filled with leftists, then you need to get used to their lefty ideas because they are not listening to someone in Georgia whine about they wish to organize and live their lives,

But the citizens of Minneapolis seem okay with it.

All of them? Or is it the fauxgressive far-left city council that is ok with it?

You've had ample opportunity to present evidence of complaints. You have come up with nothing but your bigoted opinions. Did any of the council members lose their seats over this issue? Clearly, it is not a big deal there.

You're the one who resurrected the debate in this thread. Its you and your ilk who have problems with this. Not me.

I have not resurrected the thread. And I never accused you of having any problems with political Islam and its spread.

 

[laughing dog]

I suggest you read the 1st Amendment to the Constitution with comprehension (unlike the response in this thread).

Which part of it gives exemption from noise ordinances to Muslims?

The free exercise of religion part. Really, stop pretending to be obtuse.

 

[bilby]

It's accurate description of what is commonly known as "Islamoleftism".

Given that this is the very first time I have ever encountered the word "Islamoleftism", I strongly question your claim that anything is commonly known by that name.

It seems to me to be an excellent piece of evidence in favour of the hypothesis that you operate in a small information bubble (in which the term may well be common), but are unaware of just how atypical your experience actually is.

 

[bilby]

Look at what's happening in Europe.

I have.

Muslims are taking over bit by bit.

No, they aren't.

 

[Derec]

The free exercise of religion part. Really, stop pretending to be obtuse.

So it is your contention that Islamists can do anything they want as long they couch it as "exercise of religion"?

Would you be so sanguine about Evangelicals making similar demands? Of course not.

 

[laughing dog]

That's too bad because your "It's only fauxgressive internalized islamophilia that blinds you to it." is classic bigoted stupidity.

No, it's not. It's accurate description of what is commonly known as "Islamoleftism".

Commonly known about white nationalists. Gotcha.

Yes, Christmas has a long history in the West as a holiday because Islam doesn't have a long history in the West.

And it has been ingrained in the culture that most of the holiday is quite secular. It is in no way comparable to blaring amplified calls to prayer at 3 AM.

Are you really that obtuse? Of course it is ingrained in the culture but Islam is not. That is the entire point. And it is much more comparable to having call to prayer at 3am because it is pervasive.

Whether you like it or not, Muslims have the right to the free exercise of their religion guaranteed by the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.

They do. They do not have the right to wake up the whole neighborhood while doing it. If they want to be woken up at 3AM, they can set an alarm clock or use a salat app or something. There is no need to blare calls to prayer from minarets.

When you get to be emperor of the world, your determination of what is needed or not will be enforced. Until that time, your opinion is irrelevant on the necessity.

Really, what are the next steps now that "the camel's nose is in the tent". Be specific,.

Look at what's happening in Europe. Muslims are taking over bit by bit. Even in the US, there are instances of it. Like Hamtramck, which is entirely taken over by Islam.
Michigan city gets ready to inaugurate all-Muslim government
Hamtramck's story of islamization also started with allowing Islamic "calls to prayer" five times a day.
Mich. town upholds Muslim call to prayer
The camel stuck its nose in Hamtramck tent in 2004 with the calls to prayer, took over completely in 2021, and even helped Trump get elected in 2024 because they hate LGBT+ so much.
A Muslim Mayor Endorses Trump, and a City of Immigrants Finds Itself Undone

Only a fool would think that political Islam is not a threat to western liberalism.

Perhaps it is a threat to western liberalism. But it is not as big a threat to it in the US as white Christian nationalists and their ilk.

 

[laughing dog]

The free exercise of religion part. Really, stop pretending to be obtuse.

So it is your contention that Islamists can do anything they want as long they couch it as "exercise of religion"?

No. No one can do anything they want under the Constitution rights have limits.

Would you be so sanguine about Evangelicals making similar demands? Of course not.

Your projections reflect much more you than on their targets.

 

[Emily Lake]

So any exemption granted to anyone to any ordnance is de facto submission to something?

Are you, as an atheist, actually supporting the government granting an exemption from law on the basis of a specific religion, when such an exemption imposes recognition of that religion on people who do not share that faith? You're supporting the government showing favoritism to a religion?

 

[Emily Lake]

I suggest you read the 1st Amendment to the Constitution with comprehension (unlike the response in this thread).

Which part of it gives exemption from noise ordinances to Muslims?

The free exercise of religion part. Really, stop pretending to be obtuse.

I have skepticism. I mean, sure, free exercise of religion, no problem. Imposition of religion on people who don't share that view, however, is not something I've seen you support in the past. I could be wrong, but I believe you supported requiring cake makers to bake same-sex wedding cakes, even if their religion were opposed to it - in that case, you didn't believe that the first amendment granted anyone the right to impose their personal religious beliefs on others.

There is a gray area - there are some practices that reasonable can be accommodated on religious grounds, and there are some practices that should NOT be accommodated on religious grounds because doing so interferes with the rights of others.

Granting special exceptions to laws that impact the well-being of others on the basis of a specific religion is something I think merits debate and consideration.

 

[laughing dog]

So any exemption granted to anyone to any ordnance is de facto submission to something?

Are you, as an atheist, actually supporting the government granting an exemption from law on the basis of a specific religion, when such an exemption imposes recognition of that religion on people who do not share that faith? You're supporting the government showing favoritism to a religion?

Unless you can show that city of Minneapolis has denied similar requests from other religions, your question has no basis in fact.

And atheism or theism has nothing whatsoever to do with the logic that granting an exemption means de facto submission.

 

[laughing dog]

I suggest you read the 1st Amendment to the Constitution with comprehension (unlike the response in this thread).

Which part of it gives exemption from noise ordinances to Muslims?

The free exercise of religion part. Really, stop pretending to be obtuse.

I have skepticism. I mean, sure, free exercise of religion, no problem. Imposition of religion on people who don't share that view, however, is not something I've seen you support in the past. I could be wrong, but I believe you supported requiring cake makers to bake same-sex wedding cakes, even if their religion were opposed to it - in that case, you didn't believe that the first amendment granted anyone the right to impose their personal religious beliefs on others.

When you can make a convincing case that a call to prayer is an imposition of religious beliefs on others while the ringing of church bells is not, then I will consider your question as relevant.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I suggest you read the 1st Amendment to the Constitution with comprehension (unlike the response in this thread).

Which part of it gives exemption from noise ordinances to Muslims?

The free exercise of religion part. Really, stop pretending to be obtuse.

I have skepticism. I mean, sure, free exercise of religion, no problem. Imposition of religion on people who don't share that view, however, is not something I've seen you support in the past. I could be wrong, but I believe you supported requiring cake makers to bake same-sex wedding cakes, even if their religion were opposed to it - in that case, you didn't believe that the first amendment granted anyone the right to impose their personal religious beliefs on others.

It doesn't cost me a damn cent, nor denies me my dignity if there are prayer calls.

If one has to rummage around looking for a baker that doesn't worship a god that has outdated rules on cakes, that costs one time and money and deprives one of dignity.

Meanwhile...

It is French, but it was one of the funniest parts of this classic.