Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Has Religious Tolerance Gone Too Far?; Accomodation versus Assimilation
Topic Started: Aug 12 2005, 06:46 AM (585 Views)
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
who
Aug 13 2005, 11:52 PM
I think if we go back to the original article it is about noise and religion. As Muslims gain political power in communities then Islamic law will prevail within the confines of current US law.

This ties in with the other thread where traditional Americans are rapidly becoming a minority. Saudi Arabia is pouring huge amounts of money into the construction of Mosques and Islamic centers in the US. There is an invasion of America through its southern border. America is being attacked on all fronts.

Considering the widely different cultures of Saudi Arabia and Mexico, the America of today will change into an entirely different culture. There are other major factors at work and the America of the future will be far different from the America of today.

You know I think the same thing was said about the Irish immigrants many years ago.

If Muslims gain political power in communities through legal and constitutional means - so be it. If they are the majority in these communities and set up law by legal and constitutional means – so be it. Why is this seen as a problem? Same with South American immigrants.


Now if they are doing it in an non-legal or non-constitutional manner, than that must be stooped. But in that case it is a matter of legal vs illegal not “traditional” (what ever that means) Americans vs these groups.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
Swidden
Aug 13 2005, 12:04 AM
24thcenstfan
Aug 12 2005, 02:57 PM
2) I don’t need to hear someone else’s religious doctrine forced down my throat five times a day.  If I had kids, I wouldn’t want them to hear "Allah is great...Mohammed is Allah's prophet...come to prayer. There is no god but Allah" either when I don’t subscribe to that philosophy.  Even if it is in Arabic.

I lump church bells in with #1.  If they are constantly going off and at weird times of the day, I would probably have a problem with them as well.

And yet, Allah is Yaweh is Jehovah and so on...

Is he? :shrug: Was Mohammed really a prophet? :shrug:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
psyfi
Aug 13 2005, 02:32 AM
If the problem is just the noise factor, then it is up to the community to decide as they have done with church bells. In some communities, it is a "no" and in others it is a "yes" and still others it is a "yes with some restrictions." I don't think the noise is the crux of the matter. It is should I be held a captive audience to your preaching? It is one thing to be out in public and evangelized. You are free to walk away, or argue a different metaphysical notion, or whatever. If you are in your house and have to listen to other's views of who is God and who is his prophet and there is no escape and you have to do it five times a day, it seems a bit much. Granted it is not forced submission to the religion otherwise death but there is still a small element of being forced and it is not so small when you consider five times a day three hundred and sixty five days a year. I just don't want to be a captive audience to another's preaching 1, 825 times a year.

Exactly!
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
24thcenstfan
Aug 13 2005, 09:17 PM
Swidden
Aug 13 2005, 12:04 AM
24thcenstfan
Aug 12 2005, 02:57 PM
2) I don’t need to hear someone else’s religious doctrine forced down my throat five times a day.   If I had kids, I wouldn’t want them to hear "Allah is great...Mohammed is Allah's prophet...come to prayer. There is no god but Allah" either when I don’t subscribe to that philosophy.   Even if it is in Arabic.

I lump church bells in with #1.  If they are constantly going off and at weird times of the day, I would probably have a problem with them as well.

And yet, Allah is Yaweh is Jehovah and so on...

Is he? :shrug: Was Mohammed really a prophet? :shrug:

Technically, yes. They are all variations and interpretations of the same deity. Obiviously as Christian I do not see Mohammed as a prophet. My point is only that the source deity is one and the same for Christian, Muslim, and Jewish believers. To say that "There is no God but Allah," is simply a repetition of one of the Ten Commandments: "I am the Lord, your God. You shall have no other God before Me."
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
Swidden
Aug 14 2005, 12:48 AM
24thcenstfan
Aug 13 2005, 09:17 PM
Swidden
Aug 13 2005, 12:04 AM
24thcenstfan
Aug 12 2005, 02:57 PM
2) I don’t need to hear someone else’s religious doctrine forced down my throat five times a day.   If I had kids, I wouldn’t want them to hear "Allah is great...Mohammed is Allah's prophet...come to prayer. There is no god but Allah" either when I don’t subscribe to that philosophy.   Even if it is in Arabic.

I lump church bells in with #1.  If they are constantly going off and at weird times of the day, I would probably have a problem with them as well.

And yet, Allah is Yaweh is Jehovah and so on...

Is he? :shrug: Was Mohammed really a prophet? :shrug:

Technically, yes. They are all variations and interpretations of the same deity. Obiviously as Christian I do not see Mohammed as a prophet. My point is only that the source deity is one and the same for Christian, Muslim, and Jewish believers. To say that "There is no God but Allah," is simply a repetition of one of the Ten Commandments: "I am the Lord, your God. You shall have no other God before Me."

I will just let my last reply to you stand.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
Okay.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
psyfi
psyfi
Swidden
Aug 13 2005, 11:48 PM
My point is only that the source deity is one and the same for Christian, Muslim, and Jewish believers. To say that "There is no God but Allah," is simply a repetition of one of the Ten Commandments: "I am the Lord, your God. You shall have no other God before Me."

I disagree with this, at least a bit. Just as the name is different, so too many of the characteristics, qualities, and attributes that Christians and Muslims believe to be the Nature of God. In other words, they do seem to be talking about a different Entity. Regarding Mohammad being a prophet, Catholics do NOT view him as a prophet and have taught through the ages that he is in hell.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
psyfi
psyfi
Dandandat
Aug 13 2005, 09:25 PM
psyfi
Aug 13 2005, 08:16 PM
^^^
Dan, I think that in most cases the laws on noise would not allow the Muslim call to prayer since they have repeatedly, in many communities, disallowed church bells and/or allowed them with heavy restrictions.

Yes, we disagree about what constitutes being a captive audience.  I notice that you seem to insist on perceiving me as taking offense to hearing opposing religious beliefs which I actually find kind of amusing, especially if you will remember that in my first comments on this article I mentioned that I have and listen to the Muslim Call to prayer and think it is beautiful. In my particular case, if I was forced to listen to a local mosque calling folks to prayer five times a day, I would actually bend down and pray on said occasions even though I am a Christian as I don’t like to turn down opportunities for prayer. The fact is that it is not hearing opposing views of religion I object to, it is being forced to do so. I would object to this if the views had no religion in them at all and were political or on some other topic.

If its a noise issue, then the local government must do what they think best.

If they deem it fine however and you do not mind hearing the religiousness of others then what’s the problem?

The problem is that I don't cotton to being forced to do anything, even stuff I enjoy. If, however, I lived in a community where the community as a whole found it permissible and it didn't violate any existing laws, then I would not fight it.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
who
Have light saber. Will travel.
Dandandat
Aug 13 2005, 11:12 PM
who
Aug 13 2005, 11:52 PM
I think if we go back to the original article it is about noise and religion. As Muslims gain political power in communities then Islamic law will prevail within the confines of current US law.

This ties in with the other thread where traditional Americans are rapidly becoming a minority. Saudi Arabia is pouring huge amounts of money into the construction of Mosques and Islamic centers in the US. There is an invasion of America through its southern border. America is being attacked on all fronts.

Considering the widely different cultures of Saudi Arabia and Mexico, the America of today will change into an entirely different culture. There are other major factors at work and the America of the future will be far different from the America of today.

You know I think the same thing was said about the Irish immigrants many years ago.

If Muslims gain political power in communities through legal and constitutional means - so be it. If they are the majority in these communities and set up law by legal and constitutional means – so be it. Why is this seen as a problem? Same with South American immigrants.


Now if they are doing it in an non-legal or non-constitutional manner, than that must be stooped. But in that case it is a matter of legal vs illegal not “traditional” (what ever that means) Americans vs these groups.

My concerns are two. We are in a world war where Islam wishes to take over the world. A foreign power (Saudi Arabia) is pouring huge amounts of cash to build Mosques and Islamic centers in the US. I do not believe the intent is to blend into the American culture but to replace it. In the US we try to protect the rights of minorities. I do not believe that an Islamic community would do the same based on the tolerance in Muslim countries.

As far as the invasion across the southern border, it is not legal.

The US is under attack from without and within and most are asleep.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
There are multiple issues in this. I think the biggest issue is not about any noise, but about noise that people specifically don't want to hear. The church bells are ok for people that want to hear them, but not necessarily for those who don't. The same is true for the Islamic call to prayer.

Some unwanted noises are considered necessary. I don't particularly like my neighbors' lawn mower noise at any time of day - heck, I don't like my own - but it's acceptable noise because I know that I would like a neighborhood full of sloppy property even less. There's a practical reason for the noise. My neighbor's blaring stereo on the other hand is not practical or necessary and therefore not acceptable.

In addition to noise that is not desired, religion adds another dimension because it's more than just annoying noise - it's a message. This is especially true with the Islamic call to prayer where the message is a verbal. If we are going to allow any group to broadcast their belief systems like this, then we would also have to allow more undesirable groups to do the same. How about Satanic calls to worship? How about KKK meeting calls? How about political meeting calls? Where does it end?

In the interest of public peace, I see no reason why any of these groups can't keep their public gatherings among themselves. If the issue is to make sure members know when the meetings are being held, then they should establish predictable times - either a specific clock-driven time or an identifiable time like "sundown". I mean there must be some reason for the times they choose. So make the parameters known to everyone and there goes the need for public noise.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
who
Aug 13 2005, 11:52 PM
I think if we go back to the original article it is about noise and religion. As Muslims gain political power in communities then Islamic law will prevail within the confines of current US law.

How do you go from Muslims gaining political power in specific communities (an assumption in itself by the way) to Islamic law prevailing within US law?

Quote:
 
This ties in with the other thread where traditional Americans are rapidly becoming a minority. Saudi Arabia is pouring huge amounts of money into the construction of Mosques and Islamic centers in the US. There is an invasion of America through its southern border. America is being attacked on all fronts.
Attacked? "Traditional Americans" all came as minorities and from other countries (except American Indians). What you speak of is our melting pot, not an attack.

Quote:
 
Considering the widely different cultures of Saudi Arabia and Mexico, the America of today will change into an entirely different culture. There are other major factors at work and the America of the future will be far different from the America of today.
Not because it will be taken over by Arabs and Mexicans.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
ImpulseEngine
Aug 14 2005, 07:54 PM
There are multiple issues in this. I think the biggest issue is not about any noise, but about noise that people specifically don't want to hear. The church bells are ok for people that want to hear them, but not necessarily for those who don't. The same is true for the Islamic call to prayer.

Some unwanted noises are considered necessary. I don't particularly like my neighbors' lawn mower noise at any time of day - heck, I don't like my own - but it's acceptable noise because I know that I would like a neighborhood full of sloppy property even less. There's a practical reason for the noise. My neighbor's blaring stereo on the other hand is not practical or necessary and therefore not acceptable.

In addition to noise that is not desired, religion adds another dimension because it's more than just annoying noise - it's a message. This is especially true with the Islamic call to prayer where the message is a verbal. If we are going to allow any group to broadcast their belief systems like this, then we would also have to allow more undesirable groups to do the same. How about Satanic calls to worship? How about KKK meeting calls? How about political meeting calls? Where does it end?

In the interest of public peace, I see no reason why any of these groups can't keep their public gatherings among themselves. If the issue is to make sure members know when the meetings are being held, then they should establish predictable times - either a specific clock-driven time or an identifiable time like "sundown". I mean there must be some reason for the times they choose. So make the parameters known to everyone and there goes the need for public noise.

How about they broadcast on a specific radio channel that people can tune into in the privacy of thier own homes or in thier cars in order to hear the call to prayer.

Those who don't want to hear don't have to tune in that way :)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
WayneSTOSfan
Aug 14 2005, 12:29 AM
The Musical sound of church bells are VERY different than VOICES over loudspeakers.....

THE more important issue is not being addresed here...

The whole diversity/tolerance camp is creating a bunch of little fiefdoms all over the US...NONE of these groups is trying to fit into the greater whole ANYmore!!!

ALL ealier waves of immigrants asimilated ..the Diversity crowd is creating a bunch of BALKANIZED outposts ready to go to ...oh lets just call it WAR with each other....

THE whole notion of bi-ligual teaching just reinforces the you stay over there I'll stay over here mentality...

IT was one of the greatest mistakes ever made!!!

I lived very near a major roman catholic monestary / cathedral when I was a kid and they had very loud bells in the bell tower - not loudspeakers - big bells which were run in call to (mass) prayer several times a day.
You become accustomed to it and learn to ignore the sound if it is irrelevent to your life.

When I was working at Port Hedland (remote NW Australia) , there was a substantial number of local contractors and service providers to the DRI plant who were muslims and they had a mosque and mineret and regularly did the call to prayer , it wasn't that noisy , and the locals paid no head to it and didn't seem concerned about it.

Remarks deleteted for flaming. Somerled - if one person says something that does not mean that "all" here agree with them

There is no difference to using bells or a voice to call to prayer , and maybe you had better get used to seeing more minerettes constructed unless you want to get rid of your consititutional rights.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Minuet
Aug 15 2005, 01:48 PM
ImpulseEngine
Aug 14 2005, 07:54 PM
There are multiple issues in this.  I think the biggest issue is not about any noise, but about noise that people specifically don't want to hear.  The church bells are ok for people that want to hear them, but not necessarily for those who don't.  The same is true for the Islamic call to prayer.

Some unwanted noises are considered necessary.  I don't particularly like my neighbors' lawn mower noise at any time of day - heck, I don't like my own - but it's acceptable noise because I know that I would like a neighborhood full of sloppy property even less.  There's a practical reason for the noise.  My neighbor's blaring stereo on the other hand is not practical or necessary and therefore not acceptable. 

In addition to noise that is not desired, religion adds another dimension because it's more than just annoying noise - it's a message.  This is especially true with the Islamic call to prayer where the message is a verbal.  If we are going to allow any group to broadcast their belief systems like this, then we would also have to allow more undesirable groups to do the same.  How about Satanic calls to worship?  How about KKK meeting calls?   How about political meeting calls?  Where does it end?

In the interest of public peace, I see no reason why any of these groups can't keep their public gatherings among themselves.   If the issue is to make sure members know when the meetings are being held, then they should establish predictable times - either a specific clock-driven time or an identifiable time like "sundown".  I mean there must be some reason for the times they choose.  So make the parameters known to everyone and there goes the need for public noise.

How about they broadcast on a specific radio channel that people can tune into in the privacy of thier own homes or in thier cars in order to hear the call to prayer.

Those who don't want to hear don't have to tune in that way :)

Do that for all religions then , don't just single out one.

And last time I heard - the KKK was not a long standing religion of cultural significance. So allowing them to publicise their meetings would be silly, and they wouldn't want to anyway as they are all cowards (to a man - if you can call them men) and prefer to meet in secret. Your argument is nonsense.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
who
Aug 13 2005, 08:52 PM
I think if we go back to the original article it is about noise and religion. As Muslims gain political power in communities then Islamic law will prevail within the confines of current US law.

This ties in with the other thread where traditional Americans are rapidly becoming a minority. Saudi Arabia is pouring huge amounts of money into the construction of Mosques and Islamic centers in the US. There is an invasion of America through its southern border. America is being attacked on all fronts.

Who,

For one we have a body of law that is likely to prevent shari'a law frmo ever really getting a foothold in the US. There is this little thing called the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment in particular that is likely to prevent that from happening.

As far as any threat to "traditional Americans" becoming a minority, I can only infer that you mean Americans of European ancestry. While some may find this uncomfortable, it is essentially a natural progression, a matter of cultural evolution that cannot be avoided. The countries of Europe enjoy standards of living and political climates that simply do not foster a desire for their citizens to leave in search of a better life elsewhere. What little that does occur (in comparison to other Third World countries) seems more likely to occur on the continent itself.

Quote:
 
Considering the widely different cultures of Saudi Arabia and Mexico, the America of today will change into an entirely different culture. There are other major factors at work and the America of the future will be far different from the America of today.


In much the same way that the America of today would be barely recognizable to those that framed the Constitution to begin with.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus