Islam Call To Prayer In America

CITY OF HAMTRAMCK, MICHIGAN
CODE OF ORDINANCES - 130.055 LIMITED EXEMPTIONS

(H) Call to prayer and church bells. The city shall permit “call to prayer,” “church bells” and other reasonable means of announcing religious meetings to be amplified between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. for duration not to exceed five minutes:

(1) The city shall have the sole authority to set the level of amplification, provided, however, that no such level shall be enforced until all religious institutions receive notice of the levels; and

(2) All complaints regarding alleged violations of this section shall be filed with the City Clerk and placed on the agenda of the next regular meeting of the City Council. The City Council shall take all appropriate action it deems necessary to alleviate the complaints, with the action to include, but not be limited to, an order to terminate use of amplification. If the City Council deems that the means of announcing religious meetings must be reduced, the Council shall amend this section of the subchapter. The Council may also determine that a complaint is without justification and choose to take no action on the complaint; if the determination is made, the decision shall be made by resolution of the City Council.
(Ord. 2008-2, passed 1-22-2008)

edit on 24-11-2015 by Gryphon66 because: Noted

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Not everyone shares your definition of pollution. For the record, I find all religions equally obnoxious, but I also believe in the US Constitution.

It is the Adhan - The Traditional Call to Prayer.

As to the rest ... note the actual wording of the Ordinance as listed above. It is not Ordinance 503 ... that was changed in 2008.

130.0055 Provided. You can see that all religious calls have the same rights in Hamtramck.

This whole thread is nothing but another Islamic Bash Fest ... and no one, least of all me, is surprised by your attempts to twist and turn and insert opinion in place of facts.

I despise organized religion, literally true. I oppose any and all conflation of church and state in the US. I support the Constitution.

Have a problem with that?

/shrug

a reply to: Gryphon66

Just to offer a few fact-based reminders:

I so admire your staying power

:-)

a reply to: scorpio84

Being opposed to a religion is a phobia as much as disliking Justin Bieber is a cancer. Your islamiphonia is a buzzword, not a real diagnosis. It's usually used, along with "bigotry", in place of real argument. What are you an islamiphobiphobe?

sickening that people here actually defend the loud blasting of islamic prayer 5 times a day. Bet you would change your tone if it was next to your house. Those poor few that dont have enough money to move out of the neighbourhood are forced to listen to this noise all day long.
Freedom of religion is good. bothering other people with noise is not good. You cannot defend this.

a reply to: DeusImperator

So then you complain about church bells ringing at all hours too right? I used to live near a Catholic church that rang its bell on the hour every hour and ring it once on the half hour. I thought that was obnoxious too, but there was nothing I could do about it. Freedom of religion and all.

Just get louder speakers.

a reply to: DeusImperator

Fact:
It's not any louder than any other religious group can summon their worshipers to their rituals.

Fact:
No special rights have been granted to Muslim Americans here.

Fact:
The Adhan (and any other religious "summons" can't go on any longer than five minutes at a time at municipally-set standards.

... and again I will note that Conservatives are always going on that others have no right to be "unbothered" or even "unoffended" ... so I'm not sure why that standard mantra would change in this case ...

... except that, of course, I am.

Islamophobia is a known and widely-accepted descriptive term that generally means "hatred or fear of Muslims or of their politics or culture" and has been on clear display here:


Islamophobia - Wikipedia

Islamophobia: Understanding Anti-Muslim Sentiment in the West - Gallup

Islamophobia - Dictionary.com

It's an analogy, and not a very apt one. It's not an actual phobia, yet idiots would treat it as one, and use the term without knowing anything about the emotional state of the one they apply it to, as if they were psychologists.

Terms for prejudice[edit]
A number of terms with the suffix -phobia are used non-clinically. Such terms are primarily understood as negative attitudes towards certain categories of people or other things, used in an analogy with the medical usage of the term. Usually these kinds of "phobias" are described as fear, dislike, disapproval, prejudice, hatred, discrimination, or hostility towards the object of the "phobia".[40] Often this attitude is based on prejudices and is a particular case of most xenophobia.

Below are some examples:

Biphobia – Negative attitudes and feelings towards bisexuality and bisexual people as a social group or as individuals.
Chemophobia – Negative attitudes and mistrust towards chemistry and synthetic chemicals.
Homophobia – Negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT).
Transphobia – Negative attitudes and feelings towards transsexuality and transsexual or transgender people, based on the expression of their internal gender identity.
Xenophobia – Fear or dislike of strangers or the unknown, sometimes used to describe nationalistic political beliefs and movements.

Phobias

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You don't think it's an apt analogy. Fair enough.

You don't think it's an "actual" phobia, in light of what, the material you just posted?

Your statement clearly states that such terms are used "non-clinically" yet, your argument, such as it is, is trying to assert that you don't agree with the term because it's not a clinical term. Odd approach that.

Whether you accept the term or not, whether it is your considered opinion that those who use it are idiots (or not) that is merely your opinion, an opinion backed up by nothing ... even your posted "source."

The term is wide-spread, generally-accepted, and clearly-defined. Your opinion is not based on facts.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You don't think it's an apt analogy. Fair enough.

You don't think it's an "actual" phobia, in light of what, the material you just posted?

Your statement clearly states that such terms are used "non-clinically" yet, your argument, such as it is, is trying to assert that you don't agree with the term because it's not a clinical term. Odd approach that.

Whether you accept the term or not, whether it is your considered opinion that those who use it are idiots (or not) that is merely your opinion, an opinion backed up by nothing ... even your posted "source."

The term is wide-spread, generally-accepted, and clearly-defined. Your opinion is not based on facts.

Nor is my opinion based on an appeal to the populace or a definition, such as yours. The notion that the earth was the center of the universe was also wide-spread, generally accepted and clearly defined. If that's your excuse to avoid reasoning about the topic, have fun with that.

It's not an actual phobia, and has nothing to do with pathology. That is what we call a fact, not an opinion. Do you want me to reduce your criticism of conservatism or christianity to pathology? Of course not.

a reply to: sirlancelot

I always still hear church bells, why is this any different? If Christians called to pray in the same way as Muslims then that would be happening also.


Xmas etc is about being with family and loved ones. Not about whats on the TV. So who cares if things are censored. ( i have never come across any censorship, but im in the UK)

Have you ever thought that you just notice it more now because of the all the so called terrorism stuff going on? Remember terrorists used to be the IRA, but what Irish men scare people? If the news was positive and everything was fine, but you still heard the calls for prayer, would you still be concerned?

Stay cool friend dont think into things too much

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Heheh.

Wrong on both counts. I'm not arguing that Islamophobia is true or right because there is a well-known and accepted definition, I'm claiming that the well known definition exists.

I'm not claiming that Islamophobia is true because it's in the dictionary simply that it is there.

You however feebly cite me with fallacies, and then immediately make one of the most clear appeals to ignorance I've seen in some time. That's some cheek there I'll give you that.

Your citation from Wikipedia stated clearly that terms such as Islamophobia are non-clinical. You cited that entry as proof of your position ... And now you've argued twice that because Islamophobia is a non-clinical term it's meaningless ... I wonder if you are feeling okay.

Why don't we step aside from quibbling about what we call it and talk about it?

Prove to us that people don't hate or fear Islam.

Go.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: scorpio84

Being opposed to a religion is a phobia as much as disliking Justin Bieber is a cancer. Your islamiphonia is a buzzword, not a real diagnosis. It's usually used, along with "bigotry", in place of real argument. What are you an islamiphobiphobe?

Sorry. What is the technical term for "someone who dislikes Muslims and is bigoted towards them?"

I'm not sure how you've missed my argument - any part you aren't clear on?

originally posted by: DeusImperator
sickening that people here actually defend the loud blasting of islamic prayer 5 times a day. Bet you would change your tone if it was next to your house. Those poor few that dont have enough money to move out of the neighbourhood are forced to listen to this noise all day long.
Freedom of religion is good. bothering other people with noise is not good. You cannot defend this.

The call to prayer is an integral part of the Muslim practice of faith. So, you have a couple of choices:

1). Allow Muslims to have freedom of religion and annoy some people (who apparently are too self-righteous to stand being annoyed for a couple minutes).

2). Allow freedom of religion if and only if the practice thereof doesn't annoy anyone.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Gryphon66

You don't think it's an apt analogy. Fair enough.

You don't think it's an "actual" phobia, in light of what, the material you just posted?

Your statement clearly states that such terms are used "non-clinically" yet, your argument, such as it is, is trying to assert that you don't agree with the term because it's not a clinical term. Odd approach that.

Whether you accept the term or not, whether it is your considered opinion that those who use it are idiots (or not) that is merely your opinion, an opinion backed up by nothing ... even your posted "source."

The term is wide-spread, generally-accepted, and clearly-defined. Your opinion is not based on facts.

Nor is my opinion based on an appeal to the populace or a definition, such as yours. The notion that the earth was the center of the universe was also wide-spread, generally accepted and clearly defined. If that's your excuse to avoid reasoning about the topic, have fun with that.

It's not an actual phobia, and has nothing to do with pathology. That is what we call a fact, not an opinion. Do you want me to reduce your criticism of conservatism or christianity to pathology? Of course not.

Really - this much discussion about a word apparently everyone but you understands? I was thinking it'd have been easier to just say the person to whom I was replying was being a self-important b!tch, but that would have been a tad crass.

In your own sources, you may want to look at "xenophobia" and notice the words "fear or hatred of"

I liked your post on offending people - but your reply to this makes no sense. Feel free to question the meaning of every word in the English language, though.

a reply to: scorpio84

The issue here seems really clear to me.

In 2004, the Hamtramck (finally learned how to spell it, LOL) Council voted to allow between 6 am and 10 pm in their neighborhood a variance to the noise ordinances (but apparently, that didn't need to happen anyway because the Adhan doesn't break any of the extant laws.) I've linked the language of the law above. It's very clearly not biased to one religion over another.

When that happened in 2004 as best as I've been able to tell, there were between 1 and 3 Muslims on the Council of 6 members. For the first time, on November 6, 2015, that Council became a majority Muslim (which reflects the population in that area). That's what representative government is.

OP wanted to conflate these two facts separated by 11 years in time. They subsequently stated that wasn't their intention, but, still seems clear to me.

There are those here that seem to be ignoring a fact: these are AMERICAN CITIZENS in these Detroit suburbs ... there have been Muslim Americans in this area since the late 1930s.

Americans have the right to exercise their religion. Part of that is the Adhan for Muslims. Having school officials praying on school grounds publicly before, during or after a scheduled school event is and has been against the First Amendment.

Government cannot establish a religion and it can't avoid the free exercise thereof. That's a nuanced balance that we have 220+ years of jurisprudence to support for us.

Seems obvious to me.

a reply to: Gryphon66

That's what representative government is.

Unfortunately, some people believe it only applies when government is representing them.

I think the real question here is...who gives a crap about Hamtrack/Hamtramck/Hamstertrack or Dearborn? Or Michigan for that matter?

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Gryphon66

That's what representative government is.

Unfortunately, some people believe it only applies when government is representing them.

I think the real question here is...who gives a crap about Hamtrack/Hamtramck/Hamstertrack or Dearborn? Or Michigan for that matter?

OP and many of the posters in this thread do. As you can see, they don't think of the Muslims in these Detroit suburbs as Americans who enjoy the same rights as they do. Christianity, as the general religion of the great majority in the US, has long held an innate, unquestioned superiority in our society, and as with many long-standing, previously-unquestioned socially-dominant groups, they really REALLY don't like it when they don't get their way.

I know that Islamic fundamentalism is dangerous as is any sort of extremism ... religious, political, cultural ... anything that elevates our natural primate xenophobia is dangerous. However, late or soon, we either have to learn to get along with each other or we're going to kill each other.

It's one of those false dichotomies that are in fact actually true.