• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

Minneapolis: Muslim call to prayer blasted over loudspeakers 5 times a day in U.S.

No, never. I have lived in Northern California, Southern California, and Arizona. Visited 27 states, Canada, Mexico. Never heard church bells except one time in either Pennsylvania or Florida, cannot recall which, for the 10:00 a.m. mass. That's it. The vast majority of churches don't have bells, for crying out loud.

If a church had a bell going off every hour, on the hour, I would do whatever I could to get it to stop.

So your theory, if I understand it, is that because some churches have incredibly annoying bells going off all the time, then having some Muzzie squealing like a pig with his leg stuck in the fence five times per day is acceptable? Yeah, no.

No, my point is that there are churches that have bells go off as I stated in answering your question. Despite your annoyance of the Muslim faith, and church bells for that matter, the 1st Amendment ensures that all faiths are protected from people who share in your opinions. Thank God.
 
No, my point is that there are churches that have bells go off as I stated in answering your question. Despite your annoyance of the Muslim faith, and church bells for that matter, the 1st Amendment ensures that all faiths are protected from people who share in your opinions. Thank God.

The 1st amendment protects two things in terms of religion: The freedom to practice and the guarantee of no government-established religion. Of course, right now government is free to order people not to go to church.

You get that, right?

As to freedom to practice, the government has limited what constitutes a protected practice for many, many years. Specifically, religions vastly older than Christianity, let alone squealing on a tower, implemented human sacrifice. Can religions still practice human sacrifice? Of course not.

States have a right to limit practice, not belief, so long as the limitation does not constitute a "substantial burden" on the religious practice. As I understand the screeching 5x per day, it is not actually a religious practice and instead a "call" to prayer, i.e., the actual religious practice. It would be no different than banging the bells to call people to church - it's not the actual practice of the religion, just an alarm clock to begin the practice.

I don't think a law banning the screaming 35x per week would be a substantial burden on the actual PRACTICE of the religion, comparing the burden on the religion with the burden on society of allowing the behavior to continue. The Muzzies can buy a watch for **** sake, or look at their phones, or set their phones on an alarm to know it's time to pray, or kill somebody, or whatever the religion calls for.
 
Last edited:
Or we could just use old laws to extricate their *****.

McCarran Act of 1952 - TRULY INTERESTING.

Wouldn't it have been interesting if, at some point during the presidential campaign, if one of the candidates asked, "Oh, by the way, has anyone in Washington, D.C., ever heard of the McCarran-Walter Act Of 1952 ?"

I did not know of this act until recently, but it has been a law for almost 65 years. Here are the historic facts that would seem to indicate that many, if not most, of the people we elect, to work for us in Washington, do not have the slightest idea of what laws already exist in OUR country.

After several terrorist incidents were carried out in the United States, Donald Trump was severely criticized and sued for suggesting that the U.S. should limit or temporarily suspend the immigration of certain ethnic groups, nationalities and even people of certain religions (Muslims).

The criticisms condemned such a suggestion as, among other things, being un-American, dumb, stupid, reckless, dangerous and racist.
Congressmen and senators swore that they would never allow such legislation, and our former president called such a prohibition on immigration unconstitutional.

As Gomer Pyle would say, "Well, surprise, surprise!", It seems that the selective immigration ban is already law and has been applied on several occasions.

Known as the [ McCarran-Walter Act ], the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 allows for the: “suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by the president, whenever the president finds that the entry of aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States."

“The president may, by proclamation and for such a period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens, immigrants or non- immigrants, or impose any restrictions on the entry of aliens he may deem to be appropriate."

Who was president when this was passed ?

Harry Truman

Who do you suppose last used this process?

Jimmy Carter

Carter used it 40 years ago, in 1979 to keep Iranians out of the United States. But Carter actually did more.

He made ALL Iranian students, already in the United States, check in with the government, then he deported a bunch of them. Seven thousand were found in violation of their visas and a total of 15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the USA in 1979.

Additionally, it is important to note that the McCarran-Walter Act also requires that an " applicant for immigration must be of good moral character and in agreement with the principles of our Constitution." !!! WOW !!!

Therefore, one could surmise that since the Quran forbids Muslims to swear allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, technically, ALL Muslims should be or could be refused immigration to OUR country.

Incidentally, both McCarran and Walter were democrats.

IfEGOtR.jpg
 
Jesus, I remember singles. 45 RPM, where you would need to put that attachment to the spindle on the turntable.

Remember? I still have said turntable and a couple hundred albums laying around, they just better to me.
 
The 1st amendment protects two things in terms of religion: The freedom to practice and the guarantee of no government-established religion. Of course, right now government is free to order people not to go to church.

You get that, right?

As to freedom to practice, the government has limited what constitutes a protected practice for many, many years. Specifically, religions vastly older than Christianity, let alone squealing on a tower, implemented human sacrifice. Can religions still practice human sacrifice? Of course not.

States have a right to limit practice, not belief, so long as the limitation does not constitute a "substantial burden" on the religious practice. As I understand the screeching 5x per day, it is not actually a religious practice and instead a "call" to prayer, i.e., the actual religious practice. It would be no different than banging the bells to call people to church - it's not the actual practice of the religion, just an alarm clock to begin the practice.

I don't think a law banning the screaming 35x per week would be a substantial burden on the actual PRACTICE of the religion, comparing the burden on the religion with the burden on society of allowing the behavior to continue. The Muzzies can buy a watch for **** sake, or look at their phones, or set their phones on an alarm to know it's time to pray, or kill somebody, or whatever the religion calls for.

I don't know much about the Muslim faith so I Wiki-ed the call to prayer. It is actually a part of the ceremony whereby it leads them through a set of prayers. It seems as though pulling the plug on the old stereo speakers would violate the practice of their faith.

BTW, The government didn't order people to not go to Church, but not to congregate inside of the the church. My Uncle is a Methodist preacher and he has been holding services in the church parking lot. Everyone is in their cars and it's broadcast over an FM channel. His Easter service was exceptional.
 
My take: Muzzies are free to return to Buttfuckistan or whatever other shithole they escaped if they want to hear a wailing, screeching noise that sounds like a cat stuck in a dryer five times per day.

That loathesome noise in the United States? No. Not here, not now, not ever. Ever. Loudspeaker vs. 5.56? I go with the 5.56 10 times out of 10.

Obama said it's one of the pretties sounds on Earth.
 
I don't know much about the Muslim faith so I Wiki-ed the call to prayer. It is actually a part of the ceremony whereby it leads them through a set of prayers. It seems as though pulling the plug on the old stereo speakers would violate the practice of their faith.

So broadcast that "call" only to the people who want to hear it.

Burden on shrieking and cauterwaling? Non-existent.

Burden on the public if such limit is not enacted and the squealing takes place? Significant.

Minnesota is one of the states I have never visited. Good friends or ours own a lake cabin and go every summer, tell me it is one of the most beautiful places on earth. If some group of religious ginks set up a loudspeaker that broadcast a screech five times per day, seven days per week in my quiet area, that ******* speaker would not last one day.
 
t. Everyone is in their cars and it's broadcast over an FM channel..
Great idea...So if someone doesn't want to hear that bullshit , they just don't tune to that station? Works for me.
 
Great idea...So if someone doesn't want to hear that bullshit , they just don't tune to that station? Works for me.

They should be allowed to drive around town with a loudspeaker pumping out the noise made by six cats stuck in a dryer at 120 db, five times per day, seven days per week, because religion.
 
They should be allowed to drive around town with a loudspeaker pumping out the noise made by six cats stuck in a dryer at 120 db, five times per day, seven days per week, because religion.

The Bagheri Bros.

qtRQa5jhDmnmhBUvlAO29VnIsuzYGAnmRc3_rGXqma0XYmFvkAbNfGq2xhlFqXSAzQ7uWM42VkHV1BXXJ8FmV4BDdCTOML88DUHZmCvZV5XNmZkhY78
 
Last edited:
They should be allowed to drive around town with a loudspeaker pumping out the noise made by six cats stuck in a dryer at 120 db, five times per day, seven days per week, because religion.

You maybe right....'cause not only is it religion ..........but the religion of peace....right?

aaand they can prove it !

Arizona: Muslim Students Threaten to Kill Prof for Suggesting Islam Is Violent

fd79936b-7ecb-48aa-8449-09dff961170f-730x487.jpg


This will teach those Islamophobes that Islam is a religion of peace: a professor is facing death threats for suggesting otherwise. Nicholas Damask, Ph.D., has taught political science at Scottsdale Community College in Arizona for 24 years. But now he is facing a barrage of threats, and his family, including his 9-year-old grandson and 85-year-old parents, is in hiding, while College officials are demanding that he apologize – all for the crime of speaking the truth about the motivating ideology behind the threat of Islamic jihad worldwide.
https://pjmedia.com/culture/robert-...-prof-for-suggesting-islam-is-violent-n389324

Academia just can't stop themselves from falling on the sword of politically incorrect "insensitivities" and pandering to Islam in general.

No...you can't make this **** up and compete with the news nowadays.
 
....This will teach those Islamophobes that Islam is a religion of peace: a professor is facing death threats for suggesting otherwise....

Kill the professor? A sure way to fail the course...Then how will they find a job with that on their resume?
 
Kill the professor? A sure way to fail the course...Then how will they find a job with that on their resume?

Suicide Bomber market has blown up. Not enough targets now.
 
And the outcome is ...

Professor flees for his safety, college apologizes profusely and gives whining Muzzie an "A," and Muzzie students burn teachers in effigy to show their compassion.

I THINK that was an effigy ...
 
Top