Hamtramck City Council Now Majority Muslim

[Richard]

By the way, I pose a question to those attacking faiths [[since we are all competent persons who uphold the need to cite sources, yes? -agreed?): Have you actually read the main works of any given faith, and I do mean, read them cover to cover with the intention to temper all the various ground covered and to walk into these with a fair and unbiased exegetical approach free of presumptuous conclusion [[the type one might be inclined to puff up, pad, and card stack for). Can you do that with the Bible? Can you do that with the Quran? [[come to think of it, I have one. I need to dust it off and dig into that for quite a bit).

Someone brought up trends. What about the most recent violent trends here in this country with far-right teabaggers who idealize Hitler [[Houser), disgruntled news anchors [[Flanagan) looking to blame folks for their alienation, armed-forces rejects [[like Harper-Mercer) who kill classmates based on their religion, and churches being sprayed [[when they aren't being torched in St. Louis) by kids [[like Dylan Roof) influenced by God knows what because of a combination of either race and religion?

What genuine blind delusions are being perpetuated there to breeze past these without further mention in addressing their overall irreligious nature ?

Personally,I do not think it matters what religion one chooses,when it becomes necessary to have a new acquaintance fill out a 200 word survey so ones knows what to say and not to say without fear of offending or being politically correct,it might be time to grow a set and stop being such a wussy.

I guess we need to separate those that use religion as a bases of insensitivity or those who use religion as justification.

Of course I have already been called a bigot by the only white guy in the country designated as the soul of the African American community,it does not bother me in the least or even give me the slightest thought of shooting up a school.

This country was founded on the ability to freely practice ones religion without recourse,when the line gets crossed is when that religion or a faction of starts killing Americans and a blind eye is turned with no-recourse.

What other religion or faction of in this country continues to kill everybody else that does not believe in their values?

[ABetterDetroit]

I'm waiting to hear from Muslim leaders in government and religion to make statements denouncing the violence in Paris and other places, and their promise to combat Islamic terrorism in any way possible. This includes informing on fellow Muslims and assisting the authorities in insuring the safety of this country. I'd like to hear how they plan on doing it. If they don't, that tells me all I need to know.

I think that Kathys second point is very valid. The extreme fundamentalist literal interpretation of the Koran and their view that they are part of the end of the world and are bound to make that end a reality doesn't happen in a vacuum. It comes from the most hardline followers within the religion. Denouncing is not enough, informing on who is a threat to human life by their beliefs would be a more critical step to Islam being part of the solution instead of part of the problem. Political corectness just won't be enough. Islams PR problem is getting worse by the day at this point and the solution to it will have to come from within the religion not from outside it.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...-wants/384980/

[Pam]

http://www.vox.com/2014/12/15/739422...-charlie-hebdo

Here is what Muslims and Muslim organizations are expected to say: "As a Muslim, I condemn this attack and terrorism in any form."

This expectation we place on Muslims, to be absolutely clear, is Islamophobic and bigoted. The denunciation is a form of apology: an apology for Islam and for Muslims. The implication is that every Muslim is under suspicion of being sympathetic to terrorism unless he or she explicitly says otherwise. The implication is also that any crime committed by a Muslim is the responsibility of all Muslims simply by virtue of their shared religion.

This sort of thinking — blaming an entire group for the actions of a few individuals, assuming the worst about a person just because of their identity — is the very definition of bigotry.

Instead, we should treat the assumptions that compel this ritual — that Muslims bear collective responsibility, that they are presumed terrorist-sympathizers until proven otherwise — as flatly bigoted ideas with no place in our society.

[Bham1982]

http://www.vox.com/2014/12/15/739422...-charlie-hebdo

In theory, yeah, I don't believe Muslims should bear "collective responsibility"; I believe we should emphasize the individual over the group.

But there is a logical contradiction here. The same people who argue for, to take an example, race-based affirmative action, or whites collective responsibility for past injustices, or race-based hiring, procurement, legislation, etc. now say that group identity is irrelevant. You can't have it both ways.

[AlanF]

I remember a few years ago there was some controversy about calls to prayer from the mosques, their timing, volume, intrusiveness, etc. Is that still an active issue and could this new majority potentially change the rules on this?

[Wesley Mouch]

By the way, I pose a question to those attacking faiths [[since we are all competent persons who uphold the need to cite sources, yes? -agreed?): Have you actually read the main works of any given faith, and I do mean, read them cover to cover with the intention to temper all the various ground covered and to walk into these with a fair and unbiased exegetical approach free of presumptuous conclusion [[the type one might be inclined to puff up, pad, and card stack for). Can you do that with the Bible? Can you do that with the Quran? [[come to think of it, I have one. I need to dust it off and dig into that for quite a bit).

Someone brought up trends. What about the most recent violent trends here in this country with far-right teabaggers who idealize Hitler [[Houser), disgruntled news anchors [[Flanagan) looking to blame folks for their alienation, armed-forces rejects [[like Harper-Mercer) who kill classmates based on their religion, and churches being sprayed [[when they aren't being torched in St. Louis) by kids [[like Dylan Roof) influenced by God knows what because of a combination of either race and religion?

What genuine blind delusions are being perpetuated there to breeze past these without further mention in addressing their overall irreligious nature ?

If you are attacking faiths, then this would be requirement. I'm not attacking faith, I'm criticizing actions.

Islam probably isn't any different than Christianity. The texts are from another time. They were speaking to a different audience. But it doesn't matter. What matters is whether today's audience reads 'eye for an eye' and takes it metaphorically or literally.

As to your other point -- let he who is without sin step forward and condemn Islam -- who cares that Christianity and other religions also have idiot adherents. Actions are the problem. And right now, it seems Islam has nearly cornered the market on stupidity and barbarism. But they are not alone, to be sure.

[Jimaz]

Police Found Woman Who Threatened Dearborn's Muslims

Subsequent reports claim she has apologized.

We don't need any more gasoline on this fire.

[aj3647]

I don't know yet.

Like I said in an earlier post, I don't believe they will enact a ban of alcohol on Hamtramck. If they did, it would piss me off for you guys and it might do you also. You can be milquetoast about something as light as making an obligatory stop in Detroit for a six-pack because your town is dry and you don't care that much. The problem is "if" there happens a mishmash of religious edicts and by-laws. As has been stated earlier, there are dry towns and counties in the US that are dry because of looney religious views.

So why are you getting worked up over a hypothetical scenario that you admit you don't think will even happen? Yeah, if they ban alcohol, I'll get mad. But since I live in the real world, I don't get pissed off at Muslims in Hamtramck over things that I think they might do in the future. I'll judge them for things they actually do, and not pre-hate them based on far-fetched hypothetical scenarios as many here have decided to do. Do you not recognize a Straw man when you see one? Build up that straw man so you can knock it down! That's all that's been done here. Some here want to hate and distrust the Hamtramck City Council and the Muslims who live there so they simply invented a reason to justify that hatred and distrust.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/t...iety-overview/

https://www.wzb.eu/en/press-release/...-widely-spread

Seems pretty clear that mainstream Muslim worldviews are often incompatible with Western societies, hence the problems in Western Europe.

57% of Republicans want to make Christianity the official religion of the United States.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/p...onal_22415.pdf

Now given the almost shocking similarity to the poll you cited, how would you characterize mainstream Republican worldviews and how compatible they are with Western values?

[Bham1982]

S
57% of Republicans want to make Christianity the official religion of the United States.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/p...onal_22415.pdf

Now given the almost shocking similarity to the poll you cited, how would you characterize mainstream Republican worldviews and how compatible they are with Western values?

It is hardly a radical position to support an state religion. Many countries have a state religion, including the UK, Norway, Denmark, Greece, and others.

It is, however, a radical position to support slaughter of apostates, which is what Sharia law requires.

So, no, if a majority of Republicans support Christianity as a state religion, that is not remotely comparable to 70% of Muslims supporting Sharia law.

Why do people come up with these desperate attempts at equivalencies? You know full well that Christianity isn't a global threat in this age.

[canuck]

aj3647;493393]So why are you getting worked up over a hypothetical scenario that you admit you don't think will even happen? Yeah, if they ban alcohol, I'll get mad. But since I live in the real world, I don't get pissed off at Muslims in Hamtramck over things that I think they might do in the future. I'll judge them for things they actually do, and not pre-hate them based on far-fetched hypothetical scenarios as many here have decided to do. Do you not recognize a Straw man when you see one? Build up that straw man so you can knock it down! That's all that's been done here. Some here want to hate and distrust the Hamtramck City Council and the Muslims who live there so they simply invented a reason to justify that hatred and distrust.

I can't vouch for authenticity but I just found this today via another website;

https://www.facebook.com/sulaiman.da...nf&pnref=story

I want to thank well-meaning non-Muslims who, in the wake of these attacks, have emphasised that they have been carried out by a small, twisted minority. A terrorist's goal is to sow hatred and discord, and by not giving in, you are defeating their plans.
But I want to say that as a Muslim, I wish that we weren't so quick to emphasise that this has nothing to do with us. While I personally have never killed anyone and none of my friends and family have ever resorted to violence, radicalism has everything to do with Islam. And the failure to address that out of a well-intentioned commitment to tolerance is making the problem worse.
ISIS is a Muslim organisation, and it is an Islamic problem. Let me say it again to be perfectly clear. ISIS is a Muslim organisation, and they are a cancer at the heart of Islam. And the problem will not go away until Muslims confront that.
ISIS attackers scream 'Allah hu'akbar' during their attacks.
ISIS recruits cite Qur'anic verses as justification for the rape and enslavement of women.
ISIS soldiers kill archaeologists, gay men and women, and people who refuse to convert to Islam because they are blasphemers.
There are no Christians in ISIS. There are no Buddhists, Jews, Pagans, Taoists, Houngans, Catholics, Wiccans, Hindus or even Scientologists in ISIS. ISIS is a Muslim organisation and they kill in the name of Islam.
So don't say that ISIS aren't 'true Muslims' or that they are 'not really Muslims'. Like any large organisation, ISIS exists in a spectrum. You have the aimless, restless teenager who never amounted to anything in his life and traveled to Syria because he can't find a job and doesn't know if the Qur'an is to be read from left to right or right to left. But you also have pious professionals, businessmen, and academics who read their Qur'an cover to cover, pray every day, were seduced into radicalism, and truly believe that the Islamic State's goal of conquest is a noble one. The so-called 'Caliph' Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi has a doctorate in Islamic studies.
So if you feel that Muslims are being oppressed or killed in Muslim countries, I expect you to also be just as outraged by ISIS. Because they have killed more Muslims in Iraq, Syria and Jordan than the entire US army. They have done more damage to the name and reputation of Islam than any Western nation. ISIS is Islam's biggest enemy, not the US, not Israel or France or Germany or the Russians.
We have to own the problem. We have to admit that this is a religious problem, and we need to renew our commitment to a secular country which treats all religions equally. I have believed in the importance of secularism all my life, and with every day that passes that belief grows stronger. Religion is no way to govern a nation. Not any religion, and not any nation.
ISIS is not America's problem, nor the British, nor the French. ISIS is not Syria or Iraq's problem. ISIS is a problem for Muslims. And if you can't admit that, you're not really a good Muslim either.

[Honky Tonk]

[QUOTE=canuck;493395]

So why are you getting worked up over a hypothetical scenario that you admit you don't think will even happen? Yeah, if they ban alcohol, I'll get mad. But since I live in the real world, I don't get pissed off at Muslims in Hamtramck over things that I think they might do in the future. I'll judge them for things they actually do, and not pre-hate them based on far-fetched hypothetical scenarios as many here have decided to do. Do you not recognize a Straw man when you see one? Build up that straw man so you can knock it down! That's all that's been done here. Some here want to hate and distrust the Hamtramck City Council and the Muslims who live there so they simply invented a reason to justify that hatred and distrust.

I can't vouch for authenticity but I just found this today via another website;

https://www.facebook.com/sulaiman.da...nf&pnref=story

I want to thank well-meaning non-Muslims who, in the wake of these attacks, have emphasised that they have been carried out by a small, twisted minority. A terrorist's goal is to sow hatred and discord, and by not giving in, you are defeating their plans.
But I want to say that as a Muslim, I wish that we weren't so quick to emphasise that this has nothing to do with us. While I personally have never killed anyone and none of my friends and family have ever resorted to violence, radicalism has everything to do with Islam. And the failure to address that out of a well-intentioned commitment to tolerance is making the problem worse.
ISIS is a Muslim organisation, and it is an Islamic problem. Let me say it again to be perfectly clear. ISIS is a Muslim organisation, and they are a cancer at the heart of Islam. And the problem will not go away until Muslims confront that.
ISIS attackers scream 'Allah hu'akbar' during their attacks.
ISIS recruits cite Qur'anic verses as justification for the rape and enslavement of women.
ISIS soldiers kill archaeologists, gay men and women, and people who refuse to convert to Islam because they are blasphemers.
There are no Christians in ISIS. There are no Buddhists, Jews, Pagans, Taoists, Houngans, Catholics, Wiccans, Hindus or even Scientologists in ISIS. ISIS is a Muslim organisation and they kill in the name of Islam.
So don't say that ISIS aren't 'true Muslims' or that they are 'not really Muslims'. Like any large organisation, ISIS exists in a spectrum. You have the aimless, restless teenager who never amounted to anything in his life and traveled to Syria because he can't find a job and doesn't know if the Qur'an is to be read from left to right or right to left. But you also have pious professionals, businessmen, and academics who read their Qur'an cover to cover, pray every day, were seduced into radicalism, and truly believe that the Islamic State's goal of conquest is a noble one. The so-called 'Caliph' Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi has a doctorate in Islamic studies.
So if you feel that Muslims are being oppressed or killed in Muslim countries, I expect you to also be just as outraged by ISIS. Because they have killed more Muslims in Iraq, Syria and Jordan than the entire US army. They have done more damage to the name and reputation of Islam than any Western nation. ISIS is Islam's biggest enemy, not the US, not Israel or France or Germany or the Russians.
We have to own the problem. We have to admit that this is a religious problem, and we need to renew our commitment to a secular country which treats all religions equally. I have believed in the importance of secularism all my life, and with every day that passes that belief grows stronger. Religion is no way to govern a nation. Not any religion, and not any nation.
ISIS is not America's problem, nor the British, nor the French. ISIS is not Syria or Iraq's problem. ISIS is a problem for Muslims. And if you can't admit that, you're not really a good Muslim either.

Funny, you don't look Muslim.

[canuck]

[QUOTE=Honky Tonk;493403]

Funny, you don't look Muslim.

Is that a veiled reference to my not sporting a turbine?

Incidentally, a soccer game was cancelled a little while ago in Germany. An ambulance with explosives was found after a call came in 15 minutes before the game.

Will Germany revise its immigration policy? They should axe Trump for advice.

[bust]

It is hardly a radical position to support an state religion. Many countries have a state religion, including the UK, Norway, Denmark, Greece, and others.

It is, however, a radical position to support slaughter of apostates, which is what Sharia law requires.

So, no, if a majority of Republicans support Christianity as a state religion, that is not remotely comparable to 70% of Muslims supporting Sharia law.

Why do people come up with these desperate attempts at equivalencies? You know full well that Christianity isn't a global threat in this age.

Considering the First Amendment expressly states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" it may not be radical to support a state religion elsewhere, but it most definitely is a radical position here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_...s_Constitution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause

Here's a great read from the Smithsonian discussing our country's foundation on the separation of church and state and our imperfect history abiding the constitutional mandate that guarantees our freedom of and from religion:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/histor...-61312684/?all

From the article:

[Thomas] Jefferson famously wrote, "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

And [[summarized):

In 1779, as Virginia's governor, Thomas Jefferson drafted a bill that guaranteed legal equality for citizens of all religions—including those of no religion—in the state. His bill did not advance until 1784, when it did in response to the introduction by Patrick Henry of a bill calling for state support for "teachers of the Christian religion."

The passage of Jefferson's bill established, in Virginia, the separation of Church and State.

Further, the article details James Madison's criticism of Patrick Henry's proposal for state support of Christianity, and Madison's support for the U.S. as a safe harbor for people of every faith, and the persecuted and oppressed in particular:

Recognizing the idea of America as a refuge for the protester or rebel, Madison also argued that Henry’s proposal was "a departure from that generous policy, which offering an Asylum to the persecuted and oppressed of every Nation and Religion, promised a lustre to our country."

Separation of church and state was enshrined in our U.S. Constitution in 1787:

Madison wanted Jefferson’s view to become the law of the land when he went to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. And as framed in Philadelphia that year, the U.S. Constitution clearly stated in Article VI that federal elective and appointed officials “shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution, but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

This passage—along with the facts that the Constitution does not mention God or a deity [[except for a pro forma "year of our Lord" date) and that its very first amendment forbids Congress from making laws that would infringe of the free exercise of religion—attests to the founders' resolve that America be a secular republic.

I realize no one here voiced support for establishing a state religion. But it's a radical and terrible idea.

[Edit:]

As to any equivalencies between Christian law and Sharia law, it depends on what passages of the religious texts are enforced. I'm no biblical scholar, but some Old Testament passages do in fact instruct to slaughter apostates. See Deuteronomy 13, Deuteronomy 17, and Numbers 31. Fortunately the New Testament is much less violent, and slaughtering apostates is not currently in vogue.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatc...kill-infidels/

It also depends a lot on interpretation. Other passages have been cited to justify slavery. [[Thankfully not recently.) Or have been misused to enrich church leaders. [[That still happens.) And while Pope Francis seems like a good guy, some of his predecessors... not so much. Just two of many examples:

Innocent III slaughtered the Cathars in France:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade

Sixtus IV authorized the Spanish Inquisition [[though he was later critical of some of its abuses):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Sixtus_IV

Catholics have not been the only offenders, of course.

Here's Deuteronomy 17:2 - 17:5, for giggles:

17:2 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

I support everyone's right to follow the faith of their choosing. I support our Constitutional directive there shall be no religious test to hold public office. And I'll fight to the bitter end any time religion is used to pick our pockets, break our legs, or [[I'll add one for clarity) limit our secular freedoms. But it's hysteria to fear the Hamtramck city council before there is any evidence they will.

[Wesley Mouch]

[QUOTE=canuck;493405]

Is that a veiled reference to my not sporting a turbine?

Incidentally, a soccer game was cancelled a little while ago in Germany. An ambulance with explosives was found after a call came in 15 minutes before the game.

Will Germany revise its immigration policy? They should axe Trump for advice.

The image of a Canadian wearing a wind-turbine lightened my day. Thanks.

[canuck]

[QUOTE=Wesley Mouch;493408]

The image of a Canadian wearing a wind-turbine lightened my day. Thanks.

You're welcome. My wife never forced me to wear it.

[Jimaz]

I love it when the quotes get screwed up here. You can't tell who said what.

All this talk about banning alcohol reminded me of a time I landed in Kentucky only to discover it was a "dry county" and alcohol sales were prohibited. Sure enough, someone didn't get the memo that Mike's Hard Lemonade actually contains alcohol so I picked up a local 6-pack and partied down on that.

Take that, Kentucky Taliban!

[jcole]

[QUOTE=Wesley Mouch;493408]

The image of a Canadian wearing a wind-turbine lightened my day. Thanks.

[canuck]

[QUOTE=jcole;493419]

Ah jeez! Thanks! I finally got rid of that damned tuque and checked flannel shirt.

[mkd]

It's open and public info. Just go to http://www.census.gov/en.html

Hamtramck has declining population, a historic rate of decline analogous to that of Detroit, and severe depopulation in the South End census tracts. It's just less abandoned compared to Detroit because it was historically somewhat more dense.

According to the latest SEMCOG biannual population estimate, Hamtramck's population has grown about 15% since the 2010 census. That would make it third in population growth in SE Michigan.

http://semcog.org/Plans-for-the-Regi...tion-Estimates

[Wesley Mouch]

According to the latest SEMCOG biannual population estimate, Hamtramck's population has grown about 15% since the 2010 census. That would make it third in population growth in SE Michigan.

http://semcog.org/Plans-for-the-Regi...tion-Estimates

So it may not be so much that the "indigenous" Polish population is decreasing as that the Balkan and Middle East "immigrant" population is 'going forth and multiplying' -- biblically speaking.

[Bham1982]

According to the latest SEMCOG biannual population estimate, Hamtramck's population has grown about 15% since the 2010 census. That would make it third in population growth in SE Michigan.

http://semcog.org/Plans-for-the-Regi...tion-Estimates

SEMCOG is a regional planning body and promotional tool. Their population estimates are useless.

Per the U.S. Census, Hamtramck has declining population.

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

It is hardly a radical position to support an state religion. Many countries have a state religion, including the UK, Norway, Denmark, Greece, and others.

It is, however, a radical position to support slaughter of apostates, which is what Sharia law requires.

So, no, if a majority of Republicans support Christianity as a state religion, that is not remotely comparable to 70% of Muslims supporting Sharia law.

Why do people come up with these desperate attempts at equivalencies? You know full well that Christianity isn't a global threat in this age.

Its not at all impossible to have a Christian version of Sharia law here, when you have GOP presidential candidates embracing "kill the gays" Radical Christianists.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michel...b_8544540.html

And when you have demagogues such as Trump advocating ID's for Muslims and a database to track them [[perhaps a yellow crescent sown on to their clothing too?). One can only imaging what will be proposed the next time some attack on U.S. soil actually occurs, given the current lever of hysteria over the Paris situation. Have been programmed to be fearful and hateful.

And it is a TOTALLY radical, and unconstitutional, position to promote a state religion in the U.S.

[Richard]

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Is there an opt out ?

[Wesley Mouch]

Its not at all impossible to have a Christian version of Sharia law here, when you have GOP presidential candidates embracing "kill the gays" Radical Christianists.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michel...b_8544540.html

And when you have demagogues such as Trump advocating ID's for Muslims and a database to track them [[perhaps a yellow crescent sown on to their clothing too?). One can only imaging what will be proposed the next time some attack on U.S. soil actually occurs, given the current lever of hysteria over the Paris situation. Have been programmed to be fearful and hateful.

And it is a TOTALLY radical, and unconstitutional, position to promote a state religion in the U.S.

I do not see where Mr. Cruz holds these opinions.

This sounds to me like the inverse of the Jerimiah Wright 'guilt by association' argument. Both cases might be true guilt -- but the evidence is just 'guilt by association'.

There are fringe views everywhere. It is often not possible to marginalize them completely. Bring your argument back when you have evidence that isn't 'guilt by association'.

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

I do not see where Mr. Cruz holds these opinions.

This sounds to me like the inverse of the Jerimiah Wright 'guilt by association' argument. Both cases might be true guilt -- but the evidence is just 'guilt by association'.

There are fringe views everywhere. It is often not possible to marginalize them completely. Bring your argument back when you have evidence that isn't 'guilt by association'.

Right........he goes to a conference where someone exposes mass murder of Americans, does not repudiate the views, but does not agree with them. You really believe that? Sort of like going to a KKK rally and not being a racist.

Jeremiah Wright, btw, apologized for his inflammatory remarks and was not calling for murdering Americans for "religious" reasons, as Cruz and Huckabee's pal does. And Obama repudiated Wright's remarks, while Cruz specifically will not repudiate "Pastor" Swanson's.