Michigan city could become first in U.S. under Muslim control

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wolseley
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
lizaanne said:
Hmm - I figured that would happen in Dearborn first. :rolleyes:

~Liza
Click to expand...
Yes, but Hamtramck was once nearly entirely Catholic (with its huge Polish population). I wonder whether their annual Polish festival will continue?

Eastern Dearborn is mostly Muslim now, but there’s still western Dearborn, and Dearborn is a pretty large city.

'thann
 
The linked article says that the city council voted to allow mosques to broadcast the call to prayer five times a day. Muslims say it is the equivalent of ringing church bells. Presumably there would be no objection to Catholic churches ringing their bells five times daily, simultaneously with the mosques. This would remind everyone to pray.
 
Since the primary was held this past Tuesday, does anyone know the results?
 
Saying that a city will be under “Muslim” control seems to imply that an invasion has taken place that the people in that town are against.

People of the Muslim faith who are elected democratically in a municipality is not something that needs to be met with such eyebrow raising concern.

These posts smack of some of the anti-Catholicism that threatened to sink John Kennedy…then of course there was the anti-Catholicism that sunk John Kerry, ironically of course that was practiced by supposed “Catholics”
 
frommi said:
…then of course there was the anti-Catholicism that sunk John Kerry, ironically of course that was practiced by supposed “Catholics”
Click to expand...
You have GOT to be kidding me! JK’s ran into problem with Catholic’s because of his outright support for brutally killing innocent babies.

Now just WHO is the “supposed” Catholic? :mad:
 
Why was it a concern in the first place? Are we now afraid of our representative government working exactly as it’s designed to?

The candidates obviously thought they had something to offer the populace of Hamtramck, and apparently the populace thought a couple of them did too. Where’s the cause for alarm?
 
JimG said:
The linked article says that the city council voted to allow mosques to broadcast the call to prayer five times a day. Muslims say it is the equivalent of ringing church bells. Presumably there would be no objection to Catholic churches ringing their bells five times daily, simultaneously with the mosques. This would remind everyone to pray.
Click to expand...
Actually, I’m surprised that the Arrogant Cadre of Lucifer’s Underlings hasn’t been all over both the loudspeaker calls to prayer and church bells. You can’t have the Ten Commandments on public land, so how come you can use the public air to broadcast calls to prayer or ring bells?

Somebody go wake up those Commies and tell 'em to get on the stick. They’re slipping.
 
JimG said:
The linked article says that the city council voted to allow mosques to broadcast the call to prayer five times a day. Muslims say it is the equivalent of ringing church bells. Presumably there would be no objection to Catholic churches ringing their bells five times daily, simultaneously with the mosques. This would remind everyone to pray.
Click to expand...
I commented on the article. People seem to be reacting as if this was an invasion as if someone “took over”. This wasn’t a takeover. Catholics were either moving out or dying off. My great aunt and uncle lived there across the street from St. Florians. None of their children stayed in Hamtramk because they moved to other cities. Eventually, even they moved out to Utica.

As far as the daily call to prayer goes, it really doesn’t matter if you are a Muslim or a Catholic. Any Catholic that hears the Muslim call to prayer should join with their Muslim neighbors and PRAY FOR THEIR CONVERSION!
 
Where’s the cause for alarm?

Still no facts clear, it seems.

But one cause for alarm would be Sharia Law.
 
Palladio said:
Where’s the cause for alarm?

Still no facts clear, it seems.

But one cause for alarm would be Sharia Law.
Click to expand...
I am reminded of an incident when I lived in Singapore. Someone wrote to the Straits Times (the English language paper and the official journal in Singapore) saying that since Singapore is 75% Chinese, the paper shouldn’t extol Western thinkers like Jefferson on democracy. They should take their theories on democracy from Confucianism.

In the next edition, there was a letter in reply – you can’t get theories on democracy from Confucianism, because Confucianism is a feudal ideology. It is opposed to democracy.
 
Dale_M said:
Thanks WanderAimlessly!

The results suggest that the original article’s concern is no longer valid. Only two of the Muslim candidates cleared the primary. Adding in the current Muslim member of the council, at most the Muslim composition would be 3 out of 6. And, of course, it could be less.
Click to expand...
So wait a second…it was truly a ‘concern’ that muslims could be democratically elected?

Why is this a concern?

In representative democracy people have an opportunity to be represented by whomever they choose…

Someone really has to help me understand what the problem is here.
 
frommi said:
So wait a second…it was truly a ‘concern’ that muslims could be democratically elected?

Why is this a concern?

In representative democracy people have an opportunity to be represented by whomever they choose…

Someone really has to help me understand what the problem is here.
Click to expand...
It’s an East versus West thing: look at the Middle East: theocracy and Sharia Law, persecution of Christians everywhere (see the Saint Barnabas Fund website).

Perhaps the Muslims elected (or running) are nothing like the people who run or support the political religion of Islam in the ME: if they are like them, however, they would leave a lot to be desired.

As Vern Humphrey implied in a previous post, you cannot get democracy out of Sharia or Islam: the former clashes with the latter.
 
frommi said:
So wait a second…it was truly a ‘concern’ that muslims could be democratically elected?

Why is this a concern?

In representative democracy people have an opportunity to be represented by whomever they choose…

Someone really has to help me understand what the problem is here.
Click to expand...
The concern is obvious. Moslems seek to control governments. It will not be
“the same old USA” once they gain control. The outrageous broadcasting of the call to prayer, in this day of PDA and alarm clock on cell phone, is clearly stepping on the rights of non-Moslems. But then, and here is the heart of the problem, Islam teaches that non-Moslems have no rights.

So you want to elect people who have been taught that you, as a non-Moslem, have no rights? It is your choice, but that is a choice that I cannot agree with.
 
frommi said:
So wait a second…it was truly a ‘concern’ that muslims could be democratically elected?

Why is this a concern?

In representative democracy people have an opportunity to be represented by whomever they choose…

Someone really has to help me understand what the problem is here.
Click to expand...
Well, when Hitler seized power in Germany, he…

Wait a minute…Hitler didn’t seize power, he was democratically elected.

Well, that makes it okay, then. Since he was democratically elected, anything that he did after that should have had everybody’s full support.

Right?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top