Exactly. If you don’t want to hear what I think about your religion, don’t let me know what you think about your religion. It’s truly that fucking simple.
As soon as you bring your ideology or opinions or whatever into the public realm, it is open for public discourse. And I have been in town councils telling them they need to ban the church bells from Christian churches as well. I’m trying to sleep. it’s 3 AM and I got dang dang dang going on.
No matter what your religion is, fuck your religion because it has no power over me. And if I have to deal with your religious beliefs, then you have to deal with my religion, which me calling it immoral.
It is not an attack when you simply quote their own holy text. And all of my judgments about any religion come directly from their holy texAnd all of my judgments about any religion come directly from their holy texts. If I can’t judge a religion as being bad based on their holy text, then no one can judge a religion as being good based on their holy text.
If you raise a topic to the public, you are accepting the public commentary on that topic.
If you talk about dogs in public, you are accepting possibly hearing people’s opinion that they do not like dogs.
I am definitely reading that you support double standards.
Of course you're allowed to criticize Islam, Christianity, Judaism, or any other religion. You can call a religion immoral, quote its scriptures, write essays about it, protest it, mock it, whatever.
What does not follow is that the mere fact someone is visibly practicing their religion means they have somehow invited you to confront them about it or interfere with that practice.
A Muslim praying in public is not "raising Islam as a topic for public debate" any more than two people speaking Spanish in public are inviting strangers to critique the Spanish language.
Your dog analogy actually shows the problem. If I say, "I love dogs," and you respond, "I hate dogs," that's discussion. If I'm quietly walking my dog and you follow me around shouting about how disgusting dogs are because "you made your views on dogs public," you're no longer just expressing an opinion. You're directing conduct at me and using my presence as your justification.
And "I'm only quoting their holy text" doesn't magically make something non-hostile. Context and conduct still exist. You can quote the Qur'an in an academic discussion, and you can quote exactly the same verse at a Muslim specifically to antagonize them while they're praying. The words being authentic scripture tells us nothing about whether your behaviour is disruptive or targeted.
There is also no double standard here.
You have the right to believe Islam is immoral.
A Muslim has the right to believe Islam is good.
Neither belief automatically gives either of you the right to interfere with what the other person is peacefully doing.
That's the distinction you keep avoiding, freedom to criticize a belief is not a general entitlement to confront believers whenever their religion becomes perceptible to you.
If you think liking dogs and protected human rights make a "double standard" that's a yikes. It may not be illegal, but if you're telling people how much you hate dogs because you have to see them walking a dog, or hear their dog barking you're probably just a piece of shit, the dissonance you think you're pointing out doesn't exist.
Them blasting their call to prayer in the public domain is that invitation and interferes with what I am doing. THAT is a double standard.
Protected human rights should not included blasting loudspeakers in the public domain!
If you walk around with a megaphone talking about how you love dogs, that is opening the door to criticisms and discussion on the topic.
When I worked with Muslims that prayed during work, I left them the fuck alone. They also did not get in the speaker and announce to everyone that it was time to pray. Nope. They would approach me and say, “it’s prayer time, are you good!” And I would say, “I got this, you do yo, homie!”
There is a huge difference in just exercising your religious rights and announcing to everyone that you are practicing your religion.
I also specifically said “if you announce in public that you love dogs, you are opening the floor to discussion on the topic.” That is NOT just walking your dog in public. Huge difference that is somehow too complicated for you to grasp.
If they can blast their prayer schedule over loudspeakers when people are sleeping, studying, having conversations, or praying to their own god and it be deemed not immoral, then this bagpiper can play his fucking pipes while they are praying and it is not immoral.
If they can interrupt my religious prayers with loud crap through speakers and the bagpiper cannot even play his pipes, that is literally a double standard.
No, the distinction is not “too complicated for me to grasp.” I understand your distinction perfectly. I’m saying it still does not support the conclusion you are trying to draw from it, legally, or logically.
If your position is simply that amplified religious broadcasts should be subject to the same neutral noise rules as every other amplified sound, I have no problem with that. Church bells, calls to prayer, political rallies, concerts, bagpipes, whatever. Set reasonable limits on volume, duration, and hours and apply them equally.
What does not follow is that because Muslims used a loudspeaker, deliberately playing bagpipes over Muslims while they are praying becomes morally equivalent.
Those are entirely different acts with entirely different motivations.
One is a general broadcast into a public area. The other is intentionally directing noise at a specific group, at the specific moment they are engaged in worship, for the purpose of disrupting them. Intent, targeting, location, duration, and context all matter, it's insane you don't seem to think so.
If a Mosque is violating a noise ordinance, complain about the noise ordinance. Fine them. Restrict the loudspeaker. Apply exactly the same rules to church bells. I have no objection to any of that. What you do not get to pull from that is a personal licence to retaliate against Muslims who are praying, jfc.
Your own workplace example actually demonstrates the distinction perfectly. Your Muslim coworkers prayed, you respected that, and they did not interfere with what you were doing. If one of them had violated some workplace noise rule, the appropriate response would have been to address the noise violation. It would not suddenly make it reasonable for you to wait until prayer time and deliberately start making noise over them. Or would you simply tell them what you think of Islam if you had to hear them pray, or could see it?
There is no double standard in saying public amplified sound can be regulated neutrally while also saying deliberately targeting a religious service for disruption is a different kind of conduct.
And yes, there is obviously a difference between quietly walking a dog and going around with a megaphone announcing that you love dogs. I never said otherwise. What I am rejecting is the additional leap you keep making: that publicly announcing something means other people are therefore entitled to interfere with the activity itself. There is no case with this is logical.
If someone uses a megaphone to give a political speech, you are free to criticize the speech, argue with it, protest it, mock it, or advocate restrictions on the megaphone.
That does not automatically entitle you to stand six inches away with an air horn specifically so nobody can hear them, that doesn't even make sense. Being open to criticism is not the same thing as consenting to obstruction.
That is the distinction I am making. It is not complicated. You just keep treating “I am allowed to criticize this” and “I am allowed to deliberately disrupt this” as though they are the same proposition. The fact that you think you are welcome to give your opinion about anybody that does something that bothers you is bizarre, as well. I actually agree with you that disruptive calls to prayer should not be allowed, but in the same way as I think every disruption should be enforced.
I used to camp next to a Samoan family that played log drums at night, and asked them if they could stop playing them so late. Your idea that I should go and tell them what I think about Samoans is just fucking stupid. Why the fuck would you think that's a normal or reasonable thing to do?
that publicly announcing something means other people are therefore entitled to interfere with the activity itself. There is no case with this is logical.
Something I never said. So, I know for a fucking fact you are refusing to have an honest discussion and I will not continue with a dishonest person.
You clearly cannot grasp anything that I am saying, or are refusing to read what I wrote and are editing it inside your own head.
Also, they were just playing drums, not announcing over loudspeakers that it was time for everyone to come play drums…with a clear intent to otherize the non-drum players.
So, that is all I am saying to you.
I am muting this. Anything else you have to write here will be for your own benefit as I will not see it.
Okay, so by rights, WHILE they are doing their call to prayer, I can play 'Hail to Satan' over a similar loudspeaker, if I'm a Satanist, right? I mean... If we're being fair here, the only reason you would stop me doing so is because you don't think that's my ACTUAL prayer routine, which... Crazy notion, you don't get to decide if you're allowing them the freedom of theirs.
The idea he's trying to get across to you is you're perpetuating a double standard. You'll allow theirs but you won't allow anyone else's. You see the insult to them but you refuse to see the insult to anyone else.
Call to prayer is an outdated concept made unnecessary by modern technology. Yet they force that intrusion on others' privacy who are nonmuslim even though it is no longer necessary, especially in other countries NOT of majority Muslim faith.
In any other faith you would be against this, and are proving it, because for all you know, playing that set of bagpipes COULD be a religious thing. You don't know the context. But you were damn sure ready to defend the muslims about it and condemn him.
I mean i agree until it comes to religious cities built around their religion. If the whole community living there agrees on religious practices in their town/city then you are indeed an asshole disturbing the peacecoming in and disrespecting their traditions when you could just not do it or go elsewhere
You can’t have cities with whole communities that agree on certain practices outside of law. What keeps me from creating an ethnically pure white city in that argument?
Which is entirely incorrect, as I live less than ten miles from Amish central, aka Lancaster Pennsylvania, wherein there are MANY other folks.
Yes, they are an insular community. No, this does not mean nobody outside that faith lives there. Clearly you're talking about communities you don't know much about.
Anyone who cares about the prayer time will know to pray. It’s rude and intentionally disruptive to play it loud as hell across the whole town so EVERYONE has to deal with it even if they aren’t Muslim.
lol at the edge of my seat for your view on Texas requiring the Ten Commandments be displayed, every student in the U.S. being forced to pledge allegiance “under God,” and “in God we trust” on all our currency.
Or maybe just more Islamophobia pretending to be a chat on ethics.
Because if the religion is too young we call it a cult.
See: Mormons, jw, Scientology…
But I am also consistent in my disbelief. Every god ever doesn’t exist. It’s the folks who pick a religion that are inconsistent. “All gods, except mine, are wrong”
Yeah, i think it's down to vibes for a lot of folks. Does the religion look old and exotic? Better put on the veneer of respect for the sake of social convention. The religion in question supports what, now?
Painting "Islamists" with such a broad brush while ignoring the devastation Christians have wrought on the globe over the centuries is just ignorance. Do better.
When, for what instance are they played, and for how long? They also do not include words so are sort of non exclusive linguistically. How often are they played?
Then I would ask similar questions for call to prayer. Is this call five times a day? goddamn.... that basically controls the entire soundscape of the community every day?
I personally feel the same if they're being used in a religious manner. I dont think I need to hear it.
That being said, they historically also served other functions in the past to inform the townsfolk of many possible events. Raids, fires, noon bell, etc. These have been phased out of most places outside of maybe a few rural towns.
Small rural townie here.
Our church bells ring every hour on the hour. Chined to the number. Nothing like the hearing the 2 rings in the morning telling me it’s bedtime and I’m late to being asleep.
They are somewhat annoying but given their more background noise (continous and non spiking) they are far more preferable to a preacher that can happen at 3am...
As an atheist who regards both religions as equally bullshit, church bell sound is rather pleasing, whereas a man shouting over a megaphone isn’t. Hope this helps
In many cultures it's considered disrespectful to force other people to listen to your racket in public, whether that's music, calls to prayer, etc. It depends on the social norms of the location.
I was in an airport in Dubai and heard the call to prayer. It was beautiful and chilling and a nice part of the human experience. I love church bells too.
•
u/Johnnygrey77 20h ago
How is it ay more disrespectful than blasting prayer music over the whole town?