I hear Detroit has a problem with local Muslims trying to ring their
prayer calls five times a day which annoys many residents.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38044
"A holy war of sorts is heating up in a Detroit suburb, where members
of the local Muslim community want loudspeakers on mosques to announce
the Islamic call to prayer five times each day.
But the idea is running into opposition from other residents of
Hamtramck, Mich., many of whom are Christian, who think the prayer
calls as early as 6 a.m. and as late as 10 p.m. would be disruptive.
"When you call to prayer, you are proselytizing, and as a citizen of
the United States I don't want to hear it," Bob Golen, 68, told the
Detroit Free Press."
I think I'd have to agree with Bob on this one, wouldn't you?

Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism

There is a rancher down in Texas, some Muslims bought land next to his
ranch and built a mosque and then demanded that he move because his
pigs were "polluting the neighborhood". He just started running pig races
right next to the fence.

I thought you were just joking, but Googled, and low and behold:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16095716/

"Houston suburb in dispute over mosque plan
Some residents object to plan; neighbor threatens to hold pig races"

The man only threatened to hold pig races, but it's not clear if
really did it. :)

I hear Detroit has a problem with local Muslims trying to ring their
prayer calls five times a day which annoys many residents.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38044

...

"When you call to prayer, you are proselytizing, and as a citizen of
the United States I don't want to hear it," Bob Golen, 68, told the
Detroit Free Press."

I think I'd have to agree with Bob on this one, wouldn't you?

In article <Xns98F368ABFAEF7freddybear@194.177.96.26>, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:

There is a rancher down in Texas, some Muslims bought land next to
his ranch and built a mosque and then demanded that he move because
his pigs were "polluting the neighborhood". He just started running
pig races right next to the fence.

As always, Fred distorts the facts. If you read the website put out by
the rancher himself, it is clear he is *not* the owner of the land in
question. He was leasing the 11-acre tract from the "Sacco family" who
later sold it to the Muslims. So the land in question belongs to the
Muslims, not the rancher. They politely asked him to remove his cattle
from the land as well as the electrified fence, which they justifiably
felt might be a threat to their kids. But according to the rancher,
Texas law gives him 180 days to do so. Fair enough, but as a property
rights issue, it is the Muslims whose property rights are being
violated, not the other way around.

http://www.americanpigrace.com/Stand.php

As for the pigs, he was previously running cattle on his land, and not
pigs, so he does not have the right under the "right to farm" laws to
now raise pigs. Right to farm laws typically give a farmer the right
to continue engaging in whatever legal activity he was involved with
prior to a new neighbor moving in, even if it creates a nuisance for
that neighbor. But he does not have the right to use the land for
anything but farming activities that the land was traditionally used
for, in this case raising cattle. This is reasonable both ways, as it
prevents a new neighbor from moving in and demanding that a
traditional activity stop because it is creating a nuisance, and also
protects a neighbor who knowingly moves into a farm with a tolerable
activity like cattle ranching from suddenly finding the rancher has
switched to a non-traditional use creating a greater nuisance than
they had anticipated, like pig races.

http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/ObjectID/799F432A-9343-4EA0-

F DCFF/catID/D0B308BB-D553-438E-94E8D66498A911D7/213/243/267/ART/

The neighbors claims that they are protesting the building of a mosque
because of the possibility of increased noise and traffic seem
reasonable, but it begs the question why they are not protesting about
increased noise, traffic and the smell associated with the pig races,
and the media circus they are generating. Judging by this wesbite,
though, the opposition seems to be based more on anti-Islamic hatred
and hysteria than any real problems:

http://www.katyislamicassociation.net/

So basically, what you have here is a selfish, bigoted *****
insisting on his alleged "right" to create a nuisance for his new
neighbors which he does not in fact enjoy under the law, and resorting
to a racist spectacle to prove his point. His pig races are a
deliberate harassment against the legitimate owners of the land, based
on nothing more than their being Muslims and insisting on their
property rights.

There's a lot of talk on Muslim websites about bringing shari'a law
here in just this way. These people are deadly serious about it and
if we're not equally serious about stopping them we're going to find
ourselves dhimmis in our own country.

They aren't immigrants. They're *missionaries*.

Do you have some examples, or is this just more ***** from
Dhimmiwatch? Muslims *asking* for the right to live under Sharia law
is a far cry from Muslims *insisting* everyone else adhere to it. The
US allows many different groups to police themselves according to
their own laws and standards, the most notable example being the
medical profession, which controls the licensing and disciplining of
physicians. There are obvious pros and cons to this, but I don't see
why the Amish or the Mormoms should be able to live under their own
laws but not the Muslims.

On Mar 14, 7:13 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:

There's a lot of talk on Muslim websites about bringing shari'a law here
in just this way. These people are deadly serious about it and if we're
not equally serious about stopping them we're going to find ourselves
dhimmis in our own country.

They aren't immigrants. They're *missionaries*.

Weird as this sounds, I'm with Fred on this one. Canadian Muslims
have already petitioned the government of Canada to be allowed to
practice shari'a law. I don't know the disposition of the case, but
if it can happen in Canada, it can happen in the US.