State leaders speak out about plans to expand the Islamic Academy of Alabama

[BCP1928]

I've provided the numbers before, pretending the two are equivalents would be dishonest.

One clearly has a higher propensity for that type of preference for power consolidation.

State religion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Roughly half of the ~50 Muslim majority countries end up with an officially codified state religion that gets special constitutional treatment (and severe punishments for insulting the faith or leaving the faith)

Of the ~120 Christian majority countries, a much smaller percentage of those have an official state religion, and of the ones that do, most are a historical holdover/relic that's no longer enforced or carries any legal weight. (for example, the Icelandic government isn't throwing rocks at anyone for leaving the Church of Iceland)


So while one can say "they both do it, so that means it's a wash", that's too blunt an instrument to perform any pragmatic problem solving or knowing what needs more focus.

In the same way that if:
Bill drinks 4 beers a night
Ted drinks 15 beers every night

Yeah, we can say "they both have a drinking problem", sure...but clearly one needs more urgent "priority focus" in regards to tackling the problem.

But you still haven't explained how Muslims in this country can get past the Constitution and the majority of voters.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

But you still haven't explained how Muslims in this country can get past the Constitution and the majority of voters.

The concern isn't that they'll "get past the constitution" or "bypass a majority of voters"

The concern is that when Islamic fundamentalists build that critical mass, they'll use democracy against itself and change laws in ways that don't have the same regard for church/state separation.

I had mentioned the changes that had happened in Hamtramck Michigan before.

The moment they got to a 58% narrow majority, within a year or two, they've got 4 of the 6 city council seats and the mayors office, and city ordinances and funding starts getting changed in ways that specifically benefit their particular faith.

At which point, the remaining original residents get to listen to the Muslim call to prayer at 6am through loudspeakers throughout the city because that's now exempted from the city noise ordinance, get a front row seat to some ritual animal slaughter in peoples' yards because they gained an exemption to the animal welfare codes, and get to have their tax dollars used for subsidizing "Halal-certified" school lunches.


That one spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood recently did that interview where he wasn't even hiding the ball and said the "modern jihad" involves emigrating to democratic countries, outbreeding them, and "ballots will become the new bullets".

 

[iluvatar5150]

The concern isn't that they'll "get past the constitution" or "bypass a majority of voters"

The concern is that when Islamic fundamentalists build that critical mass, they'll use democracy against itself and change laws in ways that don't have the same regard for church/state separation.

You mean just like Christians have been doing in North America since before the US was founded and are continuing to do right now?

I had mentioned the changes that had happened in Hamtramck Michigan before.

The moment they got to a 58% narrow majority, within a year or two, they've got 4 of the 6 city council seats and the mayors office, and city ordinances and funding starts getting changed in ways that specifically benefit their particular faith.

At which point, the remaining original residents get to listen to the Muslim call to prayer at 6am through loudspeakers throughout the city because that's now exempted from the city noise ordinance, get a front row seat to some ritual animal slaughter in peoples' yards because they gained an exemption to the animal welfare codes, and get to have their tax dollars used for subsidizing "Halal-certified" school lunches.


That one spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood recently did that interview where he wasn't even hiding the ball and said the "modern jihad" involves emigrating to democratic countries, outbreeding them, and "ballots will become the new bullets".

I would imagine that, if anybody cared to take it up, they could get a court to slap down those exceptions fairly easily.

 

[BCP1928]

The concern isn't that they'll "get past the constitution" or "bypass a majority of voters"

The concern is that when Islamic fundamentalists build that critical mass, they'll use democracy against itself and change laws in ways that don't have the same regard for church/state separation.

I had mentioned the changes that had happened in Hamtramck Michigan before.

The moment they got to a 58% narrow majority, within a year or two, they've got 4 of the 6 city council seats and the mayors office, and city ordinances and funding starts getting changed in ways that specifically benefit their particular faith.

At which point, the remaining original residents get to listen to the Muslim call to prayer at 6am through loudspeakers throughout the city because that's now exempted from the city noise ordinance, get a front row seat to some ritual animal slaughter in peoples' yards because they gained an exemption to the animal welfare codes, and get to have their tax dollars used for subsidizing "Halal-certified" school lunches.

How does any of that effect any of my constitutional rights? That's all culture stuff. Of course it might be different if Hamtramck noise ordinances forbade Christians from ringing their church bells. I actually like the call to prayer. When I lived and worked in a Muslim country the local Muzzein on the dawn call was an outstanding operatic tenor--Pavoratti wouldn't come close. It was a great way to wake up.

That one spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood recently did that interview where he wasn't even hiding the ball and said the "modern jihad" involves emigrating to democratic countries, outbreeding them, and "ballots will become the new bullets".

Too bad about all of the Muslims who came to this country to escape that sort of thing. But if if enough militant Islamicists become citizens that they are able to vote to amend the Constitution to prefer their religion over all others then you will have a problem, I suppose. But the Christians have been yearning it for years. It was a plank in Pat Robertson's platform when he ran for President in 1988. During the Civil War Christians were putting heavy pressure on to change "We the People" in the Constitution to "Jesus Christ." Lincoln fobbed them off by agreeing to put "In God we trust" on the coinage. The point is, Christians have been trying for official religious preference for decades and have largely failed. It's too soon to worry about Muslim immigrants.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Too bad about all of the Muslims who came to this country to escape that sort of thing. But if if enough militant Islamicists become citizens that they are able to vote to amend the Constitution to prefer their religion over all others then you will have a problem, I suppose.

It is unfortunate for the nominal/moderate Muslims.

But the polling would indicate that the more radical element of that cohort aren't "the fringe" as we've often been led to believe.

The public polling from Muslims in westernized countries, who are in favor of punishing cartoonists who poke fun at their prophet, establishing Sharia law as a parallel system, and the general attitudes toward women, gays, and freethinkers would indicate that for many of them, it wasn't escape, they were looking to emulate what they had, just with a better, more stable, economic backdrop.
(It's the same reason I'm not a fan of insular communities in general)


Once you start seeing polling numbers on those topics that are north of 40%, "fringe" doesn't apply anymore.

But the Christians have been yearning it for years. It was a plank in Pat Robertson's platform when he ran for President in 1988. During the Civil War Christians were putting heavy pressure on to change "We the People" in the Constitution to "Jesus Christ." Lincoln fobbed them off by agreeing to put "In God we trust" on the coinage. The point is, Christians have been trying for official religious preference for decades and have largely failed.

One particular subset of Christians have been, the rest of have not. And it's pretty clear that's not a majority view, evidenced by the fact that Christianity (in a blanket categorization) has periods where they've had an 80% majority for spans of decades, which means they could've voted to amend the constitution and establish a "Christian Taliban" of sorts if that's what they really wanted.

 

[BCP1928]

It is unfortunate for the nominal/moderate Muslims.

But the polling would indicate that the more radical element of that cohort aren't "the fringe" as we've often been led to believe.

The public polling from Muslims in westernized countries, who are in favor of punishing cartoonists who poke fun at their prophet, establishing Sharia law as a parallel system, and the general attitudes toward women, gays, and freethinkers would indicate that for many of them, it wasn't escape, they were looking to emulate what they had, just with a better, more stable, economic backdrop.
(It's the same reason I'm not a fan of insular communities in general)

Once again, you are talking about culture, not economics and governance.

Once you start seeing polling numbers on those topics that are north of 40%, "fringe" doesn't apply anymore.

One particular subset of Christians have been, the rest of have not. And it's pretty clear that's not a majority view, evidenced by the fact that Christianity (in a blanket categorization) has periods where they've had an 80% majority for spans of decades, which means they could've voted to amend the constitution and establish a "Christian Taliban" of sorts if that's what they really wanted.

45% of Americans Say U.S. Should Be a ‘Christian Nation’

But they hold differing opinions about what that phrase means, and two-thirds of U.S. adults say churches should keep out of politics.

www.pewresearch.org

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I would imagine that, if anybody cared to take it up, they could get a court to slap down those exceptions fairly easily.

Actually, if you look at some of their local newspapers, it has been quite a contentious subject, and people have filed petitions, and voiced displeasure at city council meetings.

And in a few of those cases, how it would go is that Sakrul Islam (the then Head of the Islamic Center, not sure if he's still the leader of it or not) would threaten to file defamation lawsuits.

Basically "If you keep complaining that we're doing it too loud, or that we're doing it outside of the allowed window, we'll claim that you're lying about us, and in a way that will cost you money".

It's a city that's now almost 70% Muslim -- it's increased since that controversy started -- (who are members of the Islamic Centers in question), odds of getting an impartial jury on that?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Once again, you are talking about culture, not economics and governance.

45% of Americans Say U.S. Should Be a ‘Christian Nation’

But they hold differing opinions about what that phrase means, and two-thirds of U.S. adults say churches should keep out of politics.

www.pewresearch.org

As noted by that article you linked:
"but they hold differing opinions of what that phrase means"

2/3 say Churches should keep out of politics.

So among the that 45% you're referencing, only a quarter of that subset want the "Christian form of Sharia".

 

[BCP1928]

As noted by that article you linked:
"but they hold differing opinions of what that phrase means"

2/3 say Churches should keep out of politics.

View attachment 374271

View attachment 374273

So among the that 45% you're referencing, only a quarter of that subset want the "Christian form of Sharia".

And they are not going to get it, any more than the subset of Muslim immigrants who want the Muslim form of Sharia are going to get it. And no, the call to prayer is not an imposition of Sharia law on non-Muslims.

 

[rjs330]

The main objective of these Christian schools and colleges in Muslim countries is to bring people to Christ, which Muslims perceive as an effort to radicalize their people.

It appears that your understanding of Islam and Muslim culture is primarily based on reading and consuming media, rather than personal experience in a Muslim country. In other words, your perspective may be shaped by misconceptions due to limited direct knowledge of the subject.

Incorrect. I have a clear understanding of it. I've listened to plenty of people who have left Islam and who have lived in Islamic countries. You ignored my points on Radicalization. I hate to repeat myself but I will for the last time for you. Radicalization is about Islamisim. The Islamist. The ones who believe in violence, death, subjugation of women and takeover to name a few things. You cannot deny that there is a very large number of Muslims that believe in that. The Christians in Muslim countries are not radicalizing people to do that. Yet Islamists who do believe in that are leaving their countries and bringing that with them. I'm not talking about every Muslim. I will repeat rhis I am not talking about every Muslim. I am talking about Islamists who are broken up into two groups. Those who will use violence to take over or those who will use political means to take over.

And there is no denying that these radicals have come to the west.

 

[Larniavc]

Capitalism hasn’t discriminated against me religiously, culturally or socioeconomically.

Yes it has. If you were born into generational wealth your low IQ wouldn’t matter one jot.

 

[rjs330]

I didn't say I expected them to have that exact quote. I said I expected them to support your claim. They don't. They support a claim along the lines of "Islamism is dangerous and concerning." They don't support the claim you made, "Islamism is the biggest and most deadly threat in the world today."

Do you see the difference?

No because if you recognize why its concerning you will see why its the biggest threat. Because there is no other group that is bigger. I didnt even mention the amount of death and destruction Islamists have done world wide because I didn't think I would need to. Islamism in all its forms most certainly is the biggest and most deadly threat.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

And they are not going to get it, any more than the subset of Muslim immigrants who want the Muslim form of Sharia are going to get it.

The reason why they're not getting it is because that subset of Christians never had the numbers, and were outnumbered by the much larger subset of Christians who didn't want that.

Early Utah would be an example of what happens when a insular religious community has the majority, and most are agreement on wanting consolidation. They had several laws that blatantly favored LDS traditions, courts were packed with LDS bishops, they had polygamy getting practiced (and when the feds stepped in and said "nope", they just went with a policy of non-enforcement for as long as they could)



However, if there's a major population shift, and the group that has a 67% propensity for wanting that power consolidation starts considerably outnumbering the group that only has a 15% propensity for wanting that type of consolidation, things will change.

The stat you posted lines up with the global number as well in terms of preferences for that sort of thing.

30% of the 45% (~15%) of Christians in the US want that sort of thing
Globally, of the ~120 Christian majority countries, 31 have an official state religion (that number gets smaller when factoring whether or not it's reflected in law or gets special benefits)
Whereas, 34 of the 53 Muslim majority countries ended up with it.


It only takes a few decades for a voter composition to radically change when birth rates are disparate, and you stack immigration on top of that.


Now, this isn't even factoring in immigration, just forecasted growth based on available statistics just to show how quickly things can shift

AI disclaimer, I did outsource this to Anthropic's paid version of Claude using the premium tier Sonnet model (which is very accurate -- sources can be provided if you'd like as it cites them)

To the question of:
If you have a city that's currently comprised of
20,000 Christians
8,000 Muslims
3,000 Hindus

Given the current birth rates of these demographic groups in the US.
What would the population breakdown be in 40 years?

Total Fertility Rates (TFR) for US Religious Groups:​

• Christians: ~1.5-1.6 children per woman
• Muslims: ~2.5 children per woman (average of US-born at 2.2 and foreign-born at 2.6)
• Hindus: ~2.3 children per woman

The Math: Exponential Growth Model​

For demographic projections, we use the formula:

P(t) = P₀ × e^(rt)

Where:

• P(t) = population at time t
• P₀ = initial population
• r = growth rate
• t = time in years
• e = Euler's number (≈2.718)

To calculate the growth rate from TFR, we need to convert fertility rates to annual growth rates. A simplified approach assumes:

r ≈ (TFR - 2.1) / 30

Growth rates:

• Christians: r ≈ (1.55 - 2.1) / 30 = -0.0183 per year
• Muslims: r ≈ (2.5 - 2.1) / 30 = 0.0133 per year
• Hindus: r ≈ (2.3 - 2.1) / 30 = 0.0067 per year

After 40 years:

• Christians: 20,000 × e^(-0.0183 × 40) ≈ 20,000 × 0.478 ≈ 9,560
• Muslims: 8,000 × e^(0.0133 × 40) ≈ 8,000 × 1.69 ≈ 13,520
• Hindus: 3,000 × e^(0.0067 × 40) ≈ 3,000 × 1.30 ≈ 3,900

Total population: ~26,980 (down from 31,000)

Percentages:

• Christians: 35.4% (down from 64.5%)
• Muslims: 50.1% (up from 25.8%)
• Hindus: 14.5% (up from 9.7%)

It happened much faster in those towns in Michigan, because as noted, when you layer immigration on top of it, that accelerates the shift.

And no, the call to prayer is not an imposition of Sharia law on non-Muslims.

No, but it's unequal treatment under the law. The sharia topic is a separate subject.

If I rolled around the neighborhood in a car with those loud subwoofers, blasting music at 6am, I'd get a ticket.

However, they're allowed out blast loud stuff out of speakers at 6am. That would be a religious privilege would it not?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Yes it has. If you were born into generational wealth your low IQ wouldn’t matter one jot.

"Born to a rich person" isn't the same thing as an institutional "social order" that mandates that you "stay within your caste" (which is what we were discussing before, you had tried to make a comparison between the US capitalistic system and the Indian caste system).

80% of millionaires are first-generation wealthy (only 20% are the result of inheritance). And fewer than half of people born into poverty, stay in poverty throughout their entire lives (which does still indicate that there's an opportunity for social mobility).

Not to mention, the Caste systems entails more than just your economic situation. It also dictates who you can be friends with and who you're supposed to date/marry.

I've mentioned before on here that my SO is Indian, she's a lawyer (so as one may guess, her family is from one of the "upper-caste" groups).

Half of her family are not fans of me lol. (Despite the fact that I out-earn most of them). That system transcends income. A person from an "upper caste" making $70k as an office manager would still "look down" on someone from a lower caste, even if that person made more money than them.

The fact that my Dad worked on cars for a living evidently "indicative of something"??

I get to throw my little jabs in when her one brother starts up with that nonsense, and talks about his job or starts his "high & mighty" stuff talking down about people, and I'll casually toss in something to the effect of "wow, yeah, I almost paid that much in taxes last year, it's a lot"...which is usually the time I'll get the "under the table pinch on the leg" which is the queue to switch from wine to coffee (that is, if I want to be able to enjoy any amorous activities lol)

 

[rjs330]

That's a comment about a woman's legal rights regarding a civil marriage.

And this is Sharia law. A law that the men in Islam use in order to control women. Because women don't have the same rights. Women in these places can't just say no. They are pressured into it and then suffer under it. When you fail to see the control kn that then you fail to see the dangers of it. Genital mutilation is occuring in the West as has been proven by another poster.

And this isnt about every Muslim. This is about certain Muslims who are coming from these places. And Muslims who do not want to assimilate and want to create separate communities, separate courts, separate education separate everything. And its not about just buying some land and building their own Muslim community. Its about taking over EXISTING communities. Its happening in the US. Remember all the brew ha ha over the group who wanted to build their own community with white people. And everyone went nuts? They wanted their own space, they were not moving enmass into other communities and taking over.

 

[rjs330]

I didn't say I expected them to have that exact quote. I said I expected them to support your claim. They don't. They support a claim along the lines of "Islamism is dangerous and concerning." They don't support the claim you made, "Islamism is the biggest and most deadly threat in the world today."

Do you see the difference?



"They are dangerous" is not equivalent to "the biggest and most deadly threat in the world today."

Do you understand the difference?




I'm not ignoring anything. One of the problems here is that you're not being very precise with your words and you're not being very precise when reading mine. Maybe you don't intend to keep moving the goalposts and conflating different things, but that's effectively what you're doing every time you come back like this.

Did I say that Islamic communities don't harbor abuse? No, I didn't.

The comment of yours to which I was responding was this: "A man may get a divorce in a Sharia court and a woman has no legal option to representation and US courts will not intervene."

That's a comment about a woman's legal rights regarding a civil marriage. It's also incorrect. In my response, I made a distinction between her rights regarding the civil union (i.e. the one for which you have to get a marriage license) and her rights regarding the religious union (i.e. the one signed off on by the priest/rabbi/imam). Many religions have extra rules for marriages conducted within their purview; but at least in the US those rules are independent of any imposed by the state. A Muslim woman has the same rights as any other woman to pursue a civil divorce from her husband, which will then permit her to get married in a civil ceremony to whomever she wishes. It's only the religious side that the government stays out of - just like how the government won't force a Catholic annulment or a Baptist gay wedding, they also likely won't force a Muslim divorce, unless both parties have already agreed to that sort of arbitration.



I figured if you were going to level an accusation like that, you would've had at least one in the chamber, ready to go.

But if you don't, maybe you should stop making claims like that.

Not going to. Next time I do it I'll try to point it out as an example.

 

[iluvatar5150]

And this is Sharia law.

Which is a religious law that, contrary to your earlier claims, does not supercede civil law anywhere in the US. Again, the woman has every legal right to pursue a divorce in this country than any other woman would.

 

[rjs330]

It was a plank in Pat Robertson's platform when he ran for President in 1988. During the Civil War Christians were putting heavy pressure on to change "We the People" in the Constitution to "Jesus Christ." Lincoln fobbed them off by agreeing to put "In God we trust" on the coinage. The point is, Christians have been trying for official religious preference for decades and have largely failed. It's too soon to worry about Muslim immigrants.

And Robertson wasn't voted in. Christians have been a majority of this country for a very long time. We had the opportunities to do something and never have. In fact as Rob pointed out polling is clear that we are not in favor of it.

However a core tenet of Islam is religious/government control. There is no separation of church and state. And polls indicate what they want even in the West. Especially those who come from those countries. And we have seen what they have done in other places and in America. We have clear evidence of it actually occurring.

So to continue to ignore and deny is foolish.

 

[rjs330]

Which is a religious law that, contrary to your earlier claims, does not supercede civil law anywhere in the US. Again, the woman has every legal right to pursue a divorce in this country than any other woman would.

Its a religious law that supersedes civil law in practice. Because thesr women are forced into it and forced to abide by it. If it was not allowed then they wouldn't be trapped by it. And there arw clear movements to make it equal to civil law in all facets. Its hard enough for these poor women. For theae groups it absolutely supersedes civil law. Becauae if you try to access civil law you are in danger in a number of ways.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Which is a religious law that, contrary to your earlier claims, does not supercede civil law anywhere in the US. Again, the woman has every legal right to pursue a divorce in this country than any other woman would.

If they can survive the social backlash associated with not complying with a "ruling".

There's a lot of legal precedent and guardrails that, on paper, sounds like it covers all bases, but works a little different in "real-world scenarios".

I view the private Sharia arbitration entities (that as you said, have no official legal standing in the US) with the same skeptical lens that I view the "Chinese Civil Assistance and Integration Centers" (IE: "Secret police stations") that also have no official legal standing on paper, but still wield a great amount of influence over people through thinly veiled threats and coercion that certainly has a way of dictating other people's behaviors.


If we were talking about any other religion that wasn't perceived to be in a marginalized group doing this, I'm skeptical that people would be so dismissive of the impacts.

If a Kentucky Southern Baptist church was doing the same thing and saying "Y'know, we want to be able to arbitrate and try to address these matters internally before things go to an actual court" (pertaining to matters of marital conflicts or sexual orientation), that would not sit well with people (especially people on the more progressive wing). Hence the reason people take issue with Pastoral councils engaging in "conversion therapy" Those pastors don't have any real legal power on paper, so why are people so bent out of shape about them trying to do "gay-to-straight conversions" right? The answer is, because when people don't have their "oppressed vs. oppressor" lenses on, they can accurately identify that religious clergy have the power to make people's social lives more miserable than a real judge on non-criminal code matters.

"who has the actual authority" is ultimately in the eye of the beholder.

Despite a private-entity "council" not having official legal standing, if a person has reason to believe that said "council" has a higher likelihood of getting their parents to disown them, or getting their entire social group and family to shun them, that council has more practical power/influence than an actual judge on civil matters.