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

ThatRobGuy said:

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)

Click to expand...

So it was. But I never was afraid of Mormons taking over the whole country and forcing me to make polygamous marriages. Do you think Muslims will be able to?

ThatRobGuy said:

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.



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.

Click to expand...

Is that what they're doing? LOL!

ThatRobGuy said:

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

Click to expand...

ThatRobGuy said:

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?

Click to expand...

What does being Muslim have to do with being a good juror?

Functionally

ThatRobGuy said:

"Born to a rich person" isn't the same thing as an institutional "social order" that mandates that you "stay within your caste"

Click to expand...

it is on a population level.

Is this site running slow for anyone else?

Larniavc said:

Functionally

it is on a population level.

Is this site running slow for anyone else?

Click to expand...

Yes, it is slow.

Larniavc said:

Is this site running slow for anyone else?

Click to expand...

Yeah, it’s bad. Though a lot of my stuff has been laggy the last day or two. Amusingly, comcast sent me a message they were working on a problem in my area and the slowdowns didn’t start until they messaged me to say they were done working on it.

@iluvatar5150 and @Larniavc, it's running slow for me too. As we're all in quite different regions of the world (I'm in TX), I suspect it's a site problem and not some intermediate service (unless we all end up going through one last gateway before reaching the site).

Larniavc said:

Is this site running slow for anyone else?

Click to expand...

Yes, for the last two days I'm having to click the button multiple time to get responses to post

rjs330 said:

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.

Click to expand...

As I anticipated, you have not visited any Muslim-majority countries, nor have you participated in evangelism within such regions. Instead, your interactions have primarily involved meeting a few Muslims who converted to Christianity while residing in America. It appears that you think you grasp the topic, but you don't truly have direct experience with it.

Islam is a false religion, and Islam is not aligned with contemporary secular democratic principles. Many aspects of Islam, when interpreted literally, appear to be inconsistent with the values of a modern, 21st-century secular society. Throughout its history, Islam has been associated with various forms of violence and warfare. Over the last 1,500 years, there have been numerous instances where conflict was waged against those who held different faiths. Another notable aspect of Islam is the objectification of women.

The sentiment expressed above reflects our perspective on Islam, and it is generally accurate regarding Islam.

Conversely, many Muslims do not perceive Christianity in the same positive manner as we do. Just as we the Christian view Islam a false religion and incompatible with contemporary society, some Muslims hold negative views about Christianity.

Muslim do not label Christianity as a false religion, largely because they acknowledge Jesus as one of their prophets and hold him in high regard within their faith tradition. However, Muslims critically examine the history and practices associated with Christianity, particularly as they have unfolded over the past two millennia in Europe. From this perspective, these Muslims point to events such as violence, forced conversions, witch hunts, and the persecution of Protestants by the Holy Church as evidence of corruption and radicalism within Christianity. They often cite the violence perpetrated during the Crusades, emphasizing these stories to illustrate their view that Christians have engaged in acts of violence throughout history.

In addition, many Muslims associate contemporary Western, secular society—often described through the lens of Hollywood culture, the sexual revolution, and increased acceptance of transgender identities and homosexuality—with what they perceive as the modern Christian lifestyle in the West. Other points of criticism include high divorce rates, broken homes, and issues such as drunkenness. These aspects are often presented as indicators of moral decline and are used to argue that Christianity, as practiced in the West, has become corrupt and is no longer aligned with traditional values.

Yet, it is possible for a group of American missionaries to travel to Dhaka , Bangladesh and establish Christian mission schools or hospitals—a predominantly Muslim city with a population of 23 million Muslims. This demonstrates a degree of openness in some Muslim-majority regions to allow Christian organizations to operate educational or medical institutions. However, a stark difference is in the United States. In USA whose constitution explicitly guarantees freedom of religion, an American Muslim seeking to open a Muslim school would face significant challenges.

Hans Blaster said:

What does being Muslim have to do with being a good juror?

Click to expand...

If there was some sort of civil suit where the president of the gun club was threatening to sue someone for defamation just to bully them into dropping their petition against the new shooting range getting put in the residential area for the noise complaints, would you feel confident in that person getting a fair/impartial jury in a city where 70%+ of the residents were members of that gun club?

rjs330 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Your perspective is limited and lacks sufficient factual support for a conclusion.



Muslim women who have held the highest office (head of state or head of government) in Muslim-majority countries:

Presidents

• Megawati Sukarnoputri – President of Indonesia (2001–2004) [en.wikipedia.org], [acraftyarab.com]
• Ameenah Gurib-Fakim – President of Mauritius (2015–2018) [en.wikipedia.org], [acraftyarab.com]
• Atifete Jahjaga – President of Kosovo (2011–2016) [en.wikipedia.org], [acraftyarab.com]
• Roza Otunbayeva – President of Kyrgyzstan (2010–2011) [acraftyarab.com]
• Halimah Yacob – President of Singapore (2017–2023) [en.wikipedia.org], [acraftyarab.com]
• Samia Suluhu Hassan – President of Tanzania (2021–present) [en.wikipedia.org], [grokipedia.com]

Prime Ministers

• Benazir Bhutto – Prime Minister of Pakistan (1988–1990, 1993–1996) – first Muslim woman to lead a Muslim-majority country [grokipedia.com], [muslimnews.co.uk]
• Khaleda Zia – Prime Minister of Bangladesh (1991–1996, 2001–2006) [en.wikipedia.org], [muslimnews.co.uk]
• Sheikh Hasina Wajed – Prime Minister of Bangladesh (1996–2001, 2009–2024) [en.wikipedia.org]
• Tansu Çiller – Prime Minister of Turkey (1993–1996) [en.wikipedia.org], [muslimnews.co.uk]
• Mame Madior Boye – Prime Minister of Senegal (2001–2002) [en.wikipedia.org]
• Cissé Mariam Kaïdama Sidibé – Prime Minister of Mali (2011–2012) [en.wikipedia.org]
• Aminata Touré – Prime Minister of Senegal (2013–2014) [acraftyarab.com]
• Sibel Siber – Prime Minister of Northern Cyprus (2013) [acraftyarab.com]

Key Insights

• Benazir Bhutto broke historic barriers in 1988 as the first Muslim woman to lead a Muslim-majority nation.
• Bangladesh stands out for having two women (Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina) dominate its politics for decades.

ThatRobGuy said:

If there was some sort of civil suit where the president of the gun club was threatening to sue someone for defamation just to bully them into dropping their petition against the new shooting range getting put in the residential area for the noise complaints, would you feel confident in that person getting a fair/impartial jury in a city where 70%+ of the residents were members of that gun club?

Click to expand...

Do not both lawyers get to be present during jury selection to ensure this doesn't happen?

BCP1928 said:

So it was. But I never was afraid of Mormons taking over the whole country and forcing me to make polygamous marriages. Do you think Muslims will be able to?

Click to expand...

In countries where they're a majority, they have done that (where non-Muslims are given the choices of either converting, or paying a jizya tax)

Although, there's too many people armed to the teeth here for that level of takeover to happen absent a massive population shift (the kind that would take 60 years)

But I think the primary concerns are more rooted in special carve-outs getting created, where everyone else has to obey ordinances that appear to be universal and neutral, but they give themselves exemptions from those rules in localities they control. (like the scenarios I described from that Michigan city)

For example, there's nothing theocratic about an ordinance that says "Nobody can play loud stuff through speakers before 8am" or one that says "You can't just slit goat throats in the backyard, it's both cruel and has sanitation implications"

However, "well, but you can play loud stuff over speakers as along as its a call to prayer of some sort....and the goat thing is okay provided it's part of a religious ritual" is a religious carveout benefiting Islam.


Favoring religion over non-religion, in an area that has a pronounced religious majority and that religious group is the only one who really partakes in those things, is in essence, favoring that religion.


As an example:

If a city passed a strict ordinance with hefty fines or providing alcohol to minors, but then said "wellll, but if it's being given to them as part of a religious tradition, then that's exempt from the ordinance"

In a city that's 70% devout Catholic and the rest are Baptist, even though that ordinance exemption doesn't mention the word "catholic", it's still a carve that's pretty much exclusively for their benefit since the Baptists don't have any communion traditions that involve giving kids wine.

Aryeh Jay said:

Do not both lawyers get to be present during jury selection to ensure this doesn't happen?

Click to expand...

Yes, however, there's a caveat

Per Justia:
Ultimately the judge has the authority to resolve disputes during jury selection, though the specific procedures can vary by jurisdiction.


Here's how it typically works:


During voir dire (jury selection), both sides can challenge potential jurors in two ways:

• For cause - when there's a specific reason the juror can't be impartial (like bias or a relationship to a party)
• Peremptory challenges - a limited number of challenges without needing to give a reason (though these can't be used to discriminate based on race or gender)

When lawyers disagree about whether a juror should be struck for cause, the judge makes the final decision. The judge evaluates whether the person can indeed be fair and impartial based on the legal standard.


If lawyers exhaust their peremptory challenges and still object to certain jurors, they're generally stuck with whoever remains in the pool.


And while not directly related to this, there appears to be a lot of "funny business" that goes on in the city was referring to.



If getting a case thrown out due to "not being able to agree on a jury" was that simple, literally every defense lawyer would do it because "nope, I don't think that person can be impartial" for every juror in the pool (until the pool was exhausted) would be a slam dunk strategy.

ThatRobGuy said:

Yes, however, there's a caveat

Per Justia:
Ultimately the judge has the authority to resolve disputes during jury selection, though the specific procedures can vary by jurisdiction.


Here's how it typically works:


During voir dire (jury selection), both sides can challenge potential jurors in two ways:

• For cause - when there's a specific reason the juror can't be impartial (like bias or a relationship to a party)
• Peremptory challenges - a limited number of challenges without needing to give a reason (though these can't be used to discriminate based on race or gender)

When lawyers disagree about whether a juror should be struck for cause, the judge makes the final decision. The judge evaluates whether the person can indeed be fair and impartial based on the legal standard.


If lawyers exhaust their peremptory challenges and still object to certain jurors, they're generally stuck with whoever remains in the pool.


And while not directly related to this, there appears to be a lot of "funny business" that goes on in the city was referring to.

Hamtramck Clerk Faraj sues city officials for 'government run amok'

Rana Faraj alleged she was retaliated against and put on leave after reporting election misconduct to the state and ballots discovered after election.

www.detroitnews.com

Click to expand...

But isn't it also possible to change the location of a trial if an impartial jury would be difficult to find? A change of venue?

Aryeh Jay said:

But isn't it also possible to change the location of a trial if an impartial jury would be difficult to find? A change of venue?

Click to expand...

That likely depends on the jurisdiction.
(as to whether or not the judge makes the final call, or if there's an option to have a change of venue)

The issue is that all of that stuff costs money, and if civil trials can be leveraged as a bludgeon to squash naysaying.

So in the case that I mentioned earlier, where the lady was insisting they actually were still running afoul of the noise ordinances (by going over the decibel limit, and playing it before 6am which was when the exempted time window begins), and the president of the Islamic Center in the city said "you're lying about us, and if you don't stop with this petition, I'll file a defamation suit"...

I don't know if she was being honest about that or not (a separate article mentioned that she took a video recording with her phone as proof, but that can be doctored)

In either case a regular person from a city having a median household income of about $36k/year likely doesn't have the money laying around to engage in a legal fight against a prominent leader of one of the city's largest organizations, and in most cases will have to just zip their lip out of fear of being steamrolled.

It's often times known as the "Chilling Effect" lawsuit, or a SLAPP suit. (stands for "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation")

SLAPP suits aren't filed with the expectation of actually "winning", but to financially exhaust the defendant through legal costs. The goal is to chill free speech by making it too expensive or burdensome for someone to continue speaking out.


Not to drift into another recognized religious organization, but it's pretty common in the Scientology world (which they did technically get religious status), they'll use pooled funds for those kinds of purposes to "shut people up" who "talking a little too much" or criticizing things they're doing.

iluvatar5150 said:

Yeah, it’s bad. Though a lot of my stuff has been laggy the last day or two. Amusingly, comcast sent me a message they were working on a problem in my area and the slowdowns didn’t start until they messaged me to say they were done working on it.

Click to expand...

I'm in the UK. It's the only site running slow and I saw some cloudflare nonsense going on in my complicated network management software so maybe that?

ThatRobGuy said:

If there was some sort of civil suit where the president of the gun club was threatening to sue someone for defamation just to bully them into dropping their petition against the new shooting range getting put in the residential area for the noise complaints, would you feel confident in that person getting a fair/impartial jury in a city where 70%+ of the residents were members of that gun club?

Click to expand...

Are you familiar with voir dire?

Hans Blaster said:

Are you familiar with voir dire?

Click to expand...

Yes, I addressed it (and it's limitations) in post #134

People tend to overestimate the process in terms of being able to guarantee an impartial jury.

Don't get me wrong, it's better to have that process in place than not having it, but it by no means guarantees a fair shake in some jurisdictions.

ThatRobGuy said:

Yes, I addressed it (and it's limitations) in post #134

Click to expand...

Hadn't seen it when I posted. I read from the top down.

ThatRobGuy said:

People tend to overestimate the process in terms of being able to guarantee an impartial jury.

Don't get me wrong, it's better to have that process in place than not having it, but it by no means guarantees a fair shake in some jurisdictions.

Click to expand...

And people overestimate how completely free of bias or prior knowledge a jury must be. The main effort is to find a jury that will only use evidence, law, and argument presented in court and to set aside any bias or prior feelings. Bench trials are also a thing.