T Nation

Dearborn Michigan USA


#1

Christians stoned in Dearborn No-G0 Zone as police stand by and watch. What the fuck is going on America http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/dearborn-no-go-zone-where-islam-rules-and-christians-are-stoned

Tell me this is a prank, please!


#2

Hmmm. Sharia Zones kinda sound like Utah.


#3

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Hmmm. Sharia Zones kinda sound like Utah.[/quote]

Or my ex wife…


#4

[quote]streamline wrote:
Christians stoned in Dearborn No-G0 Zone as police stand by and watch. What the fuck is going on America http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/dearborn-no-go-zone-where-islam-rules-and-christians-are-stoned

Tell me this is a prank, please![/quote]

They went there specifically to get a response and got one, what is the problem? I have been to Dearborn many times and never had an incident. The law there is no different than anywhere else in Michigan. Dearborn is the largest Arab/Chaldean enclave outside the middle east and we have very few problems with integration here.

I really don’t get why these protesters expect to go cause issues and are upset that the cops don’t want to put themselves in harms way after you have been told not to come start shit. I know it is their “right”, just as it is westboro’s "right to protest Veterans funerals, but I wouldn’t be upset with people throwing rocks at them either.


#5

And that’s the problem testy


#6

Deerborn’s name needs to be changed to Stillborn. It’s a cesspool.

According to Dr. Savage its currently controlled by the World Bank…


#7

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
And that’s the problem testy[/quote]

Care to elaborate?


#8

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Deerborn’s name needs to be changed to Stillborn. It’s a cesspool.

According to Dr. Savage its currently controlled by the World Bank…[/quote]

I take it that since you can’t spell it you have never been there.


#9

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
And that’s the problem testy[/quote]

Care to elaborate?
[/quote]

I mean I get it, everyone deserves protection of free speech, but I just have a hard time getting worked up when people start shit and get what they were aiming for.


#10

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
And that’s the problem testy[/quote]

Care to elaborate?
[/quote]

I mean I get it, everyone deserves protection of free speech, but I just have a hard time getting worked up when people start shit and get what they were aiming for.

[/quote]

If Law is not applied uniformly then it’s not Law. Just because there is a Muslim majority population there doesn’t give them free reign to assault people. What you saw was a portion of America behaving like a Theocracy. Is that what you want?
This comes down to that quote


#11

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
And that’s the problem testy[/quote]

Care to elaborate?
[/quote]

I mean I get it, everyone deserves protection of free speech, but I just have a hard time getting worked up when people start shit and get what they were aiming for.

[/quote]

If Law is not applied uniformly then it’s not Law. Just because there is a Muslim majority population there doesn’t give them free reign to assault people. What you saw was a portion of America behaving like a Theocracy. Is that what you want?
This comes down to that quote

On the surface you are of course right, however where I come from I was taught if you run your mouth enough be prepared to get punched in it.


#12

And I was taught if you are man enough to punch someone, be man enough to face consequences.


#13

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

On the surface you are of course right, however where I come from I was taught if you run your mouth enough be prepared to get punched in it.
[/quote]

The problem is that this mentality, when selectively applied to constitutional rights, allows for a “heckler’s veto” in a de facto sense.

In other words, if a civil society allows the opposition to threaten, intimidate or otherwise override and shut down a minority group’s expression, by legal or illegal means, then in effect you are not permitting that minority group or individual to express themselves equally.

This is the same mentality that has gotten municipalities into legal troubles for selectively denying parade permits or demonstration permits on certain public lands or right-of-ways, simply because of a presumed fear of violence or disorder. I get that poking a bear with a stick is perhaps an unwise choice of behavior, but beware of blanket refusals to protect the constitutional rights of a minority because the opposition behaves so badly simply out of disdain for the minority group’s seemingly offensive message.


#14

It sounds like there is a fact dispute over what actually happened. I don’t know who has the right facts.

I will say, Christians have the same rights to walk through a “Muslim enclave” as blacks would have to walk through a “White enclave” and to be free from assault. People should also generally refrain from intentionally inciting riots. The facts in this case seem a little muddy.


#15

Yeah, but should the presence of another group be grounds for inciting a riot? Seems apologistic.


#16

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Yeah, but should the presence of another group be grounds for inciting a riot? Seems apologistic.[/quote]

According to that link the Christians were more than merely “present.”


The video edits out the part where Ruben Israel explains to a police officer that they have a pig head on a pole because Muslims are â??petrifiedâ?? of pigs and so it â??keeps them at bay.â?? No really. He says that. Can you understand now why a group of Arab kids might feel threatened by these predominately white Christians coming to their cultural festival to shout at them that they are going to hell and that their religion is a lie? Get a bunch of kids together, mock their beliefs, try to ward them away with a pig head on a stick, yell at them, and no matter what religion they are, donâ??t be surprised if they start throwing trash. That doesnâ??t in any way justify their action, but it does explain it.


If true, I agree that violence was not called for, but it does tend to explain why cops might not be as sympathetic to their plight. Also, the link claims that cops (and other muslims) did take steps to stem violence. So this factually seems muddy as to what happened. I know if someone was shoving a pig’s head on a stick in my face I’d be pretty pissed, even though I don’t think a pig’s head has any special religious significance.


#17

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

If true, I agree that violence was not called for, but it does tend to explain why cops might not be as sympathetic to their plight. Also, the link claims that cops (and other muslims) did take steps to stem violence. So this factually seems muddy as to what happened. I know if someone was shoving a pig’s head on a stick in my face I’d be pretty pissed, even though I don’t think a pig’s head has any special religious significance.
[/quote]

It looks like the court found that the police were not civilly liable here which, given the facts, may well have been a prudent decision. Of course, these scenarios are hard to debate online because several mitigating factors can change who was more at fault.

For the most part, though I don’t claim to be overly familiar with the specific rituals of all sects or schools of Islam, followers abstain from consumption of swine flesh. Generally speaking, contact with swine or pig skin is not taboo or sacrilegious per se, although it is common practice that a Muslim cleanse any parts of his or her body that came in contact with a pig before they resume partaking in any ceremonial religious observances. It’s based on a sacred tenet of the religious text, even though the pig’s head, as an object in and of itself, does not have religious significance.


#18

I know in prison they would give Muslims new cookware that hadn’t been used to cook pork.


#19

Public property problems.


#20

[quote]JR249 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

If true, I agree that violence was not called for, but it does tend to explain why cops might not be as sympathetic to their plight. Also, the link claims that cops (and other muslims) did take steps to stem violence. So this factually seems muddy as to what happened. I know if someone was shoving a pig’s head on a stick in my face I’d be pretty pissed, even though I don’t think a pig’s head has any special religious significance.
[/quote]

It looks like the court found that the police were not civilly liable here which, given the facts, may well have been a prudent decision. Of course, these scenarios are hard to debate online because several mitigating factors can change who was more at fault.

For the most part, though I don’t claim to be overly familiar with the specific rituals of all sects or schools of Islam, followers abstain from consumption of swine flesh. Generally speaking, contact with swine or pig skin is not taboo or sacrilegious per se, although it is common practice that a Muslim cleanse any parts of his or her body that came in contact with a pig before they resume partaking in any ceremonial religious observances. It’s based on a sacred tenet of the religious text, even though the pig’s head, as an object in and of itself, does not have religious significance.
[/quote]

The Islamic dietary laws are a copy of the Jewish dietary laws. The pig and pork meat/products are considered ritually impure and they have very specific rules about contamination. If a mosque is desicrated by someone leaving a pig’s head there then all sorts of rituals have to be done after the physical cleaning before the mosque is fit to use and purified again.