--Previous Message--
: I don't think you can definitively say noise
: is the issue.
:
: It is the only fact presented. There could
: have been all sorts of other issues that
: influenced the decision but they are not
: given in the article.
It's a fact that noise considerations are included in the permit. It's not a fact (from the article) that noise is the reason why the Muslims were approved and the Catholics denied.
The article doesn't
: even say where it is so that a reader can do
: more research. Why would that be I wonder?
From the article: "Local police approved the mosque’s adhan – or call to worship – in the town of Vaxjo, more than 250 miles southwest of Stockholm, on Tuesday."
: All you can say is there are
: two conditions relating to noise specified
: in the permission. Even if noise was THE
: issue then that would certainly give the
: Catholics a good reason to question why they
: were prohibited when "Fr. Fogelqvist
: further noted that church’s bells are
: small" and presumably unlikely to cause
: a disturbing, excessive noise.
:
: Again, it is not a fact that 'small bells'
: are quiet bells. It's quite conceivably the
: opposite! But, again, we don't know.
"The church’s priest, Ingvar Fogelqvist, told Smålandsposten that the request to ring church bells was denied in the 1990s and again in the early 2000s. The church has just a small bell located inside the church, which the priest said "sounds good, but can't be heard far."
From: https://www.thelocal.se/20180511/swedish-town-that-approved-a-mosques-calls-to-prayer-had-previously-rejected-church-bells
Can't be heard far? Doesn't sound very loud...certainly not as loud as a rock concert or a turbo-fan aircraft taking off?? (The sound equivalence of 110 Db, the level approved for the mosque)
http://www.industrialnoisecontrol.com/comparative-noise-examples.htm
: True, but it's created controversy and
: difficult questions. There's at least prima
: facie the APPEARANCE of discrimination.
:
: No, I really don't think there is. We simply
: don't have enough verifiable evidence of
: anything much at all, except that it was an
: issue of noise.
There's at least prima facie the APPEARANCE of the possibility of discrimination.
: I don't think it's unreasonable for people
: to
: question that and seek clarification.
:
: I'm all for seeking clarification but that's
: certainly not the tone of the article you
: posted.
:
: Why??
:
: Basic stuff, I reckon. As a person
: interested in the truth, I'd at least like
: the opportunity to investigate further.
:
: All the more reason why it should be
: questioned and clarified.
:
: If you or I -- the readers of the article --
: wanted to do that, we'd have to find
: alternative sources to see if there really
: is an issue of if this is actually a beat
: up.
:
: Stop press: I did more searching and found
: this article in a local news medium.
:
: At the bottom there is an update. Google
: translates it thus: Update: A few days after
: the article was published, SR [Sverige
: Radio] wrote that the church of Sankt
: Michael had never submitted an application
: for clocking. Kyrkoherde Ingvar Fogelqvist
: [the priest] tells us that the information
: he has received has been oral and that he
: lived in the idea that there was an
: application. He says he could have looked
: more closely and regret it all to SR.
You may want to check that link there as it doesn't lead to the article you suggest.
It would still appear, whether orally or in response to an application, the request for ringing of the bells is NEGATIVE.
: I look forward to the updated information in
: CNA/EWTN News!
I'm not sure it's as significant as you seem to think but I'm sure they'd be happy to correct any errors of make any clarifications where necessary.
Pete
:
:
Responses
« Back to index | View thread »