Talk politics.

Hi, my fellow zealous fundies reasonable folks! First Im'ma toss this in here:

A church in the town of Parvomay is being sued for the noise from its bells

And then, Im'ma just remind of a similar recent case:

[Ultranationalist party] Ataka are protesting against the noise from the Mosque of Sofia

As one might expect, the former event was largely condemned by the (largely Christian) community, while the latter had been praised (even though Ataka is not exactly the epitome of rationality around here). An interesting discussion emerged from these cases, unfortunately my interlocutors failing to put their finger on the real problem - until late into the conversation, that is. My suspicion is that too many people are too eager to dance around the real issue and twist themselves into all sorts of weird pretzel forms, to run away from naming things with their real names. But do bear with me.


First pseudo-argument that I got:

1. "Church bells don't make as much noise as the wailing of the imam".

Bullshit. In fact, if we're really to compare noise levels, the voice of the imam, even when amplified through loudspeakers facing the square, can't be heard across 4-5 blocks, as the tolling of the huge brass church bells can. That's a fact that we can witness on any significant Christian holiday, or indeed often on every round hour (depending on the particular church). I then asked if the problem is really with the noise, because if it were, then the debate definitely won't be won by the church bells. Which is where things quickly diverted into another direction...

Second pseudo-argument:

2. Yeah, but when the imam starts wailing, there's no stopping. You can't hear a thing on the street". And also, "He wails once in a few hours, this is unacceptable!"

Well then, turns out the problem is again not with the noise itself, but with its duration and/or frequency? Then how about we establish a clear rule about how many minutes of prayer is acceptable for our sensitive ears? And how many times a day/week/month we should allow it to happen outside in the square? Shouldn't it, perhaps, be once in an hour, as many actual churches do? Predictably, instead of an answer I got shaking heads and odd looks. Here of course was the place for the trademark personal attacks upon me (you know, kill the messenger), of the "you Ottoman janissary" and "you despicable tolerast" type, etc. Meanwhile, the only thing I was trying to do was to find something at least remotely resembling a universal measuring stick that we could apply to all similar situations. To no avail.

I also subsequently got a few other pseudo-arguments, every next one more ridiculous than the preceding one:

3. "But the bell doesn't toll at 4-5 a.m.! (Unless there's some emergency situation)".

Again, nothing to do with the noise itself. Let's establish a firm rule about the acceptable time period of the day when "religious noise" of any sort can occur, I said. Because, again, if the problem was the existence of "religious noise" itself, then the church definitely loses the debate.


4. "If the imam was singing in our official language, that wouldn't be such a problem. Instead, he wails in a foreign language that's incomprehensible for us".

Now it's the language. A nice way to get around saying that "these folks are not like us, they have no place here". With all the nasty historical parallels this sort of mindset implies. Well, in turn, let's be frank - we can't understand the Old Slavonic chants of the Orthodox Christian clergy either, can we? Save for a few separate words that sound somewhat familiar. That's a language that nobody uses any more anywhere.

Let's face it. The problem ain't the noise levels, or frequency of occurrence, or time zone, or the language. The problem is that these folks are not "like us".

And the most ridiculous argument of all:

5. "Say, a church bell tolled somewhere in Saudi Arabia, Iran or Afghanistan. Would anyone tolerate that?"

And here's where it gets really interesting. If you want to compare ourselves to the most backward theocracies on this planet, go ahead, be my guest. But that automatically exempts you of the pretense that we're a 21st century "normal" society. You can't have it both ways.

I could go on with the bullshit arguments, like "But, but, wailing is one thing, bell-tolling is another; one sounds nicer than the other!" (I wonder which). Indeed, the problem is not with the noise itself. And this was confirmed with what eventually shaped up as the final, real argument that I at long last received:

6. "Well, this is a Christian country, period. That's why the bells shall toll, and the imam will wail behind closed doors only".

Bingo! That's where the whole issue resides. I was so proud with my interlocutors for finally having reached the core of the issue, despite all the initial beating around the bush, and the tons of attempts to pretzel into all sorts of shapes. Why didn't you say it outright, people? Now, let's get real. Go along with me, "We are a majority here, and whatever the majority postulates, everybody else will follow!" End of story.

Which, of course, opens a whole other lot of doors to setting up a number of similar rules, which a majority, any majority would be able to impose upon everybody else. Some of them not so good for those "others", and hence for society as a whole. And creates a rationale for a possible abuse of the representatives of our very own diaspora living abroad, and an excuse for their potential treatment as second-class people. Because, ya know, ain't they a minority over there? And then you'll have no right to complain, because we're applying the same principle, aren't we?


Not to mention that those among us who do not necessarily bow to any particular magical cosmic boss, are not too eager to be hearing "religious noises" of any intensity, duration, or frequency, on a daily basis - be they the imam's wailing or the tolling of metal bells. It's not good for my home's structural integrity, the windows and glasses start shaking, the plaster starts falling off the walls, and the dog panically hides under the bed. But who cares about us? We're supposed to be just another minority here. Or are we?

In conclusion, I'd say this sort of mindset and reaction, this blatant double standard, is yet another sign of our very own perverse interpretation of democracy. It seems for us democracy tends to translate as indiscriminate dictatorship of the majority, no matter if said majority has earned that authority in any meaningful way. Which, in turn, shows once more how immature we are as a society.