[Mengerian]

Wow. Musical bells = human speech? Human speech is not remotely close to the sound of bells; but hey, that's just me.

We're on two vastly different wavelengths. You're not going to persuade me with your bizarre fallacy. You keep your opinion, I'll keep mine.

Frankly, I'd prefer to listen to occasional bells over the wailing / caterwauling diatribe about Allah through prayer calls on city-wide loudspeakers.

[JoeProBono]

CHURCH BELLS

[GL of Sector 2814]

Frankly, I'd prefer to listen to occasional bells over the wailing / caterwauling diatribe about Allah through prayer calls on city-wide loudspeakers.

I find the sounds of occasional bells more pleasing than occasional calls to prayer myself (and I'm neither Christian nor Muslim) but I recognize that they're both protected forms of religious expression.

Darn that pesky 1st Amendment!

[FrankR]

"Wow. Musical bells = human speech? Human speech is not remotely close to the sound of bells; but hey, that's just me."

I would say this; the sound of the bells is their natural sound, whereas the sound of "amplified" voices is NOT the natural sound, it is amplified.

Therefore my conclusion would be, let the mussies catterwal all they want, just in their natural voices, NO AMPLIFICATION. And then the bells would be rung in their "natural voicing", no amplification.

America is NOT a muslim country, no matter what our kenyan president says; we are a Christian nation. And, anyone who is neither muslim nor Christian should not have any opinion about it...it doesn't concern them.

Try going to Iran and demanding that Christian church bells be rung...and they will be ringing at your headless funeral.

This ruling has ACLU written all over it...the most un-American institution ever devised.