Swiss to ban the building of Islamic minarets

[ddt]

The comparison is not far off between a ban on minarets and burning down synagogues. To date, there are a whopping FOUR minarets in the whole of Switzerland, while 4.3% of the population is muslim.

This referendum apparently grew out of a local controversy about a 6 meter minaret (wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minaret_controversy_in_Switzerland)).

Why banning minarets and not church towers? That is clearly religious discrimination, and would undoubtedly be struck down by any court.

First they came for the minarets, but I didn't speak out, because I was not a muslim.
Etc., you know the drill.

Put simply?

In Europe, Christianity has already had its balls cut off and Islam hasn't. In the US, Christianity retained some of its balls (we sort-of exported them to the New World) and the true impact of Islam didn't arrive until September 11th, 2001.

In Europe, for over a thousand years, the Catholic church held all the power - political, economic and military as well as people's religious lives. Then during the period roughly covered by what are known as the Enlightenment, the Reformation and the Scientific Revolution, Catholicism was firmly put in its place. European society came out of the "dark ages". This process was long and bloody. Mediaevil religions don't give up their absolute earthly power without a struggle. Islam was almost completely absent from Europe at the time - a far away enemy that Europe sent armies to defeat, not a home-based threat. This is what I mean by "Christianity had its balls cut off in Europe". No longer could people be burned at the stake for heresy. In the Islamic world, no such process has occured. During the 20th century there was a significant amount of Islamic immigration into Europe and now many of the people of Europe see the rise of forces they thought they had already defeated.

We cannot force Islam to reform itself, but until and unless it does reform itself we have little choice but to do everything we can to prevent it from trying to assert power in Europe.

And still, that doesn't answer why minarets should be forbidden and church towers not. Secular government is firmly entrenched in nearly all European countries, and both Christian churches and Islam have to operate within the same bounds set by our laws. There is no doubt about that. By outlawing a building practice with one but not the other, you're sending a signal they're not welcome.

You're also mistaken to claim that in predominantly Muslim countries, Islam trumps secular government. This may be the case in Saudi Arabia and Iran, but those are not the countries European immigrants come from - that would be Morocco, Algeria, Turkey and Pakistan, which all have secular governments. In the case of Switzerland, most Muslim immigrants come from Bosnia, Kosovo, Albania and Turkey. Which of those is a theocracy? In your parlance, Islam had its balls cut off in the countries that are relevant for the discussion about Muslim immigrants to Europe.

It is folly to presume that a 4-5% minority - which is on average poorer and less educated than the average citizen - could wield the power you're apparently afraid of - and not only folly, but a lack of faith in your own convictions when you try to defend the rule of democracy and law by essentially unlawful measures.

Lastly, equating 9/11 with all of Islam is like equating the IRA Brighton bombing with all of Catholicism.

So, as you tied this referendum to 9/11: where's your evidence that building minarets breeds terrorism? This is the third time I ask this question in this thread.

[UndercoverElephant]

Just as it's clearly written in the bible to stone adulterers, and to give away all your possessions. The relationship between any holy book and the practice it supposedly inspires is tenuous at best. The vast, vast vast majority of Muslims have never and would never commit violence in the name of their religion.

Just as in Christianity, the extremists find their call to action in the faith and are largely unfamiliar with the actual text, and the majority find a peaceful order to their lives in a few rituals and are mostly unfamiliar with the actual text.


But in the case of Islam this is not true. Most muslims DO know the text.

Look...I'm not an abrahamic theist of any stripe, and never have been, but I can tell the difference between Islam and Christianity. Even though there have been many shameful episodes in Christian history, not least because Christian power got mixed up with political power, Christianity is essentially a pacifist religion. Jesus of Nazareth was a pacifist. He taught that people should "turn the other cheek" and supposedly died on the cross to atone for the sins of others. Mohammed really could not have been more different. No pacificism there, just lots of military campaigns and instructions on how to make sure Islam takes over the world.

All religions are not the same. All Abrahamic religions are not the same, either.

[Darat]

...snip...

You're also mistaken to claim that in predominantly Muslim countries, Islam trumps secular government. This may be the case in Saudi Arabia and Iran, but those are not the countries European immigrants come from - that would be Morocco, Algeria, Turkey and Pakistan, which all have secular governments.

...snip...

Just to nit-pick the state we refer to as Saudi Arabia today is a hundred year old hereditary dictatorship, the ruling family quite knowingly and purposefully use religion as one of their tools for keeping control of the population.

[UndercoverElephant]

And still, that doesn't answer why minarets should be forbidden and church towers not. Secular government is firmly entrenched in nearly all European countries, and both Christian churches and Islam have to operate within the same bounds set by our laws. There is no doubt about that. By outlawing a building practice with one but not the other, you're sending a signal they're not welcome.

You're also mistaken to claim that in predominantly Muslim countries, Islam trumps secular government. This may be the case in Saudi Arabia and Iran, but those are not the countries European immigrants come from - that would be Morocco, Algeria, Turkey and Pakistan, which all have secular governments. In the case of Switzerland, most Muslim immigrants come from Bosnia, Kosovo, Albania and Turkey. Which of those is a theocracy? In your parlance, Islam had its balls cut off in the countries that are relevant for the discussion about Muslim immigrants to Europe.


Well, Turkey is a pretty good example. There you have a battle going on between secular reformers who see the future of Turkey as part of the EU and the Islamists who are having none of it. Right now, the Islamists appear to be winning that battle. Where Islam is a majority, there is a fundamental conflict with the values of liberal western democracy.



Lastly, equating 9/11 with all of Islam...


Did I do that? Nope.


So, as you tied this referendum to 9/11: where's your evidence that building minarets breeds terrorism? This is the third time I ask this question in this thread.

I did not say that building minarets breeds terrorism. Please stop misquoting me.

What I said was that the Islamisation of Europe should be resisted, and preventing the building of minarets helps to acheive this goal. Islam doesn't need minarets to "breed" violence. Violence is already an integral part of Islam. It's not just terrorism I am worried about. I don't want Islam to be a part of the society I live in, because I believe it to be a vile, medievil, violent, ethically-backward disease. Islam has been unwilling or unable to reform itself. My response to this is to reject Islam. I don't want its influence anywhere near me or the society I live in.

[Arcade22]

Well given that bigotry towards Muslims is one of the leading causes of integration problems in European countries, I doubt this latest bit of xenophobia is going to help the situation.

Of course this will help. This sends out a strong message to the Muslims:

YOU ARE NOT WELCOME - GO HOME!

Hopefully the Muslims will comply, and then all the integration problems are solved.

[UndercoverElephant]

I seem to be fighting a general sentiment that "all religions are equal" and that we have to be equally tolerant of them all, because anything less would compromise our credentials on human rights. Now...I'm used to all religions being lumped together on this board - they are usually lumped together with everything-else that isn't science and called "woo-woo". The simple fact of the matter, regardless of whether or not you think all religion is woo-woo, is that the religions of the world are not the same. Scientology, for example, is little more than a scam designed to lure rich people to give their money away. Hinduism is essentially pacifist and deeply philosophical, but causes severe problems because it helps to prop up the caste system. Islam is all about spreading Islam and enforcing its rule, and if this requires violent methods then so be it.

Sorry, but there's no place for political-correctness here. I call a spade a spade and I call a violent religion a violent religion. There is nothing peaceful about Islam. Anyone who doesn't recognise this threat must be wandering around the world with their eyes closed.

[UndercoverElephant]

Quran 9:5 "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."

9:112 "The Believers fight in Allah's cause; they slay and are slain, kill and are killed."

8:39 "So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world)."

8:65 "O Prophet, urge the faithful to fight. If there are twenty among you with determination they will vanquish two hundred; if there are a hundred then they will slaughter a thousand unbelievers, for the infidels are a people devoid of understanding."

9:38 "Believers, what is the matter with you, that when you are asked to go forth and fight in Allah's Cause you cling to the earth? Do you prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? Unless you go forth, He will afflict and punish you with a painful doom, and put others in your place."

47:4 "When you clash with the unbelieving Infidels in battle (fighting Jihad in Allah's Cause), smite their necks until you overpower them, killing and wounding many of them. At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind them firmly, making (them) captives. Thereafter either generosity or ransom (them based upon what benefits Islam) until the war lays down its burdens. Thus are you commanded by Allah to continue carrying out Jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/does_islam_breed_violence.html


A true Muslim does not and cannot believe in freedom of choice. In the religion of Islam -- "submission" -- everything is up to Allah, as clearly and repeatedly stipulated in the Quran. The raison d'être for the Muslim is unconditional submission to the will and dictates of Allah. Everything that a "good" Muslim does is contingent upon the will and decree of Allah, in which the Muslim is indoctrinated to believe.

Humanity is facing a deeply troubling dilemma. On the one hand is the desire of enlightened people to forge a diverse world into one society ruled by peace and justice, while on the other hand, Islamists are hellbent on imposing their stone-age system on everyone. Tellingly, the Muslims themselves are at one another's throats regarding which of dozens of Islamic sects' dogma should rule.

For now, Islam is busy with what it did from the time of its birth: fighting the non-Muslims, and infighting.

Truth be told, violence is the animating force of Islam. Islam is a religion born through violence, raised by violence, which thrives on violence, and which dies without violence.

[Cavemonster]

But in the case of Islam this is not true. Most muslims DO know the text.

Source on this?
And even if it is true, most wealthy Christians are aware of the passage about a rich man's chances of getting into heaven, and yet they continue to accumulate wealth. Awareness does not equate to literal strictness, or even following in the spirit.

Christian persecution of other religions and crusades in the middle ages weren't about God, they were about land, money and power. Similarly, Muslim extremism today isn't about the Koran, it's still about politics in the middle east.



Look...I'm not an abrahamic theist of any stripe, and never have been, but I can tell the difference between Islam and Christianity. Even though there have been many shameful episodes in Christian history, not least because Christian power got mixed up with political power, Christianity is essentially a pacifist religion. Jesus of Nazareth was a pacifist. He taught that people should "turn the other cheek" and supposedly died on the cross to atone for the sins of others. Mohammed really could not have been more different. No pacificism there, just lots of military campaigns and instructions on how to make sure Islam takes over the world.

All religions are not the same. All Abrahamic religions are not the same, either.

As peaceful as this Jesus Character supposedly was, he was still used as justification for atrocity on every continent. The practice of Abrahamic religions seems to be more driven by the secular interests of the believers than anything in the storybooks.

At this point in history, yes, Islamic fundamentalists are far more prone to violence than Christians. That is absolutely no reflection on the average Muslim.

[Cavemonster]

From the Bible:

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)

"Go up, my warriors, against the land of Merathaim and against the people of Pekod. Yes, march against Babylon, the land of rebels, a land that I will judge! Pursue, kill, and completely destroy them, as I have commanded you," says the LORD. "Let the battle cry be heard in the land, a shout of great destruction". (Jeremiah 50:21-22 NLT)

When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are about to enter and occupy, he will clear away many nations ahead of you: the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. These seven nations are all more powerful than you. When the LORD your God hands these nations over to you and you conquer them, you must completely destroy them. Make no treaties with them and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them, and don't let your daughters and sons marry their sons and daughters. They will lead your young people away from me to worship other gods. Then the anger of the LORD will burn against you, and he will destroy you. (Deuteronomy 7:1-4 NLT)

Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)

"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told." (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)

[UndercoverElephant]

From the Bible:

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)

"Go up, my warriors, against the land of Merathaim and against the people of Pekod. Yes, march against Babylon, the land of rebels, a land that I will judge! Pursue, kill, and completely destroy them, as I have commanded you," says the LORD. "Let the battle cry be heard in the land, a shout of great destruction". (Jeremiah 50:21-22 NLT)

When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are about to enter and occupy, he will clear away many nations ahead of you: the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. These seven nations are all more powerful than you. When the LORD your God hands these nations over to you and you conquer them, you must completely destroy them. Make no treaties with them and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them, and don't let your daughters and sons marry their sons and daughters. They will lead your young people away from me to worship other gods. Then the anger of the LORD will burn against you, and he will destroy you. (Deuteronomy 7:1-4 NLT)

This is Judaism, not Christianity. From a Christian perspective, Jesus came to overturn Jewish moral law - to replace "an eye for an eye" with "turn the other cheek." If Judaism was a religion which actually sought to convert people then this could indeed become a serious problem, but it doesn't. You can only be a Jew if you are born a Jew. This effectively removes any potential threat.

Also, even if you took those quotes as direct instructions to Christians, they are still rather lame when compared to the instructions in the Koran. It's about the destiny of "God's chosen people", not an attempt to conquer the whole world.

[Cavemonster]

This is Judaism, not Christianity. From a Christian perspective, Jesus came to overturn Jewish moral law - to replace "an eye for an eye" with "turn the other cheek." If Judaism was a religion which actually sought to convert people then this could indeed become a serious problem, but it doesn't. You can only be a Jew if you are born a Jew. This effectively removes any potential threat.

Also, even if you took those quotes as direct instructions to Christians, they are still rather lame when compared to the instructions in the Koran. It's about the destiny of "God's chosen people", not an attempt to conquer the whole world.

So, you're saying Jews are just as scary as Muslims, but since there aren't as many of them we shouldn't worry?

Your point was that Islam had a unique call to violence at it's core. Your point was incorrect.

[Cavemonster]

Also, the notion that Jesus abolished Old Testament Law is not in the text, he explicitly says

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place."
(Matthew 5:17 NAB)

If Christians reject OT law, it is because, like all religious folk, they pick and choose what suits them.

[UndercoverElephant]

Source on this?


Compared to the Bible, the Koran is a short text. It's not much more than an extended poem. This makes it much easier for a muslim to be familiar with the whole text than it does for a Christian to be familiar with the entire old and new testaments. In addition to this, memorising the Koran has always been part of mainstream Islamic practice.


Christian persecution of other religions and crusades in the middle ages weren't about God, they were about land, money and power.


Agreed.


Similarly, Muslim extremism today isn't about the Koran, it's still about politics in the middle east.


Not agreed. Yes, some of it is politically-driven, especially anti-western/anti-American extremism being provoked by the relationship between the US and Israel (and the behaviour of Israel). But it remains the case that the extreme nature of Islam is right there in black and white in the Koran, and that Islam has never been through the process of reformation that Christianity went through 400-500 years ago in Europe.


As peaceful as this Jesus Character supposedly was, he was still used as justification for atrocity on every continent. The practice of Abrahamic religions seems to be more driven by the secular interests of the believers than anything in the storybooks.

At this point in history, yes, Islamic fundamentalists are far more prone to violence than Christians. That is absolutely no reflection on the average Muslim.

It is a reflection on the contents of the Koran and the fact that Islam has never been reformed to make it compatible with rational, western, liberal values. Christianity was forced to change, both by elements within itself (e.g. Martin Luther) and by changes in European society caused by the scientific revolution.

[UndercoverElephant]

So, you're saying Jews are just as scary as Muslims, but since there aren't as many of them we shouldn't worry?

Your point was that Islam had a unique call to violence at it's core. Your point was incorrect.

I said that Islam was more violent than any of the other main world religions, and I stand by that claim. And it's not the actual number of Jews that makes Judaism less dangerous but the fact that it does not seek converts. They don't want to impose Judaism on me, therefore I don't have much of a problem with them.

[Cavemonster]

Compared to the Bible, the Koran is a short text. It's not much more than an extended poem. This makes it much easier for a muslim to be familiar with the whole text than it does for a Christian to be familiar with the entire old and new testaments. In addition to this, memorising the Koran has always been part of mainstream Islamic practice.

You know that doesn't answer my question.


It is a reflection on the contents of the Koran and the fact that Islam has never been reformed to make it compatible with rational, western, liberal values. Christianity was forced to change, both by elements within itself (e.g. Martin Luther) and by changes in European society caused by the scientific revolution.

I think it's more a reflection of geopolitical reality. For the majority of the history of Islamic terrorism, Islamic states have been politically and militarily outgunned by more or less Christian states. Christians don't need violence to assert their power, since they've been the official or unstated governing religion of the "Western World" who has held the keys to the empire for a while now and today has the most nukes and the largest economic coalition with Europe and the Americas.

State Islam can only assert a small amount of world power. State Christianity has a lot more muscle. You don't need suicide bombers when you have trade embargos.

Trade embargos kill people too, in fact more than suicide bombers. The violence from the western world is just not as clear and sudden and more... civilized.

[Flo]

I seem to recall that the Swiss have also banned scientology. Is that also "oppression", or just the banning of a vile, money-making scam?

Scientology isn't banned in Switzerland.

But in the case of Islam this is not true. Most muslims DO know the text

No. Most muslims who don't speak arabic (i.e. the vast majority) do not know the text outside of what their imam has told them, and it is the case of muslims in Switzerland who come in their vast majority from the Balkans or Turkey, where islam has been pretty much secularised for generations.

[KingMerv00]

Of course this will help. This sends out a strong message to the Muslims:

YOU ARE NOT WELCOME - GO HOME!

Funny. I thought Switzerland was their home.

[ixolite]

If the majority banned minarets it for any practical reason, there might be an argument, but they've been explicit that the goal is to suppress the practice of Islam.
How exactly does not having a minaret supress a mohammedan from practicing his/her faith? Is s/he unable to pray? Nope. Is s/he unable to attend a mosque? Nope. Etc. Funny how it worked quite well without minarets all these years, huh?


The function of minarets is to shout out the doctrine of Islam to everyone, mohammedan or not, and if they are build they are sooner or later used for it (or at least it is tried), in todays age with loudspeakers. Alone that is a reason to ban them and the adhan itself, as certainly most of us wouldn't like to be disturbed every few hours by someone shouting "Allah is great, the only god and Mo is his prophet", and most would be certainly pissed off pretty much by someone doing it in the middle of the night (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-539850/Sleepy-Cornish-village-kept-awake-700-strong-party-Muslims-broadcasting-5am-prayer-loudspeaker.html). Mohammedans have the right to practise their faith, but they have not the right to shove it down my or anybody elses throat multiple times a day.


And please don't give me the church tu quoque. That's just lame. Church towers are not used to shout down christian doctrine to everyone.


So, you're saying Jews are just as scary as Muslims, but since there aren't as many of them we shouldn't worry?
Except that Jews aren't commanded to subdue unbelievers (to Judaism) and to kill the unwilling ones (i.e. atheists) or extract taxes from them (selected theists). Mohammedans are. Read the Koran, especially Sura 9.

[Robin]

Sorry, but there's no place for political-correctness here. I call a spade a spade and I call a violent religion a violent religion. There is nothing peaceful about Islam. Anyone who doesn't recognise this threat must be wandering around the world with their eyes closed.
That's all very well, but what exactly are you suggesting?

[KingMerv00]

The muslims don't get along very well with anybody else.

My old boss was a muslim. I can count the number of times he tried to kill me on zero hands.

[Darat]

My old boss was a muslim. I can count the number of times he tried to kill me on zero hands.

He was obviously a No True McMuslim.

[Darth Rotor]

My old boss was a muslim. I can count the number of times he tried to kill me on zero hands.
If he cut off your hands, how can you type? :D
Compared to the Bible, the Koran is a short text.
That didn't make it any less boring when I read an English translation of it.

This thread is seven pages long. I am amused.

In Saudi Arabia, American troops got a lot of guff, while Desert Storm was going on, about not putting up Christmas trees. In Saudi, they don't do that sort of thing.

OK, so the Swiss have a local rule. BFD.

It's Switzerland. If a bunch of foreign jerkoffs wish to bitch and complain about the Swiss, and their building codes, and how the Swiss want Switzerland to be a particular kind of place, I don't see where any of you get off bitching about it -- unless you are Swiss. "Oh, the Swiss are hypocrites."

Again, so what? Being human is somehow wrong?

When in Rome ...

ETA: a second thought. The Swiss, and much of Europe, spent some centuries trying to resolve a variety of friction an Abrahamic religion caused (said Abrahamic religion being Christianity) and perhaps don't want to go through that crap all over again with yet another Abrahamic religion ...

DR

[KingMerv00]

He was obviously a No True McMuslim.

So that bowing towards Mecca thing he did at work?

What about that time he took of to take part in the Hajj?

Master of disguise he was.

[Darat]

So that bowing towards Mecca thing he did at work? Just looking for a lost contact lens?



Back exercises.


What about that time he took of to take part in the Hajj?

Bah - bet he went to Las Vegas!

[UndercoverElephant]

That's all very well, but what exactly are you suggesting?

I am suggesting that the civilised European states make it quite clear that Islam is not welcome here unless it is reformed to the extent that it is compatible with modern European culture. At the moment it is not.

[Flo]

How exactly does not having a minaret supress a mohammedan from practicing his/her faith? Is s/he unable to pray? Nope. Is s/he unable to attend a mosque? Nope. Etc. Funny how it worked quite well without minarets all these years, huh?

Yes, but what fun if we can make practicing his faith just a little more unconfortable by putting every little hurdle on his way to the mosque, and by accusing him of sinister motivations under the cover of an architectural implement !

The function of minarets is to shout out the doctrine of Islam to everyone, mohammedan or not, and if they are build they are sooner or later used for it (or at least it is tried), in todays age with loudspeakers. Alone that is a reason to ban them and the adhan itself, as certainly most of us wouldn't like to be disturbed every few hours by someone shouting "Allah is great, the only god and Mo is his prophet", and most would be certainly pissed off pretty much by someone doing it in the middle of the night (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-539850/Sleepy-Cornish-village-kept-awake-700-strong-party-Muslims-broadcasting-5am-prayer-loudspeaker.html). Mohammedans have the right to practise their faith, but they have not the right to shove it down my or anybody elses throat multiple times a day.

Except that the Swiss muslims clearly announced they would accept a ban on using them that way. Of course, we all know that Mohammed is a liar who will as soon as possible force islam at ungodly hours on an innocent population.


And please don't give me the church tu quoque. That's just lame. Church towers are not used to shout down christian doctrine to everyone.

Funny, I remember being told at religious school that they were actually erected in order to remember good christians of the right time for prayers and mass ...

:rolleyes:

[Cavemonster]

The function of minarets is to shout out the doctrine of Islam to everyone, mohammedan or not, and if they are build they are sooner or later used for it (or at least it is tried), in todays age with loudspeakers. Alone that is a reason to ban them and the adhan itself, as certainly most of us wouldn't like to be disturbed every few hours by someone shouting "Allah is great, the only god and Mo is his prophet", and most would be certainly pissed off pretty much by someone doing it in the middle of the night (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-539850/Sleepy-Cornish-village-kept-awake-700-strong-party-Muslims-broadcasting-5am-prayer-loudspeaker.html). Mohammedans have the right to practise their faith, but they have not the right to shove it down my or anybody elses throat multiple times a day.


If this was a noise complaint issue, the Swiss People's Party probably should say that instead of going on and on about political and religious issues.

In a recent televised debate, Ulrich Schlüer, a member of Parliament from the S.V.P., said minarets were a symbol of “the political will to take power” and establish Shariah, or religious law.

"Islam," they write, "makes no distinction between Church and State, such that minarets become the expression of influence not only religious, but political, in nature. This conception is incompatible with Western secular tradition."

I can't find a single official statement that even refers to any disturbance a call to prayer may have, and if that were the case, why not outlaw the practice instead of the architecture which is meaningful to Muslims in itself?

It's odd that you ascribe a motivation that no one in the MVP seems to have mentioned on the record.

[UndercoverElephant]

ETA: a second thought. The Swiss, and much of Europe, spent some centuries trying to resolve a variety of friction an Abrahamic religion caused (said Abrahamic religion being Christianity) and perhaps don't want to go through that crap all over again with yet another Abrahamic religion ...

DR

That is it exactly. I'm not sure people outside the UK realise just how deeply ingrained anti-catholicism is in our culture, and that of the rest of Protestant Europe. It took a long time and a lot of "crap" before personal freedom in the forms of protestantism and rationalism finally overcame Catholic hegemony. We don't want no Popery and we don't want no Islam neither.

http://www.lbparker.com/images/nopopery.jpg

Edited hotlink to URL - breach of rule 4

[UndercoverElephant]

Except that the Swiss muslims clearly announced they would accept a ban on using them that way.

Islam is an insipid threat. It pretends to be multicultural and tolerant when/where it is a minority ideology. But this leopard does not change its spots. Whenever and wherever that minority starts growing and gaining power, it attempts to suppress anyone or anything that would stand in the way of its total dominance. I'm sorry, but I see allowing Islam to spread and gain power in Europe is like allowing a virulent weed to take over your garden. Nip it in the bud. Don't let it get any idea that it has any hope of gaining in power.

[UndercoverElephant]

If this was a noise complaint issue, the Swiss People's Party probably should say that instead of going on and on about political and religious issues.



This is not about noise pollution but about religious symbolism. The people who voted yes in the referendum aren't worried about being woken up at 5am. They are worried about Islam gaining in power and influence in their society and this is their way of saying "WE DO NOT WANT THIS."

[KingMerv00]

Of course this will help. This sends out a strong message to the Muslims:

YOU ARE NOT WELCOME - GO HOME!

I want to reemphasize how spine-breakingly stupid this is. Imagine you've lived in a country your entire life and someone knocks on the door of your house (which you built with your own two hands) and screams at you "GO HOME!".

Where are you supposed to go exactly?

I'm an atheist so in my case I guess I'd have to "go back" to Greece.

[Cavemonster]

This is not about noise pollution but about religious symbolism. The people who voted yes in the referendum aren't worried about being woken up at 5am. They are worried about Islam gaining in power and influence in their society and this is their way of saying "WE DO NOT WANT THIS."

I agree,
I was responding to ixolite's post suggesting otherwise. This was a vote against Islam. You and I may disagree about whether that's a good or useful thing, but I was addressing those who were pretending that wasn't what it was.

[Fishstick]

So what's preventing muslims to build mosques in switzerland without minnarets? If this was supposed to be a "vote against islam" it sure was a hamfisted one.

[Cavemonster]

So what's preventing muslims to build mosques in switzerland without minnarets? If this was supposed to be a "vote against islam" it sure was a hamfisted one.

I agree.

I think from their propaganda, the SVP would be happy to ban mosques entirely, but that would have been too difficult to pass and garner world censure. As it is, they were happy to put the Muslims in their place and make sure they don't get any fancy ideas.

[Thunder]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/does_islam_breed_violence.html

um...have you read..the Old Testament???????

[Kotatsu]

There is no need for "menial labor" in Europe

Speaking for Sweden: yes there is, because Swedish people are too stuck-up to do the dirty work. It is so easy to get into a university here, and get a higher education, that most people below the age of 35 (or so) consider most menial tasks below their dignity, and would never contemplate working as e.g. a cleaner for any longer period of time. Meanwhile, Sweden is perhaps more junk-filled than ever, because for some reason people (immigrants and non-immigrants alike) cannot be bothered to carry their trash ten metres to a bin, and instead throw it on the ground, expecting someone else to take care of it. That "someone else" is almost invariably old people and immigrants, because young(ish) people in Sweden are either arrogant or morons. There are no other categories (1).

Five years on welfare, payed by the Swedish tax payer. :(

Which is repaid a thousand-fold by the very presence of variety in Sweden today.

Seriously, what is this wonderful Swedish culture that Folkpartiet (the Swedish “Liberal” Party) and the rest of the extreme-right are so keen on defending from all manner of imaginary threats? For hundreds of years, it has consisted mainly of being at war with the Danish, obeying King and Church blindly, and slowly starving to death because there’s nothing except swedes to eat. All the good parts –- folk music, folk stories, folk dances –- are ignored or ridiculed by almost all indigenous Swedes today, and are in any case not threatened to be swallowed up by any Islam-based counterparts. Swedish folk music has been replaced with music of American origin, folk dances by salsa and other pseudo-European dances, and folk tales with… well, manga, I guess, if anything. Classic Swedish literature is being pushed out of society not by the Qur’an, but by Harry Potter and Dan Brown.

The only widely prevalent “Swedish culture” that remains is getting drunk, beating your wife, and being envious or suspicious of your neighbours. Are these the traditions that you wish to preserve? If so: how are they threatened by Islam?

The Swedish right cannot even put any kind of claim to having traditions of western democracy –- which some allege might be threatened by an increasing Moslem population. The Swedish right is based on denying the working class and women the right to vote, wanting to join Hitler in the war, and the desire to have Christianity play a greater role in society. The way Moslems are depicted by the Swedish Right, you would think they would share the same goals of having a non-democratic theocracy; the difference, of course, being which religion it should be based on. Similarly, if these non-democratic ideas of Islam are a threat to westerns democracy, then the ideas of the right are as well.

If Islam is threatening our present system of not saying hello to the cashier, not holding up doors to people with prams, sitting as far away as possible from everyone else in the bus, and not talking to your neighbours more than possibly saying a low, “Hi” when you meet in the yard, then good riddance! Bring the immigrants in, and by the thousands! There are very few traditionally Swedish values worth clinging on to.

I saw an estimate that the Swedish state lost around 40-60 billion SKR on immigration.

High costs for immigration-related issues in Sweden can be blamed only on the government (past and present), who have mishandled the whole matter for several generations, and on prejudice of the Swedish population in general. If we accept them into our country –- and I am firmly in favour of increasing immigration so that the borders are more or less totally open –- we cannot continue building low-quality houses in the outskirts of the larger cities, give them low-quality education and low-quality health care, and isolate them in every possible way, and then expect them to want to integrate with the callous, impersonal, arrogant Swedish society in general; "Come in and be mistreated until you become as reprehensible as we are!"

If I were an immigrant to Sweden, instead of being born and raised here, I, too, would not want to integrate with society in general as it is organised today, because frankly, most of Swedish society sucks.

Hopefully the Muslims will comply, and then all the integration problems are solved.

The same could be achieved by simply rounding up all of the extreme right (basically Folkpartiet and onwards) and place them on some small island somewhere, and pretend they never existed. These people are less welcome than the Muslims.

There is nothing peaceful about Islam.

But there is a lot of observant Muslims who are peaceful, so whatever it is that makes the non-peaceful Muslims non-peaceful doesn't seem to be an integral part of Islam.

---
(1) I of course belong to the "arrogant" category, and wouldn't want to work as a cleaner. I do remember when "Keep Sweden clean" wasn't a motto of the political right, directed against muslims, but mainly used by the ice cream company to get people to use bins, and consequently follow this advise.

[ixolite]

Yes, but what fun if we can make practicing his faith just a little more unconfortable by putting every little hurdle on his way to the mosque, and by accusing him of sinister motivations under the cover of an architectural implement !
Sorry, but I have no pity for the followers of a religion which commands to kill me (as I am an atheist and certainly never will submit to Mo (puke) and his sockpuppet Allah). In such cases I approve of hurdles. Hell, not even Scientology has such commandments and they have certainly more hurdles than Mohammedans here.


Except that the Swiss muslims clearly announced they would accept a ban on using them that way.
I didn't know that. That would indeed make the ban of minarets a secondary issue.


Funny, I remember being told at religious school that they were actually erected in order to remember good christians of the right time for prayers and mass ...
Yes, and not to:

Church towers are not used to shout down christian doctrine to everyone.
;)

If that would be the case, I am sure we would already have laws banning it, as it disturbs the freedom of and from religion of others, as you can't simply switch if off like a radio or tv channel.


If this was a noise complaint issue, the Swiss People's Party probably should say that instead of going on and on about political and religious issues.





I can't find a single official statement that even refers to any disturbance a call to prayer may have, and if that were the case, why not outlaw the practice instead of the architecture which is meaningful to Muslims in itself?

It's odd that you ascribe a motivation that no one in the MVP seems to have mentioned on the record.
Yeah, that would be my (primary) reason to ban it. (Noise is secondary, btw, it's the islamic doctrine that comes first.) Though one of their arguments is(was?) indeed the muezzin, seen on their site.


Here's their site, btw, in german, french and italian:
http://www.minarette.ch/

[Praktik]

Even as an atheist, I recognize that religious buildings are definitely nice to look at, whether they be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist or what-have-you.

To my eyes having more minarets around should be welcomed cause they're pretty..:)

[Cavemonster]

Sorry, but I have no pity for the followers of a religion which commands to kill me (as I am an atheist and certainly never will submit to Mo (puke) and his sockpuppet Allah).

Odd about that command, with more than 1 1/2 billion Muslims in the world, you'd think there would be a lot more slaying of unbelievers. Maybe they're just lazy?

Or perhaps, just like the Judeo-Christian commands to kill adulterers, disobedient children and shrimp eaters, they aren't taken seriously by most modern adherents.

[Flo]

Sorry, but I have no pity for the followers of a religion which commands to kill me (as I am an atheist and certainly never will submit to Mo (puke) and his sockpuppet Allah).

Yes, and we know that every single muslim, in his heart of heart, even those who are not very observant, is very eager to follow that command. I should listen to you and, as an atheist myself, start being scared of the numerous muslims who live and work around me without so much of a concern for my non-religious opinions, since they are obviously bidding their time ... :rolleyes:


In such cases I approve of hurdles. Hell, not even Scientology has such commandments and they have certainly more hurdles than Mohammedans here.

And according to your paranoid logic, how are those hurdles to practicing their religion supposed to prevent muslims from killing all those filthy atheists ?



I didn't know that. That would indeed make the ban of minarets a secondary issue.

There are already 4 minarets in Switzerland. None has ever expressed the wish to call for prayers, as they agreed from the start it wouldn't be polite to do so. The only time we heard the muezzin was last week, when some idiots from a far-right movement thought the best way to influence Geneva's citizen was to broadcast it at 5 AM on a Sunday morning from a moving car. It backfired big time since Geneva is one of the areas that rejected the ban (and one where there are the most number of muslims).

So it wasn't about minarets all along, it was about xenophobia and islamophobia, both very stupid bigotry.

If that would be the case, I am sure we would already have laws banning it, as it disturbs the freedom of and from religion of others, as you can't simply switch if off like a radio or tv channel.

That was the case: bells were actually shouting down "come to mass, you sinners". Many cities in continental Europe still have bells ringing on Sunday morning announcing mass, and there are regular complaints from (european non muslim) people who hate being woken up so early. Then we hear about those poor persecuted christians ...

[quadraginta]

<snip>

That was the case: bells were actually shouting down "come to mass, you sinners". Many cities in continental Europe still have bells ringing on Sunday morning announcing mass, and there are regular complaints from (european non muslim) people who hate being woken up so early. Then we hear about those poor persecuted christians ...


This is funny. Years ago I lived in a second floor apartment several hundred yards from a small Baptist church whose fiberglass spire blared with the most obnoxious recorded bells imaginable at 8:00 am every Sunday morning. I was woking nights at the time.

The local gendarmes were not amused by my calls reporting a disturbance of my peace. They informed me that no city statutes were being violated (i.e., after 8:00 am, less than X db, yada, yada.)

They were even less amused when I placed a large set of speakers on the porch roof outside my bedroom window, along with a lawn chair, a cooler, and a collection of tapes including such gems as John Prine's "Your Flag Decal Won't Get You Into Heaven Anymore", and similar fare which I shared with the rest of the people listening to the bells. :D

It turned out that there were other, more obscure statutes which the good officers suggested that they could employ if they chose to.

In my case, at least.

:mad:

ETA: Just in case anyone cares, I did speak to the pastor of the church first and ask if he couldn't turn the speakers down just a bit. He was quite offended and not just a little bit irate at my temerity and lack of reverence.

[Ryokan]

How would you feel if one of the ten commandments was "Atheists should be killed."

It sort of is. What do you think the bible suggest is a good punishment for breaking the first commandment?

Besides, didn't you say earlier that Christians disregard the Old Testament because that's Judaism? You know that's where the ten commandments are, right?

[Thunder]

The Bible says that if a child disrespects his parents he should be put to death.
The Bible says a man who commits homosexual acts should be put to death.

[Ryokan]

Seriously, what is this wonderful Swedish culture that Folkpartiet (the Swedish “Liberal” Party) and the rest of the extreme-right are so keen on defending from all manner of imaginary threats? For hundreds of years, it has consisted mainly of being at war with the Danish, obeying King and Church blindly, and slowly starving to death because there’s nothing except swedes to eat.

You forgot oppressing Norway!

[plumjam]

Which societies are currently doing more real harm and violence to the other?
'Muslim' societies to 'Christian' societies? or
'Christian' societies to 'Muslim' societies?

I'd say, that from any non-partisan perspective it has to be the latter (by quite a distance), and that it's been that way for the last couple of centuries or so.
The Muslims probably also have a much stronger case wrt someone trying to destroy their culture i.e. western culture, secularism, materialist values, nihilism..etc..

[Pardalis]

Are you still a truther Plumjam? Nothing happened on 9/11?

[fullflavormenthol]

Of course this will help. This sends out a strong message to the Muslims:

YOU ARE NOT WELCOME - GO HOME!

Hopefully the Muslims will comply, and then all the integration problems are solved.
So does burning a cross on someone's lawn, or maybe swinging a few uppity ones from a tree once and a while. Oh wait...sounds pretty damn bigoted when put like that.

It is their home. Got that? It is their home.

[Ekinodum]

Forgive me if this question has already been asked, but what is the architectural definition of a minaret? Could a mosque erect a tall, pointy clock tower, or a tall, pointy loudspeaker platform? Could they erect one that looks like a Christian-style steeple?
Could a Christian church erect a new, tall, pointy steeple that looks like a minaret?
Could a Christian church erect a new loudspeaker platform?
(My assumption here is that the Christian churches have more or less saturated the market on these things at this point)

[Cleon]

It is their home. Got that? It is their home.

Q. F. Mother-*********** T.

The rank bigotry displayed in this thread makes me sick.

[Thunder]

I'm still waiting for an answer as to how a minaret is dangerous. will it kill baby birds?

does it block the sun?

how about Israel ban the construction of crosses on the tops of churches? sounds fair to me.

[KingMerv00]

does it block the sun?

The sun is more dangerous than any minaret. Skin cancer is awful. Perhaps we should thank the muslims?

[Tanja]

I typed in a long reply on my bloody iPhone and then pressed the wrong button and the whole post dissappeared...

Two things I wanted to say:

One, I wanted to remind Arcade22 that of of the most famous Swedish people abroad is the footballer (soccer player) Zlatan Ibrahimovic, born in Sweden to Bosnian father and Croatian mother. Is he Swedish enough for you when he scores goals for your country?

Second thing I wanted to say is that I met dozens of Muslims through my private life and through work. They were all individuals with their own attitudes, opinions and interests. This is a critical thinking forum, to say that all one billion followers of a religion are somehow all identical in what they think and what kind of world they want to live in is not very critical, whether we are talking about Muslims or Christians.

[KingMerv00]

Arcade, ixolite, and UndercoverElephant,

I am willing to hypothetically accept that Islam is uniformly evil across the entire world and the civilized world should do its best to fight that ideology.

I only ask that you explain to me how banning minarets helps in that fight.

[quadraginta]

Don't know for sure about minarets, but these steeple thingies can be pretty dangerous.

Tornado topples steeple, kills man (http://www.theworldlink.com/articles/2009/10/30/news/doc4aeb330e1d8b8573033431.txt)

One man is dead and a landmark church steeple toppled onto a car in Louisiana after a line of thunderstorms spawned several tornadoes there and in neighboring Arkansas.

http://images.townnews.com/theworldlink.com/content/articles/2009/10/30/news/doc4aeb330e1d8b8573033431.jpg

Emergency personnel tend to a man whose vehicle was crushed after the steeple on top of First United Methodist Church fell on his car at the intersection of Common and Texas streets during stormy weather in Shreveport, LaAlso ...

Man Watching Steeple Go Up Killed When Crane Falls (http://forums.randi.org/Man%20Watching%20Steeple%20Go%20Up%20Killed%20When %20Crane%20Falls)

http://image.cbslocal.com/24/2008/07/24/175x131/okccranecollapse.jpg

An 80-year-old man watching a steeple being put on a church was killed this morning when a crane collapsed and crushed the car he was in.
Can't find a darn thing about murderous minarets.

I think they went after the wrong architecture.

Them minarets was framed!

[UndercoverElephant]

Arcade, ixolite, and UndercoverElephant,

I am willing to hypothetically accept that Islam is uniformly evil across the entire world and the civilized world should do its best to fight that ideology.

I only ask that you explain to me how banning minarets helps in that fight.

It's symbolic. It is a shot across the bows, that is all. It is a message making clear what the majority of people in Switzerland feel about Islam. I want muslims in Europe to understand in no uncertain terms that the majority of people in Europe are not going to submit to any attempt by Islam to gain power in Europe. Ultimately, the purpose is to jack up the pressure to try to force Islam to reform itself. If there is ever going to be any progress then at some point there has to be a popular movement within Islam which rejects the literalistic, violent interpretation of the Koran and realises that gaining acceptance in European culture requires that Islam change itself. I do not know how else to send this message or increase this pressure without doing things which, symbolically or actually, restrict Islamic influence and power. Appeasement and politically-correct LIES won't help, that's for sure.

[Ryokan]

Aren't the Bosnian Muslims, which make up the majority of Swiss muslims, already pretty 'reformed'? Bosnian Muslims are about as secular as any European people. These aren't exactly Saudi Arabian wahabists. If that's the bow you're shooting across to fight Muslim extremism, I think you're shooting across the wrong bow.

Not to mention that oppressing people, no matter how minor the oppression is, rarely leads to them endearing themselves to your ways.

[KingMerv00]

It's symbolic. It is a shot across the bows, that is all. It is a message making clear what the majority of people in Switzerland feel about Islam. I want muslims in Europe to understand in no uncertain terms that the majority of people in Europe are not going to submit to any attempt by Islam to gain power in Europe. Ultimately, the purpose is to jack up the pressure to try to force Islam to reform itself. If there is ever going to be any progress then at some point there has to be a popular movement within Islam which rejects the literalistic, violent interpretation of the Koran and realises that gaining acceptance in European culture requires that Islam change itself. I do not know how else to send this message or increase this pressure without doing things which, symbolically or actually, restrict Islamic influence and power. Appeasement and politically-correct LIES won't help, that's for sure.

Has it occurred to you that marginalizing people pisses them off? You'll reform them alright. Reform them into the extremists you are trying to stop.

[fullflavormenthol]

It's symbolic. It is a shot across the bows, that is all. It is a message making clear what the majority of people in Switzerland feel about Islam. I want muslims in Europe to understand in no uncertain terms that the majority of people in Europe are not going to submit to any attempt by Islam to gain power in Europe. Ultimately, the purpose is to jack up the pressure to try to force Islam to reform itself. If there is ever going to be any progress then at some point there has to be a popular movement within Islam which rejects the literalistic, violent interpretation of the Koran and realises that gaining acceptance in European culture requires that Islam change itself. I do not know how else to send this message or increase this pressure without doing things which, symbolically or actually, restrict Islamic influence and power. Appeasement and politically-correct LIES won't help, that's for sure.
Its like when blacks want to sit at the same lunch counter or drink from the same water fountain. It is a shot across the bow, and we need to let them know that under no uncertain terms they ain't allowed to get no power in this here country.

[Thunder]

It's symbolic. It is a shot across the bows, that is all. It is a message making clear what the majority of people in Switzerland feel about Islam. I want muslims in Europe to understand in no uncertain terms that the majority of people in Europe are not going to submit to any attempt by Islam to gain power in Europe. .

i will quote this post when some radical Muslim decides to retaliate against this racist legislation, with his own "shot".

"damn uppity Muslims, building structures for all us good secular Christian folk to see. who do they think are? we should do something to make sure they understand this is a White Christian man's land!!!"

[UndercoverElephant]

i will quote this post when some radical Muslim decides to retaliate against this racist legislation, with his own "shot".

"damn uppity Muslims, building structures for all us good secular Christian folk to see. who do they think are? we should do something to make sure they understand this is a White Christian man's land!!!"

There is nothing racist about anything I have posted in this thread. I couldn't give a flying fanny what colour people's skin is. I care about what they believe and how it effects my own life and the society I am a part of. I've already stated I have no problem with Hindus and the Hindus come from exactly the same genetic stock as the majority of British muslims. Race is NOT what we are discussing.

[UndercoverElephant]

Has it occurred to you that marginalizing people pisses them off?


I *WANT* them to be pissed off. I want them to know precisely what I think of their unreformed, medievil religion. I do not want them to believe they have any right to spread it any further around Europe. The message is clear: either you reform your religion or we will legislate against your religion. It is an extreme response to what I consider to be an extreme threat. Appeasement is not an option. Not for me, anyway.


You'll reform them alright. Reform them into the extremists you are trying to stop.

Maybe, maybe not. It is just as likely to cause the reformers to tackle the extremists than it is to cause the reformers to become extremists.

[Darat]

Aren't the Bosnian Muslims, which make up the majority of Swiss muslims, already pretty 'reformed'?

..snip..

If I remember correctly they don't even have a prohibition on eating pork. Now how much more secular can you get than that?

[fullflavormenthol]

There is nothing racist about anything I have posted in this thread. I couldn't give a flying fanny what colour people's skin is. I care about what they believe and how it effects my own life and the society I am a part of. I've already stated I have no problem with Hindus and the Hindus come from exactly the same genetic stock as the majority of British muslims. Race is NOT what we are discussing.
You're right. Bigoted or xenophobic is the term you are looking for. Oh it doesn't matter how many Hindus you like, love or like to make love to; much of what you are writing is still xenophobic and bigoted.

[UndercoverElephant]

Its like when blacks want to sit at the same lunch counter or drink from the same water fountain. It is a shot across the bow, and we need to let them know that under no uncertain terms they ain't allowed to get no power in this here country.

Except that you are now accusing me of racism when it ought to patently obvious that I couldn't care less about the colour of people's skin.

This is really bad strawman. Racism really is irrational and driven entirely by animal gut emotions. The dislike of Islam expressed by several people in this thread is NOT irrational. Islam really is a nasty, primitive, violent, dangerous religion and I have legitimate reasons for not wanting it gaining any more power in my own part of the world.

[fullflavormenthol]

Except that you are now accusing me of racism when it ought to patently obvious that I couldn't care less about the colour of people's skin.

This is really bad strawman. Racism really is irrational and driven entirely by animal gut emotions. The dislike of Islam expressed by several people in this thread is NOT irrational. Islam really is a nasty, primitive, violent, dangerous religion and I have legitimate reasons for not wanting it gaining any more power in my own part of the world.
Don't worry I already corrected it in my next post. You are expressing bigoted and xenophobic ideas. Xenophobia is a nasty, primitive, violent, dangerous religion and I have legitimate reasons for not wanting it gaining any more power in any part of the world. Which is why I propose restricting the free speech rights of all xenophobes. It will send a powerful message that tells you to either reform or leave.

[UndercoverElephant]

You're right. Bigoted or xenophobic is the term you are looking for. Oh it doesn't matter how many Hindus you like, love or like to make love to; much of what you are writing is still xenophobic and bigoted.

Well, it might be if it wasn't for the fact that I have every right to be deeply suspicious of Islam...

I do not have a problem with foreigners, blacks, gays, slitty-eyed people or disabled people. I do not have a problem with Hindus, Buddhists, Animists, most Christians, atheists or agnostics. I have a problem with Islam, and the problem is caused by the very nature of Islam.

[fullflavormenthol]

Well, it might be if it wasn't for the fact that I have every right to be deeply suspicious of Islam...

I do not have a problem with foreigners, blacks, gays, slitty-eyed people or disabled people. I do not have a problem with Hindus, Buddhists, Animists, most Christians, atheists or agnostics. I have a problem with Islam, and the problem is caused by the very nature of Islam.
Hey...all bigoted people claim to have justification for their beliefs. Those Jews...money hungry and stealing power. Those gyps...stealing money when you are not looking. Those Christians...killing people that don't agree with them, forcing their religion on others. Those Buddhist...lazy cowards who worships idols. Those Atheists...godless heathens who have no moral compass, hardly can be considered citizens. Agnostics...morons of want to ride the fence. All caused by the very nature of (insert your irrational fear)

[UndercoverElephant]

Maybe I need to explain more clearly why I am drawing what might look like arbitrary lines between different religions. There's two forms of religion which I have highlighted as causing me major problems, one of them Islam and the other is Catholicism. Why is this? Because both of them share one fundamental feature: the concentration of absolute power in the hands of religious authorities. The Eastern religions emphasise one's own personal relationship with Reality. Protestantism denies that humans need the church to mediate between individuals and God - it takes power out of the hands of the religious authorities and encourages people to make decisions based on their own consciences. Judaism is a slightly different case because, as I already explained, it makes no attempt to convert new people and is therefore self-limiting to a great extent (although I do not underestimate the problems being caused by the behaviour of the state of Israel, and consider the Palestinians to be the most-wronged people on Earth). In short, both Catholicism and Islam are power-obsessed, committed to spreading themselves, and directly opposed to any sort of freedom for the individual. Both these forms of religion regularly demonstrate exactly how dangerous they are, although (obviously) the Catholic Church is a mere shadow of its all-powerful former self.

[Fiona]

The dislike of Islam expressed by several people in this thread is NOT irrational.

It is wholly irrational. Many here have shown you precisely why it is irrational and why it is nasty. You choose not to listen: so be it


Islam really is a nasty, primitive, violent, dangerous religion and I have legitimate reasons for not wanting it gaining any more power in my own part of the world.

What power has it gained in your part of the world?

[fullflavormenthol]

Maybe I need to explain more clearly why I am drawing what might look like arbitrary lines between different religions. There's two forms of religion which I have highlighted as causing me major problems, one of them Islam and the other is Catholicism.

Two popular punching bags.

Why is this? Because both of them share one fundamental feature: the concentration of absolute power in the hands of religious authorities.

Not comparable, but Islam isn't concentrated. There are different sects, schools of thought and theology.

The Eastern religions emphasise one's own personal relationship with Reality.

A very western outlook on what they believe.

Protestantism denies that humans need the church to mediate between individuals and God - it takes power out of the hands of the religious authorities and encourages people to make decisions based on their own consciences.

No. I am just going to say no. Protestantism is a really large amount of seperate denominations, many of which do concentrate religious power into a central authority.

Judaism is a slightly different case because, as I already explained, it makes no attempt to convert new people and is therefore self-limiting to a great extent (although I do not underestimate the problems being caused by the behaviour of the state of Israel, and consider the Palestinians to be the most-wronged people on Earth).

Mainly because Europeans would kick their (rule 10) and toss them down a well if they attempted to practise their faith publically or allowed converts. Believe it or not this is becoming an increasing debate in Judaism.

In short, both Catholicism and Islam are power-obsessed, committed to spreading themselves, and directly opposed to any sort of freedom for the individual. Both these forms of religion regularly demonstrate exactly how dangerous they are, although (obviously) the Catholic Church is a mere shadow of its all-powerful former self.

So xenophobia and lack of historical and modern context it is. Thank you, because now I really pity you and would recommend further reading about different cultures and religions to help you better understand things.

[Arcade22]

...
What a bunch of delusion nonsense. You and the rest of the left are ample proof that the Swedish education system is unable to generate healthy and sane citizens and instead spits out maladjusted and rootless idiots.

Which is repaid a thousand-fold by the very presence of variety in Sweden today.
Yeah, "variety" will surely payback the amount of tax money the immigrants have taken from the Swedish people. :rolleyes:

Seriously, what is this wonderful Swedish culture that Folkpartiet (the Swedish “Liberal” Party) and the rest of the extreme-right are so keen on defending from all manner of imaginary threats?

That you would even compare the *cough*peoples*cough* party to the "far-right" just shows how clueless you really are.
The Peoples Party have both historically and currently been instrumental to the current multicultural and immigration policy's.
Hell, they recently abandoned their plans for "Swedish classes" for immigrants because they want to distance themselves from the Swedish Democrats,
and even when they have shouted on about being "harder on immigrants and immigration" they have never ever done anything about the current situation when in power.

The term "populists" fits these traitors well.

The only widely prevalent “Swedish culture” that remains is getting drunk, beating your wife, and being envious or suspicious of your neighbours. Are these the traditions that you wish to preserve? If so: how are they threatened by Islam?

Ethnomasochistic idiocy.

The Swedish right is based on denying the working class and women the right to vote, wanting to join Hitler in the war, and the desire to have Christianity play a greater role in society.
Marxist nonsense.

The way Moslems are depicted by the Swedish Right, you would think they would share the same goals of having a non-democratic theocracy; the difference, of course, being which religion it should be based on.
Similarly, if these non-democratic ideas of Islam are a threat to westerns democracy, then the ideas of the right are as well.

Ditto.

Bring the immigrants in, and by the thousands! There are very few traditionally Swedish values worth clinging on to.

Sure, Sweden is sinking so why not try to fill it full of immigrants and make it sink faster?
Maybe we could rebuild Sweden to it's greater glory after the calamity?

High costs for immigration-related issues in Sweden can be blamed only on the government (past and present), who have mishandled the whole matter for several generations, and on prejudice of the Swedish population in general. If we accept them into our country –- and I am firmly in favour of increasing immigration so that the borders are more or less totally open –- we cannot continue building low-quality houses in the outskirts of the larger cities, give them low-quality education and low-quality health care, and isolate them in every possible way, and then expect them to want to integrate with the callous, impersonal, arrogant Swedish society in general; "Come in and be mistreated until you become as reprehensible as we are!"

Ah, the old leftists lie: "It's out fault that the immigrants are behaving badly, we have only our selves for being milked for all our worth!"

Utterly disgusting.

If I were an immigrant to Sweden, instead of being born and raised here, I, too, would not want to integrate with society in general as it is organised today, because frankly, most of Swedish society sucks.
I agree! Can you guess who increased Sweden's suck factor tenfold?

Yeah, the leftist, just like you.


The same could be achieved by simply rounding up all of the extreme right (basically Folkpartiet and onwards) and place them on some small island somewhere, and pretend they never existed. These people are less welcome than the Muslims.
Laughable, you really this indoctrinated? I wonder, do you read directly out of Mao's little red book?

[KingMerv00]

Maybe, maybe not. It is just as likely to cause the reformers to tackle the extremists than it is to cause the reformers to become extremists.

The banning of minarets punishes all Muslims, not just the evil ones. Punishing the good with the wicked seems like bad morals to me.

[Kestrel]

Even as an atheist, I recognize that religious buildings are definitely nice to look at, whether they be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist or what-have-you.

The Jehovah's Witness eyesores known as Kingdom Halls are an exception to that general rule.

[Thunder]

This racist amendment to the Swiss constitution will make wonderful ammunition for the extremists who argue that Europeans are at war with Islam, even peace-loving Muslims.

But, right-wing Europeans and extremist Muslims have the same goal, a Holy War.

Hmmmm.....secret alliance between Muslim extremists and white racists? Its happened before.

[GreNME]

Sorry, but I am British and this is a load of rubbish. We have second-generation muslims in the UK who want to establish arabic-speaking schools and who live in areas where there is a majority of muslims and the indigenous people are left feeling like foreigners in their own land. It is not a myth that islamic immigrants do not integrate properly. They aren't interested in integrating into British society. They want to establish pockets of islamic society on British territory and the result is pretty much exactly what Enoch Powell said it was going to be forty years ago. I am not a racist, and I recognise that the problems I am discussing with respect to islamic communities does not apply to other groups (e.g. Indian Hindus or Afro-carribeans), but in this particular case I believe the British "experiment" in multiculturalism has been a failure. Mass islamic immigration into this country has been a disaster.

Ahh, so it comes to anecdotes and shifty definitions-- I have to wonder what you consider "integration" in your description, as it sounds more like you're arguing about assimilation. As I said, the (reliable, peer-reviewed) data available shows that it's not integration that's a problem, but the approaches of the governments in question to facilitate integration that leaves rifts. According to this paper (http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a916027729~db=all~jumptype=rss), the UK, France, Switzerland, and Germany actually fare on the positive side of integration of immigrants, while this paper (http://www.cepr.org/pubs/new-dps/dplist.asp?dpno=6453) gets into the differences of immigrant groups that are primarily Muslim as compared to other demographics.

There's been no "mass Islamic immigration" into Britain: between 1997 and 2007 just over a million south Asian immigrants have come to Britain, and not all of those were Muslim. Non-white people as a whole in Britain make up around 15% of the population, and around 7% of those qualify as "Asian" (which would be Pakistani and Indian, among others)-- not all of whom would qualify as Muslim by default.

And, frankly, that you continue to conflate "Muslims" with "mid-Eastern and south Asian" does come across as pretty blatantly racist, for reasons I've already explained (most of the Muslims on the planet are not Arab, Iranian, Afghani, Pashtun, or Pakistani).

-----

Just to nit-pick the state we refer to as Saudi Arabia today is a hundred year old hereditary dictatorship, the ruling family quite knowingly and purposefully use religion as one of their tools for keeping control of the population.

Not only that, but the ethnocentric xenophobes love to point to Saudi Arabia as if it is the Vatican of the Muslim world, when this is very much not the case (despite the hajj destinations being located there).

-----

Are you still a truther Plumjam? Nothing happened on 9/11?

Ahh, good-old-fashioned arguments from angry ignorance.

http://image.grenme.com/thread/islam5.jpg

Certainly no rational argument that can penetrate that wall.

[Robin]

My old boss was a muslim. I can count the number of times he tried to kill me on zero hands.
I worked for a Muslim for about 5 years - again, he didn't try to kill me or convert me to Islam. I worked laying out an Indonesian language newspaper with lots of Muslims. Again, no killing, no conversion. I have had a number of Muslim friends - same thing.

Just ordinary people living ordinary lives.

There was a letter to "The Australian" newspaper which said it all. The guy was a Muslim and was responding to the claim that Muslims don't oppose extermism.

He said that if he wears ordinary clothes and talks common sense the newspapers will ignore him. But if he puts on a white tunic and rants about violence, the newspapers will put him on the front page.

The problem of extermists Islamists will not be helped by demonising the Islamic majority.

[a3sigma]

Would anyone be in favor of allowing the construction of a mosque near the site of the WTC? If not, why not?

DC

[Cavemonster]

Would anyone be in favor of allowing the construction of a mosque near the site of the WTC? If not, why not?

DC
I don't know, should movie theaters be allowed to play films with Jodie Foster in them near where Regan was shot by John Hinckley, Jr.?

[kerikiwi]

Sorry, but there's no place for political-correctness here. I call a spade a spade and I call a violent religion a violent religion. There is nothing peaceful about Islam. Anyone who doesn't recognise this threat must be wandering around the world with their eyes closed.

Nothing to do with political-correctness (which exists only in the imaginations of those who deride it).
You may well call a spade a spade, but you also seem to call a teaspoon a spade.
I also call a violent religion a violent religion. Some interpretations of Islam are violent. Some interpretations of christianity are violent. Some interpretations of hinduism are violent.
I call a peaceful religion a peaceful religion. Some interpretations of islam are peaceful. Some interpretations of christianity are peaceful. Some interpretations of hinduism are peaceful.
Religions only exist in the actions of their followers. No matter what a so-called holy book says, the actions of those who connect themselves to that book are what matters. Their actions may be, and often are, disconnected from parts of the book, but their actions are what constitutes their religion.
There is plenty peaceful about islam, but your political correctness forces you to be blind to that.
Anyone who doesn't recognise that islam encompasses a huge range of beliefs and behaviour must be wandering around the world with his eyes close.

[bigred]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8385069.stm

Islam and European Secular Liberalism remain on course for a head-on collision. Islam continually "stirs hatred". It is fundamentally non-multicultural and therefore fundamentally incompatible with modern European civilisation. The politicians are too scared to tackle this problem, but in Switzerland it only takes 1000 votes to force a referendum. The people have spoken.
Ah the good ol Swiss- they have no problem flipping the bird to political correctness and restricting the power of the almighty dollar.


The Bible says that if a child disrespects his parents he should be put to death.
The Bible says a man who commits homosexual acts should be put to death. You're saying you have a problem with that?

(I know I know, but hey...when in Rome.....)

:rolleyes:

[Praktik]

Anyone who doesn't recognise that islam encompasses a huge range of beliefs and behaviour must be wandering around the world with his eyes closed.

..and telling everyone how blue the sky is...

[kerikiwi]

This is Judaism, not Christianity.... You can only be a Jew if you are born a Jew.
Also, even if you took those quotes as direct instructions to Christians, they are still rather lame when compared to the instructions in the Koran. It's about the destiny of "God's chosen people", not an attempt to conquer the whole world.

The 'old testament' has not been consigned to the rubbish bin by chriatians. It is right there, bound with the 'new'. You are being disingenuous. With islam, anything in the koran can be held against muslims, with christianity you say 'oh, that's not christianity'.
In your second sentence you are wrong.
Your closing is a beautiful example of cherry picking. Do you not think the passages earlier quoted from the bible are not fully as nasty as those you selected from the koran? Or they are not so bad because they are about destiny and the ones from the koran are about conquest?

[Slayhamlet]

So I gather from the OP that minarets are magical beacons that emit a powerful mind-controlling frequency, the only defense against which is for the upstanding secularist citizens of Switzerland to prevent their erection lest they be allowed broadcast their extremist, non-multicultural ideology unimpeded across the idyllic Swiss countryside.

[Thunder]

Would anyone be in favor of allowing the construction of a mosque near the site of the WTC? If not, why not?


sure...why the hell not? Muslim Americans are second-class citizens or something?

[Thunder]

If Judaism was a religion which actually sought to convert people then this could indeed become a serious problem, but it doesn't. You can only be a Jew if you are born a Jew. .

there are about 100,000 converts to Judaism every year.

someone did NOT do their homework.

and by the way, Jesus said:

"I have not come to bring peace, but the sword."

Mathew 10:34


and in all honesty, up until maybe 100 years ago, Christianity has been the most violent religion on the face of the Earth.

[Ryokan]

Would anyone be in favor of allowing the construction of a mosque near the site of the WTC? If not, why not?

DC

Are any these near enough?


http://local.yahoo.com/results?stx=mosques&csz=10011

[bigred]

and by the way, Jesus said:

"I have not come to bring peace, but the sword."
"QFT"

Gee I thought taking quotes from the Bible out of context was the Fundamentalists' turf. Not that yet another attempt to digress into Christian bashing is exactly shocking.

Or this is another case of we mock what we do not understand?

[kerikiwi]

"QFT"

Gee I thought taking quotes from the Bible out of context was the Fundamentalists' turf. Not that yet another attempt to digress into Christian bashing is exactly shocking.

Or this is another case of we mock what we do not understand?

Where is the christian bashing?
Which quotes are out of context and how does the context change the meaning?

[fullflavormenthol]

Hey now lets not bring context into this, because UndercoverElephant wasn't even quoting full verses earlier in the thread. Context is out the window as far as I am concerned unless people are either willing to drop or defend the out of context quotes from the Qur'an.

[ddt]

"QFT"

Gee I thought taking quotes from the Bible out of context was the Fundamentalists' turf. Not that yet another attempt to digress into Christian bashing is exactly shocking.

Or this is another case of we mock what we do not understand?

The OP set the door for that wide open. UE may profess to be an atheist, his posts speak loud and clear favouring Christianity over other religions. And then we haven't even touched on the many miscomprehensions, to say the least, of other religions.

[GlennB]

...
the presence of foreigner the only problem of the country, and their demonization, ostracization and if possible expulsion, the solution to every single problem, from unemployment to the falling prices of cheese.


Nice post Flo.

I always thought the Swiss tendency towards a vague generalised
anti-nonswissness quite amusing for a country that has four official languages ;)

[ddt]

Well, Turkey is a pretty good example. There you have a battle going on between secular reformers who see the future of Turkey as part of the EU and the Islamists who are having none of it. Right now, the Islamists appear to be winning that battle. Where Islam is a majority, there is a fundamental conflict with the values of liberal western democracy.
Are they winning? I don't see it yet. And you're equating now "islamists", aka fundamentalists, with all of Islam. Fail again.



Did I do that? Nope.

I did not say that building minarets breeds terrorism. Please stop misquoting me.
I'm definitely not misquoting you. I asked:
Why banning minarets and not church towers?
and you answered with:
... and the true impact of Islam didn't arrive until September 11th, 2001.
So yes, you made the connection between building minarets and islamic fundamentalist terrorism.

And I note you didn't address a single time my claim that banning minarets but not church towers is discrimination.


What I said was that the Islamisation of Europe should be resisted, and preventing the building of minarets helps to acheive this goal. Islam doesn't need minarets to "breed" violence. Violence is already an integral part of Islam.
And in a roundabout way, you again say that minarets breed terrorism, by saying "no minarets means no muslims means no terrorism". However, you haven't until now not given a shred of evidence for the first inference.


It's not just terrorism I am worried about. I don't want Islam to be a part of the society I live in, because I believe it to be a vile, medievil, violent, ethically-backward disease. Islam has been unwilling or unable to reform itself. My response to this is to reject Islam. I don't want its influence anywhere near me or the society I live in.
I totally see your point. Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley are so much more civilized and peaceful men than your local imam. :rolleyes: Do you remember the time of the Troubles? Do you remember the impact the IRA terror campaign had on Britain? That's enlightened Christianity for you, even in two flavours.

You keep propagating the patently false idea that Islam is all violence, and must lead to terrorism, without evidence. And no, cherry picking quotes from the Quran does not constitute evidence.

Finally, you just have to live with it; about 6% of your countrymen are Muslim. So what do you intend to do about it? I dare not speculate about it.

[Fiona]

the op set the door for that wide open. Ue may profess to be an atheist, his posts speak loud and clear favouring christianityprotestantism over other religions. And then we haven't even touched on the many miscomprehensions, to say the least, of other religions.

ftfy

[KingMerv00]

Would anyone be in favor of allowing the construction of a mosque near the site of the WTC? If not, why not?

DC

Why would you? Is it not up to code? Does it violate zoning laws?

(Personally, I tend to groan anytime any new holy building goes up. Surely we have enough by now?)

[Nosi]

If the majority banned minarets it for any practical reason, there might be an argument, but they've been explicit that the goal is to suppress the practice of Islam. To make restrictions on the peaceful practice of a religion is oppression. It isn't as extreme as taking away voting rights, or banning Mosques or the practice of Islam entirely, but it is very clearly oppression.

Above that, it's an unambiguous statement from the Swiss to their resident Muslims "We don't differentiate between your religion and the extremists who wrap themselves in it, we see your faith as something unwelcome in our country"

Personally, I'd like to see an end to all religion, but picking on any one is a terribly ineffective way to do it and mostly just increases alienation and animosity.

If they wanted to do something rebellious, they'd build/create something else to thumb their noses at the Swiss oppressors. What that something else I don't know, but people who feel irritated can get creative in harmless retaliation as well as harmful. This appears to call for harmless, if irritating retaliation.

Call future minarets "church or Mosque towers" :D

[ddt]

I seem to be fighting a general sentiment that "all religions are equal" and that we have to be equally tolerant of them all, because anything less would compromise our credentials on human rights. Now...I'm used to all religions being lumped together on this board - they are usually lumped together with everything-else that isn't science and called "woo-woo". The simple fact of the matter, regardless of whether or not you think all religion is woo-woo, is that the religions of the world are not the same. Scientology, for example, is little more than a scam designed to lure rich people to give their money away. Hinduism is essentially pacifist and deeply philosophical, but causes severe problems because it helps to prop up the caste system. Islam is all about spreading Islam and enforcing its rule, and if this requires violent methods then so be it.

Sorry, but there's no place for political-correctness here. I call a spade a spade and I call a violent religion a violent religion. There is nothing peaceful about Islam. Anyone who doesn't recognise this threat must be wandering around the world with their eyes closed.

Yes, all religions are equal - but not in the way you try to depict it. All religions are equal under the law. If - and I say if - religion A is violent in some aspect, we should outlaw that aspect of religion A. Not because it is religion A, but because violence runs counter to our secular norms. Government has no business in interfering with religion for religious reasons. When it interferes, it should be for secular reasons. We should measure all religions along the same, secular, yardstick. And I have the distinct feeling from your posts that you don't seem to get that concept.

Switzerland now allows religion C to build towers on its buildings, and it has forbidden religion I to build towers on its buildings. For no other reason than that it's religion I. That is discrimination, clear and simple.

Sure you can argue against an individual minaret, on secular grounds, because it doesn't fit in its historical surroundings. And I get the impression that such arguments indeed have been used, at the local level, to use zoning laws and the like to prohibit the building of minarets - but that various courts saw through these arguments as a charade for the real reasons the complainants had, viz. the reason they objected to the religion.

And that's where those complainants were wrong, and where this constitutional amendment is wrong. Government has no business in favouring one religion over another. And government has no business in interfering with religions, insofar as they operate within the confines of secular law.

[UndercoverElephant]

What power has it gained in your part of the world?

The power to establish arabic-speaking schools, unfortunately.

[ddt]

This is Judaism, not Christianity. From a Christian perspective, Jesus came to overturn Jewish moral law - to replace "an eye for an eye" with "turn the other cheek."
As others have noted, the OT is part of the Christian Bible, so it is relevant. Moreover you're disingenuous about Jesus. In Matthew 5:17-18, Jesus says he came to fulfill the law (of the Old Testament).


If Judaism was a religion which actually sought to convert people then this could indeed become a serious problem, but it doesn't. You can only be a Jew if you are born a Jew. This effectively removes any potential threat.
More miscomprehension? You can convert to Judaism.

[kerikiwi]

If - and I say if - religion A is violent in some aspect, we should outlaw that aspect of religion A.

And that aspect is, of course, already outlawed.
Murder is illegal whoever does it.
Breaking the road rules is already illegal whoever does it.
Anything which is illegal is illegal for everyone... or should be.

[Fiona]

The power to establish arabic-speaking schools, unfortunately.

Religious schools are legal in the UK. I would prefer it if it were not so but it is. They are equal under the law and so they have gained no power

Try again

[kerikiwi]

The power to establish arabic-speaking schools, unfortunately.

Really? You are afraid of people who speak Arabic? Or just any language other than English?

[fullflavormenthol]

So Arabic schools are not a gain in power. Or are you willing to take away religious schools from all religions equally?

[Fiona]

http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/en/Residents/GoingtoSchool/GaelicEducation/

We better be very afraid of the gael

[UndercoverElephant]

The OP set the door for that wide open. UE may profess to be an atheist, his posts speak loud and clear favouring Christianity over other religions.

Nope, never been a Christian and certainly do not prefer Christianity to other religions. I was an atheist for about thirty years and now I'd describe myself as somewhere between a Taoist and a Hindu. I do not believe in an Abrahamic God and never have done. Period.

[ddt]

If this was a noise complaint issue, the Swiss People's Party probably should say that instead of going on and on about political and religious issues.
It's clearly not. Noise regulation would have been handled at local or cantonal level. The text of the amendment is against the minaret itself, not its possible use.

Off-topic, I'm reminded of a local dispute in Holland with a catholic church (http://www.expatica.com/nl/news/local_news/tilburg-church-bells-sound-again-43176.html):
The bells of the Holy Margarita Maria Church in Tilburg were violating noise standards again on Thursday morning. The chiming is the subject of a fierce battle between the church, area residents and the Tilburg municipal executive.

The bells sounded at 83.2 decibels, 13.2 decibels above the limit. A spokesperson for the municipality says the church will be once again issued another EUR 5,000 fine.

The municipality has already fined the church twice.

[UndercoverElephant]

I totally see your point. Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley are so much more civilized and peaceful men than your local imam. :rolleyes: Do you remember the time of the Troubles? Do you remember the impact the IRA terror campaign had on Britain? That's enlightened Christianity for you, even in two flavours.

I remember the troubles very well, given that I grew up in an army town that was bombed by the IRA in 1976 (when I was 8). I am also well aware of the history of that conflict which goes back over four centuries and has its roots in the catholic/protestant schism that tore apart the whole of Europe, as well as mindless English imperialism which had nothing whatsoever to do with religion. Please don't bring up Ireland. The history of that conflict is just too complicated to even start on.

[Fiona]

Strange: you certainly sound like a tribal prod: but I suppose some a born bigots: some achieve bigotry; and some have bigotry thrust upon them. You would be right at home in the more traditional parts of the church of ireland

[JJM 777]

Reeaaallly sorry for not reading anything what has been written in the thread so far.

But.

During my holiday travels in Middle East I really hated it that in every Arab town a guy in the minaret harasses the whole population with noise pollution.

On the other hand, Christian churches do the same with them noisy bells in Central Europe.

How pleasant it is to live here in quiet Scandinavia...

[fullflavormenthol]

<snip>

The history of that conflict is just too complicated to even start on.

Oh the troubles are too complicated. But the workings of the major world religions are so simplistic that you attempt to explain them (wrongly) in a single post.

[UndercoverElephant]

Really? You are afraid of people who speak Arabic? Or just any language other than English?

If these people want to integrate themselves into British society then they should go to English-speaking schools.

I'm sorry, but I do not believe that is too much too ask.

[Fiona]

So you would ban the gaelic school?

[Professor Yaffle]

And Welsh medium education?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_medium_education

[fullflavormenthol]

Hebrew School should be banned! Nothing mildly wrong with that...oh wait.

[UndercoverElephant]

So Arabic schools are not a gain in power.


I don't agree. I think they help to drive a wedge between mainstream British society and the local communities which attend the arabic-speaking school.


Or are you willing to take away religious schools from all religions equally?

That is a difficult question. Since I don't see most other forms of religion as being as threatening as Islam, I am also less bothered about religious schools dedicated to those other religions. Also, Catholics schools and Hindu schools would teach in English anyway, so that part of the cultural barrier isn't there. But I accept that if I was going to be absolutely consistent I might have to agree to a ban on all sorts of religious school.

I personally went to a Christian school from the age of 5 to 12, and hated it.

[kerikiwi]

If these people want to integrate themselves into British society then they should go to English-speaking schools.

I'm sorry, but I do not believe that is too much too ask.

I don't think you are sorry at all.
You have been wrong in more than one of your assertions so far, but not sorry.

[GlennB]

If they wanted to do something rebellious, they'd build/create something else to thumb their noses at the Swiss oppressors. What that something else I don't know, but people who feel irritated can get creative in harmless retaliation as well as harmful. This appears to call for harmless, if irritating retaliation.

Call future minarets "church or Mosque towers" :D

A mosque with a really big cuckoo-clock on top might raise a few laughs :)

[Cleon]

The power to establish arabic-speaking schools, unfortunately.

Oh, the horror. :rolleyes:

[funk de fino]

The power to establish arabic-speaking schools, unfortunately.

Are they the only foreign langauge schools or religious schools in the UK?

[fullflavormenthol]

I don't agree. I think they help to drive a wedge between mainstream British society and the local communities which attend the arabic-speaking school.

So you don't want Muslims to have the same rights as other people? Perhaps they should be restricted to certain neighborhoods? Have their own schools? Water fountains? Bathrooms?

Oh, but none of that as long as they convert to Taoism or Hinduism. Would it be okay if they were Protestants too? At what point do they become reformed to you. See I think reform is just code for not Muslim.

That is a difficult question.

<snip>

But I accept that if I was going to be absolutely consistent I might have to agree to a ban on all sorts of religious school.

I personally went to a Christian school from the age of 5 to 12, and hated it.

So you believe that it is okay to discriminate with certain types of people based upon religion then? Because clearly you don't feel the need to be consistent, which implies that you don't believe the law should apply equally to all.

[Ryokan]

How pleasant it is to live here in quiet Scandinavia...

Your profile says Finland, which is not in Scandinavia - unless you're currently not in Finland but some Scandinavian country... :)

But I live right next to a church, in Norway, which is in Scandinavia, and I wake up every sunday morning to very loud bells... :(

As to the minarets in Switzerland, all the current 4 minarets do not have call to prayers. They're quite silent minarets, so that can't have been the worry. Bosnian Muslims, which are the majority of Muslims in Switzerland, do have mosques with (and without) minarets, but calls of prayer are not part of their culture. At least I heard none at all when I served 6 months in the NATO-forces in Bosnia.

[Tanja]

If these people want to integrate themselves into British society then they should go to English-speaking schools.

I'm sorry, but I do not believe that is too much too ask.

May I ask you how you feel about the children of British expats going to English speaking schools in Brussels, Dubai or Beijing? I grew up in Zagreb and went to and English-speaking school as well.

Also, what are your thoughts on Lycee Francais Charles de Gaulle in London? Is that unacceptable to you as well?

[scissorhands]

Perhaps they should be restricted to certain neighborhoods? Have their own schools?

I dont think it would be necessary to enforce this in law, as that is something many muslim immigrants want anyway.
The whole history of muslim immigration into the UK involves intentional seperation from the host community.
I guess you dont have much experience of this, otherwise you wouldnt be trying to make such cheap and stupid points.

[Fiona]

what leads you to that conclusion scissorhands?

[Ryokan]

I dont think it would be necessary to enforce this in law, as that is something many muslim immigrants want anyway.
The whole history of muslim immigration into the UK involves intentional seperation from the host community.

How many is many? How large a percentage of Muslims attend public schools, and how many attend Arabic/Muslim schools?

[fullflavormenthol]

I dont think it would be necessary to enforce this in law, as that is something many muslim immigrants want anyway.
The whole history of muslim immigration into the UK involves intentional seperation from the host community.
I guess you dont have much experience of this, otherwise you wouldnt be trying to make such cheap and stupid points.

Out of context, but hey feel proud of that. It makes you feel like you have written something intelligent, well good for you. Immigration always has a period of seperation (most of the time by shear circumstance), and to know that would require some actual research, but that would get in the way of bigoted generalizations.

[Thunder]

If these people want to integrate themselves into British society then they should go to English-speaking schools.

I'm sorry, but I do not believe that is too much too ask.

Well, then I guess those who speak Gaelic, Irish, Welsh, and Manx, are just gonna have to go home!!!

;)

[ddt]

That is it exactly. I'm not sure people outside the UK realise just how deeply ingrained anti-catholicism is in our culture, and that of the rest of Protestant Europe. It took a long time and a lot of "crap" before personal freedom in the forms of protestantism and rationalism finally overcame Catholic hegemony. We don't want no Popery and we don't want no Islam neither.
No, it's "Rather Turkish than Papist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liever_Turks_dan_Paaps)". And no, thank you very much, Calvin's Geneva sound as attractive to me as Philip II's Spain or present-day Iran. Thank God (pun intended) that the Dutch ruling class pretty much kept the overzealous Protestant ministers at bay, and prohibited prosecution of Catholics. People fighting out a civil war don't make money. If any cult is to be attributed for that personal freedom, it's not the cult of Calvin but that of Mammon.

Or let's quote William the Silent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_The_Silent) - born Lutheran, raised Catholic, died Calvinist:
I can not approve that monarchs desire to rule over the conscience of their subjects and take away from them their freedom of belief and religion.

You'll find no Protestant religious leader of the time - Luther, Melanchton, Zwingli, Calvin, Knox, you name them - on record saying such a thing. They were every bit as intolerant as the Roman Catholics of the time.

[scissorhands]

Immigration always has a period of seperation

Tell that to the North American Indians.
By the way, when ARE they going to be getting their lands back?
Its been a long time now.

[ddt]

Nope, never been a Christian and certainly do not prefer Christianity to other religions. I was an atheist for about thirty years and now I'd describe myself as somewhere between a Taoist and a Hindu. I do not believe in an Abrahamic God and never have done. Period.

Funny then how you do defend Christianity, in particular Protestantism.

[fullflavormenthol]

Tell that to the North American Indians.
By the way, when ARE they going to be getting their lands back?
Its been a long time now.
Yes those are really comparable. Hey when are the Celts going to get their land back? When are the Moors going to get their land back?

:rolleyes:

Muslims having their own school is the same as the European colonization of the New World....

[Kotatsu]

You forgot oppressing Norway!

Cosmically speaking, there is no significant difference between Norway and Denmark.

I *WANT* them to be pissed off. I want them to know precisely what I think of their unreformed, medievil religion.

That it is inferior to your equally medieval opinions?

You and the rest of the left are ample proof that the Swedish education system is unable to generate healthy and sane citizens and instead spits out maladjusted and rootless idiots.

Meanwhile, the extreme-right is evidence that it doesn't matter what kind of education system you have: some people are too dense to mature mentally regardless of the system.

The term "populists" fits these traitors well.

On this I agree completely, apart from the "traitors" part.

Ah, the old leftists lie: "It's out fault that the immigrants are behaving badly, we have only our selves for being milked for all our worth!"

Sure beats the rightist "I was too dim to pay attention in school, so I must blame someone with another skin colour for my own shortcomings". It is a variation of the old rightist nonsense that despite the White Christian Man being superior in all aspects to the rest of humanity, they still somehow get their jobs stolen from them by immigrants.

Stuff, little of which reflects reality

So you have no examples of this glorious Swedish culture that is being attacked by Muslims?

And yes, I do agree with you that Folkpartiet is backpeddling and abandoning its previous extreme-right opinions now that the Swedish "Democrats" have been in the spotlight so much recently, and it has become painfully obvious that the two parties have had the same ideas for solving what they perceive as problems (1). Hopefully, they will eventually remember that they used to call themselves "The Liberals", and that a member of a precursor of that party was the first to suggest votes for women in this country.

---
(1) As evidenced by the recent declaration from several immigrant interest groups that there is no practical difference between the immigration politics of FP and that of SD.

[Ryokan]

Cosmically speaking, there is no significant difference between Norway and Denmark.

After 1814 there was...

[scissorhands]

fullflavormenthol...

"Immigration always has a period of seperation"

And what makes you think that encouraging seperate schooling for immigrant and religious minorities is going to help with this?
Will it speed it up?
Edited to remove personal remarks.

Please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks to argue your point.

[fullflavormenthol]

fullflavormenthol...

"Immigration always has a period of seperation"

And what makes you think that encouraging seperate schooling for immigrant and religious minorities is going to help with this?
Will it speed it up?
Edited to remove quoted remark.
How does it hurt? You know many kids go to Hebrew School, and they turn out fine. Many kids go to Catholic School and they turn out fine. What evidence do you have that having religious private schools is harmful?

[scissorhands]

How does it hurt? You know many kids go to Hebrew School, and they turn out fine. Many kids go to Catholic School and they turn out fine. What evidence do you have that having religious private schools is harmful?

Catholic and Jewish schools cater for an already well integrated population of Jews and Catholics.
You had some point?

[ddt]

There is nothing racist about anything I have posted in this thread. I couldn't give a flying fanny what colour people's skin is. I care about what they believe and how it effects my own life and the society I am a part of. I've already stated I have no problem with Hindus and the Hindus come from exactly the same genetic stock as the majority of British muslims. Race is NOT what we are discussing.

Not racism, acknowledged, but you do discriminate based on religion. Care to address at last my points on that?

But let's not pretend there's no racism involved in this campaign. Just look at this SVP poster:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1002/1339641587_43216466d1.jpg

[ddt]

I remember the troubles very well, given that I grew up in an army town that was bombed by the IRA in 1976 (when I was 8). I am also well aware of the history of that conflict which goes back over four centuries and has its roots in the catholic/protestant schism that tore apart the whole of Europe, as well as mindless English imperialism which had nothing whatsoever to do with religion. Please don't bring up Ireland. The history of that conflict is just too complicated to even start on.

Indeed it's also a class conflict, about a (catholic) indigenous underclass and (protestant) immigrant landowners, who happen to be separated roughly on religious lines.

But your point is clear. Ireland is multi-faceted and complicated. Islam, on the other hand, is one-dimensional. I hope you see the irony in your stances yourself.

[scissorhands]

Not racism, acknowledged, but you do discriminate based on religion. Care to address at last my points on that?

But let's not pretend there's no racism involved in this campaign. Just look at this SVP poster:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1002/1339641587_43216466d1.jpg

And the fact you can find racist posters that support the campaign, means that the campaign to try to defend secularism in Europe is racist.
Pathetic.
You should stop trying to poison the well and debate the issue.

[fullflavormenthol]

Catholic and Jewish schools cater for an already well integrated population of Jews and Catholics.
You had some point?
Yeah, but it has already flown about a mile over your head.

EDIT: That is to say you have nothing to justify your original point.


You should stop trying to poison the well and debate the issue.

:i:

[GreNME]

If these people want to integrate themselves into British society then they should go to English-speaking schools.

I'm sorry, but I do not believe that is too much too ask.

Don't lie: you're not sorry one bit.

Additionally, you have a creative definition of "integration" that doesn't match the government definitions for it. You may as well be demanding that the government and anyone who disagrees with you are all no true scotsmen at this point.

Bang-up job you're doing of it, though.

[kerikiwi]

And the fact you can find racist posters that support the campaign, means that the campaign to try to defend secularism in Europe is racist.


You ought not to misrepresent (or just plain lie about) a point made.
The point was that the campaign is not without racism.

[Thunder]

And the fact you can find racist posters that support the campaign, means that the campaign to try to defend secularism in Europe is racist.


the two posters I have seen in support of the referendum are clearly racist and Islamophobic.

why the hell do Europeans have such a problem with accepting diversity and promoting integration?

the USA has millions of Muslims and millions of Jews. Jews have done a marvelous job integrating into America's cultural landscape while preserving their own identity. Muslims seem to be doing a good job as well, especially in Michigan.

so what's the problem ay? is the "New World" just more adaptable and inclusive?

perhaps we are.

learn from us, Old World. learn from us.

[scissorhands]

You ought not to misrepresent (or just plain lie about) a point made.
The point was that the campaign is not without racism.

Its a common smear tactic, and becomes very evident when people arent very sure about their argument.
Im afraid pulling the racism card doesnt work when discussing religion, easy as it may seem.

[Thunder]

Im afraid pulling the racism card doesnt work when discussing religion, easy as it may seem.

I use the generic term "Racism" to also refer to discrimination and hatred directed against people of a specific faith or ethnicity. this is standard and common practice.

[scissorhands]

I use the generic term "Racism" to also refer to discrimination and hatred directed against people of a specific faith or ethnicity. this is standard and common practice.

Then you would be wrong.
Otherwise belittling scientology would be considered racism, something that happens daily on here.

[fullflavormenthol]

Then you would be wrong.
Otherwise belittling scientology would be considered racism, something that happens daily on here.
Yes, because Scientologists are always identified with a specific ethnic group, with all its debate about integration.

[Fiona]

I am perfectly happy to give you the word: religious bigotry is no better though

[scissorhands]

Yes, because Scientologists are always identified with a specific ethnic group, with all its debate about integration.

Muslims are from one ethnic group now???
You need to think before you post your nonsense.

[kerikiwi]

Its a common smear tactic, and becomes very evident when people arent very sure about their argument.
Im afraid pulling the racism card doesnt work when discussing religion, easy as it may seem.

Not a smear tactic.
Religious bigotry does not preclude racist bigotry.
The two can and do go nicely hand in hand.

[ddt]

And the fact you can find racist posters that support the campaign, means that the campaign to try to defend secularism in Europe is racist.
Pathetic.
You might want to take a closer look at the poster. The poster was made and distributed by the SVP, the Swiss People's Party, the biggest driving force behind the initiative. It's not just a poster that supports the campaign - this poster is central to the campaign.

And claiming outlawing minarets is somehow "defending secularism" is outright ludicrous. The state interfering in religious affairs is secular? :jaw-dropp


You should stop trying to poison the well and debate the issue.
That's some chutzpah. I don't address the issue? Neither you, nor UnrecoveredElephant have ever in a single post coherently addressed a couple of questions that have been repeatedly asked. I'll ask them again:

1) how does outlawing minarets help against terrorism?

2) how can a secular government institute laws that are directed at one religion specifically? IMO that runs counter to the idea of secularism.

3) how do you defend our Western freedoms by taking freedoms away? Don't you make a joke of it then?

4) so you think Islam is dangerous. What do you want to do with those muslims that are there? Do you want to throw them out of the country? Put them in concentration camps? Gas them? Now don't be chicken and give a straightforward answer. Note that absence of an answer also indicates the likely answer you'd have given.

[kerikiwi]

I use the generic term "Racism" to also refer to discrimination and hatred directed against people of a specific faith or ethnicity. this is standard and common practice.

Bigotry would be a better term, though the two are the same in essence.

[scissorhands]

Not a smear tactic.
Religious bigotry does not preclude racist bigotry.
The two can and do go nicely hand in hand.

Sure, but only fools cant tell the difference between legitimate concerns about anti democratic religious ideologies and concerns about what colour someones skin is.

[kerikiwi]

Sure, but only fools cant tell the difference between legitimate concerns about anti democratic religious ideologies and concerns about what colour someones skin is.

And only fools cannot see when they are inextricably linked.
So?

[fullflavormenthol]

Muslims are from one ethnic group now???
You need to think before you post your nonsense.

Lets look at that post again...

Yes, because Scientologists are always identified with a specific ethnic group, with all its debate about integration.

Maybe you should develop a counterpoint instead of being so desperate to avoid an honest debate.


You need to think before you post your nonsense.

Thats some good advice, perhaps you can follow it next time.

[Fiona]

Well there is a certain blindness in lumping huge numbers of diverse people together under one simplistic assertion about their actions and beliefs: or their innate abilities. Distinction without a difference imo

[Thunder]

Sure, but only fools cant tell the difference between legitimate concerns about anti democratic religious ideologies and concerns about what colour someones skin is.

what exactly about Judaism or Christianity or Hinduism..

is pro-democracy?

:confused::confused::confused:

[scissorhands]

The state interfering in religious affairs is secular?

Well yes, as far as I am aware the state in Switzerland is secular.

[Thunder]

Well yes, as far as I am aware the state in Switzerland is secular.

how would you feel about a Swiss referendum that sought to ban crosses on top of churches?

how about one that bans the wearing of Stars of David larger then 2 inches in width?

discriminatory laws is NO way to get people to want to integrate. hell, if I was a Swiss Muslim, I'd take this recent referendum as a real attack upon my human rights, and might not be soo keen to integrate any more.

better to die on your feet..then live on your knees..they say.

[fullflavormenthol]

how would you feel about a Swiss referendum that sought to ban crosses on top of churches?

how about one that bans the wearing of Stars of David larger then 2 inches in width?

discriminatory laws is NO way to get people to want to integrate. hell, if I was a Swiss Muslim, I'd take this recent referendum as a real attack upon my human rights, and might not be soo keen to integrate any more.

better to die on your feet..then live on your knees..they say.
Especially given that the majority of their Muslim population is of Bosnian origin. Not exactly the Wahabi community people seem to worry about, BUT a people that have experience with a society that treats them like non-people.

[scissorhands]

discriminatory laws is NO way to get people to want to integrate. hell, if I was a Swiss Muslim, I'd take this recent referendum as a real attack upon my human rights, and might not be soo keen to integrate any more.

Personally. I would move country.
There are plenty in the ME available, no problems there.

[kerikiwi]

Especially given that the majority of their Muslim population is of Bosnian origin. Not exactly the Wahabi community people seem to worry about, BUT a people that have experience with a society that treats them like non-people.

And if, as some insist, islam is monolithic and not peaceful and inherently violent and out to take over the world, then we should be very, very afraid of these people.

[Fiona]

Personally. I would move country.


Maybe you would: but I seriously doubt it.

[kerikiwi]

Personally. I would move country.
There are plenty in the ME available, no problems there.

Am I allowed to say : don't be so bloody ridiculous.
Really, don't!
Islamisnotmonolithicnotallmuslimsareviolentjihadis tsouttogetyou.
You have as much reason to be afraid of christians as a group as you do muslims.

[scissorhands]

Maybe you would: but I seriously doubt it.

Well why not?
The immigrants in Switzerland had parents or grandparents who moved country.
The Jews have regularly had to move country due to muslim expansionism and their Nazi friends in Germany.

[Fiona]

1. Most muslims in the west are just like you and me: they have families and jobs and schools that their kids go to and hobbies they enjoy.
2. Many people do not think the right answer to discrimination is to run away: in fact I think that is quite a rare reaction. It is at least as usual to have some pride in your rights, and some determination to stand up to bigotry

As it appears that you feel your country is being changed by another group which is not to your liking why don't you just go somewhere else? I do not see why you wouldn't if you really believe what you say.

[Malerin]

Just as a sidenote, from my experience as a teacher, any foreign-language speaking school is a bad idea. If a student is not immersed in the language of the country they're living in, they're going to have a much harder time of it. I've seen this a lot in my hispanic students who come from spanish-speaking only homes. Learning the idioms and phonetics of English is much harder for them.

Back to the Islam-bashing, the fact that the people who want to (and have) blow up parts of my country are almost uniformally radical islamists begs a few questions:
1. Obviously the percentage of Muslims who want to violently impose their beliefs on non-believers is extremely small (I say "non believers" specifically because the percentage of Muslims who violently impose their beliefs on female Muslims is not small. It is disgraceful, shameful and there should be ongoing protests from the Muslim community about the widespread degradation of women). The vast, vast majoriy of Muslims are content to live-and-let-live, but obviously some aren't. What is the percentage? Any guesses? What is the percentage of Muslims who, while not violent themselves, are sympathetic to acts of violence?

2. Because radical Islam has become a problem (and has been for some time before 9/11 woke a lot of us up to it), is profiling acceptable? Who is more likely to try and hijack/blow up an airline? Mahed, a 30 yr old Arabic man from Saudi Arabia, or Cathy, a 50 yr old caucasian from Minnesota? If I'm running security, and I have a limited amount of time to screen passengers, should I play the percentages and give Mahed a more thorough going over, or treat every passenger the same?

[ddt]

Well yes, as far as I am aware the state in Switzerland is secular.
Dodging the question? Is the state still secular when it interferes in religious affairs - e.g., by outlawing minarets?

And care to answer my questions:

1) how does outlawing minarets help against terrorism?

2) how can a secular government institute laws that are directed at one religion specifically? IMO that runs counter to the idea of secularism.

3) how do you defend our Western freedoms by taking freedoms away? Don't you make a joke of it then?

4) so you think Islam is dangerous. What do you want to do with those muslims that are there? Do you want to throw them out of the country? Put them in concentration camps? Gas them? Now don't be chicken and give a straightforward answer. Note that absence of an answer also indicates the likely answer you'd have given.

[Malerin]

Am I allowed to say : don't be so bloody ridiculous.
Really, don't!
Islamisnotmonolithicnotallmuslimsareviolentjihadis tsouttogetyou.
You have as much reason to be afraid of christians as a group as you do muslims.

You really think this? Keep in mind I'm from America.

[scissorhands]

As it appears that you feel your country is being changed by another group which is not to your liking why don't you just go somewhere else?

Nah.
Its my country and why would I want to do that?
My family date back over 1000 years here.
Im happy where I am.

[fullflavormenthol]

You really think this? Keep in mind I'm from America.
A doctor down the street from me got shot in the back of the head while in church by a Christian that felt it was justified to kill him because of the teachings of people from Operation Rescue. So yeah I am definately more afraid of Christians than I am of Muslims. They are more of a threat to me in America.

[Fiona]

@ Malerin First install an absolute monarch of your choosing in Minnesota: then make sure you support that monarch no matter what kind of laws he or she imposes: then do the same in several neighbouring states and when the people take up arms and take to the hills send in troops.

Do all that for 50 years and ask me again

[Thunder]

The Jews have regularly had to move country due to muslim expansionism and their Nazi friends in Germany.

I'm sorry....who kicked the Jews out of Spain?

The Christians. And where did many Jews go seeking refuge? Muslim North Africa and other Muslim Mediteranean countries.

[Fiona]

Nah.
Its my country and why would I want to do that?
My family date back over 1000 years here.
Im happy where I am.

So what is the cut off point?

[scissorhands]

Is the state still secular when it interferes in religious affairs - e.g., by outlawing minarets?

Absolutely secular.
I would encourage the banning of all religious buildings.

[UndercoverElephant]

Funny then how you do defend Christianity, in particular Protestantism.

I'm not defending Christianity. All I said was that it was significantly less threatening than Islam in its current form. That's hardly Christian apologetics.

[Fiona]

I'm not defending Christianity. All I said was that it was significantly less threatening than Islam in its current form. That's hardly Christian apologetics.

If it is not christian apologetics it will do till christian apologetics comes along

[scissorhands]

Edited for posting content that was "Extremely cruel or hateful content directed toward another user".

[Malerin]

A doctor down the street from me got shot in the back of the head while in church by a Christian that felt it was justified to kill him because of the teachings of people from Operation R
escue.

You must be an incredibly unlucky person. In 16 years, there have been 8 doctors and workers killed in anti-abortion violence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#Murders

That's in a nation where roughly 75% of the population is Christian. By contrast, maybe 1% of the population in America is Muslim. Muslims have killed over 3,000 Americans in that same time period.

Seriously now, which group is more dangerous?

[Malerin]

@ Malerin First install an absolute monarch of your choosing in Minnesota: then make sure you support that monarch no matter what kind of laws he or she imposes: then do the same in several neighbouring states and when the people take up arms and take to the hills send in troops.

Do all that for 50 years and ask me again

That doesn't answer the question: would you consider Mahed more of a security threat than Cathy?

[fullflavormenthol]

You must be an incredibly unlucky person. In 16 years, there have been 8 doctors and workers killed in anti-abortion violence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#Murders

That's in a nation where roughly 75% of the population is Christian. By contrast, maybe 1% of the population in America is Muslim. Muslims have killed over 3,000 Americans in that same time period.

Seriously now, which group is more dangerous?
Christians. Statistically they are the most likely group to inflict violence on me. Statistically they are the most likely group to do it for religious reasons.

Oh and a small point...how many American Muslims have killed Americans in terrorism?

[Thunder]

Edited for posting content that was "Extremely cruel or hateful content directed toward another user".

yes. standing up for Muslim human rights= self-loathing Jew.

I get this a lot. its part of the deal. God loves me, nonetheless.

[ddt]

Absolutely secular.
I would encourage the banning of all religious buildings.

I see you again fail to answer my four simple questions. So much for "addressing the issue".

Nah.
Its my country and why would I want to do that?
My family date back over 1000 years here.
Im happy where I am.
So your argument is that you're an indigenous Briton according to a certain British political party?

[a3sigma]

the two posters I have seen in support of the referendum are clearly racist and Islamophobic.





I'd have voted for the referendum on the grounds that people ought to be able to preserve and protect their aesthetic values and cultural heritage. Pretty much the same reason I opposed putting up the Golden Arches in historic old town Annapolis.

Would you drape a burka on the Venus de Milo?

DC

[Thunder]

Would you drape a burka on the Venus de Milo?

DC

no. would you vote to ban large crosses on top of Churches?

or is that sorta of thing..ok?

how about large stars of david on top of synagogues?

why is it that ONLY Muslim architecture is soo very offensive?

have you seen the size of some churches out there?????

honestly, making laws that discriminate ONLY against Muslims..is not the way to encourage Muslims to integrate.

[Malerin]

Christians. Statistically they are the most likely group to inflict violence on me.

All groups commit violence. The point here is which group is more likely to kill you/harm you for ideological reasons.

Statistically they are the most likely group to do it for religious reasons.

Do you really think Christians have killed 3,000+ Americans in the last 10 years for religious reasons? Proof, please. Keep in mind, In america for every Muslim, there are about 70 Christians.

Oh and a small point...how many American Muslims have killed Americans in terrorism?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6905823.ece

"Muslim army psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan kills 13 in US base rampage"

[fullflavormenthol]

All groups commit violence. The point here is which group is more likely to kill you/harm you for ideological reasons.



Do you really think Christians have killed 3,000+ Americans in the last 10 years for religious reasons? Proof, please. Keep in mind, In america for every Muslim, there are about 70 Christians.



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6905823.ece

"Muslim army psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan kills 13 in US base rampage"
13. Not really comparable to the nut case that bombed the Atlanta Olympic games, or that one guy who bombed the Murrah Federal Building. What was his name again?

Oh, yeah and keep in mind 3,000 Americans were killed by foreign terrorists. So how many people have been killed in Christian terrorism in America? Is it more or less than 13?

[ddt]

I'd have voted for the referendum on the grounds that people ought to be able to preserve and protect their aesthetic values and cultural heritage. Pretty much the same reason I opposed putting up the Golden Arches in historic old town Annapolis.

Would you drape a burka on the Venus de Milo?

Those would be arguments for individual mosques and individual minarets. The argument could apply in a historic town center, but not in a newly built suburb. It does not warrant a general ban.

And I guess such arguments have been used extensively in individual cases.

[fullflavormenthol]

What about a masjid or a minaret built in the architectural style of the native country?

[a3sigma]

Not racism, acknowledged, but you do discriminate based on religion. Care to address at last my points on that?

But let's not pretend there's no racism involved in this campaign. Just look at this SVP poster:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1002/1339641587_43216466d1.jpg

I've asked my Swiss friends about it. They pointed out that sheep only come in two colors, and asked what colors I thought the sheep should be?

People in the U.S. often assume that any use of the word black, or the depiction of anything in black, has an explicit racial meaning -- but this is not the case everywhere.

DC

[Thunder]

What about a masjid or a minaret built in the architectural style of the native country?

exactly!! a Swiss looking minaret. would the swiss accept such a compromise?

though, clearly the real issue is Muslim people, not buildings.

[ddt]

I've asked my Swiss friends about it. They pointed out that sheep only come in two colors, and asked what colors I thought the sheep should be?
Nothing says they should adhere to the natural colors of sheep.


People in the U.S. often assume that any use of the word black, or the depiction of anything in black, has an explicit racial meaning -- but this is not the case everywhere.
I'm not American, I'm Dutch. But over here, e.g., schools with many immigrant (Turkish and Moroccan mainly) children are also called "black schools", though those immigrants are definitely "Caucasian" in American parlance. So it isn't just about blacks as in Afro-Americans. Aren't there such expressions in Switzerland?

But I concede, there could also be the connection with "black sheep" - which has the same meaning in German - so, yes, it's not completely clear-cut.

[kerikiwi]

You really think this? Keep in mind I'm from America.

Yes I do. Where you are from is irrelevant.
There are dangerous muslims, dangerous christians, dangerous hindus, dangerous atheists.
It is the dangerous ones you need to be wary of.
All the above groups contain dangerous and not dangerous individuals.
As a group, one is no worse than the others.
Tomothy Mcveigh was as dangerous as any radical islamist or rabid hindu.

[a3sigma]

no. would you vote to ban large crosses on top of Churches?

or is that sorta of thing..ok?

how about large stars of david on top of synagogues?

why is it that ONLY Muslim architecture is soo very offensive?

have you seen the size of some churches out there?????

honestly, making laws that discriminate ONLY against Muslims..is not the way to encourage Muslims to integrate.


I object to anybody shoving his ideology in my face, whether its a "twisted cross" or a great big one with a dead body hanging on it.

In my opinion, the biggest eyesore in the Washington, D.C. area is the Mormon Tabernacle in Kensington, Maryland. You can't believe the size of the thing. It's in one of my friend's back yard, blocks out half the sky, blindingly illuminated 24/7. But, it got though the relevant zoning authorities, most people accept it, some even like it. (of course it ain't in their back yard)

So, I accept the decision of the people of Kensington, and also the people of Switzerland.

DC

[kerikiwi]

I've asked my Swiss friends about it. They pointed out that sheep only come in two colors, and asked what colors I thought the sheep should be?



Your swiss friends are wrong.

[kerikiwi]

people in the u.s. often rarely assume that any use of the word black, or the depiction of anything in black, has an explicit racial meaning --

dc

ftfy

[a3sigma]

Your swiss friends are wrong.

Yes, I know. They're physicists, not shepherds.

DC

[Malerin]

I'm not sure what the point about whether someone's Muslim or American Muslim. The point is, which ideology is more dangerous? Which do you want to keep an eye on? You're in some serious denial if you don't think radical Islam is a serious threat.

13. Not really comparable to the nut case that bombed the Atlanta Olympic games

Right, the Ft. Hood shootings were much worse. Two people were killed in the Atlanta Bombings.

, or that one guy who bombed the Murrah Federal Building. What was his name again?

Timothy McVeigh and Terri Nichols. McVeigh and Nichols did not blow up the federal building because they were Christian. They were right-wing anti-government nuts.

Anyway, 9/11 clearly established radical Islam as a much more dangerous threat to America than fundamentalist Christianity.

Oh, yeah and keep in mind 3,000 Americans were killed by foreign terrorists.

:eye-poppi Does that make it OK? Should we turn a blind eye to radical American Islamists? How about Brits? Richard Reid is serving a life sentence for nearly blowing up a plane with his shoes.

So how many people have been killed in Christian terrorism in America? Is it more or less than 13?

In a nation of 200,000,000+ Christians, the amount of "Christian terrorism" that goes on is laughably small. If you're seriously worried about being the victim of Christian terrorism, get mental help. New Yorkers, on the other hand, have a legitmate fear.

Seriously, some of you act like Al Queda is some inconsequential KAOS group. The fact that these wackos are operating out of nuclear Pakistan (not the stablest country in the world) and are funded with millions by our "allies" in Saudi Arabia, makes them an existential threat. What do you think the effect would be if they set off a nuke in a major city?

[kerikiwi]

You're in some serious denial if you don't think radical Islam is a serious threat.




Nobody here has said that. Everybody here thinks radical islam is a serious threat.

[fullflavormenthol]

Timothy McVeigh and Terri Nichols. McVeigh and Nichols did not blow up the federal building because they were Christian. They were right-wing anti-government nuts.

Yeah...right. There was no connection there, because right-wing anti-government extremism has absolutely no connection to right-wing Christianity.

Anyway, 9/11 clearly established radical Islam as a much more dangerous threat to America than fundamentalist Christianity.

No it established that foreign terrorists are a huge threat to America, and that the influence of foreign terrorists should be watched. HISTORY has established that all radicalism should be watched, which includes monitoring of both Christian and Muslim radicals.

:eye-poppi Does that make it OK? Should we turn a blind eye to radical American Islamists? How about Brits? Richard Reid is serving a life sentence for nearly blowing up a plane with his shoes.

Just like we should ignore radical Christian extremists?

In a nation of 200,000,000+ Christians, the amount of Christian terrorism that goes on is laughably small. If you're seriously worried about being the victim of Christian terrorism, get mental help. New Yorkers, on the other hand, have a legitmate fear.

Tell that to the victims of Christian violence. (I removed your quotes around Christian terrorism, because I know you aren't claiming it doesn't exist.) By the way my thing was that statistically I am more likely to be killed in Christian violence, which is still true.

Seriously, some of you act like Al Queda is some inconsequential KAOS group. The fact that these wackos are operating out of nuclear Pakistan (not the stablest country in the world) and are funded with millions by our "allies" in Saudi Arabia, makes them an existential threat. What do you think the effect would be if they set off a nuke in a major city?

Al Qaeda =/= 100% Muslims, and you seem to forget that. By the way it is telling that you equate Muslims wanting to build a minaret to Al Qaeda and 9/11.

[Ryokan]

Jews didnt have many options did they sparky?
It was a few miles across the water and they had nowhere else to go.
Maybe you should take a self loathing Jewish tour around the Middle East.
See how long self loathing Jews can last before beheading?

Israeli Jews regularly go on vacation to Muslim dominated Middle Eastern countries, like Turkey and Egypt. Muslim Middle Eastern countries aren't all full of extremists frothing at the mouth at the thought of beheading and infidel.

[a3sigma]

ftfy

Fixed it? Is that irony? I meant it as I wrote it.

It's been my observation that many of my fellow citizens jump to a racial connotation of anything black. My observation may be limited, biased, or have any number of other things wrong with it, but it is my observation. For what it's worth.

I'm old enough to remember when "black" was not commonly used to denote race. It was perfectly permissible, then, to use such phrases as: "black hearted", or "a black sin" without any stigma attached to the meaning or the speaker.

I even remember when "gay" meant "merry".

DC

[Thunder]

In my opinion, the biggest eyesore in the Washington, D.C. area is the Mormon Tabernacle in Kensington, Maryland. You can't believe the size of the thing. It's in one of my friend's back yard, blocks out half the sky, blindingly illuminated 24/7. But, it got though the relevant zoning authorities, most people accept it, some even like it. (of course it ain't in their back yard)


i have no problem with blanket restrictions on all construction. but limiting ONLY Muslim houses of worship, smacks of bigotry.

[kerikiwi]

It's been my observation that many of my fellow citizens jump to a racial connotation of anything black. My observation may be limited, biased, or have any number of other things wrong with it, but it is my observation. For what it's worth.



DC

Observations which are limited, biased and wrong are not worth much.
I also am old enough to remember the same things you remember.
My observations are totally different.

[MattusMaximus]

I think this ill-informed move on the part of the Swiss people is a colossal mistake which will only serve to deeply polarize their population. One group (the Muslims) will feel rightly marginalized & singled out for government-sanctioned discrimination, while another group (the goons pushing this referendum) will be looking for any kind of negative reaction from the Swiss Muslim community to point out how dangerous they are! And when one side inevitably pushes the other hard enough, I'm concerned that violence will erupt (not sure exactly how it'll start, but I sense this is coming) - which will please the extremists on all sides (who, imo, want to fight it out) and cause an otherwise peaceful nation to wonder just what the frak happened?

ETA: I'm guessing the extremists, be they right-wing bigots or radical Muslim imams, within the EU are absolutely salivating over how to use this news to whip up their followers into a frenzy. Wonderful... :rolleyes:

[a3sigma]

i have no problem with blanket restrictions on all construction. but limiting ONLY Muslim houses of worship, smacks of bigotry.

But they aren't banning houses of worship, are they? They are banning the construction of an intrusive architectural feature that may dominate the skyline and change the cultural aesthetic of the neighborhood.

I don't know whether most Swiss would have an equal objection to a massive and towering new Christian symbol being built in their midst. If it was glaringly incompatible with the surroundings, I think they might. I would.

DC

[Thunder]

I don't know whether most Swiss would have an equal objection to a massive and towering new Christian symbol being built in their midst. If it was glaringly incompatible with the surroundings, I think they might. I would.

DC

well, then they should have banned any religious structures above a certain height.

[a3sigma]

Observations which are limited, biased and wrong are not worth much.
I also am old enough to remember the same things you remember.
My observations are totally different.

Are your observations worth more than mine? Why?

I don't say my observations (or yours) are wrong, I merely accept the possibility that they may not be perfect. I stand ready to be corrected -- by evidence, not merely a contrary assertion.

DC

[MattusMaximus]

But they aren't banning houses of worship, are they? They are banning the construction of an intrusive architectural feature that may dominate the skyline and change the cultural aesthetic of the neighborhood.

I don't know whether most Swiss would have an equal objection to a massive and towering new Christian symbol being built in their midst. If it was glaringly incompatible with the surroundings, I think they might. I would.

DC

Which is precisely why things like this should be dealt with on a case by case basis. By going the route of a blanket ban against only one ethnic/religious group like this, the Swiss have opened up a can of worms which, for reasons I mentioned above, will lead to many problems, imo.

I am so glad I live in a country that has a separation of church & state.

[the_eye]

The Christians and the Hindus get along just fine.

Really? (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article4618690.ece)

Human Rights Watch (http://www.hrw.org/en/news/1999/09/29/anti-christian-violence-rise-india)

Hindu on Christian Violence is far more prevalent, then Hindu and Muslim violence.

Why do you think British India had to be split into two states? Hint: it wasn't because the Christians couldn't get along with the Hindus. :rolleyes:

It had more to do with Ethnic Nationalism and a legitimate concern of minority rights in India.

[Malerin]

Al Qaeda =/= 100% Muslims, and you seem to forget that. By the way it is telling that you equate Muslims wanting to build a minaret to Al Qaeda and 9/11.

When did I ever equate the two?

And Al Qeuda = 100% Muslim.

Look, nobody's claiming all Muslims are bent on world domination. OTOH, many of you seem to be in the dark about just how violent and oppressive a lot of majority-Muslim countries are: Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Syria, Algeria, Jordan, Libya, Afghanistan.
None of these are pleasant places to live, esp. if you're a woman.
http://www.amnestyusa.org/all-countries/page.do?id=1041024

If you want a good first-hand account of a woman's experience growing up under Islam read A God who Hates, by Wafa Sultan, and check her out on YouTube. Very brave woman.

[a3sigma]

well, then they should have banned any religious structures above a certain height.

Perhaps they will, someday. One can only hope.

DC

[a3sigma]

I am so glad I live in a country that has a separation of church & state.


Where's that? I'm ready to move.

DC

[fullflavormenthol]

When did I ever equate the two?

And Al Qeuda = 100% Muslim.

Look, nobody's claiming all Muslims are bent on world domination. OTOH, many of you seem to be in the dark about just how violent and oppressive a lot of majority-Muslim countries are: Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Syria, Algeria, Jordan, Libya, Afghanistan.
None of these are pleasant places to live, esp. if you're a woman.
http://www.amnestyusa.org/all-countries/page.do?id=1041024

If you want a good first-hand account of a woman's experience growing up under Islam read A God who Hates, by Wafa Sultan, and check her out on YouTube. Very brave woman.
And this has to do with how Muslims should be treated here (USA) or in other "free" countries (Switzerland)? Everyone is good at throwing out, "Well they do this..."

What oppressive governments do has absolutely nothing to do with how citizens are to be treated in a free society.

They can cut off hands, they can treat women like dirt. WE DON'T. You got that? What Syria, Iran...etc do has not a damn thing to do with how American Muslims will be treated on American soil, at least as long as I have a breath in me.

[Ryokan]

OTOH, many of you seem to be in the dark about just how violent and oppressive a lot of majority-Muslim countries are: Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Syria, Algeria, Jordan, Libya, Afghanistan.
None of these are pleasant places to live, esp. if you're a woman.

I think no one is disputing that, and I think everyone would agree that these countries are much, much worse than Switzerland in almost any regard, almost incomparably so. But that doesn't excuse or justify anything, really.

There are Muslim countries that are as free and secular as Western countries, like Bosnia and Turkey, and there are non-Muslim countries I wouldn't want to live in if it was the last nation on Earth, like Burma and North Korea. I'd rather judge each individual and each country on their own merit, not blanket judgment based on their religion.

I don't doubt that there are Muslims in Switzerland who are extremists, but most of them, the vast vast majority, are just people trying to live their lives in peace.

[Malerin]

I think no one is disputing that, and I think everyone would agree that these countries are much, much worse than Switzerland in almost any regard, almost incomparably so. But that doesn't excuse or justify anything, really.

There are Muslim countries that are as free and secular as Western countries, like Bosnia and Turkey, and there are non-Muslim countries I wouldn't want to live in if it was the last nation on Earth, like Burma and North Korea. I'd rather judge each individual and each country on their own merit, not blanket judgment based on their religion.

I don't doubt that there are Muslims in Switzerland who are extremists, but most of them, the vast vast majority, are just people trying to live their lives in peace.

Bosnia is majority Christian. Hopefully, the Turkish model of secular parliamentary democracy will catch on in the Muslim world.

[Ryokan]

Bosnia is majority Christian.

Now it is. It wasn't before the war.

Muslims are still the largest ethnic group, though, and is the majority in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

ETA: If it makes you feel better, swap Bosnia for Albania.. :)

[KingMerv00]

Well, I think I learned all I wanted to know about bigotry for now. I'm bailing on this thread.

[kerikiwi]

many of you seem to be in the dark about just how violent and oppressive a lot of majority-Muslim countries are: Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Syria, Algeria, Jordan, Libya, Afghanistan.


What has been said to lead you to that conclusion?
I have seen absolutely nothing to support your claim.
All I have seen is some people saying that restricting the rights of muslims in Switzerland is a bad thing, while others say it is a good thing. (A very superficial summary, I agree.)
Nobody has made any comment on the countries you list.. well, if someone has it slipped under my radar. A far cry from many of us being as ignorant as you claim.
And how is the oppressive nature of one regime relevant to the issue?

[kerikiwi]

Where's that? I'm ready to move.

DC

You could immigrate to NZ-- if you meet our standards. ;)

[Thunder]

Jews didnt have many options did they sparky?
It was a few miles across the water and they had nowhere else to go.
Maybe you should take a self loathing Jewish tour around the Middle East.
See how long self loathing Jews can last before beheading?

funny how this failed to get any warnings.

[linusrichard]

i have no problem with blanket restrictions on all construction. but limiting ONLY Muslim houses of worship, is an example of bigotry.
Ftfy.

Well, I think I learned all I wanted to know about bigotry for now. I'm bailing on this thread.
No kidding. What a depressing thread.

[MattusMaximus]

Well, I think I learned all I wanted to know about bigotry for now. I'm bailing on this thread.

You and me both. Bleh, to hell with this...

[the_eye]

Bosnia is majority Christian.

To be fair, the last census in Bosnia happened before the War in 1991. It's impossible to speculate on the Current demographics.

[Thunder]

hmmm...I just looked at bookmarks I left in my Koran. some pretty scary stuff in there.

:(

though, as I told my sister, the Torah also has some screwed up ****, as does the Talmud. no faith is immune from saying crappy things.

[kerikiwi]

hmmm...I just looked at bookmarks I left in my Koran. some pretty scary stuff in there.

:(

though, as I told my sister, the Torah also has some screwed up ****, as does the Talmud. no faith is immune from saying crappy things.

True. Isn't it good that the majority of muslimsand jews go their own merry way?

[Robin]

You're in some serious denial if you don't think radical Islam is a serious threat.
Did somebody claim that? I didn't read it.

I think what is being doubted is whether dumping on the moderates and reformers is really the best way to encourage reform and moderation in Islam.

[Slayhamlet]

Not racism, acknowledged, but you do discriminate based on religion. Care to address at last my points on that?

But let's not pretend there's no racism involved in this campaign. Just look at this SVP poster:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1002/1339641587_43216466d1.jpg

I don't see how that SVP poster is necessarily racist (though I suppose there are racial overtones given the subject of immigration). The black sheep idiom exists in German just as it does in English, does it not?


Edit: never mind, I see this was already discussed.

[Puppycow]

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2009/12/200912142216681985.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/world/europe/01iht-swiss.html

Lots of people are condemning this, but nobody seems to be asking a question that I have:
What is the corresponding rule on church steeples in muslim countries?
(Or any other religious structure other than an Islamic one.)

[linusrichard]

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2009/12/200912142216681985.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/world/europe/01iht-swiss.html

Lots of people are condemning this, but nobody seems to be asking a question that I have:
What is the corresponding rule on church steeples in muslim countries?
(Or any other religious structure other than an Islamic one.)

First, I wonder what the point of asking the question is. I assume there must be a point, because of your usage of "but nobody seems to be asking." This implies that you would expect somebody to be asking, which implies that there's a point. So I wonder what that point is. I have a guess, but I don't want to be rude.

Second, there are dozens of Muslim countries, and they're all going to have different policies, so it's kind of a hard question to answer. Others have said in this thread that the majority of Swiss Muslims are Bosniaks, so perhaps Bosnia and Herzegovina would be the best place to look. Probably there is no rule against church steeples in Bosnia and Herzegovina, considering there is a large Christian population there and a constitutional guarantee of religious freedom, although there may be de facto segregation that would make it hard to put up a steeple in certain parts of the country, I don't know.

I would guess that if you researched this topic in Lebanon or Turkey you would get a very different answer from Saudi Arabia, which I'm guessing would differ from Indonesia which would differ from Pakistan which would differ from Iraq which would differ from Iran which would differ from Egypt which would differ from Albania and so on...

[kerikiwi]

What is the corresponding rule on church steeples in muslim countries?
(Or any other religious structure other than an Islamic one.)

And the point of your question is?
Do you mean that if one (or more) muslim country allows church steeples, Switzerland should allow minarets? Or Switzerland should disallow minarets.
And if one (or more) muslim countty disallows church steeples Switzerland should disallow minarets, or allow minarets?
Do you base all your decisions on what other people decide, or do you make your own decisions?

[Darat]

If these people want to integrate themselves into British society then they should go to English-speaking schools.

I'm sorry, but I do not believe that is too much too ask.

English is not the national language of Britain.

[Flo]

I think this ill-informed move on the part of the Swiss people is a colossal mistake which will only serve to deeply polarize their population. One group (the Muslims) will feel rightly marginalized & singled out for government-sanctioned discrimination, while another group (the goons pushing this referendum) will be looking for any kind of negative reaction from the Swiss Muslim community to point out how dangerous they are! And when one side inevitably pushes the other hard enough, I'm concerned that violence will erupt (not sure exactly how it'll start, but I sense this is coming) - which will please the extremists on all sides (who, imo, want to fight it out) and cause an otherwise peaceful nation to wonder just what the frak happened?

ETA: I'm guessing the extremists, be they right-wing bigots or radical Muslim imams, within the EU are absolutely salivating over how to use this news to whip up their followers into a frenzy. Wonderful... :rolleyes:


Bingo !

The Über-goon who started it has requested police protection within minutes of the results, and claims he has received death threats (no evidence, of course, but you should see his delighted look), the Swiss muslims are in shock, muslim authorities everywhere are asking their members not to over react, and the right-wing bigots all over Europe are suggesting doing as the Swiss and even more ... we're ahead of absolutely formidable times, but all the while we won't see any improvement to any of the real problems of Europe, economic, social, environmental, or political. :rolleyes:

[Flo]

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2009/12/200912142216681985.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/world/europe/01iht-swiss.html

Lots of people are condemning this, but nobody seems to be asking a question that I have:
What is the corresponding rule on church steeples in muslim countries?
(Or any other religious structure other than an Islamic one.)


Oh yes, "those nasty muslims don't allow the building of churches in their country, why should we allow their religious edifices ?".

This silly Tu Quoque was one of the argument in favor of outlawing minarets ... reminds me of a 3 years old telling his mom "but he also did it !"

[UndercoverElephant]

Not a smear tactic.
Religious bigotry does not preclude racist bigotry.
The two can and do go nicely hand in hand.

Except I haven't actually said anything remotely racist and have explicitly stated that I have no problem with another group of people which belong to exactly the same genetic stock as most British muslims. It is a smear tactic.

There appear to be a lot of people posting in this thread who do not have the courage to stand up to Islam. I don't mind being called a racist and a bigot by a bunch of appeasing cowards. I have perfectly legitimate reasons for being deeply suspicious of Islam. It has nothing to do with "them being different to me". It has everything to do with the precise nature of those differences - specifically the incompatibility of Islam with individual political and religious freedom. The counter to this argument has been "but this is in itself a restriction of religious freedom". Which is correct - it is a restriction on a religion which, whenever it is given half a chance, outlaws all other forms of religion and politics. But this is conveniently forgotten by the appeasers.

And how strange it is after all of this nonsense about "bringing democracy to the Islamic world" that we now have an example of the closest thing the western world has to a true democracy coming to a free decision that it does not want to accept Islam, and suddenly all the weak-kneed westerners are saying what a terrible thing it is.

Do you actually want democracy? Doesn't sound like it. Sounds like you only want democracy when it comes to decisions that sit comfortably with your own policies of appeasement and cowardice. We've even got people posting in this thread who think "racist" means "irrational dislike of anyone or anything" rather than having anything to do with race and "democracy" means "lilly-livered liberalism" rather than having anything to do with a voting system.

If you believe in democracy then you ought to accept the results it produces even if you don't like them. If you don't believe in democracy, well...you might as well invite lots of muslims to come and live in your country. You and they will get along just fine, right up until they start trying to restrict your freedom of religion and making you wear Burkhas.

[Fiona]

That doesn't answer the question: would you consider Mahed more of a security threat than Cathy?

It answers one of the questions in this thread: the question of whether islam is inherently more violent than other religions. People with real grievances and no recourse often become violent.

As to profiling? It is never a good idea because it is based on prejudice not on evidence. If there is evidence that a person is dangerous then we should act on it: if we are to take action on gross categorisation then we get "driving an expensive car while black" and we get misuse of "stop and search". That feeds resentment and polarisation no matter who you do it to. It is a stupid, counter productive tactic and no amount of bleating about resource allocation can justify it.

[Fiona]

There appear to be a lot of people posting in this thread who do not have the courage to stand up to Islam.

Wrong. What you are failing to understand is that there is no evidence whatsoever that islam is any more dangerous than any other reigion. There is ample evidence that bigotry of the sort you display is dangerous, however, because it feeds polarisation and distrust between perfectly ordinary people who have much more in common than they have separating them.


I don't mind being called a racist and a bigot by a bunch of appeasing cowards.

From my perspective it is you who are the coward: you fear a shadow cast by your own bigotry. You would like me to fear it too, it seems. I fear you much more


I have perfectly legitimate reasons for being deeply suspicious of Islam. It has nothing to do with "them being different to me". It has everything to do with the precise nature of those differences.

You have asserted this. You have shown absolutely nothing to establish it as fact. So what power has islam gained which supports your assertion. You haven't pointed to anything so far.

And how strange it is after all of this nonsense about "bringing democracy to the Islamic world" that we now have an example of the closest thing the western world has to a true democracy coming to a free decision that it does not want to accept Islam, and suddenly all the weak-kneed westerners are saying what a terrible thing it is.

It is a terrible thing.

Do you actually want democracy? Doesn't sound like it. Sounds like you only want democracy when it comes to decisions that sit comfortably with your own policies of appeasement and cowardice.

It is not obvious to me that democracy is self evidently the only viable system, and many would argue that the "tyrany" of the majority is a real danger. I do not see how that can be denied, actually.

It is interesting that you characterise other people's views as "appeasement and cowardice". It seems to me that you conveniently conflate a number of principles which are actually separate and which fit together in complex ways.

So let me ask you: do you believe that the individual has worth? Do you believe in the rule of law? Do you believe in freedom for individuals under the law? Do you believe that the rights of the majority should be limited to making those laws which should apply equally to all who live under them? Where there is a need to make a different law for a group do you believe that the difference which justifies that should be very clearly proved to exist, and to be relevant? If you do how do you think that should be done? Do you think that irrational fear should be allowed to inform the rules of a society to the extent that rights of members of that society should be abridged "just in case"?

[UndercoverElephant]

It is a terrible thing.


Right. So you want to protect Islam from Direct Democracy.


It is not obvious to me that democracy is self evidently the only viable system, and many would argue that the "tyrany" of the majority is a real danger. I do not see how that can be denied, actually.


Democracy sucks, but it is still the best system I know of.


So let me ask you: do you believe that the individual has worth? Do you believe in the rule of law? Do you believe in freedom for individuals under the law?


Yes.


Do you believe that the rights of the majority should be limited to making those laws which should apply equally to all who live under them?


Yes. However, all religions are not equal. Some are far more dangerous than others. Therefore it is perfectly legitimate to have laws which apply to the more dangerous ones and not to the benign ones. This is not discriminating against certain sorts of people. It is discriminating against certain forms of religion, specifically tyrannical forms of Abrahamic monotheism.


Where there is a need to make a different law for a group do you believe that the difference which justifies that should be very clearly proved to exist, and to be relevant? If you do how do you think that should be done?


In the end, it has to come down to a subjective judgement. In this case it came down to several million subjective judgements.


Do you think that irrational fear should be allowed to inform the rules of a society to the extent that rights of members of that society should be abridged "just in case"?

I do not believe that fear of Islam is irrational. I believe that anyone who does not fear Islam is being irrational. It is the most dangerous religion on the planet and I can't really understand why so many people won't accept this as obvious.

If you are not willing to accept the will of the people, on the grounds that the people are too stupid, bigotted or fearful to make the "correct" decision, then you are rejecting democracy. With what are you suggesting it is replaced?

[Fiona]

I am not suggesting it be replaced: I am suggesting it be limited in the ways I have outlined. That is because the value of democracy lies in its ability to deliver enlightenment values for a society: it is not a good in itself, and without those limits it can quickly kill those benefits, just as any system can.

I do not fear islam: you have not shown me why I should. I do fear people like you, however. I think anyone who doesn't is being irrational

[DC]

sometimes im just ashamed to be swiss

[Darat]

Right. So you want to protect Islam from Direct Democracy.

...snip...

I suspect she doesn't, I suspect that what Fiona wants is what I want - which is people to be protected from what you call "direct democracy". What you are supporting is a style of democracy that could quite easily result in your being forced to worship in the style of a a particular religion?

Personally I am glad I live in a country where we (the society) has as a whole decided that people have rights, regardless of what other people think.




Yes. However, all religions are not equal. Some are far more dangerous than others. Therefore it is perfectly legitimate to have laws which apply to the more dangerous ones and not to the benign ones. This is not discriminating against certain sorts of people. It is discriminating against certain forms of religion, specifically tyrannical forms of Abrahamic monotheism.

..snip...

So we are, yet again, back to you not explaining how this new law will make Islam less dangerous.

[funk de fino]

I dont think it would be necessary to enforce this in law, as that is something many muslim immigrants want anyway.
The whole history of muslim immigration into the UK involves intentional seperation from the host community.
I guess you dont have much experience of this, otherwise you wouldnt be trying to make such cheap and stupid points.

What's a Chinatown?

[Darat]

What's a Chinatown?

Liverpool
Main article: Chinatown, Liverpool

Home to the oldest Chinese community in Europe, Liverpool's Chinatown dates back to the early 19th century. At the beginning of World War Two there were 20,000 Chinese seamen based in the city and London's Chinatown was reduced to insignificance. Chinese sailors settled down with local women and in the war years the city's Eurasian population grew rapidly. By the end of the conflict it numbered around 1,000. With the end of the War the men were forcibly repatriated leaving behind them their wives and their children. Few were ever to see their families again.[4]

With the Communist victory in China 1949, men were no longer recruited from the Mainland. Rather they came from Hong Kong and Singapore. Some did settle and marry local women but Liverpool's Chinese or rather Eurasian population had reached its peak and was in decline as they married into the local community. In the late 1950s a new group of Chinese began to arrive in significant numbers from Hong Kong's New Territories. For the first time Liverpool and London had Chinese Chinatowns and their mixed race past became forgotten.

The Imperial Arch located at the gateway of Liverpool's Chinatown is the largest of its kind outside of China and was constructed in Shanghai, one of the cities Liverpool is twinned with.


It is amazing how many people seem to think "assimilation" and "integration" are synonyms.

[Ryokan]

Do you actually want democracy? Doesn't sound like it.

It's true. I think most of us sees that there are dangers involved in democracy, like the tyranny of the majority. That's why most people prefer a liberal democracy that guarantees civil rights and the rule of law.

[ddt]

Lots of people are condemning this, but nobody seems to be asking a question that I have:
What is the corresponding rule on church steeples in muslim countries?
(Or any other religious structure other than an Islamic one.)
Does it matter one bit? The post above answers your question:

And this has to do with how Muslims should be treated here (USA) or in other "free" countries (Switzerland)? Everyone is good at throwing out, "Well they do this..."

What oppressive governments do has absolutely nothing to do with how citizens are to be treated in a free society.

They can cut off hands, they can treat women like dirt. WE DON'T. You got that? What Syria, Iran...etc do has not a damn thing to do with how American Muslims will be treated on American soil, at least as long as I have a breath in me.
QFT.

[ddt]

If you are not willing to accept the will of the people, on the grounds that the people are too stupid, bigotted or fearful to make the "correct" decision, then you are rejecting democracy. With what are you suggesting it is replaced?

You overlook how ludicrous the Swiss direct democracy system is. With a simple 50% majority, the people can change the constitution. And the Swiss courts cannot check those changes on contradictions with the rest of the constitution. WTF? That's mob rule, without safeguards for the basic rights of people.

There's an interview on SwissInfo (http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/front/Swiss_voters_were_misled.html?siteSect=108&sid=11561783&cKey=1259670013000&ty=st) with the former president of the Swiss Association of Islamic Organisations:
swissinfo.ch: How do you interpret the fact that almost six out of ten voters came out against the construction of minarets?

I.A.: The campaign was fought very fiercely and aggressively. The issue of minarets was rarely discussed, it was much more about Islam – and then with misleading arguments. People brought up forced marriages – even though sharia law bans them; then there was female circumcision, which all [Muslim] jurists oppose, and burkas – not one burka has ever been seen in Switzerland.

There were also discussions on things that had absolutely no connection with minarets. People exploited and instrumentalised the public's fear and uncertainty. This explains the disappointing result. The Swiss population was misled

[linusrichard]

It's true. I think most of us sees that there are dangers involved in democracy, like the tyranny of the majority. That's why most people prefer a liberal democracy that guarantees civil rights and the rule of law.

Ding ding ding! Democracy is a great tool, and a necessary component of any government that I'm going to think is worthwhile. But direct democracy as a system of government plain sucks. Liberal democracy, representative republican democracy, under a system of checks and balances and constitutional restraints protecting the rights of minorities, etc., that's a good government.

The funny thing is that UE is trying to scare us with the prospect of Muslims forcing Swiss (and by extension, the West) to wear burkha, etc. But the same checks on direct democracy that some of us in this thread would rely on to protect Muslim freedom will also protect our freedom from the Muslim fundamentalists. It's UE's direct democracy that's the real danger.

If good for nothing else, this thread has finally helped me understand the concept of "poisoning the well" - I never got it before, quite honestly. But dishonest and unhelpful statements like There appear to be a lot of people posting in this thread who do not have the courage to stand up to Islam. and I don't mind being called a racist and a bigot by a bunch of appeasing cowards. have made the concept quite clear to me.

[a3sigma]

Perhaps it's contradictory, or even irrational, but I confess that I have difficulty mustering enthusiasm for defending the rights of people who do not defend the coequal rights of others.

It's my understanding that most Christian clerics these days pretty strongly disapprove such once popular practices as stoning sinners and burning heretics. Are there Muslim clerics today who aggressively condemn the barbaric practices of some of their coreligionists, such as raping or killing women deemed unchaste, and beheading apostates? I would very much like to hear of it -- anybody got a link? Such clerics would certainly need courage, as it could well result in a death sentence from their brethren. I would welcome such courageous people to my neighborhood, help them build a home, and help defend them against the barbarians.

BTW, we have an Islamic Center here in Calvert County, Maryland. The minaret is of modest proportion, and aesthetically it's a vast improvement on the surrounding car lots, strip malls, and fast food joints. I don't know whether they broadcast calls to prayer, but I think I'd rather hear that than the ceaseless and insufferable din of Christmas music that assails my ears this time of year. If I ever "go postal", it will be because I heard Stevie Wonder shrieking "Santa Claus Is Coming To Town" once too often. I'll climb the minaret with a long range paint ball gun.

DC

[a3sigma]

There's an interview on SwissInfo (http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/front/Swiss_voters_were_misled.html?siteSect=108&sid=11561783&cKey=1259670013000&ty=st) with the former president of the Swiss Association of Islamic Organisations:


Thanks very much for the link to swissinfo. I posted one earlier as well. I suggest this discussion could benefit from looking at what people in Switzerland, on both sides of the issue, are actually saying.

DC

[Thunder]

I think two things on this issue:

#1. there should be no laws that discriminate specifically against Muslims, their architecture, their institutions, etc.

#2. Muslims need to modernize, Westernize, and moderate. The European Union and North America are liberal Democracies, and while all people are welcome to move here and become part of our societies, if you insist on being insular and secluded and isolated, then mind your own business and don't you DARE try to impose your beliefs on everyone else. If that is your ultimate goal for moving to our lands, then don't come here and get the #### out.

for example, Amish Christians and Chassidic Jews are two communities who both wanna do their own thing and stay seperate. They stay amongst their own and really don't mingle. They also don't try to force or impose their views on anyone else.

if this is the way Orthodox Muslims choose to live, if they insist on being isolated and just doing their own thing, that's fine. You're welcome to do that. just don't try to get others to follow your ways.

[Robin]

ISo we are, yet again, back to you not explaining how this new law will make Islam less dangerous.
Yes, as I said before I can't quite work out how we encourage moderation and reform by dumping on the moderates and reformers.

Or maybe only extremists attend mosques with minarets.