Swiss to ban the building of Islamic minarets

[Ryokan]

Yes, as I said before I can't quite work out how we encourage moderation and reform by dumping on the moderates and reformers.

It might even make things worse. There has been a revival of sorts of Islam among Bosniaks following the war in Bosnia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Bosnia#Increased_religious_identification

It's still one of the most liberal and civilized forms of Islam, but continued oppression and being viewed as second class humans not worthy of the rights the rest of us enjoy might push some of them in the wrong direction.

Also read this about the kind of Muslims people here are fighting against:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Bosnia#Secularism

Seems to me these are the kinds of Muslims we want, not the kind we should fight and take away rights from.

Or maybe only extremists attend mosques with minarets.

Minarets are quite common on Bosnian mosques, but without the call to prayer.

[Robin]

#2. Muslims need to modernize, Westernize, and moderate.
Most western Muslims are already modern, westen and moderate.

We need to start recognising this. If we are to encourage moderation and reform in Islam we need to stop ignoring the moderates and the reformers, and to stop treating them as though they were extremists.

[Darat]

Most western Muslims are already modern, westen and moderate.

We need to start recognising this. If we are to encourage moderation and reform in Islam we need to stop ignoring the moderates and the reformers, and to stop treating them as though they were extremists.

I have it on good authority that you have been fooled:

Islam is an insipid threat. It pretends to be multicultural and tolerant when/where it is a minority ideology. ...snip....

[Thunder]

Most western Muslims are already modern, westen and moderate.

We need to start recognising this. If we are to encourage moderation and reform in Islam we need to stop ignoring the moderates and the reformers, and to stop treating them as though they were extremists.

good point. i think another problem is, most Westerners don't know **** about Islam. I just know there are Sunni and Shiite, that's about it.

[ddt]

I have it on good authority that you have been fooled:
Islam is an insipid threat. It pretends to be multicultural and tolerant when/where it is a minority ideology. ...snip....


Yes, all those so-called moderate Muslims are, in fact, Manchurian candidates that, once the number of Muslims has passed the 10% mark, will turn on their non-Muslim neighbours and kill them in an orgy of blood, much like YHWH killed all Egyptian first-borns or St. Bartholomew's Night.

[ddt]

Of course, xenophobic parties in other European countries are now also crying for a ban on minarets. In Holland, Geert Wilders calls for a referendum on such a ban too (link (http://www.expatica.com/nl/news/dutch-news/Xenophobic-parties-want-referendum-on-minarets_58474.html)). A poll conducted among Dutchmen revealed that 40% would also vote in favour of a ban on minarets, and 56% against (link in Dutch (http://www.tns-nipo.com/pages/nieuws-pers-rtl.asp?file=persvannipo/rtl_minaretten_301109.htm)).

I heard on the radio that the fundamentalist protestant party SGP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_Political_Party) - which strives for a calvinist theocracy - has also spoken out in favour of a minaret ban and would even table a motion in Parliament to that effect.

[Hawk one]

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

And here, ladies and gentlemen, is the downright racism exposed, no matter how much scissor denies it in other posts. We are talking about a population who mainly grew up in a European country and immigrated to another European country. Or they are descendants of such. We are talking about people whose home is Switzerland. Statistics show that they are pretty damn well integrated, heck, a good deal of them won't even bother to refrain from pork. Points like this have been made throughout the thread several times.

But to someone like scissorhands, since this population segment are moslems, that obviously means they equal Arabs whose "home" is inherently in the Middle East. It's right there in his post, and though he will no doubt protest the accuracy of the racist label I give him, that post is there, showing him for what he really is: Grade A racist.

And of course the irony of UE being in favour of Direct Democracy because that protects us from the consequences of Direct Democracy... Delicious.

[Skeptic]

That's OK, folks. It's a tempest in a teapot. A couple of suicide bombings in Zurich or Geneva and the Swiss will lift the ban.

[Arcade22]

Of course, xenophobic parties in other European countries are now also crying for a ban on minarets. In Holland, Geert Wilders calls for a referendum on such a ban too (link (http://www.expatica.com/nl/news/dutch-news/Xenophobic-parties-want-referendum-on-minarets_58474.html)). A poll conducted among Dutchmen revealed that 40% would also vote in favour of a ban on minarets, and 56% against (link in Dutch (http://www.tns-nipo.com/pages/nieuws-pers-rtl.asp?file=persvannipo/rtl_minaretten_301109.htm)).

I heard on the radio that the fundamentalist protestant party SGP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_Political_Party) - which strives for a calvinist theocracy - has also spoken out in favour of a minaret ban and would even table a motion in Parliament to that effect.

I'm certain that most Europeans would like Europe to remain European. Hell, Sweden is more and more looking like an Arab or African country. Minarets and Islam is just a part of this trend, Arab or not.

[a3sigma]

Of course, xenophobic parties in other European countries are now also crying for a ban on minarets. In Holland, Geert Wilders calls for a referendum on such a ban too (link (http://www.expatica.com/nl/news/dutch-news/Xenophobic-parties-want-referendum-on-minarets_58474.html)). A poll conducted among Dutchmen revealed that 40% would also vote in favour of a ban on minarets, and 56% against (link in Dutch (http://www.tns-nipo.com/pages/nieuws-pers-rtl.asp?file=persvannipo/rtl_minaretten_301109.htm)).

I heard on the radio that the fundamentalist protestant party SGP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_Political_Party) - which strives for a calvinist theocracy - has also spoken out in favour of a minaret ban and would even table a motion in Parliament to that effect.


Suppose one or more Islamic nations responded by instituting religious freedom -- lifted their bans on churches and synagogues, even allowed proselytizing. Would rather take the wind out of the sails of the Christian fundamentalists, wouldn't it? Why not try it? What could they fear? God is great. Isn't He? Surely He will protect the cultural purity and identity of the faithful.

DC

[Cleon]

Suppose one or more Islamic nations responded by instituting religious freedom -- lifted their bans on churches and synagogues, even allowed proselytizing. Would rather take the wind out of the sails of the Christian fundamentalists, wouldn't it? Why not try it? What could they fear? God is great. Isn't He? Surely He will protect the cultural purity and identity of the faithful.

DC

Explain to me why only allowing religious freedom if a few specific other countries allow religious freedom makes a damn bit of sense.

(Oh, and incidentally, there are some beautiful churches in Egypt, Lebanon, and Turkey, among other Muslim nations. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.)

[Ryokan]

I'm certain that most Europeans would like Europe to remain European. Hell, Sweden is more and more looking like an Arab or African country. Minarets and Islam is just a part of this trend, Arab or not.

Did you catch the fact that most Muslims in Switzerland are from Bosnia? I know it's going to give you nightmares, but they are as European as you are.

Also, it's about time Sweden extended their gene pool. You should inject some into your royalty as well... ;)

[Cleon]

Did you catch the fact that most Muslims in Switzerland are from Bosnia? I know it's going to give you nightmares, but they are as European as you are.

But they can't be European. They're Muslim. Therefore, they must be from the Middle East or Asia. And don't you dare call it racism, 'cause it's not!

[Ryokan]

But they can't be European. They're Muslim. Therefore, they must be from the Middle East or Asia. And don't you dare call it racism, 'cause it's not!

And the only reason they're in Switzerland in such numbers is because white Christian Europeans tried to put them in concentration camps and exterminate them.

Yet it's them we're worried about and fighting against.

[a3sigma]

Explain to me why only allowing religious freedom if a few specific other countries allow religious freedom makes a damn bit of sense.

(Oh, and incidentally, there are some beautiful churches in Egypt, Lebanon, and Turkey, among other Muslim nations. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.)

I don't say that at all. Freedom of thought and belief should be universal. I am merely suggesting what might prove an effective tactic, on the part of certain Islamic nations, to disarm their critics: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

DC

[Fiona]

What makes you think they don't?

[Ryokan]

I don't say that at all. Freedom of thought and belief should be universal. I am merely suggesting what might prove an effective tactic, on the part of certain Islamic nations, to disarm their critics: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

DC

The problem with that is that many Muslim countries do have freedom of speech and do have freedom of religion and do have secular governments.

I don't see how persecuting liberal, moderate, modern, secular Bosnian Muslims will make Iran and Saudi Arabia stop and think about how they do things.

It's like saying people of white European descent in the USA should have their freedom of speech revoked, because white European Belarus is restricting free speech. That'll teach Belarus! It just doesn't make sense.

[Darat]

I'm certain that most Europeans would like Europe to remain European. Hell, Sweden is more and more looking like an Arab or African country. Minarets and Islam is just a part of this trend, Arab or not.

You mean look like, say Spain?

[ddt]

I'm certain that most Europeans would like Europe to remain European. Hell, Sweden is more and more looking like an Arab or African country. Minarets and Islam is just a part of this trend, Arab or not.

Just one more of your statements which make Wilders, Le Pen and Haider look like moderates in comparison. Care to address my 4 questions I previously posed to scissorhands and UnrecoveredElephant - and especially number 4:

:
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.

[ddt]

And the only reason they're in Switzerland in such numbers is because white Christian Europeans tried to put them in concentration camps and exterminate them.

Yet it's them we're worried about and fighting against.

QFT. First the Muslim Bosniaks were prosecuted by their Catholic Croatian neighbours and their Orthodox Serbian neighbours. Now they're discriminated against by their Protestant Swiss neighbours.

Really swell opinion they must be getting from Christians. :rolleyes:

[ddt]

Would rather take the wind out of the sails of the Christian fundamentalists, wouldn't it?
Others have already responded to the rest of your post. I don't quite understand where you get the Christian fundamentalists from. I haven't seen any Christians posting here in favour of the minaret ban. Or do you mean the Dutch political party I mention? Nah, they're really fundamentalists. Their principles really are 16th C. Calvinist dogma. They'd prosecute Muslim, Jew, Catholic and Lutheran alike if they had the power.

[a3sigma]

I don't see how persecuting liberal, moderate, modern, secular Bosnian Muslims will make Iran and Saudi Arabia stop and think about how they do things.


I don't either. That's why I'm suggesting just the opposite: that Iran and Saudi Arabia become more tolerant in order to make Christian fundies stop and think about what they are doing. Probably won't work, but why not give it a try?

Let me state this as clearly as I can: I have never, and will never, advocate or acquiesce in persecuting anyone, for any reason. Basic human rights and freedoms should be universal and unconditional. Every nation should guarantee them, regardless of what any other nation does.

I don't regard reasonable building restrictions to be a violation of any basic human right. Others may differ. The issue should be decided democratically, on a case by case basis.

DC

[Ryokan]

QFT. First the Muslim Bosniaks were prosecuted by their Catholic Croatian neighbours and their Orthodox Serbian neighbours. Now they're discriminated against by their Protestant Swiss neighbours.

Really swell opinion they must be getting from Christians. :rolleyes:

I'm sure if we do it some more, they and their Muslim brothers will soon realize how wrong they are and how superior European values are.

[a3sigma]

Others have already responded to the rest of your post. I don't quite understand where you get the Christian fundamentalists from. I haven't seen any Christians posting here in favour of the minaret ban. Or do you mean the Dutch political party I mention? Nah, they're really fundamentalists. Their principles really are 16th C. Calvinist dogma. They'd prosecute Muslim, Jew, Catholic and Lutheran alike if they had the power.


Good point, thank you. I should have been more careful in the reference.

DC

[a3sigma]

What makes you think they don't?


If that's irony, I applaud it. If not, I don't understand your meaning.

DC

[Kotatsu]

I'm certain that most Europeans would like Europe to remain European

My definition of "Europe" is dissimilar from my definitions of "pig-ignorance", "monolith", and "unfounded generalisation". Obviously different people mean different things with "European".

Hell, Sweden is more and more looking like an Arab or African country. Minarets and Islam is just a part of this trend, Arab or not.

No, Sweden is looking more and more like America on TV, not any African or Arab country. If there's anything that can be said to "threaten" Swedish culture, it is the enormous amount of English/American/Japanese influences. It doesn't matter if you listen to music, watch TV, or just go down to look in shop windows: everywhere things are in English.

[Thunder]

It doesn't matter if you listen to music, watch TV, or just go down to look in shop windows: everywhere things are in English.

yeah, but that's ok, cause Americans are white.

:)

[a3sigma]

No, Sweden is looking more and more like America on TV, not any African or Arab country. If there's anything that can be said to "threaten" Swedish culture, it is the enormous amount of English/American/Japanese influences. It doesn't matter if you listen to music, watch TV, or just go down to look in shop windows: everywhere things are in English.


I was born and raised in, and live near, our nation's capital. People of European descent comprise only 35% of the population of Washington, D.C. We've been looking pretty Afro/Asian/Hispanic for some time. We haven't always gotten along that well, either. But, in my lifetime, 60 years, I've gone from attending segregated schools, to attending the inauguration of Barack Obama.

DC

[quadraginta]

I'm certain that most Europeans would like Europe to remain European. Hell, Sweden is more and more looking like an Arab or African country. Minarets and Islam is just a part of this trend, Arab or not.


Darn furriners. It ain't like the Europeans ever invaded them or anything ...

...

Oh. Wait.

It's when you use armies and guns and stuff. That's when the victims ... er, residents are supposed to be grateful. Not when the invaders are invited in to sweep the floors.

[Fiona]

If that's irony, I applaud it. If not, I don't understand your meaning.

DC


No it isn't irony. I really want to know what your sources of information are.

[Kotatsu]

I was born and raised in, and live near, our nation's capital. People of European descent comprise only 35% of the population of Washington, D.C. We've been looking pretty Afro/Asian/Hispanic for some time. We haven't always gotten along that well, either. But, in my lifetime, 60 years, I've gone from attending segregated schools, to attending the inauguration of Barack Obama.

This ethnic setup is often not accurately represented in TV shows and movies, though. Also, what is mainly transferred to Sweden are general "Americanisms", which, I assume, these days do not fully rely on Americans being of European descent.

For instance, it is becoming very common for shops and magazines to have Halloween things, but outside areas where the governments of the last few decades have decided to keep all immigrants, there is never any mention of Ramadan or other Muslim holidays.

Similarly, there are usually more American/English movies in the theaters than there are Swedish movies (except for some period of the year), whereas there are few if any Arabic movies outside small art cinemas (1). If you watch TV, the number of Arabic/Muslim TV series, movies, and other programs is virtually nil, whereas I believe they still show reruns of Friends, Futurama, Family Guy, and so on. I don't have a TV myself, but as I understand it from my parents, they get several English-speaking channels from their reception box (2) without paying, or for only a small charge. I know they have had Discovery Channel, MTV, Animal Planet, and so on. Yet, Arabic and other Muslim channels are rarely, if ever, offered as part of a mainstream TV channel package.

There's a 7-11 on every corner, Coca Cola is the standard drink at all restaurants (unless they serve beer), we have plenty of McDonalds and Pizza Huts, and the few Swedish chains of fast food generally serve mainly the same thing as McDonalds, but slightly different. There are, of course, a lot of places where you can get kebabs, falafels, and so on, but these are generally served as one alternative among many in pizza shops. We're also being overwhelmed by Thai food and sushi at the moment, but apart from in specialist places, I don't think I've ever seen anything that I could identify as coming from a Muslim country in a restaurant.

In order for Islam and Muslim cultures to become a "threat" to the few remnants of Swedish culture that is left, it would first have to out-compete American culture, and I don't think that is in any way likely.

---
(1) There was an excellent Israeli/Palestinian movie called something like "The Orange Groove" last year, for instance, but that was show only for a few nights, and in a cinema that seats twenty people at a time.
(2) Or whatever it is called.

[Arcade22]

Did you catch the fact that most Muslims in Switzerland are from Bosnia? I know it's going to give you nightmares, but they are as European as you are.
Which is why i stated "Arab or not". Islam is foreign to most Europeans and most of the Muslim immigrants in Europe are afaik not from the Balkans.

[scissorhands]

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

There is nothing irrational or nasty about wanting to stop an expansionist, anti democratic, anti gay, anti female, unreconstructed religion from gaining any kind of power or control.
Indeed many who voted for this ban in Switzerland were women who didnt want their country to end up with the same vile laws practised in the Islamic world.
That you are happy enough for countless millions of human beings to live as second class citizens in the middle east, is one thing, just dont try to foist this evil movement on others in the name of "multiculturalism".
Oh and playing the race card doesnt work, I care as much about skin colour as you do about womens rights.
Zero.

[fullflavormenthol]

And here, ladies and gentlemen, is the downright racism exposed, no matter how much scissor denies it in other posts. We are talking about a population who mainly grew up in a European country and immigrated to another European country. Or they are descendants of such. We are talking about people whose home is Switzerland. Statistics show that they are pretty damn well integrated, heck, a good deal of them won't even bother to refrain from pork. Points like this have been made throughout the thread several times.

But to someone like scissorhands, since this population segment are moslems, that obviously means they equal Arabs whose "home" is inherently in the Middle East. It's right there in his post, and though he will no doubt protest the accuracy of the racist label I give him, that post is there, showing him for what he really is: Grade A racist.

And of course the irony of UE being in favour of Direct Democracy because that protects us from the consequences of Direct Democracy... Delicious.

QFT

[KingMerv00]

There is nothing irrational or nasty about wanting to stop an expansionist, anti democratic, anti gay, anti female, unreconstructed religion from gaining any kind of power or control.
Indeed many who voted for this ban in Switzerland were women who didnt want their country to end up with the same vile laws practised in the Islamic world.
That you are happy enough for countless millions of human beings to live as second class citizens in the middle east, is one thing, just dont try to foist this evil movement on others in the name of "multiculturalism".
Oh and playing the race card doesnt work, I care as much about skin colour as you do about womens rights.
Zero.

This comment was so strawtacular I just had to debail to facepalm.

(Heh...netspeak is funny.)

[fullflavormenthol]

This comment was so strawtacular I just had to debail to facepalm.

(Heh...netspeak is funny.)
I think I see more strawmen coming this way...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/243294b1582a815f9e.jpg

[Arcade22]

Just one more of your statements which make Wilders, Le Pen and Haider look like moderates in comparison. Care to address my 4 questions I previously posed to scissorhands and UnrecoveredElephant - and especially number 4:

1) It doesn't.

2) I disagree, how does banning minarets make a state "un-secular"?

3) What freedoms were "lost" when they banned minarets? Are you against building codes entirely?

4) I definitively want to deport lots of people, specifically large parts of the non-European population, but I'm sort of ambivalent about these "European Muslims".
As long as they behave good, don't live on welfare and generally be a good influence on the Swedish people (eg: no extremism, no shaira laws and etc.) i guess they should be able to stay.

[Skeptic]

I was born and raised in, and live near, our nation's capital. People of European descent comprise only 35% of the population of Washington, D.C. We've been looking pretty Afro/Asian/Hispanic for some time. We haven't always gotten along that well, either. But, in my lifetime, 60 years, I've gone from attending segregated schools, to attending the inauguration of Barack Obama.

DC

Amazing that the USA still exists after all those damn Irish, I mean Germans, I mean Italian, I mean Poles, I mean Blacks, I mean Swedish, I mean Jews, I mean Hispanics, I mean Nigerians, I mean Arabs completely ruined the place with their unchecked immigration that is ruining America's pure European stock, the reason for its greatness..

[fullflavormenthol]

but I'm sort of ambivalent about these "European Muslims".

You don't need the b.s. quotes. They are European and Muslim.

[a3sigma]

No it isn't irony. I really want to know what your sources of information are.

What information? I commended the Rule of Reciprocity, AKA the Golden Rule, AKA the Categorical Imperative: Do Unto Others, etc...

The president of Iran has stated his view that a neighboring sovereign state should be wiped off the map. Does he desire that sentiment to be reciprocated? To what effect?

DC

[KingMerv00]

On a more serious note:

There is nothing irrational or nasty about wanting to stop an expansionist, anti democratic, anti gay, anti female, unreconstructed religion from gaining any kind of power or control.
Indeed many who voted for this ban in Switzerland were women who didnt want their country to end up with the same vile laws practised in the Islamic world.

Get this through your skull: Our real position is that NOT-ALL-MUSLIMS-ARE-LIKE-THAT.

[fullflavormenthol]

There is nothing irrational or nasty about wanting to stop an expansionist, anti democratic, anti gay, anti female, unreconstructed religion from gaining any kind of power or control.

You just described a fundamentalist...of near every religion on Earth. BUT...the majority of people are not fundamentalists.

So why punish the innocent to get at the crazies that would still be crazy if they were another religion?

Here is a wild thought. Maybe if one day you actually stopped and had a conversation with a Muslim you might be suprised that they dislike those oppressive fundamentalists as much as we all do. Ever considered that?

[a3sigma]

Amazing that the USA still exists after all those damn Irish, I mean Germans, I mean Italian, I mean Poles, I mean Blacks, I mean Swedish, I mean Jews, I mean Hispanics, I mean Nigerians, I mean Arabs completely ruined the place with their unchecked immigration that is ruining America's pure European stock, the reason for its greatness..



You're right, it is amazing. Damn near enough to make me believe in Providence, if anything could. When you consider all the stupid things we've done, and continue to do to ourselves: slavery, Jim Crow, anti-immigrant laws, racial and ethnic prejudice in nearly every generation. Ceaseless assaults on the Bill of Rights from the both the Rabid Right and the Loony Left. How we have not yet destroyed ourselves is astonishing to me. That the Constitution survived the Civil War seems enough of a miracle for any one nation.

BTW, I myself am of exceptional purity. Descended from one of the sons of a long and distinguished line of English highwaymen and horse thieves, who was fortunate enough to be sent here as an indentured servant in lieu of hanging. Or, so goes the family legend.

DC

[Thunder]

BTW, I myself am of exceptional purity. Descended from one of the sons of a long and distinguished line of English highwaymen and horse thieves, who was fortunate enough to be sent here as an indentured servant in lieu of hanging. Or, so goes the family legend.


you should be in Australia.

:)

[GlennB]

What freedoms were "lost" when they banned minarets?
Are you against building codes entirely?


The freedom to build minarets, it seems.

And the vote wasn't about "building codes" . Building codes are to do with structural safety and the like.

Please stop talking nonsense.

[GreNME]

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

It does when the bigots are conflating a religion with a certain specific ethnic culture.

[scissorhands]

On a more serious note:



Get this through your skull: Our real position is that NOT-ALL-MUSLIMS-ARE-LIKE-THAT.

No really?

Also...news just in...

Not all Germans were Nazis.
Not all Russians supported Stalin.
Not all Catholics supported the inquisition.
And not all Saudis want to be stoned to death for adultery.

[scissorhands]

It does when the bigots are conflating a religion with a certain specific ethnic culture.

You defend Islamic bigots, dont lecture me on racism when you are helping to condemn millions of arab women to continued servitude in the name of Allah.:)

[fullflavormenthol]

Not all Germans were Nazis.
Not all Russians supported Stalin.
Not all Catholics supported the inquisition.
And not all Saudis want to be stoned to death for adultery.

Um, and so what would the status of the laws enforced by the House of Saud have to do specifically with the issue of equal protection under the law for Muslims in free societies?

You are still conflating all Muslims with Arabs btw.

[Thunder]

Not all Germans were Nazis.
Not all Russians supported Stalin.
Not all Catholics supported the inquisition.
And not all Saudis want to be stoned to death for adultery.

yeah..what's your point?

do you have a point other then that: "Muslims are evil and must be removed from our pure White Christians lands"?

[fullflavormenthol]

You defend Islamic bigots, dont lecture me on racism when you are helping to condemn millions of arab women to continued servitude in the name of Allah.:)
And this has to do specifically with how the Muslims living in free societies should be treated how?

And Arab =/= Muslim.

[Fiona]

It is you and your pals who are doing that scissorhands: you and your pals want to send perfectly normal people back to countries where that really is the case. So don't pull your sudden concern for women's rights out of your backside, because it is perfectly clear you have no concern at all for that. And I, for one, will not be a pawn in your bigoted game.

[scissorhands]

Um, and so what would the status of the laws enforced by the House of Saud have to do specifically with the issue of equal protection under the law for Muslims in free societies?

You are still conflating all Muslims with Arabs btw.

And you completely missed the point I was making to a previous post.
Pay attention!!!

[fullflavormenthol]

And you completely missed the point I was making to a previous post.
Pay attention!!!
Oh no, I was very well aware of the point your were trying to make (and failing badly at). Once again not all Muslims are fundamentalists, and in fact the majority are not.

Than I pointed out that you still seem to believe that Arab is a synonym for Muslim.

Oh and I then asked what the hell this has to do with the treatment of Muslims in a free society.

[Thunder]

let be very clear: I don't think anyone here who is against this racist minaret law, also thinks that its ok for radical Muslims to discriminate against women and non-Muslims. I think I can say for all of us, that we are equally appalled by right-wing European bigotry as we are by Islamic fundamentalist hatred and dogma.

am I right guys?

[KingMerv00]

No really?

Also...news just in...

Not all Germans were Nazis.
Not all Russians supported Stalin.
Not all Catholics supported the inquisition.


So true.

I guess that means we should pass a law that prohibits the construction of German, Russian, or Catholic style buildings.

[fullflavormenthol]

let be very clear: I don't think anyone here who is against this racist minaret law, also thinks that its ok for radical Muslims to discriminate against women and non-Muslims. I think I can say for all of us, that we are equally appalled by right-wing European bigotry as we are by Islamic fundamentalist hatred and dogma.

am I right guys?
Exactly.

[scissorhands]

It is you and your pals who are doing that scissorhands: you and your pals want to send perfectly normal people back to countries where that really is the case. So don't pull your sudden concern for women's rights out of your backside, because it is perfectly clear you have no concern at all for that. And I, for one, will not be a pawn in your bigoted game.

Im interested in human rights, thats for all people and of all sexes and persuasions.
If necessary that includes standing up and condemning such religions for what they are.
Feel free to support the rights of a religion that specifically wants to treat women as second class citizens and kill homosexuals.
Your lack of concern about these issues speaks volumes about what your priorities are.

[Fiona]

let be very clear: I don't think anyone here who is against this racist minaret law, also thinks that its ok for radical Muslims to discriminate against women and non-Muslims. I think I can say for all of us, that we are equally appalled by right-wing European bigotry as we are by Islamic fundamentalist hatred and dogma.

am I right guys?

Peas in a pod.

[fullflavormenthol]

Im interested in human rights, thats for all people and of all sexes and persuasions.
If necessary that includes standing up and condemning such religions for what they are.
Feel free to support the rights of a religion that specifically wants to treat women as second class citizens and kill homosexuals.
Your lack of concern about these issues speaks volumes about what your priorities are.
And what we have been telling you. Is that 100% of Islam isn't about those things, and there is no central authority in Islam. So we can condemn human rights abuses in say Saudi Arabia, and protest restrictions upon the civil rights of Muslims in a free society. Both are possible.

You do understand that? Don't you?

Like I wrote before you are describing practically all religious fundamentalists.

[ddt]

let be very clear: I don't think anyone here who is against this racist minaret law, also thinks that its ok for radical Muslims to discriminate against women and non-Muslims. I think I can say for all of us, that we are equally appalled by right-wing European bigotry as we are by Islamic fundamentalist hatred and dogma.

am I right guys?

Absolutely.

[Thunder]

Feel free to support the rights of a religion that specifically wants to treat women as second class citizens and kill homosexuals.

after WW2, Allied forces who liberated Germany, actually left homosexuals in prison, to complete their "sentences".

and, I'm sorry, but I was unaware that Bosnia, Turkey, the Muslim former Soviet states, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, had a policy of killing all homosexuals.

perhaps you can expand on this?

[Fiona]

Im interested in human rights, thats for all people and of all sexes and persuasions.

Apparently not: apparently you do not want people to have the right to live in their homes and bring up their kids and worship freely and enjoy all the other rights you take for granted. I do not think you have any concern for human rights whatsoever. If you did then I do not think you would be supporting the deportation of people just like you and yours to countries where human rights are not respected

If necessary that includes standing up and condemning such religions for what they are.

Feel free to support the rights of a religion that specifically wants to treat women as second class citizens and kill homosexuals.

Once again you show you know nothing whatsoever about this religion: nothing about the many people across the world who are challenging the use of their religion to support the denial of those rights: nothing which enables you to separate islam from arabic culture: that same culture which supports the same things in all the abrahamic religions it spawned.

Your lack of concern about these issues speaks volumes about what your priorities are.

Your desire to deport people just like you and yours to cultures where those rights are denied speaks volumes about yours.

[Kestrel]

No really?

Also...news just in...

Not all Germans were Nazis.
Not all Russians supported Stalin.
Not all Catholics supported the inquisition.
And not all Saudis want to be stoned to death for adultery.

In a free society, what you have done as an individual is all that counts. What others who share your religion, national origin or family name have done is irrelevant.

[Puppycow]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Church_of_Our_Lady_of_the_Rosary,_Doha,_Qatar .jpg
Noticed this:
Doha, Qatar — The country's first church, Our Lady of the Rosary, opens to the public on Saturday, March 15.

As per government request, the outside of building bears no crosses, steeple or church bells.

I guess it's like one of those zoning rules such as new buildings must not clash with the local atmosphere.

This critical Al Jazeera article (Qatar-based) doesn't mention that (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2009/12/200912142216681985.html)

[KingMerv00]

let be very clear: I don't think anyone here who is against this racist minaret law, also thinks that its ok for radical Muslims to discriminate against women and non-Muslims. I think I can say for all of us, that we are equally appalled by right-wing European bigotry as we are by Islamic fundamentalist hatred and dogma.

am I right guys?

I'd actually say I'm MORE offended by Islamic fundamentalism. Europeans haven't started stoning people yet. Must be due to a lack of minarets.

[WildCat]

after WW2, Allied forces who liberated Germany, actually left homosexuals in prison, to complete their "sentences".

and, I'm sorry, but I was unaware that Bosnia, Turkey, the Muslim former Soviet states, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, had a policy of killing all homosexuals.

perhaps you can expand on this?
Jordan, at least, tolerates "honor killings" of homosexuals.

[linusrichard]

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.
What does that have to do with what we're talking about? Maybe you meant to say: "I confess that I have difficulty mustering enthusiasm for defending the rights of people who share a religion with those who do not defend the coequal rights of others." Or do you think that the Bosniak Swiss pull the strings in Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc?

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.
A little Googling...

You may be interested in this (http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htterr/articles/20051102.aspx) or this (http://www.magharebia.com/cocoon/awi/xhtml1/aren_GB/features/awi/features/2008/07/20/feature-01). The Danes (http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2008/01/denmark-moderate-imams-answer-to-prison.html) and Brits (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/17/islam.religion) are catching on.

Suppose one or more Islamic nations responded by instituting religious freedom -- lifted their bans on churches and synagogues, even allowed proselytizing. Would rather take the wind out of the sails of the Christian fundamentalists, wouldn't it? Why not try it? What could they fear? God is great. Isn't He? Surely He will protect the cultural purity and identity of the faithful.

I agree completely. I doubt anyone here would disagree. Not that it has much to do with this thread. Why not take this proposal to another thread and see what people have to say? Probably people won't say much, since everybody would just be agreeing with each other.

So - if it's such a good idea (and it is) for Islamic nations (who don't already do so) to allow churches and synagogues, why wouldn't it be a good idea for Switzerland to allow minarets?

[Puppycow]

I know there are towns where the local bigots won't let a Wal-Mart be built.

[Fiona]

I'd actually say I'm MORE offended by Islamic fundamentalism. Europeans haven't started stoning people yet.

Not so much haven't started: more stopped. And all I can say about that is that they are not the stuff that heroes are made of ....

[scissorhands]

So we can condemn human rights abuses in say Saudi Arabia

And many other countries where Islam is incorporated into the state laws.
Seems that there is a serious lack of that from any of you multicultural cheerleaders, you are more interested in protecting the exportation of the same medieval belief system to new countries, than bothering to protest about its impletation in its homeland.

[funk de fino]

I'm certain that most Europeans would like Europe to remain European. Hell, Sweden is more and more looking like an Arab or African country. Minarets and Islam is just a part of this trend, Arab or not.

Stop lying

[fullflavormenthol]

And many other countries where Islam is incorporated into the state laws.
Seems that there is a serious lack of that from any of you multicultural cheerleaders, you are more interested in protecting the exportation of the same medieval belief system to new countries, than bothering to protest about its impletation in its homeland.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW WE TREAT MUSLIMS IN A FREE SOCIETY.

I am trying really hard to get you to understand that, but you seem to refuse.

[funk de fino]

Suppose one or more Islamic nations responded by instituting religious freedom -- lifted their bans on churches and synagogues, even allowed proselytizing. Would rather take the wind out of the sails of the Christian fundamentalists, wouldn't it? Why not try it? What could they fear? God is great. Isn't He? Surely He will protect the cultural purity and identity of the faithful.

DC

You have never been to a muslim country have you? You think they are all like Saudi. You have been duped.

Off the top of my head I know of churches in Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Oman.

[funk de fino]

You defend Islamic bigots, dont lecture me on racism when you are helping to condemn millions of arab women to continued servitude in the name of Allah.:)

Whats a China town?

[scissorhands]

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW WE TREAT MUSLIMS IN A FREE SOCIETY.

I am trying really hard to get you to understand that, but you seem to refuse.

You should treat cults the same in any free society.

[Cleon]

You should treat cults the same in any free society.

You clearly have no idea what that phrase actually means. A free society is one in which people are free to worship (or not), speak, believe, or assemble as they wish.

What you advocate is not a "free" society, but a repressive one. That other societies are also repressive does not change the fact.

[scissorhands]

Whats a China town?

Pray tell how millions of women are condemned to second class citizenship by a Chinese religion that proscribes their activities in a "China Town"..
Otherwise you are seriously off topic.

[fullflavormenthol]

You should treat cults the same in any free society.
Mr. Scarecrow meet Scissorhands' post. Scissorhands' post meet Mr. Scarecrow. Did you know that you are both strawmen?

BTW. Cults have religious freedom here in America, which is a free society. Only if they do something illegal does anything happen, just like everyone else.

[scissorhands]

You clearly have no idea what that phrase actually means. A free society is one in which people are free to worship (or not), speak, believe, or assemble as they wish.

What you advocate is not a "free" society, but a repressive one. That other societies are also repressive does not change the fact.

Far from it, Islam should be ascribed the same rights as any cult, including scientology.

[fullflavormenthol]

Far from it, Islam should be ascribed the same rights as any cult, including scientology.
You do understand that there is a big difference between Scientology and Islam. Biggest one is that Islam doesn't have a central authority like Scientology.

Oh, and in America they both are given the same rights. The same rights as everyone else.

America! :dc_tongue:

[funk de fino]

Pray tell how millions of women are condemned to second class citizenship by a Chinese religion that proscribes their activities in a "China Town"..
Otherwise you are seriously off topic.

BS, you pulled the integration and seperation from society sunshine.

Chinatowns and all those type of places that are predominantly Indian or Bangladeshi etc etc in the UK are the same. There are honour killings in societies other than the islamic ones in the UK also.

This is more embarrassing that your anti SNP dirge. The stench of bigotry is strong.

[scissorhands]

Biggest one is that Islam doesn't have a central authority like Scientology

Tell that to Mohammed.

[fullflavormenthol]

Tell that to Mohammed.
Who last I checked wasn't alive still. That isn't a central authority, which is essential for a cult to exist.

Do you or do you not actually know the definition of a cult?

[Cleon]

Tell that to Mohammed.

You might notice that he is deceased. David Miscavige is not.

Islam has many different strains of thought, many different theologies, many different individuals practicing many different forms of Islam, from extreme conservatism to liberation theology. The Church of Scientology does not.

Apparently you don't know what "cult" means any more than you know what "free society" means.

[scissorhands]

BS, you pulled the integration and seperation from society sunshine.

Chinatowns and all those type of places that are predominantly Indian or Bangladeshi etc etc in the UK are the same. There are honour killings in societies other than the islamic ones in the UK also.

This is more embarrassing that your anti SNP dirge. The stench of bigotry is strong.

Im not sure youve ever been to a "chinatown".
Its a commercial area, generally in a large city where Chinese have their commercial premises.
They dont generally live in these commercial areas and live spread out all over the surrounding suburbs, integrating very well and marrying into the local population.
I guess you dont have much experience of the Chinese, "sunshine".

BTW..
Stalk much Funk?
Just because you are still smarting at someone disagreeing with your nationalist nuttery, doesnt mean you need to show yourself up further by commenting on even more subjects you dont understand.

[kerikiwi]

If necessary that includes standing up and condemning such religions for what they are.
Feel free to support the rights of a religion that specifically wants to treat women as second class citizens and kill homosexuals.


Everybody here agrees that extremist religions should be opposed.
Some of those here know that not all muslims are extremist and that those not-extremist muslims also oppose the extremists.
Nobody here has said anything that can even by the most bizarre mental gymnastics show support for a religion that wants to treat women as second class citizens or kill homosexuals.
Islam is not monolithic and not all who identify as muslims are followers of the only version of islam you think, wrongly, exists.

[ddt]

I'd actually say I'm MORE offended by Islamic fundamentalism. Europeans haven't started stoning people yet. Must be due to a lack of minarets.

Rostock riots 1992 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riot_of_Rostock-Lichtenhagen)

Solingen arson attack 1993 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solingen_arson_attack_of_1993)

Just a couple of the more notable xenophobic outbreaks in Europe. Or didn't you mean that?

[kerikiwi]

.
Just because you are still smarting at someone disagreeing with your nationalist nuttery, doesnt mean you need to show yourself up further by commenting on even more subjects you dont understand.

And yet you blithely carry on commenting on islam ...

[a3sigma]

I am aware that many Muslim nations are quite tolerant. I applaud them. I'm also aware that some are not. I condemn them. Same goes for any people, nation, or other group.

It is my opinion that citizens of a neighborhood, city, or nation should be able to assert some reasonable control over the appearance of the place where they live. Issues of what is reasonable should be settled by consensus.

I mean what I say, and not what anyone else speculates I might have meant.

That's all.

DC

[ddt]

I have to commend that you at least have the balls to answer my questions, Arcade22.


1) It doesn't.
Okay. So what's the deal then with this ban? UnrecoveredElephant directly tied it to terrorism.


2) I disagree, how does banning minarets make a state "un-secular"?
It interferes in religious business; specifically, it sets other rules for one religion than for others.


3) What freedoms were "lost" when they banned minarets? Are you against building codes entirely?
Disingenuous answer, the point has been discussed already ad nauseam in this thread. The ban is not about building codes. Neither is it about zoning laws. It's a blanket ban. BTW, did you know that the minaret in Wangen, which sparked this whole mess, is located in an industrial area?


4) I definitively want to deport lots of people, specifically large parts of the non-European population, but I'm sort of ambivalent about these "European Muslims".
As long as they behave good, don't live on welfare and generally be a good influence on the Swedish people (eg: no extremism, no shaira laws and etc.) i guess they should be able to stay.
Thanks for affirming my claim that you make look Wilders look like a moderate. He couches his words much better. Your two sentences are quite contradictory, as you give no evidence at all that your conditions only incldue a small part of the Muslim population.

Furthermore, define what you mean with "non-European population" - I guess you refer to ancestry. You are aware that most Dutch Muslims are actually Dutch citizens; most French Muslims are French citizens; most British Muslims are British citizens; and I guess, Sweden having similar naturalization laws, that too most Swedish Muslims are Swedish citizens. Are you actually advocating deporting people from their own country?

[a3sigma]

You may be interested in this (http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htterr/articles/20051102.aspx) or this (http://www.magharebia.com/cocoon/awi/xhtml1/aren_GB/features/awi/features/2008/07/20/feature-01). The Danes (http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2008/01/denmark-moderate-imams-answer-to-prison.html) and Brits (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/17/islam.religion) are catching on.




Thanks very much for the links. I found them interesting and encouraging.

DC

[a3sigma]

You have never been to a muslim country have you? You think they are all like Saudi. You have been duped.


Spent considerable time in Indonesia and Mindanao. Please don't tell me what I think, ask me, I'll tell you what I think. I don't believe I have lumped all Muslim countries together, nor said or implied that I thought they were all alike. If I have given anyone that impression, I regret it.

DC

[a3sigma]

Here is a wild thought. Maybe if one day you actually stopped and had a conversation with a Muslim you might be suprised that they dislike those oppressive fundamentalists as much as we all do. Ever considered that?

Good idea, I second it. My cardiologist is Muslim. Nice guy, I like him a lot. He saved my life.

DC

[WildCat]

Okay. So what's the deal then with this ban? UnrecoveredElephant directly tied it to terrorism.
Not that UndercoverElephant necessarily opposes terrorism. In fact, he claims he "cheered when the WTC came down" (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=50547#post50547) and saw it as the first sign of hope in the world.

An old quote to be sure, but one of the more memorable ones on this forum.

[Puppycow]

This is simply democracy in action.

It's a zoning ordinance regarding a structure which people regard as an eyesore that clashes with the local architecture.

Almost every country regulates what sorts of structures can and cannot be built in a community. See post #565 for example.

[fullflavormenthol]

This is simply democracy in action.

It's a zoning ordinance regarding a structure which people regard as an eyesore that clashes with the local architecture.

Almost every country regulates what sorts of structures can and cannot be built in a community. See post #565 for example.
Yes it is a zoning ordinance.:rolleyes:

I mean there is absolutely nothing in the campaign to give any other impression. :rolleyes:

Oh and it is 100% comparable to a Walmart. :rolleyes:

You happy someone finally took the bait? You have been trying pretty hard the last two pages.

But an Amendment to the Constitution is not a freakin' zoning ordinance.

[linusrichard]

And many other countries where Islam is incorporated into the state laws.
Seems that there is a serious lack of that from any of you multicultural cheerleaders, you are more interested in protecting the exportation of the same medieval belief system to new countries, than bothering to protest about its impletation in its homeland.

Seriously? :rolleyes: Have you seen the "multicultural cheerleaders" defending fundamentalist Muslim theocracy? Maybe you haven't seen the "multicultural cheerleaders" criticizing fundamentalist Muslim theocracy for the same reason you don't often see people criticizing the Holocaust, or cancer, or Lady Gaga. It's not interesting, we'd all just sit around agreeing with each other. The controversy is not in criticizing the intolerant Muslim nations, but in the intolerant Christian nations.

Tell that to Mohammed.

Ha ha, wow. What an embarrassing comment.

I am aware that many Muslim nations are quite tolerant. I applaud them. I'm also aware that some are not. I condemn them. Same goes for any people, nation, or other group.

So wait - then do you approve or disapprove of Switzerland becoming less tolerant?

It is my opinion that citizens of a neighborhood, city, or nation should be able to assert some reasonable control over the appearance of the place where they live.

First, let's not pretend this is about aesthetics. Second, this was an amendment to the national constitution, so it actually takes away from the ability of communities and cantons to decide what they want to allow.

Issues of what is reasonable should be settled by consensus.
50%+1 is hardly "consensus."

[Thunder]

Tell that to Mohammed.

do u hate Muslims? have you ever met a Muslim that you did not hate?

[GreNME]

You defend Islamic bigots, dont lecture me on racism when you are helping to condemn millions of arab women to continued servitude in the name of Allah.:)

Yes, I'm aware of the tu quoque logic that racists apply in order to justify their racism.

-----

I'm certain that most Europeans would like Europe to remain European. Hell, Sweden is more and more looking like an Arab or African country. Minarets and Islam is just a part of this trend, Arab or not.

Interesting that Sweden is apparently looking more Arab and African, when the majority of Muslim immigrants in Sweden are Eastern European.

Really, can your failure be any more obvious at this point?

-----

Spent considerable time in Indonesia and Mindanao. Please don't tell me what I think, ask me, I'll tell you what I think. I don't believe I have lumped all Muslim countries together, nor said or implied that I thought they were all alike. If I have given anyone that impression, I regret it.

DC

You mean the same Indonesia where the roughly 8% of the population who is Christian are afforded more freedom of religious practice than China?

[a3sigma]

You mean the same Indonesia where the roughly 8% of the population who is Christian are afforded more freedom of religious practice than China?

Well, yes. I wasn't aware there was more than one. So what has China got to do with anything I've said on this thread? Who the hell doesn't have more freedom than in China? Besides Iraqis? OK, North Koreans. I'm sure you can think of some more, but what's the point? All the residents of Switzerland enjoy among the highest levels of human rights and personal freedom anywhere.

How many times do I have to repeat that I'm in favor of freedom and dislike intolerance? I dislike repeating myself, too.

But I endorse freedom from religion as well. And I don't conclude that someone is a bigot because he doesn't want the towering religious symbol of a different culture planted in front of his home.

I've lived and worked in Switzerland as well. I don't recall any great frenzy of church building there either, for that matter.

[GreNME]

Well, yes. I wasn't aware there was more than one. So what has China got to do with anything I've said on this thread? Who the hell doesn't have more freedom than in China? Besides Iraqis? OK, North Koreans. I'm sure you can think of some more, but what's the point? All the residents of Switzerland enjoy among the highest levels of human rights and personal freedom anywhere.

How many times do I have to repeat that I'm in favor of freedom and dislike intolerance? I dislike repeating myself, too.

But I endorse freedom from religion as well. And I don't conclude that someone is a bigot because he doesn't want the towering religious symbol of a different culture planted in front of his home.

I've lived and worked in Switzerland. I don't recall any great frenzy of church building there either, for that matter.

You may dislike repeating yourself, but no one is requiring you to repeat yourself. Instead, you made a vague and somewhat leading comment and have been challenged on more than one occasion now to clarify it. However, with each reply what you continue to do is respond with partial information that could be construed as clarification, while at the same time making disassociative statements that make the implications of your posts unclear while being posted in a context that would seem to be in disagreement of criticism toward the anti-Muslim and anti-Arab statements being made (but intentionally not saying so outright).

I don't care about your resume, nor I doubt do most of the other posters. However, you're saying very little but using a fair number of words to do so, and the tenor of your statements is easily mistaken from being whatever the intent your statements are supposed to have here. Whatever the reason or intention, the reality is that you're being unclear and using very broad language and avoiding specifics, notably the particular attitudes being criticized by a large number of posters here. That doesn't translate well, and is behind the less-than-warm reception your attempts to provide a statement have garnered.

In other words, a bit of clarity here might help the situation.

[KingMerv00]

This is simply democracy in action.

That doesn't mean it is automatically praiseworthy. It only means it is legal.

[A W Smith]

aren't minarets used to broadcast calls to prayer five times a day? Do you suppose the problem is more of noise pollution for the benefit of a religious minority than religious discrimination? just sayin.

[Cavemonster]

aren't minarets used to broadcast calls to prayer five times a day? Do you suppose the problem is more of noise pollution for the benefit of a religious minority than religious discrimination? just sayin.

Nope, read the thread, this has been addressed.

[Skeptic]

BTW, I myself am of exceptional purity. Descended from one of the sons of a long and distinguished line of English highwaymen and horse thieves, who was fortunate enough to be sent here as an indentured servant in lieu of hanging. Or, so goes the family legend.

There was a British Lord who was so prudish, the joke was that he "is descendant from a long line of maiden aunts".

[Skeptic]

aren't minarets used to broadcast calls to prayer five times a day? Do you suppose the problem is more of noise pollution for the benefit of a religious minority than religious discrimination? just sayin.

THAT would be something else, but why bun the minarets? Just enforce (or pass) noise pollution laws.

[Darat]

This is simply democracy in action.

It's a zoning ordinance regarding a structure which people regard as an eyesore that clashes with the local architecture.

Almost every country regulates what sorts of structures can and cannot be built in a community. See post #565 for example.

No it isn't, it a discriminatory law (since it only applies to one specific religion), and therefore would not be (ultimately) enforceable in any EU country.

[Ryokan]

I'd actually say I'm MORE offended by Islamic fundamentalism. Europeans haven't started stoning people yet. Must be due to a lack of minarets.

Not stoning, but we do have a history of genocide. You know, it's only 15 years since the attempted genocide of the Bosnian Muslims by white Christian Europeans was stopped. I've been to the Serb concentration camps in Bosnia. I've talked to survirors. It was not a Nice Thing.

It's a bit weird that to be 'allowed' to defend equal rights for everyone in Europe, I also have to condemn the practices done by countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran. But I have no problem doing that, these are some of the most evil countries on Earth. But that doesn't excuse in any way not treating people equally before the law here back home.

[Ryokan]

aren't minarets used to broadcast calls to prayer five times a day? Do you suppose the problem is more of noise pollution for the benefit of a religious minority than religious discrimination? just sayin.

It has been mentioned in the thread a couple of times before, although Bosnian mosques often have minarets, call to prayer from them is not part of their culture. Of the four minarets already built in Switzerland, none of them broadcast call to prayer.

[Cavemonster]

It's a bit weird that to be 'allowed' to defend equal rights for everyone in Europe, I also have to condemn the practices done by countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran. But I have no problem doing that, these are some of the most evil countries on Earth. But that doesn't excuse in any way not treating people equally before the law here back home.

And no one seems to have mentioned yet that one of the top reasons for Muslim immigrants to move to places like Switzerland is to escape that kind of government.

This whole movement is based on a fear that Muslims in want to transform Western Europe into Saudi Arabia, completely ignoring the fact that the whole reason many of them moved is to get away from that kind of country.

[Wildy]

...the United Arab Emirates has outlawed Swiss roll.

Rolls of the Prophet Mohammed?

[Wildy]

if they wan't to stay Christian, they should keep out more Muslim and Jewish immigrants. but they really should not be telling citizens what they can and cannot do, as far as religious freedom goes.

But it was a referendum. The people told the people what they can and can't do.

[Wildy]

I like them too. There's lots of them where I live. Brighton was established as a playground for the rich elite, and many of them tried to compensate for their less-than-Christian lifestyle by funding the building of churches. The result was far too many churches, most of which were never regularly full even when they were first built. Flash-forward to 2009 and what you have is an empty church on every other street. What to do with them? Turn them into flats and offices, of course. Fancy an office with a stained-glass window?

There are plenty of uses for a empty, unused church. Homes, offices, pharmacies, wedding dress shop, nightclub...

[Kotatsu]

Interesting that Sweden is apparently looking more Arab and African, when the majority of Muslim immigrants in Sweden are Eastern European.

Are you confusing Sweden with Switzerland? If not -- as your statement goes against my own perception of the ethnic diversity in Sweden -- could you perhaps back this up? It may be that I am biased a bit since I live in one of these lovely ghettos for immigrants, and only rarely visit any of the others, but the vast majority of Muslim immigrants here are from the Middle East, Somalia, or Iran.

It has been mentioned in the thread a couple of times before, although Bosnian mosques often have minarets, call to prayer from them is not part of their culture. Of the four minarets already built in Switzerland, none of them broadcast call to prayer.

Out of curiosity: do they use their minarets for something else, or are they just considered a traditional part of the architecture that they cannot be without?

[a3sigma]

In other words, a bit of clarity here might help the situation.


I am not the issue. I'm not trying to impress anybody or win a popularity contest. I have no intention except to express my view that the public may have something to say about public acts; like putting up a building.

I condemn and deplore anti-Muslim and anti-Arab statements.

That's about as clearly as I can put it.

[Ryokan]

Out of curiosity: do they use their minarets for something else, or are they just considered a traditional part of the architecture that they cannot be without?

They use them for the same thing churches use bell towers without bells, I assume. It's traditional and looks nice.

[funk de fino]

Im not sure youve ever been to a "chinatown".
Its a commercial area, generally in a large city where Chinese have their commercial premises.
They dont generally live in these commercial areas and live spread out all over the surrounding suburbs, integrating very well and marrying into the local population.
I guess you dont have much experience of the Chinese, "sunshine".

Utterly clueless, I have plenty of experience. In London, Manchester etc etc. And I have been to China many times. Have you? What about the Sikhs or the Hindus? Not put much thought into your integration BS have you? I know many muslims whom have maarried outside their own faith and the muslims in Glasgow integrate well into the culture up here. Your narrowminded uninformed opinion of islam are dreadful.

BTW..
Stalk much Funk?
Just because you are still smarting at someone disagreeing with your nationalist nuttery, doesnt mean you need to show yourself up further by commenting on even more subjects you dont understand.

Understand better than you it seems. Your bias in describing the craving for self determination as being nuttery shows you up son.

[Thunder]

But it was a referendum. The people told the people what they can and can't do.

yes. the will of the majority circumvents the rights of the minority.

nice huh?

[funk de fino]

Spent considerable time in Indonesia and Mindanao. Please don't tell me what I think, ask me, I'll tell you what I think. I don't believe I have lumped all Muslim countries together, nor said or implied that I thought they were all alike. If I have given anyone that impression, I regret it.

DC

Your post indicated that you did not know islamic states allowed churches or synagogues. If you did know that a large number did then your post was irrelevant rubbish.

[funk de fino]

And no one seems to have mentioned yet that one of the top reasons for Muslim immigrants to move to places like Switzerland is to escape that kind of government.

This whole movement is based on a fear that Muslims in want to transform Western Europe into Saudi Arabia, completely ignoring the fact that the whole reason many of them moved is to get away from that kind of country.


Do not post common sense that the bigots cannot grasp. It just makes their knuckles drag even more.

[Wildy]

yes. the will of the majority circumvents the rights of the minority.

nice huh?

Essentially that is all that democracy is.

[Thunder]

Essentially that is all that democracy is.

then thank God, we do not live in a "true" democracy.

I'd hate to see what life would be like here if we did.

[Darat]

Essentially that is all that democracy is.

Not really and certainly not for the modern democracies that emerged during the 20th century; the societies that have adopted democracy have tried to to ensure that the "tyranny of the majority" is somewhat held in check.

[Ryokan]

Indeed, modern liberal democracies have checks and balances to insure that the majority can't infringe on the rights of the minority. That's why this topic is about Switzerland and not any of the liberal democracies of the world.

[Puppycow]

No it isn't, it a discriminatory law (since it only applies to one specific religion), and therefore would not be (ultimately) enforceable in any EU country.

It applies to a structure not a religion.

[Puppycow]

Oh and it is 100% comparable to a Walmart. :rolleyes:

If Walmart shoppers believed in leprachauns it would.

[Darat]

It applies to a structure not a religion.

Thankfully the courts in most EU countries and certainly the ECJ would view that argument for the sophistry it is.

[KingMerv00]

But it was a referendum. The people told the people what they can and can't do.

Again, that doesn't mean it is morally OK.

[KingMerv00]

It applies to a structure not a religion.

And yellow stars of David on shirts were just fashion statements.

[Darth Rotor]

In the Kilt Sales section, we see the Free Society Tartan on display, forty percent off for the Christmas season. "No True Free Society" also on sale at other retail locations.
In a free society, what you have done as an individual is all that counts. What others who share your religion, national origin or family name have done is irrelevant.
What utopia are you trying to describe? People self-identify for a variety of reasons and causes. Tribalism is a well documented human behavior. I find your hand waving here to be irrelevant to the cultural friction that actually exists in open societies. Just because you or I live in a generally free or open society does not result in a removal of cultural and sub cultural friction. That friction spawns a variety of actions, to include this curious architectural compromise/decision that, from how I read the story, has done nothing to curtail the attendance at, nor construction of, mosques.

The Swiss are in part responding tribally to the inertia of globalization. The Swiss are not required to like or adapt the habits of outsiders. Part of being Swiss is what the Swiss choose to depict as Swiss things. Architecture appears to be one of those things. Switzerland has a particular image to market for its thriving tourist industry. Minarets aren't it. Istanbul? Minarets are a signature symbol of that amazing city. (If you haven't been, I suggest the trip. A one of a kind place). Switzerland isn't, and has not interest in being, Turkey. Switzerland has not, as far as I can recall, ever pretended to be the great melting pot of anywhere.

When in Rome, people, you deal with the Roman Home Owners Association and its deed restrictions and covenants.

DR

[Arcade22]

Okay. So what's the deal then with this ban? UnrecoveredElephant directly tied it to terrorism.
I honestly have no idea why the Swiss voted for this ban, perhaps it was because they
didn't want more mosques to pop-up with their minarets and ruin the local architecture?
Perhaps it was just to send a message to the Muslims saying that the Swiss are in charge?

It sure as hell has nothing to do with Terrorism though.

It interferes in religious business; specifically, it sets other rules for one religion than for others.
You're right and I withdraw my earlier statement.


Thanks for affirming my claim that you make look Wilders look like a moderate. He couches his words much better. Your two sentences are quite contradictory, as you give no evidence at all that your conditions only incldue a small part of the Muslim population.
I am sorry, but what do mean?

Furthermore, define what you mean with "non-European population" - I guess you refer to ancestry.
Yes.

You are aware that most Dutch Muslims are actually Dutch citizens; most French Muslims are French citizens; most British Muslims are British citizens; and I guess, Sweden having similar naturalization laws, that too most Swedish Muslims are Swedish citizens. Are you actually advocating deporting people from their own country?

I believe that Sweden would be a better country if there was a whole lot less immigrants, especially Africans and Arabs.
If they were only promille of the population i wouldn't really bother, but currently it seems that Sweden is more and more looking like an country for immigrants.
I want Sweden to be for the Swedes and those peoples that look like us, behave like us and generally have the same customs as us, not people from all across the globe.

[Darat]

What utopia are you trying to describe? People self-identify for a variety of reasons and causes. Tribalism is a well documented human behavior. I find your hand waving here to be rather irrelevant to the cultural friction that actually exists in open societies. That friction has spawned a variety of actions, to include this curious architectural compromis/decision that, from how I read the story, done nothing to curtail the attendance at nor construction of mosques.

The Swiss are in part responding tribally to the inertia of globalization. The Swiss are not required to like or adapt the habits of outsiders. Part of being Swiss is what the Swiss choose to depict as Swiss things. Architecture appears to be one of those things.

DR

Highlighted your mistake here - this is not about "outsiders" it is about Swiss citizens making decisions that effect other Swiss citizens.

[Ryokan]

I believe that Sweden would be a better country if there was a whole lot less immigrants, especially Africans and Arabs.
If they were only promille of the population i wouldn't really bother, but currently it seems that Sweden is more and more looking like an country for immigrants.
I want Sweden to be for the Swedes and those peoples that look like us, behave like us and generally have the same customs as us, not people from all across the globe.

Then please tell the largest immigrant group to my country, the Swedish, to get the hell out of my country. They weren't born here, and my country is starting to look more and more like a country for immigrants.

[Darth Rotor]

Highlighted your mistake here - this is not about "outsiders" it is about Swiss citizens making decisions that effect other Swiss citizens.
Thank you, Darat, I had forgotten that the historical and cultural heritage that is Swiss is in fact Muslim in nature. :rolleyes: Did you note my point on tribal behavior that kicked off that post? Once again, I do not find it honest for anyone to disregard the money issue here: Switzerland makes a good amount of money in tourism, by selling a particular image and picture of Switzerland. Minarets aren't it. The minarets are an import from an outsider's culture, outsider to Switzerland. It matters not that these outsiders are Bosnian, the cultural symbol that is seen as being imported is the Minaret, which is more than just an architectural feature like a gable or an arch. (We could discuss this similarly to the Torii of Japan being imported into Switzerland ... and the architectural and visual impact that would make).
But an Amendment to the Constitution is not a freakin' zoning ordinance.
At fullflavormenthol: I see your point, and while it is a good point, I find it somewhat hyperbolic. (First in scale, two orders of magnitude lesser than the American constitution). The democracies in Europe grew out of centuries of local (imbedded?) cultural congealing, unlike the American melting pot of a couple of centuries. It is reasonable for Swiss voters and citizens to affirm or assert what they feel Swiss is, what Switzerland is.

Group identity, symbols, and images. They are not to be hand waved away. They are things people give a crap about. You can hide your head in the sand and wish it weren't so, but to do so is to wish away a complex and compelling feature of human beings.

DR

[Flo]

Part of being Swiss is what the Swiss choose to depict as Swiss things.


SWISS muslims, remember ? They just have been told by 57% of voters they were denied that part of being Swiss ... :rolleyes:

[Ryokan]

Group identity, symbols, and images. They are not to be hand waved away. They are things people give a crap about.

So are basic and fundamental human rights.

[Darth Rotor]

SWISS muslims, remember ? They just have been told by 57% of voters they were denied that part of being Swiss ... :rolleyes:
I see, you want me to believe that a core cultural symbol of Switzerland is the minaret. That's bloody brilliant revisionism. Fifty seven percent of Swiss voters have basically said "no, that isn't so."
So are basic and fundamental human rights.
Indeed. But they care in different proportions, eh? Politics is local. The balancing act isn't simple. I will note your an appeal to a platitude, thanks for that, and wonder just what happens next.

Skeptics, hand waving. Who'd have seen that coming. The Amazing Meme strikes again.

DR

[Flo]

Thank you, Darat, I had forgotten that the historical and cultural heritage that is Swiss is in fact Muslim in nature. :rolleyes: Did you note my point on tribal behavior that kicked off that post? Once again, I do not find it honest for anyone to disregard the money issue here: Switzerland makes a good amount of money in tourism, by selling a particular image and picture of Switzerland. Minarets aren't it.

Stop being silly, please. Nobody in Switzerland has suggested building minarets on top of Alpine prairies. Furthermore, Switzerland makes a good amount of its money with muslims countries (you should see what Geneva looks like around August) and this unfortunate decision is going to cost it a lot, as have Swiss businessmen understood all along.

At fullflavormenthol: I see your point, and while it is a good point, I find it hyperbolic. The democracies in Europe grew out of centuries of local (imbedded?) cultural congealing, unlike the American melting pot of a couple of centuries.

Switzerland has built itself around 3 languages and culture, and I've been educated here learning that its pride was in being a multicultural, welcoming and open country ... The thugs who blew the building of minarets into a declaration of cultural and religious war would just repeal this.

Group identity, symbols, and images. They are not to be hand waved away. They are things people give a crap about.

Especially the kind the far-right in Europe would like to sell about a supposed golden age when everybody was living self-sufficiently in its small mountain valley without ever having anything to do with foreigners :rolleyes:

[Fiona]

I may be wrong but I do not think this vote is going to be an unmitigated good for the tourist industry, if that is the basis for it.

[Ryokan]

Indeed. But they care in different proportions, eh? Politics is local. The balancing act isn't simple. I will note your an appeal to a platitude, thanks for that, and wonder just what happens next.

Skeptics, hand waving. Who'd have seen that coming. The Amazing Meme strikes again.

DR

I agree that tribalism is very real and that the balancing act is not simple at all, but I happen to think that civil liberties and human rights should always trump tribalism. It's why most liberal democracies have these as part of their constitutions, and have made changing those constitutions very hard. It's also why liberal democracies have signed international treaties and laws to never compromise those rights.

I never said I didn't understand it, and I suspect that's true for most people in this thread. But I'm saying that despite these feelings, these kinds of laws are a travesty for all we've worked and fought for since the American revolution and the birth of the liberal democracy.

From where I'm sitting, you're the one hand waving all this.

[Darth Rotor]

Stop being silly, please. Nobody in Switzerland has suggested building minarets on top of Alpine prairies. Furthermore, Switzerland makes a good amount of its money with muslims countries (you should see what Geneva looks like around August) and this unfortunate decision is going to cost it a lot, as have Swiss businessmen understood all along.
I expect the Swiss in general like the money the Arab millionaired and billionaires drop in their country, and less so the people themselves. I do not share your optimism, but I respect the point you make about the risks to tourist income you point out.
Switzerland has built itself around 3 languages and culture, and I've been educated here learning that its pride was in being a multicultural, welcoming and open country ... The thugs who blew the building of minarets into a declaration of cultural and religious war would just repeal this.
Sorry, that "culture" is more accurately stated as sub-culture in this comparison. Swiss multiculturalism is a few orders of magnitude less impressive than American multiculturalism, (or for that matter, French multiculturalism).

Welcoming and open? That was my experience. The thugs who blew the building of minarets into a declaration of cultural and religious war would just repeal this.
I respectfully suggest that globalization has no inherent virtue.
Especially the kind the far-right in Europe would like to sell about a supposed golden age when everybody was living self-sufficiently in its small mountain valley without ever having anything to do with foreigners :rolleyes:
I note yet again the trope of the Urban versus Rural intracultural war raising its ugly head.

Not well played.

Please tell me, Flo, what is the value of having the right to vote if you can't vote for what you want, or the change you want? What kind of example is the exemplary democracy called Switzerland setting if one can't vote on such matters? The voters have spoken.

You think they voted like a bunch of prats. OK.

DR

[Flo]

I see, you want me to believe that a core cultural symbol of Switzerland is the minaret. That's bloody brilliant revisionism. Fifty seven percent of Swiss voters have basically said "no, that isn't so."


57% of Swiss voters have basically said "no, we won't allow muslims their rights to their own religious edifices, or to take part into the transformation of the country the way other communities have, however benign the transformation". The building of orthodox churches or synagogues, or buddhist pagodas isn't targeted, although none are core cultural symbols of Switzerland.

The question has never been about architecture, but about marginalizing muslims and fueling paranoia against them, and this has been confirmed by the "victors" in every debates I heard on Swiss TV or radios since the votation.

[Darth Rotor]

57% of Swiss voters have basically said "no, we won't allow muslims their rights to their own religious edifices, or to take part into the transformation of the country the way other communities have, however benign the transformation". The building of orthodox churches or synagogues, or buddhist pagodas isn't targeted, although none are core cultural symbols of Switzerland.
OK, thanks for that update. This puts an unpleasant coat of paint on the vote.
The question has never been about architecture, but about marginalizing muslims and fueling paranoia against them, and this has been confirmed by the "victors" in every debates I heard on Swiss TV or radios since the votation.
Thanks also for that update. The Swiss who voted thus see Islam as a foreign, or alien culture, that they are not happy with. I want to ask you why they MUST be happy with it?

DR

[Darth Rotor]

I agree that tribalism is very real and that the balancing act is not simple at all, but I happen to think that civil liberties and human rights should always trump tribalism.
Always. I like that bit of absolutism. :rolleyes: However, I find my own point of view to be in general agreement with what you say there, and that part of our collective journey is in finding ways to break down barriers that tribal behaviors toss up.
It's why most liberal democracies have these as part of their constitutions, and have made changing those constitutions very hard. It's also why liberal democracies have signed international treaties and laws to never compromise those rights.
Never. I like that bit of absolutism/woo. :rolleyes:
From where I'm sitting, you're the one hand waving all this.
Not at all. A lot of this begins to boil down to what actual power your vote has, in a democracy. When you cast your vote, does anybody listen? Does anything happen? Can you actually have an impact? If not, may I ask what the hell the point is of having votes, or referendums, on anything at all?

There is an exemplary democracy in Switzerland. I don't think anyone will dispute that. Well, the voters have spoken. Are they to be ignored, or hand waved away, to please you? To please me?

@ Flo: since you understand Switzerland a bit better than I do, is the process there to appeal what one finds an unfair/unjust law similar to ours, across the pond? Will a Swiss court eventually hear a case on this matter, and possibly find the law unconstitutional?

DR

[Ryokan]

Thanks also for that update. The Swiss who voted thus see Islam as a foreign, or alien culture, that they are not happy with. I want to ask you why they MUST be happy with it?

The same reasons all people in all countries must accept that there are minorities that don't share their outlook, lifestyle and values. It makes the world a better place.

There's a reason these kinds of laws wouldn't be able to pass the legislature of most other western democracies, and it's the same reason why the USA for example have removed their laws against homosexuality.

[quadraginta]

Thank you, Darat, I had forgotten that the historical and cultural heritage that is Swiss is in fact Muslim in nature. :rolleyes: Did you note my point on tribal behavior that kicked off that post? Once again, I do not find it honest for anyone to disregard the money issue here: Switzerland makes a good amount of money in tourism, by selling a particular image and picture of Switzerland. Minarets aren't it. The minarets are an import from an outsider's culture, outsider to Switzerland. It matters not that these outsiders are Bosnian, the cultural symbol that is seen as being imported is the Minaret, which is more than just an architectural feature like a gable or an arch. (We could discuss this similarly to the Torii of Japan being imported into Switzerland ... and the architectural and visual impact that would make).

At fullflavormenthol: I see your point, and while it is a good point, I find it somewhat hyperbolic. (First in scale, two orders of magnitude lesser than the American constitution). The democracies in Europe grew out of centuries of local (imbedded?) cultural congealing, unlike the American melting pot of a couple of centuries. It is reasonable for Swiss voters and citizens to affirm or assert what they feel Swiss is, what Switzerland is.

Group identity, symbols, and images. They are not to be hand waved away. They are things people give a crap about. You can hide your head in the sand and wish it weren't so, but to do so is to wish away a complex and compelling feature of human beings.

DR

Do you really believe that the success of this vote was a result of a general Swiss concern that the architectural incongruity of a handful of minarets would severely damage their tourist trade?

[Flo]

I expect the Swiss in general like the money the Arab millionaired and billionaires drop in their country, and less so the people themselves. I do not share your optimism, but I respect the point you make about the risks to tourist income you point out.

I am not optimist at all. Geneva, where I grew up and still work, depends for much of its economy on remaining open and welcoming to all cultures, and that silly vote isn't exactly sending the right message. Fortunately, Geneva itself rejected the measure, along with a small number of cantons, and that may mitigate some of the repercussions.

Sorry, that "culture" is more accurately stated as sub-culture in this comparison. Swiss multiculturalism is a few orders of magnitude less impressive than American multiculturalism, (or for that matter, French multiculturalism).

Of course it is. However, I grew up in a part of the city where there were more than a hundred different nationalities, 10 minutes on foot from the UN and other international organisations buildings ... pretty multicultural. As for French multiculturalism ... snigger ...



I note yet again the trope of the Urban versus Rural intracultural war raising its ugly head.

Not well played.

Sorry, but that's exactly the UDF's propaganda: it presents itself as an "agrarian party", grounded in the far valleys of original ("primitive" is the exact term they use) Switzerland, a proud country that has supposedly built itself without any influence or assistance from the rest of the World (snigger ...).

Please tell me, Flo, what is the value of having the right to vote if you can't vote for what you want, or the change you want? What kind of example is the exemplary democracy called Switzerland setting if one can't vote on such matters? The voters have spoken.

You think they voted like a bunch of prats. OK.

I think they once again voted like a bunch of prats, and they are starting realising it (pretty funny, in a pathetic way, to hear the apologetics).

[Darat]

Thank you, Darat, I had forgotten that the historical and cultural heritage that is Swiss is in fact Muslim in nature. :rolleyes: ...snip...

Well you did seem to forget that we are discussing a law that will impact on Swiss citizens, not "outsiders"!

[Darat]

OK, thanks for that update. This puts an unpleasant coat of paint on the vote.

Thanks also for that update. The Swiss who voted thus see Islam as a foreign, or alien culture, that they are not happy with. I want to ask you why they MUST be happy with it?

DR

Who has said they must be happy with it?

[Ryokan]

Always. I like that bit of absolutism.

Yes, I think there are things we should never compromise with. Don't you agree?

Never. I like that bit of absolutism/woo. :rolleyes:

Yes, when you sign the Declaration of Human Rights, you sign your intention to never enact laws that are contrary to them. What the heck is woo about that? That's the point of signing international treaties, isn't it?

[Flo]

@ Flo: since you understand Switzerland a bit better than I do, is the process there to appeal what one finds an unfair/unjust law similar to ours, across the pond? Will a Swiss court eventually hear a case on this matter, and possibly find the law unconstitutional?

DR

I know a number of jurists are trying to find ways to invalidate this vote on the base of the constitution and treaties with the EU, but nobody is holding its breath. The Federal Council is trying to find ways to mitigate its impact, although there's little chances it can do much. There's also a movement to start a new referendum (actually an "initiative") leading to a vote that would overturn this law and make sure no such discriminatory legislation can rear its ugly head again.

One thing that more and more people are looking into is how to protect the constitution to be so easily modified by 50% of the voters.

[Darth Rotor]

Do you really believe that the success of this vote was a result of a general Swiss concern that the architectural incongruity of a handful of minarets would severely damage their tourist trade?
Probabaly not, particularly in light of Flo's insight. Depending upon the packaging, one might be able to spin a few minaret laden mosques here and there as an attraction to tourists.

But once again, "what is Swiss" seems to be the concern of a majority of Swiss voters in this case. Do you not respect that they too are allowed to have feelings, and opinions, that differ from your own?

We have had a remarkable conversation about tolerance in this thread, which has amounted to a demonstration of raw intolerance to 57% of the Swiss voters ("prats," Flo? ;) ) on this Swiss matter. :rolleyes:

DR

[Darth Rotor]

I know a number of jurists are trying to find ways to invalidate this vote on the base of the constitution and treaties with the EU, but nobody is holding its breath. The Federal Council is trying to find ways to mitigate its impact, although there's little chances it can do much. There's also a movement to start a new referendum (actually an "initiative") leading to a vote that would overturn this law and make sure no such discriminatory legislation can rear its ugly head again.

One thing that more and more people are looking into is how to protect the constitution to be so easily modified by 50% of the voters.
Thanks! :) Our constitution takes a 2/3 or 3/4 majority to change.
The Amendment Process
http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html
There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments.

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.

Does the Swiss constitutional change that you allude to require a covention, or a referendum, to implement the change?

As I understand it, a simple majority is what Swiss rules require. Article 142 is germane, yes?
Chapter 2: Initiative and Referendum
Art. 138 Popular Initiative for Total Revision of the Federal Constitution
1 100 000 citizens entitled to vote may propose a total revision of the Federal Constitution.
2 This proposal shall be submitted to the vote of the People for its approval.
Art. 139 Popular Initiative for Partial Revision of the Federal Constitution
1 100 000 citizens entitled to vote may propose a partial revision of the Federal Constitution.
2 The popular initiative for a partial revision of the Federal Constitution may be in
the form of a general suggestion or a formulated draft.
Art. 142 Required Majorities
1 Proposals submitted to the vote of the People shall be accepted if the majority of those voting approves them.
2 Proposals submitted to the vote of the People and the Cantons shall be accepted if the majority of those voting and the majority of the Cantons approve them.
3 The result of a popular vote in a Canton determines the vote of that Canton.
4 The Cantons of Obwald, Nidwald, Basel City, Basel Land, Appenzell Outer Rhodes and Appenzell Inner Rhodes have each one half of a cantonal vote.

Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation of April 18, 1999 (as amended until October 15, 2002)Preamble

In the name of God Almighty!

We, the Swiss People and Cantons, whereas, we are mindful of our responsibility towards creation; resolve to renew our alliance to strengthen liberty and democracy, independence and peace in solidarity and openness towards the world; are determined to live our diversity in unity respecting one another; are conscious of our common achievements and our responsibility towards future generations; and know that only those remain free who use their freedom, and that the strength of a people is measured by the welfare of the weakest of its members; now, therefore, we adopt the following Constitution:
Chuckles I thought this was in there somewhere.
Art. 78 Nature and Cultural Heritage
1 The protection of nature and cultural heritage is a cantonal matter.
2 In fulfilling its tasks, the Confederation shall take into account the objectives of the protection of nature and cultural heritage. It shall protect scenery, localities, historical
sites, and natural and cultural monuments; it shall preserve them untouched if public interest so requires.
3 It may support efforts towards the protection of nature and cultural heritage, and may, by contract or by expropriation, acquire or secure objects of national importance

[Ryokan]

Yeah, that preamble sure looks funny today.. If only the Swiss had taken the time to read it.. :)

[Flo]

Thanks also for that update. The Swiss who voted thus see Islam as a foreign, or alien culture, that they are not happy with. I want to ask you why they MUST be happy with it?

DR


Surprisingly, it has little to do with the religion or the culture itself. Until 3-4 years ago, nobody was even mentionning any problems with islam or muslims in Switzerland.

However, the far right has seen the opportunities that demonizing islam and muslims at large, in the wake of events like 9/11, the Danish anti-islam cartoons, or the French controversy about the islamic veil, and has started linking the presence of muslims with all and every problems, presenting them as dangerous and somehow a 5th column for Alqaida.

This has allowed the far right to gain some influence again and to reignite the flames of xenophobia and plain old racism under the guise of protecting the local culture.

"Muslim" has thus become a code word for "foreigners from poor despicable ex-communist countries or from poor despicable South of the Meditteranean countries, who have come here to profit from our prosperity, and that we'll never, ever consider real citizens, however well they behave".

[Thunder]

"We, the Swiss People and Cantons, whereas, we are mindful of our responsibility towards creation; resolve to renew our alliance to strengthen liberty and democracy, independence and peace in solidarity and openness towards the world; are determined to live our diversity in unity respecting one another"

hmmm....

[a3sigma]

Your post indicated that you did not know islamic states allowed churches or synagogues. If you did know that a large number did then your post was irrelevant rubbish.

I did know it, do know it, and have repeatedly affirmed it. OK, one more time:

I strive to be careful to qualify my statements and not deal in absolutes. If I have ever, or in the future, omit to do so with sufficient assiduity, I deeply regret it and will take pains to correct the omission. Now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Alright? Enough already?

I agree that what any other country does is irrelevant to the topic -- the Swiss referendum. I persist in my contention that an intelligent and helpful response from other nations would be to review their own levels of tolerance. And, I persist in my view that a people have a legitimate interest in preserving their cultural heritage and the appearance of their landscape. That this interest does not amount to bigotry, and that it must respect the inalienable human rights of any citizen. In my opinion, the construction of a particular style of building does not constitute an inalienable human right.

I will now withdraw to do some research on the importance of the minaret in Muslim religious observance. If it appears that a local shortage of minarets presents an insuperable obstacle to the exercise of that faith I may alter my opinion. I'll let ya know.

[Newtons Bit]

Mosques can still be built in Switzerland, can't they? They just need to use a different architecture style. I'm not aware of any verse in the Koran that states "thou shalt have a minaret in thy mosque or it's not a mosque" or something similar.

[quadraginta]

Probabaly not, particularly in light of Flo's insight. Depending upon the packaging, one might be able to spin a few minaret laden mosques here and there as an attraction to tourists.

But once again, "what is Swiss" seems to be the concern of a majority of Swiss voters in this case. Do you not respect that they too are allowed to have feelings, and opinions, that differ from your own?

We have had a remarkable conversation about tolerance in this thread, which has amounted to a demonstration of raw intolerance to 57% of the Swiss voters ("prats," Flo? ;) ) on this Swiss matter. :rolleyes:

DR

Certainly. Well, I respect their right to. I don't necessarily respect the wisdom of their opinion, or of their decision.

My main objection here is an effort to paint it as something it isn't. It isn't a reflection of their concern for the cultural homogeneity of their architecture. That would be acheived by a wholesale rejection of non-Swiss(?) building styles ultimately resulting, I suppose, in a landscape littered with cute, half-timbered chalets. This could prove inconvenient in the more urban areas, but I suppose it is doable.

This is a simple, blatant demonization of an entire range of religious belief, exclusive of any other, founded upon a cartoonish characterization of a microscopic subgroup.

Certainly they have the right to do that. They have crafted their laws to permit that right. In fact even though I respect that right my respect isn't particularly important.

The respect I have for a culture which would exercise such a right in such a fashion is severely diminished. That is unimportant to them as well.

The cumulative effect of many people feeling the same may be a different thing. I wonder how this would impact their concern about tourism?

[Darth Rotor]

Well you did seem to forget that we are discussing a law that will impact on Swiss citizens, not "outsiders"!
See Article 78 of their constitution ...

DR

[Darat]

See Article 78 of their constitution ...

DR

I see nothing in that that supports discrimination based on a Swiss citizen's religion.

[Newtons Bit]

I see nothing in that that supports discrimination based on a Swiss citizen's religion.

How can architectural discrimination be inferred to religious discrimination? Muslims can still build places of worship.

Hell, the city I live in has much more stringent codes for new buildings in the "Old Town" region. Any new religious facility built in that area has to look like an old Spanish mission.

[Darth Rotor]

Certainly. Well, I respect their right to. I don't necessarily respect the wisdom of their opinion, or of their decision.
Fair.
My main objection here is an effort to paint it as something it isn't. It isn't a reflection of their concern for the cultural homogeneity of their architecture.
?? I'll don't agree with you. "What is Swiss" covers a lot of ground. It is for the Swiss to define and defend. Given the vote, 57% is a majority, but plenty of dissenting opinion is also available.
That would be acheived by a wholesale rejection of non-Swiss(?) building styles ultimately resulting, I suppose, in a landscape littered with cute, half-timbered chalets. This could prove inconvenient in the more urban areas, but I suppose it is doable.
I see, all or nothing is the only true way to do such a thing. :rolleyes:
This is a simple, blatant demonization of an entire range of religious belief, exclusive of any other, founded upon a cartoonish characterization of a microscopic subgroup.
It is a rejection of an archetypical symbol of Islam. Yes. Once again, for what reason are the Swiss required to embrace that? (Some fun here, if one reads the preamble to the Constitution). ;) And article 78).
Certainly they have the right to do that. They have crafted their laws to permit that right. In fact even though I respect that right my respect isn't particularly important.
Aye.
The respect I have for a culture which would exercise such a right in such a fashion is severely diminished. That is unimportant to them as well.
Aye.
The cumulative effect of many people feeling the same may be a different thing. I wonder how this would impact their concern about tourism?
Aye. Some of the voters probably don't care.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

I see nothing in that that supports discrimination based on a Swiss citizen's religion.
How has this vote curtailed anyone's practice or worship, as a citizen, of said religion? ;)

43% of Swiss voters in this matter thought this amendment was a crap idea.

So, in a democracy, what do you do? As I read the Swiss Constitution, you begin to circle the petition, you present arguments, you get your 100,000, you get another vote on this in "x" amount of time, and your arguments are so much better, or your appeal to people's better natures is so effective, that you get 50.5% of the vote or more, and the measure is repealed.

That is how I hear a democracy might handle this, in Switzerland. I don't see much here other than "I disagree, this must be repealed" from an awful lot of the typists.

As I noted some posts back, Switzerland is an examplary democracy. Maybe using the democratic process can repeal a law many people find at odds with their values. I hear it can be done. We did it with Prohibition. I am sure the Swiss who dislike this outcome can do it too. All it takes is work, which one might note is precisely what the proponents of this law did: they put in the necessary work.

DR

[Darat]

How can architectural discrimination be inferred to religious discrimination? ...snip...

Because that is what the proposers of the referendum stated was their intent.

[Ryokan]

How can architectural discrimination be inferred to religious discrimination? Muslims can still build places of worship.

Hell, the city I live in has much more stringent codes for new buildings in the "Old Town" region. Any new religious facility built in that area has to look like an old Spanish mission.

If Muslims wanted to build a mosque with a minaret downtown in my home town, I'm pretty sure it would be shot down as well. I have no problems with that. Local democracy is important.

But we're talking about a constitution amendment targeting the building style of one religion, and it forbids it everywhere. That's the major difference.

Most mosques in Europe don't have a minaret. It's not about the specifics, really. It's about the message it sends, about targeting one specific religion, and that the racist far right rubs it in the face of the 'outsiders' and consider it a victory in the war against them.

[Darat]

If Muslims wanted to build a mosque with a minaret downtown in my home town, I'm pretty sure it would be shot down as well. I have no problems with that. Local democracy is important.

...snip...

Well in the UK it could only be shot down using the same criteria as any other planning application can be, that is was an "Islamic symbol" would not be a criteria they could use.

[Newtons Bit]

Because that is what the proposers of the referendum stated was their intent.

A law is not enforced based on the intent of someone who wrote it. It is enforced based on the text that was actually passed into law. Intent is irrelevant.

[GreNME]

Are you confusing Sweden with Switzerland? If not -- as your statement goes against my own perception of the ethnic diversity in Sweden -- could you perhaps back this up? It may be that I am biased a bit since I live in one of these lovely ghettos for immigrants, and only rarely visit any of the others, but the vast majority of Muslim immigrants here are from the Middle East, Somalia, or Iran.

I think you are a bit biased. You were correct about my mistaking the nation mentioned, but according to this (http://www.indexmundi.com/sweden/demographics_profile.html) and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Sweden#Islam_in_Sweden), it appears that the Muslim population is pretty far below even 10%, and with somewhere between 350k to 500k Muslims estimated in 2000 but allowing for growth to somewhere between 700k and 900k given normal population growth, also keeping in mind that Yugoslavs, Turks, and Iranians are reported as immigrating in far higher numbers (according to those links and their citations), I would still argue that the statement about Sweden looking more Arab and African is a false one based in bigoted perspective and confirmation bias, since nearly 57% of immigrants (link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Sweden#Immigration)) are of European origin. If anything, Sweden apparently looks like its population is starting to look more like Finland, since that is by far the largest immigrant group. You would have to add the African and Arab immigrants together to have a number barely higher than the number of immigrants from Finland alone, according to demographic data. The largest Muslim population centers immigrating to Sweden seem to be from Yugoslavia and Turkey, with Iran trailing behind them. None of those are African or Arab.

While I appreciate the correction, the statement is still false and your personal observation is quite skewed.

[GreNME]

A law is not enforced based on the intent of someone who wrote it. It is enforced based on the text that was actually passed into law. Intent is irrelevant.

What a ridiculous statement. Intent was irrelevant to the Jim Crow laws?

[Ryokan]

Well in the UK it could only be shot down using the same criteria as any other planning application can be, that is was an "Islamic symbol" would not be a criteria they could use.

Yes, the same here. I'm sure the reasoning behind it would be that it would clash with the architecture of my home town (which is built with a very distinct architecture), and that the same would be true if someone wanted to build, say, a Buddhist temple or a modern looking office building.

But if a community don't mind having a mosque with a minaret on it, they should be allowed to say that's okay - but they can't if there's a constitutional ban on such buildings giving the local communities no leeway.

[Darth Rotor]

But if a community don't mind having a mosque with a minaret on it, they should be allowed to say that's okay - but they can't if there's a constitutional ban on such buildings giving the local communities no leeway.
In the Swiss case, this may be an avenue to raise a counter referendum and attract votes to it. "Hey, who the hell do those folks in Neuchâtel think they are, telling us folk in Uri what we may or may not build in our canton!"

DR

[fullflavormenthol]

Group identity, symbols, and images. They are not to be hand waved away. They are things people give a crap about. You can hide your head in the sand and wish it weren't so, but to do so is to wish away a complex and compelling feature of human beings.

DR

Sieg Heil

(Yep I Godwin'd it, but it is fair given what you wrote can be used just as easily as a justification for the German protection of culture against those Jews.)

Literally, you just defended the Nazi belief system. The full context of your defense of Swiss bigotry, was that Europeans have the right to preserve their culture. You can hide your head in the sand and claim that it isn't 100% xenophobia, but to do so is to wish away the long European history of restrictive laws against minority groups and the violence that always follows.

[Newtons Bit]

Sieg Heil

(Yep I Godwin'd it, but it is fair given what you wrote can be used just as easily as a justification for the German protection of culture against those Jews.)

Literally, you just defended the Nazi belief system. The full context of your defense of Swiss bigotry, was that Europeans have the right to preserve their culture.

:confused:

You're going to have to explain to me how genocide against an entire people is somehow comparable to restricting a specific piece of non-Swiss architecture from being built in Switzerland.

[fullflavormenthol]

:confused:

You're going to have to explain to me how genocide against an entire people is somehow comparable to restricting a specific piece of non-Swiss architecture from being built in Switzerland.
Right above you. I was specifically getting into discriminatory laws against a specific group leading to violence. And trying to get past this cowardly appeal to it only being about building codes.

It isn't about architecture, and quit pretending it is. The Campaign itself made it very clear.

But than again, yellow stars are about fashion.

[Newtons Bit]

Right above you. I was specifically getting into discriminatory laws against a specific group leading to violence. And trying to get past this cowardly appeal to it only being about building codes.

So you're saying this is some sort of slippery slope?

[fullflavormenthol]

So you're saying this is some sort of slippery slope?
A slippery slope is justified when there is actually is a slippery slope.

Simply crying fallacy doesn't end debate. Show me where laws based solely in racial/cultural discrimination do not contribute to a climate of violence.

[Newtons Bit]

A slippery slope is justified when there is actually is a slippery slope.

Simply crying fallacy doesn't end debate. Show me where laws based solely in racial/cultural discrimination do not contribute to a climate of violence.

I'm not ending the debate. I'm simply asking if you think this is some sort of slippery slope. You seem to be arguing that a law against minarets is somehow going to result in violence against Muslims. I see no evidence presented that the law is going to result in any violence.

[fullflavormenthol]

I'm not ending the debate. I'm simply asking if you think this is some sort of slippery slope. You seem to be arguing that a law against minarets is somehow going to result in violence against Muslims. I see no evidence presented that the law is going to result in any violence.
Of course it leads to violence. Laws like this further empower bigots. Show me one example of a discriminatory law based on racial/cultural aspect that doesn't lead to violence.

Swiss Miss and Bubba Franz get it in their head that Swiss Muslims are second class citizens and so they further treat them that way.

But are you saying that it is okay to have laws that discriminate on the basis of culture, religion, and race are fine with you so long as no violence takes place?

[Newtons Bit]

Of course it leads to violence. Laws like this further empower bigots. Show me one example of a discriminatory law based on racial/cultural aspect that doesn't lead to violence.

I'm not going to go through a bunch of work to disprove a logic fallacy. You're arguing a slippery slope. It's up to you to prove the assertion.

Swiss Miss and Bubba Franz get it in their head that Swiss Muslims are second class citizens and so they further treat them that way.

You've got it backwards. The People aren't going to discriminate against Muslims because of a law against minarets. If The People are prejudiced against a specific group (say through the influence of a very charismatic leader saying they're to blame for all evils in the world) then they will pass laws discriminating against that group. Not the other way around.

This law, however, does not discriminate against Muslims. How do I know this? It does not ban Islam. It does not expel and Muslims from the country. It does not restrict Muslims from immigrating. It does not take away any rights of Muslims.

It's an architectural restriction. Nothing more.

Please come back once you have evidence of a Muslims being attacked in Switzerland because of this. According to your argument, it should be happening any day now. Right? How long should we wait?

[fullflavormenthol]

I'm not going to go through a bunch of work to disprove a logic fallacy. You're arguing a slippery slope. It's up to you to prove the assertion.



You've got it backwards. The People aren't going to discriminate against Muslims because of a law against minarets. If The People are prejudiced against a specific group (say through the influence of a very charismatic leader saying they're to blame for all evils in the world) then they will pass laws discriminating against that group. Not the other way around.

This law, however, does not discriminate against Muslims. How do I know this? It does not ban Islam. It does not expel and Muslims from the country. It does not restrict Muslims from immigrating. It does not take away any rights of Muslims.

It's an architectural restriction. Nothing more.

Please come back once you have evidence of a Muslims being attacked in Switzerland because of this. According to your argument, it should be happening any day now. Right? How long should we wait?
Yeah and according to you its only about architectural restriction.

You are too lazy to show one single example of racial/culturally discriminatory laws not leading to a climate of violence.

Whatever.

It does not take away any rights of Muslims.

:rolleyes:

[Newtons Bit]

Yeah and according to you its only about architectural restriction.

You are too lazy to show one single example of racial/culturally discriminatory laws not leading to a climate of violence.

Whatever.

I'll say again: I'm not going to argue against a logic fallacy.

In any event, you missed the point: discriminatory laws are a symptom of a racist and prejudiced society. Discriminatory laws, by themselves, do not create a prejudiced society.

[fullflavormenthol]

I'll say again: I'm not going to argue against a logic fallacy.

Logical fallacy if there isn't a slippery slope. I just want one example. You are too lazy or scared that you will prove yourself wrong. Either way.

In any event, you missed the point: discriminatory laws are a symptom of a racist and prejudiced society. Discriminatory laws, by themselves, do not create a prejudiced society.

No I said they lead to a climate of violence and further institutionalized discrimination. What do they call that fallacy that comes from someone creating a fake argument that can be easily knocked down?

Oh and think you for agreeing that this "zoning" Amendment to the freakin' Constitution is a symptom of a prejudiced society.

[Newtons Bit]

Logical fallacy if there isn't a slippery slope. I just want one example. You are too lazy or scared that you will prove yourself wrong. Either way.



No I said they lead to a climate of violence and further institutionalized discrimination. What do they call that fallacy that comes from someone creating a fake argument that can be easily knocked down?

Oh and think you for agreeing that this "zoning" Amendment to the freakin' Constitution is a symptom of a prejudiced society.

"Lead to", "create", you can argue semantics all you wish. Discriminatory laws do not "lead to" nor do they "create" nor do they "foster" any prejudice. They are a symptom of said prejudice.

[GreNME]

"Lead to", "create", you can argue semantics all you wish. Discriminatory laws do not "lead to" nor do they "create" nor do they "foster" any prejudice. They are a symptom of said prejudice.

Yes, as this ban is a symptom of the prejudice present in Switzerland.

[Fiona]

I think it is both. One cannot pass discriminatory laws unless there is pre-existing prejudice. But I think it is also true that each step in that direction makes the next step easier in many ways. The discrimination is legitimised and often the fact of it makes the group who are subject to it angry and more intemperate: which tends to make arguments for extension of discrimination look more valid.

[GlennB]

Discriminatory laws, by themselves, do not create a prejudiced society.

That would depend on your definition of 'society'. If 'society' is represented by court decisions that are supported by laws that do discriminate against certain ethnic or religious groups, then it's clear that your statement is wrong.

[funk de fino]

I think it is both. One cannot pass discriminatory laws unless there is pre-existing prejudice. But I think it is also true that each step in that direction makes the next step easier in many ways. The discrimination is legitimised and often the fact of it makes the group who are subject to it angry and more intemperate: which tends to make arguments for extension of discrimination look more valid.

Good post.

[fullflavormenthol]

I think it is both. One cannot pass discriminatory laws unless there is pre-existing prejudice. But I think it is also true that each step in that direction makes the next step easier in many ways. The discrimination is legitimised and often the fact of it makes the group who are subject to it angry and more intemperate: which tends to make arguments for extension of discrimination look more valid.
Thank you. I think you put it better than I could have. I agree that each little law is one step closer to larger laws. It becomes a justification. "Well we already restrict A, so why not restrict B; it isn't like we are restricting C".

[Darth Rotor]

Sieg Heil

(Yep I Godwin'd it, but it is fair given what you wrote can be used just as easily as a justification for the German protection of culture against those Jews.)

Literally, you just defended the Nazi belief system.
No, I didn't. Literally, I defended the right of people to vote for what they want in a democracy. You decided to get silly, which I suppose is OK. I like to ski in the Alps, you like to ski down slippery slopes. Tastes differ.

@ Fiona: yes, well said, that is a risk.

For fullflavor: Go back a few posts, where I discuss the 43% who don't like this, and note what can be done to attempt to address this within Switzerland, via a DEMOCRATIC method, rather than by your arbitrary fiat of "I don't like it, it's wrong."

In politics, the outcome is never final, else Nixon would never have become president.

DR

[kerikiwi]

No, I didn't. Literally, I defended the right of people to vote for what they want in a democracy. You decided to get silly,

DR

You defended the right of people to vote to defend group identity and symbols.
How is it silly to point out that the same justifications can be used to defend German culture against the Jews?

[KingMerv00]

No, I didn't. Literally, I defended the right of people to vote for what they want in a democracy.

Does that mean what they vote for is moral?

If America used proper procedure and passed an amendment that repealed abolition of slavery, how would you feel?

[fullflavormenthol]

A slippery slope is only a fallacy when there isn't a slippery slope. "If we pass gay marriage than people will soon be marrying their dogs" is a slippery slope, because there is no basis for A leading to B. "Discriminatory laws have the potential to lead to more such laws or further a climate of prejudice" isn't a slippery slope because human history shows that indeed A often leads to B.

Shouting "Slippery Slope, Slippery Slope!" is really a lame attempt to avoid the potential consequences of what you are effectively defending.

And yes I was pointing out that defense of cultural identity is the worst justification for curtailing the liberties of religious/racial/cultural groups.

[Arcade22]

And yes I was pointing out that defense of cultural identity is the worst justification for curtailing the liberties of religious/racial/cultural groups.

So it is inherently wrong to protect ones culture and people from perceived aggressive groups through discrimination?

[Fiona]

So it is inherently wrong to protect ones culture and people from perceived aggressive groups through discrimination?

Yes

[fullflavormenthol]

So it is inherently wrong to protect ones culture and people from perceived aggressive groups through discrimination?
Get to your point, because I know you have a follow up.

But assuming that is a stand alone question. You don't have a right to prevent cultural change, ever. Aggressive groups like known criminals, yes. People that you think are all criminals through an irrational fear, no.

[kerikiwi]

So it is inherently wrong to protect ones culture and people from perceived aggressive groups through discrimination?


Yes, it is inherently wrong to discriminate against people because of your own bigotry.

[funk de fino]

So it is inherently wrong to protect ones culture and people from perceived aggressive groups through discrimination?

Perceived by who?

[kerikiwi]

Perceived by who?

Any old xenophobe will do

[KingMerv00]

So it is inherently wrong to protect ones culture...

What makes "one's culture" so important anyway?

[Ryokan]

So it is inherently wrong to protect ones culture and people from perceived aggressive groups through discrimination?

Start campaigning to get your fellow Swedes, the largest immigrant group of Norway, out of my country and I'll start to listen.

[Fiona]

Perhaps you should discriminate against them Ryokan: any ideas how best to do that?

[scissorhands]

What makes "one's culture" so important anyway?

Maybe you should ask those who want to retain it when emigrating to a new country with a different one.

[Cavemonster]

Perhaps you should discriminate against them Ryokan: any ideas how best to do that?

A constitutional ban on lutefisk?

[Cleon]

A constitutional ban on lutefisk?

I think we can all agree that's for the best.

[Thunder]

So it is inherently wrong to protect ones culture and people from perceived aggressive groups through discrimination?

have their been widespread calls by Swiss Muslims for the installation of Sharia law? are Muslims poorly integrating into Swiss society? are there lots of Swiss immams preaching violence and jihad?

no? then what's the *********** problem???????????

:confused:

[Thunder]

No, I didn't. Literally, I defended the right of people to vote for what they want in a democracy.

so if the people of NY vote to sterilize all Jews in NY, you would support this referendum and volunteer to be sterilized?

if the people of Mississippi vote to reinstall segregation, thats cool with you?

if the people of California vote to remove all residents of Hispanic origin, that's okee dokee for you?

hmmm..

[Newtons Bit]

so if the people of NY vote to sterilize all Jews in NY, you would support this referendum and volunteer to be sterilized?

if the people of Mississippi vote to reinstall segregation, thats cool with you?

if the people of California vote to remove all residents of Hispanic origin, that's okee dokee for you?

hmmm..

There would need to be a federal constitutional amendment overruling the 14th amendment to reinstate segregation.

California, if you recall, voted to ban gay marriage. This, one could argue, is quite a bit more discriminatory than banning an architectural device.

[Puppycow]

Found at the top of Google News (http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2009/12/200912281637353840.html)

While it is only fair to assert that the Swiss government and most newspaper editors had urged voters to defeat the ban, it remains the case that the vote should not have been held in the first place. The very concept of a referendum in which the vast majority are asked to vote on a topic specific to the culture or religion of a minority group is in itself extremely problematic.

Imagine the furor that would certainly ensue should a country with an overwhelmingly Muslim population be asked to vote on whether its small Christian community should be allowed to build their churches according to a particular design or method, or whether they would rather do without the church bells sounding from time to time.

Limits of democracy?

What next, one wonders, and how far does this appetite for 'democracy' go? Is it a matter of time before there is a referendum on whether or not Muslims should be allowed to practise their faith, or even be allowed to exist at all?

:id:

Imagine the furor, indeed.
Yes, in Muslim countries minority religious rights are clearly respected. Obviously democracy is the problem here.

[fullflavormenthol]

Found at the top of Google News (http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2009/12/200912281637353840.html)





Imagine the furor, indeed.
Yes, in Muslim countries minority religious rights are clearly respected. Obviously democracy is the problem here.
It doesn't matter what Muslim countries are doing when it comes to how people should be treated in a free society.

It doesn't matter what Muslim countries are doing when it comes to how people should be treated in a free society.

It doesn't matter what Muslim countries are doing when it comes to how people should be treated in a free society.

Maybe if I keep repeating it you will get that.

[KingMerv00]

Maybe you should ask those who want to retain it when emigrating to a new country with a different one.

No. I think I'll ask both the natives AND the emigrants.

How about you? Why is "one's culture" so important.

[kerikiwi]

There would need to be a federal constitutional amendment overruling the 14th amendment to reinstate segregation.

California, if you recall, voted to ban gay marriage. This, one could argue, is quite a bit more discriminatory than banning an architectural device.

Not relevant to the question posed.
And are you saying that because one bad thing is done, anything not quite as bad is acceptable?

[kerikiwi]

Found at the top of Google News (http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2009/12/200912281637353840.html)



:id:

Imagine the furor, indeed.
Yes, in Muslim countries minority religious rights are clearly respected. Obviously democracy is the problem here.

Are you meaning to say ( but not quite finding the right words) that because bad things are done in one place, bad things are acceptable in a different place?
Honestly, I hear such moral reasoning all the time from 5 year olds: he did it too!

[Puppycow]

It doesn't matter what Muslim countries are doing when it comes to how people should be treated in a free society.

It doesn't matter what Muslim countries are doing when it comes to how people should be treated in a free society.

It doesn't matter what Muslim countries are doing when it comes to how people should be treated in a free society.

Maybe if I keep repeating it you will get that.

Double standard. A different standard is applied to European countries that we clearly don't expect from Muslim countries.

I'm pointing out a flaw in the argument of the article.
Imagine the furor that would certainly ensue should a country with an overwhelmingly Muslim population be asked to vote on whether its small Christian community should be allowed to build their churches according to a particular design or method, or whether they would rather do without the church bells sounding from time to time.
(See post #565 in case you missed it.)

[Puppycow]

Are you meaning to say ( but not quite finding the right words) that because bad things are done in one place, bad things are acceptable in a different place?
Honestly, I hear such moral reasoning all the time from 5 year olds: he did it too!

I'm pointing out someone pointing out a mote in someone else's eye.

[fullflavormenthol]

Double standard. A different standard is applied to European countries that we clearly don't expect from Muslim countries.

I'm pointing out a flaw in the argument of the article.

(See post #565 in case you missed it.)
Yes the article is stupid. I am simply saying that it is bad regardless of where it happens, and bad things in one country are not a justification in the other. You can't oppress people in one country and say..."but they do it." Nor can you say, "Well when they stop, we'll stop."

So there is no double standard.

So if thats a point you can agree on than fine.

[kerikiwi]

I'm pointing out someone pointing out a mote in someone else's eye.

So, what was the mote again,and whose eye was it in?
Sorry if I mistakenly thought you were arguing that the question of the vote in Switzerland was somehow connected to what happens in repressive regimes.
So you agree that what is done in Muslim countries is irrelevant?

[Thunder]

Double standard. A different standard is applied to European countries that we clearly don't expect from Muslim countries.

yes. i expect a lot more from liberal Western-democracies..then I do from secular Arab dictatorships and fundamentalist Islamic republics.

sorry for having such an "unfair" double-standard.

i also expected more from the USA then I do Al-Qaeda.

i expect more from Israel then I do from Hamas.

I expected more from the USA then I did from the USSR.

i expected more from Britain then I did from the IRA.

get the picture?

[kerikiwi]

It is not a double standard unless it is argued that repression is acceptable in one place but not another.
The same standards are applied. The repression is bad wherever it happens.

[Newtons Bit]

Not relevant to the question posed.
And are you saying that because one bad thing is done, anything not quite as bad is acceptable?

I was making a point that the USA already does worse things than the Swiss have done. I had hoped that was clear.

edit: I also think making a comparison to sterilizing a people completely irrelevant to this discussion.

[Thunder]

naa, I think it is indeed a double-standard. i definitely expect more from western liberal-democracies then from Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, North Korea, Mozambique, Sudan, etc etc.

[fullflavormenthol]

naa, I think it is indeed a double-standard. i definitely expect more from western liberal-democracies then from Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, North Korea, Mozambique, Sudan, etc etc.
You're right. I do expect more out of Western democracies than I do dictatorships.

[Thunder]

You're right. I do expect more out of Western democracies than I do dictatorships.

how dare you!!!! that's an anti-Christian, anti-White double standard!!

:)

[kerikiwi]

I was making a point that the USA already does worse things than the Swiss have done. I had hoped that was clear.

edit: I also think making a comparison to sterilizing a people completely irrelevant to this discussion.

How is making a comparison to sterilising people irrelevant, but things the US has done relevant?
Does the fact that the US has done worse things have anything to do with whether or not the Swiss vote is good?

[GreNME]

There would need to be a federal constitutional amendment overruling the 14th amendment to reinstate segregation.

California, if you recall, voted to ban gay marriage. This, one could argue, is quite a bit more discriminatory than banning an architectural device.
I was making a point that the USA already does worse things than the Swiss have done. I had hoped that was clear.

edit: I also think making a comparison to sterilizing a people completely irrelevant to this discussion.

And the California ban is a bigoted piece of legislation. Making a tu quoque here doesn't really help whatever argument you're ham-handed-ly groping for.


-----

I'm pointing out someone pointing out a mote in someone else's eye.

Right, what you are doing is making a roundabout version of a tu quoque.

[kerikiwi]

A double standard is when you say something done by one person or country is bad but the same thing done by another person or country is not bad.
Saying you expect better from one country than another is not a double standard: in fact it is applying the same standard.

[Thunder]

Saying you expect better from one country than another is not a double standard: in fact it is applying the same standard.

i expect Saudi Arabia and North Korea to respect freedom of speech, religious freedom, and human rights for gays.

but I am not horribly shocked when they fail to live up to this.

i am, however, horribly shocked when the USA, Britain, or Canada does fail these things.

[Puppycow]

Don't have much time now. I'll try to make my position relatively simple and easy to understand.

1) I'm against coercion and intolerance.
2) Islam is coercive and intolerant.[1] (http://www.studytoanswer.net/myths_ch8.html), [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy), [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie), [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitoshi_Igarashi), [5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ettore_Capriolo), [6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Nygaard), [7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director)), [8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_hirsi_ali)
3) I agree with the following:
yjO4duhMRZk

[Thunder]

you know, its funny. The Gospel talks about love and goodness and kindness..and yet Christianity has 2,000 years of a very bloody history.

The Koran is not as lovable and kind...and yet...Jews actually fled to Muslim lands..when expelled from Christian ones.

how does this work again?

[kerikiwi]

Don't have much time now. I'll try to make my position relatively simple and easy to understand.

1) I'm against coercion and intolerance.

1. is all you need. If coercion and intolerance happens in Switzerland and you are against coercion and intolerance, why is it necessary to state that islam is coercive and intolerant?
You could go on and give a very long list of other examples of coercion and intolerance and they would all be as relevant as the one example you gave.
It really seems that you are somehow saying because islam is coercive and intolerant, the Swiss case is justified.

[CHF]

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how minarets are dangerous.

I don't think the Swiss voted against minarets because of danger per say. The vote was actually part of a continent-wide backlash against the rise of Islam in Europe in general.

As fashionable as it is to chalk this up to simple racism, I'd say it's more in line with basic human nature. Generally speaking, people don't like seeing the social/ethnic/religious makeup of their societies change.

A feeling of pride in one's nation, culture, and "tribe" is a powerful human bond, one that we in the West often fail to appreciate after decades of multicultural policies.

Indeed, in most places rampant xenophobia is the norm.

Try to imagine what would happen if the Chinese were told that from now on they'd be inviting millions of Africans, Arabs, and Europeans who would settle in China's cities and over the coming decades change the country out of all recognition.

Would the Chinese people support the idea of a multicultural/multiracial social experiment? Would Arabs agree to it? Would Pakistanis? Indians? Russians? Algerians?

Try selling the idea of mass-immigration and western "multiculturalism" to the rest of the world and they'd laugh at you. Most people like the way their society is and would resist any mass-immigration and cultural change. And they'd be unapologetic about it.

Hell, much of the world's multi-ethnic countries are known for their civil wars, ethnic cleansing and ethnic hatreds.

So why are we surprised to find that Europeans are having doubts about allowing in millions of Muslims?

Why is it so unreasonable that feelings of national/cultural identity still exist in Europe?

Why wouldn't Europeans be upset by the growing presence and strength of Islam?

[Cavemonster]

As fashionable as it is to chalk this up to simple racism, I'd say it's more in line with basic human nature. Generally speaking, people don't like seeing the social/ethnic/religious makeup of their societies change.

A feeling of pride in one's nation, culture, and "tribe" is a powerful human bond, one that we in the West often fail to appreciate after decades of multicultural policies.

Indeed, in most places rampant xenophobia is the norm.


Of course it's a natural reaction to feel, but a feeling being natural doesn't excuse an action based on that feeling that curtails the freedoms of others. It is natural for me to lust after beautiful women on the street. It would not be right for me to act on that feeling by groping them.


Try to imagine what would happen if the Chinese were told that from now on they'd be inviting millions of Africans, Arabs, and Europeans who would settle in China's cities and over the coming decades change the country out of all recognition.

Would the Chinese people support the idea of a multicultural/multiracial social experiment? Would Arabs agree to it? Would Pakistanis? Indians? Russians? Algerians?
Try selling the idea of mass-immigration and western "multiculturalism" to the rest of the world and they'd laugh at you. Most people like the way their society is and would resist any mass-immigration and cultural change. And they'd be unapologetic about it.


This is the tu quoque argument that's already been addressed multiple times in this thread.

There's a wonderful graphic novel by Will Eisner Called Dropsie Avenue: The Neighborhood (http://www.amazon.com/Neighborhood-Dropsie-Avenue-Eisner-Library/dp/1563896893). It chronicles the life of a neighborhood in what becomes New York City, beginning with Dutch farmers. The Dutch are pissed that the English are moving in, the English are pissed when the Irish and Italians come. The Irish and Italians are apissed at the Jews moving in, on down the line. Exactly as you say, it is a natural and common reaction.

And guess what... in the US, it never halted any of these changes, all it did was make life worse for people as they were happening.

[GreNME]

Don't have much time now. I'll try to make my position relatively simple and easy to understand.

1) I'm against coercion and intolerance.
2) Islam is coercive and intolerant.[1] (http://www.studytoanswer.net/myths_ch8.html), [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy), [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie), [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitoshi_Igarashi), [5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ettore_Capriolo), [6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Nygaard), [7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director)), [8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_hirsi_ali)
3) I agree with the following:
yjO4duhMRZk

The YouTube embed isn't working. ETA: embed works now, but claiming "they have it coming to them" is even more stupid than the other bigotry excuses being put forth.

I'll make what you're saying even simpler:

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

When you can give something more intelligent than that, or at least find something less boring to repeat than variants of the same tu quoque, then you might have an actual argument on your hands.

[linusrichard]

California, if you recall, voted to ban gay marriage. This, one could argue, is quite a bit more discriminatory than banning an architectural device.

Great try at changing the subject. What am I supposed to say? "Well, I thought I disagreed with the Swiss minaret ban, but I actually disagree with the California gay marriage ban, so I guess I don't disagree with the Swiss minaret ban"? Yes, I never understood the logic of the tu quoque, and this one is more clumsy than most.

Start a thread asking which is worse, the Swiss minaret ban or the California gay marriage ban. I will vote for the California gay marriage ban. This is not that thread. I don't have to think the Swiss minaret ban is the worst thing in the world in order to oppose it.

Don't have much time now. I'll try to make my position relatively simple and easy to understand.

1) I'm against coercion and intolerance.
2) Islam is coercive and intolerant.[1] (http://www.studytoanswer.net/myths_ch8.html), [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy), [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie), [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitoshi_Igarashi), [5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ettore_Capriolo), [6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Nygaard), [7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director)), [8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_hirsi_ali)


Do you think if I wanted to say that Christianity is coercive and intolerant, I'd be able to find 8 sources to support it? 80? 800? Of course, yes. And yet, would that make it true, that Christianity, as a religion or philosophy, is inherently coercive and intolerant? Would it justify discrimination against Christians on the grounds that they are Christians?

What you are actually saying is: here are some examples of people who share a religion behaving in a coercive and/or intolerant manner, and because of these acts, I support restricting the rights of all who share that religion. Phrasing it in that more honest way I think makes it easier to talk about.

[rwguinn]

735 posts reflecting intolerance and anger, allowing everyone to feel holier than thou--all because a direct democracy allows its people to vote on national zoning laws...

[KingMerv00]

735 posts reflecting intolerance and anger, allowing everyone to feel holier than thou--all because a direct democracy allows its people to vote on national zoning laws...

Do you enjoy bringing up points that have already been addressed or are you just ignorant?

[rwguinn]

735 posts reflecting intolerance and anger, allowing everyone to feel holier than thou--all because a direct democracy allows its people to vote on national zoning laws...

Do you enjoy bringing up points that have already been addressed or are you just ignorant?
Insults are not good. Are you bigoted, or stupid?

[CHF]

Cavemonster,

indeed, resentment of newcomers has always occurred and always will. What's happening with Islam in Europe, however, is different. It isn't simply a case of people instinctively lashing out at those who are different; it's a matter of people reacting to clear and obvious changes in their society that have not been for the better.

Take Holland, for example, a country where I have plenty of family. The Dutch are among the most tolerant, open-minded people in the world. Yet anti-Islamic sentiment is rising. Even my liberal-minded aunts and uncles have had enough. Why?

Because Dutch politicians who criticize Islam face death threats and require police protection. Let that sink in for a second. Those who speak out against Islam require police protection. In Holland! In the 21st century!

Because a popular Dutch film-maker was murdered for (gasp!) claiming that Islam persecuted women.

Because the Dutch media (like most in Europe) refused to publish the Danish Mohammed cartoons because they feared rampaging Muslim mobs in the streets. (The decision not to publish had nothing to do with "tolerance" and "respect." It was FEAR, pure and simple).

Currently, Holland's population is only about 5% Muslim. And already we find that radical elements in that community have the power to silence public discussion, terrify the media into not doing their jobs, and drive elected officials into hiding.

Many Dutch are now asking some obvious questions: who's really picking a fight here? What will Holland look like with 10% or 25% Muslims? And is there any reason to think that Muslims will show tolerance to gays and women when they become even more of a political/social force?

And they're sick of being called "racist!" for asking.

[fullflavormenthol]

Never mind. What the hell else can be said?

[Puppycow]

Do you think if I wanted to say that Christianity is coercive and intolerant, I'd be able to find 8 sources to support it? 80? 800? Of course, yes. And yet, would that make it true, that Christianity, as a religion or philosophy, is inherently coercive and intolerant? Would it justify discrimination against Christians on the grounds that they are Christians?

I'm not Christian. Try again.
I'm happy to stipulate that Christianity is coercive and intolerant.

[fullflavormenthol]

(Deleted)

No...I am just too angry.

[Puppycow]

Cavemonster,

indeed, resentment of newcomers has always occurred and always will. What's happening with Islam in Europe, however, is different. It isn't simply a case of people instinctively lashing out at those who are different; it's a matter of people reacting to clear and obvious changes in their society that have not been for the better.

Take Holland, for example, a country where I have plenty of family. The Dutch are among the most tolerant, open-minded people in the world. Yet anti-Islamic sentiment is rising. Even my liberal-minded aunts and uncles have had enough. Why?

Because Dutch politicians who criticize Islam face death threats and require police protection. Let that sink in for a second. [I]Those who speak out against Islam require police protection. In Holland! In the 21st century!
Thank you. Even here in Japan, the translator of Salman Rushdie's book was murdered.

[CHF]

However, the far right has seen the opportunities that demonizing islam and muslims at large, in the wake of events like 9/11, the Danish anti-islam cartoons, or the French controversy about the islamic veil, and has started linking the presence of muslims with all and every problems, presenting them as dangerous and somehow a 5th column for Alqaida.

I'm surprised you mentioned the Danish cartoons, which were indeed a PR disaster for European Muslims but not in the way you think.

As far as anti-Islamic sentiment is concerned, those lame cartoons were insignificant. What was very significant, however, was the bizarre Muslim reaction.

Among Muslim groups in Europe few, if any, came down on the side of free speech; that Islam should be open to discussion, dispute or ridicule along with other ideologies.

Many Islamic moderates believed the Danish government should have silenced its own media through legal means.

Radicals, on the other hand, thought the cartoonists should have been killed - which helps explain why so few media outlets dared to reprint the cartoons if only to show their audience what the fuss was about.

What should have been an irrelevant cartoon publication in Copenhagen instead turned into a showcase of how Islam regards criticism. And Europeans certainly took notice.

[CHF]

What makes "one's culture" so important anyway?

Ask that question in almost any non-western nation and they'll look at you like you're from Mars.

We in the multicultural west are among the only people in the world who think that the concept of protecting one's culture is evil. The rest of the planet takes it for granted.

[linusrichard]

Insults are not good. Are you bigoted, or stupid?
Did you have fun turning your insult to everyone in this thread gigantic and red right before you said that insults are not good?


I'm not Christian. Try again.
I'm happy to stipulate that Christianity is coercive and intolerant.
And the other question?

[kerikiwi]

I'm not Christian. Try again.
I'm happy to stipulate that Christianity is coercive and intolerant.


Nobody suggested you were christian.
Try reading the post again. You missed the point entirely.

[KingMerv00]

Insults are not good.

My comments were tied directly to your comment. Your point has already be addressed several times so either you like rehashing old arguments or you were ignorant of your fellow posters. Which is it?

[kerikiwi]

Thank you. Even here in Japan, the translator of Salman Rushdie's book was murdered.

And down here in NZ there was a car crash today.
Because of that Muslims in Switzerland should be discriminated against.

Surely you see the connection.

[KingMerv00]

We in the multicultural west are among the only people in the world who think that the concept of protecting one's culture is evil. The

I don't think it is evil per se (though it is used to justify evil at times). I think it is bizzarre. I don't understand why the exchanging of one set of arbitrary customs for another set of arbitrary customs is stressful for people.

Edit: Before someone says anything. I am referring to CUSTOMS not laws or ethics.