The Swiss government just banned the (further) construction of minarets by Constitutional amendment. Here is the article. A minaret is a tower(s) around/near a mosque used often to make the call to prayer.
Interesting occurrence. I wonder if they are trying to justify this as being similar to the rules in Paris concerning tall buildings in the older city area. They don't allow any skyscrapers near the Eiffel Tower in order to preserve the cultural aesthetic of the city. I wonder if this could apply to die Schweiz as well...
I don't really see anything particularly wrong with it, unless of course, the Minarets are two blocks away from towers of the exact same stature... that would be pretty petty.
Regardless of it being easily seen as an excuse, the Swiss have ever right to protect what they have established as their culture and heritage. I don't really see this becoming a situation where all Muslims in Swiss cheese land are banned. Even if it is a relatively flimsy reason, it still has plenty of merit.
Kind of takes care of both the message being conveyed (and ever so subtly), on top of keeping a stable aesthetic, if you may.
I don't really see what the fuss is about, for me it is more an issue of disuading people from building large structures, which are not in keeping with the local envirionment, in the name of religeous expression.
As far as I am aware minarettes are not an essential part of a Mosque so the absence of them shouldn't intefere with those wishing to follow their religeous beliefs, what concerns me is that should a Church wish to errect (snigger) a 50' cross or a synagogue a 50' star of David as standard practice most people would call it ridiculous and not give a second thought to being accused or discrimination.
I wouldn't want a giant, and frankly unnessesary, tower appearing in my neighbourhood regardless of if it was in the name of Allah or Mickey Mouse.
Wrexasaur wrote:
Regardless of it being easily seen as an excuse, the Swiss have ever right to protect what they have established as their culture and heritage. I don't really see this becoming a situation where all Muslims in Swiss cheese land are banned. Even if it is a relatively flimsy reason, it still has plenty of merit.
Yep, gotta ensure that cultural purity.
squilverine wrote:
I wouldn't want a giant, and frankly unnessesary, tower appearing in my neighbourhood regardless of if it was in the name of Allah or Mickey Mouse.
Towers are necessary? Personally, I wouldn't want an easily offended individual living in my neighborhood. It really isn't necessary.
Did the big building make you question you masculinity?
squilverine wrote:I don't really see what the fuss is about, for me it is more an issue of disuading people from building large structures, which are not in keeping with the local envirionment, in the name of religeous expression.
As far as I am aware minarettes are not an essential part of a Mosque so the absence of them shouldn't intefere with those wishing to follow their religeous beliefs, what concerns me is that should a Church wish to errect (snigger) a 50' cross or a synagogue a 50' star of David as standard practice most people would call it ridiculous and not give a second thought to being accused or discrimination.
I wouldn't want a giant, and frankly unnessesary, tower appearing in my neighbourhood regardless of if it was in the name of Allah or Mickey Mouse.
This is about planning laws and not religion
I agree. You make an exception for one group of people then everybody else will claim they have a special case.
Not surprised at all by the Swiss, they're pretty strict about damned well everything over there.
dogma wrote:Yep, gotta ensure that cultural purity.
As mentioned, this is all about aesthetics, and even though you are clearly being a bit sarcastic, people do have the right to decide on these kind of things... no matter how much it might offend some. There is no equal right possible for every religion to have free reign over how they spread their word, or disrupt the local style for that matter.
This is not about the religion, even though it clearly has a strong connection in this case. I would not be surprised if there were in fact other towers in the area, representing other religions in the same fashion. That is where the problem would be, double standards are a big 'moral' no-no when it comes to religion.
Just to be clear, I cannot a real reason for towers to not be allowed at such a small scale. A fifty foot tower is rather small in all accounts. Standing next to a standard apartment building, it would hardly be fair to call it a hazard. I have no doubts that the towers would be permitted under common municipal building codes; this is a whole other can of beans though.
Wrexasaur wrote:
As mentioned, this is all about aesthetics, and even though you are clearly being a bit sarcastic, people do have the right to decide on these kind of things... no matter how much it might offend some. There is no equal right possible for every religion to have free reign over how they spread their word, or disrupt the local style for that matter.
They do indeed. My point would be that most people would tend to consider aesthetics less important than, say, religious faith.
Wrexasaur wrote:
This is not about the religion, even though it clearly has a strong connection in this case. I would not be surprised if there were in fact other towers in the area, representing other religions in the same fashion. That is where the problem would be, double standards are a big 'moral' no-no when it comes to religion.
Personally, I don't care that this is a matter related to Islam. I simply feel as though being offended by the presence of a tower is stupid. Well, not stupid really, but certainly petty. Not that my belief is in anyway related to objective thought.
dogma wrote:Personally, I don't care that this is a matter related to Islam. I simply feel as though being offended by the presence of a tower is stupid. Well, not stupid really, but certainly petty. Not that my belief is in anyway related to objective thought.
It is petty, and a rather flimsy line of reasoning.
So +1 for intolerance? It really feels like Switzerland just gave the Middle Finger of Doom to muslims trying to incorporate traditional architecture into their European home. To be honest though, this is their decision. In true Montesquieu fashion I don't really care what they do...it is their country after all...
olympia wrote:I wonder if predominantly muslim countries will soon find aesthetic grounds to ban Christian churches.
Some of them already do, for instance Saudi Arabia
Part of the basis of the Western World's claim to be a better kind of society than some others is the tolerance we normally extend to cultural practices which are different to our own, except in cases where we believe they are fundamentally wrong (female circumcision for example.)
Equality before the law is another example of our supposed superior society.
The minaret ban if it truly applies only to Islamic minarets would seem to be a violation of both principles.
olympia wrote:I wonder if predominantly muslim countries will soon find aesthetic grounds to ban Christian churches.
As KK said Saudi Arabia bans any kind of no muslim religion on their territory and Swissair (when there was a Swissair) had to get a special permit from the religious authorities because they used the Swiss flag that includes a cross on their planes.
And BTW I agree with the Swiss, it´s their country and the rules and unlike other countries like the UK, Spain, France and the rest of the EU, the politicians actually had to go and ask the entire population on the issue at hand. If the other guys disagree they can follow the process the other way around and vote down the ban.
We aren't really dealing with the real problem at hand. This could slow down the UN's and Amnesty Internationals dream of a one world order. If the Swiss won't play by their rules, who will? Silly sovereign nations, not letting outsiders decide their fate.
Kilkrazy wrote:
Some of them already do, for instance Saudi Arabia
Ouch...so the Swiss can congratulate themselves on being as intolerant as the Saudis now. Anything that involves being on a moral equivalency with the Saudis is a lose-lose.
The swiss are no where near the same league as the saudi's. In switzerland you can practice another religion, share your faith, build another religious landmark (mosques minus the minarets). if you try that in S. Arabia your head will roll..literally. They'll chop it off in a public execution.
So I reckon they're nowhere near comparison, just trying to maintain their architerctural heritage.
olympia wrote:so the Swiss can congratulate themselves on being as intolerant as the Saudis now.
I think its great that the swiss make chocolate, clocks, have democracy, are slow to embrace change (women voting and joining the eu) and are taking a stand.
I have no problem with other people expressing their faith, but in amsterdam a white marble mosque was built from foreign money. It towers over everything around it, 600 year old gabled housing was torn down to build it. It sticks out like a sore thumb and its a form of cultural imperialism.
And every day from their shining white minaret tower a language the locals don't understand is sung as a call to prayer. It just doesn't fit with their culture. I'm glad the swiss are doing something to defend their way of life.
olympia wrote:so the Swiss can congratulate themselves on being as intolerant as the Saudis now.
I think its great that the swiss make chocolate, clocks, have democracy, are slow to embrace change (women voting and joining the eu) and are taking a stand.
I have no problem with other people expressing their faith, but in amsterdam a white marble mosque was built from foreign money. It towers over everything around it, 600 year old gabled housing was torn down to build it. It sticks out like a sore thumb and its a form of cultural imperialism.
And every day from their shining white minaret tower a language the locals don't understand is sung as a call to prayer. It just doesn't fit with their culture. I'm glad the swiss are doing something to defend their way of life.
You know wat I bet the Swiss won't crack down on thier banking issuses as hard as they crack down on an innocent pers's worship. I find it interesting that people only care about "way of life when it's effecting the west. Nobody seems to have any issues westernising the other part of the world.
Ahtman. No country or person has the right to opress another country or man. It's called human rights. That's what makes the west different from, say African/South American war-lords and some eastern countries. I don't think I have to dredge up history to show that Opressing a people never ends well.
And stop blaming the U.N and A.I for everything, they are just easy targets, same as Islam. Over and over in histoy people love to blame one minority or another, from the polish, to the irish and so forth.
olympia wrote:
Ouch...so the Swiss can congratulate themselves on being as intolerant as the Saudis now. Anything that involves being on a moral equivalency with the Saudis is a lose-lose.
With this example, I would hardly put the Saudis on the same moral plane as the Swiss.
Might it not be something to do with protecting the skyline? I just watched a programme that spoke at some length about Architecture in London on the History channel, and it mentioned that St Pauls Cathedral is not only a protected building, the actual view around it is protected.
JEB_Stuart wrote:So +1 for intolerance? It really feels like Switzerland just gave the Middle Finger of Doom to muslims trying to incorporate traditional architecture into their European home. To be honest though, this is their decision. In true Montesquieu fashion I don't really care what they do...it is their country after all...
If the Swiss want to keep their country entirely Swiss in culture thats their right.
Not if by keeping thier culture means kicking out people who are different.
If those people have become card carrying Swiss, the are part of the culture. Freedom of religion is just that. It's not freedom to be like us or else.
1.Majority rules with minorty rights! anything else just makes the majority bullies.
2.Never mind i'm not even going to touch keeping a country "Swiss in culture"
3.People please check up on Human rightsand the actual meaning of freedoms granted by democracy, or even socialism.
Minarettes are not part of traditional or contemporary Swiss architecture, church spires and bell towers are. As I said before, I feel that this is more to do with making sure that buildings are in keeping with there surroundings. If the majority of people in Switzerland don't want to see minarettes then they have, living in a democracy, the right to vote against them being built. This is what they are entitled to do and have done. Nothing wrong there.
In Switzerland people are free to openly worship any religion they please, places of worship are granted or denied planning permission based upon there suitability and context. No one has said or even suggested that the building of Mosques should be dis-aloud or that the practice of the Muslim faith be dis-aloud.
I am fairly sure that if there was a revival in some of the ancient south American religions and people wanted to start building steped pyramids/ziggurats then most countries planning departments would have a thing or two to say.
By issuing a blanket ban on the building of one particular type of structure the Swiss are merely acting in the interest and wishes of the majority of the population. Something I would like to see our own government to try.
Howlingmoon wrote:They do that already. In most Muslim countries it's a death sentence to be convicted of proselytizing Christianity...
But I'm surethe "tolerant muslim majority" will react in a calm fashion and point out "that's not right".
Just kidding. They'll blow stuff up and riot across 20 countries. (Reference: Dutch Cartoons)
Erm, as far as I am aware it is not the majority of Islamic countries which hand out the death penalty for advertising other religions. And again, it was only a relative minority which errupted so memorably over the cartoons.
You have to remember that news companies show what sells. Lots of shots of people going about their lives not caring what some people have drawn will not sell anything like as much as some nicely orchestrated crowds of people burning things.
The Swiss think Islam is a threat. They are right. However being right and being politically correct are two different things.
No of course not all Moslems are 'bad', but enough are. Islam hasn't come to share in our Western society, many have come to take over and evidence that this is true is getting more difficult to ignore. Some prefer to assume they are 'only' a tiny minority of the whole, which has been the UK's spin on this for a long time and is not the case. A minority yes, but a the political populace is always a subset of the whole, and the moderates, given the hard choice will all too often choose Islam over Western society. It is not unlikely that the percentage of Islamics who are fanatics is greater than the percentage needed to politicise the whole when compared to the percentage needed to politicise a social or religious group.
There is a fine dividing line between 'bending over backwards' and being intolerant, but the consequences of each are different. The Swiss want to secure what they have got and have the right to do that and have come to the conclusion that the bending over backwards as practiced in some European countries is the greater of the two evils.
As it was educated articulate home grown doctors who tried to suicide bomb Glasgow airport there is clearly a case to answer for, we cannot stick heads in the sand and blame a handful of ignorant fanatics..It now a matter of how far to press the case, Swiss are effectively saying no more Islamic expansion which is a world of difference to kick 'em out. This is not unreasonable as there are way too many in the Islamic community who have no need or wish to compromise and are very vocal on the point across Europe. The Dutch now have a name for this, they call it 'education by death'. It refers to a process by which the Dutch realised that while Holland traditionally accepts other cultures with open arms and has been very liberal a sizable subset of the Islamic community is abusing this principle while giving nothing less than violent uncompromising stance of assimilation in return. The Dutch are shocked to the core and don't know what to do, do they stop Islam and lose a portion of their open society, or ignore the issue and lose ground to fanatics who in time will want it all. Switzerland has seen this and is sending a message to Islam: 'you go this far and no further'.
The ban on minaret construction is a good idea it sends a message, but also says you can keep what you have got, but you cant take what we have. There is no claim to demolish minarets that already exist, or to prohibit the construction of mosques. Minarets are about proliferation, and a selective ban shows the Swiss are not taking Islamic expansion sitting down but are not prepared to crimp on the core rights of the Islamic community. Of course this is blatant discrimination, good. Sooner or later a line will be crossed, better a harmless message than the pressure cookers in Holland and the UK which are being covered up and raise pressure until they go bang one way or another. I really cant see many European countries being able to do this for reasons of equal rights dogma, behind which is a movement that is satisfied with nothing less than taking our society away.
I am liberal, I am someone who has protested actively against fascism, but I find myself drawn more and more to opposition of a religion and culture that not only seeks to aggressively assimilate my own, but that also demonstrates violent intolerance of the rights of women and gay people and further seeks to actively destroy science and education and learning.
I can only reach the conclusion that Islam represents a form of fascism and a disruption to the balanced democratic and open status quo I currently enjoy (...I know, but it's better than most nations citizens enjoy). I know that repression of religion and intolerance are bad things, but how soon do we all finally agree that you must eventually stop being entirely tolerant to those who have no tolerance and seek to take away your freedom.
We can look at those muslims who practice a more open and community based lifestyle and yet we know that a very large number of them have sympathy with the more extremist, that a policy is practiced along the old saying:
"Me against my brother, my brother and I against my uncle, my family against the outsider".
We infidels are the outsider. I fear greatly for this country and for the West as we patiently turn the other cheek at the Islamic world stamping and screaming and lashing out, like some parent abused by a teenage child. I am ashamed by our inability in this country to take action at the peddlers of hate, masquerading as preachers and mulahs, who march through our streets and scream about burning down the west and the foul lifestyle we lead (whilst they all the time enjoy rolex watches, bmws and all the trappings of Western 'corruption').
Good for the Swiss, I hope the Dutch can do something before it's too late and I know that it's only a matter of time before the British do something. I hope to God it isn't choosing one fascism over another and I hope and pray the popular parties will show some backbone before more are led, via fear, to the BNP.
When your rights infringe upon others people's, which one is superceded? For an extreme example, a serial murderer pleads that it is against his human rights to be held indefinitely against his will. But letting him out will violate the human rights of everyone he meets, as they have the right to live in fear of not being attacked and killed. Which one takes priority? The murderer or the general populace?
Just about every nation would say that the human rights of the general public supercede that of the murderers. So murderers are locked up.
I would apply the same principle here. If the majority of the population do not want minarets around the place, then surely forcing them on the country is a violation of their human rights? They're not suppressing a religion, they're prohibiting the construction of a building which is NOT core to a belief system. This country is a democracy, and the majority has clearly shown that they do not wish to continue to allow the construction of minarets. You can infer from that whatever you will, but that is the central, and only thing happening. The prohibition of a type of building.
The people have spoken, and their will should be enacted. That is the basis of a democracy. Denying planning permission for non-essential buildings may be a slight form of discrimination, but it's not preventing freedom of expression or religous worship. So if the Swiss populace doesn't want minarets, they shouldn't be built.
This isn't a planning issue. Here's a poster from the far right political group that started the movement;
They're straight up racist. Not everyone that supported the notion is racist, most likely the majority have just fallen for that 'clash of cultures' idiocy that's plagued the world in the last ten years - a few people in this thread have already tried defending the Swiss move on those grounds.
Which tends to be the pattern for these kinds of things, a racist core winning over a majority who have this kind of vague notion of being somehow threatened by Islam.
Wrexasaur wrote:I find it a bit funny, if not odd to be honest. In a lot of ways, Swiss architecture can be full of towers, especially in their churches.
It's more ridiculous when you consider the architectural heritage for Christian towers came from Islam.
sebster wrote:This isn't a planning issue. Here's a poster from the far right political group that started the movement;
They're straight up racist. Not everyone that supported the notion is racist, most likely the majority have just fallen for that 'clash of cultures' idiocy that's plagued the world in the last ten years - a few people in this thread have already tried defending the Swiss move on those grounds.
Which tends to be the pattern for these kinds of things, a racist core winning over a majority who have this kind of vague notion of being somehow threatened by Islam.
Wrexasaur wrote:I find it a bit funny, if not odd to be honest. In a lot of ways, Swiss architecture can be full of towers, especially in their churches.
It's more ridiculous when you consider the architectural heritage for Christian towers came from Islam.
Wait its in French. Just by reading that aloud German boy scouts are forced to start marching along the Champs se Elysee you know that right? (goes off to warn himself about attackign nationalities).
Frazzled wrote:Wait its in French. Just by reading that aloud German boy scouts are forced to start marching along the Champs se Elysee you know that right? (goes off to warn himself about attackign nationalities).
Highly doubtful. How will they ever cross the Maginot Line?
This isn't a planning issue. Here's a poster from the far right political group that started the movement;
They're straight up racist. Not everyone that supported the notion is racist, most likely the majority have just fallen for that 'clash of cultures' idiocy that's plagued the world in the last ten years - a few people in this thread have already tried defending the Swiss move on those grounds.
Denying planning permission for non-essential buildings may be a slight form of discrimination, but it's not preventing freedom of expression or religous worship. So if the Swiss populace doesn't want minarets, they shouldn't be built.
I've already acknowledged it as not being merely planning permission. However, that in no way invalidates my statement. If minarets continue to be built against the will of the general populace, then I would say it's hardly a democracy.
And let's face it, racist is more a term used these days as a political tool to attempt to disprove others people's arguments without any kind of coherent logical discussion. It's an attempt to prove a viewpoint or a decision as being ethically and morally wrong by linking it to something perceived as being socially undesirable. Kind of like:-
Person A: 'I like napping!'
Person B: 'Hitler liked napping too!'
'Unspoken implicit meaning: 'Hitler was a bad person, and he enjoyed napping. Therefore anyone else who likes napping is clearly like Hitler and shares all the other associated stigma as well'
In order to avoid that whole WW2-12 thingy the country formerly known as West Germany has strategically stashed units of the German equivalent of the Boy Scouts in Paris, titled unternmenschenmeinekediscountmufflersfrankenfurterwienerdoghunden (UMSMDMFFWDH for short). Whenever the urge to take over France arises they are summoned out to parade down the way. This subconsciously calms the German psyche that all is as it should be. After their task is completed the scouts return to their hostel hideaways. Since inception in 1952 (dubbed Operation Munchkin), Germany has not had to resort to invading France again.
These are neither happy nor surprising news. Really all this "muslim issue" is doing the worst for the democracy in whole Europe. More and more people vote extreme right parties and this is just another sign of the days that (might) come.
Also, comparing laws of democratic countries such as Switzerland and feudal/totalitarian states as Saudi Arabya is not really objective. It would be more fair to compare with states such as Turkey, which are based (at least partly) on a democratic system yet they have a islamic majority. And as far as I know it is legal to build churches (or church towers, to equal minarets) in Turkey.
Kilkrazy wrote:
olympia wrote:I wonder if predominantly muslim countries will soon find aesthetic grounds to ban Christian churches.
Some of them already do, for instance Saudi Arabia
Part of the basis of the Western World's claim to be a better kind of society than some others is the tolerance we normally extend to cultural practices which are different to our own, except in cases where we believe they are fundamentally wrong (female circumcision for example.)
Equality before the law is another example of our supposed superior society.
The minaret ban if it truly applies only to Islamic minarets would seem to be a violation of both principles.
Ketara wrote:
Person A: 'I like napping!'
Person B: 'Hitler liked napping too!'
'Unspoken implicit meaning: 'Hitler was a bad person, and he enjoyed napping. Therefore anyone else who likes napping is clearly like Hitler and shares all the other associated stigma as well'
See we all know this is false. Churchill liked napping. Hitler didn't. thats why he was so angry. If he'd just had some nice Scotch, a quality Cuban cigar, and a nice nap Germany would have remained content being the world's uber power in Aryan supercars and lederhosen and not gotten all uppity.
Ketara wrote:I've already acknowledged it as not being merely planning permission. However, that in no way invalidates my statement. If minarets continue to be built against the will of the general populace, then I would say it's hardly a democracy.
You might have assumed my post was in response to yours because it followed it, but it wasn't. To be honest, I hadn't actually read your post when I typed out mine.
You are right that Switzerland, as a democracy (and note that Swiss government has a lot of direct democracy like California), has a right to change its constitution to include banning minarets. They've passed this law and now it will come into effect, as it should be. But you are wrong in assuming that because a majority of Swiss voters chose to ban minarets, that it was the result of some rights of the general population being infringed. People can perceive a threat to their rights where none exists. So yeah, this was democratic but that doesn't make it right - an immoral thing remains immoral even when lots of people support it.
And let's face it, racist is more a term used these days as a political tool to attempt to disprove others people's arguments without any kind of coherent logical discussion. It's an attempt to prove a viewpoint or a decision as being ethically and morally wrong by linking it to something perceived as being socially undesirable.
Did you see the poster? Are you saying the poster showing white sheep kicking black sheep out of Switzerland isn't racist? Or did you not read the part of my post where I seperated the racist party that launched this initiative from the non-racist majority that voted for it?
Also, comparing laws of democratic countries such as Switzerland and feudal/totalitarian states as Saudi Arabya is not really objective. It would be more fair to compare with states such as Turkey, which are based (at least partly) on a democratic system yet they have a islamic majority. And as far as I know it is legal to build churches (or church towers, to equal minarets) in Turkey.
This is just rthe tip of the iceberg from a search that took no longer than it did to write this thread. I know from church contacts that Turkey can be really dicey for Christians. Right to vote - yes, tolerant of other faiths - not really.
Turkey is a good example of what modern Europe can be like, most non-Moslems can walk down the street most days without fear of harassment, but we still get to vote though so its all 'happy'. Of course to a lot of Moslems inside and outside Turkey that's way too lenient.
Clearly not pineapple or chocolate cakes though. Anyone who eats chocolate or pineapple cakes are way too busy enjoying said cake to be contemplating world domination.
Clearly not pineapple or chocolate cakes though. Anyone who eats chocolate or pineapple cakes are way too busy enjoying said cake to be contemplating world domination.
Why be a mod if you are going to troll serious discussion threads?
If we look down on the Saudis, Turks and so on for what we see as oppressive, hypocritical behaviour towards minorities, why would we think it is a good idea to copy them?
Do people really think Islam has a secret agenda to settle lots of people in western countries, build minarets and use them to launch an Islamic revolution?
Clearly not pineapple or chocolate cakes though. Anyone who eats chocolate or pineapple cakes are way too busy enjoying said cake to be contemplating world domination.
Why be a mod if you are going to troll serious discussion threads?
To try to liven it up and distract so I don't have to close it?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Sigh
Modquisition on:
As was pointed out to me I'd better look at this thread.
Gentlemen. We can discuss minnarets, culture, impact of a religion, and Swiss miss here, but the discussion needs to be religion neutral. No disaparaging of Islam itself please.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Sigh
Modquisition on:
As was pointed out to me I'd better look at this thread.
Gentlemen. We can discuss minnarets, culture, impact of a religion, and Swiss miss here, but the discussion needs to be religion neutral. No disparaging of Islam itself please.
Also, comparing laws of democratic countries such as Switzerland and feudal/totalitarian states as Saudi Arabya is not really objective. It would be more fair to compare with states such as Turkey, which are based (at least partly) on a democratic system yet they have a islamic majority. And as far as I know it is legal to build churches (or church towers, to equal minarets) in Turkey.
This is just rthe tip of the iceberg from a search that took no longer than it did to write this thread. I know from church contacts that Turkey can be really dicey for Christians. Right to vote - yes, tolerant of other faiths - not really.
Turkey is a good example of what modern Europe can be like, most non-Moslems can walk down the street most days without fear of harassment, but we still get to vote though so its all 'happy'. Of course to a lot of Moslems inside and outside Turkey that's way too lenient.
Why is a Swiss Muslim responsible for the oppressive government of Turkey? Especially when the majority of Swiss muslims are Yugoslav refugees who fled the cleansing of the 90s?
If the Turkish government is a problem, and it is, shouldn't the response be to apply pressure to have them improve their human rights and equality? How does banning the planned minaret of a local prayer group do anything about equal rights in another country?
Kilkrazy wrote:If we look down on the Saudis, Turks and so on for what we see as oppressive, hypocritical behaviour towards minorities, why would we think it is a good idea to copy them?
We are copying them when wee have religious police or the state looks away while moslem businesses are firebombed. Noone here is advocating that, or at least I assume they dont.
Saying enough is enough, dont hide between equal rights while trying to limit our own is more than fair.
Kilkrazy wrote:
Do people really think Islam has a secret agenda to settle lots of people in western countries, build minarets and use them to launch an Islamic revolution?
Some actually do. There was a recent press conference in England where Moslem extremists called for moslem women to have more babies and take over the country. This was already a polan, but the stupid thing was admitting it at a press conference.
However speaking from the UK perspective there has long been a plan to flood the nation with immigrants, not by the immigrants but by the New Labour government. This has nothing really to do with Islam, and its not the fault of the immigrant population. They have been offered a slice, its not any blame if they take a bite from it. At the dawn of New Labour the doors were flung open to encourage immigration from the Indian subcontinent in order to produce demographic change. This was supported by priority allocation of housing. Later after it was understood that a large number of the immigrants had religious extremist agendas the immigration was focused. Hinds are a bad choice because they don't vote Labour as a rule, Pakistanis tend to vote Labour but also vote Allah. Bangladeshi's however vote Labour and are not as extreme as Pakistanis. Yes these are generalisations, but on the macro scale this is how thinking occurs and is basically true. Its like saying Scots dont vote Tory, its basically true but doenst account for every Scot.
This is why after 9/11 a lot of the targetted housing quotas were for Bangladeshis, I remember a government dictat that councilors in my home priovince complained about when they were told to house 50000 Bangladeshis as priority. Not 50000 homeless, or 50000 priority need, or even 50000 immigrants but 50000 Bangladeshis. The government knows what it wanted and where.
It doesn't always work but gradually a lot of constituency demograhics have changed, marginal seats become safe Labour by changing the percentage block of the voters there by reprioritising housing and targeted immigration..
The very flat I am living in is on a housing development which was going to be Asian only. Fortunately there was a leak of the info to the pres and the council had to sell the development to an independent group that allowed allocation without discrimination. I raise my glass to the unknown man who helped put equality back on the housing list, it took me twelve years to get housed, asylum seekers didn't have to wait anything like as long, normally about 12-18 months to be housed. You see discrimination is alive and well in the UK even with politically correct dictat firmly in place.
Now since 7/7 the government has looked elsewhere. the Eastern European influx is not the governments doing, that is due to the widening of the EU's borders. but its well kniown that the UK is a soft touch in eastern europe so people arrive take the jobs and houses stay a while and then leave. Most eastern Europeans don't really want to stay, they can see the UK going down hill.
No the current recruiting ground is Africa, particularly Nigeria. While the 'doors' have been open the demographics of who gets in is very clearly skewed, its well known in some circles that the Uk government recruits its immigration. Currently they want Africans because there are less religious problems and that can be relied to vote for the right people by and large.
No I am not saying they are told who to vote for, its goes by mass demographics, particularly allowing for where the new immigrants are being housed. A lot of the Africans are being settled in Scotland. Black face, hardly going to vote SNP now aren't they.
You see the main cause is not the Islamics at all. Islam was long overlooked in the Uk because the government was benefiting from selective migration and didnt want to see the influx in any othwer way. If tou allow mass immigration and give priority for employment opportunity and housing. So when the population imported proved out of control it was in the governments interests to cover up the situation. This has been brewing a long time and civil servants who have long had to keep this under wraps are starting to speak out.
So I reckon they're nowhere near comparison, just trying to maintain their architerctural heritage.
You don't need to ban certain structures to do that, just don't give the permit if a mosque+minaret would replace an Old Swiss landmark building. It's not to be expected that mosques will come to outnumber other buildings, so from that point of view, I think it's bullcrap. Heritage preservation is all good, but it does not mean that new and exotic stuff can't be build also.
s.j.mccartney wrote:No you killcrazy, olympia
olympia wrote:so the Swiss can congratulate themselves on being as intolerant as the Saudis now.
I think its great that the swiss make chocolate, clocks, have democracy, are slow to embrace change (women voting and joining the eu) and are taking a stand.
I have no problem with other people expressing their faith, but in amsterdam a white marble mosque was built from foreign money. It towers over everything around it, 600 year old gabled housing was torn down to build it. It sticks out like a sore thumb and its a form of cultural imperialism.
And every day from their shining white minaret tower a language the locals don't understand is sung as a call to prayer. It just doesn't fit with their culture. I'm glad the swiss are doing something to defend their way of life.
That's how you perceive the building. I think that claims of "defending our way of life" is paranoid, dangerous and nonsense. As long as our culture can stick around, it can stay, and it will as plenty of people will keep it going, including the Muslims that came here. Tales that muslims are taking over Europe are garbage, because Europe is in fact, taking over the muslims who come to live here. You can see plenty of proof of that on the streets of Amsterdam. The western-styled muslims quite outnumber those who keep their traditional garb for example.
If you only knew how much we, the Dutch build and built in other countries (and financed it too), and how many other countries build stuff here in the Netherlands... The motives for the foreign financer of this mosque are probably nothing but religious. It is customary for extremely wealthy muslims to finance the building of a Mosque, they will be good muslims for that, like a wealthy Christian could do the same and finance the building of a Church to get some religious feeling of satisfaction about himself.
In addition, can you please give me a source where I can read about this mosque, I'm curious what Old Dutch buildings got removed... If they had been anything important or well-kept, they'd been on the heritage list and been untouchable. I have a vague idea about which mosque you mean, and if I am right about the location, no 600 years old buildings could possibly have been demolished, there weren't any to start with (maybe 100 years old max, and not at all so special).
And finally, it is not at all a new thing to have buildstyles of cultures mix and match. Take a look at a Spanish City, it has both Western and Eastern architecture, there was a time when exotic-style buildings were extremely fashionable and the USA probably sports all kinds of European style of architecture in addition to it's own and possibly even a bit of African styles too.
Switzerland is racist as hell, somehow they cultivated this multicultural image, but unlike germany they kept the hate after world war two. Ask any arab or african applying for a job and you'll get a pretty sad story. They seem to like asians though, which perplexes me.
It's sad, they have like four minarets in the entire country.
I think this just illustrates why direct democracies are a bit weaker than republics. In this case, it was a motion brought forward by the far right party, who mainly stay in the headlines by bringing up stuff like this. There is only minority support for their policies, but decisions are made by those who show up. I believe opinion polls beforehand pointed to the majority opposing a ban, but obviously on polling day most of those people couldn't be arsed showing up and the extremer elements did, and hey presto, wierd law that is not representative gives Switzerland an intolerant image.
sebster wrote:You are right that Switzerland, as a democracy (and note that Swiss government has a lot of direct democracy like California), has a right to change its constitution to include banning minarets. They've passed this law and now it will come into effect, as it should be. But you are wrong in assuming that because a majority of Swiss voters chose to ban minarets, that it was the result of some rights of the general population being infringed. People can perceive a threat to their rights where none exists. So yeah, this was democratic but that doesn't make it right - an immoral thing remains immoral even when lots of people support it.
The funny thing is that the Muslim hating Europeans are largely concerned that the Muslims will become too politically powerful, and use this to democratically infringe upon their rights.
So their plan is to use the fact that they're still more powerful for now to democratically infringe upon their rights first. I can't see how this could possibly backfire.
Also, for those saying it's purely an aesthetic/city planning issue, do you really think they would need to amend their nation's constitution to have a city prohibit the construction of tall, intrusive structures? I don't. It's about religion, not tall buildings.
Huzza for intoleranse! But back on topic. I don`t know what to make of this, sadfacr or careface. Anyways who gives a buring squig about a ban against ugly buldings, and to make it fair, ban churches an all other religious buildings.
Anshal wrote:Huzza for intoleranse! But back on topic. I don`t know what to make of this, sadfacr or careface. Anyways who gives a buring squig about a ban against ugly buldings, and to make it fair, ban churches an all other religious buildings.
You can't really denote "ugly" and "religious" as the same thing. Every building put up in the 70's and 80's would have to be torn down. Come to think of it, so would all those 600 year old houses that are ugly as sin too.
You can't really denote "ugly" and "religious" as the same thing. Every building put up in the 70's and 80's would have to be torn down.
Much as I disagree with Shuma on, well everything, this statement speaks to the right of it. on the positive if we did that it would get rid of the housing bubble no?
"It's a sad day for freedom of religion," said Mohammed Shafiq, the chief executive of the Ramadhan Foundation, a British youth organization. "A constitutional amendment that's targeted towards one religious community is discriminatory and abhorrent."
I can't understand why people are getting so offended by this ? So they cant build a muslim temple tower in a non-muslim country , I couldn't go to the middle east and build a church . It seems fair to me .
IamAz wrote:I can't understand why people are getting so offended by this ? So they cant build a muslim temple tower in a non-muslim country , I couldn't go to the middle east and build a church . It seems fair to me .
Depends on the country in the middle east. You could in a significant number of them. The only one I can remember straight up disallowance is saudi arabia. Though I suppose I should probably note that you're basically saying it's ok to be intolerant because several active warzones and a religious caliphate are. I guess you're ok with death camps too, they do those in North Korea. And mass censorship, they love that in china.
He has a point though. Churches are effectively outlawed in most of the Middle East. It may not be on the books but they are outlawed nonetheless. Thats their purview, just like its the purview of Switzerland to make its own laws, and the US to be more open.
Makes us evil Americans look just a little better...
I'm not saying that but I see where they are coming from . In the uk , we have these ugly looking temples popping up everywhere . England is a christian country , There are more temples than churches , I'm sure thats not right somehow . Everyone in this country is afraid to upset the muslims , There's a guy at work who gets about 8 or 9 weeks off a year for a religious holiday , yet i have to work easter , christmas just like everyone else . So you can see why im a bit unbothered by this .
The point is that you CAN build churches in at least some Middle Eastern countries. And that it's not a good argument to say "well, such and such oppressive country has bad laws which forbid it, so it's fair for us to make such a law to forbid them to build their relgiious houses in our country". The point is that our way of life is supposed to ALLOW for religious freedom. If our way of life is really better, we can't exactly demonstrate that by following their example.
Hey Fraz, doesn't "outlawed" tend to mean there has to be a law involved?
Az, does that guy at your work really get more vacation/holiday time than you? Or is he taking some time off unpaid, or what? Maybe he just saves up his vacation time and uses it all at once for Ramadan. I know here in the States we can normally choose to take our vacation time off in small chunks or in one big long vacation.
IamAz wrote:I'm not saying that but I see where they are coming from . In the uk , we have these ugly looking temples popping up everywhere . England is a christian country , There are more temples than churches , I'm sure thats not right somehow . Everyone in this country is afraid to upset the muslims , There's a guy at work who gets about 8 or 9 weeks off a year for a religious holiday , yet i have to work easter , christmas just like everyone else . So you can see why im a bit unbothered by this .
You're still holding up the middle east as some sort of model to which you can compare too. Do you want to be a religious state? Do you enjoy working or going out on sundays? What's your stance on gay rights, abortion, pre marital sex, censorship, and arranged marriages? Sweden is suppose to have protections for freedom of religion, this is clearly a reactionary and racist policy that does little more than lash out at the muslim minority in the country because of ethnic tensions due to immigration (and regular old swiss racism). The U.K. is not a christian country, it's a secular country. Same with sweden. Also the jews have temples, the Muslims have mosques.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. When you claim to be a religious country then be one. Otherwise you're not, and you're just being unreasonably intolerant (oh noes, they might put up a fifth minaret in the country).
It doesnt work like that though , With religious freedom for other faiths , im losing my freedoms . If i was to go into work tomorrow and say "Hold on a second , The muslim kid is getting time off for a religious holiday so i want christmas off , He would probally laugh at me" but if i was a diffrent faith , they would have to let me otherwise they would be called racist or facist .
Mannahnin wrote:The point is that you CAN build churches in at least some Middle Eastern countries. And that it's not a good argument to say "well, such and such oppressive country has bad laws which forbid it, so it's fair for us to make such a law to forbid them to build their relgiious houses in our country". The point is that our way of life is supposed to ALLOW for religious freedom. If our way of life is really better, we can't exactly demonstrate that by following their example.
Does that guy at your work really get more vacation/holiday time than you? Or is he taking some time off unpaid, or what?
Having said that, I am not sure the Swiss believe thusly. They may not be about the religious freedom thing, to the extent of the US or UK. I don't know.
It doesnt work like that though , With religious freedom for other faiths , im losing my freedoms
Exactly how does that dude getting Ramadan off and a few minarets damage your freedom?
If i was to go into work tomorrow and say "Hold on a second , The muslim kid is getting time off for a religious holiday so i want christmas off , He would probally laugh at me" but if i was a diffrent faith , they would have to let me otherwise they would be called racist or facist .
You probably signed a clause in your employment contract that states that you work holidays when asked. It's why you have to check the little box that asks if you have reasons you could not work those dates. If you had filled in those boxes with some sort of religious reasoning they would not be able to use that to fire you, thats an important aspect of a religiously free state. It's not his fault you didn't read your own paperwork.
Please don't troll the thread with obvious nonsense.
There isn't a person in the country of any religion (or none) who works on Christmas Day except in vital industries like power, police and pubs, or if they volunteer.
No-one in the very large international megacorp where I work gets muslim or jewish holidays. They get the normal bank holidays and have to take their own holidays for Eid and so on.
All im saying is that I'm not a racist , I'm not a Facist . But in my country which is the UK , I am treated like a second class citizen because all of these immigrants and people of non-mainstream british faiths are given more rights due to the media turning people against anyone who says otherwise . If im unemployed or homeless , I would get nothing . If your foreign you get given a nice cushy house for you and the 30+ family members with benifits from taxpayers money . I'm not trying to be rude to other faiths or suggest that we should ban temples and mosques but there should be equal rights and the freedom of speech should actually mean what its supposed to mean !
I can't understand why people are getting so offended by this ? So they cant build a muslim temple tower in a non-muslim country , I couldn't go to the middle east and build a church . It seems fair to me .
Because in a secular country that wants to uphold the democratic freedoms and rights, you cannot take some of those rights and freedoms away from one particular group on a religious basis, and especially not on the argument that "they wouldn't let us do it in their country, so "pfft" to them". If your society and government wants to uphold democratic rights and freedoms, then those have to be applied to everyone, not "everyone, but the people we don't like". That's plain ol' intolerance, anyway you spin it.
Well maybe you are all right but this is just they way i see it . Im telling you all one thing , There is no way i could build a church in most middle east countrys .
IamAz wrote:Well maybe you are all right but this is just they way i see it . Im telling you all one thing , There is no way i could build a church in most middle east countrys .
IamAz wrote:Well maybe you are all right but this is just they way i see it . Im telling you all one thing , There is no way i could build a church in most middle east countrys .
Yeah, you would need to get signatures, and materials, and then you would actually have to build it.
IamAz wrote:Well maybe you are all right but this is just they way i see it . Im telling you all one thing , There is no way i could build a church in most middle east countrys .
Yeah, you would need to get signatures, and materials, and then you would actually have to build it.
You wouldn't be able to build it or if you did you would be arrested the church burned down.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote:Yeah, but we think that is wrong right?
There's what i think they should do and what they have the right to do.
1. What I think-agree with you.
2. But I don't think one nation has the general right to tell another nation what to do unless it impacts their self interest.
The bottom line is that the Swiss people have voted on the matter and by a majority decided they don't want minarettes. They are not trying to ban Muslims, Mosques or Islam. Minarettes are not essential to the Muslim faith.
To those accusing Switzerland of being a racist country, well done for making a sweeping generalisation which ironicaly enough is racist in itself.
I am sure there are far right movements in Switzerland which jumped on this as a chance to further their own agendas. A bit like the BNP in Britain supporting a Labour or Conservative proposal. Just because there are ignorant people throwing their weight behind an idea doesn't automaticaly make it a bad idea.
Okay, agreed. But we can express disapproval. I'm hardly advocating regieme change in switzerland here mate
Automatically Appended Next Post:
squilverine wrote:The bottom line is that the Swiss people have voted on the matter and by a majority decided they don't want minarettes. They are not trying to ban Muslims, Mosques or Islam. Minarettes are not essential to the Muslim faith.
To those accusing Switzerland of being a racist country, well done for making a sweeping generalisation which ironicaly enough is racist in itself.
I am sure there are far right movements in Switzerland which jumped on this as a chance to further their own agendas. A bit like the BNP in Britain supporting a Labour or Conservative proposal. Just because there are ignorant people throwing their weight behind an idea doesn't automaticaly make it a bad idea.
It was put forward by a far right group who have a history of using issues like this to get themselves extra press.
IamAz wrote:Well maybe you are all right but this is just they way i see it . Im telling you all one thing , There is no way i could build a church in most middle east countrys .
Yeah, you would need to get signatures, and materials, and then you would actually have to build it.
You wouldn't be able to build it or if you did you would be arrested the church burned down.
Please cite your source, and which countries you're talking about. So far (IIRC) we've got two countries specifically mentioned. Saudi Arabia definitely forbids it. Turkey allows it. IamAz is claiming "most", and you seem to be supporting that claim. Can you cite applicable laws to support it? I would tend to bet, and lay down $5 or a beer, that most Middle Eastern countries do in fact allow Christian churches to be built.
IamAz wrote:Well maybe you are all right but this is just they way i see it . Im telling you all one thing , There is no way i could build a church in most middle east countrys .
Yeah, you would need to get signatures, and materials, and then you would actually have to build it.
I love it when people's avatars fit so perfectly to what they're writing.
I'm trying to write something on topic, but I'm not sure how I can contribute at this point.
IamAz wrote:It doesnt work like that though , With religious freedom for other faiths , im losing my freedoms . If i was to go into work tomorrow and say "Hold on a second , The muslim kid is getting time off for a religious holiday so i want christmas off , He would probally laugh at me" but if i was a diffrent faith , they would have to let me otherwise they would be called racist or facist .
What freedom do you lose in that example?
You already lack the ability to take Christmas off, so the presence of a Muslim who is given time off for his religious holiday has no effect on you. About the only thing your pointing out is that you would be jealous of said Muslim, which seems like a better argument for conversion than the banning of minaret construction.
Morocco, Egypt, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Kuwait. Thats just the ones off the top of my head. There may be some legacy show churches but the Christians there are actively persecuted. Not just can't build a steeple but that whole cut off your head sort of thing.
Who cares? It was in German. Now you want to make a point it has to be in Italian, on top of a red Ducatti, with your Italian girlfriend sitting behind you.
I know that completely means nothing to anyone but me, but thats ok...
Some parts of Europe are terified they may lose there way of life because there genorosity has now back fired. The Radical Muslims are gaining ground and out breeding those who are acually citizens. What do you expect them to do? It is there home land not the refugees. I suppose they should welcome them with open arms and that will make them better than them. I suppose that moral high chair will be great once you start eating 16 penny nails at the local market.
dogma wrote:So we show that we're morally superior to the 'enemy' by emulating him?
I'm pretty sure Nietzsche had something to say about that.
Nope as noted in #1 of my two responses. But most of the world is closer to that than the whole freedom of speech, press, assembly, eat ding dongs thing. The concept of Western Freedoms is baseline Western concept vs. large parts of the world (and Switzerland mayhaps)
Frazzled wrote:Morocco, Egypt, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Kuwait. Thats just the ones off the top of my head. There may be some legacy show churches but the Christians there are actively persecuted. Not just can't build a steeple but that whole cut off your head sort of thing.
Weren't like half of those in africa? If we're jumping landmass categories then indonesia is ok with it and is the largest muslim population in the world.
I am continually amazed at how fast the Western World has developed this idea that they must be morally superior to everyone else at all times, and yet they emulate democratic forms of government. The two are not always intertwined, especially as morals seem to be changing at all times. Why do you people care? It is THEIR country, I don't really hear the Swiss telling others what to do.
Honestly, I have seen some pretty awful things done in Europe and America by people abusing their freedom. Americans have a harder time understanding how real a problem muslim immigration is for European countries. All of my friends from Europe are fairly tolerant people, but they are all afraid of muslim immigrants trying to change their country to conform more to Sharia law. Is it not the West's responsibility, especially in the face of our own fierce protection of things like women's right, freedom of speech, etc., to temper the ability of people who obviously have no regard for Western values?
Indonesia is far from ok with it. Have any of you actually been to these countrys you are siting from google? I will tell you first hand the glowing reviews CNN gives are far from the truth. This is only my personal experience but you will not find a warm welcome being an open Christian in any Muslim dominated country. For the most part they STFU, keep there heads down and hope like hell they are not scape goated for some reason or another. Also any Christian in Kuwait is not Kuwaiti they are foriegners and have zero rights. Several were killed while I was there in early 2008. Right outside of a US military facility. Several terrorist communitys are paid off by the Kuwaiti Govt to not screw with US forces and allowed to opperate fully under the protection of the Kuwaiti Govt.
Frazzled wrote:Morocco, Egypt, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Kuwait. Thats just the ones off the top of my head. There may be some legacy show churches but the Christians there are actively persecuted. Not just can't build a steeple but that whole cut off your head sort of thing.
Weren't like half of those in africa? If we're jumping landmass categories then indonesia is ok with it and is the largest muslim population in the world.
I didn't speak of the Arabian Peninsula as I don't have contacts there.
Frazzled wrote:
Nope as noted in #1 of my two responses. But most of the world is closer to that than the whole freedom of speech, press, assembly, eat ding dongs thing. The concept of Western Freedoms is baseline Western concept vs. large parts of the world (and Switzerland mayhaps)
Well sure, and I'd be the first person to argue that moral authority isn't really something that anyone can claim at all. What we're really talking about here are the things each of us values in the world, and how we want it to look. That's pretty much the only thing that morality is really about, but it often helps to have the notion laid out in terms that are less heavily loaded.
Honestly, I prefer arguing this thing from practicality. While this move will certainly help to preserve the Swiss cultural heritage it can only do so by effectively drawing a line in the sand that can all to quickly turn into a trench dotted with machine gun emplacements (in a figurative sense). Now, I suppose there might be people in Switzerland that are willing to fight for their cultural purity, and they have the right to do so. However, we also have the right to accost them for their romantic stupidity, just as we do so when discussing the same in sort of behavior in Islamic nations.
If the middle east are so "Accepting" of christians , how come all of our priests that have gone there to help during the iraq war have been attacked , captured and in quite a few cases murdered for nothing more than trying to help people ? By the way , I find it quite hard to belive that iran have any churches ? They hate the west and christianity . They've just arrested a group of british sailors again !
Honestly, I prefer arguing this thing from practicality. While this move will certainly help to preserve the Swiss cultural heritage it can only do so by effectively drawing a line in the sand that can all to quickly turn into a trench dotted with machine gun emplacements (in a figurative sense). Now, I suppose there might be people in Switzerland that are willing to fight for their cultural purity, and they have the right to do so. However, we also have the right to accost them for their romantic stupidity, just as we do so when discussing the same in sort of behavior in Islamic nations.
Yea but do we? Do we really criticize Islamic nations? Look at the flack other posters are getting on this thread for doing that? I can't say where we have missionaries at for of reprisal against them-real gonna kill you level reprisal, but we can discuss this minnaret nonsense, tut tut tut and look down on the Swiss. There is so much hypocrisy here it almost equals my own.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JD21290 wrote:Can we just ban all religions now? it would save so much gak and arguments it has to be worth it
If you banned religion you'd have to get rid of that avatar. Frankly Dakka will not permit such crimes against Humanity to occur.
I'm guessing things in america are not as bad as they are here , I honestly belive that most people feel the same way as me , People here dont want foreign beliefs forced upon us , We are being overrun with muslims and eastern europeans and they just wont adjust to our way of life , They honestly belive we should act and behave like them , How can any of you tell me that this is right ?
IamAz wrote:If the middle east are so "Accepting" of christians , how come all of our priests that have gone there to help during the iraq war have been attacked , captured and in quite a few cases murdered for nothing more than trying to help people ? By the way , I find it quite hard to belive that iran have any churches ? They hate the west and christianity . They've just arrested a group of british sailors again !
Most Muslim countries do have Christians. They are factions though and more like tribes. Justy like Muslims. We as a Western Society have been screwed by them just as many times as Muslims have boned us. The reason Christians are left alone for the most part is they are just as damn crazy as the Muslims over there. They are not your grandma going to sunday mass. They are just as willing to strap a bomb on there chest and blow themselves up as any Jahadist. Irans leader of the Revolutionary guard was killed recently in one such attack. The Christians in those countries tolerate a few persecutions, as I said they generally keep to themselves but will fight like hell once they have been provoked. They do not have a very nice existance but they do have churches all over Arabia and Africa.
To the above poster, we have the same issue with Latin America over running the southern borders. Problem is, America is so damn big it does not effect anyone else for the most part. By the time it does it will be to late. I guess that is another topic entirly though.
IamAz wrote:All im saying is that I'm not a racist , I'm not a Facist . But in my country which is the UK , I am treated like a second class citizen because all of these immigrants and people of non-mainstream british faiths are given more rights due to the media turning people against anyone who says otherwise . If im unemployed or homeless , I would get nothing . If your foreign you get given a nice cushy house for you and the 30+ family members with benifits from taxpayers money . I'm not trying to be rude to other faiths or suggest that we should ban temples and mosques but there should be equal rights and the freedom of speech should actually mean what its supposed to mean !
Wait, do you only want the law to stop making a distinction between Muslims and Christians, or do you want the law to come down and force other people to treat you equal to Muslims?
Because they're pretty different wishes. Freedom of Speech is the freedom to call people racist because they don't like burkas, regardless of whether it's sensible to do so.
JEB_Stuart wrote:I am continually amazed at how fast the Western World has developed this idea that they must be morally superior to everyone else at all times, and yet they emulate democratic forms of government. The two are not always intertwined, especially as morals seem to be changing at all times. Why do you people care? It is THEIR country, I don't really hear the Swiss telling others what to do.
Honestly, I have seen some pretty awful things done in Europe and America by people abusing their freedom. Americans have a harder time understanding how real a problem muslim immigration is for European countries. All of my friends from Europe are fairly tolerant people, but they are all afraid of muslim immigrants trying to change their country to conform more to Sharia law. Is it not the West's responsibility, especially in the face of our own fierce protection of things like women's right, freedom of speech, etc., to temper the ability of people who obviously have no regard for Western values?
Like I said, they're afraid that democracy will trample their rights so they use democracy to trample the rights of others. It's going to be the noose they're hanged with. They need to establish protections against this kind of thing, not precedence.
mstersmith wrote:The Christians in those countries tolerate a few persecutions, as I said they generally keep to themselves but will fight like hell once they have been provoked. They do not have a very nice existance but they do have churches all over Arabia and Africa.
Honestly, I prefer arguing this thing from practicality. While this move will certainly help to preserve the Swiss cultural heritage it can only do so by effectively drawing a line in the sand that can all to quickly turn into a trench dotted with machine gun emplacements (in a figurative sense). Now, I suppose there might be people in Switzerland that are willing to fight for their cultural purity, and they have the right to do so. However, we also have the right to accost them for their romantic stupidity, just as we do so when discussing the same in sort of behavior in Islamic nations.
Yea but do we? Do we really criticize Islamic nations? Look at the flack other posters are getting on this thread for doing that? I can't say where we have missionaries at for of reprisal against them-real gonna kill you level reprisal, but we can discuss this minnaret nonsense, tut tut tut and look down on the Swiss. There is so much hypocrisy here it almost equals my own.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JD21290 wrote:Can we just ban all religions now? it would save so much gak and arguments it has to be worth it
If you banned religion you'd have to get rid of that avatar. Frankly Dakka will not permit such crimes against Humanity to occur.
I think common consensus is that most mid eastern countries are gak holes that no one here wants to live in, and we expected better from the swiss. You're confusing disapproval of the swiss for approval of those they seem to be emulating.
JD21290 wrote:Can we just ban all religions now? it would save so much gak and arguments it has to be worth it
It would solve a lot of problems. imho of course.
JEB_Stuart wrote:All of my friends from Europe are fairly tolerant people, but they are all afraid of muslim immigrants trying to change their country to conform more to Sharia law.
I think that's kinda what I was trying to say in my last post post, before I threw the thought away. I want to betolerant and all, but you hear so much "bad" stuff about muslims libing in western countries these days, with forced mariages, honor murders and the like, it's hard not to be afraid.
Honestly, I prefer arguing this thing from practicality. While this move will certainly help to preserve the Swiss cultural heritage it can only do so by effectively drawing a line in the sand that can all to quickly turn into a trench dotted with machine gun emplacements (in a figurative sense). Now, I suppose there might be people in Switzerland that are willing to fight for their cultural purity, and they have the right to do so. However, we also have the right to accost them for their romantic stupidity, just as we do so when discussing the same in sort of behavior in Islamic nations.
Yea but do we? Do we really criticize Islamic nations? Look at the flack other posters are getting on this thread for doing that? I can't say where we have missionaries at for of reprisal against them-real gonna kill you level reprisal, but we can discuss this minnaret nonsense, tut tut tut and look down on the Swiss. There is so much hypocrisy here it almost equals my own.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JD21290 wrote:Can we just ban all religions now? it would save so much gak and arguments it has to be worth it
If you banned religion you'd have to get rid of that avatar. Frankly Dakka will not permit such crimes against Humanity to occur.
I think common consensus is that most mid eastern countries are gak holes that no one here wants to live in, and we expected better from the swiss. You're confusing disapproval of the swiss for approval of those they seem to be emulating.
Not seeing a lot of dissapproval of the Mideast myself.
Honestly, I prefer arguing this thing from practicality. While this move will certainly help to preserve the Swiss cultural heritage it can only do so by effectively drawing a line in the sand that can all to quickly turn into a trench dotted with machine gun emplacements (in a figurative sense). Now, I suppose there might be people in Switzerland that are willing to fight for their cultural purity, and they have the right to do so. However, we also have the right to accost them for their romantic stupidity, just as we do so when discussing the same in sort of behavior in Islamic nations.
Yea but do we? Do we really criticize Islamic nations? Look at the flack other posters are getting on this thread for doing that? I can't say where we have missionaries at for of reprisal against them-real gonna kill you level reprisal, but we can discuss this minnaret nonsense, tut tut tut and look down on the Swiss. There is so much hypocrisy here it almost equals my own.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JD21290 wrote:Can we just ban all religions now? it would save so much gak and arguments it has to be worth it
If you banned religion you'd have to get rid of that avatar. Frankly Dakka will not permit such crimes against Humanity to occur.
I think common consensus is that most mid eastern countries are gak holes that no one here wants to live in, and we expected better from the swiss. You're confusing disapproval of the swiss for approval of those they seem to be emulating.
Not seeing a lot of dissapproval of the Mideast myself.
I did smart s.
When was the last time there was a thread about churches now being allowed steeples in these countries? At this point, serious stuff has to occur before its even noticed.
Frazzled wrote:
Yea but do we? Do we really criticize Islamic nations?
All the time. Look at how we discuss Iran and its issues with human rights, or the Saudis and their treatment of women. Just because some people refrain from criticism does not change the fact that some people don't, and therefore serve to make the statement 'we criticize muslims' (where we is the West) a true one.
Frazzled wrote:
Look at the flack other posters are getting on this thread for doing that?
And? I didn't realize having an opinion go unchallenged was required for the opinion to be held, or considered forceful.
Frazzled wrote:
I can't say where we have missionaries at for of reprisal against them-real gonna kill you level reprisal, but we can discuss this minnaret nonsense, tut tut tut and look down on the Swiss. There is so much hypocrisy here it almost equals my own.
You're missing the point. I'm not suppressing your opinion by disagreeing with it, or pointing our flaws in its reasoning. I'm engaging you in discussion. If all we did was make statements about our beliefs without engaging other people there wouldn't be much of a point to this whole communication business.
Frazzled wrote:
Yea but do we? Do we really criticize Islamic nations?
All the time. Look at how we discuss Iran and its issues with human rights, or the Saudis and their treatment of women. Just because some people refrain from criticism does not change the fact that some people don't, and therefore serve to make the statement 'we criticize muslims' (where we is the West) a true one.
When was the last thread on that and why? There's a big difference about minnarets and a country where women are burned to death because they can't leave a school on fire becuase they weren't in full dress.
Anung Un Rama wrote:my last post post, before I threw the thought away. I want to be tolerant and all, but you hear so much "bad" stuff about muslims living in western countries these days, with forced marriages, honor murders and the like, it's hard not to be afraid.
That is exactly what they say. They all want to be very tolerant people, but the problem is they see many muslim immigrants acting in a completely intolerant fashion. They really don't like it at all, and are finding it easier to discriminate against incoming muslims.
We Have a right to criticise islamic nations , they are quite a barbaric people , Im sure it was posted on here a moment ago with there stoning of women for no reason whatsoever , arranged marriges and therefore murdering there own children if these marriges dont go ahead , and it happens over here , There racist and facist themselves looking down on homosexuals , women and often look down on the british population .
IamAz wrote:We Have a right to criticise islamic nations , they are quite a barbaric people , Im sure it was posted on here a moment ago with there stoning of women for no reason whatsoever , arranged marriges and therefore murdering there own children if these marriges dont go ahead , and it happens over here , There racist and facist themselves looking down on homosexuals , women and often look down on the british population .
Ah yes indeed, well said. And Christians are quite the mongols themselves barring the use of contraceptives and invading countries in the name of Jesus, drinking his blood and body. And the roving terrifying bands of Jews as well, with their money hoarding ways and the cutting of defenseless babies penii parts.
As much as I have radically opposing views of the restrictive Islamic sects, sweeping generalizations are the basis of ignorance, and ignorance is the basis of racism. Playing the race card? If you want to sound ignorant than sure, call it out. But most of the posters in here, while debating the merits of legal precedence, have not (as blatantly), shoved a whole people under one umbrella and have proceeded to produce defame them under one label.
And before you can ever imagine to retort, I declare "penii" completely medically correct, and more facetious to pronounce.
Frazzled wrote:
Yea but do we? Do we really criticize Islamic nations?
All the time. Look at how we discuss Iran and its issues with human rights, or the Saudis and their treatment of women. Just because some people refrain from criticism does not change the fact that some people don't, and therefore serve to make the statement 'we criticize muslims' (where we is the West) a true one.
When was the last thread on that and why? There's a big difference about minnarets and a country where women are burned to death because they can't leave a school on fire becuase they weren't in full dress.
You want threads on commonly accepted topics to assuage your persecution complex? I can do it.
IamAz wrote:We Have a right to criticise islamic nations , they are quite a barbaric people , Im sure it was posted on here a moment ago with there stoning of women for no reason whatsoever , arranged marriges and therefore murdering there own children if these marriges dont go ahead , and it happens over here , There racist and facist themselves looking down on homosexuals , women and often look down on the british population .
Ah yes indeed, well said. And Christians are quite the mongols themselves barring the use of contraceptives and invading countries in the name of Jesus, drinking his blood and body. And the roving terrifying bands of Jews as well, with their money hoarding ways and the cutting of defenseless babies penii parts.
As much as I have radically opposing views of the restrictive Islamic sects, sweeping generalizations are the basis of ignorance, and ignorance is the basis of racism. Playing the race card? If you want to sound ignorant than sure, call it out. But most of the posters in here, while debating the merits of legal precedence, have not (as blatantly), shoved a whole people under one umbrella and have proceeded to produce defame them under one label.
And before you can ever imagine to retort, I declare "penii" completely medically correct, and more facetious to pronounce.
And yet we in britain havn't performed those sort of hate crimes in many many years . But i can imagine some poor islamic woman is having her head caved in with a rock as we speak
IamAz wrote:We Have a right to criticise islamic nations , they are quite a barbaric people , Im sure it was posted on here a moment ago with there stoning of women for no reason whatsoever , arranged marriges and therefore murdering there own children if these marriges dont go ahead , and it happens over here , There racist and facist themselves looking down on homosexuals , women and often look down on the british population .
Ah yes indeed, well said. And Christians are quite the mongols themselves barring the use of contraceptives and invading countries in the name of Jesus, drinking his blood and body. And the roving terrifying bands of Jews as well, with their money hoarding ways and the cutting of defenseless babies penii parts.
As much as I have radically opposing views of the restrictive Islamic sects, sweeping generalizations are the basis of ignorance, and ignorance is the basis of racism. Playing the race card? If you want to sound ignorant than sure, call it out. But most of the posters in here, while debating the merits of legal precedence, have not (as blatantly), shoved a whole people under one umbrella and have proceeded to produce defame them under one label.
And before you can ever imagine to retort, I declare "penii" completely medically correct, and more facetious to pronounce.
And yet we in britain havn't performed those sort of hate crimes in many many years . But i can imagine some poor islamic woman is having her head caved in with a rock as we speak
Frazzled wrote:
When was the last thread on that and why?
Any and all of threads that feature international politics.
As an aside, when was the last time we had a thread criticizing the West's treatment of Muslims? They aren't exactly inundating the board.
Frazzled wrote:
There's a big difference about minnarets and a country where women are burned to death because they can't leave a school on fire becuase they weren't in full dress.
Categorically, there isn't really. Its a difference of degree, and that's why this thread has carried on past a couple pages.
Some feel this makes us too much like the Middle East. Primarily because someone decided to use the Middle East as an extreme example for justification through relative leniency. Personally, I don't feel "we're still better than them" is really the strongest argument, especially as its nothing more than a weak attempt to achieve moral superiority, but I suppose its something.
Altered_Soul wrote:Ah yes indeed, well said. And Christians are quite the mongols themselves barring the use of contraceptives and invading countries in the name of Jesus, drinking his blood and body. And the roving terrifying bands of Jews as well, with their money hoarding ways and the cutting of defenseless babies penii parts.
Really? Really? Are you seriously comparing the RCC's ban on condoms and the pill, and the RCC's interpretation of Holy Communion to women being tortured for going outside and being dressed improperly? This stuff isn't isolated, it happens all over the Middle East. And just to further illustrate my point, female circumcision is very much a widely accepted practice and definitely not isolated. Please think before you post...
Altered_Soul wrote:As much as I have radically opposing views of the restrictive Islamic sects, sweeping generalizations are the basis of ignorance, and ignorance is the basis of racism. Playing the race card? If you want to sound ignorant than sure, call it out. But most of the posters in here, while debating the merits of legal precedence, have not (as blatantly), shoved a whole people under one umbrella and have proceeded to produce defame them under one label.
Which you so happily did to Christians, lumping them all in with the Roman Catholic Church. Islamic sects have their differences, don't get me wrong, but you are comparing Christian dogma to Middle Eastern/Northern African cultural norms that are couple with religious elements.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:Yep, the IRA don't exist. Nope. Not at all.
Well on a technicality he might be right. The IRA is definitively Irish, duh, and thus cannot be British, as that would require them coming from the island of Great Britain. A slight detail I know, but its what I do....
Kilkrazy wrote:If we look down on the Saudis, Turks and so on for what we see as oppressive, hypocritical behaviour towards minorities, why would we think it is a good idea to copy them?
Do people really think Islam has a secret agenda to settle lots of people in western countries, build minarets and use them to launch an Islamic revolution?
It's not exactly secret when their Mullah's are screaming out in the open that that is the plan.
Altered_Soul wrote:Ah yes indeed, well said. And Christians are quite the mongols themselves barring the use of contraceptives and invading countries in the name of Jesus, drinking his blood and body. And the roving terrifying bands of Jews as well, with their money hoarding ways and the cutting of defenseless babies penii parts.
Really? Really? Are you seriously comparing the RCC's ban on condoms and the pill, and the RCC's interpretation of Holy Communion to women being tortured for going outside and being dressed improperly? This stuff isn't isolated, it happens all over the Middle East. And just to further illustrate my point, female circumcision is very much a widely accepted practice and definitely not isolated. Please think before you post...
Altered_Soul wrote:As much as I have radically opposing views of the restrictive Islamic sects, sweeping generalizations are the basis of ignorance, and ignorance is the basis of racism. Playing the race card? If you want to sound ignorant than sure, call it out. But most of the posters in here, while debating the merits of legal precedence, have not (as blatantly), shoved a whole people under one umbrella and have proceeded to produce defame them under one label.
Which you so happily did to Christians, lumping them all in with the Roman Catholic Church. Islamic sects have their differences, don't get me wrong, but you are comparing Christian dogma to Middle Eastern/Northern African cultural norms that are couple with religious elements.
I am sorry you missed my mockery of IamAz's post and subsequent apologist remark. *Damnit where is that damned internet tone corrector button, its gotta be around he somewhere... oh hey a Youtube embedding button*
EDIT: Removed a comma that wasn't supposed to be there. Also, this thread is going to hell in a handbasket quick.
IamAz wrote:The Irish Republican Army do exist , but um , in IRELAND . They are the other set of terrorists
Don't they exist because you conquered and enslaved their country? Also catholic Protestant warfare. Also, no, they aren't british, they are in the hegemonic state of the U.K. which encompasses both countries, and is the governmental and ethnic body of the state. Thats like saying hawaii isn't in the U.S. because it's not attached.
The IRA where formed because they wanted britain to give back the protestant part of ireland , which would have been a very bad idea . They are also not a state of britain , They are a serperate country .
The Irish Republican Army hasn't existed for many years.
The Provisional Irish Republican Army is the 'IRA' that most people mean when they say 'IRA'. But 'Provisional IRA' is the correct term for the organisation that was active during 'The Troubles'. They are no longer active and are in the continuing process of disarmament.
There ARE other Irish Nationalist groups that use that acronym (The Real IRA and the Continuation IRA) but they are in no way affiliated with the original organisation, and the provisionals' link was tenuous at best. If anyone wants to talk further on this subject PM me.
As for the minarets - they are fairly intrusive IMHO. The Muezzins call to prayer is amplified in most places and occurs five times a day. I wouldn't want to live near one. Although it has been part of Islamic culture since it's inception, it's not essential so if the wider community votes against the building of more, then sorry muslims - you're just gonna have to suck it up or move to a more conservative Islamic state.
Albatross wrote:As for the minarets - they are fairly intrusive IMHO. The Muezzins call to prayer is amplified in most places and occurs five times a day. I wouldn't want to live near one. Although it has been part of Islamic culture since it's inception, it's not essential so if the wider community votes against the building of more, then sorry muslims - you're just gonna have to suck it up or move to a more conservative Islamic state.
See this is where I get concerned, is that it is a federal (or the Swiss equivalent if I am reading correctly) law, not a community zoning issue. I mean I wouldn't want one of the massive Mormon Temples in my neighborhood for various reasons, and I would probably feel the same about any large, obtrusive object, especially if it blares prayers/bells/etc. But its a local issue, not something to be banned. The community can reject things like that, petitions, etc.
The reason people like Az up there are worried, is because of a certain degree of 'Islamification' of England. Note I say England, because the Scots would crack heads before they let it happen, no-one wants to live in Wales paticularly, and the Irish are too strongly Christian.
Allow me to define what I mean by Islamification. Britain has always been the destination point for many different kinds of immigrants from all over the world. You had the Jewish groups hitting the West End of London in the early 90's, the Indians, the Jamaicans, and so on. However most of these groups have to a certain extent, if not been assimilated, have adapted themselves to British culture. Whilst they might have had their own food shops, and their own individual languages and neighbourhoods at first, these past waves of immigrants have become firmly ingrained in English society.
By the third generation, English is their main, if not only language, they eat the same food as the English, and aren't having 9 children per family, as is the norm in third world countries. They move up the social ladder, and begin to buy houses, enter the more successful career fields, and raise children with Western values of democracy. They are in short, English. This may not always be the case, as the Black gangs of London are shown, but even they are, to a certain extent, Westernised.
The Islamic immigration on the other hand seems to be different. Some areas of England are so heavily inundated with muslims that many there do not even speak English. They do not have to, as they can buy their food from muslim shops, hold conversations with arabic muslim neighbours, and attend schools and mosques that only communicate in their native language. As the number of muslims is so great, English cultural values are not imparted to their children. They grow up in an Islamic environment where the Father still controls who his daughter marries, and woman are socially forced to wear a Burqua. Impromptu sharia law courts are convened, which whilst they have no legal authority, wield considerable cultural authority. Muslim women continue to have large families of children.
Theoretically speaking, if the birth rate of white English natives continues to decrease, whilst the Muslim population explodes rapidly, in thirty years time a signficant part of the population will be Muslim. Eventually, the native population will be supplanted by them.
The fact that extremists openly preach for this has made people hyper sensitive to the fact that unlike previous immigrants, the muslims as a whole tend to have little desire to assimilate, and promote Western values and culture. However, any widespread discussion of this is prevented by the Political Correctness Brigade, and any advocaters of any kind of control being exerted over Islamic Immigration or culture is denounced as racist. As a result, people grow more and more resentful against the mulsim population, leading to backlashes, as we are now seeing in Switzerland and France.
With regards to jobs, houses and welfare, and all the rest of it-these are merely offshoots of the core problem, and general white middle/working class bitching about immigrants that has always occurred. It happens in any situation with large amounts of immigration. In the words of South Park, 'Dey took owr Jerwbs!'
I'm going to be the European Muslim's advocate, because there is a lot of prejudice, generalisations, simplifications and ignorance about what is really happening.
1. Many European Muslims are, in fact, citizens, some are members of parliament, the Mayor of Rotterdam (Netherlands) is a Muslim and I recall he had a good relationship with the late Theo van Gogh (murdered by muslim radical).
2. Many European Muslim politicians, except for Abu Jajah (Belgium) are really sensible people who have an European mindset/ideology
3. Most European Muslims are not refugees but immigrant workers. These immigrant workers mostly do jobs aboriginal Europeans have no interest in, or otherwise they work together.
4. The majority of European Muslims are no missionaries and are becoming more and more European. It is really the other way around (they are not forcing their lifestyle on us). I know that there is an issue in the UK though, where Muslims have the desire to be allowed to practice minor Sharia laws and regulations... I agree that would not be a right course of action for integration. but the way Islam is practiced in Europe in General is quite liberal. Many Euro-Muslims would face jail-time or corporal punishment in say, Iran or Saudi Arabia (so they're happy to be here).
5. News Media are unable to tell the complete truth, its extremes that are reported in the news. Yes, honor murders, robberies, flag burnings are what we see of muslims in the news and papers. These are a vocal minority just like neo-nazis and right-wing extremists. The media is an industry of Fear (news) and Foolishness (entertainment) in most countries. This does not produce a balanced image of the perceived truth.
6. Generosity has backfired? No, not quite. There are problems with some young "muslim" immigrant boys which originates in a cultural disconnect in parenting styles, one style is suitable for a village in the Rif Mountains (Morrocco), the other for urban European areas. Those don't mix well and are the cause of violence and intolerance. Too little has been done to bring the various ways of parenting closer together in the past. In addition, earlier, learning the local language was not mandatory (in the Netherlands), that was and is problematic in education of the immigrant kids and day to day life. Measures are being taken, but it's still far from perfect.
7. Resentment goes both ways, and I fear the Europeans were resentfull first, which alienated/antagonised younger immigrants born in Europe. I have an Dutch-Indies background, and one of my cousins suffers from his indo-european appearance. Some of his teachers think he's Morrocan and thus reprimand him harder for small transgressions in class than they would have if he had a more western appearance. That he hangs out with Antillians/Surinams does not help him either... it makes him angry and moody, enforcing the image that he could be a dangerous morrocan muslim. Imagine a Morrocan, born here, not quite accepted in the country of his father except as a tourist and in the Netherlands viewed as a likely criminal or terrorist, and treated like so... What would you become, if you had that experience?
The nasty problems are caused by perceived threats, insults and slights. I can't deny there are problems with muslims in europe, but it's not the cataclysmic culture clash some people think it is. It's incidents and misconceptions and if it comes to being angry and antisocial both Europeans and whatever muslim culture are equal. Fortunately, most people are normal.
@ Ketara: That sounds a lot worse than is the case in The Netherlands, but I guess Pim Fortuyn (unexpectedly murdered by a environmentalist) paved the way for a bit more active monitoring of immigration and integration (especialy of muslims who are already here). As it stand now, the "westernization" of Muslims is going quite well, even while respecting the bare basics of their religion and culture that are compatible with western standards and practices... Maybe my statements should exclude the UK IF you are not making great simplifications...
Good for you, Switzerland. Show them that they need to start integrating, rather than the minorities expecting to move in and gain every right they demand.
Good for you, Switzerland. Show them that they need to start integrating, rather than the minorities expecting to move in and gain every right they demand.
Are we talking about the same buildings here? Of which Switzerland only had four of? Because that seems pretty ridiculously and pointlessly xenophobic. If you're trying to slow minority integration and promote extremist reactionism in the minorities, the best possible course of action is idiotic and childish curbs on religious freedom brought about by racist reactionary fear. It's going to have the opposite effect to what they seemingly want, which the Swiss government has stated repeatedly. It's really, really, really stupid. Fo reals. It's like trying to burn off a cut. I can't even express the logical somersault that would be required to actually think this could somehow do anything but cause events to worsen. Argue about islamification all you want, but this is not a sensible or functional reaction.
IamAz wrote:Well maybe you are all right but this is just they way i see it . Im telling you all one thing , There is no way i could build a church in most middle east countrys .
Like most of the paranoid 'our culture is under siege' stuff you've posted, that is not true. There are Christian churches in every middle east country excepting Saudi Arabia, and they're in negotiation with the Vatican to open one.
Not that that would matter anyway, because the muslim population of Switzerland is not accountable for the policies of Saudi Arabia. You're a Brit and part of the West, but you aren't responsible for the policies of the Swiss government... it would ludicrous to try and use the Swiss ban on minarets to justify a restriction of your rights. So why are you trying to use the policies of the Saudi government to justify a restriction on the rights of Yugoslav muslims living in Switzerland?
Good for you, Switzerland. Show them that they need to start integrating, rather than the minorities expecting to move in and gain every right they demand.
Are we talking about the same buildings here? Of which Switzerland only had four of? Because that seems pretty ridiculously and pointlessly xenophobic. If you're trying to slow minority integration and promote extremist reactionism in the minorities, the best possible course of action is idiotic and childish curbs on religious freedom brought about by racist reactionary fear. It's going to have the opposite effect to what they seemingly want, which the Swiss government has stated repeatedly. It's really, really, really stupid. Fo reals. It's like trying to burn off a cut. I can't even express the logical somersault that would be required to actually think this could somehow do anything but cause events to worsen. Argue about islamification all you want, but this is not a sensible or functional reaction.
Because minorities integrate oh so well into European/American societies as is?
There has to come a point where you say "Screw it, adapt to the majority or GTFO".
Sure it sounds xenophobic. But really. It doesn't matter how many mosques they have in the country. It's the point of fact that they didn't want these minarets, it's that simple. There's no intention of repression, as far as I can tell. It's as simple as they don't want a differing architectural style cluttering up their skyline.
mstersmith wrote:Some parts of Europe are terified they may lose there way of life because there genorosity has now back fired. The Radical Muslims are gaining ground and out breeding those who are acually citizens. What do you expect them to do?
I expect them to engage in informed dialogue that deals with real issues of integration and nation building. I expect people to be entirely dismissive of delusional 'clash of the cultures' and 'poor white people under siege' rhetoric, and to attack it as the substance free poppcock it is.
I know, I'm a dreamer.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JEB_Stuart wrote:Honestly, I have seen some pretty awful things done in Europe and America by people abusing their freedom. Americans have a harder time understanding how real a problem muslim immigration is for European countries. All of my friends from Europe are fairly tolerant people, but they are all afraid of muslim immigrants trying to change their country to conform more to Sharia law. Is it not the West's responsibility, especially in the face of our own fierce protection of things like women's right, freedom of speech, etc., to temper the ability of people who obviously have no regard for Western values?
Sure, and we aren't to waiver on core values like equality of the sexes. But has that got to do with building a minaret?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
IamAz wrote:If the middle east are so "Accepting" of christians , how come all of our priests that have gone there to help during the iraq war have been attacked , captured and in quite a few cases murdered for nothing more than trying to help people ? By the way , I find it quite hard to belive that iran have any churches ? They hate the west and christianity . They've just arrested a group of british sailors again !
You know, this thing where you talk about 'them' as a singular entity, and then hold them accountable as a group for the actions of individuals... that's pretty much exactly how racism works.
Good for you, Switzerland. Show them that they need to start integrating, rather than the minorities expecting to move in and gain every right they demand.
Are we talking about the same buildings here? Of which Switzerland only had four of? Because that seems pretty ridiculously and pointlessly xenophobic. If you're trying to slow minority integration and promote extremist reactionism in the minorities, the best possible course of action is idiotic and childish curbs on religious freedom brought about by racist reactionary fear. It's going to have the opposite effect to what they seemingly want, which the Swiss government has stated repeatedly. It's really, really, really stupid. Fo reals. It's like trying to burn off a cut. I can't even express the logical somersault that would be required to actually think this could somehow do anything but cause events to worsen. Argue about islamification all you want, but this is not a sensible or functional reaction.
Because minorities integrate oh so well into European/American societies as is?
There has to come a point where you say "Screw it, adapt to the majority or GTFO".
Sure it sounds xenophobic. But really. It doesn't matter how many mosques they have in the country. It's the point of fact that they didn't want these minarets, it's that simple. There's no intention of repression, as far as I can tell. It's as simple as they don't want a differing architectural style cluttering up their skyline.
As far as you can tell from what? Every piece of writing I have read about the subject, and everything I know about modern day Switzerland points to this being a reactionary anti muslim law bred by intentionally cultured and racially based public sentiment, and placed into vote by a radical anti immigration party. This has nothing to do with a couple of towers with spirals on the support beams, and everything to do with fear of islamification by the working class minority that they just want out of their country. The law itself is going to do nothing but incite resentment and lend strength to more hardline muslim leaders, the exact opposite of what it's "supposed" to do. As for "screw it and adapt", that's never worked and will never work as a method for dealing with the integration of a foreign class. It incites resentment, and the construction of conclaves of persecution. There are thousands of examples of cultures that due intolerant and often times hostile surroundings actually became stronger and more insistent in their beliefs (the strength of the diaspora jews is an excellent example of the unifying ability of religion in the face of popular semetic intolerance).
Kanluwen wrote:Sure it sounds xenophobic. But really. It doesn't matter how many mosques they have in the country. It's the point of fact that they didn't want these minarets, it's that simple. There's no intention of repression, as far as I can tell. It's as simple as they don't want a differing architectural style cluttering up their skyline.
No. It isn't. You can only think that's the case when you know nothing of the party that brought the initiative forward, but I've already pointed out in this thread that the group that brought this forward is an explicitly racist group, responsible for this poster;
And here's the poster the same group used to advertise the campaign;
This is an explicitly racist group that is openly hostile to foreigners.
Kanluwen wrote:As far as I can tell from it being a reactionary anti-minaret law, that is.
They've also been actively refusing the construction or opening of new mosques as well, but there's no outright ban on them yet (just a soft one, they are still going up, but are largely prevented from doing so in most attempts). Given the likely strong reaction to this though, I can see a harder ban occurring in the future.
Frazzled wrote:Not seeing a lot of dissapproval of the Mideast myself.
The Swiss ban just happened, so that's what a thread was posted about. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia has been oppressive craphole for a long time.
I could post a thread pointing out that Saudi Arabia is an oppressive craphole, but its very unlikely anyone would try contort an argument justifying their limits on basic human freedoms, and so there wouldn't be a debate on the issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
IamAz wrote:We Have a right to criticise islamic nations , they are quite a barbaric people
Kanluwen wrote:As far as I can tell from it being a reactionary anti-minaret law, that is.
They've also been actively refusing the construction or opening of new mosques as well, but there's no outright ban on them yet (just a soft one, they are still going up, but are largely prevented from doing so in most attempts). Given the likely strong reaction to this though, I can see a harder ban occurring in the future.
Okay, well that I'll agree is a distinctly bad attitude. Freedom of religion is fine...but you don't need a gigantic tower blaring at all hours of the night to pray, according to the Muslims I know.
Kanluwen wrote:As far as I can tell from it being a reactionary anti-minaret law, that is.
They've also been actively refusing the construction or opening of new mosques as well, but there's no outright ban on them yet (just a soft one, they are still going up, but are largely prevented from doing so in most attempts). Given the likely strong reaction to this though, I can see a harder ban occurring in the future.
Okay, well that I'll agree is a distinctly bad attitude. Freedom of religion is fine...but you don't need a gigantic tower blaring at all hours of the night to pray, according to the Muslims I know.
The first call to prayer is a five in the morning, which can be pretty damn annoying, especially when they don't have a trained vocalist, but just use some crappy PA system. But you can have a policy restricting loud noises in the morning, without banning minarets entirely.
The first call to prayer is a five in the morning, which can be pretty damn annoying, especially when they don't have a trained vocalist, but just use some crappy PA system. But you can have a policy restricting loud noises in the morning, without banning minarets entirely.
I know when they pray, and as I said, 5AM isn't night. I've lived in dorms in cities, by construction before, and most places tend to plow snow at between 3AM and 6AM, so some somewhat melodic gibberish doesn't hit me as a tremendously annoying thing to sleep through at 5.
Well that explains why they said that, now doesn't it
Well it would, except they don't do it at night in the minarets, which is what caught me off guard. Though I guess as a commentary on reality it does stand on its own.
Kanluwen wrote:As far as I can tell from it being a reactionary anti-minaret law, that is.
They've also been actively refusing the construction or opening of new mosques as well, but there's no outright ban on them yet (just a soft one, they are still going up, but are largely prevented from doing so in most attempts). Given the likely strong reaction to this though, I can see a harder ban occurring in the future.
Okay, well that I'll agree is a distinctly bad attitude. Freedom of religion is fine...but you don't need a gigantic tower blaring at all hours of the night to pray, according to the Muslims I know.
I wonder if Christian church belltowers are illegal for the Swiss...something tells me they're not though. Those can be quite annoying as well, do we really need bells for weddings, time of day, special events, etc?
sebster wrote:The first call to prayer is a five in the morning, which can be pretty damn annoying, especially when they don't have a trained vocalist, but just use some crappy PA system. But you can have a policy restricting loud noises in the morning, without banning minarets entirely.
It also has the added benefit of actually banning all loud noises, which is really what you want in the first place.
Cane wrote:
I wonder if Christian church belltowers are illegal for the Swiss...something tells me they're not though. Those can be quite annoying as well, do we really need bells for weddings, time of day, special events, etc?
I don't know about that, but a church up the road where I lived in PA. was forced to quit ringing their bells because a couple that decided to build a house next to it complained of the noise.
"It's a sad day for freedom of religion," said Mohammed Shafiq, the chief executive of the Ramadhan Foundation, a British youth organization. "A constitutional amendment that's targeted towards one religious community is discriminatory and abhorrent."
So you agree with outright hypocrasy? When I see someone of the Islamic faith complaining about religious discrimination, I see nothing but blatant hypocrasy after seeing the actions of members of it's faith time and time again the world over. Before you complain about other people's actions, shouldn't you take care of your own people first when they do the same or worse?
Mohammed Shafiq discriminates against other people's religions? I was not aware of that. Of course, I don't know anything about him besides what I read in the article.
Relapse wrote:I don't know about that, but a church up the road where I lived in PA. was forced to quit ringing their bells because a couple that decided to build a house next to it complained of the noise.
That strikes me as quite funny actually... . Who woulda' thunk that a church would ring it's bells after you build a house next to it.
Orkeo wrote:
sebster wrote:The first call to prayer is a five in the morning, which can be pretty damn annoying, especially when they don't have a trained vocalist, but just use some crappy PA system. But you can have a policy restricting loud noises in the morning, without banning minarets entirely.
It also has the added benefit of actually banning all loud noises, which is really what you want in the first place.
This is about the only thing that seems to be a benefit of this whole idea. Things like this can be taken care of by municipalities though, there are way too many extenuating circumstances to 'universally' ban all loud noise to unreasonable lengths. If a company needs to start work at 5 AM to finish before dark, it kinda sucks to be in the apartment building... yeah... not much to do about it.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Mohammed Shafiq discriminates against other people's religions? I was not aware of that. Of course, I don't know anything about him besides what I read in the article.
Wiki wrote:He has said that he believes that it is his duty as a Muslim to speak out strongly against extremism and terrorism, he was the first UK's Muslim Leader to appear on BBC News to condemn the Glasgow terrorist attack... Wiki summary
Relapse wrote:I don't know about that, but a church up the road where I lived in PA. was forced to quit ringing their bells because a couple that decided to build a house next to it complained of the noise.
That strikes me as quite funny actually... . Who woulda' thunk that a church would ring it's bells after you build a house next to it.
Bad, but not quite as ridiculous as the people where I now live in Utah that built houses 10 miles out in the country next to an established rendering plant(the place where dead farm and road kill animals get taken to for processing). These people then began complaining about the smell, forcing the plant to move at its own expense.
"It's a sad day for freedom of religion," said Mohammed Shafiq, the chief executive of the Ramadhan Foundation, a British youth organization. "A constitutional amendment that's targeted towards one religious community is discriminatory and abhorrent."
So you agree with outright hypocrasy? When I see someone of the Islamic faith complaining about religious discrimination, I see nothing but blatant hypocrasy after seeing the actions of members of it's faith time and time again the world over. Before you complain about other people's actions, shouldn't you take care of your own people first when they do the same or worse?
Mohammed Shafiq is the overlord for all Muslims and can somehow be blamed for all of its less than decent actions? Hell isn't Islam the number one religion or at least soon to be? In that case he's got a lot of explaining to do!
BTW if you're a religious person can I blame you for all the less than decent actions that faith has done? Purdy please? If you're not religious then can I bash your nationality for its ethically questionable actions? Especially that guy who shot up the four cops recently?
Relapse wrote:Bad, but not quite as ridiculous as the people where I now live in Utah that built houses 10 miles out in the country next to an established rendering plant(the place where dead farm and road kill animals get taken to for processing). These people then began complaining about the smell, forcing the plant to move at its own expense.
That is about the best reaction I have at this point... ahem... yeah...
mstersmith wrote:The Christians in those countries tolerate a few persecutions, as I said they generally keep to themselves but will fight like hell once they have been provoked. They do not have a very nice existance but they do have churches all over Arabia and Africa.
But they are persecuted.
So are Sunnis, Shiites and Jews, depending where they live and who their neighbours are.
I don't see how that is good and should be emulated.
It is possible the Swiss have seen what has happened in other countries which have allowed Islamic culture to assert itself so stongly on a previously Christian background.
The area I live in has a high proportion of Muslim people, if I had to hazard a guess i would say that there are probably 50% Christian/Atheist, 40% Muslim and 10% othher (Jewish/Hindi). As stated by a previous poster many Muslim immigrants seem to be reluctant to integrate into a traditional british society. Personaly i don't have any problem with people following their own beliefs and cultures. What i do have a problem with is that being enforced upon those who have no interest in them. Tolerance is fine, but allowing a minority to do as they please for fear of being called racist is not ok. It merely leads to resentment and racial tension.
In many places in the UK there is open resentment towards Muslims as it is believed that they recieve better treatment than others (priority for social housing and so on) regardless of if this is true or not, people are fed up of having the beliefs of others forced upon them, and being told that if they dis-agree they are racist.
I personaly find Sharia law abhorent and almost impossible to comprehend, but if that is the way someone wishes to live their life then fine, but do so in a country where the majority also want that, do not expect others to adopt your culture and way of thinking just to suit yourself. Moderation is the key.
Radicalism should have no place in a modern democratic state, regardless of if that happens to be Christian, Islamic, Jewish or any other form of extreamism.
People should, where ever possible, live by the laws and customs of the country they are in, if they dissagree they should go through the proper chanels (electing parlimentary representatives) to seek change. What they should not do is alienate others by playing the race card everytime something goes against them.
The difficulty with having a multi cultural society is that there will be clashes in belief and values, mostly these can be smothed out and a compromise reached, I do believe that britain has benefited from multiculturalism, however for a country to function successfuly the wishes of the majority must be followed where ever it is practical.
squilverine wrote:
People should, where ever possible, live by the laws and customs of the country they are in, if they dissagree they should go through the proper chanels (electing parlimentary representatives) to seek change. What they should not do is alienate others by playing the race card everytime something goes against them.
While the race card may be a poor political tool, it is still just a political tool, and so is most assuredly part of the proper channels you are referring to.
squilverine wrote:
however for a country to function successfuly the wishes of the majority must be followed where ever it is practical.
How do you determine what happens to be practical? There's certainly nothing practical about cultivating a large, isolated minority group. Obviously the Sharia Law impedes integration, and so should be prohibited, but something like forbidding the construction of a minaret is hardly the same.
When we talk about integration into society we aren't talking about enforced cultural preferences. Instead, we're discussing how to best allow disparate cultural groups to interact in public space; usually amounting to little more than a uniform legal code, and currency.
No. It isn't. You can only think that's the case when you know nothing of the party that brought the initiative forward, but I've already pointed out in this thread that the group that brought this forward is an explicitly racist group, responsible for this poster;
And here's the poster the same group used to advertise the campaign;
This is an explicitly racist group that is openly hostile to foreigners.
You can build motorways without embracing fascism, even though it was the Third Reich that invented them.
The above far right organisation is capitalising on a good idea shared by what looks to be the majority of Swiss, it doesnt mean all the anit-mianret lobbyists are members of this apparent far right organisation.
If for example a mainstream party was to take an anti immigration stance that far right might celebrate with a poster campaign, it doesn't mean they are on the same side. After all Switzerland is prohibiting bulding more minarets, it is not kicking out the black sheep. Besides the black sheep can mean anyone by its nature, the concept of the black sheep means the same thing across most of the western world - a 'misfit'. So the black sheep poster could be anti-Semitic or homophobic as much as anti-black. You have to watch propoganda carefully to understand it, the poster is deliberately unclear.
A couple of excerpts from the Swiss Constitution 1999, non-authoratitive English translation.
Article 2 Purpose (1) The Swiss Federation protects the liberty and rights of the people and safeguards the independence and security of the country.
(2) It promotes common welfare, sustainable development, inner cohesion, and cultural diversity of the country. (My emphasis.)
(3) It ensures the highest possible degree of equal opportunities for all citizens.
Article 8 Equality (1) All humans are equal before the law.
(2) Nobody may be discriminated against, namely for his or her origin, race, sex, age, language, social position, way of life, religious, philosophical, or political convictions, or because of a corporal or mental disability.
squilverine wrote:
People should, where ever possible, live by the laws and customs of the country they are in, if they dissagree they should go through the proper chanels (electing parlimentary representatives) to seek change. What they should not do is alienate others by playing the race card everytime something goes against them.
While the race card may be a poor political tool, it is still just a political tool, and so is most assuredly part of the proper channels you are referring to.
I don't belive this should be the case, it weakens peoples perceptions of the severity of a racist occurence when discrimination genuinely takes place. Shouting racist at the slightest provocation is no different to the little boy who cried wolf.
dogma wrote:
squilverine wrote:
however for a country to function successfuly the wishes of the majority must be followed where ever it is practical.
How do you determine what happens to be practical? There's certainly nothing practical about cultivating a large, isolated minority group. Obviously the Sharia Law impedes integration, and so should be prohibited, but something like forbidding the construction of a minaret is hardly the same.
When we talk about integration into society we aren't talking about enforced cultural preferences. Instead, we're discussing how to best allow disparate cultural groups to interact in public space; usually amounting to little more than a uniform legal code, and currency.
When I spoke of practicality I mean that you need to take into account the costs financialy, in time and in manpower when considering any undertaking. I was not refering specificaly to the case in point when i made that statement. You are right in what you say, it is nothing practical in "cultivating a large, isolated minority group" however it even less practical to cultivate a larger, isolated majority group.
Kilkrazy wrote:Please don't troll the thread with obvious nonsense.
There isn't a person in the country of any religion (or none) who works on Christmas Day except in vital industries like power, police and pubs, or if they volunteer.
No-one in the very large international megacorp where I work gets muslim or jewish holidays. They get the normal bank holidays and have to take their own holidays for Eid and so on.
Not so, I never had christmas off for five years even when it came on my normal days off.
people kept breaking down, and I had to go fix or recover their cars etc.
Kilkrazy wrote:A couple of excerpts from the Swiss Constitution 1999, non-authoratitive English translation.
Article 2 Purpose (1) The Swiss Federation protects the liberty and rights of the people and safeguards the independence and security of the country.
(2) It promotes common welfare, sustainable development, inner cohesion, and cultural diversity of the country. (My emphasis.)
(3) It ensures the highest possible degree of equal opportunities for all citizens.
Article 8 Equality (1) All humans are equal before the law.
(2) Nobody may be discriminated against, namely for his or her origin, race, sex, age, language, social position, way of life, religious, philosophical, or political convictions, or because of a corporal or mental disability.
I wonder which Article they have amended.
I dont think they have.
Read the purpose, which is important as it implies the intent of the law and thus helps interpret it.
1. safeguards the independence and security of the country : a good reason to get tough on Islamic expansion right there.
2. It promotes common welfare : Tolereance of intolerance is not common welfare
... inner cohesion... : well that is directly contrary to Islamic interference
...and cultural diversity : the 'my way or the highway' of Islamic fundamentalism is a far greater threat to cultural diversity than any minor restrcition of the state.
3. It ensures the highest possible degree of equal opportunities for all citizens. : Another good caveat, highest possible degree of equal opportunities cannot be established while facing calls for Islamic law and use of restrictive clothing that inhibits womens rights.
On Equality
1. All humans are equal before the law. : Sure they all get to obey or face the consequences, so noone not even Christians can build minarets. 2. Nobody may be discriminated against, namely for his or her origin, race, sex, age, language, social position, way of life, religious, philosophical, or political convictions, or because of a corporal or mental disability. : They cross that line if they ban islam, the Swiss know better than that. You can be a Moslem, but there will be limits on how far you can take that in society. a true man of faith will not be prohibited from a walk of faith, someone who wants to take over Switzerland for Allah might have problems.
Its all constitutional and doesnt stop mosdlems from continuing their daily lives, the Swiss nation will end up with less discrimination not more if fundamentalism and cultural imposition is limited. Switzerland doesn't obviously have the politically correct dogma hangups other countries have whereupon any state restriction is willful discrimination and any critique of fundamentalist expansion is intolerance.
Albatross wrote:
As for the minarets - they are fairly intrusive IMHO. The Muezzins call to prayer is amplified in most places and occurs five times a day.
Kanluwen wrote:Okay, well that I'll agree is a distinctly bad attitude. Freedom of religion is fine...but you don't need a gigantic tower blaring at all hours of the night to pray, according to the Muslims I know.
It's no secret that I'm not fond of major religions in general. I don't see much of a difference between a Muezzin and church bells.Bell towers are more dominent in Europe because many countires here are founded on christianity. This my sound a bit intollerant, but that's the way I see it.
Albatross wrote:
As for the minarets - they are fairly intrusive IMHO. The Muezzins call to prayer is amplified in most places and occurs five times a day.
Kanluwen wrote:Okay, well that I'll agree is a distinctly bad attitude. Freedom of religion is fine...but you don't need a gigantic tower blaring at all hours of the night to pray, according to the Muslims I know.
It's no secret that I'm not fond of major religions in general. I don't see much of a difference between a Muezzin and church bells.Bell towers are more dominent in Europe because many countires here are founded on christianity. This my sound a bit intollerant, but that's the way I see it.
I suppose one could argue that those church bells were put up many many years, even in the century + range and that a minaret would be a new structure. The same of course is true in Saudi Arabia, though swap the two. Comparing centuries old cultural artifacts to brand new, outside ones isn't a very good comparison at all for the focus of this discussion.
Kilkrazy wrote:Please don't troll the thread with obvious nonsense.
There isn't a person in the country of any religion (or none) who works on Christmas Day except in vital industries like power, police and pubs, or if they volunteer.
No-one in the very large international megacorp where I work gets muslim or jewish holidays. They get the normal bank holidays and have to take their own holidays for Eid and so on.
Not so, I never had christmas off for five years even when it came on my normal days off.
people kept breaking down, and I had to go fix or recover their cars etc.
You need to join a union.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:
Anung Un Rama wrote:
Albatross wrote:
As for the minarets - they are fairly intrusive IMHO. The Muezzins call to prayer is amplified in most places and occurs five times a day.
Kanluwen wrote:Okay, well that I'll agree is a distinctly bad attitude. Freedom of religion is fine...but you don't need a gigantic tower blaring at all hours of the night to pray, according to the Muslims I know.
It's no secret that I'm not fond of major religions in general. I don't see much of a difference between a Muezzin and church bells.Bell towers are more dominent in Europe because many countires here are founded on christianity. This my sound a bit intollerant, but that's the way I see it.
I suppose one could argue that those church bells were put up many many years, even in the century + range and that a minaret would be a new structure. The same of course is true in Saudi Arabia, though swap the two. Comparing centuries old cultural artifacts to brand new, outside ones isn't a very good comparison at all for the focus of this discussion.
I would have said it's exactly the focus of the discussion.
Reasons why minarets are bad.
1. They are tall.
2. They make a loud noise (muezzin.)
3. They are new and belong to Muslims
Reasons why church towers are good.
1.They are tall.
2. They make a loud noise (bells.)
3. They are old and don't belong to Muslims.
Reasons why communications arrays are good.
1. They are tall.
2. They let you use your mobile phone and digital TV etc.
3. They are new and belong to comms companies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:A couple of excerpts from the Swiss Constitution 1999, non-authoratitive English translation.
Article 2 Purpose (1) The Swiss Federation protects the liberty and rights of the people and safeguards the independence and security of the country.
(2) It promotes common welfare, sustainable development, inner cohesion, and cultural diversity of the country. (My emphasis.)
(3) It ensures the highest possible degree of equal opportunities for all citizens.
Article 8 Equality (1) All humans are equal before the law.
(2) Nobody may be discriminated against, namely for his or her origin, race, sex, age, language, social position, way of life, religious, philosophical, or political convictions, or because of a corporal or mental disability.
I wonder which Article they have amended.
I dont think they have.
The reason for this thread is that the Swiss voted to amend their constitution to ban the construction of new minarets.
Okay. Okay. I know the discussion has moved on, but I really, REALLY want to correct some of the shocking ignorance about the Troubles, the IRA and Northern Ireland. If you're going to speak like you know what you're talking about on a subject at LEAST check wikipedia first.
1. Northern Ireland is part of Great Britain. Catholics in Northern Ireland were discriminated against.
2. The IRA (in various forms) were active in the mainland UK and in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland during the troubles. Saying they weren't active in Great Britain is completely wrong.
3. There wasn't a "good guy" in the friggin' troubles. It was a horrible series of events made worse at times by both sides.
Argh.
And to reiterate Sebster's point, which I had previously made, this is the initiative of a minority, racist party.
Kilkrazy wrote:
I would have said it's exactly the focus of the discussion.
My focus was on the "I don't like religion so I don't want to hear church bells" element of the comment. It pushes the argument away from the Swiss issue in particular, and government and religion in general and back toward atheism vs theism. If you think this discussion is atheism vs. theism then I stand corrected but I didn't get that impression nor is it what I want to see it devolve into (again).
Da Boss wrote:And to reiterate Sebster's point, which I had previously made, this is the initiative of a minority, racist party.
The problem with that argument is that just by virtue of being in a minority doesn't make one wrong than being in the majority automatically makes one right. Even if the party is in the minority they apparently got a majority of voters to vote for this legislation. The party itself may be in the minority but the sentiment that was expressed, it would seem, is not.
Ok I for one honestly applaud the swiss in this. Only having skimmed the forums(im half awake) I see a lot of good points. The thing though is why is it when afghanistan defaces thousand+ year old budhist statues no one int he world really gripes, but the swiss but it all back at islam and people go ape *%$#. Personally I don't pretend to have a love for islam and that is my own personal feelings towards them. A gov't has it's rights to govern its people and they choose to say "hey, we don't want no stinking towers". Truthfully with a religion that claims to be of peace, but preaches intolerance of other religions I say good riddons. (you may now commense on bashing me with whatever beliefs you have, and I still wont care)
The thing though is why is it when afghanistan defaces thousand+ year old budhist statues no one int he world really gripes, but the swiss but it all back at islam and people go ape *%$#
Are you high? We attacked them with jets and are actively trying to kill or capture those responsible for that. Theres a multinational fething war in that area.
The thing though is why is it when afghanistan defaces thousand+ year old budhist statues no one int he world really gripes, but the swiss but it all back at islam and people go ape *%$#
Are you high? We attacked them with jets and are actively trying to kill or capture those responsible for that. Theres a multinational fething war in that area.
are you a communist? IDK I figure if we are gonna get stupid here shuma I might as well sound like you. The war has nothing to do with their wanton destruction you spaBti.
And while the war wasn't about the Buddhas, it was and is against the same barbaric religious nutjobs who did it.
2. Two wrongs don't make a right. As has been repeatedly noted, just because SOME Islamic countries or people engage in discriminatory or prejudicial behavior, doesn't justify anyone else doing it. As recently quoted, the Swiss constitution explicitly calls for equal treatment and the upholding of diversity. If the Swiss made a new law banning construction of any building over a certain height, that would be one thing. If they single out a given religion, they would seem to be in violation both of their own constitution and of the general principle of religious freedom which is a core value of modern democratic nations.
There's a really sad amount of ignorance and racism in this thread. Practically everyone who's posted could stand to do some more reading on the subject (and I include myself in that).
There's a really sad amount of ignorance and racism in this thread. Practically everyone who's posted could stand to do some more reading on the subject (and I include myself in that).
I have studied the Koran and I agree that origonally islam did mean peace, and much like many people throughout history bad people changed it. I don't deny being a biggot towards muslims by any stretch. Hell I freely admit to it, and truthfully unlike some moronic skinhead my reasons date to fighting them in this war, and loosing friends. My disdain is no different then my grandfathers for the japaniese after WW2. Is it right? probably not, but I am not gonna hide the fact that I say YEA SWISS!!!!!!!!
Da Boss wrote:Okay. Okay. I know the discussion has moved on, but I really, REALLY want to correct some of the shocking ignorance about the Troubles, the IRA and Northern Ireland. If you're going to speak like you know what you're talking about on a subject at LEAST check wikipedia first.
1. Northern Ireland is part of Great Britain. Catholics in Northern Ireland were discriminated against.
2. The IRA (in various forms) were active in the mainland UK and in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland during the troubles. Saying they weren't active in Great Britain is completely wrong.
3. There wasn't a "good guy" in the friggin' troubles. It was a horrible series of events made worse at times by both sides.
Argh.
And to reiterate Sebster's point, which I had previously made, this is the initiative of a minority, racist party.
I'd bet if you asked the rest of Ireland, they would say Northern Ireland is part of, well Ireland.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: TODAY I DRINK FROM THE KEG OF GLORY!
squilverine wrote:What i do have a problem with is that being enforced upon those who have no interest in them. Tolerance is fine, but allowing a minority to do as they please for fear of being called racist is not ok. It merely leads to resentment and racial tension.
“allowing a minority to do as they please” is a remarkably broad statement. The concept of personal freedom is based on all of us being allowed (broadly) to do as we please. Whether we’re a minority or majority. Like black people being allowed to sit at lunch counters in the American South, as opposed to them being reserved for Whites Only. Sometimes people are called racist because they seem to be supporting the concept of a minority having LESS freedom. Sometimes such accusations are leveled unfairly or inaccurately, but from our experience here in the US, if you make a mistake, it’s usually better to err on the side of protecting the people who have less power and influence.
squilverine wrote:In many places in the UK there is open resentment towards Muslims as it is believed that they recieve better treatment than others (priority for social housing and so on) regardless of if this is true or not...
Well, the “true or not” part is really important. Sometimes the perception is wrong. Or sometimes it’s being exaggerated by people with a political or financial agenda (say, the BNP, or news outlets which subsist on fear and sensationalism). If the “better treatment” part is indeed wrong, then being resentful towards that minority is wrong too.
squilverine wrote:…people are fed up of having the beliefs of others forced upon them, and being told that if they dis-agree they are racist.
Hang on, where are the beliefs of others forced on you? I could swear just below you advocate immigrants living by the customs of the country they live in. If (for example) the custom in your adopted nation is to go with your head uncovered in the Summer, and your religion forbids having your head uncovered, which one needs to give? If a given behavior is forced on you, that would seem to cross the line. Can you give examples of when and how you have been forced to engage in a behavior which is contrary to your beliefs?
squilverine wrote:I personaly find Sharia law abhorent and almost impossible to comprehend, but if that is the way someone wishes to live their life then fine, but do so in a country where the majority also want that, do not expect others to adopt your culture and way of thinking just to suit yourself.
We’re really close to agreement here. I personally disagree with Sharia law too, but you’re intermingling two separate concepts. In one part of the above sentence, you say people should live in some other country if they want to live by Sharia, and in another you say said people shouldn’t expect others to adopt their culture. These are two totally different concepts. I don’t think Muslims in Britain generally expect anyone else to adopt their culture. But some of them do want to live (personally) within their own religious/legal codes. Personally I think there does need to be a clear line of separation between the cultural and legal authorities, and I can absolutely sympathize with people who are worried that Sharia law is being allowed too much influence inside a secular nation. That’s a concern. But that’s still different from saying people who want to honor Sharia need to live somewhere else entirely.
Radicalism should have no place in a modern democratic state, regardless of if that happens to be Christian, Islamic, Jewish or any other form of extreamism.
squilverine wrote:…however for a country to function successfuly the wishes of the majority must be followed where ever it is practical.
Not to belabor the point, but it was pretty practical for black people in the American South to be banned from certain lunch counters. Heck, the owners apparently wanted to conduct their businesses in a racist way, and they were content to absorb the cost of a smaller customer base. The wishes of the majority are not always fair or just. Part of the reason why pretty much every modern “democracy” is actually a Republic is because the minority does need to be protected from being abused by the power of the majority.
Okay. Okay. I know the discussion has moved on, but I really, REALLY want to correct some of the shocking ignorance about the Troubles, the IRA and Northern Ireland. If you're going to speak like you know what you're talking about on a subject at LEAST check wikipedia first.
1. Northern Ireland is part of Great Britain. Catholics in Northern Ireland were discriminated against.
2. The IRA (in various forms) were active in the mainland UK and in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland during the troubles. Saying they weren't active in Great Britain is completely wrong.
3. There wasn't a "good guy" in the friggin' troubles. It was a horrible series of events made worse at times by both sides.
Argh.
I agree with you there, for sure. Two wrongs make an even bigger wrong.
I'd bet if you asked the rest of Ireland, they would say Northern Ireland is part of, well Ireland.
It's nothing to do with 'the rest of Ireland' - you should ask the people of Northern Ireland instead. Careful though, the largely unionist Protestant majority might not give you the answer you're looking for. The fact that it's part of the same landmass means dick - would you consider the USA to be part of Canada? Or Texas to be part of the USA even?
Jewish traditional law (I can't remember the name) is allowed to be used for some aspects of Family Law in the UK as long as its use is agreed by both participants and does not conflict with the basic law of the land. In other words it becomes a special subset of Contract Law.
Yeah they are right Frazz, ask a prod from Northern Ireland if he is British and he will tell you.
Unlike the very simplistic stuff that Ted Kennedy liked to come out with, you cant just "send them all back to England"
A 2008 survey found that 57% of Protestants in NI described themselves as British, while 32% identified as Northern Irish, 6% as Ulster and 4% as Irish.
If thats how they describe themselves, then who are we to tell them otherwise?
Kilkrazy wrote:Jewish traditional law (I can't remember the name) is allowed to be used for some aspects of Family Law in the UK as long as its use is agreed by both participants and does not conflict with the basic law of the land. In other words it becomes a special subset of Contract Law.
.
Beth Din.
From memory this is only legally binding as in UK law 2 parties can formally agree to be legally bound by the decision of a recognised and mutually agreed upon 3rd party.
..man, had to stretch the old grey matter to recall that.
[ The fact that it's part of the same landmass means dick - would you consider the USA to be part of Canada? Or Texas to be part of the USA even?
A: Texas is part of the U.S seeing as they voted to join the U.S not the other way around so that statement makes no sense.
B: Canada is the suburb of the U.S thank you very much Love the women there too.
Well thats partially true. We agreed to allow the rest of the US to join US.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:Yeah they are right Frazz, ask a prod from Northern Ireland if he is British and he will tell you.
Unlike the very simplistic stuff that Ted Kennedy liked to come out with, you cant just "send them all back to England"
A 2008 survey found that 57% of Protestants in NI described themselves as British, while 32% identified as Northern Irish, 6% as Ulster and 4% as Irish.
If thats how they describe themselves, then who are we to tell them otherwise?
But anyway, thats a tad OT.....
So what.
Ask a Catholic from Northern Ireland and he will tell you he's Irish.
FREE MICHEAL COLLINS...ummmm I mean YES!!!!!!!!! Really anywhere you go people are diehard to their region. I see albatross's point and to a level agree with it(gak those words tasted bad in my mouth). I fail to see though what this has to do with the swiss?
Kilkrazy wrote:Jewish traditional law (I can't remember the name) is allowed to be used for some aspects of Family Law in the UK as long as its use is agreed by both participants and does not conflict with the basic law of the land. In other words it becomes a special subset of Contract Law.
.
Beth Din.
From memory this is only legally binding as in UK law 2 parties can formally agree to be legally bound by the decision of a recognised and mutually agreed upon 3rd party.
..man, had to stretch the old grey matter to recall that.
That's the one.
The point is that this arrangement has satisfied a fairly small population of Orthodox Jews without harming basic human rights or causing the collapse of British society.
Orlanth wrote:You can build motorways without embracing fascism, even though it was the Third Reich that invented them.
The above far right organisation is capitalising on a good idea shared by what looks to be the majority of Swiss, it doesnt mean all the anit-mianret lobbyists are members of this apparent far right organisation.
If for example a mainstream party was to take an anti immigration stance that far right might celebrate with a poster campaign, it doesn't mean they are on the same side.
Right, and that's where you get to my first post on the subject. Simply put, the people starting this initiative are racist, but that doesn't mean all the supporters are. Most of them are just falling for the myth of Western culture being under siege, and are being led along by the racist core driving this and similar policies.
After all Switzerland is prohibiting bulding more minarets, it is not kicking out the black sheep. Besides the black sheep can mean anyone by its nature, the concept of the black sheep means the same thing across most of the western world - a 'misfit'. So the black sheep poster could be anti-Semitic or homophobic as much as anti-black. You have to watch propoganda carefully to understand it, the poster is deliberately unclear.
Really? The poster is unclear? The poster with the white sheep kicking the black sheep out of Switzerland is unclear? When the poster comes from a party with a strong record on opposing immigration, particularly black immigrants...
No, the poster is very clear.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:The problem with that argument is that just by virtue of being in a minority doesn't make one wrong than being in the majority automatically makes one right. Even if the party is in the minority they apparently got a majority of voters to vote for this legislation. The party itself may be in the minority but the sentiment that was expressed, it would seem, is not.
No, they aren't wrong because they're a minority. They're wrong because their racism drives them to thinking their culture is under threat and will be protected by jerking around some people that just want to build a place to pray.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Empchild wrote:I have studied the Koran and I agree that origonally islam did mean peace, and much like many people throughout history bad people changed it. I don't deny being a biggot towards muslims by any stretch. Hell I freely admit to it, and truthfully unlike some moronic skinhead my reasons date to fighting them in this war, and loosing friends. My disdain is no different then my grandfathers for the japaniese after WW2. Is it right? probably not, but I am not gonna hide the fact that I say YEA SWISS!!!!!!!!
You know, the people who you fought in Iraq are actually very different people to the people being jerked around by the Swiss. While Yugoslav muslims and Iraqi muslims share the same broad religion, they are not that similar culturally.
The majority of muslims in Switzerland are people who tried to leave Yugoslavia when the fighting broke out. And here you are cheering on the Swiss because you didn't like having to some completely different people. Good job.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote:Fixed:
I'd bet if you asked Americans what they thought the rest of Ireland thought, they would say Northern Ireland is part of, well Ireland.
It was dealing with that above issue was the lynchpin that made a peaceful solution to the Troubles possible.
I've never found that stereotype about Americans knowing little about the world to be that true - typically I find all nationalities to be equally clueless.
But the US certainly has a blindspot on Ireland and the Troubles. The number of Americans who are eager to come in and spout absolute nonsense on the issue is amazing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
reds8n wrote:Beth Din.
From memory this is only legally binding as in UK law 2 parties can formally agree to be legally bound by the decision of a recognised and mutually agreed upon 3rd party.
..man, had to stretch the old grey matter to recall that.
It basically works as a first round of arbitration that both parties can agree to in place of civil court, which is an option available to everyone, and there are still appeals available to all parties.
But that doesn't stop people saying 'they want Sharia Law' and then crapping on about making women wear veils.
Outrage on Swiss minaret vote, but how do Muslim states handle churches?
Swiss minaret vote leads to Muslim anger, but the Swiss aren't alone in restricting religious freedom.
By Dan Murphy | Staff writer 11.30.09
Print this Buzz up!Email and shareRepublish Get e-mail alerts RSS
Muslim reaction across the world to Sunday’s Swiss referendum banning the construction of further minarets for mosques in the tiny Alpine nation has been almost entirely negative.
Indonesia’s Maskuri Abdillah, leader of the largest Muslim organization in the world’s most populous Muslim nation said the vote reflected Swiss “hatred” of Islam and Muslims.
Egyptian Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa, close to the regime of President Hosni Mubarak, said the ban was an attempt to “insult the feelings of the Muslim community in and outside Switzerland.”
Yet the referendums outcome pales in comparison to restrictions on non-Muslims who aim to practice their faith in Muslim lands. In fact, the vote only brought Swiss legal practice closer to that of many majority Muslim states that also place limits on the construction of houses of worship.
Here’s a review of practices in four large majority Muslim states:
1. Indonesia. In a state with large minority populations of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and animists, the US State department reported in 2009 that at least 9 churches – and 12 mosques associated with the Ahmadiyya Islamic sect (which mainstream Muslim groups consider heretical) – were forced shut by violence or intimidation from community groups, and that a number of churches and Hindu temples have struggled to receive official permits in recent years. The Indonesian government has on a number of occasions stepped in to prevent church construction, largely over fears that it would stoke sectarian violence. But religious practice, by and large, is freer in Indonesia than most other Muslim majority states.
2. Egypt. The country has a sizeable minority of Eastern Orthodox Christians, or Copts. By law, their churches must received the permission of local Muslim communities before new construction is allowed. The State Department’s religious freedom report on Egypt in 2009 says in part: “Church and human rights leaders complain that many local officials intentionally delay the permit process. They charge that some local authorities refuse to process applications without ’supporting documents’ that are virtually impossible to obtain.”
3. Saudi Arabia, home of Mecca and Islam more generally, is one of the least religiously free nation’s on earth. In the Kingdom, the public practice of any faith but Islam is illegal. Christian’s and Jews receive 50 percent of the compensation that a Muslim would receive in personal injury court and the country has no churches at all, though it officially tolerates private worship in homes.
4. Pakistan. Freedom of religious worship is constitutionally guaranteed, but in practice the government sets limits and there has also been a rise in attacks by militant groups on both Christians and Shiites in the majority Sunni Muslim country in recent years. The State Department found that “societal discrimination against religious minorities was widespread, and societal violence against such groups occurred.” District level government “consistently refused to grant permission to construct non-Muslim places of worship, especially for Ahmadiyya and Baha’i communities” the State Department found, while also noting that missionaries are allowed to work inside the country. In 2009 “public pressure routinely prevented courts from protecting minority rights and forced judges to take strong action against any perceived offense to Sunni orthodoxy,” the report said.
That neat and all, what does it have to do with anything? We know about harsh islamic governments in the mideast, and indonesias wacky laws about religious identification (required). Are you somehow justifying the acts by noting that similar things happen in third world and strife ridden countries primarily run by the "oppressed" religion (keep in mind the ethnic muslims in question in switzerland do not come from any of those regions).
It's funny, you all cry when Iran takes british sailors who stray into their territory, and then defend the capture and extradition of middleastern civilians. Now you finally find time to criticize the saudi caliphate when a western power does something patently racist. Does it really make so much sense to justify a wrongful act by noting that those countries you profess to disapprove of do the same?
ShumaGorath wrote:That neat and all, what does it have to do with anything? We know about harsh islamic governments in the mideast, and indonesias wacky laws about religious identification (required). Are you somehow justifying the acts by noting that similar things happen in third world and strife ridden countries primarily run by the "oppressed" religion (keep in mind the ethnic muslims in question in switzerland do not come from any of those regions).
It's funny, you all cry when Iran takes british sailors who stray into their territory, and then defend the capture and extradition of middleastern civilians. Now you finally find time to criticize the saudi caliphate when a western power does something patently racist. Does it really make so much sense to justify a wrongful act by noting that those countries you profess to disapprove of do the same?
And liberals are immune to polite debate. See I can make outlandishly vapid blanket statements too.
Oh come now, Sebster and Dogma have been pretty polite, and you're not exactly free from at least easily perceivable cognitive dissonance in that last post.
Kilkrazy wrote:
I would have said it's exactly the focus of the discussion.
Reasons why minarets are bad.
1. They are tall.
2. They make a loud noise (muezzin.)
3. They are new and belong to Muslims
Reasons why church towers are good.
1.They are tall.
2. They make a loud noise (bells.)
3. They are old and don't belong to Muslims.
Reasons why communications arrays are good.
1. They are tall.
2. They let you use your mobile phone and digital TV etc.
3. They are new and belong to comms companies.
EXALT!
Bingo bango bongo. Wait not sure if that really makes sense: how about FTW.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
olympia wrote:
Conservatives are immune to cognitive dissonance.
And liberals are immune to polite debate. See I can make outlandishly vapid blanket statements too.
Oh come now, Sebster and Dogma have been pretty polite, and you're not exactly free from at least easily perceivable cognitive dissonance in that last post.
@sebster: maybe you missed the part where I said "yep im a biggot" and I explained why with very valid point. To somone who has not been through the situation I have you could not nor could you ever see it as I do. Believe I deal with my family on this issue, and some of my best friends from high school were muslim, but the fact remains that I can not now nor can I ever again look upon them in the same light as I did all those blissfull years ago. Ask any vet of any war, and you will get a similar responce. Once you see the sickning reality of what we can do to each other you can't help but hate your foe.
Empchild wrote:@sebster: maybe you missed the part where I said "yep im a biggot" and I explained why with very valid point. To somone who has not been through the situation I have you could not nor could you ever see it as I do. Believe I deal with my family on this issue, and some of my best friends from high school were muslim, but the fact remains that I can not now nor can I ever again look upon them in the same light as I did all those blissfull years ago. Ask any vet of any war, and you will get a similar responce. Once you see the sickning reality of what we can do to each other you can't help but hate your foe.
It's important to separate your foe from people of the same religion though. It's perfectly understandable to hate Shiite militias or AQIA insurgents, but these are just refugees and working class shmoes from a very different background and in a very different situation. When one in seven people on the planet are Muslim, it doesn't really make sense to frame them all through your experience in the conflict.
As Shuma said, there are a whole lotta Muslims on the planet. We’re talking about people from many different countries and cultures. Tarring them all with the same brush is insane. Can I judge all Christians by the standard of priestly pedophiles, pastors who have gay affairs while condemning homosexuals, or Jim Jones?
My understanding was that Northern Ireland is not a part of Great Brittain, which is the island to their East, and is part of the island of Ireland. They are, however, part of the United Kingdom.
A person from Northern Ireland would likely call themselves Brittish, because there isn't really a word for being from the United Kingdom ("Kingdomican"?), and they want to distinguish themselves from the Irish people who are actually from the country most commonly called Ireland.
As an example relating to the United States, Guam is our commonwealth, but not a part of North America.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote:Can I judge all Christians by the standard of priestly pedophiles, pastors who have gay affairs while condemning homosexuals, or Jim Jones?
Its much the same over here. The internal political issues of a state we consider to be stable, and friendly tend to be of minimal concern, so precision is rarely demanded.
Da Boss wrote: Hell, some people even just say England.
In fairness, and seeing as we appear to be on a bit of a history kick tonight, for quite some time, especially in the Victorian era, the word England was commonly used to refer to all of the Uk. We even, if memory serves, signed a few treaties as such and it was accepted to refer to the whole place.
...that said, I'm guessing most of the people who do so today aren't, perhaps, using it in this fashion.
Agreed red. Starting with the Tudors, the English saw all of their holdings in the British Isles as an "extension" of England itself, therefore it was England and rightfully theirs. The idea may have simmered down, but up until George V, the word England was still widely used as a title for the entirety of the UK. It has changed now though, and thus we demand accuracy!
squilverine wrote:What i do have a problem with is that being enforced upon those who have no interest in them. Tolerance is fine, but allowing a minority to do as they please for fear of being called racist is not ok. It merely leads to resentment and racial tension.
“allowing a minority to do as they please” is a remarkably broad statement. The concept of personal freedom is based on all of us being allowed (broadly) to do as we please. Whether we’re a minority or majority. Like black people being allowed to sit at lunch counters in the American South, as opposed to them being reserved for Whites Only. Sometimes people are called racist because they seem to be supporting the concept of a minority having LESS freedom. Sometimes such accusations are leveled unfairly or inaccurately, but from our experience here in the US, if you make a mistake, it’s usually better to err on the side of protecting the people who have less power and influence.
It may be a broad statement but the sentiment behind it, is that there are many who are affraid to say no to someone from a minority background for fear of being branded a racist
Mannahnin wrote:
squilverine wrote:In many places in the UK there is open resentment towards Muslims as it is believed that they recieve better treatment than others (priority for social housing and so on) regardless of if this is true or not...
Well, the “true or not” part is really important. Sometimes the perception is wrong. Or sometimes it’s being exaggerated by people with a political or financial agenda (say, the BNP, or news outlets which subsist on fear and sensationalism). If the “better treatment” part is indeed wrong, then being resentful towards that minority is wrong too.
Firstly, if you are going to quote me please use the whole sentence so that it can be read in the context it was meant to be read. I agree that the right or wrong is incredibly important and in fact false perceptions are one of the route causes of intolerance and racism. However the point I was trying to make is that resentment exists and not enough is being done by government (at local and national level) to show that all applicants for social housing, state benefits etc are treated fairly and by the same rules.
Mannahnin wrote:
squilverine wrote:…people are fed up of having the beliefs of others forced upon them, and being told that if they dis-agree they are racist.
Hang on, where are the beliefs of others forced on you? I could swear just below you advocate immigrants living by the customs of the country they live in. If (for example) the custom in your adopted nation is to go with your head uncovered in the Summer, and your religion forbids having your head uncovered, which one needs to give? If a given behavior is forced on you, that would seem to cross the line. Can you give examples of when and how you have been forced to engage in a behavior which is contrary to your beliefs?
In the case of the Swiss, having a giant tower which broadcasts Islamic prayer five times a day dumped in your back yard certainly counts as having anothers beliefs forced upon another. At no point have I said that I have had anothers beliefs forced upon me. You dont have to suffer an injustice to be able to speak out against it. The key to a succesful multicultural society and any other relationship is openness and compramise.
Mannahnin wrote:
squilverine wrote:I personaly find Sharia law abhorent and almost impossible to comprehend, but if that is the way someone wishes to live their life then fine, but do so in a country where the majority also want that, do not expect others to adopt your culture and way of thinking just to suit yourself.
We’re really close to agreement here. I personally disagree with Sharia law too, but you’re intermingling two separate concepts. In one part of the above sentence, you say people should live in some other country if they want to live by Sharia, and in another you say said people shouldn’t expect others to adopt their culture. These are two totally different concepts. I don’t think Muslims in Britain generally expect anyone else to adopt their culture. But some of them do want to live (personally) within their own religious/legal codes. Personally I think there does need to be a clear line of separation between the cultural and legal authorities, and I can absolutely sympathize with people who are worried that Sharia law is being allowed too much influence inside a secular nation. That’s a concern. But that’s still different from saying people who want to honor Sharia need to live somewhere else entirely.
There is a big differnce between someone wishing to honour Sharia law themselves, and wanting to impose Sharia law upon everyone else in the country. I have no problem with someone wishing to observe Sharia law at a personal level, however it must go no further than that, once they try to extend it's influence to others who do not hold the same beliefs then they have oversteped the mark. If someone wants to live in a society where everyone lives by Sharia law then there are two options' move to a country with Sharia law, or convince the elected government that it is within the interests of the majority of the population to change the current set of laws we live by.
Mannahnin wrote:
squilverine wrote:…however for a country to function successfuly the wishes of the majority must be followed where ever it is practical.
Not to belabor the point, but it was pretty practical for black people in the American South to be banned from certain lunch counters. Heck, the owners apparently wanted to conduct their businesses in a racist way, and they were content to absorb the cost of a smaller customer base. The wishes of the majority are not always fair or just. Part of the reason why pretty much every modern “democracy” is actually a Republic is because the minority does need to be protected from being abused by the power of the majority.
Good point, practicality for the majority isn't always the right path to take.
@Kilkrazy - My grandad was based there in the early '50's - who was your dad with?
My understanding was that Northern Ireland is not a part of Great Britain, which is the island to their East, and is part of the island of Ireland. They are, however, part of the United Kingdom.
A person from Northern Ireland would likely call themselves British, because there isn't really a word for being from the United Kingdom ("Kingdomican"?), and they want to distinguish themselves from the Irish people who are actually from the country most commonly called Ireland.
Ireland is technically part of the British Isles, but not 'Britain', which is recognised as being the UK. Both my parents (my mum was born to english parents on a British army-base) and sister were born in Northern Ireland, but I was born in England - I consider myself British and celebrate both parts of my lineage. Speaking for my Northern-Irish family - there is a mix of extreme (and I mean EXTREME) Irish nationalism and people who just consider themselves as being from Ulster. Wanting self-determination for Ulster is vastly different from wanting a union with/joining The Republic of Ireland. That's an important distinction. Anyone should feel free to PM me on this subject, as I have a feeling we may get told off for going too far off-topic.
squilverine wrote:
In the case of the Swiss, having a giant tower which broadcasts Islamic prayer five times a day dumped in your back yard certainly counts as having anothers beliefs forced upon another.
How so? I was under the impression that forcing belief upon someone entailed adherence, not mere tolerance. If tolerating the beliefs of others is tacit to having said belief forced upon you, then we all have beliefs forced upon us every day. Indeed, we're doing it to each other right now.
ShumaGorath wrote:That neat and all, what does it have to do with anything? We know about harsh islamic governments in the mideast, and indonesias wacky laws about religious identification (required). Are you somehow justifying the acts by noting that similar things happen in third world and strife ridden countries primarily run by the "oppressed" religion (keep in mind the ethnic muslims in question in switzerland do not come from any of those regions).
one of the examples given was saudi arabia, they are a very rich country, i think the main part of the statement was the messages of anger at the perseved intolerence (in my opinion it was) were from people from very intolerent contries. although the point is true about the fact that the majority of muslims in switzerland are immegrants from former yugoslavia,so no link should be made with other muslim groups, then why are are groups from egypt and indonesia commenting (because of the larger whole).
there are two reasons why this was voted in:
1. racism/fear
2. tourism, the majority of actual swiss (not the tax dodgers who 'reside' there) make money from tourism so don't want the picturesque chocolate box style panaramas changes with non cosy swiss stuff (just like tourists go to tunisa or marrakesh for the hussle and bussle of the busy of the classical style of medieval islamic achitecture, or go to tokyo of the the ultra modern/futuristic lifestyle they don't go for the thinks that they have at home)
i hope its the 2nd reason but its probably the 1st. i have no problem with any tall structure (church, mosque, temple, office block or national monument) as long as it is well built and pleasing to the eye of the general public, i would much rather have a mineret that and ugly concrete monstrosity of an office block. i do not agree with the ammendments, but i do not agree with members (powerful political or religious leader) from countries with little respect for other faiths ranting that this is discriminatory, only those from groups of open, tolerant muslim (and other) groups hold any salt
Kilkrazy wrote:The old saw about the pot calling the kettle black works both ways.
As long as it's the same pot. It would be silly to condemn Americans as hypocrits because some wear fur coats while other Americans campaign for equal rights.
Similarly, it is near incoherent to justify a policy oppressing a Muslim minority on the basis that other Muslims in other countries also have policies oppressing minority religions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:Oh come now, Sebster and Dogma have been pretty polite, and you're not exactly free from at least easily perceivable cognitive dissonance in that last post.
Really? I thought I'd been quite scathing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Empchild wrote:@sebster: maybe you missed the part where I said "yep im a biggot" and I explained why with very valid point. To somone who has not been through the situation I have you could not nor could you ever see it as I do. Believe I deal with my family on this issue, and some of my best friends from high school were muslim, but the fact remains that I can not now nor can I ever again look upon them in the same light as I did all those blissfull years ago. Ask any vet of any war, and you will get a similar responce. Once you see the sickning reality of what we can do to each other you can't help but hate your foe.
First up, not every vet feels that way. It's certainly a common response but hardly absolute.
Second up, odd that you don't consider refugees of ethnic and religious violence in the same light, if anything they've got more reason to be hostile to other groups. Yet they end up trying to restart their lives in foreign lands full of the same religious groups that were attacking them back home. And then they get told they can't build mosques in their traditional style, and it's justified because some Muslims in another country are jerks.
Lastly, everyone is a little racist, when you've been through an armed conflict it's understandable that you might end up more racist. Recognising our own racism is the first step towards building a more rational world view. You've recognised the racism, instead of working on that you've decided that because that's how you feel there's nothing wrong, even to the point of being happily indifferent to the obvious error of considering Swiss Muslims and Iraqi Muslims the same.
To expand on Dogma's point, what would you think of a guy who suffered sexual abuse at the hands of a paedophile priest, who then decided he hated Christians. It would be understandable for him to have a fear or hatred of Christians, and it would be understandable if he never managed to overcome that. But what if he recognised that fear or hatred and embraced it?
"I was abused by a priest, and now I'm bigoted against Christians. It's good that Christians can't build churches in Saudi Arabia. You wouldn't understand unless you were abused."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
squilverine wrote:In the case of the Swiss, having a giant tower which broadcasts Islamic prayer five times a day dumped in your back yard certainly counts as having anothers beliefs forced upon another. At no point have I said that I have had anothers beliefs forced upon me. You dont have to suffer an injustice to be able to speak out against it. The key to a succesful multicultural society and any other relationship is openness and compramise.
Compromise would be recognising that excessive noise and a minaret are too different things, and controlling the offending noise while leaving minarets alone would be a compromise. Compromise would be recognising that certain sites in Switzerland are culturally and architecturally unique and prohibiting religious minorites building churches in those areas, while allowing varied architectural styles across the rest of the country.
Compromise is not initiating a constitutional ban on minarets and then complaining about how oppressive Muslims are.
Kilkrazy wrote:My father hates Arabs, because he was stationed in places like Aden in the 50s and saw how cruel they were to animals.
That does not mean all Arabs were cruel then or that they are now.
Nor is it an excuse for the way he thinks, but it is an explanation.
It doesn't matter what my father thinks about Arabs as long as other people don't uncritically accept his view as the truth.
Mine didn't trust them because they tried to kill him.
Dated an Iraqi girl for a few months. Nice girl, smart, beautiful, absolutely batgak crazy.
I think that's the problem, to most everyone else in the world, Arabs/Muslims/etc are just seen as batgak crazy. But to them, they're perfectly normal and we are the ones that are crazy.
And eventually one side will exterminate the other or die trying.
olympia wrote:There are plenty of veterans who do not become bigots after their experience.
Their are tons more that do what's your point? Look I understand to many what I say is by all accounts wrong, and yes I am sure to some level my belief is unjust, but I do not go out of my way to make a muslims life hard, I do not tell them my views unless asked, all in all I am rather pleasent towards them. What I feel is that I don't want them in my home, or in my family. I feel my reasons are just and honestly nothing is going to disuade me from them especially after my life experiences. Is it wrong to some I am sure it is, but that is their belief and this is mine.
olympia wrote:There are plenty of veterans who do not become bigots after their experience.
QFT
When I was serving, I worked alongside other soldiers from all sorts of different countries, who held all sorts of beliefs. When I was in basic one of the lads in my section was Muslim from Basra in Iraq. Most of the people I served with couldn't give a toss where you were from or who you prayed to as long as you were watching their backs.
Orlanth wrote:You can build motorways without embracing fascism, even though it was the Third Reich that invented them.
The above far right organisation is capitalising on a good idea shared by what looks to be the majority of Swiss, it doesn't mean all the anit-minaret lobbyists are members of this apparent far right organisation.
If for example a mainstream party was to take an anti immigration stance that far right might celebrate with a poster campaign, it doesn't mean they are on the same side.
Right, and that's where you get to my first post on the subject. Simply put, the people starting this initiative are racist, but that doesn't mean all the supporters are. Most of them are just falling for the myth of Western culture being under siege, and are being led along by the racist core driving this and similar policies.
No, one of the parties supporting the initiative is racist. The policy was instigated by the Swiss government and for good reason, it draws a line and says to Islam here and no further.
as for the myth that Western culture is under siege, ok, look at the policies of Islamic fundamentalism. They are quite open about it, Islam must replace Christianity and Islamic law must be introduced. Whether it is practical or not doesn't stop it from being a threat, especially if some continue to profess that it is all a myth even after Islamic fundamentalists admit full face that this is what they want to do.
sebster wrote:
After all Switzerland is prohibiting bulding more minarets, it is not kicking out the black sheep. Besides the black sheep can mean anyone by its nature, the concept of the black sheep means the same thing across most of the western world - a 'misfit'. So the black sheep poster could be anti-Semitic or homophobic as much as anti-black. You have to watch propoganda carefully to understand it, the poster is deliberately unclear.
Really? The poster is unclear? The poster with the white sheep kicking the black sheep out of Switzerland is unclear? When the poster comes from a party with a strong record on opposing immigration, particularly black immigrants...
No, the poster is very clear.
The poster is unclear and you are confused.
What is a black sheep? You narrowed it down to 'black immigrants', in fact a black sheep can be any misfit or minority as stated above. You need to look closely at propoganda to understand it, you have not and thus you are confused.
Look again, the poster is not anti black, its anti black sheep and mentions security as the issue. This can be used to represent ANYONE the pary considers a black sheep. homosexuals Jews, immigrants black or otherwise, other faiths etc etc etc. The poster IS unclear.
sebster wrote:
Ahtman wrote:The problem with that argument is that just by virtue of being in a minority doesn't make one wrong than being in the majority automatically makes one right. Even if the party is in the minority they apparently got a majority of voters to vote for this legislation. The party itself may be in the minority but the sentiment that was expressed, it would seem, is not.
No, they aren't wrong because they're a minority. They're wrong because their racism drives them to thinking their culture is under threat and will be protected by jerking around some people that just want to build a place to pray.
Nope you are wrong again. Its not racism to believe your culture is under threat if the threat is open and undisguised. Read what the Islamic Fundamentalists say they want to do. You are also wrong because they are not 'jerking around people who just want somewhere to pray'. The ban is on minarets, not mosques, its sends a message against proliferation but says that within that limit Moslem citizens can continue as normal. If Mosques were to be banned yes I would agree, but Minarets are not core to Islamic teaching, just tradition and the Swiss have every right to insist that their indigenous tradition takes precedence..
sebster wrote:
You know, the people who you fought in Iraq are actually very different people to the people being jerked around by the Swiss. While Yugoslav muslims and Iraqi muslims share the same broad religion, they are not that similar culturally.
Actually many of the people fighting is Afghanistan are European moslem converts, a frighteningly large number from the UK. Just don't expect the British government to admit this, ask veterans instead. By sticking heads in the sand this nation has birthed a Chimera. You are utterly wrong. The Glasgow bombers were British doctors, the 7/7 bombers were British citizens, the recent arrests across Europe for the aborted repeat attacks of 9/11 were British citizens too. See a pattern, they don't need to get bombers from war torn Islamic republics, you can get them from politically correct states with their heads in the sand. Being brought up with the benefits of western society doesnt stop Islamic Fundamentalism from occuring, furthermore condemnation of the fundamentalists from 'mainstream' moslem community has been very thin on the ground, I remember after the 7/7 London bombings the BBC asking Moslem community leaders to condemn the bombings, most were very evasive, and the best we could see was 'condemnation of all violence'.
sebster wrote:
But the US certainly has a blindspot on Ireland and the Troubles. The number of Americans who are eager to come in and spout absolute nonsense on the issue is amazing.
We agree on something. Part of the problem in the US is a very vocal Irish American lobby which has been quieter once 9/11 taught the US that terrorism against a democratic state was not heroic or positive. You should see some of the crap that they taech on Irish history in some American schools, calling it one sided would be an understatement. I remember US news articles about Irish history school curriculum books in New York, ALL were from a very slanted Republican viewpoint. If you read those at face value in school you would be forgiven for thinking the UK is a colony of the Third Reich.
Orlanth wrote:You can build motorways without embracing fascism, even though it was the Third Reich that invented them.
The above far right organisation is capitalising on a good idea shared by what looks to be the majority of Swiss, it doesnt mean all the anit-mianret lobbyists are members of this apparent far right organisation.
If for example a mainstream party was to take an anti immigration stance that far right might celebrate with a poster campaign, it doesn't mean they are on the same side.
Right, and that's where you get to my first post on the subject. Simply put, the people starting this initiative are racist, but that doesn't mean all the supporters are. Most of them are just falling for the myth of Western culture being under siege, and are being led along by the racist core driving this and similar policies.
No, one of the parties supporting the initiative is racist. The policy was instigated by the Swiss government and for good reason, it draws a line and says to Islam here and no further.
as for the myth that Western culture is under siege, ok, look at the policies of islmic fundamentalism. They are quirte open about it, islam must replace Christianity and Islamic law must be introduced. Whether it is partical or not doesnt stop it from being a threat, especially if some continue to profess that it is all a myth even after Islamic fundamentalists admit full face that this is what they want to do.
sebster wrote:
After all Switzerland is prohibiting bulding more minarets, it is not kicking out the black sheep. Besides the black sheep can mean anyone by its nature, the concept of the black sheep means the same thing across most of the western world - a 'misfit'. So the black sheep poster could be anti-Semitic or homophobic as much as anti-black. You have to watch propoganda carefully to understand it, the poster is deliberately unclear.
Really? The poster is unclear? The poster with the white sheep kicking the black sheep out of Switzerland is unclear? When the poster comes from a party with a strong record on opposing immigration, particularly black immigrants...
No, the poster is very clear.
The poster is unclear and you are confused.
What is a black sheep? You narrowed it down to 'black immigrants', in fact a black sheep can be any misfit or minority as stated above. You need to look closely at propoganda to understand it, you have not and thus you are confused.
Look again, the poster is not anti black, its anti black sheep and mentions security as the issue. This can be used to represent ANYONE the pary considers a black sheep. homosexuals Jews, immigrants black or otherwise, other faiths etc etc etc. The poster IS unclear.
sebster wrote:
Ahtman wrote:The problem with that argument is that just by virtue of being in a minority doesn't make one wrong than being in the majority automatically makes one right. Even if the party is in the minority they apparently got a majority of voters to vote for this legislation. The party itself may be in the minority but the sentiment that was expressed, it would seem, is not.
No, they aren't wrong because they're a minority. They're wrong because their racism drives them to thinking their culture is under threat and will be protected by jerking around some people that just want to build a place to pray.
Nope you are wrong again. Its not racism to believe your culture is under threat if the threat is open and undisguised. Read what the Islamic Fundamentalists say they want to do. You are also wrong because they are not 'jerking around people who just want somewhere to pray'. The ban is on minarets, not mosques, its sends a message against proliferation but says that within that limit Moslem citizens can continue as normal. If Mosques were to be banned yes I would agree, but Minarets are not core to Islamic teaching, just tradition and the Swiss have every right to insist that their indigenous tradition takes precedence..
sebster wrote:
You know, the people who you fought in Iraq are actually very different people to the people being jerked around by the Swiss. While Yugoslav muslims and Iraqi muslims share the same broad religion, they are not that similar culturally.
Actually many of the people fighting is Afghanistan are European moslem converts, a frighteningly large number from the UK. just dont expect the British govenment to admit this, ask veterans instead. By sticking heads in the sand this nation has birthed a Chimera. You are utterly wrong. The Glasgow bombers were Britsh doctors, the 7/7 bombers were British citizens, the recent arrests across Europe for the aborted repaeat attacks of 9/11 were British cirtizens too. See a pattern, they don't need to get bombers from war torn Islamic republics, uou can get them from politically correct states with their heads in the sand. Being brought up with the benefits of western society dfoersnt stop Islamic Fundamentalism from occuring, furthermore condemnation of the fundamentalists from 'mainstream' moslem community has been very thin on the ground, I remebmer after the 7/7 london bombings the BBX asking Moslem community leaders to condemn the bombings, miost were very evasive, and the best we could see was 'condemnation of all violence'.
sebster wrote:
But the US certainly has a blindspot on Ireland and the Troubles. The number of Americans who are eager to come in and spout absolute nonsense on the issue is amazing.
We agree on something. Part of the problem in the US is a very vocal Irish American lobby which has been quieter once 9/11 taught the US that terrorism against a democratic state was not heroic or positive. You should see some of the crap that they tech on Irish history in some American schools, calling it one sided would be an understatement. I remember US news articles about Irish history school curriculum books in New York, ALL were from a very slanted Republican viewpoint. If you read those at face value in school you would be forgiven for thinking the UK is a colony of the Third Reich.
the Fort Hood terrorist was a psychiatrist as well.
Frazzled wrote:
the Fort Hood terrorist was a psychiatrist as well.
yes by literal meaning he would be considered a terrorist, but I personally do not believe it was a organized terrorist attack.
Doesn't have to be an organized conspiracy to be a terrorist attack.
The UK press is still apparently of the opinion this was an 'ordinary' gone postal event. I heard otherwise, but have yet to double source this.
The UK press is full of PC nonsense.
Contacted radical mullah
Had a plan
Others warned about his beliefs
That whole Allah Akhbar thing
He had a freaking business card that said SOA.
Even worse is the victems familys may not recieve the veterans death benifits as if they had died in combat. Pure BS, they deserve full military honors and there Purple Hearts.
Though I do agree to a point with you my fellow servicemember on the benefits part they do not in my opinon deserve purple harts. I could see a MSM or something but purple hearts are meant for WIA or KIA in war and though what happened is another stain on the military it is not an act of direct enemy hostilities. This soldier was a member of our armed forces thus committing fratricide(not sure if I spelled that right). Though I do not by any account agree with the actions of him, and feels toture is to sweet for men like him if his victimes were to recieve such a meritorious honor such as a purple heart then it would demean the value of that award and to all those reciepients before them.
For those of you out of country folks a purple heart is an award our nations military gives to soldiers who are wounded our killed while fighting in a military action both abroad, and domestic(hasn't been one of those since the coal miners revolt in the early 20th century).
Frazzled wrote: the Fort Hood terrorist was a psychiatrist as well.
yes by literal meaning he would be considered a terrorist, but I personally do not believe it was a organized terrorist attack.
Doesn't have to be an organized conspiracy to be a terrorist attack.
The UK press is still apparently of the opinion this was an 'ordinary' gone postal event. I heard otherwise, but have yet to double source this.
The UK press is full of PC nonsense.
Contacted radical mullah Had a plan Others warned about his beliefs That whole Allah Akhbar thing He had a freaking business card that said SOA.
Going postal because your dog talks to you and going postal because Allah talks to you really isn't all that different. Can't it be terrorism and going postal? Though realistically this was not a terrorist action. For terrorism you need some sort of cause or organizational structure. Or at least an ability to site a reason for an action. It's just crazed violence past a certain point of ambiguity, and while his reasons weren't all that ambiguous in hindsight, neither was the huckabee-cop-killers. Was that terrorism? Terrorism's got a fairly specific meaning, even if that definition has broadened greatly since 9/11 (mostly incorrectly).
Even worse is the victems familys may not recieve the veterans death benifits as if they had died in combat. Pure BS, they deserve full military honors and there Purple Hearts.
Agreed. This event isn't so different than any suicide attack overseas.
Frazzled wrote:You contradict yourself. A suicide attack IS terrorism. Thats what it was.
ter⋅ror⋅ism [ter-uh-riz-uhm] Show IPA
Use terrorism in a Sentence
–noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
Doesn't say anything about suicide attack in there. This doesn't seem to be about intimidation or coercion, since that requires a living body to really do. This act wasn't the second definition, as that wouldn't even make sense. And it's not really the third as he wasn't governing or seemingly resisting a government (Though that ones pretty arguable, and it comes down to what he says his actual reasons were, whenever he decides to share them. It could be that he was striking at the "west" which could be considered an anti governmental act). Killing for a religion isn't always terrorism. Suicide attacks aren't always terrorism. You have to act with a purpose and your goal has to be to instill fear or intimidate through coercion of violence.
post⋅al [pohs-tl] Show IPA
–adjective
1. of or pertaining to the post office or mail service: postal delivery; postal employees.
–noun
2. Informal. postal card.
—Idiom
3. go postal, Slang. to lose control or go crazy, esp. in a violent way.
This was definitely going postal. It may or may not be terrorism depending on your definition of terrorism. If this qualifies as terrorism though so do many, many, many other forms of violence and crime. What's the difference between the columbine kids and these guys? One said Allah Akbar. Were they both terrorism? Thats a genuine quesiton, not a strawman. The term terrorism has changed significantly since 9/11.
Doesn't say anything about suicide attack in there.
OK boys and girls you heard it here first! According to Shuma all those suicide attacks aren't terrorism! Evidently those planes going into the Towers was not terrorism after all. Good to hear. I can sleep soundly at night now.
ShumaGorath wrote:–noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
Doesn't say anything about suicide attack in there. This doesn't seem to be about intimidation or coercion, since that requires a living body to really do. This act wasn't the second definition, as that wouldn't even make sense. And it's not really the third as he wasn't governing or seemingly resisting a government (Though that ones pretty arguable, and it comes down to what he says his actual reasons were, whenever he decides to share them. It could be that he was striking at the "west" which could be considered an anti governmental act). Killing for a religion isn't always terrorism. Suicide attacks aren't always terrorism. You have to act with a purpose and your goal has to be to instill fear or intimidate through coercion of violence.
So what your saying is a suicide bomb is an act of love? Let's see it puts people into a state of fear...check
-It causes mass amoutns of voiolence.....check
-it keeps people in line through threats and intimidations of killing them... check check and check..
yep seems like terrorism to me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Doesn't say anything about suicide attack in there.
OK boys and girls you heard it here first! According to Shuma all those suicide attacks aren't terrorism! Evidently those planes going into the Towers was not terrorism after all. Good to hear. I can sleep soundly at night now.
LOL stop that dude I'm trying not to laugh to ahrd in my office right now.
I think, and don't quote me on this, that Shuma is saying that while a terrorist attack can be done in the form of a suicide bombing/assault...not all suicide assaults are terrorism.
Kanluwen wrote:I think, and don't quote me on this, that Shuma is saying that while a terrorist attack can be done in the form of a suicide bombing/assault...not all suicide assaults are terrorism.
I could agree that there is s statistical chance that could be the case. Then you look at other factors.
Why?
*In contact with radical imams who have been instrumental in previous attacks on US interests-check
*Made similar statements about Islam-check
*Has a business card-check
Yep thats a terrorist nutjob. And before anyone says he was insane I'll agree 100%. I think thats kind of a requirement of the actual field guys.
OK boys and girls you heard it here first! According to Shuma all those suicide attacks aren't terrorism! Evidently those planes going into the Towers was not terrorism after all. Good to hear. I can sleep soundly at night now.
So you consider any form of murder suicide terrorism? I mean, I know you're basically nothing but a senseless troll, but I had a legitimate question in my post, and I had hoped you could drop the act for five seconds and answer it. I guess I had hoped for too much considering your track record (and you're a mod?).
So what your saying is a suicide bomb is an act of love? Let's see it puts people into a state of fear...check
-It causes mass amoutns of voiolence.....check
-it keeps people in line through threats and intimidations of killing them... check check and check..
yep seems like terrorism to me.
Yeah, but how's that different then when we bomb? We dropped leaflets before shock and awe (intimidation) dropped hundreds of thousands of pounds of bombs (mass amounts o violence) and routinely and aggressively pursue and kill our "enemies" in the field if they infringe on the laws we set out (keeping people in line).
Are you saying that a predator missile is cupids arrow or something? If you broaden the definition of terrorism to include even the random wacked out crazy then you also include our own military forces and essentially every other form of organized or disorganized violence on the planet. Do you want to be a terrorist? If there is no straight definition for the term, and if all it means is "violent enemy (though given the fact that financial contributers are considered terrorists too)" then what are you left with? I'm not trolling you, and while fraz will probably just keep trolling me (again, how is he a mod?) I would actually like to have this conversation with someone thats served in a military fashion.
Hassan (the Fort hood attacker) was a terrorist. He had openly stated his beliefs that muslims should "rise up" against multinational forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. He contacted known Al Qaeda sympathisers in yemen. he shouted Allah Ackbar before opening fire. The point is that it is terrorism - an attack for the purpose of advancing a political/religious agenda through the spread of fear.
On Topic: A secular government legally amended their own constitution with a democratic vote. They outlawed the building of a specific type of tower. Although the motivations behind this move MAY be suspect, I see no real human rights issue.
OK boys and girls you heard it here first! According to Shuma all those suicide attacks aren't terrorism! Evidently those planes going into the Towers was not terrorism after all. Good to hear. I can sleep soundly at night now.
So you consider any form of murder suicide terrorism? I mean, I know you're basically nothing but a senseless troll, but I had a legitimate question in my post, and I had hoped you could drop the act for five seconds and answer it. I guess I had hoped for too much considering your track record (and you're a mod?).
Kanluwen wrote:I think, and don't quote me on this, that Shuma is saying that while a terrorist attack can be done in the form of a suicide bombing/assault...not all suicide assaults are terrorism.
Thats what I was saying yes. I thought I had been pretty straight about it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
OK boys and girls you heard it here first! According to Shuma all those suicide attacks aren't terrorism! Evidently those planes going into the Towers was not terrorism after all. Good to hear. I can sleep soundly at night now.
So you consider any form of murder suicide terrorism? I mean, I know you're basically nothing but a senseless troll, but I had a legitimate question in my post, and I had hoped you could drop the act for five seconds and answer it. I guess I had hoped for too much considering your track record (and you're a mod?).
.
Why I do believe thats a personal attack.
And what you did wasn't? So you have double standards too?
You're not just a city boy from South Detroit, taking the midnight train going anywhere?!
Preacherman says its the end of time, and the Mississippii River she's agoin' dry. Stock market's up and the interest is down and you only get mugged if you go downtown.
Hassan (the Fort hood attacker) was a terrorist. He had openly stated his beliefs that muslims should "rise up" against multinational forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. He contacted known Al Qaeda sympathisers in yemen. he shouted Allah Ackbar before opening fire. The point is that it is terrorism - an attack for the purpose of advancing a political/religious agenda through the spread of fear.
Where did he say that about his beliefs, was it militant in nature? I wasn't too aware of what he had said on the topic previous to the shootings, by what I had heard of the situation he had not talked much about anything similar before the event. If he had been discussing such things as violent uprising previous to the event, or advocating such things, then it would change the color of the act considerably from a lone crazy to a pre meditated and possibly coordinated act, in which case, definite terrorism.
I think there were some Purple Hearts earned at Pearl Harbour in late 1941.
Were Japanese kamikaze pilots terrorists, or regular members of their country's armed forces?
The human rights issue in the Swiss case is that the constitution has been amended so that members of one specific religion now have fewer civil rights than any other.
That is against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the former constitution of the Swiss Confederation.
If you cannot see what is disturbing about that, imagine that atheists, muslims and non-denominationals, being the majority in a country, win a referendum that Roman Catholics should not be allowed to burn incense because the smell is offensive. Anyone else can still burn incense, but not Roman Catholics.
Kilkrazy wrote:I think there were some Purple Hearts earned at Pearl Harbour in late 1941.
Were Japanese kamikaze pilots terrorists, or regular members of their country's armed forces?
*They wore uniforms.
*They were part of the actual military.
*They fought under a declaration of war.
*They attacked military targets, in wartime.
Military, against legitimate targets.
Specifically, about half way down, there's a quote. "At Fort Hood, he told a colleague, Col Terry Lee, that he believed Muslims should rise up against American 'aggressors'."
Kilkrazy wrote:I think there were some Purple Hearts earned at Pearl Harbour in late 1941.
Were Japanese kamikaze pilots terrorists, or regular members of their country's armed forces?
*They wore uniforms.
*They were part of the actual military.
*They fought under a declaration of war.
*They attacked military targets, in wartime.
Military, against legitimate targets.
OK boys and girls you heard it here first! According to Fraz all those suicide attacks aren't terrorism!
Kanluwen wrote:Well, to be fair: The United States wasn't officially at war with Japan or Germany, as far as I recall.
But they were providing materiale to Britain and Russia under the lend-lease act, if I remember it right.
Either way, kamikaze pilots would be put into a special category of hell now for their actions.
legally they declared war on us. I don't think there were any Kamikaze attacks in Pearl, mayhaps some impromptu crashing planes but not "Kamikazes." Angels dancing on the head of a pin argument though as you correctly point out.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:according to news reports, he made comments of that nature to his superiors and patients as well as at presentations while working at Walter Reed.
Specifically, about half way down, there's a quote. "At Fort Hood, he told a colleague, Col Terry Lee, that he believed Muslims should rise up against American 'aggressors'."
Yeah, that sounds like an attempt at terrorism. It also sounds like he was incredibly lonely and distraught as well, it's almost like he took up fanaticism to fill some sort of hole in his life. I would feel sorry for him if he didn't kill people. He did though, so no sorry for him. Dudes a coward for finding comfort in violence and targeting innocents that couldn't fight back.
Kanluwen wrote:Okay folk. Can we be a bit more calm?
Everyone give a sidehug to the person next to you, and listen to the soothing sounds of Journey.
I defy you!
If I can find a willing woman she is getting the fullest front hug I can give!
What's Journey?
I invite you to check out youtube. Make sure your life insurance is paid up though, so Mrs. KK can live the life of ultimate luxury with Boy Toy #1 after you pitch yourself out a highrise window. Just saying.
oh, there's no doubt he was insane. Hopelessness is a key ingredient in the suicide attacker soup. Kind of like how asian hookers are the key ingredient in my sou... uhm... nevermind.
Oh and Frazzled, 14426 posts? Seriously? SERIOUSLY? C'mon Man.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:oh, there's no doubt he was insane. Hopelessness is a key ingredient in the suicide attacker soup. Kind of like how asian hookers are the key ingredient in my sou... uhm... nevermind.
Thats a waste of a good hoo*cough*. Yes, he was insane.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:oh, there's no doubt he was insane. Hopelessness is a key ingredient in the suicide attacker soup. Kind of like how asian hookers are the key ingredient in my sou... uhm... nevermind.
Oh and Frazzled, 14426 posts? Seriously? SERIOUSLY? C'mon Man.
So we're all agreed that Kanluwen is insane and this Journey thing is a symptom?
.
) in Turkey.
s.
