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.

loki old fart wrote:

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.

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.

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.

Kilkrazy wrote:
I would have said it's exactly the focus of the discussion.

Da Boss wrote:And to reiterate Sebster's point, which I had previously made, this is the initiative of a minority, racist party.

Kilkrazy wrote:In my view human rights is the core of the issue.

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 *%$#

ShumaGorath wrote:

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.

Mannahnin wrote:

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).

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

squilverine wrote:…however for a country to function successfuly the wishes of the majority must be followed where ever it is practical.

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'd bet if you asked the rest of Ireland, they would say Northern Ireland is part of, well Ireland.

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.

Albatross wrote:

[ 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?

Frazzled wrote:
I'd bet if you asked the rest of Ireland, they would say Northern Ireland is part of, well Ireland.

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.

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.
.

Empchild wrote:

Albatross wrote:

[ 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.

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.....

reds8n wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!!!!!!!!

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.

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.

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.