Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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?

The old saw about the pot calling the kettle black works both ways.

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?

Conservatives are immune to cognitive dissonance.

olympia wrote:

Conservatives are immune to cognitive dissonance.

And liberals are immune to polite debate. See I can make outlandishly vapid blanket statements too.

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.

Anung Un Rama wrote:

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.

Agreed.

@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.

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.

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?

According to internet atheists, most definitely!

I find that people here use Great Britain, Britain and the UK to mean the same thing. Hell, some people even just say England.

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.

I demand it! Props to Orkeo for posting my thoughts. Damn, I didn't know you were psychic...get outta my head mutant!

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.

All of them? Damn, your dad must have been a tough SoB.

Mannahnin wrote:All of them? Damn, your dad must have been a tough SoB.

Just two vehicle loads full in Morocco (?) (wherever the the French colony was). There was a small bomber refueling station there.

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!

reds8n wrote:...that said, I'm guessing most of the people who do so today aren't, perhaps, using it in this fashion.

I do, but then I am a very dapper and sophisticated bloke.

..and you use orphans to clean chimneys too.

When I'm elected President-- see other thread-- I'll repeal all the anti smoking acts and you can re open all those match factories too.

Those of you with a share portfolio : buy phosphorous.

Can I point out, if it has not already been, that the majority of swiss didn't infact vote for it. (According to the BBC)

Most Swiss seemed to have thought that the idea/law was so ludicrous that there was no way in hell that people would vote for it and so didn't vote.

Much like the BNP gaining their seats as MEPS.

Cheers

Andrew

Edit. What is up with my flag?, I'm Scottish dammit, Scottish!

Frazzled wrote:

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.

They tried to kill my father too, but that wasn't why he hated them. He hated them for being cruel to dogs and donkeys.

Mannahnin wrote:

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 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

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.

They tried to kill my father too, but that wasn't why he hated them. He hated them for being cruel to dogs and donkeys.

Mine wasn't that specific. He never liked anyone who tried to kill him very much.

@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.

He was a regular in the RAF, as an electronics technician and band member. He was stationed in loads of places like Gibraltar, Aden, India and Ceylon.

He mostly worked on long range radio stations.

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.