Banning of minarets in Switzerland

wes

prinz wrote: »

It's not discriminatory as it is.

Yes, it very clearly is. Insisting that it is not, does not make it so.

prinz wrote: »

If it included steeples it still wouldn't be discriminatory. I never rejected that reasoning.

You didn't? At this point I have no idea, you seem to contradict your self all the time and make up new meanings for words.

Scofflaw

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yet twenty or thirty years ago people would have felt there was - and it's obviously still open for debate in some people's minds. More to the point, the existence of the death penalty in law implies its use in law (whether or not it takes place in practice) - after that, it's simply a case of what crimes you attach to it. In the case of hard-line Islamic countries, homosexuality is regarded as such a perversion of the natural order that it is subversive of society and social order, and therefore deserving of a penalty we traditionally reserve(d) for treason or revolt (both subversions of social order) - and, given that their societies are different from ours, who is to say that they are automatically incorrect?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Say you choose to have a society based on the family - as Islamic society is to a much greater extent than ours - then the normal sets of relations between people are characterised in familial terms (indeed, the state is also often so characterised). If you further believe that social stability is necessary for the good of all, then any relationship that subverts those normal relations is subversive of the good of all - and homosexual relations, being outside those normal relations, and cross-cutting them, is subversive of that social normality.

Personally, I prefer societies that are not based on such linkages and normalisations, whether Islamic, or backwoods Christian, but at the end of the day, I think you'll find that's a preference rather than something absolute. Within the terms of a society as above, homosexuality is subversive of the good of all, and as such, deserving of penalty.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BlaasForRafa

Scofflaw wrote: »

Say you choose to have a society based on the family - as Islamic society is to a much greater extent than ours - then the normal sets of relations between people are characterised in familial terms (indeed, the state is also often so characterised). If you further believe that social stability is necessary for the good of all, then any relationship that subverts those normal relations is subversive of the good of all - and homosexual relations, being outside those normal relations, and cross-cutting them, is subversive of that social normality.

Personally, I prefer societies that are not based on such linkages and normalisations, whether Islamic, or backwoods Christian, but at the end of the day, I think you'll find that's a preference rather than something absolute. Within the terms of a society as above, homosexuality is subversive of the good of all, and as such, deserving of penalty.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Trying to rationalise away that kind of barbarism rather than condemn it is pretty disingenous and strikes one as arguing for the sake of arguing.

bonkey

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The public have voted in a referendum to requite a change the law. To say that the law itself hasn't been brought to bear is semantics.

I fully expect opponents of this decision to bring a constitutional challenge before the courts; and my expectation would be that the decision will be overturned, thus establishing a precedent that will only strengthen religious freedom in Switzerland.

I'm curious as to how you think that will come about.

To explain...the Swiss have amended the Constitution to require this ban. You can't bring a constitutional challenge to that as it is now a ban required by and part of the Constitution.

The only hope of a challenge is if an international body (e.g. the UN) rules that the law would be in breach of an international treaty to which the Swiss are already party. Its far from certain that this will come about...and if it did, there's no clear path for resolution.

Scofflaw

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Trying to rationalise away that kind of barbarism rather than condemn it is pretty disingenous and strikes one as arguing for the sake of arguing.

I'm not sure you're entirely reading me right - I do condemn it, I just don't pretend that my condemnation is anything other than a matter of personal preference rather than some kind of moral absolute (I should probably also point out that I don't have any problem with the idea of imposing my personal preference in the matter, since the opposing view is equally just preference).

Similarly, I can see why the Swiss might have the urge to ban minarets if they're felt to destabilise the fabric of Swiss society - and similarly, it wouldn't stop me opposing such a ban.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dinhanoi

Democracy Prevailed.

If I, as a westerner, immigrated to a Muslim Country, I live by their rules. Similiarly , for them, the same treatment will apply.
This is about culture, not religon.
I can practice my religon .

Culture is a Country's Identity. If they want their own culture, stay there

PuterMan

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I think that the construction of such a building should be subject to the approval of those whom it will effect, people who will be able to see it from their residences............

No. not SEE, HEAR - try a trip to East London!

Mahatma coat

ah but they have already banned the Call to ArmsPrayer in Switzerland.

makes perfect sense to ban Minarets, they serve no purpose but to impose Islams presence on a neighbourhood.

Yaaaay Democracy, ya know the crazy system where the will OF the People is what gets enforced, not the Will of a small group of bullies

oscarBravo

Mahatma coat wrote: »

ah but they have already banned the Call to ArmsPrayer in Switzerland.

makes perfect sense to ban Minarets, they serve no purpose but to impose Islams presence on a neighbourhood.

Yes, these are the reasons the referendum was held, and ultimately why it was carried.

As reasons go, they're pretty pathetic, but they are the reasons nonetheless.

The thread had moved on to a discussion of whether it's acceptable to introduce discriminatory legislation in a western democracy, but I suppose if you don't bother reading a thread before replying, you won't notice subtle details like that.

Eliot Rosewater

Scofflaw wrote: »

I do condemn it, I just don't pretend that my condemnation is anything other than a matter of personal preference rather than some kind of moral absolute.

Effectively your justifying these extreme punishments on the basis that the predominant group in the given country are of the opinion they jeopardize the stability of society, and that as the majority group they bear the right to have the state formally institute this opinion. But why should any group, no matter how large, have the right to enforce their definition or preference of society on everyone else?

What is even more troubling in scenarios such as this, in my opinion, is that the "society card" is only pulled out as an excuse for a persons innate tendency to control others according to his moral outlook. Surely the ideal and stable society is one that accommodates divergent opinions and morals in a framework of freedom of expression.

Scofflaw

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Effectively your justifying these extreme punishments on the basis that the predominant group in the given country are of the opinion they jeopardize the stability of society, and that as the majority group they bear the right to have the state formally institute this opinion. But why should any group, no matter how large, have the right to enforce their definition or preference of society on everyone else?

What is even more troubling in scenarios such as this, in my opinion, is that the "society card" is only pulled out as an excuse for a persons innate tendency to control others according to his moral outlook. Surely the ideal and stable society is one that accommodates divergent opinions and morals in a framework of freedom of expression.

Scofflaw wrote:

I'm not sure you're entirely reading me right - I do condemn it, I just don't pretend that my condemnation is anything other than a matter of personal preference rather than some kind of moral absolute (I should probably also point out that I don't have any problem with the idea of imposing my personal preference in the matter, since the opposing view is equally just preference).

and

Scofflaw wrote:

Personally, I prefer societies that are not based on such linkages and normalisations, whether Islamic, or backwoods Christian, but at the end of the day, I think you'll find that's a preference rather than something absolute. Within the terms of a society as above, homosexuality is subversive of the good of all, and as such, deserving of penalty.

repetitively,
Scofflaw

Eliot Rosewater

Scofflaw wrote: »

repetitively,
Scofflaw

That doesnt address what I said. Your stance appears to be that if the majority in any given country want their preference enforced on all other citizens then thats fine. My point was that preferences shouldn't be allowed to be enforced on other members of the society.

I was not, as you appear to think, suggesting that you wanted such a society. I was suggesting that you don't think it happening is all that bad.

BlaasForRafa

wes wrote: »

Perfect comparison actually. A Christian does not need a Church to pray in, as there version of God is omnipotent, and as such prayers can be heard anywhere. So as per your logic there is no discrimination in Saudi Arabia then.

Isn't it a sin if a Catholic dosen't go to mass on a sunday?, thus the prohibitions against building churches on catholics and presumably other christian denominations is very serious for those who are devout.

Now you could argue that Catholics could have mass in private homes or apartments in Saudi but that is fraught and has the possibility of being raided by the saudi police as any non-muslim religious service is against the law. So in effect Catholics that wish to live by the tenets of their religion have to do so under the fear that they can be arrested and punished by the saudi authorities. These restrictions are far more draconian than the banning of a few minarets.

Scofflaw

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Isn't it a sin if a Catholic dosen't go to mass on a sunday?, thus the prohibitions against building churches on catholics and presumably other christian denominations is very serious for those who are devout.

Now you could argue that Catholics could have mass in private homes or apartments in Saudi but that is fraught and has the possibility of being raided by the saudi police as any non-muslim religious service is against the law. So in effect Catholics that wish to live by the tenets of their religion have to do so under the fear that they can be arrested and punished by the saudi authorities. These restrictions are far more draconian than the banning of a few minarets.

Indeed:

On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are obliged to participate in the Mass. Moreover they are to abstain from those works and affairs which hinder the worship to be rendered to God, the joy proper to the Lord’s day, or the suitable relaxation of mind and body.

However, there is no requirement for a church. As you say, Mass in private homes is allowed in Saudi, although not specifically protected in law.

cordially,
Scofflaw

irishconvert

Why are you guys using Saudi as an example to benchmark ourselves against? The Saudi monarchy are a corrupt dictatorship who even treat their own people like **** (they are backed by the west who help keep them in power). Please don't use these dictators as an example of Islamic best practice as they are very far from it.

prinz

irishconvert wrote: »

Please don't use these dictators as an example of Islamic best practice as they are very far from it.

As a matter of interest what example should people use as Islamic best practice?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Eliot Rosewater

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

In an ideal world Scofflaws point of view could be acceptable, in that one would have the freedom to move to any country that suits ones views (and also assuming that everyone can find at least one country they are happy to be in).

However, the reality is that freedom of movement is still extremely restricted. Seems as we are all mad to talk about Saudi Arabia: women there aren't allowed drive, or leave the country without their husbands consent presumably, which makes their "escape" to the another country nigh on impossible.

The womens liberty is clearly being restricted in that society, and in many cases she may not want it to be so. To stand idly by and say "oh, thats their preference" is simply to ignore that the majority can create situations where any minority has no choice but to except whatever tyranny they get thrown at them. All other options - including moving to a different society - are off the table.

bonkey

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Personally, I'm at a bit of a loss to understand what either has to do with the thread-topic....unless we're back to playing the "not as bad as someone else" game again.

wes

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Isn't it a sin if a Catholic dosen't go to mass on a sunday?, thus the prohibitions against building churches on catholics and presumably other christian denominations is very serious for those who are devout.

I was taking the pi$$ with my comparison. I have no idea either way tbh. I was just pointing out how silly the line of reasoning I was arguing against was.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Now you could argue that Catholics could have mass in private homes or apartments in Saudi but that is fraught and has the possibility of being raided by the saudi police as any non-muslim religious service is against the law. So in effect Catholics that wish to live by the tenets of their religion have to do so under the fear that they can be arrested and punished by the saudi authorities. These restrictions are far more draconian than the banning of a few minarets.

Which isn't my point, my point was that the same reasoning can be used to defend the Saudi's. You can have a mass in your own home, and as such this ridiculous law can be defended in the same fashion prinz was defending the ridiculous minaret ban.

SkepticOne

I would not be surprised if this controversy dies down a lot faster in Switzerland than it does in the less mature democracies of Europe generally. In a democracy, although we get to enjoy the privilege of having a say in how things are done, we also have a accept that decisions will be made that we don't necessarily agree with and move on.

oscarBravo

SkepticOne wrote: »

In a democracy, although we get to enjoy the privilege of having a say in how things are done, we also have a accept that decisions will be made that we don't necessarily agree with and move on.

Depends how you define "move on". If you mean "blithely accept discriminatory laws just because they don't discriminate against us", I disagree. If you mean "continue to express displeasure at discrimination with a view to, at a minimum, preventing further discrimination, and hopefully leading to a reversal", then let us by all means move on.

Mahatma coat

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes, these are the reasons the referendum was held, and ultimately why it was carried.

As reasons go, they're pretty pathetic, but they are the reasons nonetheless.



The thread had moved on to a discussion of whether it's acceptable to introduce discriminatory legislation in a western democracy, but I suppose if you don't bother reading a thread before replying, you won't notice subtle details like that.

You seem to have missed the last art of my post where I touched upon this, Too subtle a detail I suppose.




this SOOOOOOOOO remindsme of the Lisbon Debates

Democracy is the Will of the people, But only when they make the right decision.

Before we go any further maybe someone should put up a link to how Swiss Democracy works cos a lot of people here have some rather strange ideas


ETA
http://direct-democracy.geschichte-schweiz.ch/

opo

oscarBravo wrote: »

Depends how you define "move on". If you mean "blithely accept discriminatory laws just because they don't discriminate against us", I disagree. If you mean "continue to express displeasure at discrimination with a view to, at a minimum, preventing further discrimination, and hopefully leading to a reversal", then let us by all means move on.

To choose is to discriminate.

Please do move on.

the immortals

very interesting debate, i can relate to both arguments, i think its discriminatory to ban the building of minarets but i can understand western people may feel islamic culture is not want they want in their own backyard if you know what i mean

OldJay

dinhanoi wrote: »

Culture is a Country's Identity. If they want their own culture, stay there

:rolleyes:

What makes you think all muslims are immigrants?? They're not, you know.

recedite

Never mind Switzerland, what about the Saudis setting up their educational system in Dublin? See this post;
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055764929

Vyse

Justind wrote: »

:rolleyes:

What makes you think all muslims are immigrants?? They're not, you know.

Everybody is an immigrant in one sense or another, even here in Ireland. The only difference is who has been there the longest to establish a dominant culture.

oscarBravo

Mahatma coat wrote: »

You seem to have missed the last art of my post where I touched upon this, Too subtle a detail I suppose.

The bit where you claim that a majority of any given electorate are automatically right, just because they're a majority? Does that mean you now believe the Lisbon treaty is a good thing, since a majority voted to accept it?

Democracy is the Will of the people, But only when they make the right decision.

Democracy is the will of the people - but that doesn't mean that they will always make the right decision.

opo wrote: »

To choose is to discriminate.

Please do move on.

So all discrimination is acceptable?

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

Never mind Switzerland, what about the Saudis setting up their educational system in Dublin? See this post;
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055764929

Off-topic - unless you want to argue that we should have a referendum to ban Islamic - and only Islamic - schools in Ireland.

saol alainn

irishconvert wrote: »

It is true that homosexual relations are forbidden in Islam but there is NOTHING in the Qur'an that says homosexuals should be executed. There might be reports of homosexuals being punished in hadith but many hadith are unreliable. You need to tell me which hadith you are referring to.

As for rape I am 100% sure that a rape victim should not be punished. This is not Islamic teaching and anybody who stones or punishes a rape victim in any way is acting against Islam.

I'm sure it's very comforting to those who have, indeed, been punished, or had loved ones executed, because they were victims of rape, are homosexuals, or any other 'crime'. The fact that their torturers were acting against Islam must make it much better.

oscarBravo

saol alainn wrote: »

I'm sure it's very comforting to those who have, indeed, been punished, or had loved ones executed, because they were victims of rape, are homosexuals, or any other 'crime'. The fact that their torturers were acting against Islam must make it much better.

...but, that bit of sarcasm aside, can we take it that you'll no longer make the mistake of blaming Islam for the execution of rape victims and homosexuals?

saol alainn

Personally, I've no problem with Middle Eastern architecture. My living room and bedroom are testament to my interest in it. Aesthetically, give me a (silent) minaret over a soulless glass skyscraper any day.

However, I firmly believe the ban went through NOT because of intolerance, or because the swiss want their muslims to leave. More likely, as is happening in other parts of Europe, especially the south, they are seeing 'radical' islam on the increase. And they want none of it. Unfortunately, because the sabre rattling of 'radical' islam is very loud and clear, such benign symbols of islam are unwelcome. And the pressure is on for moderate muslims. Speaking of which, why should a muslim, if he follows the peaceful islamic teachings, be called a 'moderate'? Does that not mean that, subconsciously, we know that islam, in itself, is not moderate?

saol alainn

oscarBravo wrote: »

...but, that bit of sarcasm aside, can we take it that you'll no longer make the mistake of blaming Islam for the execution of rape victims and homosexuals?

Let's put it this way. I won't blame islam. I'll blame it's followers, then. Is that OK? How will that stop the practise? If it's against islam, why don't the real muslims, then, stand up and demand a stop to such barbarities?

OTOH, we have an Imam, in Europe, who's all for the chopping of the hands of thieves. And punishing anyone who commits a crime, according to islam. So what do we do? Tell him he's not acting islamic?

Scofflaw

saol alainn wrote: »

Let's put it this way. I won't blame islam. I'll blame it's followers, then. Is that OK? How will that stop the practise? If it's against islam, why don't the real muslims, then, stand up and demand a stop to such barbarities?

Why don't the "real Christians" in the US stand up and demand an end to capital punishment there? From what I've seen, those who vocally regard themselves as "real Christians" in the US seem to be most vocally in favour of the death penalty.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

saol alainn wrote: »

Unfortunately, because the sabre rattling of 'radical' islam is very loud and clear, such benign symbols of islam are unwelcome.

Your argument is, in essence, that discrimination is OK because of the irrational association of benign symbols of Islam with the sabre-rattling of some radical Muslims. I disagree - if we're going to move away from our principles of equality and tolerance, it needs to be for very good reasons, not out of a vague and irrational feeling of antipathy.

And the pressure is on for moderate muslims. Speaking of which, why should a muslim, if he follows the peaceful islamic teachings, be called a 'moderate'? Does that not mean that, subconsciously, we know that islam, in itself, is not moderate?

The "moderate" qualifier is an unfortunate necessity of the knee-jerk association between Islam and fundamentalism. It ought to be accepted that the average Muslim is a moderate, in the same way that the average Christian is a moderate, but it's not, as a rule.

saol alainn wrote: »

Let's put it this way. I won't blame islam. I'll blame it's followers, then. Is that OK? How will that stop the practise? If it's against islam, why don't the real muslims, then, stand up and demand a stop to such barbarities?

How many Swiss Muslims are supportive of the execution of homosexuals and rape victims? Because that's who we're talking about, here - the only Muslims directly affected by this ban.

OTOH, we have an Imam, in Europe, who's all for the chopping of the hands of thieves. And punishing anyone who commits a crime, according to islam. So what do we do? Tell him he's not acting islamic?

Sure, why not?

saol alainn

Scofflaw wrote: »

Why don't the "real Christians" in the US stand up and demand an end to capital punishment there? From what I've seen, those who vocally regard themselves as "real Christians" in the US seem to be most vocally in favour of the death penalty.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Actually, in another forum I did ask that question. The reply I kept receiving was that capital punishment was only for cases where the perpetrator was without a shadow of a doubt guilty, and in cases like murder, serial rapes, etc. I don't agree with it, I'm just relaying. However, in fairness and all things considered, I cannot compare a serial murderer with someone whose only crime is to be a homosexual. But I still don't agree with death penalty, irrespective. I also condemn the killing of the abortion doctors in the US. No-one goes to them unless they want to.

prinz

Justind wrote: »

:rolleyes:
What makes you think all muslims are immigrants?? They're not, you know.

That just reinforces the point the poster was making, they're not all immigrants..and those that are orginate in the Balkans. So why the need for arabian symbolism?

wes

prinz wrote: »

That just reinforces the point the poster was making, they're not all immigrants..and those that are orginate in the Balkans. So why the need for arabian symbolism?

The symbolism is not longer purely Arabian anymore, seeing as the Minaret is all over the world at this point. Surely, you wouldn't call Catholic Churches in this country Roman, and on that basis think it ok to ban steeples, as it would be ridiculous.

Regardless, of whether a Minaret is necessary or not, it is rather ridiculous that a populace are so afraid of a harmless bit of a building, that they decided to ban it in there constitution. It says a lot more about those doing the banning, and those who defend it imho.

prinz

wes wrote: »

The symbolism is not longer purely Arabian anymore, seeing as the Minaret is all over the world at this point. Surely, you wouldn't call Catholic Churches in this country Roman, and on that basis think it ok to ban steeples, as it would be ridiculous..

Well it IS the Roman Catholic Church, and the sign outside still says RCC. Besides churches are different, square, rectangular, round, tall, small, some with steeples, some without, tiny chapels, huge basilicas etc. They have no uniform outward appearance.

wes

prinz wrote: »

Well it IS the Roman Catholic Church, and the sign outside still says RCC. Besides churches are different, square, rectangular, round, tall, small, some with steeples, some without, tiny chapels, huge basilicas etc. They have no uniform outward appearance.

So, as per your reasoning, it would be ok to ban steeples and discriminate against Catholics (all the while pretending there is no discrimination) then, as a steeple is not a essential feature. So the Emirate of Qatar does not discriminate against Christians by engaging in a ridiculous ban against such Church features. Good to know that the Swiss have a lot on common with such a progressive state like Qatar.

Quick question, seeing as the original post you replied to was making the point that Balkan Muslims can hardly be held responsible for the actions of the Saudi's (and there ilk), which several posters have used to defend this ridiculous ban, why exactly is any of this relevant? Why does it matter that the features are not essential? Does this make the ban better some how? Seems to me it is a desperate attempt to make the ban seem like it does not discriminate, when it very clearly does, and is just a pretty silly defense against a blatant and imho pretty childish act of discrimination.

prinz

wes wrote: »

So, as per your reasoning, it would be ok to ban steeples and discriminate against Catholics (all the while pretending there is no discrimination) then, as a steeple is not a essential feature. So the Emirate of Qatar does not discriminate against Christians by engaging in a ridiculous ban against such Church features.

Good for Qatar, as long as Christians are free to practice, and identify themselves as Christians etc, then no a ban on steeples is irrelevant. I have repeatedly said I wouldn't care if the Swiss or the Irish voted to ban more steeples. What of it? Does nothing to me. Doesn't affect my faith or the the integrity of the church building.

wes wrote: »

Good to know that the Swiss have a lot on common with such a progressive state like Qatar..

Add Qatar to the list then. Would you like to answer the question that irishconvert conveniently ignored.. what country is an example to be held up as Islamic best practice. What should Switzerland be aiming for?

Mahatma coat

OK lets a=say my 'religion' is Nationalsocialisim, isit acceptable to hang giantswstika banners o my 'church' opposite synagouge

if the loal populus objected wouldi be AS justified in my indignation?

oscarBravo

Mahatma coat wrote: »

OK lets a=say my 'religion' is Nationalsocialisim, isit acceptable to hang giantswstika banners o my 'church' opposite synagouge

if the loal populus objected wouldi be AS justified in my indignation?

National Socialism isn't a religion.

Seriously, is that the best you can do?

wes

prinz wrote: »

Good for Qatar, as long as Christians are free to practice, and identify themselves as Christians etc, then no a ban on steeples is irrelevant. I have repeatedly said I wouldn't care if the Swiss or the Irish voted to ban more steeples. What of it? Does nothing to me. Doesn't affect my faith or the the integrity of the church building.

The ban does not benefit anyone either btw, and is rather pointless and imho childish grand standing. There is no point to the ban, other than to tell a certain group of people they are not welcome, be they Christians in Qatar or Muslims in Switzerland.

prinz wrote: »

Add Qatar to the list then.

We are keeping a list now.....

prinz wrote: »

Would you like to answer the question that irishconvert conveniently ignored.

No, actually I wouldn't. The question asked irishconvert came out of stuff he was saying, and tbh I have no interest in discussing it, hence why I never once bothered mentioned any of it. I have no interest in having theological discussion on the politics board, as this is hardly the place for it.

prinz wrote: »

what country is an example to be held up as Islamic best practice.

Well posters here seem to think we should aim to be not as bad as the Saudi's, and as long as we can point to some one worse that makes everything ok then.

prinz wrote: »

What should Switzerland be aiming for?

Apparently, not as bad as Saudi Arabia according to some people here, which is apparently the worlds new moral yardstick.

saol alainn

oscarBravo wrote: »

Your argument is, in essence, that discrimination is OK because of the irrational association of benign symbols of Islam with the sabre-rattling of some radical Muslims. I disagree - if we're going to move away from our principles of equality and tolerance, it needs to be for very good reasons, not out of a vague and irrational feeling of antipathy. The "moderate" qualifier is an unfortunate necessity of the knee-jerk association between Islam and fundamentalism. It ought to be accepted that the average Muslim is a moderate, in the same way that the average Christian is a moderate, but it's not, as a rule.

How many Swiss Muslims are supportive of the execution of homosexuals and rape victims? Because that's who we're talking about, here - the only Muslims directly affected by this ban. Sure, why not?

I'd agree with all that, all things being equal. But in my opinion, the reasons are good, and not just vague and irrational. I'd like to post a couple of youtube clips, but I don't know if I'm allowed to, considering the thread topic. If I am, I'd post them. Although the ones I have in mind are pretty recent, such broadcasts have been going on for many, many years. I remember the 90s, while channel hopping, coming frequently across young children, especially little girls covered from head to toe, demanding the death of the infidel. She's talking about me and my family, so I'm to remain passive to such things? I'm talking about satellite channels viewed from southern Europe, not those from here up north. Even al jazeera in arabic is quite different to that broadcast in english.

I agree that most muslims are moderate, though. My best friend of over 25 years, herself originally an egyptian muslim, could be considered the face of the ideal gentle, calm woman. But even she is becoming vociferous in her protests, I'm glad to say.

As I've said, I believe the ban was a reaction to what is happening in Europe, rather than a protest against swiss muslims, in general. And if I was a muslim, I would tell the imam that he's not representing islam. As I'm not, I'd probably be told that I don't know anything about it and to shut up.

prinz

wes wrote: »

We are keeping a list now......

I am.

wes wrote: »

I have no interest in having theological discussion on the politics board, as this is hardly the place for it.

Isn't that convenient.

wes wrote: »

Well posters here seem to think we should aim to be not as bad as the Saudi's, and as long as we can point to some one worse that makes everything ok then. Apparently, not as bad as Saudi Arabia according to some people here, which is apparently the worlds new moral yardstick.

Nice dodge, why so quick to tell the Swiss what they shouldn't be doing, yet you won't give any indication over what example they should be following.