Banning of minarets in Switzerland

bonkey

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You seem to have confused oscarbravo with one of these Islamic nations.

He is expressing his discontent with the decision. I'm not sure what relevance your comment has as a response to that, unless you're suggesting that OB is one of the "somewhat hypocritical" Islamic nations you refer to.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

wes

prinz wrote: »

You mean like having a democratic referendum...

As you may have noticed I have already stated the Swiss have every right to do what they did. However, doesn't mean I can't criticize it.

wes

prinz wrote: »

Communication problems. I don't understand hand gestures underneath a full length robe. I found it rude and anti social. No more than I'd feel like deeling with a man in a balaclava and sunglasses.

[sarcasm]I find extremely drunk people rude and anti-social. So I guess we should ban alcohol then.[/sarcasm]

Also, I should point out you seem to be communicating on this here Internet message board just fine, where you can't see or even hear a thing anyone is saying. Making the communications argument on a message boards, probably isn't the best idea, as you can't see see or hear anyone here, and 1000's of us communicate on here just fine.

Ziggurat

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Curious analogy and I'm surprised you didn't see this point: swastikas are not solely associated with Nazism.

Likewise, minarets are not solely associated with despotic regimes. So I would say the analogy is more correctly between a minaret and a Buddhist temple displaying a swastika.
While both have links to oppressive governments it is grossly unfair to punish those who do not use them as a means to promote the ideals of those groups.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

irishconvert

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You can't speak, after all it was your county who imposed Dana on us all :rolleyes:

Ziggurat

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ah-haha, Germany is a unique case, I think you'll agree. I don't agree with their ban, however - you can't simply hope people will forget just because you ban a symbol.

No, but their association with intolerant, oppressive theocracies is strong enough that many Swiss evidently do not want them in their country.

Yes, that is their right. And they are wrong.

So you'd argue that Germany should lift the ban on swastikas, then?

Yes, I would.

irishconvert

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You are aware that there is a difference between a religion and the practices of some of the people who follow it? There is nothing in Islam that says gays should be executed or rape victims should be stoned. Your comment is equivalent to saying the bible teaches Catholics should have sex with little boys which we all know is rubbish.

evercloserunion

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's okay guys, the Swiss are only intolerant of intolerant people which actually makes them a tolerant people. That's cool right?

Except that tolerance does not entail labelling millions of innocent, law-abiding people as intolerant simply because of their religion. Your argument is effectively that it is okay to hate Muslims because they are bad people.

Do you really think that the minaret is analogous to the swastika? Do you really think that Muslims are comparable to the Nazis?

ninty9er

evercloserunion wrote: »

It's okay guys, the Swiss are only intolerant of intolerant people which actually makes them a tolerant people. That's cool right?

Except that tolerance does not entail labelling millions of innocent, law-abiding people as intolerant simply because of their religion. Your argument is effectively that it is okay to hate Muslims because they are bad people.

Where does it say "the Swiss state shall encourage the hatred of Islam"?. This is essentially saying be whatever you like, but don't think you can shove it in our face, it's not part of our tradition.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

opo

evercloserunion wrote: »

Do you really think that Muslims are comparable to the Nazis?

There are plenty here (even moderators) that fervently believe that the most benign question of immigration policy or asylum procedures (for example) is evidence of subdued Nazi sentiment.

Godwins rule is diminishing - but far from dead.

evercloserunion

And yet, curiously, when gays are executed or when rape victims are stoned to death in Islamic nations, it is all done in the name of Allah, allegedly according to the moral code that he ordained.

Do you not understand that just because someone says they are doing something in the name of a religion or God, doesn't mean that that action is mandated by said religion/God? Are we to be blamed every time some dissident nutjobs up North shoot another pizza boy?

Where have I said that it's okay to hate Muslims? You are jumping to conclusions, methinks.

I am jumping to conclusions insofar as I am equating intolerance with hate. But when it was said that the law showed an intolerance of Muslims in Swiss society, your defence was that the Muslims themselves are intolerant people. But Muslims are not intolerant per se - I don't know why anyone would think that, could it be because they are intolerant people I wonder?

I think that Islamic theocrats are pretty comparable to the Nazis. They both have/had ambitions of global supremacy based on an idea of themselves as a chosen superior race. They both passionately hate(d) the Jews and gay people, and want(ed) to exterminate them from the face of the earth. The Nazis did, however, have a somewhat higher regard for women.

Well there's you problem. Think what you want about Islamic theocrats (though to say that they are as bad as or worse than the Nazis shows an awful ignorance of modern history), the fact is that these minarets don't just symbolise those Islamic theocrats, they symbolise Muslims generally, icluding the innocent law-abiding ones (which actually compose the vast majority of the Muslim population).

opo

evercloserunion wrote: »

Do you not understand that just because someone says they are doing something in the name of a religion or God, doesn't mean that that action is mandated by said religion/God? Are we to be blamed every time some dissident nutjobs up North shoot another pizza boy?


I am jumping to conclusions insofar as I am equating intolerance with hate. But when it was said that the law showed an intolerance of Muslims in Swiss society, your defence was that the Muslims themselves are intolerant people. But Muslims are not intolerant per se - I don't know why anyone would think that, could it be because they are intolerant people I wonder?


Well there's you problem. Think what you want about Islamic theocrats (though to say that they are as bad as or worse than the Nazis shows an awful ignorance of modern history), the fact is that these minarets don't just symbolise those Islamic theocrats, they symbolise Muslims generally, icluding the innocent law-abiding ones (which actually compose the vast majority of the Muslim population).

Would it be too far down the road to suggest that a majority of Swiss people want Switzerland to continue to look and feel like Switzerland?

(I know this is a difficult concept)

evercloserunion

opo wrote: »

Would it be too far down the road to suggest that a majority of Swiss people want Switzerland to continue to look and feel like Switzerland?

(I know this is a difficult concept)

Does Switzerland not always, and in fact by definition, look like Switzerland, by virtue of the fact that it is, in fact, Switzerland?

opo

evercloserunion wrote: »

Does Switzerland not always, and in fact by definition, look like Switzerland, by virtue of the fact that it is, in fact, Switzerland?

What do you believe defines Switzerland? - Minarets?

evercloserunion

opo wrote: »

What do you believe defines Switzerland? - Minarets?

You do realise Switzerland is actually a place right? A real place. Like, you can actually go there and see it.

I think Switzerland (the actual place) would be a good starting point for defining Switzerland. If Switzerland looks like something, then that something probably looks like Switzerland. Crazy I know.

opo

evercloserunion wrote: »

You do realise Switzerland is actually a place right? A real place. Like, you can actually go there and see it.
QUOTE]

Is it?

You mean it's not some fantasy place where Swiss people live? With designs on what being Swiss is? And prepared to vote on what they believe it is?

Ziggurat

Why are certain people so averse to change?

I understand their (and I'm speaking about people in general) desire to preserve their culture - the human desire to be part of a group, to identify with that group as part of the individual's identity. What I don't understand are the irrational attempts to resist any change and how bitter and outraged the reaction sometimes is.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

opo

Ziggurat wrote: »

Why are certain people so averse to change?

I understand their (and I'm speaking about people in general) desire to preserve their culture - the human desire to be part of a group, to identify with that group as part of the individual's identity. What I don't understand are the irrational attempts to resist any change and how bitter and outraged the reaction sometimes is.

I appreciate your sentiments.

What I fail to understand is the inordinate rush and desire for a global alternative monoculture aka multiculturalism.

evercloserunion

As Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan put it, "The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers." If the minarets are the bayonets of Islam, no wonder the Swiss don't want them.

Somehow I think the prime minister was speaking figuratively rather than literally. I don't think you need to worry about Muslim soldiers stabbing you with minarets any time soon. :rolleyes:

prinz

wes wrote: »

[sarcasm]I find extremely drunk people rude and anti-social..[/sarcasm]

As do I.

wes wrote: »

So I guess we should ban alcohol then.[/sarcasm]

There are already plenty of laws regarding anti-social behaviour of this kind. You can refuse someone entry to a business etc if they're too intoxicated, you can call the gardaí if they are causing trouble etc. There are laws about where you can and cannot consume alcohol.

wes wrote: »

[
Also, I should point out ..........here just fine.

Try stepping away from your computer and notice how real life doesn't work quite the same way.

prinz

evercloserunion wrote: »

Somehow I think the prime minister was speaking figuratively rather than literally. I don't think you need to worry about Muslim soldiers stabbing you with minarets any time soon. :rolleyes:

Would you like to explain what he meant then?

OldJay

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ignoring your other wild comparisons and generalisms, the above is what is basically known as 'bending the truth'. The voters were "vehemently opposed to Islam". Your blending of muslims with discrimination and intolerance is akin to people mixing up Jews with Israelis or immigrants with illegal immigrants (or in other wordsm your 'blending' is a generalisation that is both discriminatory and intolerant).
Why do your ilk keep ignoring muslims who are perfectly well assimilated in 'western' society? What more do you want from them?

prinz

Justind wrote: »

Why do your ilk keep ignoring muslims who are perfectly well assimilated in 'western' society? What more do you want from them?

You mean like Dr Taj Hargey? Seems to be a well assimilated chap..

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6938161.ece

..of course mention him here and some people automatically start calling his commitment to Islam into question, without foundation I may add.

oscarBravo

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I would point out the irony of opposing intolerance through intolerance.

Banning an architectural feature "emulates" the systematic subjugation of women, the execution of gays, and the stoning to death of rape victims in the same way that a pea shooter "emulates" an AK-47. The difference in the degree of discrimination and subjugation is so striking that the words "not so badly" simply don't do it justice.

The problem with slippery slopes is that the first steps seem so easy and safe.

By banning minarets, Switzerland has said to its Muslim population: we don't care that almost nine-tenths of you are non-practising. We don't care that the bulk of you are from secular, moderate Islamic countries. We don't care that you don't systematically subjugate your women, execute gays and stone rape victims to death. What we care about is that other Muslims in other countries do these things, and we're going to take it out on you, the moderates.

gimme5minutes

Correct me if I'm wrong but is a minaret the thing that issues a loud call to prayer multiplie times a day?