Banning of minarets in Switzerland

bonkey

prinz wrote: »

He seems to be coinciding with exactly what I have been saying re the need for minarets, and the need for compromise and a new way forward.

Of what he says, though, you're ignoring the part that doesn't coincide with the argument you'vbe been making.

He clearly believes the decision was Islamophobic, but that doesn't gel with what you're saying.
He clearly believes the decision was xenophobic, but again, that's not what you're saying.
He believes the decision was achieved by right-wing zealots convincing the public that minarets were a problem, which is not what you're saying.
He argues that this is a move which puts Switzreland alongside Afghanistan and Saudia Arabia in terms of tolerance...again, not what you're saying.

You've been ignoring this side of his argument entirely, whilst trying to argue that others are being disingenuous by not listening to this clearly-moderate, well-informed guy.

Your argument hasn't been limited to "this isn't religious discrimination"...that has only been one of many lines you've argued. You've also argued that it was not an unreasonable law, was clearly just intended as a "shot across the bow" of fundamentalism, and so forth. Thes stances are not compatible with the notion that it was an Islamophobic, xenophobic law, driven by right-wing zealots.

So seriously....if you want us to take this guys opinion on board...maybe you should start by explaining why you disagree with him.

The alternative is that you are implying it is reasonable to use half his argument and ignore the other half....but only as long as its the half you want used.

or why its correct for you to ignore the parts of what he says that you disagree with, but would be wrong for (say) someone on the other side of the debate to ignore the bits tehy disagree with and concentrate on the parts that I've been highlighting?

prinz

bonkey wrote: »

So seriously....if you want us to take this guys opinion on board...maybe you should start by explaining why you disagree with him.
The alternative is that you are implying it is reasonable to use half his argument and ignore the other half....but only as long as its the half you want used.

Apparently it is reasonable for a lot of people on this thread to do just that. So why can't I?

Why is it permissable for someone to accuse that man of not being a proper Muslim with no back up whatsoever? Why is it permissable to continue arguing that this law infringes freedom of religion and freedom of practice? etc etc

Oh wait, I know why, because the thought of coming to an understanding and compromise galls some people. Why should they compromise after all. If more Muslims were like Dr Hargey, there wouldn't have been this law at all in the first place!!!

Nodin

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Stop tarring all with the same brush.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

...but funny enough, they don't apply the same logic to Catholicism.....which would suggest xenophobia, rather than any pseudo-logical thinking.

Prinz wrote:

. and? It still wouldn't bother me. Why would it? I know Guinness exists. I know where I can go to enjoy it. I know I can enjoy it in peace. Whether or not there is a Guinness sign over the door is irrelevant.
..

Back to this nonsense again? Your true motivation was shown earlier.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63327917&postcount=212

wes

prinz wrote: »

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.

Yeah, but to use your logic, a full ban would make more sense.

Again, I can't believe you don't get the irony here, the Swiss had laws that handled minarets, and yet they banned them. So why not apply you nutty logic to alcohol, and just completely ban it then?

prinz wrote: »

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

Your talking nonsense. How is communication via the Internet not real life? The Internet is not a alternate reality. It is a method of communication. A method where I can talk to people in numerous ways, some of them include not seeing or hearing them. AFAIK, you are communicating just fine on here as are 1000's of others, so I find your communication argument against Burka's to be silly at best.

prinz

Nodin wrote: »

Back to this nonsense again? Your true motivation was shown earlier.

Yes, how terrible to expect compromise. Let's all stay black and white, or rather black in this case.

prinz

wes wrote: »

Yeah, but to use your logic, a full ban would make more sense. Again, I can't believe you don't get the irony here, the Swiss had laws that handled minarets, and yet they banned them. So why not apply you nutty logic to alcohol, and just completely ban it then?

So go get a referendum going. If it passes it passes.

Nodin

prinz wrote: »

Yes, how terrible to expect compromise. Let's all stay black and white, or rather black in this case.

O I'm all for compromise. You seem fixated on what you feel is the muslim lack of it. Which is at the root of your calling white black on this and related threads.

prinz

Nodin wrote: »

O I'm all for compromise. You seem fixated on what you feel is the muslim lack of it..

Yes I suppose I am. Until it happens problems like the one in Switzerland will keep reappearing.

Nodin

prinz wrote: »

Yes I suppose I am. Until it happens problems like the one in Switzerland will keep reappearing.

The problem in Switzerland lies with the swiss who voted for the ban.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

wes

prinz wrote: »

So go get a referendum going. If it passes it passes.

Which isn't my point at all. It really is very simple, trying to ban alcohol on the grounds, I mentioned would be absurd, as there are laws that already handle my concerns, as you helpfully pointed out :P.

Also, we don't live in Switzerland. I couldn't get a referendum going like they can do so over there.

Scofflaw

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

...these days.

naughtily,
Scofflaw

Nodin

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I was referring to the worldwide scandals of child molestation. They have been in the news, the odd time.

prinz

Nodin wrote: »

The problem in Switzerland lies with the swiss who voted for the ban.

What 'problem' would that be?

wes wrote: »

Which isn't my point at all. It really is very simple, trying to ban alcohol on the grounds, I mentioned would be absurd, as there are laws that already handle my concerns, as you helpfully pointed out :P..

Yet when I suggest laws to handle my concerns I am portrayed as a xenophobic Islamophobic right wing zealot... how dare I suggest a law to handle my concerns!! Quite the double standard.

wes wrote: »

Also, we don't live in Switzerland. I couldn't get a referendum going like they can do so over there.

Go lobby your TD.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The problem is that the controversy is rooted more in the perception of the symbols, than in their actual meaning.

Leaving aside the Asian roots of the Swastika, if it is used these days it is used solely and exclusively as an emblem of intolerance. Neo-Nazi groups use the Swastika in remembrance, and celebration, of a regime that defined itself in large part by intolerance.

The minaret is an emblem of Islam. Yes, there are regimes that use Islam as a basis for intolerance, but the minaret is not exclusively an emblem of that intolerance. It is equally an emblem of moderate, inclusive forms of Islam.

Why would a non-practicing Muslim care about building minarets? He might even be happy to see their construction stopped.

A non-practising Muslim is still, by definition, a Muslim. I'm still (technically) a Catholic, albeit a very non-practising one - but that doesn't mean I'm happy to see Christianity suppressed in some Muslim countries.

You interpret this ban as a discriminatory move against moderate Muslims in Switzerland, and feel that those Muslims are being unfairly associated with the monstrous practices taking place in extremist Islamic nations.

More accurately, I see this ban as a discriminatory move against all Muslims in Switzerland, moderate and otherwise.

Put it this way: If extremist Islamic regimes were not among the most intolerant, illiberal, and savage on the face of the earth, I think the Swiss would be far more accepting of minarets in their country.

Do you think banning minarets is going to lead to more tolerance and liberalism in those extremist regimes?

Or is it more likely to breed resentment among the moderate Islamic community, and contribute further to the sense of oppression that drives young Muslims into the waiting arms of the extremist preachers of hate and intolerance?

wes

prinz wrote: »

Yet when I suggest laws to handle my concerns I am portrayed as a xenophobic Islamophobic right wing zealot... how dare I suggest a law to handle my concerns!! Quite the double standard.

Whats interesting is that I have stated that the Swiss have every right to lobby for there law. However, people have every right to also state there opinion on it as well. No double standard there at all. You can lobby for whatever you wish, and I have every right to state my opinion on it and vice versa.

prinz wrote: »

Go lobby your TD.

Nah, as you know I wasn't being serious with my example. Also, I have to the common sense to know that my concerns are already handled by the law of the land, and that there is no need for further laws.

oscarBravo

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Using intolerance to fight intolerance - wonderful.

Wouldn't it be better to pressure the parade into accepting gays?

prinz, you didn't answer my question.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But would it be OK to ban the building of new church steeples on Catholic churches, if those steeples were seen as symbols of a regime that colluded to cover up the molestation and rape of children?

prinz

oscarBravo wrote: »

prinz, you didn't answer my question.

I am indifferent. I will not be blaming Irish society for sexism, discrimination etc. The law is the law, if it changes it changes, if it doesn't it doesn't.

oscarBravo

prinz wrote: »

I am indifferent. I will not be blaming Irish society for sexism, discrimination etc. The law is the law, if it changes it changes, if it doesn't it doesn't.

So discrimination of any kind is OK, as long as it's the law? You'd be indifferent if the law reverted to the old situation where women were forced to resign from the civil service on marriage? The laws against miscegenation in some US states were perfectly acceptable?

bonkey

prinz wrote: »

Apparently it is reasonable for a lot of people on this thread to do just that. So why can't I?

They haven't been holding up the link repeatedly, proclaiming loudly how others are ignoring it because it says something they don't like.

You can certainly do the same as others....it just smacks of double standards when you also try to suggest others are wrong for doing the same as you.

Why is it permissable for someone to accuse that man of not being a proper Muslim with no back up whatsoever? Why is it permissable to continue arguing that this law infringes freedom of religion and freedom of practice? etc etc

I have neither made nor supported those arguments. I have argued that this law is discriminatory and that the rationale for supporting it is badly flawed. Not only do I stand by that, I would argue that this is entirely in line with what your choice of sources is arguing.

I would go so far as to say that most of the people who have complained about the law here have taken a similar stance...but that you continue to argue against it by raising the strawman of what a few others have said instead.

Meanwhile, you hold your chosen source on high as what "we" (the critics) are ignoring, when its saying the same as us, and then making a point about Muslim religious interpretation that few of us have factored either which way into our arguments.

prinz

oscarBravo wrote: »

So discrimination of any kind is OK, as long as it's the law? You'd be indifferent if the law reverted to the old situation where women were forced to resign from the civil service on marriage? The laws against miscegenation in some US states were perfectly acceptable?

Comparing laws of different times and places I thought was out of the question on this thread. I mean is that the yardstick we're going to measure ourselves by? Saudi Arabia.

prinz

bonkey wrote: »

You can certainly do the same as others....it just smacks of double standards when you also try to suggest others are wrong for doing the same as you..

Er no, you see I said what I agreed with, and made clear what I didn't agree with. Others can't say the same.

Other people came on and did nothing but repeat a proven libellous accusation against the man and then blatantly ignore his article.

bonkey

prinz wrote: »

Yet when I suggest laws to handle my concerns I am portrayed as a xenophobic Islamophobic right wing zealot...

Now you're just being dishonest.

I took those terms from a commentator who's comments you clearly and repeatedly approved of, and who applied them towards the law and those who championed it.

I took them from an article you repeatedly complained was being ignored.

Now, you're appealing for sympathy on the grounds that the article wasn't ignored, and that the author you said was speaking so much sense was saking nasty things which apply to you.

bonkey

prinz wrote: »

Er no, you see I said what I agreed with, and made clear what I didn't agree with.

No, prinz. I mde clear what he was saying that you didn't agree with.

Until that point, you were holding this guy up as someone who talked a lot of sense.

prinz

bonkey wrote: »

Now you're just being dishonest.
I took those terms from a commentator who's comments you clearly and repeatedly approved of, and who applied them towards the law and those who championed it..

I don't care where you took the terms from, they're the terms being applied to the Swiss on this thread, and not just because of that article.

bonkey wrote: »

No, prinz. I mde clear what he was saying that you didn't agree with..

I always disputed the Islamophobic, xenophobic angle.

Nodin

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

382 covers it.