Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Banning of minarets in Switzerland

Options
1…1315171819

Comments

  • Options
    #422
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    wes wrote: »
    Utter nonsense, Minarets go on Mosques and not on peoples homes..

    Except minarets aren't required for a mosque to be a mosque. So how does a law preventing Muslim Joe Soap from building something he was never going to build in the first place suddenly become discrimination and xenophobia?


  • Options
    #423
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    prinz wrote: »
    Except minarets aren't required for a mosque to be a mosque. So how does a law preventing Muslim Joe Soap from building something he was never going to build in the first place suddenly become discrimination and xenophobia?

    How do you know he wasn't going to build one? Why should the freedom to build one be taken away? The law is aimed solely at Muslims and as such is discriminatory, your denial of this fact is bizarre at this point. Your logic basically means there is no discrimination ever against anyone.


    Whether a Mosque needs a minaret doesn't actually matter, as the law is aimed at one group and it prevents them from building a minaret if they wanted one. To deny that it is discriminatory is absurd.


  • Options
    #424
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,803 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    prinz wrote: »
    Except minarets aren't required for a mosque to be a mosque. So how does a law preventing Muslim Joe Soap from building something he was never going to build in the first place suddenly become discrimination and xenophobia?
    Because - outside of your carefully-customised-for-your-own-argument definition of discrimination - passing laws to prevent specific groups of people from doing things they might want to do, while leaving other groups free to do their equivalent things, is discriminatory.


  • Options
    #425
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #426
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    wes wrote: »
    How do you know he wasn't going to build one?

    How many Muslims build mosques?
    wes wrote: »
    Your logic basically means there is no discrimination ever against anyone.

    How do you figure that?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #427
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,803 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    I agree - and I think the solution is to have a rational public discussion on the meaning of the symbol.

    The posters encouraging people to vote for the referendum, showing minarets as missiles sprouting from a Swiss flag, were the antithesis of rational discourse. There was a strong anti-Islamic sentiment behind the running of the referendum in the first place, and I can't help but feel the same sentiment informs much of the defence of the outcome of the referendum.


  • Options
    #428
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,803 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    prinz wrote: »
    How many Muslims build mosques?
    Oh, come on, prinz. Have you even read Scofflaw's post earlier? This truly is a ridiculous line of argument.


  • Options
    #429
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    prinz wrote: »
    How many Muslims build mosques?

    How many Christians build Churches?

    Also, what is the price of tea in China?
    prinz wrote: »
    How do you figure that?

    Just stating the obvious.


  • Options
    #430
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Because - outside of your carefully-customised-for-your-own-argument definition of discrimination - passing laws to prevent specific groups of people from doing things they might want to do, while leaving other groups free to do their equivalent things, is discriminatory.

    What groups of people are allowed to build minarets?


  • Options
    #431
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,803 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    prinz wrote: »
    What groups of people are allowed to build minarets?
    Ye gods, you're actually sticking to it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #432
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    prinz wrote: »
    What groups of people are allowed to build minarets?

    What groups of people are allowed to build Churches in Saudi Arabia?!?


  • Options
    #433
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Oh, come on, prinz. Have you even read Scofflaw's post earlier? This truly is a ridiculous line of argument.

    Yes I did, and I replied. Scofflaw's point was off-base, as his "equivalent arguments" were not equivalent.
    wes wrote: »
    How many Christians build Churches?

    Very, very, very few. So few that I wouldn't call a law against steeples discrimination against all Christians.


  • Options
    #434
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    wes wrote: »
    What groups of people are allowed to build Churches in Saudi Arabia?!?

    Is a minaret a place of worship? Does the lack of a minaret affect the practice of Islam? No comparison, sorry.


  • Options
    #435
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    prinz wrote: »
    Very, very, very few. So few that I wouldn't call a law against steeples discrimination against all Christians.

    [your logic]
    A Muslim can't build a Church in Saudi Arabia, in fact no one can. So this is no discrimination at all, as the law effect everyone the same. Also, a Christian can pray in there own home on there own just fine, so no need for a Church.
    [/your logic]

    Using your own logic, Saudi Arabia does not discriminate.


  • Options
    #436
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    prinz wrote: »
    Is a minaret a place of worship? Does the lack of a minaret affect the practice of Islam? No comparison, sorry.

    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.


  • Options
    #437
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


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

    Is there freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia? Banning Christianity/Christian churches does not equal banning ornamental arabic towers which are not part of the Islam religion.


  • Options
    #438
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    prinz wrote: »
    Is there freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia?

    Nope, but as it effect everyone the same, there is no discrimination, as per your logic.
    prinz wrote: »
    Banning Christianity/Christian churches does not equal banning ornamental arabic towers which are not part of the Islam religion.

    Who said they were equal? All I said as per your own logic, there both not discrimination. All I am doing is applying your logic to a different situation, and you seem to be so against it all of sudden, which is very odd.


  • Options
    #439
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    wes wrote: »
    Nope, but as it effect everyone the same, there is no discrimination, as per your logic.

    Except it doesn't affect everyone the same :confused:


  • Options
    #440
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Forgive me if it came across that way. It was mostly in reaction to seeing the question asked if wethought that democracies shouldn't have the right to make these decisions, despite no-one (that I can recall) suggesting that the process was the problem.
    It matters because Muslim activists in the West regularly resort to threats, terrorism, and criminality when faced with representations and symbolism that offends their sensibilities. At least the Swiss did not go out on the streets as a seething mob to burn down mosques. They held a democratic referendum—the results of which may now be challenged in court. Ultimately, the rule of law will be upheld and respected.
    Again, this seems to be conflating the process with the decision...and appealing to the "not as bad as some Muslims" zeitgeist.

    The criticism being made is primarily that the decision was bad because the resulting laws will be discriminatory . There are additional criticisms which could be made, related to the general reasoning which led to the decision. The process of democracy has not been criticised. That other nations do not have as good a process is both a given and an irrelevancy. That there exist groups who pressure for their wants in a worse manner is, again, both a given and an irrelevancy.
    What principles have being "suspended"?
    Equality....one of the basic backbones of justice in western systems. All people are equal in the eyes of the law and should be treated equally.

    Even the most ardent supporter of the correctness of this decision here - prinz - has argud that it is a "shot across the bow" of fundamentalist Islam. I do not believe that anyone would honestly claim that this referendum was divorced from Islam and Muslims...that it had nothing to do with one specific religion.

    By accepting that it was about one specific religion, we immediately accept that the intention was to impose restrictions targetting one specific religion. Whether or not it constitutes religious discrimination is a seperate issue, but it cannot be rationally argued that a Christian is sent the same message and effected in the same way by this decision as a Muslim.

    Hence, the decision is not euitable. The intent is implicitly discriminatory. Equality has suffered.
    The Swiss put the issue to a public vote, and you can't have more respect for the principle of fairness than that. The principles of justice remain intact, too, since the results of the referendum is now open to legal challenge. The Swiss are working through the issue using democracy and the rule of law, not through riots and acts of terror. They deserve commendation at least for that.

    Again, you're defending the process, rather then the result. No-one has suggested the process is unjust or discriminatory...rather that it was used to arrive at a discriminatory decision.


  • Options
    #441
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    prinz wrote: »
    Except it doesn't affect everyone the same :confused:

    Yes it does. No one can practice a Religion that is not Islam in Saudi Arabia. Everyone can practice Islam. So yes it does effect everyone the same, as long as we use your logic that is.

    So, why do you suddenly have such a issue with your own logic?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #442
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    bonkey wrote: »
    Forgive me if it came across that way. It was mostly in reaction to seeing the question asked if wethought that democracies shouldn't have the right to make these decisions, despite no-one (that I can recall) suggesting that the process was the problem.....
    Again, you're defending the process, rather then the result. No-one has suggested the process is unjust or discriminatory...rather that it was used to arrive at a discriminatory decision.


    It has been described as "mob rule", oh and various people have had their understanding of democracy questioned.


  • Options
    #443
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    prinz wrote: »
    It has been described as "mob rule",

    Democracy is mob rule.
    oh and various people have had their understanding of democracy questioned.
    Without re-reading the thread, I'm going to guess that its those who argued that the decision was undemocratic.


  • Options
    #444
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    wes wrote: »
    Yes it does. No one can practice a Religion that is not Islam in Saudi Arabia. Everyone can practice Islam. So yes it does effect everyone the same, as long as we use your logic that is.

    Except you're not using my logic. If you used my logic all religions would be banned, then everyone would be affected the same.


  • Options
    #445
    irishconvert
    Registered Users Posts: 1,866 ✭✭✭irishconvert


    Lads,

    please don't waste your time arguing with prinz who obviously is going to stick to his guns no matter how redicilous you point out his agruments are. He is obviously some kind of fanatic with 69 posts in this thread and 87 in the after hours thread on the same topic.


  • Options
    #446
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    bonkey wrote: »
    Democracy is mob rule..

    It was meant in a perjorative sense. That is arguing against the process.
    bonkey wrote: »
    Without re-reading the thread, I'm going to guess that its those who argued that the decision was undemocratic.

    Then you'd better get your reading glasses ;)


  • Options
    #447
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    prinz wrote: »
    Except you're not using my logic. If you used my logic all religions would be banned, then everyone would be affected the same.

    I am using your logic. All Religions don't need to banned at all. Everyone can only practice one Religion openly and that is Islam, and everyone can do that, which is no different than you argument for the minaret ban e.g. no one can build a minaret. It is your logic, and I find it odd that your suddenly against it.

    **EDIT**
    Also, its odd that when someone points out that the minaret ban wouldn't be discriminatory if it also banned Church steeples etc, and you rejected that reasoning and yet here you are using the exact same reasoning now against your own logic. Your posts are getting more and more farcical at this point.


  • Options
    #448
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #449
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    irishconvert wrote: »
    Lads,
    please don't waste your time arguing with prinz who obviously is going to stick to his guns no matter how redicilous you point out his agruments are. He is obviously some kind of fanatic...

    Post/Poster, thin line, but I don't mind.
    wes wrote: »
    I am using your logic. All Religions don't need to banned at all. Everyone can only practice one Religion openly and that is Islam, and everyone can do that, which is no different than you argument for the minaret ban e.g. no one can build a minaret. It is your logic, and I find it odd that your suddenly against it.

    OK, one last time minaret ban applies to everyone. In Saudi Arabia the religion ban doesn't apply to everyone. If you want to say everyone is free to become Muslim, then I say to you every Muslim Swiss is free to become Christian.


  • Options
    #450
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    wes wrote: »
    Also, its odd that when someone points out that the minaret ban wouldn't be discriminatory if it also banned Church steeples etc, and you rejected that reasoning and yet here you are using the exact same reasoning now against your own logic. Your posts are getting more and more farcical at this point.

    It's not discriminatory as it is. If it included steeples it still wouldn't be discriminatory. I never rejected that reasoning.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #451
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    prinz wrote: »
    OK, one last time minaret ban applies to everyone. In Saudi Arabia the religion ban doesn't apply to everyone.

    One more time, all I did was apply your logic and nothing else. The Saudi's do no discriminate, as there laws effect everyone, as per your logic.
    prinz wrote: »
    If you want to say everyone is free to become Muslim, then I say to you every Muslim Swiss is free to become Christian.

    Good, you finally agree its the same nonsense then?

    Also, I don't agree with either the Saudi or the Swiss btw, just using your logic.


Advertisement