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