Banning of minarets in Switzerland

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.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

wes

prinz wrote: »

I am.

Well, everyone needs a hobby.

prinz wrote: »

Isn't that convenient.

How so? I didn't bring up the subject as I don't see the relevance to the topic at hand, and feel that a theological discussion is more appropriate elsewhere. You are getting pretty silly here, I didn't bring up the subject and see no reason to discuss it, as I feel it off topic. So why would I bother with it then?

prinz wrote: »

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.

What dodge? I gave you an answer, apparently as long as you not as bad as Saudi Arabia, everything is alright, according to defenders of the ban on here at least.

At the very least I would expect the Swiss to not follow the examples of bigots in Qatar, but then I am crazy like that. Personally, I think the best example is to act like a adult and not scared child, who is afraid of something foreign looking.

prinz

wes wrote: »

How so? I didn't bring up the subject as I don't see the relevance to the topic at hand, and feel that a theological discussion is more appropriate elsewhere. You are getting pretty silly here, I didn't bring up the subject and see no reason to discuss it, as I feel it off topic. So why would I bother with it then?

It's not a theological discussion. I am asking you what country should Switzerland try to emulate?

wes wrote: »

At the very least I would expect the Swiss to not follow the examples of bigots in Qatar, but then I am crazy like that. Personally, I think the best example is to act like a adult and not scared child, who is afraid of something foreign looking.

Why, have the Swiss shown themselves scared of foreign looking things other than the minaret? Seems like a pretty specific place to pick a fight over foreign things no?

BlaasForRafa

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.

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.

There is definitely a swing against steeples on new catholic churches since the 60's. If you look at new churches built in suburbs in the last 30/40 years most are not the old cross shaped in plan with a big steeple at one end.

Many new catholic churches are circular/hexagonal/octagonal in shape without being as overpowering on neighbouring architecture as older churches so one could presume that mosques in non-muslim countries could do just fine without minarets.

This thread could go on and on, the arguments are more twisted around each other than a moebius strip at this stage, why don't we have a poll on whether the swiss should ban bloody cuckoo clocks instead!

pablomakaveli

oscarBravo wrote: »

National Socialism isn't a religion.

Seriously, is that the best you can do?

The (traditional) swastika is used in hinduism and buddhism as a religious symbol so the potential for something similiar to what he is saying is there to happen.

(albeit not with national socialism)

oscarBravo

pablomakaveli wrote: »

The (traditional) swastika is used in hinduism and buddhism as a religious symbol so the potential for something similiar to what he is saying is there to happen.

There are swastikas carved into the stone elephants flanking the entry to the Carlsberg brewery in Copenhagen - and nobody's throwing a knicker fit.

Some people are pragmatic enough to separate the symbol from the hysteria.

irishconvert

saol alainn wrote: »

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 saw a Bohemian FC supporter one time saying that all Shamrock rovers fans should be killed. We should go and ban Bohemian football jerseys now.

saol alainn wrote: »

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.

What in your opinion is happening in Europe that requires a clampdown on Muslims?

What Imam are you talking about?

irishconvert

prinz wrote: »

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

If you are talking about a country that practises Islam as it should be, then I don't think there is one. But the closest IMO is Malaysia.

Nodin

prinz wrote: »

Why, have the Swiss shown themselves scared of foreign looking things other than the minaret? Seems like a pretty specific place to pick a fight over foreign things no?

Their treatment of immigrants was highlighted earlier in the thread. It's only since 2007 they haven't had to submit to a vote.

opo

oscarBravo wrote: »

There are swastikas carved into the stone elephants flanking the entry to the Carlsberg brewery in Copenhagen - and nobody's throwing a knicker fit.

Some people are pragmatic enough to separate the symbol from the hysteria.

What's Pacman doing there?


http://www.kimcm.dk/Images/Copenhagen/Carlsberg008.jpg