Banning of minarets in Switzerland

wes

prinz wrote: »

If it is irrelevant, then comparing Switzerland to Saudi Arabia is also irrelevant...then saying 'is Afghanistan what we're aiming for?' is also irrelevant.

I have no idea what your on about here, I was talking about something completely different. You seem obsessed with questioning me about points another posters made, which I find irrelevant, which is why I never mentioned them. I am not here to bang on about which Islamic regime is the most correct, as it has nothing to do with the thread, and it isn't a talking point I brought up. It very simple, the Swiss have chosen to discriminate against a group of people in a pretty small and petty way, and them not being as bad as others isn't any kind of defense.

ardmaj

jonny72 wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8385069.stm

I live in a muslim neighbourhood here on the continent, generally speaking its fairly calm, but there is a noticeable undercurrent of racial tension. Honestly speaking, integration is going backwards and immigration is turning into a big problem.

Hey, look on the bright side. Something has happened in Switzerland at last. they've arrived. seriously though, the european country with the highest number of muslims is France, not Switzerland, so i'm not sure why the wsiss have this sudden aversion to them

TetsuoHashimoto

Clanrickard wrote:

A great day for democracy. If you want to see shameful sectarianism countries with Sharia law are the place to go.

Turks as a percentage are most of the people and I don't think Turkey has anything to do with Sharia

imstrongerthanu wrote:

I'd say your correct in that people have sex in foreign countries.What point are you trying to make exactly?

free contraception for migrant workers :rolleyes:

masteroftherealm

saol alainn wrote: »

[FONT=&quot]Islam does not have its roots in Switzerland. Or the rest of Europe even. At least not within the borders as they are today. Of course there should be freedom of worship! Mosques are being built, and muslims are not being prevented from showing their beliefs in Europe. (Unlike christians in predominantly muslim countries.) But having countless miniarets in Europe is like having a custom that was prevalent in Southern Europe when I was a little girl, set up in a country where Islam is the main religion. That of having loudspeakers lining some roads with someone chanting the Angelus or rosary at particular times during the day. That was done away with many, many years ago, in respect of followers of other faiths. But we'd now be expected to have the muezzin, with his Allah hu Akbar's?



[/FONT]

It most certainly has not been done away with and I find it highly offensive as an atheist to have the Angelus on the national broadcaster and blasted from the church in the morning. Now while I believe that the state broadcaster has Absolutely no place broadcasting a catholic call to prayer, I tolerate the church bells because I believe that everyone has the right to religion, and the right to express that religion. I wouldn't be in favor of banning churches in the same manner that I wouldn't be in favor of banning the minarets.
As a result of the ban me and my partner have taken Switzerland off of a European Tour were taking this summer.

masteroftherealm

Also aimed at the discussion of Sharia and executions a few pages back, catholics seem to happily forget that massacre called the inquisition, whose ruling department in the Vatican survives to this day under a new name.

FSB is not the KGB much....

Clanrickard

TetsuoHashimoto wrote: »

Turks as a percentage are most of the people and I don't think Turkey has anything to do with Sharia

Turks may not have Sharia as the law of the land but most of them abide by it. You might note that they also have an Islamic party in government.

Nodin

Clanrickard wrote: »

Turks may not have Sharia as the law of the land but most of them abide by it.

You mean they're observant muslims? If an individual chooses to follow a certain religous or secular code, I would have thought that entirely their own business.

Clanrickard

Nodin wrote: »

You mean they're observant muslims? If an individual chooses to follow a certain religous or secular code, I would have thought that entirely their own business.

Yes it is. But not when they wish to impose their views on everyone else.

masteroftherealm

Clanrickard wrote: »

Yes it is. But not when they wish to impose their views on everyone else.

What like the catholics in this country?

Also how many muslims have personally tried to "convert" you or impose their beliefs on you.

Nodin

Clanrickard wrote: »

Yes it is. But not when they wish to impose their views on everyone else.

Funny, I seem to recall the post you were responding to pointing out that Turkey does not in fact have Sharia law, so therefore......

I'd be more concerned with the treatment of the Kurds by the Turkish state.

BlaasForRafa

masteroftherealm wrote: »

Also aimed at the discussion of Sharia and executions a few pages back, catholics seem to happily forget that massacre called the inquisition, whose ruling department in the Vatican survives to this day under a new name.

FSB is not the KGB much....

And muslims seem to forget about the two sieges of Vienna when they're going on about western oppression, whats your point?

Nodin

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

And muslims seem to forget about the two sieges of Vienna when they're going on about western oppression,

I doubt it.

Are you saying two medieval sieges justify present day actions?

wes

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

And muslims seem to forget about the two sieges of Vienna when they're going on about western oppression, whats your point?

Are you serious? You do realize not all Muslims are Turks right? You do know Muslims from say Indonesia or Paksitan has nothing to do with that right?

Also, banging on about Vienna is just as bad as the likes of Osama still moaning about the Crusades and blaming all of the West on it, its pretty silly imho.

OldJay

This thread is still going?? The generalisms and wiki-wagging throughout are hilarious.

wes

Justind wrote: »

This thread is still going?? The generalisms and wiki-wagging throughout are hilarious.

Thats the Internet for you .

BlaasForRafa

Nodin wrote: »

I doubt it.

Are you saying two medieval sieges justify present day actions?

No I'm not. Just as what happened in the Crusades does not justify actions by Islamists, that was exactly my point.

(Also it wasn't just 2 medieval sieges, it was several hundred years of occupation, pillage, forced conversion and repression meted out on the balkans and central europe by the ottomans. I just used the sieges of vienna as a handy example)

BlaasForRafa

wes wrote: »

Are you serious? You do realize not all Muslims are Turks right? You do know Muslims from say Indonesia or Paksitan has nothing to do with that right?

Also, banging on about Vienna is just as bad as the likes of Osama still moaning about the Crusades and blaming all of the West on it, its pretty silly imho.

Sigh. One mention of the sieges of vienna is hardly "banging on", try and lay off the hyperbole. And you failed to get my point which is par for the course I suppose.

itsonlywords

masteroftherealm wrote: »

.
As a result of the ban me and my partner have taken Switzerland off of a European Tour were taking this summer.

My God they will be so upset about that.Thats right punish them but not going there and deny them their few Euro. You should take all Muslim countries of your list also who deny Christians the right to practice their religion. Switzerland does not deny them the right to practice their religion at all.

masteroftherealm

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

No I'm not. Just as what happened in the Crusades does not justify actions by Islamists, that was exactly my point.

Did I ever use that as justification for anything?
Wow people are very easy to plant thoughts into...

I was trying to sat the Christians should get off their high horses when talking about Muslims, you all aint led a perfect history either. Much more sordid than the Muslim one IMO

wes

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Sigh. One mention of the sieges of vienna is hardly "banging on", try and lay off the hyperbole. And you failed to get my point which is par for the course I suppose.

Your point wasn't very clear, and I am not the only one who misunderstood it.

Nodin

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

(Also it wasn't just 2 medieval sieges, it was several hundred years of occupation, pillage, forced conversion and repression meted out on the balkans and central europe by the ottomans. I just used the sieges of vienna as a handy example)

One could replace the various locales there with others and be talking about here, or many other places in Europe. European on European, European on American native - repression wasn't the sole reserve of the Turks or "Islam". The sooner you stop looking at that in isolation, the sooner you may gain some perspective.

BlaasForRafa

masteroftherealm wrote: »

Did I ever use that as justification for anything?
Wow people are very easy to plant thoughts into...

I was trying to sat the Christians should get off their high horses when talking about Muslims, you all aint led a perfect history either. Much more sordid than the Muslim one IMO

Did I say you used it as a justification? No I did not.

And a tit for tat over who did what would be so boring, like I could throw out the barbary pirates out there or the conquest of north africa and spain etc, not to mention the fact that I'm not a christian.

BlaasForRafa

wes wrote: »

Your point wasn't very clear, and I am not the only one who misunderstood it.

I guess subtlety is a waste of time on this forum.

wes

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I guess subtlety is a waste of time on this forum.

It can work, but things can get confused from time to time.