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…34689…19

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    saol alainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 71 ✭✭saol alainn


    [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]


  • Options
    #153
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I don't think anyone's arguing that the people of Switzerland have the right to express their wishes in a referendum.

    We're discussing the bigger picture here. The fact that the referendum was held at all poses important questions, such as exactly why it is that some groups have such a problem with other people's religion that they feel the need to go to such lengths to prevent any overt expression of that faith.

    I guess you could ask the same question of the authorities in Saudi Arabia which is vastly stricter than Switzerland, where the merest expression of non-islamic religious affiliation is clamped down on and where churches are banned from being built in that country. Even Shia religious expression is repressed in all but a small part of Saudi.

    The Swiss people have decided to defend the identity of their country, if only more european countries would do the same.


  • Options
    #154
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Grand Fromage wrote: »
    While it is clear that Islam is singled out for penalty with the referendum decision, it would be wrong to say that the state is neutral when dealing with the 3 specifically named Christian religions. It is not. It acts as a tax collector for those religions.

    Leaving aside your conflation of "state" and "government of all forms", I'm still unclear as to the point you're trying to make.

    Previously, you seemed to say that it can't be claimed that this decision was due to seperation of church and state...but no-one (that I can see) was making that claim.

    Now you're saying that it would be wrong to say that the Swiss system is neutral when it comes to religions...but again, no-one (that I can see) was making that claim either.

    As best I can make out, you seem to be arguing that it would be wrong to excuse this decision on grounds that no-one is using as an excuse. There's an infinite number of reasons that people aren't using...I'm not sure what the point of singling some of them out to say "it would be wrong to use this" is.

    If I were to say that it would also be wrong to excvuse it on the grounds that there's excellent skiing to be found in Switzerland, I'd also be making a statement that's accurate, and equally irrelevant to the arguments that are being made.

    If, on the other hand, what you're really trying to say is along the lines that the Swiss are religiosly biased in the first place, and that this explains the decision (even if it doesn't justify it)....then maybe you should just say that instead.


  • Options
    #155
    saol alainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 71 ✭✭saol alainn


    Isn't it ironic? It seems to be OK, in Europe, to demand the removal of crucifixes in classrooms yet not OK to ban miniarets.


  • Options
    #156
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,803 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    saol alainn wrote: »
    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?
    First, nobody's talking about "countless" minarets; there are currently a grand total of four in Switzerland. Secondly, the minarets are not used for the muezzin's call - as you'd know if you read the thread before replying.
    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    I guess you could ask the same question of the authorities in Saudi Arabia which is vastly stricter than Switzerland...
    I could, but I don't think that "not quite as bad as Saudi" is the standard that Switzerland (or any other country) should be setting for itself.
    The Swiss people have decided to defend the identity of their country, if only more european countries would do the same.
    Yeah, because four minarets have totally destroyed Switzerland's identity...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    The Swiss people have decided to defend the identity of their country, if only more european countries would do the same.

    I'm quite surprised that you see the identity of Switzerland as "only 4 minarets", or "frightened that planning permission migt allow more minarets".

    Personally, I would find it difficult to see a country's identity in such simplistic terms.


  • Options
    #158
    Grand Fromage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7 ✭Grand Fromage


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    No, it doesn't. I'm not sure why you feel the need to pretend that Swiss cantons don't have the autonomy to do this, and to claim - despite being clearly told otherwise - that it's the Swiss state that collects these taxes.

    Are the cantons not each part of the Swiss confederation?


  • Options
    #159
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,803 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    saol alainn wrote: »
    Isn't it ironic? It seems to be OK, in Europe, to demand the removal of crucifixes in classrooms yet not OK to ban miniarets.
    I'm all in favour of removing minarets from classrooms.


  • Options
    #160
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,803 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Grand Fromage wrote: »
    Are the cantons not each part of the Swiss confederation?
    Yes, they are.


  • Options
    #161
    DeVore
    Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 32,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    saol alainn wrote: »
    Isn't it ironic? It seems to be OK, in Europe, to demand the removal of crucifixes in classrooms yet not OK to ban miniarets.
    Isnt is ironic that Catholic Churches are allowed to build spires but Islamic churches arent allowed to have minarets??

    Also, someone said that Islam started in the Middle East ....

    Well, where was Jesus born mate?

    Finally, I fail to see how invoking the intolerance of Saudi Arabia helps your arguments... are we aspiring to be as intolerant as them now???

    DeV.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    First, nobody's talking about "countless" minarets; there are currently a grand total of four in Switzerland.

    Are there any figures for the number of applications that have been made for minarets? That would present a clearer picture.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I could, but I don't think that "not quite as bad as Saudi" is the standard that Switzerland (or any other country) should be setting for itself....

    Then we're into a whol new ideological battle, i.e. what standards should we set ourselves. Our "standards" aren't being met currently by a number of people and this is causing a lot of the mistrust etc.
    bonkey wrote: »
    Personally, I would find it difficult to see a country's identity in such simplistic terms.

    Bonkey seems to be the voice of authority on all things Swiss, so I'll ask this..is there a certain period of time that has to elapse before a referendum to over-turn this vote can be initiated?


  • Options
    #163
    saol alainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 71 ✭✭saol alainn


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    First, nobody's talking about "countless" minarets; there are currently a grand total of four in Switzerland. Secondly, the minarets are not used for the muezzin's call - as you'd know if you read the thread before replying.

    Four at the moment, I grant you. But who's to say how many will crop up, throughout Europe, if we don't say no more? The minarets I 'knew' in Egypt were all used for a call to prayer. Is it different in Europe, then? Sincere question.


  • Options
    #164
    saol alainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 71 ✭✭saol alainn


    DeVore wrote: »
    Isnt is ironic that Catholic Churches are allowed to build spires but Islamic churches arent allowed to have minarets??

    Also, someone said that Islam started in the Middle East ....

    Well, where was Jesus born mate?

    Finally, I fail to see how invoking the intolerance of Saudi Arabia helps your arguments... are we aspiring to be as intolerant as them now???

    DeV.

    What does islam have to do with Jesus? Mohammed founded Islam well after christianity was born.

    It is not a question of intolerance, Dev. But why is it all one way?


  • Options
    #165
    saol alainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 71 ✭✭saol alainn


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'm all in favour of removing minarets from classrooms.

    Ho-ho! :eek: :)


  • Options
    #166
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Just read this excellent article which would be actually pretty much spot on to my own opinion on the matter, written by an Imam and Muslim scholar..

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6938161.ece


  • Options
    #167
    Rb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,277 ✭✭✭✭Rb


    I think it's a great move by the Swiss and hopefully we see similar moves in other countries throughout Europe.


  • Options
    #168
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Apologies, haven't read the whole thread.

    Islam has a problem, not unlike the traveller community has a problem. It's a problem of image and this referendum is a symptom of that problem.

    Put simply, people don't trust Muslims. We believe that they are intolerant, backward, violent, mysogynistic, and hellbent on converting the entire world to Islam.
    Whether any of these charges are true or not is irrelevant. Muslims say that this problem is ours because we're ignorant, but I would say that this problem is Islam's. If we're ignorant, then it is up to Islam to educate us, to open itself up and combat the image which has been given to it by it's own people.

    We didn't suddenly start thinking bad things about Islam, a small number of its adherents have tarnished the entire faith, and now it is up to that faith to remove that tarnish through education and expel those who who have given it the bad image.

    But thus far, it's been unwilling to do that and they believe that this is our problem. It's not, its their's. And these kinds of things are going to continue happening until Islam gets its finger out of its areshole and figures out a way to live in harmony with the 5 billion other people who couldn't give a crap about that particular faith.


  • Options
    #169
    bobbyjoe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 798 ✭✭✭bobbyjoe


    A so called liberal country in Europe does this.
    Shameful really.


  • Options
    #170
    Grand Fromage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7 ✭Grand Fromage


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Yes, they are.

    Glad to hear it. I didn't want to get the erroneous impression during that exercise in semantics that the cantons were fully divorced from the Swiss state.


  • Options
    #171
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,803 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Grand Fromage wrote: »
    Glad to hear it. I didn't want to get the erroneous impression during that exercise in semantics that the cantons were fully divorced from the Swiss state.
    It wasn't an exercise in semantics. You claimed the Swiss state was doing something. It was pointed out to you that the state was doing no such thing, but that some - not all - of the cantons were doing it.

    I'm not sure what you're trying to prove by continuing to make this claim, after it was pointed out to you that it's not true.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    seamus wrote: »
    We believe that they are intolerant, backward, violent, mysogynistic, and hellbent on converting the entire world to Islam.
    We most certainly do not.
    seamus wrote: »
    Whether any of these charges are true or not is irrelevant.
    I believe all Catholics are paedophiles and I remind them of the fact on a daily basis outside my local church. I think it’s important to educate the kids on such issues. Whether my beliefs are true or not is irrelevant, right?


  • Options
    #173
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    djpbarry wrote: »
    We most certainly do not.
    Let's change that - the public at large believe it.
    I believe all Catholics are paedophiles and I remind them of the fact on a daily basis outside my local church. I think it’s important to educate the kids on such issues. Whether my beliefs are true or not is irrelevant, right?
    In social terms, yes the truth of your beliefs are irrelevant, it's up to the Catholic church to combat them.

    Let's put it in a less "massive deal" context with an example. Due to a misunderstood joke at the Christmas party, word has spread in the office that I think all of my co-workers are blithering idiots, the bosses couldn't manage their way out of a paper bag, and I have no intention "moving up".

    I do absolutely nothing which makes people think this is untrue - I'm professional, yet cold, with my co-workers, I rarely socialise and I only speak to management when I have to.

    So from my co-workers' POV, whether the original assertion is true, is irrelevant. But when I continually get passed over for promotion and don't get invited out for pints after work, is it my co-workers problem because they misunderstood me, or is it my problem, because I'm the one it's affecting?


  • Options
    #174
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Grand Fromage wrote: »
    Are the cantons not each part of the Swiss confederation?

    As are Swiss citizens, but when a citizen does something we don't confuse them with the state.
    prinz wrote:
    Bonkey seems to be the voice of authority on all things Swiss, so I'll ask this..is there a certain period of time that has to elapse before a referendum to over-turn this vote can be initiated?
    Not that I'm aware of, but I don't think it will happen.
    Rb wrote:
    I think it's a great move by the Swiss and hopefully we see similar moves in other countries throughout Europe.
    This comment reminded me...

    Tell the Irish that they can't put incandescent lightbulbs in their houses any more, and its an absolute outrage. Nanny statism...denial of personal freedom...all that sort of stuff.

    Tell the Swiss Muslims that they can't put minarets on their temples, and its a great move.

    It sort of puts things in context for me. When it effects us, personally, then the smallest slight is absolutely intolerable. When it effects someone else...well...that's different.


  • Options
    #175
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    seamus wrote: »
    Let's change that - the public at large believe it.
    I’m not sure I’d agree with that either – opinion on this thread seems to be relatively balanced.
    seamus wrote: »
    In social terms, yes the truth of your beliefs are irrelevant, it's up to the Catholic church to combat them.
    No, it’s not. It’s my responsibility to educate myself. If I’ve got a warped, twisted, Daily-Mail-esque view of the world, then that’s my problem.
    seamus wrote: »
    Let's put it in a less "massive deal" context with an example. Due to a misunderstood joke at the Christmas party, word has spread in the office that I think all of my co-workers are blithering idiots, the bosses couldn't manage their way out of a paper bag, and I have no intention "moving up".

    I do absolutely nothing which makes people think this is untrue - I'm professional, yet cold, with my co-workers, I rarely socialise and I only speak to management when I have to.

    So from my co-workers' POV, whether the original assertion is true, is irrelevant. But when I continually get passed over for promotion and don't get invited out for pints after work, is it my co-workers problem because they misunderstood me, or is it my problem, because I'm the one it's affecting?
    It’s your problem – you’re responsible for your own actions (I'm assuming you produced the joke?) and how they impact on your own life. However, your analogy is invalid. A better analogy would be as follows...

    At the office Christmas party, a male colleague who happens to work on the same floor as you sexually harasses a female co-worker. The entire office building subsequently assumes that everyone who works on your floor is a misogynistic, borderline rapist. Is it your responsibility to demonstrate that you do not fit this description, or is it the case that everyone in the office who holds such an opinion is an idiot?


  • Options
    #176
    OldJay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 943 ✭✭✭OldJay


    seamus wrote: »
    Put simply, people don't trust Muslims. We believe that they are intolerant, backward, violent, mysogynistic, and hellbent on converting the entire world to Islam
    Speak for yourself. I'm from a Jewish family and none of us, even those who have lived in Israel and Lebanon possess nowhere near a view as myopic or generalistic as yours.


  • Options
    #177
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    djpbarry wrote: »
    At the office Christmas party, a male colleague who happens to work on the same floor as you sexually harasses a female co-worker. The entire office building subsequently assumes that everyone who works on your floor is a misogynistic, borderline rapist. Is it your responsibility to demonstrate that you do not fit this description, or is it the case that everyone in the office who holds such an opinion is an idiot?

    What happens when people who hold such an opinion ask his colleagues working on the same floor if the male colleague is a misogynistic borderline rapist, and they say 'no, he's just misunderstood, that's how things are in his country, so he should be allowed behave the same way here'? What happens if they deny there was ever any sexual harassment to begin with, or if there was that it was the female coworkers fault for bringing it on herself?


  • Options
    #178
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    djpbarry wrote: »
    I’m not sure I’d agree with that either – opinion on this thread seems to be relatively balanced.

    Relatively evenly divided, perhaps.


  • Options
    #179
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    prinz wrote: »
    What happens when people who hold such an opinion ask his colleagues working on the same floor if the male colleague is a misogynistic borderline rapist, and they say 'no, he's just misunderstood, that's how things are in his country, so he should be allowed behave the same way here'?
    Then they also deserve to be labelled idiots. However, I'm guessing those who condone sexual harassment would be in the extreme minority in most offices in this country (if such people exist at all – there’s always one, I suppose).
    bonkey wrote: »
    Relatively evenly divided, perhaps.
    That would be the more accurate assessment I was going for, yes.


  • Options
    #180
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    prinz wrote: »
    What happens when people who hold such an opinion ask his colleagues working on the same floor if the male colleague is a misogynistic borderline rapist, and they say 'no, he's just misunderstood, that's how things are in his country, so he should be allowed behave the same way here'? What happens if they deny there was ever any sexual harassment to begin with, or if there was that it was the female coworkers fault for bringing it on herself?

    Oh...wait...I know this one...

    We tell his friends that they can't display a flag from their home country in their garden.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Then they also deserve to be labelled idiots. However, I'm guessing those who condone sexual harassment would be in the extreme minority in most offices in this country (if such people exist at all – there’s always one, I suppose)..

    Well that's odd, because when I have asked the "colleagues" on boards here they're exactly the answers that are given.

    See the article I linked above. Imam, Islamic scholar - reasonable assessment of the situation. Unfortunately the representatives here on boards of the Islam forum wouldn't agree with that man's opinions. There's always an excuse and always a reason.
    bonkey wrote: »
    Oh...wait...I know this one...
    We tell his friends that they can't display a flag from their home country in their garden.

    Ye what now? No the answer I was going for was the man's colleagues on the same floor should call him out on his behaviour if they don't want to be associated with it, instead they condone, excuse, and support it. Leading to further problems for all involved.


Advertisement