Banning of minarets in Switzerland

prinz

bonkey wrote: »

Why would there be?
Planning permission is an unbiased, non-controversial concept. It effectively means that things can be built where there isn't significant opposition...where people are in favour of, or ambivalent to, the idea. It applies to all construction equally.
There is no political bias in the concept. It gives people the ability to make their own decisions.

Four minarets in Switzerland...presumably there were a lot more applications. So the people decided they didn't want minarets. So you have various local votes etc, and you think that's ok, and unbiased.. but get one big vote and vote of the very same thing and it suddenly becomes biased and xenophobic? Surely all the previous local applications were based on the same reasoning?

bonkey wrote: »

The Swiss have been quite good at avoiding violence. They've done so primarily by showing understanding and a willingness to compromise. Abandoning that position in favour of bias and legal discrimination is not going to lead away from violence.

Compromise has to be a two way project. Any examples of how the Muslim community has made any overtures of compromise? As the moderator of the Islam forum I have been asking irishconvert on another thread various questions about compromises, the stock answer I have received is 'why should a Muslim compromise, he should do what he thinks is right regardless', at the same time telling me westerners visiting Muslim countries must respect the culture of social norms of those lands. Apparently the cultural norms of say Ireland or the UK don't apply to Muslims here. That's not compromise.

bonkey wrote: »

Yet another strawman. Laws against spreading hatred are how you deal with people spreading hatred....not laws against building minarets.

Like I said, rather than let it get to that stage, lay down a marker. Hell remove the law in 6 months, or make it sufficiently vague etc, but the worst thing to do is bury your head in the sand and pretend that these issues aren't becoming problems.

bonkey wrote: »

Laws discriminating against people is how you help others spread hatred against you...by giving them a factual basis on which to base their claims of prejudice.

Er no it doesn't. Exactly the opposite has been shown to happen, look at the UK for a prime example. Moderate Muslims can clearly see for themselves that this law is not against Islam or the practising of their religion, such as the Imam I have already referenced.

bonkey

prinz wrote: »

Four minarets in Switzerland...presumably there were a lot more applications. So the people decided they didn't want minarets. So you have various local votes etc, and you think that's ok, and unbiased.. but get one big vote and vote of the very same thing and it suddenly becomes biased and xenophobic? Surely all the previous local applications were based on the same reasoning?

No, there weren't local votes. Planning permission isn't handled by vote. Also, rejection of one plan does not prevent one from trying to obtain acceptance for a different plan.

Banning something does that. It prevents one from trying to obtain acceptance.

There are, as you say, four minarets in Switzerland...so in four cases, local acceptance of plans was obtained. Now, that benchmark no longer suffices but only in the case of one type of structure. This is discriminatory. Additionally, it would be bordering on dishonest to suggest that minarets are not linked to Islam (particularly when you already suggest this vote was a "shot across the bows"), which means there is a discriminatory law, discriminating against Muslims (albeit indirectly).

Compromise has to be a two way project. Any examples of how the Muslim community has made any overtures of compromise?

You seem to be, again, asking questions from a position of not knowing the answer, but having based your position on the assumption of one.

As the moderator of the Islam forum I have been asking irishconvert on another thread various questions about compromises, the stock answer I have received is 'why should a Muslim compromise, he should do what he thinks is right regardless', at the same time telling me westerners visiting Muslim countries must respect the culture of social norms of those lands. Apparently the cultural norms of say Ireland or the UK don't apply to Muslims here. That's not compromise.

You are suggesting that it is reasonable to base the treatment of all Muslims in Switzerland on the answer of one person on an internet forum

You also seem to be taking the stance that it is perfectly OK for us to do the same whilst also giving the impression that you find this stance to be unacceptable.

Yet again, it smacks of "as long as we can claim to be one rung higher on the moral ladder, its all gravy" as a line of justification. Who cares about doing what's right....we just have to be not-as-wrong as the other guy.

Like I said, rather than let it get to that stage, lay down a marker. Hell remove the law in 6 months, or make it sufficiently vague etc, but the worst thing to do is bury your head in the sand and pretend that these issues aren't becoming problems.

What problem(s) in Switzerland, specifically, do you feel this shot across the bow was needed to deal with? Or do you just feel that it was necessary to prevent problems arising which you imagine might have arisen if Muslims weren't given this warning?

Er no it doesn't. Exactly the opposite has been shown to happen,

The exact opposite of what I've said is that discriminatory laws does not help peopel spread hatred against you. Where, exactly, have people implemented discriminatory laws which turned out to be a good thing?

look at the UK for a prime example.

The UK is your model of where discriminatory laws have prevented people spreading hate? Seriously?

Moderate Muslims can clearly see for themselves that this law is not against Islam or the practising of their religion, such as the Imam I have already referenced.

You can't have it both ways, prinz. If the law isn't against Islam, then what, exactly, is it a "shot across the bows" of?

prinz

bonkey wrote: »

No, there weren't local votes. Planning permission isn't handled by vote. Also, rejection of one plan does not prevent one from trying to obtain acceptance for a different plan.

Not a vote, but locals could object right? Because of all those different plans a grand total of 4 were built? Sounds to me like the Swiss didn't want them, before the law.

bonkey wrote: »

There are, as you say, four minarets in Switzerland...so in four cases, local acceptance of plans was obtained.

Any word yet on the number of applications?

bonkey wrote: »

You are suggesting that it is reasonable to base the treatment of all Muslims in Switzerland on the answer of one person on an internet forum

No, I suggested no such thing. I also asked that one person for information he would be in a better position to provide, none was forthcoming. I linked one moderate Imam in the UK, he was discounted as being a "renegade". Doesn't that strike you as odd?

bonkey wrote: »

Yet again, it smacks of "as long as we can claim to be one rung higher on the moral ladder, its all gravy" as a line of justification. Who cares about doing what's right....we just have to be not-as-wrong as the other guy.

And once again you'd be wrong. What's your issue with compromise and mutual respect and recognition?

bonkey wrote: »

What problem(s) in Switzerland, specifically, do you feel this shot across the bow was needed to deal with? Or do you just feel that it was necessary to prevent problems arising which you imagine might have arisen if Muslims weren't given this warning?

That's what I feel. The same problems that have arisen in many other countries. It would be great if compromise and mutual acceptance was recognised. In many instances it isn't. This could prove to be the catalyst which ensures that the compromise and mutual respect etc does arise in Switzerland.

bonkey wrote: »

The UK is your model of where discriminatory laws have prevented people spreading hate? Seriously?

Eh no, the UK is a model of when a state stands by and doesn't take a stand. Instead of compromise it was all one way, and look at the problems they are having.

bonkey wrote: »

You can't have it both ways, prinz. If the law isn't against Islam, then what, exactly, is it a "shot across the bows" of?

Fundamentalism.

djpbarry

prinz wrote: »

... the crux of the issue is an Arabian architectural feature which isn't needed in a mosque at all.

In your opinion. In my opinion, religion isn’t needed at all, but that’s not the point, is it?

prinz wrote: »

The whole 'we should be better than that' is a bit odd, considering they want to replicate Arabian features elsewhere.

I personally find it odd that Christians like to wear miniature tools of execution around their necks, but who am I to judge?

prinz wrote: »

What sort of faith is so fragile that it needs to be architecturally expressed using a surplus to requirement Arabian minaret, despite the fact that most of the Muslims in Switzerland are of Balkan origin......

Why are you conflating the origin of Islam with the origin of Swiss Muslims? Are all Irish Christians from Palestine?

prinz wrote: »

Would I be in favour of more laws like this one? Maybe, maybe not depending on the law itself. Am I in favour of curtailing freedom of religion, and freedom to practice - most definitely not.

But you’ve no problem curtailing freedom of expression?

prinz wrote: »

Violence between cultures is inevitable as long as there is no compromise and no assimilation and no people immersing themselves into the culture of the land they live in.

And of course the best form of compromise is to impose bans.

prinz wrote: »

Compromise has to be a two way project. Any examples of how the Muslim community has made any overtures of compromise?

Well, in the case of Ireland, as far as I am aware, the overwhelming majority of Muslims obey the law of the land. That’s pretty much all I ask of anyone.

prinz wrote: »

It would be great if compromise and mutual acceptance was recognised. In many instances it isn't. This could prove to be the catalyst which ensures that the compromise and mutual respect etc does arise in Switzerland.

You’re implying that Swiss Muslims are uncompromising and disrespectful?

prinz wrote: »

Eh no, the UK is a model of when a state stands by and doesn't take a stand.

The UK is a model for a lot of things, but ‘non-interventionist state’ certainly isn’t one of them.

peasant

Cat, meet pidgeons

Seenashow the majority of Swiss voters are opposed to having minarets built (think of that decision what you like), isn't it better (and ultimately less upsetting for everyone involved) to have a general ban rather than going through the wars in every town and village over planning permission?

At least that way you can avoid conflict and animosity on a personal level in the community and simply use the "I was just following orders" excuse

prinz

djpbarry wrote: »

In your opinion. In my opinion, religion isn’t needed at all, but that’s not the point, is it?

Not in my opinion. It isn't needed for a mosque.

djpbarry wrote: »

I personally find it odd that Christians like to wear miniature tools of execution around their necks, but who am I to judge?

Good point. I don't wear one. Go propose a law to ban them.

djpbarry wrote: »

Why are you conflating the origin of Islam with the origin of Swiss Muslims?

Perhaps the problem comes when people of Balkan origin ( for the most part ) for some reason need an Arabian minaret.... One could just as easily ask why are they conflating the origin of Islam with their own origins, or with their place in Switzerland.

djpbarry wrote: »

But you’ve no problem curtailing freedom of expression?

Yeah just like any planning law it has nothing to do with freedom of expression.

djpbarry wrote: »

And of course the best form of compromise is to impose bans.

No. It isn't. Bans like this shouldn't be needed at all.

djpbarry wrote: »

Well, in the case of Ireland, as far as I am aware, the overwhelming majority of Muslims obey the law of the land. That’s pretty much all I ask of anyone..

I also would ask people to conform as best they can to the cultural and social norms of the land. That is where the problem arises. When people say it isn't against the law to do x, even though it is culturally and socially wrong, therefore I will still do it. In the end when people want to enfore their norms laws have to be made. It shouldn't come to making laws.

djpbarry wrote: »

You’re implying that Swiss Muslims are uncompromising and disrespectful?..

No, I am not.

irishconvert

prinz wrote: »

As the moderator of the Islam forum I have been asking irishconvert on another thread various questions about compromises, the stock answer I have received is 'why should a Muslim compromise, he should do what he thinks is right regardless',

I did not say that and unless you can link to me saying so then I ask you withdraw that accusation

prinz wrote: »

at the same time telling me westerners visiting Muslim countries must respect the culture of social norms of those lands. Apparently the cultural norms of say Ireland or the UK don't apply to Muslims here. That's not compromise.

I didn't say that either.

prinz

irishconvert wrote: »

I did not say that and unless you can link to me saying so then I ask you withdraw that accusation.

So this is how cultural and social norms should be respected abroad...

irishconvert wrote: »

It is all relative. People in Muslim countries don't believe it is right for women to walk around exposing certain parts of their body. It is equivalent to walking around naked in Ireland. Asking women to cover up while in a Muslim country is not imposing on them...

irishconvert wrote: »

Some women do not want to show their face to anybody but their husbands. They are not harming anybody else at all. Why can't you leave them be, are they causing some hardship in your life?...

..and this is how you compromise by adapting to society here?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63277437&postcount=316

then there is wes..

wes wrote: »

I would expect people to adhere to the law, yes..

wes wrote: »

Cultural norms are not the same as laws, last I checked. Afaik, there is no laws against the wearing of a burkah in this country, as If someone wants to wear one more power to them..

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=63284712
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63284205&postcount=398

oscarBravo

prinz wrote: »

If the Swiss vote to ban the building of any more church steeples tomorrow I wouldn't have a problem with that. Steeples are, like minarets, a relic of past times and surplus to requirements on churches.

So you're OK with the Swiss banning minarets, and church steeples. In a later post, you've suggested that someone should start a campaign to ban the wearing of crucifixes.

Is there anything that you think it's not OK to ban, once a majority vote for it? Or are you just happy to have things banned that you, personally don't have any need for?

I believe this shot got the desired effect of making people take notice, don't you?

Take notice of what, exactly?

Am I in favour of curtailing freedom of religion, and freedom to practice - most definitely not.

But curtailing freedom of expression is perfectly fine?

Not acceptable? Again this wasn't a law against Islam, or mosques, or Imams, or Muslims.

No, it was a shot across the bows of Islam. Once again, a shot across the bows is not an act of violence; it's a threat of violence.

Even if that "violence" is metaphorical, the threat is there nonetheless. You are claiming that this law is OK, because it's not a law against Islam. It's merely a warning shot - so I ask again, what is being warned against, and where will the next shot land if the warning isn't heeded?

Violence between cultures is inevitable as long as there is no compromise and no assimilation and no people immersing themselves into the culture of the land they live in.

So four minarets, and eighty-something-percent of the Muslim population of Switzerland being largely non-practising, counts as "no compromise and no assimilation"?

Basically, you're OK with Muslims being Muslims, as long as they are visually and behaviourally indistinguishable from non-Muslims in every way?

Yes, I'm putting words in your mouth, but it's a logical conclusion to draw from what you have said.

I take offence at that. I haven't for a second claimed Islam to be "inherently bad", quite the opposite in fact.

You are supportive of an effort to quell any public or visual expression of Islam. Forgive me for refusing to believe that you're a big fan of it.

cnocbui

djpbarry wrote: »

Because minarets are undemocratic?

No. they are culturally and aesthetically inappropriate.

I personally want my chocolate box Swiss village idyl to stay that way, I do not want to see something that looks more like the skyline of Damascus. If I want to see minarets, I'll go to Damascus or Istanbul, where they 'are' culturally and aesthetically appropriate.

irishconvert

prinz wrote: »

So this is how cultural and social norms should be respected abroad...





..and this is how you compromise by adapting to society here?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63277437&postcount=316

then there is wes..





http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=63284712
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63284205&postcount=398

Yet again I ask you to link to where I said "why should a Muslim compromise, he should do what he thinks is right regardless". If you can't back up this up then please edit your post to remove the accusation.

prinz

oscarBravo wrote: »

So you're OK with the Swiss banning minarets, and church steeples. In a later post, you've suggested that someone should start a campaign to ban the wearing of crucifixes.
Is there anything that you think it's not OK to ban, once a majority vote for it? Or are you just happy to have things banned that you, personally don't have any need for?

Case by case basis. I am free to hold an opinion, and to personally vote to ban or not ban anything I choose.

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, it was a shot across the bows of Islam. Once again, a shot across the bows is not an act of violence; it's a threat of violence.Even if that "violence" is metaphorical, the threat is there nonetheless.

What threat exactly?

oscarBravo wrote: »

You are claiming that this law is OK, because it's not a law against Islam. It's merely a warning shot - so I ask again, what is being warned against, and where will the next shot land if the warning isn't heeded?

So I will answer....again.... fundamentalism.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Basically, you're OK with Muslims being Muslims, as long as they are visually and behaviourally indistinguishable from non-Muslims in every way?

I have never said that.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes, I'm putting words in your mouth, but it's a logical conclusion to draw from what you have said.

So please stop.

oscarBravo wrote: »

You are supportive of an effort to quell any public or visual expression of Islam.

Ridiculous over reaction. A mosque is a public expression of Islam is it not?

oscarBravo wrote: »

Forgive me for refusing to believe that you're a big fan of it.

Where have I said that I am not a big fan of it? This is not a black and white issue, "for us or against us" nonsense.

prinz

irishconvert wrote: »

Yet again I ask you to link to where I said "why should a Muslim compromise, he should do what he thinks is right regardless". If you can't back up this up then please edit your post to remove the accusation.

That is essentially the spirit of what you were saying. I have already linked it. The clue is in the fact that I didn't 'quote' you the first time.

irishconvert

prinz wrote: »

That is essentially the spirit of what you were saying. I have already linked it. The clue is in the fact that I didn't 'quote' you the first time.

I didn't say it, that is why you can't post a link to me saying it. Your arguments are so weak and you are taking such a hammering in your debate with the excellent posters in this forum that you have now resorted to lying and misquoting people. You really should get a job with thw Daily Express.

I have reported your post to the moderators. Hopefully they will remove it as you seems to be too stubborn to admit when you are wrong.

prinz

irishconvert wrote: »

I didn't say it, that is why you can't post a link to me saying it.

See above.

irishconvert wrote: »

Your arguments are so weak and you are taking such a hammering in your debate with the excellent posters in this forum that you have now resorted to lying and misquoting people..

A hammering? What is this a playground?

irishconvert wrote: »

You really should get a job with thw Daily Express.I have reported your post to the moderators. Hopefully they will remove it as you seems to be too stubborn to admit when you are wrong.

I linked what you said.. care to offer anything to back up your claims against Dr Taj Hargey? I mean I requested that of you and you refused to do so... Indeed Dr Targey won a court case on such libelous claims as you came on here and repeated.

oscarBravo

prinz wrote: »

Case by case basis. I am free to hold an opinion, and to personally vote to ban or not ban anything I choose.

Absolutely. And I'm free to challenge the basis on which you hold that opinion.

What threat exactly?

That's what I've been asking you. You're the one who introduced the "shot across the bow" metaphor - if by that you didn't mean a threat, then what did you mean?

So I will answer....again.... fundamentalism.

If fundamentalism is the problem, then why not tackle fundamentalism? What's the point in alienating moderate Muslims, if the aim is to prevent fundamentalism?

I have never said that.

So you're perfectly happy for moderate Muslims to express their faith in any way they feel is appropriate?

So please stop.

prinz wrote: »

That is essentially the spirit of what you were saying.

Sauce for the goose...

prinz wrote: »

Ridiculous over reaction. A mosque is a public expression of Islam is it not?

But a minaret is a public expression of Islamic fundamentalism?

Where have I said that I am not a big fan of it? This is not a black and white issue, "for us or against us" nonsense.

No, it's worse: it's attacking moderate Islam under the blatantly dishonest guise of a "warning shot" against fundamentalists.

You claim that such steps are necessary to avoid the otherwise inevitable violence that results from cultural conflict: do you honestly believe that this move has furthered the cause of Muslim integration into Swiss society?

prinz

oscarBravo wrote: »

Absolutely. And I'm free to challenge the basis on which you hold that opinion. That's what I've been asking you. You're the one who introduced the "shot across the bow" metaphor - if by that you didn't mean a threat, then what did you mean?

A warning would be better. A warning to be heeded by all sections of Swiss society, including Swiss Muslims.

oscarBravo wrote: »

If fundamentalism is the problem, then why not tackle fundamentalism? What's the point in alienating moderate Muslims, if the aim is to prevent fundamentalism?

I don't think moderate Muslims will feel all that alienated. People looking for a problem might.

oscarBravo wrote: »

So you're perfectly happy for moderate Muslims to express their faith in any way they feel is appropriate?

Yes. Within the bounds of the society they live in.

oscarBravo wrote: »

But a minaret is a public expression of Islamic fundamentalism?

Yes, I believe it is. Like I said already, mosques haven't been banned. I ma not aware of anything else relating to a public expression of Islam that has been banned.

oscarBravo wrote: »

You claim that such steps are necessary to avoid the otherwise inevitable violence that results from cultural conflict: do you honestly believe that this move has furthered the cause of Muslim integration into Swiss society?

Yes I feel it may well do just that. It may prompt the more moderate Muslim leaders to speak up, and speak out against fundamentalism, and to promote compromise. i.e. a certain amount of "self regulation" in return for freedom to build minarets or whatever else.

oscarBravo

prinz wrote: »

A warning would be better. A warning to be heeded by all sections of Swiss society, including Swiss Muslims.

...and if that warning isn't heeded?

I don't think moderate Muslims will feel all that alienated. People looking for a problem might.

With respect, I don't think you're in a position to speak for moderate Islam.

Yes. Within the bounds of the society they live in.

So you're supportive of Saudi Arabia's total ban on any expression of Christianity?

Yes, I believe it is.

Sorry, but you'll have to explain that one to me. How is a minaret an expression of fundamentalist Islam any more than a church steeple is an expression of fundamentalist Christianity?

Like I said already, mosques haven't been banned. I ma not aware of anything else relating to a public expression of Islam that has been banned.

...yet. What if they don't heed the "warning"?

Yes I feel it may well do just that. It may prompt the more moderate Muslim leaders to speak up, and speak out against fundamentalism, and to promote compromise. i.e. a certain amount of "self regulation" in return for freedom to build minarets or whatever else.

Apart from the fact that I find that point of view delusional, it amazes me that anyone could find it acceptable. It smacks strongly of "you can be a Muslim if you must, but only on our terms". It's discriminatory and it's unjust.

prinz

oscarBravo wrote: »

...and if that warning isn't heeded?

Then I fear for goodwill, peace etc.

oscarBravo wrote: »

With respect, I don't think you're in a position to speak for moderate Islam.

With respect, I don't think you're in a position to speak for a Swiss majority but that doesn't seem to have stopped anyone.

oscarBravo wrote: »

So you're supportive of Saudi Arabia's total ban on any expression of Christianity?

No, but then again the two are not comparable and you know that as well as I do. Saudi Arabia bans other religions, not expressions of that religion. I am not in favour of any country banning a religion, if on the other hand a vote was taken in Saudi Arabia to limit the size, number, or design of Christian churches, I wouldn't have an issue with that, just like I have no issue with France's secularist laws banning personal expressions of religion, with crosses or whatever.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sorry, but you'll have to explain that one to me. How is a minaret an expression of fundamentalist Islam any more than a church steeple is an expression of fundamentalist Christianity?

If church steeples had their origins in Palestine, and current day Palestine was a Christian theocracy dictatorship which was busily funding and exporting Christian fundamentalism promoting Old Testament punishments then I would say it would be an expression of Christian fundamentalism. I have already said Christian steeples are not required on a Church, and would have no problem with them being banned from on in Switzerland.

oscarBravo wrote: »

...yet. What if they don't heed the "warning"? Apart from the fact that I find that point of view delusional, it amazes me that anyone could find it acceptable.

Like I said above, then I fear for all.

oscarBravo wrote: »

It smacks strongly of "you can be a Muslim if you must, but only on our terms". It's discriminatory and it's unjust.

Doesn't every society set "terms" by which it's people must live or face the consequences? The laws of any land establish the "terms" by which I must live if I am to stay there and participate in that land. Are they all discriminatory? Should I go to Singapore and live by Irish laws and norms, then claim it discriminatory?

wes

prinz wrote: »

then there is wes..

Sorry Prinz, social norms are not the same as laws and people don't have to respect them if they don't choose to do so. For instance, I can dye my hair purple and wear a clown costume around all day, this isn't a social norm and quite frankly its none of your business if I decide to wear such a costume, as I am not breaking a law or hurting anyone. I see no reason why people should confirm to what you want, and quite frankly people like you need to mind your own business imho, and stop being obsessed with how other people dress and act, if it doesn't hurt you or break laws, then I fail see what business it is of yours, personally.

Quick question, a Man dressing as a Woman isn't a societal norm either, would you be against that? Personally, I could care less, live and let live imho, but seeing as your so obsessed with societal norms, I take it you have a issue with it then, or do you only have problems when its Muslims or ethnic minorities or immigrants who do so? Are only White Irish people allowed to violate the societal norms?

Also, can you tell me what these societal norms even are, btw?

As I said earlier, everyone should respect the law, if anyone want to say "feck it" to social/societal (or whatever we call it) norms, more power to them imho. Personally, I could care less what pathetic busy bodies think of what people do, as long as they don't break any laws.

Also, I find it hilarious that you dragged me into this thread.

**EDIT**
Oh and here is the full quote of what I said:

wes wrote: »

Cultural norms are not the same as laws, last I checked.

Afaik, there is no laws against the wearing of a burkah in this country, as If someone wants to wear one more power to them. Personally, I think it a bit odd, but then I think lots of things people do are odd, but if there not breaking any laws I can't say I give a rats ass personally.

Also, plenty of Irish people who aren't Muslim, do things that aren't part of the cultural norms of this country as well btw. Hell, there are even people in Muslim countries who go against there cultural norms (rock music scene in Pakistan for instance), which again are not the same as breaking a law.

The last bit that you left out, shows that I am all for people in Muslim counties violating societal norms, such as they are. I gave the example of Pakistan underground rock scene (centered around Lahore if I remember right), which horribly offends nutty Islamic extremists, who will bitch and moan about social norms and other such nonsense. I could care less about offending them, and I could care less about offending extreme Western Ultra nationalists, the 2 groups are both cut from the same cloth imho, and no one should listen to there childish rants and raves.

prinz

wes wrote: »

Sorry Prinz, social norms are not the same as laws and people don't have to respect them if they don't choose to do so..

Can I wear workboots into the mosque in Clonskeagh? Or would I be asked to take them off or leave by any chance?

irishconvert

prinz wrote: »

Can I wear workboots into the mosque in Clonskeagh? Or would I be asked to take them off or leave by any chance?

You would not be asked to leave.

You would be asked to take them off as people pray on the carpet and if there is any dirt on your boots it will dirty the carpet. A requirement of Islam is you should be clean when praying.

Incidentally if you visit some of my Irish friends, you will also be asked to remove your shoes when you enter their house.

What is your point again?

prinz

irishconvert wrote: »

Incidentally if you visit some of my Irish friends, you will also be asked to remove your shoes when you enter their house.
What is your point again?

Do you tell your friends that they are busy bodies who need to learn to live and let live?

Jus to point out I wouldn't dream of wearing shoes into a mosque, and I am looking forward to visiting Clonskeagh, have heard the restaurant there is top notch

wes

prinz wrote: »

Can I wear workboots into the mosque in Clonskeagh? Or would I be asked to take them off or leave by any chance?

Its a privately owned building, so yeah you got to follow there rules, and take them off. Just like if you are going into a club and they require neat dress, you have to follow the rules or they won't let you in. If you go into a Mc Donalds with shoes, they will ask you to leave, and that's there right it is there business after all. Now, if you want to wear work boots around the streets of Dublin more power to you, it ain't hurting no one and you ain't breaking no laws. Your reply had nothing to do with societal norms, so I fail to see why you bothered quoting me, as what you said had feck all do with what I said.

Of course, you know your example has nothing to do with what I was talking about above, and is another example of you going out of your way avoid answering my questions as per usual.

How about you actual respond to what I am actually saying this time, and answer my questions. Remember, you dragged my posts from the other forum in here, and are of course doing your best to try and avoid giving a straight answer.

wes

prinz wrote: »

Do you tell your friends that they are busy bodies who need to learn to live and let live?

Do you know the difference between a privately owned residence and a country? You should google the meaning of both terms, you will find they are very different.

I stand by my busy body comment btw, especially now that you can't seem to tell the difference between a privately owned residence and a country, which is rather bizarre.

irishconvert

prinz wrote: »

Do you tell your friends that they are busy bodies who need to learn to live and let live?

Why would I say yet along think that? It makes perfect sense that they want to keep their carpets clean.

prinz wrote: »

Jus to point out I wouldn't dream of wearing shoes into a mosque, and I am looking forward to visiting Clonskeagh, have heard the restaurant there is top notch

It is good, hope you enjoy it. And hope the minaret there does not offend you too much

prinz

wes wrote: »

How about you actual respond to what I am actually saying this time, and answer my questions..

wes wrote: »

Quick question, a Man dressing as a Woman isn't a societal norm either, would you be against that?..

If he wants to do it in his own home no problem. If he wants to do it on the steet as long as he's not covered from head to toe then I don't see a problem.

wes wrote: »

...do you only have problems when its Muslims or ethnic minorities or immigrants who do so?

No I don't.

wes wrote: »

...Are only White Irish people allowed to violate the societal norms?

No, it's irrelevant to me who's under a burka say. I couldn't tell anyway. Perhaps it's Mary O'Reilly, Catholic from Offaly, or perhaps its Nasreen Abdullah, Muslim, from Roscommon.

wes wrote: »

...
Also, can you tell me what these societal norms even are, btw?

Primarily my issue is with an item like the burka. As I have said before other items of clothing which may be regarded as Muslim..I have no problem with. They can look extremely beautiful.

wes

prinz wrote: »

If he wants to do it in his own home no problem. If he wants to do it on the steet as long as he's not covered from head to toe then I don't see a problem.

Is there are a law against some being covered head to toe in this country? Last time I checked there isn't. So again, I fail to see how its your business how someone dresses as long as they don't break the law.

prinz wrote: »

No I don't.

Good to hear then.

prinz wrote: »

No, it's irrelevant to me who's under a burka say. I couldn't tell anyway. Perhaps it's Mary O'Reilly, Catholic from Offaly, or perhaps its Nasreen Abdullah, Muslim, from Roscommon.

Are they breaking any laws if any of them chose to wear a Burkha? If they are not breaking any laws, why should they care about what you or I think about what there wearing?

prinz wrote: »

Primarily my issue is with an item like the burka. As I have said before other items of clothing which may be regarded as Muslim..I have no problem with. They can look extremely beautiful.

Again, I don't like the Burka either personally, but at the end of the day, its none of my business if a Woman chooses to wear one. There is no law against it, and what you or I think about it doesn't matter ultimately.

prinz

wes wrote: »

Do you know the difference between a privately owned residence and a country? You should google the meaning of both terms, you will find they are very different. I stand by my busy body comment btw, especially now that you can't seem to tell the difference between a privately owned residence and a country, which is rather bizarre.

Just like the people of a house have a right to set the rules, so the people of a country have a right to set the rules no?

irishconvert wrote: »

Why would I say yet along think that? It makes perfect sense that they want to keep their carpets clean.

Does it not make perfect sense when your dealing with someone in person to be able to see that persons face?

irishconvert wrote: »

It is good, hope you enjoy it. And hope the minaret there does not offend you too much

Thank you very much. Now I just need to find someone to go with, who knows what's good. It's making me hungry just thinking about it, my favourite type of food, Middle Eastern and North African.

prinz

wes wrote: »

Is there are a law against some being covered head to toe in this country? Last time I checked there isn't. So again, I fail to see how its your business how someone dresses as long as they don't break the law..

If such a law was suggested or implemented would you consider it a xenophobic attack on all Muslims? Or would you say, the law is the law, if a majority support it then that's just life and people need to get on with things.