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…6791112…19

Comments

  • Options
    #242
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    prinz wrote: »
    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?

    Yes, they do.

    However, you know I was talking about societal norms, which are not the same as laws. So someone violating a social/societal norm, is not the same as breaking a law. There 2 different things altogether. I said that very clearly in the post you quoted, people need to obey the law, but social norms, not so much imho.

    I find it bizarre that you can't seem to understand what I am saying, or see the difference between a law and a social norm, as you keep confusing the 2. I am not talking about breaking a law, but social norms, which people do all the time in this country, regardless of here race, religion (or lack of one). I really don't know how to say it any clearer, but if your still confused you need to look up what a law and social norm is, as I am not making any head way here.
    prinz wrote: »
    Does it not make perfect sense when your dealing with someone in person to be able to see that persons face?

    I can't see you face right now, and you can't see mine. I take it you don't get the irony of asking that question on a internet message board either.

    Nope, you don't need to see a persons face to communicate. I can communicate over the phone, a message board, email, instant message, over Xbox live or PSN with out ever seeing anyone's face. So, when in person, sure it would be nice to see the other persons face, but its not necessary for communication, as people communicate just fine without seeing each others faces all the time.


  • Options
    #243
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    prinz wrote: »
    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.

    If the law was only against Burka's and left out Balaclavas and other similar items, then yes I would consider it a Xenophobic attack against Muslims.

    I would not suggest anyone break the law either, but rather that they work to get the law changed via the democratic system.


  • Options
    #244
    irishconvert
    Registered Users Posts: 1,866 ✭✭✭irishconvert


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

    When was the last time you encountered this problem?


  • Options
    #245
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    saol alainn wrote: »
    [font=&quot]Islam does not have its roots in Switzerland. Or the rest of Europe even.

    Neither does christianity, judaism, or Buddhism.
    saol alainn wrote: »
    But having countless miniarets in Europe

    I knew of the housing boom/bubble, but was unaware of a minaret based equivalent.
    saol alainn wrote: »
    But we'd now be expected to have the muezzin, with his Allah hu Akbar's?

    ....that was already covered, if you'd read the thread......
    Blaasforrafa wrote:
    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.

    Another great example of the "Emulate Saudi" school of political science.
    saol alainn wrote: »
    It is not a question of intolerance, Dev. But why is it all one way? .

    Lets see - 'Saudi (for example)=all muslims. Therefore if Saudi is intolerant, all muslims are intolerant. If all muslims are intolerant, then its ok for us to be intolerant. ' That a fair summation?
    Seamus wrote:
    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..

    So because a few are stupid enough to tar all with the same brush, its the job of the innocent to fix ther assinine assumptions.....
    Bonkey wrote:
    Short version...the CVP and FDP are now making noises about looking at issues like not permitting Muslims and Jews have any more graveyards, a burka-ban, a head-scarf ban, the consideration of religious issues when it comes to things like swim-class in school.....

    Wunderbar.
    Prinz wrote:
    Because I don't see it as "fear or hatred of strangers or foreigners, or anything that is strange or foreign", .....

    Of course not. Not with the wonderful record of the Swiss in regards to the likes of granting citizenship to foriegners etc...
    Prinz wrote:
    Minarets are easily identifiable, and a ban on them is the least troublesome for all concerned......

    And if "minarets" were replaced with yarmulkas, or "gays" a wrathful horde would descend on that statement, the likes of which has not been witnessed since the days of the Great Khan. Rightly so too....
    Prinz wrote:
    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.......

    So thats why you've been arguing against the blatantly obvious so vociferously.......
    Prinz wrote:

    Fundamentalism. .......

    All the same then, are they, them muslims?

    Since when have minarets been inseperable from fundamentalists, just as a matter of interest.
    Prinz wrote:
    Saudi Arabia bans other religions

    You're an "Emulate Saudi" man too then? Does that extend to us having more than one wife, btw? I've always fancied havin more than the one on the go......
    Prinz wrote:
    Primarily my issue is with an item like the burka

    At this stage it might be easier to outline what you don't have a problem with, in relation to things Islamic.


  • Options
    #246
    PaulieD
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 932 ✭✭✭PaulieD


    Nodin wrote: »
    Of course not. Not with the wonderful record of the Swiss in regards to the likes of granting citizenship to foriegners etc..

    Ireland could learn a great deal from the Swiss.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #247
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Nodin wrote: »
    All the same then, are they, them muslims?

    Your words, my mouth, please don't put them there again.
    Nodin wrote: »
    You're an "Emulate Saudi" man too then? Does that extend to us having more than one wife, btw? I've always fancied havin more than the one on the go.......

    Simply pointing out the stupidity of comparing a ban on a religion, and a ban on a piece of architecture.
    Nodin wrote: »
    At this stage it might be easier to outline what you don't have a problem with, in relation to things Islamic.

    How so? How many things have I said I have a problem with....uhmm one. Hard to keep track of that in your head is it?


  • Options
    #248
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    wes wrote: »
    I would not suggest anyone break the law either, but rather that they work to get the law changed via the democratic system.

    You mean like having a democratic referendum...
    irishconvert wrote: »
    When was the last time you encountered this problem?

    A few weeks ago in a laundry in Germany.


  • Options
    #249
    irishconvert
    Registered Users Posts: 1,866 ✭✭✭irishconvert


    prinz wrote: »
    A few weeks ago in a laundry in Germany.

    Can you elaborate on exactly what the problem was?


  • Options
    #250
    peasant
    Registered Users Posts: 17,819 ✭✭✭✭peasant


    at this point,
    can I just say
    that reading this thread
    has become almost impossible
    with all the quotes
    and
    counterquotes


  • Options
    #251
    irishconvert
    Registered Users Posts: 1,866 ✭✭✭irishconvert


    peasant wrote: »
    can I just say has become almost impossible and

    That's what happens when you have someone who is so anti-Muslim they post 35 times in this thread and 87 times in the other one in After Hours (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055754249)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #252
    OldJay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 943 ✭✭✭OldJay


    PaulieD wrote: »
    Ireland could learn a great deal from the Swiss.
    Yes, lets hold a referendum to decide upon the banning of the Angelus on TV then secularise the school and hospital systems.


  • Options
    #253
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    irishconvert wrote: »
    Can you elaborate on exactly what the problem was?

    Communication problems. I don't understand hand gestures underneath a full length robe. I found it rude and anti social. No more than I'd feel like deeling with a man in a balaclava and sunglasses.
    irishconvert wrote: »
    That's what happens when you have someone who is so anti-Muslim they post 35 times in this thread and 87 times in the other one in After Hours (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055754249)

    Once again I would ask you to point out anything "anti-Muslim".....


  • Options
    #254
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Justind wrote: »
    Yes, lets hold a referendum to decide upon the banning of the Angelus on TV then secularise the school and hospital systems.

    Why not? I'd support it.


  • Options
    #255
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    prinz wrote: »
    NWhat's your issue with compromise and mutual respect and recognition?

    I don't have an issue with mutual respect and compromise.

    I have an issue with any argument which suggests that this step taken by the Swiss is showing respect or a willingness to compromise, because clearly it isn't.

    Mutual respect isn't obtained by one side threatening the other. "You respect me, or else" is not the path to mutual respect. "I respect you, and expect you to do the same in return" is how it should be done."

    Muslims in Switzerland have worked within the system. They've made their cases for things they'd like, and accepted rejection gracefully when it has not been given. They have not gloated or sought to run anything in anyone's faces when they have obtained goals (such as their 4 minarets). There has, up to now, been plenty of respect on both sides.

    Now...in the name of furthering mutual respect, we're supposed to accept that its a good idea to give this same community a metaphorical slap in the face?
    Fundamentalism
    Was is this a threat that needed something done about? There are no signs of Islamic fundamentalism being a threat in Switzerland, assuming that by Fundamentalism you meant Islamic fundamentalism.

    More importantly...how does this even help stave off that threat?

    Indeed, you seem to be arguing on one hand that its a step that doesn't really change anything, and on the other hand, its a step that is somehow giving a warning. How exactly is "we're willing to pass laws that don't change anything" a warning? It is only if you accept that it is showing a willingness to be discriminatory that it becomes any sort of a warning.


  • Options
    #256
    OldJay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 943 ✭✭✭OldJay


    prinz wrote: »
    Why not? I'd support it.
    Why not?
    Tolerance. Thats why. I'm not a christian but it doesn't bother me. Same as a bloody bit of stone on top of a mosque. What next? Ban Stars of David from the front of Synagogue? Nishan Sahib from any Sikh buildings?

    It makes no difference if they're there or not. Not a jot. A pathetic xenophobic effort to put Muslims in their place is all the minarets bullsh in Switzerland was.


  • Options
    #257
    irishconvert
    Registered Users Posts: 1,866 ✭✭✭irishconvert


    prinz wrote: »
    Communication problems. I don't understand hand gestures underneath a full length robe. I found it rude and anti social. No more than I'd feel like deeling with a man in a balaclava and sunglasses.

    So do you want them banned?


  • Options
    #258
    PaulieD
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 932 ✭✭✭PaulieD


    Justind wrote: »
    Yes, lets hold a referendum to decide upon the banning of the Angelus on TV then secularise the school and hospital systems.

    Sounds good to me.


  • Options
    #259
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    PaulieD wrote: »
    Ireland could learn a great deal from the Swiss.

    I've come to realise we've enough native pig ignorance without their help.
    Prinz wrote:
    Your words, my mouth, please don't put them there again.

    You had put to you

    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?


    to which you replied
    Fundamentalism.

    Equating building minarets to fundamentalism is a generalisation against all muslims, I'd say.
    Prinz wrote:
    Simply pointing out the stupidity of comparing a ban on a religion, and a ban on a piece of architecture.

    A piece thats intrinsically linked to one faith - a piece you've linked (by a logic known only unto yourself) to fundamentalism. I'd suggest your motivations are best revealed in Post 212, second paragraph.


  • Options
    #260
    PaulieD
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 932 ✭✭✭PaulieD


    Nodin wrote: »
    I've come to realise we've enough native pig ignorance without their help.

    We are blessed to have your enlighted self residing in our country. Who needs democracy when we have Nodin the freedom fighter.:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #261
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    This real issue here is equality. There is obviously not religious equality in Switzerland and that is the issue. It doesn't matter if it's religous equality, sexuality equality or racial equality - Once equality is infringed upon, it is wrong.

    I'm quite astonished by the amount of people here who are content with allowing inequality in society.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #262
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    PaulieD wrote: »
    . Who needs democracy (........)

    Democracy without the caveat of certain enshrined individual and group rights is flawed and runs the risk of falling prey to the mob.


  • Options
    #263
    PaulieD
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 932 ✭✭✭PaulieD


    Nodin wrote: »
    Democracy without the caveat of certain enshrined individual and group rights is flawed and runs the risk of falling prey to the mob.

    Islam is theocracy, it is not compatible with european values.


  • Options
    #264
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    PaulieD wrote: »
    Islam is theocracy,
    .

    Islam is a religon/religons.
    PaulieD wrote: »
    it is not compatible with european values.

    Seeing as you are none too aqquainted with what it is, I'd be less quick to cast judgement, were I you.

    Whats that statement got to do with minarets in Switzerland precisely?


  • Options
    #265
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    PaulieD wrote: »
    Islam is theocracy

    No, it's a religion.
    PaulieD wrote: »
    it is not compatible with european values.

    Depending on what you consider European values to be. My values might differ to your values. I like living in a secular society, free from interference from any religion - be it Christianity or Islam. But I also value the right of freedom of belief, and for everyone to be treated equally.


  • Options
    #266
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    Fair play to the good burghers of Switzerland for stating what is ,or is not, acceptable in their own country.


  • Options
    #267
    PaulieD
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 932 ✭✭✭PaulieD


    Nodin wrote: »
    Islam is a religon/religons.

    Its much more than that, and well you know it Nodin.
    Nodin wrote: »
    Seeing as you are none too aqquainted with what it is, I'd be less quick to cast judgement, were I you.

    There you go assuming again.
    Nodin wrote: »
    Whats that statement got to do with minarets in Switzerland precisely?

    I hope its a beginning of something beautiful.:)


  • Options
    #268
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    PaulieD wrote: »
    Its much more than that, and well you know it Nodin.

    No, actually, I don't. There are any number of sects, scattered across various countries and cultures. To assume it's some monolithic belief is laughable.
    PaulieD wrote: »
    There you go assuming again..

    I go on whats posted.
    PaulieD wrote: »
    I hope its a beginning of something beautiful.:)

    Is there some reason you're unable to spell out whatever it is you're trying to get at in clear and unambigous language?


  • Options
    #269
    PaulieD
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 932 ✭✭✭PaulieD


    Nodin wrote: »
    No, actually, I don't. There are any number of sects, scattered across various countries and cultures. To assume it's some monolithic belief is laughable.

    Its more than a religion. Its a way of life. A distinct culture, if you will. One would be tempted to say its almost cult like among its followers.
    Nodin wrote: »
    Is there some reason you're unable to spell out whatever it is you're trying to get at in clear and unambigous language?

    I didnt realise I was being unambiguous.

    I hope this is the awakening of the people of europe to the dangers posed by Islam.


  • Options
    #270
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    PaulieD wrote: »
    Its more than a religion. Its a way of life. A distinct culture, if you will. One would be tempted to say its almost cult like among its followers..

    Would that be the Shia, the Alevi, the Sunni, the Druze, the Alawi, Sufis or some of their subsects......?
    PaulieD wrote: »
    I hope this is the awakening of the people of europe to the dangers posed by Islam.

    And what "danger" is posed by Islam, (and the minaret specifically)?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #271
    west101
    Closed Accounts Posts: 86 ✭✭west101


    Fair play switzerland

    The minerats only act as a form of mass preaching for those who are not muslim


Advertisement