4 of 7
4
Swiss Minaret Ban
Posted: 12 December 2009 09:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  113
Joined  2009-10-17
Hawkfan - 09 December 2009 09:43 PM
Tradition Of Progress - 09 December 2009 08:37 PM

...
Could you elaborate on the benefits of ghettos?

I took this comment differently.  Ghetto implies someone forced into that particular situation.  I took George’s comment as referring to a choice (please no free will arguments!) that one can make about where they live based on whatever factors are important to them. 

Okay, I guess I did take it the wrong way.

While I did move to the Chicago area because of employment opportunities, I certainly chose to live in the diverse community of Oak Park. 

But anyway, imagine that you have a number of members of the same ethnic background and same religion all choosing to live in the same community.  How do they keep their community to be one of their particular demographic?  Suppose a family who does not fit their demographic decide that they want to live there for certain reasons.  The people who already live their then need to discriminate.  Is that often a good thing?  I imagine that there are many Christian separatist communities in the U.S and that is where most of the Christian supremacist theocratic nut cases originate.

 Signature 

I Don’t Want My Country Back, I Want My Country Forward

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 December 2009 10:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4461
Joined  2008-08-14
GdB - 12 December 2009 09:52 AM

He VYAZMA, please cool down.

You missed the main point I agreed on with ray: the quotes around ‘they’. If some Muslim country yells about the Swiss, I will be one of the first that they should look in their own country first. But again, the Swiss Muslims are not representatives of Saudi Arabia or Iran. It is the over-generalisation from radical Muslims to all Muslims, and then deduce back again to Swiss Muslims. And I do not deny that there are problems in Switzerland with foreigners, but it is not because they are Muslims. So why hit them there?

This was translated in a Swiss Newspaper: Timothy Garton Ash on minarets.

GdB

I’m cool GdB. You’re cooler than I am. LOL
Maybe we should all examine the definition of “Swiss muslims”.
Can anyone make a mosque in Switzerland? In Detroit?
Can anyone open up a synagogue in New York? In Israel? In Switzerland?
How about an RC Church?
No! No they can’t. There are hierarchal systems involved. Systems which narrow upwards to a central command. This isn’t the rights of some idyllic little community being infringed upon. Let’s be honest here. These religions-most of them- are controlled by echelons. They are very much like corporations! We all know what corporations are motivated by. Aside from money. The money is the end product. The engine is proliferation!!

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 December 2009 11:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  113
Joined  2009-10-17
VYAZMA - 12 December 2009 09:53 AM

I’m only using your quote as a jump off here Tradition, not as counterpoint.

Dont worry.  I didn’t exactly make much of a point.  It was more of an invitation for you and anyone else to do so.  I am glad that you did not disappoint me.

VYAZMA - 12 December 2009 09:53 AM

“What does this mean for religious liberty?”
Well I don’t know. What does it say about liberty for anything? What about capitalistic liberty? What if someone wanted to build a restaurant in a town, but the city said no. Zoning laws. Sorry but your plans for your restaurant conflict with our zoning laws, and our vision of the cityscape.
This is understandable.
For some reason people are ambivalent about the apparent infringement on their rights for speech and assembly. These are often curtailed all over the world. In the US or Timbuktu, civic authorities can easily quell any assembly(and do!) under the guise of existing civic statutes. What of this liberty?
Who but the muslims wish to place the highest precedence on minaret construction as a symbol for liberty?

Now Christians might not be attempting to build minarets anywhere, but they seem to be complaining that any challenge to their attempts to make this country into a theocracy is a threat to their religious liberty.
For example, the U. S. Air Force acadamy has a history of promoting Evangelist Christianity among its cadets.  When the Chaplain was shown materials about sensativity to other religions, he said: “the problem with these is that Christianity always loses.”  Apparently, to him, curbing the use of taxpayer funded institutions for evangelism is considered an infringment on “free excercise” of religion. 
Back to the Muslims and the Minarets though:  If some muslims wanted to build a minaret in my neighborhood, and have a call to prayer blaring from it at various points throughout the day, I would consider that a problem.  I do not think that religious liberty should go that far.  But I can’t stop thinking of examples of Christian supremacists threatening our freedoms, and threatening the well-being of this people of this country.

 Signature 

I Don’t Want My Country Back, I Want My Country Forward

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 December 2009 11:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4461
Joined  2008-08-14

T.O.P.-

Now Christians might not be attempting to build minarets anywhere, but they seem to be complaining that any challenge to their attempts to make this country into a theocracy is a threat to their religious liberty.
For example, the U. S. Air Force acadamy has a history of promoting Evangelist Christianity among its cadets.  When the Chaplain was shown materials about sensativity to other religions, he said: “the problem with these is that Christianity always loses.”  Apparently, to him, curbing the use of taxpayer funded institutions for evangelism is considered an infringment on “free excercise” of religion. 
Back to the Muslims and the Minarets though:  If some muslims wanted to build a minaret in my neighborhood, and have a call to prayer blaring from it at various points throughout the day, I would consider that a problem.  I do not think that religious liberty should go that far.  But I can’t stop thinking of examples of Christian supremacists threatening our freedoms, and threatening the well-being of this people of this country.

Right, and who but the christians would be placing the highest priority on their mission, as a symbol for liberty?
So why are some folks who are atheists, or agnostic, or “Free-thinkers” placing a concern for these apparent discriminations?
These organizations are doing just fine! I’m sure however they are grateful for anyone’s sympathy.
If we look at the WHOLE history of these religions we can see that their whole purpose is domination. If the tables were reversed.(and frankly, they are often enough) these religions will offer no quarter.
This perception by humanists, or progressives of an ideal “live and let live” program is somewhat jaded.
Muslims, jews, or christians, etc are not trying to grow in your neighborhood to afford you the same rights as some people are willing to afford them.
And I’d like to re-hash the statement by GdB. “Now we may get problems.” GdB, this says it all. No I’m not even saying that you are right, you might get problems. That’s not my point.  This reveals the mindset, the total inculcation of a status quo. A stranglehold on actual free-thought.
The ability for people to envision legislation that curtails religious growth without fear of “repercussions”.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 December 2009 12:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4465
Joined  2007-08-31
VYAZMA - 12 December 2009 10:02 AM

They are very much like corporations! We all know what corporations are motivated by. Aside from money. The money is the end product. The engine is proliferation!!

Hmm. Like big pharma? Maybe Roche, Merck & Co should work together with the imams and ayatollas? tongue rolleye

GdB

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 December 2009 12:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4461
Joined  2008-08-14
GdB - 12 December 2009 12:13 PM
VYAZMA - 12 December 2009 10:02 AM

They are very much like corporations! We all know what corporations are motivated by. Aside from money. The money is the end product. The engine is proliferation!!

Hmm. Like big pharma? Maybe Roche, Merck & Co should work together with the imams and ayatollas? tongue rolleye

GdB

I’ll assume this is mockery. After that what can I say? The big religions aren’t like corporations? Was I wrong? They aren’t organized in such a fashion. Oops, my mistake.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 December 2009 12:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 52 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4461
Joined  2008-08-14

National Council of Imams and Islamic Centers to be Established (District Of Columbia)
May 19, 2004
By Staff Writer
Muslim American Society
On May 19, 2004 the Muslim American Society reported, “On June 4-6, 2004, in Washington, DC, imams and directors of Islamic Centers from across the nation will meet to ratify the constitution for the establishment of a National Council for Imams and Islamic Centers in the United States. After meetings and discussions with local leaders, regional shura councils and the national leadership from the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), the Muslim American Society (MAS), the Muslim Alliance of North America (MANA) and others, all agree the effort is critically needed. Over one hundred Islamic centers from across the nation have confirmed their participation. People in America are familiar with the Council of Churches or Council of Bishops. Thus far, no such structure exists for the American Muslim community. The council will serve as a national body coordinating and directing operations of the nationwide Muslim community, while respecting the integrity and autonomy of each individual mosque or center.”

This was the first thing I dug up. I don’t like posting quotes, or links. I would assume here that everyone is aware of the Vatican, or the State of Israel to name a few Hierarchies for examples. The Holy Synod of Russia. Uhhh…hmmn? What else? Do I have to continue?

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 December 2009 01:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 53 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4465
Joined  2007-08-31
VYAZMA - 12 December 2009 12:38 PM

Do I have to continue?

No, no, it’s OK till here. Thanks.

Only one thing: because of a few minarets less it will not stop. It’s just a few drops more in the fire.

O, and one other: Minaret demonstration ends peacefully.

GdB

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 December 2009 01:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 54 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4461
Joined  2008-08-14

Only one thing: because of a few minarets less it will not stop. It’s just a few drops more in the fire.

Nah Ja.

O, and one other: Minaret demonstration ends peacefully.

GdB

Wie huebsch! cool grin

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 December 2009 09:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 55 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
Tradition Of Progress - 11 December 2009 10:33 PM

Maybe this is true for Muslim Arabs living in the U. K.  But it is not true for all immigrants in all countries.

You are probably right.

Also, one of the reasons why Muslims may have a difficulty adapting to the European societies could be the fact that most of them marry their cousins—60% of Pakistanis living in the UK are married either to their first or second cousins. As long as people are accustomed (i.e. adapted to those conditions by the evolutionary process) to sharing their trust primarily between family members, they will distrust everybody else. This, I imagine, is also one of the reasons why it is so difficult to form an army in countries like Afghanistan.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 December 2009 01:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 56 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  113
Joined  2009-10-17
George - 12 December 2009 09:11 PM
Tradition Of Progress - 11 December 2009 10:33 PM

Maybe this is true for Muslim Arabs living in the U. K.  But it is not true for all immigrants in all countries.

You are probably right.

Also, one of the reasons why Muslims may have a difficulty adapting to the European societies could be the fact that most of them marry their cousins—60% of Pakistanis living in the UK are married either to their first or second cousins. As long as people are accustomed (i.e. adapted to those conditions by the evolutionary process) to sharing their trust primarily between family members, they will distrust everybody else. This, I imagine, is also one of the reasons why it is so difficult to form an army in countries like Afghanistan.

That is interesting.  In some parts of the U. S., it has been acceptable to marry a cousin.  Aren’t these the places where Fundamentalist Christianity originates?

 Signature 

I Don’t Want My Country Back, I Want My Country Forward

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 December 2009 02:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 57 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  113
Joined  2009-10-17
VYAZMA - 10 December 2009 08:15 AM
GdB - 10 December 2009 07:55 AM
ray - 10 December 2009 07:03 AM

You guys are right, muslim countries have banned western items.

For example, Ayatollah does not allow bikinis on Iranian beaches. They should not cry too much at the Swiss.

Yep. ‘They’ should not cry, that is clearly inconsistent. But Swiss Muslims may cry (maybe not too hard, in the end they are still allowed to have Islam services in a mosque here). And we shouldn’t be western Ayatollahs. You said it already: ‘two wrongs dont make a right’.

GdB

Bikinis on Beaches? This is the sum total of islamic discrimination? Hello!?!

Really now ray.  Have you never heard of Burqas or clitorectomies?

Also, prohibating bikinis on Iranian beaches is one thing, but what about the Muslim immigrants in Australia who started riots over Australian women wearing bikinis on Australian beaches?  If Muslims keep showing a need to Islamize the countries to which the move, then they should expect people to be uneasy about them bulding Minarets in their new home countries.

I like what the Dutch government has been doing.  For anyone wanting to become a Dutch citizen, they show pictures of couples kissing on benches, including same-sex couples, and say: “This is what people are free to do in our country without feer.  If you have a problem with this, then you might not want to live here.”

 Signature 

I Don’t Want My Country Back, I Want My Country Forward

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 December 2009 07:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 58 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
Tradition Of Progress - 13 December 2009 01:41 PM
George - 12 December 2009 09:11 PM
Tradition Of Progress - 11 December 2009 10:33 PM

Maybe this is true for Muslim Arabs living in the U. K.  But it is not true for all immigrants in all countries.

You are probably right.

Also, one of the reasons why Muslims may have a difficulty adapting to the European societies could be the fact that most of them marry their cousins—60% of Pakistanis living in the UK are married either to their first or second cousins. As long as people are accustomed (i.e. adapted to those conditions by the evolutionary process) to sharing their trust primarily between family members, they will distrust everybody else. This, I imagine, is also one of the reasons why it is so difficult to form an army in countries like Afghanistan.

That is interesting.  In some parts of the U. S., it has been acceptable to marry a cousin.  Aren’t these the places where Fundamentalist Christianity originates?

I believe religious people in general are probably more family-oriented, conservative and distrustful of strangers. It would be interesting to see how common consanguinity (cousin marriage) is (or has been in the past) in religious people compared to those with no faith.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 December 2009 10:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 59 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  699
Joined  2008-10-26

Let’s get the facts right first; according to Wikipedia:

“The Minaret controversy in Switzerland refers to construction of minarets, which has been subject to legal and political controversy in Switzerland during the 2000s.

“In a November 2009 referendum, the ban was approved by 57.5% of the participating voters.[1] Only four of the 26 Swiss cantons,[2] mostly in the French-speaking part of Switzerland, opposed the initiative.

“This referendum originates from action on 1 May 2007, when a group of right of centre politicians mainly from the Swiss People’s Party and the Federal Democratic Union, the Egerkinger Kommittee (“Egerkingen Committee”) launched a federal popular initiative that sought a constitutional ban on minarets. The Swiss government recommended that the proposed amendment be rejected as inconsistent with basic principles of the constitution.

“As of the date of the 2009 vote, there were four minarets in Switzerland, attached to mosques in Zürich, Geneva, Winterthur and Wangen bei Olten. These existing minarets are not affected by the ban.”

Looks as if this is the same process that was (ab)used by Mormons and Christian Fundamentalsts in California for Proposition 8.  So how do the self-righteous stop referendum rigging?  The referendum is supposed to be one of the most basic of Democratic processes and yet here are two similar processes that have produced results that we don’t like so we wet our pants and start shouting “discrimination”.  Justify your accusation - it’s happened in two very democratic countries with a basic and very democratic process, with very different targets.

Notice that the Swiss government actually opposed the ban as inconsistent with their principles of their constitution, but the courts overruled them.  So who was discriminatory, and how did they get so many people to follow their lead?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 December 2009 12:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 60 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4465
Joined  2007-08-31
Ecrasez l’infame! - 13 December 2009 10:31 PM

The referendum is supposed to be one of the most basic of Democratic processes and yet here are two similar processes that have produced results that we don’t like so we wet our pants and start shouting “discrimination”.  Justify your accusation - it’s happened in two very democratic countries with a basic and very democratic process, with very different targets.

The Nazis got to power by elections. So much about democracy. To put it a little bit different in this ‘imagery’: “A majority of 51% of the people decided that the rest should be put to death.”. I know this is a little extreme, but somewhere on the way a border is crossed. The question is where this border lies. I do not pretend I know the truth in this, but I have some thoughts about it.

Democracy is supposed to be a political system that is not too bad, because it is based on equal rights of everybody. At the moment these equal rights are threatened we are going too far. In the secular state religions are allowed on the condition that they confirm to the democratic principles. Now I know that a lot of Muslim countries are no secular states, and therefore are not democratic either. But Switzerland is a secular state, and the Swiss Muslims behave as democratic as every other Swiss citizen. So why should be just this religion be forbidden to build the towers they like? At the moment there is no anti democratic tendency in them. To exaggerate a little again: by ruling out the rights of just one religious group the Swiss People’s Party (SVP) has been shown to have indemocratic tendencies, and it should be forbidden.

Ecrasez l’infame! - 13 December 2009 10:31 PM

Notice that the Swiss government actually opposed the ban as inconsistent with their principles of their constitution, but the courts overruled them.  So who was discriminatory, and how did they get so many people to follow their lead?

No, I did not notice that ‘the courts overruled them’ (sources, please). The government thought that forbidding the initiative would cause a loud outcry of the SVP, and counted with it that the initiative would not come through. So did many Swiss, and stayed at at home during the vote… Now we have in the constitution the equality of all people (including religion) and, inconsistently, that just one religion is not allowed to build their towers. Wonder what a court would make of it…

GdB

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
   
4 of 7
4