6 of 7
6
Swiss Minaret Ban
Posted: 15 December 2009 09:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 76 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

GdB, I must take the liberty of saying that in my opinion, your Worldview is perhaps a little insulated. I’m sure living in Switzerland can have that effect. Honestly.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 December 2009 10:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 77 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
VYAZMA - 15 December 2009 09:50 AM
George - 15 December 2009 09:47 AM
VYAZMA - 15 December 2009 09:41 AM

But if you want to talk about outright exterminations, you should focus more on the Spanish than on the English initially.

That is not what I’ve read. But you are right: it doesn’t belong here. Sorry. Back to the minarets…

George I said “initially”. But are you not familiar with the Spanish Conquest, and Portuguese conquest of Mexico, Central and South America? As well as the Caribbean? Were talking Genocide. Wholesale slaughter.

Of course, I am familiar with the Spanish Conquest, but again, from what I’ve read it seems that the majority of the different peoples in Central and South were wiped out due diseases like the small pox for example. In the end, however, it matters little if it was the Spaniards or the English who killed more Indians. All I was trying to say is that the “mixed feelings” were probably not mixed at all.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 December 2009 11:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 78 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4538
Joined  2007-08-31
VYAZMA - 15 December 2009 09:48 AM

GdB I think we have to realize at some point that although many have extolled the virtues of inert, “non-radical” religions, and their ability to interact secularly within a given society, we have to temper it with a few things:
1. Religions and their apparent “energy levels” can fluctuate, sometimes wildly.
2. The very basis of religion, that being an organization based on fantasy, and an unwillingness to face the truth is fundamentally corrosive to a society.
3. In physics, or any other study of life when we observe something growing, or expanding, there is a certain gravity, or mass that said thing obtains. This is very relevant!

Maybe I misinterpreted your previous ‘alarmist’ posting. To express myself more clearly: yes, I am concerned about radicalising Islam. I also have my thoughts about why Islam is radicalising, and because of that , what a good strategy coping with it might be. Offend moderate Muslims by forbidding them to build minarets just because it is a minaret does not belong to that.

There might be made a nuance here. There are Swiss Muslims here that now do ask ‘why does this happen to us, why do they forbid us to do that’. What I am missing in the whole discussion is the question why are so many Muslims aggressive to the west? Isn’t the Islam just the tool that can be used for the expression of fear for a fast changing life (of the Muslims in their countries), and the feeling that they even haven’t the power at home to determine their own way of life: the USA and the NATO mingle in in nearly every Islamic country!  Of course you can’t stretch a hand to someone who is so aggressive that he wants to kill you when he gets the chance, but you can to those who are prepared to stretch their hands too. Same the other way round. If the Swiss Muslims are even more moderate than I expect, then they might be a force against radical Islam. In the end, they want to have a good life here, and do not have it spoiled by a few hotheads in their own ranks.

If one wants to see some positive effect of the minaret initiative, then it is that a lot of people have been started thinking. Native Swiss, Muslims and many more. And discussing, of course, even here on the CFI forum.

And you did not answer my question what good can come from forbidding minarets in our struggle with radical Islam. Base it on psychological and sociological facts, please. In the end we are all pro science, aren’t we?

GdB

 Signature 

GdB

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 December 2009 11:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 79 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4538
Joined  2007-08-31
VYAZMA - 15 December 2009 09:53 AM

GdB, I must take the liberty of saying that in my opinion, your Worldview is perhaps a little insulated. I’m sure living in Switzerland can have that effect. Honestly.

I think it has that effect more on the native Swiss who voted for forbidding minarets. The highest success for the initiative was in the Kantons where nearly no Muslims live (i.e. countryside Kantons). In the city of Zürich 63% voted against the minaret ban. The city with one of the highest percentage of Muslims…  Do you have an explanation for that? (No no, most Muslims have no voting right, that is not an explanation).

It seems to me that you are not seeing the facts, and not taking a scientific view on this.

And at least I live at the island where it happened…

GdB

 Signature 

GdB

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 December 2009 12:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 80 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

GdB-

Maybe I misinterpreted your previous ‘alarmist’ posting. To express myself more clearly: yes, I am concerned about radicalising Islam. I also have my thoughts about why Islam is radicalising, and because of that , what a good strategy coping with it might be. Offend moderate Muslims by forbidding them to build minarets just because it is a minaret does not belong to that.

There’s no way I can counter your genuine desire to do good works, and to wish for peaceful coexistence. I believe in them too. I wish I could be more understanding. And open-minded. I fully understand your willingness to be open-minded about the minarets.

There might be made a nuance here. There are Swiss Muslims here that now do ask ‘why does this happen to us, why do they forbid us to do that’. What I am missing in the whole discussion is the question why are so many Muslims aggressive to the west? Isn’t the Islam just the tool that can be used for the expression of fear for a fast changing life (of the Muslims in their countries), and the feeling that they even haven’t the power at home to determine their own way of life: the USA and the NATO mingle in in nearly every Islamic country!  Of course you can’t stretch a hand to someone who is so aggressive that he wants to kill you when he gets the chance, but you can to those who are prepared to stretch their hands too. Same the other way round. If the Swiss Muslims are even more moderate than I expect, then they might be a force against radical Islam. In the end, they want to have a good life here, and do not have it spoiled by a few hotheads in their own ranks.

Yes I think you have misunderstood my basic premise here. I have mentioned 2 times the connotations of radical islam/terrorism within this discussion. Once to point out your prejudiced view of “now we may get problems”. Not my words. Yours. But I did point that out to frame certain issues. Issues which many people apparently take into consideration-apparently you too. I suppose I do. But these have not been my focal points regarding my anti-religion/islam direction in this discussion. My focal point has only been proliferation, and cultural integration.(cultural integration I readily admit may not be too apparent in CH) But I also have broadened my outlook here to include a world-wide factor, not just a CH factor. I noted that I was happy to see CH pass these laws. Not for CH, but for the World. If something like religion is spreading, it’s good for it to encounter roadblocks, be they in CH or Iran. Surely you see my point.
The other time I mentioned the radical part was when I said something to the effect of “The Swiss don’t want that foreign culture stuff in their idyllic country, with all of it’s negative connotations.” Which is exactly why that law got passed. The demographics and the metrics of the voter turnout are redundant at this point. It happened. Somebody spoke out.
My whole angle here is that I’m happy to see any religion get stymied. It happens to be islam in this instance. As an atheist, I’m not going to take the “high road” and say:“Hey that’s not fair, the christians didn’t get blocked!” I don’t care. I just want religion to be stymied any way it can be. Like I said, there doing just fine without your appeals GdB. Just fine.

If one wants to see some positive effect of the minaret initiative, then it is that a lot of people have been started thinking. Native Swiss, Muslims and many more. And discussing, of course, even here on the CFI forum.

And you did not answer my question what good can come from forbidding minarets in our struggle with radical Islam. Base it on psychological and sociological facts, please. In the end we are all pro science, aren’t we?

I answered some of this above. I will only add that I would be more comfortable in a situation where atheists tolerated religions, than in a situation where the religious tolerated atheists.
I told you islam is growing. Reread my 3 comments above. What advantage can there be to passively sitting back and allowing an organization based on outdated, mystical tenets to flourish? I can think of some disadvantages.
I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts on what the good ways of coping with radical islam might be.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 December 2009 12:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 81 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
GdB - 15 December 2009 11:41 AM
VYAZMA - 15 December 2009 09:53 AM

GdB, I must take the liberty of saying that in my opinion, your Worldview is perhaps a little insulated. I’m sure living in Switzerland can have that effect. Honestly.

I think it has that effect more on the native Swiss who voted for forbidding minarets. The highest success for the initiative was in the Kantons where nearly no Muslims live (i.e. countryside Kantons). In the city of Zürich 63% voted against the minaret ban. The city with one of the highest percentage of Muslims…  Do you have an explanation for that? (No no, most Muslims have no voting right, that is not an explanation).

It seems to me that you are not seeing the facts, and not taking a scientific view on this.

And at least I live at the island where it happened…

GdB

Right! Island! That’s my point! Insulated! Island! Maybe you should get together and form this “island” into a new state- Islamozurich!
Ha I’m sorry. LOL  That was a joke.  You’re one of my favorite people here on this forum. I respect everything you say-all the time. I hear your message in this thread. I believe in this too….but. I must tell you, I’m not unhappy about the outcome of this vote.
They’ll get by. You’ll see. Let them pray for New Minarets.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 December 2009 12:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 82 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4538
Joined  2007-08-31
VYAZMA - 15 December 2009 12:03 PM

I told you islam is growing. Reread my 3 comments above. What advantage can there be to passively sitting back and allowing an organization based on outdated, mystical tenets to flourish? I can think of some disadvantages.
I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts on what the good ways of coping with radical islam might be.

Banning minarets is not a roadblock. It is a nice metaphor, but I think the one of ‘throwing fuel at the fire’ is a better one. And better sitting back passively, than throw fuel on the fire. It’s becoming a yes/no discussion. I might answer your last question about the ‘good ways’ (maybe it’s worth another thread, but I think I said already a lot about it. Search for ‘Habermas’ in this forum.). But I still would be glad to hear how banning minarets is a roadblock against terrorists. They sneak through, unseen…

It is late now, time for a last beer.

GdB

 Signature 

GdB

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 December 2009 12:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 83 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
GdB - 15 December 2009 12:16 PM
VYAZMA - 15 December 2009 12:03 PM

I told you islam is growing. Reread my 3 comments above. What advantage can there be to passively sitting back and allowing an organization based on outdated, mystical tenets to flourish? I can think of some disadvantages.
I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts on what the good ways of coping with radical islam might be.

Banning minarets is not a roadblock. It is a nice metaphor, but I think the one of ‘throwing fuel at the fire’ is a better one. And better sitting back passively, than throw fuel on the fire. It’s becoming a yes/no discussion. I might answer your last question about the ‘good ways’ (maybe it’s worth another thread, but I think I said already a lot about it. Search for ‘Habermas’ in this forum.). But I still would be glad to hear how banning minarets is a roadblock against terrorists. They sneak through, unseen…

It is late now, time for a last beer.

GdB

Zum Wohl!! Bis spaeter.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 December 2009 12:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 84 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

GdB-

But I still would be glad to hear how banning minarets is a roadblock against terrorists. They sneak through, unseen…

I couldn’t let this go….
Argghhh! I thought I made it clear my angle is not about terrorism. It’s a roadblock against proliferation. That was my point above…I don’t want this to center around the hackneyed watchword of terrorism. I never did.
It’s a roadblock against religion in general.

Ok I’m done.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 December 2009 07:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 85 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

I can understand our views of promoting freedoms and preventing discrimination, however, Vyazma has a good point.  If we are against the proliferation of religions in general, but especially those who wish to restrict the freedoms of everyone else, how can we decide that we should reject prohibitions that happen to target one of those religions. 

To use a rather silly analogy:  If one is against child pornography on the Internet, and someone comes up with a way of blocking all nude pictures of male children, but doesn’t block the same for female children, would one argue that this is unfair because it discriminates against only one class of pornography?

While I recognize that my recommendation in post #21 of this thread is not possible, I still stand by it.

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 December 2009 08:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 86 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  699
Joined  2008-10-26

GdB, you are a lazy bastard, aren’t you?  (In fact I get the impression that you are not alone in this on this blog - most people want empty one-liners).  You ask for references and I give them to you.  Note: I am allowed to quote anything I want as long as it is not a substantial and continuous piece of an article and I give the writer/publisher the acknowledgment they deserve - why don’t you stick to being a senior member, GdB, and let the administrators do their job?

I’m told that I tend not to argue a point-of-view in my own language and that I quote too much.  What is too much?  Why should I not quote items if they illustrate what everyone wants to know better than I can illustrate it?  And if someone else has already said something better than I can, then why not show that they came up with the argument before I did?  I’m acknowledging that others have said it before, better than I can which is the honest thing to do.

One of the things I don’t get is the continuous dribble of self-opinionated rubbish that spills into this blog without references or acknowledgment of prior analysis and opinions backed by study and reading.  If someone else has analyzed the question and has already come up with answers then any kind of logical and reliable discussion must acknowledge this, otherwise stated opinions that pretend to be original are simply plagiaristic.  And let’s not talk about the grammar and spelling on this blog!  My question is why don’t administrators focus on plagiarism as a complete no-no - they would have a field day. 

GdB, you got several things from me: (1) a discounting of your argument about Nazis who, according to you, showed that referenda are not a part of the Democratic process, (2) a listing of the legal and court-based issues as they are faced by the Swiss Government in its opposition to the results of the referendum to stop the erection of minarets (you asked, specifically, for this), (3) a definition of a referendum as used in Switzerland, which allows you to understand, better how the process got to reject minarets.

You didn’t ask me for a discussion of anything in my own language.  This was your last sentence: “Wonder what a court would make of it…”  My quotes explained the complexity of the issue - there isn’t “a court”, and the quoted material explained why.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 December 2009 12:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 87 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4538
Joined  2007-08-31
Ecrasez l’infame! - 15 December 2009 08:05 PM

GdB, you are a lazy bastard, aren’t you?

Yes, sometimes I am, how do you know?

Ecrasez l’infame! - 15 December 2009 08:05 PM

(In fact I get the impression that you are not alone in this on this blog - most people want empty one-liners).

And some people are too lazy to make a compact clear statement, and copy/paste just an awful lot of text. I asked for links, not for a bombardement of quotations.

Ecrasez l’infame! - 15 December 2009 08:05 PM

(GdB, you got several things from me: (1) a discounting of your argument about Nazis who, according to you, showed that referenda are not a part of the Democratic process,

That was not my argument. I never said that ‘referenda are not a part of the Democratic process’. My only argument was that a (democratic) majority is not automatically right. Or were the Nazis right because they got to power by democratic elections, and then aftwerwards legitimately put democracy ‘out of order’?

Ecrasez l’infame! - 15 December 2009 08:05 PM

((2) a listing of the legal and court-based issues as they are faced by the Swiss Government in its opposition to the results of the referendum to stop the erection of minarets (you asked, specifically, for this),

‘The Swiss government’, i.e. the government of the complete country, never put the official initiative for any court. And the initiative was country wide. Of course there is a longer history starting with the intention to build one minaret at a specific place and (legal) protests against it on local level.

Ecrasez l’infame! - 15 December 2009 08:05 PM

(3) a definition of a referendum as used in Switzerland, which allows you to understand, better how the process got to reject minarets.

Thanks. As 16 years inhabitant of Switzerland and regular newspaper reader I really needed this. I was really unaware.  I’m very glad you informed me that ‘The votes on referendums are always held on a Sunday’. I was wondering all the time what these billboards ‘Heute Abstimmung’ mean. cool grin
You see, there is a lot of irrelevant information in you quotations, and you are too lazy to pick the relevant parts out of it.

Ecrasez l’infame! - 15 December 2009 08:05 PM

(You didn’t ask me for a discussion of anything in my own language.  This was your last sentence: “Wonder what a court would make of it…”  My quotes explained the complexity of the issue - there isn’t “a court”, and the quoted material explained why.

If a Muslim group decides to build a minaret, and they are not allowed to, and continue to the European court of Human Rights, the initiative might be overruled. That was my point.

Better read carefully before you quote.

GdB

 Signature 

GdB

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 December 2009 01:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 88 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4538
Joined  2007-08-31
Occam - 15 December 2009 07:27 PM

I can understand our views of promoting freedoms and preventing discrimination, however, Vyazma has a good point.  If we are against the proliferation of religions in general, but especially those who wish to restrict the freedoms of everyone else, how can we decide that we should reject prohibitions that happen to target one of those religions. 

Of course, I understand that point, but why the Swiss Muslims who are so moderate, and why prohibiting minarets. The minarets are really not the problem.

Occam - 15 December 2009 07:27 PM

To use a rather silly analogy:  If one is against child pornography on the Internet, and someone comes up with a way of blocking all nude pictures of male children, but doesn’t block the same for female children, would one argue that this is unfair because it discriminates against only one class of pornography?

Well, it is not silly, but in my eyes not quite correct. To make it correct I would say that in order to avoid child pornography on the Internet, we turn of the internet completely. There are strong anti democratic tendencies in Islam, of course, but if we practically see that there are moderate muslims, why forbid them just a small symbol? (I assume you have seen the pictures of the four existing minarets in CH).

Occam - 15 December 2009 07:27 PM

While I recognize that my recommendation in post #21 of this thread is not possible, I still stand by it.

Well, it is not possible on good grounds. But the tides are moving slowly in Switzerland in the right direction. E.g. it happens more and more that churches are not allowed the use the church bell anymore on every occasion (so chances are bad for the muezzin…). I know this is very small compared to your proposal, but hey, it is a step!

GdB

Edit: typo

[ Edited: 16 December 2009 02:08 AM by GdB ]
 Signature 

GdB

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 December 2009 05:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 89 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
GdB - 16 December 2009 01:04 AM
Occam - 15 December 2009 07:27 PM

I can understand our views of promoting freedoms and preventing discrimination, however, Vyazma has a good point.  If we are against the proliferation of religions in general, but especially those who wish to restrict the freedoms of everyone else, how can we decide that we should reject prohibitions that happen to target one of those religions. 

Of course, I understand that point, but why the Swiss Muslims who are so moderate, and why prohibiting minarets. The minarets are really not the problem.

The Swiss Muslims. You make it sound like there made out of chocolate. They’re part of a larger World islam GdB. I already brought that up. You mocked me for sounding conspiratorial.  When in fact it’s true. Just like any other major religion. The minarets are a symbol.

Occam - 15 December 2009 07:27 PM

To use a rather silly analogy:  If one is against child pornography on the Internet, and someone comes up with a way of blocking all nude pictures of male children, but doesn’t block the same for female children, would one argue that this is unfair because it discriminates against only one class of pornography?

Well, it is not silly, but in my eyes not quite correct. To make it correct I would say that in order to avoid child pornography on the Internet, we turn of the internet completely. There are strong anti democratic tendencies in Islam, of course, but if we practically see that there are moderate muslims, why forbid them just a small symbol? (I assume you have seen the pictures of the four existing minarets in CH).

Well try to envision this as shutting off the internet GdB!! Piece by piece. Rome wasn’t built in a day. And anyways, you’re right. This isn’t going to stop the spread. The “internet” isn’t going to get shut-off.

Occam - 15 December 2009 07:27 PM

While I recognize that my recommendation in post #21 of this thread is not possible, I still stand by it.

Well, it is not possible on good grounds. But the tides are moving slowly in Switzerland in the right direction. E.g. it happens more and more that churches are not allowed the use the church bell anymore on every occasion (so chances are bad for the muezzin…). I know this is very small compared to your proposal, but hey, it is a step!

GdB

Edit: typo

Is this good or bad?

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 December 2009 08:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 90 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4538
Joined  2007-08-31
VYAZMA - 17 December 2009 05:38 AM

The Swiss Muslims. You make it sound like there made out of chocolate. They’re part of a larger World islam GdB. I already brought that up. You mocked me for sounding conspiratorial.  When in fact it’s true.

Pss, VYAZMA, don’t tell it further, otherwise they might catch me… In fact they are made of nitroglycerine… Directly imported by Osama Bin Laden.

Sorry, could not resist…

To be a bit more factual: most of the immigrant from Muslim countries are not practising their religion. So we don’t solve problems around the usual immigrant problems.

You asked me a while ago what I would propose, instead if a minaret ban. Here a few things:

1. Defend the secular state, which includes freedom of (and therefore also freedom from) religion. This also means that immigrants must confirm these principles.
2. Immigrants should learn the the local language (hey, I speak german too!)
3. Stick to the law, as every other citizen (no forced marriage, no circumcision, no burka etc)
4. We should not humiliate people with other world views (as long as they agree with the above)
5. Do not support absolutistic monarchic states
6. Don’t play power muscles on every occasion in the east
7. Really communicate with everyone who is prepared to in an open discussion

I know, you will call me a dreamer again. But to think that violence or oppression helps… Is that also not dreaming? Must we wait for a ‘pax americana’?

GdB

 Signature 

GdB

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

Profile
 
 
   
6 of 7
6