GdB - 20 December 2009 08:50 AM

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

Hey GdB, the chocolate thing was a joke. I remember that was how the Germans referred to the Swiss. Of course the Italians were Macaronis, the Austrians were just “backwards”, the French were…uh..better not say it. I was a Kaugummi fresser. So I thought the Swiss Chocolate reference was pretty mild.
Seriously though, I can’t stress enough that I don’t equate terrorism with islam. That’s not to say there isn’t a slight “bump” in radicalism in that area of ideology. Both modern and ancient.
I just don’t see this law in CH as oppression. That word is to harsh for these circumstances.
We have many interest groups in America who say making immigrants learn English is oppression.
Your No. 6 really is the crux of this whole debate. No. 7 goes along way towards helping these situations, but unfortunately the reality behind No. 6 is way deeper than you may care to realize. It’s like playing the Game Risk or Chess. Me and you, even the mayors of our towns aren’t even pawns…we aren’t even on the board.
This century is going to see gigantic tectonic flexings. Power shifts are in the balance, and they don’t bode well for people of European ancestry.
The US and NATO are not having these excursions for Terrorist Prevention. It’s spheres of influence protection. So if you see what I’m touching upon here, you’ll see that it is way(!) out of our hands.
How did the latest Climate Talks go? This is how minarets get banned in your town.

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. 

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

I agree wit the first two paragraphs.  For the second one, I would use as an example the fact that the Vatican’s answer to the pedophile priest issue is to crack down on homosexuality.  In this case they are saying that pedophilia is only wrong if the victims are male

I can stand by it if “non-theological” were replaced with “anti-theological”.  Non-theological beliefs could be anything. I know that the word “belief” could mean “as opposed to qualified, supported fact”, but just to be clear, I would support it if it read:

I’d be delighted if they banned minarets in the U.S. as long as they banned all steeples, and other church and temple specific architecture as well as all billboard messages publicizing any theological OR anti-theological beliefs, prohibited door to door solicitations, and religious TV and radio programs.  If all theistic and anti-theistic beliefs were treated as private and only to be discussed if one asked, that would be wonderful.

Of course, there is then a debate over what is “anti-theistic”.  While the Vatican and most “mainstream” protestant organizations do not consider teaching or promoting Evolution to be “anti-theistic” the right-wing fundamentalist Christians do make such a claim.  But anyway, I can support the statement as stated above.  It resonates with John Locke’s idea that religions compete only in the private sector and not in the public one.  It is too bad that most U. S. citizens are not on board with that.

Good point, T.O.P.  I can live with that modification.

Occam