Switzerland Bans Mosque Minarets

Inferno
Posts: 39
Joined: 2009-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Switzerland Bans Mosque Minarets

I'm sure most of you have heard the news by now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minaret_controversy_in_Switzerland

The Swiss have voted to ban mosque minarets from being built. That doesn't affect the four minarets that are currently standing in the country. Being a direct democracy, it was actually the Swiss people that put up the idea and passed it, not some political party or politician.

What do you guys think of it? Step in the right direction to prevent Islamofacism like the kinds seen in Britain and in Denmark with Theo Van Gogh and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, or is it going to backfire and make them a target for more terrorist attacks?


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is onlineOnline
Yes, because preventing

Yes, because preventing architectural designs will really help make the world a better place.

 

 

 

 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Slap me down people

 

But I think all religious monuments, buildings and schools should be banned.

Spend the money on hospitals and nursing homes for the elderly.

What's wrong with video conferencing in the privacy of your own home?

The sight of ostentatious displays of religiosity gives me a chronic case of the shits.

I'd go further still and argue for the destruction of churches and mosques.

And yes - in my heart I am an extremist - in the fullest sense of the word.

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
This is just fucked up. This

This is just fucked up. This is a ban on a kind of architectural motif. They shouldn't be messing with their Muslim population like that. If they (rightfully) fear their out of control Muslim population, they should control immigration rather than antagonizing the Muslims that are already there. Immigration control is the only thing that will help them. Antagonizing the Muslims that are already residents won't help them.

That being said, they desperately need to scale back on the numbers of people that they allow to immigrate.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:This is

Jormungander wrote:

This is just fucked up. This is a ban on a kind of architectural motif. They shouldn't be messing with their Muslim population like that. If they (rightfully) fear their out of control Muslim population, they should control immigration rather than antagonizing the Muslims that are already there. Immigration control is the only thing that will help them. Antagonizing the Muslims that are already residents won't help them.

That being said, they desperately need to scale back on the numbers of people that they allow to immigrate.

Many European states have less-than-replacement population growth rates and are pretty much forced to take immigrants or shrink.  Not that it would help -- Islam is growing in popularity among non-Arabs because it makes more sense than Christianity and they still get to believe in Jesus.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Many

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Many European states have less-than-replacement population growth rates and are pretty much forced to take immigrants or shrink.  Not that it would help -- Islam is growing in popularity among non-Arabs because it makes more sense than Christianity and they still get to believe in Jesus.

Then I guess that they are fucked.

Last school year I talked to another student who was certain that much of Europe would become predominantly Islamic and slip into the extremely repressive cultural customs that modern Islamic nations follow. Perhaps he is right and a new dark age is approaching Europe. In some European countries the Muslim population is demanding the descruction of western culture (as stupid as that sounds coming from people who emmigrated to western states...) and commiting most of the violent crime. We even have Engalnd allowing Sharia courts to run in parallel to British courts. I would bet that Europe will figure out how to deal with a large, angry, underemployed Muslim class of citizens. That's just my optimism though. Perhaps Europe will become like much of Asia and be converted into a repressive Islamic society that oppresses the hell out of non-Muslims and those belonging to the wrong ethnic group.

Even if that could reasonably happen to certain European countries, that doesn't justify antagonizing the Muslims that live in Europe. Just because hornets live in your yard, that doesn't mean that you should go kick their nest.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13547
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
If it is private property

If it is private property then no, it shouldn't be banned. This is another case to me of good intent being followed up with bad action. Government can only come up with common law, it cannot force political correctness on anyone. It should not be in the business of denying human rights.

If I have money to build something, and own the property and the zoning laws permit what I am building then I should be allowed to build it.

You are not going to defeat fascism by using fascism, which is what Muslims will cry there.

I see this as potentially backfiring on them. I think it will cause more division and more xenophobia by all involved.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Inferno wrote: Islamofacism

Inferno wrote:
Islamofacism like the kinds seen in Britain and in Denmark with Theo Van Gogh and Ayaan Hirsi Ali,

Not that it matters much, but they were Dutch. Cases like that lead to the current popularity of the Dutch PVV party of Geert Wilders, who's running almost entirely on anti-islam, and who's going to get even more seats in the next election, unless he gets shot as well.

He's planning on stopping all immigration from muslim countries, so yeah, we'll be finding out pretty soon if that's going to work or not.

Jormungander wrote:
Then I guess that they are fucked.

Gee, thanks.

Jormungander wrote:
Last school year I talked to another student who was certain that much of Europe would become predominantly Islamic and slip into the extremely repressive cultural customs that modern Islamic nations follow. Perhaps he is right and a new dark age is approaching Europe.

Sounds like PVV propaganda to me. Sounds exciting, but in reality it's nowhere near that bad.

Jormungander wrote:
In some European countries the Muslim population is demanding the descruction of western culture (as stupid as that sounds coming from people who emmigrated to western states...)

True, but I wouldn't say it's the entire population. Example : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/8383214.stm

Jormungander wrote:
We even have Engalnd allowing Sharia courts to run in parallel to British courts.

Well, they also have jewish courts, and neither of them handle criminal cases.

Jormungander wrote:
I would bet that Europe will figure out how to deal with a large, angry, underemployed Muslim class of citizens. That's just my optimism though.

Can't deny there's a problem, but I'm pretty optimistic as well. Most of the muslims I know are thoroughly westernised, no matter how much they try to deny it. That's just my personal perspective though.

Jormungander wrote:
Perhaps Europe will become like much of Asia and be converted into a repressive Islamic society that oppresses the hell out of non-Muslims and those belonging to the wrong ethnic group.

Heh. That seems to be a very popular opinion among americans these days. Whenever they show a map of the world in SF-novels or comicbooks set in the near future, Europe is always the "United Islamic Republic".

Jormungander wrote:
Even if that could reasonably happen to certain European countries, that doesn't justify antagonizing the Muslims that live in Europe. Just because hornets live in your yard, that doesn't mean that you should go kick their nest.

Maybe not, but that's probably what's going to happen. Because the left has ignored the problem of islam fundamentalism for so long, the right wing populists have stepped in, and they're steadily gaining power. They'll be kicking the shit out of that hornets nest pretty soon. Should be interesting.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13547
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I hope that even our

I hope that even our longtime chew toy Capolskia would agree having been our gracious punching bag should agree that this is a bad tactic.

You don't win by government censorship. You win by using your own voice. Every time some Muslim(not all muslims do this) shoots off their mouth about how they are going to take over the world via force with the will of Allah, we can use our own voice by saying "wow, what a wonderful dickhead you have for a god who uses violence for political gain. So being a bully makes me want to worship Allah how?"

There, without censoring religion I have put a mirror to dickheads without demanding their silence.

We do not have to submit to Islam, nor should the Swiss. But using the tyrany of government to silence dissent will only push liberal and moderate Muslims away from condemning those within their camps who do these violent things and lead them to side with a minority that is being censored by government.

A call for censorship is what Muslims used by threatening a cartoonist with death. I was equally pissed that South Park self censored out of fear of what Islamofascists might do if they had depicted Mohammed in their cartoon. Censorship to fight censorship?

The Swiss are shooting themselves in the foot and this will only serve to divide humanity even more.

Iran bans the Jewish voice, the Christian voice the Sunni voice and would ban this website too. How does banning a private display of a Minarete solve the problem of ending religious violence for political gain?

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Abu Lahab
Superfan
Abu Lahab's picture
Posts: 628
Joined: 2008-02-29
User is offlineOffline
Minarets

A minaret is not passive like a church steeple.

 

Does everyone on this thread know what a muezzin's adhan, call to prayer, means? Probably not without a Google crutch.

 

The minaret is islam's middle finger to the kufr and dhimmi.

 

No non-moslem land should put up with a minaret until Saudi Arabia agrees to allow churches.

 

Yes, I'd ban both. Oh, and temples etc....

How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13547
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Abu Lahab wrote:A minaret is

Abu Lahab wrote:

A minaret is not passive like a church steeple.

 

Does everyone on this thread know what a muezzin's adhan, call to prayer, means? Probably not without a Google crutch.

 

The minaret is islam's middle finger to the kufr and dhimmi.

 

No non-moslem land should put up with a minaret until Saudi Arabia agrees to allow churches.

 

Yes, I'd ban both. Oh, and temples etc....

Bullshit, a cross is as politically motivated as a symbol as a Minaret is. The only difference is that in the west Chrisitanity has had a leash put on it by the Age of Enlightenment, and the leash of secular government for the past 200 years. If left to it's own devices, Christianity would certainly backpedal into the same sectarian tribalism we see in the East today.

Do you honestly think that a cross means the same thing to a liberal Christian as it does a conservative Christian? Don't you think they both have some sort of "entitlement" narcissism that they use to influence politics? The difference in the west is that Christianity has had a leash put on it. But it is still a pitbull and it will bite just as barbarically if taken off it's secular leash.

Quote:
No non-moslem land should put up with a minaret until Saudi Arabia agrees to allow churches.

North Korea wouldn't put up with a Minaret, a cross, or even this website. And China isn't exactly up on human rights either, but economically the west depends on them.

So the way to bring peace in Mexican stand off is to behave like those you despise?

You sound just like the schoolyard mentality we accuse religion of. I AM NOT suggesting Islam be treated with kid gloves. I am saying that secular governments provide a voice to everyone and without protecting that we are all doomed to end up in some sort of fascist rule, be it on top, or on the bottom.

I told you HOW those countries could be defeated. USE YOUR OWN VOICE, don't demand the silence of others. That is what they do, not what we should do.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Abu Lahab
Superfan
Abu Lahab's picture
Posts: 628
Joined: 2008-02-29
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Bullshit, a

Brian37 wrote:

Bullshit, a cross is as politically motivated as a symbol as a Minaret is.

Brian, I'm as upset by the Redskins 4th Qtr collapse as you are, however....

 

There is no comparison between the church (even including the bells on a Sunday) and the muezzin calling the faithful to prayer. It's not like he's saying "All are welcome!" he is saying "My god is greater that yours" 5 times a day.

 

I agree that secularism has curtailed the previously abusing church but it seems to mince and simper in the face of islam. If you have a way for us to allow sharia and maintain our secularism I'm interested to hear how.

 

I fight against all religions but I am more focused on the threat of islam as the others are waning of their own accord in the face of rationality.

How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13547
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Abu Lahab wrote:Brian37

Abu Lahab wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Bullshit, a cross is as politically motivated as a symbol as a Minaret is.

Brian, I'm as upset by the Redskins 4th Qtr collapse as you are, however....

 

There is no comparison between the church (even including the bells on a Sunday) and the muezzin calling the faithful to prayer. It's not like he's saying "All are welcome!" he is saying "My god is greater that yours" 5 times a day.

 

I agree that secularism has curtailed the previously abusing church but it seems to mince and simper in the face of islam. If you have a way for us to allow sharia and maintain our secularism I'm interested to hear how.

 

I fight against all religions but I am more focused on the threat of islam as the others are waning of their own accord in the face of rationality.

Who is suggesting we allow sharia law? That is as absurd as if one were to claim that because the founders said in the First Amendment "Freedom of religion" meant that Baptist law was what the Constitution was based on.

What the west  can enforce is COMMON LAW in arresting ANYONE for violent acts FOR WHATEVER REASON

So, some Muslims shout 5 times a day "my god is better than yours". If I had a nickle for every time Falwell condemned non-right winger bible thumpers I'd make Bill Gates look like a street bum.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I don't like Islam

 

I'm not going to argue that's rational or defensible, or the best way to soften a religion that to me feels like direct confrontation with christianity circa 1000 - I know it's not.

I don't know whether it's the self detonations, the refusal to criticise itself, or the insistence that the greatest sin is questioning the faith.

From the gigantic calico ned kelly masks, to moral smugness in lockstep with total corruption, from a refusal to represent living creatures in its art, to shooting soccor players for wearing shorts, I don't like Islam. 

To me it's the embodiment of all I loathe in a religion times about 150.

Having said that I have serious admiration for the protestors in Tehran recently - and no doubt they were good muslims. 

Instead of being lauded by a free press they've been buried by the failure of a society not brave enough to face up to itself.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

 I think that it's fine as long as they allow people to build a taller build right next to them that blocks their view of the direction Mecca is in.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


rdklep8
atheistScience FreakSuperfan
rdklep8's picture
Posts: 155
Joined: 2009-11-10
User is offlineOffline
Aren't the Swiss

Aren't the Swiss predominently Christian?  Or, at least, aren't those in power predominently christian?  This is more about one religion silencing another than anything else in my book.  The Swiss are just hanging out in the alps with their small niche of banks and chocolate.  They haven't really evolved to the extent of other countries around them due to shutting everyone out and being "neutral" all of the time.

This just doesn't seem like neutrality on the part of the Swiss gov't.  It seems like they are certainly picking sides and the people in power fear change and are desperately trying to hold onto the old guard.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is onlineOnline
rdklep8 wrote:Aren't the

rdklep8 wrote:

Aren't the Swiss predominently Christian?  Or, at least, aren't those in power predominently christian?  This is more about one religion silencing another than anything else in my book.  The Swiss are just hanging out in the alps with their small niche of banks and chocolate.  They haven't really evolved to the extent of other countries around them due to shutting everyone out and being "neutral" all of the time.

This just doesn't seem like neutrality on the part of the Swiss gov't.  It seems like they are certainly picking sides and the people in power fear change and are desperately trying to hold onto the old guard.

 

 

I think the Eurobaramet poll had 48% of Swiss believe in God and a Gallup 44% hold religion as important in their life.

 

 

Either way, this has CHEESED off some people!

 

 

LOL!!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

LOL

 

 

 

 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I'm not entirely sure

rdklep8 wrote:

Aren't the Swiss predominently Christian?  Or, at least, aren't those in power predominently christian?  This is more about one religion silencing another than anything else in my book.  The Swiss are just hanging out in the alps with their small niche of banks and chocolate.  They haven't really evolved to the extent of other countries around them due to shutting everyone out and being "neutral" all of the time.

This just doesn't seem like neutrality on the part of the Swiss gov't.  It seems like they are certainly picking sides and the people in power fear change and are desperately trying to hold onto the old guard.

 

That the swiss government's generosity in welcoming (ish) 300,000 muslims whose views are in complete opposition to the 5.4 million majority constitutes shutting everyone out. Islam has a long history of intense insularity and the briefest of exposures to tempering moderation. Liberals pooh pooh the idea but when you can't publish cartoons without massive riots then there are serious problems and that's what every country with a significant muslim minority now faces.

9/11, the London bombings and the spanish railway bombing were polarising events. We've had arrests recently in Oz where an islamic group were planning to attack an army base in Sydney and kill as many as possible and we have only avoided an attack here on other occasions by luck and diligent police work. The weapons and bomb making material were already bought.

It's acts like these and moderate islam's total silence in relation to them that place islam outside the wider population and outside my personal zone of toleration.

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Inferno
Posts: 39
Joined: 2009-11-22
User is offlineOffline
There was no "power" that

There was no "power" that was predominantly Christian that tried to get this passed. The main party that initiated the referendum (I believe) has no official religious view. It was put to vote and 57.5% of the Swiss people, not representatives or anyone else in the government, voted to ban minarets.

 

It's really not that exclusive at all. They're still open to allowing Muslims to stay, for mosques to be constructed, but the minarets have no religious significance as they're not mentioned in the Quran. They've been used as monuments to demonstrate that Islam and Islamic law prevailed in the places in which they were constructed, which is why most of the people probably wanted to prevent them from being built.


rdklep8
atheistScience FreakSuperfan
rdklep8's picture
Posts: 155
Joined: 2009-11-10
User is offlineOffline
Inferno wrote:There was no

Inferno wrote:

There was no "power" that was predominantly Christian that tried to get this passed. The main party that initiated the referendum (I believe) has no official religious view. It was put to vote and 57.5% of the Swiss people, not representatives or anyone else in the government, voted to ban minarets.

 

I wasn't implying some catholic think tank made sure this was going to get passed.  I just made the assumption that since most of the people making the bill were catholic, there was catholic bias.  I still think there is. 

The republicans don't have an official religious view either... but we all know what they're really about.

 

Atheistextremist, I honestly have never been around islam in general.  I've never seen its workings, and I believe American news outlets play up the 'radical muslim' as being the average muslim.  You make a good point though about moderate muslims not speaking out against the radicals. 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Honestly mate

rdklep8 wrote:

 

Atheistextremist, I honestly have never been around islam in general.  I've never seen its workings, and I believe American news outlets play up the 'radical muslim' as being the average muslim.  You make a good point though about moderate muslims not speaking out against the radicals. 

 

I think your open approach is far better than my grumpiness. The only trouble with a tolerant attitude in my experience is that it's simply not mutual.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

I'm anti-Islam because it is anti-me. 

 

:3

 


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Inferno wrote:I'm sure most

Inferno wrote:

I'm sure most of you have heard the news by now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minaret_controversy_in_Switzerland

The Swiss have voted to ban mosque minarets from being built. That doesn't affect the four minarets that are currently standing in the country. Being a direct democracy, it was actually the Swiss people that put up the idea and passed it, not some political party or politician.

What do you guys think of it? Step in the right direction to prevent Islamofacism like the kinds seen in Britain and in Denmark with Theo Van Gogh and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, or is it going to backfire and make them a target for more terrorist attacks?

It's a step in the right direction to fuckland, just like most of the bullshit popular democracy has produced of late. It's vaguely reminescent of how Jews were treated in a certain period of history.

I really get enough of "people's opinion" at times. Actually, most of the time. People's opinions more ofthen than not redefine the phrase no-brainer when it comes to political decisions. Yes, your own mom, dad, sister - all of them are borderline fucking retarded. But don't tell them that, infantile as they are it will only push them further into their cretinous stupor. Punch a wall to dust, then once you are done raging, try to educate them about fear-, war- and bullshit-mongering, preferably with as much patience as it takes to make a world-class professional actor out of an prime-number counting autist.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Wartime British Winston

Wartime British Winston Churchill observed that

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

It does indeed rely on a reasonably educated population.

I have been up two minarets, in Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. Nice views.

I would tend to agree there is probably an element of staking their claim on the area in wanting these things erected.

The growing moslem populations are a real problem for maintaining an open society in Europe.

I get slightly uncomfortable out here in Australia with the number of Burka-clad women I encounter in my neighbourhood.

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13547
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
How short term a memory

How short term a memory humanity has. When Europeans invaded the Americas and Australia they not only peed on the bushes with their nation's flag, they gang tagged the land with their crosses too. Did the Christian invaders apologize for stealing land that wasn't theirs? They went beyond mere immigration. They invaded the land and killed off people to take it.

AGAIN, the Middle East is stuck in the Dark Ages. I get it. I just don't think the best tactic is to use censorship via government force. That is what the Middle East does. That is what Islam does. If we are to lead by example in the west, the worst thing we can do is to behave like that which we say we despise.

I think ridicule and blasphemy of their tribal violent politics, not censorship. I think the common law of arresting violent people combined with that, on an increased level, long term, will be a better tactic. You oppress them, then you give them the very victim status they use as an excuse.

It took Christianity centuries to climb out of it's tribalism and it took the idea of secularism to drag it kicking and screaming into civility. It wasn't always civil.

I don't think oppression works ever. I think oppression protects the majority and is a short term band aid.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13547
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ZuS wrote:Inferno wrote:I'm

ZuS wrote:

Inferno wrote:

I'm sure most of you have heard the news by now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minaret_controversy_in_Switzerland

The Swiss have voted to ban mosque minarets from being built. That doesn't affect the four minarets that are currently standing in the country. Being a direct democracy, it was actually the Swiss people that put up the idea and passed it, not some political party or politician.

What do you guys think of it? Step in the right direction to prevent Islamofacism like the kinds seen in Britain and in Denmark with Theo Van Gogh and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, or is it going to backfire and make them a target for more terrorist attacks?

It's a step in the right direction to fuckland, just like most of the bullshit popular democracy has produced of late. It's vaguely reminescent of how Jews were treated in a certain period of history.

I really get enough of "people's opinion" at times. Actually, most of the time. People's opinions more ofthen than not redefine the phrase no-brainer when it comes to political decisions. Yes, your own mom, dad, sister - all of them are borderline fucking retarded. But don't tell them that, infantile as they are it will only push them further into their cretinous stupor. Punch a wall to dust, then once you are done raging, try to educate them about fear-, war- and bullshit-mongering, preferably with as much patience as it takes to make a world-class professional actor out of an prime-number counting autist.

I wouldn't put what the Swiss are doing in the same class as what Hitler did to the Jews. But, I would agree that it is a step in the wrong direction. I see political correctness, even in the states where blacks, gays and atheists demand "hate crime" laws, leading to the same "Big Brother" road where everyone eventually gets silenced.

The intent is to stop the spread of violence and fascism. I get that. But what will end up happening because of their wrongful tactic can lead to the government playing thought police for everyone. You don't fight fascism by censorship or silence of dissent. The very definition of fascism IS censorship and silence of dissent.

I wouldn't be concerned about Muslims being stuck in Swiss ovens. I would be worried about their government becoming so politically correct NO ONE could fart without being arrested. I would be more concerned about that.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
They brought this up on BBC

They brought this up on BBC Question Time yesterday. A muslim guy in the audience said he understood the decision, and any muslim who had a problem with it should just "move to a muslim country".

Seems to me this might turn out the same like the French ban on headscarves. A lot of people going "oh noes !", but when push comes to shove, it turns out not even the muslims really give a damn.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13547
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:They

Anonymouse wrote:

They brought this up on BBC Question Time yesterday. A muslim guy in the audience said he understood the decision, and any muslim who had a problem with it should just "move to a muslim country".

Seems to me this might turn out the same like the French ban on headscarves. A lot of people going "oh noes !", but when push comes to shove, it turns out not even the muslims really give a damn.

It isn't about a label giving a damn or not giving a damn,. It SHOULD matter to everyone LONG TERM that this type of censorship happens. DON'T make this about a label. It is about tactic. Government force of censorship is BAD for a free society.

We are not talking about government putting the Minaret up, much less  a cross. This is censorship, even on private property. And be it a Christian, Muslim or atheist, who wants to put up a symbol ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, should be allowed to.

 Many Christians see atheists billboards as hate billboards and falsely see them as atheists wanting to demand government to outlaw religion. What if the majority of Christians voted to outlaw atheist billboards?

To me the label isnt the issue. THE ISSUE is always remembering that the powers that be change and fluxuate over time, and as such, one must remember that in the future they might not be in agreement with their government. Failing to take that into account doesn't just affect the minority or majority, it affects all of society.

I am for regulations, but never bans. I am for arresting those who act out in violence, or advocate violence. But barring those things, I do not want to see things banned merely because I disagree with it or find it offensive.

That is a dangerous road for free societies to go down. It is a danger to pluralism.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Except that this is not

Except that this is not actually government dictatorship, which is definitely bad, it is government implementing the will of the majority of the governed.

That doesn't make it a good idea, but it is a different thing than a small group imposing things on a population...

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10550
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I'll have to come down on

I'll have to come down on the side of the ban, and would see it applied everywhere and to all religions. None of them need more than small gathering places like churches and mosques. Enough of the multi-million dollar fortresses. It's a waste of resources, land, and time. Save whatever has already been built, but build no more.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I am for

Brian37 wrote:

I am for regulations, but never bans. I am for arresting those who act out in violence, or advocate violence. But barring those things, I do not want to see things banned merely because I disagree with it or find it offensive.

That is a dangerous road for free societies to go down. It is a danger to pluralism.

 

Islam doesn't agreee with you. They're not in favor of pluralism and aren't exactly shy about saying so.

You're right that it's a dangerous road, but I'm behind the ban, and I'm just glad there are at least a few muslims who agree with me.


Abu Lahab
Superfan
Abu Lahab's picture
Posts: 628
Joined: 2008-02-29
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:It SHOULD

Brian37 wrote:

It SHOULD matter to everyone LONG TERM that this type of censorship happens. DON'T make this about a label. It is about tactic. Government force of censorship is BAD for a free society.

The Swiss had a referendum, the people voted for a ban on minarets. It was not a Government instigated ban. Will of the people. YAY!

 

On another matter, do you think at this stage that the Redskins are doing this to make us sad? I bloody do!

How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais


rab
rab's picture
Posts: 273
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
Interesting discussion. I

Interesting discussion. I understand the population wanting to ban the minarets out of fear of their country being taken over by a sometimes radical religion. And lets face it, just exercising one's free speech and speaking out against Islam often gets one blown up or head chopped off. Radical Islam and free speech and a free society don't mix. I'm not in favor of censorship either, and that includes excluding another culture from building temples, but it isn't Buddhism or Taoism we're talking about.

Support the Separation of Church & State!
Freedom From Religion Foundation


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10550
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Frankly I don't see

Frankly I don't see censorship as an issue here. We aren't talking about free speech in parliament or even the playground here, we're talking about massive eyesores that literally dumb down, through multiple methods, the communities they inhabit. These buildings are a black hole to the community. They suck up art, money, land, and airspace without providing a single useful service to said community beyond that which buildings a tenth the size are capable of. They even create traffic problems.
It's not like they're being told to shut up entirely, just to stop yelling at everyone.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Of course secular islam is possible

 

As I discovered in istanbul last year when I got wankered drunk under the wall of a mosque. When the howling started we responded with our own warblings which I guess was disrespectful but you know - a faith with the default position that I deserve death at birth can whistle for my respect as long as it likes. It's a great city though and the sight of girls in full ned kelly outfits (think Iron Man in black cotton) walking arm in arm with their friends dressed up to the nines in high heels and warpaint was really very heart warming.

Turkey is a great country and the people were very welcoming to us from the land of Oz despite the fact we invaded them a while back and 80,000-odd turks were killed.

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13547
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote: I think

ClockCat wrote:

 I think that it's fine as long as they allow people to build a taller build right next to them that blocks their view of the direction Mecca is in.

ROTFLMAO , I don't think it works quite like that. They have Mosques in NY City and I am quite sure the buildings around them are taller. Besides, the earth is curved. But if anyone could see Mecca from her house, it would be Sarah Palin.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13547
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote: As

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

As I discovered in istanbul last year when I got wankered drunk under the wall of a mosque. When the howling started we responded with our own warblings which I guess was disrespectful but you know - a faith with the default position that I deserve death at birth can whistle for my respect as long as it likes. It's a great city though and the sight of girls in full ned kelly outfits (think Iron Man in black cotton) walking arm in arm with their friends dressed up to the nines in high heels and warpaint was really very heart warming.

Turkey is a great country and the people were very welcoming to us from the land of Oz despite the fact we invaded them a while back and 80,000-odd turks were killed.

I am sure Turkey, like Japan, have many citizens that are welcoming to visitors. THAT is quite different than treating a non-majority citizen as an equal.

My x-wife was from Japan and I know full well how much they love having guests and impressing the rest of the world. But it is HARD, if not impossible to be welcome into a family or into politics if you are a minority citizen.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Brian37 wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

 I think that it's fine as long as they allow people to build a taller build right next to them that blocks their view of the direction Mecca is in.

ROTFLMAO , I don't think it works quite like that. They have Mosques in NY City and I am quite sure the buildings around them are taller. Besides, the earth is curved. But if anyone could see Mecca from her house, it would be Sarah Palin.

Yes I know but that is the goal behind the buildings in the first place. A vantage point to pray in the direction of Mecca.

 

A building right in the way I'm sure helps. Maybe a strip club.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Nice idea

Bada Bing!

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


SapphireMind
SapphireMind's picture
Posts: 73
Joined: 2009-12-20
User is offlineOffline
I am against it.  I am

I am against it.  I am against the majority pushing its religious beliefs on the minority.  If they wanted to ban all religious symbols, churches, synagogues and mosques, I would be supportive.  But to single out the islamic is not right.

"Shepherd Book once said to me, 'If you can't do something smart, do something right.'" - Jayne

Personally subverting biological evolution in favor of social evolution every night I go to work!


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13547
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Brian37

Anonymouse wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I am for regulations, but never bans. I am for arresting those who act out in violence, or advocate violence. But barring those things, I do not want to see things banned merely because I disagree with it or find it offensive.

That is a dangerous road for free societies to go down. It is a danger to pluralism.

 

Islam doesn't agreee with you. They're not in favor of pluralism and aren't exactly shy about saying so.

You're right that it's a dangerous road, but I'm behind the ban, and I'm just glad there are at least a few muslims who agree with me.

Neither did Christianity before the Age of Enlightenment put a leash on it. But do not think the fans of Jesus in the west want competition. They don't. They are only as pluralistic as the secular governments demand them to be.

Christians in the west have empathy for the house nigger. They are happy with you as a friend or even a family member, but they wont vote for you. They are happy to take your tax dollars and be your co-worker or friend. But they wont vote for you.

You are talking about Islam and Christianity as if they didn't come from the same myth. THEY DID. What you miss is TIME, PLACE and geographics. The words of the OT, NT and KORAN do not promote pluralism. They are all ancient books promoting tribal gangs.

Islam in the east today disagrees with the leash. But that doesn't mean that Christianity has always had a leash on it, or that it wouldn't regress back into the same behavior if the leash were taken away.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
As a self-proclaimed

As a self-proclaimed architectural historian (actually, architects have expressed their admiration for my knowledge, but that was just flattery, not a degree), I'll echo the sentiment that it's just architecture. I'll also add that, as much as I abhor religion, one of the very few (arguably) good things it's provided over the centuries is some of the most beautiful, exquisite, and even innovative architecture.

Personally, I think Islam is every bit as silly as Christianity, and frankly, not more so; just silly for different reasons. But I think the ban on Minarets is something else altogether. It smells to me way too much like cultural discrimination, which I think is unacceptable in any form. Furthermore, banning Muslims from building houses of worship or symbols of their faith will never stop them from worshipping as they do or stop them from being Muslims. In the end it becomes a quite useless gesture with no benefit except to piss off a whole group of people. 

I'll draw on my own stereotypes of the Swiss to say I'm surprised this decision would come from a country that I always thought of as being exceptionally tolerant. *shrugs*

R


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Except that

BobSpence1 wrote:

Except that this is not actually government dictatorship, which is definitely bad, it is government implementing the will of the majority of the governed.

That doesn't make it a good idea, but it is a different thing than a small group imposing things on a population... 

A democracy demonstrating its ability to deliver pre-genocidal decisions 1930es style is somehow more acceptable than a few rotten apples at the top? Looking at this issue while keeping in mind the historical "democratic" context of the past century, you should seriously reconsider your position. Modern democracy is far more dangerous than any single man or group anywhere in the world - there is less accountability at the top, fewer trade-offs current "leaders" consider, less focus on long term calculus, more plunder in the short time they have access to power, a tendency to go from corporate to government again  and again, ability to amass power beyond compare to any dictatorship and a lot more blood spilled, usually blood belonging to brown people. The actions of today's leading democracies can only be described as a drawn out third world war type of aggression. Millions of dead, starving, or well on their way just do not compare to anything China does in Tibet.

I understand the internal benefits such a system can deliver to you, the member of the society, but ask yourself if the imaginary freedom from any one single master is worth the blood you surely can see if you bother to look past your false pride? You like being able to speek freely? That's nice, I bet Iraqis would love to be able not to be blown up, shot, raped, or chopped to pieces. Apparently your democracy doesn't work well for all involved.

Please don't give me "would Saddam be better", it's like asking a kid whether its better to be bullied by a guy in class or raped by dad's big hairy brother, in this case uncle Sam.

So hell yes it's different - it's far worse when a democracy does it.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:I get

BobSpence1 wrote:

I get slightly uncomfortable out here in Australia with the number of Burka-clad women I encounter in my neighbourhood.

Do you think black people in australia get unconfortable around bullets? There certainly is more historical reason for that type of anxiety on their part.

Dude, I am thrilled to have these better-knowing females around boasting virtue, individuality-definition through covering up and getting more respect by clinging to a religion. It's more fun tapping that ass than nuns and I bet those were a treat back in 1500. Of course, do try to stick to the pretty ones and avoid giving them personal information, inquisition is less fun and you have to get rid of bodies. Although in australia that is less of a problem then hereabouts.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:Last

Jormungander wrote:

Last school year I talked to another student who was certain that much of Europe would become predominantly Islamic and slip into the extremely repressive cultural customs that modern Islamic nations follow. Perhaps he is right and a new dark age is approaching Europe.

Excuse me?  The "dark ages" were caused by CHRISTIANITY.  And after the CHRISTIANS went to the "Holy Land" and killed everyone they could get their hands on for being non-Christian, they went back to their OWN countries and engaged in a lot more "dark ages".

My cousins might have some religious beliefs I find disagreeable, but the "Dark Ages" -- such as the anti-Science attitudes being advanced here in the States -- are much more of a Christian thing than anything Islam is going to do.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."