View Full Version : Switzerland About To Vote On Minaret Ban
Azathoth
11-29-2009, 12:56
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34191036/ns/world_news-europe
Swiss vote on referendum to ban new minarets
Right-wing parties regard mosques’ spires as symbols of militant Islam
GENEVA - Swiss voters are deciding in a referendum Sunday whether to accept a ban on the construction of minarets, which right-wing parties regard as symbols of militant Islam.
The move — led by the Swiss People's Party, which has campaigned in previous years against immigrants — has stirred fears of boycotts and violent reactions from Muslim countries.
Polls indicate growing support for the proposal, but doubt remains about whether it will pass. The seven-member Cabinet that heads the Swiss government has spoken out strongly against the initiative.
Muslims have been keeping a low profile so far. Still, the Geneva Mosque was vandalized Thursday when someone threw a pot of pink paint at the entrance.
Earlier this month, a vehicle with a loudspeaker drove through the area imitating a muezzin's call to prayer, and vandals damaged a mosaic when they threw cobble stones at the building.
Ban could impact economy
Business leaders say a ban on minarets, the distinctive spires attached to mosques, would be disastrous for the Swiss economy because it could offend wealthy Muslims who bank in Switzerland, buy the country's luxury goods and visit its resorts.
The vote taps into the anxieties about Muslims that have been rippling through Europe in recent years, ranging from French fears of women in body veils to Dutch alarm over the murder by a Muslim fanatic of a filmmaker who made a documentary that criticized Islam.
Local officials and rights defenders have objected to the campaign posters, which show minarets rising like missiles from the Swiss flag next to a fully veiled woman.
Four minarets in country would remain
Minarets are typically built next to mosques for religious leaders to call the faithful to prayer, but they are not used for that in Switzerland. The four minarets already attached to mosques in the country will remain even if the referendum passes.
Muslims make up about 6 percent of Switzerland's 7.5 million population, many of them refugees from the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s. Fewer than 13 percent practice their religion, the government says.
A survey by the respected polling institute gfs.bern last week indicated that 53 percent of voters oppose the initiative, although support for it has grown by 3 percentage points to 37 percent since last month. Typically in Switzerland the margins on such votes narrow as balloting nears. Ten percent of the 1,213 people polled were undecided. The survey had an error margin of 2.9 percent.
Is this the populism we've been hearing so much about?
Really, what's the point of this? Is the intent to prevent the construction of mosques in the event of an influx of Muslim immigrants to Switzerland?
Not something I would do even if I am not very fond of the Islam, freedom of religion is freedom of religion. All that bull on minarets and headscarves are a bit silly to me, this is a complex problem banning religious symbols isn't going to make that go away. They can buy a piece of land a build a mosque how can we say 'no you can't', I don't like it, but what can you do it's a free country
Really, what's the point of this? Is the intent to prevent the construction of mosques in the event of an influx of Muslim immigrants to Switzerland?
They aren't trying to stop mosques altogether, just stopping them building the minarets(the spikey bits) on the top of them, which makes even less sense then stopping the construction of mosques. The whole idea sounds pretty stupid to me.
HoreTore
11-29-2009, 13:23
Really, what's the point of this?
Some people just enjoy making life harder for others.
It really is nonsense. It's like saying that we should stop building bell towers for churches to stop catholic priests abusing alter boys.:dizzy2:
Anyway, minarets and mosques are beautiful architectural pieces.
This is just racism, plain and simple. There would be a :daisy:storm if Morocco said it was going to ban Church bells, and yet the Swiss are quite happy to prevent the building of a fourth minaret in Switzerland. That's right, there are a grand total of three minarets in Switzerland, and yet the way the Swiss xenophobic parties describe them, you'd think that primary schools and orphanages were being knocked down to make way for Mega-Mosques. The Swiss People's Parties are merely the same spawn as the BNP, Geert Wilders, etc.
Geert Wilders really doesn't belong there, a lot of his voters are secular muslims, mostly Iraqi's and Iranians, and other immigrants from the old colonies as well.
Azathoth
11-29-2009, 13:37
They aren't trying to stop mosques altogether, just stopping them building the minarets(the spikey bits) on the top of them, which makes even less sense then stopping the construction of mosques. The whole idea sounds pretty stupid to me.
So if banning minarets won't even prevent Muslims from building mosques...
Word is in, the Swiss voted in favour of a ban
Thank you very much Switzerland, makes it all that much easier for me to explain that the decent right only has it's eyes on the political Islam
idiots. Gah I am furious you are hurting our cause you cheesemelting mongrols
Furunculus
11-29-2009, 14:57
This is just racism, plain and simple. There would be a :daisy:storm if Morocco said it was going to ban Church bells, and yet the Swiss are quite happy to prevent the building of a fourth minaret in Switzerland. That's right, there are a grand total of three minarets in Switzerland, and yet the way the Swiss xenophobic parties describe them, you'd think that primary schools and orphanages were being knocked down to make way for Mega-Mosques. The Swiss People's Parties are merely the same spawn as the BNP, Geert Wilders, etc.
it is daft, but it is also their right.
HoreTore
11-29-2009, 14:59
it is daft, but it is also their right.
It's their right to deny other people their freedom?
That's stretching things, methinks.
That's stretching things, methinks.
You just wait, this is a disaster for Europe the mother of 'yeah but', thanks for giving away the higher ground, really, good job. I now have nothing to say for myself, and that's going to be exploited, Switzerland FU
Word is in, the Swiss voted in favour of a ban
I'm ashamed to be on the same continent as the pigs who voted for the ban.
it is daft, but it is also their right.
Viva tyranny of the majority!
Switzerland is only geographically part of Europe so they can keep all the blame for themselves.
It really is rather silly though.
Nay for direct democracy?
Not something I would do even if I am not very fond of the Islam
What is "The Islam"? Is it by any chance related to "The Christianity" or "The Buddhism"?
Azathoth
11-29-2009, 16:07
Some justifications I saw online:
Why are we, in the US. "The Great Satan"? We allow all to practice their religion unhindered or not practice any religion if you so choose. Europe puts restrictions on what, how, and where you can practice your religion. Why do the muslim countries forbid the practice of any religion other than Islam?
simply another instance of muslims trying to force their way on the world. They refuse to assimilate into a culture so they wish to force that culture to change to suit them. We've all seen what happens if we don't kiss their asses, they kill a few thousand of us. What a wonderful philosophy, kill the infadel, unless it's more worthwhile to just take over their country. I say, let them boycott their little asses off and protest all they want, if they don't like it, GO THE **** HOME
I nearly pooped at this one.
if they allow minarets, the next thing they will have to change the flag.
if you didnt know, the swiss flag is a cross. that means its a christian country.
HoreTore
11-29-2009, 16:15
A similar thing has happened in my town, Drammen.
There's a sizeable population of people of turkish descent here, and they want to build a proper mosque, as the mosque in use today are just office buildings and such redecorated to be a place of worship, and that's not very stylish...
Here (http://www.drammenmoske.no/index.php?option=com_phocagallery&view=category&id=3:moske-bilder&Itemid=74) are the pics of what it will look like(p01 and p12, tiny pictures though unfortunately), and let's face it; it looks awesome. It will easily be one of the best looking buildings in the city, it's a shame it won't get built in the centre of the city though.
But awesome as it may look, the "immigration skeptics"(the party Roger Madsen, from another thread, belongs to) have been blocking its construction for years now. Even though not a single tax dollar will be spent on it, they will pay for everything themselves, permits and such have been blocked as much as possible.
The really funny stuff is that some people seem to think that there are no mosques here, that muslims have been living here for 30 years without a place of worship, and they seem to be completely ignorant of the fact that all they want to do is build a nicer mosque, there already are a bunch of mosques, and unless they get genocidal there's no way to stop them from having mosques.
What is "The Islam"? Is it by any chance related to "The Christianity" or "The Buddhism"?
Hax I may be an idiot but that doesn't mean I am not educated, I know of the various branches of Islam, where, how, when. But I know it when I see it, and the political branch has little to do with the lore of old it's power
@Horetore, the minaret is a symbol, there are many ways to conquer a place. That is the exact original meaning of a minaret; conquered. They aren't wrong about that, in the Islam there is conquest by migration and conquest by force.
A Very Super Market
11-29-2009, 18:19
Maybe it's a safety factor. Minarets can fall over.
This isn't even right-wingism. This is just stupid. How can they actually accomplish anything by doing this? It's like if the nazis hadn't done anything but ban menorahs in public. Mind-boggling, how stupid some people are.
Meneldil
11-29-2009, 18:31
Though I think this is stupid on both the political and ideological level, I can't help but think "Good riddance!".
I think religion as a whole should disappear, and I also think "The Islam" (to quote Frag) - or at least its modern uses - is winning the sillyness contest hand down. But that's indeed a wrong signal to send to the people who actually thought they could integrate in the swiss society.
it is daft, but it is also their right.
Yep. You can't stop a political vote just because its daft. You can however stop it if it goes against the laws of said country (ie, an unconstitutional law/ruling/statute). I'm not versed in Swiss law though, so I'm in no position to pass judgement.
HoreTore
11-29-2009, 21:08
Yep. You can't stop a political vote just because its daft. You can however stop it if it goes against the laws of said country (ie, an unconstitutional law/ruling/statute). I'm not versed in Swiss law though, so I'm in no position to pass judgement.
I would be surprised if they aren't subject to the European human rights court...
So honestly, I can't really see how this can be passed...
Louis VI the Fat
11-29-2009, 21:42
I am a bit torn.
One argument in favour of a ban is that it stops the exceptional status Islam enjoys. Switzerland looks as good as it does because of very strict building laws. One is not allowed to build anything that clashes with the natural or cultural environment. And it shows in the beauty of the land.
Nobody, however, has dared to say 'no' to minarets, for fear of being labelled a racist.
A secular group is not allowed to build a large tower next to the clubhouse. Their Muslim neighbours are allowed to build it.
Clubhouses for traditional Swiss religions are allowed to build spires. Which moves the question to is essence: is multiculturalism about integration, or separation? All Swiss inhabitants of non-Swiss ancestry are perfectly well allowed to live in Switzerland, as Swiss. To integrate, as Swiss. But not as Non-Swiss. This referendum to some extent deems Islam 'non-Swiss'.
What the proponents of this ban ought to do, is test Switzerland by inventing a religion, and then to ask permission to build a 400 meter fluorescent pink tower in the centre of Bern - claiming their god demands this of them. This permission will obviously not be granted, neither before or after the current referendum. Which then puts the ball into the court of the 'pro-minaret' camp: what is so special about minarets that they should be accepted as Swiss, but other modes of expression via towers is not?
Also, it appears that all of the Frenchspeaking cantons voted against the ban, all of the other cantons voted in favour of it. The famous 'barrière de röstis' (Röstigraben) strikes again!
ICantSpellDawg
11-29-2009, 21:46
This seems to me more like an issue of the building code in a historical nation. Maybe they don't want alien architecture to clutter up and confuse the countryside that is responsible for so much tourism. Maybe Muslims could create a Swiss style mosque that jives with the them park that is switzerland instead of bringing the desert with them to the alps. Very little says skiing, hot chocolate, watches and Europe as poorly as the Middle east. It would be wierd if universal studios set up mammoth movie posters in the middle of Disneyworld, eh?
Religions have adapted to local architectural conventions for years. Look at modern Jewish temples and tell me that they look like they were shipped in from the Levant. They could start building church styled buildings with little crescents at the top. Time for change; I know foreign words like "change" and "adapt" have a hard time setting up their minarets in Muslim brains. Nobody is saying no to mosques, just no to the unsightly phallus-like minarets hogging the pristine skyline.
I also believe that Christian denominations should build steeples that look like minarets in Islamic nations. Everybody should be able to build whatever they'd like in countries like the US.
HoreTore
11-29-2009, 21:56
This seems to me more like an issue of the building code in a historical nation. Maybe they don't want alien architecture to clutter up and confuse the countryside that is responsible for so much tourism. Maybe Muslims could create a Swiss style mosque that jives with the them park that is switzerland instead of bringing the desert with them to the alps. Very little says skiing, hot chocolate, watches and Europe as poorly as the Middle east. It would be wierd if universal studios set up mammoth movie posters in the middle of Disneyworld, eh?
Religions have adapted to local architectural conventions for years. They could start building church styled buildings with little crescents at the top. Time for change; I know foreign words like "change" and "adapt" have a hard time setting up their minarets in Muslim brains. Nobody is saying no to mosques, just no to the unsightly phallus-like minarets hogging pristine skyline.
That post was rather contradicting....
Anyway, look at the minaret in the article. That ain't no middle eastern building style, that's a european style construction.
Also, having an entire country as a national park? That be taking things a bit too far. For the special spots, sure I can understand it. But I highly doubt that every new construction in Switzerland is in the same style as they built stuff centuries ago. Times change, so does Switzerland. Working as an architect in Switzerland sounds like the worst job in the world....
EDIT: A small tower is too much, but this (http://www.polet-travel.eu/02/images/Shveicaria/bern-2.jpg) is fits in perfectly with medieval buildings....? Please.
Geneva is the ugliest city I've ever been in. All the buildings are exactly the same height, same style, same size...it's like being surronded by Communist apartment blocks, except they're 300 years old rather than 30.
A minaret or two would make it a lot more interesting.
Papewaio
11-29-2009, 22:45
Nobody is saying no to mosques, just no to the unsightly phallus-like minarets hogging the pristine skyline.
The article linked to it has a phallic steeple right behind the phallic minaret. It seems to be which patriarchal religion has the biggest schlong contest...
Nay for direct democracy?
Nay for Direct Democracy.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-29-2009, 23:00
The article linked to it has a phallic steeple right behind the phallic minaret. It seems to be which patriarchal religion has the biggest schlong contest...
Well, not really. After all, Mosques are just developments of Byzantine Churches, because the most impressive early ones were originally Byzantine Churches.
ICantSpellDawg
11-29-2009, 23:23
The article linked to it has a phallic steeple right behind the phallic minaret. It seems to be which patriarchal religion has the biggest schlong contest...
That shade of blue was necessary? Clearly one is more "Swiss" than the other.
AlexanderSextus
11-29-2009, 23:51
All i have to say about this is "WHAT THE HELL?"
There are plenty of mosques and minarets here in the US of A and even our intolerant population isnt trying to get rid of them.
Europeans are nuts sometimes.
I haven't seen anyone post a confirmation with a real link, so here's a little something (http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/europe/3109314/Swiss-ban-mosque-minarets):
Swiss ban mosque minarets
Swiss voters have overwhelmingly approved a ban on minarets, barring construction of the iconic mosque towers in a backlash against a growing Muslim population. [...]
The initiative was approved 57.5 to 42.5 percent by some 2.67 million voters. Only four of the 26 cantons or states opposed the initiative, granting the double approval that makes it part of the Swiss constitution.
Muslims comprise about 6 percent of Switzerland's 7.5 million people. Many are refugees from the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s and about one in 10 actively practices their religion, the government says.
The country's four standing minarets, which won't be affected by the ban, do not traditionally broadcast the call to prayer outside their own buildings.
Louis VI the Fat
11-30-2009, 00:42
This seems to me more like an issue of the building code
Religions have adapted to local architectural conventions for years.Yes and no. 'Building codes' is the defensive wall that people who have a problem with Islam hide behind. More particularly, it is the argument of people who disagree with those who disagree that there should be a ban on minarets.
Clearly, the origin and the rationale behind the yes-vote to a ban are over issues of the multicultural society, not aesthetics. Even so, the point remains that one can with justification reverse, as it were, the 'burden of proof': that is, make the question not why minarets should be forbidden, but why they should be allowed.
In effect, the debate is changed from one over equality between religions, to one of equality of religion and non-religion.
Should McDonalds be allowed to build huge double-M arches? In many places in Europe, this is forbidden. Forbidden, because it is deemed an intrusion of traditional aesthetics, a sign of abrassive foreign/capitalist intrusion, that ruins the looks of inner cities or the countryside.
The McMinarets of Capitalism, in their ancestral homeland:
https://img687.imageshack.us/img687/6528/lafastfoodsigns783699c.jpg (https://img687.imageshack.us/i/lafastfoodsigns783699c.jpg/)
In Europe, often they have been asked to please keep a low profile:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2312/2275454770_36d763d9af.jpg
How can you compare McDonalds to Mosques? That's just ignorant.
Hosakawa Tito
11-30-2009, 01:26
Well, they both begin with an M, so I guess it depends on what you worship...
Louis VI the Fat
11-30-2009, 01:56
How can you compare McDonalds to Mosques? That's just ignorant.On the interwebs, ignorant usually means that somebody did not take the time or put in the effort to understand what was said.
Here is a McDonalds in Switzerland's capital. Note how it has been asked to blend into its suroundings, without any consicuous signage or arch:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3534/3280344640_1bef77bf15.jpg
McDonalds, without this integration into its surroundings, would be considered to infringe upon Swiss culture. It is asked to integrate. To a large extent, the same holds true for this referendum. Mosques can be build at will. But not with large minarets.
Which begs the question - why the separate status for mosques? Why, as soon as somebody cries religion, must all other considerations be brushed aside? Why should secular society be forced to immediately step aside for anything anybody calls religion?
That is not freedom of religion, that is religion claiming supreme status.
Me, I am religious about food. I worship by sacrificing Big Macs on thursdays. Therefore, I demand American immigrants in Switzerland must have the right to build huge arches for their temples of food!
Papewaio
11-30-2009, 03:06
That shade of blue was necessary? Clearly one is more "Swiss" than the other.
Whats the difference between pink and purple?
The grip.
Clearly that ring around the tower shaft is a bit tight...
ICantSpellDawg
11-30-2009, 03:23
Whats the difference between pink and purple?
The grip.
Clearly that ring around the tower shaft is a bit tight...
That's a good one.:beam:
Evil_Maniac From Mars
11-30-2009, 03:55
I'm hovering on the lines here. On one hand, I think people should have more freedom to do as they please with their property. On the other hand, I would prefer that old architecture be preserved without massive out-of-place buildings.
Askthepizzaguy
11-30-2009, 08:39
I think it's just fine that a democracy puts it to a popular vote and decides that certain things aren't allowed. Running around nude is one of them. Having a firearm without a permit, perhaps. Walking barefoot. And even the design of buildings. If a population is prudish enough about their culture that they don't want to allow large towers in their skyline, whatever, so be it, as long as it applies to everyone. None of these things violates "fundamental human rights", it simply imposes certain standards on everyone determined by a democratic majority. It certainly doesn't stop mosques from being built or Muslims from worshipping. In the United States, some communities impose ridiculous standards on your own property, especially in some residential neighborhoods. Not allowed to see lawn equipment... not allowed to see clean, empty trash cans from the street. And yet people can have barking dogs which don't shut up all night... which is more of a menace? Sometimes majority-imposed community standards are stupid. And yet, communities should have a right to impose such standards.
That being said, if they can find an example of this only applying to Muslim-built structures, I would think it's a little xenophobic.
Furunculus
11-30-2009, 09:43
I think all the hot air and ridiculous anger on display here is irrelevant, the people of Switzerland have spoken and they don't want minarets, regardless of whether you think it is the right choice or not, you don't count, you aren't swiss and nor do you live in Switzerland.
interestingly enough, more women than men voted for the ban:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/switzerland/6689079/As-the-Swiss-say-no-to-minarets-I-vote-we-have-many-more-referendums.html
Well..take a Chinese mosque:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7f/Huaisheng_Mosque_Dec_2007.jpg
And a Morrocan mosque:
http://margotmystic.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/mosque-in-tangier-morocco.jpg
And a Turkish mosque:
http://www.bakupages.com/club/photo/images/img_4367a153093.jpg
And you'll notice a vast amount when it comes to architecture. I'm pretty sure a mosque doesn't need to have a minaret, but the same really goes for churches whose crosses reach some 300 metres into the air. If you need to ban such things, ban them all or ban none.
Walking barefoot.
:gah: You think they should ban barefeet? :inquisitive:
I voted for the ban. Some of you are much closer to the point. Most people (I know) have voted likewise not because they associate themselves with the right-wing party (or any party at all, for that matter) but because, personally, we think that minarets do not fit into the picture of Swiss scenery, i.e., people voted in favour of the building laws rather than against Islam as such.
I strongly disagree how this was handled by the political parties. Some people have voted the right thing in my opinion but for all the wrong reasons. That makes me sad and it's actually quite tragic.
Mosques can still be built just without the minarets. There is no restriction on Moslems practicing their religion bar building minarets. The reason church towers are allowed to be built is simply that they have always been there and very often were the first buildings put up in any given place. This is not to say that such towers are allowed to be built anywhere at any given time. They also have to undergo the strict building laws of the country. That is how the law of the land stands. If people want to change that, we can have another initiative and vote on it at a later date...
I do not believe that a country has to bend over backwards to traditions and practices of other countries' people who have immigrated. I think, quite the opposite is the case. Switzerland's population consists of roughly 22% 'non-Swiss'. They are intergrated much better than in many other countries and people in general are very liberal towards 'foreigners'. We may not be the friendliest people, the funniest people, or indeed the most cheerful but we do have a history of letting others live with us in relative peace and harmony.
Quid
Furunculus
11-30-2009, 12:21
perfectly reasonable stance.
On the interwebs, ignorant usually means that somebody did not take the time or put in the effort to understand what was said.
Here is a McDonalds in Switzerland's capital. Note how it has been asked to blend into its suroundings, without any consicuous signage or arch:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3534/3280344640_1bef77bf15.jpg
McDonalds, without this integration into its surroundings, would be considered to infringe upon Swiss culture. It is asked to integrate. To a large extent, the same holds true for this referendum. Mosques can be build at will. But not with large minarets.
Which begs the question - why the separate status for mosques? Why, as soon as somebody cries religion, must all other considerations be brushed aside? Why should secular society be forced to immediately step aside for anything anybody calls religion?
That is not freedom of religion, that is religion claiming supreme status.
Me, I am religious about food. I worship by sacrificing Big Macs on thursdays. Therefore, I demand American immigrants in Switzerland must have the right to build huge arches for their temples of food!
My point I was trying to make in a much more sound and eloquent way.
Quid
Furunculus
11-30-2009, 13:31
hannan on helvetica:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100018278/switzerland-bans-minarets-long-live-referendums-even-when-they-go-the-wrong-way/
Switzerland bans minarets: long live referendums, even when they go the wrong way
By Daniel Hannan Politics Last updated: November 29th, 2009
I am a paid-up fan of Swiss direct democracy. But no system is flawless, and referendums occasionally throw up silly answers. The decision by Swiss voters to outlaw the construction of minarets strikes me as regrettable on three grounds.
First, it is at odds with that other guiding Swiss principle, localism: issues of this kind ought surely to be settled town by town, or at least canton by canton, not by a national ban.
Second, it is disproportionate. There may be arguments against the erection of a particular minaret by a particular mosque – but to drag a constitutional amendment into the field of planning law is using a pneumatic drill to crack a nut.
Third, it suggests that Western democracies have a problem, not with jihadi fruitcakes, but with Muslims per se – which is, of course, precisely the argument of the jihadi fruitcakes.
I’m afraid that opponents of referendums will seize on this result in support of their argument that direct democracy gives free rein to bigotry. But we Helvetophiles don’t argue that referendums will always produce the right outcome; our argument, rather, is that direct democracy tends, over time, to make for a better-run country, a more limited government, a freer people and more engaged electorate. In support of these propositions, we point to Switzerland’s GDP, its turnout rates and the declared satisfaction of its citizenry.
Referendums will sometimes, as on this occasion, alienate a minority. Party politics, by contrast, regularly alienates the majority. No system of government on this sublunary plane is perfect. But I’d gladly swap Switzerland’s problems for ours.
All i have to say about this is "WHAT THE HELL?"
There are plenty of mosques and minarets here in the US of A and even our intolerant population isnt trying to get rid of them.
Europeans are nuts sometimes.
http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/720921/74a7c509/raket_vs_minaret.html
ICantSpellDawg
11-30-2009, 14:01
hannan on helvetica:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100018278/switzerland-bans-minarets-long-live-referendums-even-when-they-go-the-wrong-way/
Interesting
ICantSpellDawg
11-30-2009, 14:03
http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/720921/74a7c509/raket_vs_minaret.html
I like the first quote "winning hearts and minds, meet yihaaa"
HoreTore
11-30-2009, 14:49
I like the first quote "winning hearts and minds, meet yihaaa"
Is anyone still wondering why the US has failed in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Kralizec
11-30-2009, 15:14
I don't think it's fair to paint off the majority of Swiss as racists. Ultimately, a minaret is just a feature of a building. Some probably voted for the ban because they think minarets don't match the surrounding architecture.
What was the wording of the referendum, anyway?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-30-2009, 15:35
That being said, if they can find an example of this only applying to Muslim-built structures, I would think it's a little xenophobic.
Only devotees of Shiva murdered people on the open road, the British still banned (and then supressed) Thugee. If only one group does something that doesn't make it sacrosanct, quite the opposite really.
Furunculus
11-30-2009, 15:43
Only devotees of Shiva murdered people on the open road, the British still banned (and then supressed) Thugee. If only one group does something that doesn't make it sacrosanct, quite the opposite really.
now hold on there PVC, with heresy like that you're going to start certain types whining about the tyranny of the majority all over again.
HoreTore
11-30-2009, 15:48
now hold on there PVC, with heresy like that you're going to start certain types whining about the tyranny of the majority all over again.
Nah, this is a perfect example of the stupidity of the majority.
Switzerland has their construction committees. They make sure that new buildings fit into the existing landscape well. A national ban is idiotic, unnecessary and yes, its only purpose is to make life harder for others.
This should get shot down in court. Here's hoping Switzerland has a working legal system....
Prussian to the Iron
11-30-2009, 16:52
This is a disgusting breach of Human Rights and Freedom of Religion.
It has nothing to do with the Minarets themselves. It is clear that the Swiss people (maybe not all, obviously) do not want to deal with the Muslim Immigrants, and so ban Minarets in an attempt to drive them away. If it is truly only a blending-in thing, than they should ban church towers and synagogue towers as well. equal for all.
I do have a Republican (don't know if that's far-right or far-left?), my mother, who gave her "insight" on this:
She said that it is because of forced marriages by Muslims in Switzerland, and asserts that Minarets are "A symbol of oppression to Muslim Women." This is not true, and Burkas are infinitely more of a symbol of this. She also cited the ban of Swastikas in Germany, comparing the 2. When rebuttled with "The Nazi's killed 6 million innocent people, and all members of the Nazi party fully supported and hated Jews." she came back with "Don't be so close minded.". Obviously she lost the argument, because as we all know, Muslims don't just go around rounding up people and killing them. Some extremist groups kill innocent civilians, but terrorists exist in all nations, languages, cultures and religions.
So there you have the basic view of why most of the peopole voted for it: Dislike of Islam. If only Synagogue towers were banned in America, would it just be okay? No. Not at all. Same should go with Mosques.
Ironside
11-30-2009, 16:56
Mosques can still be built just without the minarets. There is no restriction on Moslems practicing their religion bar building minarets. The reason church towers are allowed to be built is simply that they have always been there and very often were the first buildings put up in any given place. This is not to say that such towers are allowed to be built anywhere at any given time. They also have to undergo the strict building laws of the country. That is how the law of the land stands. If people want to change that, we can have another initiative and vote on it at a later date...
Shouldn't it be more reasonable and logical for any suggested minaret to undergo the same strict building laws as the rest of the country, instead of an outright ban? :inquisitive:
Then again I don't know how the debate have looked like.
Ignorance is probably a better word. I bet half of the people who voted for the ban wouldn't even be able to explain what minarets are used for.
Prussian to the Iron
11-30-2009, 17:01
Ignorance is probably a better word. I bet half of the people who voted for the ban wouldn't even be able to explain what minarets are used for.
this too. my mom didnt even know what it was. of course i, with my M2 experience, knew right off the bat :P
Furunculus
11-30-2009, 17:14
This is a disgusting breach of Human Rights and Freedom of Religion.
So there you have the basic view of why most of the peopole voted for it: Dislike of Islam. If only Synagogue towers were banned in America, would it just be okay? No. Not at all. Same should go with Mosques.
that is YOUR opinion, and you aren't Swiss, as far as i know, so your opinion doesn't count.
the swiss people/nation can do as they please................. and live with the consequences.
Ignorance is probably a better word. I bet half of the people who voted for the ban wouldn't even be able to explain what minarets are used for.
no, probably not.
but they are not obliged to know, or to feel comfortable with someone else's religious symbols.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
for the record, i maintain that the ban is daft (for reasons similar to hannan), but that they have the right to be daft if that is their want (for reasons similar to hannan).
Ignorance is probably a better word. I bet half of the people who voted for the ban wouldn't even be able to explain what minarets are used for.
tell me
that is YOUR opinion, and you aren't Swiss, as far as i know, so your opinion doesn't count..
Yes, in exactly the same way that Swiss Muslim's opinion don't count.
no, probably not.
but they are not obliged to know, or to feel comfortable with someone else's religious symbols.
The only thing worse in a democracy than non-voters, is ignorant voters. They are obliged to know if they're going to make a decision.
for the record, i maintain that the ban is daft (for reasons similar to hannan), but that they have the right to be daft if that is their want (for reasons similar to hannan).
Well, you reap what you sow.
EDIT:
tell me
It's a tower from where the call to prayer is announced, and they're about as extreme as Church spires.
Furunculus
11-30-2009, 18:38
Yes, in exactly the same way that Swiss Muslim's opinion don't count.
The only thing worse in a democracy than non-voters, is ignorant voters. They are obliged to know if they're going to make a decision.
Well, you reap what you sow.
sure they do, up to ~3.0% of the vote.
what if they do know, and still don't like the idea of minarets?
well, switzerland has sown a strongly democratic political system, and it continues to reap strong voter satisfaction as declared by its citizens..........
Prussian to the Iron
11-30-2009, 18:54
but they are not obliged to know, or to feel comfortable with someone else's religious symbols.
oh, so if i do not feel comfortable with a crucifix displaying a bloody/dying jesus than we should vote to ban it? not hardly. if someone doesn't feel comfortable with minarets being there, than they should have a reason. it was stated already that the call to prayer was not announced to the outside from the minarets in existence there. is that not conforming enough?
InsaneApache
11-30-2009, 19:13
It's hilarious watching the usual suspects throw their dummys out of the pram when democracy delivers an outcome that they don't like. It's as though yes, I believe in democracy but only if it gives a result I agree with.
Says it all about some folks on the left. :shame:
HoreTore
11-30-2009, 19:23
It's hilarious watching the usual suspects throw their dummys out of the pram when democracy delivers an outcome that they don't like. It's as though yes, I believe in democracy but only if it gives a result I agree with.
Says it all about some folks on the left. :shame:
Uhm...... This is a debate forum, IA. We discuss stuff here. The way a discussion usually works is that we all say what we all believe in, and what we want should happen.
How much debate would there be if we all went "yeah ok, they had a vote about it, so I guess that's my opinion now..."?
EDIT: Also, might I point out that the most vocal opposition to this has come from Frags? And he sure ain't no leftie....
Strike For The South
11-30-2009, 20:03
On the one hand I agree that a certian degree of the old country should be preserved (this is something us folk in the western hemisphere don't understand even our old cities are about 400 years old)
On the other hand, it would be possible to view this behavior as somewhat fascist..
I mean srsly. How many mosques are in Switzerland? 8? How many will have minnerates? 2?
You wonder why these people have nothing contempnt for you natives. Where in the hell do you people get off telling people what they can and cannot do with there land?
In fascist Syria, Christians are granted land and funds for building churches. In democratic Switzerland, Muslims cannot build a minaret on their mosque.
It's hilarious watching the usual suspects throw their dummys out of the pram when democracy delivers an outcome that they don't like. It's as though yes, I believe in democracy but only if it gives a result I agree with.
Says it all about some folks on the left. :shame:
But... is that not the point of democracy?
I voted for the ban. Some of you are much closer to the point. Most people (I know) have voted likewise not because they associate themselves with the right-wing party (or any party at all, for that matter) but because, personally, we think that minarets do not fit into the picture of Swiss scenery, i.e., people voted in favour of the building laws rather than against Islam as such.
I strongly disagree how this was handled by the political parties. Some people have voted the right thing in my opinion but for all the wrong reasons. That makes me sad and it's actually quite tragic.
Mosques can still be built just without the minarets. There is no restriction on Moslems practicing their religion bar building minarets. The reason church towers are allowed to be built is simply that they have always been there and very often were the first buildings put up in any given place. This is not to say that such towers are allowed to be built anywhere at any given time. They also have to undergo the strict building laws of the country. That is how the law of the land stands. If people want to change that, we can have another initiative and vote on it at a later date...
I do not believe that a country has to bend over backwards to traditions and practices of other countries' people who have immigrated. I think, quite the opposite is the case. Switzerland's population consists of roughly 22% 'non-Swiss'. They are intergrated much better than in many other countries and people in general are very liberal towards 'foreigners'. We may not be the friendliest people, the funniest people, or indeed the most cheerful but we do have a history of letting others live with us in relative peace and harmony.
Quid
That seems like a valid viewpoint to me :bow:
Sasaki Kojiro
11-30-2009, 20:37
It makes perfect sense how quid explained it, you should take a look at that post.
Boston has height restrictions on buildings, so minarets are basically banned downtown there.
HoreTore
11-30-2009, 21:53
Boston has height restrictions on buildings, so minarets are basically banned downtown there.
That's completely different.
Boston's restrictions are for everyone. This one targets one kind of building specifically. Also, Boston's restrictions are local, and for a specific area. I highly doubt that the US government is willing to extend those restrictions to the entire country.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-30-2009, 22:10
That's completely different.
Boston's restrictions are for everyone. This one targets one kind of building specifically. Also, Boston's restrictions are local, and for a specific area. I highly doubt that the US government is willing to extend those restrictions to the entire country.
So what?
Making a comparison implies a difference. Pointing out the difference has no inherent meaning. If I said "fish tastes like chicken" you wouldn't say "but they are completely different, fish swim in the water and chickens have feathers" would you? Obviously I'm contending that the difference is not relevant (pointing at quid's post for an explanation why).
One of my pet peeves, since people do that a lot in politics threads. It's harder to actually say something significant.
Louis VI the Fat
12-01-2009, 01:09
https://img37.imageshack.us/img37/5188/minarettinitiative2009d.jpg (https://img37.imageshack.us/i/minarettinitiative2009d.jpg/)
On the left, the French speaking cantons. All of the non-voting cantons were Frenchspeaking. All of the yes-voting cantons were non-Francophone. The famous barrière de röstis/ Röstigraben.
The West to East change in colour is striking. Switzerland, Swizerland...
aimlesswanderer
12-01-2009, 08:15
An interesting map that. Another vote for paranoia and intolerance. I have doubts that this will make Switzerland a happier, more harmonious place somehow. I see increases in anti Muslim sentiment, making the Muslims more scared and more likely to go fundamentalist... woohoo.
Furunculus
12-01-2009, 10:52
and yet it is switzerlands strongly democratic form of governance that causes its citizenry to be satisfied with their country.
we, in britain, could do worse given our broken political institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Germany would have voted the same way:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,664231,00.html
.......................But mass circulation Bild, which can claim to have its finger on the nation's pulse more than other newspapers, said Germans would probably vote the same way if they were allowed a referendum on the issue:
"The minaret isn't just the symbol of a religion but of a totally different culture. Large parts of the Islamic world don't share our basic European values: the legacy of the Enlightenment, the equality of man and woman, the separation of church and state, a justice system independent of the Bible or the Koran and the refusal to impose one's own beliefs on others with 'fire and the sword.' Another factor is likely to have influenced the Swiss vote: Nowhere is life made harder for Christians than in Islamic countries. Those who are intolerant themselves cannot expect unlimited tolerance from others."..............................
and another:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,664176-2,00.html
So far, centrist politicians across the continent have failed to find an adequate response to the growing concern.
As such, it would be inaccurate to explain away the Swiss referendum results by merely pointing to xenophobia in the country. It is also an expression of the failures of the liberal political elite to adequately address the issue and to find solutions to the real and perceived problems with Muslim immigrants.
try blaming this one on Thatcher! lol
HoreTore
12-01-2009, 12:53
and yet it is switzerlands strongly democratic form of governance that causes its citizenry to be satisfied with their country.
Try checking out voter turnout before you make such claims.
If they were truly satisfied and the system was efficient, then surely 53% wouldn't be considered a "very high turnout"...? Voter turnout in Norway is stable at around 75%, btw....
Sorry, but I won't look up to a system that half a nation doesn't even care about.
In fascist Syria, Christians are granted land and funds for building churches. In democratic Switzerland, Muslims cannot build a minaret on their mosque.
Not that I agree with this ban, but it isn't the same thing, christians have always lived in Syria, call it xenophobic but people don't like it when their landscape changes. I do wonder what really happened here, did they really vote against minarettes or did they send out a warning to their government 'untill here and no further'
Furunculus
12-01-2009, 13:38
Try checking out voter turnout before you make such claims.
If they were truly satisfied and the system was efficient, then surely 53% wouldn't be considered a "very high turnout"...? Voter turnout in Norway is stable at around 75%, btw....
Sorry, but I won't look up to a system that half a nation doesn't even care about.
and yet they are such a happy and contented bunch:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction_with_Life_Index
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_index
and the Swiss seem to have a very low perception of corruption:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bribe_Payers_Index
and again; it doesn't matter what you think about the deficiencies of the Swiss political system, because you ain't Swiss, and they as it happens seem to feel they live a blessed life compared to other nations.
Voter turnout in Norway is stable at around 75%, btw....
It's too bad that such a large percentage of your population doesn't vote.
95% here btw...
Try checking out voter turnout before you make such claims.
If they were truly satisfied and the system was efficient, then surely 53% wouldn't be considered a "very high turnout"...? Voter turnout in Norway is stable at around 75%, btw....
Sorry, but I won't look up to a system that half a nation doesn't even care about.
Only being able to speak for myself, I am extremely happy to be living in Switzerland. I have lived in several countries over my life and I would not change our political system for any other in the world. Naturally, others may feel differently but that is fine too. One of the worst things that could happen to Switzerland would be for its population to lose the proper right to start initiatives and force the government to hold referenda.
I do not vote on every single issue either. Some simply don't interest me or don't affect me in the slightest. However (and this is the big one), I have the choice to vote should I so desire.
As with most decisions taken in Switzerland, compromises will eventually come about. I am sure that it will be no different with this. One drawback in a direct democracy, of course, is the time put on change. Things naturally will take longer to progress (or regress), but the main object is that the population has its say. Granted, not all decisions reached are the 'right' ones but it gives us time to learn and regard the voice of the majority.
The mentioned political division (Röstigraben) has always been there, is still there, and will always be there. Much of that has to do with geography. However, we all regard ourselves as Swiss and only want the best for our country. The map a few posts earlier does show the political division but it does also show that close to half of the Suisse Romande (the French speaking part) - with the exception of Geneva - have only narrowly rejected the notion.
In reality, we regard ourselves as one people and readily accept each other in any shape or form. We make jokes about each other but in the end of the day we are united and would not have it any other way.
Quid
Food for thought (Devil's (?) advocate)
1) What discrimination? The "no" against minarettes is for everybody, not just muslims; atheists and Christians can't build them either. Religion is a private matter. That your religious desires interfere with certain legislation is unfortunate, but since the government is secular and a-religion, it doesn't matter. Why the outcries of "racism" and "discrimination"?
2) Granted, some people probably voted no because they don't like muslims, but who are we to judge? Are we mind readers? Because some right wing idiots made distasteful pamflets, you all asume the Swiss are muslim haters and all Swiss who voted no did so because they don't like Islam? Who are we to say that the majority of those who voted no didn't do so because they simply don't like minarettes out of aestethical reasons or because they are in favour of Swiss building laws as mentioned by Quid?
There are several other valid reasons to vote against minarettes that have nothing to do with racism and discrimination, yet many of you all assume that isn't the case. Why are the Swiss being judged so harshly? Automatically assuming that all Swiss are racist is a racist assumption.
Apparently, the Swiss don't agree with the "everything goes, everything should be allowed" attitude. That doesn't make them a bunch of racists, does it?
So much drama over some building laws. It's not like Islam has been forbidden in Switzerland, is it?
Too much drama, me thinks. What will you do if there would happen something that would really be worthy to be enraged for?
Why do some of you assume that the right-wing nutjobs with their distasteful pamflets represent the majority of the Swiss?
Why are you depicting the Swiss as devils?
EDIT: I would never want a minarette in the heart of the historical center of Bruges. The first one to insult me by calling me a racist for that, is expected to offer me his sincere apologies while sitting on his knees and deeply bowing his head.
Sasaki Kojiro
12-01-2009, 14:13
Plenty of school cafeterias don't serve kosher food...or raw vegan food...
Plenty of school cafeterias don't serve kosher food...or raw vegan food...
They are all racists!
See, by throwing around the word racist at every opportunity, you make it a joke. Racism is not a joke and it is not something to throw at others lightly.
Sasaki Kojiro
12-01-2009, 14:25
They are all racists!
See, by throwing around the word racist at every opportunity, you make it a joke. Racism is not a joke and it is not something to throw at others lightly.
People do throw it around far too much, but they don't make it a joke, that's the problem. Moral judgements tend to be all or nothing.
Louis VI the Fat
12-01-2009, 14:58
the heart of the historical center of Bruges. My eternal beloved...
*weeps uncontrollably https://img207.imageshack.us/img207/2027/azcrying.gif (https://img207.imageshack.us/i/azcrying.gif/)*
Cursed city. Few sights in this world torment my soul more than the unbearable, cold beauty of Bruges.
Prussian to the Iron
12-01-2009, 15:14
the problem with swiss direct democracy is that every idiot, every anti-muslim, gets an equal vote.
for direct democracy to work, there needs to be some sort of intelligence restriction. like your I.Q. has to be at least 105. that way only people who know what they are doing have an effect on the country.
Furunculus
12-01-2009, 15:25
the problem with swiss direct democracy is that every idiot, every anti-muslim, gets an equal vote.
for direct democracy to work, there needs to be some sort of intelligence restriction. like your I.Q. has to be at least 105. that way only people who know what they are doing have an effect on the country.
well yes......................................... every adult of sound mind get's an equal right to democratic representation, even the ones with opinions you don't like.
Prussian to the Iron
12-01-2009, 15:37
well yes......................................... every adult of sound mind get's an equal right to democratic representation, even the ones with opinions you don't like.
thats not what i said. i said if they have a high enough iq. i wouldnt want a bunch of idiots who cant understand anything about the issues in the country voting.
Furunculus
12-01-2009, 15:47
thats not what i said. i said if they have a high enough iq. i wouldnt want a bunch of idiots who cant understand anything about the issues in the country voting.
in effect there is; you have to be of sound mind, i.e. legally responsible.
what you are talking about doing is removing the right to vote from ~60% of eligible voters, and justifying it based on the idea that your opinions are so nuanced and 'deep' that only people with above average IQ can even comprehend them. worse than that you equate rejection of your opinions as evidence of a reduced intellectual ability, and thus ineligibility to vote.
As a response to Furunculus' quote of Der Spiegel:
So in fact they are suggesting that we should be intolerant to Muslims, as Muslims are supposedly intolerant agaisnt Christians (?). You don't answer intolerance by intolerance, as you don't put out a fire by pouring more four upon it. It will simply consume everything in its path.
As a response to Furunculus' quote of Der Spiegel:
So in fact they are suggesting that we should be intolerant to Muslims, as Muslims are supposedly intolerant agaisnt Christians (?). You don't answer intolerance by intolerance, as you don't put out a fire by pouring more four upon it. It will simply consume everything in its path.
I assume Bild is the equivalent of Het Laatste Nieuws. It's useful to wipe your :daisy: with.
Prussian to the Iron
12-01-2009, 15:54
in effect there is; you have to be of sound mind, i.e. legally responsible.
what you are talking about doing is removing the right to vote from ~60% of eligible voters, and justifying it based on the idea that your opinions are so nuanced and 'deep' that only people with above average IQ can even comprehend them. worse than that you equate rejection of your opinions as evidence of a reduced intellectual ability, and thus ineligibility to vote.
i have no problem being voted against if there is an intelligent reason for it. but when idiots vote with no logical or intellectual reasoning, it is not ok.
There's no good reason to have minarets. They serve no purpose other than being a point of contention in a pissing contest between the locals and muslims.
Furunculus
12-01-2009, 16:00
As a response to Furunculus' quote of Der Spiegel:
So in fact they are suggesting that we should be intolerant to Muslims, as Muslims are supposedly intolerant agaisnt Christians (?). You don't answer intolerance by intolerance, as you don't put out a fire by pouring more four upon it. It will simply consume everything in its path.
if you refer to the first article; i agree that choosing to be intolerant to your muslims because someone elses muslim are intolerant to someone elses christians is daft.
however, there is plenty of evidence that many Swiss sided with the yes vote because they agreed with their building regulations that attempt to keep architecture 'swiss', and they don't give a damn about other peoples notions of absolute equality which demand that every parallel of potential discrimination be considered before applying a regulation.
the fact that minaret = church tower is irrelevant to the swiss, because their building reg's are designed to keep architecture swiss looking, not christian looking, or gender tolerant, or ethnically compatible, or any other notion.
if you refer to the second article; i disagree, as the premise of the article is that those who may have supported the yes vote for reasons other than support of the building code, did so as a protest against a mainstream political class that refuses to answer to their worries about mass immigration of people different from themselves.
Furunculus
12-01-2009, 16:01
I assume Bild is the equivalent of Het Laatste Nieuws. It's useful to wipe your :daisy: with.
that might be a foolish assumption to make if you have no basis on which to make that judgement?
for direct democracy to work, there needs to be some sort of intelligence restriction. like your I.Q. has to be at least 105. that way only people who know what they are doing have an effect on the country.
But then the issues of those you consider to be "idiots" would be ignored.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-01-2009, 16:07
the problem with swiss direct democracy is that every idiot, every anti-muslim, gets an equal vote.
for direct democracy to work, there needs to be some sort of intelligence restriction. like your I.Q. has to be at least 105. that way only people who know what they are doing have an effect on the country.
Firstly, 105 IQ is above average. So you're IQ'ist.
A minaret is an irrelevant architechural feature in Switzerland, because (if you read the article) they aren't used for the call to prayer anyway. The mean less then Church Bell Towers, which are at least used on Sundays, High Days, Holy Day, Weddings, and during Bell-Ringing contests.
that might be a foolish assumption to make if you have no basis on which to make that judgement?
You're right :shame:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-01-2009, 16:13
i have no problem being voted against if there is an intelligent reason for it. but when idiots vote with no logical or intellectual reasoning, it is not ok.
Massive assumption, Quid has already given a reasoned explanation of why he voted for the ban.
Prussian to the Iron
12-01-2009, 16:16
Massive assumption, Quid has already given a reasoned explanation of why he voted for the ban.
and im fine with that. but do you honestly think the majority of the people who voted for it actually thought about it like that? no.
Speculation of what were the voters thinking when casting their votes is just that: speculation.
Furunculus
12-01-2009, 16:26
and im fine with that. but do you honestly think the majority of the people who voted for it actually thought about it like that? no.
are you willing to write off the worth of the referendum on the assumption that Swiss people are baddies?
Strike For The South
12-01-2009, 16:36
The Swiss can do what they want but this stinks of authortarinism.
People are supposed to assimalate on there own this will simply be a lightning rod.
Ja'chyra
12-01-2009, 16:42
Lol, some of the comments in here are bordering on the ridiculous.
So the Swiss voted to ban minarets, what exactly is wrong with that? As I see it they have their way of running the country which says that the people get to vote on things, at least the people are represented rather than relying on politicians to reflect the peoples wishes, which is impossible so they should be representing the majority of their constituents but how many actually do that?
So who should vote? Why should it only be people with a minimum level of IQ, does having a lower IQ mean you don't have an opinion? Of course it doesn't and as they live in the country then their view is just as valid as anyones. If you do go down that road where should the IQ limit be set, surely a genius should be able to argue that it should be, say, set at the level of his IQ as his decisions will be more rational and thought out than someone with an IQ lower than his, so maybe the most intelligent person in country should just make all the decisions and cut out all the middle men, or citizens are they are sometimes called..
Are the Swiss racist? Going by this vote there is no evidence to suggest they are, if they voted and passed a bill saying that all muslims should be deported then you may have an argument.
In my view saying that the Swiss are racist based on this story is the same as saying, oh I don't know so lets pick one from thin air, all British soldiers are criminals. It's just plain ignorant and bigotted.
The Swiss can do what they want but this stinks of authortarinism.
People are supposed to assimalate on there own this will simply be a lightning rod.
Yeah, evil democracy with its' tyranny of the majority :rolleyes:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-01-2009, 17:05
and im fine with that. but do you honestly think the majority of the people who voted for it actually thought about it like that? no.
So you just assume the majoriety of people are ignorant bigots? Rather than assuming that the majoriety of people see a new architechural feature and decide they don't like, and thence ban it?
So the Swiss voted to ban minarets, what exactly is wrong with that?
Incredibly much, I think Darius summed it up few posts back.
Ser Clegane
12-01-2009, 17:16
that might be a foolish assumption to make if you have no basis on which to make that judgement?
As a German I can confirm that "Bild" (http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,412021,00.html) is a populist piece of yellow press filth with a lot of racist untertones in its "reporting".
@ Prussion Iron:
You seem to have a rather warped sense of democracy. Excluding half of the population based on IQ? Elitist very much...
Furunculus
12-01-2009, 17:19
Incredibly much, I think Darius summed it up few posts back.
that people other than the Swiss may perceive this as anti-muslim-religion rather than anti-non-swiss-architecture is their problem, not the Swiss peoples.
As a German I can confirm that "Bild" (http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,412021,00.html) is a populist piece of yellow press filth with a lot of racist untertones in its "reporting".
cheers for the info, and yet, der spiegel seems to think that Bild's editorial is inline with popular german opinion, and that germany would have given the same result to the same referendum..........?
Cute Wolf
12-01-2009, 17:26
Soory to interupt your discussion, but I see the point of the banning Minarets in Swiss you are all missed.... Just read this:
from: http://www.indonesiamatters.com/1103/mosque-loudspeaker-noise/
Parvita writes on the topic: Loudspeaker Abuse in the Mosques: should mosques be disciplined?
If you live in Jakarta and look around some of the housing pockets in the area, how many mosques do you find in 5 kilometer radius? Have you ever seen a mosque without a loudspeaker? Have you ever had trouble sleeping because the mosque(s) was/were so loud, not only during adzan?
I stayed for couple of days in my sister's place at Pancoran area. I can hear at least two different adzans, so at least there are two mosques around there. The first night I stayed there, I was awakened by the Adzan Subuh. Which is alright. Then it stopped. But the last couple of days staying there, I was awakened around 3:30am by the sound of somebody reading the Qur'an with very high pitched voice.
It is not only there. At Kuningan, there are also at least 3 mosques using loudspeakers and they don't only use it during adzan, but also for calling each other, announcing who donated money or food, who died, sometimes kids singing, and all other kinds of information that are not really important (maybe for the neighbourhood, but not for all the people living in the apartment, I believe!).
Honestly, I feel bothered. First of all, the loudspeaker in the mosques has been abused. When you call for prayers, that is a reminder. Reading the qur'an loudly, or saying prayers or preachings loudly, that is already bothering other people's privacy. Especially when it is used for other things like calling your friends, that is extremely rude and insensitive; we have no choice to listen or not to listen. Some people still need to sleep, they need to work early and leave work late, and they want to have a decent sleep to be ready for work the next day, and here they are with their loudspeakers. I often wonder, when I need concentration in the office, those people are back in bed, taking a nap. Especially during Ramadhan. Experienced very loud sounds that keep you awake from 2am?
Second of all, is there any rules on how loud a loudspeaker can be, and how far from one mosque can you build another mosque? Check the Tegal Parang area, Warung Buncit. Just walk along the small street and look at how many mosques you see in that small area. A lot. And can you imagine if all of them abuse the use of the loudspeakers? Noise pollution.
Moslem people here believe that when you build a mosque, your merit "points" (pahala) will continue even when you are dead. Some people build mosque so that they are socially uplifted. Even though the Qur'an clearly says that your merit score ends when you are dead. Moslems also believe that to spread the preaching is a must for moslems. The Qur'an clearly says not to 'sell cheap' the teachings (for one example, using the verses when you know people don't want to listen to them). Qur'an also tells that prayers that will be answered are those which are said with humble heart and low/soft voice. So where did they get this idea?
I'm not a believer in hadits, but I remember someone told me that one of the hadits mentioned that the distance between building one mosque and another is when the adzan cannot be heard from the previous mosque. That makes sense. I wonder if there is any regulation in Jakarta for building mosques. Seems like there isn't.
Call me what you want, I am a moslem myself, I say my prayers, but me, my parents, my siblings living around Jakarta, and my other friends who are moslems, they feel bothered. But nobody goes to the mosque and complains. Of course nobody dares. What is the use of pointing out what is written in the Qur'an to them?
Well, the problem is noise pollution comes from not only the 5 times Adzans (call to prayers), but also their quranic recitals, prayers, and often sudden verses reading in the night... I lived in Indonesia, and yes, every night you'll get uneasy sleep because your nearest mosque suddenly calls or reads something... in the midnight, very loudly... even with the nearest mosque was about 500m from my house in Bandung, the noise is very disturbing, even to their fellow non "hardliner" muslims that didn't had "sholat tahajud" in the midnight, and didn't want to wake up from their sleep because someone in the mosque read quran... Fortunely, since 2 years ago, my government issue a ban on etremely loud mosque speakers, because the less religious people complained about their noisy pollution here... I think the swiss government may have goes too far in that case, but I agree with them as long as they only said about "sound control".
The Church may rang their bells too loud, but at least they rang it only once day for a week, while mosques' minarets shout their calls 5 times a day, and one in the midnight, and even (if the mosques has some extremely religious person live nearby) unpredictable recitals everyday....
It wasn't about discrimination, it was about the prospect of "sound pollution"
- And telling the mosques to calm their sounds can't be done in gentle way... as they only stop their too loud calls when the police start consficating their sound equipment here... And if that happened on Swiss (they allready got their freedom to calls out too loud) they'll accuse the governent of Human Rights violation later when the police starts consficating their Speakers and megaphone... better stop them before they grows uncontrollable...
Ser Clegane
12-01-2009, 17:38
and yet, der spiegel seems to think that Bild's editorial is inline with popular german opinion, and that germany would have given the same result to the same referendum..........?
Quite frankly - if we had such a referendum here in Germany, I would not be surprised to see an outcome very similar to that in Switzerland.
While "Bild" might be correct with this assessment, my problem with this "newspaper" is that they would certainly also try to incfluence the public opinion to get the same result as in Switzerland.
Personally, I would object to such a general ban of minarets - the construction of minarets should be subject to case by case decisions just like every other construction project.
Minarets should not get special treatment - neither in a positive nor in a negative way.
But in the end I have to agree with you - it was a democratic decision by the Swiss and the other side apparently failed to make a compelling argument for their case...
Personally, I would object to such a general ban of minarets - the construction of minarets should be subject to case by case decisions just like every other construction project.
I agree that that would be better. Maybe the Swiss would have decided likewise if it would have been an option, but it seems like nobody thought of putting in the option "let the local authorities decide case by case" in the referendum.
It was apparently a yes or no question and the Swiss decided "no" and it was a democratic decision.
What I dislike is that people jump to conclusions too hastily. Voting no against minarets doesn't make one a racist.
Ser Clegane
12-01-2009, 17:47
but I see the point of the banning Minarets in Swiss you are all missed..
I actually doubt that a regular call to prayers (especially during the night) is regularly practiced at existing mosques in Switzerland (perhaps quid can shed a light on this point).
Apart from that - even without a minaret you can probably still make your "call to prayer". Only the minarets have been banned, mosques can still be built.
Cute Wolf
12-01-2009, 18:05
I actually doubt that a regular call to prayers (especially during the night) is regularly practiced at existing mosques in Switzerland (perhaps quid can shed a light on this point).
Apart from that - even without a minaret you can probably still make your "call to prayer". Only the minarets have been banned, mosques can still be built.
Yeah... If you shout something loud in the ground level at night, your sound will be dissipated rather quickly by density gradation made by cooler temperature at base level (so the sounds will dissipated by travelling under the ground), but if you built minarets, the sounds will be greatly amplified downward through the same principle in the air (the amplitudo downwards is greater than voice amplitudo upwards, resulting in much louder sound wave to the ground level, which made their sounds extremely noisy at night)... this is Sound Wave Physics afterall... The Call for Prayer in the ground level is much gentler to hear than the one from minarets
Sasaki Kojiro
12-01-2009, 18:36
As a response to Furunculus' quote of Der Spiegel:
So in fact they are suggesting that we should be intolerant to Muslims, as Muslims are supposedly intolerant agaisnt Christians (?). You don't answer intolerance by intolerance, as you don't put out a fire by pouring more four upon it. It will simply consume everything in its path.
Technically, fighting fire with fire is one of the best ways to put it out.
Kralizec
12-01-2009, 19:01
Food for thought (Devil's (?) advocate)
1) What discrimination? The "no" against minarettes is for everybody, not just muslims; atheists and Christians can't build them either. Religion is a private matter. That your religious desires interfere with certain legislation is unfortunate, but since the government is secular and a-religion, it doesn't matter. Why the outcries of "racism" and "discrimination"?
I think that barring gay marriage is a form of discrimination. Some disagree, because gay people can still marry people of the opposite gender and straight people can't marry people of their own gender either.
If it had been a generic description of standards every building has to conform to, you'd have a point. But the wording of the amendment makes it clear that it's discriminative in both intent and practice.
Speaking of wich, when is something a minaret? I think Swiss muslims ought to start putting towers on their mosques wich resemble church bell towers. And as soon as the authorities step in, have a lawyer argue that the tower is actually a church tower stuck on a mosque.
Besides it doesn't make much sense to enshrine mere building regulations in a nation's constitution. (and I think it's weird that their constitution can be changed by a simple majority, especially with such a low turnout)
2) Granted, some people probably voted no because they don't like muslims, but who are we to judge? Are we mind readers? Because some right wing idiots made distasteful pamflets, you all asume the Swiss are muslim haters and all Swiss who voted no did so because they don't like Islam? Who are we to say that the majority of those who voted no didn't do so because they simply don't like minarettes out of aestethical reasons or because they are in favour of Swiss building laws as mentioned by Quid?
I agree, I doubt that the majority of Swiss are xenophobes. But if I thought that minarets were butt ugly and wanted them gone, I still wouldn't have voted for a law that would accomplish that by specifically targetting one group of people, and wich is a treated as a trophy by racist politicians ~:shrug:
Louis VI the Fat
12-01-2009, 19:07
The Swiss can do what they wantNo they can't.
Democracy, contrary to common belief, does not mean majority rule. It means minority rights.
We'll see if this referendum holds up in court.
Me, I am still very torn.
Crazed Rabbit
12-01-2009, 19:11
the problem with swiss direct democracy is that every idiot, every anti-muslim, gets an equal vote.
for direct democracy to work, there needs to be some sort of intelligence restriction. like your I.Q. has to be at least 105. that way only people who know what they are doing have an effect on the country.
I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. You can't say that the people who voted for this did so because they disliked Islam. Nor can you even say the people who did vote against it because they dislike Islam are stupid. They may be quite smart (in IQ terms, not about reasons for voting).
It is a huge fallacy to think that most of the 'smarter' people agree with you. And hugely discriminatory to prevent people from voting because they fall below some arbitrary level in a shoddy test.
CR
Sasaki Kojiro
12-01-2009, 19:18
No they can't.
Democracy, contrary to common belief, does not mean majority rule. It means minority rights.
I agree, but if this is a matter of taste, then majority rule has to apply in a democracy. You can argue that people should care less about matters of taste, but it's kind of arbitrary what you care about and what you don't, so :juggle2:
I actually doubt that a regular call to prayers (especially during the night) is regularly practiced at existing mosques in Switzerland (perhaps quid can shed a light on this point).
Apart from that - even without a minaret you can probably still make your "call to prayer". Only the minarets have been banned, mosques can still be built.
You don't see his point
KukriKhan
12-01-2009, 19:21
Besides it doesn't make much sense to enshrine mere building regulations in a nation's constitution. (and I think it's weird that their constitution can be changed by a simple majority, especially with such a low turnout)
Sadly, we have a similar device in California*, with the result that The California Constitution is a mess to read, results in many costly lawsuits, and is a headache for our constitutional courts. I hold the opinion that it should be much more difficult to amend a basic governmental organizing document, like a constitution. At least two-thirds vote should be required, on top of a minimum 51% turnout.
*California population is @37 million, vs Switzerland @8 million
Prussian to the Iron
12-01-2009, 19:34
Besides it doesn't make much sense to enshrine mere building regulations in a nation's constitution. (and I think it's weird that their constitution can be changed by a simple majority, especially with such a low turnout)
that makes a ton of sense as well. i like kukrikhan's system :P
and i remember reading on the first page, or in a link, or something that the Minarets existing there did not make the call to prayer. maybe from street level, but not from the minarets.
i think the thread title should be changed to:
"Swiss Ban Minarets"
as it has now occured and is not being voted upon.
As Cute Wolf tried to point out, everybody must have missed it, well few posts back.
Quite frankly - if we had such a referendum here in Germany, I would not be surprised to see an outcome very similar to that in Switzerland.
While "Bild" might be correct with this assessment, my problem with this "newspaper" is that they would certainly also try to incfluence the public opinion to get the same result as in Switzerland.
Of course. They're the equivalent of The Sun, in that they're just a comic; it literally translates as "PICTURES".
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-01-2009, 20:13
No they can't.
Democracy, contrary to common belief, does not mean majority rule. It means minority rights.
We'll see if this referendum holds up in court.
Me, I am still very torn.
Demos-Kratos "Rule by the People". It has nothing to do with minority rights at all, that is, along with "speration of powers" a product of French Enlightenment thinking. It isn't necessarily right.
Louis VI the Fat
12-01-2009, 20:14
Sadly, we have a similar device in California*, with the result that The California Constitution is a mess to read, results in many costly lawsuits, and is a headache for our constitutional courts. I hold the opinion that it should be much more difficult to amend a basic governmental organizing document, like a constitution. At least two-thirds vote should be required, on top of a minimum 51% turnout.
*California population is @37 million, vs Switzerland @8 millionI believe California has been 'direct democrafied' into bankruptcy, hasn't it?
:wall:
Ser Clegane
12-01-2009, 20:17
You don't see his point
Indeed - I don't.
To prevent "noise pollution" you do not need to ban minarets. You directly regulate "noise pollution".
Louis VI the Fat
12-01-2009, 20:22
Demos-Kratos "Rule by the People". It has nothing to do with minority rights at all, that is, along with "speration of powers" a product of French Enlightenment thinking. Is there any other system of political thought worth the name?
There is only one form of thinking, and that's Cartesian rationality and reason. The enitre rest of Western thought is superstiton.
If 51% of the population by majority vote elects to genocide the other 49%, is this considered a democratic state? No, of course not. This shows that 'democracy' does not mean majority rule, but that it is shorthand for that entire legacy of enlightened thought about human rights, rule of law, equality and liberty.
Hence, the highest sovereign in a democracy is not the majority, or even the people, but Reason.
*rushes off to tear down a minaret and convert The Madeleine into a Temple of Reason*
Demos-Kratos "Rule by the People". It has nothing to do with minority rights at all, that is, along with "speration of powers" a product of French Enlightenment thinking. It isn't necessarily right.
An effective democracy must protect minority rights. Your argument is like saying Televisions can't transmit sound, because they're made up of "Tele" and "Visio", and have nothing to do with sounds.
I believe California has been 'direct democrafied' into bankruptcy, hasn't it?
:wall:
The Economist described California's direct democracy quite aptly as "The Crack Cocaine of Democracy"
The Economist described California's direct democracy quite aptly as "The Crack Cocaine of Democracy"
:laugh4:
On topic, don't really have much to add. The picture of the minaret in the original article is pretty interesting. Apart from the electric blue roof, it looks like they Swissified it fairly well. I wonder if they have problems with snow accumulation on the catwalk. :inquisitive:
https://img34.imageshack.us/img34/8550/091129swissminarets1230.jpg
HoreTore
12-01-2009, 23:00
The thing about this ban is that it's specified against one particular type of building.
And that's idiotic on every level.
Have your building codes, make them however you wish, I don't care. But make the building code itself so good that it covers all the things you don't want, without the need to point out particular buildings to be banned.
McDonald's was mentioned earlier. There's no law specifically banning extremely big M's, but they can't be built anyway because they're banned by the building code, even though there's no law specifically targeting big M's. Having a specific law against every single construction you don't want is idiotic - just make a proper building code that covers all the unwanted buildings.
Another drawback of doing it like the swiss have done is that there is bound to be loopholes, some clever guy is going to find a way around it. "There's no Minaret on that mosque, my good sir! That's a very beautiful Winaret we built!"
Furunculus
12-01-2009, 23:39
Speaking of wich, when is something a minaret? I think Swiss muslims ought to start putting towers on their mosques wich resemble church bell towers. And as soon as the authorities step in, have a lawyer argue that the tower is actually a church tower stuck on a mosque.
i think you'd find that a referendum winning majority were quite happy with that solution.
Furunculus
12-01-2009, 23:47
Of course. They're the equivalent of The Sun, in that they're just a comic; it literally translates as "PICTURES".
and yet............................................ both der spiegel and ser clegane admit that germaNY probably would have voted the same way.
you can rubbish the source, but that does nothing to rubbish the result.
Furunculus
12-01-2009, 23:50
If 51% of the population by majority vote elects to genocide the other 49%, is this considered a democratic state? No, of course not. This shows that 'democracy' does not mean majority rule, but that it is shorthand for that entire legacy of enlightened thought about human rights, rule of law, equality and liberty.
we trust our electorate not to make such foolishb decisions, it is called being adult. are you not asble to do the same?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-01-2009, 23:58
Is there any other system of political thought worth the name?
There is only one form of thinking, and that's Cartesian rationality and reason. The enitre rest of Western thought is superstiton.
Plato said it first, and better. If he didn't, Xenophon or Aristotle did. Personally, I don't believe in the seperation of powers, because it never works in practice, either power ultimately remains in the hands of one man, inexcusably strengthened by a "Constitution" (America), or factionalism that causes the state to stall (South Africa).
If 51% of the population by majority vote elects to genocide the other 49%, is this considered a democratic state? No, of course not.
Sounds just like ancient Athens. :yes: DEMOCRACY!
This shows that 'democracy' does not mean majority rule, but that it is shorthand for that entire legacy of enlightened thought about human rights, rule of law, equality and liberty.
I believe the word you are actually looking for is "Republic", not Democracy. This is why you have a Campus Martius in Paris, isn't it?
Hence, the highest sovereign in a democracy is not the majority, or even the people, but Reason.
I'm not a huge fan of Reason, it can be used to justify anything. Nazi Germany was perfectly reasonable, once you accepted that those outside the State were worthless. The same principle was used by France in her colonies, was it not.
Don't even get me started on "electing" a monarch for a limited term, so that they rob the country blind.
Besides it doesn't make much sense to enshrine mere building regulations in a nation's constitution. (and I think it's weird that their constitution can be changed by a simple majority, especially with such a low turnout)
I agree that including building regulations in the constitution is overkill, and I also that a simple majority to change the constitution would be stupid, however the Swiss require a double majority, which is quite sensible.
Demos-Kratos "Rule by the People". It has nothing to do with minority rights at all, that is, along with "speration of powers" a product of French Enlightenment thinking. It isn't necessarily right.
You are quite correct "rule by the people" is the heart of democracy, but tyranny of the majority and suppression of the minority are not. The minority are people too, no? That is where the double majority comes in, if a majority of the population had voted yes, but a majority of the cantons(with a minority of the population) had voted no, then the referendum would not have been passed.
In Australia, there have been referendums that would have been passed had a simple majority been required, but a majority of states decided that the change would be a violation of their rights so they stopped it. Minority rights and rule by the people go hand in hand.
The minority are people too, no?
Not if the democratic majority decides they are not, in which case you can colonize them or restrict their liberties.
Furunculus
12-02-2009, 10:49
there's that fear again.
speaking only as a Brit; i don't fear the tyranny of the majority in my country, and thus have no objections to representative mechanisms subject to a high degree of democratic capability.
Speaking of wich, when is something a minaret? I think Swiss muslims ought to start putting towers on their mosques wich resemble church bell towers. And as soon as the authorities step in, have a lawyer argue that the tower is actually a church tower stuck on a mosque.
There is wisdom in that.
Instead of the usual yelling and screaming about "this is our land; in Swiss do like the Swiss. Our tradition! We! We! We!" vs. "Our fundamental rights and freedoms! We should be allowed to build [insert religious building], no matter how misplaced it is in your landscape! Our freedom! Ours! We! We!", why can't it be treated as adults?
How about the muslim community saying: "Well ok, we understand you don't like minarets" vs. the Swiss saying "You can have freedom of religion, but we simply don't like minarets; can't you build something that fits better into the landscape?"
To which the muslim community could propose to build a tower on their mosque which resembles the typical Swiss church towers, but has a half moon instead of a cross on top of it?
That way the muslim community shows that they are not fundamentalists, but are adult people prepared to compromise and adapt to local customs and the Swiss would have the opportunity to prove that they are not racists but simply don't like the look of minarets.
A nice compromise and everybody lives happy together.
Wouldn't that be better than the confrontation, yelling and hammering on one's rights? Clearly, there's a conflict of interests. Adult people don't keep yelling and demanding and being unreasonable when such a conflict happens; adult people take a deep breath, swallow some pride, negotiate and compromise.
I agree, I doubt that the majority of Swiss are xenophobes. But if I thought that minarets were butt ugly and wanted them gone, I still wouldn't have voted for a law that would accomplish that by specifically targetting one group of people, and wich is a treated as a trophy by racist politicians ~:shrug:
Let them claim it as "a trophy". It makes them look even more ridiculous then they already are.
Samurai Waki
12-02-2009, 12:01
Wouldn't that be better than the confrontation, yelling and hammering on one's rights? Clearly, there's a conflict of interests. Adult people don't keep yelling and demanding and being unreasonable when such a conflict happens; adult people take a deep breath, swallow some pride, negotiate and compromise.
Which Ape species are we talking about? People only compromise when every other option has been given consideration. Clearly compromise isn't the Outragasaur's strength.
there's that fear again.
speaking only as a Brit; i don't fear the tyranny of the majority in my country, and thus have no objections to representative mechanisms subject to a high degree of democratic capability.
It's more than a fear, it is how it works. This was the reality back in the (later) colonization days where it was democratic countries, not dictatorships, that colonized and exploited. It is never crystal clear who is included in the 'us', and who is worthy of being called a 'minority' as in someone to grant rights to. You might not fear the democratic process, but that doesn't mean these things do not happen.
Which Ape species are we talking about? People only compromise when every other option has been given consideration. Clearly compromise isn't the Outragasaur's strength.
Maybe it's time for the Homo Adultus Compromisus to stand up and grab the power from the incapable Outragasauri.
Louis VI the Fat
12-02-2009, 12:34
Maybe it's time for the Homo Adultus Compromisus to stand up and grab the power from the incapable Outragasauri.You mean, ban binding direct referenda?
You mean, ban binding direct referenda?
If complex situations are being reduced to oversimplified "yes" or "no" questions and some emotional mambo-jambo arguments which are blind for reason, then yes, ban referenda.
Furunculus
12-02-2009, 13:52
It's more than a fear, it is how it works. This was the reality back in the (later) colonization days where it was democratic countries, not dictatorships, that colonized and exploited. It is never crystal clear who is included in the 'us', and who is worthy of being called a 'minority' as in someone to grant rights to. You might not fear the democratic process, but that doesn't mean these things do not happen.
i'm not saying no-one should not fear un-bridled democracy, far from it, i speak only as a brit and about britain when i say i do not fear the people.
Seamus Fermanagh
12-02-2009, 15:05
...Personally, I don't believe in the seperation of powers, because it never works in practice, either power ultimately remains in the hands of one man, inexcusably strengthened by a "Constitution" (America), or factionalism that causes the state to stall (South Africa).
I disagree with your assessment of the United States. Though arrogation and acretion have, over the last 150 years, greatly enhanced the power of the office of the Presidency, it is incorrect to assert that we have any form of one-person rule in this country. Moreover, the increases in the de facto power of the Presidency has mostly been derived extra-constitutionally (many Presidents have, in the absence of a specific constitutional prohibition, simply moved forward with some project etc.), but the Constitution still does function to limit that power.
Prussian:
Setting aside the elitism of your 105 IQ benchmark for the suffrage, there are a couple of relevant practical problems as well.
1. Just how valid are the measures you would use to establish this quotient?
2. Why do you assume a strong correlation between intelligence and informed decision making? Is an informed 95-IQ'er not a better, more responsible voter than the 145 IQ'er who ignores all of that "politics crap" and focuses on their Guitar Hero skills?
Please note that, for example, here in the USA we have millions of people who meet or exceed the intellectual benchmark you set. But how many of them choose ignorance? We have regular "person in the street" features and frequently repeated polls that indicate that many (often most) of our college graduates cannot identify the current Vice President. Provided with a list of quotations, they will often ascribe the phrase "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" to the Declaration of Indepence. Ignorance abounds.
Prussian to the Iron
12-02-2009, 18:55
Is an informed 95-IQ'er not a better, more responsible voter than the 145 IQ'er who ignores all of that "politics crap" and focuses on their Guitar Hero skills?
are you discriminating against my 140-something IQ and Rock Band skills?
oddly enough, you literally just described me in the last part :P, except i'm more into CoD now than rock band.
but no. because in something like this, where it is an issue of "for Muslim rights" or "against Muslim rights" a 95-IQ'er would be worse, as there is not much to be informed about. rather than take into account the reactions that people could take depending on the decision, a less-intelligent person would simply vote what they want, not what is best.
Ser Clegane
12-02-2009, 19:05
a less-intelligent person would simply vote what they want, not what is best.
Again a huge assumption you are making here.
Intelligence is not necessarily the best indicator for altrusim. There are enough "intelligent" people who only care about their own advantage as there are enough "less-intelligent" people who are tolerant and care very much about other people.
Sorry, but the attitude that you know what is best for the "unwashed masses" strikes me as extremely arrogant, and as such makes a rather strong point for a referendum.
Perhaps the "intelligent" people should have leveraged their "intelligence" to make better arguments instead of feeling too sure that the vote in Switzerland would come to a different result (apparently the administration was pretty sure that the the voters would against a ban)
Prussian to the Iron
12-02-2009, 19:13
I'm not saying that less-intellegent people don't try to do what's best. but when they try, they often fail, and it is easier for a more intelligent person to think out what is truly best, than what is best at the moment.
Meh, I've always been Pro-Roman-Government-Style: Not Elitist; I hate people who are too rich, but I like the idea of intelligent people running the government, with some lower-class representatives to advise on what they are thinking.
I've been brought up in NC, where you will not find many good minds to help lower your ego. I usually see people of lesser intelligence below me, but what can I say?
Well, we can't have those Gammas, Deltas, or Epsilons voting, now can we? And I'm not so sure about those Betas either, they're a little shifty. :yes:
are you discriminating against my 140-something IQ
There is more to intelligence than just IQ, or EQ. I know people who have flunked all their exams, yet are extremely intelligent. Not letting the 50% of people who are below average intelligence vote sounds like a recipe for disaster. And smart people can be wrong sometimes.
Strike For The South
12-02-2009, 20:05
I'm not saying that less-intellegent people don't try to do what's best. but when they try, they often fail, and it is easier for a more intelligent person to think out what is truly best, than what is best at the moment.
Meh, I've always been Pro-Roman-Government-Style: Not Elitist; I hate people who are too rich, but I like the idea of intelligent people running the government, with some lower-class representatives to advise on what they are thinking.
I've been brought up in NC, where you will not find many good minds to help lower your ego. I usually see people of lesser intelligence below me, but what can I say?
Intelligence is pracitcally useless unless you can apply it to dealing with people.
You can be the stupidest person on the face of the Earth but if you have allot of friends chances are you'll be successful.
Not to say books smarts or brain power is useless, but the same guys who usually postulate these ideas are usually the same ones who end up contribuiting nothing to socitey
Ser Clegane
12-02-2009, 20:26
I'm not saying that less-intellegent people don't try to do what's best. but when they try, they often fail, and it is easier for a more intelligent person to think out what is truly best, than what is best at the moment.
So the bottomline is that, to make sure that a referendum does not - based on subjective fears - yield any results that could be seen as discriminating against a group of people, you suggest that we discriminate against people who do not meet a certain IQ bar ... based on the subjective assumption that these people are not capable to decide what is best.
:inquisitive:
Louis VI the Fat
12-02-2009, 20:51
less-intellegent people :wink3:
seireikhaan
12-02-2009, 21:47
There is wisdom in that.
Instead of the usual yelling and screaming about "this is our land; in Swiss do like the Swiss. Our tradition! We! We! We!" vs. "Our fundamental rights and freedoms! We should be allowed to build [insert religious building], no matter how misplaced it is in your landscape! Our freedom! Ours! We! We!", why can't it be treated as adults?
How about the muslim community saying: "Well ok, we understand you don't like minarets" vs. the Swiss saying "You can have freedom of religion, but we simply don't like minarets; can't you build something that fits better into the landscape?"
To which the muslim community could propose to build a tower on their mosque which resembles the typical Swiss church towers, but has a half moon instead of a cross on top of it?
That way the muslim community shows that they are not fundamentalists, but are adult people prepared to compromise and adapt to local customs and the Swiss would have the opportunity to prove that they are not racists but simply don't like the look of minarets.
A nice compromise and everybody lives happy together.
Wouldn't that be better than the confrontation, yelling and hammering on one's rights? Clearly, there's a conflict of interests. Adult people don't keep yelling and demanding and being unreasonable when such a conflict happens; adult people take a deep breath, swallow some pride, negotiate and compromise.
Does this look like the sort of minaret you were thinking of?
https://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x246/greaterkhaan/091129-swissminarets-1230astandard.jpg
Agreeing with Drone, I don't see it really sticking out so terribly, aside from the vibrant blue... :shrug:
If compromise was/is going to be reached, the Swiss had many alternatives to further "swiss-ify" future minarets, or offering different "variations" of minarets that would be more appealing. However, instead, they turned it into "us vs them" by hopping straight to the ban-hammer. Doesn't seem terribly mature to me.
KukriKhan
12-02-2009, 22:19
:wink3:
Shush, you. I was enjoying that. In a very quiet, French, Jerry Lewis kinda way.
Louis VI the Fat
12-02-2009, 22:30
Building regulations are one aspect. No free pass for religions is another. I can relate to both. Sadly, this is but the civilised façade of a movement with rather different origins and motives.
The political climate in Switzerland occupies itself mostly with other considerations. Here are the posters of the largest(!) political party in Switzerland, the party behind the initiative for the referendum:
https://img171.imageshack.us/img171/377/svpposterbirds1289684c.jpg (https://img171.imageshack.us/i/svpposterbirds1289684c.jpg/)
https://img171.imageshack.us/img171/7136/leadseriessvpposter2008.jpg (https://img171.imageshack.us/i/leadseriessvpposter2008.jpg/)
https://img7.imageshack.us/img7/3880/swisssheepl468x635.jpg (https://img7.imageshack.us/i/swisssheepl468x635.jpg/)
And the poster used for the ban on minarets:
https://img7.imageshack.us/img7/1843/minarettsvp200910081016.jpg (https://img7.imageshack.us/i/minarettsvp200910081016.jpg/)
Black, White and Red?
Hmmm......
Evil_Maniac From Mars
12-02-2009, 22:40
Black, White and Red?
Hmmm......
Just like Die Linke! Who would've thought.
Louis VI the Fat
12-02-2009, 23:03
Black, White and Red?
Hmmm......And red, white and black are also the colours of Arabian nationalism...
Anyway, just to be clear:
The white cross on a red background is the Swiss flag. Portrayed in the contour of Switzerland. This is in a consistent style portrayed as under siege from 'something black', an undefined menace, taking many shapes and forms.
Never is the menace given an actual name, but always the visual code is more telling than a thousand words. These are posters that make immediate sense to a Swiss. Their can be no mistake about their meaning.
(In fact, I thought they were so clear that I didn't bother with translating)
'Black' is the foreigner, portrayed as ravens picking on Switzerland. (The raven is a bird that lives of theft).
Or as a single Black Sheep that is kicked out of the country. Or as hands in various shades of brown who are helping themselves to Swiss immigration permits.
KukriKhan
12-02-2009, 23:16
Even I, an American bereft of irony appreciation, get it.
The posters are sooo... pre-1960's. I'm surprised they resonate at all with Swiss voters.
Yeah, I got them as well, I was just making a point.
Louis VI the Fat
12-02-2009, 23:22
Yeah, I got them as well, I was just making a point.Now I get those posts above about colours. :wall:
The old German colours. To which Maniac then made the clever rebuttal that these are also the colours of the German Die Linke.
https://img254.imageshack.us/img254/7364/pnkf.jpg
:inquisitive:
Samurai Waki
12-02-2009, 23:44
That looks like cold war propaganda :laugh4:
but no. because in something like this, where it is an issue of "for Muslim rights" or "against Muslim rights" a 95-IQ'er would be worse, as there is not much to be informed about. rather than take into account the reactions that people could take depending on the decision, a less-intelligent person would simply vote what they want, not what is best.
Who would make a better decision do you think, a considerate, open minded "95-IQ'er" or a racist, xenophobic, genius who hates everything about those dirty Muslims?
I'm not saying that less-intellegent people don't try to do what's best. but when they try, they often fail, and it is easier for a more intelligent person to think out what is truly best, than what is best at the moment.
I'm pretty sure these intelligent people thought they were doing what was best. http://comicism.tripod.com/iq.html How do you think they would do in an issue "for or against Jewish rights", hmm?
Meh, I've always been Pro-Roman-Government-Style: Not Elitist; I hate people who are too rich, but I like the idea of intelligent people running the government, with some lower-class representatives to advise on what they are thinking.
I've been brought up in NC, where you will not find many good minds to help lower your ego. I usually see people of lesser intelligence below me, but what can I say?
No, what you are proposing is a new elite, I'm pretty sure that one day, one of the proles you dismiss so easily is going to pop that ego swelled head of yours and you will realise that a few numbers at the end of a test doesn't make you any better than anyone else.
And smart people can be wrong sometimes quite often.
Fixed.
Prussian to the Iron
12-03-2009, 02:29
i cant keep up with this thread any longer. i leave for a few hours and its a new page i dont have time to read. sorry guys, wish i could :(
Major Robert Dump
12-03-2009, 03:06
I thought those posters were about veal. I really need to learn to read Spanish.
CrossLOPER
12-03-2009, 04:00
The thing about this ban is that it's specified against one particular type of building.
And that's idiotic on every level
...."There's no Minaret on that mosque, my good sir! That's a very beautiful Winaret we built!"
That sums up my feelings.
i cant keep up with this thread any longer. i leave for a few hours and its a new page i dont have time to read. sorry guys, wish i could :(
But, but, but... You have an IQ of 140! If an average idiot like me can keep up, but you can't then...
I don't see the correlation between experience, wisdom and intelligence.
In Japanese Shin Buddhism there is something called Myokonin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myokonin), mostly uneducated but very wise and religious Buddhists.
I'll take #21, to take away
But, but, but... You have an IQ of 140! If an average idiot like me can keep up, but you can't then...
The only logical explanation is the higher your IQ, the less common sense you have.
The only logical explanation is the higher your IQ, the less common sense you have.
I don't find that logical at all because common sense would tell you that the higher the IQ the more common sense you have.
Seriously though, that was a clever thing to say of you as common sense would be the average sense and thus be the sense of people with an average IQ, thus the higher your IQ the farther you'd be away from common sense. Now I might be captain obvious but it took me a second or two to arrive there. :sweatdrop:
Building regulations are one aspect. No free pass for religions is another. I can relate to both. Sadly, this is but the civilised façade of a movement with rather different origins and motives.
The political climate in Switzerland occupies itself mostly with other considerations. Here are the posters of the largest(!) political party in Switzerland, the party behind the initiative for the referendum:
https://img171.imageshack.us/img171/377/svpposterbirds1289684c.jpg (https://img171.imageshack.us/i/svpposterbirds1289684c.jpg/)
https://img171.imageshack.us/img171/7136/leadseriessvpposter2008.jpg (https://img171.imageshack.us/i/leadseriessvpposter2008.jpg/)
https://img7.imageshack.us/img7/3880/swisssheepl468x635.jpg (https://img7.imageshack.us/i/swisssheepl468x635.jpg/)
And the poster used for the ban on minarets:
https://img7.imageshack.us/img7/1843/minarettsvp200910081016.jpg (https://img7.imageshack.us/i/minarettsvp200910081016.jpg/)
It's good to keep in mind that the largest Swiss party does not hold an absolute majority. They had 29 % in the elections of 2007 (which is still enough to give me an uncomfortable feeling, given the nature of their methods).
Quid can correct me if this is wrong, but a Swiss told me that it's the first time that a referendum on the iniative of the SVP has resulted in a "yes" in favour of the SVP viewpoint.
All previous attempts to get a "yes" for their viewpoint in a referendum (for which those other posters have been used by them) have failed.
I have also been told that the SVP is losing its' support and the original party has split because of internal struggles.
Also, it seems like the camp of those who were opposed to a ban on minarets didn't do much effort to campaign for their viewpoint, because they expected the SVP would get another "njet" as usual; quod non.
If the "no against banning minarets"-camp took things for granted and didn't do much effort to get their point accross, then they carry part of the blame (that is, if you're convinced that there is something to blame on somebody).
The only logical explanation is the higher your IQ, the less common sense you have.
Oh really. I had a test that borders on the absurd, I guess I am pretty smart. Doesn't change the fact that I am a complete idiot.
Furunculus
12-03-2009, 12:57
The only logical explanation is the higher your IQ, the less common sense you have.
that tallies with my experience; i know of more than one very intelligent idiot. i.e. PhD with no common sense.
https://img697.imageshack.us/img697/7297/graphic1y.jpg
Louis VI the Fat
12-03-2009, 14:09
https://img697.imageshack.us/img697/7297/graphic1y.jpg
:laugh4:
I call a referendum on Andres.
I vote we ban him.
I don't have a problem with him personally, I just think his avatar does not comply with our traditional game-only avatars.
Sasaki Kojiro
12-03-2009, 14:17
The only logical explanation is the higher your IQ, the less common sense you have.
I think this is false. There's no reason for people with high IQ to have less common sense than average. They are just prone to the same kind of intuition errors that everybody else is, and so there decision making ability isn't always better. It's only better if they put enough effort in.
For example, a question like:
"Linda is 31, single, and outspoken. In college she cared deeply about political issues such as discrimination and social justice and wrote for the school newspaper.
Which is more probable:
A) Linda is a bank teller
B) Linda is a bank teller and active in the feminist movement"
Can trip up even high IQ people, although if they think it through they will understand it faster (it's obvious if you think about it).
There are some problems where high IQ people would perform consistently better though.
And of course for politics, if you want to believe something is true, you probably won't put a lot of effort into weighing the evidence against it :beam:
Louis VI the Fat
12-03-2009, 14:28
it's obvious if you think about itI can't figure out the right answer. Which is it?
I guess I am too intlegillent to work it out myself.
And of course for politics, if you want to believe something is true, you probably won't put a lot of effort into weighing the evidence against it :beam:
or in a mafia game.
Speaking of Mafia games, Asai Nagamasa's picture gave me a great idea for my upcoming Small Mafia game. :beam:
(Don't worry Andres, it won't be too bad.)
Sasaki Kojiro
12-03-2009, 14:33
I can't figure out the right answer. Which is it?
I guess I am too intlegillent to work it out myself.
A.
B includes A, so it can never be more probable than A.
It's an inherent flaw in the way we intuitively solve problems :beam:
You would think B is more likely, then as Sasaki points out, it is "not which is correct" it is "which is more probable". It could be an inherent flaw in misunderstanding the actual question, and you try to pick the most correct one and not the most probable.
Louis VI the Fat
12-03-2009, 14:44
I knew the ansewr ! i was just chekking too sea if you lesser pople could fiugre it out to. :book:
KukriKhan
12-03-2009, 14:54
I knew the ansewr ! i was just chekking too sea if you lesser pople could fiugre it out to. :book:
fi yuo cna raed tihs, yuo hvae a sgtrane mnid too
Cna yuo raed tihs? Olny 55 plepoe out of 100 can.
i cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt!
:laugh4:
I call a referendum on Andres.
I vote we ban him.
I don't have a problem with him personally, I just think his avatar does not comply with our traditional game-only avatars.
*** deploys instagib rocket stockpile ***
Sasaki Kojiro
12-03-2009, 17:16
Similar story to the initial article:
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/local/article/POLEGAT02_20091202-091201/309031/P0/
Medal of Honor winner, 90, ordered to remove flagpole
Col. Van T. Barfoot, a local Medal of Honor winner, is under the gun from his Henrico County community's homeowner association.
In a five-paragraph letter to Barfoot that he received yesterday, Barfoot is being ordered to remove a flagpole from his yard. The decorated veteran of three wars, now 90 years old, raises the American flag every morning on the pole, then lowers and folds the flag at dusk each day in a three-corner military fashion.
In a priority mail letter, the Coates & Davenport law firm in Richmond is ordering Barfoot to remove the pole by 5 p.m. Friday or face "legal action being brought to enforce the Covenants and Restrictions against you." The letter states that Barfoot will be subject to paying all legal fees and costs in any successful legal proceeding pursued by the homeowner association's board.
Barfoot's daughter said this evening that news reports about the association order have prompted an outpouring of sympathy and offers of help from people following her father's ordeal.
Tonight, the Sussex Square Homeowners Association issued a statement reiterating its position that Barfoot directly violated the association board's denial of his request to erect a flagpole.
"This is not about the American flag. This about a flagpole," the statement reads.
Barfoot lives in the Sussex Square community in far western Henrico; its board of directors rejected a plea from Barfoot in July to approve the pole, disallowing the fixture on aesthetic grounds.
There is no provision in the community's rules expressly forbidding flagpoles, Barfoot's daughter said. But she said the board ruled against her father's fixture and ordered it removed in July, deciding that free-standing flag poles are not aesthetically appropriate. Short flag stands attached to porches dot the community.
"Dad sort of feels like this is the end," said Margaret Nicholls, Barfoot's daughter, who lives a few doors away. But she said this morning that she and her husband are attempting to generate support for her father's cause, a flag-raising rite that he has undertaken for most of his life.
Barfoot received the Medal of Honor on the battlefield during World War II in Italy and fought as well in the Korean and Vietnam wars. A portion of a highway in rural Mississippi, his native state, was named in his honor this fall. A building at McGuire Veterans Hospital in Richmond also carries his name.
Barfoot began regularly flying the flag on Veteran's Day this year despite the Sussex Square board's decision.
He said in November that not flying the flag would be a sacrilege to him.
"There's never been a day in my life or a place I've lived in my life that you couldn't fly the American flag," he said.
The homeowners association is clearly in the wrong here :beam:
But what rule can you go by to determine that :juggle2:
CrossLOPER
12-03-2009, 17:17
*** deploys instagib rocket stockpile ***
***OUR SHIELD GENERATOR HAS DEFEATED THEIR IR BARRAGE***
Similar story to the initial article:
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/local/article/POLEGAT02_20091202-091201/309031/P0/
The homeowners association is clearly in the wrong here :beam:
But what rule can you go by to determine that :juggle2:
HOAs? Way to Godwin the thread, Sasaki. :clown:
Sasaki Kojiro
12-03-2009, 17:28
HOAs? Way to Godwin the thread, Sasaki. :clown:
Would it be ok if he was an iron cross winner :beam:
Strike For The South
12-03-2009, 17:34
Clearly those posters imply the want to kleep Switzerland archeticture intact.
After seeing those and the minaret itself I'm now convinced that this is just about teh browns.
Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. If the GOP came out with those posters it would be a death kneel.
How can they get away with such blatant racism and still have the referendum pass? I realize they are a fringe party but they were cleary strong enough to get this passed.
Switzerland has prided itself as being a European metling pot but I guess that only counts if you're a little bit pink :no:
rory_20_uk
12-03-2009, 18:01
This muslim disagrees with you (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6938161.ece)
~:smoking:
Strike For The South
12-03-2009, 18:06
This muslim disagrees with you (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6938161.ece)
~:smoking:
Uncle Tom=Uncle Mohhamed?
I just think it's funny how blatant racism doesn't bother a majority of the Swiss. They are banning part of a building simply because it represents the muslims and they need to stop that why? It looks the same as the rest of the buildings, it's not hurting anyone, It's on a holy site.
It seems like the Swiss are scared the Muslims can't assimalate on there own.
You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig
Louis VI the Fat
12-03-2009, 18:22
I realize they are a fringe party but they were cleary strong enough to get this passed.The UDC/SVP is the largest political party in Switzerland.
Far right is the second or third largest political current in most European countries. Things are now said openly in European politics that were solid taboos, only thought in private, a mere decade ago.
The far right seldom poses an outright threat to democracy. But there is a more insidous mechanism, one that many clever far right politicians are very well aware off: the trickling down of far right ideas into mainstream discourse. Call it the 'Panzerjager strategy'. You take an extremity and shout it so loudly and intermittently, that what people perceive to be the moderate centre is shifted firmly to the right.
It is a dastardly clever strategy. Return the shouting, and you have just turned mainstream politics into a populist shouting contest. Repose with reason, and nobody will hear you over the shouting. Do not engage in the 'debate' at all, and you will be accused of being elitist. Very clever, and very difficult to overcome.
Peculiarly, there exists a rock-solid means of destroying far right parties: give them governmental responsibility. This has killed off many a populist party, because 1) the electorate soon is forever put off by their usual display of sheer ineptitude, in-fighting and stupidity, 2) their own voters discover that there didn't exist after all a magical wand that will solve all problems if only the out-of-touch elites would listen to the people.
Far right populism in Western Europe is anti-immigrantion, anti-minorities. The brew further consists of more 'mainstream' policies like anti-establishment/elites, lowering taxes - paid for by abolishing wasteful government, 'neo-liberalism', anti-EU, etc.
Eastern European far right is different. The Economist has a good article:
The far right in central Europe differs from its western equivalents in its choice of enemies. In the west it thrives on immigrant-bashing. In the east it dwells on more atavistic grievances: ethnic minorities, old territorial disputes, homosexuals, international financiers and, naturally, Jews. Hatred of the Roma has become a defining issue. Everywhere economic anxiety is exploited. Even a decade of growth has left plenty of poor and disaffected people. Many hark back to an era when the state protected them from crude market forces. This produces a far right that likes nationalisation and dislikes the market.
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14859369
Both kinds of far right have been known to confuse Americans, who might at first glance mistake it for being related to American mainstream conservatism (East European variant, see: Rumsfeldt's 'New Europe') or libertarianism / Republicanism (West European variant).
(Then again, American politics sometimes really does share elements of the European far right, where similiarities are not merely perceived to exist, but are real. See: 'Family Values' in Poland and the US. Etc.)
Strike For The South
12-03-2009, 18:31
I see racists. That's what I see.
How they get there voice heard is of no concern of mine. What is scary is that they are getting out there and people are listening.
The referendum is a complete joke. It should be about amending the rules and regulations, not on a specific issue such as Minaret's. It shouldn't have even got this far.
Furunculus
12-03-2009, 19:42
agreed............................. and yet it did, and lo; the people did speaketh!
Furunculus
12-03-2009, 19:46
stuff...............................[snip]............................
Call it the 'Panzerjager strategy'. You take an extremity and shout it so loudly and intermittently, that what people perceive to be the moderate centre is shifted firmly to the right.
It is a dastardly clever strategy. Return the shouting, and you have just turned mainstream politics into a populist shouting contest. Repose with reason, and nobody will hear you over the shouting. Do not engage in the 'debate' at all, and you will be accused of being elitist. Very clever, and very difficult to overcome.
...............................[snip]...........................stuff
pssst, Louis, that is actually called not have an answer that resonates with the electorate, and is easily dealt with by finding an answer that resonates with that same electorate.
but i do agree with you on the best way to discredit the fringes of politics, let them have power where their incompetance will become manifest, just look at the SNP.
CrossLOPER
12-04-2009, 00:58
Panzerjager strategy...
What happened to him, btw? I would expect him to have plenty to say in a thread such as this.
Samurai Waki
12-04-2009, 02:07
but i do agree with you on the best way to discredit the fringes of politics, let them have power where their incompetance will become manifest, just look at the SNP.
Or The Neo-Cons in the US.
I see racists. That's what I see.
How they get there voice heard is of no concern of mine. What is scary is that they are getting out there and people are listening.
Not so sure, they probably would have voted against anything Islam, I think they just send out a warning to the multicultists in their government, it's a pity this battle is fought over the back of the muslims but it has to happen regardless, the multicultural left just needs to go.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-04-2009, 12:41
Uncle Tom=Uncle Mohhamed?
I just think it's funny how blatant racism doesn't bother a majority of the Swiss. They are banning part of a building simply because it represents the muslims and they need to stop that why? It looks the same as the rest of the buildings, it's not hurting anyone, It's on a holy site.
It seems like the Swiss are scared the Muslims can't assimalate on there own.
You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig
How is this Racism? It's not like Christianity is a "white" religion.
Strike For The South
12-04-2009, 16:46
How is this Racism? It's not like Christianity is a "white" religion.
Not so sure, they probably would have voted against anything Islam, I think they just send out a warning to the multicultists in their government, it's a pity this battle is fought over the back of the muslims but it has to happen regardless, the multicultural left just needs to go.
Do you two not see the bloody posters?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-04-2009, 18:30
Do you two not see the bloody posters?
I do, and at least one of the guy's grabbing the work permits is white, two of the otherse could be Greek/Italian.
Strike For The South
12-04-2009, 19:49
I do, and at least one of the guy's grabbing the work permits is white, two of the otherse could be Greek/Italian.
The fact you choose the least conterversial and still have to preface it is rather telling.
There are 4 minarets in the entire country, this only serves to embolden radicals.
I must say I truly am disgusted in the lengths allot of you are willing to go to make this blantantly racist campaign ok in your heads.
You lot are better than this.
I do, and at least one of the guy's grabbing the work permits is white, two of the otherse could be Greek/Italian.
Racism is not unknown between 'whites'.
I think I understand where you are coming from STFS but I think you need to understand where the swiss are coming from. You fellas haven't really been in your country that long and it wasn't really "yours" to begin with, so you have less of a problem with others coming in and parking their culture next to yours, the swiss however have been there quite a while, and they would like to keep the place looking very swiss, thank you very much.
Strike For The South
12-04-2009, 20:35
I think I understand where you are coming from STFS but I think you need to understand where the swiss are coming from. You fellas haven't really been in your country that long and it wasn't really "yours" to begin with, so you have less of a problem with others coming in and parking their culture next to yours, the swiss however have been there quite a while, and they would like to keep the place looking very swiss, thank you very much.
My families been here since 1620 (yes I can trace mah boys back to Mass bay and Virginia, eat your heart out). We've left out mark so to speak.
I understand wanting to protect culture but that minaret disrupts nothing at all. I would kill for that kind of assimalation in some parts of America.
Muslims make up 4% of the swiss pop, have 20 mosuqes, and only 4 minarets. Those numbers are barley a blip and this only shows aggression towards a very small minorty.
And the posters are what really do it for me, Those are just racist period. I would have been willing to give them the benifit of the doubt but those are hate mongering.
Just for the record, I have never met a Swiss in person who isn't grumpy. And I go there every year, and I have done since I was 11.
That's just because it's so cold there.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-05-2009, 00:16
The fact you choose the least conterversial and still have to preface it is rather telling.
There are 4 minarets in the entire country, this only serves to embolden radicals.
I must say I truly am disgusted in the lengths allot of you are willing to go to make this blantantly racist campaign ok in your heads.
You lot are better than this.
Not really. The point is that Islam is not a race, it is possible to be dead set against it for philosophical reasons without being prejudiced due to race at all. You need to seperate the two, and understand that the Swiss can do the same. Just because this was pushed by racists doesn't mean it's automatically a bad idea. Even a broken clock is right twice a day; and the Swiss should understand that better than most.
Racism is not unknown between 'whites'.
I know, I'm part Swedish, so I've had abuse both for not being a "proper" Scandanavian, and from Norwegians for being too Swedish. I've had abuse from Welsh and Scots for being English.
My families been here since 1620 (yes I can trace mah boys back to Mass bay and Virginia, eat your heart out). We've left out mark so to speak.
I understand wanting to protect culture but that minaret disrupts nothing at all. I would kill for that kind of assimalation in some parts of America.
Muslims make up 4% of the swiss pop, have 20 mosuqes, and only 4 minarets. Those numbers are barley a blip and this only shows aggression towards a very small minorty.
And the posters are what really do it for me, Those are just racist period. I would have been willing to give them the benifit of the doubt but those are hate mongering.
*Shrug" Tord of Byr built the birst Church in his village in Southern Sweden in 992 AD. Most of the white Americans I have come across still at least partly identify themselves by their European heritage, but few of them have any actual links to that heritage.
In contrast, I know my ancestors, I have seen the things they built, I have walked their land and I see their names etched in the stones of the Churches in my homeland.
Ok, I need to go back to Hampshire now.
Anyway, Switzerland is a very small country, 20 mosques will mean more to them than you, and a minaret is intrusive because it alters that all-important thing; the skyline.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day; and the Swiss should understand that better than most.
Are you, sir, somehow implying that Swiss timepieces break? :clock:
Strike For The South
12-05-2009, 01:32
Not really. The point is that Islam is not a race, it is possible to be dead set against it for philosophical reasons without being prejudiced due to race at all. You need to seperate the two, and understand that the Swiss can do the same. Just because this was pushed by racists doesn't mean it's automatically a bad idea. Even a broken clock is right twice a day; and the Swiss should understand that better than most.
Islam is not a race, but most muslims are of a brown shade and to use that defense is naive at best. Once again those posters say more than the Swiss ever could. If someone had used those posters to promote the cure for cancer I would've voted no simply because I know the bill writers intent.
The Swiss are hanging there fellow countrymen out to dry because they are scared. In a part of the world where we pride ourselves on being accepting and respecting others choices, this is a black stain.
*Shrug" Tord of Byr built the birst Church in his village in Southern Sweden in 992 AD. Most of the white Americans I have come across still at least partly identify themselves by their European heritage, but few of them have any actual links to that heritage.
In contrast, I know my ancestors, I have seen the things they built, I have walked their land and I see their names etched in the stones of the Churches in my homeland.
Ok, I need to go back to Hampshire now.
Well I don't, so I guess that's a swing and a miss. Not to mention once you get past the east coast the hyphanated Americanism drops off, I suspect you were spending time with BosWash pretty boys spending Daddys money.
Well good for you, so that makes it right to deny these people there little peice? For helping your dying demographics and making your welfare state possible they don't get a minaret?
Anyway, Switzerland is a very small country, 20 mosques will mean more to them than you, and a minaret is intrusive because it alters that all-important thing; the skyline.
Virginia and Switzerland have the same population. There are 37 mosques in Virginia.
https://img195.imageshack.us/img195/6364/steepleminaret.jpg
Cleary this is an abomanation and this Swiss people should be angry.
Louis VI the Fat
12-05-2009, 02:24
Muslims make up 4% of the swiss pop, have 20 mosuqes, and only 4 minarets. Those numbers are barley a blip and this only shows aggression towards a very small minorty.No, this is not correct. Part of the problem with multiculturalism and its many taboos is that numbers are subcponsciously played down, or even deliberately falsified. Yes, a bold claim, but sadly true.
I think we can assume Switzerland has several hundred mosques, and that the Muslim population stands at about 10%-12%. (Muslim here as 'from ancestors of predominantly Islamic countries')
https://img195.imageshack.us/img195/6364/steepleminaret.jpg
Cleary this is an abomanation and this Swiss people should be angry.Not everything that's quaint is 'of the same style'. The minaret clashes with its surroundings like an iglo in Tanzania.
Strike For The South
12-05-2009, 02:31
Prove it to me Louis. Prove to me the numbers are that underreported.
Samurai Waki
12-05-2009, 02:31
It needs a Mahogany Finish instead of the dreadful faux gold, and Cherry Wood Slats on the Spire instead of the Plastic Royal Blue. It looks like a 70's Pimp standing around with a Group of Amish.
Louis VI the Fat
12-05-2009, 04:13
Prove it to me Louis. Prove to me the numbers are that underreported.There is a huge difference between what's registered as a mosque and what as an Islamic cultural association.
Here is a list of several hundred of Islamic cultural institutions and mosques in Switzerland. http://www.islam.ch/typo3/index.php?id=65&no_cache=1&tx_spdirectory_pi1
Only some twenty are registered as mosques indeed.
However, if one clicks the links to the individual institutions, one will find the meaning of Mohammed's teaching that 'the enitre world is a prayer room'. Hundreds of these cultural institutions double as 'mosques'. But do not show up in the statistics.
For example, on the list in the link above, you'll find the Albanisch-Islamische Gemeinschaft «Hëna e re» (http://www.islam.ch/typo3/index.php?id=65&tx_spdirectory_pi1[mode]=detail&tx_spdirectory_pi1[modifier]=search&tx_spdirectory_pi1[value]=92&cHash=4dddcd3d37). Not registered as a mosque, but as a local Albanian-Islamic association. Click on the link to their site, and they are celebrating the opening of their new mosque:
http://www.el-hikmeh.net/de/feierliche_eroeffnung_der_moschee.html
An 'Islamic cultural foundation' in Geneve:
http://www.mosque.ch/index.php/en_US/home
Don't take my word for it, take it from the very Islamic Hamit Duran, chairman of the Aargau association of Muslims (who also invites you to the open day to the ten mosques in Aargua alone): In der Schweiz werden schätzungsweise 250 Räumlichkeiten als Moscheen genutzt,
'In Switzerland an estimated 250 dwellings(?) are used as Mosques'.
That is already an old estimate.
Me, I'd put the number of current mosques at roughly 400. Or, twenty times more than what is officially reported. Note - reported by the Swiss government. The Muslims themselves are quite open about there mosques. (In fact, reading their pages, I am overwhelmed by their openess, their pride in Switzerland and their hospitality. Want to see a mosque? Ring the doorbell. Tea is waiting for you)
I say a schoolboy with an internet and two free days could give you a very good number of the amount of mosques in Switzerland. I even quickly found two cultural associations that were so proud of their 'non-existing' mosques they translated their pages from French and German into English, for the entire world to see and know about but for the Swiss government statistics.
Why is the number of mosques played down, underreported, lied about? Because of what Fragony says.
Don't make me drag up the total number of Muslims in Switzerland. That will take me another half an hour.
Strike For The South
12-05-2009, 04:51
Look at me with my numbers
.
Hmmmmmmmm. Thats some intresting stuff and those numbers do make me think and it makes me understand where some of yall are coming from.
But it doesn't change the posters, that's whats really sticking in my craw here. Not so much the ban as the racsim and xenophobia the seem to make up the backbone of it.
I say a schoolboy with an internet and two free days could give you a very good number of the amount of mosques in Switzerland.
My weekend is full good sir. There is championship football on and I need to start bagging chicks so Kadgar will take me seriously ~;)
I keed I keed
Louis VI the Fat
12-05-2009, 04:59
There is championship football on and I need to start bagging chicks so Kadgar will take me seriously ~;)Well keep us up to date with the scores.
Strike For The South
12-05-2009, 05:00
Well keep us up to date with the scores.
Good sir, You're on point tonight
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-05-2009, 11:34
But it doesn't change the posters, that's whats really sticking in my craw here. Not so much the ban as the racsim and xenophobia the seem to make up the backbone of it.
The posters aren't relevant to the issue. Just because some of the people opposing minarets are massively racist doesn't mean even a small minority of the rest of the Swiss are.
I agree with Loius, though I would be surprised if the population percentage is as high as he suspects.
Ironside
12-05-2009, 11:35
No, this is not correct. Part of the problem with multiculturalism and its many taboos is that numbers are subcponsciously played down, or even deliberately falsified. Yes, a bold claim, but sadly true.
I think we can assume Switzerland has several hundred mosques, and that the Muslim population stands at about 10%-12%. (Muslim here as 'from ancestors of predominantly Islamic countries')
You sure you stare at the right cause of the downplaying, as you put it?
Or to put it differently, how many churches exist in Saudi-Arabia?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-05-2009, 11:38
You sure you stare at the right cause of the downplaying, as you put it?
Or to put it differently, how many churches exist in Saudi-Arabia?
Totally different, Christianity is illegal in Saudi Arabia.
Do you two not see the bloody posters?
This is certainly edgy, it goes a lot further than I would ever be willing to go and I do not agree with this, but I am going to give it some latitude because I don't think it is what it seems to be, people think in symbols I have yet to figure out what they really voted against, is it a minaret or should we put this in a broader perspective.
Ironside
12-05-2009, 12:50
Totally different, Christianity is illegal in Saudi Arabia.
Public Christianity is illegal in Saudi Arabia. Gathering in your neighbour's cellar for communion is not. It's legality has probably more to do that foregin workers might not be muslims than anything else, but can Saudi Arabia be considered to be a center for multiculturalism and its many taboos?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-05-2009, 13:03
Public Christianity is illegal in Saudi Arabia. Gathering in your neighbour's cellar for communion is not. It's legality has probably more to do that foregin workers might not be muslims than anything else, but can Saudi Arabia be considered to be a center for multiculturalism and its many taboos?
Not exactly true, you can't bring a Bible or other liturgical material into Saudi Arabia, or vestemants; you can't consecrate a place of worship.
Ergo, the majoriety of Christians cannot legally celebrate communion.
Ironside
12-05-2009, 14:43
Not exactly true, you can't bring a Bible or other liturgical material into Saudi Arabia, or vestemants; you can't consecrate a place of worship.
Ergo, the majoriety of Christians cannot legally celebrate communion.
Appearently, they give American guest workers plenty of leeway. I stand corrected :shame:, but since a church doesn't need to be legal or consecrated to be a church, my original question still remains.
Official records are much lower since they're official records of public buildings, not since there's a massive systematic toning down of numbers done by multiculturalistic proponents.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-05-2009, 18:29
Appearently, they give American guest workers plenty of leeway. I stand corrected :shame:, but since a church doesn't need to be legal or consecrated to be a church, my original question still remains.
Official records are much lower since they're official records of public buildings, not since there's a massive systematic toning down of numbers done by multiculturalistic proponents.
Whether or not a Church needs to be consecrated or not is a matter of denomination, the majoriety of Christians are Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican (in that order), they need Churches consecrated by a Bishop. In Suadi Arabia this is illegal.
Strike For The South
12-05-2009, 19:19
The posters aren't relevant to the issue. Just because some of the people opposing minarets are massively racist doesn't mean even a small minority of the rest of the Swiss are.
I agree with Loius, though I would be surprised if the population percentage is as high as he suspects.
They are extremely releavant to the issue. They are being pushed by the same party whom came up with the legislation. They are all over Switzerland.
This is certainly edgy, it goes a lot further than I would ever be willing to go and I do not agree with this, but I am going to give it some latitude because I don't think it is what it seems to be, people think in symbols I have yet to figure out what they really voted against, is it a minaret or should we put this in a broader perspective.
Is edgy dutch for racist?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-05-2009, 19:36
They are extremely releavant to the issue. They are being pushed by the same party whom came up with the legislation. They are all over Switzerland.
So because racists are in favour of the message, it must be racist?
Strike For The South
12-05-2009, 19:44
So because racists are in favour of the message, it must be racist?
No, but since no one seems to be bothered by why they brought the ban up in the first place it leads me to question the Swiss motives.
It's great that they can say it's a very small group bringing this up and they don't represent the Swiss at large but then turnaround and vote for this.
If the Swiss had sane immagration laws or had more children this wouldn't be an issue. But the Swiss didn't so you need to make room for these people whom the Swiss needed to bring in to sustain there way of life.
That's what I will never understand about Europe, you need brown people to sustain you and now complain when they bring a very small part of there culture with them. The nerve of those bastards.
That's what I will never understand about some Europeans, you need brown people to sustain you and now complain when they bring a very small part of there culture with them. The nerve of those bastards.
Fix'd. I think the referendum was a travesty as well by the way, and certainly inspired by, if not won by, racists.
Tellos Athenaios
12-05-2009, 20:21
Is edgy dutch for racist?
No. Presumably he meant ‘randgeval’ which is more accurately rendered as ‘borderline’.
Kadagar_AV
12-05-2009, 21:40
I voted for the ban. Some of you are much closer to the point. Most people (I know) have voted likewise not because they associate themselves with the right-wing party (or any party at all, for that matter) but because, personally, we think that minarets do not fit into the picture of Swiss scenery, i.e., people voted in favour of the building laws rather than against Islam as such.
I strongly disagree how this was handled by the political parties. Some people have voted the right thing in my opinion but for all the wrong reasons. That makes me sad and it's actually quite tragic.
Mosques can still be built just without the minarets. There is no restriction on Moslems practicing their religion bar building minarets. The reason church towers are allowed to be built is simply that they have always been there and very often were the first buildings put up in any given place. This is not to say that such towers are allowed to be built anywhere at any given time. They also have to undergo the strict building laws of the country. That is how the law of the land stands. If people want to change that, we can have another initiative and vote on it at a later date...
I do not believe that a country has to bend over backwards to traditions and practices of other countries' people who have immigrated. I think, quite the opposite is the case. Switzerland's population consists of roughly 22% 'non-Swiss'. They are intergrated much better than in many other countries and people in general are very liberal towards 'foreigners'. We may not be the friendliest people, the funniest people, or indeed the most cheerful but we do have a history of letting others live with us in relative peace and harmony.
Quid
Sorry, just had to highlight to make people have a laugh :)
Kadagar_AV
12-05-2009, 21:43
This is a disgusting breach of Human Rights and Freedom of Religion.
It has nothing to do with the Minarets themselves. It is clear that the Swiss people (maybe not all, obviously) do not want to deal with the Muslim Immigrants, and so ban Minarets in an attempt to drive them away. If it is truly only a blending-in thing, than they should ban church towers and synagogue towers as well. equal for all.
I do have a Republican (don't know if that's far-right or far-left?), my mother, who gave her "insight" on this:
She said that it is because of forced marriages by Muslims in Switzerland, and asserts that Minarets are "A symbol of oppression to Muslim Women." This is not true, and Burkas are infinitely more of a symbol of this. She also cited the ban of Swastikas in Germany, comparing the 2. When rebuttled with "The Nazi's killed 6 million innocent people, and all members of the Nazi party fully supported and hated Jews." she came back with "Don't be so close minded.". Obviously she lost the argument, because as we all know, Muslims don't just go around rounding up people and killing them. Some extremist groups kill innocent civilians, but terrorists exist in all nations, languages, cultures and religions.
So there you have the basic view of why most of the peopole voted for it: Dislike of Islam. If only Synagogue towers were banned in America, would it just be okay? No. Not at all. Same should go with Mosques.
I just had quite a laugh... Owned by your own mother...
Do you seriosly believe this to be true?
Evil_Maniac From Mars
12-05-2009, 21:44
Sorry, just had to highlight to make people have a laugh :)
And at the same time, he has a point. Church towers are part of the historical architecture of Switzerland, whereas minarets are not.
And at the same time, he has a point. Church towers are part of the historical architecture of Switzerland, whereas minarets are not.
What about a minaret designed as a Church tower?
Evil_Maniac From Mars
12-05-2009, 23:11
What about a minaret designed as a Church tower?
Architecturally at least, that would be sound.
That's what I will never understand about Europe, you need brown people to sustain you
That's a leftist myth
Ironside
12-06-2009, 11:07
Whether or not a Church needs to be consecrated or not is a matter of denomination, the majoriety of Christians are Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican (in that order), they need Churches consecrated by a Bishop. In Suadi Arabia this is illegal.
I would like to have sources on that, because the only thing I find about consecration of a church is that the building can never be used for anything else than a church after the consecration (Orthodox) and the Catholic encyclopedia is speciffic on that all churches doesn't need to be consecrated. Parish churches must be consecrated though. Oratories have even weaker demands of consecration.
That's a leftist myth
That is a demographic idea based on that a smaller population needs to support a growing part of post-retirement population.
And at the same time, he has a point. Church towers are part of the historical architecture of Switzerland, whereas minarets are not.
Well, women's right to vote wasn't part of Swiss culture until 1971. But in hindsight, they did okay after agreeing on that, didn't they?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-06-2009, 14:04
I would like to have sources on that, because the only thing I find about consecration of a church is that the building can never be used for anything else than a church after the consecration (Orthodox) and the Catholic encyclopedia is speciffic on that all churches doesn't need to be consecrated. Parish churches must be consecrated though. Oratories have even weaker demands of consecration.
I'll go diggin tomorrow. In the meantime, consider that while what you have said does not preclude an instance of taking Communion, it precludes a communal life of Christian worship without breaking the Law.
That is a demographic idea based on that a smaller population needs to support a growing part of post-retirement population.
Which ignores the reason behind a falling population to begin with. In the UK our problems of overcrowding are caused exclusively by immigration, as without it we would be seeing a net population fall.
KukriKhan
12-06-2009, 14:09
That bastion of human and religious rights, Iran, warns of "consequences" (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hwV51oW2fvHXKMvdv_CvcX5D1Q9A) if Bern actually abides by the Ban vote.
Hosakawa Tito
12-06-2009, 14:15
That bastion of human and religious rights, Iran, warns of "consequences" (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hwV51oW2fvHXKMvdv_CvcX5D1Q9A) if Bern actually abides by the Ban vote.
Hehehe, There will be lashes...:whip:
CrossLOPER
12-06-2009, 15:58
That bastion of human and religious rights, Iran, warns of "consequences" (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hwV51oW2fvHXKMvdv_CvcX5D1Q9A) if Bern actually abides by the Ban vote.
Their point has been made, but it's still a valid one.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.