Switzerland About To Vote On Minaret Ban

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.

Plenty of school cafeterias don't serve kosher food...or raw vegan food...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

the heart of the historical center of Bruges.

---

My eternal beloved...


*weeps uncontrollably https://img207.imageshack.us/img207/2027/azcrying.gif*


Cursed city. Few sights in this world torment my soul more than the unbearable, cold beauty of Bruges.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prussian Iron

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prussian Iron

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prussian Iron

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prussian Iron

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

that might be a foolish assumption to make if you have no basis on which to make that judgement?

---

You're right :shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prussian Iron

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prussian Iron

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?

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prussian Iron

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ja'chyra

So the Swiss voted to ban minarets, what exactly is wrong with that?

---

Incredibly much, I think Darius summed it up few posts back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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" 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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

As a German I can confirm that "Bild" 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..........?

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...speaker-noise/

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

The Swiss can do what they want

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prussian Iron

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

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

---

I believe California has been 'direct democrafied' into bankruptcy, hasn't it?

:wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

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/img34/85...narets1230.jpg

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!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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).

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miotas

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

...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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prussian Iron

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)

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prussian Iron

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prussian Iron

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prussian Iron

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prussian Iron

less-intellegent people

---

:wink3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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/...0astandard.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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

:wink3:

---

Shush, you. I was enjoying that. In a very quiet, French, Jerry Lewis kinda way.

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/...ds1289684c.jpg



https://img171.imageshack.us/img171/...poster2008.jpg



https://img7.imageshack.us/img7/3880...epl468x635.jpg



And the poster used for the ban on minarets:

https://img7.imageshack.us/img7/1843...0910081016.jpg

Black, White and Red?


Hmmm......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

Black, White and Red?


Hmmm......

---

Just like Die Linke! Who would've thought.

Touché.