Switzerland About To Vote On Minaret Ban

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

What about a minaret designed as a Church tower?

---

Architecturally at least, that would be sound.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

That's what I will never understand about Europe, you need brown people to sustain you

---

That's a leftist myth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

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.

Quote:

---

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.

That bastion of human and religious rights, Iran, warns of "consequences" if Bern actually abides by the Ban vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

That bastion of human and religious rights, Iran, warns of "consequences" if Bern actually abides by the Ban vote.

---

Hehehe, There will be lashes...:whip:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

That bastion of human and religious rights, Iran, warns of "consequences" if Bern actually abides by the Ban vote.

---

Their point has been made, but it's still a valid one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dâriûsh

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?

---

I'm sure that granting women the right to vote drastically changed Swiss architecture. Remember that women voted against minarets with a higher percentage than men.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

That is a demographic idea based on that a smaller population needs to support a growing part of post-retirement population.

---

You're both correct. We do need a younger population to sustain us, but there is no reason for mass immigration from the Middle East or Africa to fill this need.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

You're both correct. We do need a younger population to sustain us, but there is no reason for mass immigration from the Middle East or Africa to fill this need.

---

There is if you don't have babies. That's where more people come from.

Europe needs this immagration to sustain there current welfare state. You need more people paying into the system. Lets not kid ourselves now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

You're both correct. We do need a younger population to sustain us, but there is no reason for mass immigration from the Middle East or Africa to fill this need.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

There is if you don't have babies. That's where more people come from.

Europe needs this immagration to sustain there current welfare state. You need more people paying into the system. Lets not kid ourselves now.

---

No, actually immigration is hurting, not helping. Although immigrants do (just about) make a net tax contribution, they are putting a strain on social housing, hospitals, and especially schools, that we would not otherwise have. I'd rather have a few lean years, followed by stability, than perpetual decline.

Peaks and troughs are part of population, just like they are part of the economy; and we all no what happened to Gordon Brown's "No more boom and bust".

Eventually the government will need to enact a Chinese-style one-child policy, because they are artificially inflating the long-term issue in order to fix a short term issue.

SFTS, source?

I could believe that to be true if a nation only accepted educated immigrants, and children.

But I have a very hard time seeing how the mass-refugees from, say, Afghanistan will help the economy.

I mean, if you are correct, then the countries in the third world would would fight to get as many immigrants as tehy can, and thats not really the case, now is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

No, actually immigration is hurting, not helping. Although immigrants do (just about) make a net tax contribution, they are putting a strain on social housing, hospitals, and especially schools, that we would not otherwise have. I'd rather have a few lean years, followed by stability, than perpetual decline.

Peaks and troughs are part of population, just like they are part of the economy; and we all no what happened to Gordon Brown's "No more boom and bust".

Eventually the government will need to enact a Chinese-style one-child policy, because they are artificially inflating the long-term issue in order to fix a short term issue.

---

This would require at the very least a partial dismantiling of the current social services you have now.

And even if it didn't those people are there now, so the point is moot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Europe needs this immagration to sustain there current welfare state. You need more people paying into the system. Lets not kid ourselves now.

---

This is correct. As our population ages, we need more individuals working to pay their social services. It is an absolutely ridiculous cycle, and it needs to be broken. I for one will volunteer to have my social services cut, along with my taxes, so that we can actually maintain our economy without artificially increasing our population when we feel like it. I'm also in favour of encouraging individuals here to have more children.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

This is correct. As our population ages, we need more individuals working to pay their social services. It is an absolutely ridiculous cycle, and it needs to be broken. I for one will volunteer to have my social services cut, along with my taxes, so that we can actually maintain our economy without artificially increasing our population when we feel like it. I'm also in favour of encouraging individuals here to have more children.

---

Ok I can live with that, but these people are here now and some are in there 3rd generation. They are French, German, British et all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Ok I can live with that, but these people are here now and some are in there 3rd generation. They are French, German, British et all.

---

The problem is that while many see themselves that way, many also do not. Yes, those people are here now, but we don't need any more. I personally want any immigrant that comes to Germany to be qualified with a university degree that is recognized in Germany, and that is in a field we need more people in. They should also speak German or be willing to learn, as well as be willing to adopt local values.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

This is correct. As our population ages, we need more individuals working to pay their social services. It is an absolutely ridiculous cycle, and it needs to be broken. I for one will volunteer to have my social services cut, along with my taxes, so that we can actually maintain our economy without artificially increasing our population when we feel like it. I'm also in favour of encouraging individuals here to have more children.

---

This is the fallacy though, look at the amount our governments spend on extra housing, extra maternity wards, widening of roads, more teachers... etc., etc. Now, imagine all that money going into care for the elderly.

It's not a huge problem, it just requires re-structuring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

This would require at the very least a partial dismantiling of the current social services you have now.

And even if it didn't those people are there now, so the point is moot.

---

Is this really true though, your per-capita defence and healthcare spending are about double ours. If children are not being born, then they aren't placing a 18-21 year burden on our economy. People work until 65, or longer, then retire and live another 18-21 years on average, so if we have fewer children, and less strain due to overcrowding, we should be able to afford it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

The problem is that while many see themselves that way, many also do not. Yes, those people are here now, but we don't need any more. I personally want any immigrant that comes to Germany to be qualified with a university degree that is recognized in Germany, and that is in a field we need more people in. They should also speak German or be willing to learn, as well as be willing to adopt local values.

---

Which is fine, but what if he's muslim and wants to buy some land to build a mosque?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Europe needs this immagration to sustain there current welfare state. You need more people paying into the system. Lets not kid ourselves now.

---

That is a leftist myth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SFTS

what if he's muslim and wants to buy some land to build a mosque?

---

Then he buys a plot of land and builds a mosque. :book:

According to local regulations about architecture, safety, fireproofness, zoning.



For our Swiss members:

A local council member of the UDC/SVP (party of the posters) vehemently oppossed the construction of mosques in his town. He also owned a plot of land - which he sold for a handy profit. To...an Albanian 'cultural intitute', which is currently constructing a mosque on it. :wink3:

http://www.blick.ch/news/schweiz/aar...cheebau-132654


(Incidentally, this is in the tiny village of Grenchen, 15 thousand inhabitants. It will be the second Albanian mosque there.
So much for 'there are only twenty mosques in the whole of Switzerland'.)




The face of Eurofascism:

Quote:

---

For the second time in the past ten days, two weeks before the anti-minaret vote, the Petit-Saconnex mosque (Geneva), filed a complaint by the police.

On Saturday, Nov. 7th, the residents were woken up at 7AM by a call to prayer organized by the right-wing group Jeunes identitaires genevois (JIG). The call was made through a megaphone mounted on a car (JIG video here).

JIG chose Saturday since the Muslims organized an open day in mosques across Switzerland that day.

JIG justified their action, saying they needed to inform the people. "We want to show that in case the initiative is rejected, we're de-facto accepting that in a few years such calls will echo in Switzerland," they told Swiss newspaper Le Matin.

This past Saturday night, the local mosque was pelted with stones. The windows, shutters, wooden door and granite dome of the entrance were broken, said the imam of the Islamic Cultural Center, Youssef Ibram. Ibram said that the police took away several kilos of stones in order to check for fingerprints and DNA.

This is the first time in 30 years that the mosque has been vandalized, the imam said. He linked it to both the fake muezzin call and to the minaret vote initiative.

The mosque hired a security guard to guard the mosque at night.


http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/20...yer-mosque.htm

http://www.jigeneve.com/galerie-photos/l

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

That is a leftist myth.

Then he buys a plot of land and builds a mosque. :book:

According to local regulations about architecture, safety, fireproofness, zoning.

:

---

I really have nothing left to add other than I feel the Swiss people are letting a small number of racist do there xenophobic work.

Oh well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

That is a leftist myth.

---

It is indeedy, and it says something about American reporting that Strike thinks it is actually true, rather than him thinking we all believe it. If Strike came to Europe he would be more left wing than any European.

Weird, isn't it?

Also, Louis and I are agreeing, someone might want to take screengrabs. :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

This is the fallacy though, look at the amount our governments spend on extra housing, extra maternity wards, widening of roads, more teachers... etc., etc. Now, imagine all that money going into care for the elderly.

It's not a huge problem, it just requires re-structuring.

---

it is absolutely true.

the rate of growth, under of currenrt system, of health and pension spending is absolutely unsustainable.

the treasury put out a report this weekend saying that very thing.

this is not to say that a better system cannot be put in place, but that does not exist now and that is not what the treasury is talking about.

so, yes, we need to change things.

europe has even worse demographic problems, but nations like france have healthcare systems that are more sustainable in the long term.

we can maintain the NHS into the 2050's id we so desire............................... but we'll be living like albanians to achieve it.

The thing is that it is true and it isn't, at exactly the same time. We do need more immigration to sustain the current system, but only because the current system is designed to be sustained by more immigration because the multiculturalists want that. If we change the immigration, we have changed how they intend the system to work even if we haven't changed much of the system. The fact that the system works as intended is a myth, and the fact that it can work without immigrants is also a myth.

I think that makes sense, doublethink was never my strong suit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

it is absolutely true.

the rate of growth, under of currenrt system, of health and pension spending is absolutely unsustainable.

the treasury put out a report this weekend saying that very thing.

this is not to say that a better system cannot be put in place, but that does not exist now and that is not what the treasury is talking about.

so, yes, we need to change things.

europe has even worse demographic problems, but nations like france have healthcare systems that are more sustainable in the long term.

we can maintain the NHS into the 2050's id we so desire............................... but we'll be living like albanians to achieve it.

---

The NHS is inefficient, and still costs half what the Americans spend as a proportion of GDP, so we should be able to slim it down to an affordable level, and still have decent universal healthcare. Key to this would be dealing with the top-heavy management (right now the hospitals are run by what were the Bursars and Bean-Counters, but are now "managers" and paid 10 times the amount for half the work.)

Another issue is welfare, more than one television a household is a luxury (or should be) so we know there's something wrong because many on benefits have one per person, and they aren't small families!

Ye Gods, we need an old-fashioned Tory Government like a soldier bleeding out needs a field dressing, and then we need to go into surgery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Ye Gods, we need an old-fashioned Tory Government like a soldier bleeding out needs a field dressing, and then we need to go into surgery.

---

I am sure rubbing salt in the wound won't be the best method.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

I am sure rubbing salt in the wound won't be the best method.

---

Actually, that might kill the infection.

The current mainstream Left in Britain ascribes to equality of outcome, not equality of opertunity. This is why people on benefits are as well off or better than those working.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

I am sure rubbing salt in the wound won't be the best method.

---

oh, how wrong you are.