Org Mobile Site
Originally Posted by Subotan:
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 meIgnorance 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.
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
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.that is YOUR opinion, and you aren't Swiss, as far as i know, so your opinion doesn't count..
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
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.no, probably not.
but they are not obliged to know, or to feel comfortable with someone else's religious symbols.
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
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.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).
EDIT:
Originally Posted by :
tell me
It's a tower from where the call to prayer is announced, and they're about as extreme as Church spires.tell me
Originally Posted by Subotan:
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.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.
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..........
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
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?but they are not obliged to know, or to feel comfortable with someone else's religious symbols.
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.
Says it all about some folks on the left.
Originally Posted by InsaneApache:
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.
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.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.
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....
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?
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.
Originally Posted by InsaneApache:
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.
But... is that not the point of democracy?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.
Originally Posted by Quid:
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 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
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.
Boston has height restrictions on buildings, so minarets are basically banned downtown there.
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
Boston has height restrictions on buildings, so minarets are basically banned downtown there.
That's completely different.Boston has height restrictions on buildings, so minarets are basically banned downtown there.
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.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
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?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.
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.
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...
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.
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/...664231,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...4176-2,00.html
we, in britain, could do worse given our broken political institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Germany would have voted the same way:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...664231,00.html
Originally Posted by :
.......................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:.......................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."..............................
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...4176-2,00.html
Originally Posted by :
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! lolSo 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.
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
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.and yet it is switzerlands strongly democratic form of governance that causes its citizenry to be satisfied with their country.
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.
Originally Posted by Dâriûsh:
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'In fascist Syria, Christians are granted land and funds for building churches. In democratic Switzerland, Muslims cannot build a minaret on their mosque.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
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: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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfa...ith_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/Corrupt...ceptions_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.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
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. Voter turnout in Norway is stable at around 75%, btw....
95% here btw...
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
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. 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.
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.
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...
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
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.
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.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.
Originally Posted by Andres:
the heart of the historical center of Bruges.
My eternal beloved...the heart of the historical center of Bruges.
*weeps uncontrollably
*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.
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.
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.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.
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.well yes......................................... every adult of sound mind get's an equal right to democratic representation, even the ones with opinions you don't like.
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.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.
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.
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.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO