Switzerland About To Vote On Minaret Ban

[Andres]

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 with.

[Furunculus]

I assume Bild is the equivalent of Het Laatste Nieuws. It's useful to wipe your with.

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

[Andres]

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

You're right

[Ser Clegane]

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...

[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.

[Andres]

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

[Cute Wolf]

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/

Parvita writes on the topic: Loudspeaker Abuse in the Mosques: should mosques be disciplined?

If you live in Jakarta and look around some of the housing pockets in the area, how many mosques do you find in 5 kilometer radius? Have you ever seen a mosque without a loudspeaker? Have you ever had trouble sleeping because the mosque(s) was/were so loud, not only during adzan?

I stayed for couple of days in my sister's place at Pancoran area. I can hear at least two different adzans, so at least there are two mosques around there. The first night I stayed there, I was awakened by the Adzan Subuh. Which is alright. Then it stopped. But the last couple of days staying there, I was awakened around 3:30am by the sound of somebody reading the Qur'an with very high pitched voice.

It is not only there. At Kuningan, there are also at least 3 mosques using loudspeakers and they don't only use it during adzan, but also for calling each other, announcing who donated money or food, who died, sometimes kids singing, and all other kinds of information that are not really important (maybe for the neighbourhood, but not for all the people living in the apartment, I believe!).

Honestly, I feel bothered. First of all, the loudspeaker in the mosques has been abused. When you call for prayers, that is a reminder. Reading the qur'an loudly, or saying prayers or preachings loudly, that is already bothering other people's privacy. Especially when it is used for other things like calling your friends, that is extremely rude and insensitive; we have no choice to listen or not to listen. Some people still need to sleep, they need to work early and leave work late, and they want to have a decent sleep to be ready for work the next day, and here they are with their loudspeakers. I often wonder, when I need concentration in the office, those people are back in bed, taking a nap. Especially during Ramadhan. Experienced very loud sounds that keep you awake from 2am?

Second of all, is there any rules on how loud a loudspeaker can be, and how far from one mosque can you build another mosque? Check the Tegal Parang area, Warung Buncit. Just walk along the small street and look at how many mosques you see in that small area. A lot. And can you imagine if all of them abuse the use of the loudspeakers? Noise pollution.

Moslem people here believe that when you build a mosque, your merit "points" (pahala) will continue even when you are dead. Some people build mosque so that they are socially uplifted. Even though the Qur'an clearly says that your merit score ends when you are dead. Moslems also believe that to spread the preaching is a must for moslems. The Qur'an clearly says not to 'sell cheap' the teachings (for one example, using the verses when you know people don't want to listen to them). Qur'an also tells that prayers that will be answered are those which are said with humble heart and low/soft voice. So where did they get this idea?

I'm not a believer in hadits, but I remember someone told me that one of the hadits mentioned that the distance between building one mosque and another is when the adzan cannot be heard from the previous mosque. That makes sense. I wonder if there is any regulation in Jakarta for building mosques. Seems like there isn't.

Call me what you want, I am a moslem myself, I say my prayers, but me, my parents, my siblings living around Jakarta, and my other friends who are moslems, they feel bothered. But nobody goes to the mosque and complains. Of course nobody dares. What is the use of pointing out what is written in the Qur'an to them?

Well, the problem is noise pollution comes from not only the 5 times Adzans (call to prayers), but also their quranic recitals, prayers, and often sudden verses reading in the night... I lived in Indonesia, and yes, every night you'll get uneasy sleep because your nearest mosque suddenly calls or reads something... in the midnight, very loudly... even with the nearest mosque was about 500m from my house in Bandung, the noise is very disturbing, even to their fellow non "hardliner" muslims that didn't had "sholat tahajud" in the midnight, and didn't want to wake up from their sleep because someone in the mosque read quran... Fortunely, since 2 years ago, my government issue a ban on etremely loud mosque speakers, because the less religious people complained about their noisy pollution here... I think the swiss government may have goes too far in that case, but I agree with them as long as they only said about "sound control".

The Church may rang their bells too loud, but at least they rang it only once day for a week, while mosques' minarets shout their calls 5 times a day, and one in the midnight, and even (if the mosques has some extremely religious person live nearby) unpredictable recitals everyday....

It wasn't about discrimination, it was about the prospect of "sound pollution"
- And telling the mosques to calm their sounds can't be done in gentle way... as they only stop their too loud calls when the police start consficating their sound equipment here... And if that happened on Swiss (they allready got their freedom to calls out too loud) they'll accuse the governent of Human Rights violation later when the police starts consficating their Speakers and megaphone... better stop them before they grows uncontrollable...

[Ser Clegane]

but I see the point of the banning Minarets in Swiss you are all missed..

I actually doubt that a regular call to prayers (especially during the night) is regularly practiced at existing mosques in Switzerland (perhaps quid can shed a light on this point).

Apart from that - even without a minaret you can probably still make your "call to prayer". Only the minarets have been banned, mosques can still be built.

[Cute Wolf]

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

[Fragony]

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

[Ser Clegane]

You don't see his point

Indeed - I don't.

To prevent "noise pollution" you do not need to ban minarets. You directly regulate "noise pollution".

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No they can't.

Democracy, contrary to common belief, does not mean majority rule. It means minority rights.


We'll see if this referendum holds up in court.

Me, I am still very torn.

Demos-Kratos "Rule by the People". It has nothing to do with minority rights at all, that is, along with "speration of powers" a product of French Enlightenment thinking. It isn't necessarily right.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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*

[Furunculus]

If 51% of the population by majority vote elects to genocide the other 49%, is this considered a democratic state? No, of course not. This shows that 'democracy' does not mean majority rule, but that it is shorthand for that entire legacy of enlightened thought about human rights, rule of law, equality and liberty.

we trust our electorate not to make such foolishb decisions, it is called being adult. are you not asble to do the same?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Is there any other system of political thought worth the name?

There is only one form of thinking, and that's Cartesian rationality and reason. The enitre rest of Western thought is superstiton.

Plato said it first, and better. If he didn't, Xenophon or Aristotle did. Personally, I don't believe in the seperation of powers, because it never works in practice, either power ultimately remains in the hands of one man, inexcusably strengthened by a "Constitution" (America), or factionalism that causes the state to stall (South Africa).

If 51% of the population by majority vote elects to genocide the other 49%, is this considered a democratic state? No, of course not.

Sounds just like ancient Athens. DEMOCRACY!

This shows that 'democracy' does not mean majority rule, but that it is shorthand for that entire legacy of enlightened thought about human rights, rule of law, equality and liberty.

I believe the word you are actually looking for is "Republic", not Democracy. This is why you have a Campus Martius in Paris, isn't it?

Hence, the highest sovereign in a democracy is not the majority, or even the people, but Reason.

I'm not a huge fan of Reason, it can be used to justify anything. Nazi Germany was perfectly reasonable, once you accepted that those outside the State were worthless. The same principle was used by France in her colonies, was it not.

Don't even get me started on "electing" a monarch for a limited term, so that they rob the country blind.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...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.