Silly Swiss and their referendums, ain't democracy grand? /sarcasm
So, how does this ban work in practice? Can a non-muslim still make a minaret-like structure on a (not mosque-like) building? What if someone builds a structure that looks like a mosque with tall towers and then sells it to muslims? What if they build a church tower instead and have it perform the same function as a minaret? When is a minaret a minaret? Is it possible that the construction of tall towers like minarets was illegal in the first place but minarets were allowed because of an appeal to religious freedom? Then it would make some sense to ask for such a ban, although I doubt that's really the case. I think it's more about making a statement than actually preventing the construction of minarets, if there are enough people opposing this ban they too can call for a referendum to vote this ban out of existence.
Some people seem to think it is ok to give religious people more rights because 'it is (an important) part of their religion', please explain how this is not discriminating towards people that are non-religious or of a different denomination but would like to have these rights as well. I don't know if this was the case with minarets in Switzerland, but I do find it typical that some (religious or not) people consider it persecution if they can't do things that are illegal for everyone else just because a religion allows/requires it. Is it religious persecution that mormons are not allowed to practice polygamy in most countries? See also that dipshit of a judge who thought it would be a good idea to have a huge tablet with the ten commandments on them in his courthouse and then played the persecution card when he got hit over the head with the establishment clause.
In the Netherlands church bells don't get a free pass from noise pollution laws anymore. There is this pastor in Tilburg who rings his church bells every morning at 7.15 am eventhough they are louder than the laws allow. The church got fined repeatedly for 5000 euros but they still persist in ringing the bells, some Catholics consider the pastor a hero for this and he's somewhat of a celebrity now. (http://www.expatica.com/nl/news/local_news/tilburg-church-bells-sound-again-43176.html)
Imo religious people should not be exempt from laws just because of their religion. If I'm not allowed by law to do X, why should someone who is required/allowed to do so by his religion get a pass just because his religion says so? This assuming the law in question is reasonable, if it's not it should be abolished instead of making exceptions based on religion.
On November 30 2009 11:56 Orome wrote: Because we hold ourselves to our own standards. Using 'they're doing it too!' as an argument is not something adults do.
So you think allowing them to impose their religious beliefs on the people of Switzerland
Man I can't get one sentence into any of your posts in this thread without reading garbage. How is building a structure of a certain dimension on private land "imposing religious beliefs"? Minarets are designed by Muslims for Muslims.
Thanks for your contribution (that was sarcasm by the way, I'm not actually thankful for it, despite the fact that Thanksgiving just passed). If you don't read the post, then don't comment on it.
As well as providing a visual cue to a Muslim community, the main function of the minaret is to provide a vantage point from which the call to prayer (adhan) is made. Call to prayer in Islam happens five times each day. These times are at sunrise, noon, day, sundown, and evening. In most modern mosques, the adhan is called not from the minaret but from the musallah, or prayer hall, via a microphone and speaker system.
They would be blasting a reminder to you five times a day that they're a separate, unique group in a land where they have recently immigrated. I don't see what part of this concept is so difficult to grasp? It's a MINARET not a MOSQUE. Huge difference, no matter how much trash you post here. And get this: Minarets aren't even in the Koran, so they aren't a integral part of Islam in the first place. I don't even know why I bother to read your posts.
Glad to hear it, Islam is getting out of control in Europe. And no, I'm not a Christian.
Muslims can't say death to the west then come to Europe? Sure. But by the same token, why would any Muslim countries accept people from the same west that's banning minarets and saying that Islam is a sham?
Let me know when there's a predominantly Muslim country that westerners are all giddy and excited to move to.
After seeing the pictures in that brutal webpage, all I can say is that not everyone has learned the value of life itself.
The argument here is the same as any other religious thread. Pointless and no one will ever win since your opinions wouldn't evangelize whom you're arguing with.
But one thing I can't argue is that most of those Muslim extremist that were exploited due to poverty are fucking crazy! Anyway, here saw the massacred people in Maguindanao? That is some fucked up shit
They would be blasting a reminder to you five times a day that they're a separate, unique group in a land where they have recently immigrated. I don't see what part of this concept is so difficult to grasp? It's a MINARET not a MOSQUE. Huge difference, no matter how much trash you post here. And get this: Minarets aren't even in the Koran, so they aren't a integral part of Islam in the first place. I don't even know why I bother to read your posts.
How is it a big difference? Whenever I walk by an orthodox jewish area, and everyone's wearing their black suits with their wide brimmed hats and their yepos and skullcaps on, I am similarly told that there's a separate, unique group there too. When I see italians sipping their goddam cappuccinos all smug as fuck in little italy, with all their italian signs up, making their pizza and saying their flowery words, I'm told that there's a separate, unique group there too. When I go to the sikh area of town, and they have a massive temple with a golden roof and a gigantic spire with a light on it, I'm similarly told that there's a separate, unique group there too.
So what's different? Why not simply impose noise restrictions if you object to the noise? Could it be that you aren't tolerant?Being intolerant isn't the end of the world. There are plenty of people who agree with you.
Imo religious people should not be exempt from laws just because of their religion.
Pretty sure no one's got an issue with a noise regulation law. The law as its been presented, however, clearly discriminates against a single religion. If the law was "all jews go to concentration camps", jews, muslims, buddists and whatever could all obey the law, but it would be clear that the law is inherently discriminatory. Interpretation of whether or not the law is 'reasonable' as you called it is not a simple task in most cases (despite the fact that I just made an obviously unreasonable law), and the judgement's scope might not want to strike the entire law down for a variety of reasons.
Let me know when there's a predominantly Muslim country that westerners are all giddy and excited to move to.
The beauty of direct democracy. Although it's quite confusing that minarets get banned but mosques get to stay. Sounds like an expertly-played game by the conservatives in Switzerland.
They would be blasting a reminder to you five times a day that they're a separate, unique group in a land where they have recently immigrated. I don't see what part of this concept is so difficult to grasp? It's a MINARET not a MOSQUE. Huge difference, no matter how much trash you post here. And get this: Minarets aren't even in the Koran, so they aren't a integral part of Islam in the first place. I don't even know why I bother to read your posts.
How is it a big difference? Whenever I walk by an orthodox jewish area, and everyone's wearing their black suits with their wide brimmed hats and their yepos and skullcaps on, I am similarly told that there's a separate, unique group there too. When I see italians sipping their goddam cappuccinos all smug as fuck in little italy, with all their italian signs up, making their pizza and saying their flowery words, I'm told that there's a separate, unique group there too. When I go to the sikh area of town, and they have a massive temple with a golden roof and a gigantic spire with a light on it, I'm similarly told that there's a separate, unique group there too.
So what's different? Why not simply impose noise restrictions if you object to the noise? Could it be that you aren't tolerant?Being intolerant isn't the end of the world. There are plenty of people who agree with you.
Imo religious people should not be exempt from laws just because of their religion.
Pretty sure no one's got an issue with a noise regulation law. The law as its been presented, however, clearly discriminates against a single religion. If the law was "all jews go to concentration camps", jews, muslims, buddists and whatever could all obey the law, but it would be clear that the law is inherently discriminatory. Interpretation of whether or not the law is 'reasonable' as you called it is not a simple task in most cases (despite the fact that I just made an obviously unreasonable law), and the judgement's scope might not want to strike the entire law down for a variety of reasons.
I never claimed to be tolerant, I don't know why you're finding this revelation to be so surprising or that you seem to think that you are opening my eyes to some truth about myself. Why is tolerance such a big deal anyway? This is Switzerland, not Saudi Arabia. I don't see where you get off trying to impose your views of tolerance on other countries. They are doing what they see fit and they don't approve of minarets. Not every place is like America with different cultural groups living side by side. In most places, the vast majority is a homogeneous group with the same features, same culture, same tastes, etc. American ideals aren't the only ones in the world you know. They are allowing the Muslims to practice their religion, how many times do I have to say this? This is the very definition of tolerance. Intolerance would be what Muslim countries do, forcibly converting others and killing people who refuse to comply. Everyone in America is an immigrant, but America is a special case, stop blindly restating your individual experiences like it's relevant to the rest of the world.
Because it lets you live in multicultural societies without having to go around lynching people or taking away their minarets. I live in one; our food is spectacular.
This is Switzerland, not Saudi Arabia. I don't see where you get off trying to impose your views of tolerance on other countries.
It is Switzerland, but what is Switzerland? Is Switzerland what your parents had as their Switzerland?
Additionally, why stop at minarets? Why not ban their TV stations and rezone mosques for something else? I mean, its Switzerland, after all!
They are allowing the Muslims to practice their religion, how many times do I have to say this? This is the very definition of tolerance. Intolerance would be what Muslim countries do, forcibly converting others and killing people who refuse to comply. Everyone in America is an immigrant, but America is a special case, stop blindly restating your individual experiences like it's relevant to the rest of the world.
Lets go through this again: You already admitted it is intolerance, don't try to backpedal; you don't even LIKE tolerance in the first place, so no worries.
Second, there are plenty of Muslim countries that don't forcibly convert people.
Third, the vast majority of Americans are not immigrants. Even if you'd be willing to call original 13 colony member descendants immigrants, there are Native Americans.
On November 30 2009 15:42 L wrote: Additionally, why stop at minarets? Why not ban their TV stations and rezone mosques for something else? I mean, its Switzerland, after all!
Because you can choose not to watch their tv stations and you don't have to go in their mosques. However, you can't help but hear some guy yelling on top of a tall tower 5 times a day, and you can't help but look out your window and see a huge monument to Allah on the horizon.
Like I said, this is a clash of traditions, its not like they shouldn't be equally tolerant of the Swiss people. There is no law commanding them to build large obtuse structures and be loud.
I'm sure they must have pissed people off to get a law passed against them. If they just kept their loud/obtuse stuff to Muslim neighborhoods, they wouldn't have this problem. Its a political thing. If you get on people's nerves they will ban you. It happens all the time on TL. A nation is still sovereign last I checked.
God before posting your opinion atleast educate yourself in what a Minaret is, as posted above, they put huge speakers in those shits and yell 5 times a day on it.
The only amazing thing is that this wasnt forbidden before:
Noise regulation is enforced for catholic church too, and the sole purpose of a minaret is to announce loudly prayer time, its not like mosques were forbidden, get a grip.
The practice of putting a muezzin with loudspeakers has nothing to do with banning minarets; there are secular ways of dealing with excessive noise.
Because you can choose not to watch their tv stations and you don't have to go in their mosques. However, you can't help but hear some guy yelling on top of a tall tower 5 times a day, and you can't help but look out your window and see a huge monument to Allah on the horizon.
So would you ban any rather large mosques? Lets be extra radical; what if there was no Muezzin at all? Still too annoying to see a tower?
As for them 'tolerating swiss people', what are they doing which doesn't tolerate swiss people?
If they just kept their loud/obtuse stuff to Muslim neighborhoods, they wouldn't have this problem.
So, is it okay in Muslim neighborhoods? What about the swiss people living there? They can't avoid it without moving, so isn't that a prejudice to them?
On November 30 2009 16:27 baal wrote: God before posting your opinion atleast educate yourself in what a Minaret is, as posted above, they put huge speakers in those shits and yell 5 times a day on it.
The only amazing thing is that this wasnt forbidden before:
Noise regulation is enforced for catholic church too, and the sole purpose of a minaret is to announce loudly prayer time, its not like mosques were forbidden, get a grip.
On November 30 2009 16:37 L wrote: The practice of putting a muezzin with loudspeakers has nothing to do with banning minarets; there are secular ways of dealing with excessive noise.
like? not allowing speakers in minarets? then why would they build a minaret then if that is its purpose
There are no black and white idealistic principles. Many times, what is a gain for one is a loss for another. One groups tolerance lets another group be intolerant, etc.
Are you asking my personal opinion or what I think the country should do? Personally, my opinion would be based on the Muslim population. If it were in the US, where there are plenty of ethnic groups, I'd be ok with them building the biggest tower they could. Thats because the Muslim people I know don't have a big impact on my job, food, or anything else.
If I were in Switzerland, with only a few million people, I might have a different opinion. If they seemed invasive, like hispanics in the US, then I might ban it too. If they exist for no purpose than to make noise, then there is no purpose on building them....other than to give Muslims something to be mad about since they built this huge building and can't proclaim Allah's greatness from it. Every mosque sermon it would give them something to get their followers angry about.
And yes, certain things are tolerable in certain neighborhoods and not others. Not idealistic, but realistic. If it makes Muslims happy to have a few Muslim communities/neighborhoods, then so be it. If they want more and more, then there must be some sort of reaction. The pic of the Native American above shows what can happen if you don't. Again, not idealistic...
I don't live in Switzerland so I cannot pass judgement. I'd be ok with minarets in the US though.
On November 30 2009 16:47 O.G. wrote: Respect to Switzerland !!! Stop fucking islamisation !!! White Europe is dying ;-(
Statements like this scare me.
Let me start by saying that I despite Islam. Slightly moreso than Christianity. But this should not be extended to mean that I despise Muslims, or wish to restrict their right to worship or practice their religion in ways that do not breach current laws. The systematic oppression of women and the justifications of violence under certain contexts I certainly would not stand for, but these could be combated though effective enforcement of current laws. While I may feel that fear in the pit of my stomach that anything new or foreign will sweep in and destroy my way of life, I fight it with rationality. It is entirely possible be be a practicing Muslim who does not beat their wife and plot bombings. Minarets are an entirely neutral facet of their religion, and disallowing them is groundless discrimination. I haven't read every single reply in this thread, but I would be shocked if this was not in violation of Switzerland's constitution, being a modern liberal democracy.
Well, as Swiss I feel obliged to quickly explain what the whole referendum was about - at least in the mind of people living here. I'm atheist and I voted against the ban, but I know why the people voted for the referendum.
The Swiss people often use intiatives/referendums to express their frustration with certain issues / discussions in the parliament. In the end, this whole referendum wasn't really about those minarets at all, it was more about the fears regarding Islam and integration:
- There was a lot of talk in the past - started by some professor and picked up by a few politicians, about introducing parts of Sharia law in the muslim community here in Switzerland. Not many politicians even considered it, but it scared the shit out of people - which I can understand. Of course the right-wing parties promoted this issue, to put even more fear in the whole discussion.
- About 23% of the people living in Switzerland are from foreign countries. This is probably one of the highest rates in any western nation. A lot of the foreigners are very well integrated in the Swiss community, but there are certain groups where integration policies seems to have completely failed - which leads to a high crime rate amongst these groups (mostly people from ex-Jugoslavia, africa and middle east). This also lead to frustration with integration policies by the government and scepticism against those groups.
- People here also belief, that if Minarets are installed, the next step would be to introduce Muezzin, with their daily prayers - through megaphones.
- Another issue is, that there was a lot of stuff going on from Muslims that expected special treatments in schools, i.e. women not participating in certain courses like sports, swimming, wanting to ban stuff like Christmas stories and so on. Things like that are seen as unwillingness to integrate in the Swiss society.
- Then there is the issue with the Swiss hostages held by Lybia/Gaddaffi, which might have played a part (you can look up the whole story, would be too long to repeat it) and the frustration with there is no international help on this.
- And last, the Swiss are currently fed up, with always being the tolerant guys, that want to help everyone and be diplomatic and make compromises, while being pressured into (a lot of disadvantegious) aggreements by bigger nations or rogue nations. This happened a bit often over the past year - with the US, EU, Germany, Libya.
In the end the whole Minaret referendum is silly - no question about that - but the Swiss people were probably trying to express their frustration with many of these issues, and wanted to set a sign for the government.
Personally, altough i didn't vote for it, I don't think that it is much of an issue with freedom of religion. Muslims still have their mosques, they are allowed to express/live their religion.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.logoi.com/pastimages/img/indians_1.jpg)
