On November 30 2009 19:33 Velr wrote: We wanted them as cheap labour force (thats diffrent from most of the Muslims that integrated in to the US). Now we have them and can't just send them back.
It's our own fault, not the Moslems or anyone elses, now we have to deal with it but obviously just disciriminating them is the easyer way.
Yeah, we discriminate them so brutally that they can't even change the official school. Oh wait, no it's not, they can take the girls out of swimming classes they can take them out of gym classes they dont have to visit religious classes (this makes sense). As already said, this minaret initiative is populistic sign to address all these issues.
But obviously its easier to call it discrimination and stamp it as right wing idioticy as always and just refuse to see the obvious problems.
The politicians clearly have failed in this case. They thought: "Oh, this is gonna fail anyway let's just ignore it".
you didn't vote, how dare you complain about the results... people like you make me sick, more than any hardcore rightwinged or islamistic or whatever radical... at least they take their opportunity to vote (if they have it) and express their opinion, you don't vote so you'll never have an official opinion and every radical will laugh about you...
do I complain about the results? I complain about how this was handled, please read better next time.
oh, I make you sick because I don't vote for shit I shouldn't vote at all? Guess what, if I don't know shit about a case I don't crack my mouth about it. If I don't vote but talk to 10 ppl and convince them of my view on the shit, I made 10 votes not only 1 but yeah, morrons like you wont get that huh?
Yeah, blame me for my unwill to judge whether a muslim in bern may build a minaret or not, it is soo relevant to me as I never visit this shitplace anyway. As I already explained, not voting is a clear silent protest which is just ignored by politicians. The ppl not voting are declared lazy assholes who are not taking part in the system. Do you want that only the loud crying assholes control the flow of a country?
your own answer to your rethorical question would obviously be "no", yet since all the little anencephalitic crybabies like yourself think they are the most intelligent people on earth, those "assholes", who seem to be blessed with a little more neurons will easily control you.
On December 01 2009 01:40 Liquid`Drone wrote: Agreed with blackjack
This law is the greatest so-far example of the tyranny of the majority, where people due to fear of something they do not understand give up one of the most obvious rights western society has (freedom of expression more so than religion) in a fight against a religion supposedly because this religion oppresses freedom of expression.
It's hilariously hypocritical, but devastatingly sad.
This is what I'd have said if I wasn't so busy trolling this topic.
It shows two things: 1) Real democracy in Europe is now only possible outside the EU 2) It's absolutely clear why the word "referendum" has become the EU's no. 1 nightmare
More power to the Swiss people - and let's see the UK referendum on Lisbon that was promised
On November 30 2009 19:33 Velr wrote: We wanted them as cheap labour force (thats diffrent from most of the Muslims that integrated in to the US). Now we have them and can't just send them back.
It's our own fault, not the Moslems or anyone elses, now we have to deal with it but obviously just disciriminating them is the easyer way.
Yeah, we discriminate them so brutally that they can't even change the official school. Oh wait, no it's not, they can take the girls out of swimming classes they can take them out of gym classes they dont have to visit religious classes (this makes sense). As already said, this minaret initiative is populistic sign to address all these issues.
But obviously its easier to call it discrimination and stamp it as right wing idioticy as always and just refuse to see the obvious problems.
The politicians clearly have failed in this case. They thought: "Oh, this is gonna fail anyway let's just ignore it".
you didn't vote, how dare you complain about the results... people like you make me sick, more than any hardcore rightwinged or islamistic or whatever radical... at least they take their opportunity to vote (if they have it) and express their opinion, you don't vote so you'll never have an official opinion and every radical will laugh about you...
do I complain about the results? I complain about how this was handled, please read better next time.
oh, I make you sick because I don't vote for shit I shouldn't vote at all? Guess what, if I don't know shit about a case I don't crack my mouth about it. If I don't vote but talk to 10 ppl and convince them of my view on the shit, I made 10 votes not only 1 but yeah, morrons like you wont get that huh?
Yeah, blame me for my unwill to judge whether a muslim in bern may build a minaret or not, it is soo relevant to me as I never visit this shitplace anyway. As I already explained, not voting is a clear silent protest which is just ignored by politicians. The ppl not voting are declared lazy assholes who are not taking part in the system. Do you want that only the loud crying assholes control the flow of a country?
your own answer to your rethorical question would obviously be "no", yet since all the little anencephalitic crybabies like yourself think they are the most intelligent people on earth, those "assholes", who seem to be blessed with a little more neurons will easily control you.
On November 30 2009 22:31 Boblion wrote: Hitler was democratically elected too.
And? If not democratic vote, how do you determine your leaders? Just whoever is strongest?
And if you place a constitution on what your leaders can and can't do, what makes that constitution a "good" thing if not the consent of the governed -- that is, a democratic mandate?
My point is that democracy doesn't always mean moral superiority. If a majority of idiots vote for the legalization of racial laws does it makes it something good ? So arguing that this ban on the Minarets is "good" because of the democratic vote is irrevelant. You have only proven that the ban is legal and this is not what we are discussing in this thread.
On December 01 2009 01:40 Liquid`Drone wrote: Agreed with blackjack
This law is the greatest so-far example of the tyranny of the majority, where people due to fear of something they do not understand give up one of the most obvious rights western society has (freedom of expression more so than religion) in a fight against a religion supposedly because this religion oppresses freedom of expression.
It's hilariously hypocritical, but devastatingly sad.
This is what I'd have said if I wasn't so busy trolling this topic.
On December 01 2009 02:07 Excelsior wrote: It shows two things: 1) Real democracy in Europe is now only possible outside the EU 2) It's absolutely clear why the word "referendum" has become the EU's no. 1 nightmare
More power to the Swiss people - and let's see the UK referendum on Lisbon that was promised
Lisbon was already accepted. And the referendum was promised by the leader of the opposition Government, ie someone who didn't have the power to do it. The leader of the actual Government has already accepted the Lisbon Treaty and the leader of the opposition has confirmed that he's not holding a referendum on whether he should sign the treaty already signed by his predeccessor a year ago should he get into office. Oddly enough the Government spin had a field day with it, saying he wasn't keeping his promises etc which I find kinda funny. He says "if it's up to me, we'll have a referendum". They make it not up to him then bitch at him when he doesn't hold a referendum.
On December 01 2009 01:32 BlackJack wrote: It's okay to oppress muslims because they threaten the freedom of women?
Yes. As a citizen of a liberal country I feel like I should protect the values that my country is made of and fight ideas/organizations that treaten my personal freedom and liberty. Honestly if this forum wasn't full of male nerds I think you would get different oppinions. To me at least it seems like self-destructive behavior if a woman doesn't act against the speading of an religion that leads to their oppression.
On December 01 2009 01:32 BlackJack wrote: It's okay to oppress muslims because they threaten the freedom of women?
Yes. As a citizen of a liberal country I feel like I should protect the values that my country is made of and fight ideas/organizations that treaten my personal freedom and liberty. Honestly if this forum wasn't full of male nerds I think you would get different oppinions. To me at least it seems like self-destructive behavior if a woman doesn't act against the speading of an religion that leads to their oppression.
Agreed.
Guys will have to fight for womens rights too, because we can't expect all women who have learned to want and long for patriarchal approval to fight for increased personal worth and freedom. It's not a women's cause, it's a cause for mankind. Equal rights. I long for the day where we are seen as individuals and not just male/female.
On December 01 2009 01:32 BlackJack wrote: It's okay to oppress muslims because they threaten the freedom of women?
Yes. As a citizen of a liberal country I feel like I should protect the values that my country is made of and fight ideas/organizations that treaten my personal freedom and liberty. Honestly if this forum wasn't full of male nerds I think you would get different oppinions. To me at least it seems like self-destructive behavior if a woman doesn't act against the speading of an religion that leads to their oppression.
Agreed completely. The Apologists of Evil in this thread make me want to vomit.
On December 01 2009 01:32 BlackJack wrote: It's okay to oppress muslims because they threaten the freedom of women?
Yes. As a citizen of a liberal country I feel like I should protect the values that my country is made of and fight ideas/organizations that treaten my personal freedom and liberty. Honestly if this forum wasn't full of male nerds I think you would get different oppinions. To me at least it seems like self-destructive behavior if a woman doesn't act against the speading of an religion that leads to their oppression.
Agreed.
Guys will have to fight for womens rights too, because we can't expect all women who have learned to want and long for patriarchal approval to fight for increased personal worth and freedom. It's not a women's cause, it's a cause for mankind. Equal rights. I long for the day where we are seen as individuals and not just male/female.
Anyways, that was a side rant.
Hey, you seem pretty politically correct on the gender equality issue.
On December 01 2009 01:32 BlackJack wrote: It's okay to oppress muslims because they threaten the freedom of women?
Yes. As a citizen of a liberal country I feel like I should protect the values that my country is made of and fight ideas/organizations that treaten my personal freedom and liberty. Honestly if this forum wasn't full of male nerds I think you would get different oppinions. To me at least it seems like self-destructive behavior if a woman doesn't act against the speading of an religion that leads to their oppression.
Agreed.
Guys will have to fight for womens rights too, because we can't expect all women who have learned to want and long for patriarchal approval to fight for increased personal worth and freedom. It's not a women's cause, it's a cause for mankind. Equal rights. I long for the day where we are seen as individuals and not just male/female.
Anyways, that was a side rant.
Hey, you seem pretty politically correct on the gender equality issue.
Partly, which is not because I want to be. I just happen to think it's a super important issue. The difference is that I'm more hardcore about it than most people who talk about "equality" but have no idea what that is or how it should be accomplished irl regarding men and women.
Just because an opinion of mine overlaps with views that are politically correct doesn't make it based on popular belief. Ideas that aren't PC aren't good or bad by nature, same goes for ideas that fall into the PC category. It just shows which ideas are more accepted in general by our society.
On November 30 2009 22:31 Boblion wrote: Hitler was democratically elected too.
And? If not democratic vote, how do you determine your leaders? Just whoever is strongest?
And if you place a constitution on what your leaders can and can't do, what makes that constitution a "good" thing if not the consent of the governed -- that is, a democratic mandate?
My point is that democracy doesn't always mean moral superiority. If a majority of idiots vote for the legalization of racial laws does it makes it something good ? So arguing that this ban on the Minarets is "good" because of the democratic vote is irrevelant. You have only proven that the ban is legal and this is not what we are discussing in this thread.
Right. My point is how do you know what -is- morally superior if not through a democratic vote?
Some of the historical options are:
Divine Command Intrinsic value Intuitionism Natural Moral Law Rationalism (Kant)
A sociological institution that's true purpose is to protect the family structure (by alienating homosexuals) through guilt, self-doubt and fear by spouting the dogma of a man-made God in order to increase the reproductive rate of pre-industrial or medieval civilizations, which in turn increases a species overall chance of survival.
Up until about two hundred years ago religion was needed in order to keep high birth rates and control the masses; however today, religion is used as a tool to make war, confuse and psychologically damage people and promote hatred towards diversity.
2)
The biggest lie in human history. It has been responsible for more deaths throughout human history than all other unnatural causes combined. For a thousand years the Church was a tyrannical dictatorship that used religion to control the uneducated masses. Free your minds and come into the 21st century
3)
1) the source of most of the world's problems (ei-discrimination, holocaust, homophobia, terrorism, etc...) 2)a common belief by a large group of weak minded people in an imaginary being that helps them cope with the fact that their miserable lives will end eventually 3)hipocrasy (ei-virginity=priests raping little boys, all are equal=gays should burn) 4)islam, christianity, wicca, satanism, jewdism 5)cults and a form of brainwashing
Yeah and while we're at it, let's make Islam illegal and ban every Muslim from Europe. Wtf ?
You people do actually realize this vote is a massive manipulation and actually bans a random community / religion / culture / group of citizen that pay their taxes from constructing a certain type of building ?
I think it would be illegal for me, if, tomorrow morning I decide I want to erect a 50 meters high steel nazi cross in the middle of the city right ?
So then, are building celebration of muslim cult places and building a giant nazi cross the same ?
Are Muslims nazis ?
Do their symbols carry the same weight ?
I'm not talking here about a bunch of illuminated folks trying to terrorize populations from within a cave in Pakistan, but about one of the three main religion of the world. Are these roughly 1.5 billion people in the world all advocating mass murder and woman torture ?
After reading and skimming 20+ pages, here are some more thoughts:
On November 30 2009 08:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Ban all religious influence or none at all.
This is the main issue I feel like has been discussed here. Does the amount of protection we grant religious expression extend to Islam, even if it may be "worse" or "more dangerous" in various ways, or trying to do more than other religions, etc.? Clearly I disagree with the above quote; some religious influences may need to be stopped, but not necessarily all or none. For instance, a cult that encourages you to kill people clearly demands some kind of intervention. The question is, how close to that extreme does a religion need to be before we are willing to interfere with it? And I think this question has been dealt with very well in this thread already, so I will say no more.
Another thing people are saying here is that Islam is intolerant, so they deserve this. This makes no sense. Other people's (bad thing) shouldn't change you from someone who is not (bad adjective) into someone who is. For instance, say you believe murder is wrong. You can't then say, oh but these people are murderers! So I'm not a murderer, but I'll murder them because that's just how they are! Clearly, this is a bad argument, commonly refuted by the saying "two wrongs don't make a right," or to put it another way, if you're a tolerant person then you have to tolerate the intolerant just the same. Tolerating only what you like is not really tolerance is it? You are "lowering yourself" to "their level" when you think like this. So that's another issue I saw discussed here quite thoroughly.
In fact, there are several good discussions going on here, and I've been happy to read them. In thanks, I'd like to offer an additional three facets of this issue that I didn't see raised here:
1. As others pointed out, Hitler was democratically elected, too. And if things keep going the way they are going, countries with direct-vote actions like this may soon be majority Muslim (something to think about perhaps). This is tyrranny of the majority, kind of like those "propositions" or "referendums" in the U.S. where the public is allowed to vote on something like banning gay marriage because politicians are afraid to do it themselves but figure that if they let people vote on it they can do it and yet not do it. It's direct democracy. This kind of direct democracy is something the U.S. system was specifically built to moderate. They didn't just make the majority vote on everything, and this was to to quell the power of the "mob" or "the masses", not simply because frequent elections would be impractical. And we do see signs of direct votes leading to crap, as in the case of the gay bans and other silly referendums/propositions, where taxes are cut any time it's offerred. If the U.S. worked this way I fear the government would have no money and everything that made suburbanites uncomfortable would be illegal. Direct votes, for or against?
2. This is a bit like zoning restrictions. Nobody wants a big Islamic symbol in their neighborhood; it drives down property value! They don't want their neighborhood turning into a miniature Iran! It's kind of snobbish, like keeping out "the blacks" from uptown neighborhoods. It's like criminalization of marijuana to try to stop those Mexicans and Blacks. It's the well-to-do's taking paranoid shots at the alienated immigrants. Is this a class issue?
3. I see a lot of people discussing the merits or demerits of Islam itself, asking whether it should be banned or limited anyways, and on the other end, whether Christianity deserves this by the same standard. I think a few other things need to be discussed before these are relevant: The ban is not meant to limit religion. They determined that Islam doesn't require these things at all. They are big and ugly and not really part of the religion, so they (some) felt it was okay to try to ban them. It's not like banning crosses. It's like banning five story crosses with Las Vegas style lights on them (maybe). Unless your position is that there can be no limitation on religious expression through architecture (and how absurd would that be?) then the next issue is whether these things really are far below the line or not. At what point would a religious architecture be subject to restrictions?
4. This is not really related to this issue as much, but my pet peeve is when laws are not sufficiently written in general principles. Like the "Defund ACORN Act", it's just a waste of life in addition to being unfair or whatever. What they should have done is ban ridiculous buildings with some fair standards that would happen to exclude these buildings but not specifically target one group's buildings by name. This would have not only continued to serve the same need in the future but also made this a lot less prejudicial-looking. IMO the U.S. started out this way, with things like the Bill of Rights, but completely lost this way of thinking and now makes rules so petty and specific that they are utterly useless when a new problem comes along.
it's what their buildings and Islam symbolizes. There are so many practical issues with Islam in western countries which have been adressed. The way they treat women is constantly overlooked by politically correct opinion which is a huge FAIL. Islam is not cool at all, it's oppressive and retarded. Arabs aren't, but Islam is. Big difference
Yeah yeah muslims are all nice and cozy lets all hug and dance and invite them here in masses.
Also, you should know alot of muslim countries and regions have quite hard punishment for things that aren't even considered "crimes" in the western world. Being unfaithful, changing religions and criticizing Islam are deadly sins that have legal effects.
An important thing to explain here. While not everyone advocates death penalty and torture, those who do just don't suddenly think that it might be a good idea to do so, it's the result of the beliefs that all muslims share and they all to some degree share the idea for example that women are inferior or that people who don't believe in the Koran are sinners. The underlying beliefs is the main thing to get at here, and we can't just blame a single group of muslims because these teachings are considered true in different degrees by muslims all over the world.
It's like when society talks about rapists and men who abuse women and say that they are psychopaths and "crazy". Well, there is also the underlying view on women that we as a society ALL are responsible for. There are sociological explanations for these kinds of actions that manifest themselves in some cases but one causal event could go like this:
thinking that girls are stupid -> calling a girl a whore -> taking advantage of a girl while she sleeps and is drunk (rape).
^ This one is not too far-fetched and starts out with something that's too common nowadays, calling girls whatever things. So, it goes from having a belief about girls, calling then names, to taking advantage of drunk girls. Also the fact that taking advantage of someone sexually is something many guys can laugh about because they don't see it as rape, says something about where the line is drawn as to what males are allowed to do with women.
Another example is with males in a group, who rape a girl but don't seem to think that it was that big of a deal. They talk about the girl wearing a tiny skirt or being flirty and that she "wanted it". This dominant male culture gets stronger in groups with only males, and the views expressed about women get exponentially worse the more men and the less females there are in a group. There is a real problem here with how men learn to relate to women and it's everywhere; in literature, movies etc etc.
EPT
