Apparently the swiss voters backed a ban on minarets based on the fact that they are not required by Islam, and are a sign of Islamisation. I really doubt banning the construction of minarets is going to stop any "Islamisation".
Does anybody in Switzerland or even Europe have any information? It didn't really get any airtime in the US. Apparently the government didn't want to do it, but the people did ?_?
I don't really see a reason to spread religion in the world to be honest. Islam to me is oppression and women being held down by ridiculous religious beliefs. Of course there are nice things to arabic culture, but Islam is not it
I don't know how much % of the population must be for it in order to pass, but 57% is pretty steep...
It's not it just barely passed with 1% of the population. I'm not going to say that they have genuine hostility, but definitely fear. The country is like 90% Christian no?
On November 30 2009 07:53 Jonoman92 wrote: They should ban crosses too then. I don't know how this can be construed in any way other than the Swiss being hostile towards Muslims.
Hostile? Just because they apparently don't want Islam to spread in Switzerland doesn't make them "hostile".
Interesting thought, Richard Dawkins would most likely support this ban. People aren't always against things just because they are "hostile" or scared of everything new. Those notions are politically correct ideas, and are hostile against free thought.
On November 30 2009 07:55 FragKrag wrote: I don't know how much % of the population must be for it in order to pass, but 57% is pretty steep...
It's not it just barely passed with 1% of the population. I'm not going to say that they have genuine hostility, but definitely fear. The country is like 90% Christian no?
Most of the country doesn't have religious beliefs.
On November 30 2009 07:52 Foucault wrote: I don't really see a reason to spread religion in the world to be honest. Islam to me is oppression and women being held down by ridiculous religious beliefs. Of course there are nice things to arabic culture, but Islam is not it
I agree completely, and I think this is the consensus of most people in Switzerland.
On November 30 2009 07:52 Foucault wrote: I don't really see a reason to spread religion in the world to be honest. Islam to me is oppression and women being held down by ridiculous religious beliefs. Of course there are nice things to arabic culture, but Islam is not it
I agree completely, and I think this is the consensus of most people in Switzerland.
yeah, and Christianity is drinking blood, crusades, inquisitions and witch hunts.
On November 30 2009 07:52 Foucault wrote: I don't really see a reason to spread religion in the world to be honest. Islam to me is oppression and women being held down by ridiculous religious beliefs. Of course there are nice things to arabic culture, but Islam is not it
As an atheist, I wouldn't mind if everyone chose to be not religious. However, in this case the majority chose to ban the expression of religion in architecture for a minority. Religion is an idea, and we shouldn't ban ideas or the free expression of ideas, no matter how repugnant we think they are.
On November 30 2009 07:52 Foucault wrote: I don't really see a reason to spread religion in the world to be honest. Islam to me is oppression and women being held down by ridiculous religious beliefs. Of course there are nice things to arabic culture, but Islam is not it
I agree completely, and I think this is the consensus of most people in Switzerland.
yeah, and Christianity is drinking blood, crusades, inquisitions and witch hunts.
be more ignorant please.
come on now, everyone knows that christians nowadays don't follow any of that stuff except for the forgiveness part.
everything else is free to individual interpretation!
On November 30 2009 07:52 Foucault wrote: I don't really see a reason to spread religion in the world to be honest. Islam to me is oppression and women being held down by ridiculous religious beliefs. Of course there are nice things to arabic culture, but Islam is not it
I agree completely, and I think this is the consensus of most people in Switzerland.
yeah, and Christianity is drinking blood, crusades, inquisitions and witch hunts.
be more ignorant please.
Islam still has honor killings, excuses for rape including blaming the victim, the death penalty for homosexuality, and no rights for women.
How many of the Christian things you mentioned are still around?
On November 30 2009 07:59 REDBLUEGREEN wrote: I think it is done for security reasons. It is a well known fact that assassins climb on minarets to look where their targets are in the city.
LOL... I think it's ok as long as we remove the stacks of hay beneath the minarets.
On November 30 2009 08:02 FragKrag wrote: Saturnize I don't think there is a single country in Europe where the majority has no religious beliefs
maybe, just maybe the Netherlands, but I think even that is a long shot.
Except for Ireland, Italy and maybe Spain and Portugal I wouldn't say there's any country in (Central/Northern) Europe where religious beliefs are widespread.
Seeing the strong anti-islamic attitude makes me want to emigrate to Switzerland.
On November 30 2009 07:53 Jonoman92 wrote: They should ban crosses too then. I don't know how this can be construed in any way other than the Swiss being hostile towards Muslims.
Hostile? Just because they apparently don't want Islam to spread in Switzerland doesn't make them "hostile".
Jonoman wrote "hostile towards Muslims." And not wanting Islam to spread in Switzerland does make the Swiss hostile towards Muslims. Read!
I think this is an awful law, and it sets a bad example for the various European countries that are facing strong internal pressure to fight "Islamification". Preventing people from constructing buildings of a certain dimension is a pretty egregious trampling of personal freedoms.
I can see why they would be wary of Islamic influences. Where do you think the Paris riots came from? Ungrateful youth that should expend their time and energy on their education or a career, wasting their lives being mad at the establishment, which allows them to have protection, a home, etc.
All religions are stupid and pointless anyway; the idea of believing in something with blind faith and without a single shred of evidence is just ridiculous.
last time I checked like 75% of Sweden was part of the Church of Sweden...? I'm pretty sure most people in Europe still have religious beliefs, maybe not attending church during every meeting or whatever, but belief in God/Gods.
On November 30 2009 08:02 FragKrag wrote: Saturnize I don't think there is a single country in Europe where the majority has no religious beliefs
maybe, just maybe the Netherlands, but I think even that is a long shot.
The only people I've met who were openly religious were priests.
On November 30 2009 08:14 FragKrag wrote: Uh where are you getting that
last time I checked like 75% of Sweden was part of the Church of Sweden...? I'm pretty sure most people in Europe still have religious beliefs, maybe not attending church during every meeting or whatever, but belief in God/Gods.
Which is probably mostly because you are born into the church of sweden and have to actually put an effort into leaving it.
Hell, I thought I had left it when I didn't do the whole confirmation thing but turns out there was more to it than that.
On November 30 2009 08:14 ghostWriter wrote: I can see why they would be wary of Islamic influences. Where do you think the Paris riots came from? Ungrateful youth that should expend their time and energy on their education or a career, wasting their lives being mad at the establishment, which allows them to have protection, a home, etc.
There's a big, hard to justify leap from being wary of influences and taking affirmative steps to eliminate them.
On November 30 2009 08:14 FragKrag wrote: Uh where are you getting that
last time I checked like 75% of Sweden was part of the Church of Sweden...? I'm pretty sure most people in Europe still have religious beliefs, maybe not attending church during every meeting or whatever, but belief in God/Gods.
Europe is a big place, you can't generalize it in this way. In Italy, of course there's a VERY small percentage of atheists. In Scandinavia, the majority of the population in these countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland) are atheists or do not actively practice any religion at all. The last study I checked was conducted in 2005 and it says very clearly that 85% of Swedish people report being atheists.
On November 30 2009 08:14 ghostWriter wrote: I can see why they would be wary of Islamic influences. Where do you think the Paris riots came from? Ungrateful youth that should expend their time and energy on their education or a career, wasting their lives being mad at the establishment, which allows them to have protection, a home, etc.
There's a big, hard to justify leap from being wary of influences and taking affirmative steps to eliminate them.
If you immigrate to a different country, it's your job to assimilate into the existing culture. The Koran promotes violence in order for Islam to spread. Why wouldn't they eliminate threatening influences?
On November 30 2009 08:14 ghostWriter wrote: I can see why they would be wary of Islamic influences. Where do you think the Paris riots came from? Ungrateful youth that should expend their time and energy on their education or a career, wasting their lives being mad at the establishment, which allows them to have protection, a home, etc.
There's a big, hard to justify leap from being wary of influences and taking affirmative steps to eliminate them.
If you immigrate to a different country, it's your job to assimilate into the existing culture. The Koran promotes violence in order for Islam to spread. Why wouldn't they eliminate threatening influences?
Where in the Koran did it actually promote violence?
FragKrag, what kind of info do you want? All you said in your OP's correct, the Bundesinitiative (any citizen can start a Bundesinitiative, everyone over 18 in the country gets to vote on it) passed with 57% (which is pretty damn high -_-;; ).
This vote was proposed by the SVP, which are often described as right-winged populists. The result was really surprising, the german media said yesterday (before the vote) most people expected a different outcome...
IMO this ban is pure bullshit, the people are blinded by fear of different cultures and religions. "The free western world" should always uphold their values of open-mindedness and tolerance, the decision made by the swiss people is a step in the wrong direction.
I remember in high school when a Persian guy (who is a nice guy) practically bragged about the practice of hanging gay people in his country. Also my best friend is "engaged" to a 13 yr old he has never met (he doesn't plan to do through with it). Oh and also Muslim people raped my country for 500 years...surprisingly I don't have that much of a problem with that. IMO the western world is too civilized for Islam to work without changing.
On November 30 2009 08:14 ghostWriter wrote: I can see why they would be wary of Islamic influences. Where do you think the Paris riots came from? Ungrateful youth that should expend their time and energy on their education or a career, wasting their lives being mad at the establishment, which allows them to have protection, a home, etc.
There's a big, hard to justify leap from being wary of influences and taking affirmative steps to eliminate them.
If you immigrate to a different country, it's your job to assimilate into the existing culture. The Koran promotes violence in order for Islam to spread. Why wouldn't they eliminate threatening influences?
Where in the Koran did it actually promote violence?
Qur'an (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah." There is a good case to be made that the textual context of this particular passage is defensive war, even if the historical context was not. However, there are also two worrisome pieces to these verse. The first is that the killing of others is authorized in the event of "persecution" (a qualification that is ambiguous at best). The second is that fighting may persist until "religion is for Allah." The example set by Muhammad is not reassuring.
Qur'an (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."
Qur'an (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding caravans with this verse.
Qur'an (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."
Qur'an (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').
Qur'an (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle, as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. Here is the theological basis for today's suicide bombers.
Qur'an (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"
Qur'an (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."
Qur'an (45) - "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-" This passage not only criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, but it also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Qur'an, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is the Arabic word used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad).
Qur'an (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..." Pursuing an injured and retreating enemy is not an act of self-defense.
Qur'an (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"
Qur'an (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.
Qur'an (8:15) - "O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end."
Qur'an (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah" From the historical context we know that the "persecution" spoken of here was simply the refusal by the Meccans to allow Muhammad to enter their city and perform the Haj. Other Muslims were able to travel there, just not as an armed group, since Muhammad declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction. The Meccans were also acting in defense of their religion, since it was Muhammad's intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (which he later did). Hence the critical part of this verse is to fight until "religion is only for Allah."
Qur'an (8:57) - "If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember."
Qur'an (8:59-60) - "And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy."
Qur'an (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them." According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence is to convert to Islam. Prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religions Five Pillars.
Qur'an (9:14) - "Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace..."
Qur'an (9:20) - "Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah's way are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant." The "striving" spoken of here is Jihad.
Qur'an (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." "People of the Book" refers to Christians and Jews. This was one of the final "revelations" from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad's companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in just the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths.
Qur'an (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"
Qur'an (9:38-39) - "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place." This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell.
Qur'an (9:41) - "Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew." See also the verse that follows (9:42) - "If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed thee, but the distance was long, (and weighed) on them" This contradicts the myth that Muslims are to fight only in self-defense, since the wording implies that battle will be waged a long distance from home (in another country and on Christian soil, in this case, according to the historians).
Qur'an (9:73) - "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination." Dehumanizing those who reject Islam, by reminding Muslims that they are merely firewood for Hell, makes it easier to justify slaughter. It also explains why today's devout Muslims have little regard for those outside the faith.
Qur'an (9:88) - "But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper."
Qur'an (9:111) - "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme."
Qur'an (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."
Qur'an (21:44) - "We gave the good things of this life to these men and their fathers until the period grew long for them; See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will win?"
Qur'an (25:52) - "Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness, with the (Qur'an)." "Strive against" is Jihad - obviously not in the personal context. It's also significant to point out that this is a Meccan verse.
Qur'an (47:4) - "So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners,"
Qur'an (47:35) - "Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost (Shakir: "have the upper hand") for Allah is with you,"
Qur'an (48:17) - "There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom." Contemporary apologists sometimes claim that Jihad means 'spiritual struggle.' Is so, then why are the blind, lame and sick exempted?
Qur'an (48:29) - "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves" Islam is not about treating everyone equally. There are two very distinct standards that are applied based on religious status.
Qur'an (61:4) - "Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way" Religion of Peace, indeed!
Qur'an (61:10-12) - "O ye who believe! Shall I lead you to a bargain that will save you from a grievous Penalty?- That ye believe in Allah and His Messenger, and that ye strive (your utmost) in the Cause of Allah, with your property and your persons: That will be best for you, if ye but knew! He will forgive you your sins, and admit you to Gardens beneath which Rivers flow, and to beautiful mansions in Gardens of Eternity." This verse was given in battle. It uses the Arabic word, Jihad.
Qur'an (66) - "O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end." The root word of "Jihad" is used again here. The context is clearly holy war, and the scope of violence is broadened to include "hypocrites" - those who call themselves Muslims but do not act as such.
From the Hadith:
Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."
Bukhari (52:256) - The Prophet... was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." In this command, Muhammad establishes that it is permissible to kill non-combatants in the process of killing a perceived enemy. This provides justification for the many Islamic terror bombings.
Bukhari (52:220) - Allah's Apostle said... 'I have been made victorious with terror'
Abu Dawud (14:2526) - The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, "There is no god but Allah" and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action; and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist)
Abu Dawud (14:2527) - The Prophet said: Striving in the path of Allah (jihad) is incumbent on you along with every ruler, whether he is pious or impious
Muslim (1:33) - the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah
Bukhari (8:387) - Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah
Muslim (1:149) - "Abu Dharr reported: I said: Messenger of Allah, which of the deeds is the best? He (the Holy Prophet) replied: Belief in Allah and Jihad in His cause..."
Muslim (20:4645) - "...He (the Messenger of Allah) did that and said: There is another act which elevates the position of a man in Paradise to a grade one hundred (higher), and the elevation between one grade and the other is equal to the height of the heaven from the earth. He (Abu Sa'id) said: What is that act? He replied: Jihad in the way of Allah! Jihad in the way of Allah!"
Muslim (20:4696) - "the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: 'One who died but did not fight in the way of Allah nor did he express any desire (or determination) for Jihid died the death of a hypocrite.'"
Muslim (19:4321-4323) - Three separate hadith in which Muhammad shrugs over the news that innocent children were killed in a raid by his men against unbelievers. His response: "They are of them (meaning the enemy)."
Tabari 77 The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, "Kill any Jew who falls under your power." Ashraf was a poet, killed by Muhammad's men because he insulted Islam. Here, Muhammad widens the scope of his orders to kill. An innocent Jewish businessman was then slain by his Muslim partner, merely for being non-Muslim.
Tabari 9:69 "Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us" The words of Muhammad, prophet of Islam.
Ibn Ishaq: 327 - “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”
Ibn Ishaq: 990 - Lest anyone think that cutting off someone's head while screaming 'Allah Akbar!' is a modern custom, here is an account of that very practice under Muhammad, who seems to approve.
Ibn Ishaq: 992 - "Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah." Muhammad's instructions to his men prior to a military raid.
On November 30 2009 08:24 ShaperofDreams wrote: It's ok I don't really like Islam anyways.
I remember in high school when a Persian guy (who is a nice guy) practically bragged about the practice of hanging gay people in his country. Also my best friend is "engaged" to a 13 yr old he has never met (he doesn't plan to do through with it). Oh and also Muslim people raped my country for 500 years...surprisingly I don't have that much of a problem with that. IMO the western world is too civilized for Islam to work without changing.
On November 30 2009 08:02 FragKrag wrote: Saturnize I don't think there is a single country in Europe where the majority has no religious beliefs
maybe, just maybe the Netherlands, but I think even that is a long shot.
o,O
You know that being raised has a catholic doesn't mean that you are a believer ? The last time i looked at the stats it was like ~ 45% non believer in France and it is increasing. Soon 50% !
On November 30 2009 08:14 ghostWriter wrote: I can see why they would be wary of Islamic influences. Where do you think the Paris riots came from? Ungrateful youth that should expend their time and energy on their education or a career, wasting their lives being mad at the establishment, which allows them to have protection, a home, etc.
There's a big, hard to justify leap from being wary of influences and taking affirmative steps to eliminate them.
If you immigrate to a different country, it's your job to assimilate into the existing culture. The Koran promotes violence in order for Islam to spread. Why wouldn't they eliminate threatening influences?
Where in the Koran did it actually promote violence?
Excerpt K 2:190-191 Set 2, Count 3+4 [2.190] ...fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you...[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
I mean some people in here are against Islam yes...but they do have valid points. While Christianity I agree has some silly rules, it's not as bad as Islam. If you're homosexual, to christianity that means you're not going to be saved by christ, but you're not a lost cause. To Islam, the penalty for homosexuality is death. You see the issue here? A culture that allows degradation of women and insane penalties like that seems ridiculous to me.
OK everyone you've all convinced me. Let's ban all ideas that we don't like or we think is having or can have negative consequences in the world. I think modern science, all religion, and political expression should go first. We can add other categories as we go along.
On November 30 2009 08:28 Slow Motion wrote: OK everyone you've all convinced me. Let's ban all ideas that we don't like or we think is having or can have negative consequences in the world. I think modern science, all religion, and political expression should go first. We can add other categories as we go along.
Some of those things require "logic" Islam makes no sense whatsoever -_-
How is a nation's secularism relevant to banning freedom of religious expression? Of all the countries that would try to pull something like this....SWITZERLAND??? SERIOUSLY LOL?
On November 30 2009 08:28 Slow Motion wrote: OK everyone you've all convinced me. Let's ban all ideas that we don't like or we think is having or can have negative consequences in the world. I think modern science, all religion, and political expression should go first. We can add other categories as we go along.
Some of those things require "logic" Islam makes no sense whatsoever -_-
Alright, let's make a list of all the ideas that we think are "logical", and ban the others!
On November 30 2009 08:14 ghostWriter wrote: I can see why they would be wary of Islamic influences. Where do you think the Paris riots came from? Ungrateful youth that should expend their time and energy on their education or a career, wasting their lives being mad at the establishment, which allows them to have protection, a home, etc.
There's a big, hard to justify leap from being wary of influences and taking affirmative steps to eliminate them.
If you immigrate to a different country, it's your job to assimilate into the existing culture. The Koran promotes violence in order for Islam to spread. Why wouldn't they eliminate threatening influences?
Lawmakers should balance protecting national security/interests with the costs of restricting freedom of speech and expression. Of course eliminating threatening influences might make a country safer, but you're forgetting to consider the value of political/religious/whatever expression. Here we are critiquing the Swiss government and its laws—that could be seen as a threatening influence, why doesn't Switzerland make visiting TL illegal too?
On November 30 2009 08:14 ghostWriter wrote: Where do you think the Paris riots came from? Ungrateful youth that should expend their time and energy on their education or a career, wasting their lives being mad at the establishment, which allows them to have protection, a home, etc.
If you immigrate to a different country, it's your job to assimilate into the existing culture.
On November 30 2009 08:24 Yizuo wrote: This vote was proposed by the SVP, which are often described as right-winged populists. The result was really surprising, the german media said yesterday (before the vote) most people expected a different outcome...
IMO this ban is pure bullshit, the people are blinded by fear of different cultures and religions. "The free western world" should always uphold their values of open-mindedness and tolerance, the decision made by the swiss people is a step in the wrong direction.
It's hard to be tolerant to people who believe in ABSOLUTE ZERO tolerance themselves, some muslim group a few years ago tried to ban the swedish anthem from our graduation ceremonies (which has been a tradition in sweden a long time) because they though it was racist to the non-swedes living in sweden.
On November 30 2009 08:28 Slow Motion wrote: OK everyone you've all convinced me. Let's ban all ideas that we don't like or we think is having or can have negative consequences in the world. I think modern science, all religion, and political expression should go first. We can add other categories as we go along.
Some of those things require "logic" Islam makes no sense whatsoever -_-
Alright, let's make a list of all the ideas that we think are "logical", and ban the others!
On November 30 2009 08:14 ghostWriter wrote: I can see why they would be wary of Islamic influences. Where do you think the Paris riots came from? Ungrateful youth that should expend their time and energy on their education or a career, wasting their lives being mad at the establishment, which allows them to have protection, a home, etc.
There's a big, hard to justify leap from being wary of influences and taking affirmative steps to eliminate them.
If you immigrate to a different country, it's your job to assimilate into the existing culture. The Koran promotes violence in order for Islam to spread. Why wouldn't they eliminate threatening influences?
Where in the Koran did it actually promote violence?
Excerpt K 2:190-191 Set 2, Count 3+4 [2.190] ...fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you...[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
Ok I stand corrected though that seems somewhat outdated ...?
I mean is there many many different interpretations of the Koran, not to mention, like the Bible, it has many areas where it contradicts itself?
On November 30 2009 08:14 ghostWriter wrote: I can see why they would be wary of Islamic influences. Where do you think the Paris riots came from? Ungrateful youth that should expend their time and energy on their education or a career, wasting their lives being mad at the establishment, which allows them to have protection, a home, etc.
There's a big, hard to justify leap from being wary of influences and taking affirmative steps to eliminate them.
If you immigrate to a different country, it's your job to assimilate into the existing culture. The Koran promotes violence in order for Islam to spread. Why wouldn't they eliminate threatening influences?
Where in the Koran did it actually promote violence?
Qur'an (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah." There is a good case to be made that the textual context of this particular passage is defensive war, even if the historical context was not. However, there are also two worrisome pieces to these verse. The first is that the killing of others is authorized in the event of "persecution" (a qualification that is ambiguous at best). The second is that fighting may persist until "religion is for Allah." The example set by Muhammad is not reassuring.
Qur'an (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."
Qur'an (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding caravans with this verse.
Qur'an (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."
Qur'an (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').
Qur'an (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle, as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. Here is the theological basis for today's suicide bombers.
Qur'an (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"
Qur'an (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."
Qur'an (45) - "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-" This passage not only criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, but it also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Qur'an, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is the Arabic word used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad).
Qur'an (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..." Pursuing an injured and retreating enemy is not an act of self-defense.
Qur'an (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"
Qur'an (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.
Qur'an (8:15) - "O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end."
Qur'an (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah" From the historical context we know that the "persecution" spoken of here was simply the refusal by the Meccans to allow Muhammad to enter their city and perform the Haj. Other Muslims were able to travel there, just not as an armed group, since Muhammad declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction. The Meccans were also acting in defense of their religion, since it was Muhammad's intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (which he later did). Hence the critical part of this verse is to fight until "religion is only for Allah."
Qur'an (8:57) - "If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember."
Qur'an (8:59-60) - "And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy."
Qur'an (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them." According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence is to convert to Islam. Prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religions Five Pillars.
Qur'an (9:14) - "Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace..."
Qur'an (9:20) - "Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah's way are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant." The "striving" spoken of here is Jihad.
Qur'an (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." "People of the Book" refers to Christians and Jews. This was one of the final "revelations" from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad's companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in just the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths.
Qur'an (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"
Qur'an (9:38-39) - "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place." This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell.
Qur'an (9:41) - "Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew." See also the verse that follows (9:42) - "If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed thee, but the distance was long, (and weighed) on them" This contradicts the myth that Muslims are to fight only in self-defense, since the wording implies that battle will be waged a long distance from home (in another country and on Christian soil, in this case, according to the historians).
Qur'an (9:73) - "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination." Dehumanizing those who reject Islam, by reminding Muslims that they are merely firewood for Hell, makes it easier to justify slaughter. It also explains why today's devout Muslims have little regard for those outside the faith.
Qur'an (9:88) - "But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper."
Qur'an (9:111) - "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme."
Qur'an (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."
Qur'an (21:44) - "We gave the good things of this life to these men and their fathers until the period grew long for them; See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will win?"
Qur'an (25:52) - "Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness, with the (Qur'an)." "Strive against" is Jihad - obviously not in the personal context. It's also significant to point out that this is a Meccan verse.
Qur'an (47:4) - "So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners,"
Qur'an (47:35) - "Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost (Shakir: "have the upper hand") for Allah is with you,"
Qur'an (48:17) - "There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom." Contemporary apologists sometimes claim that Jihad means 'spiritual struggle.' Is so, then why are the blind, lame and sick exempted?
Qur'an (48:29) - "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves" Islam is not about treating everyone equally. There are two very distinct standards that are applied based on religious status.
Qur'an (61:4) - "Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way" Religion of Peace, indeed!
Qur'an (61:10-12) - "O ye who believe! Shall I lead you to a bargain that will save you from a grievous Penalty?- That ye believe in Allah and His Messenger, and that ye strive (your utmost) in the Cause of Allah, with your property and your persons: That will be best for you, if ye but knew! He will forgive you your sins, and admit you to Gardens beneath which Rivers flow, and to beautiful mansions in Gardens of Eternity." This verse was given in battle. It uses the Arabic word, Jihad.
Qur'an (66) - "O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end." The root word of "Jihad" is used again here. The context is clearly holy war, and the scope of violence is broadened to include "hypocrites" - those who call themselves Muslims but do not act as such.
From the Hadith:
Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."
Bukhari (52:256) - The Prophet... was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." In this command, Muhammad establishes that it is permissible to kill non-combatants in the process of killing a perceived enemy. This provides justification for the many Islamic terror bombings.
Bukhari (52:220) - Allah's Apostle said... 'I have been made victorious with terror'
Abu Dawud (14:2526) - The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, "There is no god but Allah" and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action; and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist)
Abu Dawud (14:2527) - The Prophet said: Striving in the path of Allah (jihad) is incumbent on you along with every ruler, whether he is pious or impious
Muslim (1:33) - the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah
Bukhari (8:387) - Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah
Muslim (1:149) - "Abu Dharr reported: I said: Messenger of Allah, which of the deeds is the best? He (the Holy Prophet) replied: Belief in Allah and Jihad in His cause..."
Muslim (20:4645) - "...He (the Messenger of Allah) did that and said: There is another act which elevates the position of a man in Paradise to a grade one hundred (higher), and the elevation between one grade and the other is equal to the height of the heaven from the earth. He (Abu Sa'id) said: What is that act? He replied: Jihad in the way of Allah! Jihad in the way of Allah!"
Muslim (20:4696) - "the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: 'One who died but did not fight in the way of Allah nor did he express any desire (or determination) for Jihid died the death of a hypocrite.'"
Muslim (19:4321-4323) - Three separate hadith in which Muhammad shrugs over the news that innocent children were killed in a raid by his men against unbelievers. His response: "They are of them (meaning the enemy)."
Tabari 77 The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, "Kill any Jew who falls under your power." Ashraf was a poet, killed by Muhammad's men because he insulted Islam. Here, Muhammad widens the scope of his orders to kill. An innocent Jewish businessman was then slain by his Muslim partner, merely for being non-Muslim.
Tabari 9:69 "Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us" The words of Muhammad, prophet of Islam.
Ibn Ishaq: 327 - “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”
Ibn Ishaq: 990 - Lest anyone think that cutting off someone's head while screaming 'Allah Akbar!' is a modern custom, here is an account of that very practice under Muhammad, who seems to approve.
Ibn Ishaq: 992 - "Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah." Muhammad's instructions to his men prior to a military raid.
Couldn't you say the same thing about the Bible? There are plenty of excerpts in the Old Testament where they promote violent behavior.
Switzerland is just trying to be neutral, even when it comes to religion ^^
And btw...
Minarets lol, try stuffing it more down the Swiss people their throats... I've noticed anti-islam tendencies here also. People get really xenophobic and I can't blame them. All those debates about "burka yes-no?", immigration, problems with language and indirectly relevant to this : education. There are alot of muslims who don't bother adapting. (Most of them do try to fit in but even then they cling heavily to the things that us Westerners think are ... weird/unethical/... )
And some of the muslims I know even have a "I'm better all of you"-aura around them because they think they have all the answers with their religion.
On November 30 2009 08:14 ghostWriter wrote: I can see why they would be wary of Islamic influences. Where do you think the Paris riots came from? Ungrateful youth that should expend their time and energy on their education or a career, wasting their lives being mad at the establishment, which allows them to have protection, a home, etc.
There's a big, hard to justify leap from being wary of influences and taking affirmative steps to eliminate them.
If you immigrate to a different country, it's your job to assimilate into the existing culture. The Koran promotes violence in order for Islam to spread. Why wouldn't they eliminate threatening influences?
Where in the Koran did it actually promote violence?
Qur'an (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah." There is a good case to be made that the textual context of this particular passage is defensive war, even if the historical context was not. However, there are also two worrisome pieces to these verse. The first is that the killing of others is authorized in the event of "persecution" (a qualification that is ambiguous at best). The second is that fighting may persist until "religion is for Allah." The example set by Muhammad is not reassuring.
Qur'an (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."
Qur'an (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding caravans with this verse.
Qur'an (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."
Qur'an (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').
Qur'an (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle, as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. Here is the theological basis for today's suicide bombers.
Qur'an (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"
Qur'an (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."
Qur'an (45) - "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-" This passage not only criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, but it also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Qur'an, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is the Arabic word used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad).
Qur'an (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..." Pursuing an injured and retreating enemy is not an act of self-defense.
Qur'an (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"
Qur'an (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.
Qur'an (8:15) - "O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end."
Qur'an (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah" From the historical context we know that the "persecution" spoken of here was simply the refusal by the Meccans to allow Muhammad to enter their city and perform the Haj. Other Muslims were able to travel there, just not as an armed group, since Muhammad declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction. The Meccans were also acting in defense of their religion, since it was Muhammad's intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (which he later did). Hence the critical part of this verse is to fight until "religion is only for Allah."
Qur'an (8:57) - "If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember."
Qur'an (8:59-60) - "And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy."
Qur'an (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them." According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence is to convert to Islam. Prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religions Five Pillars.
Qur'an (9:14) - "Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace..."
Qur'an (9:20) - "Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah's way are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant." The "striving" spoken of here is Jihad.
Qur'an (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." "People of the Book" refers to Christians and Jews. This was one of the final "revelations" from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad's companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in just the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths.
Qur'an (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"
Qur'an (9:38-39) - "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place." This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell.
Qur'an (9:41) - "Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew." See also the verse that follows (9:42) - "If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed thee, but the distance was long, (and weighed) on them" This contradicts the myth that Muslims are to fight only in self-defense, since the wording implies that battle will be waged a long distance from home (in another country and on Christian soil, in this case, according to the historians).
Qur'an (9:73) - "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination." Dehumanizing those who reject Islam, by reminding Muslims that they are merely firewood for Hell, makes it easier to justify slaughter. It also explains why today's devout Muslims have little regard for those outside the faith.
Qur'an (9:88) - "But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper."
Qur'an (9:111) - "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme."
Qur'an (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."
Qur'an (21:44) - "We gave the good things of this life to these men and their fathers until the period grew long for them; See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will win?"
Qur'an (25:52) - "Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness, with the (Qur'an)." "Strive against" is Jihad - obviously not in the personal context. It's also significant to point out that this is a Meccan verse.
Qur'an (47:4) - "So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners,"
Qur'an (47:35) - "Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost (Shakir: "have the upper hand") for Allah is with you,"
Qur'an (48:17) - "There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom." Contemporary apologists sometimes claim that Jihad means 'spiritual struggle.' Is so, then why are the blind, lame and sick exempted?
Qur'an (48:29) - "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves" Islam is not about treating everyone equally. There are two very distinct standards that are applied based on religious status.
Qur'an (61:4) - "Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way" Religion of Peace, indeed!
Qur'an (61:10-12) - "O ye who believe! Shall I lead you to a bargain that will save you from a grievous Penalty?- That ye believe in Allah and His Messenger, and that ye strive (your utmost) in the Cause of Allah, with your property and your persons: That will be best for you, if ye but knew! He will forgive you your sins, and admit you to Gardens beneath which Rivers flow, and to beautiful mansions in Gardens of Eternity." This verse was given in battle. It uses the Arabic word, Jihad.
Qur'an (66) - "O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end." The root word of "Jihad" is used again here. The context is clearly holy war, and the scope of violence is broadened to include "hypocrites" - those who call themselves Muslims but do not act as such.
From the Hadith:
Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."
Bukhari (52:256) - The Prophet... was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." In this command, Muhammad establishes that it is permissible to kill non-combatants in the process of killing a perceived enemy. This provides justification for the many Islamic terror bombings.
Bukhari (52:220) - Allah's Apostle said... 'I have been made victorious with terror'
Abu Dawud (14:2526) - The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, "There is no god but Allah" and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action; and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist)
Abu Dawud (14:2527) - The Prophet said: Striving in the path of Allah (jihad) is incumbent on you along with every ruler, whether he is pious or impious
Muslim (1:33) - the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah
Bukhari (8:387) - Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah
Muslim (1:149) - "Abu Dharr reported: I said: Messenger of Allah, which of the deeds is the best? He (the Holy Prophet) replied: Belief in Allah and Jihad in His cause..."
Muslim (20:4645) - "...He (the Messenger of Allah) did that and said: There is another act which elevates the position of a man in Paradise to a grade one hundred (higher), and the elevation between one grade and the other is equal to the height of the heaven from the earth. He (Abu Sa'id) said: What is that act? He replied: Jihad in the way of Allah! Jihad in the way of Allah!"
Muslim (20:4696) - "the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: 'One who died but did not fight in the way of Allah nor did he express any desire (or determination) for Jihid died the death of a hypocrite.'"
Muslim (19:4321-4323) - Three separate hadith in which Muhammad shrugs over the news that innocent children were killed in a raid by his men against unbelievers. His response: "They are of them (meaning the enemy)."
Tabari 77 The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, "Kill any Jew who falls under your power." Ashraf was a poet, killed by Muhammad's men because he insulted Islam. Here, Muhammad widens the scope of his orders to kill. An innocent Jewish businessman was then slain by his Muslim partner, merely for being non-Muslim.
Tabari 9:69 "Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us" The words of Muhammad, prophet of Islam.
Ibn Ishaq: 327 - “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”
Ibn Ishaq: 990 - Lest anyone think that cutting off someone's head while screaming 'Allah Akbar!' is a modern custom, here is an account of that very practice under Muhammad, who seems to approve.
Ibn Ishaq: 992 - "Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah." Muhammad's instructions to his men prior to a military raid.
Couldn't you say the same thing about the Bible? There are plenty of excerpts in the Old Testament where they promote violent behavior.
No western country bases their laws solely on the Bible; there is no western equivalent to sharia law.
On November 30 2009 08:28 Slow Motion wrote: OK everyone you've all convinced me. Let's ban all ideas that we don't like or we think is having or can have negative consequences in the world. I think modern science, all religion, and political expression should go first. We can add other categories as we go along.
Some of those things require "logic" Islam makes no sense whatsoever -_-
Alright, let's make a list of all the ideas that we think are "logical", and ban the others!
Religion is destructive...persecution of women, cult mentality, closed mind, do you see nothing wrong with this. BTW im not in favor of the banning of minerets that is but come on. seriously?
On November 30 2009 08:14 ghostWriter wrote: I can see why they would be wary of Islamic influences. Where do you think the Paris riots came from? Ungrateful youth that should expend their time and energy on their education or a career, wasting their lives being mad at the establishment, which allows them to have protection, a home, etc.
There's a big, hard to justify leap from being wary of influences and taking affirmative steps to eliminate them.
If you immigrate to a different country, it's your job to assimilate into the existing culture. The Koran promotes violence in order for Islam to spread. Why wouldn't they eliminate threatening influences?
Where in the Koran did it actually promote violence?
Qur'an (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah." There is a good case to be made that the textual context of this particular passage is defensive war, even if the historical context was not. However, there are also two worrisome pieces to these verse. The first is that the killing of others is authorized in the event of "persecution" (a qualification that is ambiguous at best). The second is that fighting may persist until "religion is for Allah." The example set by Muhammad is not reassuring.
Qur'an (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."
Qur'an (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding caravans with this verse.
Qur'an (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."
Qur'an (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').
Qur'an (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle, as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. Here is the theological basis for today's suicide bombers.
Qur'an (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"
Qur'an (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."
Qur'an (45) - "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-" This passage not only criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, but it also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Qur'an, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is the Arabic word used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad).
Qur'an (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..." Pursuing an injured and retreating enemy is not an act of self-defense.
Qur'an (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"
Qur'an (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.
Qur'an (8:15) - "O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end."
Qur'an (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah" From the historical context we know that the "persecution" spoken of here was simply the refusal by the Meccans to allow Muhammad to enter their city and perform the Haj. Other Muslims were able to travel there, just not as an armed group, since Muhammad declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction. The Meccans were also acting in defense of their religion, since it was Muhammad's intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (which he later did). Hence the critical part of this verse is to fight until "religion is only for Allah."
Qur'an (8:57) - "If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember."
Qur'an (8:59-60) - "And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy."
Qur'an (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them." According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence is to convert to Islam. Prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religions Five Pillars.
Qur'an (9:14) - "Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace..."
Qur'an (9:20) - "Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah's way are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant." The "striving" spoken of here is Jihad.
Qur'an (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." "People of the Book" refers to Christians and Jews. This was one of the final "revelations" from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad's companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in just the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths.
Qur'an (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"
Qur'an (9:38-39) - "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place." This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell.
Qur'an (9:41) - "Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew." See also the verse that follows (9:42) - "If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed thee, but the distance was long, (and weighed) on them" This contradicts the myth that Muslims are to fight only in self-defense, since the wording implies that battle will be waged a long distance from home (in another country and on Christian soil, in this case, according to the historians).
Qur'an (9:73) - "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination." Dehumanizing those who reject Islam, by reminding Muslims that they are merely firewood for Hell, makes it easier to justify slaughter. It also explains why today's devout Muslims have little regard for those outside the faith.
Qur'an (9:88) - "But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper."
Qur'an (9:111) - "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme."
Qur'an (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."
Qur'an (21:44) - "We gave the good things of this life to these men and their fathers until the period grew long for them; See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will win?"
Qur'an (25:52) - "Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness, with the (Qur'an)." "Strive against" is Jihad - obviously not in the personal context. It's also significant to point out that this is a Meccan verse.
Qur'an (47:4) - "So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners,"
Qur'an (47:35) - "Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost (Shakir: "have the upper hand") for Allah is with you,"
Qur'an (48:17) - "There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom." Contemporary apologists sometimes claim that Jihad means 'spiritual struggle.' Is so, then why are the blind, lame and sick exempted?
Qur'an (48:29) - "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves" Islam is not about treating everyone equally. There are two very distinct standards that are applied based on religious status.
Qur'an (61:4) - "Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way" Religion of Peace, indeed!
Qur'an (61:10-12) - "O ye who believe! Shall I lead you to a bargain that will save you from a grievous Penalty?- That ye believe in Allah and His Messenger, and that ye strive (your utmost) in the Cause of Allah, with your property and your persons: That will be best for you, if ye but knew! He will forgive you your sins, and admit you to Gardens beneath which Rivers flow, and to beautiful mansions in Gardens of Eternity." This verse was given in battle. It uses the Arabic word, Jihad.
Qur'an (66) - "O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end." The root word of "Jihad" is used again here. The context is clearly holy war, and the scope of violence is broadened to include "hypocrites" - those who call themselves Muslims but do not act as such.
From the Hadith:
Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."
Bukhari (52:256) - The Prophet... was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." In this command, Muhammad establishes that it is permissible to kill non-combatants in the process of killing a perceived enemy. This provides justification for the many Islamic terror bombings.
Bukhari (52:220) - Allah's Apostle said... 'I have been made victorious with terror'
Abu Dawud (14:2526) - The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, "There is no god but Allah" and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action; and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist)
Abu Dawud (14:2527) - The Prophet said: Striving in the path of Allah (jihad) is incumbent on you along with every ruler, whether he is pious or impious
Muslim (1:33) - the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah
Bukhari (8:387) - Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah
Muslim (1:149) - "Abu Dharr reported: I said: Messenger of Allah, which of the deeds is the best? He (the Holy Prophet) replied: Belief in Allah and Jihad in His cause..."
Muslim (20:4645) - "...He (the Messenger of Allah) did that and said: There is another act which elevates the position of a man in Paradise to a grade one hundred (higher), and the elevation between one grade and the other is equal to the height of the heaven from the earth. He (Abu Sa'id) said: What is that act? He replied: Jihad in the way of Allah! Jihad in the way of Allah!"
Muslim (20:4696) - "the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: 'One who died but did not fight in the way of Allah nor did he express any desire (or determination) for Jihid died the death of a hypocrite.'"
Muslim (19:4321-4323) - Three separate hadith in which Muhammad shrugs over the news that innocent children were killed in a raid by his men against unbelievers. His response: "They are of them (meaning the enemy)."
Tabari 77 The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, "Kill any Jew who falls under your power." Ashraf was a poet, killed by Muhammad's men because he insulted Islam. Here, Muhammad widens the scope of his orders to kill. An innocent Jewish businessman was then slain by his Muslim partner, merely for being non-Muslim.
Tabari 9:69 "Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us" The words of Muhammad, prophet of Islam.
Ibn Ishaq: 327 - “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”
Ibn Ishaq: 990 - Lest anyone think that cutting off someone's head while screaming 'Allah Akbar!' is a modern custom, here is an account of that very practice under Muhammad, who seems to approve.
Ibn Ishaq: 992 - "Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah." Muhammad's instructions to his men prior to a military raid.
Couldn't you say the same thing about the Bible? There are plenty of excerpts in the Old Testament where they promote violent behavior.
All of this is totally beside the point…unless ghostWriter is really prepared to make the argument that
1) this large document encourages violence in some places 2) people who revere this document like to put up certain kinds of buildings therefore 3) we should prevent them from putting up those buildings
On November 30 2009 08:14 ghostWriter wrote: Where do you think the Paris riots came from? Ungrateful youth that should expend their time and energy on their education or a career, wasting their lives being mad at the establishment, which allows them to have protection, a home, etc.
If you immigrate to a different country, it's your job to assimilate into the existing culture.
Complete garbage.
Thank you, I'll take your well-thought out and wonderfully articulated criticism into account.
On November 30 2009 08:14 ghostWriter wrote: I can see why they would be wary of Islamic influences. Where do you think the Paris riots came from? Ungrateful youth that should expend their time and energy on their education or a career, wasting their lives being mad at the establishment, which allows them to have protection, a home, etc.
There's a big, hard to justify leap from being wary of influences and taking affirmative steps to eliminate them.
If you immigrate to a different country, it's your job to assimilate into the existing culture. The Koran promotes violence in order for Islam to spread. Why wouldn't they eliminate threatening influences?
Lawmakers should balance protecting national security/interests with the costs of restricting freedom of speech and expression. Of course eliminating threatening influences might make a country safer, but you're forgetting to consider the value of political/religious/whatever expression. Here we are critiquing the Swiss government and its laws—that could be seen as a threatening influence, why doesn't Switzerland make visiting TL illegal too?
We here at TL have little, if any influence on any events that occur in Switzerland. There's nothing more dangerous to a body than internal conflict. Why should I consider any religion to have value when the concept of religion itself has no merit whatsoever?
On November 30 2009 08:14 ghostWriter wrote: Where do you think the Paris riots came from? Ungrateful youth that should expend their time and energy on their education or a career, wasting their lives being mad at the establishment, which allows them to have protection, a home, etc.
If you immigrate to a different country, it's your job to assimilate into the existing culture.
Complete garbage.
Thank you, I'll take your well-thought out and wonderfully articulated criticism into account.
On November 30 2009 08:14 ghostWriter wrote: I can see why they would be wary of Islamic influences. Where do you think the Paris riots came from? Ungrateful youth that should expend their time and energy on their education or a career, wasting their lives being mad at the establishment, which allows them to have protection, a home, etc.
There's a big, hard to justify leap from being wary of influences and taking affirmative steps to eliminate them.
If you immigrate to a different country, it's your job to assimilate into the existing culture. The Koran promotes violence in order for Islam to spread. Why wouldn't they eliminate threatening influences?
Where in the Koran did it actually promote violence?
Qur'an (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah." There is a good case to be made that the textual context of this particular passage is defensive war, even if the historical context was not. However, there are also two worrisome pieces to these verse. The first is that the killing of others is authorized in the event of "persecution" (a qualification that is ambiguous at best). The second is that fighting may persist until "religion is for Allah." The example set by Muhammad is not reassuring.
Qur'an (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."
Qur'an (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding caravans with this verse.
Qur'an (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."
Qur'an (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').
Qur'an (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle, as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. Here is the theological basis for today's suicide bombers.
Qur'an (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"
Qur'an (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."
Qur'an (45) - "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-" This passage not only criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, but it also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Qur'an, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is the Arabic word used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad).
Qur'an (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..." Pursuing an injured and retreating enemy is not an act of self-defense.
Qur'an (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"
Qur'an (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.
Qur'an (8:15) - "O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end."
Qur'an (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah" From the historical context we know that the "persecution" spoken of here was simply the refusal by the Meccans to allow Muhammad to enter their city and perform the Haj. Other Muslims were able to travel there, just not as an armed group, since Muhammad declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction. The Meccans were also acting in defense of their religion, since it was Muhammad's intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (which he later did). Hence the critical part of this verse is to fight until "religion is only for Allah."
Qur'an (8:57) - "If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember."
Qur'an (8:59-60) - "And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy."
Qur'an (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them." According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence is to convert to Islam. Prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religions Five Pillars.
Qur'an (9:14) - "Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace..."
Qur'an (9:20) - "Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah's way are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant." The "striving" spoken of here is Jihad.
Qur'an (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." "People of the Book" refers to Christians and Jews. This was one of the final "revelations" from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad's companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in just the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths.
Qur'an (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"
Qur'an (9:38-39) - "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place." This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell.
Qur'an (9:41) - "Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew." See also the verse that follows (9:42) - "If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed thee, but the distance was long, (and weighed) on them" This contradicts the myth that Muslims are to fight only in self-defense, since the wording implies that battle will be waged a long distance from home (in another country and on Christian soil, in this case, according to the historians).
Qur'an (9:73) - "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination." Dehumanizing those who reject Islam, by reminding Muslims that they are merely firewood for Hell, makes it easier to justify slaughter. It also explains why today's devout Muslims have little regard for those outside the faith.
Qur'an (9:88) - "But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper."
Qur'an (9:111) - "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme."
Qur'an (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."
Qur'an (21:44) - "We gave the good things of this life to these men and their fathers until the period grew long for them; See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will win?"
Qur'an (25:52) - "Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness, with the (Qur'an)." "Strive against" is Jihad - obviously not in the personal context. It's also significant to point out that this is a Meccan verse.
Qur'an (47:4) - "So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners,"
Qur'an (47:35) - "Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost (Shakir: "have the upper hand") for Allah is with you,"
Qur'an (48:17) - "There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom." Contemporary apologists sometimes claim that Jihad means 'spiritual struggle.' Is so, then why are the blind, lame and sick exempted?
Qur'an (48:29) - "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves" Islam is not about treating everyone equally. There are two very distinct standards that are applied based on religious status.
Qur'an (61:4) - "Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way" Religion of Peace, indeed!
Qur'an (61:10-12) - "O ye who believe! Shall I lead you to a bargain that will save you from a grievous Penalty?- That ye believe in Allah and His Messenger, and that ye strive (your utmost) in the Cause of Allah, with your property and your persons: That will be best for you, if ye but knew! He will forgive you your sins, and admit you to Gardens beneath which Rivers flow, and to beautiful mansions in Gardens of Eternity." This verse was given in battle. It uses the Arabic word, Jihad.
Qur'an (66) - "O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end." The root word of "Jihad" is used again here. The context is clearly holy war, and the scope of violence is broadened to include "hypocrites" - those who call themselves Muslims but do not act as such.
From the Hadith:
Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."
Bukhari (52:256) - The Prophet... was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." In this command, Muhammad establishes that it is permissible to kill non-combatants in the process of killing a perceived enemy. This provides justification for the many Islamic terror bombings.
Bukhari (52:220) - Allah's Apostle said... 'I have been made victorious with terror'
Abu Dawud (14:2526) - The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, "There is no god but Allah" and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action; and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist)
Abu Dawud (14:2527) - The Prophet said: Striving in the path of Allah (jihad) is incumbent on you along with every ruler, whether he is pious or impious
Muslim (1:33) - the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah
Bukhari (8:387) - Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah
Muslim (1:149) - "Abu Dharr reported: I said: Messenger of Allah, which of the deeds is the best? He (the Holy Prophet) replied: Belief in Allah and Jihad in His cause..."
Muslim (20:4645) - "...He (the Messenger of Allah) did that and said: There is another act which elevates the position of a man in Paradise to a grade one hundred (higher), and the elevation between one grade and the other is equal to the height of the heaven from the earth. He (Abu Sa'id) said: What is that act? He replied: Jihad in the way of Allah! Jihad in the way of Allah!"
Muslim (20:4696) - "the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: 'One who died but did not fight in the way of Allah nor did he express any desire (or determination) for Jihid died the death of a hypocrite.'"
Muslim (19:4321-4323) - Three separate hadith in which Muhammad shrugs over the news that innocent children were killed in a raid by his men against unbelievers. His response: "They are of them (meaning the enemy)."
Tabari 77 The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, "Kill any Jew who falls under your power." Ashraf was a poet, killed by Muhammad's men because he insulted Islam. Here, Muhammad widens the scope of his orders to kill. An innocent Jewish businessman was then slain by his Muslim partner, merely for being non-Muslim.
Tabari 9:69 "Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us" The words of Muhammad, prophet of Islam.
Ibn Ishaq: 327 - “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”
Ibn Ishaq: 990 - Lest anyone think that cutting off someone's head while screaming 'Allah Akbar!' is a modern custom, here is an account of that very practice under Muhammad, who seems to approve.
Ibn Ishaq: 992 - "Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah." Muhammad's instructions to his men prior to a military raid.
Couldn't you say the same thing about the Bible? There are plenty of excerpts in the Old Testament where they promote violent behavior.
Yes you could. Christianity is just as bad, I'm against all religion. They stifle creative thought and scientific progress for no reason other than that they don't agree with what a bunch of 'prophets' wrote thousands of years ago.
On November 30 2009 08:33 jalstar wrote: No western country bases their laws solely on the Bible; there is no western equivalent to sharia law.
On November 30 2009 08:32 KissBlade wrote:
Ok I stand corrected though that seems somewhat outdated ...?
I mean is there many many different interpretations of the Koran, not to mention, like the Bible, it has many areas where it contradicts itself?
Yes, that's one of the reasons why religion in general, not just Islam, is an unnecessary divisive factor in today's world.
On November 30 2009 08:17 JWD wrote: Lawmakers should balance protecting national security/interests with the costs of restricting freedom of speech and expression. Of course eliminating threatening influences might make a country safer, but you're forgetting to consider the value of political/religious/whatever expression. Here we are critiquing the Swiss government and its laws—that could be seen as a threatening influence, why doesn't Switzerland make visiting TL illegal too?
We here at TL have little, if any influence on any events that occur in Switzerland. There's nothing more dangerous to a body than internal conflict. Why should I consider any religion to have value when the concept of religion itself has no merit whatsoever?
OK I get it, you don't like religion. You still haven't explained how that justifies preventing other people who do like religion from peacefully exercising their religious beliefs.
On November 30 2009 08:14 ghostWriter wrote: Where do you think the Paris riots came from? Ungrateful youth that should expend their time and energy on their education or a career, wasting their lives being mad at the establishment, which allows them to have protection, a home, etc.
If you immigrate to a different country, it's your job to assimilate into the existing culture.
Complete garbage.
Thank you, I'll take your well-thought out and wonderfully articulated criticism into account.
It's like plain ass wrong.
What do you want me to say to 2+2=5?
unless you give an argument to why its wrong you just have a useless opinion.
On November 30 2009 08:28 Slow Motion wrote: OK everyone you've all convinced me. Let's ban all ideas that we don't like or we think is having or can have negative consequences in the world. I think modern science, all religion, and political expression should go first. We can add other categories as we go along.
Some of those things require "logic" Islam makes no sense whatsoever -_-
Alright, let's make a list of all the ideas that we think are "logical", and ban the others!
Religion is destructive...persecution of women, cult mentality, closed mind, do you see nothing wrong with this. BTW im not in favor of the banning of minerets that is but come on. seriously?
There is a difference between banning the mistreatment of women, and banning someone from, for example, writing a book that advocates the mistreatment of women. Western societies believe in liberalism. We believe that there is a marketplace of ideas, and that people should be free to choose which ideas to adopt and which to discard.
On November 30 2009 08:17 JWD wrote: Lawmakers should balance protecting national security/interests with the costs of restricting freedom of speech and expression. Of course eliminating threatening influences might make a country safer, but you're forgetting to consider the value of political/religious/whatever expression. Here we are critiquing the Swiss government and its laws—that could be seen as a threatening influence, why doesn't Switzerland make visiting TL illegal too?
We here at TL have little, if any influence on any events that occur in Switzerland. There's nothing more dangerous to a body than internal conflict. Why should I consider any religion to have value when the concept of religion itself has no merit whatsoever?
OK I get it, you don't like religion. You still haven't explained how that justifies preventing other people who do like religion from peacefully exercising their religious beliefs.
Because they aren't peaceful. Granted, most people go to mosque and pray 5 times a day and don't bother anyone, but there are many people that hold up signs that say death to America or whatever and others that blow themselves up, killing innocent people for no reason other than they believe that they are fighting some sort of holy war. Almost every day, there's a news article about how some ignorant buffoon blew up a train station or something because they were misguided into believing that their actions would give them some sort of reward.
Alright, some background info, the initiative was at first expected to fail miserably, but polls showed that there were quite a lot of people who were planning on saying yes, ~35%. Still, everyone expected a no and this is a huge surprise.
There are several possible reasons, one is that there was a big controversy over the ads of the people supporting the initiative (they're in the second post of this thread). They were banned in several areas of Switzerland and it's very possible that ended up helping the initiative (gave them lots of publicity and put their opponents into the role of the oppressors of freedom of speech). Another could be that this is a perfect example of a self-destroying prophecy. Everybody expected the initiative to fail, so lots of (young) people didn't even bother to vote.
I learned what it feels like to feel ashamed of your country today. =/
On November 30 2009 08:28 Slow Motion wrote: OK everyone you've all convinced me. Let's ban all ideas that we don't like or we think is having or can have negative consequences in the world. I think modern science, all religion, and political expression should go first. We can add other categories as we go along.
Some of those things require "logic" Islam makes no sense whatsoever -_-
Alright, let's make a list of all the ideas that we think are "logical", and ban the others!
Religion is destructive...persecution of women, cult mentality, closed mind, do you see nothing wrong with this. BTW im not in favor of the banning of minerets that is but come on. seriously?
There is a difference between banning the mistreatment of women, and banning someone from, for example, writing a book that advocates the mistreatment of women. Western societies believe in liberalism. We believe that there is a marketplace of ideas, and that people should be free to choose which ideas to adopt and which to discard.
And the Swiss people chose to discard the idea of minarets. Or is that your point?
On November 30 2009 08:17 JWD wrote: Lawmakers should balance protecting national security/interests with the costs of restricting freedom of speech and expression. Of course eliminating threatening influences might make a country safer, but you're forgetting to consider the value of political/religious/whatever expression. Here we are critiquing the Swiss government and its laws—that could be seen as a threatening influence, why doesn't Switzerland make visiting TL illegal too?
We here at TL have little, if any influence on any events that occur in Switzerland. There's nothing more dangerous to a body than internal conflict. Why should I consider any religion to have value when the concept of religion itself has no merit whatsoever?
OK I get it, you don't like religion. You still haven't explained how that justifies preventing other people who do like religion from peacefully exercising their religious beliefs.
Because they aren't peaceful. Granted, most people go to mosque and pray 5 times a day and don't bother anyone, but there are many people that hold up signs that say death to America or whatever and others that blow themselves up, killing innocent people for no reason other than they believe that they are fighting some sort of holy war. Almost every day, there's a news article about how some ignorant buffoon blew up a train station or something because they were misguided into believing that their actions would give them some sort of reward.
That's a fucking terrible logical fallacy. Under that premise pretty much every single person on this entire goddamned planet are not peaceful because there are always people from any and every culture and subculture that are dipshits.
On November 30 2009 08:17 JWD wrote: Lawmakers should balance protecting national security/interests with the costs of restricting freedom of speech and expression. Of course eliminating threatening influences might make a country safer, but you're forgetting to consider the value of political/religious/whatever expression. Here we are critiquing the Swiss government and its laws—that could be seen as a threatening influence, why doesn't Switzerland make visiting TL illegal too?
We here at TL have little, if any influence on any events that occur in Switzerland. There's nothing more dangerous to a body than internal conflict. Why should I consider any religion to have value when the concept of religion itself has no merit whatsoever?
OK I get it, you don't like religion. You still haven't explained how that justifies preventing other people who do like religion from peacefully exercising their religious beliefs.
Because they aren't peaceful. Granted, most people go to mosque and pray 5 times a day and don't bother anyone, but there are many people that hold up signs that say death to America or whatever and others that blow themselves up, killing innocent people for no reason other than they believe that they are fighting some sort of holy war. Almost every day, there's a news article about how some ignorant buffoon blew up a train station or something because they were misguided into believing that their actions would give them some sort of reward.
Dude that is a weak argument, there are people like that of all groups even atheists for christs sake. One tiny segment of the population doesn't define the whole group
On November 30 2009 08:28 Slow Motion wrote: OK everyone you've all convinced me. Let's ban all ideas that we don't like or we think is having or can have negative consequences in the world. I think modern science, all religion, and political expression should go first. We can add other categories as we go along.
Some of those things require "logic" Islam makes no sense whatsoever -_-
Alright, let's make a list of all the ideas that we think are "logical", and ban the others!
Religion is destructive...persecution of women, cult mentality, closed mind, do you see nothing wrong with this. BTW im not in favor of the banning of minerets that is but come on. seriously?
There is a difference between banning the mistreatment of women, and banning someone from, for example, writing a book that advocates the mistreatment of women. Western societies believe in liberalism. We believe that there is a marketplace of ideas, and that people should be free to choose which ideas to adopt and which to discard.
And the Swiss people chose to discard the idea of minarets. Or is that your point?
No, obviously they didn't all chose to discard that idea. The point of this ban would be to stop a minority in Switzerland from expressing their religion through architecture. If Switzerland had discarded the idea of Islam, then there would be no need for the ban.
On November 30 2009 08:17 JWD wrote: Lawmakers should balance protecting national security/interests with the costs of restricting freedom of speech and expression. Of course eliminating threatening influences might make a country safer, but you're forgetting to consider the value of political/religious/whatever expression. Here we are critiquing the Swiss government and its laws—that could be seen as a threatening influence, why doesn't Switzerland make visiting TL illegal too?
We here at TL have little, if any influence on any events that occur in Switzerland. There's nothing more dangerous to a body than internal conflict. Why should I consider any religion to have value when the concept of religion itself has no merit whatsoever?
OK I get it, you don't like religion. You still haven't explained how that justifies preventing other people who do like religion from peacefully exercising their religious beliefs.
Because they aren't peaceful. Granted, most people go to mosque and pray 5 times a day and don't bother anyone, but there are many people that hold up signs that say death to America or whatever and others that blow themselves up, killing innocent people for no reason other than they believe that they are fighting some sort of holy war. Almost every day, there's a news article about how some ignorant buffoon blew up a train station or something because they were misguided into believing that their actions would give them some sort of reward.
That's a fucking terrible logical fallacy. Under that premise pretty much every single person on this entire goddamned planet are not peaceful because there are always people from any and every culture and subculture that are dipshits.
And even if 100% of muslims were suicide bombers, I still don't see how it would be justifiable to prevent them from erecting minarets.
On November 30 2009 08:45 jalstar wrote: Just curious, which "groups of dipshits" that apparently exist in every culture control multiple countries and billions of dollars?
On November 30 2009 08:14 ghostWriter wrote: I can see why they would be wary of Islamic influences. Where do you think the Paris riots came from?
You cannot be more wrong. The riots had nothing to do with Islam.
Yeah I guess the rioters being young Muslim males from Africa and the Middle East means that the riots means that they had nothing to do with Islam.
1- They are all second or third generation immigrants and the influence of "gangsta culture" on them is way more important than Islam. 2- If they were true believers they would not burn cars or rob shops etc ... Actually the few real radical muslim people leave for Afghanistan or Pakistan. They don't have time to waste with crackheads. You seem to not understand that jihad has nothing to do with juvenile delinquency. 3- I'm gonna quote wiki / Ny Times / RG head of personnel:
The head of the Direction centrale des renseignements généraux found no Islamic factor in the riots, while the New York Times reported on 5 November 2005 that "majority of the youths committing the acts are Muslim, and of African or North African origin" local youths adding that "second-generation Portuguese immigrants and even many children of native French have also taken part.
And i'm pretty much sure that they are better informed than a random US teenager from a video game forum.
On November 30 2009 08:17 JWD wrote: Lawmakers should balance protecting national security/interests with the costs of restricting freedom of speech and expression. Of course eliminating threatening influences might make a country safer, but you're forgetting to consider the value of political/religious/whatever expression. Here we are critiquing the Swiss government and its laws—that could be seen as a threatening influence, why doesn't Switzerland make visiting TL illegal too?
We here at TL have little, if any influence on any events that occur in Switzerland. There's nothing more dangerous to a body than internal conflict. Why should I consider any religion to have value when the concept of religion itself has no merit whatsoever?
OK I get it, you don't like religion. You still haven't explained how that justifies preventing other people who do like religion from peacefully exercising their religious beliefs.
Because they aren't peaceful. Granted, most people go to mosque and pray 5 times a day and don't bother anyone, but there are many people that hold up signs that say death to America or whatever and others that blow themselves up, killing innocent people for no reason other than they believe that they are fighting some sort of holy war. Almost every day, there's a news article about how some ignorant buffoon blew up a train station or something because they were misguided into believing that their actions would give them some sort of reward.
That's a fucking terrible logical fallacy. Under that premise pretty much every single person on this entire goddamned planet are not peaceful because there are always people from any and every culture and subculture that are dipshits.
And even if 100% of muslims were suicide bombers, I still don't see how it would be justifiable to prevent them from erecting minarets.
This. I can't believe how many people here can't seem to understand this point.
On November 30 2009 08:17 JWD wrote: Lawmakers should balance protecting national security/interests with the costs of restricting freedom of speech and expression. Of course eliminating threatening influences might make a country safer, but you're forgetting to consider the value of political/religious/whatever expression. Here we are critiquing the Swiss government and its laws—that could be seen as a threatening influence, why doesn't Switzerland make visiting TL illegal too?
We here at TL have little, if any influence on any events that occur in Switzerland. There's nothing more dangerous to a body than internal conflict. Why should I consider any religion to have value when the concept of religion itself has no merit whatsoever?
OK I get it, you don't like religion. You still haven't explained how that justifies preventing other people who do like religion from peacefully exercising their religious beliefs.
Because they aren't peaceful. Granted, most people go to mosque and pray 5 times a day and don't bother anyone, but there are many people that hold up signs that say death to America or whatever and others that blow themselves up, killing innocent people for no reason other than they believe that they are fighting some sort of holy war. Almost every day, there's a news article about how some ignorant buffoon blew up a train station or something because they were misguided into believing that their actions would give them some sort of reward.
That's a fucking terrible logical fallacy. Under that premise pretty much every single person on this entire goddamned planet are not peaceful because there are always people from any and every culture and subculture that are dipshits.
And even if 100% of muslims were suicide bombers, I still don't see how it would be justifiable to prevent them from erecting minarets.
On November 30 2009 08:33 DwmC_Foefen wrote: Switzerland is just trying to be neutral, even when it comes to religion ^^
neutrality = banning minarets?
Seriously. Banning Muslims from building minarets is pretty much saying "fuck off you're not welcome here".
They aren't in a neutral country. No fundamentalist Muslim country is "neutral" in world affairs.
Switzerland... is historically famous for being a neutral country.
What are you on about.
Aren't welcome in a neutral country.
Do you even know how to write full sentences? You're making 0 sense and I'm not even trying to be a grammar Nazi or anything. This post just made no sense at all.
On November 30 2009 08:45 jalstar wrote: Just curious, which "groups of dipshits" that apparently exist in every culture control multiple countries and billions of dollars?
Western neo-liberal multinationals come to mind.
Really? So fundamentalist Christians, or fundamentalist atheists who support killing innocent people control multiple countries and billions of dollars.
On November 30 2009 08:33 DwmC_Foefen wrote: Switzerland is just trying to be neutral, even when it comes to religion ^^
neutrality = banning minarets?
Seriously. Banning Muslims from building minarets is pretty much saying "fuck off you're not welcome here".
They aren't in a neutral country. No fundamentalist Muslim country is "neutral" in world affairs.
Switzerland... is historically famous for being a neutral country.
What are you on about.
Aren't welcome in a neutral country.
Do you even know how to write full sentences? You're making 0 sense and I'm not even trying to be a grammar Nazi or anything. This post just made no sense at all.
haha seriously, but I think it's probably for the best because I have this sinking feeling that the point he is trying to articulate is really stupid
On November 30 2009 08:33 DwmC_Foefen wrote: Switzerland is just trying to be neutral, even when it comes to religion ^^
neutrality = banning minarets?
Seriously. Banning Muslims from building minarets is pretty much saying "fuck off you're not welcome here".
They aren't in a neutral country. No fundamentalist Muslim country is "neutral" in world affairs.
Switzerland... is historically famous for being a neutral country.
What are you on about.
Aren't welcome in a neutral country.
Do you even know how to write full sentences? You're making 0 sense and I'm not even trying to be a grammar Nazi or anything. This post just made no sense at all.
Seriously, just open the spoiler of quotes, I'm not going to repeat everything I say to accommodate your laziness.
On November 30 2009 08:17 JWD wrote: Lawmakers should balance protecting national security/interests with the costs of restricting freedom of speech and expression. Of course eliminating threatening influences might make a country safer, but you're forgetting to consider the value of political/religious/whatever expression. Here we are critiquing the Swiss government and its laws—that could be seen as a threatening influence, why doesn't Switzerland make visiting TL illegal too?
We here at TL have little, if any influence on any events that occur in Switzerland. There's nothing more dangerous to a body than internal conflict. Why should I consider any religion to have value when the concept of religion itself has no merit whatsoever?
OK I get it, you don't like religion. You still haven't explained how that justifies preventing other people who do like religion from peacefully exercising their religious beliefs.
Because they aren't peaceful. Granted, most people go to mosque and pray 5 times a day and don't bother anyone, but there are many people that hold up signs that say death to America or whatever and others that blow themselves up, killing innocent people for no reason other than they believe that they are fighting some sort of holy war. Almost every day, there's a news article about how some ignorant buffoon blew up a train station or something because they were misguided into believing that their actions would give them some sort of reward.
That's a fucking terrible logical fallacy. Under that premise pretty much every single person on this entire goddamned planet are not peaceful because there are always people from any and every culture and subculture that are dipshits.
And even if 100% of muslims were suicide bombers, I still don't see how it would be justifiable to prevent them from erecting minarets.
Erecting minarets is a sign that says that they are forming their own communities within a community. A country cannot exist with internal divisions, look at Yugoslavia or Rwanda, although those were different groups put together on purpose by greater powers, it's the same sort of concept. It's a sign that instead of assimilating, they are promoting their own religion that they brought along. It's not a logical fallacy, religion promotes a lack of understanding and puts up blind faith in ridiculous notions dreamt up by 'prophets' that claimed to be the mouthpieces of a god thousands of years ago, which allows people to accept other things just as blindly, just because they were told that this was so by an authority figure. Scientific progress has always been stifled by religion, as has freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.
On November 30 2009 08:45 jalstar wrote: Just curious, which "groups of dipshits" that apparently exist in every culture control multiple countries and billions of dollars?
Western neo-liberal multinationals come to mind.
Really? So fundamentalist Christians, or fundamentalist atheists who support killing innocent people control multiple countries and billions of dollars.
You're... still making very little sense with your sentences, regardless of what the actual point you're trying to make is.
I'll direct you to writing and reading 101 and a list of logical fallacies for you to read over so you can at least make some kind of sense with your subsequent posts.
On November 30 2009 08:14 ghostWriter wrote: Where do you think the Paris riots came from? Ungrateful youth that should expend their time and energy on their education or a career, wasting their lives being mad at the establishment, which allows them to have protection, a home, etc.
If you immigrate to a different country, it's your job to assimilate into the existing culture.
Complete garbage.
Thank you, I'll take your well-thought out and wonderfully articulated criticism into account.
It's like plain ass wrong.
What do you want me to say to 2+2=5?
unless you give an argument to why its wrong you just have a useless opinion.
Oh yeah?
How about I give an analogy?
"man look at those ungrateful blacks, they rioting!!!"
Where's your background facts? Ungrateful for what exactly? The cheap labor France brought in to do the work frenchies don't want to do? Or the racism the children of these laborers faced trying to find work in the city? It's kinda hard to "assimilate" when the society at large, the only one you've known, not only doesn't value you but considers you a foreign organism and something to be kept out of mind?
France created the situation and doesn't want to live with the consequences. People are not cattles that you can take for all they're worth and then throw away the bones.
On November 30 2009 08:17 JWD wrote: Lawmakers should balance protecting national security/interests with the costs of restricting freedom of speech and expression. Of course eliminating threatening influences might make a country safer, but you're forgetting to consider the value of political/religious/whatever expression. Here we are critiquing the Swiss government and its laws—that could be seen as a threatening influence, why doesn't Switzerland make visiting TL illegal too?
We here at TL have little, if any influence on any events that occur in Switzerland. There's nothing more dangerous to a body than internal conflict. Why should I consider any religion to have value when the concept of religion itself has no merit whatsoever?
OK I get it, you don't like religion. You still haven't explained how that justifies preventing other people who do like religion from peacefully exercising their religious beliefs.
Because they aren't peaceful. Granted, most people go to mosque and pray 5 times a day and don't bother anyone, but there are many people that hold up signs that say death to America or whatever and others that blow themselves up, killing innocent people for no reason other than they believe that they are fighting some sort of holy war. Almost every day, there's a news article about how some ignorant buffoon blew up a train station or something because they were misguided into believing that their actions would give them some sort of reward.
That's a fucking terrible logical fallacy. Under that premise pretty much every single person on this entire goddamned planet are not peaceful because there are always people from any and every culture and subculture that are dipshits.
And even if 100% of muslims were suicide bombers, I still don't see how it would be justifiable to prevent them from erecting minarets.
Erecting minarets is a sign that says that they are forming their own communities within a community. A country cannot exist with internal divisions, look at Yugoslavia or Rwanda, although those were different groups put together on purpose by greater powers, it's the same sort of concept. It's a sign that instead of assimilating, they are promoting their own religion that they brought along. It's not a logical fallacy, religion promotes a lack of understanding and puts up blind faith in ridiculous notions dreamt up by 'prophets' that claimed to be the mouthpieces of a god thousands of years ago. Scientific progress has always been stifled by religion, as has freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.
Yes friends, let's promote freedom of speech and religion by banning the expression of religion!
On November 30 2009 08:17 JWD wrote: Lawmakers should balance protecting national security/interests with the costs of restricting freedom of speech and expression. Of course eliminating threatening influences might make a country safer, but you're forgetting to consider the value of political/religious/whatever expression. Here we are critiquing the Swiss government and its laws—that could be seen as a threatening influence, why doesn't Switzerland make visiting TL illegal too?
We here at TL have little, if any influence on any events that occur in Switzerland. There's nothing more dangerous to a body than internal conflict. Why should I consider any religion to have value when the concept of religion itself has no merit whatsoever?
OK I get it, you don't like religion. You still haven't explained how that justifies preventing other people who do like religion from peacefully exercising their religious beliefs.
Because they aren't peaceful. Granted, most people go to mosque and pray 5 times a day and don't bother anyone, but there are many people that hold up signs that say death to America or whatever and others that blow themselves up, killing innocent people for no reason other than they believe that they are fighting some sort of holy war. Almost every day, there's a news article about how some ignorant buffoon blew up a train station or something because they were misguided into believing that their actions would give them some sort of reward.
That's a fucking terrible logical fallacy. Under that premise pretty much every single person on this entire goddamned planet are not peaceful because there are always people from any and every culture and subculture that are dipshits.
And even if 100% of muslims were suicide bombers, I still don't see how it would be justifiable to prevent them from erecting minarets.
Erecting minarets is a sign that says that they are forming their own communities within a community. A country cannot exist with internal divisions
What? I'd argue a country can only exist with internal divisions. Political parties, different news sources, schools of philosophical thought…these are all internal divisions essential to a healthy nation. Are you saying that states should aspire to stamp out individualism and reduce themselves to a homogenous population governed by a monolithic, all-controlling government?
LOL sorry dude, rereading your post I don't think I can take you seriously anymore
say, TL is a pretty serious "community within a community" too…watch out guys!
On November 30 2009 08:33 DwmC_Foefen wrote: Switzerland is just trying to be neutral, even when it comes to religion ^^
neutrality = banning minarets?
Seriously. Banning Muslims from building minarets is pretty much saying "fuck off you're not welcome here".
They aren't in a neutral country. No fundamentalist Muslim country is "neutral" in world affairs.
Switzerland... is historically famous for being a neutral country.
What are you on about.
Aren't welcome in a neutral country.
Do you even know how to write full sentences? You're making 0 sense and I'm not even trying to be a grammar Nazi or anything. This post just made no sense at all.
Seriously, just open the spoiler of quotes, I'm not going to repeat everything I say to accommodate your laziness.
On November 30 2009 08:33 DwmC_Foefen wrote: Switzerland is just trying to be neutral, even when it comes to religion ^^
neutrality = banning minarets?
Seriously. Banning Muslims from building minarets is pretty much saying "fuck off you're not welcome here".
They aren't in a neutral country. No fundamentalist Muslim country is "neutral" in world affairs.
Switzerland... is historically famous for being a neutral country.
What are you on about.
Aren't welcome in a neutral country.
Do you even know how to write full sentences? You're making 0 sense and I'm not even trying to be a grammar Nazi or anything. This post just made no sense at all.
Heh, he was correcting an error that led to some argument. =P
That's a fucking terrible logical fallacy. Under that premise pretty much every single person on this entire goddamned planet are not peaceful because there are always people from any and every culture and subculture that are dipshits.
Do you forget your own posts that quickly? No "dipshits" as you call them have as much power and influence as extremist Muslims.
On November 30 2009 08:17 JWD wrote: Lawmakers should balance protecting national security/interests with the costs of restricting freedom of speech and expression. Of course eliminating threatening influences might make a country safer, but you're forgetting to consider the value of political/religious/whatever expression. Here we are critiquing the Swiss government and its laws—that could be seen as a threatening influence, why doesn't Switzerland make visiting TL illegal too?
We here at TL have little, if any influence on any events that occur in Switzerland. There's nothing more dangerous to a body than internal conflict. Why should I consider any religion to have value when the concept of religion itself has no merit whatsoever?
OK I get it, you don't like religion. You still haven't explained how that justifies preventing other people who do like religion from peacefully exercising their religious beliefs.
Because they aren't peaceful. Granted, most people go to mosque and pray 5 times a day and don't bother anyone, but there are many people that hold up signs that say death to America or whatever and others that blow themselves up, killing innocent people for no reason other than they believe that they are fighting some sort of holy war. Almost every day, there's a news article about how some ignorant buffoon blew up a train station or something because they were misguided into believing that their actions would give them some sort of reward.
That's a fucking terrible logical fallacy. Under that premise pretty much every single person on this entire goddamned planet are not peaceful because there are always people from any and every culture and subculture that are dipshits.
And even if 100% of muslims were suicide bombers, I still don't see how it would be justifiable to prevent them from erecting minarets.
Erecting minarets is a sign that says that they are forming their own communities within a community. A country cannot exist with internal divisions
What? I'd argue a country can only exist with internal divisions. Political parties, different news sources, schools of philosophical thought…these are all internal divisions essential to a healthy nation. Are you saying that states should aspire to stamp out individualism and reduce themselves to a homogenous population governed by a monolithic, all-controlling government?
Suicide bombing is now "individualism"? Remember that this is still your hypothetical example where all Muslims are suicide bombers.
On November 30 2009 08:17 JWD wrote: Lawmakers should balance protecting national security/interests with the costs of restricting freedom of speech and expression. Of course eliminating threatening influences might make a country safer, but you're forgetting to consider the value of political/religious/whatever expression. Here we are critiquing the Swiss government and its laws—that could be seen as a threatening influence, why doesn't Switzerland make visiting TL illegal too?
We here at TL have little, if any influence on any events that occur in Switzerland. There's nothing more dangerous to a body than internal conflict. Why should I consider any religion to have value when the concept of religion itself has no merit whatsoever?
OK I get it, you don't like religion. You still haven't explained how that justifies preventing other people who do like religion from peacefully exercising their religious beliefs.
Because they aren't peaceful. Granted, most people go to mosque and pray 5 times a day and don't bother anyone, but there are many people that hold up signs that say death to America or whatever and others that blow themselves up, killing innocent people for no reason other than they believe that they are fighting some sort of holy war. Almost every day, there's a news article about how some ignorant buffoon blew up a train station or something because they were misguided into believing that their actions would give them some sort of reward.
That's a fucking terrible logical fallacy. Under that premise pretty much every single person on this entire goddamned planet are not peaceful because there are always people from any and every culture and subculture that are dipshits.
And even if 100% of muslims were suicide bombers, I still don't see how it would be justifiable to prevent them from erecting minarets.
Erecting minarets is a sign that says that they are forming their own communities within a community. A country cannot exist with internal divisions, look at Yugoslavia or Rwanda, although those were different groups put together on purpose by greater powers, it's the same sort of concept. It's a sign that instead of assimilating, they are promoting their own religion that they brought along. It's not a logical fallacy, religion promotes a lack of understanding and puts up blind faith in ridiculous notions dreamt up by 'prophets' that claimed to be the mouthpieces of a god thousands of years ago, which allows people to accept other things just as blindly, just because they were told that this was so by an authority figure. Scientific progress has always been stifled by religion, as has freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.
No internal divisions. Right. That's why there's varying political groups, division of the classes, counter-cultures, sub-cultures, etc. etc. etc.
That's a fucking terrible logical fallacy. Under that premise pretty much every single person on this entire goddamned planet are not peaceful because there are always people from any and every culture and subculture that are dipshits.
Do you forget your own posts that quickly? No "dipshits" as you call them have as much power and influence as extremist Muslims.
ROFL are you seriously that ignorant of world economics and politics?
That's a fucking terrible logical fallacy. Under that premise pretty much every single person on this entire goddamned planet are not peaceful because there are always people from any and every culture and subculture that are dipshits.
Do you forget your own posts that quickly? No "dipshits" as you call them have as much power and influence as extremist Muslims.
I dunno man, do you realize how much airtime dumb celebrities get??
That's a fucking terrible logical fallacy. Under that premise pretty much every single person on this entire goddamned planet are not peaceful because there are always people from any and every culture and subculture that are dipshits.
Do you forget your own posts that quickly? No "dipshits" as you call them have as much power and influence as extremist Muslims.
I dunno man, do you realize how much airtime dumb celebrities get??
Dumb celebrities kill innocent people all the time, that's true. koreasilver used "dipshits" to describe extremists.
On November 30 2009 08:17 JWD wrote: Lawmakers should balance protecting national security/interests with the costs of restricting freedom of speech and expression. Of course eliminating threatening influences might make a country safer, but you're forgetting to consider the value of political/religious/whatever expression. Here we are critiquing the Swiss government and its laws—that could be seen as a threatening influence, why doesn't Switzerland make visiting TL illegal too?
We here at TL have little, if any influence on any events that occur in Switzerland. There's nothing more dangerous to a body than internal conflict. Why should I consider any religion to have value when the concept of religion itself has no merit whatsoever?
OK I get it, you don't like religion. You still haven't explained how that justifies preventing other people who do like religion from peacefully exercising their religious beliefs.
Because they aren't peaceful. Granted, most people go to mosque and pray 5 times a day and don't bother anyone, but there are many people that hold up signs that say death to America or whatever and others that blow themselves up, killing innocent people for no reason other than they believe that they are fighting some sort of holy war. Almost every day, there's a news article about how some ignorant buffoon blew up a train station or something because they were misguided into believing that their actions would give them some sort of reward.
That's a fucking terrible logical fallacy. Under that premise pretty much every single person on this entire goddamned planet are not peaceful because there are always people from any and every culture and subculture that are dipshits.
And even if 100% of muslims were suicide bombers, I still don't see how it would be justifiable to prevent them from erecting minarets.
Erecting minarets is a sign that says that they are forming their own communities within a community. A country cannot exist with internal divisions
What? I'd argue a country can only exist with internal divisions. Political parties, different news sources, schools of philosophical thought…these are all internal divisions essential to a healthy nation. Are you saying that states should aspire to stamp out individualism and reduce themselves to a homogenous population governed by a monolithic, all-controlling government?
LOL sorry dude, rereading your post I don't think I can take you seriously anymore
say, TL is a pretty serious "community within a community" too…watch out guys!
I meant internal divisions that promote and provoke violence. There's a difference between divisions that promote a myriad of styles of thinking and analyzing and a division that espouse blind belief and subservience to authorities while also promoting violence and ignorance.
That's a fucking terrible logical fallacy. Under that premise pretty much every single person on this entire goddamned planet are not peaceful because there are always people from any and every culture and subculture that are dipshits.
Do you forget your own posts that quickly? No "dipshits" as you call them have as much power and influence as extremist Muslims.
I dunno man, do you realize how much airtime dumb celebrities get??
We prefer the term 'Mavericks'. =P
Hmm, I wonder how much longer until this thread hits Godwin's Law. Or did it already?
On November 30 2009 08:17 JWD wrote: Lawmakers should balance protecting national security/interests with the costs of restricting freedom of speech and expression. Of course eliminating threatening influences might make a country safer, but you're forgetting to consider the value of political/religious/whatever expression. Here we are critiquing the Swiss government and its laws—that could be seen as a threatening influence, why doesn't Switzerland make visiting TL illegal too?
We here at TL have little, if any influence on any events that occur in Switzerland. There's nothing more dangerous to a body than internal conflict. Why should I consider any religion to have value when the concept of religion itself has no merit whatsoever?
OK I get it, you don't like religion. You still haven't explained how that justifies preventing other people who do like religion from peacefully exercising their religious beliefs.
Because they aren't peaceful. Granted, most people go to mosque and pray 5 times a day and don't bother anyone, but there are many people that hold up signs that say death to America or whatever and others that blow themselves up, killing innocent people for no reason other than they believe that they are fighting some sort of holy war. Almost every day, there's a news article about how some ignorant buffoon blew up a train station or something because they were misguided into believing that their actions would give them some sort of reward.
That's a fucking terrible logical fallacy. Under that premise pretty much every single person on this entire goddamned planet are not peaceful because there are always people from any and every culture and subculture that are dipshits.
And even if 100% of muslims were suicide bombers, I still don't see how it would be justifiable to prevent them from erecting minarets.
Erecting minarets is a sign that says that they are forming their own communities within a community. A country cannot exist with internal divisions
What? I'd argue a country can only exist with internal divisions. Political parties, different news sources, schools of philosophical thought…these are all internal divisions essential to a healthy nation. Are you saying that states should aspire to stamp out individualism and reduce themselves to a homogenous population governed by a monolithic, all-controlling government?
Suicide bombing is now "individualism"? Remember that this is still your hypothetical example where all Muslims are suicide bombers.
Get a grip, I was responding to ghostWriter's argument that minarets should be banned because they are a sign of internal division.
I really don't get it why so many people are pissed because of that. It's not like Islam is banned, or moschees. Muslims in Switzerland can live their religious live just like before, it's some gay as propagandashit from both sides. Seriously, wtf do you need those gay minaretts for? Nothing but claiming teritory as yours and using it (secondly) as a good point to spread the time for pray.
If you want to build a churchtower in Switzerland you will have very little chance. It's just not done anymore, so why need muslims to do it anyway?
In Austria near Switzerland (Voralberg if im right), you can't see any minaretts either. Did they ban them? No, they didn't but they just dont give any authorizations to build them on a muncipal level.
Frankly I didn't vote at all, because for me it is exactly that, a muncipal level decission. It's ridiculous to make it an affair of state.
How could anyone possibly think Muslim extremists have more power and influence than the Western world? Even if the Western powers are starting to lose grip of their absolute power over the world slowly, they still are, with no doubt, the greatest powers in the world still.
I mean, if these Muslim extremists had more power and influence than anyone else in the world, why would they have split and ran when America started the war? Guerrilla warfare and terrorism is practiced by the weaker side in asymmetrical warfare.
That's a fucking terrible logical fallacy. Under that premise pretty much every single person on this entire goddamned planet are not peaceful because there are always people from any and every culture and subculture that are dipshits.
Do you forget your own posts that quickly? No "dipshits" as you call them have as much power and influence as extremist Muslims.
I dunno man, do you realize how much airtime dumb celebrities get??
Dumb celebrities kill innocent people all the time, that's true. koreasilver used "dipshits" to describe extremists.
Holy hell did you even read the post correctly? READ.
On November 30 2009 08:58 koreasilver wrote: How could anyone possibly think Muslim extremists have more power and influence than the Western world? Even if the Western powers are starting to lose grip of their absolute power over the world slowly, they still are, with no doubt, the greatest powers in the world still.
I mean, if these Muslim extremists had more power and influence than anyone else in the world, why would they have split and ran when America started the war? Guerrilla warfare and terrorism is practiced by the weaker side in asymmetrical warfare.
The Western world is not run by religious extremists.
On November 30 2009 08:58 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote: I really don't get it why so many people are pissed because of that. It's not like Islam is banned, or moschees. Muslims in Switzerland can live their religious live just like before, it's some gay as propagandashit from both sides. Seriously, wtf do you need those gay minaretts for?
LOL this takes the cake
"some gay as propagandashit"—it's hard to reject an argument so articulate!
On November 30 2009 08:58 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote: I really don't get it why so many people are pissed because of that. It's not like Islam is banned, or moschees. Muslims in Switzerland can live their religious live just like before, it's some gay as propagandashit from both sides. Seriously, wtf do you need those gay minaretts for? Nothing but claiming teritory as yours and using it (secondly) as a good point to spread the time for pray.
If you want to build a churchtower in Switzerland you will have very little chance. It's just not done anymore, so why need muslims to do it anyway?
In Austria near Switzerland (Voralberg if im right), you can't see any minaretts either. Did they ban them? No, they didn't but they just dont give any authorizations to build them on a muncipal level.
Frankly I didn't vote at all, because for me it is exactly that, a muncipal level decission. It's ridiculous to make it an affair of state.
Well to be fair they should ban church belfries too.
On November 30 2009 08:58 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote: I really don't get it why so many people are pissed because of that. It's not like Islam is banned, or moschees. Muslims in Switzerland can live their religious live just like before, it's some gay as propagandashit from both sides. Seriously, wtf do you need those gay minaretts for?
LOL this takes the cake
"some gay as propagandashit"—it's hard to reject an argument so articulate!
oh, if you would know the initiators of this "law" as well as I do you would know what I'm talking about
On November 30 2009 08:33 DwmC_Foefen wrote: Switzerland is just trying to be neutral, even when it comes to religion ^^
neutrality = banning minarets?
Seriously. Banning Muslims from building minarets is pretty much saying "fuck off you're not welcome here".
They aren't in a neutral country. No fundamentalist Muslim country is "neutral" in world affairs.
Sjeesh, I said it in a joking way ...
And something to ponder over :
What would happen if christians tried to build churches and crosses and shit in Marocco or Turkey or whereever?
If they were REALLY quick they could have their own burial ceremony in that very church before it gets destroyed.
Exactly... So why can't christians build shit over on Islamic ground?
Seriously, these days we all have to be sooooo politically correct and if we even take a wrong look at a non-caucasian/non-christian dude, we're immediately put in the category of "OMF EFFING RASCIST"...
On November 30 2009 08:58 koreasilver wrote: How could anyone possibly think Muslim extremists have more power and influence than the Western world? Even if the Western powers are starting to lose grip of their absolute power over the world slowly, they still are, with no doubt, the greatest powers in the world still.
I mean, if these Muslim extremists had more power and influence than anyone else in the world, why would they have split and ran when America started the war? Guerrilla warfare and terrorism is practiced by the weaker side in asymmetrical warfare.
The Western world is not run by religious extremists.
And that is why banning minarets in the United States would be unconstitutional.
On November 30 2009 08:58 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote: I really don't get it why so many people are pissed because of that. It's not like Islam is banned, or moschees. Muslims in Switzerland can live their religious live just like before, it's some gay as propagandashit from both sides. Seriously, wtf do you need those gay minaretts for? Nothing but claiming teritory as yours and using it (secondly) as a good point to spread the time for pray.
If you want to build a churchtower in Switzerland you will have very little chance. It's just not done anymore, so why need muslims to do it anyway?
In Austria near Switzerland (Voralberg if im right), you can't see any minaretts either. Did they ban them? No, they didn't but they just dont give any authorizations to build them on a muncipal level.
Frankly I didn't vote at all, because for me it is exactly that, a muncipal level decission. It's ridiculous to make it an affair of state.
Well to be fair they should ban church belfries too.
No because they have been part of our culture for hunderds of years. The ppl said they dont want fucking minaretts, isn't a democracy a nice place to live in?
60% in my shit country said that I may not smoke weed. wtf, why dont you rant about that? where is my right to live me religion (rasta) ????
On November 30 2009 08:58 koreasilver wrote: How could anyone possibly think Muslim extremists have more power and influence than the Western world? Even if the Western powers are starting to lose grip of their absolute power over the world slowly, they still are, with no doubt, the greatest powers in the world still.
I mean, if these Muslim extremists had more power and influence than anyone else in the world, why would they have split and ran when America started the war? Guerrilla warfare and terrorism is practiced by the weaker side in asymmetrical warfare.
The Western world is not run by religious extremists.
That has nothing to do with what my post was about.
You could have said, "but Muslims don't eat pork," and it would have made about the same amount of sense.
On November 30 2009 08:17 JWD wrote: Lawmakers should balance protecting national security/interests with the costs of restricting freedom of speech and expression. Of course eliminating threatening influences might make a country safer, but you're forgetting to consider the value of political/religious/whatever expression. Here we are critiquing the Swiss government and its laws—that could be seen as a threatening influence, why doesn't Switzerland make visiting TL illegal too?
We here at TL have little, if any influence on any events that occur in Switzerland. There's nothing more dangerous to a body than internal conflict. Why should I consider any religion to have value when the concept of religion itself has no merit whatsoever?
OK I get it, you don't like religion. You still haven't explained how that justifies preventing other people who do like religion from peacefully exercising their religious beliefs.
Because they aren't peaceful. Granted, most people go to mosque and pray 5 times a day and don't bother anyone, but there are many people that hold up signs that say death to America or whatever and others that blow themselves up, killing innocent people for no reason other than they believe that they are fighting some sort of holy war. Almost every day, there's a news article about how some ignorant buffoon blew up a train station or something because they were misguided into believing that their actions would give them some sort of reward.
That's a fucking terrible logical fallacy. Under that premise pretty much every single person on this entire goddamned planet are not peaceful because there are always people from any and every culture and subculture that are dipshits.
And even if 100% of muslims were suicide bombers, I still don't see how it would be justifiable to prevent them from erecting minarets.
Erecting minarets is a sign that says that they are forming their own communities within a community. A country cannot exist with internal divisions, look at Yugoslavia or Rwanda, although those were different groups put together on purpose by greater powers, it's the same sort of concept. It's a sign that instead of assimilating, they are promoting their own religion that they brought along. It's not a logical fallacy, religion promotes a lack of understanding and puts up blind faith in ridiculous notions dreamt up by 'prophets' that claimed to be the mouthpieces of a god thousands of years ago. Scientific progress has always been stifled by religion, as has freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.
Yes friends, let's promote freedom of speech and religion by banning the expression of religion!
It is true, religion is the hugest obstacle for freedom of religion.
On November 30 2009 08:33 DwmC_Foefen wrote: Switzerland is just trying to be neutral, even when it comes to religion ^^
neutrality = banning minarets?
Seriously. Banning Muslims from building minarets is pretty much saying "fuck off you're not welcome here".
They aren't in a neutral country. No fundamentalist Muslim country is "neutral" in world affairs.
Sjeesh, I said it in a joking way ...
And something to ponder over :
What would happen if christians tried to build churches and crosses and shit in Marocco or Turkey or whereever?
If they were REALLY quick they could have their own burial ceremony in that very church before it gets destroyed.
Exactly... So why can't christians build shit over on Islamic ground?
Seriously, these days we all have to be sooooo politically correct and if we even take a wrong look at a non-caucasian/non-christian dude, we're immediately put in the category of "OMF EFFING RASCIST"...
Because we in the West have more freedoms than those in Islamic countries. But I see that you clearly prefer their way over our own.
On November 30 2009 08:33 DwmC_Foefen wrote: Switzerland is just trying to be neutral, even when it comes to religion ^^
neutrality = banning minarets?
Seriously. Banning Muslims from building minarets is pretty much saying "fuck off you're not welcome here".
They aren't in a neutral country. No fundamentalist Muslim country is "neutral" in world affairs.
Sjeesh, I said it in a joking way ...
And something to ponder over :
What would happen if christians tried to build churches and crosses and shit in Marocco or Turkey or whereever?
If they were REALLY quick they could have their own burial ceremony in that very church before it gets destroyed.
Exactly... So why can't christians build shit over on Islamic ground?
Seriously, these days we all have to be sooooo politically correct and if we even take a wrong look at a non-caucasian/non-christian dude, we're immediately put in the category of "OMF EFFING RASCIST"...
On November 30 2009 08:58 koreasilver wrote: How could anyone possibly think Muslim extremists have more power and influence than the Western world? Even if the Western powers are starting to lose grip of their absolute power over the world slowly, they still are, with no doubt, the greatest powers in the world still.
I mean, if these Muslim extremists had more power and influence than anyone else in the world, why would they have split and ran when America started the war? Guerrilla warfare and terrorism is practiced by the weaker side in asymmetrical warfare.
The Western world is not run by religious extremists.
That has nothing to do with what my post was about.
You could have said, "but Muslims don't eat pork," and it would have made about the same amount of sense.
You were attempting to change the subject. We were talking about extremists.
No extremists have as much power as Muslim extremists, and therefore none are as dangerous.
On November 30 2009 08:33 DwmC_Foefen wrote: Switzerland is just trying to be neutral, even when it comes to religion ^^
neutrality = banning minarets?
Seriously. Banning Muslims from building minarets is pretty much saying "fuck off you're not welcome here".
They aren't in a neutral country. No fundamentalist Muslim country is "neutral" in world affairs.
Sjeesh, I said it in a joking way ...
And something to ponder over :
What would happen if christians tried to build churches and crosses and shit in Marocco or Turkey or whereever?
If they were REALLY quick they could have their own burial ceremony in that very church before it gets destroyed.
Exactly... So why can't christians build shit over on Islamic ground?
Seriously, these days we all have to be sooooo politically correct and if we even take a wrong look at a non-caucasian/non-christian dude, we're immediately put in the category of "OMF EFFING RASCIST"...
I think your example is a little extreme, as there are plenty of ethnically French and Spanish Christians who still reside in Morocco/Algeria/Tunisia and openly practice their religions and go to church and all that sort of thing. You're right in that they are very restricted (for example, some missionaries were expelled from Morocco for trying to convert a few Muslims), but still, they're there. I think a more interesting example of how the Muslim world isn't exactly the most tolerant place on the planet is the Saudi Arabian government's website. It states very clearly "No Jews allowed".
On November 30 2009 08:17 JWD wrote: Lawmakers should balance protecting national security/interests with the costs of restricting freedom of speech and expression. Of course eliminating threatening influences might make a country safer, but you're forgetting to consider the value of political/religious/whatever expression. Here we are critiquing the Swiss government and its laws—that could be seen as a threatening influence, why doesn't Switzerland make visiting TL illegal too?
We here at TL have little, if any influence on any events that occur in Switzerland. There's nothing more dangerous to a body than internal conflict. Why should I consider any religion to have value when the concept of religion itself has no merit whatsoever?
OK I get it, you don't like religion. You still haven't explained how that justifies preventing other people who do like religion from peacefully exercising their religious beliefs.
Because they aren't peaceful. Granted, most people go to mosque and pray 5 times a day and don't bother anyone, but there are many people that hold up signs that say death to America or whatever and others that blow themselves up, killing innocent people for no reason other than they believe that they are fighting some sort of holy war. Almost every day, there's a news article about how some ignorant buffoon blew up a train station or something because they were misguided into believing that their actions would give them some sort of reward.
That's a fucking terrible logical fallacy. Under that premise pretty much every single person on this entire goddamned planet are not peaceful because there are always people from any and every culture and subculture that are dipshits.
And even if 100% of muslims were suicide bombers, I still don't see how it would be justifiable to prevent them from erecting minarets.
Erecting minarets is a sign that says that they are forming their own communities within a community. A country cannot exist with internal divisions
What? I'd argue a country can only exist with internal divisions. Political parties, different news sources, schools of philosophical thought…these are all internal divisions essential to a healthy nation. Are you saying that states should aspire to stamp out individualism and reduce themselves to a homogenous population governed by a monolithic, all-controlling government?
LOL sorry dude, rereading your post I don't think I can take you seriously anymore
say, TL is a pretty serious "community within a community" too…watch out guys!
Also, many of these internal divisions are artificial. It's easy to associate yourself with a group or a view. But do you really know and understand what you are supporting? For example, some people went out to a Palin book signing and got interviews with supporters. They probably edited out all the people who were able to articulate themselves clearly, but take a look at what happens. Many of these people who claim to support Palin and waited on a line for hours to exchange a few words with her and get a signature don't have the slightest clue about her positions on anything (not that her opinion is worth that much anyway). Many of their statements can be attributed to a claim made by Glenn Beck or Bill O'Reilly, etc. It's not just conservatives though, I'm sure this kind of thing can be done for any group.
On November 30 2009 08:58 koreasilver wrote: How could anyone possibly think Muslim extremists have more power and influence than the Western world? Even if the Western powers are starting to lose grip of their absolute power over the world slowly, they still are, with no doubt, the greatest powers in the world still.
I mean, if these Muslim extremists had more power and influence than anyone else in the world, why would they have split and ran when America started the war? Guerrilla warfare and terrorism is practiced by the weaker side in asymmetrical warfare.
The Western world is not run by religious extremists.
That has nothing to do with what my post was about.
You could have said, "but Muslims don't eat pork," and it would have made about the same amount of sense.
You were attempting to change the subject. We were talking about extremists.
No extremists have as much power as Muslim extremists, and therefore none are as dangerous.
I was never talking specifically about extremists, and even under the idea of extremists, neo-liberal extremists have done much worse over the world than the Muslim extremists.
On November 30 2009 08:58 koreasilver wrote: How could anyone possibly think Muslim extremists have more power and influence than the Western world? Even if the Western powers are starting to lose grip of their absolute power over the world slowly, they still are, with no doubt, the greatest powers in the world still.
I mean, if these Muslim extremists had more power and influence than anyone else in the world, why would they have split and ran when America started the war? Guerrilla warfare and terrorism is practiced by the weaker side in asymmetrical warfare.
The Western world is not run by religious extremists.
That has nothing to do with what my post was about.
You could have said, "but Muslims don't eat pork," and it would have made about the same amount of sense.
You were attempting to change the subject. We were talking about extremists.
No extremists have as much power as Muslim extremists, and therefore none are as dangerous.
I was never talking specifically about extremists, and even under the idea of extremists, neo-liberal extremists have done much worse over the world than the Muslim extremists.
i think its good. would muslime ever let us build churches in their countries? lol If they dont accept other religions in countries where other religions are the majority then they dont deserver their religion too.
On November 30 2009 08:17 JWD wrote: Lawmakers should balance protecting national security/interests with the costs of restricting freedom of speech and expression. Of course eliminating threatening influences might make a country safer, but you're forgetting to consider the value of political/religious/whatever expression. Here we are critiquing the Swiss government and its laws—that could be seen as a threatening influence, why doesn't Switzerland make visiting TL illegal too?
We here at TL have little, if any influence on any events that occur in Switzerland. There's nothing more dangerous to a body than internal conflict. Why should I consider any religion to have value when the concept of religion itself has no merit whatsoever?
OK I get it, you don't like religion. You still haven't explained how that justifies preventing other people who do like religion from peacefully exercising their religious beliefs.
Because they aren't peaceful. Granted, most people go to mosque and pray 5 times a day and don't bother anyone, but there are many people that hold up signs that say death to America or whatever and others that blow themselves up, killing innocent people for no reason other than they believe that they are fighting some sort of holy war. Almost every day, there's a news article about how some ignorant buffoon blew up a train station or something because they were misguided into believing that their actions would give them some sort of reward.
That's a fucking terrible logical fallacy. Under that premise pretty much every single person on this entire goddamned planet are not peaceful because there are always people from any and every culture and subculture that are dipshits.
And even if 100% of muslims were suicide bombers, I still don't see how it would be justifiable to prevent them from erecting minarets.
Erecting minarets is a sign that says that they are forming their own communities within a community. A country cannot exist with internal divisions, look at Yugoslavia or Rwanda, although those were different groups put together on purpose by greater powers, it's the same sort of concept. It's a sign that instead of assimilating, they are promoting their own religion that they brought along. It's not a logical fallacy, religion promotes a lack of understanding and puts up blind faith in ridiculous notions dreamt up by 'prophets' that claimed to be the mouthpieces of a god thousands of years ago. Scientific progress has always been stifled by religion, as has freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.
Yes friends, let's promote freedom of speech and religion by banning the expression of religion!
lol. because religions have historically been tolerant of other religions. Also, there are no divisions in any religion, like the split between Shia and Sunni or the split between Protestant and Catholics, which didn't lead to any bloodshed whatsoever.
On November 30 2009 09:13 MasterReY wrote: i think its good. would muslime ever let us build churches in their countries? lol If they dont accept other religions in countries where other religions are the majority then they dont deserver their religion too.
dude, they still can have their religion inswitzerland, they can still have moschees, all they cant have is a ridiculus might symbol.
I learned what it feels like to feel ashamed of your country today. =/
No need to beat yourself over it, governments are rarely 100% reflective of their population. Especially the youth portion.
its a reflection of 57% of the ppl over 18 able to vote with hmm dunno 30% of them voting? so this is actually a minority. I love to live in a democracy, haha.
On November 30 2009 09:13 MasterReY wrote: i think its good. would muslime ever let us build churches in their countries? lol If they dont accept other religions in countries where other religions are the majority then they dont deserver their religion too.
On November 30 2009 08:58 koreasilver wrote: How could anyone possibly think Muslim extremists have more power and influence than the Western world? Even if the Western powers are starting to lose grip of their absolute power over the world slowly, they still are, with no doubt, the greatest powers in the world still.
I mean, if these Muslim extremists had more power and influence than anyone else in the world, why would they have split and ran when America started the war? Guerrilla warfare and terrorism is practiced by the weaker side in asymmetrical warfare.
The Western world is not run by religious extremists.
That has nothing to do with what my post was about.
You could have said, "but Muslims don't eat pork," and it would have made about the same amount of sense.
You were attempting to change the subject. We were talking about extremists.
No extremists have as much power as Muslim extremists, and therefore none are as dangerous.
I was never talking specifically about extremists, and even under the idea of extremists, neo-liberal extremists have done much worse over the world than the Muslim extremists.
I don't even know how you can believe this.
Because controlling the IMF and other prominent international organizations and hijacking several South American countries, South Africa, and other various countries and shoving their laissez faire economics into these countries and stealing their public sectors with the help of militaristic counter-revolutionists has killed far more people in the past 60 years than Muslim extremists have in the past 60 years, and these neo-liberals have driven more people into poverty than these Muslim extremists as well.
But it's okay. You're an ignorant fool, and evidently spending my time replying to a you is a waste of my time. Even beyond your ideas you don't know how to read or reply properly anyway.
On November 30 2009 09:13 MasterReY wrote: i think its good. would muslime ever let us build churches in their countries? lol If they dont accept other religions in countries where other religions are the majority then they dont deserver their religion too.
There are like 3-6 churches in Bahrain tho =[. Those extremists bitches are fucking up what true Islam is about, all of this shit about Islam suppressing women whatever thats all misunderstanding and its basically them making their own "Islam". Deep inside Islam is really a sensible religion, If you know where to go then you can really learn about it. But all this media, and retarded Saudi extremist and Suicide bombers ruins the essence of every fucking thing.
I learned what it feels like to feel ashamed of your country today. =/
No need to beat yourself over it, governments are rarely 100% reflective of their population. Especially the youth portion.
Actually, every single citizen got to vote for or against this and 57% said yes (less than half voted though, but still). It's not a government decision, this decision is as democratic as it gets.
I learned what it feels like to feel ashamed of your country today. =/
No need to beat yourself over it, governments are rarely 100% reflective of their population. Especially the youth portion.
Actually, every single citizen got to vote for or against this and 57% said yes (less than half voted though, but still). It's not a government decision, this decision is as democratic as it gets.
as you pointed out, it were about 1.5 million ppl voting yes from 7.7 million ppl living in switzerland.
I learned what it feels like to feel ashamed of your country today. =/
No need to beat yourself over it, governments are rarely 100% reflective of their population. Especially the youth portion.
Actually, every single citizen got to vote for or against this and 57% said yes (less than half voted though, but still). It's not a government decision, this decision is as democratic as it gets.
as you pointed out, it were about 1.5 million ppl voting yes from 7.7 million ppl living in switzerland.
meaning 5million didnt give a shit about it, why the hell do we even have democracy? wtf
On November 30 2009 08:58 koreasilver wrote: How could anyone possibly think Muslim extremists have more power and influence than the Western world? Even if the Western powers are starting to lose grip of their absolute power over the world slowly, they still are, with no doubt, the greatest powers in the world still.
I mean, if these Muslim extremists had more power and influence than anyone else in the world, why would they have split and ran when America started the war? Guerrilla warfare and terrorism is practiced by the weaker side in asymmetrical warfare.
The Western world is not run by religious extremists.
That has nothing to do with what my post was about.
You could have said, "but Muslims don't eat pork," and it would have made about the same amount of sense.
You were attempting to change the subject. We were talking about extremists.
No extremists have as much power as Muslim extremists, and therefore none are as dangerous.
I was never talking specifically about extremists, and even under the idea of extremists, neo-liberal extremists have done much worse over the world than the Muslim extremists.
I don't even know how you can believe this.
Because controlling the IMF and other prominent international organizations and hijacking several South American countries, South Africa, and other various countries and shoving their laissez faire economics into these countries and stealing their public sectors with the help of militaristic counter-revolutionists has killed far more people in the past 60 years than Muslim extremists have in the past 60 years, and these neo-liberals have driven more people into poverty than these Muslim extremists as well.
But it's okay. You're an ignorant fool, and evidently spending my time replying to a you is a waste of my time. Even beyond your ideas you don't know how to read or reply properly anyway.
Just... no.
Do some research on the history of the Middle East for the past 50 years and come back.
On November 30 2009 08:14 ghostWriter wrote: I can see why they would be wary of Islamic influences. Where do you think the Paris riots came from? Ungrateful youth that should expend their time and energy on their education or a career, wasting their lives being mad at the establishment, which allows them to have protection, a home, etc.
There's a big, hard to justify leap from being wary of influences and taking affirmative steps to eliminate them.
If you immigrate to a different country, it's your job to assimilate into the existing culture. The Koran promotes violence in order for Islam to spread. Why wouldn't they eliminate threatening influences?
Where in the Koran did it actually promote violence?
In places where a disturbingly large portion of muslims think that Jihad is a good idea.
Also the fact that death penalty for homosexuality, and stoning of women who've cheated on their husbands, still exist.
@superarc yep, democracys suck, my words ;D I dont give a fuck if 20% of a country tell me to not smoke weed or if it's 1 mean king.
(btw. those 1.5 millions I said earlier were just a guess, but its almost always that low, but to not spread bullshit I search for the actual results, looks like im a good guesser ;D)
On November 30 2009 07:52 Foucault wrote: I don't really see a reason to spread religion in the world to be honest. Islam to me is oppression and women being held down by ridiculous religious beliefs. Of course there are nice things to arabic culture, but Islam is not it
I agree completely, and I think this is the consensus of most people in Switzerland.
yeah, and Christianity is drinking blood, crusades, inquisitions and witch hunts.
be more ignorant please.
Islam still has honor killings, excuses for rape including blaming the victim, the death penalty for homosexuality, and no rights for women.
How many of the Christian things you mentioned are still around?
you are a dumb motherfucker. like really, really dumb. None of that is true, you're completely ignorant. Do you live in a muslim country? Have you experienced the culture of one firsthand? no? then shut the fuck up
On November 30 2009 08:58 koreasilver wrote: How could anyone possibly think Muslim extremists have more power and influence than the Western world? Even if the Western powers are starting to lose grip of their absolute power over the world slowly, they still are, with no doubt, the greatest powers in the world still.
I mean, if these Muslim extremists had more power and influence than anyone else in the world, why would they have split and ran when America started the war? Guerrilla warfare and terrorism is practiced by the weaker side in asymmetrical warfare.
The Western world is not run by religious extremists.
That has nothing to do with what my post was about.
You could have said, "but Muslims don't eat pork," and it would have made about the same amount of sense.
You were attempting to change the subject. We were talking about extremists.
No extremists have as much power as Muslim extremists, and therefore none are as dangerous.
I was never talking specifically about extremists, and even under the idea of extremists, neo-liberal extremists have done much worse over the world than the Muslim extremists.
I don't even know how you can believe this.
Because controlling the IMF and other prominent international organizations and hijacking several South American countries, South Africa, and other various countries and shoving their laissez faire economics into these countries and stealing their public sectors with the help of militaristic counter-revolutionists has killed far more people in the past 60 years than Muslim extremists have in the past 60 years, and these neo-liberals have driven more people into poverty than these Muslim extremists as well.
But it's okay. You're an ignorant fool, and evidently spending my time replying to a you is a waste of my time. Even beyond your ideas you don't know how to read or reply properly anyway.
Just... no.
Do some research on the history of the Middle East for the past 50 years and come back.
Do some research on your own country and come back.
On November 30 2009 09:13 MasterReY wrote: i think its good. would muslime ever let us build churches in their countries? lol If they dont accept other religions in countries where other religions are the majority then they dont deserver their religion too.
On November 30 2009 08:58 koreasilver wrote: How could anyone possibly think Muslim extremists have more power and influence than the Western world? Even if the Western powers are starting to lose grip of their absolute power over the world slowly, they still are, with no doubt, the greatest powers in the world still.
I mean, if these Muslim extremists had more power and influence than anyone else in the world, why would they have split and ran when America started the war? Guerrilla warfare and terrorism is practiced by the weaker side in asymmetrical warfare.
The Western world is not run by religious extremists.
That has nothing to do with what my post was about.
You could have said, "but Muslims don't eat pork," and it would have made about the same amount of sense.
You were attempting to change the subject. We were talking about extremists.
No extremists have as much power as Muslim extremists, and therefore none are as dangerous.
I was never talking specifically about extremists, and even under the idea of extremists, neo-liberal extremists have done much worse over the world than the Muslim extremists.
I don't even know how you can believe this.
Because controlling the IMF and other prominent international organizations and hijacking several South American countries, South Africa, and other various countries and shoving their laissez faire economics into these countries and stealing their public sectors with the help of militaristic counter-revolutionists has killed far more people in the past 60 years than Muslim extremists have in the past 60 years, and these neo-liberals have driven more people into poverty than these Muslim extremists as well.
But it's okay. You're an ignorant fool, and evidently spending my time replying to a you is a waste of my time. Even beyond your ideas you don't know how to read or reply properly anyway.
Just... no.
Do some research on the history of the Middle East for the past 50 years and come back.
On November 30 2009 08:24 Yizuo wrote: IMO this ban is pure bullshit, the people are blinded by fear of different cultures and religions. "The free western world" should always uphold their values of open-mindedness and tolerance, the decision made by the swiss people is a step in the wrong direction.
imo, this is bullshit because Islam isn't known to be a very open-minded religion. Why should we go about promoting islam for the sake of being politically correct when instead we should promote ideas that are actually good for people. Women wearing burkas and hardly having any rights is not something I want to push for.
I learned what it feels like to feel ashamed of your country today. =/
No need to beat yourself over it, governments are rarely 100% reflective of their population. Especially the youth portion.
Actually, every single citizen got to vote for or against this and 57% said yes (less than half voted though, but still). It's not a government decision, this decision is as democratic as it gets.
as you pointed out, it were about 1.5 million ppl voting yes from 7.7 million ppl living in switzerland.
meaning 5million didnt give a shit about it, why the hell do we even have democracy? wtf
No, read his post again, 1.5 million voted yes, a slightly smaller number voted no, many of the 7.7 million are under 18 and not allowed to vote.
All in all 49% of people who are allowed to vote, voted.
On November 30 2009 08:58 koreasilver wrote: How could anyone possibly think Muslim extremists have more power and influence than the Western world? Even if the Western powers are starting to lose grip of their absolute power over the world slowly, they still are, with no doubt, the greatest powers in the world still.
I mean, if these Muslim extremists had more power and influence than anyone else in the world, why would they have split and ran when America started the war? Guerrilla warfare and terrorism is practiced by the weaker side in asymmetrical warfare.
The Western world is not run by religious extremists.
That has nothing to do with what my post was about.
You could have said, "but Muslims don't eat pork," and it would have made about the same amount of sense.
You were attempting to change the subject. We were talking about extremists.
No extremists have as much power as Muslim extremists, and therefore none are as dangerous.
I was never talking specifically about extremists, and even under the idea of extremists, neo-liberal extremists have done much worse over the world than the Muslim extremists.
I don't even know how you can believe this.
Because controlling the IMF and other prominent international organizations and hijacking several South American countries, South Africa, and other various countries and shoving their laissez faire economics into these countries and stealing their public sectors with the help of militaristic counter-revolutionists has killed far more people in the past 60 years than Muslim extremists have in the past 60 years, and these neo-liberals have driven more people into poverty than these Muslim extremists as well.
But it's okay. You're an ignorant fool, and evidently spending my time replying to a you is a waste of my time. Even beyond your ideas you don't know how to read or reply properly anyway.
Just... no.
Do some research on the history of the Middle East for the past 50 years and come back.
On November 30 2009 08:58 koreasilver wrote: How could anyone possibly think Muslim extremists have more power and influence than the Western world? Even if the Western powers are starting to lose grip of their absolute power over the world slowly, they still are, with no doubt, the greatest powers in the world still.
I mean, if these Muslim extremists had more power and influence than anyone else in the world, why would they have split and ran when America started the war? Guerrilla warfare and terrorism is practiced by the weaker side in asymmetrical warfare.
The Western world is not run by religious extremists.
That has nothing to do with what my post was about.
You could have said, "but Muslims don't eat pork," and it would have made about the same amount of sense.
You were attempting to change the subject. We were talking about extremists.
No extremists have as much power as Muslim extremists, and therefore none are as dangerous.
I was never talking specifically about extremists, and even under the idea of extremists, neo-liberal extremists have done much worse over the world than the Muslim extremists.
I don't even know how you can believe this.
Because controlling the IMF and other prominent international organizations and hijacking several South American countries, South Africa, and other various countries and shoving their laissez faire economics into these countries and stealing their public sectors with the help of militaristic counter-revolutionists has killed far more people in the past 60 years than Muslim extremists have in the past 60 years, and these neo-liberals have driven more people into poverty than these Muslim extremists as well.
But it's okay. You're an ignorant fool, and evidently spending my time replying to a you is a waste of my time. Even beyond your ideas you don't know how to read or reply properly anyway.
Just... no.
Do some research on the history of the Middle East for the past 50 years and come back.
On November 30 2009 08:24 Yizuo wrote: IMO this ban is pure bullshit, the people are blinded by fear of different cultures and religions. "The free western world" should always uphold their values of open-mindedness and tolerance, the decision made by the swiss people is a step in the wrong direction.
imo, this is bullshit because Islam isn't known to be a very open-minded religion. Why should we go about promoting islam for the sake of being politically correct when instead we should promote ideas that are actually good for people. Women wearing burkas and hardly having any rights is not something I want to push for.
Agreed. Also, look at the reaction when some relatively obscure Danish newspaper printed a comic that showed a representation of the prophet Mohammed.
On November 30 2009 07:52 Foucault wrote: I don't really see a reason to spread religion in the world to be honest. Islam to me is oppression and women being held down by ridiculous religious beliefs. Of course there are nice things to arabic culture, but Islam is not it
I agree completely, and I think this is the consensus of most people in Switzerland.
yeah, and Christianity is drinking blood, crusades, inquisitions and witch hunts.
be more ignorant please.
Islam still has honor killings, excuses for rape including blaming the victim, the death penalty for homosexuality, and no rights for women.
How many of the Christian things you mentioned are still around?
you are a dumb motherfucker. like really, really dumb. None of that is true, you're completely ignorant. Do you live in a muslim country? Have you experienced the culture of one firsthand? no? then shut the fuck up
Did I say all Muslim countries? And there have even been honor killings in the US, though they are of course illegal.
I learned what it feels like to feel ashamed of your country today. =/
No need to beat yourself over it, governments are rarely 100% reflective of their population. Especially the youth portion.
Actually, every single citizen got to vote for or against this and 57% said yes (less than half voted though, but still). It's not a government decision, this decision is as democratic as it gets.
as you pointed out, it were about 1.5 million ppl voting yes from 7.7 million ppl living in switzerland.
meaning 5million didnt give a shit about it, why the hell do we even have democracy? wtf
No, read his post again, 1.5 million voted yes, a slightly smaller number voted no, many of the 7.7 million are under 18 and not allowed to vote.
All in all 49% of people, who are allowed to vote, voted.
On November 30 2009 08:58 koreasilver wrote: How could anyone possibly think Muslim extremists have more power and influence than the Western world? Even if the Western powers are starting to lose grip of their absolute power over the world slowly, they still are, with no doubt, the greatest powers in the world still.
I mean, if these Muslim extremists had more power and influence than anyone else in the world, why would they have split and ran when America started the war? Guerrilla warfare and terrorism is practiced by the weaker side in asymmetrical warfare.
The Western world is not run by religious extremists.
That has nothing to do with what my post was about.
You could have said, "but Muslims don't eat pork," and it would have made about the same amount of sense.
You were attempting to change the subject. We were talking about extremists.
No extremists have as much power as Muslim extremists, and therefore none are as dangerous.
I was never talking specifically about extremists, and even under the idea of extremists, neo-liberal extremists have done much worse over the world than the Muslim extremists.
I don't even know how you can believe this.
Because controlling the IMF and other prominent international organizations and hijacking several South American countries, South Africa, and other various countries and shoving their laissez faire economics into these countries and stealing their public sectors with the help of militaristic counter-revolutionists has killed far more people in the past 60 years than Muslim extremists have in the past 60 years, and these neo-liberals have driven more people into poverty than these Muslim extremists as well.
But it's okay. You're an ignorant fool, and evidently spending my time replying to a you is a waste of my time. Even beyond your ideas you don't know how to read or reply properly anyway.
Just... no.
Do some research on the history of the Middle East for the past 50 years and come back.
Atomic bomb. Don't come back.
What religion was behind the atomic bomb?
It wasn't an argument for or against any religion ...?
The Western world is not run by religious extremists.
That has nothing to do with what my post was about.
You could have said, "but Muslims don't eat pork," and it would have made about the same amount of sense.
You were attempting to change the subject. We were talking about extremists.
No extremists have as much power as Muslim extremists, and therefore none are as dangerous.
I was never talking specifically about extremists, and even under the idea of extremists, neo-liberal extremists have done much worse over the world than the Muslim extremists.
I don't even know how you can believe this.
Because controlling the IMF and other prominent international organizations and hijacking several South American countries, South Africa, and other various countries and shoving their laissez faire economics into these countries and stealing their public sectors with the help of militaristic counter-revolutionists has killed far more people in the past 60 years than Muslim extremists have in the past 60 years, and these neo-liberals have driven more people into poverty than these Muslim extremists as well.
But it's okay. You're an ignorant fool, and evidently spending my time replying to a you is a waste of my time. Even beyond your ideas you don't know how to read or reply properly anyway.
Just... no.
Do some research on the history of the Middle East for the past 50 years and come back.
Atomic bomb. Don't come back.
What religion was behind the atomic bomb?
It wasn't an argument for or against any religion ...?
On November 30 2009 08:24 Yizuo wrote: IMO this ban is pure bullshit, the people are blinded by fear of different cultures and religions. "The free western world" should always uphold their values of open-mindedness and tolerance, the decision made by the swiss people is a step in the wrong direction.
imo, this is bullshit because Islam isn't known to be a very open-minded religion. Why should we go about promoting islam for the sake of being politically correct when instead we should promote ideas that are actually good for people. Women wearing burkas and hardly having any rights is not something I want to push for.
You do know there are many varying opinions on issues amongst Muslims, right? You are quite ignorant if you believe all Muslims believe in the extreme interpretation of the Shariah that came into effect when the Taliban gained power.
On November 30 2009 08:24 Yizuo wrote: IMO this ban is pure bullshit, the people are blinded by fear of different cultures and religions. "The free western world" should always uphold their values of open-mindedness and tolerance, the decision made by the swiss people is a step in the wrong direction.
imo, this is bullshit because Islam isn't known to be a very open-minded religion. Why should we go about promoting islam for the sake of being politically correct when instead we should promote ideas that are actually good for people. Women wearing burkas and hardly having any rights is not something I want to push for.
Agreed. Also, look at the reaction when some relatively obscure Danish newspaper printed a comic that showed a representation of the prophet Mohammed.
This is like saying all Christians are ignorant murderers because some lunatics bombed abortion clinics.
On November 30 2009 08:24 Yizuo wrote: IMO this ban is pure bullshit, the people are blinded by fear of different cultures and religions. "The free western world" should always uphold their values of open-mindedness and tolerance, the decision made by the swiss people is a step in the wrong direction.
imo, this is bullshit because Islam isn't known to be a very open-minded religion. Why should we go about promoting islam for the sake of being politically correct when instead we should promote ideas that are actually good for people. Women wearing burkas and hardly having any rights is not something I want to push for.
Agreed. Also, look at the reaction when some relatively obscure Danish newspaper printed a comic that showed a representation of the prophet Mohammed.
This is like saying all Christians are ignorant murderers because some lunatics bombed abortion clinics.
A few people bombing abortion clinics is the same thing as millions of people rioting all over the world?
On November 30 2009 08:24 Yizuo wrote: IMO this ban is pure bullshit, the people are blinded by fear of different cultures and religions. "The free western world" should always uphold their values of open-mindedness and tolerance, the decision made by the swiss people is a step in the wrong direction.
imo, this is bullshit because Islam isn't known to be a very open-minded religion. Why should we go about promoting islam for the sake of being politically correct when instead we should promote ideas that are actually good for people. Women wearing burkas and hardly having any rights is not something I want to push for.
Agreed. Also, look at the reaction when some relatively obscure Danish newspaper printed a comic that showed a representation of the prophet Mohammed.
Yeah. Those comics created a monumental shitstorm in the arabic world. I was watching it unfold in disbelief, and the pictures weren't even that bad. It shows how diehard alot of muslims are; foreign embassies were threatened and attacked, it was ridiculous. They burned danish flags and they filmed people saying that all danish citizens deserve to die and what not.
On November 30 2009 09:02 koreasilver wrote: [quote] That has nothing to do with what my post was about.
You could have said, "but Muslims don't eat pork," and it would have made about the same amount of sense.
You were attempting to change the subject. We were talking about extremists.
No extremists have as much power as Muslim extremists, and therefore none are as dangerous.
I was never talking specifically about extremists, and even under the idea of extremists, neo-liberal extremists have done much worse over the world than the Muslim extremists.
I don't even know how you can believe this.
Because controlling the IMF and other prominent international organizations and hijacking several South American countries, South Africa, and other various countries and shoving their laissez faire economics into these countries and stealing their public sectors with the help of militaristic counter-revolutionists has killed far more people in the past 60 years than Muslim extremists have in the past 60 years, and these neo-liberals have driven more people into poverty than these Muslim extremists as well.
But it's okay. You're an ignorant fool, and evidently spending my time replying to a you is a waste of my time. Even beyond your ideas you don't know how to read or reply properly anyway.
Just... no.
Do some research on the history of the Middle East for the past 50 years and come back.
Atomic bomb. Don't come back.
What religion was behind the atomic bomb?
It wasn't an argument for or against any religion ...?
Bingo.
You're not even making any sense. Not that you were in the first place. You were trying to argue that Muslim extremists have killed more in the past 60 years than non Muslims. I was pointing out, NO?
On November 30 2009 07:52 Foucault wrote: I don't really see a reason to spread religion in the world to be honest. Islam to me is oppression and women being held down by ridiculous religious beliefs. Of course there are nice things to arabic culture, but Islam is not it
I agree completely, and I think this is the consensus of most people in Switzerland.
yeah, and Christianity is drinking blood, crusades, inquisitions and witch hunts.
be more ignorant please.
Islam still has honor killings, excuses for rape including blaming the victim, the death penalty for homosexuality, and no rights for women.
How many of the Christian things you mentioned are still around?
you are a dumb motherfucker. like really, really dumb. None of that is true, you're completely ignorant. Do you live in a muslim country? Have you experienced the culture of one firsthand? no? then shut the fuck up
Did I say all Muslim countries? And there have even been honor killings in the US, though they are of course illegal.
In no muslim country is this condoned anymore. When it is done religion is the excuse, the problem is the idiots who perpetrate the stupidity, the country, not the religion. Bangladesh is an entirely muslim country with a muslim culture, and you never see shit like that being acceptable there. Why not? The predominant religion IS Islam. Or maybe...its the people/country/atmosphere they were raised in and not the religion? Its like saying Christianity is horribly wrong because of the crusades, and because its used as an excuse to discriminate against gays. Thats fucking stupid
On November 30 2009 08:24 Yizuo wrote: IMO this ban is pure bullshit, the people are blinded by fear of different cultures and religions. "The free western world" should always uphold their values of open-mindedness and tolerance, the decision made by the swiss people is a step in the wrong direction.
imo, this is bullshit because Islam isn't known to be a very open-minded religion. Why should we go about promoting islam for the sake of being politically correct when instead we should promote ideas that are actually good for people. Women wearing burkas and hardly having any rights is not something I want to push for.
You do know there are many varying opinions on issues amongst Muslims, right? You are quite ignorant if you believe all Muslims believe in the extreme interpretation of the Shariah that came into effect when the Taliban gained power.
No, not all do but alot of muslims do. While some are more liberal or want to come across as more liberal in order to gain influence in the western world, they are quite stone age about many things like womens rights and even the not-so-hardcore muslims still have strong opinions on many subjects which I don't agree with at all.
On November 30 2009 08:14 ghostWriter wrote: I can see why they would be wary of Islamic influences. Where do you think the Paris riots came from? Ungrateful youth that should expend their time and energy on their education or a career, wasting their lives being mad at the establishment, which allows them to have protection, a home, etc.
There's a big, hard to justify leap from being wary of influences and taking affirmative steps to eliminate them.
If you immigrate to a different country, it's your job to assimilate into the existing culture. The Koran promotes violence in order for Islam to spread. Why wouldn't they eliminate threatening influences?
Lawmakers should balance protecting national security/interests with the costs of restricting freedom of speech and expression. Of course eliminating threatening influences might make a country safer, but you're forgetting to consider the value of political/religious/whatever expression. Here we are critiquing the Swiss government and its laws—that could be seen as a threatening influence, why doesn't Switzerland make visiting TL illegal too?
You are aware of this being a vote. By the people.
To add something, which I think hasn't been mentioned yet: Minarets historically are a statement of power/authority. You're from the U.S. and I think there the muslim community is (being) integrated in a much better way than in Europe. I think as there are more obstacles to overcome if you want to immigrate to the US, there is a larger proportion of educated people. Whereas in Europe a really large group of Muslims is "Trash". There's lots of talk about them because they're the biggest group of socially unintegrated people causing trouble and therefore getting much air time in the media (UK, Germany, Scandinavia, France, Netherlands, the list goes on).
So there's lots of (justified and unjustified) bias among the "native" population. I myself was strongly biased towards Islam/Muslims and I think if I would write this post with the mindset I had 2-3 years ago, I would flame you for just being on their side. Anyway, things changed and I'm trying to have a more open and objective view on all of this. But still you can't deny the negative attitude of most people against Muslims. It's not about all that terrorist stuff, it's more about their archaic culture. The lesser people are educated, the more they are bound to their culture.
And here we get to the point. Their culture is Islam. There doesn't exist anything like cultural differences you can see when travelling to other christian countries. They rely heavily on Islam and base most of their entire life on it. That's why you can't compare it to Christianity, not even to Christianity in medieval times. Yes, life sucked then. Yes, the church was cruel and they oppressed people. But it wasn't like the religion controlled their whole life. There is a rule to everything in Islam. In the arabic countries they still dish out hundreds of fatwas for modern stuff like usage of mobiles.
In the past I was heavily biased to Islam because of personal experiences (turkish/arabic youth in Germany). Nowadays that I've educated myself on all this stuff I kinda understand why shit is like it is, but this doesn't mean I think it's good.
On November 30 2009 08:33 DwmC_Foefen wrote: Switzerland is just trying to be neutral, even when it comes to religion ^^
neutrality = banning minarets?
Seriously. Banning Muslims from building minarets is pretty much saying "fuck off you're not welcome here".
I seriously hate this multi-cultural-is-so-awesome stuff. Switzerland historically is a Christian country, based on Christian views and morals. You want a room to pray to allah? They already have those. Muslims constantly talk about respect and tolerance. In my eyes, respect is mutual. I would never ever emigrate to some country, no matter how many of my fellow countrymen/ppl of the same religious beliefs are with me, and demand things exclusive to my culture/religion.
On November 30 2009 08:24 Yizuo wrote: IMO this ban is pure bullshit, the people are blinded by fear of different cultures and religions. "The free western world" should always uphold their values of open-mindedness and tolerance, the decision made by the swiss people is a step in the wrong direction.
imo, this is bullshit because Islam isn't known to be a very open-minded religion. Why should we go about promoting islam for the sake of being politically correct when instead we should promote ideas that are actually good for people. Women wearing burkas and hardly having any rights is not something I want to push for.
Agreed. Also, look at the reaction when some relatively obscure Danish newspaper printed a comic that showed a representation of the prophet Mohammed.
Yeah. Those comics created a monumental shitstorm in the arabic world. I was watching it unfold in disbelief, and the pictures weren't even that bad. It shows how diehard alot of muslims are; foreign embassies were threatened and attacked, it was ridiculous. They burned danish flags and they filmed people saying that all danish citizens deserve to die and what not.
Yeah, watch a few videos of american redneck reactions when gay marriage was legalized. So, Christians are all extreme ok np?
On November 30 2009 07:52 Foucault wrote: I don't really see a reason to spread religion in the world to be honest. Islam to me is oppression and women being held down by ridiculous religious beliefs. Of course there are nice things to arabic culture, but Islam is not it
I agree completely, and I think this is the consensus of most people in Switzerland.
yeah, and Christianity is drinking blood, crusades, inquisitions and witch hunts.
be more ignorant please.
Islam still has honor killings, excuses for rape including blaming the victim, the death penalty for homosexuality, and no rights for women.
How many of the Christian things you mentioned are still around?
you are a dumb motherfucker. like really, really dumb. None of that is true, you're completely ignorant. Do you live in a muslim country? Have you experienced the culture of one firsthand? no? then shut the fuck up
Did I say all Muslim countries? And there have even been honor killings in the US, though they are of course illegal.
Its like saying Christianity is horribly wrong because of the crusades, and because its used as an excuse to discriminate against gays. Thats fucking stupid
The crusades aren't still going on. Islam isn't the problem, the people spreading hate through the guise of Islam are.
On November 30 2009 08:24 Yizuo wrote: IMO this ban is pure bullshit, the people are blinded by fear of different cultures and religions. "The free western world" should always uphold their values of open-mindedness and tolerance, the decision made by the swiss people is a step in the wrong direction.
imo, this is bullshit because Islam isn't known to be a very open-minded religion. Why should we go about promoting islam for the sake of being politically correct when instead we should promote ideas that are actually good for people. Women wearing burkas and hardly having any rights is not something I want to push for.
Agreed. Also, look at the reaction when some relatively obscure Danish newspaper printed a comic that showed a representation of the prophet Mohammed.
This is like saying all Christians are ignorant murderers because some lunatics bombed abortion clinics.
A few people bombing abortion clinics is the same thing as millions of people rioting all over the world?
So they aren't allowed to defend their beliefs while it's okay for them to be trampled all over by external powers.
On November 30 2009 08:24 Yizuo wrote: IMO this ban is pure bullshit, the people are blinded by fear of different cultures and religions. "The free western world" should always uphold their values of open-mindedness and tolerance, the decision made by the swiss people is a step in the wrong direction.
imo, this is bullshit because Islam isn't known to be a very open-minded religion. Why should we go about promoting islam for the sake of being politically correct when instead we should promote ideas that are actually good for people. Women wearing burkas and hardly having any rights is not something I want to push for.
You do know there are many varying opinions on issues amongst Muslims, right? You are quite ignorant if you believe all Muslims believe in the extreme interpretation of the Shariah that came into effect when the Taliban gained power.
No, not all do but alot of muslims do. While some are more liberal or want to come across as more liberal in order to gain influence in the western world, they are quite stone age about many things like womens rights and even the not-so-hardcore muslims still have strong opinions on many subjects which I don't agree with at all.
Yeah are you kidding me? I merely pointed out an example of where religion can take people; this obviously doesn't implicate that all people that are members of that religion also behave in a similar manner. No one said anything about 'all Muslims' so keep your unfounded accusations of ignorance to yourself.
On November 30 2009 08:24 Yizuo wrote: IMO this ban is pure bullshit, the people are blinded by fear of different cultures and religions. "The free western world" should always uphold their values of open-mindedness and tolerance, the decision made by the swiss people is a step in the wrong direction.
imo, this is bullshit because Islam isn't known to be a very open-minded religion. Why should we go about promoting islam for the sake of being politically correct when instead we should promote ideas that are actually good for people. Women wearing burkas and hardly having any rights is not something I want to push for.
Agreed. Also, look at the reaction when some relatively obscure Danish newspaper printed a comic that showed a representation of the prophet Mohammed.
This is like saying all Christians are ignorant murderers because some lunatics bombed abortion clinics.
A few people bombing abortion clinics is the same thing as millions of people rioting all over the world?
So they aren't allowed to defend their beliefs while it's okay for them to be trampled all over by external powers.
Makes sense.
Defending their beliefs HA! You can't defend a belief when there's no evidence for it.
On November 30 2009 07:52 Foucault wrote: I don't really see a reason to spread religion in the world to be honest. Islam to me is oppression and women being held down by ridiculous religious beliefs. Of course there are nice things to arabic culture, but Islam is not it
I agree completely, and I think this is the consensus of most people in Switzerland.
yeah, and Christianity is drinking blood, crusades, inquisitions and witch hunts.
be more ignorant please.
Islam still has honor killings, excuses for rape including blaming the victim, the death penalty for homosexuality, and no rights for women.
How many of the Christian things you mentioned are still around?
you are a dumb motherfucker. like really, really dumb. None of that is true, you're completely ignorant. Do you live in a muslim country? Have you experienced the culture of one firsthand? no? then shut the fuck up
Did I say all Muslim countries? And there have even been honor killings in the US, though they are of course illegal.
Its like saying Christianity is horribly wrong because of the crusades, and because its used as an excuse to discriminate against gays. Thats fucking stupid
The crusades aren't still going on. Islam isn't the problem, the people spreading hate through the guise of Islam are.
Yes, absolutely. There are more or these because islam is the predominant religion in the area where such folk normally come form. If christianity was the main religion there, they'd quote the bible for their purposes and still do pretty much the same shit no doubt.
On November 30 2009 08:24 Yizuo wrote: IMO this ban is pure bullshit, the people are blinded by fear of different cultures and religions. "The free western world" should always uphold their values of open-mindedness and tolerance, the decision made by the swiss people is a step in the wrong direction.
imo, this is bullshit because Islam isn't known to be a very open-minded religion. Why should we go about promoting islam for the sake of being politically correct when instead we should promote ideas that are actually good for people. Women wearing burkas and hardly having any rights is not something I want to push for.
Agreed. Also, look at the reaction when some relatively obscure Danish newspaper printed a comic that showed a representation of the prophet Mohammed.
This is like saying all Christians are ignorant murderers because some lunatics bombed abortion clinics.
A few people bombing abortion clinics is the same thing as millions of people rioting all over the world?
So they aren't allowed to defend their beliefs while it's okay for them to be trampled all over by external powers.
On November 30 2009 08:24 Yizuo wrote: IMO this ban is pure bullshit, the people are blinded by fear of different cultures and religions. "The free western world" should always uphold their values of open-mindedness and tolerance, the decision made by the swiss people is a step in the wrong direction.
imo, this is bullshit because Islam isn't known to be a very open-minded religion. Why should we go about promoting islam for the sake of being politically correct when instead we should promote ideas that are actually good for people. Women wearing burkas and hardly having any rights is not something I want to push for.
Agreed. Also, look at the reaction when some relatively obscure Danish newspaper printed a comic that showed a representation of the prophet Mohammed.
Yeah. Those comics created a monumental shitstorm in the arabic world. I was watching it unfold in disbelief, and the pictures weren't even that bad. It shows how diehard alot of muslims are; foreign embassies were threatened and attacked, it was ridiculous. They burned danish flags and they filmed people saying that all danish citizens deserve to die and what not.
Yeah, watch a few videos of american redneck reactions when gay marriage was legalized. So, Christians are all extreme ok np?
There are of course extreme christians as well but I'll bet my left pinkie that there are far more fundemental muslims and that their attitudes to violence are more liberal than most christians.
On November 30 2009 09:38 KwarK wrote: Stupid fuckers worship cows. What is up with that lol. We eat your God. Idiot Musli.
hinduists do that. They also worship many headed/armed deities lmao what is up with that. Thats ridiculous. Everyone knows my invisible friend is the real one
BTW why do we have a topic about this silly thing (its not like Switzerland is banning an important building, Moshes are still allowed.) but we don't have a topic about the Islam discriminating women (forcing to wear them burqas, arranged marriages, no right to divorce iirc), honor killings, rape?
And the only reason Christianity doesn't have that anymore is Martin Luther. We should be damn grateful to him.
On November 30 2009 08:24 Yizuo wrote: IMO this ban is pure bullshit, the people are blinded by fear of different cultures and religions. "The free western world" should always uphold their values of open-mindedness and tolerance, the decision made by the swiss people is a step in the wrong direction.
imo, this is bullshit because Islam isn't known to be a very open-minded religion. Why should we go about promoting islam for the sake of being politically correct when instead we should promote ideas that are actually good for people. Women wearing burkas and hardly having any rights is not something I want to push for.
Agreed. Also, look at the reaction when some relatively obscure Danish newspaper printed a comic that showed a representation of the prophet Mohammed.
Yeah. Those comics created a monumental shitstorm in the arabic world. I was watching it unfold in disbelief, and the pictures weren't even that bad. It shows how diehard alot of muslims are; foreign embassies were threatened and attacked, it was ridiculous. They burned danish flags and they filmed people saying that all danish citizens deserve to die and what not.
Yeah, watch a few videos of american redneck reactions when gay marriage was legalized. So, Christians are all extreme ok np?
There are of course extreme christians as well but I'll bet my left pinkie that there are far more fundemental muslims and that their attitudes to violence are more liberal than most christians.
On November 30 2009 08:24 Yizuo wrote: IMO this ban is pure bullshit, the people are blinded by fear of different cultures and religions. "The free western world" should always uphold their values of open-mindedness and tolerance, the decision made by the swiss people is a step in the wrong direction.
imo, this is bullshit because Islam isn't known to be a very open-minded religion. Why should we go about promoting islam for the sake of being politically correct when instead we should promote ideas that are actually good for people. Women wearing burkas and hardly having any rights is not something I want to push for.
Agreed. Also, look at the reaction when some relatively obscure Danish newspaper printed a comic that showed a representation of the prophet Mohammed.
Yeah. Those comics created a monumental shitstorm in the arabic world. I was watching it unfold in disbelief, and the pictures weren't even that bad. It shows how diehard alot of muslims are; foreign embassies were threatened and attacked, it was ridiculous. They burned danish flags and they filmed people saying that all danish citizens deserve to die and what not.
Yeah, watch a few videos of american redneck reactions when gay marriage was legalized. So, Christians are all extreme ok np?
There are of course extreme christians as well but I'll bet my left pinkie that there are far more fundemental muslims and that their attitudes to violence are more liberal than most christians.
far more? definitely. Attitudes to violence are more liberal? Definitely varies from person to person, but untrue as a blanket statement
On November 30 2009 09:40 ghostWriter wrote: Yeah are you kidding me? I merely pointed out an example of where religion can take people; this obviously doesn't implicate that all people that are members of that religion also behave in a similar manner. No one said anything about 'all Muslims' so keep your unfounded accusations of ignorance to yourself.
What lol
I think you replied to the wrong post or didn't read my post at all. I wasn't responding to your post and wasn't arguing anything you have said
On November 30 2009 08:24 Yizuo wrote: IMO this ban is pure bullshit, the people are blinded by fear of different cultures and religions. "The free western world" should always uphold their values of open-mindedness and tolerance, the decision made by the swiss people is a step in the wrong direction.
imo, this is bullshit because Islam isn't known to be a very open-minded religion. Why should we go about promoting islam for the sake of being politically correct when instead we should promote ideas that are actually good for people. Women wearing burkas and hardly having any rights is not something I want to push for.
Agreed. Also, look at the reaction when some relatively obscure Danish newspaper printed a comic that showed a representation of the prophet Mohammed.
Yeah. Those comics created a monumental shitstorm in the arabic world. I was watching it unfold in disbelief, and the pictures weren't even that bad. It shows how diehard alot of muslims are; foreign embassies were threatened and attacked, it was ridiculous. They burned danish flags and they filmed people saying that all danish citizens deserve to die and what not.
Yeah, watch a few videos of american redneck reactions when gay marriage was legalized. So, Christians are all extreme ok np?
Uhhh Christian outrage at a huge step in personal freedoms and gay rights is not the same as Muslim outrage at a drawing in a magazine. Muslim outrage was also way more hardcore. The guy who drew that now is basically undercover of the rest of his life.
On November 30 2009 09:13 MasterReY wrote: i think its good. would muslime ever let us build churches in their countries? lol If they dont accept other religions in countries where other religions are the majority then they dont deserver their religion too.
They started it is not an argument adults use.
no but its: "they begin to tolerate other religions in their countries, we are fine with MORE of them too." we already tolerate them in our countries and most islamic countries still dont tolerate other religions so its fair.
On November 30 2009 08:24 Yizuo wrote: IMO this ban is pure bullshit, the people are blinded by fear of different cultures and religions. "The free western world" should always uphold their values of open-mindedness and tolerance, the decision made by the swiss people is a step in the wrong direction.
imo, this is bullshit because Islam isn't known to be a very open-minded religion. Why should we go about promoting islam for the sake of being politically correct when instead we should promote ideas that are actually good for people. Women wearing burkas and hardly having any rights is not something I want to push for.
Agreed. Also, look at the reaction when some relatively obscure Danish newspaper printed a comic that showed a representation of the prophet Mohammed.
Yeah. Those comics created a monumental shitstorm in the arabic world. I was watching it unfold in disbelief, and the pictures weren't even that bad. It shows how diehard alot of muslims are; foreign embassies were threatened and attacked, it was ridiculous. They burned danish flags and they filmed people saying that all danish citizens deserve to die and what not.
Yeah, watch a few videos of american redneck reactions when gay marriage was legalized. So, Christians are all extreme ok np?
Uhhh Christian outrage at a huge step in personal freedoms and gay rights is not the same as Muslim outrage at a drawing in a magazine. Muslim outrage was also way more hardcore. The guy who drew that now is basically undercover of the rest of his life.
Why is it not the same? In the quran it is stated that depicting the prophet is a horrible sin, just as in the bible homosexuality is similarly vilified. You've never heard of psychos wanting to kill gay people, and people killing others because they're gay? Really?
On November 30 2009 09:38 KwarK wrote: Stupid fuckers worship cows. What is up with that lol. We eat your God. Idiot Musli.
hinduists do that. They also worship many headed/armed deities lmao what is up with that. Thats ridiculous. Everyone knows my invisible friend is the real one
i no rite. i mean juses sed he was god rite. and then he died or sumthin but he cam back agan. wat more do u wnt. jeuss cud take a cow n e day.
On November 30 2009 08:24 Yizuo wrote: IMO this ban is pure bullshit, the people are blinded by fear of different cultures and religions. "The free western world" should always uphold their values of open-mindedness and tolerance, the decision made by the swiss people is a step in the wrong direction.
imo, this is bullshit because Islam isn't known to be a very open-minded religion. Why should we go about promoting islam for the sake of being politically correct when instead we should promote ideas that are actually good for people. Women wearing burkas and hardly having any rights is not something I want to push for.
Agreed. Also, look at the reaction when some relatively obscure Danish newspaper printed a comic that showed a representation of the prophet Mohammed.
Yeah. Those comics created a monumental shitstorm in the arabic world. I was watching it unfold in disbelief, and the pictures weren't even that bad. It shows how diehard alot of muslims are; foreign embassies were threatened and attacked, it was ridiculous. They burned danish flags and they filmed people saying that all danish citizens deserve to die and what not.
Yeah, watch a few videos of american redneck reactions when gay marriage was legalized. So, Christians are all extreme ok np?
Uhhh Christian outrage at a huge step in personal freedoms and gay rights is not the same as Muslim outrage at a drawing in a magazine. Muslim outrage was also way more hardcore. The guy who drew that now is basically undercover of the rest of his life.
Why is it not the same? In the quran it is stated that depicting the prophet is a horrible sin, just as in the bible homosexuality is similarly vilified. You've never heard of psychos wanting to kill gay people, and people killing others because they're gay? Really?
Because it isn't the same. It is similar in that it is offensive to both religions. But Practically, it's COMPLETELY different. And I repeat the reactions by Muslims eclipsed Christian reactions completely.
Edit (To expand): I didn't like the christian reaction to gay marriage, but the fact is that the countries reaction was not influenced as much by Christianity because it was filtered with logic and civility. The people understood that even though being gay is a 'sin' in christianity, people deserve rights. That's like if Muslims knew that it is a sin to depict the prophet, but then realized that it is just a fucking picture in a magazine, and that the whole thing is just silly and outdated.
On November 30 2009 08:24 Yizuo wrote: IMO this ban is pure bullshit, the people are blinded by fear of different cultures and religions. "The free western world" should always uphold their values of open-mindedness and tolerance, the decision made by the swiss people is a step in the wrong direction.
imo, this is bullshit because Islam isn't known to be a very open-minded religion. Why should we go about promoting islam for the sake of being politically correct when instead we should promote ideas that are actually good for people. Women wearing burkas and hardly having any rights is not something I want to push for.
You do know there are many varying opinions on issues amongst Muslims, right? You are quite ignorant if you believe all Muslims believe in the extreme interpretation of the Shariah that came into effect when the Taliban gained power.
No, not all do but alot of muslims do. While some are more liberal or want to come across as more liberal in order to gain influence in the western world, they are quite stone age about many things like womens rights and even the not-so-hardcore muslims still have strong opinions on many subjects which I don't agree with at all.
Yeah are you kidding me? I merely pointed out an example of where religion can take people; this obviously doesn't implicate that all people that are members of that religion also behave in a similar manner. No one said anything about 'all Muslims' so keep your unfounded accusations of ignorance to yourself.
On November 30 2009 08:24 Yizuo wrote: IMO this ban is pure bullshit, the people are blinded by fear of different cultures and religions. "The free western world" should always uphold their values of open-mindedness and tolerance, the decision made by the swiss people is a step in the wrong direction.
imo, this is bullshit because Islam isn't known to be a very open-minded religion. Why should we go about promoting islam for the sake of being politically correct when instead we should promote ideas that are actually good for people. Women wearing burkas and hardly having any rights is not something I want to push for.
Agreed. Also, look at the reaction when some relatively obscure Danish newspaper printed a comic that showed a representation of the prophet Mohammed.
This is like saying all Christians are ignorant murderers because some lunatics bombed abortion clinics.
A few people bombing abortion clinics is the same thing as millions of people rioting all over the world?
So they aren't allowed to defend their beliefs while it's okay for them to be trampled all over by external powers.
Makes sense.
Defending their beliefs HA! You can't defend a belief when there's no evidence for it.
Foucault talked about Islam in general, and the way he wrote back he is pretty much implying Islam as a whole. And since when does evidence have to be a precursor to a belief? It obviously isn't so in the case of jaystar.
On November 30 2009 09:43 SuperArc wrote: BTW why do we have a topic about this silly thing (its not like Switzerland is banning an important building, Moshes are still allowed.) but we don't have a topic about the Islam discriminating women (forcing to wear them burqas, arranged marriages, no right to divorce iirc), honor killings, rape?
And the only reason Christianity doesn't have that anymore is Martin Luther. We should be damn grateful to him.
On November 30 2009 08:24 Yizuo wrote: IMO this ban is pure bullshit, the people are blinded by fear of different cultures and religions. "The free western world" should always uphold their values of open-mindedness and tolerance, the decision made by the swiss people is a step in the wrong direction.
imo, this is bullshit because Islam isn't known to be a very open-minded religion. Why should we go about promoting islam for the sake of being politically correct when instead we should promote ideas that are actually good for people. Women wearing burkas and hardly having any rights is not something I want to push for.
Agreed. Also, look at the reaction when some relatively obscure Danish newspaper printed a comic that showed a representation of the prophet Mohammed.
This is like saying all Christians are ignorant murderers because some lunatics bombed abortion clinics.
A few people bombing abortion clinics is the same thing as millions of people rioting all over the world?
So they aren't allowed to defend their beliefs while it's okay for them to be trampled all over by external powers.
On November 30 2009 08:24 Yizuo wrote: IMO this ban is pure bullshit, the people are blinded by fear of different cultures and religions. "The free western world" should always uphold their values of open-mindedness and tolerance, the decision made by the swiss people is a step in the wrong direction.
imo, this is bullshit because Islam isn't known to be a very open-minded religion. Why should we go about promoting islam for the sake of being politically correct when instead we should promote ideas that are actually good for people. Women wearing burkas and hardly having any rights is not something I want to push for.
Agreed. Also, look at the reaction when some relatively obscure Danish newspaper printed a comic that showed a representation of the prophet Mohammed.
Yeah. Those comics created a monumental shitstorm in the arabic world. I was watching it unfold in disbelief, and the pictures weren't even that bad. It shows how diehard alot of muslims are; foreign embassies were threatened and attacked, it was ridiculous. They burned danish flags and they filmed people saying that all danish citizens deserve to die and what not.
Yeah, watch a few videos of american redneck reactions when gay marriage was legalized. So, Christians are all extreme ok np?
Uhhh Christian outrage at a huge step in personal freedoms and gay rights is not the same as Muslim outrage at a drawing in a magazine. Muslim outrage was also way more hardcore. The guy who drew that now is basically undercover of the rest of his life.
Why is it not the same? In the quran it is stated that depicting the prophet is a horrible sin, just as in the bible homosexuality is similarly vilified. You've never heard of psychos wanting to kill gay people, and people killing others because they're gay? Really?
blasphemy is a sin in christianity too, but they dont riot because jesus got drawed in a funny way or a picture of god (who you may not draw in christianity) is draw where he is dissed.
On November 30 2009 07:52 Foucault wrote: I don't really see a reason to spread religion in the world to be honest. Islam to me is oppression and women being held down by ridiculous religious beliefs. Of course there are nice things to arabic culture, but Islam is not it
I agree completely, and I think this is the consensus of most people in Switzerland.
yeah, and Christianity is drinking blood, crusades, inquisitions and witch hunts.
be more ignorant please.
Islam still has honor killings, excuses for rape including blaming the victim, the death penalty for homosexuality, and no rights for women.
How many of the Christian things you mentioned are still around?
you are a dumb motherfucker. like really, really dumb. None of that is true, you're completely ignorant. Do you live in a muslim country? Have you experienced the culture of one firsthand? no? then shut the fuck up
Did I say all Muslim countries? And there have even been honor killings in the US, though they are of course illegal.
In no muslim country is this condoned anymore. When it is done religion is the excuse, the problem is the idiots who perpetrate the stupidity, the country, not the religion. Bangladesh is an entirely muslim country with a muslim culture, and you never see shit like that being acceptable there. Why not? The predominant religion IS Islam. Or maybe...its the people/country/atmosphere they were raised in and not the religion? Its like saying Christianity is horribly wrong because of the crusades, and because its used as an excuse to discriminate against gays. Thats fucking stupid
The problem IS Islam. Islam promotes violence against kafir, and the Koran explicitly states that those who don't believe in Islam are complete unintelligent trash. Please don't tell me that the words of the Koran can have different interpretations and the like, as the Koran is meant to be interpreted absolutely literally and preferably in Arabic. Those who do not take it literally are not truly Muslim. There is no grey area in this interpretation as there is in the Bible, because the Koran states it explicitly.
Stuff like this does still happen and is still happening, and those who deny are only promoting the deaths of the innocent. I'll leave the comparison to Christianity for someone else to deal with.
Here's an example of Islam in action in your own country. Be warned though a couple of the pictures are rather graphic.
"The police rarely allow rape victims to press charges against their rapists. Typically, if a rape victim goes to the police and insist on action, they are given the “run around” for a few days so the rape evidence disappears. The police officers themselves will then persecute the victims. This, of course, is followed by death threats or kidnapping (Source: The Daily Janakantha, Feb. 16, 2002)."
... Oh and as for the main topic. It is terrible that they suppress such fine architecture, but I can see how they could change the "look" of cities which have such a long architectural history. Perhaps the Swiss just think the Minarets look rather gaudy?
On November 30 2009 07:52 Foucault wrote: I don't really see a reason to spread religion in the world to be honest. Islam to me is oppression and women being held down by ridiculous religious beliefs. Of course there are nice things to arabic culture, but Islam is not it
I agree completely, and I think this is the consensus of most people in Switzerland.
yeah, and Christianity is drinking blood, crusades, inquisitions and witch hunts.
be more ignorant please.
Im an atheist, I like Christianity about as much as Islam.
On November 30 2009 08:24 Yizuo wrote: IMO this ban is pure bullshit, the people are blinded by fear of different cultures and religions. "The free western world" should always uphold their values of open-mindedness and tolerance, the decision made by the swiss people is a step in the wrong direction.
imo, this is bullshit because Islam isn't known to be a very open-minded religion. Why should we go about promoting islam for the sake of being politically correct when instead we should promote ideas that are actually good for people. Women wearing burkas and hardly having any rights is not something I want to push for.
Agreed. Also, look at the reaction when some relatively obscure Danish newspaper printed a comic that showed a representation of the prophet Mohammed.
Yeah. Those comics created a monumental shitstorm in the arabic world. I was watching it unfold in disbelief, and the pictures weren't even that bad. It shows how diehard alot of muslims are; foreign embassies were threatened and attacked, it was ridiculous. They burned danish flags and they filmed people saying that all danish citizens deserve to die and what not.
Yeah, watch a few videos of american redneck reactions when gay marriage was legalized. So, Christians are all extreme ok np?
Uhhh Christian outrage at a huge step in personal freedoms and gay rights is not the same as Muslim outrage at a drawing in a magazine. Muslim outrage was also way more hardcore. The guy who drew that now is basically undercover of the rest of his life.
Why is it not the same? In the quran it is stated that depicting the prophet is a horrible sin, just as in the bible homosexuality is similarly vilified. You've never heard of psychos wanting to kill gay people, and people killing others because they're gay? Really?
blasphemy is a sin in christianity too, but they dont riot because jesus got drawed in a funny way or a picture of god (who you may not draw in christianity) is draw where he is dissed.
This. I've seen picture of Jesus drawn as a zombie (which was hilarious), as well as many many other 'blasphemous' depictions.
On November 30 2009 07:52 Foucault wrote: I don't really see a reason to spread religion in the world to be honest. Islam to me is oppression and women being held down by ridiculous religious beliefs. Of course there are nice things to arabic culture, but Islam is not it
I agree completely, and I think this is the consensus of most people in Switzerland.
yeah, and Christianity is drinking blood, crusades, inquisitions and witch hunts.
be more ignorant please.
Im an atheist, I like Christianity about as much as Islam.
Same, but I am damn grateful the Western World/Christianity allows me to choose such a path/to have such a mindset. AFAIK it's damn hard/nearly impossible to quit Islam.
On November 30 2009 09:51 koreasilver wrote: lol Martin Luther was anti-semetic to the core.
Yeah so? Christianity wouldn't be much better or "open" than Islam without him. Learn your history.
This is rather arguable. Although the schism that Luther started was the beginning of the end of the Vatican's great power over Western Europe, in the aftermath Luther ended up just being one of the many leaders of the Protestant movements, not the leader of the Protestant movement. There were many varying Protestant interpretations and many of them were quite extreme, perhaps even worse than the Catholic church at that time. It's not really directly Martin Luther that led to the softening of Christianity but rather the diminishing power of the Vatican and the Renaissance that really started it, although Martin Luther did have a pivotal role in cracking down the power of the Vatican.
Wow, I got to page 6 and I can't read this shit anymore. I can't believe how idiotic and stupid some of you people are. Jalstar and ghostwriter are either trolling or they honestly like oppressing personal freedoms.
What sadomasochism and torture has to do with this issue o,o I mean this pretty much fucked up but it is not christians vs muslims.
My argument was never about Christians vs Muslims, it was about how not all Muslims are the same, and how Muslim extremists are not the worst sort of people on the world of today.
On November 30 2009 07:52 Foucault wrote: I don't really see a reason to spread religion in the world to be honest. Islam to me is oppression and women being held down by ridiculous religious beliefs. Of course there are nice things to arabic culture, but Islam is not it
I agree completely, and I think this is the consensus of most people in Switzerland.
yeah, and Christianity is drinking blood, crusades, inquisitions and witch hunts.
be more ignorant please.
Islam still has honor killings, excuses for rape including blaming the victim, the death penalty for homosexuality, and no rights for women.
How many of the Christian things you mentioned are still around?
you are a dumb motherfucker. like really, really dumb. None of that is true, you're completely ignorant. Do you live in a muslim country? Have you experienced the culture of one firsthand? no? then shut the fuck up
Did I say all Muslim countries? And there have even been honor killings in the US, though they are of course illegal.
In no muslim country is this condoned anymore. When it is done religion is the excuse, the problem is the idiots who perpetrate the stupidity, the country, not the religion. Bangladesh is an entirely muslim country with a muslim culture, and you never see shit like that being acceptable there. Why not? The predominant religion IS Islam. Or maybe...its the people/country/atmosphere they were raised in and not the religion? Its like saying Christianity is horribly wrong because of the crusades, and because its used as an excuse to discriminate against gays. Thats fucking stupid
The problem IS Islam. Islam promotes violence against kafir, and the Koran explicitly states that those who don't believe in Islam are complete unintelligent trash. Please don't tell me that the words of the Koran can have different interpretations and the like, as the Koran is meant to be interpreted absolutely literally and preferably in Arabic. Those who do not take it literally are not truly Muslim. There is no grey area in this interpretation as there is in the Bible, because the Koran states it explicitly.
Stuff like this does still happen and is still happening, and those who deny are only promoting the deaths of the innocent. I'll leave the comparison to Christianity for someone else to deal with.
Here's an example of Islam in action in your own country. Be warned though a couple of the pictures are rather graphic.
"The police rarely allow rape victims to press charges against their rapists. Typically, if a rape victim goes to the police and insist on action, they are given the “run around” for a few days so the rape evidence disappears. The police officers themselves will then persecute the victims. This, of course, is followed by death threats or kidnapping (Source: The Daily Janakantha, Feb. 16, 2002)."
This thread is awesome, now whenever someone asks me how exactly islam/religion is fucked up I can use this thread as a source :D Also, yes you and anyone who argued against me is right, I was trying to see if it was possible to deny/refute these claims logically.
Boblion: That's an American soldier and an Iraqi or Afghanistani prisoner. She and her crew were reprimanded though I think.
Maybe it's just because I'm a "freedom loving American" but despite my discomfort and negative feelings in general towards the Middle East and Islam the banning of Minarets seems absolutely wrong with no grey area, unless Minarets are symbolic of something which I am unaware of but as far as I'm concerned it is just a historical way of decorating mosques.
And after looking on wiki: "Minarets also function as air conditioning mechanisms: as the sun heats the dome, air is drawn in through open windows then up and out of the minaret, thereby providing natural ventilation." They actually have some purpose although that's probably more of a past use.
On November 30 2009 10:06 Athos wrote: Wow, I got to page 6 and I can't read this shit anymore. I can't believe how idiotic and stupid some of you people are. Jalstar and ghostwriter are either trolling or they honestly like oppressing personal freedoms.
i didn't oppose personal freedom anywhere? nice try though
What sadomasochism and torture has to do with this issue o,o I mean this pretty much fucked up but it is not christians vs muslims.
My argument was never about Christians vs Muslims, it was about how not all Muslims are the same, and how Muslim extremists are not the worst sort of people on the world of today.
And so what ? Because you can find worse ( hi Hitler ) it means that intolerance, crimes and fanatism are normal ? Relativism and Godwin ftw.
On November 30 2009 07:52 Foucault wrote: I don't really see a reason to spread religion in the world to be honest. Islam to me is oppression and women being held down by ridiculous religious beliefs. Of course there are nice things to arabic culture, but Islam is not it
I agree completely, and I think this is the consensus of most people in Switzerland.
yeah, and Christianity is drinking blood, crusades, inquisitions and witch hunts.
be more ignorant please.
Islam still has honor killings, excuses for rape including blaming the victim, the death penalty for homosexuality, and no rights for women.
How many of the Christian things you mentioned are still around?
you are a dumb motherfucker. like really, really dumb. None of that is true, you're completely ignorant. Do you live in a muslim country? Have you experienced the culture of one firsthand? no? then shut the fuck up
Did I say all Muslim countries? And there have even been honor killings in the US, though they are of course illegal.
In no muslim country is this condoned anymore. When it is done religion is the excuse, the problem is the idiots who perpetrate the stupidity, the country, not the religion. Bangladesh is an entirely muslim country with a muslim culture, and you never see shit like that being acceptable there. Why not? The predominant religion IS Islam. Or maybe...its the people/country/atmosphere they were raised in and not the religion? Its like saying Christianity is horribly wrong because of the crusades, and because its used as an excuse to discriminate against gays. Thats fucking stupid
The problem IS Islam. Islam promotes violence against kafir, and the Koran explicitly states that those who don't believe in Islam are complete unintelligent trash. Please don't tell me that the words of the Koran can have different interpretations and the like, as the Koran is meant to be interpreted absolutely literally and preferably in Arabic. Those who do not take it literally are not truly Muslim. There is no grey area in this interpretation as there is in the Bible, because the Koran states it explicitly.
Stuff like this does still happen and is still happening, and those who deny are only promoting the deaths of the innocent. I'll leave the comparison to Christianity for someone else to deal with.
Here's an example of Islam in action in your own country. Be warned though a couple of the pictures are rather graphic.
"The police rarely allow rape victims to press charges against their rapists. Typically, if a rape victim goes to the police and insist on action, they are given the “run around” for a few days so the rape evidence disappears. The police officers themselves will then persecute the victims. This, of course, is followed by death threats or kidnapping (Source: The Daily Janakantha, Feb. 16, 2002)."
This thread is awesome, now whenever someone asks me how exactly islam/religion is fucked up I can use this thread as a source :D Also, yes you and anyone who argued against me is right, I was trying to see if it was possible to deny/refute these claims logically.
I'm shocked so many people in this thread seem to believe this is ok. How can anyone be ok with a law the clearly persecutes a religious group? I understand not be a fan of a religion, but no one gets to decide whats right for other people. You can't make it hard for them to practice there beliefs because you dislike them. I thought all western nations had adopted religious freedom long ago.
Violence isn't limited to religious ideology. The Holocaust was not religiously motivated, the Holodomor was not religiously motivated, the genocide of the American Natives was not religiously motivated, the Rape of Nanking was not religiously motivated, etc. etc. etc.
All this shit is politics more than religion, and the social mentality that that took place in all these atrocities were similar regardless of whether the ideology was religious or not.
On November 30 2009 10:14 koreasilver wrote: Violence isn't limited to religious ideology. The Holocaust was not religiously motivated, the Holodomor was not religiously motivated, the genocide of the American Natives was not religiously motivated, the Rape of Nanking was not religiously motivated, etc. etc. etc.
All this shit is politics more than religion, and the social mentality that that took place in all these atrocities were similar regardless of whether the ideology was religious or not.
Huh. I guess all those Jews died because of something else.
What sadomasochism and torture has to do with this issue o,o I mean this pretty much fucked up but it is not christians vs muslims.
My argument was never about Christians vs Muslims, it was about how not all Muslims are the same, and how Muslim extremists are not the worst sort of people on the world of today.
And so what ? Because you can find worse ( hi Hitler ) it means that intolerance, crimes and fanatism are normal ? Relativism and Godwin ftw.
Huh? I never said it's normal, nor have I ever agreed with any of this. I only posted those pictures because jaystar can't reply logically and I thought it might just be easier to point out his hypocrisy. Just because American and other various troops have tortured and killed innocent people in the war that is still going on doesn't make all Americans and their allies terrible people. He also seriously believes that Muslim extremists have more power and influence than other extremists in the world which is really ignorant.
On November 30 2009 10:14 InToTheWannaB wrote: I'm shocked so many people in this thread seem to believe this is ok. How can anyone be ok with a law the clearly persecutes a religious group? I understand not be a fan of a religion, but no one gets to decide whats right for other people. You can't make it hard for them to practice there beliefs because you dislike them. I thought all western nations had adopted religious freedom long ago.
you didnt understand shit.
you are simply lying. in switzerland NOONE is persecuted. stop posting bullshit, k thx bye.
On November 30 2009 10:14 koreasilver wrote: Violence isn't limited to religious ideology. The Holocaust was not religiously motivated, the Holodomor was not religiously motivated, the genocide of the American Natives was not religiously motivated, the Rape of Nanking was not religiously motivated, etc. etc. etc.
All this shit is politics more than religion, and the social mentality that that took place in all these atrocities were similar regardless of whether the ideology was religious or not.
Huh. I guess all those Jews died because of something else.
Because they were Jews? The Nazis were not religiously motivated, and they killed the Jewish population because of their hereditary bloodline, not their religion, although they did kill Jewish converts that were not hereditary Jews.
Are you seriously going to try to argue that the Nazis killed the Jews due to religious beliefs?
On November 30 2009 10:14 koreasilver wrote: Violence isn't limited to religious ideology. The Holocaust was not religiously motivated, the Holodomor was not religiously motivated, the genocide of the American Natives was not religiously motivated, the Rape of Nanking was not religiously motivated, etc. etc. etc.
All this shit is politics more than religion, and the social mentality that that took place in all these atrocities were similar regardless of whether the ideology was religious or not.
Please take a look through http://faithfreedom.org/ before you say that Islam doesn't motivate people to be violent. It's run by ex-Muslims and has really opened my eyes to a religion that I first believed was peaceful due to the misnomer of Islam.
If you could also look into the credibility of the website, because I have had some trouble discrediting it as most of the articles are sourced well.
how am i arguing with logical fallacies? all you've posted are false equivalencies: "the west is as bad as muslim extremists", "christians are as bad as muslim extremists", etc.
Even if what you were saying were true that would in no way make the actions of Muslim extremists right.
On November 30 2009 10:14 koreasilver wrote: Violence isn't limited to religious ideology. The Holocaust was not religiously motivated, the Holodomor was not religiously motivated, the genocide of the American Natives was not religiously motivated, the Rape of Nanking was not religiously motivated, etc. etc. etc.
All this shit is politics more than religion, and the social mentality that that took place in all these atrocities were similar regardless of whether the ideology was religious or not.
Please take a look through http://faithfreedom.org/ before you say that Islam doesn't motivate people to be violent. It's run by ex-Muslims and has really opened my eyes to a religion that I first believed was peaceful due to the misnomer of Islam.
If you could also look into the credibility of the website, because I have had some trouble discrediting it as most of the articles are sourced well.
Red herring.
Also doesn't change the fact that atrocities occur regardless of whether there is religious motivation or not.
The world really would be better off without Abrahamic religions though.
On November 30 2009 10:14 koreasilver wrote: Violence isn't limited to religious ideology. The Holocaust was not religiously motivated, the Holodomor was not religiously motivated, the genocide of the American Natives was not religiously motivated, the Rape of Nanking was not religiously motivated, etc. etc. etc.
All this shit is politics more than religion, and the social mentality that that took place in all these atrocities were similar regardless of whether the ideology was religious or not.
Huh. I guess all those Jews were secretly smuggled to Israel because of something else.
On November 30 2009 10:14 koreasilver wrote: Violence isn't limited to religious ideology. The Holocaust was not religiously motivated, the Holodomor was not religiously motivated, the genocide of the American Natives was not religiously motivated, the Rape of Nanking was not religiously motivated, etc. etc. etc.
All this shit is politics more than religion, and the social mentality that that took place in all these atrocities were similar regardless of whether the ideology was religious or not.
Huh. I guess all those Jews died because of something else.
Because they were Jews? The Nazis were not religiously motivated, and they killed the Jewish population because of their hereditary bloodline, not their religion, although they did kill Jewish converts that were not hereditary Jews.
Are you seriously going to try to argue that the Nazis killed the Jews due to religious beliefs?
Uh yeah, the Jews were persecuted because they were Jews. I'd say that has a lot to do with their religious beliefs.
On November 30 2009 10:14 koreasilver wrote: Violence isn't limited to religious ideology. The Holocaust was not religiously motivated, the Holodomor was not religiously motivated, the genocide of the American Natives was not religiously motivated, the Rape of Nanking was not religiously motivated, etc. etc. etc.
All this shit is politics more than religion, and the social mentality that that took place in all these atrocities were similar regardless of whether the ideology was religious or not.
Huh. I guess all those Jews died because of something else.
Because they were Jews? The Nazis were not religiously motivated, and they killed the Jewish population because of their hereditary bloodline, not their religion, although they did kill Jewish converts that were not hereditary Jews.
Are you seriously going to try to argue that the Nazis killed the Jews due to religious beliefs?
Uh yeah, the Jews were persecuted because they were Jews. I'd say that has a lot to do with their religious beliefs.
On November 30 2009 10:14 koreasilver wrote: Violence isn't limited to religious ideology. The Holocaust was not religiously motivated, the Holodomor was not religiously motivated, the genocide of the American Natives was not religiously motivated, the Rape of Nanking was not religiously motivated, etc. etc. etc.
All this shit is politics more than religion, and the social mentality that that took place in all these atrocities were similar regardless of whether the ideology was religious or not.
Please take a look through http://faithfreedom.org/ before you say that Islam doesn't motivate people to be violent. It's run by ex-Muslims and has really opened my eyes to a religion that I first believed was peaceful due to the misnomer of Islam.
If you could also look into the credibility of the website, because I have had some trouble discrediting it as most of the articles are sourced well.
Red herring.
Also doesn't change the fact that atrocities occur regardless of whether there is religious motivation or not.
The world really would be better off without Abrahamic religions though.
That is true, but Islam promotes people to more frequently cause the death/rape of others in just following what is taught. Islam is the ultimate red herring though. It can seduce even the most intelligent of people.
On November 30 2009 10:14 koreasilver wrote: Violence isn't limited to religious ideology. The Holocaust was not religiously motivated, the Holodomor was not religiously motivated, the genocide of the American Natives was not religiously motivated, the Rape of Nanking was not religiously motivated, etc. etc. etc.
All this shit is politics more than religion, and the social mentality that that took place in all these atrocities were similar regardless of whether the ideology was religious or not.
Please take a look through http://faithfreedom.org/ before you say that Islam doesn't motivate people to be violent. It's run by ex-Muslims and has really opened my eyes to a religion that I first believed was peaceful due to the misnomer of Islam.
If you could also look into the credibility of the website, because I have had some trouble discrediting it as most of the articles are sourced well.
Red herring.
Also doesn't change the fact that atrocities occur regardless of whether there is religious motivation or not.
The world really would be better off without Abrahamic religions though.
That is true, but Islam promotes people to more frequently cause the death/rape of others in just following what is taught. Islam is the ultimate red herring though. It can seduce even the most intelligent of people.
On November 30 2009 10:14 koreasilver wrote: Violence isn't limited to religious ideology. The Holocaust was not religiously motivated, the Holodomor was not religiously motivated, the genocide of the American Natives was not religiously motivated, the Rape of Nanking was not religiously motivated, etc. etc. etc.
All this shit is politics more than religion, and the social mentality that that took place in all these atrocities were similar regardless of whether the ideology was religious or not.
Huh. I guess all those Jews died because of something else.
Because they were Jews? The Nazis were not religiously motivated, and they killed the Jewish population because of their hereditary bloodline, not their religion, although they did kill Jewish converts that were not hereditary Jews.
Are you seriously going to try to argue that the Nazis killed the Jews due to religious beliefs?
Uh yeah, the Jews were persecuted because they were Jews. I'd say that has a lot to do with their religious beliefs.
Are you seriously retarded.
Are you? Jews are Jews because of their religious beliefs, is this a difficult concept to grasp?
On November 30 2009 10:14 koreasilver wrote: Violence isn't limited to religious ideology. The Holocaust was not religiously motivated, the Holodomor was not religiously motivated, the genocide of the American Natives was not religiously motivated, the Rape of Nanking was not religiously motivated, etc. etc. etc.
All this shit is politics more than religion, and the social mentality that that took place in all these atrocities were similar regardless of whether the ideology was religious or not.
Please take a look through http://faithfreedom.org/ before you say that Islam doesn't motivate people to be violent. It's run by ex-Muslims and has really opened my eyes to a religion that I first believed was peaceful due to the misnomer of Islam.
If you could also look into the credibility of the website, because I have had some trouble discrediting it as most of the articles are sourced well.
Red herring.
Also doesn't change the fact that atrocities occur regardless of whether there is religious motivation or not.
The world really would be better off without Abrahamic religions though.
That is true, but Islam promotes people to more frequently cause the death/rape of others in just following what is taught. Islam is the ultimate red herring though. It can seduce even the most intelligent of people.
On November 30 2009 10:14 koreasilver wrote: Violence isn't limited to religious ideology. The Holocaust was not religiously motivated, the Holodomor was not religiously motivated, the genocide of the American Natives was not religiously motivated, the Rape of Nanking was not religiously motivated, etc. etc. etc.
All this shit is politics more than religion, and the social mentality that that took place in all these atrocities were similar regardless of whether the ideology was religious or not.
Huh. I guess all those Jews died because of something else.
Because they were Jews? The Nazis were not religiously motivated, and they killed the Jewish population because of their hereditary bloodline, not their religion, although they did kill Jewish converts that were not hereditary Jews.
Are you seriously going to try to argue that the Nazis killed the Jews due to religious beliefs?
Uh yeah, the Jews were persecuted because they were Jews. I'd say that has a lot to do with their religious beliefs.
Are you seriously retarded.
Are you? Jews are Jews because of their religious beliefs, is this a difficult concept to grasp?
Jews are both an ethnic and religious population. Are you fucking kidding me.
Holy fuck.
I think you just won the stupidity award in this thread. Good job on understanding the most infamous genocide of recent history. You get extra points.
On November 30 2009 10:14 koreasilver wrote: Violence isn't limited to religious ideology. The Holocaust was not religiously motivated, the Holodomor was not religiously motivated, the genocide of the American Natives was not religiously motivated, the Rape of Nanking was not religiously motivated, etc. etc. etc.
All this shit is politics more than religion, and the social mentality that that took place in all these atrocities were similar regardless of whether the ideology was religious or not.
Huh. I guess all those Jews died because of something else.
Because they were Jews? The Nazis were not religiously motivated, and they killed the Jewish population because of their hereditary bloodline, not their religion, although they did kill Jewish converts that were not hereditary Jews.
Are you seriously going to try to argue that the Nazis killed the Jews due to religious beliefs?
Uh yeah, the Jews were persecuted because they were Jews. I'd say that has a lot to do with their religious beliefs.
Are you seriously retarded.
Are you? Jews are Jews because of their religious beliefs, is this a difficult concept to grasp?
He also killed non Jewish relatives of Jews. I believe 1/8th Jewish was enough to condemn you. Seems it wasn't all about religion.
On November 30 2009 10:14 koreasilver wrote: Violence isn't limited to religious ideology. The Holocaust was not religiously motivated, the Holodomor was not religiously motivated, the genocide of the American Natives was not religiously motivated, the Rape of Nanking was not religiously motivated, etc. etc. etc.
All this shit is politics more than religion, and the social mentality that that took place in all these atrocities were similar regardless of whether the ideology was religious or not.
Please take a look through http://faithfreedom.org/ before you say that Islam doesn't motivate people to be violent. It's run by ex-Muslims and has really opened my eyes to a religion that I first believed was peaceful due to the misnomer of Islam.
If you could also look into the credibility of the website, because I have had some trouble discrediting it as most of the articles are sourced well.
Red herring.
Also doesn't change the fact that atrocities occur regardless of whether there is religious motivation or not.
The world really would be better off without Abrahamic religions though.
The world would be better off without any religion, if people could actually develop their own moral compass instead of relying on others to tell them what EXACTLY is right or wrong.
On November 30 2009 10:14 koreasilver wrote: Violence isn't limited to religious ideology. The Holocaust was not religiously motivated, the Holodomor was not religiously motivated, the genocide of the American Natives was not religiously motivated, the Rape of Nanking was not religiously motivated, etc. etc. etc.
All this shit is politics more than religion, and the social mentality that that took place in all these atrocities were similar regardless of whether the ideology was religious or not.
Please take a look through http://faithfreedom.org/ before you say that Islam doesn't motivate people to be violent. It's run by ex-Muslims and has really opened my eyes to a religion that I first believed was peaceful due to the misnomer of Islam.
If you could also look into the credibility of the website, because I have had some trouble discrediting it as most of the articles are sourced well.
Red herring.
Also doesn't change the fact that atrocities occur regardless of whether there is religious motivation or not.
The world really would be better off without Abrahamic religions though.
The world would be better off without any religion, if people could actually develop their own moral compass instead of relying on others to tell them what EXACTLY is right or wrong.
yeah, fuck spirituality. srsly dude don't look just black and white. it's the abuse of spirituality that sucks not spirituality itself!
ghostWriter, the Jews were prosecuted because they were conveniently available and passive for the Nazis. Did Hitler really hate Jews? Possibly. But, Jews fit into the paradigm a lot more because the country needed a scapegoat, a source of easy labor, and cheap capital from looting. The propaganda may have indicated it was for religious reasons (although that is doubtful in itself--I'd argue that it was geared towards nationalistic motivations), but the reason why Nazis tolerated it was because of the practicality of persecuting Jews more than anything else.
On November 30 2009 10:14 koreasilver wrote: Violence isn't limited to religious ideology. The Holocaust was not religiously motivated, the Holodomor was not religiously motivated, the genocide of the American Natives was not religiously motivated, the Rape of Nanking was not religiously motivated, etc. etc. etc.
All this shit is politics more than religion, and the social mentality that that took place in all these atrocities were similar regardless of whether the ideology was religious or not.
Huh. I guess all those Jews died because of something else.
Because they were Jews? The Nazis were not religiously motivated, and they killed the Jewish population because of their hereditary bloodline, not their religion, although they did kill Jewish converts that were not hereditary Jews.
Are you seriously going to try to argue that the Nazis killed the Jews due to religious beliefs?
Uh yeah, the Jews were persecuted because they were Jews. I'd say that has a lot to do with their religious beliefs.
Are you seriously retarded.
Are you? Jews are Jews because of their religious beliefs, is this a difficult concept to grasp?
I think that you could argue that minarets are unnecessary. You don't really need them anymore because people know when to pray anyway lol. They're also really annoying when people shout out things in a different languagein in the middle of a city.
The only reason not to ban the minarets is that it discriminates Islam. However, it is sometimes more discriminating to express your religion than it is to be told not to. In Sweden, there can't be any religious promotion in schools. Since minarets don't serve a real purpose and are annoying, I think that the muslims should just man up (don't know how else to say it) and say "Ok. We can have mosques, but not minarets because they're annoying. Fair enough. : )"
What I'm trying to say is that the Swiss are not racist because they banned minarets. But I do think it should be a decision on municipal level, as somebody else stated before and not a "whole country affair", if you know what I mean : ) I guess minarets aren't always a hassle and there'd be no harm of allowing them if people in some places are okay with it.
On November 30 2009 08:14 ghostWriter wrote: I can see why they would be wary of Islamic influences. Where do you think the Paris riots came from? Ungrateful youth that should expend their time and energy on their education or a career, wasting their lives being mad at the establishment, which allows them to have protection, a home, etc.
There's a big, hard to justify leap from being wary of influences and taking affirmative steps to eliminate them.
If you immigrate to a different country, it's your job to assimilate into the existing culture. The Koran promotes violence in order for Islam to spread. Why wouldn't they eliminate threatening influences?
Where in the Koran did it actually promote violence?
Qur'an (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah." There is a good case to be made that the textual context of this particular passage is defensive war, even if the historical context was not. However, there are also two worrisome pieces to these verse. The first is that the killing of others is authorized in the event of "persecution" (a qualification that is ambiguous at best). The second is that fighting may persist until "religion is for Allah." The example set by Muhammad is not reassuring.
Qur'an (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."
Qur'an (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding caravans with this verse.
Qur'an (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."
Qur'an (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').
Qur'an (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle, as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. Here is the theological basis for today's suicide bombers.
Qur'an (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"
Qur'an (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."
Qur'an (45) - "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-" This passage not only criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, but it also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Qur'an, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is the Arabic word used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad).
Qur'an (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..." Pursuing an injured and retreating enemy is not an act of self-defense.
Qur'an (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"
Qur'an (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.
Qur'an (8:15) - "O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end."
Qur'an (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah" From the historical context we know that the "persecution" spoken of here was simply the refusal by the Meccans to allow Muhammad to enter their city and perform the Haj. Other Muslims were able to travel there, just not as an armed group, since Muhammad declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction. The Meccans were also acting in defense of their religion, since it was Muhammad's intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (which he later did). Hence the critical part of this verse is to fight until "religion is only for Allah."
Qur'an (8:57) - "If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember."
Qur'an (8:59-60) - "And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy."
Qur'an (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them." According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence is to convert to Islam. Prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religions Five Pillars.
Qur'an (9:14) - "Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace..."
Qur'an (9:20) - "Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah's way are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant." The "striving" spoken of here is Jihad.
Qur'an (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." "People of the Book" refers to Christians and Jews. This was one of the final "revelations" from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad's companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in just the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths.
Qur'an (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"
Qur'an (9:38-39) - "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place." This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell.
Qur'an (9:41) - "Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew." See also the verse that follows (9:42) - "If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed thee, but the distance was long, (and weighed) on them" This contradicts the myth that Muslims are to fight only in self-defense, since the wording implies that battle will be waged a long distance from home (in another country and on Christian soil, in this case, according to the historians).
Qur'an (9:73) - "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination." Dehumanizing those who reject Islam, by reminding Muslims that they are merely firewood for Hell, makes it easier to justify slaughter. It also explains why today's devout Muslims have little regard for those outside the faith.
Qur'an (9:88) - "But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper."
Qur'an (9:111) - "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme."
Qur'an (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."
Qur'an (21:44) - "We gave the good things of this life to these men and their fathers until the period grew long for them; See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will win?"
Qur'an (25:52) - "Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness, with the (Qur'an)." "Strive against" is Jihad - obviously not in the personal context. It's also significant to point out that this is a Meccan verse.
Qur'an (47:4) - "So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners,"
Qur'an (47:35) - "Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost (Shakir: "have the upper hand") for Allah is with you,"
Qur'an (48:17) - "There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom." Contemporary apologists sometimes claim that Jihad means 'spiritual struggle.' Is so, then why are the blind, lame and sick exempted?
Qur'an (48:29) - "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves" Islam is not about treating everyone equally. There are two very distinct standards that are applied based on religious status.
Qur'an (61:4) - "Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way" Religion of Peace, indeed!
Qur'an (61:10-12) - "O ye who believe! Shall I lead you to a bargain that will save you from a grievous Penalty?- That ye believe in Allah and His Messenger, and that ye strive (your utmost) in the Cause of Allah, with your property and your persons: That will be best for you, if ye but knew! He will forgive you your sins, and admit you to Gardens beneath which Rivers flow, and to beautiful mansions in Gardens of Eternity." This verse was given in battle. It uses the Arabic word, Jihad.
Qur'an (66) - "O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end." The root word of "Jihad" is used again here. The context is clearly holy war, and the scope of violence is broadened to include "hypocrites" - those who call themselves Muslims but do not act as such.
From the Hadith:
Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."
Bukhari (52:256) - The Prophet... was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." In this command, Muhammad establishes that it is permissible to kill non-combatants in the process of killing a perceived enemy. This provides justification for the many Islamic terror bombings.
Bukhari (52:220) - Allah's Apostle said... 'I have been made victorious with terror'
Abu Dawud (14:2526) - The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, "There is no god but Allah" and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action; and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist)
Abu Dawud (14:2527) - The Prophet said: Striving in the path of Allah (jihad) is incumbent on you along with every ruler, whether he is pious or impious
Muslim (1:33) - the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah
Bukhari (8:387) - Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah
Muslim (1:149) - "Abu Dharr reported: I said: Messenger of Allah, which of the deeds is the best? He (the Holy Prophet) replied: Belief in Allah and Jihad in His cause..."
Muslim (20:4645) - "...He (the Messenger of Allah) did that and said: There is another act which elevates the position of a man in Paradise to a grade one hundred (higher), and the elevation between one grade and the other is equal to the height of the heaven from the earth. He (Abu Sa'id) said: What is that act? He replied: Jihad in the way of Allah! Jihad in the way of Allah!"
Muslim (20:4696) - "the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: 'One who died but did not fight in the way of Allah nor did he express any desire (or determination) for Jihid died the death of a hypocrite.'"
Muslim (19:4321-4323) - Three separate hadith in which Muhammad shrugs over the news that innocent children were killed in a raid by his men against unbelievers. His response: "They are of them (meaning the enemy)."
Tabari 77 The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, "Kill any Jew who falls under your power." Ashraf was a poet, killed by Muhammad's men because he insulted Islam. Here, Muhammad widens the scope of his orders to kill. An innocent Jewish businessman was then slain by his Muslim partner, merely for being non-Muslim.
Tabari 9:69 "Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us" The words of Muhammad, prophet of Islam.
Ibn Ishaq: 327 - “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”
Ibn Ishaq: 990 - Lest anyone think that cutting off someone's head while screaming 'Allah Akbar!' is a modern custom, here is an account of that very practice under Muhammad, who seems to approve.
Ibn Ishaq: 992 - "Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah." Muhammad's instructions to his men prior to a military raid.
Moed Kattan 17a: If a Jew is tempted to do evil he should go to a city where he is not known and do the evil there. Penalty for Disobeying Rabbis Erubin 21b. Whosoever disobeys the rabbis deserves death and will be punished by being boiled in hot excrement in hell.
Hitting a Jew is the same as hitting God Sanhedrin 58b. If a heathen (gentile) hits a Jew, the gentile must be killed.
O.K. to Cheat Non-Jews Sanhedrin 57a . A Jew need not pay a gentile ("Cuthean") the wages owed him for work.
Jews Have Superior Legal Status Baba Kamma 37b. "If an ox of an Israelite gores an ox of a Canaanite there is no liability; but if an ox of a Canaanite gores an ox of an Israelite...the payment is to be in full."
Jews May Steal from Non-Jews Baba Mezia 24a . If a Jew finds an object lost by a gentile ("heathen") it does not have to be returned. (Affirmed also in Baba Kamma 113b). Sanhedrin 76a. God will not spare a Jew who "marries his daughter to an old man or takes a wife for his infant son or returns a lost article to a Cuthean..."
Jews May Rob and Kill Non-Jews Sanhedrin 57a . When a Jew murders a gentile ("Cuthean"), there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a gentile he may keep. Baba Kamma 37b. The gentiles are outside the protection of the law and God has "exposed their money to Israel."
Jews May Lie to Non-Jews Baba Kamma 113a. Jews may use lies ("subterfuges") to circumvent a Gentile.
Non-Jewish Children are Sub-Human Yebamoth 98a. All gentile children are animals. Abodah Zarah 36b. Gentile girls are in a state of niddah (filth) from birth. Abodah Zarah 22a-22b . Gentiles prefer sex with cows.
Insults Against Blessed Mary Sanhedrin 106a . Says Jesus' mother was a whore: "She who was the descendant of princes and governors played the harlot with carpenters." Also in footnote #2 to Shabbath 104b of the Soncino edition, it is stated that in the "uncensored" text of the Talmud it is written that Jesus mother, "Miriam the hairdresser," had sex with many men.
Gloats over Christ Dying Young A passage from Sanhedrin 106 gloats over the early age at which Jesus died: "Hast thou heard how old Balaam (Jesus) was?--He replied: It is not actually stated but since it is written, Bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their days it follows that he was thirty-three or thirty-four years old."
Jesus in the Talmud: Horrible Blasphemies Against Jesus Christ While it is the standard disinformation practice of apologists for the Talmud to deny that it contains any scurrilous references to Jesus Christ, certain Orthodox Jewish organizations are more forthcoming and admit that the Talmud not only mentions Jesus but disparages him (as a sorcerer and a demented sex freak). These orthodox Jewish organizations make this admission perhaps out of the belief that Jewish supremacy is so well-established in the modern world that they need not concern themselves with adverse reactions. For example, on the website of the Orthodox Jewish Hasidic Lubavitch group--one of the largest in the world--we find the following statement, complete with Talmudic citations: "The Talmud (Babylonian edition) records other sins of 'Jesus the Nazarene': 1) He and his disciples practiced sorcery and black magic, led Jews astray into idolatry, and were sponsored by foreign, gentile powers for the purpose of subverting Jewish worship (Sanhedrin 43a). 2) He was sexually immoral, worshipped statues of stone (a brick is mentioned), was cut off from the Jewish people for his wickedness, and refused to repent (Sanhedrin 107b; Sotah 47a). 3) He learned witchcraft in Egypt and, to perform miracles, used procedures that involved cutting his flesh, which is also explicitly banned in the Bible (Shabbos 104b). End quote from http://www.noahide.com/yeshu.htm (Lubavitch website) June 20, 2000. [Note: we have printed and preserved in our files a hard copy of this statement from the Lubavitch"Noah's Covenant Website," as it appeared on their website at http://www.noahide.com on June 20, 2000, in the event that denials are later issued and the statement itself suppressed]. Let us examine further some of these anti-Christ Talmud passages: Gittin 57a. Says Jesus is in hell, being boiled in "hot excrement." Sanhedrin 43a. Says Jesus ("Yeshu" and in Soncino footnote #6, Yeshu "the Nazarene") was executed because he practiced sorcery: "It is taught that on the eve of Passover Jesus was hung, and forty days before this the proclamation was made: Jesus is to be stoned to death because he has practiced sorcery and has lured the people to idolatry...He was an enticer and of such thou shalt not pity or condone." Kallah 51a."The elders were once sitting in the gate when two young lads passed by; one covered his head and the other uncovered his head. Of him who uncovered his head Rabbi Eliezer remarked that he is a bastard. Rabbi Joshua remarked that he is the son of a niddah (a child conceived during a woman's menstrual period). Rabbi Akiba said that he is both a bastard and a son of a niddah. "They said, 'What induced you to contradict the opinion of your colleagues?' He replied, "I will prove it concerning him." He went to the lad's mother and found her sitting in the market selling beans. "He said to her, 'My daughter, if you will answer the question I will put to you, I will bring you to the world to come.' (eternal life). She said to him, 'Swear it to me.' "Rabbi Akiba, taking the oath with his lips but annulling it in his heart, said to her, 'What is the status of your son?' She replied, 'When I entered the bridal chamber I was niddah (menstruating) and my husband kept away from me; but my best man had intercourse with me and this son was born to me.' Consequently the child was both a bastard and the son of a niddah. "It was declared, '..Blessed be the God of Israel Who Revealed His Secret to Rabbi Akiba..." In addition to the theme that God rewards clever liars, the preceding Talmud discussion is actually about Jesus Christ (the bastard boy who "uncovered his head" and was conceived in the filth of menstruation). The boy's adulterous mother in this Talmud story is the mother of Christ, Blessed Mary (called Miriam and sometimes, Miriam the hairdresser, in the Talmud).
"The Editio Princeps of the complete Code of Talmudic Law, Maimonides' Mishneh Torah -- replete not only with the most offensive precepts against all Gentiles but also with explicit attacks on Christianity and on Jesus (after whose name the author adds piously, 'May the name of the wicked perish')... --Dr. Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion, p. 21. "The Talmud contains a few explicit references to Jesus...These references are certainly not complimentary...There seems little doubt that the account of the execution of Jesus on the eve of Passover does refer to the Christian Jesus...The passage in which Jesus' punishment in hell is described also seems to refer to the Christian Jesus. It is a piece of anti-Christian polemic dating from the post-70 CE period..." --Hyam Maccoby, Judaism on Trial, pp. 26-27. "According to the Talmud, Jesus was executed by a proper rabbinical court for idolatry, inciting other Jews to idolatry, and contempt of rabbinical authority. All classical Jewish sources which mention his execution are quite happy to take responsibility for it; in the talmudic account the Romans are not even mentioned. "The more popular accounts--which were nevertheless taken quite seriously--such as the notorious Toldot Yeshu are even worse, for in addition to the above crimes they accuse him of witchcraft. The very name 'Jesus' was for Jews a symbol of all that is abominable and this popular tradition still persists... "The Hebrew form of the name Jesus--Yeshu--was interpreted as an acronym for the curse, 'may his name and memory be wiped out,' which is used as an extreme form of abuse. In fact, anti-zionist Orthodox Jews (such as Neturey Qarta) sometimes refer to Herzl as 'Herzl Jesus' and I have found in religious zionist writings expressions such as "Nasser Jesus" and more recently 'Arafat Jesus." --Dr. Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion, pp. 97- 98, 118.
Talmud Attacks Christians and Christian Books Rosh Hashanah 17a. Christians (minnim) and others who reject the Talmud will go to hell and be punished there for all generations. Sanhedrin 90a. Those who read the New Testament ("uncanonical books") will have no portion in the world to come. Shabbath 116a. Jews must destroy the books of the Christians, i.e. the New Testament. Dr. Israel Shahak of Hebrew University reports that the Israelis burned hundreds of New Testament Bibles in occupied Palestine on March 23, 1980 (cf. Jewish History, Jewish Religion, p. 21).
Sick and Insane Teachings of the Talmud Gittin 69a . To heal his flesh a Jew should take dust that lies within the shadow of an outdoor toilet, mix with honey and eat it. Shabbath 41a. The law regulating the rule for how to urinate in a holy way is given. Yebamoth 63a. States that Adam had sexual intercourse with all the animals in the Garden of Eden. Yebamoth 63a. Declares that agriculture is the lowest of occupations. Sanhedrin 55b. A Jew may marry a three year old girl (specifically, three years "and a day" old). Sanhedrin 54b. A Jew may have sex with a child as long as the child is less than nine years old. Kethuboth 11b. "When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing." Yebamoth 59b. A woman who had intercourse with a beast is eligible to marry a Jewish priest. A woman who has sex with a demon is also eligible to marry a Jewish priest. Abodah Zarah 17a. States that there is not a whore in the world that the Talmudic sage Rabbi Eleazar has not had sex with.On one of his whorehouse romps, Rabbi Eleazar leanred that there was one particular prostitute residing in a whorehouse near the sea, who would receive a bag of money for her services. He took a bag of money and went to her, crossing seven rivers to do so. During their intercourse the prostitute farted. After this the whore told Rabbi Eleazar: "Just as this gas will never return to my anus, Rabbi Eleazar will never get to heaven." Hagigah 27a. States that no rabbi can ever go to hell. Baba Mezia 59b. A rabbi debates God and defeats Him. God admits the rabbi won the debate. Gittin 70a. The Rabbis taught: "On coming from a privy (outdoor toilet) a man should not have sexual intercourse till he has waited long enough to walk half a mile, because the demon of the privy is with him for that time; if he does, his children will be epileptic." Gittin 69b. To heal the disease of pleurisy ("catarrh") a Jew should "take the excrement of a white dog and knead it with balsam, but if he can possibly avoid it he should not eat the dog's excrement as it loosens the limbs." Pesahim 111a. It is forbidden for dogs, women or palm trees to pass between two men, nor may others walk between dogs, women or palm trees. Special dangers are involved if the women are menstruating or sitting at a crossroads. Menahoth 43b-44a. A Jewish man is obligated to say the following prayer every day: Thank you God for not making me a gentile, a woman or a slave.
Please if you link such quotations, write who made them and what his qualifications were. And if someone read my spoiler, its just to show how stupid such lists are and that anybody can make them. Translating old texts and languages is harder than you think and nothing is black and white. My quote comes from some conspiracy site named http://www.revisionisthistory.org/talmudtruth.html. And the jews were persecuated in germany for many different reasons including the financial crisis ( banking was seen as evil and the jewish rothschilds as the inventor of these evils), the lost war ( Revolution of the german near the end of the war. Jews were very involved with the social democrats at this time ), and many other negative stereotypes which people believed in.
On November 30 2009 08:14 ghostWriter wrote: I can see why they would be wary of Islamic influences. Where do you think the Paris riots came from? Ungrateful youth that should expend their time and energy on their education or a career, wasting their lives being mad at the establishment, which allows them to have protection, a home, etc.
There's a big, hard to justify leap from being wary of influences and taking affirmative steps to eliminate them.
If you immigrate to a different country, it's your job to assimilate into the existing culture. The Koran promotes violence in order for Islam to spread. Why wouldn't they eliminate threatening influences?
Where in the Koran did it actually promote violence?
Qur'an (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah." There is a good case to be made that the textual context of this particular passage is defensive war, even if the historical context was not. However, there are also two worrisome pieces to these verse. The first is that the killing of others is authorized in the event of "persecution" (a qualification that is ambiguous at best). The second is that fighting may persist until "religion is for Allah." The example set by Muhammad is not reassuring.
Qur'an (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."
Qur'an (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding caravans with this verse.
Qur'an (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."
Qur'an (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').
Qur'an (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle, as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. Here is the theological basis for today's suicide bombers.
Qur'an (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"
Qur'an (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."
Qur'an (45) - "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-" This passage not only criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, but it also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Qur'an, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is the Arabic word used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad).
Qur'an (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..." Pursuing an injured and retreating enemy is not an act of self-defense.
Qur'an (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"
Qur'an (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.
Qur'an (8:15) - "O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end."
Qur'an (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah" From the historical context we know that the "persecution" spoken of here was simply the refusal by the Meccans to allow Muhammad to enter their city and perform the Haj. Other Muslims were able to travel there, just not as an armed group, since Muhammad declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction. The Meccans were also acting in defense of their religion, since it was Muhammad's intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (which he later did). Hence the critical part of this verse is to fight until "religion is only for Allah."
Qur'an (8:57) - "If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember."
Qur'an (8:59-60) - "And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy."
Qur'an (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them." According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence is to convert to Islam. Prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religions Five Pillars.
Qur'an (9:14) - "Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace..."
Qur'an (9:20) - "Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah's way are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant." The "striving" spoken of here is Jihad.
Qur'an (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." "People of the Book" refers to Christians and Jews. This was one of the final "revelations" from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad's companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in just the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths.
Qur'an (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"
Qur'an (9:38-39) - "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place." This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell.
Qur'an (9:41) - "Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew." See also the verse that follows (9:42) - "If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed thee, but the distance was long, (and weighed) on them" This contradicts the myth that Muslims are to fight only in self-defense, since the wording implies that battle will be waged a long distance from home (in another country and on Christian soil, in this case, according to the historians).
Qur'an (9:73) - "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination." Dehumanizing those who reject Islam, by reminding Muslims that they are merely firewood for Hell, makes it easier to justify slaughter. It also explains why today's devout Muslims have little regard for those outside the faith.
Qur'an (9:88) - "But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper."
Qur'an (9:111) - "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme."
Qur'an (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."
Qur'an (21:44) - "We gave the good things of this life to these men and their fathers until the period grew long for them; See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will win?"
Qur'an (25:52) - "Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness, with the (Qur'an)." "Strive against" is Jihad - obviously not in the personal context. It's also significant to point out that this is a Meccan verse.
Qur'an (47:4) - "So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners,"
Qur'an (47:35) - "Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost (Shakir: "have the upper hand") for Allah is with you,"
Qur'an (48:17) - "There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom." Contemporary apologists sometimes claim that Jihad means 'spiritual struggle.' Is so, then why are the blind, lame and sick exempted?
Qur'an (48:29) - "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves" Islam is not about treating everyone equally. There are two very distinct standards that are applied based on religious status.
Qur'an (61:4) - "Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way" Religion of Peace, indeed!
Qur'an (61:10-12) - "O ye who believe! Shall I lead you to a bargain that will save you from a grievous Penalty?- That ye believe in Allah and His Messenger, and that ye strive (your utmost) in the Cause of Allah, with your property and your persons: That will be best for you, if ye but knew! He will forgive you your sins, and admit you to Gardens beneath which Rivers flow, and to beautiful mansions in Gardens of Eternity." This verse was given in battle. It uses the Arabic word, Jihad.
Qur'an (66) - "O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end." The root word of "Jihad" is used again here. The context is clearly holy war, and the scope of violence is broadened to include "hypocrites" - those who call themselves Muslims but do not act as such.
From the Hadith:
Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."
Bukhari (52:256) - The Prophet... was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." In this command, Muhammad establishes that it is permissible to kill non-combatants in the process of killing a perceived enemy. This provides justification for the many Islamic terror bombings.
Bukhari (52:220) - Allah's Apostle said... 'I have been made victorious with terror'
Abu Dawud (14:2526) - The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, "There is no god but Allah" and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action; and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist)
Abu Dawud (14:2527) - The Prophet said: Striving in the path of Allah (jihad) is incumbent on you along with every ruler, whether he is pious or impious
Muslim (1:33) - the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah
Bukhari (8:387) - Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah
Muslim (1:149) - "Abu Dharr reported: I said: Messenger of Allah, which of the deeds is the best? He (the Holy Prophet) replied: Belief in Allah and Jihad in His cause..."
Muslim (20:4645) - "...He (the Messenger of Allah) did that and said: There is another act which elevates the position of a man in Paradise to a grade one hundred (higher), and the elevation between one grade and the other is equal to the height of the heaven from the earth. He (Abu Sa'id) said: What is that act? He replied: Jihad in the way of Allah! Jihad in the way of Allah!"
Muslim (20:4696) - "the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: 'One who died but did not fight in the way of Allah nor did he express any desire (or determination) for Jihid died the death of a hypocrite.'"
Muslim (19:4321-4323) - Three separate hadith in which Muhammad shrugs over the news that innocent children were killed in a raid by his men against unbelievers. His response: "They are of them (meaning the enemy)."
Tabari 77 The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, "Kill any Jew who falls under your power." Ashraf was a poet, killed by Muhammad's men because he insulted Islam. Here, Muhammad widens the scope of his orders to kill. An innocent Jewish businessman was then slain by his Muslim partner, merely for being non-Muslim.
Tabari 9:69 "Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us" The words of Muhammad, prophet of Islam.
Ibn Ishaq: 327 - “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”
Ibn Ishaq: 990 - Lest anyone think that cutting off someone's head while screaming 'Allah Akbar!' is a modern custom, here is an account of that very practice under Muhammad, who seems to approve.
Ibn Ishaq: 992 - "Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah." Muhammad's instructions to his men prior to a military raid.
Moed Kattan 17a: If a Jew is tempted to do evil he should go to a city where he is not known and do the evil there. Penalty for Disobeying Rabbis Erubin 21b. Whosoever disobeys the rabbis deserves death and will be punished by being boiled in hot excrement in hell.
Hitting a Jew is the same as hitting God Sanhedrin 58b. If a heathen (gentile) hits a Jew, the gentile must be killed.
O.K. to Cheat Non-Jews Sanhedrin 57a . A Jew need not pay a gentile ("Cuthean") the wages owed him for work.
Jews Have Superior Legal Status Baba Kamma 37b. "If an ox of an Israelite gores an ox of a Canaanite there is no liability; but if an ox of a Canaanite gores an ox of an Israelite...the payment is to be in full."
Jews May Steal from Non-Jews Baba Mezia 24a . If a Jew finds an object lost by a gentile ("heathen") it does not have to be returned. (Affirmed also in Baba Kamma 113b). Sanhedrin 76a. God will not spare a Jew who "marries his daughter to an old man or takes a wife for his infant son or returns a lost article to a Cuthean..."
Jews May Rob and Kill Non-Jews Sanhedrin 57a . When a Jew murders a gentile ("Cuthean"), there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a gentile he may keep. Baba Kamma 37b. The gentiles are outside the protection of the law and God has "exposed their money to Israel."
Jews May Lie to Non-Jews Baba Kamma 113a. Jews may use lies ("subterfuges") to circumvent a Gentile.
Non-Jewish Children are Sub-Human Yebamoth 98a. All gentile children are animals. Abodah Zarah 36b. Gentile girls are in a state of niddah (filth) from birth. Abodah Zarah 22a-22b . Gentiles prefer sex with cows.
Insults Against Blessed Mary Sanhedrin 106a . Says Jesus' mother was a whore: "She who was the descendant of princes and governors played the harlot with carpenters." Also in footnote #2 to Shabbath 104b of the Soncino edition, it is stated that in the "uncensored" text of the Talmud it is written that Jesus mother, "Miriam the hairdresser," had sex with many men.
Gloats over Christ Dying Young A passage from Sanhedrin 106 gloats over the early age at which Jesus died: "Hast thou heard how old Balaam (Jesus) was?--He replied: It is not actually stated but since it is written, Bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their days it follows that he was thirty-three or thirty-four years old."
Jesus in the Talmud: Horrible Blasphemies Against Jesus Christ While it is the standard disinformation practice of apologists for the Talmud to deny that it contains any scurrilous references to Jesus Christ, certain Orthodox Jewish organizations are more forthcoming and admit that the Talmud not only mentions Jesus but disparages him (as a sorcerer and a demented sex freak). These orthodox Jewish organizations make this admission perhaps out of the belief that Jewish supremacy is so well-established in the modern world that they need not concern themselves with adverse reactions. For example, on the website of the Orthodox Jewish Hasidic Lubavitch group--one of the largest in the world--we find the following statement, complete with Talmudic citations: "The Talmud (Babylonian edition) records other sins of 'Jesus the Nazarene': 1) He and his disciples practiced sorcery and black magic, led Jews astray into idolatry, and were sponsored by foreign, gentile powers for the purpose of subverting Jewish worship (Sanhedrin 43a). 2) He was sexually immoral, worshipped statues of stone (a brick is mentioned), was cut off from the Jewish people for his wickedness, and refused to repent (Sanhedrin 107b; Sotah 47a). 3) He learned witchcraft in Egypt and, to perform miracles, used procedures that involved cutting his flesh, which is also explicitly banned in the Bible (Shabbos 104b). End quote from http://www.noahide.com/yeshu.htm (Lubavitch website) June 20, 2000. [Note: we have printed and preserved in our files a hard copy of this statement from the Lubavitch"Noah's Covenant Website," as it appeared on their website at http://www.noahide.com on June 20, 2000, in the event that denials are later issued and the statement itself suppressed]. Let us examine further some of these anti-Christ Talmud passages: Gittin 57a. Says Jesus is in hell, being boiled in "hot excrement." Sanhedrin 43a. Says Jesus ("Yeshu" and in Soncino footnote #6, Yeshu "the Nazarene") was executed because he practiced sorcery: "It is taught that on the eve of Passover Jesus was hung, and forty days before this the proclamation was made: Jesus is to be stoned to death because he has practiced sorcery and has lured the people to idolatry...He was an enticer and of such thou shalt not pity or condone." Kallah 51a."The elders were once sitting in the gate when two young lads passed by; one covered his head and the other uncovered his head. Of him who uncovered his head Rabbi Eliezer remarked that he is a bastard. Rabbi Joshua remarked that he is the son of a niddah (a child conceived during a woman's menstrual period). Rabbi Akiba said that he is both a bastard and a son of a niddah. "They said, 'What induced you to contradict the opinion of your colleagues?' He replied, "I will prove it concerning him." He went to the lad's mother and found her sitting in the market selling beans. "He said to her, 'My daughter, if you will answer the question I will put to you, I will bring you to the world to come.' (eternal life). She said to him, 'Swear it to me.' "Rabbi Akiba, taking the oath with his lips but annulling it in his heart, said to her, 'What is the status of your son?' She replied, 'When I entered the bridal chamber I was niddah (menstruating) and my husband kept away from me; but my best man had intercourse with me and this son was born to me.' Consequently the child was both a bastard and the son of a niddah. "It was declared, '..Blessed be the God of Israel Who Revealed His Secret to Rabbi Akiba..." In addition to the theme that God rewards clever liars, the preceding Talmud discussion is actually about Jesus Christ (the bastard boy who "uncovered his head" and was conceived in the filth of menstruation). The boy's adulterous mother in this Talmud story is the mother of Christ, Blessed Mary (called Miriam and sometimes, Miriam the hairdresser, in the Talmud).
"The Editio Princeps of the complete Code of Talmudic Law, Maimonides' Mishneh Torah -- replete not only with the most offensive precepts against all Gentiles but also with explicit attacks on Christianity and on Jesus (after whose name the author adds piously, 'May the name of the wicked perish')... --Dr. Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion, p. 21. "The Talmud contains a few explicit references to Jesus...These references are certainly not complimentary...There seems little doubt that the account of the execution of Jesus on the eve of Passover does refer to the Christian Jesus...The passage in which Jesus' punishment in hell is described also seems to refer to the Christian Jesus. It is a piece of anti-Christian polemic dating from the post-70 CE period..." --Hyam Maccoby, Judaism on Trial, pp. 26-27. "According to the Talmud, Jesus was executed by a proper rabbinical court for idolatry, inciting other Jews to idolatry, and contempt of rabbinical authority. All classical Jewish sources which mention his execution are quite happy to take responsibility for it; in the talmudic account the Romans are not even mentioned. "The more popular accounts--which were nevertheless taken quite seriously--such as the notorious Toldot Yeshu are even worse, for in addition to the above crimes they accuse him of witchcraft. The very name 'Jesus' was for Jews a symbol of all that is abominable and this popular tradition still persists... "The Hebrew form of the name Jesus--Yeshu--was interpreted as an acronym for the curse, 'may his name and memory be wiped out,' which is used as an extreme form of abuse. In fact, anti-zionist Orthodox Jews (such as Neturey Qarta) sometimes refer to Herzl as 'Herzl Jesus' and I have found in religious zionist writings expressions such as "Nasser Jesus" and more recently 'Arafat Jesus." --Dr. Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion, pp. 97- 98, 118.
Talmud Attacks Christians and Christian Books Rosh Hashanah 17a. Christians (minnim) and others who reject the Talmud will go to hell and be punished there for all generations. Sanhedrin 90a. Those who read the New Testament ("uncanonical books") will have no portion in the world to come. Shabbath 116a. Jews must destroy the books of the Christians, i.e. the New Testament. Dr. Israel Shahak of Hebrew University reports that the Israelis burned hundreds of New Testament Bibles in occupied Palestine on March 23, 1980 (cf. Jewish History, Jewish Religion, p. 21).
Sick and Insane Teachings of the Talmud Gittin 69a . To heal his flesh a Jew should take dust that lies within the shadow of an outdoor toilet, mix with honey and eat it. Shabbath 41a. The law regulating the rule for how to urinate in a holy way is given. Yebamoth 63a. States that Adam had sexual intercourse with all the animals in the Garden of Eden. Yebamoth 63a. Declares that agriculture is the lowest of occupations. Sanhedrin 55b. A Jew may marry a three year old girl (specifically, three years "and a day" old). Sanhedrin 54b. A Jew may have sex with a child as long as the child is less than nine years old. Kethuboth 11b. "When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing." Yebamoth 59b. A woman who had intercourse with a beast is eligible to marry a Jewish priest. A woman who has sex with a demon is also eligible to marry a Jewish priest. Abodah Zarah 17a. States that there is not a whore in the world that the Talmudic sage Rabbi Eleazar has not had sex with.On one of his whorehouse romps, Rabbi Eleazar leanred that there was one particular prostitute residing in a whorehouse near the sea, who would receive a bag of money for her services. He took a bag of money and went to her, crossing seven rivers to do so. During their intercourse the prostitute farted. After this the whore told Rabbi Eleazar: "Just as this gas will never return to my anus, Rabbi Eleazar will never get to heaven." Hagigah 27a. States that no rabbi can ever go to hell. Baba Mezia 59b. A rabbi debates God and defeats Him. God admits the rabbi won the debate. Gittin 70a. The Rabbis taught: "On coming from a privy (outdoor toilet) a man should not have sexual intercourse till he has waited long enough to walk half a mile, because the demon of the privy is with him for that time; if he does, his children will be epileptic." Gittin 69b. To heal the disease of pleurisy ("catarrh") a Jew should "take the excrement of a white dog and knead it with balsam, but if he can possibly avoid it he should not eat the dog's excrement as it loosens the limbs." Pesahim 111a. It is forbidden for dogs, women or palm trees to pass between two men, nor may others walk between dogs, women or palm trees. Special dangers are involved if the women are menstruating or sitting at a crossroads. Menahoth 43b-44a. A Jewish man is obligated to say the following prayer every day: Thank you God for not making me a gentile, a woman or a slave.
Please if you link such quotations, write who made them and what his qualifications were. And if someone read my spoiler, its just to show how stupid such lists are and that anybody can make them. Translating old texts and languages is harder than you think and nothing is black and white. My quote comes from some conspiracy site named http://www.revisionisthistory.org/talmudtruth.html. And the jews were persecuated in germany for many different reasons including the financial crisis ( banking was seen as evil and the jewish rothschilds as the inventor of these evils), the lost war ( Revolution of the german near the end of the war. Jews were very involved with the social democrats at this time ), and many other negative stereotypes which people believed in.
I just googled it and c/ped the first thing that popped out. But it's not like someone's going to translate "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" into "Kill all non-Muslims". It's difficult to get the full meaning of a sentence from another language no doubt, but it's likely that the general meaning is going to stay the same.
Wow. I'll just make a simple post that says this sucks. Telling people what to wear, and I was under the impression that they had a very liberal government. Very sad day. Suppose next they will be banning books or something? I'm sure there are many other signs of Islamisation there as well.
On November 30 2009 10:58 cUrsOr wrote: Wow. I'll just make a simple post that says this sucks. Telling people what to wear, and I was under the impression that they had a very liberal government. Very sad day. Suppose next they will be banning books or something? I'm sure there are many other signs of Islamisation there as well.
Huh? Telling people what to wear?? A minaret is a building...
On November 30 2009 10:58 cUrsOr wrote: Wow. I'll just make a simple post that says this sucks. Telling people what to wear, and I was under the impression that they had a very liberal government. Very sad day. Suppose next they will be banning books or something? I'm sure there are many other signs of Islamisation there as well.
On November 30 2009 10:14 InToTheWannaB wrote: I'm shocked so many people in this thread seem to believe this is ok. How can anyone be ok with a law the clearly persecutes a religious group? I understand not be a fan of a religion, but no one gets to decide whats right for other people. You can't make it hard for them to practice there beliefs because you dislike them. I thought all western nations had adopted religious freedom long ago.
Have you lived in Africa, or the Middle East? Would you like to hear Islamic broadcasts 5 times a day, broadcast through loud speakers? Are you speaking out of ignorance, or do you know something of the reality of minarets? They want to practice their religion, they can practice it privately. I don't need to hear their prayers when I'm walking home at 5PM.
On November 30 2009 10:58 cUrsOr wrote: Wow. I'll just make a simple post that says this sucks. Telling people what to wear, and I was under the impression that they had a very liberal government. Very sad day. Suppose next they will be banning books or something? I'm sure there are many other signs of Islamisation there as well.
you let me into your house. you let me live there. you let me decorate my own room. but do you let me hang my dick photos into your room and all the public rooms? rather not. its very simple, in switzerland ppl living there (20%, but the important 20%) dont want to see minarets when they look out of the window, and its their right to make the country look like they want it. not?
I want to clarify that I'm all against banning religious stuff when it doesn't matter. Muslims can wear burkhas anywhere, it doesn't bother me. However, I wouldn't like minarets in some places where I wouldn't mind mosques.
If there would be some sort of compromise (someone wrote they don't need to have the shouting function), I'm all for adding minarets!
On November 30 2009 10:51 KwarK wrote: Wait, so why is it that Hitler hated minarets?
Godwin's Law in action.
So not only did you not know the reasons behind the Holocaust but you apparently also do not know when Godwin's Law applies and does not apply.
Says the kid who brings up the Holocaust out of nowhere in a thread about Switzerland banning minarets. Did you even know that was the op?
Rofl I gave a list of examples of atrocities that occurred outside of religious motivation and YOU were the one that picked out the Holocaust out of my several examples to try to be smart to make my point invalid.
On November 30 2009 10:14 koreasilver wrote: Violence isn't limited to religious ideology. The Holocaust was not religiously motivated, the Holodomor was not religiously motivated, the genocide of the American Natives was not religiously motivated, the Rape of Nanking was not religiously motivated, etc. etc. etc.
All this shit is politics more than religion, and the social mentality that that took place in all these atrocities were similar regardless of whether the ideology was religious or not.
Huh. I guess all those Jews died because of something else.
Stop crying over your self-ownage and just keel over from this thread.
edit: Also, I couldn't care less if you're a "fellow Korean" or not. That shit is meaningless, and why the hell would I care what you are?
On November 30 2009 10:53 JWD wrote: How are minarets "annoying"?
They, for a non-muslim, randomly scream shit in Arabic. How is that not annoying when the majority of the population doesn't give a shit?
Hey bro, I feel for you. I was on the bus one day and 2 black guys came on. They were talking like "WHUTS GOOD NIGGA" "CHECK MY ICE" and it was annoying because the majority of the people on the bus didn't give a shit. We then decided to ban black people from the bus and everyone was happy .
Hey bro, I feel for you. Once upon a time our city had a chinatown where you could get some pretty sweet food. One day I went there, and everyone was nattering in some weird bird language. This had to stop, because the majority of us didn't give a shit. We had the city evict everyone and bulldozed chinatown to make a strip mall. No more fake pagodas .
On November 30 2009 10:51 KwarK wrote: Wait, so why is it that Hitler hated minarets?
Godwin's Law in action.
So not only did you not know the reasons behind the Holocaust but you apparently also do not know when Godwin's Law applies and does not apply.
Says the kid who brings up the Holocaust out of nowhere in a thread about Switzerland banning minarets. Did you even know that was the op?
Rofl I gave a list of examples of atrocities that occurred outside of religious motivation and YOU were the one that picked out the Holocaust out of my several examples to try to be smart to make my point invalid.
On November 30 2009 10:14 koreasilver wrote: Violence isn't limited to religious ideology. The Holocaust was not religiously motivated, the Holodomor was not religiously motivated, the genocide of the American Natives was not religiously motivated, the Rape of Nanking was not religiously motivated, etc. etc. etc.
All this shit is politics more than religion, and the social mentality that that took place in all these atrocities were similar regardless of whether the ideology was religious or not.
Huh. I guess all those Jews died because of something else.
Stop crying over your self-ownage and just keel over from this thread.
On November 30 2009 10:53 JWD wrote: How are minarets "annoying"?
They, for a non-muslim, randomly scream shit in Arabic. How is that not annoying when the majority of the population doesn't give a shit?
Hey bro, I feel for you. I was on the bus one day and 2 black guys came on. They were talking like "WHUTS GOOD NIGGA" "CHECK MY ICE" and it was annoying because the majority of the people on the bus didn't give a shit. We then decided to ban black people from the bus and everyone was happy .
Hey bro, I feel for you. Once upon a time our city had a chinatown where you could get some pretty sweet food. One day I went there, and everyone was nattering in some weird bird language. This had to stop, because the majority of us didn't give a shit. We had the city evict everyone and bulldozed chinatown to make a strip mall. No more fake pagodas .
Starting to make sense, or should I continue?
people can just not take the bus or not go to chinatown, you'd have to move to get away from a guy screaming in a minaret every morning
On November 30 2009 10:53 JWD wrote: How are minarets "annoying"?
They, for a non-muslim, randomly scream shit in Arabic. How is that not annoying when the majority of the population doesn't give a shit?
Hey bro, I feel for you. I was on the bus one day and 2 black guys came on. They were talking like "WHUTS GOOD NIGGA" "CHECK MY ICE" and it was annoying because the majority of the people on the bus didn't give a shit. We then decided to ban black people from the bus and everyone was happy .
Hey bro, I feel for you. Once upon a time our city had a chinatown where you could get some pretty sweet food. One day I went there, and everyone was nattering in some weird bird language. This had to stop, because the majority of us didn't give a shit. We had the city evict everyone and bulldozed chinatown to make a strip mall. No more fake pagodas .
Starting to make sense, or should I continue?
people can just not take the bus or not go to chinatown, you'd have to move to get away from a guy screaming in a minaret every morning
Just not take the bus? How exactly do you do that when you can't afford a car? Move?
How can I avoid chinatown if its on my way to work? Move?
How do I avoid the synagogue on saturdays if its next to my house? Move?
How do I avoid the buskers? Work somewhere different?
How do I avoid the guys with turbans who go to the temple down the street? Move?
How do I avoid the brown parts of town? Move?
How can't I do the exact same shit with a minaret?
Maybe I shouldn't 'move' from any of them and just let people do whatever the fuck they want to do. If the minaret annoys me so much maybe I can invest in an MP3 player and listen to some music like half of the world does.
Another example then: I live in Frankfurt we had a population of 630.000 in 2006 (http://frankfurt.de/sixcms/media.php/678/K02_Bev%C3%B6lkerungx.pdf) . 300.000 were Christians. Christians are a minority here, but in every part of the city you hear Church Bells. They are loud and annoying especially on days were I can sleep longer. Why aren`t church bells forbidden in parts of cities were the christians are a minority? Im sure switzerland has those with 22% immigrants.
On November 30 2009 10:53 JWD wrote: How are minarets "annoying"?
They, for a non-muslim, randomly scream shit in Arabic. How is that not annoying when the majority of the population doesn't give a shit?
Hey bro, I feel for you. I was on the bus one day and 2 black guys came on. They were talking like "WHUTS GOOD NIGGA" "CHECK MY ICE" and it was annoying because the majority of the people on the bus didn't give a shit. We then decided to ban black people from the bus and everyone was happy .
Hey bro, I feel for you. Once upon a time our city had a chinatown where you could get some pretty sweet food. One day I went there, and everyone was nattering in some weird bird language. This had to stop, because the majority of us didn't give a shit. We had the city evict everyone and bulldozed chinatown to make a strip mall. No more fake pagodas .
Starting to make sense, or should I continue?
people can just not take the bus or not go to chinatown, you'd have to move to get away from a guy screaming in a minaret every morning
Yeah, those situations are really not parallel at all. You can avoid those hypothetical situations, but you can't avoid a call to prayer 5 times a day going on in your neighborhood. Would you want some random guy calling you to prayer on a loudspeaker for a religion you don't believe in, in a language you don't understand, five times a day in the country where your ancestors have lived for centuries, by people who recently immigrated?
On November 30 2009 11:21 Yuljan wrote: Another example then: I live in Frankfurt we had a population of 630.000 in 2006 (http://frankfurt.de/sixcms/media.php/678/K02_Bev%C3%B6lkerungx.pdf) . 300.000 were Christians. Christians are a minority here, but in every part of the city you hear Church Bells. They are loud and annoying especially on days were I can sleep longer. Why aren`t church bells forbidden in parts of cities were the christians are a minority? Im sure switzerland has those with 22% immigrants.
This makes sense to me. Why not ban the church bells? But then again, Christianity has been in Europe for centuries now, it affects the culture, even for people who don't believe.
On November 30 2009 10:53 JWD wrote: How are minarets "annoying"?
They, for a non-muslim, randomly scream shit in Arabic. How is that not annoying when the majority of the population doesn't give a shit?
Hey bro, I feel for you. I was on the bus one day and 2 black guys came on. They were talking like "WHUTS GOOD NIGGA" "CHECK MY ICE" and it was annoying because the majority of the people on the bus didn't give a shit. We then decided to ban black people from the bus and everyone was happy .
Hey bro, I feel for you. Once upon a time our city had a chinatown where you could get some pretty sweet food. One day I went there, and everyone was nattering in some weird bird language. This had to stop, because the majority of us didn't give a shit. We had the city evict everyone and bulldozed chinatown to make a strip mall. No more fake pagodas .
Starting to make sense, or should I continue?
people can just not take the bus or not go to chinatown, you'd have to move to get away from a guy screaming in a minaret every morning
Yeah, those situations are really not parallel at all. You can avoid those hypothetical situations, but you can't avoid a call to prayer 5 times a day going on in your neighborhood. Would you want some random guy calling you to prayer on a loudspeaker for a religion you don't believe in, in a language you don't understand, five times a day in the country where your ancestors have lived for centuries, by people who recently immigrated?
On November 30 2009 11:21 Yuljan wrote: Another example then: I live in Frankfurt we had a population of 630.000 in 2006 (http://frankfurt.de/sixcms/media.php/678/K02_Bev%C3%B6lkerungx.pdf) . 300.000 were Christians. Christians are a minority here, but in every part of the city you hear Church Bells. They are loud and annoying especially on days were I can sleep longer. Why aren`t church bells forbidden in parts of cities were the christians are a minority? Im sure switzerland has those with 22% immigrants.
This makes sense to me. Why not ban the church bells? But then again, Christianity has been in Europe for centuries now, it affects the culture, even for people who don't believe.
Thats why this law is discriminating, it only targets one minority group. If it doesn't apply to everyone it should never be made into a official law in a country. Certainly not in a democratic country. I dont know if its an english word but in germany we call it dictatorship of the majority
On November 30 2009 10:14 InToTheWannaB wrote: I'm shocked so many people in this thread seem to believe this is ok. How can anyone be ok with a law the clearly persecutes a religious group? I understand not be a fan of a religion, but no one gets to decide whats right for other people. You can't make it hard for them to practice there beliefs because you dislike them. I thought all western nations had adopted religious freedom long ago.
Have you lived in Africa, or the Middle East? Would you like to hear Islamic broadcasts 5 times a day, broadcast through loud speakers? Are you speaking out of ignorance, or do you know something of the reality of minarets? They want to practice their religion, they can practice it privately. I don't need to hear their prayers when I'm walking home at 5PM.
I don't claim to be an authority on Islam, but that does not matter. If you don't like hearing the call to prayer thats your problem. You can get on a soap box with a big ass speaker and blast some christian prayers or even some judas priest music back at them twice as loud if you want too. Thats your right and it should be theres as well. There is no reason to ban minarets. If its that big of a deal inact laws against noise pollution. That way no one can broadcast shit. Islamic, Christian, or otherwise. Banning minarets is just religious persecution of the worst kind.
Would you want some random guy calling you to prayer on a loudspeaker for a religion you don't believe in, in a language you don't understand, five times a day in the country where your ancestors have lived for centuries, by people who recently immigrated?
Wouldn't really care. City regulations on the acceptable noise level might be required depending on the location of the minaret, but the existence of someone from another culture doing his thing wouldn't bother me.
Also, the examples are relevant; I can't avoid the majority of those without moving or changing jobs. What's the difference here?
On November 30 2009 10:14 InToTheWannaB wrote: I'm shocked so many people in this thread seem to believe this is ok. How can anyone be ok with a law the clearly persecutes a religious group? I understand not be a fan of a religion, but no one gets to decide whats right for other people. You can't make it hard for them to practice there beliefs because you dislike them. I thought all western nations had adopted religious freedom long ago.
Have you lived in Africa, or the Middle East? Would you like to hear Islamic broadcasts 5 times a day, broadcast through loud speakers? Are you speaking out of ignorance, or do you know something of the reality of minarets? They want to practice their religion, they can practice it privately. I don't need to hear their prayers when I'm walking home at 5PM.
I don't claim to be an authority on Islam, but that does not matter. (a)If you don't like hearing the call to prayer thats your problem. You can get on a soap box with a big ass speaker and blast some christian prayers or even some judas priest music back at them twice as loud if you want too. Thats your right and it should be theres as well. There is no reason to ban minarets. If its that big of a deal inact laws against noise pollution. That way no one can broadcast shit. Islamic, Christian, or otherwise. (b)Banning minarets is just religious persecution of the worst kind.
(a) Or, you can just ban it, because its annoying and you don't want hear prayers to allah. Just like people have a right not to participate in religious discussions on this website. (b) Its not required by their religion, how is it persecution?
The Muslim community wanted the regional governor to change some of the rules of the contest. Using the sound of church bells was mandatory and Muslim leaders thought this alienated other ethnic and religious groups.
"There should be no political or religious themes in the anthem. It should be something that uplifts people and brings them together. I think including religion goes against this." Said Gayaz Zakirov, spiritual leader of the region’s Muslims.
Railways St. Andrew's Church was seized on April 28, and Christian employees of the Railway have been protesting the confiscation of their church property vehemently for the last several weeks.
The Church Committee told ICC that the authorities had originally granted Christians written permission to use the building on Sundays for worship services. However, when the church began using its bells and loudspeakers to invite Christians to morning and evening prayer services, Muslim leaders complained that the church was interfering with their five-times a day call to prayer and thus insulting Islam.
On April 28, Christians arrived at the church to find the doors sealed shut with a notice prohibiting anyone from entering the building. Christians responded by conducting a hunger strike and demonstrating in front of the Lahore Press Club for the next several days.
At the last report, this situation had not been resolved, and Muslim officers were instead trying to obtain permission to demolish the church so that they can build another mosque. Christian leaders are also being threatened with prosecution under Pakistan's infamous Blasphemy Laws.
On November 30 2009 08:17 JWD wrote: Lawmakers should balance protecting national security/interests with the costs of restricting freedom of speech and expression. Of course eliminating threatening influences might make a country safer, but you're forgetting to consider the value of political/religious/whatever expression. Here we are critiquing the Swiss government and its laws—that could be seen as a threatening influence, why doesn't Switzerland make visiting TL illegal too?
We here at TL have little, if any influence on any events that occur in Switzerland. There's nothing more dangerous to a body than internal conflict. Why should I consider any religion to have value when the concept of religion itself has no merit whatsoever?
OK I get it, you don't like religion. You still haven't explained how that justifies preventing other people who do like religion from peacefully exercising their religious beliefs.
There was a post with all the violent examples in the Koran and the Hadith in this thread. The Koran makes it okay to do violence against the non-believers (pretty much anyone who isn't Muslim).
Now, I know you think that these are smart people, they can think for themselves and take only the good things that are in the Koran and ignore the bad, etc. but the problem lies in the fact that they are brainwashed from a young age to think like in the 1st paragraph. And if you don't really believe in what is in the book, well that's just too bad, you follow otherwise you get disowned by your family and your community, of which you've been conditioned to rely on from a young age.
Of course the fact that Switzerland banned Minarets is just downright stupid, they should have just said no Islam, if they want to really affect anything.
I definitely agree with the above posters that said that immigrants should assimilate into the new country's culture, and not the other way around.
Yeah, how does that relate in anyway to the government itself outlawing the construction of minarets? Don't you agree that there shouldn't be religious themes in a song that is meant to bring people together?
Are you really trying to compare the government of Pakistan to the government of Switzerland? I don't know about you, but I'd hope Switzerland would be a bit more tolerant of other people than Pakistan.
On November 30 2009 10:14 InToTheWannaB wrote: I'm shocked so many people in this thread seem to believe this is ok. How can anyone be ok with a law the clearly persecutes a religious group? I understand not be a fan of a religion, but no one gets to decide whats right for other people. You can't make it hard for them to practice there beliefs because you dislike them. I thought all western nations had adopted religious freedom long ago.
Have you lived in Africa, or the Middle East? Would you like to hear Islamic broadcasts 5 times a day, broadcast through loud speakers? Are you speaking out of ignorance, or do you know something of the reality of minarets? They want to practice their religion, they can practice it privately. I don't need to hear their prayers when I'm walking home at 5PM.
I don't claim to be an authority on Islam, but that does not matter. If you don't like hearing the call to prayer thats your problem. You can get on a soap box with a big ass speaker and blast some christian prayers or even some judas priest music back at them twice as loud if you want too. Thats your right and it should be theres as well. There is no reason to ban minarets. If its that big of a deal inact laws against noise pollution. That way no one can broadcast shit. Islamic, Christian, or otherwise. Banning minarets is just religious persecution of the worst kind.
It seems that anything that can be construed as an insult towards Islam is taken as such and responded to accordingly.
Switzerland is not a Muslim nation, why should its people be subject to the culture of the minority group that was allowed into its lands? It's as if you allowed your friend to live with you and they insist on blasting heavy rock, which you hate, 5 times a day. This obviously isn't even close to being a good parallel, but you can see my point, can't you? It's not religious persecution at all, religious persecution would be killing them or expelling them or preventing them from worshipping and forcing them to either accept whatever religion is the main one. They should be happy that Switzerland is enlightened enough to allow them to worship in peace without abusing that privilege by installing minarets. Can you imagine an argument like this taking place in a Muslim country? That's real persecution
By allowing Muslims to worship, they are being tolerant. Allowing minarets to be built is going above and beyond that call. And why shouldn't they react in the same way? Why should there be a double standard in which a western country like Switzerland is supposed to be "more enlightened" and more tolerant than a country like Pakistan? Why shouldn't people in Switzerland behead people that believe in a different religion and firebomb the Iranian embassy anytime someone draws a picture of Jesus or says "death to Switzerland"? Why should we be accepting of Muslims and tolerant of their faith when they show zero tolerance towards others?
On November 30 2009 10:14 InToTheWannaB wrote: I'm shocked so many people in this thread seem to believe this is ok. How can anyone be ok with a law the clearly persecutes a religious group? I understand not be a fan of a religion, but no one gets to decide whats right for other people. You can't make it hard for them to practice there beliefs because you dislike them. I thought all western nations had adopted religious freedom long ago.
Have you lived in Africa, or the Middle East? Would you like to hear Islamic broadcasts 5 times a day, broadcast through loud speakers? Are you speaking out of ignorance, or do you know something of the reality of minarets? They want to practice their religion, they can practice it privately. I don't need to hear their prayers when I'm walking home at 5PM.
I don't claim to be an authority on Islam, but that does not matter. (a)If you don't like hearing the call to prayer thats your problem. You can get on a soap box with a big ass speaker and blast some christian prayers or even some judas priest music back at them twice as loud if you want too. Thats your right and it should be theres as well. There is no reason to ban minarets. If its that big of a deal inact laws against noise pollution. That way no one can broadcast shit. Islamic, Christian, or otherwise. (b)Banning minarets is just religious persecution of the worst kind.
(a) Or, you can just ban it, because its annoying and you don't want hear prayers to allah. Just like people have a right not to participate in religious discussions on this website. (b) Its not required by their religion, how is it persecution?
You ban it because its annoying and you don't want to hear it.......Are you for real? I don't even know how to respond to such a statement. Also how is the call to prayer not a part of there religion? I'm sure if you ask most muslims if the call to prayer is a part of there religion they will tell you it most certainly is. An you seem to think banning this is ok because you find it annoying. I'm flabbergasted. If I said I find church bells annoying would you support banning the ringing and building of them as well?
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 without their approval is okay because "we hold ourselves to our own standards"? So if someone punches you and you disapprove of violence, you won't fight back because you hold "yourself up to your own standards"? Would you really take a beatdown in exchange for you being able to hold up your own principles?
On November 30 2009 10:14 InToTheWannaB wrote: I'm shocked so many people in this thread seem to believe this is ok. How can anyone be ok with a law the clearly persecutes a religious group? I understand not be a fan of a religion, but no one gets to decide whats right for other people. You can't make it hard for them to practice there beliefs because you dislike them. I thought all western nations had adopted religious freedom long ago.
Have you lived in Africa, or the Middle East? Would you like to hear Islamic broadcasts 5 times a day, broadcast through loud speakers? Are you speaking out of ignorance, or do you know something of the reality of minarets? They want to practice their religion, they can practice it privately. I don't need to hear their prayers when I'm walking home at 5PM.
I don't claim to be an authority on Islam, but that does not matter. (a)If you don't like hearing the call to prayer thats your problem. You can get on a soap box with a big ass speaker and blast some christian prayers or even some judas priest music back at them twice as loud if you want too. Thats your right and it should be theres as well. There is no reason to ban minarets. If its that big of a deal inact laws against noise pollution. That way no one can broadcast shit. Islamic, Christian, or otherwise. (b)Banning minarets is just religious persecution of the worst kind.
(a) Or, you can just ban it, because its annoying and you don't want hear prayers to allah. Just like people have a right not to participate in religious discussions on this website. (b) Its not required by their religion, how is it persecution?
You ban it because its annoying and you don't want to hear it.......Are you for real? I don't even know how to respond to such a statement. Also how is the call to prayer not a part of there religion? I'm sure if you ask most muslims if the call to prayer is a part of there religion they will tell you it most certainly is. An you seem to think banning this is ok because you find it annoying. I'm flabbergasted. If I said I find church bells annoying would you support banning the ringing and building of them as well?
They are guests, they should abide by the desires and wishes of their host. And I've already put up an example of Muslims banning the building of church bells. It's not just about annoyance, it's about them asserting their own religious views in a foreign country. They can do whatever they want in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or whatever, but just because Switzerland is an enlightened nation, doesn't mean that they should allow people to do whatever they want. Also, just because you believe in freedom of religion doesn't mean you should impose your beliefs on others either. The Koran sure doesn't allow any room for any such thing.
On November 30 2009 10:14 InToTheWannaB wrote: I'm shocked so many people in this thread seem to believe this is ok. How can anyone be ok with a law the clearly persecutes a religious group? I understand not be a fan of a religion, but no one gets to decide whats right for other people. You can't make it hard for them to practice there beliefs because you dislike them. I thought all western nations had adopted religious freedom long ago.
Have you lived in Africa, or the Middle East? Would you like to hear Islamic broadcasts 5 times a day, broadcast through loud speakers? Are you speaking out of ignorance, or do you know something of the reality of minarets? They want to practice their religion, they can practice it privately. I don't need to hear their prayers when I'm walking home at 5PM.
I don't claim to be an authority on Islam, but that does not matter. (a)If you don't like hearing the call to prayer thats your problem. You can get on a soap box with a big ass speaker and blast some christian prayers or even some judas priest music back at them twice as loud if you want too. Thats your right and it should be theres as well. There is no reason to ban minarets. If its that big of a deal inact laws against noise pollution. That way no one can broadcast shit. Islamic, Christian, or otherwise. (b)Banning minarets is just religious persecution of the worst kind.
(a) Or, you can just ban it, because its annoying and you don't want hear prayers to allah. Just like people have a right not to participate in religious discussions on this website. (b) Its not required by their religion, how is it persecution?
You ban it because its annoying and you don't want to hear it.......Are you for real? I don't even know how to respond to such a statement. Also how is the call to prayer not a part of there religion? I'm sure if you ask most muslims if the call to prayer is a part of there religion they will tell you it most certainly is. An you seem to think banning this is ok because you find it annoying. I'm flabbergasted. If I said I find church bells annoying would you support banning the ringing and building of them as well?
Lets be pragmatic here. Yes, this is part of their religious tradition, I said it wasn't required by their religion. Generally, most people should be ok with what other people do as long as it doesn't affect them. If it disturbing the public peace, then that is a different story.
This is one tradition (the immigants tradition of public calling to prayer) vs another tradition (the Swiss' peaceful town that their parents grew up in). I think the tradition that is in place and has been for a while has a right to remain intact.
No one is stopping anyone else from practicing their religion. Maybe those Muslims should buy some Swiss watches if they don't know when its time for prayer.
On November 30 2009 10:14 InToTheWannaB wrote: I'm shocked so many people in this thread seem to believe this is ok. How can anyone be ok with a law the clearly persecutes a religious group? I understand not be a fan of a religion, but no one gets to decide whats right for other people. You can't make it hard for them to practice there beliefs because you dislike them. I thought all western nations had adopted religious freedom long ago.
Have you lived in Africa, or the Middle East? Would you like to hear Islamic broadcasts 5 times a day, broadcast through loud speakers? Are you speaking out of ignorance, or do you know something of the reality of minarets? They want to practice their religion, they can practice it privately. I don't need to hear their prayers when I'm walking home at 5PM.
I don't claim to be an authority on Islam, but that does not matter. (a)If you don't like hearing the call to prayer thats your problem. You can get on a soap box with a big ass speaker and blast some christian prayers or even some judas priest music back at them twice as loud if you want too. Thats your right and it should be theres as well. There is no reason to ban minarets. If its that big of a deal inact laws against noise pollution. That way no one can broadcast shit. Islamic, Christian, or otherwise. (b)Banning minarets is just religious persecution of the worst kind.
(a) Or, you can just ban it, because its annoying and you don't want hear prayers to allah. Just like people have a right not to participate in religious discussions on this website. (b) Its not required by their religion, how is it persecution?
You ban it because its annoying and you don't want to hear it.......Are you for real? I don't even know how to respond to such a statement. Also how is the call to prayer not a part of there religion? I'm sure if you ask most muslims if the call to prayer is a part of there religion they will tell you it most certainly is. An you seem to think banning this is ok because you find it annoying. I'm flabbergasted. If I said I find church bells annoying would you support banning the ringing and building of them as well?
Lets be pragmatic here. Yes, this is part of their religious tradition, I said it wasn't required by their religion. Generally, most people should be ok with what other people do as long as it doesn't affect them. If it disturbing the public peace, then that is a different story.
This is one tradition (the immigants tradition of public calling to prayer) vs another tradition (the Swiss' peaceful town that their parents grew up in). I think the tradition that is in place and has been for a while has a right to remain intact.
No one is stopping anyone else from practicing their religion. Maybe those Muslims should buy some Swiss watches if they don't know when its time for prayer.
On November 30 2009 10:14 InToTheWannaB wrote: I'm shocked so many people in this thread seem to believe this is ok. How can anyone be ok with a law the clearly persecutes a religious group? I understand not be a fan of a religion, but no one gets to decide whats right for other people. You can't make it hard for them to practice there beliefs because you dislike them. I thought all western nations had adopted religious freedom long ago.
Have you lived in Africa, or the Middle East? Would you like to hear Islamic broadcasts 5 times a day, broadcast through loud speakers? Are you speaking out of ignorance, or do you know something of the reality of minarets? They want to practice their religion, they can practice it privately. I don't need to hear their prayers when I'm walking home at 5PM.
I don't claim to be an authority on Islam, but that does not matter. (a)If you don't like hearing the call to prayer thats your problem. You can get on a soap box with a big ass speaker and blast some christian prayers or even some judas priest music back at them twice as loud if you want too. Thats your right and it should be theres as well. There is no reason to ban minarets. If its that big of a deal inact laws against noise pollution. That way no one can broadcast shit. Islamic, Christian, or otherwise. (b)Banning minarets is just religious persecution of the worst kind.
(a) Or, you can just ban it, because its annoying and you don't want hear prayers to allah. Just like people have a right not to participate in religious discussions on this website. (b) Its not required by their religion, how is it persecution?
You ban it because its annoying and you don't want to hear it.......Are you for real? I don't even know how to respond to such a statement. Also how is the call to prayer not a part of there religion? I'm sure if you ask most muslims if the call to prayer is a part of there religion they will tell you it most certainly is. An you seem to think banning this is ok because you find it annoying. I'm flabbergasted. If I said I find church bells annoying would you support banning the ringing and building of them as well?
(b) Its not required by their religion, how is it persecution?
ugh the political correctness of some of you liberals
"The Qur'an doesn't promote violence"
You get shown like half a million quotes and instead of just admitting you're wrong, try to counter-argue that the bible is the same ...
Well guess what? You're right .... That's the point all along, all religions are a fraud. I think Islam is particularily barbaric though, but I'd probably ban all religions if it was my call anyways.
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 without their approval is okay because "we hold ourselves to our own standards"? So if someone punches you and you disapprove of violence, you won't fight back because you hold "yourself up to your own standards"? Would you really take a beatdown in exchange for you being able to hold up your own principles?
On November 30 2009 10:14 InToTheWannaB wrote: I'm shocked so many people in this thread seem to believe this is ok. How can anyone be ok with a law the clearly persecutes a religious group? I understand not be a fan of a religion, but no one gets to decide whats right for other people. You can't make it hard for them to practice there beliefs because you dislike them. I thought all western nations had adopted religious freedom long ago.
Have you lived in Africa, or the Middle East? Would you like to hear Islamic broadcasts 5 times a day, broadcast through loud speakers? Are you speaking out of ignorance, or do you know something of the reality of minarets? They want to practice their religion, they can practice it privately. I don't need to hear their prayers when I'm walking home at 5PM.
I don't claim to be an authority on Islam, but that does not matter. (a)If you don't like hearing the call to prayer thats your problem. You can get on a soap box with a big ass speaker and blast some christian prayers or even some judas priest music back at them twice as loud if you want too. Thats your right and it should be theres as well. There is no reason to ban minarets. If its that big of a deal inact laws against noise pollution. That way no one can broadcast shit. Islamic, Christian, or otherwise. (b)Banning minarets is just religious persecution of the worst kind.
(a) Or, you can just ban it, because its annoying and you don't want hear prayers to allah. Just like people have a right not to participate in religious discussions on this website. (b) Its not required by their religion, how is it persecution?
You ban it because its annoying and you don't want to hear it.......Are you for real? I don't even know how to respond to such a statement. Also how is the call to prayer not a part of there religion? I'm sure if you ask most muslims if the call to prayer is a part of there religion they will tell you it most certainly is. An you seem to think banning this is ok because you find it annoying. I'm flabbergasted. If I said I find church bells annoying would you support banning the ringing and building of them as well?
They are guests, they should abide by the desires and wishes of their host. And I've already put up an example of Muslims banning the building of church bells. It's not just about annoyance, it's about them asserting their own religious views in a foreign country. They can do whatever they want in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or whatever, but just because Switzerland is an enlightened nation, doesn't mean that they should allow people to do whatever they want. Also, just because you believe in freedom of religion doesn't mean you should impose your beliefs on others either. The Koran sure doesn't allow any room for any such thing.
So if you moved to Switzerland you would stop being an American? You would adopt all there culture and just push your own to the side because thats where you are living at the time? I don't see why you would have too. You practicing American culture/values does not make a Swiss person American, or any less Swiss. You would not be forcing your beliefs on anyone. You would just be yourself. I'm from NY and I am surrounded every day by people of different cultures. At the end of the day I'm still me and they are still them no matter how many puerto rican day parades i've seen, or hours I've spend in china town.
You can't call yourself a enlightened western nation and point your finger and say "They are more intolerant so the slight intolerance we have is ok." No matter how you dress it up you are saying your ok with intolerance however slight it maybe.
On November 30 2009 07:52 Foucault wrote: I don't really see a reason to spread religion in the world to be honest. Islam to me is oppression and women being held down by ridiculous religious beliefs. Of course there are nice things to arabic culture, but Islam is not it
Stopping religion through draconian measures, banning religious symbols and censoring religious thought and the like, might succeed in stopping religion, but does so only through inviting oppression. I don't see that as a step forward, nor do I think that banning religion should be the goal.
There's a big difference between educating someone about the flaws carried by a religious thought and oppressing a religious thought. The end does not justify the means.
On November 30 2009 12:27 reit wrote: ugh the political correctness of some of you liberals
"The Qur'an doesn't promote violence"
You get shown like half a million quotes and instead of just admitting you're wrong, try to counter-argue that the bible is the same ...
Well guess what? You're right .... That's the point all along, all religions are a fraud. I think Islam is particularily barbaric though, but I'd probably ban all religions if it was my call anyways.
On November 30 2009 12:27 reit wrote: ugh the political correctness of some of you liberals
"The Qur'an doesn't promote violence"
You get shown like half a million quotes and instead of just admitting you're wrong, try to counter-argue that the bible is the same ...
Well guess what? You're right .... That's the point all along, all religions are a fraud. I think Islam is particularily barbaric though, but I'd probably ban all religions if it was my call anyways.
You're being unfair, I call myself a liberal but I know that the Koran promotes violence and that political correctness is a bit ridiculous.
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 without their approval is okay because "we hold ourselves to our own standards"? So if someone punches you and you disapprove of violence, you won't fight back because you hold "yourself up to your own standards"? Would you really take a beatdown in exchange for you being able to hold up your own principles?
On November 30 2009 11:56 InToTheWannaB wrote:
On November 30 2009 11:41 fight_or_flight wrote:
On November 30 2009 11:31 InToTheWannaB wrote:
On November 30 2009 11:03 Gnosis wrote:
On November 30 2009 10:14 InToTheWannaB wrote: I'm shocked so many people in this thread seem to believe this is ok. How can anyone be ok with a law the clearly persecutes a religious group? I understand not be a fan of a religion, but no one gets to decide whats right for other people. You can't make it hard for them to practice there beliefs because you dislike them. I thought all western nations had adopted religious freedom long ago.
Have you lived in Africa, or the Middle East? Would you like to hear Islamic broadcasts 5 times a day, broadcast through loud speakers? Are you speaking out of ignorance, or do you know something of the reality of minarets? They want to practice their religion, they can practice it privately. I don't need to hear their prayers when I'm walking home at 5PM.
I don't claim to be an authority on Islam, but that does not matter. (a)If you don't like hearing the call to prayer thats your problem. You can get on a soap box with a big ass speaker and blast some christian prayers or even some judas priest music back at them twice as loud if you want too. Thats your right and it should be theres as well. There is no reason to ban minarets. If its that big of a deal inact laws against noise pollution. That way no one can broadcast shit. Islamic, Christian, or otherwise. (b)Banning minarets is just religious persecution of the worst kind.
(a) Or, you can just ban it, because its annoying and you don't want hear prayers to allah. Just like people have a right not to participate in religious discussions on this website. (b) Its not required by their religion, how is it persecution?
You ban it because its annoying and you don't want to hear it.......Are you for real? I don't even know how to respond to such a statement. Also how is the call to prayer not a part of there religion? I'm sure if you ask most muslims if the call to prayer is a part of there religion they will tell you it most certainly is. An you seem to think banning this is ok because you find it annoying. I'm flabbergasted. If I said I find church bells annoying would you support banning the ringing and building of them as well?
They are guests, they should abide by the desires and wishes of their host. And I've already put up an example of Muslims banning the building of church bells. It's not just about annoyance, it's about them asserting their own religious views in a foreign country. They can do whatever they want in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or whatever, but just because Switzerland is an enlightened nation, doesn't mean that they should allow people to do whatever they want. Also, just because you believe in freedom of religion doesn't mean you should impose your beliefs on others either. The Koran sure doesn't allow any room for any such thing.
So if you moved to Switzerland you would stop being an American? You would adopt all there culture and just push your own to the side because thats where you are living at the time? I don't see why you would have too. You practicing American culture/values does not make a Swiss person American, or any less Swiss. You would not be forcing your beliefs on anyone. You would just be yourself. I'm from NY and I am surrounded every day by people of different cultures. At the end of the day I'm still me and they are still them no matter how many puerto rican day parades i've seen, or hours I've spend in china town.
You can't call yourself a enlightened western nation and point your finger and say "They are more intolerant so the slight intolerance we have is ok." No matter how you dress it up you are saying your ok with intolerance however slight it maybe.
It's not intolerance, what don't you understand? The Swiss are allowing them to practice Islam within Switzerland's borders, I'm sure that whatever country they are from doesn't allow Christians to practice openly, forget arguments about erecting church bells. Enlightened is an obnoxious and smug term anyway, there's no real justification for believing that our western way of life is superior to theirs, although I do admit that I tend to think so, since I'm a product of American culture as well.
And yes, if I moved to Switzerland I would stop being an American and I would learn their language, culture and whatever else and try my best to assimilate, despite my different skin tone and whatever other differences separate me from the natives. Why would I move there if I had no intention of assimilating? If I insisted on building a McDonald's so that everyone can eat hamburgers instead of wurstsalat, then yes, I would expect people to oppose me and stop the building of the McDonald's. I'm from New York too, what's your point? Do you live in Chinatown? No. Do you install minarets in Harlem and call all your fellow Muslims to prayer in the middle of someone else's neighborhood? No. There's a difference between living quietly and imposing your beliefs on others.
My parents are Korean, they moved to America. My mother converted to Christianity and they both learned English at community college. They work jobs, pay taxes, gained citizenship, watch American television, don't cause trouble and that's what I expect from others as well. I don't see the problem with assimilating. My parents enjoy the benefits of living in America, and in turn, they accept the culture around them without building Buddhist bells around them to call their fellow Buddhists to prayer, nor do they build statues of Buddha around the place.
Muslims can't say death to the West and then come to Europe and expect to be welcomed with open arms, especially when they believe that the people they come to live with are heathens to be converted. In any case, America is a special case anyway, it was built on immigration and everyone is an immigrant from within the last 500 years, unless you have some Cherokee blood in you or something. America is unique and you can't really expect to project your ideals onto other countries and expect them to stick.
They banned minarets, not enacted noise regulations applicable to everyone. That, literally, is intolerance of a specific religious custom.
If you wanted to build statues of the buddha you're perfectly allowed to. That would be tolerance. Forced assimilation IS intolerance by definition.
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?
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.
c'mon now people it's a free world and people should be able to follow their own religions freely.so what if a muslim building has a minarat or a church has a huge church bell?it just proves you that it's a mosque or a church.it's by no means a sign of islamisation.if billions of christians are allowed to follow their religions freely then why aren't billions of muslims allowed to follow their religion freely.this is total discrimination.
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.
On November 30 2009 10:58 cUrsOr wrote: Wow. I'll just make a simple post that says this sucks. Telling people what to wear, and I was under the impression that they had a very liberal government. Very sad day. Suppose next they will be banning books or something? I'm sure there are many other signs of Islamisation there as well.
What? Who are these crazy giant muslims wearing minarets?
In the end, this whole referendum wasn't really about those minarets at all, it was more about the fears regarding Islam and integration at all:
No shit.
That's why the topic is 17 pages long; no one expected you guys to vote a constitutional amendment to prohibit minarets, especially into the same legal document that has your bill of rights.
Looking at the history, this has been going on for 3 years.
But well... After this has formed into a law there is probably not much left of the minaret ban... I mean this has to be balanced with the constitution, the human rights and other *higher* laws. It's actually quite common that such votes get watered down like crazy until they made it and barely do anything anymore.
In the end it probably won't be much different from now on.
But still... ugh... to live with nearly 2/3 of your population voting yes to something like this... ugh. I thought only 1/3 of the swiss were retards, I was wrong .
In the end, this whole referendum wasn't really about those minarets at all, it was more about the fears regarding Islam and integration at all:
No shit.
That's why the topic is 17 pages long; no one expected you guys to vote a constitutional amendment to prohibit minarets, especially into the same legal document that has your bill of rights.
Looking at the history, this has been going on for 3 years.
well, the thing with the document is a well known problem. Every "initiative" leads to a constitutional amendment there isn't a thing like a "law-only"-initiative of some sorts... this is why you can also find some "bagatelle issues" in our constitution.
@putting this shit into the constitution. Switzerland has cancelled the right of ppl to make a direct law very recently. It has been cancelled because it was not possible to have the ppl write the law, because lawyers always find way to fuck that up thats why it is handled with the constitution to let lawyers formulate the actual laws so they will be written better than from some random idiot.
@banning church bells Many asked why switzerland isn't banning church bells. Well, guess what, they are banned to some degree. This is handled by the local community (like building minarets should be handled). But there is also a major difference between churchbells and muezzin prayer calls. A churchbell tells you an accurate international time, the muezzin is only for muslims.
Another plus towards churchtowers is, they almost always have a clock on them telling me the time, a minaret has nothing. I don't have a watch (had one for a total of 2 years or so) and I heavyly rely on public clocks like on trainstations, watches shops or as said churchtower watches.
On November 30 2009 17:31 KrAzYfoOL wrote: I learned something in this thread, ghostWriter is an absolute moron.
i won't say that. btw @ ghostWriter : i can clearly understand from your posts that you ABSOLUTELY hate Muslims.But in future if you want to post a comment badmouthing Muslims then i strongly suggest you kindly read the Holy Qur'an before posting any further comments about Muslims.
On November 30 2009 17:55 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote: @Velr you live with 20% Yes voters, not 2/3.
I just declare the non voters as silent supporters.
Hell, i actually went to the Urn after 2 hours of sleep with a hangover that would make David Hasselhoff proud. For nothing, that actually pisses me off even more :p
On November 30 2009 17:55 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote: @Velr you live with 20% Yes voters, not 2/3.
I just declare the non voters as silent supporters.
thats a major fault so many ppl make. They are rather silent opposer than supporter.
I don't vote because I think it's definitly not my job to say whether some muslim can build a minaret in geneva, I live like 300km from there, wtf do I care?
and it's not just the ppl who are not taking their right to vote you missed, but also all the <18y and foreigners. 1.5 mio votes yes, 1.2 or so voted no still a shitload missing up to 7.7mio population in switzerland.
I wish I lived in a country where something like this could go to national referendum. Forget about terrorism, illegal immigration, gay rights, the economic crisis, etc. They're building freaking minarets out there and we have to put an end to it!
On November 30 2009 17:55 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote: @Velr you live with 20% Yes voters, not 2/3.
I just declare the non voters as silent supporters.
thats a major fault so many ppl make. They are rather silent opposer than supporter.
I don't vote because I think it's definitly not my job to say whether some muslim can build a minaret in geneva, I live like 300km from there, wtf do I care?
A silent opposer is no opposer because he isn't opposing anything but just swallowing everything, no matter if he likes it or not.
Chances are high that non voters are mostly just lazy.
On November 30 2009 17:31 KrAzYfoOL wrote: I learned something in this thread, ghostWriter is an absolute moron.
i won't say that. btw @ ghostWriter : i can clearly understand from your posts that you ABSOLUTELY hate Muslims.But in future if you want to post a comment badmouthing Muslims then i strongly suggest you kindly read the Holy Qur'an before posting any further comments about Muslims.
Why? Because he'd be too scared to raise his voice again after reading it?
On November 30 2009 17:55 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote: @Velr you live with 20% Yes voters, not 2/3.
I just declare the non voters as silent supporters.
thats a major fault so many ppl make. They are rather silent opposer than supporter.
I don't vote because I think it's definitly not my job to say whether some muslim can build a minaret in geneva, I live like 300km from there, wtf do I care?
A silent opposer is no opposer because he isn't opposing anything but just swallowing everything, no matter if he likes it or not.
Chances are high that non voters are mostly just lazy.
not really. They are not exactly "silent", as we notice the number (~46% in this case). In middle school (gymnasium) we did a similar thing. The teacher always wanted to play the same gay game we hated, so we just stopped taking part in the gymclasses. We sat on the floor and waited until the class was over. Not taking part in something is actually a form of protest, and looking it as silent support like so many politicians do is horrible.
I am not swallowing everything that was said but do the opposite, I just do it anyway (like smoking weed).
On November 30 2009 17:31 KrAzYfoOL wrote: I learned something in this thread, ghostWriter is an absolute moron.
i won't say that. btw @ ghostWriter : i can clearly understand from your posts that you ABSOLUTELY hate Muslims.But in future if you want to post a comment badmouthing Muslims then i strongly suggest you kindly read the Holy Qur'an before posting any further comments about Muslims.
Why? Because he'd be too scared to raise his voice again after reading it?
It's so he can learn a bit more about Islam so he has a higher possibility of making a better-informed post. What, did you think the Koran/Qur'an is full of fanatical suicide bombing quotes and about going to paradise and killing infidels?
YOU should read the Koran, for the same reason as Ghostwriter.
dont any of you guys have friends from sweden? apparently over there islamic people are fucking crazy and are trying to take over the place and shit. refusing to assimilate into the country they're in etc. i dont blame the swiss for banning minarets or w/e islamic structures, they're genuinely scared of islamic people. i dont blame them at all and it doesn't surprise me one bit. same sort of shit is happening in britain and other european countries as well
edit: read the OP post as swedes, instead of swiss. but it's a very similar situation in sweden and other euro countries as well so it's still relevant
On November 30 2009 17:55 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote: @Velr you live with 20% Yes voters, not 2/3.
I just declare the non voters as silent supporters.
thats a major fault so many ppl make. They are rather silent opposer than supporter.
I don't vote because I think it's definitly not my job to say whether some muslim can build a minaret in geneva, I live like 300km from there, wtf do I care?
A silent opposer is no opposer because he isn't opposing anything but just swallowing everything, no matter if he likes it or not.
Chances are high that non voters are mostly just lazy.
not really. They are not exactly "silent", as we notice the number (~46% in this case). In middle school (gymnasium) we did a similar thing. The teacher always wanted to play the same gay game we hated, so we just stopped taking part in the gymclasses. We sat on the floor and waited until the class was over. Not taking part in something is actually a form of protest, and looking it as silent support like so many politicians do is horrible.
I am not swallowing everything that was said but do the opposite, I just do it anyway (like smoking weed).
Really bad comparison.
With your *silent* resolve against the Teachers game you actually stopped taking part in his class and it wasn't possible to really play the game anymore, at least not according to his duty to do something with the whole class.
If you don't go to vote, exactly nothing happens because not voting ist he same as having no opinion, therefore all that happens is that others decide for you.
On November 30 2009 17:55 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote: @Velr you live with 20% Yes voters, not 2/3.
I just declare the non voters as silent supporters.
thats a major fault so many ppl make. They are rather silent opposer than supporter.
I don't vote because I think it's definitly not my job to say whether some muslim can build a minaret in geneva, I live like 300km from there, wtf do I care?
A silent opposer is no opposer because he isn't opposing anything but just swallowing everything, no matter if he likes it or not.
Chances are high that non voters are mostly just lazy.
not really. They are not exactly "silent", as we notice the number (~46% in this case). In middle school (gymnasium) we did a similar thing. The teacher always wanted to play the same gay game we hated, so we just stopped taking part in the gymclasses. We sat on the floor and waited until the class was over. Not taking part in something is actually a form of protest, and looking it as silent support like so many politicians do is horrible.
I am not swallowing everything that was said but do the opposite, I just do it anyway (like smoking weed).
Really bad comparison.
With your *silent* resolve against the Teachers game you actually stopped taking part in his class and it wasn't possible to really play the game anymore, at least not according to his duty to do something with the whole class.
If you don't go to vote, exactly nothing happens because not voting ist he same as having no opinion, therefore all that happens is that others decide for you.
hmm, actually it's not a bad comparison at all. The game was possible to play with half the class (50% voters). Yes it's not possible if his duty is to do it with the whole class, but isn't a governments duty the exact same thing? Isn't it the governments job to find a solution working with all the ppl and not only those taking part in the system?
When we first started to not take part in the teachers gay game (chuck ball) we were 3 ppl. He gave a fuck and told us we are assholes. But more and more ppl started to join us, after 3 weeks (3 classes) it were like 2 dudes remaining who "wanted" to play the game. Thats when he had to do something because the game couldn't be played anymore. But imho thats way to late because we missed 3 classes of gym. So those ppl not taking part in such a ridiculous voting shouldnt be deducted to lazy ass idiots who rather have other idiots decide over them, but be taken serious as a "silent" protest against such ridiculous votings.
Let's face it, how many non populistic initiatives have survived a voting? NONE! Only shit like this minaret stuff and the sexual criminalist which should remain in prison their whole life bullshit get through the voting because its populistic bullshit. I don't take part in such a farce and I'm not just to lazy to go to vote, even if I would be, my dad would do all the stuff I would just need to sign it.
I tried to read through this but got fed up about half way through. It is truly depressing seeing some of the incredibly short sighted and self contradictory things people are responding with.
1. Yes, this policy is democratic as, by definition, a democratic VOTE was done. However, the problem isn't that the Swiss are somehow opposing democracy; rather they are democratically choosing to prevent people from using certain forms of expression that are tied to a controversial religion. As one of the few rational posts said, even if all muslims were terrorists, that would not make it reasonable to ban the use of anything connected to Islam. I could give plenty of examples of why that idea is ridiculous, but seriously, it so clearly is.
2. Democratic societies are founded on the idea that every one of a variety of voices should be heard. The idea that immigrants need to assimilate into local culture by suppressing their native religions, languages, or any other part of their culture is idiotic. Countries do not need to be homogeneous to function, they just need to be consistent enough to avoid civil war, which is best done by allowing people to express their cultures where such expression doesn't hurt others. I don't see how anyone could argue that minarets hurt people.
3. If you oppose Islam or muslim countries due to their oppressive policies or lack of individual freedoms, how can you possibly feel that taking away rights to architectural expression is an acceptable way of showing your disapproval?
This thread is full of it. There are so many arguments that are presented that doesn't have anything to do with the arguments they respond to, but are just random ways for the poster to express his/her negativity towards [insert random other poster]/islam/pie. Nothing is more frustrating than saying "I feel that it is wrong to do A because of B", and then the next four pages of posts are "Lol, ur stupid! U can do A because C, D, E, F".
Thanks JWD, for being a pillar of reason is this madness of a thread.
On November 30 2009 19:14 phyren wrote: I tried to read through this but got fed up about half way through. It is truly depressing seeing some of the incredibly short sighted and self contradictory things people are responding with.
1. Yes, this policy is democratic as, by definition, a democratic VOTE was done. However, the problem isn't that the Swiss are somehow opposing democracy; rather they are democratically choosing to prevent people from using certain forms of expression that are tied to a controversial religion. As one of the few rational posts said, even if all muslims were terrorists, that would not make it reasonable to ban the use of anything connected to Islam. I could give plenty of examples of why that idea is ridiculous, but seriously, it so clearly is.
2. Democratic societies are founded on the idea that every one of a variety of voices should be heard. The idea that immigrants need to assimilate into local culture by suppressing their native religions, languages, or any other part of their culture is idiotic. Countries do not need to be homogeneous to function, they just need to be consistent enough to avoid civil war, which is best done by allowing people to express their cultures where such expression doesn't hurt others. I don't see how anyone could argue that minarets hurt people.
3. If you oppose Islam or muslim countries due to their oppressive policies or lack of individual freedoms, how can you possibly feel that taking away rights to architectural expression is an acceptable way of showing your disapproval?
Hey, what about the rastas? Can they smoke weed, which is a part of their religion? No they can't! Do nazis in switzerland have the right to express their race hatred? No they have not. There are so many examples like this, and it's ridiculous looking from both sides. Muslims should give a fuck if they can build a minaret, and swiss ppl should give a fuck if some minarets are built.
"Of 150 mosques or prayer rooms in Switzerland, only 4 have minarets, and only 2 more minarets are planned. None conduct the call to prayer."
Oh then the ban is retarded.
I hate islam (and all religion) its nasty, violent and a step back in social evolution, but so is banning this kind of thing especially if its not an all-around religious ban, im against it.
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.
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".
I can't even imagine what it must be like. In the US, we generally only have a problem with hispanic guys from down south. Its true, there are a lot of them, and there are a number of social issues because of it.
But instead of one boarder, you guys have dozens of boarders. Instead of a "conservative" government, you guys have "liberal" governments. Instead of a couple hundred million Mexicans you guys have a billion Muslims. Instead of nationalism, you guys have religion to deal with. Instead of being the "number one" economy, you guys have to work together and compete with each other.
yeah, it's really stupid to use such scapegoats all the time, but thats the populistic style a democracy inevitably is heading to (aka a major flaw of democracys). Initiatives/referendums are abused as a populistic tool to demonstrate power and presence.
On November 30 2009 18:59 lazz wrote: dont any of you guys have friends from sweden? apparently over there islamic people are fucking crazy and are trying to take over the place and shit. refusing to assimilate into the country they're in etc. i dont blame the swiss for banning minarets or w/e islamic structures, they're genuinely scared of islamic people. i dont blame them at all and it doesn't surprise me one bit. same sort of shit is happening in britain and other european countries as well
edit: read the OP post as swedes, instead of swiss. but it's a very similar situation in sweden and other euro countries as well so it's still relevant
This. The increased number of Islamic immigrants into the rest of Europe wouldn't be so bad if half of them weren't batshit insane, trying to rebel for ABOVE equal rights in a country that welcomed them with opened arms. They refuse to change and I see no reason to argue against the Swiss banning people who are at best illogical and violent.
(Although i'm not saying that all Islamers are like that)
P.S. it's not just cheap labor force. You just blind out the asylum situation. Read this white paper about muslims in Switzerland then you will know how the muslim part grew. http://www.ekm.admin.ch/de/dokumentation/doku/mat_muslime_d.pdfLast edit: 2009-11-30 19:49:58
Nah, the Asylum situation is completly diffrent, you can send them home as soon as it's *safe*. Not helping people that need Asylum would be a horrible crime, but there is no reason to not send them home if their pledge wasn't reasonable..
On November 30 2009 19:29 iG.ClouD wrote: I hope this actually will be the first step towards the elimination of muslims in europe. They are garbage and we don't want them.
They don't respect human rights and didn't evolve at all in the past 100 years like other religions did. There is no reason to come to good terms to them, we tried it and it's not working. Good job Switzerland on taking the first drastic step. Maybe discrimination will change things since comprehension and integration failed.
The situation is out of control in Norway as well. In 100% of all the reported assault rapes in Oslo last year, the rapist had islamic background. There is an extremely high unemployment rate amongst them, and many do not seem to make an effort to learn the language and integrate. It is really scary that our liberal western pillars are being tore down by the islamic invation. The politicians seem to naive to realize what is going on.
Difficult trade off between freedom of expression and democracy if you ask me.
On the one hand, the majority of the swiss people don't want minarets to be build(some might not want it because they dislike the islamic religion, some might dislike it because it's ugly and even others might vote no just coz). And on the other hand, the thing that the majority of the people want is limiting other peoples freedom.
And i don't think you can say that limiting freedom is in all cases bad, seeing as sometimes, for a society to function and maintain a stable environment you have to play to the people. And yes, they can't build minarets, but seriously, why do they _need_ to? Aside from them just wanting their minaret there, it isn't performing the tasks it was originally intended for.
In short, yes, their freedom is limited, but not in such a way that the freedom to excercise their religion is limited. So meh, can't really say that the swiss are being nazi's.
most people here who post the PC shit here doesn't understand the situation
Islam isn't a tolerant thing at all. It is highly aggressive in spreading, they don't assimilate to the local customs.
Look at Netherlands, in Rotterdam (I think, am I right?) for example they apply saria to courts and theaters, they have people get seated by their gender. Muslim lawyers don't stand up when judges come in, because Quran says every man is equal.
Also, a lot of you, mainly posters from USA think that banning something like that can't be in a liberal country, but of course it can, liberalism supports different views till those don't mean threat to others, also it doesn't mean that people has no right to protest against stuff they think is being harmful. You can't be tolerant to ideas which aren't tolerant to others.
I think many W-European countries have this problem right now.
I don't think we need to respect a religion where a large majority subscribe to the tenets of misogyny and xenophobia. Do you?
Hypocritical double standards are the modus operandi: the same clerics who denounce short skirts and uncovered hair as immoral take multiple wives, the youngest of whom was 13 (this happened in Indonesia)
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.
Way to miss the point and put words in my mouth. I wasn't talking about this particular law which is as you say pretty clearly targeted at one group which I mocked in my 2nd paragraph.
When is a minaret a minaret? I don't know the actual text of the law but I don't think it's going to work as they intended, I doubt they can word said law in a way that can pass all the human rights laws and treaties Switzerland has chosen to follow and stop the construction of minarets and only minarets. If everyone else can make/have minaret-like structures it's just not going to get past anti-discrimination laws already in place. And wow, Waxangel's post makes it pretty clear that this law has zero practical value, it's just some politicians trying to score points, especially since I don't think this law is going to prevent the construction of any minarets anyway.
However, some people in this thread were arguing that outlawing something that is part of a religion is always religious persecution which is what I responded too in my previous post from the 3rd paragraph onwards. This particular law is pretty retarded, but I don't agree with the argument that religious people should get to do (illegal) things because of their freedom of religious expression, it's not even a strawman, some posters literally said this. Religious freedom is not (should not be) a get-out-of-jail-free card.
It should be pretty clear from my post that I was not talking about this specific law but already established laws some religious people try to get around by saying their rights of religious freedom would be violated otherwise. Religious people should have the same rights as non-religious people not more or less depending on their denomination and/or what their scripture says. An example of special rules in action was a German judge denying a speedy divorce request to a muslim woman who was being abused by her husband because the Koran allows "a husband to beat his wife", religious discrimination and pretty poor judgment in general. (link) The man got a pass for beating his wife while the wife was forced to stay married to him, only because they were of a particular faith. There are also some politicians who think muslims should be able to have their own shariah courts, nevermind that a lot of these laws do violate equal treatment rights as well as other basic human rights. I only have muslim examples above but just about every religious group has members trying to get special rights for their particular group or get the government to enforce their religious laws on their own group and/or everyone else using whatever leverage they can find through the courts and politics.
It doesn't help that many European countries have laws that give (some) religious people special rights, they generally don't have an establishment clause in their constitution like the US. In the Netherlands we have a party called the SGP+ Show Spoiler +
(Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij; Reformed Political Party, reformed=calvinist)
that is allowed to refuse women from party membership because of their religious freedom. The state also subsidizes religious schools, said religious schools are also the only ones allowed to refuse homosexual teachers, at least for now. So called 'Conservative' christians in the US would love to have special rights like this. You can't really blame muslims for wanting in on them either. But no, they really want to keep their special rules.
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...
Maybe discrimination will change things since comprehension and integration failed.
has this ever worked in history to make positive change?
I'm sorry to offend you but you are stupid to say that and you have no idea about what's going on. They really deserve to be discriminated since muslim immigrants don't even grasp nor appreciate the concept that freedom should be a right for everyone. It should be obvious in 21th century, and everyone should really fight for it to be. European politicians can do nothing about them because stupid people like you like to scream at racism even if the same people they are trying to defend are destroying their country.
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?
Referendums are democratic. Maybe there is a case to be made that direct democracy is inferior to a republic. But republics are still, fundamentally, democratic.
So I can see how you can be morally opposed to the ban but I don't see how you can be *politically* opposed to it unless you advocate some form of politics that is undemocratic. And as we all know, undemocratic politics is evil politics.
Some of the posters in this thread scare the crap out of me.
In 1955 Martin Niemoller wrote: First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist; Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist; Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew; Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.
This.
On November 30 2009 08:05 Slow Motion wrote: As an atheist, I wouldn't mind if everyone chose to be not religious. However, in this case the majority chose to ban the expression of religion in architecture for a minority. Religion is an idea, and we shouldn't ban ideas or the free expression of ideas
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?
The problem with Islam in the West is how many people take the Qu'ran and Islamic code so seriously. It's weird. When I went to Turkey (west coast), I was surprised by how relaxed they were with religion. After Attaturk, their national hero, trimmed the power of Islam in the 30's, he moved this 99% Muslim country in a positive step towards rationality.
I'm against this vote by the Swiss. But I don't want to be identified with the hurt feelings brigade. I know PC warriors like Kwark would be against something like banning the wearing of burkas at work; even though that's one of the key things the Turkish national hero did, and he is widely respected and adored for it in Turkey. (Even though atm the work he did is being reversed by the conservative Turkish party). So I wouldn't side myself with these people who are fervently defending something which is, basically, taking orders from your imaginary friend.
I get the feeling that there is a sizeable number of Muslims in the West who are trying to search for an identity and membership to a group. They are turning to the stricter version of Islam which is far less conformist than the relaxed, West Turkish version.
Where there are many situations when it's extremely important to reign in any tribalistic, reactionary objections, such as those regularly raised in our papers (the Sun, Daily Express, Daily Mail); there are situations when government needs to stand up against religion. This is not one of them, but our countries should be extraditing extremist preachers, and coming down very hard on people who abuse their wives in the name of the Qu'ran etc.
Because, let's face it, have you ever actually listened to Qu'ranic scholars debate the book? In my humble opinion, it's a complete fucking joke. It's like a bunch of nerds arguing about the rules of Magic: The Gathering. Except the ramifications of what they say mean that a million muslim men might go home and beat up their wife. Don't get me wrong, I think the same thing about Christianity. Bombing abortion clinics is fucking retarded. The Westborough Baptist Church is completely fucking retarded. Religion is a dangerous, stone-age relic that should be personalised as much as possible, and exiled from the stage of public discourse.
Religion SHOULD be sidelined, as much as possible, and all actual power taken away from it in all positions, and any government money should be withheld from religion; BUT arbitrary things like banning minarets will do far more bad than good. It will incite tribal conflict, and I don't mean guns but I mean an 'us and them' mentality. We should make rational objections, based on clear violations of human rights. The right to not see a big tower or hear the call to prayer is pretty minor.
We should look to Attaturk and the Turks for an example of how to make a secular state and deal with religion properly, not random right-wing parties that are just hitting back on a quid pro quo, reactionist mentality.
We should look to Attaturk and the Turks for an example of how to make a secular state and deal with religion properly, not random right-wing parties that are just hitting back on a quid pro quo, reactionist mentality.
You might want to take a look at the christians and their problems/discrimination in turkye before you talk up its management of religion...
Dude the difference from the turkish situation is that they are immigrants. Immigrants don't represent a country or a culture, an huge mass of immigrants often represents the worst of it. You have to deal with troubles the right way, and the only way to convince a kid who refuses to listen to what you say is to put him in a forceful situation. For the ones who can adapt they should live in europe happily, for the ones who don't and keep that retarded religious anti social attitude we should really make them understand they are out of place. I don't see any better solution, but please to the guys screaming at racism and bringing up nazism (rofl) tell us how you would solve the problem.
On November 30 2009 10:14 InToTheWannaB wrote: I'm shocked so many people in this thread seem to believe this is ok. How can anyone be ok with a law the clearly persecutes a religious group? I understand not be a fan of a religion, but no one gets to decide whats right for other people. You can't make it hard for them to practice there beliefs because you dislike them. I thought all western nations had adopted religious freedom long ago.
Have you lived in Africa, or the Middle East? Would you like to hear Islamic broadcasts 5 times a day, broadcast through loud speakers? Are you speaking out of ignorance, or do you know something of the reality of minarets? They want to practice their religion, they can practice it privately. I don't need to hear their prayers when I'm walking home at 5PM.
Then why the fuck I have to listen the church's campanas few times a day, isn't that the same thing?
And the ppl here are being really ignorant. Some of them don't want mulims in their country coz originally it was a christian country. That's actually the result of globalization which was started by your ancestors, so you should blame them.
Then i hear people talking how islam is full of violence and then i find this:
"And if any of the unbelievers seeks your protection, then you may protect him so that he may hear the words of God, then let him off to reach his sanctuary. This (kindness) should be done because they are a people who do not know (the beauty of Islam)." [Quran 9:6]
"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors." [Quran 2:190]
"God does not forbid you from showing kindness and dealing justly with those who have not fought you about religion and have not driven you out of your homes. God loves just dealers. [Quran 60:8]
"But if the enemy incline towards peace, thou shall also incline towards peace, and trust in God: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all there is)." [ Quran 8:61]
I shall explain one thing regarding the verses of Quran. You should consider them in their context. Guess why in some parts of Quran there is a call to war? Coz in the early days muslims were persecuted just for being part of islam, and it was call to arms against those who persecuted them. Not to mention that it is forbidden in Islam to shed blood. It is permissible only when others first attack Islam. So it's only a defensive measure. And even during the war it is forbidden to kill women (and rape and anything else), to kill children, to kill old ppl, to destroy the nature or other people's sanctuaries and buildings. So Islam is in fact a peaceful religion, it's just that the Western media doesn't represent it like that. And yes suicide bombers also ruin the image (did i mention that suicide is forbidden in Islam?). DragoonPK actually said the truth and i don't wonder about that because he lives in Bahrain it seems.
This issue isn't easy and if you want to talk about it you must have some arguments first and not behave like a caveman, which KwarK is doing consistently. You can't say i heard this and that because it is obvious that if you are living in a western country that the media will show you how primitive muslims are and how civilised the west is. You have to listen to both sides and I actually do that. Go watch some Al Jazeera and then watch some BBC you'll see the difference.
And about the muslims not assimilating into other cultures I have to say that yes it's theirs fault. The biggest muslim religious leaders also say that they should assimilate, but also never forget who they are. So if you think that assimilating into another culture is getting drunk and singing together or forgetting about your religion and becoming atheist, a muslim who actually cares about his religion will never do it.
Minarets, mosques, hijaab, beards is all part of their culture and religion and you can't really expect them to disband. Although the majority of western ppl declares themselves as Catholics they do it just because their mother or father was Catholic. Nowadays its harder and harder to find them because they are Catholics on paper but atheists by what they do.
I might have mispelled Catholics and Christianity. I meant Catholics in all of the cases
On November 30 2009 10:53 JWD wrote: How are minarets "annoying"?
They are "annoying" because they are patriarchal symbolic representations of age old values which don't rhyme well with the ideas of the western society of today. Burkas should be banned in countries who don't want to comply with the idea that women aren't allowed to show their face or their skin.
On November 30 2009 11:05 TS-Rupbar wrote: I want to clarify that I'm all against banning religious stuff when it doesn't matter. Muslims can wear burkhas anywhere, it doesn't bother me. However, I wouldn't like minarets in some places where I wouldn't mind mosques.
If there would be some sort of compromise (someone wrote they don't need to have the shouting function), I'm all for adding minarets!
These ideas is what is wrong with Sweden. People are politically correct in such a naive way that every sensitive topic gets infected and can't be discussed anymore. If you say anything about Islam you are labeled an "islamophobe", if you say anything about immigration laws you are labeled a "racist".
This country sometimes...Why on earth would we want more minarets. We have enough problems as it is with suburbs, Rosengård etc. While your way of thinking is "politically correct" and earns you goodwill points, they aren't realistic and you just end up comforming to popular opinion.
Swedes are also quite scared of conflict and confrontation which results in our heritage being kicked out because it could be "racist" to immigrants coming to Sweden. Seriously? We used to sing the national song in school and have swedish flags, that's all gone now because someone thinks it's a racist thing. Even writing this would make people instantly label me a racist in their black/white politically correct views of the world.
On November 30 2009 21:37 freelander wrote: most people here who post the PC shit here doesn't understand the situation
Islam isn't a tolerant thing at all. It is highly aggressive in spreading, they don't assimilate to the local customs.
Look at Netherlands, in Rotterdam (I think, am I right?) for example they apply saria to courts and theaters, they have people get seated by their gender. Muslim lawyers don't stand up when judges come in, because Quran says every man is equal.
Also, a lot of you, mainly posters from USA think that banning something like that can't be in a liberal country, but of course it can, liberalism supports different views till those don't mean threat to others, also it doesn't mean that people has no right to protest against stuff they think is being harmful. You can't be tolerant to ideas which aren't tolerant to others.
I think many W-European countries have this problem right now.
Well spoken and I agree. Why give leeway to muslims if they don't live by the laws of the country in where they live
On November 30 2009 11:05 TS-Rupbar wrote: I want to clarify that I'm all against banning religious stuff when it doesn't matter. Muslims can wear burkhas anywhere, it doesn't bother me. However, I wouldn't like minarets in some places where I wouldn't mind mosques.
If there would be some sort of compromise (someone wrote they don't need to have the shouting function), I'm all for adding minarets!
These ideas is what is wrong with Sweden. People are politically correct in such a naive way that every sensitive topic gets infected and can't be discussed anymore. If you say anything about Islam you are labeled an "islamophobe", if you say anything about immigration laws you are labeled a "racist".
This country sometimes...Why on earth would we want more minarets. We have enough problems as it is with suburbs, Rosengård etc. While your way of thinking is "politically correct" and earns you goodwill points, they aren't realistic and you just end up comforming to popular opinion.
Swedes are also quite scared of conflict and confrontation which results in our heritage being kicked out because it could be "racist" to immigrants coming to Sweden. Seriously? We used to sing the national song in school and have swedish flags, that's all gone now because someone thinks it's a racist thing. Even writing this would make people instantly label me a racist in their black/white politically correct views of the world.
I don't think you're a racist, but I don't think you should dismiss opposing viewpoints as merely "politically correct". You happen to value tradition and national culture. I do too. I just value free expression and freedom of religion more highly. Neither of us are right or wrong because placing value on things is inherently subjective.
I think a country's population should have the right to decide what kind of people they want to let into their country, and if the Swiss people don't want muslim inmigrants they should simply harden their inmigration policy.
But things like this are discrimination because all the people should have the same rights once they are in the country, regardless of religion.
To be honest, had i been born in a country like Switzerland i would certainly be irritated by the presence of muslims of whoever else i might consider "undesirable".
If you inmigrate to a foreing country, not just to study and work for some time but to live there, then YOU should be responsible for integrating as best as posible to this new society and not expect everyone else to adapt to you.
It might no be politically correct, but life almost never is.
How is banning minarets anti-liberal? To me minarets are a symbol for islam and islam is threatening the freedom of half of the population of the country(females?). I would rather see islam banned as a whole but that would result in instant riots so banning symbols of oppression is a good thing in my oppinion.
We should look to Attaturk and the Turks for an example of how to make a secular state and deal with religion properly, not random right-wing parties that are just hitting back on a quid pro quo, reactionist mentality.
You might want to take a look at the christians and their problems/discrimination in turkye before you talk up its management of religion...
Well seeing as there were probably zero christians in Turkey when Attaturk was alive, I don't see how the current issues affect what he was able to do. And I'm just talking about how one country has dealt with Islam and been able to reign in its power, while the agent of this change is respected as a national hero; as opposed to a vile oppressor of religion.
On November 30 2009 18:59 lazz wrote: dont any of you guys have friends from sweden? apparently over there islamic people are fucking crazy and are trying to take over the place and shit. refusing to assimilate into the country they're in etc. i dont blame the swiss for banning minarets or w/e islamic structures, they're genuinely scared of islamic people. i dont blame them at all and it doesn't surprise me one bit. same sort of shit is happening in britain and other european countries as well
edit: read the OP post as swedes, instead of swiss. but it's a very similar situation in sweden and other euro countries as well so it's still relevant
Yeah, some parts of Sweden are hugely problematic when it comes to muslims. In Swedens third biggest city Malmo, the most common male name is Mohammed. This is of course a result of Swedens very generous immigration laws. The problem is that many muslims don't want to be a part of Swedish society, live on Swedens generous welfare and do god knows what on their free time. Some of them are surely supporting Al-Quaida in some way or another. About half the people in Malmo's biggest muslim neighbourhood of Rosengard are unemployed.
Alot of violent crimes and rape are commited by largely arabs as well. A ridiculous new thing is that many newspapers don't write what countries offenders come from but state obvious stuff like that their sisters were forced to marry in another country etc, which of course in 90% of the cases make them muslim.
This is not about racism or "islamophobia" (silly word), it's about not being okay with a ridiculous religion like Islam.
Foucault - your outlook is rare among people in Sweden, which is probably the cause of many of the problems with Malmo & Rosengard, among other things.
On November 30 2009 10:53 JWD wrote: How are minarets "annoying"?
I don't know, maybe because Islam has generally been at war with European civilization (both with Christianity and especially with the secular ideas prevalent today's Europe) for pretty much its entire existence (invasion of Iberia by the Moors, the destruction of Byzantium by the Ottoman Turks and their endless subsequent expansions into the Balkans, two sieges of Vienna, the Barbary coast pirates, and so much more.)
Like the Catholic Church of the middle ages, Islam is very much a political entity as well as religious, with the two being deeply intertwined in the Islamic worldview. With all of this said, I think it's reasonable that people in many European countries are not thrilled to see the symbols of an age old enemy's political might flying high over the ancient capitals of their ancestral homelands.
On November 30 2009 18:59 lazz wrote: dont any of you guys have friends from sweden? apparently over there islamic people are fucking crazy and are trying to take over the place and shit. refusing to assimilate into the country they're in etc. i dont blame the swiss for banning minarets or w/e islamic structures, they're genuinely scared of islamic people. i dont blame them at all and it doesn't surprise me one bit. same sort of shit is happening in britain and other european countries as well
edit: read the OP post as swedes, instead of swiss. but it's a very similar situation in sweden and other euro countries as well so it's still relevant
Yeah, some parts of Sweden are hugely problematic when it comes to muslims. In Swedens third biggest city Malmo, the most common male name is Mohammed. This is of course a result of Swedens very generous immigration laws. The problem is that many muslims don't want to be a part of Swedish society, live on Swedens generous welfare and do god knows what on their free time. Some of them are surely supporting Al-Quaida in some way or another. About half the people in Malmo's biggest muslim neighbourhood of Rosengard are unemployed.
Alot of violent crimes and rape are commited by largely arabs as well. A ridiculous new thing is that many newspapers don't write what countries offenders come from but state obvious stuff like that their sisters were forced to marry in another country etc, which of course in 90% of the cases make them muslim.
This is not about racism or "islamophobia" (silly word), it's about not being okay with a ridiculous religion like Islam.
You could also replace "Sweden" with "Germany" and still it would be 100% correct.
Btw, what a coincidence. A country with a cross and nothing else in it's flag is gonna be the first one to lay down the law on muslims.
On November 30 2009 18:59 lazz wrote: dont any of you guys have friends from sweden? apparently over there islamic people are fucking crazy and are trying to take over the place and shit. refusing to assimilate into the country they're in etc. i dont blame the swiss for banning minarets or w/e islamic structures, they're genuinely scared of islamic people. i dont blame them at all and it doesn't surprise me one bit. same sort of shit is happening in britain and other european countries as well
edit: read the OP post as swedes, instead of swiss. but it's a very similar situation in sweden and other euro countries as well so it's still relevant
Yeah, some parts of Sweden are hugely problematic when it comes to muslims. In Swedens third biggest city Malmo, the most common male name is Mohammed. This is of course a result of Swedens very generous immigration laws. The problem is that many muslims don't want to be a part of Swedish society, live on Swedens generous welfare and do god knows what on their free time. Some of them are surely supporting Al-Quaida in some way or another. About half the people in Malmo's biggest muslim neighbourhood of Rosengard are unemployed.
Alot of violent crimes and rape are commited by largely arabs as well. A ridiculous new thing is that many newspapers don't write what countries offenders come from but state obvious stuff like that their sisters were forced to marry in another country etc, which of course in 90% of the cases make them muslim.
This is not about racism or "islamophobia" (silly word), it's about not being okay with a ridiculous religion like Islam.
You could also replace "Sweden" with "Germany" and still it would be 100% correct.
Yeah I know, I think you guys might also have worse problems with muslims than we have
It's very amusing to see Americans and (to a lesser extent) Canadians extending their multicultural views on European countries without understanding that they are in a unique situation, living in an area where a multitude of cultures are tolerated and even welcomed. The arrogance is astounding, they seem to have no idea what goes on in Europe and yet they seem to think that they have the authority to speak on other countries. They don't seem to realize that their personal experience doesn't extend to every situation, nor does it apply in other places.
I also don't understand why religion is given such respect in the first place. Religion is nothing more than a bunch of outdated ideas written by a bunch of self proclaimed prophets that constantly contradicts itself and support xenophobia and intolerance. Then, they top it off with an idea of a "god" that supposedly watches over them and apparently supports them in their personal endeavors against the heathens that believe in a different version of an invisible spirit who is apparently powerful enough to create the entire universe and yet cannot show one ounce of evidence for its existence.
On December 01 2009 00:49 ghostWriter wrote: I also don't understand why religion is given such respect in the first place. Religion is nothing more than a bunch of outdated ideas written by a bunch of self proclaimed prophets that constantly contradicts itself and support xenophobia and intolerance. Then, they top it off with an idea of a "god" that supposedly watches over them and apparently supports them in their personal endeavors against the heathens that believe in a different version of an invisible spirit who is apparently powerful enough to create the entire universe and yet cannot show one ounce of evidence for its existence.
Yeah, that's so weird when you think about it. People actually take religion seriously and claim that there is a God somewhere up in the sky, or outside the universe or wherever he resides. It's quite ridiculous how we support this obvious oppression and judgement that religion puts on people in the name of god.
And when it comes to 50% (women) of the muslim population having hardly no worth compared to men, something is very wrong. These aren't just cute, cultural expressions, but systematic oppression that results in things like stoning women who are unfaithful.
Some people say that Islam needs to reform and become more liberal, and some muslims say this as well. The problem is that Islam and arabic culture goes hand in hand and one is hard to separate from the other. Also their political leaders are religious leaders which is a huge issue. Islam has such an profound and dominant influence on arabic countries that it pretty much defines them.
To me this law is utterly ridiculous. And not because I'm some politically correct pawn or muslim lover. I actually don't like religions at all. But in this case, wtf? People say muslim's are a big problem in our countries. Well, what about trying to outlaw the "problem" part of their behavior instead of something that by all means are harmless. If the problem is that they don't pay taxes/do crimes/"live on the welfare system" just make those laws harder or whatever. Even deport immigrants who haven't got a job in 3 years or something (I don't agree at all but this might actually do something about the perceived problems). But seriously, forbidding harmless buildings? What good is that supposed to do? Does anyone think it will lessen immigrant-associated crime or force them to assimilate with "western society"? And the argument from the swiss party about it "not being necessary for islam". Well I find chewing gums annoying and it isn't necessary for islam either so let's just forbid muslims from chewing it, it will probably make our streets cleaner. Or maybe buddhists shouldn't get to own 2-story buildings? What about catholics building swimming pools?
This law is human pettiness at it's worst and I disapprove.
actually the Islam religion is not oppressive at all to women, in fact equality is written right there in their holy book. In this point, fault the cultures and not the religion.
religion is long past its expiry date. If all the religious people dived into philosophy instead, humanity might have progressed into a much better state already. And I dont mean just fanatically accepting a philosopher's words, i mean giving much thought and perhaps even innovating new philosophical arguments. Because religion is inherently limiting, but philosophy as a discipline is exploration only limited by your mental capabilities.
On December 01 2009 00:37 REDBLUEGREEN wrote: How is banning minarets anti-liberal? To me minarets are a symbol for islam and islam is threatening the freedom of half of the population of the country(females?). I would rather see islam banned as a whole but that would result in instant riots so banning symbols of oppression is a good thing in my oppinion.
Ever heard of two wrongs don't make a right? It's okay to oppress muslims because they threaten the freedom of women? What if TL moderators think it's okay to oppress you because you threaten the freedom of muslims?
Or is it okay the threaten the freedom of muslims since they don't make up half the population like women do?
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.
On December 01 2009 01:26 Railxp wrote: actually the Islam religion is not oppressive at all to women, in fact equality is written right there in their holy book. In this point, fault the cultures and not the religion.
religion is long past its expiry date. If all the religious people dived into philosophy instead, humanity might have progressed into a much better state already. And I dont mean just fanatically accepting a philosopher's words, i mean giving much thought and perhaps even innovating new philosophical arguments. Because religion is inherently limiting, but philosophy as a discipline is exploration only limited by your mental capabilities.
^ for plus one, Malaysia is predominant with Muslims but it's a really nice place to live in. because it has already assimilated itself to modern age unlike the Middle East,..
I still think it's lack of good education that's why some Muslims are bad, and why the hell is immigration letting these guys that has 17th century philosophical view about the world in their country? I mean common, if you're going to get someone from a 3rd world country there's always me you know?
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.
On December 01 2009 00:37 REDBLUEGREEN wrote: How is banning minarets anti-liberal? To me minarets are a symbol for islam and islam is threatening the freedom of half of the population of the country(females?). I would rather see islam banned as a whole but that would result in instant riots so banning symbols of oppression is a good thing in my oppinion.
It's anti-liberal because a lot of liberals think western culture is inherently evil.
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)
Each people has its own conception of what is morally superior. Being the majority doesn't make your own conception morally better. That's also why we are discussing this issue in this topic and not making a yes/no poll to know with the results who is morally right. I can't believe that in 2009 people still think that the majority is always right.
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)
Each people has its own conception of what is morally superior. Being the majority doesn't make your own conception morally better. That's also why we are discussing this issue in this topic and not making a yes/no poll to know with the results who is morally right. I can't believe that in 2009 people still think that the majority is always right.
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)
Each people has its own conception of what is morally superior. Being the majority doesn't make your own conception morally better. That's also why we are discussing this issue in this topic and not making a yes/no poll to know with the results who is morally right. I can't believe that in 2009 people still think that the majority is always right.
On December 01 2009 04:08 Foucault wrote: Boonbag:
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.
Whoever said Islam was cool ? I despise all religions. They're all like a sickness.
Your last sentence is so rude I don't even know where to begin. You're prolly still a kid tho.
On December 01 2009 04:08 Foucault wrote: Boonbag:
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.
Whoever said Islam was cool ? I despise all religions. They're all like a sickness.
Your last sentence is so rude I don't even know where to begin. You're prolly still a kid tho.
No I'm not a kid. And I seriously think Islam is retarded and that it should not be accepted because of reasons I have listed previously in this thread. I also don't want to promote christianity, especially the fundamentalist kind which fortunately we don't have that much of in Sweden.
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)
Each people has its own conception of what is morally superior. Being the majority doesn't make your own conception morally better. That's also why we are discussing this issue in this topic and not making a yes/no poll to know with the results who is morally right. I can't believe that in 2009 people still think that the majority is always right.
So you are saying there is no "right" answer to what is morally correct. That is all well and good. But if that is so, when is it ever ok to force someone to do something they don't want to?
The comparisons to Christianity in this topic are meaningless. I'm an agnostic atheist, so I'd like to consider myself unbiased when comparing the two, and there IS NO comparison.
Yes, the Bible and the Koran both have some pretty terrible, immoral, stone-age stuff in them. The difference is that most Christians these days ignore 90% of the Bible (especially the Old Testament). The same cannot be said of Muslims.
I understand the liberal desire to be tolerant (I'm a strong liberal myself), but reality rears its ugly head in this case. I can be an atheist without any major problems besides an occasional sneer or dirty look in a country that is 90% Christian. In a 90% Muslim country, I would be worried about having my throat slit for being atheist.
Islam demands respect from everyone else, it demands tolerance from everyone else, but OFFERS NONE itself. It doesn't belong in the civilized world until it stops causing women to be lashed or executed for the crime of being raped ("honor killings"), until a cartoonist who draws a picture of Mohammad doesn't have to fear for his LIFE for making the drawing.
By the way, one of my best friends is an arab who quit being a Muslim. He gets regular death threats for being an 'apostate'. If he lived in a majority Muslim nation, he'd probably be dead by now. Even though he's in the U.S., I still worry about his safety.
On December 01 2009 04:39 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: So you are saying there is no "right" answer to what is morally correct.
The only right answer is the one you believe is right. That's why an idiot will always think he is right and you will disagree with him because you have a different opinion about morality. Does it means that i'm an advocate of cultural relativism ? No. I just want to say that using a "morality argument" on this kind of topic is completly retarded. This is a referendum about a law and people are still allowed to say why they think the law is good/bad/inefficient/... So drop this holier than thou attitude. That's not because a majority of Swiss people have voted to ban Minarets that it is morally good to ban it.
On December 01 2009 04:39 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: That is all well and good. But if that is so, when is it ever ok to force someone to do something they don't want to?
You can legally force people to do a lot of things but the point is law =/= morality It is that hard to understand ?
On December 01 2009 04:39 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: So you are saying there is no "right" answer to what is morally correct.
The only right answer is the one you believe is right. That's why an idiot will always think he is right and you will disagree with him because you have a different opinion about morality. Does it means that i'm an advocate of cultural relativism ? No. I just want to say that using a "morality argument" on this kind of topic is completly retarded. This is a referendum about a law and people are still allowed to say why they think the law is good/bad/inefficient/... So drop this holier than thou attitude. That's not because a majority of Swiss people have voted to ban Minarets that it is morally good to ban it.
On December 01 2009 04:39 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: That is all well and good. But if that is so, when is it ever ok to force someone to do something they don't want to?
You can legally force people to do a lot of things but the point is law =/= morality It is that hard to understand ?
To me, the only thing that you have demonstrated is that when you say "Banning Minarets is bad" what you are actually saying is "Boo!!! To banning minarets."
I say banning good and you say banning bad, if there is no foundation for moral claims, then we can both be right.
The reason I'm asking about morality is because democratic political theory is based on a particular view of morality (as is all politics), so if you don't agree that the "majority is always right" I am wondering what your alternative is?
Just to not let some bullshit said here stand undisputed; Yea Sweden has problems most of which are caused by young lazy fucks who spend 4 years after high school “finding themselves” Then they study archaeology or literature for 3 years part time before they take a break to “go see the world”. (The state gives them money for this btw, and they can borrow even more to a nice interest) When they can’t borrow anymore they start crying because “they can’t find a nice job” The average moving out from home age in larger Swedish cities is 25-26. Yeah, it’s so strange that this country has money problems -.- People are egoistical cowardly idiots who only ever care about themselves or possibly their children. Children beat up their teachers who are too afraid to scream back at them because the parents will take them to court (and win). Yeah guys like that will grow up to be nice productive citizens -.- Single individuals are allowed to disrupt the education for an entire class throughout all of middle school, eagerly backed up by their parents, because the education isn’t “entertaining” (!!!) enough.
Sweden’s problem isn’t Islam, Sweden’s problem is the fact that the young Arabs who sit around all day doing nothing and then blame some state organization for not finding them a job ARE fully assimilated Swedes (even if they wouldn’t admit it)
More on topic, I think it is quite scary when people in times of difficulties band together to bash on some subset of the population. The ones that don’t belong here, the ones that threaten our true culture. It reminds me of something.
Also, trying to ban religious symbols is not the way to make religion go away, not to mention how it violates the very core values of modern western civilization. We were supposed to have past this stage ages ago.
On December 01 2009 05:14 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: To me, the only thing that you have demonstrated is that when you say "Banning Minarets is bad" what you are actually saying is "Boo!!! To banning minarets."
I say banning good and you say banning bad, if there is no foundation for moral claims, then we can both be right.
Where i have said it is good or bad to ban Minarets ? I have not mentioned my personal opinion on the issue. I also find your binary reasoning quite interesting, a good, a bad and nothing between it
On December 01 2009 05:14 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: The reason I'm asking about morality is because democratic political theory is based on a particular view of morality (as is all politics), so if you don't agree that the "majority is always right" I am wondering what your alternative is?
In democracies the majority is legally right but the definition of what is morally right is up to you.
Klackon, I'm not sure what you're ranting about but most of your post strays away from the subject quite alot. Also some things are just wrong. For instance the student loans (CSN) in Sweden do not have good interest, actually it's more like a rip-off that you ALSO have to pay back every dime of including said interest. The problem with Sweden is that we rely too heavily on a socialized society where people are heavily bound down by taxes. Essentially people who work hard pay alot of money for lazy bums smoking weed in the projects. While some social security and welfare is a good thing, too much isn't.
Also you really throw words around quite carelessly. You talk about young arabs and Islam as if they were two different things which they are not. Many of these young arabas are very much muslims and not assimilated at all in the Swedish society. They are harassing their sisters, and having a fucked up attitude towards the swedish society.
Your discourse about people bashing on outsiders in hard times is of course a way to understand and justify some opinions for PC people. There are also reasons, the fact that Islam is a oppressive and medieval religion, that aren't about alienating outsiders because of the economy but about the fact that Islam and their values and teachings spreads. Yeah Islam is very much a threat to our culture if that threat is about their fucked up view of women, homosexuality and disobediance towards Allah. I don't understand how you justify this?
We were supposed to be long past religions like Islam and Christianity, a long time ago.
Also, do yourself a favor if you respond and don't construct me as a racist or nationalist because I'm not. I'm attacking Islams teachings because they strike me as oppressive and wrong.
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.
Zionist plot imo.
hahahahahaha
Anyway, you can put it the other way around as well. The people practicing the religion want the freedom of expression when where they come from, other religions and cultures are not even allowed, forget tolerated. The entire conflict between Islam and the West is because of mutual misunderstanding. I can't speak for the Muslim world or for Europe, but in America, there's a dichotomy between a "them" and an "us". When Bush was president, the argument was made that if you don't support the president, then you are supporting the terrorists. This kind of argument was made again and again and people forgot that on the other side, there are plenty of people living their daily lives without taking any active part in the supposed conflict. This is just conjecture, from what I read, but for the Muslim world, I think that they are trying to get back to their Islamic roots and opposing the continual advance of western culture, symbolized by McDonalds or Coca-Cola, which they see as a threat to their way of life. I assume that the dichotomy exists in Europe as well; when you get to see another entire group of people as the 'enemy', it's hard to break out of that mindset and see them as individuals. Are you really unable to understand the mindset where the people of Switzerland wouldn't want a foreign and possibly adversarial group within your borders, made up of a group of people that you always read about in newspapers and online resources as blowing up trains or pipelines or even blowing themselves up in a crowded marketplace? It's a problem of ignorance, but it's not really their faults.
Even America, which was built on a presupposed foundation of equality, did not have equality in practice for centuries. Even now, long after the American Civil War ended, we still struggle with the race issue, despite hundreds of years having passed since people of different races existed side by side. Just 50 years ago, innocent Japanese people were taken to internment camps after the attack on Pearl Harbor. How long has it been in AMERICA, supposed bastion of freedom and equality, since there were signs that said "No dogs or Jews" or "No Negros" on storefronts? It's very easy to sit behind your computer screens and deride the Swiss for their choice, but it's a statistical fact that most terrorist attacks have been by Muslim fundamentalists. There have been cases of normal youth being seduced into martyring themselves for the cause. Granted, most attacks take places in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, but it's not like a terrorist attack is a remote possibility in Europe. Also, Muslim ideals are not exactly conducive to Western patterns of thought, many conflict and if there's a sizable population, it definitely will have an impact.
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.
Political correctness tends to be used when you want to limit offense, but by being politically correct, you imply that something is offensive to you. It also represses free thought and ideas, just because you don't call someone a derogatory term doesn't mean that you don't think badly about them or whatever group you think they are associated with. And it gets extended to unrelated issues, like a school changed Baa Baa Black Sheep to Baa Baa Rainbow Sheep, like the term black sheep was made to be derogatory towards black people. Diversity is overrated in the first place, why would you even consider race when choosing students for a college or workers for a job instead of their qualifications? People take it too far and get sensitive about the stupidest things. Also, using he or she instead of just saying "he" to be politically correct is stupid and unnecessary.
to the OP (my internet connection crashed right after I opened this thread)
This is shameful that this reffereundum was actually passed. I didnt vote against it (dont have that power yet) but I would have. I mean, I'd see these propaganda posters saying "NON'" with red and black-clad burka-women (like in the OP) and was surprised that it was even an issue, how could this have actually happened.
But there was really a LOT of posters about this one, we vote on everything and I've never seen so many posters (or maybe I just noticed them more because they were even worse than UDC posters)
I'm ashamed of Switzerland, really. Banning minarets is like banning church steeples, its pointless, stupid and angers the offended party. Its not like the west needs any more source of conflict with the east, we already have enough issues we cant really agree on. Whats sad is that Switzerland, the country banning minarets (a big F*** you to the Muslim community), is ""neural""
On November 30 2009 08:58 koreasilver wrote: How could anyone possibly think Muslim extremists have more power and influence than the Western world? Even if the Western powers are starting to lose grip of their absolute power over the world slowly, they still are, with no doubt, the greatest powers in the world still.
I mean, if these Muslim extremists had more power and influence than anyone else in the world, why would they have split and ran when America started the war? Guerrilla warfare and terrorism is practiced by the weaker side in asymmetrical warfare.
The Western world is not run by religious extremists.
That has nothing to do with what my post was about.
You could have said, "but Muslims don't eat pork," and it would have made about the same amount of sense.
You were attempting to change the subject. We were talking about extremists.
No extremists have as much power as Muslim extremists, and therefore none are as dangerous.
I was never talking specifically about extremists, and even under the idea of extremists, neo-liberal extremists have done much worse over the world than the Muslim extremists.
I don't even know how you can believe this.
Because controlling the IMF and other prominent international organizations and hijacking several South American countries, South Africa, and other various countries and shoving their laissez faire economics into these countries and stealing their public sectors with the help of militaristic counter-revolutionists has killed far more people in the past 60 years than Muslim extremists have in the past 60 years, and these neo-liberals have driven more people into poverty than these Muslim extremists as well.
But it's okay. You're an ignorant fool, and evidently spending my time replying to a you is a waste of my time. Even beyond your ideas you don't know how to read or reply properly anyway.
Just... no.
Do some research on the history of the Middle East for the past 50 years and come back.
Do some research on your own country and come back.
Also, take a logic course.
Does everyone on TL turn into douchebags during debates?
On November 30 2009 08:58 koreasilver wrote: How could anyone possibly think Muslim extremists have more power and influence than the Western world? Even if the Western powers are starting to lose grip of their absolute power over the world slowly, they still are, with no doubt, the greatest powers in the world still.
I mean, if these Muslim extremists had more power and influence than anyone else in the world, why would they have split and ran when America started the war? Guerrilla warfare and terrorism is practiced by the weaker side in asymmetrical warfare.
The Western world is not run by religious extremists.
That has nothing to do with what my post was about.
You could have said, "but Muslims don't eat pork," and it would have made about the same amount of sense.
You were attempting to change the subject. We were talking about extremists.
No extremists have as much power as Muslim extremists, and therefore none are as dangerous.
I was never talking specifically about extremists, and even under the idea of extremists, neo-liberal extremists have done much worse over the world than the Muslim extremists.
I don't even know how you can believe this.
Because controlling the IMF and other prominent international organizations and hijacking several South American countries, South Africa, and other various countries and shoving their laissez faire economics into these countries and stealing their public sectors with the help of militaristic counter-revolutionists has killed far more people in the past 60 years than Muslim extremists have in the past 60 years, and these neo-liberals have driven more people into poverty than these Muslim extremists as well.
But it's okay. You're an ignorant fool, and evidently spending my time replying to a you is a waste of my time. Even beyond your ideas you don't know how to read or reply properly anyway.
Just... no.
Do some research on the history of the Middle East for the past 50 years and come back.
Do some research on your own country and come back.
Also, take a logic course.
Does everyone on TL turn into douchebags during debates?
Just ignore him, he's an infantile, yet arrogant poster. Just give him some time to mature, we don't all start as enlightened genii.
On December 01 2009 06:13 bITt.mAN wrote: to the OP (my internet connection crashed right after I opened this thread)
This is shameful that this reffereundum was actually passed. I didnt vote against it (dont have that power yet) but I would have. I mean, I'd see these propaganda posters saying "NON'" with red and black-clad burka-women (like in the OP) and was surprised that it was even an issue, how could this have actually happened.
But there was really a LOT of posters about this one, we vote on everything and I've never seen so many posters (or maybe I just noticed them more because they were even worse than UDC posters)
I'm ashamed of Switzerland, really. Banning minarets is like banning church steeples, its pointless, stupid and angers the offended party. Its not like the west needs any more source of conflict with the east, we already have enough issues we cant really agree on. Whats sad is that Switzerland, the country banning minarets (a big F*** you to the Muslim community), is ""neural""
Yes. It's very sad that Switzerland is "neural". Do you even know what a minaret does?
On December 01 2009 05:45 Foucault wrote: Klackon, I'm not sure what you're ranting about but most of your post strays away from the subject quite alot. Also some things are just wrong. For instance the student loans (CSN) in Sweden do not have good interest, actually it's more like a rip-off that you ALSO have to pay back every dime of including said interest. The problem with Sweden is that we rely too heavily on a socialized society where people are heavily bound down by taxes. Essentially people who work hard pay alot of money for lazy bums smoking weed in the projects. While some social security and welfare is a good thing, too much isn't.
Also you really throw words around quite carelessly. You talk about young arabs and Islam as if they were two different things which they are not. Many of these young arabas are very much muslims and not assimilated at all in the Swedish society. They are harassing their sisters, and having a fucked up attitude towards the swedish society.
Your discourse about people bashing on outsiders in hard times is of course a way to understand and justify some opinions for PC people. There are also reasons, the fact that Islam is a oppressive and medieval religion, that aren't about alienating outsiders because of the economy but about the fact that Islam and their values and teachings spreads. Yeah Islam is very much a threat to our culture if that threat is about their fucked up view of women, homosexuality and disobediance towards Allah. I don't understand how you justify this?
We were supposed to be long past religions like Islam and Christianity, a long time ago.
Also, do yourself a favor if you respond and don't construct me as a racist or nationalist because I'm not. I'm attacking Islams teachings because they strike me as oppressive and wrong.
My post was attacking your notion that the problems in current Swedish society stems from the presence of Arabs and not the fact that lazy young Swedes refuse to grow up and start working. And yes I think the CSN interest rates can be considered “nice” since the loans are given to people without jobs OR assets.
No I don’t throw around words carelessly, if you believe that the majority of young Swedish Arabs are religious in any meaningful sense of the word I would say you are ignorant. Not that it matters, them sitting on their lazy assess complaining that the state doesn’t give them work is a _Swedish_ thing not an Arab one. The sense of entitlement that so many young Swedes seem to have is downright disgusting, and it is not particularly surprising that it’s the bad parts of our culture that get’s absorbed first, most people are like that.
Rofl at you calling me PC while at the same time vigorously repeating the mantra “I am not racist, I just think Islam sucks”. I don’t care what you define yourself as, the fact that you seek the cause for our problems in other people is disgusting. And as I said, it’s been done before, with not so pleasant results.
So it seems like in Europe there is no difference made between islam and radical islam? Here in U.S. people only go after radical islam which is a very small minority of total muslims
On November 30 2009 08:58 koreasilver wrote: How could anyone possibly think Muslim extremists have more power and influence than the Western world? Even if the Western powers are starting to lose grip of their absolute power over the world slowly, they still are, with no doubt, the greatest powers in the world still.
I mean, if these Muslim extremists had more power and influence than anyone else in the world, why would they have split and ran when America started the war? Guerrilla warfare and terrorism is practiced by the weaker side in asymmetrical warfare.
The Western world is not run by religious extremists.
That has nothing to do with what my post was about.
You could have said, "but Muslims don't eat pork," and it would have made about the same amount of sense.
You were attempting to change the subject. We were talking about extremists.
No extremists have as much power as Muslim extremists, and therefore none are as dangerous.
I was never talking specifically about extremists, and even under the idea of extremists, neo-liberal extremists have done much worse over the world than the Muslim extremists.
I don't even know how you can believe this.
Because controlling the IMF and other prominent international organizations and hijacking several South American countries, South Africa, and other various countries and shoving their laissez faire economics into these countries and stealing their public sectors with the help of militaristic counter-revolutionists has killed far more people in the past 60 years than Muslim extremists have in the past 60 years, and these neo-liberals have driven more people into poverty than these Muslim extremists as well.
But it's okay. You're an ignorant fool, and evidently spending my time replying to a you is a waste of my time. Even beyond your ideas you don't know how to read or reply properly anyway.
Just... no.
Do some research on the history of the Middle East for the past 50 years and come back.
Do some research on your own country and come back.
Also, take a logic course.
Does everyone on TL turn into douchebags during debates?
If someone completely refuses to read your post and actually reply back with substance continuously, you do tend to just give up on them.
The Western world is not run by religious extremists.
That has nothing to do with what my post was about.
You could have said, "but Muslims don't eat pork," and it would have made about the same amount of sense.
You were attempting to change the subject. We were talking about extremists.
No extremists have as much power as Muslim extremists, and therefore none are as dangerous.
I was never talking specifically about extremists, and even under the idea of extremists, neo-liberal extremists have done much worse over the world than the Muslim extremists.
I don't even know how you can believe this.
Because controlling the IMF and other prominent international organizations and hijacking several South American countries, South Africa, and other various countries and shoving their laissez faire economics into these countries and stealing their public sectors with the help of militaristic counter-revolutionists has killed far more people in the past 60 years than Muslim extremists have in the past 60 years, and these neo-liberals have driven more people into poverty than these Muslim extremists as well.
But it's okay. You're an ignorant fool, and evidently spending my time replying to a you is a waste of my time. Even beyond your ideas you don't know how to read or reply properly anyway.
Just... no.
Do some research on the history of the Middle East for the past 50 years and come back.
Do some research on your own country and come back.
Also, take a logic course.
Does everyone on TL turn into douchebags during debates?
Just ignore him, he's an infantile, yet arrogant poster. Just give him some time to mature, we don't all start as enlightened genii.
On December 01 2009 06:13 bITt.mAN wrote: to the OP (my internet connection crashed right after I opened this thread)
This is shameful that this reffereundum was actually passed. I didnt vote against it (dont have that power yet) but I would have. I mean, I'd see these propaganda posters saying "NON'" with red and black-clad burka-women (like in the OP) and was surprised that it was even an issue, how could this have actually happened.
But there was really a LOT of posters about this one, we vote on everything and I've never seen so many posters (or maybe I just noticed them more because they were even worse than UDC posters)
I'm ashamed of Switzerland, really. Banning minarets is like banning church steeples, its pointless, stupid and angers the offended party. Its not like the west needs any more source of conflict with the east, we already have enough issues we cant really agree on. Whats sad is that Switzerland, the country banning minarets (a big F*** you to the Muslim community), is ""neural""
Yes. It's very sad that Switzerland is "neural". Do you even know what a minaret does?
Aren't you the one that started raging at me over PMs because you completely made a fool of yourself in this thread? Also, have you completely glossed over the posts that said the four minarets in Switzerland are not used to call for prayer?
On December 01 2009 06:29 BlackJack wrote: So it seems like in Europe there is no difference made between islam and radical islam? Here in U.S. people only go after radical islam which is a very small minority of total muslims
Fascists in Europe try to make the population believe charia will be voted by the deputees 2 years from now in every country !
On December 01 2009 06:29 BlackJack wrote: So it seems like in Europe there is no difference made between islam and radical islam? Here in U.S. people only go after radical islam which is a very small minority of total muslims
On one hand I disagree with the Muslim ideology, on the other hand I think that outright banning something (because the religion is outdated and unjust) is super hypocritical and is born from fear-mongering. I would prefer to just let religion slowly faze out the normal way.
On December 01 2009 06:29 BlackJack wrote: So it seems like in Europe there is no difference made between islam and radical islam? Here in U.S. people only go after radical islam which is a very small minority of total muslims
I think the only reason people can tolerate each other's religions today is because no one actually truly follows one correctly.
I think I've only met one person in my life who actually followed the bible -- he was a terrible human being.
So when I hear about radicals, I just think, "oh wow, people out there still take religion seriously?"
of course every chrisitan I meet might have their own deep and though out personal interpretation of their religion -- but i really don't care. for whatever reason they are changing their religion to fit modern society so it really doesn't negatively affect me.
On December 01 2009 06:29 BlackJack wrote: So it seems like in Europe there is no difference made between islam and radical islam? Here in U.S. people only go after radical islam which is a very small minority of total muslims
It was in a futile attempt to not make people think this I made those angry posts :p But in the end a lot of people around here do seem to have an aversion towards muslims in general (or actually arabs, they don't really care about the difference). It is a bit sad. I guess americans have more experience with dealing with a huge influx of "alien" culture.
On December 01 2009 06:19 KlaCkoN wrote: My post was attacking your notion that the problems in current Swedish society stems from the presence of Arabs and not the fact that lazy young Swedes refuse to grow up and start working. And yes I think the CSN interest rates can be considered “nice” since the loans are given to people without jobs OR assets.
Surely, some Swedish youth aren't "growing up" with the speed you'd want them to. Grow up to what exactly? And how is studying and traveling the world a bad thing? Doesn't it help us understand different cultures better?
Yeah, loans. CSN doesn't give out money, it's student loans that you're supposed to pay back in a timely fashion. It's a good thing though that people can loan money in order to succeed with their studies. However I would like to see more people work part time jobs and studying instead of loaning money. The reason it's like this though is because of the social democrats and left-wing parties have set it up like that. There's no incentive to find work when you can collect 10 000 ($1500) SEK/month from A-kassa (the unemployment office) like my friend did.
On December 01 2009 06:19 KlaCkoN wrote: No I don’t throw around words carelessly, if you believe that the majority of young Swedish Arabs are religious in any meaningful sense of the word I would say you are ignorant. Not that it matters, them sitting on their lazy assess complaining that the state doesn’t give them work is a _Swedish_ thing not an Arab one. The sense of entitlement that so many young Swedes seem to have is downright disgusting, and it is not particularly surprising that it’s the bad parts of our culture that get’s absorbed first, most people are like that.
They are religious in the sense that they have been brought up in religious families and therefore have internalized their values through socialization. Maybe not every young arab is actively religious but they get it at home ALL the time, and they are at least largely influenced by Islam. It's a swedish thing to take on so many immigrants without ever putting down the foot, and also putting them in the projects (miljonprojekt), effectively creating ghettos. What's up with that? It's like asking for problems. I agee that it's a swedish thing to complain about having no work but arabs in Rosengard don't give a fuck about the swedish society. If you call them assimilated I would like to hear your definition of what "assimilation" is.
On December 01 2009 06:19 KlaCkoN wrote: Rofl at you calling me PC while at the same time vigorously repeating the mantra “I am not racist, I just think Islam sucks”. I don’t care what you define yourself as, the fact that you seek the cause for our problems in other people is disgusting. And as I said, it’s been done before, with not so pleasant results.
Yeah I said that because swedes are usually so fast to jump the gun and place you in the racist category. I don't think I repeated anything vigorously, I just mentioned it. Also it's not a mantra. A mantra would be a sound like "ohm" commonly used in Buddhist/hindu meditation. And how is saying Islam sucks PC? I'm seeking the cause of the worlds problems in religion and Islam still sucks. I could care less about Sweden since I'm probably gonna move soon anyways, so I don't really care about our small country. My perspective is global, and I notice you're still trying to put me in a comfortable category.
Answer me this: Why respect a religion (Islam) that doesn't respect other religions or women?
On December 01 2009 06:29 BlackJack wrote: So it seems like in Europe there is no difference made between islam and radical islam? Here in U.S. people only go after radical islam which is a very small minority of total muslims
You must not live in Real America.
Yeah seriously, are you kidding me? America is probably worse about this than any other country. We're fighting two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and for what?
On December 01 2009 06:29 BlackJack wrote: So it seems like in Europe there is no difference made between islam and radical islam? Here in U.S. people only go after radical islam which is a very small minority of total muslims
It was in a futile attempt to not make people think this I made those angry posts :p But in the end a lot of people around here do seem to have an aversion towards muslims in general (or actually arabs, they don't really care about the difference). It is a bit sad. I guess americans have more experience with dealing with a huge influx of "alien" culture.
HAHAHAHAHA Are you kidding me? Every new group that comes to America gets discriminated against.
I don't know what bubble you live in but I guess you haven't seen that much of Islam first hand.
Maybe I actually did ? And lived for a while with muslims ?
Oh, do tell. And you're a man, which makes you so much "better" in their eyes.
Btw you really should low down on the stereotypes.
I wish I was stereotyping, I'm not. While some muslims in the west are muuuch more liberal than muslims in the arab world, many muslim women are oppressed by a sickening degree.
On December 01 2009 06:29 BlackJack wrote: So it seems like in Europe there is no difference made between islam and radical islam? Here in U.S. people only go after radical islam which is a very small minority of total muslims
If "radical" is flying airplanes into buildings and suicide bombing in general, then no of course all muslims aren't like this. But there is a disturbingly large middle ground of muslims who are pretty hardcore in their views although they aren't the worst kind.
Good luck finding alot of secularized muslims in the arab world. Hell, even their leaders are strictly religious.
On December 01 2009 06:29 BlackJack wrote: So it seems like in Europe there is no difference made between islam and radical islam? Here in U.S. people only go after radical islam which is a very small minority of total muslims
Fascists in Europe try to make the population believe charia will be voted by the deputees 2 years from now in every country !
And puppy-eyed left-wing socialist liberals in Europe try to make the population think that everything is just fine and everyone get's along.
On December 01 2009 06:43 Boonbag wrote: That's true, yet, I assure you that the wife beating rate is still very high in non muslim homes in europe, if not higher.
I know, and I hate that too. Patriarchy comes in different forms but it's the same underlying beliefs regardless of religion or different societies: men are superior to women.
Oh and it's quite unlikely that it's higher in non-muslim homes.
On December 01 2009 06:43 Boonbag wrote: That's true, yet, I assure you that the wife beating rate is still very high in non muslim homes in europe, if not higher.
Show me ANYTHING that supports this claim, anything.
Canada has laws against hate-speech. I don't know that this is so different.
I don't know that much about the religion, but those quotes from the Koran were as scary as any KKK grand dragon ranting about non-whites. Any religion that makes an assertion about non-believers should be banned by any sane secular country.
That said minarets are just a form of architecture. I don't think they symbolise anything violent do they?
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.
Well, I am very sorry about the outcome. But we Swiss are also just human, we have seen that before in Hitler and World War 2 and in recent times from Bush/Blair in the Iraq War how politicians can manipulate people's fear for personal/party gains. And that's what happened in Switzerland. But the jury is still out whether the initiative violated european convention about human rights in the first place, so nothings decided yet.
On December 01 2009 06:29 BlackJack wrote: So it seems like in Europe there is no difference made between islam and radical islam? Here in U.S. people only go after radical islam which is a very small minority of total muslims
Apparently not and what makes this even more sad is that Switzerland has one of the most moderate muslim communities in Europe. We've never had any of the problems some other European countries have faced with their muslim immigrants.
On December 01 2009 08:11 DreaM)XeRO wrote: im sorry. but what is a minaret?
As far as the ban is limited to miniarets, the law seems fairly innocuous. However, passing such a law at the federal level, and inscribing such an amendment into the federal constitution seems an overreaction unworthy of a free and autonomous people. The consecration of miniarets affects local townscapes and communities, why is the matter federal?
On December 01 2009 08:11 DreaM)XeRO wrote: im sorry. but what is a minaret?
As far as the ban is limited to miniarets, the law seems fairly innocuous. However, passing such a law at the federal level, and inscribing such an amendment into the federal constitution seems an overreaction unworthy of a free and autonomous people. The consecration of miniarets affects local townscapes and communities, why is the matter federal?
Because minarets 'symbolize the claim to power over a region'.
I absolutely agree with the right of freedom of religion.
However, I also agree with the Swiss voters' decision. I would also back such a vote in Germany, too (If it was up to me mosques of a certain size would be banned, too...) It's not that I disapprove of Islam as a religion (of course radical Islam is bad), It's also not me having something against foreigners (I am also a foreigner in the country I live in currently and I have friends who come from islamic countries).
The problem with minaretes (and actually mosques in European countries like Switzerland and Germany) is that they have a totally devastating effect on society. e.g. In Germany, there are many Turkish immigrants, who have been here for decades and still cannot speak German at all! Even worse, there are many children and grandchildren of such immigrants that also cannot speak German at all. This is caused by the fact that these immigrants only dwell in closed communities and are absolutely not interested in interacting with non-immigrants. And now guess where where these communities meet... These people spend a lot of time in the mosques since there are many activities they can do there, but there they never speak German and since they spend their whole time there, they basically have no incentive to learn German. So basically these people totally fail to integrate themselves into the German society since they seclude themselves. Of course, this results in many problems: - People that cannot speak German have nonexistant chances of employment - Children from such closed communities fail miserably in school (due to the language barrier) and have no future perspective - Often enough the lack of communication and understanding, which inevitably evolves from there seclusion leads to hate on both sides...
By the way, it's not like the German government is not trying to help immigrants integrate into the local society. There are free language courses. There are even integration schools (dunno what these are exactly, but it's a fact that they are around). But unfortunately many immigrants (especially turkish) prefer to stay in their closed communities...
On December 01 2009 07:02 Chef wrote: Canada has laws against hate-speech. I don't know that this is so different.
I don't know that much about the religion, but those quotes from the Koran were as scary as any KKK grand dragon ranting about non-whites. Any religion that makes an assertion about non-believers should be banned by any sane secular country.
That said minarets are just a form of architecture. I don't think they symbolise anything violent do they?
It all depends. Islam is actually a rather peaceful/kind religion that doesn't necessarily bring any hate with it. However, like with any other things (not just religion, science and anything you can debate on included), extremists make it so it can appear or be dangerous. The problem here is how people view Muslims. If you think that most of them are of the 'press button - receive virgins' or 'infidels must die' mentality, then most likely you will percieve minarets as their symbol and congregation points and view them as dangerous.
Switzerland is hard to grasp by anyone not living there though, as it is in fact a police state. Law is abided everywhere and punishment can be harsh. My parents have friends living there and when they came to visit them they were quite surprised. Flushing the toilet too late at night? No can do as you disturb the neighbours. Throw a dead bird into a trash can? You can see some jailtime or at best a hefty fee for that. Etcetera, etcetera. People are reporting each other even for minor transgressions.
Combine this two together, and you get a nation that seems to feel unsafe so it needs all this harsh laws and a symbol of a religion which in this day and age is most commonly viewed as terrorists personal favorite and conclusion is easy to come by.
Disclaimer: I do know quite a bit about Islam but do not take my word on Switzerland too seriously, I can just say what I heard from my relatives/friends and what little I learned myself about it. If I am wrong, please someone correct me on this one.
This is an interesting claim. Do you have any statistics to support your assertion? In the US, this problem is practically non-existent - pretty much all second-generation immigrants speak fluent English and have no problems integrating into society.
On December 01 2009 07:02 Chef wrote: Canada has laws against hate-speech. I don't know that this is so different.
I don't know that much about the religion, but those quotes from the Koran were as scary as any KKK grand dragon ranting about non-whites. Any religion that makes an assertion about non-believers should be banned by any sane secular country.
That said minarets are just a form of architecture. I don't think they symbolise anything violent do they?
It all depends. Islam is actually a rather peaceful/kind religion that doesn't necessarily bring any hate with it. However, like with any other things (not just religion, science and anything you can debate on included), extremists make it so it can appear or be dangerous. The problem here is how people view Muslims. If you think that most of them are of the 'press button - receive virgins' or 'infidels must die' mentality, then most likely you will percieve minarets as their symbol and congregation points and view them as dangerous.
Switzerland is hard to grasp by anyone not living there though, as it is in fact a police state. Law is abided everywhere and punishment can be harsh. My parents have friends living there and when they came to visit them they were quite surprised. Flushing the toilet too late at night? No can do as you disturb the neighbours. Throw a dead bird into a trash can? You can see some jailtime or at best a hefty fee for that. Etcetera, etcetera. People are reporting each other even for minor transgressions.
Combine this two together, and you get a nation that seems to feel unsafe so it needs all this harsh laws and a symbol of a religion which in this day and age is most commonly viewed as terrorists personal favorite and conclusion is easy to come by.
Disclaimer: I do know quite a bit about Islam but do not take my word on Switzerland too seriously, I can just say what I heard from my relatives/friends and what little I learned myself about it. If I am wrong, please someone correct me on this one.
Yeah you're pretty wrong about Switzerland.
You're right that we're probably stricter with minor transgressions than most other countries (we don't really have any big problems, so people tend to be more petty about unimportant stuff), but your examples are definitely very exaggerated (lol how do you live somewhere where you're not allowed to flush the toilet at night?).
This is an interesting claim. Do you have any statistics to support your assertion? In the US, this problem is practically non-existent - pretty much all second-generation immigrants speak fluent English and have no problems integrating into society.
Clearly the German people are not ostracizing these immigrants enough for them to submit! Every new generation of immigrants in the US is met with enough hostility to force them to conform. Germans are just too nice about it!
Really though, I'm going to do my part as a "puppy-eyed left-wing socialist liberal" and say I agree with this banning on an architectural basis. If the Swiss want to preserve their culture in the form of architecture, I can't really find fault in it. Actually, I even agree with the principle even though I'm very much against nationalism as a whole. There are many cities of the world which would not be as beautiful if they were a mix of many different styles. I like the fact that a small town in Spain looks nothing like it's equivalent in Japan.
Of course, I'm sure a large part of this was motivated by other means. That's unfortunate in some cases, and even though I disagree with any possible need for religion, I realize the best way to combat it is most certainly not forcefully.
This is an interesting claim. Do you have any statistics to support your assertion? In the US, this problem is practically non-existent - pretty much all second-generation immigrants speak fluent English and have no problems integrating into society.
Except the fact that I personally met enough third generation people with turkish origins, who had bad language probems, I can give you some further information: unfortunately all information I found is in German but with it should be understandable with google translator:
Most imporant source first: This is from the site of the German government:
Immigration in Germany - There is a short part about 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants, which says that they are still poorly integrated and lack basic language abilieties...
Here the excerpt in German and the google translation:
In der jüngsten Zeit müssen wir aber feststellen, dass gerade bei der zweiten und dritten Generation deutliche Integrationsdefizite bestehen. Zu nennen sind in erster Linie die mangelnde Beherrschung der deutschen Sprache, Schwächen in Bildung und Ausbildung, eine höhere Arbeitslosigkeit und die fehlende Akzeptanz von Grundregeln unseres Zusammenlebens bis hin zur Verletzung von Gesetzen, nicht zuletzt von Frauenrechten.
translated:
In recent times we have to find that right at the second and third generation of significant integration deficits exist. These include primarily the lack of knowledge of the German language, weaknesses in education and training, higher unemployment and the lack of acceptance of basic rules of our social life to the violation of laws, not least from women's rights.
Other sources:
Integration Problems - One third of turkish immigrants do not have ANY educational degree
Hauptschule - This is the worst form of education you can get in Germany. 50% of the pupils there are from immigrant families in which the parents cannot speak German
Clearly the German people are not ostracizing these immigrants enough for them to submit! Every new generation of immigrants in the US is met with enough hostility to force them to conform. Germans are just too nice about it!
I don't think this is so. Ostracization comes more naturally to visible minorities in Germany than in America. Of the minorities in Germany, the Poles are the best-integrated, while people of colour generally fail, even the yellow Asians.
I would assume that Vietnamese people count as 'brown Asians' and I know quite a few well-integrated Vietnamese Germans. There was even a girl on Germany's Next Top Model who was from Vietnam (and the winner was a second generation Ethiopian, no less).
I thought 'yellow' was referring to East Asians like the Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese and 'brown' referred to Southeast Asians like the Thai, Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laos. I've seen quite a few of those in Germany (my parents are both German and I've been there quite a few times throughout my youth). As for Indians and Pakistanis and Bengali people - can't say. To be honest, I've never really seen any in Germany.
The majority Chinese-Germans work in the "restaurant industry," including those with university degrees. It's not really a penalty if you like singing over greasy woks.
Clearly the German people are not ostracizing these immigrants enough for them to submit! Every new generation of immigrants in the US is met with enough hostility to force them to conform. Germans are just too nice about it!
I don't think this is so. Ostracization comes more naturally to visible minorities in Germany than in America. Of the minorities in Germany, the Poles are the best-integrated, while people of colour generally fail, even the yellow Asians.
As far as I know "yellow" Asians are quite well integrated or at least they have a very high employment rate in comparison to other groups. I haven't seen that many though but all I have met felt already as Germans (they were second generation though). On the other hand, "black" people really are not well integrated...
I'm not sure if this is right, but I heard that many of the turks in germany are treated like trash and take on the worse jobs because people hate them so much (maybe not hate but they are discriminated against). They are basically lower class citizens. It's hard to have a will to integrate a society when you're not represented on a political level, because as a minority you will be slaves of the upper class. How do you want them to learn german when your government brings them as cheap labor...?
I don't know if this applies to germany, but I know for a fact as an arab that I'm not welcomed in certain countries and I'm treated like shit based on the fact that I'm arab. My brother was even thinking of changing his name to get a decent job in Europe at a certain time.
Let's take a small example, if you look at something every society in europe has: football. It's still VERY common to hear banana, monkey (against blacks), paki, and other extremely racist chants from the stand. It's as if WW2 continues on the football field and people use it as a symbol of patriotism. (sorry for that slightly off topic subject)
As for the Minarets, I'm against the ban personally, but I'm mostly against the fact that a minority party managed to propagate this idea by propaganda(posters everywhere with a woman wearing a burka and the minarets behind her in black... wtf?) to get the Swiss to vote on this at a national level. Even The Cristians-Jewish-Muslim coalition society of Switzerland (or something like that) don't agree with this. The leading party was also against it, but had to adopt it because it was voted on.
I just find it mildly amusing how atheist want to impose their way of thinking on people that are just minding their own business and practicing their belief. You know, many muslims believe in science, they do go see doctors, practice engineering and some even are scientists. Some muslims are crazy and that's a bummer, but some non-muslim swiss are also crazy. most celebrities are crazy, you don't see americans complaining.
ehh normally I don't post and would definitely avoid responding to a thread/forum that is dominated by non-muslims that have much hate toward the religion as it would just evoke me to respond with hate in return. But I noticed there were some whom were interested in getting thoughts from a practicing muslim. This is for them. Note....that this is my take on the religion and its beliefs and I'm not a scholar. So those that will be technical, which tlnetters are known to be, plz skip this post.
I live in new york and am originally from bangladesh, so I'm familiar with both sides of the spectrum. With any religion or morals or whatever, almost everyone has an inclination towards survival. In order to survive...people must be able to work with each other, be tolerant of differing opinions, and do what they want without causing harm to another. New york is a great example of this - u do what u want as long as u don't fudge with anyone else. Islam stresses peace and togetherness. The pilgrimage aka the Hajj just recently took place, where people of all cultures, backgrounds, societies, countries get together to represent togetherness...peace..tolerance..etc. Whether you are poor, rich, black, white, brown, yellow......doesn't matter.
I don't see how banning the construction of minaret gets anyone toward this tolerance goal. It specifically targets a group of people and says you can't do this. This architecture, or the veil a woman wishes to wear, or w/e in no way harms other people so I don't get the justification. It's up to the person to make their own decisions - let the government f off. It's extremists, practices of governments, minds of fudged up people, that ruin things in the world.
Mind you, islam is a way of life - it gives you guidance on how to eat, how to pray, how to conduct social life, how to do this and that - all towards making the person ethical/moral/spiritual. This is where war comes in to play - the quran gives muslims the right to defend themselves if they are oppressed. Muslims should not be the starters of any problems....they should only defend themselves.
anyways i can write an essay no this but in short what I'm trying to say is there is no point preventing a group of people from doing something if it doesn't harm someone else. Basically be open minded of people with different backgrounds, faiths, opinions, etc even if it doesn't follow the majority's opinion.
If she really 'wishes to wear it', then that's fine, but you know as well as I do that many girls get beaten (or at the very least, emotionally abused) for not wanting to wear one. Not a tiny minority, either.
This is where war comes in to play - the quran gives muslims the right to defend themselves if they are oppressed.
Again, this is all well and good, but this is Switzerland. Muslims are guests in Switzerland, it is the Muslims' job to assimilate to Swiss culture, not Switzerland's job to assimilate to Islamic culture. What kind of person barges into another person's house and then declares culture war on them when the place isn't to their liking?
There are many Muslims who are peaceful and tolerant, but they're too quiet, or maybe just too afraid. They don't condemn the extremists loudly or wholeheartedly enough.
Remember what happened with the Mohammad cartoon fiasco in Europe. The 'moderate' Muslims were too afraid to condemn the Muslims making death threats. All you could get was a half-hearted "Yeah, the extremists are taking it too far, but you really should be more sensitive and not make comics like that" (again, implying that the cartoonist deserved it).
Unless peaceful Muslims can grow some balls and show extremists that they're not afraid to condemn them, loudly and without making excuses, then it means one of two things:
1. They agree on some level with the extremists or 2. They're too afraid of physical retaliation/violence to condemn the extremists
Neither option speaks particularly well for the Muslim world. It's good that there are peaceful Muslims, but entirely irrelevant unless they have more power than the extremists, which they absolutely do not.
edit: I decided I was being too harsh and lightened the language a bit, and also removed the part about my friend, since it is anecdotal evidence and overly emotional. I do appreciate you taking the time to post here, but I wanted to voice my concerns anyway.
On December 01 2009 11:54 Freaky[x] wrote: I'm not sure if this is right, but I heard that many of the turks in germany are treated like trash and take on the worse jobs because people hate them so much (maybe not hate but they are discriminated against). They are basically lower class citizens. It's hard to have a will to integrate a society when you're not represented on a political level, because as a minority you will be slaves of the upper class. How do you want them to learn german when your government brings them as cheap labor...?
I don't know if this applies to germany, but I know for a fact as an arab that I'm not welcomed in certain countries and I'm treated like shit based on the fact that I'm arab. My brother was even thinking of changing his name to get a decent job in Europe at a certain time.
Let's take a small example, if you look at something every society in europe has: football. It's still VERY common to hear banana, monkey (against blacks), paki, and other extremely racist chants from the stand. It's as if WW2 continues on the football field and people use it as a symbol of patriotism. (sorry for that slightly off topic subject)
As for the Minarets, I'm against the ban personally, but I'm mostly against the fact that a minority party managed to propagate this idea by propaganda(posters everywhere with a woman wearing a burka and the minarets behind her in black... wtf?) to get the Swiss to vote on this at a national level. Even The Cristians-Jewish-Muslim coalition society of Switzerland (or something like that) don't agree with this. The leading party was also against it, but had to adopt it because it was voted on.
I just find it mildly amusing how atheist want to impose their way of thinking on people that are just minding their own business and practicing their belief. You know, many muslims believe in science, they do go see doctors, practice engineering and some even are scientists. Some muslims are crazy and that's a bummer, but some non-muslim swiss are also crazy. most celebrities are crazy, you don't see americans complaining.
Religion is a scourge that should be eliminated. Nothing else promotes ignorance, intolerance and blind faith like religion in general does, not just Islam. Science and religion are polar opposites, you can't believe one without rejecting the other. Also, take a look at how voters in various states in America are refusing to give gay people the right to get married. Even if you hate gay people, how can you possibly do this? Many people use religion as their justification, claiming that God hates gays or whatever and posting the lines from the Bible that agree with their view. If their beliefs didn't affect other people, then there wouldn't be a problem, but they do. Take stem cell research for example. Why did George W. Bush not fund this? Instead, he went out of his way to oppose research, despite the fact that it would save many lives. I guess cells that can't feel or think are more important than living people. This is especially hypocritical when you consider the number of executions that George W. Bush presided over and the number of soldiers and civilians that died in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that began during his presidency.
On December 01 2009 11:54 Freaky[x] wrote: I'm not sure if this is right, but I heard that many of the turks in germany are treated like trash and take on the worse jobs because people hate them so much (maybe not hate but they are discriminated against). They are basically lower class citizens. It's hard to have a will to integrate a society when you're not represented on a political level, because as a minority you will be slaves of the upper class. How do you want them to learn german when your government brings them as cheap labor...?
Yeah, it's true that in Germany there are some people that are intolerant towards foreigners (but it almost always applies to all foreigners not only turks and is mostly limited to rural areas and east Germany where there are very little foreigners) What you you write about was the situation 50 years ago when masses of turkish people came to Germany because the country needed cheap labor. Nowadays, Germans are pretty tolerant in general. I am a first generation immigrant from east Europe and have met enough other immigrants, who just like me are fully accepted and integrated in the society. Also Germany is a country with a LOT of immigrants from all over the world so people in the cities really are used to foreigners and get along with them. As for the "lower class citizen": Many (not all though) turkish immigrants are actually in the low social classes, which I would mostly blame on their inability to speak German at all, which leads to the inability to receive proper education and ultimately not receiving a good job (or no job at all).
I don't know if this applies to germany, but I know for a fact as an arab that I'm not welcomed in certain countries and I'm treated like shit based on the fact that I'm arab. My brother was even thinking of changing his name to get a decent job in Europe at a certain time.
This sux... But in cities in West Germany this is not a distinctive problem since Germans as mentioned above actually are tolerant. However, I must admit that as an Arab you would probably have less chances to get a certain job than a German. But on the other hand if you are dressed in European manner than your employment chances are not really worse than the chances a German would have.
Let's take a small example, if you look at something every society in europe has: football. It's still VERY common to hear banana, monkey (against blacks), paki, and other extremely racist chants from the stand. It's as if WW2 continues on the football field and people use it as a symbol of patriotism. (sorry for that slightly off topic subject)
Yeah, it has happened on multiple occasions in football matches throughout Europe. However, in Germany this basically never happens.
As for the Minarets, I'm against the ban personally, but I'm mostly against the fact that a minority party managed to propagate this idea by propaganda(posters everywhere with a woman wearing a burka and the minarets behind her in black... wtf?) to get the Swiss to vote on this at a national level. Even The Cristians-Jewish-Muslim coalition society of Switzerland (or something like that) don't agree with this. The leading party was also against it, but had to adopt it because it was voted on.
I just find it mildly amusing how atheist want to impose their way of thinking on people that are just minding their own business and practicing their belief. You know, many muslims believe in science, they do go see doctors, practice engineering and some even are scientists. Some muslims are crazy and that's a bummer, but some non-muslim swiss are also crazy. most celebrities are crazy, you don't see americans complaining.
As far as I understood, the idea of the ban was by some radical right parties in Switzerland. They suck just as their posters do. However, I already expressed my views why I am against mosques (and minarets) and I would add a few more thoughts why I badly dislike the mosques around here: - How about the fact that many mosques are "turkish only" mosques? It's not like they are gonna throw you out if your are not a turk, but you would not be able to either talk to anybody else there nor you could participate in any non-religious activities that the mosques offer - Now guess, where the funds for most mosques in Germany (also in Bulgaria and probably other countries) come from? They are financed by the Presidency of Religious Affairs (turkish government institution) Well, that's not supposed to be a conspiracy theory. I honestly have no idea, why they are building all these mosques in Germany (In Bulgaria on the other hand, there is a turkish party, which is also funded by the turkish government - so it's all about political power). However, the turkish prime minister held a speech in front of 20000 people in Germany last year. There he successfully gather some votes for the next elections by praising the soon to be started constrution of a great mosque in Germany... It was kinda funny how he was talking about how the Turks need to better integrate themselves in Germany and then he suggested that there should be schools and universities in Germany in which the lessons are given in Turkish (way to go for integration!).
Oh, by the way, after the Swiss banning minarets, Turkish politicians were very upset and started talking about human rights, freedom of religion, etc................ In fact in Turkey Christians, Jews and other religions are NOT allowed to build temples, churches and so on...
Little annotation: I do NOT have anything against Turks! I do have several Turkish friends.
The eugenics programs that used to exist in many Western countries used science to justify killing the mentally and physically disabled to "cleanse" the gene pool.
Saying that science and religion are incompatible is quite wrong.
On December 01 2009 11:54 Freaky[x] wrote: I'm not sure if this is right, but I heard that many of the turks in germany are treated like trash and take on the worse jobs because people hate them so much (maybe not hate but they are discriminated against). They are basically lower class citizens. It's hard to have a will to integrate a society when you're not represented on a political level, because as a minority you will be slaves of the upper class. How do you want them to learn german when your government brings them as cheap labor...?
Yeah, it's true that in Germany there are some people that are intolerant towards foreigners (but it almost always applies to all foreigners not only turks and is mostly limited to rural areas and east Germany where there are very little foreigners) What you you write about was the situation 50 years ago when masses of turkish people came to Germany because the country needed cheap labor. Nowadays, Germans are pretty tolerant in general. I am a first generation immigrant from east Europe and have met enough other immigrants, who just like me are fully accepted and integrated in the society. Also Germany is a country with a LOT of immigrants from all over the world so people in the cities really are used to foreigners and get along with them. As for the "lower class citizen": Many (not all though) turkish immigrants are actually in the low social classes, which I would mostly blame on their inability to speak German at all, which leads to the inability to receive proper education and ultimately not receiving a good job (or no job at all).
I don't know if this applies to germany, but I know for a fact as an arab that I'm not welcomed in certain countries and I'm treated like shit based on the fact that I'm arab. My brother was even thinking of changing his name to get a decent job in Europe at a certain time.
This sux... But in cities in West Germany this is not a distinctive problem since Germans as mentioned above actually are tolerant. However, I must admit that as an Arab you would probably have less chances to get a certain job than a German. But on the other hand if you are dressed in European manner than your employment chances are not really worse than the chances a German would have.
Let's take a small example, if you look at something every society in europe has: football. It's still VERY common to hear banana, monkey (against blacks), paki, and other extremely racist chants from the stand. It's as if WW2 continues on the football field and people use it as a symbol of patriotism. (sorry for that slightly off topic subject)
Yeah, it has happened on multiple occasions in football matches throughout Europe. However, in Germany this basically never happens.
As for the Minarets, I'm against the ban personally, but I'm mostly against the fact that a minority party managed to propagate this idea by propaganda(posters everywhere with a woman wearing a burka and the minarets behind her in black... wtf?) to get the Swiss to vote on this at a national level. Even The Cristians-Jewish-Muslim coalition society of Switzerland (or something like that) don't agree with this. The leading party was also against it, but had to adopt it because it was voted on.
I just find it mildly amusing how atheist want to impose their way of thinking on people that are just minding their own business and practicing their belief. You know, many muslims believe in science, they do go see doctors, practice engineering and some even are scientists. Some muslims are crazy and that's a bummer, but some non-muslim swiss are also crazy. most celebrities are crazy, you don't see americans complaining.
As far as I understood, the idea of the ban was by some radical right parties in Switzerland. They suck just as their posters do. However, I already expressed my views why I am against mosques (and minarets) and I would add a few more thoughts why I badly dislike the mosques around here: - How about the fact that many mosques are "turkish only" mosques? It's not like they are gonna throw you out if your are not a turk, but you would not be able to either talk to anybody else there nor you could participate in any non-religious activities that the mosques offer - Now guess, where the funds for most mosques in Germany (also in Bulgaria and probably other countries) come from? They are financed by the Presidency of Religious Affairs (turkish government institution) Well, that's not supposed to be a conspiracy theory. I honestly have no idea, why they are building all these mosques in Germany (In Bulgaria on the other hand, there is a turkish party, which is also funded by the turkish government - so it's all about political power). However, the turkish prime minister held a speech in front of 20000 people in Germany last year. There he successfully gather some votes for the next elections by praising the soon to be started constrution of a great mosque in Germany... It was kinda funny how he was talking about how the Turks need to better integrate themselves in Germany and then he suggested that there should be schools and universities in Germany in which the lessons are given in Turkish (way to go for integration!).
Oh, by the way, after the Swiss banning minarets, Turkish politicians were very upset and started talking about human rights, freedom of religion, etc................ In fact in Turkey Christians, Jews and other religions are NOT allowed to build temples, churches and so on...
Little annotation: I do NOT have anything against Turks! I do have several Turkish friends.
If you're stating facts, you don't need to justify your statements by saying that you have friends in the group that you might be maligning. That's a tacit only used by people being racist fucks that try to cover it up by this kind of justification. But yeah, it tends to be the people who are most intolerant that yell the loudest for tolerance from others.
On December 01 2009 11:54 Freaky[x] wrote: I'm not sure if this is right, but I heard that many of the turks in germany are treated like trash and take on the worse jobs because people hate them so much (maybe not hate but they are discriminated against). They are basically lower class citizens. It's hard to have a will to integrate a society when you're not represented on a political level, because as a minority you will be slaves of the upper class. How do you want them to learn german when your government brings them as cheap labor...?
I don't know if this applies to germany, but I know for a fact as an arab that I'm not welcomed in certain countries and I'm treated like shit based on the fact that I'm arab. My brother was even thinking of changing his name to get a decent job in Europe at a certain time.
Let's take a small example, if you look at something every society in europe has: football. It's still VERY common to hear banana, monkey (against blacks), paki, and other extremely racist chants from the stand. It's as if WW2 continues on the football field and people use it as a symbol of patriotism. (sorry for that slightly off topic subject)
As for the Minarets, I'm against the ban personally, but I'm mostly against the fact that a minority party managed to propagate this idea by propaganda(posters everywhere with a woman wearing a burka and the minarets behind her in black... wtf?) to get the Swiss to vote on this at a national level. Even The Cristians-Jewish-Muslim coalition society of Switzerland (or something like that) don't agree with this. The leading party was also against it, but had to adopt it because it was voted on.
I just find it mildly amusing how atheist want to impose their way of thinking on people that are just minding their own business and practicing their belief. You know, many muslims believe in science, they do go see doctors, practice engineering and some even are scientists. Some muslims are crazy and that's a bummer, but some non-muslim swiss are also crazy. most celebrities are crazy, you don't see americans complaining.
Religion is a scourge that should be eliminated. Nothing else promotes ignorance, intolerance and blind faith like religion in general does, not just Islam. Science and religion are polar opposites, you can't believe one without rejecting the other. Also, take a look at how voters in various states in America are refusing to give gay people the right to get married. Even if you hate gay people, how can you possibly do this? Many people use religion as their justification, claiming that God hates gays or whatever and posting the lines from the Bible that agree with their view. If their beliefs didn't affect other people, then there wouldn't be a problem, but they do. Take stem cell research for example. Why did George W. Bush not fund this? Instead, he went out of his way to oppose research, despite the fact that it would save many lives. I guess cells that can't feel or think are more important than living people. This is especially hypocritical when you consider the number of executions that George W. Bush presided over and the number of soldiers and civilians that died in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that began during his presidency.
oh just shut up. are you serious.
Science and religion are polar opposites, you can't believe one without rejecting the other.
Are you really serious. do you know how much islamic mathematicians and scientists have contributed to the world. do you know how many mathematicians were religious?
Donald Knuth - do you know who he is? wow he is retarded isn't he, since he is so religious larry wall - he wrote the perl programming language. he is also a devout christian. he is obviously stupid. Charles Hard Townes - yeah he is stupid too issac newton - what the fuck did he ever accomplish Gottfried Leibniz - christian fucking noob Leonhard Euler - religion clearly drove him to doing jack shit with his life too
so honestly I must say you have no idea what you are talking about. and blah blah about your gay shit. why the fuck don't they legalize incest and polygamy? whats wrong if I love my sister why can't I fuck her? lets agree that we won't have kids (even though its not that bad). better yet let me have gay sex with my brother. why is this illegal?
all you gay rights supporters are fucking hypocrites if you ask me. they say they are supporting an ideal of equality, but they won't stand up for other issues which should be made legal based on the same principals.
and btw to all the people saying islam is a dangerous religion. shut the fuck up. talk shit about islam once you have lived with some muslim people, or you are muslim, or have some association with them. not just some shit you hear on tv.
and to the people quoting quran translations. first of all, go learn classical arabic before you try and talk about the quran. you reading quran translations is like trying to understand a progamers interview via babel fish.
second of all if you look down on islam saying they are not advancing because of their religion, shut the fuck up as well. because they were one of the advanced cultures in science and technology. what fucking numbers are you guys using? english numbers? european numbers? christian numbers? i don't fucking think so.
just because the islamic world isn't at the forefront of science and technology doesn't mean its because of their faith or culture that's holding them back. india was one of the most fucking advanced country in the world, let alone asia. infact arabic numbers are really indian numbers with a different script. if you don't know, everything from buddhism, karma, martial arts, trigonometry, shaolin, zen, buddhism kama sutra fuck it the list is way too long - came from indians. they aren't doing as well right now, but is that because of their faith or their culture? fuck no.
so stop talking shit about how you think religion is holding people back. people who were very religious have accomplished more in a few years than most of us will accomplish in our whole lifetimes.
now go fight for your right to fuck your mom. the fact that it's illegal is ridiculous.
On December 01 2009 11:54 Freaky[x] wrote: I'm not sure if this is right, but I heard that many of the turks in germany are treated like trash and take on the worse jobs because people hate them so much (maybe not hate but they are discriminated against). They are basically lower class citizens. It's hard to have a will to integrate a society when you're not represented on a political level, because as a minority you will be slaves of the upper class. How do you want them to learn german when your government brings them as cheap labor...?
I don't know if this applies to germany, but I know for a fact as an arab that I'm not welcomed in certain countries and I'm treated like shit based on the fact that I'm arab. My brother was even thinking of changing his name to get a decent job in Europe at a certain time.
Let's take a small example, if you look at something every society in europe has: football. It's still VERY common to hear banana, monkey (against blacks), paki, and other extremely racist chants from the stand. It's as if WW2 continues on the football field and people use it as a symbol of patriotism. (sorry for that slightly off topic subject)
As for the Minarets, I'm against the ban personally, but I'm mostly against the fact that a minority party managed to propagate this idea by propaganda(posters everywhere with a woman wearing a burka and the minarets behind her in black... wtf?) to get the Swiss to vote on this at a national level. Even The Cristians-Jewish-Muslim coalition society of Switzerland (or something like that) don't agree with this. The leading party was also against it, but had to adopt it because it was voted on.
I just find it mildly amusing how atheist want to impose their way of thinking on people that are just minding their own business and practicing their belief. You know, many muslims believe in science, they do go see doctors, practice engineering and some even are scientists. Some muslims are crazy and that's a bummer, but some non-muslim swiss are also crazy. most celebrities are crazy, you don't see americans complaining.
Religion is a scourge that should be eliminated. Nothing else promotes ignorance, intolerance and blind faith like religion in general does, not just Islam. Science and religion are polar opposites, you can't believe one without rejecting the other. Also, take a look at how voters in various states in America are refusing to give gay people the right to get married. Even if you hate gay people, how can you possibly do this? Many people use religion as their justification, claiming that God hates gays or whatever and posting the lines from the Bible that agree with their view. If their beliefs didn't affect other people, then there wouldn't be a problem, but they do. Take stem cell research for example. Why did George W. Bush not fund this? Instead, he went out of his way to oppose research, despite the fact that it would save many lives. I guess cells that can't feel or think are more important than living people. This is especially hypocritical when you consider the number of executions that George W. Bush presided over and the number of soldiers and civilians that died in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that began during his presidency.
Science and religion are polar opposites, you can't believe one without rejecting the other.
Are you really serious. do you know how much islamic mathematicians and scientists have contributed to the world. do you know how many mathematicians were religious?
Donald Knuth - do you know who he is? wow he is retarded isn't he, since he is so religious larry wall - he wrote the perl programming language. he is also a devout christian. he is obviously stupid. Charles Hard Townes - yeah he is stupid too issac newton - what the fuck did he ever accomplish Gottfried Leibniz - christian fucking noob Leonhard Euler - religion clearly drove him to doing jack shit with his life too
so honestly I must say you have no idea what you are talking about. and blah blah about your gay shit. why the fuck don't they legalize incest and polygamy? whats wrong if I love my sister why can't I fuck her? lets agree that we won't have kids (even though its not that bad). better yet let me have gay sex with my brother. why is this illegal?
all you gay rights supporters are fucking hypocrites if you ask me. they say they are supporting an ideal of equality, but they won't stand up for other issues which should be made legal based on the same principals.
and btw to all the people saying islam is a dangerous religion. shut the fuck up. talk shit about islam once you have lived with some muslim people, or you are muslim, or have some association with them. not just some shit you hear on tv.
and to the people quoting quran translations. first of all, go learn classical arabic before you try and talk about the quran. you reading quran translations is like trying to understand a progamers interview via babel fish.
second of all if you look down on islam saying they are not advancing because of their religion, shut the fuck up as well. because they were one of the advanced cultures in science and technology. what fucking numbers are you guys using? english numbers? european numbers? christian numbers? i don't fucking think so.
just because the islamic world isn't at the forefront of science and technology doesn't mean its because of their faith or culture that's holding them back. india was one of the most fucking advanced country in the world, let alone asia. infact arabic numbers are really indian numbers with a different script. if you don't know, everything from buddhism, karma, martial arts, trigonometry, shaolin, zen, buddhism kama sutra fuck it the list is way too long - came from indians. they aren't doing as well right now, but is that because of their faith or their culture? fuck no.
so stop talking shit about how you think religion is holding people back. people who were very religious have accomplished more in a few years than most of us will accomplish in our whole lifetimes.
now go fight for your right to fuck your mom. the fact that it's illegal is ridiculous.
Would you say these advances happened because they were religious, though? I think that's what ghostwriter is arguing here, that their religion did not motivate any of these advances which were made in mathematics, science and technology.
But I don't know, I'm not ghostwriter, I'm just assuming. Wait to see what he says.
Why can't local communities/cities/states/whatever decide on whether or not they accept the construction of a new Minaret? (or for that manner any large building that would change the architecture/citiscape.. what if I am from a protestant sect that constructs similarly-shaped christian buildings..). All this will do is radicalize relations between Muslims and the Swiss. Pretty stupid law. If a community/city doesn't want a minaret, let them decide, rather then passing a law that bans ALL minarets in Switzerland.
On December 01 2009 11:54 Freaky[x] wrote: I'm not sure if this is right, but I heard that many of the turks in germany are treated like trash and take on the worse jobs because people hate them so much (maybe not hate but they are discriminated against). They are basically lower class citizens. It's hard to have a will to integrate a society when you're not represented on a political level, because as a minority you will be slaves of the upper class. How do you want them to learn german when your government brings them as cheap labor...?
I don't know if this applies to germany, but I know for a fact as an arab that I'm not welcomed in certain countries and I'm treated like shit based on the fact that I'm arab. My brother was even thinking of changing his name to get a decent job in Europe at a certain time.
Let's take a small example, if you look at something every society in europe has: football. It's still VERY common to hear banana, monkey (against blacks), paki, and other extremely racist chants from the stand. It's as if WW2 continues on the football field and people use it as a symbol of patriotism. (sorry for that slightly off topic subject)
As for the Minarets, I'm against the ban personally, but I'm mostly against the fact that a minority party managed to propagate this idea by propaganda(posters everywhere with a woman wearing a burka and the minarets behind her in black... wtf?) to get the Swiss to vote on this at a national level. Even The Cristians-Jewish-Muslim coalition society of Switzerland (or something like that) don't agree with this. The leading party was also against it, but had to adopt it because it was voted on.
I just find it mildly amusing how atheist want to impose their way of thinking on people that are just minding their own business and practicing their belief. You know, many muslims believe in science, they do go see doctors, practice engineering and some even are scientists. Some muslims are crazy and that's a bummer, but some non-muslim swiss are also crazy. most celebrities are crazy, you don't see americans complaining.
Religion is a scourge that should be eliminated. Nothing else promotes ignorance, intolerance and blind faith like religion in general does, not just Islam. Science and religion are polar opposites, you can't believe one without rejecting the other. Also, take a look at how voters in various states in America are refusing to give gay people the right to get married. Even if you hate gay people, how can you possibly do this? Many people use religion as their justification, claiming that God hates gays or whatever and posting the lines from the Bible that agree with their view. If their beliefs didn't affect other people, then there wouldn't be a problem, but they do. Take stem cell research for example. Why did George W. Bush not fund this? Instead, he went out of his way to oppose research, despite the fact that it would save many lives. I guess cells that can't feel or think are more important than living people. This is especially hypocritical when you consider the number of executions that George W. Bush presided over and the number of soldiers and civilians that died in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that began during his presidency.
oh just shut up. are you serious.
Science and religion are polar opposites, you can't believe one without rejecting the other.
Are you really serious. do you know how much islamic mathematicians and scientists have contributed to the world. do you know how many mathematicians were religious?
Donald Knuth - do you know who he is? wow he is retarded isn't he, since he is so religious larry wall - he wrote the perl programming language. he is also a devout christian. he is obviously stupid. Charles Hard Townes - yeah he is stupid too issac newton - what the fuck did he ever accomplish Gottfried Leibniz - christian fucking noob Leonhard Euler - religion clearly drove him to doing jack shit with his life too
so honestly I must say you have no idea what you are talking about. and blah blah about your gay shit. why the fuck don't they legalize incest and polygamy? whats wrong if I love my sister why can't I fuck her? lets agree that we won't have kids (even though its not that bad). better yet let me have gay sex with my brother. why is this illegal?
all you gay rights supporters are fucking hypocrites if you ask me. they say they are supporting an ideal of equality, but they won't stand up for other issues which should be made legal based on the same principals.
and btw to all the people saying islam is a dangerous religion. shut the fuck up. talk shit about islam once you have lived with some muslim people, or you are muslim, or have some association with them. not just some shit you hear on tv.
and to the people quoting quran translations. first of all, go learn classical arabic before you try and talk about the quran. you reading quran translations is like trying to understand a progamers interview via babel fish.
second of all if you look down on islam saying they are not advancing because of their religion, shut the fuck up as well. because they were one of the advanced cultures in science and technology. what fucking numbers are you guys using? english numbers? european numbers? christian numbers? i don't fucking think so.
just because the islamic world isn't at the forefront of science and technology doesn't mean its because of their faith or culture that's holding them back. india was one of the most fucking advanced country in the world, let alone asia. infact arabic numbers are really indian numbers with a different script. if you don't know, everything from buddhism, karma, martial arts, trigonometry, shaolin, zen, buddhism kama sutra fuck it the list is way too long - came from indians. they aren't doing as well right now, but is that because of their faith or their culture? fuck no.
so stop talking shit about how you think religion is holding people back. people who were very religious have accomplished more in a few years than most of us will accomplish in our whole lifetimes.
now go fight for your right to fuck your mom. the fact that it's illegal is ridiculous.
Would you say these advances happened because they were religious, though? I think that's what ghostwriter is arguing here, that their religion did not motivate any of these advances which were made in mathematics, science and technology.
But I don't know, I'm not ghostwriter, I'm just assuming. Wait to see what he says.
His point was that religion and science are incompatible, which is nonsense.
On December 01 2009 11:54 Freaky[x] wrote: I'm not sure if this is right, but I heard that many of the turks in germany are treated like trash and take on the worse jobs because people hate them so much (maybe not hate but they are discriminated against). They are basically lower class citizens. It's hard to have a will to integrate a society when you're not represented on a political level, because as a minority you will be slaves of the upper class. How do you want them to learn german when your government brings them as cheap labor...?
I don't know if this applies to germany, but I know for a fact as an arab that I'm not welcomed in certain countries and I'm treated like shit based on the fact that I'm arab. My brother was even thinking of changing his name to get a decent job in Europe at a certain time.
Let's take a small example, if you look at something every society in europe has: football. It's still VERY common to hear banana, monkey (against blacks), paki, and other extremely racist chants from the stand. It's as if WW2 continues on the football field and people use it as a symbol of patriotism. (sorry for that slightly off topic subject)
As for the Minarets, I'm against the ban personally, but I'm mostly against the fact that a minority party managed to propagate this idea by propaganda(posters everywhere with a woman wearing a burka and the minarets behind her in black... wtf?) to get the Swiss to vote on this at a national level. Even The Cristians-Jewish-Muslim coalition society of Switzerland (or something like that) don't agree with this. The leading party was also against it, but had to adopt it because it was voted on.
I just find it mildly amusing how atheist want to impose their way of thinking on people that are just minding their own business and practicing their belief. You know, many muslims believe in science, they do go see doctors, practice engineering and some even are scientists. Some muslims are crazy and that's a bummer, but some non-muslim swiss are also crazy. most celebrities are crazy, you don't see americans complaining.
Religion is a scourge that should be eliminated. Nothing else promotes ignorance, intolerance and blind faith like religion in general does, not just Islam. Science and religion are polar opposites, you can't believe one without rejecting the other. Also, take a look at how voters in various states in America are refusing to give gay people the right to get married. Even if you hate gay people, how can you possibly do this? Many people use religion as their justification, claiming that God hates gays or whatever and posting the lines from the Bible that agree with their view. If their beliefs didn't affect other people, then there wouldn't be a problem, but they do. Take stem cell research for example. Why did George W. Bush not fund this? Instead, he went out of his way to oppose research, despite the fact that it would save many lives. I guess cells that can't feel or think are more important than living people. This is especially hypocritical when you consider the number of executions that George W. Bush presided over and the number of soldiers and civilians that died in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that began during his presidency.
Science and religion are polar opposites, you can't believe one without rejecting the other.
Are you really serious. do you know how much islamic mathematicians and scientists have contributed to the world. do you know how many mathematicians were religious?
Donald Knuth - do you know who he is? wow he is retarded isn't he, since he is so religious larry wall - he wrote the perl programming language. he is also a devout christian. he is obviously stupid. Charles Hard Townes - yeah he is stupid too issac newton - what the fuck did he ever accomplish Gottfried Leibniz - christian fucking noob Leonhard Euler - religion clearly drove him to doing jack shit with his life too
so honestly I must say you have no idea what you are talking about. and blah blah about your gay shit. why the fuck don't they legalize incest and polygamy? whats wrong if I love my sister why can't I fuck her? lets agree that we won't have kids (even though its not that bad). better yet let me have gay sex with my brother. why is this illegal?
all you gay rights supporters are fucking hypocrites if you ask me. they say they are supporting an ideal of equality, but they won't stand up for other issues which should be made legal based on the same principals.
and btw to all the people saying islam is a dangerous religion. shut the fuck up. talk shit about islam once you have lived with some muslim people, or you are muslim, or have some association with them. not just some shit you hear on tv.
and to the people quoting quran translations. first of all, go learn classical arabic before you try and talk about the quran. you reading quran translations is like trying to understand a progamers interview via babel fish.
second of all if you look down on islam saying they are not advancing because of their religion, shut the fuck up as well. because they were one of the advanced cultures in science and technology. what fucking numbers are you guys using? english numbers? european numbers? christian numbers? i don't fucking think so.
just because the islamic world isn't at the forefront of science and technology doesn't mean its because of their faith or culture that's holding them back. india was one of the most fucking advanced country in the world, let alone asia. infact arabic numbers are really indian numbers with a different script. if you don't know, everything from buddhism, karma, martial arts, trigonometry, shaolin, zen, buddhism kama sutra fuck it the list is way too long - came from indians. they aren't doing as well right now, but is that because of their faith or their culture? fuck no.
so stop talking shit about how you think religion is holding people back. people who were very religious have accomplished more in a few years than most of us will accomplish in our whole lifetimes.
now go fight for your right to fuck your mom. the fact that it's illegal is ridiculous.
Sure thing broseph, let me just go learn an entire language so that I can read an ancient book in its original language and learn why I should hate gays as much as you do.
On December 01 2009 11:54 Freaky[x] wrote: I'm not sure if this is right, but I heard that many of the turks in germany are treated like trash and take on the worse jobs because people hate them so much (maybe not hate but they are discriminated against). They are basically lower class citizens. It's hard to have a will to integrate a society when you're not represented on a political level, because as a minority you will be slaves of the upper class. How do you want them to learn german when your government brings them as cheap labor...?
I don't know if this applies to germany, but I know for a fact as an arab that I'm not welcomed in certain countries and I'm treated like shit based on the fact that I'm arab. My brother was even thinking of changing his name to get a decent job in Europe at a certain time.
Let's take a small example, if you look at something every society in europe has: football. It's still VERY common to hear banana, monkey (against blacks), paki, and other extremely racist chants from the stand. It's as if WW2 continues on the football field and people use it as a symbol of patriotism. (sorry for that slightly off topic subject)
As for the Minarets, I'm against the ban personally, but I'm mostly against the fact that a minority party managed to propagate this idea by propaganda(posters everywhere with a woman wearing a burka and the minarets behind her in black... wtf?) to get the Swiss to vote on this at a national level. Even The Cristians-Jewish-Muslim coalition society of Switzerland (or something like that) don't agree with this. The leading party was also against it, but had to adopt it because it was voted on.
I just find it mildly amusing how atheist want to impose their way of thinking on people that are just minding their own business and practicing their belief. You know, many muslims believe in science, they do go see doctors, practice engineering and some even are scientists. Some muslims are crazy and that's a bummer, but some non-muslim swiss are also crazy. most celebrities are crazy, you don't see americans complaining.
Religion is a scourge that should be eliminated. Nothing else promotes ignorance, intolerance and blind faith like religion in general does, not just Islam. Science and religion are polar opposites, you can't believe one without rejecting the other. Also, take a look at how voters in various states in America are refusing to give gay people the right to get married. Even if you hate gay people, how can you possibly do this? Many people use religion as their justification, claiming that God hates gays or whatever and posting the lines from the Bible that agree with their view. If their beliefs didn't affect other people, then there wouldn't be a problem, but they do. Take stem cell research for example. Why did George W. Bush not fund this? Instead, he went out of his way to oppose research, despite the fact that it would save many lives. I guess cells that can't feel or think are more important than living people. This is especially hypocritical when you consider the number of executions that George W. Bush presided over and the number of soldiers and civilians that died in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that began during his presidency.
oh just shut up. are you serious.
Science and religion are polar opposites, you can't believe one without rejecting the other.
Are you really serious. do you know how much islamic mathematicians and scientists have contributed to the world. do you know how many mathematicians were religious?
Donald Knuth - do you know who he is? wow he is retarded isn't he, since he is so religious larry wall - he wrote the perl programming language. he is also a devout christian. he is obviously stupid. Charles Hard Townes - yeah he is stupid too issac newton - what the fuck did he ever accomplish Gottfried Leibniz - christian fucking noob Leonhard Euler - religion clearly drove him to doing jack shit with his life too
so honestly I must say you have no idea what you are talking about. and blah blah about your gay shit. why the fuck don't they legalize incest and polygamy? whats wrong if I love my sister why can't I fuck her? lets agree that we won't have kids (even though its not that bad). better yet let me have gay sex with my brother. why is this illegal?
all you gay rights supporters are fucking hypocrites if you ask me. they say they are supporting an ideal of equality, but they won't stand up for other issues which should be made legal based on the same principals.
and btw to all the people saying islam is a dangerous religion. shut the fuck up. talk shit about islam once you have lived with some muslim people, or you are muslim, or have some association with them. not just some shit you hear on tv.
and to the people quoting quran translations. first of all, go learn classical arabic before you try and talk about the quran. you reading quran translations is like trying to understand a progamers interview via babel fish.
second of all if you look down on islam saying they are not advancing because of their religion, shut the fuck up as well. because they were one of the advanced cultures in science and technology. what fucking numbers are you guys using? english numbers? european numbers? christian numbers? i don't fucking think so.
just because the islamic world isn't at the forefront of science and technology doesn't mean its because of their faith or culture that's holding them back. india was one of the most fucking advanced country in the world, let alone asia. infact arabic numbers are really indian numbers with a different script. if you don't know, everything from buddhism, karma, martial arts, trigonometry, shaolin, zen, buddhism kama sutra fuck it the list is way too long - came from indians. they aren't doing as well right now, but is that because of their faith or their culture? fuck no.
so stop talking shit about how you think religion is holding people back. people who were very religious have accomplished more in a few years than most of us will accomplish in our whole lifetimes.
now go fight for your right to fuck your mom. the fact that it's illegal is ridiculous.
Would you say these advances happened because they were religious, though? I think that's what ghostwriter is arguing here, that their religion did not motivate any of these advances which were made in mathematics, science and technology.
But I don't know, I'm not ghostwriter, I'm just assuming. Wait to see what he says.
I'm not saying that these advances happened because they were religious. It is possible, but it's impossible for us to tell. What I'm saying in that point is that the fact that they were religious didn't seem to hinder their progress of science and technology, what ghostWriter and many other people in this thread are trying to state.
And note the people that I mentioned in the thread were actively devout religious people, who in fact often related religion to their work. I'm not talking about people who just happened to be religious and did something.
On December 01 2009 11:54 Freaky[x] wrote: I'm not sure if this is right, but I heard that many of the turks in germany are treated like trash and take on the worse jobs because people hate them so much (maybe not hate but they are discriminated against). They are basically lower class citizens. It's hard to have a will to integrate a society when you're not represented on a political level, because as a minority you will be slaves of the upper class. How do you want them to learn german when your government brings them as cheap labor...?
I don't know if this applies to germany, but I know for a fact as an arab that I'm not welcomed in certain countries and I'm treated like shit based on the fact that I'm arab. My brother was even thinking of changing his name to get a decent job in Europe at a certain time.
Let's take a small example, if you look at something every society in europe has: football. It's still VERY common to hear banana, monkey (against blacks), paki, and other extremely racist chants from the stand. It's as if WW2 continues on the football field and people use it as a symbol of patriotism. (sorry for that slightly off topic subject)
As for the Minarets, I'm against the ban personally, but I'm mostly against the fact that a minority party managed to propagate this idea by propaganda(posters everywhere with a woman wearing a burka and the minarets behind her in black... wtf?) to get the Swiss to vote on this at a national level. Even The Cristians-Jewish-Muslim coalition society of Switzerland (or something like that) don't agree with this. The leading party was also against it, but had to adopt it because it was voted on.
I just find it mildly amusing how atheist want to impose their way of thinking on people that are just minding their own business and practicing their belief. You know, many muslims believe in science, they do go see doctors, practice engineering and some even are scientists. Some muslims are crazy and that's a bummer, but some non-muslim swiss are also crazy. most celebrities are crazy, you don't see americans complaining.
Religion is a scourge that should be eliminated. Nothing else promotes ignorance, intolerance and blind faith like religion in general does, not just Islam. Science and religion are polar opposites, you can't believe one without rejecting the other. Also, take a look at how voters in various states in America are refusing to give gay people the right to get married. Even if you hate gay people, how can you possibly do this? Many people use religion as their justification, claiming that God hates gays or whatever and posting the lines from the Bible that agree with their view. If their beliefs didn't affect other people, then there wouldn't be a problem, but they do. Take stem cell research for example. Why did George W. Bush not fund this? Instead, he went out of his way to oppose research, despite the fact that it would save many lives. I guess cells that can't feel or think are more important than living people. This is especially hypocritical when you consider the number of executions that George W. Bush presided over and the number of soldiers and civilians that died in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that began during his presidency.
oh just shut up. are you serious.
Science and religion are polar opposites, you can't believe one without rejecting the other.
Are you really serious. do you know how much islamic mathematicians and scientists have contributed to the world. do you know how many mathematicians were religious?
Donald Knuth - do you know who he is? wow he is retarded isn't he, since he is so religious larry wall - he wrote the perl programming language. he is also a devout christian. he is obviously stupid. Charles Hard Townes - yeah he is stupid too issac newton - what the fuck did he ever accomplish Gottfried Leibniz - christian fucking noob Leonhard Euler - religion clearly drove him to doing jack shit with his life too
so honestly I must say you have no idea what you are talking about. and blah blah about your gay shit. why the fuck don't they legalize incest and polygamy? whats wrong if I love my sister why can't I fuck her? lets agree that we won't have kids (even though its not that bad). better yet let me have gay sex with my brother. why is this illegal?
all you gay rights supporters are fucking hypocrites if you ask me. they say they are supporting an ideal of equality, but they won't stand up for other issues which should be made legal based on the same principals.
and btw to all the people saying islam is a dangerous religion. shut the fuck up. talk shit about islam once you have lived with some muslim people, or you are muslim, or have some association with them. not just some shit you hear on tv.
and to the people quoting quran translations. first of all, go learn classical arabic before you try and talk about the quran. you reading quran translations is like trying to understand a progamers interview via babel fish.
second of all if you look down on islam saying they are not advancing because of their religion, shut the fuck up as well. because they were one of the advanced cultures in science and technology. what fucking numbers are you guys using? english numbers? european numbers? christian numbers? i don't fucking think so.
just because the islamic world isn't at the forefront of science and technology doesn't mean its because of their faith or culture that's holding them back. india was one of the most fucking advanced country in the world, let alone asia. infact arabic numbers are really indian numbers with a different script. if you don't know, everything from buddhism, karma, martial arts, trigonometry, shaolin, zen, buddhism kama sutra fuck it the list is way too long - came from indians. they aren't doing as well right now, but is that because of their faith or their culture? fuck no.
so stop talking shit about how you think religion is holding people back. people who were very religious have accomplished more in a few years than most of us will accomplish in our whole lifetimes.
now go fight for your right to fuck your mom. the fact that it's illegal is ridiculous.
Sure thing broseph, let me just go learn an entire language so that I can read an ancient book in its original language and learn why I should hate gays as much as you do.
hey man, actually I don't hate gays, and i'm not muslim myself. what i'm saying is that you can't start analyzing islamic scripture based off of translations. a translation of the quran is not even considered the "holy quran", this is not the same with the bible, where translations are still considered to be more or less canon.
ancient arabic is apparently is not that easy to translate to english. the quran is written very poetically, and as you all may know poetry is one of the hardest things to translate. additionally context is very important. you can see a bunch of youtube videos showing how people take excerpts of speeches out of context and string them together to create absolutely ridiculous shit.
On December 01 2009 11:54 Freaky[x] wrote: I'm not sure if this is right, but I heard that many of the turks in germany are treated like trash and take on the worse jobs because people hate them so much (maybe not hate but they are discriminated against). They are basically lower class citizens. It's hard to have a will to integrate a society when you're not represented on a political level, because as a minority you will be slaves of the upper class. How do you want them to learn german when your government brings them as cheap labor...?
I don't know if this applies to germany, but I know for a fact as an arab that I'm not welcomed in certain countries and I'm treated like shit based on the fact that I'm arab. My brother was even thinking of changing his name to get a decent job in Europe at a certain time.
Let's take a small example, if you look at something every society in europe has: football. It's still VERY common to hear banana, monkey (against blacks), paki, and other extremely racist chants from the stand. It's as if WW2 continues on the football field and people use it as a symbol of patriotism. (sorry for that slightly off topic subject)
As for the Minarets, I'm against the ban personally, but I'm mostly against the fact that a minority party managed to propagate this idea by propaganda(posters everywhere with a woman wearing a burka and the minarets behind her in black... wtf?) to get the Swiss to vote on this at a national level. Even The Cristians-Jewish-Muslim coalition society of Switzerland (or something like that) don't agree with this. The leading party was also against it, but had to adopt it because it was voted on.
I just find it mildly amusing how atheist want to impose their way of thinking on people that are just minding their own business and practicing their belief. You know, many muslims believe in science, they do go see doctors, practice engineering and some even are scientists. Some muslims are crazy and that's a bummer, but some non-muslim swiss are also crazy. most celebrities are crazy, you don't see americans complaining.
Religion is a scourge that should be eliminated. Nothing else promotes ignorance, intolerance and blind faith like religion in general does, not just Islam. Science and religion are polar opposites, you can't believe one without rejecting the other. Also, take a look at how voters in various states in America are refusing to give gay people the right to get married. Even if you hate gay people, how can you possibly do this? Many people use religion as their justification, claiming that God hates gays or whatever and posting the lines from the Bible that agree with their view. If their beliefs didn't affect other people, then there wouldn't be a problem, but they do. Take stem cell research for example. Why did George W. Bush not fund this? Instead, he went out of his way to oppose research, despite the fact that it would save many lives. I guess cells that can't feel or think are more important than living people. This is especially hypocritical when you consider the number of executions that George W. Bush presided over and the number of soldiers and civilians that died in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that began during his presidency.
Science and religion are polar opposites, you can't believe one without rejecting the other.
Are you really serious. do you know how much islamic mathematicians and scientists have contributed to the world. do you know how many mathematicians were religious?
Donald Knuth - do you know who he is? wow he is retarded isn't he, since he is so religious larry wall - he wrote the perl programming language. he is also a devout christian. he is obviously stupid. Charles Hard Townes - yeah he is stupid too issac newton - what the fuck did he ever accomplish Gottfried Leibniz - christian fucking noob Leonhard Euler - religion clearly drove him to doing jack shit with his life too
so honestly I must say you have no idea what you are talking about. and blah blah about your gay shit. why the fuck don't they legalize incest and polygamy? whats wrong if I love my sister why can't I fuck her? lets agree that we won't have kids (even though its not that bad). better yet let me have gay sex with my brother. why is this illegal?
all you gay rights supporters are fucking hypocrites if you ask me. they say they are supporting an ideal of equality, but they won't stand up for other issues which should be made legal based on the same principals.
and btw to all the people saying islam is a dangerous religion. shut the fuck up. talk shit about islam once you have lived with some muslim people, or you are muslim, or have some association with them. not just some shit you hear on tv.
and to the people quoting quran translations. first of all, go learn classical arabic before you try and talk about the quran. you reading quran translations is like trying to understand a progamers interview via babel fish.
second of all if you look down on islam saying they are not advancing because of their religion, shut the fuck up as well. because they were one of the advanced cultures in science and technology. what fucking numbers are you guys using? english numbers? european numbers? christian numbers? i don't fucking think so.
just because the islamic world isn't at the forefront of science and technology doesn't mean its because of their faith or culture that's holding them back. india was one of the most fucking advanced country in the world, let alone asia. infact arabic numbers are really indian numbers with a different script. if you don't know, everything from buddhism, karma, martial arts, trigonometry, shaolin, zen, buddhism kama sutra fuck it the list is way too long - came from indians. they aren't doing as well right now, but is that because of their faith or their culture? fuck no.
so stop talking shit about how you think religion is holding people back. people who were very religious have accomplished more in a few years than most of us will accomplish in our whole lifetimes.
now go fight for your right to fuck your mom. the fact that it's illegal is ridiculous.
You bring up some good points, even if they tend to be strawmen that stray away from the main issues. But their religion didn't contribute to their intelligence or their contributions. I would say that they were able to make their contributions despite their religion. I can see why people would be religious, but I disagree with it. But that's the thing about religion. People are brain washed from a young age to accept a worldview that has no evidence whatsoever. I feel that all the time that Newton spent analyzing the bible would have been better spent on thinking about and improving the theory of gravity or whatever. Also, in the past, the church was much more powerful than it is now. The church made up a huge part of people's lives, it's not like today's world in which people are more willing to analyze, think critically and decide for themselves. You really can't compare different situations in times that are separated by centuries, because they are radically different. People may claim to believe in a religion, just because it's socially acceptable (or even required) to do so, even if they don't accept the basic tenets of the religion.
Why are you so against incest and polygamy? You do know that there are examples in the Bible of incest, although I can't think of anything that has to do with polygamy. Then again, the Mormons believe (believed?) in polygamy. Truthfully, I think they are wrong and I wouldn't do either, but in theory at least, I feel that these are taboos because of societal pressures and because of the inherent problems involved with them. I also disagree with gay behavior, I think that it's a bit pointless since it doesn't lead to procreation, but then again, neither does anal or oral sex, or even sex with a condom on. Then again, this idea fundamentally contradicts with the ideals of freedom and equality that this country was built on and that I believe in, despite its inherent hypocrisies when it was written. We probably developed an aversion to incest as we saw the genetic problems (although back then, they weren't aware of genetics of course) that were associated with incestful relationships and that's probably where that came from. Many people believe in the right to have polygamous relationships, no matter what you may think about it Please don't create somewhat unrelated strawmen and then bash them as if they were positions that I took, just to be sensationalist.
I have had several Muslim friends in both high school and college and they were more or less all fine, decent people, not that this matters. I also realize that what the media shows me may be skewed to be sensationalist, but it's not like Fox News went out and put signs in the hands of people that say "Death to America" just to strike fear into the hearts of Americans. They are obviously selective about what they show, but they are just the middlemen and don't go out and create the behaviors that they record. Comparing koran translations to babelfish is ridiculous. I'm sure people worked hard translating the Koran into different languages. And if anything that's an argument in my favor. Not that I believe in anything written in these so called holy books, but how do you know that something wasn't lost in translation when the angel Gabriel supposedly told Mohammed what to write? In any case, why should I learn a language just to read a book that I know isn't the actual word of God anyway?
Koreans have actually used Chinese numbers and they developed their own system as well, not that having arabic numbers (that originated in India actually, long before Islam even came about)[edit]sorry I didn't see that you said this already] being used makes a difference to the argument at hand. The Romans had their numbers too as well as their own gods. Why not believe in Jupiter and Neptune, along with Allah?
By the way, saying fuck in every sentence doesn't help you get your point across, you just look immature and unnecessarily abrasive. It's not difficult to argue in a civilized manner without telling people that you disagree with to "shut up" and imply that they should "fuck your mother".
On November 30 2009 10:14 InToTheWannaB wrote: I'm shocked so many people in this thread seem to believe this is ok. How can anyone be ok with a law the clearly persecutes a religious group? I understand not be a fan of a religion, but no one gets to decide whats right for other people. You can't make it hard for them to practice there beliefs because you dislike them. I thought all western nations had adopted religious freedom long ago.
Bro, do we live in the same country?
That's what governments do...they decide what's RIGHT FOR YOU. There is no real reason for Marijuana to be illegal for instance but it sure as hell is. That's the government making a decision FOR ME on whether or not I can put something INTO MY OWN BODY.
I always found it strange that religious persecution was always met with such a stark upheaval when other ideas like homosexuality rights and abortion rights don't get anywhere near the same attention.
I don't think anybody in any thread I have read in the past 2 years on teamliquid has angered me as much as Ghostwriter has in this thread. Extremists of any kind are a problem to man kind, especially the atheist ones. They're the one's who piss me off the most because they're oblivious to the sad irony that they are just as devoted to atheism and 'science' as most religious extremest are to their respective god(s). Stop trying to see the world through your tainted 'enlightened' lens and actually learn about religions and understand them before you criticism them as evil and a plague on the world.
Also, Koreasilver is right. Take a goddamn logic course. Don't cite your opponent as using strawmans and then go to use them yourself. Learn to be less extremist, and maybe people will actually listen to your arguments, and maybe even like you.
On December 01 2009 14:47 Athos wrote: I don't think anybody in any thread I have read in the past 2 years on teamliquid has angered me as much as Ghostwriter has in this thread. Extremists of any kind are a problem to man kind, especially the atheist ones. They're the one's who piss me off the most because they're oblivious to the sad irony that they are just as devoted to atheism and 'science' as most religious extremest are to their respective god(s). Stop trying to see the world through your tainted 'enlightened' lens and actually learn about religions and understand them before you criticism them as evil and a plague on the world.
Also, Koreasilver is right. Take a goddamn logic course. Don't cite your opponent as using strawmans and then go to use them yourself. Learn to be less extremist, and maybe people will actually listen to your arguments, and maybe even like you.
Guess what? I don't care if you like me or not.
In any case, I was a practicing, believing Christian until like two weeks ago. I attend a Catholic school. I went to church at least twice a week and I am familiar with most, if not all of the stories of the Bible taught in church. But I guess I need to go learn about it before I criticize it, because I obviously can't use my eyes and brain to see and understand the evils that religion propagates in the world. You don't need to touch a hot stove to know that it will burn the shit out of your hand.
The difference between science and religion is that religion falsely claims to know and explain truth, while science actively goes to experiment to try to explain phenomena. Religion is the lazy way out: "Why bother learning anything, it's obvious that God did it and that's good enough for me". Atheists are a problem how? Sorry for trying to open your eyes to the fact that religion in general makes no sense and that people using religion to justify intrusions on other people's rights is wrong.
I am intimately familiar with Christianity, pretty good with Buddhism and I know a bit about Judaism, Islam, Roman, Hindu, Greek religions etc. Don't tell me what I know or don't know. tainted enlightened lens my ass
On December 01 2009 11:54 Freaky[x] wrote: I'm not sure if this is right, but I heard that many of the turks in germany are treated like trash and take on the worse jobs because people hate them so much (maybe not hate but they are discriminated against). They are basically lower class citizens. It's hard to have a will to integrate a society when you're not represented on a political level, because as a minority you will be slaves of the upper class. How do you want them to learn german when your government brings them as cheap labor...?
I don't know if this applies to germany, but I know for a fact as an arab that I'm not welcomed in certain countries and I'm treated like shit based on the fact that I'm arab. My brother was even thinking of changing his name to get a decent job in Europe at a certain time.
Let's take a small example, if you look at something every society in europe has: football. It's still VERY common to hear banana, monkey (against blacks), paki, and other extremely racist chants from the stand. It's as if WW2 continues on the football field and people use it as a symbol of patriotism. (sorry for that slightly off topic subject)
As for the Minarets, I'm against the ban personally, but I'm mostly against the fact that a minority party managed to propagate this idea by propaganda(posters everywhere with a woman wearing a burka and the minarets behind her in black... wtf?) to get the Swiss to vote on this at a national level. Even The Cristians-Jewish-Muslim coalition society of Switzerland (or something like that) don't agree with this. The leading party was also against it, but had to adopt it because it was voted on.
I just find it mildly amusing how atheist want to impose their way of thinking on people that are just minding their own business and practicing their belief. You know, many muslims believe in science, they do go see doctors, practice engineering and some even are scientists. Some muslims are crazy and that's a bummer, but some non-muslim swiss are also crazy. most celebrities are crazy, you don't see americans complaining.
Religion is a scourge that should be eliminated. Nothing else promotes ignorance, intolerance and blind faith like religion in general does, not just Islam. Science and religion are polar opposites, you can't believe one without rejecting the other. Also, take a look at how voters in various states in America are refusing to give gay people the right to get married. Even if you hate gay people, how can you possibly do this? Many people use religion as their justification, claiming that God hates gays or whatever and posting the lines from the Bible that agree with their view. If their beliefs didn't affect other people, then there wouldn't be a problem, but they do. Take stem cell research for example. Why did George W. Bush not fund this? Instead, he went out of his way to oppose research, despite the fact that it would save many lives. I guess cells that can't feel or think are more important than living people. This is especially hypocritical when you consider the number of executions that George W. Bush presided over and the number of soldiers and civilians that died in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that began during his presidency.
oh just shut up. are you serious.
Science and religion are polar opposites, you can't believe one without rejecting the other.
Are you really serious. do you know how much islamic mathematicians and scientists have contributed to the world. do you know how many mathematicians were religious?
Donald Knuth - do you know who he is? wow he is retarded isn't he, since he is so religious larry wall - he wrote the perl programming language. he is also a devout christian. he is obviously stupid. Charles Hard Townes - yeah he is stupid too issac newton - what the fuck did he ever accomplish Gottfried Leibniz - christian fucking noob Leonhard Euler - religion clearly drove him to doing jack shit with his life too
so honestly I must say you have no idea what you are talking about. and blah blah about your gay shit. why the fuck don't they legalize incest and polygamy? whats wrong if I love my sister why can't I fuck her? lets agree that we won't have kids (even though its not that bad). better yet let me have gay sex with my brother. why is this illegal?
all you gay rights supporters are fucking hypocrites if you ask me. they say they are supporting an ideal of equality, but they won't stand up for other issues which should be made legal based on the same principals.
and btw to all the people saying islam is a dangerous religion. shut the fuck up. talk shit about islam once you have lived with some muslim people, or you are muslim, or have some association with them. not just some shit you hear on tv.
and to the people quoting quran translations. first of all, go learn classical arabic before you try and talk about the quran. you reading quran translations is like trying to understand a progamers interview via babel fish.
second of all if you look down on islam saying they are not advancing because of their religion, shut the fuck up as well. because they were one of the advanced cultures in science and technology. what fucking numbers are you guys using? english numbers? european numbers? christian numbers? i don't fucking think so.
just because the islamic world isn't at the forefront of science and technology doesn't mean its because of their faith or culture that's holding them back. india was one of the most fucking advanced country in the world, let alone asia. infact arabic numbers are really indian numbers with a different script. if you don't know, everything from buddhism, karma, martial arts, trigonometry, shaolin, zen, buddhism kama sutra fuck it the list is way too long - came from indians. they aren't doing as well right now, but is that because of their faith or their culture? fuck no.
so stop talking shit about how you think religion is holding people back. people who were very religious have accomplished more in a few years than most of us will accomplish in our whole lifetimes.
now go fight for your right to fuck your mom. the fact that it's illegal is ridiculous.
You bring up some good points, even if they tend to be strawmen that stray away from the main issues. But their religion didn't contribute to their intelligence or their contributions. I would say that they were able to make their contributions despite their religion. I can see why people would be religious, but I disagree with it. But that's the thing about religion. People are brain washed from a young age to accept a worldview that has no evidence whatsoever. I feel that all the time that Newton spent analyzing the bible would have been better spent on thinking about and improving the theory of gravity or whatever. Also, in the past, the church was much more powerful than it is now. The church made up a huge part of people's lives, it's not like today's world in which people are more willing to analyze, think critically and decide for themselves. You really can't compare different situations in times that are separated by centuries, because they are radically different. People may claim to believe in a religion, just because it's socially acceptable (or even required) to do so, even if they don't accept the basic tenets of the religion.
Why are you so against incest and polygamy? You do know that there are examples in the Bible of incest, although I can't think of anything that has to do with polygamy. Then again, the Mormons believe (believed?) in polygamy. Truthfully, I think they are wrong and I wouldn't do either, but in theory at least, I feel that these are taboos because of societal pressures and because of the inherent problems involved with them. I also disagree with gay behavior, I think that it's a bit pointless since it doesn't lead to procreation, but then again, neither does anal or oral sex, or even sex with a condom on. Then again, this idea fundamentally contradicts with the ideals of freedom and equality that this country was built on and that I believe in, despite its inherent hypocrisies when it was written. We probably developed an aversion to incest as we saw the genetic problems (although back then, they weren't aware of genetics of course) that were associated with incestful relationships and that's probably where that came from. Many people believe in the right to have polygamous relationships, no matter what you may think about it Please don't create somewhat unrelated strawmen and then bash them as if they were positions that I took, just to be sensationalist.
I have had several Muslim friends in both high school and college and they were more or less all fine, decent people, not that this matters. I also realize that what the media shows me may be skewed to be sensationalist, but it's not like Fox News went out and put signs in the hands of people that say "Death to America" just to strike fear into the hearts of Americans. They are obviously selective about what they show, but they are just the middlemen and don't go out and create the behaviors that they record. Comparing koran translations to babelfish is ridiculous. I'm sure people worked hard translating the Koran into different languages. And if anything that's an argument in my favor. Not that I believe in anything written in these so called holy books, but how do you know that something wasn't lost in translation when the angel Gabriel supposedly told Mohammed what to write? In any case, why should I learn a language just to read a book that I know isn't the actual word of God anyway?
Koreans have actually used Chinese numbers and they developed their own system as well, not that having arabic numbers (that originated in India actually, long before Islam even came about)[edit]sorry I didn't see that you said this already] being used makes a difference to the argument at hand. The Romans had their numbers too as well as their own gods. Why not believe in Jupiter and Neptune, along with Allah?
By the way, saying fuck in every sentence doesn't help you get your point across, you just look immature and unnecessarily abrasive. It's not difficult to argue in a civilized manner without telling people that you disagree with to "shut up" and imply that they should "fuck your mother".
I would just like to say thanks for responding to my post in a well mannered manner I agree with you that my post was abrasive; it was actually intentional, but I do again thank you for a gm response oh also I wasn't saying to "go fuck your mom". I was more like trying to imply that people who fight for gay rights should also fight for the right to "fuck their mother" or incest, which is also illegal, but under the same pretenses, should be made legal.
My response was why not? I stand by my principles and I believe that what people want to do in their bedrooms is not something that other people should concern themselves with. Just because society disagrees with it, there are laws against it and people think that their religion is against it, doesn't mean that these people have the right to go and dictate to other people what behaviors they can or cannot do, especially if those behaviors don't infringe on the rights of others. This is not to say that I agree with these behaviors, nor would I do them myself.
I looked at all three of your links (through Google translator), but I couldn't find a single figure on what percentage of second and/or third generation descendants of immigrants lack proficiency in German. They mostly talked about problems with immigrants, and even then, there was often a lack numbers. I found one study that claimed 2/3rd of second generation descendants tested in the 4th year had problems with reading, although I couldn't find such a figure for native-born children to compare to. Still quite a high number for any first-world country though, so I guess your claims have some merit.
Still, banning minarets is just reactionary backlash that won't accomplish anything; it doesn't do anything concrete, but what it does do is send a message that other cultures aren't welcome. For a country struggling to integrate immigrants, this is very counterproductive. You might as well ban crosses in hopes that people will stop being Christian.
On December 01 2009 13:57 ultramagnetics wrote: Why can't local communities/cities/states/whatever decide on whether or not they accept the construction of a new Minaret? (or for that manner any large building that would change the architecture/citiscape.. what if I am from a protestant sect that constructs similarly-shaped christian buildings..). All this will do is radicalize relations between Muslims and the Swiss. Pretty stupid law. If a community/city doesn't want a minaret, let them decide, rather then passing a law that bans ALL minarets in Switzerland.
On December 01 2009 11:54 Freaky[x] wrote: I'm not sure if this is right, but I heard that many of the turks in germany are treated like trash and take on the worse jobs because people hate them so much (maybe not hate but they are discriminated against). They are basically lower class citizens. It's hard to have a will to integrate a society when you're not represented on a political level, because as a minority you will be slaves of the upper class. How do you want them to learn german when your government brings them as cheap labor...?
I don't know if this applies to germany, but I know for a fact as an arab that I'm not welcomed in certain countries and I'm treated like shit based on the fact that I'm arab. My brother was even thinking of changing his name to get a decent job in Europe at a certain time.
Let's take a small example, if you look at something every society in europe has: football. It's still VERY common to hear banana, monkey (against blacks), paki, and other extremely racist chants from the stand. It's as if WW2 continues on the football field and people use it as a symbol of patriotism. (sorry for that slightly off topic subject)
As for the Minarets, I'm against the ban personally, but I'm mostly against the fact that a minority party managed to propagate this idea by propaganda(posters everywhere with a woman wearing a burka and the minarets behind her in black... wtf?) to get the Swiss to vote on this at a national level. Even The Cristians-Jewish-Muslim coalition society of Switzerland (or something like that) don't agree with this. The leading party was also against it, but had to adopt it because it was voted on.
I just find it mildly amusing how atheist want to impose their way of thinking on people that are just minding their own business and practicing their belief. You know, many muslims believe in science, they do go see doctors, practice engineering and some even are scientists. Some muslims are crazy and that's a bummer, but some non-muslim swiss are also crazy. most celebrities are crazy, you don't see americans complaining.
Religion is a scourge that should be eliminated. Nothing else promotes ignorance, intolerance and blind faith like religion in general does, not just Islam. Science and religion are polar opposites, you can't believe one without rejecting the other. Also, take a look at how voters in various states in America are refusing to give gay people the right to get married. Even if you hate gay people, how can you possibly do this? Many people use religion as their justification, claiming that God hates gays or whatever and posting the lines from the Bible that agree with their view. If their beliefs didn't affect other people, then there wouldn't be a problem, but they do. Take stem cell research for example. Why did George W. Bush not fund this? Instead, he went out of his way to oppose research, despite the fact that it would save many lives. I guess cells that can't feel or think are more important than living people. This is especially hypocritical when you consider the number of executions that George W. Bush presided over and the number of soldiers and civilians that died in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that began during his presidency.
oh just shut up. are you serious.
Science and religion are polar opposites, you can't believe one without rejecting the other.
Are you really serious. do you know how much islamic mathematicians and scientists have contributed to the world. do you know how many mathematicians were religious?
Donald Knuth - do you know who he is? wow he is retarded isn't he, since he is so religious larry wall - he wrote the perl programming language. he is also a devout christian. he is obviously stupid. Charles Hard Townes - yeah he is stupid too issac newton - what the fuck did he ever accomplish Gottfried Leibniz - christian fucking noob Leonhard Euler - religion clearly drove him to doing jack shit with his life too
so honestly I must say you have no idea what you are talking about. and blah blah about your gay shit. why the fuck don't they legalize incest and polygamy? whats wrong if I love my sister why can't I fuck her? lets agree that we won't have kids (even though its not that bad). better yet let me have gay sex with my brother. why is this illegal?
all you gay rights supporters are fucking hypocrites if you ask me. they say they are supporting an ideal of equality, but they won't stand up for other issues which should be made legal based on the same principals.
and btw to all the people saying islam is a dangerous religion. shut the fuck up. talk shit about islam once you have lived with some muslim people, or you are muslim, or have some association with them. not just some shit you hear on tv.
and to the people quoting quran translations. first of all, go learn classical arabic before you try and talk about the quran. you reading quran translations is like trying to understand a progamers interview via babel fish.
second of all if you look down on islam saying they are not advancing because of their religion, shut the fuck up as well. because they were one of the advanced cultures in science and technology. what fucking numbers are you guys using? english numbers? european numbers? christian numbers? i don't fucking think so.
just because the islamic world isn't at the forefront of science and technology doesn't mean its because of their faith or culture that's holding them back. india was one of the most fucking advanced country in the world, let alone asia. infact arabic numbers are really indian numbers with a different script. if you don't know, everything from buddhism, karma, martial arts, trigonometry, shaolin, zen, buddhism kama sutra fuck it the list is way too long - came from indians. they aren't doing as well right now, but is that because of their faith or their culture? fuck no.
so stop talking shit about how you think religion is holding people back. people who were very religious have accomplished more in a few years than most of us will accomplish in our whole lifetimes.
now go fight for your right to fuck your mom. the fact that it's illegal is ridiculous.
You bring up some good points, even if they tend to be strawmen that stray away from the main issues. But their religion didn't contribute to their intelligence or their contributions. I would say that they were able to make their contributions despite their religion. I can see why people would be religious, but I disagree with it. But that's the thing about religion. People are brain washed from a young age to accept a worldview that has no evidence whatsoever. I feel that all the time that Newton spent analyzing the bible would have been better spent on thinking about and improving the theory of gravity or whatever. Also, in the past, the church was much more powerful than it is now. The church made up a huge part of people's lives, it's not like today's world in which people are more willing to analyze, think critically and decide for themselves. You really can't compare different situations in times that are separated by centuries, because they are radically different. People may claim to believe in a religion, just because it's socially acceptable (or even required) to do so, even if they don't accept the basic tenets of the religion.
Why are you so against incest and polygamy? You do know that there are examples in the Bible of incest, although I can't think of anything that has to do with polygamy. Then again, the Mormons believe (believed?) in polygamy. Truthfully, I think they are wrong and I wouldn't do either, but in theory at least, I feel that these are taboos because of societal pressures and because of the inherent problems involved with them. I also disagree with gay behavior, I think that it's a bit pointless since it doesn't lead to procreation, but then again, neither does anal or oral sex, or even sex with a condom on. Then again, this idea fundamentally contradicts with the ideals of freedom and equality that this country was built on and that I believe in, despite its inherent hypocrisies when it was written. We probably developed an aversion to incest as we saw the genetic problems (although back then, they weren't aware of genetics of course) that were associated with incestful relationships and that's probably where that came from. Many people believe in the right to have polygamous relationships, no matter what you may think about it Please don't create somewhat unrelated strawmen and then bash them as if they were positions that I took, just to be sensationalist.
I have had several Muslim friends in both high school and college and they were more or less all fine, decent people, not that this matters. I also realize that what the media shows me may be skewed to be sensationalist, but it's not like Fox News went out and put signs in the hands of people that say "Death to America" just to strike fear into the hearts of Americans. They are obviously selective about what they show, but they are just the middlemen and don't go out and create the behaviors that they record. Comparing koran translations to babelfish is ridiculous. I'm sure people worked hard translating the Koran into different languages. And if anything that's an argument in my favor. Not that I believe in anything written in these so called holy books, but how do you know that something wasn't lost in translation when the angel Gabriel supposedly told Mohammed what to write? In any case, why should I learn a language just to read a book that I know isn't the actual word of God anyway?
Koreans have actually used Chinese numbers and they developed their own system as well, not that having arabic numbers (that originated in India actually, long before Islam even came about)[edit]sorry I didn't see that you said this already] being used makes a difference to the argument at hand. The Romans had their numbers too as well as their own gods. Why not believe in Jupiter and Neptune, along with Allah?
By the way, saying fuck in every sentence doesn't help you get your point across, you just look immature and unnecessarily abrasive. It's not difficult to argue in a civilized manner without telling people that you disagree with to "shut up" and imply that they should "fuck your mother".
I would just like to say thanks for responding to my post in a well mannered manner I agree with you that my post was abrasive; it was actually intentional, but I do again thank you for a gm response oh also I wasn't saying to "go fuck your mom". I was more like trying to imply that people who fight for gay rights should also fight for the right to "fuck their mother" or incest, which is also illegal, but under the same pretenses, should be made legal.
I've been trying to keep up with this thread for the most part and people like JWD and Drone made most of my points, but it's too bad this retard was banned because if you equate homosexuality to incest, you obviously don't have the slightest clue.
On December 01 2009 13:57 ultramagnetics wrote: Why can't local communities/cities/states/whatever decide on whether or not they accept the construction of a new Minaret? (or for that manner any large building that would change the architecture/citiscape.. what if I am from a protestant sect that constructs similarly-shaped christian buildings..). All this will do is radicalize relations between Muslims and the Swiss. Pretty stupid law. If a community/city doesn't want a minaret, let them decide, rather then passing a law that bans ALL minarets in Switzerland.
the country of "Switzerland" is local enough imo
pretty small country
small enough for democracy to work
It was handled like you porpose before this vote.
And thats one of the reasons why i am so against this new law . The tools allready were there to ban Minarets from places were people did not want them.
Btw: If you think this is a minor topic we could/had to vote on you should check out all the stuff we actually vote about :p.
I didn't mean any disrespect towards the issues or Switzerland. I was merely stating that his complaints that people in a local community should be allowed to decide on laws were trivial considering how small Switzerland is compared to China, Russia, or the United States where local authorities have even less power in relation to the federal government.
On December 01 2009 14:47 Athos wrote: I don't think anybody in any thread I have read in the past 2 years on teamliquid has angered me as much as Ghostwriter has in this thread. Extremists of any kind are a problem to man kind, especially the atheist ones. They're the one's who piss me off the most because they're oblivious to the sad irony that they are just as devoted to atheism and 'science' as most religious extremest are to their respective god(s). Stop trying to see the world through your tainted 'enlightened' lens and actually learn about religions and understand them before you criticism them as evil and a plague on the world.
Also, Koreasilver is right. Take a goddamn logic course. Don't cite your opponent as using strawmans and then go to use them yourself. Learn to be less extremist, and maybe people will actually listen to your arguments, and maybe even like you.
On December 01 2009 16:31 GGTeMpLaR wrote: War is a continuation of policy by other means - Carl Von Clausewitz
As usual with quotes by great people, this one is continuously misunderstood and misused. Maybe you should read Vom Kriege first before applying his quote to support your point. Which it doesn't do at all in this case.
All religion is bullshit. If you're going to be intolerant to one then be intolerant to all of them. But that's unrealistic.
Well it IS their country, why can't they have a say in how it should be? I don't get why all the western countries have to give in to everything foreign just so they can be politically correct.
Fine, maybe they are xenophobic and intolerant. Does that make them terrible and evil human beings? They just want to live their lives according to tradition and what they are familiar with. Why do the local people have to start changing their ways for a group of people that left their own country in search of a better country to live in.
oh yea and sweden is pretty awesome in that nearly everyone here is atheist. a month ago i overheard a girl talking on the phone and said something like "...omg that guy was a religion nerd... " lol sweden is awesome. religious people are seen as stupid nerds hahaha.
On November 30 2009 08:02 FragKrag wrote: Saturnize I don't think there is a single country in Europe where the majority has no religious beliefs
maybe, just maybe the Netherlands, but I think even that is a long shot.
Sweden. I P-R-O-M-I-S-E
Yep, Sweden.
Then again "religious beliefs" aren't that clear cut. Alot of Swedes don't go to church but many people believe in "something". You guys are making way too many assumptions of your own here. I would say there are more agnostics than atheists in Sweden for example.
Pyro, yeah religious people are often viewed like a bit weird here. At the same time we have one of the highest rates of depression in Europe, which may or may not have something to do with us being a secularized country and lacking the comfort from religion.
Removing god is not always positive for people's well-being, although it's the rational thing to do.
I looked at all three of your links (through Google translator), but I couldn't find a single figure on what percentage of second and/or third generation descendants of immigrants lack proficiency in German. They mostly talked about problems with immigrants, and even then, there was often a lack numbers. I found one study that claimed 2/3rd of second generation descendants tested in the 4th year had problems with reading, although I couldn't find such a figure for native-born children to compare to. Still quite a high number for any first-world country though, so I guess your claims have some merit.
Unfotunately, my claims have not only some merit... You seem to like numbers so here are some for you:
Integration Problems - It basically says: - turkish immigrants are the least integrated immigrant group in Germany - third and even forth generation turkish immigrants not wishing to integrate - 30% do NOT achieve ANY educational degree (=not finishing even 8 grade...) - only 14% finishing 13th grade (in comparison 25% of Germans finish 13th grade) - 70% finishing only 9th grade (without any further schooling (German average is about 20%)) - 42% of turks in Berlin are unemployed (German average ~10%)
Still, banning minarets is just reactionary backlash that won't accomplish anything; it doesn't do anything concrete, but what it does do is send a message that other cultures aren't welcome. For a country struggling to integrate immigrants, this is very counterproductive. You might as well ban crosses in hopes that people will stop being Christian.
Yeah sure. It's far better to let them completely bar themselves from society. Since the mosques offer a place to spend time and pass activities, guess where many turks decide to spend all of their time? I honestly cannot imagine how they would integrate in Germany if they continue like this...
this is pretty blatant racism/ discrimination against minority "alien" culture. the picture says it all, its portrayed as if the minarets are some kind of disease sprouting off the land and spreading all over
Knowing that there are fanatics , why are they making such decision ? It ll rather cause problems than solve anything . Terrorist threat, even tho low in Swiss will be a bit or more higher because of that decision , right ?
On December 01 2009 11:54 Freaky[x] wrote: I'm not sure if this is right, but I heard that many of the turks in germany are treated like trash and take on the worse jobs because people hate them so much (maybe not hate but they are discriminated against). They are basically lower class citizens. It's hard to have a will to integrate a society when you're not represented on a political level, because as a minority you will be slaves of the upper class. How do you want them to learn german when your government brings them as cheap labor...?
I don't know if this applies to germany, but I know for a fact as an arab that I'm not welcomed in certain countries and I'm treated like shit based on the fact that I'm arab. My brother was even thinking of changing his name to get a decent job in Europe at a certain time.
Let's take a small example, if you look at something every society in europe has: football. It's still VERY common to hear banana, monkey (against blacks), paki, and other extremely racist chants from the stand. It's as if WW2 continues on the football field and people use it as a symbol of patriotism. (sorry for that slightly off topic subject)
As for the Minarets, I'm against the ban personally, but I'm mostly against the fact that a minority party managed to propagate this idea by propaganda(posters everywhere with a woman wearing a burka and the minarets behind her in black... wtf?) to get the Swiss to vote on this at a national level. Even The Cristians-Jewish-Muslim coalition society of Switzerland (or something like that) don't agree with this. The leading party was also against it, but had to adopt it because it was voted on.
I just find it mildly amusing how atheist want to impose their way of thinking on people that are just minding their own business and practicing their belief. You know, many muslims believe in science, they do go see doctors, practice engineering and some even are scientists. Some muslims are crazy and that's a bummer, but some non-muslim swiss are also crazy. most celebrities are crazy, you don't see americans complaining.
Religion is a scourge that should be eliminated. Nothing else promotes ignorance, intolerance and blind faith like religion in general does, not just Islam. Science and religion are polar opposites, you can't believe one without rejecting the other. Also, take a look at how voters in various states in America are refusing to give gay people the right to get married. Even if you hate gay people, how can you possibly do this? Many people use religion as their justification, claiming that God hates gays or whatever and posting the lines from the Bible that agree with their view. If their beliefs didn't affect other people, then there wouldn't be a problem, but they do. Take stem cell research for example. Why did George W. Bush not fund this? Instead, he went out of his way to oppose research, despite the fact that it would save many lives. I guess cells that can't feel or think are more important than living people. This is especially hypocritical when you consider the number of executions that George W. Bush presided over and the number of soldiers and civilians that died in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that began during his presidency.
oh just shut up. are you serious.
Science and religion are polar opposites, you can't believe one without rejecting the other.
Are you really serious. do you know how much islamic mathematicians and scientists have contributed to the world. do you know how many mathematicians were religious?
Donald Knuth - do you know who he is? wow he is retarded isn't he, since he is so religious larry wall - he wrote the perl programming language. he is also a devout christian. he is obviously stupid. Charles Hard Townes - yeah he is stupid too issac newton - what the fuck did he ever accomplish Gottfried Leibniz - christian fucking noob Leonhard Euler - religion clearly drove him to doing jack shit with his life too
so honestly I must say you have no idea what you are talking about. and blah blah about your gay shit. why the fuck don't they legalize incest and polygamy? whats wrong if I love my sister why can't I fuck her? lets agree that we won't have kids (even though its not that bad). better yet let me have gay sex with my brother. why is this illegal?
all you gay rights supporters are fucking hypocrites if you ask me. they say they are supporting an ideal of equality, but they won't stand up for other issues which should be made legal based on the same principals.
and btw to all the people saying islam is a dangerous religion. shut the fuck up. talk shit about islam once you have lived with some muslim people, or you are muslim, or have some association with them. not just some shit you hear on tv.
and to the people quoting quran translations. first of all, go learn classical arabic before you try and talk about the quran. you reading quran translations is like trying to understand a progamers interview via babel fish.
second of all if you look down on islam saying they are not advancing because of their religion, shut the fuck up as well. because they were one of the advanced cultures in science and technology. what fucking numbers are you guys using? english numbers? european numbers? christian numbers? i don't fucking think so.
just because the islamic world isn't at the forefront of science and technology doesn't mean its because of their faith or culture that's holding them back. india was one of the most fucking advanced country in the world, let alone asia. infact arabic numbers are really indian numbers with a different script. if you don't know, everything from buddhism, karma, martial arts, trigonometry, shaolin, zen, buddhism kama sutra fuck it the list is way too long - came from indians. they aren't doing as well right now, but is that because of their faith or their culture? fuck no.
so stop talking shit about how you think religion is holding people back. people who were very religious have accomplished more in a few years than most of us will accomplish in our whole lifetimes.
now go fight for your right to fuck your mom. the fact that it's illegal is ridiculous.
Would you say these advances happened because they were religious, though? I think that's what ghostwriter is arguing here, that their religion did not motivate any of these advances which were made in mathematics, science and technology.
But I don't know, I'm not ghostwriter, I'm just assuming. Wait to see what he says.
His point was that religion and science are incompatible, which is nonsense.
They are incompatible, unless by religion you mean picking and choosing which parts you believe so that it doesnt conflict with science. But, if you truly believe any of the popular religions then you hold believes that directly contradict science.
On December 01 2009 11:54 Freaky[x] wrote: I'm not sure if this is right, but I heard that many of the turks in germany are treated like trash and take on the worse jobs because people hate them so much (maybe not hate but they are discriminated against). They are basically lower class citizens. It's hard to have a will to integrate a society when you're not represented on a political level, because as a minority you will be slaves of the upper class. How do you want them to learn german when your government brings them as cheap labor...?
I don't know if this applies to germany, but I know for a fact as an arab that I'm not welcomed in certain countries and I'm treated like shit based on the fact that I'm arab. My brother was even thinking of changing his name to get a decent job in Europe at a certain time.
Let's take a small example, if you look at something every society in europe has: football. It's still VERY common to hear banana, monkey (against blacks), paki, and other extremely racist chants from the stand. It's as if WW2 continues on the football field and people use it as a symbol of patriotism. (sorry for that slightly off topic subject)
As for the Minarets, I'm against the ban personally, but I'm mostly against the fact that a minority party managed to propagate this idea by propaganda(posters everywhere with a woman wearing a burka and the minarets behind her in black... wtf?) to get the Swiss to vote on this at a national level. Even The Cristians-Jewish-Muslim coalition society of Switzerland (or something like that) don't agree with this. The leading party was also against it, but had to adopt it because it was voted on.
I just find it mildly amusing how atheist want to impose their way of thinking on people that are just minding their own business and practicing their belief. You know, many muslims believe in science, they do go see doctors, practice engineering and some even are scientists. Some muslims are crazy and that's a bummer, but some non-muslim swiss are also crazy. most celebrities are crazy, you don't see americans complaining.
Religion is a scourge that should be eliminated. Nothing else promotes ignorance, intolerance and blind faith like religion in general does, not just Islam. Science and religion are polar opposites, you can't believe one without rejecting the other. Also, take a look at how voters in various states in America are refusing to give gay people the right to get married. Even if you hate gay people, how can you possibly do this? Many people use religion as their justification, claiming that God hates gays or whatever and posting the lines from the Bible that agree with their view. If their beliefs didn't affect other people, then there wouldn't be a problem, but they do. Take stem cell research for example. Why did George W. Bush not fund this? Instead, he went out of his way to oppose research, despite the fact that it would save many lives. I guess cells that can't feel or think are more important than living people. This is especially hypocritical when you consider the number of executions that George W. Bush presided over and the number of soldiers and civilians that died in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that began during his presidency.
oh just shut up. are you serious.
Science and religion are polar opposites, you can't believe one without rejecting the other.
Are you really serious. do you know how much islamic mathematicians and scientists have contributed to the world. do you know how many mathematicians were religious?
Donald Knuth - do you know who he is? wow he is retarded isn't he, since he is so religious larry wall - he wrote the perl programming language. he is also a devout christian. he is obviously stupid. Charles Hard Townes - yeah he is stupid too issac newton - what the fuck did he ever accomplish Gottfried Leibniz - christian fucking noob Leonhard Euler - religion clearly drove him to doing jack shit with his life too
so honestly I must say you have no idea what you are talking about. and blah blah about your gay shit. why the fuck don't they legalize incest and polygamy? whats wrong if I love my sister why can't I fuck her? lets agree that we won't have kids (even though its not that bad). better yet let me have gay sex with my brother. why is this illegal?
all you gay rights supporters are fucking hypocrites if you ask me. they say they are supporting an ideal of equality, but they won't stand up for other issues which should be made legal based on the same principals.
and btw to all the people saying islam is a dangerous religion. shut the fuck up. talk shit about islam once you have lived with some muslim people, or you are muslim, or have some association with them. not just some shit you hear on tv.
and to the people quoting quran translations. first of all, go learn classical arabic before you try and talk about the quran. you reading quran translations is like trying to understand a progamers interview via babel fish.
second of all if you look down on islam saying they are not advancing because of their religion, shut the fuck up as well. because they were one of the advanced cultures in science and technology. what fucking numbers are you guys using? english numbers? european numbers? christian numbers? i don't fucking think so.
just because the islamic world isn't at the forefront of science and technology doesn't mean its because of their faith or culture that's holding them back. india was one of the most fucking advanced country in the world, let alone asia. infact arabic numbers are really indian numbers with a different script. if you don't know, everything from buddhism, karma, martial arts, trigonometry, shaolin, zen, buddhism kama sutra fuck it the list is way too long - came from indians. they aren't doing as well right now, but is that because of their faith or their culture? fuck no.
so stop talking shit about how you think religion is holding people back. people who were very religious have accomplished more in a few years than most of us will accomplish in our whole lifetimes.
now go fight for your right to fuck your mom. the fact that it's illegal is ridiculous.
Would you say these advances happened because they were religious, though? I think that's what ghostwriter is arguing here, that their religion did not motivate any of these advances which were made in mathematics, science and technology.
But I don't know, I'm not ghostwriter, I'm just assuming. Wait to see what he says.
His point was that religion and science are incompatible, which is nonsense.
They are incompatible, unless by religion you mean picking and choosing which parts you believe so that it doesnt conflict with science. But, if you truly believe any of the popular religions then you hold believes that directly contradict science.
This is pretty self-evident; it's sad that you had to point this out like this for him. But then again, the unsupported affirmative statements that he makes pretty much speak for themselves
On December 01 2009 16:41 Velr wrote: Btw: If you think this is a minor topic we could/had to vote on you should check out all the stuff we actually vote about :p.
lol yeah, this is one of the most important things we voted on in recent times. The other two federal things last Sunday were a blanket ban on exporting war material (didn't pass) and a really small thing that nobody was interested in and that was going to pass anyway because nobody was really against it. :p
I have already made my response to this topic on page 20-21 or so, but I would like to add that koreasilver should not simply come by and say "point X is nonsense." That's not an argument, and it's not like serious, educated authorities don't argue for point X (point X being "religion and science are incompatible", but that's beside the point).
To dismiss a reputable point as nonsense with no other reason given is trolling, flame baiting, and topic derailing. It baits people like me to then ask him to back up this claim, at which point he will probably offer flimsy reasons or try to turn the burden of proof on me. Next, I'm either taking pot shots at his reasons which he can accuse of being semantics, OR I'm offering my own reasons for a position that is completely off topic, OR we bicker over whom the burden of proof is on and who said what. And I'm okay with doing this, but why not do it in a new thread about this very new dispute? Why add "are religion and science incompatible?" to THIS topic, about whether governments should ban minarets?
You can see how this kind of thing would "steal" the topic, so really, hold your tongue until you are willing to research the topic and give reasons for the position on it you take--if you did that you would not make an "Not X, cause it's nonsense"-style argument.
On December 01 2009 16:41 Velr wrote: Btw: If you think this is a minor topic we could/had to vote on you should check out all the stuff we actually vote about :p.
lol yeah, this is one of the most important things we voted on in recent times. The other two federal things last Sunday were a blanket ban on exporting war material (didn't pass) and a really small thing that nobody was interested in and that was going to pass anyway because nobody was really against it. :p
On December 01 2009 11:54 Freaky[x] wrote: I'm not sure if this is right, but I heard that many of the turks in germany are treated like trash and take on the worse jobs because people hate them so much (maybe not hate but they are discriminated against). They are basically lower class citizens. It's hard to have a will to integrate a society when you're not represented on a political level, because as a minority you will be slaves of the upper class. How do you want them to learn german when your government brings them as cheap labor...?
I don't know if this applies to germany, but I know for a fact as an arab that I'm not welcomed in certain countries and I'm treated like shit based on the fact that I'm arab. My brother was even thinking of changing his name to get a decent job in Europe at a certain time.
Let's take a small example, if you look at something every society in europe has: football. It's still VERY common to hear banana, monkey (against blacks), paki, and other extremely racist chants from the stand. It's as if WW2 continues on the football field and people use it as a symbol of patriotism. (sorry for that slightly off topic subject)
As for the Minarets, I'm against the ban personally, but I'm mostly against the fact that a minority party managed to propagate this idea by propaganda(posters everywhere with a woman wearing a burka and the minarets behind her in black... wtf?) to get the Swiss to vote on this at a national level. Even The Cristians-Jewish-Muslim coalition society of Switzerland (or something like that) don't agree with this. The leading party was also against it, but had to adopt it because it was voted on.
I just find it mildly amusing how atheist want to impose their way of thinking on people that are just minding their own business and practicing their belief. You know, many muslims believe in science, they do go see doctors, practice engineering and some even are scientists. Some muslims are crazy and that's a bummer, but some non-muslim swiss are also crazy. most celebrities are crazy, you don't see americans complaining.
Religion is a scourge that should be eliminated. Nothing else promotes ignorance, intolerance and blind faith like religion in general does, not just Islam. Science and religion are polar opposites, you can't believe one without rejecting the other. Also, take a look at how voters in various states in America are refusing to give gay people the right to get married. Even if you hate gay people, how can you possibly do this? Many people use religion as their justification, claiming that God hates gays or whatever and posting the lines from the Bible that agree with their view. If their beliefs didn't affect other people, then there wouldn't be a problem, but they do. Take stem cell research for example. Why did George W. Bush not fund this? Instead, he went out of his way to oppose research, despite the fact that it would save many lives. I guess cells that can't feel or think are more important than living people. This is especially hypocritical when you consider the number of executions that George W. Bush presided over and the number of soldiers and civilians that died in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that began during his presidency.
oh just shut up. are you serious.
Science and religion are polar opposites, you can't believe one without rejecting the other.
Are you really serious. do you know how much islamic mathematicians and scientists have contributed to the world. do you know how many mathematicians were religious?
Donald Knuth - do you know who he is? wow he is retarded isn't he, since he is so religious larry wall - he wrote the perl programming language. he is also a devout christian. he is obviously stupid. Charles Hard Townes - yeah he is stupid too issac newton - what the fuck did he ever accomplish Gottfried Leibniz - christian fucking noob Leonhard Euler - religion clearly drove him to doing jack shit with his life too
so honestly I must say you have no idea what you are talking about. and blah blah about your gay shit. why the fuck don't they legalize incest and polygamy? whats wrong if I love my sister why can't I fuck her? lets agree that we won't have kids (even though its not that bad). better yet let me have gay sex with my brother. why is this illegal?
all you gay rights supporters are fucking hypocrites if you ask me. they say they are supporting an ideal of equality, but they won't stand up for other issues which should be made legal based on the same principals.
and btw to all the people saying islam is a dangerous religion. shut the fuck up. talk shit about islam once you have lived with some muslim people, or you are muslim, or have some association with them. not just some shit you hear on tv.
and to the people quoting quran translations. first of all, go learn classical arabic before you try and talk about the quran. you reading quran translations is like trying to understand a progamers interview via babel fish.
second of all if you look down on islam saying they are not advancing because of their religion, shut the fuck up as well. because they were one of the advanced cultures in science and technology. what fucking numbers are you guys using? english numbers? european numbers? christian numbers? i don't fucking think so.
just because the islamic world isn't at the forefront of science and technology doesn't mean its because of their faith or culture that's holding them back. india was one of the most fucking advanced country in the world, let alone asia. infact arabic numbers are really indian numbers with a different script. if you don't know, everything from buddhism, karma, martial arts, trigonometry, shaolin, zen, buddhism kama sutra fuck it the list is way too long - came from indians. they aren't doing as well right now, but is that because of their faith or their culture? fuck no.
so stop talking shit about how you think religion is holding people back. people who were very religious have accomplished more in a few years than most of us will accomplish in our whole lifetimes.
now go fight for your right to fuck your mom. the fact that it's illegal is ridiculous.
Would you say these advances happened because they were religious, though? I think that's what ghostwriter is arguing here, that their religion did not motivate any of these advances which were made in mathematics, science and technology.
But I don't know, I'm not ghostwriter, I'm just assuming. Wait to see what he says.
His point was that religion and science are incompatible, which is nonsense.
They are incompatible, unless by religion you mean picking and choosing which parts you believe so that it doesnt conflict with science. But, if you truly believe any of the popular religions then you hold believes that directly contradict science.
Religion and science as a whole are not completely incompatible. Of course there are various aspects where they have no choice depending on what religion but to clash but you can seriously say that with just about everything. The idea that you can not be religious and believe in science or be a scientist and be religious is a completely ridiculous notion as many aspects of religion and science can coexist with each other. The only real issue between a religion like Christianity and science is the issues with the mainstream scientific thought of how life originated on the earth and the Genesis myth. Christianity in general has driven themselves into a hole by constantly changing their stances in order to worm themselves into "safe" areas throughout history, but we were talking about religion as a whole, not just simply Christianity or other Abrahamic religions or whatever. Just because one of the most prominent religions in the world has some big issues with one aspect of science (disregarding how modern scientific analysis has given evidence for various Catholic relics being bogus; not for convenience but more due to these problems being the Vatican just being idiots rather than it being an issue due to the fundamental Christian beliefs), does not mean that religion and science are incompatible.
On December 02 2009 02:02 old times sake wrote: I have already made my response to this topic on page 20-21 or so, but I would like to add that koreasilver should not simply come by and say "point X is nonsense." That's not an argument, and it's not like serious, educated authorities don't argue for point X (point X being "religion and science are incompatible", but that's beside the point).
To dismiss a reputable point as nonsense with no other reason given is trolling, flame baiting, and topic derailing. It baits people like me to then ask him to back up this claim, at which point he will probably offer flimsy reasons or try to turn the burden of proof on me. Next, I'm either taking pot shots at his reasons which he can accuse of being semantics, OR I'm offering my own reasons for a position that is completely off topic, OR we bicker over whom the burden of proof is on and who said what. And I'm okay with doing this, but why not do it in a new thread about this very new dispute? Why add "are religion and science incompatible?" to THIS topic, about whether governments should ban minarets?
You can see how this kind of thing would "steal" the topic, so really, hold your tongue until you are willing to research the topic and give reasons for the position on it you take--if you did that you would not make an "Not X, cause it's nonsense"-style argument.
Since when were blanket statements reputable in any way? The divergences from the topic were generally not initiated by me either, I have just simply been replying to whatever statements that have been said in this thread that suggest that religion is the problem.
The discussion of the compatibility of religion and science was also not brought up by me. Beats me why they brought that to the dinner table.
On December 01 2009 11:54 Freaky[x] wrote: I'm not sure if this is right, but I heard that many of the turks in germany are treated like trash and take on the worse jobs because people hate them so much (maybe not hate but they are discriminated against). They are basically lower class citizens. It's hard to have a will to integrate a society when you're not represented on a political level, because as a minority you will be slaves of the upper class. How do you want them to learn german when your government brings them as cheap labor...?
I don't know if this applies to germany, but I know for a fact as an arab that I'm not welcomed in certain countries and I'm treated like shit based on the fact that I'm arab. My brother was even thinking of changing his name to get a decent job in Europe at a certain time.
Let's take a small example, if you look at something every society in europe has: football. It's still VERY common to hear banana, monkey (against blacks), paki, and other extremely racist chants from the stand. It's as if WW2 continues on the football field and people use it as a symbol of patriotism. (sorry for that slightly off topic subject)
As for the Minarets, I'm against the ban personally, but I'm mostly against the fact that a minority party managed to propagate this idea by propaganda(posters everywhere with a woman wearing a burka and the minarets behind her in black... wtf?) to get the Swiss to vote on this at a national level. Even The Cristians-Jewish-Muslim coalition society of Switzerland (or something like that) don't agree with this. The leading party was also against it, but had to adopt it because it was voted on.
I just find it mildly amusing how atheist want to impose their way of thinking on people that are just minding their own business and practicing their belief. You know, many muslims believe in science, they do go see doctors, practice engineering and some even are scientists. Some muslims are crazy and that's a bummer, but some non-muslim swiss are also crazy. most celebrities are crazy, you don't see americans complaining.
Religion is a scourge that should be eliminated. Nothing else promotes ignorance, intolerance and blind faith like religion in general does, not just Islam. Science and religion are polar opposites, you can't believe one without rejecting the other. Also, take a look at how voters in various states in America are refusing to give gay people the right to get married. Even if you hate gay people, how can you possibly do this? Many people use religion as their justification, claiming that God hates gays or whatever and posting the lines from the Bible that agree with their view. If their beliefs didn't affect other people, then there wouldn't be a problem, but they do. Take stem cell research for example. Why did George W. Bush not fund this? Instead, he went out of his way to oppose research, despite the fact that it would save many lives. I guess cells that can't feel or think are more important than living people. This is especially hypocritical when you consider the number of executions that George W. Bush presided over and the number of soldiers and civilians that died in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that began during his presidency.
oh just shut up. are you serious.
Science and religion are polar opposites, you can't believe one without rejecting the other.
Are you really serious. do you know how much islamic mathematicians and scientists have contributed to the world. do you know how many mathematicians were religious?
Donald Knuth - do you know who he is? wow he is retarded isn't he, since he is so religious larry wall - he wrote the perl programming language. he is also a devout christian. he is obviously stupid. Charles Hard Townes - yeah he is stupid too issac newton - what the fuck did he ever accomplish Gottfried Leibniz - christian fucking noob Leonhard Euler - religion clearly drove him to doing jack shit with his life too
so honestly I must say you have no idea what you are talking about. and blah blah about your gay shit. why the fuck don't they legalize incest and polygamy? whats wrong if I love my sister why can't I fuck her? lets agree that we won't have kids (even though its not that bad). better yet let me have gay sex with my brother. why is this illegal?
all you gay rights supporters are fucking hypocrites if you ask me. they say they are supporting an ideal of equality, but they won't stand up for other issues which should be made legal based on the same principals.
and btw to all the people saying islam is a dangerous religion. shut the fuck up. talk shit about islam once you have lived with some muslim people, or you are muslim, or have some association with them. not just some shit you hear on tv.
and to the people quoting quran translations. first of all, go learn classical arabic before you try and talk about the quran. you reading quran translations is like trying to understand a progamers interview via babel fish.
second of all if you look down on islam saying they are not advancing because of their religion, shut the fuck up as well. because they were one of the advanced cultures in science and technology. what fucking numbers are you guys using? english numbers? european numbers? christian numbers? i don't fucking think so.
just because the islamic world isn't at the forefront of science and technology doesn't mean its because of their faith or culture that's holding them back. india was one of the most fucking advanced country in the world, let alone asia. infact arabic numbers are really indian numbers with a different script. if you don't know, everything from buddhism, karma, martial arts, trigonometry, shaolin, zen, buddhism kama sutra fuck it the list is way too long - came from indians. they aren't doing as well right now, but is that because of their faith or their culture? fuck no.
so stop talking shit about how you think religion is holding people back. people who were very religious have accomplished more in a few years than most of us will accomplish in our whole lifetimes.
now go fight for your right to fuck your mom. the fact that it's illegal is ridiculous.
Would you say these advances happened because they were religious, though? I think that's what ghostwriter is arguing here, that their religion did not motivate any of these advances which were made in mathematics, science and technology.
But I don't know, I'm not ghostwriter, I'm just assuming. Wait to see what he says.
His point was that religion and science are incompatible, which is nonsense.
They are incompatible, unless by religion you mean picking and choosing which parts you believe so that it doesnt conflict with science. But, if you truly believe any of the popular religions then you hold believes that directly contradict science.
This is pretty self-evident; it's sad that you had to point this out like this for him. But then again, the unsupported affirmative statements that he makes pretty much speak for themselves
It's sad that you had to be pointed out that the murder of Jews in the Holocaust was an ethnically motivated atrocity, not a religious one?
I'm just gonna butt in with my 2 cents because I hate when people talk about science and religion being compatible.
They aren't. They can't be. It's one or the other.
I'm not saying you can't be spiritual and a be a scientist, I'm just saying the two will never complement each other.
When evolution was discussed around Darwin's time, it got a lot of flak because it contradicted a big part of what the christian god meant to the religion. Even in recent history, cases are still brought up about teaching evoultion is schools.
but as it gradually becomes clear that there is such a rich amount of fascinating evidence pointing towards evolution, you see people reworking their beliefs around it so they don't sound like cave men.
"oh yeah, well genesis is really more of a metaphor, you know?"
"yeah, all those planets and the fact that were 0.0000000000000000000000001% of the universe, god did all that too -- he can do what ever wants, we can't question God, man."
I can't see this doing anything good. If you don't want people stoning women, then ban the stoning of women.. not architecture.
Seriously, it's not like Muslims say "hey guys, I just built this minaret.. LETS HANG SOME HOMOS OFF IT LOL"
and how many people have actually SEEN a minaret? If there's only four in Switzerland, I'm sure not everyone even knows what it is. By the looks of the poster some people probably thought it was a burka.
On December 02 2009 04:46 eMbrace wrote: I'm just gonna butt in with my 2 cents because I hate when people talk about science and religion being compatible.
They aren't. They can't be. It's one or the other.
I'm not saying you can't be spiritual and a be a scientist, I'm just saying the two will never complement each other.
When evolution was discussed around Darwin's time, it got a lot of flak because it contradicted a big part of what the christian god meant to the religion. Even in recent history, cases are still brought up about teaching evoultion is schools.
but as it gradually becomes clear that there is such a rich amount of fascinating evidence pointing towards evolution, you see people reworking their beliefs around it so they don't sound like cave men.
"oh yeah, well genesis is really more of a metaphor, you know?"
"yeah, all those planets and the fact that were 0.0000000000000000000000001% of the universe, god did all that too -- he can do what ever wants, we can't question God, man."
-_-
There's a distinction here. science and a literal view of the Bible is definitely NOT compatible. But there definitely is room for both religion and science, depending on what you believe happened before the Big Bang and so on. In fact, there's room for things within modern physics that are compatible with religion, things like Tipler's Omega Point theory. It just depends on how omnipotent you want your God to be.
To be honest I'm not actually religious myself, but I do have respect for those who are. Especially Muslims, because it takes serious dedication to stop what you're doing and pray five times a day. Hell, I don't study physics five times a day.. if my university told me I had to get up at 5:30 in the morning every day and fast for a month and all that other stuff, I'd probably say "screw physics" and be on my way to bible college.
Of course religion and science are incompatible. If you hold any beliefs preventing you from considering any possibility you might find in your experimentation, you are not practicing science. If you are at all cherry-picking facts, you aren't practicing science. All of the great 'scientists' we mention - the ones that were religious by and large - were very much held back by their beliefs more than anything. Imagine what they could have accomplished if they did not have the barriers of stigma to fight against (both in society and in their own minds).
On December 01 2009 19:41 Foucault wrote: Pyro, yeah religious people are often viewed like a bit weird here. At the same time we have one of the highest rates of depression in Europe, which may or may not have something to do with us being a secularized country and lacking the comfort from religion.
Removing god is not always positive for people's well-being, although it's the rational thing to do.
I believe you have to take into account the factors of seasonal depression into this, since Sweden is at a higher latitude than much of Europe (and is not Iceland, which seems to be nearly immune to such problems). While religion does 'comfort' a lot of people, non-religion is really only a scary thought if you actually consider religion plausible in the first place.
On December 02 2009 05:46 starfries wrote: To be honest I'm not actually religious myself, but I do have respect for those who are. Especially Muslims, because it takes serious dedication to stop what you're doing and pray five times a day. Hell, I don't study physics five times a day.. if my university told me I had to get up at 5:30 in the morning every day and fast for a month and all that other stuff, I'd probably say "screw physics" and be on my way to bible college.
This argument is really disingenuous. If you truly believe (or were brought up being told) that there was an afterlife and your life should be led in the best possible fashion in order to please your god, you would pray five times a day as well. This isn't really dedication like studying something five times a day would be - there are great personal stakes involved here. If you give up studying at that particular university because it's too difficult, you have alternatives to still lead a happy life. If they give up praying, they will ruin their chances at a good afterlife (and often their place in society). That is, unless they give up their beliefs altogether, which is probably more difficult to them than the rituals are in the first place.
On December 01 2009 16:41 Velr wrote: Btw: If you think this is a minor topic we could/had to vote on you should check out all the stuff we actually vote about :p.
lol yeah, this is one of the most important things we voted on in recent times. The other two federal things last Sunday were a blanket ban on exporting war material (didn't pass) and a really small thing that nobody was interested in and that was going to pass anyway because nobody was really against it. :p
On December 01 2009 11:54 Freaky[x] wrote: I'm not sure if this is right, but I heard that many of the turks in germany are treated like trash and take on the worse jobs because people hate them so much (maybe not hate but they are discriminated against). They are basically lower class citizens. It's hard to have a will to integrate a society when you're not represented on a political level, because as a minority you will be slaves of the upper class. How do you want them to learn german when your government brings them as cheap labor...?
I don't know if this applies to germany, but I know for a fact as an arab that I'm not welcomed in certain countries and I'm treated like shit based on the fact that I'm arab. My brother was even thinking of changing his name to get a decent job in Europe at a certain time.
Let's take a small example, if you look at something every society in europe has: football. It's still VERY common to hear banana, monkey (against blacks), paki, and other extremely racist chants from the stand. It's as if WW2 continues on the football field and people use it as a symbol of patriotism. (sorry for that slightly off topic subject)
As for the Minarets, I'm against the ban personally, but I'm mostly against the fact that a minority party managed to propagate this idea by propaganda(posters everywhere with a woman wearing a burka and the minarets behind her in black... wtf?) to get the Swiss to vote on this at a national level. Even The Cristians-Jewish-Muslim coalition society of Switzerland (or something like that) don't agree with this. The leading party was also against it, but had to adopt it because it was voted on.
I just find it mildly amusing how atheist want to impose their way of thinking on people that are just minding their own business and practicing their belief. You know, many muslims believe in science, they do go see doctors, practice engineering and some even are scientists. Some muslims are crazy and that's a bummer, but some non-muslim swiss are also crazy. most celebrities are crazy, you don't see americans complaining.
Religion is a scourge that should be eliminated. Nothing else promotes ignorance, intolerance and blind faith like religion in general does, not just Islam. Science and religion are polar opposites, you can't believe one without rejecting the other. Also, take a look at how voters in various states in America are refusing to give gay people the right to get married. Even if you hate gay people, how can you possibly do this? Many people use religion as their justification, claiming that God hates gays or whatever and posting the lines from the Bible that agree with their view. If their beliefs didn't affect other people, then there wouldn't be a problem, but they do. Take stem cell research for example. Why did George W. Bush not fund this? Instead, he went out of his way to oppose research, despite the fact that it would save many lives. I guess cells that can't feel or think are more important than living people. This is especially hypocritical when you consider the number of executions that George W. Bush presided over and the number of soldiers and civilians that died in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that began during his presidency.
oh just shut up. are you serious.
Science and religion are polar opposites, you can't believe one without rejecting the other.
Are you really serious. do you know how much islamic mathematicians and scientists have contributed to the world. do you know how many mathematicians were religious?
Donald Knuth - do you know who he is? wow he is retarded isn't he, since he is so religious larry wall - he wrote the perl programming language. he is also a devout christian. he is obviously stupid. Charles Hard Townes - yeah he is stupid too issac newton - what the fuck did he ever accomplish Gottfried Leibniz - christian fucking noob Leonhard Euler - religion clearly drove him to doing jack shit with his life too
so honestly I must say you have no idea what you are talking about. and blah blah about your gay shit. why the fuck don't they legalize incest and polygamy? whats wrong if I love my sister why can't I fuck her? lets agree that we won't have kids (even though its not that bad). better yet let me have gay sex with my brother. why is this illegal?
all you gay rights supporters are fucking hypocrites if you ask me. they say they are supporting an ideal of equality, but they won't stand up for other issues which should be made legal based on the same principals.
and btw to all the people saying islam is a dangerous religion. shut the fuck up. talk shit about islam once you have lived with some muslim people, or you are muslim, or have some association with them. not just some shit you hear on tv.
and to the people quoting quran translations. first of all, go learn classical arabic before you try and talk about the quran. you reading quran translations is like trying to understand a progamers interview via babel fish.
second of all if you look down on islam saying they are not advancing because of their religion, shut the fuck up as well. because they were one of the advanced cultures in science and technology. what fucking numbers are you guys using? english numbers? european numbers? christian numbers? i don't fucking think so.
just because the islamic world isn't at the forefront of science and technology doesn't mean its because of their faith or culture that's holding them back. india was one of the most fucking advanced country in the world, let alone asia. infact arabic numbers are really indian numbers with a different script. if you don't know, everything from buddhism, karma, martial arts, trigonometry, shaolin, zen, buddhism kama sutra fuck it the list is way too long - came from indians. they aren't doing as well right now, but is that because of their faith or their culture? fuck no.
so stop talking shit about how you think religion is holding people back. people who were very religious have accomplished more in a few years than most of us will accomplish in our whole lifetimes.
now go fight for your right to fuck your mom. the fact that it's illegal is ridiculous.
Would you say these advances happened because they were religious, though? I think that's what ghostwriter is arguing here, that their religion did not motivate any of these advances which were made in mathematics, science and technology.
But I don't know, I'm not ghostwriter, I'm just assuming. Wait to see what he says.
His point was that religion and science are incompatible, which is nonsense.
They are incompatible, unless by religion you mean picking and choosing which parts you believe so that it doesnt conflict with science. But, if you truly believe any of the popular religions then you hold believes that directly contradict science.
Religion and science as a whole are not completely incompatible. Of course there are various aspects where they have no choice depending on what religion but to clash but you can seriously say that with just about everything. The idea that you can not be religious and believe in science or be a scientist and be religious is a completely ridiculous notion as many aspects of religion and science can coexist with each other. The only real issue between a religion like Christianity and science is the issues with the mainstream scientific thought of how life originated on the earth and the Genesis myth. Christianity in general has driven themselves into a hole by constantly changing their stances in order to worm themselves into "safe" areas throughout history, but we were talking about religion as a whole, not just simply Christianity or other Abrahamic religions or whatever. Just because one of the most prominent religions in the world has some big issues with one aspect of science (disregarding how modern scientific analysis has given evidence for various Catholic relics being bogus; not for convenience but more due to these problems being the Vatican just being idiots rather than it being an issue due to the fundamental Christian beliefs), does not mean that religion and science are incompatible.
On December 02 2009 02:02 old times sake wrote: I have already made my response to this topic on page 20-21 or so, but I would like to add that koreasilver should not simply come by and say "point X is nonsense." That's not an argument, and it's not like serious, educated authorities don't argue for point X (point X being "religion and science are incompatible", but that's beside the point).
To dismiss a reputable point as nonsense with no other reason given is trolling, flame baiting, and topic derailing. It baits people like me to then ask him to back up this claim, at which point he will probably offer flimsy reasons or try to turn the burden of proof on me. Next, I'm either taking pot shots at his reasons which he can accuse of being semantics, OR I'm offering my own reasons for a position that is completely off topic, OR we bicker over whom the burden of proof is on and who said what. And I'm okay with doing this, but why not do it in a new thread about this very new dispute? Why add "are religion and science incompatible?" to THIS topic, about whether governments should ban minarets?
You can see how this kind of thing would "steal" the topic, so really, hold your tongue until you are willing to research the topic and give reasons for the position on it you take--if you did that you would not make an "Not X, cause it's nonsense"-style argument.
Since when were blanket statements reputable in any way? The divergences from the topic were generally not initiated by me either, I have just simply been replying to whatever statements that have been said in this thread that suggest that religion is the problem.
The discussion of the compatibility of religion and science was also not brought up by me. Beats me why they brought that to the dinner table.
On December 01 2009 11:54 Freaky[x] wrote: I'm not sure if this is right, but I heard that many of the turks in germany are treated like trash and take on the worse jobs because people hate them so much (maybe not hate but they are discriminated against). They are basically lower class citizens. It's hard to have a will to integrate a society when you're not represented on a political level, because as a minority you will be slaves of the upper class. How do you want them to learn german when your government brings them as cheap labor...?
I don't know if this applies to germany, but I know for a fact as an arab that I'm not welcomed in certain countries and I'm treated like shit based on the fact that I'm arab. My brother was even thinking of changing his name to get a decent job in Europe at a certain time.
Let's take a small example, if you look at something every society in europe has: football. It's still VERY common to hear banana, monkey (against blacks), paki, and other extremely racist chants from the stand. It's as if WW2 continues on the football field and people use it as a symbol of patriotism. (sorry for that slightly off topic subject)
As for the Minarets, I'm against the ban personally, but I'm mostly against the fact that a minority party managed to propagate this idea by propaganda(posters everywhere with a woman wearing a burka and the minarets behind her in black... wtf?) to get the Swiss to vote on this at a national level. Even The Cristians-Jewish-Muslim coalition society of Switzerland (or something like that) don't agree with this. The leading party was also against it, but had to adopt it because it was voted on.
I just find it mildly amusing how atheist want to impose their way of thinking on people that are just minding their own business and practicing their belief. You know, many muslims believe in science, they do go see doctors, practice engineering and some even are scientists. Some muslims are crazy and that's a bummer, but some non-muslim swiss are also crazy. most celebrities are crazy, you don't see americans complaining.
Religion is a scourge that should be eliminated. Nothing else promotes ignorance, intolerance and blind faith like religion in general does, not just Islam. Science and religion are polar opposites, you can't believe one without rejecting the other. Also, take a look at how voters in various states in America are refusing to give gay people the right to get married. Even if you hate gay people, how can you possibly do this? Many people use religion as their justification, claiming that God hates gays or whatever and posting the lines from the Bible that agree with their view. If their beliefs didn't affect other people, then there wouldn't be a problem, but they do. Take stem cell research for example. Why did George W. Bush not fund this? Instead, he went out of his way to oppose research, despite the fact that it would save many lives. I guess cells that can't feel or think are more important than living people. This is especially hypocritical when you consider the number of executions that George W. Bush presided over and the number of soldiers and civilians that died in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that began during his presidency.
oh just shut up. are you serious.
Science and religion are polar opposites, you can't believe one without rejecting the other.
Are you really serious. do you know how much islamic mathematicians and scientists have contributed to the world. do you know how many mathematicians were religious?
Donald Knuth - do you know who he is? wow he is retarded isn't he, since he is so religious larry wall - he wrote the perl programming language. he is also a devout christian. he is obviously stupid. Charles Hard Townes - yeah he is stupid too issac newton - what the fuck did he ever accomplish Gottfried Leibniz - christian fucking noob Leonhard Euler - religion clearly drove him to doing jack shit with his life too
so honestly I must say you have no idea what you are talking about. and blah blah about your gay shit. why the fuck don't they legalize incest and polygamy? whats wrong if I love my sister why can't I fuck her? lets agree that we won't have kids (even though its not that bad). better yet let me have gay sex with my brother. why is this illegal?
all you gay rights supporters are fucking hypocrites if you ask me. they say they are supporting an ideal of equality, but they won't stand up for other issues which should be made legal based on the same principals.
and btw to all the people saying islam is a dangerous religion. shut the fuck up. talk shit about islam once you have lived with some muslim people, or you are muslim, or have some association with them. not just some shit you hear on tv.
and to the people quoting quran translations. first of all, go learn classical arabic before you try and talk about the quran. you reading quran translations is like trying to understand a progamers interview via babel fish.
second of all if you look down on islam saying they are not advancing because of their religion, shut the fuck up as well. because they were one of the advanced cultures in science and technology. what fucking numbers are you guys using? english numbers? european numbers? christian numbers? i don't fucking think so.
just because the islamic world isn't at the forefront of science and technology doesn't mean its because of their faith or culture that's holding them back. india was one of the most fucking advanced country in the world, let alone asia. infact arabic numbers are really indian numbers with a different script. if you don't know, everything from buddhism, karma, martial arts, trigonometry, shaolin, zen, buddhism kama sutra fuck it the list is way too long - came from indians. they aren't doing as well right now, but is that because of their faith or their culture? fuck no.
so stop talking shit about how you think religion is holding people back. people who were very religious have accomplished more in a few years than most of us will accomplish in our whole lifetimes.
now go fight for your right to fuck your mom. the fact that it's illegal is ridiculous.
Would you say these advances happened because they were religious, though? I think that's what ghostwriter is arguing here, that their religion did not motivate any of these advances which were made in mathematics, science and technology.
But I don't know, I'm not ghostwriter, I'm just assuming. Wait to see what he says.
His point was that religion and science are incompatible, which is nonsense.
They are incompatible, unless by religion you mean picking and choosing which parts you believe so that it doesnt conflict with science. But, if you truly believe any of the popular religions then you hold believes that directly contradict science.
This is pretty self-evident; it's sad that you had to point this out like this for him. But then again, the unsupported affirmative statements that he makes pretty much speak for themselves
It's sad that you had to be pointed out that the murder of Jews in the Holocaust was an ethnically motivated atrocity, not a religious one?
idk bro.
hey let's bring up something stupid a million times that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic, that was obviously not serious and doesn't have anything to do with the topic because no one who had 9th grade world history or access to Wikipedia could say what I said and actually believe it, although seeing the way you continually parrot your bullshit about religion and science not being at odds, I guess someone can be that stupid. It doesn't make you look better when you continually try to flaunt your basic high school knowledge like you're in academia or some shit nor does it help your argument when I'm obviously way more knowledgeable than you're trying to make me out to be. I just don't take you seriously, especially when you don't back up any of your statements with evidence and I'm sorry that my lack of respect for you or anything you say makes you feel inadequate.
On December 02 2009 04:46 eMbrace wrote: I'm just gonna butt in with my 2 cents because I hate when people talk about science and religion being compatible.
They aren't. They can't be. It's one or the other.
I'm not saying you can't be spiritual and a be a scientist, I'm just saying the two will never complement each other.
When evolution was discussed around Darwin's time, it got a lot of flak because it contradicted a big part of what the christian god meant to the religion. Even in recent history, cases are still brought up about teaching evoultion is schools.
but as it gradually becomes clear that there is such a rich amount of fascinating evidence pointing towards evolution, you see people reworking their beliefs around it so they don't sound like cave men.
"oh yeah, well genesis is really more of a metaphor, you know?"
"yeah, all those planets and the fact that were 0.0000000000000000000000001% of the universe, god did all that too -- he can do what ever wants, we can't question God, man."
-_-
There's a distinction here. science and a literal view of the Bible is definitely NOT compatible. But there definitely is room for both religion and science, depending on what you believe happened before the Big Bang and so on. In fact, there's room for things within modern physics that are compatible with religion, things like Tipler's Omega Point theory. It just depends on how omnipotent you want your God to be.
To be honest I'm not actually religious myself, but I do have respect for those who are. Especially Muslims, because it takes serious dedication to stop what you're doing and pray five times a day. Hell, I don't study physics five times a day.. if my university told me I had to get up at 5:30 in the morning every day and fast for a month and all that other stuff, I'd probably say "screw physics" and be on my way to bible college.
Obviously some things can coexist but the truth is, many people actually take holy books to be the "truth" from the mouth of their god. And just because not everything said in holy books are ridiculous doesn't mean that the rest of the nonsense that they espouse have any merit.
Look at this pm I got: "well if you don't even believe that Adam and Eve existed then this discussion is over.i have nothing more to say to you..have a great life.see you when i see you." How can there possibly be an Adam and Eve when they were the first humans to ever live and writing wasn't even invented yet? The story is obviously a metaphor, not a real event. There was no "garden of Eden" and no snake tempting Eve to eat the forbidden fruit. What a ridiculous story and yet this person actually believes it with no evidence, just because it's in some book that he thinks is important.
Also, there's a story in the Old Testament where Joshua apparently made the earth stop rotating, because it says that the sun stopped in the sky or something for some time because of something he did. I forget how the story goes exactly, but it's impossible to be literal truth. How can a man stop the rotation of the Earth? And if it were true, then everyone wouldn't just be stuck in place, everything would keep moving because they would still have the momentum from the Earth's spin. And Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead and curing a blind man with mud? Absolute nonsense. And yet people actually believe it to be literal truth and use the timeline from the Bible to attempt calculate the age of the Earth, while ignoring all scientific evidence which can be repeated and verified. There are even Muslims that are starting to buy into the young Earth 'theory'.
Who cares if they pray 5 times a day, it's not something to be proud of. Why would they need to tell their god about their problems and shit, which he probably doesn't want to hear about anyway, 5 times a day if their god is omniscient? They only do it because they've been told from a young age that they have to do it. I've found that many of my Muslim friends (second generation) actually skip many of the prayers or don't pray at all. If they get up at 5:30, then they get up extra early to think real hard to themselves because scientific experiments have shown that prayer doesn't work. There is no god listening to your prayers. Notice how none of your prayers come true, or if they do, then it was something that would have happened anyway. What a powerful god!
Aren't you the one that has been harassing me for the past three days? You've done very little to actually reply to anything I've been saying with any kind of substance for two days now, and you jump on me when I become tired of you to the point of not being bothered to actually explain my opinions against your idiocy.
Are you still trying to attempt damage control on your colossal mishap early on this thread? Good heavens.
On December 02 2009 06:06 QibingZero wrote: Of course religion and science are incompatible. If you hold any beliefs preventing you from considering any possibility you might find in your experimentation, you are not practicing science. If you are at all cherry-picking facts, you aren't practicing science. All of the great 'scientists' we mention - the ones that were religious by and large - were very much held back by their beliefs more than anything. Imagine what they could have accomplished if they did not have the barriers of stigma to fight against (both in society and in their own minds).
On December 01 2009 19:41 Foucault wrote: Pyro, yeah religious people are often viewed like a bit weird here. At the same time we have one of the highest rates of depression in Europe, which may or may not have something to do with us being a secularized country and lacking the comfort from religion.
Removing god is not always positive for people's well-being, although it's the rational thing to do.
I believe you have to take into account the factors of seasonal depression into this, since Sweden is at a higher latitude than much of Europe (and is not Iceland, which seems to be nearly immune to such problems). While religion does 'comfort' a lot of people, non-religion is really only a scary thought if you actually consider religion plausible in the first place.
On December 02 2009 05:46 starfries wrote: To be honest I'm not actually religious myself, but I do have respect for those who are. Especially Muslims, because it takes serious dedication to stop what you're doing and pray five times a day. Hell, I don't study physics five times a day.. if my university told me I had to get up at 5:30 in the morning every day and fast for a month and all that other stuff, I'd probably say "screw physics" and be on my way to bible college.
This argument is really disingenuous. If you truly believe (or were brought up being told) that there was an afterlife and your life should be led in the best possible fashion in order to please your god, you would pray five times a day as well. This isn't really dedication like studying something five times a day would be - there are great personal stakes involved here. If you give up studying at that particular university because it's too difficult, you have alternatives to still lead a happy life. If they give up praying, they will ruin their chances at a good afterlife (and often their place in society). That is, unless they give up their beliefs altogether, which is probably more difficult to them than the rituals are in the first place.
The thing is, not all areas of science contradict some religions though. Lets use a devout Roman Catholic as an example. This man or woman wouldn't have any religious beliefs that would hold them back from studying and learning chemistry, physics, medical sciences, or astronomy without preconceptions. I mean, even in biology Catholicism works with evolution; the only real issue being the origin of life. There are some very obvious areas where some religions have no choice but to clash with science, but there are so many more areas where a religious man will have little to no qualms with science.
edit: You're posting PMs now? Are you serious? That PM has nothing to do with me but how in the world do you think you have the right to post PMs that someone else sent to you in public when you're the lunatic that has been raging at me for three fucking days over PMs with the most inane bullshit I've ever had the pleasure of reading since I made my account on this forum.
Way to go Switzerland.. I seriously don't see any offending by controling what they want and what not in their country. Muslims are moving in huge numbers to Europe and GB already had a big issue with them and Swiss just don't want to end up like that. Basically they are saying you can come here and will be respected as everyone, but you are not building any of your bullshit religion building here, got it ? I think Switzerland wants to show them that they don't want them in the country at all but doing it in the most harmless way. Good job i must say...
And to the whole religion thing, i think that many countries in Europe are not mostly christian. Here in Czech i have met very few christian people my whole life. (i mean daily life like school, work, friends e.t.c.). And byt he way the whole christianity in the USA is such a joke i have to laugh...When the president says "God bless America" ...wow, really just wow. I don't have anything against US (for some of you that always want to fight)..i just mean that religion is ridiculous and through the history, it was always used to control people and even brainwash them that much, that they were hostile to people with other religion and fought over that.
Oh you were explaining? Excuse me, I was unaware. If you want substance in a reply, try having substance in your posts first:
"His point was that religion and science are incompatible, which is nonsense."
OH SO THAT'S WHERE MY LOGIC FAILED! OH everything makes sense now, thanks so much for the well-thought out and beautifully articulated explanation!
"damage control" haha you're a joke. Even if I had a fact wrong, it's a simple matter of reeducating myself to the facts and making a mistake doesn't detract from my intelligence, it would merely mean that I was either misinformed or that I misinterpreted. Also, that unrelated point that you brought up has nothing to do with the original topic, which is a point that I seem to have to continually repeat. Yet you insist on bringing random, unrelated topics up in the thread. People who are fervert believers in a religion cannot change their mind in the face of overwhelming evidence and insist that God is the creator and center of everything and that heathens will go to hell or whatever bullshit they believe in without any kind of empirical evidence. "colosal mishap" indeed.
But in any case:
"The thing is, not all areas of science contradict some religions though. Lets use a devout Roman Catholic as an example. This man or woman wouldn't have any religious beliefs that would hold them back from studying and learning chemistry, physics, medical sciences, or astronomy without preconceptions. I mean, even in biology Catholicism works with evolution; the only real issue being the origin of life. There are some very obvious areas where some religions have no choice but to clash with science, but there are so many more areas where a religious man will have little to no qualms with science"
Oh great explanation! I guess God personally creating everything, including Adam and Eve personally doesn't conflict with the theory of evolution at all! So many areas where a religious man has little or no qualms with science, and yet you can only name one which wasn't even correct. Masterfully done, I'm totally convinced. Here's an example: the Catholic Church persecuted Galileo for teaching that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe, despite the fact that nowhere in the bible does it say that it is. Thanks church for punishing a genius that was only trying to improve human knowledge against your ignorant teachings!
22 While they were making merry, and refreshing their bodies with meat and drink, after the labour of the journey, the men of that city, sons of Belial, (that is, without yoke,) came and beset the old man's house, and began to knock at the door, calling to the master of the house, and saying: Bring forth the man that came into thy house, that we may abuse him. 23 And the old man went out to them, and said: Do not so, my brethren, do not so wickedly: because this man is come into my lodging, and cease I pray you from this folly. 24 I have a maiden daughter, and this man hath a concubine, I will bring them out to you, and you may humble them, and satisfy your lust: only, I beseech you, commit not this crime against nature on the man. 25 They would not be satisfied with his words; which the man seeing, brought out his concubine to them, and abandoned her to their wickedness: and when they had abused her all the night, they let her go in the morning.
26 But the woman, at the dawning of the day, came to the door of the house where her lord lodged, and there fell down. 27 And in the morning the man arose, and opened the door that he might end the journey he had begun: and behold his concubine lay before the door with her hands spread on the threshold. 28 He thinking she was taking her rest, said to her: Arise, and let us be going. But as she made no answer, perceiving she was dead, he took her up, and laid her upon his ass, and returned to his house. 29 And when he was come home he took a sword, and divided the dead body of his wife with her bones into twelve parts, and sent the pieces into all the borders of Israel. 30 And when every one had seen this, they all cried out: There was never such a thing done in Israel from the day that our fathers came up out of Egypt, until this day: give sentence, and decree in common what ought to be done.
Oh I guess gay sex is wrong, but giving up your daughter and the man's concubine to be raped is totally fine! Oh and then as a kicker, he just decides to cut her into 12 pieces and spread her body throughout Israel. I sure learned a lot, I can see why the Bible is so cherished as a holy book. Now I know what to do when people want to have buttsex with my guest. I guess religion is a good thing, I can't see any reason why we should abandon such a godsend.
edit: it's only been like twelve hours, I don't see how you can bring it to three days but I guess if God can create the entire universe in a week, anything is possible. Nor do I "rage". I could easily type out responses to you in this thread, but as you can see, it only brings the thread farther and farther away from the original topic, which you seem to have continually been unaware of from the very beginning. It would also turn the topic into a shitfilled flamefest which is unnecessary and undesirable, since I want to keep debating people with different views are explained rationally and actually relate to Switzerland and minarets. Posting the PM was fine in my view since it's anonymous and I didn't post it with malicious intent, I was merely using it to back up my arguments with evidence, which you seem to be unable to do. I apologize for being unable to reciprocate and say that reading anything you've written has been pleasurable at all.
And please don't just throw around accusations of idiocy when your claim is undoubtedly hypocritical, to say the least.
Oh you were explaining? Excuse me, I was unaware. If you want substance in a reply, try having substance in your posts first:
"His point was that religion and science are incompatible, which is nonsense."
OH SO THAT'S WHERE MY LOGIC FAILED! OH everything makes sense now, thanks so much for the well-thought out and beautifully articulated explanation!
Read my post again.
Even if I had a fact wrong, it's a simple matter of reeducating myself and it doesn't detract from my intelligence. People who are fervert believers in a religion cannot do this and insist that God is the creator and center of everything and that heathens will go to hell or whatever bullshit they believe in without any kind of empirical evidence.
So all religious individuals have lesser intellect simply due to them having religious beliefs. I don't think I even need to touch upon this one.
Oh great explanation! I guess God personally creating everything, including Adam and Eve personally doesn't conflict with the theory of evolution at all!
It doesn't conflict with the theory of evolution at all, as evolution can take place you know, after they were created. There is nothing within the Christian texts that suggest anything against the theory of evolution. Again, the issue is about the origin of life, not evolution.
Here's an example: the Catholic Church persecuted Galileo for teaching that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe, despite the fact that nowhere in the bible does it say that it is. Thanks church for punishing a genius that was only trying to improve human knowledge against your ignorant teachings!
Those days are long gone, and the Vatican has publicly apologized for that incident very explicitly. Every institution makes mistakes, and if you're going to use historical examples as to a religion being detrimental towards science, you shouldn't be ignoring how secular political and scientific groups have been detrimental to science in the past and even today; a very recent and public example being the drug controversy in Britain.
Oh I guess gay sex is wrong, but giving up your daughter and the man's concubine to be raped is totally fine! Oh and then as a kicker, he just decides to cut her into 12 pieces and spread her body throughout Israel. I sure learned a lot, I can see why the Bible is so cherished as a holy book. Now I know what to do when people want to have buttsex with my guest.
The woman was killed, and he divided her body into 12 pieces to spread the word of the atrocity that has occurred. His guest was about to get raped and he was trying to protect him - giving up the women to be raped instead is pretty stupid but regardless, what does this have to do with religion and science not being compatible again?
Nor do I "rage". I could easily type out responses to you in this thread, but as you can see, it only brings the thread farther and farther away from the original topic, which you seem to have continually been unaware of from the very beginning.
I'm not going to post any excerpts from the PM so I won't show any proof but lol. Also, you were the one that initiated the straying from the original topic.
Posting the PM was fine in my view since it's anonymous and I didn't post it with malicious intent, I was merely using it to back up my arguments with evidence, which you seem to be unable to do.
You posted that PM simply to ridicule the fellow, and apparently the angry rantings of a single Christian is evidence that religions as a whole are incompatible with science? What? You have consistently only been providing excerpts from the Torah in your arguments when you constantly belittle religion as a whole.
On December 02 2009 06:06 QibingZero wrote: Of course religion and science are incompatible. If you hold any beliefs preventing you from considering any possibility you might find in your experimentation, you are not practicing science. If you are at all cherry-picking facts, you aren't practicing science. All of the great 'scientists' we mention - the ones that were religious by and large - were very much held back by their beliefs more than anything. Imagine what they could have accomplished if they did not have the barriers of stigma to fight against (both in society and in their own minds).
On December 02 2009 05:46 starfries wrote: To be honest I'm not actually religious myself, but I do have respect for those who are. Especially Muslims, because it takes serious dedication to stop what you're doing and pray five times a day. Hell, I don't study physics five times a day.. if my university told me I had to get up at 5:30 in the morning every day and fast for a month and all that other stuff, I'd probably say "screw physics" and be on my way to bible college.
This argument is really disingenuous. If you truly believe (or were brought up being told) that there was an afterlife and your life should be led in the best possible fashion in order to please your god, you would pray five times a day as well. This isn't really dedication like studying something five times a day would be - there are great personal stakes involved here. If you give up studying at that particular university because it's too difficult, you have alternatives to still lead a happy life. If they give up praying, they will ruin their chances at a good afterlife (and often their place in society). That is, unless they give up their beliefs altogether, which is probably more difficult to them than the rituals are in the first place.
Fair enough, it was a slightly facetious analogy.
I think many great scientists, while not religious, are fairly spiritual. There's something about trying to figure out how the universe works that makes you realize it's pretty damn amazing how everything fits together. And most scientists have a pretty deep faith that it DOES fit together somehow, even the parts we don't understand yet, and that it makes sense on some barely comprehensible level.
A lot of my religious friends share this sort of view. Of course there are also those people who are just in it for the virgin houris or because they fear death, or who want some supernatural help on their side. But I think most religions are also about how incredible the world is, and why. Science is no different there.
The real problem I have with religion is that logical leap from "hey this place is pretty cool" to "someone must have created it, and he's probably still around" to "I bet that guy we nailed to a plank two thousand years ago was his son!".
On December 01 2009 16:31 GGTeMpLaR wrote: War is a continuation of policy by other means - Carl Von Clausewitz
As usual with quotes by great people, this one is continuously misunderstood and misused. Maybe you should read Vom Kriege first before applying his quote to support your point. Which it doesn't do at all in this case.
I'm in the process of reading his book right now and I believe it fits quite well in the context I used it.
I think this discussion is just going crazy. This is NOT about wiether or not religion is good or bad. A lot of people are religious and that's the way it is. Shouldn't they be allowed to practice it? I mean obviously laws and rules should be the same for everyone living in the country but people should be allowed to believe in and think whatever the want to. You can't have a rule that says you're free to have you're own ideas and oppinions as long as they're not too crazy :p.
Then again if the majority wants to ban minarets they should obviously do it. Just sad that they are so intolerant
While I don't want to jump into your flamewar, I have to agree that religious beliefs effect the capability of a person to do science very very little. While it can be said that it effects it somewhat in very limited areas, it doesn't effect the ability of a person to make a guided inquiry or their ability for intellectual thought.
Also the assumption that being religious = being unintelligent is a fallacy. A person raised in ignorance will obviously not know better than what they were taught, and if they cling to their beliefs that just makes them stubborn, not stupid.
On December 02 2009 09:00 ghermination wrote: While I don't want to jump into your flamewar, I have to agree that religious beliefs effect the capability of a person to do science very very little. While it can be said that it effects it somewhat in very limited areas, it doesn't effect the ability of a person to make a guided inquiry or their ability for intellectual thought.
Also the assumption that being religious = being unintelligent is a fallacy. A person raised in ignorance will obviously not know better than what they were taught, and if they cling to their beliefs that just makes them stubborn, not stupid.
I think you meant affect when you said effect. Well I guess being religious doesn't mean you are unintelligent, but you sure are accepting of unfounded beliefs. I guess religion = being not analytical or not curious. You're totally right, but that's why religion is so harmful. Even smart people can get entrapped in false modes of "thinking" and have ideas firmly implanted in their heads before they are old enough to critically analyze what they are being told. There's nothing lazier than calling everything God's creation without considering why things are there and why phenomena are the way they are.
On December 02 2009 09:00 ghermination wrote: While I don't want to jump into your flamewar, I have to agree that religious beliefs effect the capability of a person to do science very very little. While it can be said that it effects it somewhat in very limited areas, it doesn't effect the ability of a person to make a guided inquiry or their ability for intellectual thought.
Also the assumption that being religious = being unintelligent is a fallacy. A person raised in ignorance will obviously not know better than what they were taught, and if they cling to their beliefs that just makes them stubborn, not stupid.
I think you meant affect when you said effect. Well I guess being religious doesn't mean you are unintelligent, but you sure are accepting of unfounded beliefs. I guess religion = being not analytical or not curious. You're totally right, but that's why religion is so harmful. Even smart people can get entrapped in false modes of "thinking" and have ideas firmly implanted in their heads before they are old enough to critically analyze what they are being told. There's nothing lazier than calling everything God's creation without considering why things are there and why phenomena are the way they are.
it's really more about how you are raised rather than being spiritual.
When you are brought into an environment where you are led to believe in things like santa clause or the tooth fairy and eventually find out they are just fun little stories -- the fact that your parents are still very serious about religion in comparison really engraves the significance of it into your head.
when you grow up and find that your parents tease about such fairy tales but then go to church to worship a god -- well, god most definitely must be real if all the adults are so serious about him.
i grew up protestant like this, and as I grew older I kept questioning my religion in my head, but I felt guilty and shunned out the thoughts because I was honestly afraid that god would think I was losing faith. so when anyone asked, "you believe in god, right?" i'd answer immediately, "yeah, of course!"
during highschool I came upon material about questioning the existence of god and I then concluded that if I didn't believe in god in my head, then god would know -- despite what comes out of my mouth or whether i go to church or not.
so i stopped practicing religion, because I was clearly lying to myself about what I believed.
but I can totally understand why smart people are so stubborn with their beliefs -- it's like being raised as a fan for a sports team, you just don't change loyalty no matter how much your team sucks.
On December 02 2009 09:00 ghermination wrote: While I don't want to jump into your flamewar, I have to agree that religious beliefs effect the capability of a person to do science very very little. While it can be said that it effects it somewhat in very limited areas, it doesn't effect the ability of a person to make a guided inquiry or their ability for intellectual thought.
Also the assumption that being religious = being unintelligent is a fallacy. A person raised in ignorance will obviously not know better than what they were taught, and if they cling to their beliefs that just makes them stubborn, not stupid.
I think you meant affect when you said effect. Well I guess being religious doesn't mean you are unintelligent, but you sure are accepting of unfounded beliefs. I guess religion = being not analytical or not curious. You're totally right, but that's why religion is so harmful. Even smart people can get entrapped in false modes of "thinking" and have ideas firmly implanted in their heads before they are old enough to critically analyze what they are being told. There's nothing lazier than calling everything God's creation without considering why things are there and why phenomena are the way they are.
it's really more about how you are raised rather than being spiritual.
When you are brought into an environment where you are led to believe in things like santa clause or the tooth fairy and eventually find out they are just fun little stories -- the fact that your parents are still very serious about religion in comparison really engraves the significance of it into your head.
when you grow up and find that your parents tease about such fairy tales but then go to church to worship a god -- well, god most definitely must be real if all the adults are so serious about him.
i grew up protestant like this, and as I grew older I kept questioning my religion in my head, but I felt guilty and shunned out the thoughts because I was honestly afraid that god would think I was losing faith. so when anyone asked, "you believe in god, right?" i'd answer immediately, "yeah, of course!"
during highschool I came upon material about questioning the existence of god and I then concluded that if I didn't believe in god in my head, then god would know -- despite what comes out of my mouth or whether i go to church or not.
so i stopped practicing religion, because I was clearly lying to myself about what I believed.
but I can totally understand why smart people are so stubborn with their beliefs -- it's like being raised as a fan for a sports team, you just don't change loyalty no matter how much your team sucks.
Well it's a bit different, that's loyalty to your team through thick and thin. Some people keep supporting their teams even if they are perennial underdogs, rather than bandwagon onto the new big thing.
That's pretty much what happened to me. When I actually took the time to think about my beliefs, I realized that none of the facts stuck and that I shouldn't be overwhelmed by the supposed miracles that this god character claims to have done without any evidence. This is especially true with the laughable impossibility of most of these fairy tales, like Shadrach, Meshach, and Abedneg being able to chat while in a fire with a person that wasn't put there to begin with that just happened to look like a god. It's nothing more than an interesting story, on par with Harry Potter. Should I start hoping that my children will get a letter delivered by an owl when they turn ten so that they can get accepted to Hogwarts, just because I read about it in a book? In any case, it's hard to get rid of beliefs that were implanted in you when you were young, but if you give even a little thought to it, many religious claims come out to be nothing more than misrepresentations at best and outright lies at worst. The only reason to believe in God is that they claim that you will go to heaven if you do and you will go to hell if you won't, but there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of such places as well. I didn't exist before I was born and like it or not, I won't exist after I die. No amount of wishful thinking will change my mind, unless I am given overwhelming empirical evidence, although religious types haven't been able to give even a modicum of evidence for their wild, fanciful claims.
On December 02 2009 09:00 ghermination wrote: While I don't want to jump into your flamewar, I have to agree that religious beliefs effect the capability of a person to do science very very little. While it can be said that it effects it somewhat in very limited areas, it doesn't effect the ability of a person to make a guided inquiry or their ability for intellectual thought.
Also the assumption that being religious = being unintelligent is a fallacy. A person raised in ignorance will obviously not know better than what they were taught, and if they cling to their beliefs that just makes them stubborn, not stupid.
I think you meant affect when you said effect. Well I guess being religious doesn't mean you are unintelligent, but you sure are accepting of unfounded beliefs. I guess religion = being not analytical or not curious. You're totally right, but that's why religion is so harmful. Even smart people can get entrapped in false modes of "thinking" and have ideas firmly implanted in their heads before they are old enough to critically analyze what they are being told. There's nothing lazier than calling everything God's creation without considering why things are there and why phenomena are the way they are.
it's really more about how you are raised rather than being spiritual.
When you are brought into an environment where you are led to believe in things like santa clause or the tooth fairy and eventually find out they are just fun little stories -- the fact that your parents are still very serious about religion in comparison really engraves the significance of it into your head.
when you grow up and find that your parents tease about such fairy tales but then go to church to worship a god -- well, god most definitely must be real if all the adults are so serious about him.
i grew up protestant like this, and as I grew older I kept questioning my religion in my head, but I felt guilty and shunned out the thoughts because I was honestly afraid that god would think I was losing faith. so when anyone asked, "you believe in god, right?" i'd answer immediately, "yeah, of course!"
during highschool I came upon material about questioning the existence of god and I then concluded that if I didn't believe in god in my head, then god would know -- despite what comes out of my mouth or whether i go to church or not.
so i stopped practicing religion, because I was clearly lying to myself about what I believed.
but I can totally understand why smart people are so stubborn with their beliefs -- it's like being raised as a fan for a sports team, you just don't change loyalty no matter how much your team sucks.
Well it's a bit different, that's loyalty to your team through thick and thin. Some people keep supporting their teams even if they are perennial underdogs, rather than bandwagon onto the new big thing.
That's pretty much what happened to me. When I actually took the time to think about my beliefs, I realized that none of the facts stuck and that I shouldn't be overwhelmed by the supposed miracles that this god character claims to have done without any evidence. This is especially true with the laughable impossibility of most of these fairy tales, like Shadrach, Meshach, and Abedneg being able to chat while in a fire with a person that wasn't put there to begin with that just happened to look like a god. It's nothing more than an interesting story, on par with Harry Potter. Should I start hoping that my children will get a letter delivered by an owl when they turn ten so that they can get accepted to Hogwarts, just because I read about it in a book? In any case, it's hard to get rid of beliefs that were implanted in you when you were young, but if you give even a little thought to it, many religious claims come out to be nothing more than misrepresentations at best and outright lies at worst. The only reason to believe in God is that they claim that you will go to heaven if you do and you will go to hell if you won't, but there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of such places as well. I didn't exist before I was born and like it or not, I won't exist after I die. No amount of wishful thinking will change my mind, unless I am given overwhelming empirical evidence, although religious types haven't been able to give even a modicum of evidence for their wild, fanciful claims.
well i've been told by many casual christians that they have questioned their beliefs but at the end of it they decided they had "nothing to lose," because if their religion is real, they get to go to heaven -- so why not practice it?
honestly, most Christians don't really care about their religion at all from what i've seen -- but they'll get all offended and try to act all worldy if you question the existence of anything.
if i had a nickel every time I heard, "you can't see air but you believe it exists don't you?"
Yeah I used to think the same way but I'm better now. Many people don't actually believe, but they think they might be able to get to heaven anyway. Getting offended is a sign of a true idiot. If they thought about it, they would realize just how wrong they are and how ridiculous they are being. That's the truly dangerous thing about religion though. It leads people into a situation in which they just believe what they were told, because they've been told so many times that it seems like truth. It's brainwashing.
I've heard that ridiculous question many times too. The simple response to that is that you can see air. In the winter, you breathe and you can see air right in front of you. It's almost like a miracle, except that it can be seen, experimented with and proved. Also, even if you didn't use instruments to be able to detect its presence, you can feel it. It's such a poor attempt to prove the existence of a god that I can't even begin to understand how they can justify it to themselves, never mind trying to justify it to others.
Do you usa guys imagine 1 or 2 minarets in center of manhatan or LA? I dont think so , also i dont like this new " rule" but i aboslutely can understand it... What do you think that will happens if some christians want to build a church in saudi arabia or iran? ahaha
On December 02 2009 09:53 axel wrote: Do you usa guys imagine 1 or 2 minarets in center of manhatan or LA? I dont think so , also i dont like this new " rule" but i aboslutely can understand it... What do you think that will happens if some christians want to build a church in saudi arabia or iran? ahaha
What I have to understand is that USA or Switzerland are not more tolerant than Iran and Arabia Saudia.
You think what? That there are no fucking church in Marocco, Algeria, Liban?
There is a mosque next to my place in Paris. The muezzin calls people to pray, and people pray. I think that's great, and I am happy for muslim of my country to have a beautiful place to do their religious stuff, and not some sad basement somewhere.
I like Switzerland but I am ashamed for them.
People are scared. Being scared by people different has a name. It's called xenophobia.
On December 02 2009 09:53 axel wrote: Do you usa guys imagine 1 or 2 minarets in center of manhatan or LA? I dont think so , also i dont like this new " rule" but i aboslutely can understand it... What do you think that will happens if some christians want to build a church in saudi arabia or iran? ahaha
What I have to understand is that USA or Switzerland are not more tolerant than Iran and Arabia Saudia.
You think what? That there are no fucking church in Marocco, Algeria, Liban?
There is a mosque next to my place in Paris. The muezzin calls people to pray, and people pray. I think that's great, and I am happy for muslim of my country to have a beautiful place to do their religious stuff, and not some sad basement somewhere.
I like Switzerland but I am ashamed for them.
People are scared. Being scared by people different has a name. It's called xenophobia.
whether it's right or wrong i have to give props to the swiss for having the balls to do that.
as you said, it's not good for their image -- but if they don't want something in their country, then they'll get rid of it.
On December 02 2009 10:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 02 2009 09:53 axel wrote: Do you usa guys imagine 1 or 2 minarets in center of manhatan or LA? I dont think so , also i dont like this new " rule" but i aboslutely can understand it... What do you think that will happens if some christians want to build a church in saudi arabia or iran? ahaha
What I have to understand is that USA or Switzerland are not more tolerant than Iran and Arabia Saudia.
You think what? That there are no fucking church in Marocco, Algeria, Liban?
There is a mosque next to my place in Paris. The muezzin calls people to pray, and people pray. I think that's great, and I am happy for muslim of my country to have a beautiful place to do their religious stuff, and not some sad basement somewhere.
I like Switzerland but I am ashamed for them.
People are scared. Being scared by people different has a name. It's called xenophobia.
whether it's right or wrong i have to give props to the swiss for having the balls to do that.
as you said, it's not good for their image -- but if they don't want something in their country, then they'll get rid of it.
i like that.
Yeah, that's a bit like nazis with the jews. They had balls...
On December 02 2009 10:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 02 2009 09:53 axel wrote: Do you usa guys imagine 1 or 2 minarets in center of manhatan or LA? I dont think so , also i dont like this new " rule" but i aboslutely can understand it... What do you think that will happens if some christians want to build a church in saudi arabia or iran? ahaha
What I have to understand is that USA or Switzerland are not more tolerant than Iran and Arabia Saudia.
You think what? That there are no fucking church in Marocco, Algeria, Liban?
There is a mosque next to my place in Paris. The muezzin calls people to pray, and people pray. I think that's great, and I am happy for muslim of my country to have a beautiful place to do their religious stuff, and not some sad basement somewhere.
I like Switzerland but I am ashamed for them.
People are scared. Being scared by people different has a name. It's called xenophobia.
whether it's right or wrong i have to give props to the swiss for having the balls to do that.
as you said, it's not good for their image -- but if they don't want something in their country, then they'll get rid of it.
On December 02 2009 10:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 02 2009 09:53 axel wrote: Do you usa guys imagine 1 or 2 minarets in center of manhatan or LA? I dont think so , also i dont like this new " rule" but i aboslutely can understand it... What do you think that will happens if some christians want to build a church in saudi arabia or iran? ahaha
What I have to understand is that USA or Switzerland are not more tolerant than Iran and Arabia Saudia.
You think what? That there are no fucking church in Marocco, Algeria, Liban?
There is a mosque next to my place in Paris. The muezzin calls people to pray, and people pray. I think that's great, and I am happy for muslim of my country to have a beautiful place to do their religious stuff, and not some sad basement somewhere.
I like Switzerland but I am ashamed for them.
People are scared. Being scared by people different has a name. It's called xenophobia.
whether it's right or wrong i have to give props to the swiss for having the balls to do that.
as you said, it's not good for their image -- but if they don't want something in their country, then they'll get rid of it.
i like that.
Yeah, that's a bit like nazis with the jews. They had balls...
Another retarded comment, like that?
lol i'd hardly compare this to genocide, but hey whatever.
On December 02 2009 10:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 02 2009 10:10 keepITup wrote:
On December 02 2009 10:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 02 2009 09:53 axel wrote: Do you usa guys imagine 1 or 2 minarets in center of manhatan or LA? I dont think so , also i dont like this new " rule" but i aboslutely can understand it... What do you think that will happens if some christians want to build a church in saudi arabia or iran? ahaha
What I have to understand is that USA or Switzerland are not more tolerant than Iran and Arabia Saudia.
You think what? That there are no fucking church in Marocco, Algeria, Liban?
There is a mosque next to my place in Paris. The muezzin calls people to pray, and people pray. I think that's great, and I am happy for muslim of my country to have a beautiful place to do their religious stuff, and not some sad basement somewhere.
I like Switzerland but I am ashamed for them.
People are scared. Being scared by people different has a name. It's called xenophobia.
whether it's right or wrong i have to give props to the swiss for having the balls to do that.
as you said, it's not good for their image -- but if they don't want something in their country, then they'll get rid of it.
i like that.
Yeah, that's a bit like nazis with the jews. They had balls...
Another retarded comment, like that?
lol i'd hardly compare this to genocide, but hey whatever.
If voting a xenophobic law is having balls, then nazi had huge huge balls.
On December 02 2009 10:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 02 2009 10:10 keepITup wrote:
On December 02 2009 10:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 02 2009 09:53 axel wrote: Do you usa guys imagine 1 or 2 minarets in center of manhatan or LA? I dont think so , also i dont like this new " rule" but i aboslutely can understand it... What do you think that will happens if some christians want to build a church in saudi arabia or iran? ahaha
What I have to understand is that USA or Switzerland are not more tolerant than Iran and Arabia Saudia.
You think what? That there are no fucking church in Marocco, Algeria, Liban?
There is a mosque next to my place in Paris. The muezzin calls people to pray, and people pray. I think that's great, and I am happy for muslim of my country to have a beautiful place to do their religious stuff, and not some sad basement somewhere.
I like Switzerland but I am ashamed for them.
People are scared. Being scared by people different has a name. It's called xenophobia.
whether it's right or wrong i have to give props to the swiss for having the balls to do that.
as you said, it's not good for their image -- but if they don't want something in their country, then they'll get rid of it.
i like that.
Yeah, that's a bit like nazis with the jews. They had balls...
Another retarded comment, like that?
lol i'd hardly compare this to genocide, but hey whatever.
If voting a xenophobic law is having balls, then nazi had huge huge balls.
You fail.
Not to take sides or anything -- but your analogy is terrible.
From what I've read, the Swiss are 85% atheist -- so why wouldn't they want to oppress something they feel is bullshit, and is a private matter anyways.
It's nice to see someone take a stand in a world that's so afraid to offend anything or anyone. It's a belief system, not a people that's being oppressed.
I'm kinda torn between believing in a god and being agnostic before, but after the events that shocked me (not going to say what happened) I became a God-believing man.. I don't understand why but at that point in time I was very very depressed and I didn't know what to do, But that doesn't mean I believe in all the things in the Bible, I still don't believe in Heaven and Hell (fuck, I still believe I want to rip-off the hearts of our leader right from their asses cause I know they'll go dieing happily without any burden and grief because of their corruption here)
I still think that it's better to be spiritual than being religious (for me being spiritual doesn't necessarily need to practice some stuff about your religion, just do some good things and pray/meditate that should be fine)
Religion isn't that bad, it's just some are still clinging to old 16th century understanding of how the bible works. Like for example, the bible verse in ghostwriter's post.. that's a lot of LMAO's in that bible verse but as a someone who believes in God, why the hell listen to the Old Testament, it's only for entertain purposes for me.. I would still rather go for experiences in life rather than listen to a book.
Still, I would say that there are really crazy ass people there (both muslim, christian and anyone even atheist) that are being exploited for what they believed in, even some atheist have closed their minds due to the fact they hate religion so much.
Wow, never knew that I posted a topic about religion and it's shit.
okay, to give you guys an example, I saw an article that praying/meditating/yoga increases brain power (as Foucault said, a lot of secular humanist have became depressed because I think they aren't meditating enough)
On December 02 2009 10:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 02 2009 10:13 keepITup wrote:
On December 02 2009 10:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 02 2009 10:10 keepITup wrote:
On December 02 2009 10:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 02 2009 09:53 axel wrote: Do you usa guys imagine 1 or 2 minarets in center of manhatan or LA? I dont think so , also i dont like this new " rule" but i aboslutely can understand it... What do you think that will happens if some christians want to build a church in saudi arabia or iran? ahaha
What I have to understand is that USA or Switzerland are not more tolerant than Iran and Arabia Saudia.
You think what? That there are no fucking church in Marocco, Algeria, Liban?
There is a mosque next to my place in Paris. The muezzin calls people to pray, and people pray. I think that's great, and I am happy for muslim of my country to have a beautiful place to do their religious stuff, and not some sad basement somewhere.
I like Switzerland but I am ashamed for them.
People are scared. Being scared by people different has a name. It's called xenophobia.
whether it's right or wrong i have to give props to the swiss for having the balls to do that.
as you said, it's not good for their image -- but if they don't want something in their country, then they'll get rid of it.
i like that.
Yeah, that's a bit like nazis with the jews. They had balls...
Another retarded comment, like that?
lol i'd hardly compare this to genocide, but hey whatever.
If voting a xenophobic law is having balls, then nazi had huge huge balls.
You fail.
Not to take sides or anything -- but your analogy is terrible.
From what I've read, the Swiss are 85% atheist -- so why wouldn't they want to oppress something they feel is bullshit, and is a private matter anyways.
It's nice to see someone take a stand in a world that's so afraid to offend anything or anyone. It's a belief system, not a people that's being oppressed.
Stop comparing everything to Hitler.
I never compared anything with Hitler. I just point out the weakness of his logic, by appying it to an undefendable case.
Now to answer your question: ever heard about tolerance? I am very atheist, and very happy if people are religious and happy to be so. And then: if it's about atheism, why didn't they banned churchs?
Let stop being hypocritical. The only one who supported this law in Swiss politics are the populist extreme right. People are scared by islam. That doesn't go any further.
On December 02 2009 10:28 Biff The Understudy wrote: People are scared by islam.
For good reason.
I don't think christian fundamentalists are less crazy nor dangerous than muslim fundamentalists. So should we start being scared by Christianity? Ok they are on "our side". But really. Have you heard about Jesus camps? Theses guys are at least as fucked up as Ben Laden and his good friends.
Don't get me wrong: I don't particularly like Islam, as I don't like Christianity nor any religion. But the ennemy is fundamentalism, not Islam (well, and if you read Slavoj Zizek, you realize that fundamentalism is a product of the disparition of secular left, but that's another discussion).
There is no reason to be scared by anything. 99% of muslim are peaceful people, who have their beliefs, and what's wrong with that?
It's not a great news that people start mixing everything and listen to extreme right discourse. That won't lead us anywhere good.
Fear leads to disasters. It may be time to learn it.
On December 02 2009 10:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 02 2009 10:13 keepITup wrote:
On December 02 2009 10:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 02 2009 10:10 keepITup wrote:
On December 02 2009 10:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 02 2009 09:53 axel wrote: Do you usa guys imagine 1 or 2 minarets in center of manhatan or LA? I dont think so , also i dont like this new " rule" but i aboslutely can understand it... What do you think that will happens if some christians want to build a church in saudi arabia or iran? ahaha
What I have to understand is that USA or Switzerland are not more tolerant than Iran and Arabia Saudia.
You think what? That there are no fucking church in Marocco, Algeria, Liban?
There is a mosque next to my place in Paris. The muezzin calls people to pray, and people pray. I think that's great, and I am happy for muslim of my country to have a beautiful place to do their religious stuff, and not some sad basement somewhere.
I like Switzerland but I am ashamed for them.
People are scared. Being scared by people different has a name. It's called xenophobia.
whether it's right or wrong i have to give props to the swiss for having the balls to do that.
as you said, it's not good for their image -- but if they don't want something in their country, then they'll get rid of it.
i like that.
Yeah, that's a bit like nazis with the jews. They had balls...
Another retarded comment, like that?
lol i'd hardly compare this to genocide, but hey whatever.
If voting a xenophobic law is having balls, then nazi had huge huge balls.
You fail.
Not to take sides or anything -- but your analogy is terrible.
From what I've read, the Swiss are 85% atheist -- so why wouldn't they want to oppress something they feel is bullshit, and is a private matter anyways.
It's nice to see someone take a stand in a world that's so afraid to offend anything or anyone. It's a belief system, not a people that's being oppressed.
Stop comparing everything to Hitler.
I never compared anything with Hitler. I just point out the weakness of his logic, by appying it to an undefendable case.
Now to answer your question: ever heard about tolerance? I am very atheist, and very happy if people are religious and happy to be so. And then: if it's about atheism, why didn't they banned churchs?
Let stop being hypocritical. The only one who supported this law in Swiss politics are the populist extreme right. People are scared by islam. That doesn't go any further.
With the all the events happening in today's world, I can understand why they would be afraid of Islam. Is it practical to think all Islamics are radical? Of course not, but all someone needs to hear is a few horror stories to fear something.
Kind of like how people are afraid to let their kids go to a house with a gun in it, when there is a infinitely higher chance of drowning in the swimming pool there.
That being said, this really isn't all that bad. It's just a belief. Having no minarets isn't going to hurt anyone, and if it does the swiss really don't care -- it's just a religion.
I don't really care what they decide on either. People just love to get all preachy about "freedom" when another country has a different way of going about things.
The Nazis had a different way of going about things, sure. They also started a war because of it.
On December 02 2009 10:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 02 2009 10:13 keepITup wrote:
On December 02 2009 10:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 02 2009 10:10 keepITup wrote:
On December 02 2009 10:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 02 2009 09:53 axel wrote: Do you usa guys imagine 1 or 2 minarets in center of manhatan or LA? I dont think so , also i dont like this new " rule" but i aboslutely can understand it... What do you think that will happens if some christians want to build a church in saudi arabia or iran? ahaha
What I have to understand is that USA or Switzerland are not more tolerant than Iran and Arabia Saudia.
You think what? That there are no fucking church in Marocco, Algeria, Liban?
There is a mosque next to my place in Paris. The muezzin calls people to pray, and people pray. I think that's great, and I am happy for muslim of my country to have a beautiful place to do their religious stuff, and not some sad basement somewhere.
I like Switzerland but I am ashamed for them.
People are scared. Being scared by people different has a name. It's called xenophobia.
whether it's right or wrong i have to give props to the swiss for having the balls to do that.
as you said, it's not good for their image -- but if they don't want something in their country, then they'll get rid of it.
i like that.
Yeah, that's a bit like nazis with the jews. They had balls...
Another retarded comment, like that?
lol i'd hardly compare this to genocide, but hey whatever.
If voting a xenophobic law is having balls, then nazi had huge huge balls.
You fail.
Not to take sides or anything -- but your analogy is terrible.
From what I've read, the Swiss are 85% atheist -- so why wouldn't they want to oppress something they feel is bullshit, and is a private matter anyways.
It's nice to see someone take a stand in a world that's so afraid to offend anything or anyone. It's a belief system, not a people that's being oppressed.
Stop comparing everything to Hitler.
It wouldn't matter if 99% of them are atheist. Tyranny of the majority isn't justifiable, EVER, and trying to justify it just makes you a straight up horrible person. I'm atheist and I think this is unbelievably ridiculous. The Bible has just as many ridiculous sayings in them that promote intolerance, ignorance, and violence as any other religion, yet people don't take them literally and plenty of Christians aren't crazy nutjobs who will do horrible things in their God's name. The same goes for Islam. There is absolutely no excuse for this and the Swiss should feel ashamed.
Oh, and his analogy works perfectly fine. How do you think the Nazis started their anti-Jewish campaign? They didn't jump straight into the ovens and gas chambers, it was a process...
On December 02 2009 10:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 02 2009 10:13 keepITup wrote:
On December 02 2009 10:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 02 2009 10:10 keepITup wrote:
On December 02 2009 10:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 02 2009 09:53 axel wrote: Do you usa guys imagine 1 or 2 minarets in center of manhatan or LA? I dont think so , also i dont like this new " rule" but i aboslutely can understand it... What do you think that will happens if some christians want to build a church in saudi arabia or iran? ahaha
What I have to understand is that USA or Switzerland are not more tolerant than Iran and Arabia Saudia.
You think what? That there are no fucking church in Marocco, Algeria, Liban?
There is a mosque next to my place in Paris. The muezzin calls people to pray, and people pray. I think that's great, and I am happy for muslim of my country to have a beautiful place to do their religious stuff, and not some sad basement somewhere.
I like Switzerland but I am ashamed for them.
People are scared. Being scared by people different has a name. It's called xenophobia.
whether it's right or wrong i have to give props to the swiss for having the balls to do that.
as you said, it's not good for their image -- but if they don't want something in their country, then they'll get rid of it.
i like that.
Yeah, that's a bit like nazis with the jews. They had balls...
Another retarded comment, like that?
lol i'd hardly compare this to genocide, but hey whatever.
If voting a xenophobic law is having balls, then nazi had huge huge balls.
You fail.
Not to take sides or anything -- but your analogy is terrible.
From what I've read, the Swiss are 85% atheist -- so why wouldn't they want to oppress something they feel is bullshit, and is a private matter anyways.
It's nice to see someone take a stand in a world that's so afraid to offend anything or anyone. It's a belief system, not a people that's being oppressed.
Stop comparing everything to Hitler.
It wouldn't matter if 99% of them are atheist. Tyranny of the majority isn't justifiable, EVER, and trying to justify it just makes you a straight up horrible person. I'm atheist and I think this is unbelievably ridiculous. The Bible has just as many ridiculous sayings in them that promote intolerance, ignorance, and violence as any other religion, yet people don't take them literally and plenty of Christians aren't crazy nutjobs who will do horrible things in their God's name. The same goes for Islam. There is absolutely no excuse for this and the Swiss should feel ashamed.
Oh, and his analogy works perfectly fine. How do you think the Nazis started their anti-Jewish campaign? They didn't jump straight into the ovens and gas chambers, it was a process...
I never said I agreed with their decision -- just that it's nice to see a different attitude towards the spread of religion.
On December 02 2009 10:28 Biff The Understudy wrote: People are scared by islam.
For good reason.
I don't think christian fundamentalists are less crazy nor dangerous than muslim fundamentalists.
Are you serious? Look, I'm an atheist, but this is silly, you know that's a lie. Christian fundamentalists tell me I'm going to hell and give me dirty looks. Muslim fundamentalists want to kill me. There is no comparison.
On December 02 2009 10:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 02 2009 10:31 Hinanawi wrote:
On December 02 2009 10:28 Biff The Understudy wrote: People are scared by islam.
For good reason.
I don't think christian fundamentalists are less crazy nor dangerous than muslim fundamentalists.
Are you serious? Look, I'm an atheist, but this is silly, you know that's a lie. Christian fundamentalists tell me I'm going to hell and give me dirty looks. Muslim fundamentalists want to kill me. There is no comparison.
Have you never heard of the religious hate between the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, the KKK, and the Christian anti-abortion violence in America, Canada, and elsewhere? I'm only stating recent events here.
On December 02 2009 10:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 02 2009 10:13 keepITup wrote:
On December 02 2009 10:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 02 2009 10:10 keepITup wrote:
On December 02 2009 10:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 02 2009 09:53 axel wrote: Do you usa guys imagine 1 or 2 minarets in center of manhatan or LA? I dont think so , also i dont like this new " rule" but i aboslutely can understand it... What do you think that will happens if some christians want to build a church in saudi arabia or iran? ahaha
What I have to understand is that USA or Switzerland are not more tolerant than Iran and Arabia Saudia.
You think what? That there are no fucking church in Marocco, Algeria, Liban?
There is a mosque next to my place in Paris. The muezzin calls people to pray, and people pray. I think that's great, and I am happy for muslim of my country to have a beautiful place to do their religious stuff, and not some sad basement somewhere.
I like Switzerland but I am ashamed for them.
People are scared. Being scared by people different has a name. It's called xenophobia.
whether it's right or wrong i have to give props to the swiss for having the balls to do that.
as you said, it's not good for their image -- but if they don't want something in their country, then they'll get rid of it.
i like that.
Yeah, that's a bit like nazis with the jews. They had balls...
Another retarded comment, like that?
lol i'd hardly compare this to genocide, but hey whatever.
If voting a xenophobic law is having balls, then nazi had huge huge balls.
You fail.
Not to take sides or anything -- but your analogy is terrible.
From what I've read, the Swiss are 85% atheist -- so why wouldn't they want to oppress something they feel is bullshit, and is a private matter anyways.
It's nice to see someone take a stand in a world that's so afraid to offend anything or anyone. It's a belief system, not a people that's being oppressed.
Stop comparing everything to Hitler.
It wouldn't matter if 99% of them are atheist. Tyranny of the majority isn't justifiable, EVER, and trying to justify it just makes you a straight up horrible person. I'm atheist and I think this is unbelievably ridiculous. The Bible has just as many ridiculous sayings in them that promote intolerance, ignorance, and violence as any other religion, yet people don't take them literally and plenty of Christians aren't crazy nutjobs who will do horrible things in their God's name. The same goes for Islam. There is absolutely no excuse for this and the Swiss should feel ashamed.
Oh, and his analogy works perfectly fine. How do you think the Nazis started their anti-Jewish campaign? They didn't jump straight into the ovens and gas chambers, it was a process...
Your country (and mine) was founded with principles of religious freedom, and separation of church and state. Other countries were not. You are judging Switzerland for not being like us. Well screw off with that. It's their country. It pisses me off when Euros meddle in our politics, so I'm sure as hell not going to turn around and do it to any of them.
I don't see people in here bitching about Saudi Arabia and their "tolerance". Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Switzerland is justified because someone else did it. More like we don't mess with the Saudis, and we shouldn't mess with the Swiss.
Obviously we can argue whether or not we think what they did is wrong or justified or whatever, but it's their country and if they don't feel like coddling every religious group they don't have to.
On December 02 2009 10:28 Biff The Understudy wrote: People are scared by islam.
For good reason.
I don't think christian fundamentalists are less crazy nor dangerous than muslim fundamentalists. So should we start being scared by Christianity? Ok they are on "our side". But really. Have you heard about Jesus camps? Theses guys are at least as fucked up as Ben Laden and his good friends.
Don't get me wrong: I don't particularly like Islam, as I don't like Christianity nor any religion. But the ennemy is fundamentalism, not Islam (well, and if you read Slavoj Zizek, you realize that fundamentalism is a product of the disparition of secular left, but that's another discussion).
There is no reason to be scared by anything. 99% of muslim are peaceful people, who have their beliefs, and what's wrong with that?
It's not a great news that people start mixing everything and listen to extreme right discourse. That won't lead us anywhere good.
Fear leads to disasters. It may be time to learn it.
There is no reasonable way to quantify "crazy," but it is extremely intellectually dishonest to claim that today's Christian fundamentalists are as dangerous as Islamic ones.
In fact, as someone who lost more than one friend in the attacks of 9/11, I'd say that such a claim is downright offensive.
Would you care to post some numbers for us to back up your claim? How many civilians have Christian extremists killed in the last decade? How many Christian theocracies exist on earth? How many people have those theocracies killed, mutilated or imprisoned for exercising their basic human rights?
Islam fundamentalism is without question something to be scared of. It is a violent, expansionist ideology, which is diametrically opposed to the existence of many human rights that have finally been embraced by those in the Western world.
It's both tragic and illogical for you to dismiss criticism of such a problematic and harmful system of belief as "extreme right discourse." Am I a horribly old fashioned conservative because I believe that women shouldn't be treated as second class citizens or legally beaten by their spouses? If so, I apologize for believing that our mothers, sisters, wives and girlfriends deserve better.
Regardless of whether or not you want to bury your head in the sand, there will always be people who oppose Islamic fundamentalism openly and without caring whether or not their views will be perceived as appropriately politically correct.
I see no reason why I shouldn't fear all kinds of religious extremists, honestly. Acting like Christianity does not have the same power as Islam to be a killing force is nothing more than two thousand years of historical revisionism. You still today have to ignore the killings of abortion doctors, hate crimes against the gay community, and Northern Ireland itself. You have to ignore the speeches of prominent government figures regarding the rest of the world, including the president calling the Iraq war a 'crusade' and mentioning that he's been guided by god. Why should Muslim countries not be just as fearful of us as we seem to be of them? But America isn't a theocracy, right? So everything is just fine.
Really though, I'm naturally distrusting of anyone who follows their morals because they fear some otherworldly punishment (or desire some otherworldly reward). Especially when all of human knowledge is ready to explain that that 'otherworld' very likely doesn't even exist.
Back to minarets, I believe calling this the 'tyranny of the majority' or 'religious suppression' is blowing things out of proportion to the point of becoming off-topic. The real issue here is the clash of culture and religion - one of immigration in Europe.
On December 02 2009 12:41 ShaperofDreams wrote: I hate that EVERYTHING is compared to Hitler (and the germs in WWII) now in debates, I guess people think it automatically validates their argument.
I guess religion = being not analytical or not curious.
I'll go tell aquinas, decartes and innumerable other foundational pillars of western philosophy to stop being so analytical and curious, then.
Let us name the few exceptional people that would have been exceptional anyway (and arguably DESPITE their religion) and ignore the countless numbers who have done horrific things in the name of religion. But then again, they pick and choose from which bible verses that emphasize, why wouldn't they pick and choose people to be their heros and ignore the villains?
On November 30 2009 07:52 Foucault wrote: I don't really see a reason to spread religion in the world to be honest. Islam to me is oppression and women being held down by ridiculous religious beliefs. Of course there are nice things to arabic culture, but Islam is not it
On December 02 2009 00:06 ggrrg wrote: Yeah sure. It's far better to let them completely bar themselves from society. Since the mosques offer a place to spend time and pass activities, guess where many turks decide to spend all of their time? I honestly cannot imagine how they would integrate in Germany if they continue like this...
Agree 100% with these and other similar comments. It's about time we did something about people who refuse to integrate and whose culturesa are a menace to society. Hopefully banning minarets due to the Islamisation of Switzerland will just be the first step to banning these other things as well:
Computer games Computer games are full of violence and ridiculous beliefs. They overtly tell people to kill other people and turn to a life of crime. Starcraft to me, especially, is about cruelty to insects and ridiculous beliefs. Of course there are nice things to computers, but computer games is not it. If we do not ban computer games, computer gamers will continue to stay in their bedrooms playing games instead of intergrating with society. Honestly, how can they possibly integrate?
Crucifixes and Catholic churches Crucifixes are an important part of Catholicism. Catholicism to me is all about wild sex without usiong condoms and priests molesting little boys. We have to ban crucifixes before this gets out of hand. Churches have to go as well. Catholics all congregate there instead of integrating. This could lead to a very dangerous situation where they just have unprotected sex with each other and breed more dangerous Catholics. Ban churches and crucifixes ASAP.
Pornography Pornography to me is all about oppression of women and women being held down by various metal and leather implements. Of course, there are nice things to movies, but pornography is not it. All these porn stars and directors have their own niche markets and their own video awards. We've got to ban all these as well so they can integrate.
Hamburgers American culture is all about violence. The right to bear arms is written in the constitution. They also like to invade other countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam. of course, America is not ALL about violence, but it's better to get rid of the whole lot of them anyway. The trouble with Americans is that they won't stay in their own country, despite it being so big. They keep going to oither countries where they're not welcome. So we've got to ban hamburgers so all these fat Americans will not feel welcome and will go back to where they came from. Their culture of violence is not welcome anywhere in the world (except maybe Somalia).
Synagogues Hitler really should have wiped out the Jews. Did you know that Jewish women have to follow certain rules about behaviour? Judaism is obviously about oppressing women and has to be wiped out. I suppose things have changed now, but back then, in the 1940s, they should have been wiped out. You can't trust anyone to do anything right, honestly.
Damnit, thinking about all these people and cutlures and objects and motifs that should be destroyed is really making me mad. Grrrr... Makes me want to beat up some Muslims. I live in a multiracial country, I'm sure I can find one... oh look, there's one. Oh no, she's not wearing a veil, so she can't be Muslim. Because all Muslims wear veils, obviously.
On November 30 2009 07:52 Foucault wrote: I don't really see a reason to spread religion in the world to be honest. Islam to me is oppression and women being held down by ridiculous religious beliefs. Of course there are nice things to arabic culture, but Islam is not it
On December 02 2009 00:06 ggrrg wrote: Yeah sure. It's far better to let them completely bar themselves from society. Since the mosques offer a place to spend time and pass activities, guess where many turks decide to spend all of their time? I honestly cannot imagine how they would integrate in Germany if they continue like this...
Agree 100% with these and other similar comments. It's about time we did something about people who refuse to integrate and whose culturesa are a menace to society. Hopefully banning minarets due to the Islamisation of Switzerland will just be the first step to banning these other things as well:
Computer games Computer games are full of violence and ridiculous beliefs. They overtly tell people to kill other people and turn to a life of crime. Starcraft to me, especially, is about cruelty to insects and ridiculous beliefs. Of course there are nice things to computers, but computer games is not it. If we do not ban computer games, computer gamers will continue to stay in their bedrooms playing games instead of intergrating with society. Honestly, how can they possibly integrate?
Crucifixes and Catholic churches Crucifixes are an important part of Catholicism. Catholicism to me is all about wild sex without usiong condoms and priests molesting little boys. We have to ban crucifixes before this gets out of hand. Churches have to go as well. Catholics all congregate there instead of integrating. This could lead to a very dangerous situation where they just have unprotected sex with each other and breed more dangerous Catholics. Ban churches and crucifixes ASAP.
Pornography Pornography to me is all about oppression of women and women being held down by various metal and leather implements. Of course, there are nice things to movies, but pornography is not it. All these porn stars and directors have their own niche markets and their own video awards. We've got to ban all these as well so they can integrate.
Hamburgers American culture is all about violence. The right to bear arms is written in the constitution. They also like to invade other countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam. of course, America is not ALL about violence, but it's better to get rid of the whole lot of them anyway. The trouble with Americans is that they won't stay in their own country, despite it being so big. They keep going to oither countries where they're not welcome. So we've got to ban hamburgers so all these fat Americans will not feel welcome and will go back to where they came from. Their culture of violence is not welcome anywhere in the world (except maybe Somalia).
Synagogues Hitler really should have wiped out the Jews. Did you know that Jewish women have to follow certain rules about behaviour? Judaism is obviously about oppressing women and has to be wiped out. I suppose things have changed now, but back then, in the 1940s, they should have been wiped out. You can't trust anyone to do anything right, honestly.
Damnit, thinking about all these people and cutlures and objects and motifs that should be destroyed is really making me mad. Grrrr... Makes me want to beat up some Muslims. I live in a multiracial country, I'm sure I can find one... oh look, there's one. Oh no, she's not wearing a veil, so she can't be Muslim. Because all Muslims wear veils, obviously.
I approve 100%. The hamburgers one is really convoluted though
On November 30 2009 07:52 Foucault wrote: I don't really see a reason to spread religion in the world to be honest. Islam to me is oppression and women being held down by ridiculous religious beliefs. Of course there are nice things to arabic culture, but Islam is not it
On December 02 2009 00:06 ggrrg wrote: Yeah sure. It's far better to let them completely bar themselves from society. Since the mosques offer a place to spend time and pass activities, guess where many turks decide to spend all of their time? I honestly cannot imagine how they would integrate in Germany if they continue like this...
Agree 100% with these and other similar comments. It's about time we did something about people who refuse to integrate and whose culturesa are a menace to society. Hopefully banning minarets due to the Islamisation of Switzerland will just be the first step to banning these other things as well:
Computer games Computer games are full of violence and ridiculous beliefs. They overtly tell people to kill other people and turn to a life of crime. Starcraft to me, especially, is about cruelty to insects and ridiculous beliefs. Of course there are nice things to computers, but computer games is not it. If we do not ban computer games, computer gamers will continue to stay in their bedrooms playing games instead of intergrating with society. Honestly, how can they possibly integrate?
Crucifixes and Catholic churches Crucifixes are an important part of Catholicism. Catholicism to me is all about wild sex without usiong condoms and priests molesting little boys. We have to ban crucifixes before this gets out of hand. Churches have to go as well. Catholics all congregate there instead of integrating. This could lead to a very dangerous situation where they just have unprotected sex with each other and breed more dangerous Catholics. Ban churches and crucifixes ASAP.
Pornography Pornography to me is all about oppression of women and women being held down by various metal and leather implements. Of course, there are nice things to movies, but pornography is not it. All these porn stars and directors have their own niche markets and their own video awards. We've got to ban all these as well so they can integrate.
Hamburgers American culture is all about violence. The right to bear arms is written in the constitution. They also like to invade other countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam. of course, America is not ALL about violence, but it's better to get rid of the whole lot of them anyway. The trouble with Americans is that they won't stay in their own country, despite it being so big. They keep going to oither countries where they're not welcome. So we've got to ban hamburgers so all these fat Americans will not feel welcome and will go back to where they came from. Their culture of violence is not welcome anywhere in the world (except maybe Somalia).
Synagogues Hitler really should have wiped out the Jews. Did you know that Jewish women have to follow certain rules about behaviour? Judaism is obviously about oppressing women and has to be wiped out. I suppose things have changed now, but back then, in the 1940s, they should have been wiped out. You can't trust anyone to do anything right, honestly.
Damnit, thinking about all these people and cutlures and objects and motifs that should be destroyed is really making me mad. Grrrr... Makes me want to beat up some Muslims. I live in a multiracial country, I'm sure I can find one... oh look, there's one. Oh no, she's not wearing a veil, so she can't be Muslim. Because all Muslims wear veils, obviously.
I approve 100%. The hamburgers one is really convoluted though
No it's not. We need to ban minarets so these damned Muslims won't feel welcome and they'll go away and stop oppressing women. So we need to ban hamburgers so these damned Americans will not feel welcome and will go away and stop being violent. Why can't you understand that? You and your kind, whatever that is, should be banned.
On November 30 2009 07:52 Foucault wrote: I don't really see a reason to spread religion in the world to be honest. Islam to me is oppression and women being held down by ridiculous religious beliefs. Of course there are nice things to arabic culture, but Islam is not it
On December 02 2009 00:06 ggrrg wrote: Yeah sure. It's far better to let them completely bar themselves from society. Since the mosques offer a place to spend time and pass activities, guess where many turks decide to spend all of their time? I honestly cannot imagine how they would integrate in Germany if they continue like this...
Agree 100% with these and other similar comments. It's about time we did something about people who refuse to integrate and whose culturesa are a menace to society. Hopefully banning minarets due to the Islamisation of Switzerland will just be the first step to banning these other things as well:
Computer games Computer games are full of violence and ridiculous beliefs. They overtly tell people to kill other people and turn to a life of crime. Starcraft to me, especially, is about cruelty to insects and ridiculous beliefs. Of course there are nice things to computers, but computer games is not it. If we do not ban computer games, computer gamers will continue to stay in their bedrooms playing games instead of intergrating with society. Honestly, how can they possibly integrate?
Crucifixes and Catholic churches Crucifixes are an important part of Catholicism. Catholicism to me is all about wild sex without usiong condoms and priests molesting little boys. We have to ban crucifixes before this gets out of hand. Churches have to go as well. Catholics all congregate there instead of integrating. This could lead to a very dangerous situation where they just have unprotected sex with each other and breed more dangerous Catholics. Ban churches and crucifixes ASAP.
Pornography Pornography to me is all about oppression of women and women being held down by various metal and leather implements. Of course, there are nice things to movies, but pornography is not it. All these porn stars and directors have their own niche markets and their own video awards. We've got to ban all these as well so they can integrate.
Hamburgers American culture is all about violence. The right to bear arms is written in the constitution. They also like to invade other countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam. of course, America is not ALL about violence, but it's better to get rid of the whole lot of them anyway. The trouble with Americans is that they won't stay in their own country, despite it being so big. They keep going to oither countries where they're not welcome. So we've got to ban hamburgers so all these fat Americans will not feel welcome and will go back to where they came from. Their culture of violence is not welcome anywhere in the world (except maybe Somalia).
Synagogues Hitler really should have wiped out the Jews. Did you know that Jewish women have to follow certain rules about behaviour? Judaism is obviously about oppressing women and has to be wiped out. I suppose things have changed now, but back then, in the 1940s, they should have been wiped out. You can't trust anyone to do anything right, honestly.
Damnit, thinking about all these people and cutlures and objects and motifs that should be destroyed is really making me mad. Grrrr... Makes me want to beat up some Muslims. I live in a multiracial country, I'm sure I can find one... oh look, there's one. Oh no, she's not wearing a veil, so she can't be Muslim. Because all Muslims wear veils, obviously.
I approve 100%. The hamburgers one is really convoluted though
No it's not. We need to ban minarets so these damned Muslims won't feel welcome and they'll go away and stop oppressing women. So we need to ban hamburgers so these damned Americans will not feel welcome and will go away and stop being violent. Why can't you understand that? You and your kind, whatever that is, should be banned.
Look. The real problem here aren't Americans. It's those damn Conservatives that are screwing us over. So here's what we do to make them feel unwelcome. Legalize gay marriage and abortion. Remove the 2nd amendment from the Constitution. No death penalty. Universal health care, a REAL bailout package that goes to small businesses, and the nationalization of all banks. Those damn conservatives have always been the ones to instigate violence to others. Just look at the south and lynching. Or the KKK. Or those nativists. Gotta drive them all out or they'll pose a threat to America.
On November 30 2009 07:52 Foucault wrote: I don't really see a reason to spread religion in the world to be honest. Islam to me is oppression and women being held down by ridiculous religious beliefs. Of course there are nice things to arabic culture, but Islam is not it
On December 02 2009 00:06 ggrrg wrote: Yeah sure. It's far better to let them completely bar themselves from society. Since the mosques offer a place to spend time and pass activities, guess where many turks decide to spend all of their time? I honestly cannot imagine how they would integrate in Germany if they continue like this...
Agree 100% with these and other similar comments. It's about time we did something about people who refuse to integrate and whose culturesa are a menace to society. Hopefully banning minarets due to the Islamisation of Switzerland will just be the first step to banning these other things as well:
Computer games Computer games are full of violence and ridiculous beliefs. They overtly tell people to kill other people and turn to a life of crime. Starcraft to me, especially, is about cruelty to insects and ridiculous beliefs. Of course there are nice things to computers, but computer games is not it. If we do not ban computer games, computer gamers will continue to stay in their bedrooms playing games instead of intergrating with society. Honestly, how can they possibly integrate?
Crucifixes and Catholic churches Crucifixes are an important part of Catholicism. Catholicism to me is all about wild sex without usiong condoms and priests molesting little boys. We have to ban crucifixes before this gets out of hand. Churches have to go as well. Catholics all congregate there instead of integrating. This could lead to a very dangerous situation where they just have unprotected sex with each other and breed more dangerous Catholics. Ban churches and crucifixes ASAP.
Pornography Pornography to me is all about oppression of women and women being held down by various metal and leather implements. Of course, there are nice things to movies, but pornography is not it. All these porn stars and directors have their own niche markets and their own video awards. We've got to ban all these as well so they can integrate.
Hamburgers American culture is all about violence. The right to bear arms is written in the constitution. They also like to invade other countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam. of course, America is not ALL about violence, but it's better to get rid of the whole lot of them anyway. The trouble with Americans is that they won't stay in their own country, despite it being so big. They keep going to oither countries where they're not welcome. So we've got to ban hamburgers so all these fat Americans will not feel welcome and will go back to where they came from. Their culture of violence is not welcome anywhere in the world (except maybe Somalia).
Synagogues Hitler really should have wiped out the Jews. Did you know that Jewish women have to follow certain rules about behaviour? Judaism is obviously about oppressing women and has to be wiped out. I suppose things have changed now, but back then, in the 1940s, they should have been wiped out. You can't trust anyone to do anything right, honestly.
Damnit, thinking about all these people and cutlures and objects and motifs that should be destroyed is really making me mad. Grrrr... Makes me want to beat up some Muslims. I live in a multiracial country, I'm sure I can find one... oh look, there's one. Oh no, she's not wearing a veil, so she can't be Muslim. Because all Muslims wear veils, obviously.
I know that you're just saying this to exaggerate what has been said just to show these people how close-minded they're being, but for some strange reason, I find myself agreeing with many of these positions, even if it's only in principle. I mean, the hamburger one is a bit outlandish and the Jewish one is even more so, but I can understand the other ones and even sympathize.
On November 30 2009 07:52 Foucault wrote: I don't really see a reason to spread religion in the world to be honest. Islam to me is oppression and women being held down by ridiculous religious beliefs. Of course there are nice things to arabic culture, but Islam is not it
On December 02 2009 00:06 ggrrg wrote: Yeah sure. It's far better to let them completely bar themselves from society. Since the mosques offer a place to spend time and pass activities, guess where many turks decide to spend all of their time? I honestly cannot imagine how they would integrate in Germany if they continue like this...
Agree 100% with these and other similar comments. It's about time we did something about people who refuse to integrate and whose culturesa are a menace to society. Hopefully banning minarets due to the Islamisation of Switzerland will just be the first step to banning these other things as well:
Computer games Computer games are full of violence and ridiculous beliefs. They overtly tell people to kill other people and turn to a life of crime. Starcraft to me, especially, is about cruelty to insects and ridiculous beliefs. Of course there are nice things to computers, but computer games is not it. If we do not ban computer games, computer gamers will continue to stay in their bedrooms playing games instead of intergrating with society. Honestly, how can they possibly integrate?
Crucifixes and Catholic churches Crucifixes are an important part of Catholicism. Catholicism to me is all about wild sex without usiong condoms and priests molesting little boys. We have to ban crucifixes before this gets out of hand. Churches have to go as well. Catholics all congregate there instead of integrating. This could lead to a very dangerous situation where they just have unprotected sex with each other and breed more dangerous Catholics. Ban churches and crucifixes ASAP.
Pornography Pornography to me is all about oppression of women and women being held down by various metal and leather implements. Of course, there are nice things to movies, but pornography is not it. All these porn stars and directors have their own niche markets and their own video awards. We've got to ban all these as well so they can integrate.
Hamburgers American culture is all about violence. The right to bear arms is written in the constitution. They also like to invade other countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam. of course, America is not ALL about violence, but it's better to get rid of the whole lot of them anyway. The trouble with Americans is that they won't stay in their own country, despite it being so big. They keep going to oither countries where they're not welcome. So we've got to ban hamburgers so all these fat Americans will not feel welcome and will go back to where they came from. Their culture of violence is not welcome anywhere in the world (except maybe Somalia).
Synagogues Hitler really should have wiped out the Jews. Did you know that Jewish women have to follow certain rules about behaviour? Judaism is obviously about oppressing women and has to be wiped out. I suppose things have changed now, but back then, in the 1940s, they should have been wiped out. You can't trust anyone to do anything right, honestly.
Damnit, thinking about all these people and cutlures and objects and motifs that should be destroyed is really making me mad. Grrrr... Makes me want to beat up some Muslims. I live in a multiracial country, I'm sure I can find one... oh look, there's one. Oh no, she's not wearing a veil, so she can't be Muslim. Because all Muslims wear veils, obviously.
I know that you're just saying this to exaggerate what has been said just to show these people how close-minded they're being, but for some strange reason, I find myself agreeing with many of these positions, even if it's only in principle.
It's to be expected. But the point is that disagreeing with one aspect of a system does not mean you can get rid of the entire system.
America may say, "we don't want honour killings here, that would be murder." But it will not say, "honour killings are a part of Islam, so we're banning any symbols of Islam here."
Likewise you might say, "we do not support civilians carrying arms, we ban that here." But that should not turn into "The right to bear arms is an American thing, therefore we ban all symbols of America."
It's the societies that are the most open and accepting that attract the most talent and improve the fastest, not those who close themsleves off from the rest of the world.
It's the societies that are the most open and accepting that attract the most talent and improve the fastest, not those who close themsleves off from the rest of the world.
It's the societies that pay the most and let you do whatever the fuck you want in your privacy, nothing else... But dream on.
On November 30 2009 07:52 Foucault wrote: I don't really see a reason to spread religion in the world to be honest. Islam to me is oppression and women being held down by ridiculous religious beliefs. Of course there are nice things to arabic culture, but Islam is not it
On December 02 2009 00:06 ggrrg wrote: Yeah sure. It's far better to let them completely bar themselves from society. Since the mosques offer a place to spend time and pass activities, guess where many turks decide to spend all of their time? I honestly cannot imagine how they would integrate in Germany if they continue like this...
Agree 100% with these and other similar comments. It's about time we did something about people who refuse to integrate and whose culturesa are a menace to society. Hopefully banning minarets due to the Islamisation of Switzerland will just be the first step to banning these other things as well:
Computer games Computer games are full of violence and ridiculous beliefs. They overtly tell people to kill other people and turn to a life of crime. Starcraft to me, especially, is about cruelty to insects and ridiculous beliefs. Of course there are nice things to computers, but computer games is not it. If we do not ban computer games, computer gamers will continue to stay in their bedrooms playing games instead of intergrating with society. Honestly, how can they possibly integrate?
Crucifixes and Catholic churches Crucifixes are an important part of Catholicism. Catholicism to me is all about wild sex without usiong condoms and priests molesting little boys. We have to ban crucifixes before this gets out of hand. Churches have to go as well. Catholics all congregate there instead of integrating. This could lead to a very dangerous situation where they just have unprotected sex with each other and breed more dangerous Catholics. Ban churches and crucifixes ASAP.
Pornography Pornography to me is all about oppression of women and women being held down by various metal and leather implements. Of course, there are nice things to movies, but pornography is not it. All these porn stars and directors have their own niche markets and their own video awards. We've got to ban all these as well so they can integrate.
Hamburgers American culture is all about violence. The right to bear arms is written in the constitution. They also like to invade other countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam. of course, America is not ALL about violence, but it's better to get rid of the whole lot of them anyway. The trouble with Americans is that they won't stay in their own country, despite it being so big. They keep going to oither countries where they're not welcome. So we've got to ban hamburgers so all these fat Americans will not feel welcome and will go back to where they came from. Their culture of violence is not welcome anywhere in the world (except maybe Somalia).
Synagogues Hitler really should have wiped out the Jews. Did you know that Jewish women have to follow certain rules about behaviour? Judaism is obviously about oppressing women and has to be wiped out. I suppose things have changed now, but back then, in the 1940s, they should have been wiped out. You can't trust anyone to do anything right, honestly.
Damnit, thinking about all these people and cutlures and objects and motifs that should be destroyed is really making me mad. Grrrr... Makes me want to beat up some Muslims. I live in a multiracial country, I'm sure I can find one... oh look, there's one. Oh no, she's not wearing a veil, so she can't be Muslim. Because all Muslims wear veils, obviously.
I know that you're just saying this to exaggerate what has been said just to show these people how close-minded they're being, but for some strange reason, I find myself agreeing with many of these positions, even if it's only in principle.
It's to be expected. But the point is that disagreeing with one aspect of a system does not mean you can get rid of the entire system.
America may say, "we don't want honour killings here, that would be murder." But it will not say, "honour killings are a part of Islam, so we're banning any symbols of Islam here."
Likewise you might say, "we do not support civilians carrying arms, we ban that here." But that should not turn into "The right to bear arms is an American thing, therefore we ban all symbols of America."
It's the societies that are the most open and accepting that attract the most talent and improve the fastest, not those who close themsleves off from the rest of the world.
Even so, you cannot deny that radical Islam is a legitimate threat and the fears of people in Switzerland aren't completely unfounded, even if they may be somewhat misguided. Also, I believe that immigrants should abide by the desires of their hosts within reasonable bounds, if only to be good neighbors because they are guests. Banning minarets is different from banning mosques. It's similar to how schools ban du-rags, they aren't making a statement against black people in general, they are merely trying to combat the "gangster" image, even though the articles of clothing themselves don't hurt anyone. In any case, even if it is a misguided fear, the Muslims should be able to understand people's concerns, especially when the society they come from tend to be much more intolerant towards others.
It's the societies that are the most open and accepting that attract the most talent and improve the fastest, not those who close themsleves off from the rest of the world.
It's the societies that pay the most and let you do whatever the fuck you want in your privacy, nothing else... But dream on.
Agreed, the world is not as utopian as the way you put it, the Storyteller.
Well, i don't think this ban has any meaning. Currently, the most popular name that is given to newborn is Muhammad in Europe. So, in one or two generations there won't be any issue with minarets, as there won't be anyone to ban them.
you post bullshit. this initiative has already kicked off very good solution oriented discussions about the real problems with the islam in our culture. we all knew that the minarets are not the real problem. it's things like forced marriage that is done like this: family lives in switzerland, they go to iran/pakistan/wherever force marriage on the children and come back to switzerland. this never gets punished and is just wrong. thats the real problem, but noone ever talked about it. Now we banned minarets and suddenly the real problems are pointed out because minarets got punished as scapegoat.
oh, btw cruzifixes are banned in public buildings in europe. considering that, it's ridiculous that minarets may not be banned, k thx bye.
On December 02 2009 18:00 intruding wrote: I'm deeply concerned about the popularity of atheism here. Being atheist is as dumb as being religious. Religions and all its interpretations are obviously complete bullshit. But its equally idiotic to reject the existence of God simply because the masses have believed in their erroneous opinions about God over the millenniums. There is indeed a creator. It's just that everything revolving around it that is man-made or spiritual and moral about it, religion, has been utterly misconceived and misinterpreted and has led to bloodshed.
God exists, it's just that man's interpretation of it has traditionally been moronic. Therefore; deism should be the religious stance of choice. Agnostism would come second. But please, being a hardcore atheist is very very strange and disturbing.
sorry, but if you use brain, then there is simply no reason to believe in god, so being atheist is the only logical choice for me. I consider myself man of science and i would like to hear your reasons for your claim, that there is indeed a creator. Why? How can you be so sure about it? You can't. As well as i can't be really sure that there is no god. I can choose freely not to believe as you can choose to believe. But then to belive is dumb as well, because we have arrived to our conclusions followinfg the same thinking pattern. So don't just please post atheist is dumb.
On December 02 2009 18:00 intruding wrote: I'm deeply concerned about the popularity of atheism here. Being atheist is as dumb as being religious. Religions and all its interpretations are obviously complete bullshit. But its equally idiotic to reject the existence of God simply because the masses have believed in their erroneous opinions about God over the millenniums. There is indeed a creator. It's just that everything revolving around it that is man-made or spiritual and moral about it, religion, has been utterly misconceived and misinterpreted and has led to bloodshed.
God exists, it's just that man's interpretation of it has traditionally been moronic. Therefore; deism should be the religious stance of choice. Agnostism would come second. But please, being a hardcore atheist is very very strange and disturbing.
I probably shouldn't even bother responding to such a ridiculous post, but you do realize that there is absolutely no evidential justification for an image of 'god' in the first place, right? There's no reason for a child growing up armed with the knowledge of the world we have today to actually substitute 'god' in anywhere. A person might eventually ask 'what lies beyond what we know?', but when would they ever assert that there needed to be a god to explain something we cannot yet explain?
Notice how I'm not saying 'there is no god' anywhere in here. In fact, the question of whether or not there exists a god is not even relevant, because there's no evidence to even suggest it's worth addressing!
What we do have, though, is religion. Religion exists, and we can actually talk about that.
On December 02 2009 15:37 The Storyteller wrote: Attempted sarcasm
Sure, the hardcore anti-Islamic position presented in support of this banning seems rather silly when we're only talking about minarets here, but it is the same with all politics. You aim small in order to get people talking about what you think are the real issues - to set the framework of the discussion more on your terms.
However, it's not realistic to assume everyone who voted for this ban has that type of ideology. There is a very obvious clash of cultures occurring in Europe these days, and I wouldn't be surprised if many people felt that construction of extremely apparent foreign symbols were detracting from the Swiss culture. Obviously, there is still religious freedom in Switzerland, unless for some odd reason you feel that not being able to construct certain large buildings restricts religious freedom. In that case, I think you'd be drawing the line much too far away from reality.
On December 02 2009 18:00 intruding wrote: I'm deeply concerned about the popularity of atheism here. Being atheist is as dumb as being religious. Religions and all its interpretations are obviously complete bullshit. But its equally idiotic to reject the existence of God simply because the masses have believed in their erroneous opinions about God over the millenniums. There is indeed a creator. It's just that everything revolving around it that is man-made or spiritual and moral about it, religion, has been utterly misconceived and misinterpreted and has led to bloodshed.
God exists, it's just that man's interpretation of it has traditionally been moronic. Therefore; deism should be the religious stance of choice. Agnostism would come second. But please, being a hardcore atheist is very very strange and disturbing.
sorry, but if you use brain, then there is simply no reason to believe in god, so being atheist is the only logical choice for me. I consider myself man of science and i would like to hear your reasons for your claim, that there is indeed a creator. Why? How can you be so sure about it? You can't. As well as i can't be really sure that there is no god. I can choose freely not to believe as you can choose to believe. But then to belive is dumb as well, because we have arrived to our conclusions followinfg the same thinking pattern. So don't just please post atheist is dumb.
Thats Agnostism you describe. (Not beeing sure whether there is a god or not) Atheism is mostly not even questioning whether there could be a god or not. The inexistance of god is taken as fact. I too don't get why deism is the one to go with. Why has there to be a single god? Why can't there be multiple gods? Why can't there be no god at all?
On December 02 2009 18:00 intruding wrote: I'm deeply concerned about the popularity of atheism here. Being atheist is as dumb as being religious. Religions and all its interpretations are obviously complete bullshit. But its equally idiotic to reject the existence of God simply because the masses have believed in their erroneous opinions about God over the millenniums. There is indeed a creator. It's just that everything revolving around it that is man-made or spiritual and moral about it, religion, has been utterly misconceived and misinterpreted and has led to bloodshed.
God exists, it's just that man's interpretation of it has traditionally been moronic. Therefore; deism should be the religious stance of choice. Agnostism would come second. But please, being a hardcore atheist is very very strange and disturbing.
sorry, but if you use brain, then there is simply no reason to believe in god, so being atheist is the only logical choice for me. I consider myself man of science and i would like to hear your reasons for your claim, that there is indeed a creator. Why? How can you be so sure about it? You can't. As well as i can't be really sure that there is no god. I can choose freely not to believe as you can choose to believe. But then to belive is dumb as well, because we have arrived to our conclusions followinfg the same thinking pattern. So don't just please post atheist is dumb.
You're right in criticizing his attack on atheism, but choosing not to believe in a god is not a logical progression from being a "man of science." You have proof for neither the existence or absence of a god, and as a man of science should not be able to reach any conclusion. You may choose to pursue a life where the absence of proof implies falsity, but it's generally a poor principle. Anything labeled a theory (evolution, big bang, etc) has yet to be proven and if you apply the aforementioned principle generally then you'd end up not with the falsity of many accepted scientific ideas. I understand that on intuition or some other reason you may not believe in the existence of a god, but it's certainly not for a scientific reason so don't claim it to be as such.
As for this entire thread, I find the number of people lingering on the idea of a fundamentalist threat as a basis for bans on how people express their religious views extremely disturbing.
There are many Muslims who are peaceful and tolerant, but they're too quiet, or maybe just too afraid. They don't condemn the extremists loudly or wholeheartedly enough.
Remember what happened with the Mohammad cartoon fiasco in Europe. The 'moderate' Muslims were too afraid to condemn the Muslims making death threats. All you could get was a half-hearted "Yeah, the extremists are taking it too far, but you really should be more sensitive and not make comics like that" (again, implying that the cartoonist deserved it).
Unless peaceful Muslims can grow some balls and show extremists that they're not afraid to condemn them, loudly and without making excuses, then it means one of two things:
1. They agree on some level with the extremists or 2. They're too afraid of physical retaliation/violence to condemn the extremists
Neither option speaks particularly well for the Muslim world. It's good that there are peaceful Muslims, but entirely irrelevant unless they have more power than the extremists, which they absolutely do not.
This I also feel is a quite crucial part. I understand that when Islam is attacked the non-radical muslims feel attacked aswell and they defend their views first, but I havent seen a lot of outrage or disgust with the words and actions of extremists, which makes it feel like the 2 points Hinanawi posted.
On November 30 2009 07:52 Foucault wrote: I don't really see a reason to spread religion in the world to be honest. Islam to me is oppression and women being held down by ridiculous religious beliefs. Of course there are nice things to arabic culture, but Islam is not it
On December 02 2009 00:06 ggrrg wrote: Yeah sure. It's far better to let them completely bar themselves from society. Since the mosques offer a place to spend time and pass activities, guess where many turks decide to spend all of their time? I honestly cannot imagine how they would integrate in Germany if they continue like this...
Agree 100% with these and other similar comments. It's about time we did something about people who refuse to integrate and whose culturesa are a menace to society. Hopefully banning minarets due to the Islamisation of Switzerland will just be the first step to banning these other things as well:
Computer games Computer games are full of violence and ridiculous beliefs. They overtly tell people to kill other people and turn to a life of crime. Starcraft to me, especially, is about cruelty to insects and ridiculous beliefs. Of course there are nice things to computers, but computer games is not it. If we do not ban computer games, computer gamers will continue to stay in their bedrooms playing games instead of intergrating with society. Honestly, how can they possibly integrate?
Crucifixes and Catholic churches Crucifixes are an important part of Catholicism. Catholicism to me is all about wild sex without usiong condoms and priests molesting little boys. We have to ban crucifixes before this gets out of hand. Churches have to go as well. Catholics all congregate there instead of integrating. This could lead to a very dangerous situation where they just have unprotected sex with each other and breed more dangerous Catholics. Ban churches and crucifixes ASAP.
Pornography Pornography to me is all about oppression of women and women being held down by various metal and leather implements. Of course, there are nice things to movies, but pornography is not it. All these porn stars and directors have their own niche markets and their own video awards. We've got to ban all these as well so they can integrate.
Hamburgers American culture is all about violence. The right to bear arms is written in the constitution. They also like to invade other countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam. of course, America is not ALL about violence, but it's better to get rid of the whole lot of them anyway. The trouble with Americans is that they won't stay in their own country, despite it being so big. They keep going to oither countries where they're not welcome. So we've got to ban hamburgers so all these fat Americans will not feel welcome and will go back to where they came from. Their culture of violence is not welcome anywhere in the world (except maybe Somalia).
Synagogues Hitler really should have wiped out the Jews. Did you know that Jewish women have to follow certain rules about behaviour? Judaism is obviously about oppressing women and has to be wiped out. I suppose things have changed now, but back then, in the 1940s, they should have been wiped out. You can't trust anyone to do anything right, honestly.
Damnit, thinking about all these people and cutlures and objects and motifs that should be destroyed is really making me mad. Grrrr... Makes me want to beat up some Muslims. I live in a multiracial country, I'm sure I can find one... oh look, there's one. Oh no, she's not wearing a veil, so she can't be Muslim. Because all Muslims wear veils, obviously.
I know that you're just saying this to exaggerate what has been said just to show these people how close-minded they're being, but for some strange reason, I find myself agreeing with many of these positions, even if it's only in principle.
It's to be expected. But the point is that disagreeing with one aspect of a system does not mean you can get rid of the entire system.
America may say, "we don't want honour killings here, that would be murder." But it will not say, "honour killings are a part of Islam, so we're banning any symbols of Islam here."
Likewise you might say, "we do not support civilians carrying arms, we ban that here." But that should not turn into "The right to bear arms is an American thing, therefore we ban all symbols of America."
It's the societies that are the most open and accepting that attract the most talent and improve the fastest, not those who close themsleves off from the rest of the world.
Even so, you cannot deny that radical Islam is a legitimate threat and the fears of people in Switzerland aren't completely unfounded, even if they may be somewhat misguided. Also, I believe that immigrants should abide by the desires of their hosts within reasonable bounds, if only to be good neighbors because they are guests. Banning minarets is different from banning mosques. It's similar to how schools ban du-rags, they aren't making a statement against black people in general, they are merely trying to combat the "gangster" image, even though the articles of clothing themselves don't hurt anyone. In any case, even if it is a misguided fear, the Muslims should be able to understand people's concerns, especially when the society they come from tend to be much more intolerant towards others.
It's the societies that are the most open and accepting that attract the most talent and improve the fastest, not those who close themsleves off from the rest of the world.
It's the societies that pay the most and let you do whatever the fuck you want in your privacy, nothing else... But dream on.
Agreed, the world is not as utopian as the way you put it, the Storyteller.
utopian? who's being utopian? you have, let's say, 4 billion people on earth. you make 1 billion of them feel unwelcome, not because of talent but because they're different. don't you think you're going to be at a disadvantage compared to a country that welcomes them all? that is america's competitive advantage - it welcomes everyone with talent. scientists, economists, professionals from all over the world work there and help the economy.
on a smaller scale, how long do you think a compan would last if it made women feel unwelcome? half its talent pool would vanish.
On December 02 2009 10:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 02 2009 10:31 Hinanawi wrote:
On December 02 2009 10:28 Biff The Understudy wrote: People are scared by islam.
For good reason.
I don't think christian fundamentalists are less crazy nor dangerous than muslim fundamentalists.
Are you serious? Look, I'm an atheist, but this is silly, you know that's a lie. Christian fundamentalists tell me I'm going to hell and give me dirty looks. Muslim fundamentalists want to kill me. There is no comparison.
On the contrrary, I am extremely serious. At least Muslim fundamentalists have kind of a political struggle (I don't justify them, but there is not only madness in their actions). Christian fundamentalists are just fucked up.
I really think christian fundamentalist are much, much more dangerous in the long term. ?ot the same way, it's true.
You know, talking of fundamentalism, that the two places where Muslim and Christian fundamentalism appeared the strongest in the last 25 years: Afghanistan and Utah where both places of huuuuge social struggle: Afghanistan had a Communist party which took the power idependantly of teh USSR before 1979, and Utah was the place where most radical thinker came from in the USA.
Fundamentalism is the price we pay for evacuating the social struggle and the radical left wing in general. And when it is not fundamentalism, it is nihilist a-political irrational violence (I think for example of Paris riots, few years ago).
Now extrem-right politicians say that yeaaah we have a new ennemy: immigration, muslim, terrorist, and like a bunch of idiots we agree and we vote racists laws. The ennemy is never outside, it is inside, we should know that since Orwell: "There is only one universal war: the war of rich against the poors."
On November 30 2009 07:52 Foucault wrote: I don't really see a reason to spread religion in the world to be honest. Islam to me is oppression and women being held down by ridiculous religious beliefs. Of course there are nice things to arabic culture, but Islam is not it
On December 02 2009 00:06 ggrrg wrote: Yeah sure. It's far better to let them completely bar themselves from society. Since the mosques offer a place to spend time and pass activities, guess where many turks decide to spend all of their time? I honestly cannot imagine how they would integrate in Germany if they continue like this...
Agree 100% with these and other similar comments. It's about time we did something about people who refuse to integrate and whose culturesa are a menace to society. Hopefully banning minarets due to the Islamisation of Switzerland will just be the first step to banning these other things as well:
Computer games Computer games are full of violence and ridiculous beliefs. They overtly tell people to kill other people and turn to a life of crime. Starcraft to me, especially, is about cruelty to insects and ridiculous beliefs. Of course there are nice things to computers, but computer games is not it. If we do not ban computer games, computer gamers will continue to stay in their bedrooms playing games instead of intergrating with society. Honestly, how can they possibly integrate?
Crucifixes and Catholic churches Crucifixes are an important part of Catholicism. Catholicism to me is all about wild sex without usiong condoms and priests molesting little boys. We have to ban crucifixes before this gets out of hand. Churches have to go as well. Catholics all congregate there instead of integrating. This could lead to a very dangerous situation where they just have unprotected sex with each other and breed more dangerous Catholics. Ban churches and crucifixes ASAP.
Pornography Pornography to me is all about oppression of women and women being held down by various metal and leather implements. Of course, there are nice things to movies, but pornography is not it. All these porn stars and directors have their own niche markets and their own video awards. We've got to ban all these as well so they can integrate.
Hamburgers American culture is all about violence. The right to bear arms is written in the constitution. They also like to invade other countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam. of course, America is not ALL about violence, but it's better to get rid of the whole lot of them anyway. The trouble with Americans is that they won't stay in their own country, despite it being so big. They keep going to oither countries where they're not welcome. So we've got to ban hamburgers so all these fat Americans will not feel welcome and will go back to where they came from. Their culture of violence is not welcome anywhere in the world (except maybe Somalia).
Synagogues Hitler really should have wiped out the Jews. Did you know that Jewish women have to follow certain rules about behaviour? Judaism is obviously about oppressing women and has to be wiped out. I suppose things have changed now, but back then, in the 1940s, they should have been wiped out. You can't trust anyone to do anything right, honestly.
Damnit, thinking about all these people and cutlures and objects and motifs that should be destroyed is really making me mad. Grrrr... Makes me want to beat up some Muslims. I live in a multiracial country, I'm sure I can find one... oh look, there's one. Oh no, she's not wearing a veil, so she can't be Muslim. Because all Muslims wear veils, obviously.
I know that you're just saying this to exaggerate what has been said just to show these people how close-minded they're being, but for some strange reason, I find myself agreeing with many of these positions, even if it's only in principle.
It's to be expected. But the point is that disagreeing with one aspect of a system does not mean you can get rid of the entire system.
America may say, "we don't want honour killings here, that would be murder." But it will not say, "honour killings are a part of Islam, so we're banning any symbols of Islam here."
Likewise you might say, "we do not support civilians carrying arms, we ban that here." But that should not turn into "The right to bear arms is an American thing, therefore we ban all symbols of America."
It's the societies that are the most open and accepting that attract the most talent and improve the fastest, not those who close themsleves off from the rest of the world.
Even so, you cannot deny that radical Islam is a legitimate threat and the fears of people in Switzerland aren't completely unfounded, even if they may be somewhat misguided. Also, I believe that immigrants should abide by the desires of their hosts within reasonable bounds, if only to be good neighbors because they are guests. Banning minarets is different from banning mosques. It's similar to how schools ban du-rags, they aren't making a statement against black people in general, they are merely trying to combat the "gangster" image, even though the articles of clothing themselves don't hurt anyone. In any case, even if it is a misguided fear, the Muslims should be able to understand people's concerns, especially when the society they come from tend to be much more intolerant towards others.
On December 02 2009 16:07 Velr wrote:
It's the societies that are the most open and accepting that attract the most talent and improve the fastest, not those who close themsleves off from the rest of the world.
It's the societies that pay the most and let you do whatever the fuck you want in your privacy, nothing else... But dream on.
Agreed, the world is not as utopian as the way you put it, the Storyteller.
utopian? who's being utopian? you have, let's say, 4 billion people on earth. you make 1 billion of them feel unwelcome, not because of talent but because they're different. don't you think you're going to be at a disadvantage compared to a country that welcomes them all? that is america's competitive advantage - it welcomes everyone with talent. scientists, economists, professionals from all over the world work there and help the economy.
oh god, where do these people crawl from?...
Are you fucking living in 1890?, USA has one of the most strict migration policies in the whole planet, its actually the only country in the whole god damn world world who is actively building a wall to avoid migration.
@Storyteller: You know that last years global competition ranking had Switzerland at 1 and the USA at 2?
You know there are tons of companies that make Woman feel unwelcome in the higher ranks, if this is by accident or a decision doesn't matter here. The higher ranks in companies are often still a boys club. I don't think this is good, but it is that way.
I also highly doubt not having a tower on a Mosque or being against Burqas, "forcing" Womans rights and various other stuff is holding the elite back from going anywhere... Except it's an elite you don't want anyway. And i highly doubt that it has more of an effect on the *elite* than the US foreign politics of the last 20-30 years or various other factors.
Btw: If europeans talk about *typical* muslim immigrants it's not an *elite* thats coming or is allready here, it was/is cheap labour force with no/nearly no education, more, if at all, comparable to your mexican/south american immigration..
On December 02 2009 20:10 intruding wrote: No one will take Muslims seriously until they achieve at least 1 of the following 4 points;
1-Start respecting women 2-Reduce combined worldwide bombings to less than 3 weeks each year expressed in continuous time. 3-Start respecting human rights and giving freedom a prominent place in society. 4-Win at least 2% of the Nobel Prizes in science given their 20% + share of the world population
In other words: I respect your difference if you are exactly same than me.
i heard about it, and i agree actually. I know, i know it's not suppoused to be like this, freedom, etc, but still if a country wants to protect itself from external influence, i'd say it's their right to do so.
On December 02 2009 20:10 intruding wrote: No one will take Muslims seriously until they achieve at least 1 of the following 4 points;
1-Start respecting women 2-Reduce combined worldwide bombings to less than 3 weeks each year expressed in continuous time. 3-Start respecting human rights and giving freedom a prominent place in society. 4-Win at least 2% of the Nobel Prizes in science given their 20% + share of the world population
In other words: I respect your difference if you are exactly same than me.
My godness... Sigh.
*respect you if your differences dont involve being inhumane dumbasses
On December 02 2009 20:10 intruding wrote: No one will take Muslims seriously until they achieve at least 1 of the following 4 points;
1-Start respecting women 2-Reduce combined worldwide bombings to less than 3 weeks each year expressed in continuous time. 3-Start respecting human rights and giving freedom a prominent place in society. 4-Win at least 2% of the Nobel Prizes in science given their 20% + share of the world population
On December 02 2009 20:10 intruding wrote: No one will take Muslims seriously until they achieve at least 1 of the following 4 points;
1-Start respecting women 2-Reduce combined worldwide bombings to less than 3 weeks each year expressed in continuous time. 3-Start respecting human rights and giving freedom a prominent place in society. 4-Win at least 2% of the Nobel Prizes in science given their 20% + share of the world population
Do you hate black people too?
English much?
He said at least one of these four points. I don't would sign his points but they are not that far off.
Oh, and bringing skin color into a discussion about religion is really stupid.
I'm not sure if you guys realize it, but there's a bit of a difference between genetic traits you're born with (skin color, sexuality, etc), and your religion of choice. I know many societies and families force it upon children, but your religion is most definitely not something you are born with. There's nothing preventing it from being free game to critique, just like any other beliefs or ideas you might have.
On December 02 2009 18:00 intruding wrote: I'm deeply concerned about the popularity of atheism here. Being atheist is as dumb as being religious. Religions and all its interpretations are obviously complete bullshit. But its equally idiotic to reject the existence of God simply because the masses have believed in their erroneous opinions about God over the millenniums. There is indeed a creator. It's just that everything revolving around it that is man-made or spiritual and moral about it, religion, has been utterly misconceived and misinterpreted and has led to bloodshed.
God exists, it's just that man's interpretation of it has traditionally been moronic. Therefore; deism should be the religious stance of choice. Agnostism would come second. But please, being a hardcore atheist is very very strange and disturbing.
sorry, but if you use brain, then there is simply no reason to believe in god, so being atheist is the only logical choice for me. I consider myself man of science and i would like to hear your reasons for your claim, that there is indeed a creator. Why? How can you be so sure about it? You can't. As well as i can't be really sure that there is no god. I can choose freely not to believe as you can choose to believe. But then to belive is dumb as well, because we have arrived to our conclusions followinfg the same thinking pattern. So don't just please post atheist is dumb.
You're right in criticizing his attack on atheism, but choosing not to believe in a god is not a logical progression from being a "man of science." You have proof for neither the existence or absence of a god, and as a man of science should not be able to reach any conclusion. You may choose to pursue a life where the absence of proof implies falsity, but it's generally a poor principle. Anything labeled a theory (evolution, big bang, etc) has yet to be proven and if you apply the aforementioned principle generally then you'd end up not with the falsity of many accepted scientific ideas. I understand that on intuition or some other reason you may not believe in the existence of a god, but it's certainly not for a scientific reason so don't claim it to be as such.
As for this entire thread, I find the number of people lingering on the idea of a fundamentalist threat as a basis for bans on how people express their religious views extremely disturbing.
Ofcourse, you are right. Atheism isn't logical, it is basically belief too, just belivenig into the opposite. I was trying to argue wit his rank 1. deism 2. agnostism 3. atheism as it is clearly bad from logical point of view. Correctly it would be : 1 agnostism 2.+3. (on the same level) deism and atheism
On December 02 2009 20:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 02 2009 20:10 intruding wrote: No one will take Muslims seriously until they achieve at least 1 of the following 4 points;
1-Start respecting women 2-Reduce combined worldwide bombings to less than 3 weeks each year expressed in continuous time. 3-Start respecting human rights and giving freedom a prominent place in society. 4-Win at least 2% of the Nobel Prizes in science given their 20% + share of the world population
In other words: I respect your difference if you are exactly same than me.
My godness... Sigh.
*respect you if your differences dont involve being inhumane dumbasses
Yeah I know, everybody who is not white male american, do not support capitalism, do not eat Hamburgers, is not feminist and do not sing the national anthem at the national holiday is a inhumane dumbass.
On December 02 2009 15:37 The Storyteller wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
On November 30 2009 07:52 Foucault wrote: I don't really see a reason to spread religion in the world to be honest. Islam to me is oppression and women being held down by ridiculous religious beliefs. Of course there are nice things to arabic culture, but Islam is not it
On December 02 2009 00:06 ggrrg wrote: Yeah sure. It's far better to let them completely bar themselves from society. Since the mosques offer a place to spend time and pass activities, guess where many turks decide to spend all of their time? I honestly cannot imagine how they would integrate in Germany if they continue like this...
Agree 100% with these and other similar comments. It's about time we did something about people who refuse to integrate and whose culturesa are a menace to society. Hopefully banning minarets due to the Islamisation of Switzerland will just be the first step to banning these other things as well:
Computer games Computer games are full of violence and ridiculous beliefs. They overtly tell people to kill other people and turn to a life of crime. Starcraft to me, especially, is about cruelty to insects and ridiculous beliefs. Of course there are nice things to computers, but computer games is not it. If we do not ban computer games, computer gamers will continue to stay in their bedrooms playing games instead of intergrating with society. Honestly, how can they possibly integrate?
Crucifixes and Catholic churches Crucifixes are an important part of Catholicism. Catholicism to me is all about wild sex without usiong condoms and priests molesting little boys. We have to ban crucifixes before this gets out of hand. Churches have to go as well. Catholics all congregate there instead of integrating. This could lead to a very dangerous situation where they just have unprotected sex with each other and breed more dangerous Catholics. Ban churches and crucifixes ASAP.
Pornography Pornography to me is all about oppression of women and women being held down by various metal and leather implements. Of course, there are nice things to movies, but pornography is not it. All these porn stars and directors have their own niche markets and their own video awards. We've got to ban all these as well so they can integrate.
Hamburgers American culture is all about violence. The right to bear arms is written in the constitution. They also like to invade other countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam. of course, America is not ALL about violence, but it's better to get rid of the whole lot of them anyway. The trouble with Americans is that they won't stay in their own country, despite it being so big. They keep going to oither countries where they're not welcome. So we've got to ban hamburgers so all these fat Americans will not feel welcome and will go back to where they came from. Their culture of violence is not welcome anywhere in the world (except maybe Somalia).
Synagogues Hitler really should have wiped out the Jews. Did you know that Jewish women have to follow certain rules about behaviour? Judaism is obviously about oppressing women and has to be wiped out. I suppose things have changed now, but back then, in the 1940s, they should have been wiped out. You can't trust anyone to do anything right, honestly.
Damnit, thinking about all these people and cutlures and objects and motifs that should be destroyed is really making me mad. Grrrr... Makes me want to beat up some Muslims. I live in a multiracial country, I'm sure I can find one... oh look, there's one. Oh no, she's not wearing a veil, so she can't be Muslim. Because all Muslims wear veils, obviously.
I understand that in Singapore it works out well with all the religions. And I would love it if did the same way in Europe. I cannot speak about the situation in all European countries, but in Germany it actually does work out with the exception of a large portion of the Muslim community. Germany is a melting pot and has been like that for decades already, but for some reason the Muslim (actually mainly the Turkish Muslim community) seem to be inable to integrate into society like everybody else does. How the hell do these people, which reject the native culture and do not give shit about it, dare to demand that their culture replaces the native one? Sorry, but I am totally opposed to creating a parallel society!
And another "great" aspect of mosques. If you have read my posts before that than you know where the funds for most mosques in Germany come from. These mosques are basically "exclusively Turkish". How the hell, can they speak about "freedom of religion" then?
And I cannot yet stop "praising" our mosques. When I was in the US, I saw that some church communities organized group excursions to some interesting places. Well, mosques in Germany also organize group trips! But these trips go back to Turkey so the people can vote there for the party in control (because all large Turkish mosques in Germany are under the control of the "Presidency of Religious Affairs" that is a government organization). Yeah, and since there government so caring for them, the Turkish prime minister visited Germany last year. He spoke in front of tens of thousand of Turks and WARNED them not to become assimilated into German society!!! He described this verbally with the words "crime against humanity"! (sure bacause then he would have less votes next election) On the previous pages, I read comments like "religion is useless, it was only created to control people". Well, it is still used as a political tool.
And here my most recent favorite from Turkey: The government officially demands that their "Muslim brothers" (these are the exact words used in the announcement) take their money out of Swiss banks and put it into Turkish banks because of the intolerance of Switzerland. Yes, the government that has banned the construction of churches, synagogues, and other non-Muslim temples is complaining about intolerance...
On November 30 2009 07:52 Foucault wrote: I don't really see a reason to spread religion in the world to be honest. Islam to me is oppression and women being held down by ridiculous religious beliefs. Of course there are nice things to arabic culture, but Islam is not it
On December 02 2009 00:06 ggrrg wrote: Yeah sure. It's far better to let them completely bar themselves from society. Since the mosques offer a place to spend time and pass activities, guess where many turks decide to spend all of their time? I honestly cannot imagine how they would integrate in Germany if they continue like this...
Agree 100% with these and other similar comments. It's about time we did something about people who refuse to integrate and whose culturesa are a menace to society. Hopefully banning minarets due to the Islamisation of Switzerland will just be the first step to banning these other things as well:
Computer games Computer games are full of violence and ridiculous beliefs. They overtly tell people to kill other people and turn to a life of crime. Starcraft to me, especially, is about cruelty to insects and ridiculous beliefs. Of course there are nice things to computers, but computer games is not it. If we do not ban computer games, computer gamers will continue to stay in their bedrooms playing games instead of intergrating with society. Honestly, how can they possibly integrate?
Crucifixes and Catholic churches Crucifixes are an important part of Catholicism. Catholicism to me is all about wild sex without usiong condoms and priests molesting little boys. We have to ban crucifixes before this gets out of hand. Churches have to go as well. Catholics all congregate there instead of integrating. This could lead to a very dangerous situation where they just have unprotected sex with each other and breed more dangerous Catholics. Ban churches and crucifixes ASAP.
Pornography Pornography to me is all about oppression of women and women being held down by various metal and leather implements. Of course, there are nice things to movies, but pornography is not it. All these porn stars and directors have their own niche markets and their own video awards. We've got to ban all these as well so they can integrate.
Hamburgers American culture is all about violence. The right to bear arms is written in the constitution. They also like to invade other countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam. of course, America is not ALL about violence, but it's better to get rid of the whole lot of them anyway. The trouble with Americans is that they won't stay in their own country, despite it being so big. They keep going to oither countries where they're not welcome. So we've got to ban hamburgers so all these fat Americans will not feel welcome and will go back to where they came from. Their culture of violence is not welcome anywhere in the world (except maybe Somalia).
Synagogues Hitler really should have wiped out the Jews. Did you know that Jewish women have to follow certain rules about behaviour? Judaism is obviously about oppressing women and has to be wiped out. I suppose things have changed now, but back then, in the 1940s, they should have been wiped out. You can't trust anyone to do anything right, honestly.
Damnit, thinking about all these people and cutlures and objects and motifs that should be destroyed is really making me mad. Grrrr... Makes me want to beat up some Muslims. I live in a multiracial country, I'm sure I can find one... oh look, there's one. Oh no, she's not wearing a veil, so she can't be Muslim. Because all Muslims wear veils, obviously.
I know that you're just saying this to exaggerate what has been said just to show these people how close-minded they're being, but for some strange reason, I find myself agreeing with many of these positions, even if it's only in principle.
It's to be expected. But the point is that disagreeing with one aspect of a system does not mean you can get rid of the entire system.
America may say, "we don't want honour killings here, that would be murder." But it will not say, "honour killings are a part of Islam, so we're banning any symbols of Islam here."
Likewise you might say, "we do not support civilians carrying arms, we ban that here." But that should not turn into "The right to bear arms is an American thing, therefore we ban all symbols of America."
It's the societies that are the most open and accepting that attract the most talent and improve the fastest, not those who close themsleves off from the rest of the world.
Even so, you cannot deny that radical Islam is a legitimate threat and the fears of people in Switzerland aren't completely unfounded, even if they may be somewhat misguided. Also, I believe that immigrants should abide by the desires of their hosts within reasonable bounds, if only to be good neighbors because they are guests. Banning minarets is different from banning mosques. It's similar to how schools ban du-rags, they aren't making a statement against black people in general, they are merely trying to combat the "gangster" image, even though the articles of clothing themselves don't hurt anyone. In any case, even if it is a misguided fear, the Muslims should be able to understand people's concerns, especially when the society they come from tend to be much more intolerant towards others.
On December 02 2009 16:07 Velr wrote:
It's the societies that are the most open and accepting that attract the most talent and improve the fastest, not those who close themsleves off from the rest of the world.
It's the societies that pay the most and let you do whatever the fuck you want in your privacy, nothing else... But dream on.
Agreed, the world is not as utopian as the way you put it, the Storyteller.
utopian? who's being utopian? you have, let's say, 4 billion people on earth. you make 1 billion of them feel unwelcome, not because of talent but because they're different. don't you think you're going to be at a disadvantage compared to a country that welcomes them all? that is america's competitive advantage - it welcomes everyone with talent. scientists, economists, professionals from all over the world work there and help the economy.
oh god, where do these people crawl from?...
Are you fucking living in 1890?, USA has one of the most strict migration policies in the whole planet, its actually the only country in the whole god damn world world who is actively building a wall to avoid migration.
QFT. America doesn't welcome people, neither does Canada really for that matter. I've heard way too many stories of competent people being turned down for visa's for me to beleive that.
On December 02 2009 15:37 The Storyteller wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
On November 30 2009 07:52 Foucault wrote: I don't really see a reason to spread religion in the world to be honest. Islam to me is oppression and women being held down by ridiculous religious beliefs. Of course there are nice things to arabic culture, but Islam is not it
On December 02 2009 00:06 ggrrg wrote: Yeah sure. It's far better to let them completely bar themselves from society. Since the mosques offer a place to spend time and pass activities, guess where many turks decide to spend all of their time? I honestly cannot imagine how they would integrate in Germany if they continue like this...
Agree 100% with these and other similar comments. It's about time we did something about people who refuse to integrate and whose culturesa are a menace to society. Hopefully banning minarets due to the Islamisation of Switzerland will just be the first step to banning these other things as well:
Computer games Computer games are full of violence and ridiculous beliefs. They overtly tell people to kill other people and turn to a life of crime. Starcraft to me, especially, is about cruelty to insects and ridiculous beliefs. Of course there are nice things to computers, but computer games is not it. If we do not ban computer games, computer gamers will continue to stay in their bedrooms playing games instead of intergrating with society. Honestly, how can they possibly integrate?
Crucifixes and Catholic churches Crucifixes are an important part of Catholicism. Catholicism to me is all about wild sex without usiong condoms and priests molesting little boys. We have to ban crucifixes before this gets out of hand. Churches have to go as well. Catholics all congregate there instead of integrating. This could lead to a very dangerous situation where they just have unprotected sex with each other and breed more dangerous Catholics. Ban churches and crucifixes ASAP.
Pornography Pornography to me is all about oppression of women and women being held down by various metal and leather implements. Of course, there are nice things to movies, but pornography is not it. All these porn stars and directors have their own niche markets and their own video awards. We've got to ban all these as well so they can integrate.
Hamburgers American culture is all about violence. The right to bear arms is written in the constitution. They also like to invade other countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam. of course, America is not ALL about violence, but it's better to get rid of the whole lot of them anyway. The trouble with Americans is that they won't stay in their own country, despite it being so big. They keep going to oither countries where they're not welcome. So we've got to ban hamburgers so all these fat Americans will not feel welcome and will go back to where they came from. Their culture of violence is not welcome anywhere in the world (except maybe Somalia).
Synagogues Hitler really should have wiped out the Jews. Did you know that Jewish women have to follow certain rules about behaviour? Judaism is obviously about oppressing women and has to be wiped out. I suppose things have changed now, but back then, in the 1940s, they should have been wiped out. You can't trust anyone to do anything right, honestly.
Damnit, thinking about all these people and cutlures and objects and motifs that should be destroyed is really making me mad. Grrrr... Makes me want to beat up some Muslims. I live in a multiracial country, I'm sure I can find one... oh look, there's one. Oh no, she's not wearing a veil, so she can't be Muslim. Because all Muslims wear veils, obviously.
I understand that in Singapore it works out well with all the religions. And I would love it if did the same way in Europe. I cannot speak about the situation in all European countries, but in Germany it actually does work out with the exception of a large portion of the Muslim community. Germany is a melting pot and has been like that for decades already, but for some reason the Muslim (actually mainly the Turkish Muslim community) seem to be inable to integrate into society like everybody else does. How the hell do these people, which reject the native culture and do not give shit about it, dare to demand that their culture replaces the native one? Sorry, but I am totally opposed to creating a parallel society!
And another "great" aspect of mosques. If you have read my posts before that than you know where the funds for most mosques in Germany come from. These mosques are basically "exclusively Turkish". How the hell, can they speak about "freedom of religion" then?
And I cannot yet stop "praising" our mosques. When I was in the US, I saw that some church communities organized group excursions to some interesting places. Well, mosques in Germany also organize group trips! But these trips go back to Turkey so the people can vote there for the party in control (because all large Turkish mosques in Germany are under the control of the "Presidency of Religious Affairs" that is a government organization). Yeah, and since there government so caring for them, the Turkish prime minister visited Germany last year. He spoke in front of tens of thousand of Turks and WARNED them not to become assimilated into German society!!! He described this verbally with the words "crime against humanity"! (sure bacause then he would have less votes next election) On the previous pages, I read comments like "religion is useless, it was only created to control people". Well, it is still used as a political tool.
And here my most recent favorite from Turkey: The government officially demands that their "Muslim brothers" (these are the exact words used in the announcement) take their money out of Swiss banks and put it into Turkish banks because of the intolerance of Switzerland. Yes, the government that has banned the construction of churches, synagogues, and other non-Muslim temples is complaining about intolerance...
I don't know about Germany, but I know about France.
There are no problems with Muslims, at all. There is a mosque in my district, in Paris, with a minaret, and everything is very nice. I go sometimes eat a lookoom or having a mint tea, they are very friendly, very moderate. Because they are accepted, and that the mosquee is beautiful.
There is a real problem with poverty. And it happens that people the most vulnerable to poverty are immigrants, and that lot of them are muslim. French society is horribly unfair, as are all western societies today. If you are arab, if you come from a shitty suburb, there is just no way that you will get another job than working in a fast food. You go to a shitty school, cops are fucking awful with you, you are basically fucked.
People don't think in term of social struggle anymore. Thirty years ago, all theses people would have syndicate, and would be engaged in politics. But now, it's not possible anymore, so they just burn cars and listen to fundamentalists preachers.
So people get scared and start to complain about islam. But islam has been there for 50 years, and it has never been a problem.
Now, you can't put all muslims in one bag, as this guy did a few post ago, and saying that muslim coming from Marocco are responsible for Palestinians bombing Israel (and even though, there are serious reasons for that) or Iranians opressing women.
I have been at a mosque in Germany once. The people seemed to be nice. However, the majority did not know any German at all. And I also got a minttea, but it's not easy ordering anything at cafeteria there when the whole menu card is in Turkish and the owner speaks only Turkish. That's also when I learned about the other activities offered there, which are also offered only in Turkish... All of this left by me the impression that these people were excluding themselves from society, which is a pity...
On December 02 2009 21:41 Biff The Understudy wrote: ... There is a real problem with poverty. And it happens that people the most vulnerable to poverty are immigrants, and that lot of them are muslim. French society is horribly unfair, as are all western societies today. If you are arab, if you come from a shitty suburb, there is just no way that you will get another job than working in a fast food. You go to a shitty school, cops are fucking awful with you, you are basically fucked. ...
Yes, poverty is a major issue among immigrants. And truly you are most likely to face discrimination if you are black or Arab. But I have to disagree with you that all Western societies are "horribly unfair". Being a first generation immigrant myself and met enough others like me, I have to say that Germans are quite tolerant and open towards foreigners. True, I am neither black, nor Arab, but coming from East Europe is also not exactly a great advantage. Anyway, at my school (which was neither a bad school, nor something special) we had almost 20% foreigners, also several Arabs. And I have never seen that anyone was discriminated against. Teachers as well the other children were absolutely fair with everybody. Now I go to univerity. It is quite a good university and there are 12% foreigners here. There are people from everywhere here: East Asia, Arabic world, Africa, basically from every continent (if I remember right, there are people form over 100 countries at my university). So it is possible to "make it" as a foreigner. And in Germany you even receive state "subsidy" if you cannot afford going to university. So I think that the situation here is pretty fair (although not completely fair).
This wasn't about minarets. Quite frankly no one actuality gives a fuck about them. I'm shure most of my countrymen never even saw one, or knew that we already had four of them for quite some time before this "issue" came up.
No this was about giving the people the opportunity to give out a "fuck you card". And oh suprise they did! They didn't even had to leave their homes to do it. Because if there is anything the mediocre white man loves more than complaining about his situation its blaming other people for his situation.
And now we have all these "proud" figures who used their voices in unity to pull out the middle finger. Because we don't put up with your "shit" anymore". Because if you don't speak one of our 4 languages (depends on where you are) you shouldn't be allowed to be here in the first place. Because you bomb shit (right?). Because you stink. Because your wife looks like a ninja. Because you hit wifes. Because you shoot and rob and yell and stink and hit on our girls and you stole my cat and because you buy stuff from the same places i do and you are always poor and because you steal jobs (i dont want) and pay more for insurance (i don't need) and...of course...because you pray to a different god. One that probably isn't even white!
Religion. Islam is of no problem in this country, it never was nor will it ever be. The problem is the integration process. If you want to be a part of something you need to be as open and direct as possible. 30 years ago my father moved in a white neighborhood, a small village without any special attributes. When they moved in, about 10 friends, all tibetan like him, helped my family move stuff into our house. White people watched closely behind closed windows and showed no intentions at all to greet the brown people. You know what he did? On the same day he went from door to door introducing himself, inviting them for coffee and eliminated all their fears at once. It took him only a few hours to integrate himself and his family.
On December 02 2009 15:37 The Storyteller wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
On November 30 2009 07:52 Foucault wrote: I don't really see a reason to spread religion in the world to be honest. Islam to me is oppression and women being held down by ridiculous religious beliefs. Of course there are nice things to arabic culture, but Islam is not it
On December 02 2009 00:06 ggrrg wrote: Yeah sure. It's far better to let them completely bar themselves from society. Since the mosques offer a place to spend time and pass activities, guess where many turks decide to spend all of their time? I honestly cannot imagine how they would integrate in Germany if they continue like this...
Agree 100% with these and other similar comments. It's about time we did something about people who refuse to integrate and whose culturesa are a menace to society. Hopefully banning minarets due to the Islamisation of Switzerland will just be the first step to banning these other things as well:
Computer games Computer games are full of violence and ridiculous beliefs. They overtly tell people to kill other people and turn to a life of crime. Starcraft to me, especially, is about cruelty to insects and ridiculous beliefs. Of course there are nice things to computers, but computer games is not it. If we do not ban computer games, computer gamers will continue to stay in their bedrooms playing games instead of intergrating with society. Honestly, how can they possibly integrate?
Crucifixes and Catholic churches Crucifixes are an important part of Catholicism. Catholicism to me is all about wild sex without usiong condoms and priests molesting little boys. We have to ban crucifixes before this gets out of hand. Churches have to go as well. Catholics all congregate there instead of integrating. This could lead to a very dangerous situation where they just have unprotected sex with each other and breed more dangerous Catholics. Ban churches and crucifixes ASAP.
Pornography Pornography to me is all about oppression of women and women being held down by various metal and leather implements. Of course, there are nice things to movies, but pornography is not it. All these porn stars and directors have their own niche markets and their own video awards. We've got to ban all these as well so they can integrate.
Hamburgers American culture is all about violence. The right to bear arms is written in the constitution. They also like to invade other countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam. of course, America is not ALL about violence, but it's better to get rid of the whole lot of them anyway. The trouble with Americans is that they won't stay in their own country, despite it being so big. They keep going to oither countries where they're not welcome. So we've got to ban hamburgers so all these fat Americans will not feel welcome and will go back to where they came from. Their culture of violence is not welcome anywhere in the world (except maybe Somalia).
Synagogues Hitler really should have wiped out the Jews. Did you know that Jewish women have to follow certain rules about behaviour? Judaism is obviously about oppressing women and has to be wiped out. I suppose things have changed now, but back then, in the 1940s, they should have been wiped out. You can't trust anyone to do anything right, honestly.
Damnit, thinking about all these people and cutlures and objects and motifs that should be destroyed is really making me mad. Grrrr... Makes me want to beat up some Muslims. I live in a multiracial country, I'm sure I can find one... oh look, there's one. Oh no, she's not wearing a veil, so she can't be Muslim. Because all Muslims wear veils, obviously.
I understand that in Singapore it works out well with all the religions. And I would love it if did the same way in Europe. I cannot speak about the situation in all European countries, but in Germany it actually does work out with the exception of a large portion of the Muslim community. Germany is a melting pot and has been like that for decades already, but for some reason the Muslim (actually mainly the Turkish Muslim community) seem to be inable to integrate into society like everybody else does. How the hell do these people, which reject the native culture and do not give shit about it, dare to demand that their culture replaces the native one? Sorry, but I am totally opposed to creating a parallel society!
And another "great" aspect of mosques. If you have read my posts before that than you know where the funds for most mosques in Germany come from. These mosques are basically "exclusively Turkish". How the hell, can they speak about "freedom of religion" then?
And I cannot yet stop "praising" our mosques. When I was in the US, I saw that some church communities organized group excursions to some interesting places. Well, mosques in Germany also organize group trips! But these trips go back to Turkey so the people can vote there for the party in control (because all large Turkish mosques in Germany are under the control of the "Presidency of Religious Affairs" that is a government organization). Yeah, and since there government so caring for them, the Turkish prime minister visited Germany last year. He spoke in front of tens of thousand of Turks and WARNED them not to become assimilated into German society!!! He described this verbally with the words "crime against humanity"! (sure bacause then he would have less votes next election) On the previous pages, I read comments like "religion is useless, it was only created to control people". Well, it is still used as a political tool.
And here my most recent favorite from Turkey: The government officially demands that their "Muslim brothers" (these are the exact words used in the announcement) take their money out of Swiss banks and put it into Turkish banks because of the intolerance of Switzerland. Yes, the government that has banned the construction of churches, synagogues, and other non-Muslim temples is complaining about intolerance...
I don't know about Germany, but I know about France.
There are no problems with Muslims, at all. There is a mosque in my district, in Paris, with a minaret, and everything is very nice. I go sometimes eat a lookoom or having a mint tea, they are very friendly, very moderate. Because they are accepted, and that the mosquee is beautiful.
There is a real problem with poverty. And it happens that people the most vulnerable to poverty are immigrants, and that lot of them are muslim. French society is horribly unfair, as are all western societies today. If you are arab, if you come from a shitty suburb, there is just no way that you will get another job than working in a fast food. You go to a shitty school, cops are fucking awful with you, you are basically fucked.
People don't think in term of social struggle anymore. Thirty years ago, all theses people would have syndicate, and would be engaged in politics. But now, it's not possible anymore, so they just burn cars and listen to fundamentalists preachers.
So people get scared and start to complain about islam. But islam has been there for 50 years, and it has never been a problem.
Now, you can't put all muslims in one bag, as this guy did a few post ago, and saying that muslim coming from Marocco are responsible for Palestinians bombing Israel (and even though, there are serious reasons for that) or Iranians opressing women.
oh yeah, you always see the world through your rainbow glasses? You never had any problems with forced marriage? rather not. you (france) just gave a fuck because it never really reached the public.
On November 30 2009 07:52 Foucault wrote: I don't really see a reason to spread religion in the world to be honest. Islam to me is oppression and women being held down by ridiculous religious beliefs. Of course there are nice things to arabic culture, but Islam is not it
On December 02 2009 00:06 ggrrg wrote: Yeah sure. It's far better to let them completely bar themselves from society. Since the mosques offer a place to spend time and pass activities, guess where many turks decide to spend all of their time? I honestly cannot imagine how they would integrate in Germany if they continue like this...
Agree 100% with these and other similar comments. It's about time we did something about people who refuse to integrate and whose culturesa are a menace to society. Hopefully banning minarets due to the Islamisation of Switzerland will just be the first step to banning these other things as well:
Computer games Computer games are full of violence and ridiculous beliefs. They overtly tell people to kill other people and turn to a life of crime. Starcraft to me, especially, is about cruelty to insects and ridiculous beliefs. Of course there are nice things to computers, but computer games is not it. If we do not ban computer games, computer gamers will continue to stay in their bedrooms playing games instead of intergrating with society. Honestly, how can they possibly integrate?
Crucifixes and Catholic churches Crucifixes are an important part of Catholicism. Catholicism to me is all about wild sex without usiong condoms and priests molesting little boys. We have to ban crucifixes before this gets out of hand. Churches have to go as well. Catholics all congregate there instead of integrating. This could lead to a very dangerous situation where they just have unprotected sex with each other and breed more dangerous Catholics. Ban churches and crucifixes ASAP.
Pornography Pornography to me is all about oppression of women and women being held down by various metal and leather implements. Of course, there are nice things to movies, but pornography is not it. All these porn stars and directors have their own niche markets and their own video awards. We've got to ban all these as well so they can integrate.
Hamburgers American culture is all about violence. The right to bear arms is written in the constitution. They also like to invade other countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam. of course, America is not ALL about violence, but it's better to get rid of the whole lot of them anyway. The trouble with Americans is that they won't stay in their own country, despite it being so big. They keep going to oither countries where they're not welcome. So we've got to ban hamburgers so all these fat Americans will not feel welcome and will go back to where they came from. Their culture of violence is not welcome anywhere in the world (except maybe Somalia).
Synagogues Hitler really should have wiped out the Jews. Did you know that Jewish women have to follow certain rules about behaviour? Judaism is obviously about oppressing women and has to be wiped out. I suppose things have changed now, but back then, in the 1940s, they should have been wiped out. You can't trust anyone to do anything right, honestly.
Damnit, thinking about all these people and cutlures and objects and motifs that should be destroyed is really making me mad. Grrrr... Makes me want to beat up some Muslims. I live in a multiracial country, I'm sure I can find one... oh look, there's one. Oh no, she's not wearing a veil, so she can't be Muslim. Because all Muslims wear veils, obviously.
I know that you're just saying this to exaggerate what has been said just to show these people how close-minded they're being, but for some strange reason, I find myself agreeing with many of these positions, even if it's only in principle.
It's to be expected. But the point is that disagreeing with one aspect of a system does not mean you can get rid of the entire system.
America may say, "we don't want honour killings here, that would be murder." But it will not say, "honour killings are a part of Islam, so we're banning any symbols of Islam here."
Likewise you might say, "we do not support civilians carrying arms, we ban that here." But that should not turn into "The right to bear arms is an American thing, therefore we ban all symbols of America."
It's the societies that are the most open and accepting that attract the most talent and improve the fastest, not those who close themsleves off from the rest of the world.
Even so, you cannot deny that radical Islam is a legitimate threat and the fears of people in Switzerland aren't completely unfounded, even if they may be somewhat misguided. Also, I believe that immigrants should abide by the desires of their hosts within reasonable bounds, if only to be good neighbors because they are guests. Banning minarets is different from banning mosques. It's similar to how schools ban du-rags, they aren't making a statement against black people in general, they are merely trying to combat the "gangster" image, even though the articles of clothing themselves don't hurt anyone. In any case, even if it is a misguided fear, the Muslims should be able to understand people's concerns, especially when the society they come from tend to be much more intolerant towards others.
On December 02 2009 16:07 Velr wrote:
It's the societies that are the most open and accepting that attract the most talent and improve the fastest, not those who close themsleves off from the rest of the world.
It's the societies that pay the most and let you do whatever the fuck you want in your privacy, nothing else... But dream on.
Agreed, the world is not as utopian as the way you put it, the Storyteller.
utopian? who's being utopian? you have, let's say, 4 billion people on earth. you make 1 billion of them feel unwelcome, not because of talent but because they're different. don't you think you're going to be at a disadvantage compared to a country that welcomes them all? that is america's competitive advantage - it welcomes everyone with talent. scientists, economists, professionals from all over the world work there and help the economy.
oh god, where do these people crawl from?...
Are you fucking living in 1890?, USA has one of the most strict migration policies in the whole planet, its actually the only country in the whole god damn world world who is actively building a wall to avoid migration.
I didn't say they were allowing everyone to migrate, I said the migration policy is based on talent and not race or religion. The US doesn't say we don't want Muslims here, they say we don't need more unskilled labour because we have enough of that. But we'd like a shitload of bright people, thank you very much, and we don't care what their religion is.
On November 30 2009 07:52 Foucault wrote: I don't really see a reason to spread religion in the world to be honest. Islam to me is oppression and women being held down by ridiculous religious beliefs. Of course there are nice things to arabic culture, but Islam is not it
On December 02 2009 00:06 ggrrg wrote: Yeah sure. It's far better to let them completely bar themselves from society. Since the mosques offer a place to spend time and pass activities, guess where many turks decide to spend all of their time? I honestly cannot imagine how they would integrate in Germany if they continue like this...
Agree 100% with these and other similar comments. It's about time we did something about people who refuse to integrate and whose culturesa are a menace to society. Hopefully banning minarets due to the Islamisation of Switzerland will just be the first step to banning these other things as well:
Computer games Computer games are full of violence and ridiculous beliefs. They overtly tell people to kill other people and turn to a life of crime. Starcraft to me, especially, is about cruelty to insects and ridiculous beliefs. Of course there are nice things to computers, but computer games is not it. If we do not ban computer games, computer gamers will continue to stay in their bedrooms playing games instead of intergrating with society. Honestly, how can they possibly integrate?
Crucifixes and Catholic churches Crucifixes are an important part of Catholicism. Catholicism to me is all about wild sex without usiong condoms and priests molesting little boys. We have to ban crucifixes before this gets out of hand. Churches have to go as well. Catholics all congregate there instead of integrating. This could lead to a very dangerous situation where they just have unprotected sex with each other and breed more dangerous Catholics. Ban churches and crucifixes ASAP.
Pornography Pornography to me is all about oppression of women and women being held down by various metal and leather implements. Of course, there are nice things to movies, but pornography is not it. All these porn stars and directors have their own niche markets and their own video awards. We've got to ban all these as well so they can integrate.
Hamburgers American culture is all about violence. The right to bear arms is written in the constitution. They also like to invade other countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam. of course, America is not ALL about violence, but it's better to get rid of the whole lot of them anyway. The trouble with Americans is that they won't stay in their own country, despite it being so big. They keep going to oither countries where they're not welcome. So we've got to ban hamburgers so all these fat Americans will not feel welcome and will go back to where they came from. Their culture of violence is not welcome anywhere in the world (except maybe Somalia).
Synagogues Hitler really should have wiped out the Jews. Did you know that Jewish women have to follow certain rules about behaviour? Judaism is obviously about oppressing women and has to be wiped out. I suppose things have changed now, but back then, in the 1940s, they should have been wiped out. You can't trust anyone to do anything right, honestly.
Damnit, thinking about all these people and cutlures and objects and motifs that should be destroyed is really making me mad. Grrrr... Makes me want to beat up some Muslims. I live in a multiracial country, I'm sure I can find one... oh look, there's one. Oh no, she's not wearing a veil, so she can't be Muslim. Because all Muslims wear veils, obviously.
I know that you're just saying this to exaggerate what has been said just to show these people how close-minded they're being, but for some strange reason, I find myself agreeing with many of these positions, even if it's only in principle.
It's to be expected. But the point is that disagreeing with one aspect of a system does not mean you can get rid of the entire system.
America may say, "we don't want honour killings here, that would be murder." But it will not say, "honour killings are a part of Islam, so we're banning any symbols of Islam here."
Likewise you might say, "we do not support civilians carrying arms, we ban that here." But that should not turn into "The right to bear arms is an American thing, therefore we ban all symbols of America."
It's the societies that are the most open and accepting that attract the most talent and improve the fastest, not those who close themsleves off from the rest of the world.
Even so, you cannot deny that radical Islam is a legitimate threat and the fears of people in Switzerland aren't completely unfounded, even if they may be somewhat misguided. Also, I believe that immigrants should abide by the desires of their hosts within reasonable bounds, if only to be good neighbors because they are guests. Banning minarets is different from banning mosques. It's similar to how schools ban du-rags, they aren't making a statement against black people in general, they are merely trying to combat the "gangster" image, even though the articles of clothing themselves don't hurt anyone. In any case, even if it is a misguided fear, the Muslims should be able to understand people's concerns, especially when the society they come from tend to be much more intolerant towards others.
On December 02 2009 16:07 Velr wrote:
It's the societies that are the most open and accepting that attract the most talent and improve the fastest, not those who close themsleves off from the rest of the world.
It's the societies that pay the most and let you do whatever the fuck you want in your privacy, nothing else... But dream on.
Agreed, the world is not as utopian as the way you put it, the Storyteller.
utopian? who's being utopian? you have, let's say, 4 billion people on earth. you make 1 billion of them feel unwelcome, not because of talent but because they're different. don't you think you're going to be at a disadvantage compared to a country that welcomes them all? that is america's competitive advantage - it welcomes everyone with talent. scientists, economists, professionals from all over the world work there and help the economy.
oh god, where do these people crawl from?...
Are you fucking living in 1890?, USA has one of the most strict migration policies in the whole planet, its actually the only country in the whole god damn world world who is actively building a wall to avoid migration.
I didn't say they were allowing everyone to migrate, I said the migration policy is based on talent and not race or religion. The US doesn't say we don't want Muslims here, they say we don't need more unskilled labour because we have enough of that. But we'd like a shitload of bright people, thank you very much, and we don't care what their religion is.
yeah, thats why communist were persecuted, right?
and why should it be better to deny someone because of his skill than his religion?
On December 02 2009 20:12 Velr wrote: @Storyteller: You know that last years global competition ranking had Switzerland at 1 and the USA at 2?
You know there are tons of companies that make Woman feel unwelcome in the higher ranks, if this is by accident or a decision doesn't matter here. The higher ranks in companies are often still a boys club. I don't think this is good, but it is that way.
I also highly doubt not having a tower on a Mosque or being against Burqas, "forcing" Womans rights and various other stuff is holding the elite back from going anywhere... Except it's an elite you don't want anyway. And i highly doubt that it has more of an effect on the *elite* than the US foreign politics of the last 20-30 years or various other factors.
Btw: If europeans talk about *typical* muslim immigrants it's not an *elite* thats coming or is allready here, it was/is cheap labour force with no/nearly no education, more, if at all, comparable to your mexican/south american immigration..
Sure it's ranked top. That was before this minaret nonsense, right? Excluding an entire community may not show problems straight away, but it will.
And yes, there are companies that discriminate against women, blacks etc. And they are putting themselves at a disadvantage. So what if it happens? It doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Enforcing women's rights for everyone is not holding back the elite. But when you make an entire community feel unwelcome because you think a few of them discriminate against women, you're missing out on talent.
On December 02 2009 21:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 02 2009 21:23 ggrrg wrote:
On December 02 2009 15:37 The Storyteller wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
On November 30 2009 07:52 Foucault wrote: I don't really see a reason to spread religion in the world to be honest. Islam to me is oppression and women being held down by ridiculous religious beliefs. Of course there are nice things to arabic culture, but Islam is not it
On December 02 2009 00:06 ggrrg wrote: Yeah sure. It's far better to let them completely bar themselves from society. Since the mosques offer a place to spend time and pass activities, guess where many turks decide to spend all of their time? I honestly cannot imagine how they would integrate in Germany if they continue like this...
Agree 100% with these and other similar comments. It's about time we did something about people who refuse to integrate and whose culturesa are a menace to society. Hopefully banning minarets due to the Islamisation of Switzerland will just be the first step to banning these other things as well:
Computer games Computer games are full of violence and ridiculous beliefs. They overtly tell people to kill other people and turn to a life of crime. Starcraft to me, especially, is about cruelty to insects and ridiculous beliefs. Of course there are nice things to computers, but computer games is not it. If we do not ban computer games, computer gamers will continue to stay in their bedrooms playing games instead of intergrating with society. Honestly, how can they possibly integrate?
Crucifixes and Catholic churches Crucifixes are an important part of Catholicism. Catholicism to me is all about wild sex without usiong condoms and priests molesting little boys. We have to ban crucifixes before this gets out of hand. Churches have to go as well. Catholics all congregate there instead of integrating. This could lead to a very dangerous situation where they just have unprotected sex with each other and breed more dangerous Catholics. Ban churches and crucifixes ASAP.
Pornography Pornography to me is all about oppression of women and women being held down by various metal and leather implements. Of course, there are nice things to movies, but pornography is not it. All these porn stars and directors have their own niche markets and their own video awards. We've got to ban all these as well so they can integrate.
Hamburgers American culture is all about violence. The right to bear arms is written in the constitution. They also like to invade other countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam. of course, America is not ALL about violence, but it's better to get rid of the whole lot of them anyway. The trouble with Americans is that they won't stay in their own country, despite it being so big. They keep going to oither countries where they're not welcome. So we've got to ban hamburgers so all these fat Americans will not feel welcome and will go back to where they came from. Their culture of violence is not welcome anywhere in the world (except maybe Somalia).
Synagogues Hitler really should have wiped out the Jews. Did you know that Jewish women have to follow certain rules about behaviour? Judaism is obviously about oppressing women and has to be wiped out. I suppose things have changed now, but back then, in the 1940s, they should have been wiped out. You can't trust anyone to do anything right, honestly.
Damnit, thinking about all these people and cutlures and objects and motifs that should be destroyed is really making me mad. Grrrr... Makes me want to beat up some Muslims. I live in a multiracial country, I'm sure I can find one... oh look, there's one. Oh no, she's not wearing a veil, so she can't be Muslim. Because all Muslims wear veils, obviously.
I understand that in Singapore it works out well with all the religions. And I would love it if did the same way in Europe. I cannot speak about the situation in all European countries, but in Germany it actually does work out with the exception of a large portion of the Muslim community. Germany is a melting pot and has been like that for decades already, but for some reason the Muslim (actually mainly the Turkish Muslim community) seem to be inable to integrate into society like everybody else does. How the hell do these people, which reject the native culture and do not give shit about it, dare to demand that their culture replaces the native one? Sorry, but I am totally opposed to creating a parallel society!
And another "great" aspect of mosques. If you have read my posts before that than you know where the funds for most mosques in Germany come from. These mosques are basically "exclusively Turkish". How the hell, can they speak about "freedom of religion" then?
And I cannot yet stop "praising" our mosques. When I was in the US, I saw that some church communities organized group excursions to some interesting places. Well, mosques in Germany also organize group trips! But these trips go back to Turkey so the people can vote there for the party in control (because all large Turkish mosques in Germany are under the control of the "Presidency of Religious Affairs" that is a government organization). Yeah, and since there government so caring for them, the Turkish prime minister visited Germany last year. He spoke in front of tens of thousand of Turks and WARNED them not to become assimilated into German society!!! He described this verbally with the words "crime against humanity"! (sure bacause then he would have less votes next election) On the previous pages, I read comments like "religion is useless, it was only created to control people". Well, it is still used as a political tool.
And here my most recent favorite from Turkey: The government officially demands that their "Muslim brothers" (these are the exact words used in the announcement) take their money out of Swiss banks and put it into Turkish banks because of the intolerance of Switzerland. Yes, the government that has banned the construction of churches, synagogues, and other non-Muslim temples is complaining about intolerance...
I don't know about Germany, but I know about France.
There are no problems with Muslims, at all. There is a mosque in my district, in Paris, with a minaret, and everything is very nice. I go sometimes eat a lookoom or having a mint tea, they are very friendly, very moderate. Because they are accepted, and that the mosquee is beautiful.
There is a real problem with poverty. And it happens that people the most vulnerable to poverty are immigrants, and that lot of them are muslim. French society is horribly unfair, as are all western societies today. If you are arab, if you come from a shitty suburb, there is just no way that you will get another job than working in a fast food. You go to a shitty school, cops are fucking awful with you, you are basically fucked.
People don't think in term of social struggle anymore. Thirty years ago, all theses people would have syndicate, and would be engaged in politics. But now, it's not possible anymore, so they just burn cars and listen to fundamentalists preachers.
So people get scared and start to complain about islam. But islam has been there for 50 years, and it has never been a problem.
Now, you can't put all muslims in one bag, as this guy did a few post ago, and saying that muslim coming from Marocco are responsible for Palestinians bombing Israel (and even though, there are serious reasons for that) or Iranians opressing women.
oh yeah, you always see the world through your rainbow glasses? You never had any problems with forced marriage? rather not. you (france) just gave a fuck because it never really reached the public.
So instead of doing something about forced marriages like enforcing women's rights, it's a good idea to kick all Muslims out. Great idea!
On November 30 2009 07:52 Foucault wrote: I don't really see a reason to spread religion in the world to be honest. Islam to me is oppression and women being held down by ridiculous religious beliefs. Of course there are nice things to arabic culture, but Islam is not it
On December 02 2009 00:06 ggrrg wrote: Yeah sure. It's far better to let them completely bar themselves from society. Since the mosques offer a place to spend time and pass activities, guess where many turks decide to spend all of their time? I honestly cannot imagine how they would integrate in Germany if they continue like this...
Agree 100% with these and other similar comments. It's about time we did something about people who refuse to integrate and whose culturesa are a menace to society. Hopefully banning minarets due to the Islamisation of Switzerland will just be the first step to banning these other things as well:
Computer games Computer games are full of violence and ridiculous beliefs. They overtly tell people to kill other people and turn to a life of crime. Starcraft to me, especially, is about cruelty to insects and ridiculous beliefs. Of course there are nice things to computers, but computer games is not it. If we do not ban computer games, computer gamers will continue to stay in their bedrooms playing games instead of intergrating with society. Honestly, how can they possibly integrate?
Crucifixes and Catholic churches Crucifixes are an important part of Catholicism. Catholicism to me is all about wild sex without usiong condoms and priests molesting little boys. We have to ban crucifixes before this gets out of hand. Churches have to go as well. Catholics all congregate there instead of integrating. This could lead to a very dangerous situation where they just have unprotected sex with each other and breed more dangerous Catholics. Ban churches and crucifixes ASAP.
Pornography Pornography to me is all about oppression of women and women being held down by various metal and leather implements. Of course, there are nice things to movies, but pornography is not it. All these porn stars and directors have their own niche markets and their own video awards. We've got to ban all these as well so they can integrate.
Hamburgers American culture is all about violence. The right to bear arms is written in the constitution. They also like to invade other countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam. of course, America is not ALL about violence, but it's better to get rid of the whole lot of them anyway. The trouble with Americans is that they won't stay in their own country, despite it being so big. They keep going to oither countries where they're not welcome. So we've got to ban hamburgers so all these fat Americans will not feel welcome and will go back to where they came from. Their culture of violence is not welcome anywhere in the world (except maybe Somalia).
Synagogues Hitler really should have wiped out the Jews. Did you know that Jewish women have to follow certain rules about behaviour? Judaism is obviously about oppressing women and has to be wiped out. I suppose things have changed now, but back then, in the 1940s, they should have been wiped out. You can't trust anyone to do anything right, honestly.
Damnit, thinking about all these people and cutlures and objects and motifs that should be destroyed is really making me mad. Grrrr... Makes me want to beat up some Muslims. I live in a multiracial country, I'm sure I can find one... oh look, there's one. Oh no, she's not wearing a veil, so she can't be Muslim. Because all Muslims wear veils, obviously.
I know that you're just saying this to exaggerate what has been said just to show these people how close-minded they're being, but for some strange reason, I find myself agreeing with many of these positions, even if it's only in principle.
It's to be expected. But the point is that disagreeing with one aspect of a system does not mean you can get rid of the entire system.
America may say, "we don't want honour killings here, that would be murder." But it will not say, "honour killings are a part of Islam, so we're banning any symbols of Islam here."
Likewise you might say, "we do not support civilians carrying arms, we ban that here." But that should not turn into "The right to bear arms is an American thing, therefore we ban all symbols of America."
It's the societies that are the most open and accepting that attract the most talent and improve the fastest, not those who close themsleves off from the rest of the world.
Even so, you cannot deny that radical Islam is a legitimate threat and the fears of people in Switzerland aren't completely unfounded, even if they may be somewhat misguided. Also, I believe that immigrants should abide by the desires of their hosts within reasonable bounds, if only to be good neighbors because they are guests. Banning minarets is different from banning mosques. It's similar to how schools ban du-rags, they aren't making a statement against black people in general, they are merely trying to combat the "gangster" image, even though the articles of clothing themselves don't hurt anyone. In any case, even if it is a misguided fear, the Muslims should be able to understand people's concerns, especially when the society they come from tend to be much more intolerant towards others.
On December 02 2009 16:07 Velr wrote:
It's the societies that are the most open and accepting that attract the most talent and improve the fastest, not those who close themsleves off from the rest of the world.
It's the societies that pay the most and let you do whatever the fuck you want in your privacy, nothing else... But dream on.
Agreed, the world is not as utopian as the way you put it, the Storyteller.
utopian? who's being utopian? you have, let's say, 4 billion people on earth. you make 1 billion of them feel unwelcome, not because of talent but because they're different. don't you think you're going to be at a disadvantage compared to a country that welcomes them all? that is america's competitive advantage - it welcomes everyone with talent. scientists, economists, professionals from all over the world work there and help the economy.
oh god, where do these people crawl from?...
Are you fucking living in 1890?, USA has one of the most strict migration policies in the whole planet, its actually the only country in the whole god damn world world who is actively building a wall to avoid migration.
I didn't say they were allowing everyone to migrate, I said the migration policy is based on talent and not race or religion. The US doesn't say we don't want Muslims here, they say we don't need more unskilled labour because we have enough of that. But we'd like a shitload of bright people, thank you very much, and we don't care what their religion is.
yeah, thats why communist were persecuted, right?
and why should it be better to deny someone because of his skill than his religion?
Because you need skilled labour, duh. You honestly cannot see the difference between hiring smart people no matter what their religion and not hiring Muslims no matter how smart they are?
On December 02 2009 20:12 Velr wrote: @Storyteller: You know that last years global competition ranking had Switzerland at 1 and the USA at 2?
You know there are tons of companies that make Woman feel unwelcome in the higher ranks, if this is by accident or a decision doesn't matter here. The higher ranks in companies are often still a boys club. I don't think this is good, but it is that way.
I also highly doubt not having a tower on a Mosque or being against Burqas, "forcing" Womans rights and various other stuff is holding the elite back from going anywhere... Except it's an elite you don't want anyway. And i highly doubt that it has more of an effect on the *elite* than the US foreign politics of the last 20-30 years or various other factors.
Btw: If europeans talk about *typical* muslim immigrants it's not an *elite* thats coming or is allready here, it was/is cheap labour force with no/nearly no education, more, if at all, comparable to your mexican/south american immigration..
Sure it's ranked top. That was before this minaret nonsense, right? Excluding an entire community may not show problems straight away, but it will.
And yes, there are companies that discriminate against women, blacks etc. And they are putting themselves at a disadvantage. So what if it happens? It doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Enforcing women's rights for everyone is not holding back the elite. But when you make an entire community feel unwelcome because you think a few of them discriminate against women, you're missing out on talent.
wow, your post is so full of shit.
Excluding an entire community? Sorry but is a minaret an entire community? If a Nightclub only let you in if you are not wearing sneakers he is excluding all poor ppl, right? More nonsense plz.
By discriminating women companys put themself at disadvantage? Sorry but how old are you? You never saw a business from inside? Women get payed way less (about 20% in Switzerland), if something it puts those companys at an advantage because they get cheap workers. Why the fuck you think all conveyor band work is done by women?
A few of them discriminate woman? Wtf, most of them do. Some do it excessive (beating them up) some of them do it light weight (not helping in the household at all, keeping money mostly for themself). It's not a few, don't belittle that problem!
Trippleposting sucks, thats what the edit button is there for!
On December 02 2009 23:24 The Storyteller wrote: Because you need skilled labour, duh. You honestly cannot see the difference between hiring smart people no matter what their religion and not hiring Muslims no matter how smart they are?
It's both discriminating, isn't it? I think both is equally false, don't misinterpret my words!
On December 02 2009 23:21 The Storyteller wrote:So instead of doing something about forced marriages like enforcing women's rights, it's a good idea to kick all Muslims out. Great idea!
Hmmm, did I ever say kicking out muslims is the way to fight forced marriage? DONT FUCKING PUT WORDS INTO MY MOUTH! You are very stereotyped indeed. Not only women get fucked by forced marriage but also men (boys), they have more rights, but sometimes they are fucked too. I was responding to his "nice world in france" type of writing which is simply not true.
I understand that in Singapore it works out well with all the religions. And I would love it if did the same way in Europe.
QUOTE]
It works out in Singapore because we work hard to make it that way. We are a secular country surrounded by Muslims. We are a Chinese majority surrounded by Malays and Indonesians. We have our fair share of religious debates. We just had a Christian group try to take over a secular organisation and push their own agenda. We have come close to having Muslim terrorists blow up our train stations. We had a Taoist priest talk his friends into a suicide pact. We have problems. We have fundamentalists. But we work to solve these problems without making an entire community "feel unwelcome".
There are GOOD reasons why Europeans feel threatened by Muslims and feel that they don't like Islam. But there are better ways to solve the problems than by attacking Muslims as a whole, instead of specific things they don't like.
On December 02 2009 23:32 The Storyteller wrote: But there are better ways to solve the problems than by attacking Muslims as a whole, instead of specific things they don't like.
wow dude you are really really stupid. Just think over your words a little bit please.
1. Swiss ppl (20%, 57% of voters who voted) dont like minarets. 2. Those ppl banned minarets, which is a specific thing of muslims they dont like. 3. Muslims as a whole are still very welcome in switzerland and can still have mosques and such.
On December 02 2009 20:12 Velr wrote: @Storyteller: You know that last years global competition ranking had Switzerland at 1 and the USA at 2?
You know there are tons of companies that make Woman feel unwelcome in the higher ranks, if this is by accident or a decision doesn't matter here. The higher ranks in companies are often still a boys club. I don't think this is good, but it is that way.
I also highly doubt not having a tower on a Mosque or being against Burqas, "forcing" Womans rights and various other stuff is holding the elite back from going anywhere... Except it's an elite you don't want anyway. And i highly doubt that it has more of an effect on the *elite* than the US foreign politics of the last 20-30 years or various other factors.
Btw: If europeans talk about *typical* muslim immigrants it's not an *elite* thats coming or is allready here, it was/is cheap labour force with no/nearly no education, more, if at all, comparable to your mexican/south american immigration..
Sure it's ranked top. That was before this minaret nonsense, right? Excluding an entire community may not show problems straight away, but it will.
And yes, there are companies that discriminate against women, blacks etc. And they are putting themselves at a disadvantage. So what if it happens? It doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Enforcing women's rights for everyone is not holding back the elite. But when you make an entire community feel unwelcome because you think a few of them discriminate against women, you're missing out on talent.
wow, your post is so full of shit.
Excluding an entire community? Sorry but is a minaret an entire community? If a Nightclub only let you in if you are not wearing sneakers he is excluding all poor ppl, right? More nonsense plz.
By discriminating women companys put themself at disadvantage? Sorry but how old are you? You never saw a business from inside? Women get payed way less (about 20% in Switzerland), if something it puts those companys at an advantage because they get cheap workers. Why the fuck you think all conveyor band work is done by women?
A few of them discriminate woman? Wtf, most of them do. Some do it excessive (beating them up) some of them do it light weight (not helping in the household at all, keeping money mostly for themself). It's not a few, don't belittle that problem!
The campaign to ban minarets was not run on the premise that they don't look nice. It was associated with Islam, and the message was "we don't like Muslims". You're telling all Muslims, no matter their specific beliefs, that we don't like you here, no matter how talented you are. If the campaign was "let's ban forced marriages because it is against women's rights", that would be different. That would be saying we don't care whether you are Muslim or not. We welcome you, but we feel that women should have equal rights, regardless of religion.
I never said that a FEW companies discriminate against women. I don't care how many of them do. The fact is that if one company discirminates and another does not, the second company is going to get more talent. I don't know what fucked up world you come from, but not all conveyor belt work is done by women.
As for your last point, no matter how many Muslims you think discriminate against women, making all Muslims feel unwelcome is stupid. You should enforce laws for equal rights for ALL people, not get rid of all Muslims because a few/some/most of them discriminate against women.
On December 02 2009 23:32 The Storyteller wrote: But there are better ways to solve the problems than by attacking Muslims as a whole, instead of specific things they don't like.
wow dude you are really really stupid. Just think over your words a little bit please.
1. Swiss ppl (20%, 57% of voters who voted) dont like minarets. 2. Those ppl banned minarets, which is a specific thing of muslims they dont like. 3. Muslims as a whole are still very welcome in switzerland and can still have mosques and such.
get some brain, thx.
And they banned them because...? They don't look nice? They might fall down? Nope, they banned them as a sign of "Islamisation", a sign that they don't like Muslims.
On December 02 2009 20:12 Velr wrote: @Storyteller: You know that last years global competition ranking had Switzerland at 1 and the USA at 2?
You know there are tons of companies that make Woman feel unwelcome in the higher ranks, if this is by accident or a decision doesn't matter here. The higher ranks in companies are often still a boys club. I don't think this is good, but it is that way.
I also highly doubt not having a tower on a Mosque or being against Burqas, "forcing" Womans rights and various other stuff is holding the elite back from going anywhere... Except it's an elite you don't want anyway. And i highly doubt that it has more of an effect on the *elite* than the US foreign politics of the last 20-30 years or various other factors.
Btw: If europeans talk about *typical* muslim immigrants it's not an *elite* thats coming or is allready here, it was/is cheap labour force with no/nearly no education, more, if at all, comparable to your mexican/south american immigration..
Sure it's ranked top. That was before this minaret nonsense, right? Excluding an entire community may not show problems straight away, but it will.
And yes, there are companies that discriminate against women, blacks etc. And they are putting themselves at a disadvantage. So what if it happens? It doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Enforcing women's rights for everyone is not holding back the elite. But when you make an entire community feel unwelcome because you think a few of them discriminate against women, you're missing out on talent.
wow, your post is so full of shit.
Excluding an entire community? Sorry but is a minaret an entire community? If a Nightclub only let you in if you are not wearing sneakers he is excluding all poor ppl, right? More nonsense plz.
By discriminating women companys put themself at disadvantage? Sorry but how old are you? You never saw a business from inside? Women get payed way less (about 20% in Switzerland), if something it puts those companys at an advantage because they get cheap workers. Why the fuck you think all conveyor band work is done by women?
A few of them discriminate woman? Wtf, most of them do. Some do it excessive (beating them up) some of them do it light weight (not helping in the household at all, keeping money mostly for themself). It's not a few, don't belittle that problem!
The campaign to ban minarets was not run on the premise that they don't look nice. It was associated with Islam, and the message was "we don't like Muslims". You're telling all Muslims, no matter their specific beliefs, that we don't like you here, no matter how talented you are. If the campaign was "let's ban forced marriages because it is against women's rights", that would be different. That would be saying we don't care whether you are Muslim or not. We welcome you, but we feel that women should have equal rights, regardless of religion.
I never said that a FEW companies discriminate against women. I don't care how many of them do. The fact is that if one company discirminates and another does not, the second company is going to get more talent. I don't know what fucked up world you come from, but not all conveyor belt work is done by women.
As for your last point, no matter how many Muslims you think discriminate against women, making all Muslims feel unwelcome is stupid. You should enforce laws for equal rights for ALL people, not get rid of all Muslims because a few/some/most of them discriminate against women.
No the message was NOT "we don't like muslims". This is the message YOU take out of it. The message was "we don't want you force your stuff on us". Actually this is not done on muslim buildings. In a village near my home there is a very very strict building law. You may not build ANYTHING no matter if it's muslim or buddhist or capitalistic or whatever the fuck you want if it does not fit into the villages "picture". The only difference is, that minarets are banned in whole switzerland now instead of specific places like this village. So if this minaret ban would've never happened, you would still NEVER see any minaret in that village.
The problem with forced marriage for example is not that we wouldn't say "we don't like it", its already firbidden in switzerland. The problem is different, the muslim ppl go back to pakistan f.e. force marriage on their kid there come bakc married and swiss law is never enforced on them, THAT IS THE PROBLEM!
In switzerland if you visit any production company (like choclate, paper, electric assembling) at least 90% are women. When I did this in Italy it didnt look any different. I dont know how many companys you have seen, I've seen a lot and it was ALWAYS like this not a single example doing it different.
It's not my oppinion how many muslims threat their women bad. I had and still have a lot of muslim friends, as I was always playing football/gaming/hanging with them. In almost all the housholds the mother couldn't speak german, the fathers always had all new and shiny stuff, the woman always the same old cloths. The woman always had to do what the man told them, he gave a shit what the woman said. Again I NEVER said get rid of all muslims, STOP FUCKING LYING WORDS INTO MY MOUTH, I said that you tell bullshit if you claim that only a few muslims threat their wifes like shit!
As I said, you dont need to double post, I also read your edits.
On December 02 2009 23:32 The Storyteller wrote: But there are better ways to solve the problems than by attacking Muslims as a whole, instead of specific things they don't like.
wow dude you are really really stupid. Just think over your words a little bit please.
1. Swiss ppl (20%, 57% of voters who voted) dont like minarets. 2. Those ppl banned minarets, which is a specific thing of muslims they dont like. 3. Muslims as a whole are still very welcome in switzerland and can still have mosques and such.
get some brain, thx.
And they banned them because...? They don't look nice? They might fall down? Nope, they banned them as a sign of "Islamisation", a sign that they don't like Muslims.
They banned them because they don't fit in. As I already explained, in switzerland (and western austria f.e. too) we ban shit we think doesn't fit in. This was done on muncipal level until now when it was done nation wide. In western austria you have 0 chance to build a minaret, why dont you rant on them? Because it was not big in the media? Becuase it gets shut down on muncipal level?
On December 02 2009 23:54 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote: I said that you tell bullshit if you claim that only a few muslims threat their wifes like shit!
Okay, I totally misunderstood you, you're saying not a few Muslims treat their wives like shit. You're saying LOTS of Muslims treat their wives like shit. Have fun in your nice village.
On December 02 2009 23:54 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote: I said that you tell bullshit if you claim that only a few muslims threat their wifes like shit!
Okay, I totally misunderstood you, you're saying not a few Muslims treat their wives like shit. You're saying LOTS of Muslims treat their wives like shit. Have fun in your nice village.
You want to tell me that most muslims do not treat their wives bad? Or do you consider minor stuff as holding money back from your wife and therefor limiting her freedom not as treating her bad? Is only beating them up treating them bad?
Your country (and mine) was founded with principles of religious freedom, and separation of church and state.
Separation of Church and State, how funny...
Other countries were not. You are judging Switzerland for not being like us. Well screw off with that. It's their country. It pisses me off when Euros meddle in our politics, so I'm sure as hell not going to turn around and do it to any of them.
I don't see people in here bitching about Saudi Arabia and their "tolerance". Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Switzerland is justified because someone else did it. More like we don't mess with the Saudis, and we shouldn't mess with the Swiss.
Obviously we can argue whether or not we think what they did is wrong or justified or whatever, but it's their country and if they don't feel like coddling every religious group they don't have to.
That's exactly what I'm doing, I'm saying that it's just horrible that Switzerland would do this. Obviously the Saudi's aren't exempt from this just because they're Saudi Arabia, but Switzerland is a very western and modern country and has always claimed to be so, and now they go back and do this. It's hypocritical, to say the least.
Would you care to post some numbers for us to back up your claim? How many civilians have Christian extremists killed in the last decade? How many Christian theocracies exist on earth? How many people have those theocracies killed, mutilated or imprisoned for exercising their basic human rights?
Shall we go back throughout history and count? I'm pretty damn confident in saying Christianity has ruined more lives than Islam throughout history, but we don't just completely ban it, do we? No, we just don't let the extreme radicals take over and do crazy shit.
Even so, you cannot deny that radical Islam is a legitimate threat and the fears of people in Switzerland aren't completely unfounded, even if they may be somewhat misguided. Also, I believe that immigrants should abide by the desires of their hosts within reasonable bounds, if only to be good neighbors because they are guests. Banning minarets is different from banning mosques. It's similar to how schools ban du-rags, they aren't making a statement against black people in general, they are merely trying to combat the "gangster" image, even though the articles of clothing themselves don't hurt anyone. In any case, even if it is a misguided fear, the Muslims should be able to understand people's concerns, especially when the society they come from tend to be much more intolerant towards others.
So the Muslims should just roll over and take injustices like this? Yes, obviously the banning of Minarets isn't the most drastic thing that could've happened, but the point is that it starts a slope that gets very slippery.
On November 30 2009 07:52 Foucault wrote: I don't really see a reason to spread religion in the world to be honest. Islam to me is oppression and women being held down by ridiculous religious beliefs. Of course there are nice things to arabic culture, but Islam is not it
On December 02 2009 00:06 ggrrg wrote: Yeah sure. It's far better to let them completely bar themselves from society. Since the mosques offer a place to spend time and pass activities, guess where many turks decide to spend all of their time? I honestly cannot imagine how they would integrate in Germany if they continue like this...
Agree 100% with these and other similar comments. It's about time we did something about people who refuse to integrate and whose culturesa are a menace to society. Hopefully banning minarets due to the Islamisation of Switzerland will just be the first step to banning these other things as well:
Computer games Computer games are full of violence and ridiculous beliefs. They overtly tell people to kill other people and turn to a life of crime. Starcraft to me, especially, is about cruelty to insects and ridiculous beliefs. Of course there are nice things to computers, but computer games is not it. If we do not ban computer games, computer gamers will continue to stay in their bedrooms playing games instead of intergrating with society. Honestly, how can they possibly integrate?
Crucifixes and Catholic churches Crucifixes are an important part of Catholicism. Catholicism to me is all about wild sex without usiong condoms and priests molesting little boys. We have to ban crucifixes before this gets out of hand. Churches have to go as well. Catholics all congregate there instead of integrating. This could lead to a very dangerous situation where they just have unprotected sex with each other and breed more dangerous Catholics. Ban churches and crucifixes ASAP.
Pornography Pornography to me is all about oppression of women and women being held down by various metal and leather implements. Of course, there are nice things to movies, but pornography is not it. All these porn stars and directors have their own niche markets and their own video awards. We've got to ban all these as well so they can integrate.
Hamburgers American culture is all about violence. The right to bear arms is written in the constitution. They also like to invade other countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam. of course, America is not ALL about violence, but it's better to get rid of the whole lot of them anyway. The trouble with Americans is that they won't stay in their own country, despite it being so big. They keep going to oither countries where they're not welcome. So we've got to ban hamburgers so all these fat Americans will not feel welcome and will go back to where they came from. Their culture of violence is not welcome anywhere in the world (except maybe Somalia).
Synagogues Hitler really should have wiped out the Jews. Did you know that Jewish women have to follow certain rules about behaviour? Judaism is obviously about oppressing women and has to be wiped out. I suppose things have changed now, but back then, in the 1940s, they should have been wiped out. You can't trust anyone to do anything right, honestly.
Damnit, thinking about all these people and cutlures and objects and motifs that should be destroyed is really making me mad. Grrrr... Makes me want to beat up some Muslims. I live in a multiracial country, I'm sure I can find one... oh look, there's one. Oh no, she's not wearing a veil, so she can't be Muslim. Because all Muslims wear veils, obviously.
None of your analogies are about cultural integration, and banning a piece of architecture isn't banning an entire religion.
Do you people even know what minarets are? For everyone saying that the swiss people are idiots, racists, ignorant etc, would you be fine with having one outside your house? I bet most of you are ignorant American "liberals" who has not seen or experienced the result of mass muslim immigration. Its ironic that you despise christianity so much, yet you kiss the ass of every other religion.
On December 03 2009 02:48 modesT wrote: Btw none of this really matters. Europe will be muslim in the soon future and there will be minarets.
Wtf, why are people so scared of otherness for fuck sake?
My district in Paris is 70% immigrants, they are very nice, lot of them are muslim and what? They have their mosquee. Why do we need to give in this fascist rethoric "us against others".
You are extremist, and your discourse produces this fucked up world, this hate of each other and the fundamentalism.
No the message was NOT "we don't like muslims". This is the message YOU take out of it
Wrong. That's exactly the message which was pushed by the SVP. Feel free to actually look at this thread and the multiple posts going "you don't understand! the turks are fucking up europe!"
On December 03 2009 02:48 modesT wrote: Btw none of this really matters. Europe will be muslim in the soon future and there will be minarets.
Wtf, why are people so scared of otherness for fuck sake?
My district in Paris is 70% immigrants, they are very nice, lot of them are muslim and what? They have their mosquee. Why do we need to give in this fascist rethoric "us against others".
You are extremist, and your discourse produces this fucked up world, this hate of each other and the fundamentalism.
Im an extremist for simply saying that europe will be muslim and ruled by sharia law? Have I ever said anything bad about moderate muslims? You are delusional.
On December 03 2009 02:48 modesT wrote: Btw none of this really matters. Europe will be muslim in the soon future and there will be minarets.
Wtf, why are people so scared of otherness for fuck sake?
My district in Paris is 70% immigrants, they are very nice, lot of them are muslim and what? They have their mosquee. Why do we need to give in this fascist rethoric "us against others".
You are extremist, and your discourse produces this fucked up world, this hate of each other and the fundamentalism.
No the message was NOT "we don't like muslims". This is the message YOU take out of it
Wrong. That's exactly the message which was pushed by the SVP. Feel free to actually look at this thread and the multiple posts going "you don't understand! the turks are fucking up europe!"
Yes, im sure a few messages on teamliquid make up the opinion for the whole swiss people. Way to be ignorant.
This is just the swiss people saying that they've had enough of the islamification. They want switzerland to be swiss, not saudi arabia.
Why is people still convinced we can get along well with muslims? We simply can't. Their religion basics are pretty much against what we have fought through the latter half of the 20th century. Add to that their immigrants are simply poorly educated and mostly ignorant people (which means their religious beliefs are stronger than in average people) and it's not hard to understand why we - or in this case, swiss people - think of them as a problem.
On December 01 2009 08:11 DreaM)XeRO wrote: im sorry. but what is a minaret?
A muslim praying towers with speakers broadcasting muslim prayers and such loudly.
oh i thought they were just towers 0_o
the speakers change everything -- i'd knock the existing ones down as well.
Well im guessing that the people who oppose this ban either have no problem to have this outside their house or are just ignorant and dont know what it is. Or a hypocrite who thinks "do as i say, not as i do".
People here are so misinformed. Switzerland has already passed a law years ago forbidding the speaker aspect of minarets. No minaret in Switzerland broadcasts anything. This pass is solely for the building itself and not for the noise aspect.
Please stop saying things like "OMG do u actually know what a minaret is do sum rezearch b4 posting plz" and make yourself look like a fool to people who actually knows these things.
On December 01 2009 08:11 DreaM)XeRO wrote: im sorry. but what is a minaret?
A muslim praying towers with speakers broadcasting muslim prayers and such loudly.
oh i thought they were just towers 0_o
the speakers change everything -- i'd knock the existing ones down as well.
Well im guessing that the people who oppose this ban either have no problem to have this outside their house or are just ignorant and dont know what it is. Or a hypocrite who thinks "do as i say, not as i do".
Or you haven't read the thread considering how there were multiple posts that said that the preexisting minarets in Switzerland do not do prayer calls.
On December 02 2009 18:00 intruding wrote: I'm deeply concerned about the popularity of atheism here. Being atheist is as dumb as being religious. Religions and all its interpretations are obviously complete bullshit. But its equally idiotic to reject the existence of God simply because the masses have believed in their erroneous opinions about God over the millenniums. There is indeed a creator. It's just that everything revolving around it that is man-made or spiritual and moral about it, religion, has been utterly misconceived and misinterpreted and has led to bloodshed.
God exists, it's just that man's interpretation of it has traditionally been moronic. Therefore; deism should be the religious stance of choice. Agnostism would come second. But please, being a hardcore atheist is very very strange and disturbing.
There is indeed a creator. I know it's true because I just said it. I will offer up no other explanation or evidence for this self-evident fact, which has been ingrained in me from a young age. Not believing in a god is very very strange and disturbing. You should believe in god like me because I know about these things better than you. I am also smarter than everyone else who has ever tried to interpret religion, which proves my point that there is a god.
On December 02 2009 19:06 intruding wrote: Johanes is confused between atheism and agnostism. He calls himself an atheist but his description his religious stance falls into agnostism. Which i consider the second best option option.
QibingZero is incoherent.
@WhuazGoodJaggah; Deism for me would be very large...very general... i meant creator or creators. But no god at all is just illogical to me...The universe had to be created somehow from something or someone greater or deeper.
The universe must have been created somehow. It MUST have been god! Oh what? Your child got sick? It must have been a witch! There's no other possible explanation, so you must accept mine because it's obviously right. Wait, what? Wtf is a virus? Oh you can do experiments and find empirical evidence for your theory? Well, I still believe in witches and I still believe in god, no matter what you say.
On December 02 2009 19:07 InsideTheBox wrote:
You're right in criticizing his attack on atheism, but choosing not to believe in a god is not a logical progression from being a "man of science." You have proof for neither the existence or absence of a god, and as a man of science should not be able to reach any conclusion. You may choose to pursue a life where the absence of proof implies falsity, but it's generally a poor principle. Anything labeled a theory (evolution, big bang, etc) has yet to be proven and if you apply the aforementioned principle generally then you'd end up not with the falsity of many accepted scientific ideas. I understand that on intuition or some other reason you may not believe in the existence of a god, but it's certainly not for a scientific reason so don't claim it to be as such.
As for this entire thread, I find the number of people lingering on the idea of a fundamentalist threat as a basis for bans on how people express their religious views extremely disturbing.
Absence of evidence does imply falsity. Take this example: "I believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists and created the entire universe, RAmen. I have no evidence besides the fact that I KNOW that he exists and that he DEFINITELY created the universe. You are an ignorant buffoon for even attempting to deny His existence." It's the same thing as Christianity, except you replace "god" with "the Flying Spaghetti Monster." Does that not sound ridiculous?
The thing about science is that everything is labeled a theory because nothing is concrete. You make a hypothesis and test it and if even the smallest piece evidence shows you that you are wrong, you throw out your hypothesis immediately and make a new one. A theory is built on this foundation and is only kept as long as it is useful and is consistent with all of the evidence. In religion, some random asshole makes a claim and tries to get people to believe in the same shit he does. After a millennium or so and dozens of generations, if enough people have accepted it, it becomes part of the establishment, otherwise, it's labeled a cult and the people who do believe it are ostracized. It's not up to science to disprove the existence of any gods, it's up to religion to prove it. I can just choose to believe whatever I want and challenge you to prove me wrong. I believe that there are 10^10000000000 50 feet tall naked men dancing right outside the periphery of our universe. Prove me wrong. See how illogical that kind of argument is? Obviously there could be a possibility of that, but is it probable? Absolutely not. And so far, I have not seen one single shred of evidence in the favor of the existence of a god, which is surprising, considering how he is supposedly powerful and created everything and listens to all your dull prayers and requests.
On November 30 2009 07:52 Foucault wrote: I don't really see a reason to spread religion in the world to be honest. Islam to me is oppression and women being held down by ridiculous religious beliefs. Of course there are nice things to arabic culture, but Islam is not it
On December 02 2009 00:06 ggrrg wrote: Yeah sure. It's far better to let them completely bar themselves from society. Since the mosques offer a place to spend time and pass activities, guess where many turks decide to spend all of their time? I honestly cannot imagine how they would integrate in Germany if they continue like this...
Agree 100% with these and other similar comments. It's about time we did something about people who refuse to integrate and whose culturesa are a menace to society. Hopefully banning minarets due to the Islamisation of Switzerland will just be the first step to banning these other things as well:
Computer games Computer games are full of violence and ridiculous beliefs. They overtly tell people to kill other people and turn to a life of crime. Starcraft to me, especially, is about cruelty to insects and ridiculous beliefs. Of course there are nice things to computers, but computer games is not it. If we do not ban computer games, computer gamers will continue to stay in their bedrooms playing games instead of intergrating with society. Honestly, how can they possibly integrate?
Crucifixes and Catholic churches Crucifixes are an important part of Catholicism. Catholicism to me is all about wild sex without usiong condoms and priests molesting little boys. We have to ban crucifixes before this gets out of hand. Churches have to go as well. Catholics all congregate there instead of integrating. This could lead to a very dangerous situation where they just have unprotected sex with each other and breed more dangerous Catholics. Ban churches and crucifixes ASAP.
Pornography Pornography to me is all about oppression of women and women being held down by various metal and leather implements. Of course, there are nice things to movies, but pornography is not it. All these porn stars and directors have their own niche markets and their own video awards. We've got to ban all these as well so they can integrate.
Hamburgers American culture is all about violence. The right to bear arms is written in the constitution. They also like to invade other countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam. of course, America is not ALL about violence, but it's better to get rid of the whole lot of them anyway. The trouble with Americans is that they won't stay in their own country, despite it being so big. They keep going to oither countries where they're not welcome. So we've got to ban hamburgers so all these fat Americans will not feel welcome and will go back to where they came from. Their culture of violence is not welcome anywhere in the world (except maybe Somalia).
Synagogues Hitler really should have wiped out the Jews. Did you know that Jewish women have to follow certain rules about behaviour? Judaism is obviously about oppressing women and has to be wiped out. I suppose things have changed now, but back then, in the 1940s, they should have been wiped out. You can't trust anyone to do anything right, honestly.
Damnit, thinking about all these people and cutlures and objects and motifs that should be destroyed is really making me mad. Grrrr... Makes me want to beat up some Muslims. I live in a multiracial country, I'm sure I can find one... oh look, there's one. Oh no, she's not wearing a veil, so she can't be Muslim. Because all Muslims wear veils, obviously.
I know that you're just saying this to exaggerate what has been said just to show these people how close-minded they're being, but for some strange reason, I find myself agreeing with many of these positions, even if it's only in principle.
It's to be expected. But the point is that disagreeing with one aspect of a system does not mean you can get rid of the entire system.
America may say, "we don't want honour killings here, that would be murder." But it will not say, "honour killings are a part of Islam, so we're banning any symbols of Islam here."
Likewise you might say, "we do not support civilians carrying arms, we ban that here." But that should not turn into "The right to bear arms is an American thing, therefore we ban all symbols of America."
It's the societies that are the most open and accepting that attract the most talent and improve the fastest, not those who close themsleves off from the rest of the world.
Even so, you cannot deny that radical Islam is a legitimate threat and the fears of people in Switzerland aren't completely unfounded, even if they may be somewhat misguided. Also, I believe that immigrants should abide by the desires of their hosts within reasonable bounds, if only to be good neighbors because they are guests. Banning minarets is different from banning mosques. It's similar to how schools ban du-rags, they aren't making a statement against black people in general, they are merely trying to combat the "gangster" image, even though the articles of clothing themselves don't hurt anyone. In any case, even if it is a misguided fear, the Muslims should be able to understand people's concerns, especially when the society they come from tend to be much more intolerant towards others.
On December 02 2009 16:07 Velr wrote:
It's the societies that are the most open and accepting that attract the most talent and improve the fastest, not those who close themsleves off from the rest of the world.
It's the societies that pay the most and let you do whatever the fuck you want in your privacy, nothing else... But dream on.
Agreed, the world is not as utopian as the way you put it, the Storyteller.
utopian? who's being utopian? you have, let's say, 4 billion people on earth. you make 1 billion of them feel unwelcome, not because of talent but because they're different. don't you think you're going to be at a disadvantage compared to a country that welcomes them all? that is america's competitive advantage - it welcomes everyone with talent. scientists, economists, professionals from all over the world work there and help the economy.
on a smaller scale, how long do you think a compan would last if it made women feel unwelcome? half its talent pool would vanish.
Nice argument. Except, throughout history, America has done its best to keep the number of immigrants low. When the Chinese were building the railroads, America put quotas on the number of people that can enter the country. It was called the Chinese Exclusion Act, and yes it means exactly what it says, unlike the Patriot Act. You act like countries don't have their own populations and that immigrants are necessary for a country to obtain talent. The thing is, people don't go to the most accepting country. They go where there are the best economic opportunities and possibilities for them to obtain work and maintain their families. America's competitive advantage is that it's rich. It has many natural resources, a strong economy, a stable government and a decent educational system (more or less). And it's not just the talented who are attracted, but the poor and ignorant as well, like many Mexicans who cross the border for jobs in construction or housekeeping because they know that they will earn more, despite an inability to speak English. Your exaggerated statements and blanket assumptions on huge scales are not only ridiculous, but have no basis in the real world. You aren't going to make a good point, nor are you going to impress others, just by saying billions of people if you just make huge assumptions in your hypothetical situations.
On December 02 2009 20:52 johanes wrote:
Ofcourse, you are right. Atheism isn't logical, it is basically belief too, just belivenig into the opposite. I was trying to argue wit his rank 1. deism 2. agnostism 3. atheism as it is clearly bad from logical point of view. Correctly it would be : 1 agnostism 2.+3. (on the same level) deism and atheism
No he's not. How is atheism not logical? It's the dismissal of religious beliefs simply by using logic. Atheism is not belief, it's the absence of belief, hence the "a" at the beginning of the world. An asexual person is not someone who basically has a different kind of sex. It's someone who is free or unaffected by sexuality.
On December 02 2009 23:08 The Storyteller wrote:
I didn't say they were allowing everyone to migrate, I said the migration policy is based on talent and not race or religion. The US doesn't say we don't want Muslims here, they say we don't need more unskilled labour because we have enough of that. But we'd like a shitload of bright people, thank you very much, and we don't care what their religion is.
You can't base your limited experience and assume that it applies it to other countries. The social situations are different and so is the culture in various countries. And migration isn't about talent, it's about all kinds of people in all different strata looking for opportunities. You're assuming that being open draws in talented and intelligent people, but this is a false, unsubstantiated assumption, especially since there are plenty of opportunities in companies based in other countries as well, which can be just as good, if not better, than opportunities provided in America or whatever country you want to argue in favor of. "who's being Utopian" indeed.
Would you care to post some numbers for us to back up your claim? How many civilians have Christian extremists killed in the last decade? How many Christian theocracies exist on earth? How many people have those theocracies killed, mutilated or imprisoned for exercising their basic human rights?
Shall we go back throughout history and count? I'm pretty damn confident in saying Christianity has ruined more lives than Islam throughout history, but we don't just completely ban it, do we? No, we just don't let the extreme radicals take over and do crazy shit.
I take the challenge! Let's go back throughout history: Christians did a great job in killing and causing suffering: - Crusades (9 go's in ~300 years) - Inquisitions (like 750 years) - Wars between Catholics and Protestants - Jew bashing (not Hitler though, he had other motives) - probably some more stuff
Not let's see how our Muslim friends did: - Muslim Conquests (almost 1200 years!) - Ottoman Wars in Europe (600 out of the 1200 - constant Christian bashing) - Blood Toll (250 years of taking young boys from their parents) - Janissaries (take 'em, make 'em killing machines and send 'em kill their parents) - and probably some more stuff
It is absolutely impossible to quantatively say, which religion caused more suffering, but as you can see Islam has been keeping up with Christianity pretty well. However, it should also be noted that Islam is far ahead of Christianity in this statisic considering the recent decades. While Christianity has to offer only a few mentally retarded extremists in this time frame, Islam countries have been executing some great laws of theirs like stoning cheating wives, torturing people for every possible reason, killing Muslims that convert to other religions and so on. And while this has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion about minarets in Switzerland, it kind of contradicts your statement of how much worse Christianity is than Islam.
Even so, you cannot deny that radical Islam is a legitimate threat and the fears of people in Switzerland aren't completely unfounded, even if they may be somewhat misguided. Also, I believe that immigrants should abide by the desires of their hosts within reasonable bounds, if only to be good neighbors because they are guests. Banning minarets is different from banning mosques. It's similar to how schools ban du-rags, they aren't making a statement against black people in general, they are merely trying to combat the "gangster" image, even though the articles of clothing themselves don't hurt anyone. In any case, even if it is a misguided fear, the Muslims should be able to understand people's concerns, especially when the society they come from tend to be much more intolerant towards others.
So the Muslims should just roll over and take injustices like this? Yes, obviously the banning of Minarets isn't the most drastic thing that could've happened, but the point is that it starts a slope that gets very slippery.
What exactly are minarets used for? How do they help Muslim practice their religion? They are just symbols for the greatness of their mosques. And they are kind of a way to shove their own culture in the face of everybody else.
(This has also basically nothing to do with the discussion on minarets) Oh, and about injustices... You do understand that many Muslim beliefs and values clash with Western values and often laws? Without wanting to stereotype anybody; you do understand that there are enough Muslims in Europe that practice at least some things that clash with laws or human rights as perceived by Western civilization?
Even so, you cannot deny that radical Islam is a legitimate threat and the fears of people in Switzerland aren't completely unfounded, even if they may be somewhat misguided. Also, I believe that immigrants should abide by the desires of their hosts within reasonable bounds, if only to be good neighbors because they are guests. Banning minarets is different from banning mosques. It's similar to how schools ban du-rags, they aren't making a statement against black people in general, they are merely trying to combat the "gangster" image, even though the articles of clothing themselves don't hurt anyone. In any case, even if it is a misguided fear, the Muslims should be able to understand people's concerns, especially when the society they come from tend to be much more intolerant towards others.
So the Muslims should just roll over and take injustices like this? Yes, obviously the banning of Minarets isn't the most drastic thing that could've happened, but the point is that it starts a slope that gets very slippery.
What exactly are minarets used for? How do they help Muslim practice their religion? They are just symbols for the greatness of their mosques. And they are kind of a way to shove their own culture in the face of everybody else.
(This has also basically nothing to do with the discussion on minarets) Oh, and about injustices... You do understand that many Muslim beliefs and values clash with Western values and often laws? Without wanting to stereotype anybody; you do understand that there are enough Muslims in Europe that practice at least some things that clash with laws or human rights as perceived by Western civilization?
So you would be okay with the ban of anything non-essential to key aspects of our lives... I don't buy that for a second. Your understanding of minarets is either juvenile or you're employing reductio ad absurdum to its fullest. Freedom of expression is as much a right as freedom to choose one's religion. Even if you as a person don't agree with that, I would be incredibly surprised if the government of Switzerland didn't. Furthermore I bet you'd be extremely outraged if you weren't allowed to buy/wear the kinds of clothes you wanted because your government told all of its citizens that they had to wear orange jumpsuits.
On December 03 2009 04:50 ggrrg wrote: (This has also basically nothing to do with the discussion on minarets) Oh, and about injustices... You do understand that many Muslim beliefs and values clash with Western values and often laws? Without wanting to stereotype anybody; you do understand that there are enough Muslims in Europe that practice at least some things that clash with laws or human rights as perceived by Western civilization?
Well, this is somewhat true. Islam has not had the years of conformity to the ideals of the west that Christianity has. We would be discussing the same issues with Christians if they still widely believed the things that they did hundreds of years ago. In fact, we do still have clashes with the religion over issues like gay rights and abortion.
Even so, you cannot deny that radical Islam is a legitimate threat and the fears of people in Switzerland aren't completely unfounded, even if they may be somewhat misguided. Also, I believe that immigrants should abide by the desires of their hosts within reasonable bounds, if only to be good neighbors because they are guests. Banning minarets is different from banning mosques. It's similar to how schools ban du-rags, they aren't making a statement against black people in general, they are merely trying to combat the "gangster" image, even though the articles of clothing themselves don't hurt anyone. In any case, even if it is a misguided fear, the Muslims should be able to understand people's concerns, especially when the society they come from tend to be much more intolerant towards others.
So the Muslims should just roll over and take injustices like this? Yes, obviously the banning of Minarets isn't the most drastic thing that could've happened, but the point is that it starts a slope that gets very slippery.
What exactly are minarets used for? How do they help Muslim practice their religion? They are just symbols for the greatness of their mosques. And they are kind of a way to shove their own culture in the face of everybody else.
(This has also basically nothing to do with the discussion on minarets) Oh, and about injustices... You do understand that many Muslim beliefs and values clash with Western values and often laws? Without wanting to stereotype anybody; you do understand that there are enough Muslims in Europe that practice at least some things that clash with laws or human rights as perceived by Western civilization?
So you would be okay with the ban of anything non-essential to key aspects of our lives... I don't buy that for a second. Your understanding of minarets is either juvenile or you're employing reductio ad absurdum to its fullest. Freedom of expression is as much a right as freedom to choose one's religion. Even if you as a person don't agree with that, I would be incredibly surprised if the government of Switzerland didn't. Furthermore I bet you'd be extremely outraged if you weren't allowed to buy/wear the kinds of clothes you wanted because your government told all of its citizens that they had to wear orange jumpsuits.
Man, that's troublesome. I mean, the fact I can't build my own personal tower with 'Fuck You' etched into the side in huge letters limits my freedom of expression. I should complain!
You see, that's just as crazy an idea as your slippery slope argument is. Governments have been limiting what and where we can build for years. Some of it might have gone too far, but to compare it to making all citizens wear orange jumpsuits is just ridiculous.
On December 02 2009 18:00 intruding wrote: I'm deeply concerned about the popularity of atheism here. Being atheist is as dumb as being religious. Religions and all its interpretations are obviously complete bullshit. But its equally idiotic to reject the existence of God simply because the masses have believed in their erroneous opinions about God over the millenniums. There is indeed a creator. It's just that everything revolving around it that is man-made or spiritual and moral about it, religion, has been utterly misconceived and misinterpreted and has led to bloodshed.
God exists, it's just that man's interpretation of it has traditionally been moronic. Therefore; deism should be the religious stance of choice. Agnostism would come second. But please, being a hardcore atheist is very very strange and disturbing.
There is indeed a creator. I know it's true because I just said it. I will offer up no other explanation or evidence for this self-evident fact, which has been ingrained in me from a young age. Not believing in a god is very very strange and disturbing. You should believe in god like me because I know about these things better than you. I am also smarter than everyone else who has ever tried to interpret religion, which proves my point that there is a god.
On December 02 2009 19:06 intruding wrote: Johanes is confused between atheism and agnostism. He calls himself an atheist but his description his religious stance falls into agnostism. Which i consider the second best option option.
QibingZero is incoherent.
@WhuazGoodJaggah; Deism for me would be very large...very general... i meant creator or creators. But no god at all is just illogical to me...The universe had to be created somehow from something or someone greater or deeper.
The universe must have been created somehow. It MUST have been god! Oh what? Your child got sick? It must have been a witch! There's no other possible explanation, so you must accept mine because it's obviously right. Wait, what? Wtf is a virus? Oh you can do experiments and find empirical evidence for your theory? Well, I still believe in witches and I still believe in god, no matter what you say.
On December 02 2009 19:07 InsideTheBox wrote:
You're right in criticizing his attack on atheism, but choosing not to believe in a god is not a logical progression from being a "man of science." You have proof for neither the existence or absence of a god, and as a man of science should not be able to reach any conclusion. You may choose to pursue a life where the absence of proof implies falsity, but it's generally a poor principle. Anything labeled a theory (evolution, big bang, etc) has yet to be proven and if you apply the aforementioned principle generally then you'd end up not with the falsity of many accepted scientific ideas. I understand that on intuition or some other reason you may not believe in the existence of a god, but it's certainly not for a scientific reason so don't claim it to be as such.
As for this entire thread, I find the number of people lingering on the idea of a fundamentalist threat as a basis for bans on how people express their religious views extremely disturbing.
Absense of evidence does imply falsity. Take this example: "I believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists and created the entire universe, RAmen. I have no evidence besides the fact that I KNOW that he exists and that he DEFINITELY created the universe. You are an ignorant buffoon for even attempting to deny His existence." It's the same thing as Christianity, except you replace "god" with "the Flying Spaghetti Monster." Does that not sound ridiculous?
The thing about science is that everything is labeled a theory because nothing is concrete. You make a hypothesis and test it and if even the smallest piece evidence shows you that you are wrong, you throw out your hypothesis immediately and make a new one. A theory is built on this foundation and is only kept as long as it is useful and is consistent with all of the evidence. In religion, some random asshole makes a claim and tries to get people to believe in the same shit he does. After a millenia or so and dozens of generations, if enough people have accepted it, it becomes part of the establishment, otherwise, it's labeled a cult and the people who do believe it are ostracized. It's not up to science to disprove the existence of any gods, it's up to religion to prove it. I can just choose to believe whatever I want and challenge you to prove me wrong. I believe that there are 10^10000000000 50 feet tall naked men dancing right outside the periphery of our universe. Prove me wrong. See how illogical that kind of argument is? Obviously there could be a possibility of that, but is it probable? Absolutely not. And so far, I have not seen one single shred of evidence in the favor of the existence of a god, which is surprising, considering how he is supposedly powerful and created everything and listens to all your dull prayers and requests.
On November 30 2009 07:52 Foucault wrote: I don't really see a reason to spread religion in the world to be honest. Islam to me is oppression and women being held down by ridiculous religious beliefs. Of course there are nice things to arabic culture, but Islam is not it
On December 02 2009 00:06 ggrrg wrote: Yeah sure. It's far better to let them completely bar themselves from society. Since the mosques offer a place to spend time and pass activities, guess where many turks decide to spend all of their time? I honestly cannot imagine how they would integrate in Germany if they continue like this...
Agree 100% with these and other similar comments. It's about time we did something about people who refuse to integrate and whose culturesa are a menace to society. Hopefully banning minarets due to the Islamisation of Switzerland will just be the first step to banning these other things as well:
Computer games Computer games are full of violence and ridiculous beliefs. They overtly tell people to kill other people and turn to a life of crime. Starcraft to me, especially, is about cruelty to insects and ridiculous beliefs. Of course there are nice things to computers, but computer games is not it. If we do not ban computer games, computer gamers will continue to stay in their bedrooms playing games instead of intergrating with society. Honestly, how can they possibly integrate?
Crucifixes and Catholic churches Crucifixes are an important part of Catholicism. Catholicism to me is all about wild sex without usiong condoms and priests molesting little boys. We have to ban crucifixes before this gets out of hand. Churches have to go as well. Catholics all congregate there instead of integrating. This could lead to a very dangerous situation where they just have unprotected sex with each other and breed more dangerous Catholics. Ban churches and crucifixes ASAP.
Pornography Pornography to me is all about oppression of women and women being held down by various metal and leather implements. Of course, there are nice things to movies, but pornography is not it. All these porn stars and directors have their own niche markets and their own video awards. We've got to ban all these as well so they can integrate.
Hamburgers American culture is all about violence. The right to bear arms is written in the constitution. They also like to invade other countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam. of course, America is not ALL about violence, but it's better to get rid of the whole lot of them anyway. The trouble with Americans is that they won't stay in their own country, despite it being so big. They keep going to oither countries where they're not welcome. So we've got to ban hamburgers so all these fat Americans will not feel welcome and will go back to where they came from. Their culture of violence is not welcome anywhere in the world (except maybe Somalia).
Synagogues Hitler really should have wiped out the Jews. Did you know that Jewish women have to follow certain rules about behaviour? Judaism is obviously about oppressing women and has to be wiped out. I suppose things have changed now, but back then, in the 1940s, they should have been wiped out. You can't trust anyone to do anything right, honestly.
Damnit, thinking about all these people and cutlures and objects and motifs that should be destroyed is really making me mad. Grrrr... Makes me want to beat up some Muslims. I live in a multiracial country, I'm sure I can find one... oh look, there's one. Oh no, she's not wearing a veil, so she can't be Muslim. Because all Muslims wear veils, obviously.
I know that you're just saying this to exaggerate what has been said just to show these people how close-minded they're being, but for some strange reason, I find myself agreeing with many of these positions, even if it's only in principle.
It's to be expected. But the point is that disagreeing with one aspect of a system does not mean you can get rid of the entire system.
America may say, "we don't want honour killings here, that would be murder." But it will not say, "honour killings are a part of Islam, so we're banning any symbols of Islam here."
Likewise you might say, "we do not support civilians carrying arms, we ban that here." But that should not turn into "The right to bear arms is an American thing, therefore we ban all symbols of America."
It's the societies that are the most open and accepting that attract the most talent and improve the fastest, not those who close themsleves off from the rest of the world.
Even so, you cannot deny that radical Islam is a legitimate threat and the fears of people in Switzerland aren't completely unfounded, even if they may be somewhat misguided. Also, I believe that immigrants should abide by the desires of their hosts within reasonable bounds, if only to be good neighbors because they are guests. Banning minarets is different from banning mosques. It's similar to how schools ban du-rags, they aren't making a statement against black people in general, they are merely trying to combat the "gangster" image, even though the articles of clothing themselves don't hurt anyone. In any case, even if it is a misguided fear, the Muslims should be able to understand people's concerns, especially when the society they come from tend to be much more intolerant towards others.
On December 02 2009 16:07 Velr wrote:
It's the societies that are the most open and accepting that attract the most talent and improve the fastest, not those who close themsleves off from the rest of the world.
It's the societies that pay the most and let you do whatever the fuck you want in your privacy, nothing else... But dream on.
Agreed, the world is not as utopian as the way you put it, the Storyteller.
utopian? who's being utopian? you have, let's say, 4 billion people on earth. you make 1 billion of them feel unwelcome, not because of talent but because they're different. don't you think you're going to be at a disadvantage compared to a country that welcomes them all? that is america's competitive advantage - it welcomes everyone with talent. scientists, economists, professionals from all over the world work there and help the economy.
on a smaller scale, how long do you think a compan would last if it made women feel unwelcome? half its talent pool would vanish.
Nice argument. Except, throughout history, America has done its best to keep the number of immigrants low. When the Chinese were building the railroads, America put quotas on the number of people that can enter the country. It was called the Chinese Exclusion Act, and yes it means exactly what it says, unlike the Patriot Act. You act like countries don't have their own populations and that immigrants are necessary for a country to obtain talent. The thing is, people don't go to the most accepting country. They go where there are the best economic opportunities and possibilities for them to obtain work and maintain their families. America's competitive advantage is that it's rich. It has many natural resources, a strong economy, a stable government and a decent educational system (more or less). And it's not just the talented who are attracted, but the poor and ignorant as well, like many Mexicans who cross the border for jobs in construction or housekeeping because they know that they will earn more, despite an inability to speak English. Your exaggerated statements and blanket assumptions on huge scales are not only ridiculous, but have no basis in the real world. You aren't going to make a good point, nor are you going to impress others, just by saying billions of people if you just make huge assumptions in your hypothetical situations.
On December 02 2009 20:52 johanes wrote:
Ofcourse, you are right. Atheism isn't logical, it is basically belief too, just belivenig into the opposite. I was trying to argue wit his rank 1. deism 2. agnostism 3. atheism as it is clearly bad from logical point of view. Correctly it would be : 1 agnostism 2.+3. (on the same level) deism and atheism
No he's not. How is atheism not logical? It's the dismissal of religious beliefs simply by using logic. Atheism is not belief, it's the absence of belief, hence the "a" at the beginning of the world. An asexual person is not someone who basically has a different kind of sex. It's someone who is free or unaffected by sexuality.
On December 02 2009 23:08 The Storyteller wrote:
I didn't say they were allowing everyone to migrate, I said the migration policy is based on talent and not race or religion. The US doesn't say we don't want Muslims here, they say we don't need more unskilled labour because we have enough of that. But we'd like a shitload of bright people, thank you very much, and we don't care what their religion is.
You can't base your limited experience and assume that it applies it to other countries. The social situations are different and so is the culture in various countries. And migration isn't about talent, it's about all kinds of people in all different strata looking for opportunities. You're assuming that being open draws in talented and intelligent people, but this is a false, unsubstantiated assumption, especially since there are plenty of opportunities in companies based in other countries as well, which can be just as good, if not better, than opportunities provided in America or whatever country you want to argue in favor of. "who's being utopian" indeed.
Even so, you cannot deny that radical Islam is a legitimate threat and the fears of people in Switzerland aren't completely unfounded, even if they may be somewhat misguided. Also, I believe that immigrants should abide by the desires of their hosts within reasonable bounds, if only to be good neighbors because they are guests. Banning minarets is different from banning mosques. It's similar to how schools ban du-rags, they aren't making a statement against black people in general, they are merely trying to combat the "gangster" image, even though the articles of clothing themselves don't hurt anyone. In any case, even if it is a misguided fear, the Muslims should be able to understand people's concerns, especially when the society they come from tend to be much more intolerant towards others.
So the Muslims should just roll over and take injustices like this? Yes, obviously the banning of Minarets isn't the most drastic thing that could've happened, but the point is that it starts a slope that gets very slippery.
What exactly are minarets used for? How do they help Muslim practice their religion? They are just symbols for the greatness of their mosques. And they are kind of a way to shove their own culture in the face of everybody else.
(This has also basically nothing to do with the discussion on minarets) Oh, and about injustices... You do understand that many Muslim beliefs and values clash with Western values and often laws? Without wanting to stereotype anybody; you do understand that there are enough Muslims in Europe that practice at least some things that clash with laws or human rights as perceived by Western civilization?
So you would be okay with the ban of anything non-essential to key aspects of our lives... I don't buy that for a second. Your understanding of minarets is either juvenile or you're employing reductio ad absurdum to its fullest. Freedom of expression is as much a right as freedom to choose one's religion. Even if you as a person don't agree with that, I would be incredibly surprised if the government of Switzerland didn't. Furthermore I bet you'd be extremely outraged if you weren't allowed to buy/wear the kinds of clothes you wanted because your government told all of its citizens that they had to wear orange jumpsuits.
Normally, I wouldn't bother to make a response to your comment since QibingZero already has. But I just wanted to ask you if you feel more important, more intelligent or just overly great in general when using latin expressions that have no relation to whatsoever that has been written so far? Can you please show me what proposition I am trying to refute and what logically absurd consequence I have reached??? Or at least explain to me how someone can prove a personal perception? If you cannot answer to any of the last two questions please take a look at the following Reductio ad absurdum and then give it another try to answer my questions...
And concerning my "juvenile understanding". I would also ask you to review my comments so far (starting on page 24). So you could see what I dislike about minarets...
Even so, you cannot deny that radical Islam is a legitimate threat and the fears of people in Switzerland aren't completely unfounded, even if they may be somewhat misguided. Also, I believe that immigrants should abide by the desires of their hosts within reasonable bounds, if only to be good neighbors because they are guests. Banning minarets is different from banning mosques. It's similar to how schools ban du-rags, they aren't making a statement against black people in general, they are merely trying to combat the "gangster" image, even though the articles of clothing themselves don't hurt anyone. In any case, even if it is a misguided fear, the Muslims should be able to understand people's concerns, especially when the society they come from tend to be much more intolerant towards others.
So the Muslims should just roll over and take injustices like this? Yes, obviously the banning of Minarets isn't the most drastic thing that could've happened, but the point is that it starts a slope that gets very slippery.
What exactly are minarets used for? How do they help Muslim practice their religion? They are just symbols for the greatness of their mosques. And they are kind of a way to shove their own culture in the face of everybody else.
(This has also basically nothing to do with the discussion on minarets) Oh, and about injustices... You do understand that many Muslim beliefs and values clash with Western values and often laws? Without wanting to stereotype anybody; you do understand that there are enough Muslims in Europe that practice at least some things that clash with laws or human rights as perceived by Western civilization?
So you would be okay with the ban of anything non-essential to key aspects of our lives... I don't buy that for a second. Your understanding of minarets is either juvenile or you're employing reductio ad absurdum to its fullest. Freedom of expression is as much a right as freedom to choose one's religion. Even if you as a person don't agree with that, I would be incredibly surprised if the government of Switzerland didn't. Furthermore I bet you'd be extremely outraged if you weren't allowed to buy/wear the kinds of clothes you wanted because your government told all of its citizens that they had to wear orange jumpsuits.
Man, that's troublesome. I mean, the fact I can't build my own personal tower with 'Fuck You' etched into the side in huge letters limits my freedom of expression. I should complain!
You see, that's just as crazy an idea as your slippery slope argument is. Governments have been limiting what and where we can build for years. Some of it might have gone too far, but to compare it to making all citizens wear orange jumpsuits is just ridiculous.
I concede that perhaps I went too far with the orange jumpsuit analogy, but you can't possibly believe that a "personal fuck you tower" is equivalent in any capacity to minarets given their sociocultural value. Yes federal limits on freedom of expression is a reality, but that doesn't have any bearing on where we should set those limits. Obviously a finite set of restrictions does not give credence to all limits on freedom of expression.
On November 30 2009 10:40 gchan wrote: ghostWriter, the Jews were prosecuted because they were conveniently available and passive for the Nazis. Did Hitler really hate Jews? Possibly. But, Jews fit into the paradigm a lot more because the country needed a scapegoat, a source of easy labor, and cheap capital from looting. The propaganda may have indicated it was for religious reasons (although that is doubtful in itself--I'd argue that it was geared towards nationalistic motivations), but the reason why Nazis tolerated it was because of the practicality of persecuting Jews more than anything else.
The theoretical basis for persecution of Jews was placed on their possession of certain racial traits which weaken the internal cohesion of the national organism. Hitler argued in Mein Kampf that Jews were primarily to be seen race and not as a religion. In the late-war, he even mentioned that the Jews were not even a biological "race," but a spiritual one. One can dismiss any economic motive behind the persecutions. In its modern incarnation, anti-semitism could not be properly understood without considering the phenomenon of romantic nationalism. Even there, qualifications remain which are historical and national: Fascist Italy embraced many Jewish fascist party members.
The qualification for being categorized as a Jew in the Third Reich was anyone more than 50% Jewish by blood, or 50% Jewish plus one of a number of conditions, the most important of which was marriage to a Jew, minus anyone endowed with certificates of Aryanization.
In treatment, differentiation was made between regular Jews, and Jewish veterans of WW1, who were accorded better treatment. In addition, Mischlings of the first degree were treated as Jews except for those married to a non-Jew.
It's not appropriate to compare anti-semitism with anti-arabism; modern anti-semites despise Jews not because they are unadaptable, but because of their shifty cultural adaptability.
Oh I didn't even see that post, gchan, I'm well aware of why Jews were persecuted before and during World War 2. I am familiar with Hitler's attempt to scapegoat the Jews as the reason why the Germans lost the Great War in his book Mein Kampf, and helped consolidate his power during the rise of the Nazi party in Germany. However, this has nothing to do with Switzerland or Minarets and it's something that's taught in any history class that covers the 20th century. In any case, it's not even like the Jews were the only ones who suffered, many people with disabilities, homosexuals, gypsies, Soviets, etc. were killed as well.
The big truth is that anyone that wouldve voted against minaret construction is a racist fuck that is hiding behind "Islam is evil" while in fact :
1) he doesn't know shit about Islam
2) he just dislikes any arab typed person.
I can safely guarantee that over 98% of people concerned by this saying this is not true are liars.
This votation was and will always ever be ONLY ABOUT BEEING RACIST.
Actual laws already protect citizens from anything bad a religion can do.
You beat your wife ? You go to jail. You force someone to do something against his will ? You go to jail. You publicy advocate violence or anything close ? You go to jail. Excision ? You go to jail.
Anyone thinking charia is soon to show up in Europe is retarded.
Any form of it will be tracked down and annihilated with legal means, because we already have devices against any religious barbarism (for instance).
As for the astounding racism this thread displayed undercover of "Barbaric religion bashing", I guess it can't be helped, but anyhow, racist people don't deserve nay help =[
edit : and same goes for religous persons in my opinion.
The big truth is that anyone that wouldve voted against minaret construction is a racist fuck that is hiding behind "Islam is evil" while in fact :
1) he doesn't know shit about Islam
2) he just dislikes any arab typed person.
I can safely guarantee that over 98% of people concerned by this saying this is not true are liars.
This votation was and will always ever be ONLY ABOUT BEEING RACIST.
Actual laws already protect citizens from anything bad a religion can do.
You beat your wife ? You go to jail. You force someone to do something against his will ? You go to jail. You publicy advocate violence or anything close ? You go to jail. Excision ? You go to jail.
Anyone thinking charia is soon to show up in Europe is retarded.
Any form of it will be tracked down and annihilated with legal means, because we already have devices against any religious barbarism (for instance).
As for the astounding racism this thread displayed undercover of "Barbaric religion bashing", I guess it can't be helped, but anyhow, racist people don't deserve nay help =[
edit : and same goes for religous persons in my opinion.
The idea of many people must not be "Islam is evil". It's more like "People that totally disrespect my culture and don't give a shit about the values of my country should not try to shove the symbols of greatness of their religion in everybody's face". This claim surely is not true for all Muslims, but there is a fair amount of Muslims, who actually fit into this kind of stereotype. And even worse: the ones that do fit in it try to spread their views to as many people as possible.
And honestly the European Union has in common (besides everything else) a shared view on cultural values. Why would you even want to live in Europe if you oppose those values? I am not saying that foreigners should f*ck off, but they should at least TRY to understand European values and at least TRY to fit into society and not just stubbornly close off themselves from the outer world and complain about being discriminated against.
Actual laws already protect citizens from anything bad a religion can do.
"You beat your wife ? You go to jail." And who will ever complain to make you go to jail, if your wife that has been "imported" (as a good without ever having the right to say something against it) from some village in the near East twenty years ago and does not speak the local language at all, because she basically never gets out of the house, endures everything, because that's the way she is brought up? Maybe your childeren that you have passed on your mentality from early age on? Maybe the community that you live in that has the exactly same views as you do?
"You force someone to do something against his will ? You go to jail." Yeah really? When nobody complains about it, because they think that they have to endure their situation or they are just to afraid to complain or they simply know that they will be completely on their own if they complain, then nobody will make you go to jail. Best example are victims of human traffic, who are abused as prostitutes for years, because they are far to afraid to ever try to escape and anyhow have no idea where they can seek help.
"You publicy advocate violence or anything close ? You go to jail." You think so? You hold your "speeches" in front of a group of people, who do have the same views as you. Why the hell should they make you go to jail?
However, I must admit that the voting in Switzerland did have a racist origin. It was initiated by a nationalist and racist party. However, I cannot imagine that all (not even a quarter) of the people who backed the vote are racists...
The big truth is that anyone that wouldve voted against minaret construction is a racist fuck that is hiding behind "Islam is evil" while in fact :
1) he doesn't know shit about Islam
2) he just dislikes any arab typed person.
I can safely guarantee that over 98% of people concerned by this saying this is not true are liars.
This votation was and will always ever be ONLY ABOUT BEEING RACIST.
Actual laws already protect citizens from anything bad a religion can do.
You beat your wife ? You go to jail. You force someone to do something against his will ? You go to jail. You publicy advocate violence or anything close ? You go to jail. Excision ? You go to jail.
Anyone thinking charia is soon to show up in Europe is retarded.
Any form of it will be tracked down and annihilated with legal means, because we already have devices against any religious barbarism (for instance).
As for the astounding racism this thread displayed undercover of "Barbaric religion bashing", I guess it can't be helped, but anyhow, racist people don't deserve nay help =[
edit : and same goes for religous persons in my opinion.
The idea of many people must not be "Islam is evil". It's more like "People that totally disrespect my culture and don't give a shit about the values of my country should not try to shove the symbols of greatness of their religion in everybody's face". This claim surely is not true for all Muslims, but there is a fair amount of Muslims, who actually fit into this kind of stereotype. And even worse: the ones that do fit in it try to spread their views to as many people as possible.
And honestly the European Union has in common (besides everything else) a shared view on cultural values. Why would you even want to live in Europe if you oppose those values? I am not saying that foreigners should f*ck off, but they should at least TRY to understand European values and at least TRY to fit into society and not just stubbornly close off themselves from the outer world and complain about being discriminated against.
Actual laws already protect citizens from anything bad a religion can do.
"You beat your wife ? You go to jail." And who will ever complain to make you go to jail, if your wife that has been "imported" (as a good without ever having the right to say something against it) from some village in the near East twenty years ago and does not speak the local language at all, because she basically never gets out of the house, endures everything, because that's the way she is brought up? Maybe your childeren that you have passed on your mentality from early age on? Maybe the community that you live in that has the exactly same views as you do?
"You force someone to do something against his will ? You go to jail." Yeah really? When nobody complains about it, because they think that they have to endure their situation or they are just to afraid to complain or they simply know that they will be completely on their own if they complain, then nobody will make you go to jail. Best example are victims of human traffic, who are abused as prostitutes for years, because they are far to afraid to ever try to escape and anyhow have no idea where they can seek help.
"You publicy advocate violence or anything close ? You go to jail." You think so? You hold your "speeches" in front of a group of people, who do have the same views as you. Why the hell should they make you go to jail?
However, I must admit that the voting in Switzerland did have a racist origin. It was initiated by a nationalist and racist party. However, I cannot imagine that all (not even a quarter) of the people who backed the vote are racists...
You'd be really surprised.
I'm living in Paris and my friend in Belgium and I can assure you that racism towards arab looking people is WAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYY older than any of the current debates about Islam.
There has been alot of islamic terrorism in france and algeria (still is) before, but back then, never the medias would stereotype muslim migrants as potential terrorists like today.
I'm not denying Islamic terrorism very much evolved since the 80's but somehow, it wasn't linked to people. It was Islamic terrorism.
But what is very very sad, is that, every single low paid work nobody ever would want to do in France, is done by migrants and if these people weren't coming to our country, we wouldn't be able to construct any building for instance =[
As a arabian typed person in france, unless you hold very high degrees, you will be regarded as shit and will struggle to no end for :
Renting an appartement Finding a job outside mc donalds / H&M Actually getting the minimal civic respect from police
I lived in a family from pakistan about 3 months, also, as a teenager, I ended up in the shittiest ghetto high school you could ever picture, and most of my friends from high school and onwards were muslim.
The way medias picture Islam is very very very targeted and very specific, it tries to make people bielive that Charia is applied within most of muslim migrant families (they shouldn't even be called migrants, since these families have been French for more than 50 years now..................)
I witnessed sheep kill in bathrooms (yes that exists =[) I hated every single second of it. I hated the fact that many mothers of my friends couldn't even read or write and were almost like animals in cages, most of you will never be able to imagine in what kind of conditions poor migrant families were put to live by the very country they came to.
Oh and btw, if you think Hardcore right winged men actually give a damn about women's condition, I'm sorry for you.
The people that made this votation possible and the basic Islamic middle east macho prolly have much more in common than they would ever imagine.....
Muslims in Europe do not exist. They aren't muslisms. They are citizens and no citizen should be discriminated because of his confession, his race or his gender.
If they're so concerned about Islam's dangers, maybe they should start considering to invest money to give a proper home and a proper republican and critic education to people that need it the most.
Btw these same people that don't want Minarets are the same that don't want :
homosexuals free thinkers equality between genders right of free speech
I'm pretty sure that these politicians are what is the closest to the overall atmosphere of hate that allowed Nazism to exterminate 6 millions persons.
I think that from all the countries in europe it is the most dirty country because of their bank secrecy politics. Also they never participated in any of the WWs and put themselves apart from troubles (also letting the nazis invade france thru their country). I consider that high treason. Now this... seriously, Switzerland is getting a really bad image with this kind of stuff.
I just hope there aren't going to be any terrorist incidents after this voting :/
On December 02 2009 02:02 old times sake wrote: I have already made my response to this topic on page 20-21 or so, but I would like to add that koreasilver should not simply come by and say "point X is nonsense." That's not an argument, and it's not like serious, educated authorities don't argue for point X (point X being "religion and science are incompatible", but that's beside the point).
To dismiss a reputable point as nonsense with no other reason given is trolling, flame baiting, and topic derailing. It baits people like me to then ask him to back up this claim, at which point he will probably offer flimsy reasons or try to turn the burden of proof on me. Next, I'm either taking pot shots at his reasons which he can accuse of being semantics, OR I'm offering my own reasons for a position that is completely off topic, OR we bicker over whom the burden of proof is on and who said what. And I'm okay with doing this, but why not do it in a new thread about this very new dispute? Why add "are religion and science incompatible?" to THIS topic, about whether governments should ban minarets?
You can see how this kind of thing would "steal" the topic, so really, hold your tongue until you are willing to research the topic and give reasons for the position on it you take--if you did that you would not make an "Not X, cause it's nonsense"-style argument.
Since when were blanket statements reputable in any way? The divergences from the topic were generally not initiated by me either, I have just simply been replying to whatever statements that have been said in this thread that suggest that religion is the problem
The discussion of the compatibility of religion and science was also not brought up by me. Beats me why they brought that to the dinner table.
Ugh. I'm very disappointed in you. Your response to my quoted post was to:
1. Say, via rhetorical question, that "blanket statements are not reputable in anyway", implying that this is what I said. What I said was that the claim that "religion and science are incompatible" has serious, educated authorities backing it, and that, as it stands in the current discourse, it is a "reputable point." Again, you did not dispute any of these claims which are easily researchable, but instead made a "blanket statement" about "blanket statements." Furthermore, what you lead the discussion to with this method is bickering about what is and isn't a "blanket statement" worthy of instant disrepute. You did not give us any reasons to put the point I mentioned into this category, nor any reasons to believe that we ought dismiss all items in that category. You basically gave us two new unsupported things to bicker about, which is _exactly_ what I was complaining about in the first post I was responding to (you were calling things nonsense without any additional support). You took what I claimed was wrong with your original post, and committed the same sin two more times, not to mention contradicting yourself.
2. It doesn't matter who first brought up the subject, because the complaint is that you were dismissing it outright by calling it "nonsense,"--do you deny that this is a horrible move, or do you have something additional to say to defend it, besides changing the subject and starting two additional debates (see above)? Was "X is nonsense" a good reply in your case or not? I have argued that it was not, and your response was to basically do the same thing in a new form--two additional times. For my feelings on this, see my initial post (quoted above).
Barring a miraculous explanation on your part, shame on you!
The big truth is that anyone that wouldve voted against minaret construction is a racist fuck that is hiding behind "Islam is evil" while in fact :
1) he doesn't know shit about Islam
2) he just dislikes any arab typed person.
I can safely guarantee that over 98% of people concerned by this saying this is not true are liars.
This votation was and will always ever be ONLY ABOUT BEEING RACIST.
Actual laws already protect citizens from anything bad a religion can do.
You beat your wife ? You go to jail. You force someone to do something against his will ? You go to jail. You publicy advocate violence or anything close ? You go to jail. Excision ? You go to jail.
Anyone thinking charia is soon to show up in Europe is retarded.
Any form of it will be tracked down and annihilated with legal means, because we already have devices against any religious barbarism (for instance).
As for the astounding racism this thread displayed undercover of "Barbaric religion bashing", I guess it can't be helped, but anyhow, racist people don't deserve nay help =[
edit : and same goes for religous persons in my opinion.
The idea of many people must not be "Islam is evil". It's more like "People that totally disrespect my culture and don't give a shit about the values of my country should not try to shove the symbols of greatness of their religion in everybody's face". This claim surely is not true for all Muslims, but there is a fair amount of Muslims, who actually fit into this kind of stereotype. And even worse: the ones that do fit in it try to spread their views to as many people as possible.
And honestly the European Union has in common (besides everything else) a shared view on cultural values. Why would you even want to live in Europe if you oppose those values? I am not saying that foreigners should f*ck off, but they should at least TRY to understand European values and at least TRY to fit into society and not just stubbornly close off themselves from the outer world and complain about being discriminated against.
Actual laws already protect citizens from anything bad a religion can do.
"You beat your wife ? You go to jail." And who will ever complain to make you go to jail, if your wife that has been "imported" (as a good without ever having the right to say something against it) from some village in the near East twenty years ago and does not speak the local language at all, because she basically never gets out of the house, endures everything, because that's the way she is brought up? Maybe your childeren that you have passed on your mentality from early age on? Maybe the community that you live in that has the exactly same views as you do?
"You force someone to do something against his will ? You go to jail." Yeah really? When nobody complains about it, because they think that they have to endure their situation or they are just to afraid to complain or they simply know that they will be completely on their own if they complain, then nobody will make you go to jail. Best example are victims of human traffic, who are abused as prostitutes for years, because they are far to afraid to ever try to escape and anyhow have no idea where they can seek help.
"You publicy advocate violence or anything close ? You go to jail." You think so? You hold your "speeches" in front of a group of people, who do have the same views as you. Why the hell should they make you go to jail?
However, I must admit that the voting in Switzerland did have a racist origin. It was initiated by a nationalist and racist party. However, I cannot imagine that all (not even a quarter) of the people who backed the vote are racists...
You'd be really surprised.
I'm living in Paris and my friend in Belgium and I can assure you that racism towards arab looking people is WAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYY older than any of the current debates about Islam.
There has been alot of islamic terrorism in france and algeria (still is) before, but back then, never the medias would stereotype muslim migrants as potential terrorists like today.
I'm not denying Islamic terrorism very much evolved since the 80's but somehow, it wasn't linked to people. It was Islamic terrorism.
But what is very very sad, is that, every single low paid work nobody ever would want to do in France, is done by migrants and if these people weren't coming to our country, we wouldn't be able to construct any building for instance =[
As a arabian typed person in france, unless you hold very high degrees, you will be regarded as shit and will struggle to no end for :
Renting an appartement Finding a job outside mc donalds / H&M Actually getting the minimal civic respect from police
I lived in a family from pakistan about 3 months, also, as a teenager, I ended up in the shittiest ghetto high school you could ever picture, and most of my friends from high school and onwards were muslim.
The way medias picture Islam is very very very targeted and very specific, it tries to make people bielive that Charia is applied within most of muslim migrant families (they shouldn't even be called migrants, since these families have been French for more than 50 years now..................)
I witnessed sheep kill in bathrooms (yes that exists =[) I hated every single second of it. I hated the fact that many mothers of my friends couldn't even read or write and were almost like animals in cages, most of you will never be able to imagine in what kind of conditions poor migrant families were put to live by the very country they came to.
Oh and btw, if you think Hardcore right winged men actually give a damn about women's condition, I'm sorry for you.
The people that made this votation possible and the basic Islamic middle east macho prolly have much more in common than they would ever imagine.....
Muslims in Europe do not exist. They aren't muslisms. They are citizens and no citizen should be discriminated because of his confession, his race or his gender.
If they're so concerned about Islam's dangers, maybe they should start considering to invest money to give a proper home and a proper republican and critic education to people that need it the most.
Btw these same people that don't want Minarets are the same that don't want :
homosexuals free thinkers equality between genders right of free speech
I'm pretty sure that these politicians are what is the closest to the overall atmosphere of hate that allowed Nazism to exterminate 6 millions persons.
Actually, a terrorost threat is my smallest concern. It's more of my disapproval of many Muslims' refusal to accept Western values.
I've never been to France to know how Arabs there are treated. But I do know how they are treated in Germany. As long as you do not live in some god-forgotten village you will encounter tolerant and understanding people in Germany. The racism Arab's and Muslims in general have to face in German cities is the same racism that Asians, Africans, Latin Americans and East Europeans have to face and is limited to a few old bittered retards that still wish that Germany would have won WWII. From what I've seen Arabs and Muslims are barely more discriminated against than any other minority in Germany and even have (almost) the same chances as every German to get a job.
The way medias picture Islam is very very very targeted and very specific, it tries to make people bielive that Charia is applied within most of muslim migrant families (they shouldn't even be called migrants, since these families have been French for more than 50 years now..................)
I witnessed sheep kill in bathrooms (yes that exists =[) I hated every single second of it. I hated the fact that many mothers of my friends couldn't even read or write and were almost like animals in cages, most of you will never be able to imagine in what kind of conditions poor migrant families were put to live by the very country they came to.
Yes, they shouldn't be called migrants after living in a specific country for 50 years. But what do you call someone that does not know the local language, that does not interact with anybody outside his own foreign community and completely denies to accept the local culture and values? In Germany there even exist a term "third/forth generation immigrant". That's kids, whose grandparents or even grand-grandparents come from another country. These kids cannot speak German and do not want to interact with Germans (or immigrants from other countries for that matter).
Muslims in Europe do not exist. They aren't muslisms. They are citizens and no citizen should be discriminated because of his confession, his race or his gender.
This is the way in should be. But I ask: What do you call someone that lives in Europe but denies the principles and values of the society he lives in, someone that basically denies to be a part of society?
If they're so concerned about Islam's dangers, maybe they should start considering to invest money to give a proper home and a proper republican and critic education to people that need it the most.
At least in Germany they do try! But you cannot force someone to receive "republican and critic education" if this person does not want to.
All my further comments are based on personal experience, thus they are irrelevant for any discussion, but are here to show you why you shall beware of stereotyping people
Btw these same people that don't want Minarets are the same that don't want :
"homosexuals" - One of my best friends is gay. And while I have no interest to know what he does in his bedroom, I don't mind what he does and our friendship is not disrupted by his sexual disposition "free thinkers" - This is a pretty wide description, but I do not see myself as anybody that is opposed to new ideas in any way. "equality between genders" - Yeah, I totally agree that my single mother should continue to receive less than any man at the place she works... "right of free speech" - Why the hell does the government even allow TL.net to exist since almost every thread here is obviously full of shit?
On December 04 2009 14:19 ggrrg wrote: This is the way in should be. But I ask: What do you call someone that lives in Europe but denies the principles and values of the society he lives in, someone that basically denies to be a part of society?
This post is fairly ironic to me since a lot, if not even most, people in for example Sweden would say the exact same thing about Bulgarians, or eastern europeans in general. "They are poorly educated, beat their wifes, refuse to assimilate or even get real jobs, they form gangs and shoot people on our streets". Is generally how it goes. I would guess you disagree fairly strongly with the above statements? Just think about that, and think about how valid perceptions and prejudices actually are =p
The big truth is that anyone that wouldve voted against minaret construction is a racist fuck that is hiding behind "Islam is evil" while in fact :
1) he doesn't know shit about Islam
2) he just dislikes any arab typed person.
I can safely guarantee that over 98% of people concerned by this saying this is not true are liars.
This votation was and will always ever be ONLY ABOUT BEEING RACIST.
Actual laws already protect citizens from anything bad a religion can do.
You beat your wife ? You go to jail. You force someone to do something against his will ? You go to jail. You publicy advocate violence or anything close ? You go to jail. Excision ? You go to jail.
Anyone thinking charia is soon to show up in Europe is retarded.
Any form of it will be tracked down and annihilated with legal means, because we already have devices against any religious barbarism (for instance).
As for the astounding racism this thread displayed undercover of "Barbaric religion bashing", I guess it can't be helped, but anyhow, racist people don't deserve nay help =[
edit : and same goes for religous persons in my opinion.
The idea of many people must not be "Islam is evil". It's more like "People that totally disrespect my culture and don't give a shit about the values of my country should not try to shove the symbols of greatness of their religion in everybody's face". This claim surely is not true for all Muslims, but there is a fair amount of Muslims, who actually fit into this kind of stereotype. And even worse: the ones that do fit in it try to spread their views to as many people as possible.
And honestly the European Union has in common (besides everything else) a shared view on cultural values. Why would you even want to live in Europe if you oppose those values? I am not saying that foreigners should f*ck off, but they should at least TRY to understand European values and at least TRY to fit into society and not just stubbornly close off themselves from the outer world and complain about being discriminated against.
Actual laws already protect citizens from anything bad a religion can do.
"You beat your wife ? You go to jail." And who will ever complain to make you go to jail, if your wife that has been "imported" (as a good without ever having the right to say something against it) from some village in the near East twenty years ago and does not speak the local language at all, because she basically never gets out of the house, endures everything, because that's the way she is brought up? Maybe your childeren that you have passed on your mentality from early age on? Maybe the community that you live in that has the exactly same views as you do?
"You force someone to do something against his will ? You go to jail." Yeah really? When nobody complains about it, because they think that they have to endure their situation or they are just to afraid to complain or they simply know that they will be completely on their own if they complain, then nobody will make you go to jail. Best example are victims of human traffic, who are abused as prostitutes for years, because they are far to afraid to ever try to escape and anyhow have no idea where they can seek help.
"You publicy advocate violence or anything close ? You go to jail." You think so? You hold your "speeches" in front of a group of people, who do have the same views as you. Why the hell should they make you go to jail?
However, I must admit that the voting in Switzerland did have a racist origin. It was initiated by a nationalist and racist party. However, I cannot imagine that all (not even a quarter) of the people who backed the vote are racists...
You'd be really surprised.
I'm living in Paris and my friend in Belgium and I can assure you that racism towards arab looking people is WAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYY older than any of the current debates about Islam.
There has been alot of islamic terrorism in france and algeria (still is) before, but back then, never the medias would stereotype muslim migrants as potential terrorists like today.
I'm not denying Islamic terrorism very much evolved since the 80's but somehow, it wasn't linked to people. It was Islamic terrorism.
But what is very very sad, is that, every single low paid work nobody ever would want to do in France, is done by migrants and if these people weren't coming to our country, we wouldn't be able to construct any building for instance =[
As a arabian typed person in france, unless you hold very high degrees, you will be regarded as shit and will struggle to no end for :
Renting an appartement Finding a job outside mc donalds / H&M Actually getting the minimal civic respect from police
I lived in a family from pakistan about 3 months, also, as a teenager, I ended up in the shittiest ghetto high school you could ever picture, and most of my friends from high school and onwards were muslim.
The way medias picture Islam is very very very targeted and very specific, it tries to make people bielive that Charia is applied within most of muslim migrant families (they shouldn't even be called migrants, since these families have been French for more than 50 years now..................)
I witnessed sheep kill in bathrooms (yes that exists =[) I hated every single second of it. I hated the fact that many mothers of my friends couldn't even read or write and were almost like animals in cages, most of you will never be able to imagine in what kind of conditions poor migrant families were put to live by the very country they came to.
Oh and btw, if you think Hardcore right winged men actually give a damn about women's condition, I'm sorry for you.
The people that made this votation possible and the basic Islamic middle east macho prolly have much more in common than they would ever imagine.....
Muslims in Europe do not exist. They aren't muslisms. They are citizens and no citizen should be discriminated because of his confession, his race or his gender.
If they're so concerned about Islam's dangers, maybe they should start considering to invest money to give a proper home and a proper republican and critic education to people that need it the most.
Btw these same people that don't want Minarets are the same that don't want :
homosexuals free thinkers equality between genders right of free speech
I'm pretty sure that these politicians are what is the closest to the overall atmosphere of hate that allowed Nazism to exterminate 6 millions persons.
Actually, a terrorost threat is my smallest concern. It's more of my disapproval of many Muslims' refusal to accept Western values.
I've never been to France to know how Arabs there are treated. But I do know how they are treated in Germany. As long as you do not live in some god-forgotten village you will encounter tolerant and understanding people in Germany. The racism Arab's and Muslims in general have to face in German cities is the same racism that Asians, Africans, Latin Americans and East Europeans have to face and is limited to a few old bittered retards that still wish that Germany would have won WWII. From what I've seen Arabs and Muslims are barely more discriminated against than any other minority in Germany and even have (almost) the same chances as every German to get a job.
The way medias picture Islam is very very very targeted and very specific, it tries to make people bielive that Charia is applied within most of muslim migrant families (they shouldn't even be called migrants, since these families have been French for more than 50 years now..................)
I witnessed sheep kill in bathrooms (yes that exists =[) I hated every single second of it. I hated the fact that many mothers of my friends couldn't even read or write and were almost like animals in cages, most of you will never be able to imagine in what kind of conditions poor migrant families were put to live by the very country they came to.
Yes, they shouldn't be called migrants after living in a specific country for 50 years. But what do you call someone that does not know the local language, that does not interact with anybody outside his own foreign community and completely denies to accept the local culture and values? In Germany there even exist a term "third/forth generation immigrant". That's kids, whose grandparents or even grand-grandparents come from another country. These kids cannot speak German and do not want to interact with Germans (or immigrants from other countries for that matter).
Muslims in Europe do not exist. They aren't muslisms. They are citizens and no citizen should be discriminated because of his confession, his race or his gender.
This is the way in should be. But I ask: What do you call someone that lives in Europe but denies the principles and values of the society he lives in, someone that basically denies to be a part of society?
If they're so concerned about Islam's dangers, maybe they should start considering to invest money to give a proper home and a proper republican and critic education to people that need it the most.
At least in Germany they do try! But you cannot force someone to receive "republican and critic education" if this person does not want to.
All my further comments are based on personal experience, thus they are irrelevant for any discussion, but are here to show you why you shall beware of stereotyping people
Btw these same people that don't want Minarets are the same that don't want :
"homosexuals" - One of my best friends is gay. And while I have no interest to know what he does in his bedroom, I don't mind what he does and our friendship is not disrupted by his sexual disposition "free thinkers" - This is a pretty wide description, but I do not see myself as anybody that is opposed to new ideas in any way. "equality between genders" - Yeah, I totally agree that my single mother should continue to receive less than any man at the place she works... "right of free speech" - Why the hell does the government even allow TL.net to exist since almost every thread here is obviously full of shit?
You really don't get it. All the points you are debating never ever reach that kind of level of thought.
Do you think voters in switzerland went through the same process than you ? Do you think they actually thought and discussed all that before casting their vote ?
We are here talking about stupidity on a very large scale of the population.
Moreover what Klackson wrote is right to the point.
Most of western countries inhabitants (old ones especially) hold a very heavy racist grudge against any foreigner that isn't white with blue eyes.
What you fail to picture is the social type of the persons that actually voted this ban. Would you be able to, I'm pretty sure you would'nt want to be acquainted through your vote with any of those =[
They don't want to ban Islam, they want to ban Middle east typed people from their country.
It's too bad you can't understand french and can't read all the switzerland / french news and papers on the topic they would enlighten you.
"The whole pakistani family is going to pakistan for vacation. There the children get married to some strangers. After the marriage (maybe 2 to 3 years) the kids come back. This is done to provide a residence authorization to the husband f.e."
In such cases a clear violation of a law (no forced marriage) is not persecuted at all, so stop talking bullshit.
Also stop telling that ppl in Switzerland dont debate a lot before going to vote. I have first hand information as I'm actually swiss and able to vote and I discussed a shitload of times about this exact issue with yes and no voters. Yes voters are not generally racists, they get along with many races mostly they hate "jugos" which aren't even moslems that often. I really played with the thought to vote yes on that one (instead of showing protest against such ridiculous votes with not voting at all) and im not racist for sure as I was always hanging with all kind of ethnicies and even helping them to stay in switzerland when the government wanted to send them back to albania. so fuck your stereotype idiotic view.
On December 05 2009 01:10 Boonbag wrote: Most of western countries inhabitants (old ones especially) hold a very heavy racist grudge against any foreigner that isn't white with blue eyes.
Racism it never going away as long as people keep believing everything they are told on tv without checking any facts.
What do you call someone that lives in Europe but denies the principles and values of the society he lives in, someone that basically denies to be a part of society?
Things like this are quite odd in the round about way it defames a group people. "denies the principles and values of the society he lives in"; the principles and values of the west are not different from Islam if you check and see what they really are. People will say its its about wife beating, no rights for women, homosexual bashing and so forth but when you actually check those things are outlawed other then homosexuality isn't allowed and only in countries where its the law of the land. When in another country you have to abide by its laws. In Islam women have more then equal rights as in Islam as men are duty bound to support the family if they can, but if a woman can work then she is free to do so and the man can stay at home and raise the kids. If a man hits a woman he goes to hell too so I don't even get what thats about but that is something that happens all over the world in every group of people at least a person of a faith has an extra reason not to do it other then common sense.
And calling groups "Islamist" when they break the actual laws of Islam is just simple propaganda hate inciting by association but it doesn't stop every news station from saying it and making people in turn think it blindly. They may want to call themselves or even believe they are following Islam but they aren't they are just crazy people plain and simple which is obvious in how irrational they are in targeting innocent people. Those people are so far from Islam they lose the right to use its name but the spread of hate for political reasons bashs an entire faith because of what crazy people claiming they are off that faith are doing.
Also what is modern day Western Culture? Is it what people do is there culture? Or is it all about buildings? What people do is work, hang out with friends and such and I don't see what other then the fact that western people drink alcohol is different. Thats probably a major part of western culture just drinking but its not something that bothers anyone other then when people are drunk and that bothers everyone. If its buildings then why are all new buildings in all in new modern style and not in olden historic styles? All the modern style buildings seem go against the local style of churchs and old buildings too so they are wrong also?
On December 04 2009 14:19 ggrrg wrote: This is the way in should be. But I ask: What do you call someone that lives in Europe but denies the principles and values of the society he lives in, someone that basically denies to be a part of society?
This post is fairly ironic to me since a lot, if not even most, people in for example Sweden would say the exact same thing about Bulgarians, or eastern europeans in general. "They are poorly educated, beat their wifes, refuse to assimilate or even get real jobs, they form gangs and shoot people on our streets". Is generally how it goes. I would guess you disagree fairly strongly with the above statements? Just think about that, and think about how valid perceptions and prejudices actually are =p
Actually, I fairly strongly agree with the statements above. Fact is the majority of people, who come from Bulgaria (or any other Eastern European country as far as I know) can be put in the groups: There are the very poor people that have no education at all, who hope (often enough they are actually getting ripped of by human smugglers by being deceived to think) that West Europe is a paradise and after reaching any Western country their lives will change dramatically. And just like many other poor communities violence and crime thrive in there. The second major group of Eastern immigrants are the ones that upon finishing high school, go to a Western university with the intention to stay there and find good jobs after getting their degrees. Now the question is why do Swedes (and other Western people) stereotype all Bulgarians based only on the first group? I strongly believe the reason is because they do have a much weaker perception of the second group simply because this group does not stand out. This group does not draw attention in any positive or negative way. It basically merges with the local population -> it has pretty much succeeded in integration. I believe this is pretty similar to the situation of Muslims in Europe. (And although most Muslims stand out in the crowd more than Eastern Europeans) I think that there are a lot of Muslims, who have learned to fit into society, who have learned to live with society here. And there is also the other group that for one or another reason sturggles to become integrated. And although I see that the poor and non-educated people (be it Muslims or Bulgarians or whatever) struggle to integrate often enough for reason that are not their fault, I still do not think that we should allow them to create a parallel society or impose their values on the whole society.
By the way, the situation of most Bulgarian immigrants is quite different from the situation of Turkish people in Germany that I am complaining about. These Bulgarians have immigrated just recently while many Turks in Germany are already in the third generation here and still want to seclude themselves. I do not know how good this Bulgarians will have integrated in 50 years, but fact is most Turks in Germany have failed badly in integrating and I do not think that it would become any better if they continue to build more bigger and greater mosques in Germany (actually I am pretty sure that it will be contraproductive).
The big truth is that anyone that wouldve voted against minaret construction is a racist fuck that is hiding behind "Islam is evil" while in fact :
1) he doesn't know shit about Islam
2) he just dislikes any arab typed person.
I can safely guarantee that over 98% of people concerned by this saying this is not true are liars.
This votation was and will always ever be ONLY ABOUT BEEING RACIST.
Actual laws already protect citizens from anything bad a religion can do.
You beat your wife ? You go to jail. You force someone to do something against his will ? You go to jail. You publicy advocate violence or anything close ? You go to jail. Excision ? You go to jail.
Anyone thinking charia is soon to show up in Europe is retarded.
Any form of it will be tracked down and annihilated with legal means, because we already have devices against any religious barbarism (for instance).
As for the astounding racism this thread displayed undercover of "Barbaric religion bashing", I guess it can't be helped, but anyhow, racist people don't deserve nay help =[
edit : and same goes for religous persons in my opinion.
The idea of many people must not be "Islam is evil". It's more like "People that totally disrespect my culture and don't give a shit about the values of my country should not try to shove the symbols of greatness of their religion in everybody's face". This claim surely is not true for all Muslims, but there is a fair amount of Muslims, who actually fit into this kind of stereotype. And even worse: the ones that do fit in it try to spread their views to as many people as possible.
And honestly the European Union has in common (besides everything else) a shared view on cultural values. Why would you even want to live in Europe if you oppose those values? I am not saying that foreigners should f*ck off, but they should at least TRY to understand European values and at least TRY to fit into society and not just stubbornly close off themselves from the outer world and complain about being discriminated against.
Actual laws already protect citizens from anything bad a religion can do.
"You beat your wife ? You go to jail." And who will ever complain to make you go to jail, if your wife that has been "imported" (as a good without ever having the right to say something against it) from some village in the near East twenty years ago and does not speak the local language at all, because she basically never gets out of the house, endures everything, because that's the way she is brought up? Maybe your childeren that you have passed on your mentality from early age on? Maybe the community that you live in that has the exactly same views as you do?
"You force someone to do something against his will ? You go to jail." Yeah really? When nobody complains about it, because they think that they have to endure their situation or they are just to afraid to complain or they simply know that they will be completely on their own if they complain, then nobody will make you go to jail. Best example are victims of human traffic, who are abused as prostitutes for years, because they are far to afraid to ever try to escape and anyhow have no idea where they can seek help.
"You publicy advocate violence or anything close ? You go to jail." You think so? You hold your "speeches" in front of a group of people, who do have the same views as you. Why the hell should they make you go to jail?
However, I must admit that the voting in Switzerland did have a racist origin. It was initiated by a nationalist and racist party. However, I cannot imagine that all (not even a quarter) of the people who backed the vote are racists...
You'd be really surprised.
I'm living in Paris and my friend in Belgium and I can assure you that racism towards arab looking people is WAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYY older than any of the current debates about Islam.
There has been alot of islamic terrorism in france and algeria (still is) before, but back then, never the medias would stereotype muslim migrants as potential terrorists like today.
I'm not denying Islamic terrorism very much evolved since the 80's but somehow, it wasn't linked to people. It was Islamic terrorism.
But what is very very sad, is that, every single low paid work nobody ever would want to do in France, is done by migrants and if these people weren't coming to our country, we wouldn't be able to construct any building for instance =[
As a arabian typed person in france, unless you hold very high degrees, you will be regarded as shit and will struggle to no end for :
Renting an appartement Finding a job outside mc donalds / H&M Actually getting the minimal civic respect from police
I lived in a family from pakistan about 3 months, also, as a teenager, I ended up in the shittiest ghetto high school you could ever picture, and most of my friends from high school and onwards were muslim.
The way medias picture Islam is very very very targeted and very specific, it tries to make people bielive that Charia is applied within most of muslim migrant families (they shouldn't even be called migrants, since these families have been French for more than 50 years now..................)
I witnessed sheep kill in bathrooms (yes that exists =[) I hated every single second of it. I hated the fact that many mothers of my friends couldn't even read or write and were almost like animals in cages, most of you will never be able to imagine in what kind of conditions poor migrant families were put to live by the very country they came to.
Oh and btw, if you think Hardcore right winged men actually give a damn about women's condition, I'm sorry for you.
The people that made this votation possible and the basic Islamic middle east macho prolly have much more in common than they would ever imagine.....
Muslims in Europe do not exist. They aren't muslisms. They are citizens and no citizen should be discriminated because of his confession, his race or his gender.
If they're so concerned about Islam's dangers, maybe they should start considering to invest money to give a proper home and a proper republican and critic education to people that need it the most.
Btw these same people that don't want Minarets are the same that don't want :
homosexuals free thinkers equality between genders right of free speech
I'm pretty sure that these politicians are what is the closest to the overall atmosphere of hate that allowed Nazism to exterminate 6 millions persons.
Actually, a terrorost threat is my smallest concern. It's more of my disapproval of many Muslims' refusal to accept Western values.
I've never been to France to know how Arabs there are treated. But I do know how they are treated in Germany. As long as you do not live in some god-forgotten village you will encounter tolerant and understanding people in Germany. The racism Arab's and Muslims in general have to face in German cities is the same racism that Asians, Africans, Latin Americans and East Europeans have to face and is limited to a few old bittered retards that still wish that Germany would have won WWII. From what I've seen Arabs and Muslims are barely more discriminated against than any other minority in Germany and even have (almost) the same chances as every German to get a job.
The way medias picture Islam is very very very targeted and very specific, it tries to make people bielive that Charia is applied within most of muslim migrant families (they shouldn't even be called migrants, since these families have been French for more than 50 years now..................)
I witnessed sheep kill in bathrooms (yes that exists =[) I hated every single second of it. I hated the fact that many mothers of my friends couldn't even read or write and were almost like animals in cages, most of you will never be able to imagine in what kind of conditions poor migrant families were put to live by the very country they came to.
Yes, they shouldn't be called migrants after living in a specific country for 50 years. But what do you call someone that does not know the local language, that does not interact with anybody outside his own foreign community and completely denies to accept the local culture and values? In Germany there even exist a term "third/forth generation immigrant". That's kids, whose grandparents or even grand-grandparents come from another country. These kids cannot speak German and do not want to interact with Germans (or immigrants from other countries for that matter).
Muslims in Europe do not exist. They aren't muslisms. They are citizens and no citizen should be discriminated because of his confession, his race or his gender.
This is the way in should be. But I ask: What do you call someone that lives in Europe but denies the principles and values of the society he lives in, someone that basically denies to be a part of society?
If they're so concerned about Islam's dangers, maybe they should start considering to invest money to give a proper home and a proper republican and critic education to people that need it the most.
At least in Germany they do try! But you cannot force someone to receive "republican and critic education" if this person does not want to.
All my further comments are based on personal experience, thus they are irrelevant for any discussion, but are here to show you why you shall beware of stereotyping people
Btw these same people that don't want Minarets are the same that don't want :
"homosexuals" - One of my best friends is gay. And while I have no interest to know what he does in his bedroom, I don't mind what he does and our friendship is not disrupted by his sexual disposition "free thinkers" - This is a pretty wide description, but I do not see myself as anybody that is opposed to new ideas in any way. "equality between genders" - Yeah, I totally agree that my single mother should continue to receive less than any man at the place she works... "right of free speech" - Why the hell does the government even allow TL.net to exist since almost every thread here is obviously full of shit?
You really don't get it. All the points you are debating never ever reach that kind of level of thought.
Do you think voters in switzerland went through the same process than you ? Do you think they actually thought and discussed all that before casting their vote ?
We are here talking about stupidity on a very large scale of the population.
Moreover what Klackson wrote is right to the point.
Most of western countries inhabitants (old ones especially) hold a very heavy racist grudge against any foreigner that isn't white with blue eyes.
What you fail to picture is the social type of the persons that actually voted this ban. Would you be able to, I'm pretty sure you would'nt want to be acquainted through your vote with any of those =[
They don't want to ban Islam, they want to ban Middle east typed people from their country.
It's too bad you can't understand french and can't read all the switzerland / french news and papers on the topic they would enlighten you.
I completely understand that a lot of people who backed the vote did it because of racist views. I still do not think that all, who voted yes are racist. Although I am inclined to believe that the majority did backed it because of some unfounded fear from Islam and a general dislike of Muslim culture (which is definitely not the same as hating all Arabs). However, all of that does not change my point of view on mosques and minarets.
By the way, what makes you think that I do not understand French? But I must admit that I have not read any Swiss or French media on this subject. Maybe I should...
On December 05 2009 01:59 Adeeler wrote: And calling groups "Islamist" when they break the actual laws of Islam is just simple propaganda hate inciting by association but it doesn't stop every news station from saying it and making people in turn think it blindly. They may want to call themselves or even believe they are following Islam but they aren't they are just crazy people plain and simple which is obvious in how irrational they are in targeting innocent people. Those people are so far from Islam they lose the right to use its name but the spread of hate for political reasons bashs an entire faith because of what crazy people claiming they are off that faith are doing.
People should just stop hating.
P.S. My grammar is terrible.
You are parroting propaganda yourself with these statements, the "crazy people" just have to defend their homes, their culture and their freedom. But the other parts of your post are perfect, especially regarding modern times "culture". I'm not muslim or arabic, but it saddens me when people are blindly parroting pro-israel and anti-islam and anti-arabic information propaganda.
On December 05 2009 02:24 ggrrg wrote: By the way, what makes you think that I do not understand French? But I must admit that I have not read any Swiss or French media on this subject. Maybe I should...
I just assumed you couldn't if you can I might give you a link to an interview done today of social CNRS french researcher on the topic.
Personally I think all these terrorist acts that happen are all rigged by western organisations. The reason I say this is that outside iraq the terrorist acts are never on targets that would ever have an impact on the continued running of that society as a whole. Miltary/intelligence targets are never targeted only soft targets that when hit improve that countries military/intelligence power.
If their where any real terrorists and not brainwashed idiots then then the targets would be control stuctures and not innocent people. Its not hard to understand how ridiculous the situation is and how fast it would change if the stock market or banks or military bases where hit rather then buses. But you'll never see that happen as that doesn't further western power and only acts that do ever happen.
On December 03 2009 03:31 iG.ClouD wrote: Why is people still convinced we can get along well with muslims? We simply can't. Their religion basics are pretty much against what we have fought through the latter half of the 20th century. Add to that their immigrants are simply poorly educated and mostly ignorant people (which means their religious beliefs are stronger than in average people) and it's not hard to understand why we - or in this case, swiss people - think of them as a problem.
You know the Bible has PLENTY of racist and sexist content in it, yet you don't see the vast majority of Christianity going around stomping human rights. The average Muslim isn't some anti-civil rights right-wing nutjob that wants to blow up a building. Islam can be interpreted just as Christianity is nowadays.
On December 05 2009 01:26 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote: Boonbag tell me how the law acts on such a case:
"The whole pakistani family is going to pakistan for vacation. There the children get married to some strangers. After the marriage (maybe 2 to 3 years) the kids come back. This is done to provide a residence authorization to the husband f.e."
In such cases a clear violation of a law (no forced marriage) is not persecuted at all, so stop talking bullshit.
European countries don't have the legal jurisdiction to act in that case. Should we then just start saying, "Fuck you" to religions because we don't like a few of their teachings? So why don't we do that to Christianity? Oh yea, because we forced them to adapt to basic human rights that everyone should have and left the rest to them. You can do the same with Islam. You fight the government establishment of religion and religious laws, not the religion itself. Like I've said so many times, we did it with Christianity, we can do it with Islam.
On December 05 2009 01:26 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote: Boonbag tell me how the law acts on such a case:
"The whole pakistani family is going to pakistan for vacation. There the children get married to some strangers. After the marriage (maybe 2 to 3 years) the kids come back. This is done to provide a residence authorization to the husband f.e."
In such cases a clear violation of a law (no forced marriage) is not persecuted at all, so stop talking bullshit.
Also stop telling that ppl in Switzerland dont debate a lot before going to vote. I have first hand information as I'm actually swiss and able to vote and I discussed a shitload of times about this exact issue with yes and no voters. Yes voters are not generally racists, they get along with many races mostly they hate "jugos" which aren't even moslems that often. I really played with the thought to vote yes on that one (instead of showing protest against such ridiculous votes with not voting at all) and im not racist for sure as I was always hanging with all kind of ethnicies and even helping them to stay in switzerland when the government wanted to send them back to albania. so fuck your stereotype idiotic view.
Discussing something you don't know first hand and ending up publicy blaming a whole targeted population upon imaginary fears has alot to do with my own stereotype idiotic view.