Swiss people ban building of new minarets

[Kulindahr]

With your rant about christianity - in a thread that was not about christianity at all.

First, I haven't done any "rants".
Second, your comment was very misinformed, then, resting on an unfounded assumption.
Third, Christianity became a topic when "the religious right" was introduced as a comparison and an argument about the main topic introduced from that.
Fourth, I agree with Ghandi to a great extent.

 

[Chalchalero]

I remember being appalled when I read this. I can't comprehend any way of justifying obstructing someone's right to build what they want on their land. The dissenter and the minority have just as much rights as anyone else, at least without democracy coming in to take them away. In a republic this wouldn't happen so easily. To those who have said that the Swiss people were within their rights: they weren't, except within the false rights bestowed upon them by the structure of the Swiss government. Liberty does not include the right to obstruct someone else's rights.

Actually, according to the way our constitution is structured, those who voted for the ban were 100 percent within their legal rights to do what they did. Perhaps you feel that they had no moral right, but they do not care what you think. They had every legal right to do what they did and, whilst dissenters and minorities who are Swiss citizens do have the same rights and are protected under the law, those who are not Swiss citizens, such as most of the Islamic population in Switzerland, do not have these same rights and under the constitution are not entitled to them. Therefore, no one's rights were "obstructed", as there were no rights to speak of.

Interesting, by the way that you would refer to our structure of government, which has existed more or less 500 years before yours was even dreamt of, as a "false" one. How very arrogant American of you.

 

[SoulSearcher]

Actually, according to the way our constitution is structured, those who voted for the ban were 100 percent within their legal rights to do what they did. Perhaps you feel that they had no moral right, but they do not care what you think. They had every legal right to do what they did and, whilst dissenters and minorities who are Swiss citizens do have the same rights and are protected under the law, those who are not Swiss citizens, such as most of the Islamic population in Switzerland, do not have these same rights and under the constitution are not entitled to them. Therefore, no one's rights were "obstructed", as there were no rights to speak of.

Interesting, by the way that you would refer to our structure of government, which has existed more or less 500 years before yours was even dreamt of, as a "false" one. How very arrogant American of you.

Its very interesting how these referenda work, just read about the (very recent) fight for women's rights to vote in Switzerland, particularly about the Appenzell Ausserrhoden and Appenzell Innerrhoden cantons...just because your structure of government existed "500 years before" the United States is irrelevant. Apparently, the mentality from 500 years ago was a little challenging for a lot of Swiss men to give up.

 

[Kulindahr]

Actually, according to the way our constitution is structured, those who voted for the ban were 100 percent within their legal rights to do what they did. Perhaps you feel that they had no moral right, but they do not care what you think. They had every legal right to do what they did and, whilst dissenters and minorities who are Swiss citizens do have the same rights and are protected under the law, those who are not Swiss citizens, such as most of the Islamic population in Switzerland, do not have these same rights and under the constitution are not entitled to them. Therefore, no one's rights were "obstructed", as there were no rights to speak of.

Interesting, by the way that you would refer to our structure of government, which has existed more or less 500 years before yours was even dreamt of, as a "false" one. How very arrogant American of you.

Rights pertain to all, regardless of whether they're citizens. Did I miss it where Switzerland repudiated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

If a Swiss citizen has freedom of religion, so does the non-citizen, because rights are inherent, not granted by "might makes right".

So if your constitution allows you to do these things, Switzerland doesn't count as a free country, and since it is disregarding the U.D.H.R., ought to be honest and leave the U.N.

 

[Kulindahr]

Its very interesting how these referenda work, just read about the (very recent) fight for women's rights to vote in Switzerland, particularly about the Appenzell Ausserrhoden and Appenzell Innerrhoden cantons...just because your structure of government existed "500 years before" the United States is irrelevant. Apparently, the mentality from 500 years ago was a little challenging for a lot of Swiss men to give up.

True enough.

The claim to "our system is better because it's older" really boils down to "That's the way we've always done it".

 

[LoveIsNow]

Interesting, by the way that you would refer to our structure of government, which has existed more or less 500 years before yours was even dreamt of, as a "false" one. How very arrogant American of you.

I didn't. I referred to the "right" to take away someone's liberty as a false right, because there is no natural right to do so. It's just like how the mistreatment of women is perfectly legal in some jurisdictions, it is agreed upon as a human rights violation. This law is a human rights violation, even if it is constitutionally sound.

Oh, and totalitarian dictatorship has been around a few millennia longer than either Switzerland or America's, so your argument about the age of governments being a good thing isn't valid.

 

[Kulindahr]

I didn't. I referred to the "right" to take away someone's liberty as a false right, because there is no natural right to do so. It's just like how the mistreatment of women is perfectly legal in some jurisdictions, it is agreed upon as a human rights violation. This law is a human rights violation, even if it is constitutionally sound.

Very well said!

 

[Zeno Lorea]

First, I haven't done any "rants".
Second, your comment was very misinformed, then, resting on an unfounded assumption.
Third, Christianity became a topic when "the religious right" was introduced as a comparison and an argument about the main topic introduced from that.
Fourth, I agree with Ghandi to a great extent.

Every single thread where most posts are your besserwisser replies to other people's opinions are rants in my opinion. You are very pedantic, and it's about time someone told you. Finally, I'm sure you even disagree with most of your fellow cult members, but that is not what Ghandi meant

 

[Kulindahr]

Every single thread where most posts are your besserwisser replies to other people's opinions are rants in my opinion. You are very pedantic, and it's about time someone told you. Finally, I'm sure you even disagree with most of your fellow cult members, but that is not what Ghandi meant

"Most posts"?

If there's ever such a thread, I'll be happy to consider your judgment.

No, Ghandi meant that most Christians are not very Christlike. He was at least correct to the extent that many Christians are not very Christlike.

By "pedantic" I presume you're referring to the fact that I use scholarship and reason. I do the same on any topic where I have enough knowledge to do so.

I reply to ignirant or incorrect opinions. I suppose that if someone came here with views maintaining that all gays are pedophiles, are out to 'convert' people to "the homosexual lifestyle", and are pursuing an "agenda" for "forcing" homosexuality on everyone, that you wouldn't lift a finger to type some correction?

 

[Chalchalero]

I didn't. I referred to the "right" to take away someone's liberty as a false right, because there is no natural right to do so. It's just like how the mistreatment of women is perfectly legal in some jurisdictions, it is agreed upon as a human rights violation. This law is a human rights violation, even if it is constitutionally sound.

Oh, and totalitarian dictatorship has been around a few millennia longer than either Switzerland or America's, so your argument about the age of governments being a good thing isn't valid.

Perhaps you will understand the situation as it actually stands a bit clearer when you read the Swiss government's position on the matter:

Swiss envoy claims Minaret ban not rejection of Muslim community

http://ftp.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=92498&Itemid=2

The laws in Switzerland clearly state that the people and not the government have th right tp determine such issues, and the people chose to ban the minarets. This in no way impedes upon anyone's personal liberty, and if it does, it does not matter, because in a democracy where the majority rules, everyone cannot possibly be satisfied at once. It is illogical.

 

[SoulSearcher]

The laws in Switzerland clearly state that the people and not the government have th right tp determine such issues, and the people chose to ban the minarets. This in no way impedes upon anyone's personal liberty, and if it does, it does not matter, because in a democracy where the majority rules, everyone cannot possibly be satisfied at once. It is illogical.

Maybe in your ideal society, not in mine certainly. With your mode of thinking, the majority voting to deny marriage equality and other rights to gays is justified and valid. What if things like segregation or Jim Crow laws were to be put to vote? The majority should not be voting to decide which rights to be bestowed upon whom.

 

[Chalchalero]

It is actually this, in my opinion that goes too far:

Switzerland: Minarets in manger, schools respect Muslims
http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2009/12/switzerland-minarets-in-manger-schools.html

This will explain for you perhaps why people here become so annoyed with what they feel is an invasion of their cultural identity and tend to sometimes overreact.

 

[Kulindahr]

Perhaps you will understand the situation as it actually stands a bit clearer when you read the Swiss government's position on the matter:

Swiss envoy claims Minaret ban not rejection of Muslim community

http://ftp.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=92498&Itemid=2

The laws in Switzerland clearly state that the people and not the government have th right tp determine such issues, and the people chose to ban the minarets. This in no way impedes upon anyone's personal liberty, and if it does, it does not matter, because in a democracy where the majority rules, everyone cannot possibly be satisfied at once. It is illogical.

Maybe in your ideal society, not in mine certainly. With your mode of thinking, the majority voting to deny marriage equality and other rights to gays is justified and valid. What if things like segregation or Jim Crow laws were to be put to vote? The majority should not be voting to decide which rights to be bestowed upon whom.

Rights do not come from laws -- they come from being alive and sentient.

What's illogical is the concept that people's liberty ought to depend on votes. As SoulSearcher made a beginning of pointing out, with that view anything can be legislated -- I'll add castration of gays, just to make the point.

"But that would never happen here!" you may protest. Unfortunately, every place in which that sort of thing has happened had the same feeling. It's why the Framers of the U.S. Constitution were brilliant in trying to limit government to only what was listed (though that's been cast to the wind). In doing so, they founded a better form of government than had ever been done, because it was the first in a major nation to conceive of a government which couldn't do anything it pleased.

Direct democracy is one of the old kinds of government, one that can do anything it pleases. It is, at root, tyranny; it is Benjamin Franklin's two wolves and a lamb voting on the lunch menu.

 

[Chalchalero]

And to show you that we are not all Muslim hating racists:

Swiss businessman builds minaret in protest

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jEtHJMaOboide2wITSxabVwvHTYg

Great story!

 

[Chalchalero]

Maybe in your ideal society, not in mine certainly. With your mode of thinking, the majority voting to deny marriage equality and other rights to gays is justified and valid. What if things like segregation or Jim Crow laws were to be put to vote? The majority should not be voting to decide which rights to be bestowed upon whom.

I believe that it is rather you who are being idealistic. I am being rather pragmatic. The Swiss, as I have stated before, are a conservative society and we defend our individual liberties to the death, as is evidenced by our history. Our system of direct democracy actually serves a better purpose than that pseudo democracy you Americans have, wherein if special interests or corrupt politicians attempt to push a law through parliament, we can overturn it by calling a federal referendum. What protections do you have?

One may not agree with the majority of the Swiss people all the time, but the fact is that what is good for the majority usually ends up being good for the whole. We have survived on this premise for many years and have indeed flourished where others have found themselves bogged down in corruption and legislative gridlock.

 

[Chalchalero]

Rights do not come from laws -- they come from being alive and sentient.

What's illogical is the concept that people's liberty ought to depend on votes. As SoulSearcher made a beginning of pointing out, with that view anything can be legislated -- I'll add castration of gays, just to make the point.

"But that would never happen here!" you may protest. Unfortunately, every place in which that sort of thing has happened had the same feeling. It's why the Framers of the U.S. Constitution were brilliant in trying to limit government to only what was listed (though that's been cast to the wind). In doing so, they founded a better form of government than had ever been done, because it was the first in a major nation to conceive of a government which couldn't do anything it pleased.

Direct democracy is one of the old kinds of government, one that can do anything it pleases. It is, at root, tyranny; it is Benjamin Franklin's two wolves and a lamb voting on the lunch menu.

You miss the point of our direct democracy. In this instance of the minarets, for instance, the government was ignored and the people chose the ban. This was not a matter of government doing what it wanted, but rather the people. Isn't that the point of a democracy? There will never be a system developed where all of the people are happy all of the time. That is called a utopia, and you and I have had this chat over a different subject before. There is no such thing.

 

[Kulindahr]

You miss the point of our direct democracy. In this instance of the minarets, for instance, the government was ignored and the people chose the ban. This was not a matter of government doing what it wanted, but rather the people. Isn't that the point of a democracy? There will never be a system developed where all of the people are happy all of the time. That is called a utopia, and you and I have had this chat over a different subject before. There is no such thing.

From what you've said, if the people in one of the states in the U.S. passed a law by direct vote that said gays will all now be castrated and put to slave labor for the rest of their lives, you would praise it as the will of the people.

That's the point of this: pure direct democracy means there are no protections.

 

[unclaimedblessing]

Perhaps this subject can be readdressed when there is a Swiss Cathedral in Mecca or is reciprocity not an issue?.

 

[SoulSearcher]

Perhaps this subject can be readdressed when there is a Swiss Cathedral in Mecca or is reciprocity not an issue?.

Since when have human rights in Western democracies been subject to comparison with human rights in Western supported tyrannies and dictatorships, in order for the former to be reaffirmed?

 

[Kulindahr]

Perhaps this subject can be readdressed when there is a Swiss Cathedral in Mecca or is reciprocity not an issue?.

There's some merit to that idea, but it has a number of problems.

For starters, there's no particular Swiss religion, as there is an Arabic one.
Second, reciprocity occurs between entities which are parallel: Switzerland is a state, but Islam is not.
Third, comparing Mecca to all of Switzerland fails as well.

There are dominantly Muslim states where Christian churches are indeed allowed, with steeples and all. That alone demonstrates that your idea has a problem.