Swiss people ban building of new minarets

[LoveIsNow]

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.

I understand the situation quite clearly, thank you, and that is why I am upset. Of course they are allowed to do this by your democratic government, the problem is that democracy is a childish and barbaric form of government. Plato said so, Adams and Franklin and Washington said so. In a democracy might makes right - it's like a playground or the law of the jungle. A republic is guided by agreed upon principles that are designed to protect everyone's liberty, even if they are unpopular with the majority.

 

[Kulindahr]

I understand the situation quite clearly, thank you, and that is why I am upset. Of course they are allowed to do this by your democratic government, the problem is that democracy is a childish and barbaric form of government. Plato said so, Adams and Franklin and Washington said so. In a democracy might makes right - it's like a playground or the law of the jungle. A republic is guided by agreed upon principles that are designed to protect everyone's liberty, even if they are unpopular with the majority.

Yes.

What's illogical is having a form of government where rights are subject to a vote at all.

 

[Kulindahr]

Anti-discrimination law is a band-aid to a pandemic problem. I read a Hot Topics thread once about attacking the root of the problem which really got me thinking. We should be focusing on intolerance in culture all the while we fight for civil rights. If we don't, the law will protect us in its words alone. Tolerance ought to be inculcated in schools Worldwide. Intolerance is a danger that affects humanity, or rather classes, ethnicities, identifying characteristics, etc. thereof at least somewhere in the World. As Martin Luther King brilliantly expressed, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Without a universal acknowledgement of mutual respect for rights, everybody's rights are threatened.

For me that begins with getting everyone to understand that they own themselves. That's the basis for tolerance: if you want to be tolerated, you have to tolerate others -- indeed if you want to be respected, you have to respect others.

That's something I've tried to get across here in discussions about the Religious Right: we have to treat them with respect. It doesn't matter if they should be in white jackets, if they want to establish a tyrannical theocracy, or that they're a disgrace to their own holy book, we have to treat them the way we want them to treat us, or we aren't winning a single thing.

That's how a Vietnamese group overcame discrimination when they settled in the U.S., in a place they could afford -- which happened to be a declining town of bitter rednecks: they treated the rednecks the way they themselves wanted to be treated, no matter what was done to them. They got garbage dumped in their yards, tires slashed, and more, but they never came back with anything but respect. After a while, those mistreating them started feeling ashamed -- and things changed.

As one of the group said, when interviewed and asked how they changed the town's people, "Change comes from within. We just help them see who they are."


In societies which are effective monocultures, though, that's a hard thing to get across. When everyone is like you, the tribal mentality is easy: us good, anyone not like us bad.

 

[Chalchalero]

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.

I never praised anything. I explained it. No system is perfect. Revel in your corruption-laden special interest driven "democracy" if you will, but I prefer to actually have a say in what goes on in my society, whether the majority agrees with me or not. And sometimes they do.

We have (I am sure), far more prevalent gay rights in our Geneva than you have wherever you are, for example. Just because it seemed appropriate to the majority of the voting public, by the way.

 

[Kulindahr]

You don't get a say over civil rights issues.



That statement implies that gay rights are more "prevalent" in Geneva than anywhere in the World, or at least the United States, a statement that is entirely untrue.

The state of Oregon has more and better gay rights than Geneva or anywhere in Switzerland:

Oregon has hate crimes law, anti-discrimination law, a comprehensive domestic partnership law, and unlike Switzerland, a gay adoption law.

LGBT rights in Switzerland
LGBT rights in Oregon
LGBT adoption rights in the United States
LGBT anti-Discimination law in the United States

Oregon is bigger than Switzerland, too.

You stinker, you beat me to the punch with facts about my own state!

And not only does Oregon have the laws you mention, but for state government, it's almost impossible to fire a gay employee. (There's a woman ranger at a local state park who is essentially untouchable: she's a lesbian, Native American/Black!)

And if I could find the people who wrote "Die fag" on the side of my pickup, they could not only go to jail, but I could seek, and have a good chance of winning, damages in a civil suit.

 

[Zeno Lorea]

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.

There is a particular Arabic religion, you say? What's it called? Surely you don't mean islam: the countries with the highest number of muslims are, in this order, Indonesia, India (15% out of 1.2 bn ain't bad), Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran and Turkey. None of those countries are Arabic, and neither are Nigeria (with a sizeable minority) or majority-muslim nations as Senegal, Bosnia, Albania and Afghanistan, to name just a few.

Anyway, let's rephrase this and say that there are no christian or, perish the thought, jewish temples in Mecca, yet I've seen several big mosques within walking distance of the Vatican in Rome, the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem, and Saint Paul's Cathedral in London. I know of only one truly christian-friendly nation where Arabic is an official language: Israel.

I'm curious to know what semantic fault you will find now, Kulindahr, to force your twisted logic upon us.

 

[Kulindahr]

There is a particular Arabic religion, you say? What's it called? Surely you don't mean islam: the countries with the highest number of muslims are, in this order, Indonesia, India (15% out of 1.2 bn ain't bad), Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran and Turkey. None of those countries are Arabic, and neither are Nigeria (with a sizeable minority) or majority-muslim nations as Senegal, Bosnia, Albania and Afghanistan, to name just a few.

Your reasoning is backwards: the question isn't whether Islam is confined to Arabs, so your listing of all the non-Arabic countries is irrelevant -- they arenb't the question; Arabs are.
How many Arab nations can you name that aren't almost exclusively Muslim?

Anyway, let's rephrase this and say that there are no christian or, perish the thought, jewish temples in Mecca, yet I've seen several big mosques within walking distance of the Vatican in Rome, the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem, and Saint Paul's Cathedral in London.

So you agree with me. What's the problem?

I know of only one truly christian-friendly nation where Arabic is an official language: Israel.

Why is that relevant to anything? The Swiss didn't vote to ban any languages.

 

[Zeno Lorea]

Your reasoning is backwards: the question isn't whether Islam is confined to Arabs, so your listing of all the non-Arabic countries is irrelevant -- they arenb't the question; Arabs are.
How many Arab nations can you name that aren't almost exclusively Muslim?

That's exactly my point: YOU are the one who called islam an Arabic religion. I am the one who says it's the other way around: all Arabic countries are predominantly muslim, but most muslim countries aren't Arabic.

And to go back to the original topic: the Swiss didn't vote against a religion, language or culture, but against big towers that would dwarf low-rise neighbourhoods. Believe me, they would vote against tall post offices too.