Swiss people ban building of new minarets

[Kulindahr]

kosher slaughter is forbidden? very good, unless it's forbidden even if the animal is stunned before the procedure. They should forbid importing kosher meat as well, unless the animal was stunned first.

Kosher slaughter, done correctly (and if it isn't, it isn't kosher) kills the animal very quickly. If the animal is caused to suffer, the process is no longer kosher, and the meat cannot be used.

So what's the problem?

Since this hasn't been widely reported;

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=the-architect-of-the-swiss-minaret-ban-is-a-turk-2009-12-09

Conflicted indentities....

Here's an interesting bit:

Regarding the referendum, he said: “We do not believe that the minarets are linked to worship because no calls to prayer are made from the minarets. We are not against building mosques but against 5- to 6-meter-tall minarets.”

So are church steeples related to worship?

 

[irydion]

Kosher slaughter, done correctly (and if it isn't, it isn't kosher) kills the animal very quickly.

no it doesn't.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/no-action-on-painful-slaughter-20091005-gjeh.html

SLAUGHTERING animals while they are still conscious for religious ritual killing causes pain and distress, according to a leaked Federal Government report, but it has not opposed the practice.

The Age obtained a copy of the report, which states that sheep slaughtered without stunning can suffer ''panic and terror'' and quotes European studies that sheep can remain conscious for up to 20 seconds after having their throats slit.

also,

https://secure.peta.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=1203

 

[Kulindahr]

no it doesn't.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/no-action-on-painful-slaughter-20091005-gjeh.html

also,

https://secure.peta.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=1203

I don't know who's doing what the second article described, but given what it said, those are not kosher killings. Any time the animal is treated or caused to suffer, the killing is not kosher -- so for them to be knocked over, hoisted up, etc. renders the process not kosher.

 

[irydion]

Then I guess definite most or all the Jews in the world have never eaten anything kosher, since even more humane schechita means suffering of the animals. And it applies certainly to the Jews in USA, as, as far as I can remember the second article, companies mistreating animals were the main suppliers of "kosher" meat to this country.

 

[new86]

It's the bad experiences that I've had myself, and the one other western European LGBTs are having now, because of the utter contempt Muslims have for European culture.

Me and my boyfriend were recently pelted with stones by Moroccan kids. In own old neighborhood.

In Italy the catholic church does not want the parliament tha pass a law against homophobia... or gay marriage...

 

[new86]

Someday Swiss will be very ashamed of that. I am against the ban, obviously. It's completely unnecessary form of a mild persecution. Now I know there are problems with muslim immigrants. And that there are 1000x more problems with religious freedom in muslim states than in Switzerland. But this ban is idiotic. It does not help anything, it only makes atheists/christians/jews feel as the lords, and pushes muslims away.

I am swiss and I AM already ashamed.
The people voted Yes to ban minarets... in reality the though "ok i am against muslims so my yes will be interpreted such way" which is BAD.

If asked "what do you like eating?" you cannot answer "swimming" because maybe this way you can make understand you love fish...

THe real problem is that in Switzerland we don't have a Constitutional Court. Its prerogatives are divided by the Federal tribunal and the Parliament who should not let vote on these kinds of proposals which are against human rights.

The UDC party interpretes the possibilty of the people to vote on everything. We usually say in switzerland that "the people IS the king". UDC thinks this kind should be as an assolutist monarchy, in reality the king should be respecting laws and constitutional rights.

Switzerland had also signed international agreements like the european court of human rights which will surely say, if being asked, this vote is against ihat treaty.

Last problem: this ban is inserted now in the constitution; it should not be there but in a normal law.
Many swiss fear islam for the husbands who use women as their own property and so on... but swiss law already punishes this. SO i say swiss do not have faith in their own laws.

I am ashamed to be swiss.
Thi one is NOT my Switzerland anymore.

 

[irydion]

JockBoy and Kullindahr

There's a rule that kosher slaughter shouldn't be harmful to the animals, and that the meat obtained from this slaughter would not be kosher if the animal suffered - OK, I believe you.
But get to understand that the animals actually suffer, as researches have shown. Sometimes they lose consciousness in a couple seconds, but often they remain conscious of their cut-off throat etc for a couple minutes.

So if you actually want this meat to be kosher, you'll have to stun the animal, right? So that it wouldn't.

I don't understand what's the big deal. Does schechita rules say precisely that the animal can't be stunned before?

Well, if they do, than they are contradictory, because you can't rule out the suffering without stunning.

 

[Kulindahr]

But I'm not Islamic. I say that because when you start determining that minority rights need majority approval, everybody's rights are at risk.

You don't have to be popular to have human rights, and you ought to know that.

That you even have to say such a thing is tragic -- and frightening.

Especially in the U.S., that rights belong to everyone regardless of any accident of birth or choice about life (which doesn't hurt anyone else) or even law or government should be so deeply grasped that the moment any sort of right is put to the vote people would be storming the capital and demanding the heads of those who allowed such a thing on the ballot.

 

[Kulindahr]

JockBoy and Kullindahr

There's a rule that kosher slaughter shouldn't be harmful to the animals, and that the meat obtained from this slaughter would not be kosher if the animal suffered - OK, I believe you.

It can be looked up online easily enough, too, I'd guess.

And the fact is that a proper knife cut can be done so that the animal does not remain conscious -- not a simple thing to do, granted, but I've seen it done with a deer.

But get to understand that the animals actually suffer, as researches have shown. Sometimes they lose consciousness in a couple seconds, but often they remain conscious of their cut-off throat etc for a couple minutes.

So if you actually want this meat to be kosher, you'll have to stun the animal, right? So that it wouldn't.

I don't understand what's the big deal. Does schechita rules say precisely that the animal can't be stunned before?

Well, if they do, than they are contradictory, because you can't rule out the suffering without stunning.

I know that animals suffer. I read an article somewhere a while back about some Jewish groups in the U.S. looking into imported "kosher" meat because of the research others have done.

A fair number of people who hunt throw up the first few times they gut an animal. I never have. What made me throw up once was when a buck jumped just as I pulled the trigger, and I didn't get a clean kill: he ran twenty yards or so before he fell, and I needed a second shot (only one in my life) to end it. When I saw that my first shot had hit him in the knee due to his jump as I fired, I threw up at the thought of the pain I'd inflicted.

I caused that pain accidentally. These people are doing it deliberately. Thinking of that buck, my gut says we should shoot the people and put them out of the animals' misery.

 

[Kulindahr]

And what is up with off topic non sequitur b/s like this? Give eachother a wank already.....

If you think those were off-topic, you aren't grasping the issue here.

 

[Kulindahr]

I do not know how this works in your country Kulindahr, but the right to build stuff isn't codified in the constitution.

Since when do rights have to be codified in a constitution?
Rights of humans are inherent and inalienable. They come by virtue of being thinking beings who own themselves; they can neither be granted nor taken away by laws or constitutions.

Following this , if a law is put into place that limits the building of minarets in , this does not necessarily mean minority rights are being limited. People far too easily claim rights these days, while limiting other peoples rights.

If minarets serve a religious function, then any limitation on them is wrong, regardless of the law. If they happen to be ugly and tacky, neighbors may have some right to an aesthetic standard, up to the minimum of the neighborhood.

The formation of law by the people and the parliament is basic function of a democratic society. I know it is very hard for people to grasp the basics of Trias Politica, but the place where laws should be tested as constitutional is in court, in this case the ECHR or the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. And it really is not all that clear yet that this law breaches the boundaries of religious freedom. Despite all the ridiculously emotional arguments and accusations being made.

If a democratic society is permitted to formulate laws which infringe on basic rights, it has not a free society. That's why the American Founding Fathers warned against democracy; it is too easy for people to think that 50%+1 is the equivalent of the 'divine right of kings'.

The man behind the referendum makes an interesting point, that minarets do not serve a religious function. If they're not being used to call the faithful to prayer, I tend to agree. But that logic is not the reason most Swiss voted for the ban -- they voted out of dislike or fear of Islam. It's that attitude JockBoy and I are pounding on.

 

[Kulindahr]

You do not seem to grasp the concept of conflicting rights. Your rights end, where they limit someone elses. Rights are never an absolute. The idea of natural law/rights is a usefull concept for challenging unjust laws and governments but by the inherently paradoxal nature of rights can never serve as the basis of a society. No matter how much you like your decleration of independance.

There's no such thing as "the inherently paradoxal nature of rights". Rights come from the fact that individuals own themselves. They don't come from any document, or social theory, they're based on reality.

And without acknowledging that, no one's rights can ever be secure. That fact has to be the basis of any society, or the society is built with cracks in it, because it has as part of its foundation that the ownership of some humans by others is legitimate.

Aside from this ; I do not share your opinion that limiting the construction of minarets somehow violates a natural law.

We share not-sharing that opinion. I guess you don't read too carefully.

See above, just simply wrong. Killing gays might serve a religious function, this doesn't mean that this function shouldn't be limited.

Self-contradictory argument. You're comparing aesthetics to death.

Your concept of free society is not realistic, unworkable and clearly differs from mine. Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others....

Your last line is true -- democracy is an evil which must be risked. At root, the foundation of democracy is "might makes right"; it's just that "might" is translated into "there's more of us than there are of you". That's schoolyard ethics.

And historically my concept of free society has worked -- Iceland being the best example, colonial America being another. And yes, it differs from yours, because by your view rights are a human invention; unfortunately, that means that there really aren't any rights. When democracy is involved, it also means that if someone can gather a different form of might and upset the system, that such action is perfectly legitimate.

I already made a post to give a different view on this but there are no takers. IMO you should inform yourself a bit better about European affairs before you start pounding though...it's unbecoming.

Since my information has come from articles written in Europe, by Europeans, based on what Swiss especially have said, this is merely a taunt.

 

[01solara]

This is the same type of thing we are against here with voting on gay rights.

The rights of minority groups of people (whether they be religious, social, or political) should not be voted on.

This is religious discrimination or censorship depending on how you want to look at it, in other words, bad.

Why is the lefties get their panties all in a wad when the anyone stands up to the religion that generates the vast majority of terrorists on this planet. The very Muslims you so vehemently defend would kill our gay asses in a New York minute. The hatred for Christians who disagree with us by using words are the most evil force in the history of mankind according to a lot of you. These Muslims are going to use our very love of freedom of religion and expression to take over and end both. Many of you that seem to think that Sarah Palin has secret plans to put us in Nazi concentration camps are the ones defending the very people that would really do it. Unbelievable.

 

[Kulindahr]

No, I'm putting forth an extreme to show that rights can never be an absolute, Utopia does not exist. That is the paradoxal nature of rights, their conflict with other rights. Your ideas about rights are an ideal, a nice ideal, but unattainable.

It's an extreme all right, because it involves the assumption that some people have a right to do harm to others. There is no such right; in fact, that view negates rights, period. I assume you don't believe in such a right, so what you said boils down to a difference between aesthetics and death.

You really think the women, the Irish or the native Americans agree?

It's fallacious to introduce items apart from what's under discussion.

Or does your idea of inherent rights only extent to WASP's and Vikings?

This falls under the category of a fallacy called "poisoning the well", IIRC.

I cannot vouch for your sources, but the argument is not nearly as one-sided back in Europe as people here make it out to be.

 

[Chalchalero]

First, minarets are not a necessity nor are they required by the Koran, nor are they even attractive in my opinion.

Having said that, however, one must remember that Switzerland is not exactly the most open minded country in the world. One can be a third generation person living there and still not be a citizen if the government does not wish to give you citizenship. I was very disappointed by the results of the referendum and (like many of my friends) thought the whole idea so repugnant that I did not vote at all. I believe that it was people like us who allowed it to go through, because if we ( and like minded people) had voted, then perhaps it would never have passed. I feeel ashamed for my fellow Swiss citizens, because this shows a serious ignorance on our part and a lack of tolerance for other cultures.

Having said THAT, however, one must also remember that Switzerland is a country of many different provincial (accent on the provincial) cantons filled with people who are hyper-involved with maintaining their idea of what it means to be Swiss. We are very conservative, take to change very slowly, and do not like what we view to be encroachments on our identity as Swiss people.

There are also many laws in Switzerland which guard against building differently than the countryside "should" look like, and this referendum actually falls in line with them. So while I deplore the way such a law looks like for non-Swiss people, I also understand why it passed.

We are not all backwards Muslim-haters, just so you know. We just love Switzerland the way it looks and will do all we can to prevent or at least forestall any change in that. We have done so for the last 500 years (at least) and will continue to do so.

 

[Kulindahr]

First, minarets are not a necessity nor are they required by the Koran, nor are they even attractive in my opinion.

Having said that, however, one must remember that Switzerland is not exactly the most open minded country in the world. One can be a third generation person living there and still not be a citizen if the government does not wish to give you citizenship. I was very disappointed by the results of the referendum and (like many of my friends) thought the whole idea so repugnant that I did not vote at all. I believe that it was people like us who allowed it to go through, because if we ( and like minded people) had voted, then perhaps it would never have passed. I feeel ashamed for my fellow Swiss citizens, because this shows a serious ignorance on our part and a lack of tolerance for other cultures.

Having said THAT, however, one must also remember that Switzerland is a country of many different provincial (accent on the provincial) cantons filled with people who are hyper-involved with maintaining their idea of what it means to be Swiss. We are very conservative, take to change very slowly, and do not like what we view to be encroachments on our identity as Swiss people.

There are also many laws in Switzerland which guard against building differently than the countryside "should" look like, and this referendum actually falls in line with them. So while I deplore the way such a law looks like for non-Swiss people, I also understand why it passed.

We are not all backwards Muslim-haters, just so you know. We just love Switzerland the way it looks and will do all we can to prevent or at least forestall any change in that. We have done so for the last 500 years (at least) and will continue to do so.

Given all that, I don't understand the ban. Couldn't they have just required them to conform to community architectural standards?

 

[Chalchalero]

Given all that, I don't understand the ban. Couldn't they have just required them to conform to community architectural standards?

Have you ever been to Switzerland? What town do you know where minarets would conform to the "community architectural standards"? Just out of curiosity?

 

[Kulindahr]

Have you ever been to Switzerland? What town do you know where minarets would conform to the "community architectural standards"? Just out of curiosity?

I'm not one of the rick folks who can afford to run around the world seeing sights, so no.

But they could make them look like farm silos, or old castle towers, or....

 

[SoulSearcher]

No worries, the rest of Europe is just as bad....

http://www.faithfreedom.org/islam/swiss-minarets-and-european-islam

An article by Daniel Pipes...try to find out how many European academics actually take him seriously.

 

[Kulindahr]

No worries, the rest of Europe is just as bad....

http://www.faithfreedom.org/islam/swiss-minarets-and-european-islam

Yeah...

Though with Muslim preachers out there urging Muslims to emigrate to Europe and make it Muslim, I can see why Europeans might get a bit nervous.

Or cuckoo clocks, or fondue pots or bank safes....you know, the usual swiss stuff!

I've never seen a fondue pot several stories tall.

I've never seen anyone love fondue enough to build one.....


Maybe they could just make them look like banks.