Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

mattyb · Nov 29, 2009, 11:52 AM

Swiss voters back ban on minarets.

I always thought that the Swiss had the right idea of a 'true' democracy, with votes and referendums often.

nonhuman · Nov 29, 2009, 11:57 AM

This is a horrible idea.

Doofy · Nov 29, 2009, 01:05 PM

Originally Posted by nonhuman

This is a horrible idea.

Democracy is a horrible idea?

turtle777 · Nov 29, 2009, 02:49 PM

One more vote for "the Swiss got it right".

Western "democracies" really turned into dictatorships of minorities.

-t

nonhuman · Nov 29, 2009, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Democracy is a horrible idea?

Marginalizing an ethnic/religious minority and codifying that marginalization in law is a bad idea. Demonizing them and blaming all of societies ills on them is another bad idea. Denying them the right to publicly express themselves is a bad idea. The Swiss have every right to do this, of course, but I think they're making a mistake.

turtle777 · Nov 29, 2009, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Marginalizing an ethnic/religious minority and codifying that marginalization in law is a bad idea. Demonizing them and blaming all of societies ills on them is another bad idea. Denying them the right to publicly express themselves is a bad idea.

Uhm, yeah, I think you are confusing something.

They did NOT vote against mosques and against moslems being able to gather.

How about this: we let the moslems build their minarets when they let Christians build cathedrals higher than the local minarets back in their countries.

-t

nonhuman · Nov 29, 2009, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

How about this: we let the moslems build their minarets when they let Christians build cathedrals higher than the local minarets back in their countries.

You know, you're right. The Muslim nations of the world should be the yardstick by which we measure freedom and human rights! That's it, I'm forcing my wife to wear a burqa so that I don't have to worry about other men seeing her. Why should I believe in women's rights as long as they don't?

turtle777 · Nov 29, 2009, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by nonhuman

You know, you're right. The Muslim nations of the world should be the yardstick by which we measure freedom and human rights! That's it, I'm forcing my wife to wear a burqa so that I don't have to worry about other men seeing her. Why should I believe in women's rights as long as they don't?

Oh, I see, you are a big believer in double standards. Awesome.

-t

nonhuman · Nov 29, 2009, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

Oh, I see, you are a big believer in double standards. Awesome.

No, that's why I think Muslims should have every bit as much right to build their minarets as Christians do to build steepled churches. Hence I think the Swiss made a bad decision here.

Big Mac · Nov 29, 2009, 03:46 PM

I understand where you're coming from, nonhuman, but Europe is going to have to learn to grow a backbone against radical Islam, and maybe this is a first step.

nonhuman · Nov 29, 2009, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

I understand where you're coming from, nonhuman, but Europe is going to have to learn to grow a backbone against radical Islam, and maybe this is a first step.

I agree, that something should be done about radical Islam and it's ascendency in Europe, but I don't think this is a good first step. Unless there's a movement amongst moderate and liberal Muslims to do away with Minarets as something that only extremists actually make use of (which is entirely possible, but I'm not aware of any such thing), actions like this are just going to make all Muslims pissed off and feel more sympathetic towards their extremist co-religionists.

In my opinion, the best thing that could be done is to allow and encourage intermingling of Muslims with the rest of European society. Greater prosperity and education in the Muslim community is going to be the most effect route to liberalization, but that's never going to happen if Muslims feel the need to insulate themselves from the rest of society.

Extremism and violence should be cracked down on hard, but peaceful coexistence and cooperation need to be encouraged. Emotional, reactionary legislation is never a good thing.

Big Mac · Nov 29, 2009, 04:27 PM

Good points. The problem that I see, though, is that liberal democracy is structurally ill equipped to deal with the radical Islamic agenda. Western Europe is becoming Islamized, and the Islamic religion will naturally lead theologically pure Muslims to seek to conquer susceptible countries in the name of Islamic hegemony. I agree with you that this law will likely anger Muslims, but perhaps instituting it will simply unmask forces that will crop up as a problem at some point no matter what. Ignoring latent Islamist antipathy among Muslim citizens will lead to more of the type of terrorism we saw at Fort Hood, IMO.

As for encouraging European acculturation, I agree that that is a good idea that needs to be done. But to do it European countries should start making it clearer what they expect of their citizens as far as adoption of the culture and respect for the laws are concerned. Those countries should pass laws codifying a rejection of any movement that attempts to substitute their existing legal traditions for theocratic ones like Sharia. They don't have to explicitly single out Islam with such laws. Yet those who are unhappy about that clarity should be encouraged to live elsewhere.

Doofy · Nov 29, 2009, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by nonhuman

In my opinion, the best thing that could be done is to allow and encourage intermingling of Muslims with the rest of European society.

How do you plan to achieve that? In most of northern Europe, it's near impossible to have a social life without drinking. How are people who can't drink going to integrate into that?

turtle777 · Nov 29, 2009, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by nonhuman

In my opinion, the best thing that could be done is to allow and encourage intermingling of Muslims with the rest of European society.

If you followed European history and politics, you would know that this is the PRIME problem: despite tons of positive discrimination programs, the majority of the muslims refuses to integrate.

It's creating more and more of a problem, since they want all the rights, but are not willing to integrate and become a part of the democratic societies.

Europe has been trying to encourage integration for more than 40 years. Since it failed, I completely understand that many Europeans get tired dealing with all the BS and basically gave up on the integration.

Plus, the rise of radical islam really does not help the muslim's case.

-t

nonhuman · Nov 29, 2009, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Good points. The problem that I see, though, is that liberal democracy is structurally ill equipped to deal with the radical Islamic agenda. Western Europe is becoming Islamized, and the Islamic religion will naturally lead theologically pure Muslims to seek to conquer susceptible countries in the name of Islamic hegemony. I agree with you that this law will likely anger Muslims, but perhaps instituting it will simply unmask forces that will crop up as a problem at some point no matter what. Ignoring latent Islamist antipathy among Muslim citizens will lead to more of the type of terrorism we saw at Fort Hood, IMO.

I pretty much agree. Philosophically I feel like there should be a better approach that's less likely to backfire, but I just can't think of what it might be.

I still think, however, that outlawing a particular kind of building used only by a particular kind of person, is a ridiculous, unfounded, and harmfully discriminatory idea. Minarets are not the problem, and an absence of Minarets will do nothing to curb the spread, or radicalization, of Islam in Europe.

If radical Islam is becoming a problem in Switzerland (Actually, is it? I'm really not very familiar with current events in Switzerland.) something should be done to address it, but this isn't it.

As for encouraging European acculturation, I agree that that is a good idea that needs to be done. But to do it European countries should start making it clearer what they expect of their citizens as far as adoption of the culture and respect for the laws are concerned. Those countries should pass laws codifying a rejection of any movement that attempts to substitute their existing legal traditions for theocratic ones like Sharia. They don't have to explicitly single out Islam with such laws. Yet those who are unhappy about that clarity should be encouraged to live elsewhere.

I think we're in complete agreement here.

nonhuman · Nov 29, 2009, 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

How do you plan to achieve that? In most of northern Europe, it's near impossible to have a social life without drinking. How are people who can't drink going to integrate into that?

I know a number of Muslims in London who don't drink but have still managed to integrate quite well.

nonhuman · Nov 29, 2009, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

If you followed European history and politics, you would know that this is the PRIME problem: despite tons of positive discrimination programs, the majority of the muslims refuses to integrate.

It's creating more and more of a problem, since they want all the rights, but are not willing to integrate and become a part of the democratic societies.

Europe has been trying to encourage integration for more than 40 years. Since it failed, I completely understand that many Europeans get tired dealing with all the BS and basically gave up on the integration.

Plus, the rise of radical islam really does not help the muslim's case.

-t

I do get this. But just because the past and present strategies for encouraging integration have not been the right ones doesn't mean there is no way to accomplish this.

I think the biggest problem has been the way that European countries have understood 'integration'. They basically mean 'be French/Dutch/Spanish/Whatever instead of whatever you were before'. They're aren't so much pushing for integration as for conformity. European countries typically put a lot of stock in their national character and are extremely conservative about it (look at the académie française!) so they pretty much demand that immigrants change to fit in. America, on the other hand, has a much looser, more varied national character; there simply is no single way to be American, and so there is no need to force immigrants to conform in order to fit in. Immigrants simply come to America, live their lives, work their jobs, and, given a couple generations, both the descendants of the immigrants, and the surrounding society have changed to accommodate each other.

colourfastt · Nov 29, 2009, 05:44 PM

Democracy is the worst form of government; it's government by emotion -- whomever gathers the largest herd wins.

subego · Nov 29, 2009, 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

How do you plan to achieve that?

Legalize hashish.

turtle777 · Nov 29, 2009, 06:29 PM

Originally Posted by nonhuman

I do get this. But just because the past and present strategies for encouraging integration have not been the right ones doesn't mean there is no way to accomplish this.

I think the biggest problem has been the way that European countries have understood 'integration'.

No, that's not it.

They just don't want to integrate. Period.

There is nothing you can do about it. And weak-ass liberals are bending backwards and forward to accommodate them.

-t

Doofy · Nov 29, 2009, 06:39 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

They just don't want to integrate. Period.

There is nothing you can do about it. And weak-ass liberals are bending backwards and forward to accommodate them.

I agree with that. But can we try the following for a bit first:

Originally Posted by subego

Legalize hashish.

?

lpkmckenna · Nov 29, 2009, 09:38 PM

Of all the peculiar things that Islam might bring to the west, minarets are what worry the Swiss. Bizarre.

turtle777 · Nov 29, 2009, 10:15 PM

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Of all the peculiar things that Islam might bring to the west, minarets are what worry the Swiss. Bizarre.

No, they are stopping it early.

-t

nonhuman · Nov 30, 2009, 07:44 AM

Originally Posted by turtle777

No, that's not it.

They just don't want to integrate. Period.

There is nothing you can do about it. And weak-ass liberals are bending backwards and forward to accommodate them.

-t

I realize that. But their children who will theoretically grow up in a liberal, European society are another story.

Doofy · Nov 30, 2009, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by nonhuman

I realize that. But their children who will theoretically grow up in a liberal, European society are another story.

No. The most hardcore islamic "isolationists" here in the UK are second and third generation who're trying to "reconnect" with their "heritage".

hyteckit · Nov 30, 2009, 09:14 AM

Wow, 57% majority vote.

Now only we can pass Health Care Reform with a greater than 50% vote in the US.

Somehow Republicans think a 60% to 80% vote should be required for health care reform.

The Final Dakar · Nov 30, 2009, 09:16 AM

So, is there some kind of tangible benefit to this or is it some kind of "send a message" crap?

turtle777 · Nov 30, 2009, 09:18 AM

Originally Posted by nonhuman

I realize that. But their children who will theoretically grow up in a liberal, European society are another story.

No, that's exactly the problem.

Example Germany: even many of the 3rd generation Turkish kids don't want to integrate. They go to schools with a turkish majority, barely speak German, get indoctrinated by islam classes etc...

Sure, it's also the parents that press for that, but it's a vicious cycle.

-t

turtle777 · Nov 30, 2009, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by hyteckit

Now only we can pass Health Care Reform with a greater than 50% vote in the US.

How about the Democrats listen to their constituents and accept that the majority of the US citizens are AGAINST the current Health Care bill.

[/derail]

-t

Doofy · Nov 30, 2009, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar

So, is there some kind of tangible benefit to this or is it some kind of "send a message" crap?

It's essentially "stopping the muslims from sending a message" crap. Same as you'd stop me from installing a 560' tall flagpole with a Union Jack on it in Washington DC.

The Final Dakar · Nov 30, 2009, 09:25 AM

So the answer is "No."

mattyb · Nov 30, 2009, 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by nonhuman

I know a number of Muslims in London who don't drink but have still managed to integrate quite well.

I heard of 4 Muslims who blew up a bus and some tube stations in London killing over 50 people.

Doofy · Nov 30, 2009, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar

So the answer is "No."

You asked an either/or question. How could the answer be "no"?

The Final Dakar · Nov 30, 2009, 09:35 AM

"Is there a tangible benefit?"

"No."

Doofy · Nov 30, 2009, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by Dak

is there some kind of tangible benefit to this or

Give it up. You lose.

SpaceMonkey · Nov 30, 2009, 09:47 AM

Yeah!!! That'll teach 'em to want to...build stuff. Keep Swiss skylines pure!

The Final Dakar · Nov 30, 2009, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Give it up. You lose.

No, you lose since you defaulted to "I'm going to shorten your name because I know you don't like it."

OAW · Nov 30, 2009, 10:26 AM

So let me get this straight. There are a grand total of 4 minarets in all of Switzerland. But the Swiss voters deemed it necessary to ban an architectural style? Woooowwwww!!

OAW

turtle777 · Nov 30, 2009, 10:35 AM

Originally Posted by OAW

So let me get this straight. There are a grand total of 4 minarets in all of Switzerland. But the Swiss voters deemed it necessary to ban an architectural style? Woooowwwww!!

OAW

No, you didn't get it straight. The point is NOT that the existing 4 are intolerable, they just don't want another 500 to follow.

And your stab at the architectural style is misguided. If it was just that, why can't the Muslims just build their mosques and minarets to look like churches ?
See, they want to make a special statement with that style. And that statement is what the Swiss don't like to see.

-t

Doofy · Nov 30, 2009, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by OAW

So let me get this straight. There are a grand total of 4 minarets in all of Switzerland. But the Swiss voters deemed it necessary to ban an architectural style? Woooowwwww!!

What Turty said, plus perhaps the Swiss don't want their country turning into the architectural hodge-podge craphole that yours is.

SpaceMonkey · Nov 30, 2009, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by turtle777

See, they want to make a special statement with that style.

Which is?

turtle777 · Nov 30, 2009, 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

Which is?

google is your friend.

-t

SpaceMonkey · Nov 30, 2009, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by turtle777

google is your friend.

-t

I'm asking what you think. I looked up "minaret" in the dictionary and Wikipedia and didn't find any "special statement" necessarily attributed to that style of architecture.

hyteckit · Nov 30, 2009, 10:45 AM

Next up.

The Mormon Church

hyteckit · Nov 30, 2009, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by turtle777

How about the Democrats listen to their constituents and accept that the majority of the US citizens are AGAINST the current Health Care bill.

[/derail]

-t

The Majority of the US citizens are FOR the current Health Care bill.

turtle777 · Nov 30, 2009, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

I'm asking what you think. I looked up "minaret" in the dictionary and Wikipedia and didn't find any "special statement" necessarily attributed to that style of architecture.

Ask the Swiss, they voted, not me.

-t

turtle777 · Nov 30, 2009, 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by hyteckit

The Majority of the US citizens are FOR the current Health Care bill.

Wishful thinking.

Pollster.com: Health Care Plan: Favor / Oppose

The last 6 polls show a majority who oppose (if you don't count the "no opinion" in poll 5).

-t

SpaceMonkey · Nov 30, 2009, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by turtle777

Ask the Swiss, they voted, not me.

-t

Well, I read the article linked to by the OP and it's not clear to me what "message" you were referring to. The article describes concerns about immigration and "Sharia law," but it didn't seem obvious what the connection was between building restrictions and those policy issues. Does the style of mosques being built in Switzerland make these things more likely? Since you expressed support for the measure, I was hoping you could explain.

olePigeon · Nov 30, 2009, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by turtle777

One more vote for "the Swiss got it right".

Western "democracies" really turned into dictatorships of minorities.

-t

Yeah, damn homosexuals get everything they want.

Doofy · Nov 30, 2009, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

Well, I read the article linked to by the OP and it's not clear to me what "message" you were referring to. The article describes concerns about immigration and "Sharia law," but it didn't seem obvious what the connection was between building restrictions and those policy issues. Does the style of mosques being built in Switzerland make these things more likely? Since you expressed support for the measure, I was hoping you could explain.

A minaret in the west is something akin to a gay pride parade - it screams "we're here to stay whether you like it or not"... ...it's a battle flag, planted firmly. Which the Swiss didn't like.