Anti-Minaret Online Referendum

[Alatriste]

An interesting point of view from 'The Economist' blog 'Democracy in America'

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/12/impressions_of_islam

A few snippets

Very few Americans know much about the Swiss minaret ban, with 60% saying they've heard nothing about the referendum. But among those who have heard something about the Swiss measure, 41% would vote to allow minarets, and 41% would vote to outlaw them.

Those under 30 would vote to allow minarets by a margin of 49% to 11%. Those 65 and older would vote to outlaw them by a margin of 43% to 25%. College graduates would allow minarets, high school graduates would not. Republicans and Democrats have different opinions: by three to one, Democrats would allow minarets; by three to one, Republicans would not.

[DGuller]

Not a big surprise.  Republicans pander to ignorance and intolerance, and that's unfortunately just a statement of fact, and not partisan rhetoric.

[Neil]

Anyway, there are talks of the referendum results being invalidated by either the Swiss supreme court or the European Court of Human Rights.

Which would radicalize the population even more.  That would be excellent.  Maybe they can also convince the Swiss to destroy gays as well.

[grumbler]

Not a big surprise.  Republicans pander to ignorance and intolerance, and that's unfortunately just a statement of fact, and not partisan rhetoric.

[Admiral Yi]

I would love to hear the partisan rhetoric version.

[DGuller]

I would love to hear the partisan rhetoric version.

When it comes to characterization of Republicans on issues like these, it's hard to think of a partisan rhetoric that's too detached from reality.  Sorry, unique moderate snowflakes, sometimes the truth isn't in the middle.

[Martinus]

I would love to hear the partisan rhetoric version.

When it comes to characterization of Republicans on issues like these, it's hard to think of a partisan rhetoric that's too detached from reality.  Sorry, unique moderate snowflakes, sometimes the truth isn't in the middle.

Precisely. Both sides are "intolerant" when it comes to people holding opposite views, but beyond that, when it comes to intolerance that is not based on politics, but on race, ethnicity, creed or sexual orientation, it is quite clear that Republicans focus on this much more than Democrats.

[Martinus]

I would love to hear the partisan rhetoric version.

Could you give examples of political measures championed by Democrats that are based on intolerance? I am not saying that individual Democrats are not intolerant of people holding different views - that's human nature - but what would be the Democratic equivalent to causes popular on the right, such as anti-immigration, anti-abortion or anti-gay-rights movement?

[Valmy]

I am so glad the Constitution forbids votes like that so some stupid county or city or state would not leave us with egg on our face.

[Neil]

Is tolerance a good thing all of the sudden?

[Martinus]

I am so glad the Constitution forbids votes like that so some stupid county or city or state would not leave us with egg on our face.

Well, it didn't forbid vote on Prop 8. 

[Martinus]

Is tolerance a good thing all of the sudden?

Noone is necessarily saying it is. People with leftists views usually think it is; conservatives not so much.

It's just that grumbler and yi seem to think this is not the case and that both sides embrace tolerance equally - something you and me appear to disagree with.

[Berkut]

Is tolerance a good thing all of the sudden?

Noone is necessarily saying it is. People with leftists views usually think it is; conservatives not so much.

It's just that grumbler and yi seem to think this is not the case and that both sides embrace tolerance equally - something you and me appear to disagree with.

I think what they were laughing at is the characterization of the issue as "Republicans pander to ignorance and intolerance" combined with the idea that said characterization is a "statement of fact" rather than "political rhetoric".

Which is pretty funny.

Here is a little hint: Any time you are going to characterize your political opponents position, as in "XXXX are like YYYY" if in fact your opponent would not agree with the characterization, it is probably a statement of "political rhetoric" rather than a "statement of fact".

It is like saying "Pro-lifers love to make children live in poverty! This is a statement of fact, not political rhetoric!" or "Pro-choicers get wood off of butchering fetuses! FACT! NOT OPINION!"

[Admiral Yi]

Could you give examples of political measures championed by Democrats that are based on intolerance? I am not saying that individual Democrats are not intolerant of people holding different views - that's human nature - but what would be the Democratic equivalent to causes popular on the right, such as anti-immigration, anti-abortion or anti-gay-rights movement?

Just because I think DGuller's "plain facts" are comical doesn't mean I think the opposite is true, but I'll answer anyway.

Anti *illegal* immigration cuts both ways.  Just take a look at the vote on McCain's bill to see.  I don't see how you can paint abortion as a tolerance issue.

The Democrats are the party that is that is "intolerant" of wealth and of business.

And in foreign affairs Republicans are generally more intolerant of the enemies of the US than Democrats are.

[Martinus]

Could you give examples of political measures championed by Democrats that are based on intolerance? I am not saying that individual Democrats are not intolerant of people holding different views - that's human nature - but what would be the Democratic equivalent to causes popular on the right, such as anti-immigration, anti-abortion or anti-gay-rights movement?

Just because I think DGuller's "plain facts" are comical doesn't mean I think the opposite is true, but I'll answer anyway.

Anti *illegal* immigration cuts both ways.  Just take a look at the vote on McCain's bill to see.  I don't see how you can paint abortion as a tolerance issue.

The Democrats are the party that is that is "intolerant" of wealth and of business.

And in foreign affairs Republicans are generally more intolerant of the enemies of the US than Democrats are.

Of course abortion is a tolerance issue.

Democrat position is that of tolerance - we leave people a choice when it comes to planned parenting and birth control. Republicans want to ban that - they do not tolerate the position in which some people are making a choice to have an abortion. The other end of the non-tolerance spectrum is a position in which abortions would be forced on people who meet certain criteria (e.g. forcible abortion for pregnant people with genetic disabilities, or having too many children, etc.)

Having a choice (in abortion, gay marriage, etc.) is a position of tolerance - we accept and tolerate the fact that some people may make some choices and others may make different choices. We can still believe that some choices are better than others (I don't think you would find many pro-choicers who think that abortion is an optimal solution) but nonetheless we tolerate people's right to choose.