Anti-Minaret Online Referendum

[Martinus]

That's rather silly - even if you disregard the blatant restriction of freedom, I can't for the life of me see the benefit of such a measure.

The only reasonable grounds for banning construction of minarets in some place would be either because it fucks up with the landscape (same reason we ban, say, tall buildings in some places etc.) or that noise of the muezzins (sp?) would constitute a nuisance for the local populace.

[Eddie Teach]

Of course not.

I don't have a problem with the government paying special attention to Muslim houses of worship, however.

[Grallon]

The only reasonable grounds for banning construction of minarets in some place would be either because it fucks up with the landscape (same reason we ban, say, tall buildings in some places etc.) or that noise of the muezzins (sp?) would constitute a nuisance for the local populace.

One of the defender of the ban is describing minarets as "ideological emitters"...   Social ecology should also be considered yes? 




G.

[PDH]

One of the defender of the ban is describing minarets as "ideological emitters"...   Social ecology should also be considered yes? 

Sounds like more tinfoil is needed in the caps in Switzerland.

[Faeelin]

Of course not.

I don't have a problem with the government paying special attention to Muslim houses of worship, however.

I'm glad you and Grallon have both foudn something you can agree upon.

[Josquius]

Of course not. That's stupid.

[Grallon]

Of course not. That's stupid.

Hmmm I wonder how much of the opposition is motivated by political correctness? 

Is there no grounds then to the argument that Islam is dangerous and it's propagation should be curtailed? 

And please let's not compare 'AIDS Warriors' whith fanatical jihadists...



G.

[Barrister]

Hmmm I wonder how much of the opposition is motivated by political correctness? 

Is there no grounds then to the argument that Islam is dangerous and it's propagation should be curtailed? 

And please let's not compare 'AIDS Warriors' whith fanatical jihadists...

Trying to halt the propogation of Islam goes against one of the core beliefs of western culture - that people are free to practice whatever faith they wish.

And why not compare?  I don't like the AIDS example though - I prefer the gay child molester (since it's a more deliberate act).  If I could prove that child molester's are disproportionately gay, would that be grounds to persecute gays?

[Eddie Teach]

I'm glad you and Grallon have both foudn something you can agree upon.

Intelligence efforts should be targeted, that's simple common sense.

[DontSayBanana]

Trying to halt the propogation of Islam goes against one of the core beliefs of western culture - that people are free to practice whatever faith they wish.

And why not compare?  I don't like the AIDS example though - I prefer the gay child molester (since it's a more deliberate act).  If I could prove that child molester's are disproportionately gay, would that be grounds to persecute gays?

Even the right to freedom of religion is not inviolable.  When a faith's "followers" hide behind a religious facade to tie the government's hands in dealing with the bloody insurrection it encourages and participates in, then catering to that religion no longer serves in the country's best interests.

[Barrister]

Trying to halt the propogation of Islam goes against one of the core beliefs of western culture - that people are free to practice whatever faith they wish.

And why not compare?  I don't like the AIDS example though - I prefer the gay child molester (since it's a more deliberate act).  If I could prove that child molester's are disproportionately gay, would that be grounds to persecute gays?

Even the right to freedom of religion is not inviolable.  When a faith's "followers" hide behind a religious facade to tie the government's hands in dealing with the bloody insurrection it encourages and participates in, then catering to that religion no longer serves in the country's best interests.

So, to pick an example, during the troubles in Northern Ireland, the UK would have been correct to no longer "cater" to Catholicism? 

[Sheilbh]

That's rather silly - even if you disregard the blatant restriction of freedom, I can't for the life of me see the benefit of such a measure.

The only reasonable grounds for banning construction of minarets in some place would be either because it fucks up with the landscape (same reason we ban, say, tall buildings in some places etc.) or that noise of the muezzins (sp?) would constitute a nuisance for the local populace.

I agree entirely.

[Sheilbh]

Even the right to freedom of religion is not inviolable.  When a faith's "followers" hide behind a religious facade to tie the government's hands in dealing with the bloody insurrection it encourages and participates in, then catering to that religion no longer serves in the country's best interests.

Switzerland hasn't dealt with bloody religious insurrection since Zwingli was swanning round Geneva.

[Slargos]

It's just a matter of time now.

Or to elaborate:

Preventing the spread of Islam is a sign of societal health. Western civilization is an old codger with a dysfunctional immunesystem. In the paraphrased words of agent Smith, "Islam.. is a disease."

[Grallon]

Trying to halt the propogation of Islam goes against one of the core beliefs of western culture - that people are free to practice whatever faith they wish.

Add enough religiously motivated demands, enough religiously inspired accomodations and you end up having said western culture undermined...  for having been too mired in its own tropes and ideological conundrums.

Or let me put it this way, christianity used to be a malignant disease that we've become more or less immune to whereas Islam is still extremely virulent.

Common sense dictates we should try to prevent the spread of a disease rather than stupidly exposing ourselves to it.



G.