Anti-Minaret Online Referendum

[Solmyr]

I'd expect religious folks to oppose laws that they see as immoral, just as anyone else would.

What I demand is that they, and everyone else, abide by the recognized process for such opposition - democratic and legal means or, in the most extreme cases, civil disobedience.

All within a context that recognizes certain rights as constitutionally protected.

Which is my point - if you oppose some law, there is still an established process for doing it, and it's not threatening to blow up people or cut off their heads if they don't agree to your demands.

That you immediately go to blowing up people or cutting off heads as the form of Muslim disagreement with the law strongly suggest you are indeed, a xenophobe. 

Because the global Muslim response to, say, the Danish cartoons was calm, measured, and completely civil, right?

[Malthus]

I'd expect religious folks to oppose laws that they see as immoral, just as anyone else would.

What I demand is that they, and everyone else, abide by the recognized process for such opposition - democratic and legal means or, in the most extreme cases, civil disobedience.

All within a context that recognizes certain rights as constitutionally protected.

Which is my point - if you oppose some law, there is still an established process for doing it, and it's not threatening to blow up people or cut off their heads if they don't agree to your demands.

Certainly. But that makes nonsense of your first point - that "moderates" must defer to national laws, by not holding whatever they happen to believe is "god's law" higher than that of the state.

I have certain beliefs I have that I hold higher than state laws; I expect many people do. Not necessarily religious, mind. That's why if the state comes out with a law I don't like, I have a basis for opposing it.

To my mind, a "moderate" is someone willing to recognize that other people have beliefs of this sort which, though you may not agree with them, are entitled to a certain level of respect. In short, a person who participates in the receprocity necessary for a functioning society. Your true religious fanatic has no respect for the belief of others (and indeed for their persons) and will thus cheerfully blow people up in furtherance of their beliefs; a non-fanatic, while disagreeing with others (perhaps fundamentally) is willing to engage in the sort of receprocity I discuss.

That is also my critique of the anti-Minaret measure. It is not an example of the sort of receprocity and respect for the (perhaps fundamentally wrong) beliefs of others which IMO our system attempts, however imperfectly, to embody. It obviously is not of the same order as cutting off heads or blowing people up - more like a petty harrassment; but to the extent that there is a division within the Muslim community between moderates (who believe in reciprocity) and fanatics (who don't), it surely strengthens the hands of the latter!   

[Fate]

I'd expect religious folks to oppose laws that they see as immoral, just as anyone else would.

What I demand is that they, and everyone else, abide by the recognized process for such opposition - democratic and legal means or, in the most extreme cases, civil disobedience.

All within a context that recognizes certain rights as constitutionally protected.

Which is my point - if you oppose some law, there is still an established process for doing it, and it's not threatening to blow up people or cut off their heads if they don't agree to your demands.

That you immediately go to blowing up people or cutting off heads as the form of Muslim disagreement with the law strongly suggest you are indeed, a xenophobe. 

Because the global Muslim response to, say, the Danish cartoons was calm, measured, and completely civil, right?

No. The civilized, calm, and measured way to respond to the Danish cartoon controversy is to ban minaret construction.

[grumbler]

You wanted muslim figures speaking out against extremism, you got muslim figures speaking out against extremism.

1. Do you believe that religious beliefs are more important to follow than state laws, if the two are in disagreement?

If you polled practicing Christians with respect to #1, I suspect the vast majority would say God's law is above that of the State's, especially when in disagreement.

Then they aren't moderate.

Ah, the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.  Man, it has been a long time since I've seen this one trotted out! 

[Grallon]

The naivete of some people is staggering. 



G.

[Solmyr]

Certainly. But that makes nonsense of your first point - that "moderates" must defer to national laws, by not holding whatever they happen to believe is "god's law" higher than that of the state.

I have certain beliefs I have that I hold higher than state laws; I expect many people do. Not necessarily religious, mind. That's why if the state comes out with a law I don't like, I have a basis for opposing it.

To my mind, a "moderate" is someone willing to recognize that other people have beliefs of this sort which, though you may not agree with them, are entitled to a certain level of respect. In short, a person who participates in the receprocity necessary for a functioning society. Your true religious fanatic has no respect for the belief of others (and indeed for their persons) and will thus cheerfully blow people up in furtherance of their beliefs; a non-fanatic, while disagreeing with others (perhaps fundamentally) is willing to engage in the sort of receprocity I discuss.

That is also my critique of the anti-Minaret measure. It is not an example of the sort of receprocity and respect for the (perhaps fundamentally wrong) beliefs of others which IMO our system attempts, however imperfectly, to embody. It obviously is not of the same order as cutting off heads or blowing people up - more like a petty harrassment; but to the extent that there is a division within the Muslim community between moderates (who believe in reciprocity) and fanatics (who don't), it surely strengthens the hands of the latter!

Perhaps I worded my first point poorly then, apologies for that. I did not mean to imply that slavish obedience of state laws is a sign of a moderate. What I meant that placing religious dogma above secular in every situation that does not concern purely oneself personally is not moderate. I have no problem with people practicing whatever beliefs they want as long as it does not affect anyone who does not want to be affected. In that regard I agree with your post above. However it should also be noted that I consider criticism of others' beliefs to be a fundamental part of freedom of speech that should be possible to exercise without receiving threats of violence. When such threats are issued then that belief no longer has a place in civilized society, IMO.

[Fate]

The naivete of some people is staggering. 



G.

I agree. The world is at a significant deficit in terms of chicken little-ism.

[Malthus]

It ain't over: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jSvKwQU-w3j6Gp8PWHRzV2hnh54QD9CA0T403

[derspiess]

What is puzzling to me is the overreaction to what is really a very modest measure. 

[Malthus]

What is puzzling to me is the overreaction to what is really a very modest measure.

It's a gesture laden with symbolism. That's where these battles usually get fought. Most people fighting to prevent Lady Chatterley's Lover from being censored were not really all that interested in reading it; most people fighting to censor it were not really all that concerned with manservants run amuck.

[Faeelin]

What is puzzling to me is the overreaction to what is really a very modest measure.

It's a gesture laden with symbolism. That's where these battles usually get fought. Most people fighting to prevent Lady Chatterley's Lover from being censored were not really all that interested in reading it; most people fighting to censor it were not really all that concerned with manservants run amuck.

Right. The point of the bill is a "fuck you" to the country's Muslims. I am actually surprised at the lackf of outrage int eh islamic world.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

The solution is to have pride in one's liberal values and courage of one's convictions. I'm no relativist - to my mind, at this stage in history Western values of liberal, secular democracy are simply superior to those of (say) Saudi Arabia. People from that part of the world come to the West, there should be no tollerance for the baggage they take with them, insofar as it contradicts those values - "honour killing", persecution of gays and women and the like should be dealt with by the courts and people left in no doubt that this is not tolerated here.

and there a big part of the problem lies.
I'm speaking specifically about the belgian situation now.
Over here, when you express the sentiment your just described -and which most of us here subscribe to- you're called a conservative at best, an extremist right-wing racist in most other cases.
Things are changing though so there's some hope one will be able to extress that sentiment with ease again soonish.

In the meantime however the government has -against the will of the majority- decided to initiate another legalisation-drive that at best will result in about 150K new residents, and at worst 400K new residents. That's a rise equivalent to about 4% of the current population... all in a few months to a year. And then politicians wonder why the people are ill at ease.
In the meantime the situation remains fubared though.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

What is puzzling to me is the overreaction to what is really a very modest measure.

It's a gesture laden with symbolism. That's where these battles usually get fought. Most people fighting to prevent Lady Chatterley's Lover from being censored were not really all that interested in reading it; most people fighting to censor it were not really all that concerned with manservants run amuck.

Right. The point of the bill is a "fuck you" to the country's Muslims. I am actually surprised at the lackf of outrage int eh islamic world.

That's probably still in the makin, or -hopefully- not coming this time. Still, most musim countries have no reason to be outraged about this, lest they come over as a bunch of hypocrites. which would of course be easy propaganda for those that need it.

[Valmy]

What is puzzling to me is the overreaction to what is really a very modest measure. 

Yeah?  What has been the reaction?  Or do you just mean in this thread?

[Fate]

Interesting. Only 38% of urban Swiss supported the ban, but rural regions had support in excess of 66%. Rednecks aren't relegated to merely the United States.