You probably did. Comedians oftenmake fun of our most painful epxeriences.

That doesn't make them any the less real however. If I cracked a joke or two about gassing Jews, would it provoke a few emoticons from you too? Your insistence on non argument in this thread is almost puzzling turnea. No doubt your saving your actual arguments for later on when you'll actually post a reason why freedom of religion is so important.... cause I don't see you offering anything short of ridicule for arguments you haven't been able to address.


Sure a lesson has been learned, its just that you don't like the answer turnea.

Clinging to a set of beliefs against all other considerations is just as fundamental whether those beliefs are human rights or the teachings of Mohammed. The difference between Europe and the Islamic world though is that are willing to commit to human rights and compromise ourselves and we do so continually, though without reciprocation. The fact that a point can actually be reached where altruism without reciprocation becomes self defeating is what you don't want to accept because it means everything you hold dear is subject to the same fallibility.

We have in fact compromised ourselves to so great a degree now that our own laws are now insufficient to guarantee social harmony and when the social contract breaks down, war happens.


Everything in this thread has been the subject of years of debate also, but that didn't stop you from starting the thread about it. The fact remains that you have avoided the question for lack of an adequate answer. The fact is, you can't answer the question turnea so you chose to tap dance around it.

Altruism is not a survival trait. Its something you do when you can afford it.

I was hoping such a base discussion would be unnecessary.

...but I suppose Jefferson was right about "eternal vigilance" and all that.


I believe in human rights. I believe it is important not only to live, but to do so ethically. I believe that every human being has the right, and ought to be granted the privilege to believe as they choose and to act on those beliefs so long as it does not harm others.

Its not a perfect belief, liberal democracy is not a perfect system, but its the best we have and I'm not so sure it should be thrown into the dustbin when someone yells "boo."

Altruism can aid or harm survival, the reason why it is still being debated by biologists is because they believe it is a naturally evolved aspect of human nature that acts to increase our chances of reproduction. They just aren't sure of the mechanism.

In any case you haven't even made this an effective dodge.

You've done everything but concede the debate that this is a useless measure. Argue against the dangers of altruism and human rights if you want, just know that it makes not one whit of difference to this debate.

In the end altruism, human rights and survival are all judgment calls. Nothing gives objective value to human life anymore than human rights.

Edited to Add:
I can stumble my way through Spanish, so I decided to give reading the measure in Italian a go (see we can all laugh at me now)

Anyway, I found it was unnecessary.

Behold, the brilliance.

Even in German, that is pretty clear.

The whole law turns out to mean, "minarets are verboten."

That ought to bring in votes from the sucke...erm
constituents.

And that one MP has an opinion of why they support a ban. Does that automatically explain everybody else's reasons? I don't think it does at all. You are sterotyping everybody that does not support your views. That smacks of hypocracy to me.

As for forming your own religion, go ahead. Just remember that if the majority of Muslims get their way that they won't be so supportive.

I find it odd that a vast majority of liberals do not support President Bush and in fact consider him to be an idiot. Yet again share with his view that 'Islam is a religion of peace'. Very interesting, since it isn't. It is a religion that supports genocide, slavery, xenophobia, and world domination. A huge majority of the followers of Islam would be considered fundamentalists in any other religion but are the main stream and called 'moderates'. Yet we are suppose to ignore the facts and allow their values and their culture to florish when they preach the opposite. And to oppose that view is in violation of some 'international law'. We are called intolerant, racists and promoting pogroms.

I see Politically Correct is alive and just as insane as it has ever been. To disagree with your view point is not racist nor illegal. I for one am not willing to support any group that advocates the restrictions of my rights. I refuse to do so and just because you are willing doesn't make you right.

Very well. I'm willing to give it a second look if anyone can find me an MP who calls this a zoning issue.

That's your claim after all.

..and we know.. the Muslims are all out to get us.

We've heard it before always as without proof as the time before.

Moif it's finals week and I'll get back to you later. But I have to respond to this right now:


Humor makes people laugh even when they are nervous. A bad joke can't. I think some of the assumptions you base your opinions on are questionable and misguided considering that what I saw on your Panorama links reminds me of U.S. race riots, but you have no excuse voicing assumptions about my "fear" as long as we can communicate on this board. In the process of rightfully despising Islamic patriarchy you invent something that doesn't exist: my vulnerable psyche wallowing in denial. Don't presume to know me that well again.


Explanations or justifications like this one bypasses logic. It makes no sense to point a finger at Muslim countries to support illegal wiretappings, the "War on Terror", and banning minarets. If a Swiss majority is banning minarets in a tit-for-tat exchange, and according to Moif they are, they are emulating the things they hate. European democracy evolved differently from our own, but their weak spots exist with or without Muslims to take advantage of it.

This doesn't explain anything at all except what you personally believe. It certainly doesn't explain why freedom of religion is important or why it should be considered a human right. Its a simple enough question. Let me rephrase it for you: why does the freedom of religion extend to ideology? I can't see why what some people choose to believe in should have any impact on other people what so ever and I certainly don't understand why freedom of religion justifies imposing oneself onto others.


The 'time before' for us was when the Nazi's invaded us. Was there really no proof then? Was there not a certain infamous book which detailed one man's struggle to bring about exactly what the Nazi's tried to bring about? Perhaps you are unfamiliar with 'Mein Kampf', or what that title actually means when translated into Arabic? Perhaps you are unaware that 'Mein Kampf' is openly sold in mainstream Middle Eastern bookshops. And were there not also lone voices, like Churchill, who called out in warning the 'time before'? Were these voices not also ridiculed? Was there not a whole crowd of people like Chamberlain (and now yourself), who refused to see what was staring them in the face?

There is plenty of proof. There is the stated aims of powerful, international Muslim organisations such as the Muslim Brotherhood. There is the holy book; the Quran itself (detailing one mans struggle). There is the fundamental obligation of jihad. There is the evidence of numerous nations in conflict where Islam has taken hold. Would you be willing to live in Syria turnea? Truthfully now. How about Egypt, or Iran? Would you like to live in a Muslim majority nation?




I was not refering to you personally Lesly. Good luck with your finals.

That doesn't really prove anything - Mein Kampf is openly sold in British bookshops (Amazon.co.uk) but that doesn't make Britain a Nazi state, whatever you might think of the BBC.

That's the trouble with banning books or ideas - you end up driving them underground, and giving them some kind of power they don't really have. That's my real problem with the Swiss minaret ban - by justifying it as some kind of stand against a hostile ideology they create even more hostility. If it were simple aesthetics, or some sort of pragmatic argument was being made



True enough. But the people who were like Chamberlain fell broadly into two camps - those who remembered WW1 and wanted to avoid it at all costs, and those who sympathised from afar with Nazi ideology (Jews were a problem. Hitler was just a strong leader, etc.)

The real problem goes back to what you said a few posts ago - the current influx of immigration into Europe is on a scale that is simply without precedent. Calling it an invasion won't make the problem go away - it will be dealt with in the same way as every single other wave of immigration into Europe has been - a period of alienation and conflict (which may or may not come to the point of warfare), followed by some kind of uneasy peace, fading eventually to peaceful coexistence. And the demographics of every single wave of immigration into Europe has begun with a few generations of rapid population growth, then slowed until it more or less matches the rates of the parent population (what are birth rates in European populations that came from Africa or the Carribbean in the 1950s and 1960? More or less than the general population?)

Granted, the sheer scale of the current wave of migration dwarfs previous waves, so it will magnify all the usual problems that both host and guest populations experience - more racism and intolerance in both directions.

The real question is, shall we just keep making the same mistakes, or shall we learn from them? Banning minarets? Why not just go the whole hog and put up signs in shops and businesses saying "No Muslims"? Why not just "no Blacks and no Irish?" while were at it.

You say that we're making the same mistakes with the Muslim threat that people made with the Nazis?

Well, I say you (and people that think like you, including many - but not most - Muslims) are making the same mistake that the Confederates and Republicans made, that the British made with the Irish (and the Indians, and the Spanish, French, Germans, and almost anyone else you'd care to mention), and the Hutus made with the Tutsis? That because some one one side call for conflict, and those on that side who don't want conflict don't shout as loud, that conflict is the only possible outcome.

What is apparent is that humanity (of all ideologies and faiths) is really bad at learning from the mistakes of history. What is not yet apparent is which of us is mistaken.

I hope it's you - I really do, because if I'm right, the inevitable human butchery will be limited to the hundreds of thousands, over time. If you're right, it will run to billions.

Hmmm...

That's a slightly different question.. but if we agree that human rights are to be valued then freedom of religion is simply a form of freedom of thought and conscience.

People are free to believe what they want and act accordingly with the constant caveat that it must not impose on the rights of others.

My previous response focused on belief because ultimately that is the source of the abstraction we call "value."

Nothing makes life, liberty, or happiness valuable objectively. Ultimately to value them is just a choice.


Turkey? Sure.

Lebanon, once things calm down again I could deal.

UAE, maybe...

I don't think Malaysia would be too bad.

There are many places I would hate to live with many varying religions. Islam is not unique in this respect. Nor is it really the primary factor in most of the countries you named.

Are you suggesting that only violence begets violence? That a passive stance does not encourage the wicked? I trust this is not your point, though thats what you appear to be suggesting.

Need I remind you that the last time my country was invaded it was completely unprovoked and that it was not democracy, nor passive resistance, nor human righst watch organisations, nor peaceful coexistence that liberated us. It was the military strength of our allies.


Yeah, so whats changed then? Not much. Substitute the Nazi sympathisers with our modern day Islamic sympathisers and apologists and its the exact same picture. The anti Jewish crowd is still present and correct as always only this time like Red Ken they're all anti Jewish and they're quick to get up on their feet to all scream and shout about 'peace in our time'.


To which I refer you to the lessons of history, namely Byzantium and the American natives prior to 1492.

You may be content to watch your country disapear into the turgid melting pot of Asian immigration but I am not. I like my country and I do not wish to see it destroyed to make way for some over crowded multicultural ghetto of the European super state. Or if you think this wave of immigration is ever going to stop of its own accord any time soon, then you are in for a long wait Julian. The only way this flow of migrants is going to stop is if the source dries up and have you checked the fertility rates in the middle and near east recently?


Because we're not racists.

...though I'm curious. Would you object to a sign in a shop that said 'No Nazi's'? Why lump Muslims in the same catagory as Blacks and Irish? Islam is an ideology, not a race, nor a nationality. Like national socialism it is a fabricated ideology with strong anti democratic, oppressive tendencies.


Are you really going to echo Ghandi and tell me that most Nazi's were just people and we could have dealt with them by peaceful co-existence...

Tell that to my dead family.


I've never said conflict is the only answer Julian. You do me a disfavour to suggest it. On the contrary, I'm saying conflict could be avoided if our politicians would take heed of where we are going and act accordingly. I am not in favour of a ban solely against minarets. I don't think its fair to single out one group at all, but I understand the frustration that is taking a hold of Europe as more and more people come face to face with the reality of multiculture.


I'm not convinced you've understood my point of view at all. You seem to be labouring under the delusion that I desire war rather than fear it.


turnea, its late so I hope you'll be patient and I'll reply to you tomorrow.

For those who still don't get what this is about, here's yet another example, one the other side of the world, in a culture completely different from Switzerland.

Malaysia, like neighboring Indonesia, practices a moderate brand of Islam
PUTRAJAYA, Malaysia (Reuters) - Malaysia's best known Christian convert, Lina Joy, lost a six-year battle on Wednesday to have the word "Islam" removed from her identity card, after the country's highest court rejected the change.
...
"You can't at whim and fancy convert from one religion to another," Federal Court Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim said in delivering judgment in the case, which has stirred religious tensions in the mainly Muslim nation.

He said the civil court had no jurisdiction in the case and that it should be dealt with by the country's Islamic courts.

For a legal analysis, go here.

Peaceful coexistence? Ask the Celts about 'peaceful coexistence' in France or England! Ask the Picts! (ooh, can't find anymore of them, canya?)

Islam is an ideology that is utterly incompatible with the modern secular state. The only question is "how far do we go in tolerating it?" When the ideology's adherents go ape-doo-doo over cartoons fer cryin out loud, I think the only rational answer is "not very far at all."

More red herrings.

Islamic states also behave poorly.

If Malaysia jumped off a bridge would you?

Meanwhile no argument exists for the minaret ban.

Then why does it need its own individual law? We can agree that human rights are to be valued, certainly. Placing a value on something however does not mean it could never be sacrificed for a gtreater good. Often in life one may find one must compromise on ones principles in order to survive. Then its just a question of balancing the one against the other. The thing is, in a democracy not every one will agree where the dividing line is and so a vocal minority may level unfair charges against a majority who decide to act to ensure their survival as a law abiding majority.


Unless they choose to be imposed upon by other people and wear garments which reduce them to social isolation so as not to 'enflame the passions of men'.


If belief is the only value you ascribe to life, liberty, or happiness then we part ways I'm afraid for I place survival to the fore of belief. What people choose to belief has no bearing on life, but the means by which we survive it are life, liberty and happiness. These things are survival traits and as animals survival is coded into our genes and our instincts provide us with the means to ensure it. What we think of this along the way, is certainly subjective, but survival is about as objective as you can ever get and survival is the key to all this. Plenty of nations and people's have been wiped out by the Muslims and no subjective human right has the validity to outweigh the objective need to survive.

What this is about? No, this is not what this is actually about. This is what people are saying this is about. Now, I don't agree with what happened to Lina Joy, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the banning of minarets in Switzerland. A Swiss MP would like you to believe that, but it just isn't.

In essence, the Swiss are behaving much like the Malaysian Court. Just as the Muslims in Malaysia want to have their identity maintained even through the use of civil laws, so are the Swiss, it seems.

Minarets are not ideological structures, they are religious structures. I agree that there is no right to ideology, but there is a right to religion and Islam is not pure ideology... there is an actual religion there. Yes, there are ideological perversions of it, but, there are ideological perversions of most religions.

I see no reason to add this exception. Monks have every right to invite the most extreme forms of social isolation on themselves. indeed in a free society they even have to right to go live in a cave so long as its his or her own cave.

Nuns have the right to walk the streets in habits it they so choose, for the exact same reasons at the headscarf.

I believe the Council of Europe had the right idea way back in 1950. The convention lays out almost inarguable basic principles.

No one Christian, Muslim, or Atheist should be deprived of their rights without due process.


People knowingly end their own lives every day.

All value is subjective, we may have natural impulses but people die on hunger strikes and I'm sure a few priests are actually keeping their celibacy vows.

If a Muslim is threatening one's survival, that is what a court of law is for. Honor killing is murder. Wife beating is assault.

We have laws against real threats.

This law against minarets is pure political theater and betrays human rights in return for a few rich politicians staying rich and connected a little longer.

Their survival is all they care about.

Is the push to ban minarets in Switzerland justified?
In its current form, this push to ban minarets is not justified. The main argument behind this legislation (the minaret is not necessary for worship but actually a symbol of Islamic law and as such incompatible with the current Swiss legal system) is illogical, flawed and reaks of simplistic reactionary populism. Besides the fact that a minaret does have a function for Islamic worship in general (it is the place from which the call to prayer is traditionally given and in this function it is similar to church towers), and the fact that there is no logical connection between this specific architectural structure and Islamic law, this ban targets a specific religious group within society and therefor violates the law regarding freedom of religion. Like Lesly already stated in post #15 this is a zoning issue, not a religious issue and it should be handled that way. If you want to make legislation against the building of minarets, you have to find arguments within this legislative context.

Is such a ban allowable under international law?
The Swiss People's Party and its attempt to ban minarets based on the above mentioned flawed argument goes beyond the boundary of seperation between church and state (the church cannot dictate its will on the state, but neither can the state dictate its will upon a established religion) and therefor this whole attempt is not allowable under international and the established national laws of Switzerland.

I'm glad it's not just the crazy Americans pointing out the abject lack of reason behind this bill, but one thing still troubles me.

This is not a zoning issue.

It is in fact impossible for a nationwide ban on minarets to have anything to do with zoning.

Don't fall into the trap of believing that legal means right. That's why I focused on international law, it is crystal clear.

Any undue restriction direct or indirect, is a violation of the convention no matter what name we try and cover it up with.

It is the ends that corrupt this bill, not simply the means.

I'm on the fence about this one. I understand the religious freedom angle, but I also believe that cities, towns and villages have the right to control the architectural style of new construction. If I think of my village in England with it's Norman church, medieval streets and thatched cottages, I'd be unhappy to say the least to see a middle-eastern Minaret towering over everything & blaring calls to prayer in arabic 5 times a day. Should Paris have to allow a minaret next to the Eiffel tower, Boston in Harvard Yard etc.

The problem seems limited to Islam which is so tied to the culture of the middle east, they can only pray in buildings that look like they were plucked from downtown Mecca, converts take Arabic names and the faithful are called to prayer in Arabic. Most other religions seem to do a better job of adapting to their surroundings even if it is just out of necessity. I'm sure that a structure that performs the function of a minaret could be built in local style, why is that not acceptable?. Why must it be a gleeming white & gold tower with a dome that sticks out like a sore thumb?.

I think referring to religious freedom as an "angle" is a big part of a problem. (Bear with me, I'm waxing rhetorical again)

It is a human right.

If one want to halt all construction that will alter a skyline in a historical district, then fine they can build a mosque elsewhere.

But if a Christian church can build a steeple or a business a skyscraper then Muslims have every right to spend their own money to build a minaret.

We may not like it but it's supposed to be a free country.

This is not the "fault" of Islam, if anything it's the opposition's fault for wanting to withdraw freedom they afforded to themselves when it starts to be perceived as an inconvenience.

Let's be clear. The proposal does not ban the building of Arabic mosques in Switzerland. It bans only the minarets. It's like telling a Catholic Church that they can build as ornate a building as they want, they just can't put a huge cross on it or in front of it because that is a power symbol. It is basically akin to telling Mexican immigrants that they can design their property anyway they like, but they can't fly a Mexican flag from their porch.

It's a zoning issue (if the Swiss would make it one). Switzerland isn't a big country. If they want to ban soccer fields to develop housing or other commerce they are free to do so. Religious architecture doesn't escape a ban simply because architecture has religious significance when the needs of non-Muslims aren't met. It can also be a nuisance, what we call noise pollution in the U.S. If Muslims wanted to build a minaret outside city limits and develop their own orthodox community without replacing state law with Sharia I think there'd be less resistance. But if there isn't enough land or farmers don't want to sell their rural lands to Muslims, Switzerland isn't at fault. But the Swiss have turned it into a religious issue, and that's as good as imposing Christian Sharia.


It is a human right because it is recognized as such by a majority of people. Muslim states don't recognize religious freedom and that's one reason democracies are a step above their religious authoritarian form of government. If you looked at the right of religious freedom and expression in terms of an allowed right instead of an inherent right you'd also look at persuasion differently, as more necessary than directing our attention to the obvious (international law) and in my opinion, appreciate the dangers of sacrificing some democratic principles in order to "save democracy" more acutely.

...zoning is by definition partition of the land. One can't call the whole country one big "zone" no matter how small it is.


The call to prayer isn't even an issue here so noise pollution is out too.

One could ban minarets from all urban areas under zoning, but not without a good reason which puts us right back at square one.

In fact all zoning must be be first justified by a compelling interest that stands up to legal scrutiny. I seriously doubt a nationwide ban on soccer fields would pass muster. Even if there is no convention on the protection of soccer fields.



I happen to believe that human rights are to be upheld regardless of the majority opinion. Countries may choose to deny in practice these rights, but that only marks them as oppressive.

Rights are about what is "right" not what we can get away with.

However, I would also point out that the Convention of Human Rights makes this a moot point. Legally the Swiss are bound to uphold it.

I fully appreciate that many are more than willing to subvert democracy in order to "save" it, but I'll never say it is anything but folly of the most painfully obvious sort.

The fact that a human right is recognized - or not recognized - does not make it any less a human right. Muslim states don't recognize religious freedom and that is a denial of an existing human right. These rights exist whether or not they are allowed.

It should be a zoning issue; the building of a minaret clearly falls within this context. But unfortunately this initiative was never meant to be such an issue. If you take a step back, look at the bigger picture and the underlying reasons behind this push for a ban on minarets, it is crystal clear from the link you provided that this is 100% a political issue. The Swiss People's Party is trying to win the upcoming elections by taking an simplistic, tough-talking attitude against everything that smells Islamic because they hope that it will bring in votes. The fact that it goes against their own laws in regard to freedom of religion is of no concern for this party at this stage.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6676271.stm

The question that remains is what effect will such a though legislation have on the relations between indigenous Swiss population and the Muslim community? Populistic legislation like this will only widen the gap between the two groups and can only lead to an increase of alienation. Luckily not all the Swiss are blind for the possible dangers and are already criticizing this whole affaire.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6676271.stm

From Wikipedia:
An ideology is an organized collection of ideas. The word ideology was coined by Count Antoine Destutt de Tracy in the late 18th century to define a "science of ideas." An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things (compare Weltanschauung), as in common sense (see Ideology in everyday society) and several philosophical tendencies (see Political ideologies), or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society. The main purpose behind an ideology is to offer change in society through a normative thought process. Ideologies tend to be abstract thoughts applied to reality and, thus, make this concept unique to politics. Ideologies are very common in the world of politics.

Now, perhaps you can identify how it is that this doesn't apply to Islam, since Islam holds that there is no separation between church and state, i.e., between the religious and the political. Islam is a totalitarian ideology. The fact that is also a religion does not excuse it's totalitarian paradigm.

btw: what is an "ideological structure"? I'm curious as to how we would identify such a thing...



Other religions "do a better job of adapting" to their surroundings because they are flexible. Islam is rigid and inflexible. The reason why the mosque's look the same is because, well, by gosh by golly, that's what the Koran says they should look like.


We are in agreement, the right exists regardless of whether or not folks are able to exercise it. However, to paraphrase Moif, "life" is the first right, before "liberty". Without life all others are irrelavent. The right of Western Civilization to survive, nay, the responsibility, overrides freedom of religion.

..and the fact that minarets threaten no one's survival makes this entirely irrelevant. If you want to argue all Muslims should be stripped of their freedom of religion you'll have to do much better than that.

...and the zoning thing, you can't ban a particular religion's effects and then call it zoning. That like saying the Warsaw ghetto was a "zoning issue".

Here we go again with the false comparisions with the Jews. First was this would result in pogroms, and now the Warsaw Ghetto. Both comparisions are false and insulting to a lot of folks.

Nobody has advocated any restriction of their lives, worship, freedom of movement or even lifestyle, yet you continue to attempt to imply such. So please deal with this in regards to the actual events not some fanciful, contrived, or overblown hoopla that it's not.

Are they facing attacks from non-Muslim, no. Is there any threat of genocide, get real. The truth is the Muslims face no threats at all. A large percentage of the Swiss maybe block the construction of minarets. What is the consequences if they do succeed? Not much, just that their mosques won't have minarets period. Will it threaten their survival, no it won't. Does it stop any religious services, nope sure doesn't. It is a requirement of their faith, again no it isn't. It might at the most cause some of them to look at a watch instead of the caterwhalling of the callers. Man that is such a huge thing to demand of a people.

turnea - Get a life already.

Let's step back and think about this. People are nervous that denying the Muslims towers on their mosques will drive them to militancy and radicalization. One more time. Denying the Muslims towers on their mosques will drive them to drastic, violent acts....we just don't know what they will do but surely they were driven to it! What does that say exactly? Frankly, if the Muslims start killing people and breaking things because the Swiss deny them towers I think that would say more about them than the Swiss. Rationalizing any violence or "radicalization" on the Muslim's part by denial of their towers is indeed something out of a comedy skit. Not Monty Python though...more SouthParkesque.




I have read this thread with interest. There are good thoughts on both sides, but in a nutshell, I still don't see how forbidding minarets strips Muslims of their religious freedom. I don't see how it violates international laws, the question of this debate. Comparison to this and the Warsaw ghettos? Come on, Turnea! Placing a moratorium on the building of towering minarets on future Muslim places of worship does not inhibit their religious freedom any more than forbidding a towering 20 meter high golden statue of Buddah would. By all means, if the Swiss feel the need, they can place a similar moratorium on gargoyles and bells on churches, or whatever other architectural eyesores they choose.

That must be why you and international human rights organizations innately understand what a horrible injustice abortion is; legalized violence against the most innocent life. According to some people, anyway.

I obviously disagree with Muslim states and would further those rights if I worked for a federal agency and salute people who risk their lives to champion human rights abroad, but all of this doesn't make human rights any more real within Muslim territories. This simple and maybe disturbing acknowledgement on my part doesn't let Arab states off the hook or provides the Swiss with an excuse, but I'm not going to pretend human rights exist universally when they aren't universally actionable.


I've been informed from religious figures to public officials that there is no separation of church and state here, either. I honestly believe that if given half a chance the will of a few religious elites would convince the country we're better off letting them run the show. Luckily our laws either get in their way or refuse to assist their ideological pursuits. The Swiss invite religious beliefs/doctrine/ideology into the affairs of the state, so I question how effectively they can withstand the Muslim "hordes".

Can you tell me how banning minarets is one step towards defeating Islamic ideology as long as the state funds religion? Does survival justify creating one set of laws for Christians and another set of laws for Muslims?

I knew that would ruffle a few feathers but I suggest that only because I view such a comparison dispassionately.

I never said this ban was like the Warsaw ghetto, I said calling either zoning is nonsense.

An analogy never perfectly fits the situation it is meant to enlighten, the use of a inarguable example is simply used to clarify that is muddied (deliberately in this and I'll get to that).

The comparison I propose is rather simple and limited.

I explained to Lesly earlier that the essential nature of a law is found in its purpose and its effects.

The purpose of the Warsaw ghetto was to deny Jews freedom, the effect was to deny Jews freedom.

I don't care it Hitler himself called it zoning, it ain't.


The purpose of the zoning excuse is to ban minarets, the effect would be to ban minarets.

..and not all the legal wriggling in the world will change that attempt to muddy the waters.

It's my turn to be afraid. Afraid of what happens when we start thinking human rights are things to be evaded rather than granted.


The ban doesn't mention height, the two minarets is Switzerland are already small and silent.

All I ask is that people stop building these straw men. I'll be glad to drop the ghetto talk and discuss the facts.. but I suspect that wouldn't be too popular because the facts are so clear.

If people take offense to the comparison let it be known I take great offense to the notion religious rights can be trampled by changing the grammar in a law.

Ban structure above a certain height, sure.

Ban a religious symbol outright, and you take one step closer to joining many Muslim states as unfree.

The facts are clear! A majority of Swiss people have decided to pressure their government to make changes. Democracy rocks.

Are we ignoring both the Swiss constitution which guarantees freedom of religion and the convention on Human Rights?

Majority rules has legal and ethical limits.

I think we are having a misunderstanding here Mrs Pigpen. Perhaps I should have made myself more clear as to why I feel populistic and reactionary legislative initiatives like the push to ban minarets could have negative effects for the relations between the indigenous Swiss population and the Muslim communities. I am not saying that a ban on minarets will drive Swiss Muslims to militancy and radicalization (although there are always exceptions), but it is without question that if this initiative turns into legislation it will cause a lot of anger, bitterness within the Islamic community and it will result in extra tension in the already uneasy relationship between Muslims and the rest of the Swiss society. Why would you want that? Why would you willingly aggravate the situation? Will a ban on minarets really contribute to the integration process of Muslims (of which many were born in Switzerland)? Will it really make any difference? What message are you sending out?
(for a good analysis of Islam in Switzerland and the issues that are playing go to this site)

In my opinion this is a nice example of bad and incompetent politics, typical for reactionary, nationalistic and populistic parties in Europe nowadays. With their tough-talking populistic ideas they are only aggravating the situation. They do not provide concrete and realistic solutions for difficult social problems. They are using (or perhaps misusing is a better word) negative feelings and try to score easy political points in the hope of gaining more votes. This is exactly what the Swiss People's Party is doing right now.

That may be so but it it purely a judgment call on your part. As i suppose is the contrary position.

In Brief:

Human rights are laws of ethics (in the scientific sense of "law" not the judicial) which is by nature a universal abstraction. Every failure by any government to match that standard reflects on itself, not the standard of human rights.

Laws don't stop existing because people get away acting unethically.

Don't quite get what you're driving at here, Lesly. I don't see abortion as a horrible injustice... never stated anything of the kind, either. If you're trying to take a jab at me based on statements of mine in another unrelated thread, that says more about you than it does me - particularly when the jab misses the mark as much as yours does.



To start with, what I mean by ideological structure is that the structure itself does not serve an ideological purpose.

By your interpretation of ideology, Judaism is an ideology, Catholicism could be perceived as an ideology. The fact is, any religion can become ideological. The political Christian Right would be considered ideological.

My point is that pro-life people oppose abortion because they it's very apparent to them that an embryo/fetus has the same right-to-life you and I have. This isn't apparent to you, or you wouldn't support some abortion rights. You and several international human rights organizations don't recognize fetal rights, therefore the existence of such rights are not recognized universally. The same disparity occurs with human rights, especially in the Middle East. They don't really "exist" around the world no matter how much you and I think they ought to.

Well, there's a bit of a difference. The question in the abortion debate not whether the right to life exists, it is whether or not the fetus is a human being such that it has rights. It is also a question of balancing those rights against the rights of the mother. I don't see the parallel. Though, I'm sure there may be some on this board who would like to believe that Muslims are not human beings and therefore do not have those rights.

That's the rub, isn't it? You and I see a difference. Pro-lifers don't. It wasn't readily apparent to a lot of people in the U.S. that blacks and women had a right to vote for a long time (human rights). As far as I'm concerned these rights didn't exist until they were recognized in our legal system. I'm sure they existed in the minds of the minority before the Constitution was amended, but until then, it didn't make a difference. Ergo "It is a human right because it is recognized as such by a majority of people."

..and what of my explanation of rights as an ethical standard?

Human rights transcend law, indeed they are the basis for the concept of law.

Ethical rules may not always be followed, that does not mean they don't exist.

No. Pro-lifer's believe that a fetus is a human being at conception and its human rights are being denied... Most pro-choicer's believe that a fetus is not a human being at conception and, therefore it doesn't have human rights.

It can't be denied that Muslims are human beings or that women and blacks are human beings... as such, they have rights. These rights you refer to were denied until they were protected by our legal system. Human beings have human rights. Your argument appears to be that human rights don't exist unless they are endowed by the majority of people. I would argue that these rights are endowed by someone or something else and that all people are so endowed.

It can and is denied that Muslim women and non-Muslims have the same rights as Muslim men by Muslim nations. This isn't shocking news.


You and Turnea keep making a natural rights argument. People are endowed with inalienable rights from their Creator or Roger the Space Chimp. I don't share your rationale, but I support the end result. Then again, consequentialism makes practical sense to me. If human rights was a universal truth it would be pretty damn obvious to deniers that they're acting against nature, yet deniers think they are following nature by denying Muslim women and non-Muslims the same rights. I have a feeling Swedes supporting the minaret ban think they are following nature by taking a step towards insuring their society's "survival". Perfectly natural.

Sure, but that is a denial... this doesn't mean the right doesn't exist. If the majority of people in this country voted to repeal the rights of blacks, would that mean that the rights only existed during the time they were protected - even though other human beings enjoy those rights?



Without the means, it is easy to deny the ends.



I think there are quite a few people in the world unable or unwilling to see the obvious - because to do so would diminish their control over other people - a source of confidence... fleeting as it may be. It's easier to seem secure in yourself when you have power over others - it's a delusion, but that doesn't stop people from giving in to it. Indoctrination sets that delusion in stone - reality defined by the delusion. It is then that the lizards become dragons and the molehills - mountains. Anything and everything must be done to keep control... to seem secure.

But it's not denial to them, Entspeak. You can't speak for them. Just like allowing slavery wasn't denial of human rights for us at one point.


I have a means, it just isn't like yours.


Certainly true, but they can't succeed alone.


Which means they're not just True Believing dupes, they're also True Believing dupes with low-self esteem. Every available distinction doesn't make a difference.


We are all indoctrinated. Muslims aren't the only ones that need to feel secure. This thread should make it obvious.

What? Then why did that change? Did we suddenly realize that we should grant these people rights? If so, why? Or did we realize, finally, that they were human beings and deserved to have their rights protected?



Yours appears to put human rights on pretty shaky ground, subject to the whim of the majority.



Well... no, but when the "quite a few" get together they can do much.



I don't understand.


Perhaps I should have been clear about the manner in which I was using the term... in particular, the connotation.



I agree.

My argument doesn't really concern the origins of rights, per se.

I held up human rights as laws of ethics not nature and people choose to behave unethically all the time.

I will make no claim on where ethics come from here only that they are by definition universal standards. If the majority of Americans decided that we didn't want anymore annoying protesters around and banned all anti-war demonstration that wouldn't make it ethical.

A free human being has to right to voice a free opinion, no matter how unpopular.

I understand where you are coming from (I think... ) but this to me is a matter of right and wrong. It is wrong for a government to restrict a person's freedom without a compelling reason.



That is what worries me the most here.

For those saying it's not a big deal, consider for a moment the Madness to the Method so to speak.

No one has been able to establish a logical thread between Minarets and the threat of sharia law, so what's the real reason for this ban?

It is important for we in the West the check these sort of authoritarian impulses. Our government do not legally and should not practically have this sort of power and our people should not be quite this gullible.

It should take extreme pressure to turn us from human rights. this whole situation went to pot on a hair trigger.

Bad sign.

Just to be obnoxiously pedantic allow me clarify a small point; Swedes are from Sweden, which is in Scandinava, in the north of Europe. The Swiss are from Switzerland, which is a land locked nation in the centre of western Europe.

Edited to add:

I really ought to go to bed, but I'm not able to pass this by without comment or I'll be pondering it all night.

What do you mean by extreme pressure turnea? A lot of people in Europe are feeling extremely pressured right now.

Now, you may not feel they're justified, and you can argue semantics all day long with regards to the connection between minarets and sharia law, but have you lived in their shoes? Do you know what its like to face the ever increasing possibility of war, hoping against hope that it won't become a probability whilst all along the Muslim continue to press and press and press.

If it is important for people in the west to put a check on authoritarian impulses, then its equally important for the authorities to put a check on their political ambitions, especially when these do not coincide with the wishes of their people. There is not one country in Europe that has voted to allow itself to become a multiculture. This global social model has been imposed upon us and people have had enough.

If it came down to a choice between a war or violating a few religious rights, which would you choose?

Sorry Moif. I can be a hothead. =\


And I fail at geography.


I'm not sure how we realized what we did. I've been asking myself this for three years. I just know human nature is not fixed and immutable or else we could study one period in history and learn all we need to know.


Maybe you're right, but I like to think that shaky ground is what makes me question denying gay marriage and banning minarets. Keeping the door open for doubt and the possibility of being wrong instead of settling for a rigid moral code, no matter how appealing now, makes intrinsic sense to me; for someone interested in the long view. There's no ethical/moral/ideological/religious/etc. framework that can guide us in everything. The security of my insecurity is good enough for me.


I mean there are many reasons people believe what they believe. Men may beat women because of low self-esteem or a feeling of powerlessness and society may tolerate and even applaud the abuser. How they get around to excusing the behavior doesn't matter to me. What matters is that in the end you have a society full of True Believing dupes.

Moif, I'll respond to you when someone posts after me. The maxed quote feature is blocking my response.

I suppose I can't understand what they are feeling...

..but the objective facts on the ground are free for all to see.

Muslims are about 4.3% of the Swiss population. There are a grand total of two minarets in the whole country all tiny and silent.

Now if people feel this is "Pressing and Pressing" then yes, that is beyond my comprehension.


They have done so again and again or at least their legislatures have.

European states can't invite millions of foreign workers to build their houses and pay their pensions and then complain when they hang around.