# The Combined Minaret Controversy Thread



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Nov 27, 2009)

> *Switzerland to vote on plan to ban minarets*
> 
> By Imogen Foulkes
> BBC News, Geneva
> ...





I wait Gaddafi reaction. Everybody know how he LOVES Switzerland


----------



## RAGING BONER (Nov 27, 2009)

you know this is just more evidence to what I've always said; European's hate muslims just as much as American's do...the thing is they go about it in a totally passive aggressive effeminate way that only encourages more muslims to just shit all over them.


----------



## makeoutparadise (Nov 27, 2009)

of course cause a giant light house will cause religious extremism


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Nov 27, 2009)

RAGING BONER said:


> you know this is just more evidence to what I've always said; European's hate muslims just as much as American's do...the thing is they go about it in a *totally passive aggressive effeminate* way that only encourages more muslims to just shit all over them.



???? what ?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Nov 27, 2009)

RAGING BONER said:


> you know this is just more evidence to what I've always said; European's hate muslims just as much as American's do...the thing is they go about it in a totally passive aggressive effeminate way that only encourages more muslims to just shit all over them.



There are exactly a lot of vocal secular muslims, so I think it's understandable that people feel threatened. Still, this sort of thing makes me glad that switzerland isn't part of the EU.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Nov 27, 2009)

Just write it into the building codes.  You gotta keep with the architectural character of the area.  Minarets aren't really suited to Switzerland.  Neither are flat-roofed buildings.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Nov 27, 2009)

> Halt to the minarets
> Yes Initiative against Minarets
> 
> 
> ...



Posters from Switzerland


----------



## makeoutparadise (Nov 27, 2009)

Le nooooooon!!!!


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 27, 2009)

If they want to shame themselves, let them do it. I don't see how a piece of architecture can bother anyone. Tell Swiss Muslims to come to Seattle and build their mosques, we could use the business.


----------



## ChocoMello (Nov 27, 2009)

Lol, luckily they are not part of the EU, or else the shitstorm would be really bad.


----------



## Jin-E (Nov 27, 2009)

Nice demonization of 400 000 people thar


----------



## Ishamael (Nov 27, 2009)

Yeah, cause extremist views are always the most accurate when pertaining to a religion.


----------



## Dionysus (Nov 27, 2009)

Simple way to limit their intrusiveness.  (And towers are intrusive.  Part of why churches and such love to have them.)  Impose a height limit for aesthetic reasons, and zone in approapriately.  As I understand it, many European cities already do this, limiting the advance of sky scrapers.


----------



## Trias (Nov 27, 2009)

There's no extremism within Islam! These are baseless speculations of Zionist Gay European Swiss Jews.

 Edit: Apparently, pics were deleted for the reason it's "a bit imflammatory" It's not like they're fake pics done by Jews, they were real pics, directly related to the thread, depicting radical muslims in europe directly. Lol over-political correctness.

 Pics were about "FREEDOM GO TO HELL, ISLAM WILL DOMINATE THE WORLD" posters worn by european muslims.


----------



## Banhammer (Nov 27, 2009)

I'm with the ban. Muslims in europe don't have the best of any track records, and I'm not in favor of giving them any more things to which be mad about later.  Is it only a few extremist ones that do the things they do (not really, but whatev) fine, that those guys screw it up for everyone else, same thing that happens to everyone else that dosen't have a crazy suicide bomb cousin.
The swiss allready get to choose wether or not ten percent of their taxes get to go to and to which church, the muslim don't also need real estate in the must luxurious and most neutral country on earth.

No to the growth of meaningless polarization in the bastion of neutrality.


----------



## Perseverance (Nov 27, 2009)

This is what feeds a chain of hatred to grow.


----------



## Vom Osten (Nov 27, 2009)

I'm for the ban, the advance of Islam into Europe needs to be stopped.


----------



## Al-Yasa (Nov 27, 2009)

Galizien said:


> I'm for the ban, the advance of Islam into Europe needs to be stopped.



b'awwwwwwwww


----------



## Dr. Obvious (Nov 27, 2009)

Religion is bs anyway, so I'm for the ban.


----------



## Black Wraith (Nov 27, 2009)

Hold on I'm sure the EU has something to say on this?

Article 9: Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion
Article 10: Right to freedom of expression
Article 14: Prohibition on Discrimination


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Nov 27, 2009)

Advice for the swiss. Just build bigger and taller churches. Planty of churches.



Black Drako said:


> Hold on I'm sure the EU has something to say on this?
> 
> Article 9: Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion
> Article 10: Right to freedom of expression
> Article 14: Prohibition on Discrimination



Switzerland is not in the EU. They can do whatever they want, the Eu rules don't work on them.....we need our passeport to go there.


----------



## Outlandish (Nov 27, 2009)

lol i think this only gives Islam more publicity people researching and more people converting .


----------



## Black Wraith (Nov 27, 2009)

Le Male said:


> Advice for the swiss. Just build bigger and taller churches. Planty of churches.
> 
> 
> 
> Switzerland is not in the EU. They can do whatever they want, the Eu rules don't work on them.....we need our passeport to go there.



Shit. didn't realise.

Let's invade them, they're a threat to democracy.


----------



## maj1n (Nov 27, 2009)

Black Drako said:


> Hold on I'm sure the EU has something to say on this?
> 
> Article 9: Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion
> Article 10: Right to freedom of expression
> Article 14: Prohibition on Discrimination


Do you support these ideals?


----------



## Black Wraith (Nov 27, 2009)

maj1n said:


> Do you support these ideals?



Whether I support these ideals is irrelevent to this thread. This thread is about a country which prides itself in being a democracy and all it's freedoms and then goes against this.

If on the hand a dictatorship or a commy country did it then it would be a whole different topic.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 27, 2009)

For the people supporting this, you do realize that this policy is discriminatory, right? It's always funny to see those who decry civil rights violations in the Islamic world, but then they support it in the West.


----------



## maj1n (Nov 27, 2009)

Black Drako said:


> Whether I support these ideals is irrelevent to this thread. This thread is about a country which prides itself in being a democracy and all it's freedoms and then goes against this.
> 
> If on the hand a dictatorship or a commy country did it then it would be a whole different topic.


If you didn't know, the 'country that prides itself on democracy' is holding this decision to a country vote.

Democracy and freedom is not the censure of opinion, technically democracy and freedom is the allowance of opinion, however wrong.

The country would have done a wrong if it ACTUALLY PASSES, as it is now, it has not.

That it allows this move to be voted on, exmeplifies democracy, that it allows this silly move to be voiced, exemplifies freedom of speech.

Most people don't even understand what democracy and freedom is all about, here is a hint, it is not about allowing only one type of opinion, ie. yours.

Btw you do realize it is not the 'country' that supports it, but certain parties? there are just as many prominent Swiss parties against it.

But of course you wouldn't realize this, knee-jerk ass-pained defend Islam reaction is very often irrational.


----------



## Jaruka (Nov 27, 2009)

This is just fucking stupid, I wont even waste my time saying just how wrong these people are.


----------



## vivEnergy (Nov 27, 2009)

Black Drako said:


> Shit. didn't realise.
> 
> Let's invade them, they're a threat to democracy.



FFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU 

We need it to stay that way to put all our manniez in da swiss bank and not pay stupid taxes. For that some would sell their soul to the devil ! So what's 4 miserable mosques ? Nuuuuuuuthing.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Nov 27, 2009)

Black Drako said:


> Shit. didn't realise.
> 
> Let's invade them, they're a threat to democracy.



You know Gaddafi want a european invasion of Switzerland. In Gaddafi plan, Switzerland would be shared by France, Germany and Italy.

Is minarets is necessary ? It's not like if they ban mosque. Ban or not, it's really affect pratice of islam in Switzerland.


----------



## Banhammer (Nov 27, 2009)

Swiss don't pride themselves in democracy, they pride themselves on punctuality neutrality army knives and chocolate.


----------



## N120 (Nov 27, 2009)

Banhammer said:


> Swiss don't pride themselves in democracy, they pride themselves on punctuality neutrality army knives and chocolate.



sounds like a nice place, to conquer mwhahahaha.


----------



## Mofo (Nov 27, 2009)




----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 27, 2009)

I find this to be funny.


----------



## kman4007 (Nov 27, 2009)

All this would do is make problems worse.


----------



## Koi (Nov 27, 2009)

GUYS LET'S BAN BASILICAN ARCHITECTURE

IT PROMOTES CHRISTIANITY


----------



## Darklyre (Nov 28, 2009)

N120 said:


> sounds like a nice place, to conquer mwhahahaha.



If it weren't for the multitudes of guns in each household, yeah.


----------



## iander (Nov 28, 2009)

First off, architecturally I actually like minarets.  Second, this is clear discrimination that will only feed into the already high religious tensions.  I still find it amazing that centuries after the Crusades, people are still using the same BS rhetoric about stopping the Muslim invasion!


----------



## Ludwig The Holy Blade (Nov 28, 2009)

Great idea guys, let's piss off Muslims even more! That always ends well


----------



## Camille (Nov 28, 2009)

Banhammer said:


> Swiss don't pride themselves in democracy, they pride themselves on punctuality, neutrality, army knives and chocolate.



This 


Fuck Switzerland, seriously


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 28, 2009)

iander said:


> First off, architecturally I actually like minarets.  Second, this is clear discrimination that will only feed into the already high religious tensions.  I still find it amazing that centuries after the Crusades, people are still using the same BS rhetoric about stopping the Muslim invasion!


But the Muslims were invading thats what started the cursades........


----------



## Outlandish (Nov 28, 2009)

sadated_peon said:


> But the Muslims were invading thats what started the cursades........



No.. it was the holy moly old men that wanted to reclaim the Holy Capital.. Jerusalem and they did it with great force slaughtering over 3000 men women and children of all faiths including Christians who also lived in the city.


----------



## Glued (Nov 28, 2009)

I don't see the point, muslims can pray without minarets. Hell I've seen mosques made logs and brick. I've even seen a mosque without a ceiling, they used a giant tarp for the ceiling and there was no glass for the window.


----------



## Vom Osten (Nov 28, 2009)

Outlandish said:


> No.. it was the holy moly old men that wanted to reclaim the Holy Capital.. Jerusalem and they did it with great force slaughtering over 3000 men women and children of all faiths including Christians who also lived in the city.



Remember Tours or Vienna? Muslims have tried (and failed) to invade and conquer Europe.

Islam didn't spread to where its at now peacefully, but always at the tip of the sword.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Nov 28, 2009)

Galizien said:


> Remember Tours or Vienna? Muslims have tried (and failed) to invade and conquer Europe.
> 
> Islam didn't spread to where its at now peacefully, but always at the tip of the sword.



Tours was 300 years before the first crusade and the muslim siege of vienna was in the 16th century. Sorry, but those are some bad excuses.


----------



## Mintaka (Nov 28, 2009)

The swiss seem to see this minaret as a symbol of violence and barbarism.  Instead of screaming discrimination why not try proving it isn't?

That would be the fastest way to kill this in the bud wouldn't it be?  If they still decide to push it then you can show it is discrimination right?

If you can get the people on your side and destroy their arguments in a reasonable way......then when they still insist it will be clear to all who's being the aggressor here.


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 28, 2009)

Outlandish said:
			
		

> No.. it was the holy moly old men that wanted to reclaim the Holy Capital.. Jerusalem


No, the first crusades were to drive the Muslims out of lower Italy, Sicily and Spain and calls for aid by the Byzantines, and then on to Jerusalem. 
Which had become hostel to Christians, with earlier in the century the church of the holy Sepulcher was destroyed by the Muslim ruler. 

Lets consider the reverse to see how you would feel. 
Bush invades all throughout middle east conquering and setting up new American states, he conquers mecca and turns it into the Christian city of Mecca. He then burns down Grand Mosque then allows Muslims the privilege of paying the United States to be allowed to rebuild it. As well allows for the Pilgrims to return but only if the pay the U.S. huge amount of money for them to be allowed to visit the Christian city of Mecca. 

Please tell what would the Muslim reaction be to this? would they give praises to how tolerant the United States is? 


			
				Outlandish said:
			
		

> and they did it with great force slaughtering over 3000 men women and children of all faiths including Christians who also lived in the city.


That they did


----------



## kman4007 (Nov 28, 2009)

sadated_peon said:


> No, the first crusades were to drive the Muslims out of lower Italy, Sicily and Spain and calls for aid by the Byzantines, and then on to Jerusalem.
> Which had become hostel to Christians, with earlier in the century the church of the holy Sepulcher was destroyed by the Muslim ruler.
> 
> Lets consider the reverse to see how you would feel.
> ...



pwned   Hopefully this doesn't go through in Switzerland. People r so intolerant


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Nov 28, 2009)

Ben Grimm said:


> I don't see the point, muslims can pray without minarets. Hell I've seen mosques made logs and brick. I've even seen a mosque without a ceiling, they used a giant tarp for the ceiling and there was no glass for the window.



Yes, it's not really a dicrimination. Just a disagrement about a decorative part of the mosque.

BTW, if it was a ban on church steeple in a non christian country, most of people here wouldn't so pissed by this country like they are for Switzerland.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Nov 28, 2009)

Le Male said:


> Yes, it's not really a dicrimination. Just a disagrement about a decorative part of the mosque.
> 
> BTW, if it was a ban on church steeple in a non christian country, most of people here wouldn't so pissed by this country like they are for Switzerland.



Wrong, if it weren't about discrimination, they'd ban all big buildings. This and the campaign that propagates it make it very clear that it's an open attack on muslims in switzerland.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Nov 28, 2009)

Saufsoldat said:


> Wrong, if it weren't about discrimination, they'd ban all big buildings. This and the campaign that propagates it make it very clear that it's an open attack on muslims in switzerland.



No so wrong, if they don't like foreign design in their building, it's their right. However, i forget all the posters against muslims. There is an anti muslim feeling in Switzerland but it's their right, if they don't like minarets to ban it. 
There is discrimination in the posters, and we can blame Switzerland for this.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Nov 28, 2009)

Le Male said:


> No so wrong, if they don't like foreign design in their building, it's their right. However, i forget all the posters against muslims. There is an anti muslim feeling in Switzerland but it's their right, if they don't like minarets to ban it.
> There is discrimination in the posters, and we can blame Switzerland for this.



I'm not saying that it's not their right (I don't know if the swiss constitution allows for such an act of discrimination) just that nobody should try to downplay this as a matter of architecture or some other ridiculous excuse for discrimination.


----------



## Banhammer (Nov 28, 2009)




----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 28, 2009)

sadated_peon said:


> No, the first crusades were to drive the Muslims out of lower Italy, Sicily and Spain and calls for aid by the Byzantines, and then on to Jerusalem.
> Which had become hostel to Christians, with earlier in the century the church of the holy Sepulcher was destroyed by the Muslim ruler.



Garbage. The First Crusade was declared in 1095 to fight a war of aggression in the Holy Land. What you've said is not true. It never targeted Italy or Spain. It headed for the Levant, it was not for defense. 

And what are you talking about concerning Sicily? That was already under Christian control, which is why *Christian* princes of the *Christian* Kingdom of Sicily were among the leaders of the First Crusade. These princes also ruled lower Italy, so again I have no clue what you're talking about. The Christian capture of southern Italy had nothing to do with crusades, but the crafty Norman Hautevilles. 



			
				kman4007 said:
			
		

> pwned



If you're going to proclaim "pwned", at least know what you're talking about. Fiction doesn't "pwn" reality.


----------



## aquis45 (Nov 28, 2009)

Le Male said:


> No so wrong, if they don't like foreign design in their building, it's their right. However, i forget all the posters against muslims. There is an anti muslim feeling in Switzerland but it's their right, if they don't like minarets to ban it.
> There is discrimination in the posters, and we can blame Switzerland for this.



Hilarious discrimination.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Nov 28, 2009)

Saufsoldat said:


> I'm not saying that it's not their right (I don't know if the swiss constitution allows for such an act of discrimination) just that nobody should try to downplay this as a matter of architecture or some other ridiculous excuse for discrimination.



FOr me the real discrimination is the posters. A ban of Minarets is not a discrimination. A ban of mosque would be discrimination and a threat for freedom of religion. 
Now we should try to understand Swiss. Their country is not a multicultural society like France, England or the United States. So when they see foreign cultures coming, their reaction is extreme.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Nov 28, 2009)

Le Male said:


> FOr me the real discrimination is the posters. A ban of Minarets is not a discrimination. A ban of mosque would be discrimination and a threat for freedom of religion.
> Now we should try to understand Swiss. Their country is not a multicultural society like France, England or the United States. So when they see foreign cultures coming, their reaction is extreme.



A poster cannot discriminate, a law can. And a law that prohibits a certain building solely because it's important to a religious group is pure and unfiltered discrimination.

And no, we should not try to understand the swiss for being ignorant and xenophobic just like we should not try to understand criminal immigrants because of their cultural background.


----------



## firefist (Nov 28, 2009)

why do they fear the islam so much?
It's not like the minarets are sending out psychic waves to control the whole country.
Even if the ban is going to take effect, mosque don't have to have a minaret.


----------



## aquis45 (Nov 28, 2009)

Firefist said:


> why do they fear the islam so much?
> It's not like the minarets are sending out psychic waves to control the whole country.
> Even if the ban is going to take effect, mosque don't have to have a minaret.



Maybe they just got done playing RA2?

*Spoiler*: __


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Nov 28, 2009)

Saufsoldat said:


> A poster cannot discriminate, a law can. And a law that prohibits a certain building solely because it's important to a religious group is pure and unfiltered discrimination.
> 
> And no, we should not try to understand the swiss for being ignorant and xenophobic just like we should not try to understand criminal immigrants because of their cultural background.



These posters dicriminate by show muslim as evil. Is the Minarets are so important to pratice their religion ? It's just decorative. The Swiis don't want this kind of decoration in their city, it's their right. 

Understand doesn't mean excuse them. Fear foreign cultures is not only the case of the swiss. Blame them for fear foreign culture is useless. i believe it's better to educate, in the case of Swiss, they must learn by themselves. However they go too far with these posters (remind me anti jews posters by the Nazis).


----------



## Banhammer (Nov 28, 2009)

I really see nothing wrong in a strongly neutral country taking a stand against allowing a cultural shift on such a volatile political field.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Nov 28, 2009)

Le Male said:


> These posters dicriminate by show muslim as evil. Is the Minarets are so important to pratice their religion ? It's just decorative. The Swiis don't want this kind of decoration in their city, it's their right.
> 
> Understand doesn't mean excuse them. Fear foreign cultures is not only the case of the swiss. Blame them for fear foreign culture is useless. i believe it's better to educate, in the case of Swiss, they must learn by themselves. However they go too far with these posters (remind me anti jews posters by the Nazis).



Again, a poster cannot discriminate. Discrimination per definition describes behavior or treatment of a certain group of people. Saying that all christians smell funny is not discrimination, banning churches from having a belfry is discrimination.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Nov 28, 2009)

Saufsoldat said:


> Again, a poster cannot discriminate. Discrimination per definition describes behavior or treatment of a certain group of people. Saying that all christians smell funny is not discrimination, banning churches from having a belfry is discrimination.



Yes you're right, i had a wrong definition of discrimination, i'm sorry.


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 28, 2009)

Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> Garbage. The First Crusade was declared in 1095 to fight a war of aggression in the Holy Land. What you've said is not true. It never targeted Italy or Spain. It headed for the Levant, it was not for defense.


The first crusade started in 1095, but the Christian rulers had started their repelling of Muslim invaders before this, and this was their push toward the holy land. 
The capture of Toledo happened in 1085 and was the beginning of the decline of Muslim rules in Spain. The crusades were a continuation of the Reconquista. 
Along with the Spanish reclaiming came the campaign driving Muslims out of lower Italy, which was preparation to the Norman reconquest of Sicily. 



			
				Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> And what are you talking about concerning Sicily? That was already under Christian control, which is why Christian princes of the Christian Kingdom of Sicily were among the leaders of the First Crusade. These princes also ruled lower Italy, so again I have no clue what you're talking about. The Christian capture of southern Italy had nothing to do with crusades, but the crafty Norman Hautevilles.


Sicily was reconquered in 1091 with the reclaiming of Noto. 
The defeat here was 4 years before the declaration of the first crusade. 

These BOTH were campaigns that set the stage for the crusades, they were part of the reclaiming of "Christian lands" from Muslims. You think that it is a coincidence that the end of these campaigns came less then 10 years from the proclamation of the pope?

Christian Europe was in the process of renewal and started a reconquest of lands, these are the precursors to the crusades and are the DIRECT RESULT OF MUSLIM INVASION. The calls for aid from Byzantines empire to a direct threat

The crusades have a specific meaning and a specific date that reflects the popes command, but they were a reconquest just the same. Do you think the Crusader armies sprang out of the ground one day?



			
				Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> If you're going to proclaim "pwned", at least know what you're talking about. Fiction doesn't "pwn" reality.


There was no fiction here. I have no idea what you think you know about history, but you seem ignorant to me.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 28, 2009)

sadated_peon said:


> The first crusade started in 1095, but the Christian rulers had started their repelling of Muslim invaders before this, and this was their push toward the holy land.



Do you even realize that calling everyone a "Muslim invader" is like saying a "Christian invader". They have kingdoms and principalities too. The rulers of the Levant had never taken offensive action against Western Catholics. In fact, the Holy Land was never held by Catholics until they were conquered by crusading Catholics. 




> The capture of Toledo happened in 1085 and was the beginning of the decline of Muslim rules in Spain. The crusades were a continuation of the Reconquista.



The Reconquista was a period of over 400 years. The First Crusade had nothing to do with conquering Spain. You cannot conflate the two, because your goal is obviously to paint the Crusades as a war of defense, when it clearly was not. 



> Along with the Spanish reclaiming came the campaign driving Muslims out of lower Italy, which was preparation to the Norman reconquest of Sicily.



The Norman conquest of Sicily was complete decades before the First Crusade was even launched (effectively). It was not in preparation for a crusade; Robert Guiscard if anything desired to fight against the Byzantines, not the infidel Muslims. 




> Sicily was reconquered in 1091 with the reclaiming of Noto.
> The defeat here was 4 years before the declaration of the first crusade.



Are you saying that since they are close in time, they are related?  Guiscard was trying to carve out a kingdom for himself and his descendants, not crusade. 



> These BOTH were campaigns that set the stage for the crusades, they were part of the reclaiming of "Christian lands" from Muslims. You think that it is a coincidence that the end of these campaigns came less then 10 years from the proclamation of the pope?



No, not really. You're using 400 (Reconquista) and 100+ (conquest of southern Italy) year conflicts to conclude that they are related to something which occurred in between. The Reconquista wasn't complete for another 400 years. 



> Christian Europe was in the process of renewal and started a reconquest of lands, these are the precursors to the crusades and are the DIRECT RESULT OF MUSLIM INVASION. The calls for aid from Byzantines empire to a direct threat



Except, Christian Europe never held land in the Levant. Or in the Middle East. Except by crusading. The Byzantines were ultimately undone by a crusade directed at them by Enrico Dandolo and Frankish knights/mercenaries. This was not for the defense of Christendom, that is propaganda (and medieval propaganda at that). 



> The crusades have a specific meaning and a specific date that reflects the popes command, but they were a reconquest just the same. Do you think the Crusader armies sprang out of the ground one day?



No, they were not reconquests. They were conquests. And some were just slaughters. The Albigensian Crusade was a slaughter of Catholics in southern France. The Fourth Crusade was a sacking of Constantinople. These were greed filled princes on a crusade for wealth.

Your take on history is revisionist and not supported by a single serious historian. Actually, they're mostly your own theories.


----------



## Kotoamatsukami (Nov 28, 2009)

Banning minarettes only leads to a stronger backroom atmosphaere and will seclude muslims from the society in europe, and in this case switzerland, even further.


----------



## aquis45 (Nov 28, 2009)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Your take on history is revisionist and not supported by a single serious historian. Actually, they're mostly your own theories.



Or maybe he just read the Wikipedia article which states everything he just said.


----------



## Xyloxi (Nov 28, 2009)

Galizien said:


> Remember Tours or Vienna? Muslims have tried (and failed) to invade and conquer Europe.
> 
> Islam didn't spread to where its at now peacefully, but always at the tip of the sword.



I believe the Bosnians wilfully converted to Islam, or Indians who converted to Islam by their own choice? Christianity hardly has a better history than Islam anyway.


----------



## Banhammer (Nov 28, 2009)

Yeah well, christians these days don't call for holy hitlists by the thousands on a guy that makes a cartoons of jesus.


----------



## Xyloxi (Nov 28, 2009)

Banhammer said:


> Yeah well, christians these days don't call for holy hitlists by the thousands on a guy that makes a cartoons of jesus.



I'm not talking about present times, he was bringing up examples from history, so I was as well. Whilst Islam was at its greatest the Christian world was back in the Dark Ages.


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 28, 2009)

Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> Do you even realize that calling everyone a "Muslim invader" is like saying a "Christian invader". They have kingdoms and principalities too. The rulers of the Levant had never taken offensive action against Western Catholics. In fact, the Holy Land was never held by Catholics until they were conquered by crusading Catholics.


lol western Catholics? Wait you you trying to say that Constantine wasn't a Catholic? 
The East and Western half of the roman empire were united through faith, much as the Muslim nations were at the time. 
The eastern Roman empire ruling the holy land was a matter of course because it controlled the eastern provinces. 

Also the Fatimid caliphate that ruled over Jerusalem were the same had conquered Sicily and made attacks upon Italy and southern France. Though you attempts to try and pull the conflict of faiths out of this is amusing to me. 


			
				Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> The Reconquest was a period of over 400 years. The First Crusade had nothing to do with conquering Spain. You cannot conflate the two, because your goal is obviously to paint the Crusades as a war of defense, when it clearly was not.


What? Of course they are similar it all had to do with reconquering lands from Muslim invaders. 
Enjoy a wiki



			
				Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> The Norman conquest of Sicily was complete decades before the First Crusade was even launched (effectively). It was not in preparation for a crusade; Robert Guiscard if anything desired to fight against the Byzantines, not the infidel Muslims.


lol, as I said in my previous post the conquest of Sicily didn't come to a decrease until Noto was recaptured. This was not decades with was 4 years before the first crusade was declared. 


			
				Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> Are you saying that since they are close in time, they are related? Guiscard was trying to carve out a kingdom for himself and his descendants, not crusade.


I am saying that their timing is related to them being a precursor with the as I sated being that they were campaigns to reclaim land from Muslim invaders. I think you have a misunderstanding of the conflict I am referring to if you think that Guiscard conflict with the Byzantines has anything to do with the conversation. 


			
				Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> No, not really. You're using 400 (Reconquista) and 100+ (conquest of southern Italy) year conflicts to conclude that they are related to something which occurred in between. The Reconquista wasn't complete for another 400 years.


Yes, really. 
The battle of Toledo was generally considered the turning point of the conflict, this was the starter of the eventual fall. Though it took long time to conquer the rest of Spain, it is movement that was behind the crusades, and is the same response to Muslim aggression. 
It is should be obvious to any with even half a brain that a campaign to reclaim "Christian lands" from Muslims is similar to a campaign to reclaim "Christian lands" from Muslims. 


			
				Shiniagami Perv said:
			
		

> Except, Christian Europe never held land in the Levant. Or in the Middle East. Except by crusading. The Byzantines were ultimately undone by a crusade directed at them by Enrico Dandolo and Frankish knights/mercenaries. This was not for the defense of Christendom, that is propaganda (and medieval propaganda at that).


Christian Europe? Once again there is this laughable distinction you keep trying to make. Jerusalem was held by Christian for many year before the Muslims conquered the land. The Eastern Roman empire calls for help were answered by the Western Roman empire and that was the start of the crusades. 

The in fighting between these two sects, does not constitute a lack of Christian rule, nor was it considered so by the populations of the time. 

Many Byzantine cities were restored and won back when the Western Roman empire reconquered them, but it was when the Alexios betrayed the Western forces by refusing to aid at the battle of Antioch that the relationship began to break down. 
But the relationship was good enough that after the first crusade the Byzantine empire was left STRONGER than at the start. 
Dandolo wasn't born until a hundred years after the start first crusade. It was during the forth crusade that the Constantinople was sacked. 



> No, they were not reconquests. They were conquests. And some were just slaughters. The Albigensian Crusade was a slaughter of Catholics in southern France. The Fourth Crusade was a sacking of Constantinople. These were greed filled princes on a crusade for wealth.


They were reconquests, the areas were once control by Christians, and they were being reconquered by Christians after they were conquered by Muslims in 638. 


> Your take on history is revisionist and not supported by a single serious historian. Actually, they're mostly your own theories


lol, the fact that the first crusade was the result of Muslim advancement into "Christian lands" is a almost universally accepted fact. The invasions of Muslims forces throughout Europe was the main motivator for the original crusades.

*That you try to deny that Muslims conquered Jerusalem, and were on a campaign to conquer Europe is pathetic. Is is blantant historical revisionism. *

I don't think I made ANY CLAIMS about the changing motivations of the crusaders in preceding centuries. 

My comment was as follows. 
"the Muslims were invading thats what started the crusades"

Which is absolutely true, Muslims were invading the crusades started as a response to this invasion.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 28, 2009)

aquis45 said:


> Or maybe he just read the Wikipedia article which states everything he just said.



Link please? I thought not. 

It most certainly would not state that, since it is not historically accurate. 



sadated_peon said:


> lol western Catholics? Wait you you trying to say that Constatine wasn't a Catholic?
> The East and Western half of the roman empire were united through faith, much as the Muslim nations were at the time.
> The eastern Roman empire ruling the holy land was a matter of course because it controlled the eastern provences.



What are you talking about? What does Constantine have to do with this? He died early in the previous millennium. The Eastern church was already long separated from Rome by the time of the Crusades. 



> Also the Fatimid caliphate that ruled over Jerusalem were the same had conquered Sisaly and made attacks upon Itality and southern france. Though you attempts to try and pull the conflict of faiths out of this is amuzing to me.



Yes, but Sicily was at the time ruled by different people. The Normans invaded Muslim Sicily. The majority of the Crusaders were French, and the Fatimids did not attack southern France. 



> What? Of course they are similure it all had to do with recoquering lands from Muslim invaders.
> Enjoy a wiki



Uh, that doesn't say what you claim it does. "Similar" is not a causal relationship between the Reconquista and the Crusades. You're merely arguing that since religious orders fought in both the Reconquista and the Crusades that the two conflicts are somehow related. They are not. If anything, the reports of Muslim wealth during these reconquests incited the greed of Christians for booty in the Holy Land. 



> lol, as I said in my previous post the conquest of Sicily didn't come to a decrease until Noto was recaputured. This was not decades with was 4 years before the first crusade was declared.



Because you list Noto as the ending point of the conquest of Sicily. There were many pockets of resistance that endured long after Sicily was effectively Norman, actually for decades. 

But regardless, the rulers of Sicily have never had any special love for the church or the pope. The crusaders they sent were disinherited sons on conquest for booty and territory, not to defend Christendom. 


> I am saying that their timing is related to them being a precurser with the as I sated being that they were campaigns to reclaim land from Muslim invaders. I think you have a misunderstanding of the conflict I am refering to if you think that Guiscard conflict with the Byzantines has anything to do with the converstion.



No, I'm just pointing out that nobody went on that crusade to defend Christendom. They were all looking for booty and land. I give Robert Guiscard as an example because he warred against fellow Christians (Byzantines), and the Hautevilles had previously even fought and captured the pope. 



> Yes, really.
> The battle of Toledo was generally considered the turning point of the conflict, this was the starte of the eventual fall. Though it took long time to conquer the rest of spain, it is movement that was behind the crusades, and is the same response to Muslim agression.
> It is should be obvious to any with even half a brain that a campaign to reclaim "christian lands" from Muslims is simular to a campaign to reclaim "christian lands" from Muslims.



Yes, I'm familiar with Toledo and its aftermath. But saying that it is related to the First Crusade is just nonsense. Christians and Muslims had been fighting since Tours 400 years earlier, this idea that fighting for Muslim land is new and was sparked by the Reconquista is bogus. 



> Chritian Europe? Once again there is this laughable distinction you keep trying to make. Jerusalm was helf by christian for many year before the Muslims conquered the land. The Eastern Roman empire calls for help were answered by the Western Roman empire and that was the start of the crusades.



Eastern Christians! They are significantly different from Catholics! The Byzantines were Greek, not French. They called for an alliance with Rome, but that ended in the eventual destruction of their empire after the Fourth Crusade. You must, absolutely, distinguish Orthodox Christians from Catholics. 



> The in fighting between these two sects, does not constatute a lack of christian rule, nor was it considered so by the populations of the time.



The word "Christian" is almost meaningless. Eastern Christianity was considered borderline heresy to western Catholics. It's almost as different as Shia and Sunni Muslims. 



> Many Byzantine cities were restored and won back when the Western Roman empire reconqured them, but it was when the Alexios betrayed the Western forces by refusing to aid at the battle of Antioc that the relationship began to break down.
> But the relationship was good enough that after the first crusade the Byantine empire was left STRONGER than at the start.
> Dandolo wasn't born until a hundered years after the start first crusade. It was during the forth crusade that the constantinopal was sacked.



Yes, the Byzantines were stronger after the First Crusade, but they didn't get the land that they had requested reconquered.  That became the Kingdom of Jerusalem and the Crusader States period. The Catholics just kept the land. Dandolo came ~100 years later and absolutely destroyed Byzantium, the Fourth Crusade ironically delivered the killing blow to Christianity in the east. 




> lol, the fact that the first crusade was the result of Muslim advancement into "Christian lands" is a almost universally accepted fact. The invasions of Muslims forcers throughout Europe was the main motivator for the orginal cursades.



Link? This is not true at all, at least for Catholics. Muslims had taken those Byzantine lands 400 years earlier. That was certainly not the primary motivator: it was greed for lands and incomes, and also power. Unless you call piracy in southern and mid Italy an invasion, there was none to speak of. The only real war at the time was between Byzantines and Turks, and that is not related to Catholicism. 




> *That you try to deny that Muslims conquered Jerusalam, and were on a campaign to conquery Europe is pathetic. Is is blant historical revisionism. *



Of course they conquered Jerusalem, 400 years earlier. Islam was actually being driven out of Europe, as you referred to in referencing the Reconquista and Norman victories. The greatest expansion of Islam, the Turkish conquest of eastern Europe, was due largely to the Fourth Crusade. 



> My comment was as follows.
> "the Muslims were invading thats what started the cursades"



No, that's not what started the crusades. They did not invade Europe. I'm sorry, but this is dead wrong. The Byzantines (not Catholic) were warred upon by the Turks. The crusades were motivated by greed, at least for the nobles (the peasants and low knights really don't matter), they were offensive in nature, not defensive. Not even conservative scholars will agree with you there. 



> Which is absolutly true, Muslims were invading the crusades started as a response to this invasion.



No, it did not. That's dead wrong. The Muslim expansion into Europe concluded one to four centuries before the First Crusade. It's actually the opposite: they were being forced out of Europe as the First Crusade began.


----------



## Trias (Nov 28, 2009)

Sadated Peon, you're a damn idiot.

 I was going to read all your post, but I stopped in the first fucking quote.

 Yes, Byzantine was NOT catholic, they were Eastern Orthodox.


----------



## Red (Nov 28, 2009)

Banning a place of worship for no reason? 

So as I pray unlimited facepalm works.


----------



## Outlandish (Nov 28, 2009)

> A right-wing campaign to outlaw minarets on mosques in a referendum being held in Switzerland today has received an unlikely boost from radical feminists arguing that the tower-like structures are ?male power symbols? and reminders of Islam?s oppression of women.
> 
> A ?stop the minarets? campaign has provoked ferment in the land of Heidi, where women are more likely than men to vote for the ban after warnings from prominent feminists that Islam threatens their rights.
> 
> ...






LOL


----------



## Ƶero (Nov 28, 2009)

Not cool switzerland. Pretty idiotic actually.



Firefist said:


> why do they fear the islam so much?
> *It's not like the minarets are sending out psychic waves to control the whole country.*
> Even if the ban is going to take effect, mosque don't have to have a minaret.



Interesting 



> radical feminists arguing that the tower-like structures are “male power symbols”


oh wow.


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 28, 2009)

Trias said:


> Sadated Peon, you're a damn idiot.
> 
> I was going to read all your post, but I stopped in the first fucking quote.
> 
> Yes, Byzantine was NOT catholic, they were Eastern Orthodox.



Eastern orthodox is short for easter orthodox CATHOLIC church. 


"The Orthodox Church, also officially called the Orthodox Catholic Church"


----------



## Viciousness (Nov 28, 2009)

aquis45 said:


> Maybe they just got done playing RA2?
> 
> *Spoiler*: __



holy shit I thought that was an advanced tesla coil at first.

and if they ban muslims does that mean the new nation of islam can't visit? What about muhammed ali? I dont see this ban working, its going to be 2010.


----------



## Outlandish (Nov 28, 2009)

DrunkenYoshimaster said:


> holy shit I thought that was an advanced tesla coil at first.
> 
> and if they ban muslims does that mean the new nation of islam can't visit? What about muhammed ali? I dont see this ban working, its going to be 2010.



Tesla coil... holy shit i remember that!  


s'all about tanya missions!

they arent banning muslims but Arabic architecture.. :S or well it's up for a vote


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Nov 28, 2009)

Coming soon on Xbox live and Playstation Network


----------



## Banhammer (Nov 28, 2009)

> A right-wing campaign to outlaw minarets on mosques in a referendum being held in Switzerland today has received an unlikely boost from radical feminists arguing that the tower-like structures are “male power symbols” and reminders of Islam’s oppression of women.





But, yeah, there's also that. Muslims aren't really pleasent to women and that dosen't fly in europe


----------



## ~M~ (Nov 28, 2009)

O lord dat symbol is such a direct threat to my safety


----------



## Banhammer (Nov 28, 2009)

Yeah it's not as nice when you're a swiss and there's a guy yelling off a tower at four in the morning telling all the imigrants when to pray every day.

And believe me, I've been to switzerland, all the major cities and some of the smaller ones, if there are muslims there, they're pretty new.

God, I sound like a republican.

Look, it's an actually cultural thing, so I think the swiss should have a vote in the matter. And if the majority who live in the cities don't want those religious symbols, specially since it is a symbol, and they might disagree what the symbol stands for, then it's more power to them.

Personally, I just wish they wouldn't make the religion that has active terrorist folowers mad while they still have the lhc


----------



## Glued (Nov 28, 2009)

What is this supposed to accomplish? A masjid without a minaret is still a masjid.

Its like a sissy insult.


----------



## maj1n (Nov 28, 2009)

sadated_peon said:
			
		

> But the Muslims were invading thats what started the cursades........
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Son, whats wrong with you?

military expeditions, beginning in the late 11th century, that were organized by Western Christians in response to centuries of Muslim wars of expansion.
-http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/144695/Crusades

*Historical testimony of Urban II speech for the call of the ORIGINAL CRUSADE*
Fulchur

For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impurity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it.

"All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested. O what a disgrace if such a despised and base race, which worships demons, should conquer a people which has the faith of omnipotent God and is made glorious with the name of Christ! With what reproaches will the Lord overwhelm us if you do not aid those who, with us, profess the Christian religion! Let those who have been accustomed unjustly to wage private warfare against the faithful now go against the infidels and end with victory this war which should have been begun long ago.


ROBERT
From the confines of Jerusalem and the city of Constantinople a horrible tale has gone forth and very frequently has been brought to our ears, namely, that a race from the kingdom of the Persians, an accursed race, a race utterly alienated from God, a generation forsooth which has not directed its heart and has not entrusted its spirit to God, has invaded the lands of those Christians and has depopulated them by the sword, pillage and fire; it has led away a part of the captives into its own country, and a part it has destroyed by cruel tortures; it has either entirely destroyed the churches of God or appropriated them for the rites of its own religion. They destroy the altars, after having defiled them with their uncleanness. They circumcise the Christians, and the blood of the circumcision they either spread upon the altars or pour into the vases of the baptismal font. When they wish to torture people by a base death, they perforate their navels, and dragging forth the extremity of the intestines, bind it to a stake; then with flogging they lead the victim around until the viscera having gushed forth the victim falls prostrate upon the ground. Others they bind to a post and pierce with arrows. Others they compel to extend their necks and then, attacking them with naked swords, attempt to cut through the neck with a single blow. What shall I say of the abominable rape of the women? To speak of it is worse than to be silent. The kingdom of the Greeks is now dismembered by them and deprived of territory so vast in extent that it can not be traversed in a march of two months. On whom therefore is the labor of avenging these wrongs and of recovering this territory incumbent, if not upon you? You, upon whom above other nations God has conferred remarkable glory in arms, great courage, bodily activity, and strength to humble the hairy scalp of those who resist you.
-http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2-5vers.html#Fulcher


----------



## Banhammer (Nov 28, 2009)

well, zurich without a minaret is still zurich without big phalic symbols.


Religion's inflence in switzerland is a pretty democratic choice. For example, people get to choose if they want ten percent of their taxes directed to church, and if so, which one.
It's perfectly natural to give the cultural power of choice of a cultural matter over to them.
I wished my goverment talked to me before building certain monuments.


----------



## Glued (Nov 28, 2009)

Banhammer said:


> well, zurich without a minaret is still zurich without big phalic symbols.
> 
> 
> Religion's inflence in switzerland is a pretty democratic choice. For example, people get to choose if they want ten percent of their taxes directed to church, and if so, which one.
> ...



Phallic symbol? It was designed so someone can announce the call to prayer. Nowadays, its just used for aesthetics. Its like the dome that is sometimes put on a masjid.


----------



## Banhammer (Nov 28, 2009)

It was a joke on the swiss dyke brigade ^^

Still, the point stands. Even more so with yours. It belongs to the locals the choice of whether or not they want it, and personally I wouldn't.

The muslim people still have much to earn and much to conquer for the swiss peple before earning the right to do that.


----------



## Glued (Nov 28, 2009)

Personally I don't care, its just aesthetics.

Or more like I don't get the point


----------



## Banhammer (Nov 28, 2009)

the point is, the highest country on europe dosen't want the new guys to give themselves the right to build really tall muslim penises, specially when they're used to have power over all churches in general, and to be honest I agree.
They're the new guys, if they want switzerland to be more amicable to them, then they better do something that helps them to be seen that way, because at the moment, there really isn't any.

I would argue the exact same thing if they were baning cathedrals or giant jesus monuments in dubai

I had a much more sensible post written before that got accidentally erased.


----------



## Al-Yasa (Nov 28, 2009)

@ for those guys talking bout crusades

​


----------



## Fulcata (Nov 28, 2009)

Black Drako said:


> Hold on I'm sure the EU has something to say on this?
> 
> Article 9: Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion
> Article 10: Right to freedom of expression
> Article 14: Prohibition on Discrimination


They aren't preventing them from worshiping, and buildings aren't people.


----------



## Banhammer (Nov 28, 2009)

See, I can't side with anyone trying to evoce thousand year old history for what, judgement of character?


----------



## aquis45 (Nov 28, 2009)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Link please? I thought not.
> 
> It most certainly would not state that, since it is not historically accurate.





Sorry for the delay, I was living life.


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Nov 28, 2009)

A piece of architecture encourages a state that belongs to "Islam" ?



I swear .....



It really does seem that European governments are intolerant of Islam even more so than the Americas.


----------



## id_1948 (Nov 29, 2009)

Interesting

Will they now ban external jewish symbols from synagogues, or sikh/hindu ones from there temples.. or even bell towers from non-catholic swiss churches like the orthodox or coptic churchs??

Because if it doesnt... then it specifically targets one single religon at the expense of the rest... and thats discriminatory

Will be watching the results of the referendum with interest


----------



## ~M~ (Nov 29, 2009)

Discrimination is okay when it's against Muslims, who aren't actually people ^_^


----------



## Masaki (Nov 29, 2009)

And then Iran attacks Switzerland.

And then WWIII.


----------



## stainedshuriken (Nov 29, 2009)

*More strict immigtration policy.*

I think Switzerland needs a more strict immigration policy: 

Saudi Arabia is a good example as you are not allowed in that country unless you are invited by a legal resident or a citizen of said country unless it is for a pilgrimage to Mecca.

Israel is also a good example as it's impossible to pass through their borders without being detected. 

Let's not forget Japan. Japan puts it's own people first before anyone else. No extra riff raff may cross undetected. 

After all, it's their country, they have the right to decide who gets in their country and who gets out. That is how national sovereignty is maintained.


----------



## The_Unforgiven (Nov 29, 2009)

So what if minarets are banned. A mosque is still a mosque with or without a minaret.


----------



## N120 (Nov 29, 2009)

stainedshuriken said:


> I think Switzerland needs a more strict immigration policy:
> 
> Saudi Arabia is a good example as you are not allowed in that country unless you are invited by a legal resident or a citizen of said country unless it is for a pilgrimage to Mecca.
> 
> ...



 but what does this have to do with building minarets?


----------



## Xion (Nov 29, 2009)

Anyone here in favor of a ban on minarets is either insane or against Islam to such a crazy extent that they would sacrifice freedoms to see it harmed in any remote way possible.

I see some notable atheists who would otherwise be rational in the latter category.

Europe, never complain again about the USA and freedoms as at least we don't say you can't wear burqas or build minarets. Seriously, this is some Chinese shit. 



stainedshuriken said:


> Saudi Arabia is a good example as you are not allowed in that country unless you are invited by a legal resident or a citizen of said country unless it is for a pilgrimage to Mecca.



So tourism to Saudi Arabi and journalism are not permitted there?

I call bullshit.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 29, 2009)

RAGING BONER said:


> you know this is just more evidence to what I've always said; European's hate muslims just as much as American's do...the thing is they go about it in a *totally passive aggressive effeminate way* that only encourages more muslims to just shit all over them.





Le Male said:


> ???? what ?







The Space Cowboy said:


> Just write it into the building codes.  You gotta keep with the architectural character of the area.  Minarets aren't really suited to Switzerland.  Neither are flat-roofed buildings.



That's what I would do, Hell that's why there's no billboards, tall signs, or funky looking buildings in Sugarland and it makes the areas look less shitty when they're all pretty like and uniform.

Remember the giant cross here? I think that should come down now too, it looks odd.


----------



## zuul (Nov 29, 2009)

I find that completelly unfair, you cannot ban minarets if you don't ban churches and synagogues as well.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Nov 29, 2009)

If i'm not wrong, Switzerland is not a secular country like our. So i suppose there are not so neutral about religion lol


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 29, 2009)

zuul said:


> I find that completelly unfair, you cannot ban minarets if you don't ban churches and synagogues as well.



Minarets aren't Churches, its like someone erecting a giant Star of David or a Cross. 

And you can ban anything if your countries laws allow it really. I love how people seem to forget that you can't even build shit in your own front yard here sometimes without them threatening to kick you out of your house.


----------



## Hitomi (Nov 29, 2009)

> "The minaret is not an innocent building. It has been used in history to mark territory, to mark the progression of Islamic law in foreign countries," said member of parliament Oskar Freysinger.
> 
> "Islamic people say it's only decorative. I don't agree. If Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey says 'the minarets are our bayonets' that means something to me. I don't want his bayonets to be planted here in Switzerland."
> 
> ...


 

It?s spreading and getting more powerful no matter what you do.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Nov 29, 2009)

Xion said:


> Europe, never complain again about the USA and freedoms as at least we don't say you can't wear burqas or build minarets. Seriously, this is some Chinese shit.



The ban of burqas never made it and the minaret ban is not yet decided. Besides, Switzerland is not even part of the EU, it's a little freak country. So don't compare europe to the US, Saudi-Arabia or other countries of that caliber


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Nov 29, 2009)

Xion said:


> Anyone here in favor of a ban on minarets is either insane or against Islam to such a crazy extent that they would sacrifice freedoms to see it harmed in any remote way possible.
> 
> I see some notable atheists who would otherwise be rational in the latter category.
> 
> ...



this guy did 



Seriously, the muslim should work to have a better image in Europe. I say muslim but i shold say *arabs*. Arabs represente a huge majority of muslim in Europe and the religion of T4ROK are affected by their behaviours. The last stupid thing they did was the riots in Marseille for the football match Algeria - Egypt. Did we saw riot in Algeria or in Egypt ? I didn't heard about it in these countries.
Now with this kind of behaviours, the swiss see in the rest of Europe and also the other things we can see in Middle East, don't be supprised if they become anti muslim. Most of muslim in Switzerland are from Eastern Europe, i don't know them. Maybe they are like T4ROK.....normal people.


----------



## stainedshuriken (Nov 29, 2009)

N120 said:


> but what does this have to do with building minarets?



I was hoping people would understand that if they are to deter Islamic influence in Switzerland, a stronger immigration policy is needed. Banning minarets will not do anything to deter that influence. Sorry for the confusion of the previous post.


----------



## N120 (Nov 29, 2009)

stainedshuriken said:


> I was hoping people would understand that if they are to deter Islamic influence in Switzerland, a stronger immigration policy is needed. Banning minarets will not do anything to deter that influence. Sorry for the confusion of the previous post.



Again how does controlling immigration stop islamic influence? Islam isnt represented by a colour nor a nationality, there is no ownership to it from any third party to speak of, its open to all. 

 All you need is PC with an internet connection, a book, a media outlet to spread the islamic ideology, or simply a plane ticket to travel outside your borders. Not all muslims are 'foreign' nor from immigrant families.


----------



## Santeira (Nov 29, 2009)

This is the same as imposing ban on movies for being too violent. It's stupid.


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Nov 29, 2009)

Le Male said:


> this guy did
> 
> 
> 
> ...


lolwut !

So now football riots = Islam's fault... I guess Liverpool and Manchester hooligans are all muslims. 

And the news does not cover silly football riots in countries such as Egypt or Algeria since they are pretty much a normality, maybe the French are a little too pussified but in England or any other country football riots are hardly that much of a newsflash.  

Arabic majority is only in France and probably Belgium in the UK and other countries it is mostly people from Pakistan and Turkey. So we should not condemn them because of the media's false image? Right.

Switzerlands ban on minarets is clear discrimination against Muslim and them adding false stereotypical banners is not really helping their image or the image of those defending the minarets ban.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Nov 29, 2009)

-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> lolwut !
> 
> So now football riots = Islam's fault... I guess Liverpool and Manchester hooligans are all muslims.
> 
> ...



Your stupid or what ? I said arabs represente a huge majority of muslim so the bad behaviour of arabs affect the reputation of this religion. I never said muslim religion = football riots, you're stupid. Riot in the street of France because they lost a match affect the reputaion of arabs and unfortunalty for most of people arabs = muslim.

Don't be a troll by saying french "are a little too pussified" because riot football between to foreign supporters in a french city is a news. PSG and Marseille supporters fight all the times, football riot is not new here.


----------



## Jin-E (Nov 29, 2009)

-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> lolwut !
> 
> So now football riots = Islam's fault... I guess Liverpool and Manchester hooligans are all muslims.
> 
> And the news does not cover silly football riots in countries such as Egypt or Algeria since they are pretty much a normality, maybe the French are a little too pussified but in England or any other country football riots are hardly that much of a newsflash.



From what i heard, the difference is that this led to increased tensions between the Egyptian and Algerian governments, even to the point that they withdrew their ambassadors from the others country for "consultations".

So just downplaying it as a mere "football brawl" doesnt cover the issue.


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Nov 29, 2009)

Le Male said:


> Your stupid or what ? I said arabs represente a huge majority of muslim so the bad behaviour of arabs affect the reputation of this religion. I never said muslim religion = football riots, you're stupid. Riot in the street of France because they lost a match affect the reputaion of arabs and unfortunalty for most of people arabs = muslim.
> 
> Don't be a troll by saying french "are a little too pussified" because riot football between to foreign supporters in a french city is a news. PSG and Marseille supporters fight all the times, football riot is not new here.


(are you stupid or what? 
Represent) 

No need to start name-calling, as I said it is retarded to judge that Muslims are bad because of these Arabic riots, it's like judging the christians or the whole of UK because of the Hooligians who burn cars for football (or Italians, Brazilians, Argentinians ...etc) , it is a very derpy and silly concept of judgment.

Then what's the problem? crazy football fans are crazy football fans it does not matter if they are Asians, African or any other ethnicity, if Arabs or Muslims judged the French due to the PSG and Marseille supporters riots that occur all the time then it is retarded of the Arabs.



Jin-E said:


> From what i heard, the difference is that this led to increased tensions between the Egyptian and Algerian governments, even to the point that they withdrew their ambassadors from the others country for "consultations".
> 
> So just downplaying it as a mere "football brawl" doesnt cover the issue.


I never knew that, thank you, yet still it is a mere football brawl, making football have effect on your diplomacy with other countries is retardation in its extreme forms.

And I hardly think that one should take it seriously enough to judge the Arabs or Muslims based on it.


----------



## N120 (Nov 29, 2009)

Jin-E said:


> From what i heard, the difference is that this led to increased tensions between the Egyptian and Algerian governments, even to the point that they withdrew their ambassadors from the others country for "consultations".
> 
> So just downplaying it as a mere "football brawl" doesnt cover the issue.



but the cause was football, not religion and 
only make up about 20% of the muslim population.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Nov 29, 2009)

N120 said:


> but the cause was football, not religion and
> only make up about 20% of the muslim population.



In the world, they represent 20% of muslim population but in Europe, in Western european countries, they represent a huge majority of muslims. That's why i used the example of this match. Algerian riot in a french city because they lost a match against Egypt. I say bravo to the algerians supporters, they improve their reputation in France....and this kind of behaviour have a impact on the image of the milsim religion.
So when the Swiss see mess like the muslims extremists protest in London or the Algerians riot in a french city in France. It's normal if they have a extrem reaction.



-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> (are you stupid or what?
> Represent)
> 
> No need to start name-calling, as I said it is retarded to judge that Muslims are bad because of these Arabic riots, it's like judging the christians or the whole of UK because of the Hooligians who burn cars for football (or Italians, Brazilians, Argentinians ...etc) , it is a very derpy and silly concept of judgment.
> ...



You don't understand that's arabs are seen as the representant of muslim religion in France. They already have a bad reputation and they don't even try to have a better one. Child abuse by the clergy have an impact on the catholic religion. How do you think the british are seen in Europe with their behaviours both in football match or when they go on holiday on the continant. Their bad behaviour have an impact on the reputation of their country. 
The european arabs by their behaviour, give a bad reputation to te muslim cuture. 
I don't say it's the way we should see the muslim religion but....it's rare these day to hear something positive about muslim religion.


----------



## abcd (Nov 29, 2009)

let make normal muslims defensive about their religion by banning minarets .... 

lol at switzerland being a secular country


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Nov 29, 2009)

abcd said:


> let make normal muslims defensive about their religion by banning minarets ....
> 
> lol at switzerland being a secular country



Did you not know it is a normal reaction, Muslims brought it upon themselves with their protests and football riots? dem muslems nuke da midle eest


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Nov 29, 2009)

-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> Did you not know it is a normal reaction, Muslims brought it upon themselves with their protests and football riots? dem muslems nuke da midle eest



Damn but you understand, i a single event to show how the arabs mess their reputation. 
Don't deny the fact that's when muslim protest and yell" Dead to freedom" of "We will bomb you" don't have an impact on muslim religion.


----------



## abcd (Nov 29, 2009)

Le Male said:


> Damn but you understand, i a single event to show how the arabs mess their reputation.
> Don't deny the fact that's when muslim protest and yell" Dead to freedom" of "We will bomb you" don't have an impact on muslim religion.



How do u even generalize a small set of people to a whole race/ country and go on to generalize the entire religion based on your previous generalization pek


----------



## Camille (Nov 29, 2009)

*Swiss minaret vote: Projections suggest ban backed*



> Projections from exit polls suggest that voters in Switzerland have backed a referendum proposal to ban the building of minarets, Swiss TV says.
> 
> The result is not yet official, but the BBC's correspondent in Berne says if it is confirmed, it would be a surprise.
> 
> ...


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Nov 29, 2009)

abcd said:


> How do u even generalize a small set of people to a whole race/ country and go on to generalize the entire religion based on your previous generalization pek



I know there a good arabs and very respectful arabs. But if the arabs have a bad reputation, it's because of their behaviour, if the asians don't have a bad reputaion in France, it's also because of their behaviours....
I'm sad for the good arabs and for the muslims who suffer for this reputation.


----------



## Glued (Nov 29, 2009)

Le Male said:


> I know there a good arabs and very respectful arabs. But if the arabs have a bad reputation, it's because of their behaviour, if the asians don't have a bad reputaion in France, it's also because of their behaviours....
> I'm sad for the good arabs and for the muslims who suffer for this reputation.



Well its mostly embarrassing, I went to a Washington DC march to protest the Israeli bombing of Lebanon. There was a dude outside the white house with a sign saying, "Turn the white house into a masjid."

As an American citizen I could do one thing, facepalm.


----------



## N120 (Nov 29, 2009)

Le Male said:


> I know there a good arabs and very respectful arabs. But if the arabs have a bad reputation, it's because of their behaviour, if the asians don't have a bad reputaion in France, it's also because of their behaviours....
> I'm sad for the good arabs and for the muslims who suffer for this reputation.



I guess arab muslims will have to emphasise that they are not extremists everytime they try to make a point, just like how a white man has to clarify he's not a racist before he talks about immigration.

stereotyping sucks, and it goes both ways. one feeding off the other.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Nov 29, 2009)

Ben Grimm said:


> Well its mostly embarrassing, I went to a Washington DC march to protest the Israeli bombing of Lebanon. There was a dude outside the white house with a sign saying, "Turn the white house into a masjid."
> 
> As an American citizen I could do one thing, facepalm.



You're an american muslim, right ? This is this kind of things i blame and mess the reputations of muslims.


----------



## Jin-E (Nov 29, 2009)

In b4 shitstorm


----------



## Glued (Nov 29, 2009)

Le Male said:


> You're an american muslim, right ? This is this kind of things i blame and mess the reputations of muslims.


Yes, I am.


----------



## Darth (Nov 29, 2009)

So yeah.. That was dumb.


----------



## abcd (Nov 29, 2009)

These are times when I question how democracy is different from communism or why democracy is considered better than communism


----------



## Pilaf (Nov 29, 2009)

> The campaign in favour of a ban paints a sinister picture of Islam



Islam paints a sinister picture of itself.


----------



## Ƶero (Nov 29, 2009)

Jin-E said:


> In b4 shitstorm







Pilaf said:


> Islam paints a sinister picture of itself.



Pilaf paints a sinister picture of meat. His point is moot.


----------



## Kirsty (Nov 29, 2009)

I can understand both sides I guess


----------



## aquis45 (Nov 29, 2009)

abcd said:


> These are times when I question how democracy is different from communism or why democracy is considered better than communism



Majority rule versus an oligarchy? The more people that have a say in matters, the less people get fucked over. Not to say someone isn't gonna get screwed, but Communism is not the answer. It assumes whoever is in control will be a kind benefactor of the people instead of a human.


----------



## abcd (Nov 29, 2009)

aquis45 said:


> Majority rule versus an oligarchy? The more people that have a say in matters, the less people get fucked over. Not to say someone isn't gonna get screwed, but Communism is not the answer. It assumes whoever is in control will be a kind benefactor of the people instead of a human.



If there is a democratic election in china about tibet being part of china or not ... I am pretty sure tibet will become a part of china by peoples vote.

Actually china can take hints from this


----------



## Spirit (Nov 29, 2009)

This is an interesting thread.



> Supporters of a ban claim that allowing minarets would represent the growth of an ideology and a legal system - Sharia law - which are incompatible with Swiss democracy.



That's really a stupid reason to pull those things down. That's like saying by having a few Catholic churches, therefore everyone is now anti-abortion or they no longer believe in divorce, so no Catholic church plz.

At least use some architectural rules or something. Ideologies are to be embraced by people, and I'm hoping they embrace it because they actually see good in it. If you are against Sharia law, banning minarets don't mean shit. What next, no "onions" on mosques? If they see good in Islam, they'd still convert anyway. All your bans will only intrigue people to research Islam. Quite counter-productive, I would say.

I don't care about the ban, they can ban it. But if it is my country, I'd want various cultural architectures to be here. Aesthetics. 



Ben Grimm said:


> Well its mostly embarrassing, I went to a Washington DC march to protest the Israeli bombing of Lebanon. There was a dude outside the white house with a sign saying, "Turn the white house into a masjid."
> 
> As an American citizen I could do one thing, facepalm.




I lol'd.



Zero? said:


> Pilaf paints a sinister picture of meat. His point is moot.


----------



## Farih (Nov 29, 2009)

This is one of the stupidest things I've seen.  The minarets really are purely there for decoration.  In essence, it's like saying Churches shouldn't have steeples, and trying to outlaw them.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Nov 29, 2009)

people shoulden't be forced to wear or not wear such a garment, if they want to wear a certain article of clothing, they should be able to wear it as long as its within reason, just like they shouldn't be forced to wear it  

People should have real choices, outlawing something is the same as forcing one to wear something


----------



## Akatou (Nov 29, 2009)

Results just came in in Switzerland. 
Minaret building banned, plans on changing the constitution, and the vote against exportation of weapons did not pass. 

...I'm moving to another country.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Nov 29, 2009)

well there ya go.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Nov 29, 2009)

Inuhanyou said:


> people shoulden't be forced to wear or not wear such a garment, if they want to wear a certain article of clothing, they should be able to wear it as long as its within reason, just like they shouldn't be forced to wear it
> 
> People should have real choices, outlawing something is the same as forcing one to wear something



I agree, people shouldn't be forced to wear minarets. They're heavy.


----------



## iander (Nov 29, 2009)

This is why Switzerland is not in the EU.  I didn't think freedom of religious expression could be overturned by a simple majority vote.


----------



## Mofo (Nov 29, 2009)

Oh shit the  ban on knives export didn't pass. We're doomed.


----------



## ~M~ (Nov 29, 2009)

I say america holds a similar ban to persecute Muslim symbols 

Majority rule, no matter how uneducated or biased > Tolerance ^_^


----------



## Camille (Nov 29, 2009)

~M~ said:


> I say america holds a similar ban to persecute Muslim symbols
> 
> Majority rule, no matter how uneducated or biased > Tolerance ^_^



Really?


----------



## ~M~ (Nov 29, 2009)

If you're a minority, you don't count ^_^


----------



## Camille (Nov 29, 2009)

~M~ said:


> If you're a minority, you don't count ^_^



Oh, I see. Makes perfect sense!


----------



## ximkoyra (Nov 29, 2009)

Next on the ballot:

Muslims should have to wear green crescents on their clothes for the sake of national security. 


Congratulations Switzerland, you have joined France in becoming a leading example to the developing countries you always preach to as to what tolerance is all about


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 29, 2009)

iander said:


> This is why Switzerland is not in the EU.  I didn't think freedom of religious expression could be overturned by a simple majority vote.



Since when have you been for freedom of religion? All of a sudden when the Muslims want to do something you're all for it?


----------



## Inuhanyou (Nov 29, 2009)

~M~ said:


> I say america holds a similar ban to persecute Muslim symbols
> 
> Majority rule, no matter how uneducated or biased > Tolerance ^_^



Uh...that'd actually be quite bad


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Nov 29, 2009)

ximkoyra said:


> Next on the ballot:
> 
> Muslims should have to wear green crescents on their clothes for the sake of national security.
> 
> ...



 There is not a 100% tolerant country in the world.


----------



## ximkoyra (Nov 29, 2009)

Le Male said:


> There is not a 100% tolerant country in the world.



I don't know about different European countries, but on paper, the US is a 100% tolerant country(gay rights is coming thanks to our laws allowing it).  

This is not being jingoistic, but the US really is the greatest place in the world because of the fact that our laws don't allow for discrimination.  An immigrant living next to me has the same right to take me to court as I do over him.  People are free to dress as they please.  They are free to express themselves, including building a little pole on top of their buildings.  Can you argue the same for France? Switzerland?


----------



## Banhammer (Nov 29, 2009)

France has free healthcare, switzerland has the highest rated confort of living.






:listentothesoundofownageinthedistance


----------



## ximkoyra (Nov 29, 2009)

Banhammer said:


> France has free healthcare, switzerland has the highest rated confort of living.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




 I was making that statement mainly about people being comfortable to live how they want to.  Obviously, there are plenty of areas where the US is lacking.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Nov 29, 2009)

ximkoyra said:


> Next on the ballot:
> 
> Muslims should have to wear green crescents on their clothes for the sake of national security.
> 
> ...



Why France?



ximkoyra said:


> I don't know about different European countries, but on paper, the US is a 100% tolerant country(gay rights is coming thanks to our laws allowing it).
> 
> This is not being jingoistic, but the US really is the greatest place in the world because of the fact that our laws don't allow for discrimination.  An immigrant living next to me has the same right to take me to court as I do over him.  People are free to dress as they please.  They are free to express themselves, including building a little pole on top of their buildings.  Can you argue the same for France? Switzerland?



 Right, that's why several states amended their constitutions to ban gay marriage.


----------



## Banhammer (Nov 29, 2009)

With enough money you can do whatever the hell you want in europe, as long as you're discrete about it.

The privelege of really tall crap in switzerland, and the right to cover your women in drapes in Sex&Cheeseville EU is not discrete. It's like, the worse places in the world to do that


----------



## Banhammer (Nov 29, 2009)

Saufsoldat said:


> Right, that's why several states amended their constitutions to ban gay marriage.




Oh Texas :rofl

Still funny


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Nov 29, 2009)

ximkoyra said:


> I don't know about different European countries, but on paper, the US is a 100% tolerant country(gay rights is coming thanks to our laws allowing it).
> 
> This is not being jingoistic, but the US really is the greatest place in the world because of the fact that our laws don't allow for discrimination.  An immigrant living next to me has the same right to take me to court as I do over him.  People are free to dress as they please.  They are free to express themselves, including building a little pole on top of their buildings.  Can you argue the same for France? Switzerland?



100% tolerant ? It's in the US that gay are banned from the US army ?


----------



## abcd (Nov 29, 2009)

now many might have seen this ...  the title says "Insane politician".... but most points he made about minorities in democracy is proven by this event  

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOuumGX-6uc[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Saufsoldat (Nov 29, 2009)

Le Male said:


> 100% tolerant ? It's in the US that gay are banned from the US army ?



And banned from having a marriage that's federally recognized.


----------



## Banhammer (Nov 29, 2009)

and the patriot act


----------



## Zabuzalives (Nov 29, 2009)

Switzerland fears Islam..but is adopting Islamic style ""tolerance"" on religious matters.


----------



## iander (Nov 29, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Since when have you been for freedom of religion? All of a sudden when the Muslims want to do something you're all for it?



Another strawman.  Seems all you can do is try to divert attention from the argument to the debater.  You cannot refute that this is clear violation of religious expression so you must turn it around on me.

I have always supported freedom of religion so long as it doesn't infringe upon other rights.  Building minarets does not infringe upon anyone's rights.


----------



## ~M~ (Nov 29, 2009)

Banhammer said:


> France has free healthcare, switzerland has the highest rated confort of living.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You're right, next crusades, here we come ^_^


----------



## Degelle (Nov 29, 2009)

Ofcourse they fear Islam, how could they not, after the media portaying Islam as an evil religion with Allah, God, being satan?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 29, 2009)

iander said:


> Another strawman.  Seems all you can do is try to divert attention from the argument to the debater.  You cannot refute that this is clear violation of religious expression so you must turn it around on me.
> 
> I have always supported freedom of religion so long as it doesn't infringe upon other rights.  Building minarets does not infringe upon anyone's rights.



Actually I already did, and this isn't a strawman its a question about your bias. 

If a minaret or any other building be it religious or otherwise is seen to be outside of the standards of building and style of an area, it can be deemed unworthy of building its done here in the US all of the time. Thanks for trying to use fallacies to defend yourself but it doesn't change the fact that you're ultimately just biased.


----------



## ximkoyra (Nov 29, 2009)

Saufsoldat said:


> Why France?
> 
> Right, that's why several states amended their constitutions to ban gay marriage.





Le Male said:


> 100% tolerant ? It's in the US that gay are banned from the US army ?



I concede, it was a poor statement.  But I will still argue for it's greater tolerance, thus making it a superior place to live.  Unless I'm making a mistake, won't this minaret thing be federally recognized and be extremely difficult to ever overturn?  The only purpose it serves is to greater polarize a peoples.  

You know as well as I do that the gay rights momentum is not going to stop now, even though it may suffer a few hiccups.  The only way I would put it on the same level if it was also federally recognized and had next no hope of changing, unlike the marriage or military thing.



Le Male said:


> 100% tolerant ? It's in the US that gay are banned from the US army ?


Technically, it's a ban on being openly gay, which I think Obama spoke against(maybe?) and should be cut down in the coming years.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Nov 29, 2009)

In France, we tolerate naked nipples on TV. This make our place better to live.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Nov 29, 2009)

ximkoyra said:


> I concede, it was a poor statement.  But I will still argue for it's greater tolerance, thus making it a superior place to live.  Unless I'm making a mistake, won't this minaret thing be federally recognized and be extremely difficult to ever overturn?  The only purpose it serves is to greater polarize a peoples.
> 
> You know as well as I do that the gay rights momentum is not going to stop now, even though it may suffer a few hiccups.  The only way I would put it on the same level if it was also federally recognized and had next no hope of changing, unlike the marriage or military thing.



Ever heard of the protection of marriage act? Pretty federal and serves no other purpose but to greater polarize the people.

Besides, being more legally tolerant does not mean better place to live. The people are still way more intolerant in the US when it comes to religion, sexuality and political views.



> Technically, it's a ban on being openly gay, which I think Obama spoke against(maybe?) and should be cut down in the coming years.



Yes Obama said he'd change it, but as of now it's still in effect.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 29, 2009)

Gays aren't banned from the military, they're not allowed to openly say they're gay.


----------



## Outlandish (Nov 29, 2009)

-snip-

Can't believe it was passed, well time to boycott swiss products 



ximkoyra said:


> Technically, it's a ban on being openly gay, which I think Obama spoke against(maybe?) and should be cut down in the coming years.



Obama also said Guantanamo would be closed.. but it's still open.



Le Male said:


> In France, we tolerate naked nipples on TV. This make our place better to live.



how so ?


----------



## Toby (Nov 29, 2009)

Look, everyone needs to calm the hell down. Switzerland is weird, I get it, we all do. Who here actually knows anything on their politics though? I see a lot of whining but very little constructive stuff on their politics.

Constitutional and legislative civil law bills can be repealed with as many as 100,000 signatures. When the country has 400,000 Muslims, getting a quarter to care or sign up, not including sympathisers (bear in mind that the plebiscite carried with a 57% small majority), is not hard. 

Now for those who don't know, Switzerland has a very stable form of government, and its people change their minds like all other sheep, so this might be overturned if not soon then perhaps in a number of years after the whole War on Terror dies off. Really, Swiss people are conservative, but they're not as racist as you might think. And since the system is so populist it just might work out in their favour if those against the ban make a similarly depressing PR campaign.

If anything this debate highlights the tension between substantive and procedural democracy - the former is an ideal-based system with freedoms etcetera and it tends to lean towards having meritocratic institutions like high/supreme courts where highly educated people have the final say on how to interpret democracy. Procedural democracy on the other hand is precisely what it sounds like, letting the people decide, and this is the egalitarian form. Suffice to say the people have no shortage of power in Switzerland, but this comes at a great expense: Their democratically elected government's policies are screwed over. Personally I've always thought that stupid people should have as little say as possible in the world of current affairs, and I sincerely hope that the hardcore opposition to this faith on NF actually learns a lesson from this. 

The government was against this ban because, amongst other things, it will have to take the blame for it both by the people and the international community, not to mention the EU. It also happens to be a massive tool for the opposition to use in order to win the next election which, incidentally, will be a landmark if they get away with this. Heaven knows it's a scandal within the Swiss People's Party itself. This is the outcome of the last federal election and it's going to tear the party up if it persists since this proposal cannot possibly have been supported by all their back-benchers.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Nov 29, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Gays aren't banned from the military, they're not allowed to openly say they're gay.



"Blacks aren't banned from sitting in the front seats, they just have to paint their faces white."


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 29, 2009)

Outlandish said:


> Can't believe it was passed, well time to boycott swiss products



I wonder if you boycott products from all the Mulsim nations that do wrong shit to people based on religion?



Outlandish said:


> Obama also said Guantanamo would be closed.. but it's still open.



It's also a lot harder than just closing it down. Its not a fucking pizza place, there's dangerous criminals inside. 



Saufsoldat said:


> "Blacks aren't banned from sitting in the front seats, they just have to paint their faces white."


Care to make up any more dumb arguments? Seriously that's not the same AT ALL. But I shouldn't expect much I guess.


----------



## abcd (Nov 29, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Gays aren't banned from the military, they're not allowed to openly say they're gay.



 I dont understand this .... what if two soldiers are caught having sex ? and they claim that they arent gay , just doing some exercise  
**


Toby said:


> The government was against this ban because, amongst other things, it will have to take the blame for it both by the people and the international community, not to mention the EU. It also happens to be a massive tool for the opposition to use in order to win the next election which, incidentally, will be a landmark if they get away with this. Heaven knows it's a scandal within the Swiss People's Party itself. This is the outcome of the last federal election and it's going to tear the party up if it persists since this proposal cannot possibly have been supported by all their back-benchers.


 yeah this makes most sense  ..... u had a name change and i forgot who u are... are u merlin ??


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 29, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Actually I already did, and this isn't a strawman its a question about your bias.
> 
> If a minaret or any other building be it religious or otherwise is seen to be outside of the standards of building and style of an area, it can be deemed unworthy of building its done here in the US all of the time. Thanks for trying to use fallacies to defend yourself but it doesn't change the fact that you're ultimately just biased.



i expect even zoning laws would not stop the higher courts from declaring the lawful right to build such things.


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Nov 29, 2009)

abcd said:


> I dont understand this .... what if two soldiers are caught having sex ? and they claim that they arent gay , just doing some exercise
> **


manlove  ?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Nov 29, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Care to make up any more dumb arguments? Seriously that's not the same AT ALL. But I shouldn't expect much I guess.



What's the difference? you're allowed to be something but you're not allowed to let anyone know.

"Yeah, you're allowed to be left-handed in here as long as you use your right hand for everything."


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 29, 2009)

narutosimpson said:


> i expect even zoning laws would not stop the higher courts from declaring the lawful right to build such things.



I don't see why, its not the business of the high courts. If you don't like what you can't build then build it somewhere you can.I mean why should any building with those zoning laws be different? Here all of the Churches and business in a certain area MUST be brown stone. If for what ever reason you don't want to build with brown stone, GTFO. 



Saufsoldat said:


> What's the difference? you're allowed to be something but you're not allowed to let anyone know.
> 
> "Yeah, you're allowed to be left-handed in here as long as you use your right hand for everything."



Because no one can look at you and tell you're gay.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Nov 29, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Because no one can look at you and tell you're gay.


----------



## maj1n (Nov 29, 2009)

Apparently it might have been women who tipped the favour of the votes.

*Women lead Swiss in vote to ban minarets*
-http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6936267.ece


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Nov 29, 2009)

Outlandish said:


> how so ?



It's freedom to see naked body. It's definitly more important than religion.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 29, 2009)

He's not gay, dressing up like that and being fruity gets you MORE women somehow. Look at Rick James.


----------



## Glued (Nov 29, 2009)

[YOUTUBE]rjguKkUSR7U[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 29, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I don't see why, its not the business of the high courts. If you don't like what you can't build then build it somewhere you can.I mean why should any building with those zoning laws be different? Here all of the Churches and business in a certain area MUST be brown stone. If for what ever reason you don't want to build with brown stone, GTFO.



slippery slope is not always a fallacy


----------



## Banhammer (Nov 29, 2009)

> Because no one can look at you and tell you're gay.



As no one ever should, for it must be hidden like the shame, shamefull thing it is.

Also, my sexual tension radar is off the charts. Eight out of ten times I can tell a gay out of a straight one.

And when he most definitly does look like a fairy, believe, he's most likely a fairy.


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Nov 29, 2009)

maj1n said:


> Apparently it might have been women who tipped the favour of the votes.
> 
> *Women lead Swiss in vote to ban minarets*
> -http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6936267.ece



Holyshit! I never knew you can vote from the kitchen!


----------



## Mael (Nov 29, 2009)

-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> Holyshit! I never knew you can vote from the kitchen!



Switzerland is slipping in its control over teh womenz.


----------



## Mider T (Nov 29, 2009)

iander said:


> This is why Switzerland is not in the EU.  I didn't think freedom of religious expression could be overturned by a simple majority vote.



Its really not.  The Swiss stay out of leagues and the fuck out of everyone's way to cover their own asses.  They've prospered because of it.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 29, 2009)

Mider T said:


> Its really not.  The Swiss stay out of leagues and the fuck out of everyone's way to cover their own asses.  They've prospered because of it.



Don't expect iander to realize that the Swiss are propsering, that would hurt the argument.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Nov 30, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Because no one can look at you and tell you're gay.



Let's assume it was possible for a black person to look exactly like a white person, would it be acceptable to demand they do so when using certain government services? What about my example about left-handed people?

Your whole argument still goes like this: "Sure, we accept any religion here, just don't tell anyone if you're muslims or we'll throw you out."


----------



## Psycho (Nov 30, 2009)

Black Drako can stay in this forum, as long as he deletes all proof that he is islamic

CTK can stay in this forum, as long as he deletes all proof that he is black

I can stay in this forum, as long as i delete all proof that i am brazilian

that's the beauty of a slippery slope, it's only a fallacy when it involves assumption, in all other cases, it's just a very good argument


----------



## aquis45 (Nov 30, 2009)

CTK is black?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Nov 30, 2009)

aquis45 said:


> CTK is black?



Hush, or you'll get him banned!


----------



## aquis45 (Nov 30, 2009)

Saufsoldat said:


> Let's assume it was possible for a black person to look exactly like a white person, would it be acceptable to demand they do so when using certain government services? What about my example about left-handed people?
> 
> Your whole argument still goes like this: "Sure, we accept any religion here, just don't tell anyone if you're muslims or we'll throw you out."



But we aren't talking about using government services we are talking about serving in the military (or at least that is where your current argument arose from) which is different. Not to mention there are without a doubt a lot of homosexuals in the military that are doing fine not being outed.

Also:


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 30, 2009)

Saufsoldat said:


> Let's assume it was possible for a black person to look exactly like a white person, would it be acceptable to demand they do so when using certain government services? What about my example about left-handed people?
> 
> Your whole argument still goes like this: "Sure, we accept any religion here, just don't tell anyone if you're muslims or we'll throw you out."



Oh look a strawman, damn how do you put those in so blatantly and still sleep at night? 

No one is saying they can't be Muslim or have their churches or say they are Muslim, you're example is just all around bad and still fails in its aim. 



Psycho said:


> Black Drako can stay in this forum, as long as he deletes all proof that he is islamic
> 
> CTK can stay in this forum, as long as he deletes all proof that he is black
> 
> ...



Yeah but a Strawman is still a straw man, no one is saying they can't be Islamic and show it, they just can't build these buildings is all.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 30, 2009)

Really, this is the reason we (the US) have a constitution. Except for the times the Executive is trampling on it, our constitution serves as an important safeguard against this sort of thing. Minorities and their religions are respected. It is somewhat ironic that the Swiss are perpetrating currently what made my nation indomitable 200+ years ago: the oppression of religious minorities and the drive to move to America where they could be protected. 

It's their country, let them do what they want. But they are looking horribly bigoted and backwards doing it.  Oh, and please tell the Swiss Muslims to come here and build their mosques, minarets and all-- Seattle would love your business.  I haven't any idea how something as aesthetically pleasing as a minaret gets banned.


----------



## Spirit (Nov 30, 2009)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Really, this is the reason we (the US) have a constitution. Except for the times the Executive is trampling on it, our constitution serves as an important safeguard against this sort of thing. Minorities and their religions are respected. It is somewhat ironic that the Swiss are perpetrating currently what made my nation indomitable 200+ years ago: the oppression of religious minorities and the drive to move to America where they could be protected.
> 
> It's their country, let them do what they want. But they are looking horribly bigoted and backwards doing it.  Oh, and please tell the Swiss Muslims to come here and build their mosques, minarets and all-- Seattle would love your business.  I haven't any idea how something as aesthetically pleasing as a minaret gets banned.



Careful wot yer wish fer.

What if they want beams to be transmitted from the minarets to spread their Syria lawl ideologies, worlds domination propaganda and turn infedilz to zombiez?

All it takes for them radical Izlamz to survive is for people to say -- oui, zis juz bznz.


----------



## maj1n (Nov 30, 2009)

-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> Holyshit! I never knew you can vote from the kitchen!


Haha

It seems Islam's treatment of women is having a backlash affect on women in western countries.

Not surprising, the Burqa ban was also mostly supported by Muslim women in France for example.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Nov 30, 2009)

aquis45 said:


> But we aren't talking about using government services we are talking about serving in the military (or at least that is where your current argument arose from) which is different. Not to mention there are without a doubt a lot of homosexuals in the military that are doing fine not being outed.
> 
> Also:



Military is paid for by the government and under the government's control. It's not a private business and therefore must follow government guidelines. Discrimination against homosexuals is unconstitutional as much as discrimination against black people is.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Oh look a strawman, damn how do you put those in so blatantly and still sleep at night?
> 
> No one is saying they can't be Muslim or have their churches or say they are Muslim, you're example is just all around bad and still fails in its aim.



Not everything that slightly differs from the original argument is automatically a strawman. There are things called analogies, genius.


----------



## OmniStrife (Nov 30, 2009)

What!?!? Voted against?? Shit, again with this evil voting.... Poor Muslims are being hit again by that evil fucking DEMOCRACY!


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 30, 2009)

Saufsoldat said:


> Not everything that slightly differs from the original argument is automatically a strawman. There are things called analogies, genius.



Yeah, and they're bad analogies. Try not to be so fucking condescending next time too, it only makes you seem more like someone who doesn't really have a fucking argument to stand on. What you're posing is a strawman, you're deviating from the main points of the arugment, changing something that can easily be seen for something that can not, something that is an inborn genetic trait for something that is not, and something that is required to be unspoken for something that is not. 

No one is demanding that Muslims be forced not to practice their religion, oddly enough you would think that with your track record, you would cheer for that. Muslims are afforded the same right to practice as anyone else. In your examples about blacks and gays are bad because they shift the argument to things Muslims simply aren't going through, they're not being deported (kicked out of the military) they're not being made to hide who they are (as you said of gays and blacks). I don't give a darn who agrees with you, the example is bad. If you can't understand that I don't know what to say. 

Furthermore extend the same fucking courtesy to me that I extend to you, your pompous, arrogant fucking attitude is getting old and it just further makes your argument look bad.


----------



## Morati (Nov 30, 2009)

Shinigami Perv said:


> For the people supporting this, you do realize that this policy is discriminatory, right? It's always funny to see those who decry civil rights violations in the Islamic world, but then they support it in the West.


 
Perfectly worded my thoughts there. It's a waste of time to discuss this anyway. It would become a big issue if a EU country tried to push this through. You can allready hear the various right extremist parties cheering to this decision. Switserland still has to make a change in their constitution to accomodate this new law, but that will happen no doubt as the majority of the people simply want this to happen. No one takes Switserland seriously anyway, they're the outcast nation.


----------



## abcd (Nov 30, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Yeah, and they're bad analogies. Try not to be so fucking condescending next time too, it only makes you seem more like someone who doesn't really have a fucking argument to stand on. What you're posing is a strawman, you're deviating from the main points of the arugment, changing something that can easily be seen for something that can not, something that is an inborn genetic trait for something that is not, and something that is required to be unspoken for something that is not.
> 
> No one is demanding that Muslims be forced not to practice their religion, oddly enough you would think that with your track record, you would cheer for that. Muslims are afforded the same right to practice as anyone else. In your examples about blacks and gays are bad because they shift the argument to things Muslims simply aren't going through, they're not being deported (kicked out of the military) they're not being made to hide who they are (as you said of gays and blacks). I don't give a darn who agrees with you, the example is bad. If you can't understand that I don't know what to say.
> 
> Furthermore extend the same fucking courtesy to me that I extend to you, your pompous, arrogant fucking attitude is getting old and it just further makes your argument look bad.



The whole comparison to GAY thing started when someone posted about the high tolerance in the US as compared to other countries... IT was not related to the OP


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 30, 2009)

abcd said:


> The whole comparison to GAY thing started when someone posted about the high tolerance in the US as compared to other countries... IT was not related to the OP


He related it back to the OP, that's the issue. It's nothing like that, its a stupid argument and if you're using it, its a strawman and it diverts attention from the real argument.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Nov 30, 2009)

After thinking about this for a while:

Banning minarets doesn't stop Islamisation or Radical Islam. Islamisation is caused by censorship (In whatever form) and Islamic laws and institutions becoming the law of the land. Radical Islam breeds insides Mosques's and other meeting places, not inside minarets. This outright ban will just fuel how pissed off they are.

If a minaret disrupts architecture, well surely that should be decided on a case by case, local basis? Not as a fiat national ban.


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 30, 2009)

So I thought it would be funny to point out something, 

The status of Dhimmis in Sharia
?Building houses of worship higher than mosques?


So quick question, 
If not being allowed to build a minaret is against freedom of religion and oppression, doesn?t that mean that Islam is also oppression. 

-----
Wow, this got big quick. 



			
				Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> What are you talking about? What does Constantine have to do with this? He died early in the previous millennium. The Eastern church was already long separated from Rome by the time of the Crusades.


You said ?the Holy Land was never held by Catholics?
The distinction you are trying to make about eastern and western is meaningless. 



			
				Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> Yes, but Sicily was at the time ruled by different people. The Normans invaded Muslim Sicily. The majority of the Crusaders were French, and the Fatimids did not attack southern France.


The majority of the crusaders were French? Whats you point? The pope was French. I have no idea what you point is. 
They did attack southern france, they were in control of much of north Africa and mades raids into southern Europe. 



			
				Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> Uh, that doesn't say what you claim it does. "Similar" is not a causal relationship between the Reconquista and the Crusades. You're merely arguing that since religious orders fought in both the Reconquista and the Crusades that the two conflicts are somehow related. They are not. If anything, the reports of Muslim wealth during these reconquests incited the greed of Christians for booty in the Holy Land.



Here is a link to the wikipedia Crusades page, how the Reconquista is listed as the precursor to the crusades. (?Western European Sitatuion?)

The link talks about how the Reconquista expanded into the crusades. Even going to say there is evidence that it was referred to by the popes as the ?first? crusade. 



			
				Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> Because you list Noto as the ending point of the conquest of Sicily. There were many pockets of resistance that endured long after Sicily was effectively Norman, actually for decades.
> 
> But regardless, the rulers of Sicily have never had any special love for the church or the pope. The crusaders they sent were disinherited sons on conquest for booty and territory, not to defend Christendom.


I didn?t say there were pockets of resistance, I said ?the conquest of Sicily didn't come to a decrease?. The small resistance was nothing of importance and this military force was decreasing. 

Such a distinction is meaningless. Reconquest was what was being debated, and that is what this was. It wasn?t about faithless raids or it would have been done internally. This was not an internal conflict it was motivated and unified by faith. 



			
				Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> No, I'm just pointing out that nobody went on that crusade to defend Christendom. They were all looking for booty and land. I give Robert Guiscard as an example because he warred against fellow Christians (Byzantines), and the Hautevilles had previously even fought and captured the pope.


They went to reconquered lands and stop the Islamic invasions. This was the main causes the chance for riches also came with the chase for salvation. Guiscard wasn?t part of the crusades, or apart of any topic I am talking about. He was part of an internal conflict devoid from the topic. 



			
				Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> Yes, I'm familiar with Toledo and its aftermath. But saying that it is related to the First Crusade is just nonsense. Christians and Muslims had been fighting since Tours 400 years earlier, this idea that fighting for Muslim land is new and was sparked by the Reconquista is bogus.


They had been fighting, but the Christians had not been winning. The conflict now doing well was latched onto by the church and expanded into the crusades. The idea of fighting for the cause gets you into heaven was introduced and sanctioned by the church. 



			
				Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> Eastern Christians! They are significantly different from Catholics! The Byzantines were Greek, not French. They called for an alliance with Rome, but that ended in the eventual destruction of their empire after the Fourth Crusade. You must, absolutely, distinguish Orthodox Christians from Catholics.


They are Catholics. The official title is Orthodox Catholics. You don?t seem to have a clear understanding of what a catholic is. 

?The Orthodox Church, also officially called the Orthodox *Catholic* Church?

They were are both considered Catholics, and the internal fighting that happened later is no different to any other internal conflict. But that in no way invalidates the unified position at the time of the first crusade, or their belief that land held by the Eastern empire was still Christian. 




			
				Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> The word "Christian" is almost meaningless. Eastern Christianity was considered borderline heresy to western Catholics. It's almost as different as Shia and Sunni Muslims.


Do Sunnis not consider Mecca to be held my Muslims because it is controlled by shia. You attempts of this distinction is ludicrous. 



			
				Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> Yes, the Byzantines were stronger after the First Crusade, but they didn't get the land that they had requested reconquered.  That became the Kingdom of Jerusalem and the Crusader States period. The Catholics just kept the land. Dandolo came ~100 years later and absolutely destroyed Byzantium, the Fourth Crusade ironically delivered the killing blow to Christianity in the east.


They got much of the land that they had held. The areas that they used to hold didn?t become part of either Catholic empire they became the crusader states. 



			
				Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> Link? This is not true at all, at least for Catholics. Muslims had taken those Byzantine lands 400 years earlier. That was certainly not the primary motivator: it was greed for lands and incomes, and also power. Unless you call piracy in southern and mid Italy an invasion, there was none to speak of. The only real war at the time was between Byzantines and Turks, and that is not related to Catholicism.



military expeditions, beginning in the late 11th century, that were organized by Western Christians in response to centuries of Muslim wars of expansion.
-http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/144695/Crusades

The immediate cause of the First Crusade was the Byzantine emperor Alexios I's appeal to Pope Urban II for mercenaries to help him resist Muslim advances into territory of the Byzantine Empire.


That they had taken them 400 years ago means nothing to the people of the time, they were lands that should be in Christian hands and that is all that mattered. 

Your attempts to argue with a consensus is not my concern, it only shows you lack of knowledge. 



			
				Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> Of course they conquered Jerusalem, 400 years earlier. Islam was actually being driven out of Europe, as you referred to in referencing the Reconquista and Norman victories. The greatest expansion of Islam, the Turkish conquest of eastern Europe, was due largely to the Fourth Crusade.


The winning back of land in Spain and Sicily as I said was a precursor to the crusades, and the crusades were a continuation of this reconquering. 

At the time of the first crusade Muslim advances into the eastern empire were huge. In 1025 the byzantine empire controlled most of turkey by 1092 the Muslim invaders were in a position to attack Constantinople.
1025

1092


This was NOT due to the forth crusade this was Muslim invasion. 



			
				Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> No, that's not what started the crusades. They did not invade Europe. I'm sorry, but this is dead wrong. The Byzantines (not Catholic) were warred upon by the Turks. The crusades were motivated by greed, at least for the nobles (the peasants and low knights really don't matter), they were offensive in nature, not defensive. Not even conservative scholars will agree with you there.


Yes, that is what started the crusades, I don?t care about your revisionist view to put Muslims in a better light. They HAD ALREADY invaded Europe and were invading Europe. 
I have shown the consensus that they were in response to Muslim invasion. 

The crusades were about taking back Christian lands, that is the whole purpose for them. 



			
				Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> No, it did not. That's dead wrong. The Muslim expansion into Europe concluded one to four centuries before the First Crusade. It's actually the opposite: they were being forced out of Europe as the First Crusade began.


Yes it did, you are ignorant. The Muslim expansion was ongoing, and responses to reconquer what was conquered 400 years ago happened at this period because 400 years ago the Catholic empires were weak, at this point their strength was increasing.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 30, 2009)

sadated_peon said:


> So I thought it would be funny to point out something,
> 
> The status of Dhimmis in Sharia
> ?Building houses of worship higher than mosques?
> ...



obviously that's sort of moot since nations like switzerland, US, UK etc don't follow sharia.


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 30, 2009)

narutosimpson said:


> obviously that's sort of moot since nations like switzerland, US, UK etc don't follow sharia.



It's not moot, how can you complain about a standard you don't hold. 

"It's unfair that you are oppression me, I should be oppressing you"
Isn't a valid argument in my book.


----------



## Degelle (Nov 30, 2009)

The vote went through, Switzerland will stop building minarets.


----------



## ChocoMello (Nov 30, 2009)

sadated_peon said:


> It's not moot, how can you complain about a standard you don't hold.
> 
> "It's unfair that you are oppression me, I should be oppressing you"
> Isn't a valid argument in my book.



Lol, no that is not how it works. You don't have to earn any of your civil rights, they are yours (and as they put it "selfevident truths").

Which is why we allow the Nazi to be racist, the hollocaust denier to deny (actually in Germany we don't,but whatever) and crazy fundamentalists to spew their bullshit.
Freedom can be a bitch sometimes, but nothings free, so whatever.

Though, can somebody tell wether religious discrimination is legal in Switzerland? If so, lol sucks to be muslim there.


----------



## iander (Nov 30, 2009)

sadated_peon said:


> So I thought it would be funny to point out something,
> 
> The status of Dhimmis in Sharia
> ?Building houses of worship higher than mosques?
> ...



There are certainly many things in sharia law that I would consider oppressive, I agree with that.  However, sharia is not something practiced by all Muslims or all Muslim countries.  The most orthodox practices of a religion may be oppressive and its fine to call them out on it but its not right to overgeneralize either.  



sadated_peon said:


> It's not moot, how can you complain about a standard you don't hold.
> 
> "It's unfair that you are oppression me, I should be oppressing you"
> Isn't a valid argument in my book.



So how does oppressing people stop oppression? Lets say your generalization is correct that all muslims support oppressive practices.  Does that mean they suddenly forfeit all their rights?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Nov 30, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> He related it back to the OP, that's the issue.



Well, I never did that, but thanks for trying.


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 30, 2009)

iander said:


> There are certainly many things in sharia law that I would consider oppressive, I agree with that.  However, sharia is not something practiced by all Muslims or all Muslim countries.  The most orthodox practices of a religion may be oppressive and its fine to call them out on it but its not right to overgeneralize either.


I was told that sharia laws is merely the as describe for the Quran, to not follow it would be to not follow the Quran....

though I don't disagree that this is possible, I doubt it is something that is generally admitted to. 



iander said:


> So how does oppressing people stop oppression? Lets say your generalization is correct that all muslims support oppressive practices.  Does that mean they suddenly forfeit all their rights?


I am not advocating for the oppression, I find this ban stupid and wrong. But I don't see where there is much room to complain by people who would seek to do the same if they were in power. 

I am against both, 
Advocating one over the other is where you get problems because you have have no logical basis to reason from. 

It just comes to a "might makes right" argument and Muslims are pissed that are not the might. 
You can't want protections and rights one day, yet rally against the next.


----------



## Spirit (Nov 30, 2009)

As I said, ban the minarets or not, I don't care. A mosque is still a mosque with or without it. But consider:

"By the freedom of speech granted in the first amendment, I say we revoke freedom of speech."

Not that I'm for this sentiment, but you cannot silence a man who tries to get people to agree he should be able to silence everyone because you are supposed to uphold no-silence flag.

<insertVoltaire>

B.T.W. I purposely use the U.S Bills of Rights, because I don't know the equivalent for Switzerland.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Nov 30, 2009)

I saw a report about Minarets in France. in fact there are only 10 minaret in the entire country. And these minarets are designed to fit with the design of french cities. I should try to see these minarets, just to know if it's true.


----------



## T4R0K (Nov 30, 2009)

doodidoodeedeedoo...

Oh ! A thread about muslims ! Oh lol ! Let's see... Crusades, ok. Terrorism, ok. Swiss being racists, Check. Muslims being butthurt, yup. 

Left handed people and gays in the military ? What ?

Ah, anyway ! My opinion is that, as much as I regret this decision and think Swiss will not really benefit from it trade wise, they used popular vote, and the people made a decision, so there's nothing much to do about it. Well, even if they voted a proposition to kick out or forcefully convert the muslims wanting to stay, it'd be OK, popular vote and stuff. How can a majority be wrong, right ?

...

Wait a moment...

Seriously, even if it sucks, a minaret is just a fucking piece of concrete that isn't essential to the islamic religious practice. Just as bell towers.

Though... I am for the burqa ban, lolz (meaning the full body covering potatoe bag that is so "fashionable" in Afghanistan. I've seen veils worn in a modern and not scary way)

BTW, here's the mosque that is not far away from my town, and if you look at it, it doesn't look like a missile, and if you put a cross on it, it would just look like a church. lol, there are catholic churches with even funkier designs !


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Nov 30, 2009)

T4R0K said:


> doodidoodeedeedoo...
> 
> Oh ! A thread about muslims ! Oh lol ! Let's see... Crusades, ok. Terrorism, ok. Swiss being racists, Check. Muslims being butthurt, yup.
> 
> ...


The problem is that they didn't go and just say "Minarets yay or nay" they went out with  to manipulate the general consensus, this doesn't look like a fair democratic majority vote to me.


So ban a person's freedom of choice?



maj1n said:


> Haha
> 
> It seems Islam's treatment of women is having a backlash *effect* on women in western countries.
> 
> Not surprising, the Burqa ban was also mostly supported by Muslim women in France for example.


You mad doggie?


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Nov 30, 2009)

_*Warning, totally irrelevant post:*_


As for the Crusades:

Saying all the Crusaders were motivated purely by monetary considerations is reductionist and false. People don't travel half way across the world in the early middle ages, abandoning their property an estates back home, on foot, through desert, fight numerically superior enemies and win purely for some little booty. A lot of them really were doing it for reasons of faith. Don't get draw into the post-Marx trap of thinking everything has an economic and resource based root. People really do go to war for honour and ideals.

Islamic expansion goes back and forth but it's high point as I've been taught is generally regarded as the Ottoman defeat at Lepanto in 1571. Before that they were island hopping closer and closer towards Italy and fighting wars in Hungary. This is also a great example of how it wasn't purely a case of Christianity versus Islam since France was frequently allied to Turkey against the Habsburgs and even the Pope was indirectly allied with them once.

The wars of Christendom and Islam, Crusades especially, were so long ago that people should just get over it already. However, facts are facts: All of the Muslims lands around the Mediterranean were Christian and were conquered Muslims invaders. The kingdom of the Vandals (Of destruction of Rome fame) in Spain was obliterated by Muslim invaders. Muslims slavers raided Europe and took thousands of captives back to their homelands. Jihad as Holy War was being used by Muslims against the West centuries before the first Papal sanctioned Crusade (Although Holy War as a concept was about 1300 years older than Islam having first been employed by the Persians).

The first Crusade by the Way was launched against the Normans who were savaging South Italy. The Normans obliterated it and took the Pope hostage for a year. And the Normans weren't French, they were Scandinavian. They purged utterly the native aristocracy and brought large numbers of their countrymen to live in Normandy. I wouldn't really call them truly French until the 12th or 13th centuries.

Byzantium fell for many reasons. Muslim armies first put it under siege in 674. They were up and down like a yo-yo and almost as threatened by Europe or themselves as they were by Muslims armies. The fact they assassinated their greatest general in generations, Nikephoros, shows you what kind of place it was. Still, they did stage a recovery after the first millennium that was smacked down by the Fourth Crusade. The Turks didn't afford them another opportunity to recover.

I need to stop now, otherwise I'll go on all evening and not get any work done. But this is a fascinating period of history.

Still, I need to add all civilisations fall eventually, and most seem to get at least a brief turn at being a world power (Even Mongolia and The Netherlands). Europe has by all standards, fallen due to the second world war. We're in the era of America now.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 30, 2009)

The Pink Ninja said:


> _*Warning, totally irrelevant post:*_
> 
> 
> As for the Crusades:
> ...



People seem to ignore this all of the time, the Catholic Church and Whites persecuted the Muslims and pushed them to it.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Nov 30, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> People seem to ignore this all of the time, the Catholic Church and Whites persecuted the Muslims and pushed them to it.



The fault line between East and West pre-dates Christianity and Islam.

The Greeks and the Persians... even Troy could be counted. Herodotus talks about that. It's what got him started writing his Histories.

I've not doubt if they could each "Side" would have loved to conquer the other... but France would have liked to conquer Austria too and Turkey to conquer Egypt.

In the future Europe and the Middle East may yet ally to fight the dread global Empire of Australia.

Probably lose too.

Part of evangelical religions is dreaming of the glorious day all people will be of your faith.

That and God are the only differences between Religion and Nationalism.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 30, 2009)

The Pink Ninja said:


> The fault line between East and West pre-dates Christianity and Islam.
> 
> The Greeks and the Persians... even Troy could be counted. Herodotus talks about that. It's what got him started writing his Histories.
> 
> ...



Well of course, this has been repeated again and again throughout history and it just doesn't get anywhere.


----------



## maj1n (Nov 30, 2009)

iander said:


> So how does oppressing people stop oppression? Lets say your generalization is correct that all muslims support oppressive practices.  Does that mean they suddenly forfeit all their rights?


It would mean they can't complain.


----------



## Xion (Nov 30, 2009)

iander said:


> This is why Switzerland is not in the EU.  I didn't think freedom of religious expression could be overturned by a simple majority vote.



A common fallacious assumption (stupid) people make is that a perfect democracy or some derivation of it is great. Well, guess what, it sucks as it leads to ocholocratic tendencies.

Mass opinion is commonly mass stupidity subject to the whims of demagogues and clever, witty slogans.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 30, 2009)

sadated_peon said:


> You said “the Holy Land was never held by Catholics”
> The distinction you are trying to make about eastern and western is meaningless.



Catholics = Roman Catholics. Books will refer to Roman Catholics as "Catholics" while those of the Byzantine church are referred to as "Orthodox". And yes, there is definitely a significant difference. 




> The majority of the crusaders were French? *Whats you point?* The pope was French. I have no idea what you point is.
> They did attack southern france, they were in control of much of north Africa and mades raids into southern Europe.



That the Crusaders were not defending themselves. I thought this was rather obvious. 




> Here is a link to the wikipedia Crusades page, how the Reconquista is listed as the precursor to the crusades. (“Western European Sitatuion”)
> 
> The link talks about how the Reconquista expanded into the crusades. Even going to say there is evidence that it was referred to by the popes as the “first” crusade.



That link you gave me said that the origin of the idea of holy war was within the struggles of Spain, which is not what you said originally. This is your quote:


> No, the first crusades were to drive the Muslims out of lower Italy, Sicily and Spain and calls for aid by the Byzantines, and then on to Jerusalem.



My point is that this was not some single, continuous conflict, and it was not in defense of Western Christian lands (as in Spain). The two conflicts, Spain vs. Andalusia, and the Crusaders invading the Holy Lands, are not even linked conflicts. 




> I didn’t say there were pockets of resistance, I said “the conquest of Sicily didn't come to a decrease”. The small resistance was nothing of importance and this military force was decreasing.
> 
> *Such a distinction is meaningless. Reconquest was what was being debated, and that is what this was. It wasn’t about faithless raids or it would have been done internally. This was not an internal conflict it was motivated and unified by faith. *



I don't even know what this means or what it refers to. 



> They went to reconquered lands and stop the Islamic invasions. This was the main causes the chance for riches also came with the chase for salvation. Guiscard wasn’t part of the crusades, or apart of any topic I am talking about. He was part of an internal conflict devoid from the topic.



He is the father of one of the most powerful crusaders, Bohemund of Antioch, and grandfather of Tancred, both of whom started dynasties in the Holy Land. They were born into a kingdom well-versed at fighting Christians. That's the point: they were disinherited sons fighting for land, not religion. 



> They had been fighting, but the Christians had not been winning. The conflict now doing well was latched onto by the church and expanded into the crusades. The idea of fighting for the cause gets you into heaven was introduced and sanctioned by the church.



Right, and there is no doubt that spurred the peasents, men-at-arms, and lower knights. Faith cannot be discounted with these men, but they were not the ones who pulled the strings. The high nobility and royalty pulled the strings. 




> They are Catholics. The official title is Orthodox Catholics. You don’t seem to have a clear understanding of what a catholic is.
> 
> “The Orthodox Church, also officially called the Orthodox *Catholic* Church”



See above. 


> They were are both considered Catholics, and the internal fighting that happened later is no different to any other internal conflict. But that in no way invalidates the unified position at the time of the first crusade, or their belief that land held by the Eastern empire was still Christian.



They were certainly not unified. The Crusaders raped and pillaged their way through Byzantine territory, until they hit the walls of Constantinople and were denied entry because the emperor didn't trust them. The Basilius Alexios made each one swear to do him no harm before he would even let them pass on; he was afraid that they would (and most eventually did) end up usurping his claim to his own lands! 





> Do Sunnis not consider Mecca to be held my Muslims because it is controlled by shia. You attempts of this distinction is ludicrous.



Mecca is held by Sunnis. And it was a huge distinction. When the 4th Crusades sacked Byzantium, they desecrated the Orthodox holy sites with slaughter and prostitutes. Honestly man, without understanding the divide between Roman Catholic and Orthodox, there is no way to understand this conflict. 




> They got much of the land that they had held. The areas that they used to hold didn’t become part of either Catholic empire they became the crusader states.



Yes, and the Crusader States were Roman Catholic, ruled mostly by French and Italians. 





> military expeditions, beginning in the late 11th century, that were organized by Western Christians in response to centuries of Muslim wars of expansion.
> -http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/144695/Crusades
> 
> The immediate cause of the First Crusade was the Byzantine emperor Alexios I's appeal to Pope Urban II for mercenaries to help him resist Muslim advances into territory of the Byzantine Empire.



I've got my own quotes:

"The Crusade included Godfrey of Bouillon, Duke of Lower Lorrain. With Godfrey came his brother Baldwin of Boulogne - who, as a younger son without patrimony, had brought along his wife and children and was determined to carve out a kingdom for himself in the east. From south Italy came Bohemund, Prince of Taranto, son of Robert Guiscard, who cherished similar ambitions. True Norman that he was, he cared little for the Holy Places but looked on the Crusade as the greatest adventure of his life." 
- Sir John Julius Norwich, _The Middle Sea- A History of the Mediterranean._ Vintage Books, 2006. 

"Religious ferver, which the crusaders had in spades, did not preclude or even hinder their worldly ambitions."
- Stephen O'Shea, _Sea of Faith- Islam and Christianity in the Medieval Mediterranean_. Walker and Company, 2006. 

"High ideals were besmirched by cruelty and greed … the Holy War was nothing more than a long act of intolerance in the name of God".


Those were the men who led the Crusades: ambitious "third sons" and powerful lords wishing to carve out kingdoms in Holy Lands. What's funny is that, if the Crusaders had limited themselves to only defending Byzantium, you would have a case. They did not; indeed, most of their fighting was to grab kingdoms. 




> The winning back of land in Spain and Sicily as I said was a precursor to the crusades, and the crusades were a continuation of this reconquering.
> 
> At the time of the first crusade Muslim advances into the eastern empire were huge. In 1025 the byzantine empire controlled most of turkey by 1092 the Muslim invaders were in a position to attack Constantinople.
> 1025
> ...



The Fourth Crusade dealt the death blow to the Byzantine Empire. They could have theoretically recovered under good leadership, but the sacking and burning of Byzantium, the usurping of its emperor, and the pillage of its religious shrines reduced the empire to a Latin kingdom, which did not exist long. The 4th Crusade ended any chance of Byzantium mounting an effective resistance against Turks, who stormed through the former Byzantine provinces all the way to the walls of Vienna several hundred years later. 




> Yes, that is what started the crusades, I don’t care about your revisionist view to put Muslims in a better light. They HAD ALREADY invaded Europe and were invading Europe.
> I have shown the consensus that they were in response to Muslim invasion.



Unless you consider Anatolia "Europe", that is simply not correct. Alexios petitioned for help against the Turks, what he got were buffer states in the Levant. 



> The crusades were about taking back Christian lands, that is the whole purpose for them.



Of course they were, but those weren't Christian lands at the time. They were Christian lands 400 years before. 




> Yes it did, you are ignorant. The Muslim expansion was ongoing, and responses to reconquer what was conquered 400 years ago happened at this period because 400 years ago the Catholic empires were weak, at this point their strength was increasing.



Ironically the Crusades are what made Islam so powerful throughout the next 300 years. Before this, the princes of Islam in the Levant and surrounding areas were hopelessly divided. It really cleared the way for the Muslim takeover of much of Eastern Europe. Some historians consider it the greatest crime that Catholicism perpetrated against fellow Christians.

Everything you've quoted to me is from Wikipedia of some online source that doesn't go in depth more than a few pages. I've several books that go several hundred pages in depth on the subject. Do you read books on the subject?



The Pink Ninja said:


> Saying all the Crusaders were motivated purely by monetary considerations is reductionist and false.



No one is saying that every crusader was motivated by greed. But of all my readings of the Crusades, only one major noble figure really stand out as being pious: Louis IX.


----------



## ~M~ (Nov 30, 2009)

This thread got derailed easily


----------



## biar (Nov 30, 2009)

Plz not in Switzerland, they're neutral and all households own fucking guns.


----------



## dreams lie (Nov 30, 2009)

~M~ said:


> This thread got derailed easily



It's the internet.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 1, 2009)

Shingami Perv can't allow the Muslims to look like they've been wrong in the past.


----------



## niyesuH (Dec 1, 2009)

There are 4 minarets in Switzerland. I think that is 4 too many for the Swiss


----------



## iander (Dec 1, 2009)

> Switzerland minaret ban condemned
> 
> Switzerland is facing international criticism and charges of intolerance following a shock referendum vote backing a constitutional ban on the construction of new minarets.
> 
> ...





We'll see if the international criticism has an effect or not.  The court may decide to overturn the vote.


----------



## niyesuH (Dec 1, 2009)

I think the court must. Such ban is illigal according to The uUniversal Declaration of Human Rights.


----------



## Dionysus (Dec 1, 2009)

niyesuH said:


> I think the court must. Such ban is illigal according to The uUniversal Declaration of Human Rights.


Hahahaha!  It gives architectural human rights, huh?


----------



## N120 (Dec 1, 2009)

wouldnt overturning it now create more problems within the community?


----------



## Wolfarus (Dec 1, 2009)

N120 said:


> wouldnt overturning it now create more problems within the community?



Most likely. The right who put the issue up for vote would claim bloody murder, saying stuff like "look! even our government is afraid of the muslims and will capitulate to them, over what YOU, the people, have decided!!111"

Which would be technically, partially true. But w/e. Butthurt allah ackbar's will be butthurt allah ackbars, regardless of this or any other "islamic" issue in western society's.


----------



## Akatou (Dec 1, 2009)

Switzerland has been in an uproar since the vote. 
People have been manifesting on the streets, petitions been signed, the whole lot. If you ask people on the streets, most of them are amazed and bewildered (I'm talking about Zuerich city here). 
The whole thing should never have even gone to votes, and the referendum should have been stopped the day it was proposed. Law and treaties ought to have the upper hand over petty fear and malicious demonizing intent of the individual. 
I'm just hoping this country gets kicked back into position, because I can tell you, living here with this kind of atmosphere is not funny


----------



## Wolfarus (Dec 1, 2009)

^

Not like there hasnt been any basis for worrying about the spread of islam or anything..


----------



## niyesuH (Dec 1, 2009)

Dionysus said:


> Hahahaha!  It gives architectural human rights, huh?



Whats so funny?


----------



## N120 (Dec 1, 2009)

Akatou said:


> Switzerland has been in an uproar since the vote.
> People have been manifesting on the streets, petitions been signed, the whole lot. If you ask people on the streets, most of them are amazed and bewildered (I'm talking about Zuerich city here).
> The whole thing should never have even gone to votes, and the referendum should have been stopped the day it was proposed. Law and treaties ought to have the upper hand over petty fear and malicious demonizing intent of the individual.
> I'm just hoping this country gets kicked back into position, because I can tell you, living here with this kind of atmosphere is not funny




 I'd rather people accepted this themselves as opposed to have them feel its being imposed on them from external forces.

  if its overturned due to public pressure then i guess its a better and more sensible step forward and easier to build on.


----------



## Akatou (Dec 1, 2009)

^You're right. 
Then again, a decision has been made and a campaign has been carried out that shouldn't even have been carried out, since one of the possible results of the vote would clash with the humans right treaties switzerland itself is so proud of. 

I know what you mean though, and it's completely true. 
I personally don't see anything happening, and I don't think anything will change, since the vote has passed. The shitstorm that would follow a reform would overshadow the present one. 
All one can do is pine about how it should never have been. I hope people grown more conscious and that the opposition finds intelligent ways (as opposed to dressing as carboard minarets and marching around town lighting stuff) to counter this.

@Wolfarus
I'm sorry, I really don't understand what you're saying. You mean there is a spread of islamic culture? And...? I don't understand, plz explain.


----------



## Dionysus (Dec 1, 2009)

niyesuH said:


> Whats so funny?


That you appeal to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.


----------



## Wolfarus (Dec 1, 2009)

Akatou said:


> @Wolfarus
> I'm sorry, I really don't understand what you're saying. You mean there is a spread of islamic culture? And...? I don't understand, plz explain.



I meant that the group(s) who lobbied to put this issue to a public vote in the first place are afraid of whats happening in the uk / europe will start happening in there, should they allow islam to spread / gain more prominence (which, ill admit, i dont see how this could happen if they allow thin, pointy towers to be built on top of the mosques)

lets start with the infamous practice of honor killing. Here's a brief wiki on the subject



There's also been stories from britain about there being "independant police forces within the islamic communities" that are seperate from the rest of the police forces of the nation, because the muslim immigrants dont wish to be subjected to british law(for whatever reason), even though they want to live there and become citizens, ect.

So its basicly the fear of a foregin, degenerate culture (and yes, ill call the fucktards who practice medevil bullshit like honor killings degenerate) invading their own culture, refusing to assimilate and abide by the laws of the land they want to move into, and rotting it from the inside out. The minarets are simply a simple of that culture, and therefore must be opposed.


----------



## sadated_peon (Dec 1, 2009)

don't read it if you don't want to. 


*Spoiler*: _crusades_ 






			
				Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> Catholics = Roman Catholics. Books will refer to Roman Catholics as "Catholics" while those of the Byzantine church are referred to as "Orthodox". And yes, there is definitely a significant difference.


Catholics = Roman Catholics and Orthodox Catholics, these are both versions of catholism and are both united under the term Catholic. 
I have no idea what ?Books? you are referring to, but Catholic is NOT = to roman catholic. 


			
				Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> That the Crusaders were not defending themselves. I thought this was rather obvious.


They were fighting against Muslim expansion in the eastern empire which they both united to stop. They were fighting to reclaim land that was previously conquered. 

You cannot put ?French? as you would today, this started as a ?holy war? and Muslims were invading/had invaded ?Christian lands?


			
				 Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> That link you gave me said that the origin of the idea of holy war was within the struggles of Spain, which is not what you said originally. This is your quote:
> 
> My point is that this was not some single, continuous conflict, and it was not in defense of Western Christian lands (as in Spain). The two conflicts, Spain vs. Andalusia, and the Crusaders invading the Holy Lands, are not even linked conflicts.


And as I said before 
?The first crusade started in 1095, but the Christian rulers had started their repelling of Muslim invaders before this, and this was their push toward the holy land. 
The capture of Toledo happened in 1085 and was the beginning of the decline of Muslim rules in Spain. The crusades were a continuation of the Reconquista. 
Along with the Spanish reclaiming came the campaign driving Muslims out of lower Italy, which was preparation to the Norman reconquest of Sicily.?

The Reconquista was expanded into the crusades, and the Reconquista was given the same importance as the crusades. 
?It is necessary to look for the origin of a crusading ideal in the struggle between Christians and Muslims in Spain and consider how the idea of a holy war emerged from this background.?
? Norman F. Cantor


There were also direct crusades that happened in spain, there were even crusader states set up in spain. 




> I don't even know what this means or what it refers to.


It is referring to your post. 



> He is the father of one of the most powerful crusaders, Bohemund of Antioch, and grandfather of Tancred, both of whom started dynasties in the Holy Land. They were born into a kingdom well-versed at fighting Christians. That's the point: they were disinherited sons fighting for land, not religion.


He was the father of someone?!?!? 
In fighting between Christian in no way invalidates a unified Christian holy war that was the ideal of the crusades. 



> Right, and there is no doubt that spurred the peasents, men-at-arms, and lower knights. Faith cannot be discounted with these men, but they were not the ones who pulled the strings. The high nobility and royalty pulled the strings.


Lol, the nobility like Alexios was his empire falling, Muslims had invaded to the point of reaching Constantinople and he called for help to defeat the Muslim invaders. 

The pope saw a recovering western empire which was now winning back lands, he remember the burning down of the church of the Sepulcher and saw the opportunity to reclaim Christian lands. 



> They were certainly not unified. The Crusaders raped and pillaged their way through Byzantine territory, until they hit the walls of Constantinople and were denied entry because the emperor didn't trust them. The Basilius Alexios made each one swear to do him no harm before he would even let them pass on; he was afraid that they would (and most eventually did) end up usurping his claim to his own lands!


Lol, you do realize you?re talking about a mob of people(mainly peasants) who were looking for food, and then got slaughtered by the Turks. 
The oath to they gave was given freely because there WAS a partnership, this group didn?t rape and pillage through the country side. The oath was broken as I pointed out ealier when the Eastern Empire didn?t give aid in Antioch.  



> Mecca is held by Sunnis. And it was a huge distinction. When the 4th Crusades sacked Byzantium, they desecrated the Orthodox holy sites with slaughter and prostitutes. Honestly man, without understanding the divide between Roman Catholic and Orthodox, there is no way to understand this conflict.


My mistake, but the point still stands. 

What doesn?t you get here, that there was internal conflicts LATER or EARLY doesn?t mean ANYTHING. I cannot believe that you don?t understand this. People that had once fought, came together under a united banner of Christianity to drive out Muslim invaders and recapture Christian lands. 

If you can?t understand the simple concept that internal division in NOT WAY INVALIDATE a group coming together to defeat a outside enemy then you are LOST. You can never grasp history or have any understand of ANY conflict. 



> Yes, and the Crusader States were Roman Catholic, ruled mostly by French and Italians.


No, they were crusader states. They are a separate distinction. 



> I've got my own quotes:


I didn?t give you quotes, I gave you *consensus*. 

But let?s take a look


> "The Crusade included Godfrey of Bouillon, Duke of Lower Lorrain. With Godfrey came his brother Baldwin of Boulogne - who, as a younger son without patrimony, had brought along his wife and children and was determined to carve out a kingdom for himself in the east. From south Italy came Bohemund, Prince of Taranto, son of Robert Guiscard, who cherished similar ambitions. True Norman that he was, he cared little for the Holy Places but looked on the Crusade as the greatest adventure of his life."
> - Sir John Julius Norwich, The Middle Sea- A History of the Mediterranean. Vintage Books, 2006.


First this doesn?t invalidate my quote, it speaks of a few people and not the pope who called the crusade. Next, of course they wanted to ?carve out a kingdom for himself? that was the point, to reclaim the land that was taken.  



> "Religious ferver, which the crusaders had in spades, did not preclude or even hinder their worldly ambitions."
> - Stephen O'Shea, Sea of Faith- Islam and Christianity in the Medieval Mediterranean. Walker and Company, 2006.


This doesn?t contradict me at all, in fact it supports me. 
It says that religious ferver was there, something you claim didn?t exist. That it didn?t hinder worldly ambitions, doesn?t defeat my point at all. 



> "High ideals were besmirched by cruelty and greed ? the Holy War was nothing more than a long act of intolerance in the name of God".
> Ironically from your own link


This is a funny one gets to the real problem with your argument. The cause, and the repercussions are two complete different things. The criminal actions that took place doesn?t negate the ROOT CAUSE for the crusades. 

The atrocities that were committed don?t now erase the fact that Muslims were invading. 



> Those were the men who led the Crusades: ambitious "third sons" and powerful lords wishing to carve out kingdoms in Holy Lands. What's funny is that, if the Crusaders had limited themselves to only defending Byzantium, you would have a case. They did not; indeed, most of their fighting was to grab kingdoms.


The person who called for the crusades was the pope, which you avoided quoting anything about. But yes, it was to grab kingdoms. Otherwise known as RECONQUERING CHRISTIAN LANDS!


----------



## maj1n (Dec 1, 2009)

Shinigami_Perv said:
			
		

> I've got my own quotes:
> 
> "The Crusade included Godfrey of Bouillon, Duke of Lower Lorrain. With Godfrey came his brother Baldwin of Boulogne - who, as a younger son without patrimony, had brought along his wife and children and was determined to carve out a kingdom for himself in the east. From south Italy came Bohemund, Prince of Taranto, son of Robert Guiscard, who cherished similar ambitions. True Norman that he was, he cared little for the Holy Places but looked on the Crusade as the greatest adventure of his life."
> - Sir John Julius Norwich, The Middle Sea- A History of the Mediterranean. Vintage Books, 2006.
> ...


Im going to give you a little thought exercise.

The allied powers in WW2 were responding to the aggression of Germany (Hitler) and the axis powers.

When the allied powers won, they occupied and controlled many territories they did not formerly control, such as some middle-eastern territories from the Ottoman Empire whom fought with Germany.

Do you understand?

1.In warfare, conquering territory is both the aim of the aggressor and defendor, because it is fundamentally a losing battle to defend without gaining territory.

Therefore simply 'gaining territory' does not mean this was the fundamental or original aim, most militaries would try to gain territory even if they were defending, in a war.

2. You state 'these men' but your wiki link refers to ONE MAN when commenting on his aim

3. Your source states both 'high ideals' and 'religious fervour' when also stating 'acts of cruelty' etc.
In other words, your source is stating they went to war for good reasons but did bad things.

Which doesn't at all make a rebuttal against the fact that the crusades was originally a response to muslim invasion.

We have real historical evidence that the aim of the crusades was against muslim invaders, this is not disputed by any historian or history book.


----------



## sadated_peon (Dec 1, 2009)

*Spoiler*: _Crusades_ 





> The Fourth Crusade dealt the death blow to the Byzantine Empire. They could have theoretically recovered under good leadership, but the sacking and burning of Byzantium, the usurping of its emperor, and the pillage of its religious shrines reduced the empire to a Latin kingdom, which did not exist long. The 4th Crusade ended any chance of Byzantium mounting an effective resistance against Turks, who stormed through the former Byzantine provinces all the way to the walls of Vienna several hundred years later.


First LOL. You complete dumped your argument, good to see how week that was. 

Next, it seem you back to the infighting again. What doesn?t you understand here? How do you not get that infighting in a religion between two sects happens? How do you not understand that this infighting doesn?t mean that they can?t both come together to fight an external threat?

The 4th crusade didn?t start with and was not planned to be an attack on the Byzantium empire. It started out with the plan to take back the holy land through Egypt. It deteriorated to this because of internal conflicts. 



> Unless you consider Anatolia "Europe", that is simply not correct. Alexios petitioned for help against the Turks, what he got were buffer states in the Levant.


I consider southern Europe as Europe which Muslims were raiding and sacking, I considers southern Spain Europe which had been invaded. Muslims were invading Christian lands, this was the response. 


> Of course they were, but those weren't Christian lands at the time. They were Christian lands 400 years before.


Which doesn?t matter in the slightest, 400 years is nothing to a person who believes god ordained the land to them. Just ask an Israeli or a Palestinian. 



> Ironically the Crusades are what made Islam so powerful throughout the next 300 years. Before this, the princes of Islam in the Levant and surrounding areas were hopelessly divided. It really cleared the way for the Muslim takeover of much of Eastern Europe. Some historians consider it the greatest crime that Catholicism perpetrated against fellow Christians.
> 
> Everything you've quoted to me is from Wikipedia of some online source that doesn't go in depth more than a few pages. I've several books that go several hundred pages in depth on the subject. Do you read books on the subject?


What the fuck?

Seriously now I know you just being purposefully inane. 
?Before this, the princes of Islam in the Levant and surrounding areas were hopelessly divided. It really cleared the way for the Muslim takeover of much of Eastern Europe.?

So let me get the straight, Christian being divided and then coming together to fight Muslims. This is impossible because at one time they fought each other. There  can?t be united under a banner of ?Christian? faith, it must be for other reasons. 
But Muslims being divided and then coming together to fight Christian. This is possible and it doesn?t matter that at one time they fought each other. They were united under the banner of ?Islam?, it was for this reason they fought. 

Fucking hilarious. You complete and total bias is laid before you, it is clear that you are just trying to deny history, and your complete double standard is proof of this.


----------



## N120 (Dec 1, 2009)

Wolfarus said:


> > There's also been stories from britain about there being "independant police forces within the islamic communities" that are seperate from the rest of the police forces of the nation, because the muslim immigrants dont wish to be subjected to british law(for whatever reason), even though they want to live there and become citizens, ect.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## niyesuH (Dec 1, 2009)

Dionysus said:


> That you appeal to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.



Thats good humor.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Dec 1, 2009)

niyesuH said:


> Thats good humor.



I hope you're aware of the fact that the right to build anything you want anywhere you want is not a basic human right.


----------



## niyesuH (Dec 1, 2009)

Saufsoldat said:


> I hope you're aware of the fact that the right to build anything you want anywhere you want is not a basic human right.



Do you mean the minarets? Thats not the point. It's forbidding the minarets which is discriminatory against a religious group of people.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Dec 1, 2009)

niyesuH said:


> Do you mean the minarets? Thats not the point. It's forbidding the minarets which is discriminatory against a religious group of people.



It is, but that's still not a violation of the human rights declaration.


----------



## niyesuH (Dec 1, 2009)

Saufsoldat said:


> It is, but that's still not a violation of the human rights declaration.



I think these articles are the most applicable ones. It is in violation because it is discriminating purely based on religious basis.

*Spoiler*: __ 





> Article 2.
> ?Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
> 
> Article 18.
> ?Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.


----------



## niyesuH (Dec 1, 2009)

*Switzerland minaret ban condemned*



> *Switzerland minaret ban condemned*
> 
> 
> 
> ...





It's good that European leaders have condemned this. Europe takes pride when it comes to human rights. Something like this happening in Europe is really sad.


----------



## iander (Dec 1, 2009)

I would argue it is a violation of the Universal Declaration.

Article 18: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. 

While Minarets are not in all mosques, they are an important part of forming a public religious space for muslims.  They are a visual cue to a Muslim community and provide a vantage point from which the call to prayer can be made.  I think banning them does violate article 18.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Dec 1, 2009)

niyesuH said:


> I think these articles are the most applicable ones. It is in violation because it is discriminating purely based on religious basis.



Please bold the parts that you think the Swiss ban violates, because I can't seem to find them.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Dec 1, 2009)

iander said:


> I would argue it is a violation of the Universal Declaration.
> 
> Article 18: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
> 
> While Minarets are not in all mosques, they are an important part of forming a public religious space for muslims.  They are a visual cue to a Muslim community and provide a vantage point from which the call to prayer can be made.  I think banning them does violate article 18.



If that were the case, you'd have to allow any and every muslim community to have a minaret, regardless of circumstances.


----------



## niyesuH (Dec 1, 2009)

Saufsoldat said:


> If that were the case, you'd have to allow any and every muslim community to have a minaret, regardless of circumstances.



Thats also the case. I know that they limit the height of it, but i have not seen them restrict it completely, except for Switzerland.


----------



## iander (Dec 1, 2009)

Saufsoldat said:


> If that were the case, you'd have to allow any and every muslim community to have a minaret, regardless of circumstances.



That is not the case at all.  All buildings are subject to various land laws, zoning and variances.  There are restrictions but an outright ban is something completely different.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Dec 1, 2009)

niyesuH said:


> Thats also the case. I know that they limit the height of it, but i have not seen them restrict it completely, except for Switzerland.



I know plenty of muslim communities without minaret or even a real mosque. I think it's safe to say that minarets are not a vital part of Islam.

If your religion tells you to poop in public every day, would that also be allowed under the laws you quoted?



iander said:


> That is not the case at all.  All buildings are subject to various land laws, zoning and variances.  There are restrictions but an outright ban is something completely different.



How so?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 1, 2009)

Did you even bother to look around before posting this, the other thread is right there with the same subject.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Dec 1, 2009)

Wow, Switzerland fucked itself. When the Vatican starts defending Islam, you know you messed up. 



> The imam of Switzerland's biggest mosque, in Geneva, meanwhile called on the Muslim world to "respect, without accepting" the outcome and to avoid cutting off ties with Switzerland.



That's more generous than I would have been. It's certainly more generous than the Swiss voters were to him.


----------



## sadated_peon (Dec 1, 2009)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Wow, Switzerland fucked itself. When the Vatican starts defending Islam, you know you messed up.
> 
> 
> 
> That's more generous than I would have been. It's certainly more generous than the Swiss voters were to him.


Actually, "respect, without accepting" minarets is exactly what the swiss did.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Dec 1, 2009)

sadated_peon said:


> Actually, "respect, without accepting" minarets is exactly what the swiss did.



It was a ban, not a referendum to respect minarets.


----------



## sadated_peon (Dec 1, 2009)

Shinigami Perv said:


> It was a ban, not a referendum to respect minarets.


a ban, otherwise known as not accepting minarets to be built.


----------



## Hi Im God (Dec 1, 2009)

Respect for the Swiss takes a hit
-9000 hit points
Respect for the swiss dies
Imam uses cure of levelheadedness
Respect for Switzerland is revived in a weakened state


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Dec 1, 2009)

sadated_peon said:


> a ban, otherwise known as not accepting minarets to be built.



Yeah, a ban. Equivalence would be to respect the Swiss as a people, but ban them from coming to your country.


----------



## abcd (Dec 1, 2009)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Yeah, a ban. Equivalence would be to respect the Swiss as a people, but ban them from coming to your country.



u are wasting time on a lost cause


----------



## Nodonn (Dec 1, 2009)

As long as the minaret's aren't of the obnoxious church-esque ''I'm going to make a fuckton of noise right here every morning and there's nothing you can do about it because it's my religion'' kind I don't see a problem with them.


----------



## sadated_peon (Dec 1, 2009)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Yeah, a ban. Equivalence would be to respect the Swiss as a people, but ban them from coming to your country.


The comment about respecting, wasn't to the swiss people, it was their decision. 

""respect, without accepting" the *outcome*"

That is to say, respect their decision, but don't accept it as being correct. 

Which is respect that Muslims have their own culture, but don't accept the Minaret as the new norm in Switzerland. 

Its funny to me you didn't even understand the quote, no wonder you didn't get my reply.


----------



## The_Unforgiven (Dec 1, 2009)

Saufsoldat said:


> I know plenty of muslim communities without minaret or even a real mosque. I think it's safe to say that minarets are not a vital part of Islam.
> 
> *If your religion tells you to poop in public every day, would that also be allowed under the laws you quoted?
> *
> ...



Not the same. If all religions say you must poop in public, and i say that members of your religion cant do it because we're afraid of you people, wouldn't that be a violation of those laws?


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Dec 1, 2009)

sadated_peon said:


> The comment about respecting, wasn't to the swiss people, it was their decision.
> 
> ""respect, without accepting" the *outcome*"
> 
> ...



I fully understood your reply, and I fully understood his comment. I'm telling you what the equivalent would be if the international community treated the Swiss the same way the Swiss treat their Muslim citizens. That would have been equivalent; the imam was more generous than that. A perfect equivalence is if he called for a similar ban on Christian cathedrals, but he did not. 

It's really tiresome to see someone (like you) who obviously lost the track of the conversation, and forces me to work to get you up to speed. Even more tiresome is when you retaliate by accusing people of not "understanding" your argument if they disagree with it.

Once more, and it will be my ignore list, and you can enjoy talking to yourself as it seems I'm the only person left who wants to discuss these issues with you.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 1, 2009)

I like how all of a sudden you people care what the Pope has to say when most of the time you're saying he's a pathetic figurehead.


----------



## The_Unforgiven (Dec 1, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I like how all of a sudden you people care what the Pope has to say when most of the time you're saying he's a pathetic figurehead.



Yes, but when the pope comes out to defend members of another religion, you know you screwed up.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Dec 1, 2009)

The_Unforgiven said:


> Not the same. If all religions say you must poop in public, and i say that members of your religion cant do it because we're afraid of you people, wouldn't that be a violation of those laws?



It depends on how you interpret "practicing your religion", as it is stated in the declaration of human rights. Is building a minaret really practicing Islam? You tell me, because as far as I know building minarets is not one of the pillars of Islam.


----------



## Black Wraith (Dec 1, 2009)

A couple of years back some of us were talking, mostly guys in their 20-30's about the designs of a Masjid and particularly Masjids in England. There is no design element in a Masjid that says it has to be the way it is. Some of the peoples view was that the design should reflect the design of the area and the architectural style of the area, I agreed with this too. This is why I particularly like the Faisal Masjid in Pakistan which has a modern design.

Whether or not a minaret is important in Islam isn't really what I see this referendum was about. I see this as the baby steps and more important and foundations of Islam will be taken out next.

In Islam if a Muslim moves to a non-Muslim state and he is not hindered in anyway to do what is necessary for him as a Muslim he MUST follow the laws of the land as my teacher said, it's forbidden for a Muslim to speed or just a red light and he will be accountable for his actions in the court of Allah because you have broken a contract that you have made.

The legal/constitutional/moral and ideological precedent this referendum and more importantly the results is much more important.


----------



## Mintaka (Dec 1, 2009)

I think we should ban coats of arms that have white pluses and red backgrounds.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 1, 2009)

The_Unforgiven said:


> Yes, but when the pope comes out to defend members of another religion, you know you screwed up.



Not really, and the issue I have is that if this were another subject it would be deemed none of his business. But since some of you agree, its okay to use him this time.


----------



## PhlegmMaster (Dec 1, 2009)

The Pope is just protecting his own cult. The minaret ban is a result of people actually opening their eyes and looking at the kind of morality that is preached by Islam. The Pope knows that if people do the same thing with Catholicism, he's in deep shit.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 1, 2009)

Black Drako said:


> A couple of years back some of us were talking, mostly guys in their 20-30's about the designs of a Masjid and particularly Masjids in England. There is no design element in a Masjid that says it has to be the way it is. Some of the peoples view was that the design should reflect the design of the area and the architectural style of the area, I agreed with this too. This is why I particularly like the Faisal Masjid in Pakistan which has a modern design.
> 
> Whether or not a minaret is important in Islam isn't really what I see this referendum was about. I see this as the baby steps and more important and foundations of Islam will be taken out next.
> 
> ...



So you see the removal of some towers to be the first step to them removing Islam? 

Do you also think that gay marriage leads to people fucking animals and stools?


----------



## Mintaka (Dec 1, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Not really, and the issue I have is that if this were another subject it would be deemed none of his business. But since some of you agree, its okay to use him this time.


It IS none of his business.


Last time I checked he's the leader of a christain sect not a muslim one.  I know why he's doing this and it makes it ironic.  When another religion is attacked all of a sudden he has to defend it or else it might happen to him next.


----------



## abcd (Dec 1, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Not really, and the issue I have is that if this were another subject it would be deemed none of his business. But since some of you agree, its okay to use him this time.



Thats the whole point .....  

Its not .. even pope is supporting this 

Its more on the lines of

  even pope is supporting this  

edit: yeah the others are right too


----------



## Le Pirate (Dec 1, 2009)

............Even the Pope is Islam......they're screwed.


----------



## The_Unforgiven (Dec 1, 2009)

Saufsoldat said:


> It depends on how you interpret "practicing your religion", as it is stated in the declaration of human rights. Is building a minaret really practicing Islam? You tell me, because as far as I know building minarets is not one of the pillars of Islam.



Irrelevant. Picking on one religion is against the declaration. That's the point. If they said "we're banning all non-office/residential buildings over 15 feet high" (Which would include church bell towers etc) then that would be fine. But the way this has been talked about and campaigned is that "muslims are evil. lets stop them from taking over the world, one minaret at a time".


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 1, 2009)

PhlegmMaster said:


> The Pope is just protecting his own cult. The minaret ban is a result of people actually opening their eyes and looking at the kind of morality that is preached by Islam. The Pope knows that if people do the same thing with Catholicism, he's in deep shit.



Bullshit, Christians are partly behind what's happening in Switzerland. 



Tokoyami said:


> It IS none of his business.
> 
> 
> Last time I checked he's the leader of a christain sect not a muslim one.  I know why he's doing this and it makes it ironic.  When another religion is attacked all of a sudden he has to defend it or else it might happen to him next.



This is the opinion I expected, whining about how the Pope is being selfish with this and its not his business. So what is his business then? If he can't talk about religion, what should he be talking about. 

And if its not his business why's it any of anyone else's? How many of you actually live in Switzerland? Therefore it doesn't fucking affect you. Why do you care?


----------



## Black Wraith (Dec 1, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> So you see the removal of some towers to be the first step to them removing Islam?
> 
> Do you also think that gay marriage leads to people fucking animals and stools?



Did you even look at the posters, what the Swiss in support of this were using as an argument? most of it had nothing to do with minarets, which shows that the ones who made the referendum had an ulterior motive.


----------



## The_Unforgiven (Dec 1, 2009)

It isnt any of the pope's business, thats why it makes this more significant. Even when he doesnt have any vested interest, he can admit that its wrong.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 1, 2009)

Black Drako said:


> Did you even look at the posters, what the Swiss in support of this were using as an argument? most of it had nothing to do with minarets, which shows that the ones who made the referendum had an ulterior motive.



Yep, and its partly true, the first thing done to the Catherdral in Constantinople when it was taken was the placing of minarets around it. I kind of like how no one is addressing the history behind the things and how no one has mentioned the bayonet quote. 

If people didn't say shit like that, this wouldn't happen.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Dec 1, 2009)

The_Unforgiven said:


> Irrelevant. Picking on one religion is against the declaration.



Nope, stop right there. Where does it say that?


----------



## The_Unforgiven (Dec 1, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Yep, and its partly true, the first thing done to the Catherdral in Constantinople when it was taken was the placing of minarets around it. I kind of like how no one is addressing the history behind the things and how no one has mentioned the bayonet quote.
> 
> If people didn't say shit like that, this wouldn't happen.



so this is revenge for Constantinople?

@Sauf: Ok, that was worded wrong. Picking on a group of people because of their religion is against the declaration. Happy?


----------



## Fulcata (Dec 1, 2009)

I say we give the Vatican the Papal States back. No one cares about Italy anyway.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 1, 2009)

The_Unforgiven said:


> so this is revenge for Constantinople?
> 
> @Sauf: Ok, that was worded wrong. Picking on a group of people because of their religion is against the declaration. Happy?


No try reading what I said.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Dec 1, 2009)

The_Unforgiven said:


> @Sauf: Ok, that was worded wrong. Picking on a group of people because of their religion is against the declaration. Happy?



It wasn't the wording, the declaration simply doesn't forbid discrimination based on religion (at least not articles 2 and 18 which were posted earlier, I assume that they're the only relevant ones).


----------



## hcheng02 (Dec 1, 2009)

The_Unforgiven said:


> so this is revenge for Constantinople?
> 
> @Sauf: Ok, that was worded wrong. Picking on a group of people because of their religion is against the declaration. Happy?



No, the idea is that Muslims have historically used architecture as a form of cultural domination. A building is a physical and constant reminder of a governments or people's presence and power since generally the people who have the funds to construct giant buildings and infrastructure are the ones with power.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 1, 2009)

hcheng02 said:


> No, the idea is that Muslims have historically used architecture as a form of cultural domination. A building is a physical and constant reminder of a governments or people's presence and power since generally the people who have the funds to construct giant buildings and infrastructure are the ones with power.


At least someone is paying attention. I wonder who all read the article and didn't just sit there mad at the title before posting.


----------



## sadated_peon (Dec 1, 2009)

Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> I fully understood your reply, and I fully understood his comment. I'm telling you what the equivalent would be if the international community treated the Swiss the same way the Swiss treat their Muslim citizens. That would have been equivalent; the imam was more generous than that. A perfect equivalence is if he called for a similar ban on Christian cathedrals, but he did not.


No, your still not getting it. 

The equivalence in the ?international community? would be to not allow the swiss to build a type of building style associated with Swiss culture. 
How you can equate this to ?respect the Swiss as a people, but ban them from coming to your country.? Is beyond me. 



			
				Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> It's really tiresome to see someone (like you) who obviously lost the track of the conversation, and forces me to work to get you up to speed. Even more tiresome is when you retaliate by accusing people of not "understanding" your argument if they disagree with it.


Lost track?!?!?
You made an idiotic comment that made no sense, when I called you on it you started back peddling. 



			
				Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> Once more, and it will be my ignore list, and you can enjoy talking to yourself as it seems I'm the only person left who wants to discuss these issues with you.


Lol, your ignore list? Lol. 
Yes, it soooo much easier to be right, when you can?t hear people pointing out where you are wrong.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 1, 2009)

Shingami Perv hasn't called you a virgin yet, that's his most lethal argument.


----------



## sadated_peon (Dec 1, 2009)

black Drako said:
			
		

> Whether or not a minaret is important in Islam isn't really what I see this referendum was about. I see this as the baby steps and more important and foundations of Islam will be taken out next.





Black Drako said:


> Did you even look at the posters, what the Swiss in support of this were using as an argument? most of it had nothing to do with minarets, which shows that the ones who made the referendum had an ulterior motive.



I just wanted to put these two comment together because of how funny they are together. 

You claim Minarets are baby steps to remove the foundations of Islam. 
They claim Minarets are baby setps to remove the foundation of Swiss culture and "Islamify" it.


----------



## Banhammer (Dec 1, 2009)

> The imam of Switzerland's biggest mosque, in Geneva, meanwhile called on the Muslim world to "respect, without accepting" the outcome and to avoid cutting off ties with Switzerland



You see, a nice pleasent responde.

Even though I lol at how must people had to advise for their followers not freak out 


Leaders proove what I said the other day about there being islamic people who were examplary individuals

Now let's see what if I said about the muslim people as a group rings true aswell.


----------



## Banhammer (Dec 1, 2009)

What people don't get about Switzerland is that it also has it's own culture and part of it is deciding what goes on in their culture and on their religious world. In a way, it is opressing swiss culture and religion not respect the decision made, or to deny the fact that it was a decision that was theirs to make


----------



## abcd (Dec 1, 2009)

Banhammer said:


> What people don't get about Switzerland is that it also has it's own culture and part of it is deciding what goes on in their culture and on their religious world. In a way, it is opressing swiss culture and religion not respect the decision made, or to deny the fact that it was a decision that was theirs to make



ya u make a point ... It was swiss people who voted for it .......

But if u take a vote based on majority in a majority based region ... the majority will always win right?? ... So what roles do the minorities play in a democracy? ... is democracy meant for the minorities ?? .... 

The number of atheists are greatly outnumbered by religious Christians in USA... If there was a vote to ban Atheists what do u think will happen ? (Something I wud love to observe  )


----------



## Dionysus (Dec 1, 2009)

Why is anyone surprised that the pope has come out and said something? He's defended Islam before.  In fact, he tends to back up most religions in cases like this.  Makes for more credibility when defending yourself, I suppose.



Shinigami Perv said:


> Once more, and it will be my ignore list, and you can enjoy talking to yourself as it seems I'm the only person left who wants to discuss these issues with you.


Er...  It's actually the opposite, if anything.  That drugged peon is handling you quite nicely, so there's no need for anyone else to.



I wonder if there'll be Swiss embassies firebombed soon.  The issue will turn from a stupid ban (of something that wouldn't be functional in Switzerland) to the ridiculously violent response.  But, we'll see.

Would anyone here REALLY give a shit if church belltowers were banned in, say, Bangladesh?  Or...  swiss cabins?


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Dec 1, 2009)

Eventhough oppression is one of the solutions, it only makes things worse in the long run. Oppressed people tend to riot alot, see Uchihas


Though the world should be cleansed from the misfortune that is called religion, sooner or later and I am sure it will have to be the hard way.


----------



## Outlandish (Dec 1, 2009)

u know they tried to go for the way meat was slaughtered by Jews + Muslims but they didn't want to upset the jews


----------



## Outlandish (Dec 1, 2009)

*My compatriots' vote to ban minarets is fuelled by fear*



> *My compatriots' vote to ban minarets is fuelled by fear*
> 
> The Swiss have voted not against towers, but Muslims. Across Europe, we must stand up to the flame-fanning populists
> ​
> ...


----------



## vivEnergy (Dec 1, 2009)

The_Unforgiven said:


> It isnt any of the pope's business, thats why it makes this more significant. Even when he doesnt have any vested interest, he can admit that its wrong.



And it's none of your business either. Unless you are swiss or a muslim swiss.

By the principle of non-intervention peoples have the right to chose what they believe is right for them. Unless you disagree with this principle (which would make you a de facto outlaw to the international community) then you should "respect" and protest peacefully their choice if you deem it unfit.

Anyway what's fun about this "debat" are the consequences. Deportation, religious bias, majority pushing out an "unfitting" minority. But all this done quietly, peacefully and silently. Imagine if Hitler had actually only deported to the border Jews and forbidden the practice of this religion in Germany. Just that. And with the support of the majority of the German people. Would there had been a war for this ? I don't think so.

Another thing. To all the muslims. You are just so fucking biased its fucking awefull. Please take into consideration all the abuse religions and peoples from around the world took under the name of Islam (christian idem ldo). And for each action face it with an action against it. You'll understand why so many people hate you. 
Being a bully always come back to you, and sometimes the bullied can't take it anymore and take it to the next level.

You are a community. And for each of you that sins, the whole community is responsible.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 1, 2009)

I like how upset Muslims are about this. If you really feel like they hate you so much just don't live there. Its not like you're being forced. Why can't one country that's not Muslim do this? If a Muslim country makes dumb laws against other religions I don't see you guys anywhere.


----------



## Dionysus (Dec 1, 2009)

niyesuH said:


> I think these articles are the most applicable ones. It is in violation because it is discriminating purely based on religious basis.


Nope.  Not applicable.  One reason your appeal was funny.  Another is that the declaration is powerless and... generally ignored across most of the world, especially in muslim countries.  Then, you can also have a chuckle that the UN human rights people are based in Geneva.  Isn't that worth another chuckle?

Hahaha.  Good stuff, I say.



iander said:


> I would argue it is a violation of the Universal Declaration.
> 
> Article 18: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
> 
> While Minarets are not in all mosques, they are an important part of forming a public religious space for muslims.  They are a visual cue to a Muslim community and provide a vantage point from which the call to prayer can be made.  I think banning them does violate article 18.


Nooooooope.  Neither would banning church belltowers.  Neither belltowers nor mosques are needed.  Also, the minarets that are already in Switzerland cannot issue a call to prayer due to noise regulations.  And what the hell is that about visual cues?  Seriously, you think that's protected in the Declaration of Human Rights?  Christians have the right to see churches from anywhere?  Hahaha.

Banning people from practicing Islam would be a violation.  Banning people from converting from Islam would be.  Muslims appealing to the Declaration better start tolerating that last one, huh?  Banning the building of a mosque might be... though, I'm not sure.  I really don't think mosques or churches are absolutely needed, but opinions on the application may vary on that one.  The obvious jibe at Saudi Arabia is not necessary here, I think.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Dec 1, 2009)

sadated_peon said:


> No, your still not getting it.
> 
> The equivalence in the “international community” would be to not allow the swiss to build a type of building style associated with Swiss culture.
> How you can equate this to “respect the Swiss as a people, but ban them from coming to your country.” Is beyond me.



Except those Swiss don't have a right to build anything in those foreign countries, as they are not citizens of those countries. This is an issue of constraining a certain religion within one's own country; the Swiss did not single out minarets because they found minarets to be aesthetically displeasing, they were instead banned because it is a symbol of their religion and heritage. It's like singling out any religious or ethnic icon: allowing tourism but banning the display of Swiss flags, Christian jewelry, etc. 



> Lost track?!?!?
> You made an idiotic comment that made no sense, when I called you on it you started back peddling.



This is the same accusation you make in every thread. It's your default fallback routine, and like I said, it's very tiresome. 

Nobody can fail to understand your extremely simple arguments, or the imam's arguments. They are written plain as day in text form. So to fall back on "you can't understand my argument" is just lame and weak. I do understand your argument, but it's not persuasive. 



> Lol, your ignore list? Lol.
> Yes, it soooo much easier to be right, when you can’t hear people pointing out where you are wrong.



The sad thing is that you believe this. I think every debate I've had with you degenerates into arguing about the argument instead of the topic, usually beginning with you accusing everyone of "not understanding" your argument. That stuff gets tiresome, especially when there are plenty of people on this forum who discuss things normally (not throwing accusations within 2 posts).

I wish you luck in finding someone else who wants to engage in endless recriminations. Have a good life! /ignore



Dionysus said:


> Er...  It's actually the opposite, if anything.  That drugged peon is handling you quite nicely, so there's no need for anyone else to.





Yes, that's why the first person to comment on it told me "don't waste  your time with him". 

Nice try, but a rather weak snipe from you.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 1, 2009)

Shinigami Perv said:


> The sad thing is that you believe this. I think every debate I've had with you degenerates into arguing about the argument instead of the topic, usually beginning with you accusing everyone of "not understanding" your argument. That stuff gets tiresome, especially when there are plenty of people on this forum who discuss things normally (not throwing accusations within 2 posts).
> 
> I wish you luck in finding someone else who wants to engage in endless recriminations. Have a good life! /ignore



This is because every argument with you actually goes this way.


----------



## Dionysus (Dec 1, 2009)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Yes, that's why the first person to comment on it told me "don't waste  your time with him".
> 
> Nice try, but a rather weak snipe from you.


Hahahaha.  Man.  You make a specious argument and stand with it till the end.  I suppose there's some moxy there.

You made a stupid argument comparing this to banning Swiss citizens from entering countries.  You were clearly wrong in your comparison and he called you on it.  Can you do me a favour and put me on your ignore list too?


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Dec 1, 2009)

Dionysus said:


> Hahahaha.  Man.  You make a specious argument and stand with it till the end.  I suppose there's some moxy there.
> 
> You made a stupid argument comparing this to banning Swiss citizens from entering countries.  You were clearly wrong in your comparison and he called you on it.  Can you do me a favour and put me on your ignore list too?



He told me I didn't understand what either the imam or he was saying. I'm just pointing out that I read the article and completely understand what he's saying. 

The minaret is part of Islamic cultural heritage, just like the Swiss language, the Swiss flag, any sort of Christian symbol (crucifix, etc.) is part of Swiss heritage. In singling out a specific heritage for a ban, it would be like other countries using ethnic or religious guidelines to ban just about anything, even Swiss people. But an exact parallel would be any Swiss who insisted on carrying these symbols, which I said later. 

If you don't want to debate me, you don't have to.  I'm not holding a gun to your head.


----------



## The_Unforgiven (Dec 1, 2009)

vivEnergy said:


> And it's none of your business either. Unless you are swiss or a muslim swiss.
> 
> By the principle of non-intervention peoples have the right to chose what they believe is right for them. Unless you disagree with this principle (which would make you a de facto outlaw to the international community) then you should "respect" and protest peacefully their choice if you deem it unfit.



how do you get that out of what i said? I said since it isnt his business, he has no vested interest, so what he says can be trusted.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I like how upset Muslims are about this. If you really feel like they hate you so much just don't live there. Its not like you're being forced. Why can't one country that's not Muslim do this? If a Muslim country makes dumb laws against other religions I don't see you guys anywhere.



Stop being a moron. By your logic, if the blacks didnt like slavery, they could've moved out of the US.

Also since this is a pretty live thread, its a good place to advertise. If you know statistics, then i need your help. Go here pls.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 1, 2009)

The_Unforgiven said:


> how do you get that out of what i said? I said since it isnt his business, he has no vested interest, so what he says can be trusted.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Fatal flaw in your argument, besides calling me a moron, is that blacks were slaves and brought here by force. Thanks for missing that though, you've effectively offered me a crippled argument to kick the shit out of. 

What is this? Point out CTK is black week?


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Dec 1, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Fatal flaw in your argument, besides calling me a moron, is that blacks were slaves and brought here by force. Thanks for missing that though, you've effectively offered me a crippled argument to kick the shit out of.
> 
> What is this? Point out CTK is black week?



Yeah but they could've moved outside of the US when they were being told to sit in the back in buses and such they clearly weren't slaves at the time and no one would've had any issue with them leaving the country at that era.


----------



## abcd (Dec 1, 2009)

I dont understand this whole moving out thing.... Like any country is going to welcome 7 million (or something) people .... Its not practical or logical ....


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 1, 2009)

-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> Yeah but they could've moved outside of the US when they were being told to sit in the back in buses and such they clearly weren't slaves at the time and no one would've had any issue with them leaving the country at that era.


By that time its your home, you were still forced to be there for a time and its all you know. These people moved there on their own and want everyone to agree with them.


----------



## The_Unforgiven (Dec 1, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Fatal flaw in your argument, besides calling me a moron, is that blacks were slaves and brought here by force. Thanks for missing that though, you've effectively offered me a crippled argument to kick the shit out of.
> 
> What is this? Point out CTK is black week?



irrelevant. If you think muslims in Switzerland should move because they dont like the minaret deal, then the blacks could have moved to the north to canada, or to south america.


----------



## abcd (Dec 1, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> By that time its your home, you were still forced to be there for a time and its all you know. These people moved there on their own and want everyone to agree with them.



I know i am in ur ignore list and such ... but this is too shallow dude =[ ...


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Dec 1, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> By that time its your home, you were still forced to be there for a time and its all you know. These people moved there on their own and want everyone to agree with them.



Agree with them ? I do not follow, they built the first 4 minarets without any issues but now the Swiss government is telling them no more, because we are afraid of being invaded by you guys( Which is very retarded if you ask me if they played it a little bit more cleverly they probably could've gotten away with this without the need of all this fuss) . Anyway, I cannot see how the muslims are at fault in this case I would agree with you if they were trying to enforce that everyone must eat Halal food or such, but not in this scenario.


----------



## Toby (Dec 1, 2009)

By argument alone the universal declaration of human rights doesn't apply. International law would apply if and only if you can actually put the construction of religious sites under the definition of practising religion, but this is not what is meant in the spirit of the law nor in the black letter law. That said, if you think about what the law _intends_, a ban on minarets is obviously a restriction of religious establishment - and in modern countries religions are all established legal organisations with leaders and figureheads. So disrupting organised religion does in fact constitute a restriction of religion. I know that it doesn't constrict them from building mosques admittedly, so they can obviously still practice their religion, but of course it is an impediment. You really have to be in denial to propose that the Swiss did this out of some sort of aesthetic sense of displeasure at seeing a minaret. It is obviously a measure against Islam, and it is petty. 

Then there's the part where lefties ignore that this has come precisely as a result of Switzerland's excessive direct democracy, and where conservatives claim they are upholding their democratic spirit, when in fact procedural democracy is not the same as idealistic democracy. 

You could go out on a tangent and blame it all on the Swiss for being so damn different because of their political system, but sadly, I think we'd get the same result in many other European countries if we had the same direct democracy. And it's a damn good thing that we don't let the people have that power. Democracy is overrated. Deal with it.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 1, 2009)

The_Unforgiven said:


> irrelevant. If you think muslims in Switzerland should move because they dont like the minaret deal, then the blacks could have moved to the north to canada, or to south america.



How about we get off your fucking strawman and back on topic. Because comparing blacks and what they went to to someone taking away some towers around buildings is a little asinine. Also you ignored the part where many Muslim nations subject people to laws based on the Koran. So once again, thanks for failing. 



abcd said:


> I know i am in ur ignore list and such ... but this is too shallow dude =[ ...



Who said I had you on ignore? I don't. 



-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> Agree with them ? I do not follow, they built the first 4 minarets without any issues but now the Swiss government is telling them no more, because we are afraid of being invaded by you guys( Which is very retarded if you ask if they played it a little bit more political they probably could've gotten away with this without the need of all this fuss) . Anyway, I cannot see how the muslims are at fault in this case I would agree with you if they were trying to enforce that everyone must eat Halal food or such, but not in this scenario.



Well here is how they're at fault, things become illegal all of the time after they were done for a while, this was decided by the majority voting. No one's being grossly discriminated on and the quotes about what the minarets mean are true. 

So I don't see how you can get too mad if this is what Sweden wants for itself.


----------



## ninjaneko (Dec 1, 2009)

Wait, are people actually supporting this? 

Passing discrimminatory laws that are clearly in disharmony with the ideals of freedom of religion and expression in targeting a group of people based on their religion (or any other distinction, ei. ethnicity, gender, culture, orientation, etc.) out of prejudice and fear... Isn't that the kind of thing that is generally repugnant to most sensible human beings?

There are obviously some issues and bridge-building that need serious attention.


----------



## hcheng02 (Dec 1, 2009)

Toby said:


> By argument alone the universal declaration of human rights doesn't apply. International law would apply if and only if you can actually put the construction of religious sites under the definition of practising religion, but this is not what is meant in the spirit of the law nor in the black letter law. That said, if you think about what the law _intends_, a ban on minarets is obviously a restriction of religious establishment - and in modern countries religions are all established legal organisations with leaders and figureheads. So disrupting organised religion does in fact constitute a restriction of religion. I know that it doesn't constrict them from building mosques admittedly, so they can obviously still practice their religion, but of course it is an impediment. You really have to be in denial to propose that the Swiss did this out of some sort of aesthetic sense of displeasure at seeing a minaret. It is obviously a measure against Islam, and it is petty.
> 
> Then there's the part where lefties ignore that this has come precisely as a result of Switzerland's excessive direct democracy, and where conservatives claim they are upholding their democratic spirit, *when in fact procedural democracy is not the same as idealistic democracy. *
> *
> You could go out on a tangent and blame it all on the Swiss for being so damn different because of their political system, but sadly, I think we'd get the same result in many other European countries if we had the same direct democracy. And it's a damn good thing that we don't let the people have that power. Democracy is overrated. Deal with it*.



I don't quite follow this argument.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 1, 2009)

ninjaneko said:


> Wait, are people actually supporting this?
> 
> Passing discrimminatory laws that are clearly in disharmony with the ideals of freedom of religion and expression in targeting a group of people based on their religion (or any other distinction, ei. ethnicity, gender, culture, orientation, etc.) out of prejudice and fear... Isn't that the kind of thing that is generally repugnant to most sensible human beings?
> 
> There are obviously some issues and bridge-building that need serious attention.



Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom to do whatever the fuck you want under the pretense of religion. 

If this was a thread about the Confederate flag from the U.S. Civil war how many of you would be in here championing it as the symbol of the people?


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Dec 1, 2009)

Toby said:


> By argument alone the universal declaration of human rights doesn't apply. International law would apply if and only if you can actually put the construction of religious sites under the definition of practising religion, but this is not what is meant in the spirit of the law nor in the black letter law. That said, if you think about what the law _intends_, a ban on minarets is obviously a restriction of religious establishment - and in modern countries religions are all established legal organisations with leaders and figureheads. So disrupting organised religion does in fact constitute a restriction of religion. I know that it doesn't constrict them from building mosques admittedly, so they can obviously still practice their religion, but of course it is an impediment. You really have to be in denial to propose that the Swiss did this out of some sort of aesthetic sense of displeasure at seeing a minaret. It is obviously a measure against Islam, and it is petty.
> 
> *Then there's the part where lefties ignore that this has come precisely as a result of Switzerland's excessive direct democracy, and where conservatives claim they are upholding their democratic spirit, when in fact procedural democracy is not the same as idealistic democracy.
> 
> You could go out on a tangent and blame it all on the Swiss for being so damn different because of their political system, but sadly, I think we'd get the same result in many other European countries if we had the same direct democracy. And it's a damn good thing that we don't let the people have that power. Democracy is overrated. Deal with it.*



That's an interesting take on things. And I agree, this measure would stand a good chance of passing in the United States post 9/11. It might have even enjoyed quick passage with virtually no debate. 

It seems they have no constitution to protect minority religious rights. Changing the constitution in the US is a very, very difficult task, almost makes anything remotely debatable impossible to implement constitutionally.


----------



## Hinako (Dec 1, 2009)

Islam is evil. It isn't a religion of peace, but a religion of terror. So I support this. Take down terror!


----------



## vivEnergy (Dec 1, 2009)

Toby said:


> By argument alone the universal declaration of human rights doesn't apply. International law would apply if and only if you can actually put the construction of religious sites under the definition of practising religion, but this is not what is meant in the spirit of the law nor in the black letter law. That said, if you think about what the law _intends_, a ban on minarets is obviously a restriction of religious establishment - and in modern countries religions are all established legal organisations with leaders and figureheads. So disrupting organised religion does in fact constitute a restriction of religion. I know that it doesn't constrict them from building mosques admittedly, so they can obviously still practice their religion, but of course it is an impediment. You really have to be in denial to propose that the Swiss did this out of some sort of aesthetic sense of displeasure at seeing a minaret. It is obviously a measure against Islam, and it is petty.
> 
> Then there's the part where lefties ignore that this has come precisely as a result of Switzerland's excessive direct democracy, and where conservatives claim they are upholding their democratic spirit, when in fact procedural democracy is not the same as idealistic democracy.
> 
> You could go out on a tangent and blame it all on the Swiss for being so damn different because of their political system, but sadly, I think we'd get the same result in many other European countries if we had the same direct democracy. And it's a damn good thing that we don't let the people have that power. Democracy is overrated. Deal with it.



So culture clash ? I guess that's kind of a self fulfilling prophecy.

And so who should have the power to make such choices ? Books ? The elite ?

I'm sorry but trading one's prejudice for another doesn't really appeal to me.


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Dec 1, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Well here is how they're at fault, things become illegal all of the time after they were done for a while, this was decided by the majority voting. *No one's being grossly discriminated on and the quotes about what the minarets mean are true. *
> 
> So I don't see how you can get too mad if this is what Sweden wants for itself.


You see I would've not gotten "Too mad" if it was pretty much just a simple voting it was done due to parties playing on people's phobia's, so you at least admit there is some discrimination going on? 

That minarets are male gentilia, missiles and that they are a symbol for the expansion of Islam? and I thought conspiracy theorists were bad.

So minorities have no say in democracy if that is substantive democracy which I hardly doubt that.



Hinako said:


> Islam is evil. It isn't a religion of peace, but a religion of terror. So I support this. Take down terror!


I say we nuke Europe they have 38 million Muslims, so that we show to Muslims that we aren't even afraid of sacrificing our allies in order to take down Islam.


----------



## Toby (Dec 1, 2009)

hcheng02 said:


> I don't quite follow this argument.



It's a distinction. Some people think democracies are defined by having plebiscites. They think it is a system where everybody has a say in deciding who rules whom. This is a process however. It is run by majorities. It is a procedural democracy as such. An ideological democracy is a democracy which has ideals at its core, for example universal suffrage, or protection from abuse. The right to freedom of speech is a right protecting you from the majority, because the majority might disagree with you, but you need the right to speak your mind, or the process of democracy won't work.

I clarified this a few pages back. Basically you can't trust people to uphold the rights of individuals. Why else would we have constitutions? Some people are simply put better at running the country than others, and their authority is drafted on consensus, and implemented by law. A purely procedural democracy however lets the rights of the people become a victim of the whims of idiots.



Shinigami Perv said:


> That's an interesting take on things. And I agree, this measure would stand a good chance of passing in the United States post 9/11. It might have even enjoyed quick passage with virtually no debate.
> 
> It seems they have no constitution to protect minority religious rights. Changing the constitution in the US is a very, very difficult task, almost makes anything remotely debatable impossible to implement constitutionally.



That's the interesting thing. If the US were a direct democracy, would it have passed the Patriot Act? Oh no, don't respond here, I'm just alluding to another debate. /botherbotherbother

They do, it's just that... the people are idiots and don't know what they've done to them just yet. It will come with time.



vivEnergy said:


> So culture clash ? I guess that's kind of a self fulfilling prophecy.
> 
> And so who should have the power to make such choices ? Books ? The elite ?
> 
> I'm sorry but trading one's prejudice for another doesn't really appeal to me.



It was inevitable in the case of Switzerland. No pure model of government or economic arrangement exists to this day. Even Switzerland is becoming more pro-big government, and they hold fewer plebiscites. This tradition of theirs might thin out on civil liberties issues.

The elite obviously. But it has to be drafted on consent at some point, and what I'm saying in this thread has been a reference to the fact of the matter as opposed to an argument for what ought to have happened - the rights of the Muslims have been wronged here at some point, it's just that it is indistinguishable from the act of banning minarets and the process of holding plebiscites. The two screw one another over however, and in addition to harming democracy, this gives fire to the imams who will use to recruit radical hooligans.

It's a prejudice that works. That's my sort of cake.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 1, 2009)

Hinako said:


> Islam is evil. It isn't a religion of peace, but a religion of terror. So I support this. Take down terror!



Wow, well it looks like I have the middle ground now. 



-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> You see I would've not gotten "Too mad" if it was pretty much just a simple voting it was done due to parties playing on people's phobia's, so you at least admit there is some discrimination going on?
> 
> That minarets are male gentilia, missiles and that they are a symbol for the expansion of Islam? and I thought conspiracy theorists were bad.
> 
> So minorities have no say in democracy if that is substantive democracy which I hardly doubt that.



No conspiracy theory, its actually history and someone stated that the minaret stood for something. They were a mark used when a land was taken over at one point. 

Also there's always discrimination, the point I am making is that this came from a popular vote and it hurts no one.

Afterall, if your religion denotes you have to piss on people in public, is it discrimination to stop this with a law? So religious freedom across the board is impossible.


----------



## vivEnergy (Dec 1, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> No conspiracy theory, its actually history and someone stated that the minaret stood for something. They were a mark used when a *land was taken over* at one point.



And that's what it's all about.


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Dec 1, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> No conspiracy theory, its actually history and someone stated that the minaret stood for something. They were a mark used when a land was taken over at one point.
> 
> Also there's always discrimination, the point I am making is that this came from a popular vote and it hurts no one.
> 
> Afterall, if your religion denotes you have to piss on people in public, is it discrimination to stop this with a law? So religious freedom across the board is impossible.


Good god! so over a 100 years old history is now basis to judge what should be legalized and what shouldn't, and this is quite silly weren't churches used as the same thing back then? 

It truly does not hurt anyone I agree with that, it is afterall just a long piece of building, but it is clear discrimination even though it's petty I do not think that this is how a majority vote should work.

And you were accusing Sasuf of bad analogies.


----------



## Hinako (Dec 1, 2009)

-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> I say we nuke Europe they have 38 million Muslims, so that we show to Muslims that we aren't even afraid of sacrificing our allies in order to take down Islam.


uhhh what!? You only nuke as a last resort. This is just a whip to islam to behave!

@CTK What middle ground are you talking about?


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Dec 1, 2009)

Hinako said:


> uhhh what!? You only nuke as a last resort. This is just a whip to islam to behave!
> 
> @CTK What middle ground are you talking about?



Why should we just hit them on the wrist, i say nuke them and start a full out war they won't resist anyway + we get oil and we reduce the world population by 1.5 billion, we save the people  of the world and planet , 2 in 1 deal how can you say no to that is beyond my comprehension.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 1, 2009)

-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> Good god! so over a 100 years old history is now basis to judge what should be legalized and what shouldn't, and this is quite silly weren't churches used as the same thing back then?
> 
> It truly does not hurt anyone I agree with that, it is afterall just a long piece of building, but it is clear discrimination even though it's petty I do not think that this is how a majority vote should work.
> 
> And you were accusing Sasuf of bad analogies.



Mine's not an analogy. 

But just remember: 



> "Islamic people say it's only decorative. I don't agree. If Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey says 'the minarets are our bayonets' that means something to me. I don't want his bayonets to be planted here in Switzerland."



Maybe its things like this that piss people off?


----------



## abcd (Dec 1, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Mine's not an analogy.
> 
> But just remember:
> 
> ...



I wonder why only swiss took that turkish guys talk seriously ....


----------



## Toby (Dec 1, 2009)

We shouldn't ban things which are aesthetically displeasing if there's a market for it.


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Dec 1, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Mine's not an analogy.
> 
> But just remember:
> 
> ...



Doesn't this pretty much show hypocrisy more than anything, since no one honestly ever takes what Islamic leaders/ministers say seriously including Switzerland itself, and only take it seriously when it is convenient for them and then start using it as an excuse on why we Islam is teh evhul of al evhuls?


----------



## Dionysus (Dec 1, 2009)

Toby said:


> That said, if you think about what the law _intends_, a ban on minarets is obviously a restriction of religious establishment - and in modern countries religions are all established legal organisations with leaders and figureheads. So disrupting organised religion does in fact constitute a restriction of religion. I know that it doesn't constrict them from building mosques admittedly, so they can obviously still practice their religion, but of course it is an impediment. You really have to be in denial to propose that the Swiss did this out of some sort of aesthetic sense of displeasure at seeing a minaret. It is obviously a measure against Islam, and it is petty.


It's a pretty silly ban, but it does nothing to hinder Islam in Switzerland.  Obviously it shows the many Swiss don't like the muslim presense in the country.  To what degree and how far the Swiss would vote we can't really say.  I'm sure polling would be as useless as it was before the vote.

I'm going to have to disagree that banning minarets is an attempt to disrupt the organization aspect or impede practicing the religion.  Minarets aren't a functional thing in that country (perhaps they would be if only rang on one day) and wouldn't be if they were allowed to build them.  If they are built but banned from use and church bells allowed to ring, I would call it discrimination.  (As an aside, having a usage ban is not necessarily unjustified.  Ringing multiple times a day, everyday, would be against the rights of all the non-muslims in the country anyways.  If I really cared to, I would use this argument to say that minarets, beyond being a pretty thing to look at, should not be allowed to be used anywhere, in this fair and just world of ours, where muslims and other mix.)  I disagree that the functions of either are required for practice or that restrictions on either constitute an unreasonable* restiction on religion.  I would say this is a lashing out at something foreign and symbolic, but really something on the periphery.  

I'm going to have to hear of mosques being shut down and korans being confiscated before I agree on calling the Swiss on restriction on religion (or human rights abuses).  Now, someone might interpret laws differently, but I do not think there is any basis to launch a legal challenge using international agreements/whatever to protect religion.  (Something that isn't very successful in clearly justified cases.)

*I believe there are reasonable restrictions, but that should be fairly obvious.

But, yeah, this ban is pretty stupid.  I'm not going to gnash my teeth and call it more than that though.


----------



## Hinako (Dec 1, 2009)

-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> Why should we just hit them on the wrist, i say nuke them and start a full out war they won't resist anyway + we get oil and we reduce the world population by 1.5 billion, we save the people  of the world and planet , 2 in 1 deal how can you say no to that is beyond my comprehension.


Silly Muslim lover, nukes are not for kids!


----------



## Emasculation Storm (Dec 1, 2009)

This is hardly discrimination against religion. Nowhere in the Islamic religion does it say that the contruction of minarets are necessary. It's like saying the banning of nudity on Church stain-glass windows in a country is discriminatory against Christianity. It's an accessory, one which symbolizes conquerization.


----------



## abcd (Dec 1, 2009)

Ejaculation Storm said:


> This is hardly discrimination against religion. Nowhere in the Islamic religion does it say that the contruction of minarets are necessary. It's like saying the banning of nudity on Church stain-glass windows in a country is discriminatory against Christianity. It's an accessory, one which symbolizes conquerization.



Even if it they werent, If u would have followed the news u wud understand the obvious religious reasoning behind it


----------



## Toby (Dec 1, 2009)

Dionysus, if we ban church-bell towers it would have been the same. It's such a cultural thing that, even if it serves no purpose other than to make people go "oh, wow, that's a church/mosque", it's still a part of their religion's functionality. 

The crucifix serves no actual purpose, but it serves a spiritual one. People care about small things. Not like, where their tax dollars go.

And I'd definitely agree with placing restrictions on how often the minarets could ring in for prayers. They should all be confined to morning and evening prayers since that is an actual disturbance of the peace which people should get used to and restrict as much as possible in order to maintain high enough satisfaction.


----------



## Emasculation Storm (Dec 1, 2009)

abcd said:


> Even if it they werent, If u would have followed the news u wud understand the obvious religious reasoning behind it



Yeah, Switzerland doesn't want the construction of buildings that Muslims believe symbolize power, control and conquest in it. As long as the construction of mosques and prayer rooms continues, which seems to be the case, I fail to see the religious discrimination here. A mosque is all a Muslim needs for prayer and community, and they are being provided with that.


----------



## Spirit (Dec 2, 2009)

Ejaculation Storm said:


> Yeah, Switzerland doesn't want the construction of buildings that Muslims believe symbolize power, control and conquest in it. As long as the construction of mosques and prayer rooms continues, which seems to be the case, I fail to see the religious discrimination here. A mosque is all a Muslim needs for prayer and community, and they are being provided with that.



Minarets as symbol of power and conquest is never a part of Islamic beliefs. As such, Muslims shouldn't be butthurt with its ban.

However, if the argument of supporting the ban comes to "because Muslims believe it simbolizes power, control and conquest", then this ban is singling out Muslims. Even though that argument is not true (because no Muslim is compelled to such belief), ultimately the motive behind the argument is discriminating.

Either you ban every building and everything that was once in history "used to symbolize power, control and conquest" by any religion or any party, or you allow them all.

You are always free to restrict and regulate though. Your land.


----------



## N120 (Dec 2, 2009)

Toby said:


> Dionysus, if we ban church-bell towers it would have been the same. It's such a cultural thing that, even if it serves no purpose other than to make people go "oh, wow, that's a church/mosque", it's still a part of their religion's functionality.
> 
> The crucifix serves no actual purpose, but it serves a spiritual one. People care about small things. Not like, where their tax dollars go.
> 
> And I'd definitely agree with placing restrictions on how often the minarets could ring in for prayers. They should all be confined to morning and evening prayers since that is an actual disturbance of the peace which people should get used to and restrict as much as possible in order to maintain high enough satisfaction.



The minarets in the west arent used for prayer calls, usually these mosques are built near residential areas and therefore they dont make the call for prayer outside the mosque, you could practically walk past some of these newer mosques and never know theres people calling for the prayer to start.


----------



## Glued (Dec 2, 2009)

As I have stated before Minarets in this day and age are used for aesthetics and art. The Swiss are not accomplishing anything.

What astounds me is not the fear of the Swiss, but of the grief of us Muslims. In Bengal I have been to Masjids that had missing walls and Masjids without a roof. Masjids with metal bar windows.

As long as we have somewhere to pray, I see no problem. Tell me, when did we put our art/culture over actual faith? So what if they ban the minaret, it doesn't stop us from praying. The imam of my own masjid in Raleigh advised our community not to make a minaret out of consideration of what the Non-muslims might feel. Minaret is not a symbol of power. For us it is just a work of art, no different from a masjid with a golden dome. Hell with the extra money we can feed the poor.


----------



## Al-Yasa (Dec 2, 2009)

Ben Grimm said:


> As I have stated before Minarets in this day and age are used for aesthetics and art. The Swiss are not accomplishing anything.
> 
> What astounds me most is not the fear of the Swiss, but of the grief of us Muslims. In Bengal I have been to Masjids that had missing walls and Masjids without a roof. Masjids with metal bar windows.
> 
> As long as we have somewhere to pray, I see no problem. Tell me, when did we put our art/culture over actual faith? So what if they ban the minaret, it doesn't stop us from praying. The imam of my own masjid in Raleigh advised our community not to make a minaret out of consideration of what the Non-muslims might feel. Minaret is not a symbol of power. For us it is just a work of art, no different from a masjid with a golden dome. Hell with the extra money we can feed the poor.



this......as long as its not stopping us praying or practicing our faith


----------



## Xion (Dec 2, 2009)

Ejaculation Storm said:


> This is hardly discrimination against religion. Nowhere in the Islamic religion does it say that the contruction of minarets are necessary. It's like saying the banning of nudity on Church stain-glass windows in a country is discriminatory against Christianity. It's an accessory, one which symbolizes conquerization.



Well apparently most human rights' experts and intelligent people disagree with you.


----------



## N120 (Dec 2, 2009)

Ben Grimm said:


> As I have stated before Minarets in this day and age are used for aesthetics and art. The Swiss are not accomplishing anything.
> 
> What astounds me is not the fear of the Swiss, but of the grief of us Muslims. In Bengal I have been to Masjids that had missing walls and Masjids without a roof. Masjids with metal bar windows.
> 
> As long as we have somewhere to pray, I see no problem. Tell me, when did we put our art/culture over actual faith? So what if they ban the minaret, it doesn't stop us from praying. The imam of my own masjid in Raleigh advised our community not to make a minaret out of consideration of what the Non-muslims might feel. Minaret is not a symbol of power. For us it is just a work of art, no different from a masjid with a golden dome. Hell with the extra money we can feed the poor.



^ pretty much. those who have raised issues though are more intersted in the reasons behind the ban rather than the ban itself.

 But while it has been passed, i dont think it should be overturned it'll make no difference to the muslims and only feed peoples fear/anger at this point at it being overturned.

Like Benn grimm said the money saved, can go towards worthy causes instead like feeding the poor, shelter projects and medicine.


----------



## Darth (Dec 2, 2009)

lol who combined the threads? I wanna rep him.


----------



## sadated_peon (Dec 2, 2009)

Outlandish said:
			
		

> u know they tried to go for the way meat was slaughtered by Jews + Muslims but they didn't want to upset the jews


Whaaaa????

There has been a ban on kosher slaughter in Switzerland since the 1800?s, 
?In Switzerland shechitah was forbidden throughout the whole country in 1893 after having been banned in the cantons of Aargau and St Gallen in 1867.?


The ban is still in effect. 

But keep up that whole, Muslim victimization/it?s a jewish conspiracy thing, I am sure it will get you far. 



			
				Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> Except those Swiss don't have a right to build anything in those foreign countries, as they are not citizens of those countries. This is an issue of constraining a certain religion within one's own country; the Swiss did not single out minarets because they found minarets to be aesthetically displeasing, they were instead banned because it is a symbol of their religion and heritage. It's like singling out any religious or ethnic icon: allowing tourism but banning the display of Swiss flags, Christian jewelry, etc.


Once again you didn?t understand, I didn?t say in foreign countries. 
The minaret isn?t a part of the religion, there is nothing about the architectural style that stops people from practicing their religion, this is nothing by a hyperbole. 

This has nothing to do with a ban on people, or a ban of a religion, your attempts to make it so and dramatize into this equivalence only shows the weakness of your position. That you must distort the issue to such an extreme to make appoint. 



			
				Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> This is the same accusation you make in every thread. It's your default fallback routine, and like I said, it's very tiresome.
> 
> Nobody can fail to understand your extremely simple arguments, or the imam's arguments. They are written plain as day in text form. So to fall back on "you can't understand my argument" is just lame and weak. I do understand your argument, but it's not persuasive.


Like Godwin?s law, certain aspects of internet argument repeat themselves, a major one being people back peddling when they are proven wrong.  

Me claiming you don?t understand comes from the complete lack of relevance in your argument. 
It?s simple if you think. 
The comment made by the imam was ?respect, without accepting? the outcome. 
I said this is exactly what the swiss did with the minaret. 
To which you replied eventually with the comment that this is like banning swiss people from your country. It shows no understanding of my comment, nor any kind of sensible nature. 



			
				Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> The sad thing is that you believe this. I think every debate I've had with you degenerates into arguing about the argument instead of the topic, usually beginning with you accusing everyone of "not understanding" your argument. That stuff gets tiresome, especially when there are plenty of people on this forum who discuss things normally (not throwing accusations within 2 posts).
> 
> I wish you luck in finding someone else who wants to engage in endless recriminations. Have a good life!  /ignore


As others have pointed out these conversations go that way with you because of you not because of me. I thought you were talking about the back peddling nature comment above, but you claiming I always accuse people of ?not understanding my arguments? is a new one. I think I very rarely say people don?t understand my arguments, I can only think of few instances ?believe it!? for example. 

Equating banning a minaret which is part of middle eastern culture to banning of Swiss from entering other countries first has nothing to do with my original comment, and second so far removed from reality that it defies understanding.


----------



## N120 (Dec 2, 2009)

sadated_peon said:


> Whaaaa????
> 
> There has been a ban on kosher slaughter in Switzerland since the 1800’s,
> “In Switzerland shechitah was forbidden throughout the whole country in 1893 after having been banned in the cantons of Aargau and St Gallen in 1867.”
> ...



Halal meat and Kosher meat are the same thing and use the same technique. It's the reason why muslims can eat Kosher products.


----------



## biar (Dec 2, 2009)

It's a democracy, and the people voted against it, end of story.

Minarets are totally different from Mosques


----------



## sadated_peon (Dec 2, 2009)

N120 said:


> Halal and Kosher are the same thing and use the same technique. It's the reason why muslims can eat Kosher products.


yes, I know..... where did I claim otherwise?


----------



## N120 (Dec 2, 2009)

sadated_peon said:


> yes, I know..... where did I claim otherwise?



 didnt say you did, i just re-enforced the obvious just to piss you off.


----------



## sadated_peon (Dec 2, 2009)

N120 said:


> didnt say you did, i just re-enforced the obvious just to piss you off.


o.....k.......


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 2, 2009)

Darth said:


> lol who combined the threads? I wanna rep him.


Jello, she did it because someone made a third one.


----------



## niyesuH (Dec 2, 2009)

N120 said:


> Halal meat and Kosher meat are the same thing and use the same technique. It's the reason why muslims can eat Kosher products.



Unless the Jews sacrifice it in the name of Allah, orelse muslims can't eat it.




> Well apparently most human rights' experts and intelligent people disagree with you.



I will put my money on the experts


----------



## The_Unforgiven (Dec 2, 2009)

niyesuH said:


> Unless the Jews sacrifice it in the name of Allah, orelse muslims can't eat it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not really. 
[5:5]
This day are (all) things good and pure made lawful unto you. *The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them. *(Lawful unto you in marriage) are (not only) chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book, revealed before your time,- when ye give them their due dowers, and desire chastity, not lewdness, nor secret intrigues if any one rejects faith, fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good).

Look up the tafsir if you want.


----------



## niyesuH (Dec 3, 2009)

The_Unforgiven said:


> Not really.
> [5:5]
> This day are (all) things good and pure made lawful unto you. *The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them. *(Lawful unto you in marriage) are (not only) chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book, revealed before your time,- when ye give them their due dowers, and desire chastity, not lewdness, nor secret intrigues if any one rejects faith, fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good).
> 
> Look up the tafsir if you want.



I believe you, but i am confused about what you can excactly eat or not. Do u know where i can find more on this subject?


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Dec 3, 2009)

Swiss Muslims receive support from "unlikely" source: ultra-Orthodox Jews! 



> *Swiss Muslims gain support from unexpected source - rabbis *
> 
> Switzerland's Muslim population received support from an unexpected source on Wednesday when an ultra-Orthodox Jewish group voiced its opposition to a campaign to ban the building of minarets, distinctive architectural features of Islamic mosques, in the country.
> 
> ...


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 3, 2009)

I'm waiting for Chris Crocker to make his "Leave Islam alone" video.


----------



## Xion (Dec 4, 2009)

Bumped for epic relevance.

So who does agree with the ban? I don't feel like reading through all 18 pages again. I just want to know who the anti-freedom people are.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 4, 2009)

Xion said:


> Bumped for epic relevance.
> 
> So who does agree with the ban? I don't feel like reading through all 18 pages again. I just want to know who the anti-freedom people are.


What's the matter? Just felt like stirring up the shit storm?


----------



## Xion (Dec 4, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> What's the matter? Just felt like stirring up the shit storm?



Debate is cool. The topic is extremely relevant and important.

Why the hate?


----------

