Islamophobia in Europe: Banning Minarets

[flippedgazelle]

Originally Posted by *isteve

Yep - you are right, I am wrong - but its not illegal in the UK or many European countries, or even the USA, even if the press would maul anyone who proposed it.

However offensive I would defend the right of anyone to merely express an opinion. Incitement to hatred or violence is another matter entirely.

I was 99% certain that Holocaust denial was outlawed in Germany & Austria, since those countries are still very sensitive to what happened, but I, too, was surprised at how widespread Holocaust-denial laws are.

[*isteve]

Originally Posted by Ash

With all due respect Steve, you do not know my background, what I had gone through, and what I still go through regarding the very issue we're discussing. You need not talk to me about paranoia. I am the last to generalise a group of people - here I'm showing the ultimate goal of Islam, which is practiced by muslims - hence giving muslims the right to apply it according to their Scripture. You may do well to read the Qur'an and see if I'm ignorantly generalising.


It is not the 'normal' muslims I am referring to above. Those interested in instituting Shariah law are not the 'normal' muslims - however given the choice of Shariah law (without the oppression) and Western law, which do you think would they choose?

Put the history aside and look at the situation today. Religious persecution happens, and there is no reason for it - mostly in the communist nations. Tolerance and respect for each other regardless of creed is an ideal goal to strive for, but with all the stumbling blocks along the way, it proves extremely difficult. Freedom, religious and otherwise, is what needs to remain (and is attainable) for any society to function well...

Sorry Ash, didnt mean to get tetchy with you, but generalising about anyone is not a good basis for an argument. I do not believe that more than a tiny minority of Muslims in the UK actually want Sharia Law at all. Many came here to escape it and many are grateful for the protection of British law against forced marriage etc. Mind you its a shame we did not adopt some muslim banking practices along the way.

That aside, I don't believe the world will ever be at peace until every nation has interbred. Judging my the number of mixed marriages in London last year I think we are heading in the right direction. Where diplomacy fails, hormones eventually succeed and nature will eventually recoil against inbreeding.

[Ash]

Originally Posted by *isteve

That aside, I don't believe the world will ever be at peace until every nation has interbred. Judging my the number of mixed marriages in London last year I think we are heading in the right direction. Where diplomacy fails, hormones eventually succeed and nature will eventually recoil against inbreeding.

No worries Steve - it's a passionate topic of mine, and I can be a little too upfront about it. I realise arguing between faiths is counterproductive but also don't stand for false or ignorant accusations.

Interesting concept you've mentioned. It's the humans in diplomacy who have failed, and there may well be interethnic/cultural breeding going on (I myself have participated in such a phenomenon), but the different faiths aren't going any time soon. Believers of these faiths will make unity more difficult, so it seems diplomacy is here to stay too. We're just gonna have to learn to do it better with each encounter.

[*isteve]

Originally Posted by Ash

No worries Steve - it's a passionate topic of mine, and I can be a little too upfront about it. I realise arguing between faiths is counterproductive but also don't stand for false or ignorant accusations.

Interesting concept you've mentioned. It's the humans in diplomacy who have failed, and there may well be interethnic/cultural breeding going on (I myself have participated in such a phenomenon), but the different faiths aren't going any time soon. Believers of these faiths will make unity more difficult, so it seems diplomacy is here to stay too. We're just gonna have to learn to do it better with each encounter.

But each generation is a blink of an eye in historical terms - look how far we have come since 1945 even, let alone 1845!

Cultural integration follows internationalism, cheap travel, global trade and the internet. Soon, we will all look Brazilian and that cant be bad!!!!

[Damn Brit]

You know what's missing from the equation guys? Humanity, simple as that, that's why us atheists will always have the higher moral ground. Religion can't allow people to get along because if they did they would be accepting that that other religion was valid which would be a denial of their own religion which would be a denial of all religions.
Back to war.

Originally Posted by Ash

No worries Steve - it's a passionate topic of mine, and I can be a little too upfront about it. I realise arguing between faiths is counterproductive but also don't stand for false or ignorant accusations.

Interesting concept you've mentioned. It's the humans in diplomacy who have failed, and there may well be interethnic/cultural breeding going on (I myself have participated in such a phenomenon), but the different faiths aren't going any time soon. Believers of these faiths will make unity more difficult, so it seems diplomacy is here to stay too. We're just gonna have to learn to do it better with each encounter.

Originally Posted by *isteve

But each generation is a blink of an eye in historical terms - look how far we have come since 1945 even, let alone 1845!

Cultural integration follows internationalism, cheap travel, global trade and the internet. Soon, we will all look Brazilian and that cant be bad!!!!

[jake.astig]

did anybody ever ask what would happen if the situation was reversed?

let's say i want to build a catholic church in saudi arabia or iran. how would that go?

waqas, you'll need to answer this question first before you expect others to accomodate you or your faith.

[Ash]

Originally Posted by Damn Brit

You know what's missing from the equation guys? Humanity, simple as that, that's why us atheists will always have the higher moral ground. Religion can't allow people to get along because if they did they would be accepting that that other religion was valid which would be a denial of their own religion which would be a denial of all religions.
Back to war.

Gary, you're right, in part.

OTOH all the major faiths profess humanity in their teachings, with provisions for Islam as mentioned before. And what you're saying Gary is that we cannot both tolerate and respect a person of another faith without us converting to their faith as well, or become Bahai' and accept everything as harmonious truth.

Nah, I can respect and even love my muslim brothers and sisters without subscribing to their beliefs quite easily.

[Ash]

Originally Posted by jake.astig

did anybody ever ask what would happen if the situation was reversed?

let's say i want to build a catholic church in saudi arabia or iran. how would that go?

waqas, you'll need to answer this question first before you expect others to accomodate you or your faith.

It's not worth pursuing this avenue, to be honest.

No church or even evangelism of any kind is permitted in any Islamic state by law. I would personally not be comfortable if such a law were reversed for the Western world as freedom of faith is vital for people to come to their own convictions freely and willingly. Now this to me is not an invitation for muslims to gain a sociopolitical stronghold on western society, but they should still be allowed to believe as they choose in that free society.

[Ben_Edict]

Originally Posted by mtroute

"...This war of nations demands heavy sacrifice. Still, those sacrifices do not begin to compare with those we would be forced to bring if we lose. The enemy naturally wants to make his battle against [us] as easy and safe as possible, and hopes to diminish our morale by seductive agitation. That is poison for weak souls. He who falls for it proves he has learned nothing from the war. He thinks it possible to take the easy road, when only the hard path leads to freedom.." ".. .In other words, they are the rubbish of our nation, who nonetheless give the enemy an entirely false idea of this people..." "...That nation, which has demonstrated heroism and more heroism, has only one wish when reading these accounts: to kill them. They deserve nothing else. One cannot even claim that they do not know what they are doing. They have to know it, for they have been told often enough, even by the enemy, should they not want to believe us..."

Joseph Goebbels


Sounds like they considered the jews a threat.

I emphasized your conclusion, because I have never seen such an, hm, uninformed conclusion. Everybody who has the slightest idea about the Nazi-regime, must be well aware, that the Nazis had developped (based on some deranged race theories already in existence) their racist theory, that Jews where simply "unworthy" existences, which should be completely and systematically killed. How can you quote one of the worst demagogues of all time as a reference? Goebbels talked up to the complete destruction of all big German cities, in fact up to the date, when the Soviet army stood at the gates of his bunker about the final "Endsieg" of the German army. How can you present such an idiot as a reference for anything?

Ben


EDIT: P.S. I would suggest you read the diaries of Victor Klemperer, who by a mixture of luck, help from others and his own will to surviove, lived thoughout the Nazi dictatorship in Germany as a Jew, before you give us more quotes from Hell.

[Ben_Edict]

Originally Posted by *isteve

You are correct, it appears there are in some countries in Europe as well.

In many countries, in fact - for good reasons. Because we have that history at our doorsteps. You reach the Konzentration Camps, like Auschwitz, Dachau, Bergen-Belsen, to name but a few within a couple of hours driving.

Nobody who was there and saw with his own eyes will deny the Holocaust, nobody he heared the survivors giving witness, who heared some of the murderers giving evidence or who read the accounts of surviving Jews, will be able to deny the Holocaust.

Whoever denies the Holocaust has some political or ideological reason to do so, reasons beyond humanity or morality or ethics.

Ben

[Nass]

Originally Posted by Ash

It's not worth pursuing this avenue, to be honest.

No church or even evangelism of any kind is permitted in any Islamic state by law. I would personally not be comfortable if such a law were reversed for the Western world as freedom of faith is vital for people to come to their own convictions freely and willingly. Now this to me is not an invitation for muslims to gain a sociopolitical stronghold on western society, but they should still be allowed to believe as they choose in that free society.

Hmmm - I'm not so sure about this? I googled it because I was curious and there do seem to be churches in Iran which is an Islamic state. Same with Pakistan. That said, clearly it's not a comfortable mix, persecution is rife etc.

I lived in Egypt myself which isn't an Islamic state but is a Muslim country. Egypt has a rich history of Coptic Christians and although that again isn't a comfortable situation, I do remember coptic churches there.

[Ben_Edict]

Originally Posted by Nass

Hmmm - I'm not so sure about this? I googled it because I was curious and there do seem to be churches in Iran which is an Islamic state. Same with Pakistan. That said, clearly it's not a comfortable mix, persecution is rife etc.

I lived in Egypt myself which isn't an Islamic state but is a Muslim country. Egypt has a rich history of Coptic Christians and although that again isn't a comfortable situation, I do remember coptic churches there.

Yes in some Muslim countries Christian churches are allowed or are simply there, because the Christian believe is more than 600 years older than Islam. Nevertheless look at the reality in Saudi Arabia (where you get persecuted, if you show your Christianity), look at the problems Christians face more in more in many other Muslim dominated countries, from Jemen to Sudan and beyond, basically throughout the North and Central African continent or in Muslim Asia.

No, I am not Islamphobic. We have a in our small town some churches (Protestant and Catholic), we have a mosque and in the neighbour town a synagogue. That never caused problems, except for the parking space necessary around the mosque - but that could be resolved easily. And the minarette is there, though not too high, because we have simple local rules for buildings in the different areas (living areas, industrial sites etc.), which will not accomodate a higher tower at the location.

Ben

[Wheatfield]

Originally Posted by Ash

Nah, I can respect and even love my Muslim brothers and sisters without subscribing to their beliefs quite easily.

All this means is that you don't subscribe to the fundamentalist version of your religion of choice.
The whole Muslim issue is a Muslim problem that is spilling over into the rest of the world. Until the Muslim culture gets it's shit together and decides that they will no longer tolerate the evil in their midst, they are going to have to deal with the fact that people will not have 100% trust in Muslims in general.
A Muslim saying they abhor violence, but then doing nothing to root it out of their own religious culture is pretty hollow.
I believe the term is tacit permission when you say you won't support something but then support it by inaction.
I recall some years ago a friend of mine pointed out that the Muslim faith is about 700 years younger than the Christian faith and that they would grow up eventually.
Consider what was routinely being done in the name of Jesus in the 1300s, and consider that this is the level of maturity that the Muslim faith is at in the 21st century.

[flippedgazelle]

Originally Posted by jake.astig

did anybody ever ask what would happen if the situation was reversed?

let's say i want to build a catholic church in saudi arabia or iran. how would that go?

waqas, you'll need to answer this question first before you expect others to accomodate you or your faith.

Here's why waqas does not have to "answer this question first before you expect others to accomodate you or your faith":

One of the founding principals of the United States was freedom from religious persecution, and the right to peaceably pursue worship of any faith. This is established in the US Constitution.

For other countries, you would have to check their Constitutions.

Everything else is simply non-applicable.

[Hukkanen]

Truely my post about architectural rules was an objective post, but that's how things work in Finland, and probably in other European countries as well. Plus it can be effectively used to block "unwanted" people and whatever the majority think that comes with it. It may be racist or intolerant of other religions, but technically system can do that if the majority has chosen so.

The holocaust denial law issue is also something that I've thought about. I wouldn't say I'm a particularly practicing Christian (Lutheran in fact), but yes a Lutheran Christian nevertheless. I study in a university and like to promote free thinking, which is applied in free science etc.; a system in which people study whatever they wish and provide more accurate information. This is where these kinds of anti-laws are rediculous. I find it rather suspicious that you can't freely state your mind or be allowed to claim something that contradicts the dominant theory.

The anti-denial laws regarding the Jewish holocaust prevent discussion regarding this part of history. First of all, one should be allowed to express contradictory claims, given that he or she can back up the claim with credible sources. If the claim has credible sources and appears to be more accurate than the dominant theory, the person claiming such would be breaking the law, am I not right? Not to mention that the person would never be allowed to claim such before the academic peers who uphold a certain theory to be the absolutely objective truth, even when we know that there can never be anything completely objective.

I find it suspicious that you are not allowed to discuss and research something that may lead to something deemed "wrong". If the dominant theory is accurate, there is nothing to be feared and the researchers will only get more support for the theory.