Islamophobia in Europe: Banning Minarets - Page 21

*deadwolfbones* · 11-06-2009, 05:15 PM

I think you mean Agnostic, Blue. Unless there's some joke I'm not getting.

*Blue* · 11-06-2009, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by deadwolfbones

I think you mean Agnostic, Blue. Unless there's some joke I'm not getting.

No, I meant Antagonistic.

But I get that a lot. Lets just say I can counter preach to many denominations as well as other forms of religion and let it go at that.

Ben_Edict · 11-06-2009, 05:23 PM

I find it strange, that a thread, that started about a concrete political decision-making in Switzerland deterioted so much. I am under the impression, that the US-centricity of some people makes the blind for the majority of the World's populace, their history and traditions. That is unfortunately not a new impression…
What I see is a heated discussion about the self-image of US Americans. I follow it with some interest, though I despise the tonality. But whether Thomas Jefferson or Paine were Christions, acted as Christians or agnostics or whatever is only very, very remotely relevant to the original discussion.
Also, this thread is a good example of those threads, where people exchange their own ideas and insist, that their private, individual views would be generally recognized thruths - no, in general, their are just private views.
It is a good idea, practiced in some forums, to keep discussions about religious believes strictly off limits.

Ben

*Blue* · 11-06-2009, 05:56 PM

Ben,

That is a decision the Swiss people and government are going to have to make. I don't think you are looking at Americans and discussing their self image. What you are seeing is Americans looking at the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as well as many State constitutions in the U.S.A. and why it is there. Its there to keep the government form establishing a religion or forbidding a religion. It also precludes Sharia law by default since that is a religious code.

I guess you missed the part where I mentioned that the Constitution would protect the building of Minarets. It also protects from them interfering with other religions. So it is related. However, I can't really comment on the German perspective nor any others.

*Ratmagiclady* · 11-06-2009, 06:53 PM

Originally Posted by Blue

RML,

Go back and read the posts from me and flippedgazelle and you will see your rant wasn't necessary. I don't no why you think I'm Baptist, Southern, 1st, 7th Day, Free Will, etc etc. I'm probably Antagonistic.

Well, there's probably a good reason you 'don't know why I think you're Baptist,' cause that's another thing you *made up and accused me of.*

Wasn't a rant, either, by the way. That was a lecture. When I'm ranting, you'll know it.

However, in your rant, you over looked one major detail. The Constitution says that Government isn't supposed to establish religion, and but it isn't supposed to interfere with it either given no human sacrifices etc. Hence it is a check and balance in that regard. Madison's background provides insight on what he was thinking by drafting the 1st Amendment.

Err... I don't think 'human sacrifices' are at issue, here. We're discussing our nation as religiously-pluralistic and being based on unalienable human rights, not rights 'alienable' by those who claim it was their religion's idea in the first place, ...so therefore they can, in their own minds, "take back" the power to alienate people with government power... by claiming that the unalienable human rights they claim were their idea... Are in fact conditional if they decide so, on the grounds they came up with the 'unalienable human rights' idea in the first place, and are thus morally superior, thus able to decide who can be alienated from unalienable human rights which are theirs to make conditional because they 'created' them in the first place, ....

And round and round.

I'm saying this claim of a 'Christian nation' to justify imposing particular views of religion in the name of religious 'freedom' ... goes nowhere but in circles. Can only eat itself by the tail.

To put it quite plainly, the Enlightenment-based concepts of Deism were familiar to most educated people at the time of our nation's founding. Our Constitution was carefully framed in these terms for important reasons. These ideas were *compatible* with many forms of Christianity, but not limited to them in the way that some people try and revise history to claim. Jonathan Edwards wasn't even born yet.

*Blue* · 11-06-2009, 07:25 PM

Well, there's probably a good reason you 'don't know why I think you're Baptist,' cause that's another thing you *made up and accused me of.*

Will you translate just what the hell this means?

*Ratmagiclady* · 11-06-2009, 08:14 PM

Originally Posted by Blue

Will you translate just what the hell this means?

It means you are claiming I said things which I didn't and then attacking my character over what you imagine? To divert from any possible real content to this discussion which might have a ghost of a chance of resembling thought and communication?

*isteve · 11-07-2009, 01:28 AM

Originally Posted by Ratmagiclady

I still have some faith in that idea, as an American. Bruised as it gets, sometimes, in practice. For some to try and rule based on some religious authority and call it America is *not* that faith. It's fear. Fear seeking control. And fear isn't something that often brings us wisdom.

Well said!! In fact that goes for the whole post.

Ben_Edict · 11-07-2009, 05:04 AM

Originally Posted by Blue

Ben,

That is a decision the Swiss people and government are going to have to make. I don't think you are looking at Americans and discussing their self image. What you are seeing is Americans looking at the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as well as many State constitutions in the U.S.A. and why it is there. Its there to keep the government form establishing a religion or forbidding a religion. It also precludes Sharia law by default since that is a religious code.

I guess you missed the part where I mentioned that the Constitution would protect the building of Minarets. It also protects from them interfering with other religions. So it is related. However, I can't really comment on the German perspective nor any others.

I think, I understood that. The point I do not understand is, why this needs to be dicussed at all, as the constitution is quite clear about the secularity of the US. And basically all Western European constitutions are the same, with some strange exceptions, like the British with the Anglican Church (which is nevertheless more a thing of tradition, than of real life and the UK has no current written constitution anyway). Also Poland may have (I am not sure) a reference to Catholicism, as by any means the Irish or Spanish have - but in all cases the individual's freedom of religion is guaranteed.

What we need to understand is, that having a secular constitution with all the according legislation is one thing. The other thing is tradition, which obviously in the the Western world, is deeply Christian and even dedicated agnostics cannot free themselves from these traditions in their daily behaviour. And then Christianity adopted many older Pagean rituals and traditions, so that we have an ongoing history and tradition for more than 2000 years.

That the comparatively new phenomenon of having neighbours who are Muslims and who rightly want to have their place of prayer (inlciduing some form of Minaret),causes some disturbance is understandeable. But I personally think, that people in the Western World get more and adopted to rapid changes and thus will be able (and in many cases, we already have a a togetherness, which is just, what I would call "normal") to fully accept and support their neighbours, whatever colour their skin or whatever their religious believes.

Extremists have been literally outlawed at all times and that necessarily will be the same in the future. And as especially the German history emphasizes, these mad outlaws can grow within the traditional society, too.

In short: I can understand (even if I find this stupid), that many people in Switzerland feel uncomfortable currently "opening the doors" for Islam, when they feel afraid of Islamic terrorism. It is short sighted, but may be some Swiss need more time to simply overcome their traditional seclusion.

Ben

*straightshooter* · 11-07-2009, 09:04 AM

Let me see if I've got all of this. The Swiss don't want minarets on mosques, Blue and RML don't like each other much, everybody here from the U.S. thinks everyone else in the world is loony tunes, everyone else in the world thinks everybody from the U.S. is an imperialistic as*h*le, Gooshin hates everyone

and I'm just an ignorant old southerner with a warped idea of justice. You shoot my dog, I shoot your dog!

OK, summary over. Continue with the debate.

CW

Parallax · 11-07-2009, 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by straightshooter

Let me see if I've got all of this. The Swiss don't want minarets on mosques, Blue and RML don't like each other much, everybody here from the U.S. thinks everyone else in the world is loony tunes, everyone else in the world thinks everybody from the U.S. is an imperialistic as*h*le, Gooshin hates everyone and I'm just an ignorant old southerner with a warped idea of justice. You shoot my dog, I shoot your dog!

OK, summary over. Continue with the debate.

CW

In the immortal words of Colonel Potter: Give that man a cheroot!

flippedgazelle · 11-07-2009, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by straightshooter

Let me see if I've got all of this. The Swiss don't want minarets on mosques, Blue and RML don't like each other much, everybody here from the U.S. thinks everyone else in the world is loony tunes, everyone else in the world thinks everybody from the U.S. is an imperialistic as*h*le, Gooshin hates everyone and I'm just an ignorant old southerner with a warped idea of justice. You shoot my dog, I shoot your dog!

OK, summary over. Continue with the debate.

CW

How dare you say in one paragraph what's taken the rest of us 21 pages to utter!

.
.
.
.
.

*isteve · 11-07-2009, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by straightshooter

You shoot my dog, I shoot your dog!

There is only one problem with this sense of justice. It wasn't the dog that was guilty.

Its no different to the Mafia way "you shoot my brother, I shoot yours" or the Arab-Israeli way "you bomb my civilians, I bomb yours".

In both cases you punish the innocent for the crimes of a guilty, and leave the guilty unpunished to revenge your crime.

After 10 years and many dead dogs/brothers/civilians everyone forgot who shot the first one and are too busy taking revenge for the last one.

That's why, my motto is - you shoot my dog, I shoot you

Parallax · 11-07-2009, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by *isteve

There is only one problem with this sense of justice. It wasn't the dog that was guilty. .............................That's why, my motto is - you shoot my dog, I shoot you

I disagree with the first part. The man that owned the dog is the one that will suffer from not having it anymore. The dog won't know its dead. Having said that, I don't, however have any particular issues with the second part.

*isteve · 11-07-2009, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by Parallax

I disagree with the first part. The man that owned the dog is the one that will suffer from not having it anymore. The dog won't know its dead. Having said that, I don't, however have any particular issues with the second part.

Dog, brother - neither will know they are dead.

My closing comment was tongue in cheek - I hope you realised that.