|
 |
On 12/03/09 18:44, Warp wrote:
> How about seeing it from the point of view of prohibiting something that
> *everybody* is forbidden from doing? For example, most European cities have
> strict regulations about what types of buildings can be constructed and where,
> sometimes even for purely aesthetical reasons. You just can't go and build
> whatever you want wherever you want. For example there are many towns here
> where it's forbidden to construct buildings which are higher than a certain
> amount of stories, and have all kinds of other aesthetical regulations (such
> as the type of roof they can use).
I haven't read the actual text of what was passed, but the political
party that pushed for this kept arguing, "Minarets are a symbol of
Sharia and/or political Islam, and we can't allow that". Putting aside
the lack of veracity of that statement, it didn't sound like they were
concerned about architecture.
Of course, it's quite conceivable that the actual text talks about
architecture and not Islam in order not to violate some existing laws.
Kind of like how in the past (and present?) home associations put
requirements that tend to be quite expensive "to maintain the upkeep",
when they seem to be more inclined on being interested in keeping
African Americans and (lately) Latinos out.
> The city officials (usually elected by the citizens, at least here) have
> decided what the town should look like, and thus have enacted such strict
> restrictions on what types of buildings can be constructed.
>
> If the majority of citizens doesn't like the kind of aesthetics and
> symbology that minarets would introduce to their town, they have the
> right to decide on that. That's democracy.
Oh - sure. Just as if a nation's citizens decide that it's not OK to
publish news stories about the problems immigrants create in their
(usually European) country, then those who wish to talk about it should
heed.
--
If a word is misspelled in the dictionary, how would we ever know?
Post a reply to this message
|
 |