|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On 12/13/09 13:55, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> And this has what to to do with minarets
>
> Minarets are a platform (literally) to call muslims publicly to prayer
> and have them join together in public. Perhaps a "quiet" religion is
> more acceptable than a publicly noisy one to the general populace.
Except that the ones in Switzerland didn't make any such noise, from
the articles I read.
And you live in the US. Barring a small part of Michigan, have you
heard of minarets here being used this way?
And besides, the reasoning is still invalid. If noise was a concern,
just ensure that there are laws related to what kinds of noise one can make.
> No, but they may reach fewer ears likely to take up arms. Given the
> number of people saying they're willing to murder over a page in the
> newspapers, I can imagine what would happen if it *wasn't* phrased as
> simply about architecture.
I'll grant that. It has its logic, but the way I see it, by being
duplicitous they're pissing off the "moderate" majority, rather than an
"extreme" minority. I just think that the moderate ones are the ones who
are less likely to go to Switzerland, rather than the troublesome ones.
Remember, minarets are not a part of Islam (in terms of theology, etc).
Fundamentalists will have no problems moving to a place that doesn't
allow it. They will, though, have more ammunition to rouse others up
because of this.
You could see it either way.
>> Yes, but I want people to say it outright, and ultimately pass laws
>> that don't try to go around the issue. Passing it off as a question of
>> architectural integrity is a lowly act.
>
> Are church bells that ring five times a day permitted? I don't know, but
Irrelevant question, given that noise was demonstrably not an issue,
and if it were, you just need laws against public noise, as opposed to
architecture.
--
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |