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