I couldn't find any quote of the proposed law (anyone?), so I have to 
guess about its content. I assume, that it is a law govering allowance of 
building religious buildings with a certain appearance resembling 
"typical" minarets. I really wonder what defines that and if you build a 
minaret with the appearance of a church tower if it doesn't fall under 
that law. 

So is this an aesthetical question? Because that is the only way this law 
could be defined in a nondiscriminating way. If it is about forbidding 
muslims to have a tower to signal the start of a prayer - like christians 
do - than yes, I think this is xenophobic and the outcry of people in 
whole europe is fully justified.

Am Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:29:56 -0500 schrieb Warp:

> Stefan Viljoen <pov### [at] polardcom> wrote:
>> I see the Swiss apparently voted 57% "nay" on this.
> 
>> And the entire world seems to want to take a crap on them about it...
> 
>   Of course the entire world takes a crap on them about it. It's
>   "racism"
> and "intolerance".
> 
>   Naturally, at the same time prohibiting public display of crucifixes
>   in
> Italian schools is not "racism" nor "intolerance" (but in fact, the
> contrary).

Why should the state take a stance on religious issues? In germany 32% of 
the people don't belong to any organized religious group. Why should the 
schools financed and used by this people buy crucifixes which don't mean 
anything to them? Is the state only for the less than 68% of christs? 
(Replace numbers by the italian ones - the basic problem doesn't change)

> 
>   Democracy and freedom of speech are a bad thing because it allows
>   people
> to cast the "wrong" votes and express the "wrong" opinions.

Direct democracy might lead to emotionally charged unreasonable 
decisions. Why do people assume each political question is so easy, that 
anyone can answer it after having heard three talks? BTW one side effect 
of direct democracy in Switzerland was the late introduction of womens 
ability to vote - sure, if you are in the majority (of voters) you can 
prevent the minority frome exercising their rights.

> 
>   And this is not just related to multiculturalism. It's related to
>   everything.
> For example, the Irish people voted against the European constitution
> and everything that would have followed from that. Of course this was
> the "wrong" result, and thus unacceptable. What did they do to fix the
> problem? Easy: More "education" and a new election. This time it worked:
> Now the "right" vote resulted.

So what do you think happened? Did the people feel embarassed for voting 
"wrong" the first time, "correcting" it the second time? Or could it just 
be that in the time between those elections reasonable arguments were 
made and people were *convinced*? While I agree, that elections should be 
accepted and not repeated at will, I also think that after a reasonable 
time or after some changes (AFAIK they didn't vote the same thiing, did 
they?) people can be asked again. If you assume competence from the 
people in the first (secret) election you should assume it in the second 
election as well.

> 
>   That's a rather efficient (although quite transparent tactic): Keep
> organizing new elections until the right answer pops up eventually. This
> way the people are fooled into thinking that they actually have a saying
> on matters happening to their own country because, after all, they
> "voted" for it.

Post a reply to this message