 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Sabrina Kilian <ski### [at] vt edu> wrote:
>>> As it should be, but states do it for a variety of reasons. The easiest
>>> to understand is that individual laws can not contradict the
>>> constitution, but amendments to it can. So, should the government want
>>> to push through a law that they know would violate certain rights set
>>> out in the constitution, and have voting power to get it done, an
>>> amendment is the better way to go.
>>
>> Doesn't that make the whole point of having a constitution kind of
>> moot?
>>
>> "We don't like this part of the constitution. No problem, we'll just
>> add
>> an amendment which changes it." So what's the point in having a
>> constitution
>> in the first place?
>>
>
> Which is probably one of the reasons why there was so much fuss about an
> European Union constitution and why the British Kingdoms don’t have a
> written one. </smugness>
>
Don't make us come spread democracy.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Why do I get the feeling that the concept of "constitutional law" in the US
> is a bit different from what it means here? For example, I read somewhere that
There's at least 52 jurisdictions with Constitutions here. :-) Some states
have more junk in their consitution and some states find it easier to change
the constitution.
Indeed, it looks like Alabama is rather unusual in the respect of having six
constitutions since it was established <200 years ago.
http://www.legislature.state.al.us/misc/history/constitutions/constitutions.html
Just glancing at that, it looks like a lot of the constitition(s) of Alabama
didn't make it particularly difficult to amend, and of course every
legislator would love to leave his mark on the constitution of a state (not
unlike a dog with a fire hydrant).
> At least here "the Constitution" defines the form of government and how
> it's elected, as well as principles about the basic rights all citizens
> have.
That's basically what we have in *most* places here, yes.
> The Constitution is not law.
Yeah, that's generally true. Alabama is an outlier.
California has procedures in place that if you get enough popular votes, you
can change things without the legislature, including the constitution. I.e.,
democracy can override the constitutional republic. The bigots needed to do
that, because the constitution provided for basic human rights the bigots
wanted to take away.
> It doesn't specify things like mosquito
> control taxes or bingo regulations. If those things need to be regulated,
> they are done so by regular law.
The US constitution, and many state constitutions, work that way, yes. For
example, even when they wanted to pass laws making alcohol illegal, the
constitution was amended to say "It's OK to pass laws regulating alcohol"
rather than "This is how we regulate alcohol."
I also find it interesting that the appellate courts usually send the case
back down to the original courts for adjustment if someone wins an appeal.
I.e., you don't se "the lower court calculated the fine wrong and it should
be $X." They say "the lower court calculated the fine wrong, and they should
recalculate it in light of our judgement."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Doesn't that make the whole point of having a constitution kind of moot?
It's much harder to change the constitution.
> "We don't like this part of the constitution. No problem, we'll just add
> an amendment which changes it." So what's the point in having a constitution
> in the first place?
To pass a law, you need 50%+ of the House of Representatives to vote for it,
and 50%+ of the Senate to vote for it. Call it 300 people.
To amend the constitution, you need 75%+ of both halves, *and* then you ask
the states and 75%+ of the state governments also have to agree to it.
If you can't change the constitution at all, then you get things like
slavery being legal (oops) and no way to stop individual states from
continuing to do that.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> Which is probably one of the reasons why there was so much fuss about an
>> European Union constitution and why the British Kingdoms don’t have a
>> written one. </smugness>
>>
>
> Don't make us come spread democracy.
Yeah! You and what army?
A. The salvation Army?
And that is the mildest retort I can think of :)
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> As someone on a forum elsewhere pointed out: If you can allow any laws
> on the grounds that the majority wants it, then you don't have a
> functioning constitution.
If YouTube was a democracy, it would be full of porn.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> Stephen wrote:
>
>>> Which is probably one of the reasons why there was so much fuss about an
>>> European Union constitution and why the British Kingdoms don’t have a
>>> written one. </smugness>
>>>
>>
>> Don't make us come spread democracy.
>
> Yeah! You and what army?
>
> A. The salvation Army?
>
>
> And that is the mildest retort I can think of :)
>
>
After that I only warrant the mildest retort? I guess I will have to put
more effort into my set-ups. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>
> After that I only warrant the mildest retort? I guess I will have to put
> more effort into my set-ups. ;)
I guess you will, child of the New World ;)
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> Clarence1898 wrote:
>> Without Florida's electoral votes, neither candidate had a majority. So whoever
>> won Florida's popular vote won their electoral vote and thus the election.
>> Since the vote count was so close in Florida, the big fuss was over the recount
>> of ballots. Some ballots were excluded because it wasn't clear which candidate
>> it was for.
>>
> The other complaint was that G. W. Bush's brother, Jeb, had appointed
> the people responsible for counting the votes in Florida, if I recall
> correctly.
Florida law expressly established a deadline of 14 November for that
election cycle's recounts, and the Florida Secretary of State (a
Republican appointee) stood by this.
Al Gore (who is my late father's fourth cousin) took her to court,
challenging this, and got the Florida State Supreme Court (which was
mostly Democratic appointees at the time) to rule an extension to the
recount deadline. The United States Supreme Court vacated that ruling,
and the 14 November deadline stood.
On 26 November the state canvassing board formally validated the vote
total (which gave Bush a 537 vote lead); this was vindicated by the
first state court to hear the case, but the Florida State Supreme Court
overruled this, and directed that 70,000 votes, which were ballots
rejected by the vote-counting machinery, be recounted. The US Supreme
Court ruled that the Florida State Supreme Court's ruling was
unconstitutional, and therefore let stand the existing vote totals.
Even if the US Supremes had not gone his way on the recounting, Bush did
have one final chance. The US Constitution says that the electors for
the Electoral College are chosen in a manner to be determined by the
state legislature. The Florida State legislature was heavily Republican
at the time, and was getting ready to pass legislation giving the vote
to Bush. This would have raised a ruckus, but it would have been
perfectly legal.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> In this case democracy worked, whether you liked the end result or not.
> I say thumbs up.
It occurred to me that one could even view some of this as a question of
promoting the overthrow of the government. Maybe the thought is that Islam
is fine as long as you don't suggest that Sharia law should replace the
constitutional government currently in place. Minarets might be seen as more
of a suggestion along those lines than mere mosques.
In any case, I can see some wisdom in restricting the freedom of speech of
an organization devoted to the overthrow of democratic government, religion
or not. Which is not to say all Islam is this, but certainly much of it is.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> In any case, I can see some wisdom in restricting the freedom of speech of
> an organization devoted to the overthrow of democratic government, religion
> or not. Which is not to say all Islam is this, but certainly much of it is.
I wouldn't say that constructing buildings constitutes freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech means that you can express your views freely. For example,
if you want to publicly express your view that the government is corrupted
and should be overthrown, that's your prerogative. Rather ironically, being
able to express the opinion that freedom of speech should be limited or
removed does also fall into your prerogatives under freedom of speech.
Of course as soon as you *act* your your views, or incite others to act on
them, that's when you start going over the line of what is acceptable.
(Of course what constitutes incitement differs from country to country
and, unfortunately, *certain* type of incitement is interpreted to be more
illegal than others, even though the law itself makes no such distinction.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Of course as soon as you *act* your your views, or incite others to act on
> them, that's when you start going over the line of what is acceptable.
I think it's "incite" that I'm talking about here.
Even in the USA, I don't think "freedom of speech" includes inciting other
people to violently overthrow the government.
I'm just saying that I suspect the concept of Sharia law might have been a
factor in voting against minarets where the same people wouldn't vote
against steeples.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/12/09 11:59, Darren New wrote:
> I'm just saying that I suspect the concept of Sharia law might have been
> a factor in voting against minarets where the same people wouldn't vote
> against steeples.
The party that advocated for the ban used this argument. I think the
official text was about architecture and maintaining some cultural
heritage, the dialogue was mostly about this.
--
----> If you cut here, you'll ruin your monitor. <----
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/12/09 11:05, Darren New wrote:
> It occurred to me that one could even view some of this as a question of
> promoting the overthrow of the government. Maybe the thought is that
> Islam is fine as long as you don't suggest that Sharia law should
> replace the constitutional government currently in place. Minarets might
> be seen as more of a suggestion along those lines than mere mosques.
Well, sure. As may the presence of Muslims. Why not just ban them? I'm
not asking the question sarcastically. It's ludicrous to think that
banning a structure will prevent any Sharia movement - beyond just
giving a message that Muslims are not welcome. It's not as if Sharia
relies on the existence of minarets.
> In any case, I can see some wisdom in restricting the freedom of speech
> of an organization devoted to the overthrow of democratic government,
> religion or not. Which is not to say all Islam is this, but certainly
> much of it is.
Sure, but banning a piece of architecture is a disingenuous way to do
this. They should simply just pass a law along the lines of their real
concerns.
--
----> If you cut here, you'll ruin your monitor. <----
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> Well, sure. As may the presence of Muslims. Why not just ban them? I'm
> not asking the question sarcastically. It's ludicrous to think that
> banning a structure will prevent any Sharia movement - beyond just
> giving a message that Muslims are not welcome. It's not as if Sharia
> relies on the existence of minarets.
If it were up to me, this kind of islam would most certainly not be welcome
here: http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/muslimprotest.asp
If someone comes here, publicly threatens the hosting population with
beheadings and holocausts and demands basic freedom to be banned, in my
opinion they can go to hell, and are certainly not welcome here.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/13/09 12:16, Warp wrote:
> Neeum Zawan<m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>> Well, sure. As may the presence of Muslims. Why not just ban them? I'm
>> not asking the question sarcastically. It's ludicrous to think that
>> banning a structure will prevent any Sharia movement - beyond just
>> giving a message that Muslims are not welcome. It's not as if Sharia
>> relies on the existence of minarets.
>
> If it were up to me, this kind of islam would most certainly not be welcome
> here: http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/muslimprotest.asp
And this has what to to do with minarets (and with Switzerland?). Sure,
the Swiss doesn't want those kinds of folks (who does?), but does anyone
think those guys are going to say, "Oh damn! Now that minarets are
banned, we can't say these things in Switzerland"?
> If someone comes here, publicly threatens the hosting population with
> beheadings and holocausts and demands basic freedom to be banned, in my
> opinion they can go to hell, and are certainly not welcome here.
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.
--
I'm! A! Graduate! Of! The! Bill! Shatner! Acting! School!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> On 12/13/09 12:16, Warp wrote:
> > Neeum Zawan<m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> >> Well, sure. As may the presence of Muslims. Why not just ban them? I'm
> >> not asking the question sarcastically. It's ludicrous to think that
> >> banning a structure will prevent any Sharia movement - beyond just
> >> giving a message that Muslims are not welcome. It's not as if Sharia
> >> relies on the existence of minarets.
> >
> > If it were up to me, this kind of islam would most certainly not be welcome
> > here: http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/muslimprotest.asp
> And this has what to to do with minarets (and with Switzerland?).
That muslims have brought up negative sentiments on themselves by acting
like idiots. No amount of multiculturalist propaganda is going to change
that. If muslims want to to earn respect, they should stop acting like
fanatics and killing people. *Then* they might get their minarets.
If Europeans go to, for example, Africa and start acting like jerks and
killing people, can you blame the natives for growing resentment and
decline their demands? If not, then you can't blame Europeans for not
bowing to every demand that muslims make.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
> Sure, the Swiss doesn't want those kinds of folks (who does?), but does
> anyone think those guys are going to say, "Oh damn! Now that minarets
> are banned, we can't say these things in Switzerland"?
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.
> 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 I
never hear church bells around here any more, and when I was young it was
once on Sunday morning at the start of christian services.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> a écrit dans le message de groupe de
discussion : 4b2546a0$1@news.povray.org...
> 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.
Countries like Switzerland have building codes, zoning laws etc. People
can't build tall towers in the middle of cities and start using loudspeakers
at 5am without any sort of oversight. There are 4 minarets in Switzerland
and 10-12 in France, all purely ornemental. Problems with minarets: zero.
The biggest one is actually in Paris and inaugurated in 1926 to great
fanfare. If the right-wing party behind the referendum had been talking
about actual Islam-related issues, it could have made some sense, but
talking about minarets is just nonsensical and meant to insult the local
muslims in order to win seats at their expense. It's a completely bogus
controversy fueled deliberately by off-the-shelf xenophobia. It's a frigging
shame to see that in 2009 in Europe.
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
> talking about minarets is just nonsensical and meant to
> insult the local muslims in order to win seats at their expense.
No doubt. Not unlike a huge amount of American politics. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran <gil### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Problems with minarets: zero.
You deliberately fail to consider the *symbological* meaning of minarets,
especially considering the teachings of islam with regard to non-islamic
people and countries.
You don't have to hear what muslim religious leaders and scholars are
teaching from "racists" and "xenophobes". You can hear it from themselves.
And it's not something which they are exclusively teaching in their own
home countries, far from here. It's something which they are teaching in
mosques right here, in Europe. Just watch that documentary about people
who actually inflitrated British mosques to see what they were preaching
there.
But of course it's so comforting to ignore such things.
> It's a completely bogus
> controversy fueled deliberately by off-the-shelf xenophobia. It's a frigging
> shame to see that in 2009 in Europe.
You, my friend, are a victim of multiculturalist propaganda. You have
swallowed hook, line and sinker.
The reason why many Europeans dislike islamic cultures is not xenophobia.
If it was xenophobia, they would dislike other foreign cultures with the
same fervor. Most of these people who dislike islamic cultures have absolutely
no problems with, for example, Chinese, Japanese, Indians or South Americans,
even though their cultures are religions are often radically different from
the European ones.
No, the reason why islamic cultures are disliked is because of how those
cultures view basic human rights, such as their attitude towards women and
sexual minorities (such as homosexuals), their attitude towards other
religions (see, for example, how many religions are allowed to be publicly
preached in the core islamic countries of middle east), and their attitude
towards the basic concept of constitutional freedom, such as depicted here:
http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/muslimprotest.asp
These Europeans also dislike the fact that so many muslims are offered a
place to live and work, yet these muslim start making obnoxious and
ridiculous demands instead of respecting their hosting society and culture.
For example Chinese, Japanese, Indian and South American people living
in Europe do not behave in that way nor exhibit such low views on basic
human rights in such a grand scale, which is why they are accepted. In
other words, those people respect others and know how to behave and be
a productive part of the society they are living in.
Blaming the dislike of muslims to "xenophobia" is trying to obscure the
real problems by replacing them with invented ones.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/13/09 13:01, Warp wrote:
> That muslims have brought up negative sentiments on themselves by acting
> like idiots. No amount of multiculturalist propaganda is going to change
> that. If muslims want to to earn respect, they should stop acting like
> fanatics and killing people. *Then* they might get their minarets.
Funny that the same arguments could be used against Americans by
looking at a subset of their population.
> If Europeans go to, for example, Africa and start acting like jerks and
> killing people, can you blame the natives for growing resentment and
> decline their demands? If not, then you can't blame Europeans for not
> bowing to every demand that muslims make.
I can always blame people for misleading. No matter how much worse the
other side is.
--
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/13/09 17:14, Warp wrote:
> Gilles Tran<gil### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Problems with minarets: zero.
>
> You deliberately fail to consider the *symbological* meaning of minarets,
> especially considering the teachings of islam with regard to non-islamic
> people and countries.
1. What do minarets have to do with the teachings of Islam with regards
to non-Islamic people and countries?
2. You're suggesting people should pass laws that criminalize acts for
/symbolic/ reasons?
> You don't have to hear what muslim religious leaders and scholars are
> teaching from "racists" and "xenophobes". You can hear it from themselves.
> And it's not something which they are exclusively teaching in their own
> home countries, far from here. It's something which they are teaching in
> mosques right here, in Europe. Just watch that documentary about people
> who actually inflitrated British mosques to see what they were preaching
> there.
>
> But of course it's so comforting to ignore such things.
What Gilles said was factually correct. I'm not sure I see how your
statements above are responding to what he said. He even acknowledges to
a degree:
"If the right-wing party behind the referendum had been talking about
actual Islam-related issues, it could have made some sense,..."
>> It's a completely bogus
>> controversy fueled deliberately by off-the-shelf xenophobia. It's a frigging
>> shame to see that in 2009 in Europe.
>
> You, my friend, are a victim of multiculturalist propaganda. You have
> swallowed hook, line and sinker.
>
> The reason why many Europeans dislike islamic cultures is not xenophobia.
> If it was xenophobia, they would dislike other foreign cultures with the
> same fervor. Most of these people who dislike islamic cultures have absolutely
> no problems with, for example, Chinese, Japanese, Indians or South Americans,
> even though their cultures are religions are often radically different from
> the European ones.
>
> No, the reason why islamic cultures are disliked is because of how those
> cultures view basic human rights, such as their attitude towards women and
> sexual minorities (such as homosexuals), their attitude towards other
> religions (see, for example, how many religions are allowed to be publicly
> preached in the core islamic countries of middle east), and their attitude
> towards the basic concept of constitutional freedom, such as depicted here:
>
> http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/muslimprotest.asp
>
> These Europeans also dislike the fact that so many muslims are offered a
> place to live and work, yet these muslim start making obnoxious and
> ridiculous demands instead of respecting their hosting society and culture.
>
> For example Chinese, Japanese, Indian and South American people living
> in Europe do not behave in that way nor exhibit such low views on basic
> human rights in such a grand scale, which is why they are accepted. In
> other words, those people respect others and know how to behave and be
> a productive part of the society they are living in.
>
> Blaming the dislike of muslims to "xenophobia" is trying to obscure the
> real problems by replacing them with invented ones.
Once again, why not enact laws that actually address the issue? That's
what Gilles seemed to be talking about (as well as myself). The UK did,
to an extent. Their anti-terrorism laws are more draconian than the
Patriot Act here. As well as their passing laws related to forced
marriages, etc. Holland recently passed similar rules with regards to
new immigrants - forcing them to be informed of cultural aspects that
they are required by law to accept (homosexuality, etc).
One problem with your rhetoric here and in other messages is the
overgeneralization - not just of Muslims but of Europe. What's
interesting to me if that none of the articles I read on the issue
(which, admittedly, was a few) actually properly addressed the concerns
the Swiss had with Muslims. Sure, a few quoted the local population, but
that's almost useless. If Muslims were such a headache for the Swiss,
they should actually have a proper study demonstrating the problems. And
I mean a proper poll/study - not random news events here and there (or
even worse, blog posts). As a third party person, I don't even know what
the fuss is - other than it's not exactly noise, which people -
including the Swiss - keep bringing up. Whenever I see a discussion of
this on the Internet, the examples of bad Muslim behavior are from
France, the UK, Holland, Sweden, and occasionally Norway and Denmark.
Sorry, I won't generalize Muslims from all these countries, for the
same reason that I don't look at all the non-Muslims from those
countries as similar. The (national) cultures in the listed countries
above are so diverse, and they're also so diverse amongst *Muslim*
countries. You're expecting me to treat Muslims in Europe as a special
uniform group?
--
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> Funny that the same arguments could be used against Americans by
> looking at a subset of their population.
It would be interesting to see how big a subset it really is. That argument
goes out the door when it's actually a majority of muslims that feel that way.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> Except that the ones in Switzerland didn't make any such noise, from
> the articles I read.
OK. I haven't followed the discussion. I was just throwing out ideas for
consideration.
> And you live in the US. Barring a small part of Michigan, have you
> heard of minarets here being used this way?
I honestly don't remember even seeing a minaret in the USA. And as I said,
occasional churchbells that could be heard for a couple of blocks on Sunday
morning. (Actually, recordings of church bells, which I always thought was
rather disrespectful to God myself. :-)
> they're pissing off the "moderate" majority,
Have you evidence that the majority are moderate? I used to think that was
the case too, until they actually took a vote in California and asked
everyone "do you consider homosexuals sub-human" and a majority of the
religious folks said yes.
> You could see it either way.
That's a good point too.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/14/09 10:02, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> Funny that the same arguments could be used against Americans by
>> looking at a subset of their population.
>
> It would be interesting to see how big a subset it really is. That
> argument goes out the door when it's actually a majority of muslims that
> feel that way.
Let's get precise. What is "that way"?
--
If you think nobody cares, try missing a couple of payments.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/14/09 10:07, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> Except that the ones in Switzerland didn't make any such noise, from
>> the articles I read.
>
> OK. I haven't followed the discussion. I was just throwing out ideas for
> consideration.
>
>> And you live in the US. Barring a small part of Michigan, have you
>> heard of minarets here being used this way?
>
> I honestly don't remember even seeing a minaret in the USA. And as I
They're in your own state, for crying out loud!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarets_%28California%29
OK - Joke aside, I have no idea how many there are in the US. A Google
image search for mosques in the US reveals a bunch.
>> they're pissing off the "moderate" majority,
>
> Have you evidence that the majority are moderate? I used to think that
"Can you prove you didn't commit the crime?"
> was the case too, until they actually took a vote in California and
> asked everyone "do you consider homosexuals sub-human" and a majority of
> the religious folks said yes.
Well, I see your point. The question then is how you define moderate. I
don't generally subscribe to the viewpoint that if someone has a major
flaw in one aspect, that you generalize to terms like extreme, moderate,
etc. When I used the word, though, I was referring to violence.
--
If you think nobody cares, try missing a couple of payments.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 12/14/09 10:02, Darren New wrote:
>> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>>> Funny that the same arguments could be used against Americans by
>>> looking at a subset of their population.
>>
>> It would be interesting to see how big a subset it really is. That
>> argument goes out the door when it's actually a majority of muslims that
>> feel that way.
>
> Let's get precise. What is "that way"?
Well, in this case, it would be either that violence is an appropriate
response to criticism of your religion, or that Sharia should replace
democracy as a governmental form in their current democratic country of
residence.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> I honestly don't remember even seeing a minaret in the USA. And as I
> They're in your own state, for crying out loud!
I had noticed that. I'll note for our foreign friends that California is a
pretty big place, even in mountain scale. ;-)
> OK - Joke aside, I have no idea how many there are in the US. A
> Google image search for mosques in the US reveals a bunch.
Yeah, but I don't remember seeing a minaret. Maybe I just never went where
they're common.
>>> they're pissing off the "moderate" majority,
>>
>> Have you evidence that the majority are moderate? I used to think that
>
> "Can you prove you didn't commit the crime?"
Not at all. See Prop 8.
It should be trivial to set up a phone poll to ask these questions. You
might get false negatives, but I don't imagine you'll get a false positive.
> When I used the word, though, I was referring to violence.
Sure, and I see a whole bunch of pictures of people holding up signs, and I
see riots and people burning down buildings, and etc.
I don't know what percentage of muslims would do that given the opportunity.
I don't think you do either. That's why I said the assumption that it's a
minority is a bad assumption, as would be the assumption that it's a majority.
I thought the idea that there would actually be enough votes to modify the
CA constitution to treat gays as sub-human would never have passed either.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/14/09 14:06, Darren New wrote:
>>> It would be interesting to see how big a subset it really is. That
>>> argument goes out the door when it's actually a majority of muslims that
>>> feel that way.
>>
>> Let's get precise. What is "that way"?
>
> Well, in this case, it would be either that violence is an appropriate
> response to criticism of your religion, or that Sharia should replace
> democracy as a governmental form in their current democratic country of
> residence.
While many like Sharia, they don't view it in the absolutes that you
do. The majority seem to say that they want both democracy and Sharia:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/104731/muslims-want-democracy-theocracy.aspx
Here's a Gallup poll (perhaps the same one):
http://www.gallup.com/poll/28678/framing-war-terror.aspx
Essentially, they found little links between the level of religiosity
and the support for violence, and those who were against violence were
against it for religious reasons, while those who were in favor of it
quoted nonreligious reasons. Interestingly enough, the politically
radicalized minority favored "democratic values" like freedom of the
press more than their moderate counterparts did.
(So, religious moderates are more likely to promote violence than the
strongly religious? I guess we need to define these terms).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/26/radicalisation-european-muslims
Quotes another Gallup poll of Muslims in France and Germany - the vast
majority of which stated they were against violence against civilians
(aside: It scares me that I have to point stuff like this out...). More
importantly, """responses were not determined by religious practice -
with no difference between devout worshippers and those for whom
"religion [was] not important"."""
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8038398.stm
Here, while democracy is not mentioned explicitly, it shows that in
some European countries, a greater percentage of the Muslim population
identified with that country than did the general population. For example:
"""German Muslims were also found far more likely than the general
public to have confidence in the judicial system, financial institutions
and the honesty of elections."""
Although in this case it was 40% of Muslims, so who knows - perhaps the
other 60% wants to overthrow the government and have Sharia. I'd like to
see a study showing that, before I believe it.
Here's a Pew Poll:
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=253
See the chart about what percentage of Muslims (including in some
European countries) think about democracy.
Now I don't particularly doubt that you could look and find opposing
data if you focus on a certain geographic region. Ever watch the Hans
Rosling TED talks? Everyone should. The point he makes in each one is
that it's stupid to talk of Africans and Africa, because there's so much
diversity that just about any statement one makes is going to be wrong
for a big bunch - and often for the majority.
The sentiment and arguments are not unique to Africans, obviously, but
for any large group - and the number of Muslims exceeds the number of
Africans, as do their geographic spread.
Getting back to the main topic, as I said in another post, the really
valid question that needs answering is about the behavior of the Muslims
in Switzerland. That they may do funny things in, say, Malmo is irrelevant.
--
If you think nobody cares, try missing a couple of payments.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/14/09 14:11, Darren New wrote:
>>>> they're pissing off the "moderate" majority,
>>>
>>> Have you evidence that the majority are moderate? I used to think that
>>
>> "Can you prove you didn't commit the crime?"
>
> Not at all. See Prop 8.
First, I presume that by invoking Prop 8, you're not talking about
Muslims per se, but about religious folks.
So let's talk about African Americans: 70% of them voted in favor of
Prop 8 - a higher percentage than some religious groups did (e.g.
Catholics).
So you're willing to say that the majority of African Americans are not
moderate?
> Sure, and I see a whole bunch of pictures of people holding up signs,
> and I see riots and people burning down buildings, and etc.
The majority of them do this? I wonder who runs the schools, police
force, hospitals, etc? Would they have time to take care of those
endeavors while they're busy rioting?
If you merely want to point out that a big portion of them do this, I
once again invoke African Americans, and point you to their really high
over-representation in violent crimes in the US. In 2005, for example,
normalized to their proportion of their population, African Americans
committed more than 7 times as many homicides as their white counterparts.
> I thought the idea that there would actually be enough votes to modify
> the CA constitution to treat gays as sub-human would never have passed
> either.
I'm sure the religious crowd would have been surprised as well, because
that's not what happened.
If you want to have a reasonable conversation, it helps if you don't
editorialize by using words like "subhuman", because I'll be happy to
counter-obfuscate.
--
If you think nobody cares, try missing a couple of payments.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> While many like Sharia, they don't view it in the absolutes that you
> do.
I never said anything about how I view Sharia. :-)
Those are good links. Thanks!
(Note that I never said it goes one way or another. I just said it's
worthwhile to find out.)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> So you're willing to say that the majority of African Americans are
> not moderate?
I have no idea what's up with that. People whose fathers weren't allowed to
marry who they wanted because of prejudice are voting to remove the right to
marry from people because of their prejudice.
>> Sure, and I see a whole bunch of pictures of people holding up signs,
>> and I see riots and people burning down buildings, and etc.
>
> The majority of them do this?
I didn't say they do. Don't put words in my mouth. I said "have you any
evidence?"
> If you merely want to point out that a big portion of them do this,
No. Why do you assume me asking a question is also me asserting the answer?
> I once again invoke African Americans, and point you to their really
> high over-representation in violent crimes in the US. In 2005, for
> example, normalized to their proportion of their population, African
> Americans committed more than 7 times as many homicides as their white
> counterparts.
I have no idea what point you're trying to make.
> If you want to have a reasonable conversation, it helps if you don't
> editorialize by using words like "subhuman", because I'll be happy to
> counter-obfuscate.
I'm equating it with every other bit of politicized prejudice.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/14/09 21:49, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> While many like Sharia, they don't view it in the absolutes that you do.
>
> I never said anything about how I view Sharia. :-)
I think you misunderstood. You said:
"or that Sharia should replace democracy as a governmental form"
That's suggestive of a mutual exclusion. I was merely pointing out that
they didn't seem to feel that way.
> (Note that I never said it goes one way or another. I just said it's
> worthwhile to find out.)
True...
--
If you think nobody cares, try missing a couple of payments.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/14/09 21:55, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> So you're willing to say that the majority of African Americans are
>> not moderate?
>
> I have no idea what's up with that. People whose fathers weren't allowed
Nor do I.
Actually, I found a report that suggested that the numbers were
overstated, and it was more like 57-59% (or near there) instead of 70%.
The report suggested that religion was most likely the issue for them as
well. I just looked at the summary - didn't bother reading it.
>>> Sure, and I see a whole bunch of pictures of people holding up signs,
>>> and I see riots and people burning down buildings, and etc.
>>
>> The majority of them do this?
>
> I didn't say they do. Don't put words in my mouth. I said "have you any
> evidence?"
And I didn't put words in your mouth.<G>
It went like this: You asked if I had evidence that the majority were
moderate. I clarified by saying I used the word moderate in terms of
violence. You responded with examples of violence. I responded with a
remark (perhaps a bit sarcastic) suggesting that those examples could
hardly be used in a discussion of the majority.
>> If you merely want to point out that a big portion of them do this,
>
> No. Why do you assume me asking a question is also me asserting the answer?
Pre-emptive strike. Bad habit of mine when it comes to Internet
arguments. It usually goes along the lines of me responding to precisely
what the person says, with him tweaking what he said a bit so that my
response is no longer valid, and so I have to respond again to the
tweaked version. I got tired of this so I just go for pre-emptive
strikes when I feel that what the person said was not what he meant.<G>
Usually not a big issue on these newsgroups.
>> I once again invoke African Americans, and point you to their really
>> high over-representation in violent crimes in the US. In 2005, for
>> example, normalized to their proportion of their population, African
>> Americans committed more than 7 times as many homicides as their white
>> counterparts.
>
> I have no idea what point you're trying to make.
Oh, I was just wondering if you'd say "sure, maybe not the majority,
but it seems a substantial portion of them", and I was drawing an
analogy with African Americans. Since the overall topic was about laws
being passed, I was curious as to what laws targeting African Americans
would be considered OK if their behavior was bad enough. (Part of the
unnecessary pre-emptive strike referred to above).
Reading it all again, it's clear you were just thinking aloud/asking
questions. Still - it's a public forum, and just because it's a reply to
you doesn't mean all of it has to be for your eyes. I can throw out
ideas as well.<G>
>> If you want to have a reasonable conversation, it helps if you don't
>> editorialize by using words like "subhuman", because I'll be happy to
>> counter-obfuscate.
>
> I'm equating it with every other bit of politicized prejudice.
I must admit I don't understand.
--
If you think nobody cares, try missing a couple of payments.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> That's suggestive of a mutual exclusion. I was merely pointing out
> that they didn't seem to feel that way.
I see. I feel the urge to say something more, but it's too late at night to
be clear.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> being passed, I was curious as to what laws targeting African Americans
> would be considered OK if their behavior was bad enough. (Part of the
> unnecessary pre-emptive strike referred to above).
See "Black Panthers, History." :-)
> Reading it all again, it's clear you were just thinking aloud/asking
> questions. Still - it's a public forum, and just because it's a reply to
> you doesn't mean all of it has to be for your eyes. I can throw out
> ideas as well.<G>
Certainly.
>> I'm equating it with every other bit of politicized prejudice.
> I must admit I don't understand.
Almost every other form of prejudice actually brought into existence and
legitimized by politics that I can think of wound up making those you were
to hate "subhuman" as the reason for the hatred. Black slavery in America,
gassing Jews in Germany, killing Gooks in 'Nam, women getting stoned for
going outside without an escort or being too hysterical to vote, etc.
When it's not prejudice but merely differentiation (i.e., when you can
actually move out of the group people are prejudiced against), people in the
"out" group might get treated badly, but it doesn't seem the same. Such as
keeping non-land-owners from voting - those without land were discriminated
against but not particularly treated as inherently worth less, methinks.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/15/09 00:24, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> being passed, I was curious as to what laws targeting African
>> Americans would be considered OK if their behavior was bad enough.
>> (Part of the unnecessary pre-emptive strike referred to above).
>
> See "Black Panthers, History." :-)
What laws were passed against African Americans as a result of the
Black Panthers (honest question)?
--
If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> What laws were passed against African Americans as a result of the
> Black Panthers (honest question)?
Mostly laws about carrying firearms in public. The black panthers took to
carrying shotguns because so many of them had the crap beat out of them by
police while other police threatened the rest of the group to keep them from
intervening.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/15/09 19:11, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> What laws were passed against African Americans as a result of the
>> Black Panthers (honest question)?
>
> Mostly laws about carrying firearms in public. The black panthers took
> to carrying shotguns because so many of them had the crap beat out of
> them by police while other police threatened the rest of the group to
> keep them from intervening.
OK. I take it these were laws that forbade carrying them in public, or
vice versa?
--
If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> OK. I take it these were laws that forbade carrying them in public,
> or vice versa?
Yep.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> I thought the idea that there would actually be enough votes to modify
>> the CA constitution to treat gays as sub-human would never have passed
>> either.
>
> If you want to have a reasonable conversation, it helps if you don't
> editorialize by using words like "subhuman", because I'll be happy to
> counter-obfuscate.
BTW, they're treated as "subhuman" because the majority actually passed laws
to remove from them the right to marry who they wished, which they already
had. I'd say passing a law to allow enslaving a particular group of people
would be treating them as "subhuman" also. They aren't human enough to get
the same rights to marriage as the other humans get.
As for muslims and democracy, I think I was using "democracy" to include
basic human rights. Of course you can have a democracy in which the majority
vote to stone apostates, outlaw freedom of speech, burn suspected witches,
castrate homosexuals, presume non-Muslims are unable to tell the truth in
court, kill female relatives who go out in public without an escort, etc.
Hence it's perfectly reasonable that a majority of people who want Sharia
also want democracy. They just don't want the usual human rights that go
with democracy in most democratic countries. I'm not sure what the right
word for the group of behaviors would be.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
