 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] gmail com> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
