• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Swiss voters approve constitutional ban of minarets

I disagree that muslims leaders have done all they can to help quell the violence we see all over the world. In fact, I see more apologists then anything else, from one corner of the world to the other. I guess you missed the recent muslim march to DC, the signs, the rhetoric was anything but peaceful, helpful, it was just more of the same.

All that said, I still do not agree with this decision, but this is europe, and they have been slipping for sometime now, I am just glad I live in this country, under this constitution.

Muslim leaders should lead their congregations out of the 13th century and into the 21st century.

They're not doing that.

We should help them. The next time terrorists hide in a mosque, we should blow it up, just like we or they would if it was a christian church. Muslims should learn that mosques are buildings, just like outhouses.
 
Please read more carefully, I didn't say that. I asked you if there are any universal values.

No, each culture creates it's own values.



No, it's government control. Just because the will of (some of the) people is involved doesn't change that. I explained this to you.

That would be the will of the majority of the people.

God, you're a massive question-dodger. (I love the liberal-sounding "part of their culture" thing though!)

Now you're just being insulting. You could hurt my feelings. :(

Answer these questions please:

Ok.
1. Do you fully approve of or have no complaint about what the Iranians and Saudis do?

Peoples in these lands are free to practice their religion and follow their the precepts of their own culture. This is as it should be. They don't need my "approval."

2. Did you approve of or have no complaint about the Soviet treatment of their people?

Once again, this was the way it was. My "approval" was neither asked for nor needed.

Now, before you get your panties all knotted up let me say what occurs in other countries is for them to decide, especially if this is done in a democracy. In america I have no problems with minarets. In america I believe women have the right to choose for themselves what they want to do. In america.....I have a valid opinion based on my culture.
 
Muslim leaders should lead their congregations out of the 13th century and into the 21st century.

They're not doing that.

We should help them. The next time terrorists hide in a mosque, we should blow it up, just like we or they would if it was a christian church. Muslims should learn that mosques are buildings, just like outhouses.

Interesting simile.....:)
 
Interesting simile.....:)

You are aware that the traditional symbol carved into the doors of outhouses is....the crescent moon....which is also a symbol of Islam...who's to say all outhouses aren't mini-mosques?
 
You are aware that the traditional symbol carved into the doors of outhouses is....the crescent moon....which is also a symbol of Islam...who's to say all outhouses aren't mini-mosques?

Better yet!........:mrgreen:
 
Hmmmm this seems to be in contridiction:

Art. 15 Freedom of religion and conscience

1 Freedom of religion and conscience is guaranteed.

2 Everyone has the right to choose freely their religion or their philosophical convictions, and to profess them alone or in community with others.

3 Everyone has the right to join or to belong to a religious community, and to follow religious teachings.

4 No one shall be forced to join or belong to a religious community, to participate in a religious act, or to follow religious teachings.

SR 101 Art.*15 Freedom of religion and conscience (Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation)

Where does it require them to allow one religion to show its dominance, by architectual display, often funded by totalitarian regimes like the one in SA?
 
Muslim leaders should lead their congregations out of the 13th century and into the 21st century.

They're not doing that.

Who is "they"? There are many Muslim leaders. Some ARE doing just that. Some aren't.
 
Where does it require them to allow one religion to show its dominance, by architectual display, often funded by totalitarian regimes like the one in SA?

Yeah, good point - we should tear down some church spires! :roll:
 
You are aware that the traditional symbol carved into the doors of outhouses is....the crescent moon....which is also a symbol of Islam...who's to say all outhouses aren't mini-mosques?

Religious bigotry is usually crude and immature.
 
That would be the will of the majority of the people.

So a majority can oppress a minority? If 51% vote to make you a slave, that's democracy?

Peoples in these lands are free to practice their religion and follow their the precepts of their own culture. This is as it should be. They don't need my "approval."



Once again, this was the way it was. My "approval" was neither asked for nor needed.

So you have no problem at all with Muslim oppression and brutality, as long as they keep it in their own countries. Okay.

Now, before you get your panties all knotted up let me say what occurs in other countries is for them to decide, especially if this is done in a democracy. In america I have no problems with minarets. In america I believe women have the right to choose for themselves what they want to do. In america.....I have a valid opinion based on my culture.

But if 51% of Americans voted against minarets - or to ban Islam, or Christianity - or to make you a slave - that's okay? Will of the people after all.
 
lookatthislookatthis

Americans chastizing another country for it's means of snuffing out a religion or culture.
Pigs are flying!!!

I think the decision is bull****. It would be unconstitutional to do so in the US.
 
lookatthislookatthis

Americans chastizing another country for it's means of snuffing out a religion or culture.
Pigs are flying!!!

I think the decision is bull****. It would be unconstitutional to do so in the US.

It most likely violates the Swiss Constitution too. Which was modeled after the U.S. one, by the way.
 
It most likely violates the Swiss Constitution too. Which was modeled after the U.S. one, by the way.
If it amends the constitution, then it does not violate it.
 
If it amends the constitution, then it does not violate it.

Oh, yes, it's an amendment, not a law, didn't see that.

It's certainly clashes with other parts of the Swiss Constitution though.
 
How so?
A minaret isn't needed for the practice of Islam.

A church isn't needed for the practice of Christianity. You think a ban on all church construction would be upheld here?
 
A church isn't needed for the practice of Christianity. You think a ban on all church construction would be upheld here?
Answer my question first.
 
Oh, yes, it's an amendment, not a law, didn't see that.
It's certainly clashes with other parts of the Swiss Constitution though.
In principle, maybe.
However, the relevant parts of the Swiss constitution regarding religious protections were cited, and I am not sure how the action noted here violates them.
 
How so?
A minaret isn't needed for the practice of Islam.

A cross isn't needed for the practice of Christianity - but people sitll closely relate the two. . . banning large crosses in public view might be considered a direct anti-religious act becuaes of it's symbolism.
 
Answer my question first.

I just did.

The long answer is that the government in the U.S. cannot restrict any religion's practices unless it has a good non-religious reason, and it has to apply to all religions not just one. So if the government were banning minarets because of a fire hazard or something, that would be okay, and it would have to apply to all tall buildings, not just minarets. Whether minarets are "required" to practice the religion is immaterial, that's not for the government to decide.
 
A cross isn't needed for the practice of Christianity - but people sitll closely relate the two. . . banning large crosses in public view might be considered a direct anti-religious act becuaes of it's symbolism.
Is doing so unconstitutional?
 
Is doing so unconstitutional?

Okay, do we really have to explain to you the details of why banning crosses would be declared unconstitutional? Do you really need that education?
 
I just did.

The long answer is that the government in the U.S. cannot restrict any religion's practices unless it has a good non-religious reason, and it has to apply to all religions not just one. So if the government were banning minarets because of a fire hazard or something, that would be okay, and it would have to apply to all tall buildings, not just minarets. Whether minarets are "required" to practice the religion is immaterial, that's not for the government to decide.
1. You did not. You asked a question with an irrelevant comparison.
No one was talking about banning a mosque, yet you went all the way to banning a church as a comparison to that of banning a minaret.
Ridiculous.

2. You are incorrect. A minaret is not needed to practice Islam. So there would be no constitutional violation.
 
Yeah, good point - we should tear down some church spires! :roll:

If christians pollute the landcape with gargantesque churches, it may become a wish of the population to put an end to that yes. In my country, that's not the case, the amount of churches are in decline.
You have to understand that the leftist utopians who engaged in migration charity, expected their beloved cultural mix to become secular. The melting pot doesn't work out so well everywhere. Luckily for the Swiss, their direct democracy allows them to take less desireable, but very effective, measures.
 
Back
Top Bottom