• 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

Judge Rules S.C. Not Allowed to Issue License Plates With Cross

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

COLUMBIA, S.C — A federal judge ruled Tuesday that South Carolina can't issue license plates showing the image of a cross in front of a stained glass window along with the phrase "I Believe."

...
Judge Rules S.C. Not Allowed to Issue License Plates With Cross - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com
Click to expand...

?????????????



Look, if something like what took place in the OP were to happen in the U.S. and wasn't a Constitutional Amendment, we would basically be talking about what would fall under zoning laws, not building codes.

If a church wished to construct a 100' spire in a residential neighborhood and it wasn't zoned for such, they are not going to be able to do it.
That is not, and would not be, a Constitutional violation.

A spire isn't needed, just as a minaret isn't needed for the practice of the religion.
 
Last edited:
Coolguy said:
?????????????



Look, if something like what took place in the OP were to happen in the U.S. and wasn't a Constitutional Amendment, we would basically be talking about what would fall under zoning laws, not building codes.

If a church wished to construct a 100' spire in a residential neighborhood and it wasn't zoned for such, they are not going to be able to do it.
That is not, and would not be, a Constitutional violation.

A spire isn't needed, just as a minaret isn't needed for the practice of the religion.
Click to expand...

The article you link to is in question of 'separation of church and state' - and the 1st Amendment which states that the government cannot pass a law which favors one religion over another.

The government cannot issue anything that seems to encourage one religion or belief over another - and as in the case of the Cross in question, it would be directly connected to a particular belief, not a broad general one.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
The article you link to is in question of 'separation of church and state' - and the 1st Amendment which states that the government cannot pass a law which favors one religion over another.

The government cannot issue anything that seems to encourage one religion or belief over another - and as in the case of the Cross in question, it would be directly connected to a particular belief, not a broad general one.
Click to expand...
Yet it is still an example of banning the cross.

Now how about someone address zoning laws.
 
Ikari said:
That's on government land, and the issue is a bit sticky. I personally see no problem with it, but other people have nothing to do with their time. I meant the general aspect of public land.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry if my example was too specific.....:mrgreen:
 
misterman said:
So a majority can oppress a minority? If 51% vote to make you a slave, that's democracy?
Click to expand...

Apparently it can in switzerland.

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

Oppression and brutality as defined by....whom? You? Me? We don't have that right.


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.
Click to expand...

I believe both of those examples would constitute a violation of our constitution.
 
Isn't Switzerland supposed to be the most Librul, tolerant everybody love everybody country on the planet?
 
Partisan said:
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" applies here....;)
Old Joey K was after profit, just like granddaddy Bush....;)
Click to expand...

Naturally. When we needed the soviets they were our valued and trusted allies. After the war we no longer needed them and they became the hated commies.

The leaders of nations are responsible for the security and well being of the nations they lead. Trying to use interpersonal mores as an example of how nations should behave is incredibly naive.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Being a bigot would imply I favor one religion over another.
Click to expand...

Please at least know the definition before you pretend to know it and embarrass yourself again. It has nothing to do with favoring one over another.

Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1660

: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
Click to expand...

The bolded fits you in regards to Islam
 
Dutch said:
You called me an incredible dodger. Doesn't that constitute a "petty name?"
Click to expand...

No, that's just an observation. It's not an insult, just a comment on your debating behavior. And I'm not sure I ever said you're a dodger, just that you are dodging.
 
TheNextEra said:
Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1660

: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Under that definition, a person can be a bigot and still be right.

Wiki includes the following.
The correct use of the term requires the elements of obstinacy, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing devotion.
Click to expand...




misterman said:
Or the U.S.
Click to expand...
How in the world could you get they may be thinking about the U.S. from the following?
.. supposed to be the most Librul, tolerant everybody love everybody country on the planet?
Click to expand...
Because I have never heard the U.S. referred to as such. Nor would I want it to be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom