Switzerland Bans Minarets

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Then it’s stupid. A minaret is a building, nothing more, nothing less. No different than a Church with a big cross on the top. [/quote]

It hardly qualifies as a “building”. More like the big cross on top.

I get more irritated by church bells. Depending on how close you are, they can make your entire house shake.

But, granted, there is no call to prayer at dawn in churches…

My sentiment exactly.

Have a look at another infamous poster from the people that brought this new law to Switzerland.

http://www.nowpublic.com/politics/svp-poster-media-vendetta

That is offensive.

22

[quote]archiewhittaker wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

A minaret is a building, nothing more, nothing less.

That is a masterful understatement.

What matters is:
HOW a building is used, and
WHAT goes on inside of it. You can’t compare that to a church, and you know it.

Try building a church in a Muslim country, it would be more than banned. It would be bombed.
[/quote]

Why not? It’s a house of worship. If they’re keeping guns in there, that’s one thing, but from what I can tell it’s just a house of worship. So it’s completely comparable to a church.

And the question is not about building a church in a muslim country. Allowing freedom of religion is one of the things that makes western civilization better than the theocracies run in the Muslim world. Because they wouldn’t let westerners do it does not mean that we should ban it in turn. That’s faulty logic.

23

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

Why not? It’s a house of worship. If they’re keeping guns in there, that’s one thing, but from what I can tell it’s just a house of worship. So it’s completely comparable to a church.[/quote]

Irish,

What evidence would you like us to provide that this is not the case? We’re asserting that mosques are, in fact, places where jihad is planned and the original purpose of the mosque was military in nature. You’re asserting that it is “just a place of worship.” Of course, your statement is based on the assumption that Islam is a religion like any other and doesn’t teach “warfare for the spread of religion” per the 'Umdat al-Salik citing Surahs 9:5 and 9:29 and several ahadith.

I guess what I’m asking is, “What’ll it take for you to change your mind?” Help us help you. Clearly, a lot of people, including Muslims like Ergodan, do not see thing the same way as you.

24

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

Why not? It’s a house of worship. If they’re keeping guns in there, that’s one thing, but from what I can tell it’s just a house of worship. So it’s completely comparable to a church.

Irish,

What evidence would you like us to provide that this is not the case? We’re asserting that mosques are, in fact, places where jihad is planned and the original purpose of the mosque was military in nature. You’re asserting that it is “just a place of worship.” Of course, your statement is based on the assumption that Islam is a religion like any other and doesn’t teach “warfare for the spread of religion” per the 'Umdat al-Salik citing Surahs 9:5 and 9:29 and several ahadith.

I guess what I’m asking is, “What’ll it take for you to change your mind?” Help us help you. Clearly, a lot of people, including Muslims like Ergodan, do not see thing the same way as you.
[/quote]

First, I don’t want to hear that it’s what they were “orginally” used for. Prove that mosques are used for that now, consistently enough to ban them. If that’s the case, they should ban basements, bars, or any meeting place where violence could be planned. Which is everywhere.

The mosque itself is not the problem, it’s the psychos committing crimes. That’s like saying Catholic Churches should be banned in Ireland because the IRA plots from them- it’s a logic failure that puts the crime on the building instead of the terrorist.

If you ban mosques, will that stop terrorism?

And again, muslims in this country seem to do ok, mosques and all. Aside from the handful of lunatics who are caught, most muslims in America seem quite content and not all that violent.

25

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

Why not? It’s a house of worship. If they’re keeping guns in there, that’s one thing, but from what I can tell it’s just a house of worship. So it’s completely comparable to a church.

Irish,

What evidence would you like us to provide that this is not the case? We’re asserting that mosques are, in fact, places where jihad is planned and the original purpose of the mosque was military in nature. You’re asserting that it is “just a place of worship.” Of course, your statement is based on the assumption that Islam is a religion like any other and doesn’t teach “warfare for the spread of religion” per the 'Umdat al-Salik citing Surahs 9:5 and 9:29 and several ahadith.

I guess what I’m asking is, “What’ll it take for you to change your mind?” Help us help you. Clearly, a lot of people, including Muslims like Ergodan, do not see thing the same way as you.

First, I don’t want to hear that it’s what they were “orginally” used for. Prove that mosques are used for that now, consistently enough to ban them. If that’s the case, they should ban basements, bars, or any meeting place where violence could be planned. Which is everywhere.

The mosque itself is not the problem, it’s the psychos committing crimes. That’s like saying Catholic Churches should be banned in Ireland because the IRA plots from them- it’s a logic failure that puts the crime on the building instead of the terrorist.
[/quote]

But banning buildings is so easy!

Dealing with people who deperately want to kill you requires some introspection, an idea why they hate you so much, wether some of their criticism are actually accurate and so on.

Hellz no, let us just demolish something.

26

I should mention that Erdogan spent 10 months in jail for the haineous sentence that was quoted by an asshat on this thread.

27

Well, I provided the statement from the current President of Turkey, did I not? Is that not a modern-enough view? Then we have the case of Nidal Hasan, the 9/11 hijackers, the Seattle Jewwish center jihadist, the Fort Dix jihadists, etc, etc all receiving blessings and instructions from their mosques prior to their attacks/planned attacks. What constitutes “proof” that you will accept?

The IRA was a relative flash in the pan, wasn’t it? We’re talking about a 1300 year old global phenomenon known as “jihad” here. The IRA and McVeigh are worn increasingly thin as analogies.

it’s a logic failure that puts the crime on the building instead of the terrorist.

No. It will make it harder to plan it and finance it though. As long as infidels live side-by-side with Muslims, there will be violence against infidels. See my “Jihad in the Phillipines” thread, for example.

[quote]
And again, muslims in this country seem to do ok, mosques and all. Aside from the handful of lunatics who are caught, most muslims in America seem quite content and not all that violent. [/quote]

Do you have proof of this assertion? I’m pretty sure I have proof to the contrary from polling data. Let’s see yours first and then mine.

28

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Thought experiment: do the Swiss have a right to decide whether or not they want to remain ethnically Swiss, or must they accept everyone who wants to move to their country to change it as the newcomers see fit? [/quote]

This is the real question. And noone has tackled it directly.

I’d say, yes, they have that right.

29

[quote]orion wrote:

But banning buildings is so easy!

Dealing with people who deperately want to kill you requires some introspection, an idea why they hate you so much, wether some of their criticism are actually accurate and so on.

Hellz no, let us just demolish something.

[/quote]

At the end of the day, you have to be willing to accept the fact that people may hate you just because you don’t believe the same things they do and don’t worship their god.

Ockham’s razor is helpful here. If there are 2 competing explanations for a phenomenon, both explain the phenomenon fully, and one is more complex than the other, then the simplest one is the most likely. In the case of Islam, you can believe that all of their violence is because Islam has a steady stream of valid grievances against non-Muslims that require warfare and slaughter of infidels.

Or you can believe that they hate you for the same reason Muhammad and his original band hated non-Muslims.

Which fits Ockham’s razor?

Introspection is good, if it’s done with a clear head. Yours is clearly not clear.

30

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

Prove that mosques are used for that now, consistently enough to ban them. If that’s the case, they should ban basements, bars, or any meeting place where violence could be planned. Which is everywhere.

[/quote]

There are plenty of documentaries that have gone into mosques where the imam screams about ending democracy and killing infidels. Islamists have committed thousands of terrorist attacks since 9/11, is that not consistent? Terrorists happen to attend mosques.

About the minarets, they are very imposing, large symbols of worship, and the Muslims want to build more of them, and to build them bigger. Naturally, they should be banned.

31

[quote]lixy wrote:
I should mention that Erdogan spent 10 months in jail for the haineous sentence that was quoted by an asshat on this thread.[/quote]

Hitler spent time in jail too. What’s your point?

Thanks for providing more proof that you read my posts and dodge all of my inconvenient questions.

32

[quote]yusef wrote:

Not sure what kind of proof you are looking for, but the assertion of ‘Most muslims in America aren’t all that violent’ is fairly easy to prove. Find the stat for how many muslims there are in the USA. If >50% of them have NOT been convicted of some sort of violent crime, then voila. Or did you mean proof in the mathematical, deductive sense?[/quote]

Proof I am looking for is that Muslims overwhelmingly reject the doctrine of jihad as “warfare for the spread of religion” as delineated in the 'Umdat al-Salik (citing Surahs 9:5, and 9:29). Proof that they reject shari’ah (which, of course, encompasses treatment of dhimmis) would also be nice.

33

[quote]orion wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

Why not? It’s a house of worship. If they’re keeping guns in there, that’s one thing, but from what I can tell it’s just a house of worship. So it’s completely comparable to a church.

Irish,

What evidence would you like us to provide that this is not the case? We’re asserting that mosques are, in fact, places where jihad is planned and the original purpose of the mosque was military in nature. You’re asserting that it is “just a place of worship.” Of course, your statement is based on the assumption that Islam is a religion like any other and doesn’t teach “warfare for the spread of religion” per the 'Umdat al-Salik citing Surahs 9:5 and 9:29 and several ahadith.

I guess what I’m asking is, “What’ll it take for you to change your mind?” Help us help you. Clearly, a lot of people, including Muslims like Ergodan, do not see thing the same way as you.

First, I don’t want to hear that it’s what they were “orginally” used for. Prove that mosques are used for that now, consistently enough to ban them. If that’s the case, they should ban basements, bars, or any meeting place where violence could be planned. Which is everywhere.

The mosque itself is not the problem, it’s the psychos committing crimes. That’s like saying Catholic Churches should be banned in Ireland because the IRA plots from them- it’s a logic failure that puts the crime on the building instead of the terrorist.

But banning buildings is so easy!

Dealing with people who deperately want to kill you requires some introspection, an idea why they hate you so much, wether some of their criticism are actually accurate and so on.

Hellz no, let us just demolish something.

[/quote]
Their religion calls for world domination, that is reason enough. (And even if it didn’t, there’s merit to thinking about preserving the indigenous culture. Especially when it seems far superior. Anyway, this importation is all a ploy by leftist wanna bes dreaming of creating some sort of imperialist super state they can lord over)

Why not just roll over and convert? Well, Islam is incompatible with western civilization and science. There will be a dark age. And I say this as someone who’d make an enthusiastic jihadi

I’m sure there are plenty of nice muslims. Those who will not stand up to Islam will simply become the nice muslims of the future.

34

[quote]lixy wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Then it’s stupid. A minaret is a building, nothing more, nothing less. No different than a Church with a big cross on the top.

It hardly qualifies as a “building”. More like the big cross on top.

If they had that call to prayer, I would agree with banning it- there is no way that a loud voice chanting in arabic is comparable to a church bell- one is way more fucking irritating. If I was a neighbor and had to listen to that shit five times a day I’d be furious.

I get more irritated by church bells. Depending on how close you are, they can make your entire house shake.

But, granted, there is no call to prayer at dawn in churches…

But the building in and of itself is not offensive, and this is kind of ridiculous.

My sentiment exactly.

Have a look at another infamous poster from the people that brought this new law to Switzerland.

http://www.nowpublic.com/politics/svp-poster-media-vendetta

That is offensive.[/quote]

Muslim protesters pelt Tory peer Baroness Warsi with eggs during walkabout in Luton

Read more: Baroness Warsi is pelted with eggs during a walkabout in Luton | Daily Mail Online

The Swiss are trying to avoid the fate of the British. Perhaps they have seen how muslims treat women they disagree with over there and figure to be proactive.

35

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
orion wrote:

But banning buildings is so easy!

Dealing with people who deperately want to kill you requires some introspection, an idea why they hate you so much, wether some of their criticism are actually accurate and so on.

Hellz no, let us just demolish something.

At the end of the day, you have to be willing to accept the fact that people may hate you just because you don’t believe the same things they do and don’t worship their god.

Ockham’s razor is helpful here. If there are 2 competing explanations for a phenomenon, both explain the phenomenon fully, and one is more complex than the other, then the simplest one is the most likely. In the case of Islam, you can believe that all of their violence is because Islam has a steady stream of valid grievances against non-Muslims that require warfare and slaughter of infidels.

Or you can believe that they hate you for the same reason Muhammad and his original band hated non-Muslims.

Which fits Ockham’s razor?

Introspection is good, if it’s done with a clear head. Yours is clearly not clear. [/quote]

Ah, nonsense.

Those who benefit from war will use whatever is fashionable to get war.

Allah, freedom and democracy, class warfare, terrorism, you name it.

They only use what works in a specific culture and they have been far more succesful in the US than in the Middle East.

So please do not preach on how THEIR ideology is hell bent on killing you, whereas YOUR ideology has already killed millions of them.

You see the splinter in the eye of the neighbor and do not care for the beam in yours.

For all practical purposes “freedom and democracy” seems to be one of the most deadly ideologies around.

36

[quote]valiant knight wrote:
orion wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

Why not? It’s a house of worship. If they’re keeping guns in there, that’s one thing, but from what I can tell it’s just a house of worship. So it’s completely comparable to a church.

Irish,

What evidence would you like us to provide that this is not the case? We’re asserting that mosques are, in fact, places where jihad is planned and the original purpose of the mosque was military in nature. You’re asserting that it is “just a place of worship.” Of course, your statement is based on the assumption that Islam is a religion like any other and doesn’t teach “warfare for the spread of religion” per the 'Umdat al-Salik citing Surahs 9:5 and 9:29 and several ahadith.

I guess what I’m asking is, “What’ll it take for you to change your mind?” Help us help you. Clearly, a lot of people, including Muslims like Ergodan, do not see thing the same way as you.

First, I don’t want to hear that it’s what they were “orginally” used for. Prove that mosques are used for that now, consistently enough to ban them. If that’s the case, they should ban basements, bars, or any meeting place where violence could be planned. Which is everywhere.

The mosque itself is not the problem, it’s the psychos committing crimes. That’s like saying Catholic Churches should be banned in Ireland because the IRA plots from them- it’s a logic failure that puts the crime on the building instead of the terrorist.

But banning buildings is so easy!

Dealing with people who deperately want to kill you requires some introspection, an idea why they hate you so much, wether some of their criticism are actually accurate and so on.

Hellz no, let us just demolish something.

Their religion calls for world domination, that is reason enough. (And even if it didn’t, there’s merit to thinking about preserving the indigenous culture. Especially when it seems far superior. Anyway, this importation is all a ploy by leftist wanna bes dreaming of creating some sort of imperialist super state they can lord over)

Why not just roll over and convert? Well, Islam is incompatible with western civilization and science. There will be a dark age. And I say this as someone who’d make an enthusiastic jihadi

I’m sure there are plenty of nice muslims. Those who will not stand up to Islam will simply become the nice muslims of the future.[/quote]

Do you really take religion at its face value?

If you did that every religious person was insane.

No, they ignore some passages while upholding others until it fits like a glove.

I wholeheartedly believe that Arabs are just as capable of BS themselves as Americans and Europeans.

37

[quote]Tokoya wrote:
lixy wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Then it’s stupid. A minaret is a building, nothing more, nothing less. No different than a Church with a big cross on the top.

It hardly qualifies as a “building”. More like the big cross on top.

If they had that call to prayer, I would agree with banning it- there is no way that a loud voice chanting in arabic is comparable to a church bell- one is way more fucking irritating. If I was a neighbor and had to listen to that shit five times a day I’d be furious.

I get more irritated by church bells. Depending on how close you are, they can make your entire house shake.

But, granted, there is no call to prayer at dawn in churches…

But the building in and of itself is not offensive, and this is kind of ridiculous.

My sentiment exactly.

Have a look at another infamous poster from the people that brought this new law to Switzerland.

http://www.nowpublic.com/politics/svp-poster-media-vendetta

That is offensive.

Muslim protesters pelt Tory peer Baroness Warsi with eggs during walkabout in Luton

Read more: Baroness Warsi is pelted with eggs during a walkabout in Luton | Daily Mail Online

The Swiss are trying to avoid the fate of the British. Perhaps they have seen how muslims treat women they disagree with over there and figure to be proactive. [/quote]

If we could only be introspective! Justin Raimondo said so!

38

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Tokoya wrote:
lixy wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Then it’s stupid. A minaret is a building, nothing more, nothing less. No different than a Church with a big cross on the top.

It hardly qualifies as a “building”. More like the big cross on top.

If they had that call to prayer, I would agree with banning it- there is no way that a loud voice chanting in arabic is comparable to a church bell- one is way more fucking irritating. If I was a neighbor and had to listen to that shit five times a day I’d be furious.

I get more irritated by church bells. Depending on how close you are, they can make your entire house shake.

But, granted, there is no call to prayer at dawn in churches…

But the building in and of itself is not offensive, and this is kind of ridiculous.

My sentiment exactly.

Have a look at another infamous poster from the people that brought this new law to Switzerland.

http://www.nowpublic.com/politics/svp-poster-media-vendetta

That is offensive.

Muslim protesters pelt Tory peer Baroness Warsi with eggs during walkabout in Luton

Read more: Baroness Warsi is pelted with eggs during a walkabout in Luton | Daily Mail Online

The Swiss are trying to avoid the fate of the British. Perhaps they have seen how muslims treat women they disagree with over there and figure to be proactive.

If we could only be introspective! Justin Raimondo said so!
[/quote]

Ya, if you only could!

Alas you cant so I am happy to provide a mirror.

39

[quote]orion wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
orion wrote:

But banning buildings is so easy!

Dealing with people who deperately want to kill you requires some introspection, an idea why they hate you so much, wether some of their criticism are actually accurate and so on.

Hellz no, let us just demolish something.

At the end of the day, you have to be willing to accept the fact that people may hate you just because you don’t believe the same things they do and don’t worship their god.

Ockham’s razor is helpful here. If there are 2 competing explanations for a phenomenon, both explain the phenomenon fully, and one is more complex than the other, then the simplest one is the most likely. In the case of Islam, you can believe that all of their violence is because Islam has a steady stream of valid grievances against non-Muslims that require warfare and slaughter of infidels.

Or you can believe that they hate you for the same reason Muhammad and his original band hated non-Muslims.

Which fits Ockham’s razor?

Introspection is good, if it’s done with a clear head. Yours is clearly not clear.

Ah, nonsense.

Those who benefit from war will use whatever is fashionable to get war.

Allah, freedom and democracy, class warfare, terrorism, you name it.

They only use what works in a specific culture and they have been far more succesful in the US than in the Middle East.

So please do not preach on how THEIR ideology is hell bent on killing you, whereas YOUR ideology has already killed millions of them.

You see the splinter in the eye of the neighbor and do not care for the beam in yours.

[/quote]
Wrong. And I have evidence to the contrary. In fact, I’ve been calling for us to pull out of everywhere for quite awhile on this forum. You just need to make up my position so that your worldview doesn’t come crashing down.

Please read my “Jihad in the Phillipines” thread. There are a ton of data points outside your “Great Satan/Lesser Satan” framework. If only you were willing to see them.

40

[quote]orion wrote:
valiant knight wrote:
orion wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

Why not? It’s a house of worship. If they’re keeping guns in there, that’s one thing, but from what I can tell it’s just a house of worship. So it’s completely comparable to a church.

Irish,

What evidence would you like us to provide that this is not the case? We’re asserting that mosques are, in fact, places where jihad is planned and the original purpose of the mosque was military in nature. You’re asserting that it is “just a place of worship.” Of course, your statement is based on the assumption that Islam is a religion like any other and doesn’t teach “warfare for the spread of religion” per the 'Umdat al-Salik citing Surahs 9:5 and 9:29 and several ahadith.

I guess what I’m asking is, “What’ll it take for you to change your mind?” Help us help you. Clearly, a lot of people, including Muslims like Ergodan, do not see thing the same way as you.

First, I don’t want to hear that it’s what they were “orginally” used for. Prove that mosques are used for that now, consistently enough to ban them. If that’s the case, they should ban basements, bars, or any meeting place where violence could be planned. Which is everywhere.

The mosque itself is not the problem, it’s the psychos committing crimes. That’s like saying Catholic Churches should be banned in Ireland because the IRA plots from them- it’s a logic failure that puts the crime on the building instead of the terrorist.

But banning buildings is so easy!

Dealing with people who deperately want to kill you requires some introspection, an idea why they hate you so much, wether some of their criticism are actually accurate and so on.

Hellz no, let us just demolish something.

Their religion calls for world domination, that is reason enough. (And even if it didn’t, there’s merit to thinking about preserving the indigenous culture. Especially when it seems far superior. Anyway, this importation is all a ploy by leftist wanna bes dreaming of creating some sort of imperialist super state they can lord over)

Why not just roll over and convert? Well, Islam is incompatible with western civilization and science. There will be a dark age. And I say this as someone who’d make an enthusiastic jihadi

I’m sure there are plenty of nice muslims. Those who will not stand up to Islam will simply become the nice muslims of the future.

Do you really take religion at its face value?

If you did that every religious person was insane.

No, they ignore some passages while upholding others until it fits like a glove.

I wholeheartedly believe that Arabs are just as capable of BS themselves as Americans and Europeans and most especially myself.

[/quote]

Fixed.