Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[JoshuaFH]

I'm not adding anything, I just want this in "Show new replies" thingy.

[Cheeetar]

but you'd be deluded to think that some cultures aren't more desirable than others.

And by some cultures, you mean your culture, right?

[G-Flex]

Yes, and his way to suppress the more undesirable parts of other people's culture is to ban the construction of parts of their religious buildings, thereby affecting the people who are harming the society-at-large while sending a very positive, warm, and welcoming message to those Muslims who are perfectly peaceful and moderate.

Nothing says "ignore your more hateful brethren, embrace our culture while retaining elements of your own heritage" like refusing them constitutionally-guaranteed rights to build religious structures.

[Strife26]

Welcome to democracy comrades.

The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

-Winston Churchill.

I see a couple of fun issues we can discuss:

1) What happens when a democracy votes for something wrong?
     -Definition of wrong? Ex. Emp. Napoleon was voted and supported by his people!
     -Democracy itself is flawed?

2) Should Switzerland have done it?


In my mind, the will of the people must be second to morality. However, this gets us to the ever tricky problem of morality itself. Case A: Napoleon. He was kinda voted in and almost certainly commanded outstanding public support (especially the fact that Turn French Army was an inate power of his). Sure, he invaded Europe, which wasn't the best (of course, K&B hadn't made their pact yet). However, France would have been invaded if he hadn't attacked (which gets us to the question of a democraticish tyrant vs absolute monarchies (or hellholes, depending)).

In the case of banning Muslim-tower thingees (blatant disrespect to distract from the fact that Case A doesn't have a B and was there as a thought provoker, I'm not fleshing out the pro/anti Nap. sides here) we have two principle issues at stake. Morality and Democracy.

Morally speaking, it's pretty clearly wrong. It's a specific strike against a religion.

Democratically speaking, it's pretty clearly voted on. If my NPRatastic memory is correct, is passed with 57% of the vote.

There are two real solutions that I can figure out. Option 1, fight the man with the man against the people. The amount you fight back has to be directly proportional to the offense (which gets into messy areas like points of treason and the like). For example, activism is about the only thing you could do here, because you can still be Muslim (and, as far as I know, still build mosques) just not the towers. Really, one could compare it to a law that says you can't build giant dick shaped buildings. Immoral, true, but there isn't any real recourse against it that isn't overblown.

The real problem here is Democracy. Democracy in the raw sucks. Go back to the quote.
About here, start to imagine a giant American flag lowering behind me, a la Patton
Pure democracy is little more than mob rule, and the mob will make dumb-ass decisions when inflamed (Let's kick out nice guy Brutus and put Antony in power!! Yay!). The issue then becomes one of government. In the United States start suitably partiotic music. Battle Hymn of the Republic works, a law like this wouldn't work. Even if 57 (hell, call it 78) percent of the population wanted it, it wouldn't have the force of law. The House, being more democratic part of Congress might pass it, but Senators, many of whom don't have to face election for awhile (which is there for this exact same reason, to keep them away from common passions). If it got through that, the President could veto (or decide that he's going to ignore it, a fun little power of his), even if he didn't, or it was overturned (requiring 2/3 of all of Congress), it'd be struck down in a heartbeat by Supreme Court.
Fade lights on flag, music dampens and gets replaced by something else, like Amaranth (the instrumental).
Now, I'm not sure about the system over there (despite the fact that Switzerland is the Astrix country on my list of "Nations not going to stab us in the back" I'm not well versed in any countries government except my own), but it's telling of an over-democratic system if it carries the force of law.

Bygones must be bygones though. The Swiss are the Swiss, we can't change the government retroactively (pay no attention to the time machine behind the curtain). So, in my mind, there are going to be a couple of effects.

1) The UN human rights committee (or bloody anti-semetic, anti-US hypocritical subset of an already useless organization as I like to call them) will mumble a complaint, which will be signed by a couple of other countries. They will then go back to their paper proclaiming that Israel's main power source (used primarily for enriching uranium to nuke the vatican) runs on the severed thumbs and big toes of Palestinian children.*

2a) In a few years Switzerland will repeal the law, collectively look back, and ask "what the hell were we thinking?"

2b (the only works in the highly general sense, I am in no way shape form or style predicting this)** Switzerland will become increasingly anti-islamic and eventually kick them out. The people will put a semi-tyrannical anti-Islam party into power and either angrily become a rouge state or invade/ be invaded by someone.

Effectively, this is Democracy self moderating or becoming radical until it becomes undemocratic and must be moderated by outside democratic forces.



So, I'm not sure what point I've made, but I'm going back to Oedipus now. Kay?
Notes:

*My tangent take that to the BASAUSHSOAAUO isn't party of this debate. Feel free to make a new thread if you want me to vent on that,

** In the very unlikely event that Switzerland actually follows 2b, then I reserve the right to remove all mentions of ** to allow me to claim awe inspiring foresight and marshal my own private group of followers. I also apologize to the entire world. As it would be a bloody mess.


I had a lot of trouble spelling 'Swisserlend' in the course of this writing. And I'm on a Strife classic sleep dep. cycle right now, so this might not make sense. There's some good thought provoking stuff buried deep down though. I think.

Heh 5 new replies.
 

[Dwarf]

Switzerland has historically been a fine example of how multiculturalism can work but you'd be deluded to think that some cultures aren't more desirable than others.

Since the people voted for this law (in our semi-direct democracy), one could say that the bigger part of the Swiss population are exactly what the thread title suggests.

The problem with voting directly on issues is that people are easily swayed and convinced and shaken up. People can get misguided onto bandwagons pretty easily, and that applies to just about any nation. They all have issues like that, and will tend to engage in seriously stupid kneejerk reactions as a result. It's more a problem with direct democracy than with anything, although I agree that there are actual cultural issues here.

Stupid groupthink like this tends to take relatively small social problems and inflate them to gigantic proportions to make them look worse than they otherwise would. Of course, making them more obvious can be a good thing, because then it's easier to point them out and fix them.

I guess what I'm saying here is that, given direct voting on issues like that, most societies would engage in idiotic kneejerk reactions given the right circumstances and a bit of cultural conflict.

Actually, you're very right. I am disappointed and annoyed that
1) some redneck party can direct the sheep with half-truths (well, about 25% of the population are avid SPP voters anyway, voting for anything the SPP supports.)

and
2) that people believe the crap they're churning out.

[Strife26]

Actually, you're very right. I am disappointed and annoyed that
1) some redneck party can direct the sheep with half-truths (well, about 25% of the population are avid SPP voters anyway, voting for anything the SPP supports.)

and
2) that people believe the crap they're churning out.

Before everyone gets pissy at me for being anti-muslim (not that it's a certainty, but when it happens the fourth time, I get cautious), I have only the deepest respect for moderate and liberal elements of Islam, and have several good friends who are Muslim.

1. So you're saying that your judgment of the primary political party in Switzerland is "That there redneck party" therefore they must be lying? This could veer off into questions about political elite and all, but I'd just like to declare that you can't just call most of a country sheep and get away with it. I can, with just as much basis (and, thanks to a basic grasp of logic, reasoning) that you are simply a sheep to the agenda of the LCS (not that you are Dwarf, but there is as much evidence).

2. Obviously, they don't have a right to revoke building of structures that do have negative effects on a number of things and represent a religon that is the primary holder of draconian policies that represent the greatest burden to advancement. (Note that one could make the same claim about the Old Testament / Torah, but they tend to get downplayed by the Jewish and Christian churches). Do they have the right to deny the right of the church of giant rocket ship to build churches? Or better yet, the church of placing posters of Mohamed everywhere?

[Dwarf]

Actually, you're very right. I am disappointed and annoyed that
1) some redneck party can direct the sheep with half-truths (well, about 25% of the population are avid SPP voters anyway, voting for anything the SPP supports.)

and
2) that people believe the crap they're churning out.

Before everyone gets pissy at me for being anti-muslim (not that it's a certainty, but when it happens the fourth time, I get cautious), I have only the deepest respect for moderate and liberal elements of Islam, and have several good friends who are Muslim.

1. So you're saying that your judgment of the primary political party in Switzerland is "That there redneck party" therefore they must be lying? This could veer off into questions about political elite and all, but I'd just like to declare that you can't just call most of a country sheep and get away with it. I can, with just as much basis (and, thanks to a basic grasp of logic, reasoning) that you are simply a sheep to the agenda of the LCS (not that you are Dwarf, but there is as much evidence).

2. Obviously, they don't have a right to revoke building of structures that do have negative effects on a number of things and represent a religon that is the primary holder of draconian policies that represent the greatest burden to advancement. (Note that one could make the same claim about the Old Testament / Torah, but they tend to get downplayed by the Jewish and Christian churches). Do they have the right to deny the right of the church of giant rocket ship to build churches? Or better yet, the church of placing posters of Mohamed everywhere?

1. Yes, they were blatantly lying on some topics, and shaping the masses with half-truths. It's a fact.

2. Sorry, I don't get your point.

[John Hopoate]

Switzerland has historically been a fine example of how multiculturalism can work but you'd be deluded to think that some cultures aren't more desirable than others.

Yes, and arbtirarily refusing a religious group to build common structures of theirs (while apparently defying the Swiss constitution and, arguably, international law Switzerland ostensibly abides by) is going to make them so much more tolerant of Western ideals and society, and show the more moderate Muslims so much support.

I never said that the amendment was was a good idea, only that you shouldn't label your countrymen racists or xenophobes just because they're worried about the very obvious negative consequences of Islamic migration to Europe.

but you'd be deluded to think that some cultures aren't more desirable than others.

And by some cultures, you mean your culture, right?

If you bothered to read what I wrote you'd see that I gave a specific example of an ethno-religious immigrant group that doesn't inspire hatred or cause a disproportionate number of social problems. Why doesn't anyone in Australia ever talk about the problems associated with "Buddhist Immigration" or "Hindu Immigration" despite the significant numbers of Buddhists and Hindus in this country?

[Strife26]

Dwarf, you are overly dichotomous. Your side has only the right, and the opposing side can do nothing but wrong. Welcome to the real world, it's gray and slightly lighter gray. If you want to claim that Islamic migration hasn't had a negative effect in Europe, I recommend that you find some sand to bury your head under.

[ChairmanPoo]

Immigration in general has positive and negative aspects. It's not exclusive of muslim immigrants.

And btw: generalizing all muslims as violent is just as bad as generalizing all americans as idiots (about which you complained elsewhere...)

[Strife26]

I didn't (I included a note about it), however, there HAS been a negative effect due to Muslim populations, largely due to the earlier brought up fact that passions are easy to inflame. It's the same with any cultural group (Look up the trials of Sacco and some guy who started with a V). When you haven't joined with a country to enough of a degree, you stick together. Effectively (and this is often the case, I'd use the examples of St Paul's Somali community, recruiting fighters for terrorists), you end up with a splinter country that will self-extremate (the crazies are usually the loudest).



You'll note that I despise the law in question. However, it does have positive effects, mainly helping prevent Muslim communities from obvious focal points (areas of power?) to bolster them getting in with the general country.

[ChairmanPoo]

I dont know. If they feel discriminated that might impulse them even further to ghettos and the arms of the radicals...

as for the problem, as I said, it's more due to immigration in general than muslim immigration in particular, I think. Other immigrant groups elsewhere can be just as troublesome.

[Strife26]

Exactly, it's just Muslim immigrants that are there right now.

[G-Flex]

I didn't (I included a note about it), however, there HAS been a negative effect due to Muslim populations, largely due to the earlier brought up fact that passions are easy to inflame. It's the same with any cultural group (Look up the trials of Sacco and some guy who started with a V). When you haven't joined with a country to enough of a degree, you stick together. Effectively (and this is often the case, I'd use the examples of St Paul's Somali community, recruiting fighters for terrorists), you end up with a splinter country that will self-extremate (the crazies are usually the loudest).



You'll note that I despise the law in question. However, it does have positive effects, mainly helping prevent Muslim communities from obvious focal points (areas of power?) to bolster them getting in with the general country.

Making Muslims communities appear illegitimate will only foster these problems in the first place. They have to make it clear that it's not Islam they're fighting, just the radical reactionary/fundamentalist Islam, otherwise you're going to have Muslim groups cohering anyway, and they'll just be even more pissed off.

If you want to fight radical Islam, fight radical Islam, not Islam or the Muslim people as a whole. Educate people, make sure Muslims get well-treated/assimilated in the culture, or something, but don't do this, because it's extremely counterproductive and will only lead to more hate and marginalization.

If a group is feeling marginalized and militant, the last thing you need to do is give them a reason to be by singling out their culture and religion (not just the "bad culture" that some of them possess) and treating it as "the problem".

[John Hopoate]

G-Flex, the problem is that what we conveniently label "Radical Islam" is actually Orthodox Islam, if you read the Quran and the Hadiths (I don't recommend this, it's really time consuming and soul destroying) you'll come to understand this. There really aren't two ways about it, the Quran isn't interpreted as an eyewitness account of events written by a potentially flawed human being like the Christian bible or the Torah, it's considered to be a direct, infallible transcription from God himself with very limited room for critique or interpretation. Men like Sayyid Qutb or Osama Bin Laden who you'd like to label as "radicals" are actually modern day Martin Luthers, they've been trying to liberate Islam from it's materialistic and worldly corruption and bring it back to it's original principles.

Dwarf Fortress isn't exactly a low-brow game so lets be realistic here, I don't expect that you've read much of the original material but most educated people are aware that Islam is not a "religion of peace", in fact their scriptures have some pretty fucked up shit, the Einsatzgruppen-style mass beheading and burial of the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe is one of the gorier examples that is often used. Basically Muslims are expected to revere Muhammad as a man who lived a "perfect life" despite the fact that he violated two of the greatest social taboos of our era, he massacred Jews in a manner eerily similar to Nazi death squads and he sexually molested a young girl.

A couple of years ago I dated a girl who was raised as a Muslim, he mother was a Muslim from Bangladesh and her father was an Irish-Australian fake convert who drank beer and ate bacon. Basically I mocked her religion while flirting with her and not only did I win her heart, I got her to seriously re-consider her values. It didn't work out between me and her but she's now drinking beer and eating bacon just like her dad so I feel that I've done a good deed. My experience made me wonder if we couldn't get Muslims to abandon Islam en-masse if we were a less tolerant society, if Islam were to be widely mocked and many Muslims were to ashamed and embarrassed to admit let alone explain their faith, we could probably thin out their numbers quite a bit.