Print

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

[zchris13]

Just wondering, how often do people see minarets in the US? I'm not trying to relate the US to these guys but I'm just interested.

Never.

[G-Flex]

There's a mosque pretty close to me with a minaret, but it's small and doesn't really stand out at all (I'm not even sure I'd call it one).

There certainly ARE mosques in the US with more-prominent ones, though. Mosques just aren't that common because the Muslim population isn't all that huge.

[Jude]

There are mosques with minarets in the US although I haven't seen them in person.

There is a mosque near my house which is actually in an old converted movie theater from the 40s. There's also an Islamic school which looks vaguely middle eastern in its architecture. Neither has a minaret though. There are probably also Nation of Islam mosques, and those guys are so wacko they probably don't even have minarets, or five prayers a day for that matter.

Still, even if the majority of Americans opposed letting minarets be built, such a law would be completely unconstitutional and could never stand. Hell, I'm pretty sure no mosques in America broadcast amplified calls to prayer, but it's hard to make a case against those. Noise violations? OK, what about church bells?

For once, I'm really proud of America vs. Europe.

[Electronic Phantom]

Ah, Jude, it's called cultural memory.  The last time the muslims came to Europe en masse, they came bearing a sword and a command for all to bow to Allah.

For General Consumption:  I would like to point out that the mass-killings ordered in the Old Testament are specific orders.  They were not meant to be generalized and carried on through the centuries.  That would be akin, for an American example, to picking up a history book and then deciding to pull a Sherman through the Southern states... just because the order was replicated in that particular book.

G-Flex : Until they get some sort of liberal revision to the text, I think that most (non-Islamic) folks are going to stay rather leery of some rather specific commands of the Quran.  Those specific commands which you gloss over as 'not being apart of' Orthadox Islam.  There are some rather recent Christian martyrs who would disagree with you.

Also, on topic: While, culterally (I'm going to set aside ethics and morals for the moment), I don't agree with that particular law (was it passed?)... I can see where it comes from.  Somebody was doing some research, and made some comparisons from history to modern day.  And this is one such response.

-(e)EP

[Zangi]

Any example of em christian martyrs?

Anyways, I can see it now... missionaries and the likes heading into Islam territory... looking to convert the heathens from their violent religion.
Total War games style.

[ChairmanPoo]

Beyond annoying the swiss muslims, and possibly generating diplomatical crisis for the swiss, what's this law supposed to achieve?

[sonerohi]

My area has no Islamic families, at all. A quick drive to the east though, and I found a mosque which, was pretty cool. Didn't see any miniarets, but I'm not sure if I was looking thoroughly enough in the right places.

[Jude]

For General Consumption:  I would like to point out that the mass-killings ordered in the Old Testament are specific orders.  They were not meant to be generalized and carried on through the centuries. 

Well, same goes for Islam. The Old Testament DOES contain commands (with no qualification for when to stop following them) to kill people for all kinds of things that we don't even consider immoral anymore, much less sins or crimes. Same, I would assume, with Islam and Islamic law. The point being, both religions lend themselves or lent themselves very well to bloodthirst and slaughter, but that doesn't necessarily have a bearing on how the people currently following the religion behave.

You have Islamic fundamentalists willing to kill civilians to achieve their goals, let's say, the goal of purifying Islamic society from western influence. They're a small minority. You have Jewish fundamentalists willing to kill civilians (or destroy the lives of civilians) in order to achieve their goals, primarily the re-conquest of the "land of Israel." They're a small minority. The  rest of the members of the religions are basically regular people; they may buy into ideologies of violence that are practiced by the minorities but they don't do it themselves; they just live their lives much like anybody else. That's the point. Plenty of Christians in America and, I would think, Europe, buy into horribly violent ideologies about how it's OK to invade countries or fund coups in countries, smash them to bits and leave them in ruins while trying to force your method of government on them. Isn't that a hell of a lot more dangerous than Islamic fundamentalism, given that those people have massive militaries on their side?

[Zangi]

Beyond annoying the swiss muslims, and possibly generating diplomatical crisis for the swiss, what's this law supposed to achieve?

A nice big... 'Please, bomb me.' sign... ?


Ah yes... the tried and 'true'... 
"My way is over 9000% better.  Do it my way voluntarily or I'll make you."
*Waves around coup hammer menacingly and while listening to the Ivade Pod.*  Or some variation...

Religion as history showed, on multiple occasions can be similar...

I have to agree with Jude, not everyone is a radical.  There will always be more moderates then the likes...

[Dwarf]

Beyond annoying the swiss muslims, and possibly generating diplomatical crisis for the swiss, what's this law supposed to achieve?

Banning buildings which seem to prevent the integration of muslims, are destroying our culture, and give Qadaffi the power over Switzerland.

[Cheeetar]

Is that post in support of the law or just trying to give an intolerant prick's viewpoint?

[Jude]

Beyond annoying the swiss muslims, and possibly generating diplomatical crisis for the swiss, what's this law supposed to achieve?

Banning buildings which seem to prevent the integration of muslims, are destroying our culture, and give Qadaffi the power over Switzerland.

What?

[Dwarf]

Is that post in support of the law or just trying to give an intolerant prick's viewpoint?

Sarcasm.

No, really, the argumentation is shaky, the only argument which holds ground bein 'that mosques are not a building of belief, but of power', which is very debatable.

[Timst]

It's too bad they only banned minarets. I'd love to see a country ban all forms of religious building if only to observe the effects.
Would people freak out or would most just continue on as usual?
I'm not really sure how it is in other parts of the world, but over here most people are astoundingly apathetic about religion in general. They may be protestants/catholics/muslims/etc but it seems like religion isn't a major part of many people's lives.
I mean, the most apathetic of religion (teens, young adults) are usually the most politically active.

There are always outliers, but I think it'd be interesting to see how the majority of the population would react.

I'd love to see that too.

I think that where I live (france), there won't be so much noise (well, everyone will protest that the country is turning into a dictatorship, but they do that all the time), for the simple reason that nobody care about religion, except the elderly, north-african migrants, and the odd rich, conservative family.
Religious influence on politics is nonexistent, religious items and symbols are forbidden in civil buildings (schools, hospitals...), and going to church on sunday is like the most ridiculous thing ever.

So I guess that if they have no choice, people will adapt remarkably well. Sure they'll rant, but otherwise, my country is so secularized that it won't change anything at our daily live.

[G-Flex]

It would be an interesting experiment, just an awful violation of people's basic rights.

I think it would lead to a worse religious situation overall; even relatively-irreligious countries still have religion, and stepping all over that might not be terribly wise.

Of course, I don't think I'm saying anything that isn't obvious to begin with here.


Really, I just wish religious organizations here (in the US) were treated as if they were any other organization. In other words, I wish the fact that they're religious just didn't enter the equation at all; a nonprofit is a nonprofit, and if your religious organization doesn't even meet the definition of one of those (Scientology, anyone?) then something's wrong.