Welcome to the Philosophy Forums! If you already are a member, please log in. If you are not a member, please join the forums now. It's completely free, and all viewpoints are welcome.
| View previous topic :: View next topic :: |
pjkeeley
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 649
|
Post: #46  Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 2:30 am Post subject: |
  |
|
|
You are dodging my point, since the last two pages of this thread are not just about the minarets, Juice. I was responding to arguments put foward by lifegazer, and apparently supported by you, that Muslims should be denied some rights one the basis that they do not believe in the political ideals that we do. I was responding to general statements (concerning rights generally) and you are retreating to specific ones (concerning minarets). Minarets aside, my argument in the previous post was a response to the contention that freedom generally needs to be protected by denying the rights of subversives; McCarthyism by any other name.
I am aware that the ban was constitutional and arrived at by popular vote. That is not what is being argued here. We are talking about why such a ban should or shouldn't be put in place. In other words, an argument about the philosophy of politics, not a political argument. You are the one conflating the argument, Juice.
| Juice wrote: |
| ...current controversy is contrived and escalated by Muslim propagandist... |
Irrelevant. I, and presumably many others who care about this issue, aren't interested in what Muslim propagandists or anyone else is saying. I arrived at my thoughts on this issue independently and they are valid on their own merits, so please address what I have said and not what Muslim extremists are saying.
Moreover, if this controversy is contrived, it is because it was brought to attention by far right parties in Switzerland, not by Muslims.
| Juice wrote: |
| You are saying that a law is broken... |
No, I never said that. Read my posts carefully before responding to me as I don't like being misrepresented or having to repeat myself.
| Quote: |
| That has been and is the choice of the Swiss people and who is anyone to tell the Swiss how they should be governed as long as they are a peaceful people, which they are. |
Since when is philosophy supposed to keep out of the affairs of other countries? I'm not allowed to have an opinion on this because I'm not Swiss? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Belinda
Contributor
Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 3868
|
| Post: #47 Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 5:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Alun#42
| Quote: |
| I am saying that nobody should be able to undermine anyone's freedom just because of identity. |
But what about the identity of a habitual rapist? Should he or she not be locked up for the sake of the peaceful majority? I think the clue may lie in how an individual identifies themself. It seems to be a mental habit of some Muslims to identify their very selves with Islamic beliefs, and not the nicest Islamic beliefs.True, some Christians are hardliners too, but Xians dont bomb, repress and kill nowadays as actively some Muslims still do.This is a statistical fact.
Jews are okay in this regard, because hardline Zionists are not identical with Jews.
Religious fanatics who can and do give themselves the power to do violence, whether political or personal, to other people are dangerous, and whenever their thoughts result in violent words or deeds they should be restrained by law.
Minarets are an expression of identity that is not in itself harmful, and I think that such tall phallic symbols may be sufficient to make paranoid religionists of the Muslim sort feel better about themselves and thus less likely to be radicalised. How do psychiatrists treat paranoia?
_________________
Socialist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Simon says...
Joined: 10 Jul 2009
Posts: 627
|
| Post: #48 Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 6:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Lets ask an important question here. Is any islamic style architexture, or was any, actually threatening any swiss historical/cultural landmarks? Because there is a difference between erecting a symbol of Islam in an empty space surrounded by western symbols (i.e. swiss landmarks), which in itself symbolises that islam is a minority power to a much more present cultural identity in switzerland, and actually demolishing a swiss landmark to make way for an islamic style building. Now if the latter was true I would be all for the ban, because that actually is a cultural invasion, whereby your destroying the swiss identity and replacing it with an islamic one, but as far as I know that is not happening, islamic culture is not replacing or threatening to destroy swiss culture.
A lot of people in the UK do not like Indian immigrants because they feel their culture is replacing ours. I do not see that, sure we assimilate elements of it, such as currey for example, but we also adapt it with our own ways. How many times if you go to india will you see lads stumbling into a currey joint after many rounds of lager demanding a vindaloo? That's very british! I see no cultural invasion from india, the british cultural identity is very much alive, you just need to look past the paranoia.
We are not going to be able to work alongside other cultures unless we stop being so afraid of them, and stop segregating ourselves into our little tribal sects! We need to intermingle, learn from each other, accept each other! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lifegazer
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Posts: 499
Location: meaningless concept
|
| Post: #49 Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 6:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| pjkeeley wrote: |
Democracy is not simply mob rule. It is predicated on freedom of thought. If we aren't free to disagree then we aren't free, and whatever form of government we are left with might well be stable, but it won't be democratic.
|
The issue boils down to this: should democracy embrace only those ideals that seek to perpetuate democracy, or not?
You appear to think not. That is, you appear to be open to irreversible democratic demise, by giving freedoms to those ideologies that would not reciprocate, if they attained power.
This has nothing to do with violence, since nobody is saying that the majority of muslims are violent. This is about the survival of democracy itself. And I don't think that those wanting to live in a democracy should open their doors to those that don't. In fact, to do so is really an act of stupidity, if you think about it.
The simple fact is that Islamic politics would irreversibly cut the throat of the values most of us here embrace. And I think you're ignoring that threat. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjkeeley
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 649
|
| Post: #50 Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 7:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| lifegazer wrote: |
| This has nothing to do with violence, since nobody is saying that the majority of muslims are violent. This is about the survival of democracy itself. And I don't think that those wanting to live in a democracy should open their doors to those that don't. In fact, to do so is really an act of stupidity, if you think about it. |
So if we aren't talking about violent overthrow of democracy what are we talking about? I have asked you to be more specific since we started. You mentioning opening our doors... is this a reference to immigration? Fear that Islam might dismantle our system of government by demographic takeover? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lifegazer
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Posts: 499
Location: meaningless concept
|
| Post: #51 Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 7:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| pjkeeley wrote: |
So if we aren't talking about violent overthrow of democracy what are we talking about? I have asked you to be more specific since we started.
|
All that is needed to overthrow democracy, is sufficient voters to bring-to-power an ideology that will.
My concern is that a growing muslim population might eventually seek political representation.
What you are advocating is that we do nothing to stop this from happening, but since Islamic politics amounts to theocracy, it would spell the demise of democracy anyway, assuming the accumulation of sufficient power.
| Quote: |
You mentioning opening our doors... is this a reference to immigration? Fear that Islam might dismantle our system of government by demographic takeover? |
My fear is that if we open our doors to a theocracy, we risk losing our democracy. Therefore, I think that it's in the interest of any democratic state to sanction undemocratic politics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjkeeley
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 649
|
| Post: #52 Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 8:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| lifegazer wrote: |
| All that is needed to overthrow democracy, is sufficient voters to bring-to-power an ideology that will. |
Not necessarily. If you live in the UK, yes. But even with a sufficient majority to form government, many constitutions elsewhere in the world have entrenched clauses. Where I live, it takes what is called a double majority to alter the constitution, which means a majority in both houses as well as a majority of the popular vote and a majority of states voting in favour. If it ever got to the point where that many people wanted to end democracy here, I would be long gone. What's more, some countries have constitutions with absolutely unmodifiable articles. So, for example, it would be impossible to end democracy in Germany by vote.
I think the notion that Muslims are bent on overthrowing Western governments by gradual demographic conquest is an extremely paranoid one. Based on the current rate of immigration, at what point will Muslims (specifically, Muslims favouring a theocracy) comprise a sufficient majority to do so? If this is the basis of your argument then it is something you should be able to predict based on the data. As I said, in my country they would need to comprise a majority of both houses, the states and the popular vote to do so. But many of the Muslims that come to the West do so to escape theocracy, not to push for it here. It just isn't realistic to suggest that a rational basis for denying equal rights to Muslims is that they will eventually overwhelm us demographically. How is that fair on moderate Muslims? What if the rate of immigration decreases and the risk of demographic conquest is averted? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lifegazer
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Posts: 499
Location: meaningless concept
|
| Post: #53 Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 10:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| pjkeeley wrote: |
| lifegazer wrote: |
| All that is needed to overthrow democracy, is sufficient voters to bring-to-power an ideology that will. |
Not necessarily. If you live in the UK, yes. But even with a sufficient majority to form government, many constitutions elsewhere in the world have entrenched clauses. Where I live, it takes what is called a double majority to alter the constitution, which means a majority in both houses as well as a majority of the popular vote and a majority of states voting in favour. If it ever got to the point where that many people wanted to end democracy here, I would be long gone. What's more, some countries have constitutions with absolutely unmodifiable articles. So, for example, it would be impossible to end democracy in Germany by vote.
|
Then maybe the UK has to change its system. As for the German system, I don't see how that could be enforced without physical force (if a party were to attain power and reject it).
| Quote: |
I think the notion that Muslims are bent on overthrowing Western governments by gradual demographic conquest
|
That's not what I actually think. My belief is that muslim populations desire a theocracy, which would be at the expense of democracy. They are not actively seeking to "overthrow" anything. The collapse of Western values would be as a consequence of the emergence of Islamic values... one replacing the other.
| Quote: |
Based on the current rate of immigration, at what point will Muslims (specifically, Muslims favouring a theocracy) comprise a sufficient majority to do so? If this is the basis of your argument then it is something you should be able to predict based on the data.
|
"Another forecast holds that Muslims could outnumber non-Muslims in France and perhaps in all of western Europe by mid-century. Austria was 90 per cent Catholic in the 20th century but Islam could be the majority religion among Austrians aged under 15 by 2050, says Mr Caldwell."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/5 994047/Muslim-Europe-the-demographic-time-bomb-tra nsforming-our-continent.html (see note)
... About a half century in some places, apparently.
| Quote: |
It just isn't realistic to suggest that a rational basis for denying equal rights to Muslims is that they will eventually overwhelm us demographically.
|
The only right I am suggesting that we deny, is the right to have a theocracy.
Note:
You might see the link splitting off half-way
(europe/5 994047). If so, paste the whole thing into the address bar and close the gap. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Juice
Joined: 08 May 2009
Posts: 1971
|
| Post: #54 Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
PJ-This is what I mean by conflating the argument and in so doing feed into Islamic antagonism. The issue of the minarets is not an issue of rights, but of a building decoration, which was put forward for a simple democratic vote and voted down. If we are to accept the premises of progressive democracy then that system worked albeit to the discrimination of the minority, but that is the way a democracy works.
Once again PJ in your OP you specifically bring up the US which has probably the most religious freedom on earth since the early Roman Empire as a means of propagandizing the issue.
The contention is that the natural rights (natural law) of a peoples to freely practice their religion has been compromised or violated, and it simply hasn't. No where have the Swiss denied Muslims the right to practice their religion, and some guy doesn't need an elevated platform to wake others in the morning with singing. Something he can easily do from the ground with a bullhorn. And the attempt to inundate peoples lives with a call to prayers five times a day is intrusive, something that I am sure a great many nonreligious people would find a violation of their rights and not in keeping with a separation of church and state so over inflated here on the states.
It just doesn't matter anyway!! It's the purpose of Islam to spread that religion to all nonbelievers and infidels. It is the purpose of the progressive to take any issue and subvert it for the social justice cause. It is the purpose of the atheist, agnostic and secularist to make sure that religion stays out of the public forum which the Swiss are in violation by them putting a religion in their Constitution. And, finally, it is the purpose of the Swiss to promote, defend and protect their Constitution, their heritage and their religion.
And no one, not one person will come along and suggest a compromise like putting a minaret on hydraulics and keeping the chanting to Islamic Holy Days only and for a specified length of time, except for the only Black Right Wing Christian Conservative on this forum.
Thank You Very Much, Elvis has left the building. (A Minaret on hydraulics would be soooo cool).
_________________
When everyone looks to better their own future then the future will be better for everyone.
An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis
Fight the illusion! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alun
Joined: 11 Jul 2009
Posts: 1021
|
| Post: #55 Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 8:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Belinda wrote: |
| Alun wrote: |
| I am saying that nobody should be able to undermine anyone's freedom just because of identity. |
But what about the identity of a habitual rapist? |
No, the identity of the habitual rapist is irrelevant; the fact that s/he habitually rapes is all that matters.
| Belinda wrote: |
| It seems to be a mental habit of some Muslims to identify their very selves with Islamic beliefs, and not the nicest Islamic beliefs.True, some Christians are hardliners too, but Xians dont bomb, repress and kill nowadays as actively some Muslims still do.This is a statistical fact. |
So? We should imprison people for trying to bomb, repress, or kill, not for belonging to a school of thought that has a bad reputation.
| Belinda wrote: |
| Jews are okay in this regard, because hardline Zionists are not identical with Jews. |
... Are you saying all Muslims are hardline Muslims?
***********
| lifegazer wrote: |
| What you are advocating is that we do nothing to stop this from happening, but since Islamic politics amounts to theocracy, it would spell the demise of democracy anyway, assuming the accumulation of sufficient power. |
Which is in fact the problem with democracy--as opposed to a constitutional democracy. It is illegal for legislators to overturn human rights in the US--it is likewise illegal in Switzerland (see my reply to Juice).
Also, do you have any response to the fact that you are so little different than those you're attacking? (As I emphasized in my previous post.) You want to take away the freedoms of those you vehemently disagree with--lest they take away your freedoms. See the contradiction?
***********
| Juice wrote: |
| If we are to accept the premises of progressive democracy then that system worked albeit to the discrimination of the minority, but that is the way a democracy works. |
From the Constitution of Switzerland:
| Quote: |
Article 8 Equality
(1) All humans are equal before the law.
(2) Nobody may be discriminated against, namely for his or her origin, race, sex, age, language, social position, way of life, religious, philosophical, or political convictions, or because of a corporal or mental disability.
(3) Men and women have equal rights. The law provides for legal and factual equality, particularly in the family, during education, and at the workplace. Men and women have the right to equal pay for work of equal value.
(4) The law provides for measures to eliminate disadvantages of disabled people. |
| Juice wrote: |
| And the attempt to inundate peoples lives with a call to prayers five times a day is intrusive, something that I am sure a great many nonreligious people would find a violation of their rights and not in keeping with a separation of church and state so over inflated here on the states. |
Christian churches ring their bells in the US. Regardless, the call to prayer is not what was outlawed.
_________________
"I have nothing new to teach the world" -Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lifegazer
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Posts: 499
Location: meaningless concept
|
| Post: #56 Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Alun wrote: |
Also, do you have any response to the fact that you are so little different than those you're attacking? (As I emphasized in my previous post.) You want to take away the freedoms of those you vehemently disagree with--lest they take away your freedoms. See the contradiction?
|
The difference between me and them, is that my actions would preserve democracy, whereas theirs would destroy it. So we are not the same.
It's dumb to give freedoms to politicians that will not reciprocate such freedoms. It's as simple as that. A democracy that wants to remain a democracy, can only embrace democratic politics. It's really a no brainer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alun
Joined: 11 Jul 2009
Posts: 1021
|
| Post: #57 Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
You would not reciprocate such freedoms. You want to take freedom from them. Hence, you do not embrace democratic politics.
_________________
"I have nothing new to teach the world" -Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Juice
Joined: 08 May 2009
Posts: 1971
|
| Post: #58 Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Article 8 Equality
(1) All humans are equal before the law.
(2) Nobody may be discriminated against, namely for his or her origin, race, sex, age, language, social position, way of life, religious, philosophical, or political convictions, or because of a corporal or mental disability.
(3) Men and women have equal rights. The law provides for legal and factual equality, particularly in the family, during education, and at the workplace. Men and women have the right to equal pay for work of equal value.
(4) The law provides for measures to eliminate disadvantages of disabled people. |
Alun-I don't see anything in there about building design unless you are suggesting that a minaret has something to do with the disabled? Are you comparing an Islamic call to prayers with the 10-20 or 30 second ringing of bells?
While it may be true that not all Muslims are radical cultural infiltrators it is a fact that many Muslims are at war with the west, western culture and western Judeo-Christian religions and it appears that no amount of capitulation on the wests part is likely to quell the advance anytime soon and as lifegazer intimates it is better to be safe than sorry given the obvious intentions of Islamic radical fascist. It would be self delusional not to be wary about the motivations of Muslims given the methods they are willing to employ in order to advance their ideologies.
I'm sorry but this is the world they have created for themselves and since a religion is not a color, or a sex, or an age, or language a mindset is very difficult to defend against.
I have shared that my best friend is Pakistani. I go to his fathers house and eat whatever is put in front of me. Odd, that in some cultures a person is always considered a guest, regardless of how many times he has been there, and the first thing that is done is that you are fed. Americans are different, one better be invited before food is offered and if you are a steady guest well just help yourself. Anyway, my friends parents never come to my home and the reason is due to the strict food restrictions. We always have pretty good talks and his father even cried over 911. For some reason that really didn't bother me too much until this thread and now I feel kind of insulted. Funny thing, prejudice, it spreads like it was always there anyway.
_________________
When everyone looks to better their own future then the future will be better for everyone.
An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis
Fight the illusion! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alun
Joined: 11 Jul 2009
Posts: 1021
|
| Post: #59 Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Juice, you admit that the Swiss are discriminating against a religion, yet you do not see how this conflicts with the constitutional mandate:
| Constitution of Switzerland wrote: |
| Nobody may be discriminated against, namely for his or her origin, race, sex, age, language, social position, way of life, religious, philosophical, or political convictions, or because of a corporal or mental disability. |
And yes I have a sense of humor, I just cannot find this topic funny anymore. But thanks for trying.
_________________
"I have nothing new to teach the world" -Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lifegazer
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Posts: 499
Location: meaningless concept
|
| Post: #60 Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Alun wrote: |
| You would not reciprocate such freedoms. You want to take freedom from them. Hence, you do not embrace democratic politics. |
I embrace democratic politics that embrace democratic politics.
In your system, we should allow commies and nazis and theocracies and alsorts of racist fascists all the freedoms we afford to any political party, as long as they act within the law. And trust to God that they never come into power. Your democracy teeters upon a knife-edge, awaiting disaster. If and when that happens, you will be to blame for the consequences as much as whatever of those ideologies takes power. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
