The Minaret Ban Controversy

page: 9
9
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 06:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


One a postmodernist perspective, their perception of their seemingly consensual, homogeneous timeless culture yes is a figment of their imagination. But maybe so is their perception of a foreign seemingly consensual and homogeneous culture?
I find religion objectable. Spirituality is the development of the individual, religion is a behavioural-conditioning grid imposed by older generations.
But nevertheless, I can't blame the muslim religion. Why? Because it nevertheless what kind of islamo-fascism might be abundant depends on how the individual acts upon his believes or sentiments.
Some people will blow themselves up even though the Qran doesn't particularily encourage suicide and the death of an innocent human is paramount to killing humanity. If you go a little south on this blue ball called earth, you'll find patriarchal societies that disfigure womens' genitals because they think they should take the fun out of procreation. At least for the girls that is of course, because men still need the motivation whereas women already have the motivation of carrying the responsibility for harbouring and nurishing a family and basically being enslaved by men. Whatever.

Just recently some dude from an egyptian university who wrote an exegetical work on the qran and coincidentally was described as equaling the head of the Sunni muslims told a girl to remove her headscarf, reassuring her that he had his sh*t together on religious concerns.

People will do anything if they an incentive for it and some rage-boys sadly make up 100% of our stereotypical mental depictions of muslim crowds. That is because it's only the rage-boys that we ever have to really deal with so we have an archetype planted by the media. Why? Because some people were on television protesting against whatever wrongdoing they saw fit to demonstrate against.

And I don't see them going on about indian Hindus but about ..us whites in general I believe....That's because India isn't nearly as much a hegemonial power as america is the designated schoolyard-bully of the planet.

So everybody frets for their rights because you got some brown people around. Well what happens at worst? Not everybody who's born muslim is fanatic, and probably there's quite some who aren't even religious. Some muslims are white in fact. And some muslims actually favour making life a living hell for other muslims. And we think we're so darn important that they're all in on it and will change the law here...Yeah fine for me. You say the great thing about switzerland is the involvement of the population (now that really is great!) And that majority rule doesn't necessarily legitimate every decision but nevertheless enforces them in this particular context. So if Islam is the "fastest spreading" religion on the world they'd probably have a better chance at manipulating us. I mean, imagine there's 95 percent Muslims in the world, who should honestly care about anybody else? The swiss apparently have a need to be concerned about what noisy rituals their nationals engage in. Should muslims actually be the majority, the same logic of "democracy" should be applied.

But what do you even mean by "fastest growing"? If they're getting too much children and constitute the major homogeneous group on the planet, sure you would embody the frightening lefty-totalitarism by challenging the authority of a majority-rule.

I believe muslims are just like us when it comes to being scared of thy neighbour. Maybe all the anger is just an act of desperation. On any side.

As for the town councils uhm...If they have a problem with the chanting, get rid of it. But prohibiting minaretts is just a cock-fight between mosques and churches, about who can blare the most and who's got the tallest standing phallic structure in town. That's just about self-preservation mechanisms of abstract ideas.




posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by thricearound
I find religion objectable.


I used to find it very objectionable, but intolerance begets intolerance so Ive gone from "very objectionable" to "sometimes questionable".

There are different versions of what religion can be from the most abhorrent -



disfigure womens' genitals because they think they should take the fun out of procreation.


to the most beautiful (check out the artwork on some mosques).

______________________________________

As for all other things said by you and all the other posters here, I feel like I am that neighbour standing in my garden listening to endless recitations, histories and excuses when all I want is for those weeds not to grow into my garden.

And the ONLY real objection to that is

"Well, it should be a garden owned by all".

So, looking deeper the agenda turns out to be Communist/Anarchist.

[edit on 17-12-2009 by Skyfloating]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by mattpryor
reply to post by The time lord
 


Most Muslim-dominated countries are intolerant and backward because they've remained pretty much unchanged for centuries or even millennia, until the 20th century happened.

That doesn't mean we have to be like them. In fact we should be setting an example of tolerance of each others' beliefs if we expect them to improve.


I think that pretty much sums up everything.

Good Post!



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 07:58 AM
link   
Wow what a mess. I had been completely staying out of all the threads dealing with the Swiss Minaret ban. Upon first hearing about it, I sided with those against the ban because I thought the ban was completely prejudiced. Within the Swiss' democratic structure, of course, and they have the right to run their country as they see fit but my first instinct was to compare the vote to Jefferson's description of democracy in that it is like two wolves and one lamb voting on what to have for dinner.

Then I was told minarets are not simply architecture but actual towers to blast speakers from five times a day. Then I started seeing everyone who had a problem with this being labeled Islamaphobic (often by the SAME members I see ranting all over the boards about 'fundies' and Christians never shutting up about the Bible). Should I call these people 'Christphobes' if they don't want me standing on their front lawn with a loudspeaker chanting Bible verses?

The hypocrisy and seeing how it's more of a noise ordinance issue (which the Swiss are very strict on) caused me to change my mind and agree with those who support the ban. I find the Bible beautiful and reading the New Testament especially gets me 'spiritually aroused' and happy. But I STILL wouldn't want it blasted in a tower by my house five times a day.

I lost a lot of respect for people in this thread who I see CONSTANTLY railing against Christians for infringing on their space by 'preaching' but then they accuse others of prejudice when they have issues with loudspeakers.

Damn the PC hypocrisy. Mindless people. If you were TRULY genuine in your defense of human rights, you would NOT pick and choose to only defend the PC causes. You would stand up for EVERYONE- not just who you were mindlessly programmed to defend.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 





Damn the PC hypocrisy. Mindless people. If you were TRULY genuine in your defense of human rights, you would NOT pick and choose to only defend the PC causes. You would stand up for EVERYONE- not just who you were mindlessly programmed to defend.


do you really see this as being about picking on Christians?

can you not see that standing up for one group is in fact standing up for everyone?

you see that as hypocrisy?

do you believe I am mindless?



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
do you really see this as being about picking on Christians?


I must say she makes a strong point - the same people who are offended by Christmas trees are suddenly not offended by Minarets.



can you not see that standing up for one group is in fact standing up for everyone?


The halfmoon in your avatar and you going from thread to thread defending Islam means you are defending everyone?

Or does it mean that you are taking sides? There would be no problem taking sides if you quit pretending that you are not.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 



do you really see this as being about picking on Christians?

can you not see that standing up for one group is in fact standing up for everyone?


You misunderstand and are comparing apples to oranges. With what you are saying, yes. When you stand up for the part, you stand up for all. Like in a 'FIRST THEY CAME' scenario. Don't give the 'haters' an inch to take us down one by one. Which is why at first I was completely against the ban.

But it is a completely different story when I see the same people trashing one religion's preaching but accusing others of bigotry if they have a problem with another religion's preaching. Or seeing some TRASH one gender but defend another against stereotypes. Or TRASH one race but call it racism to trash another. Or criticize one culture's foibles but will defend the grossest of atrocities as 'respecting culture' for another.

If they weren't fakes simply regurgitating their programming, they'd be applying their virtuous disagreement to all types. Either critical of all or defensive of all. Not being brainwashed people who salivate at the thought of attacking Group A but defending the SAME BEHAVIOR in Group B.

And that is what I saw occurring in this thread. The self righteous indignation and accusations against the OP for 'trolling' and being 'phobic' when those same members express the same kind of thoughts against others. It's not 'phobic' to not want to hear city noise blasted five times a day. I get irritated simply hearing the high school band practice in the distance. I'm not 'music phobic.'



do you believe I am mindless?


I have never seen you trash one group and defend another for the same thing so you're not part of what I describe above.

[edit on 12/17/2009 by AshleyD]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 09:11 AM
link   
wow - you're fast :-)



But it is a completely different story when I see the same people trashing one religion's preaching but accusing others of bigotry if they have a problem with another religion's preaching. Or seeing some TRASH one gender but defend another against stereotypes. Or TRASH one race but call it racism to trash another. Or criticize one culture's foibles but will defend the grossest of atrocities as 'respecting culture' for another.


welcome to the wonderful world of the Politically Correct Ashley - defender of unfair percentages and the downtrodden :-)

it’s about balance – and there is no way in heaven or in hell you can do it without pissing people off - sometimes these people – sometimes those people...

I hate those same things – those unbalanced views – they get on my very last nerve :-)


If they weren't fakes simply regurgitating their programming, they'd be applying their virtuous disagreement to all types. Either critical of all or defensive of all. Not being brainwashed people who salivate at the thought of attacking Group A but defending the SAME BEHAVIOR in Group B.


of apples and oranges – there are different people that make up all groups. Simplistic but true. Not something that needs to be explained

However brainwashing is pretty common from group to group – and regurgitation too

Doesn’t make them fakes or hypocrites – just means they’re angry about something that the other doesn't see


And that is what I saw occurring in this thread. The self righteous indignation and accusations against the OP for 'trolling' and being 'phobic' when those same members express the same kind of thoughts against others.


a knee jerk reaction - in some instances

anyone who follows the OP and knows him at all knows this isn't true

I think it was the wrong thread at the wrong time – and it came with an accusation right at the very start

it would be easy to say to not take things personally

but life is personal – and we were standing right there – in the room


I have never seen you trash one group and defend another for the same thing so you're not part of what I describe above.


I appreciate that – seriously – I do

I think we should all try and remember that we all have our reasons – and that they are hardly ever mindless

our reasons and our beliefs are usually personal – that’s why all the fire when they’re attacked



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 





I must say she makes a strong point - the same people who are offended by Christmas trees are suddenly not offended by Minarets.


yeah - you're right - and Christmas trees are pretty quiet too :-)

but I jest


The halfmoon in your avatar and you going from thread to thread defending Islam means you are defending everyone?


oh Sky...

a big problem with being a symbolist is that everyone assumes that everything means something. Sometimes it does - sometimes it doesn't - the crescent is just pretty - nothing more - focus on the monkey with the wings

(I can see I chose the wrong avatar for today - figures you'd be the one to spot it)

also - I don't post in that many threads - Islam isn't a theme - but it's been on my mind lately - that much is true


Or does it mean that you are taking sides? There would be no problem taking sides if you quit pretending that you are not.


you're usually on patrol in most of the threads I post in - you should have a feel for me by now - what do you think?

:-)

I lean a little bit more one way - you lean a little bit more the other - that's about the extent of it I think



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 11:49 AM
link   
This entire PC argument is insane. It just cannot happen. The world is not a perfect place and it never will be. Do not get me wrong, I would love it if we could all get along and share our differences but it does not happen. See what happens when you try to accommodate everyone? Someone is always offended or feels their rights are trampled. Lines have to be drawn somewhere. It is human nature. People naturally gravitate toward like minded groups. We naturally segregate. I am not sure how that is linked in to this but there is just no way to make everyone happy because some people's happiness interferes with that of others. You have to decide who gets to be happy. It just can never be everyone so how do you decide who to piss off? I say you go with the people that came late to the party. Sorry, you should have planted a flag here first but you did not so you have to deal with our rules. You can always go back to a place where minarets are plentiful and loud.
If you do not believe my premise, try something for me. The next time you are around 5 or more acquaintances, not friends, start expressing your feelings on religion and the president. In no time, you will see how people are not interested in sharing differences as much as they are in hating differences. People just plain suck but it is natural for us. Look at wild dogs. There is a reason packs are made up of like breeds.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
I used to find it very objectionable, but intolerance begets intolerance so Ive gone from "very objectionable" to "sometimes questionable".

There are different versions of what religion can be from the most abhorrent -

to the most beautiful (check out the artwork on some mosques).
____________________

So, looking deeper the agenda turns out to be Communist/Anarchist.

[edit on 17-12-2009 by Skyfloating]


That's actually a strong argument, and I starred you for it.
I think I need to add something about my post-modernism first- which is, given I don't care about perpetuating the culture of the society that I have happened to be born in, I don't care what culture might take over either because it'll show somebody that culture in the subjective perception isn't timeless.

By "objectable" (which of course is subject to a grave grammatical error on my part which I may excuse I hope) I don't think that we should abolish it -probably because my post-modernism doesn't know law xD
But I think that religious perception is waaaay on the wrong track. Imagine all the people who find blasphemy heretic- well, if they think some statement or piece of art (keep the mohammed cartoons in mind if ya'll please) can dishonour god then they first need to antropomorphise god in order to make the blasphemy work. I know that because I used to have compulsive blasphemic thoughts on my own when I was younger but at some point I realized "hey, if god is a wanker, he needs to have a dick. But how do I know that?" And the blasphemy comes apart as something ridiculous. But that's what even the muslims do, like, would they have shot mohammed in the face if they saw him or themselves because nobody may see him?? And why does the catholic church have depicitions of deities in their churches...Strange to pray to a ceiling, isn't it?

Also, I think that people embody religion too much themselves. They decide for themselves or maybe are just indoctrinated that somehow, this almighty god that created everything and anything in this everything wants us humans to take responsibility. Sure, we can kill and clone and turn matter to energy, but so far we're not even as advanced to take care of ourselves and probably won't be absent some cataclysmic event. But why does man always have to spread god's word? Probably comes a little late for all the indegineous (oh stupid spelling) people detached from society. Apparently they'll all go to hell and god knows why.
So for example if I went to a teacher on my catholic school today and told her that she didn't have to fret about me hugging her daughter because I'm gay anyway- what would her reaction be? She'd be in complete awe and disbelief and she'd be like "No way! That's not god's will!" But how does she know? Isn't it a fact that she simply finds it disgusting and abhorrent and not particularily tasteful? So whose will is it now? And if the bible says all gay men shall die, does that point out that you have to somehow criminalize it or does it just say that the problem'll take care of itself?
And I also observed something about myself -when I am sad that others don't share some religious opinion of mine. You know, I can think of a scenario, where I represent a certain faith and I am aware somebody rejects that faith. That'll probably make me sad because it'd be so nice if you had something in common. Okay- right. Whose faith is it? Am I in any position to be saddened by somebody's non-believing? That's not my business to be sad about, it'd be god's business. But again we think we're just too damn important. But again it's just that we find somebody's wrong because you think you're right and you're looking for a way to ascertain your presumptions.

Yes, religion can be beautiful. You should see the people on the hadj- it's remarkable what they're going through. Luckily none of mentioned abhorrent acts are more than local or regional customs and traditions.

[edit on 18/12/09 by thricearound]





new topics
top topics
 
9
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join