Switzerland appears to have backed minaret ban

Chimerical said:
The fact that you are even trying to compare the EU treaty with the rights of a minority is just ridiculous.

As said, the two things are completely separate and do not work the same way.

I'll explain how. The EU treaty affects EVERYONE. Therefore its reasonable that EVERYONE should have a say on it.

However, some Muslims building some Mosques does not affect either you or I. We are still free to avoid them, free to build Christian churches, free to be atheists, etc. The EU treaty is blanket legislation. Muslims getting planning permission to build a Mosque somewhere in the country isn't.

Its the same as gay marriage. Gays getting married doesn't affect the rights of straight people getting married thus should be allowed.

Don't use such pointless comparisons. The differences are quite obvious.
Click to expand...

My post was referring to the Swiss referendum. Try again.
 
dirtydog said:
Not a useful purpose at any rate.
Click to expand...

Depends on your personal faith and beliefs really, doesn't it.

I have no strong feelings on places of worship either way - I don't follow a faith or religion, but I do think many places of worship are architecturally stunning.
 
Lopéz said:
Depends on your personal faith and beliefs really, doesn't it.

I have no strong feelings on places of worship either way - I don't follow a faith or religion, but I do think many places of worship are architecturally stunning.
Click to expand...

then turn them into a tescos, that way they are beautiful and have a purpose:p
 
TipTop said:
Bulldoze all religious buildings. If you want to worship some moonbat skygod then keep it private in your own homes. Less risk of offending people.
Click to expand...

You mean like you just kept your own opinion private? Wut?

I find the idea of a religious building existing far less offensive than someone like you broadcasting your own beliefs on a public forum.
 
The reason for the proposed ban of minarets (NOT the mosques) is that minarets are seen as a cultural addition employed in middle eastern countries, thus the argument why something of such a radically different culture/value is allowed.


Notice that all the people who have proposed this ban have said its not against muslims.



I for one support this.
 
I suppose tesco does deliver a theological, philosophical, anthropological, sociological, and psychological phenomenon to human kind. Interestingly these are tenants of religion.
 
naffa said:
Wow, I really cannot see the problem with them to be honest.
Click to expand...

Indeed, it does seem very odd to have any sort of blanket ban.

However, I can sympathise with some of the 'protecting our identity' arguments to some extents. The classic Oxford skyline of university spires has a rather noticeable 'odd one out' nowadays. However, that is really the only example I can think of. Unless there are outstanding aesthetic reasons why they should not be one at a particular location, then I see no reason why they should not be built.
 
Stanman67 said:
Like the Gherkin or the dome?
Goong on your logic, everyone should still be living in mud huts with thatched roofs:rolleyes::rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well done you’re clearly clueless about the planning process
Both mentioned buildings are classed as architecturally interesting /significant

As there both exceptional examples of their building types & of design.
Now go back to your box & don’t argue about something you clearly have no idea about.

In relation to the discussion, why are these buildings significant where as a minaret is not, It’s simply a question of numbers there plenty of minarets in this world there’s no need for anymore.

Also minarets are NOT required by the Quran. So trying to play the whole it’s required by our religion thing doesn’t work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom