What restrictions are the minority forcing on you again?
It would depend on how you define Islamisation.
Switzerland appears to have backed minaret ban
- Thread starter mattheman
- Start date
What restrictions are the minority forcing on you again?
It would depend on how you define Islamisation.
My point is that it isn't a good idea to allow things to be banned just because the majority don't like them. Also can you define non-native? With 400,000 muslims out of a population of 7.6m I would hazard a guess that some of those at least are 2 or 3 generations in. Especially as one of the 4 minarets already in Switzerland is from the 19th century.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 5,488
No there isn't only an uproar when religion is involved. You obviously missed Proposition 8 in California and the uproar over that. It was the same thing iirc; use a 'democratic' vote to discriminate against a minority.
Islamisation is the process whereby Islam eventually takes over an area that previously wasn't Islamic. Terrorism is one tactic used in that process, immigration and the introduction of Sharia law are others. Has my life been directly impacted by terrorism? No it has not. Does that mean I'll stand idly by when my fellow country men and women are blown up? Certainly not.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 5,488
More chance of being hit by a bus. Seriously, that post just comes across as paranoid.
No-one thinks about terrorism in their day-to-day lives and you must have a blessed existence if you can spend your days fretting over the influence of Islam.
Yes, they do. I'm not sure where this myth arises from that there is an automatic blanket ban of churches. It's more of a cultural thing than anything else.
Feel free to look at yourself too when you make such a statement.
Could argue till the end of time what is right or what is wrong and what deems tolerance and what does not. They took a vote, what did you expect them to do?
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 5,488
Should we really have a vote on every single retarded thing ever?
Just like in this country I would expect the same result. the government should not allow it. Just because they voted that way does not change the fact they are narrow minded prejudice views. You just have to read the responses in this thread on why people think it is a good idea, to see that it has no real basis and is just prejudice.
Would you not have an issue if there was no vote and the government turned around and just banned them?
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 16,379
- Location
- 38.744281°N 104.846806°W
Well it's moot. It is what the people want. So, therefore it is 'right'.
So any religious group of any descent in any country should be allowed to build whatever they want with no lash back?
I am not prejudice but I can perfectly see why countries wish to keep their identities and cultures.
Can I start my own religion, get a decently big enough following so that I am recognised and demand that I should be allowed to build ridiculous outlandish buildings without facing opposition? I do not think you can get any fairer than a vote. I think it is just as wrong to ignore the people and make a decision as a governmental body based on nothing but its own opinion. Ideally I would personally like to see more things voted on.
I am far more accepting of things that the majority decide compared to things that are shoved down my throat. You can hardly turn around and say government are shining beacons of morality, correctness and intelligence so why all of a sudden when a vote is cast that is wrong and it should just be allowed to happen REGARDLESS of majority opinion?
Last edited:
No, it should not work like that. A democracy has never been about popular votes. Otherwise we would be paying no tax and the country would be in turmoil. On certain subjects the public has a choice and a vote. But not on everything. the government has a duty to safeguard minorities as well as keep the country working and several other things.
You should face opposition depending on how reasonable the structure is in that individual circumstance, rather than imposing a blanket ban.
You should face no additional opposition than any other planning application.
Building a church or other religious temple, should be meet with a backlash? theirs your problem their should be no backlash and a backlash is caused by ignorance. Their should be no blanket ban on anything. If an area has tight rules then it doesn't get permission. If you want to build in an area with slack rules build what you want.
+1
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 822
