By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Switzerland bans minarets.

Rath on 05 December 2009
NKAJ said:
Rath said:
@Zuvuy. We are saying if Turkey for example banned church bells the West would be outraged. The Middle East has actually taken this ruling surprisingly well, they've just pointed out the massive hypocrisy and left it at that.

um,how many churches do you htink ring their bells in the middle east?Somehow i odubt the west would be outraged,for example there is not a single church in saudi arabia,the west isnt outraged

Saudi Arabia - like most of the Middle East isn't secular. They don't even pretend to uphold freedom of religion. Turkey is.



Around the Network
KillerMan on 05 December 2009

This is good example why having referendum of every thing is not good thing.
In this case probably something like 2 million swiss citizens voted. Other 4 million didn't care. Those who were against minarets of course voted and majority of those who would allow minarets didn't vote because in their opinion it wasn't so meaningfull matter that they would bother to go vote. And now we have image that majority of swiss don't allow minarets to be build.



stof on 07 December 2009

Kasz216 said:
It isn't a means.

It is simply a symptom.

Looks like we won't reach a consensus on this one. I say the burka is oppressive, you say it isn't. Not something I think either of us will budge on.


A Burqa may be a problem... but once again... not everyone is forced to wear one... not even most people.

I know not everyone is, but that doesn't do much for the people that are.


Put it this way. If some people were forced to smoke cigarettes because of their religion would you be for banning cigarettes?


Cigarettes are a LOT more dangerous then the Burqa (as are other things women are pressured to wear... such as high heels.)

The answer... I would hope. Would be of course not.

Um... Cigarettes are awful, and I truly believe that were it not for the taxes governments make they'd be illegal whether people were told they had to smoke them or not. And why not? they're a heavily physically addictive substance. I'd rather legal pot than legal smokes, but that's a WHOLE other argument. But I think we'd agree that high heels and burkas are substantially different, both in their effects and in their causes.  I just find that when you make a comparison to other things in the world, they're not really equal comparisons. in fact I have trouble thinking of a good comparison to the burka since it's such a unique case.



You don't make laws banning things. You make laws that prevent people from forcing people to do things.

We regularly make laws banning drugs, guns, hate literature, various forms of campaign contributions, hazardous materials, reckless activities, designer label knockoffs and a whole host of other objects, activities and actions, based on their effects on health, safety or society. 


When you ban a Burqa all you do is punish people who choose to wear such a thing... in reality you are inflicting a wrong against the people who choose to wear it... which are the majority.

You do a lot more than that actually, you also ensure that women don't have to wear them, that subsequent generations of women won't be brought up thinking they have to wear one. I don't pretend that there aren't individuals who would be angered or feel wronged by a burka ban, I just don't think it stacks up to the wrong done upon those that have to wear one. I feel the need to point out again that this isn't a simple hijab, turban or kippah. It's not a small garment designed to show religious faith, it's a hot full body covering that significantly restricts movement and visibility while completely isolating the wearer from society. 


Whether or not it is negative or dangerous is not for you or anybody else to judge.

Why the hell not? 

 

 



I'm a mod, come to me if there's mod'n to do. 

Chrizum is the best thing to happen to the internet, Period.

Serves me right for challenging his sales predictions!

Bet with dsisister44: Red Steel 2 will sell 1 million within it's first 365 days of sales.

Kasz216 on 07 December 2009


Kasz216 on 07 December 2009
stof said:

Kasz216 said:
It isn't a means.

It is simply a symptom.

Looks like we won't reach a consensus on this one. I say the burka is oppressive, you say it isn't. Not something I think either of us will budge on.


A Burqa may be a problem... but once again... not everyone is forced to wear one... not even most people.

I know not everyone is, but that doesn't do much for the people that are.


Put it this way. If some people were forced to smoke cigarettes because of their religion would you be for banning cigarettes?


Cigarettes are a LOT more dangerous then the Burqa (as are other things women are pressured to wear... such as high heels.)

The answer... I would hope. Would be of course not.

Um... Cigarettes are awful, and I truly believe that were it not for the taxes governments make they'd be illegal whether people were told they had to smoke them or not. And why not? they're a heavily physically addictive substance. I'd rather legal pot than legal smokes, but that's a WHOLE other argument. But I think we'd agree that high heels and burkas are substantially different, both in their effects and in their causes.  I just find that when you make a comparison to other things in the world, they're not really equal comparisons. in fact I have trouble thinking of a good comparison to the burka since it's such a unique case.



You don't make laws banning things. You make laws that prevent people from forcing people to do things.

We regularly make laws banning drugs, guns, hate literature, various forms of campaign contributions, hazardous materials, reckless activities, designer label knockoffs and a whole host of other objects, activities and actions, based on their effects on health, safety or society. 


When you ban a Burqa all you do is punish people who choose to wear such a thing... in reality you are inflicting a wrong against the people who choose to wear it... which are the majority.

You do a lot more than that actually, you also ensure that women don't have to wear them, that subsequent generations of women won't be brought up thinking they have to wear one. I don't pretend that there aren't individuals who would be angered or feel wronged by a burka ban, I just don't think it stacks up to the wrong done upon those that have to wear one. I feel the need to point out again that this isn't a simple hijab, turban or kippah. It's not a small garment designed to show religious faith, it's a hot full body covering that significantly restricts movement and visibility while completely isolating the wearer from society. 


Whether or not it is negative or dangerous is not for you or anybody else to judge.

Why the hell not? 

 

 

1) An Object can't be opressive.

It's an object.  Sit a Burka in a room alone with random people and it's not going to start opressing people.

 

2)  And most of those laws are wrong.  Anything that requires a choice to be damaging... has no right being banned.  The taking away of the choice is the crime.

 

3) Which does... you know.  Nothing.  Becausse those women will continue to be opressed... and now, not only by the men forcing them too... but by the government as well.  Hooray MORE OPRESSERS.  Just what those women need.

 

4)  Cause it's an object.  People... as adults deserve to decide formthemselves what is dangerous and negative.  It's the whole point of Femisnism, don't you know.  To let women choose for themselves what they want to do rather then have choices forced on it by the Patriachy.

Which is... you know, what YOUR supporting.  The Patriachy deciding what is and what isn't acceptable for women.  Which is the problem you don't seem to realize... this is a negative to women because it's a Patriachal act deciding what's right for all women. 

A Burka ban may as well be an abortion ban.  I mean, what happened to "A woman has a right to do whatever she wants with her body"?