- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Messages
- 11,430
- Reaction score
- 2,282
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I disagree that muslims leaders have done all they can to help quell the violence we see all over the world. In fact, I see more apologists then anything else, from one corner of the world to the other. I guess you missed the recent muslim march to DC, the signs, the rhetoric was anything but peaceful, helpful, it was just more of the same.
All that said, I still do not agree with this decision, but this is europe, and they have been slipping for sometime now, I am just glad I live in this country, under this constitution.
Please read more carefully, I didn't say that. I asked you if there are any universal values.
No, it's government control. Just because the will of (some of the) people is involved doesn't change that. I explained this to you.
God, you're a massive question-dodger. (I love the liberal-sounding "part of their culture" thing though!)
Answer these questions please:
1. Do you fully approve of or have no complaint about what the Iranians and Saudis do?
2. Did you approve of or have no complaint about the Soviet treatment of their people?
Muslim leaders should lead their congregations out of the 13th century and into the 21st century.
They're not doing that.
We should help them. The next time terrorists hide in a mosque, we should blow it up, just like we or they would if it was a christian church. Muslims should learn that mosques are buildings, just like outhouses.
Interesting simile.....
You are aware that the traditional symbol carved into the doors of outhouses is....the crescent moon....which is also a symbol of Islam...who's to say all outhouses aren't mini-mosques?
Hmmmm this seems to be in contridiction:
Art. 15 Freedom of religion and conscience
1 Freedom of religion and conscience is guaranteed.
2 Everyone has the right to choose freely their religion or their philosophical convictions, and to profess them alone or in community with others.
3 Everyone has the right to join or to belong to a religious community, and to follow religious teachings.
4 No one shall be forced to join or belong to a religious community, to participate in a religious act, or to follow religious teachings.
SR 101 Art.*15 Freedom of religion and conscience (Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation)
Muslim leaders should lead their congregations out of the 13th century and into the 21st century.
They're not doing that.
Where does it require them to allow one religion to show its dominance, by architectual display, often funded by totalitarian regimes like the one in SA?
You are aware that the traditional symbol carved into the doors of outhouses is....the crescent moon....which is also a symbol of Islam...who's to say all outhouses aren't mini-mosques?
That would be the will of the majority of the people.
Peoples in these lands are free to practice their religion and follow their the precepts of their own culture. This is as it should be. They don't need my "approval."
Once again, this was the way it was. My "approval" was neither asked for nor needed.
Now, before you get your panties all knotted up let me say what occurs in other countries is for them to decide, especially if this is done in a democracy. In america I have no problems with minarets. In america I believe women have the right to choose for themselves what they want to do. In america.....I have a valid opinion based on my culture.
so you disagree with the ban?I think they are opening the door for lefties and atheist to ban Christian,Jewish and Catholic buildings.
lookatthislookatthis
Americans chastizing another country for it's means of snuffing out a religion or culture.
Pigs are flying!!!
I think the decision is bull****. It would be unconstitutional to do so in the US.
If it amends the constitution, then it does not violate it.It most likely violates the Swiss Constitution too. Which was modeled after the U.S. one, by the way.
How so?It would be unconstitutional to do so in the US.
If it amends the constitution, then it does not violate it.
How so?
A minaret isn't needed for the practice of Islam.
Answer my question first.A church isn't needed for the practice of Christianity. You think a ban on all church construction would be upheld here?
In principle, maybe.Oh, yes, it's an amendment, not a law, didn't see that.
It's certainly clashes with other parts of the Swiss Constitution though.
How so?
A minaret isn't needed for the practice of Islam.
Answer my question first.
Is doing so unconstitutional?A cross isn't needed for the practice of Christianity - but people sitll closely relate the two. . . banning large crosses in public view might be considered a direct anti-religious act becuaes of it's symbolism.
Is doing so unconstitutional?
1. You did not. You asked a question with an irrelevant comparison.I just did.
The long answer is that the government in the U.S. cannot restrict any religion's practices unless it has a good non-religious reason, and it has to apply to all religions not just one. So if the government were banning minarets because of a fire hazard or something, that would be okay, and it would have to apply to all tall buildings, not just minarets. Whether minarets are "required" to practice the religion is immaterial, that's not for the government to decide.
Yeah, good point - we should tear down some church spires! :roll:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?