Not allowed to build minarets anymore

[Raccoon Love]

If I could end all religion I would, does that make you feel better?

There's no need to end religion, even though I personally do not engage in it, it has given many people signs of hope and faith and it has helped them go through life and have some sense of moral values, the problem is not the religions themselves, but that many seem to misinterpret the religions of others therefore causing problems, also the fanatics have also brought many negative connections with religion, to change this negative view, I think religions should work towards unity, and continue claiming disassociation with this fanatics like they have been doing so.

 

[TheLastMohican]

I believe that he meant there were only a million Muslims in the population, rather than a million muslims murdering

That would have been even worse — I gave him the benefit of the doubt.

It was really you though who made a contention about numbers of killings and such

So that's what it boils down to: I plugged in the "only one kill per murderer" figure to be generous to your theory. And now that's the bit that you're complaining about? Pathetic.

 

[Billy]

That would have been even worse

 

[TheLastMohican]

No I am complaining that you are trying to use a straw man argument to defeat me, puh-lease.

Don't cry "straw man" when the difference is in your favor. The only difference between what you said and what I analyzed was my conservative assumption of the number of murders. If I had been less conservative, then the number would only have been higher. Your objection is akin to a boxer calling his opponent a cheat for having only one arm.

 

[Billy]

Don't cry "straw man" when the difference is in your favor. The only difference between what you said and what I analyzed was my conservative assumption of the number of murders. If I had been less conservative, then the number would only have been higher. Your objection is akin to a boxer calling his opponent a cheat for having only one arm.

No, I didn't want to talk about murder rates, I wanted to talk about violence. You needed to straw man it so you could logically come up with a coup-de-grace against me and now you look silly. Its ok. But feel free to argue semantics even more to hide that fact, no really please do.

 

[TheLastMohican]

No, I didn't want to talk about murder rates, I wanted to talk about violence. You needed to straw man it so you could logically come up with a coup-de-grace against me and now you look silly. Its ok. But feel free to argue semantics even more to hide that fact, no really please do.

I don't care whether you "wanted" to talk about murder rates. You made a statement, and I refuted it using statistics. Now you can go on making whatever other statements you like, and if you continue to talk out of your ass regarding Muslims in Europe, I'll refute other statements at my leisure. I have learned, however, that you will probably just call "straw man" and spew nonsense to save face when that happens, so I won't bother following your trail-offs in the future. Stick to facts, please.

 

[Billy]

I don't care whether you "wanted" to talk about murder rates. You made a statement, and I refuted it using statistics. Now you can go on making whatever other statements you like, and if you continue to talk out of your ass regarding Muslims in Europe, I'll refute other statements at my leisure. I have learned, however, that you will probably just call "straw man" and spew nonsense to save face when that happens, so I won't bother following your trail-offs in the future. Stick to facts, please.

lol whatever you say friend, next time don't reach into the cookie jar before dinner and pappa wont slap your hand.

 

[bamf]

Lol, Connecticut.

 

[Lucifer]

Remember the Patriot Act that stripped away American Rights?
It passed with only a few peaceful protests.

Whenever the European Governments try to pass unapproved legislation there is violent rioting in the streets. I asked a 70 year old European (Scotsman, well travelled throughout Europe) I used to work for why that was, and he said it was because mainland Europe can still remember the stifling oppression of the NAZI Party, and would never again allow their governments to become as Right Wing Authoritarian again, or to allow Religious Oppression (towards the religions or from the religions*). The Eastern European nations can very much remember the USSR Stranglehold and R.W.Authoritarianism that prevailed there, and Doug (Scottish Fellow) had been there during the USSR time, and after it. Most of the citizenry there (in the 90's) REALLY didn't and still don't want that sort of crap again.

Europe has lived through some of the most brutal Oppression in the last Century, and as a result most of the older generation have really dug in there heels there, and passed it on as a culture (I believe) to the youth.

Whereas America hasn't known enough oppression to fight for their rights (argue peacefully in indignant lassitude), only a few really do, and they're called Militia Extremists who're generally cast in a conspiracy theorist light and seem to be rather racist and ultra-nationalist.

That's what this has to do with it.



*It is from the religions that concerns Europe at the moment.

**Feel free to dispute any of that forum members from Europe, either France, Germany, Netherlands Region, Eastern Europe or Scandanavia...**

Perhaps your right, it would be difficult to say for sure. But personally I think there are more important factors at play when it comes to America's alarming complacency. And older generations in the United States do have experience "fighting for their rights." Remember the sixties? Of course it's not quite the same thing as world war two. I am merely endeavor to point out that there is that element in our culture.

There are a lot of factors that come into play with americas seeming lack of civil disobedience. It is entirely possible that world war two had something to do with it, in fact it probably did. But I think the most important thing when trying to understand the topic is the structure of the American media, education system, and election laws.

Yup

 

[Lucifer]

The specific things that could be said to be known are the burqa ban. This was a part of a ban on ALL THINGS religious, not just one religion. It was a part of an initiative of bringing people closer by removing the symbols that separate them.

Would you support something along those lines? A ban of all things religious.

 

[sookie]

Would you support something along those lines? A ban of all things religious.

Shai Gar- I agree that we need to find away to bring people together. This is a great point. Banning all things that are religious reminds me of the expression "cut your nose off to spite your face"

The "your" is society. I think that religion does have a purpose. People are lonely and isolated more than ever. They are searching for an identity. It is important for people to have identities. We are all different and need to relate to ourselves as well as others who share the same interests.

With that being said, identity can become a source of the violence and war that people are talking about. There is this idea that if I am right to choose my identity. Then if you are right, that means that my identity is wrong.

This is the problem with the ego. Too much of a good thing. The ego is good. We would never achieve anything, or do anything or even take care of ourselves without it.

The problem with banning all things that are relgious is condemning all things religious as bad. That is not the case. It is what people do with religious beliefs and objects that is the problem. If we ban all things religious this creates a dynamic of separating people from their beliefs. I think that it is important for everyone to believe in something. Some people believe in science, some people cultivate a religious identity, others get married and have a family. While others do more than one of these things.

I think that people need to be brought together. I have to think of how it can be done. Banning all things religious is the same as people banning Christmas decorations, or banning the Muslim Buildings.


I am ready for your response

 

[Krumplenump]

Whether or not a mosque should sport a minaret is besides the point. There is no stipulation in Islam that they should.
What I do NOT support is the Muslim community campaigning for the right to build minarets when they do not aid in ANY way the act of praying or any religious rigmarole whatsoever. So, there is no need for minarets at all and why a religious community wants to spend money on building them rather than giving the cash to a charity or something since brotherly love and compassion should be at the forefront of religion I do not know. Oh, yes I do, it's because they unjustifiably wish to profess their faith in a very in-your-face manner. It's faith based megalomania. Muslims can pray perfectly well in a basement so long as they have a compass, and surely the connection with god is the focus of prayer, not how opulent your place of prayer is..

In short, far too much fuss is spent over religion in my opinion. That could be overlooked were not vast sums of money that could be used better elsewhere spent on issues like this. Faith in this organised social sense is nothing but a political tool and a blood-sucking money drainer.

 

[bamf]

Whether or not a mosque should sport a minaret is besides the point. There is no stipulation in Islam that they should.
What I do NOT support is the Muslim community campaigning for the right to build minarets when they do not aid in ANY way the act of praying or any religious rigmarole whatsoever. So, there is no need for minarets at all and why a religious community wants to spend money on building them rather than giving the cash to a charity or something since brotherly love and compassion should be at the forefront of religion I do not know. Oh, yes I do, it's because they unjustifiably wish to profess their faith in a very in-your-face manner. It's faith based megalomania. Muslims can pray perfectly well in a basement so long as they have a compass, and surely the connection with god is the focus of prayer, not how opulent your place of prayer is..

In short, far too much fuss is spent over religion in my opinion. That could be overlooked were not vast sums of money that could be used better elsewhere spent on issues like this. Faith in this organised social sense is nothing but a political tool and a blood-sucking money drainer.

What I'm getting from this, is that you believe governments have the right to restrict what private organizations do with their money. Mosques can't build minarets because you believe that they could spend their money elsewhere?

Eh....

 

[Shai Gar]

In Australia churches don't build spires anymore. We've all got timepieces, we don't need the bell.

 

[Raccoon Love]

I agree, there's no need for opulent buildings for prayer, didn't the prophets which many main religions follow today preach outside, to the public, in the most modest kind of way? They did not ask for beautiful strutures, they just wanted people to follow them and believe, and repent..sure its nice to honor your religion but there are more important things such money could be spend on rather than building luxurious structures, a prayer is a prayer and I think the description of God in many scriptures would agree with me that God does not look for such things as luxury, but God looks at the actions of s humans and our devotion to it. I still think that one should practice their religious freedom and the Islamic community has every right of practicing their religion just like any other, I just don't get why a lot of religions put so much emphasis on such peripheral things such as the luxury of the place they worship when they are forgetting their main purposes which is to believe in God, be devoted to him, live a good moral life and aid others.

 

[Faye]

I seem to have completely missed this thread and the whole debate, but I will interject my opinion.

The minarets are in and of themselves no threat, unless it turns out that the population has a strong preference against that style of architecture. The threat is what the minarets represent- Islam, which is a cultural and political system in addition to being a religion.

What the voters in Swit. have done is refused to be multicultural, and I don't see a problem with this. If another culture gains too much influence in your region, that culture might affect policy changes that you do not like. I don't believe that Islamic culture can mesh with Western culture, and I would want to defend my culture as well. I couldn't care less about the minarets themselves, but I would be very afraid of Islam if I lived in some areas of Europe.

Edit: I don't like many elements of Christianity either, but I have to put up with them.

 

[Krumplenump]

What I'm getting from this, is that you believe governments have the right to restrict what private organizations do with their money. Mosques can't build minarets because you believe that they could spend their money elsewhere?

Eh....

Whether a government has the right to dictate monetary policy to a private org. is beside the point I was trying to make. By mentioning the financial wastefulness of minaret construction I was attempting to highlight the political motivation European Islam has come to bear, not that their fiscal ambitions be regulated.

To further strengthen my point, I agree with what Dragon said totally:

The minarets are in and of themselves no threat, unless it turns out that the population has a strong preference against that style of architecture. The threat is what the minarets represent- Islam, which is a cultural and political system in addition to being a religion.

And that bold bit is especially relevant to European Islam.