Just looking at the facts, and not commenting on other specifics of what should be done or what is appropriate, it appears that on a Canton-by-Canton basis, Switzerland does have "recognized" churches, or Landeskirchen which have semi-official status as state religions and the individual Cantons tax the public on their behalf. I'm not sure that the characterization of Switzerland as a place with a strong separation church and state is perhaps quite as real as some have suggested. Certainly, in one respect the impulse is there, but apparently they blocked the LDS from building Mormon Temples as far back as the 1950's, and some of the Sikh or Buddhist centers were built only after they were backed by big corporations with an existing relationship in Switzerland.
no, it is not an opinion. I simply stated the fact that what you said is not substantiated by concrete facts and you don't have the background nor the knowledge to speak about this subject. But what do you know, big interwebz celebrity DaDakota will state his wrong "opinion" as facts and act like he's the know it all about middle east culture and religious relations, when in reality you're just blinded by your hate for the islamic faith, which, like you would say sarcastically, is a very peaceful and tolerant religion, and that's backed up by FACTS my friend: by first hand experience of living in the middle east for 15 years and a true understanding of the religion. I invite you to become more open-minded and actually research/pick up a freaking book instead of wasting your time making flamboyant videos, watching the greek basketball league, and tracking Von Wafer and V-Span statistics.
Bull****. The reality of the argument being made is that secular values are dangerous to the power structure dependent upon islam. The power of secular values is that they apply universally to all people. Religious arguments to the contrary rest entirely on the presumption that everyone agrees to that religion or (more aptly) that particular dogma. The irony is that you're defending assimilation into the non-secular system when it is perfectly clear that only a secular system actually encourages it. Without waxing too philosophic or going too far off topic, I'd argue that simply because variety exists does not negate the reality that fundamental values and rights exist. I have no desire to argue this at the moment - I am merely using it as an explanation of sorts for my point of view. It's not bias as Juan accused - it's an objective comparison. Only a bigot would be pleased with the collectivist politics exemplified in theocratic government. It was an example pertaining to values. Agreed - in theory. To a certain extent one could argue that, as DD put it, the nation "has the right". On the other hand, in America this sort of thing would be dangerously close to illegality; the law in question no doubt intentionally set up to protect the minority from the majority in this regard. No system is without faults. And comparing banned minarets to Sharia law is a bit silly, IMO.
In this case, it's actually more telling than "data" because: During christmas time, the entire country (Syria) lights up, christmas trees everywhere, we buy gifts to our christian neighbors and friends, heck, if anything, christians are treated even better than muslims because they're a minority, and people feel the obligation to make them as comfortable as they can, it is THEIR country afterall, it's EVERYBODY's country, not just the majority's country. the same goes for Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, and pretty much all north African muslim countries. that's 3rd world country for ya, that's the part of the world we ridicule for being intolerant, awful, and stupid. Maybe the western world can learn a thing or two from 3rd world countries, like the idea of tolerance and coexistence. Did you know that the president of Lebanon in the past decade, Emil Lahood, is a christian? did you know that the syrian parliament has a bunch of christian representatives? did you know all of this? did you know that churches can be built wherever, whenever, however shape or form they can take? there's absolutely no regulation, nothing is banned, there is nothing that limits them. I guess having lived in that region for 15 years qualifies me to speak about this matter with confidence, and certainly be a much more credible source than DaDakota or whoever else speaking like they know what they're talking about when the farthest they've ever gone from Houston was Katy. But that's not the point, notice I didn't even comment on minarets, I couldn't care less about them. I couldn't care less about that $h!thole switzerland. But I care about the bigotry and flat out hate that some people have against something they're terribly misinformed about. It's really disappointing.
It qualifies you to speak about what you have seen just like the rest of us speaking about our experiences. I am happy that you have had good ones between Muslims and Christians, I wish the entire world had the same experiences as you, and were as tolerant as you. And Katy is just too far for me to travel, do I need a passport? DD
Most of my muslim friends say that this is just a trap and that anyone that actually revolts b.c of this has fallen in. They share the viewpoints of of many on this board that bannign minarets is stupid and doesn't do anything. Its their country and they are only going to make themselves look worse for doing it
I don't think that any of those places are intollerant, Iran probably is and SA to some degree but i have had a diff experience. When I was a kid, my dad a petroleum engineer got a job with Oramco (if thats how you spell it). I was about 4 at the time and we lived off the coast of the red sea for about 6 yrs. And it may sound shocking to all of you but the place where we lived wasn't much different from here. They had built a little area where westerners and others would stay much like back home. The company would pay for all this, the housing, utility bills etc.. What I found even more fortunate was that they built a school just like an elementary school I attended over here later, bringing teachers from the state by paying them high salaries. The tuition alone was ridiculous, close to $17K per year but even that the company would pay for. Whether they did this b.c they were just swimming in cash or did this out of generosity I don't know. If you were american you automatically made close to 1.5 times more than the native saudis, this is know b.c i would hear stories of complaints and what not. I don't remember if there were any churches etc... but it came with the bad as well. Saudi people carried a general arrogance about themselves I can't really describe, they were hot headed and were segregated from our school, not to offend anyone on here, because they were uncivil at times. It wasn't just us, they disliked ANY foreigners but knew they had to import the the skill from overseas to industrialize their nation.
But what set of secular values are you talking about? If you are talking what the Swiss and French have done, banning or limiting the free practice of religion to maintain a secular society how is that a universal application of rights when it clearly discriminates against the religion? Also if you are talking about threats to the power structure then isn't religions values a threat to the secular power structure and in the case of the Swiss an attempt to diminish a particular set of religious values as they see it as a threat. But collectivist politics can also exist in a secular government too and this is a case where a secular government is doing so. As far as being a bias what would you say to the Muslim who says their values are superior? While I agree with you obviously not everyone shares those values so to say that one is universal is a biased statement otherwise everyone would have those values. Of course the nation has its rights and I agree such a thing as that wouldn't be allowed in the US because of the First Ammendment. That said to say that secular government is automatically superior to religion I think really depends. It is in regard though to the question of assimilation. As I said before when we are talking about assimilating to one country or the other you are accepting their values. YOu are saying that Western Values are superior which would say that assimilation is one sided. A Muslim would say Islamic values are. That's a secondary argument though to if you moved to a different culture if you should assimilate.
This is a bit of a tangent but my understanding of Muslim hatred of Jews is a relatively new phenomenon seemingly related to Zionism and the creation of Israel. Historically Jews have been treated relatively well in Islamic countries and much better than they were in Christian Europe.
You are right, it doesn't, but I assure you they were treated very well. People here don't understand the nature of life over there. Over there, we're all family, we're all countrymen. It's not just standing up and cheering after playing the anthem, it's actually helping one another, hanging out almost at all times. The "market" there is a hangout spot (at least it was before "westernization" took place). My dad and grandfather tell me numerous stories of their Jewish and Christian friends and neighbors. My grandfather said he wouldn't buy beef from anyone other than the jewish guy because he was the cleanest in the neighborhood. It's just the natural thing over there, that's how it has always been, a bunch of religions mixed together, coexisting peacefully. Even in Palestine, pre-1948. Palestinians and Jews were friends, they were neighbors. They shared the same land, they didn't mind being around each other and they coexisted peacefully. They actually had a great relationship. It was the norm to have jewish and christian friends and acquaintances. In fact, I'm going to shock you even further. Do you guys know that muslims, christians, and jews alike fought against the colonial powers (Britain and France) until they kicked them out? There are numerous instances of the collaboration and togetherness that took place until the invaders left. It wasn't until Britain decided to create a segregated nation only for Jews on a land that ALL religions shared equally and practiced their respective religions peacefully. That "state" is what is now known as "Israel", the only current nation in the world with an apartheid system in place. From that point on, people went crazy, growing hateful sentiment against jews was taking place because what locals were seeing was that their neighbors and friends became their superiors, and they claimed this land to their own. And from that point on, things escalated, and Europeans just continued to fuel the fighting. And that's the middle east "crisis" for ya.
Your parents have been telling you fairy tales. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni Here is al-Husayni, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, expressing his solidarity with his Jewish brethren: The Hagannah existed specifically because the Palestinian Muslims were more interested in killing Jews than British. I've heard your tale of brotherly love before. It seems to be important to the narrative that an earthly paradise of togetherness and brotherly love that existed until the dirty Jews got greedy. Jews in Spain were killed if they didn't convert. The Sultans decreed that there was no official persecution of Jews, but that doesn't mean that if a Jew tried to seek redress against a Muslim for, say, raping his wife that he had any chance in hell of seeing justice. Being a Dhimmi is like being the token black man in a 1930's Hollywood movie. I'm sure the white people back then thought they got along great with the black actors, too. It's easy to declare how great everything is when you are looking down from on top of the world, and the minority can't fight back and they depend on your good graces just to stay alive from one day to the next.
Awful analogy, and awful skewed logic and misunderstanding you have there. The jews weren't brought to that land as slaves, the weren't looked upon as inferiors, they were people OF THE LAND, just like muslims, just like christians. People in power changed successively, but one thing didn't change: the people's love for their countrymen. And I especially love your little historic myths that center around the theme of "jews were treated bad! they deserved getting a racist nation just for them and only them on land shared by over 100 religions!a nation that segregates against everyone else and kills 800 children in the matter of 2 weeks in self-defense!". Drop this act already, and let's not talk about the situation in Europe. Fact of the matter is: people lived peacefully in the middle east. Yes, there were instances of conflict, like in any freaking society, but the general sentiment was one of peace and coexistence, and your little cute pictures, wikipedia articles, and youtube clips don't change the documented facts (not only what my parents told me). Try reading a history book that isn't biased and that doesn't try to make excuses for that apartheid racist nation that is causing conflicts and thousands of innocent deaths.
ooh and LOL at the youtube clip. That is very representative of the islamic belief. Thank you for that. It's like saying that this guy represents Christianity: <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WXZbIGJrDkg&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WXZbIGJrDkg&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
There is no act, only the truth. I am entirely focused on what occured in the Levant in the 15th, 16th, and 17th Centuries. Your own ego wants to believe a lie because it helps you understand the world in a way that makes you feel pride in yourself. As far as a lack of conflict, that was because one group held the whip hand over another. See race relations in the Northern USA before and after the Great Migration. The true measure of whether people get along is whether they can do so when on an equal footing. Try reading something other than the Muslim braggarts talking about what wonderful overlords they were. Are you seriously going to claim that in the Muslim Ottoman Empire, that Muslims and Jews were equal before the law? I don't think even Muslim scholars would claim that. For instance, Jews were forbidden by Ottoman law from building new Synagogues. In the grand scheme of things, not the same as being murdered by the Inquisition in Spain, but not something that an "equal" has to put up with.
Try doing a little research on Zakir Naik and the Islamic Research Foundation. The dollars indicate that he does, in fact, speak for a representative number of Muslims. He is as representative of Political Islam as Pat Robertson or someone of his ilk who speaks for a significant portion of American Christians. And as much as Christians may not like it, Hagee and his friends do speak for a significant segment of practical Christianity. Discussing what Islam really is in some void completely detached from the real physical world certainly is useful, but in this context, actual practices in the real world are what is at issue.
fair enough, I'm not claiming that muslims are perfect, I'm not even claiming that current muslims are any good. To the contrary, our religion has been misunderstood and misrepresented, and I really don't blame people who draw conclusions about the religion based on the people because if I didn't know any better, I would think that this is an awful religion judging by the behavior of some of the followers today. actual practices in the real world were what made Islam the fastest growing religion on earth and spread it from India to Spain in less than a matter of decades. When Umar Ibn el Khattab (the 3rd leader of the Islamic empire after Mohamed and Abu baker) went to Jerusalem (a great story, by the way) to claim it, Christians didn't want to give the keys to the city to anyone BUT him. He proceeded to go in and assume control of the city, and AS INSTRUCTED BY OUR THE QURAN, allowed the people to practice their religion freely without any constraint (the only difference was a slight monetary tax I believe, which makes sense since any ruling power needs financial resources). In fact, Umar refused to pray in a church, in fear of it being converted to a mosque by people who later learn about him having prayed there (he did that to preserve this Christian church). That's the true islam, that's what this religion preaches. Peace, not attacking anyone unless you've been attacked by them (and not using excessive force against a minor attack. ie: do exactly what was done to you as long as it's within the limits of the religion. ie: no raping, no killing children or women, nothing that breaks what the rules in the quran)..and yes, good sir, this is all spelled out explicitly in the quran and if I had more time, I would've provided page and verse number for you guys to look at. Unfortunately, a group of idiots have bastardized this great religion and gave people reason to misunderstand what it's all about. And that's where your regular observer like DaDa or any of the other guys come in. Now before the internet, there was an excuse as to why stay in ignorance and believe what things look like. But right now, there's no excuse for ignorance. There's no excuse for holding a "belief" that is completely wrong and based on misunderstanding. You can learn all you need and enlighten yourself with knowledge with a click of a button, and that's why it's really frustrating sometimes seeing how people blindly attack islam.
First of all: Best compliment ever! Haha thanks! Uhh, first of all, guys, please do some research on Sharia. Everyone is lost here it seems. You are HALF a muslim in millitary value because you are given the RIGHT TO OPT OUT OF SERVING THE ARMY. The right to opt out comes with a fee known as the Jizya/tax. This tax goes/went to paying those who go out to war INCLUDING NON-MUSLIMS WHO DID NOT OPT OUT. As a consequence, the army of the Islamic expire was held responsible for protecting everyone the same - meaning protection of women, children, elderly, churches, mosques, synagogoues, EVERYTHING in case of an attack. The protection of non-Muslim tribes was written into the CONSTITUTION OF MEDINA by the Prophet Muhammad PBUH. Wiki it. Muslims did NOT have the right to opt out. Muslims DID pay a tax - just not a Jizya tax and yes it was higher than the Jizya tax. Elderly, children and women do not pay jizya. Also, if you justifiably needed to opt out but could not pay, you were excused (for example, only son and father passed away). Tired of hearing these things. It is not part of Islam. Honor killings are pre-Islamic and fall under the category of murder in Islam with no easing the punishment. In Islam, killing one HUMAN unjustly is like killing all of humanity. What is your experience DaDakota?
