Europe unites to deplore Swiss ban on minarets

[bradavon]

I'm guessing he's just saying he disagrees. Which btw I agree with Yi on what you quoted. People fear difference/things they don't fully understand and banning it, makes them feel more comfortable.

[Yi-Long]

You can have 'democratic' votes on everything, and in the end, the dumb majority will just ban/forbid everything...

So are you saying that there shouldn't be democracy in case the public makes the wrong decision?

First of all, democracy fails in certain occasions, like when the majority of the people who have to vote are dumb, ignorant, ill-informed, etc.

2nd of all, in cases like this, it's just a populistic opportunistic vote. It's not a REAL issue. It's not a REAL problem. It's not a HUGE important change, as far as laws or civil-rights or whatever are concerned. This ONLY affects a very small amount of people in the country, and even a smaller part of that amount are affected negatively.

Now, this referendum was (ab)used by some opportunistic populistic feminist who argued that 'we' should all vote against these minarets, because it's islam, and in islam (according to her) women are treated badly, and we should stand up against that. So alot of women (and men) were swayed into voting against minarets, because of those arguments (I'm sure there were other arguments as well).

Now, I believe in certain things. I certainly don't agree with everything that's going on, I don't agree with many things people do, I am an atheist, I am bothered and irritated by LOTS of things, and if it were up to me, I'd shot about 95% of the world in the face with a shotgun, for pretty much every little annoyance they cause me.

I'm quite a moody cynical bitch.

However, I do believe we have freedoms, as people, as individuals, and we have equality and we have rights. So just because I don't agree with emo's, doesn't mean I want a law that forbids sad pathetic ugly people to be an emo. Just because Brad likes to occasionally talk out of his ass at times, annoying global internet society, doesn't mean I think he should be banned, and when law-abiding, tax-paying muslims want their own place to worship their God and prophet, I think we can afford to let them have a couple of those places that meet up to their wishes and standards.

It's no big deal.

Christians have their houses of worship. Jews have their houses of worship. Muslims have them, they should have them, and if they want a couple of minarets, I'm certainly not bothered or scared enough by them to forbid them from having those.

Does that mean I bow down to muslims? No. Does this mean I bow down to whatever the hell they want? No. As I said before, this is about freedom, tollerance, acceptance... and that should go both ways. We expect them integrate and accept our laws and customs and values etc as their own, if they want to live here, and for the most part, they do (there are obviously some exceptions), and we should accept and respect that these new people also have their own customs, identity, religion, etc etc, and as long as that doesn't go against our laws, rights and freedoms etc, they are free to do whatever they want, prey to whoever they want, where they want, when they want, etc.

It's none of my business.

I'm not someone who thinks 'Islam' is a threat to us. In fact, here in Holland, it's our OWN fear for 'Islam' that is now being used to drain us from our rights, our privacy, and in fact our morals and values. Islam isn't doing that to us. Muslims aren't doing that to us. WE are.

I don't think 'islam' is a threat. I do think radicals and extremists are a threat. Now we can make a difference between the normal muslims, and the nutty radical ones, or we can treat them all as the same thing, push them all in the same corner, and poke them all with a stick untill they all get upset (and rightly so).
I'm in favour of the option to be friends who come here as our friend, accepting and respecting our differences, and strike down hard upon those who aren't willing to do so and pose a threat (when they're in OUR countries: if people want to hate us when they're in THEIR countries, I couldn't care less...)

In short: I'm not in favour of abusing my vote just to spite some people from getting what they want.

[grim_tales]

I agree with Yi, good grief
I am not anti normal Muslims I am anti radical, evil Muslims, I don't care if normal, law-abiding Muslims need someplace to worship, or if anyone (Christian, Jew) wants to worship. I'm not religious but its not hurting me if a normal guy wants to pray etc. No big deal
Just because something goes through a "vote" doesnt mean it is "right", what if 52% of a vote voted in favour of shooting ginger people?

[Markgway]

Yi - What you are talking about is not a failure of democracy. Because you don't agree with a decision doesn't mean it's the wrong decision as fact. You have your say same as everyone else. Once the majority speaks there's nothing you can do - unless you want some kind of dictatorship. Religious presence is a privalage not a right.

Grim - If 52% of people in this country voted to shoot ginger people I don't think any of us would want to live here. That's an absurd comparison and something that will never happen unless society goes completely insane. And I'm sure none of us will be around to see that happen regardless.

[grim_tales]

I hope no one ever proposes a vote like that, true. If they did, as you say, its absolutely insane.

[Yi-Long]

Yi - What you are talking about is not a failure of democracy. Because you don't agree with a decision doesn't mean it's the wrong decision as fact. You have your say same as everyone else. Once the majority speaks there's nothing you can do - unless you want some kind of dictatorship. Religious presence is a privalage not a right.

Grim - If 52% of people in this country voted to shoot ginger people I don't think any of us would want to live here. That's an absurd comparison and something that will never happen unless society goes completely insane. And I'm sure none of us will be around to see that happen regardless.

Ok, let's make it more realistic: What if 52% of the people vote for a ban on violent videogames? What if 52% of the people vote on a ban on violent asian movies, like Battle Royale, or Hard Boiled?

Hard to imagine? No it isn't. Just first imagine a huge propaganda-war against videogames and violent movies, for many years, linking them to everything that's wrong with our youth and public safety etc.

Boom. Gone is your freedom to decide, cause 52% of the people were talked into thinking these things actually cause problems.

Democracy doesn't fail when it goes against MY wishes. It fails when it goes against our common interests, like rights, freedoms, morals etc.

It's pretty easy to say democracy is fair, because 'the majority' decides, and thus is 'right'. It isn't. If it was, we would have voted a bunch of members of this board a long time ago, probably including me. Everytime we would have an argument/disagreement/fight... 'let's have a vote to kick you of this board!'. Yeah, smart going(!)

It's ridiculous.

[grim_tales]

I guess as with all polls it depends who's asked - how the question is asked etc. Unless you ask absolutely everyone - you could get a "majority" vote on banning violent Asian movies -but if you only ask 20m people - not the whole country (60m+) how is that fair?

[Markgway]

Ok, let's make it more realistic: What if 52% of the people vote for a ban on violent videogames? What if 52% of the people vote on a ban on violent asian movies, like Battle Royale, or Hard Boiled?

Then I'd move to Canada... Seriously though if that happened then I'd just have to live with it. If a majority felt strongly enough to vote in favour of a ban then that has to be respected. I don't see it happening as currently the majority are against such draconian censorship but I understand the point you're making.

Boom. Gone is your freedom to decide, cause 52% of the people were talked into thinking these things actually cause problems.

I naturally would disagree with a ban. But I'm one man and I have one vote same as everyone else. If I'm outvoted that's just how it is.

Democracy doesn't fail when it goes against MY wishes. It fails when it goes against our common interests, like rights, freedoms, morals etc.

And who gets to decide those interests? Your idea of what's in 'our' best interest isn't the same as mine. Does that make either of us more right than the other? No.

It's pretty easy to say democracy is fair, because 'the majority' decides, and thus is 'right'. It isn't. If it was, we would have voted a bunch of members of this board a long time ago, probably including me. Everytime we would have an argument/disagreement/fight... 'let's have a vote to kick you of this board!'. Yeah, smart going(!)

If it makes you feel any better I think it's highly unlikely a majority would vote to ban you from Bullets Yi. You're not annoying or offensive enough for that. Brad should watch his back though...

[thelostdragon]

Has anyone ever heard of the term "voting cattle"? They are usually people who only start caring about something when it is time to vote. And by the time a new voting is announced the media is usually filled with more propaganda than before. In my opinion only educated should be allowed to vote and the uneducated majority of "voting cattle" should not.

By letting such people vote, they could be responsible for a new law that sucks (banning of video games, violent films or a law forbidding religious people to have a proper place of worpship):

[Yi-Long]

Instead of letting just educated people vote, I'd rather see only intelligent people (IQ and EQ above 120-125) being allowed to get elected.

Right now, politics is filled with idiots. Maybe 10% are qualified for the job (yet stuck in an idiotic system), and 90% of th politicials got their job either through connections, or through some populistic bullshit.

These people run countries. They make HUGE decisions that affect all of our lifes. We should set much higher demands on their qualifications. Not just on the IQ part, but also on the EQ part, because politics isn't just theory, and it isn't just about numbers. In the end, it's about people. And many politicians today don't seem to realize that enough. Not to mention their followers(!)

[romerojpg]

Has anyone ever heard of the term "voting cattle"?

Must be like Religion cattle, except religion cattle do far more damage to everyone in the world.

[thelostdragon]

Seems like you are offended by the term "voting cattle". Are you?

[romerojpg]

Nope.

[bradavon]

Must be like Religion cattle, except religion cattle do far more damage to everyone in the world.

Religion does more good than bad but you chose to ignore that side of it.

[romerojpg]

Religion does more bad than good but you chose to ignore that side of it.

[bradavon]

There are billions of peaceful people in the world whose religion is very important to them, they never hurt anyone. That far outweighs the minority who cause trouble.

[thelostdragon]

From my own experience I can only say that my own religion prevented me from doing a lot of bad things.

[gasteropod]

I don't do bad things due to my morals, I don't need a religion to keep me in line.

[romerojpg]

I don't do bad things due to my morals, I don't need a religion to keep me in line.

Some people are so dumb they need to be threatened by a god and afterlife punishment, instead of anything close to morals

[thelostdragon]

No need for insults, romero.

[romerojpg]

I said "Some People", you do not come off as someone who is scared of their religion thru fear of punishement in an afterlife etc... many do, which must be bloody awful to fear your religion.
Make one mistake and someone goes to hell etc.. sounds pathetic to me thinking like that, not exactly a comfort to them. Some have forgivness built into a religion, but some cannot forgive, so I guess some think they will be burning in hell no matter what they do.

[Markgway]

Instead of letting just educated people vote, I'd rather see only intelligent people (IQ and EQ above 120-125) being allowed to get elected.

Rules out everyone on this fourm then...

Religion does more good than bad but you chose to ignore that side of it.

That's a highly contentious statement.

I don't do bad things due to my morals, I don't need a religion to keep me in line.

A sensible comment.

[bradavon]

I don't do bad things due to my morals, I don't need a religion to keep me in line.

Me too but then religion is much more than just "doing the right thing".

That's a highly contentious statement.

True. I said it because Romero's views on religion are so narrow minded, he cannot accept religion can and does bring some good to the world too.

[grim_tales]

In a good person's hands, religion can do good and it is peaceful. IMO it depends more on the person, if a guy is evil, they will find stuff in religion to justify evil. I hate fundamentalists.

[saltysam]

what'a a fundamendalist?