The Swiss minaret ban damages property rights

[Riddler]

Yeah.  That's Republican talk-- "We support freedom, but only for ourselves.  Screw those people we don't like." 

If you only support freedom for people you agree with, you don't actually support freedom at all. 

yeah, those swiss are a raging pack of far-right, republicans.....

fuckers are THE most liberal, leftists on the planet

I wasn't talking about the Swiss. 

well, you originally replied to;

I think it's a good idea finally someone in Europe has some balls to stand up to the Muslims.
and
sarcasm] Yeah it would be nice to have freedom, except we've got to teach those Muslims a lesson. [/sarcasm]

Fuck you.

the 1st guy was talkin bout the swiss.....

[Riddler]

[...]  how are the property rights doin in pickafuckingislamic country?

Strongest in the world, actually.

bullshiite, blobag...
as was said earlier.....
try building a catholic church w/ a steeple & bell tower & see how far you get....

[AL the Inconspicuous]

You're comparing apples to mangosteins here.  Western societies are based on the religion of government statism, not Christianity.  Islamic societies are based on Islam as their primary social contract and the source of all laws and rights.  Building a Catholic Church is an Islamic country is equivalent to not openly not paying taxes (or marrying 14-year-old quadruplets) in a statist one.

[hellbilly]

You're comparing apples to mangosteins here.  Western societies are based on the religion of government statism, not Christianity.  Islamic societies are based on Islam as their primary social contract and the source of all laws and rights.  Building a Catholic Church is an Islamic country is equivalent to not openly not paying taxes (or marrying 14-year-old quadruplets) in a statist one.

Then is it not proper to wonder if Muslims seeking Islamic society may be better suited in settling in an Islamic society instead of bending incompatible societies to suit them?

If I share my tea with you, shouldn't you be willing to share yours with me?

[Riddler]

You're comparing apples to mangosteins here.  Western societies are based on the religion of government statism, not Christianity.  Islamic societies are based on Islam as their primary social contract and the source of all laws and rights.  Building a Catholic Church is an Islamic country is equivalent to not openly not paying taxes (or marrying 14-year-old quadruplets) in a statist one.

fine then, they should stay in their ''own little world'' then.
a tad hypocritical to go around the globe bitching about shit they all do in their backyards

[MacFall]

I support freedom for those who support freedom.  I don't see any of that from CAIR, or from European Islam in general.

Sorry, that's not how it works.  People who really support freedom have to be bigger people than those who don't.   And "European Islam" is not a monolithic group.  I knew plenty of Muslims in Europe who support your freedom.

If I see people carrying out "honor killings," saying that they wish to conquer Europe, and generally promoting violence, and it nearly all seems to be from one group, then there's no way I can support that group.

Unfortunately, there is NO SUCH THING as "that group". Only individuals exist, can act, and can be held responsible for their actions.

[TimeLady Victorious]

I support freedom for those who support freedom.  I don't see any of that from CAIR, or from European Islam in general.

Sorry, that's not how it works.  People who really support freedom have to be bigger people than those who don't.   And "European Islam" is not a monolithic group.  I knew plenty of Muslims in Europe who support your freedom.

If I see people carrying out "honor killings," saying that they wish to conquer Europe, and generally promoting violence, and it nearly all seems to be from one group, then there's no way I can support that group.

Unfortunately, there is NO SUCH THING as "that group". Only individuals exist, can act, and can be held responsible for their actions.

Groups do exist and there are people who consider themselves to be parts of groups.

[MacFall]

No member of any group has the power to create obligations upon another member without the knowledge and consent of the other. If a bunch of people calling themselves Christians decide to go out and kill gay people, that does not make me responsible for their murders, nor does it give anyone the just power to forbid the construction of steeples, except on their own property.

[TimeLady Victorious]

No member of any group has the power to create obligations upon another member without the knowledge and consent of the other. If a bunch of people calling themselves Christians decide to go out and kill gay people, that does not make me responsible for their murders, nor does it give anyone the just power to forbid the construction of steeples, except on their own property.

It does if you give aid and comfort to them, and approve of their actions.

[Riddler]

No member of any group has the power to create obligations upon another member without the knowledge and consent of the other. If a bunch of people calling themselves Christians decide to go out and kill gay people, that does not make me responsible for their murders, nor does it give anyone the just power to forbid the construction of steeples, except on their own property.

do you hear yourself???
how bout all those imams & muslim fanatics that trick/brainwash/connive young muslim men & women to strap bombs to themselves & turn themselves into a grease spot???!!
fuck sakes

[MacFall]

how bout all those imams & muslim fanatics that trick/brainwash/connive young muslim men & women to strap bombs to themselves & turn themselves into a grease spot???!!

That would be an example of people consenting to a pretended obligation. Basically you proved my point, good job.

[AL the Inconspicuous]

Then is it not proper to wonder if Muslims seeking Islamic society may be better suited in settling in an Islamic society instead of bending incompatible societies to suit them?

That's a very statist way of looking at geopolitics.  Human societies experience perpetual change, with good ideas expanding and bad ideas shrinking and withering away.  This is how small Saxons tribes managed to expand from a forested slice of northern Germany to Britain, North America, Australia, and beyond.   And now, this is how Islam is managing to expand, filling in the economic void created by the West's self-destructive socialist and feminist mistakes.

And I can't think of any major examples of any Islamic minority trying to "bend" society, only act in self-defence.  (Taking into account that they consider insulting the foundations of their social contract to be a mind-blowing insult, far more than America's right-wing socialists frown on pot or flag-burning, and far more than America's left-wing socialists frown on guns or the n-word.)  I guess the closest example to them trying to "bend" society would be the car burnings in France, but that was more of a socialist / racist riot than a Muslim one.

[Riddler]

Then is it not proper to wonder if Muslims seeking Islamic society may be better suited in settling in an Islamic society instead of bending incompatible societies to suit them?

 Human societies experience perpetual change, with good ideas expanding and bad ideas shrinking and withering away. 

this, obviously, NOT applying to the islamic world, where stonings, beheadings, genital mutilation and, best of all, sacrificing your son/daughter with a TNT offering to the fabricated man-behind-the-curtain....''allah'' , remain ''good'' ideas
what a fucking tool

[The Muslim Agorist]

I refuse to advocate the freedom of groups which are actively against my freedom.

That's a recipe for tyranny. Any group following your principle could not possibly advocate your freedom, since you clearly don't advocate theirs. If we all followed your example there'd be no freedom advocate anywhere.

someone posting on your link hit it spot-on:
...''The Swiss did not ban mosques, they banned minarets. USA and other countries should follow suit. When Saudi Arabia and the other twenty-odd Islamic countries permit church bell towers, or even carrying a Bible, then the issue of building minarets can be revisited. ''......

And Jasons response was spot-on:
“Mutalip Karaademi is Albanian and has lived in Switzerland 26 years. Albania is about 40% Christian with lots of Churches. The law in Saudi hardly reflects on Swiss moslems who are mostly Turkish… To characterize this as a *non-violent* solution ignores the gun in the room. All government solutions are inherently violent because they carry the force of law. In affect the Swiss people have given the state permission to use violence against a moslem who builds a minaret. Although not overtly violent, it is the threat of violence which enforces a ban of any kind.”

Unfortunately, there is NO SUCH THING as "that group". Only individuals exist, can act, and can be held responsible for their actions.

I'm glad someone is thinking clearly.

There’s really only one question. If I own a piece of land and I build a structure that makes no sound, emits no pollution, requires no energy, and endangers no one, and you don't like it, are you willing to threaten me, or sanction the government to threaten me, if I don't dismantle it?

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

Try building a synagoge in Tehran.