| If there was a referendum on whether to ban minarets in your country or not you would say: |
|
If there was a referendum on whether to ban minarets in your country or not you would say:
Click to vote
|
|
||||
|
Ask500
|
Login
Switzerland
FYI: There'll be a referendum on the subject on Nov 29th in Switzerland.
Really?? So Switzerland is possibly going to ban a form of architecture? How long until church steeples are banned if they are not already?
Is there some reasonable reason for it (architectural hazardous danger for it falling down on people) or just, its muslim, ban it? o.O
It's a referendum initiated by a right-wing party. So far the polls show about the same result as in here (55% no ban, 30% ban). Although I think it's important to discuss how different cultures live together in an open, democratic society with a Christian background, the minaret ban wouldn't solve any problem. AND it's deeply undemocratic and discriminating. I just thought it's interesting to see whether results vary in different countries.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
It's interesting to note that Conservatives here are usually the group most concerned about religious liberty.
At least they say they are. But they don't seem overly concerned with our right to choose NOT to be religious.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
That's because your choice of religious practice (not to be religious) tends to infringe on our right to religious liberty.
How does HIS choice (not to be religious) affect YOUR religious liberty?
Because people with his values support freedomfromreligion.org and the ACLU's anti-Christian agenda.
So? Christians support genocide, that does not mean that you or all Christians support it.
First, Christianity doesn't support genocide. Most people can't tell the difference between Christians and Christianity. That's why God had the (widely ignored) commandment about taking his name in vain. Taking Gods name in vain is a figure of speech that describes the practice of saying that you are a Christian and then not doing what God would have you do. Christians that support genocide are taking the Lord's name in vain.
freedomfromreligion.org and the ACLU's anti-Christian agenda is consistent with all Atheism.
Huh, what was that big flood all about then?
I am an agnostic, so I can say I am impartial here and you are in no danger of loosing your rights to believe in your god or assemble to worship him.
Sorry, it wasn't aimed directly at you. I've been on other sites where genocide was a trigger word for "those damned Christians are at it again.
There are times when Christians certainly have shown to be capable of genocide, so this shouldn't really surprise you. But I consider most (but certainly not all) Christians to be peace loving people just like the followers of all other religions and even Atheist. I just wish that all religious leaders (including Christians) would focus more on love and compassion rather then hate.
So do I.
Bullcrap.
Nope, and I treated your comments better than that when I disagreed. It's the last time.
Please explain?
It's not possible to explain without generalising, as JWBrothers' original statement was a general one about conservative people. Which means it's easy for you to contradict me by saying that only SOME conservatives act like this.
I'm thinking of people - preachers and politicians - who claim that the right not to believe isn't protected by the freedom of religion; who claim that Christianity is part of the US constitution; and who are working for religious laws to be passed, based only on their own personal beliefs (instead of rational argument, if anyone were wondering).
Which religions laws are you talking about specifically?
I personally don't think that anyone (in general) is "forcing" religion on people who don't believe. Having a cross on display in a government building does not force you to believe in god, having the Ten Commandments on display at a courthouse does not force you to believe in god. Maybe it irritates you but it is not infringing on your right to not believe.
To some degree I liken your lack of faith in god to my lack of faith in martians (aliens). If I were at a court house and they had a flying saucer on display that would not change my mind about martians nor would I consider it forcing the belief of martians on me. I definitely would not get militant about it and start suing the county or state over it, because in effect that would be me forcing MY beliefs on other people.
It's not exactly my number one priority either, I'll grant you that. It's worse when religion is a mandatory part of children's schooling.
Religious law are, for example, laws against homosexual practice (like gay marriage or gay couples adopting). The only non-religious arguments are very weak or far-fetched (like "same-sex couples can't procreate", as if lack of procreation were a problem in the world).
I don't think that mandatory religious teaching are a part of most schools in the US. Maybe it happens but they sure didn't mention it much when I was in school. Thinking back on it the only time I remember anything like religions teaching in school was when the coach would have the football team say the Lords Prayer right before a game and right after it. I never knew of anyone who was hurt by that and I never remember anyone who object to the practice.
As for homo-marriage, I really don't have a dog in that fight. Considering the rate of divorce Im not exactly sure why gay people want to get married so bad anyway. I will admit that since I am so apathetic about the idea I have not really put much effort into finding out the reasons they want that "right" so bad and why some people don't want them to have that "right". I am willing to believe that most religions are against the idea, but I also believe that there are probably some people who are not all that religions who just feel like it is wrong, and religion gets ALL the blame. Really, I just don't know...
Re: I'm thinking of people - preachers and politicians - who claim that the right not to believe isn't protected by the freedom of religion; who claim that Christianity is part of the US constitution.
I don't support their efforts and I suspect that they are fringe characters picked up by the media to marginalize Christianity. When you depend on the mainstream media for a feel of what the US is like, you get a slightly to the moderate Liberal, mostly agnostic point of view. The US is actually middle Right, predominately Christian. Because we have such a large, diverse country, it's easy to find someone to represent a repugnant point of view and give them as an example of why all the people they don't like are idiots. But it does not represent most Christians or Christian thinking.
Glad to hear it. But I don't really see why mainstream media should have an anti-religious agenda. As you say, most Americans are Christians, and it wouldn't be wise to constantly represent their largest demographic as idiots or bigots.
Of course, sensationalism will turn the focus from moderate opinions and people to extreme ones.
It could be partially sensationalism, but I suspect it has to do more with demographics. When polling groups check, they find that reporters, as a group, are much more Liberal and the majority are self described Agnostics or Atheists.
Some examples...
These are the first of several instances I ran across. Given more time, I could sort them by seriousness and list several hundred more.
Syndicated columnist Molly Ivans, and New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd both women are liberal advocates who worship at the altar of Roe vs. Wade. Harriet Miers is a member of an evangelical Christian church. If you belong to conservative Christian church, these women believe you have no right to serve your country in a decisionmaking capacity.
COLUMBIA, S.C — A federal judge ruled Tuesday that South Carolina can't issue license plates showing the image of a cross in front of a stained glass window along with the phrase "I Believe."
Wednesday, September 9, 2009 14:00 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- A divided federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld a school district's refusal to let a band play a religious piece at a high school graduation... (Ave Maria)
Monday, September 7, 2009 As of 7:00 PM EDT Two Christian girls. Two sets of distraught parents. And two state courts smack in the middle of it.
One of these courts is in New Hampshire, where a judge recently ordered that home-schooled Amanda Kurowski be sent to public school. The order signed by Family Court Justice Lucinda V. Sandler says the 10-year-old's Christian faith could use some shaking up—and that the local public school is just the place to do it. So while the child's lawyers at the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal outfit, filed a motion asking the judge to reconsider, last week Amanda started fifth grade at a local public school.
At about the same time Miss Kurowski was starting school in New Hampshire, a state court in Florida was considering what to do with 17-year-old Rifqa Bary. Miss Bary fled to Florida from Ohio a few weeks back, where she sought refuge with a Christian couple whose church she had learned about on Facebook. She says she ran away from home because her father discovered she'd become a Christian—and then threatened to kill her. On Thursday, Circuit Judge Daniel Dawson ordered the girl and her family to try mediation and set a pretrial hearing for the end of the month.
n January, the Santa Rosa County School District settled out of court with the ACLU, agreeing to several things, including a provision to bar all school employees from promoting or sponsoring prayers during school-sponsored events; holding school events at church venues when a secular alternative was available; or promoting their religious beliefs or attempting to convert students in class or during school-sponsored events.
School coaches threatened with 6 months in jail and loss of credentials for blessing player's lunch. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/14/criminal-prayer-case-stirs-protests/
In the same district. "Mr. Staver said the district also agreed to forbid senior class President Mary Allen from speaking at the school's May 30 graduation ceremony on the chance that the young woman, a known Christian, might say something religious."
"She was the first student body president in 33 years not allowed to speak," he said.
Later; By Christian Newswire Friday, September 18, 2009
SANTA ROSA COUNTY, FL, /Christian Newswire/—Yesterday after an all-day hearing, Santa Rosa County, Florida, Principal Frank Lay and Athletic Director Robert Freeman were cleared of criminal contempt charges that arose from the simple blessing of a meal. When they heard the decision, tears of joy and cheers swept through the throngs of people who had waited outside in the rain for over ten hours.
Senior class President Mary Allen, at last report, is still not allowed to speak.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Amanda Carpenter :: Townhall.com Columnist
Ramadan Yea, Christmas Nay
Democrats who supported a House resolution to honor Ramadan voted against a similar resolution to honor Christmas and Christianity last night.
18 Democrats voted “nay” or “present” on a resolution to “recognize the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith.” An eagle-eyed Republican House staffer points out that those same members, with one exception, voted to “recognize the commencement of Ramadan,” a Muslim religious observance in October.
WRAL.COM Posted: Dec 14, 2007 Fayetteville, N.C. — It's a house of worship with none of the symbols. There are no crosses or Bibles on display at the Fayetteville Veterans Affairs Medical Center chapel. Blinds cover elaborate stained glass windows.Laud Pitt plans to hand out Christmas cards at the hospital Tuesday. But to do it, he says, he'll have to be escorted by the chaplain.
"Isn't that a waste of money for a chaplain to spend that much time making sure I say the right thing?" Pitt said.
Pitt said he has been told he can no longer read scripture to patients or pray with them, because it's against policy.“They've taken away freedom of religion and freedom of speech,” Pitt said.
Bibles, crosses and fine linens have been put in a closet and are available only upon request.
“I think it's a travesty,” he said.
It's the latest in a series of discouraging news to the Vietnam veteran, who was already upset about changes in the hospital chapel.
The Sidney Morning Herald
John Gray
December 12, 2007
A new breed of missionaries is trying to convert the world. Evangelists of unbelief say religion is a relic left over from the past that stands in the way of human progress. Once the world is rid of religion, immemorial evils such as war and tyranny can be overcome, and humanity will be able to fashion a new life for itself better than any known in history.
Such is the creed of anti-religious missionaries such as Richard Dawkins. Continued - http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/the-empty-myths-peddled-by-evangelists-of-unbelief/2007/12/11/1197135459496.html
That is patently false, most conservatives are concerned with pushing their religion onto the masses, that is the opposite of religious liberty.
Ha, and I have seen you do your very best to push your atheism onto other people as well.
Questioning the basis for religion is not pushing Atheism. I thought I was clear about it in the "home depot question" that I support every persons right to choose their religion or none. I do however not support legislation that bans or promotes any religion or even atheism.
This comment was deleted by JWBrothers .
[1 point] 2 years ago byHow do you know? I'm a Christian and a Conservative. You are Liberal and Atheist. I'll fight for the right to practice my religion, But I'm not trying to make you go to church.
That might be true, but that is not what I claimed.
You said, "...most conservatives are concerned with pushing their religion onto the masses, that is the opposite of religious liberty."
Christians of all political types are commanded to proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ. Is that what you are talking about? That's free speech AND religious liberty. That is doubly protected by our constitution.
Now, either claim something substantive or stop taking potshots like a troll.
Easy, I just use one of your own comments to show how you try pushing your religion onto others. http://www.ask500people.com/questions/if-there-was-a-referendum-on-whether-to-ban-minarets-in-your-country-or-not-you-would-say#comment_255469
By showing several examples of anti-Christian legal attacks? How is that ANYTHING but defending religious liberty?
Are you really incapable of understanding why your rant is pushing your religion and not defending freedom of religion?
Are you incapable of understanding that your bastardization of freedom of religion that became freedom from religion is the real problem here?
Try replacing the religion with one you don't like, satanism for instance, now reread your comment...
If you have religious liberty, you can't ban minarets. If stopping Muslim culture is more important than religious liberty, you can ban them. But you can't have religious liberty AND ban minarets.
I oppose religion in every way that can be justified. By I don't see how this can. Minarets are no more symbols of power than any other symbol, and it would be a violation of the freedom of religion to ban them for no reason.
Only reason i can think is if they have gigantic speakers mounted up at the top and use it to call prayer five times a day.
Now THAT is worth a referendum ban on it.
I can see how you could easily justify a ban on the noise....that would not be a problem at all I wouldnt expect