win or fail?

I say win but not because I'm anti-islam. I'm jsut pro-masmurderofallreligouspeople so it's a step in the right direction in my opinion.

What is the purpose of these minarets? Are they not merely large pillars?

__________________

They're an eyesore and are pretty annoying. I know firsthand because I was in Dearborn at 6:00AM when they have a guy yelling in gibberish over loudspeaker ontop of one of those things.

I find them architecturally impressive. I would not mind having one where I live. To each his own, I suppose.

__________________

Its so strange that the same country that extended rights to plants, would attempt to repress the rights of a religious community. Granted photosynthesis is really cool and all, but I don't think the plants should get preferential treatment.

To use your parlance, it's a fail.

I thought Switzerland was a liberal country. There's no good reason to ban the minarets at all.

__________________

I think the Swiss know that minarets themselves aren't anything to worry about, it's just a stand against islam in general. I don't think you necessarily have to be right wing to support the minaret ban either, I consider myself liberal in most ways but religion annoys me enough to ignore rights.

Totally agree. Let people do their own thing. Minarets are to call Muslims to prayer.

I think it's a pretty disgraceful decision.
I'm not even religious, but if somebody believes in God, they should have the right to express their beliefs. Religious discrimination is not right.

__________________
"That's what they all say "Fuck you", well it ain't gonna save you. It don't scare me none and it don't suddenly make you a fucking hero."- Otis B. Driftwood

If the 'Swiss' want to take a stand against Islam then they're welcome to do that via the medium of free speech. But they can't start trampling over the freedom of others.

You didn't, the ban was also supported by feminists and secularists on the left.

So you're liberal until people get too disagreeable with your own opinions? What kind of liberalism is that?

__________________

Does me thinking I'm liberal mean I should be pro-everything? You obviously don't mean that but I think you can be liberal whilst still thinking what some people choose to do is wrong. I do think people should be free to do what they want but that actually seems like an argument for anti-religion to me. If a child is instilled with religious lies from birth it completely takes away their freedom. So surely as a liberal person I should be opposed to it even if that means taking freedom of religion from people now?

---------- Post added at 11:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:24 PM ----------

I think perhaps it gave the people a medium to say what they really think. If you go around saying you don't like muslims the media take a fit. Look at Geert Wilders, he spoke out against islam and we banned him from entering the uk... The vote in Switzerland allowed the people to anonymously say what they truly thought.

As someone who has had a rigorous religious upbringing, I personally consider Richard Dawkins' 'virus' that is religion to be much more a grey area than just a mass uncontrollable brainwashing exercise.
A religious upbringing does not completely take away freedom, but I do agree that a religious upbringing touches you in ways that you wouldn't be if you hadn't had it. The problem is that when you start criticising religious parenting like this, where do you stop? We are all affected by the ideologies and world views of our parents, that's a sad fact of life. How could we tell a religious parent that they couldn't bring their child up religiously, when logically that means we have to tell Communists, Tory voters, anti-abortionists and people who really like football that they couldn't bring up tiny Commies, Tories, anti-abortionists and football afficionados? You've either got to let parents bring up their children how they like (without harming them) or suggest that nobody brings up children at all. And as I've said, religion is not the child abuse that it's made out to be. I'm typing proof of that.

I'd have no objection to that. That's an opinion poll, not a referendum. It's when you go down the dangerously populist route of proposing that lots of people thinking it must justify it.

Geert Wilders' banning from the UK was the result of bizzare government action, not the media. When it comes to the mainstream British media's relationship with Islam, it veers from near-Islamophobia (Daily Mail) to awkward umming and ahing both for and against (Guardian).

__________________

I'm pretty much in the same boat, I went to a RC primary school and until I was about 9-10 I genuinely believed that I was being watched by an all powerful god, that my gran lived in heaven and that if I sinned I would go to hell. It opened my eyes to how disturbing religion can be. I'm not seeing how saying children shouldn't be brainwashed into religion is logically saying that they shouldn't be allowed to favour a football team. One is harmful and the other is harmless, I think that;s where I draw the line. I don't support the idea of forcing parents to bring their children up secular anyway. That would be unenforceable and morally stupid. I do however support the government making life harder for religious orginsations but I feel those ideas are pretty different. I'd rather the religious authorities just slowly deteriorated by themselves. It doesn't look like it's going to take new laws for that to happen anyway, at least in the uk.

It's about how parents bring up their children. The disturbing nature of a religious upbringing is much more grey than actually bringing your child up to fear. I know that I was never particularly fearful of God as a child. It's way too fuzzy to say where it goes wrong, that and:

__________________

There are those who seek to stoke conflict between peoples - 'the clash of civilisations' - but I hope enough of us will remember we are human beings first and foremost and what unites us is more important than what divides us.