I don't know. Maybe the support they give to those demanding all the Jews be killed? The support they give those firing rockets into Israel and infiltrating to kill Israeli civilians? Perhaps the fact that Israel has the record for sanctions from the peace-loving U.N.? But, of course, you knew that.
Well, yes. We have religious tolerance from a rather lengthy tradition of secularism that grew up in Europe and then developed quite nicely in the Americas as well. From what I hear, most if not all of the Muslim-dominated world is religious to the point of having religious laws and governments, a relic of older times that they have not done away with the way we have, and with this a tendency to be quite intolerant of "apostasy" of all kinds. Their religion, like Christianity and Judaism, has a basic design that is fundamentally intolerant of other faiths and of non-belief. They all tend to have that "this is the one true faith" outlook built in. Such religions breed intolerance, especially when their adherents grow to majority status, due to how those hardline teachings are understood and obeyed, and due also to aspects of human nature to band together to fight against various out-groups. Religions, the Abrahamic religions especially, serve as a delineator for such groupings, and even happen to encourage doing just that. Then there is Islam in particular, a religion that teaches world domination. Every mosque, every minaret, is a sign of victory to Islam and an encouragement to forge ahead with that effort. Islam is a threat to freedom and peace, at least as it tends to be practiced today. It subjugates women to men and all people to a deity, and establishes draconian laws to enforce this in the form of Sharia. I think Islam is better off discouraged than tolerated, because tolerating and inviting Islam is like accepting a Trojan Horse.
Sorry you were writing about the Jewish religion, not Israel. I have never seen a UN resolution against the Jewish religion. The majority of Jews do not live in Israel. Not all Jews in Israel are religious. Not all religious Jews believe the current state should exist. It amazes me that Zionist's constantly act as if anything or anyone against Israel, is against Jews or their religion. It's just another example of Zionist b$$$$$$$ propaganda. But I guess you knew that!
They are fine with me, but I chose the depends on where option because I wouldn't want someone screaming persecution if they were not allowed on their storefront church. Now if you are talking about speakers with calls to prayer in those minarets, not just no, but hell no. I don't mind churches with good bells playing chimes, but when I was a kid we once lived next door to a church that was a block from another church that was a block and a half from another church and they all staggered their services by 15 minutes so that they each could do their "bells" and it got freaking annoying as hell. 2 had a single bell and the third had a speaker they blasted bell chimes from but no working bell in their steeple. My city has so many churches that they eventually did away with most of the bells by regulating them as part of the noise ordinances for good reason. No loud noises on Sunday except between noon and 6:30.
This thread is showing how democracy is probably the best system to manage a society that mankind has ever realized. We are observing how two principals of modern democracies can cohabit. * freedom of religion [which can stay in the wider field of freedom of expression] * majority principal Switzerland grants freedom of religion, but it has allowed the majority principal rule about an aspect of the visible expression of a religious faith within its borderlines. Is it an attack to the freedom of Muslims? It's a statement of independence of the Swiss people, more than an attack to Muslim freedom ... Is it excessive? In my opinion, yes, it is. I would have written that referendum in a different way, specifying in which areas of urban or rural regions was not possible to build new minarets, not in the whole Swiss territory. But of course a referendum cannot present a long text to voters [with a complete list of places where minarets would have been unwanted]. So, they had to make something more direct and with a more "rude" result ...
Local vote within the City/Town to either allow of prevent building such things would be the only fair way to play this out.
This would be a great choice, unfortunately in the case of the Swiss referendum they decided to run it at national level. Absolutely, it was better to request to municipalities to run local referendums in case of request to build a minaret by the local Muslim community [I guess that there aren't so many pending requests about building a minaret in Switzerland].
Would yo allow the construction of minarets? Yo! But only if the town had noise ordinances so some fool would not wake us all up screaming prayers all day. AC DC music? Well, that might be OK.
There's nothing to vote on. Its no business of mine what buildings are erected on private property so long as the zoning is non-residential. Churches have steeples, barring minarets to mosques would be a gross violation of equal protection and freedom of religion. Not to mention due process. In the US it wouldn't be ALLOWED to come up for a vote because we don't vote on (*)(*)(*)(*) like that. Granted city council figures can proselytize and pull underhanded tricks (like changing the zoning etc) but the law is clear even if it is not often followed.
Theoretically in Italy it would be possible, but in negative: that is to say that in Italy a referendum can only change or abrogate an existing law [there is no proposal referendum in the Italian Constitution, but only confirming or abrogating referenda [Latin plural of referendum].
You can have things done by referendum in the US, depending on where you're at it can be positive or negative. See California's "Proposition 8". That was done by constitutional amendment by referendum. It was still struck down. Why? Because it was repugnant to the supreme law of the land, the constitution, specifically on the grounds of due process and equal protection under the law. Just as banning minarets would be repugnant on the grounds of equal protection and freedom of religious practice. And that's from the hip. Give me a day and I could argue it from I believe one other position, property rights. The only way you could stop it is by zoning laws. O gee this tall building endangers these houses right next to it and violates the zoning code etc. But in a town where you've got churches in neighborhoods or other tall buildings (like mine) there is no way to make that argument and not get bull(*)(*)(*)(*) called on you.
Italy is not Switzerland, as I mentioned before, the greatest Mosque in Europe [with a very high minaret!] is in Rome ... Our Constitution Art. 3 Art. 8 So, since Italian laws say nothing about prohibition related with the construction of religious buildings ...
I have no problem with architecture as long as it's not so tacky looking in nature as to drag down local property values. Minarets correctly done are lovely to look at, and so no problem as long as they meet local safety standards during their construction.
I'm not sure I'd want that. The simulated church bells around me are already too loud. Same with bugles. I live 1.5 mi. from and AFB and I get to hear "Reveille" every morning at 7AM.
I think the problem is twofold. First, it's kind of an issue in a historical town, which is very common in Switzerland. That wouldn't be as much of an issue here in the states. The second, and bigger problem, isn't the presence of the minarets but the function. It's not like a Church steeple in it's actual function. [video=youtube;JckR6aJxmHk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JckR6aJxmHk[/video]
Minarets? Hey, it could be worse. . ANGEL MORONI BLOWS HIS (fortunately silent) HORN Most Mormon temples are topped with a statue of Moroni, a character from the Book of Mormon, blowing his trumpet. According to the story, Moroni was the sole survivor of his people in an apocalyptic battle. He escaped with the gold plates upon which he and his forebears had inscribed their history (in a form of Egyptian, for reasons that are never made clear). He buried them in upstate New York, and then appeared in a vision to Joseph Smith and showed him where the plates were. And so he is immortalized atop the temples.
If a minaret is intended as a symbol of occupation of a territory by Islam ... - - - Updated - - - A related matter: I heard that Mormons are is some way related with aliens [at least this was what I hear while I was a young ufologist]. Is this real or is it an ufologist urban legend?
It was in the past. We Turks were building minarets in Belgrade, Budapest, Zagrep, Athens and even Otranto during Ottoman period. But Rome was organizing crusaders to Turkish Empire.In other words it was age of religious wars. Even we built hundreds of mosques in Southeastern Europe, neither Greeks,Bulgarians, Croats, Serbs etc, none of them were forced to convert Islam during 450 years Turkish domination, or we did not force them to speak Turkish as Europeans(such as Spanish Kingdom) forced people in the New World to convert Christianity and speak their language. So even age of religious wars, building minarets were not a threat for Christians.
The planet "Kolob" has a special place in their mythology, and I know of no other religion that fancies actual extraterrestrial locales, only metaphysical realms. Whether SETI might ask directions of Moroni is a dubious proposition.
