I'm sure a lot of them do because they want to survive, and no one provides them an education to know any better.

I just want to know how the concept of natural rights as a universal concept applies only to men.

Very much so.  


If you were to look at specifics (beyond what I wrote in the last post), if Switzerland has a national identity and national culture and societal values that they wish to maintain, then they have to... maintain those values.

If those values are the principles of the enlightenment, of liberty and natural rights, then one has to ask what are the effects of allowing people to practice a belief system which does not believe in liberty and natural rights?  Islam is a political/religious belief system, and allowing it to normalize allows it to change the national character.  If the Swiss choose to say "no burqas" because they feel it will be as simple as a symbol of acquiesence to an ultimately totalitarian theology, or because they view it as a specific oppression of women who should be allowed to become Swiss citizens free of culturally-mandated oppression by dogmas that are antithetical to liberty and natural rights, then that seems like a reasonable choice.  It's a decision by their society to defend itself by restricting the freedom to practice an ideology that is intolerant of freedom, and a decision to defend its citizens by restricting the aspects of culture Swiss view as antithetical to freedom.

Freedom fail.

 

Certain aspects, sure.  

Every aspect, no.  I'm sure the difference between behaviors such as honor killing rape victims can be discerned against behavior such as willing adherence to religious dress code.

Uh oh......in before the ATF (anti Trump forces)

I see,  so those women who get raped and honor killed were asking for it because they failed to adhere to religious dress code.

No idea how you came to that conclusion from what I wrote.

He's running in Switzerland, too?  

The law will result in a lawsuit and be rescinded.

How is this any different then keeping people from open carry of semi-auto rifles?

Nobody is saying they cant own a Burka, they just cant use private business as their own personal billboard to intimidate others with their extremist views.

That's exactly right. "Liberty" is a double edged sword. Yes, it's great for the most part, but it has at least one fatal flaw, particularly with freedom of speech: if you are going to allow anyone to say anything, then your domestic enemies are going to use that freedom to - legally - do everything in their power to destroy you. You won't or can't stop them: that's not "liberty."

The opposite side of the coin is unpalatable as well: if you restrict freedom of speech then, well, that's not "freedom," is it? Now, that's not an issue as long as the people you agree with are in charge, but what about if/when the other guys take charge? Then, suddenly, it's not Marxist shitbirds who are being "disappeared," it's YOUR people who are being persecuted.

It appears to be a no-win situation, and that situation seems to be pretty much a law of nature or law of human interaction: any system will eventually descend/devolve into anarchy/despotism at which point something new will take its place and the cycle starts over again. History teaches us empires ALWAYS fall. Great cultures ALWAYS end up peaking and then descending into mediocrity or being assimilated by different cultures.

There doesn't seem to be a "perfect mix" of freedom and despotism. Both are doomed to fail in the long run.

The Hittites rose and declined. Same with the Assyrians. So did the Egyptians. The Romans. The British Empire. The Soviet Union (which was an empire) fell apart. The USA is no different, it's simply happening at a lightning pace: incredibly fast rise, incredibly fast decline.

The best form of government, as far as I can tell, is a benevolent despotism: as long as YOUR guy is in charge, you're sitting pretty. However, your guy isn't going to be in charge forever. There is no better example of that than English monarchy. During the Protestant Reformation period (and beyond), if you were a Protestant and a Protestant monarch was on the throne, then you had it made and Catholics were made to feel..."unwelcome," let us say. If a Catholic was on the throne, protestants were persecuted. Back and forth until Protestants finally established dominance.

Remember that old ferry operator in "The Outlaw Josie Wales?" The one who could whistle "Dixie" or "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" with equal ardor? Well, there you go.

Humans haven't changed in 10,000 years. Technology has changed. People haven't. People painted designs on their skin and pierced their skin with animal bones, etc. 10,000 years ago. They do the same thing today in the U.S.A. There are just a lot more tribes now and they all have fancier tools and gadgetry.

I'm kind of a fan of constitutional republics.

But you have to have a moral people, have to follow the constitution, and have to teach your people to be moral and follow that constititon.



Just gotta send everybody through Mr. Dubois's History & Moral Philosophy class, even if they don't pass.

A tiny step in the right direction. Not even near to being enough.

I'm shocked by the number here who are willing to sacrifice freedom.

I get why you're happy, but the moment a government gets power to control something that freedom is lost forever.  People need to realize that moves like this can set precedents for the government disrupting our life as well.  Attack one religion, attack every religion.  I know many Christians here who already feel persecution. Be careful what you allow from the government it can go both ways.  Just a word of caution in a time of a lot of uncertainty.

Liberty and natural rights is NOT something understood by Islam.





 

So you guys are ok with full face masks in your local 7/11?

Not sure what you mean about sacrificing freedom... For example, it is already illegal in the State of Alabama to wear a mask in public. It's been illegal for quite a while. So, wearing a burka or similar clothing that includes covering the face is currently already illegal. Why would Switzerland want to allow people to wear masks or cover their face in public? What kind of freedom are you losing, you can't freely rob banks anymore? Wherever burkas are allowed they need to be outlawed, wherever they are already illegal the law must be enforced to push back on this scourge.

Also, women wearing burkas in public violates other people's freedoms because muslim men use it as a pretext to justify sexual assault and rape against other women who do not wear it. There is a direct, significant correlation between increase in burka/hijab wearing and skyrocketing rape statistics against non-muslim females. Talk about sacrificing freedom...

Islam is not a religion. It is political theism.  Disagree with it and the State will kill you.



 

It's the failure of that part in red that turned out to be the fatal flaw in the American experiment. Well, that and the 17th and 19th Amendments.

Communism is an intellectual contagion, a deadly virus with a death toll far greater than the1918 flu pandemic. History has proven the only "reformed" communist is a dead communist. You can't "cure" them of the lunatic idea. It's impossible. You can only try to contain the contagion, to nip it in the bud before it spreads. But "reforming" communists is illegal. If you go around "reforming" Marxists, the government will either kill you or put you in prison. So that's the end of that.

The Germans knew Vladimir Lenin was a carrier of a virulent intellectual contagion. That's why they - literally - used him as a weapon during WW1. They re-introduced him to Russia (from exile in Germany) knowing that Bolshevism would spread like wildfire among the downtrodden and ignorant masses. It was hoped this would knock Russia out of the war. They also were quite cognizant that it was a desperate gamble: that the contagion could spread beyond Russia's borders in all directions and even infect Germany itself.

The German gamble paid off initially, but backfired in the long run. They should have killed Lenin and been done with it. The Czar didn't do it (the monarchy did, however, have Lenin's brother killed in 1887), the Germans didn't do it, and 100 million people died as a result in the 20th century. When it's all said and done, the death toll in the 21st century will be orders of magnitude higher.

Marxism is a pestilence and its carriers are evil.

Nothing gives GD a "freedom" boner quite like anti-religious authoritarianism.

 

This islamic bullshit has nothing to do with "religion": it's a totalitarian political movement. If it were about "religion" this vast mass of restless, brutal, ignorant 3rd world peasants and their political masters (imams) would just pray and leave people the fuck alone. But it isn't, and they don't.

I guess banning Islam was not on the ballot.

Good to see that we have some people on this board that understand this.

At one time recently, scientology was/is outlawed in Germany.  People lose their jobs and are jailed in European countries for speaking against the government, Not over throw just against.  Their laws are not our laws.  Also the article started,a court found it within their laws.  Just like Frances ban was found legal there.

nvmd

They need to forget banning what people wear and grow some balls and actually deal with their Islam problem effectively. Banning what type of garment people wear is simply a pathetic band aid. Yeah, it's a poke in the eye, but solves nothing.

 
Sure. I'm pretty happy allowing others to live freely. I find it odd that so many in this thread are willing to give up their freedom so long as it doesn't affect them yet.

Why would I care?  If I give them money and in exchange they give me goods and services it doesn't bother me in the least what someone is wearing.

I'm too lazy to find the nelson haha pic, but that's what immediately went through my head.

0 fucks to be given

 
Nah, it's the Dutch guys in Denmark.  Or maybe the Aussies in Vienna....

John Adams agrees with you, sadly most of America does not seem to do so , or even cares any more.  At this point  many places around the world are going to infringe on the liberty of a few if they want to preserve it as a whole. I have yet to see where rich and vibrant is compatible with the principles of liberty or constitutional republics.

He's going to be the  Supreme Leader of The Free World.

We are in the dunes though,.  We should get out of the dunes as soon as possible....maybe they will go back?

The pendulum swings....

Good for Switzerland.

Regular people are fed up with Islamic bullshit shoved down their throats.

Your newsletter. I'd like to subscribe.

This sounds cool the first time, but would you rather hear Church bells on Sunday or this 5 fucking times a day in your neighborhood?

At college campuses, it's not uncommon to see Muslim women wearing yoga pants and a hijab.



 

Yep, eliminate the riff-raff and there would be no need.



 

You have to have an educated and engaged population.   A democratically elected representative constitutional based government can easily be destroyed.  All you have to do buy the government representatives. They will dumb down the schools, destroy the currency and sell off the national assets/ resources to the highest bidder

Luckily we have Trump who is going to save us all

Foreign invaders have no rights.  That's as silly as saying illegal Mexicans have the right to free health care.  Or that the Spanish conquistadors had inherent rights while invading the Americas.



 

Uh oh, robots everywhere will lose their stabilization circuits and slip from their treadmills  

Muzzies don't even have a right to be in Switzerland.  Much less complain about what they are allowed to wear.  Hopefully Switzerland bans cults.