[Sushi]

Several papers criticise the type of democracy practised in Switzerland, which allows ordinary people rather than elected representatives to decide on such matters.

Funny, people say the same thing about the initiative/proposition system that California and Washington have. Like it or not, the ability to short-circuit elected representatives exists in parts of the U.S. too...


As an aside, we need to be careful when trying to generalize across scores of nations, ethnicities, and cultures. Islam is no more monolithic in culture or belief than Christianity is.

[StarSlayer]

You know what caught my eye in this news? Not the whole muslim thing but this:

Several papers criticise the type of democracy practised in Switzerland, which allows ordinary people rather than elected representatives to decide on such matters.

I wonder why the Swiss are criticize over that since we all know how efficient "elected representatives" are and especially with dealing with different cultures and a democracy where the actual people decide things is an awful thing to have.

It probably has to do with the fact that a straight up vote by the populace means the majority position, whether it is right or wrong will always win.  Minority positions will always be overruled.  Take desegregation for example, if it was put to a popular vote back in the day it might not have passed.  Instead the government was able to step in and make the morally correct call.

[Bobboau]

Multiculturalism is a meaningless word to be honest, it sounds great, like a United Colours of Benetton advert, but it really doesn't mean much, because who defines 'culture'?

In the US, there is Freedom of Speech, to take my earlier example, pro- and anti-abortion. They are, by and large, secular groups, those that attend rallies etc, would not go out for a drink with the 'opposite team' afterwards, they are ideologically opposed enough for it to define their entire relationship.

However, those who simply take the position as a belief, and don't try to make it part of their culture, can often be friends for years without the subject ever coming up, and can still function perfectly well and respectfully as friends afterwards.

The people who create the divides between the cultures are usually the loudest advocates when it comes to defining it, so multi-culturalism is pointless, because it depends on a few peope defining each culture instead of society amalgamating the two as it has done so succesfully countless times in the past in just about every country in the world.

this is why I promote assimilation, if you are going to move to a country you should do so because you like the country and want to be part of it's culture, you should not move there and then proceed to try and set up your culture there. this attitude of people moving to a new country and not adapting, when it happens in mass is what causes this sort of paranoia, and I don't think it's entirely unwarranted. and I could be wrong but it seems as though a lot of the people who are condemning the swiss were the same people who were defending the Muslims who were rioting because of a cartoon, you need to examine your position and make sure you are not acting out of xenocentrism.

[Sushi]

It probably has to do with the fact that a straight up vote by the populace means the majority position, whether it is right or wrong will always win.  Minority positions will always be overruled.  Take desegregation for example, if it was put to a popular vote back in the day it might not have passed.  Instead the government was able to step in and make the morally correct call.

Which is fine, but what happens when the "morality" is switched? What if it's the government forcing the immoral position, or the people overruling the government for the more moral option?

And whose morality are we talking about anyway? That question gets increasingly difficult in cultures with more diverse belief systems...

Just some food for thought.

[StarSlayer]

It probably has to do with the fact that a straight up vote by the populace means the majority position, whether it is right or wrong will always win.  Minority positions will always be overruled.  Take desegregation for example, if it was put to a popular vote back in the day it might not have passed.  Instead the government was able to step in and make the morally correct call.

Which is fine, but what happens when the "morality" is switched? What if it's the government forcing the immoral position, or the people overruling the government for the more moral option?

And whose morality are we talking about anyway? That question gets increasingly difficult in cultures with more diverse belief systems...

Just some food for thought.

True, true, I probably should have put a disclaimer that I was responding directly to the question "I wonder why the Swiss are criticize over that since we all know how efficient "elected representatives"[sic] rather then making a political statement in favor of either side.  To be honest I'm personally on the fence.  On one hand their are benefits to the government being able to step in and do the "right" thing even if it is unpopular.  On the other that ability can easily be abused, though I suppose thats what checks and balances is meant to prevent.

In any case I think any democratic state owes itself to making sure its voting population is as well educated as possible and has access to non biased information sources.  If only to make sure they make good judgments when electing their representatives, or making qualified decisions on matters they directly effect.

[Col. Fishguts]

I was going to comment on the topic, but since this is already heading down the road of a 30-page-rant about politics/ethics/society in general... I pass.

[Nuclear1]

heading down the road of a 30-page-rant about politics/ethics/society

[Kosh]

It probably has to do with the fact that a straight up vote by the populace means the majority position, whether it is right or wrong will always win.  Minority positions will always be overruled.  Take desegregation for example, if it was put to a popular vote back in the day it might not have passed.  Instead the government was able to step in and make the morally correct call.

Which is fine, but what happens when the "morality" is switched? What if it's the government forcing the immoral position, or the people overruling the government for the more moral option?

And whose morality are we talking about anyway? That question gets increasingly difficult in cultures with more diverse belief systems...

Just some food for thought.

True, true, I probably should have put a disclaimer that I was responding directly to the question "I wonder why the Swiss are criticize over that since we all know how efficient "elected representatives"[sic] rather then making a political statement in favor of either side.  To be honest I'm personally on the fence.  On one hand their are benefits to the government being able to step in and do the "right" thing even if it is unpopular.  On the other that ability can easily be abused, though I suppose thats what checks and balances is meant to prevent.

In any case I think any democratic state owes itself to making sure its voting population is as well educated as possible and has access to non biased information sources.  If only to make sure they make good judgments when electing their representatives, or making qualified decisions on matters they directly effect.

Actually it benefits the rulers not to have well educated electorates because it makes them easier to manipulate.

[NGTM-1R]

Funny, people say the same thing about the initiative/proposition system that California and Washington have.

Where it has been disasterous.

As an aside, we need to be careful when trying to generalize across scores of nations, ethnicities, and cultures. Islam is no more monolithic in culture or belief than Christianity is.

The problem is that Islam was designed to be a monolithic in culture and belief religion and lacks the mechanisms that would allow it to exist properly in any other state. Islam is not a religion as we of the West understand the term.

[Turambar]

Islam is not a religion as we of the West understand the term.

yeah it is, they even have catholics (they call them shi'ites).  Same deal: worship the invisible man, follow the rules, be nice, go to heaven.

[Titan]

heading down the road of a 30-page-rant about politics/ethics/society

WIN.

[NGTM-1R]

yeah it is, they even have catholics (they call them shi'ites).  Same deal: worship the invisible man, follow the rules, be nice, go to heaven.

No, not really, when so much of Islam is rooted in the mores and customs of Arabic tribesmen that you can't really seperate one from another. Indonesia may be the world's largest Islamic country, but Islam's practices have nothing to do with Indonesia. Christianity, for better or worse, adapted as it expanded, absorbing other people's holidays, customs, and practices. (Ask Nuke about it, he ranted on the subject as it relates to Christmas once.) Islam did no such thing.

If Christianity had insisted on practicing mass in its original langauge, Vatican 2 would have been to change the langauge from Aramic, not Latin. Nobody has argued about being unable to learn of the Bible in its original (or rather, not original but official) langauge in several hundred years, but many are the scholars of Islam who will claim the Koran can only be read in Arabic.

Just to top it off, the whole system was set up under the assumption of temporal as well as spiritual power, as Mohammed had both. This is not the case, and Islam has not handled this well, as it lacks mechanisms to police its orthodoxy without the use of the government.

[Ford Prefect]

No, not really, when so much of Islam is rooted in the mores and customs of Arabic tribesmen that you can't really seperate one from another. Indonesia may be the world's largest Islamic country, but Islam's practices have nothing to do with Indonesia. Christianity, for better or worse, adapted as it expanded, absorbing other people's holidays, customs, and practices. (Ask Nuke about it, he ranted on the subject as it relates to Christmas once.) Islam did no such thing.

Ehhhhhhh, having done some formal research on the aesthetics of performance traditions in Bali and Java, I would have to dispute this. Spiritual practices in Indonesia are actually, to a great extent, the product of a cultural fusion of Vedic religion and mystical Islam. And you can find analogous religious "cocktails" in the Indian subcontinent as well.

[General Battuta]

The claim that Islam did not adapt as it expanded is wrong.

[Kosh]

Present your evidence please.

[General Battuta]

The vast amounts of Sharia law that came from Persia and other cultures.

[mxlm]

Where it has been disasterous.

Yeah. I loves me some California, but the system for propositions is not so hot.

And let us not discuss the infamy of Proposition 8.

[SypheDMar]

You know what caught my eye in this news? Not the whole muslim thing but this:

Several papers criticise the type of democracy practised in Switzerland, which allows ordinary people rather than elected representatives to decide on such matters.

I wonder why the Swiss are criticize over that since we all know how efficient "elected representatives" are and especially with dealing with different cultures and a democracy where the actual people decide things is an awful thing to have.

It probably has to do with the fact that a straight up vote by the populace means the majority position, whether it is right or wrong will always win.  Minority positions will always be overruled.  Take desegregation for example, if it was put to a popular vote back in the day it might not have passed.  Instead the government was able to step in and make the morally correct call.

In short, Socrates. Maybe even the Puritans.

[NGTM-1R]

The vast amounts of Sharia law that came from Persia and other cultures.

Hey, we said cite sources, I'm not seeing a source here. I've got the Cambridge University Encyclopedia of Islam, and some other stuff. What have you been reading?

[General Battuta]

My high school class on Islam is the first thing that comes to mind. Second thing is a big screed somewhere on feminism in Islam and how things really changed for women once Persian traditions became assimilated into the spread of Islam.