Swiss to ban the building of Islamic minarets

[Puppycow]

I've said all I care to say on this matter. I'm not into endless rebutals to rebutals. We'll just have to agree to disagree. See you all in another thread.

[Skeptic]

Don't have much time now. I'll try to make my position relatively simple and easy to understand.

1) I'm against coercion and intolerance.
2) Islam is coercive and intolerant.[1] (http://www.studytoanswer.net/myths_ch8.html), [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy), [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie), [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitoshi_Igarashi), [5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ettore_Capriolo), [6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Nygaard), [7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director)), [8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_hirsi_ali)
3) I agree with the following:
yjO4duhMRZk

I love this guy! His views on the middle east, too: "if Iran gets the bomb it might turn the whole desert into a desert! That would be a tragedy, won't it?".

[Skeptic]

Many Islamic moderates believed the Danish government should have silenced its own media through legal means.

Radicals, on the other hand, thought the cartoonists should have been killed

There you have the difference between "moderate" and "extremist" Islam. "Moderate" Muslims only want to go back to the 18th century, not the 8th.

[CHF]

I don't think it is evil per se (though it is used to justify evil at times). I think it is bizzarre. I don't understand why the changing of one set of arbitrary customs for another set of arbitrary customs is stressful for people.

When the culture of a given place has been a certain way for a long time, it comes to define people; who they are, their history, what they stand for etc.

And the changing of culture and customs can indeed be stressful.

Say you live in a society where the local culture allows and encourages free and open discussion on history, society, law, religion, policy etc. You enjoy the benefits of this culture and happily take part in discussion, even mockery, of certain ideas.

Then along comes another culture which takes a different view. This other culture thinks that certain subjects are off-limits, that if you violate this position you deserve to die, and that this should now apply to your culture as well.

Maybe it would all be the same to you, but I for one would feel a good deal of stress.

Edit: Before someone says anything. I am referring to CUSTOMS not laws or ethics.

Fair enough, when it comes to funny hats, prayers, and religious holidays. But culture is often intertwined with laws and ethics.

[Fiona]

Lots of interesting issues here. I am having some trouble sorting them out in my head.

1. Religion. It seems to me that there is a strong tendency for religious people to demand special respect for their views, and that this is largely granted. It is my view that they get this special status because experience has shown that if they do not it leads to violence. Religion is not alone in this: it is no accident that there used to be an explicit convention that one did not discuss politics or religion at dinner.

After centuries of bloody war we can hardly deny that this is a feature of how we behave, and we can speculate about the reasons for that. However it comes about, it seems to me that there is tacit acceptance of that reality and different countries manage it in different ways: thus I have seen some american atheists state on this board that in practice they "don't ask/don't tell" their views in the community or in the workplace. So far as I can judge that is because in certain parts of the US there will be social consequences if they admit to atheism.

In my own country there are many catholics who are firmly convinced that employers ask what school you went to because they are intent on discriminating against catholics and this is a way of identifying them. For all I know they may be right, though I do not think it is true now: it was certainly true in the relatively recent past, and quite widespread.

In western liberal democracies we have reached a state of uneasy compromise precisely because we have played out the bloody nature of religious divide again and again. The tensions persist. While it is no longer true that religion is overtly dangerous in the sense that people are burned for heresy or penalised for blasphemy there are still those who would wish to move in that direction: and we do appease them. It is not so obvious as it has been at periods in the past but we all know that to offend a person's religion is to reap the whirlwind. Some do actively do that, because the constraint offends their sense of freedom: but most of us in the west are content to rest on the rule of law where substantive issues are in play: and on an acceptance that it is better to stay off the subject in the course of ordinary social life. It shows differently depending on the balance within any given country: so that in (some parts) of america the atheist keeps a low profile: and in this country the christian does. And so we get along.

In some ways it seems to me that what we have achieved is a way of accepting that we are all "us". We do not test that idea too far because we know that there are real differences and exploring them never gets anywhere: so we tread lightly around those differences and we try to respect them where we must and ignore them when we can. We help each other to do that and while it is perhaps hypocritical in one sense, there is truth in the notion that hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue. I cannot think it is the best we can be: but I think it is as good as it gets for now.

Because I see things this way it troubles me that the same courtesy/prudence (call it what you will) is not extended to islam. It seems that we have not yet come to a place where those who are muslim are "us". In saying that I am conscious that this board is sceptical and I would say that it is quite anti-religion in some respects (though that would not be universally agreed). We do strongly criticise christianity here and I have seen posters say that they do that here because they do not dare do it elsewhere. That is perhaps a minority view: I cannot know. But some members do want this to be an atheists club, I think. They have their own reasons for that and they are at odds with others who would prefer it to be more inclusive.

Be that as it may for this board, it does seem to me that the courtesy which is normally extended to those of different views, and which serves us well in keeping the peace, is not applied to muslims. Often things are said about that religion which are not said about christianity or even judaism. It is no surprise that those who practice that faith are offended. And since offending a faith has predictable consequences it is a little disingenuous to refuse responsibility for those consequences.


2.Culture. It is a curious thing that in this thread some seem to be arguing that culture and religion are one and the same thing: at least I find it curious. I am rather struggling to see where they overlap. If I consider my own position then religion plays a part in my culture to the extent that I know some bits of the bible and I find it helps in doing crosswords and trivia games: in reading some literature and poetry (because I can pick up some references/resonances deriving from the christian mindset): and there are other more subtle effects some of which I bump into from time to time and become aware of: and others which I assume to exist but which are not conscious.

But religion is not a big part of my personal experience of culture: the enlightenment is far more important if we are talking about a world view and a value system which informs my behaviour day to day. And since big words like "values" and "democracy" and "enlightenment" seem to me to be dangerous in that they are ill defined and used to justify all kinds of horrible things, I am apt to concentrate on what they mean for individual human beings. It is part of my understanding of those big words that they are intoxicants: they impair judgement. And so I like to try to test what is meant by looking at how their invocation affects individuals. I do not always succeed: my capacity for empathy is as limited as everyone else's. But the meaning of big words is best tested by looking at the effect on individuals. That doesn't get you any charisma points: it is not inspiring and it doesn't help you to feel part of something bigger than yourself, with all the heady nobility such a feeling imparts: but it does tend to give you pause when you are getting carried away by rhetoric. And that can only be good, IMO

Until very recently I was persuaded of the value of culture: we cannot avoid cultural transmission and much of it is necessarily unquestioned. But my position was not regretful acceptance of that fact. I was more positive in my approach because it seemed to me that much of the joy of life derives from those things we share and those things we do not; at a basic level we can take pleasure in the foods of our childhood: and we can be surprised and delighted by the foods of other cultures. And that mechanism can be extended to loads of other things which depend on culture for their existence.

But I have abandoned this notion for now. The concept, as I see it applied here, is too tainted to be worth preserving. For me we have far more in common than we have separating us. If gross differences lead us to treat other people as members of a group, rather than as individuals, then regretfully I would prefer to get rid of those gross differences.

I do not think that is our only choice: but it seems that those who support the notion of culture in this thread are not content to live in their own way under the law and allow others to do the same. Apparently their own culture is not robust enough to survive without imposing restrictions on others for no reason which makes any sense to me. It seems that they have no confidence in the power of their values nor any sense that they have anything to learn from other views.

I could not disagree more. I believe that my values have value: I believe that change happens and we should not resist it for the sake of resistance. I believe that most people want quite mundane things: shelter; enough to eat; family life and good things to happen to their children; love and satisfying work; friends and some form of social life: in short freedom to follow their own conception of the good life in peace and under the law; and above all self respect and the respect of others. Certainly there are extremists: but if you respect people and do not deny them the joys of small lives then words like jihad and liberty do not have the power to kill.

[funk de fino]

Imagine the furor, indeed.
Yes, in Muslim countries minority religious rights are clearly respected. Obviously democracy is the problem here.

In many they are. Try again. With a smaller brush.

[a3sigma]

I am curious. Has anyone changed their mind? As a result of anything posted here, has anyone been persuaded of anything? Switched sides or altered their view in any way?

Show of hands? Mine's up.

[CHF]

it does seem to me that the courtesy which is normally extended to those of different views, and which serves us well in keeping the peace, is not applied to muslims. Often things are said about that religion which are not said about christianity or even judaism. It is no surprise that those who practice that faith are offended. And since offending a faith has predictable consequences it is a little disingenuous to refuse responsibility for those consequences.

See I don't get this. Why should the religious be exempt from being offended?

Religion makes all sorts of claims that other people find offensive. Islam, for example, says that apostasy is punishable by death, and as someone with an ex-Muslim girlfriend I find that sort of nonsense VERY offensive.

So what sort of "predictable consequences" am I entitled to dish out? None, of course, because the right to not be offended is extended only to certain groups.

It seems that Islam in the only religion (at the moment) from which we expect, and to some extent tolerate, such "predictable consequences" - those consequences being riots, threats, murder etc.

The responsibility for such insanity rests completely with those who carry out such acts, not those who dare speak their mind and take issue with faith.

[ddt]

A bit off-topic, but as a Dutchman I'd like to react to these statements.


indeed, resentment of newcomers has always occurred and always will. What's happening with Islam in Europe, however, is different. It isn't simply a case of people instinctively lashing out at those who are different; it's a matter of people reacting to clear and obvious changes in their society that have not been for the better.
But we shouldn't exaggerate and generalize them. Sure, in many ways the immigration into Europe in the last 50 years is unprecedented in scope and in character. Holland has had many immigrants in the past. Most of those immigration waves - e.g., Spanish and Portuguese Jews around 1500, French Huguenots around 1700 - were of skilled and educated people: simply because only those had the means to emigrate from their home countries. Those are also people who are better suited at "fitting in" in another society, e.g., by quickly picking up the language. The Muslim immigrants - in the Dutch case, mainly from Turkey and Morocco - mostly were uneducated, even illiterate, unskilled people; and they carried an alien religion, unlike those Huguenots who were as much Calvinist as the Dutch themselves.

The Dutch government has made serious errors in its immigration and integration policy in the past. It didn't require - unlike other European countries - a very basic language test for immigrants in their home country. For too long the idea has been held up that these immigrant workers would be here temporary and they would return to their home countries. For too long, politicians didn't address obvious problems that did develop. The Socialist Party, then a small party without MPs, released a policy document in the 1990s which addressed such problems and was chastised for it. Liberal leader Bolkestein in the 1990s, addressed it in general terms that "Islam is incompatible with liberal democracy", like Wilders does now but in a more civilized way.


Take Holland, for example, a country where I have plenty of family. The Dutch are among the most tolerant, open-minded people in the world. Yet anti-Islamic sentiment is rising. Even my liberal-minded aunts and uncles have had enough. Why?
My impression is that the rise of anti-Islam sentiment has stopped, basically after the release of Fitna and the reactions to it from the Muslim community - basically they shrugged their shoulders. All indicators show that integration of Muslims in Holland has been progressing, and the rise of anti-Islam sentiments is a delay effect.


Because Dutch politicians who criticize Islam face death threats and require police protection. Let that sink in for a second. Those who speak out against Islam require police protection. In Holland! In the 21st century!

Because a popular Dutch film-maker was murdered for (gasp!) claiming that Islam persecuted women.
Yes, absolutely appalling. And those things are utterly wrong. The letter Theo van Gogh's murdered left stabbed on his chest indicated the murder was kind-of a proxy for Ayaan, who wrote the script for their movie "Submission".

Many Dutch politicians have criticized aspects of Islam, or practices associated (rightly or wrongly) with Islam without receiving death threats. As for (lasting) police protection, I'm hard-pressed to come up with other names than Ayaan and Wilders, both of whom criticize Islam on a very fundamental level and an uncompromising way.

{tongue-in-cheek} I have to compliment the Islamist makers of death threats for integrating so well in this regard. I remember well how during the "Fortuyn revolution" of 2002, Labour leader Melkert and Greens leader Rosenmöller received death threats - even a loaded gun that was mailed. A certain aggressiveness in confronting politicians has crept into the general Dutch political arena in the last decade.

The above is not meant to somehow exculpate the makers of death threats - they should be prosecuted with all the force of the law - but to put it a bit into context. There are plenty of politicians and others willing to discuss various aspects of Islam.

Muslim community leaders have been a bit slow on the uptake to vigorously publicly condemn such things as death threats, but do now. It's also clear from reports from the Dutch intelligence service that violence as a means was condemned by the very large majority of the Muslim community, and that the radical elements have abandoned violent courses of action.


Because the Dutch media (like most in Europe) refused to publish the Danish Mohammed cartoons because they feared rampaging Muslim mobs in the streets. (The decision not to publish had nothing to do with "tolerance" and "respect." It was FEAR, pure and simple).
That is blatantly untrue. I've had a long yes/no discussion with RandFan on this very issue, but the fact is that all national newspapers save one published those cartoons on their pages, or a relevant subset of them.


Currently, Holland's population is only about 5% Muslim. And already we find that radical elements in that community have the power to silence public discussion, terrify the media into not doing their jobs, and drive elected officials into hiding.
The radical elements certainly have not stifled discussion. There are plenty of non-Muslim politicians, Muslims politicians, Muslim community leaders, and other opinion makers willing to discuss all kinds of aspects of the Muslim minorities. Problems with, e.g., Moroccan (male) teens in Amsterdam-West are openly discussed without anyone afraid of death threats. Granted, there's no discussion with Wilders - but that's because discussion is not his MO, only dropping sound bites. Iranian-born writer Kader Abdolah - himself not a Muslim - translated the Quran into Dutch and recommended on prime time-TV to read it with a glass wine in the other hand. Nothing happened.


Many Dutch are now asking some obvious questions: who's really picking a fight here? What will Holland look like with 10% or 25% Muslims? And is there any reason to think that Muslims will show tolerance to gays and women when they become even more of a political/social force?
The percentages you mention are mainly scaremongering. Immigration has come to a virtual standstill. Birth rates among Muslim immigrants are rapidly dropping to "Dutch" levels. 10% is an upper estimate for 2050. Thus far there's no sign of a Muslim party forming, but if there were, there would be a clear danger of it forming an unholy alliance with the Christian parties for trying to repeal gays' rights. Sure, women's and gays' rights are much less respected on average among Muslims. And that's bad for the Muslim women and gays. I don't see it having particular bearing on the non-Muslim ones, and you clearly see those attitudes change among the Muslims with the changing of the generations.

Sorry for the derail to Dutch politics, but I think there's also much in it that applies wider to other Western countries.

[Cleon]

Don't have much time now. I'll try to make my position relatively simple and easy to understand.

1) I'm against coercion and intolerance.

That is apparently not the case, or you'd be calling the Swiss out for their coercion and intolerance.

[Darth Rotor]

Does that mean what they vote for is moral?
Good question. What it does, if nothing else, is highlight a significant source of discontent. Hand waving that away is IMO a mistake, addressing it, and finding a way to alleviate it, is probably a good attitude to adopt if one is Swiss.
If America used proper procedure and passed an amendment that repealed abolition of slavery, how would you feel?
Disappointed, at best, and more likely betrayed, because that course would involve repeal of the XIV amendment, which holds the critical principle of equal treatment under the law. Without that, what makes us American, which is the Constitution, is weakened. There is a bit of an apples and oranges comparison here, Merv. The Swiss were Swiss, in their varying cantons, for centuries before they adopted a constitution. Our nation became the United States of America, an exceptional place in the world, via its experiment in Constitutional government.

All that said, what you propose ain't happening, in part due to the difficulty in amending our constitution.

DR

[Puppycow]

That is apparently not the case, or you'd be calling the Swiss out for their coercion and intolerance.

Wrong.

[Darth Rotor]

You defended the right of people to vote to defend group identity and symbols.
How is it silly to point out that the same justifications can be used to defend German culture against the Jews?
Nice to see you support fraudulent democracy. Real nice.

Pay close attention.

If you set up the government that empowers the citizen voters to vote (I suggest you read the Swiss constitution, there is some very interesting stuff in there which is different from my country's constitution) and then get upset when people actually vote, and expect their vote to be taken seriously, I wonder if you are genuine in your belief in representative government.

I am once again reminded of the brilliance of my nation's Constitutional framers, who made changing the constitution such a rigorous process. Weeding out bad ideas, or impulses of fickle public opinion, looks to have been one of their aims.

Some of the people in Switzerland have spoken. (Will need to look at voter turnout, I doubt it was 100%). This vote isn't the end, as in politics, nothing is final, a new day dawns each morning.

What happens next? There are 43% of the voters who thought this was a crap idea. How do they go about advocating for their position, and gaining the support within their system?

DR

[KingMerv00]

Good question. What it does, if nothing else, is highlight a significant source of discontent. Hand waving that away is IMO a mistake, addressing it, and finding a way to alleviate it, is probably a good attitude to adopt if one is Swiss.

Disappointed, at best, and more likely betrayed, because that course would involve repeal of the XIV amendment, which holds the critical principle of equal treatment under the law. Without that, what makes us American, which is the Constitution, is weakened. There is a bit of an apples and oranges comparison here, Merv. The Swiss were Swiss, in their varying cantons, for centuries before they adopted a constitution. Our nation became the United States of America, an exceptional place in the world, via its experiment in Constitutional government.

All that said, what you propose ain't happening, in part due to the difficulty in amending our constitution.

DR

You got off on a tangent. I'll take from your answer that a law is not moral simply because it enjoys majority support. I agree in that respect.

That means you cannot hand wave away our moral concerns but simply saying it was democracy in action.

[Darth Rotor]

I am curious. Has anyone changed their mind? As a result of anything posted here, has anyone been persuaded of anything? Switched sides or altered their view in any way?

Show of hands? Mine's up.
Yes. Flo got me to look at the details of the Story and the Swiss Constitution due to our interplay, and I see this story in a less favorable light on the vote than my first reaction. I see this vote as an opportunity for the Swiss to address an issue that may have been simmering, and is now out in the open. With the light of day shining on a problem or an issue, it may be easier to address and resolve. It is an opportunity for engagement and dialogue, particularly on the part of the voters who didn't win this round, though it may do as this thread did, turn into nothing more than a pretext for invective.

I am not Swiss. I have confidence that the Swiss will sort out whatever ill effects this vote has had in their own special way, via a democratic method. I think that is their nature.

DR

[Cleon]

Wrong.

No, despite your amazing rebuttal, the observation remains on-target. You're perfectly ok with intolerance and coercion, as long as it's aimed at a group of people you yourself are intolerant of.

[Darth Rotor]

You got off on a tangent. I'll take from your answer that a law is not moral simply because it enjoys majority support. I agree in that respect.

That means you cannot hand wave away our moral concerns but simply saying it was democracy in action.
Sure Merv, since (in one morality) it is immoral not to stone adultresses when you catch them.

Moral concerns must trump other consideration, eh? :p

If you wish to make a case for some universally agreed morality, that may be appropriate for the Philosophy forum. Appeal to "morality" in politics no longer impresses me. It's too often a smoke screen. With that in mind, I am grateful to Flo for disabusing me of the notion that this was strictly a focus on zoning, which assertion would also be a smoke screen for something less palatable in terms of social harmony.

@ Darat: while you harp on "Swiss citizens" I wonder if you'll be interested in the volume of Bosnian Muslim immigrants from about 1989 to present into Switzerland. As I found in my country with the Vietnamese immigrants, the initial wave is met with resentment, while the following generation tends to be better accepted and embraced as part of the melting pot. I expect it might take an additional generation in Europe, based on my observations from childhood to now in re Turkish gastarbiter (hope I spelled that correctly) being assimilated into an established culture. What this means is that plenty of Swiss don't see these immigrants as Swiss.
In the 1990s, war in the former Yugoslavia prompted a massive influx of asylum seekers from Bosnia and Kosovo, many of whom had family ties in Switzerland because of labor migration since the 1960s. Between 1990 and 2002, Switzerland received a total of 146,587 asylum applications from the war-torn Balkans. About 10,000 people were granted asylum, and 62,000 received temporary or subsidiary protection over the course of several years, according to the Swiss Federal Office for Migration.

An interesting look at migration into Switzerland, the issues in re Bosnia/Yugoslavia about half way down the page.
http://www.migrationinformation.org/USfocus/display.cfm?ID=284
The Swiss public became concerned about the increasing numbers of asylum applications, especially because the economy was in recession and unemployment was rising. The federal government adopted administrative and legal measures to speed up the processing of applications and the implementation of decisions. But after numerous partial revisions, a completely revised asylum law came into force in 1999.

Among many other changes that made the law more restrictive, it introduced new grounds for non-admission to a regular asylum procedure. This means applicants who have stayed illegally in the country prior to their request or who have not submitted travel or identity documents generally are not eligible for the ordinary asylum process.

In addition, the law now allows for collective temporary protection of war refugees. Although the government has never used this provision, Kosovars and Bosnians were given temporary admission. Most of the asylum seekers from Bosnia and Kosovo had to leave Switzerland after conflicts ended in 1995 and 1999, respectively. Those who returned home, including those who waited several years to do so, benefited from a return program consisting of financial support, construction materials, and support for their home communities.

An estimated 40,000 to 60,000 people from Bosnia and Serbia-Montenegro returned home, either with or without aid from the Swiss government, while approximately 10,000 with refugee status from the former Yugoslavia stayed. There are no reliable figures for how many asylum seekers from Bosnia and Kosovo remained in the country illegally.
Possibly related to thie minaret issue, the bolded line.

DR

[Kotatsu]

I think you are a bit biased. You were correct about my mistaking the nation mentioned

Just in case you are now confusing me with Arcade: I am the one who doesn't have a problem with people looking different from me and having different habits.

Anyway, thank you for your sources!

I would still argue that the statement about Sweden looking more Arab and African is a false one based in bigoted perspective and confirmation bias, since nearly 57% of immigrants (link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Sweden#Immigration)) are of European origin.

Definitely; it was, however, Arcade who said that Sweden is looking more Arab and African by the minute. I claimed that in actual fact, it is looking more American every year, though this is not coupled with an increased immigration from the US.

If anything, Sweden apparently looks like its population is starting to look more like Finland, since that is by far the largest immigrant group. You would have to add the African and Arab immigrants together to have a number barely higher than the number of immigrants from Finland alone, according to demographic data. The largest Muslim population centers immigrating to Sweden seem to be from Yugoslavia and Turkey, with Iran trailing behind them. None of those are African or Arab.

I wrote my assertion in opposition to your statement that most Muslims in Sweden (though you meant Switzerland) came from Eastern Europe. From your last link, I went on to Statistiska Centralbyrån (The Central Bureau of Statistics), a governmental agency, and looked at their report "Tables of Population in Sweden 2008" (http://www.scb.se/Pages/PublishingCalendarViewInfo____259924.aspx?PublObjI d=9314) (1). Table 1.1.2 (downloadable under the heading "Folkmängd - Översiktstal") lists the following for total population in 2008:

Eastern Europe:
Bosnia & Hercegovina: 55960
Turkey: 39230
Albania: 1019
"Yugoslavia": 72285 (this category does not overlap with Bosnia and Herzegovina above).
In total (approx.): 169000

Africa and the Middle East:
Somalia: 25159
Eritrea: 7775
Morocco: 6655
Sudan: 1274
Tunisia: 3695
Afghanistan: 11446
Iraq: 109440
Iran: 57663
Lebanon: 23291
Syria: 18786
Jordan: 2377
In total (approx.): 266000

Thus, it seems my position was not based exclusively on bias from where I live, but that there are more Muslim immigrants or descendants from Muslim immigrants coming from African and South-West Asian than there are from Eastern Europe (2). As my assertion was that the vast majority of the Muslim population of Sweden was of African (well, mainly Somalian) or Middle East origin, it is irrelevant how large a proportion of the population is of Finnish origin, as they are commonly not Muslim. Nevertheless, the same table will show you that the Finnish population of Sweden has declined from a peak of 251000 in 1980 to 175000 in 2008; I have not checked how the data was collected.

While I appreciate the correction, the statement is still false and your personal observation is quite skewed.

It is incorrect only because I limited my African Muslim countries to Somalia. Otherwise, I believe my statement that the majority of the Muslim immigrants in Sweden are from the Middle East, Iran or [Africa] is largely correct.

Perhaps you should discriminate against them Ryokan: any ideas how best to do that?

Make the eating of brunost mandatory. :D

---
(1) Feel free to ask me to translate anything in it.
(2) Note, however, that I excluded several countries where I wasn't sure what religion is most prevalent. I did this on both sides, however, and the data for virtually all countries can be found in their table.

[Fiona]

See I don't get this. Why should the religious be exempt from being offended?

There is no logical or principled reason why they should not be offended any more than anyone else: and in fact good manners does mean we avoid giving offence where we can: though of course it is not always avoidable.

But the fact is that certain topics are very well known to produce strong reactions: that is just a fact and we have a lot of history to support the idea that being a bit careful around those issues is a good idea. We also have a lot of history which shows that those individuals who are apt to be violent when offended need to know that we as a society will not give them a bye and that the law will apply to them as much as to anyone else. There are always compromises. There are things which are known to be more likely to produce violence in most people: for example a perceived threat to your child will do that; and we recently had a thread where a violent reaction to such a situation was actively applauded by some.

Where we draw those lines is in part individual but it is also based on our experience of how people are made and how they respond to different things. It is folly not to recognise that religion is one such hot topic for a lot of people.

Religion makes all sorts of claims that other people find offensive.

Yes, it does. And, as I said, in this country everyone stays off the topic where they are not sure of the views of those they are talking to (though it is also true that they mostly stay off it because it is profoundly unimportant and not as interesting as celeb gossip ;)). That applies to the religious as much as to everyone else. It is not perfect: there are religious people so insensitive that they do not understand the profound offence contained in the idea that if you do not think as they do you will burn in hell forever, and you will deserve it. We have examples of that kind of insensitivity on this board: it makes people angry.

But for the most part people do not ram their notions down your throat here: and the default assumption for most is that religion is not central. I gather the default assumption is different in some states in the USA: but that reflects relative numbers I think. Either way most people put limits on what they say and what they do. Or at least so I think; and I believe I have some support for that view which I have gained from my participation here. If you are arguing that people have a right to vociferously disagree with someone else's atheism or religion or whatever then I agree; if you are saying it is conducive to a peaceful society to always say what you think as strongly as you can in every setting then I disagree. I think most people do give a nod to good manners and I think that they should.

At the very least the posters who come here to preach their religion are not treated as if their approach is either usual or acceptable and people who are normally very civil react differently to those people: I do that and I know that I am not alone

Islam, for example, says that apostasy is punishable by death,

That is actually very debatable and is indeed subject to challenge from within the islamic community. But even if I accept your interpretation of islamic law rather than that of (some) islamic scholars it is no more offensive than some of things in the bible: which is very offensive indeed as has been pointed out more than once

and as someone with an ex-Muslim girlfriend I find that sort of nonsense VERY offensive.

It does not matter if you have an ex-muslim girlfriend or not, really: it is totally offensive just as parts of the bible are.

So what sort of "predictable consequences" am I entitled to dish out? None, of course, because the right to not be offended is extended only to certain groups.

No that is not true. If you are faced with someone who is directly addressing this issue you have every right to be offended and to show that offence: if you go over the line and break the law you will be dealt with according to that law: and I suspect that the penalty would be at least mitigated in face of provocation and your personal interest in the issue. Juries do tend to take account of that kind of thing.

Nobody has the "right" not to be offended: but we have a reasonable expectation of courtesy and respect in all circumstances. Most of the time we get it.

It seems that Islam in the only religion (at the moment) from which we expect, and to some extent tolerate, such "predictable consequences" - those consequences being riots, threats, murder etc.

I disagree. I think this is quite clearly a feature of our social interactions and it seems obvious to me that we avoid confrontation on sensitive issues in the course of our daily lives. Many issues: not just religion. We do it more at work where we do not choose our company: less in our social circle where we do choose our friends. And many people do it in spades when dealing with their family.

But it is not true to say we tolerate the predictable consequences of offending people who identify with a different group. Unless you are saying that we accept race riots; threats to homosexuals; murder of abortion doctors then it is clearly not true. Nor should it be. The rule of law is essential to our way of life and this is not what we are talking about: or at least it is not what I was talking about. What I was talking about is the recognition of that which we share; and one of the things we share is a tendency to react very badly when our "group" is attacked and we perceive we are being treated as a proxy and not as an individual.

Muslims are no different from anyone else: if they are treated as "other" and are viewed with suspicion they will not like it. As with any other group which is discriminated against not for what they do, but for what they are, they will react. And some will be very extreme in that reaction. I do not condone that but it is impossible not to notice it is true. In every case I can think of where a group is seeking place in a society the majority will try to achieve that by peaceful and legal means: and there will be a faction which becomes impatient and seeks to further their ends by violent means. This is a problem for all societies and we can meet it in several ways. Demonising the peaceful majority is not productive. Nor is it justifiable. They are individuals and thus are entitled to equality before the law: and civility and all the courtesy the rest of us enjoy. When they (or we) once take steps to increase the sense of difference we harm the whole society: and good manners is the lowest level of defence against such polarisation. It is the contribution we can all make, and prevention is the better way.

The responsibility for such insanity rests completely with those who carry out such acts, not those who dare speak their mind and take issue with faith.

Not entirely: there is such a thing as fighting talk and it is clear that any one of us can be provoked. I believe the americans have a saying " an armed society is a polite society": what do you think the implications of that are? Let me say at once that I am not in favour of american gun laws; that is not the point I am trying to make. But the saying touches a truth. If the person you face can respond to your boorishness with violence you are less apt to be boorish. There is no need for discourtesy at all in expressing your view: to do so with no respect for the other is mere license and I have no sympathy with it. Free speech is always limited in some ways and that is necessary to our society.

I do not suggest that you are discourteous or boorish, btw. Obviously I have no idea how you actually deal with those of any faith, or of none, in your daily life. I presume you are ordinarily respectful to all. But I can honestly say that I have never come across any muslim here who has attempted to suppress my view or to threaten me because of my atheism or for any other reason. Of course there are those who do not wish their family to marry outwith the faith: but personally I have come across that sort of bigotry from christians quite often, as they are the majority faith group in this country. I have known people who have found it necessary to cut all ties with their catholicfamily because they married a protestant: and I have known that the other way round as well.

We have to live with that and hope that it dies out over time. If we are in company of such a person and they raise it for discussion then of course we can "speak our mind". I have done so and I presume so have you, and the sky did not fall in. Didn't change anything for me or for them, so far as I know. You?

[Ryokan]

A constitutional ban on lutefisk?

I'm sad to inform you that many Norwegians also enjoy lutefisk.

Make the eating of brunost mandatory. :D

That would do it!

(I love brunost (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunost), there's nothing better to put on fresh baked bread with a good lump of butter - never understood why all foreigners, our Scandinavian brothers included, find it so vile.)

[Fiona]

I am a foreigner. I think it is vile. Therefore you point is proved ;)

[Puppycow]

No, despite your amazing rebuttal, the observation remains on-target. You're perfectly ok with intolerance and coercion, as long as it's aimed at a group of people you yourself are intolerant of.
Still wrong. It's not the people it's the ideology. I'm intolerant of intolerance. Now, if Islam would reform itself, renounce intolerant and coercive doctrines, I'd be OK with it. I'm not happy with them trying to take away our freedoms and make criticism a crime.

[GreNME]

Just in case you are now confusing me with Arcade: I am the one who doesn't have a problem with people looking different from me and having different habits.

Anyway, thank you for your sources!

Not a problem. I'm definitely not mistaking you for Arcade: he's on my ignore list, you are not. ;)

Definitely; it was, however, Arcade who said that Sweden is looking more Arab and African by the minute. I claimed that in actual fact, it is looking more American every year, though this is not coupled with an increased immigration from the US.

Gotcha. That seems a fair assessment, I think, if only by virtue of a higher immigration level.

As for your other numbers, thanks for the greater breakdown. That definitely gives a more granular picture of the immigration numbers than what I found.

[Sideroxylon]

Still wrong. It's not the people it's the ideology. I'm intolerant of intolerance. Now, if Islam would reform itself, renounce intolerant and coercive doctrines, I'd be OK with it. I'm not happy with them trying to take away our freedoms and make criticism a crime.

There is no monolithic thing called Islam that prescribes such things. Muslims have no pope or Vatican to tell them how the Quran or Hadith should be interpreted and therefore how to act. There are though a great many Muslims who “denounce intolerant and coercive doctrines.” Unfortunately the perceptions of many are based on the intolerant behaviour of those Muslims that make the news or characters on TV and film.

[GreNME]

Still wrong. It's not the people it's the ideology. I'm intolerant of intolerance. Now, if Islam would reform itself, renounce intolerant and coercive doctrines, I'd be OK with it. I'm not happy with them trying to take away our freedoms and make criticism a crime.

You're just saying that you're okay with taking away their freedom, you're just saying so while taking the position of the poor, bedeviled victim.

If blacks would only act like...
If the Irish would only act like...
If the Poles would only...
If Jews would only...
If Chinese traditionalists would only...

We've heard this sort of conditional fascism before (more than once) in just the past century, and in each case the results were unpleasant, to say the least.

[Cleon]

Still wrong. It's not the people it's the ideology.

*bzzt* Fail. We're talking about restrictions on people's free exercise of religion.


I'm intolerant of intolerance. Now, if Islam would reform itself, renounce intolerant and coercive doctrines, I'd be OK with it.

And that's just painting with a broad brush. There are moderate and non-fundamentalist Muslims, and anti-Muslim laws (such as the stupid minaret referendum) affect them as well.

I'm not happy with them trying to take away our freedoms and make criticism a crime.

By openly practicing their religion? Fail again.

[Cavemonster]

Cavemonster,

indeed, resentment of newcomers has always occurred and always will. What's happening with Islam in Europe, however, is different. It isn't simply a case of people instinctively lashing out at those who are different; it's a matter of people reacting to clear and obvious changes in their society that have not been for the better.

Take Holland, for example, a country where I have plenty of family. The Dutch are among the most tolerant, open-minded people in the world. Yet anti-Islamic sentiment is rising. Even my liberal-minded aunts and uncles have had enough. Why?

Because Dutch politicians who criticize Islam face death threats and require police protection. Let that sink in for a second. [I]Those who speak out against Islam require police protection. In Holland! In the 21st century!


Do you really think there was no violence in NY when the Irish moved in? The Italians? Blacks? Hispanics? You think no one during any of those transitions ever had a death threat or needed police protection? Ever read about 5 points or the Black Panthers? Or the Italian mafia? All of these groups had violent elements and Islam is no different. Your argument that this wave of immigration is somehow unique holds no water.

[Kotatsu]

[enormous derail]

(I love brunost (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunost), there's nothing better to put on fresh baked bread with a good lump of butter - never understood why all foreigners, our Scandinavian brothers included, find it so vile.)

It is because of a UN decree and a subsequent mitochondrial mutation mandated by the WHO and Interpol, and carried out through the fake "bird flu vaccination" a few years ago. Norwegians are to be recognised by their like for Brunost, so that they can easily be told apart from people from other countries when abroad. Not being able to tell Norwegians apart has had an adverse impact on world economy for ages. Just imagine how many Swedish tourists in Turkey, the Canary Islands, or Thailand who have become drunk beyond their capabilities and then claimed to be Norwegian when apprehended by the local police. Norwegians were, for instance, banned from Nauru for most of 1997 before it was revealed that the person who desecrated their holy places, slept with their women, and absconded with the silver was actually Swedish!

Now, thanks to a simple dairy product, authorities all over the world can instantly tell if someone is really Norwegian, or just claiming to be to get out of trouble. Personally, I think that we'll see more of these things as globalisation increases. Japan has nattou, the Scottish haggis, Sweden isterband, and when I was in Vancouver recently, they sold "Cherry flavour Dr. Pepper", which I can only assume is their candidate for national identification food. It seems the Swiss, having no vile food of their own, have settled for "intolerance towards minorities" as their hallmark.

Not a problem. I'm definitely not mistaking you for Arcade: he's on my ignore list, you are not. ;)

Just checking^^. When I first read your post, something in it seemed to me to be conflating Arcade's statements with mine.

Gotcha. That seems a fair assessment, I think, if only by virtue of a higher immigration level.

As for your other numbers, thanks for the greater breakdown. That definitely gives a more granular picture of the immigration numbers than what I found.

The same report (1) has a table on immigration numbers for 2008 as well (the above was total population), which lists Iraq as the number one country from which people immigrate to Sweden:

Iraq: 13083
Poland: 7091
Somalia: 4218
Thailand: 3532
Germany: 3484
Denmark: 3371
Romania: 2595
China: 2925
Finland: 2390
Norway: 2239
Iran: 2169

Meanwhile, if I understand the tables correctly, the "ethnically Swedish" population increased by roughly 19000 from 2007 to 2008 (the total increase 2007-2008 was 73000 of which immigrants constitute approximately 54000). So I could very well understand how some more narrow-minded person might believe that this means that Sweden is gradually turning into Swedistan, this conclusion would have to ignore the fact that socially, politically, and religiously, these immigrants have an unproportionately small impact on Swedish society.

(The tables are, by the way, an immense source of interesting facts.

There are only two people in Sweden who were born in Liechtenstein, and only one from Andorra, but 23 from Monaco and five from San Marino. NONE from the Vatican and the Marshall islands!

Between 2007 and 2008, the number of immigrants from the Seychelles and Swaziland decreased by exactly two people each, whereas there was a similar increase in people from Mauretania, Barbados and Belize.

Between 2006 and 2007, we somehow lost 127 people from "The rest of South America", which from the actually listed countries seem to include only French Guyana.

There's also a lot of more poignant data, like how the immigrant population from Estonia increased from 492 to 25062 between 1930 and 1940, Latvia from 550 to 4423, and the immigrants (refugees) from Denmark, Norway, Finland, Belgium, France, the Netherlands, and Germany also doubled (or more) during the war.)

[/enormous derail]

---
(1) Which at least partially goes back to the 1750s in their census data, which I find quite interesting.

[Darth Rotor]

*bzzt* Fail. We're talking about restrictions on people's free exercise of religion.
No, that isn't what was enacted, but that is a risk if this step remains unchallenged within Switzerland.

Do you think it will be unchallenged? Do you think the Swiss democratic process is by this vote rendered impotent? If it was potent enough to get this vote cobbled together and passed, is it not robust enough to get a repeal vote cobbled together and passed?

I'll get you some numbers, but my initial read on numbers is this:

Voter Turnout:
The voter turnout was 53.4%. in Zurich.
ETA1: FWIW, Guardian reported over all Swiss turnout at 53%. There is ample room for a counter referendum to succeed. (Quick arithmatic tells me that 57 percent of 53 percent is a bit over a quarter of the country Pro this ban. )

The British newspaper The Times cited support of the minaret ban by "radical feminists" who oppose the oppression of women in Islamic societies. The Times further reported that Swiss women supported the ban, in pre-election polling, by a greater percentage than did Swiss men.
Quelle Surprise. Hee Hee, I bet Rush Limbaugh for once is on the side of radical feminists. You can't make this stuff up!
Catholic bishops oppose a minaret ban. A statement from the Swiss Bishops Conference said that a ban would hinder interreligious dialogue and added that the construction and operation of minarets were already regulated by Swiss building codes. The statement requested that "the initiative to be rejected is based on our Christian values and the democratic principles in our country."
More side splitting here, the Pope of course has to go against the radical feminists, knee jerk I think that would be, and oppose the minaret ban.

DR

[Arcade22]

So I could very well understand how some more narrow-minded person might believe that this means that Sweden is gradually turning into Swedistan, this conclusion would have to ignore the fact that socially, politically, and religiously, these immigrants have an unproportionately small impact on Swedish society.


That is a lie and you know it.

Immigration is a huge cost to the Swedish people, not only in terms of our welfare that is handed out to any immigrant that just doesn't feel like working, but also in terms crime and safety.
Immigrants, especially immigrants from Africa and the Middle East, are much more prone to crime and violence, this has led to about 90% of the girls in Sweden fear being raped.
Edited for rule 12.

[kerikiwi]

Nice to see you support fraudulent democracy. Real nice.


DR

Except I didn't so your silly sarcasm is wasted.

[AWPrime]

Do you really think there was no violence in NY when the Irish moved in? The Italians? Blacks? Hispanics? You think no one during any of those transitions ever had a death threat or needed police protection? Ever read about 5 points or the Black Panthers? Or the Italian mafia? All of these groups had violent elements and Islam is no different. Your argument that this wave of immigration is somehow unique holds no water.Actually for us Dutch it is a new thing. Our Prime Minister use to go to work on a bicycle!!!

[TriangleMan]

I'm hesitant to even be involved in this thread as some of the anti-Islam comments have been shocking, but is there anything I can help clarify for anyone? I figure as a non-Muslim living in an Arab, Wahhabist, Shariá law nation I may be of some assistance.

[Ryokan]

I'm hesitant to even be involved in this thread as some of the anti-Islam comments have been shocking, but is there anything I can help clarify for anyone? I figure as a non-Muslim living in an Arab, Wahhabist, Shariá law nation I may be of some assistance.

How often are you beheaded because you're an infidel?

Is the takeover of Europe organized by someone, or is it just ad hoc?

[TriangleMan]

How often are you beheaded?
In the four years I've been here? Twice.

They also turned me into a newt.

But I got better.

[Darth Rotor]

I'm hesitant to even be involved in this thread as some of the anti-Islam comments have been shocking, but is there anything I can help clarify for anyone? I figure as a non-Muslim living in an Arab, Wahhabist, Shariá law nation I may be of some assistance.
Do they sing "Everybody Must Get Stoned" after the call to prayer? :confused:

Is it OK to build Christian churches in this land where you live?

Is it OK to build Shinto shrines?

Are there any restrictions on such construction?

DR

[Kotatsu]

That is a lie and you know it.

By no manner of means.

There are no large Muslim political parties, and all politically active Muslims (on the national level, at least; I have no idea how many, if any, are politically active on a lower level) seem to have no problems conforming to the Swedish "representative" democracy as anyone.

There are no laws being passed that will turn non-Muslims into Muslims, nor any that are particularly pro-Muslim (rather the reverse). We have not begun any process to change Swedish law into Sharia law or any other form of Muslim law.

Swedish is still the first and most common language in public discourse, with English coming as a close second. These two languages are also the overwhelmingly most common languages spoken on TV, radio, in advertisements, in schools, at Universities (language courses excepted), in newspapers, in magazines, and so on. Further, Swedish is still the official language, and none of the recognized minority languages (Meänkiäli, Sami, Romani and Yiddish) are predominantly spoken by Muslims.

The majority of restaurants -- even in immigrant-rich cities like where I live -- still mainly serves food that is not traditionally Muslim (with Turks and Arabs mainly selling pizza and fast food commonly associated with America).

There are extremely few mosques in Sweden (Wikipedia suggests 15), and these are not walking door to door trying to convert people like some Christian churches do, nor do they in any way intrude very much in everyday life in general.

The weekly Morning Sermon int the governmental radio is almost exclusively from Christian churches, and the deviations from this norm is as much to Buddhism and Judaism as to Islam.

Please tell me: exactly what are these enormous social, political and religious changes they have had on Swedish society? Or will you evade this question just like how you ignored my question about what this wonderful Swedish culture you want to protect is?

Of course, political protests by Muslims are quite common, but almost invariably these are directed against Muslim dictatorships like Iran, against war in their home countries, or against some new development in Israel/Palestine. To me -- and as has been pointed out previously in this thread -- this implies that a large amount of the Muslims here are the ones who disliked some aspect of how their original country was ruled and who now, when they have freedom of speech, uses this to protest against developments in these countries.

Meanwhile, Swedish racists hold manifestations and protests because they didn't finish school, and thus are not qualified to any well-paying jobs.

Immigration is a huge cost to the Swedish people, not only in terms of our welfare that is handed out to any immigrant that just doesn't feel like working, but also in terms crime and safety.

It is also handed out to all racists who don't feel like working, so I don't really see your point.

Immigrants, especially immigrants from Africa and the Middle East, are much more prone to crime and violence, this has led to about 90% of the girls in Sweden fear being raped.

Will you cite your sources for this, or just assert it?

But i guess you will disregard the above, just like the traitor you are.

If "patriot" means "racist twit", then I am gladly a traitor.

[Fiona]

about 90% of the girls in Sweden fear being raped.



That is odd. 100% of women everywhere else fear being raped

[TriangleMan]

Is the takeover of Europe organized by someone, or is it just ad hoc?

Clearly organized by one group, since according to some posters Islam is practised the same way no matter where it is, so I guess 1+ billions Muslims all act in harmony together. Y'know, just like Christianity.

[TriangleMan]

Do they sing "Everybody Must Get Stoned" after the call to prayer?

Nope. They don't stone people here. Executions are rare and I think it's by gunshot, but I'm not 100% sure.

Is it OK to build Christian churches in this land where you live?
There is one large one for use by many denominations. I believe it can hold thousands but I have not seen it, it's on the outskirts of town. Some Christian groups still gather in homes and school gyms.

Is it OK to build Shinto shrines?
Are there any restrictions on such construction?

I would have to say "probably restictions on construction", even the Church is new, only built a few years ago. I do not recall any other shrines or buildings for other religions here.

[Fiona]

St Mary's catholic church was built in 2008. Interestingly there were protests along the lines of the "christian cross" should not be raised in Qatar and nor should the bells be heard. But despite that they built it and per a news report 4 other denominations are planning to build churches there too

The dean of the Sharia (islamic law) school at the university stated that "places of worship for various religions is a fundamental right guaranteed by the koran." I guess he should know ?

http://www.qatarliving.com/news/75565/qatar%E2%80%99s-first-church-sparks-bitter-debate-afp

[Thunder]

If "patriot" means "racist twit", then I am gladly a traitor.

why am I not surprised that someone who supports anti-Muslim discrimination would also make harsh personal attacks at JREF?

[TriangleMan]

St Mary's catholic church was built in 2008. Interestingly there were protests along the lines of the "christian cross" should not be raised in Qatar and nor should the bells be heard. But despite that they built it and per a news report 4 other denominations are planning to build churches there too

The dean of the Sharia (islamic law) school at the university stated that "places of worship for various religions is a fundamental right guaranteed by the koran." I guess he should know ?

http://www.qatarliving.com/news/75565/qatar%E2%80%99s-first-church-sparks-bitter-debate-afp

He may be referring to "people of the book". There is a significant Hindu population here but no temples or shrines, though home-shrines are fine.

[Fiona]

You may be right. I hesitate to disagree because you live there and I don't. But with the exception of Mecca and Medina it is my understanding that freedom of religion (and non religion) has been upheld on the basis of the koran for centuries. The koran says Surah 2: Al-Baqarah: 256: "There shall be no coercion in matters of faith"

and Surah 18: Al-Kahf: 29, which states: "The Truth is from your Lord: Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject (it)."

[TriangleMan]

I'll also mention that back on page 4 (or was it 7) someone asserted that wahhabists do not have minarets on mosques. Love to see some back-up for that assertion since all the mosques I know of here have them.

[TriangleMan]

But with the exception of Mecca and Medina it is my understanding that freedom of religion (and non religion) has been upheld on the basis of the koran for centuries. The koran says . . .

The Qur`an has a number of passages that distinctly separates "people of the book" (Muslims, Jews & Christians) from non-believers and treats them differently. My interpretation about your professor's comments are just an assumption though.

In Qatar aside from that one Church I cannot think of any other non-Muslim religious buildings here.

[TriangleMan]

gotta go, i'll pop by tomorrow.

[GreNME]

Just checking^^. When I first read your post, something in it seemed to me to be conflating Arcade's statements with mine.

Then please, allow me to apologize for giving the wrong impression.

The same report (1) has a table on immigration numbers for 2008 as well (the above was total population), which lists Iraq as the number one country from which people immigrate to Sweden:

<snipped numbers for space>

Okay, thanks. That seems to be counter to what the other documentation I listed concluded. It doesn't take much deduction to figure out why Iraq's numbers are so high.

Meanwhile, if I understand the tables correctly, the "ethnically Swedish" population increased by roughly 19000 from 2007 to 2008 (the total increase 2007-2008 was 73000 of which immigrants constitute approximately 54000). So I could very well understand how some more narrow-minded person might believe that this means that Sweden is gradually turning into Swedistan, this conclusion would have to ignore the fact that socially, politically, and religiously, these immigrants have an unproportionately small impact on Swedish society.

Well, yes. When a set of disparate populations (regardless of similar religious views) has less than 20% population presence in nation, it would be difficult for them to assert any type of unified identity.

(The tables are, by the way, an immense source of interesting facts.

There are only two people in Sweden who were born in Liechtenstein, and only one from Andorra, but 23 from Monaco and five from San Marino. NONE from the Vatican and the Marshall islands!

Between 2007 and 2008, the number of immigrants from the Seychelles and Swaziland decreased by exactly two people each, whereas there was a similar increase in people from Mauretania, Barbados and Belize.

Between 2006 and 2007, we somehow lost 127 people from "The rest of South America", which from the actually listed countries seem to include only French Guyana.

There's also a lot of more poignant data, like how the immigrant population from Estonia increased from 492 to 25062 between 1930 and 1940, Latvia from 550 to 4423, and the immigrants (refugees) from Denmark, Norway, Finland, Belgium, France, the Netherlands, and Germany also doubled (or more) during the war.)

[/enormous derail]

Yes, that data is fascinating (even if a bit off-topic). As an amateur student of history, I'm tempted to go sifting through it myself.

[KingMerv00]

Sure Merv, since (in one morality) it is immoral not to stone adultresses when you catch them.

Moral concerns must trump other consideration, eh? :p

If you wish to make a case for some universally agreed morality, that may be appropriate for the Philosophy forum.

I'm not trying to make any such case. I'm saying that "democracy in action" is a red herring and there is no reason to bring it up ever again. No one here is arguing that prodcedure was violated, only that the procedure yielded crappy results.

[Arcade22]

Please tell me: exactly what are these enormous social, political and religious changes they have had on Swedish society
The most profound effect of the current multicultural society is that the Swedish people will become largely rootless and without a common communionship.
Without a land to specifically call ours i believe that we will more or less become unrecognizable.

It's simple really, I want Sweden to be Swedish, and if that makes me racist or xenophobic so be it.

It is also handed out to all racists who don't feel like working, so I don't really see your point.
You don't see a difference between a racist Swede whose parents helped to build up Sweden, and an immigrant Somali who has come here to live on welfare? :confused:

Will you cite your sources for this, or just assert it?
http://www.bgf.nu/faktabanken/7.html
http://www.bgf.nu/faktabanken/kriminalitet/inv/ja.html
http://www.bgf.nu/faktabanken/kriminalitet/brabra.html
http://www.bgf.nu/faktabanken/kriminalitet/bra05a.html
http://www.bgf.nu/faktabanken/kriminalitet/bra05b.html

[Jono]

Start campaigning to get your fellow Swedes, the largest immigrant group of Norway, out of my country and I'll start to listen.

Incidentally, the case is also vice versa, i.e where norweigans (and finns) make up for the largest immigrant groups in Sweden, followed by people of the ex-Jugoslavian nations. In 2000, if I recall correctly, the formentioned groups make up for about 15-18% of the swedish population.

[kerikiwi]

The most profound effect of the current multicultural society is that the Swedish people will become largely rootless and without a common communionship.
Without a land to specifically call ours i believe that we will more or less become unrecognizable.


We have had a multicultural society down under for a good many years now and I have never remotely felt rootless or without 'communionship'.
My identity is in no way compromised by others having a different identity.
Why do you feel threatened because there are others different from you?
What is it, specifically, that the existence of different others, stops you doing?
How are your freedoms limited?

[kerikiwi]

You don't see a difference between a racist Swede whose parents helped to build up Sweden, and an immigrant Somali who has come here to live on welfare?

Well, their skin is a different colour.
But neither of them helped build up Sweden, so they probably are both undesirable.

[Skeptic]

That is odd. 100% of women everywhere else fear being raped

Well, we all fear death (I suppose), but that hardly means we think there are a bunch of murderers running about.

[Jono]

To slightly sidestep the main topic a little bit (which seems to have been done enough already) with a somewhat relevant yet different thought, as I like to turn the table on questions; One thing I've noticed here in Sweden, amongst certain media outlet pieces and mutterings of politicians is the trend that, in response to nationalism or even harcore racism, it's almost fashionable to be 'unswedish' in the sense of more or less 'swedish' culture not really exisiting.

"But what is this swedish culture, hmm? Is it something else than Midsommer Pole's and cinnamon buns? haha"
Such statements can come across as very insultive to a lot of people, especially cultural historians etc. For example, the popular swedish historian Herman Lindquist noted on this trend in an article of his (http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/kolumnister/hermanlindqvist/article6125229.ab), albeit it's in swedish.

Now as someone who's interested in swedish history and its historical cultural aspects, to hear Mona Sahlin (leader of the Swedish Social Democratic Party) etc scoff about swedish culture with vartians of statements like the above, it's insultive and it is indeed a trend I've seen more and more here in Sweden. I get the impression that we are supposed to think we are of a culturally hollow country, desperately in need of enriching the cultural floura.
On the latter I do know of plenty examples where we have been enriched by other cultures (of course), I am bewildered by the position of the former.

[tsig]

Well, their skin is a different colour.
But neither of them helped build up Sweden, so they probably are both undesirable.

Ok everybody off my lawn!!

[Darth Rotor]

I'm not trying to make any such case. I'm saying that "democracy in action" is a red herring
No, democracy in action is something people have killed and died for. The only red is in the blood. You need to be able to say no. (Or, in another light, you need to be free to be an ********).

That democracy can produce bizarre results (see Prohibition) is simply a hazard of the difficulty in creating a perfect method.



DR

[jdp]

There is one large one for use by many denominations. I believe it can hold thousands but I have not seen it, it's on the outskirts of town. Some Christian groups still gather in homes and school gyms.

Are there, is there, a steeple, bells, and a large cross on the exterior that might identify it as a church? Are there synagogues anywhere in Qatar? If not, why not?

[kerikiwi]

No, democracy in action is something people have killed and died for. The only red is in the blood. You need to be able to say no. (Or, in another light, you need to be free to be an ********).

That democracy can produce bizarre results (see Prohibition) is simply a hazard of the difficulty in creating a perfect method.



But having people kill and die for a cause is no way to assess the value of that cause, is it?
People have killed and died for some pretty evil causes.
Bizarre and unjust results are certainly hazards, but are by no means justified because they are 'democratic'.

[Kotatsu]

The most profound effect of the current multicultural society is that the Swedish people will become largely rootless and without a common communionship.

And this is something that:
1) You feel has happened, or is imminent;
2) Muslims, but not for instance the enormous influence from the US/UK, will achieve;
3) Is done actively, and which you (or we) cannot avoid?

Also: I disagree. It will take much more than a lot of Muslims to make Swedish people say hello to the cashier, sit next to someone on the bus, and not speak to their neighbours. My circle of closest friends includes, apart from traditional Swedish people, people from Bali, Thailand, Japan, Norway, Austria, Germany, Greece, and England. I feel "communionship" with these people, because they are very nice people, and I feel "rooted" in my old hometown, Jönköping, because that's where I grew up. How would Muslims do to wrest these feelings away from me?

Without a land to specifically call ours i believe that we will more or less become unrecognizable.

Who is threatening our ability to call Sweden Swedish?

Again: what specific traits is it that you feel are so unique and praiseworthy about Swedish people that you want to preserve them? I can certainly think of several things -- Swedish folk music is perhaps first on the list -- but I cannot even in my wildest imagination see that these things are threatened by Muslim immigrants. I can also think of as many things that I don't like, and I don't see these being threatened by Muslim immigrants either, even should I like them to be. Finally, I can see a lot of things I like about other cultures that I think we should adopt and integrate into Swedish society, and I can't say that I understand why that should be a threat in any way either.

You don't see a difference between a racist Swede whose parents helped to build up Sweden, and an immigrant Somali who has come here to live on welfare? :confused:

Yes, I see plenty of differences. I just don't think that either is less worthy than the other of being able to buy food, have a place to live, get clothes, get an education, and so on.

http://www.bgf.nu/faktabanken/7.html
http://www.bgf.nu/faktabanken/kriminalitet/inv/ja.html
http://www.bgf.nu/faktabanken/kriminalitet/brabra.html
http://www.bgf.nu/faktabanken/kriminalitet/bra05a.html
http://www.bgf.nu/faktabanken/kriminalitet/bra05b.html

As I am loathe to take statistics presented by a nationalist web page at face value, I downloaded the governmental report this is based on (from the Board of Crime Prevention, available here (http://www.bra.se/extra/faq/?module_instance=2&action_question_show.339.0.=1)). Naturally, I haven't had time to read through its 77 pages yet, but that'll give me something to do during the weekend.

Incidentally, the case is also vice versa, i.e where norweigans (and finns) make up for the largest immigrant groups in Sweden, followed by people of the ex-Jugoslavian nations. In 2000, if I recall correctly, the formentioned groups make up for about 15-18% of the swedish population.

This is incorrect. The immigration list from SCB for 2008 lists:

Iraq: 13083
Poland: 7091
Somalia: 4218
Thailand: 3532
Germany: 3484
Denmark: 3371
Romania: 2595
China: 2925
Finland: 2390
Norway: 2239
Iran: 2169

All ex-Yugoslavian countries are not listed, but Bosnia & Hercegovina numbers 607 and Serbia 1791. The same report has the total population at 9,256,347 in 2008, of which the countries you mention constitute (citizenship/country of birth):

Finland: 77063/ 175113
Norway: 35484/44310
Slovenia: 619/938
Croatia: 2445/6158
Serbia: 4170/3800
Serbia & Montenegro: 0/6694 (1)
Macedonia: 1434/4226
Bosnia & Herzegovina: 9142/55960
Montenegro: 245/247
Yugoslavia: 0/72285 (2)

This adds up to:
Finland/Norway: 112547/219423 (= maximum 2.3%)
Ex-Yugoslavia: 18055/150308 (= maximum 1.6%) (3)

In fact, according to SCB both the Norwegian, Finnish and Icelandic populations if Sweden have been declining during the last few decades, Finnish peaking in 1980 and the others in 1990. The Danish had a peak in 1990, followed by a slight decline, but are rising again. Adding together all immigrants from the Nordic countries, I find that the percentage today is 2.91%, and the peak (1990) was at 4.10%.

I added the data for all the European countries together, and divided this by the total population of Sweden for each year separately. The maximum value is approximately 7.87% (2008). Doing the same for all Asian and African countries (whether predominantly Muslim or not) we get a value for 2008 at 4.88%, which is also the peak. This, however, includes India, China, South Korea Vietnam, and Thailand, all of which have five-digit populations in Sweden.

Now as someone who's interested in swedish history and its historical cultural aspects, to hear Mona Sahlin (leader of the Swedish Social Democratic Party) etc scoff about swedish culture with vartians of statements like the above, it's insultive and it is indeed a trend I've seen more and more here in Sweden. I get the impression that we are supposed to think we are of a culturally hollow country, desperately in need of enriching the cultural floura.
On the latter I do know of plenty examples where we have been enriched by other cultures (of course), I am bewildered by the position of the former.

I am one of those people you refer to, though I'd like to think that I am a bit more nuanced than the fictive people the pretentious royalist Herman Lindquist talks about. I think Swedish culture can be divided into two categories: good things and bad things, the division of which is entirely arbitrary. For instance, I like Swedish folk music, Swedish food, and I enjoy watching old Swedish dances. These I term "good things". However, there are also the general suspicion against strangers, the reservedness towards people you don't know, the laughable royal house and so on. These are "bad things". I see no reason to keep these aspects.

Anyway: could it perhaps be traced to the war? We were "neutral" and never had to either problematize aspects of our society and culture in the negative sense like the Germans and Japanese had to do ("What in the German/Japanese psyche could have allowed these things to happen?"), nor in the positive sense like, I suppose, the Allies had to do ("What in my people's psyche is it that is appalled by my enemies; why do I feel I have to fight them?") (4). This, I feel, somehow leads to the whole issue being very polarised in the official debate, with anyone discussing it either being enormously nationalist or enormously anti-nationalist. There is no official middle ground. Note: I have no idea if this reasoning is sound; it is merely a suggestion.

ETA:
it's almost fashionable to be 'unswedish' in the sense of more or less 'swedish' culture not really exisiting.

Well, in some aspects this is very nearly true, at least if "Swedish culture" is taken to mean what it was like 100 years ago. Traditional music, stories, dances, holidays, food, clothes, turns of phrase and so on are disappearing or almost gone, or practiced only locally, and then usually predominantly by older people. You just have to read virtually any Astrid Lindgren book and you'll see how much has changed since the time when these books take place. Read Fogelström's "The City" series and you'll find the same. No one reads Selma Lagerlöf, Hjalmar Bergman, Moa Martinsson, and so on anymore; if you show most young people a nyckelharpa, they won't even know what it is. Many aspects most certainly are disappearing from society, but the "threat" to these things are not, as some would have it, Muslims, but the Internet, globalisation, America, manga, and so on. To a large extent, Swedish culture is transforming from encompassing all kinds of aspects of daily life, to remaining only in the language and in structures (like the Principle of Openness that Lindqvist mentions).

---
(1) I assume this means you can no longer have a citizenship in "Serbia and Montenegro".
(2) This post was counted only until 2006, whereupon I assume it was split between its modern counterparts.
(3) I'm hoping now that Excel doesn't betray me or that I transferred the wrong numbers, so please do not assume that these calculations are 100% correct; the relevant data can easily be obtained by the SCB.
(4) I of course use the concept of national psyche merely as an analogy.

[INRM]

No possible good can come out of this. This will only drive muslims underground and will make things worse. Then if they do something crazy the government will then demand surveillance powers to deal with this threat which through their own incompetence, they created.

[Jono]

This is incorrect. The immigration list from SCB for 2008 lists:

Well I remember having read it at SCB some time ago and I think it is correct. It was given in a clarification piece on total numbers of both citizens with foreign origin as well as citizens of a foreign country. The problem is finding that report since SCB-searches can be a bit of a maze. It's there. I didn't find that specific report, but I did found something relevant from a pdf-file I had bookmarked:
"Av de utrikes födda i Sverige har ca 23 procent invandrat under
2000-talet."
..
"Av Sveriges befolkning på 9 047 752 hade 16 procent utländsk
bakgrund i slutet av år 2005, tre fjärdedelar av dessa var själva
födda utomlands."
http://www.scb.se/statistik/_publikationer/BE0101_2005A01_BR_BE0106TEXT.pdf


So in -05, 12% of the swedish population were born abroad, whereas 16% in total and foreign origin.

By the way, the first segment of the list for 2008 that you gave are for the ones who migrated into Sweden that year alone, not total. For example, again if I recall correctly, about 56,000 iraqi-born people migrated into Sweden between -00 to -08. So the total of Iraqi people in Sweden in 2008 could not have been only 13,000.

I am one of those people you refer to, though I'd like to think that I am a bit more nuanced than the fictive people the pretentious royalist Herman Lindquist talks about. I think Swedish culture can be divided into two categories: good things and bad things, the division of which is entirely arbitrary. For instance, I like Swedish folk music, Swedish food, and I enjoy watching old Swedish dances. These I term "good things". However, there are also the general suspicion against strangers, the reservedness towards people you don't know, the laughable royal house and so on. These are "bad things". I see no reason to keep these aspects.


Certainly. I'm not a royalist either. However my point was that I too have noticed somewhat of a tendency in some people to act as if 'swedish culture' is more or less hollow, ridiculously scoffed at as being summed up by the Midsommer Pole etc, as if we do not have any noteworthy culture and history thereof that has defined the aspects of Sweden. I probably feel as thrown aback by such sentiments as a japapense would if I told him japanese culture is basically sushi and Super Mario.
I seem to run across a lot of people with this attitude on swedish discussion forums and it has in fact saddened me a bit.

Anyway: could it perhaps be traced to the war? We were "neutral" and never had to either problematize aspects of our society and culture in the negative sense like the Germans and Japanese had to do ("What in the German/Japanese psyche could have allowed these things to happen?"), nor in the positive sense like, I suppose, the Allies had to do ("What in my people's psyche is it that is appalled by my enemies; why do I feel I have to fight them?") (4). This, I feel, somehow leads to the whole issue being very polarised in the official debate, with anyone discussing it either being enormously nationalist or enormously anti-nationalist. There is no official middle ground. Note: I have no idea if this reasoning is sound; it is merely a suggestion.


Actually I think there is a point there. Either people went further away from anything even remotely definable as "nationalistic", due to the huge weight/burden of fascist past in a guilt'ish manner and so forth, or we heard people going further into right extremism hating anything that walked on two legs that weren't 'aryan'.

The problem is, when one voices something, it is defined by one of the above to be a voice for the other one of the above, so the discussion never takes place, only a defence that "I'm not this" etc. It's almost a bit comical, if it hadn't been so saddening that the quality of 'listening' and 'communication sans emotional outbursts' are left down the hall.

Many aspects most certainly are disappearing from society, but the "threat" to these things are not, as some would have it, Muslims, but the Internet, globalisation, America, manga, and so on. To a large extent, Swedish culture is transforming from encompassing all kinds of aspects of daily life, to remaining only in the language and in structures (like the Principle of Openness that Lindqvist mentions).


Yes I agree. This is actually something to be said of many western countries all in all. First and foremost there is globalisation, with the added aspect of multiculturalism and growth of culturally fast people into countries where people no longer really define themselves culturually. There are also plenty of cultural distinctions that, while not specifically swedish, are characteristic of a region within the nation. The same can be said for a variety of general characteristics of a region of culturally similar people, like koreans and japanese compared to french and swedish. In most cases, when talking about characteristical differences of the cultures and similarities it depends on having something to compare it with.

Meaning, it is always easier to answer; "What are the differences between swedish and turkish culture?" rather than try to answer; "What is swedish culture?". Or to be less nation bound and more historical minority-group bound; "what is the differences between european jewish culture and european gypsy culture?" rather than to answer "what is european jewish culture?"

I believe a people reflects as well as reinterprets the 'baggage' of their ancestral culture as a general rule, so change always happens, it is always happening. However, when a given demographic group is changed into a combination of others, so it will change into something reflecting the origins multi-facetted, which in turn will impact on all aspects. Again, this has happend for a long time more or less if one is to be specific, and it also always happens. And the greater the differences, eg. the "more", of the changing variables, ie the groups housing together, the greater the change. When a given group with a given cultural ancestry loses identification thereof and replaces it with something else, this will naturally have an effect on the continued change of the given country, its culture and achieved aspects. 'How' it will change is very hard to say, but since these are quite change-prone variables we must assume that it will have an effect to this end in one way or another, all depending on the size and characteristics of what differences are added to each other.

To this, there are all sorts of consequences, which one can talk about in the negative as well as positive. I consider it a very complex issue and certainly not easily discussed using absolutes (i.e black and white) as so many find fashionable.

[AWPrime]

Now as someone who's interested in swedish history and its historical cultural aspects, to hear Mona Sahlin (leader of the Swedish Social Democratic Party) etc scoff about swedish culture with vartians of statements like the above, it's insultive and it is indeed a trend I've seen more and more here in Sweden. I get the impression that we are supposed to think we are of a culturally hollow country, desperately in need of enriching the cultural floura.
On the latter I do know of plenty examples where we have been enriched by other cultures (of course), I am bewildered by the position of the former.
More about the former, we can see such examples all over Europe. Thankfully they are getting less and less support. Lets hope that such extremists completely fail, in my eyes they are no better then racists/bigots.

[Fiona]

A culture is what people choose to do. You cannot impose it and you cannot preserve it: all you get if you try to do that is whatever your equivalent of shortbread is. If people find value in what you perceive as your culture it will thrive: if they don't it won't. You can regret this if you wish and you can embrace it if you wish. But I do not think you can stop it by fiat

[Cleon]

Swedish culture must be preserved!

n7iZX9GbiUU

[Ryokan]

However my point was that I too have noticed somewhat of a tendency in some people to act as if 'swedish culture' is more or less hollow, ridiculously scoffed at as being summed up by the Midsommer Pole etc, as if we do not have any noteworthy culture and history thereof that has defined the aspects of Sweden.

We Norwegians have known this for years...

:p

[Prometheus]

Swedish culture must be preserved!

n7iZX9GbiUU

Dammit Cleon! I thought that was gonna be a Swedish Erotica vid. :rolleyes:

[Ysidro]

I haven't finished this thread (I only just got to page 9) but so far I have learned that the forum hosts a whole hell of a lot more bigots than I ever suspected. Is this JREF or Stormfront?

[TriangleMan]

Are there, is there, a steeple, bells, and a large cross on the exterior that might identify it as a church?
Google Image Searching "church qatar" shows the church. No big cross and while there looks to be a central tower I doubted it had a bell.

The search led me to a Time Magazine article (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1723715,00.html) about the church, noting:

"The inauguration last week of Qatar's first Christian church — a small Catholic chapel bearing neither bells nor visible crosses — has been hailed as a welcome step forward in relations between Catholicism and Islam."

"small" in this case is that it can hold over 2,000.

Are there synagogues anywhere in Qatar? If not, why not?

based on this article (http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3544150,00.html) I'd say that there are none. I do not think there was ever a large Jewish population here anyway (outside of the US airbase) but I will not claim that even if there was a significant jewish population a synagouge would exist. I'm basing this on the fact that there are 10s of thousands of Christians here yet the first church only opened in 2008, and that generated some controversy at the time.

[fullflavormenthol]

I haven't finished this thread (I only just got to page 9) but so far I have learned that the forum hosts a whole hell of a lot more bigots than I ever suspected. Is this JREF or Stormfront?
Pretty much Stormfront as far as a few members go.

Mostly those who think "well they do it..." as a reason for anything.

[KingMerv00]

I haven't finished this thread (I only just got to page 9) but so far I have learned that the forum hosts a whole hell of a lot more bigots than I ever suspected. Is this JREF or Stormfront?

I just figured that out too. On my birthday no less. Yay.

[KingMerv00]

No, democracy in action is something people have killed and died for. The only red is in the blood. You need to be able to say no. (Or, in another light, you need to be free to be an ********).

That democracy can produce bizarre results (see Prohibition) is simply a hazard of the difficulty in creating a perfect method.



DR

Huh?

Wasn't paying attention. I'm sorry, you got off on your soapbox and I lost track of the topic. My bad.

Democracy can yield ****. From your post I deduce you know this already. It is particularly sad that people kill and die for ****y outcomes.

In the mean time, I will resist unjustified discrimination whether it is created by popular opinion or not.

[Skeptic]

Unsurprisingly, and correctly, the Jews are against the minaret ban (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1259831455845&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull).

[AWPrime]

A culture is what people choose to do. You cannot impose it and you cannot preserve it: all you get if you try to do that is whatever your equivalent of shortbread is. If people find value in what you perceive as your culture it will thrive: if they don't it won't. You can regret this if you wish and you can embrace it if you wish. But I do not think you can stop it by fiatThis is a double edged situation, there are those that are over-conservative and those radicals that want anything else but.

I myself prefer a natural growth of the base culture, this also has the least potential for social conflicts. Its like a good dish, you have your old fashion nutritional food and a sprinkle of spices.

[Kotatsu]

So in -05, 12% of the swedish population were born abroad, whereas 16% in total and foreign origin.

The same SCB tables I used above give 13.84% of Sweden's population being born abroad, and 6.07% having a non-Swedish nationality for 2008. There is no data for 2005, but for 2000 the corresponding numbers were 11.30% and 5.37&, respectively. So you are correct in the total number of immigrants, but incorrect in that Finnish, Norwegians and ex-Yugoslavians would make up 15-18% of the Swedish population.

By the way, the first segment of the list for 2008 that you gave are for the ones who migrated into Sweden that year alone, not total. For example, again if I recall correctly, about 56,000 iraqi-born people migrated into Sweden between -00 to -08. So the total of Iraqi people in Sweden in 2008 could not have been only 13,000.

Ah, I misunderstood your statement. Nevertheless, while Finland (175113) is the largest single country of origin for immigrants, Poland (63822), Denmark (46167), Germany (46854), Bosnia & Herzegovina (55960), ex-Yugoslavia (72285), Iran (57663) and Iraq (109446) still beat Norway (44310) (numbers are total amount of immigrants born in the given country living in Sweden 2008).

Certainly. I'm not a royalist either. However my point was that I too have noticed somewhat of a tendency in some people to act as if 'swedish culture' is more or less hollow, ridiculously scoffed at as being summed up by the Midsommer Pole etc, as if we do not have any noteworthy culture and history thereof that has defined the aspects of Sweden. I probably feel as thrown aback by such sentiments as a japapense would if I told him japanese culture is basically sushi and Super Mario.
I seem to run across a lot of people with this attitude on swedish discussion forums and it has in fact saddened me a bit.

My father once asked me, as we were watching some travel program on TV, why it was cultural to go and watch Greek folk dancers when in Greece, or Thai folk dances when in Thailand, but nerdy to go and watch Swedish folk dancing on Midsummer (which we usually do every year). The same could be asked about virtually any form of Swedish culture.


To some extent, I think this has to do, as I said, with the lack of introspection during and following the war, but also with the rapid social evolution during the 20th century. These traditional things, I think, became so connected with "Old Sweden" -- the rural, poor, provincial Sweden of the 19th century -- that the more urban generations quickly distanced itself from them, to show that they were modern and international.

This meant that only people who had grown up during the last half of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th appreciated these things, and thus strengthened the division between "Old Sweden" and "New Sweden", and many of the generations born during the 20th century lost contact with the older generations entirely.

In a way, society could and was allowed to progress so quickly, that new things were not integrated in the old, but adopted entirely from other (primarily American) culture. In Social Democracy Sweden, no one who set the agenda wanted to be working class anymore, and these older traditions became, somehow, connected to the working class of the 19th century, whereas American culture was connected with the new ideal, which was suddenly achievable to the newer generations. We suddenly could start our own companies, and were encouraged to. We could get cars, TVs, go on vacation, and so on. All ideals became connected to a lifestyle that was dissimilar to, opposite to, or even incompatible with the previous working class conditions.

On top of this, of course, immigration increased, and the possibility to compare and evaluate traditions, behaviours and values without having to travel increased. Look at food, for instance. No matter which town you go to, there’s bound to be places to get all kinds of foreign food: pizza, sushi, Thai food, Indian food, Chinese food, and so on. The selection is much larger now than before, and instead of being the “standard” cuisine, traditional Swedish food has to compete for attention against food from all over the place.

(The same cannot be said to the same extent about other kinds of culture, which is generally still dominated by either Swedish or American culture. Apart from special channels such as P2, you never hear music in Tagalog, Vietnamese, Portuguese, or Russian on the Radio, and apart from some movies, we have very few TV programs from countries other than the UK, the US, and the Nordic countries.)

This greater selection, coupled with the image of the traditionally Swedish as being connected to an older, now largely defunct, ideal, often makes the Swedish alternatives lose out. However, I don’t see the same bleak prospects as Arcade of Swedish culture disappearing. I have no data, but I see an increased interest among young people (I do include myself here!) for many traditional things, such as knitting, folk music, traditional food and so on. This I would very much like to couple with Astrid Lindgren, who is of course as popular as ever, but I can’t really form anything but the most tenuous of links.

In any case, this new interest in traditional things is, in my experience, almost invariably coupled with a continued interest in non-traditional things, and various ways of mixing them, meaning that the result is neither fully traditional, nor fully non-traditional. This, to me, is a sign that Swedish culture, whatever that is, isn’t stagnating.


The problem is, when one voices something, it is defined by one of the above to be a voice for the other one of the above, so the discussion never takes place, only a defence that "I'm not this" etc. It's almost a bit comical, if it hadn't been so saddening that the quality of 'listening' and 'communication sans emotional outbursts' are left down the hall.

I think it can at least partially be explained by a combination of the following factors:
1) Sweden is a small country, with few people living in it. This easily seems to lead to a less nuanced debate regardless of the subject, because there are fewer minds debating a given topic than there would be in a more heavily populated area. A polarisation in a given subject could therefore easily be established on an early stage in the debate by the fact that few alternative viewpoints are presented initially.
2) We, as Swedes, do have a tendency towards consensus. This translates into a normal distribution of opinions on a given subject over time tending to transform into a bimodal distribution, if the subject lends itself to two irreconcilable opinions. This means that once the initial viewpoints have been established, everyone else tends to assume one of them, because it is safer to agree with someone else, who seem to have studied the topic better or at least is able to formulate his/her arguments, than it is to propose a third opinion. .
3) Then comes the most ridiculous factor of all: since there are no real problems in Sweden, and no one alive today has ever been in a war between Sweden and another country, the people who get to set the agenda tend to exaggerate and escalate everything, cheered on by the generally quite incompetent Swedish newspapers. I read a short review of “famous” feminist debates in Sweden this morning, and was reacquainted with the debate about whether or not Björn Ranelid uses lip gloss… I don’t remember the debate, but I understood that this was a quite long and heated debate about --- nothing important whatsoever!
4) This is coupled to a belief among Swedish media that any subject can be reduced to “for” and “against”. My own favourite media, P1 (governmental radio station one), does this several time every morning, by inviting two persons somehow connected to something in the news, and have them debate it. It is always interesting to listen to it those times when it is apparent that they are trying to make a hen of a feather, when both the “debaters” agree, but the interviewer tries to force out some kind of disagreement between them

Yes I agree. This is actually something to be said of many western countries all in all. First and foremost there is globalisation, with the added aspect of multiculturalism and growth of culturally fast people into countries where people no longer really define themselves culturually.

This is a very good point. I am Swedish by accident, but birdwatcher by choice, and biologist by achievement, for instance. I cannot even comprehend why I should be proud of something that happened entirely by chance, and which I was unable to influence as it happened before my birth. More pertinent to this thread: how can I be a traitor towards arbitrary circumstances?

My grandmother comes from Hinterpommern (now in Poland), was captured after the war by the Soviets and put to dig a ditch of some sort between Kolomna and Moscow. She and her family escaped and ended up in Sweden, where she met my grandfather, originally from Northern Sweden, in Tidaholm (in the South-West), where he had lived in a foster home (if I remember correctly). They married, and moved to my home town, where my mother was eventually born, and she met my father, the son of two local farmers, at a party hosted by mutual friends. Subsequently I was born.

Where in this chain is national pride supposed to appear? Should I be proud to be Swedish because my father chose to go to a party? Or because my grandfather was placed in a foster home? Or because my grandmother wasn’t killed during her escape from Kolomna to Hamburg? How do I betray coincidence? On a genetic level, I can be proud only about how the sperm that is half of me was the first to reach its target. Everything else is just fluff.

[Fiona]

To some extent, I think this has to do, as I said, with the lack of introspection during and following the war, but also with the rapid social evolution during the 20th century. These traditional things, I think, became so connected with "Old Sweden" -- the rural, poor, provincial Sweden of the 19th century -- that the more urban generations quickly distanced itself from them, to show that they were modern and international.

This meant that only people who had grown up during the last half of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th appreciated these things, and thus strengthened the division between "Old Sweden" and "New Sweden", and many of the generations born during the 20th century lost contact with the older generations entirely.

In a way, society could and was allowed to progress so quickly, that new things were not integrated in the old, but adopted entirely from other (primarily American) culture. In Social Democracy Sweden, no one who set the agenda wanted to be working class anymore, and these older traditions became, somehow, connected to the working class of the 19th century, whereas American culture was connected with the new ideal, which was suddenly achievable to the newer generations. We suddenly could start our own companies, and were encouraged to. We could get cars, TVs, go on vacation, and so on. All ideals became connected to a lifestyle that was dissimilar to, opposite to, or even incompatible with the previous working class conditions.

On top of this, of course, immigration increased, and the possibility to compare and evaluate traditions, behaviours and values without having to travel increased. Look at food, for instance. No matter which town you go to, there’s bound to be places to get all kinds of foreign food: pizza, sushi, Thai food, Indian food, Chinese food, and so on. The selection is much larger now than before, and instead of being the “standard” cuisine, traditional Swedish food has to compete for attention against food from all over the place.

(The same cannot be said to the same extent about other kinds of culture, which is generally still dominated by either Swedish or American culture. Apart from special channels such as P2, you never hear music in Tagalog, Vietnamese, Portuguese, or Russian on the Radio, and apart from some movies, we have very few TV programs from countries other than the UK, the US, and the Nordic countries.)

This greater selection, coupled with the image of the traditionally Swedish as being connected to an older, now largely defunct, ideal, often makes the Swedish alternatives lose out. However, I don’t see the same bleak prospects as Arcade of Swedish culture disappearing. I have no data, but I see an increased interest among young people (I do include myself here!) for many traditional things, such as knitting, folk music, traditional food and so on. This I would very much like to couple with Astrid Lindgren, who is of course as popular as ever, but I can’t really form anything but the most tenuous of links.

In any case, this new interest in traditional things is, in my experience, almost invariably coupled with a continued interest in non-traditional things, and various ways of mixing them, meaning that the result is neither fully traditional, nor fully non-traditional. This, to me, is a sign that Swedish culture, whatever that is, isn’t stagnating.


Well speculated :)

I recognise a great deal of what you are saying as applying to this country, as well. And there is a definite increasing interest in, at least, traditional music here: but with this twist: the young musicians mix with and learn from traditional artists from all over the world and what we get is a really exciting fusion. Same thing with food, as you also point out.

Cultures are not killed: they become moribund for a time if the people lose interest in what they have to offer: or if they are seen to be obstructive to current aspirations. And that was at least partially true after the war: many people were not very impressed with what our various cultures had wrought and they turned their backs on that for a time. There are no simplistic routes to utopia, however, and what I see is that technology and societal change has brought many of the anticipated benefits at the cost of some genuinely valuable cultural norms and values. These seem to be being re-examined but what we will not see is a "going back": we will see a new synthesis, and who knows what it will look like. I find this very positive, personally.

There will always be the "tartan and shortbread brigade" who have no faith in their culture, and call that patriotism or pride: they seem to me to despise the real culture and the "people in practice", as opposed to "in fantasy". But they have nice slogans, and in the right circumstances they can be very dangerous: it is very funny that women's rights was used as part of the campaign against minarets in Switzerland, of all places! Perhaps I have an odd sense of humour but it made me laugh anyway. My bad, probably. ;)

There will always be those who deny any value to things which have served us well in the past, and rush to embrace every new thing just because it is new. They also have a nice narrative with easy solutions and a contempt for the "people in practice": they do not recognise any positive value in history at all.

Both groups are utopian and they hold out their different brave new worlds.

And meantime the lumpen majority of us get on with the messy compromises of real life and real culture. We cannot NOT have a culture: it is part of being human. But most of what it is is not even recognised as culture: it is no less extant and no less valuable for that



This is a very good point. I am Swedish by accident, but birdwatcher by choice, and biologist by achievement, for instance. I cannot even comprehend why I should be proud of something that happened entirely by chance, and which I was unable to influence as it happened before my birth. More pertinent to this thread: how can I be a traitor towards arbitrary circumstances?

My grandmother comes from Hinterpommern (now in Poland), was captured after the war by the Soviets and put to dig a ditch of some sort between Kolomna and Moscow. She and her family escaped and ended up in Sweden, where she met my grandfather, originally from Northern Sweden, in Tidaholm (in the South-West), where he had lived in a foster home (if I remember correctly). They married, and moved to my home town, where my mother was eventually born, and she met my father, the son of two local farmers, at a party hosted by mutual friends. Subsequently I was born.

Where in this chain is national pride supposed to appear? Should I be proud to be Swedish because my father chose to go to a party? Or because my grandfather was placed in a foster home? Or because my grandmother wasn’t killed during her escape from Kolomna to Hamburg? How do I betray coincidence? On a genetic level, I can be proud only about how the sperm that is half of me was the first to reach its target. Everything else is just fluff.

And, again, very well said :)

[Darth Rotor]

But having people kill and die for a cause is no way to assess the value of that cause, is it?
Sez you.
People have killed and died for some pretty evil causes.
Tru.
Bizarre and unjust results are certainly hazards, but are by no means justified because they are 'democratic'.
I see, you don't actually support the democratic method.

[Darth Rotor]

Huh?

Wasn't paying attention. I'm sorry, you got off on your soapbox and I lost track of the topic. My bad.
It's all good, at least my feet got clean. (From the soap).
Democracy can yield ****. From your post I deduce you know this already. It is particularly sad that people kill and die for ****y outcomes.
Are processes required to be perfect to be good enough to establish a democratic system? Methinks not. My response to Cleon I'll pass along. The voter turnout was about 53 percent for this matter. That means quite a few people were not heard from. This vote does not end Swiss democracy. An initiative to overturn this remains an open option, if people care enough and are willing to do the work.

I am content to sit back and let the Swiss figure out what they want to do about this, within their system. There were enough "no" votes to constitute a critical mass of political powet to tap into.
In the mean time, I will resist unjustified discrimination whether it is created by popular opinion or not.
Aye.

[Cleon]

I see, you don't actually support the democratic method.

That's bullcrap, Darth, and you ought to know better.

In the United States, we have this legal concept called a "Bill of Rights." It's not there for the aesthetic value; it's there because the framers of the Constitution knew damn well that there are times when the rights of the minority had to be protected from the democratic will of the majority.

Supporting the rights of the minority against persecution by the majority is not in contrast to the "democratic method;" in fact, it's necessary for a democratic system to remain democratic.

[Arcade22]

Supporting the rights of the minority against persecution by the majority is not in contrast to the "democratic method;" in fact, it's necessary for a democratic system to remain democratic.

Please explain how discrimination, persecution etc. of minority's would be considered "undemocratic".

[Malerin]

That's bullcrap, Darth, and you ought to know better.

In the United States, we have this legal concept called a "Bill of Rights." It's not there for the aesthetic value; it's there because the framers of the Constitution knew damn well that there are times when the rights of the minority had to be protected from the democratic will of the majority.

Supporting the rights of the minority against persecution by the majority is not in contrast to the "democratic method;" in fact, it's necessary for a democratic system to remain democratic.

The Bill of Rights can be swept away by a democratic process. You just need a larger majority than one-half + 1. For example, if Al Queda or Hezbollah (or some radical Islamic group) ever succeeds in setting off a nuke in N.Y., you might see Islam outlawed in America. This would require tweaking a few amendments.

[Ryokan]

Please explain how discrimination, persecution etc. of minority's would be considered "undemocratic".

Try reading your own constitution? You can find it at www.riksdagen.se

[Arcade22]

Try reading your own constitution? You can find it at www.riksdagen.se

I don't see how that answers my question. If 51% of the Swedish people decided that they wanted all of the Norwegians in Sweden expelled, how would that be undemocratic?

[Ryokan]

I don't see how that answers my question. If 51% of the Swedish people decided that they wanted all of the Norwegians in Sweden expelled, how would that be undemocratic?

It depends how you define democratic. For most of us in the West, when we say democracy we really mean liberal democracy, which is based on fundamental human rights in a constitution that is hard to change. It's set up this way to protect the rights of the minority and prevent mob rule. This is also true of Sweden.

ETA: Might I add that this is a fundamental part of your precious Swedish culture, and therefore should be sacrosanct? ;)

[quadraginta]

It depends how you define democratic. For most of us in the West, when we say democracy we really mean liberal democracy, which is based on fundamental human rights in a constitution that is hard to change. It's set up this way to protect the rights of the minority and prevent mob rule. This is also true of Sweden.

ETA: Might I add that this is a fundamental part of your precious Swedish culture, and therefore should be sacrosanct? ;)


Much as I hate to chime in against a side of the discussion I'm largely in agreement with I have to back up Darth and Arcade here a little bit.

The term "fundamental" is getting used pretty loosely, and "hard to change" doesn't mean impossible, or even unlikely.

By any reasonable measure it hasn't been all that long when slave ownership in the U.S. was a "fundamental" right, and it was awfully darn "hard to change".

Democracy, "liberal" or any other flavor is not a panacea for perfect equality. It is one of the more effective tools that we have developed so far, but it isn't perfect, and the topic of this thread is an excellent example of why complacency about the idea is problematic.

It could be argued that the right dictator in a benevolent dictatorship might provide far more fairness and equality, but even that solution can have its drawbacks.

[Darth Rotor]

That's bullcrap, Darth, and you ought to know better.
I am painfully aware of the weaknesses of democracy, from a lot of angles. I am also having some fun here. What I find hilarious is that the response to this completely valid voting initiative, per the Swiss Constitution, is being objected to even though it went forward via due process of law.


THE RULE OF LAW HAS BEEN UPHELD!!!!

As I pointed out before, politics doesn't stop just because of one vote. The Swiss system allows this to happen, constitutionally. It also allows the Swiss to confront this uncomfortable fact about their democracy, and choose to address it further, or not. All it takes is work. Never heard that the Swiss were lazy. I am getting pie in the sky and castles in the air argument about this vote based on emotional reaction to your sense of justice. All of this noise is irrelevant. It appears that about a quarter of the Swiss electorate have no time at all for Muslims. Sad, but apparently true. Are they to be ignored? No. They too have a right to be heard, and I think they just got heard. Now, about an eighth of the US population is black, should they be ignored? NO! If, let us say, about seventy percent of that group have a pretty similar political objection to policy X, Y, or Z, should they not be heard? YES!
In the United States, we have this legal concept called a "Bill of Rights."
No crap. Except, it isn't a legal concept, it is a set of amendments to the Constitution, and I might add that the legal concept you might be interested in is the XIV amendment, which is equal protection under the law, and is not part of the bill of rights, but took about half a million dead Americans to come to fruition. Your emotions got the better of you there, Cleon. It's also completely irrelevant.
Supporting the rights of the minority against persecution by the majority is not in contrast to the "democratic method;" in fact, it's necessary for a democratic system to remain democratic.
Your last clause is false. A democratic system can remain democratic and still be unfair in a variety of ways. See my side bar with KingMerv on this. You are appealing to the perceived justness of a society, not its democratic nature.

Since I bothered to read the Swiss Constitution (thanks to Flo for the inspiration) I suggest you not apply a non sequitur about the US constitution here.

Why not cite what's there to support your point? (Hint, there is material you could use).

I even provided a link to their Constitution, the English translation.

All this screaming and moaning about justification and moral this, that, or the other is fascinating emotional outbursts.

There is ample means to use the exact same system that got this vote passed to overturn it, and I say again, ample voting mass to tap into to do just that.

Will the Swiss who care enough to overturn this do the work, and use the process as their political opponent on this matter did? Ya know, via a democratic method?

DR

[Cleon]

Darth, it boils down to this. "The majority want it" is not a valid excuse for legalized bigotry and discrimination.

It's really kind of sick that you think it's "hilarious."

[Darth Rotor]

The Bill of Rights can be swept away by a democratic process. You just need a larger majority than one-half + 1.
False. Repealing amendments requires the same voting supermajorities as passing amendments, because to repeal an amendment, or change one, requires a further amendment.

See repeal of Prohibition for an example.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Darth, it boils down to this. "The majority want it" is not a valid excuse for legalized bigotry and discrimination.

It's really kind of sick that you think it's "hilarious."
*shakes head*

Unpucker the rectum, my friend. And rather than call me names, why not go to the Swiss constitution, which link I provided earlier, and find (yes, it is there) the language in that document that supports the various rights of various Swiss. It's there.

Ya see, I think what has happened here is that a deep discontent with the government for about 20 years, which is the timeline for the significant influx of foreigners of a Muslim nature into Switzerland, immigration that coincided with the Balkan wars of the nineties, has finally bubbled up into an expression of popular political action.

If everybody doesn't have a voice in your free society, you don't have a free society. Funny, the ACLU defends the loudmouths in the Klan on roughly that principle. Well, the discontented found their voice. They used the precios worship of the Rule of Law to be heard.

They think they have won a victory.

I think they may be mistaken. Do the numbers. Hell, I did them for you.

Play is continuous.

ETA: CLeon, my apologies, here is the link. I thought I had put it in a few posts back, when I commented on immigration into Switzerland.

http://www.admin.ch/org/polit/00083/index.html?lang=en

DR

[Ryokan]

Democracy, "liberal" or any other flavor is not a panacea for perfect equality.

I agree, but it's the best we have.

It could be argued that the right dictator in a benevolent dictatorship might provide far more fairness and equality, but even that solution can have its drawbacks.

I agree with that as well, but it never lasts.

[Cleon]

*shakes head*

Unpucker the rectum, my friend.

Stop trying to justify the unjustifiable, my friend.

And rather than call me names,

I haven't called you any names.


why not go to the Swiss constitution, which link I provided earlier, and find (yes, it is there) the language in that document that supports the various rights of various Swiss. It's there.


Again with the "law trumps basic human rights."

Jim Crow was supported by the majority in the South. I suppose the Civil Rights Act was an anti-democratic imposition. :rolleyes:


Ya see, I think what has happened here is that a discontent with the government for about 20 years, which is the timeline for the significant influx of foreigners into Switzerland that coincided with the Balkan wars of the nineties, has finally bubbled up into an expression of popular political action.

Xenophobia's ok if the majority vote for it! :rolleyes:


If everybody doesn't have a voice in your free society, you don't have a free society. Funny, the ACLU defends the loudmouths in the Klan on roughly that principle.

Yep. Apparently, though, you don't think the principle should be applied to Muslims.

[Aepervius]

Darth, it boils down to this. "The majority want it" is not a valid excuse for legalized bigotry and discrimination.

It's really kind of sick that you think it's "hilarious."

Whereas I agree it is bigotry, (and possibly discremination if they allow new church to be built at the same place), it is swiss's choice and I respect it (at least in the same way I respect US's choice to allow weapons for example).

I see a lot of hub-hub made, but basically this is the right of the local folk to be bigoted and refuse outsiders.

[Sideroxylon]

Whereas I agree it is bigotry, (and possibly discremination if they allow new church to be built at the same place), it is swiss's choice and I respect it (at least in the same way I respect US's choice to allow weapons for example).

I see a lot of hub-hub made, but basically this is the right of the local folk to be bigoted and refuse outsiders.

What's an outsider? Naturalised Swiss citizens? Swiss born children of immigrants? Swiss converts to Islam?

[GreNME]

Whereas I agree it is bigotry, (and possibly discremination if they allow new church to be built at the same place), it is swiss's choice and I respect it (at least in the same way I respect US's choice to allow weapons for example).

I see a lot of hub-hub made, but basically this is the right of the local folk to be bigoted and refuse outsiders.

But that doesn't protect that bigotry from criticism.

[Darth Rotor]

Stop trying to justify the unjustifiable, my friend.
Really? You think it is justified that, thanks to your sensibilities, the dissenting Swiss have no right to their political voice?
Again with the "law trumps basic human rights."
Appeal to abstract platitude noted. Also, you failure to read the Swiss constitution is noted. I gave you a link.
Jim Crow was supported by the majority in the South. I suppose the Civil Rights Act was an anti-democratic imposition.
Actually, no, it was passed via our democratic method. A good piece of legislation. Do you understand how important our democratic method is? It avoids the tyranny of the minority, a thing once called autocracy, or monarchy, in some schools. And if you look at this vote, you have a minority of the voters doing just what it is you don't like. Not a majority. Do the G^%$##@^&&%$ numbers. No, wait, I already did them for you.
Xenophobia's ok if the majority vote for it!
Ever been to Japan? I have. Actually, you raise an interesting point, but since the numbers in this vote don't fall that way, your invented rubbish is irrelevant.
Yep. Apparently, though, you don't think the principle should be applied to Muslims.
You are kindly invited not to attempt to put false words of your falsely motivated manufacture into my mouth.

Now, get off your lazy butt and cite where in the Swiss constitution the Muslims can expect to find relief. (Hint: it's there.) Go to the darned link I gave you, lazybones.

@ GrenMe: But that doesn't protect that bigotry from criticism.
Correct. But as Lenin once asked, chto delat? (What is to be done).

That remains in the hands of the Swiss.

DR

[Cleon]

Really? You think it is justified that, thanks to your sensibilities, the dissenting Swiss have no right to their political voice?

You mean, do I think they have the right to discriminate on the basis of religion?

No. No, I do not.

You do. That's sad, and significantly changes my opinion of you.


ETA: You ask me not to call you any names, which I haven't done, then proceed call me names. This also changes my opinion of you.

[Darth Rotor]

You mean, do I think they have the right to discriminate on the basis of religion?
You do. That's sad, and significantly changes my opinion of you.
I do not endorse discrimination on the basis of religion. Period.

Get a freakin' clue. You are so freakin' wrong it isn't funny.

They have the right to try, in a democracy which is an inherent weakness in democratic methods since they were derived.

Who was that old Greek guy who commented that democracy will result in tyranny?
ETA: You ask me not to call you any names, which I haven't done, then proceed call me names. This also changes my opinion of you.
OK, fair enough. I'll apologize for the lazy bones crack, that was unkind.

I will simply ask you why you could not be bothered to go to the link I provided for you? Afraid to learn something that would support your point? You are confusing me here.

ETA: this is annoying. I gave a huge freakin' clue to what I was doing some pages back. My continued participation in this thread was triggered by Flo's interchange, and her insights into what was behind this thing.

Switzerland is an exemplary democracy.

Hello. Welcome to my veiled reference cards for this conversation. Iraq.

About six years ago, the United States decided to impose democracy on Iraq with a bayonet. The cult of the underdog featured in the information campaign that was used to sell that war. Two underdogs in particular were featured, Kurds and Shi'ites. The Chaldeans were thrown under the bus, and to a certain extent, the Turkomen, IMO, by the Bush information war team.

Strangely enough, the blessings of democracy are not trusted by many of the Sunni, and to a different extent some Kurds, in an Iraq where democracy has the very real potential (risk) to empower a tyrranical majority, the Shia, at the expense of two important minority cultural and demographic groups.

Switzerland is an exemplary democracy. Even in an exemplary and well established Western democracy, look at what goes on. Thanks to the Swiss being Swiss, and generally peaceful in nature, this has not resulted in gunplay. What signal does this send, however, to the potential democracy in Iraq, and those who are skeptical of democracy's benefits and blessings?

A lawful, democratic method can be used to enact a law that is unfair to X. I don't think any Kurd or Sunni Iraqi will find this exercise of democracy (and given that it happens to Muslims, I suspect this story has made it into Iraq) an unlikely part of their future.

But the play is not done.

What will hopefully happen is that the very same method will be used to overturn this measure. A vote. WORKING WITHIN THE SYSTEM (Not a decree). (See, again, overturn Prohibition).

If that takes place, an even better and more hopeful message comes across to some people who could sorely use the blessings of democracy; people who shed blood by the tankerful in the process of getting it (how many tens of thousands dead?); and who are still killing one another since they don't trust the majority, or anyone else who gets power, not squash them.

How does it play in Peoria?

How does it play in Basra?

It's a 24/7 world, this story might have legs.

And once again, for Cleon, the US Constitution has bloody eff all to do with this story.

DR

[kerikiwi]

Sez you.
.

Many people killed and died for National Socialism.
9/11 involved plenty of killing and dying.
How do you rate those causes?

[Cleon]

I do not endorse discrimination on the basis of religion. Period.

Unless it's done by democratic means. Then you only have a problem with people criticizing said discrimination, who need to "get a freakin' clue" and "are so freakin' wrong it isn't funny."


I will simply ask you why you could not be bothered to go to the link I provided for you? Afraid to learn something that would support your point? You are confusing me here.


It's not relevant to my point. You are the one appealing to Swiss legalism, not me.

[Arcade22]

Darth, it boils down to this. "The majority want it" is not a valid excuse for legalized bigotry and discrimination.

If the Swiss did not wish there to be, as in my other example, Norwegians, inside their country, don't you feel that they should be able to choose if they want them to be there?
Should a people not have control over who stays inside their own country?

[Cleon]

If the Swiss did not wish there to be, as in my other example, Norwegians, inside their country, don't you feel that they should be able to choose if they want them to be there?
Should a people not have control over who stays inside their own country?

No, I don't support ethnic cleansing and mass expulsions. :rolleyes:

And you conveniently ignore the reality that "Swiss" and "Muslim" are not contradictory.

[Arcade22]

And you conveniently ignore the reality that "Swiss" and "Muslim" are not contradictory.

Where have i said anything about Muslims?

Whats you're definition of being Swiss? Having Swiss citizenship?

[Sideroxylon]

If the Swiss did not wish there to be, as in my other example, Norwegians, inside their country, don't you feel that they should be able to choose if they want them to be there?
Should a people not have control over who stays inside their own country?

Yes, that’s what visas and immigration laws are all about. However, i'm pretty sure the Muslims who might want mosques with minarets are not tourists.

[Thunder]

If the Swiss did not wish there to be, as in my other example, Norwegians, inside their country, don't you feel that they should be able to choose if they want them to be there?
Should a people not have control over who stays inside their own country?

what if they are already citizens? should a country have the right to kick out citizens of a certain religion/ethnicity/race that the majority of the population no longer want?

[Cleon]

Where have i said anything about Muslims?

Obviously, the Swiss are banning Mormon minarets. :rolleyes:


Whats you're definition of being Swiss? Having Swiss citizenship?

How else would you define it?

[Arcade22]

what if they are already citizens? should a country have the right to kick out citizens of a certain religion/ethnicity/race that the majority of the population no longer want?

Of course.

[Arcade22]

Obviously, the Swiss are banning Mormon minarets. :rolleyes:
I was asking a general question, nothing specifically about Muslims.


How else would you define it?

I think when most people talk about the Swiss people they generally talk about the ethic groups that have existed there for some time, no the people who has citizenship, i could be wrong though.

[Darth Rotor]

Unless it's done by democratic means. Then you only have a problem with people criticizing said discrimination, who need to "get a freakin' clue" and "are so freakin' wrong it isn't funny."
Try reading my post again. I did an ETA to explain somethng.
It's not relevant to my point. You are the one appealing to Swiss legalism, not me.
I note that you failed to remain in context, and take the offered gift of using a Swiss legal document to support your point.

Red cape, bull.
Whats you're definition of being Swiss? Having Swiss citizenship?
How else would you define it?
Do you consider this a trivial matter? This is a matter for the Swiss to grapple with, and I don't think that it's trivial, nor do I envy them this challenge.

Their splendid, controlled neutrality was interrupted by a civil war in Yugoslavia in about 1990, and the ensuing refugee flow.

Nationalism can be a great thing. Nationalism is what led to the creation of the state of Israel against enormous odds.

Nationalism can be a dangerous thing. It's part of what inspired the civil war in Yugoslavia as it broke up.

Group identity, and identification, and how it is derived, is a non trivial undertaking.

Cleon, you and I have an advantage a lot of people don't. We live in America. Our melting pot of a variety of nationalities has allowed for a far different group identity forming process than is generally gone through elsewhere. It's far easier to be "American" here. We don't have as many centuries of insular identity formation.

As I asked earlier, ever been to Japan?

DR

[Cleon]

Of course.

Well, that's certainly disgusting of you.

[Darth Rotor]

Well, that's certainly disgusting of you.

And lazy of you not to find this, which was offered up as a support for your point. OK, I will spoon feed you. It's nice Gerber mashed squash. Hope you like it.

From the Swiss Constitution:

Art. 8 Equality before the law

1 Everyone shall be equal before the law.

2 No one may be discriminated against, in particular on grounds of origin, race,
gender, age, language, social position, way of life, religious, ideological, or political convictions, or because of a physical, mental or psychological disability.

3 Men and women shall have equal rights. The law shall ensure their equality, both in law and in practice, most particularly in the family, in education, and in the workplace. Men and women shall have the right to equal pay for work of equal value.

4 The law shall provide for the elimination of inequalities that affect persons with disabilities.
You made some platitudinous reference to basic human rights. Vague hand wave, and actually a purely rhetorical argument to counter a valid democratic process, and its dubious outcome.

But if you had bothered, you'd see that right there in the Swiss constitution, there is an explicit anti discrimination provision that grounds the counter to this latest play, and all via the accepted and valid democratic, and constitutional methods that Switzerland already has in place.

No need to appeal to platitudes and generalities, appeal directly to what the Swiss themselves value, and have already in force.

Switzerland is an exemplary democracy.

DR

[quadraginta]

I agree, but it's the best we have.



I agree with that as well, but it never lasts.


My points, exactly.

[Captain.Sassy]

Of course.


lol
you're silly
but whatever


say a politician doesn't like you, personally.

If this politician organizes a referendum to kick you out of the country, and gets more poeple to vote in favour of kicking you out than vote against kicking you out, should you be kicked out of the country?

[Captain.Sassy]

I see a lot of hub-hub made, but basically this is the right of the local folk to be bigoted and refuse outsiders.

Aren't they refusing the rights of existing Swiss citizens i.e. not 'outsiders'?

[Arcade22]

lsay a politician doesn't like you, personally.

If this politician organizes a referendum to kick you out of the country, and gets more poeple to vote in favour of kicking you out than vote against kicking you out, should you be kicked out of the country?

If i decided to move to another country, Switzerland for example, and there become unwanted because of my race, political views or etc. and they wanted to deport me, then i wouldn't hesitate for a second to move back to Sweden.

So, yes.

[Arcade22]

Aren't they refusing the rights of existing Swiss citizens i.e. not 'outsiders'?

I think most of the Swiss see Muslims as outsiders.

[Fiona]

If i decided to move to another country, Switzerland for example, and there become unwanted because of my race, political views or etc. and they wanted to deport me, then i wouldn't hesitate for a second to move back to Sweden.

So, yes.


What if the swedes don't want you?

[Darth Rotor]

I think most of the Swiss see Muslims as outsiders.
Most? The way the vote came out, it appears that about a quarter of the Swiss electorate feels that way.

I don't think that supports your 'most' in this case.

I am going to hazard a guess, and suggest to you that in the demographic under thirty years of age, the majority of Swiss don't feel that way.

[Kotatsu]

If i decided to move to another country, Switzerland for example, and there become unwanted because of my race, political views or etc. and they wanted to deport me, then i wouldn't hesitate for a second to move back to Sweden.

So, yes.

Since your blanket statement conveniently overlooks the fact that many of these unwanted people may very well have been born in the country in questions, the following questions ache for answers: If the majority of the people in Sweden don't want racists here, will you move out?

If so: where will you move?

If not: why not?

Note: It seems to me that the established political parties here so fervently want to distance themselves from SD and the other racists, that racism and integration will likely play a large part in the debates prior to the election next year. The most likely scenario is that all the established parties, as well as several of the smaller, more laughable ones, will proclaim themselves as anti-racist, implying that if any of the established parties, or a combination thereof, win next year, the Swedish people will have voted against racists. So unless SD or similar parties win, if you're planning to be consistent, you should perhaps start planning where to go when you're deported.

[AWPrime]

What if the swedes don't want you?Such situations have happened in the past in various places. Person A is exiled from his home country and goes to find a country that would take him in, but this might take a while.

Although kicking out citizens is a messy situation that many countries try to avoid. I do support a nation's right to refuse entry or kick out any non-citizens.

[Kotatsu]

Although kicking out citizens is a messy situation that many countries try and avoid. I do support a nation's right to refuse entry or kick out any non-citizens.

But that is an entirely different scenario, and also quite inapplicable, as Arcade appears to be a citizen of Sweden. I can agree that there should be some (extremely low) standards of who gets a citizenship and who doesn't. I can understand that a country doesn't want to allow a man who has been convicted of paedophilia multiple times to enter the country, or a known war criminal (1). But to my knowledge, Arcade is guilty only of racism, and already has at least one citizenship.

---
(1) Though I have no idea where these people should go if no one wants to have them. Do criminals and never-do-wells still run away to South America?

[AWPrime]

But that is an entirely different scenario, and also quite inapplicable, as Arcade appears to be a citizen of Sweden.Arcade situation is more relevant to the first part of my previous post.

I can agree that there should be some (extremely low) standards of who gets a citizenship and who doesn't.I am more for that the country gets to set its standards be it low or high.

(1) Though I have no idea where these people should go if no one wants to have them. Do criminals and never-do-wells still run away to South America?There or Africa. Not finding a country to allow a person in is usually a case of setting ones own standards too high. And for men there is always the foreign legion.

[Skeptic]

Where have i said anything about Muslims?

Whats you're definition of being Swiss? Having Swiss citizenship?

Oh course that's not enough! Foreign-speaking, dual-loyalty Asiatics with a strange religion who somehow got into the country by the machinations of the pathetic liberal government are not really Swiss, even if they have citizenship papers!

That's why the Swiss should expel all the Je...

...oh wait.

[Thunder]

If i decided to move to another country, Switzerland for example, and there become unwanted because of my race, political views or etc. and they wanted to deport me, then i wouldn't hesitate for a second to move back to Sweden.

So, yes.

u seem to be suggesting that, except for genocide, the nazi treatment of the jews was ok.

am i correct? did the Nazis have the right to ethnically cleanse Europe of all Jews?

[Fiona]

Such situations have happened in the past in various places. Person A is exiled from his home country and goes to find a country that would take him in, but this might take a while.



It did happen in the past but as I understand it exile is against article 9 of the universal declaration of human rights; and to render a person stateless is against the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, articles 8 and 9.

But of course if that person can acquire a different nationality then it is permissable: only he must do that before he can be kicked out

[Jono]

So you are correct in the total number of immigrants, but incorrect in that Finnish, Norwegians and ex-Yugoslavians would make up 15-18% of the Swedish population.

One can certainly get crazy for less, when wading through SCB. And yes, these groups do not constitute the total of those percentages as I had mistakenly thought.

Ah, I misunderstood your statement. Nevertheless, while Finland (175113) is the largest single country of origin for immigrants, Poland (63822), Denmark (46167), Germany (46854), Bosnia & Herzegovina (55960), ex-Yugoslavia (72285), Iran (57663) and Iraq (109446) still beat Norway (44310) (numbers are total amount of immigrants born in the given country living in Sweden 2008).


Yes with exception to a couple of Middle-Eastern countries (Iran and Iraq) most of the immigrants has come from either another nordic country or european one. The former ones make up for the majority of migrative hotspots in recent years, again if I remember correctly. I did actually expect there to be a lot more norweigans in Sweden though. The finns were expected however, I haven't had a job where there weren't at least one finnish-descended man working.

This greater selection, coupled with the image of the traditionally Swedish as being connected to an older, now largely defunct, ideal, often makes the Swedish alternatives lose out. However, I don’t see the same bleak prospects as Arcade of Swedish culture disappearing. I have no data, but I see an increased interest among young people (I do include myself here!) for many traditional things, such as knitting, folk music, traditional food and so on. This I would very much like to couple with Astrid Lindgren, who is of course as popular as ever, but I can’t really form anything but the most tenuous of links.


I think one reason might be an inverse response of sorts to the presence of other cultures, at least for some people. It would basically follow the law of differences where you do not truly experience yourself as distinct except in situations and contexts where there is a corresponding difference you can compare yourself with. Then, of course, there's also the fluctations of what is fashionable, what is 'in the atmosphere' of trends, which in certain areas of interest, or culture (etc) works on international levels while others work more on a regional level.
The amounts of "medieval fairs" and such appear to have increased as well. Albeit I do wish the average youngster would spend time reading a bit more history and a little less contemporary blogg'esque musings. But that's my preference, and while I am just 28 old I'm starting to feel outdated myself.
Then, of course, there's also the fluctations of what is fashionable, what is 'in the atmosphere' of trends, which in certain areas of interest, or culture (etc) works on international levels while others work more on a regional level.

In any case, this new interest in traditional things is, in my experience, almost invariably coupled with a continued interest in non-traditional things, and various ways of mixing them, meaning that the result is neither fully traditional, nor fully non-traditional. This, to me, is a sign that Swedish culture, whatever that is, isn’t stagnating.

Right. Well swedish culture never really stagnated, of course, it has and is always changing. However, the exhaust on the backburner on the Vehicle of Culture, so to speak, is certainly at a different and notably faster pace today. Again I think this goes for most western societies, but certainly Sweden in particular.
If not anywhere else it is definently noticable in contemporary lingo, with the introduction of mainly american slang and english words to substitute for either the lack of knowledge or lack of 'hip-factor' of the swedish counterparts. This is also something that, at times, bother me. Not simply because language changes, which it always has and will, but that there is an element of 'dumbification' (what I call the trend in simplifying sentences with words such as "typ", "liksom", "asså"...).

Then comes the most ridiculous factor of all: since there are no real problems in Sweden, and no one alive today has ever been in a war between Sweden and another country, the people who get to set the agenda tend to exaggerate and escalate everything, cheered on by the generally quite incompetent Swedish newspapers. I read a short review of “famous” feminist debates in Sweden this morning, and was reacquainted with the debate about whether or not Björn Ranelid uses lip gloss… I don’t remember the debate, but I understood that this was a quite long and heated debate about --- nothing important whatsoever!


Yes, it was Linda Skugge who commented (in a supposed review of his latest book at the time) on Ranelid having used lip gloss at a party.
The working class of the first half of the 20th century managed to build a functionable wellfare state that practically spoiled the coming generations who got to enjoy those benifits and the good life, but much of the money, stability and strength thereof has begun to wither (for some time now). And the 'spoiled generation' have a problem addressing matters pertaining to that in an adult coherent manner. There's a sizeable floura of whining (well there always is, reminiscent of pop-american media) and critique being aired like dirty laundry only the be quickly boiled down in black or white, which in turn tells us virtually nada about actual problems and this happens in an almost humorous semi-love/hate tango with 'Jantelagen'.

However, I don’t see the same bleak prospects as Arcade of Swedish culture disappearing.

I haven't really looked at Arcade's posts. I can't really say much on prospects for swedish culture or its traditional populus or what have you. My main concern generally stems from the possibility of continued large migration numbers overexhausting the social, financial (and by default cultural) fabric of Sweden since, despite how much we like to believe we are a great and grand nation, we are in fact a small and vulnurable country for the kind of potential changes where we will have, if the increase continues as it has for the past 20 years, an even less stable country.

Furthermore I think that the lack of any serious and public dialouges/debates/discussions on these matters are partly the reason for the increase of people gravitating more to the end of the extremes, i.e toward parties such as Sverige Demokraterna and National Demokraterna.

This is a very good point. I am Swedish by accident, but birdwatcher by choice, and biologist by achievement, for instance. I cannot even comprehend why I should be proud of something that happened entirely by chance, and which I was unable to influence as it happened before my birth. More pertinent to this thread: how can I be a traitor towards arbitrary circumstances?

I believe that this is a complex and generally quite subjective area, and it lends itself poorly to scientific thought. It's a bit like asking if one can be proud to be highly intelligent. One certainly can, but pride of achievement thereof would be even more comprehensible.
People have an historical tendency, if not also evolutionary, to take pride in ascribing to an identity that first of all stretches through the ages, and secondly means something in distinction with other groups (the 'groups' can be anything). The sense of being something less temporary, by default being part of something that's been meaningful for so many people, for such a long time. Traditionalism in a sense, as opposed to pragmatism, with traces of tribalism that linger in the sense of culturual and/or ancestral pride, while not as visible on this note in 'westernized' countries as elsewhere for reasons we mentioned earlier.

Personally I can honestly say that I am proud of my ancestry, both ethnic as well as cultural. This doesn't mean I consider myself better or more achieved. Rather, it's part of the story of life, my story, the tale of my origin. Since I'm a large fan of rpg's (role playing games) and literature, I do love a good story and can't help but to dive into stories about people, in different settings, who they were, how they loved, fought, grieved, gave birth and fostered, hated and died. To feel part of something as encompassive as to give a sense of the string I belong to in the eye of ages, is a profound sensation for me.

[Arcade22]

Since your blanket statement conveniently overlooks the fact that many of these unwanted people may very well have been born in the country in questions, the following questions ache for answers: If the majority of the people in Sweden don't want racists here, will you move out?

The only way something like that could ever happen is if the far-left took over the country and established the dictatorship of the proletariat.
If something like that happened the only thing to do will be to fight until the last traitor has been shot to pieces or burnt to cinders.

And besides, the risk of something like that ever happening is roughly zero, so I don't really think i need worry about that. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/188094ae49da0ad50f.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18014)

[Arcade22]

Oh course that's not enough! Foreign-speaking, dual-loyalty Asiatics with a strange religion who somehow got into the country by the machinations of the pathetic liberal government are not really Swiss, even if they have citizenship papers!

Yes, just like if i were born in Japan i would be seen as Japanese...:rolleyes:

[Arcade22]

u seem to be suggesting that, except for genocide, the nazi treatment of the jews was ok.

No, the methods the National Socialists used were inhumane and should never be used by anyone with one bit of humanity left.

[AWPrime]

It did happen in the past but as I understand it exile is against article 9 of the universal declaration of human rights; and to render a person stateless is against the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, articles 8 and 9.

But of course if that person can acquire a different nationality then it is permissable: only he must do that before he can be kicked outYes exile is very messy and that is why they removed it. But it is the only way that the proposed scenario can turn out.

[Fiona]

Nope.The swedes can just vote to exile anyone they want. :) But Arcade does not like democracy if it puts the hard left into power it seems

[marksman]

No, the methods the National Socialists used were inhumane and should never be used by anyone with one bit of humanity left.

So, the methods were problematic, but the goal -- Judenfrei -- was not? What humane methods should the Nazis have employed to purge their land of the Jews who had been living there for hundreds of years but were still not considered truly German. (Though they considered themselves mostly German.)

[Arcade22]

So, the methods were problematic, but the goal -- Judenfrei -- was not? What humane methods should the Nazis have employed to purge their land of the Jews who had been living there for hundreds of years but were still not considered truly German. (Though they considered themselves mostly German.)

Honestly i don't see a problem with Jews, but if you want to get rid of someone the best course of action is the whip and carrot method.

[Thunder]

Honestly i don't see a problem with Jews, but if you want to get rid of someone the best course of action is the whip and carrot method.

you may not, but other Swiss might indeed hate der Juden.

[Thunder]

No, the methods the National Socialists used were inhumane and should never be used by anyone with one bit of humanity left.

what about "humane" ethnic cleansing? would that be okee dokee?

[Arcade22]

what about "humane" ethnic cleansing? would that be okee dokee?

Make the immigrants who are living in Sweden loose their privileges. No welfare, permanent deportation on any crime above littering and etc.
Combine that with a generous "repartition policy" (dunno if it is called that in English) and you will see that most of the immigrants will be gone within a while.

[Thunder]

Make the immigrants who are living in Sweden loose their privileges. No welfare, permanent deportation on any crime above littering and etc.
Combine that with a generous "repartition policy" (dunno if it is called that in English) and you will see that most of the immigrants will be gone within a while.

i have no problem with repatriating any immigrant who commits a crime. as long as they are not citizens.

once you are a citizen, you should be treated no different then someone who's ancestors came to the land 10,000 years ago.

[Arcade22]

i have no problem with repatriating any immigrant who commits a crime. as long as they are not citizens.

once you are a citizen, you should be treated no different then someone who's ancestors came to the land 10,000 years ago.

I would agree if immigrants were only a small fraction of the population and the current political environment was much more Swede friendly, but as it is looking now there is probably no other way.

[marksman]

Honestly i don't see a problem with Jews, but if you want to get rid of someone the best course of action is the whip and carrot method.

The question wasn't efficiency. The question was to confirm you believed that the Germans had every right to decide that Jews -- who had been living in Germany their whole lives and whose families had lived in Germany for hundreds of years and who were citizens and who considered themselves Germans -- could be forced to leave Germany on the grounds that the non-Jewish Germans decided they were insufficiently German.

Is that in fact your position?

If so, my follow up question was what "humane" methods you thought the Germans should have used to achieve that goal. You seemed to think the death camp method was off-limits and have now alluded to a "whip and carrot" method. What "whips" and "carrots" do you think the Germans should have used?

[Malerin]

False. Repealing amendments requires the same voting supermajorities as passing amendments, because to repeal an amendment, or change one, requires a further amendment.

See repeal of Prohibition for an example.

DR

In other words, it's a democratic process that requires a larger majority than one half plus 1. :rolleyes:

[Fiona]

If they are citizens they have nowhere they can be "repatriated" to. If they are citizens you cannot send them to another country if they commit a crime. So what are you going to do when that doesn't work?

[Malerin]

If they are citizens they have nowhere they can be "repatriated" to. If they are citizens you cannot send them to another country if they commit a crime. So what are you going to do when that doesn't work?

Internment camps.

[Thunder]

No country has the right to discriminate against fellow citizens, based on religion, ethnicity, race, etc.

[Jono]

No country has the right to discriminate against fellow citizens, based on religion, ethnicity, race, etc.

While I do agree on a basic humanitarian level, there is no such thing as equality in practice. So in a practical sense, we are forced to talk about what extents and forms of discriminations can take place.
Let's say if some towns have a thriving tourism much based on their old and quaint style, e.g there is an interest in the general community to keep and preserve this quaint cultural style, like Visby on Gotland. The entire island disrcriminates against building in general, with few exceptions. One could say they discriminate 'equally', however I consider that a bit of an oxymoron. It's more proper to say they discriminate, on this note, more generally. As it is, most people on Gotland still pay taxes to keep the very old christian churches there renovated and the priests payed, even though most of them probably aren't christian, due to a variety of reasons (one being the desire to preserve cultural heritage, i.e traditionalism).

If muslims in Gotland would want to build a minaret there they would sooner be able to grow wings and fly to the moon. However the same would apply if, for example, Church of Scientology wanted to build a church there etc.

[Malerin]

No country has the right to discriminate against fellow citizens, based on religion, ethnicity, race, etc.

Depends on the religion.

[KingMerv00]

Are processes required to be perfect to be good enough to establish a democratic system? Methinks not. My response to Cleon I'll pass along. The voter turnout was about 53 percent for this matter. That means quite a few people were not heard from. This vote does not end Swiss democracy. An initiative to overturn this remains an open option, if people care enough and are willing to do the work.

I am content to sit back and let the Swiss figure out what they want to do about this, within their system. There were enough "no" votes to constitute a critical mass of political powet to tap into.

You must be confused about my position. I'm not attacking democracy so you don't have to defend it.

[a3sigma]

The topic seems to be changing. From: "Is it OK to ban certain types of structures?" To "Is it OK to ban certain types of people?"

Does this confirm the "slippery slope" hypothesis?

Nice little social science experiment this is turning out to be.

[ddt]

Switzerland is an exemplary democracy.

Hello. Welcome to my veiled reference cards for this conversation. Iraq.

About six years ago, the United States decided to impose democracy on Iraq with a bayonet. The cult of the underdog featured in the information campaign that was used to sell that war. Two underdogs in particular were featured, Kurds and Shi'ites. The Chaldeans were thrown under the bus, and to a certain extent, the Turkomen, IMO, by the Bush information war team.

Strangely enough, the blessings of democracy are not trusted by many of the Sunni, and to a different extent some Kurds, in an Iraq where democracy has the very real potential (risk) to empower a tyrranical majority, the Shia, at the expense of two important minority cultural and demographic groups.

Switzerland is an exemplary democracy. Even in an exemplary and well established Western democracy, look at what goes on. Thanks to the Swiss being Swiss, and generally peaceful in nature, this has not resulted in gunplay. What signal does this send, however, to the potential democracy in Iraq, and those who are skeptical of democracy's benefits and blessings?

A lawful, democratic method can be used to enact a law that is unfair to X. I don't think any Kurd or Sunni Iraqi will find this exercise of democracy (and given that it happens to Muslims, I suspect this story has made it into Iraq) an unlikely part of their future.

But the play is not done.

What will hopefully happen is that the very same method will be used to overturn this measure. A vote. WORKING WITHIN THE SYSTEM (Not a decree). (See, again, overturn Prohibition).
So you're in effect suggesting, if not advocating, that opponents of this Swiss constitutional amendment should now start collecting those 100,000 signatures to start an initiative to overturn the minaret ban?

Sure, I agree with you that that is the proper way to act within the system, but it doesn't mesh with my idea what a constitution is about. The US example of prohibition is also an outlier in that respect - AFAIK, it's the only amendment that was ever repealed, but not after it had been tried hard 10+ years to enforce it. What you propose for the Swiss to do is even more radical than that, viz. to start repealing the amendment before it even has been used.

So I take issue with you saying that Switzerland is an exemplary democracy. This vote has shown some flaws.

1) The 50% threshold for a constitutional change is IMO too low - irrespective whether that's a vote by parliament or by the people directly. I think we agree on that, given your earlier statement how wise the Founding Fathers were in demanding a 2/3 or 3/4 majority for that.

2) The amendment conflicts with other clauses in the constitution - which you have quoted before. There is no way to resolve that.

3) The amendment conflicts with treaties signed by Switzerland, in particular the European Convention on Human Rights. No way to resolve that either.

4) Actually, there is another way to trump the amendment. Swiss parliament can enact an ordinary law that says "minarets are allowed". The Swiss Supreme Court cannot test laws against the constitution, and if they are contradictory to the constitution, they still have to be enforced.

[ddt]

While I do agree on a basic humanitarian level, there is no such thing as equality in practice. So in a practical sense, we are forced to talk about what extents and forms of discriminations can take place.
Let's say if some towns have a thriving tourism much based on their old and quaint style, e.g there is an interest in the general community to keep and preserve this quaint cultural style, like Visby on Gotland. The entire island disrcriminates against building in general, with few exceptions. One could say they discriminate 'equally', however I consider that a bit of an oxymoron. It's more proper to say they discriminate, on this note, more generally. As it is, most people on Gotland still pay taxes to keep the very old christian churches there renovated and the priests payed, even though most of them probably aren't christian, due to a variety of reasons (one being the desire to preserve cultural heritage, i.e traditionalism).

If muslims in Gotland would want to build a minaret there they would sooner be able to grow wings and fly to the moon. However the same would apply if, for example, Church of Scientology wanted to build a church there etc.

But you're now referring to local zoning rules, which in this case are aimed at preserving the "cultural landscape". Those only concern the exterior of the building, not what goes in inside. So a mosque which meshes with the rest of the buildings would be allowed, and on the other hand, a modern Christian church which departs from traditional forms would not be.

[ddt]

Honestly i don't see a problem with Jews, but if you want to get rid of someone the best course of action is the whip and carrot method.

So you mean methods like Hitler used with the German Jews in the 1930s. Forbid "interracial" marriages, ban them at certain professions, encourage them to emigrate, burn their synagogues.

[Skeptic]

No, the methods the National Socialists used were inhumane and should never be used by anyone with one bit of humanity left.

Apparently, your agree with the Nazis on the goals -- a racially pure Europe without any of those considered inferior, impure, or simply foreign -- you just disagree on the means.

[a3sigma]

A legal challenge to the ban is developing. Please see:

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/index/Legal_questions_raised_following_minaret_vote.html ?cid=7816332

[ddt]

A legal challenge to the ban is developing. Please see:

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/index/Legal_questions_raised_following_minaret_vote.html ?cid=7816332

The article has a couple of errors, though. In the second paragraph, it mentions the ECJ - which is wrong, because that's an EU court. They later make a correct mention of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Their verdicts are not binding though.

Anyone troubled by this statement?
The rightwing Swiss People's has already said that if the Strasbourg court turns against Switzerland, Bern should pull out of the human rights convention.

The next paragraph mentions the reverse:
According to the leading supporter of the initiative to ban minarets, Ulrich Schlüer of the People's Party, Switzerland also has to be prepared to be thrown out of the Council of Europe.

which seems to me overblown. Other European states with human rights issues haven't been thrown out of the CoE either.

[a3sigma]

The next paragraph mentions the reverse:

which seems to me overblown. Other European states with human rights issues haven't been thrown out of the CoE either.


I interpreted this to indicate that the People's Party wants Switzerland out of the CoE one way or the other: either pull out, or be thrown out. And doesn't much care which. They might even prefer the latter.

[Fiona]

Suicide by mod minaret?

[Arcade22]

I interpreted this to indicate that the People's Party wants Switzerland out of the CoE one way or the other: either pull out, or be thrown out. And doesn't much care which. They might even prefer the latter.

A strong and independent nation doesn't allow other nations and organizations to tell them what they can and cannot do.

[ddt]

I interpreted this to indicate that the People's Party wants Switzerland out of the CoE one way or the other: either pull out, or be thrown out. And doesn't much care which. They might even prefer the latter.

... so they can play the martyr role. Yes, I agree with your interpretation. Don't see the "throwing out" part happening though in any short notice. The CoE's parliament will adopt a motion, they'll send a letter to the Swiss government, there will be talks, etc. etc., before Switzerland is thrown out.

[a3sigma]

A strong and independent nation doesn't allow other nations and organizations to tell them what they can and cannot do.


True. But if the rest of the world is sufficiently horrified by what they do, it may take action. And they may not remain so strong or independent.

[Darth Rotor]

So you're in effect suggesting, if not advocating, that opponents of this Swiss constitutional amendment should now start collecting those 100,000 signatures to start an initiative to overturn the minaret ban?
Given that the ban was put in place by a valid constitutional method (I checked up, and some early objections to the ban ever getting to a vote were rejected. Interesting.), and that the constitution can be amended by a simple majority, and the actual proportion of the Swiss electorate shown to be in favor of this amendment is, by the numbers, about a quarter, I think that it can be done.
Sure, I agree with you that that is the proper way to act within the system, but it doesn't mesh with my idea what a constitution is about.
A constitution establishes the agreed method for how your representative government works.
The US example of prohibition is also an outlier in that respect - AFAIK, it's the only amendment that was ever repealed, but not after it had been tried hard 10+ years to enforce it.
Indeed, it took time and effort to overturn, but given the speed at which things work now, I don't think you'd see a ten year delay in a counter movement to overturn an amendment that seems to be in contradiction to Article 8 of the Swiss constitution.
What you propose for the Swiss to do is even more radical than that, viz. to start repealing the amendment before it even has been used.
That's not radical. It will take a bit of time to get organized, to get the signatures, to get it on the ballot, and all the while the publicity campaign to support the new vote can be undertaken. Remember, the ban itself took work and effort to get on the ballot. Well, it will take effort to undo. Effort that I suspect many Swiss will feel is worthwhile.
So I take issue with you saying that Switzerland is an exemplary democracy. This vote has shown some flaws.
NO! Democracy is not a utopia, democracy has inherent flaws, and Switzerland has illustrated beautifully where some of those flaws and risks are. It is thus an exemplary democracy. It is a beautiful example of a democracy. For years, since I first studied Switzerland in school back in the sixties, the more direct form of democracy that Switzerland practices has been upheld as a fine example of a contrast to our own republic, and particular during the BS storm after Gore lost to Bush in 2000, I got to hear how this wouldn't happen in Switzerland. Maybe not, but this minaret ban did. ;) Schadenfreude, it can taste sweet now and again.
1) The 50% threshold for a constitutional change is IMO too low - Who give a crap what you or I think on this? We are not Swiss. Their constitution states the threshold. My own nation's Constitution is IMO a superior framework, as it requires supermajorities to amend the Constitution, but that doesn't matter. It isn't an American matter.
I think we agree on that, given your earlier statement how wise the Founding Fathers were in demanding a 2/3 or 3/4 majority for that.
Absolutely. The Swiss may choose to follow that example, or not, and risk seemingly contradictory initiatives like this to crop up yet again.
2) The amendment conflicts with other clauses in the constitution - which you have quoted before. There is no way to resolve that.
Yes there is. Since the constitution is so easily amended, do that. Amend it again.
3) The amendment conflicts with treaties signed by Switzerland, in particular the European Convention on Human Rights. No way to resolve that either.
I think there is, in terms of appealing to the Swiss courts, but I don't understand their system well enough to be sure of that. Also, the new amendment effort would resolve that.
4) Actually, there is another way to trump the amendment. Swiss parliament can enact an ordinary law that says "minarets are allowed." The Swiss Supreme Court cannot test laws against the constitution, and if they are contradictory to the constitution, they still have to be enforced.
Is that how it works? I think they could cite the Swiss constitution's Title 2 as justification, and thus have a constitutionally founded law. That might work. The nuances of the system are beyond me, so if any of our Swiss friends can share with us, I'd be grateful.

In so doing, by dictat, the government risks creating backlash among voters of more than this group, as government dictating to a fraudulent democracy. (Or whatever line resistance would take). This might also cause some friction at the Cantonal level. But the risk may be worth taking, as doing so would add momentum/incentive, for the counter referendum on this, and amendment process, and thus a shot at directly addressing, using the same weapons, this contradictory amendment. It is my opinion, worth whatever that is worth, that using the same means to reverse this result would be a far more powerful and legitimate means, and a far more powerful signal sent. PWNAGE is what I have in mind here. No charges of failing to get a vote, no rhetoric nor protests that the government doesn't follow the land's highest laws.

Beat them at their own game.

The key to addressing this development lies in the 47 percent of the Swiss electorate who didn't participate in the past vote. That's almost twice the number who were for this amendment.

Maybe this will wake them up.

As someone who rages in frustration in my own state and county and city when people don't show up and vote, I may be tainted in my hopes for our Swiss friends on this matter.

[uk_dave]

If i decided to move to another country, Switzerland for example, and there become unwanted because of my race, political views or etc. and they wanted to deport me, then i wouldn't hesitate for a second to move back to Sweden.

So, yes.

You obviously have no ambition to own property or start your own business or start a family. And what if Sweden was already overrun with those nasty Muslims, still happy to go back?

What if the swedes don't want you?
:D:D

[Skeptic]

A strong and independent nation doesn't allow other nations and organizations to tell them what they can and cannot do.

But if your country did the same, and in reply other countries refused to trade with it and the economy goes down the drain, who will pay your welfare check?

[Thunder]

A strong and independent nation doesn't allow other nations and organizations to tell them what they can and cannot do.

oh, Switzerland is free to do whatever it likes. and the rest of the world is free to boycott Swiss products and embargo the hell out of of them until they come to their senses.

i for one, will make sure I do not buy any more Swiss products, until this law is overturned.

[Skeptic]

You obviously have no ambition to own property or start your own business or start a family.

Which is why he considers moving from country to country such an easy thing.

But hey, nobody ever claimed racists are successful. They're usually bums.

After all, the world's most famous racist lived as a bona fide bum for years when he couldn't even get into art school, remember?

He got lucky(?), but he was quite typical of the type that becomes a racist in the first place.

Somebody needs to be blamed for one's failures and disappointments, after all.

[Arcade22]

Which is why he considers moving from country to country such an easy thing.
Where did i claim that?

But hey, nobody ever claimed racists are successful. They're usually bums.

After all, the world's most famous racist lived as a bona fide bum for years when he couldn't even get into art school, remember?

He got lucky(?), but he was quite typical of the type that becomes a racist in the first place.

Yes, all racists are poverty stricken losers who blame all of their problems on the poor Jews/Arabs/Muslims/your-minority-of-choice, just like all Jews are money grubbing parasites living on the working Swede.

Right?

Somebody needs to be blamed for one's failures and disappointments, after all.

Being ill and blaming your poor health on the illness is wrong?

[Arcade22]

i for one, will make sure I do not buy any more Swiss products, until this law is overturned.

Sure you will...

[linusrichard]

Being ill and blaming your poor health on the illness is wrong?

Muslims are an illness! And the ignore list grows...

[linusrichard]

i for one, will make sure I do not buy any more Swiss products, until this law is overturned.

That oughta be tough. You'll have to make your watches and knives and cuckoo clocks last until the ban is lifted.



(And find another source for chocolate and cheese.)

[marksman]

I guess Arcade22 has decided to ignore my last questions (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5377467&postcount=888). Oh, well.

[Jono]

But you're now referring to local zoning rules, which in this case are aimed at preserving the "cultural landscape". Those only concern the exterior of the building, not what goes in inside. So a mosque which meshes with the rest of the buildings would be allowed, and on the other hand, a modern Christian church which departs from traditional forms would not be.

Indeed, and while these regulations might not be the case in point for the Swiss ordeal (allthough minarets are of specific features added to the exterior of the mosques), I know it can and has become an issue by itself upon occasion.
My main point was just that it's not really possible to approach those kinds of debacles from a point, or desire, of equality since much can be dependant on what is aimed and preferred to be preserved of the, as you said, cultural landscape. It pre-emptively helps when and if there already are specified regulations in place for new building projects, architectural liberties and so forth. Here in Sweden there generally are such regulations given, albeit in many cases they might be worded less specifically which is from where problems like these often arise.

[Jono]

oh, Switzerland is free to do whatever it likes. and the rest of the world is free to boycott Swiss products and embargo the hell out of of them until they come to their senses.

i for one, will make sure I do not buy any more Swiss products, until this law is overturned.

I just remember how many americans, reportedly, boycotted french stuff when France and the US had the "Coalition of the Willing" tussle. Was there as much ado about this as some made it out to have been or?

[daenku32]

I find it funny that a country that has bunch of castles is banning the building of pointy towers.

[Thunder]

Arcade22- do you hate Muslims?

[Malerin]

The question wasn't efficiency. The question was to confirm you believed that the Germans had every right to decide that Jews -- who had been living in Germany their whole lives and whose families had lived in Germany for hundreds of years and who were citizens and who considered themselves Germans -- could be forced to leave Germany on the grounds that the non-Jewish Germans decided they were insufficiently German.

Is that in fact your position?

Not quite historically accurate. Germans were not being killed by radical Judaists , nor was it possible for entire cities to be destroyed by a few determined zealots.

Now, if Germany had lost thousands of innocent civilians to Jewish terrorists, and stopped other Jewish terrorist plots from killing even more Germans, and had their embassies, barracks, soldiers, and ships blown up by Jewish suicide bombers, and similar attacks had killed hundreds of innocent civilians in German-friendly countries, and German journalists were being beheaded by Jewish extremists...
Might the Germans have had reason to be concerned about Judaism?

[Cavemonster]

Not quite historically accurate. Germans were not being killed by radical Judaists , nor was it possible for entire cities to be destroyed by a few determined zealots.

Now, if Germany had lost thousands of innocent civilians to Jewish terrorists, and stopped other Jewish terrorist plots from killing even more Germans, and had their embassies, barracks, soldiers, and ships blown up by Jewish suicide bombers, and similar attacks had killed hundreds of innocent civilians in German-friendly countries, and German journalists were being beheaded by Jewish extremists...
Might the Germans have had reason to be concerned about Judaism?

I don't know, might the English have had a reason to be concerned about Irish people? After all, the militant Irish killed a couple thousand British during the troubles. Would England have been justified in restrictive laws against people of Irish background?

Or, in the US, many groups of white people are responsible for killing and terrorizing innocents. One group alone, the Klan, has been historically responsible for thousands and thousands of murders in the name of whiteness. Also, Jeffrey Dahmer, Charles Manson, and the majority of serial killers... all white. Wouldn't the US be justified in deporting all white people back to where they came from?

Or is that painting with too broad a brush?

[Sideroxylon]

I don't know, might the English have had a reason to be concerned about Irish people? After all, the militant Irish killed a couple thousand British during the troubles. Would England have been justified in restrictive laws against people of Irish background?

Or, in the US, many groups of white people are responsible for killing and terrorizing innocents. One group alone, the Klan, has been historically responsible for thousands and thousands of murders in the name of whiteness. Also, Jeffrey Dahmer, Charles Manson, and the majority of serial killers... all white. Wouldn't the US be justified in deporting all white people back to where they came from?

Or is that painting with too broad a brush?

Looks pretty much the same barn paint applying implement.

[KingMerv00]

I don't know, might the English have had a reason to be concerned about Irish people? After all, the militant Irish killed a couple thousand British during the troubles. Would England have been justified in restrictive laws against people of Irish background?

Or, in the US, many groups of white people are responsible for killing and terrorizing innocents. One group alone, the Klan, has been historically responsible for thousands and thousands of murders in the name of whiteness. Also, Jeffrey Dahmer, Charles Manson, and the majority of serial killers... all white. Wouldn't the US be justified in deporting all white people back to where they came from?

Or is that painting with too broad a brush?

Forget race. Think gender. Men are bastards.

[Malerin]

I don't know, might the English have had a reason to be concerned about Irish people? After all, the militant Irish killed a couple thousand British during the troubles. Would England have been justified in restrictive laws against people of Irish background?

Or, in the US, many groups of white people are responsible for killing and terrorizing innocents. One group alone, the Klan, has been historically responsible for thousands and thousands of murders in the name of whiteness. Also, Jeffrey Dahmer, Charles Manson, and the majority of serial killers... all white. Wouldn't the US be justified in deporting all white people back to where they came from?

Or is that painting with too broad a brush?

"Jew" is confusing because it can refer to race or religion. If you like, substitute "jewish terrorist" with "Orthodox Jewish terrorist", so that we're clear I'm talking only about the members of a particular belief system. The Swiss referendum targetted a specific religion, not race.

So, if Germans were being killed by the thousands by Orthodox Jewish terrorists, would they be justified in expelling all Orthodox Jews from Germany?

In point of fact, we were very concerned with the Klan during the early-mid part of the 20th century (see Stetson Kennedy). Do you have a source that the Klan killed as many people as you claim?

[Cavemonster]

"Jew" is confusing because it can refer to race or religion. If you like, substitute "jewish terrorist" with "Orthodox Jewish terrorist", so that we're clear I'm talking only about the members of a particular belief system. The Swiss referendum targetted a specific religion, not race.

So, if Germans were being killed by the thousands by Orthodox Jewish terrorists, would they be justified in expelling all Orthodox Jews from Germany?

In point of fact, we were very concerned with the Klan during the early-mid part of the 20th century (see Stetson Kennedy). Do you have a source that the Klan killed as many people as you claim?

Surely you also realize that Islam is not a single belief system. The difference between Wahhabism and Sufism is vast, much more so than Sunni and Shiite. Why should groups of Muslims whose particular faith has never been tied to any kind of violence be lumped in and judged in this way?

It would be like saying thaat since the IRA were all Catholics, in a conflict with religious roots, since the IRA were motivated by Catholicism, a branch of Christianity, then we have reason to believe that any Christian could bomb a building at any time. We know that's not the case.

[ddt]

Given that the ban was put in place by a valid constitutional method (I checked up, and some early objections to the ban ever getting to a vote were rejected. Interesting.), and that the constitution can be amended by a simple majority, and the actual proportion of the Swiss electorate shown to be in favor of this amendment is, by the numbers, about a quarter, I think that it can be done.

A constitution establishes the agreed method for how your representative government works.
I fully agree.


Indeed, it took time and effort to overturn, but given the speed at which things work now, I don't think you'd see a ten year delay in a counter movement to overturn an amendment that seems to be in contradiction to Article 8 of the Swiss constitution.
I had the impression that the movement to abolish the Prohibition was largely bolstered by the sheer ineffectiveness in enforcing it, the criminality that ensued by organized illegal alcohol production and sale, etc.


That's not radical. It will take a bit of time to get organized, to get the signatures, to get it on the ballot, and all the while the publicity campaign to support the new vote can be undertaken. Remember, the ban itself took work and effort to get on the ballot. Well, it will take effort to undo. Effort that I suspect many Swiss will feel is worthwhile.
IIRC, once you have those 100,000 signatures - which doesn't seem to me to be a high burden - the vote has to be done within 4 years. The actual speed of that timeline mainly depends on how much the federal government and other institutions that have to offer their official advice drag their feet. As the government was opposed to this ban, that could mean that the new vote would be on the ballot in, say, half a year.


NO! Democracy is not a utopia, democracy has inherent flaws, and Switzerland has illustrated beautifully where some of those flaws and risks are. It is thus an exemplary democracy. It is a beautiful example of a democracy. For years, since I first studied Switzerland in school back in the sixties, the more direct form of democracy that Switzerland practices has been upheld as a fine example of a contrast to our own republic, and particular during the BS storm after Gore lost to Bush in 2000, I got to hear how this wouldn't happen in Switzerland. Maybe not, but this minaret ban did. ;) Schadenfreude, it can taste sweet now and again.
:D
I took your "exemplary" to have the meaning "perfect". I agree with the above.


Who give a crap what you or I think on this? We are not Swiss. Their constitution states the threshold. My own nation's Constitution is IMO a superior framework, as it requires supermajorities to amend the Constitution, but that doesn't matter. It isn't an American matter.
The "who gives a crap" could be applied to virtually every issue raised on this board. I was quite surprised Switzerland didn't require a supermajority for amending the constitution, I had assumed every country had such a clause. To my mind, a constitution is something that is only sparingly changed.


Yes there is. Since the constitution is so easily amended, do that. Amend it again.
And in the meantime, it's on the books. For one, I think you shouldn't flip-flop a constitution so easily, for two, contradiction is a legal and not a political matter.


I think there is, in terms of appealing to the Swiss courts, but I don't understand their system well enough to be sure of that. Also, the new amendment effort would resolve that.
From what I've read - several wiki pages and parts of the Swiss constitution - I got the impression that the Swiss federal courts may only check against the subset of international law known as "ius cogens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ius_cogens)".


Is that how it works? I think they could cite the Swiss constitution's Title 2 as justification, and thus have a constitutionally founded law. That might work. The nuances of the system are beyond me, so if any of our Swiss friends can share with us, I'd be grateful.
From wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Supreme_Court_of_Switzerland):
Because of an emphasis on direct democracy through referendum, the Constitution precludes the court from reviewing acts of the Federal Parliament, unless such review is specifically provided for by statute.

And I second your sentiment it would be nice if one of our Swiss friends would comment on such issues too.


In so doing, by dictat, the government risks creating backlash among voters of more than this group, as government dictating to a fraudulent democracy. (Or whatever line resistance would take). This might also cause some friction at the Cantonal level. But the risk may be worth taking, as doing so would add momentum/incentive, for the counter referendum on this, and amendment process, and thus a shot at directly addressing, using the same weapons, this contradictory amendment. It is my opinion, worth whatever that is worth, that using the same means to reverse this result would be a far more powerful and legitimate means, and a far more powerful signal sent. PWNAGE is what I have in mind here. No charges of failing to get a vote, no rhetoric nor protests that the government doesn't follow the land's highest laws.
To be clear: I don't advocate that the Swiss federal government would do such a thing. I agree with you that it would give more a backlash than that it would help, and moreover, that it runs counter to the spirit of the constitution and the Swiss system. The people have spoken, and then as government you should not give them the middle finger salute in response.


The key to addressing this development lies in the 47 percent of the Swiss electorate who didn't participate in the past vote. That's almost twice the number who were for this amendment.

Maybe this will wake them up.
I agree. What was that quote again about good men doing nothing?


As someone who rages in frustration in my own state and county and city when people don't show up and vote, I may be tainted in my hopes for our Swiss friends on this matter.
I share your sentiment here. In Dutch national elections, there is still a reasonable voter turnout between 70 and 80%, but the turnout at the last EP elections were abysmal, at 35% or so. I couldn't vote myself that day, but I nominated a friend to cast a proxy vote for me.

[marksman]

Not quite historically accurate. Germans were not being killed by radical Judaists , nor was it possible for entire cities to be destroyed by a few determined zealots.
Arcade made an affirmative statement that the Germans had every right to decide to expel the Jews from Germany, but that they used the wrong methods. His statement was unrelated to the decision of the Swiss to build minarets.

In response to your statement, I was unaware that the Swiss only banned minarets built by radical Islamists. It was my impression, from reading the news reports, that they banned the building of all minarets, no matter what sect of Islam. Was I mistaken?

Now, if Germany had lost thousands of innocent civilians to Jewish terrorists, and stopped other Jewish terrorist plots from killing even more Germans, and had their embassies, barracks, soldiers, and ships blown up by Jewish suicide bombers, and similar attacks had killed hundreds of innocent civilians in German-friendly countries, and German journalists were being beheaded by Jewish extremists...
Might the Germans have had reason to be concerned about Judaism?
How many innocent Swiss civilian have been lost to Muslim terrorists? How many anti-Swiss terror plots have there been? Who many Swiss embassies, barracks, soldiers, and ships have been blown up by Muslim bombers? How many Swiss journalists have been beheaded?

I live in New York. I work in Manhattan. I lost friends in the Towers. I also find the banning of minarets by the Swiss to be a reprehensible act of intolerance. For all of America's shameful actions in the past ten years, I can at least be proud we're less intolerant than the Swiss who voted for this provision.

[Thunder]

I live in New York. I work in Manhattan. I lost friends in the Towers. I also find the banning of minarets by the Swiss to be a reprehensible act of intolerance. For all of America's shameful actions in the past ten years, I can at least be proud we're less intolerant than the Swiss who voted for this provision.

I live in New York City. My parents live 1.5 miles from the WTC. And I am proud of the USA for not passing any BS discriminatory laws against Muslims, the way the Swiss have just done.

How many thousands, or even hundreds of Swiss civilians have been killed by Islamic extremists, do justify such radical legislation?

[Kestrel]

I live in New York City. My parents live 1.5 miles from the WTC. And I am proud of the USA for not passing any BS discriminatory laws against Muslims, the way the Swiss have just done.

How many thousands, or even hundreds of Swiss civilians have been killed by Islamic extremists, do justify such radical legislation?

There is some generalized hatred against Muslims in the US. It appears to be strongest in places far away from New York city, where there are few if any Muslim residents. It's easier to believe that all Muslims are boogymen when you don't actually know any.

[marksman]

There is some generalized hatred against Muslims in the US. It appears to be strongest in places far away from New York city, where there are few if any Muslim residents. It's easier to believe that all Muslims are boogymen when you don't actually know any.

And yet none of those places have passed laws banning minarets (and if they did I am fairly confident such laws would be struck down as unconstitutional). The most I can recall is when people got upset in 2004 that Michigan City voted to allow mosques to blast a call to prayer five times a day (http://www.indypressny.org/nycma/voices/114/news/news_3/). But, 1) the mosques were allowed to do this, and 2) the issue was not religious intolerance but noise pollution. I know of no institutionalized anti-Muslim racism in America, even after 9/11. Individual instances of intolerance? Yes. Increased violence shortly after 9/11. Sadly, yes. Institutionalized disrimination of the sort we now see in Switzerland? No.

[Thunder]

There is some generalized hatred against Muslims in the US. It appears to be strongest in places far away from New York city, where there are few if any Muslim residents. It's easier to believe that all Muslims are boogymen when you don't actually know any.

i know a few NYers who hate Muslims more after 9-11, then they would have before.

but I gotta say, in 2009, much has returned to normal. including attitudes.

[Malerin]

Arcade made an affirmative statement that the Germans had every right to decide to expel the Jews from Germany, but that they used the wrong methods. His statement was unrelated to the decision of the Swiss to build minarets.

In response to your statement, I was unaware that the Swiss only banned minarets built by radical Islamists. It was my impression, from reading the news reports, that they banned the building of all minarets, no matter what sect of Islam. Was I mistaken?


How many innocent Swiss civilian have been lost to Muslim terrorists? How many anti-Swiss terror plots have there been? Who many Swiss embassies, barracks, soldiers, and ships have been blown up by Muslim bombers? How many Swiss journalists have been beheaded?

I live in New York. I work in Manhattan. I lost friends in the Towers. I also find the banning of minarets by the Swiss to be a reprehensible act of intolerance. For all of America's shameful actions in the past ten years, I can at least be proud we're less intolerant than the Swiss who voted for this provision.

AFAIK, the Swiss haven't experienced any terrorist attacks. They're in the grips of some weird kind of xenophobia (Muslims make up a whopping 5% of the population). Are they afraid the Muslim population will expolde and Sharia law will be enacted?

My point was that if a country has experienced terrorist attacks and lost a lot of people from a particular fundamentalist religious group, how far can they go to protect themselves? Making membership in the fundamentalist group illegal? Banning construction of fundamentalist churches? Heightened surveillance of fundamentalist preachers?

[Thunder]

AFAIK, the Swiss haven't experienced any terrorist attacks. They're in the grips of some weird kind of xenophobia (Muslims make up a whopping 5% of the population). Are they afraid the Muslim population will expolde and Sharia law will be enacted?

or maybe the majority of Swiss are just bigots. I know a Swiss girl, who complained that you don't hear Swiss on the buses anymore.

[Kestrel]

or maybe the majority of Swiss are just bigots. I know a Swiss girl, who complained that you don't hear Swiss on the buses anymore.

A rather strange complaint in a country with four native languages.

[Thunder]

A rather strange complaint in a country with four native languages.

yes. she calls the Swiss dialect of German "Schweiz".

[Cavemonster]

AFAIK, the Swiss haven't experienced any terrorist attacks. They're in the grips of some weird kind of xenophobia (Muslims make up a whopping 5% of the population). Are they afraid the Muslim population will expolde and Sharia law will be enacted?

My point was that if a country has experienced terrorist attacks and lost a lot of people from a particular fundamentalist religious group, how far can they go to protect themselves? Making membership in the fundamentalist group illegal? Banning construction of fundamentalist churches? Heightened surveillance of fundamentalist preachers?

The question is, in a reasonable response to a real threat, how widely should the "threatening" group be described?

The Taliban is a threatening group, Al Queda is a threatening group. Specific legal actions against the membership in those groups is very reasonable.

Drawing a wider circle to include members of groups with no connection to terrorism is not only ineffective, but increases tensions.

[Thunder]

The question is, in a reasonable response to a real threat, how widely should the "threatening" group be described? .

the only threat I can see, is from the international reaction the Swiss will get, from these discriminatory policies.

expect to see red flags with white crosses, burning in the streets of Cairo, Kandahar, and Mecca, sometime soon.

[marksman]

My point was that if a country has experienced terrorist attacks and lost a lot of people from a particular fundamentalist religious group, how far can they go to protect themselves?
I wouldn't advocate banning minarets.

How far can they go? I think they can act reasonably without trampling the rights of innocents.

Making membership in the fundamentalist group illegal? Banning construction of fundamentalist churches? Heightened surveillance of fundamentalist preachers?
What does this have to do with the Swiss ban of minarets or Arcade's defense of the Nazi goal of "Judenfrei" (though not the methods used to achieve it)

[Skeptic]

So, if Germans were being killed by the thousands by Orthodox Jewish terrorists, would they be justified in expelling all Orthodox Jews from Germany?

Expelling all Orthodox Jews from Germany would have been justified if all Orthodox Jews were terrorists. It would not have been justified just because all terrorists were Orthodox Jews. It's amazing how often bigotry and, for that matter, war, ethnic cleansing and genocide are the result of elementary logical mistakes.

[quixotecoyote]

snip....


It's amazing how often bigotry and, for that matter, war, ethnic cleansing and genocide are the result of elementary logical mistakes.

I'd replace "the result" with "justified by," but otherwise am in agreement.

[Skeptic]

I could understand the Swiss action if it was the result of a series of terrorist attacks, a call by radical Islamic leaders in Switzerland to take over the country that was widely listened to, and so on (which doesn't mean such action would be then justified).

But so much as I can see, it's really a matter of "we don't want those funny looking buildings and their foreign sounding prayer noises, we need to preserve our NATIONAL CHARACTER" -- the same argument bigots used about every minority group of immigrant throughout all history.

[Skeptic]

THE SWISS WAR AGAINST TERRORISM:

Most terrorists are Muslims.
Minaret builders are Muslims.
Therefore, they're probably terrorists.
Get 'em!

THE SWISS WAR AGAINST RABIES:

Most dogs have four legs.
This cat has four legs.
Therefore, this cat is probably a dog.
Get 'im!

[Skeptic]

H'm. Apparently the Swiss are worried about a demographic or cultural swamping by the Muslims. Well, so did the Egyptians:

Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we. Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and so get them up out of the land.

So they did the same thing the Swiss are trying:

Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens.

For some reason it backfired:

But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew. And they were grieved because of the children of Israel.

Exodus, Ch. 1. 3500 years ago. People haven't learned a damn thing.

[AWPrime]

Exodus, Ch. 1. 3500 years ago. People haven't learned a damn thing.Except of course that it likely never happened.

[gumboot]

Islam in Scotland is generally Pakistani influenced, not Arab.


Er... you do realise that Pakistani Islam is Arab Islam, right? Pakistan has more Deobandi Madrassahs than any other country in the world - Deobandism being a brand of Wahhabism that emerged in British India at the turn of the 19th Century. Heck, Arab Islam is responsible for Pakistan even existing as a country.

[gumboot]

The question is, in a reasonable response to a real threat, how widely should the "threatening" group be described?

The Taliban is a threatening group, Al Queda is a threatening group. Specific legal actions against the membership in those groups is very reasonable.

Drawing a wider circle to include members of groups with no connection to terrorism is not only ineffective, but increases tensions.


The logical conclusion would be that terrorism is not the threat, but Islam. There's some issues with that argument, but in that context banning things "Islamic" makes sense.

For full disclosure I think Deobandi/Wahhabi Islam has the potential to be a genuine threat to western civilisation (on a timeline of many decades), but I don't think banning Minarets is a particularly sensible or justified move.

[Thunder]

Heck, Arab Islam is responsible for Pakistan even existing as a country.

have you read the Koran? it insults Arabs.

[AWPrime]

have you read the Koran? it insults Arabs.And yet to like it....

[Malerin]

Expelling all Orthodox Jews from Germany would have been justified if all Orthodox Jews were terrorists. It would not have been justified just because all terrorists were Orthodox Jews. It's amazing how often bigotry and, for that matter, war, ethnic cleansing and genocide are the result of elementary logical mistakes.

Are all Taliban terrorists?

[Darth Rotor]

Arcade made an affirmative statement that the Germans had every right to decide to expel the Jews from Germany, but that they used the wrong methods. His statement was unrelated to the decision of the Swiss to build minarets.
And given that Jews were imported to be slaughtered (IIRC from France and elsewhere), it seems Arcades position only deals with a small sliver of The Final Solution as it was eventually implemented.
I live in New York. I work in Manhattan. I lost friends in the Towers. I also find the banning of minarets by the Swiss to be a reprehensible act of intolerance. For all of America's shameful actions in the past ten years, I can at least be proud we're less intolerant than the Swiss who voted for this provision.

[Arcade22]

Arcade22- do you hate Muslims?

No i don't hate them, i just don't want them in my country.

[Kotatsu]

I haven't really looked at Arcade's posts. I can't really say much on prospects for swedish culture or its traditional populus or what have you. My main concern generally stems from the possibility of continued large migration numbers overexhausting the social, financial (and by default cultural) fabric of Sweden since, despite how much we like to believe we are a great and grand nation, we are in fact a small and vulnurable country for the kind of potential changes where we will have, if the increase continues as it has for the past 20 years, an even less stable country.

Well, as I see it, the more people we can get here -- and there is plenty of room -- there better off we'll be. The natives here don't reproduce enough to fill the countryside, and there's plenty of people living under horrible conditions all over the world, usually for no good reason. I'm all for opening the borders totally, except perhaps for known war criminals, child molesters and so on.

The sense of being something less temporary, by default being part of something that's been meaningful for so many people, for such a long time. Traditionalism in a sense, as opposed to pragmatism, with traces of tribalism that linger in the sense of culturual and/or ancestral pride, while not as visible on this note in 'westernized' countries as elsewhere for reasons we mentioned earlier.

Well, I have difficulties understanding that as well. I cannot understand why I, as a Swede, should, or perhaps even could, be proud of things that happened or were decided long before I was born. I cannot be proud of being Swedish because we have a long history, because the majority of that history is built on oppression. I cannot be proud of being part of Swedish culture, because I had no part in its molding.

By chance I was born into one of thousands of cultures in the world, which has some good characteristics and some bad characteristics; I strive towards invariably expressing and accepting only those I find good, of course. In this, I can take some kind of pride, to the extent that I can feel proud that I am helping to preserve the good parts of a culture to the next generation, but it doesn't really matter what culture that is.

In a normal day, I express -- through my acts, my food, my speech, my clothing, my choice of literature and music, and so on -- aspects of perhaps a dozen cultures, one of which happens to be Swedish, and this may sometimes be dominant in the short term. If I had kids, I would be able to influence them to accept, or at least form an opinion on, these aspects, but their origin is meaningless.

In short: I can be proud of my own achievements, or those achievements of others that I have helped with, but the sort of mindless pride in all things Swedish that some racists propound?

(Aside: Racists can be very funny.
There was a racist woman who called into Ring P1 -- a radio show where anyone can call in and talk to the host, this week Alexandra Pascalidou, and talk about anything they want, though the focus is usually recent events -- and was critical against Muslims. She mentioned in passing that you weren't allowed to sing the national anthem in Sweden anymore -- a widely spread myth -- and Alexandra called her on that, by asking where you are not allowed to sing it. She pointed out that she had heard it as recently as yesterday, and could remember several times during the last few months.
The racist could give no specific examples, but fell back on generalisation, saying that you couldn't sing it in churches, and Alexandra called her on that as well, asking which churches had prohibited the song. The racist started talking disconnectedly, tried to evade the subject, insulted Alexandra, but presented no evidence. Alexandra made it clear that she didn't like it when people called in to state all manner of idiotic things and presented no evidence, but ended by saying that the racist could take the initiative and sing the song herself, whenever she wanted, and see if anyone stopped her.
Here comes the funny part:
The racist then said (paraphrased): "I really would like to, but I don't really know the lyrics.")

The only way something like that could ever happen is if the far-left took over the country and established the dictatorship of the proletariat.
If something like that happened the only thing to do will be to fight until the last traitor has been shot to pieces or burnt to cinders.

And besides, the risk of something like that ever happening is roughly zero, so I don't really think i need worry about that.

As I mentioned, one way to interpret an outcome of next year's election if SD and its ilk does not win a majority, is that the Swedish people has voted against racism and racists (provided the other seven parties continue to distance themselves from SD and the racist parts of FP). I know that you will likely not agree that it could be interpreted in that way, but let us just imagine that the other seven parties stand united against racism and racists, and that they together get an overwhelming majority. Would you then fight until the last traitor against racism was dead?

More pertinent: do you now recommend the Muslims in Switzerland to fight until all the people who voted for the ban are "shot to pieces or burnt to cinders"?

Yes, just like if i were born in Japan i would be seen as Japanese...:rolleyes:

Poor choice, as the Japanese authorities are openly racist.

Make the immigrants who are living in Sweden loose their privileges. No welfare, permanent deportation on any crime above littering and etc.
Combine that with a generous "repartition policy" (dunno if it is called that in English) and you will see that most of the immigrants will be gone within a while.

And if you take away welfare uniformly and deport all people who commit crimes above littering etc, then we will also get rid of the vast majority of the racists.

A strong and independent nation doesn't allow other nations and organizations to tell them what they can and cannot do.

A Japanese bander I worked with last year believed that Japanese fishers are doing nothing wrong when they hunt whales, because the Japanese people don't like outsiders to tell them what they can and cannot do. He had no clever comeback when I said that then his country should stop trying to get North Korea to stop building nuclear missiles and what-have-you.

But if your country did the same, and in reply other countries refused to trade with it and the economy goes down the drain, who will pay your welfare check?


Don't be silly. We'll just kick out all immigrants and take all the money they have hoarded in their mattresses over the years.


Yes, all racists are poverty stricken losers who blame all of their problems on the poor Jews/Arabs/Muslims/your-minority-of-choice, just like all Jews are money grubbing parasites living on the working Swede.

The two are not comparable, as being a Jew is usually something you are born to, whereas being a racist comes from social influences and lack of open-mindedness.

It is telling, however, that the racist parties in Sweden only seem to increase in popularity when the economy is bad and large numbers of people are unemployed.

Might the Germans have had reason to be concerned about Judaism?

No, but they might have had reason to be concerned about extremists.

yes. she calls the Swiss dialect of German "Schweiz".

Could it be because Swiss-Germans prefer to go by car?

[AWPrime]

No i don't hate them, i just don't want them in my country.So you dislike them?

[KingMerv00]

No i don't hate them, i just don't want them in my country.

YOUR country? If a Muslim has lived in Sweden since birth longer than you, wouldn't it be HIS country?

[Jono]

Well, as I see it, the more people we can get here -- and there is plenty of room -- there better off we'll be.

I am not as confident of that as you are. At current rates, we might soon need to build a new town housing many thousands of people, with employments to go with it, every year or so, to catch up to a stability and counterbility of longetivity. I might be wrong, but I do not think we can or need to house exponentially more from the rest of the world each year progressively.

The natives here don't reproduce enough to fill the countryside, and there's plenty of people living under horrible conditions all over the world, usually for no good reason. I'm all for opening the borders totally, except perhaps for known war criminals, child molesters and so on.


Well personally I wouldn't want to urbanize Sweden into such a, what would be eventually necessary, landscape. We can't house the world, and I honestly don't think we are obligated either. If anything, Sweden's recent decades of immigration policies have been to general, and not selective enough. For example the many cases of indiscriminate passes for relatives, without proper check-up for criminal past or suspicions, while in the same turn sending back children to the armpits of cannon-fodder ranks.

Today it's almost as tolerant and adapative as it can become, considering that while a human being can adapt to anything, large groups can't as rapidly, it will only increase friction and conflicts (let alone inbetween immigrant groups) further. I.e the number of people who can 'get along' with the rest will decrease (for a plethora of reasons).

One could ask if hugely multicultural sociteties are not working (ie dysfunctional in this context) as "they should" due to the prejudice or and grudge inbetween cultural groups... or if the extensive "prejudice and grudge" is in the end simply the unavoidable, generally natural unfortunately, result of a progressively increasive, culturally, pluralistic society? I do not think one can readily blame the absence of desired equality of peace on countries, that are amongst (comparetively) the more ethnically/culturally tolerent, for simply being bigotted.

Why exactly does formentioned friction increase with the diversity thereof within a given nation? It's easy to say "some people are just bigotts". Yes, some are quite severely, undoubtedly so. Yet, when this is about as tolerant as it gets from the traditional populus, it can't simply just be about xenophobia?

I'm not as ready to just pull it in 5th gear and mix away with everything of its surroundings inside a given region. And it has nothing to do with hate or disgust, as it has for similar sentiments in the minds of several people.

I cannot be proud of being part of Swedish culture, because I had no part in its molding.


I understand what you are saying, but for the reasons I earlier stated, I feel the opposite. I just do.
You can be proud for your father, surely? Even though you might not have had anything to do personally with his achievements or history. You can be proud of a friend's accomplishments, despite it only being based on your sense of association and bond with him. That's probably one of the reasons, if you feel an identity bond with something, your being will transfer and recieve moments of levity, pride, sadness, responsibility, anger, grief, joy much based on such a seemingly 'simple' attachment.

Can you feel pride in scientific discoveries, historical successes and so forth as a scientist do you feel a sense of connection with that or? Do you take pride in the scientific ideals? Those that scientists have long struggled to follow, uphold, perfect and educate people in?
Your teachers or mentors, can you feel proud of them? Of their past, present or potential accomplishments, of having taken part of their tutoring from accomplished scientists?

Of course, I do not know if this would reflect anything you might relate to, in the end we speak as we know ourselves (or dont know).

In a normal day, I express -- through my acts, my food, my speech, my clothing, my choice of literature and music, and so on -- aspects of perhaps a dozen cultures, one of which happens to be Swedish, and this may sometimes be dominant in the short term. If I had kids, I would be able to influence them to accept, or at least form an opinion on, these aspects, but their origin is meaningless.

Wel it isn't meaningless, again much due to what I stated earlier. But this is just my opinon. However if you would endulge me to muse a bit more of my thoughts; the fact that we've aquired women's rights, children's rights, hugely succesful increase of scientific counterbility and a severe decrease of theistic dogmatism is mainly due to a very very slow but necessary development through the ages of different stages of theocratic, methaphysic and industrial (Positivic?) struggles reflected by the people. This is what you individually, as well as your offspring hopefully, are and will benefit from. Unless reverted changes thereof occur for any number of reasons.

Certainly, the briefly plocked benefits aformentioned might not be due to swedish culture alone, but rather a slightly more broadend and mostly similary shared cultural history with the imminent countries surrounding our socio-cultural history.

In short: I can be proud of my own achievements, or those achievements of others that I have helped with, but the sort of mindless pride in all things Swedish that some racists propound?

I've been called 'racist' countless of times, mostly for stating such things that, for example, any israeli, south black-african or contemporary western minority could state with pride without being called that (by the people who called me that). But I do not consider regulative sentiments on self-determination and cultural preservation to be racist. Nationalism in Sweden is publically considered "ok" if it's in places and circumstances of fun, like sport-events where everyone paints the swedish flag across their faces and have the historically incorrect viking helmets with horns. But when it's about something with a little less levity, it's bad, evil and/or "sooo 19th century".

But group-pride, which is historically deep in terms of people/culture, does react to large and relatively 'rapid' changes. In terms of immigration of more distinct groups from the former, as a compensation to such influences, it is practically guaranteed to see this kind of inverse reaction, i.e increased sentiments of 'ethno-cultural' preservation or what have you. The fact that all things change over a long enough geological time does not mean the more specific changes will be the same or even similar despite our reactions to potential differences down the line. Ergo, isolationism isn't obtainable as an absolute, of course not, neither is perfection.
In this sense you could say, essentially for humans, it's about compensating against the end of the extremes from not holding court and be the set to largely or even decidedly form changes.

Take the north-american indians; they were, pre-colonisation, moreso an agricultural people rather than the nomadic 'savage' that came to be the unfortunate identification post-colonisation. They slowly grew, and cherised, their evolving cultural path. It was stopped, and this particular branch would (and will) never experience self-determination of what could have been. It's almost similar to destroying a sub-species culture (in the biological sense) and its evolvement with putting the fewer of that group into a program of adaptation of another different and much larger group. Certainly, in the lab, this might be an exciting experiment, but it generally isn't for sentinent beings (for millions of reasons). I am sure most of the natives of that time would forego computers and casinos and the promises thereof to have just been allowed to not only keep their pride, but their own designated path through continued history.

I have a friend down in South Africa who went on the trains with the black nationalist groups in the 70's and 80's, experiencing the fundamental urge of desiring not only basic fairness, but to actually have their own identifiable groups represent them in their very much beloved ancestral homeland.
And these are quite powerful sentiments, but not to be simplified as mere prejudiced and ignorant desires.

There was a racist woman who called into Ring P1 -- a radio show where anyone can call in and talk to the host, this week Alexandra Pascalidou, and talk about anything they want, though the focus is usually recent events -- and was critical against Muslims. She mentioned in passing that you weren't allowed to sing the national anthem in Sweden anymore -- a widely spread myth -- and Alexandra called her on that, by asking where you are not allowed to sing it. She pointed out that she had heard it as recently as yesterday, and could remember several times during the last few months.
The racist could give no specific examples, but fell back on generalisation, saying that you couldn't sing it in churches, and Alexandra called her on that as well, asking which churches had prohibited the song. The racist started talking disconnectedly, tried to evade the subject, insulted Alexandra, but presented no evidence. Alexandra made it clear that she didn't like it when people called in to state all manner of idiotic things and presented no evidence, but ended by saying that the racist could take the initiative and sing the song herself, whenever she wanted, and see if anyone stopped her.
Here comes the funny part:
The racist then said (paraphrased): "I really would like to, but I don't really know the lyrics.")


Yes, I know a ton of those examples myself :)
Again, take me as an example. For almost 10 years I've probably debated with every notanle extremist group in the world. In the case of angry Hitler-wannabes (neonazis et al), often have I heard the desire (here in Sweden) to cherish and educate people more on norse culture, mythology etc. To learn horse-back riding, smithing and playing Bellman songs.

Never, in my confrontations, did I met someone thereof who was notably educated on norse culture nor its mythology, or could ride a horse, or smith a sword or anything for that matter, let alone sing/play "Märk hur vår skugga". Incidentally I know how to ride a horse, and I have several books about swedish history (the period of the Norse and after, and before), I like Bellman songs (allthough I'm actually mostly partial to Cornelis Vreswijk, who does that song beautifully btw) and I've worked for years in industrial smithing, metalwork etc and could fashion a decent hand-weapon if I had to.

For some it's a popular expression of generalisations, right-winged racialism etc is just one of the fundamentally comparable expressions of such behaviour. For others it's actually an honest attachment that they themselves really do cherish and have embraced. And even though you might (?) consider these twain trains of thought/behaviour to be equally 'silly', I can't say I do that in the latter case. And I'm too biased to consider myself silly. :p

[Thunder]

No i don't hate them, i just don't want them in my country.

what about secular or moderate Muslims? are they bad too?

[Arcade22]

what about secular or moderate Muslims? are they bad too?

It's not Muslims specifically, its the way Sweden has been going politically and socially. Sweden was, up too quite recently, extremely homogeneous in both ethnic, cultural and religious ways.
Currently though, it has become a cesspool of all sorts of deviants and freaks. I have already mentioned the large scale immigrant criminality and the large amount of welfare the immigrants have taken from us, but there are many more symptoms of the multicultural society and its defects. When Mona Sahlin, who could quite possibly become our prime minister, said:

I think that's what makes many Swedes jealous of immigrant groups. You have a culture, an identity, a history, something that brings you together. And what do we have? We have Midsummer's Eve and such silly things.
and

If two equally qualified persons apply for a job at a workplace with few immigrants, the one called Mohammed should get the job.

she showed how far this terminal disease has progressed, hell, how can you possibly say something like that and get away with it?
We Swedes are becoming more and more like second class citizens in our own country that we have sown and built up since thousands of years.
Hell, i recently heard that my local commune was going to allow immigrants to work and receive social welfare at the same time!

At one point the current situation was unfathomable. Even the most perverse far-left cosmopolitan would be wise to keep his antisocial views unknown in fear of being forcefully sterilized because of mental illness.

Muslims are just apart of the problem, extreme or not.

[Arcade22]

So you dislike them?

Sure i do! And with good reasons.

[kerikiwi]

Sure i do! And with good reasons.

Can you share a few 'good' reasons with us?

[Thunder]

I am offended by Swiss cheese. Therefore, I want all American citizens of Swiss descent to be immediately asked to leave the United States. This will be done in an orderly fashion..and the USA will help people find quick and low-cost airfare back to Switzerland.

sounds good?

[a3sigma]

I am offended by Swiss cheese. Therefore, I want all American citizens of Swiss descent to be immediately asked to leave the United States. This will be done in an orderly fashion..and the USA will help people find quick and low-cost airfare back to Switzerland.

sounds good?

I like Swiss cheese. I loathe American cheese. May I have a cheap ticket, please?

Like my new signature? It was inspired by this thread.

DC

[a3sigma]

Like my new signature? It was inspired by this thread.

DC

Rats. I didn't turn my signature on.

[Malerin]

Not all Taliban are terrorists. Should Talibanism be legal in the U.S.?

[KingMerv00]

Not all Taliban are terrorists. Should Talibanism be legal in the U.S.?

First, define "Talibanism".

Second, "KKKism" is legal. Should we ban it?

[Malerin]

First, define "Talibanism".

How about how Mormonism is defined?

1. the doctrines and polity of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, founded in the U.S. in 1830 by Joseph Smith, especially its adoption of the Book of Mormon as an adjunct to the Bible.
2. adherence to these doctrines or membership in the Mormon Church. Also Mormondom. — Mormon, n., adj.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Mormonism

So Talibanism would be similarly defined as:
1. the doctrines and polity of the Taliban, founded in Afghanistan during the civil war following the withdrawl of Soviet forces by Mohammed Omar.
2. adherence to these doctrines or membership in the Taliban.



Second, "KKKism" is legal. Should we ban it?

Today? Possibly, but it's a joke of an organization. During it's heyday? It did a lot of damage. I don't know why it wasn't. Maybe there was no political support, or maybe there was the belief that sunlight was the best disinfectant. I think it was the latter though. LBJ knew that just passing the Civil Rights Act would lose the Democrats the South for generations.

[KingMerv00]

Today? Possibly, but it's a joke of an organization. During it's heyday? It did a lot of damage. I don't know why it wasn't. Maybe there was no political support, or maybe there was the belief that sunlight was the best disinfectant. I think it was the latter though. LBJ knew that just passing the Civil Rights Act would lose the Democrats the South for generations.

OK, we're clear now. You are willing to ban bad ideas. I am only willing to ban bad actions.

[fullflavormenthol]

As far as I know it, being only a simple country boy and all, is that folk can have all sorts of crazy ideas and what not; so long as they don't act on them the gov'ment aint allowed to do nothin' to them.

Hence, idiots can share the same opinion as the Taliban, but so long as they don't pick my pocket nor brake my leg I have no reason to stop them.

[Malerin]

OK, we're clear now. You are willing to ban bad ideas. I am only willing to ban bad actions.

So Al Queda should be allowed to organize in the U.S.?

[Cleon]

So Al Queda should be allowed to organize in the U.S.?

As Merv said, it's not AlQaeda's ideas that are the problem, it's their actions.

[Skeptic]

I'm a old-timer soldier in the IDF. I live in Israel. And I think the ban is idiotic.

[Malerin]

As Merv said, it's not AlQaeda's ideas that are the problem, it's their actions.

Actually, it's both. The idea that non-believers should be killed (and America is the Great Satan) is a problem, and of course, putting that idea into practice has been a huge problem.

But just so we're clear, Al Queda should be allowed to recruit and organize in America, so long as they're not currently breaking any laws. Gotcha.

Even planning attacks would be OK, right, because it's just brainstorming ideas. And of course, buying fertilizer is legal. So brainstorming ideas and bulk fertilizer purchases... no problem, right? I mean, it's not like that's ever killed anyone, right?

[Skeptic]

The Swiss are, the news say, going to have another referendum. As much as I disagree with the referendum's result, this call for yet another referendum further proves that referendums are sham democracy. When the result is something the government or other powerful interests dislike -- e.g., banning minarets, not joining the EU -- then there is another referendum... and another... and another... with government-sponsored propaganda in favor of one side... until the people, who for some inexplicable reason got the wrong result last time, and the time before that, and the time before that, get the correct result and realize they really wanted what the bien pensants knew was the obviously correct result all along.

[Malerin]

The Swiss are, the news say, going to have another referendum. As much as I disagree with the referendum's result, this call for yet another referendum further proves that referendums are sham democracy. When the result is something the government or other powerful interests dislike -- e.g., banning minarets, not joining the EU -- then there is another referendum... and another... and another... with government-sponsored propaganda in favor of one side... until the people, who for some inexplicable reason got the wrong result last time, and the time before that, and the time before that, get the correct result and realize they really wanted what the bien pensants knew was the obviously correct result all along.

Off-topic, this is why California is basically ungovernable. We have a ballot initiative process where any loopy idea (so long as its contitutional) can be (and often is) passed with a simple majority. $10 billion for high speed rail between L.A. and San Fran? Sure, why not! $3 billion for stem cell research? Damn the interest, full speed ahead!

[Cleon]

Actually, it's both. The idea that non-believers should be killed (and America is the Great Satan) is a problem, and of course, putting that idea into practice has been a huge problem.

But just so we're clear, Al Queda should be allowed to recruit and organize in America, so long as they're not currently breaking any laws.

What makes Al-Qaeda Al-Qaeda is its actions, not its ideas. There are Islamicist groups functioning in the United States, just as there are Neo-Nazi, fascist, racist, and/or Christian theocratic groups functioning. As far as I'm aware, nobody's stopped them.

Gotcha.No. No, you don't.


Even planning attacks would be OK, right,Wrong. Completely.

[KingMerv00]

Actually, it's both. The idea that non-believers should be killed (and America is the Great Satan) is a problem

I agree that it is a problem. I don't agree with your solution.

But just so we're clear, Al Queda should be allowed to recruit and organize in America, so long as they're not currently breaking any laws. Gotcha.

Yes. That would be freedome speech and freedom of assembly as protected in the US Constitution.

Even planning attacks would be OK, right, because it's just brainstorming ideas. And of course, buying fertilizer is legal. So brainstorming ideas and bulk fertilizer purchases... no problem, right? I mean, it's not like that's ever killed anyone, right?

Depends. Familiarize yourself with the definition of criminal conspiracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(crime)).

[Malerin]

I agree that it is a problem. I don't agree with your solution.

What solution have I given? We're currently detaining/killing any Al Queda members we come across. What more can we do? Should we not be doing this?


Yes. That would be freedome speech and freedom of assembly as protected in the US Constitution.

So allow the organization we're currently at war with a free pass to recruit and organize in America? Seriously?

Bin Laden has not been tried in any court yet. So suppose there's a chance to kill him in some remote Pakistan village with a predator drone. Is he innocent before proven guilty? Would you fire the missle, or must we capture him and put him on trial? If you would kill him, what is your rationale for doing so?


Depends. Familiarize yourself with the definition of criminal conspiracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(crime)).

So you're comfortable with criminalizing the sharing of certain ideas (e.g., the idea of robbing a bank)? Obviously, I am OK with this, but you set yourself up as the champion of protecting bad ideas. Seems strange you would want to prosecute people for simply sharing their bad ideas with others. Is anyone harmed when people share ideas? Does planning a bank robbery entail a bank robbery?

Or is there a high likelihood that the planners of a bank robbery will carry out said robbery :eek:

[KingMerv00]

What solution have I given?

Banning ideas.

So allow the organization we're currently at war with a free pass to recruit and organize in America? Seriously?

Depends what you mean by organize and recruit.

Bin Laden has not been tried in any court yet. So suppose there's a chance to kill him in some remote Pakistan village with a predator drone. Is he innocent before proven guilty? Would you fire the missle, or must we capture him and put him on trial? If you would kill him, what is your rationale for doing so?

Off topic. Not about freedom of speech.

So you're comfortable with criminalizing the sharing of certain ideas (e.g., the idea of robbing a bank)?

You failed to familiarize yourself with the definition of criminal conspiracy.

[Malerin]

Banning ideas.

Where did I say I wanted to ban ideas? That was your assertion. I simply want to make certain groups (e.g., Al Queda, Taliban) illegal because members of those groups tend to want to kill as many Americans as they can. People are free to think up all the stupid ideas they want.

Should we kill/capture Al Queda members? Yes/No

Ah, but of course you think "no" because you think Al Queda has a constitutional right to recruit members here in America. Kind of hard to kill/capture them if that's the case.

So what should our position be regarding Al Queda? Dialogue?



Depends what you mean by organize and recruit.

Really. Do you want to know what "is" is?



Off topic. Not about freedom of speech.

LOL, because threads never go off topic around here. Tell me, what does freedom of speech have to do with banning minarets? Or do you think the Swiss banned the word "minaret". :rolleyes:
Obviously, the question makes you uncomfortable for some reason. Evasion noted.


You failed to familiarize yourself with the definition of criminal conspiracy.

So a bunch of people sharing ideas on how to knock off a bank or kidnap a child for ransom aren't engaging in a criminal conspiracy?

[Darth Rotor]

The Swiss are, the news say, going to have another referendum. As much as I disagree with the referendum's result, this call for yet another referendum further proves that referendums are sham democracy. When the result is something the government or other powerful interests dislike -- e.g., banning minarets, not joining the EU -- then there is another referendum... and another... and another... with government-sponsored propaganda in favor of one side... until the people, who for some inexplicable reason got the wrong result last time, and the time before that, and the time before that, get the correct result and realize they really wanted what the bien pensants knew was the obviously correct result all along.
Skeptic, you are not looking at the numbers. Only 53 percent voted. The referendum is thus an unclear mandate. Just over a quarter of Swiss were "pro" minaret ban. I think it well considered to raise this again, given the Title II I previously cited in the Swiss Constitution, to confirm or deny the will of the people. If it passes a second time ... well, that's a whole 'nother ball of wax. The most interesting point in this whole vote to me is the little data point of women being energized to vote for this ban.

It's not a sham democracy, it's democracy, with its warts exposed.

Again, since this is a constitutional matter, I find the US Constitution to be a bit better crafted. I am sure that makes me an arrogant American. :cool: So be it.

Someone brought this up earlier: passing this as a constitutional measure seems to have the effect of putting Switzerland at odds with some of its international agreements. A second referendum, were it to remain pro, would have the same effect, leaving the Swiss government in a tough position at the international level.

DR

[Ryokan]

Again, since this is a constitutional matter, I find the US Constitution to be a bit better crafted. I am sure that makes me an arrogant American. :cool: So be it.

This furriner agrees with you.. :)

[Darth Rotor]

This furriner agrees with you.. :)
I offer you a pint, Transatlantic flavor, purchased over here because it is less expensive on this side of the pond. :D

[Arcade22]

Can you share a few 'good' reasons with us?

Lets see:


They are generally non Europeans who don't look like us, talk like us and definitively don't share our customs.
They continue to destroy the very little social cohesion that currently exists in Sweden.
They add a non European teaching that is unsecularised.



Now add the fact that i am a spiteful racist and xenophobe, then you can probably understand why i have good reasons for not liking them. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/188094ae49da0ad50f.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18014)

[Darth Rotor]

Lets see:


They are generally non Europeans who don't look like us, talk like us and definitively don't share our customs.
They continue to destroy the very little social cohesion that currently exists in Sweden.
They add a non European teaching that is unsecularised.


Arcade, in the case of the Swiss matter, part of the "we don't like them foreigners" issue is the influx of Bosnian Muslims (who basically "look" European) into Switzerland during the Yugoslavian civil war of the 1990's.

If you go back to the imigration links I offered up a few pages back, you will find that the Swiss government did repatriate some tens of thousands, but many still remained. I don't think it is the looks, it is the behavioral norms, that have some of the Swiss in a reactive mode. I was struck, again, by the data point on how strong the female vote was "pro" the minaret ban. Either the problem is fear mongering -- which it might well be -- or there is visual evidence that women find this small representation of a different social norm something stronger than distasteful. That would be your third point, sort of, but the response does not seem to square with some of the provisions of the Swiss constitution. IMO, this is a contradiction the Swiss need to resolve, and probably will.

DR

[Jono]

I moved back to my village of birth for a variety of reasons and necessities, one being to finally get away from noisy, concrete urban life and all its peculiarities that never sat well with me. Sp, if the local mosque (which is, I believe, just a local portion of a building) would seek to erect minarets together with its use of attached call-prayer here in my home village, I'd probably be against it mostly for the reason of those quite resounding adhans.

[quixotecoyote]

I moved back to my village of birth for a variety of reasons and necessities, one being to finally get away from noisy, concrete urban life and all its peculiarities that never sat well with me. Sp, if the local mosque (which is, I believe, just a local portion of a building) would seek to erect minarets together with its use of attached call-prayer here in my home village, I'd probably be against it mostly for the reason of those quite resounding adhans.

As mentioned several times upthread, none of the Swiss minarets had those.

[Thunder]

Lets see:


They are generally non Europeans who don't look like us, talk like us and definitively don't share our customs.
They continue to destroy the very little social cohesion that currently exists in Sweden.




are you talking about Muslims....or die Juden?

http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs114.snc3/16145_1210477636115_1653977305_514996_5154897_n.jp g

[Jono]

As mentioned several times upthread, none of the Swiss minarets had those.

Oh I know, which was why I briefly mused on cultural landscape regulations and city-zoning aesthetics awhile back. In the latest post I simply stated my personal marker for my "that's far enough".

[kerikiwi]

Lets see:


They are generally non Europeans who don't look like us, talk like us and definitively don't share our customs.
They continue to destroy the very little social cohesion that currently exists in Sweden.
They add a non European teaching that is unsecularised.



Now add the fact that i am a spiteful racist and xenophobe, then you can probably understand why i have good reasons for not liking them. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/188094ae49da0ad50f.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18014)

We apparently do not agree on the meaning of 'good'.
Your first is,as you said, spitefully racist and xenophobic.
Your second is a case of blaming others for your own shortcomings.
Your third is false.

I am so glad you don't live in NZ. And please, please never even think about travelling down this way. You would be surrounded by people who don't look like you and don't share your customs. (Thank the FSM)

[funk de fino]

Sure i do! And with good reasons.


Technically, bigotry is a reason. Not a good one however.

[marksman]

Skeptic, you are not looking at the numbers. Only 53 percent voted. The referendum is thus an unclear mandate. Just over a quarter of Swiss were "pro" minaret ban.
I don't begrudge them the revote, but let's not assume that everyone who didn't vote is against the ban. All we can say is that as of November 29, 2009, somewhere between 31.35% and 76.075% of the Swiss favored a ban.

[Darth Rotor]

I don't begrudge them the revote, but let's not assume that everyone who didn't vote is against the ban. All we can say is that as of November 29, 2009, somewhere between 31.35% and 76.075% of the Swiss favored a ban.
I agree with you. There may be a powerful silent agreement with the pro vote. If that's the case ... well, that's not pretty. :(

My point is that there is hope for the other 47% to be swayable to a position more in keeping with the general principles outlined in their Constitution than this recent amendment.

DR

[Prometheus]

I agree with you. There may be a powerful silent agreement with the pro vote. If that's the case ... well, that's not pretty. :(

My point is that there is hope for the other 47% to be swayable to a position more in keeping with the general principles outlined in their Constitution than this recent amendment.

DR

Call me crazy, but I'd like to hope that a significant portion of the original voters might not have thought their position through before heading to the polls, and have since reconsidered.

[gumboot]

what about secular or moderate Muslims? are they bad too?

What, exactly, is a secular Muslim?

[Ryokan]

What, exactly, is a secular Muslim?

A Muslim who sees religion as a private matter and wants state and religion well separated? Is it really that far fetched to believe?

[Arcade22]

are you talking about Muslims....or die Juden?

http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs114.snc3/16145_1210477636115_1653977305_514996_5154897_n.jp g

Ah, the Jew card. I haven't seen that in a page or two.

[Arcade22]

Your second is a case of blaming others for your own shortcomings.
Ha ha, this is absurd! So you're saying that when i blame Muslims for making Sweden even more heterogeneous i am blaming them for my own shortcomings?

Your third is false.
So what you mean is that Islam is an religion that hails from Europe and that it is secularized?

[Sideroxylon]

What, exactly, is a secular Muslim?

Turkey is a country full of them. These are people who proudly proclaim themselves Muslim but find the Idea of living under anything approaching a theocracy abhorrent.

[Ryokan]

Turkey is a country full of them. These are people who proudly proclaim themselves Muslim but find the Idea of living under anything approaching a theocracy abhorrent.

Not to mention Bosnia and Kosovo, where the majority of Swiss Muslims are from.