Swiss to ban the building of Islamic minarets

[UndercoverElephant]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8385069.stm


Projections from exit polls suggest that voters in Switzerland have backed a referendum proposal to ban the building of minarets.

The result is not yet official, but the BBC's correspondent in Berne says if it is confirmed, it would be a surprise.

The proposal was backed by the Swiss People's Party (SVP), the largest party in parliament, which claims minarets are a sign of Islamisation.

Opponents say a ban would discriminate and that the ballot has stirred hatred.


Islam and European Secular Liberalism remain on course for a head-on collision. Islam continually "stirs hatred". It is fundamentally non-multicultural and therefore fundamentally incompatible with modern European civilisation. The politicians are too scared to tackle this problem, but in Switzerland it only takes 1000 votes to force a referendum. The people have spoken.

[Cainkane1]

Muslims built a Mosque here in AtlantaGa on 14th street. Spires, minerets with gold plated domes. It looks like something out of Arabian nights but since my city has so much out of place architecture the Mosque oddly fits. A Hindu Temple is also going up.

I'm moving to the suburbs.

[UndercoverElephant]

Muslims built a Mosque here in AtlantaGa on 14th street. Spires, minerets with gold plated domes. It looks like something out of Arabian nights but since my city has so much out of place architecture the Mosque oddly fits. A Hindu Temple is also going up.

I'm moving to the suburbs.

I'm not so bothered about Hindu Temples. The biggest Hindu Temple outside India is in London, and it did not cause the same sort of reaction. All religions are not the same. Hinduism is the best example of a religion which is multicultural and tolerant of other faiths. There is no sense that the Hindus are trying to take over the world or that Hindu culture is incompatible with Western secular liberalism. The same cannot be said for Islam.

[UndercoverElephant]

Hinduism is a very old religion (older than Christianity, much older than Islam) which has always had to be flexible enough to accomodate a wide range of specific beliefs and which has had relatively few problems dealing with most aspects of modernity. Islam is like Christianity was before the enlightenment, the reformation and the scientific revolution - totally intolerant and bent on imposing itself anywhere and everywhere that muslims go. I believe that the Islamic world is eventually going to be forced to change, although this can only happen because of changes inside Islam rather than by being imposed by outsiders. However, I don't see how it helps for people to pretend that the problem doesn't exist. Every time I hear somebody saying that Islam is "really" a peaceful and tolerant religion it just makes me cringe. It is not. As things stand, violence, intolerance and mediaevil ethics are an integral part of Islam.

[Limbo]

IMHO the solution is not to nerf Islam per se but to somehow buff Sufi syncretism.

[...]

"Sufi traditions of peace and coexistence are indeed very powerful as an expression of people's Islam in our subcontinent, but unfortunately the ruling clergy has never given them either recognition or validity."

[...]

http://rethinkingislam-sultanshahin.blogspot.com/2009/08/indias-syncretic-sufi-islam-visiting.html

[Ladewig]

IMHO the solution is not to nerf Islam per se but to somehow buff Sufi syncretism.


What is "to nerf"?

[Limbo]

MMORPG slang. To weaken.

[UndercoverElephant]

IMHO the solution is not to nerf Islam per se but to somehow buff Sufi syncretism.

[...]

"Sufi traditions of peace and coexistence are indeed very powerful as an expression of people's Islam in our subcontinent, but unfortunately the ruling clergy has never given them either recognition or validity."

[...]

http://rethinkingislam-sultanshahin.blogspot.com/2009/08/indias-syncretic-sufi-islam-visiting.html

I'd like nothing more than a Sufi takeover of mainstream Islam. Unfortunately it is a bit like hoping for the Quakers to take over Christianity. There's not much we can do as non-muslims to provoke such a change. What we can do is make it quite clear that the Islamisation of western society is not going to happen.

I would have voted to ban the building of minarets in the UK had I the choice. I feel genuinely threatened by Islam.

[Darat]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8385069.stm



Islam and European Secular Liberalism remain on course for a head-on collision. Islam continually "stirs hatred". It is fundamentally non-multicultural and therefore fundamentally incompatible with modern European civilisation. The politicians are too scared to tackle this problem, but in Switzerland it only takes 1000 votes to force a referendum. The people have spoken.

Oh I know what you mean - the hatred they stir up by building Islamic minarets threatens to overwhelm all civilised countries.

I find it quite amusing that you use an example of completely irrational "secular" intolerance as an example of Islamic "non-multiculturalism".

[UndercoverElephant]

Oh I know what you mean - the hatred they stir up by building Islamic minarets threatens to overwhelm all civilised countries.

I find it quite amusing that you use an example of completely irrational "secular" intolerance as an example of Islamic "non-multiculturalism".

When you are faced with a threat like Islamisation, tolerance is not rational. Give them an inch and they will try to take several hundred miles.

I can find no way of reconciling my own system of values and ethics with that of mainstream Islam. Christianity causes me some problems, but they are tiny when compared with Islam.

[Limbo]

I'd like nothing more than a Sufi takeover of mainstream Islam. Unfortunately it is a bit like hoping for the Quakers to take over Christianity. There's not much we can do as non-muslims to provoke such a change. What we can do is make it quite clear that the Islamisation of western society is not going to happen.

I would have voted to ban the building of minarets in the UK had I the choice. I feel genuinely threatened by Islam.


Wherever Islamisation threatens, in addition to whatever other measures are taken governments could try sponsoring Sufi centers, giving Sufi clerics the resources to make outreach programs and to find and educate radicals. Something to that effect could help in Afghanistan, so why not everywhere else?

Can Sufis Bring Peace to Afghanistan? (http://www.rferl.org/content/Can_Sufis_Bring_Peace_to_Afghanistan/1503303.html)

[...]

"Sufis can be instrumental in persuading Taliban leaders to give up violence," says the politician, who is a member of Gilani family.

"If Sufi followers are supported, there is a 99.9 percent chance that Sufis could help prevent all kinds of fallacies being used by various groups in the name of Islam," Gilani adds.

[...]

[Arcade22]

Good, a step closer to curing Europe of this plague.

[Hux]

When you are faced with a threat like Islamisation, tolerance is not rational. Give them an inch and they will try to take several hundred miles.

I can find no way of reconciling my own system of values and ethics with that of mainstream Islam. Christianity causes me some problems, but they are tiny when compared with Islam.

Very well said.

I for one do not want to see another Mosque built in the UK.

In the interest of balance, I don't want to see another church or Synagogue built either.

[a3sigma]

In the recent thread "what country would you move to", to my surprise, I was the only one that said Switzerland. Anybody changing their mind?

DC

[Tsukasa Buddha]

We must restrict freedom in order to preserve it!

I never realised architecture had such a strong influence on the fate of a nation...

[Thunder]

NYC has lots of tall church steeples. Muslim minarets would be a find addition to this.

now, as for Swissland, its their country.

[Darat]

When you are faced with a threat like Islamisation, tolerance is not rational. Give them an inch and they will try to take several hundred miles.

I can find no way of reconciling my own system of values and ethics with that of mainstream Islam. Christianity causes me some problems, but they are tiny when compared with Islam.

I understand that you are intolerant - as I said I just find it funny that you use an example of "secular" intolerance as an example of Islamic intolerance.

[Darat]

We must restrict freedom in order to preserve it!

I never realised architecture had such a strong influence on the fate of a nation...


You mean you didn't know that a minaret was a symbol of the most terrible and evil hatred?

[linusrichard]

As things stand, violence, intolerance and mediaevil ethics are an integral part of Islam.

How about if, instead of resisting Islam because violence, intolerance, and medieval ethics are supposedly integral to it, we just resist violence, intolerance, and medieval ethics?

Using Islam as a proxy for values that are incompatible with modern Western civilization has at least two potential problems - it is over-inclusive, by discriminating against Muslims who are not violent, intolerant, and medieval, and it is under-inclusive, by failing to discriminate against violent, intolerant, and medieval non-Muslims. And, if you marginalize the more progressive Muslims along with the more conservative ones, you hardly encourage the progress of Islam.

[plumjam]

This is already escalating. I just read on the wire that Syria has stopped importing cuckoo clocks and the United Arab Emirates has outlawed Swiss roll.

[X]

Perhaps I'm missing part of the issue, but I don't see why this is necessary.

Personally, I kind of like minarets. They're pretty. It would be like banning classic-style cathedral spires.

Architecturally, I find that such tall structures make cathedrals and mosques quite beautiful.

I do concede that my whole argument is based on a personal sense of aesthetics. But I just don't see the point of banning them. Unless you're afraid they'll overcrowd things?

P.S. Are minarets built without attendant mosques? I could see concerns over minarets popping up all over the place.

[a3sigma]

This is already escalating. I just read on the wire that Syria has stopped importing cuckoo clocks and the United Arab Emirates has outlawed Swiss roll.

Not their Swiss bank rolls, I'll bet.

DC

[Sideroxylon]

Does this go far enough? Won’t the evil Muslims still be in Switzerland plotting European domination and biding their time?

[Sideroxylon]

This is already escalating. I just read on the wire that Syria has stopped importing cuckoo clocks and the United Arab Emirates has outlawed Swiss roll.

Taking a leaf from the US and their "freedom fries" the popular cakes are to be renamed "sharia rolls".

[quadraginta]

I think there's a lot to be said for fighting the insidious influence of autocratic architecture

I'm more concerned about that "Gothic" stuff, though.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e1/Reims_Kathedrale.jpg/250px-Reims_Kathedrale.jpg

or this, maybe.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/RedSquare_SaintBasile_%28pixinn.net%29.jpg/220px-RedSquare_SaintBasile_%28pixinn.net%29.jpg

[fullflavormenthol]

Yeah because secular European liberalism has a long history of being 100% compatitible with freedom. :rolleyes:

The way I see it is that there are two religions at play here. One wants to control every aspect of the lives of the people, and the other wants to control every aspect of the lives of the people.

[Aepervius]

We must restrict freedom in order to preserve it!

I never realised architecture had such a strong influence on the fate of a nation...

This is actually the struggle which has been going on between a few type of thought : integration, assimilation, and multiculturalism. Some people simply do not want to accept (to right or to wrong I haven't decided) that their culture change and include new culture. Architecture being aprt of the culture, it can be seen as a direct threat thereof.

Off topic : There are some zone where you cannot build whatever you want. Such a zone is where my parents home is. They can't change too much the architecture of the home (all homes there are built with special stone, roofing color, and are nearly all older than 1700).
Every roofing has to bwe approved, every change has to be checked. A PITA IMHO.

Anybody live in such architecture restricted zone ?

[ddt]

Islam and European Secular Liberalism remain on course for a head-on collision. Islam continually "stirs hatred". It is fundamentally non-multicultural and therefore fundamentally incompatible with modern European civilisation. The politicians are too scared to tackle this problem, but in Switzerland it only takes 1000 votes to force a referendum. The people have spoken.

You mean they've spoken in this way (from the BBC article):
But others say the referendum campaign incited hatred. On Thursday the Geneva mosque was vandalised for the third time during the campaign, according to local media.
Fine secular liberals those are :jaw-dropp. I bet it's more the Swiss equivalent of rednecks. People blaming their own (economic) misfortune on those bloody immigrants.

I note no-one in this thread has given any hint of correlation between the number of minarets and Islamic fundamentalism, let alone causation.

I'm curious if someone takes this to the ECHR. Should be a slam-dunk case, IMHO.

[funk de fino]

The Swiss and the bigots here have embarrassed themselves again.

[UndercoverElephant]

I understand that you are intolerant

I am not sure you understand anything at all, Darat.

Please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks to argue your point.

[Arcade22]

I am not sure you understand anything at all, Darat.

Ah, ignore him and the likes of Funk de fino. Even objecting to the massive Arabization and Africanization of Europe is apparently borderline Nazi to them. :rolleyes:

Please stay on topic. Thank you.

[Thunder]

Ah, ignore him and the likes of Funk de fino. Even objecting to the massive Arabization and Africanization of Europe is apparently borderline Nazi to them. :rolleyes:

you know, folks complained when the Jewish population of New York City hit 25%, back in 1950.

sky didn't fall..now did it?

[xXMoshtradamusXx]

Tolerance of Intolerance will be the death of Tolerance...
I think that sums up my problem with Islam quite well.

[Malerin]

Yeah because secular European liberalism has a long history of being 100% compatitible with freedom. :rolleyes:

The way I see it is that there are two religions at play here. One wants to control every aspect of the lives of the people, and the other wants to control every aspect of the lives of the people.

Because there's no difference between life in Iran and Europe :rolleyes:

[Limbo]

Islamabad sees sufism as extremist antidote (http://www.presstv.ir/classic/detail.aspx?id=97382&sectionid=351020401)

Islamabad is set to combat the ongoing insurgency by spreading sufi thoughts and teachings across the violence-wracked country.

Government sources on Sunday announced setting up of a seven-member 'Sufi Advisory Council' (SAC) with an aim to combating extremism and fanaticism by spreading sufism in the country, Dawn News reported.

The SAC chairman and some of its members are said to be holding their first meeting at the ministry of religious affairs in Islamabad on Tuesday June 9.

The council will also invite what it calls progressive intellectuals in an effort to promote the flourishing of sufism.

It is not clear whether SAC will play a parallel role in the presence of Council of Islamic Ideology which is a constitutional body.

The decision comes as Islamabad and other major cities across Pakistan have been braced for suicide attacks since the army launched an offensive against the insurgents in the troubled northwestern Swat valley and its adjoining districts in early May.

Mystical power (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/01/25/mystical_power/)

Why Sufi Muslims, for centuries the most ferocious soldiers of Islam, could be our most valuable allies in the fight against extremism

[...]

As fundamentalist Islam spreads around the world, Sufism is one of its targets, even in such strongholds as Indonesia, Pakistan, and Nigeria. Often this comes in the form of ideological struggle, but open violence has broken out as well. Sudan's Islamist government attacks the black Sufi population of Darfur; in Iraq, suicide bombers target Sufi centers. Sufis have literally everything to lose from the continued advance of the Islamist extremists.

[...]

Empowering Sufism and empowering Muslim women is IMO the only solution to Islamisation of western society. Western nations need strong 'Sufi Advisory Councils' everywhere Islamisation threatens, and people need to be educated about the ideological differences between a Sufi and an extremist.

Sorry, I thought this thread was about solutions, not useless finger pointing.

[funk de fino]

Ah, ignore him and the likes of Funk de fino. Even objecting to the massive Arabization and Africanization of Europe is apparently borderline Nazi to them. :rolleyes:

I know bigots when I hear or read their filth. Your claims are falsehoods.

[Alareth]

My post now appears redundant ...

[WildCat]

There's direct democracy for you. The tyranny of the majority.

[Fnord]

Yay, Switzerland!

Now, about them pointy towers on the Christian church buildings...

There's direct democracy for you. The tyranny of the majority.

Would you rather have rule by Tyranny of the Minority? I hear North Korea is accepting immigrants...

[Soapy Sam]

While I have no objection to minarets per se (I rather like the one on Glasgow Green), I confess that I had hoped the increasing secularisation of Britain was the trend of the future. I am dismayed by the growth of any religious influence in the UK, especially in politics or education.
I have lived and worked in exclusively Islamic nations. While I find Sharia Law and Wahabi custom repellant in many ways, it is little worse than the sort of narrow minded Calvinist bigotry Scotland has only recently outgrown.
I don't want it back, thanks, under any label.
Islam in Scotland is generally Pakistani influenced, not Arab. There are a lot of very fine people from both ethno-cultural spheres and I welcome them to Scotland - but I do wish they would leave their particular brand of religious nonsense back in Asia or the middle east. We have quite enough of our own.

[SimonD]

whoa...never seen a mod make a personal attack before.

Maybe you should report him :D

[Darat]

While I have no objection to minarets per se (I rather like the one on Glasgow Green), I confess that I had hoped the increasing secularisation of Britain was the trend of the future. I am dismayed by the growth of any religious influence in the UK, especially in politics or education.
...snip...

I do blame the last few governments for this move, the leaders have had (and do) religious "inclinations" so they have been more than sympathetic to arguments to allow religious beliefs an unearned influence.

[WildCat]

Would you rather have rule by Tyranny of the Minority? I hear North Korea is accepting immigrants...
No, I'd rather have a system whereby basic human rights (such as the right to worship as one pleases) cannot be removed by a simple majority vote.

Minarets harm no one.

[gtc]

Direct democracy throws up some strange results now and then.

I do blame the last few governments for this move, the leaders have had (and do) religious "inclinations" so they have been more than sympathetic to arguments to allow religious beliefs an unearned influence.

So. Intolerance of Islam = bad. Intolerance of all religious people = good.

Aren't you just saying that you are intolerant of more people than the person you insulted?

[kerikiwi]

Hinduism is a very old religion (older than Christianity, much older than Islam) which has always had to be flexible enough to accomodate a wide range of specific beliefs and which has had relatively few problems dealing with most aspects of modernity. Islam is like Christianity was before the enlightenment, the reformation and the scientific revolution - totally intolerant and bent on imposing itself anywhere and everywhere that muslims go. I believe that the Islamic world is eventually going to be forced to change, although this can only happen because of changes inside Islam rather than by being imposed by outsiders. However, I don't see how it helps for people to pretend that the problem doesn't exist. Every time I hear somebody saying that Islam is "really" a peaceful and tolerant religion it just makes me cringe. It is not. As things stand, violence, intolerance and mediaevil ethics are an integral part of Islam.

You make sweeping generalisations about Hinduism (good) and Islam (bad).
Yet it is not so long ago that Hindus were enthusiastically killing Muslims on a train in India. There are plenty of Hindus ready to kill those who do not share their beliefs.
I will make you cringe: for those Muslims who believe it is so, Islam is a peaceful religion. The fact that other people have other beliefs does not invalidate that. Not all Muslims are totally intolerant and bent on imposing themselves (people act, religions don't) anywhere they go.

[Darat]

Direct democracy throws up some strange results now and then.



So. Intolerance of Islam = bad. Intolerance of all religious people = good.

Aren't you just saying that you are intolerant of more people than the person you insulted?

Not at all - I suggest you read my post, you will see that I am not being intolerant of anyone.

Plus of course I have not stated in this thread that being intolerant is necessarily bad or wrong, you are reading into my posts something I have not posted.

[Thunder]

Plus of course I have not stated in this thread that being intolerant is necessarily bad or wrong,

ah, so calling someone "intolerant" isn't necessarily an insult?

riiiiight.

but aside from that, I really do believe that a nation-state such as Switzerland, has every right to maintain its ethnic and religious continuity and majority.

if they wan't to stay Christian, they should keep out more Muslim and Jewish immigrants. but they really should not be telling citizens what they can and cannot do, as far as religious freedom goes.

[gtc]

Not at all - I suggest you read my post, you will see that I am not being intolerant of anyone.

I have read your post and you are intolerant. The person you labelled intolerant was arguing that allowing more minarets will lead to the rise of Islamic extremism. You are saying that electing even mildly religious leaders encourages the rise of religious extremism.

Pot meet kettle.

Plus of course I have not stated in this thread that being intolerant is necessarily bad or wrong, you are reading into my posts something I have not posted.

Nice try.

[RandFan]

I am concerned about the increased influence of Islam. I think there is very good reason to be concerned. Not long ago I participated in a discussion on this forum regarding the banning of burqhas. Though I never once took a position that they should be banned I did entertain and make arguments in favor of banning them. I conceded in the end that taking away freedom to protect freedom was ultimately self defeating.

I would not agree with banning Islamic minarets. In the end what we need to do is make our case for freedom and democracy and work with those who are Muslim and pro-democracy to educate and change minds.

The most important thing we can and must do is speak out against dogma and prescriptions that are contrary to modern liberal democracy. To the extent that Islam provides the dogma and the warrant for actions contrary to democracy and freedom we need to make clear that we are against them even if it means that our words will offend.

I think immigration and the influence of many different cultures can be a very good thing. But let's work to ensure that fundamental rights of all citizens of liberal democracies are preserved.

[Thunder]

I honestly don't care about Mosques dotting the landscape. all I care about is that they are not preaching extremism and intolerance.

[The Sopwith Turtle]

You make sweeping generalisations about Hinduism (good) and Islam (bad).
Yet it is not so long ago that Hindus were enthusiastically killing Muslims on a train in India. There are plenty of Hindus ready to kill those who do not share their beliefs.
I will make you cringe: for those Muslims who believe it is so, Islam is a peaceful religion. The fact that other people have other beliefs does not invalidate that. Not all Muslims are totally intolerant and bent on imposing themselves (people act, religions don't) anywhere they go.

Or, to paraphrase the NRA: "Minarets don't kill people. People kill people."

[ddt]

but aside from that, I really do believe that a nation-state such as Switzerland, has every right to maintain its ethnic and religious continuity and majority.

if they wan't to stay Christian, they should keep out more Muslim and Jewish immigrants. but they really should not be telling citizens what they can and cannot do, as far as religious freedom goes.

How would you feel if the Swiss had voted to burn down all synagogues?

@RandFan: nominated.

[Skeptic]

We must restrict freedom in order to preserve it!

I never realised architecture had such a strong influence on the fate of a nation...

Three words: "The Temple Mount".

If there was a high-rise complex on the exact same spot, the conflict might well have been solved by now.

I think this ban is ridiculous, by the way, and unfit for a free nation. But certainly architecture DOES have effect.

[RandFan]

How would you feel if the Swiss had voted to burn down all synagogues?

@RandFan: nominated.Thanks.

[Thunder]

How would you feel if the Swiss had voted to burn down all synagogues?


like I said, the Swiss have every right to limit immigration, or even end it completely, in order to maintain their ethnic integrity.

but they have no right to discriminate against Swiss citizens.

how would I feel if they voted to burn down a Synagogue? I'd want to fire-bomb one of their ugly ass Churches.

:)

[fullflavormenthol]

Because there's no difference between life in Iran and Europe :rolleyes:
I hope you didn't hurt yourself pulling out that strawman.

Like there is no difference between living in Switzerland and the United States. :rolleyes:

You see the problem.

EDIT: BTW...do you mind telling me when Europe became a single country?

[UndercoverElephant]

You make sweeping generalisations about Hinduism (good) and Islam (bad).


Well, it was indeed an attempt to sum up a complicated situation in about two sentences. I'm more than happy to examine the issue further.


Yet it is not so long ago that Hindus were enthusiastically killing Muslims on a train in India. There are plenty of Hindus ready to kill those who do not share their beliefs.


I am not saying Hinduism is good and Islam is bad. I am saying that, in general, Hinduism is tolerant of divergent views and Islam is not. This reflects the different histories of these two religions. Islam was, right from the outset, about conquest and conversion, about dictating every aspect of the believers daily lives and about total and absolute commitment. The very name of the religion means "submission" (to God, not to unbelievers). Hinduism has for most of its history been an umbrella term for a rich diversity of different, but inter-related, beliefs. If it was as strict and uncompromising as Islam (in this sense) then it would have torn itself to pieces long ago. There really aren't plenty of Hindus willing to kill those who do not share their beliefs. The situation in India is complicated by the fact that they sit on the border of the Islamic world and Islam has bloody borders.


I will make you cringe: for those Muslims who believe it is so, Islam is a peaceful religion. The fact that other people have other beliefs does not invalidate that. Not all Muslims are totally intolerant and bent on imposing themselves (people act, religions don't) anywhere they go.

Of course all muslims aren't intolerant, just as all Hindus aren't tolerant. It remains the case that intolerance of other belief systems is an integral part of Islam. No Hindu scripture demands that you seek out and destroy the unbelievers. The biggest problem with Hinduism, both historically and today, is its connection with the caste system. This is a problem for Hindu culture itself, especially if you are at the bottom of the pile, but it has little impact on people outside that culture.

[Darth Rotor]

The Swiss have new zoning regulations, restrictive deeds, and covenants, and code restrictions.

So what?

I suspect that some clever Swiss wrote the first ever Homeowner Association Bylaws on the planet. :p

[Architect]

Off topic : There are some zone where you cannot build whatever you want. Such a zone is where my parents home is. They can't change too much the architecture of the home (all homes there are built with special stone, roofing color, and are nearly all older than 1700).
Every roofing has to bwe approved, every change has to be checked. A PITA IMHO.

Anybody live in such architecture restricted zone ?

That'll be what we call "a conservation area" then. Yes, I live in one.

[shandyjan]

I think the days of building big showy religious buildings is gone, they should be using their money to help people not show off.
I do like old chuches and cathedrals, and hate seeing so many torn down. I hate seeing castles fall down too. History is one thing, but I think mosques etc look a bit disney like outside a hot climate!

[Thunder]

The Swiss have new zoning regulations, restrictive deeds, and covenants, and code restrictions.

So what?

do these new restrictions limit the heights of new churches, or only limit the construction of minarets?

if only Muslim houses of worship are affected, then this is anti-Muslim discrimination.

The Swiss have no right to make one rule for Muslims and another for Christains. Not if they want to be considered a Western democracy that values diversity and freedom.

I mean honestly, what is the greater threat? Muslim extremism, or long pointy structures?

[Pardalis]

There's direct democracy for you. The tyranny of the majority.

Until the majority becomes Islamic...

[gtc]

I suspect that some clever Swiss wrote the first ever Homeowner Association Bylaws on the planet. :p

The people I know who have lived there say that apartment complexes have very restrictive rules. Like only being allowed to use your washing machine on a certain day within certain hours and not being allowed to flush your toilet at night.

[SimonD]

I am concerned about the increased influence of Islam. I think there is very good reason to be concerned. Not long ago I participated in a discussion on this forum regarding the banning of burqhas. Though I never once took a position that they should be banned I did entertain and make arguments in favor of banning them. I conceded in the end that taking away freedom to protect freedom was ultimately self defeating.

I would not agree with banning Islamic minarets. In the end what we need to do is make our case for freedom and democracy and work with those who are Muslim and pro-democracy to educate and change minds.

The most important thing we can and must do is speak out against dogma and prescriptions that are contrary to modern liberal democracy. To the extent that Islam provides the dogma and the warrant for actions contrary to democracy and freedom we need to make clear that we are against them even if it means that our words will offend.

I think immigration and the influence of many different cultures can be a very good thing. But let's work to ensure that fundamental rights of all citizens of liberal democracies are preserved.

Well said

[gtc]

Not if they want to be considered a Western democracy that values diversity and freedom.

The problem is that the many of them don't appear to care whether they are considered a Western democracy etc.

I mean honestly, what is the greater threat? Muslim extremism, or long pointy structures?

Have you seen one? You could easily poke your eye out.

[tsig]

Until the majority becomes Islamic...

At that point you won't have to worry about democracy any more.

[UndercoverElephant]

How about if, instead of resisting Islam because violence, intolerance, and medieval ethics are supposedly integral to it, we just resist violence, intolerance, and medieval ethics?

Using Islam as a proxy for values that are incompatible with modern Western civilization has at least two potential problems - it is over-inclusive, by discriminating against Muslims who are not violent, intolerant, and medieval, and it is under-inclusive, by failing to discriminate against violent, intolerant, and medieval non-Muslims. And, if you marginalize the more progressive Muslims along with the more conservative ones, you hardly encourage the progress of Islam.

This is fair comment. But I despair at the prospects of the reformers within Islam. They seem to fighting a losing battle.

Europe tore itself apart for a couple of hundred years before rationalism, science and protestantism managed to overthrow the absolute dominance of the Catholic church. How is this process going to happen in Islam?

[SimonD]

How would you feel if the Swiss had voted to burn down all synagogues?

@RandFan: nominated.

Would never happen. The Swiss like their gold (teeth) ;-)

[Thunder]

At that point you won't have to worry about democracy any more.

right. cause unlike Judaism, Buddhism, and Christianity,.... Islam and democracy are fundamentally incompatible...right?

[UndercoverElephant]

Three words: "The Temple Mount".

If there was a high-rise complex on the exact same spot, the conflict might well have been solved by now.

I think this ban is ridiculous, by the way, and unfit for a free nation. But certainly architecture DOES have effect.

The Swiss do things their own way. I have a great deal of respect for them. I have worked there quite a lot. It is an exceptionally beautiful country and the people have every right to be proud of it, their society and their means of governance.

Berne is probably the only Capital city in Europe where I could have left a briefcase on the back seat of an unlocked car and come back and found it still there the next morning.

[UndercoverElephant]

like I said, the Swiss have every right to limit immigration, or even end it completely, in order to maintain their ethnic integrity.

but they have no right to discriminate against Swiss citizens.

:)

According to their own laws, they do have that right. It is a pretty straightforward system (unless it has changed): one thousand signatures can start the process towards a referendum and no politician can stop that process. Power to the people.

[Thunder]

According to their own laws, they do have that right. It is a pretty straightforward system (unless it has changed): one thousand signatures can start the process towards a referendum and no politician can stop that process. Power to the people.

i didn't mean "right" in the literal sense. I'm sure they have the legal right to send all Muslims to death camps, if they so choose.

i meant the right to call themselves a Western-democracy, if they go forward with such discriminatory laws.

[Malerin]

I hope you didn't hurt yourself pulling out that strawman.

Like there is no difference between living in Switzerland and the United States. :rolleyes:



In terms of personal freedom? Not very much. Or are Swiss woman forced to walk around in burkas?


You see the problem.

Yes, radical islamists have already killed thousands of Americans, Brits, Spanish, Indonesians, Russians, Pakistanis, etc. and would love to kill more. That is a problem, wouldn't you agree?

EDIT: BTW...do you mind telling me when Europe became a single country?

The claim was about Europe, but fine, let's pick a partciular European country:
Life in FRANCE is the same as life in IRAN.
Wow, that changed everything! :rolleyes:

[kerikiwi]

You could easily poke your eye out.

I take issue with the 'easily'.

[UndercoverElephant]

I do like old chuches and cathedrals, and hate seeing so many torn down.

I like them too. There's lots of them where I live. Brighton was established as a playground for the rich elite, and many of them tried to compensate for their less-than-Christian lifestyle by funding the building of churches. The result was far too many churches, most of which were never regularly full even when they were first built. Flash-forward to 2009 and what you have is an empty church on every other street. What to do with them? Turn them into flats and offices, of course. Fancy an office with a stained-glass window?

[ddt]

like I said, the Swiss have every right to limit immigration, or even end it completely, in order to maintain their ethnic integrity.

but they have no right to discriminate against Swiss citizens.

how would I feel if they voted to burn down a Synagogue? I'd want to fire-bomb one of their ugly ass Churches.

:)

The comparison is not far off between a ban on minarets and burning down synagogues. To date, there are a whopping FOUR minarets in the whole of Switzerland, while 4.3% of the population is muslim.

This referendum apparently grew out of a local controversy about a 6 meter minaret (wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minaret_controversy_in_Switzerland)).

Why banning minarets and not church towers? That is clearly religious discrimination, and would undoubtedly be struck down by any court.

First they came for the minarets, but I didn't speak out, because I was not a muslim.
Etc., you know the drill.

[technoextreme]

According to their own laws, they do have that right. It is a pretty straightforward system (unless it has changed): one thousand signatures can start the process towards a referendum and no politician can stop that process. Power to the people.
No. That didn't dispute anything he said. I'm sure that the Swiss have a constitution in place that actually would go after this form of discrimination.

[ddt]

I suspect that some clever Swiss wrote the first ever Homeowner Association Bylaws on the planet. :p

The people I know who have lived there say that apartment complexes have very restrictive rules. Like only being allowed to use your washing machine on a certain day within certain hours and not being allowed to flush your toilet at night.

I feel flattered you attribute the quip to me, but it was Darth's.

[Soapy Sam]

The Swiss do things their own way. I have a great deal of respect for them. I have worked there quite a lot. It is an exceptionally beautiful country and the people have every right to be proud of it, their society and their means of governance.

Berne is probably the only Capital city in Europe where I could have left a briefcase on the back seat of an unlocked car and come back and found it still there the next morning.

Also, very probably, in Riyadh.
Switzerland is an odd place. There are some rather draconian requirements of Swiss citizens . Not sure I'd want to live there. For a start, you can't get a decent curry.

[UndercoverElephant]

The people I know who have lived there say that apartment complexes have very restrictive rules. Like only being allowed to use your washing machine on a certain day within certain hours and not being allowed to flush your toilet at night.

The Swiss like their rules. But you have to be impressed with the way they get things done. I once spent a week in Berne in February, when they had the heaviest snowfall in fifty years. When I came to go home, my hire car was buried to above the wing mirrors, and Berne usually only gets a few inches of snow. Needless to say, both the traffic and the public transport systems continued to operate like clockwork.

[UndercoverElephant]

Randfan,


I would not agree with banning Islamic minarets. In the end what we need to do is make our case for freedom and democracy...


But this *IS* democracy!

[UndercoverElephant]

right. cause unlike Judaism, Buddhism, and Christianity,.... Islam and democracy are fundamentally incompatible...right?

Islam is fundamentally incompatible with democracy because Islam is a political system as well as a religion, and it is a political system which is fundamentally non-democractic.

[UndercoverElephant]

i didn't mean "right" in the literal sense. I'm sure they have the legal right to send all Muslims to death camps, if they so choose.

i meant the right to call themselves a Western-democracy, if they go forward with such discriminatory laws.

How can they not have the right to call themselves a democracy when they are the ONLY significant nation on Earth where 1000 people can trigger a national referendum?

[scissorhands]

First they came for the minarets, but I didn't speak out, because I was not a muslim.
Etc., you know the drill.

Thats right.
Anti democratic, mysoginist, unreconstructed 7th century religions have rights too.

[technoextreme]

Randfan,



But this *IS* democracy!
Yes and this is why democracy sucks. Every time any form of democracy occurs a bunch of dimwitted buffoons with a really stupid ideology grasps a hold of it and tramples over someone else's rights.
Thats right.
Anti democratic, mysoginist, unreconstructed 7th century religions have rights too.
Like Christianity?

[UndercoverElephant]

The comparison is not far off between a ban on minarets and burning down synagogues. To date, there are a whopping FOUR minarets in the whole of Switzerland, while 4.3% of the population is muslim.

This referendum apparently grew out of a local controversy about a 6 meter minaret (wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minaret_controversy_in_Switzerland)).

Why banning minarets and not church towers?

Put simply?

In Europe, Christianity has already had its balls cut off and Islam hasn't. In the US, Christianity retained some of its balls (we sort-of exported them to the New World) and the true impact of Islam didn't arrive until September 11th, 2001.

[Arcade22]

Yes and this is why democracy sucks. Every time any form of democracy occurs a bunch of dimwitted buffoons with a really stupid ideology grasps a hold of it and tramples over someone else's rights.
What "rights"?

[scissorhands]

Like Christianity?

Are you suggesting that modern Christianity in Switzerland is anti democratic and unreconstructed??

[linusrichard]

Ha, it's neither a "personal attack" nor is it intolerant to describe someone who has expressed intolerance as intolerant.

I think there's a lot to be said for fighting the insidious influence of autocratic architecture

I'm more concerned about that "Gothic" stuff, though.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e1/Reims_Kathedrale.jpg/250px-Reims_Kathedrale.jpg

or this, maybe.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/RedSquare_SaintBasile_%28pixinn.net%29.jpg/220px-RedSquare_SaintBasile_%28pixinn.net%29.jpg

As the father of a toddler, I feel far more threatened by this autocratic architecture:
http://www.kenston.k12.oh.us/khs/articles/08-09/img/magic-kingdom.jpg

[UndercoverElephant]

No. That didn't dispute anything he said. I'm sure that the Swiss have a constitution in place that actually would go after this form of discrimination.

They don't. If 1000 people sign a petition to start the process towards a referendum on the proposal "all muslims should be burned at the stake" then it will start and no politician or judge can stop it. If more than 50% of the population and more than 50% of the cantons vote yes, then it becomes law.

[gtc]

I feel flattered you attribute the quip to me, but it was Darth's.

Fixed. I don't know how I managed that.

[ddt]

Put simply?

In Europe, Christianity has already had its balls cut off and Islam hasn't. In the US, Christianity retained some of its balls (we sort-of exported them to the New World) and the true impact of Islam didn't arrive until September 11th, 2001.

I don't quite follow. You're actually advocating that the Swiss as next step outlaw mosques altogether?

[UndercoverElephant]

Also, very probably, in Riyadh.
Switzerland is an odd place. There are some rather draconian requirements of Swiss citizens . Not sure I'd want to live there. For a start, you can't get a decent curry.

I'm certain I wouldn't want to live there, and at one point had to decide whether or not to do so. And no you can't get a decent curry, but you can get lots of very nice other things to eat and drink. Especially drink.

You can get a decent curry in Montreal, but I wouldn't want to live there either. It's too cold. So is Glasgow. :)


Also, very probably, in Riyadh.


Yes, maybe. I also spent a week working in Abu Dhabi. That seemed like another planet to me, and the UAE is pretty liberal as Islamic states go.

But the irony of the comment is acknowledged. In the same way, maybe only muslims could have pulled off 9/11.

[technoextreme]

What "rights"?
The rights that unreconstructed Catholics want to impose their will on in the United States.
They don't. If 1000 people sign a petition to start the process towards a referendum on the proposal "all muslims should be burned at the stake" then it will start and no politician or judge can stop it. If more than 50% of the population and more than 50% of the cantons vote yes, then it becomes law.
Wow. That sounds incredibly dumb.

[Thunder]

How can they not have the right to call themselves a democracy when they are the ONLY significant nation on Earth where 1000 people can trigger a national referendum?

I said "western-style democracy".

what I really meant was "Western-style liberal Democracy".

and no, 1,000 people triggering a referendum that would discriminate against a particular religion followed by Swiss citizens, is not something a Western-style liberal Democracy would do.

these types of democracies, do not pass laws that only apply to Muslim houses of worship and not to Jewish and Christian ones.

[Thunder]

Put simply?

In Europe, Christianity has already had its balls cut off and Islam hasn't. In the US, Christianity retained some of its balls (we sort-of exported them to the New World) and the true impact of Islam didn't arrive until September 11th, 2001.

right. because before 9-11, Muslims didn't live in the USA.

;)

[mikeyx]

IMHO the solution is not to nerf Islam per se but to somehow buff Sufi syncretism.

[...]

"Sufi traditions of peace and coexistence are indeed very powerful as an expression of people's Islam in our subcontinent, but unfortunately the ruling clergy has never given them either recognition or validity."

[...]

http://rethinkingislam-sultanshahin.blogspot.com/2009/08/indias-syncretic-sufi-islam-visiting.html

yet we pesky sufis never seem to go away do we, some of us arent even muslims....

[UndercoverElephant]

or this, maybe.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/RedSquare_SaintBasile_%28pixinn.net%29.jpg/220px-RedSquare_SaintBasile_%28pixinn.net%29.jpg

Ah...built by the most tyrannical of them all. And it's a church! :)

Rome version 3.0

[technoextreme]

right. because before 9-11, Muslims didn't live in the USA.

;)
Don't forget the whole tried blowing us up part too.

[scissorhands]

these types of democracies, do not pass laws that only apply to Muslim houses of worship and not to Jewish and Christian ones.

They are quite within their rights to apply laws that protect their democracy.
Jewish and Christian houses of worship arent a threat to that, mosques are.

[Thunder]

Don't forget the whole tried blowing us up part too.

this was done by American Muslims?

does that mean that Evangelical Christians were responsible for the OKC bombing?

[technoextreme]

They are quite within their rights to apply laws that protect their democracy.
Jewish and Christian houses of worship, arent a threat to that, mosques are.
This sounds so much like South Park to me that its just sad.
C3jBMooa0TM&feature=related
EDIT:
Or maybe just really happy that this isn't just relegated to the United States. YAY USA USA USA!!!!!

[Thunder]

They are quite within their rights to apply laws that protect their democracy.
Jewish and Christian houses of worship arent a threat to that, mosques are.

how is a Muslim house of worship a "threat to democracy"...while Christian churches and Jewish synagouges are not?

I'm hearing a lot of bigotry here folks.

I am a Jew, and like I said, when NYC was 25% Jewish, folks got pretty scared. but the sky didn't fall.

[fullflavormenthol]

In terms of personal freedom? Not very much. Or are Swiss woman forced to walk around in burkas?

Yes because all Islamic countries mandate that by law. :rolleyes:


Yes, radical islamists have already killed thousands of Americans, Brits, Spanish, Indonesians, Russians, Pakistanis, etc. and would love to kill more. That is a problem, wouldn't you agree?

:rolleyes: Yeah and that has to do with the majority of Muslims in what way?

The claim was about Europe, but fine, let's pick a partciular European country:
Life in FRANCE is the same as life in IRAN.
Wow, that changed everything! :rolleyes:

<facepalm>

Well France does restrict freedom based upon religion. So not a whole lot on that front.

:dl:

You need to pick your examples better or learn enough geography to compare a continent to a continent.

[technoextreme]

this was done by American Muslims?

does that mean that Evangelical Christians were responsible for the OKC bombing?
You don't remember the first time they tried blowing up the WTC???

[scissorhands]

how is a Muslim house of worship a "threat to democracy"...while Christian churches and Jewish synagouges are not?

I'm hearing a lot of bigotry here folks.

When was the last time you heard of a church or synagogue being used by terrorists as a base for operations against their own country?

[Thunder]

You don't remember the first time they tried blowing up the WTC???

do you remember when those Jews attacked an American Navy ship in 1967?

do you remember when those Christians were blowing up abortion clinics and lynching blacks?

[Thunder]

When was the last time you heard of a church or synagogue being used by terrorists as a base for operations against their own country?

Um, I believe it was very common for the KKK to have meetings in local churches, where they planned their terrorist campaigns. that was only 40 years ago.

now, do you think we should round up all the Muslims and put them on trains, or boats?

[scissorhands]

Um, I believe it was very common for the KKK to have meetings in local churches, where they planned their terrorist campaigns. that was only 40 years ago.

now, do you think we should round up all the Muslims and put them on trains, or boats?

A fringe racist organisation 40 years ago?
Is that the best you can come up with?

[UndercoverElephant]

Ha, it's neither a "personal attack" nor is it intolerant to describe someone who has expressed intolerance as intolerant.



As the father of a toddler, I feel far more threatened by this autocratic architecture:
http://www.kenston.k12.oh.us/khs/articles/08-09/img/magic-kingdom.jpg

Yeah that sucks too.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3246/3066786506_feba9e26cc.jpg

[UndercoverElephant]

I don't quite follow. You're actually advocating that the Swiss as next step outlaw mosques altogether?

I have no intention of telling the people of Switzerland how to organise their affairs.

[Thunder]

A fringe racist organisation 40 years ago?
Is that the best you can come up with?

what is your "Final Solution" to the Muslim Question?

exile? sterilization? or "Vernichtung"?

[UndercoverElephant]

The rights that unreconstructed Catholics want to impose their will on in the United States.

Wow. That sounds incredibly dumb.

Why???

[UndercoverElephant]

I said "western-style democracy".


And we are talking about SWITZERLAND???


what I really meant was "Western-style liberal Democracy".


Erm..?


and no, 1,000 people triggering a referendum that would discriminate against a particular religion followed by Swiss citizens, is not something a Western-style liberal Democracy would do.


Erm...it is doing it.


these types of democracies, do not pass laws that only apply to Muslim houses of worship and not to Jewish and Christian ones.

Democracies are defined in terms of how democratic they are, not what decisions they arrive at.

[scissorhands]

what is your "Final Solution" to the Muslim Question?

exile? sterilization? or "Vernichtung"?

Those who are likely to have their liberties curtailed by Islamic law need to make up their own minds about that.
Personally I would outlaw all religions having any involvement in governance.
Unfortunately thats not acceptable in Islam.

[Thunder]

Democracies are defined in terms of how democratic they are, not what decisions they arrive at.

Weimar Germany was a democracy when they elected Adolf Hitler as Chancellor.

There is more to being a Western-democracy, then simply having universal voting rights.

[Arcade22]

There is more to being a Western-democracy, then simply having universal voting rights.

Such as?

[Thunder]

T
Personally I would outlaw all religions having any involvement in governance.
Unfortunately thats not acceptable in Islam.

I have yet to hear any Muslim of any significance in the USA, or any Muslims in the USA for that matter, say anything about wanting Islamic law imposed on the USA.

I guess our Muslims are just better then your Muslims. And we have lots of Pakistanis and Middle Easterners, just like you do.

:D

[scissorhands]

Weimar Germany was a democracy when they elected Adolf Hitler as Chancellor.

There is more to being a Western-democracy, then simply having universal voting rights.

You fail again.
Germany became a dictatorship under Hitler, he destroyed its democracy.
Yet you blame democracy for Hitler and what followed?

[fullflavormenthol]

No, it is just that many European countries are used to a form of cultural and racial purity, and can't reconcile the need for immigrants with the eventual change in their country.

For the Swiss it is the Muslims, for the Americans it is the Latino. Either way it is bigotry at play and a fear of being the minority.

[Thunder]

You fail again.
Germany became a dictatorship under Hitler, he destroyed its democracy.

Not...exactly.

German democracy failed, when a good 33% of the electorate voted for a party that clearly sought to destroy democracy and human rights in Germany. And then democracy suffered its final blow, when the Reichtstag and the Supreme Court accepted the Enabling Laws and the Reichstag Decrees, which merged the powers of the Presidency with the Chancellor, and allowed the new Uber-Chancellor and his Cabinet to pass laws without legislative approval.

so, it is you, who failed.

Hitler's rise to total rule was a purely democratic one.

Which just goes to show how simply having and practicing a democratic form of government, does not make a state a true Western-democracy,

[fullflavormenthol]

You fail again.
Germany became a dictatorship under Hitler, he destroyed its democracy.
Yet you blame democracy for Hitler and what followed?

Okay, I'll help you read this.
Originally Posted by parky76
Weimar Germany was a democracy when they elected Adolf Hitler as Chancellor.

We call that past tense.

There is more to being a Western-democracy, then simply having universal voting rights.

Translation: a democracy can still make stupid decisions...like...electing a wacko like Hitler to office.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/243294ae9f5c06362e.jpg

[Thunder]

For the Swiss it is the Muslims, for the Americans it is the Latino. Either way it is bigotry at play and a fear of being the minority.

big difference. in the USA, it is illegal immigration. folks we did not invite in and have no obligation to allow stay.

in Europe, it is mostly legal immigrants. folks you guys invited over to do your menial labor, and now decided they are no longer welcome, cause they insist on making woopee and having babies.

maybe you should have sterilized all immigrants before you begged them to come in.

[scissorhands]

No, it is just that many European countries are used to a form of cultural and racial purity, and can't reconcile the need for immigrants with the eventual change in their country.

For the Swiss it is the Muslims, for the Americans it is the Latino. Either way it is bigotry at play and a fear of being the minority.

Nah.
Hindus, Sikhs, Chinese all have lived happily for many years in areas where I grew up.
They just got on with life and business and didnt attempt to make their host countries bend over backwards to support their culture or religions.
They still do.
The only issues in my neighbourhood has been from fanatical muslims wanting a caliphate in their host county and bombing innocent people to try to accomplish their aim.

[ddt]

They don't. If 1000 people sign a petition to start the process towards a referendum on the proposal "all muslims should be burned at the stake" then it will start and no politician or judge can stop it. If more than 50% of the population and more than 50% of the cantons vote yes, then it becomes law.
My first reaction was: this is impossible, but some reading on Swiss law shows me that, basically, you're right. Two corrections though:
1) the required number of signatures is 100,000
2) it doesn't just become law; it becomes part of the constitution.

Furthermore, federal court is not allowed to check its consistency with the rest of the constitution. The only check allowed is against international treaties insofar they constitute "ius cogens". The European Convention on Human Rights is not among those treaties, however, though Switzerland is a signatory. Your hypothetical "let's burn all the muslims" would fail at the prohibition of genocide.

I think the idea of changing the constitution with a simple majority is unsettling, to say the least.

[Arcade22]

No, it is just that many European countries are used to a form of cultural and racial purity, and can't reconcile the need for immigrants with the eventual change in their country.
What kind of "need for immigrants" does Switzerland have?

[fullflavormenthol]

Menial labor. The same with all countries who latter throw a hissy when those same immigrants get uppity, and think they deserve rights or something. God, as if.

[ddt]

I can't quite follow from your post:
Put simply?

In Europe, Christianity has already had its balls cut off and Islam hasn't. In the US, Christianity retained some of its balls (we sort-of exported them to the New World) and the true impact of Islam didn't arrive until September 11th, 2001.

to your "explanation" of it as:
I have no intention of telling the people of Switzerland how to organise their affairs.

Care to elaborate on the first-mentioned post again?

[Thunder]

Well like all of Europe their population is in decline, and they don't want to do the crap jobs; so they bring in people.

yes. chapter 3 of the Koran says "act peaceful among the Kaffir, but secretly stash away lots of machine guns, ammunition, and explosive, for the great Jihad!!"

[fullflavormenthol]

yes. chapter 3 of the Koran says "act peaceful among the Kaffir, but secretly stash away lots of machine guns, ammunition, and explosive, for the great Jihad!!"
Only in the Arabic version. :D

[Thunder]

i have no problem, whatsoever, with the Swiss arresting, detaining, and deporting any immigrant Immam who spreads extremism, hatred, and violence, under the guise of freedom of religion.

that said, if he ain't done nuthin' wrong, leave em' alone.

Freedom of speech and religion is neither a suicide pact, nor something to be blindly disregarded during hard times.

[scissorhands]

Menial labor. The same with all countries who latter throw a hissy when those same immigrants get uppity, and think they deserve rights or something. God, as if.

Like all those pinoys that work in Saudi and around the ME?
I guess Islamic law forgot about their rights somewhere....

[fullflavormenthol]

i have no problem, whatsoever, with the Swiss arresting, detaining, and deporting any immigrant Immam who spreads extremism, hatred, and violence, under the guise of freedom of religion.

that said, if he ain't done nuthin' wrong, leave em' alone.

Freedom of speech and religion is neither a suicide pact, nor something to be blindly disregarded during hard times.
Exactly. I feel that the Operation Rescue wacks and every church associated with them needs to be monitored. I have nothing against keeping tabs on those masjid that have been identified as extremist.

I am not for banning the construction of mega churches (although I feel they are eye sores) or masjids.

[fullflavormenthol]

Like all those pinoys that work in Saudi and around the ME?
I guess Islamic law forgot about their rights somewhere....
But..but...but they do it?

Hey you know sex slavery exists in southeast Asia still?

Good thing we are not Saudi Arabia or Thailand.

[scissorhands]

But..but...but they do it?

Hey you know sex slavery exists in southeast Asia still?

Good thing we are not Saudi Arabia or Thailand.

Phillipino cleaners are all sex workers now?
Are you a racist?

[Thunder]

Hey you know sex slavery exists in southeast Asia still?


yeah, and in Israel too. those damn Yids.

:cool:

and who are the big time buyers of all these young sex-slaves in Vietnam and Thailand? European and North American white men.

who'da thunk it?

[scissorhands]

When did you notice any Catholic churches being built for the huge number of Pinoy workers in Saudi being built?
Seems its never happened.

[Thunder]

When did you notice any Catholic churches being built for the huge number of Pinoy workers in Saudi being built?
Seems its never happened.

ah..the old "they did it first" routine.

gotta love it.

I hear the Taliban likes to cut off the heads of their prisoners. perhaps we should do it too? don't wanna have a double-standard, ya know.

[scissorhands]

ah..the old "they did it first" routine.

Not so much that, more that they never have and never will.

[technoextreme]

Phillipino cleaners are all sex workers now?
Are you a racist?
No. He's pointing out how racist your argument is.

[fullflavormenthol]

Phillipino cleaners are all sex workers now?
Are you a racist?
Nice personal attack, but it won't distract from the "well..well they do it" argument you tried to pull out there.

[Thunder]

Not so much that, more that they never have and never will.

well, call me a racist, but I think those of us in the West are
BETTER then the extremists in Saudi Arabia, and should be proud to live by a higher standard of morality and freedom.

huh..imagine that. actually taking pride in living by a higher code of justice and equality.

[UndercoverElephant]

Care to elaborate on the first-mentioned post again?

What do you know about history?

[Thunder]

What do you know about history?

what do you know about freedom and tolerance?

i know...i know:

"screw freedom and tolerance. i just want these damned minorities out of my water park!!"

:)

[Arcade22]

Menial labor. The same with all countries who latter throw a hissy when those same immigrants get uppity, and think they deserve rights or something. God, as if.

There is no need for "menial labor" in Europe, especially if the immigrants aren't even working.
It takes about five years from the time an immigrant gets legal residence to when he gets a job, the time for women is about seven years.
Five years on welfare, payed by the Swedish tax payer. :(

I saw an estimate that the Swedish state lost around 40-60 billion SKR on immigration.
This does not include the money it takes for the fire department to put out the fires the monkeys have started in the ghettos and
the money it takes to help the rape victims the Arabs decided to violate.

But keep 'em coming Fredrik, we "need" these people to save our welfare...:rolleyes:

[scissorhands]

No. He's pointing out how racist your argument is.

Then explain why me pointing out that a huge number of the workforce across the ME is denied access to houses of worship, is racist?
I would have thought you would have stood up for them.
For the sake of argument, youve thrown them under the bus instead.

[fullflavormenthol]

Funny thing about a free society. I am actually not allowed to forbid recent Chinese immigrants from practicing their religion? I told the police, "Hey China forbids certain religions", but the cop told me it didn't matter. It seems what an oppressive society can get away with doesn't count in a free society.

[ddt]

What do you know about history?

Enough. Could you stop the riddles and say clearly what you mean?

[Thunder]

It seems what an oppressive society can get away with doesn't count in a free society.
well, that just ain't right.

if its ok for the North Koreans to kill political prisoners, then I should be able to firebomb the local Korean restaurant..right?

if its ok for the Saudis to ban the construction of churches, we should be able to ban the construction of minarets in Chicago..right?

if its ok for the Yemenites to behead those accused of theft, we should be able to burn alive immigrants from Yemen who commit rape in Edinburgh, right?

what happened to being proud of being the good guys?

:(

[scissorhands]

Lets face it, the only reason any of you Edited to remove personal remarks. are busy kowtowing to Islamic clerics is because you are scared of getting on that next bus/plane/train.
Its pathetic but true.
And it doesnt bode well for secular democracies anywhere.

Please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks to argue your point.

[Nosi]

But the irony of the comment is acknowledged. In the same way, maybe only muslims could have pulled off 9/11.

They didn't blow up the Federal building in Oklahoma though. That one was done by a home grown jerk.:boggled:

[ddt]

Lets face it, the only reason any of you idiots are busy kowtowing to Islamic clerics is because you are scared of getting on that next bus/plane/train.
Its pathetic but true.
And it doesnt bode well for secular democracies anywhere.

:confused: :confused: :confused:

Yeah, it's obvious that singling out muslims and banning part of their religious architecture endears them to the rest of society. :rolleyes:

So, where's the evidence that minarets cause Islamic terrorism?

[scissorhands]

:confused: :confused: :confused:



Exactly.

[Nosi]

yet we pesky sufis never seem to go away do we, some of us arent even muslims....

I'm embarrassed to admit I never heard "Sufi Muslim" until this thread.:blush: I only knew about the Sunni and Shiite branches of the religion. I did know that people are people and rotten (extreme, nutcase, homicidal, what-have-you) apples can pop up in every 'basket' be it religion or organization. So can some very good apples. Sadly, we don't hear much about the good apples.

[scissorhands]

Yeah, it's obvious that singling out muslims and banning part of their religious architecture endears them to the rest of society

Im sure that building more mosques and importing more radical anti western imams to preach about the evils of their host country will definately help with that.

[Thunder]

Lets face it, the only reason any of you idiots are busy kowtowing to Islamic clerics is because you are scared of getting on that next bus/plane/train.


i fly almost twice a year, work with a Lebanese Arab, have a friend from college who is a Saudi Muslim (and former US Marine), and I ride the subway twice a week.

and I love getting shiskebob from the local Egyptian guy at Home Depot.

sorry, don't feel too left out if we are NOT..bigots.

[Thunder]

Im sure that building more mosques and importing more radical anti western imams to preach about the evils of their host country will definately help with that.

I believe this is known as a strawman argument.

and I guess you conveniently missed this little quote from yours truly:

"i have no problem, whatsoever, with the Swiss arresting, detaining, and deporting any immigrant Immam who spreads extremism, hatred, and violence, under the guise of freedom of religion."

[WildCat]

Why banning minarets and not church towers? That is clearly religious discrimination, and would undoubtedly be struck down by any court.
How could a court strike it down? It's a Constitutional amendment.

[fullflavormenthol]

Lets face it, the only reason any of you idiots are busy kowtowing to Islamic clerics is because you are scared of getting on that next bus/plane/train.
Its pathetic but true.
And it doesnt bode well for secular democracies anywhere.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/16803478d6ddc8d0b4.jpg

No...the reason why I don't wee myself everytime I see a Muslim or want to destroy my free society in order to take away liberties from people based solely on their religion is because I AM NOT AFRAID of Muslims.

[technoextreme]

Lets face it, the only reason any of you idiots are busy kowtowing to Islamic clerics is because you are scared of getting on that next bus/plane/train.
Idiots????? I'm still trying to figure out how banning a church steeple accomplishes anything.

[ddt]

Im sure that building more mosques and importing more radical anti western imams to preach about the evils of their host country will definately help with that.

You're conflating three different issues:
1) the number of mosques
2) the kind of imams that preach there
3) the minarets on said mosques

The referendum that just passed only was about (3). It doesn't prohibit building/outfitting more mosques, nor did it say something about the imams that preach there.

So care to explain how (1) and (2) come into the equation? I can see how this referendum tempts even the most moderate imam to speak out next Friday in this fashion: "see how the West and its so-called freedom works? It's freedom only for the Christians, but as soon as it concerns Muslims, all bets are off."

In other words, this referendum only is counter-productive. It polarizes and antagonizes.

I await your evidence to the contrary. I won't hold my breath, you've only displayed bigotry thus far in this thread.

Oh, and let me help you a bit: the make-up of the Swiss Muslim population is distinct from other European countries. 56% of Swiss Muslims come from ex-Yugoslavia.

[WildCat]

Weimar Germany was a democracy when they elected Adolf Hitler as Chancellor.
Hitler wasn't elected.

[Thunder]

Hitler wasn't elected.

hmmmmm...

well, his party was, and was given control of the coalition with the German National People's Party.

but you are correct, like in Britain and their PM, Germany's Chancellor was not directly elected by the people.

[Nosi]

Those who are likely to have their liberties curtailed by Islamic law need to make up their own minds about that.
Personally I would outlaw all religions having any involvement in governance.
Unfortunately thats not acceptable in Islam.

Turkey is secular. The Muslim headscarf was disallowed in certain places in that country such as schools and government buildings.

[KingMerv00]

I'm glad someone is a standing up against all of the malevolent architecture out there. :rolleyes:

Call me when a flying buttress straps a bomb to its waist and destroys a Sbarro.

[WildCat]

hmmmmm...

well, his party was, and was given control of the coalition with the German National People's Party.

but you are correct, like in Britain and their PM, Germany's Chancellor was not directly elected by the people.
Nice quick edit there parky... :rolleyes:

[ddt]

Hitler wasn't elected.

hmmmmm...

:rolleyes:

WildCat is right. His party got like 33% of the votes, and then a coalition was negotiated that would have enough support from the Reichstag. Hitler became chancellor of that coalition government. So he wasn't elected as chancellor.

ETA: I see parky corrected his post himself. :)

[WildCat]

I'm glad someone is a stand against all of the malevolent architecture out there. :rolleyes:

Call me when a flying buttress straps a bomb to its waist and destroys a Sbarro.
All the Sbarro's can't be destroyed soon enough.

[Thunder]

I may be visiting Switzerland this July. Should I be worried?

:confused:

[Thunder]

Nice quick edit there parky... :rolleyes:

indeed.

though, I fail to see the difference. Hitler's rise to power was fully democratic, and took place just as any other PM would around the world.

there was nothing unusual or dramatic about his attaining the Chancellory.

[ddt]

How could a court strike it down? It's a Constitutional amendment.

You're absolutely right. I realized that later too (see post #129 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5358231&postcount=129)). I guess I just couldn't imagine the inanity that you can just change the constitution with a simple majority...

The only court that can strike it down is the ECHR, but their verdicts don't have binding powers. They're only there for "shaming" the indicted country.

[Thunder]

Thank God, that in the USA, the only way to ammend the Constitution is by a two-thirds vote of all state legislatures, and 50% of the Senate.

sometimes direct-democracy can be a bad thing. we are now seeing this in Swiss-cheese land.

[Arcade22]

The only court that can strike it down is the ECHR, but their verdicts don't have binding powers.

And all supporters of Democracy cry out in joy because of this. :alc:

[ddt]

Thank God, that in the USA, the only way to ammend the Constitution is by a two-thirds vote of all state legislatures, and 50% of the Senate.
Care to do some more editing after reading article 5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution)? :) (Yeah, I caught your post before you added the last part within one minute of posting).


sometimes direct-democracy can be a bad thing. we are now seeing this in Swiss-cheese land.

I don't think direct democracy is so much the culprit here, but the low threshold of a simple majority. As you may see in the US Constitution article 5, it stipulates 2/3 or 3/4 majorities everywhere. AFAIK, nearly every country demands such a "qualified" majority for constitutional changes.

Only demanding a 50% majority - whether by direct or indirect democracy - makes it just too prone to the whim of the day. That's not what a constitution is for. It's supposed to be an unchanging - or very infrequently changing - foundation for the rest of the laws.

[gtc]

Thank God, that in the USA, the only way to ammend the Constitution is by a two-thirds vote of all state legislatures, and 50% of the Senate.

sometimes direct-democracy can be a bad thing. we are now seeing this in Swiss-cheese land.

The issue is balancing the rights of minorities and the wishes of the majority. The US, Canada, Australia, NZ and the EU countries don't always get the balance right but we seem to do better than the Swiss on issues like this.

[Thunder]

Only demanding a 50% majority - whether by direct or indirect democracy - makes it just too prone to the whim of the day. That's not what a constitution is for. It's supposed to be an unchanging - or very infrequently changing - foundation for the rest of the laws.

yup.

America would be a scary place if a simple referendum could amend the Constitution.

[linusrichard]

Am I really going to be the first to point out how this is a clear example of how direct democracy allows a majority to oppress a minarety?

[Thunder]

The issue is balancing the rights of minorities and the wishes of the majority. The US, Canada, Australia, NZ and the EU countries don't always get the balance right but we seem to do better than the Swiss on issues like this.

The rights of the minority should never be allowed to be stripped away by the wishes of the majority. that kind of democracy is dangerous.

[ddt]

yup.

America would be a scary place if a simple referendum could amend the Constitution.

Also if a simple majority in House & Senate could amend it. That was my point.

[gtc]

The rights of the minority should never be stripped away by the wishes of the majority. that kind of democracy is dangerous.

I agree but the problem is ensuring that the majority does not deny seek to deny the existence of those rights.

[ddt]

And all supporters of Democracy cry out in joy because of this. :alc:

You're from Sweden? If Sweden would adopt a law like Switzerland did, it would be struck down by the EU court in Luxembourg. The EU has adopted the Council of Europe's European Convention on Human Rights wholesale as EU law. Most of it is in the Lisbon Treaty.

And the EU court does have binding power.

[technoextreme]

Am I really going to be the first to point out how this is a clear example of how direct democracy allows a majority to oppress a minarety?
No. We all ready did that two pages ago with a John Stuart Mill quote that flew over the heads of the opposing side.

[ddt]

Am I really going to be the first to point out how this is a clear example of how direct democracy allows a majority to oppress a minarety?

No. We all ready did that two pages ago with a John Stuart Mill quote that flew over the heads of the opposing side.

I think you missed linusrichard's choice of vowels (bolded by me).

[a3sigma]

You can find some good discussion on the topic from inside Switzerland here:

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/index.html

and some good curry at the Hiltl in Zurich:

http://www.hiltl.ch/en/index.php

DC

[Thunder]

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how minarets are dangerous.

when is the last time a minaret blew up a subway? killed a puppy?

what is the carbon footprint of a minaret?

[technoextreme]

I think you missed linusrichard's choice of vowels (bolded by me).
Very punny. Punny indeed.

[Arcade22]

You're from Sweden? If Sweden would adopt a law like Switzerland did, it would be struck down by the EU court in Luxembourg. The EU has adopted the Council of Europe's European Convention on Human Rights wholesale as EU law. Most of it is in the Lisbon Treaty.

And the EU court does have binding power.

Yeah, the SoviEt Union is a pain in the ass and an abscess on Democracy as well as free speech.

[Thunder]

The United StateS of AmeRica

ooh..look what I did!!!!!! :p

[Arcade22]

The United StateS of AmeRica

ooh..look what I did!!!!!! :p
That's what you get when you vote Obama into office...http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/188094adb6910535af.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17922)

[Redtail]

That's what you get when you vote Obama into office...http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/188094adb6910535af.gif

No, we got two white women apiece. It was in the contract.

[ddt]

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how minarets are dangerous.

when is the last time a minaret blew up a subway? killed a puppy?

what is the carbon footprint of a minaret?

They're obviously rockets in disguise - see this poster used (http://infidelsunite.typepad.com/.a/6a0111685b4b71970c0120a624d5e2970c-800wi) in the campaign.

I wonder if the other Swiss parties will boot out the Swiss People's Party (SVP) out of the Federal Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Federal_Council) (the cabinet). Thus far, the four main parties divided the 7 posts on the council by a "magic formula". The SVP campaigned in favor of the minaret ban; the above poster is their product.

[ddt]

I agree but the problem is ensuring that the majority does not deny seek to deny the existence of those rights.

I guess the first instance of "deny" is a typo?

Anyway, I agree wholeheartedly with you. However, a society where a majority would never try to do so is an utopia, I'm afraid. That's why we, in general, institute constitutions that lay down basic rights and are hard to change, and we have independent courts where you have recourse to that.

[Thunder]

They're obviously rockets in disguise - see this poster used (http://infidelsunite.typepad.com/.a/6a0111685b4b71970c0120a624d5e2970c-800wi) in the campaign.

http://photos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs114.snc3/16145_1204265000803_1653977305_502994_4648764_n.jp g

um.....that's the most Nazi-like poster I have seen in many many years.

:(

[Nosi]

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how minarets are dangerous.

when is the last time a minaret blew up a subway? killed a puppy?

what is the carbon footprint of a minaret?

Minarets can be noisy, with their multiple calls a day to prayer, which may tick off the rule happy Swiss. (bans on night flushes of toilets? Washing machines?) Having one blare in the early morning hours after a late night isn't fun.

[Arcade22]

http://photos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs114.snc3/16145_1204265000803_1653977305_502994_4648764_n.jp g

um.....that's the most Nazi-like poster I have seen in many many years.

:(

Then you shouldn't see this poster:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1002/1339641587_43216466d1.jpg

Creating Security

:eusa_clap:

[Thunder]

Then you shouldn't see this poster:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1002/1339641587_43216466d1.jpg

http://photos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs114.snc3/16145_1204266160832_1653977305_502995_5898120_n.jp g

even worse. though cute.

[ddt]

Minarets can be noisy, with their multiple calls a day to prayer, which may tick off the rule happy Swiss. (bans on night flushes of toilets? Washing machines?) Having one blare in the early morning hours after a late night isn't fun.

FWIW, the 4 mosques that have a minaret didn't employ a muzzah. Furthermore, such restrictions would be down to the local zoning rules, and do not warrant a federal constitutional ban.

[Thunder]

Minarets can be noisy, with their multiple calls a day to prayer, which may tick off the rule happy Swiss. (bans on night flushes of toilets? Washing machines?) Having one blare in the early morning hours after a late night isn't fun.

I said "dangerous"...not annoying.

[ddt]

http://photos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs114.snc3/16145_1204265000803_1653977305_502994_4648764_n.jp g

um.....that's the most Nazi-like poster I have seen in many many years.

:(
I agree. I considered calling the SVP "brown shirts". Well, hereby.

Then you shouldn't see this poster:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1002/1339641587_43216466d1.jpg

Creating Security

:eusa_clap:

Reminds of the South-African "slegs vir blanke" (only for whites). Despicable. And plain wrong, when you realize that over half of the Swiss muslims are ex-Yugoslavs.

[ddt]

Yeah, the SoviEt Union is a pain in the ass and an abscess on Democracy as well as free speech.

Oh well, if that's the level of discussion you want to engage in, I'm not playing along.

[WildCat]

Am I really going to be the first to point out how this is a clear example of how direct democracy allows a majority to oppress a minarety?
No, my first post in this thread pointed that out, I don't know if I was the first.

[Thunder]

Reminds of the South-African "slegs vir blanke" (only for whites). Despicable. And plain wrong, when you realize that over half of the Swiss muslims are ex-Yugoslavs.

"blanke" is Afrikaans..for white? that's pretty funny.

but yes, lets kick out all those damn Muslims!! send them back to the Serb concentration camps!!! Milosevic!!

Milosevic!!!

:(

[KingMerv00]

http://photos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs114.snc3/16145_1204266160832_1653977305_502995_5898120_n.jp g

even worse. though cute.

Looks like satire to me.

[gtc]

I guess the first instance of "deny" is a typo?

Anyway, I agree wholeheartedly with you. However, a society where a majority would never try to do so is an utopia, I'm afraid. That's why we, in general, institute constitutions that lay down basic rights and are hard to change, and we have independent courts where you have recourse to that.

Yes, mistake. Same as my mistake with your quote earlier. Not enough sleep, too much work.

I agree with the rest of your post too.

[gtc]

Looks like satire to me.

I believe that was an actual election poster. I think they claimed that no racial implication was meant and that it was just an unfortunate coincidence. I am not sure I believe them.

[Thunder]

I believe that was an actual election poster. I think they claimed that no racial implication was meant and that it was just an unfortunate coincidence. I am not sure I believe them.

the black sheep also looks like its wearing a burka.

though..it is still a black sheep..being kicked out by pure white sheep. no racism here of course.

[GreNME]

I'm not so bothered about Hindu Temples. The biggest Hindu Temple outside India is in London, and it did not cause the same sort of reaction. All religions are not the same. Hinduism is the best example of a religion which is multicultural and tolerant of other faiths. There is no sense that the Hindus are trying to take over the world or that Hindu culture is incompatible with Western secular liberalism. The same cannot be said for Islam.

Hinduism is a very old religion (older than Christianity, much older than Islam) which has always had to be flexible enough to accomodate a wide range of specific beliefs and which has had relatively few problems dealing with most aspects of modernity. Islam is like Christianity was before the enlightenment, the reformation and the scientific revolution - totally intolerant and bent on imposing itself anywhere and everywhere that muslims go. I believe that the Islamic world is eventually going to be forced to change, although this can only happen because of changes inside Islam rather than by being imposed by outsiders. However, I don't see how it helps for people to pretend that the problem doesn't exist. Every time I hear somebody saying that Islam is "really" a peaceful and tolerant religion it just makes me cringe. It is not. As things stand, violence, intolerance and mediaevil ethics are an integral part of Islam.

Well, it was indeed an attempt to sum up a complicated situation in about two sentences. I'm more than happy to examine the issue further.



I am not saying Hinduism is good and Islam is bad. I am saying that, in general, Hinduism is tolerant of divergent views and Islam is not. This reflects the different histories of these two religions. Islam was, right from the outset, about conquest and conversion, about dictating every aspect of the believers daily lives and about total and absolute commitment. The very name of the religion means "submission" (to God, not to unbelievers). Hinduism has for most of its history been an umbrella term for a rich diversity of different, but inter-related, beliefs. If it was as strict and uncompromising as Islam (in this sense) then it would have torn itself to pieces long ago. There really aren't plenty of Hindus willing to kill those who do not share their beliefs. The situation in India is complicated by the fact that they sit on the border of the Islamic world and Islam has bloody borders.



Of course all muslims aren't intolerant, just as all Hindus aren't tolerant. It remains the case that intolerance of other belief systems is an integral part of Islam. No Hindu scripture demands that you seek out and destroy the unbelievers. The biggest problem with Hinduism, both historically and today, is its connection with the caste system. This is a problem for Hindu culture itself, especially if you are at the bottom of the pile, but it has little impact on people outside that culture.

Some myths you seem to be presenting:


Islam (the religion) and its practitioners are apparently trying to "take over" Europe, Switzerland, or the West in general-- a common trope, and no more realistic or valid than when such accusations were brought about against Jews, were brought against Eastern Europeans, Romani, or (in the US) the Italians or Irish early last century, or were brought against blacks in the US well into the Jim Crow era. The claim certainly bears striking similarity to the conspiracy theory that Mexican immigrants are attempting to "take back" America's SouthWest that regularly crops up in the immigration debate here in the States.
Islam (the religion) and its practitioners are apparently warmongering and violent-- which obviously conflates Islam with the Mid-East, who only makes up a fraction of the 1.6 billion on the planet who practice the Muslim faith. Of course, it also spreads the generalization that anyone from the Mid-East is violent and warlike, when in reality a (loud and troublesome) minority are actually the ones who exemplify this quality.
Islam (the religion) and its practitioners are intolerant of divergent views in general-- this one is a clear sign of complete and utter ignorance of Islam, both in the mainstream and in the non-mainstream. There is arguably more diversity of Islamic faith and practice than in its only other major counterpart in terms of size (Christianity), mostly due no only to sectarian differences in interpretation but also in the distributed (and often controversially contradictory) leadership in its various forms. While a vague understanding of the difference between Shia and Sunni is a commendable quality that most people ignorant of Islam lack, the actual rifts and divergences drill down several more layers on many different religious interpretations and views, made more difficult by the fact that most of the different sectarian differences aren't formed into "official" organizations like Christian denominational groups, with only a few exceptions that are generally considered pretty far off from the mainstream (like Sufism). As for non-Muslim divergences, the largest Muslim nation on the planet-- which, by the way, is not in the Mid-East (it's Indonesia)-- has no problem not only tolerating non-Muslim individuals, but caters to them in its economic sectors by allowing and accepting behaviors that are clearly not Muslim (like drinking alcohol).


Some other common themes that go along with these myths:
The "problem" of Muslim immigrants existing in numbers tends to go almost hand-in-hand with those same Muslims being Arab or from a nation on the African continent (in other words, black). It's doubtful this was such a "problem" when most of the Muslims immigrating there were coming from Eastern Europe (though I'd be happy to be shown similar political literature from ten years ago, when that was more the case).
The claim is usually that these people don't "integrate" into the society, when there is no evidence that second- and third-generations of these immigrants aren't clearly and pretty fully integrated into the society, as is the trend in pretty much every immigrant culture.
Especially interesting is the fact that atheists that latch on to this rhetoric seem to conveniently ignore or remain blissfully ignorant of the religious-based intolerance that exists at the heart of the rhetoric-- not intolerance against religion in general, but intolerance based on and anchored in religious affiliation, much as was practiced against Protestants at one point and has been practiced against Jews on a number of occasions.


A different thread came up a couple weeks back that was critical of what was alleged to be a Mid-Eastern obsession with the Crusades, which re-interpreted the historical story through the lens of (modern Western) colonialism and political issues. I submit that it's attitudes like the OP and the posts in agreement with the Swiss ban that stoke this re-interpretation of the Crusades in a modern context, and that the clear ethnocentrism and intolerance being displayed from a "liberal Western" perspective is equally at fault for allowing the propagation of accusations resembling "crusader" used as an invective and the viewing of the historical attitudes in a modern light. The hyperbole condemned in that thread goes hand in hand with the hyperbole being used in this thread in opposition to Islamic culture.

[gtc]

the black sheep also looks like its wearing a burka.

though..it is still a black sheep..being kicked out by pure white sheep. no racism here of course.

I'm not sure that I can give them the benefit of the doubt.

[quadraginta]

<snip>

As the father of a toddler, I feel far more threatened by this autocratic architecture:
http://www.kenston.k12.oh.us/khs/articles/08-09/img/magic-kingdom.jpg

:D

[linusrichard]

No, my first post in this thread pointed that out, I don't know if I was the first.

Post #187, please.

[quadraginta]

A fringe racist organisation 40 years ago?
Is that the best you can come up with?


If you think that the KKK was a "fringe organization" you have a very weak grasp of the history or the culture.

It was the broad acceptance of their views which enabled them to have the effect that they did. Court cases which were mishandled by corrupt and bigoted citizens and authorities are still being sorted out, to this day.

The Louisiana JP who refused to marry an interracial couple earlier this year is merely an example of how close those sentiments remain to the surface. He had been voted back into office over and over again for most of that forty years.

It wasn't because people disagreed with his "fringe" beliefs.

[Nosi]

FWIW, the 4 mosques that have a minaret didn't employ a muzzah. Furthermore, such restrictions would be down to the local zoning rules, and do not warrant a federal constitutional ban.

:blush:

[KingMerv00]

FWIW, the 4 mosques that have a minaret didn't employ a muzzah. Furthermore, such restrictions would be down to the local zoning rules, and do not warrant a federal constitutional ban.

You mean a muezzin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muezzin)? Muzzah sounds like a muppet.

[Thunder]

btw, it appears the Swiss Supreme Court can over-turn this.

[Freddy]

I'm not so bothered about Hindu Temples. The biggest Hindu Temple outside India is in London, and it did not cause the same sort of reaction. All religions are not the same. Hinduism is the best example of a religion which is multicultural and tolerant of other faiths. There is no sense that the Hindus are trying to take over the world or that Hindu culture is incompatible with Western secular liberalism. The same cannot be said for Islam.

I take it you don't know much about India? The Hindus don't get along very well with the Muslims or the Christians. Especially between the Muslims and the Hindus, there is long history of violence.

Edited to add that I like minarets.

[WildCat]

Post #187, please.
Oh, my bad. It's Sunday, and the Bears' play has robbed me of my sense of humor... ;)

[Nosi]

People are always afraid of what they do not understand. There are also loudmouths that exploit that fear for political and other gains. Islam and Muslims in general are only the current favorite target.

Look back via the lens of history and you will have seen Jews, blacks, Mexicans, Catholics so targeted via this fear-hate.

You are also seeing a glaring fear of change. Change makes almost anyone squirm if it hits the right spot. For some it is the computerization of life that gives them the heebeejeebees. You can't get away from the machines. You call the Social Security office and you will play number games with one I guarantee it! The Unibomber is one of the best known techno-computer-phobes.

Spanish on instructional manuals drives others bats.

I could go on...and on...and on...

[Malerin]

They passed the ban:

http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2009/11/breaking-swiss-voters-back-minaret-ban.html

[Thunder]

Supreme Court can and will most likely over turn this.

[KingMerv00]

Supreme Court can and will most likely over turn this.

Honest question: On what grounds can the Supreme Court overturn a Constitutional Amendment?

[Malerin]

Some myths you seem to be presenting:


Islam (the religion) and its practitioners are apparently trying to "take over" Europe, Switzerland, or the West in general-- a common trope, and no more realistic or valid than when such accusations were brought about against Jews, were brought against Eastern Europeans, Romani, or (in the US) the Italians or Irish early last century, or were brought against blacks in the US well into the Jim Crow era. The claim certainly bears striking similarity to the conspiracy theory that Mexican immigrants are attempting to "take back" America's SouthWest that regularly crops up in the immigration debate here in the States.
Islam (the religion) and its practitioners are apparently warmongering and violent-- which obviously conflates Islam with the Mid-East, who only makes up a fraction of the 1.6 billion on the planet who practice the Muslim faith. Of course, it also spreads the generalization that anyone from the Mid-East is violent and warlike, when in reality a (loud and troublesome) minority are actually the ones who exemplify this quality.
Islam (the religion) and its practitioners are intolerant of divergent views in general-- this one is a clear sign of complete and utter ignorance of Islam, both in the mainstream and in the non-mainstream. There is arguably more diversity of Islamic faith and practice than in its only other major counterpart in terms of size (Christianity), mostly due no only to sectarian differences in interpretation but also in the distributed (and often controversially contradictory) leadership in its various forms. While a vague understanding of the difference between Shia and Sunni is a commendable quality that most people ignorant of Islam lack, the actual rifts and divergences drill down several more layers on many different religious interpretations and views, made more difficult by the fact that most of the different sectarian differences aren't formed into "official" organizations like Christian denominational groups, with only a few exceptions that are generally considered pretty far off from the mainstream (like Sufism). As for non-Muslim divergences, the largest Muslim nation on the planet-- which, by the way, is not in the Mid-East (it's Indonesia)-- has no problem not only tolerating non-Muslim individuals, but caters to them in its economic sectors by allowing and accepting behaviors that are clearly not Muslim (like drinking alcohol).


Some other common themes that go along with these myths:
The "problem" of Muslim immigrants existing in numbers tends to go almost hand-in-hand with those same Muslims being Arab or from a nation on the African continent (in other words, black). It's doubtful this was such a "problem" when most of the Muslims immigrating there were coming from Eastern Europe (though I'd be happy to be shown similar political literature from ten years ago, when that was more the case).
The claim is usually that these people don't "integrate" into the society, when there is no evidence that second- and third-generations of these immigrants aren't clearly and pretty fully integrated into the society, as is the trend in pretty much every immigrant culture.
Especially interesting is the fact that atheists that latch on to this rhetoric seem to conveniently ignore or remain blissfully ignorant of the religious-based intolerance that exists at the heart of the rhetoric-- not intolerance against religion in general, but intolerance based on and anchored in religious affiliation, much as was practiced against Protestants at one point and has been practiced against Jews on a number of occasions.


A different thread came up a couple weeks back that was critical of what was alleged to be a Mid-Eastern obsession with the Crusades, which re-interpreted the historical story through the lens of (modern Western) colonialism and political issues. I submit that it's attitudes like the OP and the posts in agreement with the Swiss ban that stoke this re-interpretation of the Crusades in a modern context, and that the clear ethnocentrism and intolerance being displayed from a "liberal Western" perspective is equally at fault for allowing the propagation of accusations resembling "crusader" used as an invective and the viewing of the historical attitudes in a modern light. The hyperbole condemned in that thread goes hand in hand with the hyperbole being used in this thread in opposition to Islamic culture.

There is a problem with integration: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33166.pdf

Spain and Germany, in particular, are having a hard time of it.

[Thunder]

Honest question: On what grounds can the Supreme Court overturn a Constitutional Amendment?

according to the article on Fox News, it can be overturned by both the Swiss Supreme Court and the European Human Rights Court.

The European Court of Human Rights governs all Council of Europe states, which includes Switzerland.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,577668,00.html?test=latestnews

[ddt]

You mean a muezzin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muezzin)? Muzzah sounds like a muppet.

Yep, thanks for correcting it.

[Malerin]

Ironically, Wahhabism (the ultra-fundamentalist sect), doesn't allow their mosques to have minarets.

What drove the Swiss to do this? Muslims remain a very small minority in Switzerland (5%). Are they having the same integration problems other European countries are experiencing?

[Thunder]

Ironically, Wahhabism (the ultra-fundamentalist sect), doesn't allow their mosques to have minarets.

What drove the Swiss to do this? Muslims remain a very small minority in Switzerland (5%). Are they having the same integration problems other European countries are experiencing?

4 minarets in Switzerland. huge crisis!!!!

[fullflavormenthol]

Well given that bigotry towards Muslims is one of the leading causes of integration problems in European countries, I doubt this latest bit of xenophobia is going to help the situation.

[GreNME]

There is a problem with integration: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33166.pdf

Spain and Germany, in particular, are having a hard time of it.

Actually, France has historically had a more difficult time, and the document you link supports this. I'm wondering if you actually gave the document a good read or linked this after a cursory search of terms relating to integration and difficulties. This paper describes isolationist treatment and an our-way-or-segregation policy as being behind the instances of integration problems for Muslims in the countries it examines-- all issues regarding institutionalized ethnocentrism that stymie integration. This paper doesn't dispute what I've said, it describes problems that existed or did exist that prevented the natural integration process and pointed out some of the steps being taken to fix those problems.

If you or anyone else is keen to putting the onus of those problems on Muslims, then by all means be forthright about it, but the FAS document you linked places the onus on the national governments it discusses. In particular, the French policy that led to the series of events sparking the riots a few years backed, as described in this document, are very pertinent to this thread topic: start limiting the status or standing of a group of people, and eventually you're going to create precisely the rift those limits predicted as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[ddt]

according to the article on Fox News, it can be overturned by both the Swiss Supreme Court and the European Human Rights Court.

The European Court of Human Rights governs all Council of Europe states, which includes Switzerland.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,577668,00.html?test=latestnews

Oh, it's Faux News. To start with the latter: opinions of the ECHR have no binding power. And the Swiss Supreme Court doesn't even have the ability to strike down normal laws that run counter to the constitution, let alone constitutional amendments.

[GreNME]

Well given that bigotry towards Muslims is one of the leading causes of integration problems in European countries, I doubt this latest bit of xenophobia is going to help the situation.

Precisely. That's what causes the problems, which feeds the xenophobic rhetoric, which feeds more xenophobia, which causes more problems.

[Malerin]

Actually, France has historically had a more difficult time, and the document you link supports this. I'm wondering if you actually gave the document a good read or linked this after a cursory search of terms relating to integration and difficulties. This paper describes isolationist treatment and an our-way-or-segregation policy as being behind the instances of integration problems for Muslims in the countries it examines-- all issues regarding institutionalized ethnocentrism that stymie integration. This paper doesn't dispute what I've said, it describes problems that existed or did exist that prevented the natural integration process and pointed out some of the steps being taken to fix those problems.

If you or anyone else is keen to putting the onus of those problems on Muslims, then by all means be forthright about it, but the FAS document you linked places the onus on the national governments it discusses. In particular, the French policy that led to the series of events sparking the riots a few years backed, as described in this document, are very pertinent to this thread topic: start limiting the status or standing of a group of people, and eventually you're going to create precisely the rift those limits predicted as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I read it, and the blame spreads in all directions: colonialism, guest-worker programs (the idea was floated in America during the last election and, thankfully, hasn't been implemented), and xenophobia are huge factors. But so is the spread of radical Islam, which is anything but integrationist.

[Corsair 115]

I'm glad someone is a standing up against all of the malevolent architecture out there. :rolleyes:

Call me when a flying buttress straps a bomb to its waist and destroys a Sbarro.


That's nothing! Wait 'till you find out what the arch has been up to...

[KingMerv00]

That's nothing! Wait 'till you find out what the arch has been up to...

We shouldn't be prejudiced against all architecture:

The dome is well-rounded.

The column is a stand up guy.

The compluvium is very open.

The cantilever will really go out on a limb for you.

The arris can be pretty sharp.

The niche isn't afraid to have unusual interests.

The arcade is all fun and games.

The arrow slit is really a cut above.

[gtc]

We shouldn't be prejudiced against all architecture:

The dome is well-rounded.

The column is a stand up guy.

The compluvium is very open.

The cantilever will really go out on a limb for you.

The arris can be pretty sharp.

The niche isn't afraid to have unusual interests.

The arcade is all fun and games.

The arrow slit is really a cut above.

Your jokes have solid foundations but I wonder whether I could get enough signatures to initiate a referendum to ban them?

[Nosi]

I've seen churches (Christian) that would make someone say WT....is that? Compared to them, the minarets I saw pictured in the Wikki could be mistaken for anything!

[Darat]

Im sure that building more mosques and importing more radical anti western imams to preach about the evils of their host country will definately help with that.

A mosque does not have to have a minaret (indeed none of the ones around here have a minaret) so how does a law just banning the building of a minaret help prevent "radical anti western imams to preach about the evils of their host country"?

[Darat]

Minarets can be noisy, with their multiple calls a day to prayer, which may tick off the rule happy Swiss. (bans on night flushes of toilets? Washing machines?) Having one blare in the early morning hours after a late night isn't fun.

But that can be covered in general laws on "nuisance noise" and the like - that apply equally to everyone in a country.

[GreNME]

I read it, and the blame spreads in all directions: colonialism, guest-worker programs (the idea was floated in America during the last election and, thankfully, hasn't been implemented), and xenophobia are huge factors. But so is the spread of radical Islam, which is anything but integrationist.

You're being creative in your interpretation. The issue with the guest-worker programs is that properly immigrated folks were being treated as guest-workers, despite their having gotten citizenship. Further, the general social xenophobic attitudes were either ignored by or (in cases like France) exacerbated by institutional marginalizing and demanding Muslims conform in manners that non-Muslims weren't having demanded of them (as well as profiling).

As for the radicalism, I'll let the following quote from the document speak for itself:State treatment of religious institutions is also part of the process of integration. All four countries have had mosques and Islamic schools with imams and teachers who came from abroad, usually with minimal knowledge of the language and culture of the country that they were entering. The imams’ objective was often to teach the strain of Islam known in their country of origin. As governments became aware that some of the teachings were radicalizing elements of their Muslim populations, some stepped in to require that imams not come from abroad, and that services be conducted in the vernacular of the European country. France has required such a practice since the 1990s, and Germany may implement such a policy.

As I stated in a previous post, it's actions like the above (actually requiring services be conducted in the vernacular) that cause rifts between the immigrant culture and the host country, which feeds the xenophobic rhetoric, which feeds more xenophobia, which causes more problems. Limiting speech, especially religious speech, is one surefire way to incite small problems into becoming large ones, and this has played out numerous times in the EU.

Further, the constant characterization of Muslims as some monolithic unit keeps the discussion from being realistically addressed anyway. Again, quoting the document itself:None of the four countries analyzed here has a government that believes that large parts of its Muslim population are engaged in radical activities. It may well be that the diversity within each Muslim population impedes development of any tendency towards such activities. Muslim populations in each country differ widely, with a preponderance of south Asians in Britain, North Africans in France, and Turks in Germany, but each country also has a range of ethnic groups and languages represented in its overall Muslim population. These populations have different historical and cultural backgrounds, may follow different strains of Islam, or, as in Germany, may be largely secular. While there is no sharply developed tendency towards radicalism, it is likely that young Muslims above all have in recent years grown alienated from the European societies in which they live.

In case it's not clear what "south Asians" means here, it's predominantly Muslims from Pakistan or India, or the surrounding regions. In Germany, the predominate Muslim population is Turkish or Eastern European (Yugoslavs), and a large portion of them are what would qualify as "culturally Muslim" and hardly fundamentalist. The reason I stated earlier that the problems in France have been greater is because there are elements of clear racism along with the religious discrimination there, as the predominant Muslim population there is North African or Moroccan. The alienation described in the document is what has contributed to a lack of integration-- you're injecting your own opinion in suggesting that there is some radical movement that is "is anything but integrationist" by nature. The "radical" described in the paper ranges from those who prefer to subscribe to a more fundamentalist practice-- for example, the small French population who decide to wear burquas-- to those whose rhetoric is similar to the anger that the mentally-deficient Islamic Rage Boy (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492864/The-surprising-truth-Rage-Boy-Americas-hated-poster-boy-Islamic-radicalism.html) has come to exemplify as an internet meme. In other words, some are willing to integrate under their own terms and some actually are openly rejecting integration, but to assume that "radical" equals "anti-integration" (which the linked paper does not do) is simply broad generalization that misses reality through the over-application of rhetoric.

Again I say: it seems the heart of the problem here is a distinct ignorance of the variety and diversity in the Muslim populations within the various countries in Europe, none of which are the same from country to country, and all of which have in the vast majority integrated fairly well. The FAS paper is discussing the problematic examples, not the statistics of all Muslim integration as a whole. Pointing out problems does not logically lead to Muslims in general not integrating just as well as other groups. The FAS paper doesn't contradict this, and actually puts forth information that supports the other comments I originally stated about the inherent xenophobia being at the heart of the problem.

[timhau]

A mosque does not have to have a minaret (indeed none of the ones around here have a minaret) so how does a law just banning the building of a minaret help prevent "radical anti western imams to preach about the evils of their host country"?

That's kind of like my first thought on the issue. How many Swiss muslims now decide not to become radical islamists because they can't build a minaret?

[uk_dave]

Dunno if this has already been covered, but I was wondering if they managed to define a minaret sufficiently to avoid massive legal arguments in the future?

I mean, one man's minaret could be another man's folly.

Or a house with a pretty tower is allowed, but what if five years down the road they start using the house as a mosque? Demolish the tower?

Seems to be a very silly law, made up by very silly people.

[Flo]

What drove the Swiss to do this? Muslims remain a very small minority in Switzerland (5%). Are they having the same integration problems other European countries are experiencing?


Muslims in Switzerland are in their majority from former Yugoslavia and Turkey, and less than 40% of them are actually - very moderately - religious. They cause no particular trouble.

However, the UDC party, like a number of its predecessors, will do and tell absolutely anything to ensure the Swiss populace keeps at its petty xenophobia and superiority complex and views itself as a persecuted minority in an ocean of hostile forces bent on the destruction of the sacred homeland, the presence of foreigner the only problem of the country, and their demonization, ostracization and if possible expulsion, the solution to every single problem, from unemployment to the falling prices of cheese.

It keeps them in the limelight and ensures they don't have anything to do to actually solve real problems.

I've seen the Swiss voting times and times again against the most basic rationality and their own self-interest, on the argument that beeing screwed up is acceptable provided that foreigners pay double ...

There is also the fact that the initiative was libelled in ambiguous terms, due both to duplicity and the usual poor job of translating documents from the original swiss-german dialect to other national language, thus ensuring that a number of people who voted "yes" thought they were accepting minarets, not their interdiction.

[SimonD]

No, my first post in this thread pointed that out, I don't know if I was the first.

One group of people said 'we want to do this' and another group (the majority) said 'no you can't'. How is this oprressing the other group. It's not like they said 'no you can't and now you must die'

[Cavemonster]

One group of people said 'we want to do this' and another group (the majority) said 'no you can't'. How is this oprressing the other group. It's not like they said 'no you can't and now you must die'

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oppressed

Interestingly enough, it doesn't mean murder.

In America at a certain point in time women said 'We want to vote' and another group (the majority) said 'no you can't'. How is this oprressing the other group. It's not like they said 'no you can't and now you must die'

[SimonD]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oppressed

Interestingly enough, it doesn't mean murder.

In America at a certain point in time women said 'We want to vote' and another group (the majority) said 'no you can't'. How is this oprressing the other group. It's not like they said 'no you can't and now you must die'

I get your point, however I think your analogy is faulty.

There is a big difference between being able to having a say in your destiny and building a certain type of building

[Cavemonster]

I get your point, however I think your analogy is faulty.

There is a big difference between being able to having a say in your destiny and building a certain type of building


If the majority banned minarets it for any practical reason, there might be an argument, but they've been explicit that the goal is to suppress the practice of Islam. To make restrictions on the peaceful practice of a religion is oppression. It isn't as extreme as taking away voting rights, or banning Mosques or the practice of Islam entirely, but it is very clearly oppression.

Above that, it's an unambiguous statement from the Swiss to their resident Muslims "We don't differentiate between your religion and the extremists who wrap themselves in it, we see your faith as something unwelcome in our country"

Personally, I'd like to see an end to all religion, but picking on any one is a terribly ineffective way to do it and mostly just increases alienation and animosity.

[UndercoverElephant]

Enough. Could you stop the riddles and say clearly what you mean?

In Europe, for over a thousand years, the Catholic church held all the power - political, economic and military as well as people's religious lives. Then during the period roughly covered by what are known as the Enlightenment, the Reformation and the Scientific Revolution, Catholicism was firmly put in its place. European society came out of the "dark ages". This process was long and bloody. Mediaevil religions don't give up their absolute earthly power without a struggle. Islam was almost completely absent from Europe at the time - a far away enemy that Europe sent armies to defeat, not a home-based threat. This is what I mean by "Christianity had its balls cut off in Europe". No longer could people be burned at the stake for heresy. In the Islamic world, no such process has occured. During the 20th century there was a significant amount of Islamic immigration into Europe and now many of the people of Europe see the rise of forces they thought they had already defeated.

We cannot force Islam to reform itself, but until and unless it does reform itself we have little choice but to do everything we can to prevent it from trying to assert power in Europe.

[UndercoverElephant]

The claim is usually that these people don't "integrate" into the society, when there is no evidence that second- and third-generations of these immigrants aren't clearly and pretty fully integrated into the society, as is the trend in pretty much every immigrant culture.

Sorry, but I am British and this is a load of rubbish. We have second-generation muslims in the UK who want to establish arabic-speaking schools and who live in areas where there is a majority of muslims and the indigenous people are left feeling like foreigners in their own land. It is not a myth that islamic immigrants do not integrate properly. They aren't interested in integrating into British society. They want to establish pockets of islamic society on British territory and the result is pretty much exactly what Enoch Powell said it was going to be forty years ago. I am not a racist, and I recognise that the problems I am discussing with respect to islamic communities does not apply to other groups (e.g. Indian Hindus or Afro-carribeans), but in this particular case I believe the British "experiment" in multiculturalism has been a failure. Mass islamic immigration into this country has been a disaster.

[UndercoverElephant]

I take it you don't know much about India? The Hindus don't get along very well with the Muslims or the Christians. Especially between the Muslims and the Hindus, there is long history of violence.

Edited to add that I like minarets.

I know considerably more about it than you do, obviously. The muslims don't get along very well with anybody else. The Christians and the Hindus get along just fine. Why do you think British India had to be split into two states? Hint: it wasn't because the Christians couldn't get along with the Hindus. :rolleyes:

[UndercoverElephant]

If the majority banned minarets it for any practical reason, there might be an argument, but they've been explicit that the goal is to suppress the practice of Islam. To make restrictions on the peaceful practice of a religion is oppression.

I seem to recall that the Swiss have also banned scientology. Is that also "oppression", or just the banning of a vile, money-making scam?

Sorry, but I find it hard to see the words "Islam" and "peaceful" in the same sentence. Mohammed was a warrior and Islam is a violent, intolerant religion. This is not down to interpretation, it is clearly written in the Koran: seek out unbelievers and kill them. How would you feel if one of the ten commandments was "Atheists should be killed."

[plumjam]

If they're gonna have to give up minarets, how about a minaret patch?

[Cavemonster]

The seem to recall that the Swiss have also banned scientology. Is that also oppression, or just the banning of a vile, money-making scam?

Sorry, but I find it hard to see the words "Islam" and "peaceful" in the same sentence. Mohammed was a warrior and Islam is a violent, intolerant religion. This is not down to interpretation, it is clearly written in the Koran: seek out unbelievers and kill them. How would you feel if one of the ten commandments was "Atheists should be killed."

Just as it's clearly written in the bible to stone adulterers, and to give away all your possessions. The relationship between any holy book and the practice it supposedly inspires is tenuous at best. The vast, vast vast majority of Muslims have never and would never commit violence in the name of their religion.

Just as in Christianity, the extremists find their call to action in the faith and are largely unfamiliar with the actual text, and the majority find a peaceful order to their lives in a few rituals and are mostly unfamiliar with the actual text. The dirty little secret of the religions "Of the book" is that they all use the book as justification for what they want and ignore the rest. Actually following any of these books would be impossible, since they contain logical contradictions.