Swiss public votes to ban the construction of minarets, as far as I can see, to wind up Muslims:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/29/switzerland-bans-mosque-minarets
QuoteSwitzerland became the first country in Europe todayto vote to curb the religious practices of Muslims when a referendum banning the construction of minarets on mosques was backed by a solid majority.
The surprise result, banning minarets in a country that has only four mosques with minarets and no major problems with Islamist militancy, stunned the Swiss establishment, which was bracing itself for a backlash in the Middle East.
The result looks likely to cause strife where there was relative peace, sully the country's image abroad, damage investment and trade with the Muslim world, and set back efforts to integrate a population of some 400,000 Muslims, most of whom are European Muslims – and non-mosque-goers – from the Balkans.
The campaign to ban minarets was described by the country's justice minister as a "proxy war" for drumming up conflict between ethnic Swiss and Muslim immigrants. But the ban was supported by a majority of 57.5%, 20 percentage points more than predicted in opinion polls in the run-up to the vote.
"The federal council [the body that constitutes the federal government] respects this decision," said a government statement tonight . "The construction of new minarets in Switzerland is no longer permitted."
While surprising, the verdict raised the question of whether such curbs on Muslims would be replicated across Europe were voters given their say. If Switzerland is the only country in Europe to embark on such a ban, that may be because its system of plebiscitary democracy compels single-issue referendums if petitions amass enough signatures.
Across Europe, far-right parties have been scoring gains in recent years on anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant platforms.
The result represented a triumph for the far-right populist Swiss People's party, which organised the petition paving the way for the referendum. In opposition, the SPP became the strongest party in Switzerland two years ago largely by running a robust campaign, denounced as racist by the UN, against immigrants.
The result also represented an act of mass defiance of the national establishment. The government, mainstream political parties, the churches, the main newspapers, the national president, the powerful business lobby, and the Vatican all opposed the ban, but it was backed by 22 of the country's 26 cantons on a national turnout of more than 53% .
As a result, the article of the national constitution regulating relations between the state and religion will be amended to include the bald statement: "The construction of minarets is forbidden."
"The result is unworthy of Switzerland's tradition and history," said Farhad Afshar, a leading Swiss Muslim and Berne University sociologist. "Muslims are well-integrated here compared with France or Germany. This result has nothing to do with the Muslims living in Switzerland."
The SPP said the minaret ban would "be implemented to the letter" and denounced senior church figures for the "alarming role" they played in the campaign.
Opponents of the move in the government, churches and human rights organisations had argued a ban on minarets would infringe fundamental liberties and freedom of religion. Green Party leaders warned tonightthat the ban could be unconstitutional and threatened to try to overturn the verdict at the European court of human rights in Strasbourg.
Ulrich Schlüer, an SPP MP who led the ban campaign, pointed out that the Strasbourg court had recently ruled against crucifixes in classrooms in Italy.
"It now appears that Christian towns are not supposed to use Christian symbols," he said. "But we're supposed to have Muslim symbols." The SPP said that going to the European court would breach the popular sovereignty that underpins the Swiss democratic model and tradition.
It dismissed the arguments about freedom or religion, asserting that minarets were not a religious but a political symbol, and the thin end of a wedge that would bring sharia law to the country, with forced marriages, "honour" killings, female genital mutilation and oppression of women.
A handful of recent applications for building permits for minarets in Switzerland, the no campaigners said, was proof to many Swiss "of the next step in the strategy of Islamification of our country. The fear is great that the minarets will be followed by the calls to prayer of the muezzin ... sharia is gaining in importance in Switzerland and in Europe. That means honour killings, forced marriages, circumcision, wearing the burka, ignoring school rules, and even stoning."
The prohibition also found substantial support on the left and among secularists worried about the status of women in Islamic cultures. Prominent feminists attacked minarets as male power symbols, deplored the oppression of Muslim women, and urged a vote for the ban.
The justice minister, Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, a strong opponent of the ban, said the result reflected fears about Islamic fundamentalist tendencies. "The Federal Council [government] takes the view that a ban on the construction of new minarets is not a feasible means of countering extremist tendencies."
She had previously criticised the prohibition campaign as a violation of human rights and as a "proxy war" for those seeking to stir up religious friction.
Corine Mauch, the mayor of Zurich, who also opposed the ban, said the vote was "a fateful signal to the Muslim community".
Swiss business is worried that the anti-Muslim vote could have a serious impact on trade with the Arab world. More immediately, there is concern for two Swiss businessmen abducted in Libya last year after Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's son and daughter-in-law were arrested in a Geneva hotel on suspicion of mistreating their staff. The two Swiss, regarded as hostages, were handed over to the Swiss embassy in Tripoli earlier this month but have still been denied exit visas and could yet face trial.
I think my favourite quote from that is "minarets were not a religious but a political symbol, and the thin end of a wedge that would bring sharia law to the country, with forced marriages, "honour" killings, female genital mutilation and oppression of women."
Denying Islam as a religion seems to be a fairly common tactic at the moment. Because, after all, if it's a political stance, then it is as open to criticism as Stalinism and Nazism (which I don't understand, religion is surely criticizable on its own grounds), and pesky little things like human rights laws and comparisons with Christianity suddenly vanish.
Not to mention those four mosques are going to secretly, somehow, overthrow the Swiss government from within. That's always good for a laugh. Or would be, if the language used wasn't so resonate with the "Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy" of years past.
And because people always ask why I conflate anti-Semitism with Islamophobia, Chris Floyd explains:
QuoteThe entire lexicon of Islamophobia is already filled to bursting with Nazi tropes – "the enemy within," the dark, monolithic mass of "prodigious breeders" threatening to overwhelm Western Civilization, the "maniacal extremists" who will not rest until they destroy the sacred Homeland, the sinister, secret worldwide conspiracy which bribes and suborns Western leaders into doing its bidding, etc. etc. This sinister discourse is accepted, and used, among the highest circles of power – senators, representatives, "serious" commentators, academics, think-tank apparatchiks.
[...]
In this too, our modern Islamophobes mimic their German forbears. It was the Nazis who held – and exercised – violent, overwhelming sway over the Jews within their reach, even as they bleated constantly about the "Jewish threat" to "destroy the German people." Perhaps many of them, at some level, believed this fantastical projection of their own murderous desires and unquenchable anxieties; certainly, we know that top Nazis like Hitler and Himmler "justified" their extermination programs as "pre-emptive defense" against an existential threat from the "Judeo-Bolshevik" conspiracy. (For in this disordered mindset, every Jew was considered a Bolshevik -- and even rich, capitalist Jews were seen as part of the same overarching conspiracy -- just as our Islamophobes consider every Muslim a terrorist or an extremist.) In a similar manner, all of our Terror Warriors – not just the strident Islamophobes, but the entire bipartisan political establishment, including the "progressive" president – paint the "Long War" as a strictly defensive measure against dark forces who irrationally "hate us for our freedoms" and seek to "destroy our way of life."
Comparisons are not equivalencies, and history does not repeat itself -- but it often rings with disturbing assonances.
This is a huge boost for the European far right, make no mistake. Expect Wilders in Holland and others in Denmark to try follow suit, while the right wing press (the Telegraph and Mail in particular) frame it to make people like me look like crazy extremists, for maybe thinking not every Muslim wants to behead the infidel.
They used the following posters to spread fear and anger: http://www.patriot.ch/morgarten/islam/minarett-verbot/plakat_ja_zum_minarett-verbot_580x782.jpg
I didn't expect the right wing brain washing tactics to be so efficient. Now for many swiss people, the word "Islam" means something like "terror". Most political parties showed themselves "surprised" of the results, now everyone says he voted against the prohibition.
Me = not proud of my people.
There are 4 minarets in Switzerland. There have never been any islamic terror in Switzerland. I've followed the recent political discussions before the results. The main argumentation really was:
Minarets =
Quote from: cainforced marriages, "honour" killings, female genital mutilation and oppression of women"
But it was enough to convince a majority of voters. The minarets also have been directly linked to the increasing number of criminal youngsters from other countries. Of course it was not mentionned that there are simply more cases documented. Things which have been considered bagatelles in former times are now (politically/religiously/gang) motivated crimes.
If the ban of minarets included church towers, i would have voted yes too.
I am curious exactly how they define minaret. It is possible it could be taken to include church towers.
Yeah, I hear ya Saint Bourgeoise. Ten years ago they'd be considered just gangs of delinquent teenagers, now they're the Mahometan Horde Preparing The Way For Shariah Law or some such shit. Most of them probably can't even spell shariah in Arabic, at least if they're anything like UK gangs.
Babylon, I suspect they define minaret as "any tower an Islamic person likes". Loopholes are good, but I don't see many here.
And, before I go, I'd like to thank the Swiss public for helping us lose the War on Terror:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/renouncing-islamism-to-the-brink-and-back-again-1821215.html
QuoteTo my surprise, the ex-jihadis said their rage about Western foreign policy -- which was real, and burning -- emerged only after their identity crises, and as a result of it. They identified with the story of oppressed Muslims abroad because it seemed to mirror the oppressive disorientation they felt in their own minds. . . . But once they had made that leap to identify with the Umma – the global Muslim community -- they got angrier the more abusive our foreign policy came. Every one of them said the Bush administration's response to 9/11 -- from Guantanamo to Iraq -- made jihadism seem more like an accurate description of the world. Hadiya Masieh, a tiny female former HT organiser, tells me: "You'd see Bush on the television building torture camps and bombing Muslims and you think -- anything is justified to stop this. What are we meant to do, just stand still and let him cut our throats?" But the converse was -- they stressed -- also true. When they saw ordinary Westerners trying to uphold human rights, their jihadism began to stutter. Almost all of them said that they doubted their Islamism when they saw a million non-Muslims march in London to oppose the Iraq War: "How could we demonise people who obviously opposed aggression against Muslims?" asks Hadiya.
I highly suspect the same process takes place with domestic policy. Appearing to hold Muslims to different standards and treating them as inferior only helps jihadists recruit for a war against the hypocritical West.
Quote from: Cain on November 30, 2009, 10:22:20 AM
And because people always ask why I conflate anti-Semitism with Islamophobia, Chris Floyd explains:
QuoteThe entire lexicon of Islamophobia is already filled to bursting with Nazi tropes – "the enemy within," the dark, monolithic mass of "prodigious breeders" threatening to overwhelm Western Civilization, the "maniacal extremists" who will not rest until they destroy the sacred Homeland, the sinister, secret worldwide conspiracy which bribes and suborns Western leaders into doing its bidding, etc. etc. This sinister discourse is accepted, and used, among the highest circles of power – senators, representatives, "serious" commentators, academics, think-tank apparatchiks.
[...]
In this too, our modern Islamophobes mimic their German forbears. It was the Nazis who held – and exercised – violent, overwhelming sway over the Jews within their reach, even as they bleated constantly about the "Jewish threat" to "destroy the German people." Perhaps many of them, at some level, believed this fantastical projection of their own murderous desires and unquenchable anxieties; certainly, we know that top Nazis like Hitler and Himmler "justified" their extermination programs as "pre-emptive defense" against an existential threat from the "Judeo-Bolshevik" conspiracy. (For in this disordered mindset, every Jew was considered a Bolshevik -- and even rich, capitalist Jews were seen as part of the same overarching conspiracy -- just as our Islamophobes consider every Muslim a terrorist or an extremist.) In a similar manner, all of our Terror Warriors – not just the strident Islamophobes, but the entire bipartisan political establishment, including the "progressive" president – paint the "Long War" as a strictly defensive measure against dark forces who irrationally "hate us for our freedoms" and seek to "destroy our way of life."
Comparisons are not equivalencies, and history does not repeat itself -- but it often rings with disturbing assonances.
This is a huge boost for the European far right, make no mistake. Expect Wilders in Holland and others in Denmark to try follow suit, while the right wing press (the Telegraph and Mail in particular) frame it to make people like me look like crazy extremists, for maybe thinking not every Muslim wants to behead the infidel.
So... Muslims are the new Jews?
They are the perfect scapegoat, in a worldwide political system honed to leverage benefit from the exploitation of scapegoats.
Basically, yes.
Which doubly sucks because we still have a lot of people around who don't like the original Jews much. But making "edgy" and hilariously paranoid proclaiments about Islam and Muslims is its own cottage industry, inhabited by the likes of Mark Steyn, Robert Spencer, Dean Godson, Melanie Phillips and Edward S May. And not only does it pay big, it also tends to get one connections with some influential players in Washington and London.
Quote from: Cain on November 30, 2009, 10:22:20 AM
I think my favourite quote from that is "minarets were not a religious but a political symbol, and the thin end of a wedge that would bring sharia law to the country, with forced marriages, "honour" killings, female genital mutilation and oppression of women."
And how do they expect less than 5% of the population to do all of that unabated? Wouldn't it be easier to shore up their religious liberty and womens rights laws? Oh right... they aren't actually worried about that stuff. They just want to oppress a minority group for political gain. Silly of me to forget that.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on November 30, 2009, 06:08:55 PM
Quote from: Cain on November 30, 2009, 10:22:20 AM
I think my favourite quote from that is "minarets were not a religious but a political symbol, and the thin end of a wedge that would bring sharia law to the country, with forced marriages, "honour" killings, female genital mutilation and oppression of women."
And how do they expect less than 5% of the population to do all of that unabated? Wouldn't it be easier to shore up their religious liberty and womens rights laws? Oh right... they aren't actually worried about that stuff. They just want to oppress a minority group for political gain. Silly of me to forget that.
Sounds like someone has the wrong values.
Remember what happened to Curly, you terrorist-kissing radical.
They banned a kind of architecture?
That's what a minaret is right, a kind of church tower? There's not some second meaning I don't know of? Cause it would help stop the screaming if it was something else.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 30, 2009, 08:33:31 PM
They banned a kind of architecture?
They had to. To prevent honor killings. :lulz:
There is no deeper meaning to what They do to eachother.
This is Reality and the screaming will never stop.
Quote from: Regret on November 30, 2009, 09:27:06 PM
There is no deeper meaning to what They do to eachother.
This is Reality and the screaming will never stop.
:mittens:
If I were both Swiss and in possession of the funds necessary to start a building project, I would be quite tempted to begin construction of a completely secular office building with structure oddly reminiscent of a minaret...
Quote from: Father Kurt Christ on December 01, 2009, 12:37:38 AM
If I were Swiss, independently wealthy and in possession of the funds necessary to start a building project on top of that, I would be quite tempted to begin construction of a completely secular office building with structure oddly reminiscent of a minaret...
Pointy mini-barns, FTW.
57% of the Swiss people said yes. The majority can't be wrong, can they? :lol:
I found someone willing to defend this (someone who isn't a member of a neo-fascist party, anyway, naturally they're all overjoyed):
hxxp://jmw.typepad.com/political_warfare/2009/11/why-the-swiss-vote-against-minarets-is-so-important.html
QuoteSix out of ten Swiss voters acted on facts that many in the western democracies still fail to recognize: The political warfare battle that Islamist extremists are waging against free societies.
Last weekend's referendum to ban the further construction of minarets in Switzerland was not against the religious aspects of Islam - it was specifically a defensive mechanism against the legal and political revolutions that Islamists are waging against secular democracies.
The surprise Swiss vote was a significant fightback against creeping sharia law that is corroding the free fabric of much of Europe and North America. We should be applauding the Swiss for their stand. They remain tolerant of the religious freedoms of hundreds of thousands of Muslims who live in their country, but draw the line on sharia practices that would undermine their democratic way of life.
Western liberals, Islamic leaders, the government Iran and, surprisingly, the Vatican, condemned the vote. But the critics miss the point: The vote was not against religion, but was a line against foreign political encroachment.
Proponents of the minaret ban "said from the outset that they were not seeking to prevent Muslims from practicing their religion," the Washington Post reports.
"We just want to stop further Islamisation in Switzerland, I mean political Islam. People may practice their religion, that is no problem," Swiss MP Walter Wobmann tells Reuters. "The minaret is the power symbol of political Islam and Sharia law."
The minaret is "a political symbol against integration; a symbol more of segregation, and first of all, a symbol to try to introduce sharia law parallel to Swiss rights," Swiss MP Ulrich Schlüer tells the Los Angeles Times.
"On one hand Islam is a religion. But on the other hand Islam grants its followers a certain social behaviour. Islam requires its followers to apply certain rules, a certain religious law that we call Sharia. And Sharia law is not at all compatible with our law as it stands today in this country, Switzerland. Our law and Sharia law are at odds with each other," Schlüer says in Euronews.
"The outcome of the vote is a reflection of the fears and uncertainties that exist among the population, and concerns that Islamic fundamentalist ideas could lead to the establishment of parallel societies," Swiss Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf says in Time magazine. The minister adds, "marginalization and exclusion on the basis of religious and cultural differences would be devastating for an open country such as Switzerland."
That's precisely the point. Islamist radicals for a decade have tried to silence their critics by branding them as racists and bigots, all the while imposing their political symbolism and demanding acceptance of their un-democratic ideology. They're doing it again right now. Indeed, the Swiss are facing a global backlash.
"Initiative sponsors said they wanted to prevent Islamic extremism from seeping across the borders from other European countries with large Muslim populations," according to the LA Times. "'When you look at the European Union, where are there extremists?' asks Schlüer, the member of parliament. 'In the suburbs and ghetto banlieues of Paris and London. . . . We don't want that in Switzerland.'
"He said Muslims were welcome in Switzerland but must assimilate into Swiss society."
And that's the point that practically all the critics - from the Muslim, Christian, "progressive" and business sectors - seem willfully to miss.
Yes, if only we had stopped minarets from being built, then the 7/7 bombings and Madrid attacks never would've happened. Speaking as someone who had someone very close to me involved in the 7/7 bombings and who was in London directly after the attacks, I have to say that is an appalling piece of political sophistry. Reading this is like having a burnt corpse dropped in my morning coffee
It's strange. I talk to people who otherwise seem like decent human beings, but are fine with calling gay people faggots and say that Islam is a flat out despicable religion.
I wouldn't be surprised if something like this catches on in the US.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 30, 2009, 08:33:31 PM
They banned a kind of architecture?
That's what a minaret is right, a kind of church tower? There's not some second meaning I don't know of? Cause it would help stop the screaming if it was something else.
it's used to broadcast muezzin, the call to prayer.
And if they have defined it that way, as a tower used to broadcast a call to prayer, then it very much bans new church towers if they have bells in em.
They did probably put a specific reference to Islam in there and I have no idea how deep Swiss freedom of religion is. I know this would not fly in the US because of the first amendment.
I'm still unsure how Sharia law is could "take over".
Even in the pro-Christian US, when certain Xtian groups "follow their own law", they're arrested.
I mean, you can have a religious belief to eat babies, but that doesn't mean the state will allow you to do it.
Well LMNO, you see, misguided liberals and socialists (who coincidentally opposed the War on Iraq, fucking traitors) are secretly being duped by an international Muslim conspiracy which is spread through Muslim charities, mosques and banks, which is all financed by Saudi Arabian oil money. The plan is to turn Europe into Eurabia, through some secret treaty which doesn't actually exist but nevermind that, and when it is done, flood Europe with Muslim immigrants who will then vote for the laws to be changed. And, once they implement Shariah Law over the continent, they can use the blood of Christian babies in their evil Eid celebrations, or whatever it is evil Muslims (ie all of them) do when they are not plotting to overthrow the West or go on jihad.
Oh, I get it.
EVERYBODY PANIC!
:omg:
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on December 01, 2009, 07:06:34 AM
Pointy mini-barns, FTW.
make it a brauhaus, selling beer and pork. piss off both parties at the same time!!
Quote from: Cain on December 01, 2009, 08:42:06 AM
I found someone willing to defend this (someone who isn't a member of a neo-fascist party, anyway, naturally they're all overjoyed):
hxxp://jmw.typepad.com/political_warfare/2009/11/why-the-swiss-vote-against-minarets-is-so-important.html
QuoteSix out of ten Swiss voters acted on facts that many in the western democracies still fail to recognize: The political warfare battle that Islamist extremists are waging against free societies.
Last weekend's referendum to ban the further construction of minarets in Switzerland was not against the religious aspects of Islam - it was specifically a defensive mechanism against the legal and political revolutions that Islamists are waging against secular democracies.
The surprise Swiss vote was a significant fightback against creeping sharia law that is corroding the free fabric of much of Europe and North America. We should be applauding the Swiss for their stand. They remain tolerant of the religious freedoms of hundreds of thousands of Muslims who live in their country, but draw the line on sharia practices that would undermine their democratic way of life.
Western liberals, Islamic leaders, the government Iran and, surprisingly, the Vatican, condemned the vote. But the critics miss the point: The vote was not against religion, but was a line against foreign political encroachment.
Proponents of the minaret ban "said from the outset that they were not seeking to prevent Muslims from practicing their religion," the Washington Post reports.
"We just want to stop further Islamisation in Switzerland, I mean political Islam. People may practice their religion, that is no problem," Swiss MP Walter Wobmann tells Reuters. "The minaret is the power symbol of political Islam and Sharia law."
The minaret is "a political symbol against integration; a symbol more of segregation, and first of all, a symbol to try to introduce sharia law parallel to Swiss rights," Swiss MP Ulrich Schlüer tells the Los Angeles Times.
"On one hand Islam is a religion. But on the other hand Islam grants its followers a certain social behaviour. Islam requires its followers to apply certain rules, a certain religious law that we call Sharia. And Sharia law is not at all compatible with our law as it stands today in this country, Switzerland. Our law and Sharia law are at odds with each other," Schlüer says in Euronews.
"The outcome of the vote is a reflection of the fears and uncertainties that exist among the population, and concerns that Islamic fundamentalist ideas could lead to the establishment of parallel societies," Swiss Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf says in Time magazine. The minister adds, "marginalization and exclusion on the basis of religious and cultural differences would be devastating for an open country such as Switzerland."
That's precisely the point. Islamist radicals for a decade have tried to silence their critics by branding them as racists and bigots, all the while imposing their political symbolism and demanding acceptance of their un-democratic ideology. They're doing it again right now. Indeed, the Swiss are facing a global backlash.
"Initiative sponsors said they wanted to prevent Islamic extremism from seeping across the borders from other European countries with large Muslim populations," according to the LA Times. "'When you look at the European Union, where are there extremists?' asks Schlüer, the member of parliament. 'In the suburbs and ghetto banlieues of Paris and London. . . . We don't want that in Switzerland.'
"He said Muslims were welcome in Switzerland but must assimilate into Swiss society."
And that's the point that practically all the critics - from the Muslim, Christian, "progressive" and business sectors - seem willfully to miss.
Yes, if only we had stopped minarets from being built, then the 7/7 bombings and Madrid attacks never would've happened. Speaking as someone who had someone very close to me involved in the 7/7 bombings and who was in London directly after the attacks, I have to say that is an appalling piece of political sophistry. Reading this is like having a burnt corpse dropped in my morning coffee
I'm really sorry.
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 01, 2009, 05:20:24 PM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on December 01, 2009, 07:06:34 AM
Pointy mini-barns, FTW.
make it a brauhaus, selling beer and pork. piss off both parties at the same time!!
THIS.
More Ponderous Thoughts from the Great British Public:
QuoteMinarets yawn...
QuoteWhat rubbish some of you lot write. What religious freedom do those christians living in Arab countries have? Are there churches where they can worship – no – not allowed. Get your facts right before you write drivel. At least the Swiss get a choice. Most Europeans have to put up with decisions of politicians for their own selfish ends. Why else was the UK denied a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, and the Irish gov't forced by the EU to hold a 2nd referendum. Democracy is dead in Europe!
Adam Smith, London
I'm not entirely sure who Smith is addressing here. In observing Proper BBC Impartiality, the HYS moderators have naturally ignored anyone not rabidly in favour of the minaret ban and filled the entire thread with the same post over and over, as if William Burroughs did 500 cut-ups of the same BNP leaflet and expelled them like half-digested coackroaches from an ailing gut clogging up the oesophagus of the internet. In fact, I like to imagine that the average HYS post is nothing more than the stream-of-consciousness fingerdribble of a smacked-up fuckhead. It's the only explanation that doesn't hurl me screaming into a fit of existential despair.
QuoteI have just been 'somewhat surprised' to hear the BBC's reporter's comments about religious symbols that might be acceptable, pointing to the Christmas tree behind her. I beg rather strongly to differ, but the Christmas tree is NOT a 'religious' symbol in any way, shape or form; Yes, it has been adopted by western societies to be part of our Christmas tradition, but it is no more religious than the Christmas card, pudding or cracker! So, please, let's not get minarets and trees in the same boat.
Jerome, Redhill
Unless it was, like, a fucking really big boat, of course, like a cruise liner or one of them ones that planes go on. Then it might be alright.
QuoteWell done the Swiss! At last a strong message is sent to all those Muslim extremists who think that people are too passive to oppose the takeover of their country. Until when for every mosque built in a christian country a church in a muslim country is allowed to be built, muslims should not take freedom of religion as granted. That might help them to understand the true meaning of sacrificing your own space in the name of tolerance!
Marco Furlan
Woof! Holding all Muslims responsible for the actions and infrastructures of all predominantly Muslim nations, from Bosnia and Herzegovina, through Iran to Indonesia... That kind of talk could make a man erect. Not me, though. I'm not an idiot.
QuoteMinarets and religion are just symptoms of a problem. Let's face the facts. It is a natural instinct of humans to defend and preserve their racial background, culture and history. Anything perceived as a threat to those qualities is regarded by most as invasive and obnoxious, and so it has been throughout history. Man-made laws to eradicate so-called "racism" cannot change human inborn instinct.
So the Swiss vote should not surprise anybody. It's the way we are made.
[Anglobert], Surrey, United Kingdom
Governing societies on base human instinct! It's so simple! Why did no-one think of it before?
QuoteCan someone tell me – Are you allowed to build a Cathedral in Mecca?
Allan, Afghanistan
HA HA HA HA HA. No matter how many times you see this same clever point reiterated clever point reiterated clever point reiterated like a stuck CD player in Hell, it never stops being utterly fucking fascinating.
Mind, I haven't checked for a few days, but I'm pretty sure Switzerland is still not a place of particular religious significance for Christians. Try building a mosque in the Vatican, Allan, see where that gets you. Shot, hopefully.
QuoteInstead of banning minarets and headscarfs Europeans should ban immigration from Muslim countries, then the issue of cultural transgression will be moot.Half measures will not save Europe, otherwise 50 years later you will have to fight a Reconquista Yugoslavian style or convert to to Islam.
Nick, New York
Believe me, I've tried – Lord, how I've tried! – but I just can't think of a response to this that doesn't invoke Godwin's Law. Try it for yourself – it's impossible!
QuoteI tire of hearing what Muslims are or are not. They are what they demonstrate themselves to be–if they don't want to be known as a bunch of genocidal fanatics, perhaps they should alter their behavior. If Swiss voters don't want their skylines to look like Baghdad, then they have a right to say so. Brits take note–you're so intimidated that you won't even sing carols or put up a Christmas tree for fear of offending the Muslims.
sim, CARLSBAD
Jesus... If anyone needs me, I'll be sitting catatonic in the chair by the window.
http://ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere.com/2009/12/04/not-racism-just-institutional-alienation/
So the basic theme is that Muslim countries don't have freedom of religion therefore we shouldn't have freedom of religion. How exactly does that work?
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on December 04, 2009, 11:49:13 PM
So the basic theme is that Muslim countries don't have freedom of religion therefore we shouldn't have freedom of religion. How exactly does that work?
IT'S SCIENCE!
WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on December 04, 2009, 11:49:13 PM
So the basic theme is that Muslim countries don't have freedom of religion therefore we shouldn't have freedom of religion. How exactly does that work?
1. All Muslims everywhere are responsible for the actions of their governments. Kind of like how you are personally responsible for torture, kidnapping and waging aggressive war. Only more so, because Muslim countries are mostly military dictatorships or monarchies, and so are even more accountable.
2. We show how we are better than them, by acting exactly the same!
Minaret Madness has spread to Germany
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,676156,00.html
QuoteA small Muslim community in a western German town would like to build a minaret on its mosque. But the plan has triggered passionate opposition from locals, many of whom rely on rhetoric from the extreme right in railing against the "symbol of Islam's quest for power."
"Willkommen," reads the stencilled print on the wall along the riverside boardwalk in the small town of Völklingen. Not content to just welcome its German guests, however, the message is translated into a number of languages. "Bienvenue ... bienvenidos ... velkommen," it reads. And "hosgeldiniz," a nod to the city's substantial Turkish population.
Elsewhere in the city -- particularly in the quarter known as Wehrden -- Muslim immigrants may not feel quite as welcome. A small mosque on the banks of the Saar River there has applied for a permit to build a small minaret on its roof -- triggering a wave of at-times vehement protest reminiscent of the fuss surrounding the November 2009 referendum in Switzerland to ban minarets in the country.
"I am against the Islamification of our fatherland!" reads a message, posted by "Tommy" on the Web site of the local paper Saarbrücker Zeitung. "Islam is the greatest threat facing humanity," he adds.
In a town meeting held on the subject in late January, a number of locals came out against the minaret plan. According to Berlin daily Die Tageszeitung, several expressed fears that Germany was being "infiltrated" by "the Turks."
The plan foresees a minaret stretching a mere eight meters (26 feet) above the roof. The head of the Turkish-Muslim community planning the minaret, Adnan Atakli, has assured locals that there are no plans to broadcast calls to prayer from the minaret and that he merely sees it as an "ornament."
Doesn't Shy Away from Far-Right Rhetoric
And not everyone has come out against the plans. Many have pointed out that such an adornment would only improve the not-terribly-attractive quarter where the mosque is located. Furthermore, almost 10 percent of the Völklingen population is made up of immigrants, many of them Muslims. Some say it only makes sense that they be allowed to build a small minaret.
Still, politesse has hardly characterized the debate in Völklingen. Indeed, the back and forth is reminiscent of the campaign in Cologne in 2008 to block the construction of a mosque there. The campaign was led by a group called Pro-Cologne, a group that doesn't shy away from far-right rhetoric. Similar debates have taken place in numerous European countries as the right wing seeks to tap into widespread skepticism toward Islam.
The Swiss referendum, which saw 57.5 percent of voters come out against the minaret ban, clearly showed just how anchored anti-Muslim sentiment may be in Europe. Indeed, a group called Pro-NRW (short for the German state North Rhine-Westphalia) now plans to cooperate with right-wing political parties in numerous European countries to organize a European Union-wide minaret referendum.
Islam's 'Quest for Power'
The debate in Völklingen is once again showing how quickly right-wing rhetoric can cross over into the mainstream when it comes to debates on Islam in Europe. Local right-wing extremists -- two of whom are in the Völklingen city council -- have argued that minarets are "symbols of Turkish dominance." They point to a speech given by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in February 2008 in Cologne. In it, he said that "mosques are our barracks, minarets our bayonets, the domes our helmets and the believers are our soldiers."
The Völklingen mosque belongs to the Turkish-Islamic Union for Religious Affairs (DITIB), which has close ties to Turkey. "We are being quietly infiltrated by the Turks!" said one participant at the late January town meeting, according to Die Tageszeitung.
The local news paper, however, has used the exact same rhetoric on its editorial pages. "This minaret should not be built," the Saarbrücker Zeitung wrote in late January. "It symbolizes Islam's quest for power and is nothing less than a provocation. In the course of the Muslim conquests, minarets were first used as watch towers and only subsequently as religious symbols. Following the violent seizure of new territories, minarets were built as manifestations of Muslim rule."
Minaret opponents are now looking into the possibility of holding a referendum on the issue in Völklingen. Yet another one.
When oh when will people stop mistaking symbolic issues for, er, actual issues?
when will the far Christian Right and the far Muslim Right realize they are actually the same, and unite against the rest of us?
They're trying to already. Watch how Muslim states and Christian NGOs team up at the UN in order to shaft the secularists. I suspect the only thing holding them back is this pesky clash of the civilizations nonsense. I guess it has to be good for something.
Quote from: Cain on February 08, 2010, 05:46:24 PM
When oh when will people stop mistaking symbolic issues for, er, actual issues?
When humans stop being symbology-driven.
And that would just take the fun out of everything.