Swiss reputation for tolerance under threat


Swiss move to ban minarets


Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms


Is the push to ban minarets in Switzerland justified?

Is such a ban allowable under international law?

What are the chances of actually forcing a referendum? Passing the Ban?

It's their country. Seems they have had it to "here" with those who would build minarets.

International Law? You mean the same wet noodle that allows Christians to be beheaded in places like Indonesia and Iraq? Maybe the International Community should be less worried about architecture and more worried about religious nutbags who lop off people's heads.

Depends on whether the Swiss have any spine left.

Brief translation: Two wrongs makes a right and our laws are only valid when convenient to our whims.

Take that timeless values!

I'd like to know why oppressing a tiny minority in their land for no good reason take spine.

It takes more bravery to stand up for freedom of religion, but that's just silly old justice talking.

Though since when has the west stood for that?

Evidently it's on the outs.

Is the push to ban minarets in Switzerland justified?

In order to answer that question, you have to clarify what a minaret is, define what it means beyond its direct religious significance and then explain what is meant by justifiable. The easy answer is just to easy. Yes it is. No it isn't.

Yes, it is justifiable if mosques are being used as a stepping stone to introducing a new wave of religious law into Europe. No it isn't if the law is being passed with regards to only one religion.

I believe both of these to be self evident. I also believe that Muslims are using our laws and tolerance as a means to destroying European society with the eventual goal of replacing it. Typically, the ever politically correct BBC to whom Turnea linked to describes Oskar Freysinger's opinion as sounding 'extreme, even paranoid', but if you care to look closer at what is happening in the UK you will find that he has good reason to be paranoid with regards to the spread of what Islam will bring to Europe.
Panorama Part One. Panorama Part Two.

In Holland, there is a growing political storm with regards to a proposed Grand Mosque with a 42 metre tall minaret in the centre of Amsterdam. In London there are plans to build a Mosque which will hold twenty times as many worshippers as the largest British cathedral. Here in Denmark, the campaign for various large mosques has been ongoing for years and at no point have the secularists been given the benefit of the doubt by non Danes. Time and again we've been described by foreigners as 'racists' because the 'poor undertrodden Muslims' don't have any decent mosques. The monotonous modus operandi is to describe the appalling conditions suffered by Muslims who are 'forced' to worship their god in old abandoned factories and commercial buildings. The inference is clear to the meanest understanding. In order to be seen as good 'global citizens' we are expected to pay for and build grandiose places of worship for these people, since it is apparently beyond their means to wait until they have the funds themselves. More often than not some Middle Eastern or Asian missionary group Such as Tablighi Jamaat, with dubious connections to extremist groups in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan will suddenly appear to donate the millions required to build fabulus palaces of worship, often in central and sought after area's of capital cities. Any attempt to stop these missionaries from building these monstrosities is classed as a violation of people's freedom to worship by non elected human rights groups whose activities are nothing less than blatent political interference.

Countries like Holland, Switzerland and Denmark were once seen as the most tolerant places on Earth. That all ended when these countries refused to give in to the never ending demands of people whose sole contribution to the social fabric is cultural isolation and the threat of 'militancy' if their demands are not met.

Link.

In other words, give them what they demand or they might get violent.


Is such a ban allowable under international law?

Who cares? International law, and the European Union, are fast becoming the means by which European societies are being dismantled. There comes a time when one has to consider just what one is prepared to accept from the rest of the world and for a geat many people in Europe, the notion that we are some how obliged to allow ourselves to be colonised by yet another wave of religious fanatacism out weighs any notions of 'fair play' with regards to the 'religious rights' of other people.

The argument, which I also personally subscribe to, is that the religious rights of immigrants and their native born children, do not out weigh the requirements of the rest of the population. That this is not a question of Islam being a 'a tiny minority in their land' for Islam is not an ethnic minority as much as it is a global ideology, with a following of 1.4 billion believers, a great many of whom will and do actively support the under mining of European society, by any means necessary, and who use mosques, and the 'freedom of religion' as a means in doing so.


What are the chances of actually forcing a referendum? Passing the Ban?

In Switzerland, it is probably even money. The Swiss are very independent and traditionally go their own way to protect their independence. I hope they pass this law and I hope other European nations take note of it. We are dealing with the survival of our nations now. This is not a simple question of the religious rights of a few hard done by Muslims, but the question of whether European society will survive colonisation by Islam. We have long since passed the thin edge of the wedge. Living in Denmarks second largest city, I see many head scarves and burqa's every day now as opposed to the rarity of such a sight a decade or so ago. The Muslim populations are growing much faster than the native populations and they do not mix. My home town just gained its third official ghetto, as the two previous ghetto's spilled out and still the stream northwards continues.

These bans need to be initiated. The influx of Islam must be halted now or the consequence will be the same warfare we see where ever Islam spreads. This thing has to be nipped in the bud now before the slaughter starts, because it is no longer a question of if, only of when.

"Switzerland's reputation as a haven of tolerance for immigrants has been undermined in recent weeks by calls for a ban on new minarets" LOL, that is truly funny, since they have no such reputation. In fact their reputation is a total intolerance for immigrants period.

Is the push to ban minarets in Switzerland justified?
Of course it is. They can have whatever laws concerning the construction and appearance of any structures within their country they want. I think most places of worship are gaudy and offensive.

Is such a ban allowable under international law?
Of course it is. Too many people here think that everything should be adjudicated under some misguided international law. They proclaim with great fanfare how some such action is illegal under one international law or another without ever examining the actual law. The European Convention on Human Rights does not address the structures of a building, nor should it.

In short there is no such law. Building minarets is not a requirement for worship and this is yet another example of the Islamic world attempting to rewrite laws that they themselves would never obey.

What are the chances of actually forcing a referendum? Passing the Ban?
Not sure, I do not know the feelings of the people. But their reputation is heavily on the side of it passing by a very wide margin. Immigrants are not well accepted in the country and there is a lot of apathy towards people from different cantons, let alone immigrants.

Not certain what planet and what time you're living in but the tiny minority getting oppressed for no good reason is currently the largest group of psychos currently walking the Earth. Say what you will about Christians they're not lopping anyone's head off. Last time I checked a group of cartoons didn't send Christiandom into a frenzy of violence. The Jews haven't recently declared a holy war on anyone have they? Was that in the paper? I don't read it everyday so maybe I missed the news article where the Buddhists decided to kill a director for a movie he made.

Switzerland has never been particularly friendly to immigrants. These particular immigrants are making a complete nusiance of themselves where ever they bring their Religion of Peace. Ask the Dutch. Ask the French. Frankly people like you looking to appease them only seem to tick them off even more. Let's see if banning their minarets makes them leave. Might be a trend.

I try to be charitable, I really do... but this is hurting my little engineer heart.

Where's the logic?!

Well that settles it then, because the architecture of a building cannot introduce a law.

Last I checked minarets are not granted franchise.


No, but Europeans governments are expected not to obstruct mosque building either.

I see no reason for a government to donate money to build a mosque so you need not worry there.

..but some actions are simply not acceptable. First the head scarves, then the minarets....

My goodness now I see why Russia believes it can get away with murder. Apparently conventions aren't worth the paper they're written on.




That answers quite nicely why said countries are losing their reputation for tolerance.

If their respect for the basic values that make a free society free has fallen so low, then I trust no one will be complaining the next time the US invades another Muslim nation.

The hypocrisy is rank, but much worse are the implications for a world built on ethical government.


They also believe in using airplanes and trains.

I know, let's ban airports


...and so because they offend your delicate aesthetic sensibilities then they ought to be subject to ban.

Places of worship aren't necessary for religion....
Neither are churches and bibles. We've still got oral tradition.

This is not reasoning, it's weaseling. If justifies everything but a good old fashion pogrom, though I figure one could probably work that in to.

Let's get to the point.


There, the position summed up in brief.

Screw Law.

Screw Ethics.

We don't like Muslims.

Let's run them out of town.

I barely have to argue anymore, anyone who reads these posts knows exactly what the deal is. Shame is dead, long live mob rule.

We'd all like them a lot more if they'd join us in the current century. It would be peachy if they'd stop cutting off people's heads and I dunno... got a little tolerant themselves.

What do you see as worthy of protection regarding the Muslims in Switzerland? How have they captured your engineer's heart? Do the Swiss have no right to shape their society as they see fit? Why must the Swiss accept a group of people who refuse to assimilate to the prevailing culture?

Is the push to ban minarets in Switzerland justified?

Seems odd to go after a symbol of a threat rather than the threat itself. If Muslims threaten the Swiss state, lock the perps away. I would go toward conspiracy to overthrow the government.

Is such a ban allowable under international law?

Maybe so, but who cares what other countries deem acceptable and unacceptable architecture?

What are the chances of actually forcing a referendum? Passing the Ban?

Probable when the majority is of the the party pushing for this.

The US has a similar situation with church bells. But if Christians are trying to take over the government, it's not through church bells but guys like Dobson. They got part of the government and that didn't work out so well. Other groups have gotten school boards and the such with similar, but down to scale, results.

If the Swiss don't want Isamic law, they don't need to accept it. If Muslims try to force the issue, it's off to the slammer for them. Meanwhile, minarets are just towers. They can't vote or otherwise influence government.

Actually the Muslims and you are the ones out of control.

I find most giant religious shrines to be offensive as well. But I never advocated their being banned. That just happens to be a personal opinion, which is just as valid as yours.

I said minarets are not required. Nobody said they couldn't have a place of worship, except you claim that, not us. A majority of mosques do not have them, but to claim it as some sort of international right is false.

Your answer is 'Let's invent an international that only protects a single religious group's right to impose their religion on the rest of society.' Mine is there is no such law period. Unless you have a link to one that you have so far not presented. So your comment of 'Screw Law' is bogus. Stop inventing laws.

Now for your 'Screw Ethics', it is your ethics that are in question. We have the right not to have somebody else's religion imposed on our society. What is ethical about that? Just because some countries do not allow them to do whatever they want is not unethical. Allowing one group to ignore the laws of the nation they live in is.

The 'We don't like Muslims' might be more appropriate if they weren't the ones that are so intolerant of us. They wish to invent laws that impose their will on the majority. Guess what - push any majority hard enough and they will push back. Just because you are a willing dhimmi does not mean the rest of us are willing to join you.

Your comment 'This is not reasoning, it's weaseling. If justifies everything but a good old fashion pogrom, though I figure one could probably work that in to.' First off I find the comment about a pogrom to be very offensive, especially considering that we Jews are always the ones on the receiving end of them. We have never been the ones to institute them. Nor is pointing out the facts weaselling. You can not find any facts to support those ridiculuous claims, so you resort to obfuscation and invention.

I merely followed your assertion to its unavoidable end.

Many things are not "required for worship," minarets, mosques, church's steeples.

This is not the burden that the law speaks to however.


It is the Swiss who must prove the limitation is required.

So yes, they do have just such an international right to build minarets


..and yet apparently history has taught us nothing.

Your grasp on logic is puzzling me. Who is talking about mere architecture? The Swiss contention against minarets, and mosques is an unwillingness to allow Islamic law to flourish by means of establishing an Islamic counter culture within Switzerland. The actual architectural properties of the buildings being used is utterly irrellevent to the questions you posed. It is the fact that mosques are being used to generate and solidify internally independent societies that do not recognise their host cultures and seek to set up their own cultural laws within them. This is not paranoia. It is already happening. The contention here is not that a place of worship is required, but rather what that place of worship will be used for.


That all depends on what a mosque is for. If this were simply a matter of people wishing to pray to their god, then there would be no problem.


Neither have been banned in Denmark, and yet we are still ritualistically characterised as racists.


...eh?




You can rest assured that Denmark does all it can to uphold international law, far more for example than your own country and far more than the arms peddling Swedes who on account of our immigration laws dare to accuse us of racism whilst their hardware helps annhilate people from one end of the planet to the other.

Denmark, much like Switzerland, is a very tolerant country and we do not start wars or manufacture weaponry to prop up our economy. We have not banned head scarves, nor have we banned mosques. Our country has a constituion which grants liberty and freedom to all citizens, regardless of who they are, where they were born, the colour of their skin or the character of their faith. Not that this has made any difference at all to our reputation in the Islamic world. We are a very easy going people, but there is a line in the sand across which we will not allow any one to trespass. This is our country and any one who threatens it does so at their own expense. Islamic law is not wanted and any one who tries to implement it, whether under the guise of missionary work, or by means of violence will be dealt with accordingly.


Try reading your own words!!! What world are you talking about? ethical government!!? Are you making a joke?

Yes the hypocrisy is rank indeed when Swiss intolerance of Islamic law weighs heavier in the global media than the mass murder and mayhem that characterizes those countries where Islamic law has already been allowed to gain a foot hold.

If Switzerland has a problem with Muslims then there is no point in banning minarets.

Honestly this is almost surreal, AuthorMusician put it just fine. If someone is undermining Swiss law well try them in a court of law.

Banning minarets has nothing to do with the threat of Islamic law.


I would never support labeling a nation that didn't deserve it racist.

But France, parts of Germany, and now Switzerland are simply inviting the charge with these nonsensical laws.

If a nation wishes to avoid being charges with bigotry, they should stop acting bigoted.


The line is laid out clearly in human rights law and yet many seem eager to trample it when it means they can lash out at Muslims.


Last I check no one has bombed or sanctioned Switzerland.

Muslim wrongdoing is not shield for Switzerland.

Two wrong have never made a right.

Is the push to ban minarets in Switzerland justified?

I can see no valid reason for it. Minarets in and of themselves do not impose Islamic Law. This would be like banning the building of a cross because it represents Catholic Law. I understand the desire to maintain the laws of Switzerland, but a minaret does nothing to disrupt the laws of Switzerland.

Is such a ban allowable under international law?

Considering the European Convention on Human Rights, I think the Swiss would have a difficult time justfiying the need for this ban.

What are the chances of actually forcing a referendum? Passing the Ban?

The rationality of a particular course of action is, often times, not a good indicator of how these things turn out. I wouldn't be surprised if it passes.

Sorry if I don't sympathize with de facto segregation in England, Moif. The U.S. has experienced waves of white flight and the Union survives.


This is a zoning issue, not a religious issue. The same laws that allow megachurches here would allow megaminarets. You said the ban isn't justified if it targets only minarets. Well, does it only target minarets?


I don't get this at all. You mention some Christians getting their heads loped off in some distant land, under a foreign sovereign. What does this have to do with minarets in European countries? Are you saying (1) European immigration authorities are granting Christian-head-loping Muslim murderers visas, (2) Muslims need to be treated as second-class citizens with second-class rights so they don't destroy Europe, or (3) all Muslims are murderers?


If the Swiss want to shape society, perhaps they should not fund religion:


Let's see. Religious organizations can compete for state taxes and can have their ideology taught in public schools. In theory, if enough Muslims migrate to one canton (state) Islam can compete with Christianity.

What the hell did Switzerland or any European state with a state religion and/or a European state that funds religion think was going to happen? If it wasn't Muslims migrating in large numbers and/or having more babies in European countries, it could be Hindus or Buddhists competing with state religions to "impose" their ideology on society, encourage sympathetic first- and second-generation immigrants to run for office, and use preexisting laws that allow cooperation between church and state to get a leg up on establishment religions. If Switzerland or any European state does not want to deal with creeping Islam they should raise a wall between church and state, or restrict immigration to Christians from Western states.

Don't cry me a river about how Christianity has shaped the character of European states and deserves protected status. Christianity is a religion that can carry as much emotional baggage as any religion. The only reason people think Christianity is neutered is because Christians got tired of killing each other and a religious challenger hasn't questioned the status quo until recently. Yes I know virtually every Muslim state doesn't suffer religious freedom, but a democratic state runs the risk of refusing to extend equal protection under law when the law itself allows religious competition through the state.

Of course there is, its what's known as "rolling up the welcome mat." Its a mild step in protecting that which makes the Swiss, well, Swiss. Its a means of discouraging more immigration, and if effective it greatly lessons the likelihood of sterner measures. You may plant your little engineer's head firmly in the sand if you wish, but there is a conflict of civilizations going on here. Apparently, the Swiss are beginning to realize it, and many are concluding that the current Swiss flavor is far preferable to an Islamic theocracy.

Is the push to ban minarets in Switzerland justified?
Yes.

Is such a ban allowable under international law?
Don't care. International law is not a suicide pact.

What are the chances of actually forcing a referendum? Passing the Ban?
Forcing a referendum? Pretty good. Passing the ban? Don't know, I'd say it depends mostly on how well informed the Swiss citizenry are regarding the impacts of Islamic cultural incursions, versus how deeply steeped in multiculturalism.

Apparently the majority party of Switzerland thinks it does and for my part, seeing what is taking place in Europe with my own eye's, I'm inclined to agree with them. The trouble with AuthorMusician's argument is simply this: this is not about terrorism. It is not actually against the law to enter a European nation, receive citizenship and then work towards changing it from within by establishing a counter culture.

The laws we have today, which were designed to protect minorities, grant them so much protection that the laws themselves have become a means to destroying and replacing European society. It is not illegal in Europe to have many children and to encourage your fellow mosque goer's to have many children and to eventually flood your host country with your off spring. On the contrary, due to the anticipation of granting asylum to the undertrodden, Europe's laws grant these people every advantage in just such an endeavour.

What is happening in Switzerland now is the host country, having become aware of this growing threat to itself is striking back by seeking to change its laws to limit the impact this ideology can have. It remains to be seen if the Swiss will vote for this proposal. Personally I do not see any reason to suppose that the ECHR takes jurisprudence over the democratic will of a nations people, that to which you blithely refer to as 'mob rule'. If the ECHR is a caltrop on the road to survival, then it must be removed. Plain and simple. Survival is the paramount consideration for any state and any thing which threatens a state, whether it is a subversive ideology, or an international law must be dealt with.

Put in other words, abiding by international laws which allow our countries to be invaded from within, is unacceptable. Especially when those laws are not universally followed.


Neither would I, but alas, you and I are only observers in the arena.


Has it ever occured to you that altruism is not a survival trait?

It seems to me that what your lamenting is people taking steps to protect themselves, not against girls wearing headscarves, or the sky line being penetrated by screaching minarets, but against the ideology which demands them. An ideology that seeks to replace and take over, by any means possible and with the utmost prejudism.


Ja?

Please feel free to provide any evidence of Denmark having trampled Muslims rights...


Who is talking about bombs?

As it happens the Swiss police have uncovered evidence of various Muslim organisations using Switzerland as a banking nexus to fund extensive Islamic terrorism and during one raid uncovered evidence that the Muslim Brotherhood (usually described as being 'moderate') is anything but. This raid was quickly covered up and detailed information on what the Swiss police found at the MB's headquarters is hard to ascertain. I have this information but can no longer link to any mainstream media source willing to publish it online.

Instead, allow me to quote the Muslims Brotherhoods stated aims:
Link.




A minaret is a tower from which the call to prayer goes out, five times a day. It is not the same as a cross, more like a bell tower, and if Christianity were to be invented tomorrow, there is no way that bell towers would be accepted into Europe either.





The USA has had the space to accomidate such changes, and I'm sure the native Americans, if asked, would not be so eager to agree with you.

Consider also that Europe has already seen the consequences of one Middle Eastern religion being introduced into it. The previous social order of Europe was utterly swpet aside by christianity, and as often as not by means of pogroms, massacres and religious war. With all due respect to the USA; you ain't seen nothing yet!


That seems to be the case yes. If it were up to me, I would not propose such a law. I would seek to ban all such towers, be they minarets or christian bell towers or any other similar public nuisance. As far as I can see. the Swiss are singling out the Muslims because they feel threatened by them. How far this is justified is difficult to assess without being Swiss. My views depend largely on a juxtaposition between Denmark and Switzerland as they are similar, but of course, there are big differences between them too. Such a law as this would never be considered in Denmark.


They thought the Muslims would gradually intergate into main stream European society as all other ethnic minorites have done/are doing.

They were gravely mistaken.

I am with you Moif and so are many others in the US. We have a similar problem – illegal immigrants come into the US (12-20 million) and not only do we do little to find and deport them we make their children US citizens and therefore not “illegal”. God only knows how many are here.

Anchor Babies: The Children of Illegal Aliens


Each year, thousands of women enter the United States illegally to give birth, knowing that their child will thus have U.S. citizenship. Their children immediately qualify for a slew of federal, state, and local benefit programs. In addition, when the children turn 21, they can sponsor the immigration of other relatives, becoming "anchor babies" for an entire clan.

http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?page...ssuecenters4608


Certainly Switzerland and most European countries are now waking up to the problem

I don't understand the Native Americans comment. The U.S. may have the space to accommodate, but white flight discourages upward mobility, and takes investment out of mixed neighborhoods (or neighborhoods with potential to mix economically).


You and I discussed this in PMs once. You read a book about Christianizing Europe. The fact that Europe has had a firsthand experience with this already makes accommodating religion just that much more stupid. Our side of the pond ain't seen nothing yet and never will 'cause our Founding Fathers decided not support that religious infighting nonsense.


Then assuming their constitution supports religious freedom I can't sympathize with the Swiss. They're free to trash some religious principles to give other religious principles prominence if they want and incur the criticism. I would support a zoning all-out ban too.


As far as I'm concerned that depends entirely on their constitution.


Has Switzerland had so many immigrants with non-Christian beliefs in the country before?


As far as I know we're not talking about illegal immigrant Muslims, Ted. And I would not support amending the Constitution to repeal citizenship to babies born in our territories. I don't want to be like European states where there is no wall separating church and state, and I don't want to be like European states that take your mother's mother's mother's place of birth into consideration when it comes to our constitutional rights.

Is the push to ban minarets in Switzerland justified?

Maybe, but not for the reasons being given. They are not, after all, proposing a ban on the building of new mosques, just a ban on the minarets. Since this is the case, I find it hard to believe that this is about a clash of faiths so much as a clash of cultures - peaceful, quiet Switzerland doesn't like the idea of amplified muezzins chanting calls to prayer eight times per day, day and night. Church bells are the closest Christian analogy, and their are hardly ever rung much before mid-morning, let alone at the crack of dawn.

Having lived within earshot of a minaret in West London, and having visited my Muslim landlord and seen and heard his call-to-prayer radio, which piped the muezzins calls to prayer through without disturbing anyone in the intervening distance between his microphone and my landlord's living-room, I tend to sympathise with the urge not to allow minarets, if only for this reason.

Is such a ban allowable under international law?

Yes - I think the noise disturbance of minarets used as intended could easily be argued to outweigh the small limitations on freedom of religion being imposed by banning minarets alone. Most people these days have some kind of personal timepiece. Perhaps it's too much to expect them to know what time the prayers are supposed to take place, and keep an eye on said timepiece so they don't miss them?

That said, a ban on minarets could (and should, in any officially secular society) also apply to Christian and Buddhist bells, etc. Which would, given my announced position that all religions are equally daft, be fine with me.

What are the chances of actually forcing a referendum? Passing the Ban?

Given the low-level granular federalism of Switzerland, I think it unlikely.

The only way it could go through is if people on all sides with agendas to force sharia law on others, or to demonise otherwise law-abiding religious minorities in one country because of bad behaviour by co-religionists in other countries (to my knowledge, Swiss muslims one of the more integrated and law-abiding Muslim minorities in Europe - far from the head-chopping maniacs to which other posters have referred) hijack the issue as some kind of totem for their intemperate and intolerant ideas... oops!

I would also point out that the call to prayer is not an issue here. That is already under restriction in Switzerland.

The issue is concerning the minarets as structures.

...and again the minarets are not a threat to survival in the lest.

If radical Islam is a threat to the survival of the nation, arrest them, try them, and if convicted jail them, minarets are just scenery.

We learned long ago that even democracy must have limits, tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.


It seems to me that the laws deal with the headscarves and minarets but do nothing to confront the ideology.

Still not one shred of evidence to link minarets to the threat of radical Islam.

Well Lesly when the law is being clearly subverted I disagree. Many women for Mexico, Central America and elsewhere sneak into the US just to have their kid – who we then have to support as a citizen regardless of the deceit implicit in the activity.

This has nothing to do with “church and state” and a lot to do with who we want in this country. IMO illegal aliens should go home and take the kids with them. We are surely glad to have the legal aliens and their children.

1.) Yes, it is. Turnea, what you don't seem to realize is that you cannot fight an oppressive culture without fighting the culture.

Suppose for a second that Switzerland passed a law saying everyone MUST eat at least one pork product every day. Would you say they are trying to fight "evil Muslim eating habits"? The effect of such a law would be that it would filter out all the hardcore Muslims, who could not comply with a law like this no matter what the consequences. So, in theory, the only Muslims that would remain in Switzerland would be the ones that don't really care about all that. My example might be a bit silly, but you do understand the concept, right? Laws like this, or the headscarf issue are a filter, a simple way of asking "Are you Swiss first, Muslim second, or Muslim first, Swiss second?" If you make the conditions in a country such that the nutters have to decide between their religion and their new country, you make it harder for them to rot your country from the inside the way they have been doing everywhere else in Europe.

2.) Well, being that I do not believe in international law, I could really care less.

3.) I don't know, but good luck, in any case.

Looms I don't really have to argue with that post. From my perspective it is precisely what is wrong with this whole idea.

Freedom of religion?
Dead.

International Human Rights Law?
Deader Still.

Basic Respect for other Human Beings?
Put the bullet in myself.

So I think I'll just let it stand.

For those who still care I did lay out the law in question in the opening post so it's easy to check.

No. I don't get it folks. I understand that Islamic Extremism is a threat to Western values and the values of any and all liberal societies...But what exactly does a ban on minarets do to assuage Islamic extremism's effect on western cultures? If anything, this ban is just something extremists can point to that shows the infidel "picking on" Muslims. So again, what exactly does this proposed ban do to fight Muslim extremism or Islamic law?
As Turnea said, international law is dead. The difference between Turnea and myself is that I think it should be dead.
I have no idea, I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to social policies in Switzerland.

CP

This is not a religious issue. I repeat, not a religious issue. It's a zoning issue. Looms's example falters because we don't ask Christians if they're Swiss first. Your link doesn't work because international law doesn't speak directly to building permits.

It seems to me the nutters on both sides have turned this into a religious issue and both of you, people for and against building a minaret, are falling for it and exciting the nutters in the process. For bonus points, targeting minarets to the exclusion of other religious or pseudo-religious buildings fuels the Muslim perception that Western states believe in two democratic standards.

Ted, your reply still has nothing to do with this thread. Of course the "anchor baby" problem doesn't have anything to do with church and state, and I wasn't trying to say it does. You may want a lot of things for this country, but you should talk about Switzerland and her problems instead of our "anchor baby" problem.

Lesly could you point to the legislation or the MP's who claim this is not a religious issue.

Is the ban not targeting minarets?

I know what a minaret is, moif. But this ban isn't about noise. It is about the minaret as a power symbol. A cross is a Christian power symbol. You seem to be implying that Islam was invented yesterday - but, we both know it wasn't.

I guess I need to clarify. Moif would have to translate the law or a speech for us if he could. A ban doesn't have to target minarets or Muslims to the exclusion of all others to "save Europe". Switzerland itself is turning this into a religious issue but it doesn't have to be. I'm assuming Switzerland has zoning ordinances on the books already.

The ban could be content-neutral, meaning it would not have to single out Muslims. Article 9, part 2 is pretty weak as worded, too. Switzerland's parliament could disingenuously counter they're banning minarets "in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others". Which is why, IMO, Switzerland's constitution is the determining factor and provides the best argument with which to criticize the Swiss.

I know Switzerland could try and duplicate the French evasion of the statute but just for the purposes of debate I would point out that this only turns my stomach more.

A legal challenge may be better placed in the Swiss Constitution, but we here don't have to pretend to be duped that this measure is anything but a restriction on the freedom of religion.

Calling it zoning doesn't change the nature of the law.

What, exactly, is this all about?

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

The above was written in 1899 by Winston Churchill.

The quote is found here, in "Waiting for Churchill, or Godot?" an article by Fjordman, a Norwegian author.

As I said, and Fjordman notes, more and more Europeans are starting to awaken. From his article:

Recent opinion polls indicate that there is now a critical mass of ordinary Europeans who no longer buy the brainwashing about Islam being a peaceful religion.

In Germany, according to a study commissioned by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper, 56 percent of Germans said they believed a "clash of cultures" already existed. 71 percent said they believed Islam to be "intolerant," some 91 per cent said they associated Islam with oppression of women. Asked if there should be a ban on the building of mosques in Germany as long as the building of churches in some Islamic states is forbidden, 56 per cent agreed. There was even considerable backing for ending Germany's constitutional right of freedom of religion with regard to Islam. Asked if strict limits should be imposed on the practice of Islam in Germany to protect the country, 40 per cent said they would support such moves. In the Netherlands, 63 per cent of respondents thought Islam was incompatible with modern European life. Even in Sweden, the purgatory of Political Correctness, opinion polls have revealed that two out of three Swedes doubt whether Islam can be combined with Swedish society. Recently, I have also for the first time seen visible cracks in the wall of censorship on public debate in Sweden. Change is in the air, all over Europe.

The bolded sounds like Tit For Tat - The Best Way to Play Iterative Prisoner's Dilemma

Bikerdad...So Europeans are awakening to the threat of radical Islam, my question is, what does banning minarets do to weaken radical Islam in any way? What exactly would a minaret ban do to combat Islamic extremism?

CP

I think you mean it doesn't change the result. It's the best we could hope for but then again I'm speaking from a perspective that is inherently federalist. Last decade the City of Hialeah banned animal sacrifice because they couldn't stomach such a "primitive" religious practice on U.S. soil. The Supreme Court struck the ordinance down as blatantly unconstitutional, but added that the city could pass content-neutral ordinances. The result is the same, but at least the Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye can no longer say it is being targeted by the government to the exclusion of other religious beliefs.

From BD's link:


That polling question wasn't skewed or anything. Hey, if European countries want to scale back rights for one ethnic group again, be my guest. If the clash is going on right now, I'd say the Muslims have already won and Europeans are destroying European culture by their own hands. Grats, Muslims.

My turn to clarify.

My idea of the "nature" of the law is the sum product of its purpose and its result.

What it is intended to do and what it actually does. Calling this zoning changes neither and if it isn't a violation of the letter of the law it is simply an effective loophole to violate its spirit.

I happen to believe the spirit (purpose) of human rights law matter as much, if not more, than the letter.

Couldn't agree more with this:

Is the push to ban minarets in Switzerland justified?

Well, that is certainly up to the Swiss. I can say that if it were America, I'd be heartily against this. There are many better ways to oppose the deleterious effect of religion without infringing on the right to practice said religion. However, if one wanted to ban all public displays of religion, and crosses are banned along with minarets, stars of David, pentacles, om symbols, and the like, it would be overkill but at least more fair.

This ban seems like a desperate action rather than a justified one. Certain restrictions I can understand--for example, banning head scarves that cover one's eyes in situations where eye contact is crucial (photo ID, perhaps schools). Such restrictions should be considered when harm is certain or probable, not merely possible.

Is such a ban allowable under international law?

I don't see why not. Far worse seems to be overlooked and/or condoned internationally. I'm not sure I really support the concept of international law except as defined in cases of POWs and conflict that involve multiple nations.

Turnea, let me put this a different way. Let's say that you live in a beautiful house in the nice part of town. I live in a trailer park in the middle of nowhere. I say to you, "Hey, Turnea, I really want to get out of the trailer park I heard you have extra room, I'll pay half the bills if you let me and my family move in." You decide it's not a problem, and we sign a contract saying that as long as I pay half the bills, I can live there. You further make it clear to me that this is my house now, as much as yours. So, I move in.

Week 1
Everything seems to be going ok. No problems.

Week 2
You notice that I am not exactly the cleanest person in the world, but say nothing. After all, this is my house too.

Week 4
A dead car shows up on your lawn. You get irritated, but calm down when I remind you that this is my house too.


Fast forward a few months....

I never wear anything other than a dirty beater, the same dirty beater, all the time. Seeing my wife in anything other than a muumuu is a concept that exists only in your imagination. My greasy mullet makes Bob Marley's hair seem pristine. My 3 year old is running around drooling dip spit all over everything. You know those ginormous flags at used car dealerships? I put one that size in front of the house, only its a conferderate flag. Five times a day I start blaring banjo music. As you are tearing you hair out, I let you know that I did nothing to violate our contract, and in fact I am a bit hurt by your blatant lack of respect for my culture. And besides, there are more of us than there is of you, so shut your piehole. You ask me why did I even bother moving out of the trailer park, if all I did was turn your house into the same thing. Instead of answering, I infrom you that my inlaws are coming to stay with me, and they are not as "moderate" as I am, in fact they tend to settle conflict with shotguns. Do you really want to anger them? Not that I condone violence, of course.

Now, technically, I did nothing illegal. I pay on time every month, making sure I did not violate our contract. You, on the other hand, just want to know what the hell happened to your house, and why you have no say in your house being turned into a dump, but every time you bring it up I call you a bigot.

Analogy # 2: Ever have a friend that is just a super nice guy that gets along with absolutely everyone? And when someone does not get along with him, you start wondering what the hell is wrong with them? That is pretty much how I feel about places like Netherlands, Denmark, Switzerland, etc. They accept everyone. They let you lead whatever personal lifestyle you want to lead. And if these places are intolerant towards your beliefs, I have to wonder what's wrong with you beliefs. And in this case I don't have to wonder.

I find it very ironic that it's always the fundie Christians and the fundie Muslims that wail about being oppressed, two groups that pretty much have a monopoly on oppression. Somehow there are never oppressed Buddhists. Maybe its because they practice their religion without shoving it down anybody's throat, leave everyone else alone, and in turn are left alone and treated with the same respect they give others.

If everywhere you go you get into a fight, it's not that you consistently keep running into bad people, I would guess YOU are the problem.

Idealism is good. Pragmatism is better.

Analogies are good.

Facts are better.

Fact is we have freedom of religion.

The Swiss ban is like getting annoyed with the roommate and then killing his dog, it's illegal and wacko to boot.

I think my position is quite a libertarian one. The Muslims have a right to do what they want so long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's freedom.

I deal with seeing confederate flags all the time.

Oh well, that's life.

Sure I think its annoying but I have no right to pass an ordinance banning bluegrass.

No, the Swiss ban is like getting annoyed with the roommate and demanding that he either leave or keep the place the way it was when they got there.

Nobody is getting killed. And I'll bet you anything that the normal, westernized Muslims that moved to become part of Swiss society, to change for the better, and give their family a normal life will not care one bit how many minarets Switzerland has. The only people this affects is those that specifically want their minarets towering over every European city as a symbol of taking over, with that "Feline in Heat" song blaring 5 times a day.

You seem to think that stuff like this occurs in a vacuum. It does not. The fact of the matter is, they have figured out a way to use European laws against the Europeans. As Bikerdad said, laws are not a suicide pact. Yes, the Muslims are being singled out. And nobody is to blame for that except the Muslims. The other alternative is collective punishment for every Swiss citizen. Why should it come to that? They move to a new place and then do their best to turn it into the same 3rd world toilet they left.

Once again, if everywhere you go you get into a fight, YOU are the problem.

In chronological order...

I expressed myself poorly. I meant to point out that segregation didn't help the previous owners of Noth American retain their authority. That a large influx of unwanted immigrants is what founded the USA in the first place! The lesson is there for any one to observe. History repeats itself because people simply don't believe what they are witnessing.

How fortunate to have had such founding fathers in the recent past eh...

Never is a long time Lesly. Do you suppose that if Europe fails, the USA will survive. There are already a great many Muslims in the USA and whilst their presence may yet be felt to the same degree that it is here in Europe, they are already working towards the downfall of your country. I've been in this kin do fdebate many times in the recent past and I know one thing for sure. There are always plenty of Muslims who can be described in glowing terms as moderates, integrated, westernized, but these individuals do not have any sway over the ideology they subscribe to. Moderate Muslims have always existed, even as far back as the Middle Ages, and they have never been able to exert a moderating influence over the ideology of Islam. When push comes to shove, the moderates always back down or die.


There has never been an immigration of this scale into any part of Europe, by any group of people.




I think you'll find that there are already laws, new and old dealing with radical Islam, but that is neither here nor there since the threat identified here is not radical Islam, it is Islamic law.

Now, you could argue that the two are one and the same, and I personally wouldn't disagree with you then. That Islamic law is radical Islam, but in fact, most authorities do not seem to hold this view. Radical Islam is usually deemed to mean terrorism or imams who cry out against homosexuals or womens rights, where as Islamic law is often described (by people who seem bent on naiveté) as being more broad minded and open to liberal interpretation.

Asking me to provide evidence of something I have not claimed is a pretty poor response as well. Especially since you don't offer much beyond your own personal opinion in return. In fact I have not linked minarets to 'radical islam', for in truth I do not even believe there is any difference between what is usually deemed Islam and 'Islamic extremism'. Its all extremism to me. I simply do not have the surplus of moral depravity required to pretend that Islam is anything but a highly subjective ideology of oppression and that those who do not recognise it as such are either suffering from self delusion or are simply too dull witted to appreciate the teachings of the Mohammed.




....back to Lesly

I disagree. I see this as a matter of defending democratic Europe. This is a matter of conflict which goes way beyond 'zoning', unless I've misunderstood what zoning is.


This I can agree with. Targetting minarets alone is a double standard.

The thing is though, I no longer care. The lesson here is simple and horrible. Freedom of religion is a good idea until some one uses it as a subversive political tool to undermine my country. Frankly, I already see religion as the curse of human weakness in the face of confronting reality, so when faced with a religion that seeks to undermine and destroy my country then the depths of my indifference to what Muslims think of us is immeasurable, especially given the displays of affection we've already been witnessed to before we've even begun to strike back.

The horror lies in what must be undertaken to safeguard our country if this trend of immigration from the Middle East into Europe continues. As the social density of Muslim enclaves increases then so to does the likelihood of warfare. The violence (which is still ongoing) in the major cities of France, is echoed across Europe and I cannot but see it as a preclude to the further Balkanization/Lebanonization of Europe. Taking a look at what is happening at the moment in Lebanon only further enhances this perception. War is coming, ever so surely. It is being forced upon us and these measures to prevent the spread of Islam into Europe, the bans on minarets and headscarves are but vain attempts to stem the tide.




You are correct. It is a symbol of power. This is about social power and who controls Swiss society.




....and back to Lesly again

Alas I speak neitherGerman or French. Danish and English are the limits of my linguistic abilities.


Do you have a viable alternative?

As I said before, survival is paramount and there is nothing to prevent the Muslims from simply out breeding us. Europeans cannot afford to maintain their societies and have multiple babies at the same time. Our economies cannot sustain that kind of poplation growth, nor can the environment. Within the previous parameters of law, we could not stop Muslims from entering our countries either, nor could we do so by virtue of the EU's open borders. These laws are gradually being changed. Denmark was one of the first and it earned us the accusation of racism from Sweden's intellectual elite. Meanwhile Sweden* is rapidly declining into a Muslin majority nation as 'white flight' see's more and more ethnic Swedes fleeing the violence and crime that is gripping their cities for the first time in centuries whilst we, as a fellow member state of the EU, share an open border with them.

Its no laughing matter. The unutterable has become the common place in our political dialogue now and we can no longer afford to give Islam the benefit of the doubt. That doubt has long since been abused. I asked turnea a simple question but he ignored it and so I shall repeat it ina slightly different way.
Is altruism a survival trait?

European culture has been around for a very long time, and out dates 'human rights' by most of its history. What we have today seems grand, until you suddenly find yourself an alien in your own country and that is an experience more and more Europeans are becoming subject too. The question is why should we wait until we follow the Byzantines into oblivion? Are our countries worth fighting for? Is 'Freedom of Religion' more important than the survival of the nations we have built? What future do I offer my child if she is to grow up in a world where women must wear the veil? Since turnea and I first debated the French headscarf issue here on AD, there has been a marked increase in Muslim women wearing the headscarf in Denmark. The 'integration which was argued would happen, and was once used as an argument for immigration, has not happened. Two or three generations down the line and Muslims in Denmark are still not integrated and show a marked hostility towards any idea that they should. This very day I saw an ethnic Danish girl wearing a full body covering and she was not the first , nor even the tenth such I've seen this last year. There is no law that can protect us from this invasion. Any thing we do will violate some thing or other. Or choices are stark, Accept the inevitable with a shrug and hope the Muslims will treat us nicely as a Swedish minister once said it; "We must be nice to the Muslims because then when they are the majority, they will be nice to us".

Or we can say; No. To hell with their rights, to hell with what people think of us. Our survival is worth fighting for. The fact is freedom of religion is just a concept and not a very old one at that. In its short life span the laws which uphold this concept have not been a success, even in those countries which were foolish enough to recognise them.



*Sweden and Switzerland are two seperate nations

Oh, my goodness... I sometimes wonder how much thought goes into statements like this. Obviously you've never heard of this little place called Tibet. No... they were never oppressed. Or were they? Or are they still? But there are some who claim the Tibetan Buddhists themselves were oppressive. Perhaps they deserved what they got.



And this is just the Swiss flexing their societal muscles? And banning minarets does what exactly apart from being a symbolic act that is likely to cause some of the problems the Swiss would be hoping to avoid? It would be a lot like banning the Mexican flag here in the States.

Your roommate example may be analogous to a public nuisance, but it's apparent the Swiss aren't treating minarets like a nuisance. They're treating minarets like a foreign takeover. First generation Italian, German and Irish immigrants certainly didn't keep the place the same way they found it. Nor were they, let's face it, as law-abiding as they are today. Heck, Irish and French immigrants who ended up on our shores because of their own revolutions wanted to overthrow the Federalist government for sympathizing with the British.

If you don't want the scenery, the foods and sounds of daily life to change don't allow immigration. However, if the sounds get out of hand, by all means regulate it.


I see (I think). It sounds like you're a Hobbesian natural rights kinda guy. I tend to believe the only rights afforded are those recognized by a majority, else slavery and many other examples of human exploitation would never happen. I think that while you and I may agree on several issues, we'll never agree on the why and I will find "dishonest" legal remedies more tolerable than you.


Moif, it's not about numbers for me. Numbers help, but the United States of America didn't start with an influx of unwanted immigrants that subdued the territories in one fell swoop. It is about the democratic experiment to me. It will survive this or democracy will change as we know it (at least in Europe).


Yes. I don't criticize Bush's illegal activities in the name of "national security" just to get a shot at him.


First, tell me what these treasonous Muslims are up to, then tell me how the country will stand by while they limit/destroy our constitutional rights.


Thankfully the U.S. doesn't rely on moderate Muslims to moderate the rest of the U.S. Muslim population.


That explains a lot to me.


You do not defend democracy by perverting it by singling one group for government action.


Why is it the U.S. doesn't seem to have this problem? It can't be because Islam is that badass.