WaPo: When did Switzerland become Europe’s Saudi Arabia?

posted at 10:55 am on December 1, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Mona Eltahawy doesn’t just blast the Swiss for their human-rights hypocrisy after voting to ban new construction of minarets over the weekend.  The Muslim essayist also takes the occasion to blast Muslim critics of the referendum for their sudden hue and cry over human rights themselves.  In today’s Washington Post, Eltahawy makes the most important point of all, which is the pointlessness of it all:

My question for Switzerland and other European countries enthralled by the right wing: When did Saudi Arabia become your role model?

Even before 57.5 percent of Swiss voters cast ballots on Sunday to ban the building of minarets by Muslims, it was obvious that Switzerland’s image of itself as a land of tolerance was as full of holes as its cheese. When the right-wing Swiss People’s Party (SVP) came to power in 2007, it used a poster showing a white sheep kicking black sheep off the country’s flag. This was no reference to black sheep as rebels — the right wing doesn’t do cute — but to skin color and foreigners. Posters the SVP displayed before Sunday’s referendum showed women covered from head to toe in black, standing in front of phallic-looking minarets. Such racism preceded and fed into the bigotry that fueled the referendum.

Predictably, the election results sparked cries of “Islamophobia,” but the situation for Switzerland’s 400,000 Muslims is not (yet) dire. The four existing minarets were not affected by the vote, and there are still 150 mosques or prayer rooms in which to worship.

And that’s really the central pointlessness of this vote.  Switzerland has only four minarets, and the referendum does nothing to those.  It has over 150 places of Islamic worship, and it doesn’t bar the creation of more, either.  The Swiss outlawed an architectural design, mainly as an expression of frustration over several years of incidents, including riots over editorial cartoons and the murder of Theo Van Gogh, among others, for criticism of Islam and radical Islamists.  It’s almost an expression of utter impotence.

And that’s too bad, because as Eltahawy argues, we need more substantive debates over the problems radical Islam and shari’a law present to Western societies:

Raising the specter of “political Islam” or “creeping Islamicization” to frighten voters diminishes the concerns that ought to be discussed, such as an ideology’s opposition to many minority and women’s rights. And that’s where the difficult questions lie for Europe’s Muslims. They, too, have a right wing that breeds on fear and preaches an exclusionary and inward-looking Islam. It is the perfect foil for the non-Muslim political right wing on the continent.

Eltahawy then turns her rhetorical guns on Muslim protesters of the vote:

The Grand Mufti of Egypt, for example, denounced the ban as an “attack on freedom of belief.” I would take him more seriously if he denounced in similar terms the difficulty Egyptian Christians face in building churches in his country. They must obtain a security permit just for renovations.

Last year, the first Catholic church — bearing no cross, no bells and no steeple — opened in Qatar, leaving Saudi Arabia the only country in the Persian Gulf that bars the building of houses of worship for non-Muslims. In Saudi Arabia, it is difficult even for Muslims who don’t adhere to the ultra-orthodox Wahhabi sect; Shiites, for example, routinely face discrimination.

Bigotry must be condemned wherever it occurs. If majority-Muslim countries want to criticize the mistreatment of Muslims living as minority communities elsewhere, they should be prepared to withstand the same level of scrutiny regarding their own mistreatment of minorities.

Even for those who see Islam itself as an existential threat anywhere it resides, the minaret ban hardly addresses the issue.  After all, terrorist recruiters don’t use minarets to attract and radicalize followers.  It’s not the lofty architecture that makes people into crazed terrorists.  The message of the ban is very much the same as Saudi Arabia’s treatment of Christians and Muslim minorities with their building code: they’re not welcome and should leave.

Events like these make me appreciate the wisdom of the First Amendment and the founders who established it.  Through all of the passions of the American body politic, from Know-Nothings to today, that fundamental tenet of religious freedom has rescued us from serious and rather embarrassing missteps, such as the one taken by the Swiss this week.  The US has around two million Muslims, the vast majority of which live peacefully in our communities.  For those who do not, we trust our law-enforcement agencies to deal specifically with lawbreaking rather than conduct purges based on religious affiliation, which is how the Swiss should have left it.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Yes, we need debate about Islamism and “Islamophobia,” if such a creature exists, but a reasonable discussion is forbidden, taboo, racist in and of itself.

By enforcing political correctness, the left is guaranteeing the rise of a true radical right. Isn’t that how it always goes in Europe? And if you don’t think it can happen here, study the Hasan case. No discussion of his radical nature was permitted, and now 14 people are dead.

PattyJ on December 1, 2009 at 10:59 AM

They’re not Saudi Arabia until they ban mosques (not just minarets), and start flogging people for secretly participating on Muslim religious services. Oh, and prosecuting people for practicing witchcraft…

Realist on December 1, 2009 at 11:00 AM

Switzerland has never been as religious tolerant as the US. They don’t have the 1 st amendment. Their history was they had banned Jews for centuries so banning minarets is not out of character. It may be a symbol but it is a strong message that islamification of Switzerland will not be tolerated.

RAH on December 1, 2009 at 11:03 AM

The US has around two million Muslims, the vast majority of which live peacefully in our communities.

This is really only interesting if it means the level of crime in their communities matches the rest of the population, and/or if the crimes they do commit are not motivated by their belief systems (e.g. honor killings, jihad.)

They may very well pass on the first point; I bet they fail mightily on the second. You’ll have to pardon me if I’m still not comforted.

TexasDan on December 1, 2009 at 11:03 AM

By enforcing political correctness, the left is guaranteeing the rise of a true radical right.

Absolutely. How do you think Swiss voters will react when the “European Court Of Justice” invalidates their vote?

The BNP in England is fed by the failure of the major British political parties to even discuss the issue of whether turning sections of England into Pakistan (with cousin marriage, polygamy, and honor killings) is something that should be stopped.

Realist on December 1, 2009 at 11:04 AM

the swiss understand islam in not a religion,,,,,

JJKRN on December 1, 2009 at 11:05 AM

I’m having a hard time getting worked up over the ban. The line has been drawn long ago, but PC forces some people to be blind to it.

Do you reside in the House of Islam or the House of War? It’s one or the other.

SirGawain on December 1, 2009 at 11:05 AM

If majority-Muslim countries want to criticize the mistreatment of Muslims living as minority communities elsewhere, they should be prepared to withstand the same level of scrutiny regarding their own mistreatment of minorities.

This makes way too much sense to have been printed in WaPo.

forest on December 1, 2009 at 11:09 AM

Islam isn’t just a religion. It is a political movement with religious elements. Believers vs nonbelievers. Why do we have Muslim infiltrators in our military, deliberately using mistranslation to assist Gitmo prisoners? Is CAIR an innocent, religious organization? I’m glad to see Switzerland take a stand. I hope they stand firm.

a capella on December 1, 2009 at 11:09 AM

My gut reaction to this ban was antipathy, but it’s difficult to judge Europe on issues like these, given how far down the demographic drain most of their nations are.

People can see their way of life coming to an abrupt end in the not so distant future, and are looking for a way, any way, to slow it down.

BadgerHawk on December 1, 2009 at 11:09 AM

Switzerland remains unique in the wold and one of the few places where direct democracy is still practiced. This vote made the news but there are lots of other funny local issues which don’t make it to the international press.

lexhamfox on December 1, 2009 at 11:10 AM

a land of tolerance

This is also no longer my greatest goal in life. You’re welcome to come to my country, and live here if we give you permission. The notion that I have to meet you at some halfway point as a result is ridiculous.

We have architectural standards all over the place, Ed, and the idea that western civ has now bottomed out because of the repudiation of a very strong symbol of Islam is unfounded. The Swiss may not have won the battle, but architectural iconograpy is indeed a significant cultural marker, and they have every right to hold the line on this. Don’t forget, they like to put loudspeakers on those minarets.

TexasDan on December 1, 2009 at 11:10 AM

Frankly I think the whole issue is a side show. As Mark Steyn pointed out … Europe is a lost cause and the continent of Europe will be under muslim control by the end of the century if not sooner.

Talk is cheap and the only thing that will save Europe is action. Unfortunately, political correctness, multiculturalism and the EU have successfully beaten down the population of Europe. They are simply sheep awaiting the slaughter.

We’re next.

darwin on December 1, 2009 at 11:10 AM

Just from an asthetic point of view, I’d not want a sea of minarets towering over the contryside. Sort of the Islamic version of cell phone towers. Still, now that I think of it, the ones that do exist could possibly be rented out to the cell phone people. It wouldn’t interfere with calls to prayer and would bring in a little cash. heh!

jeanie on December 1, 2009 at 11:11 AM

The US has around two million Muslims, the vast majority of which live peacefully in our communities. For those who do not, we trust our law-enforcement agencies to deal specifically with lawbreaking…

1) No we DON’T trust our law-enforcement agencies on this. The minarets represent (to me, anyway) little mini-sovereigns where no infidel (white person) is welcome or allowed to participate unless it is for the purpose of joining their jihad. Surveilling these radical mosques has been ummm… problematic for law enforcement, no?

2) “Two million Muslims” in the US: OK, if only 10% of them are radicalized enemies of US, “the great satan” that’s only 200,000 whom we should fear or be wary of. Oh sure, no problem. What? only 1% are truly dangerous? Well, 20,000 then. Sure, no problem for law enforcement, right?

Godawmighty Ed, land on your head when you fell out of bed this morning?

Fishoutofwater on December 1, 2009 at 11:13 AM

Kudos to PattyJ. I have been writing about this trend for several years. If the mainstream political entities will not address the serious problems related to Islamism, then the banner will be hoisted by some group that may not in itself be palatable – but is the only option available.
This is occurring in Europe from the BNP to Vlaams Belang. It can happen here as well if the issue is not aggressively addressed. And as I have mentioned before – not confronting the radicals is dangerous to the truly moderate (no sharia) Muslims.

maninthemiddle on December 1, 2009 at 11:14 AM

I think the Swiss are smart to send the message that Islamification of their country will not happen without resistance… They better start having some kids though or it won’t matter what they do now because in 25 years their Muslim majority population will overturn what they do…

CCRWM on December 1, 2009 at 11:15 AM

We have architectural standards all over the place, Ed, and the idea that western civ has now bottomed out because of the repudiation of a very strong symbol of Islam is unfounded. The Swiss may not have won the battle, but architectural iconograpy is indeed a significant cultural marker, and they have every right to hold the line on this. Don’t forget, they like to put loudspeakers on those minarets.

TexasDan on December 1, 2009 at 11:10 AM

well said!

CityFish on December 1, 2009 at 11:16 AM

Comparing the Swiss ban on architecture to the treatment of people in Saudi Arabia is pathetic.
There is no comparison.
If you are caught as so much bringing a Bible into Saudi Arabia, the least that will happen is that it will be confiscated..other than that..you can be arrested.
There is no comparison.

bridgetown on December 1, 2009 at 11:16 AM

Good for the Swiss. With a Muslim population of 5% and growing, it doesn’t hurt to make sure that the country doesn’t go down the path of Londonistan.

It looks like Mark Steyn has made some in-roads in Europe after all.

Laura in Maryland on December 1, 2009 at 11:17 AM

My question for Switzerland and other European countries enthralled by the right wing: When did Saudi Arabia become your role model?

Not long after the Saudi royal family became the sponsors of the deadliest strain of terrorism the world has ever seen and the politically liberal western governments, including the U.S., failed to take direct action against them. As long as that failure persists, the world will witness a diminishment of freedoms in the West, either in the form of trading it away for a little temporary security or by an outright overrunning of wahabbism.

Suck on that.

Doorgunner on December 1, 2009 at 11:19 AM

Events like these make me appreciate the wisdom of the First Amendment and the founders who established it. Through all of the passions of the American body politic, from Know-Nothings to today, that fundamental tenet of religious freedom has rescued us from serious and rather embarrassing missteps, such as the one taken by the Swiss this week

It’s true. That’s the first thing I thought when I read this. Thank God we have a Bill of Rights here.

crr6 on December 1, 2009 at 11:19 AM

It’s the Swiss’ country, and they can celebrate diversity any way they want.

Little Boomer on December 1, 2009 at 11:20 AM

Right to religion != Right to create a tower and blast prayers from loudspeakers several times a day.

DavidM on December 1, 2009 at 11:20 AM

“…it used a poster showing a white sheep kicking black sheep off the country’s flag.” The racism card skilfully played again, however that advert was actually using the black sheep saying that they would kick the criminals out of Switzerland and was not intended to be racist.

The vote to ban minerats was an important symbolism, it stated the Swiss peoples intention to not be Islamified. Note that in Sharia law they insist that churches and other players of worship can not be higher than Mosques. There is symbolism that you Ed fail to acknowledge like so many people who are ignorant of Islam. I spent 12 years reading about Islam in great detail and I know what this means.

Finally I am having a debate with a leftie who made the same points as you Ed, in the end I got hime to say this:

“What I want is for the law to treat all people equally irrespective of their religion, and if they are not breaking the law they are to be left alone.”

And I replied with this:

We agree, well done, that is what I want, but it is not happening so we get things like this minaret ban instead. Anyway its just too simplictic for me to understand why a religion is exempt from hate speach laws, I bet you are more confused now? Because I know that Islam would not fail the legal test in terms of hate speach, so at this point the law is not applied equally irrespective of religion is it?

So what we have is something which is better than doing nothing, though I guess with hate speach coming along based on islamic blasphamy laws the only thing left to do is fight, people like you Ed try to be oh so gooey sweet, use sophisticated arguments or skilfully crafted wordsmithery by skilled Muslim apologists and miss what is really important here, the failure to deal with Islam as a xenophobic religion, it was basically given a free pass from hate speach laws, so what else can one do.

Anyway the law is an act of symbolism, a statement that the Swiss reject Islam.

TrueBrit on December 1, 2009 at 11:20 AM

If majority-Muslim countries want to criticize the mistreatment of Muslims living as minority communities elsewhere, they should be prepared to withstand the same level of scrutiny regarding their own mistreatment of minorities.

Remember this argument folks especially what’s bolded. It applies to any argument. If an argument against an opponent position does not bold well against your own position, it has no sting.

shick on December 1, 2009 at 11:21 AM

Just from an asthetic point of view, I’d not want a sea of minarets towering over the contryside. Sort of the Islamic version of cell phone towers. Still, now that I think of it, the ones that do exist could possibly be rented out to the cell phone people. It wouldn’t interfere with calls to prayer and would bring in a little cash. heh!

jeanie on December 1, 2009 at 11:11 AM

Don’t forget the noise they make 5 times a day, starting at 5 am.

4shoes on December 1, 2009 at 11:22 AM

bold=hold

shick on December 1, 2009 at 11:22 AM

Islam, to me at least, is an odd mixture of religion, law, politics and a kind of semi-servitude. It’s, to me, just another way of keeping the powers that be in charge and everyone else as slaves to their will. In it’s present form I do not like or trust much about it–and I’m not alone I think. It’s a case of fooling all of the people all of the time even though I’m told that’s not possible?

jeanie on December 1, 2009 at 11:23 AM

Outlawing architectural features makes about as much sense as our own war on a plant, except our own war costs far more.

But maybe this is the “right’s” way of “nudging” back against the steady drumbeats to turn Europe into Eurabia, albeit through an ill-conceived law.

I must say though, that it’s refreshing to see a muslim calling out the blatant hypocrisy that exists in Islamic countries vs how they DEMAND to be treated elsewhere. If there is some good here, I believe it is in exposing the hypocrisy, and like it or not, apparently more European countries, if given the chance, would pass the same law.

From Der Spiegel:
“Germany Would Also Have Voted to Ban Minarets”

ornery_independent on December 1, 2009 at 11:24 AM

This post is an absolute FAIL. I guess Ed’s taking his cues from the Pope who says Islam is a great religion. I’m waiting for the Muslim cleric who praises Catholicism.

And that’s too bad, because as Eltahawy argues, we need more substantive debates over the problems radical Islam and shari’a law present to Western societies:

They can’t even ban a part of a building that disturbs the peace of non-Muslims without you saying they are ‘misguided’. We want substantive debates? Why can’t we call Hasan a MUSLIM TERRORIST?

The problem with people like you is that you are all for ‘reform’ but when a simple reform like this is voted upon. . . you cry ‘RAAAAACIST’.

How come the first amendment doesn’t keep America from taking down Christian displays and crosses all over the country? We can’t have a cross in public.

Again, I’m all for discussion of human rights. . . but THIS episode is entirely MILD in a ‘violation’ of human rights. Let’s talk about violations of human rights based on religion. . . there are plenty of examples.

To use this as an example of a ‘violation of our first amendment’ shows that you have a pathetic understanding of REAL violations of human rights around the world. . . ESPECIALLY perpetrated by Muslims.

Remember the Afghan Buddhist statues? Hey. . . first amendment, freedom of religion – right?

Seriously, to be upset at the Swiss for this is blatantly absurd and shows that you have no interest in doing ANYTHING to address, identify, or solve a SERIOUS problem for human society.

ThackerAgency on December 1, 2009 at 11:26 AM

Ed the Islamization of Europe is something I’ve been following for awhile and what strikes me as odd is the sudden desire to have more, as you put it “more substantive debates.” I would guess a good bit of the 57% of the Swiss that voted for the ban would have appreciated this all along. And had they had a debate instead of multicultral brow beating it would not have come to this. The ban is not “pointless” but a starting point. Now liberals want dialogue, only because they now know brow beating the populace could have far more drastic consequences.

Theworldisnotenough on December 1, 2009 at 11:27 AM

It’s a case of fooling all of the people all of the time even though I’m told that’s not possible?

jeanie on December 1, 2009 at 11:23 AM

Good point. The problem with Islam is that the oppressed are not fooled all of the time but tightly controlled to prevent resistance. Look at the recent Iranian elections.

shick on December 1, 2009 at 11:27 AM

Why don’t the Swiss just boot out every last Muslim from their country. Problem solved.

chicagojedi on December 1, 2009 at 11:27 AM

phallic-looking minarets.

Now that she mentions it, she’s right. The one here in Culver City, however, is dark blue — except for the foreskin, which is powder blue.

unclesmrgol on December 1, 2009 at 11:29 AM

Yes, we need debate about Islamism and “Islamophobia,” if such a creature exists, but a reasonable discussion is forbidden, taboo, racist in and of itself

.
Can’t. The government and the media and the Muslim’s themselves won’t allow it. Guess we have to wait until our first Muslim President!!!!

jeanie on December 1, 2009 at 11:30 AM

It’s almost an expression of utter impotence.

No , it’s more of that “special finger” to the political class. Like prop 8 in cali.

the_nile on December 1, 2009 at 11:31 AM

If they mean: my rules or else.

Then it started this week.

Bully for the Swiss.

CPT. Charles on December 1, 2009 at 11:34 AM

We can’t have a cross in public.

Um. Yeah you can. You just can’t put it in a governmental, or state-sponsored building. The same is true of other religious symbols.

crr6 on December 1, 2009 at 11:34 AM

For those who do not, we trust our law-enforcement agencies to deal specifically with lawbreaking rather than conduct purges based on religious affiliation, which is how the Swiss should have left it.

But what if it is a war?

the_nile on December 1, 2009 at 11:35 AM

I’m disappointed at how literal minded and unimaginative Ed is being about this.

This. vote. is. symbolism. It’s a populist protest.

This is as bad as intentionally obtuse lefties moaning about the phrase “death panels”. Sheesh.

Daniel Pipes calls the minaret ban the first real sign that we are finally fighting back. So does Phyllis Chesler.

Along with climaquiddick, this is the BEST NEWS we’ve had all year.

You are being too, what’s the word? nuanced, Ed.

Islam is not just another religion. Whatever the Founders WROTE in the First Amendment, what one of them DID when confronted with Muslim pirates was acknowledge that “their holy book instructs them to kill us” and — KILLED them first.

When the streets where Ed lives look like those of Europe, with its burkas and no-go zones, maybe he will change his mind.

fivefeetoffury on December 1, 2009 at 11:36 AM

You do realize that your shock and dismay at Switzerland’s hypocrisy will only redound to the benefit of Islamic fundamentalism, right? The Muftis and Imams don’t give a damn what you think and will exploit any and all opportunities to violently strangle you with your “Enlightenment values.” You know this, right?

Why should we offer the benefits of “Enlightenment values” to those that actively seek to destroy them? Because it’s “the right thing to do”? Right on what basis? The basis of “Enlightenment values”? Self-destruction is “enlightened”?

Thus did Western man decide to abolish himself, creating his own boredom out of his own affluence, his own vulnerability out of his own strength, his own impotence out of his own erotomania; himself blowing the trumpet that brought the walls of his own city tumbling down.

And having convinced himself that he was too numerous, labored with pill and scalpel and syringe to make himself fewer, until at last, having educated himself into imbecility and polluted and drugged himself into stupefaction, he keeled over, a weary, battered old brontosaurus, and became extinct.

– Malcolm Muggeridge

spmat on December 1, 2009 at 11:36 AM

Um. Yeah you can. You just can’t put it in a governmental, or state-sponsored building. The same is true of other religious symbols.

crr6 on December 1, 2009 at 11:34 AM

We were forced to take down a cross in the DESERT that had been there since 1930.

ThackerAgency on December 1, 2009 at 11:36 AM

Uh oh there are 4 minarets in the whole country we’d better ban them.

The Swiss are morons.

Dave Rywall on December 1, 2009 at 11:37 AM

We were forced to take down a cross in the DESERT that had been there since 1930.

ThackerAgency on December 1, 2009 at 11:36 AM

Where was it in the desert?

crr6 on December 1, 2009 at 11:37 AM

I have a suspicion that Ed is taking a page out of AllahP’s playbook.
Deliberately seeking more commentary by posting this the way he did.
Call me crazy.

bridgetown on December 1, 2009 at 11:37 AM

This is a great discussion! Why don’t we schedule a big conference in Mecca so us Westerners can meet with the Islamic countries to hash out our differences.

Oh wait…

ornery_independent on December 1, 2009 at 11:38 AM

Because of attitudes like Ed’s there is going to be another Crusades. The military or the government will NOT be involved. It will be a civil war of non-Muslims vs. Muslims. . . and there won’t be a pope to apologize.

The elite political class can pooh pooh and debate and pontificate all they want. But when people get fed up, they get angry and bad things happen. . . regardless of what the government says.

This will end poorly because Muslims push too far. . . just like the Crusades.

ThackerAgency on December 1, 2009 at 11:39 AM

Don’t care.

The Swiss can do as they please. It’s a sovereign country which poses no national security threat to the United States.

Speaking for myself, I’ve lost my tolerance for “intolerance”. That’s the byproduct of religious terrorism… that it becomes difficult to view the ideology as a simple matter of personal religious preference.

If the Swiss want to go further and chuck every Muslim completely out of their country… that’s their business, not mine. As long as they aren’t engaging in genocide… I don’t care.

Murf76 on December 1, 2009 at 11:40 AM

He that is gentle to the brutal will end up being brutal to the gentle.
-The Talmud

Rebar on December 1, 2009 at 11:40 AM

Where was it in the desert?

crr6 on December 1, 2009 at 11:37 AM

NATIVE AMERICAN LAND

ThackerAgency on December 1, 2009 at 11:41 AM

NATIVE AMERICAN LAND

ThackerAgency on December 1, 2009 at 11:41 AM

BE MORE SPECIFIC.

crr6 on December 1, 2009 at 11:42 AM

Banning minarets is a good first step. Sooner or later we must ban the whole mosque, making life for Muslims unpleasant enough in our world that they’ll return to their own: unless they are merely nominal Muslims as opposed to the ones faithful to their “prophet.”

The only question is, How many Christians / westerners will be murdered by Muslims until then?

Akzed on December 1, 2009 at 11:42 AM

The Minaret is a SYMBOL of Islam… or it would not be on their mosques anyway.

This vote was SYMBOLIC… that the Swiss people reject the incursion of Sharia and Islam into their country…

In the Battle of Philosophys, SYMBOLS are often the ammunition…

We are in a cultural war, and most are afraid to admit it…. let alone fight it…

Romeo13 on December 1, 2009 at 11:43 AM

ThackerAgency on December 1, 2009 at 11:39 AM

The pendulum never stops in the middle.

a capella on December 1, 2009 at 11:43 AM

O/T but doe anyone know what has happened to PROGRESSOVERPEACE? I miss his/her posts.

mrsmwp on December 1, 2009 at 11:45 AM

Banning minarets is a good first step. Sooner or later we must ban the whole mosque, making life for Muslims unpleasant enough in our world that they’ll return to their own: unless they are merely nominal Muslims as opposed to the ones faithful to their “prophet.”

The only question is, How many Christians / westerners will be murdered by Muslims until then?

Akzed on December 1, 2009 at 11:42 AM
———

Awww, look at you, taking a giant sh*t on the constitution.

So charming!

Dave Rywall on December 1, 2009 at 11:46 AM

Switzerland is a democracy isn’t it? They know best the conditions in their country. If they pass the law, far be it from us, 5 thousand miles away, to criticize them for it.
The point of 2 million muslims behaving themselves in America is blunted by the likelihood that 20 million would not likely behave based upon world wide events as demonstrated in France, England and the muslim world in general.

richardb on December 1, 2009 at 11:46 AM

Uh oh there are 4 minarets in the whole country we’d better ban them.

The Swiss are morons.

Dave Rywall on December 1, 2009 at 11:37 AM

Uh oh, it’s Rave Drywall. How long before he ‘copies’ somebody else’s post and repost’s it as his own?

And calling an entire country “morons” isn’t very Liberal
of you.

Doorgunner on December 1, 2009 at 11:47 AM

This post is a fail. And not just because it drew out Thacker’s reflexive anti-Catholicism. Any post could do that.

Islam is a false teaching, a treacherous, murderous teaching. Kudos to the Swiss for beginning to resist its spread. We all need to rise up. Tear down the minarets! Convert the hateful, murderous mohammedan!

boko fittleworth on December 1, 2009 at 11:48 AM

Where was it in the desert?

crr6 on December 1, 2009 at 11:37 AM

As if that matters. The government is asserting its will against a symbol of its own religious heritage in favor of another religion, i.e. the lack thereof.

No government can be secular in the sense you desire it. Every symbol of Christian heritage you slaver and crave to see destroyed only creates a space for another more hardy species of religious symbol.

Nature abhors a vacuum. Governments are no different.

spmat on December 1, 2009 at 11:48 AM

I live in the House of war and that war is getting closer and closer…

TrueBrit on December 1, 2009 at 11:49 AM

Awww, look at you, taking a giant sh*t on the constitution. So charming! Dave Rywall on December 1, 2009 at 11:46 AM

So the Constitution is a suicide pact? Oh, ok.

Akzed on December 1, 2009 at 11:50 AM

Uh oh, it’s Rave Drywall. How long before he ‘copies’ somebody else’s post and repost’s it as his own?

And calling an entire country “morons” isn’t very Liberal
of you.

Doorgunner on December 1, 2009 at 11:47 AM
——–
Everyone who voted for the ban is a moron.

Now I’ve got to get back to docking this destroyer in Jersey. Ta ta.

Dave Rywall on December 1, 2009 at 11:51 AM

So the Constitution is a suicide pact? Oh, ok.

Akzed on December 1, 2009 at 11:50 AM
—-
Love it or leave it, fool.

Dave Rywall on December 1, 2009 at 11:51 AM

Islam isn’t just a religion. It is a political movement with religious elements.

Right. It’s a totalitarian,militaristic and expansionist political ideology hiding behind a “religion,” taking advantage of a human’s desire for “faith,” and currently enjoying the protections afforded religions by the West. Using mosques to store weapons and hide soldiers is more telling than most people realize.

There are only three ways to contain it that I can see:

1.Declare Islam a bogus religion, and remove the protections(what Switzerland just implied.)

2. Confront it with a competing religious ideology, which also purports to be divinely inspired (that’s what we used to do.)

3. Exacerbate and inflame intra-Islamic sectarian conflicts, and let them kill each other (Iraq vs. Iran)

JiangxiDad on December 1, 2009 at 11:51 AM

Dave Rywall on December 1, 2009 at 11:51 AM

You’re a Canuckian anyway, so scram ya hoser.

Akzed on December 1, 2009 at 11:52 AM

Love it or leave it, fool.
Dave Rywall on December 1, 2009 at 11:51 AM

Oh I love it, which is why I defend it rather than roll over and suck my thumb like you.

Akzed on December 1, 2009 at 11:53 AM

And not just because it drew out Thacker’s reflexive anti-Catholicism.

pointing out SPECIFIC disagreements with what the Catholic Church has done is not ‘anti-Catholicism’.

The Pope shouldn’t praise Islam at all. He should say that they need the light of Jesus Christ. He doesn’t have to talk crap about Islam, but he should be leading people to Christ. Praising Islam won’t do that.

And I’ve been dealing with the pope’s apology for the Crusades for 2 decades. He shouldn’t have apologized. It was a horrible time, but it wasn’t wrong.

ThackerAgency on December 1, 2009 at 11:53 AM

Ed, maybe some nice muslims will build a minaret tower (complete with blaring calls to worship early in the morning) within a few blocks of your house. Then we’ll see how tolerant you are.

Hooray for the Swiss! (Although they could have worded their proposition better: Localities can change and enforce zoning regulations if it’s reasonable — i.e., “no minarets” = bad, but “no architectural towers over X meters high” = good.)

KS Rex on December 1, 2009 at 11:53 AM

As if that matters.

Of course it matters. If it were on a church, or in someone’s home, or even on someone’s lawn it would be grossly unconstitutional to order the removal of it. If it were in a courthouse or something it’s a different story.

The government is asserting its will against a symbol of its own religious heritage in favor of another religion, i.e. the lack thereof.

Right, so where has the government installed atheist symbols and/or slogans in it’s buildings?

No government can be secular in the sense you desire it. Every symbol of Christian heritage you slaver and crave to see destroyed only creates a space for another more hardy species of religious symbol.

Once again, you might have had a point if the government were replacing religious symbols with atheist symbols. But this isn’t the case. Not endorsing a particular religion does not mean you endorse atheism. Especially if atheism is, as you seem to suggest, a religion in and of itself.

crr6 on December 1, 2009 at 11:53 AM

Ban the burkas next please. Why are feminists silent on the misogyny that IS Islam?!

Speaking of, I recently saw a burka on the beach here in Sarasota. She was at the water’s edge as I walked on by, and from what I could tell through the eye slit, she was a young-ish woman with blue eyes. Not only was it a WTF? moment in that context, it was downright creepy.

ornery_independent on December 1, 2009 at 11:55 AM

I will sympathize with Muslims on this issue when they give back the Hagia Sophia, the Church of the Holy Wisdom built by the Emperor Justinian in Constantinople in 532. The first thing the conquerors did, after riding their horses into it and slaying the worshippers, was to add minarets and turn it into a mosque.

Islam may be a religion, but it is a religion based on territorial expansion and conquest, the goal being to convert the entire world – by force, if necessary. To ignore that aspect of Islam and permit it to fundamentally change a nation’s culture is stupid – but every nation in Europe seems to be doing just that.

Tolerating intolerance is suicide.

Venusian Visitor on December 1, 2009 at 11:55 AM

Even for those who see Islam itself as an existential threat anywhere it resides, the minaret ban hardly addresses the issue.

It’s a first step, Ed. You know how all those long marches begin with the first step, right?

pabarge on December 1, 2009 at 11:55 AM

[a] strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.
-Thomas Jefferson

Rebar on December 1, 2009 at 11:56 AM

There is always a “discussion” when Christians or a Christian-based country does something that upsets the Muslims, but there is never a international discussion on what the Muslims do in their country or other countries is a negative or upsetting to the Christians or other religions.

Switzerland has received lots of world wide press for its vote against the Muslim minarets, but yet when was the last time their was the same global wide “discussion” and outrage against Sauidi Arabia and other Muslim countries about their banning, criminalizing and denigrating anyone that tries to practice a non-Muslim religion in their country?

When Christians discriminate against another religion every one says it is bad; yet, when Muslims discriminate against another religion it`s well, gee, they are Muslims after all and we should just ignore it. (Don`t want to get that fatwa on us or Muslims issuing a death warrant for criticizing them, right?)

albill on December 1, 2009 at 11:57 AM

Awww, look at you, taking a giant sh*t on the constitution.

So charming!

Dave Rywall on December 1, 2009 at 11:46 AM

But Dave, it’s a living document. It means whatever you, or anyone with the political strength and patience, want it to mean.

You and your ilk have used as a bludgeon and a scalpel to cut out our Christian heritage. The pseudo-secular nullity you’ve replaced it with is little more than empty scaffolding waiting for the next religious heritage. It won’t be as tolerant or cohesive as Christianity.

spmat on December 1, 2009 at 11:57 AM

A couple of minor things that may be overlooked. Maybe the Swiss don’t want their quaint little town skylines marred by minorets. Not to mention those 5 am wake up calls.

gary fouse on December 1, 2009 at 11:58 AM

So the Constitution is a suicide pact? Oh, ok.

Akzed on December 1, 2009 at 11:50 AM

Heh. So much for strict constitutionalists. How would you like it if we made a similar point in regards to healthcare?

crr6 on December 1, 2009 at 11:58 AM

If a truth is unutterable, then only unutterable people will speak it.

Voyager on December 1, 2009 at 11:59 AM

replacing religious symbols with atheist symbols…

crr6 on December 1, 2009 at 11:53 AM

Atheists have symbols?! Um, why? And representing what? Isn’t that a contradiction in and of itself?

ornery_independent on December 1, 2009 at 11:59 AM

Islam isn’t just a religion. It is a political movement with religious elements.

a capella on December 1, 2009 at 11:09 AM

Islam’s as “religious” as Tony Soprano saying a prayer that he won’t get caught after whacking a guy.

venividivici on December 1, 2009 at 12:00 PM

Love it or leave it, fool.
Dave Rywall on December 1, 2009 at 11:51 AM

And go to… Canada???

Now I’m confused….

Romeo13 on December 1, 2009 at 12:00 PM

The US has around two million Muslims, the vast majority of which live peacefully in our communities.

For now.

SKYFOX on December 1, 2009 at 12:01 PM

Heh. So much for strict constitutionalists. How would you like it if we made a similar point in regards to healthcare?

crr6 on December 1, 2009 at 11:58 AM

You want to ban health care?

the_nile on December 1, 2009 at 12:01 PM

Just as a public service announcement, “Dave Rywall” was flat-out busted this weekend for reposting -verbatim- as his own another’s 4 hour old comment describing U.S. Navy service.

Doorgunner on December 1, 2009 at 12:02 PM

Atheists have symbols?! Um, why? And representing what? Isn’t that a contradiction in and of itself?

ornery_independent on December 1, 2009 at 11:59 AM

I don’t know if they have “symbols”, but they certainly have slogans. They’ve had all sorts of public relations campaigns in Britain. Signs on buses and the like.

crr6 on December 1, 2009 at 12:02 PM

Dave Rywall on December 1, 2009 at 11:46 AM

where does it say in the Constitution that we must submit to Islam?

And by the way, have you noticed the Islamic world shares none of our values like equality for women, human rights, FREEDOM (of religion, conscience, etc), democracy and so on?

Don’t think we don’t know what these followers of a 7th century death cult (muslims) have in store for us.

thinkagain on December 1, 2009 at 12:02 PM

Just as a public service announcement, “Dave Rywall” was flat-out busted this weekend for reposting -verbatim- as his own another’s 4 hour old comment describing U.S. Navy service.

Doorgunner on December 1, 2009 at 12:02 PM

So he really is Joe Biden.

the_nile on December 1, 2009 at 12:04 PM

Dave Rywall on December 1, 2009 at 11:46 AM

Awww, look at you, taking a giant sh*t on the constitution.

So charming!

Their freedom to swing their fist ends at my nose, same as any other religion.

Remember the satanists down in Mexico a while back who were busy kidnapping an killing people? That may be their religion, but it isn’t protected by the 1st Amendment.

Voyager on December 1, 2009 at 12:05 PM

So he really is Joe Biden.

the_nile on December 1, 2009 at 12:04 PM

Smells the same at any rate.

Doorgunner on December 1, 2009 at 12:06 PM

Second try:

Dave Rywall on December 1, 2009 at 11:46 AM wrote:

Awww, look at you, taking a giant sh*t on the constitution.

So charming!

Their freedom to swing their fist ends at my nose, same as any other religion.

Remember the satanists down in Mexico a while back who were busy kidnapping an killing people? That may be their religion, but it isn’t protected by the 1st Amendment.

Voyager on December 1, 2009 at 12:06 PM

This is just history repeating itself. I’m sure the Romans passed laws preventing the Goths from putting all those ugly gargoyles on their buildings…

tommylotto on December 1, 2009 at 12:07 PM

WaPo: When did Switzerland become Europe’s Saudi Arabia?

I dunno. When did BO become Iran president’s butt-budy?

jbh45 on December 1, 2009 at 12:07 PM

Heh. So much for strict constitutionalists. How would you like it if we made a similar point in regards to healthcare? crr6 on December 1, 2009 at 11:58 AM

Incoherence.

Put this in your pipe and smoke it. (Pretend it’s weed.)

“The real object of the [First] Amendment was not to countenance, much less advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects.” -Joseph Story, Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court 1811-1845, founder of Harvard Law School, Commentaries on the Constitution, Vol. II, 1871 (1833).

“The American population is entirely Christian, and with us Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations with it.” -John Marshall, in a letter to Jasper Adams, May 9, 1833, JSAC, p. 139. Marshall was Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1801-1835.

Akzed on December 1, 2009 at 12:08 PM

Just as a public service announcement, “Dave Rywall” was flat-out busted this weekend for reposting -verbatim- as his own another’s 4 hour old comment describing U.S. Navy service. Doorgunner on December 1, 2009 at 12:02 PM

That’s a violation.

Maybe he works at the CRU at East Anglia U?

Akzed on December 1, 2009 at 12:09 PM

I dunno. When did BO become Iran president’s butt-budy?

jbh45 on December 1, 2009 at 12:07 PM

When did he go to Pakistan in his youth.

the_nile on December 1, 2009 at 12:10 PM

Akzed on December 1, 2009 at 12:08 PM

Sooo none of that is binding law. And it was written around 150 years ago. Impressive.

crr6 on December 1, 2009 at 12:10 PM

After all, terrorist recruiters don’t use minarets to attract and radicalize followers.

In Israel they use it to call for violence, you can get the mob organized in a few seconds without the victims realizing they are about to get hit.

Also it can get really annoying when the Mufti wakes you up at 6am every morning, with his megaphone. You can’t complain about it when you live in the Middle East but you certainly have the right to oppose it when you live in Switzerland.

Michelle Dubois on December 1, 2009 at 12:12 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4