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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
There is no such thing as an “atheist symbol” except in the sense that atheists reject all symbols of transcendence.
The government need not positively assert any particular religion to demonstrate a preference toward its chosen religion, and no government can avoid choosing a religion. The current chosen religious worldview is the a priori rejection of all religions. The only acceptable public religious expression is none of the above.
To say that no particular religious expression is better than any other is in itself a religious expression.
Atheism is by definition a religion: the rejection of all forms of religion. The refusal to make a choice is in itself a choice. All the questions answered by the various religions of the world have answers in the atheist or agnostic worldview. “I don’t know”, “I don’t care” and “There is no such thing” are all answers to questions regarding the afterlife, ultimate purpose, essential worth, etc.
spmat on December 1, 2009 at 12:12 PM
MAYBE THE SWISS JUST WANT TO REMAIN SWISS?
IS THERE SOMETHING WRONG OR EVIL ABOUT BEING SWISS?
ESPECIALLY FOR SWISS PEOPLE, I THINK NOT.
AND ER UM… MAYBE SWISS WOMEN DON’T WANT TO SEE A RELIGION WHICH ENSHRINES MISOGYNY GAIN A STRONGER HOLD WITHIN THEIR COMMUNITIES?
THESE CONCERNS AND DESIRES ARE NOT IRRATIONAL.
ALLOWING ISLAM TO GROW UNIMPEDED IS.
IRRATIONAL AND – FOR THE WEST – SUICIDAL.
reliapundit on December 1, 2009 at 12:12 PM
Religion is not a skin color, it merits tolerance just like any other kind of speech or peaceful worship, but it doesn’t merit “blindness” the way race does. Ideas should be freely debated, and when one group’s ideology is the oppression of women, the murder of nonbelievers, and the extermination of Western culture, it merits constant vigilance and vigorous debate in any nation that is serious about liberty.
joe_doufu on December 1, 2009 at 12:13 PM
You’re right, and it sheds no light on how the Founders understood the 1st Amendment. We should burn the Federalist Papers too.
Akzed on December 1, 2009 at 12:14 PM
The idea of trying to ban minarets (and that at the constitutional level) really is terrible. It actually is some kind of abuse of direct democracy. Nobody thought it would make it. For the authors, it was rather provocation, stirring up of things, a way to make it to the news, to broaden the debate. A stupid smash.
But Swiss people took with both hands the opportunity to say what they think about Muslim supremacism. It was a huge surprise for everyone: polls were wrong by some 20%. Incredible. And here we are. And now, as it worked so “well”, it sounds as if other European countries will have to vote on that silly question, too.
ajm on December 1, 2009 at 12:15 PM
Events like these make me appreciate the second amendment.
Johan Klaus on December 1, 2009 at 12:16 PM
+1000
Michelle Dubois on December 1, 2009 at 12:16 PM
I think it’s called the hammer and sickle, champ. Check it out. Also, see the copious busts and statues to Mao, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, etc.
Akzed on December 1, 2009 at 12:17 PM
I can’t really blame the Swiss here. Switzerland is one of the world’s oldest and most stable democracies (over 700 years old), and has been remarkably peaceful over these centuries while its neighbors fought war after war, while integrating a mixture of French, German, and Italian cultures, and most Swiss citizens speak all three languages. Switzerland is in the center of Europe, and its people want to remain European.
While one writer chastises the Swiss for banning the construction of new minarets, the government of left-leaning France has banned the wearing of the chador (Muslim head-scarves for women) in public schools. This is not considered discriminatory, since crosses and yarmulkes are also banned in French public schools.
Ultra-PC writers in America may need to be reminded that Muslim conquerers invaded Spain during the Renaissance, and progressed as far north as Poitiers, France, about 200 miles from Paris, before being forcibly expulsed. Over the past 40 years, there has been massive immigration of Muslims into Europe, who were initially welcomed to provide cheap labor in European industries, but many of them collect welfare benefits from European taxpayers, while failing or refusing to integrate into European society, which causes resentment among many native-born Europeans.
When some Muslim communities become segregated and violent, non-Muslim Europeans can be justified in considering them a threat to peace, and the Swiss ban on new minarets is probably a reaction to this fear, where Muslims are a smaller percentage of the population than in France, Germany, or Spain.
Steve Z on December 1, 2009 at 12:18 PM
Ed, taking the so-called “high road” approach is what is allowing Islamists to succeed with their propaganda. I’m relieved to see that most posters understand that. There is no free speech or true freedom of religion in Muslim majority countries. The First Amendment is already under attack from the American left. I’m not going to lend my support to any other totalitarian ideology that would seek to curtail First Amendment rights.
Connie on December 1, 2009 at 12:20 PM
Akzed, the Constitution’s purpose to crr6 and his ilk is to be bent, shaped, molded, and twisted into a whatever weapon is necessary to cut out the heart of this nation. That heart is the Christian worldview. It is to be replaced with the Secular heart of international socialism.
They call the Constitution a “living document”. More accurate to call it a lumbering golem of equal parts misquoted Founders and Marxist framing.
spmat on December 1, 2009 at 12:21 PM
The government is not endorsing atheism over other religions. It’s never endorsed atheism. If atheism is, as you seem to imply an affirmative belief system, you need to show the government has affirmatively endorsed that belief system. It simply hasn’t happened. There has never been a government display in a governmental building that says “there is no god”. Nor has there been a display saying “we don’t know if there’s a god”. If I were watching a debate between a muslim, a christian and a jew, and I say nothing, am I endorsing atheism?
When has the government “answered” the question? Once again they’ve never said “I don’t know”, “There is no such thing” or even “I don’t care”. Your argument is a valient try, but it falls short.
And even if I buy your argument (which obviously I don’t), what’s your prescription? Endorsing all religions? Endorsing certain religions? Which ones?
crr6 on December 1, 2009 at 12:21 PM
The Swiss will need to become far more strict than Saudi Arabia about preserving their culture if they are to even have a chance of surviving the onslaught. Using Saudi Arabia as a “role model”, in that regard, would be a good start, but the Swiss aren’t even close to approaching that benchmark, and time is running out.
Buddahpundit on December 1, 2009 at 12:22 PM
I think it’s worth mentioning that I’m Catholic. I have no desire to destroy the Christian worldview. But I also don’t feel that the government should endorse my religion, or any other.
crr6 on December 1, 2009 at 12:23 PM
Those are Marxist symbols, not atheist. Marxism flows from atheism, not the other way round.
spmat on December 1, 2009 at 12:23 PM
Don’t forget the “Che” symbol, that’s their favorite, worshiping a mass-murderers makes more sense than worshiping a guy who truly sought peace.
Michelle Dubois on December 1, 2009 at 12:24 PM
So, that is your first lie of the day.
Johan Klaus on December 1, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Long after WaPo became America’s Pravda.
Shy Guy on December 1, 2009 at 12:26 PM
So how do you feel about the Obama Administration’s decision on the meaning of jihad?
Connie on December 1, 2009 at 12:31 PM
As insightful into the machinations of government as the Founding Fathers were, their idea of an “oppressive religion” was one of the various English churches or the Catholic Church. They didn’t exactly anticipate a religion that sanctions beheadings a la Daniel Pearl.
Human societies carve out well-defined exceptions to rules ALL THE TIME, so acting as if carving out a Constitutional exception to Islam would be “unprecedented” is ignorant.
In the long-run, it probably won’t matter because there will either be a quorum for a Constitutional Amendment exempting Islam from Constitutional protection or the Constitution itself will cease to be the law of the land. The history of Islam is the history of the disruption and downfall of every society they’ve infiltrated and I see nothing that gives me great confidence that Americans, especially those like you, will be the exception to that rule. I can tell you in advance that it is a near-certainty, historically-speaking, that your children will rue the day you treated Islam just like “any other religion”, but I’d just be playing the part of Cassandra to your unheeding ears.
venividivici on December 1, 2009 at 12:32 PM
The stream flows from the fountain, but it is not the fountain. I get it. But they are also inseparable.
The hammer and sickle is every bit as much a symbol of atheism as it is of collectivist economic theory, and as much as the cross is a symbol of Christianity.
Akzed on December 1, 2009 at 12:33 PM
Those in an inferior position tend to claim it is just for them to be equal. Those in a position of equality tend to claim it is just for them to be in a superior position. It seems good to stop murderous men and their friends while they are still demanding mere equality.
Kralizec on December 1, 2009 at 12:33 PM
I live near Dearborn, Michigan where over 800,000 muslims reside. When you drive through some parts of Dearborn, you can’t find an english sign. In some areas, the muslims won’t even speak english with you. At the Highschools in Dearborn there has been a complete take over. Recently a Highschool wrestling coach was fired because he was an associate baptist minister at a church where a muslim was baptized after converting. Muslims in Dearborn were so outraged they demanded his job and they got what they wanted. Imagine 800,000 people in a state of 9 million with 15% unemployment and most don’t even pay taxes. These mosque play prayer calls over thier loud speakers that can be heard miles away. When legally challenged, they won in court. Now people sitting in thier church on Sunday or even just living near to this have to hear this. These people don’t assimilate! They don’t respect local laws or politics! They create their own little Middle East where ever they go. As a side note, many of the Middle eastern people in Dearborn are Caldean (Middle-Eastern Orthidox Christian) and there are tensions with in their community as well. I’m not trying to paint with a broad brush. But I do want you have a clear picture. In order to understand this, you have to understand what they are up against and the fact that in europe the birth rate of 1.1 child per european family vs 4.5 or even 6 children per Muslim family should scare the tar our of you. Once they have a majority (in only a decade or two), Europe will look like the middle east.
MichiganMatt on December 1, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Then why are all the usual suspects getting so upset over this? It does appear to mean something….
Realist on December 1, 2009 at 12:35 PM
I didn’t say you desired to “destroy the Christian worldview”. I said you wanted to cut out the heart of America, which is (or was, really) the Christian worldview.
You desire that every last vestige of it be cut out of the body politic and replaced with Secularism. You want the nation to actively reject all forms of Christian observance in favor of a non-religious, Secular expression in any and all public capacity. This is in direct contradiction to every aspect of our heritage, both prior to our founding, during our founding and in the nearly two centuries after it.
Your rabid Secularism is historically novel, it is non-Constitutional, it is congenitally insufficient to support the needs of a national identity, and it will eventually be replaced by something more hardy and far less tolerant than Christianity.
spmat on December 1, 2009 at 12:35 PM
Ed Morrissey may be interested to know that there is an opinion among some scholars of the American regime, that the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause said Congress shall make no law…, so that each State legislature could make such laws as seemed good to each.
Kralizec on December 1, 2009 at 12:39 PM
Which side of this debate would John Adams be on? Winston Churchill?
Akzed on December 1, 2009 at 12:39 PM
Indeed. If the word “congress” can be interpreted as “Schoolboard,” anything goes, right?
Akzed on December 1, 2009 at 12:40 PM
In a suicidally PC country like the US, such a vote would never take place, first amendment notwithstanding. It’s surprising enough that gay marriage even makes it to a referendum in some states. I wonder what the vote percentage would be if we did have a say in that issue. After all, freedom of religion has degenerated into freedom from (Christian) religion, regardless of what the people want in America. Still, the issue does give Ed a chance to stare down his nose at yet another population.
“…embarassing misstep(s)…” or rational fear of losing their sovereignty and identity to a backward, destructive ideology?
SKYFOX on December 1, 2009 at 12:40 PM
That was the case for a long time. But the 1st amendment was long ago applied to the states through the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
crr6 on December 1, 2009 at 12:41 PM
Do what it did till Hugo Black re-wrote the Constitution from the bench in the 1947. Be tolerant of other forms of religion, endorse no particular form of Christianity over any other, but endorse the Christian worldview, with all of its incumbent duties and benefits, as that which defines the national character.
No nation can avoid making a choice of national religious identity. For nearly 200 years (and some 200 years prior to our founding), we chose Christ and benefited from that choice far, far more than it has cost us. In the last 50-60 years, we have actively rejected Christ in favor of Secular Humanism. That choice has accomplished nothing, hurt more than it has helped and left us utterly adrift for a cohesive national identity.
spmat on December 1, 2009 at 12:46 PM
Via Canada Free Press
Tom
marinetbryant on December 1, 2009 at 12:57 PM
You nailed it, and with the very first comment to boot. This vote is a direct outgrowth of the inability to honestly discuss these issues due to political correctness. When you take away that avenue for discussion, the people will lash out in other ways – just as they have in Switzerland.
thirteen28 on December 1, 2009 at 12:58 PM
The history of islam is one one of conflict, conquest and oppression. The many things that “islam” have brought to this country were not created by islam but by people living in muslim conquered countries(and an awful lot of those things they are given credit for they did not create).
ed is a squishy and a flatlander. He thinks nothing will ever change and if we ignore the obvious it will just go away. Within a couple of years pakistan will be under taliban control as will the nuclear weapons. iran will be a nuclear power with ICBMs to deliver them to europe and America. At that point we will see how peaceable all the muslims of America and europe are. When there is a demand for mandatory shared power in all these european countries and in places like minnesota and michigan who have allowed islam to already supercede the constitution and the demands are backed up by the evil eye from psycho muslim imams with their fingers on launch buttons we will see how the squishy’s feel. My guess is they will call for tolerance and inclusiveness from the rest of us non-enlightened beings. When they start demanding sharia law in minnesota, ed, don’t come to Florida. We already have enough squishy’s.
peacenprosperity on December 1, 2009 at 1:02 PM
that “islam” have brought to this
countryworldpeacenprosperity on December 1, 2009 at 1:02 PM
Hotair clowns are calling to outlaw a religion.
So American.
Dave Rywall on December 1, 2009 at 1:05 PM
I agree that the Swiss vote was a mistake, but the minarets are a tool of recruitment, because they are symbols of Islamic domination and supremacy. It parallels the rules for buildings put up by dhimmi people living under sharia law: Muslim buildings must always be the highest, symbolic of Islamic supremacy. That the Swiss did the wrong thing here shouldn’t blind us to the reality of the propaganda message inherent in minaret construction.
irishspy on December 1, 2009 at 1:06 PM
I hope your kid (should a loser like you have actually bred, but if not, your mother) gets to experience the “Religion of Peace” up close and personal.
http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/02/muslim-rape-epidemic-in-sweden-and.html
Maybe then you’ll see what the Muslim “religion” is all about, you Canadian d-bag.
Yeah, I really mean that, too. I’m so sick of you sanctimonious f*ckheads creating problems for the rest of us who retain common sense.
venividivici on December 1, 2009 at 1:15 PM
Great Message! Well Done Switzerland!
The brilliance of this move is that we now have liberal Muslims who dont want to be driven from the West, now getting anxious. They wont as Allahpundit fears be driven to radicalism (lets face it if they were by a minaret ban then they were far too gone anyways and the demarcation is welcome) but rather they will be moved to confront their own religious right (and the Islamic religious right looks a lot like Nazism). They better start quickstepping on that, because the Non Muslim is going to tire of trying to sort the goods from the bads out and start forcing every Muslim and their vile ideology out.
Furthermore, we now have major op eds by Muslims criticizing Saudi Arabia’s and the rest of the Muslim majority countries discrimination against its minorities.
Great Job Swiss! Keep the pressure on.
EscapeVelocity on December 1, 2009 at 1:26 PM
Call me a hypocrite, but I kinda favor the ban. Church bells don’t ring 5 times a day beginning at 5am. I also don’t think that church bells, as rarely as they’re used these days, are being sounded to coerce people into a religious activity. Does freedom of religion include the freedom to impose religion on the secular at 5 in the morning?
Levinite on December 1, 2009 at 1:31 PM
The Swiss vote is not a mistake, Islam needs to be driven from the public sphere, made to feel unwelcome and encouraged to leave….from the West.
Its a great small step in the right direction. Ireland and Denmarks paying recent immigrants to leave is another.
You people better wake up and smell the roses. You wouldnt invite Millions of Nazis into your country (especially if they numbered in the billions worldwide and controlled 57 countries already) and then respected and honored their Hitler ideology and worship, would you?
The public space for Islam needs to be shrunk worldwide, not expanded. Just like Communism. Containment is a priority, then work with those from within, reformers and radicals to subvert and destroy….expanding the Enlightenment, not darkening it where it already exists, while leaving the strongholds of Islam safe and secure. We need to fight the Islamic Reformation in Muslim lands from safe secure strongholds.
Get real people.
EscapeVelocity on December 1, 2009 at 1:39 PM
Ed hasn’t quite figured out what Islam really is, yet.
pseudonominus on December 1, 2009 at 1:40 PM
Call me a hypocrite, but I kinda favor the ban. Church bells don’t ring 5 times a day beginning at 5am. I also don’t think that church bells, as rarely as they’re used these days, are being sounded to coerce people into a religious activity. Does freedom of religion include the freedom to impose religion on the secular at 5 in the morning?
Levinite on December 1, 2009 at 1:31 PM
———
All church bells are calls to worship, fool. They’re all meant to coerce people.
So yeah, you are a hypocrite.
Not which godless town you live in, but church bells are still used all the time.
Dave Rywall on December 1, 2009 at 1:45 PM
Anybody who thinks that the ideologies that underpin Switzerland and Saudi Arabia are even remotely comparable is probably stupid beyond all help.
YiZhangZhe on December 1, 2009 at 1:45 PM
I see that.
EscapeVelocity on December 1, 2009 at 1:46 PM
I hope your kid (should a loser like you have actually bred, but if not, your mother) gets to experience the “Religion of Peace” up close and personal.
http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/02/muslim-rape-epidemic-in-sweden-and.html
Maybe then you’ll see what the Muslim “religion” is all about, you Canadian d-bag.
Yeah, I really mean that, too. I’m so sick of you sanctimonious f*ckheads creating problems for the rest of us who retain common sense.
venividivici on December 1, 2009 at 1:15 PM
——–
Crime is crime. There are laws against those.
As for the rapes noted in your link, it sounds like a bunch of scumbags committing rape. Not sure what that has to do with Islam.
Do child rapist Catholic and Anglican priests’ actions have anything to do with Christianity?
Happy bigotry. Yours is awesome – it covers well over a billion people. Congrats.
Dave Rywall on December 1, 2009 at 1:49 PM
The difference between a Religion and a Cult is the degree to which they excersize control over their individual members. What greater control is there than that if someone should convert from Muslim to another faith, they are killed. I believe for us to have a conversation about Muslims and the Islamic faith and the dangers it poses, then we must call it what it is. A cult started by a murderous general wanted to be seen as one of God’s chosen by placing himself as an equal to Jesus and was a known child molester. Instead, by vitue of size, we deem it a religion and place it on equal footing with all religions. Until we get past this, the threat will never really be understood.
MichiganMatt on December 1, 2009 at 1:53 PM
The difference between a Religion and a Cult is the degree to which they excersize control over their individual members. What greater control is there than that if someone should convert from Muslim to another faith, they are killed. I believe for us to have a conversation about Muslims and the Islamic faith and the dangers it poses, then we must call it what it is. A cult started by a murderous general wanted to be seen as one of God’s chosen by placing himself as an equal to Jesus and was a known child molester. Instead, by vitue of size, we deem it a religion and place it on equal footing with all religions. Until we get past this, the threat will never really be understood.
MichiganMatt on December 1, 2009 at 1:53 PM
——-
Yes. The Bible does not call for the murder of various tribes and people. Noooooo, not at all.
Dave Rywall on December 1, 2009 at 2:00 PM
The need for far more extensive measures against Islam is underlined by the comment of the Swiss foreign minister as she expressed concern about the vote:
Apparently she doesn’t do irony.
She is objecting to the ban because she is concerned that upsetting Muslims will lead to violence, but apparently fails to grasp that if Islam was actually capable of co-existing peaceably with other cultures then her fears would never have arisen.
Only Islam could generate concerns of a national security risk following a statement about architectural preferences.
Yes, and swiftly.
YiZhangZhe on December 1, 2009 at 2:02 PM
those interagency PTSD prevention task forces are highly skilled…
elduende on December 1, 2009 at 2:03 PM
Mr. Morrisey,
You disappoint.
I’m sorry but the First Amendment – as a stand alone piece of legal text – is not wisdom. It was/is necessary to combine it with wisdom.
For one thing the early American authorities initially placed severe restrictions on Catholic immigration as they did not want the bloody effects of the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation repeated in the US.
Whereas you won’t take a stand against Muslim immigration even as your home state fills up with Somali jihadist terrorists.
I suppose this is true – they have traditionally gone along with all the UN-type human rights malarkey but if they need to be consistent they should keep the minarets gone and withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights by referendum if need be.
Why is the potential harm of “radical Islam” to minorities and women more substantive and urgent than the potential harm to the traditional Swiss majority and white Swiss men? That’s nto a sarcastic question, I’d really like to know.
Banning minarets is not equivalent to “conducting purges”. It’s a disgrace that you would use the language of the Soviet Union’s exercises in mass murder to describe the banning of what is basically an optional design for mosques.
I’ll leave you with this quote from General Casey, a piece of ‘wisdom’ which best sums up your position:
aengus on December 1, 2009 at 2:05 PM
Three cheers for the Swiss. They are not subject to the enforced conformity and bureaucratic impositions of the Euro Union.
wraithby on December 1, 2009 at 2:06 PM
Rape of unbelievers is specifically allowed in islam, and is included in the rewards for the mujahedine.
Moreover the “perfect example” to muslems is of mohammad, who was a serial rapist, mass murderer, pedophile, slave trader, torturer, thief, assassin, and infamous liar.
But we cannot deny people the “right” to worship in his example… why is that again?
Rebar on December 1, 2009 at 2:14 PM
I’m ready to move to switzerland!!!!
right4life on December 1, 2009 at 2:18 PM
Events like these make me appreciate the wisdom of the First Amendment and the founders who established it.
Thats all very nice talk Ed, but according to the Somalis in Little Mogadishu in your back yard, you are racists oppressing the crap out of your diversity assets. What gives, are you oppressing your Muslims ED?
BL@KBIRD on December 1, 2009 at 2:21 PM
Rape of unbelievers is specifically allowed in islam, and is included in the rewards for the mujahedine.
Moreover the “perfect example” to muslems is of mohammad, who was a serial rapist, mass murderer, pedophile, slave trader, torturer, thief, assassin, and infamous liar.
But we cannot deny people the “right” to worship in his example… why is that again?
Rebar on December 1, 2009 at 2:14 PM
——-
So you support the separation of church and state, then, correct?
That no religion’s “rules’ or magical instructions should take precedence over the laws of the land, correct?
And that laws of the land should have nothing to do with religion, correct?
Dave Rywall on December 1, 2009 at 2:21 PM
This should really not be a surprise. Switzerland is not exactly the model for tolerance or equality. For example, they did not allow women to vote until 1971.
dave742 on December 1, 2009 at 2:23 PM
they always do…and yes atheism IS a religion.
right4life on December 1, 2009 at 2:24 PM
the founders should have banned mosques, until saudi arabia allows churches…
right4life on December 1, 2009 at 2:28 PM
There are approximately 50 countries in the world where 50% or more of the population claim to be Muslim. None of them is a raging success story.
No society is perfect, but despite Islam’s claim to be the answer to humanity’s problems, the followers of Islam have managed to create almost all of the world’s worst societies … the most oppressive, the most wretched, the most violent … which is why Muslims are so keen to emigrate to the infidel countries, rather than the other way around.
Other religions, and the ‘west’ in general, have many failures and problems, but we don’t have to be perfect ourselves to recognise that Islam is going to create even bigger problems.
Better societies are made by rejecting evil like Islam, not by embracing it for some whimsical notion of diversity and inclusiveness.
YiZhangZhe on December 1, 2009 at 2:28 PM
…and yes atheism IS a religion.
right4life on December 1, 2009 at 2:24 PM
——
Yeah, sure. Whatever floats your boat.
One fun part about being an atheist is not giving a sh*t what you believers think it means. and, of course, it just means living your life and trying to be a decent human being.
Dave Rywall on December 1, 2009 at 2:28 PM
Women lead Swiss in vote to ban minarets
aengus on December 1, 2009 at 2:29 PM
There are approximately 50 countries in the world where 50% or more of the population claim to be Muslim. None of them is a raging success story.
No society is perfect, but despite Islam’s claim to be the answer to humanity’s problems, the followers of Islam have managed to create almost all of the world’s worst societies … the most oppressive, the most wretched, the most violent … which is why Muslims are so keen to emigrate to the infidel countries, rather than the other way around.
Other religions, and the ‘west’ in general, have many failures and problems, but we don’t have to be perfect ourselves to recognise that Islam is going to create even bigger problems.
Better societies are made by rejecting evil like Islam, not by embracing it for some whimsical notion of diversity and inclusiveness.
YiZhangZhe on December 1, 2009 at 2:28 PM
———
Absolutely Islam is stupid. But only marginally less stupid than other religions.
I would argue that the most secular societies are the most successful – the ones that reject over-religiousness from any religion.
Dave Rywall on December 1, 2009 at 2:30 PM
Yes. Somebody really should explain to the diversity enthusiasts that a far older wisdom noted that ‘divided we fall’.
YiZhangZhe on December 1, 2009 at 2:31 PM
I do.
Islam does not.
In fact they consider putting man’s law above allah’s law, ie sharia law, to be the worst of sins. The primary directive of islam is putting the entire world, and everyone on it, under sharia law.
We’re supposed to be tolerant of this?
Rebar on December 1, 2009 at 2:34 PM
we need more substantive debates over the problems radical Islam and shari’a law present to Western societies
What is to debate? shari’a law is inherently incompatible with modern Western societies.
That may seem…extreme…but consider the difference in penalties for adultry, theft, and for women, being in public with a man not your husband, brother, or father.
To me, having a hand lopped off for theft, being flogged or stoned for adultry, and getting stoned for being in public with a man not in your family seems extreme. But maybe that’s just me?
I R A Darth Aggie on December 1, 2009 at 2:39 PM
why are my posts not posting?
Sultry Beauty on December 1, 2009 at 2:41 PM
Okay I’ll do it in pieces.
Sultry Beauty on December 1, 2009 at 2:42 PM
…and you fail.
phineas on December 1, 2009 at 2:43 PM
I do.
Islam does not.
In fact they consider putting man’s law above allah’s law, ie sharia law, to be the worst of sins. The primary directive of islam is putting the entire world, and everyone on it, under sharia law.
We’re supposed to be tolerant of this?
Rebar on December 1, 2009 at 2:34 PM
——
No, we are not supposed to be tolerant of this. They can f*ck off with the Sharia Law stuff.
Once any religion infringes on my ability to live my life in a decent and lawful manner or infringes on my society’s ability to treat its citizens equally or cannot follow the laws of my society or refuses to honour basic human rights, that religion can f*ck off.
Dave Rywall on December 1, 2009 at 2:43 PM
IRA Darth Aggie:
Is exectuing a thief more or less extreme than lopping off a thiefs hand?
dave742 on December 1, 2009 at 2:43 PM
…and you fail.
phineas on December 1, 2009 at 2:43 PM
—–
you’re so cool
Dave Rywall on December 1, 2009 at 2:43 PM
Tell that to the voters in San Deigo.
All they wanted was to keep a landmark.
Sultry Beauty on December 1, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Then please do argue exactly that!
Perhaps you could begin with a brief definition of success.
Then maybe a listing secular societies.
Then identify which ones are successful according to your definition.
Then note which came first, secularity or success.
Finally you might consider whether those secular societies are rising or falling according to your measure of success.
If you can develop that argument thoroughly then at least one of us is going to have to have a change of mind, and I’m all in favour of having my thoughts challenged … its how I refine them.
YiZhangZhe on December 1, 2009 at 2:46 PM
I guess the entire city of Santa Fe is racist too.
BohicaTwentyTwo on December 1, 2009 at 2:46 PM
The voters of San Diego had to go to extraordinary lengths to maintain the status quo.
Sultry Beauty on December 1, 2009 at 2:48 PM
I was going to make a comment, but I see thet Drywall is here blathering his putrid liberal/socialist lies and drivel. I won’t waste my time unravelling his convoluted rationales. I have better things to do than argue with the wall.
Old Country Boy on December 1, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Based on some of the comments here, I suspect a few of you would like us to go around the country to federally owned land, parks, and memorials and start stripping them of religious symbolism. If the cross at Soledad has to go then I want to offer that the NEXT one be in the East:
The National Park Service and an organization representing victims’ families have reached a deal to buy the most critical piece of land needed for the Flight 93 National Memorial in Shanksville, Pa.
Sultry Beauty on December 1, 2009 at 2:50 PM
As far as I know, since one of my friends works for the National Park Services and used to work out of Yosemite, CA that they are the U.S. Government, right? lol….
Sultry Beauty on December 1, 2009 at 2:52 PM
Tell that to the voters in San Deigo.
By a margin of 76-24 percent, San Diego voters July 26 voted to protect a 29-foot war memorial cross at the center of a court battle. The issue, though, likely is heading back to court.
All they wanted was to keep a landmark.
Sultry Beauty on December 1, 2009 at 2:44 PM
——-
The landmark should never have been a religious symbol to begin with.
It should have been something completely non-religious.
If you believe in your own constitution, you would agree.
But having said that, I would leave it there. It’s not a big deal.
Dave Rywall on December 1, 2009 at 2:53 PM
It’s not Islam that pisses off the Swiss and hence the minaret ban.
It’s the daily blaring of Islamic prayer from the loudspeakers they put on the minarets.
Talk to the Swiss and that’s what they’re really pissed about. The minarets as platforms for blaring out incomprehensible foreign language prayer at decibel levels that can only be described as ‘rude’.
Jason Coleman on December 1, 2009 at 2:54 PM
ThackerAgency on December 1, 2009 at 11:26 AM
Touché!
True enough. Wet noodles where spine should be.
There’s a twisted morality that searches for popularity as the grounding pole deciphering between right and wrong. Mr. Luke Warm seeks politically correct mannerisms with poor affect.
Given Ed’s argument, he would take legal issue with Scottsdale, AZ for their city ordinance requiring ALL STRUCTURES to have a Southwestern architectural facade throughout town. Municipalities and nations have the right to zone as deemed appropriate whether to conserve historical integrity, to require structural integrity, or simply out of aesthetic choice.
As per criticizing the Swiss for making a weak show in contrast to the vicious level of Muslim antagonism against the Danish, what’s anyone in the USA doing to confront the radical Muslim terrorists like Hasan today, or those in Ed’s own Minnesota backyard? Where are our government officials who should be promoting allegiance to our nation?
As per white/black sheep, the Swiss point I gathered was to be PEACEABLE. There was no symbolic denigration since lambs reflect placid innocence, not aggressive violence, never carnage. Whether black sheep or Black Friday, idiots who think that “black” is always all about race just want everything to be all about race in order to cry wolf all the time, stuck on stupid.
maverick muse on December 1, 2009 at 2:54 PM
I guess the entire city of Santa Fe is racist too.
By an ordinance passed in 1958, new and rebuilt buildings, especially those in designated historic districts, must exhibit a Spanish Territorial or Pueblo style of architecture, with flat roofs and other features suggestive of the area’s traditional adobe construction.
BohicaTwentyTwo on December 1, 2009 at 2:46 PM
———
That’s not racist. That’s historically charming and good for business.
Dave Rywall on December 1, 2009 at 2:55 PM
Based on some of the comments here, I suspect a few of you would like us to go around the country to federally owned land, parks, and memorials and start stripping them of religious symbolism. If the cross at Soledad has to go then I want to offer that the NEXT one be in the East:
The National Park Service and an organization representing victims’ families have reached a deal to buy the most critical piece of land needed for the Flight 93 National Memorial in Shanksville, Pa.
Sultry Beauty on December 1, 2009 at 2:50 PM
——-
Ahhh, the ol’ park looks like the islam symbol thing.
And, you’re about freedom of religion as long as it’s your religion.
Dave Rywall on December 1, 2009 at 2:58 PM
It’s not Islam that pisses off the Swiss and hence the minaret ban.
It’s the daily blaring of Islamic prayer from the loudspeakers they put on the minarets.
Talk to the Swiss and that’s what they’re really pissed about. The minarets as platforms for blaring out incomprehensible foreign language prayer at decibel levels that can only be described as ‘rude’.
Jason Coleman on December 1, 2009 at 2:54 PM
——
Pass a noise by-law.
No outside speakers allowed.
The end.
Dave Rywall on December 1, 2009 at 2:59 PM
right4life:
Instead of doing the right thing, we should imitate the bad behavior of other countries. That’s an enlightened worldview. Israelis like to spit on Christians. Next time you see a Jew, maybe you should spit on him.
dave742 on December 1, 2009 at 3:00 PM
I’m atheist and I don’t want it looking like an Islamic crescent either. Or a Soviet sickle.
Jason Coleman on December 1, 2009 at 3:02 PM
drywave is a broken record regurgitating contrarian rhetoric.
maverick muse on December 1, 2009 at 3:03 PM
I’m atheist and I don’t want it looking like an Islamic crescent either. Or a Soviet sickle.
Jason Coleman on December 1, 2009 at 3:02 PM
——
The moment the uproar roared about the design of the 93 memorial they should have gone back to the drawing board.
Dave Rywall on December 1, 2009 at 3:05 PM
drywave is a broken record regurgitating contrarian rhetoric.
maverick muse on December 1, 2009 at 3:03 PM
———
sure
Dave Rywall on December 1, 2009 at 3:05 PM
Adding the new article from the headlines:
UN on Swiss minaret ban: “Anti-foreigner scare-mongering”
Connie on December 1, 2009 at 3:06 PM
Which differs from this how in your argument?
If you can find me some info in the Koran on how a mosque isn’t a mosque without a minaret, I might have a different opinion.
Jason Coleman on December 1, 2009 at 3:07 PM
So why don’t you apologize for the “only if it’s your religion” comment?
Jason Coleman on December 1, 2009 at 3:08 PM
Just as a public service announcement, “Dave Rywall” was flat-out busted this weekend for reposting -verbatim, as his own- another’s poster’s 4 hour old comment describing his U.S. Navy service.
Doorgunner on December 1, 2009 at 3:10 PM
Dave Rywall has posted, what, 100 times in this thread so far?
It must be his shift.
Observe, people, the developing Leftist-Muslim Alliance.
The Enemy Within, indeed.
pseudonominus on December 1, 2009 at 3:11 PM
Which is to say, he’s a lying scumbag troll.
Doorgunner on December 1, 2009 at 3:11 PM
The moment the uproar roared about the design of the 93 memorial they should have gone back to the drawing board.
Dave Rywall on December 1, 2009 at 3:05 PM
So why don’t you apologize for the “only if it’s your religion” comment?
Jason Coleman on December 1, 2009 at 3:08 PM
——-
Yeah sure – I take it back.
I’m advocating a redesign because the design is too tainted by too many people suffering from Jesus’ face on a taco shell syndrome, not because I agree that it looks like anything in particular.
Dave Rywall on December 1, 2009 at 3:12 PM
Ouch!
+100
Guess that gives Dave a couple of things to apologize for.
Jason Coleman on December 1, 2009 at 3:13 PM
Just as a public service announcement, “Dave Rywall” was flat-out busted this weekend for reposting -verbatim, as his own- another’s poster’s 4 hour old comment describing his U.S. Navy service.
Doorgunner on December 1, 2009 at 3:10 PM
——
I actually did it 3 or 4 times. You missed it – and you missed the joke. Sorry you can’t keep up. ta ta.
Dave Rywall on December 1, 2009 at 3:14 PM
Well, you’re a liar. And I suspect that your deep seated problems with certain religions is not something you’ll ever work out via the internet and frankly, I’m not interested in helping you.
In a few short comments, you proved to be quite the idiot.
Jason Coleman on December 1, 2009 at 3:14 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »