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 »
Because falsely claiming military service is a joke… to Leftists.
Doorgunner on December 1, 2009 at 3:16 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
——-
excellent
Dave Rywall on December 1, 2009 at 3:16 PM
Because falsely claiming military service is a joke… to Leftists.
Doorgunner on December 1, 2009 at 3:16 PM
——-
Getting upset that someone made up a bunch of stuff on an anonymous web board = bigger joke
Dave Rywall on December 1, 2009 at 3:18 PM
To those who might be confused about minarets.
Minarets are not mentioned in the Koran.
Minarets are not necessary to construct a mosque.
In fact, minarets came into being almost a century after Mohammed’s death.
It’s more coincident that dogmatic that high observation towers in city centers architecturally evolved.
The Swiss were pissed off over what these spires were used for, blasting foreign language anythings at high decibels over residential areas at all hours of the day and night.
I’d also point out that, this ban also applies to spires erected by Protestant churches and what they do with them.
Religious Freedom story, this is not!
Jason Coleman on December 1, 2009 at 3:25 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
——
Oops
Turns out you’re a bit of a bullsh*tter, eh:
“”Muslims make up about 6% of Switzerland’s 7.5 million people, many of them refugees from the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s. Fewer than 13% practice their religion, the government says, and Swiss mosques do not broadcast the call to prayer outside their buildings.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/29/swiss-minarets-ban-referendum
Hey – bullsh*tter is kind of like liar, isn’t it?
Dave Rywall on December 1, 2009 at 3:26 PM
I just read this in an article talking about evil Russia:
“Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the 7000 Muslims in Taganrog, a city in southern Russia, “have had nowhere to meet.” When the “community applied for permission to build a mosque, the city administration offered a plot of land.” After construction began, however, the non-Muslim community began expressing fears and concerns, sometimes violently. As local elections approached, ‘The Cossacks issued an open letter saying they would only support a candidate opposing construction of the mosque.’ Finally, the regional administration called a meeting to resolve the problem. Despite agreeing that religious groups have the right to build places of worship, the administration, ‘bowing to public unease, … agreed the mosque should be built without a minaret so that it would not be obvious as a mosque.‘ While Russia guarantees its citizens religious freedom, the unfortunate reality, as seen in this example, is that religious freedom is often sacrificed to the whims and prejudices of various authorities, especially when pressured by political majorities.”
Brigham Young University Law Review
2001
2001 B.Y.U.L. Rev. 773
NOTES & COMMENTS: Islam in Russia Under the Federal Law on Freedom of Conscience and on Religious Associations: Official Tolerance in an Intolerant Society
NAME: R. Christopher Preston
Switzerland is ust following Russia’s lead
dave742 on December 1, 2009 at 3:30 PM
You’d know, because you’re both.
Switzerland has over a hundred mosques while Saudi has no churches, so the comparison is Crap ( like Dave, the fake-Canadian )
Janos Hunyadi on December 1, 2009 at 3:31 PM
You’d know, because you’re both.
Switzerland has over a hundred mosques while Saudi has no churches, so the comparison is Crap ( like Dave, the fake-Canadian )
Janos Hunyadi on December 1, 2009 at 3:31 PM
——–
What comparison?
And actually it’s 150+ mosques.
FOUR minarets.
None of them broadcast sh*t, as Jason Coleman claimed.
Dave Rywall on December 1, 2009 at 3:35 PM
Not upset at all. And I realize that admission was a big step for a little girl.
Doorgunner on December 1, 2009 at 3:38 PM
They don’t broadcast the call to prayer because that would be against the Swiss Constitution.
Instead they use a loophole, and declare (over the loudspeakers) “Allah is the greatest and the whole world must become Islamic”.
This “technically” is not the ‘call to prayer’. It’s just as offensive being blurted out at all hours of the day or night.
Jason Coleman on December 1, 2009 at 3:38 PM
And Dave knows. Cuz he lives there. He’s a Swiss Navy captain. Just ask him; he’ll tell ya.
Doorgunner on December 1, 2009 at 3:42 PM
They don’t broadcast the call to prayer because that would be against the Swiss Constitution.
Instead they use a loophole, and declare (over the loudspeakers) “Allah is the greatest and the whole world must become Islamic”.
This “technically” is not the ‘call to prayer’. It’s just as offensive being blurted out at all hours of the day or night.
Jason Coleman on December 1, 2009 at 3:38 PM
—–
First you claim multiple times it’s “the daily blaring of Islamic prayer” then suddenly it’s just some propaganda. Righhhht.
All hours of the night? Now you’re just being a moron.
Let’s have a link or the phone number of Hans or Franz your Swiss buddies.
Can’t wait.
Dave Rywall on December 1, 2009 at 3:45 PM
And Dave knows. Cuz he lives there. He’s a Swiss Navy captain. Just ask him; he’ll tell ya.
Doorgunner on December 1, 2009 at 3:42 PM
——
I really upset you. On the internet. Anonymously. On an anonymous web board.
I am so sorry.
Dave Rywall on December 1, 2009 at 3:46 PM
Looks like times have changed. Here’s how WaPo described a minaret in the US in the early 80′s:
“THE Islamic Center on Massachusetts Avenue may not stand serious esthetic comparison with the great monuments of Moslem architecture ranging from Spain to India, but the modest, elegant little building with its trim minaret that towers over Rock Creek Park has added an appreciable grace note to the city’s architecture for 26 years.”
The Washington Post
September 6, 1983, Tuesday, Final Edition
Islamic Grace
BYLINE: By Benjamin Forgey
SECTION: Style; Arts; Focus; B7
It seems as though tolerance is a thing of the past. I know, we now live in a post-9/11 world.
dave742 on December 1, 2009 at 3:50 PM
Please, could you sing a selection from HMS Pinafore, Captain Heidi?
Doorgunner on December 1, 2009 at 3:52 PM
It’s pretty bizarre when the world’s most intolerant religion and people cry discrimination. I say for every minaret built in Europe, America and the Western world, we should be allowed to erect a one hundred and twenty foot high cross in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Indonesia and all other Muslim mullacracies.
Also Europe is ripe for an Islamic takeover since it’s full of atheists who just want to go along to get along. Someday they’ll all either be forced to convert to Islam or be beheaded. You just wait and watch. That’s what history tells us. Look at the history of the countries that Islam has spread to and what happened to the people of those countries once the Muslim immigrants reached ethnic plurality.
OxyCon on December 1, 2009 at 4:00 PM
As someone already pointed out, rape against the infidel is the Muslims’ way of showing non-Muslims “who’s boss”, so, yes, those people are scumbags and Islam is exactly what justifies their scumbaggery.
“Bigotry” is based on an a priori prejudice. My attitude toward Islam is based on empirical study. Motivation attribution fail.
And, it’s not only Muslims I despise, it’s their naive enablers like you, also. In fact, getting rid of you is the first step to solving the Muslim issue in the West. Can’t wait. Each day brings it closer.
venividivici on December 1, 2009 at 4:11 PM
Simple solution- Islam is a political idology disguised as a very violent, intolerant religion. A religion that if you do not convert or subjugate, will require your death.
Freedom loving countries therefore have every right to outlaw Islam.
If muslims would like to be regarded along with the rest of the world’s religions, then all of these moderate muslims that must surely exist in the world have the DUTY to police themselves. There are very few that even try this.
I personally have no recollections of masses of Jews & Christians roaming around the planet killing innocent people bcs they will not convert to Judaism or Christianity.
The killing that some of their fringe elements do in the name of God pales mightily in comparison to the mobs & sheer masses of millions of muslims worldwide who endorse and condone the rampant violence that defines Islam.
Badger40 on December 1, 2009 at 4:13 PM
Of course outlwing Islam is NOT what the Swiss have done.
This is kind of like fighting with your kid.
Your kid makes a promise to you while crossing his fingers behind his back.
This is what these muslim communities are doing.
The minaret is a power thing, a defiance thing.
The Swiss recognize it for what it is & chose to do something about it.
Kudos to them, but I’m afraid they may be way too late to save their own skins on this one.
Badger40 on December 1, 2009 at 4:15 PM
I am so sorry.
Dave Rywall on December 1, 2009 at 3:46 PM
Please, could you sing a selection from HMS Pinafore, Captain Heidi?
Doorgunner on December 1, 2009 at 3:52 PM
——
You’re as dumb as your sisters and your cousins and your aunts.
Dave Rywall on December 1, 2009 at 4:16 PM
As someone already pointed out, rape against the infidel is the Muslims’ way of showing non-Muslims “who’s boss”, so, yes, those people are scumbags and Islam is exactly what justifies their scumbaggery.
“Bigotry” is based on an a priori prejudice. My attitude toward Islam is based on empirical study. Motivation attribution fail.
And, it’s not only Muslims I despise, it’s their naive enablers like you, also. In fact, getting rid of you is the first step to solving the Muslim issue in the West. Can’t wait. Each day brings it closer.
venividivici on December 1, 2009 at 4:11 PM
——
The extremists use their book of stupid to justify their actions.
We use our laws to say no you can’t do that.
Arrest ‘em and put ‘em in jail. The end.
And again, you are prejudiced/are bigoted/posses a negative bias toward over a billion people based on the actions of hmmm what, 1% of them? Awesome worldview.
Dave Rywall on December 1, 2009 at 4:19 PM
Actually Dave, I did say ‘call to prayer’ and in a very hyper-technical sense I might be wrong. You’ll notice that I prefaced these with “foreign language” and once I noticed the type of debater you are, I used the very precise ‘foreign language anything’.
Technically, the mosques are not allowed to broadcast the call to prayer, because that would be against the Constitution. So they use other pithy verses like the one I quoted above. Now it’s possible that sometimes, they do slip in the Islamic ‘call to prayer’ and journey through youtube will probably help you on this one. I can’t say for certain that each of the mosques slips it in, but I can say that more than one has.
As for all hours of the day and night, yes, dave, Mosques make declarations at all ours of the day and night (so do many Christian churches, although the Christian churches cut with the bells all night decades ago). You might not think that 10pm or midnight is late, but some Swiss with children certainly do.
Some Swiss also consider sunrise to be a bit early in the morning too.
Your google-fu will never beat my boots on the ground dave.
Jason Coleman on December 1, 2009 at 4:20 PM
Simple solution- Islam is a political idology disguised as a very violent, intolerant religion. A religion that if you do not convert or subjugate, will require your death.
Freedom loving countries therefore have every right to outlaw Islam.
If muslims would like to be regarded along with the rest of the world’s religions, then all of these moderate muslims that must surely exist in the world have the DUTY to police themselves. There are very few that even try this.
I personally have no recollections of masses of Jews & Christians roaming around the planet killing innocent people bcs they will not convert to Judaism or Christianity.
The killing that some of their fringe elements do in the name of God pales mightily in comparison to the mobs & sheer masses of millions of muslims worldwide who endorse and condone the rampant violence that defines Islam.
Badger40 on December 1, 2009 at 4:13 PM
——
Muslim leaders have no ba*ls so they won’t step up to the plate and condemn anything.
The Christians did some “roaming around the planet killing innocent people bcs they will not convert to Judaism or Christianity” – I heard there was this little thing called the crusades.
Dave Rywall on December 1, 2009 at 4:22 PM
Actually Dave, I did say ‘call to prayer’ and in a very hyper-technical sense I might be wrong. You’ll notice that I prefaced these with “foreign language” and once I noticed the type of debater you are, I used the very precise ‘foreign language anything’.
Technically, the mosques are not allowed to broadcast the call to prayer, because that would be against the Constitution. So they use other pithy verses like the one I quoted above. Now it’s possible that sometimes, they do slip in the Islamic ‘call to prayer’ and journey through youtube will probably help you on this one. I can’t say for certain that each of the mosques slips it in, but I can say that more than one has.
As for all hours of the day and night, yes, dave, Mosques make declarations at all ours of the day and night (so do many Christian churches, although the Christian churches cut with the bells all night decades ago). You might not think that 10pm or midnight is late, but some Swiss with children certainly do.
Some Swiss also consider sunrise to be a bit early in the morning too.
Your google-fu will never beat my boots on the ground dave.
Jason Coleman on December 1, 2009 at 4:20 PM
——-
Where’s the link about the broadcasting of anything from these minarets
Or
Where’s the phone number of Hans and Franz.
Dave Rywall on December 1, 2009 at 4:23 PM
“killing innocent people bcs they will not convert to Judaism”
Didn’t happen.
Jason Coleman on December 1, 2009 at 4:24 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-t4vCBTvsg
Man, you just walked into that one didn’t ya.
Jason Coleman on December 1, 2009 at 4:26 PM
Gee, don’t get upset; you can always repost my insults as your own -at all sorts of anonymous internets boards. And don’t fret, Heidi, Hans und Franz will call soon.
Doorgunner on December 1, 2009 at 4:26 PM
Maybe they just don’t want minarets next to their Swiss chalets.
BohicaTwentyTwo on December 1, 2009 at 4:27 PM
Dave Rywall
1. v. – intr. To tell falsehoods for recreation, e.g., Everyone Dave Rywalls about sex.
2. adj. An object of scorn; one who is generally despised or avoided; a pariah.
3. n. A troll.
Venusian Visitor on December 1, 2009 at 4:28 PM
Ask Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs…I read many posters months ago with this attitude in Europe. Now, of course, Charles uses his allowing them posting rights to attack Hot Air and other “rightwing” sites as his excuse to go home, again !!
sharinlite on December 1, 2009 at 4:28 PM
“killing innocent people bcs they will not convert to Judaism”
Didn’t happen.
Jason Coleman on December 1, 2009 at 4:24 PM
——-
OMG YES TAKE OUT THE WORD JUDAISM
Now let’s have a look at some of the quotes from the bible calling for the killing of enemy tribes/peoples who were rooting for the wrong god.
Dave Rywall on December 1, 2009 at 4:30 PM
Dave Rywall
1. v. – intr. To tell falsehoods for recreation, e.g., Everyone Dave Rywalls about sex.
2. adj. An object of scorn; one who is generally despised or avoided; a pariah.
3. n. A troll.
Venusian Visitor on December 1, 2009 at 4:28 PM
—–
Making your post look like a dictionary definition = the lamest hackiest pile of hack one could possibly type on a keyboard. Congratulations on being a stain on the bottom of the toilet of creativity.
Dave Rywall on December 1, 2009 at 4:32 PM
You’re as dumb as your sisters and your cousins and your aunts.
Dave Rywall on December 1, 2009 at 4:16 PM
Gee, don’t get upset; you can always repost my insults as your own -at all sorts of anonymous internets boards. And don’t fret, Heidi, Hans und Franz will call soon.
Doorgunner on December 1, 2009 at 4:26 PM
——
Sorry my HMS PInafore reference that you asked for flew over your tiny head.
Dave Rywall on December 1, 2009 at 4:33 PM
You know what number is smaller than 1%? The amount I care about your opinion of my worldview. I estimate that at 0%. You clearly have little or no actual knowledge of Muslim history, just a vague sense that they’re non-Western, so they must be OK, right?
How many percent do you think it took them to accomplish this?
http://www.socialdailynews.com/2007/11/islam-270-million-bodies-in-1400-years/
And, I don’t care about the people per se, it’s the ideology that’s indefensible. Most Muslims, if they weren’t born in Muslim countries, could just as easily be some other religion, obviously, dumb*ss.
I do see you and your kind as the biggest roadblock, at this point, though. Eliminating you and your ideology is the key first step, as I said. It can happen the easy way or the hard way. As the Swiss example shows, it’s gonna happen, because normal people don’t think that pandering to people’s religion just because their skin is brown makes a whole lot of sense, unlike those who fetishize “the Other”.
venividivici on December 1, 2009 at 4:33 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-t4vCBTvsg
Man, you just walked into that one didn’t ya.
Jason Coleman on December 1, 2009 at 4:26 PM
——
Well, I’ll be f*cked. You might be right.
Dave Rywall on December 1, 2009 at 4:35 PM
Making your post look like a dictionary definition = the lamest hackiest pile of hack one could possibly type on a keyboard. Congratulations on being a stain on the bottom of the toilet of creativity.
Dave Rywall on December 1, 2009 at 4:32 PM
Are you serious or are you just Dave Rywalling us all again?
Venusian Visitor on December 1, 2009 at 4:38 PM
Are you serious or are you just Dave Rywalling us all again?
Venusian Visitor on December 1, 2009 at 4:38 PM
——-
That all you can do is lamely Venutiate is not my problem.
Dave Rywall on December 1, 2009 at 4:41 PM
I’m sorry, you “gallant captain’s daughter”, I’m not as “up on” show tune lyrics as you.
Doorgunner on December 1, 2009 at 4:44 PM
The Swiss people have just had it with the BS. I’d vote the same way if the Mormons were blasting on about the magic salamander in my neighborhood. I’d vote the same way if the Catholics dropped a church a few doors down and rang the full 12 set at midnight.
The to the Swiss this wasn’t racist, to everyone jumping on this “OMG look at how racist the Swiss are”.
Like that is even news to anyone. It’s not even really racism or religious intolerance. The SWISS are prejudiced against anyone who isn’t SWISS. It’s ALWAYS been that way and will always be that way. The SWISS are the most no-nonsense get with the program people on Earth.
Blasting out Islamic verses, or anything in that shrill chanting is GONNA PISS THEM OFF! It’d piss me off too. Given the nature and history of the SWISS, I’m all for keeping them as calm and happy as we can.
YES – They are restricted from “declaring” the “call to prayer”, it’s all the other BS that people are tired tired tired of.
Jason Coleman on December 1, 2009 at 4:46 PM
Not a chance. You always wake up too early.
viking01 on December 1, 2009 at 4:48 PM
I’m sorry, you “gallant captain’s daughter”, I’m not as “up on” show tune lyrics as you.
Doorgunner on December 1, 2009 at 4:44 PM
And you’re not an antisocial, effete vulgarian, either. Thank goodness; one per forum is enough.
Venusian Visitor on December 1, 2009 at 4:49 PM
I’m sorry, you “gallant captain’s daughter”, I’m not as “up on” show tune lyrics as you.
Doorgunner on December 1, 2009 at 4:44 PM
——
You needed a few minutes to do some googling. That’s cool.
Dave Rywall on December 1, 2009 at 4:49 PM
Because reposting others comments as your own, especially as regards military service, puts you at the very top of that ‘floater’ in the creativity bowl. Even more when you claim you did it multiple times as a ‘joke’.
Doorgunner on December 1, 2009 at 4:50 PM
Back on topic, I think the Swiss reaction was too mild. What would Charles Martel do?
Venusian Visitor on December 1, 2009 at 4:50 PM
I am crude, vulgar, and profane. I am also on your side whether you like it or not.
Doorgunner on December 1, 2009 at 4:53 PM
I like it. And doorgunners can be as crude, vulgar, and profane as they want. They’ve earned it.
Venusian Visitor on December 1, 2009 at 4:55 PM
Because reposting others comments as your own, especially as regards military service, puts you at the very top of that ‘floater’ in the creativity bowl. Even more when you claim you did it multiple times as a ‘joke’.
Doorgunner on December 1, 2009 at 4:50 PM
—-
ohhh man you still don’t get it
Dave Rywall on December 1, 2009 at 4:57 PM
Before Mohammed received his bogus “revelations,” there were five great Sees of Christendom: Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople, and Rome. Four of those five have been conquered outright by Islam. Now they’re in position to take the fifth one through infiltration.
Anybody who can’t see that is blind. Anybody who thinks that sounds fair ought to be in Congress with the rest of the idiots.
Venusian Visitor on December 1, 2009 at 5:05 PM
Anything which limits yodeling in Switzerland can’t be all bad.
viking01 on December 1, 2009 at 5:08 PM
Read up on the crusades please. That is not why they went there in the first place.
I am not going to teach you history, but if you are going to spout it, please read up on the history of it before you open your piehole.
Muslim leaders don’t step up to the plate & police their more fantical members bcs they, too approve of the violent actions terrorists take.
The only way muslims police each other is to kill those who speak out against the atrocities commited as they are laid out in the Koran.
After reading much of the Koran, I have deduced that is Satan were to write his own book, then this is it.
Badger40 on December 1, 2009 at 5:20 PM
Maybe they just want the muslims out. Switzerland is not a “nation of immigrants” and perhaps they don’t want to be. Maybe they want immigrants to their country to love it and follow its ways. I must have missed the meeting where right wingers were supposed to begin embracing multiculturalism. I am actually surprised there isn’t more debate about immigration from Asia, Latin America, Africa to Europe, the US and Canada, but I guess that would be racist.
snoopicus on December 1, 2009 at 5:23 PM
Here is a comment I posted at another site, disliked by the management of hot air. However the comment expresses facts there and here.
This comment may be distasteful, but it is true. Don’t give the Swiss more credit than they deserve. Their society incorporates the most distasteful aspects of capitalism. If they did this, they decided they can make more money this way.
As a people and government, the Swiss inculcate al the worst comments the nazis and palestinians shouted about the Jews. And none of what was said about the Jews was true, but applied to the Swiss is.
Old Country Boy on December 1, 2009 at 5:26 PM
Jason Coleman:
It’s extremely sad that you belive that video is real. As joaomiguel53 said in the comment section:
No wonder this country is so screwed up.
dave742 on December 1, 2009 at 5:33 PM
So lemme get this straight, just because some commenter rails on the poster of the video and calls for German nationalism, that means the video is fake?
Is that your position?
Jason Coleman on December 1, 2009 at 5:59 PM
Your argument isn’t convincing. Did the Nazis and the Palestinians really pick up anti-semitism from the Swiss? There are accounts in the Sunnnah of Mohammed cursing the Children of Israel, so I doubt the latter.
In any case how can anyone make a country’s past anti-semitism the decisive factor in how they approach a contemporary issue? Should we be glad that Obama cancelled the missile shield in Eastern Europe because of the past anti-semitism of Poland?
aengus on December 1, 2009 at 6:13 PM
The nazis and palestinians did not pick up anti-semitism from the Swiss. The Swiss do not hate the Jews per se. They just hate anyone they can’t make a franc off of. I did not say the swiss were antisemitic – I said they fit many of the lies the antisemites said about the Jews. You Know money, gold, interest, usury, anything for a franc, etc. The expostulation of the germans and palestinians were not true about the Jews, but those same expostulations do apply to the Swiss.
Old Country Boy on December 1, 2009 at 6:30 PM
Oh I see. That makes a bit more sense but it’s still hard to credit. For instance most countries’ financial infrastructure, including the US Treasury, have switched to Islamic finance to make a buck off of Muslims without having to worry about the Islamic ban on usury. Why didn’t the Swiss just do that – seeing as everyone else has?
My link above was about feminists who voted for the ban because they said they wanted to protect their rights…how will they make money off of it? Or what about the millionaire Christoph Blocher who financed the ‘No’ campaign, how will he make money his money back and a profit to boot?
Also if all Swiss people are motivated by the profit motive why did 57% vote one way and 43% vote the other way? Is there money to be made by voting ‘Yes’ and by voting ‘No’?
How did you come to your conclusion that the Swiss people fit anti-semitic sterotypes? Do you know any greedy Swiss people, have you lived there etc.?
aengus on December 1, 2009 at 6:43 PM
HEY LEFT WINGER TREE HUGGER INFIDEL’S,,,JUST EXACTLY HOW MANY CHURCH STEEPLES DO YOU SEE IN SAUDI ARABIA???none!!!!,,WHEN WE CAN COUNT CHURCH’S IN SAUDI THEN THERE MAY BE SOMETHING TO THE MOOOSLUM WHINING CRAP ,,TIL THEN, SHUT UP
AMERICAN VETERAN on December 1, 2009 at 6:45 PM
This from a poem recited by Turkish PM Mr Erdogan in 1998:
“The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and Muslims our soldiers…”
This Jerusalem Post April 29, 2009 article is interesting:
More than a coincidence: Minarets, geography and power.
“Even in more obscure locations, the building of minarets has served as an expression of power and influence. The center of the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem has long been the Hurva Synagogue which was constructed and reconstructed several times between 1700 and the present. But attached to this great synagogue is a mosque whose minaret is intentionally taller than the Hurva’s dome.”
“The building of mosques is not always an expression of power, but historically and today in mixed communities mosques are constructed with a view toward the non-Muslim other. This author is even familiar with a family of Palestinian communists in the West Bank where a mosque was, not coincidentally, constructed next door to their house.
“It becomes blatantly obvious in a community like Sheikh Jarrah in east Jerusalem, where almost every other mosque is situated next to a Christian building or former holy site. The next time one sees a mosque, he should not take it for granted. Many of them have a history and geographical placement that is not coincidental and which serves as an expression of political Islam and its aspirations.”
davod on December 1, 2009 at 6:48 PM
Ed, you’re missing the point of what the minaret is- it’s not just an architectural feature, it’s a political symbol too, one that represents Islam’s dominance over the landscape in which it is erected.
Do a search for minaret on Jihad Watch for the full story.
Jay Mac on December 1, 2009 at 6:56 PM
angryed on December 1, 2009 at 7:12 PM
aengus – I am open to changing my mind if the Swiss bankers see fit to return the pv billions of dollars worth of gold, jewelry and art that they have used every quibbling excuse to keep. Only when forced by US banks they owned did they voluntarily make good to the tune of about 2%, generously donated to jewish relief organizations. Of course the other 98% is still theirs. I realised they really have to demand birth cirtificates from death camp survivors and other unobtainable proof of ownership. In the meanwhile, they can keep going to their cathedrals and feel good about what caring christians they are, while spending other’s money. They may not have been nazis, but they sure as hell profited from what the nazi did, then their depositors trusted them to have good faith.
Hey, I wonder if any other people’s stolen money is banked in Switzerland? Hmmm? A country is known by what its people allow to be done in their name. They don’t have to profit as individuals (although I sure Swiss industried grown on stolen money have provided a few jobs.)
Old Country Boy on December 1, 2009 at 7:38 PM
unfortunately whenever atheists take power they tend to be murderous dogs who put the muslims to shame.
right4life on December 1, 2009 at 8:26 PM
you sure don’t tolerate the jews do you now?
right4life on December 1, 2009 at 8:29 PM
This ban on minarets does not bother me at all as it gives Muslims a taste of their own medicine. Christians are treated like animals in the Islamic world, subjected to violence, discrimination, jiyza extortion and forced conversions. Hindus are treated even worse. Yet no one in the UN or anywhere says anything and Islamic fascism.People are tired of Islam and I suspect anti-Islamic referendums would pass by a wide margin in many parts of the Western world. Better a vote at the ballot box then the typical Muslim response of riots and suicide bomb attacks.
Hera on December 1, 2009 at 8:51 PM
Jason Coleman:
Go to your link, and click on “salaat2007,” which is the homepage of the person who took these videos of the muezzins. On his homepage, you will see this:
The author is Johannes Gees, who made the video for a website called Agent Provocateur. In response to the controversy in Switzerland, Gees secretly took speakers into churches in Sweden and broadcast the muezzin calls from the churches. Here is the video showing him hiding the speakers in the churches, and this video is available on youtube as well; and can be found from the link you gave.
Here, in Gees, words, is why he did what he did:
I could obviously say more about this, but I won’t.
dave742 on December 1, 2009 at 9:01 PM
LOL…the utter fecklessness of secular humanism is amusing.
ddrintn on December 1, 2009 at 9:23 PM
Islam isn’t a religion as defined as worshipping God, It is a political cult that forces its will upon all that are under it. Freedom and liberty doesn’t exist and can’t co-exist under the banner of Islam.
If we can wait around another two millennia, it would still be the same old cult it was from the beginning as it is today.
larvcom on December 1, 2009 at 9:43 PM
and trite to boot
disillusioned on December 1, 2009 at 9:51 PM
The minaret ban is no cause for celebration
Another continuation from the headline section.
Connie on December 1, 2009 at 9:55 PM
I understand it’s true that many or perhaps all scholarly and judicial interpreters of the Fourteenth Amendment construe it as requiring application of the First Amendment to the States. Nevertheless, if they are right, one can distinguish between the legal and the good and consider whether it was good for the amenders to legislate the application of the First Amendment in its entirety to the States.
The importance of the problem may come to light in this thought experiment: Imagine that in some future time, the United States were once again a federal union, and that the nations of Europe had become member States of that federal union. Suppose that the opportunity arose to annex Turkey by treaty as, say, the 70th State, because the Turks wanted to join the world’s most powerful and stable economic and military federation. Assume (plausibly, I think, under the given circumstances), that the U.S. government and people favored Turkish statehood for a combination of patriotic, economic, and strategic reasons. Does it seem both parties would be more likely to successfully conclude the treaty, if it was well understood that the U.S. Congress could establish neither Christianity nor Islam, while the legislature of each State could, if the legislators saw fit, accord some degree of official status to one, the other, or perhaps both?
I understand that the thought experiment is quite a stretch. However, the chief reason it’s such a stretch seems to be the circumstance that the United States is scarcely any longer federal. And impairment of the First Amendment by the Fourteenth seems to be part of the problem.
Let a thousand flowers bloom.
Kralizec on December 1, 2009 at 10:30 PM
You have been warned.
Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called ‘religious rights.’
As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone.
At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs.
From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal and work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law.
When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats.
After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning.
At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare.
From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing, use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels.
After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide.
100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ – the Islamic House of Peace – there’s supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim.
ms on December 1, 2009 at 10:31 PM
So, when are the Swiss going to put up a cathedral in Mecca?
Actually, I’m still surprised that Switzerland and the Scandinavian countries still have crosses on their flags given the power of the Socialists over there. Perhaps there’s just enough right wingers in those countries to keep the Bolsheviks from taking over completely.
Dr. ZhivBlago on December 1, 2009 at 10:57 PM
Bang, bang. The church bells are ringing.
disillusioned on December 1, 2009 at 11:20 PM
Jihad Watch Awards 2009: Nominations are now open!
Not Ed, I hope.
Connie on December 1, 2009 at 11:54 PM
Alas, the letter t hasn’t been under scrutiny yet.
disillusioned on December 1, 2009 at 11:57 PM
Is Islam a viable religion for democracies when its mullah’s make repeated calls for violence against innocents? Or is it a political movement?
What if skinheads became a religion and built houses of worship that had large gallows on each corner of their building that played racist thrash metal? Would that be acceptable in your neighborhood?
ray on December 1, 2009 at 11:57 PM
the naming convention sounds appropriate
disillusioned on December 2, 2009 at 12:01 AM
good analogy… Acceptable is subjective though, for instance the first amendment is blind to the word. For a good reason too.
disillusioned on December 2, 2009 at 12:12 AM
Kudos to the Swiss~ for trying to limit the number of cuckoos they allow in their clocks.
Islam is a little wind-up tyranny.
Sworn to spread over the world and smother it into theocratic submission.
Europe’s own history is a red streak of sanctimonious terror spreading back over the past two millennia.
Those waking from the recent p.c. post-religious urge on the Continent now know better than to try to tolerate the same old holy madness, in new dress, once again.
To invite in a self-avowed, aggressive ideological opponent, who uses the shield of ‘religion’ to gain colonizing advantages… is fatalistically witless.
The Swiss ~ and others~ seem to be slowly regaining their wits.
And not a minaret too soon.
profitsbeard on December 2, 2009 at 12:36 AM
Brilliant!
EscapeVelocity on December 2, 2009 at 3:43 AM
Pamella Geller at Atlas Shrugs blog did a round up of polls carried out by media and found that people in other European countries would vote the same. We just do not want islam, are you listening leaders or fake leaders?
TrueBrit on December 2, 2009 at 5:03 AM
Right, just as soon as Thomas Cromwell apologises for the dissolution of the monasteries and the Queen gives them all back and America makes it up to the savage injun tribes for taking their land.
The game you’tre playing can be played on any country. You couldn’t answer my questions and demonstrate how Switzerland’s historical crimes are a guide with which to judge contemporary events.
Do you honestly expect people to ‘transfer’ anti-semitic stereotypes onto the Swiss people as some kind of karmic revenge kick?
From reading your blog (which links to LGF) I’m sure you have historical objections to trot out for every European country that tries to defend itself.
I’m sure you’re just as upset at the sainted Iraqi people who played an active role in the Holocaust: The Farhud
aengus on December 2, 2009 at 8:37 AM
Jay Mac/Badger40:
“One of the planned new minarets was supposed to be built in a small city called Langenthal. Its height 5 meters 25 centimeters.” (quote from above)
If Muslims want to dominate the landscape and display their power by constructing a 17 foot tower, I don’t think you have anything to worry about with the scary Muslims.
dave742 on December 2, 2009 at 8:39 AM
While I would’ve preferred that the Swiss voted to ban mosques rather than minarets, I think this is a step in the right direction. Essentially this poll was a civilizational ‘gut-check’, a test to see if disparate groups of people living in a democracy feel the same way about Islam as their fellow non-muslims and a resounding majority said yes.
I think all of us who are aware of the danger that Islam poses to the West (and the world) were pleased with the result. Essentially we’re telling each other through this vote that we ‘get it’ and this is really just an opening shot in the movement against Islamification.
What this means now I think, is that when it comes to future actions taken against Islam will receive majority approval. So if we collectively voted to ban Islam for example, it has a good chance of passing. (Though I realize I could be stretching my assumption a bit.)
Its also the reason why the anti-Islamic politician Geert Wilders-while viciously attacked and maligned by the cowardly/dhimmi liberal media and politicians (and obviously muslims)-has the most popular party in the Netherlands.
I believe the same thing is occurring all over Europe and in N. America, people are wising up and are incensed at liberal appeasement and political correctness in the face of an existential threat. Elections over the next couple of years should (hopefully) bring in more conservative/anti-Islamic parties and then the real resistance to Islam will take hold. Can’t wait!
After seeing so much discouraging capitulation over and over again to every whim and demand from muslim bullying and thuggery as well as creeping Sharia these past years since 9/11, I think the West is finally starting to grow a spine. Still a long way to go but it seems the tide is turning.
And as ms pointed out above, allowing Islam to grow would mean our enslavement and destruction, so we have no choice but to eliminate Islam before it does that to us-muslims are at war with us after all (as instructed by their warmongering death cult).
thinkagain on December 2, 2009 at 10:35 AM
HISTORY ALERT for those indoctrinated with anti-Christian history- With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed’s death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt—once the most heavily Christian areas in the world—quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.
That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.
vicarious on December 2, 2009 at 12:33 PM
Dave, this is an issue that has only come to pass in modern times now that the citizens have been dumbed down by Liberal run Public Education. It wasn’t suppose to keep people from being able to express only SECULAR beliefs in the public square. It was only meant to keep the government from making a Church of the USA and lend all it’s support to ONE FAITH similar to the land they just broke ties from did with the Anglican Church. Whether people want to accept and acknowledge it, most Americans are of the Christian faith. That’s just a fact. And to make it so that people cannot acknowledge and worship their faith that soothes their soul in the “public square” of a desert just because half a dozen people are TERRIFIED by the sight of a cross is just plain said and the Founding Fathers who constructed the Constitution, I guarantee, would not approve!
For more detail watch this beautiful video explanation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeuBB_mOFIA&feature=player_embedded
Sultry Beauty on December 2, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Please note that the cross was placed FIRST and taken over by the NPS later. Now that it’s part of the NPS it’s gotta go, regardless of the history behind it. Pathetic. It’s just like Mt. Soledad in reverse. The simple fact that it sits on federal owned land doesn’t make it state sponsored religious relic no matter how you slice it. To have such a narrow view of things it to belie a religious intolerance that was what the constitution and 1st Amendment were meant to protect its citizens against. The singlemindedness about attacking the cross is only that, intolerance of one particular religion.
Sultry Beauty on December 2, 2009 at 12:39 PM
Oh yea, and the defendant in this case? An OREGON man who came down to Mojave, CA and decided he was OFFENDED by the cross in the desert. And since it was placed under the NPS in “1994″, decided that he was so offended that it meant the US Government was forcing down to Mojave, CA to look at the cross and have a conversion or some such nonsense. I guess? So he gets to have the cross WWI veterans go to visit to remember their sacrifice placed under a cardboard box. Simply marvelous display of the full intent of the 1st Amendment. Simply marvelous.
FAIL. You people that agree with this kind of thing have more than protecting the 1st Amendment in your mind. You’re using a rouse that Atheism or Secularism are not a religions in and of themselves and that only traditional classical religions need apply and use that philosophy to attack religious beliefs that are the antithesis of your own beliefs. It’s simply BS.
Sultry Beauty on December 2, 2009 at 12:52 PM
It gives them morale. It boosts them pschologically.
It emboldens them to spread their political ideology to every shore.
I have nothing against muslims per say. I do have a problem with the political ideology that is masked as a religion called Islam.
If you think it’s so harmless, visit some of these muslim communities and just see how they treat infidels and dhimmis.
Your persepctive will change.
Unless you don’t mind groveling or converting.
Badger40 on December 2, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Man, Dave, you know NOTHING of History, do you? Frankly, not sure why I’m bothering with a troll, but I feel obligated to correct these 2 comments especially…so here goes:
Point 1: This “awesome worldview” is based on studying and understanding the Qur’an and sharia law, both of which condone the subjugation of other religions and violence if they don’t convert. Any passages in the Bible related to what dissenters deem “violent passages” related to specific battles against foes or those bent on the destruction of the Children of Israel. The peaceful passages in the Qur’an have all been abrogated by the later violent ones Mo had included from his Medina preaching (after he was rejected by Jews to become a rabbi…can’t figure out why). ALL of these passages are open-ended, general statements against Jews and Christians.
(It would help if you actually studied this religion…then you’d understand what I’ve just mentioned, FYI.)
Point 2: The Crusades were a direct response to 300 years of Jihad in Jerusalem. If your “Holy City” had been attacked by others in a deliberate attempt to subjugate the populace and defile the holiness of it, what would you do? Seriously, do you honestly think talking to people who believe and think this way is ever effective? It’s possible to use some form of diplomacy with those Muslims who are considered “bad” according to the Qur’an, but not the true believers.
I think you’re arguing your position from a lack of knowledge of this religion and how close the other 90% of Muslims to becoming like their radical minority…it has nothing to do with them personally, and everything to do with the fact that Islam forces only a literal translation of its violent passages (such as “smite them at the neck”).
Miss_Anthrope on December 2, 2009 at 12:55 PM
Badger40:
Wow!! That’s a lot for a 17 foot pole!
I have, and have friends that have. Either we are visiting different people, or it’s something about you that is the problem. Under what conditions do you visit these communities? In a tank?
dave742 on December 2, 2009 at 1:00 PM
NOTE:
Although I know quite a bit about Islam (and remain on constant guard against those in the religion in case they seek to destroy my freedoms), I do have the CHOICE not to be offended by certain things (such as the symbol of the religion, the crescent and star, for example).
HOWEVER, I do CHOOSE to be offended by the symbol of Sharia Law’s DOMINANCE over other religions and peoples, whether by force, stealth, or taxation.
THAT symbol is the minaret.
Miss_Anthrope on December 2, 2009 at 1:03 PM
aengus – Thanks. I forgot to clear LGF from my blog. I cleared them from my links many moons ago. I think they are just playing games to get hits.
I think you still misunderstand me in a matter of principles, not history. I realise we can go back in history from short term to since hominids walked upright and find one group conquering or stealing from another. I am writing about the relatively modern betrayal of trust by the Swiss. We don’t have to go back to Cromwell. He is dead, and everyone with him. The Swiss betrayed people still alive, provable and documented. Some of the people that did the betraying, hands on, are still alive. That is the difference. Once this gets past the historical eschaton, there will be no one left to punish or make whole. Then we can put the whole affair in the dustbin af history, as were the examples you gave.
To me, the interesting thing about that betrayal is that it was done by people who have presented to the world the image that they are the most peaceful, honest, and trustworthy of all of us. This problem has nothing to do with supposed antisemites in the muslim world, real and mythical. This has nothing to do with native Americans or the English revolution.
Old Country Boy on December 2, 2009 at 1:47 PM
so tell me, when was the last time you were in saudi arabia or iran? oh but I’m sure you would feel right at home there…
do you visit jewish communities in a tank, or do you just wear your swastika?
right4life on December 2, 2009 at 1:49 PM
thats right!! THANK GOD FOR THE CRUSADES!!
and people like Charles Martel, and the monks of St. John..
right4life on December 2, 2009 at 1:51 PM
You have visited muslim communities in Iran, Iraq? Afghanistan? Minneapolis? Detroit?
Do you do so as a muslim yourself? Or as an unbeliever?
Do you not know that the Koran justifies the lying to infidels while under their rule?
Do you not understand that their ‘religion’ mandates that under their rule, you will either convert, reduce yourself to dhimmi status, or die?
What do you nto understand about this intolerant, violent political ideology?
I know muslims myself. They are very nice to me. They are very kind.
Have you been to the muslim ghettos of France?
I have no problems with a muslim, as long as they are not trying to subjigate me, convert me, or kill me.
When they live among unbelievers, they go along their merry way.
Read their holy book & you find the ‘religion’s’ true purpose is to destroy the existing govt & enforce a caliphate.
It may take many generations for this to happen, and they all work toward this goal in small ways.
The minarets are just one of many ways they use in order to enfore their goal.
And I’m well aware not all muslims think a worldwide caliphate should be enforced.
But they won’t stop it.
There are not enough moderate muslims that actually say or do anything to turn this tide around.
Bottom line-Islam is no religion.
You cannot fully believe in the Koran and live in a freedom loving society without trying to destroy it.
No matter how moderate a muslim you may be, being moderate will get you killed by your fellow muslims.
So kibbitz away here all you wish.
The fact of the matter is that there are a lot of ‘religions’ that mask themselves as such in order to gain power.
This is one of those.
Badger40 on December 2, 2009 at 2:03 PM
right4life:
“so tell me, when was the last time you were in saudi arabia or iran?”
Never. You?
“do you visit jewish communities in a tank, or do you just wear your swastika?”
My mother-in-law is Jewish, and I know many Jews. I do not need a tank to talk to them.
dave742 on December 2, 2009 at 2:16 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »