Switzerland voted to ban the building of Minarets

[freakyfreaky]

Re: Switzerland voted to ban the building of Minarets

If you want democracy, you have to live with its decisions. The Swiss simply do not want their landscape changed.

Your definition of democracy is myopic. Cannot have one without equality and recognition of certain freedoms and liberties. Your definition appears to cloak tyranny in democractic cloth.

[Eddo211]

Re: Switzerland voted to ban the building of Minarets

Swiss ban on minarets was a vote for tolerance and inclusion




The Swiss vote highlights the debate on Islam as a set of political and collectivist ideas, not a rejection of Muslims.

By Ayaan Hirsi Ali
from the December 5, 2009 edition

Washington - The recent Swiss referendum that bans construction of minarets has caused controversy across the world. There are two ways to interpret the vote. First, as a rejection of political Islam, not a rejection of Muslims. In this sense it was a vote for tolerance and inclusion, which political Islam rejects. Second, the vote was a revelation of the big gap between how the Swiss people and the Swiss elite judge political Islam.

In the battle of ideas, symbols are important.

What if the Swiss voters were asked in a referendum to ban the building of an equilateral cross with its arms bent at right angles as a symbol of the belief of a small minority? Or imagine a referendum on building towers topped with a hammer and sickle – another symbol dear to the hearts of a very small minority in Switzerland.

Political ideas have symbols: A swastika, a hammer and sickle, a minaret, a crescent with a star in the middle (usually on top of a minaret) all represent a collectivist political theory of supremacy by one group over all others.

On controversial issues, the Swiss listen to debate, read newspapers, and otherwise investigate when they make up their minds for a vote.

What Europeans are finding out about Islam as they investigate is that it is more than just a religion. Islam offers not only a spiritual framework for dealing with such human questions as birth, death, and what ought to come after this world; it prescribes a way of life.

Islam is an idea about how society should be organized: the individual's relationship to the state; that the relationship between men and women; rules for the interaction between believers and unbelievers; how to enforce such rules; and why a government under Islam is better than a government founded on other ideas. These political ideas of Islam have their symbols: the minaret, the crescent; the head scarf, and the sword.

The minaret is a symbol of Islamist supremacy, a token of domination that came to symbolize Islamic conquest. It was introduced decades after the founding of Islam.

In Europe, as in other places in the world where Muslims settle, the places of worship are simple at first. All that a Muslim needs to fulfill the obligation of prayer is a compass to indicate the direction of Mecca, water for ablution, a clean prayer mat, and a way of telling the time so as to pray five times a day in the allocated period.

The construction of large mosques with extremely tall towers that cost millions of dollars to erect are considered only after the demography of Muslims becomes significant.

The mosque evolves from a prayer house to a political center.

Imams can then preach a message of self-segregation and a bold rejection of the ways of the non-Muslims.

Men and women are separated; gays, apostates and xxxs are openly condemned; and believers organize around political goals that call for the introduction of forms of sharia (Islamic) law, starting with family law.

This is the trend we have seen in Europe, and also in other countries where Muslims have settled. None of those Western academics, diplomats, and politicians who condemn the Swiss vote to ban the minaret address, let alone dispute, these facts.

In their response to the presence of Islam in their midst, Europeans have developed what one can discern as roughly two competing views. The first view emphasizes accuracy. Is it accurate to equate political symbols like those used by Communists and Nazis with a religious symbol like the minaret and its accessories of crescent and star; the uniforms of the Third Reich with the burqa and beards of current Islamists?

If it is accurate, then Islam, as a political movement, should be rejected on the basis of its own bigotry. In this view, Muslims should not be rejected as residents or citizens. The objection is to practices that are justified in the name of Islam, like honor killings, jihad, the we-versus-they perspective, the self-segregation. In short, Islamist supremacy.

The second view refuses to equate political symbols of various forms of white fascism with the symbols of a religion. In this school of thought, Islamic Scripture is compared to Christian and xxxish Scripture. Those who reason from this perspective preach pragmatism. According to them, the key to the assimilation of Muslims is dialogue. They are prepared to appease some of the demands that Muslim minorities make in the hope that one day their attachment to radical Scripture will wear off like that of Christian and xxxish peoples.

These two contrasting perspectives correspond to two quite distinct groups in Europe. The first are mainly the working class. The second are the classes that George Orwell described as "indeterminate." Cosmopolitan in outlook, they include diplomats, businesspeople, mainstream politicians, and journalists. They are well versed in globalization and tend to focus on the international image of their respective countries. With every conflict between Islam and the West, they emphasize the possible backlash from Muslim countries and how that will affect the image of their country.

By contrast, those who reject the ideas and practices of political Islam are in touch with Muslims on a local level. They have been asked to accept Muslim immigrants as neighbors, classmates, colleagues – they are what Americans would refer to as Main Street. Here is the great paradox of today's Europe: that the working class, who voted for generations for the left, now find themselves voting for right-wing parties because they feel that the social democratic parties are out of touch.

The pragmatists, most of whom are power holders, are partially right when they insist that the integration of Muslims will take a very long time. Their calls for dialogue are sensible. But as long as they do not engage Muslims to make a choice between the values of the countries that they have come to and those of the countries they left, they will find themselves faced with more surprises. And this is what the Swiss vote shows us. This is a confrontation between local, working-class voters (and some middle-class feminists) and Muslim immigrant newcomers who feel that they are entitled, not only to practice their religion, but also to replace the local political order with that of their own.

Look carefully at the reactions of the Swiss, EU and UN elites. The Swiss government is embarrassed by the outcome of the vote. The Swedes, who are currently chairing EU meetings, have condemned the Swiss vote as intolerant and xenophobic. It is remarkable that the Swedish foreign minister, Carl Bildt, said in public that the Swiss vote is a poor act of diplomacy. What he overlooks is that this is a discussion of Islam as a domestic issue. It has nothing to do with foreign policy.

The Swiss vote highlights the debate on Islam as a domestic issue in Europe. That is, Islam as a set of political and collectivist ideas. Native Europeans have been asked over and over again by their leaders to be tolerant and accepting of Muslims. They have done that. And that can be measured a) by the amount of taxpayer money that is invested in healthcare, housing, education, and welfare for Muslims and b) the hundreds of thousands of Muslims who are knocking on the doors of Europe to be admitted. If those people who cry that Europe is intolerant are right, if there was, indeed, xenophobia and a rejection of Muslims, then we would have observed the reverse. There would have been an exodus of Muslims out of Europe.

There is indeed a wider international confrontation between Islam and the West. The Iraq and Afghan wars are part of that, not to mention the ongoing struggle between Israelis and Palestinians and the nuclear ambitions of Iran. That confrontation should never be confused with the local problem of absorbing those Muslims who have been permitted to become permanent residents and citizens into European societies.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1205/p09s01-coop.html

[Catharsis]

Re: Switzerland voted to ban the building of Minarets

The minaret is a symbol of Islamist supremacy, a token of domination that came to symbolize Islamic conquest. It was introduced decades after the founding of Islam.

Most Islamic countries have a law that the minaret must be the tallest standing religious building. For instance, Christians are not allowed to build a church tower taller than a minaret.

Europe gave us a lot of freedoms that we should really cherish. At least I do and I do not want to see European cities disappear. Europe is facing a catastrophe in terms of birthrates as European Civilization is eroding.

[Yedtarts]

Re: Switzerland voted to ban the building of Minarets

The Problem of Islamic Religious Persecution
How is it that only Western nations are accused of “defaming” religion?

By Doug Bandow


America, like so many countries in the West, laments its strained relations with the Islamic world. In June, Pres. Barack Obama traveled to Cairo to speak against the “fear and mistrust” that exist between the West and Islam. Yet Muslim governments demand respect for Islam while refusing to offer similar respect for religious minorities within their own borders.

The recent Swiss vote to ban the construction of minarets in that European nation has become the latest controversy to generate Muslim protests worldwide. However, Islamic governments are in no position to complain about Western intolerance and “Islamophobia.” Most Muslim nations are repressive or offer only limited political freedom. More often than not, Islamic states violate basic human rights; and almost all persecute Christians, xxxs, and other religious minorities.

Many authoritarian states — especially Communist or formerly Communist ones — violate religious liberty along with other freedoms in order to maintain political control. But Muslim nations are almost unique in their willingness to persecute religious minorities to promote religious ends, as is evident from the State Department’s latest report on religious liberty abroad.

The State Department refers to “state hostility toward minority or non-approved religious groups,” as if different faiths randomly oppressed different faiths. However, Islam has distinguished itself with the willingness of governments and individuals to harass, attack, jail, and kill members of other religions. Even the most moderate and tolerant Islamic states often fall far short of respecting religious minorities. In Morocco, for instance, the government detained converts from Islam to Christianity, expelled Christian missionaries, and restricted “non-Islamic materials and proselytizing.” Many other Islamic states are far worse, however.

AFGHANISTAN
The U.S. expelled the Taliban government, but has not created a free society. Although the Karzai government responded to outside pressure and took some steps to improve religious liberty, explains State, “the residual effects of years of jihad against the former Soviet Union, Taliban rule, civil strife, popular suspicion regarding outside influence of foreigners, and still weak democratic institutions hindered the realization of this aspiration.” Relations among different Muslim sects “continued to be difficult”; non-Muslims face “harassment and occasional violence”; “most local Christians did not publicly state their beliefs or gather openly to worship.”

BRUNEI
In this small Islamic state respect for religious liberty has been falling. The State Department reports that “non-Muslims were prohibited from receiving religious education in private religious schools, which had previously been allowed.” Moreover, “across denominational lines, non-Muslim religious leaders stated that they were subjected to undue influence and duress, and some were threatened with fines and/or imprisonment. Active monitoring of churches and disruption of supply shipments and mail were reported.” The authorities also limited the use of literature and worship places by religious minorities.

EGYPT
Although progress was made in some areas, “The status of respect for religious freedom by the government declined somewhat,” reports State, “based on the failure to investigate and prosecute perpetrators of increased incidents of sectarian violence,” mostly against Coptic Christians. Moreover, the authorities “again failed to redress laws and governmental practices that discriminate against Christians, effectively allowing their discriminatory effects and their modeling effect on society to become further entrenched.” Christian converts from Islam were harassed and abused.

INDONESIA
The most populous Islamic nation, Indonesia long has reflected a more moderate variant of Islam. But Muslim extremists remain active and often unconstrained by the authorities. Reports State: “Ongoing government restrictions, particularly among unrecognized religions and sects of the recognized religions considered ‘deviant’ were significant exceptions to respect for religious freedom.” Worse, the government sometimes “tolerated discrimination against and the abuse of religious groups by private actors and failed to punish perpetrators.” Those responsible are rarely punished. Moreover, “Some groups used violence and intimidation to forcibly shut at least nine churches and 12 Ahmadiyya mosques.”

IRAN
One of the uglier Islamic persecutors is Iran. The constitution nominally affirms the rights of “protected” religions — Christians, xxxs, and Zoroastrians. However, in practice no non-Shi’a believer is safe. Explains the report: “Respect for religious freedom in the country continued to deteriorate. Government rhetoric and actions created a threatening atmosphere for nearly all non-Shi’a religious groups, most notably for Baha’is, as well as Sufi Muslims, evangelical Christians, and members of the xxxish community. Reports of government imprisonment, harassment, intimidation, and discrimination based on religious beliefs continued.” The state also promoted discrimination in the areas of education, employment, and housing. Iran is a Country of Particular Concern.

IRAQ
Tragically, liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein meant liberating some of the worst sectarian passions, which he had brutally held in check. Roughly half of Iraq’s historical Christian community has been displaced, many to Jordan and Syria, another secular Arab dictatorship. Although the government does not persecute, reports State, “violence conducted by terrorists, extremists, and criminal gangs restricted the free exercise of religion and posed a significant threat to the country’s vulnerable religious minorities.” Although overall violence is down, Christians and other religious minorities continue to be targeted by radical Muslims.

MALAYSIA
This former British colony remains freer than Iran but not as free as Indonesia. Observes State: “Minority religious groups remained generally free to practice their beliefs; however, over the past several years, many have expressed concern that the civil court system has gradually ceded jurisdictional control to Sharia courts, particularly in areas of family law involving disputes between Muslims and non-Muslims.” Conversion from Islam is prohibited and, notes the department, “Religious minorities continued to face limitations on religious expression and alleged violations of property rights,” including prohibiting proselytizing of Muslims.

NIGERIA
The population is divided among Christian, Muslim, and traditional faiths. Although the national government does not persecute, a dozen “northern states use Sharia courts to adjudicate criminal and civil matters for Muslims,” notes State, and “local political actors stoked sectarian violence with impunity.” Although Christians are not free from all blame, the initiators more often have been Muslims and their victims more often have been Christians; there also have been reports of forced conversions to Islam as well as threats to extend Sharia law over non-Muslims.

PAKISTAN
Washington’s ally in the war on terror is one of the least hospitable states for religious minorities. State notes “some positive steps to improve the treatment of religious minorities,” but Christians, Hindus, and xxxs remain second-class citizens, if that. Explains the report: “Law enforcement personnel abused religious minorities in custody. Security forces and other government agencies did not adequately prevent or address societal abuses against minorities. Discriminatory legislation and the government’s failure to take action against societal forces hostile to those who practice a different religious belief fostered religious intolerance, acts of violence, and intimidation against religious minorities.” Christians even risk execution if convicted of “blasphemy.”

SAUDI ARABIA
Another close U.S. ally, Saudi Arabia is among the globe’s worst persecutors. At least Saudi Arabia makes no pretense. Explains the report, “Freedom of religion is neither recognized nor protected under the law and is severely restricted in practice.” Although the private practice of non-Sunni Islam is usually left alone, “This right was not always respected in practice and is not defined in law.” Moreover, explains State, “the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice (CPVPV) continued to conduct raids on private non-Muslim religious gatherings.” The repressive kingdom has been designated a Country of Particular Concern.

SOMALIA
No surprise, this wreckage of a nation with an Islamic majority is not a good host for religious minorities. Notes State: “The Transitional Federal Government (TFG) generally did not enforce legal protections of religious freedom.” Not that it probably could do so even if so inclined, given the rise in extremist militias, which “often imposed through violence a strict interpretation of Islam on communities under their control. There were also reports that individuals who do not practice Islam experienced discrimination, violence, and detention because of religious beliefs.”

SUDAN
This tragic nation, whose Muslim north long has warred against its animist and Christian south, also is inhospitable land for religious minorities. After years of violent conflict, an accord of sorts was reached, theoretically ensuring religious freedom in the south while favoring Islam in the north. State explains that, while the Government of National Unity “did not vigorously enforce its strictest restrictions on religious freedom, it generally did not respect religious plurality in the north.” There also “were some reports of societal abuses and discrimination based on religious affiliation, belief, or practice.” Sudan is another Country of Particular Concern.

TURKEY
Although the government generally respects freedom of religious practice, it restricts Islamic expression in education and official circumstances. Moreover, notes State, “Minority religious groups also faced difficulties in worshipping, registering with the Government, and training their followers,” as well as proselytizing. Further, “Threats against non-Muslims created an atmosphere of pressure and diminished freedom for some non-Muslim communities. Many Christians, Baha’is, and heterodox Muslims faced societal suspicion and mistrust, and some elements of society continued to express anti-Semitic sentiments.”

YEMEN
Yet another failed or semi-failed Islamic state, Yemen enshrines Islam as the state religion, holds Shari’a as the source of all law, bans conversion from Islam, and forbids proselytizing of Muslims. Although non-Muslims remain nominally free to otherwise practice their faiths, reports State, “There was a decrease in the status of respect for religious freedom by the government . . . , particularly with regard to the Baha’i and xxxish communities.” Private perpetrators of violence against religious minorities were not punished.

Washington’s ability to aid religious minorities in other nations always will be limited. However, any Western dialogue with Islam must take into account the tendency of Islamic governments to persecute. For a start, the U.S. should suggest that Muslim governments that campaign against the “defamation” of religion start by respecting the freedom of conscience of those who live under their control. After all, murder is the ultimate form of defamation.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NGZhMjA1YzU0ZjI1NGZkYzQ2ZjE2YmI4NmIxMTE2YzM=#more

[KanadaHye]

Re: Switzerland voted to ban the building of Minarets

The Problem of Islamic Religious Persecution
How is it that only Western nations are accused of “defaming” religion?

Washington’s ability to aid religious minorities in other nations always will be limited. However, any Western dialogue with Islam must take into account the tendency of Islamic governments to persecute. For a start, the U.S. should suggest that Muslim governments that campaign against the “defamation” of religion start by respecting the freedom of conscience of those who live under their control. After all, murder is the ultimate form of defamation.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...xMTE2YzM=#more

OH PUHLEEEEZE.... Washington only cares about the resources available within those countries. They don't arm rebels to "free" the people, they arm them to get control of the resources. What a bunch of Oscar Mayer baloney.

[Eddo211]

Re: Switzerland voted to ban the building of Minarets

Swiss leader calls for J ewish cemetery ban
December 3, 2009

BERLIN (JTA) -- A mainstream Swiss political leader is calling for a ban on separate Muslim and xxxish cemeteries.

Christophe Darbellay, president of the Christian Democratic People's Party of Switzerland, made the statement in a television interview Tuesday, two days after Swiss voters passed an initiative to ban minarets.

The anti-minaret initiative came from the opposition ultra-conservative Swiss People's Party and other right-wing political organizations. Critics say Darbellay is starting a "crusade" to attract voters by proposing similarly xenophobic measures.

Mainstream politicians and religious leaders across Europe have reacted with dismay to the anti-minaret vote.

According to the Swiss online daily Tagesanzeiger, Darbellay also wants to ban the wearing of burkas, head-to-toe veils worn by some fundamentalist Muslim women.

Darbellay reportedly said that existing cemeteries would not be affected by a ban, but that there should be no separate cemeteries in the future.

The Swiss People's Party called for crackdowns on expressions of Muslim fundamentalism in 2006. Observers said the demand for separate cemeteries is an escalation.

http://jta.org/news/article/2009/12/03/1009507/swiss-leader-calls-for-xxxish-cemetery-ban

----------

Didn't know they demand seperate cemeteries, is there a minimum distance requirement between cemeteries as well?..........sounds like Swiss is determined to bring the Muslims and the Juice closer together for a better future between the two.

[Anoush]

Re: Switzerland voted to ban the building of Minarets

Why should we feel bad about Europeans and how they are being bombarded by Islams. No European country helped us, felt bad for us or feels bad for us today. We were their Christian brothers and sisters; did they help us? Did they feel for us? NO, the answer has been and is still NO. So who cares about them that they feel bad about their minarehs today. Je ne me soucie pas!

[Catharsis]

Re: Switzerland voted to ban the building of Minarets

Why should we feel bad about Europeans and how they are being bombarded by Islams. No European country helped us, felt bad for us or feels bad for us today. We were their Christian brothers and sisters; did they help us? Did they feel for us? NO, the answer has been and is still NO. So who cares about them that they feel bad about their minarehs today. Je ne me soucie pas!

A lot of European and American organizations did help out the orphans and most survived thanks to various European and American relief agencies. There were also instances were Armenians were saved (Musa Ler and other parts of Cilician Armenia) by the French. Of course, Armenians helped themselves first of all, by fighting back and organizing resistance against the Turkish government's attempt at complete annihilation of the Armenian people. Should the Europeans have done more? Yes, absolutely. Were the Europeans only guilty party responsible for what was taking place - No.

I don't know about others, but I do not want to live in a world dominated by any religion, including Islam. This is what it comes down to. We are living for most part in a civilization that was greatly shaped by European culture and norms. The freedoms that we enjoy today are literally taken for granted, the loss of these freedoms begins with the erosion of European values.

If Muslims are so tolerant they should really open up their own societies in places like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan where they force everyone to adhere to their own laws of Sharia. Why can't Europeans do the same? They have every right to do so and I support them completely.

[Anoush]

Re: Switzerland voted to ban the building of Minarets

A lot of European and American organizations did help out the orphans and most survived thanks to various European and American relief agencies. There were also instances were Armenians were saved (Musa Ler and other parts of Cilician Armenia) by the French. Of course, Armenians helped themselves first of all, by fighting back and organizing resistance against the Turkish government's attempt at complete annihilation of the Armenian people. Should the Europeans have done more? Yes, absolutely. Were the Europeans only guilty party responsible for what was taking place - No.

I don't know about others, but I do not want to live in a world dominated by any religion, including Islam. This is what it comes down to. We are living for most part in a civilization that was greatly shaped by European culture and norms. The freedoms that we enjoy today are literally taken for granted, the loss of these freedoms begins with the erosion of European values.

If Muslims are so tolerant they should really open up their own societies in places like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan where they force everyone to adhere to their own laws of Sharia. Why can't Europeans do the same? They have every right to do so and I support them completely.

The German generals very much helped the Turks with the Armenian Genocide and they gave them guidance and sat down with the young turks to give them ideas and directed them how to go about it.

The French lied to us that they will give us Cilicia back if we fought against the turks in Giligia, where we lost our bravest and our best Fedayis on the Cilician mountains. After about 2 1/2 years of fighting, they gave us nothing. Nata. Only lies!

The British were in alliance with Russia and the Turks because of the oil in the Caspian sea. The British behind the scenes always acted against us until today. To be in good terms with turkey, they are till today siding with turkey and lying with them NOT to accept the Armenian Genocide. They have always acted like w.h.o.r.e.s and they still do.

The only nation that felt bad for us and opened their doors to us was Greece as they also felt the turkish "yataghan" when 800 thousand Greeks were annihilated by the turkish government 1915 through 1923. And again in Cyprus in the 60's.

Europeans all along dirtied us all over. They couldn't care less about Armenians whatsoever! And they still do not care less about us! Never mind that we are white and Christians like them! They don't give a darn about us! They didn't in the past and they still don't!

I will say only this; "tserker ounis toun kez okne, vorovhedev voch mege kez chokner". You have arms and hands then help yourself; because no one will care about you nor help you"!

[Catharsis]

Re: Switzerland voted to ban the building of Minarets

The German generals very much helped the Turks with the Armenian Genocide and they gave them guidance and sat down with the young turks to give them ideas and directed them how to go about it.

The French lied to us that they will give us Cilicia back if we fought against the turks in Giligia, where we lost our bravest and our best Fedayis on the Cilician mountains. After about 2 1/2 years of fighting, they gave us nothing. Nata.

The British were in alliance with Russia and the Turks because of the oil in the Caspian sea. The British behind the scenes always acted against us until today. To be in good terms with turkey, they are till today siding with turkey and lying with them NOT to accept the Armenia Genocide. They have always acted like xxxxxs and they still do it.

The only nation that felt bad for us and opened their doors to us was Greece as they also felt the turkish "yataghan" when 800 thousand Greeks were annihilated by the turkish government 1915 through 1923. And again in Cyprus in the 60's.

Europeans all along dirtied us all over. They couldn't care less about Armenians whatsoever!

These are all valid points, however these simply represent state policies of the said governments. What has our own government done to help out say same European nations, or what does it do today in terms of its state policy? Isn't it even more immoral to call the criminal Turkish government a "courageous partner?" This is from the speech of our own president.

I don't even want to go into the court decision on the denial of the Armenian Genocide that was done just few days ago. All of this by "our" own government. So what can we expect from foreign governments who are pursuing their own interests. We are to demand morality from them when again "our" own government lacks it?

Having said all of this. European average citizen has very little to do with the said "foreign policies" and is often against both foreign and domestic policies that are forged by the elites of these nations who are for most part divorced from general public. There is not even one Islamic society that has a minority religious group which in one way or another does not have a second class status. What I say about European freedoms is true as ever, most of us do benefit and enjoy these freedoms whether knowingly or not.