Swiss voters favour Islamic Minaret ban for local buildings

[vonGarvin]

Neither were the Germans in the 1930s.  The "Endlösung der Jüdenfrage" wasn't brought forth until the 3rd year of war.  Now, that is an extreme case, I admit; however, its roots were similar: intolerance and ignorance.  Though I freely admit that it goes both ways.

 

[Kat Stevens]

It's neither ignorance nor intolerance.  It's just plain old fear, and it's not completely unjustified.

 

[X-mo-1979]

Neither were the Germans in the 1930s.  The "Endlösung der Jüdenfrage" wasn't brought forth until the 3rd year of war.  Now, that is an extreme case, I admit; however, its roots were similar: intolerance and ignorance.  Though I freely admit that it goes both ways.

Bit of a stretch indeed.
Showing the ban of the minerets shows one thing to me, and thats a group of people sick and tired of it and feeling out diplomatic channels. No athesis, christain ,jew ,hindu wants to be living in a state run by large influx's of muslims who are the same people in their streets not asking for fair treatment but to subjugate the local population.

It doesnt go two ways. Until the KOC are killing muslims it is not going two ways.

I have to say I am getting very intolerant of muslim extremist who are protected by our legal/human rights. I'm also sick of turning on the TV to see something on fire due to muslim terrorist.I'm also sick that moderate muslims don't condone the attacks. And when someone speaks out against Islam they are wrapped up in human rights tribunals until they are silenced.

Maybe your right. Maybe this is "Awake" phase.

Let's not condone a country for protecting it's majorities decisions. Not when other soldiers in the west here were afraid to report the Ft Hood shooter, as they would have been called racist.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Bit of a stretch indeed.
Showing the ban of the minerets shows one thing to me, and thats a group of people sick and tired of it and feeling out diplomatic channels. No athesis, christain ,jew ,hindu wants to be living in a state run by large influx's of muslims who are the same people in their streets not asking for fair treatment but to subjugate the local population.

.....

Let's not condone a country for protecting it's majorities decisions.

Speaking of stretches and majority decisions aside, how does the building of minarets equate to "living in a state run by large influx's of Muslims who are the same people in their streets not asking for fair treatment but to subjugate the local population"?

Similarly, how does refusing to allow the building of minarets stop any other possible results?

What happens when an area, national or local, has a majority of Muslims and starts making decisions for minarets or other things within the legal bounds of the local laws, will you see you defend those choices as strongly?

 

[vonGarvin]

I don't see the stretch at all.  The vote in Switzerland wasn't again radical moslems, it was against minarets.  They are about as offensive (to me, a practicing Roman Catholic) as a piece of bread: they aren't at all. 

In our liberal democratic society, minorities are protected from "the will of the majority".  I agree that we have to strike a balance where the majority is protected from "the will of the minority".  This means that people like me (who may be minority, I have no idea) have to live in a society where societal morals/beliefs go counter to personal morals/beliefs.  As an example, I oppose both abortion and homosexual marriage.  But that's my personal beliefs: the law says otherwise, and I must respect the law.  Sure, I can voice my opinion against those laws, but in the end, they are the laws of the land, and I must abide by them and neither can I persecute those whose opinion counter mine.

That's what this comes to.  "When in Rome" and all that.  I agree that we oppose Sharia Law in our land vehemently (it goes counter to our collective values), and at the same time, I must practice, in the privacy of my own home, my own personal beliefs.

The case of people fearing that they will be branded racist for objecting to conduct are cowards.  The case of the Fort Hood terror killings is an extreme one, one that hopefully will wake people up to voice said concerns, not based on racial or cultural bias, but on the merits of the acts alone.

Here's an example, and I'll use me as the "straw man".  I've already voiced my opinion about abortion.  Suppose I were to stand up in a military lecture hall during a course that had bugger-all to do with voicing personal opinions, and stated something along the lines of "ABORTIONISTS WILL BURN IN HELL!  WE MUST DO GOD'S WORK AND STOP THEM AT ANY COST!"  Well, I sure as shinola hope that someone would report me!
Now, if I were to be seen in civilian attire wearing a rosary, I sure as shinola hope that someone doesn't get the chills and then report me to the PC police! 

So, there is a balance, and yes, it goes both ways.  But if people in Europe (or elsewhere) fear moslems, well, that is an unfounded fear.  What they need to fear is terrorists who use Islam as a shield or excuse for spreading hate. 

I recall a movie about one of the 9/11 hijackers.  In one scene, some of the terrorists is going on about killiing Jews and Christians.  A fellow moslem objects, stating that they are cousins or brothers, or the like.  He is thrown out of the meeting.  Irony!  A moslem opposing the killing of Jews and Christians!

Finally, using the excuse that "they don't allow churches in [insert moslem nation here]", is a fallacy.  Using abhorrent behaviour or tolerance as an excuse to exercise abhorrent behaviour or tolerance is inexcusable.

 

[X-mo-1979]

As I said in my last post above:
"Thats a group of people sick and tired of it and feeling out diplomatic channels."

People do not want sharia law.People do not want to be subjugated by Islam. Obviously these people cannot "ban" all muslims. However it seems they are seeing what they CAN do legally to protect THEIR way of life.

And your right about the opposite situation. No I wouldn't support the expansion of a religion that defies western life. I prefer to live under the rule of government, not Allah.

I can see your point of view Technoviking. However I dont think many people have problems with muslims as people, just Islam and it's conflict with our societies.

 

[X-mo-1979]

And  I will add that my political correctness that has been jammed down my throat since birth know's my above statement is not the right thing to say.And in turn will be wrong in Canada. There is no way to win on that side of the argument.

However the Swiss have spoken. Good for them.

 

[sm1lodon]

Last time I checked ARD-10 isnt driving around getting ready for the "final solution". There was a democratic vote where muslims are still allowed to practice their religion in Mosques they just banned minarets.

Must be nice to live in a country where the majority isnt trying to play nice with every minority and special interest group.Where the majority doesnt feel a social stigma to actually say what they feel.


Maybe this will be the start to the death of political correctness.

We can only hope. I note that the only group allowed to be vilified in American media in general are employed, white, heterosexual, monogomous Christians. Everyone else is sacred.

 

[NL_engineer]

Well the Swiss have there reasons, and even if we don't agree; they are free to make that choice.  Yes it may based of fair, but IMHO they are trying to defend their way of like and safety (they don't want to have to deal with terrorists who use Islam as a banner like the rest of Europe).

IMO I think this is the stepping stones to something bigger.

 

[George Wallace]

What is the problem?  The Swiss have not banned Islam.  They have not banned the building of mosques.  They have banned the building of an architectural structure, the minaret.  The Swiss also ban the construction of buildings over a certain height, as do other cities and states around the world.  In Ottawa, there is a ban on buildings that are higher than the Peace Tower.  This is a ban on an architectural form, or in other words; a "Building Regulation"......Nothing more.

 

[vonGarvin]

What is the problem?  The Swiss have not banned Islam.  They have not banned the building of mosques.  They have banned the building of an architectural structure, the minaret.  The Swiss also ban the construction of buildings over a certain height, as do other cities and states around the world.  In Ottawa, there is a ban on buildings that are higher than the Peace Tower.  This is a ban on an architectural form, or in other words; a "Building Regulation"......Nothing more.

I disagree.  This is much more than a ban on an architectural form.  There was no ban emplaced for all tower-like spires  rising from places of worship (eg: steeples for Catholic churchs).  If it were, then I could see it as some sort of secular society wishing to avoid having religious symbols dominating the landscape.  Instead, they wish to limit the appearance of Islam in Switzerland.  Perhaps even projecting a message of "You're not welcome here."

 

[Kat Stevens]

And, just for the sake of a good dust up, so what if they're not welcome?  I didn't realize being welcoming is a requirement these days.

 

[X-mo-1979]

Here's is some relative video's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FAt6ZnxNx0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkMU4ip6CpY&feature=related
(Shows the problem with "Islamaphobia" and political correctness) Britain in Denial.


And I agree Newfie sapper. I truley think this is a group of people who have had enough. And now instead of riots etc they are seeing what their legal system can actually legally do. Step 1.

 

[sm1lodon]

No country has any obligation to welcome anybody, for any reason, do they?

Segregating whom you welcome is practiced by countries, insurance companies, and other risk managers, and has been for a long time.

The average Muslim is not a terrorist.

However, the average terrorist claims to be a Muslim, and they have given Muslims a bad name. It may be reactionary, and it may not prevent terrorist attacks.

If it does not incite terrorist attacks on Switzerland, then great.

If terrorist attacks on Switzerland increase, then the Swiss might feel that they did the right thing and that more aggressive measures are in order.

 

[mariomike]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkMU4ip6CpY&feature=related
(Shows the problem with "Islamaphobia" and political correctness) Britain in Denial.

At the 3:10 mark: "Take their wives as war booty!" 
Reminds me of the old Henny Youngman joke, but he was just kidding!

 

[X-mo-1979]

Funny as it is  ;D.
Unfortunately that's Europe.  I was watching a show a while back about either a German or Austrian town flat out refusing to rent,sell housing or provide things at their stores to muslims.

No matter how we look at it here in Canada, European peoples are viewing the muslim influx,Sharia law, and mosques as a invasion of their traditions.

 

[vonGarvin]

I was watching a show a while back about either a German or Austrian town flat out refusing to rent,sell housing or provide things at their stores to muslims.

I was just thinking about something similar that those crazy Europeans did a few years back.  It was the result of a democratically elected government enacting that were meant to protect "real" Europeans:

September 15, 1935)

Entirely convinced that the purity of German blood is essential to the further existence of the German people, and inspired by the uncompromising determination to safeguard the future of the German nation, the Reichstag has unanimously resolved upon the following law, which is promulgated herewith:

Section 1
Marriages between Jews and citizens (German: Staatsangehörige) of German or kindred blood are forbidden. Marriages concluded in defiance of this law are void, even if, for the purpose of evading this law, they were concluded abroad.
Proceedings for annulment may be initiated only by the Public Prosecutor.
Section 2
Extramarital sexual intercourse between Jews and subjects of the state of Germany or related blood is forbidden.
(Supplementary decrees set Nazi definitions of racial Germans, Jews, and half-breeds or Mischlinge --- see the latter entry for details and citations and Mischling Test for how such decrees were applied. Jews could not vote or hold public office under the parallel "citizenship" law.)
Section 3
Jews will not be permitted to employ female citizens under the age of 45, of German or kindred blood, as domestic workers.
Section 4
Jews are forbidden to display the Reich and national flag or the national colours.
On the other hand they are permitted to display the Jewish colours. The exercise of this right is protected by the State.
Section 5
A person who acts contrary to the prohibition of Section 1 will be punished with hard labour.
A person who acts contrary to the prohibition of Section 2 will be punished with imprisonment or with hard labour.
A person who acts contrary to the provisions of Sections 3 or 4 will be punished with imprisonment up to a year and with a fine, or with one of these penalties.
Section 6
The Reich Minister of the Interior in agreement with the Deputy Führer and the Reich Minister of Justice will issue the legal and administrative regulations required for the enforcement and supplementing of this law.
Section 7
The law will become effective on the day after its promulgation; Section 3, however, not until January 1, 1936.

I'm sorry, but I fear that this is but one step.  The anger is real and justified, I get that.  I just think that they are targetting the wrong folks.
As for that vid from the UK in which Moslems are seen ranting and raving about something or other, and threatening bloodshed, well, I would simply crack down on those who spout such vile crap, and turf them into jail (or gaol).  Zero tolerance for that kind of crap. 
But to take it out on Moslems in general?  I think if they (the Euros) keep that up, then we remind them of scenes like this:

And then remind that that such "solutions" will not be tolerated, and we may have to resort to some of our own "old world" tactics:

 

[Dissident]

I do not remember Jews having aspirations to be the only one true religion, by force or other means. I do not remember synagogue being a recruiting and funding tool for extremist fond of terror acts.

While I want nothing to do with a new crusade, I do think it is fair to send a message to the Muslims at large that life will not be made easy for them until they clean up their own house.

The Swiss have drawn a line in the sand and I applaud them for it.

 

[vonGarvin]

I do not remember Jews having aspirations to be the only one true religion, by force or other means. I do not remember synagogue being a recruiting and funding tool for extremist fond of terror acts.

They (the Europeans) didn't just go for the Jews.  Yes, 6 million Jews were murdered, starved and worked to death by the Nazi government, but so were 4 million others, including Slavs, Homosexuals, mentally diseased people and the like. 

As stated, I get the threat.  The threat is not Islam.  The threat are scumbags who use Islam as an excuse to spread vile hatred.  It is also weak-kneed politicians who are afraid to stand up to bullies who claim "I'm Moslem!" whenever we challenge their acts.  I also fear the threat is those who wish to tar all Moslems with the same brush.

 

[X-mo-1979]

I know your trying to make a nexus between the two.  And no doubt there are similarities.  However comparing the swiss to Nazi Germany isnt right either.

"I'm sorry, but I fear that this is but one step.  The anger is real and justified, I get that.  I just think that they are targetting the wrong folks.
As for that vid from the UK in which Moslems are seen ranting and raving about something or other, and threatening bloodshed, well, I would simply crack down on those who spout such vile crap, and turf them into jail (or gaol).  Zero tolerance for that kind of crap.
But to take it out on Moslems in general? :"

The fact is the swiss or anyone else infact cannot "target" anyone.  No one is getting "cracked down on" as it isnt politically correct to do so.  These people may have voted to do some form of "damage" towards the muslim population, as it isnt politically correct to do anything else.Maybe?

It is not politically correct to protest against muslim violence, or take legal action (apparently) against them.


I agree with you that this is step one for a the Swiss. However I don't think we'll be flying Lancaster's over it anytime soon. Again that's a bit of a stretch.


Maybe it wouldn't be such a stretch to say a muslim nation would do the same as Nazi Germany.Jew's Christians, Non believers,homosexuals...would they be allowed to protest in the streets?Or will we be back in Europe to liberate someone from a muslim nation?

Which is more comparable? The intolerance of Islam or Switzerland in your theories?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8023990.stm
And there is the Koran verses I could post as well.