Swiss voters favour Islamic Minaret ban for local buildings

[vonGarvin]

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 was trying to equate European intolerance of the 1930s to European intolerance of the 21st Century.

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?

Maybe not.  In one sentence you state that nobody is getting cracked down upon.  The next, you state that the people are voting on some sort of damage to Moslems.  That makes no sense to me.

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

This is where I totally agree with you, and that this is one of the major problems.  I would offer that we don't target moslem violence, but we target violence: moslem, christian or jewish or hindi or whatever.
(Your example of one dude in a street gang torturing and killing a Jewish fellow I could counter with examples of street gangs killing and/or torturing moslems, homosexuals, whatever).
Now, in reference to the Koran, I've never read it from cover to cover.  I'm also fairly certain that there are some "suspect" parts in the Holy Bible that could be (and have been) taken out of context in order to spread hate and filth.

 

[mariomike]

"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:"

That's a photo of Dresden. It was part of Operation Thunderclap which was drafted in July 1944. It had nothing to do with the Holocaust.

 

[vonGarvin]

"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:"

That's a photo of Dresden. It was part of Operation Thunderclap which was drafted in July 1944. It had nothing to do with the Holocaust.

Understood. I was trying to illustrate our "reaction" to European intolerance in general, not the Holocaust in particular.  Just showing our potential to resort to some pretty brutish actions ourselves, and that we are no paper tigers.

 

[mariomike]

Thank you, Techno-V!

 

[X-mo-1979]

Now, in reference to the Koran, I've never read it from cover to cover.  I'm also fairly certain that there are some "suspect" parts in the Holy Bible that could be (and have been) taken out of context in order to spread hate and filth.

Yes yourself as A christain are allowed to slam Babylonian baby's onto rocks etc etc. However last time I checked Christains were not taking stuff like numbers 31 (IIRC or 33?) as your doctrine for war/how you operate.

The comparison of Muslim and Christain is not that valid. Sure there are christain crackpots out there! Heck Mr. poppoff was trying to sell me holy water on television to make me rich! However I feel as a non christain very safe in a Christian society. However every voice of Islam I have heard speaks of the laws that would be imposed.Those who dont convert will be taxed,homosexuals will be killed. I can say "Jesus Christ was a fake" (for example..not a actual statement) in public! What happens if a cartoon of Jesus appears?Nothing.

What happens if I insert Allah or Muhammad in the statement above?

I live by the rules of western society. If a Preist in  Italy says (for example) all Catholics will stone adulterers. Due to our laws Cathloics would of course not stone people.

Yet a fatwa (decision) get's issued for someones death and IT HAPPENS. Basically a religious figure in a different country has control of your country. As his fatwa is LAW.



As for the contradiction I will clarify. The Swiss cannot legally target muslims, therefore they are taking action to demonstrate that they still can try in legal ways.


The amount of stuff muslim demonstrators get away with is unreal. I don't think we would have allowed communist supporters the right. Not to mention allow their message to be spread over MSM for free. Which is all preventing and arresting the large amount muslim extremist in europe is doing.

 

[Kat Stevens]

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.

You have invoked the Nazis, therefore I believe that by most accepted forum etiquette, you lose.

 

[vonGarvin]

The amount of stuff muslim demonstrators get away with is unreal.

I agree 100%.  I would rather that the populace lobby the government to enforce the laws that are already in place. 

 

[northern girl]

"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."  "

As I understand it, minaret's are a symbol of Islamic political power. IF this is true, I can understand why a democratic, sovereign state governed by the rule of law would take this course of action to protect its way of life. For Islamic fundamentalists, the Caliphate, and the goal of one world ruled by Islam, is real. In this case with the Swiss, I don't think it's about a secular society wanting to ban religious symbols, nor is it about banning the appearance of Islam in Switzerland - it's about preventing the loss of their political system, whether real or symbolic. And I say good on them.

 

[vonGarvin]

You have invoked the Nazis, therefore I believe that by most accepted forum etiquette, you lose.

I think that in this case, Godwin's law doesn't apply.

 

[Kat Stevens]

I think that in this case, Godwin's law doesn't apply.

I disagree.  There are a whole shit load of dots for you to connect to get from banning a building to firing the ovens and opening the showers.

 

[Michael OLeary]

As I understand it, minaret's are a symbol of Islamic political power. IF this is true, I can understand why a democratic, sovereign state governed by the rule of law would take this course of action to protect its way of life. For Islamic fundamentalists, the Caliphate, and the goal of one world ruled by Islam, is real. In this case with the Swiss, I don't think it's about a secular society wanting to ban religious symbols, nor is it about banning the appearance of Islam in Switzerland - it's about preventing the loss of their political system, whether real or symbolic. And I say good on them.

Since you put forward the theory that minarets are political symbols, and then immediately covered your ass with the statement "if this is true" - can you provide a credible source for that connection? (I.e., one that isn't a spin-off of a current news story on the issue.)

 

[armyvern]

As I understand it, minaret's are a symbol of Islamic political power. IF this is true, I can understand why a democratic, sovereign state governed by the rule of law would take this course of action to protect its way of life. For Islamic fundamentalists, the Caliphate, and the goal of one world ruled by Islam, is real. In this case with the Swiss, I don't think it's about a secular society wanting to ban religious symbols, nor is it about banning the appearance of Islam in Switzerland - it's about preventing the loss of their political system, whether real or symbolic. And I say good on them.

Interesting spin I guess. As I understand it, the word "minaret" comes from the noor - the word for light - as minarets were first erected to guide travellers along the eastern/asian trade routes. Just as Alexandria had it's lighthouses to guide ships, the trade routes had their minarets. With the spread of Islam, the minaret found itself placed next to all places of importance - mosques, market places and monumental buildings - criers calling for prayer no longer had to mount the roofs of the tallest house around as the minaret served a dual-purpose when placed next to a mosque. Today, some of the oldest examples of minarets can still be found at market entrances (or what used to be market entrances). Certainly doesn't seem very political to me.

Two quotes come to mind:  History is alkways the first casualty of politics; and Partisans have no respect for history.

One would also note (with a little research) that both the earliest Christian Churches and the earliest mosques had no minarets or steeples/spires. As the minaret found itself placed next to mosques, the eventual spread of Islam resulted in Christian churches close to 'expansion zones' beginning to erect steeples/spires on their holy places as well. Islam chose to erect their minaret next to the mosque for it's dual purpose, and that influence of calling to prayer from 'higher ground' then spread to Christian Houses of Worship.

Perhaps people are getting the idea that minarets are political from the fact that throughout the 1000s - minarets were banned when the Almovarids ruled North Africa and Spain; later, when the Almohads conquered the Almovarids ... minarets were once again erected, in abundance, to show that they had won back their lands. Ssome could, I guess, call that political - but that's not where minarets originated and it wasn't the original intent ... like I said - history is usually attempted to be re-written by persons having an agenda to do so.

 

[X-mo-1979]

She is most likely referring to a old speech made by Turkey's PM. Basically calling the mosques across the world Islam's barracks and the Minaret's their bayonets. That's where most MSM is relating that comment towards.
Mosques are our barracks,
domes our helmets,
minarets our bayonets,
believers our soldiers.
This holy army guards my religion.

Kinda moot really.

However when constructed, mosques are to be higher than other religious centers according to Shari'a. Most mosques being the buildings built latter hold a dominating  stature over churches and synagogues. Which could be perceived as dominance by some.

Here's a thought for discussion.

Many of out older church's had bell towers. Now we see many church buildings which look more like office buildings, as "bell's to summon" are pretty obsolete. So what purpose does the minaret's actually serve?  The call to prayer is not done by the Imam in the tower. Infact in Switzerland the call to prayer is not done at all,due to city bylaws on noise.

Some sect's of Islam do not use minarets. The Wahhabi mosques for example.

So what purpose does the Minaret serve?


As well in Austria
"Zoning laws in two provinces, Carinthia and Vorarlberg, have been amended to make it more difficult to build minarets that "conflict with the traditional appearance" of towns."

So it's more than the Swiss that do not want it in their towns.

 

[armyvern]

The earliest bell towers date from circa 700 (Santa Maria Della Cella, Viterbo and Sant Ambrogio in Milan) . Older Christian places of worship had none (earlier ones with none still existing: Prado, Parenzo, San Lorenzo in Milan). Their introduction co-incides with the Arabic spread to Syria & Mesopotamia. And, these (like minarets) were not attached to the places of worship at that time, but were located generally next to it.

Some sects of Christianity do not utilize these bell-towers either. Moot point.

In some places, the call to prayer still occurs from the minaret, but not everywhere. So, what purpose does it serve for those where the call to prayer no longer occurs from them? Tradition. I know a few churches who still have a bell-fry ... unused as it may be.

ALL moot.

Your post highlights my point exactly: from a quoted Imam in the 21st century, somehow we can "change history" to infer that minarets are and have always been a political symbol and serve no other purpose. That is re-writing history.

Minarets were around hundreds of years before churches had bellfries, and were around before Islamic mosques had minarets. They were guideposts for those travelling throughout the mideast - to markets, to meeting centres - they were adapted to serve a dual purpose by Islam who erected them near their mosques for both to guide and to be utilized for the call to prayer.

What we make of them today, depends upon your partisanship and how one wishes to rewrite the history of how & why they came into existance in the first place. many are eager to ignore centuries worth of history based upon 21st century events. As I said, partisans have no time for actual history - they're most interested in only the history with which the greatest number of voting constituants remembers in their lifetime.

 

[Kat Stevens]

So we've established that the minaret is a utilitarian structure that predates Islam, but has been adapted to religious purposes.  It is therefore not a symbol of Islam, but of Middle Eastern culture, and as such the banning of them is no smear on Islam at all.  Rather just a banning of a type of building, therefore a zoning issue, not an expression of intolerance, fear, or hate...QED.  Time to shut off the gas, padlock the shower rooms, and put away the old 78s of the Host Wessel Lied.

 

[armyvern]

So we've established that the minaret is a utilitarian structure that predates Islam, but has been adapted to religious purposes.  It is therefore not a symbol of Islam, but of Middle Eastern culture, and as such the banning of them is no smear on Islam at all.  Rather just a banning of a type of building, therefore a zoning issue, not an expression of intolerance, fear, or hate...QED.  Time to shut off the gas, padlock the shower rooms, and put away the old 78s of the Host Wessel Lied.

Awesome. So, we've identified that minarets were originally adopted from eastern culture to serve a dual-purpose (call to prayer & guide lights). It then followed that Christians then adopted same for their call to prayer.

So, following logic, having both been adopted from mid-eastern culture, can we expect the same ban to be extended to both Islamic & Christian places of worship? Or just the one? Some bellfries are still used for call to prayer ... some minarets are still used for exactly the same purpose.

But, this all makes me curious now - so I'm off to google-fu - wondering if the "noise ban" earlier referred to which prevents the call to prayer from being issued from the minarets in Switzerland also extends to the peeling of bells in Christian houses in that nation ... ... ... ...

 

[Kat Stevens]

Perhaps it's because, horror of horrors, Switzerland is actually a primarily Christian nation, with Christian values and a Christian lifestyle?  We certainly are quick to slap down our PC-centric view that the Swiss are hate filled ignorant fear mongering Nazis, rather than maybe just people who don't want Middle Eastern architecture in their Central European country.  Sometimes it's just horses, not zebras.

 

[armyvern]

Perhaps it's because, horror of horrors, Switzerland is actually a primarily Christian nation, with Christian values and a Christian lifestyle?  We certainly are quick to slap down our PC-centric view that the Swiss are hate filled ignorant fear mongering Nazis, rather than maybe just people who don't want Middle Eastern architecture in their Central European country.  Sometimes it's just horses, not zebras.

I've no issues with the Swiss setting standards for buildings erected in their nation, much like the Australians have regulated the appearance/size of minarets in some of their jurisdictions (note the Australians have not banned minarets).

What bothers me is the double-standards; I'm actually quite pleased to live in Canada where one is free to practise their religion and treated to the same standards as other religions. Although I am an atheist, I have no issues with anyone practising the religion of their choosing.

It's the extremists that I have issues with (and Christianity has a few RTFOOer right-wingers itself) ... but I won't be tarring/re-acting to any entire religion with an extremist brush anytime soon.  A lot of what is happening in our world today is in reaction to the extremeist events of the past decade - warranted in some situations, not in others.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

So what purpose does the minaret's actually serve?  The call to prayer is not done by the Imam in the tower.

Well, you'd have a really good antenna tower for your listening devices once they are planted?  >

I got this email via an unproven source.  It makes some interesting points:

This is by far the best explanation of the Muslim terrorist situation I have ever read. His references to past history are accurate and clear. Not long, easy to understand, and well worth the read. The author of this email is said to be Dr. Emanuel Tanay, a well-known and well-respected psychiatrist.

  A German's View on Islam

  A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism. 'Very few people were true Nazis,' he said, 'but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.'

  We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.

  The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout  Africa  and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.

  The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the 'silent majority,' is cowed and extraneous.

  Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant.  China 's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.

  The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet,  Japan  murdered and slaughtered its way across  South East Asia  in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.

  And who can forget  Rwanda , which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'?

  History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points:

Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.

Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from  Germany , they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts--the fanatics who threaten our way of life.

  Lastly, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes this email without sending it on, is contributing to the passiveness that allows the problems to expand. So, extend yourself a bit and send this on and on and on! Let us hope that thousands, world-wide, read this and think about it, and send it on - before it's too late.

  Emanuel Tanay, M.D. 2980  Provincial St.  Ann Arbor , MI 48104      734-997-0256

All that being said, I don't see that the minaret ban will do much.  You can still hatch terror plots in madrases, and those you can plonk down anywhere.  Most of the mosques in western Kandahar that I saw didn't have them either (although the really Gucci ones did, the same ones that had all the poppy husks piled outside them  ).

I suspect that the Swiss population is getting bent by Islamic encroachment, and a savvy political party picked up on a mood and has created a lightning rod effect.  When it is poll time again, they will reap dividends by showing that they listened to the will of the people. 

 

[X-mo-1979]

Nice one.