Swiss Move to Stop Radicle Islam!

[wulf42]

It's a circular argument, and you're completely avoiding answering the "how" question.

If you're not going to articulate your position beyond its most basic level, than I'm going to have to start making assumptions about your motivations and reasoning, and I'd rather not have to do that - I'd rather you speak for yourself.

I don t have to explain anything! apparently Switzerland AGREES with me, i guess they can see the danger as clearly as i can! That just tells me the Swiss are a lot smarter than we are in Canada!Peaceful Muslims or any religion that wants to assimilate into Western society should be encouraged to do so but many do not want to do this and are trying to force their religion on others. Europe apparently as a whole see the danger, read this article that i posted at the bottom it explains alot and should explain to you the danger faced by Europe,why can't you understand what most of Europe already does? When your Country faces a National Security risk then religious freedoms and personal rights may have to some extent be infringed upon for the greater good of the Country.It's not just the Swiss taking action every European Country is moving to take action to protect their Citizens and Culture as this article points out!

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=34cbfbb7-eb95-4e77-a155-3904297e45de

Edited December 5, 2009 by wulf42

[wulf42]

As I've already explained to you, these things call for reason, thinking and discussion (i.e. doing "something") not emotional bleating (i.e. doing "nothing")

I couldn t agree more, the time for "doing something" is here. CSIS should be allowed to eavesdrop on Mosques or anyone else that may be a threat they should have free reign no restrictions..hey if your not doing anything wrong then what's the problem? heck i couldn t careless if they were listening to me i am not hiding anything so i have no problem with it! There should be stricter immigration policy and better screening! tougher sentences on terrorist's and people of any religion threatening terror including deportation immediately! Your right there is much we should be doing!

Edited December 5, 2009 by wulf42

[Guest American Woman]

W....others have made the point that this kind of thing happens elsewhere already. Yes, many Islamic countries don't allow Christian symbols, but that doesn't mean we should emulate them. Lets hold ourselves to a higher standard than saying, "well, they don't support freedom of religion, so why should we?" Our values don't have to be based on a tit for tat response to values we don't agree with in the first place.

While our values don't have to be based on theirs, we don't necessarily always have to compromise what we see as our democratic values in order to accommodate everyone else, either. Our laws certainly don't allow Mormons to have more than one wife. Does that mean we are racist/bigoted/biased towards Mormons?

But more to the point, since I'm one of the "others" who have pointed out that Saudi Arabia doesn't allow Christian churches, I did so not so much with the "well, they don't support freedom of religion, so why should we?" idea as I did to point out that we don't hear the level of criticism directed at Saudi Arabia that we are hearing directed at Switzerland. Shouldn't we be just as outraged over Saudi Arabia's laws as we are Switzerland's? Shouldn't the same standards apply? Why is it less acceptable for Switzerland to ban minarets than it is for Saudi Arabia to not allow Christian churches?

But truth be told, I honestly don't have a problem with Saudi Arabia wanting to be an Islamic nation. If that's how they feel, it's their country, they have that right. I don't think others should go there, knowing this, and expect any different. By the same token, I think Switzerland has a right to object to the building of minarets; they have the right to maintain their country the way they choose, and what gives us the right to judge? Criticism is one thing, but judging is quite another. But if we are going to vocally criticize one, and expect change from one, ie: harshly judge one, then the same standards to the same degree better apply to the other. That was my point.

[wulf42]

But truth be told, I honestly don't have a problem with Saudi Arabia wanting to be an Islamic nation. If that's how they feel, it's their country, they have that right. I don't think others should go there, knowing this, and expect any different. By the same token, I think Switzerland has a right to object to the building of minarets; they have the right to maintain their country the way they choose, and what gives us the right to judge?

Agreed!! The time for Political Correctness is coming to an end!

Edited December 5, 2009 by wulf42

[paulfrottawa]

If Canada is smart we will follow suit,nothing wrong with practicing your religion but you have to draw a line somewhere!!

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/11/29/swiss-minarets.html#socialcomments-submit

Either that or just learn to knell and bend over on the floor. Then practice it 5 times a day and you'll live longer.

You think they would all want to move to Iran, Libya or Saudi Arabia.

[wulf42]

Either that or just learn to knell and bend over on the floor. Then practice it 5 times a day and you'll live longer.

You think they would all want to move to Iran, Libya or Saudi Arabia.

lol........yes you would!

I guess they can't see the long term scenario!

[DogOnPorch]

Either that or just learn to knell and bend over on the floor. Then practice it 5 times a day and you'll live longer.

You think they would all want to move to Iran, Libya or Saudi Arabia.

While individual Muslims may or may not, Islam seeks to dominate.

[wulf42]

While individual Muslims may or may not, Islam seeks to dominate.

Absolutely right.........but becareful the others might hear you and gang up on you again for having a different view........

[DogOnPorch]

Do you have any examples of Switzerland "being under siege" ????

There are examples of terrorist activity in Switzerland. The 2005 attempt to take down an El-Al flight with a SAM in particular.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/19/AR2006071901795.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al

[DogOnPorch]

Absolutely right.........but becareful the others might hear you and gang up on you again for having a different view........

Most of what motivates these posters seems to be a twisted version of PC fair-play. For example: it is fair to allow Iran the ability to kill us at will in our beds with atomic weapons...after all, look at Hiroshima...blah blah blah.

[DogOnPorch]

We don't always agree on the issues, DoP, but I've always respected you, so I have to say that the comment about Rachel Corrie was beneath you. She died tragically standing up for something she believed in, and whether you agree with her cause or not, she lost her life standing up for others.

AW...I was thinking about this for a day or two...what do you think of the International Solidarity Movement allowing a rookie with less than two months experience to stand vigil in front of a bulldozer when the ISM knew full well that the Israelis would play hard ball...that is...they'd already had several run-ins with the IDF that caused death or injury.

Wisdom tells me that standing infront of any bulldozer is a bad idea. But the ISM apparently told her no harm would come to her as long as the IDF knew she was in the area. But accounts tell of Hamas snipers and other IMS members getting in the way of the IDF APC that did the spotting for the bulldozer. Perhaps they wanted a martyr for the cause...

[wulf42]

Most of what motivates these posters seems to be a twisted version of PC fair-play. For example: it is fair to allow Iran the ability to kill us at will in our beds with atomic weapons...after all, look at Hiroshima...blah blah blah.

Yeah, i have seen this many times on this forum the ole " we have Nukes so why shouldn't the Islamic Fanatic's have them too" but the thing that gets me

is they go on about the charter of rights, freedom of religion and free speech but under Islam none of that would not exist! so in reality they are supporting something that often supports oppression and treats women like dogs and is against everything they say they stand for!! strange indeed.

Edited December 5, 2009 by wulf42

[eyeball]

If Canada is smart we will follow suit,nothing wrong with practicing your religion but you have to draw a line somewhere!!

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/11/29/swiss-minarets.html#socialcomments-submit

This is an interesting development in the evolution of democracy. Is the controversy enough to call into question the wisdom of allowing a population to vote on a range of issues? I don't think so. I see this controversy as an opportunity to develop new approaches on how to deal with the process of putting a controversial proposal to a population. Perhaps next time someone will consider running a counter petition against even having a referendum on something like this in the first place. In any case I doubt very much if the Swiss are suddenly going to throw up their arms and trade their futuristic democratic system for the primitive type we use.

If Canada was smart we would follow suit, nothing wrong with practicing democracy but you're right we would probably have to draw a line somewhere. Right now though we still have way more than enough room to begin moving that line. The Swiss are clearly light years ahead of us and we've got a lot of catching up to do. If Canada was really smart we'd incorporate the lessons the Swiss are learning along the way.

[JB Globe]

I don t have to explain anything!/quote]

You're right, but you're not going to convince anyone of anything unless you explain yourself.

Allow me to illustrate:

Person A: "Apples cure cancer."

Person B: "How?"

Person A: "Because a lot of people agree with me."

Person B: "That doesn't explain how, and a lot of people have believed a lot of things that aren't true, like the world was flat."

Person A: "I just told you they cure cancer, trust me! I know this stuff. I read about it on the internet all the time"

If you were person B, would you accept person A's statement that apples cure cancer? Of course not, because person A made no attempt to demonstrate that they know what they're talking about, and generally people won't accept the opinion of someone that sounds like they're not informed on the topic they're making grand statements on. You simply cannot refuse to articulate a position and expect people to agree with you.

apparently Switzerland AGREES with me,

That's false. 57% of the people who voted in the referendum agree with you that banning minarets fights Islamic radicalism. And much like you the "yes" campaign doesn't explain HOW this all works.

Peaceful Muslims or any religion that wants to assimilate into Western society should be encouraged to do so but many do not want to do this and are trying to force their religion on others.

For the record, this decision isn't "encouraging" anyone to do anything. It is unconstitutional and is revoking a minority group's freedom of religion.

And how does building 4 minarets which comply with municipal building regulations go hand in hand with "forcing their religion on others"

Also - please demonstrate a single example of repealing a minority religious group's freedom of religion translating into reduced radicalism. I simply won't sign onto something that has failed every time it's been done.

why can't you understand what most of Europe already does?

Because I'm a Jew, and I've seen this all before. I know what's at the end of this road. Whenever you unleash ultra-right nationalism in your society, everyone always looses, just ask Martin Niemöller,

In case you missed the article Naomi linked earlier: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1132517.html

Edited December 5, 2009 by JB Globe

[JB Globe]

we don't hear the level of criticism directed at Saudi Arabia that we are hearing directed at Switzerland.

I'm sure you've noticed that Western nations are much more critical of nations that we don't receive a lot of oil from. This goes for all our suppliers - Muslim or non-Muslim. Even China receives a lot more criticism than Cuba because it's an economic necessity to the West, and Cuba isn't.

As for Switzerland, I think why people are outraged at this is because they're waving the flag of democracy and pluralism and going out and doing something which is pretty anti-thetical to those values. And since democracy and secular pluralism are things which form a strong part of the identity of other Western nations, you can see why a lot of folks are upset that the Swiss are doing something with those labels attached.

[wulf42]

For the record, this decision isn't "encouraging" anyone to do anything. It is unconstitutional and is revoking a minority group's freedom of religion.

And how does building 4 minarets which comply with municipal building regulations go hand in hand with "forcing their religion on others"

Because I'm a Jew, and I've seen this all before. I know what's at the end of this road. Whenever you unleash ultra-right nationalism in your society, everyone always looses, just ask Martin Niemöller,

In case you missed the article Naomi linked earlier: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1132517.html

This is not 1939 and the Nazi's are not in control that was a different time there was absolute no justification for what the Nazi's did! Nobody wants a right wing group at the helm either and in my view they are close to terrorist's as well,Islamic Extremism has to be stopped its a different world than it used to be! Did you read that article about Europe and Islamic Immigrants that i posted? They are simply protecting their citizens and they should be! There are many Professors and Scholars that have stated Islam and Western Society may not be compatible with each other.The bottom line is if you are a Muslim and want to go live in a Non Muslim Country be prepared to live by their values ,culture and Laws and don t go to a Non Islamic Country with the intent to change their existing way of life! otherwise stay in a Country that support's your Value's and Culture.

Edited December 5, 2009 by wulf42

[wulf42]

If Canada was smart we would follow suit, nothing wrong with practicing democracy but you're right we would probably have to draw a line somewhere. Right now though we still have way more than enough room to begin moving that line. The Swiss are clearly light years ahead of us and we've got a lot of catching up to do. If Canada was really smart we'd incorporate the lessons the Swiss are learning along the way.

Wow! we actually agree on this point.

[eyeball]

Wow! we actually agree on this point.

Maybe, but I doubt if you have the first clue what I'm talking about.

[Guest American Woman]

AW...I was thinking about this for a day or two...what do you think of the International Solidarity Movement allowing a rookie with less than two months experience to stand vigil in front of a bulldozer when the ISM knew full well that the Israelis would play hard ball...that is...they'd already had several run-ins with the IDF that caused death or injury.

Wisdom tells me that standing infront of any bulldozer is a bad idea. But the ISM apparently told her no harm would come to her as long as the IDF knew she was in the area. But accounts tell of Hamas snipers and other IMS members getting in the way of the IDF APC that did the spotting for the bulldozer. Perhaps they wanted a martyr for the cause...

First, thank you for your previous response; I appreciate it.

Regarding the ISM, I think a lot of the active participants are "rookies" in the sense that they haven't been involved for any great length of time. I may be wrong, but I say this because they ask for volunteers, and most often volunteers have limited time to dedicate, especially to international causes.

I do think at 23 years old, Rachel Corrie knew what she was getting herself into. I think an intelligent adult who gets involved in such causes knows that there is some risk involved and accepts it. They are playing hardball with another nation's government, interfering in a war zone, so I don't think anyone should make the decision to get involved lightly, and it sounds as if she didn't. The fact that her participation was "non-violent" doesn't mean it was safe; although in reality it's safer than being on the battle field.

I tend to agree that standing in front of a bulldozer is a bad idea, but I'm sure they're banking on the driver not having the frame of mind to run them over. Unfortunately, accidents happen, people slip, drivers in large machinery don't always have clear views, etc., and tragic results therefore can, and do, occur. So it likely is a bad idea; but then, I think a lot of people who have stood up for causes they believe in by engaging in non-violent protests have done things that would be considered a "bad idea," and that includes Rosa Parks standing up for her rights on the bus.

As for the ISM wanting a martyr for the cause-- my gut feeling tells me no. As I said, any adult of any intelligence, who knows anything about the area/conflict at all, would know they were taking a risk; and I think while most engage in such demonstrations safely, it doesn't turn out that way for everyone, and it obviously didn't turn out that way for her.

[DogOnPorch]

This is not 1939 and the Nazi's are not in control that was a different time there was absolute no justification for what the Nazi's did! Nobody wants a right wing group at the helm either and in my view they are close to terrorist's as well,Islamic Extremism has to be stopped its a different world than it used to be! Did you read that article about Europe and Islamic Immigrants that i posted? They are simply protecting their citizens and they should be! There are many Professors and Scholars that have stated Islam and Western Society may not be compatible with each other.The bottom line is if you are a Muslim and want to go live in a Non Muslim Country be prepared to live by their values ,culture and Laws and don t go to a Non Islamic Country with the intent to change their existing way of life! otherwise stay in a Country that support's your Value's and Culture.

Pretty much sums it up...eh? Multiculturalism should be a two way street....otherwise what's the point? Our culture's suicide?

[DogOnPorch]

First, thank you for your previous response; I appreciate it.

Regarding the ISM, I think a lot of the active participants are "rookies" in the sense that they haven't been involved for any great length of time. I may be wrong, but I say this because they ask for volunteers, and most often volunteers have limited time to dedicate, especially to international causes.

I do think at 23 years old, Rachel Corrie knew what she was getting herself into. I think an intelligent adult who gets involved in such causes knows that there is some risk involved and accepts it. They are playing hardball with another nation's government, interfering in a war zone, so I don't think anyone should make the decision to get involved lightly, and it sounds as if she didn't. The fact that her participation was "non-violent" doesn't mean it was safe; although in reality it's safer than being on the battle field.

I tend to agree that standing in front of a bulldozer is a bad idea, but I'm sure they're banking on the driver not having the frame of mind to run them over. Unfortunately, accidents happen, people slip, drivers in large machinery don't always have clear views, etc., and tragic results therefore can, and do, occur. So it likely is a bad idea; but then, I think a lot of people who have stood up for causes they believe in by engaging in non-violent protests have done things that would be considered a "bad idea," and that includes Rosa Parks standing up for her rights on the bus.

As for the ISM wanting a martyr for the cause-- my gut feeling tells me no. As I said, any adult of any intelligence, who knows anything about the area/conflict at all, would know they were taking a risk; and I think while most engage in such demonstrations safely, it doesn't turn out that way for everyone, and it obviously didn't turn out that way for her.

Fair enough. I do think anyone that gets in the way of IDF operations for whatever reason had best have their will in order. I think most think it's a game to be played...taunt the Israelis...see what happens. It's right up there with hikers along the Iraq-Iran border...reporters entering North Korea...or Somalia...or a thousand other sh!tholes on the planet.

[Shady]

Here's an interesting take from somebody who knows.

Swiss ban on minarets was a vote for tolerance and inclusion

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.

Link

[DogOnPorch]

She would indeed 'know'.

[eyeball]

Religious symbols can also convey collectivist notions of supremacy by one group over all others. It will likely only be a matter of time before someone proposes that crosses be banned from churches too.

The important point to notice is that the Swiss are brave enough to tackle these things in a democratic fashion as opposed to the violent methods that usually attend such emotional issues. I suspect the response from many nations in the event of a Swiss referendum on banning all religious symbols of supremacy will be less than cordial.

[JB Globe]

To summarize the critique of the support for the minaret ban on this board:

I've given Wulf and others who support this ban about a week to explain HOW this ban works, to show me the connection between banning minarets and decreasing radicalism in the Swiss Muslim community.

So far the only things said so far have been: "why do I have to explain myself? go ask the Swiss, it's their ban" (hint: because you're supporting this ban, and want to bring it to Canada - you should explain yourself)

and: "it fights radicalism because it bands minarets!"

"how does it do that?"

"I just told you! it bans minarets, what else do I need to explain?"

"How about the connection between minarets and radicalism?"

. . . SILENCE . . . MOVES ONTO NEXT TALKING POINT

That's about it, except for some folks degenerating into 10 year olds and name-calling.

So what are we supposed to take away from all this? That the supporters of this ban, whether they be Swiss or members of this board, are not concerned with making a RATIONAL CASE for this ban, because they simply refuse or are unable to explain how it works.

Personally, I believe this is only natural when you discuss a topic with people who's xenophobic instincts are greater than their rational instincts.