Swiss Move to Stop Radicle Islam!

[Guest American Woman]

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.

Your post is pretty vague. What/who do you mean by "others who support the ban?" I support Switzerland's right to ban minarets, so if you're including me in your post, I'm not claiming it will stop radical Islam; that's Wulf's claim as far as I can see. I simply support Switzerland's right to democratically vote for the ban, and I've supported my view quite extensively and rationally.

[DogOnPorch]

Meanwhile, the chorus of Islamic dictatorships protesting the ban as intolerant grows.

[Guest American Woman]

Meanwhile, the chorus of Islamic dictatorships protesting the ban as intolerant grows.

I find this particularly mind-boggling--

Iran criticized a Swiss ban on the construction of minarets on mosques, ...

....Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki held a phone conversation with Swiss counterpart Micheline Calmy-Rey to criticize the ban....

"This move did not befit a country claiming to be a number one advocate of democracy and religious freedom under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights," Mottaki was quoted as saying in the conversation.

"The ban will undoubtedly change Switzerland's image as a leading advocate of human rights," he added.

--- in light of this:

The Iranian Parliament voted in favor of a bill Tuesday that would punish apostasy with the death penalty, a human rights group reported.

Iran is ranked third in Open Doors’ World Watch List for countries with the worst persecution of Christians.

[wulf42]

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.

The point JB is where does it stop first they want Minarets then whats next Sharia Law

then what after that Non believer's kicked out of their own country?? It is really simple to understand really i said it once and i will explain it again for you! If Muslin want to go live in a Non Muslim Country they should adjust to live by that Countries Values and Cultures not the other way around.

[Black Dog]

I didn't "neglect" to post it; I didn't choose to post it. There were many quotes from the article I chose not to quote as clearly I didn't re-post the whole article -- and never claimed to. That you accuse me of negligence for not including your quote says a lot about you and your 'discussion' skills.

What does the fact you ignored every aspect of my argument say about yours?

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?

A better analogy to fit this case would be if we banned Mormons from having multiple wives but allowed others to do so.

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?

Do you ever hear anybody defending Saudi Arabia for, well, anything?

Why is it less acceptable for Switzerland to ban minarets than it is for Saudi Arabia to not allow Christian churches?

Nobody said it was. Fact is, Saudia Arabia is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

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.

Presumably, then, you're okay with Saudi Arabia putting infidels to death for practicing their religion?

And yet it's the left that is constantly accused of practicing moral relativism...

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.

This would only apply if there was anybody-anybody!-defending Saudi Arabia's restrictions on religious freedom. But no one is. But hey, don't let that get in the way of a good red herring.

wulfy:

TThe point JB is where does it stop first they want Minarets then whats next Sharia Law then what after that Non believer's kicked out of their own country??

Ah yes, the old slippery slope. Of course it works both ways: first the ban on minarets, next the gas chambers.

If Muslin want to go live in a Non Muslim Country they should adjust to live by that Countries Values and Cultures not the other way around[

Just out of curiosity: is it only Muslims whom you believe should abandon all their religious beliefs and traditions at the door or does that apply to others such as Jews, Hindus, Sikhs etc? How does that square with the constitutionally protected right to religious belief and expression?

Edited December 7, 2009 by Black Dog

[Michael Hardner]

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.

So your observation of this knee-jerk reaction is calling for parties to follow up with another knee-jerk reaction proposal ?

Can you see now why giving the wide population a 'hot button' for quick votes, when the situation calls for reflection, is mostly a bad thing ?

[Michael Hardner]

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

You are right, and yet he's the guy holding the 'hot button' of democracy. With the right legislative framework, you can look forward to votes on deporting all Muslims from Canada.

[Michael Hardner]

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

Wulf's post does sum it up: when confronted with change, and situations that have no easy solution - bleat and emote until more reasonable posters follow up with sympathy posts.

[Michael Hardner]

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

I wonder why the author didn't include the Christian cross, the star of David... the Maple Leaf... so many missin in that group.

[Michael Hardner]

Meanwhile, the chorus of Islamic dictatorships protesting the ban as intolerant grows.

Apparently they believe, as Wulf seems to, that this is a fight between religions and may the stronger religion win. This is why we have an irrational call-to-arms, rather than discussion and appeals to thinking.

I don't think this is a fight between religions, but rather a fight between reason and emotionalism.

[JB Globe]

Your post is pretty vague. What/who do you mean by "others who support the ban?" I support Switzerland's right to ban minarets, so if you're including me in your post, I'm not claiming it will stop radical Islam; that's Wulf's claim as far as I can see. I simply support Switzerland's right to democratically vote for the ban, and I've supported my view quite extensively and rationally.

I obviously consider your position much, much different than wulf's. You're not in the same category, you're explaining yourself in a rational manner, he isn't.

I'm hoping this issue will be settled by the Swiss themselves - after all, I believe it was the Justice Minister, or a judge who said that the ban is unconstitutional. The only debate I'd have with your position is that is it still considered democracy when rights can be stripped away from a specific group by popular vote? Are there some things which should not be voted on? Swiss lawmakers are now questioning their system, wondering if there's some things which should be out of the hands of a public that has been shown to be easily manipulated by ignorant and alarmist campaigning.

[JB Globe]

The point JB is where does it stop first they want Minarets then whats next Sharia Law

You're creating a false argument here, as usual.

Minarets have ALWAYS been legal in Switzerland. Muslims never demanded the right to build minarets, they always had it because like Jews or Hindus in Switzerland they are free to build religious structures so long as they comply with municipal building regulations and processes - which ALL of the four minarets in the country did comply with.

Swiss Muslims have never demanded anything but their constitutional rights be upheld, that isn't a radical position, that's a DEMOCRATIC POSITION.

There is no slippery slope argument here. Minarets are in no way connected to radical Islam - they're just connected to Islam IN GENERAL because they're a feature of Islamic places of worship.

You might as well argue that church bells and steeples are symbols of child molestation, because all of the Catholic priests who have molested children did their ministry at a church with those features . . . . "First church steeples, then little Billy goes into the rectory with father John for a special session!"

Hell, forget religion - let's argue that all Italian restaurants are symbols of the Mafia - after all, when Mafia bosses go out to dinner, they generally go to Italian restaurants. Let's ban Italian restaurants.

It's just a incredibly stupid argument.

And you've yet to provide a single example of it working, ANYWHERE, and demonstrate HOW it works . . . Again . . . For the - what is it now? 8th time or so I've asked you directly to explain yourself and you don't?

then what after that Non believer's kicked out of their own country??

What examples do you have in Switzerland that would suggest the Swiss Muslim community is plotting to kick non-Muslim Swiss out of their country? I mean - you keep tossing around these scenarios, but you never provide any examples. Do they exist someplace else than your head?

It is really simple to understand really i said it once and i will explain it again for you! If Muslin want to go live in a Non Muslim Country they should adjust to live by that Countries Values and Cultures not the other way around.

There was never a dispute about this - I agree with you. And guess what? So do the vast majority of Swiss Muslims - they're happy living in a secular country.

The thing is - you refuse to accept that Swiss Muslims weren't trying to change ANY Swiss laws or customs - they were acting within their constitutional rights that guarantee them the freedom of religious expression. It was this minaret ban campaign which is unconstitutional.

[JB Globe]

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!

The Nazis had to start somewhere - and banning Jews from marking their religious buildings with Jewish elements of design and iconography was one of those things. It wasn't long after that Jewish places of worship were banned outright and people had to meet in secret in each other's homes.

Also, there were plenty of people Justifying what the Nazis were doing to the Jews at the time - both in Nazi Germany, in Europe and here in Toronto. While Hitler was coming down on Jews in Germany before the war, the Toronto Swastik Club was busy nailing signs to beach and park entrances that said "Gentile Only" or "No Jews or Dogs Allowed" and instigating fights like the Christie Pits Riots.

Nobody wants a right wing group at the helm either and in my view they are close to terrorist's as well,

Than why are you supporting a law drafted by a far-right party? No really - don't dodge this question - if far-right parties are close to terrorists in your mind, why are you supporting this ban? Were you just totally unaware about who drafted this thing? Do you not care?

Did you read that article about Europe and Islamic Immigrants that i posted?

You mean the one that has almost no connection to what we're talking about here? And is some vague diatribe against Islam in general? Yes I read it - would you like to talk about it? The specifics of it? Please go ahead . . .

But first - did you read the article I reposted on The European Council of Rabbis coming down on this minaret ban hard? What do you think of that? Why do you think Jews are very much against this ban? Let's hear your thoughts . . .

There are many Professors and Scholars that have stated Islam and Western Society may not be compatible with each other.

You constantly claim you're not against Islam in general - then you make suggestions like this.

Which is it? Are you against Islamic radicalism or Islam in general?

Edited December 7, 2009 by JB Globe

[wulf42]

The Nazis had to start somewhere - and banning Jews from marking their religious buildings with Jewish elements of design and iconography was one of those things. It wasn't long after that Jewish places of worship were banned outright and people had to meet in secret in each other's homes.

Also, there were plenty of people Justifying what the Nazis were doing to the Jews at the time - both in Nazi Germany, in Europe and here in Toronto. While Hitler was coming down on Jews in Germany before the war, the Toronto Swastik Club was busy nailing signs to beach and park entrances that said "Gentile Only" or "No Jews or Dogs Allowed" and instigating fights like the Christie Pits Riots.

Than why are you supporting a law drafted by a far-right party? No really - don't dodge this question - if far-right parties are close to terrorists in your mind, why are you supporting this ban? Were you just totally unaware about who drafted this thing? Do you not care?

You mean the one that has almost no connection to what we're talking about here? And is some vague diatribe against Islam in general? Yes I read it - would you like to talk about it? The specifics of it? Please go ahead . . .

But first - did you read the article I reposted on The European Council of Rabbis coming down on this minaret ban hard? What do you think of that? Why do you think Jews are very much against this ban? Let's hear your thoughts . . .

You constantly claim you're not against Islam in general - then you make suggestions like this.

Which is it? Are you against Islamic radicalism or Islam in general?

The Swiss put it to a vote with their Population! i think that is a great idea...Islam radicalism has proven itself to be a growing dangerous problem and is threatening Europe! The Swiss made the decision to protect their Culture and say enough already! they didn t ban Islam they are just drawing a line in the sand and stating "if you come to live in our Country don t try to change it" You accept it the way it is otherwise stay where you are the Swiss Population supports this action! It's their Country they can decide for themselves.

You make alot of noise about reasonable discussion and talking but you have yet to offer any kind of solution not one!! As i have stated there are things we could and should be doing in Canada such as giving CSIS full reign on phone tapping and surveillance on Right wing groups, suspected Mosques and anyone that may pose a threat to National Security,deporting or convicting anyone who even makes a threat of terrorism, stricter Immigration policy, all these things are concrete moves to help Keep Canada safe,if your not doing anything wrong there should be no problem right?? Looks like the Americans can see the danger! Europe can see the danger but i guess you can't.It's not an attack on Islam it's an attack on the Islamic extremist's.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gQQNDxreZDrrtAOtCS9baREJJr9g

http://www.hiiraan.com/news2/2009/Dec/u_s_sees_homegrown_muslim_extremism_as_rising_threat.aspx

Edited December 7, 2009 by wulf42

[Guest American Woman]

What does the fact you ignored every aspect of my argument say about yours?

It says that I'm not interested in that type of discussion.

A better analogy to fit this case would be if we banned Mormons from having multiple wives but allowed others to do so.

That would be a completely inaccurate analogy since taking more than one wife is strictly a practice of the Mormon religion, just as minarets are strictly a practice of Islam. Your "better analogy" makes no sense at all since religions other than Islam aren't allowed to build minarets, either; it's not as if the Swiss banned Muslims from having minarets while allowing others to do so.

Do you ever hear anybody defending Saudi Arabia for, well, anything?

I'm not referring to people defending Saudi Arabia; I'm clearly referring to people not criticizing Saudi Arabia as they criticize Switzerland.

Nobody said it was. Fact is, Saudia Arabia is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

No, it isn't irrelevant. As I clearly stated, if people are going to criticize one, they best apply the same standards to the other.

Presumably, then, you're okay with Saudi Arabia putting infidels to death for practicing their religion?

Riiiight. Because I think a nation has a right to be an Islamic nation, I'm okay with them putting infidels to death for practicing their religion. Presumably, then, you think "Islamic nation" and "putting infidels to death for practicing their religion" is synonymous. You, presumably, think Islam = putting infidels to death. Just for the record, I don't.

And yet it's the left that is constantly accused of practicing moral relativism...

I am the left.

This would only apply if there was anybody-anybody!-defending Saudi Arabia's restrictions on religious freedom. But no one is. But hey, don't let that get in the way of a good red herring.

Again, it applies because people aren't criticizing Saudi Arabia. You keep trying to turn it around, but there's a huge difference between "not defending" and "not criticizing," and I've clearly been referring to "not criticizing." So please try to respond to what I'm actually saying. One more time. Just to make it really clear. I've never once said anyone defended Saudi Arabia; I've said they aren't critical, they aren't holding them to the same standards, they aren't going ballistic over Saudi Arabia the way they are Switzerland.

Now if you can't respond to what I actually say rather than making it about something else entirely, I will definitely be "ignoring every aspect of your argument" again ... because it has nothing to do with mine.

[naomiglover]

That would be a completely inaccurate analogy since taking more than one wife is strictly a practice of the Mormon religion, just as minarets are strictly a practice of Islam. Your "better analogy" makes no sense at all since religions other than Islam aren't allowed to build minarets, either; it's not as if the Swiss banned Muslims from having minarets while allowing others to do so.

That is a naive comment to make.

They are proposing to ban a religious symbol while allowing others to have their religious symbol. That's discrimination. It doesn't matter how you try to rationalize it, you support discrimination.

Really, how can you, with a straight face, compare a structure with Mormons having more than one wife?

You have thrown yourself in the same category as people like wulf and DogsOnPorch with your support for this ridiculous vote.

Edited December 7, 2009 by naomiglover

[Michael Hardner]

The Swiss put it to a vote with their Population! i think that is a great idea...Islam radicalism has proven itself to be a growing dangerous problem and is threatening Europe! The Swiss made the decision to protect their Culture and say enough already! they didn t ban Islam they are just drawing a line in the sand and stating "if you come to live in our Country don t try to change it" You accept it the way it is otherwise stay where you are the Swiss Population supports this action! It's their Country they can decide for themselves.

You make alot of noise about reasonable discussion and talking but you have yet to offer any kind of solution not one!! As i have stated there are things we could and should be doing in Canada such as giving CSIS full reign on phone tapping and surveillance on Right wing groups, suspected Mosques and anyone that may pose a threat to National Security,deporting or convicting anyone who even makes a threat of terrorism, stricter Immigration policy, all these things are concrete moves to help Keep Canada safe,if your not doing anything wrong there should be no problem right?? Looks like the Americans can see the danger! Europe can see the danger but i guess you can't.It's not an attack on Islam it's an attack on the Islamic extremist's.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gQQNDxreZDrrtAOtCS9baREJJr9g

http://www.hiiraan.com/news2/2009/Dec/u_s_sees_homegrown_muslim_extremism_as_rising_threat.aspx

You did dodge JB Globe's question as he asked you not to.

You say that something should be done to stop the problem. CSIS can already tap phones and the like as they have done - so you're not suggesting anything new other than lashing out emotionally.

You have repeatedly resisted explaining how new architecture rules will stop terrorism, and we know why - because it won't.

[Guest American Woman]

I obviously consider your position much, much different than wulf's. You're not in the same category, you're explaining yourself in a rational manner, he isn't.

I had hoped you didn't put me in that category, but I believe in 'when in doubt, ask.'

I'm hoping this issue will be settled by the Swiss themselves - after all, I believe it was the Justice Minister, or a judge who said that the ban is unconstitutional. The only debate I'd have with your position is that is it still considered democracy when rights can be stripped away from a specific group by popular vote? Are there some things which should not be voted on? Swiss lawmakers are now questioning their system, wondering if there's some things which should be out of the hands of a public that has been shown to be easily manipulated by ignorant and alarmist campaigning.

I think the issue has to be settled by the Swiss themselves. No one else has any authority to interfere, and I don't see the Swiss willingly letting someone else tell them what to do.

Rights have been stripped away from a specific group in democracies. As I pointed out, Mormons aren't allowed to have more than one wife even though that was their religious practice. Gays have had rights stripped away, too. I'm sure there are other examples, but those two come to mind. I do see where voting on everything could be a problem, though, as civil rights may never have come to pass had it been left up to a popular vote.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out in the end, but I do stand by Switzerland's right to ban minarets.

[Guest American Woman]

They are proposing to ban a religious symbol while allowing others to have their religious symbol. That's discrimination. It doesn't matter how you try to rationalize it, you support discrimination.

Really, how can you, with a straight face, compare a structure with Mormons having more than one wife?

I'm comparing, with a straight face, one religious practice with another. It's a Muslim practice to have minarets. It was a Mormon practice to have more than one wife. Both have been banned. You may see only one as being discriminatory, but I can guarantee you that there are Mormons who will disagree with you.

[naomiglover]

I'm comparing, with a straight face, one religious practice with another. It's a Muslim practice to have minarets. It was a Mormon practice to have more than one wife. Both have been banned. You may see only one as being discriminatory, but I can guarantee you that there are Mormons who will disagree with you.

This is why your comparison is ridiculous.

One is a religious structure and one is marrying more than one wife.

You have situated yourself into the bottom of the pit with the likes of Wulf and DogOnPorch with your support of this discriminatory ban.

[Guest American Woman]

This is why your comparison is ridiculous.

One is a religious structure and one is marrying more than one wife.

So really, then, one is only a religious structure, while the other was a religious practice. So what do you think is more discriminatory, banning a religious structure, or banning a religious practice?

You have situated yourself into the bottom of the pit with the likes of Wulf and DogOnPorch with your support of this discriminatory ban.

So you've already said. No need to repeat yourself.

[M.Dancer]

One is a religious structure and one is marrying more than one wife.

\

Old school Mormons believe it is their religious right to have more than one wife.

[wulf42]

You did dodge JB Globe's question as he asked you not to.

You say that something should be done to stop the problem. CSIS can already tap phones and the like as they have done - so you're not suggesting anything new other than lashing out emotionally.

You have repeatedly resisted explaining how new architecture rules will stop terrorism, and we know why - because it won't.

Again what is your solution........i am waiting!

[Michael Hardner]

Again what is your solution........i am waiting!

How demanding of you to state "i am waiting" as if I'm bound to provide a solution, and to post it to you. This after you have failed to answer questions on this board. In any case, I will answer:

I trust that our law enforcement agencies are competent so I trust them to continue their mostly-successful efforts to stay ahead of the situation. As far as policy goes, I support their efforts to improve their abilities to get information.

That's my solution - trust that our governments can keep us safe.

And I will continue to do "something" by reading, analyzing and DISCUSSING the situation - basically doing my job by keeping informed as a citizen.

[naomiglover]

So really, then, one is only a religious structure, while the other was a religious practice. So what do you think is more discriminatory, banning a religious structure, or banning a religious practice?

Your question or point or whatever you're trying to get across is moot. There is no point in trying to compare the two, because the situation and the circumstance is different. The ban is for a religious structure for a specific religion while other religious structures for other religions are allowed to be built.