GENEVA – Swiss voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional ban on minarets on Sunday, barring construction of the iconic mosque towers in a surprise vote that put Switzerland at the forefront of a European backlash against a growing Muslim population.
Muslim groups in Switzerland and abroad condemned the vote as biased and anti-Islamic. Business groups said the decision hurt Switzerland's international standing and could damage relations with Muslim nations and wealthy investors who bank, travel and shop there.
"The Swiss have failed to give a clear signal for diversity, freedom of religion and human rights," said Omar Al-Rawi, integration representative of the Islamic Denomination in Austria, which said its reaction was "grief and deep disappointment."
I think the whole "muslim take-over" thing is a bit far fetched. Still, could you imagine westerners moving to an Islamic nation and demanding to practice their cultural norms.. such as treating women with respect, and having a tasty beer?
There's no fucking way.
I fully support any nation's desire to reduce religious whack-a-loonery, no matter what the religion is. Those muslim fuckers need to learn to love the western style culture, or get the fuck out.. and if that costs them business opportunities, so be it. There are much more important things at stake.
The Swiss have a very warm and vibrant culture.. and if those muslim scum-bags don't like it, they can fuck off and get the hell out.
....
I had a great time the few days I spent in Lucerne Switzerland. It's a must see in any tour of Europe.
13 comments:
Texas4Life licence plate and this...They got to you didn't they?
I think I'm pretty consistent. Always have been.
I guess using the Middle East as our cultural tolerance barometer seems weird.
It also doesn't seem to have anything to do with religion. It would be like Turkey banning vaulted ceilings...or painted ceilings...because they are in cathedrals.
It also is definitely a giant fear mongering attempt. The ads for the campaign show minarets launching like missiles next to a chick in a burka.
No, it's not "weird". It says something about the motivation of dangerously radical people. These hard core Muslims are not similar to the Chinese who carved out their own ghettos in large American and European cities. They are attempting to setup their own seperate jurisdictions in secular socities. They're essentially claiming the territory.
It has everything to do with religion. It's a test of wills to determine how far they can go in imposing their will on their hosts, and fundamentally change the native culture.
I agree that the imagery may be over the top. The ends really don't justify the means there. Still, it doesn't change the necessity of making sure that highly destructive societies are prevented from gaining the tacit approval of western democracies through the guise of religious freedome.
Those fuckers are crazy.. violently and fundamentally crazy. Their societies are fucked up.. badly. They must be prevented from establishing out-posts of the crazy in non-crazy nations. If they want to live and work in other nations, they need to leave the crazy at home.
Except what's destructive about minarets? If your goal is to stop crazy violent people form forming enclaves in your country, something that is really exaggerated by a lot of people in Europe, then wouldn't integrating them into your culture seem a better idea than letting them come but alienating them? And exactly how is the war on middle east architecture a way to stop crazies from establishing outposts.
I guess weird was probably the wrong word. Wrong was probably the right word. Saying that we couldn't do X in the Middle East, so they can't do it here, for any X, is a long fucking laundry list of X. We should hold ourselves to a higher standard than one of the must human rights bankrupt areas of the world.
The difference is that they are trying to create their own pockets of autonomy in liberal western nations.
They want sharia law, and to not be subject to their host nation's laws in many cases. All? No, but they aren't as much interested in integration as spreading very dangerous cultural norms... or what they think are norms.
In some cases, there may be some over-reach by sensitive people. However, I do support the Swiss laying down a bench mark that the bullshit won't be tollerated.
A minaret isn't just an architectural issue, it's a symbolic one.
Again, I think the cultural enclave rhetoric gets blown out of proportion a little by the right in Europe. Are there places like that? Almost certainly. Is it the norm? Probably not.
Also, I don't understand how banning minarets solves the dangerous Muslim enclave problem. You aren't going to keep them out because they can't have them, you potentially ostracize those that are there or that come there in the future, and possibly embolden the ones that are there.
The situation really seems analogous to early American history, we just don't hear about the "our laws over yours" because it was an understood concept and, in some cases, the local territory had few laws that weren't similar.
I guess I would be more supportive if it seemed like this measure would have a net positive effect in any sense, but I can't see that it does. It would be like making a statement against British nationalism by banning all Queen Anne style furniture in Switzerland.
Oh I agree that the "scary muslims" stuff is over-blown in many cases. There is an element of it that is not over-blown and is quite concerning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director)
The ban wasn't designed to solve any problem. It's more symbolic than anything.. letting the muslims know that they are not welcome to try and impose their cultural bullshit on the natives.
Sort of a shot across the bow.
Im with tom on this one.
In Canada we have seen long standing traditions changed or halted because someone of a different belief was 'offended' by it. Thankfully these 'changes' are generally localized and not nationalized. It just takes a few people to complain.
9 times out of 10 the people being 'offended' are religious retards who just use it as a reason to bitch and complain.
Tom: But why is that good? What good does it do to give a warning shot?
You can't have it both ways though. It can't be dealing with a real problem (people being offended...in this case by minarets which would seem unlikely) and have it be a symbolic gesture. The two situations really aren't analogous.
To borrow on your situation Michael, if Canada's government was getting complaints about Hassidic Jews, so they banned kosher meat from grocery stores. It doesn't actually do anything about the complaints, or the problem, it just serves to put the group "on notice" and further alienate. It doesn't do anything to solve the problem, and putting them on notice only seems to exacerbate the existing problem.
It seems like a move to declare victory by saying "We did something!" even if that something was counter-productive. Might was well hang a Mission Accomplished banner up.
and I'd also make the point that many of these muslims are not interested in integrating in the host culture. They're more interested in carving out their own space.
Not all of them, of course, but there is a definate segment of the population who really despise their hosts.
I'm taking issue with the fact that doing something, just to do something, is a really bad idea.
Banning of minarets does nothing to stop muslims from coming to the country, or to help them integrate. In fact, it probably keeps them from integrating.
I'd also point out that anytime a radically different culture arrives in another, the first generation never integrates. 40 year olds simply arn't going to abandon tradition that they have grown up with. This is true of any radical cultural difference, and even some not so radical. Asians on the west coast being the most prominent one in American history, but you could say the same thing of the Irish, Italians, Slavs. These people didn't integrate, we just didn't care because there wasn't as stark a difference.
What I can find about this being different are things like this article...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7232661.stm
Which isn't bad. It's British civil courts willing to uphold contracts between individual Muslims (in the form of Sharia law--"We all agree to be bound by this codified contractual system of laws, and we ask that the British government uphold this community contract so long as it does not directly defy British law").
This doesn't even apply to you unless you agree to the contract (you are a Muslim who believes in Sharia Law). And then it only applies to disagreements between you and other people who agree to the contract (other Muslims who believe in Sharia Law).
General point is: This measure sucks at doing anything and exacerbates an existing problem because we wan't to "Show those Muslims who's boss!" just like we want to get tough on crime! It's an asinine statement, and a worse motivation.
Religious people are just far more sensitive on otherwise trivial things.
I celebrate Christmas even though i'm agnostic. That doesn't mean I go around complaining about turbans and hi-jabs. On the other side of the coin SOME people who do wear turbans or hi-jabs go around complaining about seeing Christmas trees.
To what end? Christmas trees are banned from most public schools because some intolerant fuckers can't handle a decorated tree.
At this point I see two directions.
1.) The intolerant pricks will suffer a back lash when the targets of the complaints do the exact same thing. Ala 'eye for an eye'.
2.) STFU and enjoy life
I'm more in camp #2, Turbans and Christmas trees offend me equally. That offense is rather minor.
What I would prefer to see happen is for people to stop bitching and complaining about Christmas trees because they are not Christian and propose some festivities around their own culture.
Post a Comment