Switzerland bans minarets

[L.J.Solidarity]

After a plebiscite in which 57.5% of voters voted in favor of the proposal (http://www.euronews.net/2009/11/29/swiss-vote-to-ban-mosque-minarets/), the construction of mosque minarets is now illegal according to the swiss constitution. The proposal came from the far-right Swiss People's Party and a tiny christian fundamentalist party. I think Switzerland is the European country most likely to develop towards full-blown fascism in the next decade.
However I don't really understand the reason for that - the Swiss proletariat is among the least politically involved in the world, and the system of government based on coalitions of all significant parties is the epitome of stability/boredom, so why does a large part of the ruling class apparently desire to push the country towards fascism?

[Holden Caulfield]

already been posted in discrimination they should be merged or one deleted or whatever

[ComradeMan]

There's synchronicity for you, I also posted a thread on this in Discrimination at about the same time...

The unpalatable truth about this whole issue is that the proletariat in Europe don't want Islam, the minarets are symbols of Islam and they don't want it.

I am all for religious freedom but I am not for shariah law.

This is one that is not about left or right but more about whether people want Islam or not.

[Q]

I just saw it on the news. I find it funny that the christians were mostly the driving force behind this, like they are so much more progressive :lol:

I also find it ironic that the campaign poster the rightwing used to get the moll passed depicted more minarets then there are in Switzerland. That country counts 4 (yes, four) minarets!

[rednordman]

Funny thing is that if they really where straight forward, they would simply see that this is the reality of the nightmare of religion in todays age. Serves them right for believing in the death of marxism, and associating any leftwing thought with the soviet union (this includes anarchism also), in my opinion. Yer, sure it really symbolised the 'end of history' didnt it!....To think that Ronald Reagen called them 'freedom fighters' aswell. And now people who obviously see him in a positive light, are 'democratically' voting to oppress these people. Sickening irony.

Yes, Sharia law is not an issue for the left, but if the 'modern' west dosent like it than, surely they must understand that this is something that is do be properly debated (in a modern way), and not simply left to the first reactionary mob to get the first consessions on it? People really have not learnt from history have they?

[Angry Young Man]

This is going to work wonders for assuaging radical Islam...
</sarcasm>

[An archist]

Good! Now let's just ban churchtowers and their annoying bells and we'll get some more sleep on sunday.

[Wanted Man]

There's synchronicity for you, I also posted a thread on this in Discrimination at about the same time...

The unpalatable truth about this whole issue is that the proletariat in Europe don't want Islam, the minarets are symbols of Islam and they don't want it.

I am all for religious freedom but I am not for shariah law.

This is one that is not about left or right but more about whether people want Islam or not.

What does that have to do with anything? Are people who do "want Islam" not "people" anymore? Are they not part of the proletariat in Europe?

Of course left and right is part of it, who do you think is proposing this stuff? Where does Sharia law come in?

[rednordman]

Good! Now let's just ban churchtowers and their annoying bells and we'll get some more sleep on sunday.Agreed!

[BobKKKindle$]

There's synchronicity for you, I also posted a thread on this in Discrimination at about the same time...

The unpalatable truth about this whole issue is that the proletariat in Europe don't want Islam, the minarets are symbols of Islam and they don't want it.

I am all for religious freedom but I am not for shariah law.

This is one that is not about left or right but more about whether people want Islam or not.

Believe it or not, the working class of Europe contains large numbers of Muslims, including both migrant workers and people who were born in Europe and are citizens of European countries, who presumably enjoy having places of worship to go to - so on that basis it's absurd to say that "the proletariat" doesn't "want" Islam. I also think it's unacceptable that you've swallowed the lies of the political establishment as well as racist organizations like the BNP and the FN by assuming that Muslims wanting to be able to build mosques and minarets (i.e. places of worship that are not fundamentally different from churches and synagogues - although I'm sure you don't have a problem with those being constructed, it's just the scary Muslims you're worried about, because we all know that Islam is dodgy and backwards) is the same as wanting to impose Sharia law on the whole of Europe, not that you actually know what Sharia law is of course.

When we are confronted with decisions like this, it is essential that we do not approach them in isolation from the broader political context and support attacks on religious expression in the name of wanting to encourage science and reason - this is unfortunately something that a lot of people on the left have a tendency to do, as we can see from this thread. The reason I say this is that over the past decade there has been a concerted attack on Muslims in developed countries throughout the world, but especially in the US and the UK, in the name of the so-called war on terror, and this attack has involved not only restrictions on the right to religious expression, such as not allowing Muslim women in France to wear religious garments, which is, again, something a lot of the left viewed as progressive when it was implemented, but also more intrusive policies which have been justified on security-related grounds and which allow the state to encourage the notion that Islam is an inherently violent religion and that Muslims should be suspected of being terrorists unless proven otherwise. In this context it is essential that socialists confront the prevailing atmosphere of Islamophobia, which means supporting the religious rights of Muslim communities - not celebrating when the bourgeois state bans minarets.

[redasheville]

This thread is almost worse than that death penalty thread. Or maybe it is worse, who knows.

[rednordman]

I think that this says much about religion in general (must add that im not anti-religion either). What this is more about is the unworkablitly of conservative norms in a modern world. When I say conservative, I am only saying this as it would not be the issue if conservativism did not exist.

Too many people are talking of this as 'protecting the UK' as if everything that was good about the uk, happened during the 1950s. Its almost like a kind of phantom racism/descrimination. People believe that its ok to show opposition to other faiths, yet ironically they have no faith themselves.

Its like they are not racist but still racist, because they are refusing to look at the old texts for the said faiths, and are only taking the word of the people who are very opposed to it. This is one of the reasons why the BNP are so popular in the UK right now.

Everyone is scared that the local highschool that they went too, is going to turn into a mosk. To us this sounds ridiculous, and rightfully so, but I hear it everyweek. People really are falling for lies.

[Dimentio]

This is obviously an ugly attempt to stir hatred against a minority which is increasingly exposed to vile racist assaults. This is obviously a sign of increasing fascism in large parts of western Europe, and would greatly serve to embolden fascists everywhere. :(

[Wanted Man]

I think that this says much about religion in general (must add that im not anti-religion either). What this is more about is the unworkablitly of conservative norms in a modern world. When I say conservative, I am only saying this as it would not be the issue if conservativism did not exist.

Too many people are talking of this as 'protecting the UK' as if everything that was good about the uk, happened during the 1950s. Its almost like a kind of phantom racism/descrimination. People believe that its ok to show opposition to other faiths, yet ironically they have no faith themselves.

Its like they are not racist but still racist, because they are refusing to look at the old texts for the said faiths, and are only taking the word of the people who are very opposed to it. This is one of the reasons why the BNP are so popular in the UK right now.

Everyone is scared that the local highschool that they went too, is going to turn into a mosk. To us this sounds ridiculous, and rightfully so, but I hear it everyweek. People really are falling for lies.

They can be surprisingly crude sometimes:

http://www.septicisle.info/uploaded_images/ds15181509-723692.jpg

[rednordman]

They can be surprisingly crude sometimes:

http://www.septicisle.info/uploaded_images/ds15181509-723692.jpgDam U. This actually makes me ashamed to be from the UK. What the fuck are you on about Daily Star? I dont give a shit if you are based in London or whatever. Thats such a bad lie(the DS headline that is) it makes me want to immigrate in shame.

[Leonid Brozhnev]

After reading comments on various news sources the under lying feeling is that Muslims are here simply to convert us or destroy us. Sigh... I thought we'd moved beyond this irrational stupidity? Obviously not.

@ Wanted Man - That headline makes me want to vomit.

[Wanted Man]

Dam U. This actually makes me ashamed to be from the UK. What the fuck are you on about Daily Star? I dont give a shit if you are based in London or whatever. Thats such a bad lie(the DS headline that is) it makes me want to immigrate in shame.

It's from almost a year ago. Still, typical of the crudeness of public discourse at times.

[rednordman]

It's from almost a year ago. Still, typical of the crudeness of public discourse at times.No shit. When I first saw the headline, it surprised me that they where not prosecuted by the law. In reality, it would be nice to say that freedom of press is a good thing, but truth is that an uncomfortably high group of people actually believe(or more like react to) the daily star(same could be said about the daily mail too). Thus, the BNP has recieved more popularity.

[Guerrilla22]

Another case of bigotry against immigrants and Islam in the West. Switzerland should be ashamed.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Switzerland has four mosques minarets and two more were plannedOh my god the horror!

There's already ordinances - I assume - that limit public noise by decibels. This was completely pointless and needs to be overturned.

On edit - Wow, the party who supported this proposal didn't even argue this as an issue of noise..

[ComradeMan]

A lot of the people here are commenting with noble values, but as someone who has lived in a Muslim country and in highly Muslim areas the truth is not so rosey.

It's all very well defending the rights of minorities all over the place but what if those minorities propose values flyning in the face of the values we uphold?

Supposing these were not minarets? Suppose these were some nutcase group proposing to build "Churches of the Aryan Nation" or something similar. I suspect the same people posting here would not be talking about religious freedom in that case.

Mosques in Europe have become increasingly radicalised over the last two decades and what is being preached in them is not nice and very often nothing to do with Islamic spirituality. A Muslim friend of mine who lives in Italy told me he was not interested in going to the mosque because it is full of "nutters".
Recently in Italy a girl was murdered by her father because she had a non-muslim boyfriend and the conservative Islamic community either dedended it or remained ominously silent. Cases like this are to be found all over the place and there is no regulation whatsoever.

In Britain we already have shariah courts being set up, and remember in a shariah court a woman's word is only worth 1/3 of a man's. I suppose we will be supporting people's rights to stone adulteresses and homosexuals to death next.

I repeat, I have no problem with people's own personal and private religion whatever it may be. Christian religious intolerance has already cost the lives of millions of Europeans and the fall out is still to be felt in certain areas. Do we really want to institutionalise even more religious dogma? Do we really want to encourage a form of religious expression which in its pure form does not respect people's rights of equality and expression?

[Spawn of Stalin]

You make it sound like it is actually worse than Christianity and Judaism. They're all fools if you ask me, but they have the right to be fools. Or maybe we should be cheering on the far-right for this victory?

[ComradeMan]

You make it sound like it is actually worse than Christianity and Judaism. They're all fools if you ask me, but they have the right to be fools. Or maybe we should be cheering on the far-right for this victory?

You see this is the problem--- it automatically comes over as a victory for the far right and anyone who doesn't tow the politically correct line is branded a right-winger. This is exactly how the left play into the hands of the right wing.

1. We are still dealing with the effects of Christianity in Europe after hundreds of years of bloodshed...
2. Judaism does not seek converts nor does it seek to conquer. Zionism in Israel is not Judaism. In such Judaism is not an "aggressive" religion.

The problem is, and some "lapsed" Muslim friends have told me the same, that Islam does not compromise and does not hold the same values that most people here would wish to promote.

Just do a Google search on "Honour killings, Islam, Britain, France, Italy" and see what you find.

Here is just one clause of the "manifesto" of the Muslim Parliament of Britain.


There are laws on the British Statute Book that are in direct conflict with the laws of Allah; these relate to such matters as usury, abortion, homosexuality, gambling, sale and consumption of alcohol, and the abolition of capital punishment; Muslims can neither agree with nor condone any part of a legal and social agenda which so flagrantly violates the laws of nature as well as of God.
http://www.muslimparliament.org.uk/

[Spawn of Stalin]

Religious law is stupid, as is religion in general, but as long as the non-Muslim working class aren't forced to follow their silly rules I don't really care. I don't have to follow the will of Allah, and I never will have to, it's completely voluntary and if people want to give their lives to cults and zombie religions that's up to them.

[Dimentio]

Oh my god the horror!

There's already ordinances - I assume - that limit public noise by decibels. This was completely pointless and needs to be overturned.

On edit - Wow, the party who supported this proposal didn't even argue this as an issue of noise..






I just think this is a way to reaffirm some kind of Swiss chauvinism against a perceived threat. People are generally not happy about the changes brought to capitalism during the last decades and see to find scapegoats to throw stones at.

[ComradeMan]

Religious law is stupid, as is religion in general, but as long as the non-Muslim working class aren't forced to follow their silly rules I don't really care. I don't have to follow the will of Allah, and I never will have to, it's completely voluntary and if people want to give their lives to cults and zombie religions that's up to them.


At last we agree on something! :) My whole issue with islam, and it would be the same anywhere is that there is no choice for people within this religion which is expressed on state level. Show me one "muslim" country where there is religious freedom and "tolerance"...

[leninpuncher]

At last we agree on something! :) My whole issue with islam, and it would be the same anywhere is that there is no choice for people within this religion which is expressed on state level. Show me one "muslim" country where there is religious freedom and "tolerance"...
Apparently the Persian empire was reasonably secular, and infinitely more secular than the feudal Christian countries that proceeded it. Radical Islam is a relatively recent aberration.

Islam is just like any other religion; you can find scripture advocating any sort of behaviour; from pacifism to total militancy. The choices people make are based on material conditions.

[Andy Bowden]

Supposing these were not minarets? Suppose these were some nutcase group proposing to build "Churches of the Aryan Nation" or something similar. I suspect the same people posting here would not be talking about religious freedom in that case.

Except they weren't fascist headquarters, they were minarets. An architectural structure on thousands of Mosques, and which doesn't signify extremism anymore than church steeples do.


In Britain we already have shariah courts being set up, and remember in a shariah court a woman's word is only worth 1/3 of a man's. I suppose we will be supporting people's rights to stone adulteresses and homosexuals to death next.

The only Sharia courts in the UK are ones where Muslims voluntarily seek arbitration from an Imam, often on issues surrounding relationships. They have absolutely no legal binding and their authority is based on whether or not Muslims want to accept their rulings.

The Jewish community has had similar Beth Din courts which provide religious advice to Jewish couples but no one talks about the "Judaization" of the UK.

The facts are there were only four Mosques in the whole of Switzerland, none of which were used to call for prayer. As for your comments re Muslim countries and tolerance, most Muslims in Switzerland are not religious and are immigrants from Bosnia or Turkey.

If the Swiss want to talk about defending Western values from Islam they should remember Turkey gave universal suffrage to women over 30 years before Switzerland did, and that Bosnia is a Muslim majority nation in Europe that is a multi-party democracy.

The Muslims in Switzerland are not extremists and this vote unfortunately shows that it doesn't really matter what they do or not they will be scapegoated by the right. Theres no point trying to show how moderate you are when there are parties whose success is based on attacking you, they're never going to stop unless you confront them.

[Devrim]

At last we agree on something! :) My whole issue with islam, and it would be the same anywhere is that there is no choice for people within this religion which is expressed on state level. Show me one "muslim" country where there is religious freedom and "tolerance"...

If we look on a historical level, maybe you should ask yourselves where the Jews went when they were being expelled from most European countries.

Devrim

[Robocommie]

At last we agree on something! :) My whole issue with islam, and it would be the same anywhere is that there is no choice for people within this religion which is expressed on state level. Show me one "muslim" country where there is religious freedom and "tolerance"...

Open a book, damnit. It's an accepted historical fact that the whole reason Islam spread as widely as it did is because it had a "soft sell" approach in comparison to the Byzantine Empire whose territories they took over. In other words, they didn't persecute Christians and Jews or force them to convert by the sword. For centuries, Muslim kingdoms, like the Delhi Sultanate and the later Mughals, managed to live side by side with even non-Abrahamic faiths, like Hinduism.

The radical interpretation of Islam seen today is an aberration caused by Turkish, French, British and American imperialism. If you don't like Muslims, that's your damn problem, but don't try and make your bigotry part of leftist doctrine.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

At last we agree on something! :) My whole issue with islam, and it would be the same anywhere is that there is no choice for people within this religion which is expressed on state level. Show me one "muslim" country where there is religious freedom and "tolerance"...

This is a useless stereotype of Islam. Islam does not constitute religious extremism. There are certain groups yes, but this is the same for every religion.

Also, you seem to want religious freedom and tolerance yet you don't see it as a restriction of religious freedom to not allow minarets to be built.

[Wanted Man]

Supposing these were not minarets? Suppose these were some nutcase group proposing to build "Churches of the Aryan Nation" or something similar. I suspect the same people posting here would not be talking about religious freedom in that case.
Gee, I dunno. How about a plain catholic or protestant church? Durrrr.


In Britain we already have shariah courts being set up, and remember in a shariah court a woman's word is only worth 1/3 of a man's. I suppose we will be supporting people's rights to stone adulteresses and homosexuals to death next.
Your "shariah courts" are for arbitration, provided for by the Arbitration Act, just like jewish Beth Din courts in Britain. Neither of them are courts of law, and they are not part of an islamic or jewish conspiracy to take over Britain. Otherwise, by your logic, they would be "stoning adulteresses and homosexuals" already. I don't think any religious arbitration should be enforced through civil courts either, but your argument here is a really ridiculous slippery slope.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Show me one "muslim" country where there is religious freedom and "tolerance"...

Ahem.

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


Forced conversion is counter to Sharia law, and was not a standard practice. Though far short of modern standards, Ottoman tolerance was particularly constructive compared to the contemporary situation in Europe.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

It would be better to abolish Switzerland:laugh:

[proudcomrade]

Threads like these are very, very tiring.

Not everyone who opposes Islam is automatically a "racist idiot" :rolleyes:, a "right-winger" :rolleyes:, nor anything else of the sort. There are valid reasons to oppose a religion whose followers are spreading misogyny, homophobia, anti-Communism, violence against Western nations, and an explicit intent to bring the world as close to a theocratic Caliphate as they possibly can. Not every one of us who has reached these conclusions, has done so based on a few tabloid rags and an episode or two of Fox News. Many of us have firsthand personal and academic familiarity with Islam and/or the Middle East; and to trot out the same tired old verbally-abusive ad hominem namecalling, is not doing any favors toward left solidarity. You are backfiring, and taking scores of potential comrades with you. We are well aware of the distinctions between Islam and Middle Eastern ethnicity. We are well aware of the imperfections of other Abrahamic religions. We are well aware of the existence of more moderate Muslims. None of these things are anything other than strawmen against our criticisms of Islam itself.

I am utterly sick of this hypocritical and intolerant behavior. Stop doing the very same things (insults, cheap sarcasm, emotional argumentation, poor critical thinking, distortion of facts) of which we {correctly} accuse the right wing on so many occasions. We comrades deserve better than this. Quit stooping. Learn to take criticism a bit more intelligently, not to mention considerately.

[Revy]

Good! Now let's just ban churchtowers and their annoying bells and we'll get some more sleep on sunday.

That would be consistent.

I thought that the noise factor might have been a reason for the majority. But the whole reason offered by the far-right wackos was because minarets are supposedly a political symbol of Islamic dominance. So maybe not.

[ComradeMan]

Threads like these are very, very tiring.

Not everyone who opposes Islam is automatically a "racist idiot" :rolleyes:, a "right-winger" :rolleyes:, nor anything else of the sort. There are valid reasons to oppose a religion whose followers are spreading misogyny, homophobia, anti-Communism, violence against Western nations, and an explicit intent to bring the world as close to a theocratic Caliphate as they possibly can. Not every one of us who has reached these conclusions, has done so based on a few tabloid rags and an episode or two of Fox News. Many of us have firsthand personal and academic familiarity with Islam and/or the Middle East; and to trot out the same tired old verbally-abusive ad hominem namecalling, is not doing any favors toward left solidarity. You are backfiring, and taking scores of potential comrades with you. We are well aware of the distinctions between Islam and Middle Eastern ethnicity. We are well aware of the imperfections of other Abrahamic religions. We are well aware of the existence of more moderate Muslims. None of these things are anything other than strawmen against our criticisms of Islam itself.

I am utterly sick of this hypocritical and intolerant behavior. Stop doing the very same things (insults, cheap sarcasm, emotional argumentation, poor critical thinking, distortion of facts) of which we {correctly} accuse the right wing on so many occasions. We comrades deserve better than this. Quit stooping. Learn to take criticism a bit more intelligently, not to mention considerately.

Thank you, I think you see what I meant.

As for the other comments about historical islam, they are true. But let us also not forget over the last few years and currently...

1. Coptic Christians persecuted in Egypt.
2. Slavery in the Sudan and human rights abuses.
3. The Taliban "Students" who forbid women to go to school.
4. The massacres perpetrated by Islamicts in Nigeria.
5. The Ossetian school massacre.
6. European-born women being denied their rights by Islamists and sometimes, for instance, being killed for refusing arranged marriages.
7. Salman Rushdie under fatwah for saying things that certain Islamists did not like.
8. Holocaust denial and vile anti-semitism under the guise of justification as anti-zionism.
9. The fact that many Islamic countries have atrocious human rights records, and this is often through the direct application of Shariah law.
10. The Denmark cartoons debacle
11. Wholescale movements being launched that wish death and destruction on anyone who "insults" islam in any way perceived...

The list goes on...

There is good and bad in every religion, but I must admit it's a long time since I heard of a Buddhist fatwah....

[leninpuncher]

There is good and bad in every religion, but I must admit it's a long time since I heard of a Buddhist fatwah....
Buddhist Tibet was run as a feudal theocracy; mutilations and slavery were commonplace.

[ComradeMan]

Buddhist Tibet was run as a feudal theocracy; mutilations and slavery were commonplace.

Hmmm.... this one is new to me, and doesn't sound much like the Buddhism that we have been "sold" since the psychadelic Sixties... I would be interested to know more about this... any sources?

Damn it, another belief system sinks in its own mire!!! :)

This is my problem with all religions that active seek to create theocracies... they all become tyrannical!!!

[Robocommie]

Hmmm.... this one is new to me, and doesn't sound much like the Buddhism that we have been "sold" since the psychadelic Sixties... I would be interested to know more about this... any sources?

Yeah but it'd be awfully nice if, while looking into this, you avoid making Buddhism out to be a monolithic entity in which all members are of one mind and one practice.



This is my problem with all religions that active seek to create theocracies... they all become tyrannical!!!

Now why on Earth would a system where power becomes concentrated in the hands of one small class of people become tyrannical?

[Robocommie]

I am utterly sick of this hypocritical and intolerant behavior. Stop doing the very same things (insults, cheap sarcasm, emotional argumentation, poor critical thinking, distortion of facts) of which we {correctly} accuse the right wing on so many occasions. We comrades deserve better than this. Quit stooping. Learn to take criticism a bit more intelligently, not to mention considerately.

We're under no obligation to respect any of your prejudices simply because you share our views on economics. You may be our comrades on many fronts but those of us who find what you say to be friendly to reactionaries or bigoted are obligated by our principals to say so, and heatedly so if we feel the need.

I'll extend my respect to you as a fellow Socialist, but if I feel you're being unfair to the human complexity of a religious grouping of hundreds of millions of people by generally categorizing them as misogynist and violent, especially at a time when those people may be in danger from the far right, then I'm damn well going to say so.

[Yazman]

ComradeMan, you are shockingly open about your islamophobia. I find it hilarious that you seem to think that Islam is some sort of "unusual" religion when there is nothing particularly unique about it. It shares the same basic traits as every religion.

You seem to also be brainwashed into actually believing this idea that Buddhism is some sort of "unique peaceful loving" religion when in reality it is not really any different to others. All you have to do is look at oppression of muslims by the buddhist state in thailand (and the soldier-monks that are increasingly common) as well as similar oppression conducted by buddhists in sri lanka.

[proudcomrade]

We're under no obligation to respect any of your prejudices simply because you share our views on economics.

Your obligation is to respect others' basic human worth enough to refrain from verbal abuse, if this place is to remain any better than the old Usenet, or some similar Internet free-for-all. I should hope that a forum for communists would keep to a higher standard than that.



You may be our comrades on many fronts but those of us who find what you say to be friendly to reactionaries or bigoted are obligated by our principals to say so, and heatedly so if we feel the need.

I'll extend my respect to you as a fellow Socialist, but if I feel you're being unfair to the human complexity of a religious grouping of hundreds of millions of people by generally categorizing them as misogynist and violent, especially at a time when those people may be in danger from the far right, then I'm damn well going to say so.

Okay- where precisely do you find anything that I have said here, to state that all several million Muslims are misogynist and violent? Where, verbatim, did I say anything of the sort?

[Tatarin]

I think this is a dangerous situation in development, and it reminds a little bit of what happened in Germany a while back. Back then, Jews had nowhere to go, so they went everywhere to corrupt the perfect peoples of the world. Now, Islam is everywhere and is growing, cleansing the imperfect peoples from the world.

I mean, first we will have this ban, then what next? A prohibition against building mosques? Against reading religious books? Back them, all communist leaders were Jews, now all Muslims are openly or secretly in love with all of Al Quaedas views and doings.

How is it different? We had a global depression back then, and we have one right now. Lo and behold: the phobiatics are up in the polls. Suddenly, the cause for liberty and space exploration and cool computer games have been replaced by the need of the nation and all the evil intruders trying to destroy it.

The problem doesn't stop there. How long until all immigration must be stopped because Muslims won't tell the border guards they are Muslims? Should there then be ethnical profiling of every person that enters?

This is sensitive because the only thing that is going to stop anyone from practising faith is some kind of legal force. These parties proposing these things do not stop at those points. Were they to reduce religious on the whole level, fine. But they don't. It's just that particular religion. These parties also have a radically extreme right following.

So no, this is not something good. It is directed against a minority, and they are not going to stop there.

[Das war einmal]

It is a logic development. One point people are making in debates is the following: 'why should we allow minarets in Europe if proposing building a church in Arabia will result in to a death sentence?' , maybe you'll find this an unfair comparison, I am not really sure myself.

[LOLseph Stalin]

As I said in the other thread about this, if they're going to ban Minarets then why not ban every other kind of religious structure as well? If noise is the issue then why not ban Church bells?

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I would have no problem with this law were applied equally to all religious groups, ie churchtowers/minarets are all banned or can only be yea high.

However, the fact that the swiss banned minarets alone is, in my humble opinion, wholly deplorable and not something I'd expect from 21st centruy western europe, to be honest.

I think it's pretty safe to say that in the US we've had an influx of middle easterners, many of them muslims, over the last few years in a way similar to europe. I really find it odd that despite the outburst of bigotry following 9-11, as a whole the US seems to be more accepting than Europe by a fairly clear margin (not to say we're perfect by any stretch of the imagination). Of course, I could be gravely mistaken and I've never been to Europe but discussing the bans on headgear and how they inhibit people, while several students wear it and speak quite freely, and now an entire country banning minarets is a bit odd, to say the least.

Am I wrong?

[Tatarin]

It is a logic development. One point people are making in debates is the following: 'why should we allow minarets in Europe if proposing building a church in Arabia will result in to a death sentence?' , maybe you'll find this an unfair comparison, I am not really sure myself.

Tell me, does this picture look as if it is dealing with specifically why minarets are disturbing, or something else:

http://steynian.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/sriimg20091006_11314328_0.jpg

...or is there something subtle in this image? Let's see another poster they had:

http://eur.news1.yimg.com/eur.yimg.com/xp/afpji/20090208/newsmlmmd.5847066faab57602cd96ed6a17569ffb.b12_an-election-poster-of-the-swiss-people-s-party-agab.jpg

People who are familiar with this case will know that these crows depict Eastern European immigrants as "using up" Switzerland. Here's more:

http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/40/109340-004-91C3EF6A.jpg

Out you bad, bad immigrants!

Again, it is the same SVP that are behind all these. Anyone can see that it is not Islam as a religion that is in the spotlight, or the buildings, it is clearly against immigrants and other "untermenchen" who comes to Switzerland to live on wellfare. Muslims, a group which is increasingly discriminated against in Europe, is the target, and will be the excuse to shut out immigrants and enact dangerous laws that will repeat a history not even 100 years old.

[9]

Tell me, does this picture look as if it is dealing with specifically why minarets are disturbing, or something else:

http://steynian.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/sriimg20091006_11314328_0.jpg

Reminds me of something....

http://www.ushmm.org/lcmedia/photo/lc/image/17/17401a.jpg

[Devrim]

I would have no problem with this law were applied equally to all religious groups, ie churchtowers/minarets are all banned or can only be yea high.

However, the fact that the swiss banned minarets alone is, in my humble opinion, wholly deplorable and not something I'd expect from 21st centruy western europe, to be honest.

I think it's pretty safe to say that in the US we've had an influx of middle easterners, many of them muslims, over the last few years in a way similar to europe. I really find it odd that despite the outburst of bigotry following 9-11, as a whole the US seems to be more accepting than Europe by a fairly clear margin (not to say we're perfect by any stretch of the imagination). Of course, I could be gravely mistaken and I've never been to Europe but discussing the bans on headgear and how they inhibit people, while several students wear it and speak quite freely, and now an entire country banning minarets is a bit odd, to say the least.

Am I wrong?

It is a long time since I have been to the US, but I suspect that the answer is yes, you are wrong. The impression that I got, which has been confirmed by virtually everybody I know, is that, in general, America is a much more divided and racist society than Europe. The bans on headgear by the way only apply in certain public buildings, and are also in place or have been in place in some 'Muslim' countries. I am not saying Europe is perfect, far from it, but it is nowhere near as racist as America.

Devrim

[Revthought]

I think the issue is much more complex than anyone I've seen in this thread seems to think. While it is true, on a rational level, I agree... this seems to violate the very thing I am supposed to believe in.

The Enlightenment, Humanism and self-actualization permitted in the post revolutionary world. Then again, a small part of me is content when I hear about the banning of some Muslim symbols.

I admit, part of this is owed to an ontological assumption of "civilizational" difference that is thousands of years old. The other part, is what has me most worried. I don't want too sound to po-mo here, but I am deeply worried about the discourse of Islam. Like it or not the collapse of the Soviet Union and the so-called Communist block has done tremendous harm to Marxists and the radical left everywhere. This has meant that armed resistance against capitalism and imperialism has taken a markedly radical Islamic turn.

Now instead of socialism we see articulation of resistance to the capitalist project all over the world framed in the discourse of radical Islam.

So yes, I agree with you all. The free exercise of religion must be protected. I also know that part of the working class in Europe is Muslim. I just worry HOW the Muslim working classes' grievances will eventually be framed. It is certainly a disservice to the entirety of humanity if it is done with the voice of radical Islam.

[Das war einmal]

As I said in the other thread about this, if they're going to ban Minarets then why not ban every other kind of religious structure as well? If noise is the issue then why not ban Church bells?


Thats not so hard to understand, Churches are native to Europe, Mosque's and minaretes are not

[BobKKKindle$]

Thats not so hard to understand, Churches are native to Europe, Mosque's and minaretes are not

Yeah, because the Church of the Nativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Nativity), i.e. one of the oldest churches in the world, is in Europe, not Palestine, and European cultures and history have never been influenced by Islam, ever (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_art#Spain_and_the_Maghreb) at (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_contributions_to_Medieval_Europe) all (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire), and there are no similarities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions) or links (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam) between Islam and Christianity. Honestly. Not that any of this matters any how, even if churches were somehow "native" to Europe, this would still be a grossly islamophobic measure.

Although, anyone who thinks that all religious buildings should be shut down is also very foolish.

[Das war einmal]

Yeah, because the Church of the Nativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Nativity), i.e. one of the oldest churches in the world, is in Europe, not Palestine, and European cultures and history have never been influenced by Islam, ever (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_art#Spain_and_the_Maghreb) at (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_contributions_to_Medieval_Europe) all (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire), and there are no similarities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions) or links (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam) between Islam and Christianity. Honestly. Not that any of this matters any how, even if churches were somehow "native" to Europe, this would still be a grossly islamophobic measure.

Although, anyone who thinks that all religious buildings should be shut down is also very foolish.


You dont have to give me history lessons, I am aware that Christianity and the Islam are both abrahamic religions coming from the Middle-East. But that does not change the fact that there were almost no mosque's in middle and west europe till the last century.

By the way you are aware of the shutting down of churches and other religious buildings in the Russian and Spanish revolutions?

I have a double feeling in this case.

[Robocommie]

Your obligation is to respect others' basic human worth enough to refrain from verbal abuse, if this place is to remain any better than the old Usenet, or some similar Internet free-for-all. I should hope that a forum for communists would keep to a higher standard than that.

I don't feel that I personally have engaged in any more hostile behavior than is warranted when I feel that comrades of mine are engaging in Islamophobia.

I have no intention to slight you personally, and I hope you will not take my arguments, however vociferous, as a personal slight. But I am going to be vociferous about this because I don't think this is a small matter, in fact I think it is a critical matter at this juncture of human history.



Okay- where precisely do you find anything that I have said here, to state that all several million Muslims are misogynist and violent? Where, verbatim, did I say anything of the sort?You don't state it verbatim, these kinds of things are rarely stated verbatim, but when you say, as you have, that the followers of Islam promote misogyny and violence against western nations, and that while there are moderate Muslims they're just a strawman against your criticism of Islam, and most importantly you say so in the context of this thread then you are not just making a criticism against extremist Islam, or the behavior of ultra-fundamentalists like the Taliban, nor criticizing Iranian religious police, but essentially adding the weight of your argument to the total prejudiced condemnation of all Muslims and their beliefs and their culture in total. The Swiss are not banning the minarets of only ultra-fundamentalist mosques, they are banning the minarets of all mosques, including moderate and progressive ones.

If you have something critical about Islam you'd like to say, and certainly there is reason, do so. But pick your place, because you surely can't deny that context is important, and that this referendum is not an example of something that is going to discourage radicalism or reactionary politics in Islam. Quite the contrary, I'd argue.

PS: For what it's worth, I read your latest blog post, and I enjoyed reading it and I feel very much the same way.

[ComradeMan]

This debate certainly is thought provoking. It does show how many different views there are and how complex the issue is.

I'd like to state that I personally think that the issue in Switzerland is not just about the minarets themselves, there are all kinds of reasons behind it. I also feel that it is not a race issue per se even though I have no doubt that racists would automatically vote no I do not think that all people who voted no are racists. The SVP have jumped on the bandwagon and made it their crusade so to speak, but I don't think the 53% of people who voted no are all SVP supporters.

What this taps in to is that there is a wide feeling of distrust of Islam in many quarters and perhaps this is something that Islam needs to address. One person made the point here that the erecting of the minarets is just as reactionary as the vote perhaps is.

What's the old addage about religion and politics?

However, in respecting people's rights to believe what they want I also have misgivings about the values Islam teaches such as

He who wishes another religion different to Islam shall be amongst the losers in the other life, Qu'ran 3:85
Like the misbelievers who perish in their misbelief they will have a painful punishment and no one will come to aid them. Qu'ran 3:91

As for women's rights, well...

In Sura 24:31 and 33:53 we learn how women should cast their eyes to the ground in front of a man - the concept of purdah, which then gives further lessons on how to admonish a disobedient wife including instructions for hitting her with two rolled up cloths; in Qu'ran 4:34 we find further instructions for punishing women who are insubordinate, basically by giving them a good beating and confining them to their beds. In fact the prophet goes on in the same section to recommend that a good slap every now and again is enough to keep a wife in order. I am led to believe that under strict wahabi islam (as in Saudi Arabia) a woman who has been raped is actually guilty of adultery and may be punished with death as a result- she was afterall asking for it no doubt.

Now this is just an example and as great an admirer of the mysticism of the sufi tradition as I may be, I do express concern that a belief system which preaches such values as given above cannot be criticised without the accusation of racism.

My misgivings are not with muslims themselves but rather with the belief system that is being eschewed.

Has it not crossed people's minds perhaps that at least some of the Swiss people that may have voted no, did so not because of stupid posters by the SVP but because of similar misgivings to mine. Perhaps they do not want these values being preached in their neighbourhood?

This is a complex issue and it is not yes-no, black-white.... the answers are not clear and the choices not simple, afterall we are all as strangers and voyagers in this world (Hadith 40 An-Nawawi)