Switzerland’s recent vote to ban the construction of new minarets has shocked and angered Muslims around the world. But the controversial move also reflects a growing sense of unease among other Europeans who have trouble coming to terms with Islam’s increased visibility.
In the small Swiss town of Langenthal, the battle over the minarets has been fought, and there seems to be no hope of reconciliation between the victors and the vanquished. “I feel abused and injured as a person,” says Mutalip Karaademi. “We wanted to hit a symbol,” says Daniel Zingg, “and we hit it.”
The Swiss decision has shocked Europe and the world because its ramifications go far beyond the building of minarets — they also concern the identity of an entire continent. This was a referendum on Western society’s perception of Islam as a threat. The issue is generating intense debate: Just how much of Islam is predominantly Christian Europe prepared to accept? The decision by the otherwise so tolerant Alpine country reveals the deep-seated fear of an Islam that is becoming increasingly visible.
Are Muslim immigrants threatening European values? This is a concern shared by many Europeans across the continent. Surveys last week revealed that 44 percent of Germans oppose the construction of minarets, followed by 41 percent of the French. Fifty-five percent of all Europeans see Islam as an intolerant religion.
Does the Swiss vote reveal an attitude that a majority in Europe would also support if given the opportunity?
[More]
This is not about minarets. It’s about fear. Fear of what? We don’t know because the Euroweenies are so politically correct and have even less competitive MSM than we do; so the fear isn’t talked about. It is just banned. It’s as if Europe was ruled by one big HRC.
They have a horrible record of integrating immigrants. Instead they brag about how many languages they speak, which has nothing to do with integration. Language is about common sense and trading with your next door neighbor in their language so you can make money.
Is it a fear of Europe’s excessive socialism not being supported by a post-Christian barren society ( not even one child?) that has to bring in immigrants with which they have no track record of being able to fairly integrate? Of letting Turkey joining the EU and opening the flood gates to all the problems of tribalism in the Middle East? You bet it is. The average European on the street fears this. But their elite unelected apparatchiks running the EU out of fancy restaurants in Brussels refuses to discuss these fears.
The Euroweenies can foolishly ban minarets and headscarves but they can’t ban fear.
Would that the western world was 1/2 as concerned about the Catholic church as they are about a few pieces of “the other guys” religious architecture.
Child abuse is wrong but if leftards were actually 1/4 as concerned about it as they are about bashing Christians, then they might also go after the secular institutions where by far the vast majority of child abuse takes place as well as the Muslim societies where it has for centuries been culturally accepted.
The key word in the article is “fear” and for good reason. The world has rarely known a religion that will dress up little girls and send them into a bus to blow it up. Israel knows this stuff — the remainder of the world are fast learning.
“And yes” — the world should be afraid.
I’m surprised the Swiss need to take such a stance since the requirements to gain citizenship to Switzerland are so stringent.
Why are the Swiss being criticised? Surely a community has the right to decide if it wants foreigners to live among them, foreign values to be propagated, and whether the architecture that one associates with their community incorporates foreign elements. Regardless of what do-gooders and the hand-wringing set would want everyone to believe, Islam is foreign to Europe, save in the Balkans. Why is it that only the Muslims’ so-called right to build a minaret is the issue?
I think that half-a-century of liberal discourse (about human rights, about religion, about state-society relations) dominating the lives and politics of the West has left us unable to discuss easily such topics as this.
“I think that half-a-century of liberal discourse (about human rights, about religion, about state-society relations) dominating the lives and politics of the West has left us unable to discuss easily such topics as this.”
Exactly! We in the West know Barbara Hall and her HRC apparatchiks are lurking around waiting to have the state take us to their kangaroo courts where we can’t even bring our lawyer. Therefore this minaret thing is just pent up hostility busting out of the bottle.
However, the minarets are the wrong way to attack the root problem which, as mentioned by Mac, should be done through immigration laws that make newcomers pledge allegiance to the new country. That pledge should include the clear separation of religion and state and insist that women are equal to men.
The irony in Switzerland is that they now look like hypocrites on religion. Their referendum in fact goes against freedom of religion, the very thing that they “fear” about political Islam. Instead the referendum should have dealt with the root issues not the minaret symbol of the issues.
@Brian S: leftard? oh the scathing rapier like wit, I am wounded.
How very typical. You start off with what you consider an insult, follow up with a generalization, and then step in for the perceived kill with the ineviable ”oh yeah… well these guys are worse” deflection attempt – I think at this point any one of us here could predict your response to any given topic where you don’t like a comment or someone disagrees with you.
@Jack: “fear” is the right word to use, our particular disagreement would be on whether or not that fear is reasoned.
Stageleft, as always you try to deflect any criticism of Muslims with a completely unrelated generalization about Christians, and I am being typical? I don’t think so, it is more like I responded to your generalization with some of my own.
It would be very unlikely that any criticism of Christianity is completely divorced from criticism of Islam. Both are Abrahamic faiths with strong patriarchal hierarchies and propagated by the sword.
The big difference is Christians won most of their battles. Most of the conquered Amerindians and Africans are obliging denizens of Christendom, while the pagan Europeans are almost completely wiped out. Christendom also had the bomb first and has most of the resources. Short of this major advantage and the ability to promote hypocritical foreign policies, Christianity was just as fanatical and terror-like as Islam was (reaching back to the 14th century here).
Point: Don’t confuse circumstances for some natural divine behaviour, Brian. Christians are just as bad and you come off as little more than a Christian propagandist claiming otherwise. If Palestinians could vote entire cultures out of existence they probably would.
What does whatever Christianity was centuries ago have to do with the here and now? Stop trying to paint your deflections as anything but what they are, animosity towards Christians and an attempt to avoid the realities of today.
Why reach back centuries?
-1940′s: 6 million Jews killed under the nazis. While Hitler was probably atheist and most of the SS were Nordicists, the obliging public were largely Christian. The church sad by idly.
-1945: Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombed in the world’s first and only atomic attack. 210,000 killed
-1948: South Africa estblishes apartheid, based on the classification of all South Africans into 4 racial categories.
-1950-1992: 11k allegations of child abuse are levied against 4300 priests accross America – roughly 4% of all priests that served duirng this time period. After much stonewalling, the Vatican issues an apology in 2008 and offers no compensation for victims
-1994: Hutus launch the Rwandan genocide, resulting in the slaughter of 800k – mostly rival Tutsi groups. Makeshift concentration camps were used and systematic executions were routine.
-1995: Serbians (who largely converted from paganism to Orthodox Christianity in the 7th century) attempt ethnic cleansing against the Muslim Bosnian population. According to the ICRC, 200k people were killed and 50k women were raped during the aggression
“The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion, but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do —— The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order,”
-Samuel P Huntington
And lots not forget that on going fight in Ireland with two Christian Religions going at each other.
Horrible omission on my part. Thanks for picking up on that, UV.
So the real question is not “why does only Islam act badly”, it’s “why is man so inclined to notice evil only in his enemies?”. I’m sure 100 deflections, mitigation and sudden acknowledgments of situation complexities are on the way from Brian. Why he can’t see those same aspects in anything related to Islam is what I’m wondering.
Still, deflection, deflection, deflection… except of course for the Serbians who were stopped by Bill Clinton and his largely Christian NATO forces. That Christians have been successful at war, is simply not the same thing as Muslims committing acts of terrorism, and so starting wars, in the name of their religion. The conflict in Ireland has little to do with religion, and everything to do with invasion by the British. If North American Indians also took to terrorism in a similar manner, you would not be so quick to conclude that it was over religious matters even though they too might be Christians. Further, as I have stated, by far the vast majority of child abuse takes place in secular institutions such as our school systems, and it has for centuries been culturally accepted in some Muslim societies.
I know I have already been through this argument with Stageleft because he cut and pasted some of my comments into his own blog, out of context and without linking back to the original threads here, which is why I consider him a leftard. As I recall from those previous arguments, all told more child abuse goes on in schools and reformatories around the world every year, including in our own secular institutions, than was committed by all the Catholic priests in history. So my statement stands, if lefties were actually 1/4 as concerned about child abuse as they are about bashing Christians, then they would go after all involved, not just the target with the deepest pockets, they happen to dislike.
@Brisn S: Yeah… yer being typical – I made no generalization about “Christians” in my comment, I linked an article about the organization that heads up the Catholic sect of Christianity being riddled with pedophiles and pedophile sympathetic officials and eladers. I have, on different occasions, said that I believe that that organization should be banned as a result of its’ repeated and global instances of child abuse and pedophilia, and as a result of the corruption that hid, sheltered, protected, and defended the pedophiles within its’ ranks….. and that its’ assets sold at public auction to help pay for the global and multigenerational damage it has caused - but I didn’t say that the Wesleyans and Lutherians should eiher be banned or have their assets sold at public auction.
– and my friend is the difference between how you and I think, if I was you I would be labeling all Christians as either pedophiles or pedophile sympathetic.
I suppose no school board has ever covered up abuse committed by one of its employees? I supposed the MSM gives a true account of the situation by latching on to every story involving a Catholic priest while ignoring the many more abuses that go on in our schools? Your lefty morality is way too selective to be very impressive.
@Brian S: I’m pretty sure you already know (or at least you should if you are attempting to convince people who think at a higher level than grade 3 of something) that your comparison would only work if multiple teachers in multiple schools, overseen by multiple school boards, were found to be sexually abusing multiple children and the pedophile protected by multiple other teachers, the individual school administrations involved, the school boards, the provincial Ministers of Education involved, the federal Minister of Education, and the PM himself.
Maybe you should try for a different example that is at least somewhat relevant.
You’ll call it deflection so long as we’re not singularly paranoid and hateful to the Muslim Hordes (singularly bent on destroying you because you are you and look at girls in bikinis) that your far right media masters have conditioned to you fear above all else. So be it. There was a world before 2001 and it didn’t go away after a few terrorist attacks.
It is most likely relevant to the children who are abused by them that teachers, coaches and social workers commit the vast majority of child abuse.
Now you’re just (very obviously) giving up — come on man, don’t disappoint us. Where is the example with the organized international cover up similar to that engaged in by the Catholic church that is gonna prove your point?
Who is being hateful to Muslim Hordes? Keeping in mind that offering criticism is not quite the same thing as being hateful, you will have to point out any egregious hate-mongering on my part.
That Christians have been successful at war, is simply not the same thing as Muslims committing acts of terrorism, and so starting wars, in the name of their religion.
Don’t spare any idle time explaining why the rules change from the Crusades to the Jihad.
As I recall from those previous arguments, all told more child abuse goes on in schools and reformatories around the world every year,
The major problem with this reflexive argument is that conquest and child abuse is never done in the name of secularism, and in fact many institutions are secular because there are so many Xtian sects that following just one’s rules would almost certainly result in war. Secularism represents the absence of religion, thus cannot serve as a rallying point except in the narrow case where one is trying to avoid religious persecution.
The conflict in Ireland has little to do with religion, and everything to do with invasion by the British
The same doesn’t ring true in Iran? I’d say overthrowing a democratic regime and replacing it with a hated autocrat who practically gives away the country’s resources is a plausible reason for a revolution. How about Egypt, where most of the Muslim brotherhoods formed? Weren’t the English and French occupying these lands when the violent Islamist groups were formed?
But nope, the Muslims attack the west because we are Christian. And like girls in bikinis. It certainly couldn’t be because of anything we did because the West never interferes in local affairs (cue Ned Flanders video clip).
The shifting moral standards are making me dizzy.
Stageleft, what I have stated is true. By all means, try to disprove it if you want, but just because you have not read about it the lefty MSM, does not make it otherwise. Either the MSM covers it up, or they just could care less about child abuse other than as a blunt tool for bashing Christians, or both.
Who said Muslims attack the west because we are Christian? For the most part Muslims attack Muslims, but besides Christians they also attack atheists in Russian and China, and Jews everywhere, and Hindus, and…. For every legitimate reason that Muslims possibly and probably do have to attack the west, history provides Christians with a similar reason to attack Muslims, but still we should try to avoid it if we can, even while we give them every reason to avoid attacking us.
@Brian S: Let me suggest to you Brian that if the perverts who committed the abuses you talk about were sheltered, protected, defended, shuffled around, and hidden, by either a national, or an international, body of coaches, gym teachers, or social workers it would be news. We do not hear about every rape, every convenience store robbery, every death, or every car theft, do we — is that part of the vast left wing media conspiracy as well?
Since we’ve essentially dispensed with that part of the discussion how about we get back to the other part of it – your fear and generalization issues with Islam…… we know, thanks to our little discussion, and even if you do still appear to be having some difficulty with the whole ”difference between Christians and Catholics” idea (if I suggested to you that Catholics are Christians but not all Christians are Catholic would that help?), that not all followers Christianity can necessarily be lumped in together – do you think there is any hope that you may see that crosses over to all belief structures?
Stageleft feel free to, whenever you are ready, finally make a point about Islam, but I have no fear at all of Muslims or Christians either. There is a Mosque, several Churches, and a Salvation Army on my street and they all seem quite content to labor away at their charitable works, blissfully unaware that they are suppose to hate anyone. I have worked for Muslims, have Muslim friends, and deal with Muslims every day, and so I am pretty certain they don’t want terrorists to be allowed in their midst any more than I would want IRA members to operate freely in mine. Since Muslims are moving here in large numbers, some criticism of the more radical elements of Islam seems inevitable and possibly constructive. I believe the Swiss are probably just tired of being told time and again by the left that this is a conversation they should not even be allowed to take part in, especially after having taken in so many refugees from Kosovo.
It took a while for you to get to it but it happened, the discussion came full circle from “as always you try to deflect any criticism of Muslims” to you, apparently, defending the Muslims you know as decent, hardworking, peaceful, people
The point is that if you (and others) used phrases like “radical elements of Islam” instead of “Islam” or “Muslims“, people like me who are reading your stuff would understand what you are actually talking about – am I correct?
I believe there is probably a difference between radical elements of Islam and more mainstream Muslims, just as there would seem to be a difference between the Amish and the more mainstream Christians they shun. I have no experience with or first hand knowledge of radical Islam since the Muslims I know are quite westernized, however, while the mainstream western society I live in is not affected when someone wants to drive a horse drawn buggy or do without electricity in some out of the way place, it would be affected if we allowed polygamy or honor killings just as if we allowed terrorism, so it is true that radical elements of Islam from my point of view might also include some cultural traits and customs from mainstream Muslim societies elsewhere that seem incompatible with our western society, but that does not make them invalid concerns.
OK Brian, in the interests of finding some common ground I’ll modify my thoughts on monotheistic religions to meet yours – there is probably (ie likely but not certain) a difference between the pedophiles within the Catholic church (and those who support them), the Jesus Camp people, and more mainstream Christians.
Thanks for the discussion and the advice.
After all that you still have nothing whatsoever about Islam to add to this thread about Islam? Typical.
Well, in closing I will add that I will continue to support Christians when they are attacked by the left, despite the human failings some of them are bound to have, because no other people in the world come close to being as charitable, so they can’t all be bad. Christian Americans are responsible for the vast majority of the over $1.3 trillion in charitable donations collected in the USA every year, and sent around the world, including more to secular causes than lefties give, all without anywhere near the overhead that the UN siphons away from any cause it puts its grasping clutches to.
Charity: Who Cares?
http://www.mint.com/blog/trends/charity-who-cares/
You want something about Islam? If it will make you feel any better Islam is a monotheistic belief structure that, like it’s two primary monotheistic counterparts, arose in the Middle East – like all “one truth” belief structures I personally find it more than a little intolerant and authoritarian in nature.
I have never disputed that there are fundamentalist and radical elements within Islam who justify their repression and violence based on their particular perversion or interpretation of their holy book. The difference between us Brian is that I do not let the failings and idiots within any particular belief structure or culture colour my view on all followers of that belief structure or all members of that culture.
Well, intolerance of all religions is hardly anything new coming out of the left, along with breaking up families, abolishing religion comes straight out of the Communist Manifesto.
@Brian S: Man, following a conversation with you is like trying to catch a tribble, you get defensive and then go all over the place making misguided generalizations here, there, and everywhere, in trying to make whatever you think your point may be – how did we get to the abolition of religion, the destruction of the family, and Communism anyway?
If “the left” is intolerant of all religions, and wants to abolish them I guess you gotta quit calling me a leftard, because that doesn’t describe me. I am intolerant of intolerance, authoritarianism, and inequality, but simply because I don’t follow a mainstream belief structure does not mean that I do not follow a belief structure.
If “the left” wants to break up families then I guess I’m not a leftie and you gotta quit calling me a leftard, I happen to think family is a wonderful thing.
And since communism, as it has evidenced itself so far any way, is full of authoritarianism, intolerance, and inequality, I’m not with that program either – yet another reason why I don’t fit your definition of leftie.
I called you a leftard because last time we had a similar conversation you cut and paste my comments into a post on your blog without linking back to them here for context and it did piss me off. You do come off as a lefty, so keeping in mind that an anarchist government would not likely keep the roads in good repair, if you are not a lefty what are you then?
@Brian S: I did not link your comments back to here not to piss you off Brian but because, as is often the case, I keep here and my little home on the web separate – I’m not entirely sure that Jack would appreciate some of the crew that hangs out in the bunker wandering over
As to what I am, well…. I’m obviously a political type that neither you, nor anyone else, can drop into some convenient little box with any sort of accuracy. I am a non-authoritarian who does not believe that he has the right to impose his beliefs, values, or way of doing things, on others – and who does not appreciate others attempting to impose their beliefs, values, or ways of doing things on him. I believe in a government so small and so un-intrusive that I know it exists but its’ impact on my life is minimal and I believe that people are responsible for their own actions and need to accept responsibility for them. I believe in local control over local issues and also believe that the current political system in Canada is so deeply flawed, corrupt, unrepresentative, unresponsive, and unaccountable that it needs to be dismantled and rebuilt allowing for local control over local issues.
When talking about certain social issues (such as SSM for example) those who describe themselves as “the right” consider me a leftie.
When talking about the individual rights of the person (such as gun control and ownership) those who describe themselves on “the left” consider me a rightie.
And when discussing the privacy rights of the individual, individual responsibility, and the intrusiveness of the state, the hole bloody lot of you seem to consider me a dangerous anarchist – or, as one of the crew that hangs out at the bunker likes to describe me, “an idealistic hobbit”.
So go ahead Brian, take a stab at what I am politically?
Sounds to me like you are someone who needs to put their bong down long enough to make a decision about who to vote for. Its either that or start a whole new political movement based on the idealistic opportunistic convenience of make believe, which is probably why you so often come off as a lefty.
Ah well ya see…. there’s another preconception that needs to be dispelled – sorry, no bong, not for a very, very (very) long time.
You are sounding like a prime example of the thinking that has polluted the political landscape. One either belongs to, supports, and considers that the sun rises out of their party leaders hindmost parts every morning for the benefit of the party faithful, or one is a bigger potential problem than those who belong to, support, and consider that the sun rises out of another party leaders hindmost parts every morning for the benefit of their faithful.
I’ve seen your lot before, you support one thing during the election campaign, and then support something else when you discover that the party, or it’s leader has lied to you, or does a 180 on something, in fact most of you end up justifying the actions of the party while singing the praises of the party leader for having the great vision to do so.
You think I should pick a side? Join the herd? Be told what my political position on issue A, B, or C should be and then suck it up for the good of the party if its’ incompatible with my views? Become like you?
That’s not gonna happen.
Trust me, I’d far rather be the idealist than join the party herd – every election cycle the number of people like me grow Brian, why do you suppose that is?
I just realize that no political party is going to be tailor made to my exact specifications, so until a better match comes along, I support the party that is the closest fit. Of course, it would be much easier to become disillusioned, give up, stay at home on election day, and then complain that the world is just not ready for me yet.