And yet, the implied threat of 'I hope Switzerland suffers for this' was made (I assume that you are from the West) by a person with Western principles against a people who freely exercised their democratic right. Unlike other Western democratic countries, it is 'the people' of Switzerland who actually determine government (federal, cantonal and municipal level) policy and not the individual politician as it is a nation of referendums.
Imaginary or not, once the perception of a threat takes root, it is very difficult to alter the outcome. In this case, the majority of the electorate felt that a threat did exist and voted accordingly.
Obviously tone is not very easily transmitted over the internet. It was not an implied threat of violence; I was rather saying that the Swiss national image should suffer. Referendums are fair and democratic, for sure, but what if the result they produce does limit the rights of certain citizens? (and I do say certain citizens - when a Christian builds a tall pointed thing it is referred to as a spire, not a minaret) One can call it undemocratic.
I support this ban in the name of gay rights and women's rights. If any one religion needs to be suppressed, Islam the right choice. We shouldn't tolerate a religion that promotes women and homosexuals getting stoned to death by the government. But that's just my opinion.
The jurisprudence for your argument just isn't there. You can dislike they way Islamic nations handle rights but the fact is, if a Muslim in a Judeo-Christian nation commits an action like that by following their religion, they are already committing a crime. The vast, vast majority of Muslims in the West subscribe to a sect of Islam that is peaceful and respectful. What gives you any reason to punish them?
"Muslim" is not a race. It's a religion. If the Swiss want to ban Islamic symbols, I see no more issue with that than if they banned Scientologists, or Mormans, etc.
The Swiss have right to Switzerland because they're Swiss. It's their country. They built it. It not a local culture, it's the country's culture.
You are correct that anti-Islamic laws to not specifically target a race. The fact that they only effect certain ethnic groups is alarming, and it is racist. Islam is only the religion of the 'foreigners' in Switzerland, who are 'foreign' regardless of how long they have been there, and whether or not they are legally full citizens.
If a person of a certain ethnic origin has a 'right' to a country more than another based on historical connections, what's preventing Natives from passing the same laws in Canada? Populations, cultures, and nations change. While it is fair to try to preserve a local culture, it is not ethical or moral to restrict the lives of those who live there in the process.
if we're to suppress a religion based on what its texts command you to do, quite a few religions would be banned for ordering hatred and physical harm against others. if such texts or their contexts were from a smaller group, without the element of spirituality, i wonder how they would be regarded? most likely not with reverence.
though i wouldn't call for a ban. people can believe what ever the heck they want. i don't however recommend the government endorse, approve of or grant any special favours or privileges to such groups. and if your religion, especially the whacky parts, is a private matter that you think shouldn't be criticized, keep it private.
Not all religions are as cut an dry. There are reformed sects who update with the times, but there will always be the extremist sect or the sect who misinterprets the Koran (the various Imams I have been in contact with stress that the text never calls for any of the inflammatory subject matter often associated with the religion; it is more associated with certain aspects Middle East cultures).
Thank you, Prometheus, for providing one of the most even-handed posts in this thread.