[EnviroTO]

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.

Christian beliefs are what drives the southern US states to disallow gay marriage, and believe a woman should stand behind their man.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0486358/

The religion is secondary to how strictly it is adhered to. A strict follower of Christianity or Judaism is just as much of a risk.

 

[Second_in_pie]

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.

You're right there. Islam is in fact quite a liberal religion, and if you look at it straight from preachings, one could argue it's more liberal than Christianity, which is regarded as "the" liberal religion of the world. It's just that one of the main areas where Islam is practiced (the Middle East,) has a culture that oppresses women. In reality, Islam as a religion preaches the oppression of women no more than Christianity.
The Hijab is commonly and modernly worn actually as a symbol of freedom, with the wearer proudly displaying their religion and as a symbol that she can make up her own mind. But many Middle Eastern societies have turned this on it's head, claiming that the Qur'an preaches women as possessions and subhuman. The Hijab then becomes a symbol of oppression that these women are subject to because of radical religious beliefs. It's the exact same as polygamists claiming that the Bible says a man should have many wives, or homophobes claiming God says a man is not to lie with another man. But because of this, you wouldn't claim that Christianity is a bad religion, you'd just say that there are a couple of crazies or people otherwise inclined to other points of view interpreting it in their own way.

 

[kEiThZ]

I take issue with this concept of Islam as a modern progressive religion (to the extent that religions can be modern and progressive). It used to be modern and progressive....a thousand years ago. Today, some Islamic regions are regressing before our very eyes (watch Pakistan and Afghanistan). I have lived in the Middle East and have seen first hand what their definition of modern and progressive is. It's nowhere close to ours.

None of this would be a problem if Islam was practised as locally as it should be. ie. European Muslims not wearing Burqas or growing beards. But that's not what's happening. The strict Arabian cultural practices and some of the associated extremism is infecting the religion of peace everywhere. Look at what's happening in Pakistan where Wahhabist/Deobandist Taliban are attacking the shrines of Sufi saints. They are seeking to wipe out a thousand years of Islamic heritage that is among the most accomodating, peaceful and progressive strains of Islam, to replace it with the orthodox Middle Eastern version that stresses hierarchy, subjugation of women, and a medieval lifestyle.

There is a war going on within Islam right now and there's no guarantee that the progressives will win. The Europeans are simply weary of the orthodox versions of Islam spreading to Europe. And there's no doubt that's taking root a lot faster over there than the more progressive versions of Islam. While I don't like the whole far right tinge to this whole deal, I don't think its fair to label the concerns of Europeans as racist while completely ignoring the growing influence of the intolerant streaks of Islam that preach disharmony, discord and the unity of the Ummah (global islamic community) over and above one's citizenship obligations.

 

[ACE]

.

 

[kEiThZ]

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.

Except that in this case the Europeans are analogous to the natives and the Muslims are analogous to the White Europeans.

Like it or not, Europeans don't view their societies as multi-cultural. That's their right. It's not like the Swiss ever sold themselves as a multi-cultural society or soemthing, so that everyone felt betrayed.

Why pick only on them? Do you also campaign for the rights of Christians to build churches in Saudi? Do you push for Syria or Indonesia to become multi-cultural?

I find it to be quite an appaling double standard to talk about how racist the Swiss are for banning Minarets while completely ignoring the fact that most of the Middle East kicked out their Jewish populations, have severe restrictions on other faiths and their religious houses and even go so far as to strip their own citizens of citizenship if they choose to marry a non-muslim.

Is that not racist in your books? And is that not worse than some ban on non-functional pointy towers?

Not all religions are as cut and 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).

Except that these days within Islam, the extremist sects seem to be getting more and more of the air time and maybe even followers. If all the new Muslim sects were like the Ahmadiyas or Ismailis I doubt you'd see votes in Europe banning minarets.

 

[toraerach]

Swiss minaret ban emboldens Europe's extremists

DOUG SAUNDERS
December 1, 2009
LONDON -- dsaunders@globeandmail.com

...

Of the country's 400,000 Muslims, representing less than 5 per cent of the population, the largest group are of European background, with ancestors from the historically Muslim Balkan countries of southeast Europe - in other words, they are as culturally and historically European as any Christian Swiss citizen.

The politics of Swiss Muslims are notably liberal and democratic, more so in many respects than the rest of the Swiss population. Burkas and other conservative head coverings are almost unknown, and there are no mosques calling for sharia law or any other form of political Islam.

And if Swiss voters came to believe that minarets are symbols of creeping fundamentalism, they were almost comically misled.

Europe's extremist mosques - including the one in Hamburg where the Sept. 11 attacks were planned, those in Madrid where the 2004 train bombings were organized and the ones in Leeds where the July 7, 2005, attacks on London took shape - are all unadorned brick buildings, reflecting the disdain held by extremists for fripperies such as minarets.

The vote took many people both inside and outside Switzerland by surprise because it comes at a moment when tensions between Muslim Europeans and the wider population are abating.

Half a decade after those tensions became intense and violent in the wake of terrorist attacks in Madrid and London, a continentwide poll by Gallup found that Muslim attitudes toward extremism have fallen to levels indistinguishable from those of Europeans in general.

It found that 82 per cent of French Muslims and 91 per cent of German Muslims believe that violent attacks on civilians are never acceptable under any circumstances, figures similar to those in the wider population, and that the devoutly religious are no more likely to support violence now than the non-observant.

Today, the challenge to tolerance appears to be coming more from the far right in Europe, and by economically battered populations in such countries as Hungary, Austria and the Netherlands who appear more willing to support the views of these parties.

Except that in this case the Europeans are analogous to the natives and the Muslims are analogous to the White Europeans.

Like it or not, Europeans don't view their societies as multi-cultural. That's their right. It's not like the Swiss ever sold themselves as a multi-cultural society or soemthing, so that everyone felt betrayed.

...

I find it to be quite an appaling double standard to talk about how racist the Swiss are for banning Minarets while completely ignoring the fact that most of the Middle East kicked out their Jewish populations, have severe restrictions on other faiths and their religious houses and even go so far as to strip their own citizens of citizenship if they choose to marry a non-muslim.

Is that not racist in your books? And is that not worse than some ban on non-functional pointy towers?

...

Except that these days within Islam, the extremist sects seem to be getting more and more of the air time and maybe even followers. If all the new Muslim sects were like the Ahmadiyas or Ismailis I doubt you'd see votes in Europe banning minarets.

These two things don't add up.

You're making it sound like all/the majority of European Muslims are members of the beards 'n' burqa crowd, while the article posted above by Casaguy states this is completely false. European Muslims are no more likely to be violent or support violence than their non-Muslim compatriots.

It's funny you mention the Ahmadiyas, because at least one of the four minarets in Switzerland (in Zurich) belongs to an Ahmadiya mosque. Most Muslims in Switzerland are from the Balkans and Turkey - hardly hotbeds of Islamic fundamentalism.

I take issue with your analogy to the native/colonist situation here. Muslim settlers aren't rolling into town, disregarding native governments/language/culture, setting up their own administrations, and oppressing the native population. In fact, they're integrating fairly well, and probably would integrate a lot better if it wasn't for far-right groups fearmongering.

Additionally, religion does not equal culture. Switzerland might not be Multicultural in the Canadian sense of the term, but it's certainly a multicultural country with four distinct native linguistic communities. Even still, you can be Swiss culturally and Muslim religiously - just as you can be a Catholic Swiss, a Protestant Swiss, an Orthodox Swiss, a Jewish Swiss, etc. Swiss Muslims have very little in common with Taliban supporters in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Economically they're far better off - there's no desperation to turn them into extremists. They live in a functional democracy with a strong constitutional history - there's little corruption to disillusion them with liberal democratic ideals.

Look at it this way - in Canada we have one of the largest Sikh communities in the world (both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of the whole). We have much more experience with Sikh terrorists than almost anywhere else in the Western world (the Air India bombing, for example). Does that justify anti-Sikh sentiment in Canada? Should we ban the turban? Should Gurdwaras look more like churches? And if we had implemented these policies after the Air India bombing, do you really think the Sikh community would have integrated into our country as well as they have?

As for Saudis banning churches and the expulsion of Jews from most Middle East countries - what does that have to do with Swiss Muslims at all? Banning the minaret in Switzerland just happened - of course people are going to make a big deal about it now, maybe ignoring (for the time being at least) something only tenuously related in a completely different country. I think most people here can agree that religious freedom should be embraced worldwide. It is shocking, however, when a country that purports to uphold the freedom of religion/expression passes a constitutional amendment that targets one religious minority. Saudi Arabia never claimed to be a human rights respecting democracy; Switzerland did - that's the difference and that's why people are angry. It's the difference between finding out that the US tortured people vs. finding out North Korea tortured people.

 

[GenerationW]

I don't like Arab sheiks and their ill-gotten wealth, but I hope they withdraw their many billions from Swiss banks until the country becomes a laughingstock.

Kill two birds with one stone.

No thanks, we don't need another shakedown of Swiss banks.

 

[cacruden]

There was some 'sense' in that argument maybe 100 years ago. I thought the world had concluded the 20th century marked the end of that, at least outside Central Africa. The imaginary 'perceived' threat this majority faces is not only disturbing and entirely untrue but completely backwards and against the principals of the Western World.

Lebanon. What happened when the majority shifted from being Christian to Muslim? Civil War.

 

[cacruden]

That being said - not all Muslims are the same, just like not all Christians are the same.... but there are a large number of Muslims and Christians that really see it as a war of civilizations. Unfortunately for the world and for Muslims themselves, a minority within that religion are destroying the reputation of advances in society that grew out of the early years of societies in the muslim world.

 

[newuser2k9]

Except that in this case the Europeans are analogous to the natives and the Muslims are analogous to the White Europeans.

Like it or not, Europeans don't view their societies as multi-cultural. That's their right. It's not like the Swiss ever sold themselves as a multi-cultural society or soemthing, so that everyone felt betrayed.

Why pick only on them? Do you also campaign for the rights of Christians to build churches in Saudi? Do you push for Syria or Indonesia to become multi-cultural?

I find it to be quite an appaling double standard to talk about how racist the Swiss are for banning Minarets while completely ignoring the fact that most of the Middle East kicked out their Jewish populations, have severe restrictions on other faiths and their religious houses and even go so far as to strip their own citizens of citizenship if they choose to marry a non-muslim.

Is that not racist in your books? And is that not worse than some ban on non-functional pointy towers? The Native analogy implied that all original cultures were as nationalist as the Swiss are currently being, well, we'd be the persecuted immigrants.


Except that these days within Islam, the extremist sects seem to be getting more and more of the air time and maybe even followers. If all the new Muslim sects were like the Ahmadiyas or Ismailis I doubt you'd see votes in Europe banning minarets.

If you want to criticize the Arab world, go ahead. Just don't use it as an advocate for beginning to duplicate their policies.

Lebanon. What happened when the majority shifted from being Christian to Muslim? Civil War.

And what exactly happened in Lebanon? Look at the Sabra and Shatila Massacre if you don't know.

These two things don't add up.

You're making it sound like all/the majority of European Muslims are members of the beards 'n' burqa crowd, while the article posted above by Casaguy states this is completely false. European Muslims are no more likely to be violent or support violence than their non-Muslim compatriots.

It's funny you mention the Ahmadiyas, because at least one of the four minarets in Switzerland (in Zurich) belongs to an Ahmadiya mosque. Most Muslims in Switzerland are from the Balkans and Turkey - hardly hotbeds of Islamic fundamentalism.

I take issue with your analogy to the native/colonist situation here. Muslim settlers aren't rolling into town, disregarding native governments/language/culture, setting up their own administrations, and oppressing the native population. In fact, they're integrating fairly well, and probably would integrate a lot better if it wasn't for far-right groups fearmongering.

Additionally, religion does not equal culture. Switzerland might not be Multicultural in the Canadian sense of the term, but it's certainly a multicultural country with four distinct native linguistic communities. Even still, you can be Swiss culturally and Muslim religiously - just as you can be a Catholic Swiss, a Protestant Swiss, an Orthodox Swiss, a Jewish Swiss, etc. Swiss Muslims have very little in common with Taliban supporters in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Economically they're far better off - there's no desperation to turn them into extremists. They live in a functional democracy with a strong constitutional history - there's little corruption to disillusion them with liberal democratic ideals.

Look at it this way - in Canada we have one of the largest Sikh communities in the world (both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of the whole). We have much more experience with Sikh terrorists than almost anywhere else in the Western world (the Air India bombing, for example). Does that justify anti-Sikh sentiment in Canada? Should we ban the turban? Should Gurdwaras look more like churches? And if we had implemented these policies after the Air India bombing, do you really think the Sikh community would have integrated into our country as well as they have?

As for Saudis banning churches and the expulsion of Jews from most Middle East countries - what does that have to do with Swiss Muslims at all? Banning the minaret in Switzerland just happened - of course people are going to make a big deal about it now, maybe ignoring (for the time being at least) something only tenuously related in a completely different country. I think most people here can agree that religious freedom should be embraced worldwide. It is shocking, however, when a country that purports to uphold the freedom of religion/expression passes a constitutional amendment that targets one religious minority. Saudi Arabia never claimed to be a human rights respecting democracy; Switzerland did - that's the difference and that's why people are angry. It's the difference between finding out that the US tortured people vs. finding out North Korea tortured people.

100% Correct

 

[kEiThZ]

lesouris please read all my comments. I said earlier that in the Swiss context it didn't make sense because Swiss Muslims are moderates. My later comments were about Europe in general. A ban on Minarets is still idiotic and impractical, whatever the concerns.

 

[Roy G Biv]

Why pick only on them? Do you also campaign for the rights of Christians to build churches in Saudi? Do you push for Syria or Indonesia to become multi-cultural?

Because Switzerland is a 1st world country, and those other muslim-dominated enclaves are shit-holes. The standards are different. I'll argue against the Swiss people's actions, but if someone were to promote Saudi Arabia or Egypt as even remotely 1st world, they'll hear it from me.

 

[ACE]

.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Buildings are a municipal jurisdiction. They are not a religious jurisdiction.

If you were to remove every church, synagogue, and mosque from a country, would religion cease to exist? NO. Therefore, the rights of an individual under their Freedom of Religion should not be extended to a structure.

It is also hypocritcal for those individuals who will freely deny basic human rights to others within their own country but then demand more rights for themselves in their adopted country or country of convenience.

Alas, the ignorance!

Are you Christian? If so, how would you feel if the government made it illegal for you to display a cross on your building. Sure, it doesn't need a cross to be a church, but your rights to express your religion of choice are being worn down. And it's not something like "It's illegal to construct your house out of cotton candy," it's specifically saying that a certain religious group is unable to continue a tradition associated with the construction of their religious buildings. Obvious discrimination, and if it's not religious what is it?

I'm actually disgusted at that last comment there. Individuals who will freely deny basic human rights to others within their own country? Are you for real? Perhaps if Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein was living in the country, you could make a case, but you can't. This is the big tragedy of Islamic fundamentalism, it's destroying the reputation of Islam. A vast, vast majority of Muslims have more or less the exact same values as Christians, or of "western" society. It's only a handful of Muslims that deny basic human rights to their citizens, and those are totally comparable to the likes of Hitler.

You're quickly losing your reputation, I'll give you that.

 

[kEiThZ]

Look at it this way - in Canada we have one of the largest Sikh communities in the world (both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of the whole). We have much more experience with Sikh terrorists than almost anywhere else in the Western world (the Air India bombing, for example). Does that justify anti-Sikh sentiment in Canada? Should we ban the turban? Should Gurdwaras look more like churches? And if we had implemented these policies after the Air India bombing, do you really think the Sikh community would have integrated into our country as well as they have?

Except that the Sikhs were fighting a foreign cause, largely targeting a foreign government and foreign assets. Canadians were collateral in that fight. Sikh terrorists didn't blow up subway stations in Toronto and try to target Canadians and the Canadian government directly.

I would bet you'd see significant hardening of attitudes in Canada, if we experienced the kind of terrorism the Brits or the French have experience.

Saudi Arabia never claimed to be a human rights respecting democracy; Switzerland did - that's the difference and that's why people are angry. It's the difference between finding out that the US tortured people vs. finding out North Korea tortured people.

So as long as a country does not claim to have high standards we should not hold them accountable but if a country that generally has high standards screws up slightly we should come down on them hard? I fail to see how this is not a double standard.

I am not suggesting that what Switzerland did is right. However, I fail to see how banning minarets is a bigger deal than the fact that minorities in the rest of the world have no where near half the rights that muslims have in Switzerland.