PDA

View Full Version : Swiss say: "No more minarets!"



flamethrowerguy
11-29-2009, 11:03 AM
Popular vote: Switzerland forbids the building of minarets

From now on no minarets will be build in Switzerland anymore. The Swiss television reports that in a public vote 57.5% of the Swiss population accorded with a petition of the national-conservatives.
This result was a surprise to as well the parties and the government. The voter participation was unexpectedly high (54%). In Switzerland about 400,000 muslims are living permanently. There are already 4 minarets existing, building applications for two more are on hand.
Spokespersons of several parties called the vote a most political one. Furthermore it was about the fear of militant Islam.
The initiators of the vote, the SVP (Schweizerische Volkspartei = Swiss People's Party), feel validated both by the result and the high voter participation. They feel to have correctly assessed worries of the Swiss population.

Panzerknacker
11-30-2009, 06:52 PM
Minarets in switzerland ?...god damn the world is twisted upside down. :!:

Thank god it was stopped. There are still some people with balls.

pdf27
11-30-2009, 07:05 PM
Disagree. This is frankly little more than "look at those evil foreigners" bigotry. Any other faith is allowed to build what they like, and the Minarets were purely architectural features on the 4 mosques built to date - they are not used for the call to prayer.

Panzerknacker
11-30-2009, 08:07 PM
they are not used for the call to prayer


Maybe the mussies prayer caller ( I know the arab word for it but I refuse to write it) are uncorfotable with the idea being exposed in the high, targeted by unhappy sorrounding christian population, remember my dear that unliked the compulsory forced undesarmed, pub loving citizens of England, Scotland and Wales the swiss population has many SIG 550/551 assault rifles at home, a right not only allowed but enforced by law. :mrgreen:

What a great small country.

Gary D.
11-30-2009, 08:23 PM
I heard on the radio today that [Christian] school children here in the Phoenix area are not allowed to bring their Bibles to class with them--much less openly display them on their desks. Yet, Muslim children (and there are still relatively few of them) are dismissed from class five times daily for their ritual prayers to Mecca.

Rising Sun*
11-30-2009, 09:05 PM
Popular vote: Switzerland forbids the building of minarets

From now on no minarets will be build in Switzerland anymore.

They're still permitted to build mosques, but without minarets.

That's no different to the situation in Qatar with a Christian church and considerably better than in Saudi Arabia (a country heavily defended by ostensibly Christian nations, to no good purpose for those nationa apart from oil).

Muslims are in no position to complain when some Islamic countries are considerably more restrictive towards Christians and their churches.


Interfaith dialogue has become an important exercise in finding the right words to overcome both extreme violence and ordinary misunderstanding. True progress, however, is best measured in deeds. The inauguration last week of Qatar's first Christian church a small Catholic chapel bearing neither bells nor visible crosses has been hailed as a welcome step forward in relations between Catholicism and Islam. But an even more dramatic development is under discussion just across the border: The Vatican has confirmed that it is negotiating for permission to build the first church in Saudi Arabia.

Presiding over the cradle of Islam and home to its holiest sites, the Saudi monarchy has long banned the open worship of other faiths, even as the number of Catholics resident in Saudi Arabia has risen to 800,000 thanks to an influx of immigrant workers from places like the Philippines and India. Mosques are the only houses of prayer in a country where the strict Wahhabi version of Sunni Islam dominates. But Archbishop Paul-Mounged El-Hachem, the papal envoy to the smaller countries on the Arabian peninsula, such as Kuwait and Qatar, has confirmed that talks are under way to establish formal diplomatic relations between the Vatican and Saudi Arabia, and to eventually allow for Catholic churches to be built there. Pope Benedict XVI is believed to have personally appealed to King Abdullah on the topic during the Saudi monarch's first ever visit to the Vatican last November.

Top Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said that a Catholic parish in this key Islamic country would be "a historic achievement" in the push to expand religious freedom and foster a positive interfaith rapport. Under Benedict, the Catholic hierarchy has stepped up calls from its Muslim counterparts for "reciprocity," demanding that the same religious freedom enjoyed by Muslims in the West should be granted to Christian minorities in the Islamic world. They note that Europe's biggest mosque, built with Saudi funds, was opened in 1995 in Rome, just across the river from the Vatican.

Pope Benedict passionately condemned last week's death of Chaldean Catholic Archbishop of Mosul, Paulos Faraj Rahho, who was kidnapped on Feb. 29 in the northern Iraqi city. As many as 350,000 of the 800,000 Christians in Iraq before the war have since fled the country, while smaller but similar exoduses have occurred in the Palestinian territories, Lebanon and other parts of the Arab world.

While Christians in those areas trace their roots to the earliest centuries of the faith, the Catholics in Saudi Arabia are mostly migrant workers. And the restrictions on any outward manifestation of their religious beliefs have been particularly severe. The celebration of non-Muslim holidays is forbidden, as is the wearing of crucifixes and other religious symbols. My bold
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1723715,00.html

Try building a Catholic cathedral in Mecca and see how much religious tolerance is shown by the Saudis who funded the biggest mosque in Europe opposite the Vatican.

I don't much care about religions as they're all a waste of space and tax exemptions and equal opportunity exemptions, but if one religion demands tolerance and freedoms for itself then commonsense fairness dictates that it has to show the same to other religions.

Which is rather unlikely because they all think they're the one true faith and the only path to heaven. It's just that one of them is currently rather more aggressive in the attitude of some its members than most of the rest, although most of the rest were just as aggressive at times in their pasts.

Churchill
11-30-2009, 10:26 PM
I think its just about how mosques can't be taller (part of the 'They Have Bigger ****s, Bomb Them" theory of George Carlin) than cathedrals.

pdf27
12-01-2009, 02:44 AM
Maybe the mussies prayer caller ( I know the arab word for it but I refuse to write it) are uncorfotable with the idea being exposed in the high, targeted by unhappy sorrounding christian population, remember my dear that unliked the compulsory forced undesarmed, pub loving citizens of England, Scotland and Wales the swiss population has many SIG 550/551 assault rifles at home, a right not only allowed but enforced by law. :mrgreen:
Err... no. Actually, they're just being reasonably civil and not making loud noises when their neighbours may be asleep.

Rising Sun*
12-01-2009, 06:53 AM
I think its just about how mosques can't be taller (part of the 'They Have Bigger ****s, Bomb Them" theory of George Carlin) than cathedrals.

I have some vague (and possibly quite inaccurate) recollection that there was some rule or principle in ?medieval? Europe that no building could be higher than a (necessarily Christian) church.

Rising Sun*
12-01-2009, 07:10 AM
Err... no. Actually, they're just being reasonably civil and not making loud noises when their neighbours may be asleep.

Who's being reasonably civil?

The English, Scots, Welsh or Swiss?

Civility and not making loud noises when their neighbours may be asleep isn't something normally associated with all of them. :D

Gary D.
12-01-2009, 10:53 AM
There are actually many Muslims I like and respect. Omar Shariff, for instance. I think he converted to Islam before he married his first wife. The product of French/Egyptian parents, he was probably non-practicising anything before he converted. Then, there's the king and queen of Jordan. They certainly don't seem all that radical. There's also a 'conservative' Muslim group here in the Valley of the Sun (Phoenix, Arizona) that believe the U.S. Constitution tops everything, including Sharia, and condemn radical Islam.

When I was pretty much a regular in Bible study, I always looked forward to a young ex-Muslim showing up. Bob Khan showed great faith and conviction when he converted to Christ--he was totally disowned by his parents and he told me once that he knew that if he ever went back to Saudi Arabia, he faced public beheading.

Panzerknacker
12-01-2009, 05:06 PM
Is not a problem about noises, ia about uses, culture and religion. The people simply doesnt like muslim and their invasive manners. Is a quite simple and logic reactio to privilege your own culture above and uses above others medieval, obscure ones.

would anybody start to make a lot of churches in Ryad or Indonesia with big bells ?

Probably dont.

Rising Sun*
12-02-2009, 03:17 AM
The people simply doesnt like muslim and their invasive manners. Is a quite simple and logic reactio to privilege your own culture above and uses above others medieval, obscure ones.

As residents of countries which our forefathers took from the indigenous peoples, you and I aren't in the best position to complain about 'invasive manners' of Muslims.

While I don't much like some of the migrant groups coming here because they're changing our culture in ways I don't like, that reaction to them always reminds me that that is probably how the Aborigines must have felt about my ancestors taking over their land.

As for medieval cultures, Christianity pre-dated Islam by about six centuries so doesn't that make it even less entitled to dominate the world than Islam?

Panzerknacker
12-03-2009, 05:25 PM
Lousy comparison, beside my "forefathers" were not spanish conqueror but very peaceful people from northern Italy who came to work the land in the late 1800s.

pdf27
12-03-2009, 05:38 PM
Lousy comparison, beside my "forefathers" were not spanish conqueror but very peaceful people from northen Italy who came to work the land in the late 1800s.
Since the Muslims in question are peaceful migrants who came at the invitation of the indigenous Swiss inhabitants (mostly as refugees from the Balkans), I'd have to say they have more right to be there than you do.

Panzerknacker
12-03-2009, 05:55 PM
Peaceful, ha, ha, ha,very,very funny. They are friends of the same people who killed some nuns because theye were angry for a cartoon.

They are friends of those who came out with "Behead those who insult Islam" placards in London.

And by the way, your opinion of my rights ...I care more about the price of the pineapple in the Kuala lampur street market than anything you can say about my rigths and the rights of the grandfathers.

My granfather were better than you you and better than any muslim.

Rising Sun*
12-03-2009, 07:07 PM
My granfather were better than you you and better than any muslim.

Better than Kemal Ataturk and Saladin?

Your grandfather must have been a very impressive man.

I assume that his name lives on in world history with Muslims such as Ataturk and Saladin.

32Bravo
12-04-2009, 04:00 AM
merry christmas..!

steben
12-04-2009, 06:17 AM
It's about more than just noise, just religion or just culture.
It's even close to urban designing and historic form language of a region.
I find it hard to believe that dark brown opposers to the arrival of modern concrete boxes say their prayers to minnarets... :rolleyes:

The truth is, my dear friends, that Switzerland is the only country (I know) where a national vote round determines policy. And therefor, Switzerland is the only country where such a discussion leads to such a result. Make no mistake: in other countries the results would give higher percentages for the opposers... yet over there, policy is made by politicians alone and not the people.

Think of the lissabon treaty in the EU. Even there, public vote was bypassed in favor of parliamentary vote. Simply out of fear the people would have voted the treaty away.
Yes, democracy can make hard choices. If one cannot live with it, just get away with democracy. Like they do in many many so called democratic western countries.

One can make also another conclusion: there is no monopoly or need for autocratic or fascist leadership to make tough decisions.

Yes, I love Switzerland. I spend some holidays there every year.

32Bravo
12-05-2009, 06:11 AM
I have no problem with immigration or an evolving culture, per see. The British mainland is so situated that economic and political migrationion has occurred for more than a millenia, not to mention invasions. Most of those who bring their culture with them are assimilated into British society, usually by the second generation (It seems to me, for example, that as much as PK is proud of his Italian roots, he is proud to be an Argentinian). During that assimillation process, those same immigrants have added a little of their own culture to ours. Furthermore, during the days of Empire, returning soldiers brought pieces of imperial culture with them.

The arguments over minarets are small potatoes. The Brighton Pavilion as many minarets and is a most pleasing building. As a matter of fact, it was used as a hospital for Indian soldiers (including muslims, of course) during WW1. A fabulous building - almost as good as Blackpool Tower.
http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://home.clara.net/heureka/sussex/brighton-pavilion02.jpg&imgrefurl=http://home.clara.net/heureka/sussex/royal-pavilion.htm&usg=__43ScIv1B3ARs2xryS-_R-1IIX74=&h=592&w=881&sz=175&hl=en&start=1&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=dUCdvDzEHTXIDM:&tbnh=98&tbnw=146&prev=/images%3Fq%3DBrighton%2Bpavilion%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3 D1T4SNYS_enGB342GB348%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://s0.geograph.org.uk/photos/00/13/001366_3578f7e4.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1366&usg=__ApqTzUVGVddNmxe4SUJrCE5AYjc=&h=480&w=640&sz=44&hl=en&start=14&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=snipQ_ZF2yM3XM:&tbnh=103&tbnw=137&prev=/images%3Fq%3DBrighton%2Bpavilion%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3 D1T4SNYS_enGB342GB348%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1


A more serious problem is the violence which some immigrants are introducing to our streets and neighbourhoods. It's not a massive problem, but it is a problem.

Worse than the violence, in my opinion, is the strain on the infrastructure - e.g. schools, hospitals, housing and water supply etc. We are a smallish and already overpopulated island, and without some serious forward planning, we're just storing up problems for the future.


As Churchill ( I think?) said: 'Democracy isn't perfect, but it's the best we have!'

We only have to look at the way we disagree on so many issues on this site to understand that democracy cannot please all of the people any of the time.

History has proven, even in the most recent of times, that those people who most strongly resist change are those that eventually fall.

Merry Christtmas everybody!

Rising Sun*
12-06-2009, 05:52 AM
Don't know about the historical and other intepretations in this article, but it presents one view supporting the Swiss vote.


Switzerland draws the line

* MELANIE PHILLIPS
* From: The Australian
* December 05, 2009 12:00AM

WELL, who would have thought the Swiss had it in them? The country that until now was known for nothing more exciting than banking, cheese and cuckoo clocks has secured its place in history by becoming the first in Europe to say to Islam: "thus far and no further".

In a decision so controversial within Switzerland that it may be overturned, 57.5 per cent voted in a referendum backed by the ultra-conservative Swiss People's Party to ban the construction of any new minarets on mosques.

Along with much of Europe, the reaction within Britain, where the government is pursuing a policy of engagement rather than confrontation to deal with its major problem of Islamic extremism, has been widespread horror.

After all, there are only four minarets in Switzerland, where the 5 per cent of the population who are Muslims are mainly liberally-minded Bosnians, Kosovo Albanians and Turks and who keep a low profile. The ban is said to be illiberal, discriminatory and infringing the rights of Muslims to religious worship. Nevertheless, opinion is not speaking with one voice. In Britain as in Switzerland , feminists and some liberals have backed the ban because they are deeply anxious the encroachment of Islam within Europe will destroy women's rights.

And France's President Nicolas Sarkozy and Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel have both acknowledged that the Swiss vote reflects growing fears within Europe that the continent is being steadily Islamised.

This fissure in European opinion suggests the issue is rather more complex than the superficial consternation might suggest. The stock liberal view is that the state has no business telling a religious community how to construct its houses of prayer. And in general this is absolutely right.

But liberal societies also hold that minorities must not threaten or coerce the majority culture. If that precept is followed, then just like any other minority, Muslims should certainly be welcome to practise their faith. And many do so in just such a way.

The problem is that while many such Muslims sign up to democracy, human rights and the separation of religion and state, the Islamists who dominate the Muslim world are pushing the agenda of Islamising the west. And the minaret is a symbol of that religious aggression. The suggestion that banning minarets attacks Muslim rights to religious observance could not be farther from the truth. For the minaret has no religious significance in Islam.

To Western eyes, it may seem nothing other than an architectural feature. But historically it has served as a symbol of Islamic political power and aspiration.

It is designed to help impose Islam on the surrounding society. As a powerful symbol of Islamic dominance, it is often constructed to be higher than other religious buildings specifically to send the message both to Muslims and those of other faiths and none that Islam is supreme.

That is why Turkish premier Recep Tayyip Erdogan described minarets as the "bayonets of the faith". They are political instruments of religious domination. And that is what the Swiss have understood as a threat to their society.

For liberals, any issue taken up by a party they brand the "far Right" is automatically made toxic by such association. But it is the issue that matters, not who is taking sides over it.

The West is so bamboozled by multiculturalism, the doctrine that all cultures must be held to have equal value and any differentiation is prejudice, that it cannot see the destructive absurdity of this fuss.

For while it is having a fit of the vapours over the so-called threat to religious freedom represented by the minaret ban, it is silent over the fact that in Islamic states such as Saudi Arabia there is no freedom of worship, no churches are allowed to be built at all and apostates from Islam are punished by death.

Islamism is encroaching in Europe and the West because liberals are so paralysed by their own nostrums they cannot defend their own culture -- a vulnerability the Islamists are exploiting to the hilt. The Western response to the ban is characterised by fear of the Muslim reaction to it -- thus demonstrating to the Islamists once again that terror and intimidation work.

Islamists themselves have given the game away. Both Tariq Ramadan and the Muslim Council of Britain have said that mosques and minarets in European cities "are manifestations of the proudly indigenous nature of Islam in Europe". But Islam is not indigenous in Europe. The last attempt by the Islamic world to conquer Europe was repulsed at the gates of Vienna in 1683.

It is possible that the Swiss vote will now give courage to other European countries to stop the march of political Islam -- and that future generations will talk of the jihad being repulsed at the gates of Geneva. But then again, Europe's own death-wish may be just too strong. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/switzerland-draws-the-line/story-e6frg6ux-1225807165273

Nickdfresh
12-06-2009, 09:52 AM
* MELANIE PHILLIPS
* From: The Australian
...
After all, there are only four minarets in Switzerland, where the 5 per cent of the population who are Muslims are mainly liberally-minded Bosnians, Kosovo Albanians and Turks and who keep a low profile. The ban is said to be illiberal, discriminatory and infringing the rights of Muslims to religious worship. Nevertheless, opinion is not speaking with one voice. In Britain as in Switzerland , feminists and some liberals have backed the ban because they are deeply anxious the encroachment of Islam within Europe will destroy women's rights.
...

Nothing but prejudice born of fear and ignorance...

Panzerknacker
12-06-2009, 01:01 PM
I want to hallmark the last post by 32Bravo, at list somebody see the matter very clearly.:rolleyes:

32Bravo
12-06-2009, 02:14 PM
Why, thank you, PK.

Actually, it's always been that way with me. Just haven't bothered to express it before. :lol:

Ou_Baas
12-07-2009, 01:26 AM
Nothing but prejudice born of fear and ignorance...
I am glad to see my Country represented, and discussed here as well. As for Nickdfresh, you are so far out of line here.
We voted yes for the Ban because we dont like the slow Islamification of Europe, and all the "wishes" and "requests" that these people bring with them. You obviously have no idea about the Problems this is causing in Europe, give them a finger, and they will have your Arm. We are a Cathloic country, anyone is welcome, if they are prepared to integrate themselves, we have strickt rules on that, not like in the USA where Mexicans and Latinos who live there for decades cant even speak the language. Same thing is happening in the UK, Europe is being taken over by these people, and their plans are quite clear.... as Turkish Prime minister said yesterday, "Our Minaretts are our Spears/Lances, and our Mosks are our Soldiers barracks."

Now if that is not clear enough for you.

If any other country in Europe actually LET their people vote, they would ALL vote the same us we did. But unfortunately the EU is a dictatorship, and not a pure Democracy like we are.

I voted YES for the ban, and i am PROUD, not fearful or any paranoid of towel and sheet wearing people.

Nickdfresh
12-07-2009, 08:28 AM
I am glad to see my Country represented, and discussed here as well. As for Nickdfresh, you are so far out of line here.

I have the right to my opinion, just like you have the right to register in this forum to solely to comment in this thread, I presume...


We voted yes for the Ban because we dont like the slow Islamification of Europe, and all the "wishes" and "requests" that these people bring with them. You obviously have no idea about the Problems this is causing in Europe, give them a finger, and they will have your Arm. We are a Cathloic country, anyone is welcome, if they are prepared to integrate themselves, we have strickt rules on that,

Um, I have some idea of the "problems" of Europe, I've just never heard much about violent incidents in Switzerland regarding Muslims from largely secular, progressive areas of Bosnia nor Kosovo creating violent incidents. Of course there are problems of violence with Middle Easterners who refuse to integrate. Painting them all with a wide swath of a brush, are we? We could pretty clearly substitute "Jewish bankers" for Muslims in your rhetoric and you'd have the same paranoid, conspiratorial garbage that "you-know-who" used a few years back. You also don't need to lecture me on your "European problems," because I reside in a city called Buffalo, NY, I live not 15 kilometers from a rather proportionally large emigre settlement of Yemenis residing in Lackawanna, NY. You know, the country that Osama Bin Laden's family came to Saudi Arabia from? They've been largely peaceful and have indeed "integrated" themselves into the US way of life with few problems, no violence, and have generally been overall good citizens for the over 30 years they've been coming here. There was of course the "Lackawanna Six" (pseudo-)terrorist cell that was rousted after the 9/11 attacks. But of course, they have no real planning, training, nor weapons to conduct any sort of terrorist actions.

The problem with much of Europe and Muslims is that you do not "integrate" them politically, nor essentially force them to adapt to your political institutions and effectively allow them to wall themselves off into mini-ghettos of transplanted Arabic society. But this doesn't even seem relevant to the situation in Switzerland, as they're mostly European-ized, secular Muslims apparently, which sort of does make you seem paranoid...

The United States, with its "melting-pot" mentality, does methodically enforce the political and civil integration of foreign cultures, which is why we do in fact have very large expatriated Muslim communities spanning the United States from New Jersey to California. Ones that virtually have taken over regions such as parts of the Detroit, Michigan area. Yet, we have had almost no domestic terrorist incidents residing from such communities in the past 40 years or so. It's just a fundamental construct of, and one of the highlights of, American culture with strictly (and rightly) forbades any sort of collusion between church and state and sort of heads off many of these problems, and also forces legal immigrants to learn the language and cultural norms, or sends them the **** out..


...not like in the USA where Mexicans and Latinos who live there for decades cant even speak the language.

An interesting statement from someone from a trilingual society, I must say. However, aren't your immigrants already "legal?" Unfortunately, we don't have a "guest-worker" policy which would go a long way towards eliminating illegal immigration by channeling them into a program where things can be controlled and monitored. Unfortunately, no one wants to really own up to why illegal immigration happens in the states aside from having a huge border essentially impossible to close without destroying economies...


Same thing is happening in the UK, Europe is being taken over by these people, and their plans are quite clear.... as Turkish Prime minister said yesterday, "Our Minaretts are our Spears/Lances, and our Mosks are our Soldiers barracks."

"Their plan?" Really? So all Muslims are part of a secret, underground plot to destroy Catholic Swiss white people? BTW, can you actually link me to an actual trusted source for this quote? It seems to me that Turkey is rather secularized, part of NATO, and has a long tradition of rejecting Islamic culture in favor of the West....


Now if that is not clear enough for you.

It's not. It just sounds ridiculous and stupid, quite frankly...


If any other country in Europe actually LET their people vote, they would ALL vote the same us we did. But unfortunately the EU is a dictatorship, and not a pure Democracy like we are.

I've heard of this concept, it's called the "tyranny of democracy". It's nice you all have a vote, and it's also a convenient way to prevent any real dissenting voice...


I voted YES for the ban, and i am PROUD, not fearful or any paranoid of towel and sheet wearing people.

You could have fooled me...

Ou_Baas
12-07-2009, 08:31 AM
When did i join? and when was the Vote ? :confused: i wont even bother about the rest...political yakidy yak.

Gary D.
12-07-2009, 10:42 AM
You might have heard about the Muslim father here in the Phoenix, Arizona, area who ran his car over his daughter and her boyfriend's mother because the daughter was 'going Western.' The young woman subsequently died. They termed it an 'honor killing.' Doubtless, his lawyer will argue that this is their way of life. Muslims, by and large, unfortunately, aren't integrating into this country. They want to enjoy constitutionally protected rights, and keep Sharia at the same time. For myself, even as a Christian, I believe the Constitution trumps everything. Give them time, and 'progressives' (read, Marxist-oriented left-wingers) will demand that Sharia law be recognized.

Nickdfresh
12-07-2009, 11:40 AM
You might have heard about the Muslim father here in the Phoenix, Arizona, area who ran his car over his daughter and her boyfriend's mother because the daughter was 'going Western.' The young woman subsequently died. They termed it an 'honor killing.'

I didn't hear about that particular case and it's tragic and the "father" is an *******. But, I think I also heard of a case of a "Christian" leader of a group of Mormon splinters that believed not only in polygamy, but that middle-aged men had the right to **** pre and early teen girls.

So, do we judge everyone by isolated, extreme cases now?


Doubtless, his lawyer will argue that this is their way of life.

Who gives a shit what his lawyer says? I'm pretty sure the guy I'm talking about had a lawyer that pretty much said the same thing. If he's guilty, he'll hang...


Muslims, by and large, unfortunately, aren't integrating into this country. They want to enjoy constitutionally protected rights, and keep Sharia at the same time.

They can keep "Sharia" to the extent it doesn't infringe on other laws. If nut job women want to wear a veil, that's fine with me. But I'm pretty sure there's almost nothing written in the Koran about it specifically, and a lot of "Sharia" law was actually pre-Islamic middle eastern culture creeping into the religion, just like Rome creeped into Roman Catholicism...

And they actually have been and are "integrating" into this country. There are numerous studies on it and you can contrast the number of incidents of violence between the US and in France, where in the ghettos of Paris they have a real problem with unemployed, disenfranchised radical Muslim men battling with police and attacking and raping girls that don't wear veils. That sort of thing doesn't happen here on any real scale, and apart from isolated incidents which pale in comparison with other crime problems--such as mass shootings, gangs, drugs, rapes, etc.---are just not that prevalent.

Incidentally, I've actually met "them," and sometimes they're actually real people that don't give much of a **** about their birth religion, are far more concerned with being "metrosexual" well-dressed ladies men, or are even highly educated very pleasant people that just want to earn a living and not be bothered. Hard to believe, I know. But they might not actually be these "Stepford Wives" or "Manchurian Candidates" pre-programmed to detonate themselves as suicide bombers when their evil sultan handlers decide to unleash them on us with a secret Koran code word. :rolleyes:


For myself, even as a Christian, I believe the Constitution trumps everything.

Well we agree on something. However, there are a whole host of laws and statutes that govern everyday life and are meant to provide certain protections religious extremist ****wits...


Give them time, and 'progressives' (read, Marxist-oriented left-wingers) will demand that Sharia law be recognized.

Yeah, because it's not like those "progressives" weren't some of the first ones to denounce the Taliban in Afghanistan over their treatment of women in the 1990s. I'm also pretty sure such people tend to back the Iranian opposition to dictator Ah'my'dinnner'jacket and condemn the election he stole in the name of radical Islamic thought to preserve the conservative "republic." And I'm pretty sure it was "Marxist-oriented left-wingers" that were fighting the mujaheddin in Afghanistan (more specifically the Soviets and their Afghan allies, against the religious extremists we were tacitly supporting after allowing our "Islamic" allies in Saudi Arabia to hijack the resistance by funding the most hardline elements like---oh, Bin Laden!) and I'm pretty sure Marxist thought is generally atheistic and generally sees things in terms of class and has little regard for non-moralistic religious prohibitions. And I don't think I've ****well heard of anyone demanding Sharia law in this country...

pdf27
12-07-2009, 01:35 PM
You might have heard about the Muslim father here in the Phoenix, Arizona, area who ran his car over his daughter and her boyfriend's mother because the daughter was 'going Western.' The young woman subsequently died. They termed it an 'honor killing.' Doubtless, his lawyer will argue that this is their way of life.
I would refer you to the statement of General Sir Charles Napier on Suttee...

32Bravo
12-07-2009, 02:00 PM
and not a pure Democracy like we are.

Your country's version of pure democracy, is based on a tiny country with a tiny population.

Representative democracy works better because not every man-in-the-street has the time to concentrate on the socio-economic climate to best understand what the issues are that are being voted on and, consequently, know which is the better way to vote, other than making a decision based on prejudice and/or the wrong gut instinct.

Furthermore, even in the purest of democracies (if there is any such beast), there are those that will lobby and seek to influence the electorate to their own ends - so what's the big deal with your pompous set up?



I voted YES for the ban, and i am PROUD, not fearful or any paranoid of towel and sheet wearing people.

I doubt that many of the people you voted against actually wear towels and sheets as you imply, but that is probably a further example of your ignorance.

Gary D.
12-07-2009, 04:45 PM
I didn't hear about that particular case and it's tragic and the "father" is an *******. But, I think I also heard of a case of a "Christian" leader of a group of Mormon splinters that believed not only in polygamy, but that middle-aged men had the right to **** pre and early teen girls.

So, do we judge everyone by isolated, extreme cases now?

Who gives a shit what his lawyer says? I'm pretty sure the guy I'm talking about had a lawyer that pretty much said the same thing. If he's guilty, he'll hang...

...

The mainline LDS church long ago disavowed polygamy, although it is still practiced in Colorado City, formerly Short Creek, by a splinter group. As far as that goes, so-called 'Baptists' (and I am a Southern Baptist) have picketed fallen troops' funerals because they think it's God's judgment on us because we permit homosexuality.

In both cases--Mormons and Baptists (and other denominations) have quickly denounced these dingbats. I don't remember a groundwell among U.S. Muslims protesting the Twin Towers.

By the way, the 'honor killing' thing would have to be second-degree murder, unless the county attorney can prove it was planned.

Nickdfresh
12-07-2009, 05:49 PM
Jon Stewart on The Daily Show, (an American mock-news show on Comedy Central):

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-december-3-2009/oliver-s-travels---switzerland

steben
12-08-2009, 11:02 AM
Your country's version of pure democracy, is based on a tiny country with a tiny population.
Representative democracy works better because not every man-in-the-street has the time to concentrate on the socio-economic climate to best understand what the issues are that are being voted on and, consequently, know which is the better way to vote, other than making a decision based on prejudice and/or the wrong gut instinct.

I don't understand why you speak of Swiss as a people that has time sicne it is small, while others don't. Switzerland has many tiny subcultures with a lot of local decisive power. Such fractal policy can be implemented anywhere.



Furthermore, even in the purest of democracies (if there is any such beast), there are those that will lobby and seek to influence the electorate to their own ends - so what's the big deal with your pompous set up?

I think you have to look at it as a system with possibilities.
The Swiss can use direct democracy.

The way you put it here opens the path to neglect and anti-democracy even representative.



I doubt that many of the people you voted against actually wear towels and sheets as you imply, but that is probably a further example of your ignorance.

Still, the vote was about minarets, not people.
You can have an interpretation, but an interpretation is personal.

steben
12-08-2009, 11:33 AM
for the record: a recent "poll" in Belgium results in 60% against minarets.
U C ? nothing Swiss about it. It's just that in Switzerland they actually "vote" for it.

Will Europeans turn into an agreement to build minarets in 50 years? probably.
The Swiss are becoming more and more pro euro every year.

32Bravo
12-10-2009, 03:53 AM
I don't understand


I guess not!

Rising Sun*
12-10-2009, 05:07 AM
Time will tell.

The Parthenon started out as a central bank; became a Christian church in the 6th century; then a mosque under the Ottomans in the 15th century with a minaret; and lost the minaret when the Greeks got independence in the 19th century.

Of course, the Parthenon was largely destroyed by the Venetians in the 17th century, so the moral is clearly this: Minarets may come and go, but the Venetians will really bugger up your monuments.

From which it follows that the Swiss should get stuck into Venice. Which, after all, their mercenaries (probably the most fearsome in Europe at the time) did exactly that early in the 16th century. As well as later fighting on the Venetian side in the same series of wars.

Much later, having discovered the profitability of being neutral and doing clever things like hanging on to the money deposited by Jews exterminated by Hitler, the Swiss gave up fighting and just profited from other people doing it.

Personally, I'd be more worried about the untrustworthy Swiss getting their grasping, grubby little fingers into my country than a minaret popping up.

32Bravo
12-10-2009, 08:31 AM
Personally, I'd be more worried about the untrustworthy Swiss getting their grasping, grubby little fingers into my country than a minaret popping up.

Would that be a Swiss-Roll?

Swiss banks and Venice - sounds like Casino Royale!

Rising Sun*
12-10-2009, 09:03 AM
Swiss banks and Venice - sounds like Casino Royale!

Or a sinking fund?

Schuultz
12-20-2009, 02:15 PM
My problems with Islam in general are the following:

1) Any religion that, in its holy book(s), orders people who resign of the religion to be killed, should not be tolerated.

2) Any religion that, in its holy book(s), includes laws and punishments that are incompatible with not only national laws but International Human Rights, as can be found aplenty in the Sharia, should not be tolerated.

3) Any religion that, in its holy book(s) declares non-Muslims either second-rate humans (dhimnis) or denies their right to exist (non-Christian/non-Jews), should not be tolerated. Freedom of Religion is not compatible with Islam, as it is written in their book.

4) Islam is more than just a religion. It is an entire system of life, including religion, politics, culture and society. It regulates the role of women within the society, it provides the judiciary and is very restrictive even with regards to cuisine. As long as Muslim supermarket employees decline to touch anything pig-related in their customer service, as is the case in Britain, something is wrong.

5) Islam today is very much like the Catholic Church in the middle Ages. Why should enlightened Europeans tolerate that?

6) This might just be me, but as long as Muslims feel closer to foreign Muslim than to their own non-Muslim countrymen, I dislike them. As long as German Muslims sooner support the Taliban than the German soldiers standing there, I despise them. As long as the Central Committee for Muslims does not clearly speak out against Islamist Extremism, I can only laugh bitterly when they claim that Islam is - or should be - a respectable part of Germany.


Lastly, I don't care if 90% of Muslims are friendly moderates. As long as they allow themselves to be ruled and controlled by the 10% of Extremists, Islam is incompatible with European society.
What matters is not the theory, but the reality (as the Communist had already found out the hard way).
I'm sure the Russian soldier felt a lot better knowing that the German soldier that was about to execute him was not a Nazi, but only a moderate in fear of his family...:neutral:

Rising Sun*
12-21-2009, 05:54 AM
My problems with Islam in general are the following:

1) Any religion that, in its holy book(s), orders people who resign of the religion to be killed, should not be tolerated.

2) Any religion that, in its holy book(s), includes laws and punishments that are incompatible with not only national laws but International Human Rights, as can be found aplenty in the Sharia, should not be tolerated.

3) Any religion that, in its holy book(s) declares non-Muslims either second-rate humans (dhimnis) or denies their right to exist (non-Christian/non-Jews), should not be tolerated. Freedom of Religion is not compatible with Islam, as it is written in their book.

4) Islam is more than just a religion. It is an entire system of life, including religion, politics, culture and society. It regulates the role of women within the society, it provides the judiciary and is very restrictive even with regards to cuisine. As long as Muslim supermarket employees decline to touch anything pig-related in their customer service, as is the case in Britain, something is wrong.

5) Islam today is very much like the Catholic Church in the middle Ages. Why should enlightened Europeans tolerate that?

6) This might just be me, but as long as Muslims feel closer to foreign Muslim than to their own non-Muslim countrymen, I dislike them. As long as German Muslims sooner support the Taliban than the German soldiers standing there, I despise them. As long as the Central Committee for Muslims does not clearly speak out against Islamist Extremism, I can only laugh bitterly when they claim that Islam is - or should be - a respectable part of Germany.


Lastly, I don't care if 90% of Muslims are friendly moderates. As long as they allow themselves to be ruled and controlled by the 10% of Extremists, Islam is incompatible with European society.
What matters is not the theory, but the reality (as the Communist had already found out the hard way).
I'm sure the Russian soldier felt a lot better knowing that the German soldier that was about to execute him was not a Nazi, but only a moderate in fear of his family...:neutral:

I don't disagree with what you say, except for my following post, but I think we should be cautious about treating all Muslims as one group (which they're not, as the conflict between the different sects shows) just because they're different to the dominant culture where they happen to live.

There were similar misgivings about and hostility to Catholics in Australia up to the 1960s, and very strongly up to WWII, based on ill-informed notions of loyalty to Rome over the Crown and so on.

I think it's fairer to assess everyone on their own qualities and conduct.

Admittedly there is now a reasonably founded suspicion that any Muslim is a potential threat to the society in which he or she lives, but there is an element of throwing out the baby with the bathwater in treating them all as hostile.

It would make as much sense to treat all Americans, or all former American servicemen, or all Americans raised as Catholics, as potentially disloyal and dangerous because Timothy McVeigh, who carried out the biggest terrorist act in the US until 9/11, was all of those things.

That said, I don't much care for Islam because it offends every principle of liberty and human rights which I think is important, but most Muslims would think I represent all that is decadent in the infidel world.

Neither of us is right or wrong. We just have different beliefs.

But I still think that many of them would be better off exercising their beliefs in countries which shared their beliefs rather than trying to make us accommodate their primitive bullshit which oppresses women and objects to the liberty we claim as our right and generally objects to the society they voluntarily came to but want to modify so it can mirror the shithole they left for a better life.

And to those who think like that, in the time honoured welcoming attitude for which Australia is renowned:

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/7052/****offwerefull.jpg

Rising Sun*
12-21-2009, 06:02 AM
My problems with Islam in general are the following:

2) Any religion that, in its holy book(s), includes laws and punishments that are incompatible with not only national laws but International Human Rights, as can be found aplenty in the Sharia, should not be tolerated.

The Old Testament, which Jews never got past and which Christians include in their Bible, ain't exactly a charter for tolerance and liberty according to modern standards.

Leviticus is always a good start for primitive bullshit which nobody in their right mind would observe now, and not least since the invention of sanitary napkins and tampons.

Chevan
12-21-2009, 06:20 AM
The Old Testament, which Jews never got past and which Christians include in their Bible, ain't exactly a charter for tolerance and liberty according to modern standards.
Leviticus is always a good start for primitive bullshit which nobody in their right mind would observe now, and not least since the invention of sanitary napkins and tampons.
Yeah , that's is my thoughts too- why not to say "NO more synagogues" then?
It sould be honest to muslim of our countries at least.

Rising Sun*
12-21-2009, 06:33 AM
Yeah , that's is my thoughts too- why not to say "NO more synagogues" then?
It sould be honest to muslim of our countries at least.

Why not say "No more Christian churches."?

Western Europe spent centuries destroying itself in wars between Christian sects.

And the stupidity was that Christian priests and or clerics on both sides duly blessed their combatants and assured them that they were doing (the same) God's work by slaughtering the other side also doing (the same) God's work, and assured them (not unlike Islamic bullshit now) that if they died on the battlefield they would go to heaven.

Right up to WWII, when the German army had "God with us" (in German, naturally :D) on their belt buckles.

If the Germans could appropriate God to their task of wiping out the Jews and the Slavs, why shouldn't the Jews appropriate Nazi exterminations to Jewish ambitions for a homeland?

After all, they were both just a bunch of thugs determined to grab what they thought they were entitled to by violent means designed to exterminate their opponents, based on their own distortions of history and their racially ordained destinies.

BAH! :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

Chevan
12-21-2009, 06:45 AM
Why not say "No more Christian churches."?

Western Europe spent centuries destroying itself in wars between Christian sects.

And the stupidity was that Christian priests and or clerics on both sides duly blessed their combatants and assured them that they were doing (the same) God's work by slaughtering the other side also doing (the same) God's work, and assured them (not unlike Islamic bullshit now) that if they died on the battlefield they would go to heaven.

yet i heard the Saint Inquisition didn't specially cared about Human Rights when burned the millions of "witches and heretics" through centures..
:)

tankgeezer
12-21-2009, 08:32 AM
Human nature never much changes,only the labels do.

32Bravo
12-28-2009, 09:12 AM
Being a secret worshipper of the Godess Kali, I embrace religeous tolerance and can only feel that some of the chaps on this site are downright intollerant.


Worshippers of Kali – the monstrous goddess of destruction and demon-slayer, initiated India's Thug cult, who
sacrificially strangled many thousands of victims, becoming the original killer cult. Thugs existed as a clandestine sect
for almost a thousand years, longer than any other known killer cult. The full body-count of Thuggee victims, like its real
origins, remains an unsolved mystery, but the cult spread across India like a plague. Their modus operandi grew
increasingly gruesome and ruthless, joyfully massacring women, children and babies. This reign of terror only
terminated when the British army hunted-down and hanged some four-thousand prototype, group serial killers.
Incredibly, even now this cult remains shrouded in secrecy, yet they created a terrorist conspiracy with international
links. Today this legacy is more relevant than ever.

http://www.ukcopywriter.co.uk/pdfs/kali.pdf

There are lessons to be learnt from the past, and those old lessons from religeous intolerance have to be near the top of the list.

Rising Sun*
12-28-2009, 09:38 AM
Being a secret worshipper of the Godess Kali, I embrace religeous tolerance and can only feel that some of the chaps on this site are downright intollerant.



http://www.ukcopywriter.co.uk/pdfs/kali.pdf

There are lessons to be learnt from the past, and those old lessons from religeous intolerance have to be near the top of the list.

Well, maybe, but as John Masters explored fictionally in The Deceivers the Thuggees might have been devotees of Kali.

Or in reality they might have been simply a bunch of criminals who preyed on travellers.

Either way, I don't think they were a model of religious, or any other tolerance.

Nor was Kali, in any of her various manifestations which were always extreme.

Although both Thuggees and Kali serve as sound models for some of the Muslim thugs currently prancing about the planet in equally devious and deceptive guises.

P.S. The link in your last post keeps coming back to this page. I was hoping for a sheila with snakes and shit around her.

32Bravo
12-28-2009, 10:48 AM
Interesting response, RS, surely you weren't taking me seriously?


http://www.ukcopywriter.co.uk/pdfs/kali.pdf

Just for you - her name is Heidi - no Sheilas available:

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://farm1.static.flickr.com/28/50486855_e3c0d7245e.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.flickr.com/photos/lucy_art/50486855/&usg=__hY2oBuPdyKNNjmhWlacey0_haJ8=&h=449&w=385&sz=30&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=UVWqAxObu11SkM:&tbnh=127&tbnw=109&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dnaked%2Bwoman%2Bwith%2Bsnakes%26hl%3D en%26rlz%3D1T4SNYS_enGB342GB348%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1

Rising Sun*
12-29-2009, 06:35 AM
Interesting response, RS, surely you weren't taking me seriously?

Who knows? It was last night, which at my age is a very long time ago and beyond recall. ;) :D



Just for you - her name is Heidi - no Sheilas available:

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://farm1.static.flickr.com/28/50486855_e3c0d7245e.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.flickr.com/photos/lucy_art/50486855/&usg=__hY2oBuPdyKNNjmhWlacey0_haJ8=&h=449&w=385&sz=30&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=UVWqAxObu11SkM:&tbnh=127&tbnw=109&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dnaked%2Bwoman%2Bwith%2Bsnakes%26hl%3D en%26rlz%3D1T4SNYS_enGB342GB348%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1

That girl needs a serious dose of worm treatment. :D

32Bravo
12-29-2009, 07:00 AM
That girl needs a serious dose of worm treatment. :D


Clearly, she's getting it! :)

Rising Sun*
12-29-2009, 07:23 AM
Clearly, she's getting it! :)

:mrgreen: