# Swiss voters favour Islamic Minaret ban for local buildings



## CougarKing (29 Nov 2009)

Thoughts, anyone? 

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/091129/world/switzerland_referendum_islam_religion



> *  Voters in a referendum on Sunday voted in favour of imposing a blanket ban on the building of minarets in Switzerland, public television reported, citing exit polls.*
> 
> With ballot-counting still underway, the exit polls suggested that the proposal -- put forth by far-right politicians -- enjoyed around 59 percent support.
> 
> ...


----------



## vonGarvin (29 Nov 2009)

Wow.....just wow.


I don't know what to say...


----------



## brihard (29 Nov 2009)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Wow.....just wow.
> 
> 
> I don't know what to say...



I view this with the same contempt I view Islamic countries not allowing the construction of churches. It's stupid, bigoted and reactionary.

I have no personal use for organized religion of any sect or denomination, but it should be left alone so long as there's no active incitement to hatred. The Swiss are just alienating Muslims with this, and probably generating new enemies.


----------



## old medic (29 Nov 2009)

It's not just the Swiss.  This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone following European politics. 



> The Swiss People's Party (SVP) -- Switzerland's biggest party


  is the biggest party in the country
by vote, seats and popular support.


----------



## brihard (29 Nov 2009)

I'm not saying I'm surprised, just that I'm disgusted. There seems to be massive, systemic Islamophobia throughout Europe.

I'm not saying that I'm in favour of all parts of traditional Islamic culture. Far form it. But government actions like this are just going to continue to contribute to tension. Muslims in Europe need to be engaged by states, not vilified. At the same time, Muslim immigrant populations need to realize that there are certain standards of rights and equality that they need to adhere to as well when they immigrate to the west.

The trouble here is that both sides are trying to preserve their own cultures intact instead of realizing that some degree of fusion is not only inevitable, but is probably also safest.


----------



## NL_engineer (29 Nov 2009)

I would have never thought the Swiss would do this (not going to add my personal opinion); When I was there I got the impression they are more Political Correct then us.


----------



## Redeye (30 Nov 2009)

Actually, the Swiss are pretty much the most un-PC people you'll meet overall.  The SVP in particular has made no secret of its views of any minority group in Switzerland - and their advertising pushes a lot of boundaries.  They ran an ad during the last elections there which featured a bunch of white sheep and a black sheep, I wish I could remember the slogan.  They're populists who want to keep Switzerland for the Swiss.  It's not hard to do, either, given that obtaining Swiss citizenship as an immigrant is very, very difficult and takes a very long time (depending on the canton you live in).

Switzerland's government system is very interesting and allows things like this to happen easily.  If you can get 10,000 signatures to put an issue to referendum within 18 months, just about anything can be done there.  It's very much set up to allow the people to exercise their sovereignty directly - the confederal government looks after very, very little with most powers held at cantonal level, and in many cantons virtually everything is decided by direct democracy.

I agree, though, that this decision was stupid - trying to integrate newcomers rather than ostracize them is far better.  Interesting the Catholic Church in Switzerland came out heavily opposed to this.



			
				NL_engineer said:
			
		

> I would have never thought the Swiss would do this (not going to add my personal opinion); When I was there I got the impression they are more Political Correct then us.


----------



## mariomike (30 Nov 2009)

Redeye said:
			
		

> They ran an ad during the last elections there which featured a bunch of white sheep and a black sheep, I wish I could remember the slogan.



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2625385.ece

"Swiss voters' clear decision on Sunday to ban the construction of minarets has generated a wide range of emotions, from stunned joy to rueful concern":
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/front/Minaret_result_seen_as_turning_point.html?siteSect=105&sid=11554254&rss=true&ty=st&ref=ti_spa


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 Nov 2009)

Hey, if a majority of the people vote against it, I don't think they really care if they upset those opposed.  Its their country.  If they don't want say, ice cream stands, and vote against it in a majority, well of course anyone who likes ice cream will be upset.

They voted, the vote speaks for the majority.  I say good on them for standing up for what they want.  I don't want people who smoke dope in my house.  All that makes me is someone who doesn't like dope smokers.  Thats my choice...same principle with this IMO.

Now I'll sit back and wait for someone to call me a racist of anti-something or other...


----------



## Kat Stevens (30 Nov 2009)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I'm not saying I'm surprised, just that I'm disgusted. There seems to be massive, systemic Islamophobia throughout Europe.
> 
> I'm not saying that I'm in favour of all parts of traditional Islamic culture. Far form it. But government actions like this are just going to continue to contribute to tension. Muslims in Europe need to be engaged by states, not vilified. At the same time, Muslim immigrant populations need to realize that there are certain standards of rights and equality that they need to adhere to as well when they immigrate to the west.
> 
> The trouble here is that both sides are trying to preserve their own cultures intact instead of realizing that some degree of fusion is not only inevitable, but is probably also safest.




Have you spent any real time in Europe?   I'm not talking about a 3 week HLTA train junket to 17 cities in 14 days kind of thing.  In Britain, non muslims of all races and creeds are harrassed on the streets, bullied, spit on, and generally treated like filth in their own homeland.  Mosques in London are a breeding ground for terrorists. We all know how well large groups of North African muslims behaved in Paris a while back.  The fear of Europe becoming an islamic caliphate is very real to the people who live there.


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Nov 2009)

Now, this would not happen in Canada, because we are a Liberal Democratic nation, which essentially prevents the majority from doing such things to the minority.



> Interesting the Catholic Church in Switzerland came out heavily opposed to this.


  I wasn't surprised in the slightest.  The Roman Catholic Church is no longer the church of the Crusades.  Also, as an interesting point for those who don't know, Christianity, Islam and Judaism are what are called "Abrahamic Religions".  In short, they all worship the same God, and the virgin Mary is mentioned in the Koran more often than in the New Testament.  Islam, Christianity and Judaism are very close in morals, belief structures, and the like.


----------



## Redeye (1 Dec 2009)

The Catholic Church's statement was something to the effect of stating that they didn't support the diminishing of any religion and felt it was important to encourage dialogue, etc etc.  Was well put together.

As for the fact that Jews, Christians, and Muslims all worship the same God, trying to explain that to some of the more extremist evangelical set (particularly it seems some of my in-laws and their friends) is not as easy as you'd think.  They just don't seem to get it.  Most educated folks seem to though.



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> Now, this would not happen in Canada, because we are a Liberal Democratic nation, which essentially prevents the majority from doing such things to the minority.
> I wasn't surprised in the slightest.  The Roman Catholic Church is no longer the church of the Crusades.  Also, as an interesting point for those who don't know, Christianity, Islam and Judaism are what are called "Abrahamic Religions".  In short, they all worship the same God, and the virgin Mary is mentioned in the Koran more often than in the New Testament.  Islam, Christianity and Judaism are very close in morals, belief structures, and the like.


----------



## sm1lodon (4 Dec 2009)

Well, the people of that country have spoken, I guess.


----------



## krustyrl (4 Dec 2009)

Loud and Clear.!


----------



## X-mo-1979 (4 Dec 2009)

old medic said:
			
		

> It's not just the Swiss.  This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone following European politics.
> is the biggest party in the country
> by vote, seats and popular support.



Absolutely.

People have a problem with Islam ideology, not muslims in Europe.

Living with this crap:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1224153/Burq-ingham-Palace-Hate-preacher-calls-Queen-wear-Muslim-dress.html#

is the norm in most of europe lately. It's only a matter of time before the majority says enough.

Google islam/ a european country and it's the same stories.

Good for the majority.


----------



## krustyrl (4 Dec 2009)

My eyes opened a bit wider now... things that make you go hmmmmm..??


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Dec 2009)

old medic said:
			
		

> It's not just the Swiss.  This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone following European politics.



Too true - here's an Italian right-wing party's poster that caught my eye last year during the election campaign:





Translation:  "They couldn't control immigration, now they live on reserves"
And this little number:




"Yes to our (traditional northern Italian) cornmeal mush, no to couscous - proud of our traditions"
(This party has at least one cabinet minister in the Berlusconi coalition, BTW).

Also, another billboard from the Swiss Peoples Party:


----------



## mariomike (5 Dec 2009)

"Wait a minaret!: Swiss ban on Muslim prayer towers not driven by hate":
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/michael_coren/2009/12/05/12048301-sun.html


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Dec 2009)

That swiss ad reminds me of some similar European ads, about 70 years ago or so:




"The Poison Mushroom"
"Stories by Ernst Zimmer, artwork by "Fins"


----------



## X-mo-1979 (5 Dec 2009)

Last time I checked ARD-10 isnt driving around getting ready for the "final solution". There was a democratic vote where muslims are still allowed to practice their religion in Mosques they just banned minarets.

Must be nice to live in a country where the majority isnt trying to play nice with every minority and special interest group.Where the majority doesnt feel a social stigma to actually say what they feel.


Maybe this will be the start to the death of political correctness.


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Dec 2009)

Neither were the Germans in the 1930s.  The "Endlösung der Jüdenfrage" wasn't brought forth until the 3rd year of war.  Now, that is an extreme case, I admit; however, its roots were similar: intolerance and ignorance.  Though I freely admit that it goes both ways.


----------



## Kat Stevens (5 Dec 2009)

It's neither ignorance nor intolerance.  It's just plain old fear, and it's not completely unjustified.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (5 Dec 2009)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Neither were the Germans in the 1930s.  The "Endlösung der Jüdenfrage" wasn't brought forth until the 3rd year of war.  Now, that is an extreme case, I admit; however, its roots were similar: intolerance and ignorance.  Though I freely admit that it goes both ways.


Bit of a stretch indeed.
Showing the ban of the minerets shows one thing to me, and thats a group of people sick and tired of it and feeling out diplomatic channels. No athesis, christain ,jew ,hindu wants to be living in a state run by large influx's of muslims who are the same people in their streets not asking for fair treatment but to subjugate the local population. 

It doesnt go two ways. Until the KOC are killing muslims it is not going two ways. 

I have to say I am getting very intolerant of muslim extremist who are protected by our legal/human rights. I'm also sick of turning on the TV to see something on fire due to muslim terrorist.I'm also sick that moderate muslims don't condone the attacks. And when someone speaks out against Islam they are wrapped up in human rights tribunals until they are silenced.

Maybe your right. Maybe this is "Awake" phase.

Let's not condone a country for protecting it's majorities decisions. Not when other soldiers in the west here were afraid to report the Ft Hood shooter, as they would have been called racist.


----------



## Michael OLeary (5 Dec 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Bit of a stretch indeed.
> Showing the ban of the minerets shows one thing to me, and thats a group of people sick and tired of it and feeling out diplomatic channels. No athesis, christain ,jew ,hindu wants to be living in a state run by large influx's of muslims who are the same people in their streets not asking for fair treatment but to subjugate the local population.
> 
> .....
> ...



Speaking of stretches and majority decisions aside, how does the building of minarets equate to "living in a state run by large influx's of Muslims who are the same people in their streets not asking for fair treatment but to subjugate the local population"?

Similarly, how does refusing to allow the building of minarets stop any other possible results?

What happens when an area, national or local, has a majority of Muslims and starts making decisions for minarets or other things within the legal bounds of the local laws, will you see you defend those choices as strongly?


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Dec 2009)

I don't see the stretch at all.  The vote in Switzerland wasn't again radical moslems, it was against minarets.  They are about as offensive (to me, a practicing Roman Catholic) as a piece of bread: they aren't at all.  

In our liberal democratic society, minorities are protected from "the will of the majority".  I agree that we have to strike a balance where the majority is protected from "the will of the minority".  This means that people like me (who may be minority, I have no idea) have to live in a society where societal morals/beliefs go counter to personal morals/beliefs.  As an example, I oppose both abortion and homosexual marriage.  But that's my personal beliefs: the law says otherwise, and I *must* respect the law.  Sure, I can voice my opinion against those laws, but in the end, they are the laws of the land, and I must abide by them and neither can I persecute those whose opinion counter mine.

That's what this comes to.  "When in Rome" and all that.  I agree that we oppose Sharia Law in our land vehemently (it goes counter to our collective values), and at the same time, I must practice, in the privacy of my own home, my own personal beliefs.

The case of people fearing that they will be branded racist for objecting to *conduct* are cowards.  The case of the Fort Hood terror killings is an extreme one, one that hopefully will wake people up to voice said concerns, not based on racial or cultural bias, but on the merits of the acts alone.

Here's an example, and I'll use me as the "straw man".  I've already voiced my opinion about abortion.  Suppose I were to stand up in a military lecture hall during a course that had bugger-all to do with voicing personal opinions, and stated something along the lines of "ABORTIONISTS WILL BURN IN HELL!  WE MUST DO GOD'S WORK AND STOP THEM AT ANY COST!"  Well, I sure as shinola hope that someone would report me! 
Now, if I were to be seen in civilian attire wearing a rosary, I sure as shinola hope that someone doesn't get the chills and then report me to the PC police!  

So, there is a balance, and yes, it goes both ways.  But if people in Europe (or elsewhere) fear moslems, well, that is an unfounded fear.  What they need to fear is _terrorists_ who use Islam as a shield or excuse for spreading hate.  

I recall a movie about one of the 9/11 hijackers.  In one scene, some of the terrorists is going on about killiing Jews and Christians.  A fellow moslem objects, stating that they are cousins or brothers, or the like.  He is thrown out of the meeting.  Irony!  A moslem opposing the killing of Jews and Christians!

Finally, using the excuse that "they don't allow churches in [insert moslem nation here]", is a fallacy.  Using abhorrent behaviour or tolerance as an excuse to exercise abhorrent behaviour or tolerance is inexcusable.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (5 Dec 2009)

As I said in my last post above:
"Thats a group of people sick and tired of it and feeling out diplomatic channels."

People do not want sharia law.People do not want to be subjugated by Islam. Obviously these people cannot "ban" all muslims. However it seems they are seeing what they CAN do legally to protect THEIR way of life.

And your right about the opposite situation. No I wouldn't support the expansion of a religion that defies western life. I prefer to live under the rule of government, not Allah.

I can see your point of view Technoviking. However I dont think many people have problems with muslims as people, just Islam and it's conflict with our societies.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (5 Dec 2009)

And  I will add that my political correctness that has been jammed down my throat since birth know's my above statement is not the right thing to say.And in turn will be wrong in Canada. There is no way to win on that side of the argument.

However the Swiss have spoken. Good for them.


----------



## sm1lodon (6 Dec 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Last time I checked ARD-10 isnt driving around getting ready for the "final solution". There was a democratic vote where muslims are still allowed to practice their religion in Mosques they just banned minarets.
> 
> Must be nice to live in a country where the majority isnt trying to play nice with every minority and special interest group.Where the majority doesnt feel a social stigma to actually say what they feel.
> 
> ...



We can only hope. I note that the only group allowed to be vilified in American media in general are employed, white, heterosexual, monogomous Christians. Everyone else is sacred.


----------



## NL_engineer (6 Dec 2009)

Well the Swiss have there reasons, and even if we don't agree; they are free to make that choice.  Yes it may based of fair, but IMHO they are trying to defend their way of like and safety (they don't want to have to deal with terrorists who use Islam as a banner like the rest of Europe). 

IMO I think this is the stepping stones to something bigger.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Dec 2009)

What is the problem?  The Swiss have not banned Islam.  They have not banned the building of mosques.  They have banned the building of an architectural structure, the minaret.  The Swiss also ban the construction of buildings over a certain height, as do other cities and states around the world.  In Ottawa, there is a ban on buildings that are higher than the Peace Tower.  This is a ban on an architectural form, or in other words; a "Building Regulation"......Nothing more.


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Dec 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> What is the problem?  The Swiss have not banned Islam.  They have not banned the building of mosques.  They have banned the building of an architectural structure, the minaret.  The Swiss also ban the construction of buildings over a certain height, as do other cities and states around the world.  In Ottawa, there is a ban on buildings that are higher than the Peace Tower.  *This is a ban on an architectural form, or in other words; a "Building Regulation"......Nothing more.*


I disagree.  This is much more than a ban on an architectural form.  There was no ban emplaced for all tower-like spires  rising from places of worship (eg: steeples for Catholic churchs).  If it were, then I could see it as some sort of secular society wishing to avoid having religious symbols dominating the landscape.  Instead, they wish to limit the appearance of Islam in Switzerland.  Perhaps even projecting a message of "You're not welcome here."


----------



## Kat Stevens (6 Dec 2009)

And, just for the sake of a good dust up, so what if they're not welcome?  I didn't realize being welcoming is a requirement these days.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (6 Dec 2009)

Here's is some relative video's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FAt6ZnxNx0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkMU4ip6CpY&feature=related
(Shows the problem with "Islamaphobia" and political correctness) Britain in Denial.


And I agree Newfie sapper. I truley think this is a group of people who have had enough. And now instead of riots etc they are seeing what their legal system can actually legally do. Step 1.


----------



## sm1lodon (6 Dec 2009)

No country has any obligation to welcome anybody, for any reason, do they?

Segregating whom you welcome is practiced by countries, insurance companies, and other risk managers, and has been for a long time.

The average Muslim is not a terrorist.

However, the average terrorist claims to be a Muslim, and they have given Muslims a bad name. It may be reactionary, and it may not prevent terrorist attacks.

If it does not incite terrorist attacks on Switzerland, then great.

If terrorist attacks on Switzerland increase, then the Swiss might feel that they did the right thing and that more aggressive measures are in order.


----------



## mariomike (6 Dec 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkMU4ip6CpY&feature=related
> (Shows the problem with "Islamaphobia" and political correctness) Britain in Denial.



At the 3:10 mark: "Take their wives as war booty!"  
Reminds me of the old Henny Youngman joke, but he was just kidding!


----------



## X-mo-1979 (6 Dec 2009)

Funny as it is  ;D.
Unfortunately that's Europe.  I was watching a show a while back about either a German or Austrian town flat out refusing to rent,sell housing or provide things at their stores to muslims. 

No matter how we look at it here in Canada, European peoples are viewing the muslim influx,Sharia law, and mosques as a invasion of their traditions.


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Dec 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> I was watching a show a while back about either a German or Austrian town flat out refusing to rent,sell housing or provide things at their stores to muslims.


I was just thinking about something similar that those crazy Europeans did a few years back.  It was the result of a democratically elected government enacting that were meant to protect "real" Europeans:


> September 15, 1935)
> 
> Entirely convinced that the purity of German blood is essential to the further existence of the German people, and inspired by the uncompromising determination to safeguard the future of the German nation, the Reichstag has unanimously resolved upon the following law, which is promulgated herewith:
> 
> ...


I'm sorry, but I fear that this is but one step.  The anger is real and justified, I get that.  I just think that they are targetting the wrong folks. 
As for that vid from the UK in which Moslems are seen ranting and raving about something or other, and threatening bloodshed, well, I would simply crack down on those who spout such vile crap, and turf them into jail (or gaol).  Zero tolerance for that kind of crap.  
But to take it out on Moslems in general?  I think if they (the Euros) keep that up, then we remind them of scenes like this:





And then remind that that such "solutions" will not be tolerated, and we may have to resort to some of our own "old world" tactics:


----------



## Dissident (6 Dec 2009)

I do not remember Jews having aspirations to be the only one true religion, by force or other means. I do not remember synagogue being a recruiting and funding tool for extremist fond of terror acts.

While I want nothing to do with a new crusade, I do think it is fair to send a message to the Muslims at large that life will not be made easy for them until they clean up their own house.

The Swiss have drawn a line in the sand and I applaud them for it.


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Dec 2009)

Dissident said:
			
		

> I do not remember Jews having aspirations to be the only one true religion, by force or other means. I do not remember synagogue being a recruiting and funding tool for extremist fond of terror acts.


They (the Europeans) didn't just go for the Jews.  Yes, 6 million Jews were murdered, starved and worked to death by the Nazi government, but so were 4 million others, including Slavs, Homosexuals, mentally diseased people and the like.  

As stated, I get the threat.  The threat is not Islam.  The threat are scumbags who use Islam as an excuse to spread vile hatred.  It is also weak-kneed politicians who are afraid to stand up to bullies who claim "I'm Moslem!" whenever we challenge their acts.  I also fear the threat is those who wish to tar all Moslems with the same brush.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (6 Dec 2009)

I know your trying to make a nexus between the two.  And no doubt there are similarities.  However comparing the swiss to Nazi Germany isnt right either.

"I'm sorry, but I fear that this is but one step.  The anger is real and justified, I get that.  I just think that they are targetting the wrong folks.
As for that vid from the UK in which Moslems are seen ranting and raving about something or other, and threatening bloodshed, well, I would simply crack down on those who spout such vile crap, and turf them into jail (or gaol).  Zero tolerance for that kind of crap. 
But to take it out on Moslems in general? :"

The fact is the swiss or anyone else infact cannot "target" anyone.  No one is getting "cracked down on" as it isnt politically correct to do so.  These people may have voted to do some form of "damage" towards the muslim population, as it isnt politically correct to do anything else.Maybe?

It is not politically correct to protest against muslim violence, or take legal action (apparently) against them.


I agree with you that this is step one for a the Swiss. However I don't think we'll be flying Lancaster's over it anytime soon. Again that's a bit of a stretch.


Maybe it wouldn't be such a stretch to say a muslim nation would do the same as Nazi Germany.Jew's Christians, Non believers,homosexuals...would they be allowed to protest in the streets?Or will we be back in Europe to liberate someone from a muslim nation?

Which is more comparable? The intolerance of Islam or Switzerland in your theories?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8023990.stm
And there is the Koran verses I could post as well.


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Dec 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> I know your trying to make a nexus between the two.  And no doubt there are similarities.  However comparing the swiss to Nazi Germany isnt right either.


I was trying to equate European intolerance of the 1930s to European intolerance of the 21st Century.


			
				X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> The fact is the swiss or anyone else infact cannot "target" anyone.  No one is getting "cracked down on" as it isnt politically correct to do so.  These people may have voted to do some form of "damage" towards the muslim population, as it isnt politically correct to do anything else.Maybe?


Maybe not.  In one sentence you state that nobody is getting cracked down upon.  The next, you state that the people are voting on some sort of damage to Moslems.  That makes no sense to me.


			
				X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> It is not politically correct to protest against muslim violence, or take legal action (apparently) against them.


This is where I totally agree with you, and that this is one of the major problems.  I would offer that we don't target moslem violence, but we target violence: moslem, christian or jewish or hindi or whatever.
(Your example of one dude in a street gang torturing and killing a Jewish fellow I could counter with examples of street gangs killing and/or torturing moslems, homosexuals, whatever).
Now, in reference to the Koran, I've never read it from cover to cover.  I'm also fairly certain that there are some "suspect" parts in the Holy Bible that could be (and have been) taken out of context in order to spread hate and filth.


----------



## mariomike (6 Dec 2009)

"And then remind that that such "solutions" will not be tolerated, and we may have to resort to some of our own "old world" tactics:"

That's a photo of Dresden. It was part of Operation Thunderclap which was drafted in July 1944. It had nothing to do with the Holocaust.


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Dec 2009)

mariomike said:
			
		

> "And then remind that that such "solutions" will not be tolerated, and we may have to resort to some of our own "old world" tactics:"
> 
> That's a photo of Dresden. It was part of Operation Thunderclap which was drafted in July 1944. It had nothing to do with the Holocaust.


Understood. I was trying to illustrate our "reaction" to European intolerance in general, not the Holocaust in particular.  Just showing our potential to resort to some pretty brutish actions ourselves, and that we are no paper tigers.


----------



## mariomike (6 Dec 2009)

Thank you, Techno-V!


----------



## X-mo-1979 (6 Dec 2009)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Now, in reference to the Koran, I've never read it from cover to cover.  I'm also fairly certain that there are some "suspect" parts in the Holy Bible that could be (and have been) taken out of context in order to spread hate and filth.



Yes yourself as A christain are allowed to slam Babylonian baby's onto rocks etc etc. However last time I checked Christains were not taking stuff like numbers 31 (IIRC or 33?) as your doctrine for war/how you operate. 

The comparison of Muslim and Christain is not that valid. Sure there are christain crackpots out there! Heck Mr. poppoff was trying to sell me holy water on television to make me rich! However I feel as a non christain very safe in a Christian society. However every voice of Islam I have heard speaks of the laws that would be imposed.Those who dont convert will be taxed,homosexuals will be killed. I can say "Jesus Christ was a fake" (for example..not a actual statement) in public! What happens if a cartoon of Jesus appears?Nothing.

What happens if I insert Allah or Muhammad in the statement above?

I live by the rules of western society. If a Preist in  Italy says (for example) all Catholics will stone adulterers. Due to our laws Cathloics would of course not stone people.

Yet a fatwa (decision) get's issued for someones death and IT HAPPENS. Basically a religious figure in a different country has control of your country. As his fatwa is LAW.



As for the contradiction I will clarify. The Swiss cannot legally target muslims, therefore they are taking action to demonstrate that they still can try in legal ways.


The amount of stuff muslim demonstrators get away with is unreal. I don't think we would have allowed communist supporters the right. Not to mention allow their message to be spread over MSM for free. Which is all preventing and arresting the large amount muslim extremist in europe is doing.


----------



## Kat Stevens (6 Dec 2009)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> They (the Europeans) didn't just go for the Jews.  Yes, 6 million Jews were murdered, starved and worked to death by the Nazi government, but so were 4 million others, including Slavs, Homosexuals, mentally diseased people and the like.
> 
> As stated, I get the threat.  The threat is not Islam.  The threat are scumbags who use Islam as an excuse to spread vile hatred.  It is also weak-kneed politicians who are afraid to stand up to bullies who claim "I'm Moslem!" whenever we challenge their acts.  I also fear the threat is those who wish to tar all Moslems with the same brush.




You have invoked the Nazis, therefore I believe that by most accepted forum etiquette, you lose.


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Dec 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> The amount of stuff muslim demonstrators get away with is unreal.


I agree 100%.  I would rather that the populace lobby the government to enforce the laws that are already in place.


----------



## northern girl (6 Dec 2009)

"This is much more than a ban on an architectural form.  There was no ban emplaced for all tower-like spires  rising from places of worship (eg: steeples for Catholic churchs).  If it were, then I could see it as some sort of secular society wishing to avoid having religious symbols dominating the landscape.  Instead, they wish to limit the appearance of Islam in Switzerland.  Perhaps even projecting a message of "You're not welcome here."  "

As I understand it, minaret's are a symbol of Islamic *political* power. IF this is true, I can understand why a democratic, sovereign state governed by the rule of law would take this course of action to protect its way of life. For Islamic fundamentalists, the Caliphate, and the goal of one world ruled by Islam, is real. In this case with the Swiss, I don't think it's about a secular society wanting to ban religious symbols, nor is it about banning the appearance of Islam in Switzerland - it's about preventing the loss of their political system, whether real or symbolic. And I say good on them.


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Dec 2009)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> You have invoked the Nazis, therefore I believe that by most accepted forum etiquette, you lose.


I think that in this case, Godwin's law doesn't apply.


----------



## Kat Stevens (6 Dec 2009)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I think that in this case, Godwin's law doesn't apply.



I disagree.  There are a whole shit load of dots for you to connect to get from banning a building to firing the ovens and opening the showers.


----------



## Michael OLeary (6 Dec 2009)

northern girl said:
			
		

> As I understand it, minaret's are a symbol of Islamic *political* power. IF this is true, I can understand why a democratic, sovereign state governed by the rule of law would take this course of action to protect its way of life. For Islamic fundamentalists, the Caliphate, and the goal of one world ruled by Islam, is real. In this case with the Swiss, I don't think it's about a secular society wanting to ban religious symbols, nor is it about banning the appearance of Islam in Switzerland - it's about preventing the loss of their political system, whether real or symbolic. And I say good on them.



Since you put forward the theory that minarets are political symbols, and then immediately covered your ass with the statement "if this is true" - can you provide a credible source for that connection? (I.e., one that isn't a spin-off of a current news story on the issue.)


----------



## armyvern (6 Dec 2009)

northern girl said:
			
		

> As I understand it, minaret's are a symbol of Islamic *political* power. IF this is true, I can understand why a democratic, sovereign state governed by the rule of law would take this course of action to protect its way of life. For Islamic fundamentalists, the Caliphate, and the goal of one world ruled by Islam, is real. In this case with the Swiss, I don't think it's about a secular society wanting to ban religious symbols, nor is it about banning the appearance of Islam in Switzerland - it's about preventing the loss of their political system, whether real or symbolic. And I say good on them.



Interesting spin I guess. As I understand it, the word "minaret" comes from the noor - the word for light - as minarets were first erected to guide travellers along the eastern/asian trade routes. Just as Alexandria had it's lighthouses to guide ships, the trade routes had their minarets. With the spread of Islam, the minaret found itself placed next to all places of importance - mosques, market places and monumental buildings - criers calling for prayer no longer had to mount the roofs of the tallest house around as the minaret served a dual-purpose when placed next to a mosque. Today, some of the oldest examples of minarets can still be found at market entrances (or what used to be market entrances). Certainly doesn't seem very political to me.

Two quotes come to mind:  History is alkways the first casualty of politics; and Partisans have no respect for history.

One would also note (with a little research) that both the earliest Christian Churches and the earliest mosques had no minarets or steeples/spires. As the minaret found itself placed next to mosques, the eventual spread of Islam resulted in Christian churches close to 'expansion zones' beginning to erect steeples/spires on their holy places as well. Islam chose to erect their minaret next to the mosque for it's dual purpose, and that influence of calling to prayer from 'higher ground' then spread to Christian Houses of Worship.

Perhaps people are getting the idea that minarets are political from the fact that throughout the 1000s - minarets were banned when the Almovarids ruled North Africa and Spain; later, when the Almohads conquered the Almovarids ... minarets were once again erected, in abundance, to show that they had won back their lands. Ssome _could_, I guess, call _that_ political - but that's not where minarets originated and it wasn't the original intent ... like I said - history is usually attempted to be re-written by persons having an agenda to do so.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (7 Dec 2009)

She is most likely referring to a old speech made by Turkey's PM. Basically calling the mosques across the world Islam's barracks and the Minaret's their bayonets. That's where most MSM is relating that comment towards.
Mosques are our barracks,
domes our helmets,
minarets our bayonets,
believers our soldiers.
This holy army guards my religion.

Kinda moot really.

However when constructed, mosques are to be higher than other religious centers according to Shari'a. Most mosques being the buildings built latter hold a dominating  stature over churches and synagogues. Which could be perceived as dominance by some.

Here's a thought for discussion.

Many of out older church's had bell towers. Now we see many church buildings which look more like office buildings, as "bell's to summon" are pretty obsolete. So what purpose does the minaret's actually serve?  The call to prayer is not done by the Imam in the tower. Infact in Switzerland the call to prayer is not done at all,due to city bylaws on noise.

Some sect's of Islam do not use minarets. The Wahhabi mosques for example.

So what purpose does the Minaret serve? 


As well in Austria 
"Zoning laws in two provinces, Carinthia and Vorarlberg, have been amended to make it more difficult to build minarets that "conflict with the traditional appearance" of towns."

So it's more than the Swiss that do not want it in their towns.


----------



## armyvern (7 Dec 2009)

The earliest bell towers date from circa 700 (Santa Maria Della Cella, Viterbo and Sant Ambrogio in Milan) . Older Christian places of worship had none (earlier ones with none still existing: Prado, Parenzo, San Lorenzo in Milan). Their introduction co-incides with the Arabic spread to Syria & Mesopotamia. And, these (like minarets) were not attached to the places of worship at that time, but were located generally next to it.

Some sects of Christianity do not utilize these bell-towers either. Moot point.

In some places, the call to prayer still occurs from the minaret, but not everywhere. So, what purpose does it serve for those where the call to prayer no longer occurs from them? Tradition. I know a few churches who still have a bell-fry ... unused as it may be.

ALL moot.

Your post highlights my point exactly: from a quoted Imam in the 21st century, somehow we can "change history" to infer that minarets are and have always been a political symbol and serve no other purpose. That is re-writing history. 

Minarets were around hundreds of years before churches had bellfries, and were around before Islamic mosques had minarets. They were guideposts for those travelling throughout the mideast - to markets, to meeting centres - they were adapted to serve a dual purpose by Islam who erected them near their mosques for both to guide and to be utilized for the call to prayer.

What we make of them today, depends upon your partisanship and how one wishes to rewrite the history of how & why they came into existance in the first place. many are eager to ignore centuries worth of history based upon 21st century events. As I said, partisans have no time for actual history - they're most interested in only the history with which the greatest number of voting constituants remembers in their lifetime.


----------



## Kat Stevens (7 Dec 2009)

So we've established that the minaret is a utilitarian structure that predates Islam, but has been adapted to religious purposes.  It is therefore not a symbol of Islam, but of Middle Eastern culture, and as such the banning of them is no smear on Islam at all.  Rather just a banning of a type of building, therefore a zoning issue, not an expression of intolerance, fear, or hate...QED.  Time to shut off the gas, padlock the shower rooms, and put away the old 78s of the Host Wessel Lied.


----------



## armyvern (7 Dec 2009)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> So we've established that the minaret is a utilitarian structure that predates Islam, but has been adapted to religious purposes.  It is therefore not a symbol of Islam, but of Middle Eastern culture, and as such the banning of them is no smear on Islam at all.  Rather just a banning of a type of building, therefore a zoning issue, not an expression of intolerance, fear, or hate...QED.  Time to shut off the gas, padlock the shower rooms, and put away the old 78s of the Host Wessel Lied.



Awesome. So, we've identified that minarets were originally adopted from eastern culture to serve a dual-purpose (call to prayer & guide lights). It then followed that Christians then adopted same for their call to prayer.

So, following logic, having both been adopted from mid-eastern culture, can we expect the same ban to be extended to both Islamic & Christian places of worship? Or just the one? Some bellfries are still used for call to prayer ... some minarets are still used for exactly the same purpose.

But, this all makes me curious now - so I'm off to google-fu - wondering if the "noise ban" earlier referred to which prevents the call to prayer from being issued from the minarets in Switzerland also extends to the peeling of bells in Christian houses in that nation ... ... ... ...


----------



## Kat Stevens (7 Dec 2009)

Perhaps it's because, horror of horrors, Switzerland is actually a primarily Christian nation, with Christian values and a Christian lifestyle?  We certainly are quick to slap down our PC-centric view that the Swiss are hate filled ignorant fear mongering Nazis, rather than maybe just people who don't want Middle Eastern architecture in their Central European country.  Sometimes it's just horses, not zebras.


----------



## armyvern (7 Dec 2009)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Perhaps it's because, horror of horrors, Switzerland is actually a primarily Christian nation, with Christian values and a Christian lifestyle?  We certainly are quick to slap down our PC-centric view that the Swiss are hate filled ignorant fear mongering Nazis, rather than maybe just people who don't want Middle Eastern architecture in their Central European country.  Sometimes it's just horses, not zebras.



I've no issues with the Swiss setting standards for buildings erected in their nation, much like the Australians have regulated the appearance/size of minarets in some of their jurisdictions (note the Australians have not banned minarets). 

What bothers me is the double-standards; I'm actually quite pleased to live in Canada where one is free to practise their religion and treated to the same standards as other religions. Although I am an atheist, I have no issues with anyone practising the religion of their choosing.

It's the extremists that I have issues with (and Christianity has a few RTFOOer right-wingers itself) ... but I won't be tarring/re-acting to any entire religion with an extremist brush anytime soon.  A lot of what is happening in our world today is in reaction to the extremeist events of the past decade - warranted in some situations, not in others.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (7 Dec 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> So what purpose does the minaret's actually serve?  The call to prayer is not done by the Imam in the tower.



Well, you'd have a really good antenna tower for your listening devices once they are planted?   >

I got this email via an unproven source.  It makes some interesting points:



> This is by far the best explanation of the Muslim terrorist situation I have ever read. His references to past history are accurate and clear. Not long, easy to understand, and well worth the read. The author of this email is said to be Dr. Emanuel Tanay, a well-known and well-respected psychiatrist.
> 
> A German's View on Islam
> 
> ...



All that being said, I don't see that the minaret ban will do much.  You can still hatch terror plots in madrases, and those you can plonk down anywhere.  Most of the mosques in western Kandahar that I saw didn't have them either (although the really Gucci ones did, the same ones that had all the poppy husks piled outside them  ).

I _suspect_ that the Swiss population is getting bent by Islamic encroachment, and a savvy political party picked up on a mood and has created a lightning rod effect.  When it is poll time again, they will reap dividends by showing that they listened to the will of the people.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (7 Dec 2009)

Nice one.


----------



## armyvern (7 Dec 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Nice one.



They should work twice as well if we just glued our evil spy Poppy-quarters to them.


----------



## vonGarvin (7 Dec 2009)

I took a break from replying, right after I read the post about Minarets being symbols of Islamic political power.  (Before I reply now, Vern put some very good points out there, and her posts should be read to keep everyone focused).  Anyway, no matter the source or origin of the minaret, I understand that it is associated with Islam.  Just as the Steeple is associated with Christianity.  Now, tell me, does the Roman Catholic Church _not_ have power?  The Vatican has embassies in many nations in the world, and the former pope is credited with lighting the spark that brought down the East Bloc!  Remember, I'm a practicing RC myself when I say that!


Now, for the allusion between now and the early 20th Century Europe, the similarities between now in CH and then in DE are all too similar.  So, Godwin is quite appropriate here.

Banning Minarets does nothing but piss off Moslems, and it should also piss off any person of faith.  That's my $0.02 worth.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (7 Dec 2009)

Over 100,000 people signed a petition. 2.67 million people voted. It went to referendum, and they won.

Anyway P.C win's.

Swiss are xenophobic racists. All 57.5% of voters.


----------



## NL_engineer (7 Dec 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Many of out older church's had bell towers. Now we see many church buildings which look more like office buildings, as "bell's to summon" are pretty obsolete. So what purpose does the minaret's actually serve?  The call to prayer is not done by the Imam in the tower. Infact in Switzerland the call to prayer is not done at all,due to city bylaws on noise.



What city would that be?  From my time in Zurich, the church bells chimed on the hour every hour.  Longer at prayer times.


----------



## armyvern (7 Dec 2009)

I'm hoping that no one here under actually suffers from any delusions that would have them believing that the SVP Party (who tabled and ran with this bill) is a centralist party; they are ultra-right wing & they have garnered themselves some more votes in the next national election by picking up on the sentiments of the past decade or so (but sentiments which the party themselves has held for decades). Just google some of their 2007 election adds if you think they aren't harbouring any outright racial overtones. Also on their agenda: ban Muslim cemetaries in Switzerland. 

Yep, this one was won by a vote in the referendum but after googling their campaign ads and website, I can only refer back to a quote I've heard before:

Sometimes the test of a true democracy is by how well it protects the rights of it's minorities.

You won't get any of that with this lot.

PS: The noise ban is not applicable to churches; funny that.


----------



## YZT580 (8 Dec 2009)

There was a two year or more legal tussle in St. Catherines over a 17 floor condo they are going to build on the Lakeshore.  People filed complaints saying it didn't fit in with the architecture.  MacDonald's wasn't allowed to build in Rome because Golden arches didn't fit in with The Trevi Fountain so they had to compromise.  Minarets do not fit in with most Europena architecture.  In Canada it doesn't matter much because, with the exception of some Maritime villages and those curved metal staircases in Montreal we don't have any distinctive urban architecture.  (I forgot to include our barns and privies in that list).  

Bell towers were not initially part of the church per se but were constructed with the principle function of an alarm plus they served as a blockhouse for defense.  Since the church was usually the most substantial building in town it only made sense to combine the two functions.  Steeples on the other hand were purpose built to point to Heaven.   

If the purpose of the ban is to promote architectural purity then maybe the eastern folks need to adopt a slightly different style of architecture to blend in.  If they want to stay with the minaret shape they are basically saying in your face and the Swiss are fully within their rights to say not our face you don't.  If we are supposed to be tolerent of others'feelings it is equally correct that the newcomers, as welcome additions, need to conform slightly to ours.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (9 Dec 2009)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> What city would that be?  From my time in Zurich, the church bells chimed on the hour every hour.  Longer at prayer times.



When I was in Italy it was ever 15 minutes. One bell for quarter after, two for the half-hour, three for the 45 minute mark and the hour depending on what hour it was (e.g) 12 midnight X 12 bells).


----------



## NL_engineer (9 Dec 2009)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> When I was in Italy it was ever 15 minutes. One bell for quarter after, two for the half-hour, three for the 45 minute mark and the hour depending on what hour it was (e.g) 12 midnight X 12 bells).



One of the churches next to my hotel in Zurich was like that  :  Nothing better then having to listen to a bell chime for 10 freaking min at 9 am on a Saturday, after crawling into bed only hours earlier (quite drunk I should add)  :.


----------



## Michael OLeary (11 Dec 2009)

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jEtHJMaOboide2wITSxabVwvHTYg



> *Swiss businessman builds minaret in protest*
> (AFP) – 23 hours ago
> 
> BUSSIGNY, Switzerland — A Swiss businessman appalled by his fellow countrymen's decision to ban minarets has extended a chimney above his company building into a minaret in protest.
> ...



More at link.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Dec 2009)

When a vote goes the way someone likes it's social justice.
When it doesn't go how they like they cry foul.

Maybe the swiss are just trying to avoid this.


----------



## armyvern (11 Dec 2009)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> When a vote goes the way someone likes it's social justice.
> When it doesn't go how they like they cry foul.
> 
> Maybe the swiss are just trying to avoid *this*.



I'd like to avoid "this" as well; but there are ways to do *that* without invoking "collective punishment" that inludes the 99.5% who are not radical extremeists no? If the Swiss were _actually_ at war - that'd be illegal.


----------



## muskrat89 (11 Dec 2009)

Here's something going on where I live:

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/12/04/20091204phx-ntemple1205.html


----------



## George Wallace (11 Dec 2009)

How big do trees grow in Phoenix?


----------



## Michael OLeary (11 Dec 2009)

Mormon Church, North Phoenix, (Google Maps)


----------



## George Wallace (11 Dec 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Mormon Church, North Phoenix, (Google Maps)



Fairly scrawny trees in an arid region.  Not even twenty feet high.  I don't see how the Church can rationalize planting trees to "obscure" a 126 foot Temple; unless they expect the residents in the surrounding single level dwellings to walk up and hug a tree (ie.  Face plant into a tree trunk).


----------



## armyvern (11 Dec 2009)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Here's something going on where I live:
> 
> http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/12/04/20091204phx-ntemple1205.html



I was about to ask the same question as George!! Big trees around there I guess!! Is there some little-known & obscure bylaw in Phoenix that allows for bypassing of height restrictions should the builder "obscure the view with trees"?? A loophole that the Mormons are using to their advantage so to speak?

Just to be clear - I'm not saying the Swiss should just "allow" minarets; I've said before in this thread, that if the problem with the minaret is actually one of "not blending in" with the local architecture ... that that can be solved with building guidelines just as some jurisdictions in Australia have done.

I've no issues with pers in Phoenix wishing to see a structore more in keeping with the local architecture and height requirements; nor would I have any such issue if that's what the Swiss had went for. Phoenix residents also seem to expect public safety concerns due to traffic flow to the area of this temple - that doesn't seem to be the case in Switzerland.

They, though, went with an outright banning of a minaret while steeples are still permitted - just as their noise ban is applicable only to Muslim call to prayer (issued 5 times per day), but not to the peeling of church bells on the hour every hour (in some cases marking every half hour - some even marking every quarter hour).

The SVP (the ultra-right wing party who managed to rise the "masses" to this latest ban) has also indicated that they wish to see a ban on Muslim cemetaries in Switzerland in the future ... that certainly seems like a case of "not here ... not by you people".


----------



## the 48th regulator (11 Dec 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Mormon Church, North Phoenix, (Google Maps)



Google Map Street View of the Church.


----------



## Kat Stevens (11 Dec 2009)

Why is it so hard to understand that the Swiss want Swiss cities to look Swiss, not Iranian, Jordanian, or Saudi Arabian?  Christian churches have been an integral part of life in Switzerland since the year dot.  They are as much a part of the landscape as the Alps, clock shops and chocolate factories.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Dec 2009)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Google Map Street View of the Church.



Like I said; unless you are doing a faceplant into a tree trunk, those trees don't hide anything.  Try moving out a block or two and the current church is twice the height of the trees easily.........and they want to enlarge the church making it higher.


----------



## the 48th regulator (11 Dec 2009)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Why is it so hard to understand that the Swiss want Swiss cities to look Swiss, not Iranian, Jordanian, or Saudi Arabian?  Christian churches have been an integral part of life in Switzerland since the year dot.  They are as much a part of the landscape as the Alps, clock shops and chocolate factories.



Don't forget those neat knives that have all sorts of doo hickeys.  Always remember the doo hickeys.

dileas

tess


----------



## George Wallace (11 Dec 2009)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Why is it so hard to understand that the Swiss want Swiss cities to look Swiss, not Iranian, Jordanian, or Saudi Arabian?  Christian churches have been an integral part of life in Switzerland since the year dot.  They are as much a part of the landscape as the Alps, clock shops and chocolate factories.



And I think this is a valid point.


----------



## VinceW (11 Dec 2009)

Every nation in Europe has the right to decide what's moral.
These are our homelands,let us not ever forget that.


----------



## the 48th regulator (11 Dec 2009)

VinceW said:
			
		

> Every nation in Europe has the right to decide who gets in.
> These are our homelands,let us not ever forget that.



Homelands To whom?

dileas

tess


----------



## VinceW (12 Dec 2009)

To us people that are white,they/we have every right to decide what's right and wrong to shape what our countries will become for future generations.


----------



## the 48th regulator (12 Dec 2009)

VinceW said:
			
		

> To us people that are white,they/we have every right to decide what's right and wrong to shape what our countries will become for future generations.



Listen Francis,

Off you go to http://www.stormfront.org/forum/, if you want to spout that shite, and not know the true history of Europe.

dileas

tess


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Dec 2009)

VinceW said:
			
		

> To us people that are white,they/we have every right to decide what's right and wrong to shape what our countries will become for future generations.


 :rofl: You're shitting, right? C'mon, really, just fuckin' us around aren't you. :clown:

You MAY have some semblence of a point in there somewhere, but your delivery and comprehension of the subject sucks.......................really big time.


----------



## VinceW (12 Dec 2009)

I'm not an advocate of German morality,I know that the Jews are not plotting to overthrow the White race,never have been,never will.

 The fact is at the current trend of immigration is that non-whites will be the majoity of our lands(Europe)one day is true and I don't wan't that to happen,so if Europeans can find a non-horrifing way to stop this from happening,I support it.


----------



## the 48th regulator (12 Dec 2009)

VinceW said:
			
		

> I'm not an advocate of German morality,I know that the Jews are not plotting to overthrow the White race,never have been,never will.
> 
> The fact is at the current trend of immigration is that non-whites will be the majoity of our lands(Europe)one day is true and I don't wan't that to happen,so if Europeans can find a non-horrifing way to stop this from happening,I support it.



 :rofl:

I think the ding I heard was for your microwave pizza, better run up before Mum wakes up and scolds you....

All hail Vince and his views....


dileas

tess


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Dec 2009)

VinceW said:
			
		

> I'm not an advocate of German morality,I know that the Jews are not plotting to overthrow the White race,never have been,never will.
> 
> The fact is at the current trend of immigration is that non-whites will be the majoity of our lands(Europe)one day is true and I don't wan't that to happen,so if Europeans can find a non-horrifing way to stop this from happening,I support it.



Just quit, before I put my Mod hat on.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Dec 2009)

Folks,

Let's move away from this before it goes south. No need to provide a soap box.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## VinceW (12 Dec 2009)

Alright,I'm done here,this topic is too controvesial to be discussed any further from my and millions of others point of view.


----------



## Dean22 (12 Dec 2009)

Jeez, some people here are really clueless about Islam. Minaret a sign of Islamic power? Muslims wanting to rule the world under one religion? Christians and Jewish people are infidels?

All these are as plausible as an Islamic person believing that the Jew Bear from the movie "Inglorious Basterds" eats Nazis and Palestinians for breakfast.

One of the major points I have learned from studying Islam is that they supremely teach that all religions (Judaism and Christianity) that worship the "one" god (iconoclastic religion) are brothers. The conflict between Christians and Muslims and Jews and Muslims aren't even that old and were started over disputes of land. (I don't know about you guys but I would be pretty pissed if Ontario was suddenly renamed in 1948 to Israel and became a new country).

Also, the infidels in the main book of Islam do not refer to Christians/Jewish people/non believers but in fact they refer to the people they were hunted down by from Mecha. These were "infidels" that believed in over 300 gods of stone, clay and man made material. They had many battles with them during the early years of Islam due to little choice of the matter.


The main problem that causes so much confusion amongst the religion is that people who KNOW the religion know that it is a very peaceful religion and has ideals higher than others (I've never read anything in a bible saying how you should treat other religions correct me if I am wrong). The people who misinterpret this book are people who can't read it or people who have higher agendas and use it to further their goals.


Imagine if today the bible was written in latin and on top of that when you translated it to English it would be word jumbled around a lot.


Although, one thing that is very different over there than over here is that here in the west we rank Country over Religion. But in the middle east countries could go to war over the simple fact of sect. 


One of the odd things I found about the whole Israeli wars is that Egypt + other middle eastern countries wanted to reunite Palestine as a country again. The US was against this and thus supported Israel since it's birth in billions of dollars.

But this situation just happened again recently with Georgia trying to reunite with South Ossetia and the U.S. supported their mission to reunite their country after it had been broken up.

Confusing no?


----------



## the 48th regulator (12 Dec 2009)

Dean22 said:
			
		

> One of the major points I have learned from studying Islam is that they supremely teach that all religions (Judaism and Christianity) that worship the "one" god (iconoclastic religion) are brothers. The conflict between Christians and Muslims and Jews and Muslims aren't even that old and were started over disputes of land. (I don't know about you guys but I would be pretty pissed if Ontario was suddenly renamed in 1948 to Israel and became a new country).
> 
> Also, the infidels in the main book of Islam do not refer to Christians/Jewish people/non believers but in fact they refer to the people they were hunted down by from Mecha. These were "infidels" that believed in over 300 gods of stone, clay and man made material. They had many battles with them during the early years of Islam due to little choice of the matter.



Although your studies seem that you have put much effort, the word "infidels" is a 15th century reference from the Christians to indicate the Muslims, as they were not baptized and lay fidelity to Christ.  It is now used by all of the Abramatic beleifs to indicate, the other religions.

Just wanted to help you in your endeavours.

dileas

tess


----------



## Dean22 (12 Dec 2009)

By the way I searched Swiss Architecture and for a moment I thought a minaret was in the google search but apparently buildings that look like minarets "ARE" Swiss design in looks.

http://thedailyexplorer.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/9.jpg (Swiss Architecture)


http://www.molon.de/galleries/Brunei/Jameasr/images01/03%20Minaret%20with%20golden%20dome.jpg (A Minaret)




I don't see much of a difference besides the height difference.


Maybe people are afraid of Muslims putting ICBM's in the minarets  :


_edited to stay on topic_


----------



## George Wallace (12 Dec 2009)

:



			
				Dean22 said:
			
		

> Anyone else think of Nazism when you read Vince's posts?
> 
> 
> By the way I searched Swiss Architecture and for a moment I thought a minaret was in the google search but apparently buildings that look like minarets "ARE" Swiss design in looks.
> ...



You are showing a "roof design" not a minaret.                                                                                                                                    You are showing a "roof design" not a minaret.  



Here is a definition:



minaret definition mina·ret (min′ə ret′, min′ə ret′)

noun

a high, slender tower attached to a mosque, with one or more projecting balconies from which a muezzin, or crier, calls the people to prayer
Etymology: Fr < Turk menāret < Ar manāra(t), lighthouse, minaret < base of nār, fire


----------



## Dean22 (12 Dec 2009)

George I think you missed out on the point of my post. I was showing a Swiss Architecture example to show that they are _not_ far apart in architectural design which, is one of the new excuses that is popping up. I did not say that the Swiss building was a minaret.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Dec 2009)

Dean22 said:
			
		

> George I think you missed out on the point of my post. I was showing a Swiss Architecture example to show that they are _not_ far apart in architectural design which, is one of the new excuses that is popping up. I did not say that the Swiss building was a minaret.




They are far different in design.  A roof does not make a structure a minaret.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Dec 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Folks,
> 
> Let's move away from this before it goes south. No need to provide a soap box.
> 
> Milnet.ca Staff



So I'm wondering what part of my above post people didn't understand?

Keep it on track or I'll call the janitor in.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Dec 2009)

Sorry Recceguy I wasn't sure if my post was southbound or not, thanks for cleaning up y mess  ;D


----------



## NL_engineer (12 Dec 2009)

Dean22 said:
			
		

> One of the major points I have learned from studying Islam is that they supremely teach that all religions (Judaism and Christianity) that worship the "one" god (iconoclastic religion) are brothers. The conflict between Christians and Muslims and Jews and Muslims aren't even that old and were started over disputes of land. (I don't know about you guys but I would be pretty pissed if Ontario was suddenly renamed in 1948 to Israel and became a new country).
> 
> Also, the infidels in the main book of Islam do not refer to Christians/Jewish people/non believers but in fact they refer to the people they were hunted down by from Mecha. These were "infidels" that believed in over 300 gods of stone, clay and man made material. They had many battles with them during the early years of Islam due to little choice of the matter.
> 
> ...



It is all good in Acidiema, but when most peoples exposure to Islam is the radicals preaching death and destruction; how is they going to perceive the religion?


----------



## zipperhead_cop (13 Dec 2009)

> The main problem that causes so much confusion amongst the religion is that people who KNOW the religion know that it is a very peaceful religion and has ideals higher than others (I've never read anything in a bible saying how you should treat other religions correct me if I am wrong). The people who misinterpret this book are people who can't read it or people who have higher agendas and use it to further their goals.



IMO, any religion can be peaceful or not.  It is subject to interpretation and distortion by any number of individuals.  The problem is that there are large groups (radicals) and whole countries that support them (Iran, Saudi, Pakistan et al) who are very organized (read: Hezbollah, Al Qaeda) who have a stated goal to transform the planet into an Islamic caliphate.  If you are not with them, you can be killed and it's cool with Allah according to them.  Where things go south is that the moderate Muslims don't speak up loudly or in a significant way (could we blame the MSM for not getting the message out from moderates?) thus emboldening the radicals through the implied consent the get from the silent majority.  I also perceive that Muslims collectively are on the fence if they should even try to stop the wave of radicalism, since if it does go their way it will be a good day to be part of Team Islam.  As I mentioned elsewhere, no reason to change anything if you think you are on the winning team.  I imagine being in Berlin in 1941 was pretty cool and nobody was too worried about dialing things back.  

So whether it will serve them the way they hope in the long run or not, the Swiss are taking the fight to their perceived enemy and being proactive.  My prediction?  You'll see some terrorist-type acts sprout up there and further harden the peoples attitudes towards Islam.  Maybe Switzerland will be the Israel of Europe one day?


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Dec 2009)

Good on the Swiss for putting their foot down and saying NO to something they believe in compared to Canada who gives ground over and over and over.


----------



## Greymatters (16 Dec 2009)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> Good on the Swiss for putting their foot down and saying NO to something they believe in compared to Canada who gives ground over and over and over.



In the end its their country.  It sounds like they are more concerned with preserving their current  Swiss culture than with catering to the demands of minority groups.  Im sure a group wishing to build a series of buildings based on Japanese pagodas or a Somali mudbrick huts would also receive a negativ vote...


----------



## vonGarvin (16 Dec 2009)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> In the end its their country.  It sounds like they are more concerned with preserving their current  Swiss culture than with catering to the demands of minority groups.  Im sure a group wishing to build a series of buildings based on Japanese pagodas or a Somali mudbrick huts would also receive a negativ vote...


I highly doubt that...


----------



## mariomike (16 Dec 2009)

Story in the paper on 12 Dec. saying, "Most Swiss women, who only got to vote in 1971, had no idea the Balkan Muslim women in Switzerland are as liberated as they are." Went on to compare it to the situation back in the 1930's.


----------



## Greymatters (16 Dec 2009)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I highly doubt that...



Its only an example...


----------



## Kat Stevens (16 Dec 2009)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I highly doubt that...


You can make a pretty decent guess at the objectives of the party that raised the refferendum, but you have no way of knowing the motivation of the majority that supported it.  Ain't democracy swell, or is it only good when the special ones get their way?


----------



## vonGarvin (16 Dec 2009)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> You can make a pretty decent guess at the objectives of the party that raised the refferendum, but you have no way of knowing the motivation of the majority that supported it.  Ain't democracy swell, or is it only good when the special ones get their way?


Here's my thousands of words in response:

















If 10000 people voted, then there are 10000 reasons why they voted that way.  I totally get what the Swiss (and other Euros) are thinking: the enemy is at the gates.  In some cases, in many cases, they are right.  Having said that, I think that they missed the mark on this one.  Minarets are things.  Banning them does nothing.  It's not even a band-aid to a festering wound.


----------



## Kat Stevens (16 Dec 2009)

Again;  in the bottom left corner of every one of those posters is the same logo.  Their motivation is self evident.  That of the Swiss majority is not.


----------



## mariomike (16 Dec 2009)

I came across this story on the subject, if interested:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6936267.ece


----------



## vonGarvin (16 Dec 2009)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Again;  in the bottom left corner of every one of those posters is the same logo.  Their motivation is self evident.  That of the Swiss majority is not.


OK, I get it.  You and I agree that the SVP campaigned for the ban for obvious reasons.  I will not agree that every voter voted for a similar reason; however, I'm fairly certain that the integrity of Swiss Architecture or the price of tea in China was the reason.  As I stated, if there were ten thousand voters, then there were ten thousand reasons for each of the ballots cast.

But I think a blind man can understand that those posters (and the campaigns that accompanied them) had some effect.  

Still, I maintain, the ban is useless, UNLESS they just want foreigners (and non-catholics) to feel unwelcome.


----------



## Kat Stevens (16 Dec 2009)

Of course the posters had some effect, perhaps not the desired one in all cases.  That's what posters are for.  My only point is that you implied a page or two back, that everyone who supports the ban has a brown shirt and jackboots stashed under the bed, waiting for their moment.  You can't know that, that's all I'm saying.


----------



## vonGarvin (16 Dec 2009)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Of course the posters had some effect, perhaps not the desired one in all cases.  That's what posters are for.  My only point is that you implied a page or two back, that everyone who supports the ban has a brown shirt and jackboots stashed under the bed, waiting for their moment.  You can't know that, that's all I'm saying.


Fair enough.  If that's how it came across, I apologise.  (The SVP are the brown shirts, as far as I'm concerned.)


----------



## sm1lodon (16 Dec 2009)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Still, I maintain, the ban is useless, UNLESS they just want foreigners... to feel unwelcome.



I don't think the people who put out those posters feel that having no immigration at all would really have a deleterious effect on the health of the country at all.


----------



## Kat Stevens (16 Dec 2009)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Fair enough.  If that's how it came across, I apologise.  (The SVP are the brown shirts, as far as I'm concerned.)



Agree completely.


----------



## Greymatters (18 Dec 2009)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Fair enough.  If that's how it came across, I apologise.  (The SVP are the brown shirts, as far as I'm concerned.)



The docs Ive read on this org describe them mostly as democratic conservative - is there a credible link to post-WW2 brownshirt-type parties?


----------



## Sythen (8 Jul 2011)

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20110708/euro-human-rights-court-swiss-minarets-ban-challenge-dismissed-110708/

GENEVA — The European Court of Human Rights on Friday dismissed a challenge by Muslim groups to Switzerland's minaret building ban.

A panel of seven judges with the Strasbourg, France-based, court ruled that the people filing the lawsuits couldn't claim to be victims. The ruling's timing coincided with the Muslim day of prayer.

Swiss voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional ban on minarets in 2009 that barred any more construction of the iconic mosque towers.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just a small update on this from CTV.


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Jul 2011)

Sythen said:
			
		

> The ruling's timing coincided with the Muslim day of prayer.


As an aside, this sentence has no place in the story.  At sundown today, it will be Sabbat (for Jews), and 8 July is the anniversary of the day that SS Unterscharführer Franz Staudegger, commanding a Panzerkampfwagen VI E ("Tiger") knocked out 22 T-34s (he was facing 50) at the Battle of Kursk.  So bloody what.....


----------



## larry Strong (8 Jul 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> As an aside, this sentence has no place in the story.  At sundown today, it will be Sabbat (for Jews), and 8 July is the anniversary of the day *that SS Unterscharführer Franz Staudegger, commanding a Panzerkampfwagen VI E ("Tiger") knocked out 22 T-34s (he was facing 50) at the Battle of Kursk*.  So bloody what.....



Interesting tidbit of Cliff Clavinesque information  ;D


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Jul 2011)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Interesting tidbit of Cliff Clavinesque information  ;D


;D

I knew that on 08 July, 1943, the Battle of Kursk was raging into its 3rd full day.  A quick search for an interesting fact from the battle on that day yielded said info


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (8 Jul 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> As an aside, this sentence has no place in the story.  At sundown today, it will be Sabbat (for Jews), and 8 July is the anniversary of the day that SS Unterscharführer Franz Staudegger, commanding a Panzerkampfwagen VI E ("Tiger") knocked out 22 T-34s (he was facing 50) at the Battle of Kursk.  So bloody what.....



True that, but don't blame Sythen. His post is just quoting the first few sentences of the CTV article verbatim.


----------



## Sythen (8 Jul 2011)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> True that, but don't blame Sythen. His post is just quoting the first few sentences of the CTV article verbatim.



Thank you. I don't believe he was directing that at me so much as annoyed by the addition from the original writer. If I am wrong, then refer to OGBD's last post


----------

