As far as the Swiss and their country, the Swiss constitution allows for a referendum IF a petition has been signed by 200,000 people. It’s that simple.

So, some Muslims wanted to build a minaret. They applied for permission to the local authorities. They were granted permission and started the process. Once this became widely known, a group of Swiss citizens went to court (i.e. sued) claiming that “another minaret was not necessary and that allowing the erections of many-many more minarets will change the land scape of their country”.

In my opinion this is a valid argument. Not taking sides here, not saying if this is right or wrong, simply saying that this is a reasonable statement.

The court’s decision was that the Muslims had the right to continue. The other side escalated the matter and sued to the Highest Court of Switzerland. The decision was again favorable for the Muslims. Undaunted, the Swiss people opposing the uncontrolled construction of minarets in their country, played their last card. They had 200,000 people sign a petition asking for a referendum.

Please understand that the petition DOES NOT call for the prohibition of minarets, but to request that a public vote decide the matter.

What happened next, we all know. The Swiss government had to respect the outcome of the people’s vote.

In my opinion this is TRUE democracy. Ultimately, it should be the majority’s voice that shapes the Government’s public policies and not vice versa. The people’s decision is pure, clear, hard to tamper with, from the people to the people.

Governments, for many and various reasons, tend to “filter” their decisions, some times to protect their own re-election in office thus retaining the power. But the power comes from and belongs ONLY to the people.

The Muslims of Switzerland have not being deprived of any of their religious rights. This is pretty much a decision about zoning. Switzerland should look like, well, Switzerland and not like Mecca. And Mecca should look like Mecca, not like Switzerland or whatever. Utterly, when it comes to whom is responsible for one’s country, it should be and actually is, the local indigenous people.

Perhaps in the next generations, when the Muslims become local and indigenous and populous enough they can ask for a referendum and pass their own agenda. As a matter of fact this is where Europe is heading so be patient.

Just sit back and enjoy while Europe is still Europe.

“And let’s not forget that muslims are not in favour of democracy.

Which Muslims?”

Islam itself is against democracy and in all of the countries you mentioned there will be plenty of retards calling for an islamic government to be in place and the full force of sharia law to be implemented.

Just because some of them don’t want to live like they did back in the 7th century doesn’t mean that muslims generally are in favour of democracy. We all know that they prefer allah’s law to man made laws. Most of the countries you mentioned are not good places to live if you’re not a muslim.

You have me down as an enemy of enlightenment values. This is nonsense. muslims in the west are a trojan horse. muslims have made it clear that they don’t like us or how we live and that we should live like them instead. It is muslims who are creating the friction here not people like me.

I want my children to grow up in a world where they are free to live how they like and say what they want. muslims don’t want that for anyone, including their own children. I oppose islam because it is backward and barbaric. muslims intend to ‘convert’ the world to islam by force. It is foolish to take this lightly and to assume that nothing will come of it.

I personally don’t believe that are capable of it, but they will cause a lot of trouble and misery trying. You cannot make friends with people who have no intention of being your friend. THEY consider us their enemy.

I’m as much for peace around the planet as anyone but I am moved to feel the way I do about islam because of what it is about, and what it persuades it’s followers to do, say and believe. It’s not my fault. I have a right to defend myself.

Dave. I appologise unreservedly for my outrageous comments. You are quite correct to point this out to me. When I described muslims as vermin, I was clealy being deeply offensive to vermin. This was very unfair of me.

You like to point out that you believe yourself to be so much more intelligent than me, this time throwing in a big word which you hope will trip me up (I do know what it means btw). That is seriously pathetic. (If you don’t know what pathetic means, have a look in the mirror).

I don’t give a shit who you think you are Dave. This site is supposed to be about free speech, but you want to shut me up because you don’t like what I have to say. Only one other person posting here commented negatively about my posts and he didn’t make a very good case for himself either. I suspect you and he are in the minority.

You made this comment in your last post:

“Regarding the “what about Saudi” arguments being made by others on this thread – so what? Isn’t the point that our liberal system of government is superior to anything in the Muslim world?

Let’s keep it that way, I say.”

Despite your ‘intelligence’, you seem to think that we can defeat islam just by being better than anything it has to offer. This shows just how little you know about islam and muslims. Time to waken up Dave.

Final warning? I’m shaking in my boots! Go ahead and sensor me. It’s very islamic though you might want to consider having me shot too, or perhaps disemboweled (see what I did there?). That would be much more like it!

I was saying that if a Muslim (or a non Muslim for that matter) happens to come from Turkey or Bosnia that makes them “tolerant” is a fallcious argument. It is certainly true that they tend to be MORE tolerant but that isn’t really an argument for anything.

The other argument that this is a stance being made by “Christian Europe” is an absoloute non starter as well. Are we really to believe that the Priests and the Bishops were doing a BNP-leaflet through the door hachet job? The reality is that there are not going to be anymore Churches built because they are struggling to keep the ones they’ve already got open, leading me to believe it is more of a Pro-Secularist stance more than anything.

Pardon me for saying so, but someone who comes out with drivel like that, and proudly uses the name of one of the most murderous dictators the planet has ever seen, is as much of a deluded fool as any religionist.

>>…anyone who states that Islam is peace blah

“Islam is peace” is propaganda. No religion “is peace”. A religion is whatever you want it to be. But your rhetoric is also propaganda.

>>Islam is not a race, as it is composed of idiots of all races, >>asian, black, and white, male and female – all of them intolerant of >>anyone else’s beliefs or worldviews

“All” of them? Irony alert! Racist or not, you’re certainly a prejudiced bigot of some sort.

Dan

>>And let’s not forget that muslims are not in favour of democracy.

Which Muslims?

In majority Muslim countries, you can find a whole range of different political systems:

Absolute monarchies (Saudi Arabia); representative parliamentary or presidential democracies and republics (Albania, Algeria, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Mali, Nigeria, Pakistan (theoretically!), Turkey); constitutional monarchies (Malaysia, Morocco); presidential federal republics (Nigeria), weird hybrids (Iran), complete basket cases (Sudan), idiosyncratic dictatorships (Libya).

Places like Egypt are republics with not much democratic history. Interestingly, changes in Egypt ban Islamist parties from participating in elections.

Some have sharia law to a greater or lesser extent, some are theocracies, some have Islam as the state religion, some have some form or another of secularistic constitution. Some mix Islamic and Napoleonic civil law (Egypt). Some have very religious populations, some are more secularized.

>>islam is the enemy of freedom, democracy, freedom of speech and >>human rights. I support the decision fully and would like to see the >>same thing happening in every country outside of the islamic >>shitholes these vermin swarm from in their attempts to take over the >>planet. The ban should be extended to mosques, islamic schools and >>halal food too.

“Islam” is whatever you want it to be, just like any religion. Some Muslims are enemies of Enlightenment values, and they should be opposed. But so are you. And I oppose you too.

>>We really must stop pandering to the whims of muslims by calling >>everyone who opposes islam a racist and/or islamophobe.

I think Islam is mistaken, because I’m an atheist. I wouldn’t call everyone who “opposes” Islam a racist or islamophobe (a word I dislike), though clearly some are. Others are anti-immigrant, xenophobic, or cultural-Christianist (some Italian politician hailed the Swiss vote as a vote for bell towers and against minarets – that’s where a lot of this comes from). Others are just ill-informed bigots. Others are just confused or frightened or misinformed.

Dan

Any law which targets one group only is anti-democratic and should indeed worry muslims in Switzerland. In fact, it should worry anybody who believes that equality before the law is an important principle and that without it there is no democracy, only majoritarianism..

Talk of what happens in KSA or Pakistan is irrelevant, unless you think we should look to those places as exemplars of good governance.

>>“Most Muslims that are in Switzerland are from Turkey and Bosnia >>Therfore they are mostly tolerant”
>>It is not true. If it is, are we to believe that most Muslims that >>live in the Middle East are intolerant?
>>And if they are non observant Muslims, why is the idea of a backlash >>against Western Europe being touted about?

What’s not true?

The quote there isn’t a direct quote from me, I should point out. I was responding to the line “why tolerate the intolerant”, which appeared to be pointing at Saudi fundamentalism an an excuse to attack the civil rights of all Muslims, regardless of Islam’s evident diversity.

Why a “backlash”? I can think of several reasons. First, clearly Swiss Muslims, however not-particularly observant (not non-observant) they may be, may feel that they want to protest. Well, that’s OK. Nothing wrong with protesting. Second, newspapers like to talk up a conflict. Third, there will be extremists who want to exploit the situation. Fourth, sometime people try to argue against a proposal with bad arguments (such as: “it will make us a target”): It’s well meaning but counter-productive.

Dan

It’s not in keeping with the principles of secularism to promote an “anything goes” attitude to public acceptance of religious beliefs and practises.

Nobody is suggesting an “anything goes” attitude. The right to religious beliefs and practices stops when it impacts negatively on the rights and freedoms of others.

There’s no reason why respect for the local landscape and its traditional architecture should not be one of these, particularly when assessing the impact of exotic buildings symbolising religious beliefs that many locals would regard as being in conflict with their own culture, in various important ways.

(My emphasis)
Precisely. Which is why these decisions should be made at a local level, where a myriad of local factors can be taken into consideration.

Regarding the “what about Saudi” arguments being made by others on this thread – so what? Isn’t the point that our liberal system of government is superior to anything in the Muslim world?

Let’s keep it that way, I say.