I mean, i’ve seemed to have got the idea from the manner in which you’ve argued along these lines here (and in the past) that you think that a culture is something that is inherently valuable, in and of itself. I’m not sure whether that’s an accurate idea of what you mean, but, if it is or isn’t, there must be factors which go towards making a culture good or not - though I don’t know whether your support for them is of the nature of suppoting what you consider good, or a purely principled democratic choice support.
I ask because it seems necessary to address what and how a culture comes about if you want to protect one. You’ve argued that the Swiss have the right to protect their culture, and so this move is a good one, but there’s a point you’re missing there - certainly, that is the goal, but that doesn’t necessarily mean this is a wise decision that will lead to it. I’d be interested in hearing why you think this decision is not only reasonably motivated, but a wise method in achieving it, if indeed you do think that that’s the case.
I thought that was pretty clear, but I still already expanded on it somewhere above: the point I was making is that whether or not Muslims would be offended by it does not matter in deciding if it’s a good or a bad law, at least not while there are much arguments to be made like the one you mentioned: it seems to be a clear attack on expression & freedom of religion.
If we let religious offence decide the laws we (in the Netherlands) wouldn’t have condoms, same-sex marriage - or any protection of homosexuals at all, and probably a much stricter interpretation and execution of the blasphemy laws. People should be free to belief what they want but their belief shouldn’t grant them any “legal powers of offense”.
What’s with the melange of apparently private attacks and the government action?
The bible item is idiocy to be sure, although seems unresolved.
I’d rather prefer someone without axes to grind as you do found us some real benchmarks, rather than argument by assertion. I know from my business building licenses are generally a pain in the ass in Malaysia (and contra your assertions, here is a neutral benchmark of said observation: Business Ready (B-READY))
Private or governmental mandated makes little difference for those it happens to as long as the government is unable or unwilling to protect the people from private persecution. And the government is dysfunctional in many Muslim dominated countries. What matters if you in Pakistan may or may not be officially legally entitled to build churches/temples if such an initiative would result in a pogrom against local Christians or Hindus?
Wikipedia has a freedom of religion in Malaysia page. While not as bad as many other places, there does seem to be some real issues. Also to do with buildings.
You, on the other hand, are assuming that the Muslims are assimilating at a reasonable rate and aren’t doing anything to provoke or anger their hosts. You’re aware of the gang rapes of European women that Muslim street gangs have been committing all across the continent, right?
Europe has made a huge mistake in allowing large populations of Muslims from North Africa and the Middle East to establish themselves in Europe.
Christianity has been in Switzerland since the 4th century and has been the predominant religion of Switzerland since the 7th. Judaism has been in the country since at least the 12th century.
:rolleyes: Ah, so now they are a bunch of rapists.
Do you have any evidence that the typical Muslim in Switzerland is a religious fanatic and rapist? As opposed to being not particularly religious and law abiding?
When they are a bunch of hyper-Christian racist right wing nationalists, yes. Which these are.
Oh, well then obviously any and all unprosecuted hate crimes in Europe must be held as obvious examples of governmental bigotry against immigrants, etc.
Fine game that.
Charming little dance this, “many Muslim dominated countries” - gives you just a bit of plausible deniability.
Of course plenty of Christian “dominated” (really that little verbal dance amuses me) countries with similar characteristics (i.e. poor, emerging countries) are dysfunctional. Why the past 50 years shows Catholic dominance has an average tendency to dictatorship!!!
I am unimpressed by your argument by indirect implication.
Wiki cites on charged subjects are not particularly impressive.
I’m aware that this is a gross exageration spun by the neo-Fascist racialists in Europe, like BNP and its sad ilk.
The North Africans were positively imported by continental Europe (and Indian Subcon by UK) for labour, nothing “allowed” there
While amusing as an unthinking racist transposition, the majority of Swiss Muslims are in fact white Europeans by birth. Bosniaks, Turks. Of course they seem to un-white themselves by having the “wrong” religion.
Rather like another “wrong religion” in the minority in Europe, we know that history…
One interesting point is that this referendum was passed through the joint efforts of feminists and conservatives. This coalition has always made sense to me, considering the treatment of women in the Islamic world, yet most western feminists tend to see Muslims as another anti-Western-culture ally, regardless of their own treatment of women.
I think it has been well established (by numerous posts and by articles like NYT’s that the great majority of Swiss Muslims are assimilated with many not even practicing Muslims and with the majority descended from European Muslim locales like Turkey or Bosnia. In a sense this is the irony of the Swiss situation–it doesn’t seem to have been provoked by an actual context of rising Islamic fundamentalism inside Switzerland or by some sensational event. Agreed?
Lochdale’s post #229 seems to me like a reasonable account of the kinds of issues that trouble many people in European countries including Switzerland. It might be worth considering those issues before leaping to assume that random events (like rape) are behind the rising Islamophobia in so much of Europe. (I don’t mean that those events don’t have an impact; they clearly do and can be galvanizing. I only mean that there are larger perceptions at stake about what is happening in Europe which have only been touched in in this thread.)
How this makes sense escapes me, as punishing women believers for discrimination by male believers by queerly banning minarets does absolutely nothing to advance either Muslim women’s rights or rights in general.
It’s much more complicated than that athelas. First, feminists aren’t “anti-Western-culture” and neither for that matter are the great majority of Muslims living in the West.
The feminists who are against the rising anti-immigrant sentiments and against prejudicial referenda like the Swiss ban on minarets are often acting out of principle. They are committed to equal treatment under the law (I would describe myself in this light).
Feminists are also aware of how prejudice comes in many forms. They are loathe to pile on a demonized minority or to encourage stereotyping sentiments of any kind (as opposed to understanding, dialogue, tolerance, debate).
Finally, feminists have many reasons to distrust conservative political allies. It’s not really a natural alliance at all; more like a pragmatism that is (IMO) ultimately misguided for feminists (and maybe for conservatives too).
This doesn’t mean that there aren’t actual tensions between religious fundamentalism and feminist goals of equal treatment for women (and for all people ultimately). It only means that feminists can’t simply check their principles at the door when they become inconvenient.
And not all Muslim cultures are oppressive to women. Some of this talk is starting to read like parody. “They put their wimmin in HAREMS with VEILS!” and “They rape white folks!” Blech.