You do realize that western(ie Christian) colonization of India, Asia, Middle East and Africa ended less then 50 years ago, right? Is ‘Christianity’ responsible for the horror of colonialization? I’d argue no, despite the fact that the west always claimed to be redeeming us poor misguided souls, and that’s what made everything okay.
But if ‘Christianity’ isn’t responsible for every bad thing a Christian does, why is ‘Islam’ responsible for every bad thing a Muslim does?
In the opinion of someone I discussed with and is in favor of a ban on mosques in France, it’s because they don’t fit in traditionnal french culture.
So, “because it’s at odds with the way I think things should be” seems a sufficient reason.
It is entirely natural and normal for a people to resent the intrusion of an alien people and culture into their homeland. A culture which fails to instill a strong sense of loyalty in its members is in serious danger of extinction. Your attitude of condescension and disdain for your countrymen who want France to be France is the irrational attitude, not theirs.
Oh god, this tiresome sterile tail-chasing is up again…
So, the Islam has Cooties argument?
Alien people and culture is a right queer statement, as Islam and Muslims have been in and out of Europe for centuries now, and the majority of Muslims in Switzerland were born or have their immediate ancestry in Europe; the Balkans notably.
Funny, somehow the Cooties stay with them.
The French immigration was actively sought by the French when they needed labour in the 1960s-1970s, so to call it “intrusion” betrays a rather grossly biased interpretation of events.
I was going to leave this idiotic tale chasing alone, but now that this is back up, in fact the claims that mass immigration reduces wages as a general matter is not at all evident. Your bald assertion of that as an accepted fact is merely that, a bald assertion:
The data is at best unclear, if not always trending positive:
http://www.econ.brown.edu/fac/Rachel_Friedberg/Links/friedberg_jep.pdf
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/cea/cea_immigration_062007.html
http://www.tcd.ie/Economics/Seminars/dp4472.pdf
I note for example the Irish study addresses your man Borjas:
Similarly from the American study, the same kind of observations:
No, it was not my assertion, it is based on French readings. If you read French, I might be bothered to dig that up. If not, I shan’t be bothered as it seems abundantly evident that your nativism drives your comprehension, rather than data.
In any case, it seems abundantly evident that the racialists and nativists see in your ordinary Ahmed some kind of existential threat, in the same fashion that Schlomo the Jew of 1910 was seen as an unassimilable hook-nosed alien and alien culture. There is really no sunlight between modern Islamophobia and the religious bigotry and racism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries aimed at Jews, with the recent immigrants from the Russian Pale being the object of the same language and claims as the Muslims are now. And with as much analytical rigour. That kind of gross, fear driven hate led where it led. I for one do not want to see Europe repeat that, but sadly we’re seeing the same excuses, the same hysteric claims, the same exaggerations even when - as in Switzerland (a sad echo of the German situation of 1920s) the religious minority is actually of quite European roots, highly secularized and generally oriented in its vast majority toward integration.
The write Laila Lalami - a secular feminist has it right in this article (pity its in the hard left American rag, but regardless): http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091214/lalami/single
But if the culture is so weak that you have to put a wall around it to make sure it survives, is it really all that capable of inspiring loyalty?
When I first read it, I thought they said “marionette”:dubious:
Since this thread is still active, I will risk making it a bit longer by reporting the latest news on the issue. Me Pierre de Preux, leader of the bar of Geneva, is one of five Swiss, French and Belgian lawyers representing Hafid Ouardiri, the former spokesperson of the Geneva mosque, and bringing the case to the European Court of Human Rights.
Briefly:
[ol]
[li]Switzerland has signed the European Convention on Human Rights, which means that in cases of fundamental Human Rights (as defined by the convention) it can be subject to the European Court.[/li][li]The plaintiff argues that the law restricts freedom of religion of muslims, and such restrictions, according to the Convention, can only be legal when public order or the rights of another are threatened. Also the law is discriminatory, as it applies to a single religion.[/li][li]Legally the situation is complicated, since cases can only be brought to the European Court after exhausting all appeals in the country of origin, but the decision, adopted by popular referendum cannot be appealed to the Swiss Federal Tribunal (Supreme Court).[/li][li]The Swiss Justice Minister, Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, has already said that there will be no question of rejecting the European Convention on Human Rights.[/li][li]It is too late to say that Switzerland has signed the European Convention on Human Rights but with certain reservations (objections) - that should have happened at the time of signature.[/li][li]It seems very likely that the European Court will declare that this interdiction is a violation of the rights enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, namely freedom of religion.[/li][/ol]
Source: Tribune de Genève: Hafid Ouardiri porte les minarets devant la Cour de Strasbourg
P.S. I might as well make my views known: as a Swiss citizen I oppose this law and agree that it violates Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which Switzerland has adopted. I think we can all agree that Human Rights should not be abrogated even by popular vote. What the Court will have to decide is if the decision to ban minarets is an infringement on freedom of “worship, teaching, practice and observance” (to use the terms in Article 9).
When the Pope raised crusades against the infidel to recapture the Holy Land for Christendom, and Christian knights ‘took the cross’ to wage war in Christ’s name, then Christianity was substantially responsible for these activities.
When Moslem clerics establish madrassas to teach the duties of holy Jihad in accordance with the Holy Koran, and encourage war against the infidel in Allah’s name, then Islam is substantially responsible. It might not be the Islam that many or most Moslems identify with, but it is 100% Islam.
Islam is not responsible for every bad thing any Moslem does, only for the bad things they do explicitly as Moslems for the sake of Islam. Whatever ‘responsible’ means, in context.
If someone says they are a Moslem, acting for Islam, then I’m generally prepared to take that at face value. It’s not as if jihadism is so far removed from mainstream Islam that it can be dismissed as an imposture. The refusal to admit that Moslem terrorists are Moslem terrorists is bizarre and unhelpful. (If you disagree, you are of course free to pretend that the words I’ve just written mean something which is entirely consistent with your own position. Then we will be in complete agreement.)
So, it’s now a “human right” to build a minaret? Amazing. No, I don’t see how not being able to build a minaret violates any right, including being able to practice the religion one chooses. They are not seeking to ban mosques.
ndnd
i say cheers, people are too politically correct these days anyway. if a country or people wants to protect their culture and not get overrun (because Muslims do tend to flock to one place once a few of them settle and it’s nice look at hamtramck) then i say it’s fine. we could use a little more nationalism in the united states in my opinion. like it’s a bad thing to want to keep certain people or beliefs out that don’t really mesh well with the current culture… i don’t get it.
No, freedom of worship is a human right. And I really can’t understand, knowing how every little village in Switzerland has a church with a clock tower and loud bells that ring on the hour every hour, that a minaret is any different except that it’s attached to a Muslim church instead of a Christian church.
A little MORE nationalism in the US? That’s like saying you don’t think the ocean is wet enough.
And this isn’t about “protecting their culture”, or protecting anything else. It’s a plain old slap in the face motivated by religious/racial* bigotry.
You answered you own question. The church is part of what is viewed as being Swiss. You described it perfectly. They want to preserve that, I say good for them. And if a country that was equated with Mosques wanted to keep church steeples out, I’d support them to do that, too.
Yeah, any contortion you can make to hurl “RACISM!”. 
But I think if you’re trying to do it via the law, it’s too late. You can force people to physically take their minarets down but you can’t stop them from being Muslim.
This proposal was pushed by a racist organization. You are just indulging in your standard, reflexive attempt to defend bigotry. Homophobia; racism; whatever type of bigotry raises its head you always come out swinging, making excuses for it while pretending some sort of noble concern over “culture” and “traditions”
Then they shouldn’t sign international agreements where they pledge not to discriminate against other religions. The initiative is contrary to principles that Switzerland has agreed to uphold.
Addressing the larger point, for a culture to remain insular and reject other belief systems / other points of view is a bad thing.
I tink it’s a matter of degree. What they are doing is not akin to Medieval China, it’s a tiny step to protect the look and feel of their country. They like it that way. You must admit, it’s quite pretty. Now, it might very well be that minarets would add to the beauty in someone’s eyes, and that’s a legitimate opinion, but the Swiss are the ones who get to decide what Switzerland will look like.
And no one is trying to do that. They’re trying to control the look and feel of Switzerland. Mosques are allowed. Islam is accepted. They just don’t want Islam to be an outwardly defining feature of Switzerland.