Libya's Gaddafi urges jihad against Switzerland

[Bobby_3111]

Why not? No group of people should be allowed to get away with inhumanity, cruelty, brutality and injustice in the name of "preserving" a culture. If someone commits any kind of cruelty, atrocity or crime then they should be judged, and their arguments for why they did it should be judged as well--and if cultural preservation is used as a lame excuse to let them do what they want rather than what's right it should be called out as such.

We're either bieng lazy or cowards if we allow ourselves to avoid judging others because they pulled the "cultural preservation" card on us. Which isn't to say that it's never valid, but it certainly isn't when it's the wife-beater who wants to go on beating his wife--not preserve his culture.

Because believe it or not i mind my own business. If people want to change their nation's laws then by all means, more power to them. But it has to be THEM that does it, not US, people have to want change before you can even hint at aiding them officially or otherwise.

 

[3113]

Because believe it or not i mind my own business. If people want to change their nation's laws then by all means, more power to them. But it has to be THEM that does it, not US, people have to want change before you can even hint at aiding them officially or otherwise.

Fair enough, but BELIEVE IT OR NOT, we don't mind our own business. We trade with the world, we give aid to the world--that's right, we sometimes give free money to countries asking nothing in return except they be our friend! And we give loans to the world. And we don't haveta. Which means we CAN tell people that since we're not minding our own business anyway--we are influencing their economy--then we have a right to say, "Sorry, we don't like our money going to wife beaters."

Which seems to be what this guy is proposing to the Swiss, right or wrong. And of course, the country can say, "To hell with you, we won't curb our wife beaters, women deserve to be beaten--" But at least we won't be aiding and abetting said wife beaters-. I'm speaking, of course, if we honestly believe that such an act is unjust, cruel, inhumane and the "cultural preservation" aspect of doing it is bogus. I'm not talking about whether they've passed a law that everyone has to use chopsticks instead of a fork to preserve the culture and if they don't they get fined--that's a silly law, but it's probably not going to lead to people dying.

And by the way, I feel sorry for that kid who lives next door to you. The one who is being abused by his parents, but you, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, have decided to mind your own business. You have decided it's up to the parents to come to the realization that they shouldn't hurt the kid. Who cares if the kid dies along the way--maybe that'll teach 'em to do better with the next one.

My point being--at what point is giving a shit about someone else and their welfare your business? Next door may matter more than a country away--but is it that different if we're talking about strangers? Including people from another culture? I'm not talking about marching in with armies to save people who don't want saving--I'm talking about protecting innocent people from being hauled away in cattle cars to gas chambers--by passing judgement at the very least when it starts to happen. Passing judgement doesn't have to include military might. But it does mean you have to give a shit. And in the end, people don't learn not to beat their wives if they don't ever have someone looking at them with disapproval and saying, "That ain't right." And giving a shit about the wife.

 

[stephen55]

don't mess with my cinnamon buns..........

I've never been to Switzerland and the only Swiss people I know are the couple who run my favorite bakery. (Cinnamon buns the size of pumpkins!!) That said, I looked up the cause of this brouhaha. It isn't the Swiss government. They were very much against banning minarets. This is just one more tactic of a bunch of right wing neo-fascists called the Christian Democratic People's Party of Switzerland (also called Christian-Democratic Party and aka The Swiss People's Party).

These Neanderthals have taken a page from Mein Kampf (actually several pages) and used the tactic of fear mongering to gather political strength.

The ban on minarets wasn't a new law proposed by the government. It was the result of a referendum, and the jackboots were behind it. Unfortunately, it passed by a majority vote in Switzerland which doesn't say much for the average Swiss voter. Swiss law demands that the government put the result of the referendum into law.

The government has already publicly come out as saying any such law is likely unconstitutional and will violate freedom of religion, not to mention various European and world conventions against racism.

The world's attention and reaction to all of this is exactly what the Christian Democratic People's Party of Switzerland wants.

I'm sure that this is hardly over. With any luck the Swiss government will convince the majority of voters that they've been had by a bunch of Nazi wannabes. I'll give them a few months, before I have to start looking for a new supply of cinnamon buns. No...wait...that's what Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi wants....Damn...my head hurts!!!

 

[Pure]

thoughts

the swiss law passed by a large majority. whatever the problems, in international legal terms, it represents a distrust of Islamic efforts to spread the religion.

why not look on this as a reciprocity issue. churches built in islamic countries, mosques built in Western, at least nominally xain countries.
apparently the way is not so easy, as these articles attest. in the second article, it suggests that the Saudi will allow a catholic church in their land, if the church recognizes the prophet, Mohammed.

perhaps a similar condition could be put as to minarets.




http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/18/religion.saudiarabia
Vatican in Saudi talks on building churches

The Vatican has been holding secret talks with the Saudi Arabian authorities on building churches in Muhammad's homeland, according to one of Pope Benedict's most senior Middle East representatives. Archbishop Paul-Mounged El-Hashem said: "Discussions are under way to allow the construction of churches in the kingdom. We cannot forecast the outcome."

But, speaking to the news agency Agence France-Presse, the Lebanese prelate, the Pope's envoy in the Gulf, added: "There are around three or four million Christians in Saudi Arabia, and we hope they will have churches."

At the Vatican, the Pope's spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi, said: "If we manage to obtain authorisation for the construction of the first church, it will be an outcome of historic dimensions."
The opening last Friday of the first church in Qatar left Saudi Arabia as the only country in the region that still bans the building of churches and all forms of open Christian worship. However the construction of even one church on Saudi territory would outrage Islamist militants. Saudi Arabia - home to Islam's holiest sites, at Mecca and Medina - is regarded by Muslims as sacred soil.
The Saudi authorities, inspired by the rigorous doctrine of Wahhabism, ban all non-Muslim religious rituals and materials. Bibles and crucifixes are confiscated at points of entry to the kingdom.
Diplomats in Rome said talks on the building of churches would be consistent with recent developments. Saudi Arabia is among the few countries that do not have diplomatic links with the Vatican, but sources in Rome say the Saudis are keen to establish formal relations. Last November, King Abdullah became the first Saudi monarch to visit the Vatican.
The Vatican demands religious freedom as a condition for the opening of diplomatic relations. Pope Benedict has made it one of the chief aims of his papacy to press for "reciprocity" of treatment by Muslims of Christians.
Vatican officials note privately that while Muslims are free to worship openly in Europe, Roman Catholics are subject to official and unofficial restrictions in many Muslim countries.
Christians - mainly foreign workers - account for almost 4% of the Saudi population. Estimates of the number of Roman Catholics range up to 900,000.
In Qatar last Saturday, some 15,000 people attended an inaugural mass at the country's first church. Our Lady of the Rosary in Doha, which has no or crosses on its exterior, is one of five Christian places of worship planned in the state, which borders Saudi Arabia.
Addressing the reciprocity issue, Qatar's deputy prime minister, Abdullah bin Hamad al-Attiyah, said: "We are enjoying the construction of mosques and Islamic centres in the west, so we must be fair [to Christians]."
Hashem revealed the existence of the talks with Saudi Arabia while speaking on the sidelines of a Doha event. He also said he expected an announcement soon on the establishment of diplomatic ties with the neighbouring Arabian state of Oman.
The Pope is expected later this year to meet representatives of 138 Muslim scholars who wrote a letter to Christian leaders last October calling for peace between the two religions.

===
http://theopinionator.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/03/no-churches-in.html

Saudi Arabia: No churches unless prophet Mohammed recognised, says expert

Riyadh: March 29, 2008.
No churches should be permitted in Saudi Arabia, unless Pope Benedict XVI recognised the prophet Mohammed, according to a Middle East expert.
While Saudi mediators are working with the Vatican on negotiations to allow places of religious worship, some experts believe it will not occur without this recognition.
Anwar Ashiqi, president of the Saudi centre for Middle East strategic studies, endorsed this view in an interview on the site of Arab satellite TV network, al-Arabiya on Thursday.
"I haven taken part in several meetings related to Islamic-Christian dialogue and there have been negotiations on this issue," he said.
"It would be possible to launch official negotiations to construct a church in Saudi Arabia only after the Pope and all the Christian churches recognise the prophet Mohammed."
"If they don`t recognise him as a prophet, how can we have a church in the Saudi kingdom?"
Ashiqi`s comments came after a declaration launched by the papal nuncio of the Persian Gulf, the archbishop Mounged El-Hachem, at the opening of the first Catholic church in Qatar last week.
The prelate had announced the launch of "treaties to construct a church in Saudi Arabia where it is banned to practise whatever religion they want outside Islam".
El-Hachem estimated three to four million Christians in the Saudi kingdom who want to have a church.
A member of Saudi Arabia`s Consultative Council, Abdelaziz al-Thinani, rejected the prelate`s claims saying that there were no Christians among the Saudis who were all Muslims.
"Those few Christians do not reside in the country permanently, they come and go," he said.
He denied there were four million Christians in the kingdom and said the issue of human rights should not be used to call for the construction of a Christian church.
Most of Saudi Arabia`s Christians are foreign workers. There are 8.2 million foreign workers in a country of 25.6 million people according to a report by the Saudi Labour Ministry.






http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2008/12/07/orthodox-church-in-saudi-arabia-for-mosque-in-moscow/
Orthodox Church in Saudi Arabia for Mosque in Moscow
Interfax | Nov. 26, 2008

Moscow – Representatives of Orthodox public organizations addressed the King of Saudi Arabia an open letter with a request to build an Orthodox Church in his country. The address, conveyed to Interfax-Religion, was initiated after the Saudi Kingdom announced its plans to build a mosque in Moscow.
“You often say that Islam is a religion of justice. However, if Saudi Arabia builds mosques in dozens of Christian countries, isn’t it just to build a church for Christians living in Your Kingdom!” the letter says.
To support their words the authors quoted Chairman of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue Jean-Louis Cardinal Tauran who said that “if Muslims believe it right to have a great striking mosque in Rome, than it is right for Christians to build a church in Riyadh.”
Orthodox believers remind that preachers of monotheism – Christians – came to Mecca and Medina several centuries before Muslims, while Jews historically resided there. Therefore, it is unjust not to allow them in the territories, where their ancestors lived, where their churches and cemeteries were located.
“Saudi Arabia, as any other country of the world, is a multiconfessional and policonfessional state. It would be just to grant the freedom of faith to Christian minority as their share exceeds 10 per cent,” the address further says.

Its authors consider it is very important to lift restrictions on visits of Christians to Mecca and Medina, to permit them to wear crosses, to publish religious literature and preach their religion. “It would be just to create the same conditions for Saudi Christians as Muslims have in Russia,” Orthodox activists stressed.

“It is the only way to make interreligious dialogue honest and just,” the address written by the Moscow Division of the Union of Orthodox citizens, the Radonezh Society and the Byzantium Club concludes.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Does Saudi Arabia also allow synagogues? There are mosques in Tel-Aviv, as well as all major western nations.

 

[stephen55]

It's what happens when you don't bother voting......

the swiss law passed by a large majority. whatever the problems, in international legal terms, it represents a distrust of Islamic efforts to spread the religion.

It's not yet a law. This took place last Nov. Swiss law says the government must act on the passed referendum within one year. So they have eight or so months to deal with this stupidity.

The referendum passed with a 57.5% majority, which means 42.5% voted against it. I suspect that the neo-fascists drummed up all available helmet heads and the rest of the country mostly sat back laughing, until they realized the folly of not voting. Overall voter turnout was only 53.4%.

So, you can say that about 30% of all voters said yes. That leaves 70% who didn't say yes. Unfortunately, of those who didn't say yes, only about 30% bothered to actually vote no. The Swiss People's Party was counting on this.

Personally, I don't think this has anything to do with distrust of Islam. I think this is simply one example of the ongoing efforts of the self-proclaimed, intolerant and xenophobic Fuhrers of this world to use Mein Kampf tactics to try to seize and hold power. The Nazis were hardly the first to use this stuff and they obviously aren't the last. And it's hardly confined to one race or color. Africa has had more Fuhrers than I care to recall. Islamic countries are full of them as well. South America has a long and ignoble history of them. And as for Asia, anyone remember Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, or Marcos? All Fuhrers have their favorite fabricated enemy within.

Hopefully, the Swiss have relearned an old lesson. If you don't understand history, you are doomed to repeat it.

 

[Boxlicker101]

the swiss law passed by a large majority. whatever the problems, in international legal terms, it represents a distrust of Islamic efforts to spread the religion.

It's not yet a law. This took place last Nov. Swiss law says the government must act on the passed referendum within one year. So they have eight or so months to deal with this stupidity.

The referendum passed with a 57.5% majority, which means 42.5% voted against it. I suspect that the neo-fascists drummed up all available helmet heads and the rest of the country mostly sat back laughing, until they realized the folly of not voting. Overall voter turnout was only 53.4%.

So, you can say that about 30% of all voters said yes. That leaves 70% who didn't say yes. Unfortunately, of those who didn't say yes, only about 30% bothered to actually vote no. The Swiss People's Party was counting on this.

Personally, I don't think this has anything to do with distrust of Islam. I think this is simply one example of the ongoing efforts of the self-proclaimed, intolerant and xenophobic Fuhrers of this world to use Mein Kampf tactics to try to seize and hold power. The Nazis were hardly the first to use this stuff and they obviously aren't the last. And it's hardly confined to one race or color. Africa has had more Fuhrers than I care to recall. Islamic countries are full of them as well. South America has a long and ignoble history of them. And as for Asia, anyone remember Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, or Marcos? All Fuhrers have their favorite fabricated enemy within.

Hopefully, the Swiss have relearned an old lesson. If you don't understand history, you are doomed to repeat it.

I think it's safe to say that many of those who did not vote on the issue would have voted to outlaw minarets if they had. I don't know what the percentage would be, and neither do you nor anybody else. None of us can guess what the voters were thinking, but I think it's safe to say that a large part of their motivation was the mistrust of Islam.

They mistrust the faith because Muslims frequently commit atrocities against those they call infidels. Whenever possible, they murder those who speak or write ill of their pedophile prophet. On several occasions, Muslims have launched massive invasions of Europe, but were beaten back, but not until millions of "infidels" had been murdered. In fact, since its origin, Islam has been spread by conquest. Is there such a thing as a Muslim missionary who is not aiming a gun at those he wishes to convert?

Besides reciprocity against the Muslim bigots who seek to eliminate any competing faiths, the Swiss are well aware of History. They are also well aware of the old Muslim fable about the camel who was allowed into the Bedouin's tent and ended up taking it over.

 

[cloudy]

I think it's safe to say that many of those who did not vote on the issue would have voted to outlaw minarets if they had. I don't know what the percentage would be, and neither do you nor anybody else. None of us can guess what the voters were thinking, but I think it's safe to say that a large part of their motivation was the mistrust of Islam.

They mistrust the faith because Muslims frequently commit atrocities against those they call infidels. Whenever possible, they murder those who speak or write ill of their pedophile prophet. On several occasions, Muslims have launched massive invasions of Europe, but were beaten back, but not until millions of "infidels" had been murdered. In fact, since its origin, Islam has been spread by conquest. Is there such a thing as a Muslim missionary who is not aiming a gun at those he wishes to convert?

Besides reciprocity against the Muslim bigots who seek to eliminate any competing faiths, the Swiss are well aware of History. They are also well aware of the old Muslim fable about the camel who was allowed into the Bedouin's tent and ended up taking it over.

As usual, Box, you just spew your hatred of "different" like it's second nature.

Let's look at one of your paragraphs from another angle, shall we? It's just as true this way:

They mistrust the faith because Christians frequently commit atrocities against those they call unbelieving pagans. Whenever possible, they murder those who speak or write ill of their pedophile prophet. On several occasions, Christians have launched massive invasions of land already peopled by those of a different faith, and massacred millions of "unbelieving pagans." In fact, since its origin, Christianity has been spread by conquest.

"Ignorant" can be fixed. "Stupid" can't.

 

[TE999]

Hey! My cuckoo clock just blew up after the birdie sounded his eighth 'coo-coo' ...Damn Lybians!

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
I think it's safe to say that many of those who did not vote on the issue would have voted to outlaw minarets if they had. I don't know what the percentage would be, and neither do you nor anybody else. None of us can guess what the voters were thinking, but I think it's safe to say that a large part of their motivation was the mistrust of Islam.

They mistrust the faith because Muslims frequently commit atrocities against those they call infidels. Whenever possible, they murder those who speak or write ill of their pedophile prophet. On several occasions, Muslims have launched massive invasions of Europe, but were beaten back, but not until millions of "infidels" had been murdered. In fact, since its origin, Islam has been spread by conquest. Is there such a thing as a Muslim missionary who is not aiming a gun at those he wishes to convert?

Besides reciprocity against the Muslim bigots who seek to eliminate any competing faiths, the Swiss are well aware of History. They are also well aware of the old Muslim fable about the camel who was allowed into the Bedouin's tent and ended up taking it over.

As usual, Box, you just spew your hatred of "different" like it's second nature.

Let's look at one of your paragraphs from another angle, shall we? It's just as true this way:
Quote:
They mistrust the faith because Christians frequently commit atrocities against those they call unbelieving pagans. Whenever possible, they murder those who speak or write ill of their pedophile prophet. On several occasions, Christians have launched massive invasions of land already peopled by those of a different faith, and massacred millions of "unbelieving pagans." In fact, since its origin, Christianity has been spread by conquest

"Ignorant" can be fixed. "Stupid" can't.

I am not going to defend Christianity, because I don't trust it or any monolithic faith. However, there are several untrue comments in your paragraph. First, there is no prophet in the Christian faith who was not also a prophet to Islam, so your comment about the pedophile prophet is silly. On the other hand, Mohammed's pedophilia is well documented, because he married several very young girls.

It is true that the conquerors of North and South America were primarily Christian, but their religion had little or nothing to do with the conquest, whereas the Muslim conquests in the Middle East and parts of Europe and Asia was driven by the desire to glorify their prophet.

Your statement: massacred millions of "unbelieving pagans." is an extreme overstatement, unless you apply it to the Muslim invasions and massacres, especially of Hindus.

Originally, Christianity was spread by word of mouth and missionaries, who taught by example. This is still going on, but Islam has never been spread by anything but conquest, beginning from the attack on Mecca by Medina, under the leadership of the pedophile prophet. Have you ever actually seen or even heard of a Muslim missionary? They may exist, but I have never heard of one.

ETA: Did I say anything untrue in my previous post, which you quoted?

 

[cloudy]

I am not going to defend Christianity, because I don't trust it or any monolithic faith. However, there are several untrue comments in your paragraph. First, there is no prophet in the Christian faith who was not also a prophet to Islam, so your comment about the pedophile prophet is silly. On the other hand, Mohammed's pedophilia is well documented, because he married several very young girls.

It is true that the conquerors of North and South America were primarily Christian, but their religion had little or nothing to do with the conquest, whereas the Muslim conquests in the Middle East and parts of Europe and Asia was driven by the desire to glorify their prophet.

Your statement: massacred millions of "unbelieving pagans." is an extreme overstatement, unless you apply it to the Muslim invasions and massacres, especially of Hindus.

Originally, Christianity was spread by word of mouth and missionaries, who taught by example. This is still going on, but Islam has never been spread by anything but conquest, beginning from the attack on Mecca by Medina, under the leadership of the pedophile prophet. Have you ever actually seen or even heard of a Muslim missionary? They may exist, but I have never heard of one.

ETA: Did I say anything untrue in my previous post, which you quoted?

More to the point, is there anything untrue about how I changed it?

I'll answer that, since I think the complexity of the question is beyond you :

No. Christianity has been/is just as violent as any other religion there is, if not more so.

You love blaming Islam, but you should really look to the mote in your own eye first. (it's in the bible - look it up, if you're actually capable of that)

 

[Boxlicker101]

More to the point, is there anything untrue about how I changed it?

I'll answer that, since I think the complexity of the question is beyond you :

No. Christianity has been/is just as violent as any other religion there is, if not more so.

You love blaming Islam, but you should really look to the mote in your own eye first. (it's in the bible - look it up, if you're actually capable of that)

To reiterate, I am not going to defend Christianity, except in comparison with Islam.

You made several statements but this one, in particular, is not true:
In fact, since its origin, Christianity has been spread by conquest

Hundreds of years after its origin, Europe was torn apart by a series of religious wars but, until then, it really had been a religion of peace. The nations of Europe were frequently at war with one another, but this had nothing to do with religion. Saints Paul and Peter did not march into Rome at the head of an army; all they had were a few converts, who spread the word. Saint Patrick was not accompied by an army when he brought Christianity to Ireland. He was by himself, and actually began his mission as a slave. Compare that with the spread of Islam, which I have already described.

Without question, and as you already know, North and South America were conquered by the supposedly Christian nations of Europe, with great loss to the natives, but this happened 1,500 years after the origin of the faith. I'm not defending what they did to your ancestors and some of mine, but I am saying that it didn't happen as part of the origin of the faith.

Of course, that was then and this is now. Now, Christianity is probably second only to Islam in terms of bloodthirstyness.

I am familiar with the verse you misquoted, but it is about the sty or beam in my eye rather than the mote in somebody else's.

I am not blaming anybody or defending anybody. I am just citing known historical fact.

 

[Pure]

note to stephen 55

your remarks, while perhaps well intentioned, are widely off base.

indications are that the Swiss gov't will follow through, see sources 4 and 5, below. in particular the line:

"A majority of the Swiss people and the cantons have adopted the popular initiative against the construction of minarets. The Federal Council [of Switzerland] respects this decision," a government statement said.
"Consequently the construction of new minarets in Switzerland is no longer permitted.

you present no evidence to the contrary.

the bulk of both posts is inflammatory Nazi-linked rhetoric, which, i suppose, is intended to conceal that you have no facts, and present no case.

note, by source 6, about 40% of Brits, the largest plurality, support the decision.

they are, you say, 'helmetheads' lead by Fuhrers.

first the history is that a turkish cultural group wished to build a minaret in a small Swiss city. four minarets exist already in Switzerland. (where incidentally, of 23 cantons, only 4 did NOT support the ban.).

the situation in Turkey is represented in Source 2,

Apart from lacking legal recognition, in fact, these minorities [Xian, Jews] are prevented from constructing, and even from restoring, their places of worship, from possessing buildings and land, and from opening schools.

it's interesting that the turks, as do several arab countries, claim that these restrictions do NOT affect freedom of religion. IOW xians can pray unmolested, just don't try to build a church structure.

i'd call here, as in my first post, for reciprocity. by similar reasoning the Swiss ban does not affect freedom of religion; muslims can pray however they wish, even build mosques, just not with minarets.

you say, in a crazily inverted way:

The ban on minarets wasn't a new law proposed by the government. It was the result of a referendum, and the jackboots were behind it. Unfortunately, it passed by a majority vote in Switzerland which doesn't say much for the average Swiss voter.

Switzerland is a democracy. Its voters are democrats as are its rulers and the leaders of its parties. By contrast, Turkey is quite authoritarian, and the Saudis, if anyone, represent a fascist state, where the rule of law is minimal. where suspects are tortured, and held without warrants. where opponents of the regime are jailed or killed; where women may not walk about freely, nor drive cars, and face death for moral infractions. So your animus is better directed at the voters of Turkey and Turkeys rulers, and at the dictators in Saudi Arabia. If you remember the BBC documentary of about 1980, the Saudis executed a princess in a back alley, for her having a boyfriend.

http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/150918

If that is too old for you, last year a princess was given asylum who faced stoning over a pregnancy by a foreigner.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8158576.stm

so, my friend,if you want to talk of 'jack boots' and 'fuhrers' i suggest you stop looking in Europe and look in Saudi Arabia and similar countries. and even the 'best case' turkey, is quasi dictatorial and doesn't allow churches to be built.

i am NOT in favor of any person being suppressed in religious practice, nor in being denied a building to do it in. but i'd suggest that the principle of reciprocity be applied where countries without such freedoms, get exercized about Western nations' alleged 'intolerance.'

let there be as many mosques with minarets in Switzerland as there are churches with crosses on their domes, in Saudi Arabia.

apply your anti fascist animus to the places it's most fitting, not to places like Switzerland, England, France, which are among the freest in the world.

===========================



pure ://the swiss law passed by a large majority. whatever the problems, in international legal terms, it represents a distrust of Islamic efforts to spread the religion.//

stephen 55 It's not yet a law. This took place last Nov. Swiss law says the government must act on the passed referendum within one year. So they have eight or so months to deal with this stupidity.

The referendum passed with a 57.5% majority, which means 42.5% voted against it. I suspect that the neo-fascists drummed up all available helmet heads and the rest of the country mostly sat back laughing, until they realized the folly of not voting. Overall voter turnout was only 53.4%.

So, you can say that about 30% of all voters said yes. That leaves 70% who didn't say yes. Unfortunately, of those who didn't say yes, only about 30% bothered to actually vote no. The Swiss People's Party was counting on this.

Personally, I don't think this has anything to do with distrust of Islam. I think this is simply one example of the ongoing efforts of the self-proclaimed, intolerant and xenophobic Fuhrers of this world to use Mein Kampf tactics to try to seize and hold power.
===
Stephen 55, earlier
These Neanderthals have taken a page from Mein Kampf (actually several pages) and used the tactic of fear mongering to gather political strength.

The ban on minarets wasn't a new law proposed by the government. It was the result of a referendum, and the jackboots were behind it. Unfortunately, it passed by a majority vote in Switzerland which doesn't say much for the average Swiss voter. Swiss law demands that the government put the result of the referendum into law.

Source 1 Legal dispute

The Swiss minaret controversy began in a small municipality in the northern part of Switzerland in 2005. The contention involved the Turkish cultural association in Wangen bei Olten, which applied for a construction permit to erect a 6-metre-high minaret on the roof of its Islamic community centre. The project faced opposition from surrounding residents, who had formed a group to prevent the tower's erection.

The Turkish association claimed that the building authorities improperly and arbitrarily delayed its building application. They also believed that the members of the local opposition group were motivated by religious bias. [the residents' legal battle was lost: ]On appeal the Federal Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court. The 6-metre (20 ft)-high minaret was eventually erected in July 2009.[4]

Source 2,
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/21393?eng=y
ROMA – The Holy See has abstained from any official comment on the European Union's December 17 [2004?] approval for negotiations for Turkey's entry.

The cardinal secretary of state, Angelo Sodano, made his objections known in July and September of 2002, in two memos he sent to the heads of state of the fourteen member countries then composing the EU.

In both notes, the Holy See placed one binding condition upon Turkey's entry into Europe: respect for religious freedom and human rights. And he pointed out that in practical terms Turkey was far from fulfilling these conditions. [...]
[...] a recent effect has created a certain alarm inside the Vatican.

On December 15 the European parliament, voting by a large majority in favor of negotiations for the admission of Turkey to the EU, scrapped an amendment that asked Ankara to confer, as quickly as possible, the status of legal personality upon the Christian Churches, and to suppress the ministry of religious affairs, the state agency that supervises worship and blocks the construction of new churches.

In commenting upon the episode, "Avvenire," the newspaper of the Italian bishops' conference, lamented "the manifestation of a certain anti-Christian prejudice in the majority of the European deputies." And they warned:

"We cannot carry out effective negotiations with Turkey if we surrender European identity bit by bit according to their idiosyncrasies[...]

In Turkey – the birthplace of the apostle Paul and Luke the evangelist – the population is close to 70 million, and today is almost entirely Muslim. The remaining minority is made up of, among others, approximately 60,000 Armenian Orthodox, 25,000 Jews, and fewer than 3,000 Greek Orthodox belonging to the patriarchate of Constantinople. These three groups are the only ones recognized by the government as having a special minority status, according to the government's interpretation of the 1923 Losanna treaty: a statute which does not, among other things, extend legal recognition to religious hierarchies; the government does not, in particular, recognize the "ecumenical" character of the patriarchate of Constantinople for all of Orthodoxy.

Precise statistics are lacking, but it is estimated that there are probably no more than 100,000 Christians in Turkey. There are about 25,000 Catholics, with six bishops; 10,000 Syriac-rite Orthodox; and 3,000 Protestants of various denominations.

All the exponents of these minorities – lead by the patriarch of Constantinople and the Catholic bishops – are strongly in favor of Turkey's entry into Europe, which would produce a decisive improvement in their living conditions. Apart from lacking legal recognition, in fact, these minorities are prevented from constructing, and even from restoring, their places of worship, from possessing buildings and land, and from opening schools. Christians are forbidden from taking up some offices and professions, particularly in the military. Not even the Muslim communities escape strict supervision: all the mosques are the property of the state.

* * *
Source 3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minaret_controversy_in_Switzerland
Feminists

The British newspaper The Times cited support of the minaret ban by "radical feminists" who oppose the oppression of women in Islamic societies.[14] Among these were noted feminist Ayaan Hirsi Ali who in December gave her support for the ban with the article titled "Swiss ban on minarets was a vote for tolerance and inclusion".[15] The Times further reported that Swiss women supported the ban, in pre-election polling, by a greater percentage than did Swiss men.

Source 4
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=aCvnsKAeYFis

The Justice Ministry contended a ban on new minarets may violate freedom of religion as well as Switzerland’s international human-rights commitments. Polls before the referendum had indicated the measure wouldn’t win approval.
“The Federal Council respects this decision,” the government said. “The four existing minarets will remain. It will also be possible to continue to construct mosques. Muslims in Switzerland are able to practice their religion alone or in community with others, and live according to their beliefs just as before.”

==
Source 5.

http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=110527
The official result of the referendum, according to Swiss media, has been confirmed, with 57,5% voting in favor of the ban. Turnout was 55%, which means the result will stand, given a minimum 50% requirement.

Opinion polls had previously predicted a close rejection of the ban, that had been championed by right-wing and ultra-conservative Swis groups and parties.

The Swiss government and most political parties, as well as churches and the business community had come out strongly against the ban, which will now have to be incorporated into the Swiss Constitution.
"A majority of the Swiss people and the cantons have adopted the popular initiative against the construction of minarets. The Federal Council respects this decision," a government statement said.

"Consequently the construction of new minarets in Switzerland is no longer permitted. The four existing minarets will remain. It will also be possible to continue to construct mosques."
The statement said that freedom of belief would not be affected. "Muslims in Switzerland are able to practise their religion alone or in community with others, and live according to their beliefs just as before.”
===
Source 6
http://www.visioncritical.com/2009/12/following-swiss-referendum-britons-would-vote-to-ban-minarets/

Perceptions on the Ban

Respondents in the three countries were presented with the arguments that both sides used during last month’s Swiss referendum. More than two-in-five Britons (44%) sided with the proponents of the ban, while less than three-in-ten (32%) agreed with the opponents of the ban.
In Canada, the group that sided with the proponents (37%) was slightly larger than the one that agreed with the opponents (32%).
In the United States, respondents were virtually even (30% sided with the proponents of the ban; 29% agreed with the opponents).
Referendum

More than a third of Britons (37%) would vote to ban minarets in their country, while one-in-four (25%) would vote against this proposal.

Americans are once again almost evenly divided (21% would vote in favour of a ban, 19% would vote against it).
In Canada, 35 per cent of respondents say they would vote against a ban, while 27 per cent would vote in favour of it.

 

[Boxlicker101]

let there be as many mosques with minarets in Switzerland as there are church with crosses on their domes and synagogues with stars of David in Saudi Arabia.

Very true, Pure, except I would have included the part I have bolded.

 

[Bobby_3111]

Fair enough, but BELIEVE IT OR NOT, we don't mind our own business. We trade with the world, we give aid to the world--that's right, we sometimes give free money to countries asking nothing in return except they be our friend! And we give loans to the world. And we don't haveta. Which means we CAN tell people that since we're not minding our own business anyway--we are influencing their economy--then we have a right to say, "Sorry, we don't like our money going to wife beaters."

Which seems to be what this guy is proposing to the Swiss, right or wrong. And of course, the country can say, "To hell with you, we won't curb our wife beaters, women deserve to be beaten--" But at least we won't be aiding and abetting said wife beaters-. I'm speaking, of course, if we honestly believe that such an act is unjust, cruel, inhumane and the "cultural preservation" aspect of doing it is bogus. I'm not talking about whether they've passed a law that everyone has to use chopsticks instead of a fork to preserve the culture and if they don't they get fined--that's a silly law, but it's probably not going to lead to people dying.

And by the way, I feel sorry for that kid who lives next door to you. The one who is being abused by his parents, but you, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, have decided to mind your own business. You have decided it's up to the parents to come to the realization that they shouldn't hurt the kid. Who cares if the kid dies along the way--maybe that'll teach 'em to do better with the next one.

My point being--at what point is giving a shit about someone else and their welfare your business? Next door may matter more than a country away--but is it that different if we're talking about strangers? Including people from another culture? I'm not talking about marching in with armies to save people who don't want saving--I'm talking about protecting innocent people from being hauled away in cattle cars to gas chambers--by passing judgement at the very least when it starts to happen. Passing judgement doesn't have to include military might. But it does mean you have to give a shit. And in the end, people don't learn not to beat their wives if they don't ever have someone looking at them with disapproval and saying, "That ain't right." And giving a shit about the wife.

For some strange reason it appears this is personal to you and are trying to make it personal towards me. We arent talking about domestic violence, the topic is the swiss making a law that seems wrong.

Now about the whole wife beating thing, are you gonna keep repeating that constantly ? Because if you are then it's not worth even reading, you just keep going around in circles.

And now you're comparing my comments to what the nazi's did ? How old are you ? 15 ? 16 ? Got that hell-fire compassion for the masses still flooding your viens and struggling to find a bad guy to point a finger at ?

And who said anything about kids getting beat on next door ? What the hell is wrong with you dude ?

I think before you pass judgement on someone you need to take a good hard look at what you yourself believe.

 

[Pure]

reciprocity

http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=17031&geo=1&size=A

Turkish journalist, Serkan Ocak, notes a slight problem: There is a de facto ban on building new churches--or in one case, on deconverting one-- in Turkey,

12/03/2009 13:48
TURKEY – ISLAM
Switzerland may have acted badly, but is the Church truly free in Turkey, Turkish journalist asks

by Geries Othman


Turkish leaders react to Swiss referendum that bans minarets. Muslims are asked to withdraw their money from Switzerland. But some wonder whether the Turkish government should look into its own “nasty little secrets” to see the denied permits to build or restore churches and the promises made but never kept with regards to Saint Paul’s Church in Tarsus and the Orthodox theological school in Halki.

Ankara (AsiaNews) – Amidst the noise caused in Turkey by the Swiss referendum on minarets, some courageous voices can be heard questioning how real is religious freedom guaranteed by the Turkish government. Turkish journalist Serkan Ocak, writing on Radikal yesterday, notes with extreme lucidity that whilst Switzerland acted badly, “is the Church in Turkey truly free?”

Turkey is among the first Muslim countries to react to the outcome of the Swiss referendum. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, head of the moderate Islamist Justice and Development Party, had harsh words, calling the outcome a “sign of an increasing racist and Fascist stance in Europe.” Turkish President Abdullah Gul said the vote was a "disgrace" for Switzerland. Turkey’s Minister for EU Affairs Egemin Bagis made an appeal to Muslims on Hurriyet in which he asked them to withdraw their money from Swiss banks, and urged his compatriots to choose Turkish banks.

“The doors of Turkish banks are wide open,” he said. Switzerland should “backtrack on this wrong decision” to ban minarets. “We need to empty Swiss banks coffers,” he said

As opposed to such heated reactions, other voices in Turkey have called on Turks to look into their own nasty little past. “Switzerland may have acted badly, but . . . is the Church truly free in Turkey?” Turkish journalist Serkan Ocak titled his article in Radikal yesterday. In a clear analysis, he raised questions about religious freedom in his country, showing that, despite angry words by Turkish authorities about the racist scandal in Switzerland, it is practically impossible to build a new church in Turkey, or even return an old unused church to its original use.

“Since 2003 in accordance with a European Union directive and Turkey’s building code, it is possible to open a new church,” Serkan said. “In practice however, it is not easy to do.”

In his in-depth article, he gave an example of the situation. “The Protestant Church of Salvation applied for a permit to build ten religious buildings seven years ago, and is still waiting for one. The law says that authorisation can be granted to build churches but the power to grant the permit is left to district prefects, who are not inclined to issue any. Even in Ankara, the prefect turned down an application for a Protestant place of worship in Cankaya neighbourhood on the ground that “there is not enough space”.

In Turkey, a great number of restrictions apply to religious freedom. Serkan cites another example. In 2003, lawyer Orhan Kemal Cengiz obtained the authorisation for one or two buildings. However, even though “a right is recognised and granted to a minority, certain conditions are imposed that make it virtually impossible for that right to be exercised.”
Some time ago, “a circular was issued, saying that places of worship must cover at least 2,500 m2. It is obvious that this creates huge difficulties. The same applies to restoration work or architectural changes. According to the law, only foundations are entitled to carry out such work. Thus, using certain technicalities, issues are never solved. Because of this, the Catholic Church is still not recognised as a legal person.”

The situation concerning Saint Paul’s Church in Tarsus is also at an impasse. The building was turned into a museum years ago, but Christians want it back to use as a place of worship. Whilst pilgrims who visit the church for mass are no longer required to pay an entrance fee, problems remains and are quite real.

Mgr Luigi Padovese, president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Turkey and apostolic vicar for Anatolia, explains, “In addition to the practice adopted by Turkish authorities at the end of the Pauline Year, which forces groups to reserve at least three days ahead of time for any Eucharistic celebration, uniformed police have now begun entering the church during functions; ostensibly for “security reasons”. If at least they would come in plain clothes to avoid causing any alarm among pilgrims. Turkish minister of Culture and Tourism had raised hopes when he said that this “museum” in Tarsus could become a church again, but now no one knows when the situation will actually change.”

Many promises were also made to the Orthodox Church, but nothing has been done. Despite Erdogan’s nice words when he met on 15 August of this year the Greek Patriarch Bartholomew I and the heads of other religious minorities, the Orthodox theological school of Halki has still not reopened after it was shutdown in 1971. More importantly, there is no sign it will be reopened anytime soon./B]

The problem in Turkey runs deeper than seeing parallels between the fate of minarets and Church bell towers. Since 2002, the Turkish government has been reassuring the Vatican and the Orthodox Patriarchate that steps would be taken towards respect for religious freedom.
Even though Turkey’s secular constitution guarantees everyone complete freedom of worship irrespective of religion, Christians continue to have a hard time finding a church that is open. Many of them also continue to experience social discrimination and so choose not to show their religious identity in public.
===

Existing churches in Istanbul [Turkish site]:
http://www.greatistanbul.com/church.htm

Hagia Sophia is a museum:
http://www.greatistanbul.com/hagia_sophia.htm

 

[stephen55]

You don't need a moustache to be a Fuhrer...

Wow!! I must say, I didn't intend to stir up such a storm.

So, jumping in where angel's fear to tread....

Pure...
your remarks, while perhaps well intentioned, are widely off base.

indications are that the Swiss gov't will follow through, see sources 4 and 5, below. in particular the line:

"A majority of the Swiss people and the cantons have adopted the popular initiative against the construction of minarets. The Federal Council [of Switzerland] respects this decision," a government statement said.
"Consequently the construction of new minarets in Switzerland is no longer permitted.


My well intentioned remarks were not off base. I know that Swiss law requires putting the referendum result into law, within one year. But there's nothing stopping anyone from organizing a second referendum to retry the referendum. That's what I meant when I said the Government has eight months to sort out the stupidity. I never said, or implied that they would. I implied that I hope they will.

you say, in a crazily inverted way:

The ban on minarets wasn't a new law proposed by the government. It was the result of a referendum, and the jackboots were behind it. Unfortunately, it passed by a majority vote in Switzerland which doesn't say much for the average Swiss voter.

Switzerland is a democracy.

Yes, and in a democracy, the vote goes to the majority of those who bother to vote. Only 30% of Swiss voters (total) voted yes. 46.6% of voters staid home. I can't say what would have happened if all voters turned out. I can only hope that cooler heads would have prevailed, over the helmet heads.

so, my friend,if you want to talk of 'jack boots' and 'fuhrers' i suggest you stop looking in Europe and look in Saudi Arabia and similar countries. and even the 'best case' turkey, is quasi dictatorial and doesn't allow churches to be built.

All I can say is what I've already said...

Personally, I don't think this has anything to do with distrust of Islam. I think this is simply one example of the ongoing efforts of the self-proclaimed, intolerant and xenophobic Fuhrers of this world to use Mein Kampf tactics to try to seize and hold power. The Nazis were hardly the first to use this stuff and they obviously aren't the last. And it's hardly confined to one race or color. Africa has had more Fuhrers than I care to recall. Islamic countries are full of them as well. South America has a long and ignoble history of them. And as for Asia, anyone remember Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, or Marcos? All Fuhrers have their favorite fabricated enemy within.

Hopefully, the Swiss have relearned an old lesson. If you don't understand history, you are doomed to repeat it.
[/I]

My point all along was that pointing fingers, generating fear and mistrust, ranting about "the dilution of our pure and perfect (insert choice of race, color, religion, beliefs, or any combination that might work) is an old and well understood tactic. That it still works, in all parts of the globe, is nothing for humanity to be proud of.

This isn't a theological dust-up between Christians and Muslims. It's intolerance and xenophobia writ large. And it's the same intolerance and xenophobia that's going on in various world stages, including Islamic countries. Having read both of Islam's and Christianity's basic texts, and then seeing what the major players of both religions have had to offer, both historically and today, I say "A pox on both their houses!"

 

[Boxlicker101]

Wow!! I must say, I didn't intend to stir up such a storm.

So, jumping in where angel's fear to tread....

(snip)

My point all along was that pointing fingers, generating fear and mistrust, ranting about "the dilution of our pure and perfect (insert choice of race, color, religion, beliefs, or any combination that might work) is an old and well understood tactic. That it still works, in all parts of the globe, is nothing for humanity to be proud of.

This isn't a theological dust-up between Christians and Muslims. It's intolerance and xenophobia writ large. And it's the same intolerance and xenophobia that's going on in various world stages, including Islamic countries. Having read both of Islam's and Christianity's basic texts, and then seeing what the major players of both religions have had to offer, both historically and today, I say "A pox on both their houses!"

It's more of a response to intolerance and xenophobia on the part of many Muslim countries. Mosques can still be built, and I think it's safe to say that they are being built. Can the same be said for cathedrals and churches and synagogues in those nations that are primarily Muslim? If so, do the fronts of those structures prominently display crosses or stars of David as they do in western nations and most of the civilized world?

 

[stephen55]

Kindergarten playground politics.........

It's more of a response to intolerance and xenophobia on the part of many Muslim countries. Mosques can still be built, and I think it's safe to say that they are being built. Can the same be said for cathedrals and churches and synagogues in those nations that are primarily Muslim? If so, do the fronts of those structures prominently display crosses or stars of David as they do in western nations and most of the civi8lized world?

And there will be responses to the response. Said response, of course was in response to a previous response, which was....you get the idea. For one side to hold up their heads and proudly proclaim, We are intolerant and xenophobic, but not as much as you!! is hardly a route to the solution of the original problem. You put aside intolerance and xenophobia by being tolerant and inclusive. However in Switzerland, the Swiss People's Party is in business to stir up the pot, not let it settle. The same can be said for the leadership in many Islamic countries. So again I say, a pox on both their houses.

 

[oggbashan]

As I understand it, mosques can be built, but without minarets.

That seems to be an aesthetic decision about architecture instead of an attack on religion.

However, I'm not sure that Swiss architecture needs protection from foreign influences. I'm not aware of any world-wide significant Swiss architect.

Some of the mosques and other temples built in the UK are very attractive buildings and worth seeing. A leavening of architectural innovation from other traditions can improve our own architectural practices.

We in the UK can't complain. We planted our building styles throughout the former Empire with no regard to native architectural styles, building Surrey in India, neo-Gothic everywhere but bringing back the bungalow, the verandah and souvenirs from everywhere (and no, you can't have the Elgin marbles back, nor Cleopatra's needle).

Og

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
It's more of a response to intolerance and xenophobia on the part of many Muslim countries. Mosques can still be built, and I think it's safe to say that they are being built. Can the same be said for cathedrals and churches and synagogues in those nations that are primarily Muslim? If so, do the fronts of those structures prominently display crosses or stars of David as they do in western nations and most of the civilized world?

And there will be responses to the response. Said response, of course was in response to a previous response, which was....you get the idea. For one side to hold up their heads and proudly proclaim, We are intolerant and xenophobic, but not as much as you!! is hardly a route to the solution of the original problem. You put aside intolerance and xenophobia by being tolerant and inclusive. However in Switzerland, the Swiss People's Party is in business to stir up the pot, not let it settle. The same can be said for the leadership in many Islamic countries. So again I say, a pox on both their houses.

As Og says, the original denial of the minaret was probably more aesthetic than religious. Those things are about twenty feet high, and stand out from the surrrounding buildings. The referendum, though, was probably more of an anti-Muslim rsponse than anything else.

And it was a response to a long-standing policy of Muslim nations of harassment and discrimination against members of other faiths. Mosques had been built, and fairly recently, in Switzerland andf all over the West, but the same cannot be said of churches and synagogues in Turkey and other places. Even on a playground, if one group of persons is tolerant and respectful of another group, but that second group keeps spitting in the eye of the first group, the tolerance of the first group is going to run out.

 

[al_Ussa]

Wow.... when did boxlicker become a Christian fundie?

I think it's safe to say that many of those who did not vote on the issue would have voted to outlaw minarets if they had.

Based on what? The presumption that all Europeans are as narrow minded and bigoted as yourself? I've noticed many of these prejudices seem to be more than embraced by white evangelical right wingers in the US than anyone else...

They mistrust the faith because Muslims frequently commit atrocities against those they call infidels.

Most Muslims live pretty peacefully and generally don't care about you so-called 'infidels.' I have plenty of Christian and Jewish and even Wiccan and athiest friends. I've even slept with some.

Whenever possible, they murder those who speak or write ill of their pedophile prophet.

Calling the Prophet Muhammad a pedophile is pretty much standard practice with you evangelicals. Its pretty much a copy paste character attack. And its all the funnier because (1) he wasn't and (2) we don't even like Aicha.

On several occasions, Muslims have launched massive invasions of Europe, but were beaten back, but not until millions of "infidels" had been murdered.

Millions murdered? Where in Europe was this exactly? Most of Eastern Europe as well as Spain and Sicily did quite well under Muslim rule. And the invasions of Europe were no different than any other colonial venture. Is it any different from the Roman invasion of Britain? Or the British invasion of India?

In fact, since its origin, Islam has been spread by conquest. Is there such a thing as a Muslim missionary who is not aiming a gun at those he wishes to convert?

Hahahaha... seriously? You believe that? Islam spread through trade in West Africa and the East African coast and much of Southeast Asia. And of course China. Not to mention that Islam continued to win converts in black Africa throughout the colonial period. You realize millions of people in the US and Europe are converting to Islam too right?

Besides reciprocity against the Muslim bigots who seek to eliminate any competing faiths, the Swiss are well aware of History. They are also well aware of the old Muslim fable about the camel who was allowed into the Bedouin's tent and ended up taking it over.

What about Swiss Muslims? I mean white European Swiss Muslims?

Also you ignore my comments that they have (and continue to) used similar laws against the Jews...

I am not going to defend Christianity, because I don't trust it or any monolithic faith.

And yet you spout the same bs that so many evangelicals spout...

On the other hand, Mohammed's pedophilia is well documented, because he married several very young girls.

Ummm no... we don't actually know how hold Aicha was when bethrothed to Muhammad but most scholars claim 7. The problem is that (1) pre-Islamic Arabs only recorded the month in which someone was born (2) that practice was common in many societies at the time (including in Europe) and can still be seen in much of Asia today and (3) Sunni scholars have tried to emphasize Aicha's youth to emphasize her 'purity' and 'virginity.' He also didnt consumate the marriage until several years later.

And as I said before we generally reject Aicha... We don't count her amongst the Ahl-al-Bayt and consider her jealousy towards Muhammad's family and descendants to be a bad thing.

It is true that the conquerors of North and South America were primarily Christian,

ENTIRELY Christian. They didn't bring Muslims or Jews amongst them.

but their religion had little or nothing to do with the conquest,

Except that they DID. The Conquistadors were explicitly conquering for Crown (Spain or Portugal) and Church (as in the Catholic Church). They brought priests with them and baptized natives en masse. They built churches and recieved blessings. They even gave a percentage of the gold they looted from the Aztec and Inca to the Vatican...

whereas the Muslim conquests in the Middle East and parts of Europe and Asia was driven by the desire to glorify their prophet.

What about Muslim conquest of OTHER Muslim countries? Like Timur's conquest of most of Iran and the Middle East or Salah-al-Din's invasion of Egypt? Or for more modern examples what about the Iran-Iraq war or the killings in Darfur or Morocco's annexation of Western Sahara.

Also why is it that there WEREN'T mass conversions to Islam in Spain or most of Eastern Europe when those lands were ruled by a Muslim minority for centuries?

Originally, Christianity was spread by word of mouth and missionaries, who taught by example. This is still going on, but Islam has never been spread by anything but conquest,

Except for the examples I gave you above. Like China. And Cameroon. And Java. And so forth.

Have you ever actually seen or even heard of a Muslim missionary? They may exist, but I have never heard of one.

Then you are an even bigger idiot than I thought. We call them du'at and they played a major role in spreading the faith especially in India but also Africa! Have you ever heard of Abu Abdullah al-Shi'i? My parents actually named me for him. He was INSTRUMENTAL in spreading out faith to the Berbers in Libya.

To reiterate, I am not going to defend Christianity, except in comparison with Islam.

Funny I don't see you defending say Hinduism or the Bahai...

Hundreds of years after its origin, Europe was torn apart by a series of religious wars but, until then, it really had been a religion of peace. The nations of Europe were frequently at war with one another, but this had nothing to do with religion.

Except that Christianity is a religion of the Middle East and not Europe. Most Europeans did not adopt Christianity until centuries later. It was really a religion of the Jews and Greeks as well as Egyptians Syrians Armenians Ethiopians Nubians and such.

Most of Christianity's spread into Europe starts with Rome and was facilitated by Charlemagne's CONQUEST. He was a warrior king.

Compare that with the spread of Islam, which I have already described.

Except that Islam ALSO had peaceful conversions as I said before.

Without question, and as you already know, North and South America were conquered by the supposedly Christian nations of Europe, with great loss to the natives, but this happened 1,500 years after the origin of the faith.

Most of the Muslim conquests didn't happen until long after Muhammad and truth be told many were by non-Arabs to boot. The Seljuk and especially Ottoman Turks weren't exactly pro-Arab by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[al_Ussa]

So? If someone buys the property and pays to develop it thats THEIR business. Nobody complains about skyscrapers or bell towers and this is little different. Its PRIVATE PROPERTY. Us Americans feel pretty strongly about that.

And it was a response to a long-standing policy of Muslim nations of harassment and discrimination against members of other faiths.

Bollocks. Its racism and prejudice plain and simple. This isn't some "noble act" of "defending western culture". Its hatred.

Mosques had been built, and fairly recently, in Switzerland andf all over the West,

Name ONE! The Swiss have actually FOUGHT giving permits for building of Masjid in Switzerland. Almost all Mosques in the country are using existing buildings like warehouses.

but the same cannot be said of churches and synagogues in Turkey and other places.

Except that there ARE Churches in Muslim countries. And Synagogues too. Indonesia (the world's largest Muslim country) has quite a few and new ones too. Dakar in Senegal (also Muslim majority). Even Iran! And there are very beautiful old Churches in Egypt Syria and Pakistan. I've seen them with my own eyes moron.

Even on a playground, if one group of persons is tolerant and respectful of another group, but that second group keeps spitting in the eye of the first group, the tolerance of the first group is going to run out.

And what if someone on that playground is STABBED to death by a white European neo-Nazi? Hmmm.... In case you don't know I'm referencing Marwa al-Sherbini who was MURDERED in a German court by a neo-Nazi who carried a knife in. MURDERED along with her unborn child in front of her husband. And nobody thought to check that scumbag for knives? In fact the Germans fucking gave that little shit more protection afterwards and have refused to execute him.

http://merryabla64.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/marwas20family_preview.jpg

As long as you Islamophobes keep ignoring this and spreading hatred there will continue to be people who get hurt.

 

[al_Ussa]

Look at saudi arabia, kuwait, bahrain, etc.

What of it? The Arabian countries aren't the only Muslim majority countries in the world or even the only Arab countries.

The swiss arent the only ones to blame, there is a lot of muslim countries that have a bunch of bullshit laws in them.

No argument there.

One of my buddies in the air force got the shit beat out of him by the police in saudi arabia for wearing a gold cross. And yes it was a legal act by the police there.

Well the Saudis are idiots. Their brand of "Islam" is a modern heresy with no historical or cultural bases. And its all spread by AMERICAN dollars so you can't really blame us for that shit. The US put the Banu Saud in power!

Also maybe he shouldnt have been going to Arabia in the first place.

My point being, every place has it's own wierd laws, their own way of preserving their culture.

Except what is "their culture". The Swiss like most other western European countries have decided to assimilate and "modernize" to be just like everyone else. And they want to spread "their culture" to the rest of the world. Name one country where western powers aren't meddling about?

Besides what about Swiss Muslims who want to express their religious freedom on their own private property? And what about the Swiss Jews who have been there considerably longer?

I dont judge any of them for what they do, I just wont be vacationing in any of those places.

I don't plan on vacationing in Switzerland either. Or giving them any of my money. If their government wants to declare itself and enemy of Islam then so be it. Our Imams taught us that we should not do business with the enemies of Islam.

 

[JackLuis]

Shit I started this thread so I could make the joke about the Swiss Navy.

Islam is not our enemy, it is the crazy bastards who are the enemy. Perhaps they are "Islamic, or Republican, or Zionists, or... what ever, but first and foremost they are Crazy Bastards and need to be, excluded from further participation in society.

When Obama declares a war on Crazy Bastards and fixes the economy perhaps all this name calling will come to an end.

Rave on troops!