« Open Thread | Main | Switzerland, 1; Rest-of-World, 0 »

Amazing. The US is rushing to copy the European model, yet, the model itself is moving away from its initial goals since they just don't work. Cultural diversity don't work, simply.

What a waste of political capital.

According to the article: Of 150 mosques or prayer rooms in Switzerland, only 4 have minarets, and only 2 more minarets are planned. None conduct the call to prayer.

This largely symbolic measure will now crowd out any productive discussion on what practical measures can be taken to halt the advance of terror, immigration insanity, and dhimmitude, and preserve the Swiss heritage from real, actual threats.

Additionally, the anti-minaret forces have alienated many citizens with conservative leanings who see this as a fundamental assault on private property rights or freedom of religion. Citizens who view architectural styles as being a non-issue when confronted with the hostile actions of certain hostile persons will re-consider their support for pro-Swiss heritage associations, in much the same way that fiscal conservatives abandoned the Republican party in droves during the Bush years.

Political capital is limited. Why not use it to do something that makes a difference, instead of wasting it on what will surely become an ideological battleground (and little more) in the debate over the future of Islam in Europe?

I understand their arguments, but four minarets is not a threat, nor do minarets have anything to do with murderous terrorism, which is fueled by preachers of hate, not architecture. Open borders are the threat to the peace and heritage of Switzerland, not architectural rarities.

But, Jay, imagine all of the jobs created by replacing all of the burned-out buses and cars. Replacing all of the trash can stands. Why, those are all "shovel ready projects". You know, that 3 letter word, j-o-b-s.

Today the minarets, tomorrow the mosques.

"Freedom of religion" is used by muslims in the same way that pornographers use freedom of speech.

Jay,
Not said very well, but you are absolutely correct.
And in the U.S., we need to regulate efforts to "diversity" when it is imposed upon people by force; which after all, is the modus operandi of both muslims and our government.

The king called up his jet fighters
He said you better earn your pay
Drop your bombs between the minarets
Down the Casbah way

As soon as the shareef was
Chauffeured outta there
The jet pilots tuned to
The cockpit radio blare

As soon as the shareef was
Outta their hair
The jet pilots wailed

I beg to have a correction to the title of this thread......

The Swiss Don't Need No 'Stinkin' Minarets

At least someone in the EU has some bit of common sense left.

And for Lao. A preemptive Bite Me!

Anonymous Countermoonbat at November 29, 2009 5:10 PM

If I can recast your careful analysis, it strikes me as being similar to the meditations of a drowsy grasshopper being approached by millions of army ants.

It is easy what would stop the burning and pillaging by muslims in europe. If the indigenous male population grew a pair and did tit for tat to the muslims. They burn down any building set fire to anything and they'd have to deal with a few mosques going up in flames and a few imams in the ICU. I think the muslims would get the point if that happened, but I have long since abanonded any hope that the indigenous population of males in europe would grow a pair. I think it's been bred out of them or the water in europe has female hormones running in it and the collective effect of that for the past 30 years or so has denutted the native males.

The important item here is the Swiss, not their government, stood up to the Muslims. This "largely symbolic measure" is just as much as a slap in the face as the Danish cartoons. Don't be surprised if this tolerant religion fights back with death and destruction. ...again.

Oh BTW we now have a "president" who not only celebrates Ramadan, but also Hajj on Thanksgiving.

For you backward, one-toothed xenophobes who don't know, Hajj is a celebration of the solidarity of the muslim people, in which you get to kill something.

i'm sure cair will bring the Swiss gov up on charges of racism in the court in the Hague.

Don't think they won't try it jtm...any time free people stand up these days, they'll get hauled into court.

The Moslems who cry about this stuff forget one simple rule: respect (and tolerance) are earned. If by your repeated actions (or in-actions) you prove to a host country that your presence will mean the obliteration of the existing culture, then is to be done? Say nothing face a hostile take-over by The Religion Of Peace, or say "no"?

YOU DON'T NEGOTIATE WITH CANCER.

If I can recast your careful analysis, it strikes me as being similar to the meditations of a drowsy grasshopper being approached by millions of army ants.

No, you are more accurately describing the Swiss people who will become burnt out over arguments concerning token symbolism.

Switzerland has four minarets. How many hate-spewing clerics does it have? In Switzerland, how many Muslim immigrants are completely dependent on government assistance, have no desire to become independent, nor any desire to assimilate? How easy is it to cross the border and overstay a visa? What has PC done to the ability of the police to investigate terrorism?

Actions like this minaret ban are in the same class of ineffective, feel-good politics that is typically advanced by progressives.

This ban cost time, money, and political capital, despite the fact that it doesn't accomplish anything other than igniting a controversy.

Swiss conservatives could have accomplished a useful policy objective in this Constitutional referendum. Instead, they passed a feel-good ban on rare architecture, and will have to spend the next few months dealing with the race card, and trying to convince Swiss independents that conservative values get things done.

This reminds me of the constant stream of "awareness weeks", honorific resolutions, and ineffective safety laws passed by the American left.

Anon Countermoonbat, usually I agree with you but not on this issue. The referendum was voted on by the people of Switzerland and earned 57% of the vote. That is a health majority. The Swiss have now drawn a line in the sand. Its symbolic significance should not be underestimated.

In your second posting, are you assuming that most Muslims are completely dependent on government assistance and have no desire to assimilate? If that's the case, no wonder the Swiss don't want them there. Why should the Swiss provide free housing and food for a bunch of people who won't work and do not wish to embrace the culture of the country? The sooner they run them out, the better. The libs who voted against it should learn a lesson as well. Voting against one's own survival is STUPID.

When I see a mosque dome in this country it makes me sick. It is a sign of trouble ahead and nothing you say will convince me otherwise. There is no such thing as a peaceful Muslim because the Koran is not peaceful. They do not love this country and they are here to undermine us from the inside. I say throw them all out.

I understand their arguments, but four minarets is not a threat, nor do minarets have anything to do with murderous terrorism, which is fueled by preachers of hate, not architecture.

Wrong. Islam is as much a political ideology as it claims to be a religion. Minarets, mosques, and the crescent moons that surmount them are highly visible ways Islamists stake out "turf" and announce, "What's ours is ours. What's yours will be ours too." Taken a look at the Hagia Sophia lately?

Friend, wake up and smell the Turkish-brewed coffee. And as for the Swiss "igniting a controversy," that "controversy" was ignited a long time ago...and it wasn't the Swiss who ignited it.

If you remember the Mohammed cartoons were nothing more than a symbolic slap. Yet the symbolism was effective; they exposed (at the time) the intolerance of muslims, their desire to repress speech and their willingness to kill over a ludicrous provocation. The cartoons provided a launching point for resistance.

Geert Wilders' film on Islam in the Netherlands, Fitna, has merited international attention. Symbolic maybe, but hugely effective.

You and I are probably agreed that the thing that will "burn out" is freedom if muslims are allowed to spread Sharia. So stopping them is imperative for a free society.

The Swiss have traditionally protected their culture from encroachment, so four minarets is not a small sample of the kind of alteration that will lead to a diminution of that culture. Around the world there is little to no commitment to sovereign cultures; certainly not something we are willing to stand up for.

This minaret thing just may ignite not just a controversy but the start of a major resistance. And one that may spread to other countries.

I think your first mistake is in under-evaluating the importance of a symbolic act to muslims; they take these things ever-so seriously.
You may also be assuming a kind of zero sum game based on the energies of the political will of the people. Both things you mentioned needs to be delt with: porous borders and a more useful Constitutional policy objective. But however necessary, the bigger the political agenda, the less likely it is to get passed in this day and age of PC.

Another reason: The Prime Minister of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, publicly read an Islamic poem including the lines:

“The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and Muslims our soldiers…”

The Swiss have effectively stopped the building of muslim bayonets.

Its time we also take this kind of thing seriously.

Hm..I see your point Anon, but I don't agree. In any country, by the time Islamic colonization turns into hard assets, such as 10 % of a population, CAIR-style "civil rights" groups in every town, beholden legislators, etc., it's too late. The time to try to prevent or at least slow it down is when it's at the symbol stage.

That said, it's hard to feel too much satisfaction in seeing a western country ammend its own constitution to limit freedom of religious expression. The most frustrating and infuriating aspect of Islam is how it forces us to be a little like them in order to hold them off. Well, that, and blowing shit up all the time.

Posted by: Anonymous Countermoonbat at November 29, 2009 5:10 PM

Exactly. Like many people, these Swiss conservatives are confusing appearance with substance. Instead of doing something that would actually help them achieve their goals, they just pissed everyone off.

The point is symbolic: "this is our country, and it will be run according to our rules. You chose to come here because our rules built a country that was desirable for you to live in. We will not accommodate you; you will accommodate us, or if you don't like it, get out."

Muslims leaving their Third World Islamic shitholes are implicitly admitting such, and would be well-advised to consider why their countries are shitholes. Shouldn't be too hard: they get a hint five times a day.

I'm surprised MaryHunter didn't put up a pic of the signs that have been posted in Switzerland, depicting a cartoon likeness of a sinister Jihadist with bandana-covered face, turban and snake-like eyes, with a "Stop Jihad" warning (or something to that effect). Imagine something like that appearing here in the States...!!

Just looked up the sign above- it reads "Stopp Ja", and has minarets depicted as missiles. Evidently they haven't been fully cowed and stupefied by Political Correctness yet...

Anon Countermoonbat, usually I agree with you but not on this issue. The referendum was voted on by the people of Switzerland and earned 57% of the vote. That is a health majority. The Swiss have now drawn a line in the sand. Its symbolic significance should not be underestimated.

It is a line in the sand, but in more ways than one. Politics, by its nature, tends to divide people into two diametrically opposed groups. While this is not always the case, for one reason or another, it is a recurring theme across cultures and times.

In Switzerland, this referendum will also serve as a dividing line between the support and the opposition. Such false dichotomies are clearly not rational, but they do pervade cultures which reduce politics to 30 second sound bytes. Now, the progressive left can frame the debate as either being "for tolerance" or for "architectural bigotry." This gives them an inroads into the minds of moderates who, while clearly for the preservation of Swiss heritage, are against reactionary measures like the minaret ban.

One core component of successful political strategy is knowing which battles to fight. Regardless of a person's feelings on whether this ban is right or just, or whether it is defensible that people tend to split into diametrically-opposed political camps, this is the reality of politics. This was not a wise battle to fight.

In your second posting, are you assuming that most Muslims are completely dependent on government assistance and have no desire to assimilate?

No, I'm stating a common problem throughout Europe. Across Europe, Muslim immigrants have higher rates of dependency and lower rates of assimilation than other groups, and based on Muslim cultural values, tend to be more expensive to the working taxpayer due to the larger size of Muslim families.

European welfare states are already strained under the weight of their own citizens. These states are beginning to engage in pyramidal debt issues. These states are on the verge of fiscal unsustainability.

If that's the case, no wonder the Swiss don't want them there. Why should the Swiss provide free housing and food for a bunch of people who won't work and do not wish to embrace the culture of the country? The sooner they run them out, the better. The libs who voted against it should learn a lesson as well. Voting against one's own survival is STUPID.

Immigration reform is tough enough, due to the pervasive nature of identity politics and the willingness of progressives to play the race card whenever it is suggested that a society has no obligation to let the whole world loot it freely.

My argument is that Swiss conservatives should have used their political capital on something meaningful like an immigration overhaul, not on something symbolic than a minaret ban.

When I see a mosque dome in this country it makes me sick. It is a sign of trouble ahead and nothing you say will convince me otherwise. There is no such thing as a peaceful Muslim because the Koran is not peaceful. They do not love this country and they are here to undermine us from the inside. I say throw them all out.

Where I live, right after 9/11, there was an issue with an extremist cleric preaching anti-Americanism and Jew hatred from a community center in a strip mall. The minarets across town weren't contributing to the problem - only the hate-spewing human was. Getting bent out of shape over the architecture would have distracted from the real problem, which was an extremist congregation festering in an unlikely place.

The Koran and the Hadiths clearly condone violence, which is why Western civilizations concerned about self-preservation should worry about those preaching literal Islam, not those erecting Islamic architecture.

Granted, the difference may not be that large in all situations, but pragmatic conservatives must realize that the public can and will get burnt out on a culture war if the battles continue to be ideological instead of practical. This is why we must choose our battles.

With the immense downside to losing this war, we need to focus on the actual problems - those spewing hate and continuing to import non-assimilating, non-working members of their community - regardless of what style building such a cleric operates from.

Until conservatives can successfully accomplish everything at once, we must prioritize.

Hm..I see your point Anon, but I don't agree. In any country, by the time Islamic colonization turns into hard assets, such as 10 % of a population, CAIR-style "civil rights" groups in every town, beholden legislators, etc., it's too late. The time to try to prevent or at least slow it down is when it's at the symbol stage.

The fastest way to stop it would be to expend every ounce of political capital on reforming the immigration and welfare systems.

While conservative activists are fighting proxy battles over things like architecture, the Islamic colonists continue to import as many believers as they can, into their insular communities that neither assimilate nor self-sustain.

These insular immigrant communities, all across Europe, generally share four characteristics:

1. Dependence on government support, in lieu of work
2. Refusal to assimilate or even try and co-exist with the host culture
3. Organization around local religious leaders as authorities (even above and beyond the host state)
4. Violence towards outsiders, most notably police trying to maintain law and order

Stopping the minarets won't stop any of that. The Islamization will continue just as before.

A Dutch friend of mine recently relayed to me that certain neighborhoods within his country have become so insular that the police effectively will no longer go there, and on the rare occasions they do, they must always travel in groups, and leave officers outside to watch the cars (or else they will be burnt).

Architectural regulations solve none of that. Conservative activists should be working towards immigration reform, welfare reform, and PC reform.

Swiss activists now get to feel good about protecting their culture from the evil minarets, while their government continues to allow the mass-importation of Muslims to insular Muslim communities, all paid for by Swiss citizens, as if without minarets, those Muslims with no desire to assimilate will stay in their home countries.

The point is symbolic: "this is our country, and it will be run according to our rules. You chose to come here because our rules built a country that was desirable for you to live in. We will not accommodate you; you will accommodate us, or if you don't like it, get out."

European societies are still accommodating them, through lax immigration policies, liberal safety nets and welfare payments, politically correct government policies, and a hands-off approach to law enforcement (leaving much of the police work to be done by clerics adhering to Sharia).

As far as accommodations go, architectural permissiveness is extremely low on the list, which is why I contend it should not have been prioritized.

The point here is that this ban does nothing to stop the real accommodations that are fueling the influx.

"...societies are still accommodating them, through lax immigration policies, liberal safety nets and welfare payments, politically correct government policies, and a hands-off approach to law enforcement..."

Posted by: Anonymous Countermoonbat at November 29, 2009 7:31 PM

Yep. Sounds just like the good ol' USA to me.

I have witnessed them behaving as animals do in Iraq. I will NOT let it happen in my State. My line in the sand has been drawn for 3 years.

It's hard to defend a symbolic gesture such as the minaret ban as a substantive gain. But battle cannot be done against the suicidal cravings of the political elite unless and until there is a groundswell of support for it. The upside to the minaret ban is in providing something to rally around. If all that's achieved is a ban of the damn minarets, that is a hollow victory, indeed. But if it wakes up some leaders and makes them realize that the peasants are unhappy about being led off a cliff, it might be a symbolic gesture with downstream tangible benefits. A bit like the Tea Parties. To some (well, many, actually) the Tea Parties are stupid gestures by confused peasants who are too rowdy and unfocused for polite society; to others the parties are an expression of nascent political power that may add up to something after the tea partiers figure out what specifically they want. It's not that different. Demanding that the Swiss address substantive issues instead of wasting time on architecture would be like demanding the Tea Partiers shelve the get-togethers and write policy papers. Getting a robust party underway is a good start on the long road to acquiring some power.

However, this might be a good time for the Swiss to review their constitutional amendment procedures. Amendment by referendum is chaotic. It's fun to see minarets banned. I wonder what they'll ban next.

the muslims know the swiss have weapons and all the muslims know the swiss have orders to shot the rats down like rats! that idea of people having weapons comes from switerzland and all the guys must do time in the swiss Army its called duty to a nation and duty to each other unlike many other nation states maybe the europeans can get some balls from the swiss?

Allahu Akbar!

The Swiss, while all around them Europe has gone crazy, have held their borders, isolated their population, and retained their sovereignty. Not only did they do this when Fascism ran wild in the early 20th century(when virtually every other country was over-run), they have been doing it effectively since before the Romans flooded Europe. Not everything the Swiss have done is exactly in the best interest of anyone other than the Swiss.

If there is any lesson to be learned from the Swiss it is mind your own business and let no one interfere with your own business. In some ways it's brilliant to become statist AFTER you have established a working constitution. Too bad we have forgotten the principles of long-lasting peace in other places of the world, especially with such a fabulous example as Switzerland.

Mmmmmmmmmmmm Swiss Cheese.........

...pragmatic conservatives must realize that the public can and will get burnt out on a culture war if the battles continue to be ideological instead of practical. This is why we must choose our battles.

Posted by: Anonymous Countermoonbat at November 29, 2009 7:08 PM

The minarets are more than symbolic; the law has physical consequences; i.e., the minarets stop.
For any symbolism the law may have, it more than just represents a start, it starts on a pathway for the country to clean up.

In the present PC climate, it's very difficult to do anything conclusive to stop the immigration of muslims. Do you really think the Swiss are going to change their Constitution by a referendum vote to discriminate between immigrants or to close their borders to immigrants? There's no easy way to solve that problem when weakness, internal controversy/opinion mixed with world pressure would eventually mitigate or even preclude such a move.
Banning the building of new mosques would never pass today, but maybe its a good idea to keep the footbaths out of public buildings.

Otherwise, at this time, what the Swiss would wind up with is what American has: talk. And more talk.
Starting with something of small substance is frustrating, but it is under the circumstances, the right strategy.

This is how Giuliani cleaned up NYC. He started small (clean subways/squeege men/gum on the sidewalk) and was wildly successful.

Similarly, if the Swiss continue down this path piece by piece, ultimately the country will get control of its borders. Then Switzerland starts becoming a place where it's resistance makes it easier for muslims to go somewhere else.

But talk around the problem for a few years and in the meantime you become Londonistan.

yesterday i said cair would sue the Swiss gov at the court in the Hague.well they won't have to the european court of human rights said they would be able to overturn the vote because there rights are being violated.see what we have to look forward to.