"I gotta tell ya, architecture might be my favorite thing about religion."

I could upding Jon Stewart all day.

I'll even throw in "In bed."

Saw this early this week. Not only is it hilarious but Jon Stewart is 100% correct.

Typical of Stewart, I learned a lot from this. There were only FOUR minarets in the whole country???

re: #3 allegro

Typical of Stewart, I learned a lot from this. There were only FOUR minarets in the whole country???

Yep.

Four.

re: #1 JasonA

"I gotta tell ya, architecture might be my favorite thing about religion."

I could upding Jon Stewart all day.

I'll even throw in "In bed."

Bath Abbey comes to mind! Just a breathtaking building.

re: #5 WindUpBird

Bath Abbey comes to mind! Just a breathtaking building.

You should come to Chicago. Some of our churches here are quite splendid, and our other architecture is second to none.

Little plug for my hometown.

re: #5 WindUpBird

Check this out. Sant'Ivo all Sapienza, Rome

There are an estimated 400,000 Muslims in Switzerland, most from the former Yugoslavia or Turkey. Islam is the country's most widespread religion after Christianity, but although there are Muslim prayer rooms, proper mosques with minarets are few and far between.

There are just four across Switzerland, and in recent years, all applications to build minarets have been turned down.
[Link: news.bbc.co.uk...]

THAT was something to see!

re: #6 Dark_Falcon

You should come to Chicago. Some of our churches here are quite splendid, and our other architecture is second to none.

The B'hai Temple comes to mind.

the look the Ambassador gave the interviewer at the end could have melted steel

Hey, are there still Lizard Lounges? I don't remember seeing one recently. Maybe I'm just not paying attention.

re: #10 allegro

The B'hai Temple comes to mind.

Yes, indeed. The Temple and its grounds are an excellent subject for photography and I have a number of good photos of it. I'll see if I can find one to post.

re: #3 allegro

Typical of Stewart, I learned a lot from this. There were only FOUR minarets in the whole country???

How many steeples are in Saudi Arabia?

These two Jon Stewart clips from last week were also excellent:

On Glenn Beck's gold shilling:
[Link: www.thedailyshow.com...]

On Fox & Friends' Gretchen Carlson faking being dim:
[Link: www.thedailyshow.com...]

re: #7 MikeySDCA

ARGH Windupbird wants to go to Italy. When I was in Europe we didn't have time. :(

I actually have an architecture art book I have for reference with this church in it, I recognized the cupola immediately :D

I laughed as hard as anyone at Stewart's mocking impression of Glenn Beck. However, I'm soured, possibly permanently, on any observation he has to make about Islam. His crew went to Iran and didn't get eaten alive, therefore they reported that Iran is just a misunderstood victim of the U.S. propaganda machine. Barely a peep about the onrushing nuclear confrontation, and nothing about the human rights situation.

Maybe someday we'll get the real scoop, probably from a certain blogger. If he survives his incarceration, that is.

re: #14 brookly red

How many steeples are in Saudi Arabia?

Do you have a point (no pun intended)?

re: #15 simoom

Also, for those of us who like a dash of immature humor from time to time...

John's take on Cash for Caulkers.

re: #6 Dark_Falcon

You should come to Chicago. Some of our churches here are quite splendid, and our other architecture is second to none.

Little plug for my hometown.

I enthusiastically agree. I put this together after a visit there in 2003:

re: #17 The Sanity Inspector

I laughed as hard as anyone at Stewart's mocking impression of Glenn Beck. However, I'm soured, possibly permanently, on any observation he has to make about Islam. His crew went to Iran and didn't get eaten alive, therefore they reported that Iran is just a misunderstood victim of the U.S. propaganda machine. Barely a peep about the onrushing nuclear confrontation, and nothing about the human rights situation.

Maybe someday we'll get the real scoop, probably from a certain blogger. If he survives his incarceration, that is.

Well, they ARE a victim of our propaganda machine AND there's a nearing nuclear confrontation and a human rights debacle. ;-)

Also, Iran's political leadership ≠ All of Islam.

re: #12 WindUpBird

Hey, are there still Lizard Lounges? I don't remember seeing one recently. Maybe I'm just not paying attention.

No, you're right; it's been a while.

re: #14 brookly red

How many steeples are in Saudi Arabia?

Here's four.

re: #22 The Sanity Inspector

No, you're right; it's been a while.

I want to save that little iguana illustration with the cocktail and draw fan art of him :D I even set up an LGF friendly photobucket for sketckes and everything!

re: #18 allegro

Do you have a point (no pun intended)?

the scimitar cuts both ways...

re: #25 brookly red

the scimitar cuts both ways...

Saudi has banned steeples then?

re: #10 allegro

The B'hai Temple comes to mind.

I saw the Bahai Temple in Israel, gorgeous. As for the Temple in the birthplace of the Bahai faith, the mullahs demolished it, right down to destroying the mosaic floors.

re: #24 WindUpBird

I want to save that little iguana illustration with the cocktail and draw fan art of him :D I even set up an LGF friendly photobucket for sketckes and everything!

You can probably find it in the archives.

True, it's been a while since a Lizard Lounge post -- I'll put one up in a little bit...

re: #25 brookly red

the scimitar cuts both ways...

Free societies don't utilize scimitars. Agreeing as such puts one ideologically on the same side as the extremist Islamists.

re: #26 allegro

Saudi has banned steeples then?

I am not versed in Saudi law but I am guessing that if you can't bring a Bible in then , yada, yada yada.

re: #29 Charles

Hooray!

re: #26 allegro

Saudi has banned steeples then?

It is illegal in Saudi Arabia to construct houses of worship of faiths other than Islam. They frown on even in-home services. Jews are forbidden from setting foot in the country. It therefore rankles to have them lecture the West on freedom of religion.

Those who believe that Third Worlders who are angry at the West are by definition in the right will of course dissent.

re: #24 WindUpBird

Just clicked on your illustrations; I like that giant clockwork bird-thing, very cool!

re: #30 Gus 802

Free societies don't utilize scimitars. Agreeing as such puts one ideologically on the same side as the extremist Islamists.

My bad... but the leathel injection cuts both ways just does not have the same snarky tone.

re: #33 The Sanity Inspector

It is illegal in Saudi Arabia to construct houses of worship of faiths other than Islam. They frown on even in-home services. Jews are forbidden from setting foot in the country. It therefore rankles to have them lecture the West on freedom of religion.

I did not know that. Thanks.

re: #23 recusancy

Here's four.

Those aren't steeples.

re: #14 brookly red

How many steeples are in Saudi Arabia?

Saudi Arabia is governed by an overtly religious monarchy. They may be assholes, but they're upfront about it.

Switzerland, on the other hand, is supposed to be part of the Enlightened West, where freedom of religion is upheld as a core principle of human existence.

Bans on a particular religious style of architecture in one country are expected, while they're shockingly unexpected in the other. They are repugnant in both, but my expectations would be much higher for the right thing being done in Switzerland, and the disappointment that it is not is far sharper.

re: #23 recusancy

Here's four.

Those are minarets, not steeples, but that is indeed a lovely building. However, it is worth remembering that the Saudi government allows n one who is not a Muslim to even enter Medina. So while the building itself is a beautiful expression of faith, access to it is controlled in a bigoted manner.

re: #17 The Sanity Inspector

I laughed as hard as anyone at Stewart's mocking impression of Glenn Beck. However, I'm soured, possibly permanently, on any observation he has to make about Islam. His crew went to Iran and didn't get eaten alive, therefore they reported that Iran is just a misunderstood victim of the U.S. propaganda machine. Barely a peep about the onrushing nuclear confrontation, and nothing about the human rights situation.

Maybe someday we'll get the real scoop, probably from a certain blogger. If he survives his incarceration, that is.

Well since they didn't demonize Iran to your liking in that one episode here's an episode where Jon is interviewing Iranian prisoner Maziar Bahari. I don't think their talking about how they cuddled with him and sang him lullabys to fall to sleep.

re: #38 SixDegrees

Saudi Arabia is governed by an overtly religious monarchy. They may be assholes, but they're upfront about it.

Switzerland, on the other hand, is supposed to be part of the Enlightened West, where freedom of religion is upheld as a core principle of human existence.

Bans on a particular religious style of architecture in one country are expected, while they're shockingly unexpected in the other. They are repugnant in both, but my expectations would be much higher for the right thing being done in Switzerland, and the disappointment that it is not is far sharper.

they voted & so be it.

re: #39 Dark_Falcon

Those are minarets, not steeples, but that is indeed a lovely building. However, it is worth remembering that the Saudi government allows n one who is not a Muslim to even enter Medina. So while the building itself is a beautiful expression of faith, access to it is controlled in a bigoted manner.

What's your point? Nobody is holding up Saudi Arabia as the pinnacle of enlightenment.

re: #40 recusancy

Well since they didn't demonize Iran to your liking in that one episode here's an episode where Jon is interviewing Iranian prisoner Maziar Bahari. I don't think their talking about how they cuddled with him and sang him lullabys to fall to sleep.

I did not know about that episode, I'll check it out when I can, thanks.

re: #30 Gus 802

Free societies don't utilize scimitars. Agreeing as such puts one ideologically on the same side as the extremist Islamists.

do you lock your doors at night?

re: #41 brookly red

they voted & so be it.

That does not place their actions beyond criticism. I find it appalling.

Minority rights should not be subject to majority votes.

re: #17 The Sanity Inspector

I laughed as hard as anyone at Stewart's mocking impression of Glenn Beck. However, I'm soured, possibly permanently, on any observation he has to make about Islam. His crew went to Iran and didn't get eaten alive, therefore they reported that Iran is just a misunderstood victim of the U.S. propaganda machine. Barely a peep about the onrushing nuclear confrontation, and nothing about the human rights situation.

I'd have to disagree with you there.
They not only have had spots about the "green revolution" they had the reporter on who was arrested because he gave a "fake" interview to The Daily Show while they were in Iran.

re: #43 The Sanity Inspector

I did not know about that episode, I'll check it out when I can, thanks.

He interviews everyone. He's not some lefty activist. He has a point of view and an opinion but he doesn't disallow voices from being heard. He's actually very much of the middle because he hates trying to tote party lines or ideological lines. He just wants the truth and humor.

re: #46 erraticsphinx

Minority rights should not be subject to majority votes.

Succinct and to the point. See also the "Tyranny of Democracy," and why pure democracies were so loathed by America's founders.

re: #30 Gus 802

Free societies don't utilize scimitars. Agreeing as such puts one ideologically on the same side as the extremist Islamists.

There's nothing wrong with scimitars, provided you only use them for collecting and defense. Some of them are quite beautiful.

In this same episode Jon interviews Michael Specter. It was a great interview and he's someone who needs to go bitch slap some sense into Bill Mahar. I just wish he would have brought him up by name in the interview.

re: #45 SixDegrees

That does not place their actions beyond criticism. I find it appalling.

I see where you are coming from & I respect it. The Swiss however have made their choice & it is their choice. I respect that too.

re: #43 The Sanity Inspector

I did not know about that episode, I'll check it out when I can, thanks.

He was imprisoned because he did an interview with the Daily Show. They don't gloss over things.

re: #42 recusancy

What's your point? Nobody is holding up Saudi Arabia as the pinnacle of enlightenment.

Nor is anyone holding up Switzerland as the pinnacle of enlightenment. The only thing stopping TV personalities like Jon Stewart from doing mocking segments on Saudi Arabia and Radical Islam is, perhaps, a threat to chop off his head?

re: #16 WindUpBird

The interior is unphotographable: it's like being inside a sculpture carved of light.

re: #54 Racer X

Nor is anyone holding up Switzerland as the pinnacle of enlightenment. The only thing stopping TV personalities like Jon Stewart from doing mocking segments on Saudi Arabia and Radical Islam is, perhaps, a threat to chop off his head?

No. Switzerland is thought of, by the average American, as part of the enlightened new Europe west. Making fun of Saudi Arabia's religious intolerance is like shooting fish in a barrel. It's been done and will be done in the future. But they can't do it every episode to please you.

Here's a detailed photo of that black sheep' ad. The headline means something like 'create security.' Any German speakers want to translate the rest?
[Link: www.flickr.com...]

re: #46 erraticsphinx

Minority rights should not be subject to majority votes.

That's true, and probably the genesis of the old saying that democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for lunch.

re: #56 recusancy

heh!
[Link: latimesblogs.latimes.com...]

I registered for freshman college classes in 1966 at
The Mosque in Richmond VA.

re: #54 Racer X

Nor is anyone holding up Switzerland as the pinnacle of enlightenment. The only thing stopping TV personalities like Jon Stewart from doing mocking segments on Saudi Arabia and Radical Islam is, perhaps, a threat to chop off his head?

That reminds me of a funny little thing Colbert does in regard to Islam. In his book he has a chapter where he talks about world religions and takes his pokes in that Colbert style. Islam? Here's what he has to say about Islam:

Islam is a great and true religion revealed in the Holy Koran which was dictated by the angel Gabriel to the final prophet Mohammed, Blessing and Peace Be Upon Him.

He does that on his show often. I love the way he can mock something in such a way that people on the other side won't get.

re: #56 recusancy

No. Switzerland is thought of, by the average American, as part of the enlightened new Europe west. Making fun of Saudi Arabia's religious intolerance is like shooting fish in a barrel. It's been done and will be done in the future. But they can't do it every episode to please you.

Making fun of Saudi Arabia's religious intolerance? Making fun of?

So Swiss intolerence is grounds for outrage & the Saudi's is worthy of jokes?

re: #62 brookly red

Making fun of Saudi Arabia's religious intolerance? Making fun of?

So Swiss intolerence is grounds for outrage & the Saudi's is worthy of jokes?

It's a comedy show. He makes fun of things. Relax.

Here's another poster from the minaret ban group that makes their objection a little clearer: multicolored hands reaching for Swiss passports.
[Link: www.flickr.com...]

re: #63 recusancy

OK

re: #64 jaunte

Here's another poster from the minaret ban group that makes their objection a little clearer: multicolored hands reaching for Swiss passports.
[Link: www.flickr.com...]

Open racism, nice. The people who draw posters like that would get along really with Robert Stacy McCain.

/spits

re: #56 recusancy

You missed my point.

bbl

re: #67 Racer X

You missed my point.

You think he's holding off on Saudi Arabia because he thinks his head will be chopped off. I get it.

re: #62 brookly red

Making fun of Saudi Arabia's religious intolerance? Making fun of?

So Swiss intolerence is grounds for outrage & the Saudi's is worthy of jokes?

If my cat kills and eats the neighbor's pet bunny, it's entirely different than if I do the same thing. In the first instance, it's the cat's nature and isn't unexpected; in my case, I'm expected to know better.

It's appalling either way. But my actions in such a case are much more subject to criticism than the cat's.

re: #70 SixDegrees

It's a cat eat bunny world out there.

*shudder*

re: #70 SixDegrees

If my cat kills and eats the neighbor's pet bunny, it's entirely different than if I do the same thing. In the first instance, it's the cat's nature and isn't unexpected; in my case, I'm expected to know better.

It's appalling either way. But my actions in such a case are much more subject to criticism than the cat's.

So the Swiss are held to a higher standard that the Saudis?

Minarets are a political symbol, not religious. They started during the Turkish Umaayad Caliphate as a way to symbolize conquest and let the local population know who was in control.

re: #35 brookly red

My bad... but the leathel injection cuts both ways just does not have the same snarky tone.

I knew it wasn't meant to be a literal scimitar.

re: #73 captdiggs

Minarets are a political symbol, not religious. They started during the Turkish Umaayad Caliphate as a way to symbolize conquest and let the local population know who was in control.

I guess the Swiss figured that out too...

re: #72 brookly red

So the Swiss are held to a higher standard that the Saudis?

Absolutely. See my earlier post; they're part of the Enlightened West and ought to know that such actions are appalling. The Saudis are an overtly oppressive religious form of government, and such actions are not at all surprising.

It doesn't make one act any less appalling than the other, as already stated. But I expect more from the Swiss.

re: #71 erraticsphinx

It's a cat eat bunny world out there.

*shudder*

Yes, it is. Warning, the photos on the link are not for the squeamish.

re: #73 captdiggs

Minarets are a political symbol, not religious. They started during the Turkish Umaayad Caliphate as a way to symbolize conquest and let the local population know who was in control.

And what are Catholic church steeples?

re: #78 SixDegrees

And what are Catholic church steeples?

Or the evangelical Mega Churches. They're like mini cities.

re: #78 SixDegrees

And what are Catholic church steeples?

I'm waiting to hear about how the other churches weren't "steeped" in politics then and now. Let's say the Church of England.

/

re: #73 captdiggs

That's not true, the first minarets appeared less than 100 years after the death of Muhammad.

And furthermore, who cares?

In today's world, they are exclusively used in Mosques and therefore are much more religious than political by any standard.

re: #72 brookly red

So the Swiss are held to a higher standard that the Saudis?

Effectively, yes. No one is shocked when the Saudis do something thuggish, but they are a medieval monarchy. Switzerland is a modern democracy and so is expected to follow the rules even if the other side doesn't.

re: #82 Dark_Falcon

Effectively, yes. No one is shocked when the Saudis do something thuggish, but they are a medieval monarchy. Switzerland is a modern democracy and so is expected to follow the rules even if the other side doesn't.

Let's not forget all that oil they have that we need. So yeah, they can get away with a lot of bullshit.

re: #73 captdiggs

re: #78 SixDegrees

re: #80 Gus 802

The steeples, like the minarets, were more for recognition purposes than political. In the days before MAPQUEST and sprawling urban areas, it made it easier for people in the coutryside far and wide to 'find' the church/ mosque

Remember that this issue is being pushed by racists.
[Link: www.flickr.com...]

re: #76 SixDegrees

Absolutely. See my earlier post; they're part of the Enlightened West and ought to know that such actions are appalling. The Saudis are an overtly oppressive religious form of government, and such actions are not at all surprising.

It doesn't make one act any less appalling than the other, as already stated. But I expect more from the Swiss.

So then the Swiss agreeing that they don't want an overtly oppressive religious form of government (or society) are somehow wrong? After all they are enlightened Westerners... Oh wait, does that term somehow suggest that the Saudis are some how lesser people?

Oh, I wish I was a tiny church mouse (church mouse)
Oh, I wish I was a tiny church mouse (church mouse)
I would sit upon the steeples
And spit upon the peoples
Oh, I wish I was a tiny church mouse.

re: #73 captdiggs

Minarets are a political symbol, not religious. They started during the Turkish Umaayad Caliphate as a way to symbolize conquest and let the local population know who was in control.

Uh, no. They were much earlier than that and they're purpose is exactly the same as a church bell tower. To let people know it's time to worship.

re: #82 Dark_Falcon

Effectively, yes. No one is shocked when the Saudis do something thuggish, but they are a medieval monarchy. Switzerland is a modern democracy and so is expected to follow the rules even if the other side doesn't.

maybe they just want to stay that way?

re: #86 brookly red

So then the Swiss agreeing that they don't want an overtly oppressive religious form of government (or society) are somehow wrong?

4% of the population is threatening an overtly oppressive religious form of government (or society)?

They don't allow gay bars in Saudi Arabia. Does that mean they should ban bars to be owned by Saudis in Switzerland?

"Xenophobic nightmares are harmful to your health."
[Link: www.flickr.com...]

re: #86 brookly red

So then the Swiss agreeing that they don't want an overtly oppressive religious form of government (or society) are somehow wrong? After all they are enlightened Westerners... Oh wait, does that term somehow suggest that the Saudis are some how lesser people?

By human rights standards, YES.

re: #90 allegro

4% of the population is threatening an overtly oppressive religious form of government (or society)?

I am not Swiss, they voted so let it be.

Wow- that was quite the interview with the ambassador.

re: #73 captdiggs

Minarets are a political symbol, not religious. They started during the Turkish Umaayad Caliphate as a way to symbolize conquest and let the local population know who was in control.

You're spending too much time at Jihad Watch. I used to buy this nonsense too, before I learned that it was a myth spread by bigots.

re: #94 brookly red

I am not Swiss, they voted so let it be.

I find racism to be repugnant. I will never let it be.

re: #95 Sharmuta

He knew he was nailed by the end, the guy was just playing dumb.
Not Switzerland's proudest moment.

re: #92 jaunte

"Xenophobic nightmares are harmful to your health."
[Link: www.flickr.com...]

I love that one. It calls the minaret banners the crazy racists they really are.

re: #91 Gus 802

They don't allow gay bars in Saudi Arabia. Does that mean they should ban bars to be owned by Saudis in Switzerland?

Dude they don't allow alcohol is SA, or gays for that matter. I think a gay bar is pretty much out of the question. Sheesh.

re: #97 allegro

I find racism to be repugnant. I will never let it be.

Islam is not a race.

re: #84 sattv4u2

re: #78 SixDegrees

re: #80 Gus 802

The steeples, like the minarets, were more for recognition purposes than political. In the days before MAPQUEST and sprawling urban areas, it made it easier for people in the coutryside far and wide to 'find' the church/ mosque

The very same story is offered as explanation for the minaret - that it's simply a convenient marker guiding the faithful to their place of worship.

Others consider the church steeple to be a symbol of Christ's dominion over the land it overlooks.

The point, however, is that banning an architectural feature on the basis that it is a religious symbol is odious. In the West - thanks to the synergy between the Enlightenment and America's founders - the notion that all people are free to practice their religion as they see fit, without interference from the state, is of central importance, a fundamental right.

And I spit on the Swiss for taking a huge crap all over it.

Just so everyone knows, the Swiss also outlaw Kosher slaughter. And I believe they did it by referendum too.

re: #101 brookly red

Then the Swiss should stop treating it like one.

re: #101 brookly red

I am not Swiss, they voted so let it be.

Have you looked at the anti-minaret posters that have been linked? This is racism, without question.

re: #103 erraticsphinx

Just so everyone knows, the Swiss also outlaw Kosher slaughter. And I believe they did it by referendum too.

[Link: www.haaretz.com...]

re: #103 erraticsphinx

Just so everyone knows, the Swiss also outlaw Kosher slaughter. And I believe they did it by referendum too.

That's what separates America- we protect minority rights.

re: #86 brookly red

So then the Swiss agreeing that they don't want an overtly oppressive religious form of government (or society) are somehow wrong? After all they are enlightened Westerners... Oh wait, does that term somehow suggest that the Saudis are some how lesser people?

That's not what the Swiss have done at all, nor were they in any danger whatsoever of such an outcome by allowing the construction of minarets. Their referendum is an expression of pure bigotry, plain and simple, that flies in the face of everything the West has come to stand for.

"Minarets = Danger? WTF!"
[Link: www.flickr.com...]

re: #96 Charles

You're spending too much time at Jihad Watch. I used to buy this nonsense too, before I learned that it was a myth spread by bigots.

So the arab media represents these "bigots" you talk about?

Minarets were introduced in the process of conquest such as in the earliest surviving imperial mosque — the Umayyad Mosque of Damascus — in the beginning of the 8th century. Minarets were in this case an appropriation of a Byzantine church’s bell towers.
[Link: www.arabnews.com...]

It's history and it's really quite well known in University middle east studies departments.

re: #105 allegro

Have you looked at the anti-minaret posters that have been linked? This is racism, without question.

OK your right, the Swiss are all racists & have no right to decide their own affairs...

re: #94 brookly red

I am not Swiss, they voted so let it be.

No. You are correct that those who are not Swiss citizens are not able to vote on such matters. But that does not place those matters beyond criticism, and the Swiss rightly deserve criticism for this repulsive action.

re: #107 Sharmuta

re: #103 erraticsphinx

This points the benfit of an inclusive way to deal with majority and minority rights. Rather than banning this or that, allow each and all to have their say, their display, their minaret. That promotes understanding. Inclusive helps, exclusive hurts.
Bans just amplify anger and hate, which of course are the precursors of violence.

re: #101 brookly red

Islam is not a race.

Bigotry, then.

re: #100 brookly red

Dude they don't allow alcohol is SA, or gays for that matter. I think a gay bar is pretty much out of the question. Sheesh.

Then they don't allow women drivers in Saudi Arabia. Should they ban all Saudi drivers in Switzerland?

re: #10 allegro

The B'hai Temple comes to mind.

Yes, when I lived there it was referred to as "The Lord's Lemon Squeezer".

I never understood why.

But then, I had never seen a lemon squeezer before.

Image: 20070216042049!BahaiTempleChicago.JPG

re: #115 Gus 802

Then they don't allow women drivers in Saudi Arabia. Should they ban all Saudi drivers in Switzerland?

are you for real?

re: #111 brookly red

OK your right, the Swiss are all racists & have no right to decide their own affairs...

BR, that not what is being said. The right to run your own country does not mean that the Swiss should not be criticized and penalized for their bigoted decision.

re: #110 captdiggs

Whatever, man. If you want to believe that minarets are political symbols of conquest, and the Swiss were right to ban them, go ahead.

re: #103 erraticsphinx

Just so everyone knows, the Swiss also outlaw Kosher slaughter. And I believe they did it by referendum too.

Not exactly. They have laws which forbid inhumane slaughter, and in their view Kosher slaughtering practices fall within this category. They never enacted a ban solely on kosher slaughter; it arose as a result of a broader ban that affects all butchers, not just Jews.

Had the Swiss simply banned all architectural features taller than some specified height, for instance, I would have no problem. What they have done, however, is entirely different and evil: they have taken aim against an architectural feature employed exclusively by precisely one single religion.

It is a step toward becoming the very thing they're vilifying.

re: #118 Dark_Falcon

BR, that not what is being said. The right to run your own country does not mean that the Swiss should not be criticized and penalized for their bigoted decision.

OK, that makes sense.

re: #111 brookly red

OK your right, the Swiss are all racists & have no right to decide their own affairs...

No one said anything about forcing the Swiss to change their law.

We're just saying it's evil.

re: #38 SixDegrees

Saudi Arabia is governed by an overtly religious monarchy. They may be assholes, but they're upfront about it.

Switzerland, on the other hand, is supposed to be part of the Enlightened West, where freedom of religion is upheld as a core principle of human existence.

Bans on a particular religious style of architecture in one country are expected, while they're shockingly unexpected in the other. They are repugnant in both, but my expectations would be much higher for the right thing being done in Switzerland, and the disappointment that it is not is far sharper.

You just don't know the Swiss.

And that statement cuts both ways: interpret it as you wish.

re: #119 Charles

Whether I agree or disagree with the Swiss is irrelevant.
They haven't banned mosques, the construction of mosques, Korans, or freedom of religion.
I don't think this is all that easy to pidgeon hole as "bigotry". One of the architects of the Swiss referendum is actually a Turk.
[Link: www.ansamed.info...]

re: #110 captdiggs
Again, who cares?

And I'm a little uneasy about your article since it comes from a mouthpiece of the Saudi government.

This was a bigoted act, and all the evidence points to that.

re: #124 captdiggs

One of the architects is a Turk!

Oh, thank God.
Forget it guys, I totally support the referendum now, as long as there's a Turk for it. Phew.

Count me in.

/

re: #124 captdiggs

They haven't banned mosques, the construction of mosques, Korans, or freedom of religion.

Have they banned steeples?

Cell phone towers?

Lighthouses?

Watchtowers?

Flagpoles?

Anything the height of a minaret, that isn't a minaret?

Uh...no.

How about if they pass a law banning crosses on Christian churches? I mean, it's not like they're banning the construction of Christian churches, or the Bible, or freedom of religion.

Right?

re: #120 SixDegrees

Oh, I didn't know that. Thank you for clarifying.
You're absolutely right about the "becoming the thing they're villifying".

re: #120 SixDegrees

Not exactly. They have laws which forbid inhumane slaughter, and in their view Kosher slaughtering practices fall within this category. They never enacted a ban solely on kosher slaughter; it arose as a result of a broader ban that affects all butchers, not just Jews.

Had the Swiss simply banned all architectural features taller than some specified height, for instance, I would have no problem. What they have done, however, is entirely different and evil: they have taken aim against an architectural feature employed exclusively by precisely one single religion.

It is a step toward becoming the very thing they're vilifying.

But it's purpose was to be anti Jewish. Just without being overtly bigoted so that it would fit within the constitution.

That would be like making displays of nude and semi nude statues illegal for the purposes of banning Jesus on the cross.

In Wake Of Minaret Ban, ADL Urges Swiss Government To Ensure Religious Freedom

New York, NY, December 1, 2009 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today urged the Swiss government to be vigilant in its commitment to ensuring freedom of religion, following a Swiss popular referendum that amended its constitution to ban the construction of minarets.

Robert G. Sugarman, ADL National Chair, and Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director issued the following statement:

On November 29, the Swiss Muslim community fell victim to a populist political campaign of religious intolerance, led by the far-right Swiss People's Party (SVP). The Swiss government opposed the initiative during the campaign and underscored its commitment to religious freedom in a statement after the vote.

We urge the government to be vigilant in its defense of religious freedom, even though the SVP is the largest party in the Swiss Parliament and has two of the seven government ministries.

The Federation of Swiss Jewish Communities (FSJC) clearly stated its opposition to the initiative before the vote and expressed its disappointment at the result. This is not the first time a Swiss popular vote has been used to promote religious intolerance. A century ago, a Swiss referendum banned Jewish ritual slaughter in an attempt to drive out its Jewish population. We share the FSJC's stated concern that those who initiated the anti-minaret campaign could try to further erode religious freedom through similar means.

re: #129 recusancy

But it's purpose was to be anti Jewish. Just without being overtly bigoted so that it would fit within the constitution.

That would be like making displays of nude and semi nude statues illegal for the purposes of banning Jesus on the cross.

Interesting history, if true, but the fact remains that in this instance they have blatantly singled out one particular religion for oppression, while their ban on slaughter has no religious constraints; it applies equally to halal slaughter, and to many common slaughtering practices performed here in the US and elsewhere on a regular basis.

re: #49 SixDegrees

Succinct and to the point. See also the "Tyranny of Democracy," and why pure democracies were so loathed by America's founders.

Dude, there's no such thing as "minority rights" in Switzerland. There are just the rights that come with being Swiss - among which is the unwritten law of not being in the face of any other Swiss. Call it bad thinking or whatever you want, that's the way it is - and has been for hundreds of years. It also explains why the rock-solid Federation is essentially composed of three distinct countries based on linguistic and ethnic origins. No mean feat, and they don't interpenetrate much. Along with the French, German and Italian Swiss, something tells me that a significant portion of the population had no desire to create a de facto fourth member of the Federation: a Pan-Swiss Islamic presence.

re: #127 SixDegrees

I didn't know that cell towers followed the Umaayad and Ottoman conquests?

The history of Europe includes a centuries long war with the Turks that stopped only at Vienna in 1683. That was followed by a century and a half of a low level war of caliphate raids on coastal Europe that only stopped in the early 1800s.
That history plays a large role in all of this.

re: #133 captdiggs

I didn't know that cell towers followed the Umaayad and Ottoman conquests?

The history of Europe includes a centuries long war with the Turks that stopped only at Vienna in 1683. That was followed by a century and a half of a low level war of caliphate raids on coastal Europe that only stopped in the early 1800s.
That history plays a large role in all of this.

Sounds like something I would read at Gates of Vienna.

Addendum/erratum:

It also explains why the rock-solid Federation is essentially composed of three distinct countries based on totally different linguistic and ethnic origins. No mean feat, and they don't interpenetrate much. Along with the French, German and Italian Swiss, something tells me that a significant portion of the population had no desire to create what they would have perceived as a de facto fourth member of the Federation: a Pan-Swiss Islamic presence.

Not to mention that they can be notorious pricks about things like this.

re: #133 captdiggs

Again, your history is a off but WHO GIVES A FLYING *@#(#?

Which Ottoman Caliphs are trying to take over Switzerland? Don't they need more than 4 minarets?

re: #122 SixDegrees

No one said anything about forcing the Swiss to change their law.

We're just saying it's evil.

What would be evil is if they ever stopped making chocolate.

re: #138 ryannon

What would be evil is if they ever stopped making chocolate.

I think the recipe has gotten out. We're OK there. ;)

re: #138 ryannon

Yep, this has not changed my position on Lindt truffles.

re: #134 Gus 802

Sounds like something I would read at Gates of Vienna.

Not entirely. I've actually been reading about the war that started with the 1683 Second Siege of Vienna. After their besieging force was destroyed, the Turks lost most of Hungary to the Hapsburg-led Christian armies. Though the Turks were able to counterattack and retake Belgrade in the early 1690's, the Hapsburg's utter wrecking of a Turkish army at Zenta in 1697 left the Turks with no choice but to sue for peace. The resulting Treaty of Carlowitz was the first time the Ottomans had been forced to sign a treaty favoring the enemy and it was also the first time the treaty was signed in the enemy's territory.

/end history lesson

This is an awesome show about biomimicry-- attempting sustainable agriculture and energy through close examination of the natural world, and imitating it as far as we can.

Mimicry

If nothing else, it shows how incredibly intricate the environment is.

I still see no compelling reason why the Swiss or any other European population should be forced to have minarets jammed up their asses or in their eyes if they don't want them.

re: #25 brookly red

the scimitar cuts both ways...

How many Saudis live in Switzerland?

re: #33 The Sanity Inspector

It is illegal in Saudi Arabia to construct houses of worship of faiths other than Islam. They frown on even in-home services. Jews are forbidden from setting foot in the country. It therefore rankles to have them lecture the West on freedom of religion.

Those who believe that Third Worlders who are angry at the West are by definition in the right will of course dissent.

The Saudis don't have a foot to stand on when it comes to telling anyone else what to do.

However, the Saudis are totally irrelevent to this situation. If we decided to go back to separate but equal water fountains in the United States, it would make no sense point out that Saudis treat black people like animals. True, but what they do has no bearing on what we do.

re: #40 recusancy

Well since they didn't demonize Iran to your liking in that one episode here's an episode where Jon is interviewing Iranian prisoner Maziar Bahari. I don't think their talking about how they cuddled with him and sang him lullabys to fall to sleep.

I'm glad they interviewed him. I was really troubled to learn that one of the Comedy Central skits ended up in the dossier the Iranian govt. goons compiled on Bahari.

Read his account of captivity in Newsweek, everyone. It's a very good piece.

re: #54 Racer X

Nor is anyone holding up Switzerland as the pinnacle of enlightenment. The only thing stopping TV personalities like Jon Stewart from doing mocking segments on Saudi Arabia and Radical Islam is, perhaps, a threat to chop off his head?

You think he steers clear of such topics? I haven't seen it.

re: #134 Gus 802

Sounds like something I would read at Gates of Vienna.

Or a college course in European history.

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
~George Santayana, 'Life of Reason, Reason in Common Sense'

re: #64 jaunte

Here's another poster from the minaret ban group that makes their objection a little clearer: multicolored hands reaching for Swiss passports.
[Link: www.flickr.com...]

And I am quite sure that those folks will still want passports even if they're told they can't get a minaret in Switzerland.

re: #147 SanFranciscoZionist

You think he steers clear of such topics? I haven't seen it.

If you can dig me up some Jon Stewart mocking whack Islam/Muslims the way he regularly takes on whack Christians, I am sure I would enjoy it. I'm not a regular viewer, so I wouldn't know.

re: #86 brookly red

So then the Swiss agreeing that they don't want an overtly oppressive religious form of government (or society) are somehow wrong? After all they are enlightened Westerners... Oh wait, does that term somehow suggest that the Saudis are some how lesser people?

The Swiss are wrong. They made a bad judgement call. I am disappointed.

The Saudis are scum. SCUM. Scuuuhuuuhuuum. A rotten-to-the-core society, run by evil, psychotic, assholes. I couldn't be disappointed in anything they do, because I do not share any ideal of society with them. Shall I sing it for you?

Which is why I do not want to allow them to set the world standard for any kind of behavior. When we were discussing the Uganda bill on executing homosexuals, and trashing the American 'religious leaders' who were aiding it, did we start discussing how gay folks are treated in the Muslim world? No, we did not. Because they do not get to set the standard.

re: #100 brookly red

Dude they don't allow alcohol is SA, or gays for that matter. I think a gay bar is pretty much out of the question. Sheesh.

So if they banned gay bars in London, we shouldn't criticize until the Saudis clean up their act?

re: #134 Gus 802

Sounds like something I would read at Gates of Vienna.

Just because Gates of Vienna is a whackaloon hate site does not invalidate the accurate history synopsis from Captdiggs.

The war between Islam and Europe is still fresh in historical terms. The Viennese, for instance, are well aware to whom they owe their coffee houses and to whom they would have owed their jizya had the Turks not been stopped at the eleventh hour.

re: #111 brookly red

OK your right, the Swiss are all racists & have no right to decide their own affairs...

Would you be so understanding if they had decided to ban synagogue features? No Hebrew on the front the building, say?

re: #115 Gus 802

Then they don't allow women drivers in Saudi Arabia. Should they ban all Saudi drivers in Switzerland?

Not even Saudi--MUSLIM. I don't know how many Saudis there are living in Switzerland, but most of the Muslims in the country seem to be former Yugoslavs.

re: #133 captdiggs

I didn't know that cell towers followed the Umaayad and Ottoman conquests?

The history of Europe includes a centuries long war with the Turks that stopped only at Vienna in 1683. That was followed by a century and a half of a low level war of caliphate raids on coastal Europe that only stopped in the early 1800s.
That history plays a large role in all of this.

Bullshit. That history has become a convenient excuse for bigots who want to feel like victims.

re: #153 Cato the Elder

Exactly. And if you've talked to people who live in France and the problems they have there, you might change your perspective.

re: #148 captdiggs

Or a college course in European history.

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
~George Santayana, 'Life of Reason, Reason in Common Sense'

You want to hear what was done by Christian Europeans to Christian Europeans in the name of God and an assortment of greedy kings in that same period of time, before we play "Oh, the dreadful Ottomans"?

re: #150 Cato the Elder

If you can dig me up some Jon Stewart mocking whack Islam/Muslims the way he regularly takes on whack Christians, I am sure I would enjoy it. I'm not a regular viewer, so I wouldn't know.

I shall take a look.

re: #148 captdiggs

Or a college course in European history.

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
~George Santayana, 'Life of Reason, Reason in Common Sense'

What then of history? Do we drag out the Christian Crusades? Do we drag out the acts of Columbus? South America and the native populations there?

re: #153 Cato the Elder

Just because Gates of Vienna is a whackaloon hate site does not invalidate the accurate history synopsis from Captdiggs.

The war between Islam and Europe is still fresh in historical terms. The Viennese, for instance, are well aware to whom they owe their coffee houses and to whom they would have owed their jizya had the Turks not been stopped at the eleventh hour.

I think that when this sort of thing comes up, I may start posting long excerpts of accounts from the sack of Magdeburg.

I guess it's PC to drag out Islamic history.

Not PC to drag out "Western" history.

re: #160 Gus 802

What then of history? Do we drag out the Christian Crusades? Do we drag out the acts of Columbus? South America and the native populations there?

No, because that hurts people's feelings, and they get all bitchy and pissy about it. What Christians have done, we should forget. What Muslims have done, we should remember forever.

//

re: #163 SanFranciscoZionist

No, because that hurts people's feelings, and they get all bitchy and pissy about it. What Christians have done, we should forget. What Muslims have done, we should remember forever.

//

Yeah, it certainly upsets the Jihad Watch Lite™ contingent.

Always forget what the Christians did. But bring up what happened in the 1690s to push a bigoted fear of minarets.

re: #164 Cato the Elder

It's really good to know that concerns about worldwide Islamic terrorism have been replaced by worries over a lack of minarets in Switzerland.

I guess I can ignore the big article in today's NYT about the score or so of serious jihad cases that have cropped up in the USA in the last month or so. Our studied tolerance seems to be bearing fruit, of a kind.

Don't talk nonsense. We can all think about at least three or four things at once.

re: #156 SanFranciscoZionist

Sorry, but it is an underlying fact.
Once again, the Swiss have not banned mosques, Korans, freedom of religion.
What they have banned many view as a political symbol not a religious one.

And yes, there was plenty of slaughter in medieval Europe. Witches were burned, Huguenots too, pogroms galore.
But the recurrent and multi-pronged invasions by Islam run through European history for over 1000 years and that has a bearing on European attitudes.

re: #167 captdiggs

Sorry, but it is an underlying fact.
Once again, the Swiss have not banned mosques, Korans, freedom of religion.
What they have banned many view as a political symbol not a religious one.

And yes, there was plenty of slaughter in medieval Europe. Witches were burned, Huguenots too, pogroms galore.
But the recurrent and multi-pronged invasions by Islam run through European history for over 1000 years and that has a bearing on European attitudes.

Sounds like a Vlaams Belang pamphlet.

re: #166 SanFranciscoZionist

Don't talk nonsense. We can all think about at least three or four things at once.

I know you can, and so can I. One thing I will not be thinking too much about is the sad plight of minaretless Swiss Muslims.

re: #168 Gus 802

Sounds like a Vlaams Belang pamphlet.

You should take a course in European history.

re: #165 Gus 802

Yeah, it certainly upsets the Jihad Watch Lite™ contingent.

Always forget what the Christians did. But bring up what happened in the 1690s to push a bigoted fear of minarets.

I know what happened to Jews in those years in lovely Christian Europe. They burned synagogues and people, taxed the communities into poverty, and spit on them in the streets. That, of course, is more or less over, mostly because they're close to out of Jews. But the Turks came in and were even bigger and tougher and more organized, and treated them like shit, and now the world is supposed to feel all sorry for them four hundred years later 'cause they have Ottoman PTSD or some damn thing--even after they drove back the Turks, and finished killing off their Jews.

People should not get going on the history of poor beleaguered Europe, unless they really plan to take a cold hard look at poor beleaguered Europe's track record of taking care of itself.

re: #168 Gus 802

Sounds like a Vlaams Belang pamphlet.

And you sound like a cross between John Esposito and Karen Armstrong.

re: #167 captdiggs

Sorry, but it is an underlying fact.
Once again, the Swiss have not banned mosques, Korans, freedom of religion.
What they have banned many view as a political symbol not a religious one.

And yes, there was plenty of slaughter in medieval Europe. Witches were burned, Huguenots too, pogroms galore.
But the recurrent and multi-pronged invasions by Islam run through European history for over 1000 years and that has a bearing on European attitudes.

Screw 'em.

re: #173 SanFranciscoZionist

Screw 'em.

Markos, is that you?

I suppose you feel the same way about Greece, whose liberation from the Turks was not complete until 1829.

re: #174 Cato the Elder

Markos, is that you?

I suppose you feel the same way about Greece, whose liberation from the Turks was not complete until 1829.

Cato, reality check. Am I really supposed to believe that the Swiss wake up in the night trembling with the memory of the frickin' Ottoman Empire?

re: #175 SanFranciscoZionist

Probably not. But they can take a look across the Bosporous and see the rumblings in Turkey about reviving the Ottoman Empire.

re: #175 SanFranciscoZionist

Cato, reality check. Am I really supposed to believe that the Swiss wake up in the night trembling with the memory of the frickin' Ottoman Empire?

That isn't the point.

I support the democratic right of the Swiss to make bad judgment calls, if that indeed is what this was.

Still waiting for Jon Stewart on Islam...

re: #177 Cato the Elder

That isn't the point.

I support the democratic right of the Swiss to make bad judgment calls, if that indeed is what this was.

Still waiting for Jon Stewart on Islam...

No, that is indeed the point. I've heard the 'the Saudis do it to' defense, and now we're on to the 'the Europeans have Ottoman PTSD' defense. Yours appears to be the 'the Swiss get to do this if they want' defense, which is quite reasonable, and which I can only counter with the 'and I get to call them bigoted assholes' defense.

I'll check on Stewart, and if I find anything suitable, will share.

re: #177 Cato the Elder

That isn't the point.

I support the democratic right of the Swiss to make bad judgment calls, if that indeed is what this was.

Still waiting for Jon Stewart on Islam...

[Link: www.thedailyshow.com...]

Not too difficult to find.

re: #178 SanFranciscoZionist

Amen.

re: #179 Gus 802

[Link: www.thedailyshow.com...]

Not too difficult to find.

Except nothing there seems to fit the bill.

re: #181 Cato the Elder

Except nothing there seems to fit the bill.

This OK?

re: #182 SanFranciscoZionist

This OK?

This?

Even though criticism of Islam is not very popular among most of you and even though the initiative for the minaret-ban came from a political party which is far from my own political views: I am still happy about the decision of the Swiss.
Not only because all those Islam-apologists are in a mad rage now, but also because the referendum was decided by influential left feminists like Julia Onken, who consider Islam as a misogynic ideology (of course, she is a racist and totally wrong, since Islam is a religion of peace, where women are never being mistreated). So, this vote for the minaret-ban was their voice against the oppression of women.
And yes, I am happy that people like Stewart, who don't give a fuck about the rights of women in Saudi-Arabia or Iran, now cry about evil Switzerland.

re: #170 captdiggs

You should take a course in European history.

I would happy to assist as a teacher. And to point out that such a course should also include the history of, I don't know, Yugoslavia; a somewhat more recent chapter in European history than the glory days of the Ottoman Empire.

I believe it would be very interesting to contrast the writings of Serbian nationalists on Islam with similar texts written by Flemish eurofascists, or - in this case - by the reactionary, nativist and isolationist Swiss People's Party and their allies amongst the most conservative of Christians. In fact, I know it is interesting; as a recently published Swedish book does just that.

Also, I think it would be useful to study how Protestants and the Ottoman Empire oftentimes allied. Religious refugees went to the Empire, which was rather tolerant in comparison with many Christian countries. One fun little story, during the anti-Spanish revolt, the Dutch had a Geuzen medal (sort of the political t-shirt of their age) reading: "Liever Turks dan Paaps" (Rather Turkish than Papist) and in the shape of a crescent.

A more interesting fact: during the Battle of Vienna, one of the allies of the Ottomans was Imre Thökoly, a protestant Hungarian leader. They shared a common enemy in the Habsburgs.

re: #184 gegenkritik

Your "because the Saudis suppress rights and are tyrants it's ok for the Swiss to suppress rights" logic is just wrong and stupid.

re: #186 Thanos
Where did I say that I concur with this referendum? I am no Swiss, therefor I couldn't vote. If I could, I would abstain from voting, because I would not go with the SVP, but I could never vote against this and join the ranks of the Islam-apologists (which Switzerland has a lot of, the most infamous being the foreign-minister, who is a big friend of Ahmadinejad and proudly wears the islamic sign of female inferiority).

I am simply happy that the referendum passed, even though a big part of the voters may be ordinary xenophobes. But to see all those friends of Islam and enemies of civilization going mad is just to amusing.

This was also the reason for prominent feminists like Julia Onken (who as a leftist has nothing in common with the SVP) to support the referendum: becaus it is the only way for the critique of the hideousness of islamic collectivization to be heard.

Of course, people who are so morally bankrupt that they only see "surpressed rights" in Switzerland and Saudi-Arabia alike, will never get the point.

Comparing

... Switzerland and Saudi-Arabia is like comparing Christianity and Islam.

Switzerland is arguably the most democratic country in the world.
Instead of the usual where elected politicians act according to their mandate.It is part of the constitution that provided one gathers 100,000
signatures any issue of national significance can be subject to a national plebiscite.
About 30yrs ago there was a similar one in which communism was adjudged to be a threat to Swiss culture.(is that bigotry?)
The Swiss are very focussed on maintaining their independence and sovereignty ;and this referendum was an expression of the same.
There are three official languages and no demonstrable language chauvinism;unlike in Belgium.
They were asked in the same way to vote for inclusion in the EEU
they voted NO.(because of sovereignty surrender)
They said No to minarets.
And they couldn't give a toss about what other people think when it comes to managing their own affairs.
It's called being master in your own household!
And that's a principle that should be respected.
As a Swiss would say"Kuemmern Sie sich ueber Ihre eigene Angelegenheit.
(Mind your own business!)

re: #189 hellosnackbar

I would not dispute the Swiss right to demonstrate to the world what a shower of fearful, small minded bigots they are.

As a Swiss would say"Kuemmern Sie sich ueber Ihre eigene Angelegenheit.
(Mind your own business!)

I'm sure the Saudis have a version of that too. And if they had a functioning democracy, I'm certain they would democratically ban church steeples as well. Hooray for those plucky, independent Saudis?

re: #190 Jimmah

I'm sure the Saudis have a version of that too.

It's unbelievable how people compare the ban of a minaret - which is without a doubt a sign of Islam's will to power - with the disgusting atrocities Saudi-Arabian dictatorship.

What's next, comparing Switzerland to the Nazis? This is very popular in Turkey nowadays.

re: #191 gegenkritik

It's unbelievable how people compare the ban of a minaret - which is without a doubt a sign of Islam's will to power - with the disgusting atrocities Saudi-Arabian dictatorship.

What's next, comparing Switzerland to the Nazis? This is very popular in Turkey nowadays.

It's not clear to me exactly what you are trying to say here, so I'll just say that the minaret is to Islam as the church steeple is to Christianity. Banning either is bigotry, and entirely incompatible with the concept of secularism. It's as simple as that.

re: #192 Jimmah

I'll just say that the minaret is to Islam as the church steeple is to Christianity.

While this was true for the past, Christianity's claim to power is relativized in secular societies, while the minarets not only have a liturgical function, but are really still a watchtower for the islamic collective.

Today, most people in western countries who claim to speak for a secular society, are the worst enemies of it, because their stupid religious theory of totalitarianism, that won't distinguish between the ban of minarets in Switzerland or the beheading of humans Saudi-Arabia anymore, is a grotesque belittlement of the danger of Islam.

re: #192 Jimmah

I agree, It's Simple. The only reason some people love the ban is that it's utterly a bigoted "f you" to a religious minority they don't like . Nothing more, nothing less.

"Secularism", please. It's about tribalism.

re: #191 gegenkritik

re: #193 gegenkritik

Where can I buy broad brushes, such as the ginormous one you're using?

re: #193 gegenkritik

islamic collective

Muslims are Borg, now?../

re: #194 erraticsphinx

I agree, It's Simple. The only reason some people love the ban is that it's utterly a bigoted "f you" to a religious minority they don't like . Nothing more, nothing less.

"Secularism", please. It's about tribalism.

I agree. That's the bottom line here -- it's simple bigotry. And it plays right into the hands of Eurofascist parties.

re: #189 hellosnackbar

Switzerland is arguably the most democratic country in the world.

In fact, they democratically prevented women from voting until 1971.

re: #193 gegenkritik

that won't distinguish between the ban of minarets in Switzerland or the beheading of humans Saudi-Arabia anymore, is a grotesque belittlement of the danger of Islam.

It's hardly difficult to distinguish between beheading and minaret bans. But who is it that does not make that distinction?

It is - however - somewhat worse to distinguish between lighter totalitarian measures; when Geert Wilders want to ban the Qu'ran, that's pretty much like wanting to ban the Bible. When the Swiss ban minarets, that's pretty much like banning church towers.

The only point I've seen people make in regards to Saudi Arabia, is that the fact that S.A. is a half-way theocratic and a deeply authoritarian country does not make a minaret ban acceptable. The reason is simple. Saudi Arabia is not a model state.

re: #197 jaunte

In fact, they democratically prevented women from voting until 1971.

In the canton where the ban received the most support - Appenzell Innerrhoden - women could not vote before 1990. And that was a result of a High Court ruling, not of a vote amongst the men.

And even as women now have been able to vote, also in Appenzell Innerrhoden, for a couple of decades; democracy is more than majority rule. Some would say that respecting fundamental human rights is a pretty essential part, too.

re: #193 gegenkritik

While this was true for the past, Christianity's claim to power is relativized in secular societies, while the minarets not only have a liturgical function, but are really still a watchtower for the islamic collective.

Yeah, their towers are just different aren't they? Let's ban them!/

Today, most people in western countries who claim to speak for a secular society, are the worst enemies of it, because their stupid religious theory of totalitarianism, that won't distinguish between the ban of minarets in Switzerland or the beheading of humans Saudi-Arabia anymore, is a grotesque belittlement of the danger of Islam.

Jeez - what absolute rubbish. No-one is saying that minaret bans are the same as beheadings. One thing being worse than another doesn't make that other thing desirable or good. And no, the kind of sectarian discrimination that you are advocating here is NOT compatible with secularism.

re: #189 hellosnackbar

It's called being master in your own household!
And that's a principle that should be respected.

Would the same apply for - say - Cuba? Or is it only when a democracy attacks religious freedom that we're supposed to keep our mouths shut?

re: #200 Jimmah

And no, the kind of sectarian discrimination that you are advocating here is NOT compatible with secularism.

Exactly. And it the two parties who supported this ban was the isolationist and nativist Swiss People's Party - and the Federal Democratic Union, a small, deeply conservative Christian party which "encourages the Swiss people to live in line with the Jewish-Christian value system" and sees "a clear and trustworthy belonging to the Christian faith and to Biblical principles of life" as the best bulwark "against the on-going Islamisation and the decay of Christian values".

Something tells me they're not too hot on Buddhists either.

re: #202 oslogin

Exactly. And it the two parties who supported this ban was the isolationist and nativist Swiss People's Party - and the Federal Democratic Union, a small, deeply conservative Christian party which "encourages the Swiss people to live in line with the Jewish-Christian value system" and sees "a clear and trustworthy belonging to the Christian faith and to Biblical principles of life" as the best bulwark "against the on-going Islamisation and the decay of Christian values".

Something tells me they're not too hot on Buddhists either.

Yep. In other words 'secularism is a cancer that will let Islamism in blah blah; the only thing that can save us is Judeo-Christianism'...sounds familiar all right.

The claim that the ban is nothing more than bigotry is overly simplistic. Although it can be easily argued that the original promoters of the ban were motivated largely or purely by bigotry, that does not provide a satisfactory explanation as to how the ban gained such popularity. The ban was opposed by the government and all of the major religious leaders (Muslim, Jewish, Protestant, and Catholic alike) who argued that the ban was bigoted.

Instead, the success of the ban (in the sense of what turned it from a right-wing xenophobic movement to something supported by moderates) can be considerably attributed to the ban being embraced by Swiss feminists.

What people fail to realize was that there had long been a de facto ban on minarets in Switzerland as local planning commissions had typically blocked their construction (hence why there are only four minarets despite there being over 200 mosques). As a result, applications for building minarets was low and not doggedly pursued because there was little chance of success.

Two events caused this to change. First, the building of the fourth Minaret in Switzerland in Wangen bei Olten, a process that begun in 2005 (and was completed in July 2009). Second, the building of a rather large Sikh temple in Langenthal in 2006 ([Link: www.religionenschweiz.ch...]

Essentially, elements in the Muslim community in Switzerland got a mix of a sort of "penis envy" and a sense of particular discrimination when a Sikh temple larger than the nearby mosque was built.

As a result, there was a rash a applications to build new minarets and the dogged pursuit of the building of the minaret in Wangen bei Olten such that mosques would visual dominate over other religious buildings (the belief being that if the Swiss did not oppose a Sikh temple dominating the skyline, they should not oppose minarets dominating the skyline).

This is what turned a local movement by some marginal right-wing populists into a nationally supported movement for a constitutional ban on minarets.

Thus the imagery of an explosion of minarets was not conjured from the fantasies of bigots, but from the explosion of applications to build minarets since the building of the Sikh temple in 2006.

Now the feminist element. As the ban on Minarets was not one that limited the civil liberties of Muslims, nor limited the free worship of Muslims (as it is not a ban on mosques, or Korans, or proselytizing, etc, but simply on one -- entirely non-functional in Switzerland -- architectural feature) and that it was believed that minarets were a symbol of political dominance. It is debatable whether this is correct or not, but it meant that debate moved from being one simply about xenophobia to one about "the state’s acceptance of the oppression of women” for many feminists (the quote is from Julia Onken, a leading Swiss psychologist and feminist, [Link: www.julia-onken.ch...]

The minaret, thus, became symbolic in the debate (at least for feminists and perhaps appropriately so because of its phallic imagery) not of Islam as a faith, but of a misogynistic culture in that was emerging in Switzerland. As one woman put it, she was voting for the ban because she could “no longer bear being mistreated and terrorised by boys who believe women are worthless”.

Thus the motivations and affects of the ban locally in Switzerland are not simply about xenophobia, but about addressing the issue of misogyny that is too often difficult to discuss because of its intersection with discussions of the integration of ethnic minorities

Thus, I do say that the ban is wrong, but given its so minor impediment to religious freedom (again, as it does not ban mosques, or Korans, or proselytizing, etc), it may have positive effects both in addressing the issue of misogyny in Switzerland as well as revealing the hypocrisy of groups like the OIC condemning the minaret ban whilst condoning or actively supporting the vastly greater oppression of non-Muslims and heterodox Muslims.

By way of comparison, I oppose many of the court rulings that have led the legalisation of gay marriage because I do not believe that they are often founded on good jurisprudence and appear too much like judges attempting to legislate from the bench, but I do praise their affects in opening the debate on issue of gay rights and have led in some jurisdictions to equal rights for gays by way of legislatures reacting to the debate and passing such legislation.

re: #203 Jimmah

I am secular and an atheist. You are not. You are just an ordinary Islam-apologist like Richard Dawkins.

re: #199 oslogin
Surprisingly none of the Islam-apologists asks why a lot of left feminists engaged for the ban - could it be possible that the Appenzell-Innerrhoden's women don't want to give their right to vote away?

I am stunned by the pure ignorance of all those people that always cry "bigotry" if anyone critizes the wonderful Islam, but remain absolutely silent about wonderful things like honor-killings, forced marriages, FGM, this disgusting hijab or islamic homophobia.
Those ignorants feel so morally superior because they sometimes critizises Islamic terrorism like on 9/11, but they couldn't care less about muslim victims of this disgusting religion.

If there's a ban on headscarves in schools to save little girls from the nastiness of Islam, those hipocrites are always the first to scream for "freedom of religion".
And if there's a ban on minarets, they hallucinate that Switzerland does "surpress rights" the same way as Saudi-Arabia does.

The more comments I read here, the more apology for Islam, belittlement of Islamic violence and comparision to Christianity, the more I am happy for the Swiss ban on minarets. Hopefully, Geert Wilders will have even more success in the Netherlands.

One last thing: as strong as I oppose religion in general, as strong as I reject the homophobia of many evangelical Christians, their dubious philosemitism (which is still way better than genocidal anti-semitism; at least they are supporting Israel, even if for the false reasons), their strange views regarding evolution - I would rather live in Palin-Alaska or in a Glenn Beck-ruled America than in Saudi-Arabia or any other country that is dominated by Islam.

re: #195 Varek Raith
Muslims are Borg, now?../

You can't now since you have no clue of Islam and every critique of a religion is racism for you, but: Islam is an ideoloy that strongly rejects individualism. It hails the values of an organized collective identity and punishes every deviance.

While the critique of Islam defends the individual human, the Islam-apologists (some of them even claim to be "secular") defend the Islamic ummah against the rights of the individuals.

re: #199 oslogin

So, you think that building minarets is a fundamental human right? Because religion is in your opinion above human rights?

What about forced marriages, headscarves, FGM and other wonderful things that Islam offers? Do you also think that those are fundamental human rights, that should stand above the rights of women that were mistreated (because religion is in your opinion - I assume you are as "secular" as Jimmah - more important than individual human rights of women?).

re: #206 gegenkritik

I am secular and an atheist. You are not. You are just an ordinary Islam-apologist like Richard Dawkins.

Wow. If you think Richard Dawkins is an "apologist for Islam," you must never have read anything he's written on the subject. That's so ridiculous it hardly warrants a reply.

And Geert Wilders is a populist bigot, who advocates measures that are repugnant to anyone who values democracy and freedom -- banning books, criminalizing religion, and taking away freedoms from people.

If that's your "hero," you can have him.

re: #209 gegenkritik

Limiting the building of minarets through other means than general building regulations, and specifically targeting a Muslim religious minority in this way, is an attack on the freedom of religion; in the same way as banning church towers, and in a similar way as banning kosher food. Freedom of religion is a fundamental human right.

That you do not share the view of for instance the American founding fathers in this question, is - frankly - not my problem.

As I would hope that you are aware of, minarets are architectural features, and as such not capable of suppressing women. Since I've had the great fortune to meet a number of Islamic feminists, I have little understanding for those who want to attack their basic freedom of religion on the basis of things they strongly oppose.

Likening a minaret, which could belong to a mosque of any variant of Islam, with female genital mutilation - practised by some ethnicities and some groups - is beyond the pale (an expression that has its origin in anti-Semitic politics of a harder - but similar - nature than the minaret ban). 56% - the majority - of Muslims in Switzerland are of former Yugoslav background, around 20% of Turkish background, where FGM is not practised; except - possibly - in a small Kurdish area bordering Iran.

As for forced marriages, the Muslims who oppose this generally also pray in mosques, and these mosques are - as frequently - equipped with mosques.

Likening headscarves and FGM is a bit like likening beheadings and minaret bans. But in any case: my opinion is that people should be allowed to wear what they please, within reasonability and with respect for others (i.e. don't wear only a thong when you visit a Mennonite church). If you want to wear yellow suits and a blue cowboy hat to celebrate your belief in the Godliness of Swedes, go ahead. If you want to force me or anyone else to wear that yellow suit and that blue cowboy hat, well, pi** up a rope.

re: #206 gegenkritik
Richard Dawkins on Islam:

Dawkins wrote a review of Ayaan's Infidel. Called her a brave women, and he's an apologist for islam?

re: #212 jaunte

"Islam is one of the great evils in the world." - Richard Dawkins

Oh yeah, that's an apologist for Islam, all right.

Tricky, that Dawkins fella.

re: #210 Charles

Wow. If you think Richard Dawkins is an "apologist for Islam," you must never have read anything he's written on the subject.

For Dawkins, there is no substantial difference between an ultra-orthodox Jew following Shabbat, an evangelical Christian believing in this end-time stuff or Mohammed Atta. The moron-atheism of people like Dawkins is not only turning atheism into a religion itself (and therefor falls behind theological critique), but is inherently anti-semitic and aiming on western civilization.

If that's your "hero," you can have him.

C'mon Charles, you know very well that he's not my "hero". It's sad that there are only people like him critizising Islam - and given that fact, I would always defend Wilders against his Islam-apologetic enemies.

re: #206 gegenkritik

I am secular and an atheist. You are not. You are just an ordinary Islam-apologist like Richard Dawkins.

Why yes, I am about as much of an Islam apologist as Richard Dawkins. You however are an ignorant, ill-informed moron.

re: #216 gegenkritik

Your hatred of Islam is clouding your thoughts.

re: #217 Jimmah

You however are an ignorant, ill-informed moron.

Ok... Gegenkritik makes an offhand (and I would argue incorrect) comment about Dawkins, and a substantive comment and the problem of making an analogy between banning minarets and other forms of religious oppression. Yet, with the exception of Oslogin, people choose to dwell on the Dawkins point and begin to engage in the above quoted language.

Jaunte, pretty much put to bed the Dawkins issue unless Gegenkritik has a more elaborate and nuanced position to put forward (which he did allude to in his comment about "moron-atheism," but I really do not feel is the salient issue being debated here).

Perhaps, instead of calling people "ignorant, ill-informed moron[s]" you should either respond to their substantive points that are made in good faith.

"In the United States, the fundamentalist movement was immediately identified as a reactionary movement to which progressive Protestants were firmly opposed. On the other hand, Muslim fundamentalists claimed to be an alternative to colonization... An anti-colonial militant resists colonization because he believes in the people's right to self-determination and refuses all forms of domination, whereas a fundamentalists opposes colonialism because he believes Islam is superior to the West... In other words, he wants a return to the form of colonialism of which he is the beneficiary and not the victim."
-- Caroline Fourest, Brother Tariq (New York: Encounter Books, 2008), p. 10.

We must be careful in supporting those who oppose oppression because it is wrong and not support those who oppose oppression because they want to become the oppressor themselves.

re: #211 oslogin

Limiting the building of minarets through other means than general building regulations, and specifically targeting a Muslim religious minority in this way, is an attack on the freedom of religion; in the same way as banning church towers, and in a similar way as banning kosher food. Freedom of religion is a fundamental human right.

To some degree this is not really false (as one could assume after reading your other pamphlets). Though, you fail to understand that eating kosher food is an individual act, while erecting minarets has clearly a function that aims on a collective identity.

Since I've had the great fortune to meet a number of Islamic feminists, I have little understanding for those who want to attack their basic freedom of religion on the basis of things they strongly oppose.

I guess those Islamic "feminists" you are talking about are people like Melanie Muhaxheri, who recently said that a woman has nowhere more rights than in Islam.

groups - is beyond the pale (an expression that has its origin in anti-Semitic politics of a harder - but similar - nature than the minaret ban).

It's the other way around: people who compare the situation of the Muslims with those of the Jews in the 1930's (which Swiss' "intellectuals") have one aim: belitteling anti-semitism.

People like you, Oslologin, who have no clue what anti-semitism is, who thinks that its just some form of "racism", are being attracted by words like Islamophobia, which is in itself anti-semitic, as its only purpose is to prevent any critique of Islam and conceal the pathic projections anti-semites are obsessed with.

As for forced marriages, the Muslims who oppose this generally also pray in mosques, and these mosques are - as frequently - equipped with mosques.

Sorry?

my opinion is that people should be allowed to wear what they please, within reasonability and with respect for others

Thanks, this is exactly the attitude of "I couldn't care less of islamic misogynic violence" I expected from you.

I think it's useless since you are hardened against reality and I don't have to discuss the restraints becoming self-restraints with you (because you surely would show me proud islamic women who humiliate themselves) but may I ask you a question, though?
Have you ever spoken to a women that had the bad luck to be raised in an islamic family and was offered with 10 years to from now on wear the hijab whenever she leaves the home, regardless if she silently cries on the school-toilet for being mocked again? Who could not attend to gym class or school trips, because their parents don't want her to meet infidels?

I am sure, a humanitarian like you would always defend the basic-fundamental-extremely-important right of freedom of religion of the girl's parents.

And with this, I am off for tonight.
Sorry for using some hard language and bad words, but this ignorance of some people just pisses me off.

re: #216 gegenkritik

For Dawkins, there is no substantial difference between an ultra-orthodox Jew following Shabbat, an evangelical Christian believing in this end-time stuff or Mohammed Atta.

Again, the only thing you reveal with comments like this is your complete ignorance of Dawkins's actual statements. You very obviously have not read anything he's written except quotes on websites that hate him.

Dawkins absolutely sees a big difference between Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. And he even says this in the video posted above -- did you even watch it?

re: #219 GeorgetownPress

Ok... Gegenkritik makes an offhand (and I would argue incorrect) comment about Dawkins, and a substantive comment and the problem of making an analogy between banning minarets and other forms of religious oppression. Yet, with the exception of Oslogin, people choose to dwell on the Dawkins point and begin to engage in the above quoted language.

Jaunte, pretty much put to bed the Dawkins issue unless Gegenkritik has a more elaborate and nuanced position to put forward (which he did allude to in his comment about "moron-atheism," but I really do not feel is the salient issue being debated here).

Perhaps, instead of calling people "ignorant, ill-informed moron[s]" you should either respond to their substantive points that are made in good faith.

It seems to have escaped your attention that I was trying to have a reasonable conversation with this person until he attacked me with this idiotic insult. I have every right to respond, and I reserve the right to call anyone who refers to Dawkins as an 'Islam apologist' a moron.

re: gegenkritik

I guess those Islamic "feminists" you are talking about are people like Melanie Muhaxheri, who recently said that a woman has nowhere more rights than in Islam.

Since I visited a conference on Islamic feminism in the lovely city of Cologne, I met a number of varieties of Islamic feminists, with different theological and political ideas and motivations. Some were hardcore secularists sounding much like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, some focussing on the Islamic principle of ijtihad, some who sounded more like what you quote Mulaxheri on (who I have not met, and do not know anything about) etc, some wore headscarfs, others opposed the whole concept. There were a number of relatively heated debates to put it mildly.

It's the other way around: people who compare the situation of the Muslims with those of the Jews in the 1930's (which Swiss' "intellectuals") have one aim: belitteling anti-semitism.

"Beyond the pale" has its' origin from another anti-Semitism than the one in the 1930s. It's not like the Nazis invented Jew-hatred, although many Europeans seem to enjoy that belief (perhaps because it is more comfortable to confront the ideas of grandparents of Germans than the ideas of their own great-grand-fathers). The Norwegian Constitution from 1814, for instance, was very progressive for its' time; and yet Jews (and Jesuites) were not allowed entry to Norway. In the Constitution.

While it is - with a few exceptions, depending on the definition - not justifiable to compare the Nazism of 1930s with today's "Islamophobia" (a term which is defined in so many different ways and misused so frequently that I generally refrain from using it), anti-Islamic bigotry in Europe today is often quite comparable with other forms of anti-Semitism, even that found amongst non-fascists in countries like Norway and Sweden in the 1930s. So comparable, in fact, that you could take a text, replace the word "Jewish" with "Muslim", and post it on - I don't know - Gates of Vienna, without anyone noticing.

As for forced marriages, the Muslims who oppose this generally also pray in mosques, and these mosques are - as frequently - equipped with mosques.

Sorry?

Spelling mistake. Second "mosques" should be "minarets". I thought people would be able to guess that one, so did not clarify in a second comment.

Have you ever spoken to a women that had the bad luck to be raised in an islamic family and was offered with 10 years to from now on wear the hijab whenever she leaves the home, regardless if she silently cries on the school-toilet for being mocked again? Who could not attend to gym class or school trips, because their parents don't want her to meet infidels?

I have spoken with some and read works by a number of people who have experienced this or similar things (including people growing up in non-Muslim families), yes; if I remember correctly also at the above-mentioned conference. And that goes under the "pi** up a rope"-comment made above.

This is why - for instance - we have a Ombudsman for Children in Norway; and their work against this kind of crap should be increased and intensified. But the fact that some parents, siblings and others do not respect that others have the right to choose what to put on top of their heads does not mean that I'm willing to refuse others the right to choose what to put on top of their heads. That would be just inlogical.

If the question is about small(er) school-children, other issues arise, though; and it's more justifiable being for a ban on hijabs in schools than being for a ban on hijabs per se.

re: #221 gegenkritik

To some degree this is not really false (as one could assume after reading your other pamphlets).

Oh, and I would challenge you to point out exactly what is false in my "other pamphlets", by which I assume you might mean my book on European neo-fascism and nativism (as it is the only "pamphlet" I have published in English).

While some of my analysis is doubtlessly discussable, and some of my English grammar deplorable; many have claimed to be able to point out factual errors in that work, and thus far, but non of them have been able to point out any actual factual mistakes. As I'm sure they exist, please feel free to point them out to me.

re: #222 Charles

It's nice that you at least tried to counter my argument (though you failed), instead of just repeating phrases about Dawkins on Islam like others did.

Of course, Richard Dawkins is an apologist for Islam because he sees no difference between the religions (but at least notices that in the civilized world religion is being secularized, and only this is for him the difference to the barbarism of the islamic world), he also negates anti-semitism (the palestinian terror is just some "religious conflict" for him) and uses anti-semitic structural elements himself, e.g. when he writes that the "invasion of the Holy Land was morally not different from Hitler's invasion into Poland", that Josuas attack on Jericho was an "ethnic cleansing" and that Josua used ruthless violence "against the people that were already living in this Lebensraum [sic!]". Thus, for Richard Dawkins, the Jews are the original inventors of the national-socialist blood and soil policy.

If this is your hero, Charles, you can have him.

re: #224 oslogin

So, since you regard women like Melanie Muhaxheri as "feminists", I think we have some misunderstanding here, so, just to clear this: is it just your hate for civilization and love for Islam that you apologize misogynic violence in the name of Allah and call people like Muhaxheri "feminists" or do youself consider violence against women as justified?

anti-Islamic bigotry in Europe today is often quite comparable with other forms of anti-Semitism, even that found amongst non-fascists in countries like Norway and Sweden in the 1930s

Thanks for making it very clear that you not only have no clue what anti-semitism is, that you don't know the difference between anti-semitism and anti-judaism, but that you also actively promote belittlement of anti-semitism when insisting that Muslims nowadays have to suffer under the same resentments like Jews have.
However, some Swiss "intellectuals" are even further with this than you (infact, you are very mainstream with your "The Muslims are the Jews of today"). For example, Charles Lewinsky in this pamphlet for Allah in the Tagesanzeiger insists that Ulrich Dürrenmatt - a former Swiss publicist and anti-semite, was only against Jews because there were no Muslims in Switzerland back then.
In Germany, there are already some "experts" on Anti-semitism and "Islamophobia" who claim that the Germans murdered the Jews as "representatives of the orient", that the anti-semitic furor teutonicus was infact aiming on Jews and Muslims alike.

This is still the opinion of a minority, but since Islam-apologists are pushing forward, this will be mainstram one day, also because it is very compatible with the belittlement of anti-semitism people like you - who have no idea of what anti-semitism is other than "When one can't stand Jews" - are propagandizing.

including people growing up in non-Muslim families

That's very important: whenever someone critizises Islamic hideousness, always point out that it's normal, that others do it as well. For people like you, no honor-killing can be too cruel, no palestinian suicide-bombing too bestial, to not point out that others do it as well.

and others do not respect that others have the right to choose what to put on top of their heads does not mean that I'm willing to refuse others the right to choose what to put on top of their heads.

Even though you say that a ban on headscarves could be discussed (how nice!), you are implicating that a child of 10 is capable of understanding such an issue - but even nastier is it to be silent about what this headscarf means and to implicate that there is no difference to wearing a basecap: it's just a thing that people put on their head. This silence about the political and misogynic meaning of the headscarf is not caused just by stupiditiy, its the malignance of total ignorance to the suffering of muslim women.

Oh, and I would challenge you to point out exactly what is false in my "other pamphlets"

I do not discuss with people who claim to have an oversight about "Eurofascism" while they are using a definition of fascism from elementary school. But since I like you, I recommend you Sohn-Rethel and Agnoli to get some basic knowledge about the subject you are writing.

re: #227 gegenkritik

You must have amazingly lacking reading skills, as I have just told you that I do not know this Melaxheri, and obviously I have little idea what she thinks about political, theological or other issues. I do however know what the Islamic feminists I have myself spoken to said about genital mutilation.

And I know that they were still Muslim, still praying in mosques with minarets. Once again: I have little understanding for people who want to attack the religious freedom of someone else on the basis of things that those people themselves are strongly against. In spite of your amusing attempt in avoiding that topic - with insults abounding - this point remains.

Your strawmen of the size of Babel's tower and your lacking willingness to point out any of actual factual mistakes you so strongly claim is found in my work on Eurofascism is so revealing that I really do not see any point in continuing to waste my time; your refreshing style, eloquence and ability to reason in a convincing manner aside. Ad impossibilia nemo tenetur.

re: #228 oslogin

You must have amazingly lacking reading skills, as I have just told you that I do not know this Melaxheri

And prior to this, you wrote:

I met a number of varieties of Islamic feminists [...] some who sounded more like what you quote Mulaxheri on

So, I assume that you regard Mulaxheri and alike as feminists, and thus my question: do you generally consider misogynic violence and the concept of women being inferior to men as feminism or just when it comes to apologizing Islam?

What goes for your "Eurofascism": Same here, no interest in a discussion with someone who has not any basic knowledge about fascism, but good luck with your website.

re: #229 gegenkritik

The only thing you have quoted Mulaxheri on is that nowhere women have more rights than in Islam (having checked the source, she actually says "in no other religion"). I strongly disagree with that sentiment, and having checked who she is, she does not seem to be an Islamic feminist - although I still know nothing of her theological or political opinions.

Yet, is it possible to be a feminist and also think of Islam as a (potential) liberating force for women?

People who think so, and who at the same time oppose various forms of misogynism, definitely exist; and are also allies in the battle against for instance female genital mutilation. As a secular agnostic, I am hardly the one to judge whether their interpretation is a correct interpretation - just like I am hardly in a position to judge whether Christian feminists are right in their religious understanding, I can merely note that these are existing interpretations; and that you seemingly support the decision to deny also these people full freedom of religion. That is your problem. Not mine.

If you actually want to check out Islamic feminism and women´s liberation theory in the Muslim world - which I doubt, for historical context, check out for instance A´icha Ismat al-Taymuriyya, Qasim Amin, Zaynab Fawwaz and Huda Shaawari; for more recent examples see for instance Fadela Amara (who sees the hijab as suppressing and as a political symbol), Asma Barlas (who prefers not to call herself a feminist, but certainly speak against misogyny), Lily Zakiyah Munir and Amina Wadud.

Amara, a brave woman and a notable critic of both Islamism, racism and misogyny, had the following to say about the minaret ban: "This question (if raised in France) would exclude and stigmatise part of the population". Which seems to be exactly the point for you, since you are so willing to accept the minaret ban based on amongst other things FGM, in spite of the simple fact that the majority of people targeted are of Yugoslav (almost 60%) and Turkish (around 20%) origin; both areas were FGM are non-existant (as mentioned, with the possible exception of a small Kurdish area bordering Iran).

I once again note your willingness to throw out claims about my work on Eurofascism and your absolutely lacking ability to give any foundation to these claims; except new claims which are also not backed up.

Could you perhaps enlighten me (and any others who still follow this thread) which of the parties I consider as Eurofascist which are not fascist; and what is wrong with my definition since I consider them as such? Vlaams Belang? Front National? The Swedish Nationaldemokraterna? The German NPD? The BNP?

No? I did not think so.

re: #230 oslogin

If you actually want to check out Islamic feminism and women´s liberation theory in the Muslim world [...]

One important thing first: please understand that you are not in a position to give me hints on this subject. Its nice that you are able to use Google and find some names, but its getting ridiculous if you try to teach me.

It is interesting that a self-proclaimed "secular agnostic" is a dedicated defender of Islam, condemning every criticism of this religion. Of course, you are not a feminist and your positions regarding women are not too different from those of Mulaxheri. All your efforts are motivated not by seeking the liberation of women, but defending a collective identity against every criticism and thus, someone like Huda Shaarawi - who you know so well that you even failed to properly write her name - , if she would live today, would be insulted as a racist and "islamophobe" by people like you, for laying off this ugly piece of cloth. For todays humanitarians, may it be Yusuf al Qaradawi, Tariq Ramadan or Øyvind Strømmen, an islamic "feminist" is someone like Marwa al Sherbini, whom they could worship as Marwa Shahidat al Hijab, because they follow the islamic doctrine that the human being is nothing and the Ummah is everything.

One interesting side-note: the apologists of Islamic violence always claim that FGM has nothing to do with Islam. Some days ago, there was a congress in Sulaimaniyya/Iraq with Thomas v.d. Osten-Sacken (with whom I write together on a weblog), one of the organizers of the NGO Wadi, who fight against FGM. Three swedish "experts" were talking the same bullshit they use to talk in Europe: that Islam has nothing to do with FGM, that Islam is strictly non-violent, that honor-killings have no foundation in Islam.
The kurdish women-rights-activists could not believe what they heard, asking why they invited those "experts", saying that they could have also invite the local Imam to listen to such a nonsense and asking v.d. Osten-Sacken: "What do these Europeans want from us?". He could not give them a good answer.

Could you perhaps enlighten me [...]

This would be like teaching a 7-year old the intricacies of differential calculus.
Whoever equalizes the national-socialist NPD and far right parties like Vlaams Belang under the stupid label "Eurofascism" is not worth to be enlightend, as for him, this is part of his ideology: trivialization of anti-semitism, implicating that Muslims suffer from the resentment against Jews and thus executing what Prof. Deborah Lipstadt once called softcore-denial of the Holocaust.
And I generally avoid to seriously debate with Holocaust-deniers.

re: #226 gegenkritik

It's nice that you at least tried to counter my argument (though you failed), instead of just repeating phrases about Dawkins on Islam like others did.

Of course, Richard Dawkins is an apologist for Islam because he sees no difference between the religions (but at least notices that in the civilized world religion is being secularized, and only this is for him the difference to the barbarism of the islamic world), he also negates anti-semitism (the palestinian terror is just some "religious conflict" for him) and uses anti-semitic structural elements himself, e.g. when he writes that the "invasion of the Holy Land was morally not different from Hitler's invasion into Poland", that Josuas attack on Jericho was an "ethnic cleansing" and that Josua used ruthless violence "against the people that were already living in this Lebensraum [sic!]". Thus, for Richard Dawkins, the Jews are the original inventors of the national-socialist blood and soil policy.

If this is your hero, Charles, you can have him.

What complete crap you're spouting. You don't have a single clue about Dawkins' opinions on this subject, and you're repeating falsehoods that you picked up at some right wing site. I'm done with you.

re: #232 Charles
This "right-wing site" was actually an article from a left political magazine, citing from Dawkins' books.

re: #231 gegenkritik

How delightful that I managed to spell a name wrongly; your massive crowd must be cheering now.

For your information, however, I have written quite a bit on Islamic feminism; including a cover story for the magazine of the Norwegian humanists, a semi-large publication by Norwegian standards, and an article for one of the leading regional newspapers of Norway.

That was one of the reasons I did visit the mentioned conference in Cologne, where I also spoke with the perhaps leading scholar in the field, Margot Badran. Am I an expert? Far from it. But at least I realize that Islamic feminists, too, have the right of religious freedom.

It is also delightful that you point out that apologists of Islam always deny a connection between Islam and FGM, because I certainly do not deny this connection. Where it is practiced, FGM is often considered a part of Islamic tradition, and recommended - or at least approved - by Muhammad; something I have repeatedly noted. It is also very possible that the historical spread of FGM was parallell to the spread of Islam. But going from there and to attack Swiss Muslims of Yugoslav origin on the basis of something they do not practice - that would be foolish, to say the very least.

It is also delightful to see how you seem to have less problems with the long history of real Holocaust denialism and "revisionism" in the Vlaams Belang than with your own imaginary form of it, where anyone who sees a parallell between any form of anti-Semitism and any form of other bigotry suddenly is a Holocaust denialist. Well, at least you are an amusing fellow, in a charming Glenn Beck-kind of manner.

re: #234 oslogin

Oh, and to add some more fun.

Vlaams Belang politicians of today are generally smart enough stay clear of direct cooperation with NPD. However, connecting the dots are hardly difficult. Here's a fabolous and beautiful little detail from the well-known Holocaust-denialist newspaper Ha'aretz:

[Link: www.adi-schwartz.com...]

Hanging on the wall of Dewinter’s office, where the interview takes place, is a large poster from the 1960s that reads: “Europe, free yourself!” The banner is signed by an organization of nationalist parties in Europe, including the Italian Socialist Movement (MSI), the neo-fascist party established by Mussolini’s supporters, and the German National Democratic Party (NPD), one of the most extreme far-right movements in Europe, which some say is really neo-Nazi.

In this case, "some" seems to include both of us. Now, if you were a leading politician, would you hang a poster signed a German neo-Nazi party and an Italian neo-fascist party in your office?

I should probably not even go into the connections between Voorpost, an organisation which is very close to the "traditional" part of the VB, and NPD; let me only mention that a certain Udo Voigt visited Voorpost when they celebrated their 25th anniversary, and that a number of well-known VB politicians are also involved with Voorpost, and the latter are frequently referred to on the VB web site, such as here: [Link: www.vlaamsbelang.org...]

Should I dwell on the connections between VB, Voorpost and NPD's "lovely" youth organisation, the JN? Nah. Let me instead just remind you of Frank Vanhecke's eloquent comment back in 1989, the good old days when the VB were not quite as successful in dressing themselves in robes of respectability: "We begroeten het success van de nationalisten van de NDP in Frankfurt" (We welcome the success of the NDP nationalists in Frankfurt).