Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Swiss Ban On Minarets Is Pure Discrimination [EDITORIAL: LA Times]
LATimes ^ | December 01st 2009

Posted on 12/01/2009 9:08:23 PM PST by Steelfish

EDITORIAL Swiss Ban On Minarets Is Pure Discrimination Sunday's referendum is a reminder that cultural anxieties can be inflamed even in the most tolerant country.

December 2, 2009

Integrating Islamic immigrants has proved to be a multifaceted challenge for European nations unaccustomed to religious and cultural diversity. But there's nothing complicated about the decision of voters in Switzerland to prohibit further construction of minarets. It's religious discrimination pure and simple.

Sunday's referendum, in which 57.5% of voters approved the ban on minarets -- a traditional feature of mosques -- is a reminder that cultural anxieties can be inflamed even in the most tolerant country.

(It also demonstrates the fact, well known to Californians, that direct democracy can burden a society with measures that wouldn't have survived the deliberateness of the legislative process.) One of the referendum's architects called the minaret "a political symbol against integration . . . a symbol to try to introduce Sharia [Islamic] law parallel to Swiss rights."

It would be just as accurate to say that the Christian cross is a symbol of the Spanish Inquisition or the violence committed by Crusaders against Muslims. It's also perverse to complain that Muslims are unwilling to embrace the larger society and then make acceptance of second-class status the price of their assimilation.

(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: culturalsuicide; islam; itsourcountry; minaretban; mosques; nationalsuicide; switzerland
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-65 next last

1 posted on 12/01/2009 9:08:25 PM PST by Steelfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Gotta love that way of life. If democracy means something they don’t like, it’s discrimination. If discrimination means something they like, it’s democracy.


2 posted on 12/01/2009 9:10:17 PM PST by Moose Burger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
What the LA Times call discrimination I would call self-defense.
3 posted on 12/01/2009 9:10:54 PM PST by Patrick1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
It's also perverse to complain that Muslims are unwilling to embrace the larger society and then make acceptance of second-class status the price of their assimilation.

Guess they don't like the dhimmi shoe when it's on the other foot eh.

4 posted on 12/01/2009 9:11:07 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (I am in America but not of America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

The ban is not religious discrimination, it is a reasonable restriction on a violent cult, preventing it from erecting unsightly monuments to its deadly creed.

We should demand the same in the USA.


5 posted on 12/01/2009 9:11:54 PM PST by FlyingEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
Swiss Ban On Minarets (hopefully) Is The Future.
6 posted on 12/01/2009 9:12:40 PM PST by hal ogen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

*Integrating Islamic immigrants has proved to be a multifaceted challenge for European nations unaccustomed to religious and cultural diversity.*

F*ck you, LA Times. Try being “diverse” in the Islamic sh*t holes these “immigrants” came from.


7 posted on 12/01/2009 9:13:07 PM PST by j-damn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck; Patrick1

Actually under the circumstances- where certain Third World cultures obstinately and deliberately refuse to assimilate, and an influx of large numbers changes the religious traditions of that nation, a strong argument can be made why discrimination is mandatory.


8 posted on 12/01/2009 9:14:47 PM PST by Steelfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

No matter what we do for or to the muslims, at the end of the day, we are still infidels.


9 posted on 12/01/2009 9:15:39 PM PST by umgud (I couldn't understand why the ball kept getting bigger......... then it hit me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Flying airliners into skyscrapers is “pure discrimination”.
The damned muslims are the worst discriminators on the planet and they aren’t going to change!


10 posted on 12/01/2009 9:15:48 PM PST by SWAMPSNIPER (THE SECOND AMENDMENT, A MATTER OF FACT, NOT A MATTER OF OPINION)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

The ban is NOT on mosques. Build all the mosques you want.

The ban in on MINARETS: Gigantic towers out of which pre-recorded prayers are obnoxiously blasted at a million decibals at all hours.

Minarets are a nightmare to people living within ear range.


11 posted on 12/01/2009 9:16:02 PM PST by FormerACLUmember (The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. - H. L. Menken.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Wonder how they feel about the ban on churches in Saudi Arabia?


12 posted on 12/01/2009 9:16:27 PM PST by Tribune7 (God bless Carrie Prejean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

The old response: “Discrimination? Us? Oh no, we love multiculturalism, diversity is our strength, please let us throw a couple of million dollars into a fireplace called ‘diversity training’ to show you that we aren’t as bad as you say we are.”

The old response: “Yeah it’s discriminatory. And...?”

Get used to it, LAT and you other guilt-blackmailers. We’re tired of your crap.


13 posted on 12/01/2009 9:16:38 PM PST by jiggyboy (Ten per cent of poll respondents are either lying or insane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

I never understood the great love affair with diversity. Unity is something to believe in as well as survival, but diversity? Other cultures need to assimilate into the host country or that country should have the right to deport their sorry posteriors elsewhere. That is a countrys sovereign right.


14 posted on 12/01/2009 9:16:38 PM PST by BipolarBob (Thailand?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
There are tourist towns in my home state that require all buildings to have an outward appearance of a german or swiss alpine building...is that also racist and discriminatory?
15 posted on 12/01/2009 9:16:45 PM PST by highlander_UW (To anger a conservative tell him a lie. To anger a liberal tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

As if the LA Times is credible.


16 posted on 12/01/2009 9:17:15 PM PST by Psycho_Bunny (ALSO SPRACH ZEROTHUSTRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jiggyboy

excuse me, the second response is the NEW response of course.


17 posted on 12/01/2009 9:17:23 PM PST by jiggyboy (Ten per cent of poll respondents are either lying or insane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

I hate these anti-intellectual liberals.


18 posted on 12/01/2009 9:17:41 PM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlyingEagle

Never happen in this “understanding and benevolent” country. That is their scam. Nose under the tent mentality.


19 posted on 12/01/2009 9:17:46 PM PST by doc1019 (Obama, not so much.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

The LA Times doesn’t like Swiss architecture?


20 posted on 12/01/2009 9:17:56 PM PST by Senator Goldwater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
We have historic districts. To preserve the character of those districts we prevent the construction of modern things. If a Mega-Church wanted to establish a building in one of these areas it would be denied because it does not fit with the cultural background of the area that we seek to preserve.

Switzerland is similar to a historic district. It has a certain cultural presence and character that in itself is worth preserving. Minarets of a mosque are a violence to that character.....in many places in Switzerland a Wal-Mart or a big McDonald's sign would similarly be inappropriate.

It only appears discriminatory and hateful if you refuse to take that into account.
21 posted on 12/01/2009 9:18:45 PM PST by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FormerACLUmember

The ban doesn’t go far enough. Absent reciprocity from Muslim nations for construction of Christian faiths and full dignity of Catholics and Christians, I’d canvass for a ban on the mosques as well and demand a complete moratorium on all Third World immigration.


22 posted on 12/01/2009 9:19:28 PM PST by Steelfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

I missed their editorial on religious discrimination in Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, etc.


23 posted on 12/01/2009 9:19:58 PM PST by lacrew (The 274th trimester is a very late procedure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

No one signed their name as author to this LA Slimes editorial.

Why am I not surprised...


24 posted on 12/01/2009 9:20:28 PM PST by Nervous Tick (Stop dissing drunken sailors! At least they spend their OWN money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Would I let a blood thirsty enemy build a fort in my town? I don’t think so.


25 posted on 12/01/2009 9:20:33 PM PST by Big Horn (Rebuild the GOP to a conservative party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lacrew

I’d add to that list:
Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Malaysia.


26 posted on 12/01/2009 9:22:05 PM PST by Steelfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

The LA times has no problem decrying Christian crosses in the greater LA basin, (or out in the middle of the Mohave Desert) nor do they have problems with the ban on Christian churches ringing church bells

hypocrites


27 posted on 12/01/2009 9:22:54 PM PST by blueplum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

As usual, the LATimes is wrong!! Switzerland is a beautiful country with characteristic architecture that doesn’t require minarets. In addition, unlike the cowards in elected political office here, the Swiss are standing up for their country and their culture.

Somebody should tell our political elites that they could learn a lesson from the Swiss . . . . . BEFORE they learn the lesson from the embedded Muslims quietly overtaking the US!!


28 posted on 12/01/2009 9:23:34 PM PST by DustyMoment (FloriDUH - proud inventors of pregnant/hanging chads and judicide!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

Apparently this writer thinks that adding a page to the Building Code in Switzerland is the same as hunting down and executing Christians in Saudi Arabia.


29 posted on 12/01/2009 9:24:32 PM PST by jiggyboy (Ten per cent of poll respondents are either lying or insane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Moose Burger

Sure is. The public schools discriminate against Christian symbols and the LAT is OK with that.


30 posted on 12/01/2009 9:24:53 PM PST by RobbyS (Pray with the suffering souls.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Integration means accepting and becoming part of the culture of the country you’ve moved to, not pushing your culture on them. It is not discrimination to insist that if immigrants refuse to accept your culture and language that they can go home.


31 posted on 12/01/2009 9:25:35 PM PST by JMS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment

In Switzerland, Muslims are rocks in a raisin pudding.


32 posted on 12/01/2009 9:26:30 PM PST by RobbyS (Pray with the suffering souls.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

This editorial is unsigned. Laughably, the writer uses the argument that banning the minaret sets a bad example to Saudi Arabia, which doesn’t allow any outward observance of Christianity. As if allowing minarets in Switz would do anything to further tolerance in the murderous Islamic country of SA.


33 posted on 12/01/2009 9:27:59 PM PST by Mamzelle (Who is Kenneth Gladney? (Don't forget to bring your cameras))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

There are many towns in the good old USA that actually ban steeples on Churches (various building ordinances)

Have Christians EVER made a big stink about it, calling it discrimination against Christianity?


34 posted on 12/01/2009 9:28:03 PM PST by left that other site (Your Mi'KMaq Paddy Whacky Bass Playing Biker Buddy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

My only concern
With the Swiss Minaret Ban:
It’s Ineffective.


35 posted on 12/01/2009 9:28:43 PM PST by Haiku Guy (What I like about Karma is that it means that all the people I've screwed over deserved it - Dogbert)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Ain’t that funny? The LA Times pontificating on a-ssimilation.


36 posted on 12/01/2009 9:28:47 PM PST by VeniVidiVici (Keep your dog. Get rid of a Liberal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

I’m sorry, but while I agree on the ban on minarets (and noise regulations should be enforced strictly), I would also say that they are worried about shutting the barn door after the pony already left the farm.

The place to discriminate is at the moment you issue your residence visas. It makes sense to favor people who want to be Swiss. The people who can’t assimilate well should be limited to visitors permits if even that.

If you’ve admitted so many muslims that you now have to regulate the building of minarets, you’re late. And from talking to Swiss, they are waking up and realizing that they’ve slept too long, and are becoming strangers in their own country.


37 posted on 12/01/2009 9:28:55 PM PST by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Ok, I’ll go against the grain.

Dangerous territory here.

Community developed building and zoning codes are ok. And if they contain generic restriction that make such structures illegal - I guess those same restrictions would apply equally to all.

But ...

This seems to have many of the qualities that the founding fathers described as “tyranny of majority.” The founders generally frowned on “democracy.”

Remember . . .

When we grant power to Government to restrict the freedoms of those with whom we disagree, that same power is likely one day to be used to restrict our own freedom.

We created RICO laws - because we hated gangsters. Now the laws are used against pro-life organizations and tobacco manufacturers.

We created “Civil forfeiture” because we hated drug dealers. Now you forget your insurance card and they seize your car.

If we outlaw Islamic “shapes” on their own private property, we’re one short step away from outlawing crosses and steeples on Christian Churches.

flame away

it’s too late to argue anyway.


38 posted on 12/01/2009 9:32:57 PM PST by crescen7 (game on)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
It's always evident who the real bigot is in a discussion: It's the ones who scream the loudest about discrimination (LA Times), because their plan REQUIRES reverse-discrimination against the customs of the Swiss people.

Send the editorial board of the LA Times to Riyadh to tell the Saudis that they're discriminating against Christians or Jews. I would love to see how long they'd last.

39 posted on 12/01/2009 9:33:33 PM PST by UAConservative (Audemus Jura Nostra Defendere)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

I think I’ll go and visit Bern and Zurich; sounds like my kind of a place. Safe, too.


40 posted on 12/01/2009 9:34:12 PM PST by Rembrandt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

No, the Swiss are tired of hearing that caterwauling ... SoCal residents would be the first to complain of noise pollution.


41 posted on 12/01/2009 9:34:43 PM PST by Let's Roll (Stop paying ACORN to destroy America! Cut off their government funding!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crescen7

Aristotle: “The greatest equality is to treat unequal things unequally”


42 posted on 12/01/2009 9:37:04 PM PST by Steelfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Yeah, right, LA Slime Molds. How about a major cover story on the ACLUnatics trying to tear crosses down from monuments all over the place?


43 posted on 12/01/2009 9:41:53 PM PST by rfp1234 (R.I.P. Scotty 7/2007-11/2009.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

I don’t understand why discrimination is such a terrible thing; everyone does it. I, for instance, always discriminate against snakes with rattles on their tails and spiders with red hourglasses on their bellies. Call me a bigot, but it works for me.


44 posted on 12/01/2009 9:42:53 PM PST by Spok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

bump


45 posted on 12/01/2009 9:54:16 PM PST by VOA (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lacrew

“I missed their editorial on religious discrimination in Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, etc.”

You didn’t miss anything.


46 posted on 12/01/2009 10:05:15 PM PST by The Antiyuppie ("When small men cast long shadows, then it is very late in the day.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Spok

“I don’t understand why discrimination is such a terrible thing; everyone does it. I, for instance, always discriminate against snakes with rattles on their tails and spiders with red hourglasses on their bellies. Call me a bigot, but it works for me.”

Why is discrimination “bad”, yet being “indiscriminate” is also bad?

If I didn’t “discriminate”, I wouldn’t be around to type this. I’ve shown FAVORITISM (another dirty word) towards persons and situations that will do me good, and discriminated against persons and situations that will do me harm. I won’t apologize for this behavior.


47 posted on 12/01/2009 10:11:17 PM PST by The Antiyuppie ("When small men cast long shadows, then it is very late in the day.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

“Why should Saudi Arabia allow Christians to worship openly if a supposed paragon of pluralism such as Switzerland requires Muslims to efface their identity?”

Well, DOES Saudi Arabia allow Christians to worship openly?

The article states building a mosque without a minaret is like forcing a church to build without a cross. Maybe the LA Times should visit the center of the muslim world and check out some churches to see if they have crosses - oops, they don’t even allow the building of churches, do they?


48 posted on 12/01/2009 10:58:24 PM PST by I still care (A Republic - if you can keep it. - Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
Swiss women take the issue personally.
49 posted on 12/01/2009 11:20:19 PM PST by caveat emptor (who-whom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Try to build a church in a Muslim country.

You cannot even visit Mecca if you are not a Muslim. You are restricted from visiting.


50 posted on 12/02/2009 12:10:12 AM PST by Bon mots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-65 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson