Sunday, November 29, 2009

Swiss vote to ban further minarete construction

In general, this commenter believes people should be allowed to choose whether their circumstances will change or not. Thus when the Swiss voted overwhelminlgly to ban futher construction of minaretes, their actions were supported.

One commenter replied:

“Lame. You either believe in religious freedom or you don’t.”

Well…they don’t.

That is why you continue to hear stories of people in the Western world being intimidated in one way or another, either a Greek boy in Sydney Australia beaten for eating a salami sandwich during Ramadan, or public parks in England being turned into no-go areas for non-Muslims, or London synagogue's being targeted by a wave of anti-Semitic graffiti. None of these demonstrate particularly tolerant attitudes on the part of the Muslim members that have come to dominate their local communities.

People that immigrate to a nation with no intention of embracing that nation's culture, but have designs to subvert it to their own should not be accommodated. If the Swiss do not wish to have their skylines dominated by minarets and the muezzin's call to prayer five times a day, that is their prerogative, but as Mr. Neal points out, the problem is primarily a problem of immigration, which has been amplified by multiculturism's undermining of Western culture and uncritical embrace of non-Western cultures.


  1. Good news.

    I had hoped the Swiss would break ranks with the rest of Europe's somnolescent, PC, Cloud-Cuckooland attitudes--and denial--about the Islamification of Europe.

    (IE, acceptance of a little tart named Sharia in Great Britain and other cultural oddities in order to appease the restless Imams and activists, etc too numerous to mention in one posting)

    As Steyn pointed out, unless forced by the power of law and cultural forces to back down, the Islamists have no intention of assimilation (if by this we mean acceptance of Western Culture and norms). They know all too well the lessons of Marin Luther's error (in their minds) of Reformation, and are not about to make the same mistake. IE--they don't plan to have the accommodationist approach in the same way Christianity does and don't plan to be pushed to the edges--the peripheries--of society.

    It has now come to this.

    But yes, the other issue here is just HOW this situation came to be. The main problem as you pointed out revolves around immigration and the importation of talent and labor not available from the native masses due to the demographic spiral (low birth rates below replacement level, as Steyn also pointed out in America Alone) and the continued need for replenishment for the sumptuous social programs.

    Europe's social ills are numerous for their paradise on socialist earth. But maybe they'll learn yet how to defend themselves.

    Then we get to learn on our own account for OUR issues.

  2. As the article pointed out, it is not about banning a faith, though. It is about the concern of the symbolism of Islamic power.

  3. Hi Wakefield!

    It is a difficult problem for the West to address, for the very freedoms which we hold in high regard are used by the Islamists to protect their industrious conversion of the locality, while at the same time they hold those freedoms in utter contempt.