Anti-Minaret Online Referendum

[bogh]

Ah, the old line about PC keeping you down.

At least in my country, PC has been completely defeated - playing the victim while in government and with a sizable part of the populace supporting you is pretty pathethic. If anything, people who are PC are being shouted down - anything constructive will be lambasted for not being mean enough against the hated immigrants.

The aim of the anti-immigration crowd isn't integration. It's all about "winning". The harsher a proposal is, the better, since every restriction of liberty and happiness in the immigrant population is a blow against the filthy foreigners and the hated "liberals". I love how the anti-immigration side will portray itself as "realistic" and "offering solutions" while propagating BS nonsense like this and doing fuck all where it will actually matter.

Better schools and stronger support for immigrants won't win elections, but it just might solve some problems. Banning tea because it is an expression of muslim culture probably won't.

[Berkut]

To help Solmyr out, because I don't see any sign he is going to make a good point on his own, it could be a solution for Switzerland. I would guess that the proportion of deeply religious muslims wanting to immigrate to Switzerland as opposed to other parts of Europe will decline, and some that have recently immigrated may want to move.

Immigrant groups tend to go where there's a link or a community of some sort already, because it helps.  So I believe that Sweden, for example, has a disproportionate number of Kurds because there was a lot Kurdish migration there in the 60s and 70s.  I don't know why, maybe assylum laws?  Similarly Germany has a high Turkish population because they sought 'guest workers' in the 60s and 70s.  France has a high Algerian population and Britain a large Bangladeshi and Pakistani one. 

I think the decision of which country to move to is rarely dictated by the ideological comfort you'll get, or even the economic situation in different countries.  Rather I think it's where you have family or a community that you know of (someone from your village or area) that you'll be able to settle into.

I think that is too simplistic - what if you want to emigrate, and are a professional minaret architect?

What then????

[bogh]

I don't see buckling under pressure and accepting every group regardless of the actual content of their beliefs as part of Western values, sorry. I do in fact agree that a ban on minarets is silly and unlikely to help much in the long run, but something has to be done, and right now the options are very stifled.

So doing something completely pointless with no relation to the problems at hand is better than doing nothing.

Right.

Actually, we should ban the color green. It's often associated with Islam. We have to do something!

[Admiral Yi]

I'm generally pretty firmly on the tolerance side of the issue, but I think it gets complicated as (or if) the demographics tip.  Would it be acceptable if Muslims were a voting majority in a European country and they passed sharia type or sharia friendly legislation?  Or more immediately, if they were a minority partner in a coalition government and did the same?

[The Larch]

Ah yes, those mythical moderate muslims, who are never heard speaking out against the extremists in their religion and indeed act all understanding when someone blows up a bus.

It's not that hard to find muslim voices speaking against terrorism:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3059365.stm

One of the world's most influential Islamic leaders has condemned all attacks by suicide bombers at an international conference for Islamic scholars.

Grand Sheikh Mohammed Sayed Tantawi of the Al-Azhar mosque of Cairo - which is seen as the highest authority in Sunni Islam - said groups which carried out suicide bombings were the enemies of Islam.

http://www.islamicity.com/articles/Articles.asp?ref=AM0109-335

Muslim Americans Condemn Attack 

Leaders of the American Muslim Political Coordination Council (AMPCC) held a meeting in Washington, DC, on Tuesday, September 11, 2001, to issue the following points related to the terrorist attacks:

- We assert unequivocal condemnation based on our religious values and our identity as American Muslims (...)

http://www.fatwa-online.com/news/0050709.htm

Grand Mufti and Others Denounce London Bombings

The Kingdom (Saudi Arabia)'s grand mufti yesterday strongly denounced the deadly blasts that rocked London, saying Islam strictly prohibits the killing of innocent people. He also censured the terrorists for tarnishing the image of Islam by attaching their heinous crimes to the religion.

[Solmyr]

But clearly you have failed, since the cultural norms in the West include tolerance for other peoples religious views.

You should probably be shipped out.

Nonsense, since when is unconditional tolerance a part of Western culture? I tolerate other religious views up to the point where those views call for brutally murdering me.

Nonsense, since trying to stifle people religion who have no intention of brutally murdering you, or even gently murdering, or even brutally making fun of you, seems to be your goal.

If you are really all about stopping people from brutally murdering you (I assume this is some kind of major problem in Finland - lots of minaret builders brutally murdering people left and right?), you should consider passing some laws against brutal murder. That would work a lot better than your jihad against people who don't look just like you, or pray the way you pray, or whatever.

Where did I say anything about stifling religion of people different from me? My point was that I don't extend unconditional tolerance to every belief system out there in the name of equality, when such belief system includes aspects that are totally alien to Western cultural norms. Yes, I believe that at this point in time Western cultural values are superior to anything else available and anyone who hopes to live in a Western country should adapt to those values first and foremost.

[bogh]

I'm generally pretty firmly on the tolerance side of the issue, but I think it gets complicated as (or if) the demographics tip.  Would it be acceptable if Muslims were a voting majority in a European country and they passed sharia type or sharia friendly legislation?  Or more immediately, if they were a minority partner in a coalition government and did the same?

Illiberal policies in muslim majority countries are no better than illiberal policies other places. But there is no reason to suppose that a muslim majority would demand sharia etc. Turkey, Bosnia or Albania haven't, and the fairly big Muslim minorities around Europe have yet to produce a single viable Islamic political party.

[Sheilbh]

I don't see buckling under pressure and accepting every group regardless of the actual content of their beliefs as part of Western values, sorry. I do in fact agree that a ban on minarets is silly and unlikely to help much in the long run, but something has to be done, and right now the options are very stifled.

The options aren't stifled.  I agree with bogh.  In the British perspective it's tiresome to read the Sun, the Daily Mail, the Daily Express, the Telegraph and sometimes the Times bemoan how repressed we are by political correctness.  If you read them you'd think we were living under Polly Toynbee's benign dictatorial rule.  We live in a political culture in which discussion of immigration is hedged between the hardline and the ultra hardline.  I find the self-pitying, victimised, put-upon posing of the anti-PC brigade far more tiresome than any of the politically correct strictures.

My argument has always been that if people move here they should live their lives according to Western law and values.  It doesn't matter if gay-bashing or domestic violence is culturally acceptable in Jamaica or Saudi Arabia, in this country it's not.  However I don't think government practically speaking can change people's opinions or beliefs, especially not in an age of cheap air travel and I don't think the regulation of belief is something the government should be involved in.  We draw the line at acts against our values not at beliefs and we have faith in the deep seductiveness of a free society.

I find it ironic that you're unhappy with political correctness because it closes down debate and thought but you think that Western societies should actually close down and  regulate what is acceptable belief.

[Solmyr]

I don't see buckling under pressure and accepting every group regardless of the actual content of their beliefs as part of Western values, sorry. I do in fact agree that a ban on minarets is silly and unlikely to help much in the long run, but something has to be done, and right now the options are very stifled.

So doing something completely pointless with no relation to the problems at hand is better than doing nothing.

Right.

Actually, we should ban the color green. It's often associated with Islam. We have to do something!

How is this no relation to the problems at hand? Minarets are a symbol of Islam and thus represent a target for some, since targeting more pertinent things is impossible.

Your example is bad because green is associated with a lot more than just Islam.

[Admiral Yi]

Illiberal policies in muslim majority countries are no better than illiberal policies other places. But there is no reason to suppose that a muslim majority would demand sharia etc. Turkey, Bosnia or Albania haven't, and the fairly big Muslim minorities around Europe have yet to produce a single viable Islamic political party.

Picking out the examples of secular Muslim countries (you forgot Indonesia) is not the same as saying there is *no* reason to suppose a Muslim majority would demand sharia.  It's a hypothetical, a possibility.

[Grallon]

What's your proposed solution to Muslim immigration and Islamic global terrorism?  As far as I can tell it's to make Muslims not want to move here because we're architecturally unwelcoming and a global moratorium on Arabesque towers.  I mean I can think of a number of better solutions than that.

True - this ban on minarets is silly in the sense that it does not address the problem directly: muslim immigration is not welcome.  Not in this day and age when immigrants have no incentive to abandon their neurotic cultures; when all they need to do to keep in touch and remain morrocan, or algerian, or saudi, is an internet access and a computer.

But who will have the courage to say so?  Who will say that there should be a ban on all immigration coming from north-africa and the middle-east?  Who will speak of cultural profiling?  Who will say no to outlandish demands from these minorities?  Those are solutions but there's no one with enough balls to carry them through.




G.

[Solmyr]

One of the world's most influential Islamic leaders has condemned all attacks by suicide bombers at an international conference for Islamic scholars.

Grand Sheikh Mohammed Sayed Tantawi of the Al-Azhar mosque of Cairo - which is seen as the highest authority in Sunni Islam - said groups which carried out suicide bombings were the enemies of Islam.

This would be the Tantawi who considers Jews to be degenerate liars and rejects any kind of peace with Israel? Yeah, real moderate there.

[Sheilbh]

Picking out the examples of secular Muslim countries (you forgot Indonesia) is not the same as saying there is *no* reason to suppose a Muslim majority would demand sharia.  It's a hypothetical, a possibility.

I think we should think about that when we reach that moment.  At the minute in the EU under 1% of the population is Muslim (far less the sort of Muslim that wants Sharia) - so in terms of demographics it's the same as the Jehovah's Witnesses getting a majority in the US.  In the most Muslim, France, the best guess would make it like Asian Americans becoming the majority.  It will take such a prodigious feat of reproduction for that to be an issue that I'd be inclined to say, let them.

Both's not just listing secular countries but the countries that Switzerland Muslim community overwhelmingly originate from.  They're mostly Bosnians and Turks.

[The Larch]

One of the world's most influential Islamic leaders has condemned all attacks by suicide bombers at an international conference for Islamic scholars.

Grand Sheikh Mohammed Sayed Tantawi of the Al-Azhar mosque of Cairo - which is seen as the highest authority in Sunni Islam - said groups which carried out suicide bombings were the enemies of Islam.

This would be the Tantawi who considers Jews to be degenerate liars and rejects any kind of peace with Israel? Yeah, real moderate there.

You wanted muslim figures speaking out against extremism, you got muslim figures speaking out against extremism.

[dps]

Bravo to Switzerland. Way to show that Europe has less religious tolerance than America.

Not a bit of a surprise to me.  Europe is to the left of America politically, and it's pretty obvious that there is a significant minority on the left that thinks that freedom of speach, conscience, etc., only means freedom for those who think like them.