And of course any discussion of the elements of Islam that give rise to "extremism," and any call for peaceful Muslims to do something effective about them, will no doubt be viewed as "unfriendly." From Swissinfo (thanks to WriterMom):
Amid a fierce debate about minarets, public services in canton Zurich are being tested to determine if they discriminate against Muslims.The cantonal authorities commissioned the fact-finding study to provide a more solid foundation for an ongoing political debate on how Muslims practise their religion in Zurich.
The Zurich chapter of the rightwing Swiss People's Party put forward a motion last August calling for a ban on the construction of "provocative" minaret towers on Muslim centres of worship.
This was followed by a similar national initiative earlier this year that was condemned by several government ministers.
Dr Thomas Widmer from Zurich University's Institute of Political Sciences has been given the task of assessing the suitability of the canton's health, education, penal and social services for the Muslim population.
"We will try to find out if the services provided by the cantonal authorities allow religious freedom for Muslims and, also, if these religious activities are disturbing other people using these services," he told swissinfo.
"The Swiss constitution guarantees religious freedom and the canton must examine that this is not being violated."
...there is a fine line between allowing religious freedom and surrendering to alien entities....the Swiss should quickly define the line....
Is the Jonestown Cult a cult or a "religion"? What about David Koresh's following in Waco? If a "religion" purports to regulate every area of life, if it includes a plan of world-conquest - not the saving of individual souls, but the domination of every land by that "religion" and rule by its adherents, if that "religion" punishes by death those who would leave it, if that "religion" possesses an elaborate doctrine describing exactly the proper treatment of those who are not adherents of the religion but under the control of such adherents, a treatment that includes elements of deliberate humiliation and degradation and physical insecurity, for which proposition not only the sacred texts of that "religion" but alo a 1350-year history of the behavior of that "religion's" behavior toward non-adherents may be offered into evidence, then one has a right, by the shores of Lac Leman, or high in the Bernese Oberland, or indeed everywhere in Switzerland, everywhere in Europe, everywhere in the whole wide world, to question that "religion" -- to question, that is, whether the word "religion" quite fits, and if it doesn't fit, then all those generous pieties about "religious freedom" may not, should not, apply.
It appears that the Swiss people seem to be unhappy with the Muslim situation in their country, yet their government officials seem to side with Islam, and not with their constituents. Something for all of us to remember the next time we vote.
Why the hell did the Swiss ever think they needed to invite in an alien ideology intent on destroying their culture and supplanting them?
Same question to the Americans, the Brits, Dutch, French, Belgians, Swedes, Danes, Norwegians, Germans, et al.
Wasn't peace, stability and prosperity after WW II enough for them?
Were things too dull?
That they felt the need for a little imported exitement?
In the form of suicide bombs, riots, car bombs, marching terror supporters, increased security costs, legal problems, ad nauseam?
I don't understand what schizoid, a-historical state brought this on.
"The Swiss constitution guarantees religious freedom and the canton must examine that this is not being violated."
Right.
To the Swiss:
To guarantee that Muslims can fully practice Islam, you better make sure they can butcher non-Muslims with legal impunity... otherwise they are not fully enjoying their rights under the Swiss constitution.
Why doesn't he do an investigation into how much these parasites have paid in tax and social security contributions before they demand rights to free healthcare, education, social services etc.
Since islamic religious practivce revolves around dhimmification of the native populations of whatever lands they 'assimilate'.. this Swiss idea brought to full consequence would mean they need to hand over the keys to the homes of the normal Swiss people.
Thank God, many Swiss still have their army rifles at home!!
Keep in mind.. the Swiss are still better off than Belgium or Holland for example. Or Germany or Britain too.
That's not saying much..
Do they have kind of technology to make these determinations?
I have this visual of the wand they use at airports.
Why the hell did the Swiss ever think they needed to invite in an alien ideology intent on destroying their culture and supplanting them?
Same question to the Americans, the Brits, Dutch, French, Belgians, Swedes, Danes . . .
Posted by: profitsbeard at July 16, 2007 11:40 AM
Substitute Canadians for the Swiss in posting above and the same question applies. Astonishing (but yet not really) example of Canadian dhimmitude on public display as related below: (this made my blood boil so much I called the Legislature to protest (pleasantly surprised that the woman who answered the phone, although not knowing about this development, completely sympathized with my reaction)
http://www.insidetoronto.com/news/annex/article/29193?thePub=annex
Creating religious impressions through art
BY CARRIE BRUNET
July 11, 2007 02:04 PM
The lawn of Queen's Park (Ontario, Canada, Legislature building grounds) will become a display of quiet prayer early next week, as a local artist installs 75 sculptural impressions of hands and knees on Islamic prayer rugs, facing in the direction of Mecca.
Alexander Josephson, a graduate of the University of Waterloo School of Architecture, is presenting his first public project on July 16 and 17, which he says is a reflection on the state of the world today.
Josephson said he has been intrigued by Islam since the terrorist attacks in 2001 and questioned the messages he was hearing in the media.
"I wanted to see what the reality is, if it isn't what we see it as," said Josephson.
While Josephson admits he is no expert on Islam, he did research the religion prior to completing this project titled Translating Prayer into Sculpture.
The thermalform plastic shapes will be placed on the ground but because of their design, created by Josephson, will have an appearance of floating.
He hopes that neighbouring Muslims might be intrigued enough to visit the project, and maybe even use the forms as a prayer mat.
"I'd be really happy if people would try this," he said, adding that he's only encouraging those who would show respect to interact with the forms.
The project expresses freedom, said Josephson.
"Toronto is the most multicultural city in the world," said Josephson. "This is not something that could happen anywhere else." (end of article)
Josephson, learn more about Islam, you dolt.
Thanks to Debbie, Dutch "Minister voor Wonen, Wijken en Integratie" (Residence, Neighbourhoods and Integration) - Ella Vogelaar, thinks that Holland is going to become Islamic anyway and should voluntarily switch over.
While we generally treat Naseem with ridicule, apparently the people who really need to, don't.
Perhaps Mr. Josephson's next installation will involve crucifixes in Mecca.
Its all about the money. Just like in Monaco, in certain places in Switzerland Muhammedans in large numbers have deposited enormous amounts of ill gotten wealth. If it wasn't for that the Swiss wouldn't even pee on their Islamic underclass if they were on fire. The government would like to keep things that way, but how much longer before the kettle beeps?
You wouldn't want to be unfriendly to someone who looks, talks and acts like your self-declared mortal enemies, and makes no obvious overt effort to distinguish himself.
Oh no, oh no.
That would make you seem too ... um, human!
And way too much arrogant self concern for a mere dhimmi.
It is incorrect to use the term Muhammedans when talking about followers of Islam the correct term is Mulsim. The Swizz Babks are the real money maker in Swizzland.
The correct term is sociopath for a follower of Islam
"Its all about the money.2
Sure. The swiss banks do not see the muslims as a strategically important market.
Dr Widmer is an ex-mayor of the Town of Zurich. Nice guy, actually, well connected and not exactly an idiot. Commissioning a study is a typical swiss way in politics: Get a basis for discussion, then discuss. Next step - if action ist considered necessary - would be a commission with members of all the relevant parties to propose measures, which then in turn would be discussed in the Zurich parliament, the media and by the voters. With consequences for laws, by-laws or whoatever is needed.
Not the worst of systems. Better than starting wars anyway. And better than yelling, too.
(Personnally, I would prefer the study was left aside. )
LOL, Elric66 - you cracked me up! Yes - "The correct term for a follower of Islam is sociopath!" Without doubt.
Also, use "Mohammedan." You see how "defenderofislam" didn't like it? For some reason they don't like "Muhammedan" or "Mohammedan" - SO USE THE HECK OUT OF THOSE WORDS!
Also, it's true that they are followers of Muhammed, as "Allah" doesn't exist.
So, 'Morning, "defenderof islam" - how's the Mohammedan doing today?
They also dislike musselman-a very old term not much used any more. Oh, and always spell and pronounce it as "moslem" NOT muslim. Apparently moslem is pronounced like an Arabic word that isn't very complimentary. Here's one result of a googling to find a source for this :
"The reason for changing spelling is because the pronunciation of "Moslem" can easily degrade into "mawzlem." In Arabic the word "Za'lem" means "oppressor" or "one who is evil or unjust." "Muslim" is an approximation of the Urdu form of the word. "Moslem" pronounced in England as "muslem" wouldn't cause trouble, but who knows if the reader ever learned the prefered pronunciation from a follower of Islam."
Needless to say, I make a point of using moslem, uncapitalized. Petty, perhaps, but I see no reason to show respect to people who think they have a right to enslave or kill me, in default of converting me to their garbage religion (which is garbage BECAUSE it allows enslaving or killing people who won't convert).
I enjoyed your post, labrat.
In Italian, Muslims are "i muselmani."
Yes, I agree, use the words to describe them that they don't like because we have no respect for their, as you put it, "garbage religion," - and, newsflash, i muselmani, we don't HAVE to respect it.
These people call Jews "apes and pigs" and everybody not Islamic "Infidels?" Fine, then you are Musselmen, moslems, and Mohammedans. Language is a powerful tool, use it to express your contempt for them, which is what you are doing by way of "moslem," labrat. Good Job.
Excellent! I was changing the 's' to a 'z', without much effect.
I am now going to use the term mawzlem. Thanks!
Continuing the discussion of how to describe the Submitted Ones.
I mostly use the term Moslem or Muslim, interchangeably.
But 'Mohammedan' has a long history of use in English, and - so far as I can see - is a useful description.
People who follow the teaching of Plato are called 'Platonists'.
People who follow the teaching of Marx are called 'Marxists'.
People who follow the teaching of Aristotle are called 'Aristotelians'.
People who followed the teaching of John Wesley were sometimes called 'Wesleyans'.
Now, our inimitable Hugh Fitzgerald has pointed out, on numerous occasions, that the Mohammedans regard Mohammed as the Perfect Man, with his every last word and deed, however trivial, worthy of devoted imitation.
Therefore: those who follow the teaching of Mohammed, and scrupulously imitate his example, can properly be called 'Mohammedans'.
Unless defenderofislam would prefer 'Mohammedist'?
Muslim donot workship they founder as GOD so your reason is not only incorrect but also political incorrect reasoning and racist.
Defender of islam.
I don't think you understood what I said.
Aristotelians do not worship Aristotle - they merely accept Aristotle's way of thinking.
Wesleyans did not worship Wesley - they merely accepted his teaching about how to live the Christian life.
You are a Mohammedan because you are following [NOT worshipping] Mohammed, just like an Aristotelian is someone following [but NOT worshipping] Aristotle. Mohammedan means 'someone who thinks Mohammed is right, someone who follows the teaching and example of Mohammed'.
To question or criticise Islam is not 'racist', since 'Islam' is not a 'race'. Islam is a set of religio-political beliefs.
As for 'politically incorrect' - yes. If it is politically incorrect to question and criticise Islam, then I am politically incorrect. I am an old-fashioned Westerner - I believe that freedom of religion, and freedom of speech, are good things. When I reflect upon Islam, and question it, and criticise it, I am exercising my intelligence and my freedom of speech. When I decide that I do not agree with the teachings of Islam, and when I decide, for many good reasons, that the teachings in the Bible (the Torah and the Gospels) are better, then I am exercising my freedom of religion.
If you do not like that, then that is your problem, not mine.