Yankev: Facism took different forms in different countries. The Muslim Brotherhood, a Baathist group, was the form that it took in themiddle east.”

I had been following the thread about Islamonazism and could not help but notice that Yankev seemed to shift from Nazi to Fascist. I think it is useful to distinguish between the two. The German Nazi party, with its history of genocide of Jews and others, was only one of many groups that fashioned themselves after the Italian Fascist movement including Frano’s party in Spain and the Israeli terrorist group Irgun, founded by Ahimeir. But certainly no one would consider Ahimeir to be a Nazi.

I have never posted before and am unclear how one does the indentation of when quoting from previous posts. Please forgive the appearance of my formatting.

Pointing out demographic and sociological realities, that fluency, education level and cultural similarity have a real impact on ability to assimilate regardless of official policies is in no way “blaming the victim”. The official policies and (apparent) general xenophobia in Europe could change tomorrow and the populations at issue, isolated by class, language and culture/religion, would still face great difficulty in assimilating. Any policy change has to take that into account to ease the transition and make assimilation efficient.

The “dodge” you speak of was simply noting the difference between official US policy, which restricts immigration based on skills and abilities which are conducive to easy assimilation and the very different starting point in those areas of most of the illegal immigrant population in the US.

You are correct that most of the Mexican/Latin American immigrants, legal or illegal, to the US do desire to fully assimilate, after all, they are merely moving from one “Western” culture to another. Illegals, who are not being selected for traits that make assimilation easier, have to work a bit harder, much like the waves of “huddled masses” of the past. That’s just reality.

You seem to be picking a fight with someone who agrees with you and I don’t understand why.

“The US hasn’t taken in “huddled masses” en masse to do low wage labor for a long time, at least not legally,”

And yet the fact is that Europe -still- is not very interested in assimilating outsiders, and that the question of legal or illegal residence in this context is irrelevant. I said you or someone would bring up Mexicans, and be wrong, but instead you dodge the issue, and my point: Spanish speaking immigrants, the new huddled masses by your definition, pick up english as quickly as every other ethnic group.
Assimilation happens when it is allowed.

The harder questions concern the need to for countries to regulate their own economies, and border control plays a part in that. But that’s got nothing to do with the discussion here, which is just stupidity. Trying to sound serious is not the same as trying to be serious.

I wasn’t disagreeing with you, simply pointing out that sociological factors in the immigrant populations being compared are significant when it comes to the ease of assimilation.

“Middle/Upper class” immigrants of any culture, which is what US policy is geared for, are likely to fairly easily blend in with, and conversely, want to assimilate into, current US culture as we are, and always have been, more of a “classist” than truly racist society (attitudes toward and success rates of non-Afro-American black immigrants versus “domestic” non-upper/middle class African-Americans as a curious example). Money, education, and mastery of common standard English (particularly with a cool accent) has always tended to trump xenophobia in the US over time.

I think we are actually in agreement in general as I just don’t see that parallel in Europe. It is my understanding that there’s a significantly different demographic among the majority of immigrants in terms of education, wealth and language mastery which leads toward cultural isolation on both parts, exacerbated for all immigrants, of whatever generation or “class”, by the various countries official immigration and social policies and what I don’t think is unfair to call a slightly greater degree of cultural xenophobia in the “original” populations.

The US hasn’t taken in “huddled masses” en masse to do low wage labor for a long time, at least not legally, so we aren’t really having to deal with the same demographic issues. In Europe that type of immigration picked up in, particularly in Germany, in what, the ’70s?

So my point is, European Muslims, who as immigrant or birthright citizens (some Algerians in France for example) should be considered as “European” as any others, are in large part starting demographically at a disadvantage for assimilation in general AND are facing a harder social situation due to various countries laws and policies.

Swiss leader calls for Jewish cemetery ban

What did I tell you, schmuck?

Germany changed its Citizenship laws around the beginning of this century, they should have been changed by the occupying forces in 1945. Look up Jus Sanguinis v Jus Soli.
European Muslims are Europeans as European Jews were Europeans. Unfortunately, Europeans still have a hard time accepting such things.

There are differences in the demographics of European and American Muslims but assimilation occurs always, when its possible. Next you’ll bring up Mexicans, and you’ll be wrong about that too.
I’m done.

The fact that Muslims in America are considered Americans first is an artifact of how America (over time anyway) culturally treats and embraces its immigrants, and how most immigrants who come here want to be Americans first. They actively self-assimilate into a culture that is ultimately accepting of them.

The lower income/class immigrants in Europe don’t seem, in the main, to want to assimilate, merely to enjoy a better standard of living than they had in their home countries. And it certainly seems their host countries have had little interest in encouraging or forcing any sort of assimilation on them. Temporary visitors, not future citizens.

The prime mover of all this is the fear of people like you. All the other factors, without denying their significance, are secondary.
Muslims are the new Jews of Angela Merkel’s “Christian Europe.”

A secret deal between Iran and the Geneva Police? I’d love to see the documentation.
On the other hand we have the example of Israel and a 40 year occupation, and ongoing expulsions of people from their land and homes.
Believe me I’ve gotten into arguments before on the Zionism is racism debate, once even at the 2nd Ave. Deli. It takes about 3 minutes of ridiculously malformed logic before by debating partner ends up shouting: “But the Arabs are barbarians!”

I speak to children, and I listen. But I don’t argue. You’re not my responsibility. If you were I would have done a better job of raising you than your parents did, that’s for sure.

keypusher64: Neither one of us knows that.

So your defense is that maybe, just maybe, this ban will cow Muslims into submission for some reason that you’re unable to articulate, even though that flies in the face of (my understanding of, at least) human nature?

I want to emphasize that I don’t think rioting is terribly likely or necessarily justified, but I don’t see how stigmatizing Muslims is going to reduce the likelihood of rioting. And to the extent that I understand you to be saying that Muslims ought to be punished in advance for rioting that might occur, I find your position morally reprehensible.

LN: Not sure where you got that from.I just found it interesting that the Swiss majority issued a clear blow against freedom and liberty, and Kopel the libertarian decides to blame Islamonazis, feckless Swiss elites, and feminists, all while shaking his head in sorrow that “decent, freedom-loving” Muslims “had” to suffer this fate.

I completely misread you; comment retracted and agreement proffered.

LN: rah rah

So what? In democratic countries, good laws and bad laws are both passed by the majority; if you think that the imprimatur of the majority makes the thing itself virtuous, I’ve got some speeches by an old dead Greek guy you oughtta read.

Ricardo:
This is completely wrong.While many other multilingual countries have either failed or continue to face semi-serious secession or partition movements like Belgium, the UK, and even Canada, Switzerland stays together as a multilingual, multinational federation apparently without any serious attempt to split up the country along linguistic lines.

I leave it to others more knowledgeable to say the extent to which local control helps keep Switzerland together. More importantly, though, it is perfectly possible for a German-speaking Swiss to regard his French- and Italian-speaking compatriots with benevolence while disliking, say, Turks and Somalis.

Aside from that, you don’t think that maybe geology has more to do with the fact that Switzerland is a nice place?

No, I think it’s the Swiss.

Guy:
That doesn’t come anywhere near to the kind of oppression a people need to face to be kept from rioting.

Neither one of us knows that.

T

Why?

Minarets aren’t that weird looking. There are already similar looking structures in Lucerne, like the twin towers of Leodegar. The famous Water Tower resembles a minaret. The flanks of the City Tower feature two lookout tower structures. The Jesuit Church features twin bulbous “onion” domes, an architectural design reminiscent of Muslim and Russian Orthodox culture.

Have you been to Lucerne?

Anyway, your aesthetic opinion would be an awfully strange basis for a Constitutional amendment.

keypusher64:
This seems very simplistic to me.There have been lots of persecuted and marginalized groups in American history.Some groups rioted.Most didn’t.Many of those that did riot did so at a time when they were less persecuted, marginalized and discriminated against than in the past.Also, wouldn’t it make sense for the Swiss to look at European experience with Muslim immigration?Were French immigrant Muslims treated with less respect in the middle of this past decade, when they rioted, than in the 1960s, when they did not?

Perhaps it is simplistic, for example, majorities sometimes riot too, and yes, it’s not as easy to predict as my comment may have made it sound. But you’re ignoring the issue I was addressing. I don’t see how banning minarets would cause Muslims to “fall into line”, the only “fear” this could instill is the fear that they will be the target of such hateful legislation in the future. That doesn’t come anywhere near to the kind of oppression a people need to face to be kept from rioting. This law is howeveer, a clear symbolic message to Muslims that they are not welcome in Switzerland. Not only is punishing a group based on the perceived collective attitudes of that group morally unjustifiable, it’s also the kind of thing that can only lead to alienation and cultural strife. If you believe that this reduces the chance of a riot, I’d like to hear why, because such a claim is certainly beyond my comprehension.

californiamom:
No.I wouldn’t.(The call to prayer may bring up other issues on noise pollution, however.).In some locales, the tiles and artwork on the mosques are very beautiful and add a lot to the cultural heritage of a country.I’m thinking of the former mosques in Spain, for example.But it would look ridiculous and completely out of place in Lucerne.Cities regulate architectural requirements on a daily basis.Religious houses shouldn’t be exempt.

The Swiss vote for a specific constitutional ban on the construction of minarets (there are currently a grand total of four in the country) and you think this is just a natural extension of city zoning laws? And on top of that, someone protesting the constitutional amendment (which targets a specific religious minority) would be asking for some kind of special treatment for religious houses?

The mind boggles.

Kuzbad: So basically if I’m reading your post literally–you claim 1) Islam has never forbidden the practice other religions 2) Islam has never forbidden the buildings of other religions–are both absolutely false.

That wouldn’t be a “literal” reading of my post since I never actually said either of these two things. What I said is I felt you did not directly address these two points with the necessary qualifications — your follow-up does, though.

It is of historical interest that Muslims in India gave Hindus the same status as Jews and Christians. I believe this decision was originally made by the Mughal Emperor Akbar. A true “Islamofascist” ruling over a majority Hindu country would have engaged in massive forced conversion or ethnic cleansing to change demographic reality. Akbar’s decision probably is not consistent with any literal reading of the Koran or Hadith but rather seems to be one of those religious edicts stemming from mere pragmatism.

[The 20th century witnessed true Islamofascism in the Indian subcontinent along with an equivalently virulent strain of Hindu fascism with the horrific acts of ethnic cleansing and gang violence engaged in by all sides during Partition.]

This post was mentioned on Twitter by VolokhConspirac: Swiss vote to ban minarets: Pre-election polls showed support for an initiative to ban the construction of new .. http://bit.ly/6sBwRg...

readery: CaliforniaMom,Would you object to a mosque that put up a minaret that had some Swiss architectural features but was nonetheless functionally a minaret? 

No. I wouldn’t. (The call to prayer may bring up other issues on noise pollution, however.). In some locales, the tiles and artwork on the mosques are very beautiful and add a lot to the cultural heritage of a country. I’m thinking of the former mosques in Spain, for example. But it would look ridiculous and completely out of place in Lucerne. Cities regulate architectural requirements on a daily basis. Religious houses shouldn’t be exempt.

Kuzbad, the claim was that Islam has never forbidden the practice or buildings of other religions, not that historical Islam followed 20th century notions of religious freedom

Hello, sorry if my earlier post was unclear. To summarize again: Historically, Islam has provided some limited protections for Jews and Christians (and to lesser degrees Sikhs and Hindus, etc). If you look at most any other religion, no protections. Islam sought out and stamped out polytheistic religions (for instance in Arab and Persian areas). The jihad in Kafiristan and the many in West Africa are but a few examples of this. The level of protections for Jews and Christians varied. For example, frequently, churches were not allowed to be built–at all. At others times (always) there were restrictions. There’s a big difference between “noise ordinances” and this.

Perhaps you are confused by my point about the Patriarch–the government of Turkey today merely maintains that power. But for centuries the Ottomans Sultan-Caliph in essence controlled the church by controlling the first among equals–the Patriarch of Constantinople. I fail to see how the modern secular government of Turkey has any relevance?

So basically if I’m reading your post literally–you claim 1) Islam has never forbidden the practice other religions 2) Islam has never forbidden the buildings of other religions–are both absolutely false. I’m willing to concede I may be missing your point as I don’t think I’ve ever seen either of these points under dispute…

Switzerland was notoriously anti-Semitic during World War II, even to the extent of cooperating with Nazi policies such as the German stamping of their passports with a red “J” and turning back refugees even after being informed they would be sent to concentration camps. The Swiss even sealed railroad tunnels to prevent (in part) trains bringing Jewish refugees into the country. This was dramatically shown in the 1981 Swiss film Das Boot ist voll (The Boat is Full). One of the reasons for these policies were right-wing demands to maintain “cultural identity.”

It wasn’t until the 1990′s that the Swiss government acknowledged their cooperation with the Nazis and subsequent retention of Jewish assets over the course of the post war period.

In fact, the major Swiss Jewish organizations opposed the referendum. This vote is just a continuation of historic Swiss xenophobia. The hills weren’t always alive with the sound of music.

If you think requiring the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople to be a Turkish citizen is an infringement on religious freedom, you should see how they regulate the practice of Islam there. As I recall, the state has veto power over any Imam or other Islamic leader who they feel is too extremist or threatens national unity and can also regulate the content of sermons.

That’s the great thing about being a voter these days – you’re never responsible for how you voted because you can blame any outcome on those pesky elites.

Islam has never forbidden other religions’ practices or buildings.

That is very much false. Since the earliest days of Islam, churches have been turned into mosques (examples: Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, Umayyad Mosque in Damascus) and many Islamicate governments have prevented the construction of new churches or even the maintenance of existing churches. True, at times churches have been allowed to be built with stipulations (limited in size, no bells, etc) but I would say rarely (if ever?) in any area government that considered itself Muslim/Islamic have Christians or Jews or other minorities been able to build religious structures entirely as they would OR practice their religion entirely as they would. Heck, the Ottoman Empire picked the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople, and still requires the Patriarch to be a Turkish citizen.

Beyond the Ahl al-Kitab / People of the Book (aka Christians, Jews, and Saebeans), there are no protections. Thus the Western African Jihads and the jihad against the “Kafirs” of “Kafiristan” in Afghanistan (“The land of Unbelievers” — after their forced conversion in the late 19th century, now known as Nuristan — the land of light) were perfectly permissible.

Somewhat ironic when it comes down to it–Islam formally protects the right of Christians and Jews (the Ahl al-Kitab — and sometimes though extension to Hindus, etc) to maintain their religions, but in practice there are many limitations. Like not being allowed to build minarets, er, bell towers.