Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
This issue hits on so many others.As the article notes, muslims are 5% of the Swiss population. Given the low birthrates of native born Swiss and the high birthrates of muslim immigrants, that figure can only rise even if there is no more immigration, suggesting that this could be a bit of a backlash.Another issue that this brings up is that while there are similar reactions in some European countries, it is much stronger in Switzerland because the Swiss are on the whole more conservative than other Europeans. Not having been engaged in any kind of warfare since Napoleon, the Swiss haven't experienced the liberalizing effects that war generally creates in societies that are forced to recognize that they are part of a larger world. As such they are more likely to be a bit xenophobic and see an influx of outsiders as more of a threat than would, say, France, the Netherlands or Germany (though there are certainly some issues in those countries as well.)
the Swiss haven't experienced the liberalizing effects that war generally creates in societies that are forced to recognize that they are part of a larger world.Pretty big generalization. I can think of lots of nations, heck, large swaths of the planet, for whom war has had less than a "liberalizing" effect.
Knoxgirl said...Pretty big generalization. I can think of lots of nations, heck, large swaths of the planet, for whom war has had less than a "liberalizing" effect. I think he meant that wars tend to break up the status quo anti-bellum and are if not revolutionary, then at least shake up the society. as for the Swiss, very conservative. my perception is that they aren't eager for immigrants without lots of cash in the bank. I know what the turks in Germany were doing. I don't undertstand how these Muslims got there.1. no returns from overseas colonies2. no great libertal angst to take in the poor of the world3. no low tech export industries with lust for low labor costs.Some folks don't recognize that the Swiss have a huge infrastructure for national defense. Most Every Swiss male from 18 to 40 is in the National Guard and keeps an automatic weapon at home. Combined with a traditional and conservative social structure, given the Muslim birth rate, it will get intersting eventually. I don;t know what the Swiss policy is on citizenship, but I bet it's more conservative than the Germans and the Germans have thrid generation Turks that are aliens in Germany.
The article seems to indicate that the issue is not whether Muslims should live there; it's whether these same Muslims are radical extremists and have some other agenda in mind than plain old worship. I guess even raising the question makes you a "right wing extremist."
There is also the matter of reciprocity. Swiss Christians know very well that if they journey to any but a few Muslim countries and try building a church, they will be arrested or blown up. Part of the Euro resentment is knowing that the mosque-building spree in the West is the Muslim equivalent of a dog sauntering into another dog's turf and pissing on every tree right in front of the rival dog kept on a chain by it's rulers.A chained dog that knows perfectly well that it it tried pissing on trees in the other dogs turf in return, it would be chewed up by the other dog and the pack it runs with.The Swiss are pissed, and they are not the only ones. Several Muslim countries will irately destroy or throw in the trash at Customs - the Bibles or Christian literature of Christian visitors. Virtually all Muslim countries will either arrest or instantly deport any proselytizing Chistian - while the same Muslims insist of their "right" in the West to aggressively proselytize and set up their "own" neighborhoods. Muslim media and print pushing Islam is under little restriction in the West. But Christianity and Hindi communications is not extended reciprocity in most of the Ummah.In the USA, Bush is oblivious to open Borders and the infiltration of radical Wahabbist mullahs into chaplain positions and the prisons, and unaware of the foreign-funded mosques and fundamentalist radicals spreading through the country.The ACLU, which would have frothing at the mouth paroxisms if they found the Queen of England was using her state wealth to fund and re-establish the Anglican Church as a force in the USA....or have lawsuits firing away right and left if an American town funded sending a Christian minister to care for the psyches and souls of disaster victims overseas. That ACLU, which has been totally silent on the Saudi government spending billions to spread the intolerant radical Wahabbi version of ISlam here, build mosques, and pay the salaries of clerics from the Ummah they send here. Establishment clause? What establishment clause? The truth is the ACLU is dominated by secular Jews, as several Jewish commentators have noted in discussing ACLU attacks on Christmas...and do target Christianity while giving state-sponsored Islamic expansion into America a complete pass. To the ACLU's secular Jewish policy-makers, Christianity is a tool of majority opression of "victimized minorities" which has to be warred on along with other high agenda bugaboos like firearms ownership, bigots who won't let courts impose gay marriage, and "heteronormative" institutions like the Boy Scouts. Somehow, the rulers of Saudi Arabia spending billions to spread a religion that believes a death penalty is the best answer to most of what the ACLU believes in, isn't on the ACLU's radar screen.
What more can be said here? This story isn't going to be told in the US because the conclusion it brings is too uncomfortable. Eurabia is coming, and these minor skirmishes will be lost by the West, won by Islam.Our 2006 elections, as much as they were a repudiation of GOP corruption, were also a shift backwards, from a forelorn desire to regain the 1990s and before. Denying the reality of the ME is one way to put off the inevitable reckoning.But it won't matter. Herodotus, the father of history, long ago recognized the conflict between East and West, which he interpreted as a war between despotism and freedom. In this case, the West is unable to make a case for its own existence, apologetically submitting to sharia, as atonement for our past sins.The East, to its discredit, repeatedly forgets how fiercely freemen can come to fight, once they are roused. I was quite saddened by our recent retreat in this battle, because it will make the next phase more difficult, and the losses greater. But no matter; all I can do now is prepare.
"Our 2006 elections, as much as they were a repudiation of GOP corruption, were also a shift backwards, from a forelorn desire to regain the 1990s"The voters won't continue to support a war policy unless they're convinced, either by fear or by statesmanlike persuasion, that it's vitally necessary. Bush is no Churchill, but he and his administration could have done far more to educate the public about the nature of the struggle. Instead, they have sent an anodyne message, i.e., the war isn't going as badly as the MSM say, just let the military worry about it, and in the meantime here's your new prescription drug benefit.
Re; "he and his administration could have done far more to educate the public about the nature of the struggle"I agree. But it didn't help matters to have the media uniformy and vociferously support the enemy's side. Like the end of WW1, aching for peace, we are putting off the inevitable. In the end we'll pay double the price.It's going to get very ugly, very soon.
When I was in Istanbul I remember hearing some locals complaining about all the noise that comes from minarets five times a day.
This is the yang within the yin of western civilization. Led by the United States the west instituted freedom of religion as a fundamental tenet of its existence. Each part of the yin/yang symbol carries the opposite and the seed of its own destruction within it. Islam is that seed here. If allowed to flourish it will destroy freedom of religion and many other freedoms. Unless of course Islam has a major Reformation which looking through the lens of history seems unlikely. People who are active in the pushback against minarets or similar issues in Switzerland or elsewhere on some level understand this. They realize they have much to lose and don't want that to happen.
But it didn't help matters to have the media uniformy and vociferously support the enemy's side. Bush seemed eventually to be cowed by the constant and neverending drumbeat of carping. Who's to blame for that? Bush or the carpers?It's always been really ironic to me that our domestic enemies to this effort have essentially thrown in with radical Islam. The social values and freedoms that liberals vociferously protect are many of the very same things that the radical Islamacists really hate.It's going to get very ugly soon indeed.
"Bush seemed eventually to be cowed by the constant and neverending drumbeat of carping."This has always puzzled me, too. They have surrendered to the left. Don't White House staffers read the circulation stats and sinking stock prices of the NYT and their ilk? If a politician stood up today and demanded victory, he/she would be elected in a landslide. IMO.
Post a Comment