This is a really good point.

Everyone, a rehash of the minaret decision won't be tolerated in this thread. This is only about the article, politicians and reactions to the decision.

And which state religion would that be? Officially it has none... but some Kantons on the other hand do...

Well in many ways the CVP is more left than right (big government, social welfare etc) while remaining religious and socially conservative and thus right-wing, the worst of both worlds really.

But I agree about Phos' analysis that the Swiss voters as a whole don't generally agree with the conservatism displayed by the SVP, and they will quickly lose voters whenever they can't play their favourite cards. Of course the no war material export initiative got rejected but it was still a sizable minority that voted yes, bigger than the share of votes of the parties that supported it. And that again shows that Swiss voters aren't much party-focused anymore at all. They are generally socially and economically liberal, but support a heavy hand on crime and social abuse after years of neglect. And, of course, they insist on their rules being followed rigorously. With that in mind you can probably predict the outcome of most votes. At least I can't remember when I've been surprised by a vote result. Politicians have really lost their touch with the public, and don't even realize anymore how they're being perceived by the people who they serve.

There is an article "Moschee als Dunkelkammer" in the Weltwoche regarding radical Islam in Switzerland. LeMatin also published the same article in French today. There are apparently 12 imams that are pretty extreme.

http://translate.google.com/translat...A_enUS313US313

They could make up some convoluted law that on the surface affects everybody.
The restrictions on Dutch nationals marrying foreigners (to fight illegal immigration by bogus marriage) in the Netherlands comes to mind. It affects everybody but it is obvious why those laws were put in place.

http://static.rnw.nl/migratie/www.ra...ers-redirected

ch-expat, your first post there has nothing to do with this thread and please read the warnings above; i hope the mod will delete it and this comment

Because they hoped that the campaign will not grow out of control if the object is presented as fast as possible in front of the people. I suspect also a bit of laziness and fail to recognize that the religious cohabitation is an issue for a lot of people (YMMV).

Counter initiative would have meant to launch a real debate with all the parties and the various communities. A proposal could have been that the construction of new religious building must be a joint project of the local authority and the religious community committee. Cost shared that would allow smaller communities to get a proper building and the local authority would also have their word to say about the structure.

	Quote:	Dick Marty
	People forget that in the past 100 years the worst massacres, such as the Second World War or Srebrenica, were carried out by Christians.

Wow Dick Marty has the sense of the formula… And of the approximation… The Goldwin law is definitely right.

It does not discuss the results from the elections but it has to do with our politicians (which is okay to discuss by evilshell's post above) that concealed a very sensitive report as to not influence the voting public. It also is a counterpoint to Marty's extensive self flagellation and deliberate effort to ignore Islamic fundamentalism.
So what do you think about Marty's interview?

There may or may not be 12 Imams considered "extreme" but how many fully-paid members of the SVP would you consider also to be "extreme"?

It's not like this vote has suddenly quelled an uprising or resolved a real issue. Marty is correct when he states that "we've voted on a non-problem". End of.

Even if there are 12 "extreme" imams, islamic fundamentalism is not an issue in CH. Please give evidence that it is. I bet you there are just as many white supremacists/nazis preaching in CH, but I don't think white supremancy is an issue in CH either.

I also agree with Marty, a whole hubbaballoo has been made over nothing and unnecessarily created barriers and tainted Switzerland's fine reputation for no reason.

It seems the SVP wanted to create a divide in order to drive their agenda. Seems they were successful.

[Gotta work ... will continue my unfinished thoughts later.]

That's a pretty terrible example considering preaching white supremacy or promoting Nazism had already been made illegal in Switzerland, as in most other European countries.

The former SAP (Internal State Security) was thinking otherwise, at least on the local level. Read the report of 2004 : http://www.ejpd.admin.ch/etc/mediali...1201_ber-f.pdf

Before I left for the Balkans (2003), the SAP made a very complete analytical research on the far right extremism in Switzerland and its European links.

Switzerland has smaller issues that its neighbors. It doesn't mean that Neo-Nazis should be dismissed a potential threats, nor Extremist Imams. Letting extremists preaching or propagating harmful ideas is not a way to deal with them. UK is a prime example, Germany comes to my mind too.

Of course you know that each Kanton, except for Geneva and Neuchatel, recognizes an official religion; Catholic or Swiss Reformed.

I finally read this in full.

I may agree with him that we voted on a non-issue. But to equate the referendum to a violation of human rights is quite over the top. A friend wanted to build an add-on to his house. He had to get the Gemeinde's permission. His neighbors did not like it, so his request was denied. Was his human rights violated?

He has some great points, but his level of incendiary politics is at the same level as the opposition he lost to. May I just remind everybody that no animals were harmed in the making of this thing? And this ban does not hurt anybody at all. Please tell me if otherwise.

I've watched Switzerland go through a rapid rate of change in the last 15 years. I can even point out some major changes in the last 5 years. I believe the Swiss people are keenly aware of the rate of change. So while there are no real present danger or situation this referendum addresses, I think it touched on the Swiss' sentiment on the rate of change. It touched on their desire to have some control and management of their future.

While the subject matter is wrong and misguided, I do like how it sought to address the future. For that aspect of it, I'd give the Swiss voters high marks. So I don't agree that political dialog should be altered to appease a politician (DM) who just lost. The real challenge is to not stifle political dialog, but to focus on the more important issues.

Yeah cuz making it illegal stops fanatics.

???????

If that was going to work anywhere, it would be in Switzerland.

It has nothing do to with stopping fanatics (although you'd have to be really naive to think it doesn't make spreading the message a bit more difficult, which is a good thing). It has to do with a flawed comparison of one activity that was made illegal in order to combat its spread, and one that was not.

Aren't religious leaders who spread hate or incite violence subject to the same laws as anyone else? Laws against this do exist here?

Maybe you should follow the thread. I don't worry about the 12 "extreme" imams like I don't worry about 12 hypothetical or not white supremacists. And I definitely don't make major decisions based on it. The comparison, not flawed as I see it, is that both are non-issues. There is no simmering Islamism in CH; although given the sensitivity of these things and the chest-pounding/graffiti during the referendum, maybe we will see some in the future. I say maybe.

Anticipating the response, I ask you to give me evidence of simmering Islamism. It is not my job to give evidence to the contrary as that would be silly, just like it is not my job to give evidence there is no God.