Quantcast

Web Letters | The Nation

Web Letter

Europe's in Switzerland's debt
For voting for no minaret.
But the PC sheep say
There will be hell to pay
Because it gets Muslims upset.

Lawrence Gold

Ann Arbor, MI

Dec 9 2009 - 10:12pm

Web Letter

I write in support of the previous three letters, as one who lives here in the heart of Eurabia, where Muslims feel already strong enough to censor our state opera's choice of performances, force the closure of exhibitions at art galleries, etc.

And all that at a small percentage of the population. Imagine how it will be as they continue to out-breed us here.

German state policy and resulting law is locked in the over-riding guilt complexes resulting from its miss-adventures of the '30s and '40s... which have saddled it with judicial structures that make discussion if not action against a real "other" menace sadly improbable if not impossible.

Bravo for the Swiss! The über-PC laws of this country probably mean that I'm "committing a hate speech offense" even in this considered comment.

david schurman

Berlin, Germany

Dec 9 2009 - 1:32pm

Web Letter

Bravo to the Swiss for having the courage to stand up, even this little bit, to the spread of Islam in their country! Yes, the referendum is significant as a symbolic gesture against Islamic supremacy and religious bigotry. The minarets are symbols of Islamic triumphalism. They are totally unnecessary to the building of mosques; and the referendum did not infringe in any way on the freedom of Swiss Moslems to practice their religion. This was a vote for preserving traditional Switzerland, and there is nothing wrong with that. If Muslims choose to live in Switzerland, let them adapt to Switzerland instead of expecting Switzerland to adapt to them.

Let us not hear any more hypocrisy from Muslims or their fellow travelers about this ban being a display of intolerance. This ban is nothing compared to the restriction on Christian churches and the physical persecution of Christians throughout the Moslem world, but who ever talks about that?

Islam itself promotes violent religious bigotry; so that any measures against Islam, even small ones like the minaret ban, are a step in the right direction. Intolerance toward Islamic religious bigotry and intolerance is to be welcomed! Tolerance toward Islam is a moral crime!

Abdul Ameer

Chicago, IL

Dec 8 2009 - 9:18pm

Web Letter

There should be reciprocity in religion. If the Muslim nations ban evangelism by any other religion, if they ban or burn churches and temples, if they punish those who convert, and if they don't allow the influx of material support for churches and temples, then other nations should have the right to ban any influx of monies and materials for mosques. As for head scarves, if Muslim nations are willing to allow women from other nations to have their hair uncovered in the streets and pulbic places, then the ban on head scarves is intolerable.

The problem with democracies is that they use reason as best they can, and this is no deterrent to the violent. And Islam is violent, as any reading of the Koran makes clear. This is nothing to hide, other religions are violent too, such as Judaism and Hinduism. Only the teachings of Buddha and Christ are nonviolent. So it is no shock that Europe is racist, but so are the Muslim nations, including Saudi Arabia. Muslims who are darker are mistreated. Anyone not Muslim is fair game. So the day may come when minarets can be built anywhere, but until the Saudis, the Yemenis, the Iranians, and the other Muslim nations stop being fearful that their violent faith is at long last inferior to the nonviolent faiths (as the sage Socrates says, violence negates reason, it can be well extended that violence negates religion, especially evangelistic religions because what cannot be achieved by nonviolence can always be done with violence).

So, first, let us have reciprocity. Otherwise, the greatest defense against those who spread violent religions is refusal to provide them fertile soil.

Sunil Misra

Columbia, MD

Dec 8 2009 - 3:57pm

Web Letter

This article misses the point, entirely. The free world is afraid of an encroaching religion that has stated many times that it wants to and is going to take over the world. The radical Muslims want to do it by jihad, and will use any means to kill infidels. The banning of the minarets is not meant to prevent anyone from practicing their religion but it is a small step that is leading to a big stand against evil. We don't want Sharia law. If Muslims want Sharia law they should stay in their Sharia law-abiding countries. If they move to free countries, then they should abide by the laws of their new land.

The author could not even spell out the devastation that occured on 9/11 but instead wrote of "world events," as if it had been insignificant. Pathetic!

Rhonda Rampy

Atlanta, GA

Dec 8 2009 - 12:27pm