Finally--One Nation Says "Enough"

Switzerland, the home of famous cheese, lonely goatherds (OK, so that was Austria), and a fully-armed citizenry, has made a decision that no other western nation has had the guts to do. It has declared that it has a national identity that it will not apologize for, and that monster mosques and minarets fly in the face of that identity.

This was a vote of the Swiss people, not its legislatures. Although mosques were not forbidden by any means, the legislation bans the highly offensive needle-like towers from which a Muslim warbler screeches praises to Allah and hatred of all other religions multiple times a day. So the Swiss have simply banned minarets, single or multiple. God love the Swiss.

The Swiss banned the towers last Sunday, appropriately enough. "This is the day which the Lord hath made; let us rejoice and be glad in it." The result of the vote caught almost all the usual prognosticators by surprise. Switzerland is known as being neutral on almost everything, and rather tolerant of things not Swiss. But apparently the Swiss have had it with the proliferation of the obnoxious towers and their vicious devotees. The measure was expected to lose significantly, but instead garnered a 57.5% favorable vote. Equally significantly, it was passed in 22 of the nation's 26 cantons (think "provinces" or "states"). Swiss law requires that national referenda must gain both a majority vote of all eligible voters as well as the approval of the majority of cantons. And, no surprise, the weakest support for the measure was in the French-speaking cantons (Switzerland is tri-lingual).

In a vote which may parallel a growing voter discontent here in America, the government strongly opposed the measure. Like our wimpy submissive politicians, Swiss elected officials fretted that the ban might offend international human rights. They also worried that their dear friends in the middle east and Eurabia might be offended. The Swiss people themselves announced in no uncertain terms that they choose not to be whipping boys for the international community which wants so much to eliminate all western norms and national boundaries by demeaning Christianity and Judaism while building up the religion of the primitives.

"The government is disappointed that it was not possible to convince voters to reject the initiative," said economics minister Doris Leuthard (rhymes with blowhard). In other words, the government is upset that its own people have rejected cultural and national suicide, unlike the United Kingdom, France and Germany. The only reason I'm not throwing the United States into that mix is that we have been fortunate enough so far not to have to import cheap labor from the lands of sharia to support our social welfare economy by welcoming people who breed like rats, and live like them as well. But President Obama is working on that.

As it stands, the Federal Council, Switzerland's executive branch, shows no signs that it will defy its own people by claiming some higher authority to deny a legal and constitutional change in Swiss law. It's official statement is that it will add the line "the building of minarets is prohibited" to its basic law. And unlike America, there will not be a fifty year battle preventing the implementation of the law by arguing that the word "minaret" is vague and ambiguous and therefore unconstitutional. Everybody knows what a minaret is, and that common knowledge is sufficient for nations which don't agonize over the absolute perfection of the words of a well-understood law.

Logically, the proponents of the measure argued that the minaret represented not a religious matter, but rather a "symbol of political power well-known in Muslim lands" which "demeans an historically Christian country" and that minarets represent Islamic concepts of "creeping radicalism, forced marriages, defiance of Swiss law and implementation of sharia law, and other purely political aspects of Islam."

Experts in Islam point out that minarets have a place in the lore and practice of Islam, but that they are not a theological requirement found anywhere in the Koran. Furthermore, even in nations built on sand which do have multiple minarets attached to their mosques and other monuments in which terrorism and hatred of all things non-Muslim are taught, the call to prayer is often still conducted from the main building, not the minarets. They are comparable to church bells, which call Christians to worship and prayer, but not to hatred of all things non-Christian.

The reaction from the Swiss bureaucrats and foreign critics was swift and hysterical. "Human rights advocates" from all over Europe quickly denounced the vote as being detrimental to the growth of the "religion of peace" and its sweet, loving adherents. Babacar Ba, spokesman for the Islamic Conference (whatever that is) and ambassador to Switzerland, said the vote would result in "extremism." Well, he certainly ought to know about extremism. Some Swiss politicians worried that this might result in a boycott by Muslims of Swiss products. The Arab-Swiss Chamber of Commerce (do you believe these organizations actually exist?) says that Swiss exports to the lands of Mohammed were more than $7 billion in 2007 while imports exceeded $3 billion. A proper Christians response to that is "What profiteth it a man if he gain the world, but lose his soul?"

Swiss versions of the Obama-Honduras feint of "unfair, stolen election" have already arisen. One group, the Swiss news site swissinfo swiftly conducted an unscientific poll of its Muslim-flavored Swiss readers which showed that as a result of the new law, a boycott of Swiss products is not, I repeat not justified. The vote was running 72% to 28% against a boycott within 24 hours of the successful national referendum. It appears that even in Switzerland, the press is out of touch with its own readers.

Needless to say, the British Muslims were among the loudest in attacking the Swiss vote. After all, they have plans to build a mosque with multiple minarets right in the heart of London, planned to dwarf the Houses of Parliament. This would not be a healthy development for the Islamofascists if it caught on outside Switzerland. The Ramadhan Foundation of England responded to the Swiss vote by calling on believers of all faiths to "stand united against this evil." The Prince of Wales probably endorses that view, since he wants to change the oath of his future office to include the new title "Defender of Faith" instead of the thousand year old "Defender of the Faith." Ramadhan chief executive Mohammed Shafiq called the new law "another example of the modern day oppression Muslims are subjected to in Europe."

The Islamic scholars who see European oppression behind every rock are silent about when the next church with a tall spire topped by a cross will be built in Mecca or Medina, or a massive synagogue, complete with Star of David will be built in Riyadh or Tehran.

On its face, the words of another UK Muslim cleric sound a bit more reasonable. He said: "Although needlessly retrogressive and xenophobic, the legislation should also prompt introspection by Muslims rather than a convenient victim mentality." For those who know how to translate Muslim rhetoric into plain English, that means "don't take this lying down [like a victim] but go to your local mosque to learn how to wreak revenge on Christians and the Swiss for this insult to the religion of the Prophet."

One Muslim cleric (who will soon be joining Salman Rushdie on the hit list of the imams) actually understood the purpose of the Swiss referendum. "Muslims in Europe need to confront the reactionary Middle East and the Indian sub-continent." Dr. Taj Hargey is the chairman of the Muslim Educational Centre of Oxford. He further stated that the "Swiss decision did not curtail Muslim rights to freedom of religion, as there was no sound reason why Islamic houses of worship, particularly in the West, must include such towering and intimidating edifices as the minarets. Swiss Muslims should give up the antiquated cultural baggage of their ancestral homelands and implement a vibrant and valid brand of Islam that is rooted in and relevant to the time and place where they live." Watch your back from here on out, Dr. Hargey.

Contrary to the public statements by European officials, British author Gerald Warner says that running against the grain of those official proclamations, Switzerland will not become a pariah state, but rather gain an increased respect for Switzerland among the ordinary citizens of most western nations.

Here in America, Barack Hussein Obama has made no public announcement concerning the Swiss vote. And while he dithers about how to respond to the vote of a people who do not consider themselves to be "among the largest Muslim nations in the world," perhaps American authorities will, with full respect for the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion, discover the validity of laws regarding public nuisances, clear and present danger, and terrorist gathering-places. One can only hope.