There's a wonderfully apt parlour game doing the rounds at the moment. It's called "the terrorists have won".

You take a situation where your freedom appears to be curtailed in some way, and exclaim in a loud voice "if that's what we have to put up with, then the terrorists have won".

You can play the game almost anywhere.

When the anti-smoking laws were enacted in St Louis, for example, one of the complaints blogged was phrased: "like al Qaeda, the supporters of smoking bans are backward superstitionists who impose their medieval moral preferences on others through terror and violence. If we ban smoking in St Louis, the terrorists have won".

I am reminded of this by the hysteria - for it is nothing less that that - surrounding the building of minarets in Switzerland.

Because you can play the game both ways.

"If we allow the minarets to be built, the terrorists will have won"

"If we allow the fear of minarets to guide our building policy, the terrorists will have won"

Here's the view from one side.

“The forest of minarets, a dangerous symbol more of the threat of Islamic terrorism than a place of prayer, won’t change the countryside of the ancient fatherland of federalism and of freedom,” exulted Mario Borghezio, a member of the European Parliament from the Northern League. “Switzerland forever white and Christian.”

And here's the view from another.

"We are very disappointed," said Mr Karaademi. "We just wanted to do our mosque up a bit, with this small [5m-high] minaret and a tea room. We actually thought it might promote dialogue."

I believe that intolerance should not be used as a weapon against intolerance. But that seems to be the guiding view here:

>>Mohammed was a desert dwelling despot who murdered, raped and pillaged. He married little girls...<<

Thanks HermanYutic for that clarification.

It's maybe a pity that you don't follow the teachings of Jesus, though. I seem to recall he had a substantially different view on how people should treat each other.

But there's obviously no hope for you atheists, is there.

Pericles,
Always a pleasure to provide clarification.
If you want any more...
"Ask and you will receive"
Matthew 7:7; Luke 11:9.
Maybe you can clarify something for me.
What has stating the historical truth about Mohammed got to do with intolerance?
Is tolerance suppressing the truth?
My belief is that the more people who know the truth about Islam the sooner its demise.

odo and c.j., "tolerate" is ambiguous. to not tolerate can mean to oppose, and it can mean to (attempt to or argue to) forbid. there's obviously a huge difference, and it's obvious that, when it comes to speech, c.j. engages in the former, and does not engage in the latter.

it's also obvious that cj is correct, that OLO is loaded with tendentious twats (i prefer "loons"). this thread is one of the most hilarious, depressing, ludicrous in the history of OLO. banning minarets is self-evident lunacy.

Perhaps the fear of minarets is symbolic of the Westerners' current image of Islam as inciting religious fundamentalism, bigotry and violence, even against its own women and children.
I am sure that the former European practice of burning alive and beheading those who rejected the self-serving religion of the state, (whether Roman Catholic or Protestant) would have aroused a similar fear of the symbols of the prevailing Church.
Some Swiss people may dislike minarets but a Swiss architectural student would see them and church spires in a different way.
Some westerners might dislike Eastern music and the call of the muezzin, but a student of music and voice would hear them differently. I miss church bells and roosters, but white westerners have banished them.
Some may abhor the burkah, the sari, or thongs and tracky dacks, but students of cultural fashion, textiles or art would see them for what they are, stripped of the fearful connotations projected upon them.
Because of atrocities under the auspice of a piece of cloth painted with stars and stripes, the American flag is now as hated a symbol to the Eastern mind as the swastika still is to the west. In PR-speak, you have an image whether you want it or not.
How thought-provoking that the public image of Switzerland, that neutral country of the eidelweiss, symbolic of the survival of rationality, should now be tinged with intolerance!
Christianity urges its followers to love their neighbours as themselves. Eastern religions urge their devotees to greet the divinity in everyone they meet. All the ‘great’ religions have at their core the idea of a common humanity and spirituality that paradoxically needs no priest. Ignorance and self-interested religious dogma hijacks this simple, mystical fact, causing division and conflict of every sort.
Let's examine the source of our prejudice before we condemn any unfamiliar expression of the only thing that will ever save this planet -- the enlightened acknowledgement of every person’s common humanity, and our utter dependence on an impartial Life Force by whatever name our languages and higher selves revere it.

Thanks bushbasher. Of course I tolerate the 'tendentious twats' who render any debate on OLO about AGW pointless (which was the context of that admittedly colourful comment). However, while I choose to not engage with them I have never suggested that they should not be allowed to express their opinions.

I also tolerate the godbotherers, misogynists, Islamophobes and refugee bashers who abound in this forum. While I may argue - strongly at times - against them, I acknowledge their right to form screwy opinions and to express them.

Tolerance of Islam and Muslims doesn't mean embracing Sharia Law and Allah or making your Muslim neighbour your mate, but it does mean acknowledging their right to exist as long as they don't infringe our laws. The Swiss have just demonstrated how profoundly intolerant they are, to their very great shame.

"Scary stuff indeed"
Why should anyone be scared of CIR. We accept majority rule in all tiers of government and referendums. Even in Rotary clubs, tennis clubs and community progress associations, so why be scared of a federal referendum?

CIR in Switzerland shows true democracy. In this case even when all political parties were against it, the people spoke and let the politicians know that they should work for the people. That is far better than having minorities call the tune and the tail waging the dog.

I am not sure about the issue there, but the critical thing is that the people DO have the power to change government policy.

I can think of many more important issues, IMO, that could apply here, like immigration levels, population policy, the Iraq or vietnam wars, multicultural policy, baby bonus and GST or ETS.

But those with concerns need not worry because we will never have a CIR because it takes power from the politicians and gives it to the people, which our politicians would never allow.

Can anyone really imagine the polys here having to consider putting our wants first and foremost.