Swiss Minaret Ban Anti-Libertarian
The WSJ calls the Swiss Minaret ban stupid, but, in my opinion, that doesn't go far enough. The ban is not only stupid; it is anti-libertarian.
It is a commonly known fact that Europe is struggling with its Muslim immigrants, many of whom come from Muslim countries. These Muslim immigrants have incredible difficulties integrating into society. In Germany, Turkish immigrants still don't speak German by the third generation. Many Germans will tell you in private conversations that foreigners refuse to adapt to the European way of life and many Germans associate this refusal with Islam itself. Such expressions of opinion are normally private, because politicians would be crucified by the gods of political correctness in the media. A couple of extreme examples: Britain banned Geerd Wilders, the Dutch politician who has anti-Islamic stances and who is famous for his video against radical Islam "Fitna", from entering the country. Britain also tried to bar Michael Savage, the conservative talk-radio host, from entering the country for supposedly "promoting hate", though the government could not cite specific examples.
Of course, one cannot look at the issue squarely without taking the extreme intolerance of radical Islam into account, either. As mentioned above, many Muslim immigrants simply do not integrate. They often turn to radical ideologies inside their communities. Europe has seen their intolerance on many occasions: the murder of Theo Van Gogh, the fatwah on Salman Rushdie, the outrage at the Muhammad cartoon. As Foreign Affairs points out, jihadist networks are spreading all across Europe among the immigrant populations. So, when Swiss voters voted to approve the ban, it is certain that they had the same fears as many across Europe; that the spread of radical Islam must be curtailed.
However, this is a catch 22 for Europe and the world. If the government allows the spread of radical Islam, it risks more terrorist attacks and more problems with integration. It is relatively well known that Europe is an aging continent and needs immigrant workers just to stay afloat, especially when one considers its massive welfare states. On the other hand, if Europe bans minarets and religious expression, it risks succumbing to the same intolerance it is trying to forbid. In short, it will abandon its free society in the interest of preserving some quasi collective European identity. As the WSJ article points out, this will only harden and create more ofthe very radical ideologies Europe is trying to prevent fromspreading.
The thing people often forget about government power is that once a government has the power to grant rights, it has the power to take them away. Many people advocate positions that seem logical and advantageous to them at the moment in the name of security or some ill-defined "greater good", even if they would normally oppose it, especially if it were aimed against themselves. But later these same people come to regret having given the state the power to do something it never should have had the power to do when that very same government turns around and uses the exact same policy against them. A good example of this is that the states in the United States have traditionally regulated marriage under the Tenth Amendment. The justification for such regulation is always the same, protecting the sanctity of marriage and promoting stronger families. However, nowadays every state is struggling with the issue of gay marriage, something probably unforeseen by those who originally advocated for state regulation of marriage. What people fail to realize is that if the government had never regulated marriage in the first place, this would not even be an issue. People would be free to come to their own moral conclusions and draw up private agreements. It would also protect the positions of Churches now under threat from regulation, the sanctity of marriage, and the promotion of families. Now, though, the very rights being promoted are under threat from the same government. Irony much? No, just a typical outcome of politics.
So, when we look at the ban on the minaret, the same logic applies. If we ban one religious practice, - this is not about architectural style, though I would oppose that regulation, too - the government will then have the power and precedent to ban other religious practices it sees as a threat to the "greater good", which is always the justification of the tyrant. In such a way, the government and people have accepted religious intolerance as a right, which is completely antithetical to a free society and the free expression of religion. Europeans should realize that this is a very slippery slope. In the future, it could be used to ban all expressions of religion, whether it be Christian, Jewish, Hindu, etc. It could also be used to ban any other ideologies deemed a threat to the mythical common welfare of the state.
This is once again an issue of group thinking. If societies would finally learn to focus on individual rights, this would be such a simpler issue. Every which way one turns his head today, politicians and interests groups are casting some burning topic as a collective issue, which almost inevitably undermines our individual rights. Until we stop thinking in such a way, these hot button issues will always threaten our liberties. And the worst thing of all is that none of this does anything to combat the issue of radical Islam. If anything, it will only increase the paranoia of those radical members and conspiracy theorists of society, and everyone knows that forbidden fruit is the sweetest.
If you've never seen the video below, it is worth a watch. It is a video demonstrating the battle of our times, collectivism versus individualism:
It is a commonly known fact that Europe is struggling with its Muslim immigrants, many of whom come from Muslim countries. These Muslim immigrants have incredible difficulties integrating into society. In Germany, Turkish immigrants still don't speak German by the third generation. Many Germans will tell you in private conversations that foreigners refuse to adapt to the European way of life and many Germans associate this refusal with Islam itself. Such expressions of opinion are normally private, because politicians would be crucified by the gods of political correctness in the media. A couple of extreme examples: Britain banned Geerd Wilders, the Dutch politician who has anti-Islamic stances and who is famous for his video against radical Islam "Fitna", from entering the country. Britain also tried to bar Michael Savage, the conservative talk-radio host, from entering the country for supposedly "promoting hate", though the government could not cite specific examples.
Of course, one cannot look at the issue squarely without taking the extreme intolerance of radical Islam into account, either. As mentioned above, many Muslim immigrants simply do not integrate. They often turn to radical ideologies inside their communities. Europe has seen their intolerance on many occasions: the murder of Theo Van Gogh, the fatwah on Salman Rushdie, the outrage at the Muhammad cartoon. As Foreign Affairs points out, jihadist networks are spreading all across Europe among the immigrant populations. So, when Swiss voters voted to approve the ban, it is certain that they had the same fears as many across Europe; that the spread of radical Islam must be curtailed.
However, this is a catch 22 for Europe and the world. If the government allows the spread of radical Islam, it risks more terrorist attacks and more problems with integration. It is relatively well known that Europe is an aging continent and needs immigrant workers just to stay afloat, especially when one considers its massive welfare states. On the other hand, if Europe bans minarets and religious expression, it risks succumbing to the same intolerance it is trying to forbid. In short, it will abandon its free society in the interest of preserving some quasi collective European identity. As the WSJ article points out, this will only harden and create more ofthe very radical ideologies Europe is trying to prevent fromspreading.
The thing people often forget about government power is that once a government has the power to grant rights, it has the power to take them away. Many people advocate positions that seem logical and advantageous to them at the moment in the name of security or some ill-defined "greater good", even if they would normally oppose it, especially if it were aimed against themselves. But later these same people come to regret having given the state the power to do something it never should have had the power to do when that very same government turns around and uses the exact same policy against them. A good example of this is that the states in the United States have traditionally regulated marriage under the Tenth Amendment. The justification for such regulation is always the same, protecting the sanctity of marriage and promoting stronger families. However, nowadays every state is struggling with the issue of gay marriage, something probably unforeseen by those who originally advocated for state regulation of marriage. What people fail to realize is that if the government had never regulated marriage in the first place, this would not even be an issue. People would be free to come to their own moral conclusions and draw up private agreements. It would also protect the positions of Churches now under threat from regulation, the sanctity of marriage, and the promotion of families. Now, though, the very rights being promoted are under threat from the same government. Irony much? No, just a typical outcome of politics.
So, when we look at the ban on the minaret, the same logic applies. If we ban one religious practice, - this is not about architectural style, though I would oppose that regulation, too - the government will then have the power and precedent to ban other religious practices it sees as a threat to the "greater good", which is always the justification of the tyrant. In such a way, the government and people have accepted religious intolerance as a right, which is completely antithetical to a free society and the free expression of religion. Europeans should realize that this is a very slippery slope. In the future, it could be used to ban all expressions of religion, whether it be Christian, Jewish, Hindu, etc. It could also be used to ban any other ideologies deemed a threat to the mythical common welfare of the state.
This is once again an issue of group thinking. If societies would finally learn to focus on individual rights, this would be such a simpler issue. Every which way one turns his head today, politicians and interests groups are casting some burning topic as a collective issue, which almost inevitably undermines our individual rights. Until we stop thinking in such a way, these hot button issues will always threaten our liberties. And the worst thing of all is that none of this does anything to combat the issue of radical Islam. If anything, it will only increase the paranoia of those radical members and conspiracy theorists of society, and everyone knows that forbidden fruit is the sweetest.
If you've never seen the video below, it is worth a watch. It is a video demonstrating the battle of our times, collectivism versus individualism:
Posted by Michael at 11/30/2009 7:19 PM 
Categories: uncategorized
Tags: Libertarianism Minaret Swiss Collectivism Ban
Categories: uncategorized
Tags: Libertarianism Minaret Swiss Collectivism Ban
Europeans are some of the most intolerant people I know...it's time someone expose the myth that is tolerant Europe
Reply to this
Right on, man. It's typical for conservatives to betray the ideals of liberty. It just goes to show how hypocritical they are and why they find their asses out of power now. My two cents!
Reply to this
Not true, man. True conservatives respect individual liberty. I think the author knows that, too.
Reply to this