No need to. The steeples of other foreign religions are not at issue here. Minarets are at issue, and the rational argument against them, in a Swiss context at least, has already been made, and more than adequately so.
Sorry, but you cannot claim that the context is "not the issue". The fact that Swiss are applying a law towards only one group of people demonstrates legislative discrimination.
Neutral: Canada passes a bill barring the sale of red cars.
Bad: Canada passes a bill barring the sale of red cars to black people.
Now, remaining consistent with your current argument, convince me that the above scenario is a-ok.
How is there 'discrimination' when 'no human rights are being trampled'?
Those two elements do not equate to each other. Are human rights being trampled in my aforementionned scenario? No one has the right to a red car. The Canadian people simply don't want black people in red cars in their country...
The fact that you're turning this into a clarion call for Jihad, arguing that even 'moderate' muslims should rightfully be inflamed by what basically amounts to a regulatory bilaw concerning an architectural detail - one that is purely 'cultural' and not religious - is beyond obdurate, and in light of this it is nigh on impossible to not see your point of view on this matter as anything other than polarizing and fundamentalist.
Spoken like one in the majority. You seem to have completely ignored that I purposely avoided the suggestion that the moderates go full-radical. I even specifically mentioned that no one should be taking to the streets with AK-47's, but they will and should feel slighted.
It is completely naive to suggest they remain emotionally neutral to this transgression. You're sitting here arguing that a reasonable muslim should simply shrug this off, and not even be slightly put-off by it all, and that if it annoys them, they were Jihadists to begin with.
Why do you think the Swiss cabinet came out against this bill?
It doesn't matter what the far-right believes.
The far-right conceived this motion, so if we are discussing the motivation behind it, I think the far-right matters. You seem content with top-down justification, when in reality, the motion was born on the right, and spread using fear-mongering (see posters).
Switzerland is a democratic nation and there are other points of view to balance the extremes of the far-right AND of arguments like yours. At the end of the day the moderate compromise position prevails and moderate individuals
Are you a big fan of direct democracy? Would you support it in Canada?
i.e. the majority of people both native Swiss and immigrant muslim Swiss - will be content and will go on to coexist, the muslims worshipping in their minaret-less mosques in their new homeland and the Swiss enjoying the view of their traditional landscapes and built form.
How quaint.
Again, muddying the waters... The very point here is that the Swiss are NOT banning mosques or slamming the door shut tight on muslim immigrants.
Show me where I suggested they were. Again, why did the Swiss cabinet speak out against the ban? Because they were smart and knew that since it had no solid rational, and singled out only Muslims, it would make Switzerland look bad to the rest of the world, and inflame relations with Muslims in Europe.
ps. I don't think you should lecture me on what it takes to be a moderate, because I've discussed this issue with maybe 20 people from varying political backgrounds, and all agreed that it was stupid. You are the only person who has come out supporting it. And from previous discussions where you labelled Canada as a "nanny-state", my guess is that you are far from moderate.
