- FrontPage Magazine - http://www.frontpagemag.com -

Pot Calls Kettle Black: Jon Stewart’s Intolerance for Democracy

Posted By JE Tabler On December 7, 2009 @ 10:06 am In NewsReal Blog | No Comments

Stewart condemns the Swiss, not Sharia, for being intolerant.

“Architecture may be my favorite thing about religion,” said Jon Stewart on the Daily Show last Thursday. Stewart’s humor and feigned naïveté aside, minarets do not serve as mere architectural flair; they are political symbols of supremacy which, as Stewart admits, would change the Swiss landscape, although I believe he was speaking in literal terms rather than political ones.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Oliver’s Travels – Switzerland
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Minarets are political, not religious symbols. They serve no religious purpose whatsoever, but rather exist for the purpose of dominating a city’s skyline and ultimately regulating the actions of citizens by calling them to prayer at specified times. They symbolize Sharia, the most intolerant, anti-democratic, anti-human political system today.

The minaret ban was a victory for democracy and tolerance. Swiss voters – a plurality of them leftist, feminist women – turned out to take action against the very intolerance of which Stewart accuses them. Rather than a move in the direction of fascism and supremacy, as Stewart portrays it, the minaret ban was just the opposite.

It was a victory for democracy, both because it was carried out democratically in order to serve the will of the people and because, unlike a minaret, it is a blow to the spread and eventual dominance of Sharia.

Stewart goes so far as to liken the minaret ban to ethnic cleansing and Nazism. He apparently is unaware of the fact that Europe currently has to deal with quite a bit of actual ethnic cleansing. Why must so many pundits feel it necessary to reach 65 years into the past and dig up a dead ideology when discussing an increasingly powerful, antisemitic, supremacist, expansionist political ideology in modern times? Even worse, many, like Stewart, fail to see the irony, let alone the connection.

In so-called no-go zones (lawless areas, usually on the perimeters of Europe’s larger cities) not even police dare enter, let alone the general native population. In areas with lower concentrations of Muslim immigrants, Danish Jews are cautioned against sending their children to certain schools because the schools cannot ensure their safety.  The incidence of antisemitic “incidents” has skyrocketed in Britain. Women are simply unsafe in many parts of Europe, particularly in Sweden, Norway, and Britain. In some places, not even the elderly are exempt from becoming targets of jihadi violence designed to ethnically cleanse areas of their presence.

Europe has experimented with minarets before. A mosque in Verona was bulldozed last year after continually violating noise ordinances with its five-times-daily call to prayer. The Swiss even recently test-drove the call to prayer and found that they really do not like it very much. Whyis Jon Stewart unable to simply accept that the Swiss overwhelmingly find that they are simply not well-suited to minarets?

I will see fit to condemn the Swiss for banning minarets when minorities are treated as equals in Islamic nations rather than systematically persecuted, but as of right now there are no such countries, and if there were, they would not be ruled by Sharia law; they would be secular democracies like Switzerland. Church bells do not exactly ring out in Mecca, do they? This is not to say that two wrongs make a right, but rather that the minarets which the Swiss have chosen to ban symbolize persecution, not the move to ban them, and that the Swiss, therefore are very much in the right.

Furthermore, who needs a minaret, anyway? At the risk of sounding like a bad Jerry Seinfeld impression, who are these people who can neither locate a mosque nor keep track of time in the age of GPS and cell phones? And do you really want to pander to them?

“Architecture may be my favorite thing about religion.” minarets are not mere architectural flair; they are political symbols which, as Stewart admits, would change the Swiss landscape, although I believe he was speaking in literal terms rather than political ones.

The minaret ban was a victory for democracy and tolerance. Swiss voters, a majority of them women, turned out to take action against the very intolerance of which Stewart accuses them. Rather than a move in the direction of fascism and supremacy, the minaret ban was just the opposite.

Minarets are political, not religious symbols. They serve no religious purpose whatsoever, but rather exist for the purpose of dominating a city’s skyline and ultimately regulating the actions of citizens by calling them to prayer at specified times. They symbolize Sharia, the most intolerant, anti-democratic, anti-human political system today.

The minaret ban is a victory for democracy, both because it was carried out democratically in order to serve the will of the people and because, unlike a minaret, it is a blow the spread and eventual dominance of Sharia.

Stewart goes so far as to liken the minaret ban to ethnic cleansing and Nazism. He apparently is not familiar with the fact that Europe is currently dealing with actual Nazis and actual ethnic cleansing. In so-called no-go zones, lawless areas, usually on the perimeters of Europe’s larger cities, not even police dare enter, let alone the members of general native population. In areas with lower concentrations of Muslim immigrants, Danish Jews are cautioned against sending their children to certain schools because the schools cannot ensure their safety. Antisemitic “incidents” have skyrocketed in Britain. Women are simply unsafe in many parts of Europe, particularly Sweden, Norway, and Britain.

Europe has experimented with minarets before. A mosque in Verona was bulldozed last year after continually violating noise ordinances with the call to prayer. The Swiss even test-drove the call to prayer and learned that they really do not like it very much.

I will see fit to condemn the Swiss for banning minarets when minorities are treated as equals in Islamic nations rather than systematically persecuted, but as of right now there are no such countries, and if there were, they would not be ruled by Sharia law. They would be secular democracies like Switzerland. Church bells do not exactly ring out in Mecca, do they? This is not to say that two wrongs make a right, but rather that the minarets which the Swiss have chosen to ban symbolize persecution, not the move to ban them, and that Swiss, therefore are very much in the right.

Furthermore, who needs a minaret, anyway? At the risk of sounding like a bad Jerry Seinfeld impression, who are these people who can neither locate a mosque nor keep track of time in the age of GPS and cell phones, and do you really want to pander to them?

Related posts:

  1. When a pot calls a kettle "black," is that "racist"?
  2. Swiss Voters: Stop the Minarets!
  3. Jon Stewart's ACORN Shining Moment

Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://www.frontpagemag.com

URL to article: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/je-tabler/pot-calls-kettle-black-jon-stewart%e2%80%99s-intolerance-for-democracy/

Copyright © 2009 FrontPage Magazine. All rights reserved.