Austria to close seven mosques

[SunsetBengal]

It seems like Austria's Chancellor has seen enough.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/austria-to-close-7-mosques-expel-imams-in-crackdown/ar-AAynskz?ocid=sf

Quote:"Parallel societies, political Islam and tendencies toward radicalization have no place in our country," Kurz told reporters in Vienna. He added that the government's powers to intervene "were not sufficiently used" in the past.
Friday's measures are "a first significant and necessary step in the right direction," said Vice Chancellor Heinz-Christian Strache, the Freedom Party's leader. "If these measures aren't enough, we will if necessary evaluate the legal situation here or there."

[hollodero]

(06-08-2018, 10:20 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: It seems like Austria's Chancellor has seen enough.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/austria-to-close-7-mosques-expel-imams-in-crackdown/ar-AAynskz?ocid=sf

Thanks for bringing that up :)

Don't take these guys at face value. Islamization is yet not a huge problem in my country and they just severely overblow it. This isn't saying there aren't problems at all. But this, meaning the words accompanying these actions, is populism playing to a quite xenophobic voter base.

-- That being said, I don't oppose closing down some of these mosques, especially those run by Turkish extremists.

[BmorePat87]

So he's closing mosques because they receive foreign funding?

Now that's a real war on religion.

[Au165]

I always wondered, do they think shutting down the mosques won't just radicalize more people? In their minds you are waging war on their religion, this is literally bulletin board material for all would be terrorists around the world.

[hollodero]

(06-08-2018, 10:46 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So he's closing mosques because they receive foreign funding?

Now that's a real war on religion.

That's the legal justification... not quite the reason. It's questionable if this goes through as planned. Regarding those funded by the turkish Grey Wolves, I'm all in favour of closing them down. These are indeed extremists.

(06-08-2018, 10:50 AM)Au165 Wrote: I always wondered, do they think shutting down the mosques won't just radicalize more people? In their minds you are waging war on their religion, this is literally bulletin board material for all would be terrorists around the world.

That's a common criticism of these measures. Helps the extremists, helps Erdogan. But a country can't just tolerate anything for fear of that. 

[Au165]

(06-08-2018, 10:51 AM)hollodero Wrote: That's a common criticism of these measures. Helps the extremists, helps Erdogan. But a country can't just tolerate anything for fear of that. 

Wouldn't a tactical approach of going after individuals over whole mosques be a better approach rather than the "attack on the religion" approach? It's really not a "fear" thing as it is a fact these actions do get used as recruitment tools. The fear is what those newly recruited terrorists due because of it. Unfortunately those actions can affect more countries and people then the one's directly related to this decision.

[Millhouse]

(06-08-2018, 10:51 AM)hollodero Wrote: That's the legal justification... not quite the reason. It's questionable if this goes through as planned. Regarding those funded by the turkish Grey Wolves, I'm all in favour of closing them down. These are indeed extremists.



That's a common criticism of these measures. Helps the extremists, helps Erdogan. But a country can't just tolerate anything for fear of that. 

Yup. If a country does not want to allow it spreading within their borders, they should take steps to prevent it. 

But the trick is trying to determine who and what should be considered radical Islam. Because what really helps the extremists cause is expelling and cracking down on normal Muslims that aren't radical.

[BmorePat87]

(06-08-2018, 10:50 AM)Au165 Wrote: I always wondered, do they think shutting down the mosques won't just radicalize more people? In their minds you are waging war on their religion, this is literally bulletin board material for all would be terrorists around the world.

It will. They should be reaching out to the communities and increasing their efforts to connect with the Muslim youth rather than enacting rules to ban hijabs for school girls. 

[hollodero]

(06-08-2018, 11:02 AM)Au165 Wrote: Wouldn't a tactical approach of going after individuals over whole mosques be a better approach rather than the "attack on the religion" approach? It's really not a "fear" thing ,as it is a fact these actions do get used as recruitment tools. The fear is what those newly recruited terrorists due because of it. Unfortunately those actions can affect more countries and people then the one's directly related to this decision.

yeah... as I said, this is to big parts a populist decision, playing to a certain base. That's the main tactics and the main thought.
Also, and sure one says that until it changes, but it's not so much about actual terrorism. The reasoning is avoiding extremism, parallel societies, people taought to not believe in western society and our constitutional state. The fear is that people opposed to the state of law are breeded in these mosques, not that it harbors actual terrorists. But sure you're right, they possibly now just get breeded elsewhere, possibly more in the underground with even less state control. This whole deed won't help much.

Going after the individuals is a tough thing to do. Most are probably just more or less disgusting extremists, but didn't actually break a law. And abandoning the state of law to fight those who want to do just that is a questionable approach.

[hollodero]

(06-08-2018, 11:05 AM)Millhouse Wrote: Yup. If a country does not want to allow it spreading within their borders, they should take steps to prevent it. 

But the trick is trying to determine who and what should be considered radical Islam. Because what really helps the extremists cause is expelling and cracking down on normal Muslims that aren't radical.

 right, I see it the same way.

As I said, I'm all in favor of closing down that turkish mosque. That was a place for extremists and that was well known and well established. As for the others, I sure would have wished that would have been coordinated with the islamic community and their officials. Which it was not.

[BmorePat87]

(06-08-2018, 10:51 AM)hollodero Wrote: That's the legal justification... not quite the reason. It's questionable if this goes through as planned. Regarding those funded by the turkish Grey Wolves, I'm all in favour of closing them down. These are indeed extremists.



That's a common criticism of these measures. Helps the extremists, helps Erdogan. But a country can't just tolerate anything for fear of that. 

Obviously I am coming from an American view point where freedom of religion has always been a given. Shutting down places of worship over concerns with radicalization is an overstep here unless they're engaged in terrorist activity. 

[SunsetBengal]

So, Austria has laws against foreign funding of religious groups? Interesting.

Is this newer policy, or something that's been part of Austria's government for quite some time?

[Au165]

(06-08-2018, 11:11 AM)hollodero Wrote: yeah... as I said, this is to big parts a populist decision, playing to a certain base. That's the main tactics and the main thought.
Also, and sure one says that until it changes, but it's not so much about actual terrorism. The reasoning is avoiding extremism, parallel societies, people taought to not believe in western society and our constitutional state. The fear is that people opposed to the state of law are breeded in these mosques, not that it harbors actual terrorists. But sure you're right, they possibly now just get breeded elsewhere, possibly more in the underground with even less state control. This whole deed won't help much.

Going after the individuals is a tough thing to do. Most are probably just more or less disgusting extremists, but didn't actually break a law. And abandoning the state of law to fight those who want to do just that is a questionable approach.

So you can't fear what may happen (as you told me earlier) if you do this and create terrorists, but you can fear that inaction may create terrorists? It's an interesting example of perspective because you can easily say both decisions are based on fear, as are most decisions in life. 

Also if these places were such blatant locations of extremist indoctrination, why couldn't you walk in and arrest those people doing it? It almost seems your contradictory in that they are disguised, but not so well that you can easily point to the mosques and close them in a large sweeping action.

[hollodero]

(06-08-2018, 11:15 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Obviously I am coming from an American view point where freedom of religion has always been a given. Shutting down places of worship over concerns with radicalization is an overstep here unless they're engaged in terrorist activity. 

It's more or less a given here as well, sadly the right-wing populists are trying to change that.

That being said, again that one turkish mosque is run by the Grey Wolves, which is these guys. To be more precise, it is run by a splinter group who thought the Grey Wolves are too moderate. This doesn't fall within the realms of constitutional protection and I'm happy that one mosque is closed down. That's political Islam in its most radical showing.

As for the overstep... there are certain laws in place regarding the funding. If funding comes from abroad, we have the legal tools to close a mosque down. And I don't consider that an attack on religious freedom, especially when it's really not so much about theology, but about recruitment of radical Erdogan followers.

[Millhouse]

(06-08-2018, 11:06 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It will. They should be reaching out to the communities and increasing their efforts to connect with the Muslim youth rather than enacting rules to ban hijabs for school girls. 

In a way though they are reaching out to the Muslim girls by saying if you are going to attend our schools, we dont want you to be constricted by some sect in your religion so you can mix right in with the rest of the girls. Otherwise these girls will grow up thinking that wearing a head scarf out in public is what a woman should do because the men said so in some old book.

I know, a bit over the top there, but I just never have agreed with women wearing and looking a certain way just because of their religion when the men dont have the same rules to follow. In some Muslim countries this taken to the extreme by women only allowed to show their eyes in public. Such a shame. My grandma who passed many years ago was in a Kentucky Southern Baptist kinda church. All the women members in the church never cut their hair so it was usually in a big bun, never wore pants, etc. Nicest people on the planet and when they all got together to make big church dinners up the food was amazing. But I just never agreed with how they had to look even back when I was a kid. It just seemed un-American to me so to speak back then.

[SunsetBengal]

(06-08-2018, 11:17 AM)Au165 Wrote: So you can't fear what may happen (as you told me earlier) if you do this and create terrorists, but you can fear that inaction may create terrorists? It's an interesting example of perspective because you can easily say both decisions are based on fear, as are most decisions in life. 

Also if these places were such blatant locations of extremist indoctrination, why couldn't you walk in and arrest those people doing it? It almost seems your contradictory in that they are disguised, but not so well that you can easily point to the mosques and close them in a large sweeping action.

Because then you have to have a solid case to be proven in court, a sometimes lengthy and complicated process.  If you find the group as a whole in violation of National policy, it is much simpler.

[hollodero]

(06-08-2018, 11:16 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: So, Austria has laws against foreign funding of religious groups?  Interesting.

Is this newer policy, or something that's been part of Austria's government for quite some time?

Since 2015. So yeah, newer policy.

[Au165]

(06-08-2018, 11:23 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Because then you have to have a solid case to be proven in court, a sometimes lengthy and complicated process.  If you find the group as a whole in violation of National policy, it is much simpler.

So then they aren't doing anything blatant enough to prosecute, but it's vague enough to close places of worship? Seems like a good argument for them to make around a war on their religion. Just because it's easier this way doesn't necessarily make it right, or even a good idea.

Could you imagine if the U.S. Government rolled in and shut down all the Catholic churches because enough of them had pedophiles that it's easier to just shut them all down?

[Millhouse]

(06-08-2018, 11:14 AM)hollodero Wrote:  right, I see it the same way.

As I said, I'm all in favor of closing down that turkish mosque. That was a place for extremists and that was well known and well established. As for the others, I sure would have wished that would have been coordinated with the islamic community and their officials. Which it was not.

I would be in favor of shutting it down too for sure, as long as the evidence is there. 

It would be no different than some church over here basically being a front for some radical Christians that want to bring about Gods justice on those they think deserve it. And they are getting money from elsewhere with guns/bombs involved in the chatter to do so. I think most Americans would be in favor of shutting a Church like that down.

[Au165]

(06-08-2018, 11:29 AM)Millhouse Wrote: Americans would be in favor of shutting a Church like that down.

What about one with rampant sexual assaults against minors? This church also protected those sexual predators by not reporting them and even went so far as to move them across country to hide them.

Seems like a pretty good candidate to me for shutting them all down since trying to find everyone in this organization involved would be really difficult.