well, it seems pretty clear to me, but let's assume this in an honest question, and pardon me for my honesty - these are my own observations from living here:

- generally europe is christian. swiss are very traditionalists, and religion is very important here. they are extremely tolerant to other cultures (that's why UN is in Geneva for example), but only to the point where they don't feel their own culture threatened. Obviously, with islam, and islam only, based on plenty of bad experience in their neighbors (ie France, Germany) they decided as they did. Over time, they don't regret their decision. Personally, even as atheist, I tend to agree on this topic. Overall attitude in Europe is same right now and many wish they could have similar vote.

- would you go and build a church in Afghanistan, Iran or Saudi Arabia? (Actually I've visited old churches in Isfahan in Iran, with thriving christian community, humbling experience). Not many would even think about this. Personally I don't find it shocking that dominant religion is preferred somewhere. You can practice anything you want at home, just no official religious places are allowed to build. Bear in mind that those that were already built are still standing, this applies only to new construction. Very Swiss approach.

it's something around being tolerant to others only to the point where your own identity and core principles are not threatened. very mature and clever approach.

> would you go and build a church in Afghanistan, Iran or Saudi Arabia?

No, but being too scared to do something doesn't make it moral - it just makes it enforced. I don't support these countries' overt hostility to and breaches of human rights, but I'm not going to risk my life to fix it either.

It would be a visible symbol that Islam is part of mainstream culture which it is not. It is part of other cultures and these cultures have very different views on social norms and order, laws and politics.

If you incorporate tribalism into a national constitution, all it does is amplify tribalism in society. Whatever social problems exist between unassimilated immigrants and locals will get worse, not better. A constitution is probably the single least constructive place possible in which to wage culture wars. It should be steering the country towards helping different cultures coexist, not feeding into both the xenophobia of one group while formalizing the outsider status of another one.

I tend to agree that the constitution is the wrong place, it should probably be a law.

But this has nothing to do with xenophobia, it's about the social order and norms that we have and that we will have in the future.

I like the freedoms I have and I don't want to give them up, neither do I want the Muslim living in Europe to give up his. Everyone can practice their religion and have their political views but with time they or their next generation will tend to assimilate, it's only natural.

I believe that allowing immigrants to remodel our society and culture in any way they desire will not have the effect that we'll merge and solve cultural issues. Instead they will build and create according to their own culture (which is also natural), live among themselves concentrated in some parts of the cities which will then turn into ghettos with high unemployment and this would in turn create radicalism on both sides.

There are already districts in some German cities where ethnic Germans are at risk if they enter. To me, this is clearly not the way to go.