Switzerland Minarets Laws

[ganjavih]

Certainly an embarrassment for Switzerland's generally positive reputation. I wonder how the government will handle this.

 

[shumoon]

The one thing that I would like to see is the language which determines what shape is banned - my guess is that it is going to be difficult to single out the "shape" in all but name - so someone can just change the name

I concur. As a result of this law, we will probably see in Switzerland minarets that look like clock towers, campaniles, and steeples. This falls into line with what Muslims historically did when they moved out of the Arabian peninsula- they mimicked the local architecture in their religious buildings. The motive was not to plagirize, but to make the local population feel at home in the mosque.

Good examples of this are:

-the Ox street Mosque in Beijing-- totally a mosque in function, but totally Chinese in aesthetics.

-Blue Mosque in Istanbul-- like most Turkish mosques, it's modelled after the Hagia Sophia, a Byzantine church utilizing the dome, a product of Byzantine engineering.

It is only recently that Muslims in non-Muslim countries have pined for building mosques that resemble those of their ancestoral homelands, but are totally alien to their non-Muslim neighbours. It's a disturbing trend because the end result will inevitably be friction between Muslims and non-Muslims, as we are now witnessing in Europe.

 

[EnviroTO]

Certainly an embarrassment for Switzerland's generally positive reputation. I wonder how the government will handle this.

Exactly. A country with a history of not taking sides, even as Nazis conquered Europe, has decided that Muslims are an enemy. There is no link between architecture and extremists views that make be discussed inside. It can only logically be seen as an attack on a religion.

 

[kEiThZ]

It is only recently that Muslims in non-Muslim countries have pined for building mosques that resemble those of their ancestoral homelands, but are totally alien to their non-Muslim neighbours. It's a disturbing trend because the end result will inevitably be friction between Muslims and non-Muslims, as we are now witnessing in Europe.

That's what has made mosques such a potent symbol for the anti-Muslim campaigners. But its not just mosques. It's the import of firebrand preachers, its the concern for pan-Islamic issues over local ones, etc. It's all these things that make Europeans feel like Muslims are foreigners among their midst.

All that said, the Muslims of Switzerland??? Hardly a hotbed of jihadi extremists.

 

[ACE]

.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

All that said, the Muslims of Switzerland??? Hardly a hotbed of jihadi extremists.

don't you know they're planing to hijack a glacier and slide it into the ricola factory?


there seems to be an erosion of western (secular) values in europe. on one end you got people going to jail or being fined for publicly criticizing or insulting a religion and on the other end you got bizarre laws being made against religious architecture.

 

[newuser2k9]

Perhaps the majority of the electorate within Switzerland perceived an implied threat, as noted above, to themselves or to their way of life which caused them to vote in the manner in which they have.

Had this legislation merely been a height restriction on all cylindrical towers, this would likely not have been reported in the news. Yet, it would have impacted exactly the same buildings and the same people.

There was some 'sense' in that argument maybe 100 years ago. I thought the world had concluded the 20th century marked the end of that, at least outside Central Africa. The imaginary 'perceived' threat this majority faces is not only disturbing and entirely untrue but completely backwards and against the principals of the Western World.

 

[ACE]

.

 

[kEiThZ]

there seems to be an erosion of western (secular) values in europe. on one end you got people going to jail or being fined for publicly criticizing or insulting a religion and on the other end you got bizarre laws being made against religious architecture.

It could just as much be seen as a secular reaction to extremism, concerns over growing Islamist influence (of their Islamic communities), etc. I don't think this is 'Christian' Europe reacting to Muslims in so much as it's post-Christian secular Europe that has some deep discomforts with the increasingly deep and often overt religiosity of Muslims.

In a sense, it's a purely secular reaction.

 

[kEiThZ]

As a slight tangent, what should be taken into account is that the Swiss like most European countries are not out to be 'multi-cultural' in the same way we are. From their perspective, Switzerland is the home of the Swiss people.

It is this attitude that makes life difficult for immigrants in Europe, be they muslims in Switzerland, Bosnians in Italy or Indians in the UK. This should be kept in mind. The Europeans have completely different notions of citizenship, immigration and integration.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

It could just as much be seen as a secular reaction to extremism, concerns over growing Islamist influence (of their Islamic communities), etc. I don't think this is 'Christian' Europe reacting to Muslims in so much as it's post-Christian secular Europe that has some deep discomforts with the increasingly deep and often overt religiosity of Muslims.

In a sense, it's a purely secular reaction.

i probably shouldn't have used the term "secular". diarrhoea is a secular reaction to eating rancid food. there's nothing inherently religious about going to the bathroom, unless of course you're al bundy. is secularness to blame for the dirty toilet that results? would a person who said grace before meals not have suffered from eating the rancid food?

 

[doady]

I support this ban in the name of gay rights and women's rights. If any one religion needs to be suppressed, Islam the right choice. We shouldn't tolerate a religion that promotes women and homosexuals getting stoned to death by the government. But that's just my opinion.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Human rights abuses in one nation do not justify human rights abuses in another. Who are 'they', and why do they have any more right to Switzerland than the Swiss? I'm all for supporting local cultures, but when you conflate culture with race you get into some seriously murky waters. There is no legal case for 'entitlement' cultural restrictions. It's undemocratic, plain and simple.

"Muslim" is not a race. It's a religion. If the Swiss want to ban Islamic symbols, I see no more issue with that than if they banned Scientologists, or Mormans, etc.

The Swiss have right to Switzerland because they're Swiss. It's their country. They built it. It not a local culture, it's the country's culture.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

I support this ban in the name of gay rights and women's rights. If any one religion needs to be suppressed, Islam the right choice. We shouldn't tolerate a religion that promotes women and homosexuals getting stoned to death by the government. But that's just my opinion.

if we're to suppress a religion based on what its texts command you to do, quite a few religions would be banned for ordering hatred and physical harm against others. if such texts or their contexts were from a smaller group, without the element of spirituality, i wonder how they would be regarded? most likely not with reverence.

though i wouldn't call for a ban. people can believe what ever the heck they want. i don't however recommend the government endorse, approve of or grant any special favours or privileges to such groups. and if your religion, especially the whacky parts, is a private matter that you think shouldn't be criticized, keep it private.

 

[newuser2k9]

And yet, the implied threat of 'I hope Switzerland suffers for this' was made (I assume that you are from the West) by a person with Western principles against a people who freely exercised their democratic right. Unlike other Western democratic countries, it is 'the people' of Switzerland who actually determine government (federal, cantonal and municipal level) policy and not the individual politician as it is a nation of referendums.

Imaginary or not, once the perception of a threat takes root, it is very difficult to alter the outcome. In this case, the majority of the electorate felt that a threat did exist and voted accordingly.

Obviously tone is not very easily transmitted over the internet. It was not an implied threat of violence; I was rather saying that the Swiss national image should suffer. Referendums are fair and democratic, for sure, but what if the result they produce does limit the rights of certain citizens? (and I do say certain citizens - when a Christian builds a tall pointed thing it is referred to as a spire, not a minaret) One can call it undemocratic.

I support this ban in the name of gay rights and women's rights. If any one religion needs to be suppressed, Islam the right choice. We shouldn't tolerate a religion that promotes women and homosexuals getting stoned to death by the government. But that's just my opinion.

The jurisprudence for your argument just isn't there. You can dislike they way Islamic nations handle rights but the fact is, if a Muslim in a Judeo-Christian nation commits an action like that by following their religion, they are already committing a crime. The vast, vast majority of Muslims in the West subscribe to a sect of Islam that is peaceful and respectful. What gives you any reason to punish them?

"Muslim" is not a race. It's a religion. If the Swiss want to ban Islamic symbols, I see no more issue with that than if they banned Scientologists, or Mormans, etc.

The Swiss have right to Switzerland because they're Swiss. It's their country. They built it. It not a local culture, it's the country's culture.

You are correct that anti-Islamic laws to not specifically target a race. The fact that they only effect certain ethnic groups is alarming, and it is racist. Islam is only the religion of the 'foreigners' in Switzerland, who are 'foreign' regardless of how long they have been there, and whether or not they are legally full citizens.

If a person of a certain ethnic origin has a 'right' to a country more than another based on historical connections, what's preventing Natives from passing the same laws in Canada? Populations, cultures, and nations change. While it is fair to try to preserve a local culture, it is not ethical or moral to restrict the lives of those who live there in the process.

if we're to suppress a religion based on what its texts command you to do, quite a few religions would be banned for ordering hatred and physical harm against others. if such texts or their contexts were from a smaller group, without the element of spirituality, i wonder how they would be regarded? most likely not with reverence.

though i wouldn't call for a ban. people can believe what ever the heck they want. i don't however recommend the government endorse, approve of or grant any special favours or privileges to such groups. and if your religion, especially the whacky parts, is a private matter that you think shouldn't be criticized, keep it private.

Not all religions are as cut an dry. There are reformed sects who update with the times, but there will always be the extremist sect or the sect who misinterprets the Koran (the various Imams I have been in contact with stress that the text never calls for any of the inflammatory subject matter often associated with the religion; it is more associated with certain aspects Middle East cultures).

Thank you, Prometheus, for providing one of the most even-handed posts in this thread.