Switzerland Minarets Laws

[toraerach]

But aren't the Swiss technically banning anyone from putting up a minaret? If so your comparison doesn't work, at least in theory if not in practice.

I wonder what would happen if a mosque tried to build a steeple.

 

[Mongo]

We need to understand that Islam is a completely different animal from other religions like Judaism, Christianity, Budhism, etc.

I disagree. Islam is a typical Abrahamic religion, at an earlier point in its life-cycle than Christianity or Judaism. It is 600 years younger than Christianity, and the actions of its 'fundamentalists' are very similar to the actions of Christian fundamentalists 600 years ago. For the actions of the Judaic fundamentalists at the same time, check out the books of Joshua or Judges -- a whole lot of genocide going on in those pages. Although actually that time period would correspond to the fourth and fifth centuries AD for Christians, a time when they committed countless atrocities as they seized and consolidated political power in the late Roman Empire, or the eighth and ninth centuries AD for Muslims.

On the other hand, the followers of the great Dharmic religions (Budhhism, Jainism and the family of religions called "Hinduism") have generally never exhibited the pathological violence seen all too frequently by followers of the Abrahamic religions, except in isolated instances. The main reason seems to be that they are much more tolerant and inclusive in principle, without the poisonous memes that non-believers (of their particular religion) are "beneath" the True Believers, and that violence in the name of conversion or in rooting out "heresy" is excusable.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I disagree. Islam is a typical Abrahamic religion, at an earlier point in its life-cycle than Christianity or Judaism. It is 600 years younger than Christianity, and the actions of its 'fundamentalists' are very similar to the actions of Christian fundamentalists 600 years ago.

I'm saying that today, in the 21st Century, Islam is a completely different religion than the other "mainstream" religions. On this subject, I don't care what happened 60 years ago, let alone 600. Today there is only one religion-based terrorist movement that is attacking Western and other "infidel" targets throughout the world.

 

[Tewder]

This is willfull naivety. Don't you realize that this is how bigots operate in this day and age? They know that an outright ban on mosques or Islam won't fly, so they very craftily come up with proxies that are obstensibly "neutral"-- even though everyone knows who the real underlying target is.

I've already addressed this. Yes of course there are some people backing it who are jumping on an anti-Muslim bandwagon, and you can see this in the propaganda Roy has posted. So? It is not illegal to dislike a cultural group, whether considered 'pc' or not, and it is not illegal to seek to offend somebody or present images in bad taste, as long as they do not cross lines set out in law. These things are done all the time and I already posted the picture of Stephen Harper to illustrate. Just because you or I don't like these things doesn't make them illegal or evidence of persecution, and doesn't necessarily make legislation such as the bilaw proposed a bad idea. On the contrary, in a more moderate and reasonable context, an argument can be made quite reasonably for the bilaw in question, and it is from this moderate and objective perspective that it should be judged on its own merits. Accordingly, you can't assume that everybody supporting it is a racist xenophobe, which was sort of my point to begin with. There are people backing it who have no issue whatsoever with Muslims but only have an issue with minarets, and believe it or not there may also be Swiss citizens of muslim faith who back it, agreeing that the architecture of mosques should be adapted for preservationist reasons? Do none of these voices get to be heard?? Do none of these positions make sense? This is a democracy after all and different points of view will balance the discourse.

At the end of the day there is no 'persecution' happening here or infringements of rights, which is the most important thing to consider, regardless of how disingenuous we feel some of the backers to be. So while you're standing there staring down this perceived 'slippery slope to racism' do not neglect to acknowledge the same vantage point of a slippery slope leading to the erosion of general civil liberties in the name of political correctness. Both are dangerous.

 

[adeel]

My thoughts are that if this ban was about architecture, they could have framed their law/ban differently or made it a municipal bylaw or however a building height/shape/architecture issue is normally handled.

That this law has taken a completely different approach leads me to believe that this is more than about how a minaret is not fitting in with swiss architecture.

I am not going to deny the right of the Swiss to preserve their culture. They are their own democratic nation and their peoples can make their own choices. My problem is with targeting a certain religion.

If this was about preserving their culture, why not extend the ban to similar features of churches, synagogues and other places of worship? Why are muslims the only target? I dont see that you can discriminate against a certain group and not call that xenophobia?

For the sake of full disclosure, I am Canadian born and raised muslim.

---

Two asides: What is to happen to existing minarets?

2. Admiral Beez in this thread has made comments about paternalism in islam. Listen, I dont deny that these elements are common in many muslim family's, or even in my own family (no sister, but i do have a well educated mother).

However, I would argue that this stems from cultural practices and not religious ones. There is nothing in the Quran (preffered spelling BTW) that gives fathers/husbands/brothers ownership over women in their family or lack of rights for women. If anything Islam clearly delineates that while men have a responsibility to provide for their wife, the fact that they do so while the wife stays home (in a more primitive/old school family) does not give then any more power and they are still equal in the eyes of Allah.

The practices spoken of speak more to cultural practices in place in the region that started before Islam and have become a part of a people's identity rather than a religious one. I contend that in certain areas more work has to be done, but these things take time.

 

[Roy G Biv]

adeel, you crazed radical!!!!

 

[adeel]

adeel, you crazed radical!!!!

was it something i said?

 

[kEiThZ]

Tewder is right. I dunno if it's fair to suggest that all the Swiss who voted for the ban are racists/anti-Islam. Is anybody here going to suggest that a majority of the Swiss people are bigots? People could have voted for this ban for a myriad of reasons. That poster could one of many.

 

[toraerach]

Tewder is right. I dunno if it's fair to suggest that all the Swiss who voted for the ban are racists/anti-Islam. Is anybody here going to suggest that a majority of the Swiss people are bigots?

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

To be fair though, a majority of the Swiss people did not vote for this ban. Only about half of eligible voters cast ballots and of them only about 60% voted in favour of the ban.

Let's say, for argument's sake, that same-sex marriage is legal in Switzerland. Now let's say, again for argument's sake, that there is referendum to ban all wedding cakes that do not have a bride and a groom on top. Let's say it passes. Gays and lesbians are still free to marry, they just can't have a cake that doesn't have a man and a woman on top. Would that law be homophobic or would it just be that Swiss people want to protect their proud tradition of wedding cakes with both a bride and a groom on top? And if it is homophobic, how is that any different than banning minarets on the grounds that they're not traditionally Swiss?

 

[cacruden]

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

You shoot it

 

[Roy G Biv]

Tewder is right. I dunno if it's fair to suggest that all the Swiss who voted for the ban are racists/anti-Islam. Is anybody here going to suggest that a majority of the Swiss people are bigots? People could have voted for this ban for a myriad of reasons. That poster could one of many.

It's not fair to suggest that the motivation behind the tabling and passing of the bill was architectural. It had a lot more to do with the sentiment expressed in that poster. I'll go far and suggest that 75% of the people who votes "yes" could be described as "anti-Islam".

was it something i said?

Yes. Why can't you just be happy that your people can use public transportation and buy food at the grocery store??

Let's say, for argument's sake, that same-sex marriage is legal in Switzerland. Now let's say, again for argument's sake, that there is referendum to ban all wedding cakes that do not have a bride and a groom on top. Let's say it passes. Gays and lesbians are still free to marry, they just can't have a cake that doesn't have a man and a woman on top. Would that law be homophobic or would it just be that Swiss people want to protect their proud tradition of wedding cakes with both a bride and a groom on top? And if it is homophobic, how is that any different than banning minarets on the grounds that they're not traditionally Swiss?

Those people who voted for the ban love the gays. They just think the cakes look better with a man and woman on top. It's a aesthetic thing. Gays should be receptive to the importance of good design, and stop being so uppity.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Let's say, for argument's sake, that same-sex marriage is legal in Switzerland. Now let's say, again for argument's sake, that there is referendum to ban all wedding cakes that do not have a bride and a groom on top. Let's say it passes. Gays and lesbians are still free to marry, they just can't have a cake that doesn't have a man and a woman on top. Would that law be homophobic or would it just be that Swiss people want to protect their proud tradition of wedding cakes with both a bride and a groom on top? And if it is homophobic, how is that any different than banning minarets on the grounds that they're not traditionally Swiss?

it's ironic that you use an analogy that uses homosexuality & homophobia as an example to defend a religion/theology that is homophobic.

banning minarets is stupid. i'm not quite sure if the people who voted for such a thing don't like muslims or islam or both. not liking muslims should be called musliphobia IMO and i think such a thing is wrong because not every muslim is a fundamentalist. also, islamophobia is a term that shouldn't be used since it is a false concept. being afraid of or disliking a theology which includes hate speech is not a phobia. a phobia is an irrational/illogical fear. now if the voters of the ban don't like islam, they should have banned the koran, but if they did that, they would have to also ban other religious texts such as the bible for they also contain hate speech, calls to violence and criminal activity.

homosexuality is not a doctrine, nor a religion.

 

[adeel]

adeel, you crazed radical!!!!

Yes. Why can't you just be happy that your people can use public transportation and buy food at the grocery store??

I'm sorry but are you taking issue with something that I have said or are you being sarcastic? Quite frankly after the second comment I really don't know what to think but if your second comment is attempting to imply that I am lucky to use the TTC or go to grocery stores because I am muslim, I was born in Canada so I have as much right as anyone else.

I am not going to apologize for my opinion but if their is something you would like to debate I'd be happy to oblige.

 

[Tewder]

To be fair though, a majority of the Swiss people did not vote for this ban. Only about half of eligible voters cast ballots and of them only about 60% voted in favour of the ban.

This is not an argument. Voter turn-outs are bad almost everywhere, for all kinds of reasons. The turn-out was less than this for the last Canadian federal election.

ILet's say, for argument's sake, that same-sex marriage is legal in Switzerland. Now let's say, again for argument's sake, that there is referendum to ban all wedding cakes that do not have a bride and a groom on top. Let's say it passes. Gays and lesbians are still free to marry, they just can't have a cake that doesn't have a man and a woman on top.

This is a spurious analogy. Like Roy's previous example of 'denying black people red cars' there is no logic to defend. In what context can you argue for preserving the tops of wedding cakes? In fact, you and Roy weaken the position against this ban by having to resort to such ridiculous analogies because you cannot think of one that is compelling, and why? Because the argument to preserve culture and heritage is a strong one in many contexts and you know it, and all the more so in the absence of any true infringement of rights here.

Lets be honest that your quarrel is with the distasteful poster, and so is Roy's. Fine, the poster offends you but to conflate this to a national attack on muslim minorities in a racist xenophobic Switzerland is simply unreasonable.

It's not fair to suggest that the motivation behind the tabling and passing of the bill was architectural. It had a lot more to do with the sentiment expressed in that poster. I'll go far and suggest that 75% of the people who votes "yes" could be described as "anti-Islam".

Wow, Roy can read minds now. Simply amazing! Thankfully our laws and our system are not about the paranoid fantasies of individuals but are about moderation and reason.

No doubt there were racists who supported this ban, but this doesn't necessarily make the ban wrong or bad. If there is no infringement of rights and if the ban makes sense in a different 'non-racist' context for most people then you have to judge it accordingly. The difference is where Roy sees racists everywhere I see moderate people everywhere, with racists and zealots being the rare extremes.

I am not going to deny the right of the Swiss to preserve their culture. They are their own democratic nation and their peoples can make their own choices. My problem is with targeting a certain religion.

I agree with you adeel, and this is a reasonable position to take. I've said as much myself, that in a heritage preservation context a similar position would have to apply to the architectural features of other non-traditional religious groups in Switzerland.

As you also say below we have to be clear of the distinction between religious practices and cultural ones. Minarets and Burkhas etc are cultural features that may or may not be appropriate outside the homelands of the muslim cultures in question. Some concessions are reasonable.

The practices spoken of speak more to cultural practices in place in the region that started before Islam and have become a part of a people's identity rather than a religious one. I contend that in certain areas more work has to be done, but these things take time.

If this was about preserving their culture, why not extend the ban to similar features of churches, synagogues and other places of worship? Why are muslims the only target? I dont see that you can discriminate against a certain group and not call that xenophobia?

My understanding is that the architectural features of other non-traditional religions are not at issue, perhaps because they are simply not being built in any number there or perhaps because they simply fit into the heritage landscape better. Minarets are typically tall towers, no? They stand out. There is nothing to suggest that other symbols or features of Islam or Muslim architecture are at issue. Steeples are accepted because aside from religious associations they represent the cultural heritage (in the same way minarets do) that they want to preserve.

This feels like an attack on Islam because of the obnoxious propaganda that was used. Distasteful indeed, but sort of par of the course with these sorts of things. Extremists on both sides of the debate will inflame this issue but as moderate people we have to understand that no rights are being infringed upon and there is in fact a strong case to make for heritage preservation (unlike red cars or wedding cake toppers) when cool heads prevail. Lets save the vitriol and outrage for real and true cases of persecution.

 

[adeel]

As you also say below we have to be clear of the distinction between religious practices and cultural ones. Minarets and Burkhas etc are cultural features that may or may not be appropriate outside the homelands of the muslim cultures in question. Some concessions are reasonable.


My understanding is that the architectural features of other non-traditional religions are not at issue, perhaps because they are simply not being built in any number there or perhaps because they simply fit into the heritage landscape better. Minarets are typically tall towers, no? They stand out. There is nothing to suggest that other symbols or features of Islam or Muslim architecture are at issue. Steeples are accepted because aside from religious associations they represent the cultural heritage (in the same way minarets do) that they want to preserve.

This feels like an attack on Islam because of the obnoxious propaganda that was used. Distasteful indeed, but sort of par of the course with these sorts of things. Extremists on both sides of the debate will inflame this issue but as moderate people we have to understand that no rights are being infringed upon and there is in fact a strong case to make for heritage preservation (unlike red cars or wedding cake toppers) when cool heads prevail. Lets save the vitriol and outrage for real and true cases of persecution.

Agreed that a minaret is essentially a tall tower. I dont know anything about architecture, so I can't really comment that they are or may be out of place in that sense. If I read correctly there are only 4 minarets in all of Switzerland. I dont know how many more were expected to be built, but I would guess not very many.

I'd say it feels like an attack on islam because a very common aspect of a mosque (that we take for granted in some senses) is the only target.

Another issue is that government (swiss) is starting to get into the arena of determining how people worship. I agree that minarets may be more cultural than religious - but suppose it is unearthed down the road that minarets are a very important requirement of mosques (a big stretch i know but its to prove a point) to carry out their religious function and become an important part of the religion. Now that this law is impeding on someones ability to worship in the way they choose, does the ban get reversed? Who gets to decide whether something is cultural or religious?

Also, as has probably been mentioned in this thread already, it is a slippery slope. Who's to say it doesnt go beyond minarets? What if they start to oppose arbitrary height restrictions on mosques only to limit how pleasing a mosque is. While it may not be that important to some, there is a certain level of proudness that comes from seeing an aesthetically pleasing mosque built in ones area.