Switzerland About To Vote On Minaret Ban

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34191036...ld_news-europe

Quote:

---

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Swiss vote on referendum to ban new minarets
Right-wing parties regard mosques’ spires as symbols of militant Islam


GENEVA - Swiss voters are deciding in a referendum Sunday whether to accept a ban on the construction of minarets, which right-wing parties regard as symbols of militant Islam.

The move — led by the Swiss People's Party, which has campaigned in previous years against immigrants — has stirred fears of boycotts and violent reactions from Muslim countries.

Polls indicate growing support for the proposal, but doubt remains about whether it will pass. The seven-member Cabinet that heads the Swiss government has spoken out strongly against the initiative.

Muslims have been keeping a low profile so far. Still, the Geneva Mosque was vandalized Thursday when someone threw a pot of pink paint at the entrance.

Earlier this month, a vehicle with a loudspeaker drove through the area imitating a muezzin's call to prayer, and vandals damaged a mosaic when they threw cobble stones at the building.

Ban could impact economy
Business leaders say a ban on minarets, the distinctive spires attached to mosques, would be disastrous for the Swiss economy because it could offend wealthy Muslims who bank in Switzerland, buy the country's luxury goods and visit its resorts.

The vote taps into the anxieties about Muslims that have been rippling through Europe in recent years, ranging from French fears of women in body veils to Dutch alarm over the murder by a Muslim fanatic of a filmmaker who made a documentary that criticized Islam.

Local officials and rights defenders have objected to the campaign posters, which show minarets rising like missiles from the Swiss flag next to a fully veiled woman.


Four minarets in country would remain
Minarets are typically built next to mosques for religious leaders to call the faithful to prayer, but they are not used for that in Switzerland. The four minarets already attached to mosques in the country will remain even if the referendum passes.

Muslims make up about 6 percent of Switzerland's 7.5 million population, many of them refugees from the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s. Fewer than 13 percent practice their religion, the government says.

A survey by the respected polling institute gfs.bern last week indicated that 53 percent of voters oppose the initiative, although support for it has grown by 3 percentage points to 37 percent since last month. Typically in Switzerland the margins on such votes narrow as balloting nears. Ten percent of the 1,213 people polled were undecided. The survey had an error margin of 2.9 percent.

---

Is this the populism we've been hearing so much about?

Really, what's the point of this? Is the intent to prevent the construction of mosques in the event of an influx of Muslim immigrants to Switzerland?

Not something I would do even if I am not very fond of the Islam, freedom of religion is freedom of religion. All that bull on minarets and headscarves are a bit silly to me, this is a complex problem banning religious symbols isn't going to make that go away. They can buy a piece of land a build a mosque how can we say 'no you can't', I don't like it, but what can you do it's a free country

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azathoth

Really, what's the point of this? Is the intent to prevent the construction of mosques in the event of an influx of Muslim immigrants to Switzerland?

---

They aren't trying to stop mosques altogether, just stopping them building the minarets(the spikey bits) on the top of them, which makes even less sense then stopping the construction of mosques. The whole idea sounds pretty stupid to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azathoth

Really, what's the point of this?

---

Some people just enjoy making life harder for others.

It really is nonsense. It's like saying that we should stop building bell towers for churches to stop catholic priests abusing alter boys.:dizzy2:

Anyway, minarets and mosques are beautiful architectural pieces.

This is just racism, plain and simple. There would be a :daisy:storm if Morocco said it was going to ban Church bells, and yet the Swiss are quite happy to prevent the building of a fourth minaret in Switzerland. That's right, there are a grand total of three minarets in Switzerland, and yet the way the Swiss xenophobic parties describe them, you'd think that primary schools and orphanages were being knocked down to make way for Mega-Mosques. The Swiss People's Parties are merely the same spawn as the BNP, Geert Wilders, etc.

Geert Wilders really doesn't belong there, a lot of his voters are secular muslims, mostly Iraqi's and Iranians, and other immigrants from the old colonies as well.

Quote:

---

They aren't trying to stop mosques altogether, just stopping them building the minarets(the spikey bits) on the top of them, which makes even less sense then stopping the construction of mosques. The whole idea sounds pretty stupid to me.

---

So if banning minarets won't even prevent Muslims from building mosques...

Word is in, the Swiss voted in favour of a ban

Thank you very much Switzerland, makes it all that much easier for me to explain that the decent right only has it's eyes on the political Islam

idiots. Gah I am furious you are hurting our cause you cheesemelting mongrols

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

This is just racism, plain and simple. There would be a :daisy:storm if Morocco said it was going to ban Church bells, and yet the Swiss are quite happy to prevent the building of a fourth minaret in Switzerland. That's right, there are a grand total of three minarets in Switzerland, and yet the way the Swiss xenophobic parties describe them, you'd think that primary schools and orphanages were being knocked down to make way for Mega-Mosques. The Swiss People's Parties are merely the same spawn as the BNP, Geert Wilders, etc.

---

it is daft, but it is also their right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

it is daft, but it is also their right.

---

It's their right to deny other people their freedom?

That's stretching things, methinks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

That's stretching things, methinks.

---

You just wait, this is a disaster for Europe the mother of 'yeah but', thanks for giving away the higher ground, really, good job. I now have nothing to say for myself, and that's going to be exploited, Switzerland FU

Quote:

---

Word is in, the Swiss voted in favour of a ban

---

I'm ashamed to be on the same continent as the pigs who voted for the ban.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

it is daft, but it is also their right.

---

Viva tyranny of the majority!

Switzerland is only geographically part of Europe so they can keep all the blame for themselves.
It really is rather silly though.
Nay for direct democracy?

Quote:

---

Not something I would do even if I am not very fond of the Islam

---

What is "The Islam"? Is it by any chance related to "The Christianity" or "The Buddhism"?

Some justifications I saw online:

Quote:

---

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Why are we, in the US. "The Great Satan"? We allow all to practice their religion unhindered or not practice any religion if you so choose. Europe puts restrictions on what, how, and where you can practice your religion. Why do the muslim countries forbid the practice of any religion other than Islam?

---

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

simply another instance of muslims trying to force their way on the world. They refuse to assimilate into a culture so they wish to force that culture to change to suit them. We've all seen what happens if we don't kiss their asses, they kill a few thousand of us. What a wonderful philosophy, kill the infadel, unless it's more worthwhile to just take over their country. I say, let them boycott their little asses off and protest all they want, if they don't like it, GO THE **** HOME

---

I nearly pooped at this one.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

if they allow minarets, the next thing they will have to change the flag.

if you didnt know, the swiss flag is a cross. that means its a christian country.

---

A similar thing has happened in my town, Drammen.

There's a sizeable population of people of turkish descent here, and they want to build a proper mosque, as the mosque in use today are just office buildings and such redecorated to be a place of worship, and that's not very stylish...

Here are the pics of what it will look like(p01 and p12, tiny pictures though unfortunately), and let's face it; it looks awesome. It will easily be one of the best looking buildings in the city, it's a shame it won't get built in the centre of the city though.

But awesome as it may look, the "immigration skeptics"(the party Roger Madsen, from another thread, belongs to) have been blocking its construction for years now. Even though not a single tax dollar will be spent on it, they will pay for everything themselves, permits and such have been blocked as much as possible.

The really funny stuff is that some people seem to think that there are no mosques here, that muslims have been living here for 30 years without a place of worship, and they seem to be completely ignorant of the fact that all they want to do is build a nicer mosque, there already are a bunch of mosques, and unless they get genocidal there's no way to stop them from having mosques.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

What is "The Islam"? Is it by any chance related to "The Christianity" or "The Buddhism"?

---

Hax I may be an idiot but that doesn't mean I am not educated, I know of the various branches of Islam, where, how, when. But I know it when I see it, and the political branch has little to do with the lore of old it's power

@Horetore, the minaret is a symbol, there are many ways to conquer a place. That is the exact original meaning of a minaret; conquered. They aren't wrong about that, in the Islam there is conquest by migration and conquest by force.

Maybe it's a safety factor. Minarets can fall over.


This isn't even right-wingism. This is just stupid. How can they actually accomplish anything by doing this? It's like if the nazis hadn't done anything but ban menorahs in public. Mind-boggling, how stupid some people are.

Though I think this is stupid on both the political and ideological level, I can't help but think "Good riddance!".

I think religion as a whole should disappear, and I also think "The Islam" (to quote Frag) - or at least its modern uses - is winning the sillyness contest hand down. But that's indeed a wrong signal to send to the people who actually thought they could integrate in the swiss society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

it is daft, but it is also their right.

---

Yep. You can't stop a political vote just because its daft. You can however stop it if it goes against the laws of said country (ie, an unconstitutional law/ruling/statute). I'm not versed in Swiss law though, so I'm in no position to pass judgement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psychonaut

Yep. You can't stop a political vote just because its daft. You can however stop it if it goes against the laws of said country (ie, an unconstitutional law/ruling/statute). I'm not versed in Swiss law though, so I'm in no position to pass judgement.

---

I would be surprised if they aren't subject to the European human rights court...

So honestly, I can't really see how this can be passed...

I am a bit torn.

One argument in favour of a ban is that it stops the exceptional status Islam enjoys. Switzerland looks as good as it does because of very strict building laws. One is not allowed to build anything that clashes with the natural or cultural environment. And it shows in the beauty of the land.
Nobody, however, has dared to say 'no' to minarets, for fear of being labelled a racist.

A secular group is not allowed to build a large tower next to the clubhouse. Their Muslim neighbours are allowed to build it.

Clubhouses for traditional Swiss religions are allowed to build spires. Which moves the question to is essence: is multiculturalism about integration, or separation? All Swiss inhabitants of non-Swiss ancestry are perfectly well allowed to live in Switzerland, as Swiss. To integrate, as Swiss. But not as Non-Swiss. This referendum to some extent deems Islam 'non-Swiss'.

What the proponents of this ban ought to do, is test Switzerland by inventing a religion, and then to ask permission to build a 400 meter fluorescent pink tower in the centre of Bern - claiming their god demands this of them. This permission will obviously not be granted, neither before or after the current referendum. Which then puts the ball into the court of the 'pro-minaret' camp: what is so special about minarets that they should be accepted as Swiss, but other modes of expression via towers is not?





Also, it appears that all of the Frenchspeaking cantons voted against the ban, all of the other cantons voted in favour of it. The famous 'barrière de röstis' (Röstigraben) strikes again!

This seems to me more like an issue of the building code in a historical nation. Maybe they don't want alien architecture to clutter up and confuse the countryside that is responsible for so much tourism. Maybe Muslims could create a Swiss style mosque that jives with the them park that is switzerland instead of bringing the desert with them to the alps. Very little says skiing, hot chocolate, watches and Europe as poorly as the Middle east. It would be wierd if universal studios set up mammoth movie posters in the middle of Disneyworld, eh?

Religions have adapted to local architectural conventions for years. Look at modern Jewish temples and tell me that they look like they were shipped in from the Levant. They could start building church styled buildings with little crescents at the top. Time for change; I know foreign words like "change" and "adapt" have a hard time setting up their minarets in Muslim brains. Nobody is saying no to mosques, just no to the unsightly phallus-like minarets hogging the pristine skyline.

I also believe that Christian denominations should build steeples that look like minarets in Islamic nations. Everybody should be able to build whatever they'd like in countries like the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

This seems to me more like an issue of the building code in a historical nation. Maybe they don't want alien architecture to clutter up and confuse the countryside that is responsible for so much tourism. Maybe Muslims could create a Swiss style mosque that jives with the them park that is switzerland instead of bringing the desert with them to the alps. Very little says skiing, hot chocolate, watches and Europe as poorly as the Middle east. It would be wierd if universal studios set up mammoth movie posters in the middle of Disneyworld, eh?

Religions have adapted to local architectural conventions for years. They could start building church styled buildings with little crescents at the top. Time for change; I know foreign words like "change" and "adapt" have a hard time setting up their minarets in Muslim brains. Nobody is saying no to mosques, just no to the unsightly phallus-like minarets hogging pristine skyline.

---

That post was rather contradicting....

Anyway, look at the minaret in the article. That ain't no middle eastern building style, that's a european style construction.

Also, having an entire country as a national park? That be taking things a bit too far. For the special spots, sure I can understand it. But I highly doubt that every new construction in Switzerland is in the same style as they built stuff centuries ago. Times change, so does Switzerland. Working as an architect in Switzerland sounds like the worst job in the world....

EDIT: A small tower is too much, but this is fits in perfectly with medieval buildings....? Please.

Geneva is the ugliest city I've ever been in. All the buildings are exactly the same height, same style, same size...it's like being surronded by Communist apartment blocks, except they're 300 years old rather than 30.

A minaret or two would make it a lot more interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Nobody is saying no to mosques, just no to the unsightly phallus-like minarets hogging the pristine skyline.

---

The article linked to it has a phallic steeple right behind the phallic minaret. It seems to be which patriarchal religion has the biggest schlong contest...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Nay for direct democracy?

---

Nay for Direct Democracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

The article linked to it has a phallic steeple right behind the phallic minaret. It seems to be which patriarchal religion has the biggest schlong contest...

---

Well, not really. After all, Mosques are just developments of Byzantine Churches, because the most impressive early ones were originally Byzantine Churches.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

The article linked to it has a phallic steeple right behind the phallic minaret. It seems to be which patriarchal religion has the biggest schlong contest...

---

That shade of blue was necessary? Clearly one is more "Swiss" than the other.

All i have to say about this is "WHAT THE HELL?"

There are plenty of mosques and minarets here in the US of A and even our intolerant population isnt trying to get rid of them.

Europeans are nuts sometimes.

I haven't seen anyone post a confirmation with a real link, so here's a little something:

Swiss ban mosque minarets

Swiss voters have overwhelmingly approved a ban on minarets, barring construction of the iconic mosque towers in a backlash against a growing Muslim population. [...]

The initiative was approved 57.5 to 42.5 percent by some 2.67 million voters. Only four of the 26 cantons or states opposed the initiative, granting the double approval that makes it part of the Swiss constitution.

Muslims comprise about 6 percent of Switzerland's 7.5 million people. Many are refugees from the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s and about one in 10 actively practices their religion, the government says.

The country's four standing minarets, which won't be affected by the ban, do not traditionally broadcast the call to prayer outside their own buildings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

This seems to me more like an issue of the building code

Religions have adapted to local architectural conventions for years.

---

Yes and no. 'Building codes' is the defensive wall that people who have a problem with Islam hide behind. More particularly, it is the argument of people who disagree with those who disagree that there should be a ban on minarets.

Clearly, the origin and the rationale behind the yes-vote to a ban are over issues of the multicultural society, not aesthetics. Even so, the point remains that one can with justification reverse, as it were, the 'burden of proof': that is, make the question not why minarets should be forbidden, but why they should be allowed.

In effect, the debate is changed from one over equality between religions, to one of equality of religion and non-religion.



Should McDonalds be allowed to build huge double-M arches? In many places in Europe, this is forbidden. Forbidden, because it is deemed an intrusion of traditional aesthetics, a sign of abrassive foreign/capitalist intrusion, that ruins the looks of inner cities or the countryside.


The McMinarets of Capitalism, in their ancestral homeland:


https://img687.imageshack.us/img687/...gns783699c.jpg


In Europe, often they have been asked to please keep a low profile:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2312/...36d763d9af.jpg

How can you compare McDonalds to Mosques? That's just ignorant.

Well, they both begin with an M, so I guess it depends on what you worship...

Ronald McDonald, pbuh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

How can you compare McDonalds to Mosques? That's just ignorant.

---

On the interwebs, ignorant usually means that somebody did not take the time or put in the effort to understand what was said.


Here is a McDonalds in Switzerland's capital. Note how it has been asked to blend into its suroundings, without any consicuous signage or arch:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3534/...1bef77bf15.jpg


McDonalds, without this integration into its surroundings, would be considered to infringe upon Swiss culture. It is asked to integrate. To a large extent, the same holds true for this referendum. Mosques can be build at will. But not with large minarets.

Which begs the question - why the separate status for mosques? Why, as soon as somebody cries religion, must all other considerations be brushed aside? Why should secular society be forced to immediately step aside for anything anybody calls religion?
That is not freedom of religion, that is religion claiming supreme status.


Me, I am religious about food. I worship by sacrificing Big Macs on thursdays. Therefore, I demand American immigrants in Switzerland must have the right to build huge arches for their temples of food!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

That shade of blue was necessary? Clearly one is more "Swiss" than the other.

---

Whats the difference between pink and purple?

The grip.

Clearly that ring around the tower shaft is a bit tight...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Whats the difference between pink and purple?

The grip.

Clearly that ring around the tower shaft is a bit tight...

---

That's a good one.:beam:

I'm hovering on the lines here. On one hand, I think people should have more freedom to do as they please with their property. On the other hand, I would prefer that old architecture be preserved without massive out-of-place buildings.

I think it's just fine that a democracy puts it to a popular vote and decides that certain things aren't allowed. Running around nude is one of them. Having a firearm without a permit, perhaps. Walking barefoot. And even the design of buildings. If a population is prudish enough about their culture that they don't want to allow large towers in their skyline, whatever, so be it, as long as it applies to everyone. None of these things violates "fundamental human rights", it simply imposes certain standards on everyone determined by a democratic majority. It certainly doesn't stop mosques from being built or Muslims from worshipping. In the United States, some communities impose ridiculous standards on your own property, especially in some residential neighborhoods. Not allowed to see lawn equipment... not allowed to see clean, empty trash cans from the street. And yet people can have barking dogs which don't shut up all night... which is more of a menace? Sometimes majority-imposed community standards are stupid. And yet, communities should have a right to impose such standards.

That being said, if they can find an example of this only applying to Muslim-built structures, I would think it's a little xenophobic.

I think all the hot air and ridiculous anger on display here is irrelevant, the people of Switzerland have spoken and they don't want minarets, regardless of whether you think it is the right choice or not, you don't count, you aren't swiss and nor do you live in Switzerland.

interestingly enough, more women than men voted for the ban:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ferendums.html

Well..take a Chinese mosque:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...e_Dec_2007.jpg

And a Morrocan mosque:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://margotmystic.files.wordpress....er-morocco.jpg

And a Turkish mosque:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://www.bakupages.com/club/photo/...367a153093.jpg

And you'll notice a vast amount when it comes to architecture. I'm pretty sure a mosque doesn't need to have a minaret, but the same really goes for churches whose crosses reach some 300 metres into the air. If you need to ban such things, ban them all or ban none.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

Walking barefoot.

---

:gah: You think they should ban barefeet? :inquisitive:

I voted for the ban. Some of you are much closer to the point. Most people (I know) have voted likewise not because they associate themselves with the right-wing party (or any party at all, for that matter) but because, personally, we think that minarets do not fit into the picture of Swiss scenery, i.e., people voted in favour of the building laws rather than against Islam as such.

I strongly disagree how this was handled by the political parties. Some people have voted the right thing in my opinion but for all the wrong reasons. That makes me sad and it's actually quite tragic.

Mosques can still be built just without the minarets. There is no restriction on Moslems practicing their religion bar building minarets. The reason church towers are allowed to be built is simply that they have always been there and very often were the first buildings put up in any given place. This is not to say that such towers are allowed to be built anywhere at any given time. They also have to undergo the strict building laws of the country. That is how the law of the land stands. If people want to change that, we can have another initiative and vote on it at a later date...

I do not believe that a country has to bend over backwards to traditions and practices of other countries' people who have immigrated. I think, quite the opposite is the case. Switzerland's population consists of roughly 22% 'non-Swiss'. They are intergrated much better than in many other countries and people in general are very liberal towards 'foreigners'. We may not be the friendliest people, the funniest people, or indeed the most cheerful but we do have a history of letting others live with us in relative peace and harmony.

Quid

perfectly reasonable stance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

On the interwebs, ignorant usually means that somebody did not take the time or put in the effort to understand what was said.


Here is a McDonalds in Switzerland's capital. Note how it has been asked to blend into its suroundings, without any consicuous signage or arch:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3534/...1bef77bf15.jpg


McDonalds, without this integration into its surroundings, would be considered to infringe upon Swiss culture. It is asked to integrate. To a large extent, the same holds true for this referendum. Mosques can be build at will. But not with large minarets.

Which begs the question - why the separate status for mosques? Why, as soon as somebody cries religion, must all other considerations be brushed aside? Why should secular society be forced to immediately step aside for anything anybody calls religion?
That is not freedom of religion, that is religion claiming supreme status.


Me, I am religious about food. I worship by sacrificing Big Macs on thursdays. Therefore, I demand American immigrants in Switzerland must have the right to build huge arches for their temples of food!

---

My point I was trying to make in a much more sound and eloquent way.

Quid

hannan on helvetica:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/da...the-wrong-way/

Quote:

---

Switzerland bans minarets: long live referendums, even when they go the wrong way

By Daniel Hannan Politics Last updated: November 29th, 2009

I am a paid-up fan of Swiss direct democracy. But no system is flawless, and referendums occasionally throw up silly answers. The decision by Swiss voters to outlaw the construction of minarets strikes me as regrettable on three grounds.

First, it is at odds with that other guiding Swiss principle, localism: issues of this kind ought surely to be settled town by town, or at least canton by canton, not by a national ban.

Second, it is disproportionate. There may be arguments against the erection of a particular minaret by a particular mosque – but to drag a constitutional amendment into the field of planning law is using a pneumatic drill to crack a nut.

Third, it suggests that Western democracies have a problem, not with jihadi fruitcakes, but with Muslims per se – which is, of course, precisely the argument of the jihadi fruitcakes.

I’m afraid that opponents of referendums will seize on this result in support of their argument that direct democracy gives free rein to bigotry. But we Helvetophiles don’t argue that referendums will always produce the right outcome; our argument, rather, is that direct democracy tends, over time, to make for a better-run country, a more limited government, a freer people and more engaged electorate. In support of these propositions, we point to Switzerland’s GDP, its turnout rates and the declared satisfaction of its citizenry.

Referendums will sometimes, as on this occasion, alienate a minority. Party politics, by contrast, regularly alienates the majority. No system of government on this sublunary plane is perfect. But I’d gladly swap Switzerland’s problems for ours.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexanderSextus

All i have to say about this is "WHAT THE HELL?"

There are plenty of mosques and minarets here in the US of A and even our intolerant population isnt trying to get rid of them.

Europeans are nuts sometimes.

---

http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/7209...s_minaret.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

hannan on helvetica:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/da...the-wrong-way/

---

Interesting

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/7209...s_minaret.html

---

I like the first quote "winning hearts and minds, meet yihaaa"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I like the first quote "winning hearts and minds, meet yihaaa"

---

Is anyone still wondering why the US has failed in Iraq and Afghanistan?

I don't think it's fair to paint off the majority of Swiss as racists. Ultimately, a minaret is just a feature of a building. Some probably voted for the ban because they think minarets don't match the surrounding architecture.

What was the wording of the referendum, anyway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

That being said, if they can find an example of this only applying to Muslim-built structures, I would think it's a little xenophobic.

---

Only devotees of Shiva murdered people on the open road, the British still banned (and then supressed) Thugee. If only one group does something that doesn't make it sacrosanct, quite the opposite really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Only devotees of Shiva murdered people on the open road, the British still banned (and then supressed) Thugee. If only one group does something that doesn't make it sacrosanct, quite the opposite really.

---

now hold on there PVC, with heresy like that you're going to start certain types whining about the tyranny of the majority all over again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

now hold on there PVC, with heresy like that you're going to start certain types whining about the tyranny of the majority all over again.

---

Nah, this is a perfect example of the stupidity of the majority.

Switzerland has their construction committees. They make sure that new buildings fit into the existing landscape well. A national ban is idiotic, unnecessary and yes, its only purpose is to make life harder for others.

This should get shot down in court. Here's hoping Switzerland has a working legal system....

This is a disgusting breach of Human Rights and Freedom of Religion.

It has nothing to do with the Minarets themselves. It is clear that the Swiss people (maybe not all, obviously) do not want to deal with the Muslim Immigrants, and so ban Minarets in an attempt to drive them away. If it is truly only a blending-in thing, than they should ban church towers and synagogue towers as well. equal for all.

I do have a Republican (don't know if that's far-right or far-left?), my mother, who gave her "insight" on this:

She said that it is because of forced marriages by Muslims in Switzerland, and asserts that Minarets are "A symbol of oppression to Muslim Women." This is not true, and Burkas are infinitely more of a symbol of this. She also cited the ban of Swastikas in Germany, comparing the 2. When rebuttled with "The Nazi's killed 6 million innocent people, and all members of the Nazi party fully supported and hated Jews." she came back with "Don't be so close minded.". Obviously she lost the argument, because as we all know, Muslims don't just go around rounding up people and killing them. Some extremist groups kill innocent civilians, but terrorists exist in all nations, languages, cultures and religions.


So there you have the basic view of why most of the peopole voted for it: Dislike of Islam. If only Synagogue towers were banned in America, would it just be okay? No. Not at all. Same should go with Mosques.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quid

Mosques can still be built just without the minarets. There is no restriction on Moslems practicing their religion bar building minarets. The reason church towers are allowed to be built is simply that they have always been there and very often were the first buildings put up in any given place. This is not to say that such towers are allowed to be built anywhere at any given time. They also have to undergo the strict building laws of the country. That is how the law of the land stands. If people want to change that, we can have another initiative and vote on it at a later date...

---

Shouldn't it be more reasonable and logical for any suggested minaret to undergo the same strict building laws as the rest of the country, instead of an outright ban? :inquisitive:
Then again I don't know how the debate have looked like.

Ignorance is probably a better word. I bet half of the people who voted for the ban wouldn't even be able to explain what minarets are used for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

Ignorance is probably a better word. I bet half of the people who voted for the ban wouldn't even be able to explain what minarets are used for.

---

this too. my mom didnt even know what it was. of course i, with my M2 experience, knew right off the bat :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prussian Iron

This is a disgusting breach of Human Rights and Freedom of Religion.

So there you have the basic view of why most of the peopole voted for it: Dislike of Islam. If only Synagogue towers were banned in America, would it just be okay? No. Not at all. Same should go with Mosques.

---

that is YOUR opinion, and you aren't Swiss, as far as i know, so your opinion doesn't count.

the swiss people/nation can do as they please................. and live with the consequences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

Ignorance is probably a better word. I bet half of the people who voted for the ban wouldn't even be able to explain what minarets are used for.

---

no, probably not.

but they are not obliged to know, or to feel comfortable with someone else's religious symbols.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

for the record, i maintain that the ban is daft (for reasons similar to hannan), but that they have the right to be daft if that is their want (for reasons similar to hannan).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

Ignorance is probably a better word. I bet half of the people who voted for the ban wouldn't even be able to explain what minarets are used for.

---

tell me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

that is YOUR opinion, and you aren't Swiss, as far as i know, so your opinion doesn't count..

---

Yes, in exactly the same way that Swiss Muslim's opinion don't count.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

no, probably not.

but they are not obliged to know, or to feel comfortable with someone else's religious symbols.

---

The only thing worse in a democracy than non-voters, is ignorant voters. They are obliged to know if they're going to make a decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

for the record, i maintain that the ban is daft (for reasons similar to hannan), but that they have the right to be daft if that is their want (for reasons similar to hannan).

---

Well, you reap what you sow.

EDIT:

Quote:

---

tell me

---

It's a tower from where the call to prayer is announced, and they're about as extreme as Church spires.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

Yes, in exactly the same way that Swiss Muslim's opinion don't count.

The only thing worse in a democracy than non-voters, is ignorant voters. They are obliged to know if they're going to make a decision.

Well, you reap what you sow.

---

sure they do, up to ~3.0% of the vote.

what if they do know, and still don't like the idea of minarets?

well, switzerland has sown a strongly democratic political system, and it continues to reap strong voter satisfaction as declared by its citizens..........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

but they are not obliged to know, or to feel comfortable with someone else's religious symbols.

---

oh, so if i do not feel comfortable with a crucifix displaying a bloody/dying jesus than we should vote to ban it? not hardly. if someone doesn't feel comfortable with minarets being there, than they should have a reason. it was stated already that the call to prayer was not announced to the outside from the minarets in existence there. is that not conforming enough?

It's hilarious watching the usual suspects throw their dummys out of the pram when democracy delivers an outcome that they don't like. It's as though yes, I believe in democracy but only if it gives a result I agree with.

Says it all about some folks on the left. :shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

It's hilarious watching the usual suspects throw their dummys out of the pram when democracy delivers an outcome that they don't like. It's as though yes, I believe in democracy but only if it gives a result I agree with.

Says it all about some folks on the left. :shame:

---

Uhm...... This is a debate forum, IA. We discuss stuff here. The way a discussion usually works is that we all say what we all believe in, and what we want should happen.

How much debate would there be if we all went "yeah ok, they had a vote about it, so I guess that's my opinion now..."?

EDIT: Also, might I point out that the most vocal opposition to this has come from Frags? And he sure ain't no leftie....

On the one hand I agree that a certian degree of the old country should be preserved (this is something us folk in the western hemisphere don't understand even our old cities are about 400 years old)

On the other hand, it would be possible to view this behavior as somewhat fascist..

I mean srsly. How many mosques are in Switzerland? 8? How many will have minnerates? 2?

You wonder why these people have nothing contempnt for you natives. Where in the hell do you people get off telling people what they can and cannot do with there land?

In fascist Syria, Christians are granted land and funds for building churches. In democratic Switzerland, Muslims cannot build a minaret on their mosque.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

It's hilarious watching the usual suspects throw their dummys out of the pram when democracy delivers an outcome that they don't like. It's as though yes, I believe in democracy but only if it gives a result I agree with.

Says it all about some folks on the left. :shame:

---

But... is that not the point of democracy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quid

I voted for the ban. Some of you are much closer to the point. Most people (I know) have voted likewise not because they associate themselves with the right-wing party (or any party at all, for that matter) but because, personally, we think that minarets do not fit into the picture of Swiss scenery, i.e., people voted in favour of the building laws rather than against Islam as such.

I strongly disagree how this was handled by the political parties. Some people have voted the right thing in my opinion but for all the wrong reasons. That makes me sad and it's actually quite tragic.

Mosques can still be built just without the minarets. There is no restriction on Moslems practicing their religion bar building minarets. The reason church towers are allowed to be built is simply that they have always been there and very often were the first buildings put up in any given place. This is not to say that such towers are allowed to be built anywhere at any given time. They also have to undergo the strict building laws of the country. That is how the law of the land stands. If people want to change that, we can have another initiative and vote on it at a later date...

I do not believe that a country has to bend over backwards to traditions and practices of other countries' people who have immigrated. I think, quite the opposite is the case. Switzerland's population consists of roughly 22% 'non-Swiss'. They are intergrated much better than in many other countries and people in general are very liberal towards 'foreigners'. We may not be the friendliest people, the funniest people, or indeed the most cheerful but we do have a history of letting others live with us in relative peace and harmony.

Quid

---

That seems like a valid viewpoint to me :bow:

It makes perfect sense how quid explained it, you should take a look at that post.

Boston has height restrictions on buildings, so minarets are basically banned downtown there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Boston has height restrictions on buildings, so minarets are basically banned downtown there.

---

That's completely different.

Boston's restrictions are for everyone. This one targets one kind of building specifically. Also, Boston's restrictions are local, and for a specific area. I highly doubt that the US government is willing to extend those restrictions to the entire country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

That's completely different.

Boston's restrictions are for everyone. This one targets one kind of building specifically. Also, Boston's restrictions are local, and for a specific area. I highly doubt that the US government is willing to extend those restrictions to the entire country.

---

So what?

Making a comparison implies a difference. Pointing out the difference has no inherent meaning. If I said "fish tastes like chicken" you wouldn't say "but they are completely different, fish swim in the water and chickens have feathers" would you? Obviously I'm contending that the difference is not relevant (pointing at quid's post for an explanation why).

One of my pet peeves, since people do that a lot in politics threads. It's harder to actually say something significant.

https://img37.imageshack.us/img37/51...ative2009d.jpg


On the left, the French speaking cantons. All of the non-voting cantons were Frenchspeaking. All of the yes-voting cantons were non-Francophone. The famous barrière de röstis/ Röstigraben.

The West to East change in colour is striking. Switzerland, Swizerland...

An interesting map that. Another vote for paranoia and intolerance. I have doubts that this will make Switzerland a happier, more harmonious place somehow. I see increases in anti Muslim sentiment, making the Muslims more scared and more likely to go fundamentalist... woohoo.

and yet it is switzerlands strongly democratic form of governance that causes its citizenry to be satisfied with their country.

we, in britain, could do worse given our broken political institutions.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Germany would have voted the same way:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...664231,00.html

Quote:

---

.......................But mass circulation Bild, which can claim to have its finger on the nation's pulse more than other newspapers, said Germans would probably vote the same way if they were allowed a referendum on the issue:
"The minaret isn't just the symbol of a religion but of a totally different culture. Large parts of the Islamic world don't share our basic European values: the legacy of the Enlightenment, the equality of man and woman, the separation of church and state, a justice system independent of the Bible or the Koran and the refusal to impose one's own beliefs on others with 'fire and the sword.' Another factor is likely to have influenced the Swiss vote: Nowhere is life made harder for Christians than in Islamic countries. Those who are intolerant themselves cannot expect unlimited tolerance from others."..............................

---

and another:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...4176-2,00.html

Quote:

---

So far, centrist politicians across the continent have failed to find an adequate response to the growing concern.
As such, it would be inaccurate to explain away the Swiss referendum results by merely pointing to xenophobia in the country. It is also an expression of the failures of the liberal political elite to adequately address the issue and to find solutions to the real and perceived problems with Muslim immigrants.

---

try blaming this one on Thatcher! lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

and yet it is switzerlands strongly democratic form of governance that causes its citizenry to be satisfied with their country.

---

Try checking out voter turnout before you make such claims.

If they were truly satisfied and the system was efficient, then surely 53% wouldn't be considered a "very high turnout"...? Voter turnout in Norway is stable at around 75%, btw....

Sorry, but I won't look up to a system that half a nation doesn't even care about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dâriûsh

In fascist Syria, Christians are granted land and funds for building churches. In democratic Switzerland, Muslims cannot build a minaret on their mosque.

---

Not that I agree with this ban, but it isn't the same thing, christians have always lived in Syria, call it xenophobic but people don't like it when their landscape changes. I do wonder what really happened here, did they really vote against minarettes or did they send out a warning to their government 'untill here and no further'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Try checking out voter turnout before you make such claims.

If they were truly satisfied and the system was efficient, then surely 53% wouldn't be considered a "very high turnout"...? Voter turnout in Norway is stable at around 75%, btw....

Sorry, but I won't look up to a system that half a nation doesn't even care about.

---

and yet they are such a happy and contented bunch:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfa...ith_Life_Index

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_index

and the Swiss seem to have a very low perception of corruption:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrupt...ceptions_Index

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bribe_Payers_Index

and again; it doesn't matter what you think about the deficiencies of the Swiss political system, because you ain't Swiss, and they as it happens seem to feel they live a blessed life compared to other nations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Voter turnout in Norway is stable at around 75%, btw....

---

It's too bad that such a large percentage of your population doesn't vote.

95% here btw...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Try checking out voter turnout before you make such claims.

If they were truly satisfied and the system was efficient, then surely 53% wouldn't be considered a "very high turnout"...? Voter turnout in Norway is stable at around 75%, btw....

Sorry, but I won't look up to a system that half a nation doesn't even care about.

---

Only being able to speak for myself, I am extremely happy to be living in Switzerland. I have lived in several countries over my life and I would not change our political system for any other in the world. Naturally, others may feel differently but that is fine too. One of the worst things that could happen to Switzerland would be for its population to lose the proper right to start initiatives and force the government to hold referenda.

I do not vote on every single issue either. Some simply don't interest me or don't affect me in the slightest. However (and this is the big one), I have the choice to vote should I so desire.

As with most decisions taken in Switzerland, compromises will eventually come about. I am sure that it will be no different with this. One drawback in a direct democracy, of course, is the time put on change. Things naturally will take longer to progress (or regress), but the main object is that the population has its say. Granted, not all decisions reached are the 'right' ones but it gives us time to learn and regard the voice of the majority.

The mentioned political division (Röstigraben) has always been there, is still there, and will always be there. Much of that has to do with geography. However, we all regard ourselves as Swiss and only want the best for our country. The map a few posts earlier does show the political division but it does also show that close to half of the Suisse Romande (the French speaking part) - with the exception of Geneva - have only narrowly rejected the notion.

In reality, we regard ourselves as one people and readily accept each other in any shape or form. We make jokes about each other but in the end of the day we are united and would not have it any other way.

Quid