Switzerland About To Vote On Minaret Ban

[Lemur]

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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:





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

[Subotan]

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

[Hosakawa Tito]

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

[Subotan]

Ronald McDonald, pbuh.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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:




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!

[Papewaio]

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...

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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.

[Askthepizzaguy]

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.

[Furunculus]

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

[Hax]

Well..take a Chinese mosque:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

And a Morrocan mosque:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

And a Turkish mosque:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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.

[miotas]

Walking barefoot.

You think they should ban barefeet?

[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

[Furunculus]

perfectly reasonable stance.

[Quid]

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:




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

[Furunculus]

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

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.

[Fragony]

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

[ICantSpellDawg]

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

Interesting

[ICantSpellDawg]

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

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

[HoreTore]

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

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

[Kralizec]

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?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[Furunculus]

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.

[HoreTore]

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....

[Prussian to the Iron]

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.

[Ironside]

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?
Then again I don't know how the debate have looked like.

[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.

[Prussian to the Iron]

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

[Furunculus]

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.

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).