Swiss people ban building of new minarets

[Harke the Boeotarch]

Last Sunday, over 57.5% of the Swiss voted in favour of the ban on the construction of new minarets in Switserland.
The proposal was so controversial that even the poster to advertise voting for it was banned in at least three Swiss cities.
(see the first image below)

This new measure means that there will never be more than the four minarets that have already been constructed, until this law is somehow unmade.
(see the second image below)
The Swiss people see the minarets as symbols of the Islam’s plans to dominate Swiss society and have used their unique democratic system to put an end to it.

This much to the dismay of the Swiss government, and most of the other morally bankrupt governments of Western Europe.
Many of the Western European citizens, however, welcome the ban, and praise Swiss democracy for acknowledging the misgivings its people have against the ever encroaching hordes of Islam.

The measure doesn’t prevent new mosques from being built, and neither does it hinder existing Muslim communities in practicing their faith. Note that there are supposedly about 200 mosques in Switzerland already. Also note that having minarets in itself is not a religious requirement for a mosque, and many mosques in the Middle East supposedly never had any to begin with.

Sources:

Zurich allows anti-minaret poster
Switzerland to vote on plan to ban minarets
Minaret ban 'a security risk'


|
|
|
|

So JUBbers, how do you feel about this development? Were the Swiss well within their rights, or was this an unallowable infringement on Swiss freedom of religion?
|
|
|

Attachments: poster, existing Swiss mosque with minaret

 

[hotatlboi]

This is the same type of thing we are against here with voting on gay rights.

The rights of minority groups of people (whether they be religious, social, or political) should not be voted on.

This is religious discrimination or censorship depending on how you want to look at it, in other words, bad.

 

[Harke the Boeotarch]

This is the same type of thing we are against here with voting on gay rights.

The rights of minority groups of people (whether they be religious, social, or political) should not be voted on.

This is religious discrimination or censorship depending on how you want to look at it, in other words, bad.

So are you saying that the right to religious freedom inevitably includes the right to build fugly concrete towers that utterly dominate the surrounding buildings?

Remember that the call to prayer itself is not usually allowed to be sounded in public in European countries, and also that these days no Muslim actually bothers to climb up the minaret to sound it in the first place.

I read somewhere that the Founding Fathers of the US were supposedly opposed to direct democracy, just to prevent measures of this kind being passed.

 

[Harke the Boeotarch]

BTW, there's a gallery of flags on the BBC page, which flag is that in the upper-left most corner? Looks so much like Taiwan's.

It's [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Myanmar.svg"]Myanmar[/URL].

 

[hotatlboi]

So are you saying that the right to religious freedom inevitably includes the right to build fugly concrete towers that utterly dominate the surrounding buildings?

I think religious people should be able to build whatever kind of structure they want to worship with.

Remember that the call to prayer itself is not usually allowed to be sounded in public in European countries, and also that these days no Muslim actually bothers to climb up the minaret to sound it in the first place.

I could see how that would be a public disturbance though, so that makes it a little different imo.

I read somewhere that the Founding Fathers of the US were supposedly opposed to direct democracy, just to prevent measures of this kind being passed.

Yes, this is an example of where direct democracy is bad imo, the same way it's bad when the majority decide they just don't want to be bothered with giving equal treatment to the gays.

 

[Harke the Boeotarch]

I think religious people should be able to build whatever kind of structure they want to worship with.

You can't build whatever you like in most of Western Europe, there are very strict building aesthetics regulations. Why should mosques be exempt from those?

Yes, this is an example of where direct democracy is bad imo, the same way it's bad when the majority decide they just don't want to be bothered with giving equal treatment to the gays.

Surely the Swiss people are entitled to decide their own destiny?
I find the sentiment that the elected political elite entertains values that are contrary to those of their voters exceedingly perverse and in utter contempt of democracy.

 

[hotatlboi]

You can't build whatever you like in most of Western Europe, there are very strict building aesthetics regulations. Why should mosques be exempt from those?

Was this ban an extension of building aesthetic codes or a stand against "the ever encroaching hordes of Islam" as it was characterized above? If the former, then I suppose it's less of an issue. If it was specifically just because the Swiss people have a dislike for the Islamic religion, then I think that is bad.

Surely the Swiss people are entitled to decide their own destiny?

That same argument could be applied to anything. Hey, the majority of our country is currently made up of homophobic intolerants. Surely they have the right to discriminate against us because that is their personal desire.

I find the sentiment that the elected political elite entertains values that are contrary to those of their voters exceedingly perverse and in utter contempt of democracy.

That's not really what I was saying though. I'm referring more to the idea that everyone should have established the same rights, such that neither the elected elite nor the populace has the power to easily take them away by simple majority vote. In the US, this sentiment is expressed by the US Constitution. Not sure what the corollary would be in Europe. I'm just referring to the general principle that government should be structured such that 51% (whether representatives or voters) can't just decide to take away something they don't like that the 49% has or does.

 

[Harke the Boeotarch]

Was this ban an extension of building aesthetic codes or a stand against "the ever encroaching hordes of Islam" as it was characterized above? If the former, then I suppose it's less of an issue. If it was specifically just because the Swiss people have a dislike for the Islamic religion, then I think that is bad.

I think this proposal established a nationwide ban, where these codes used to be decided on a local level. (I guess that's why there are hundreds of mosques but only four minarets in the first place).

That same argument could be applied to anything. Hey, the majority of our country is currently made up of homophobic intolerants. Surely they have the right to discriminate against us because that is their personal desire.

They were not denied any specific or religious right to perform their religion.

That's not really what I was saying though. I'm referring more to the idea that everyone should have established the same rights, such that neither the elected elite nor the populace has the power to easily take them away by simple majority vote. In the US, this sentiment is expressed by the US Constitution. Not sure what the corollary would be in Europe. I'm just referring to the general principle that government should be structured such that 51% (whether representatives or voters) can't just decide to take away something they don't like that the 49% has or does.

Human rights are limited in scope and I doubt they include such things.

 

[moniker]

It's the Swiss way of saying: "we made a mistake in allowing you medieval thugs into our civilized country, now please just fuck off."

 

[SoulSearcher]

So are you saying that the right to religious freedom inevitably includes the right to build fugly concrete towers that utterly dominate the surrounding buildings?

Remember that the call to prayer itself is not usually allowed to be sounded in public in European countries, and also that these days no Muslim actually bothers to climb up the minaret to sound it in the first place.

I read somewhere that the Founding Fathers of the US were supposedly opposed to direct democracy, just to prevent measures of this kind being passed.

A majority should not be able to decide what kind of religious structure a minority group should have, especially when it doesn't directly affect everyone's lives. This initiative is not an isolated one, the party that put this to vote has a history of neo-Nazi leanings, and their posters have blatantly been racist. They're popularity is due to widespread fear mongering. I bet if in the US they were to put to vote if they want Jim Crow back, I wouldn't be surprised if some states actually vote by a majority to bring it back.

And I'm quite curious that you think surrounding countries that are against measures that are unnecessarily discriminatory as being morally bankrupt. Discrimination really is moral to some, just like a lot of homophobes have no moral qualms about hating gays, and think that gay friendly people are morally bankrupt.

 

[SoulSearcher]

It's the Swiss way of saying: "we made a mistake in allowing you medieval thugs into our civilized country, now please just fuck off."

I'm amazed how quickly gays judge, knowing we are constantly judge. Medieval? Did you know that Swiss women were not allowed to vote until 1973, and were not allowed to vote in all County (Canton) level until 1990? And the country benefited tremendously due to the Holocaust?

If you knew anything about Switzerland, you would know that Swiss Muslims are very much assimilated and integrated. What this vote was about was racism, and this Party thrives on it, just look up the party's history.

 

[SoulSearcher]

You can't build whatever you like in most of Western Europe, there are very strict building aesthetics regulations. Why should mosques be exempt from those?



Surely the Swiss people are entitled to decide their own destiny?
I find the sentiment that the elected political elite entertains values that are contrary to those of their voters exceedingly perverse and in utter contempt of democracy.

Sure, let's bring back Jim Crow and criminalise homosexuality, since a majority just may find minorities and homosexuals repulsive. Let's just let the majority decide the country's destiny. How logical.

 

[ChickenGuy]

I don't have enough information to make a judgement - it all depends on what the Swiss immigration policy is.

I mean, have the Swiss successfully controlled the immigration into their country from outside Europe?

Or, is the country facing the prospect of being overrun by waves of Muslims, Africans etc.?

I simply don't know enough about the issue, but if they are facing uncontrolled immigration, then they have a right to take steps to prevent it. If they are not, then it may be an overreaction on the Swiss part.

 

[Zu-Mendel]

While I actively dislike the Muslim religion and culture, this law serves no point other than an attempt to discriminate against a minority.

 

[Deandbn]

The Swiss are well within their rights and should throw the lot out and send them back to Iran.

If life is so good under sharia law why are they all leaving to live elsewhere. And if they are leaving to live elsewhere, why dont they move to another islamic country such as afganistan/iraq/pakistan/myanmar where they would find their religion already laid on complete with minarets. I mean it would be like home from home.

For the reverse equivalent, go and see if the islamic iranians would be happy to allow you to live in their country permanently as a christian, and if you get that right then ask them if they would be happy for you to build a christian cathederal with 4 bell towers in the centre of Tehran, and a couple hundred more all over the place.

I think i make my point.

 

[SoulSearcher]

The Swiss are well within their rights and should throw the lot out and send them back to Iran.

If life is so good under sharia law why are they all leaving to live elsewhere. And if they are leaving to live elsewhere, why dont they move to another islamic country such as afganistan/iraq/pakistan/myanmar where they would find their religion already laid on complete with minarets. I mean it would be like home from home.

For the reverse equivalent, go and see if the islamic iranians would be happy to allow you to live in their country permanently as a christian, and if you get that right then ask them if they would be happy for you to build a christian cathederal with 4 bell towers in the centre of Tehran, and a couple hundred more all over the place.

I think i make my point.

Why would the Swiss send other Swiss who happen to be Muslim to Iran? That's like saying South African Catholics should send Orthodox Christian South Africans to Russia, it only makes sense to those who live in another planet, like you seem to do.

And where do you get your information from? Very few Muslim countries are governed by Shariah laws, and some that do, are greatly patronised by countries like the US.

And where did you learn that Myanmar was a Muslim country?

 

[moniker]

I'm amazed how quickly gays judge, knowing we are constantly judge. Medieval? Did you know that Swiss women were not allowed to vote until 1973, and were not allowed to vote in all County (Canton) level until 1990? And the country benefited tremendously due to the Holocaust?

If you knew anything about Switzerland, you would know that Swiss Muslims are very much assimilated and integrated. What this vote was about was racism, and this Party thrives on it, just look up the party's history.

I suppose I could list all sorts of horrors perpetrated by Muslims but somehow this news item from the Times Online offers a bit of background:

"Dr Guessoum, who is a Sunni Muslim, said that in countries such as Tunisia, Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan and Malaysia, only 15 per cent of those surveyed believed Darwin’s theory to be “true” or “probably true”. This stand was equally prevalent among students and teachers, from high school to university. Most alarmingly, he claimed, science teachers were misrepresenting the facts and theories of evolution by mixing it with religious ideologies.
A survey of 100 academics and 100 students that he conducted at his own university showed that 62 per cent of Muslim professors and students believed evolution to be an “unproven theory”, compared with 10 per cent of non-Muslim professors. “The rate of acceptance of evolution and of the idea of teaching evolution was extremely low,” he said. “I wondered, who are all these educated people rejecting evolution? They are even rejecting the fact that it should be taught as scientific knowledge.”

That's really scary.

 

[alfaPA]

So are you saying that the right to religious freedom inevitably includes the right to build fugly concrete towers that utterly dominate the surrounding buildings?

While the minaret which you used as an example is rather unsightly, they are not inherently so. Haven't you posted a picture of yourself in front of a more aesthetically pleasing example in Turkey? We've all lived with prominent towers built by religious institutions that dominate their surroundings and call attention to themselves (ringing bells and all) for centuries. Some of these religious institutions now appear to encourage peace and tolerance.

In New York:

Switzerland:

 

[SoulSearcher]

I suppose I could list all sorts of horrors perpetrated by Muslims but somehow this news item from the Times Online offers a bit of background:

"Dr Guessoum, who is a Sunni Muslim, said that in countries such as Tunisia, Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan and Malaysia, only 15 per cent of those surveyed believed Darwin’s theory to be “true” or “probably true”. This stand was equally prevalent among students and teachers, from high school to university. Most alarmingly, he claimed, science teachers were misrepresenting the facts and theories of evolution by mixing it with religious ideologies.
A survey of 100 academics and 100 students that he conducted at his own university showed that 62 per cent of Muslim professors and students believed evolution to be an “unproven theory”, compared with 10 per cent of non-Muslim professors. “The rate of acceptance of evolution and of the idea of teaching evolution was extremely low,” he said. “I wondered, who are all these educated people rejecting evolution? They are even rejecting the fact that it should be taught as scientific knowledge.”

That's really scary.

And your point is? Some gays in some countries hold neo-Nazi views. Does that mean gays in Tahiti should be discriminated against? Yeah, that'll be really logical. How does your post justify the discriminatory Swiss vote towards Swiss Muslims?

 

[Harke the Boeotarch]

While the minaret which you used as an example is rather unsightly, they are not inherently so. Haven't you posted a picture of yourself in front of a more aesthetically pleasing example in Turkey? We've all lived with prominent towers built by religious institutions that dominate their surroundings and call attention to themselves (ringing bells and all) for centuries. Some of these religious institutions now appear to encourage peace and tolerance.

There are two problems with these minarets.:

1). Unlike church towers, they don't fit in the established landscape, because there weren't any before.
(This is really a big deal in Europe, because many cities and landscapes are protected historical sites).

2). The minarets on mosques like these, look nothing like the ancient minarets in (say) Turkey. Instead of being made out of costly natural stone, they're just made out of concrete with white paint. In ten years time these mosques will look like old gas-stations in third world countries.

This is not America where a religious building can just be a badly constructed cowshed with a crucifix attached. They actually have architectural standards in Switserland for this sort of thing.