Switzerland votes to ban Minarets

[Dunenewt]

Couple of BBC articles before we start:

Swiss voters back ban on minarets

Swiss referendum 'reflects unease with Islam'

So today Switzerland voted to ban any new Minarets from being built.  Do people see this as something that could spread?  From what I've been told, the Mosque in Duisburg, where I live, is the biggest outside the Islamic world.  Due to EU laws, I cannot see that ban taking place within a EU country, but I am surprised the Swiss voted it in.

[Edric O]

This whole minaret referendum was just an attempt by the far-right Swiss People's Party (SVP) to strengthen its populist credentials and base of support. Like the article mentioned, there are only four minarets in the whole of Switzerland. It is absurd to believe that any kind of ban was remotely necessary or even slightly justified. The SVP, as usual, is trying to make a big deal out of nothing. Since they have no solutions to any real issues facing Switzerland, they have to invent problems so that they may offer "solutions." And these "problems" are always related in some way or other to evil foreigners.

The worrying thing is that the SVP's strategy seems to be working.

[SandChigger]

Do these places have an actual mu'adhdhin who climbs up and recites the adhaan, or do they use recordings & loudspeakers?

If it's a real person does it, and the minaret and mosque blend in with the surroundings (whatever that means), cool, what's the difference? Same as churches and church bells, why not?

If it's automated, and blares, the building is hideous ... noise and sight pollution, screw it.

Obtrusiveness and (architectural) aesthetics

[Dunenewt]

For those of you who can read German, here's an article about the German reaction:

http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/schweiz152.html

Basically, even if there was a widespread populist campaign against them, Minarets wouldn't be banned due to the German constitution's section on religious freedom.

[Edric O]

You know, it is only now that the religious tolerance of secular Western countries is finally being put to the test. In the past, Western countries have shown that they can tolerate a variety of different religions as long as they are small and insignificant. They've never had to deal with the possibility that - big surprise - even the majority religion in a country can change, given enough time and the right conditions. Can the West tolerate religious diversity when the minority religions are no longer small and insignificant? Or does "religious freedom" in the West actually mean "you are free to practice whatever religion you want, as long as there are not too many of you here"?

We shall see.

[Caid Ivik]

For those of you who can read German, here's an article about the German reaction:

http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/schweiz152.html

Basically, even if there was a widespread populist campaign against them, Minarets wouldn't be banned due to the German constitution's section on religious freedom.

EdricO has a point. What is better, a widespread populist campaign to ban minarets alongside the country, or thousands of local campaigns against particular mosques? If the population is xenophobic, it'll find a way to express it.

[Dunenewt]

France's Foreign Minister condemns the ban

[Edric O]

In other news, not everything is going badly in Switzerland. There are two great public initiatives in the pipeline. The first has already collected enough signatures and will go to a referendum some time next year. The second is still collecting signatures.

(note: the links are to the French version of the text, because that is the one I can read; but there is a button in the top-right corner of the page that you can use to switch to German or Italian... or Romansh, if you can actually read that)

"12:1 - For equitable wages"

The highest wage paid by a company may not be larger than 12 times the size of the lowest wage paid by that company.

http://www.admin.ch/ch/f/pore/vi/vis375t.html

"6 weeks of vacation for all"

All workers have the right to a minimum of 6 weeks of paid vacation per year.

http://www.admin.ch/ch/f//pore/vi/vis362t.html

[Dunenewt]

Switzerland has a very interesting (in a good way) take on democracy, it just shows  what you can achieve when you don't sign up for that bureaucratic monster known as the EU.

By the way, I would have thought Italian would be easier a Romanian to learn, or did you learn French...I seem to remember you telling me you learnt it actually.

[MrFlibble]

By the way, I would have thought Italian would be easier a Romanian to learn, or did you learn French...I seem to remember you telling me you learnt it actually.

Actually I've come to the conclusion that the close relationship between the language being learned and the native language often has the opposite effect. It's easy to make mistakes when many words and/or word forms are (nearly) identical to those of your native language but have absolutely different semantics.

[vota dc]

Switzerland has a very interesting (in a good way) take on democracy, it just shows  what you can achieve when you don't sign up for that bureaucratic monster known as the EU.

Good point.The funny thing is that who protested against the result of the referendum was Vatican and Council of Europe (not the European Parliament) that aren't exactly democratic institutions.

You know, it is only now that the religious tolerance of secular Western countries is finally being put to the test. In the past, Western countries have shown that they can tolerate a variety of different religions as long as they are small and insignificant. They've never had to deal with the possibility that - big surprise - even the majority religion in a country can change, given enough time and the right conditions. Can the West tolerate religious diversity when the minority religions are no longer small and insignificant? Or does "religious freedom" in the West actually mean "you are free to practice whatever religion you want, as long as there are not too many of you here"?

We shall see.

The answer is no.For two reasons:

1)Christian politicians SHOULD be less tolerant with other religions.They are monotheist (that means damnation for the others,not just the mistake of following a weak god) and they have less reason to keep other monotheist religion while the muslim has the protection tax.

2)In the case that politicians are atheist and don't care anything of religion there is a problem.For example if Buddhism become the majority religion is ok because is an interior religion but the Islam is a problem because it is a "political" religiom:a state inside a state and that is seen as a danger.

[athanasios]

That's the real threat.

Now if I had to vote for it I would say NO to Minarets if they were going to be used to sound pollute. Actually I would vote the same for church bells. And this has nothing to do with religious intolerance. Every Sunday morning between 7 and 8 they piss me off...

[Edric O]

Good point. The funny thing is that who protested against the result of the referendum was Vatican and Council of Europe (not the European Parliament) that aren't exactly democratic institutions.

Well, I think the result of the referendum was stupid, bigoted, and mostly the result of irrational fear and a relentless propaganda campaign from a semi-fascist party (the SVP).

Nevertheless, it was the result of a referendum, and should be respected - unless or until a sufficient number of Swiss people can be persuaded to change their minds.

The answer is no. For two reasons:

1)Christian politicians SHOULD be less tolerant with other religions. They are monotheist (that means damnation for the others, not just the mistake of following a weak god) and they have less reason to keep other monotheist religion while the muslim has the protection tax.

2)In the case that politicians are atheist and don't care anything of religion there is a problem.For example if Buddhism become the majority religion is ok because is an interior religion but the Islam is a problem because it is a "political" religiom:a state inside a state and that is seen as a danger.

Well, this is interesting. On the one hand you complain about Islam being a "political religion," and on the other hand you say that Christian politicians should behave as if Christianity was a political religion. See the contradiction there?

Now, I am a Christian myself, I want Christianity to flourish and I'd love it if more people converted. I also think there should be more of a missionary effort among Europe's new immigrant populations, and those idiots who worry about "Christian civilization" declining due to low birth rates should remember that Christianity is not an ethnic religion. However, going back on topic, 1700 years of history have shown that political power is poison for the Church. From Constantine to the Papal States to the Tsars, every time the Church became a political entity it ended up being twisted into an empty, servile and reactionary mouthpiece for whatever petty despot happened to be in power at the time. Christianity is the religion of the God who was born a commoner in a cave and died crucified by the political and religious authorities of his day. The Christian God teaches that the first shall be last and the last shall be first; to be Christian is to hold wealth and power in contempt, at least, if not to revolt against them outright. For the Church to partake in wealth or power is to give up a part of its soul, to invite corruption into the faith.