# Switzerland bans minarets **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 29, 2009, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366 "2009-11-29T19:19:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/181 "2009-11-30T18:27:42Z")
Hey, I was just askin’. Perhaps they could have worded it a bit better. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/182 "2009-11-30T18:28:09Z")
> [@Dorothea\_Book](#): > > But it isn’t remotely similar because the Swiss minaret ban is offensive to Muslims all over the world and prejudicial to Muslim citizens of Switzerland. I don’t give a damn if it’s offensive to Muslims. Lots of things are offensive to them. Agreed with everything else, though. ---
**Author:** ![Dorothea\_Book](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/da6949/32.png) [@Dorothea\_Book](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dorothea_Book)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/183 "2009-11-30T18:32:38Z")
> [@Siam\_Sam](#): > > Hey, I was just askin’. Perhaps they could have worded it a bit better. Sure, hope I didn’t sound unkind–I didn’t intend to. Just posting in haste. I’m not sure why you assume that they wanted to word it “a bit better.” That is, perhaps the point was to be offensive and prejudicial? **Superfluous** , do you think there’s no justification for the offense in this case? ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/184 "2009-11-30T18:32:56Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Now when it comes to other cultures, those of us who consider ourselves progressive often lament how they disappear or get assimilated into more modern cultures. Sure. But I generally don’t. See below. [quote] Wouldn’t it be an even greater tragedy to lose the culture of Galileo, Leonardo Da Vinci, Descartes, and Beethoven? Even if there were a risk of this doomsday scenario happening… What would be so bad if the people living a century from now in the area currently known as France were, in their time, to call it something else, to eat foods and listen to music and speak languages all derived from the customs currently prevalent in areas of the world other than France (or even entirely anew)? As long as no one’s being coerced by threat of law or violence into doing things they don’t want to do or abstaining from peaceful things they do want to, things seem peachy to me. (And vice versa: once people’s liberties to act how they like (drawing or not from whatever influences they like) start being suppressed, then things stop being peachy) If the people living in continental Europe a century from now generally don’t care for Beethoven’s music at all, fine by me. People’s aesthetic tastes are not a moral matter, nor one that calls for regulation by law. Live and let live. ---
**Author:** ![ruadh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d2c977/32.png) [@ruadh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruadh)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/185 "2009-11-30T18:36:56Z")
> [@Dorothea\_Book](#): > > And if, as was suggested earlier, the SPP used an aesthetic or architectural argument to gussy up their position in more respectable garb Did they? Everything I’ve read on this subject seems to indicate that they made no attempt whatsoever to pretend it was an aesthetic or architectural argument. They seem to have made no bones about the fact that it was entirely about suppressing Islam. It only seems to be (certain) Dopers suggesting that there was a more benign motive involved. ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/186 "2009-11-30T18:37:35Z")
> [@Dorothea\_Book](#): > > I’m not sure why you assume that they wanted to word it “a bit better.” That is, perhaps the point was to be offensive and prejudicial? I didn’t say they WANTED to word it a bit better. I said maybe they COULD HAVE worded it a bit better. I have no idea if they meant to be offensive, but if they didn’t, I suspect they could have been a bit less like a bull in a china shop. ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/187 "2009-11-30T18:41:44Z")
> [@ruadh](#): > > Did they? Everything I’ve read on this subject seems to indicate that they made no attempt whatsoever to pretend it was an aesthetic or architectural argument. They seem to have made no bones about the fact that it was entirely about suppressing Islam. > > It only seems to be (certain) Dopers suggesting that there was a more benign motive involved. I guess that would be me. This is getting out of hand. I was simply trying to think of the closest example I could think of, which was the Santa Fe ordinance. Possibly people are reading more into my comments than as intended. ---
**Author:** ![Dorothea\_Book](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/da6949/32.png) [@Dorothea\_Book](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dorothea_Book)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/188 "2009-11-30T18:42:52Z")
> [@Siam\_Sam](#): > > I didn’t say they WANTED to word it a bit better. I said maybe they COULD HAVE worded it a bit better. I have no idea if they meant to be offensive, but if they didn’t, I suspect they could have been a bit less like a bull in a china shop. Right, but I think those who promoted this measure _wanted_ to be offensive bulls in the china shop. Have you seen the posters used in this campaign that were linked to various posts above? Moreover, mere wording can’t disguise prejudice. ---
**Author:** ![Dorothea\_Book](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/da6949/32.png) [@Dorothea\_Book](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dorothea_Book)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/189 "2009-11-30T18:49:18Z")
> [@ruadh](#): > > Did they? Everything I’ve read on this subject seems to indicate that they made no attempt whatsoever to pretend it was an aesthetic or architectural argument. They seem to have made no bones about the fact that it was entirely about suppressing Islam. > > It only seems to be (certain) Dopers suggesting that there was a more benign motive involved. Well if you look over **Švejk** ’s posts back on page 2 he (she?) was saying that they were deliberately trying to pursue some kind of technical argument that what was being banned was a building rather than a religion or religious practice in order to mask incursion of state into religious matters. (This entirely from memory so you might want to review the posts themselves.) I myself have no knowledge any strategy beyond what’s in the articles linked to and a couple of more recent ones. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/190 "2009-11-30T18:49:23Z")
> [@Dorothea\_Book](#): > > **Superfluous** , do you think there’s no justification for the offense in this case? Yeah I do, but offense on its own shouldn’t be a reason to agree or disagree with a law. I don’t agree with this law because _it serves no other purpose_ except preventing mosks from being clearly visible. On the opposite side, in my country we’ve still got blasphemy laws on the books, which are _only_ about preventing offense. Neither is useful and both are bigoted, in my opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Dorothea\_Book](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/da6949/32.png) [@Dorothea\_Book](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dorothea_Book)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/191 "2009-11-30T19:07:04Z")
> [@Mr.Excellent](#): > > Say what you will about the American political system, but it takes this point to heart (at the federal level) - there are major checks on the majority will, implemented precisely to protect minority rights. A potential check on the majority will is described in [this](http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jSvKwQU-w3j6Gp8PWHRzV2hnh54QD9CA0T403) article. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/192 "2009-11-30T19:09:23Z")
If these people were really serious about the threat of Islamism in their country - which if it’s anything like over here in the Netherlands, is hysterically overstated - they wouldn’t pick such a stupid policy. There’s plenty of stuff wrong with Islam, but you’re not going to do anything about it by banning a bunch of towers. I have the same sort of problem with my native Geert Wilders and his stupid grandstanding. Let them have their towers, but attack the bullshit. But ofcourse you can’t legislate against bullshit. You need actual arguments to fight it, and you need to have public arguments to have any effect. Preventing people from displaying their beliefs is not a good way to act when you want them to change their opinions. Of course, if your actual goal is to make people feel _so_ unwelcome they’ll leave the country “voluntarily” this would be only the first step. Stay tuned for more news from happy multicultural Europe! ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/193 "2009-11-30T19:15:14Z")
> [@wmfellows](#): > > It rather seems transparent “protecting existing culture” is really a covering excuse that does not stand up to logical scrutiny. Does to. ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/194 "2009-11-30T19:19:50Z")
Cultures have no moral claim to protection. It’s individual’s liberties which carry that moral warrant. If “protecting existing culture” comes at cost to the latter, then “protecting existing culture” is a stupid and immoral thing to do, just as legislating that Americans can listen to jazz but not mariachi would be a stupid and immoral thing to do. ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/195 "2009-11-30T19:26:16Z")
Let me reword that last line, which got caught up in editing: “…just as legislating that Americans be forced to publicly prefer jazz to mariachi would be a stupid and immoral thing to do.” ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/196 "2009-11-30T19:32:42Z")
Wow that sucks. I love minarets, they look awesome. ---
**Author:** ![wmfellows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c2a13f/32.png) [@wmfellows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wmfellows)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/197 "2009-11-30T19:39:12Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Does to. Really, pray tell what logical train of thought unrelated to mere religious and ethnic bigotry supports banning minarets? Churches already have steeples. If one is thinking of keeping the supposed story book image re architecture one can rather merely require religious buildings have steeples in keeping with the surrounding architecture. Rather simple and without the fundamental bigotry of banning minarets. The minaret will then look like a steeple, except perhaps with a crescent. If one is thinking of keeping an architectural heritage, then … well a similar rule (applied equally) is of similar ease and efficaciousness. There is no logical “cultural protection” aspect here that does not involve simple racism and religious bigotry. Simple and primitive tribalism of religious bigotry. Cultural protection? Ban the Brown Hordes eh? (except of course the Turks and Bosniacs are white, but…); this kind of fear-mongering already happened in Europe relative to the “unassimilatable Jews” - the hook nosed hordes. The language and efforts bear a striking resemblance. Europe does not need this again. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/198 "2009-11-30T19:43:46Z")
> [@Dorothea\_Book](#): > > A potential check on the majority will is described in [this](http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jSvKwQU-w3j6Gp8PWHRzV2hnh54QD9CA0T403) article. Good thing too - direct democracy on minority rights without constitution-like protections makes as much sense as an untrammeled vote by three wolves and two sheep on what’s for dinner tonight. ---
**Author:** ![wmfellows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c2a13f/32.png) [@wmfellows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wmfellows)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/199 "2009-11-30T19:46:08Z")
> [@Indistinguishable](#): > > Cultures have no moral claim to protection. It’s individual’s liberties which carry that moral warrant. If “protecting existing culture” comes at cost to the latter, then “protecting existing culture” is a stupid and immoral thing to do, just as legislating that Americans can listen to jazz but not mariachi would be a stupid and immoral thing to do. Quite, and indeed “protecting a culture” in this fashion (versus say simply supporting language education as in Quebec, etc [ahem well not so simple but…]) is almost invariably merely an attempt a palatable gloss on gross bigotry Added re my own thought: > [@wmfellows](#): > > If one is thinking of keeping the supposed story book image re architecture one can rather merely require religious buildings have steeples in keeping with the surrounding architecture. Rather simple and without the fundamental bigotry of banning minarets. The minaret will then look like a steeple, except perhaps with a crescent. This by the way would strike me as a far more coherent measure (even given that much of Swiss urban development ain’t the tourist picture book view. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/200 "2009-11-30T19:55:00Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > Without a link to regular accounts of Jews, Christians, Muslims and Mormons getting down and partying together, I’d be more inclined to define it as an ‘uneasy harmony’. But if we’d just eliminate this pesky “religious freedom” business, everyone would live together in peace and harmony! No _way_ could that backfire! > [@](#): > > Maybe so, but I never said anything about one religion being favoured over another. What you said was: > [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > Can someone remind me why anywhere _should_, bearing in mind the amount of conflict it has caused since its invention? In reference to the idea of “religious freedom”. > [@](#): > > And do the non-believers not get a say in the matter? Non-believers of course should be as protected as believers. But we should no more get to infringe on the rights of religious believers than they should get to infringe on ours. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366.md?page=11)