# 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:** 21
**Author:** ![Cullain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/d26b3c/32.png) [@Cullain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cullain)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2009, 9:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/401 "2009-12-08T09:39:01Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > This is just a break with reality. Show me the current beheadings. The stonings. The bombings of schools and intentional killing of innocents done by Christians today. You do realize that western(ie Christian) colonization of India, Asia, Middle East and Africa ended less then 50 years ago, right? Is ‘Christianity’ responsible for the horror of colonialization? I’d argue no, despite the fact that the west always claimed to be redeeming us poor misguided souls, and that’s what made everything okay. But if ‘Christianity’ isn’t responsible for every bad thing a Christian does, why is ‘Islam’ responsible for every bad thing a Muslim does? ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2009, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/402 "2009-12-08T13:45:57Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Could someone please explain how a minaret is dangerous and worthy of a ban? In the opinion of someone I discussed with and is in favor of a ban on mosques in France, it’s because they don’t fit in traditionnal french culture. So, “because it’s at odds with the way I think things should be” seems a sufficient reason. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2009, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/403 "2009-12-08T14:20:00Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > In the opinion of someone I discussed with and is in favor of a ban on mosques in France, it’s because they don’t fit in traditionnal french culture. > > So, “because it’s at odds with the way I think things should be” seems a sufficient reason. It is entirely natural and normal for a people to resent the intrusion of an alien people and culture into their homeland. A culture which fails to instill a strong sense of loyalty in its members is in serious danger of extinction. Your attitude of condescension and disdain for your countrymen who want France to be France is the irrational attitude, not theirs. ---
**Author:** ![wmfellows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c2a13f/32.png) [@wmfellows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wmfellows)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2009, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/404 "2009-12-08T14:46:42Z")
Oh god, this tiresome sterile tail-chasing is up again… > [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > It is entirely natural and normal for a people to resent the intrusion of an alien people and culture into their homeland. A culture which fails to instill a strong sense of loyalty in its members is in serious danger of extinction. Your attitude of condescension and disdain for your countrymen who want France to be France is the irrational attitude, not theirs. So, the Islam has Cooties argument? Alien people and culture is a right queer statement, as Islam and Muslims have been in and out of Europe for centuries now, and the majority of Muslims in Switzerland were born or have their immediate ancestry in **Europe** ; the Balkans notably. Funny, somehow the Cooties stay with them. The French immigration was actively sought by the French when they needed labour in the 1960s-1970s, so to call it “intrusion” betrays a rather grossly biased interpretation of events. > [@Lochdale](#): > > No moreso than any of your claims. There have been numerous studies showing that mass immigration reduces wages. Howver, let’s not get into that. Instead, let’s look at it this way. If I’m wrong then we can turn on the immigration spigot easily enough. If you’re wrong, however, then the genie is already out of the bottle. > > Dr. Borjas from Harvard has done extensive research on immigration’s affect of wages. > > [http://borjas.typepad.com/the\_borjas\_blog/2007/12/the-great-mexic.html](http://borjas.typepad.com/the_borjas_blog/2007/12/the-great-mexic.html) I was going to leave this idiotic tale chasing alone, but now that this is back up, in fact **the claims that mass immigration reduces wages as a general matter** is not at all evident. Your bald assertion of that as an accepted fact is merely that, a bald assertion: The data is at best unclear, if not always trending positive: [http://www.econ.brown.edu/fac/Rachel\_Friedberg/Links/friedberg\_jep.pdf](http://www.econ.brown.edu/fac/Rachel_Friedberg/Links/friedberg_jep.pdf) > **[MPRA\_paper\_2168.pdf](https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/2168/1/MPRA_paper_2168.pdf)** > **[Immigration’s Economic Impact](https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/cea/cea_immigration_062007.html)** [http://www.tcd.ie/Economics/Seminars/dp4472.pdf](http://www.tcd.ie/Economics/Seminars/dp4472.pdf) I note for example the Irish study addresses your man Borjas: > [@](#): > > We estimate the impact of immigration on the wages of natives in Ireland applying the technique proposed by Borjas (2003). Under this method, the labour market is divided into a number of skill cells, where the cells are defined by groups with similar levels of experience and education (or experience and occupation). Regression analysis is then employed to assess whether the average wages of natives across skill cells is affected by the share of immigrants across cells. When the cells are based on education/experience, our results suggest a negative relationship between native wages and immigrant shares. However, the opposite appears to hold when the cells are based on occupation/experience. **These contradictory findings suggest that care should be exercised when applying this method as inaccurate impressions of the impact of immigration on wages may arise.** Similarly from the American study, the same kind of observations: > [@](#): > > Example: > > ``` > * The presence of unskilled foreign-born construction laborers allows skilled US craftsmen and contractors to build more homes at lower cost than otherwise – therefore the US natives’ productivity and income rise. > * Thus, when immigrants are added to the US labor force, they increase the economy’s total output, which is split between immigrants (who receive wages) and natives (who receive wages and also earn income from their ownership of physical and human capital). Natives may also gain from having a wider variety of goods and services to consume and from lower prices for the goods and services produced by industries with high concentrations of foreign-born workers. > > ``` > > The “immigration surplus” is a simple and frequently cited metric of natives’ total gains from immigration. The surplus accrues to native factors of production that are complemented by immigrant workers – that is, to factors whose productivity is enhanced by the presence of immigrants. In a simple model with just capital and labor (not differentiated by skill), similar in structure to that presented in the National Research Council (NRC) analysis, one can estimate this surplus as the area of a triangle defined by a downward sloping labor demand curve and the shift in labor supply attributed to immigration. Using a standard estimate of labor demand elasticity (0.3) and measures of the foreign-born share of the labor force, the current immigration surplus is about 0.28% of GDP, or roughly $37 billion per year.2 > > Although the simplicity of the “immigration surplus” approach is attractive, the implicit assumptions are numerous, and it is well-understood by economists that this is not a full reckoning of immigration’s influence on the economy. For example, the approach does not differentiate between different kinds of workers (by skill, experience or nativity) and does not allow for an endogenous and positive capital market response to the change in labor supply. Because immigration changes the mix of factors in the economy, it may influence the pattern of factor prices, which in turn may induce endogenous changes in other factor supplies. Moreover, implicit in the surplus calculation is an assumed negative effect on average wages for natives – an effect that is difficult to detect in empirical studies of the U.S. wage structure.3 > > A more complex approach to measuring the influence of immigration on natives’ income differentiates workers by skill, nativity, and experience and also allows for a capital accumulation response to changes in the supply of labor. In this scenario complementarities from immigrant workers are allowed to accrue to native workers. A recent paper by Ottaviano and Peri (2006) takes such an approach to measuring the wage effects of immigration and concludes that immigration since 1990 has boosted the average wage of natives by between 0.7% and 1.8% depending on the assessment’s timeframe – the effect is more positive when the capital stock has had time to adjust.4 Fully 90% of US native-born workers are estimated to have gained from immigration. Multiplying the average percentage gains by the total wages of US natives suggests that annual wage gains from immigration are between $30 billion and $80 billion.5 > > In both approaches described above, natives benefit from immigration because the complementarities associated with immigrants outweigh any losses from added labor market competition. Rather than focusing on average effects, special attention could be paid to the wellbeing of the least-skilled natives. The number of natives with less than a high school degree has declined over time, which is one reason less-skilled immigrants have been drawn into the US labor force to fill relatively low-paying jobs. Even so, based on Chart 1, one might expect the remaining least-skilled natives to face labor market competition from immigrants.6 Evidence on this issue is mixed. Studies often find small negative effects of immigration on the wages of low-skilled natives, and even the comparatively large estimate reported in Borjas (2003) is under 10% for immigration over a 20 year period.7 The difficulties faced by high school dropouts are a serious policy concern, but it is safe to conclude that immigration is not a central cause of those difficulties, nor is reducing immigration a well-targeted way to help these low-wage natives. > > ``` > * Conclusion: Immigrants increase the economy’s total output, and natives share in part of that increase because of complementarities in production. Different approaches to estimating natives’ total income gains from immigration yield figures over $30 billion per year. Sharply reducing immigration would be a poorly-targeted and inefficient way to assist low-wage Americans. > > ``` > [@Lochdale](#): > > That’s an assertion on your part is it not? It seems that there has been some success in France which suggests that the policies may well work. However, just because one set of policies didn’t work it doesn’t mean that we should abandon the aspiration. It is my view that more should be done to encourage natural growth rather than import it. No, it was not my assertion, it is based on French readings. If you read French, I might be bothered to dig that up. If not, I shan’t be bothered as it seems abundantly evident that your nativism drives your comprehension, rather than data. In any case, it seems abundantly evident that the racialists and nativists see in your ordinary Ahmed some kind of existential threat, in the same fashion that Schlomo the Jew of 1910 was seen as an unassimilable hook-nosed **alien and alien culture**. There is really no sunlight between modern Islamophobia and the religious bigotry and racism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries aimed at Jews, with the recent immigrants from the Russian Pale being the object of the same language and claims as the Muslims are now. And with as much analytical rigour. That kind of gross, fear driven hate led where it led. I for one do not want to see Europe repeat that, but sadly we’re seeing the same excuses, the same hysteric claims, the same exaggerations even when - as in Switzerland (a sad echo of the German situation of 1920s) the religious minority is actually of quite European roots, highly secularized and generally oriented in its vast majority toward integration. The write Laila Lalami - a secular feminist has it right in this article (pity its in the hard left American rag, but regardless): [http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091214/lalami/single](http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091214/lalami/single) > [@](#): > > Caldwell argues that intra-European immigration had a higher degree of success because the immigrants who moved within Europe shared religious and cultural beliefs with the natives. Such an optimistic view leaves out inconvenient facts of history. In the early decades of the twentieth century, France brought thousands of Polish workers to its factories and its mines; many lived in suburban ghettos and, despite being Christian, were deemed by the natives to be too attached to their culture and too religious (they were referred to as calotins, or “Holy Joes”). Some French intellectuals and politicians began speaking of “invasion.” (Similar accusations were made about Spaniards, Italians and Belgians who later migrated to France.) When the recession of the 1930s put a crunch on the French economy, the government forcibly put Polish immigrants on trains and sent them back home. So the process by which immigrants integrate in European societies has historically been a slow one, even when immigrants “think” like Europeans. ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2009, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/405 "2009-12-08T14:47:24Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > It is entirely natural and normal for a people to resent the intrusion of an alien people and culture into their homeland. A culture which fails to instill a strong sense of loyalty in its members is in serious danger of extinction. Your attitude of condescension and disdain for your countrymen who want France to be France is the irrational attitude, not theirs. But if the culture is so weak that you have to put a wall around it to make sure it survives, is it really all that capable of inspiring loyalty? ---
**Author:** ![foolscap](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9a140/32.png) [@foolscap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolscap)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2009, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/406 "2009-12-15T03:38:53Z")
> [@jjimm](#): > > They’ve banned minuets? When I first read it, I thought they said “marionette”:dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/407 "2009-12-17T12:42:43Z")
Since this thread is still active, I will risk making it a bit longer by reporting the latest news on the issue. Me Pierre de Preux, leader of the bar of Geneva, is one of five Swiss, French and Belgian lawyers representing Hafid Ouardiri, the former spokesperson of the Geneva mosque, and bringing the case to the [European Court of Human Rights](http://www.echr.coe.int). Briefly: [ol] [li]Switzerland has signed the [European Convention on Human Rights](http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html), which means that in cases of fundamental Human Rights (as defined by the convention) it can be subject to the European Court.[/li][li]The plaintiff argues that the law restricts freedom of religion of muslims, and such restrictions, according to the Convention, can only be legal when public order or the rights of another are threatened. Also the law is discriminatory, as it applies to a single religion.[/li][li]Legally the situation is complicated, since cases can only be brought to the European Court after exhausting all appeals in the country of origin, but the decision, adopted by popular referendum cannot be appealed to the Swiss Federal Tribunal (Supreme Court).[/li][li]The Swiss Justice Minister, Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, has already said that there will be no question of rejecting the European Convention on Human Rights.[/li][li]It is too late to say that Switzerland has signed the European Convention on Human Rights but with certain reservations (objections) - that should have happened at the time of signature.[/li][li]It seems very likely that the European Court will declare that this interdiction is a violation of the rights enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, namely freedom of religion.[/li][/ol] Source: [Tribune de Genève: Hafid Ouardiri porte les minarets devant la Cour de Strasbourg](http://www.tdg.ch/actu/suisse/recours-depose-strasbourg-contre-initiative-anti-minarets-2009-12-15) P.S. I might as well make my views known: as a Swiss citizen I oppose this law and agree that it violates Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which Switzerland has adopted. I think we can all agree that Human Rights should not be abrogated even by popular vote. What the Court will have to decide is if the decision to ban minarets is an infringement on freedom of “worship, teaching, practice and observance” (to use the terms in Article 9). ---
**Author:** ![Sandwich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/22d042/32.png) [@Sandwich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sandwich)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/408 "2009-12-17T13:07:58Z")
> [@Cullain](#): > > But if ‘Christianity’ isn’t responsible for every bad thing a Christian does, why is ‘Islam’ responsible for every bad thing a Muslim does? When the Pope raised crusades against the infidel to recapture the Holy Land for Christendom, and Christian knights ‘took the cross’ to wage war in Christ’s name, then Christianity was substantially responsible for these activities. When Moslem clerics establish madrassas to teach the duties of holy Jihad in accordance with the Holy Koran, and encourage war against the infidel in Allah’s name, then Islam is substantially responsible. It might not be the Islam that many or most Moslems identify with, but it is 100% Islam. Islam is not responsible for every bad thing any Moslem does, only for the bad things they do explicitly as Moslems for the sake of Islam. Whatever ‘responsible’ means, in context. If someone says they are a Moslem, acting for Islam, then I’m generally prepared to take that at face value. It’s not as if jihadism is so far removed from mainstream Islam that it can be dismissed as an imposture. The refusal to admit that Moslem terrorists are Moslem terrorists is bizarre and unhelpful. (If you disagree, you are of course free to pretend that the words I’ve just written mean something which is entirely consistent with your own position. Then we will be in complete agreement.) ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/409 "2009-12-17T15:47:41Z")
> [@Arnold\_Winkelried](#): > > P.S. I might as well make my views known: as a Swiss citizen I oppose this law and agree that it violates Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which Switzerland has adopted. I think we can all agree that Human Rights should not be abrogated even by popular vote. What the Court will have to decide is if the decision to ban minarets is an infringement on freedom of “worship, teaching, practice and observance” (to use the terms in Article 9). So, it’s now a “human right” to build a minaret? Amazing. No, I don’t see how not being able to build a minaret violates any right, including being able to practice the religion one chooses. They are not seeking to ban mosques. ---
**Author:** ![freep5637](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/cdc98d/32.png) [@freep5637](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/freep5637)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/410 "2009-12-17T16:47:16Z")
ndnd ---
**Author:** ![freep5637](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/cdc98d/32.png) [@freep5637](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/freep5637)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/411 "2009-12-17T16:48:23Z")
i say cheers, people are too politically correct these days anyway. if a country or people wants to protect their culture and not get overrun (because Muslims do tend to flock to one place once a few of them settle and it’s nice look at hamtramck) then i say it’s fine. we could use a little more nationalism in the united states in my opinion. like it’s a bad thing to want to keep certain people or beliefs out that don’t really mesh well with the current culture… i don’t get it. ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/412 "2009-12-17T16:52:47Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > So, it’s now a “human right” to build a minaret? No, freedom of worship is a human right. And I really can’t understand, knowing how every little village in Switzerland has a church with a clock tower and loud bells that ring on the hour every hour, that a minaret is any different except that it’s attached to a Muslim church instead of a Christian church. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/413 "2009-12-17T17:33:21Z")
> [@freep5637](#): > > i say cheers, people are too politically correct these days anyway. if a country or people wants to protect their culture and not get overrun (because Muslims do tend to flock to one place once a few of them settle and it’s nice look at hamtramck) then i say it’s fine. we could use a little more nationalism in the united states in my opinion. like it’s a bad thing to want to keep certain people or beliefs out that don’t really mesh well with the current culture… i don’t get it. A little MORE nationalism in the US? That’s like saying you don’t think the ocean is wet enough. And this isn’t about “protecting their culture”, or protecting anything else. It’s a plain old slap in the face motivated by religious/racial\* bigotry. - Yes, I know that Islam isn’t a synonym for non-white; I think that these people do equate the two however. I’ve certainly run into plenty of people like that here. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/414 "2009-12-17T18:40:14Z")
> [@Arnold\_Winkelried](#): > > No, freedom of worship is a human right. And I really can’t understand, knowing how every little village in Switzerland has a church with a clock tower and loud bells that ring on the hour every hour, that a minaret is any different except that it’s attached to a Muslim church instead of a Christian church. You answered you own question. The church is part of what is viewed as being Swiss. You described it perfectly. They want to preserve that, I say good for them. And if a country that was equated with Mosques wanted to keep church steeples out, I’d support them to do that, too. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/415 "2009-12-17T18:41:37Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > A little MORE nationalism in the US? That’s like saying you don’t think the ocean is wet enough. > > And this isn’t about “protecting their culture”, or protecting anything else. It’s a plain old slap in the face motivated by religious/racial\* bigotry. > > - Yes, I know that Islam isn’t a synonym for non-white; I think that these people do equate the two however. I’ve certainly run into plenty of people like that here. Yeah, any contortion you can make to hurl “RACISM!”. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/416 "2009-12-17T18:45:27Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > You answered you own question. The church is part of what is viewed as being Swiss. You described it perfectly. They want to preserve that, I say good for them. And if a country that was equated with Mosques wanted to keep church steeples out, I’d support them to do that, too. But I think if you’re trying to do it via the law, it’s too late. You can force people to physically take their minarets down but you can’t stop them from being Muslim. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/417 "2009-12-17T18:53:03Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Yeah, any contortion you can make to hurl “RACISM!”. 😉 This proposal was pushed by a _ **racist organization** _. You are just indulging in your standard, reflexive attempt to defend bigotry. Homophobia; racism; whatever type of bigotry raises its head you always come out swinging, making excuses for it while pretending some sort of noble concern over “culture” and “traditions” ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/418 "2009-12-17T18:54:27Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > You answered you own question. The church is part of what is viewed as being Swiss. You described it perfectly. They want to preserve that, I say good for them. And if a country that was equated with Mosques wanted to keep church steeples out, I’d support them to do that, too. Then they shouldn’t sign international agreements where they pledge not to discriminate against other religions. The initiative is contrary to principles that Switzerland has agreed to uphold. Addressing the larger point, for a culture to remain insular and reject other belief systems / other points of view is a bad thing. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2009, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/419 "2009-12-19T16:23:13Z")
> [@Arnold\_Winkelried](#): > > Addressing the larger point, for a culture to remain insular and reject other belief systems / other points of view is a bad thing. I tink it’s a matter of degree. What they are doing is not akin to Medieval China, it’s a tiny step to protect the look and feel of their country. They like it that way. You must admit, it’s quite pretty. Now, it might very well be that minarets would add to the beauty in someone’s eyes, and that’s a legitimate opinion, but the Swiss are the ones who get to decide what Switzerland will look like. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2009, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/420 "2009-12-19T16:25:41Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > But I think if you’re trying to do it via the law, it’s too late. You can force people to physically take their minarets down but you can’t stop them from being Muslim. And no one is trying to do that. They’re trying to control the look and feel of Switzerland. Mosques are allowed. Islam is accepted. They just don’t want Islam to be an outwardly defining feature of Switzerland. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366.md?page=22)