# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2009, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/61 "2009-11-29T23:58:03Z")
> [@ruadh](#): > > Eh, no dice. The referendum was proposed by one of the most intolerant parties in Switzerland. From [this article](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091127/ap_on_re_eu/eu_switzerland_minaret_ban): > > "The nationalist Swiss People’s Party has led several campaigns against foreigners, including a proposal to kick out entire families of foreigners if one of their children breaks a law and a bid to subject citizenship applications to a popular vote. > > The party’s controversial posters have shown three white sheep kicking out a black sheep and a swarm of brown hands grabbing Swiss passports from a box… > > They say they are acting to fight the spread of political Islam, arguing the minaret represents a bid for power and is not just a religious symbol… > > People’s Party lawmaker Walter Wobmann said minarets are part of Muslims’ strategy to make Switzerland Islamic…" > > And clearly some of the supporters were thinking along the same lines: > > “‘The problem is not so much the minarets, but rather what they represent,’ said Madeleine Trincat, a retiree from Geneva. ‘After the minarets, the muezzins will come, then they’ll ask us to wear veils and so on.’” Wow, that sucks, so much for benefit of the doubt. At this point their bed is made, hope they have a restful night… ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/62 "2009-11-30T00:04:26Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > I don’t see the issue as having anything to do with religious intolerance since they aren’t banning mosques or Islam, they are banning the very large and very specific towers. On a national scale? I’m skeptical Swiss uses national referenda to regulate zoning ordanances to restrict buildings that mucked up the view. Plus, there are only four Minaret’s in the whole country. [This one](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Moschee_Wangen_bei_Olten.jpg) acually looks like they tried to make it look vaguley Swiss, and besides, is hardly taller then the attached building. [This one](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mahmud_Moschee1.jpg) looks more Islamic, but it still appears to be only a few stories tall. I can’t find pics of the other two, but I’m pretty skeptical that Zurich was on its way to looking like Istanbul. ---
**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, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/63 "2009-11-30T00:05:28Z")
> [@Madeleine Trincat](#): > > The problem is not so much the minarets, but rather what they represent. After the minarets, the muezzins will come, then they’ll ask us to wear veils and so on. But on the other hand, now that Switzerland has passed this law, it can only be a few short steps away from burning heretics, just like they did with Servetus. Hey, she has her slippery slope; I have mine. ---
**Author:** ![elmwood](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/elmwood/32/3060_2.png) [@elmwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elmwood)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/64 "2009-11-30T00:10:03Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > I don’t see the issue as having anything to do with religious intolerance since they aren’t banning mosques or Islam, they are banning the very large and very specific towers. The entire built environment of Switzerland isn’t like the idealized image of timber-framed buildings and gothic churches, though. Go to the 'burbs of a Swiss city, and you’ll find a scene that isn’t that much different than the worst planned 'burbs in the US and Canada; hypermarkets and home improvement stores with plain standardized architecture set behind large parking lots, [chain gas stations with brightly colored canopies](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gas_station_of_Tamoil_in_Geneva,_Switzerland.jpg), and even [freestanding McDonalds with drive-through windows, high-rise signs and Playlands](http://www.flickr.com/photos/mckroes/3308974569/). If a generic McDonalds with a 60’ tall sign can pass muster in the Swiss 'burbs, why not a minaret? ---
**Author:** ![Svejk\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ea666f/32.png) [@Svejk\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Svejk_1)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/65 "2009-11-30T00:12:04Z")
On the face of it this is not a separation of church and state issue, or an issue of the state interfering with religion on behalf of an intolerant majority - it’s only about making a collective decision about what buildings should and should not be built, given the quaint and picturesque buildings that are already there. It is not about the function of the building; as long as you build a swiss-looking building and run a mosque in it, you should be fine … for now. Because the up-shot of what looks like something that could be decided on by a zoning committee is to create limits to practicing the Islam in Western-Europe. What peeves me most about this is that this is completely symbolical politics; it is not (yet) denying Muslims something they really want, as is evinced by the fact that currently in all of Switzerland, there’s only four minarets to begin with. I am fairly certain that most Muslims in Western-Europe will accept that they don’t live in Islamic countries and that this has certain repercussions - which they are also willing to accept - for the centrality of their faith in the public space, including the building of minarets and (more importantly, IMHO) the summoning of believers to come pray from those minarets. By denying this group of people something they don’t really want anyway in most of the cases, the Swiss have emphasised 1) that they don’t trust them and 2) that they see them as ultimately different and not part of Swiss society, not now and not ever. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/66 "2009-11-30T00:12:39Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Wow, man, that’s soooo deep. You blew my mind. :rolleyes: I’m sure it wasn’t a large explosion. ---
**Author:** ![Horatio\_Hellpop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Horatio\_Hellpop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatio_Hellpop)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/67 "2009-11-30T00:15:05Z")
> [@elmwood](#): > > The standard “AmeriKKKa is worse” response in response to bigotry in another country. Sigh. I have yet to hear a decent counter-argument to this, but you can educate me: Should a pot call the kettle black? If I say it shouldn’t, what logical fallacy am I employing? BTW, I’m comparing America to Switzerland, a fellow Western democracy, not some theocratic backwater. It’s apples to apples. ---
**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, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/68 "2009-11-30T00:16:41Z")
> [@Svejk\_1](#): > > On the face of it this is not a separation of church and state issue, or an issue of the state interfering with religion on behalf of an intolerant majority - it’s only about making a collective decision about what buildings should and should not be built, given the quaint and picturesque buildings that are already there. Except that, as **elmwood** just demonstrated in the post right before yours, Switzerland is not a theme park. ---
**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, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/69 "2009-11-30T00:17:42Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > The point is that Switzerland has a culture that they have a right to preserve. And Germany has a culture that the Nazis were eager to preserve. Can’t you see how state-sanctioned bigotry against a particular religion is dangerous and, yes, un-Swiss (insofar as Switzerland, though insular, has prided itself for centuries on its tolerance and liberality). The core of a democratic society includes separation of church and state and equal rights for all, including minorities (religious or otherwise). Preserving of cultures is something that can ideally been done in civil society. And religious culture in particular is no business of the state (except in very narrow cases where the rights of individuals are at stake). This isn’t a problem unique to Switzerland, of course. It’s a problem throughout large swathes of Europe. But the Swiss have really betrayed their own principles–as very large numbers of them seem fully to realize. ---
**Author:** ![Svejk\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ea666f/32.png) [@Svejk\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Svejk_1)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/70 "2009-11-30T00:22:26Z")
I’m not saying it is - I’m saying that _on the face of it_, this is an issue (or: this has been framed as an issue) of making new buildings fit in with the character (whatever that is; some Swiss will say that it’s quaint even if you and I may disagree) of the buildings that are present. Whether the character of the buildings present is hideous and abominable to you is besides the point here; it is a valid concern in many places at least to try not to build things that vehemently detonate with what’s already there. But more importantly, the point I made in my earlier post is that this line of reasoning is being abused to push a policy of intolerance, coated in a layer of ‘we need to preserve the traditional character of our architecture’. ---
**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, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/71 "2009-11-30T00:24:41Z")
> [@Krokodil](#): > > I have yet to hear a decent counter-argument to this, but you can educate me: Should a pot call the kettle black? If I say it shouldn’t, what logical fallacy am I employing? BTW, I’m comparing America to Switzerland, a fellow Western democracy, not some theocratic backwater. It’s apples to apples. The specific logical fallacy is known as [_tu quoque_](http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html). > [@](#): > > No community enacts laws forbidding a mosque or Islamic academy, but in my old stomping grounds of the DC suburbs (City of Fairfax, Montgomery and Frederick Counties), several citizen’s groups routinely opposed, delayed and stymied the expansion and construction of such institutions at town meetings and zoning hearings. I don’t distinguish between these and the Swiss law voted in, but you may if you wish. Both reflect the values of the communities involved in defiance of their nations’ existing constitutions. Opposition to the expansion of mosques or Islamic schools isn’t necessarily illegitimate (or at any rate, isn’t any more illegitimate than any other application of zoning laws, if one wants to get all capital-L Libertarian about it). American communities (presumably with Christian majorities) sometimes oppose the expansion of churches on understandable grounds of noise, traffic, and so on. To the extent that some American communities try to use zoning laws to stymie mosques (where they wouldn’t do so to a church with a comparable footprint), this is wrong, and should be opposed. However, the U.S. hasn’t passed what (appears to be) a constitutional amendment banning minarets in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, or even a national act of Congress doing such. If something is wrong, rather than saying “Oh, well, but everyone does it”, one should rather oppose the wrong wherever it occurs. ---
**Author:** ![Horatio\_Hellpop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Horatio\_Hellpop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatio_Hellpop)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/72 "2009-11-30T00:25:17Z")
> [@elmwood](#): > > The Islamic school was trying to expand; it was already established. Such zoning conflicts are common with the expansion of Christian, Jewish and secular private schools. > > Mosques got blocked? Same thing happens with churches and synagogues if there is a conflict with zoning regulations, and the zoning is RLUIPA-compliant. > > If a mosque is blocked in a certain location under a RLUIPA-compliant zoning code, so would any equivalent church, synagogue, temple, gurdwara, or any other place of worship. Did you read the websites of the groups blocking the school in Fairfax? Zoning codes and preservation of architectural integrity were the least of their stated concerns. Both websites descended into hatemongering screeds pretty quickly. ---
**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:** [November 30, 2009, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/73 "2009-11-30T00:28:06Z")
> [@Svejk\_1](#): > > I’m not saying it is - I’m saying that _on the face of it_, this is an issue (or: this has been framed as an issue) of making new buildings fit in with the character (whatever that is; some Swiss will say that it’s quaint even if you and I may disagree) of the buildings that are present. Um, no. As pointed out upthread it was proposed by “the nationalist Swiss People’s Party”, an organization that apparently is racist and xenophobic in general. So, “on the face of it” this is all about xenophobia, not buildings. ---
**Author:** ![Svejk\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ea666f/32.png) [@Svejk\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Svejk_1)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/74 "2009-11-30T00:33:18Z")
Just because I offer some more analysis beyond mere outrage does not make me stupid, or blind to what is going on: It \*is \*about xenophobia - I’ve pointed that out in both my posts. What I also pointed out is that it is not strictly a matter of church and state separation, or interference in religious practice, because it _is_ about buildings at the same time. Clearly the right has managed to frame this issue in a way that makes it ostensibly NOT about interference with religion, which makes it all the more sneaky, I would argue. ---
**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, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/75 "2009-11-30T00:33:49Z")
> [@Svejk\_1](#): > > I’m not saying it is - I’m saying that _on the face of it_, this is an issue (or: this has been framed as an issue) of making new buildings fit in with the character (whatever that is; some Swiss will say that it’s quaint even if you and I may disagree) of the buildings that are present. Whether the character of the buildings present is hideous and abominable to you is besides the point here; it is a valid concern in many places at least to try not to build things that vehemently detonate with what’s already there. But more importantly, the point I made in my earlier post is that this line of reasoning is being abused to push a policy of intolerance, coated in a layer of ‘we need to preserve the traditional character of our architecture’. Where is your evidence that this is a primarily architectural issue? According to the _Times_ article (already posted above): “Of 150 mosques or prayer rooms in Switzerland, only 4 have minarets, and only 2 more minarets are planned. None conduct the call to prayer. There are about 400,000 Muslims in a population of some 7.5 million people.” Hardly seems that there is a major architectural threat that’s been stopped in its tracks. ---
**Author:** ![Horatio\_Hellpop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Horatio\_Hellpop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatio_Hellpop)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/76 "2009-11-30T00:39:34Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > The specific logical fallacy is known as [_tu quoque_](http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html). The link gives the example of a quote by Osama bin Ladin, which is a heartbeat away from crossing [Godwin’s Law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum). My preferred example, which supports the legitimacy of such arguments, is that the draft dodgers, pot smokers and adulterers in congress lacked the standing to call Bill Clinton a draft-dodging, pot smoking adulterer but did so anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Svejk\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ea666f/32.png) [@Svejk\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Svejk_1)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/77 "2009-11-30T00:40:30Z")
[QUOTE= Dorothea Book] Where is your evidence that this is a primarily architectural issue? According to the Times article (already posted above): “Of 150 mosques or prayer rooms in Switzerland, only 4 have minarets, and only 2 more minarets are planned. None conduct the call to prayer. There are about 400,000 Muslims in a population of some 7.5 million people.” Hardly seems that there is a major architectural threat that’s been stopped in its tracks. [/QUOTE] > [@](#): > > What peeves me most about this is that this is completely symbolical politics; it is not (yet) denying Muslims something they really want, as is evinced by the fact that currently in all of Switzerland, there’s only four minarets to begin with. Who said that? Oh wait, it was ME! Well, it was 10 posts up so you can hardly be expected to remember it I guess. Anyway, what I’ve been trying to say that the right in Switzerland has managed to frame their xenophobia in architectural/public space concerns (concerns that were clearly not even an issue to begin with) so that technically, this is not an issue of church/state separation, but really something that can be sold as something far more benign (although I’ll agree that it is, before I get painted over with the Nazi-brush that you wielded so eagerly in post #69). “Of course we’re not infringing on Muslim’s rights, we’re just protecting traditional Swiss values” - and thus commences the slippery slope. ---
**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, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/78 "2009-11-30T01:01:18Z")
> [@Svejk\_1](#): > > Who said that? Oh wait, it was ME! Well, it was 10 posts up so you can hardly be expected to remember it I guess. Anyway, what I’ve been trying to say that the right in Switzerland has managed to frame their xenophobia in architectural/public space concerns (concerns that were clearly not even an issue to begin with) so that technically, this is not an issue of church/state separation, but really something that can be sold as something far more benign (although I’ll agree that it is, before I get painted over with the Nazi-brush that you wielded so eagerly in post #69). “Of course we’re not infringing on Muslim’s rights, we’re just protecting traditional Swiss values” - and thus commences the slippery slope. I’m sorry **Švejk** if I missed your earlier post–sometimes when you are writing a post you miss something while composing. And I certainly wasn’t planning to tar you as a Nazi (nor do I think painted **magellan01** as a Nazi even though he was the person I addressed on that topic). But do I have your permission to describe the Swiss People’s Party in that light? 🙂 Okay–so to quote from the post of yours which I missed: > [@](#): > > On the face of it this is not a separation of church and state issue, or an issue of the state interfering with religion on behalf of an intolerant majority - it’s only about making a collective decision about what buildings should and should not be built, given the quaint and picturesque buildings that are already there." I disagree that it _isn’t_ a matter of church/state separation even “on the face of it.” Legally it clearly is a church/state issue: what else can it be if the constitution is amended to forbid certain kinds of religious building? The Swiss electorate has not voted for a ban on all narrow buildings over ten feet high; they have voted for a ban on a particular Islamic kind of building that (as you also realize) was in no great danger of overtaking the Swiss landscape in any case. If I understand you correctly you are trying to say that what is being “sold” as an architectural issue is actually more ominous. To which I reply, yes, it’s more ominous, in part because it seeks to involve the state in a ban against a particular religion–by banning a type of building associated with that religion and that religion alone. Moreover, if the political poster shown and described in the _Times_ article is any indication, the campaign has played on fears of religious fundamentalism and even terrorism (missile shaped minarets?) So I’m not sure that your architectural soft sell theory is correct. Did I miss some earlier post of yours in which you offered some support for it? (You may well be right–the only I thing I know for sure about this issue comes from the _Times_ article and what I’ve read here in this thread.) ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/79 "2009-11-30T01:05:37Z")
My opinion is that it’s a disgusting display of bigotry. If minarets and the call to prayer (the latter already banned in Switzerland, IIRC) are outlawed, then church steeples, crosses on churches, and similar other constructions should be banned, as well as the ringing of church bells. ---
**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, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366/80 "2009-11-30T01:08:38Z")
> [@Krokodil](#): > > The link gives the example of a quote by Osama bin Ladin, which is a heartbeat away from crossing [Godwin’s Law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum). My preferred example, which supports the legitimacy of such arguments, is that the draft dodgers, pot smokers and adulterers in congress lacked the standing to call Bill Clinton a draft-dodging, pot smoking adulterer but did so anyway. Your objection to the _tu quoque_ article strikes me as yet another _ad homimen_ in itself, but whatever. (If Hitler used a logical fallacy that doesn’t mean that it wasn’t a logical fallacy, just because it would be impolite to point out that _Hitler_ was the guy using it.) If someone were supporting using zoning laws to block construction of a minaret in Fairfax (on basically the grounds that “We’ve got to keep them Muslims out of here”), but then turned around and said “Oh, that’s awful what those Swiss have done! What an unjust infringement upon the great principle of religious liberty!” then that person would (obviously) be a raging hypocrite. Note that their arguments against the Swiss referendum wouldn’t necessarily be _wrong_; it’s just that the person making them is being blatantly hypocritical by not applying those same arguments to their own actions. I have never supported passing laws against building mosques (or mosques with minarets specifically), or using existing, otherwise neutral laws to block construction of mosques (or Islamic academies; or churches, churches with steeples, synagogues, ashrams, shrines, or temples of any sort). Therefore I am free to criticize people who do so, whether they’re in Virginia or Switzerland. If you can show that someone in this thread supported blocking mosques in their own home town, but are now turning around and criticizing the Swiss for doing the same thing, then go ahead and point out that person’s hypocrisy. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/switzerland-bans-minarets/519366.md?page=5)