So how do you address the people who have pointed out that the minarets don’t look “Islamic” but do fit in with the landscape?
And if Switzerland is changing with the immigration, what is “Swiss” may indeed come to include some slightly different buildings.
It’s a known fact that Muslims have been in and out of Europe for, well, centuries. Spain is a good example of this.
I wonder, how much of “good European” culture, medicine, mathematics, astronomy, architecture,etc etc etc etc had Muslim origins.
Maybe we should “do a reboot”. We can toss the Arabic number system first and go back to Roman numerals. That would be a start. Then, we’d have to start knocking down buildings, because many of them use “Islamic” construction methods. Better burn the medical books too.
If we’re gonna go “pure” we may as well go all the way :dubious:
What you’re consistently overlooking is that the Muslims who want to build minarets in Switzerland are also Swiss.
Well, that’s one of the things you’re consistently overlooking. You’ve also steadfastly ignored the people pointing out that a minaret can be built to fit into Swiss architectural styles, and that no one is trying to ban commercial buildings that don’t fit into the Swiss style, but aren’t associated with a religious minority. Your protestations that this is a perfectly legitimate area of legislation with no prejudicial overtones would be easier to swallow if they’d started off banning, say, McDonalds, which are far more common in Switzerland, and just as incongruous with the traditional archetectual style there.
Wow, then all those Muslim countries that ban not only church steeples & bells but new church construction, & even repair & maintenance on churches, they must be dead. :rolleyes:
You have it wrong. Cultures “survive” by fighting change. A culture that welcomes all change ceases to be the same culture.
I sound like Mark Steyn here, which is hilarious, but there it is.
I think banning minarets (not mosques, not Islam, not congregations of worship) is reasonable. They’re giant noisemakers.
Seriously ill, at the least. Try to lock down your culture from change and you end up with everyone ignoring Official Mandated Culture in favor of the latest hit from outside. Healthy cultures change.
“Laws like this are a good idea, because they’ll prevent Western nations from turning into Islamic theocracies. And they’re morally justifiable, because Islamic theocracies have the same sort of laws!”
The utter, self-annihilating irony of this doesn’t make any impact on you at all, does it?
But all cultures change. I mean, they’re constantly changing. Look at all the different cities in the U.S. They’re all part of one culture, but some cities are exposed to many different subcultures. And within cities, there are neighborhoods and cultures.
It just seems really bigoted to say that a culture can’t be changed by immigrants, but only by the people who have been there the longest time. How many generations does it take before you’re Swiss enough to be taken seriously?
I say the Swiss can restrict their skyline however they’d like. If that means that the only spire type features be steeples, so be it.
If the Swiss want that to happen, then fine. If they don’t, then that’s fine, too. I love the fact that their aware of the distinctive look of their villages, often people aren’t aware of things like that until they’re gone. I’ve zero problem with the building restrictions in San Francisco, for instance. Except that I wish they had instituted more restrictions earlier, as it would have avoided things that don’t fit in. And could never be built today. Similarly, place like Cape Cod and Nantucket have tight building restrictions, which I fully support. The only real question here for me is is the church-state issue, and I see that the Swiss are putting no restrictions on building mosques except one architectural feature.
And when there enough of them to vote that minarets are desirable contributions to the skyline, minarets it will be.
Not too attuned to unintended, self-inflicted irony, are you?
Accepted? Yeah, I guess you could call it that if you consider being banned from even announcing prayer times from the towers while Christians are permitted to announce theirs. Nice definition of acceptance you have there.
Thanks. I think so, too.
You mean the ONE SINGLE SOLITARY COUNTRY that bans church construction (forgive me if I’ve overlooked Bhutan or something.) Yes! I think pretty everyone agrees that Saudi Arabia is ruled by a bunch of wackos desperately clinging to a dried-up culture that long ago became too corrupt to even be worth saving. Really, dude, if the best thing you can do is compare yourself to Saudi Arabia, you are doing it wrong.
By your thinking, America, which has an ever-changing hybrid culture influenced by just about everyone in the world, should be failing. So why is it that our movies, language, music and dream dominate the whole darn planet? And why is it that France- which jealously guards it’s culture with ministries of language, child-naming requirements, burka bans, etc. is a marginalized place whose culture has little relevance outside of it’s borders?
You are just wrong here.
Publicly playing the call to prayer was already banned. The minarets in question are merely architectural features and do not make any noise.
Once again, the point has blown far over your head.
Buy a mirror, genius.
Back off.
[ /Modding ]
And Egypt, lacking explicit permission from the President of the country. Just off top my head. And Saddam Hussein didn’t have all those pictures of himself in Iraq’s Xtian churches because he was a saint. It’s a traditional sharia law, which the head of state may waive as an act of grace, & they often do.
OK, this is a reasonable answer, I’ll accept this.
But as to people calling me a hypocrite, I think you miss the point. The Nazi Party is outlawed in Germany because when they had power they used it to destroy all competitors. The Fascists suffered the same lot in Italy. It is entirely sensible to ban any exclusivist religion on the theory that if indulged it will take over & simply ban all others; which is of course exactly what Xtianity did to Greco-Roman religion, & Islam is doing wherever it can even today. Just as it is sensible to incarcerate a serial kidnapper, or shoot a rampaging lion.
Granted, this means Xtianity in its non-syncretic forms should be discouraged where possible, & I don’t know how that’s to work. And perhaps persecution only makes anti-assimilationism & anti-syncretizationism stronger on the part of the persecuted. So maybe it’s smarter to let them build (nice quiet unamplified) minarets. Or, you know, build minarets that fit into the general architectural “feel” of Die Schweiz, purely as a cultural building permit regulation, not a religious one, you understand 
(but my inner Islamophobe is screaming, “That’s how they get their hooks into you!”)
Yes, yes white people bad. We get it. Dead horse beaten.
Seriously though, as I have stated previously I think the law is silly and reactionary. However, it’s a reaction to the very real vacumn on the discussion of immigration into Western countries. Again, how many is too many? Regardless of culture, skin colour, sexual choice etc etc. A country has a right to defend its borders and even define its cultural make up. That right includes limiting the number of immigrants who enter the country. That’s the real issue here and this nonsensical law simply masks that.
Actually the data remains rather unclear which further supports my notion that we can turn the immigration spigot off and see the results. If wages and or other factors continue to struggle then we can just as easily turn it on again. My way is both safer and more practical as the genie is no longer out of the bottle so to speak.