I don’t get it…the Swiss are saying to immigrants:" we like our country the way it is"-what is wrong with this? Ask me when ANY muslim country allows Christian churches to be built.
The muslims seem to be hypocritical-they want freedom for their religious beliefs, but they don’t want the same freedom extended to others. Ad to that, their insane reactions when they think their religion has been insulted (ask the Danes).
For some reason I thought the Swiss were voting on a ban on the constuction on mosques. So while new mosques will still be allowed they have to look exactly like the surrounding buildings, is that right? Either way this is not a good sign. Isn’t there a similiar problem in Greece where the Greek Orthodox Church has bloked the contruction of mosques in Athens? Hasn’t Switzerland always been more conservative than it’s neighbors in Western Europe? We are talking about a country that didn’t give women the vote until 1971 and even then one canton held out until 1990.
Okay, as I have visited the operating cathedral in Morocco, Rabat, as well as new Churches in Lebanon and Jordan, shall I ask you now? Also the one in Dakar, Senegal.
I’d say that on both sides there are a bunch of half-informed (if not wholly ignorant) stereotypes and false facts floating about that poison the discussion from the start.
:rolleyes: There are Christian churches in most Muslim countries. They’re not all Saudi Arabia.
It is not simply a matter of minarets. There are a number of issues here.
There is the question of architecture and the appropriateness of having minarets or not. Surely this is a planning and development matter?
There is also the question of outsiders coming into another country and maintaining a foreign culture, quite at odds with the native culture, rather than assimilating. Should this be tolerated? Should it be banned? Should all foreigners be required to assimilate?
Islam is a religion that is into proselytising. Like Christianity. Switzerland is basically protestant, except for a few cantons in the south, AFAIK. There is a strong religious sentiment, generally. [A friend asked for directions to a church that happened to be Catholic and received the reply: Zurich ist protestant, Gott sei Dank!] Probably much more so than in the rest of Europe. So, is Switzerland allowed to preserve its own religion? Or must it give free rein to a foreign one that may, or may not, harbour elements hostile to western culture in general?
Should a country ban the importation of the religious books and symbols of another religion than its own? Or should it allow them freely to enter?
What does Saudi Arabia do? Should that be taken as an example?
I would maintain that when foreigners come to live in another country is is not unreasonable to require them to assimilate and take on the customs and practices of their new country. But where that leads to, in terms of religion, I cannot say. I would have no problem if it remained a private and personal matter. Where it has been found wanting in the past, as in Britain, then it should be kept under surveillance. Where is it law-abiding and posing no political or social threat, then it should be left alone. This is for all religions, not just Islam. In fact, I would be curious as to how some American sects would fare in Switzerland.
Just somethings to ponder.
I will say this, though, that having come to live in France, I have made every effort to assimilate. I learnt the language, I have joined organisations, I participate in French life as fully as possible, and I expect that no allowances to be made for me in terms of any un-French ways I may have. When corrected about something, I take it as part of a learning curve. I could not conceive of behaving differently.
Should we roll tanks into Chinatown? :rolleyes:
To answer your question, no they shouldn’t. You also make the assumption that they weren’t assimilating, or that if they weren’t, it was their fault and not the fault of the society in question refusing to let them.
The referendum is non-binding. The government has already come out and said the ban in unconstitutional and so will have no effect. And that it in any case is entirely in the hands of the regions to decide for themselves. And that further it is already illegal to use towers to call to prayer – on account of the noise.
I don’t hold Switzerland to any higher standard than any other nation and all in all my outrage about this is about on par with my outrage that new Christian churches, Hindu and Jewish temples and not least Asatru sacred grooves are illegal or severely restricted in most of the Muslim world. It concerns me no more or less that there is no church in Mecca than there is no Minaret in Bern. Except the ban against minarets in Bern is non-existing, so that leaves me…
Do you have any cite for the referendum being non-binding? According to the New York Times article on this, “the ban on minaret construction automatically becomes part of the Constitution” and “The Swiss cabinet, or Federal Council, issued a statement that it ‘respects this decision. Consequently, the construction of new minarets in Switzerland is no longer permitted.’”
This is why I no longer celebrate American Thanksgiving or the Fourth of July.
Not really. National radio broadcast. Here’s some from a newspaper:
From CBC News:
Cite? They’re certainly restricted in Saudi Arabia (though I believe the gov’t there has started allowing Catholic Churches to serve the fillipino population), but that includes something like 2% of the worlds muslims. Certainly in the places where most Muslim immigrants to Switzarland are actually from (Bosnia and Turkey) this isn’t true.
Plus, are the Swiss really comfortable with their laws being defended by the argument that “hey, its not as bad as a repressive theocratic monarchy like Saudi Arabia”.
The standard “AmeriKKKa is worse” response in response to bigotry in another country. Sigh.
No community in the United States bans mosques and Islamic academies. None. A few places tried to ban calls to prayer, but such bans were overturned by the courts. Such a ban would both be unconstitutional, and violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).
In zoning codes that use archaic language that permits “churches”, but don’t mention other types of places of worship, “church” is interpreted to mean any place of worship for any religion. Contemporary zoning codes use “place of worship or assembly”, not “church”.
I don’t know and don’t care. I commented on what concerned me.
Two points to start with: 1) haven’t been to Switzerland and 2) don’t understand at all what they are trying to accomplish.
But consider an area that is trying to preserve an “image.” If you look at the google images of Switzerland you get these very picturesque and quaint little villages. Watching the Tour de France I’m always astonished by the beauty of the towns they pass through. On the surface, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to want to preserve that. You’ll also notice that the towns all have very consistent architecture and a very large church. That is the “image” of a European town.
It also doesn’t seem unreasonable that a place, with an image they want to preserve, would go about trying to control that image. Here are two similar stories when you search for “ban McDonald’s sign” I also know of places (like the city I grew up in) that bans buildings over a certain height, or restricts certain architecture.
Itallian town bans ethnic food
City of Dallas has a ban on window signs in businesses.
I have been to India, and the minarets are everywhere you look. Not a bad thing at all, in fact I find them really cool looking. But I also associate that image with India, Turkey, Pakistan and the MENA. As far as tourism goes, they are not associated at all with Switzerland or Western Europe.
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.
Did you even read the sites you cited?
Frederick County was about rezoning an agricultural land. If it had been a Walmart, I’m sure the same thing would have happened.
Rockville was about the federal government seize the property because Iran was using the mosque as a front to illegally funnel money back to Iran.
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.
Zoning law texts are filled with cases of attempts at blocking synagogues in various communities. Are those communities anti-Semitic? No; they’re usually predominantly Jewish suburbs. The population is usually Reform and Conservative, and they attempt to block Orthodox shuls because Orthodox families tend to have very large families (and thus be more of a drain on municipal services than smaller hosueholds), and because communities with Orthodox populations often need to make special public safety accommodations for Orthodox communities (very frequent police patrols on Shabbat, since many won’t even call 911 even a life-threatening emergency, or lock their doors). Such attempts at banning Orthodox shuls are usually defeated in the courts.
Eh, no dice. The referendum was proposed by one of the most intolerant parties in Switzerland. From this article:
"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.’”
So do you have a cite for most of the Muslim world severly restricting the building of new churches?
FWIW, the 10 countries with the most Muslims (having somewhere between 60-75% of the total) are Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Egypt, Nigeria, Iran, Turkey, Algeria, Morocco). Of those India, Turkey and Bangladesh have secular gov’ts and guarentees to religious freedoms.
Here’s and organization raising money to build churches in Egypt. Here’s a pdf about the dedication of a new church in Pakistan.
I suspect your wrong.