November 29, 2009
Cyrus Hall on the Swiss Islamic Minaret Ban
An email to me from 3QD friend, Cyrus Hall (published with his permission):
Ciao Abbas-
My temporary home of the last five years, Switzerland, has just voted for one of the most bigoted and undemocratic constitutional reforms in recent memory: the banning of Islamic minarets on Mosques. The vote appears to be quite stunning, with 58% of voters backing the ban. This was after the most recent polls showed the measure being rejected by 53%, a story in itself.
This represents the most direct attack on the European Muslim minority yet. The French "headscarf ban" was at least religion neutral -- something I would still argue against (as an Atheist), but I appreciate the attempt at even-handedness. On the other hand, this constitutional amendment targets a small, largely immigrant population (many of whom have no vote), single-handedly banning them from behavior that would be perfectly acceptable were they of any other faith. Outrageous.
This is an issue for 3QD like no other. To me, it represents the continued erosion of Western values, in the U.S. and Europe, and their replacement with vapid platitudes and fear, and deserves all the attention in the world.
It's early still, but some basic news links on the issue include this and this.
I am going to be sick with disgust and revulsion as Hannity, Rush, and other media personalities in the U.S. pick this up as a great example of the way forward, for both Europe and the U.S.
Cheers,
Cyrus
Couldn't agree more, Cyrus. Thanks.
Posted by S. Abbas Raza at 11:26 AM | Permalink
Comments
Very frightening.
Posted by: maniza | Nov 29, 2009 11:51:00 AM
In my adopted countries: Belgium and Italy, there are similiar noises.... Belgium, to its credit, has a much more progressive approach to matters like gay relationships and euthanasia, etc... perhaps such bans will not find traction. Italy is another matter. The Lega Nord trumpets Xtian values and a fearful electorate just laps up the anti-muslim (and more generally, anti immigrant) agit-prop...
I fear for the future...but still hope reason will prevail...
Posted by: Bill | Nov 29, 2009 11:55:17 AM
Maybe the US & other nations should follow Swiss style direct democracy?
The Swiss just voted to ban minarets on mosques and this is a great exercise of their unique form of direct democracy regardless of your views on the subject. But my question is why do the Swiss get to overrule their politicians and parliament and here in the US, we don’t have that right?
Let’s bring Swiss style direct democracy to the United States so Americans can vote on the Wall Street bailouts, government health care, whether to audit or abolish the FED, or require Congress declare war before we invade another country. Read why Switzerland is free and America is not and help restore citizen control over the US government and Congress currently under control of special interests. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/holland9.1.1.html
Posted by: Ron | Nov 29, 2009 12:03:55 PM
The real problem is not with what they decided to ban, but with what they failed to require to be added to every mosque, that is, a dance floor and regular dance classes.
Posted by: first | Nov 29, 2009 12:16:30 PM
Tribalism at its worst. Too bad.
Posted by: icastico | Nov 29, 2009 12:25:22 PM
Agree with Cyrus wholeheartedly, except for one thing: how is this undemocratic?
(It's this an example of illiberal democracy?)
Posted by: Vishal | Nov 29, 2009 12:58:46 PM
Vishal-
I think we are more or less in violent agreement, it's just a choice of emphasis. Certainly the vote was a democratic act. Indeed, the Swiss practice more direct democracy than any other country I am aware of, something I quite respect them for. But in the same way Prop 8 in California enshrined discrimination against a minority population, this constitutional amendment enshrines discrimination against a minority religion. Both are blows against the modern democratic understanding of minority rights, a right found in title 2 of the Swiss constitution. No doubt, future legal battles loom.
Posted by: Cyrus Hall | Nov 29, 2009 1:39:53 PM
Based on what I'd seen in Switzerland during the past two years I was expecting something else. But now, I figure Cyrus is right, many of the people are just ashamed of loudly saying "I don't give a toss to the minorities, and I just don't want to understand what they are saying".
The leader of the campaign [in an interview I just saw] argues that if they let Muslims build minarets, someday they'll see women with covered faces on the streets. Like he wants to say "we don't want to see ANY THING, that looks like Muslims". The very same person in the end says: "Islam has nothing to do with tolerance" !
Posted by: Amir | Nov 29, 2009 2:06:50 PM
I agree in deploring this Swiss measure, but I doubt that the Fox News people will support it. It's more likely that they'll take this as an opportunity to try and show how tolerant they are (even though they're not) by criticizing this result.
Posted by: praymont | Nov 29, 2009 2:45:39 PM
Cyrus,
You write: "Indeed, the Swiss practice more direct democracy than any other country I am aware of, something I quite respect them for."
Would you be in favor of direct democracy in the United States, the subject that Ron raised above? How do you see minority rights protected with governance via direct democracy?
I hadn't heard of the Tenth Amendment Movement Ron mentioned. What do you think of it? I found some info on it on a site called Right Wing Nut House:
Tenth Amendment
Do you see this as a viable way to wrest control from the special interests (primarily corporate) that now largely control governance in the United States? Apparently there is also a burgeoning state secession movement, starting with Vermont (or how to Balkanize in the face of government misfeasance and malfeasance).
Posted by: Louise Gordon | Nov 29, 2009 2:52:03 PM
Louise-
I do not have time for a real discussion of the tenth amendment, nor am I well read on the various related historical discussions, including the many supreme court cases. If you were to force me into a corner, I would come down on the side of States rights, but I do so with the understanding that the 10th does not give States the ability to disregard the rights granted by the constitution and the bill of rights (i.e., civil rights). In the same way I view the 10th, I am in favor of greater direct democracy in the U.S. - i.e, with the understanding that propositions like the Swiss minaret ban would be unconstitutional and not up for a vote.
Would it wrestle away power from special interests? Maybe. I certainly don't see that as a preordained outcome.
Posted by: Cyrus Hall | Nov 29, 2009 4:20:54 PM
The report in NYT.
Posted by: Ruchira | Nov 29, 2009 4:46:35 PM
Thanks, Cyrus.
You write: "Would it wrestle away power from special interests? Maybe. I certainly don't see that as a preordained outcome."
Such an outcome would also involve the 14th Amendment:
Judge Sotomayor & Corporations
David Korten - When Corporations Rule the World
Posted by: Louise Gordon | Nov 29, 2009 4:56:45 PM
Is anything which is referred to as a Minaret banned?
Or is it just the current shape of a minaret as it appears on the right wing posters which got voted against?
Is it the construction of any architecture for mosques in any form which is now banned in Switzerland?
Can someone clarify for me please!
The Swiss are definitely very particular about stuff. How people arrange their stuff plants on balconies, in gardens, where laundry can be hung up to dry--or even how a car is parked in private drive way. Neighbors regularly call the police to make sure that an errant neighbor does what is asthetically proper. They're kind of crazy that way. But hey they like it and no one seems to have called for a revolution. Yet.
If the shape of the four exiting minarets in Switzerland are not asthetically appealing to the Swiss population--then why not have architecture which is appealing to the majority in that landscape?
Who said a mosque or a minaret had to look in any one particular way only? Europe's Islam should look more European, with more of its local sensibilities in its shape and form, no?
Just trying to figure this out.
Posted by: maniza | Nov 29, 2009 5:05:22 PM
Maybe minarets should look like ersatz steeples?
Buildings to books, a lot of conflict:
Bibles
Posted by: Louise Gordon | Nov 29, 2009 6:55:11 PM
Interesting how many people this vote prompted to talk about the great Swiss tradition of religious tolerance. Not exactly what I associate with Swiss history. Remember Jean Calvin?
Also interesting how much irrational rage over pure symbolism is involved in these religio-political controversies, not only in Switzerland but in the U.S. and all over. If the Swiss are worried about terrorism, why not try to do something about combatting terrorism itself instead of fretting about architectural styles? It's as though folks concerned about the bad health effects of fast food got the Golden Arches banned.
Posted by: JonJ | Nov 29, 2009 10:15:38 PM
I never had the impression that Switzerland was much of a heaven for Western tolerant values anyway. These people are the country pumpkins of Europe, who just happened to get rich by having enough common sense to stay out of WW I and II as much as possible. Wealth does not cause tolerance. I assume that being isolated from foreigners in these alpine valleys seriously affected their national psyche. In Switzerland you draw angry looks and distrust even as a German (= same religion, same ethnicity, slightly different language). A very narrow-minded place.
I wouldn't expect any cosmopolitan/tolerant decisions from Switzerland.
Posted by: Klausi | Nov 29, 2009 10:59:42 PM
I'm in rare agreement with Maniza here, since there are (or were) laws in Muslim countries against any other religion's building or spire being taller than a minaret, and minarets are equiped with loudspeakers blaring out 5 times a day, they are clearly intended as signs of cultural dominance. Maybe it is reasonable for the Swiss to decide on their skyline and to consider cultural dominance as something that lies beyond the frame of minority cultural rights?
Posted by: aguy109 | Nov 30, 2009 6:48:47 AM
@Ron
My only problem with direct democracy is the color of my skin. Direct democracy would for me, mean that if a majority of American's wanted to strip my citizenship away because I am black they would have the power to do so. I think that direct democracies are a two edged sword and require constant vigilance and monitoring to ensure that they do not become corrupted. I do not believe that Americans, have or want to have that level of responsibility -- even though they like to talk about it and pretend that they have it (a high level of responsibility that is.)
Posted by: cod3fr3ak | Nov 30, 2009 10:41:20 AM
The minarets are being banned just because they are eye-sores. I'm for it.
Posted by: Decium | Nov 30, 2009 11:17:53 AM
Being Swiss, I feel deeply ashamed for this vote. Too many did not take this crazy right wing nuts seriously, so there was not much of a discussion against this very stupid initiative beforehand. Nevertheless, this should never have happened!
Posted by: Michael | Nov 30, 2009 11:46:38 AM
To clear up some misconceptions and answer some questions: there are a grand total of four minarets currently in Switzerland, and two were in the approval process. None of them issue the call to prayer. None of them are requesting to do so, as far as I know.
All existing minarets were approved in a process where local citizens and the requesting mosque worked out an agreed upon construction plan. The mosque would file for a permit, and submit an initial design. That would then be run past the local community for input. Not all requests were approved in the first round because of citizen concern. This is how Switzerland normally works, and while getting something built can take time, it's rare there are many aggrieved parties in the end. That's by design. Local architectural sensibilities were respected in as much as that process works (it doesn't always). If something is an eyesore, the local community deserves some of the blame.
All minarets are now banned. What is and is not a minaret is not entirely clear as far as I can tell.
Posted by: Cyrus Hall | Nov 30, 2009 11:56:09 AM
Typical atheist - preaching about Christian "intolerance".
Posted by: simon smith | Nov 30, 2009 11:57:11 AM
Just one question: what is a "country pumpkin"? Do they look down on city pumpkins? Sorry, that's two.
Posted by: J.H. | Nov 30, 2009 12:10:10 PM
Good little Swiss are supposed to be blown apart, gang raped, and otherwise emasculated just like their brethern across the UK. How dare they attmept to preserve their own culture! Agreeing with Cyrus and others, all who think it is wrong to stone homosexuals, have intercourse with childrren in "arranged marriages", and kill people who dissent from the book are simply backward and racist. Only when there are minarets in every hamlet of Europe and clothing covering every bit of flesh for women will we all be truly free from racism and xenophobia.
Posted by: Unitedincommonsense | Nov 30, 2009 1:00:33 PM
I would like to see minarets torn down, along with steeples, of course.
Posted by: J.H. | Nov 30, 2009 1:11:44 PM
Just as soon as roving bands of Christians are gang raping girls (i.e., all of Swedens more than 400 officially reported rapes last year were committed by Arabs) or when Christians are forcing dozens of politicians or commentators to accept 24-hour 365-day police protection under pain of death (i.e., Dutch cartoonists, Gert Wilders, et al) or when Christians are blowing up train stations and highjacking airliners (i.e. anywhere that disagrees with muslim doctrine)...well, then you will have a point. Until that time you are trying muddy up the water in order to equate one thing with all things. Bottom line, you may disagree with Christians (or Buddhists or Taoists or Jews) but none of these number their crazies in the millions with the intent to murder those who dissent. A Christian or Buddhist or Jew may annoy an athiest or contratian, but very rarely will one of those believers (let alone millions of them) try to rape or murder their opponents into agreeing with him. That's the difference.
Posted by: Unitedincommonsense | Nov 30, 2009 1:21:39 PM
Why do the Swiss want to cross out the minaret?
Thank you Cyrus for the clarifications and more information.
So we still don’t know why minarets are banned?
Mosques aren’t banned, but minarets are. Do the Swiss consider them as one and the same thing?
So a consultation process was followed with the communities where the four existing minarets were constructed. Would be interesting to know how these commuities voted in this vote.
So why do the Swiss want to cross out the minarets?
Is it because of the pretty strong global smear campaign which is hard to ignore or not be frightened by?
Is it the missiles that appear on the right-wing poster that the Swiss are reacting against as eyesores? Surely the 53% voters are not all in vicinity of the real minarets in Switzerland. What was the voting outcomes in the four localities (six if you count the two applications in process) where the 4-6 minarets exist.
Banning Minarets just as minarets is absurd. Minaret or Minar as a word simply means "tower". By that definition all towers would be banned? Which would include amongst them lighthouses, skyscrapers and of course steeples.
What constitutes a tall or short cylindrical structure with a conical dome on top being a problem? Is it only a problem when it has a Muslim in its vicinity, next to it, on it-around it, below it?
Do the Swiss consider any tower adorning a mosque an eyesore? Even though it is a tower with the same functions and aesthetic as a steeple on a church?
How many requests for new steeples were made or are in the approval process? None? More than the two minaret requests are less?
The Swiss seem to be defining Minaret to mean a symbol of Islam. In which case they would be wrong.
But we can understand them it is a natural mistake since they have religious symbols---they have a cross on their flag.
Minaret in Switzerland in this case seems to mean a tower from where a muezzin sings out the call to prayer to Muslims (even though this does not happen in Switzerland). I assume church bells ring from steeples in Switzerland? But this is understandable. Totally understandable. The host population is afraid of losing its culture and aesthetics. Its also a host population which doesn't have demographics on its side, which probably is not replenishing as fast as the minority immigrant population. Instead of banning minarets the Swiss probably need to get busy.
Honestly, though if you were to put loudspeakers at mosques to a vote—in a neighborhood in Karachi are Lahore or any neighborhood in any city in Pakistan and ask them whether they needed another loudspeaker adorned minaret on a mosque the vote wouldn’t just be 53% Yes for banning the loudspeakers but rather closer to 98%.
This could be either a wonderful opportunity for some new, fresh wholly European influenced version of a mosque to be designed. Or, dreadfully, to pen another Magic Mountain.
But the Swiss vote is not about the nuisance value of an over abundance of loudspeakers or mosques and religion—it’s about banning the very symbol of a particular religion.
If this is all about the existence of mosques and the right of Muslims to exist as worshipping muslims then Radovan Karadzic sitting at the Hague's war crimes tribunal at this very moment must be laughing at this endless hypocrisy.
Posted by: maniza | Nov 30, 2009 1:50:54 PM
Religious rights end at the point where they disturb non religious people. Amplified calls to prayer fit into this category. So do amplified rants about Jesus on the streets of New York. These are serious disturbances of the peace. There is no justification for banning minarets or steeples, unless all towers are considered to be eyesores in a community. Then you would have laws against any tall structures - radio towers, chimneys, etc. Banning religious symbols in public schools is justified as schools should should strive for religious neutrality and should avoid a situation where students identify themselves as part of a religious sect.
Posted by: J.H. | Nov 30, 2009 2:09:42 PM
Like most, I'm deeply concerned by the Swiss vote resulting in the formal ban on Minarets. What kind of future does this point to? While time bides itself delivering the answer, the present indexes an expanding erosion of core Western values of tolerance and amnesty. A country with no reason to fear its Muslim minority, is taking the forefront in formally suppressing them. Let's stick to words that everyone can understand: this is not good. And in all likelihood, is not headed for a direction that's any better.
That being said, it also indexes how Western patience is nearing exhaustion towards Muslim nations. And unfortunately, with good reason. This religion which supposedly champions brotherhood and goodness, is repeatedly hijacked by murderous and oppressive regimes (and individuals), without even slightly more moderate Muslim regimes stepping in to arrest the deviant behavior of their misguided fellow Muslims.
Is that what brotherhood means- to allow your brother to terrorize his family, so long as it's not in your house?
Consider the embarrassment that is the Taliban. Although ousting them was only an incidental US war-aim, it was still the US that finally deposed this brutal, populace-bullying abomination of a government. Why wasn't it carried out long before by a any of the well-equipped Muslim nations like Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, etc? Or why is it that following the 2004 Tsunami, wealthy oil-rich countries were so stingy, donating next to nothing to victims of this natural catastrophe? Or why is it that an undertone of misogyny is near ubiquitous in Muslim nations, and that honor killings are still so prevalent? Or that homosexuality is punishable by capital punishment in the so-called heart of Islam, Saudi Arabia? How is it that the very place which due to its history and stature should exemplify Muslim decency, implements without hesitation, policies a Nazi official would probably have nodded approvingly (if not amusingly) towards? And why is it that so few Muslim leaders, national or otherwise, address such crucial, world-opinion-forming issues? Why aren't Muslims reigning in those responsible for the atrocities carried out in the name of Islam? Banning minarets is a policy rooted bigotry, of course. It's simple communication through symbols: "We accept you, but don't welcome your religion. Change, or later we might not accept you either." Yet, impatience and fear of Islam, is unfortunately rooted in reality. Islam, both as a religion and engine of social cohesion, desperately needs to embrace humanism in practice, and not just in Koranic print.
Naturally however, the coin has more than one side. While most Westerners believe Islamic nations are hugely successful exporters of terrorism, a look at our own behavior (by individual nations and via coalitions) indicates that we are comparatively much worse and exceedingly more murderous. Since its inception, the US has facilitated Israeli oppression of Palestinians. The US was found guilty of war crimes against Nicaragua, and subsequently boycotted the verdict. The West, feigning noble intentions through the UN, allowed the Rwandan genocide to unfold- an easily preventable low-tech genocide carried with machetes. Add to this two gulf-wars, the war on terror, Afghanistan, torture, the loosely official war in Vietnam, and we reveal ourselves as manufacturers of violence on a scale that suicide-bombers undoubtedly envy. Clearly the adage, "Lead by example," does not apply to us. Dirty fingers should not point at objects claiming they are not clean. Then again, pointing at criminality is always necessary; we must simply stop neglecting to do so at ourselves as well.
After all, our separate cultures have identical reasons for embarrassment, not to mention near paralyzing introspection. The banning of Minarets is simply a symptom of what both cultures are continuing to lose: tolerance, humanity and self-awareness.
Posted by: L | Nov 30, 2009 2:20:37 PM
Some of your questions can start to be answered here:
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/multimedia/video/detail.html?siteSect=15045&ty=vn&sid=11218918
Posted by: Cyrus Hall | Nov 30, 2009 2:32:07 PM
As someone who lives in the Middle East, I am skeptical of your indignation over the minaret-banning. Many Moslem countries have no tolerance for non-Moslem forms of worship, and in Lebanon where the religions are in a cold war, Moslems frequently build mosques to overshadow nearby churches. It's a very raw subject.
By the by, I am also skeptical of your indignation because religion is given scant respect on 3QD *except* when it has to do with Islam. Hm, pro-scientism and pro-Islam; does anybody else see the contradiction?
Posted by: Steve | Nov 30, 2009 2:47:03 PM
Prior to 1950 in France number of "no go" areas: 0
Prior to 1950 in England number of "no go" areas: 0
Prior to 1950 in Switzerland number of "no go" areas: 0
Current offical "no go" areas (zones urbaines sensibles) in France: 751
Current official "no go" areas in the UK: over 100
Current offical "no go" areas in Switzerland: To be determined
Posted by: Unitedincommonsense | Nov 30, 2009 3:21:16 PM
Look at all the racists come out to play!
Steve,
Right now there one Arab nation that does not allow religious tolerance: Saudi Arabia. In all others, freedom of religion is protected by law, including tax free status. (The other Wahabi state, Qatar, does not allow steeples on churches--perhaps that's where the Swiss got the idea?)
What theocracies do is besides the point, of course. Western democracies base their standards of tolerance and equal protection under the law on enlightenment values, not on vendetta mentality.
Unitedincommonsense,
I know you have a lot of cutting and pasting to do today, but we really appreciate that you dropped by!
Posted by: Chris Schoen | Nov 30, 2009 3:46:48 PM
"Look at all the racists come out to play!"
Yes, look at all the rational, enlightened commenters of 3QD going ad hominem...
I lived in Moslem countries where freedom of religion is nominally protected by law; I welcome you to go there and talk about Jesus. Or Darwin!
It's true that Western democracies are held to different standards than theocracies. But the Swiss people spoke, and yet the people who know better would wish to overrule them. The "people who know better" are referred to, elsewhere, as mullahs.
Posted by: Steve | Nov 30, 2009 4:32:16 PM
I agree Steve. I'm presently living in a Muslim country. Good luck discussing Darwin indeed, or Dawkins, or evolution, or women as something other than objects which are "a gift from God."
I also love the so-called respect for other religions. I'm Buddhist, which means that while not believing in any depictions of God, I'm open to the idea of a creative force, although I'd never claim to know what it is, nor do I expect I'll ever find out in my life-time. I'm happy simply being Buddhist, and living life peacefully. Even if an atheist, a person should not live without an existential core.
Therefore, to many Muslims, I look like little more than a prospective new Muslim. I can't tell you how many times they've tried to convert me. Sometimes I feel they're happy to discover I'm Buddhist because they feel part of the conversion work is already done for them: the individual already has a spiritual predisposition. What masks itself as good intentions to discuss religion is actually an attempt to convert me to theirs. Live and let live is clearly a very flexible concept.
Posted by: L | Nov 30, 2009 4:58:42 PM
Steve,
Explain again how defense of equal rights makes one a "mullah"? And reassure me that you would be just as sanguine if one of the Muslim countries you mention had elected by popular referendum to ban the building of Christian bell towers and steeples. Would you applaud their democratic spirit, and call any Christians who thought they knew better "mullahs" too?
Posted by: Chris Schoen | Nov 30, 2009 5:58:43 PM
Steve, I'm not clear where anyone has called for the overthrow of the Swiss government and the changing of the law by force. If you're saying that no decision that is taken democratically can be criticized as wrong, stupid, or evil, you then have a heroic case to make. If your point is that there's rank intolerance in Muslim countries, which therefore that justifies fucking Muslim minorities over here, then you'll have to make the case for the desirability and rationality of what seems to me any way the politics of tribalism. I don't see how making it less easy to practice Islam in the West helps in anyway to encourage greater tolerance towards minorities in Muslim countries.
Posted by: Robin | Nov 30, 2009 6:00:53 PM
What I object to is this idea that "tolerance" is some essential Western virtue. It is not. We are *all* tribal -- in the Middle East and in Europe. It is best to acknowledge this and manage it, not devolve into ad hominem attacks and a sense of superiority. In fact we should humiliate ourselves before this fact.
"Tolerance" is an invention of technocrats -- Europe wanted cheap immigrant labor, and so someone had to invent tolerance as a civilized virtue; as it happens, only those rich enough to afford tolerance have it. The rest resent your tolerance, your money, and the immigrants. Face the truth and deal with it instead of throwing mud.
Posted by: Steve | Nov 30, 2009 6:25:31 PM
Don't want to die in a bombbed airplane? = racist
Don't want to die in a bombed train station? = racist
Don't want to be raped for being native European? = racist
Don't want to be stoned for being homosexual? = racist
Don't want to be forced to completely cover your body with a bedsheet? = racist
Don't want to be knifed for a disagreement in conversation? = racist
Don't want to see your own Culture of 2000 years forcibly displaced by massive Anti-Culture immigration and rule by technocrats? = racist
Yes, when it comes to self-preservation of life, liberty, property, person, free opinion, traditional culture, self-determination, Democratic government, non-violence, equal rights not special rights, and simply being left alone among your own people to decide your own values and your own way of life the "racists" certainly do come out in numbers.
Posted by: Unitedincommonsense | Nov 30, 2009 7:15:59 PM
Unite:
Coming from a perspective of dialectical materialism, you are correct, if one throws out the ideology.
Islam is a toxoc, brutal religion, that practices misogyny and is anti democratic in all countries that it is the dominant superstition and institution.
Turkey or Indonesia are its high point's of democratic values, and they are very anti democratic.
They produce virtually nothing of importance in the scientific community.
However, at what point do you suppress freedom in your country to protect your society from this toxiity?
Do you lower your own standards to Mecca or Mogadishu?
The Dutch are struggling with this, after being a place of tolerance for 400 years, and now have their artists and politicians being slaughtered over religion and superstition.
I don't have the answers.
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Nov 30, 2009 8:59:05 PM
I would like to see minarets torn down, along with steeples, of course.
This is the logical solution. All religious symbols should not be displayed. That are offensive, and in civilized societies religion should only be practiced by consenting adults.
Children should be protected from this child abuse.
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Nov 30, 2009 9:15:31 PM
for better or worse, i'm not surprised. i switzerland you have to build a stick outilne of your house extension and keep it up for several months to let neighbors decide if it will cause them problems. they about control and limited space and hating the germans.
not surprised at all about architectural features out of the ordinary getting outlawed.
Posted by: dean | Nov 30, 2009 9:29:01 PM
Oh hell! We'll have to settle for Stowe again this year when we had our hearts set on Gstaad!
Dave, have you ever considered running for dictator?
Posted by: Louise Gordon | Dec 1, 2009 12:11:18 AM
I don't see this as an abandonment of western values. It is, if anything, an expansion. Of the definition of the anti-semitism that Western Europe has a long and proud history of.
Posted by: J'accuse! | Dec 1, 2009 1:11:39 AM
Louise,
The minarets at Stowe are quite underappreciated.
Posted by: Chris Schoen | Dec 1, 2009 1:21:04 AM
With all those towers, the chickens will have plenty of room to come home to roost.
Posted by: aguy109 | Dec 1, 2009 1:27:01 AM
Dave, have you ever considered running for dictator?
I'm a syndicalist, I'm for organizing from the bottom up.
Shut down Bank of America in SF for 2 hours today, but escaped arrest this time, but 4 friends got nabbed.
Most people instinctively
know what is right, when given the ability to think critically.
Why not something out west?
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Dec 1, 2009 1:41:36 AM
I would like to compare this to another banned religious symbol: The swastika. (I am not saying that islam is similar to Nazism, I am only comparing the only two banned religious symbols that I can think of which are popular.
The swastika is a symbol of oppression, anti semitism and genocide in the west yet in the east in Hinduism and Buddhism it is a religious symbol. Why is it banned?
Likewise, minarets (along with christian crosses, crescent moons and stars of david) are all symbols of oppression. If you doubt this just look at the actions of the god of those religions as told in their holy books. With muslims it is simply easier to see the oppression and racism etc.
In a perfect society I am not in favor of banning symbols because that is just silly. But when a symbol stands for such horrible things as the minaret does then I see no reason not to ban it.
Posted by: thatguy | Dec 1, 2009 1:44:21 AM
Shut down Bank of America in SF for 2 hours today, but escaped arrest this time, but 4 friends got nabbed.
Uh Oh
You?
Posted by: Carlos | Dec 1, 2009 5:54:50 AM
Not me, but a friend of mine, David.
Yep, I was there.
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Dec 1, 2009 10:42:48 AM
J.H: I would like to see minarets torn down, along with steeples, of course.
Dave R.: This is the logical solution. All religious symbols should not be displayed.
Well, you can cross the giant Buddha sculptures in the Bamiyan valley in Afghanistan off your list - they've been done for you.
Posted by: Vicki Baker | Dec 1, 2009 11:22:40 AM
Guy with the drum?
No
more likely this guy
Posted by: Carlos | Dec 1, 2009 12:26:45 PM
Vicki:
The Bamiyan Buddhas were no longer religious symbols in anyone's mind who lived around them. Almost the fossilized relics of Afghanistan's distant Buddhist past, the statues were "Big Neighbor and Small Neighbor" to the Hazaras who had co-existed with them for centuries. The rogue Taliban decided to raise the "idolatory" aspect of the Buddhas when they blew them up not just to remind the world about the purity of their own Islamism but also as a warning shot aimed at the Hazaras who are Shia Muslims of Mongol ethnicity. The Taliban had murderous genocidal designs on the Hazaras - the less "perfect" Muslims. The smashing of the Buddhas was partly symbolic of that intention. The 2001 US invasion soon after the barbaric act prevented the impending massacre.
Posted by: Ruchira | Dec 1, 2009 2:35:37 PM
Well, you can cross the giant Buddha sculptures in the Bamiyan valley in Afghanistan off your list - they've been done for you.
Islam has always had this thing for Buddhism, and even essentially eradicated it from its birthplace in India/Nepal.
It has been reintroduced.
Our Islamic friends are exceptionally good at destroying other cultures art and symbols, but the Christians excelled at this also.
Religion is like that.
The Buddhist just shrug, and experience the impermanence, and look upon ignorance and delusion of their Islamic Friends.
(snark)
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Dec 1, 2009 4:10:41 PM
Ruchira: yes, the destruction of the Buddhas was a "warning shot." Don't you think the banning of minarets is similar in spirit, if not in degree?
Dave, maybe you could start small, by peeling the Virgin of Guadalupe stickers off of any cars so adorned that have the temerity to show their faces in your upscale community of Marin.
Posted by: Vicki Baker | Dec 1, 2009 4:22:58 PM
Dave, maybe you could start small, by peeling the Virgin of Guadalupe stickers off of any cars so adorned that have the temerity to show their faces in your upscale community of Marin.
I have a long history with Bank of America-- you know that Isla Vista thing in 1969?
Why stop now, and besides, I'm good in the street and feel at home there.
I have been gassed on three continents.
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Dec 1, 2009 4:28:10 PM
Animal Sacrifice
Dave,
At least you didn't have your head cut off to appease a goddess. I suppose this is no worse than the cruelty of factory farming here, but humanity should really outgrow scapegoat rituals.
Posted by: Louise Gordon | Dec 1, 2009 6:27:45 PM
While adolescent philosophy is a fun parlor game, let's redirect this discussion to the real world. Here's how a handful of Muslim states deal with dissenting belief. Please feel free to point out any Western state that is so restrictive to minority religions.
1. Indonesia. In a state with large minority populations of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and animists, the US State department reported in 2009 that at least 9 churches—and 12 mosques associated with the Ahmadiyya Islamic sect (which mainstream Muslim groups consider heretical)—were forced shut by violence or intimidation from community groups, and that a number of churches and Hindu temples have struggled to receive official permits in recent years.
2. Egypt. The country has a sizeable minority of Eastern Orthodox Christians, or Copts. By law, their churches must receive the permission of local Muslim communities before new construction is allowed. The State Department’s religious freedom report on Egypt in 2009 says in part: “Church and human rights leaders charge that some local authorities refuse to process applications without ‘supporting documents’ that are virtually impossible to obtain.”
3. [In] Saudi Arabia, home of Mecca and Islam more generally, the public practice of any faith but Islam is illegal. Christians and Jews receive 50 percent of the compensation that a Muslim would receive in personal injury court and the country has no churches at all.
4. Pakistan. Freedom of religious worship is constitutionally guaranteed, but in practice the government sets limits and there has also been a rise in attacks by militant groups on both Christians and Shiites in the majority Sunni Muslim country in recent years. District level government “consistently refused to grant permission to construct non-Muslim places of worship, especially for Ahmadiyya and Baha’i communities”
Posted by: Unitedincommonsense | Dec 1, 2009 8:10:03 PM
Note that the Swiss are acting in a perfectly natural way, wanting to keep their country & traditions without altering their ethnic makeup. It's no different to Japan, Israel or non-western countries.
Posted by: schwartz | Dec 2, 2009 12:08:38 AM
Unitedincommonsense-
Why should any of your points have weight in the Western world when it determines how to treat minority faiths? Why should Switzerland begin to lower itself to the standards you mention? No one is argueing that restrictions to religious freedom are good - the whole point is that they are explicitly not. But by all means, please continue to spew your conservative agitprop in an attempt to slander all Muslim's by the actions of some governments. It's you who is playing the parlor game.
schwartz-
Yes, the four existing minarets were forcing the Swiss to "alter their ethnic makeup," and give up their "country & traditions." Why, here in Ticino one can barely walk down the street without running into the Muslim inquisition. As we would say in the States, "Christmas is under attack!"
Can you not see how ludicrous your implication is? If the Swiss had truely wanted to protect "their ethnic makeup" they would not have turned down the previous SVP proposals to curtail immigration and naturalization.
Posted by: Cyrus Hall | Dec 2, 2009 5:42:24 AM
Schwartz wrote:
"It's no different to Japan, Israel or non-western countries. "
You left out "Planet of the Apes."
Posted by: Chris Schoen | Dec 2, 2009 10:42:15 AM
Cyrus, I have had many occasions to take in what an unusual vantage point your job and location have given you -- that is, allowed you to develop. It's great you're in a position to put this in front of us. You always contribute so much with your comments -- I wish you wrote for us on a regular basis. Thanks for this, in any case.
Chris, wasn't it that this IS "Planet of the Apes"??? Wasn't that the very advanced joke back in the '70s? What we need now is that First Ape Roddy McDowell talked of -- the one who discovered he could speak by saying, "No."
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Dec 2, 2009 10:59:42 AM
Cyrus,
I think I see United's point. The abuses in Pakistan, Egypt, et al, give us such a surfeit of moral capital that we can actually afford to increase our oppression of Muslims and still come out smelling great.
This is important, because, as he so cogently pointed out in an earlier post, letting Muslims add minarets to their mosques is like giving them green light to commit violent acts. Why, it's practically an admission that our native women like being raped by foreigners! Allowing the mosques but forbidding the minarets, while regrettable, shows our resolve that we won't tolerate such things.
In other words, like legend says on the definitely, definitely not racist SVP poster with the white sheep keeping out the back sheep, it's all about Security.
Posted by: Chris Schoen | Dec 2, 2009 11:03:25 AM
One of the most tragic aspects of this ban is the way the UDF (one of the political parties that proposed the referendum) has been capitalizing on the misconception of the minaret as a 'political symbol', by unashamedly exploiting its passing resemblance to a cruise missile. You might disagree with me, but I think that this is another unfortunate case of projection, because the cruise missiles, you see, are on the other side. There's no limits to human hypocrisy.
Posted by: Pepito | Dec 2, 2009 11:21:37 AM
How I would love to see any of these detractors visit a banelieue to calmly debate the relative merits of atheism, judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, or even Darwin with the many inhabitants. We'd be picking up the pieces of you for months...that is, if our police or fire brigades were allowed to enter such areas. As it is, you each and every one have my most sincere expectation for you to visit Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Jordan, the U.A.E., or any surrounding areas to advocate differing views of faith or even the tyranny of religion in general. Though, I would strongly advise preparing a will in advance of the journey. Or perhaps you can demonstrate your strong belief in the virtue of the "peaceful prophet" and send your children off to Muslim schools. No girl children need apply. Better yet, how about sending them to Beslan? There are plenty of open spots since the Muslims murdered those hundreds of Russian school children. No takers? My goodness, how strong words buckle in the face of the nasty real world. As for equating Christianity with Muslim religion, please see the comments above. Once millions of Christians begin their wave of gang rapes, the massive bombings of metro stations, or stoning of homosexuals, you can sign me up to your protest list. In any case, for Christianity as contrasted to Muslimism, simple disagreement and even heated discussion is not relative to mass murder. In the meantime your arguments are sophomorically vapid, incoherent, and really quite juvenilely pathetic in the extreme. You blithely have no idea what is awaiting when demographics coupled with your practical ineptitude take hold, and even in your gross ignorance, I do pity for your future. It’s like watching retarded children argue the rules of cricket on a four line highway with a petrol truck bearing down on them.
Posted by: Unitedincommonsense | Dec 3, 2009 8:12:49 AM
Let's put this into perspective. We should criticize the Swiss for performing an anti-Western, "illiberal" act, but let's be clear: no majority Muslim country respects the rights of religious minorities in their country save one: Mali, a land-locked impoverished island of relative tolerance convenient to nowhere. Even others that are fairly tolerant only appear so when graded on the curve.
Turkey has outright seized most of the property of the Greek Orthodox Church and sets humiliating restrictions on the Ecumenical Patriarch's movements. Most majority Muslim countries impose one form of Sharia or another on their people, with all of Sharia's contempt for the human rights of women.
Ask the Copts how Islam is working out for them in Eqypt and Sudan. Ask a Saudi how religious tolerance is working out in her country - if her husband doesn't have you arrested or killed for talking to her.
Ask a Palestinian Muslim father whether he would be willing to kill his daughter for dishonoring the family by, say, marrying the wrong man or moving out on her own away from the family. Don't blink or flinch when he says "yes, then I would have to turn myself in." Repeat that 10x for most of Afghanistan and rural Pakistan.
What the Swiss did was petty and spiteful, but we should stop talking about the speck in the Swiss eye and start talking about, well, Islam pretty much everywhere except arguably Morocco, Mali and maybe the secular parts of Turkey and the Balkans. The bulk of Dar-el-Islam is theocratic, intolerant and brutally patriarchal.
Posted by: Bruce | Dec 6, 2009 9:38:32 AM
The detractors in this thread keep trying to make the issue about the beliefs of Islamic governments and radicals. They claim, as Bruce has just done, that they must be our center of attention.
I fail to understand what such a focus would do in terms of bringing about change. This is not to say we should ignore crimes committed, by individuals or governments. Nor should we be silent as suppression of women continues in various Muslim countries and communities. But we can not change the situation by rattling our sabers, or, much worse, invading and "teaching" Democracy. How would such a plan work?
When the situation changes, it will change from within. If you are blind to the debates and conversations happening within the Western Muslim community, get yourself some Muslim friends. They don't bite, really. You'll find a sense of despair in those who are argueing for modernization when measures like the Minaret ban are talked about, and much more so when they pass. It makes the hardliners all the more intransigent, and their position falsely appear more reasonable. It makes it harder to want to integrate, to change patterns of thought and belief. Our various "Wars on X" have made it abundantly clear that suppression does not work to eliminate undesirable thought and action. Yet, according to Bruce and the ironically titled Unitedforcommonsense, we should ignore our own actions and focus entirely Muslims, and particularly the brutality and repression of some governments.
If we want to help, and I think we should, then we should lead by example. This means practicing what we preach. That is why I found the passage of the Swiss ban so distressing. I know it's easy to get pissed about the double standard many Islamic countries hold toward the West (e.g. Iran calling upon Switzerland's foreign ambassador to berate him about equality), but we don't control those governments. We do, theoretically, control our own. And nowhere is that more true than Switzerland.
Our complaints about Islamic theocracy would be so much more effective if we weren't killing thousands of Muslims in foriegn lands, while intensifying our anti-Muslim rhetoric at home. But that appears to be the path both Europe and the U.S. governments are taking. It does not bode well.
Unitedforcommonsense, maybe you could earn your moniker and tell us how your plan would proceed. I want to know what your ideal set of steps is, and why they would work.
Posted by: Cyrus Hall | Dec 6, 2009 11:56:49 AM
Post a comment