theophiles.org - Swiss voters back ban on minarets

Written by laika

Sunday, 29 November 2009 12:27

At Times Online:

Swiss voters appear to have defied their Government and churches today and approved a national ban on the construction of minarets.
Early results showed that 57 per cent of voters had backed the proposal, ensuring international embarrassment for Switzerland and a possible backlash in the Muslim world. A majority of the 27 cantons supported the move, according to partial results.
"The initiative would appear to have been accepted, there is a positive trend. It is a huge surprise," said French-language Swiss television said after polls closed at midday.

Comments

WebbedFeetOfClay - Wow.

|2009-11-29 13:28:52

That's kind of depressing. (especially the general consensus of the comments.)

(I Know Nothing)

metallurge - re: Wow.

|2009-11-29 14:15:11

Yeah. It is. Bah.

laika - re: Wow.

|2009-11-29 16:57:20

yeah, those red-necked Swiss. why Europeans wouldn't want more of a Muslim presence and influence on their society is a mystery and a puzzlement.

WebbedFeetOfClay

|2009-11-29 19:00:38

that's honestly neither here nor there.
absurd legislation on religious architecture isn't going to do anything but offend and insult.
Nativism is absolute nonsense and that's what SVP boils down to plain and simple.
Quite honestly, say what you will about the tenets of Islam, but militancy is pretty much an expected natural response to being repeatedly and systematically insulted, restricted, and demeaned. I don't know why we expect anything else.

laika

|2009-11-29 19:17:24

WebbedFeetofClay wrote:

absurd legislation on religious architecture isn't going to do anything but offend and insult.
Nativism is absolute nonsense and that's what SVP boils down to plain and simple.

right. the Swiss appear to believe that they have a culture worth preserving and a right to express that belief in legislation. surely Brussels will put the smackdown on this nonsense.

WebbedFeetOfClay

|2009-11-29 20:09:26

the way to preserve culture isn't to repress and outlaw peoples personal cultural expression. Not to mention that thousands of muslims are swiss as well, so the notion that the two are antithetical is, again, nonsense. If you want to tell Entity that as a Catholic he's not American, be my guest, but I'm not willing to drudge up histories errors for a second go.

laika

|2009-11-29 20:53:11

WebbedFeetOfClay wrote:

Not to mention that thousands of muslims are swiss as well...

right again. and fortunately, they will continue to enjoy those same religious freedoms that they had before the Nativist mobs denied them their non-existent minarets:

Quote:

“In no case does this impinge on religious freedom,” Oskar Freysinger, a prominent SVP politician, said. “This has nothing to do with the practice of religion.”

WebbedFeetOfClay

|2009-11-29 21:04:54

not non-existent, they've got four, and there were plans to build others. The swiss government has no place legislating architectural elements built by private citizens on their own property, for explicitly religious reasons. Freysinger is full of it. How is it that my church building has nothing to do with the practice of religion? (and who is he to say what is of religious significance for someone else.) I'm going to go out on a wild limb hear and guess that most muslims would tell you that minarets play a religious role.

Why is it they should be illegal if not for religious reasons? And how are those reasons justifiable basis for secular legal policy (particularly when really skating on thin ice with their constitution.)

Even if you want to say it doesn't play an essential day to day function, outlawing them is targeting and marginalizing a portion of the population for religious reasons.

it's discriminatory any way you cut it.

laika

|2009-11-29 20:54:42

I wrote:

surely Brussels will put the smackdown on this nonsense.

whoops? is Switzerland a member of the EU?

WebbedFeetOfClay

|2009-11-29 21:08:16

they are not. this would complicate things if they wanted to be, but they don't seem to. granted, a lot is in flux right now. (and with the economic down, if i understand correctly, turn a lot of Nationalist/Nativist parties have gained power in other countries.)

OrionBlastar - A shame

|2009-11-29 15:42:58

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minaret

I seem to like the look of them, as they resemble light houses. I don't know what the Swiss reason to ban them is, I don't find them offensive or even oppressive.

Just another blow against religious rights in Europe and perhaps the world.

laika

|2009-11-29 21:02:51

OrionBlastar wrote:

Just another blow against religious rights in Europe and perhaps the world.

or architectural rights, anyway.

this doesn't appear to prevent Swiss Muslims from worshiping in the same way they did the day before the vote, and fortunately for all of us, i don't think those godless Swiss are inclined or able to strike a blow against the religious rights of the world.

holmegm

|2009-11-29 21:33:29

Quote:

ensuring international embarrassment for Switzerland

Secret international admiration, more likely.

Quote:

and a possible backlash in the Muslim world.

Ah yes, there's that "backlash" again ... a shame when absolutely everyone you meet just "forces" you to be violent.

WebbedFeetOfClay

|2009-11-29 21:48:32

you see, but unlike the cartoon incident, this isn't even backlash to an exercise of free expression or personal opinion, this is pursuing discriminatory practices towards muslims through governmental means. There's no good reason for it, so the likely backlash comes all the more to be accounted in the equation. If it does nothing beneficial for Switzerland or the swiss, why is it worth the offense and backlash?

Quite honestly, a large portion of the middle east has good reason to be peeved with "the West" much of the economic and human suffering of the past several decades in the region comes pretty directly from the aftermath of imperialistic involvement of western powers. And the more western nations do stupid antagonistic crud like this the more we needlessly stoke the fires we started rather than helping promote humane and civil behaviour.

laika

|2009-11-29 21:55:33

WebbedFeetOfClay wrote:

There's no good reason for it, so the likely backlash comes all the more to be accounted in the equation.

nah, there won't be a deadly backlash. calling attention to intolerance wouldn't really serve anyone's best interest, would it?

OrionBlastar - re:

|2009-12-05 23:37:58

laika wrote:

[quote=WebbedFeetOfClay]There's no good reason for it, so the likely backlash comes all the more to be accounted in the equation.

nah, there won't be a deadly backlash. calling attention to intolerance wouldn't really serve anyone's best interest, would it?[/quote]

Yeah because religious intolerance is so common these days, people tend to get used to it. Political Correctness demands that there be intolerance to religion, and religion is often attacked in the public and accused of being a mind-controlling brainwashing cult that manipulates people and thus people ought to speak out against religion and ban such things as minarets to punish religion for things religion is perceived to have done. So for every suicide bomber in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Muslims in Switzerland will be blamed for it. For every abortion mill that gets bombed in the USA, Christianity will be blamed for it. Not like polite society blames individuals for their own actions and behaviors anymore when they can just simply blame religion instead as a major scapegoat for everything else that goes wrong in the world.

laika

|2009-11-29 22:00:33

holmegm wrote:

Secret international admiration, more likely.

judging from the comments attached to the article and their method of ranking, it's a smash hit.

holmegm wrote:

Ah yes, there's that "backlash" again ...

where does this expectation of backlash come from? why does it leap to everyone's mind?

holmegm - re:

|2009-11-29 22:10:03

laika wrote:

where does this expectation of backlash come from? why does it leap to everyone's mind?

I can't imagine. Religion of peace and all that.

OrionBlastar - re:

|2009-11-30 14:56:28

laika wrote:

where does this expectation of backlash come from? why does it leap to everyone's mind?

Moderate Muslims, Liberal Muslims, Secular Muslims have never been the violent types but do peaceful protests.

Fundamentalist Muslims on the other hand consider Islam to be the religion of the sword. They will or might stage violent protests. We have seen this before in the Danish cartoons, and burning down Paris because of the high Muslim unemployment rates and discrimination (or at least perceived discrimination) against Islam in France. It is the Fundamentalist Muslims that are the Islamic Terrorists and Muslims who are violent and twisted the Jihad from a defensive holy war to an offensive (first strike) holy war.

So I would expect any backlash to come from the Fundamentalist Muslims but not the other ones. Europe is going to have to quit offending them and taking away their right to culture, language, society, and religion. No more offensive cartoons, no more discrimination, no more denying them to build their own buildings and structures etc.

Islam has been a part of Europe since it was spread to Turkey, and Turkey is a part of Europe and they refuse to let Turkey into the EU so far. I'd call that discrimination.

laika

|2009-11-30 15:25:27

OrionBlastar wrote:

Europe is going to have to quit offending them and taking away their right to culture, language, society, and religion. No more offensive cartoons, no more discrimination, no more denying them to build their own buildings and structures etc.

total appeasement, in other words? total exemption from the rigors of life in an open society?

interesting, coming from a champion of free speech and whatnot.

OB wrote:

So I would expect any backlash to come from the Fundamentalist Muslims but not the other ones.

i seriously doubt there'll be any repercussion worth mentioning. what worthy purpose would it serve for the intolerant (fundamentalists) to call attention to intolerance? and what great offense has really been given, or what right curtailed when all is said and done?

the planned construction of exactly two minarets has been interrupted. the tolerant Swiss have signaled a spot of unease with the spread of what is widely perceived to be an intolerant sub-culture throughout Europe. practically speaking, this vote amounts to not much of anything at all.

WebbedFeetOfClay

|2009-11-30 16:07:01

letting people build there own things for their own community on their own land with their own money is not appeasement. nor do the rigors of an "open" society include discriminatory legislation on your religious practices. Legislation is not under the heading of free speech. let SVP rant all they like about immigrants and muslims destroying swiss culture (provided they don't insight assault or riots), but illegalizing a particular religious expression with no undue ill-effect to the liberty or free exercise of other citizens is not free speech, it's nonsense.

and as for this:

laika wrote:

what is widely perceived to be an intolerant sub-culture throughout Europe.

it's not only irrational and generalized nonsense, it's capitalizing on the same prejudices and fear mongering that are at the root of the problem. Even if we're going to take as true the idea that all muslims are intolerant hate mongers (which is absolute rubbish) it still would be no justification for this kind of legislation. A free society must allow the free exercise of its inhabitants, regardless of taste, to the extent that such exercise doesn't unduly infringe on the rights of another. If you start making exceptions the entire basis of civil liberty is undermined and anything outside of the normative becomes suspect and subject to repression.

(and for the record, this "spread" as you call it, in the case of switzerland is largely muslim refuges fleeing for severe persecution in the balkans, I know, how tyrannical and devious of them)

laika

|2009-11-30 16:19:38

WebbedFeetOfClay wrote:

A free society must allow the free exercise of its inhabitants...

excepting, of course, the dread majority.

i often wonder if it wouldn't broaden the scope of love for the extreme PC crowd to think of the "majority" as clusters of minorities who sometimes agree. if minorities alone are worthy of love and tolerance, then an expansion of the definition of minorities would lead to an immediate expansion of potential lovables, would it not? everybody wins, ja?

WebbedFeetOfClay

|2009-11-30 16:34:48

people building minarets is not impinging on the free exercise of the non muslim population. that's crazy. I'm not restricting their exercise, I'm restricting their restriction of the exercise of others. Fundamentally different. I love the swiss, I tolerate the swiss, I firmly advocate their civil rights, and in so doing must advocate for all of them, which includes the minorities, not because they are more deserving by virtue of numbers but because they need more protection by virtue of numbers. Each individual is entitled to the same rights.

How is a minerat infringing on the rights of exercise of any swiss individual?
I keep asking these questions and getting no answers. I have no right to my neighbors being forced to behave like me. I have no right to force them to behave as I want them to.

emperorbma

|2009-11-30 17:02:29

WebbedFeetOfClay wrote:

How is a minerat (sic) infringing on the rights of exercise of any swiss individual?

Depends on what the Swiss individual wants freedom from. Mayhap Islam just grates them the wrong way and they want to be a pain in the butt to the foreigners. ("freedom to be a curmudgeon?")

Perhaps they are afraid that it is a "slippery slope" and that "if Islam is allowed this, then what is the line that prevents the daily loudspeaker announcing the prayers 3 times a day as it does in Tehran?" (At least that's justifiable as "freedom from noise" if one is not a Muslim)

It's probably safe to say that we don't really know caused them to decide against minarets because the reasons probably vary from person to person.

emperorbma

|2009-11-30 17:03:35

Ah... forgot the "we don't like things that change our Swiss culture even though we are, statistically, not the same culture as we were 500 years ago anyways..."

metallurge

|2009-11-30 17:05:58

I don't think, in a truly free society, there exists a freedom from being offended by one's neighbors' architectural choices. Of course, by this measure, many places here in America would not qualify as a truly free society.

emperorbma

|2009-11-30 17:57:35

Some people, many of whom are ardent defenders of the word "freedom," don't actually want freedom with its full consequences. Note that this is not a liberal or conservative issue... both parties are guilty of this in their own ways.

metallurge

|2009-11-30 20:11:17

I am sooo tempted to make an Inigo Montoya reference about words and meaning...

emperorbma

|2009-12-01 10:24:51

Quote:

I am sooo tempted to make an Inigo Montoya reference about words and meaning...

Not so sure that freedom of expression isn't a freedom, but c'est la vie.

(... and, as I said elsewhere, my prior uses were largely hyperbolic: my "quotes" point out my sarcasm)

metallurge - re:

|2009-12-01 11:40:43

No, no... The reference was not to be used against you. The reference was to be used in support of what you were saying about people using the word freedom.

emperorbma

|2009-12-01 11:59:21

Quote:

No, no... The reference was not to be used against you. The reference was to be used in support of what you were saying about people using the word freedom.

Oh, okay. That was my second guess, but I figured that answering as I did would cover both possibilities rather effectively. :P

Had to sort of play as a "predictamancer" (N.B. webcomic ref) here.

WebbedFeetOfClay

|2009-11-30 17:10:28

none of those quite count as legitimate rights.

(and I wouldn't necessarily have the same opposition to legislation on noise control, though that's a bit trickier, when it comes to call to prayer)

emperorbma

|2009-11-30 17:55:31

Of course they don't. I am merely saying that these are probably some of the reasons being thrown about...

metallurge - re:

|2009-11-30 17:02:44

laika wrote:

Dude, the problem is the tyranny of the local majority. Individual personal freedom means pretty much always being on guard against the tyranny of the local majority.

Perhaps reversing the scenario a bit would make the problem more clear. Imagine we are in Turkey, a secular, but majority-muslim country. Imagine that a local Orthodox church wishes to build a new church building, with an onion dome, which then triggers a nationwide populist move to ban onion domes. The propaganda for the special election involves pictures of blacked out onion domes and black crusading Christian knights on a red background.

Now, my counterexample is imperfect for many reasons. But hopefully it gets across the point despite the flaws.

WebbedFeetOfClay

|2009-11-30 17:12:04

I kept on wanting to make an onion dome example, but had been a bit ranty and figured I'd refrain. happy that was your choice for example.

laika - re: Beyond Oniondome

|2009-11-30 20:11:11

metallurge wrote:

Imagine that a local Orthodox church wishes to build a new church building, with an onion dome, which then triggers a nationwide populist move to ban onion domes. The propaganda for the special election involves pictures of blacked out onion domes and black crusading Christian knights on a red background.

i imagine that you, who prize tolerance, would happily and graciously submit to local custom and worship just as you did before the onion dome ban, realizing that your worship was no more or less effective or pleasing to G_d with or without the dome.

WebbedFeetOfClay

|2009-11-30 20:54:18

I'll let metallurge respond to the actual substance of the point, cause he'll do it better than me anyway, but, out of curiosity, any reason you've now switched over to the "G_d" (and also chosen it over "G-d")?

laika

|2009-12-01 19:19:52

WebbedFeetOfClay wrote:

...out of curiosity, any reason you've now switched over to the "G_d" (and also chosen it over "G-d")?

sometimes i think i may come across as too familiar with His Awesomeness, Him being reported to be so fierce towards us that He can only be approached through a Mediator and Advocate, so i was trying that G-d thing out as a way to allude without naming, sort of like the Irish referring to the fairies as the "Good People."

why i did it one way one time and another way later, i don't know. what's the correct way?

WebbedFeetOfClay

|2009-12-01 19:30:42

I studied with a lot of Orthodox Jews in college so seeing the "G-d" feels very nostalgic and comfortable for me. Though I ought to say, He's not entirely so unapproachable in that He Himself approached us in the flesh and such...we've much more to be afraid of in ourselves than in Him who loves us so completely.

metallurge

|2009-11-30 20:58:21

Plenty of Christians have worshipped successfully in the absence of onion domes. Of course.

It's not a spiritual question of worship. It's a spiritual question of tolerance and love of neighbor. Permitting minarets or onion domes or other religious edifice is just what you do, if you truly love and respect your neighbor's right to worship as they choose to.

WebbedFeetOfClay

|2009-11-30 21:16:14

also, just noticed the title.
extra points. I don't know how many, nor do I feel in a suitable position to award them, but they are certainly there, and certainly for you.

laika

|2009-12-01 19:08:06

WebbedFeetOfClay wrote:

also, just noticed the title. extra points.

thanks, if that was directed at me.

it's difficult to gauge how one's sense of humor is received here.

WebbedFeetOfClay

|2009-12-01 19:10:44

a friend and I once entertained ourselves for about an hour but rattling off synthesized combinations of other movie titles with Thunderdome.

you're in good company.

OrionBlastar

|2009-12-01 14:00:11

I believe in free speech, but it has to be self-restrained, tolerant, and respectful.

It is still subject to libel and slander laws, and the person giving the speech has to suffer the consequences of the speech if it is hate speech or bigoted or attacks a person and/or group. In this case the attack on Islam lead to Fundamentalist Muslims getting violent. Which makes as much sense to shake a bee hive to keep on doing it and making the Fundamentalist Muslims get violent again and again.

What good is free speech if it causes trouble like that and destroys civilization in the backlashes it causes?

It makes me wonder what kind of free speech we did to get the 9/11 and other terrorist attacks on our civilization? Was it free speech that attacks Islam, or was it something else like occupying Islamic land or oppressing Muslims?

WebbedFeetOfClay - Let me just say this.

|2009-11-29 23:25:54

I think our antagonism toward and fear of islam is one of the predominant threats to modern Christianity. I really don't care what muslim birthrates are, or what muslim immigration trends are (don't doubt that immigration is really at the crux of a lot of this story). If Christians are doing what we're supposed to be doing it shouldn't matter. We tend to our house (along with keeping all its beams accounted for) and strive to live the gospel. The more we distract our selves with fingerpointing and the bogeyman the more leeway the real Enemy is going to have.

This kind of inflammatory antagonism and pointless egotistical and nationalist sabre rattling profits nothing. It distracts us and pointlessly alienates and drives off those to whom we are called to witness.

It's not about being PC. It's about confidence in the Gospel and a trust that the way to show the loving call of God to a darkened world is not by hiding behind petty legislation and cultural purity. (particularly if we want to distinguish ourselves from certain despotic and repressive political interpretations of Islam) You don't force people to faith, and you shouldn't whitewash it either.

this is ridiculously long and ranty. but there you have it.

emperorbma - "a house divided"

|2009-11-30 00:02:38

Quote:

The more we distract our selves with fingerpointing and the bogeyman the more leeway the real Enemy is going to have.

Is it a coincidence that the name of the enemy is, in fact, "accuser" in Hebrew? (literally...) Is it a coincidence that the title of the enemy is "one who accuses..." in Greek?

Actually, reflecting on said "plain naming," God does really seem to hide the obvious in plain sight with the naming He used in Scripture. Even His Son, who is explicitly described as coming "to save His people from their sins" is literally named "(God is) Salvation." Indeed, even God's own Eternal Name is "I am that I am."

It's almost disturbing how obviously named stuff can be and even more frustrating that, even then, gnostics and heretics can get a whole other pack of word salad out of it.

laika

|2009-11-30 00:00:03

emperorbma wrote:

Is it a coincidence that the name of the enemy is, in fact, "accuser?" (literally...) Is it a coincidence that the title of the enemy is "one who distracts (as in a "ball rolling across one's path")...?"

probably not.

emperorbma

|2009-11-30 00:04:56

[Ups... corrected that one in the midst; was working from a bad lexionary beforehand ;P

All the more relevant since it is the *same* word...]

laika

|2009-11-30 00:51:38

emperorbma wrote:

was working from a bad lexionary beforehand ;P

lectionary? i thought you just knew all the this stuff.

emperorbma

|2009-11-30 00:54:05

Well, technically it is my mental lexicon. I was just going on un-corrected data which I corrected too late. :/

Google rectified my former misreading...

laika

|2009-11-29 23:56:33

WebbedFeetOfClay wrote:

It's not about being PC. It's about confidence in the Gospel and a trust that the way to show the loving call of God to a darkened world is not by hiding behind petty legislation and cultural purity.

it's very much about being PC, and the Swiss, of all people, just bucked the trend with their "petty legislation."

and as for "cultural purity," one wonders how the Swiss culture of democracy and liberality would fare in, say, Mecca. i'm guessing that an expectation of some slight degree of assimilation and accommodation might be expected there, too.

WebbedFeetOfClay

|2009-11-30 16:16:36

I'm flabbergasted. Your comment demonstrates that it's somehow ok to use peoples civil liberties as a pawn for grandstanding and cultural statements. You don't buck the trend of relativist "hyper-tolerance" by repressing a minority. You buck cultural trends by speaking out, or living differently etc. etc.

And doubly so stunned that "they did it first" passes for an argument. If intolerance and repression are wrong in Saudi Arabia, they're wrong in Switzerland. (and how we can suddenly say that all muslims everywhere are accountable for King Abdullah) It's absolute hypocrisy. Whatever happened to moral highgrounds?

emperorbma

|2009-11-30 16:54:35

Quote:

Whatever happened to moral highgrounds?

What is high when "all is relative," though? To say there is a moral high ground supposes that there is a morality, which presupposes that some view is more right than another. If tolerance is to be assumed to be blind appeasement, as it is with cultural relativism, then there's not much ground to argue...

That said, I don't really agree with the Swiss decision either.

laika

|2009-11-30 20:26:43

WebbedFeetOfClay wrote:

You don't buck the trend of relativist "hyper-tolerance" by repressing a minority. You buck cultural trends by speaking out, or living differently etc. etc.

which appears to be exactly what the delightfully spineful Swiss did: they spoke out through what amounts to a zoning ordinance that represses no one, thus bucking the PC Euro-trend of appeasing minorities above all other considerations.

WebbedFeetOfClay wrote:

If intolerance and repression are wrong in Saudi Arabia, they're wrong in Switzerland.

careful, there; you're flying mighty close to saying that some cultural expressions are better than others. you almost make a judgement there about practices in the epicenter of Islam.

WebbedFeetOfClay

|2009-11-30 21:14:22

it's more than zoning ordinance, because it makes regulations that specifically target and discriminate a particular religious group. If they wanted to ban the building of all belltowers and steeples etc. as well, we'd have more of a conversation going, but you yourself acknowledge this to be some kind of public referendum on Islam, much more than on sky-rights, and as such is way out of the purview of legislation. (zoning law is frequently a more "civilized" way of doing completely uncivil things, I know from personal experience some of the bigoted legal attempts to halt the construction of a mosque here in boston)

laika wrote:

thus bucking the PC Euro-trend of appeasing minorities above all other considerations.

first, I think your notion of what the euro-trends are is a bit distorted. muslims in particular have really not had many favors done for them by european legal institutions. but also, what "other considerations" specifically are we talking about being ignored here? I would still really like to hear you articulate what you think the building of minarets is harming. Do you, like the SVP, not like the idea of muslims immigrating to switzerland to escape genocide and slaughter in their home countries? Or do you not mind the refugees as long as they're quiet and don't let anyone know they're there? Please explain, because I really do have quite a good deal of admiration and respect for you and just am having a hard time grasping where you're coming from here.

I'm not a cultural relativist. never have been, have said so explicitly on many occasions including on this article. I think it's nonsense. I believe in absolute morality (as I have also said repeatedly) I believe repression and legal discrimination on the basis of religion to be fundamentally wrong. I believe it's wrong in Saudi Arabia (as I've said) and I believe it's wrong in Switzerland (as I've said.) I don't see where you see the contradiction unless you're arguing with someone else.
(For the record, I'm also pretty clear on the fact that I'm not a muslim, and this is not by some cultural fluke or birth coincidence but because I fundamentally disagree with and reject certain aspects of Islam. Christ is God (period.) However, I think all people, regardless of their religious profession, bear the image of God, and as such are due respect as individuals and ought not be generalized discriminated against or mistreated. I believe governmental restrictions of free exercise of religion do a disservice both to those restricted and to the preaching of the gospel in earnest.)

laika - The Paradox of Tolerance

|2009-11-30 12:24:49

the Swiss seem to be grappling with Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance:

Quote:

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

emperorbma

|2009-11-30 13:33:42

4 words: Tragedy of the commons.

laika

|2009-11-30 15:28:47

interesting. tolerance as a sustainable good dependent on careful stewardship?

emperorbma

|2009-11-30 16:45:57

... or an unsustainable one managed by people being careless. "Double edged sword" and all that jazz.

laika

|2009-11-30 20:39:34

hmmm... i'll have to study it more closely.

i meant to say "dependent on careful stewardship by all," BTW.

your framing of it as unsustainable would make tolerance more precious, i suppose.

emperorbma

|2009-12-01 12:04:57

Historically, tolerance is a actually bit of an oddity. Few cultures have had religious tolerance to the degree expressed today.

The closest historical parallel was the reign of Cyrus, which received rather glowing reviews in Scripture since it allowed the Hebrews to return from the Babylonian Captivity. However, that tolerance didn't exactly last very long since the Greeks eventually ended up bringing Antioches Epiphanes into power.

OrionBlastar - So what is the real reason why the Swiss ban minar

|2009-12-01 22:54:09

I don't really see any logical, reasonable, or anything that makes sense from the Swiss to ban minarets. Can someone help explain that to me?

Is it because the minarets use loudspeakers to announce Islamic prayer three times a day? I seem to recall in the USA one of my churches was told not to ring their bells when mass was about to start. The Non-Religious people in the neighborhood didn't want to hear bells at 8am, 9am, 10am, and 11:30am on Sunday morning and wanted to sleep in instead. Eventually the neighborhood changed so much that the church shut down and we had to move to a different church in a different neighborhood. Does the call to Islamic prayer three times a day really bug the Swiss that much?

The minarets resemble lighthouses, this makes as much sense as banning lighthouses. Don't the Swiss have lighthouses? The minarets use a similar design to lighthouses. So I cannot buy the argument that they are ugly, or don't fit into Swiss culture anymore than a lighthouse would.

Isn't the call to prayer three times a day, a right and freedom covered by Muslims for their beliefs? In banning the minarets, isn't this also silencing the call to prayer three times a day?

Europe has a lot of Islamic refugees, and they escape Middle-eastern or even European as in Turkey oppression and flee to Europe for a better life. But they take with them their Islamic traditions, their Islamic language, their Islamic culture, and their Islamic identity. In the USA we have a concept called a "melting pot" in which all cultures, all languages, all identities are mixed together in the name of freedom. Doesn't Europe and Switzerland have something like that? What the Swiss are doing is considered Xenophobic because they are forcing Swiss culture, Swiss language, Swiss tradition, and Swiss identity on the Islamic population and any other group that wants to immigrate there. If we did that in the USA we'd be called Xenophobic and in some cases racist and bigoted. So how is what the Swiss are doing not xenophobic or bigoted in some way?

laika - re: So what is the real reason why the Swiss ban

|2009-12-02 00:11:38

OrionBlastar wrote:

I don't really see any logical, reasonable, or anything that makes sense from the Swiss to ban minarets. Can someone help explain that to me?

the assumption of racism or xenophobia seems especially goofy in this case of the famously tolerant Swiss. it might be helpful to think of the vote to ban minarets as an opportunity and means for the Swiss to transmit their uneasiness with what they perceive to be a politico-religious movement that may not cherish European notions of equality, tolerance, and freedom from religious interference in governance. and as a statement of concern, it was a very mild, toothless, and polite one.

but heck, i could be reading too much into the situation, and putting words into the mouths of people i don't know. it's entirely possible that the Swiss just don't like minarets.

Shenango - re: So what is the real reason why the Swiss ban m

|2009-12-02 01:29:14

OrionBlastar wrote:

I don't really see any logical, reasonable, or anything that makes sense from the Swiss to ban minarets. Can someone help explain that to me?

There is nothing logical about it. The vast majority of intelligent people on this site, as you have, understand this and see this for what it is: direct, targeted discrimination against Muslims.

Of course there is contextual backdrop to all this: the challenge over the last few decades to European cultural identities that open-door immigration policies aimed at the Muslim world, and consequent mass emigrations to Europe of poor, uneducated Muslims, have created.

Islam is by its nature and teachings an all-encompassing way of life that touches on all beliefs, behaviors and aspects of life, including politics. Many such behaviors end up manifesting as cultural, but being part and parcel of being a practicing Muslim, make it difficult for Muslims to fully assimilate into societies unfamiliar with our way of life and thinking.

For all intents and purposes, and one or two incidents here or there notwithstanding, one can say inspite of this that Muslims in America and Canada, who tend to be much more educated and affluent (doctors, scientists, lawyers etc.) than their European counterparts, have more or less assimilated well enough into the melting pot that respects and values individuality and diversity so as not to be offensive (well, except maybe to grrrendel).

It's a sorry state affairs to say that my brethren across the pond haven't fared as well in the Old World, but it is nevertheless true. There's a whole different dynamic in Europe too, where in each country the only culture in the past has been that of the native whites. Now all of a sudden these once unicultural societies (something that was never the case in America) are dealing with large numbers of immigrants from various cultures and have turned inward, xenophobic and racist. It's with good justification that Muslims are termed the "blacks of Europe". But unfortunately, unlike African-Americans here in the U.S., Muslims in large part in Europe have not taken their lumps politely and often responded in very un-Islamic ways and have not been respectful neighbors to the native whites.

This is just the most recent volley from the native Swiss side in that tug-of-war. And although there's no theological requirement in Islam for a mosque to have a minaret (though traditional designs always incorporated one), and the practical impact, as grrrendel noted, will be minimal, the political/ideological impact will be colossal, especially when it comes to Swiss foreign relations. Around the world, in both Muslim and non-Muslim countries this act will be seen as a big blow below the belt, as any shot aimed at a religious building would be.

laika

|2009-12-02 15:32:25

Shenango wrote:

For all intents and purposes, and one or two incidents here or there notwithstanding, one can say inspite of this that Muslims in America and Canada, who tend to be much more educated and affluent (doctors, scientists, lawyers etc.) than their European counterparts, have more or less assimilated well enough into the melting pot that respects and values individuality and diversity so as not to be offensive (well, except maybe to grrrendel).

hello Shenango, nice to see you.

yes, i'll take the bait. you're playfully alluding to Dr. Nidal Hasan, the psychiatrist at Fort Hood Texas who shouted "Allahu akbar" while gunning down all those soldiers so recently. his spiritual advisor in Yemen, imam Anwar al-Awlaki, now calls him a hero.

now, as for Switzerland, i'll mention the imam in Geneva who spoke out publicly to defend amputations as consequence for thievery and the stoning of those caught in adultery. it's incidents like this, Fort Hood, and so many others large and small that have some in the west thinking that the Religion of Peace and Co-existence might - just possibly might - be incompatible with the values of western democracies. the Swiss, through their vote, politely broadcast this concern. i see no reason to read any more or less into the issue.

OrionBlastar - But that is blaming the masses

|2009-12-02 21:19:59

for the actions of a few.

You got 3 billion Muslims, and only less than 10,000 of them are terrorists or violent. So when a few act up, the rest get blamed.

This happens in Christianity as well, when the Fundamentalist Christians use politics then the rest of us Christians get blamed for what the 10,000 or so Fundamentalist Christians did.

Personally it stinks, most Muslims are peaceful, and I've traveled to Thailand and met Muslims there where they are the minority. They didn't have minarets as they were too poor, but they had a car drive down the streets with loudspeakers (If I had to compare it looked like the Blues Brothers Caddy when they were promoting their concern with the loudspeakers) three times a day to announce Islamic prayer. At first I didn't know what it was, until someone told me. So if the Swiss ban minarets they can always do a "Blues Brothers" method of loudspeakers on a car, unless the Swiss ban that too.

emperorbma

|2009-12-02 21:49:46

Quote:

You got 3 billion Muslims

Where did you get this statistic? Total World Population is 6.3 billion. 3 billion is half the planet and no religion has that large of a demographic! Even Christianity is only 2 [point something...] billion (which I broke down 3 of the major sects of in another recent post, ironically). 1.2 billion is more accurate as Islam is the second largest next to Christianity. Atheism/Secular Humanism are the third, coming in at around 1.1 billion. Then Hinduism, with another 1 billion.

[N.B. Some of these statistics are probably dated even now...]

OrionBlastar - Sorry I doubled it

|2009-12-03 17:47:57

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/10/07/mus...

1.57 Billion Muslims. I don't know why I thought it was 3 Billion.

WebbedFeetOfClay

|2009-12-03 00:01:34

Even if your few examples somehow proved a rule (which they don't, at all) no thinking is incompatible with western democracy. That's part of the point. People are free to think whatever they dern well wanna think. We regulate how people behave not how they think. Sure I think amputations a pretty horrific punishment for theft, but so long as nobodies amputating hands in switzerland, they're off limits, and the government darn sure better keep their hands off.

laika

|2009-12-03 00:16:50

WebbedFeetOfClay wrote:

People are free to think whatever they dern well wanna think.

even to the point of thinking minarets unappealing?

WebbedFeetOfClay

|2009-12-03 22:19:57

free to think that, of course. not free to legislate it.

laika

|2009-12-03 00:36:13

WebbedFeetOfClay wrote:

...the government darn sure better keep their hands off.

heh, hands off! that disarming wit of yours - i almost missed it.

SteveGus - re: re: So what is the real reason why the Swiss b

|2009-12-02 07:51:15

Shenango wrote:

An interesting point. At least here, in the wilderness of Indiana, the majority of Muslims I know are physicians. I don't really know how pious they are as a body, but some are; a couple years ago, I wrote a will for one of them, who was leaving to go on the pilgrimage.

Were they working in construction, small restaurants, and gardening, it would probably be easier to chirk at them and their folkways. (Middle eastern small restaurants would be a Good Thing, nevertheless.)

laika

|2009-12-03 00:22:52

SteveGus wrote:

(Middle eastern small restaurants would be a Good Thing, nevertheless.)

we're surprisingly lucky in that regard down here. and lots of doctors, like y'all mentioned, but several restauranteurs and plenty of little market/gas station type places. i'm in one or the other of the markets almost every day, but haven't gotten my chicken sajji sandwich or falafel lately.

holmegm

|2009-12-03 09:20:23

Some Army psychiatrists too, I hear.

laika

|2009-12-03 18:30:39

holmegm wrote:

Some Army psychiatrists too, I hear.

well, the *Jihadi Attack That Wasn't was actually considerably west of me.

to be fair, all the bombings in my area over the decades have been instances of home-grown terrorism, the last having been carried out by Eric Robert Rudolf.

*(if you don't want a terrorist attack on your watch, just don't call it terrorism.)

Shenango - re:

|2009-12-05 10:34:02

laika wrote:

you're playfully alluding to Dr. Nidal Hasan, the psychiatrist at Fort Hood Texas..

I'm not alluding to anything specific, no...

Quote:

now, as for Switzerland, i'll mention the imam in Geneva who spoke out publicly to defend amputations as consequence for thievery and the stoning of those caught in adultery. it's incidents like this, Fort Hood, and so many others large and small that have some in the west thinking that the Religion of Peace and Co-existence might - just possibly might - be incompatible with the values of western democracies.

Nobody ever called Islam a religion of "co-existence", nor seriously contended, at least as far as I can tell, that its law system or political ideology is compatible with a secular, democratic government system. One is a theocracy, one is a democracy. Duh.

Quote:

the Swiss, through their vote, politely broadcast this concern. i see no reason to read any more or less into the issue.

A reason from you, grrrendel? No, I wasn't expecting a miracle. The point everyone else besides you has been trying to make in this thread, in one way or another, is that the Swiss have betrayed their own egalitarian, liberal values with this vote, and perhaps additionally the foundations of their democratic system, which may or may not say something about minority rights (I don't know the Swiss civil code).

In an ends-justify-the-means type manner, you seem to be saying that's it's ok for the Swiss to violate their own egalitarian, liberal principles as long as the people who were targeted by the action don't share all of those same principles and/or secular values. In principle and spirit, this cannot stand, however.

I'm skipping over a lot that could be followed up with at this juncture, but ultimately the question comes down to whether the message of Islam is itself true or not, because that determines the discussion.

WebbedFeetOfClay - ummm....

|2009-12-05 12:54:01

Shenango wrote:

but ultimately the question comes down to whether the message of Islam is itself true or not, because that determines the discussion.

In this case I'm going to fundamentally disagree, for the same reason Lewis' Lunatic, Liar or Lord paradigm drives me nuts (despite my love of alliteration.)

There are other factors.
In this discussion, truth isn't really of primary concern, or rather the truth or falsehood of Islam is really a non-issue for this discussion. The question is of civic morality or on a broader scale the sovereignty of self-determination.
I make no qualms about saying I think Islam has all kinds of falsehood and confusion mixed in.

Let me ask you this about that. Do you think such a ban would be appropriate toward another religious group, that you believe to be in error?

Shenango

|2009-12-06 09:21:41

WebbedFeetOfClay wrote:

Let me ask you this about that. Do you think such a ban would be appropriate toward another religious group, that you believe to be in error?

It's all relative, my friend. The standard I judge by is what rights the said people/state are advertising. If the Swiss wish to consider themselves and to be considered advocates of equal rights for all citizens and freedom of religion, then that's the standard they should be held to. So let's say they banned in this vote some structure on Hindu temples in Switzerland, rather than minarets on mosques. By their own standard that would be wrong, and I wouldn't consider that appropriate, no.

Now, Saudia Arabia, for instance, does not offer the same rights to non-Muslims to begin with, so complain as Christians will that they cannot build churches there, they know the laws from the outset, and that's the standard the Saudis are held to. Not to take us too far off on a tangent, but non-Muslims always use the example of Saudi Arabia to demonstrate how there's no reciprocal tolerance in the Muslim world for non-Muslims, as there is for Muslims in the non-Muslim world. Saudi Arabia's example is a bad one to use to symbolize the Muslim world in general, but for this discussion it will suffice well. Most non-Muslims are not aware of the special restrictions the Prophet of Islam (PBUH) placed uniquely on the Arabian peninsula after the rise of Islam, namely, that no non-Muslims be allowed to afterwards permanently settle there and no non-Muslim be allowed entry into the precincts of Mecca and Medina.

The modern Saudi kingdom has more or less since complied with that mandate, but other nations in the peninsula, such as the United Arab Emirates, have not. The UAE's sheikh has allowed the construction of Christian churches and Hindu temples there, in clear violation of this prophetic mandate.

So you see, I can simultaneously hold the Swiss morally wrong to illegalize a structure on a Hindu temple in Switzerland, while holding the Emiratis morally wrong to even allow the erection of a Hindu religious edifice on the Arabian peninsula.

To anyone else, this might sound like unconscionable hypocrisy or double standard, but in my worldview it is well justified. Islam's political ideology is ingeniously crafted to give its own faith and those who adhere to it a leg up on everyone else with the goal establishing the Islamic social order over the global dominion. Politics and faith are interwoven in such fashion that it is impossible for a Muslim to speak of a "civic morality" or "sovereignty of self-determination" except in terms that favor Islamic supremacy. To us, this "civic morality" is universal in the fact that Islam is a universal faith, but it isn't universal from your point of view because it doesn't place everyone on an equal playing field as the starting premise.

If the Swiss vote had targeted church steeples, Jewish temple domes, Hindu or Buddhist temple structures it would have struck only religious symbols, but only in striking crescented minarets did the vote also strike a political symbol. See, this is precisely the unique challenge Islam alone among world faiths presents to secular democracies guarranteeing freedom of religion to all. If you grant freedom to one, you must grant it to all, including the one that carries with it a political/legal system that by definition undermines (at least theoretically) that political system into which it is introduced (it doesn't have to be democracy though, but communism or any other non-theocratic system (Muslim theocratic, that is)).

Ours is a very compelling faith in that fashion. You may disagree with our theology, but you can't shrug it off or ignore it, because our theology is our politics, and our politics affect you.

This is why the question, followed to its most extreme end leads to the one about whether Islam as a theology is true or not. Because you're either a believing Muslim who sees this ideology as the best thing that ever happened to mankind, or you're not and believe it's the worst thing that's ever happened to mankind. There's really no indifference or middle ground to be had toward it.

emperorbma

|2009-12-06 15:32:35

I find it intriguing that you should say "You may disagree with our theology, but you can't shrug it off or ignore it." In fact, as you should probably be aware, this is exactly what we Christians have said about the "ministry and person of Jesus Christ."

Certainly as Christians we have no single political structure as you do, but we, rather, pose the central question as to the nature of sin and righteousness. It seems that your parallel to the Christian's "Kingdom of Heaven" in Islam is the Islamic state under the Shariah. I would note that your "compelling argument" really only works if one considers the political machinations of this world to be of highest value as we Christians most certainly do not. In fact, I would argue that ours is a more compelling question because the state is not necessarily good in all that it does, even if it was established by God. (or else God would not, in the end, be "putting all dominion, power and authority" to destruction) It would seem that the one that adheres to the letter of Shariah would be the best implementation of the Islamic religion, whereas in Christianity we teach that the Spirit of the Law and the doctrine of Christ is higher than the letter and no state implements this perfectly.

Likewise, in Christianity, it seems pretty clear that the state (even a Christian one) can err and that God's Will alone, as manifested in person as His Son Jesus Christ, is the true "thing of ultimate value." (It's odd that Islam seems to amount to "s/Jesus Christ/Qur'an", but I digress...) Christianity is actually somewhat post-political because our emphasis is not on the politics of this world, which are considered pale shadows, but only on the true glory of God that is to be revealed at the end of all things, when all authority, dominion and power will be subdued to Christ and to the Father. It was the same post-political nature that let us defy the Emperor of Rome when he demanded we should worship his image and it is this same post-political nature that has Christians thriving despite the oppression of the DPRK or even in the countries where your own brethren have stoned a person for converting to Christianity. The Law is certainly vital to us, but not in the same manner as you seem to use it, because we as Christians keep the Law only to show that we are God's people not to earn the right to be God's people which has already been done for us in Christ's work. Moreover, there is much in the Law that serves only to prepare for the coming of the Messiah that He has fulfilled and we do not necessarily keep.

Indeed, Christians could say that one is either a believing Christian who sees Christ as the best thing that happened to mankind or one is not and thinks that He is the worst. There is really no middle ground in the end because either He brought redemption to all mankind and one is receiving it through faith or one has denied that and will find that Hell has no exceptions for those who merely think of Christ as a "good man" with a "useful philosophy." As it is written in the Book of Revelation, Christ states, "I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth." (Revelation 3:15-16)

I can certainly respect the sentiment you have raised (since it is similar to our own), but I rather obviously do not agree for reasons I have already mentioned...

laika

|2009-12-05 15:12:42

Shenango wrote:

I'm not alluding to anything specific, no...

my apologies, then, for assuming a humorous bit of baiting where such was not intended. i stand corrected and thank you for it.

Shenango wrote:

The point everyone else besides you has been trying to make in this thread, in one way or another, is that the Swiss have betrayed their own egalitarian, liberal values with this vote, and perhaps additionally the foundations of their democratic system...

i'm not insensible to that point, but the Swiss electorate exercising its right to vote hardly seems incompatible with direct democracy.

emperorbma

|2009-12-05 17:11:05

Quote:

i'm not insensible to that point, but the Swiss electorate exercising its right to vote hardly seems incompatible with direct democracy.

You know what they say, "democracy is like two wolves and a sheep..." Mayhap Shenango is simply pointing that out.

laika

|2009-12-05 20:33:13

emperorbma wrote:

You know what they say, "democracy is like two wolves and a sheep..."

ok, then, it's nice that the sheep stood up on their hind legs and voiced their unease.

emperorbma

|2009-12-05 21:14:51

lol, an impressive turn of phrase. I should have anticipated that response, considering my "two-edged sword" quip. :P

I guess one man's sheep is another man's wolf.

WebbedFeetOfClay - an interesting follow-up

|2009-12-11 23:28:31

it seems this isn't quite over

Only registered users can write comments!

Our valuable member laika has been with us since Thursday, 03 April 2008.

Show Other Articles

Housecleaning at the Vatican? (16 June 2013)
How Can You Tell a Fake Jesus? (07 June 2013)
Dino Quiz Controversy May Save School (30 May 2013)
On a Wave of Jubilation* (17 May 2013)
Survey: Provo-Orem area most religious in US (07 April 2013)

Feeds

Make a Donation

Current Poll

Support Us!

3.20 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."

Popular

Statistics

Who's Online