Switzerland set to ba Islamic Minarets

[Furrowed Brow]

Switerzland have just voted and exit polls suggest that they have voted for a ban on the building of islamic minarets.

BBC link

One reason for the proposed ban given is that Sharia law is incompatible with Swiss Democracy.

Is this correct? Or are the Swiss guilty of descrimination?

[TrueReligion]

From Post 96:

Folks who don't live in Arab countries are less likely to appreciate Arab inspired architecture. To say this is discrimination doesn't accurately reflect that folks can be proud of their own culture, and seek to have it as the predominant architecture.

Is this reason given by the comittee for ban of Minaret? can you confirm please? or its just your comments?

It's presented as a reasoned, logical statement. Of course I can't speak for the committe, but I can try my best to point out how or why their decisions may come about. If the committee declared such as "No Muslim icons because we hate Muslims", I'd stand with you in protest.

Friend, already this post have gone very far beyond topic, so please if you can just stuck to comitee remarks.

When one's only connection to Islam is daily reports of terrorism, it's not surprising they'd think in such a fashion.

Can you prove for this? or its only a funny and childish remark?
Also, same remarks can be used by Muslims to others as well, with proof ofcourse

Reason and logic. And I agree, Muslims who're presented a daily stream of negativity against others are likely to think negatively of others. As I mentioned later in that post, this is one reason I think it is important, and I 'preciate your being here - so we get a different perspective. My personal opinion is that us discussing this issue in polite terms (even if some of it is inflammatory) shows that both sides of an issue can disagree, but that by trying to understand one another we come to a better understanding of what is important to either side. On that note I commend you for not lashing out at talk of Muslim extremists, but considering my perspective as otherwise legitimate.

You make a sound case against this ban. For one, you show the minaret is important to the people, and not so much the religion. I agree if you say, "This ban is wrong because the minaret is important to Arabs (and even Muslims)", but I'd disagree if you say, "This ban is solely racial / religious discrimination".

What I said is, for the remarks VUK, "that the BAN is due to pollitical power taking over Switzerland,"
So you consider it logical or acceptable? ofcourse its not true and can;t be true, and what Minaret has do to with this remarks?
Hope you uunderstand my point, I do accept that my englishis not good enough like you people, as its not my native language, but I do try best to deliver my expressions

>on the 9/11 attacks<

Any proof of people in that plane? Any proof who was flying the plane? or making your claim from cnn or US-Govt only?

Oh please. There's the list of passengers, phone calls from the plane, and the fact that many folks reported their loved ones being on these planes, but not arriving at their destinations.

Your point about how I got my information is somewhat valid, but I think you're really just speaking in probabilities, and not understanding my point. The news / government gave me - if me only - reason to think there were Arab Muslims responsible. Regardless of whether this is accurate or not, here I am. So, I (if wrongly) have a fear of Arab Muslims (really just the extremists), and so I might object to what I consider Arab Muslims' influence on my life / architecture. Again - right or wrong - "perception is reality". All my information - right or wrong - informs my decision making.

For Plane controversy, as VUK said, lets leave it, as its very controversial issue, so I will just leave it without making any comment.
For your fear of arabs, I would recommend you to travel to any Arab country, UAE, QATAR, BAHRAIN, KUWAIT, etc etc, and see yourself whats the reality.
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/in ... 043AAEyKCq


It's not about the veracity of one's information so much as it is what conclusions they draw and how they act.

For the record, I don't see the minaret as a problem, but I also don't think banning them is such a clear-cut example of racial / religious discrimination. Based on the above - right or wrong, if I see the minaret as a symbol of something I abhor (religious extremism), I can hate that symbol and still respect the many people who respect that symbol, but don't commit violent acts.

...Would an Arab city be happy if some African culture came in and started building grass huts* in the center of downtown?...

Its not a justified answer here, that the people of 1 culture, should not make in other place,

I agree, and thank you for pointing that out. My intent is to show that such bans may be about one's culture / architecture, and not an out and out example of racial/religious discrimination. I hate rap music. Hate it. Will not let it be played in my house. Do I hate black folks? (Work with me here, we all know a lot of black folks - among others - love the rap music, and God love 'em for it)

Here we gotta consider - A large Arab Muslim population moves in. Their architecture is different, and folks can consider the architecture separate from the Arab, from the Muslim, and separate from the Arab Muslim. They might see a minaret as an "invasion" of architecture moreso than an "invasion" of Arabs, Muslims, etc.

You are perfectly correct in pointing out the potential for this being a racial / religious discrimination issue. This point we should include in possible reasons behind such bans, but we can't say this is the only reason.

This is what I;am trying to point out ther users till now, that no justified answer is given by any1 for the BAN of Minaret, so ofcourse 1 can only think of discriminition in religion. If it say that its against the architecture of Switzerland, or due to some enviroment issue, that is justified and accepted, no one will object, right?

I would accept your this remarks, if Switzerland Govt. BAN every other religion architecture in the country, which include China, Japan, India etc etc, but did it happen? so why only for Muslims?

I lack the information necessary for an informed response here. What stats can we use to compare objections to say Pagoda architecture to these minarets? I would agree that allowing say a cross on top of buildings, but not a Muslim icon is such discrimination. But you yourself have said the minaret is not a religious symbol, but a symbol of one culture's architecture.

Is the ban on minarets a discrimination against a culture or style of architecture? Perhaps. Is it a clear example of racial / religious discrimination? I don't think so.

As I said above, the explanation given by VUK, that the reason of BAN is the religious political power to takeover Switzerland is the reason, so this is not true in anyway.
Another reason shown, that the majority of people who vote were christians, so does;nt it show 1 sided aprroach towards Islam?

Swiss ban on minarets is pure discrimination (LA-TIMES)
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/edi ... 6123.story

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/world ... swiss.html
The Swiss Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, but the rightist Swiss People’s Party, or S.V.P., and a small religious party had proposed inserting a single sentence banning the construction of minarets, leading to the referendum.

[JoeyKnothead]

Swiss ban on minarets is pure discrimination (LA-TIMES)
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/edi ... 6123.story

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/world ... swiss.html
The Swiss Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, but the rightist Swiss People’s Party, or S.V.P., and a small religious party had proposed inserting a single sentence banning the construction of minarets, leading to the referendum.

Point noted. From your second reference:

that the minaret ban was “not a rejection of the Muslim community, religion or culture.�

Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, the justice minister, said the result “reflects fears among the population of Islamic fundamentalist tendencies.�

If not a rejection of the culture - which I've argued can be valid, then the second statement must surely be true.

I hate to admit my bigotry, but when so many atrocious acts are committed in the name of Islam, I just can't help but fear all who espouse its goals.

It goes back to the public relations and "perception is reality" issue. If so many atrocious acts weren't being committed in the name of Islam, there'd be less reason to fear its more moderate voices and icons.

I struggle with the notion that the violent extremists should no be representative, but I also can't deny my "gut feelings" regarding folks whose religion has them blowing up innocent men, women and children.

[TrueReligion]

Swiss ban on minarets is pure discrimination (LA-TIMES)
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/edi ... 6123.story

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/world ... swiss.html
The Swiss Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, but the rightist Swiss People’s Party, or S.V.P., and a small religious party had proposed inserting a single sentence banning the construction of minarets, leading to the referendum.

Point noted. From your second reference:

that the minaret ban was “not a rejection of the Muslim community, religion or culture.�

Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, the justice minister, said the result “reflects fears among the population of Islamic fundamentalist tendencies.�

If not a rejection of the culture - which I've argued can be valid, then the second statement must surely be true.

I hate to admit my bigotry, but when so many atrocious acts are committed in the name of Islam, I just can't help but fear all who espouse its goals.

It goes back to the public relations and "perception is reality" issue. If so many atrocious acts weren't being committed in the name of Islam, there'd be less reason to fear its more moderate voices and icons.

I struggle with the notion that the violent extremists should no be representative, but I also can't deny my "gut feelings" regarding folks whose religion has them blowing up innocent men, women and children.

See, the point of blowing of people cannot be justified for the ban of Minaret, as nowhere does the comitee mention this part.

Also the majority of muslims living in Switzerland, the settled one are from Turkey, and Bosinia etc, which are far different from living of muslims from rest of the world, for example dressing and way of life etc etc.

Other point, In India, since many years christians are being targeted specially, and churches burnt up, and many other fierce torture is given to christians in India, but anything BAN for Hindus in Switzerland as well?

[JoeyKnothead]

See, the point of blowing of people cannot be justified for the ban of Minaret, as nowhere does the comitee mention this part.

Also the majority of muslims living in Switzerland, the settled one are from Turkey, and Bosinia etc, which are far different from living of muslims from rest of the world, for example dressing and way of life etc etc.

Other point, In India, since many years christians are being targeted specially, and churches burnt up, and many other fierce torture is given to christians in India, but anything BAN for Hindus in Switzerland as well?

Very good points. Your take is certainly valid, and one wonders why the fear of one group - legitimate or not - and not another. Looking strictly at the committee, I don't think they could (being politicians or equivalent) express their full thoughts, but you'd be correct in trying to get that committee to "come clean".

Just to square myself with the OP, I'd say you present a compelling case that this ban is not justifiable under the conditions presented by the committee.

I think it's safe to say the perception of Hindus within Switzerland is far different than the perception of Muslims. Even I don't fear the Hindus, but I could use more information regarding these attacks on Christians.

I really don't want my posts here to be seen as Muslim bashing, but as one man's perspective, presented as honestly and openly as possible.

[TrueReligion]

Thanks for understanding my points and giving neutral and positive remarks.

[ExApostolic]

Should be banned