The proportion between Christianity and Islam in Switzerland:

What is forbidden in the future:

GdB

Tradition Of Progress - 13 December 2009 02:10 PM

ray - 10 December 2009 07:03 AM

You guys are right, muslim countries have banned western items.

For example, Ayatollah does not allow bikinis on Iranian beaches. They should not cry too much at the Swiss.

 

If Muslims keep showing a need to Islamize the countries to which they move, then they should expect people to be uneasy about them bulding Minarets in their new home countries.

 

Fair enough. If Americans keep showing a need to westernise the muslims nations, then they too should expect muslims to be suspicious of Westerners.

I think we in the west have exported more of our “freedoms” to muslim countries than they have brought Islam here. You can simply take a look and compare.

I like what the Dutch government has been doing.  For anyone wanting to become a Dutch citizen, they show pictures of couples kissing on benches, including same-sex couples, and say: “This is what people are free to do in our country without feer.  If you have a problem with this, then you might not want to live here.”

 

In that case, would you accept if Iranians showed to the Americans or Europeans some photos of ladies in black chador, and said if you infidels have a problem with this type of dress, then you might not want to be in Tehran?

BBC and other TV channels often complains that Iranians force western female journalists to cover up.

Is that okay with you?

One ought not have double standards.

GdB - 14 December 2009 12:51 AM

The proportion between Christianity and Islam in Switzerland:

What is forbidden in the future:

GdB

What did you say earlier? 2 wrongs don’t make a right?

I was listening to an interview with a Swiss manufacturer who is not muslim, but who has now constructed a minaret on his factory building in protest.  He stated that there were only four minarets in all of the country, and that the issue was raised as a campaign ploy by one of the political parties without any expectation of it passing.  He said the areas who voted strongly for the ban were low population rural and mountainous sections, almost all of whose voters had never even seen a minaret. 

Occam

Answers to (1) questions on Legal rulings on the Swiss referendum, and, (2) the referendum as a form of democratic government.

Wikipedia:

(A) “Legal dispute

Minaret at the mosque of the local Turkish cultural association in Wangen bei Olten, the initial motivation for the popular initiative.
The Swiss minaret controversy began in a small municipality in the northern part of Switzerland in 2005. The contention involved the Turkish cultural association in Wangen bei Olten, which applied for a construction permit to erect a 6-metre-high minaret on the roof of its Islamic community centre. The project faced opposition from surrounding residents, who had formed a group to prevent the tower’s erection. The Turkish association claimed that the building authorities improperly and arbitrarily delayed its building application. They also believed that the members of the local opposition group were motivated by religious bias. The Communal Building and Planning Commission rejected the association’s application. The applicants appealed to the Building and Justice Department, which reverted the decision and remanded. As a consequence of that decision, local residents (who were members of the group mentioned) and the commune of Wangen brought the case before the Administrative Court of the Canton of Solothurn, but failed with their claims. On appeal the Federal Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court. The 6-metre (20 ft)-high minaret was eventually erected in July 2009.[4]”

(B) Result
“Main article: Swiss referendum, November 2009

“The results of the November 2009 referendum by canton. Red indicates opposition to the ban of minarets, green support of the ban.
In a referendum on 29 November 2009, the amendment, which needed a double majority to pass, was approved by 57.5% (1 534 054 citizens[34]) of the voters and by 19½ cantons out of 23. Geneva, Vaud and Neuchatel, all of which are French speaking cantons, voted against the ban (59.7%, 53.1% and 50.9% respectively). The canton of Basel-City, which has half a cantonal vote and the largest Muslim community of Switzerland, also rejected the ban by 51.6%. The voter turnout was 53.4%.[35]

“At the discrict level, the initiative failed to find a majority in 16 districts (not including Basle-City and Geneva which are not divided into districts): canton of Vaud: Lausanne, Ouest lausannois, Lavaux-Oron, Nyon, Morges, Riviera-Pays-d’Enhaut; canton of Neuchatel: Neuchatel, Boudry, La Chaux-de-Fonds; canton of Fribourg: Sarine; canton of Jura: Delémont, Franches-Montagnes; canton of Zurich: Zurich, Meilen; canton of Berne: Berne; canton of Solothurn: Solothurn.[36]

“The cities of Zurich and Berne along with Geneva and Basel also showed a slight majority opposed to the ban, uniting the four largest Swiss cities in rejecting the initiative. The canton of Zurich as a whole, however, voted 52% yes. The highest percentage of votes in favour of the ban were counted in Appenzell Innerrhoden (71%) followed by Glarus (69%), Ticino (68%) and Thurgau (68%).

The Swiss Green Party have declared that in their opinion, the ban introduces a contradiction into the Swiss constitution, which also contains a paragraph which guarantees freedom of religion and they have announced their intention to appeal to the European Court on Human Rights on the matter.[37]”

(C) “Implementation and the Langenthal minaret

“The ban on new minarets may be put to the test in the case of a pending project of building a minaret for a mosque in Langenthal, canton of Berne. The Islamic community of Langenthal has announced their intention of taking their case to the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland and if necessary further to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The attorney of the community has also announced doubts on whether the ban can be taken to affect the Langenthal project because the application for planning permission had been handed to the authorities in 2006, it may be argued that the ban cannot be taken to apply to this project ex post facto. On the other hand, Bernese officials and Rainer Schweizer, law professor at St. Gallen University, have expressed their opinion that the ban renders the Langenthal project obsolete.[38]

“Whether the Langenthal mosque is affected may depend on the details of the eventual implementation. According to Alexander Ruch, professor of building law at ETH Zurich, there is so far no official definition of minarets, leaving open the handling of hypothetical cases such as the chimney of a factory building that is converted into a mosque.[39] In the case of Langenthal it has even been argued that the planned structure is a minaret-like tower rather than a minaret. In fact, calls to prayer have been a frequent argument against minarets, and the planned tower in Langenthal cannot be used for that purpose.[40] In the case of the Islamic center in Frauenfeld, canton of Thurgau, there is a ventilation shaft that was adorned with a sheet metal cone topped with a crescent moon. The Frauenfeld city coucil has declined treating the structure as a “minaret”, saying that it had been officially declared a ventilation shaft, and that the added crescent moon had not been giving cause for comment during the six years since its installation.[41]”

•  The issues are complex and the legal intervention is as complex as the issues are.  It appears that (A) Local courts have upheld results, locally, that (B) Federal Courts cannot rule either way and the results of the referendum, mutatis mutandis, under law, become law.  Finally under (C) the Swiss Constitution allows for an appeal of a referendum’s results in international law to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg - this may follow if a certain number of signatures can be accumulated by the Islamic supporters of Minarets.

•  Referring to the growth of Nazi power in Germany when defining a referendum does not negate the process as an integral part of a democracy involving all citizens in the voting process: Wikipedia -

“A referendum (also known as a plebiscite or a ballot question) is a direct vote in which an entire electorate is asked to either accept or reject a particular proposal. This may result in the adoption of a new constitution, a constitutional amendment, a law, the recall of an elected official or simply a specific government policy. It is a form of direct democracy. The measure put to a vote is known in the U.S. as a ballot proposition or measure.”

As Defined in Switzerland:

“In Switzerland, there are binding referendums at federal, cantonal and municipal level. They are a central feature of Swiss political life. It is not the government’s choice whether or when a referendum is held, but it is a legal procedure regulated by the Swiss constitution. There are two types of referendums:

“Facultative referendum: Any federal law, certain other federal resolutions, and international treaties that are either perpetual and irredeemable, joinings of an international organization, or that change Swiss law may be subject to a facultative referendum if at least 50,000 people or eight cantons have petitioned to do so within 100 days. In cantons and municipalities, the required number of people is smaller, and there may be additional causes for a facultative referendum, e.g., expenditures that exceed a certain amount of money. The facultative referendum is the most usual type of referendum, and it is mostly carried out by political parties or by interest groups.

“Obligatory referendum: There must be a referendum on any amendments to the constitution and on any joining of a multinational community or organization for collective security. In many municipalities, expenditures that exceed a certain amount of money also are subject to the obligatory referendum. Constitutional amendments are either proposed by the parliament or the cantons, or they may be proposed by citizens’ initiatives, which—on the federal level—need to collect 100,000 valid signatures within 18 months, and must not contradict international laws or treaties. Often, parliament elaborates a counter-proposal to an initiative, leading to a multiple-choice referendum. Very few such initiatives pass the vote, but more often, the parliamentary counter proposal is approved.
The possibility of facultative referendums forces the parliament to search for a compromise between the major interest groups. In many cases, the mere threat of a facultative referendum or of an initiative is enough to make the parliament adjust a law.
The referendums are said, by their adversaries, to slow politics down. On the other hand empirical scientists, e.g. Bruno S. Frey among many, show that this and other instruments of citizens’ participation, direct democracy, contribute to stability and happiness.
The votes on referendums are always held on a Sunday, typically three or four times a year, and in most cases, the votes concern several referendums at the same time, often at different political levels (federal, cantonal, municipal). Elections are as well often combined with referendums. The percentage of voters is around 40 to 50 percent unless there is an election. The decisions made in referendums tend to be conservative. Citizens’ initiatives are usually not passed. The federal rule and referendums have been used in Switzerland since 1848.”

“Eleanor Roosevelt et al. wrote after the Nazi- Holocaust, WWII a Human Rights Declaration, passed into Law 10.12.1948, where Direct Democracy (Referendum) is part of. See: Article 21: “1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.”

“Although some advocates of direct democracy would have the referendum become the dominant institution of government, in practice and in principle, in almost all cases, the referendum exists solely as a complement to the system of representative democracy, in which most major decisions are made by an elected legislature. An often cited exception is the Swiss canton of Glarus, in which meetings are held on the village lawn to decide on matters of public concern. In most jurisdictions that practice them, referendums are relatively rare occurrences and are restricted to important issues.”

ray - 14 December 2009 06:15 AM

Tradition Of Progress - 13 December 2009 02:10 PM

ray - 10 December 2009 07:03 AM

You guys are right, muslim countries have banned western items.

For example, Ayatollah does not allow bikinis on Iranian beaches. They should not cry too much at the Swiss.

 

If Muslims keep showing a need to Islamize the countries to which they move, then they should expect people to be uneasy about them bulding Minarets in their new home countries.

 

Wait.  The preceding sentence was eliminated.  I stated: “Also, prohibating bikinis on Iranian beaches is one thing, but what about the Muslim immigrants in Australia who started riots over Australian women wearing bikinis on Australian beaches?”  I am saying that the prohibitions in Iran are not much to complain about, and drawing attention to something that is an example of a greater concern.

Fair enough. If Americans keep showing a need to westernise the muslims nations, then they too should expect muslims to be suspicious of Westerners.

Okay, I agree with that.  But many Americans see no need to westernize the Muslim nations, other than for them to respect human rights.

I think we in the west have exported more of our “freedoms” to muslim countries than they have brought Islam here. You can simply take a look and compare.

And this is such a bad thing?
Sometimes people in muslim countries seek freedoms that we take for granted in western nations.  As an example, the Israeli newpaper Ha`aretz was once the one place where Arabs could most use the freedom of speech.  That was until Al Jazeeral arose.  Al Jazerra is popular with Arab and muslim people, but very unpopular with most governments, especially the U.S. government and those in muslim nations.

I like what the Dutch government has been doing.  For anyone wanting to become a Dutch citizen, they show pictures of couples kissing on benches, including same-sex couples, and say: “This is what people are free to do in our country without fear.  If you have a problem with this, then you might not want to live here.”

In that case, would you accept if Iranians showed to the Americans or Europeans some photos of ladies in black chador, and said if you infidels have a problem with this type of dress, then you might not want to be in Tehran?

I would appreciate such a warning.  When I go to another country, I am not going to express problems with or start riots over the way the natives dress.  If I wanted to live there badly enough, I would be realistic about what it means.  Given such a warning, I would know not to go there.  I would rather have them tell me that ahead of time rather than find out from being in some kind of incedent.

BBC and other TV channels often complains that Iranians force western female journalists to cover up.

Is that okay with you?

If they want to complain, I don’t care.  They do not need my approval to complain.

Nobody is forcing the muslim immigrants in the Netherlands to participate in kissing on the benches or participate in same-sex coupling.  They are just saying that others have the freedom to do this, and that the freedom to do so should not be threatened in the Netherlands.  This is in response to the muslim immigrants responding to things they do not approve of with violence in the countries to which they have immigrated.

When the journalists are in Iran, they are not complaining about the Iranian women in chador, they are complaining about having to wear the chador themselves, and they are not commiting acts of violence to protest the apparel of the Iranian women. So the two situations are not analagous.

Of course the journalists should understand that this is the way the country is at the moment, and go ahead and wear the chador.  Wearing the chador on camera can send an interesting message.

One ought not have double standards.

It is not a double standard, because it is a false parallel. 
As far as double standards go, I thought I have been holding the Christians to the same standards and suggesting that they are pretty much the same thing only under different symbols.

After the last few posts, with some facts presented, I have been convinced that the Swiss ban is unfair, and inconsistant.

Hi Ecrasez l’infame,

I’m not supposed to read all this, am I? I suggest you answer my questions in your own words and then provide the links where you found it.

This is overkill. I assume nearly nobody will read this. Maybe even against the formum rules about citing from other pages.

GdB

Occam - 14 December 2009 12:28 PM

I was listening to an interview with a Swiss manufacturer who is not muslim, but who has now constructed a minaret on his factory building in protest.  He stated that there were only four minarets in all of the country, and that the issue was raised as a campaign ploy by one of the political parties without any expectation of it passing.  He said the areas who voted strongly for the ban were low population rural and mountainous sections, almost all of whose voters had never even seen a minaret. 

Yep. And where are living nearly no foreigners so they do not have any problems with them. But these rural areas are definitely more christian…

These are the two other mosques with minarets:

Geneva:

Wangen:

The ones in my posting before are in Zürich and Winterthur.

So sometimes I wonder what is all the fuzz about… But surely this forbidding of minarets does not solve one single problem with (fundamentalist) Islam.

GdB

PS It is difficult to see, but there is at least a flag of Switzerland, and of the town (Wangen) in front of the mosque…

More than half the respondents to this thread are for the freedom of minarets.(so to speak) All good, reasonable, rational, answers were given, supporting the muslims and their minarets.
A good slice of people replied too. A Swiss inhabitant, Californians, other Europeans, other Americans from all over.
Islam is the largest religion in the world. It is getting larger. It is spreading. Does this sound alarmist? Maybe?
Facts are facts.
I’m sure the original indigenous peoples of the Americas had mixed feelings about the arrival of the Europeans and christianity.

VYAZMA - 15 December 2009 07:10 AM

I’m sure the original indigenous peoples of the Americas had mixed feelings about the arrival of the Europeans and christianity.

Mixed feelings? I can’t imagine too many Indians enjoying the English exterminating them.

VYAZMA - 15 December 2009 07:10 AM

Islam is the largest religion in the world. It is getting larger. It is spreading. Does this sound alarmist?

Yes, it does. But what does forbidding minarets to moderate Muslims help in this respect? There might be better ways to cope with the spreading of (radical) Islam. Forbidding minarets might be fuel for islamists, and might radicalise moderates. These are psychological facts. Please show to me that forbidding minarets is a good strategy.

VYAZMA - 15 December 2009 07:10 AM

Facts are facts.

Indeed. And psychlogical facts are also facts.

And values are values.

GdB

George - 15 December 2009 07:37 AM

VYAZMA - 15 December 2009 07:10 AM

I’m sure the original indigenous peoples of the Americas had mixed feelings about the arrival of the Europeans and christianity.

Mixed feelings? I can’t imagine too many Indians enjoying the English exterminating them.

George it’s more complicated than that. There were long periods of coexistence peaceful or otherwise. But if you want to talk about outright exterminations, you should focus more on the Spanish than on the English initially.
My point being that many Native Americans welcomed the Europeans, and many tribes were able to integrate with the settlers and colonists. Some weren’t. It’s a long and complicated history comprising many different European factions, and many different Native factions.
Basically I was using an analogy there George, but I want to stress that my ultimate point was not about exterminations.

VYAZMA - 15 December 2009 09:41 AM

But if you want to talk about outright exterminations, you should focus more on the Spanish than on the English initially.

That is not what I’ve read. But you are right: it doesn’t belong here. Sorry. Back to the minarets…

GdB I think we have to realize at some point that although many have extolled the virtues of inert, “non-radical” religions, and their ability to interact secularly within a given society, we have to temper it with a few things:
1. Religions and their apparent “energy levels” can fluctuate, sometimes wildly.
2. The very basis of religion, that being an organization based on fantasy, and an unwillingness to face the truth is fundamentally corrosive to a society.
3. In physics, or any other study of life when we observe something growing, or expanding, there is a certain gravity, or mass that said thing obtains. This is very relevant!

George - 15 December 2009 09:47 AM

VYAZMA - 15 December 2009 09:41 AM

But if you want to talk about outright exterminations, you should focus more on the Spanish than on the English initially.

That is not what I’ve read. But you are right: it doesn’t belong here. Sorry. Back to the minarets…

George I said “initially”. But are you not familiar with the Spanish Conquest, and Portuguese conquest of Mexico, Central and South America? As well as the Caribbean? Were talking Genocide. Wholesale slaughter.