Switzerland's minarets

[pjkeeley]

I still consider your argument too vague, lifegazer. I don't disagree with you that Islam is political, and that if even moderate Islam held sway over Western governments it would subvert democracy. I want to know what degree of freedom Muslims should be denied in relation to everyone else, according to you, in order to prevent this. Clearly, as you have already stated, minarets aren't problematic. So what is? What do we ban?

I argue that Muslims should have precisely the same freedoms that we enjoy. No more, no less. The argument that Muslims shouldn't be allowed the same degree of freedom that we enjoy on the grounds that they wouldn't otherwise reciprocate such freedom if they gained power reminds me of McCarthy-era arguments about Communists. If Communists gained power, it was argued, they would undermine democracy and democratic liberties. Thus, it was considered necessary to deny Communists certain freedoms in order to prevent them from subverting democracy. This line of thinking turned out to be even worse in practice than it was on paper.

There are two main problems with this argument: first, that it relies on a nexus between those freedoms that are denied and the protection of a system which affords those freedoms, and second, that it makes freedom conditional.

Where minarets are concerned the first problem is clearly evident: there is no real connection between building minarets and subverting democracy. It is at most a symbolic connection. Flag burning may damage a symbol, but it doesn't literally damage the real-life government that the symbol represents. Symbolism may be important to some, but if so, flag burning should be opposed for that reason, not because it purports to literally damage something tangible. There must be a connection between the thing banned and the justification for the banning. If the justification for curtailing Muslim freedoms is that Muslims will subvert democracy, then the question is what freedoms should be curtailed and what is their connection to subversion?

As for the second objection I raised, I will preface it by saying that freedom is always conditional [insert obligatory reference to people yelling 'fire!' in a crowded theatre here]. However, in a truly free society thought should never be conditional. Even if the stated aim of Communism is to overthrow democratic governments and replace them with an international dictatorship of the proletariat, you cannot ban the idea of Communism and criminalise all those who subscribe to it on the basis of its ideas. Thought is not a crime. If an otherwise mentally healthy man has a fantasy about murdering his neighbour, so be it. That is not the business of authorities. If he talks about it, makes plans to do it and is armed, then the danger to his neighbour becomes the business of police. If he attempts it, he has committed a crime.

So the danger in curtailing the freedom of Muslims, as with Communists and others, is that we are making thought a crime. If there are real plans to subvert or overthrow democratic government then they are a concern to be dealt with. But note that this would be the case if anyone made such plans, not just Muslims or Communists.

[Alun]

[lifegazer]

[Juice]

Does anyone else see what we are doing here? It's a building, and we are willing to conflate and aggravate the situation to include that somehow a peoples religious freedoms are being compromised by force, pitting one religious ideology against another, and not simply that a peoples Constitution worked in favor of the wishes of a simple majority, regardless of any individual reason.

I would be willing to bet that had the question of minarets been one of a definitive religious obligation required by the Koran that there would be no question here that the minarets would be allowed. But, since it is just a modern tradition which does not hinder a peoples ability to worship, in the least, as they please then why should any level of support for one group over the other encourage civil unrest.

We have to admit that Islam has proven itself capable of violence, and it would be a more poignant expression of their commitment to peace if they would police themselves instead of having foreign entities deal with their more radical elements for them. I believe it is true that given half the chance Muslims would force their religion on others since that is a requirement according to the Koran.

Moreover I believe that saying no, as the Swiss have done, goes further to defending freedom than it does in limiting freedom. What happens when other faiths start building minarets of their own and we can all have a calls to prayers battles like rap battles. How childish!!!
_________________
When everyone looks to better their own future then the future will be better for everyone.

An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis

Fight the illusion!

[Alun]

[Juice]

Alun-I believe you are projecting here, and taking something personally. I did not mention anything about Christianity here only that people are willing to pit one religious ideology against another. The OP itself brings up, not only, aspects outside the purview of Swiss borders as well religious symbols, of which a minaret has no religious significance except as a building decoration, like a gargoyle. As I have stated the minaret is actually fractional among different fractions in Islam itself.

Once again we see how European secularism will take an issue, conflate it beyond the scope of a legitimate argument. The Swiss have decided that religion (Catholicism) should be part of their government, their identity and their culture. Obviously something they wish to pass on to future generations, and something which should be respected as their right to do. Being that a minaret does not hinder religious freedom in any way and that Muslims have numerous ways to promote and express their religion other than a decoration on a building which breaks with Swiss traditions, and was legally voted upon, according to the Swiss Constitution and voted down. Let the Swiss, Muslims included, handle their own business, according to their laws, without the entire world trying to turn this into the crusades.
_________________
When everyone looks to better their own future then the future will be better for everyone.

An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis

Fight the illusion!

[lifegazer]

[Alun]

[Juice]

Alun-That is exactly my point. This is not a question of morality and those who want to turn this into some sort of religious obstructionism on the part of the Swiss do so to promote an agenda by wanting to radicalize Christianity in the same way that Islam is radicalized which is purely false. Muslims are not denied the right to be Muslim or to practice Islam in Switzerland they are just denied a decoration on a building, and if people just see it as that and not a denial of a right to freedom of religion then we can all move merrily along, without any invectives or bomb throwing.

It is not discrimination, its a building. They are not being stopped from building a mosque so they can gather and worship as they please, just a decoration which does not inhibit the practice of thier religion in any way by it not being there.

But, that wont happen since a bunch of UN or world organizations will go into Switzerland and just escalate the situation and turn it into a moral issue or an issue of religious discrimination nonetheless. Just like I pointed out in the Black Conservative thread how typically the social justice industry is obligated to compare every situation with Black History in the states.

To this day there are countries with severally restrictive immigration policies towards Blacks. Switzerland is not one of them.

The country belongs to the Swiss who are Catholic and do not have a separation of church and state and will do what it takes to preserve and protect their heritage as is their right to do. And if they feel they are being invaded then they have the right to repel the invaders too.
_________________
When everyone looks to better their own future then the future will be better for everyone.

An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis

Fight the illusion!

[pjkeeley]

[lifegazer]

[Billy]

Someone with a better knowledge of history of Eurasian architecture could probably show how much supposedly European forms originated in the Islamic world. Eg., we all know Moorish style in Spain is Islamic... but also nearly every standing building of history in 'Christian' Greece and Bulgaria were built in the Muslim period.

Ever hear Call to Prayer in a European city? Why not?

Church bells are also loud. Double standard obviously.

Where is a man to wash his feet in a modern European city?

Mosques in the extreme Orient are 'Chinese-style',

No reason there couldn't be minarets and mosques that suit the 'Swiss-style',

Granted, some Swiss could argue that a minaret will block their beautiful view of the Alps, but Swiss is a big country, this is not really ever an issue. It's terrible, it's terrible! A person's free-will should not be obstructed without a very good reason, which, there is none here.

Every peoples who resides anywhere have a right to erect cultural buildings pursuant to right of cultural expression.

[lifegazer]

[Alun]

[Billy]