ganjavih
Senior Member
Certainly an embarrassment for Switzerland's generally positive reputation. I wonder how the government will handle this.
The one thing that I would like to see is the language which determines what shape is banned - my guess is that it is going to be difficult to single out the "shape" in all but name - so someone can just change the name
Certainly an embarrassment for Switzerland's generally positive reputation. I wonder how the government will handle this.
It is only recently that Muslims in non-Muslim countries have pined for building mosques that resemble those of their ancestoral homelands, but are totally alien to their non-Muslim neighbours. It's a disturbing trend because the end result will inevitably be friction between Muslims and non-Muslims, as we are now witnessing in Europe.
All that said, the Muslims of Switzerland??? Hardly a hotbed of jihadi extremists.
Perhaps the majority of the electorate within Switzerland perceived an implied threat, as noted above, to themselves or to their way of life which caused them to vote in the manner in which they have.
Had this legislation merely been a height restriction on all cylindrical towers, this would likely not have been reported in the news. Yet, it would have impacted exactly the same buildings and the same people.
there seems to be an erosion of western (secular) values in europe. on one end you got people going to jail or being fined for publicly criticizing or insulting a religion and on the other end you got bizarre laws being made against religious architecture.
It could just as much be seen as a secular reaction to extremism, concerns over growing Islamist influence (of their Islamic communities), etc. I don't think this is 'Christian' Europe reacting to Muslims in so much as it's post-Christian secular Europe that has some deep discomforts with the increasingly deep and often overt religiosity of Muslims.
In a sense, it's a purely secular reaction.
"Muslim" is not a race. It's a religion. If the Swiss want to ban Islamic symbols, I see no more issue with that than if they banned Scientologists, or Mormans, etc.Human rights abuses in one nation do not justify human rights abuses in another. Who are 'they', and why do they have any more right to Switzerland than the Swiss? I'm all for supporting local cultures, but when you conflate culture with race you get into some seriously murky waters. There is no legal case for 'entitlement' cultural restrictions. It's undemocratic, plain and simple.
I support this ban in the name of gay rights and women's rights. If any one religion needs to be suppressed, Islam the right choice. We shouldn't tolerate a religion that promotes women and homosexuals getting stoned to death by the government. But that's just my opinion.
And yet, the implied threat of 'I hope Switzerland suffers for this' was made (I assume that you are from the West) by a person with Western principles against a people who freely exercised their democratic right. Unlike other Western democratic countries, it is 'the people' of Switzerland who actually determine government (federal, cantonal and municipal level) policy and not the individual politician as it is a nation of referendums.
Imaginary or not, once the perception of a threat takes root, it is very difficult to alter the outcome. In this case, the majority of the electorate felt that a threat did exist and voted accordingly.
I support this ban in the name of gay rights and women's rights. If any one religion needs to be suppressed, Islam the right choice. We shouldn't tolerate a religion that promotes women and homosexuals getting stoned to death by the government. But that's just my opinion.
"Muslim" is not a race. It's a religion. If the Swiss want to ban Islamic symbols, I see no more issue with that than if they banned Scientologists, or Mormans, etc.
The Swiss have right to Switzerland because they're Swiss. It's their country. They built it. It not a local culture, it's the country's culture.
if we're to suppress a religion based on what its texts command you to do, quite a few religions would be banned for ordering hatred and physical harm against others. if such texts or their contexts were from a smaller group, without the element of spirituality, i wonder how they would be regarded? most likely not with reverence.
though i wouldn't call for a ban. people can believe what ever the heck they want. i don't however recommend the government endorse, approve of or grant any special favours or privileges to such groups. and if your religion, especially the whacky parts, is a private matter that you think shouldn't be criticized, keep it private.