Switzerland Minarets Laws

[cacruden]

Yet, that line of thought would make any and all architectural control invalid.

Not necessarily, I have never been a believer in the slippery slope attitude. The problem is that this is not a zoning restriction, or construction related safety issue, etc. This is just if the building is x, then this expression is invalid. They could have banned building towers in areas where other buildings are not that height etc - and this would not have been a problem.

 

[kEiThZ]

Not necessarily, I have never been a believer in the slippery slope attitude. The problem is that this is not a zoning restriction, or construction related safety issue, etc. This is just if the building is x, then this expression is invalid. They could have banned building towers in areas where other buildings are not that height etc - and this would not have been a problem.

Now here's the problem: If the Swiss think that Islamic architecture is incompatible with their architectural heritage and culture, are they racist if they ban it?

 

[cacruden]

They could simply ban immigration or be extremely selective about it. Ironically, there would not be half the hue and cry about that.

Look at Germany and Japan for examples on strict immigration and citizenship laws. Yet, nobody seems to be targeting them or suggesting that they are racist and illiberal.

I have no problem with discriminating against who you let in (to a certain extent) since that is what immigration laws are all about (I prefer merit based discrimination to be the primary factor). After your in your accorded full rights and freedoms according to the constitution. I am also a firm believer that we should have a high target for LEGAL immigration, the more, the merrier.

 

[cacruden]

Now here's the problem: If the Swiss think that Islamic architecture is incompatible with their architectural heritage and culture, are they racist if they ban it?

If that is the case, set architectural standards (i.e. building height, colour, etc.) - I think you will find that the minarets will adjust to fit into those standards - only the function will be the same. Worst case scenario, it ends up in an industrial zone which is none to pleasant to begin with.

 

[newuser2k9]

I have no problem with discriminating against who you let in (to a certain extent) since that is what immigration laws are all about (I prefer merit based discrimination to be the primary factor). After your in your accorded full rights and freedoms according to the constitution. I am also a firm believer that we should have a high target for LEGAL immigration, the more, the merrier.

Yes, exactly. The fairness of banning almost all immigration is the disadvantages it poses your country; you lose the economic benefits of high immigration. A country also isn't responsible for the rights of anyone but their citizens. If a nation's culture were that much of an issue, then drastic but fair choices like this would be among the options. What is not in the options, especially for a UN base state and beacon of freedoms, is persecution of citizens.

 

[ACE]

.

 

[newuser2k9]

What I am painfully trying to convey to you, is the following:

Example: An individual from Saudi Arabia, where the government prohibits the public practice of religions other than Islam, obtains a residency permit in Switzerland. This individual is now guaranteed all of the rights and freedoms as any other resident, as one would expect. [Please read that last sentence several times or have someone read it to you, if necessary.] What is hypocritcal, is that this same individual who now has all of these rights and freedom to practice their religion within Switzerland, denies these very same rights and freedoms to individuals within their country of origin (Saudi Arabia).

Example 2: An individual from Egypt, where government regulations require all non-Muslims to obtain presidential decrees before building or repairing a place of worship (amended in 1999 but still very difficult), obtains a residency permit in Switzerland. This individual is now guaranteed all of the rights and freedoms as any other resident, as one would expect. [Please read that last sentence several times or have someone read it to you, if necessary.] What is hypocritcal, is that this same individual who now has all of these rights and freedoms to practice their religion within Switzerland, denies these very same rights and freedoms to individuals within their country of origin (Egypt).


As the original post of this entire thread was in regards to the banning of Muslim minarets within Switzerland, I made the reference to Human Rights issues in predominently Islamic nations in response to someone's post. If the respective populations within these Islamic nations refuse to initiate change within their own countries, then why should it come as a surprise that someone would label them as being 'hypocrites' when they start raising issues in regards to their Freedom of Religion within a new country (Switzerland). Despite the fact that they are now fully entitled to these new-found rights, it is still hypocritical.

So American gays should never be allowed to marry, or Tibetans, Bahais, and many others escape persecution?

There is nothing hypocritical about wanting a better life.

 

[toraerach]

- Flaunt the liberal values of the country. Teach it in the schools. Make it a core value, and try to incorporate it within the country's identity (instead of things like skin colour and last names).

This is the problem with France's ban on religious garb in public schools. If you're committed to your hijab/kippah/turban/etc., you're thrown out of public school and into private education where you can avoid this liberal indoctrination.

What I am painfully trying to convey to you, is the following:

Example: An individual from Saudi Arabia, where the government prohibits the public practice of religions other than Islam, obtains a residency permit in Switzerland. This individual is now guaranteed all of the rights and freedoms as any other resident, as one would expect. [Please read that last sentence several times or have someone read it to you, if necessary.] What is hypocritcal, is that this same individual who now has all of these rights and freedom to practice their religion within Switzerland, denies these very same rights and freedoms to individuals within their country of origin (Saudi Arabia).

But Saudi Arabia is not a democracy. Its citizens have no voice in government or policy towards religious minorities. When there is no responsible government, the people cannot be held responsible for the actions of their government.

 

[newuser2k9]

This is the problem with France's ban on religious garb in public schools. If you're committed to your hijab/kippah/turban/etc., you're thrown out of public school and into private education where you can avoid this liberal indoctrination.

At least the French ban is moral, being even handed. If a country wants to secularized public institutions, making it so for all religions is completely fair.

It's probably a boon for the religious school system.

 

[GenerationW]

We (the Christian 'West') came into the the Middle East over the 20th century, subverted and destroyed their political structures, steal their national resources, weaponize them, and create 'puppet' wars. With the instability, any logical, rational, normal human would leave immediately, and of course some others became terrorists to attack the source of all their trouble. So now we make the lives of the lucky few who got out even harder by punishing them because those terrorists are fighting back? How is that fair? How is that human?

We created the monster that is the current Middle East. We, as the West, need to own up.

Actually, we (the West) left the Middle East in the 20th century after World War Two, and the West only had full political control for, relatively speaking, a short time following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War One. If one looks at who ruled and for how long, don't the Turks have a lot more to own up to?

 

[Second_in_pie]

Actually, we (the West) left the Middle East in the 20th century after World War Two, and the West only had full political control for, relatively speaking, a short time following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War One. If one looks at who ruled and for how long, don't the Turks have a lot more to own up to?

That does include the Americans and Brits destabilizing Iran out of democracy and back into it's Shah, right? As well as the British destabalization of Iraq, and Russians invading Afghanistan... right?

And if 10 years ago, you wanted to complain about the tragedies that were happening in South America, just look to the US and it's buddies. American-sponsored dictatorships and uprisings everywhere south of the US, which caused decades of economic setback as well as the destructions of millions of lives and livelihoods?

 

[GenerationW]

It's not very easy for countries and peoples with centuries of traditions and culture to suddenly let in foreigners and integrate them. Europe will never be a multi-cultural society or fully liberal one in the sense that Canada and the US are. What we see as racism, they will see as defence of their ancient cultures.

I don't even buy the claim that Switzerland claims to be a liberal nation. I've always though that with the exception of the Brits, the rest of Europe has always been quite defensive about their culture and demanding of immigrants. They don't generally strike me as liberal or progressive on immigrations issues. And I have never generally thought that they made such claims either. So I don't get where this idea comes from that Switzerland claimed to be a liberal multi-cultural nation and they went back on their word.

Well said. People who think Switzerland is (or ever was) a mini-version of Canada are sorely mistaken.

 

[GenerationW]

That does include the Americans and Brits destabilizing Iran out of democracy and back into it's Shah, right? As well as the British destabalization of Iraq, and Russians invading Afghanistan... right?

And if 10 years ago, you wanted to complain about the tragedies that were happening in South America, just look to the US and it's buddies. American-sponsored dictatorships and uprisings everywhere south of the US, which caused decades of economic setback as well as the destructions of millions of lives and livelihoods?

So what? Cold War proxy battles happened in many places besides the Middle East, but I don't see guys flying planes into New York buildings who originate from those other places. And my point remains that the Turks left a deeper legacy in the region than the West.

And Afghanistan is not a Middle Eastern country, never mind that it has little history of being a functioning country at any time.

 

[Second_in_pie]

So what? Cold War proxy battles happened in many places besides the Middle East, but I don't see guys flying planes into New York buildings who originate from those other places. And my point remains that the Turks left a deeper legacy in the region than the West.

And Afghanistan is not a Middle Eastern country, never mind that it has little history of being a functioning country at any time.

Those proxy battles created huge disturbances in the way the entire region functions. And it doesn't help that Israel popped in and started putting pressure from the inside.

Afghanistan is not a Middle Eastern country, but I thought the argument was against Islam in general. Afghanistan is a Muslim country, and the violence that is in that region is not because of Islam, but because of the huge destabilization that occurred there in the 70s.

 

[ACE]

.