Personally, were I the Swiss, I'd take a long hard look over the border into France....then ban Muslim immigration altogether.
French President Confronts Radical Islam Head-On
French President Confronts Radical Islam Head-On
Swiss to Ban Minarets
- Thread starter Spade
- Start date
Nonsense, Muslims are just ordinary people struggling to get by just like the rest of us mortals.
Are the Swiss banning churches with bell towers and steeples?
Perhaps not. But isn't that for the Swiss to decide?
I agree, Spade. At the same time, as I mentioned before, a minaret has no religious significance, it is not an integral part of the mosque or of Islam. So if Swiss want to ban the minarets, that is their right.
At the same time, Switzerland is a sovereign country, probably one of the most sovereign in the world, and the Swiss people have the right to ban what they'd like. It's all about cultural preservation and continuing to enjoy their own rights and freedoms as Swiss people.
I've personally spent some time in Zürich, Luzern and Basel and in Zürich especially, you see things changing and it's not hard to notice the increase in crime and undesirables at the Hauptbahnhof in the city centre.
Like in Berlin, whole sections of the city are literally becoming little Muslim enclaves and these areas are growing, pushing out indigenous peoples who never democratically agreed with the process to begin with. In the case of Berlin, thousands upon thousands of Turks were invited here as gastarbeiter (guest workers) with the intent that they return to their country of origin as soon at the labour shortage ended. This never happened in the case of Turks.
Moreover, Turkey is not what it was in the 60s anymore; They have developed and modernised while their cousins in Berlin, Cologne, Hamburg and Munich have remained socially undeveloped in their enclaves. If you want to fight for self-determination, go back to your country and fight for it.
Better yet, look towards London and the colonisation by Muslims and you're bound to find opposition across Europe.
I invite the Swiss to go to Turkey, demand social payments, religious freedom, social acceptance, their own enclaves in Istanbul and above-all, special treatment and see how far they get.
All the Swiss have to do is look across the border to Munich and see that once you get going on a slippery slope, you're going to have a hard time stopping yourself.
Switzerland is sovereign; and, I would be the last to advocate interference in the domestic affairs of a sovereign nation. It's un-Canadian, or is it?. But, criticism is not interference.
I find the argument logically inconsistent, proffered by some, that limiting the right of a visible minority is an act of preserving human rights within a pluralistic society, hard won in the past, by the majority. The minaret is not a question of noise; it is a symbol that Swiss see as inconsonant with their history and culture. Yes, it is a Swiss prerogative, but it is also indicative of xenophobia.
I agree with this ban. Even though it may have religious freedom, Switzerland is a Christian country and its people wish it to remain so. Switzerland wants to remain the very wealthy and democratic country it is, which is why it doesn't want to be a Muslim state and why it doesn't want to join the EU.
I love these generalizations.
Only 1 in 6 Swiss attend church services.
Study identifies worldwide rates of religiosity, church attendance
Their culture and way of life is still based on Christianity. That isn't any different from Canada.
Incidentally, there is a massive illegal marriage industry in Switzerland which undermines their citizenship laws.
When one is attempting to accommodate newcomers whose strict bearing will (supported by statistical and anecdotal evidence) eclipse your own culture, isn't a little xenophobia in the interests of one's own threatened way of life?
I agree that the culture of the majority is "based on Christianity." However, in a pluralistic and democratic secular state, majority rights (religion, assembly, and so on) are not those that require protection. I understand the sentiments; I disagree with the focus. The focus is on a particular minority, rather than on a "democratic" principle.
I understand your opinion, but Switzerland is the most democratic country I've ever been to and when the Swiss people voted "NO", it was more democratic than in Canada for instance -- or any other country which allows uncontrolled mass immigration.
I find it interesting that the same people who agree that the Swiss have the right to ban architecture (on religious grounds), also agree that Canada cannot ban carrying concealed weapons into public places (for certain special groups, on religious grounds).
There's a huge difference. Canadians didn't agree to anything (we weren't asked what we thought about Sikhs and kirpans) and the Swiss did (they had a referendum). Besides that, why the Swiss banned them is because the minarets were not religious buildings but represented a religious claim to political power. Sikhs in Canada aren't representing any claim to political power by carrying their kirpans.
The reason is simple TenPenny, and I have explained it before. Kirpan is an integral part of Sikh religion. Minaret is just an architectural symbol, and has no significance in Islam. Islam does not say that a mosque must be built with a minaret.
However, Sikhism does say that a Sikh must carry the kirpan at all times (I don’t know if he is required to keep it on when he sleeps, it wouldn’t surprise me if he is). So kirpan has Charter protection, minaret doesn’t.
If the Swiss decree that Sikhs cannot carry the kirpan in public, I would have problem with that myself. Conversely, if some city in Canada decides that any future mosques in the city must be built without minarets, I will understand their position. I don’t think a minaret will be protected by the Charter.
Yes, m'lord.
Nevertheless, it is interesting how some people are more threatened by architecture than by weapons.