The implications of the Minaret vote bleeds outside Switzerland’s borders
|
The 2005 publication of the “Danish cartoons” mocking the Prophet Muhammad sparked riots, bloodshed, and a Muslim boycott of Danish products, notably feta cheese. I fervently hope that the Swiss referendum vote in favour of banning minarets does not lead to a similar backlash, but I’m willing to endorse an international boycott of cuckoo clocks. If they don’t want our minarets in their cities, I’m buggered if I can see why we should provide their cuckoos with dinky little houses on our living room walls. Of course, hostility towards the building of Muslim facilities is not confined to Switzerland – witness Camden – but the Swiss referendum takes this to a whole new level. No talk about town planning requirements or problems with parking – the campaign by the right-wing S.V.P was a very explicit fear campaign against “Islamisation”, claiming that minarets symbolised an ideology of terrorism, forced marriages, and execution by stoning. I asked a Swiss journalist about the referendum campaign a couple of months ago. He said “The thing to understand about Muslims in Switzerland is that they are mainly Albanian, and they drive too fast on the roads.” As their imans cheer from the minarets, apparently. “Pedal to the metal, Mustafa! Allahu Akbar!” Most Muslims know as little about Switzerland as we knew about Denmark, but these kinds of events are not contained within borders anymore. Muslim media and social networking sites have been discussing this story in the weeks leading to the referendum, generally citing soothing analyses that forecast a strong “no” vote on the proposed ban. After all, the ban was opposed by the Swiss government, by local Christian and Jewish leaders, and by the Vatican. The result, then, comes as a shock – and not only in Switzerland, where Muslim leaders are calling for calm. Intersecting with developments such as the proposed burka ban in France and the furore over the application to open an Islamic school in Camden, it builds a perception of escalating hostility in Western societies towards visible Muslimness. In practical terms, the minaret ban means very little. Only a small minority of Muslims in Switzerland attend mosque (and an even smaller minority of Muslim women in France wear burka). There are only four minarets in the whole country. The SVP has proclaimed loudly that the ban is on minarets, not mosques, and so it does not affect Muslims’ freedom to assemble. But in symbolic terms, of course, it means much more. Labelling minarets as alien features on the landscapes is a none-too-subtle way of saying that Muslims are an alien population on the streets. It also undermines the campaign for liberal democratic values in Muslim countries, when liberal democracy in the West is seen as delivering inequitable outcomes. Commentators point out that it is not exactly easy to open churches in Muslim countries. But the Swiss ban sends the message that the rights of religious minorities are subject to the whim of the majority. The fear whipped up by populist campaigns is often short-lived. Community leaders and politicians are working on rebuilding bridges, and in the long term, the ban may not stand. Let’s hope so — otherwise I may be forced to escalate my cuckoo-clock ban to chocolate. Swiss chocolate, anyway… |
|
|
|
62 Comments
I agree the link between chocolate, Swiss Clocks and the oppression of women and blowing up of everyone who doesn’t like Swiss Clocks is well documented, I say ban them immediately.
If I was a Swiss maker of luxury watches, I’d be trying to figure out what to do when my markets around the Arabian Gulf dry up.
Shakira, whilst I agree with main thrust of your article I think it should be pointed out that Cuckoo clocks originated across the border in the Black Forest (although the Swiss certainly gave us the Chalet style clock). I’m not sure what opinion of minerets the people of Baden-Württemberg have.
Gee Shakira,
It sounds like they had a democratic vote and the majority was against these symbols of your preferred religion.
Why not accept it and be happy the country was able to make a non violent descision about a silly irrelavent subject.
Well done to the Swiss.
I noted today that Der Spiegel says that the referendum would have the same result had it been held in Germany.
As with California popular referenda have some pretty bizarre outcomes, particularly if voting is voluntary. After all the Swiss have only fairly recently voted in a close referendum to give women the vote.
Swiss Cuckoo Clocks : Graham Greene wrote it and it is now continuously repeated. The Cuckoo Clock is and remains a Bavarian (German) invention. Switzerland has always been at the high end of horological products.
I am a proud Swiss although I was 40 when I became one. I voted against the Minaret ban from here in Australia. What other nation has popular ‘referenda’ every three months? Under Swiss Law there are two referendum types. One is prescribed in the constitution for example changes to the rate of VAT (GST) while the other requires only 100,000 signatures to bring on a debate in the parliament. If parliament does not accept the change in law, it then can go to a vote of the whole population. Imagine what would happen in this country if you had such a direct democracy. As an Expat living in Australia I have a vote on all Federal Matters.
There are already over 300 Mosques in Switzerland and only 4 have Minarets and will be able to keep them. So that so far 296 mosques didn’t want or need one. The Muslim community in Switzerland is extremely well integrated and may I say extremely secular. They are mainly from Ex-Jugoslavia and Turkey and therefore have western heritage.
I doubt if you will have any Cronulla type events in Switzerland… there are few ethnic concentrations in Switzerland. Switzerland has a history of accepting minorities and in general they live up to the Swiss standard. In Australia the general standards of the white population in the ‘sink’ estates are so low that there are no standards to live up to.
In the 1890s the early federation lawmakers were examining the Swiss constitution and its military system to be adopted in Australia… I think they took the wrong choice.
@HOCHFELDEN -
If the referendum against minarets is inconsequential, then what was the point in having it?
As for implementing it in Australia, it was never going to happen, not with the higher level of education and liberalism here at the time (yes, higher than it is now, and higher than that of Switzerland). The founders of the Australian Federation understood what the Swiss apparently do not: the tyranny of the majority is only one step removed from the tyranny of a single despot, and is a long way from what we would call “the rule of law”.
Er, Shakira, are you suggesting there is a parrallel bewteen the Danish cartoons and the Swiss vote? The Danish cartoons were expressions of free speech. So what is exactly the problem there?
Note: I don’t agree with what the swiss people have voted for and it is clearly a tyranny of the majority and an attack on freedom of religion. But - why haven’t I seen any articles from this author before decrying the bans on Christian symbols and churches in Saudi Arabia and a host of other islamic countries (not to mention what wuold happen to you if you were Jewish and tried to openly practise your faith in those countries? Simple freedom of religion wasn’t an issue for her until her religion was the one facing restrictions.
Hochfelden I hope you have a very nice stay in Oz and if things ever get too heavy here, like you can’t buy those crazy clocks, or run into too many whites from the ‘sink’ estates then you are able to go home. Unlike the fast driving Albanian-Swiss one presumes. After Cronulla it wasn’t only Arabs but other minorities that shuddered for a moment with the historical knowledge - often gained in Europe - that one’s acceptance can be a fragile thing. We won’t mention WWII and the old Yugoslavia. I don’t think Europe is at all comfortable with this latest wave of Muslims, and not only Switzerland. Will we have a different history here?
@ Hochenfelden - “Switzerland has a history of accepting minorities”
Including Gypsies? Or are they the exception that proves the rule?
Phil, “why haven’t I seen any articles from this author before decrying the bans on Christian symbols and churches in Saudi Arabia and a host of other islamic countries”
Well for starters, I haven’t seen Saudi Arabia making any claims like this on its central government website.
“As a democratic state, Switzerland defends the fundamental rights of all individuals. Thus articles 7 (human dignity) and 8 (legal equality) of the Federal Constitution explicitly state that no one shall suffer discrimination, particularly on the grounds of origin or race.”
Muslims are so uncivilised that they would never allow us poor Christians to practise our religion in their countries. They’d never grant us religious freedom. We need to show we are better than them. How? By matching them in their uncivlised conduct.
Makes sense? Such is the (il)logic of the far-Right. The white-skinned Taliban.
Matching them, Irfan? They don’t compare.
Why don’t you compare apple computers and orange roughies? The death penalty for those who freely chose to follow another faith is so unrelated to an aesthetic matter of minarets as to be plainly ludicrous.
I disagree with the Swiss decision, and the negative messages it sends, but at least it was a democratic decision. Doesn’t make it a good one, I grant you, but to use an abused term, your efforts to show a ‘moral equivalency’ reveals something quite troubling about your argumentative methods.
Considering that religions have been, and still are, the cause of violence against fellow human beings, let’s ban them all in their traditional form. Surely, if anybody wants to communicate with their God, they don’t need a special building and a middle man to do so. The benefit would be that one’s church is wherever one chooses it to be, it could be the family home, the local playground or even parliament house. Cutting out the middle man would avoid any misunderstandings between God and the person contacting him or her. Existing buildings of worship could be converted into meeting places where we could learn what we all have in common as human beings rather than what divides us. Wouldn’t it be great, if that vote about those minarets in that tiny country in the centre of Europe, lead us away from the initial anger it caused amongst the people who disagreed with it, towards a tolerant,caring and peaceful world. Now that’s something worth praying for!
In case you’re wondering……………yes, I was born in Switzerland, but Australia has been my home for more than 29 years ……………….and I only vote in Australia, the place I chose to live.
Irfan, I presume your comment is aimed at me. Please note I disagree with the Swiss people’s vote. I believe that western civilisations should hold themselves to the high standards they preach regardless of what less tolerant societies do. My comment was aimed at the author’s apparent sudden interest in freedom of religion. An apparent road to damascus conversion that came into being only when her own (and presumably your religion) came under attack in Switzerland by the voters there.
Personally I don’t care for religion fullstop. If you want to believe in imaginery higher beings feel free but don’t impose your views on everyone else, similarily I promise not to be involved in restricting your freedom to worship whatever mythical being (unicorn) you choose provided again that you don’t try and impose your views on me.
One of the reasons muslims (and many other religous and cultural groups) are getting shorter and shorter shrift in Western societies is the apparent lack of leaders from those groups that are willing to come out and publicly decry the hypocrisies within their own cultures. Sure crticise the far right and it’s actions in Europe but equally be just as vicious in your criticism of the human rights abuses and freedom of speech and association restrictions in places like Saudi Arabia.
Ignaz, stomachs are the cause of all starvation, as well as all obesity. OK, everyone has stomachs and not everyone has religion. Fair skin is the cause of all sunburn. S-xual desire is the cause of all r-pe. Ambition is the cause of all megalomania. However, being from central Europe is not the cause of all desire to dictate how other people live; for that you have to look in the heart of the individual.
@ Phil
I think Irfan does that quite a bit. I don’t think Muslims should have to apologise for all the many, many sins of the Muslim world before making a comment on another sphere of injustice. After all, their comments would be the length of an Encycopeadia.
How many religions have an agenda to convert the planet and by force if necessary ?
Ok it’s a minority of Muslims but that still amounts to a lot of people.
To be specific I object to radical fundamentalist Islam and they can stay out of my backyard the rest are welcome but please identify yourself.
The Swiss feel the same as do the French and others, there’s nothing wrong with self defense, self defense is not religious intolerance or racial prejudice.
Stop trying to be the social conscience of mankind , grow some and stand up for your way of life.
Daniel , obviously any resistance to the establishment of the caliphate is to be deplored and characterised as racist and intolerant.
Free speech and democratic processes are inherently foreign to the idea of a theocratic supranational state so should be resisted using the usual tactics ranging from gentle persuasion of the dhimmies through to riots and bombings.
@ Glenn
Well, Mohammed thought Allah told him to do just that with the sword (not that we really know as the Koran was written a long, long time after the death of Mohammed).
If you read the secularist Ibn Warraq’s “Why I am Not a Muslim”, you see all the diverse religious communities of the Arabia peninsula simply being whiped out by the bloodthirsty invading hordes.
It’s quite sad reading all that. All those artists, scupters and so on being either converted or murdered because they were assumed to be idolaters.
There was a debate between Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry, and two conservative Catholics, recently on whether the “Catholic Church was a Force for Good in the World” (http://escapefromdogma.blogspot.com/2009/11/video-debate-is-catholic-church-force.html). The audience voted overwhelmingly with Hitchens and Fry against the proposition. I think, looking back over 1300 years, the answer on Islam would have to be the same. Not all bad, of course. Just on balance it brought more harm than it brought good.
Shakira and Irfan, there are at least four issues.
One: the fear of difference and change (like the architecture and the burka)
Two: the oppression of minorities (like Muslims in Europe)
Three: the right to freedom of expression in both religion and thought.
Four: the fear of violence (like people being targeted for death on the bus when they’re trying to get to work)
All those become mixed within this debate and you are perfectly right to attack the Swiss decision on the basis of one, two and three above. It’s narrow and its wrong but it’s understandable in the light of four. Your criticism is never going to be accepted until you acknowledge, and also criticise, those more extreme examples of the same failures that can be seen in “Muslim” countries. Okay, we expect the west to be better in this regard -but don’t ignore the failures of the east.
And then Islam as a whole has to clearly address number four. Yes, I know that the west kills people in Islamic countries by bombing them (and there is no defense of that) but it remains fundamentally different to having a large number of Christian preachers, for instance, saying it is right to do so. And yes, I know Christians said exactly that five hundred years ago but Christians (and I’m not one) seem to have dragged themselves forward. Time for Islam to step up and speak out against the problems in its own back yard.
“Time for Islam to step up and speak out against the problems in its own back yard.”
Last time I checked, my name wasn’t “Islam”. And I am a human being, not a belief system.
Why should I only condemn injustice perpetrated by Muslims? Why should we only be responsible for the sins of our “own”? And who are our “own” anyway?
Why should I become defensive about human rights abuses in nominally Muslim countries? Why should others here become defensive about human rights abuses in nominally Christian countries (or at least the Western ones)?
I’m sure there are lots of Swiss people who were opposed to this decision. Many of them expressed their opposition in Swiss, not English. I can’t understand all that they said.
Similarly, there are plenty of people in nominally Muslim countries who criticise their governments and their human rights records and their treatment of minorities etc. But they do it in languages none of us can understand.
Let’s not impose on people a singular identity. We all have layers of identity. Does that make sense?
Gary, I already answered your point at 4:25pm NSW time.
I don’t “expect the west to be better”. I expect countries claiming the status of liberal democracies, and enshrining non-discriminatory principles in their constitution, to be better. East or West.
BRB moving to Switzerland.
I have no problem with Muslims, just Islam
I hate Islam, I hate its closed society, i hate it all.
I hope to see Australians Ban such intolerence.
@Irfan
There are no nominally Christian countries that I know of, except maybe Vatican City. There is no such language as Swiss (they speak French, Italian and German).
The Swiss have their own dialect.
Daniel - so knowledge of Swiss culture and languages is some kind of benchmark of worldliness and sophistication? There is a bit of that attitude in Western culture. Ooooh, the Swiss. Butter wouldn’t melt in their mouth. No haughtiness of a self-appointed master race. No over-representation of blue eyed Aryans in the upper echelons. Rumours that the only reservation they had about Hitler were his crass table manners, are completely unfounded. So Switzerland is one of those perfect countries that Western socialist reformers are always looking up to, like Sweden and Finland. Whatever’s good enough for the Swiss must be good enough for us barbarians. Which is what makes it all the more disappointing when they still can’t even read their own constitution.
Muslims in Switzerland constitute about 4% of the population. There are about 150 mosques with 4 minarets. The plan was to build another two minarets.
People interviewed in the streets (Swiss News) admitted that the whole anti-minaret campaign was based on manipulation of fear and the posters showing a spooky woman in black burqa with artillery missiles as minarets in the background were very powerful.
The anti-islamic campaign was led by Mr. Ulrich Schueler who is a leader of a right wing, nationalistic party. German canton. In some cantons the billboards with minarets-missiles were banned.
It is embarrassing for the Swiss government to admit that some of their citizens will have to be treated differently than others. It is true that they have very important clients from Saudi Arabia because Allah forbids usury and the Swiss banks pay interest rates. It is true that most of the Muslims in Switzerland come from former Yugoslavia and perhaps Albania. This does not make them Arabs. And the whole campaign was about Muslims usually associated with Arabs. For many islam haters, even Iranians are Arabs.
Federal Supreme Court may overturn the referendum results. It is not the end of the world. But my question is: If that referendum was about building of two minarets, what was the reason behind this huge and very unfair campaign? European Muslims do not wear burqas and minarets are not compulsory on every mosque. What is the story behind??
Gary Stowe
Perhaps go to Ireland and preach there?
Every wedge starts at the thin end
Muslims worldwide are being branded because of the actions of the extremists that are among them.
I would like to see Muslims being pro active in distancing themselves from the extremists, visibly proactive.
As long as they don’t do this they will be judged as being the same because frankly non Muslims can’t tell the difference.
If there was a section of the Catholic church that was as extremist as this the rest would go all out to alienate them.
Re Glenn Beck, for those not subscibing to either Fox TV or familiar with FAR right hate mongering, Glenn Beck is recovering alcoholic who ironically (in context of this blog) is a Mormon. He’s also a vile and disgusting human that founded the rumour that the Obama administration would set up ‘death panels’ for those the state chose not to administer free health care to. That ANYONE might associate themselves (by copying them by name and seemingly in opinion) is the second most disgusting thing I have read today with the election of a fundamental Christian as opposition leader topping even that!!.
Hey Crikey, the text in these forums is too small on a laptop at 1280 x 800
Thanks Irfan. Yes, it makes perfect sense and I can see how you might perceive a criticism of Islam as a criticism of you. Looking back at my comments I can even see how it reads that way but it’s not what I’m mainly trying to say.
I quote your own words below.
“Why should I only condemn injustice perpetrated by Muslims? Why should we only be responsible for the sins of our “own”? And who are our “own” anyway? Why should I become defensive about human rights abuses in nominally Muslim countries? Why should others here become defensive about human rights abuses in nominally Christian countries (or at least the Western ones)?”
You can pretty much reverse the words “Muslim” and “Christian” in the above and that neatly summarises the question I was trying to ask you.
You’re welcome for a meal in my home at any time. James, you can come too. Would love to thrash it out further with you both. Can be found direct at gandlin@bigpond.com
Those in this thread saying “good on the Swiss” and “I hate Islam”, at least have the honesty to speak plainly. I can tell who such people are and make sure I don’t live next to them. (I’ll take Irfan and Shakira as neighbors over you lot any day, and their relative, and their friends.)
The ones who worry me are those who start with a fair-minded statement of egalitarianism, followed by a “but”:
“But, I would like to see Muslims being pro active in distancing themselves …”
“But, why haven’t I seen any articles from this author before decrying the bans on Christian symbols and churches in Saudi Arabia …”
“But, don’t impose your views on everyone else …”
“But it’s understandable in the light of four [fear of violence]”
And best of all …
“To be specific I object to radical fundamentalist Islam and they can stay out of my backyard the rest are welcome but please identify yourself.”
How many of you Quislings have been so proactive in condemning a crusade of “democracy” launched against much of the third world, a dogma which does not even have any internal logic as an end in itself, only a means to safeguard liberalisation once it has been secured by other means?
Phil, you have no idea of the civil wars being waged by liberal (but not necessarily democratic) Muslim governments and peoples in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and a host of other countries against forces that would turn their streets red if they step aside. No idea.
And why should people like Irfan or Shakira, choosing to live in a Western country, be obliged to act as spokesmen for others sharing the same religion as them, before making fair comment on the liberal values of their adopted home and its closely related liberal democracies?
“you have no idea of the civil wars being waged by liberal (but not necessarily democratic) Muslim governments and peoples in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and a host of other countries against forces that would turn their streets red if they step aside. No idea.”
Well please enlighten us , I’m sure Western interests would be gald to help them out, if thats true.
That’s just it, more often than not the “help” from western interests makes it worse, not better.
And anyway, the article is not about Saudi Arabia, or Al Queda, or extremists. It’s about the Swiss people deciding that church bells and steeples are OK in their country but minarets are not.
I don’t think this Glenn is Fox News’s Glenn Beck. Why would he read Crikey?
@ James. What are you talking about? I never said anything about the Swiss except the languages they speak. Think before you type such accusatory rubbish!
James, your invitation to dinner is balanced on a knife edge here. You quote me “But it’s understandable in the light of four [fear of violence]”
as if I were exclusively offering my own thought. You don’t acknowledge that I was summarising the views of a larger number of people. Good debating tactic but unfair and unhelpful.
And now that I’m being pedantic, Quisling was the Norwegian who sold out to the advancing Nazis and whose name has since become synoymous with treachery. How does the word apply in this circumstance?
“I disagree with the Swiss decision, and the negative messages it sends, but at least it was a democratic decision.”
I think Crikey would aspire to a higher level of readership than a Fox employee.
Also James, I think I can summarise the argument by turning your own words back to you.
“Swiss people (are) deciding that church bells and steeples are OK in their country but minarets are not.” Shall I reverse them? Saudi Arabians are deciding that minarets are OK in their country but church bells and steeples are not.
You seem to condemn one without equally condemning the other. That has beeen the substance of this argument from the beginning.
James
Sorry, yes, I did say that. You are right in that instance. My point was to Irfan that he shouldn’t draw a moral equivalency between the Swiss decision and ‘Muslim’ states’ human rights violations. Irfan said they were “the same”. I said they weren’t, while disagreeing with the Swiss decision. The context makes sense of it.
What was weird was that you said, “so knowledge of Swiss culture and languages is some kind of benchmark of worldliness and sophistication?” Well, that is entirely unrelated to anything I said. Entirely!
Glenn, a massive Al Queda uprising started in 2003 and has gone unreported in the mainstream western news (probably in part because the Saudis don’t want any of our “help. According to STRATFOR, Saudi Arabia was Osama’s real target all along and 9/11 was just a rallying call. The government there was in mortal danger for a while and . You’ve no doubt seen what’s happening in Pakistan on the news. According to President Zardari, the country is fighting for it’s life. The struggle for liberalism in Iraq and Afghanistan will go on after Obama gives in and pulls out, once again leaving the anti-extremists up sh-t creek without a paddle after committing themselves in very dangerous struggles. (That’s why western help is hardly worth a pinch of sh-t, we leave jobs half done which is worse than not starting in the first place.) The strife in Iran goes on with protesters dying in the streets.
It’s a bit rich to say the Muslim world is not trying to clean up its own patch when they are dying by the thousands to put down tyrannical movements, many of which have their roots in western colonialism and regime engineering. Easy to judge from the safe vantage of suburban Australia.
Daniel, I apologise for reading into your statement something that wasn’t there.
My second-last post a bit garbled. The uprising that started in 2003 is in Saudi Arabia. I could go on …
Gary, if the Saudi Wahhabis budge so much as an inch from supporting Islam exclusively, they are finished. Not out of power and looking for a job; numerous of them would be dead in the next few months and the rest would be on the run. But the sketchy information available indicates they are winning. And a Christian or a Jew or anybody else can go for a holiday there, see some of the world’s most amazing sights, and be perfectly safe as long as you don’t go looking for trouble.
Damn, I forgot the word J-e-w goes into automatic moderation.
Gary, if the Saudi Wahhabis budge so much as an inch from supporting Islam exclusively, they are finished. Not out of power and looking for a job; numerous of them would be dead in the next few months and the rest would be on the run. But the sketchy information available indicates they are winning. And a Christian or a J-e-w or anybody else can go for a holiday there, see some of the world’s most amazing sights, and be perfectly safe as long as you don’t go looking for trouble.
James
You wrote: “The struggle for liberalism in Iraq and Afghanistan will go on after Obama gives in and pulls out, once again leaving the anti-extremists up sh-t creek without a paddle after committing themselves in very dangerous struggles.”
Well, let’s hope they don’t leave until the country is safe for liberal Muslims.
Interstingly, an Afghani women who has started many schools for women said elsewhere, when asked if Obama should commit more troops:
‘She paused. “Yes,” came the ultimate answer. “Let me tell you why. When the international forces arrived, they said to women, ‘Here is the deal: You build your society and we will protect you as you do that. We cannot re-construct your nation for you. But we can secure your efforts to create a better situation for all.’”
“We believed them. Now that we are in the middle of running new schools and medical clinics and so on, we are meeting our end of the bargain. If the international forces do not met their end of the bargain, then we are left in the hands of the Taliban. They know exactly who we are, and we will be the first ones slaughtered when the soldiers walk away.” (http://www.irshadmanji.com/im-what-obama-is-doing-right-on-afghanistan)
The West aren’t always totally screwing things up.
OK, I think the comments on this issue have made the half-century mark. Though what relation they bear to this issue isn’t clear.
The ubject is unable to be debated to a reasonable resolution thats probably why why it continues to be argued on battlefields…..unfortunately.
It is a bit strange that we go straight from a story about minarets to talking about mass religious violence. As the postmoderns say, the Islamic “brand” seems to have some pretty explosive associations. That’s not a reflection of statistical reality; it’s the deliberate marketing product of a few sophisticated organisations attempting to marginalise their own religion and push people into war. I appeal to Australians not to let them railroad our thinking in that way. Don’t make it so easy for the bastards.
This is a tough one, spent a long time discussing this with my wife last night. I see 2 sides to the story;
1. It’s a bad idea, and a nasty thing to do, to marginalise a religious group. At a time when we probably should be embracing Islam and finding out more about it we are shunning them and making it hard
2. But the flipside is that I personally find religious symbols in public offensive. Any religion. It imposes views and other-religious comforts onto non-believers, at the expense of public space. It’s just more advertising, which I also despise, but this time the market is ‘your soul’.
I don’t know which view is right.
Evan, fair enough for you to hold that view. Here’s my view. Just because we own our eyes, doesn’t mean we own everything everything we can see with them. If you want to paint your house across the road from mine in a flouro green colour, I might object and you would be a careless neighbor to ignore my objection. But in the end it’s on your land not mine, and it should be your decision, not mine. If it’s a government building, then I have a real moral claim on what’s done with my tax dollars, and so do you. If a third party wants to put up something, and it doesn’t fit our religious or aesthetic view, we’ve got a right to express our view that it’s ugly even if the owners don’t want to hear it. But to ban it outright is arbitrary use of power — tyranny. The fact that it’s a religious feature, and that christian church bell towers are not banned at the same time, makes it bigotry.
James, definitely agree that if it’s not applied to all religions evenly it’s pointless bigotry.
I would also say that I do not attend any place of worship but I love having them around me. Modern architecture is a travesty in which it seems to be more important to forget the old than to add anything new. Concealed steel frames have made it easier for architects to simply ignore everything that once gave structures a visual sense of integrity - even a person who has never studied statics can instinctively see how an old building defies gravity and the elements. Most modern architects do not even learn this stuff, and some of the results are grotesque, nowhere more so than Switzerland.
Churches and mosques are among the few exceptions to this, along with perhaps the Queen Anne style and the last architectural bloom in the 1920s with art deco New York. In the middle ages the gothic christian and Greek orthodox traditions reached pretty much the zenith of western architectural expression. But during that middle ages the most inspiring explosion of architectural creativity was actually going on in the Muslim world, not the Christian. It made cities like Medina one of the greatest wonders of the world. It has influenced some of our own greatest buildings such as the Australian War Memorial. Amazingly, mosque architecture has continued to add new vision on a foundation of old traditions, setting it apart from almost every other area of construction.
For the tyranny of modern taste to start regulating even this last preserve of taste and inspiration and tradition is the beginning of the end. For communities to start regulating what they do or don’t want to look at — now of all times in history, when the defining image of our time is 20-foot advertising billboards of semi-naked women promising s-x if you buy a product — then in another 50 years we might be living in a world with nothing left worth looking at.
Good one Macca,
You’ve outdone yourself.
A defence of religious freedom based on its architecture.
I for one love those Inca Temples and the associated human sacrifices, also some of those Nazi death camps had a nice rustic look to them.
We should be still building these type of things ,you could feel so comfortable around them.
You wanked on earlier about the ‘tyranny of the majority’ decision that was made by the Swiss, couldn’t this also be the ‘will of the majority’ in the eye of a different beholder ?
Why aren’t secularists entitled to a point of view ?
Well if it isn’t our favourite troll, a.k.a. Loser, who earned that distinguished name by recommending mass murder of boat people in this thread. Loser, drag yourself out of the TAB and into detox, and then show me the part where anyone suggested banning secular buildings or forcing people to build religious features.
In Australia the general standards of the white population in the ‘sink’ estates are so low that there are no standards to live up to.
Two things
1. Crikey. If somebody said this against any other race I doubt it would get through. But who cares if you trash the poor white just don’t trash people of any coolour.
and
2. Hochfelden, your comments indicate to me that you are one of these people happy to come to this country but seem to think that it only appeared when you turned up. The people you racistly rubbish built this country with people of all races working together. Do you think the Swiss or Non-white people built this country and the whites just lazed back? Racist fool.
You know what you can do Swiss Citizen.
Ahh Macca,
You were sounding so worldly and expansive till then.
What happened to your proclaimed tolerance for others opinions?
Still, your writing seems to be improving…