Banning of minarets in Switzerland

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

(......)

The REAL question to be asked here, is why do the Swiss people feel so threatened?

...because of the kind of fear mongering, cherry picked, sectarian, out of context crap that composes most of that post, for starters.

T-Square

Clanrickard wrote: »

A great day for democracy. If you want to see shameful sectarianism countries with Sharia law are the place to go.

Just gotta +11111111111111111111111111

Nodin

T-Square wrote: »

Just gotta +11111111111111111111111111

Yes, it's the first (very small) but great step towards parity of bigotry with the worst elements of the east. Truly a party is in order.

djpbarry

SeanW wrote: »

Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan esp Kashmir, etc, all places where it is very dangerous to be a non-Muslim...

In Pakistan? Really? So all those churches and cathedrals I see every time I visit Lahore don't actually exist?

SeanW

I'm guessing you're not a woman and you don't visit the disputed territory of Kashmir, or else you might have had a different story to tell.

wes

SeanW wrote: »

I'm guessing you're not a woman and you don't visit the disputed territory of Kashmir, or else you might have had a different story to tell.

Yeah, those damn Indian soldiers have a habit of raping Women there on a regular basis:

Salman Rushdie: His life, his work and his religion

--SNIP--
The mild, mystical Sufi brand of Islam practised in the valley was gradually displaced by an austere Arab version - Islam 3.0. The Indian government reacted with crazed violence, treating every Kashmiri Muslim as a potential insurgent, and even using mass rape as a way to "break" the population. The Muslim population became more fundamentalist, the Indians ramped up the violence again - and on and on, in an intensifying tango of death.
--SNIP--

Some good information on the bull**** Islamic extremists and Indian soldiers do to the Kashmiri people in the above article. Still fail to see what this has to do with a ban on minarets in Switzerland.

SeanW

wes wrote: »

Some good information on the bull**** Islamic extremists and Indian soldiers do to the Kashmiri people in the above article. Still fail to see what this has to do with a ban on minarets in Switzerland.

It may go some way towards explaining why the Swiss people feel so threatened by Islam that this measure appeared to be a logical response by the majority.

Because that's the only real reason that I can see for the approval of this ban.

wes

SeanW wrote: »

It may go some way towards explaining why the Swiss people feel so threatened by Islam that this measure appeared to be a logical response by the majority.

Because that's the only real reason that I can see for the approval of this ban.

So how exactly does banning minarets help there cause then? Seems a bit silly imho what the Swiss are doing.

Also, why would stuff happening in Pakistan, Kashmir or Saudi Arabia, have anything to do with Switzerlands largely Balkan and Turkish Muslim populaces. They can hardly be blamed on stuff happening in countries they don't live in. There reasoning strikes me as rather bizarre.

bonkey

malthus wrote: »

Why don't have a look at how religious minorities are treated in Islamic countries, Muslims have it so easy here in comparison.

I agree. The benchmark we should all subscribe to is "not as bad as the worst".

Anything more then that is unnecessary.

As for the notion that we aspire to do the right thing...ludicrous. As long as you can find someone worse...its all fiiiiiine.

djpbarry

SeanW wrote: »

I'm guessing you're not a woman and you don't visit the disputed territory of Kashmir, or else you might have had a different story to tell.

My point was that Christianity is a hell of a lot more visible in Pakistan than Islam (apparently) is in Switzerland. Not that it really matters of course.

Grand Fromage

SeanW wrote: »

It may go some way towards explaining why the Swiss people feel so threatened by Islam that this measure appeared to be a logical response by the majority.

Because that's the only real reason that I can see for the approval of this ban.

At the end of the day, this comes down to two competing "rights": the right of Muslims to practice their religion in places of worship they themselves design versus the right of Swiss people to organise and run their country the way they want to run it. The latter right would be far more convincing in the current debate if the state did not collect "church" taxes for the Catholic and Protestant churches.

prinz

djpbarry wrote: »

I take it by “Islamic countries”, you mean Saudi Arabia?

I take it he mean a lot of countries where religious intolerance is found. Discrimination doesn't just happen in Saudi Arabia :rolleyes:

bonkey

Grand Fromage wrote: »

The latter right would be far more convincing in the current debate if the state did not collect "church" taxes for the Catholic and Protestant churches.

Given that the state does no such thing here (Switzerland), does that impact how convincing things are?

The Cantons (not the state) each have their own implementation of "church tax", but in general its a case of people paying a tax via the Cantonal system to the church they are a member of. Not a member of the church...then you don't pay taxes to any church.

Zambia

If 4.3 percent of the population decided they wanted to build Large penis shaped columns in the centre of Swiss Villages. On the grounds they worshipped them or they where symbols of their faith. Should this be allowed?

Of course not because the rest of the population dont like it. And in a democratic society the larger vote wins.

Granted there is the fact that democracy should not be used to beat a minority but in essence we do that daily.

We fine people who speed.
We fine nudists in Public.
We imprison people who use & deal drugs.

I for one never supported Irish Neutrality If ever it came to the vote I would have voted no to keeping it. The Majority would have voted yes to keeping it. That's how the system works.

oscarBravo

Zambia232 wrote: »

...in a democratic society the larger vote wins.

I don't think anyone's arguing that the people of Switzerland have the right to express their wishes in a referendum.

We're discussing the bigger picture here. The fact that the referendum was held at all poses important questions, such as exactly why it is that some groups have such a problem with other people's religion that they feel the need to go to such lengths to prevent any overt expression of that faith.

bonkey

Zambia232 wrote: »

If 4.3 percent of the population decided they wanted to build Large penis shaped columns in the centre of Swiss Villages. On the grounds they worshipped them or they where symbols of their faith. Should this be allowed?

It depends on what you mean.

Should they be allowed file for planning permission? Absolutely.

Should it be rejected by the planning authorities? That's a decision that each local planning authority should have the right to decide.

Defining at a national level that the planning authorities must refuse such structures only serves a purpose if there is reason to suggest that there are cases where no reasonable grounds for refusing planning permission would exist but the structure should be stopped anyway.

Of course not because the rest of the population dont like it. And in a democratic society the larger vote wins.

The 4 minarets which exist in Switzerland exist because the people in the locale did not object when planning permission was sought.

What the referendum, in effect, has decided, is that when it comes to minarets, its not the wishes of the people in a locale which decide what is and is not appropriate to be built there, but rather the rest of the country....but only when it comes to one architectural feature, associated with a specific religion.

bonkey

oscarBravo wrote: »

The fact that the referendum was held at all poses important questions, such as exactly why it is that some groups have such a problem with other people's religion that they feel the need to go to such lengths to prevent any overt expression of that faith.

Bear in mind, when asking such questions, that to force a referendum in Switzerland, you need to collect 100,000 signatures from eligible voters, within a period of 18 months.

Ultimately, that's why the referendum was held.

The question I think you're asking, though, lies several steps behind that. Why did someone even propose this. Why did 100,000 people sign up to it. Why did every single survey pre-vote show that it hadn't a hope of passing?

Most importantly, perhaps....what are the implications arising from this yes vote? What comes next?

Amtmann

Bonkey: In theory, could the Swiss hold a referendum on whether or not to prohibit Muslim immigration to Switzerland altogether?

Grand Fromage

bonkey wrote: »

Given that the state does no such thing here (Switzerland), does that impact how convincing things are?

The Cantons (not the state) each have their own implementation of "church tax", but in general its a case of people paying a tax via the Cantonal system to the church they are a member of. Not a member of the church...then you don't pay taxes to any church.

There is a state apparatus set up to collect church taxes, just like in Germany. Individuals who are not in either church can opt out of this but the fact remains the state does the church's work in collecting money for them.

bonkey

Furet wrote: »

Bonkey: In theory, could the Swiss hold a referendum on whether or not to prohibit Muslim immigration to Switzerland altogether?

As far as I'm aware, the Swiss can hold a referendum on anything they like.

They could hold a referendum on whether or not people named Fred should be required to wear silly hats when in public on Tuesdays.

bonkey

Grand Fromage wrote: »

There is a state appparatus set up to collect church taxes, just like in Germany.

No, there isn't. In 24 of the 26 Cantons, a Cantonal apparatus is set up. In the other 2 Cantons, there is no church tax.

Individuals who are not in either church can opt out of this

I'm not aware of any Canton where that is the case. Individuals who are not in any of the three main recognised religions (or four, in the case of those cantons who recognise Judausm), are exempt....although some Cantons have a social tax which applies to all such people instead.

Some Cantons only allow exemption to people who are not a member of one of the three (or four) religions. Some Cantons allow exemptions to anyone who wishes to opt out.

but the fact remains the state does the church's work in collecting money for them.

Again...the state does no such thing. The Cantons do it.

Look...I'm not trying to defend the system. I'm trying to correct the inaccurate picture you're portraying of it.

The interesting question behind what you ask is what religions are and aren't recognised as "official" religions in the various Cantons, and why that might be. Its not really a question relevant to this thread, though.

Grand Fromage

bonkey wrote: »

No, there isn't. In 24 of the 26 Cantons, a Cantonal apparatus is set up. In the other 2 Cantons, there is no church tax.


I'm not aware of any Canton where that is the case. Individuals who are not in any of the three main recognised religions (or four, in the case of those cantons who recognise Judausm), are exempt....although some Cantons have a social tax which applies to all such people instead.

Some Cantons only allow exemption to people who are not a member of one of the three (or four) religions. Some Cantons allow exemptions to anyone who wishes to opt out.


Again...the state does no such thing. The Cantons do it.

Look...I'm not trying to defend the system. I'm trying to correct the inaccurate picture you're portraying of it.

The interesting question behind what you ask is what religions are and aren't recognised as "official" religions in the various Cantons, and why that might be. Its not really a question relevant to this thread, though.

I don't quite understand how you are trying to portray the cantons as not being part of the Swiss state. They clearly are and they collect taxes for the Catholic and Protestant churches unless an individual specifically opts out of this. My original point was that if the Swiss wanted credibility on the banning of minarets as being a matter of a strict separation of church and state, and therefore not favouring or disfavouring any religion, then the Swiss state, be it federal, cantonal or communal , should get out of the business of of collecting money for a minority of religions.

bonkey

Grand Fromage wrote: »

I don't quite understand how you are trying to portray the cantons as not being part of the Swiss state.
They clearly are and they collect taxes for the Catholic and Protestant churches unless an individual specifically opts out of this.

I'm making the distinction between state law and cantonal law, state structures and cantonal structures. In Switzerland, there is a big difference.

As I've also pointed out, your claim about an individual specifically opting out is inaccurate. In Geneva and Neuchatel, there is no church tax. In Bern, you pay the church tax of the church you are a member of. When you register in your local community, you register whether you are Catholic (2 different types), Reformed, or other. If you declare that you are "other", then you do not pay church tax. In other cantons, there are different systems again.

My original point was that if the Swiss wanted credibility on the banning of minarets as being a matter of a strict separation of church and state, and therefore not favouring or disfavouring any religion, then the Swiss state, be it federal, cantonal or communal , should get out of the business of of collecting money for a minority of religions.

Banning minarets is in no way defensible as a seperation of church and state, regardless of any other issue.

Has anyone (other then yourself) even suggested that such a line of reasoning could give the decision credibility?

I ask because the result of the referendum compels the state to take a specific action which targets an aspect of a specific religion. There is no logic by which such a move can reasonably be argued to be a seperation of church and state....it is the state directly implementing policy which differentiates between religions.

IronBru

If you like your minarets so much, stay in your own country.

And for all the "we are all in this together" types, just your go to Saudi and start work on a catholic church. Let me know how you get on.

OldJay

IronBru wrote: »

If you like your minarets so much, stay in your own country.
And for all the "we are all in this together" types, just your go to Saudi and start work on a catholic church. Let me know how you get on.

What has Saudi Arabia got to do with mosques in Ireland exactly?
There are many Irish muslims who are born here, the same as there are many other non-Roman Catholic. I'm not a Roman Catholic. Not a Muslim. Not even Christian. This is my country as much as yours.

The amount of wiki-wagging disguised as already known by the poster in this thread is hilarious.

IronBru

Justind wrote: »

There are many Irish muslims who are born here, the same as there are many other non-Roman Catholic. I'm not a Roman Catholic. Not a Muslim. Not even Christian. This is my country as much as yours.

Group hug?

Justind wrote: »

The amount of wiki-wagging disguised as already known by the poster in this thread is hilarious.

Agree with you there.

Nodin

IronBru wrote: »

If you like your minarets so much, stay in your own country..

Brilliant bit of empathy there.

IronBru wrote: »

And for all the "we are all in this together" types, just your go to Saudi and start work on a catholic church. Let me know how you get on.

Why has no such thing has ever been suggested before!!!!! I, Sir, am disarmed by your argument.

Grand Fromage

bonkey wrote: »

I'm making the distinction between state law and cantonal law, state structures and cantonal structures. In Switzerland, there is a big difference.

As I've also pointed out, your claim about an individual specifically opting out is inaccurate. In Geneva and Neuchatel, there is no church tax. In Bern, you pay the church tax of the church you are a member of. When you register in your local community, you register whether you are Catholic (2 different types), Reformed, or other. If you declare that you are "other", then you do not pay church tax. In other cantons, there are different systems again.


Banning minarets is in no way defensible as a seperation of church and state, regardless of any other issue.

Has anyone (other then yourself) even suggested that such a line of reasoning could give the decision credibility?

I ask because the result of the referendum compels the state to take a specific action which targets an aspect of a specific religion. There is no logic by which such a move can reasonably be argued to be a seperation of church and state....it is the state directly implementing policy which differentiates between religions.

Ok. Whatever about the minor inaccuracies in the detail, the principal point remains.

The state, whether manifested on federal, cantonal or communal level, performs a service for 3 specifically named Christian religions by collecting "church" taxes. This service favours these religions above those not specifically named.

The state, following a referendum, must change the constitution in order to reflect a wish of a majority who wish to prevent adherents of a specific religion building minarets on mosques in possible contravention of Art. 9 of the ECHR. This is a specific ban on one religious group from building their places of worship as they wish, thus penalising one religion.

While it is clear that Islam is singled out for penalty with the referendum decision, it would be wrong to say that the state is neutral when dealing with the 3 specifically named Christian religions. It is not. It acts as a tax collector for those religions.

Nodin

bonkey wrote: »

Why did someone even propose this.

Equal parts rabble rousing and ignorance, I'd suspect, particularily from that party.

bonkey wrote: »

Why did 100,000 people sign up to it. .

It's a deeply conservative country in parts.

bonkey wrote: »

Why did every single survey pre-vote show that it hadn't a hope of passing?.

A number of possibilities - a failure of the more liberal element to turn out on the day in the assured belief that it would pass anyway would be one.

bonkey wrote: »

Most importantly, perhaps....what are the implications arising from this yes vote? What comes next?

If my previous assertion is correct it may be a one off.

oscarBravo

Grand Fromage wrote: »

...the state... acts as a tax collector for those religions.

No, it doesn't. I'm not sure why you feel the need to pretend that Swiss cantons don't have the autonomy to do this, and to claim - despite being clearly told otherwise - that it's the Swiss state that collects these taxes.