No doubt angry mobs from Cairo to Karachi will be furiously putting together little square red flags with white crosses for their ‘spontaneous’ displays of anger and grievance, and no doubt the Islamic world’s leaders will call for an immediate boycott of all Swiss goods, except of course the banks, which are vital and necessary in their campaign against the Zionists.
Those are the words of the Telegraph’s Ed West, who sees the surprise result of the weekend referendum supporting the minaret ban as a victory for democracy.
There are just four minarets in Switzerland
But I had to part company with West when he claimed that, if we had “true” democracy in the UK, we would now have returned to capital punishment.
According to the BBC, more than 57 percent of voters and 22 out of 26 cantons – or provinces – voted in favour of the ban.
It was proposed by the Swiss People’s Party, (SVP), the largest party in Parliament, which insists minarets are a sign of Islamisation. The government opposed the ban, saying it would harm Switzerland’s image, particularly in the Muslim world. In a statement, the government said it accepted the decision. It said:
The Federal Council (government) respects this decision. Consequently the construction of new minarets in Switzerland is no longer permitted.
Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf added:
Concerns [about Islamic fundamentalism] have to be taken seriously. However, a ban on the construction of new minarets is not a feasible means of countering extremist tendencies.
She sought to reassure Swiss Muslims, saying the decision was not:
A rejection of the Muslim community, religion or culture.
Switzerland is home to some 400,000 Muslims – but just four minarets.
After Christianity, Islam is the most widespread religion in Switzerland, but it remains relatively hidden.
Supporters of a ban claimed that allowing minarets would represent the growth of an ideology and a legal system – Sharia law – which are incompatible with Swiss democracy.
But others say the referendum campaign incited hatred. Last Thursday the Geneva mosque was vandalised for the third time during the campaign, according to local media.
Amnesty International said the vote violated freedom of religion and would probably be overturned by the Swiss supreme court or the European Court of Human Rights.
The president of Zurich’s Association of Muslim Organisations, Tamir Hadjipolu, told the BBC:
This will cause major problems because during this campaign mosques were attacked, which we never experienced in 40 years in Switzerland. Islamaphobia has increased intensively.
And Farhad Afshar, President of the Coordination of Islamic Organisations in Switzerland, said:
The most painful thing for us is not the ban on minarets but the symbol sent by this vote. Muslims do not feel accepted as a religious community.
UPDATE: Check out how “prominent Muslim scholar” Dr Zakir Naik justifies the building of Islamic places of worship in Western countries, while supporting the prohibition of other religions having a presence in Muslim countries. Then decide whether or not the Swiss vote was a bad thing.
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
November 30th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Help! What should a left-wing atheist think about the swiss minaret result? No more minarets is a good thing, but the vote is a victory for right-wing racists. So where do I stand?
john
November 30th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
As far as I understand, it’s a ban on minarets and not on mosques! Sounds a bit like window-undressing to placate the right. At least the flag-burning industry might be able to make a buck out of it.
November 30th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
So how are we going to get the same here? Vote BNP?
November 30th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
The vote is the “wrong way” to go about countering islamic extremism. It panders to the bigots and prejudiced, and will marginalise Swiss moslems, allowing extremists to spread their evil word.
Banning minarets, but not steeples or church bells, is nothing more than religious oppression. I can see no good thing about this.
I wouldnt even support a ban of Christianity…
November 30th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
This is pretty obviously a bad thing. I hate Islam but how is stopping the erection of minarets in anyway a victory for humanists? The only moral way to end Islam is through debate, discussion and cultural shift, and that will take millenia. But it’s a whole lot better than quashing Muslims PEOPLE’S (yeah they’re humans too, you might have forgotten) right to worship freely.
November 30th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
And just how, precisely, are they going to define “A minaret”? This could well be in the running for most ludicrous piece of legislation ever devised by man!
November 30th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Why would we want the same sort of ban here?
November 30th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
It does seem a bit silly – you can have a mosque, but no pointy bits on the top.
Given the fact that they only have 4 of them in the country, it strikes me that the result of this vote is exactly “a rejection of the Muslim community, religion or culture.”, a populist move by nasty right wingers to stir up a bit of fear and hatred.
November 30th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Will there be a mass burning of cuckoo clocks and a boycott on toblerones from the muslim world then??
November 30th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Well, cuckoo clocks are more German than Swiss
And it’s about minarets calling for prayer, not about places of worship (there are lots of prayer houses).
The Swiss are a rather quiet and peculiar people. They take a long time to accept a foreigner, but if they accept someone, they do it completely. But there is one thing the Swiss hate: if you are not discreet, if you make fuss about something, among them your religion – whether it’s islam or christianity.
November 30th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Is the problem the minarets themselves or is it that they play that awful wailing five times a day from them? If that is indeed the case they should be voting to ban bloody church bells as well.
November 30th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Hmmm. I’d have nothing against a rejection of minarets if it were done locally by people who didn’t like the look of mirarets. But to have a national law against it on the basis that it is s symbol of Islamic power is wrong. Symbols don’t hurt people. If they were going to ban anything, you’d think it would be the Quran – a book which advocates the killing of infidels and apostates.
Muslims who burn the Swiss flag will get to kill two birds with one stone – in addition to burning something Swiss, they’ll be burning something with a cross on it!
November 30th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Surely minarets are obsolete in the age of information technology…couldn’t the Imam just send a tweet?
November 30th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
I have the same dilemma as John. Yet, if I were Swiss and had voted I would also have voted “Ja”, because, according to an article in The Financial Times last week,
“If accepted, the referendum would damage Switzerland’s image in the Arab world and possibly harm our exports” says Urs Rellstab, dep. dir. of the Econ. business feration.”
“Others, recalling Denmark’s crisis after the publication of cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed, fear a Yes vote could do more than damage Switzerland’s financial health.”
“Matters have gained urgency after the detention in Libya of two Swiss businessmen following the brief arrest last year in Geneva of Hannibal Gaddafi, son the the Libyan leader, and his wife, on allegations of violence against domestic servants. Since then, Libya has waged an unremitting campaign to undermine Switzerland, incl. a threat to table a motion at the UNs’ general assembly to dismantle Switzerland altogether.”
“The Swiss government, churches and business leaders have all warned about the dangers of the campaign and called for rejection.”
I would not be cowed by such threats. If the “Nein” vote had won, the Muslim world would be celebrating “their” victory.
November 30th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Dear ZombieHunter, cuckoo clocks are not Swiss. The home of the cuckoo clock is still the Black Forest in Germany.
November 30th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Like it or not Switzerland has this method of local democracy by referenda, it doesn’t make sense to overturn this vote just because some people suspect it’s based on racism. There are in fact a number of different strands of support for this measure as always is the case in a referendum, the Irish “no” vote to the Lisbon treaty followed the same pattern but of course Ireland has the “do as we tell you” version of modern democracy as does Britain, so it wasn’t allowed to stand. It seems to me that if we are serious about people being able to make up their own minds on religious matters and not be brow-beaten into “respect” for religion then we must equally be willing to see decisions like this as a genuine expression of popular will and not start mud-slinging because we suspect there may be less than pure motives behind it.
November 30th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
How does Amnesty International come to the conclusion that it is a stance against Freedom from Religion?
This conclusion blows smoke in the face of those who think Religion should be kept Private and should reject symbols of dominance.
Now we are told Europe must face the consequences of a backlash from Muslims who are offended by the small Swiss victory. Lets just hope the Swiss won’t be bullied by Euro bureaucrats and the Islamists.
November 30th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Like John I find the whole situation idealistically baffling. Come to think of it, it’s all a bit like watching Man Utd play Liverpool. I want them both to lose.
November 30th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
So the swiss have said no to a barbaric hateful ideaology. Good on the swiss! Shame on u left wing goofwits! Be proud of ur laws. Sharia’s a REAL BE-ATCH . Theyd throw most of u from the white cliffs of dover. Just a thought……
November 30th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Why tolerate the intolerant?
November 30th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
I to am having the same conflict. It’s a very silly law frankly, they might as well ban churches, since they must block the lovely Swiss skyline to.
It’s not the ideology they’re saying no to anyway, it’s their architecture, which is about as affective as telling them that they smell and their mums bought their clothes from Asda.
November 30th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
A national ban on minarets goes against the principles of secularism.
November 30th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Some feminists supported the minaret ban, arguing that any increase in Islamic power – however symbolic – is a bad thing for women. Who could dispute that, knowing what we know of sharia, which values the testimony of a man as equal to that of two women? That said, the obvious result of this vote is to give Muslim ‘leaders’ another chance to cast themselves in the role of Europe’s victims, when in fact most European Muslims are economic refugees for corrupt, brutal Muslim tyrants. So, own goal for the Swiss.
November 30th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
This is not secularism, and secularists should be opposed to it.
This is part of an anti-immigrant, xenophobic, cultural-Christianist agenda.
A secularism worth having is libertarian, not prohibitionist. If our history has taught us anything, it should be that freedom of thought and freedom of speech are the most important of values. And what we advocate for ourselves, we should defend for others.
I am proud that The Freethinker spoke out against the extremes of French anti-Church legislation. I am less proud that some of our predecessors attacked the Salvation Army for encouraging the poor and unfit to breed. Let’s not make similar mistakes now.
A secularism worth having stands from freedom of religion, as well as freedom from religion. That’s what sets us apart as principled upholders of the best of the Enlightenment. Unlike many of our opponents, secularists have not usually demanded for themselves (as atheists) what they would deny to others. Secularists are not state-atheists, who would replace religious domination with anti-religious domination.
A secularism worth having is about one law for all. The Swiss have not voted for one law for all. They have voted to privilege Christian Europe. The Church can build as many towers as they like, but Muslims can’t build minarets. This is inequality. Secularists should be for equality, and they should be consistent.
What non-xenophobic arguments are there for denying to Muslims something that everyone else can do? Minarets a symbol of Islamisation. Well, yes, if by that you mean they’re a symbol of growing Muslim population. But secularism isn’t about demographics, it’s about power.
A symbol of “Islamism”? Even assuming we know what that is, so what? Islamists should have the right to display their symbols, just as Christians should have the right to display theirs (and, I would argue, just as Nazi symbols should not be censored). Symbols of something of which you disapprove should be countered and opposed with symbols of values of which you approve. Not banned.
Atheists supporting this developing right-wing Cultural Christian anti-Muslim movement are like turkeys voting for Christmas. In more ways than one.
I can understand the temptation among some atheists and secularists to jump on this populist bandwagon, but what you’re really doing is supporting Christian hegemony.
Dan
November 30th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
RozI, I have no internal conflict re islam (or any religion per se) they are all bull shite! Right now its just a question of which mental illness rules. Sad state of affairs really, but while most goofwits want soma, dope the arseholes up! All I know is that as a nontheist my views are small compared to the surrounding bull shite. We live in hope…(although it sinks further each day)
November 30th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
As for the knee-jerk prejudice of a statement like “why tolerate the intolerant?” it should be noted that the implication is that all Muslims are intolerant. That’s obviously drivel, regardless of what you think of Islam as a religion.
Most Muslims in Switzerland come from the former Yugoslavia and Turkey, so it’s quite likely that many of them are neither particularly observant Muslims, or particularly reactionary in their religious attitudes. Plenty of Turkish Muslims support the particular form of semi-secularism (I say semi because aspects of religion are controlled by the state) to be found in Turkey. Some of those former-Yugoslavian Muslims may have been victims of ethnic cleansing. Perhaps some of them are today wondering if things might be going that way again.
Dan
November 30th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
The ban is on minarets not mosques so the muzzies can still have their insular “churches” so stop being so self righteous. Banning the minaret was probably not a good move, just ban the screeching and wailing; would you want that bloody racket near you? On the subject of noise: if I were to play my hifi very loud so that it could be heard a mile away several times a day what do you think would happen, yes I’d be off to jail, but because it a religion it’s OK. One law eh?
November 30th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
The minarets thing is stupid because it isn’t going to work. Compare what was done to the Jews in Europe since the middle ages. Bans on worship, on synagogues, on cultural artefacts, segregation, forced assimilation – and the result was to forge a Jewish identity that lasts into the present. You don’t fight religion with discrimination. That’s like fighting fire with gasoline.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
If they aren’t observant Muslims then what is the big deal?
Surely you must see how Fallacious some of the arguments against this decision are:
“Most Muslims that are in Switzerland are from Turkey and Bosnia Therfore they are mostly tolerant”
It is not true. If it is, are we to believe that most Muslims that live in the Middle East are intolerant?
And if they are non observant Muslims, why is the idea of a backlash against Western Europe being touted about?
If the Muslim community wanted the decision to go in their favour, they would be looking at solutions like integrating with non muslim communities and building bridges.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
The arguments against this decision are nonsense. It was a democratic decision therefore it should be respected. We must always remember that we are dealing with islam here. Giving these retards any rights is suicide, especially for freedom of speech etc. And let’s not forget that muslims are not in favour of democracy.
islam should not be encouraged at all. It should be fought off in every way possible. What would have happened if we had taken the same stance with the nazis in the 1930′s? islam is the enemy of freedom, democracy, freedom of speech and human rights. I support the decision fully and would like to see the same thing happening in every country outside of the islamic shitholes these vermin swarm from in their attempts to take over the planet. The ban should be extended to mosques, islamic schools and halal food too.
As far as I am concerned, I would stand by anyone who takes a stance against islam and I don’t care whether they are religious or not. We all need to stand together against this evil death cult. We really must stop pandering to the whims of muslims by calling everyone who opposes islam a racist and/or islamophobe. This is islamic oppresion and it’s exactly what these scum want to see happening.
I resent being branded a racist by people who want to claim to be standing up for free speech. Let’s get real here!
December 1st, 2009 at 12:56 am
A law can’t be fair if it singles a minority group out for adverse treatment by the state. People siding with the Swiss decision on the basis that it is democratic are, in this instance, activating mob rule.
Don’t forget that atheists are a persecuted minority in some parts of the world & if you are happy for a country in Europe to pass punitive laws against people based on their beliefs, you have no right to complain when the islamic shitholes these vermin swarm from lop the heads off of people who disagree with the koran.
December 1st, 2009 at 1:10 am
P.S.
@Godless not gormless
You may not be a racist, although I have my doubts, but you clearly are a fool.
On another note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F.....ropped.jpg that minaret photographed from a different angle, it’s hardly imposing is it?
December 1st, 2009 at 2:27 am
Pardon me for saying so, but all religion is for idiots and should be excised from man’s collective mind at any cost. Alas, that will never happen, as humans are, generally, a superstitious cadre of delusional fools.
Now, for anyone who states that Islam is peace, just watch the news and see how peaceful those intolerant “religious” savages are. Everywhere Muslims appear, “infidels” die by the truckload in a myriad of ways, e.g., bombings, collapsed buildings, train derailments, plane crashes, not to mention a lovely schoolyard in Beslan littered with raped and murdered children, et cetera, et cetera, etcetera. If Islam is peace, then Hitler was the Pope.
Further, for those cretins who state that banning minarets is racist, get a clue, Islam is not a race, as it is composed of idiots of all races, asian, black, and white, male and female – all of them intolerant of anyone else’s beliefs or worldviews.
That brings us to a prime example of the intolerence of Islam. In Saudi Arabia it is ILLEGAL to be of any faith other than Muslim, and it is also ILLEGAL to construct a church or synagogue. One can only imagine what they would do to an inoffensive atheist like myself.
Visualize a world – WITHOUT RELIGION.
December 1st, 2009 at 3:10 am
IIRC, a few years ago the Saudis demanded that Swissair change their well-known tail logo because it had the Swiss cross on it (they must have feared the sight of a Swissair plane landing at Jeddah airport might turn the entire population into quiet, tidy secularists with a Calvinist work ethic. Perish the thought).
It would be difficult to forget such breathtaking arrogance; maybe this influenced the votes of some Swiss.
December 1st, 2009 at 7:56 am
While I think peoples of all religions are deluded, I have to somewhat admire the position of the nutjob in the video. If you are going to believe in a religion, then you have to believe that your religion is the absolute truth. I get very frustrated by these Christians that demand their churches change to accomodate them (e.g. I am gay, I want to be a Catholic, the Catholic Church should change for me). If you don’t like what your religion teaches, apply some reason to your belief system and leave the religion!
December 1st, 2009 at 8:04 am
It would seem to me that banning Muslims would be more prudent as then the erection of a minaret would not cause issue.
The freedom to religion I do not question.What I do question is Islam’s credentials as a religion;for it is,in fact,a subversive political system moving into Western countries meaning to dominate,not to co-exist and it will brook no competitors.Islam is certainly not renowned for its favourable opinions of any sort of humanism or freethinking.
Kudos,Switzerland,kudos.
December 1st, 2009 at 10:19 am
Unfortunately this issue has stirred up some racists and has therefore acquired a racial/phobic angle. It shouldn’t have.
I had the same ethical quandary as noted above. I think it is fair enough that local people should have a say about local architecture. A vaguely worded “ban on minarets” seems unjust but I would support a “ban on obtrusive architectures not in keeping with their surroundings”.
The problem with voting No to the ban is that it would tacitly approve the construction of minarets and possibly make it harder to object at a local planning level. I would have hesitantly voted a tactical Yes.
December 1st, 2009 at 10:41 am
@Rog
You have your doubts that I am not a racist? What are you basing this on? Because I am totally against islam? islam is not a race. You don’t know me, yet you call ME a fool because of my beliefs and at the same time, knowing nothing about me, doubt my word that I am not racist based on my attitude towards certain religious believers, not a particular race. islam is not a race, it is an evil death cult posing as a religion.
Then you make the outrageous claim that if we pass laws based on peoples beliefs, we have “no right to complain when” muslims “lop the heads off of people who disagree with the koran.” (You actually said “no right to complain when the islamic shitholes these vermin swarm from lop the heads off of people who disagree with the koran.” The “islamic shitHOLES these vermin swarm from” referred to the countries they come from not the islamic shitHEADS, ie muslims, themselves. Countries don’t do anything including chopping heads off people, still, it’s me that’s the “fool” eh?).
How can you serioulsy make this claim? We have no right to complain about muslims demanding death to those who don’t agree with them and we have no right to complain about muslims chopping people’s heads off. NO RIGHT TO COMPLAIN!!! So we should just allow these retards to carry on with their warped, sick belief system in the interests of freedom for all? Don’t be so fuckin stupid then call me a fool!
Many paedophiles have the belief that it’s ok for them to have sex with children. Is it wrong for us to pass a law which says it’s not? Is that not passing a law which goes against their beliefs? Would it be ok for us to pass a law which says it’s ok for people who believe gays should be beaten up or murdered can go ahead and do that or should we not allow them to do that?
islam is a doctrine of hatred, and anyone who thinks that you can reason things out with these retards needs their head examined and as far as I’m concerned, is a total fool Rog. Those of us who are being realistic know the threat islam poses to our freedom, particularly when FOOLS like you are prepared to stand up for it and say everything is equal and deserves equal status. This is a nice thought but stupid, misguided and unrealistic.
Do you really think that muslims would give you and your beliefs equal status? I think you know the answer to that, we see the evidence all over the world daily. Waken up Ros!
December 1st, 2009 at 10:56 am
Well said Marcus – hahaha!!!
Godless: If all “civilized” countries abode by strictly democratic decisions we would never have got rid of the death penalty, nor have seen the “legalization” of homosexuality!
December 1st, 2009 at 11:20 am
@Godless not gormless
If I had doubts about you being a racist it is because your previous post sounded like a full on, foaming at the mouth, Nazi rant – stopping just short of suggesting some pan-European ‘final solution’.
Maybe you are just a daily mail reader & know no better, so I suppose that I ought to show some compassion for your struggle.
The only way we are ever going to win these alienated Muslims over, I admit it’s going to take a long time, is by providing a better example of how to live – in thought and action.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:22 am
Dark-skinned is not a race either. Just saying.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:40 am
Well said Godless, the Radical Islamic Religon has gone from the Middle East to many European Countries, using freedom of religon to inflitrate these countries. They have been very religion intolerant. Call for the killing of the infidels. These countries need to wake up and stop this spread of hate before it’s too late.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:55 am
Yes, skin colour is not indicitive of race, there is no race but the human one. Our blood is of the same kerotype, a, b, ab,and o with the rh thrown in. We are all the same RACE. We just have different skin colours, hair colours, eye colours depending on where on the planet we just happen to live. The one thing that distinguishes us is our beliefs. And that is causing all the greif . My God is better than your God. Religion has done much damage and we need to move past this.
December 1st, 2009 at 12:13 pm
surely this referendum and law are not racist or islamophobic. They prevent anyone from building minarets in Switzerland. Seems more an architectural decision to me to preserve the way Switzerland looks. One wonders how it would have turned out had the calvinists wanted to build minarets?
December 1st, 2009 at 12:18 pm
@Neuseline: yes, along with Schwarzwälderkirsch Torte, mmm.
You know, when the local people here voted against building some really ugly contraption – no one shouted racist! I personally am against minarets because they are ugly.
Some of us actually care about our environments!
Note bene: their god must have a really bad memory if he needs to have the same prayers shouted at him 5 times a day.
If allah actually existed, he would no doubt be aiming lightening bolts at all mosques out of sheer boredom. So don’t blame the Swiss – they are not alone.
Giving these people absolutely everything they demand just because they claim their god demands it is too much. let us stop now.
December 1st, 2009 at 1:12 pm
relating to Muslims can be difficult I admit – the UK gov seems to have made a hash of it’s strategy. All they have managed to do is waste money by giving to people on the gravy train & at the same time really annoy a lot of Muslim youth – all the while failing to come close to achieving the aims of the program.
December 1st, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Rog, we are never going to “win over the muslims” their ideologly does not allow it; all we can do is to try and halt the colonisation and eventual islamification of the west. The aim of muslims is to force the whole World back about 1500 years, so we can all share their barbarism.
Erecting a minaret is rather like sticking the flag of your country on a piece of another country’s land to stake a claim.
Godless, I’d buy you drink.
December 1st, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Isn’t Swiss citizenship notoriously difficult to get, leading to a situation where the voters don’t work and the workers can’t vote? I’d go for this ban if it was across the board, say a ban on all new religious buildings and no public funds to stop the old ones falling down when the punters die off, but this seems a bit selective, more a way for rich gits to screw up their workforce’s private lives than a genuine popular feeling.
Pity cuckoo clocks aren’t Swiss, though. I was idly wondering which window on that minaret the cuckoo would be popping out of. Maybe they could do a special Muslim one where a wooden cleric yells a bit instead of a cuckoo.
December 1st, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Dan says: “A secularism worth having is about one law for all. The Swiss have not voted for one law for all. They have voted to privilege Christian Europe. The Church can build as many towers as they like, but Muslims can’t build minarets. This is inequality. Secularists should be for equality, and they should be consistent.”
Hmm, let’s put that in a different cultural context, and see if the idea of “equality” still sounds so noble….
Let’s say, for example, that Christians wanted to build a cathedral on aboriginal land, in the vicinity of Uluru, but the local indigenous population voted against it. Now…
“A secularism worth having is about one law for all. The aborigines have not voted for one law for all. They have voted to privilege aboriginal Australia and its Dreamtime religion. The aborigines can do as many rock paintings as they like, but Christians can’t build cathedrals. This is inequality. Secularists should be for equality, and they should be consistent.”
As far as I can see, the difference here is that aborigines are held to be entitled to their own indigenous culture and interpretation of their landscape, and to protect these if they find it necessary, but Europeans are apparently not entitled to such attitudes towards their European homelands, without being seen as “xenophobes” etc.. The reasons for this difference in perception are undoubtedly complex, but it’s not obvious to me that a “secularist” perspective should see all religious cultures as being entitled to “equality” regardless of their relationship to local culture and its history etc.
On the scale of the individual, I’m all for freedom of religion and freedom from religion. But on the scale of communities, these questions are necessarily more complex.
December 1st, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Bubblecar, if the Swiss considered each minaret-building application on a local level – as I assume most European states do with any planning application – then there would be no objections from secularists. It is the imposition of a blanket national ban which is contrary to secular principles. Your analogy does not stand up.
December 1st, 2009 at 6:59 pm
What exactly is the update video clip of Zakir Naik supposed to add to discussion? So some Muslims, even some prominent Muslims, support a ban on building competing houses of worship in Muslim countries. They are convinced their faith is the one true faith and other faiths ought to be prohibited or suppressed. Is this clip meant to suggest that tit for tat, an eye for an eye justice/legislation is reasonable, justified or somehow fair? The video clip, presented as an update on this issue which we are supposed to watch before we “..decide whether or not the Swiss vote was a bad thing,” is offensive.
December 1st, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Mr Gormless, your comments on this site are generally tolerated as amusingly representative of the extreme idiot wing of the atheist movement. However, when you refer to groups of people as vermin swarming from shitholes, you cross the line into hate speech. This website will not be dragged down to that level.
You have been warned about this before. Consider this your final warning. Do it again, and you will be disemvoweled. (If you don’t know what that means, I suggest you reply to this comment with anything less than an apology, and you will find out).
December 1st, 2009 at 7:21 pm
What happened? I hit “submit comment” and there it was–gone.
December 1st, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Why is everyone ignoring the point that the function of a Moslem minaret is to facilitate the blasting of trumpets to summon rugbutters to their five-times-a-day masochism? The Swiss had every right to object to a minority of superstition (or even wrong-superstition) addicts disturbing their peace. An American judge recently ruled that a church that rang its bells every hour of every day must cease and desist, as the majority have a right NOT to be assailed by fanatic noisemakers.
December 1st, 2009 at 8:12 pm
The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend….
December 1st, 2009 at 9:29 pm
@William Harwood
I had the same thing earlier, wordpress issue maybe?
December 1st, 2009 at 10:10 pm
This subject has certainly stirred us atheists up one way or another.!
A couple of years ago, French Freethinkers in my region successfully militated to block local Muslims from adding further space to their Mosque -they were asking for financial support.
I agree with Bubblecar. While secularism makes a logical argument most of us would have to admit that we cannot consider all cultures/religions as equal or as equally deserving of our respect.
FedupwithR(eligion)
December 1st, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Referencing the above website, I must confess that I totally disagree that all free thinkers are muslims or any one particular religion for that matter.
Actually Thinkers is a noun and Free describes the type of thinker so that makes free an adjective
December 1st, 2009 at 11:39 pm
A new mosque is being built in Cambridge. Permission for a minaret was given on condition that no call to prayer would be made from it.
We shall see and hear.
As a mattter of fact, I like mosques with minarets very much, in Egypt, Jordan, Libya etc.
When my ex-son-in-law, a US citizen, was stationed with his unit in Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War, the soldiers were not allowed to have a bible in their kit. Each was given a copy of the Koran instead, in Arabic.
and @ gsw. I make a mean Schwarzwälder Kirschtorte with lashings of Kirschwasser.
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:41 am
I’ve tried replying to Dave McKeegan’s comment above, but this site won’t let me post it – it just keeps disappearing. And now I’m getting “duplicate post” warnings (“you’ve already said that!” – yeah, I know, but it vanished :/).
Might try again later.
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:43 am
Dave McKeegan says: “Bubblecar, if the Swiss considered each minaret-building application on a local level – as I assume most European states do with any planning application – then there would be no objections from secularists. It is the imposition of a blanket national ban which is contrary to secular principles.’
My understanding is that this is indeed what was happening in Switzerland, but local decisions to disallow minarets were overruled by the national government – hence the reason for a referendum on the issue.
“….there would be no objections from secularists”
I’m a secularist and I don’t object to the Swiss people voting on this issue. Indeed it’s difficult to see how one could have no objection to local authorities disallowing minarets, but object to the government making this a standard policy on the basis of a public vote.
It’s not in keeping with the principles of secularism to promote an “anything goes” attitude to public acceptance of religious beliefs and practises. The principle of religious freedom is necessarily tempered by all sorts of other important considerations. There’s no reason why respect for the local landscape and its traditional architecture should not be one of these, particularly when assessing the impact of exotic buildings symbolising religious beliefs that many locals would regard as being in conflict with their own culture, in various important ways.
December 2nd, 2009 at 8:12 am
Sorry about that, Bubblecar. The comments system appears to be having a minor seizure. Will look into it.
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:18 am
Just a thought:
Is a small mosque a mosquito?
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:03 am
For anyone who can read German
http://www.bild.de/BILD/politi.....allah.html
(Minaret-prohibition how much church steeple does Allah permit)
The article is in response to the “outcry from the Council of Islamic Communities” in Hamburg.
Translation of extracts by me.
E.g. Saudi Arabia: It suffices for Christians to carry a cross or a bible to be sent to prison for a few months. Even in their own homes the Christian prayer is prohibited. A cath. guest worker from the Philippines found himself in jail because he had in his wallet a photograph of himself praying a rosary. Prohibited.
Christian churches in Turkey are not permitted to buy houses or land, establish schools or monasteries. “Existing establishments are systematically allowed to fall into ruin”, acc. to Prof. Schirrmacher. As a result the German Protestant community in Ankara holds church services in the grounds of the German Embassy.
Iran: Strict sharia law rules: Converts to Christianity and proselytizers are given the death penalty. Christians meet – as in ancient Rome – in secret, in cellars and barns. Recent case: Ehsan Fattahan (28), a Christian from northern Iran was sentenced to death by the revolutionay court for “falling away from Allah”. In spite of international protests the sentence (by hanging) was carried out three weeks ago, on 11th November, at 4 a.m.
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:53 am
Bubblecar writes:
Nobody is suggesting an “anything goes” attitude. The right to religious beliefs and practices stops when it impacts negatively on the rights and freedoms of others.
(My emphasis)
Precisely. Which is why these decisions should be made at a local level, where a myriad of local factors can be taken into consideration.
Regarding the “what about Saudi” arguments being made by others on this thread – so what? Isn’t the point that our liberal system of government is superior to anything in the Muslim world?
Let’s keep it that way, I say.
December 2nd, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Ash Walsh:
>>“Most Muslims that are in Switzerland are from Turkey and Bosnia >>Therfore they are mostly tolerant”
>>It is not true. If it is, are we to believe that most Muslims that >>live in the Middle East are intolerant?
>>And if they are non observant Muslims, why is the idea of a backlash >>against Western Europe being touted about?
What’s not true?
The quote there isn’t a direct quote from me, I should point out. I was responding to the line “why tolerate the intolerant”, which appeared to be pointing at Saudi fundamentalism an an excuse to attack the civil rights of all Muslims, regardless of Islam’s evident diversity.
Why a “backlash”? I can think of several reasons. First, clearly Swiss Muslims, however not-particularly observant (not non-observant) they may be, may feel that they want to protest. Well, that’s OK. Nothing wrong with protesting. Second, newspapers like to talk up a conflict. Third, there will be extremists who want to exploit the situation. Fourth, sometime people try to argue against a proposal with bad arguments (such as: “it will make us a target”): It’s well meaning but counter-productive.
Dan
December 2nd, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Those complaining about the call to prayer are misinformed. It is not allowed. Has anyone heard such a call in Europe? I’d be interested to hear where and when.
Any law which targets one group only is anti-democratic and should indeed worry muslims in Switzerland. In fact, it should worry anybody who believes that equality before the law is an important principle and that without it there is no democracy, only majoritarianism..
Talk of what happens in KSA or Pakistan is irrelevant, unless you think we should look to those places as exemplars of good governance.
December 2nd, 2009 at 7:14 pm
“Godless but Gormless”:
>>And let’s not forget that muslims are not in favour of democracy.
Which Muslims?
In majority Muslim countries, you can find a whole range of different political systems:
Absolute monarchies (Saudi Arabia); representative parliamentary or presidential democracies and republics (Albania, Algeria, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Mali, Nigeria, Pakistan (theoretically!), Turkey); constitutional monarchies (Malaysia, Morocco); presidential federal republics (Nigeria), weird hybrids (Iran), complete basket cases (Sudan), idiosyncratic dictatorships (Libya).
Places like Egypt are republics with not much democratic history. Interestingly, changes in Egypt ban Islamist parties from participating in elections.
Some have sharia law to a greater or lesser extent, some are theocracies, some have Islam as the state religion, some have some form or another of secularistic constitution. Some mix Islamic and Napoleonic civil law (Egypt). Some have very religious populations, some are more secularized.
>>islam is the enemy of freedom, democracy, freedom of speech and >>human rights. I support the decision fully and would like to see the >>same thing happening in every country outside of the islamic >>shitholes these vermin swarm from in their attempts to take over the >>planet. The ban should be extended to mosques, islamic schools and >>halal food too.
“Islam” is whatever you want it to be, just like any religion. Some Muslims are enemies of Enlightenment values, and they should be opposed. But so are you. And I oppose you too.
>>We really must stop pandering to the whims of muslims by calling >>everyone who opposes islam a racist and/or islamophobe.
I think Islam is mistaken, because I’m an atheist. I wouldn’t call everyone who “opposes” Islam a racist or islamophobe (a word I dislike), though clearly some are. Others are anti-immigrant, xenophobic, or cultural-Christianist (some Italian politician hailed the Swiss vote as a vote for bell towers and against minarets – that’s where a lot of this comes from). Others are just ill-informed bigots. Others are just confused or frightened or misinformed.
Dan
December 2nd, 2009 at 7:19 pm
>>Joseph V. Stalin
>>Pardon me for saying so, but all religion is for idiots and should >>be excised from man’s collective mind at any cost. Alas, that will >>never happen, as humans are, generally, a superstitious cadre of >>delusional fools.
Pardon me for saying so, but someone who comes out with drivel like that, and proudly uses the name of one of the most murderous dictators the planet has ever seen, is as much of a deluded fool as any religionist.
>>…anyone who states that Islam is peace blah
“Islam is peace” is propaganda. No religion “is peace”. A religion is whatever you want it to be. But your rhetoric is also propaganda.
>>Islam is not a race, as it is composed of idiots of all races, >>asian, black, and white, male and female – all of them intolerant of >>anyone else’s beliefs or worldviews
“All” of them? Irony alert! Racist or not, you’re certainly a prejudiced bigot of some sort.
Dan
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Dan,
I was saying that if a Muslim (or a non Muslim for that matter) happens to come from Turkey or Bosnia that makes them “tolerant” is a fallcious argument. It is certainly true that they tend to be MORE tolerant but that isn’t really an argument for anything.
The other argument that this is a stance being made by “Christian Europe” is an absoloute non starter as well. Are we really to believe that the Priests and the Bishops were doing a BNP-leaflet through the door hachet job? The reality is that there are not going to be anymore Churches built because they are struggling to keep the ones they’ve already got open, leading me to believe it is more of a Pro-Secularist stance more than anything.
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:05 pm
@Dave McKeegan
Dave. I appologise unreservedly for my outrageous comments. You are quite correct to point this out to me. When I described muslims as vermin, I was clealy being deeply offensive to vermin. This was very unfair of me.
You like to point out that you believe yourself to be so much more intelligent than me, this time throwing in a big word which you hope will trip me up (I do know what it means btw). That is seriously pathetic. (If you don’t know what pathetic means, have a look in the mirror).
I don’t give a shit who you think you are Dave. This site is supposed to be about free speech, but you want to shut me up because you don’t like what I have to say. Only one other person posting here commented negatively about my posts and he didn’t make a very good case for himself either. I suspect you and he are in the minority.
You made this comment in your last post:
“Regarding the “what about Saudi” arguments being made by others on this thread – so what? Isn’t the point that our liberal system of government is superior to anything in the Muslim world?
Let’s keep it that way, I say.”
Despite your ‘intelligence’, you seem to think that we can defeat islam just by being better than anything it has to offer. This shows just how little you know about islam and muslims. Time to waken up Dave.
Final warning? I’m shaking in my boots! Go ahead and sensor me. It’s very islamic though you might want to consider having me shot too, or perhaps disemboweled (see what I did there?). That would be much more like it!
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:29 pm
oops! I just saw Dan’s post. Make that two other people who relpied negatively about my posts.
“And let’s not forget that muslims are not in favour of democracy.
Which Muslims?”
Islam itself is against democracy and in all of the countries you mentioned there will be plenty of retards calling for an islamic government to be in place and the full force of sharia law to be implemented.
Just because some of them don’t want to live like they did back in the 7th century doesn’t mean that muslims generally are in favour of democracy. We all know that they prefer allah’s law to man made laws. Most of the countries you mentioned are not good places to live if you’re not a muslim.
You have me down as an enemy of enlightenment values. This is nonsense. muslims in the west are a trojan horse. muslims have made it clear that they don’t like us or how we live and that we should live like them instead. It is muslims who are creating the friction here not people like me.
I want my children to grow up in a world where they are free to live how they like and say what they want. muslims don’t want that for anyone, including their own children. I oppose islam because it is backward and barbaric. muslims intend to ‘convert’ the world to islam by force. It is foolish to take this lightly and to assume that nothing will come of it.
I personally don’t believe that are capable of it, but they will cause a lot of trouble and misery trying. You cannot make friends with people who have no intention of being your friend. THEY consider us their enemy.
I’m as much for peace around the planet as anyone but I am moved to feel the way I do about islam because of what it is about, and what it persuades it’s followers to do, say and believe. It’s not my fault. I have a right to defend myself.
December 8th, 2009 at 1:32 am
First of all we have to stop analyzing issues solely on the basis of left or right. Enough with the petty politics. This matter goes beyond left/right partisan antics.
As far as the Swiss and their country, the Swiss constitution allows for a referendum IF a petition has been signed by 200,000 people. It’s that simple.
So, some Muslims wanted to build a minaret. They applied for permission to the local authorities. They were granted permission and started the process. Once this became widely known, a group of Swiss citizens went to court (i.e. sued) claiming that “another minaret was not necessary and that allowing the erections of many-many more minarets will change the land scape of their country”.
In my opinion this is a valid argument. Not taking sides here, not saying if this is right or wrong, simply saying that this is a reasonable statement.
The court’s decision was that the Muslims had the right to continue. The other side escalated the matter and sued to the Highest Court of Switzerland. The decision was again favorable for the Muslims. Undaunted, the Swiss people opposing the uncontrolled construction of minarets in their country, played their last card. They had 200,000 people sign a petition asking for a referendum.
Please understand that the petition DOES NOT call for the prohibition of minarets, but to request that a public vote decide the matter.
What happened next, we all know. The Swiss government had to respect the outcome of the people’s vote.
In my opinion this is TRUE democracy. Ultimately, it should be the majority’s voice that shapes the Government’s public policies and not vice versa. The people’s decision is pure, clear, hard to tamper with, from the people to the people.
Governments, for many and various reasons, tend to “filter” their decisions, some times to protect their own re-election in office thus retaining the power. But the power comes from and belongs ONLY to the people.
The Muslims of Switzerland have not being deprived of any of their religious rights. This is pretty much a decision about zoning. Switzerland should look like, well, Switzerland and not like Mecca. And Mecca should look like Mecca, not like Switzerland or whatever. Utterly, when it comes to whom is responsible for one’s country, it should be and actually is, the local indigenous people.
Perhaps in the next generations, when the Muslims become local and indigenous and populous enough they can ask for a referendum and pass their own agenda. As a matter of fact this is where Europe is heading so be patient.
Just sit back and enjoy while Europe is still Europe.