Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The Swiss government just banned the (further) construction of minarets by Constitutional amendment. Here is the article. A minaret is a tower(s) around/near a mosque used often to make the call to prayer.

So as well as being ornately phallic, they are "the bayonet of the Muslim 'military'?

I mean besides being an incredibly odd sentiment, that has so much more going on it is astounding... bayonet... okay then, I will leave it at that .

If I saw a Muslim guy trying to attach a fifty foot tower to the barrel of his gun I'd just laugh at him.

That's really interesting. I know that there are all kinds of concerns in Europe about Muslim immigration, and this appears to be a reaction to that.

That's pretty unexpected though.

Interesting occurrence. I wonder if they are trying to justify this as being similar to the rules in Paris concerning tall buildings in the older city area. They don't allow any skyscrapers near the Eiffel Tower in order to preserve the cultural aesthetic of the city. I wonder if this could apply to die Schweiz as well...

I don't really see anything particularly wrong with it, unless of course, the Minarets are two blocks away from towers of the exact same stature... that would be pretty petty.

Regardless of it being easily seen as an excuse, the Swiss have ever right to protect what they have established as their culture and heritage. I don't really see this becoming a situation where all Muslims in Swiss cheese land are banned. Even if it is a relatively flimsy reason, it still has plenty of merit.

Kind of takes care of both the message being conveyed (and ever so subtly), on top of keeping a stable aesthetic, if you may.

I don't really see what the fuss is about, for me it is more an issue of disuading people from building large structures, which are not in keeping with the local envirionment, in the name of religeous expression.

As far as I am aware minarettes are not an essential part of a Mosque so the absence of them shouldn't intefere with those wishing to follow their religeous beliefs, what concerns me is that should a Church wish to errect (snigger) a 50' cross or a synagogue a 50' star of David as standard practice most people would call it ridiculous and not give a second thought to being accused or discrimination.

I wouldn't want a giant, and frankly unnessesary, tower appearing in my neighbourhood regardless of if it was in the name of Allah or Mickey Mouse.

This is about planning laws and not religion

Wrexasaur wrote:
Regardless of it being easily seen as an excuse, the Swiss have ever right to protect what they have established as their culture and heritage. I don't really see this becoming a situation where all Muslims in Swiss cheese land are banned. Even if it is a relatively flimsy reason, it still has plenty of merit.

Yep, gotta ensure that cultural purity.

squilverine wrote:
I wouldn't want a giant, and frankly unnessesary, tower appearing in my neighbourhood regardless of if it was in the name of Allah or Mickey Mouse.

Towers are necessary? Personally, I wouldn't want an easily offended individual living in my neighborhood. It really isn't necessary.

Did the big building make you question you masculinity?

squilverine wrote:I don't really see what the fuss is about, for me it is more an issue of disuading people from building large structures, which are not in keeping with the local envirionment, in the name of religeous expression.

As far as I am aware minarettes are not an essential part of a Mosque so the absence of them shouldn't intefere with those wishing to follow their religeous beliefs, what concerns me is that should a Church wish to errect (snigger) a 50' cross or a synagogue a 50' star of David as standard practice most people would call it ridiculous and not give a second thought to being accused or discrimination.

I wouldn't want a giant, and frankly unnessesary, tower appearing in my neighbourhood regardless of if it was in the name of Allah or Mickey Mouse.

This is about planning laws and not religion

I agree. You make an exception for one group of people then everybody else will claim they have a special case.

Not surprised at all by the Swiss, they're pretty strict about damned well everything over there.

dogma wrote:Yep, gotta ensure that cultural purity.

As mentioned, this is all about aesthetics, and even though you are clearly being a bit sarcastic, people do have the right to decide on these kind of things... no matter how much it might offend some. There is no equal right possible for every religion to have free reign over how they spread their word, or disrupt the local style for that matter.

This is not about the religion, even though it clearly has a strong connection in this case. I would not be surprised if there were in fact other towers in the area, representing other religions in the same fashion. That is where the problem would be, double standards are a big 'moral' no-no when it comes to religion.

Just to be clear, I cannot a real reason for towers to not be allowed at such a small scale. A fifty foot tower is rather small in all accounts. Standing next to a standard apartment building, it would hardly be fair to call it a hazard. I have no doubts that the towers would be permitted under common municipal building codes; this is a whole other can of beans though.

If the ban applies specifically to minarets of mosques it is discriminatory and not at all based on planning of tall buildings.

If it applies to all towers including church spires, hindu temple towers and so on, then it is not discriminatory.

Wrexasaur wrote:
As mentioned, this is all about aesthetics, and even though you are clearly being a bit sarcastic, people do have the right to decide on these kind of things... no matter how much it might offend some. There is no equal right possible for every religion to have free reign over how they spread their word, or disrupt the local style for that matter.

They do indeed. My point would be that most people would tend to consider aesthetics less important than, say, religious faith.

Wrexasaur wrote:
This is not about the religion, even though it clearly has a strong connection in this case. I would not be surprised if there were in fact other towers in the area, representing other religions in the same fashion. That is where the problem would be, double standards are a big 'moral' no-no when it comes to religion.

Personally, I don't care that this is a matter related to Islam. I simply feel as though being offended by the presence of a tower is stupid. Well, not stupid really, but certainly petty. Not that my belief is in anyway related to objective thought.

dogma wrote:Personally, I don't care that this is a matter related to Islam. I simply feel as though being offended by the presence of a tower is stupid. Well, not stupid really, but certainly petty. Not that my belief is in anyway related to objective thought.

It is petty, and a rather flimsy line of reasoning.

So +1 for intolerance? It really feels like Switzerland just gave the Middle Finger of Doom to muslims trying to incorporate traditional architecture into their European home. To be honest though, this is their decision. In true Montesquieu fashion I don't really care what they do...it is their country after all...

JEB_Stuart wrote:it is their country after all...

Though it is our planet.

I find it a bit funny, if not odd to be honest. In a lot of ways, Swiss architecture can be full of towers, especially in their churches.

Stop violating Mother Sky!

I wonder if predominantly muslim countries will soon find aesthetic grounds to ban Christian churches.

dogma wrote:

JEB_Stuart wrote:it is their country after all...

Though it is our planet.

Let's see the lease agreement or the title.

olympia wrote:I wonder if predominantly muslim countries will soon find aesthetic grounds to ban Christian churches.

Some of them already do, for instance Saudi Arabia

Part of the basis of the Western World's claim to be a better kind of society than some others is the tolerance we normally extend to cultural practices which are different to our own, except in cases where we believe they are fundamentally wrong (female circumcision for example.)

Equality before the law is another example of our supposed superior society.

The minaret ban if it truly applies only to Islamic minarets would seem to be a violation of both principles.

Ahtman wrote:
Let's see the lease agreement or the title.

olympia wrote:I wonder if predominantly muslim countries will soon find aesthetic grounds to ban Christian churches.

As KK said Saudi Arabia bans any kind of no muslim religion on their territory and Swissair (when there was a Swissair) had to get a special permit from the religious authorities because they used the Swiss flag that includes a cross on their planes.
And BTW I agree with the Swiss, it´s their country and the rules and unlike other countries like the UK, Spain, France and the rest of the EU, the politicians actually had to go and ask the entire population on the issue at hand. If the other guys disagree they can follow the process the other way around and vote down the ban.

M.

We aren't really dealing with the real problem at hand. This could slow down the UN's and Amnesty Internationals dream of a one world order. If the Swiss won't play by their rules, who will? Silly sovereign nations, not letting outsiders decide their fate.

Kilkrazy wrote:
Some of them already do, for instance Saudi Arabia

Ouch...so the Swiss can congratulate themselves on being as intolerant as the Saudis now. Anything that involves being on a moral equivalency with the Saudis is a lose-lose.

Orson Welles on the Swiss

The swiss are no where near the same league as the saudi's. In switzerland you can practice another religion, share your faith, build another religious landmark (mosques minus the minarets). if you try that in S. Arabia your head will roll..literally. They'll chop it off in a public execution.

So I reckon they're nowhere near comparison, just trying to maintain their architerctural heritage.

I'm not saying the Swiss are as intolerant as the Saudis, they clearly aren't.

Switzerland is a democracy.
In Switzerland women are allowed out of the house without a male relative to guard them.
Etc.

I just don't think the arguments that a decision was arrived at democratically or by a nation state exempt it from criticism.

It was only 1971 that Switzerland allowed women the vote.

No you killcrazy, olympia

olympia wrote:so the Swiss can congratulate themselves on being as intolerant as the Saudis now.

I think its great that the swiss make chocolate, clocks, have democracy, are slow to embrace change (women voting and joining the eu) and are taking a stand.

I have no problem with other people expressing their faith, but in amsterdam a white marble mosque was built from foreign money. It towers over everything around it, 600 year old gabled housing was torn down to build it. It sticks out like a sore thumb and its a form of cultural imperialism.

And every day from their shining white minaret tower a language the locals don't understand is sung as a call to prayer. It just doesn't fit with their culture. I'm glad the swiss are doing something to defend their way of life.

s.j.mccartney wrote:No you killcrazy, olympia

olympia wrote:so the Swiss can congratulate themselves on being as intolerant as the Saudis now.

I think its great that the swiss make chocolate, clocks, have democracy, are slow to embrace change (women voting and joining the eu) and are taking a stand.

I have no problem with other people expressing their faith, but in amsterdam a white marble mosque was built from foreign money. It towers over everything around it, 600 year old gabled housing was torn down to build it. It sticks out like a sore thumb and its a form of cultural imperialism.

And every day from their shining white minaret tower a language the locals don't understand is sung as a call to prayer. It just doesn't fit with their culture. I'm glad the swiss are doing something to defend their way of life.

Amsterdam isn't in Switzerland.

You know wat I bet the Swiss won't crack down on thier banking issuses as hard as they crack down on an innocent pers's worship. I find it interesting that people only care about "way of life when it's effecting the west. Nobody seems to have any issues westernising the other part of the world.

Ahtman. No country or person has the right to opress another country or man. It's called human rights. That's what makes the west different from, say African/South American war-lords and some eastern countries. I don't think I have to dredge up history to show that Opressing a people never ends well.

And stop blaming the U.N and A.I for everything, they are just easy targets, same as Islam. Over and over in histoy people love to blame one minority or another, from the polish, to the irish and so forth.

olympia wrote:
Ouch...so the Swiss can congratulate themselves on being as intolerant as the Saudis now. Anything that involves being on a moral equivalency with the Saudis is a lose-lose.

With this example, I would hardly put the Saudis on the same moral plane as the Swiss.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Mecca_girls%27_school_fire