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.

Might it not be something to do with protecting the skyline? I just watched a programme that spoke at some length about Architecture in London on the History channel, and it mentioned that St Pauls Cathedral is not only a protected building, the actual view around it is protected.

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/buildings.php?id=49

This building is being purpose built to a specific wedge shaped specification in order that the view around the cathedral is unrestricted.

Maybe it is less to do with intolerance and more to do with asthetics?

My two cents on the argument? You all know where i stand on organised Religion. I dont give a monkeys if Muslims are offended frankly.

JEB_Stuart wrote: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...

If the Swiss want to keep their country entirely Swiss in culture thats their right.

What is culture?

Not if by keeping thier culture means kicking out people who are different.

If those people have become card carrying Swiss, the are part of the culture. Freedom of religion is just that. It's not freedom to be like us or else.

1.Majority rules with minorty rights! anything else just makes the majority bullies.

2.Never mind i'm not even going to touch keeping a country "Swiss in culture"

3.People please check up on Human rightsand the actual meaning of freedoms granted by democracy, or even socialism.

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

They do that already. In most Muslim countries it's a death sentence to be convicted of proselytizing Christianity...

But I'm surethe "tolerant muslim majority" will react in a calm fashion and point out "that's not right".

Just kidding. They'll blow stuff up and riot across 20 countries. (Reference: Dutch Cartoons)

Indeed HM. Their staggering hypocricy genuinelly disgusts me.

Minarettes are not part of traditional or contemporary Swiss architecture, church spires and bell towers are. As I said before, I feel that this is more to do with making sure that buildings are in keeping with there surroundings. If the majority of people in Switzerland don't want to see minarettes then they have, living in a democracy, the right to vote against them being built. This is what they are entitled to do and have done. Nothing wrong there.

In Switzerland people are free to openly worship any religion they please, places of worship are granted or denied planning permission based upon there suitability and context. No one has said or even suggested that the building of Mosques should be dis-aloud or that the practice of the Muslim faith be dis-aloud.

I am fairly sure that if there was a revival in some of the ancient south American religions and people wanted to start building steped pyramids/ziggurats then most countries planning departments would have a thing or two to say.

By issuing a blanket ban on the building of one particular type of structure the Swiss are merely acting in the interest and wishes of the majority of the population. Something I would like to see our own government to try.

Howlingmoon wrote:They do that already. In most Muslim countries it's a death sentence to be convicted of proselytizing Christianity...

But I'm surethe "tolerant muslim majority" will react in a calm fashion and point out "that's not right".

Just kidding. They'll blow stuff up and riot across 20 countries. (Reference: Dutch Cartoons)

Erm, as far as I am aware it is not the majority of Islamic countries which hand out the death penalty for advertising other religions. And again, it was only a relative minority which errupted so memorably over the cartoons.

You have to remember that news companies show what sells. Lots of shots of people going about their lives not caring what some people have drawn will not sell anything like as much as some nicely orchestrated crowds of people burning things.

The Swiss think Islam is a threat. They are right. However being right and being politically correct are two different things.

No of course not all Moslems are 'bad', but enough are. Islam hasn't come to share in our Western society, many have come to take over and evidence that this is true is getting more difficult to ignore. Some prefer to assume they are 'only' a tiny minority of the whole, which has been the UK's spin on this for a long time and is not the case. A minority yes, but a the political populace is always a subset of the whole, and the moderates, given the hard choice will all too often choose Islam over Western society. It is not unlikely that the percentage of Islamics who are fanatics is greater than the percentage needed to politicise the whole when compared to the percentage needed to politicise a social or religious group.

There is a fine dividing line between 'bending over backwards' and being intolerant, but the consequences of each are different. The Swiss want to secure what they have got and have the right to do that and have come to the conclusion that the bending over backwards as practiced in some European countries is the greater of the two evils.

As it was educated articulate home grown doctors who tried to suicide bomb Glasgow airport there is clearly a case to answer for, we cannot stick heads in the sand and blame a handful of ignorant fanatics..It now a matter of how far to press the case, Swiss are effectively saying no more Islamic expansion which is a world of difference to kick 'em out. This is not unreasonable as there are way too many in the Islamic community who have no need or wish to compromise and are very vocal on the point across Europe. The Dutch now have a name for this, they call it 'education by death'. It refers to a process by which the Dutch realised that while Holland traditionally accepts other cultures with open arms and has been very liberal a sizable subset of the Islamic community is abusing this principle while giving nothing less than violent uncompromising stance of assimilation in return. The Dutch are shocked to the core and don't know what to do, do they stop Islam and lose a portion of their open society, or ignore the issue and lose ground to fanatics who in time will want it all. Switzerland has seen this and is sending a message to Islam: 'you go this far and no further'.

The ban on minaret construction is a good idea it sends a message, but also says you can keep what you have got, but you cant take what we have. There is no claim to demolish minarets that already exist, or to prohibit the construction of mosques. Minarets are about proliferation, and a selective ban shows the Swiss are not taking Islamic expansion sitting down but are not prepared to crimp on the core rights of the Islamic community. Of course this is blatant discrimination, good. Sooner or later a line will be crossed, better a harmless message than the pressure cookers in Holland and the UK which are being covered up and raise pressure until they go bang one way or another. I really cant see many European countries being able to do this for reasons of equal rights dogma, behind which is a movement that is satisfied with nothing less than taking our society away.

It is the path we seem reluctant to tread.

I am liberal, I am someone who has protested actively against fascism, but I find myself drawn more and more to opposition of a religion and culture that not only seeks to aggressively assimilate my own, but that also demonstrates violent intolerance of the rights of women and gay people and further seeks to actively destroy science and education and learning.

I can only reach the conclusion that Islam represents a form of fascism and a disruption to the balanced democratic and open status quo I currently enjoy (...I know, but it's better than most nations citizens enjoy). I know that repression of religion and intolerance are bad things, but how soon do we all finally agree that you must eventually stop being entirely tolerant to those who have no tolerance and seek to take away your freedom.

We can look at those muslims who practice a more open and community based lifestyle and yet we know that a very large number of them have sympathy with the more extremist, that a policy is practiced along the old saying:
"Me against my brother, my brother and I against my uncle, my family against the outsider".

We infidels are the outsider. I fear greatly for this country and for the West as we patiently turn the other cheek at the Islamic world stamping and screaming and lashing out, like some parent abused by a teenage child. I am ashamed by our inability in this country to take action at the peddlers of hate, masquerading as preachers and mulahs, who march through our streets and scream about burning down the west and the foul lifestyle we lead (whilst they all the time enjoy rolex watches, bmws and all the trappings of Western 'corruption').

Good for the Swiss, I hope the Dutch can do something before it's too late and I know that it's only a matter of time before the British do something. I hope to God it isn't choosing one fascism over another and I hope and pray the popular parties will show some backbone before more are led, via fear, to the BNP.

This is a tragedy, what the hell will Altair free climb now to synchronize with the neighborhood and get his feather?

This whole thing reeks of botched bureaucracy and fear-mongering.

When your rights infringe upon others people's, which one is superceded? For an extreme example, a serial murderer pleads that it is against his human rights to be held indefinitely against his will. But letting him out will violate the human rights of everyone he meets, as they have the right to live in fear of not being attacked and killed. Which one takes priority? The murderer or the general populace?

Just about every nation would say that the human rights of the general public supercede that of the murderers. So murderers are locked up.

I would apply the same principle here. If the majority of the population do not want minarets around the place, then surely forcing them on the country is a violation of their human rights? They're not suppressing a religion, they're prohibiting the construction of a building which is NOT core to a belief system. This country is a democracy, and the majority has clearly shown that they do not wish to continue to allow the construction of minarets. You can infer from that whatever you will, but that is the central, and only thing happening. The prohibition of a type of building.

The people have spoken, and their will should be enacted. That is the basis of a democracy. Denying planning permission for non-essential buildings may be a slight form of discrimination, but it's not preventing freedom of expression or religous worship. So if the Swiss populace doesn't want minarets, they shouldn't be built.

This isn't a planning issue. Here's a poster from the far right political group that started the movement;



They're straight up racist. Not everyone that supported the notion is racist, most likely the majority have just fallen for that 'clash of cultures' idiocy that's plagued the world in the last ten years - a few people in this thread have already tried defending the Swiss move on those grounds.

Which tends to be the pattern for these kinds of things, a racist core winning over a majority who have this kind of vague notion of being somehow threatened by Islam.

Wrexasaur wrote: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.

It's more ridiculous when you consider the architectural heritage for Christian towers came from Islam.

sebster wrote:This isn't a planning issue. Here's a poster from the far right political group that started the movement;



They're straight up racist. Not everyone that supported the notion is racist, most likely the majority have just fallen for that 'clash of cultures' idiocy that's plagued the world in the last ten years - a few people in this thread have already tried defending the Swiss move on those grounds.

Which tends to be the pattern for these kinds of things, a racist core winning over a majority who have this kind of vague notion of being somehow threatened by Islam.

Wrexasaur wrote: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.

It's more ridiculous when you consider the architectural heritage for Christian towers came from Islam.

Wait its in French. Just by reading that aloud German boy scouts are forced to start marching along the Champs se Elysee you know that right?
(goes off to warn himself about attackign nationalities).

Frazzled wrote:Wait its in French. Just by reading that aloud German boy scouts are forced to start marching along the Champs se Elysee you know that right?
(goes off to warn himself about attackign nationalities).

Highly doubtful. How will they ever cross the Maginot Line?

This isn't a planning issue. Here's a poster from the far right political group that started the movement;

They're straight up racist. Not everyone that supported the notion is racist, most likely the majority have just fallen for that 'clash of cultures' idiocy that's plagued the world in the last ten years - a few people in this thread have already tried defending the Swiss move on those grounds.

Denying planning permission for non-essential buildings may be a slight form of discrimination, but it's not preventing freedom of expression or religous worship. So if the Swiss populace doesn't want minarets, they shouldn't be built.

I've already acknowledged it as not being merely planning permission. However, that in no way invalidates my statement. If minarets continue to be built against the will of the general populace, then I would say it's hardly a democracy.

And let's face it, racist is more a term used these days as a political tool to attempt to disprove others people's arguments without any kind of coherent logical discussion. It's an attempt to prove a viewpoint or a decision as being ethically and morally wrong by linking it to something perceived as being socially undesirable. Kind of like:-

Person A: 'I like napping!'
Person B: 'Hitler liked napping too!'
'Unspoken implicit meaning: 'Hitler was a bad person, and he enjoyed napping. Therefore anyone else who likes napping is clearly like Hitler and shares all the other associated stigma as well'

In order to avoid that whole WW2-12 thingy the country formerly known as West Germany has strategically stashed units of the German equivalent of the Boy Scouts in Paris, titled unternmenschenmeinekediscountmufflersfrankenfurterwienerdoghunden (UMSMDMFFWDH for short). Whenever the urge to take over France arises they are summoned out to parade down the way. This subconsciously calms the German psyche that all is as it should be. After their task is completed the scouts return to their hostel hideaways. Since inception in 1952 (dubbed Operation Munchkin), Germany has not had to resort to invading France again.

These are neither happy nor surprising news. Really all this "muslim issue" is doing the worst for the democracy in whole Europe. More and more people vote extreme right parties and this is just another sign of the days that (might) come.

Also, comparing laws of democratic countries such as Switzerland and feudal/totalitarian states as Saudi Arabya is not really objective. It would be more fair to compare with states such as Turkey, which are based (at least partly) on a democratic system yet they have a islamic majority. And as far as I know it is legal to build churches (or church towers, to equal minarets) in Turkey.

Kilkrazy wrote:

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.

I agree with you completely.

Ketara wrote:
Person A: 'I like napping!'
Person B: 'Hitler liked napping too!'
'Unspoken implicit meaning: 'Hitler was a bad person, and he enjoyed napping. Therefore anyone else who likes napping is clearly like Hitler and shares all the other associated stigma as well'

See we all know this is false. Churchill liked napping. Hitler didn't. thats why he was so angry. If he'd just had some nice Scotch, a quality Cuban cigar, and a nice nap Germany would have remained content being the world's uber power in Aryan supercars and lederhosen and not gotten all uppity.

Hitler liked cakes.

Ketara wrote:I've already acknowledged it as not being merely planning permission. However, that in no way invalidates my statement. If minarets continue to be built against the will of the general populace, then I would say it's hardly a democracy.

You might have assumed my post was in response to yours because it followed it, but it wasn't. To be honest, I hadn't actually read your post when I typed out mine.

You are right that Switzerland, as a democracy (and note that Swiss government has a lot of direct democracy like California), has a right to change its constitution to include banning minarets. They've passed this law and now it will come into effect, as it should be. But you are wrong in assuming that because a majority of Swiss voters chose to ban minarets, that it was the result of some rights of the general population being infringed. People can perceive a threat to their rights where none exists. So yeah, this was democratic but that doesn't make it right - an immoral thing remains immoral even when lots of people support it.

And let's face it, racist is more a term used these days as a political tool to attempt to disprove others people's arguments without any kind of coherent logical discussion. It's an attempt to prove a viewpoint or a decision as being ethically and morally wrong by linking it to something perceived as being socially undesirable.

Did you see the poster? Are you saying the poster showing white sheep kicking black sheep out of Switzerland isn't racist? Or did you not read the part of my post where I seperated the racist party that launched this initiative from the non-racist majority that voted for it?

ergotoxin wrote:

Also, comparing laws of democratic countries such as Switzerland and feudal/totalitarian states as Saudi Arabya is not really objective. It would be more fair to compare with states such as Turkey, which are based (at least partly) on a democratic system yet they have a islamic majority. And as far as I know it is legal to build churches (or church towers, to equal minarets) in Turkey.

Ok. lets look at Turkey.

The Istanbul pogrom, yes its 1955 but recent memory the state did nothing to stop it and the sentiments remain.

Bible publishers murdered.

A Priest murdered, some believe fueled by the rage around the time of the dutch cartoons

This is just rthe tip of the iceberg from a search that took no longer than it did to write this thread. I know from church contacts that Turkey can be really dicey for Christians. Right to vote - yes, tolerant of other faiths - not really.

Turkey is a good example of what modern Europe can be like, most non-Moslems can walk down the street most days without fear of harassment, but we still get to vote though so its all 'happy'. Of course to a lot of Moslems inside and outside Turkey that's way too lenient.

Kilkrazy wrote:Hitler liked cakes.

Clearly not pineapple or chocolate cakes though. Anyone who eats chocolate or pineapple cakes are way too busy enjoying said cake to be contemplating world domination.

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Hitler liked cakes.

Clearly not pineapple or chocolate cakes though. Anyone who eats chocolate or pineapple cakes are way too busy enjoying said cake to be contemplating world domination.

Why be a mod if you are going to troll serious discussion threads?

If we look down on the Saudis, Turks and so on for what we see as oppressive, hypocritical behaviour towards minorities, why would we think it is a good idea to copy them?

Do people really think Islam has a secret agenda to settle lots of people in western countries, build minarets and use them to launch an Islamic revolution?

Orlanth wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Hitler liked cakes.

Clearly not pineapple or chocolate cakes though. Anyone who eats chocolate or pineapple cakes are way too busy enjoying said cake to be contemplating world domination.

Why be a mod if you are going to troll serious discussion threads?

To try to liven it up and distract so I don't have to close it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sigh
Modquisition on:
As was pointed out to me I'd better look at this thread.

Gentlemen. We can discuss minnarets, culture, impact of a religion, and Swiss miss here, but the discussion needs to be religion neutral. No disaparaging of Islam itself please.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sigh
Modquisition on:
As was pointed out to me I'd better look at this thread.

Gentlemen. We can discuss minnarets, culture, impact of a religion, and Swiss miss here, but the discussion needs to be religion neutral. No disparaging of Islam itself please.

Orlanth wrote:

ergotoxin wrote:

Also, comparing laws of democratic countries such as Switzerland and feudal/totalitarian states as Saudi Arabya is not really objective. It would be more fair to compare with states such as Turkey, which are based (at least partly) on a democratic system yet they have a islamic majority. And as far as I know it is legal to build churches (or church towers, to equal minarets) in Turkey.

Ok. lets look at Turkey.

The Istanbul pogrom, yes its 1955 but recent memory the state did nothing to stop it and the sentiments remain.

Bible publishers murdered.

A Priest murdered, some believe fueled by the rage around the time of the dutch cartoons

This is just rthe tip of the iceberg from a search that took no longer than it did to write this thread. I know from church contacts that Turkey can be really dicey for Christians. Right to vote - yes, tolerant of other faiths - not really.

Turkey is a good example of what modern Europe can be like, most non-Moslems can walk down the street most days without fear of harassment, but we still get to vote though so its all 'happy'. Of course to a lot of Moslems inside and outside Turkey that's way too lenient.

Why is a Swiss Muslim responsible for the oppressive government of Turkey? Especially when the majority of Swiss muslims are Yugoslav refugees who fled the cleansing of the 90s?

If the Turkish government is a problem, and it is, shouldn't the response be to apply pressure to have them improve their human rights and equality? How does banning the planned minaret of a local prayer group do anything about equal rights in another country?

Kilkrazy wrote:If we look down on the Saudis, Turks and so on for what we see as oppressive, hypocritical behaviour towards minorities, why would we think it is a good idea to copy them?

We are copying them when wee have religious police or the state looks away while moslem businesses are firebombed. Noone here is advocating that, or at least I assume they dont.
Saying enough is enough, dont hide between equal rights while trying to limit our own is more than fair.

Kilkrazy wrote:
Do people really think Islam has a secret agenda to settle lots of people in western countries, build minarets and use them to launch an Islamic revolution?

Some actually do. There was a recent press conference in England where Moslem extremists called for moslem women to have more babies and take over the country. This was already a polan, but the stupid thing was admitting it at a press conference.

However speaking from the UK perspective there has long been a plan to flood the nation with immigrants, not by the immigrants but by the New Labour government. This has nothing really to do with Islam, and its not the fault of the immigrant population. They have been offered a slice, its not any blame if they take a bite from it. At the dawn of New Labour the doors were flung open to encourage immigration from the Indian subcontinent in order to produce demographic change. This was supported by priority allocation of housing. Later after it was understood that a large number of the immigrants had religious extremist agendas the immigration was focused. Hinds are a bad choice because they don't vote Labour as a rule, Pakistanis tend to vote Labour but also vote Allah. Bangladeshi's however vote Labour and are not as extreme as Pakistanis. Yes these are generalisations, but on the macro scale this is how thinking occurs and is basically true. Its like saying Scots dont vote Tory, its basically true but doenst account for every Scot.
This is why after 9/11 a lot of the targetted housing quotas were for Bangladeshis, I remember a government dictat that councilors in my home priovince complained about when they were told to house 50000 Bangladeshis as priority. Not 50000 homeless, or 50000 priority need, or even 50000 immigrants but 50000 Bangladeshis. The government knows what it wanted and where.
It doesn't always work but gradually a lot of constituency demograhics have changed, marginal seats become safe Labour by changing the percentage block of the voters there by reprioritising housing and targeted immigration..

The very flat I am living in is on a housing development which was going to be Asian only. Fortunately there was a leak of the info to the pres and the council had to sell the development to an independent group that allowed allocation without discrimination. I raise my glass to the unknown man who helped put equality back on the housing list, it took me twelve years to get housed, asylum seekers didn't have to wait anything like as long, normally about 12-18 months to be housed. You see discrimination is alive and well in the UK even with politically correct dictat firmly in place.

Now since 7/7 the government has looked elsewhere. the Eastern European influx is not the governments doing, that is due to the widening of the EU's borders. but its well kniown that the UK is a soft touch in eastern europe so people arrive take the jobs and houses stay a while and then leave. Most eastern Europeans don't really want to stay, they can see the UK going down hill.
No the current recruiting ground is Africa, particularly Nigeria. While the 'doors' have been open the demographics of who gets in is very clearly skewed, its well known in some circles that the Uk government recruits its immigration. Currently they want Africans because there are less religious problems and that can be relied to vote for the right people by and large.

No I am not saying they are told who to vote for, its goes by mass demographics, particularly allowing for where the new immigrants are being housed. A lot of the Africans are being settled in Scotland. Black face, hardly going to vote SNP now aren't they.

You see the main cause is not the Islamics at all. Islam was long overlooked in the Uk because the government was benefiting from selective migration and didnt want to see the influx in any othwer way. If tou allow mass immigration and give priority for employment opportunity and housing. So when the population imported proved out of control it was in the governments interests to cover up the situation. This has been brewing a long time and civil servants who have long had to keep this under wraps are starting to speak out.

s.j.mccartney wrote:

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

You don't need to ban certain structures to do that, just don't give the permit if a mosque+minaret would replace an Old Swiss landmark building. It's not to be expected that mosques will come to outnumber other buildings, so from that point of view, I think it's bullcrap. Heritage preservation is all good, but it does not mean that new and exotic stuff can't be build also.

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.

That's how you perceive the building. I think that claims of "defending our way of life" is paranoid, dangerous and nonsense. As long as our culture can stick around, it can stay, and it will as plenty of people will keep it going, including the Muslims that came here. Tales that muslims are taking over Europe are garbage, because Europe is in fact, taking over the muslims who come to live here. You can see plenty of proof of that on the streets of Amsterdam. The western-styled muslims quite outnumber those who keep their traditional garb for example.

If you only knew how much we, the Dutch build and built in other countries (and financed it too), and how many other countries build stuff here in the Netherlands... The motives for the foreign financer of this mosque are probably nothing but religious. It is customary for extremely wealthy muslims to finance the building of a Mosque, they will be good muslims for that, like a wealthy Christian could do the same and finance the building of a Church to get some religious feeling of satisfaction about himself.

In addition, can you please give me a source where I can read about this mosque, I'm curious what Old Dutch buildings got removed... If they had been anything important or well-kept, they'd been on the heritage list and been untouchable. I have a vague idea about which mosque you mean, and if I am right about the location, no 600 years old buildings could possibly have been demolished, there weren't any to start with (maybe 100 years old max, and not at all so special).

And finally, it is not at all a new thing to have buildstyles of cultures mix and match. Take a look at a Spanish City, it has both Western and Eastern architecture, there was a time when exotic-style buildings were extremely fashionable and the USA probably sports all kinds of European style of architecture in addition to it's own and possibly even a bit of African styles too.

Switzerland is racist as hell, somehow they cultivated this multicultural image, but unlike germany they kept the hate after world war two. Ask any arab or african applying for a job and you'll get a pretty sad story. They seem to like asians though, which perplexes me.

It's sad, they have like four minarets in the entire country.