The Swiss vote to ban minarets
Yesterday, Swiss voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional ban on the construction of any minarets in the country. The minaret is to a mosque what a steeple is to a church, a clear architectural sign of the building's use and purpose. Effectively the ban will have the effect of hiding any public sense of the presence of Muslim believers in Switzerland.
The ban has been rapidly condemned by religious leaders all over Europe including the Anglican Bishop of London, Richard Chartres.
The passage of the bill has people all over Europe scrambling to understand both its implications and the reasons it was so strongly supported.
Reuters' FaithWorld blog has some initial thoughts:
"Switzerland’s vote to ban minarets on mosques there raises the question of whether anything similar might happen elsewhere in Europe. Researching this for an analysis of the vote today, I found experts distinguished between actually banning an Islamic symbol such as the minaret and using the minaret example to fan voters’ fears and boost a (usually far-right) party’s chances at the polls. It seems Switzerland’s trademark direct democracy system makes it possibly the only country in Europe where both seem possible right now.This distinction could become more important in coming months as far-right parties, as they are expected to do, try to exploit the minaret ban to rally support for their anti-immigration policies. The Swiss far right has already suggested going for a ban of full facial veils (aka burqas and niqabs) next. Marine Le Pen, deputy leader of France’s National Front, has called for a referendum in France not only on minarets, but also on immigration and a wide array of other issues linked to Muslims. Filip Dewinter, head of Belgium’s Vlaams Belang, said he wanted to change zoning laws there to ban ‘buildings that damage the cultural identity of the surrounding neighborhood’. It remains to be seen how far they can get with these demands.
[...]Muslims in Europe were naturally shocked by the vote and worried about what might come next. The possibility of further pressure on them cannot be ignored because globalization is forcing European societies to deal with increasing religious, ethnic and cultural diversity."
Read the full post here. Following the link takes you to an image of the supporters of the ban's campaign poster featuring missile silo like minarets and woman in a burkha looming over the Swiss flag.

This has the same foul smell as a same-sex marriage ban: singling out ONE group for second-class status. >:-(
JC Fisher
Posted by tgflux
|
November 30, 2009 6:41 PM
Has the good Bishop also spoken out on the Ugandan Bill to criminalize homosexuals? The silence from England is still deafening.
Posted by Michael Russell
|
November 30, 2009 9:21 PM
As you can see from the preceding comments, Nicholas, you are leading this board way off course with your talk of minarets and Moslems. So get a grip! You know what the topic is supposed to be!
BTW excellent post on Reuters FaithWorld by Tom Heneghan you linked to. Substantial.
Posted by Anthony Willard
|
December 1, 2009 12:34 AM
I am appalled at the Swiss action and hope they reverse it. I am as appalled at those US communities, as chronicled in the Lead who are taking actions to shut down soup kitchens so they can avoid the taint of the poor.
But, Mr. Willard, lets be clear that the Swiss are not proposing imprisoning and killing Muslims for being muslim. There is a difference in kind and degree and the good Bishop of London while speaking rapidly about a zoning issue, has apparently not spoken as rapidly about state sponsored cruelty to the glbt community.
Posted by Michael Russell
|
December 1, 2009 1:16 AM
I will be clear, as you ask, Fr. Russell, just as clear as clear can be. Roughly two out of three posts on this board are about gay rights in one form or another. Good journalism, because that appears to be the issue the vast majority of the readership is here for.
The moderators post about other topics as well, like the very important topic above which we are not discussing. Some readers seem to think that these topics detract from the attention due to gay rights issues, and hijack those threads, as you have managed to rehijack this one. Well, OK, the hell with Europe's challenge in integrating Muslims. I will go with the flow.
The reason so many church and secular leaders don't devote attention to the proposed Uganda law is because they don't believe it is going to happen, and if it does happen is not going to change things much if at all from the way they are today. Which granted is pretty bad. I understand that there are seven other countries in the world that already have such laws on their books. We need to include them in our protests. If I were a gay in any of these countries I would think that the issue of whether two guys in Bangor could get a marriage licence from the county clerk was pretty small beer. And I think so too and have always thought so since the days of Gay Liberation in Berkeley in the '60's. IMO very few gays even want to get married or ever will. They want total public acceptance of homosexuality and the rest of the sandwich. At some point they are going to hit the wall, but they still have a ways to go IMO. Sometimes gays get killed in this country. More often straights get killed, but what the hell. Forty thousand children die in the world each day from hunger, we have been told over and over. Is that true? Or is it just hearsay, like most of what we are told about Central Africa? Probably we can let it go till the gay rights issues are straightened out. So bottom line, when any of the all gay rights all the time guys on the internet, and as you well know, it's not just this blog, when any of you get ready to go to Uganda to do some civil disobedience, which might, just might, have some actual effect, let me know, I'm retired, I could go along. Maybe we would only need one-way tickets. It's an expensive flight. Meanwhile, there are a lot of different things to wring our hands about, an activity we do to perfection. Just for today, I choose to wring mine about the welfare and happiness of European Muslims. Sincerely, Mr.Willard
Posted by Anthony Willard
|
December 1, 2009 5:09 AM
Oh brother: I thought I was commenting directly ON-TOPIC on this thread, above, but AnthonyW informs me I "hijacked" it. Mea Culpa.
IMO very few gays even want to get married or ever will. They want total public acceptance of homosexuality and the rest of the sandwich. At some point they are going to hit the wall, but they still have a ways to go IMO. Sometimes gays get killed in this country. More often straights get killed, but what the hell.
No, not "what the hell" but where the hell? As in, where the hell is this ill-informed, narrow-minded tirade coming from? Did you get up on the wrong side of bed, Anthony? (and no, that's NOT alluding to sexuality!)
JC Fisher
Posted by tgflux
|
December 1, 2009 9:19 PM
JC Fisher - Mea culpa gladly accepted.
Where was this tirade coming from? It was in response to Michael Russell's riposte to my original mild quibble. If everyone else is going to discuss gay rights, then I will not beat them but join them. So I share my thoughts. Some of them are more cogent than others. I didn't think my tirade was so ill-informed, I thought it was sort of medium-informed. And broad-minded, broad-minded. Suffused with compassion.
BTW I always get up on the wrong side of bed. Make a point of it. If I didn't I wouldn't be getting a proper start on the afternoon. Thank you for reading my comment and responding. That's a rare complement for me. You probably have your own surmises as to why. Anthony
Posted by Anthony Willard
|
December 2, 2009 12:59 PM