It was obvious the way the right set this up that the minarets would fall down. I don't see how those posters were allowed in the first place! 

Hot topic - so thought I'd be the first to post a reply to you. 

IMHO - Islamisation is a run-away train and good on the Swiss for putting the brakes on - I love SBB/CFF - always spot on and on time!. 

Though seriously, we're living in a police state - we've always known that - but if you don't like it, there's always a border to cross over, so you can go live somewhere else (although on the fundemental religous front, we're running out of options).  You choose to live in the country of your choice and live by the country's rules. Yes, you DO choose and you should rest with your choice. 

However, this doesn't necessarily apply to all -  muslims, because their religion is a daily, living religion (i.e. not something they do just for christenings, weddings and funerals) - they really take it with them and work on it with, every minute and every day - literally they DO! It IS a fundamental religion.   

If you think I'm being Islamaphobic (now THERE'S an expression that wouldn't exist 20 years ago!) - Go try living in Britain where the tables have turned so much its an embarassment to be a white caucasian christian democrat (and I'm not even half of that equation!!) and take a look at how the entire social structure has been destroyed by so much appeasement to different religions and cultures - its a wasteland - nobody knows who they are anymore, nobody has any identity and "difference of identities" is what makes the world the multi-cultural (and interesting and fascinating!) place it is.

Europe is not Islamic, never has been, never will be (actually, I'm probably wrong there, but I don't have my crystal ball with me, left it a work where its needed more.....) so I wouldn't go live in an muslim country and campaign to build christian places of worship, I would respect the belief of the country that I choose to live in - it would be totally unacceptable and disrepectful to do otherwise - so why should it be "acceptable" for the reverse to be allowed in Switzerland - i.e. build mosques in a christian country. 

I've travelled the world over and always shown respect for the country's beliefs, and what is socially respectable within that country.  In Nepal, I wore long trousers in the blazing heat in respect of Buddha, in Egypt in respect to Islam (& Christianity) I covered my arms in the blazing heat  - in India, I treated the men with respect, for the religion of Hindu, even though they treated me like a second class citizen, in Dubai I gave up even the thought of alcohol in respect of Muslim (although noticed it was "okay" in cretain situations) - in Vietnam, I respected the peace of Buddism, in Italy and Spain, I dressed conservatively in churches in respect of Catholicism, (And in Switzerland I eat as much cheese as possible to "fit in"- Ha Ha!)

We don't all have to be one colour, one creed, one belief, one religion, one set of rules - its our differences that make us so interesting - there's room for everyone but no-one has any right to impose their ideas or beliefs on anyone else.  No-one has the answer - not God, not Allah, not Mohammed, not Buddha, not Me for sure!!

Free country - so far...

i agree that a certain amount of deference is good when visiting other countries, but covering up when entering a *church* in Spain or Italy is different that covering up when entering the country itself.

There is also the distinction between visiting and immigrating. If I go visit some place, certainly I'm not going to insist that the locals adhere to my customs and traditions and religious beliefs. But, if I go to live there, likewise, I should not be expected or coerced into adhere to the customs, traditions and religious beliefs of others. If someone is raised Catholic or Protestant or Jewish or Muslim, shouldn't they be able to practice that *where*ever they are?

This whole minaret thing is nonsense. It's ok to build a church with a cross, a synagogue with a star, but a minaret is somehow.....threatening? come on!

i don't agree with fishintrees post because it tries to explain the result as a consequence of the ugly posters only. that is too easy to say.
i am swiss citizen and i voted "no" to this initiative, which means a no against the prohibition of the construction of minarets. unfortunately it turned out the other way.
following the whole debate about this topic in the media during the last few months i see the success of the right wing party launching this initiative mainly due to the following points:
- the islamic community seems not to have a transparent structure and the swiss population does not feel informed about their activities in this country. they do not communicate with one voice.
- the right wing party could stoke fears about fundamentalist tendencies and possible future violence. further they referred to big cities in other countries like germany and france where actually islamic community zones, according to the populists opinion here, would have established their own law and order, regardless the laws of the respective countries.
- the supporters cleverly "sold" this initiative to the swiss voters as a simple mark to set in order to give a sign to the islamic community for more transparency, integration and to interrupt negative tendencies.

besides that the result of the vote gives me the impression that the right wing party was also successful in explaining the following to the swiss population:
that despite all the negative press the idea of this initiative had from all kinds of organisations prior to the vote, it's us who make the decisions about what is happening in this country and that we can be proud of our direct democracy. it seems to me the voters wanted to make a clear statement in that direction, expressing their disgust of being pressured from any side.
so much for my analysis.

in my opinion the result of this vote does not help to solve any problems. it's the wrong approach. we add the minaret construction prohibition in our constitution. imagine that fact... it's ridiculous!
i hope we find solutions to minimize the obvious distrust against the islamic culture in switzerland in the future. everybody has some work to do: politicans, religious organisations and every citizen of this country.

Well, minarets yes or no. 

What people fail to realize is that due to the demographic realities, muslims will either take over the majority or be a very influential religious group in sheer numbers in most European countries at some point in the next 50 years (number is an educated guess, based on a different projection I read).

The only population-grow Switzerland has had in the last couple of years was from immigration.

(OK, most were my fellow German citizens, but you get the point...).

The "native" population shrinks.

Personally, I think that if there had been an option like "I don't really care" or "I'm not really against those minarets, but I don't feel too comfortable with them either - can't we discuss that on a case-by-case basis?", in addition to yes or now, people would have voted that.

But people don't even want churches next to their homes anymore (to much noise...) - how can someone honestly expect them to approve minarets and be surprised about the outcome?

Of course, in the polls not all people come forward with such a thought. Again, my guess is that a lot of them really made a last-minute decision right in polling-booth.

That's democracy.

Welcome to Switzerland, the country of cheese, chocolate, precise watches, bank-accounts (well, used to be) - and now without minarets.

;-)

Rainer

Freedom to worship openly and with all the relevant symbols is not a given.  In Qatar, the first Roman Catholic church opened in March 2008.  This church not only has no bells but also no visible crosses.  In other Muslim countries the open worship of other faiths is banned, even though large immigrant populations of other faiths are present.  Was the SVP's poster reasonable?  No.  Did it prey on the unfortunate prejudices and fears of a growing Islamification of Europe?  Yes.  Does the fact that the Swiss constitution will now have specific anti-minaret language included seem somewhat ridiculous and at odds with the freedom of religion language?  Of course.  However, the fact remains that non-muslim immigrants to many Muslim countries are not allowed their own places of worship while here the only thing not being allowed is new minarets.  Interestingly enough, it appears that minarets were adapted from Syrian church towers...

Interesting: I didn't know that was the way it worked. It never hit me that the way people made decisions was to:

1. take a list of countries that generally considered Islamic States.

2. from that list, select those countries that have a law you don't approve of. Be that no alternate religion, no crosses on churches, burkas-by-law, whatever. 

3. reciprocally vote to do outlaw something similar.

It makes perfect sense when you put it like that. Best stop this Islamification, else we'll all be speaking Muslim by Christmas.

"If you think I'm being Islamaphobic (now THERE'S an expression that wouldn't exist 20 years ago!) - Go try living in Britain where the tables have turned so much its an embarassment to be a white caucasian christian democrat (and I'm not even half of that equation!!) and take a look at how the entire social structure has been destroyed by so much appeasement to different religions and cultures - its a wasteland - nobody knows who they are anymore, nobody has any identity and "difference of identities" is what makes the world the multi-cultural (and interesting and fascinating!) place it is."

I don't think you're being Islamaphobic, I know you're being racist. Now in conservative white social democrat Switzerland that might not be obvious, but as I'm still pretty new here and haven't been fully assimilated its pretty obvious to me.

Britain, like America (and other tolerant countries...) welcome foreigners in. It adds to cultural and social diversity. London is an infinitelybetter city for its immigrants. And when a tolerant country welcomes people in they don't then get all scared about their architecture.

As for the line about nobody knowing who they are... I don't even know where to start with this its so manifestly wrong. Have you even been there?

'Europe is not Islamic'???? No Europe is a mish mash of Prods, Catholics, (you may have forgotten the millions of each other they killed over time and that seems to be working out ok now), and dozens of other religions, colours, creeds etc. Since when does a democratic counrty have to be pigeon holed into one religion/ race etc?

I like living here but the vote over the weekend makes this country look pathically scared and intolerant to more civilised welcoming socities

Hi folks

This is an explosive issue with the potential to get into very high tones so please be respectful of each other when posting your opinion.

Thanks alot

Oded

Feehary - I wouldn't normally waste valuable breath and time on someone who insults me, but to answer your question, I lived in London on and off for almost 30 years - I kept leaving in despair, I kept coming back in hope, so my comments come, equally and in this order, from 1. knowledge 2. experience and 3. opinion.  I wouldn't have posted them otherwise.

Carolyn C, I understand you feel strongly about your beliefs; and I, now, know they are born of experience. However, that does not make them palettable to me or the vast majority of people in most english speaking countries.

Your views seem to overlap very strogly with those of the Bristish National party. if you'd like to see what most british people think of those views please google the recent Question Time (banner BBC political program) with the party leader Nick Griffin.

I stand by what I said as I just cannot reconcile your comments with my experience of living in Britain.

Dear Robi - please let me apologise for not making it clear about my nationality, identity and (now, according to you) mentality, and re-phrase my response to Feehary:

I lived, as an immigrant, in London for nearly 30 years....

Happy Monday to you :-)

I think it was a real mistake to ban minarets, and I honestly don't see what it serves except for sending some bad message of 'freedom of religion is not equal in CH'.

If CH allows crosses on churches, stars of david on synagouges, and other symbols for other religions, minarets for Islam should follow the same principle.

There is a real issue with fanatics of all religions, incl Islam. But the solution for those crazy guys is surely not to ban minarets / crosses / stars of David / Shiva signs / etc...

Nir

However, banning cigarettes was a GREAT MOVE!

I dont see the corrolation of Bad Cigarettes and Minarets.

For the correlation, justdoit, take four cigarettes out of their packet -- bad ones or good ones, the effect is the same -- and stand them on their end. What do you got? Spooky, huh?

Hayes: I got to give it to you bro, you're a master of wit...

Carolyn, the last paragraph of your first post seems to show why the rest of it was so much rubbish:

"We don't all have to be one colour, one creed, one belief, one religion, one set of rules - its our differences that make us so interesting - there's room for everyone but no-one has any right to impose their ideas or beliefs on anyone else."

Or did you perhaps mean 'there's room for everyone, provided their buildings aren't too foreign-looking'? After all, no-one is suggesting that muslims should be allowed to impose their religion on you, or build a minaret on your house without asking. Only that they should be allowed to build their own places of worship, and follow their own religion.  

"No-one has the answer - not God, not Allah, not Mohammed, not Buddha, not Me for sure!!"

That's exactly why most European countries do nor consider themselves 'Christian countries' but 'democracies, the majority of whose citizens may or may not believe in the Christian God'.

I agree that most Islamic countries are a lot less tolerant of other religions. But since when have Saudi Arabia et al. been good models on which to base a constitution? If you disapprove of their intolerance (as I do) then you should set higher standards for your own country. 

Incidentally, I don't think that the Swiss are more islamophobic than other countries. It's only that their (in other ways admirable) style of democracy is more vulnerable to this kind of right-wing populism. If a similar vote were held in Britain, with similar posters appearing on the front page of the Daily Mail, it would probably pass there too.

What happens when you announce yourself as tax-heaven, invite multinationals, corporations to bring their international employees to Switzerland, inflate the housing market, huge and non-comparable prices for the quality of food etc, live happily with the advantages?

You let the illegal workers continue working without work permit etc since the market needs illegal people to do the jobs Swiss citizens either don't want to do or charge a fortune...

But also find cleverly articulated ways to make sure those "etranger"s do not ever feel at home or welcome... Very cleverly thought so it is just about the minarets not about the mosque/religion itself, yet very successful message given cleverly under democracy. I am not surprised at all...

Ridiculous parallelism!

What have minarets to do with cigarettes?

Minarets don't stink!

the both end in an "...aret(te)" sound. i thought it would have been obvious.

"for" or "against" minarets, you are all welcome to cameroon: a rare place where you would celebrate tabaski 1 day, & christmas the day after! so you get 2 times days off....CL

Nowadays it is already the case and everybody (a part from Muslim now) can build their temples.

As for "bigger and more impressive" that relates to building permits to be obtaines by local authorities, not on what anybody wants. Not by hazard the four minarets who nowadays threaten "the Swiss style and culture" around teh country are all little.

Personally, I am atheist and I have no simpathy whatsoever for ANY religion.

Bells ringing to call christians to church hit my nerves, but not for that I would like to forbid them. Tolerance must be mutual or it is difficult to expect it in return.

The message that's been sent last week end is not that Islam is intolerant: it is that democracy doesn't apply to all in the same way.

Silly me!

I should have noticed!

Well said fellow atheist!

I aiso have no sympathy for any religion at all.

I deleted an off topic reply.

O

It is good to note that religious issues are always hot topics and are bound to attract biased opinions from all the interested parties.Including mine

However, some countries employ selective amnesia tactics of always not knowing what the left  hand is doing while the right hand is engaged.Thus giving decrees that only go to show how they are treating symptoms and not the causes.

In some countries however, its never a level playing field likethe Emirates. Religion like footbal teams such as  Arsenal  and Manchester United always have home bases such that the dominant(normally playing at home) one has more clout compared to the visiting/other latter religions or  team , theres is always a home team/religion and the refree tends to bow to the pressure of home fans.

Hence these kind of decisions arise just to mantain the status quo. Whatever the case, we have to be tolerant to one another and does not mean war when we have divergent opinions!

I dont see the corrolation of Bad Cigarettes and Minarets.

It's now forbiden to smosque?

What about the 42.5% of "switzerland" who voted no ? do you also say : well done Switzerland ? or do you exclud them from your ridiculous decision thread ?

Shouldn't you build a minaret between your two hayes to see more globally

or did you close an eye when writing yesterday at 21:51 ?

;-)

anybody up for building a shrine to the flying pasta monster??...there may still be some time before the next bold referendum.....

Ramen to that.

This is direct democracy in action.

People who cared one way or the other, voted.

People who were too indifferent complacently sat at home.

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it".

There we go...

Long live to the Pastafarians!!! :-)

We might start a religious war with the adepts of the church of the pink invisible unicorn!

Yes please!!

Hooray the flying spaghetti monster

I'll supply the spaghetti and once we've built it we'll get our dear friend Richard to come and open the shrine!

Great idea!

Here are a few ideas for some hymns...

In praise of bolognaise!

You are the ragu beneath my wings!

The Pasta master

Bio degradable too so the cult of the flying spaghetti monster won't be around to annoy us in 2,000 years time!

Long gone and turned into compost.

Genius!

Cheers

Hoory!!

The flying spaghetti monster!!

Thanks!!

I think Cpt_Numpty has made an important point which has generally been overlooked in the media.  My understanding is that only 55% of those eligible to vote participated in the referendum. 57.2% of the 55% voted against the construction of minarets. If I can do my sums (don't count on this) that is about 31.5% of those registered to vote.

The 45% who did not vote either didn't care much or didn't bother to vote because they beleived the opinion polls that suggested the referendum would be defeated.   It is not possible, therefore, to say with any certainty that the majority of Swiss voters is opposed to the construction of minarets

-  but nevertheless disturbing that such an absurd proposition was able to gain the support of so many.  A very effective tactic by extremist right wing parties to gain support for their broader agenda.

On the subject of that broader agenda:

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/front/Minaret_result_seen_as_turning_point.html?siteSect=105&sid=11554254&cKey=1259741715000&ty=st&rs=yes

And the steps after that... don't really bear thinking about.

every media I check, the authors of the article on this vote seems concerned and if anything against the ban..

but every comment box of one of those articles seems to be filled with islam haters, satisfied that they feel they have had this religion curbed..

I find this very disturbing..

If you spend any time here in Switzerland on any given Sunday morning, you will be woken up by a myriad of bells all around you by churches calling to prayer..- but if a mosque wants a SILENT minarett (since the muezzin is not allowed to call to prayer here in Switzerland), they all get their knickers in a twist..

As if angering all muslims will stop or ameliorate any extreme muslims!!!

I really dont get it..

Hi Kaki,

Replying to your post. I agree with what Carolyn,wrote above. This is not about right or wrong, but rather expressing views.

And, perhaps this whole issue shouldn't be taken personally. I thought, you missed the point a bit.

One: by being offended with the comment.
Two: By comparing Switzerland with UK.

Sorry.But those two, are very different countries, with different constitutional system.

Switzerland like Great Britain also accommodates people from all over the whole. But it doesn't mean that the Swiss people (who voted) have to accept a different type of church in their country (in this particular case).

Great Britain (the country you compared to) people are not given the choice to vote on every issue. It doesn't mean it's wrong system! It's the way the system is set up and what work best for the country.

Switzerland on the other hand, gives its citizens that option to vote.Again, it's system, and what works for best for them. I think, that Swiss constitution truly exercises democracy.
I also think, that it's within the right of Swiss people, to decide what's best for their country. - A choice not many of us have in our country of origin.

The people Switzerland voted - No. Some like it - some don't. Can we accept and respect their decision and move on? Perhaps, that would be the first step, towards exercising democracy.

And, please - Don't let your ego get in the way, by allow it be bruised and insulted by other people's view.

Peace!

People seem to be saying that the posters were instrumental in swinging the Swiss people into voting the way they did. And there is some surprise that the posters were allowed at all. So:

Who actually decides whether a political poster should be permitted or not? Presumably some kind of approval has to be granted by one department or other? Maybe the approval of posters should also be put to the vote, a couple of months before the motion itself is addressed? That would be good, I reckon -- keep progress ticking over at a nice steady rate.

SVP themselves say, the posters weren't that influental as such.

It was probably more the debate they stirred.

SVP-posters often remind me of of the style, the drawings in "Der Stürmer" had.

Really scares me.

I don't see the difference between posters directly influencing the way people voted, and influencing the way people voted after stirring a debate... if the posters started a load of discussion that influenced the vote, surely that's the same thing but with a rather narrow (an commonplace) step in the middle. Or did you just mean that the media shitstorm caused by the posters was incidental; that it didn't push the overall numbers in either direction...?

Also, wouldn't the UDC have some vested interest in saying that? It would look better for them to be able to claim that the vote was just reflecting what was going on in the hearts of the Swiss citizens, rather than the reverse which would be to openly claim that their poster campaign swung the electorate.

I agree with Reiner. It's too simplistic to say the vote went the way it did cos the UDC posters (SVP in German) had so much influence.

Any, why the vote went the way it went, is not relevant any more.

What's more relevant is what now? If islamic minerets are out - against most freedom of religion principles - then who knows what next will come is out?

It reminds me a bit of this poem, althoug it's not the same point exactly:

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out-because I was not a communist;
 Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out-because I was not a trade unionist;
 Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-because I was not a Jew;
 Then they came for me-and there was no one left to speak out for me.

I would suggest that understanding why a vote went the way it did would not only be relevant but would be vital. How do you make sure you you don't balls it up next time when something even more important is on the table?

This whole issue is a bit of an embarrassment, isn't it? Most of the Swiss people I speak to are against the ban, and there is a fair amount of anger at the fact that soemthing liek this could be voted upon. I appreciate that it's a fundamental part of the Swiss democratic system, that a referendum on anything is possible, bu tit does seem to ask a lot of questions about whetehr that is absolutely the best way to run things. Clearly, this kind of measure is abusive (if we are willing to accept that it is anti-Islam, which, let's face it, it is hard for any but the most blinkered to deny), and I wouldnàt be surprised if the European Court of Human Rigths forces the vote to be overturned. That will lead to some pretty deep soul-searching, I am sure.

That notwithstanding- how is the law going to be drafted? How are we to define minarets? Surely, we have to go beyond the definition of "tower [over a certain height?] which is a part of a building intended for religious worship" and somewhere we have to insert a clause that specifies that it has to be a place of Muslim worship, otherwise we're just banning towers, whatever they are attached to (Churches, etc). If we look at it like that, then we can't deny that it's a highly prejudiced piece of legislation.

Ok everybody...

Can someone clear this up for me.

So the building of new minarets have been banned...

Being an Atheist that doesn't bother me at all either way.

I have no sympathy at all for religion.

As a humanist, however, it troubles me deeply if people can't express their own culture.

OK...

But if I've understood correctly minarets are used to call the faithful to prayer. That is their function, except in Switzerland (and perhaps elsewhere) the Muezzin cannot call people to prayer. Even from the minarets which exist already. Noise nusiisance (which also applies to churches ringing their bells) and some law in Geneve about outside "cults" whatever those are.

But...

there is no ban against building Mosques, except that they have to conform to Swiss building regulations, like all other places of worship, churches, synagogues, football stadia, shopping centres, hypermarkets, temples to the flying spaghetti monster etc.

There is also, so far as I understand, no specific directive in the Qur'an about minarets and their function just that the building has to face towards Mecca. That's all. The mosque stereotype with it's attendant minaret has become the accepted architectural form over the ages.

Tradition leads to convention, convention leads to sanctitiy.

Take the evolution of any religious architectural vernacular you care to mention it follows the same process.

When Jesus celebrated the last supper he wasn't wearing robes of gold, a funny hat and carrying a shepherd's crook. You get the idea...

So..

the thing is..

Muslims all over Switzerland can still practice their religion and build new places of worship if they want to. Just without a minaret and a non fuctioning minaret at that.

So all the fuss is over a tower which will in any case remain silent...

Have I missed something?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/oct/26/brick-lane-minaret-mosque

Philip,

I don't know the techinicalities of the minerets, but let's assume that indeed - they're not 'useful'. But for sure, they're a symbol of religion for many folks.

So what was just made outlaw is a symbol.

If you follow the same line, then tomorrow the symbol of christianity (cross), of judaism (star of david), or of any other religion may be banned too, even if they're not 'useful'. And the next day, the symbol of Football or of Anarchy or of atheists or of the Flying Spagetti  Monster may be banned.

So it's more a principle thing, then a 'useful' thing: is CH serious about freedom of religion (incl its symbols), or is it not serious about it. 

By the way here is a new mosque in Ankara without a minaret!

Hi Nir!

Yes I appreciate your point.

But the symbol of Islam is a star and crescent and not a minaret and no one has banned that.

Also, as an historical aside, the star and crsecent only became the reconised symbol of Islam during the Ottoman empire when the Turks captured Contantinople (Instanbul) in 1543 and adopted the flag and symbol for their own use. Something about a dream that Osman had...

It was earlier associated with the Roman cult of Diana in Carthage and before that by the peoples of Central Asia and Siberia who worshipped star gods, sun, moon, stars etc.

The early Muslim community didn't even have a symbol, they carried flags of solid colour in black, white and green.

So, I find it difficult to accept your argument that the Swiss have outlawed a symbol of Islam.

Semantics perhaps..

Any way the point being, a minaret is not a symbol of Islam and not having one next to your mosque, won't stop muslims practising their faith, whatever the arguments for or against. Also there are plenty of mosques without minarets around the world which function I imagine in exactly the same fashion as one without. See phot! A building of worship and a place to practice of your faith.

All the best

all I can say is.....give peace a chance!

oops sorry!

You're all thinking that my dog has become very erudite all of a sudden!!

I mistakenly signed in as him!

He'll never forgive me!

Cheers

Very nice Zonker, is the symbol of Satan on the other side??? 

sorry?

Nir can stick up for himself but I going to stick up for him all the same because he doesn't desrve this kind of criticism.

"The purity of your faith" What do you mean by that?

I think one can surmise that along with the fish the cross, whether you like it not, has been a symbol of mainstream Christianity for a very long time indeed.

Whether the symbol of the cross expresses your "pure faith" or not, is not at all germaine to the discussion we were having.

The cross was in use long before any Christians martyrs appeared on the scene as a general instrument of execution and torture. It was in use before the Romans, in Carthage, Persia etc back as far as the 6th century BC

However and ignoring any other earlier references to crosses to depict the Cardinal points, the four elements and uses in Celtic and early German cultures. to call it an heretic symbol of the Romans is as misleading as it is false. It has many historical and cultural references beyond that of a Roman machine of torture and death.

The cross is Christian symbol has been around from the 2nd century AD and has remained, in various variation such as the Chi-Roh of Constantine for example, to the present day.

Your personal beliefs, as valid to you as they may be, cannot change that historical fact.

Unless of course you are taking the piss!!

Cheers!

Aw...

I was looking forward to a bit of linguistic and historic sparring!!

He he he!

Cheers

oh and BTW

there is quite a lot of evidence to suggest that Jesus was probably crucified on a T and not on a cross...

So perhaps if we'd paid more attention at the time Christians today would have a "T" as a symbol of their faith instead.

Just like in "Brave New World" from dear old Aldous Huxley... worshipping at the shrine of mass producition. Still I would remark in passing, that for him in his book "Soma" was the opiate/opium of the masses and not religion as another observer ventured to suggest!!

Here is his quotation in full!

Cheers

"Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions."

Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right

 I always thought it was a little odd that christians chose the cross as a symbol.

Do you think if Jesus ever comes back he's going to want to see another cross??

 Yes I did steal that from Bill Hicks. But yunno, it is kinda weird.

For those of you not versed on the genius that is Bill Hicks,
here he is on Faith:

point taken...

tradition leads to convention, convention to sanctity, sanctity to ?

as I mentioned before.

But if you logically continue your argument you will find Christianity full of borrowed iconography and myths. Creation myth, Virgin birth, transubstantiation, resurrection I won't bore you with the list in the how much "true, pure, faith" is left?

Also putting one's faith in various pieces of writing which where written, the New Testament of course, by various people, at various different times, 100 to 150 years after the event happened and then seriously edited by various parties afterwards, council of Nicea being the most flagrant...

hmmm.. so what part of the New Testament can be taken as truth?

Haven't even got any where near the Old Testament!

Literacy and iconography are not really linked are they?

What I mean to say is, you don't have to be litterate to recognise a T as a shape?

We've wandered a bit of subject here!

But thanks for the discussion!

the vote was simpy an expression of intolerance of islamic fundamentalist expression by way of a "construction" to that end. realistically, had there ever been a request for permission to build such a structure, it would have most certainly been rejected, as most often happens anyway. even for the construction of a supermarket (ikea, coop,migros, aldi, etc)

so, even if the vote would have passed, the construction of a minaret would most likely never have been given a permission to construct.

what was revealed in the vote was the swiss people´s frustration with the economic socio-political situation, i believe.

@epicure : there are minarets in Switzerland... not a lot I must admit, but there are a few ones.

as for the vote it was probably also fear and frustration that led a majority of people to vote this unfortunate way. What if Kadhafi had freed the swiss hostages?

Epicure: "what was revealed in the vote was the swiss people´s frustration with the economic socio-political situation, i believe."

This point was made on another thread and it seems weird. If people are frustrated with the general socio-political-economic situation, what does banning the construction of minarets do to address that?

If the voters of Switzerland are venting their frustration by targetting minarets, we need to ask some serious questions about what their motivation might be, or how they came to be so ill-informed about the issues that they believe that blanket building controls will do anything to improve their lot.

Have you ever seen the Daily Show? Check this out.....

Daily Show on Switzerland

oh, by the way, Bill Hicks was a f***ing genius!

R. I. P.

At least no material was wasted.

I have difficulty figuring out your mask, Enigma. Which side are you on?

Why my dear hayes it is clear

Bad hair day = left

Pinata party = right

Michael my sweet!  I knew I could rely on you to bring in that Friday feeling!  Thank you for the light-hearted chuckle!

Sorry, Enigma, allow me to clarify (also for dear Michael): i was referring to the mask you appear to be wearing in your profile. I was trying to assign a hemisphere to it, but I got a bit messed up.

Just for laughs,

Fellow expats i think we shud take a comic relief break here, its too hot. What about this announcements?

Why all this fuss about the decision to prohibit the construction of minarets in Switzerland. There are many churches in Christian countries without a bell tower and there are many mosques in Muslim countries without a minaret.

There is an old proverb saying "In Rome do as the Romans do." Or in short, respect the customs and traditions where you go. So if the Swiss do not want to have minarets in Switzerland that is their decision.

Now, if the Muslims really feel for towers in Switzerland, then the simple solution is to construct them following the Swiss traditional design and add a chime of bells ‘glockenspiel' - chiming "Allah Akbar"......

And everybody will be happy.

Very well said! I totally agree with you!

I want a car like Jon Stewart's!

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-december-3-2009/oliver-s-travels---switzerland