I have a few points:
1. Sooner or later an open referendum process will get even a very smart, well-educated country into trouble.
2. Given that the referendum came up, it was wise to root for its defeat. The victory of the referendum is a symbol that prejudice can now advance a step.
3. That said, was there not some other way to sidestep this dilemma? Washington D.C. doesn't allow tall buildings to compete with the Washington Monument, yet no one considers that a restriction on political freedom (though it may be a bad idea for economic reasons). The Swiss cantons could have done the same for their town churches. Note that a restriction on a minaret is not a restriction on a mosque.
4. I favor greater Muslim immigration into the United States and I think Muslim emigration to Europe is working better than most people think. I am happy to see that Switzerland has become a more cosmopolitan society, in large part by taking in more emigrants, including Muslims. Nonetheless, call me old-fashioned, but I don't think a Swiss town center should look like the photograph above. I guess the Swiss don't either.
5. I also don't have any problem with Mecca limiting the size of Christian churches in that town, or say if an American billionaire wanted to build a really big cross there. (Oddly Dubai allows it.)
6. The United States is special and thus it allows a very, very large mosque not so far from Bowling Green, Ohio. I am pleased we have the sort of polity which makes this possible, but I also recognize many other countries cannot inhabit this same political space.
7. The overall lesson is that knowing how and when to defuse an issue is one very large part of political wisdom. The Swiss usually pass this test but this time they failed it.
← Previous Comments
This is a very emotional topic and a shame for my country, but it lends itself to a bit more public choice analysis:
1) Before the voting date, polls predicted the initiative to be defeated by a wide margin. This matters because when the result is a close call, you vote to influence the specific result; when the result appears decided in advance, you vote to send a general signal. That probably induced some citizens to vote for the ban of minarets as a vote against Muslim fundamentalism, without actually wanting or expecting an initiative restricting religious freedom to be accepted. (Likewise in 1989 a third of Swiss citizens voted to abolish the army. Most of these did not actually want that to happen. They rather used the opportunity to send a signal that they were unhappy about the impact of the military on their life – at the time, we had conscription with “refresher courses” lasting from age 20 to 50, etc.)
2) Tyler correctly mentions that political wisdom is required. But it is not only up to voters to be wise. The Swiss Parliament has a powerful tool in that it can submit what is called a “counter-project” to any initiative. The counter-project is put to the ballot at the same time as the initiative and a third question asks voters which of the imitative or counter-project they prefer in case both are accepted. When the initiative has little chance of being accepted, there is not much point in the Parliament spending time drafting a counter-project. However, when a populist imitative strikes a cord, the Parliament can vote on a counter-project that offers a moderate, more to-the-point alternative. No price for saying it after the fact, but the Swiss parliament should have proposed a bundle of measures against religious extremism as a counter-project while rejecting the initiative. This would have allowed voters to express their dislike of Muslim fundamentalism without voting to restrict religious freedom. Not only Swiss voters, but also Swiss politicians, badly shot themselves in the foot.
3) Just for information, zoning laws and housing codes in Switzerland are so strict that there never was any risk of seeing minarets rise in medieval town centres.
To turn to the bright side, this hopefully will make Swiss Muslim associations realize that they have a big “PR issue” and engage more with the rest of their countrymen. In 30 years –hopefully less than that – we will all look at this vote as a weird mistake based on ungrounded fears.
Marian – You write that the “core values [of Islamic immigrants] are not compatible with core values of European society.” If their values are irreconcilably in conflict with European *law*, then they probably won’t immigrate. Hoping for some pure European culture to persist in spite of allowing religious freedom and immigration in law is naive. As it is, they immigrated either under within the law under generous immigration policies (often in agreements to take in refugees as has happened with other ethnic minorities in Europe – see Greeks in Sweden who weren’t treated all that differently than Muslims in Switzerland) or outside of the law into a country that didn’t enforce its immigration law. I don’t see how any of your concerns are an issue in a country that enforces secular civil law.
As an example, there are subcultures in many countries that fought for, and lost, the right to beat their children. It’s not like this lacks precedent, and there are ways to deal with it aside from blatant discrimination. If some set of people are resorting to violence against other communities or enforcing vigilante justice within their community, they are in violation of the law and will be prosecuted. Look at how the United States treats our various law-breaking religious cults and separatist groups.
I favor greater Muslim immigration into the United States and I think Muslim emigration to Europe is working better than most people think.
“emigration to” doesn’t work. Suspect that you mean ‘emigration from’.
it would even be better if we had an American immigration policy that forces immigrants to assimilate.
People pretty much assimilate into the US, we don’t need a law for it. Remember hearing how that Muslim man ran over his daughter because she was becoming too westernized? That was a tragic event, but it does highlight the second generation Muslims attitude in the US versus the first generation. In 2-3 generations most people immigrating to the US become far more American than whatever country they came from.
They have a function, and the function is highly intrusive. The minarets are used to call the faithful to prayer five times a day.
I read that in Switzerland none of the 4 that exist are used to call the faithful to prayer. The Swiss could also put a noise restriction on them instead of outright banning their construction if the goal was silence.
” I saw that mosque in Ohio and while I applaud the locals for allowing it, I think it shouldn’t have been built that way. The first thing I said was “wow†¦ too big†¦ it takes away any personality that the town may had left!†”
It’s probably nowhere near the town center. It’s most likely on the outskirts near the highway, perhaps built on land that used to be a farm.
” You have to be historically illiterate to be unaware of Islam’s history in Europe. Islam has always been the aggressor, starting with a campaign of conquest that the franks only finally turned back at Tours”
Oh good lord, Europe was constantly at each others’ throats at that period. If it wasn’t the Muslims, it was the East Franks slaughtering the West Franks. Violent conquest was all the rage, everybody was doing it. The Europeans hardly have the moral high ground – they would have done the same if they’d been capable of it.
Hell, at least the Muslims brought some decent civilization to Spain that lasted until the extremist Berbers invaded and conquered the more moderate Muslims of Spain.
“Islam has always been the aggressor” … always? What about the first quarter of the last millennium? I could swear that there was some long period of aggression in the name of Christ.
My point regarding the history of bigotry is that bigotry often has no practical effect – segregated lunch counters, for example. Everyone gets lunch, so what’s the big deal?
First quarter of last millennium? that was a long time ago! Britain used to rule the world a few hundred years ago, so did Genghis Khan a few millennia ago; irrelevant. I think we are talking about the modern era, how many have killed in the name of Christianity in the past century, how many countries have been taken over by Christianity who then insidiously work their way into the political system and use our laws against us, and then change the laws and culture, not many; i would venture to say. Neither does the Bible teach hate, or to kill the non believer, sure there are extremists on all sides, but not many Christian “countries” stood in the streets cheering when ever a calamity hit a islamist country.
SHAME !!! on you muslims who say the swiss vote is wrong. Show me a single church in saudia arabia where thousand and thousand of christains live and work including hindu temple, buddists temples.
You muslims have build mosques all over europe, but will not give permission to build churches in egypt, instead burning churches down.
Where is my church bells in the wider-middle east, muslims are hypocrites.
http://www.faithfreedom.org
http://www.thethirdjihad.com
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com
It might be a little off topic but viz “Sooner or later an open referendum process will get even a very smart, well-educated country into trouble.” Em, Ireland and the Lisbon Treaty….twice!?
When Tyler writes something as completely absurd as #5, I cannot but think that he’s trolling his own blog and doesn’t believe anything he just wrote.
Please note that in most of the Shariah-ruled countries, Islam is the only religion that can be practised and mosque is the only religious shrine that can be built (perhaps Dubai is an exception). Open practise of any religion other than Islam is punishable by law and in Saudi Arabia, the laws are the most severe – it’s not just a question of Mecca.
Not only that, Saudi Arabia brutally enforces its Islamic laws on non-Muslim visitors.
Besides, there are gross violations of human rights taking place in those countries, especially in Saudi Arabia, which the Islamic societies have never denounced in the name of democracy. Before they begin to demand their right to practise Islam in other countries, they should have the sensitivity to denounce all these non-democratic practices of the Shariah law.
There is no point in bashing the Swiss over it and turning a blind eye to the Shariah-ruled countries because you need their oil and want to do business with them.
On a personal level, I am opposed to the Swiss ban and I am opposed to the undemocratic laws of the Shariah-ruled countries.
This uproar over the Swiss ban has many dimensions to it. Please visit my post on this theme – http://archanablogging.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/hello-world-swiss-ban-on-islamic-minarets/
lcz
「自分自身を発見ã—ã€ç†æƒ³ã‚’貫ãå¼·ã„æ„å¿—ã‚’æŒã¤ã“ã¨ã€ã€‚new balance1918å¹´ã€ãƒœã‚¹ãƒˆãƒ³ã«å°ã•ãªåº—をオープンã—ãŸãƒ†ã‚£ãƒ³ãƒãƒ¼ãƒ©ãƒ³ãƒ‰ã®å‰µæ¥è€…airmax 95 ã€ãƒã‚¤ã‚µãƒ³ãƒ»ã‚·ãƒ¥ãƒ¯ãƒ¼ãƒ„ãŒæ®‹ã—ãŸã‚·ãƒ³ãƒ—ルãªä¼æ¥ç†å¿µã¯ã€ã‚¢ãƒ¡ãƒªã‚«ã®ã¿ãªã‚‰ãšã€ãƒ†ã‚£ãƒ³ãƒãƒ¼ãƒ©ãƒ³ãƒ‰ã®ãã®åãŒä¸–界的ã«çŸ¥ã‚‰ã‚Œã‚‹ã¾ã§ã«ãªã£ãŸç¾åœ¨ã§ã‚‚ã€çµŒå–¶é™£ã‹ã‚‰ç¤¾å“¡ä¸€äººã²ã¨ã‚Šã«ã¾ã§æµ¸é€ã—ã¦ã„ã¾ã™timberland ブーツ。
You say non-muslims are banned from Macca, arent Muslims banned from the vatican? Yes they are, let alone building a mosque in Vatican city. Other than Macca, churches are allowed wherever you go.
The Washington D.C. example is a stupid fallacy, because comparing not allowing minarets to compete with church towers would be equivalent to Democrats (for example) decree that no Republican owened buildings (for example) should compete with their own.
I am a Muslim and proud of it, and I think Islam is going to flourish here in Europe whether you guys like or not, it is inevitable. Now, I am not asking you guys to become muslims (although I think it would do you good), however I do ask you to live and let live.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.