Minarets are not the issue

The proposed minarets were of a grand stature, towering above the rest of the area. They would be the dominant feature in the area and be seen first and from quite a distance. Not only would it destroy the beauty of the Swiss architecture, but it would detract severely from the aesthetic uniformity that architecture brings. There is no doubt that the proposed minarets were designed to announce not the call to pray but the arrival of Islam to overtake Swiss culture. This isn't about pray at all, but a back door approach to get Islam and all its religious dogma and problems invading an area that wants no part of it. The ban on the minarets was justified on so many levels.

I agree that there should be no religious reasoning behind the banning of minarets in Switzerland, however, if there are other reasons (aesthetic, zoning ordinances, etc.) then I see no reason that the banning of minarets should not be upheld. Here in Charleston, I cannot even decide the color of my house or the style of roof without consulting the city. I'm sure they would object if I decided to put a minaret or a steeple on it.

I was surprised to learn that the Swiss people would even consider banning minarets in their country. I have long considered them one of the most sophisticated populations on the planet, smart enough to avoid war for more than 500 years, maintaining one of the most advanced social safety nets in the world. Yet, apparently even the Swiss are not immune to the importunity of demagogues.

I don't think Americans should be imposing or transposing our values on the Swiss.

There is more to consider than the fact that this was originally a movement sponsored by right-wing politicos. Surprisingly, it seemed to have become much more of a populist movement than anyone imagined - until the votes came rolling in.

Government concern was for the most part econmonically based, as they worried and fretted about offending wealthy Muslims that spent considerable money in Switzerland, and utilized Swiss banking institutions.

From a purely architectural point of view, minarets doubtless do not fit into the prevailing European architectural scheme or the skyline to be found in Geneva, Lucerne, and other Swiss cities of note.

Just because the USA is full of architectural blight as far as the eye can see does not mean that Europe must necessarily follow suit, in order to fit the American concept of free expression, which can also be read as unlimited/unfettered economic freedom from oppression - an idea near and dear to the heart of big business in particular.

A godawful flood of overnite architectural creations swamping the land from end to end - from the McDonald's and Burger King school of design, are only one (dubious) gift of that unfettered godgiven right to free capitalist expression. This is only one take (ours) on the idea of democracy, after all.

Minarets symbolize a socio-religious tradition that is seen as uniformly authoritarian and autocratic across many cultural milieus where Islam is found, and whose values and practices often seem repressive, exclusionary, overly severe, and even atavistic to the modern western mind.

Minarets are not part of western European culture, nor is Islam. In addition, certainly a good many Muslims are completely uninterested in assimilating into their adopted European cultures to any degree.

For example, the imposition of sharia law is anathema in any western democratic nation, and yet many Muslims seek legitimacy for this ultra-conservative Islamic tradition, preferring archaic religious law to the prevailing secular laws of the land in which they find themselves.

The referendum will certainly be interpreted as an anti-Muslim statement, but I doubt that it can be explained away quite so easily. On the other hand, no one has been deprived of the inherent freedom to practice a religion of their choice as they see fit.

And then, similar freedom of religious expression of any kind is not to be found in great abundance among many Muslim nations, where religious tolerance and diversity are concepts simply not in the local vocabulary.

If such a structure is banned because of height restrictions, zoning ordinances or safety, it should be banned. If the call to prayer violates a noise ordinance or is deemed a public nuisance, it should be prohibited. If the banning is purely religious, no, a democratic society cannot do that. Are minarets banned in Philadelphia? In New York? In Charleston, SC? Not to my knowledge, except for the above reasons. Much as I dislike Islam and the Ku Klux Klan, their rights cannot and should not be voided for exercising their constitutional rights or we all lose.

The Swiss ban on minarets is exclusivist and therefore wrong, because it is clearly based on religion, not architectural esthetic uniformity. So let's make a deal: if Saudi Arabia will allow a synagogue in their country, I will lobby the Swiss to rescind the ban on minarets. But until I get a yes from the Saudis, I won't spend any tears on the plight of the Swiss Muslims.

This is totally unfair. If you can claim that Minarets are not the issue which it officially is, then this allows anyone to opens up a whole pandora box of complains against muslims. A religion which is dominating, threatening, expansionist, prmitive, intolerant, brutal, non-cohesive by birth, non-progressive. And then you go ahead and say that people are Islamophobic. Of course, they are. But is it their fault? You cannot make the term Islamophobic as famous as "racist" or "anti-semitic". It will not stick.
A tiny percent of people who are left-inclined are running riot all over the media writing that a huge percent of the general population of Europe is wrong. Are we wrong or are you wrong?

I haven't read the news story about Switzerland's decision, but if it was based on a misapplication of zoning and building laws that ended up placing more burdens on the minarets than other structures, then I agree with Herb Silverman that banning them was a bad idea. If, on the other hand, any other structure of that size and style would have been banned from the location in question, then I agree with the Swiss decision. There is no reason to exempt a religious structure from regulations that apply to other structures. (Once a minaret were constructed in any city, however, I would also apply existing noise ordinances to the "call to prayer" audio -- nothing more, nothing less.)

this isnt about the practice of religion in any way shape or form. there was already a ban (as i suspect there is in most places in the US) against the call to prayer, which is afterall the point of the minaret.

banning the structure (its utility already stripped because of noise pollution restrictions) is more a step to protect the culture of switzerland which is largely symbolized by the skyline of its picteresque towns and cities.

minarets belong in switzerland like a mormon temple belongs in the heart of old jeruselum.

there are no legitimate religious interests that are frustrated here. good for switzerland for protecting its culture.

Minarets are merely symbolic but banning them is a message that a country that prides itself on tolerance does not need to be open to a religion that is demonstrably intolerant when in the majority.