On minarets, two cheers for the Swiss

I strongly oppose any government's efforts to control religious architecture. It is a matter of pride to me, that while Islamic controlled countries prohibit and restrict the construction of churches, we do not. I love the fact in our city there are Eritrean Orthodox churches, Ethiopian Churches, Indian Churches, Coptic Churches, Mosques, Temples and Synagogues. I wouldn't favor any law to restrict minarets, steeples, crosses or any other model.

We are quite fortunate to have a 1st amendment. Our forefathers were a wise bunch. Thank God for that.

....would have insisted that the first mosque in Switzerland could only be built the day after the first Christian cathedral opened for worship in Riyadh."

No, we are better than that. Now, as for what the Swiss do, I agree with you, they don't have a 1st amendment, so I suppose I don't have much of a say

Yes, I agree in principle. I think that the original architectural character of the locale ought to be preserved. Nothing would be more incongruous than a nice little New England Congregational Church smack in the middle of downtown Mecca.

That said, those phallic minarets thrusting into the skies above Hagia Sophia are a prophetic architectural metaphor for the rest of Europe.

Rod,

I have to say that I am also ambivalent about this vote. On the one hand, I see very little wrong with the Swiss people voting to preserve what they see as their cultural heritage, be it architectural or religious (as you know, the two are often intertwined!).

But on the other hand, this only addresses a symptom. So long as European native-born populations decline, their economy and social systems will require infusions of immigrant labor. Owing to proximity and other causes, Muslim countries often provide that labor for Europe. That is, contra some of the more paranoid, the growing number of Muslims in Europe is not but one stage on a master plan to take over the continent: it reflects Europe's need for cheap labor.

The reason Muslim immigrants to Europe are so often radicalized is that many European countries do not seek to integrate them into their societies. Naturally, marginalized immigrants will be prey to any number of radical ideologies, especially those that relate back to their country/faith of origin.

Now this doesn't mean that the Swiss should stop being the Swiss or the French should stop being the French, but it does mean that, if they dislike the influx from Muslim countries, they should consider the economic forces at work.

Manfred Arcane: Even Wahabi Qatar recently allowed a Catholic Church to open in Doha.

It was either that or lose the cheap Filipino laborers.

Besides, it's an emasculated church: no cross and no bells.

At least there will be no Angelus bell to drown out the muezzin's cacophonous squawk. Ironic that the Coran affirms the event of which the Angelus tolls the commemoration: the miraculous Incarnation of a Prophet. Not even the merchant of Mecca was granted that miracle.

I'm disagreeing with you a lot today.

"It is no coincidence that the people most loudly bemoaning the ban on minarets in Switzerland are those who most vociferously applauded the prohibition on crucifixes in Italian classrooms."

Yes! That's right! But no, the "consistent principle" is not an attack on Christianity or European culture, but an upholding of liberty. I have become really exhausted with American conservatives touting the virtues of European nationalism. I admire Europe for a lot of things, but that is not one of them.

This is not about funny-looking towers, and never has been. I live in Charleston, SC, which has for a long time had extreme laws regarding what people can and cannot build or do to existing buildings. Everything, from building a library to painting your house, must go through the Board of Architectural Review. The Swiss could have set up a system like that, either nationally or in their communities. But instead, they chose to single out a SINGLE feature of a SINGLE architectural style that JUST SO HAPPENS to be involved with Muslim worship.

Wrongheaded and disgusting.

The reason Muslim immigrants to Europe are so often radicalized is that many European countries do not seek to integrate them into their societies.

This is a standard neo-con talking point that is simply wrong. France, for example, is absolutely fanatical about integration. It keeps no statistics on race/ethnicity at all. It rejects group rights. It is the Platonic ideal of 'colorblind' , religion-blind, group blind state.

Here, for example, is part of its 'reservations' to the European Charter on Minority and Regional Languages

"In so far as the aim of the Charter is not to recognise or protect minorities but to promote the European language heritage, and as the use of the term "groups" of speakers does not grant collective rights to speakers of regional or minority languages, the French Government interprets this instrument in a manner compatible with the Preamble to the Constitution, which ensures the equality of all citizens before the law and recognises only the French people, composed of all citizens, without distinction as to origin, race or religion."

Well, guess what, France has trouble with its North African "youths".

Then there is the other extreme. The UK's elite imposed multikult -- where large swaths of London look like Middle Eastern casbahs -- minus the sun. There are scores of organizations promoting Muslim interests. There are Muslim lords and ladies, appointed by both Conservative and Labour government.

Guess what, the UK has even more of a problem with Muslim youths than France.

Now let's contrast that with Germany. Germany cetainly was a base for some of the 9/11 guys, but they were foreigners and they didn't strike in Germany. Germany itself has been free of the sorts of Muslim agitation that both the UK and France have experienced.

Part of the issue in the Helvetican Confederation has to do with a comment by the elected leader of Turkey, Erdogan, who called minarets the "bayonets of Islam". Some of the Swiss took that idea and put it into posters, showing mosques with literal bayonets for minarets. It is interesting that the entire political establishment opposed this, and that a majority of women support the ban.

Here is an article on the referendum. Note that quite a few of the Moslems
in Switzerland come from Turkey:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125947451116668259.html
Excerpt:
Cavid Aksin, an Istanbul metalworker, was angered that the referendum coincided with the end of one of the most important religious feasts in the Muslim calendar. "I think Turkey should have a referendum on whether to close down its churches," he said.

This is rich. Turkey has been shutting down Christian churches for centuries. The Hagia Sofia was once a chuch. So was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhtamar_Island#The_Armenian_Cathedral_of_the_Holy_Cross and of particular importance to Orthodox Christians, there is the issue the Halki seminary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halki_seminary

So the "referendum" in Turkey has already been held, centuries ago, and the vote was to suppress Christianity. No reversal of that trend is in sight, indeed with Erdogan's explicitly Islamist party gaining more and more power in Turkey quite the opposite is true. We see again that attempts to reform Islam last at most for roughly 3 generations, as Ataturkism continues to fade.

Where Islam goes, Sharia follows. That is the issue. One thing to note: there's no way any satrapy of the E.U. could enact such legislation.

Thom
The Swiss could have set up a system like that, either nationally or in their communities. But instead, they chose to single out a SINGLE feature of a SINGLE architectural style that JUST SO HAPPENS to be involved with Muslim worship.

Yup.

I live about 25 minutes from Helen, Georgia, a very strange city in the foothills of the Appalachians pretending to be in the Swiss Alps, and hoping no one notices the lack of snow. It actually looks more impressive from other directions, when the go cart track isn't right in front. (But that's gone now anyway. I should go over and take a new picture and submit it to Wikipedia.)

That architecture is, of course, defined by law. There's a Pizza Hut and Wendy's there...they looks like those buildings. There's a church or two...in buildings like that. If you're within the city limits, by gum, your building will look like that. That exact color roof, angled within specific degrees, with light colored walls and wood-colored trim.

They will only grant exceptions to buildings that want to break the rules to look more Alpine-ish, like that clock tower thingy. (Which is on a strip mall, not a church.) Even the pavilion at the go cart track looks like that. Sheds look like that. Business signs look like that.

I have no problem with this. I think it's an amazingly goofy tourist trap and a silly place, and I go there maybe once every three years, but I have no problem with the actual laws...that's what the voters in that city wanted, because it brings in the tourist money they need. They made it a law, and people who buy land there with the intent of building something know what they're getting into. (If not, they are really unobservant.)

Likewise, the city I actually live next to, Dahlonega GA, prohibits buildings over three stories tall. Again, to preserve the historic look of the town by keeping things from towering over the other buildings. (Most of the old buildings on the square are historic landmarks and can't be tore down anyway, so simply prohibiting people from building huge new buildings next to them is enough.)

However, this Swiss thing isn't to preserve some the historic look of place. For one thing, an entire country can't have a 'historic look', that's just silly.

And I'll argue that local building codes are one thing...you don't like the code in Helen Georgia, you build a mile down the road instead.

But it's a lot more work to move to another country. I'd have a problem with state or even counties having 'how it looks' building codes, much less an entire country.

...hey, wait, where are the libertarians, asserting the right of people to build minarets on land they own?

i'm not sure that the mosques in question intend to broadcast the call to prayer.
none of the mosques in the usa that i have ever seen do the loudspeaker call like in islamic countries. (which is kind of a curious phenomenon, since it seems like the constitution would be on their side if they chose to do so.)

This gives more context.

http://pryce-jones.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZThkMzJhNTZmZjc2YzBhMDAzZWZhZmJmZTk4ZTZjZjU=

Anyone who believes this is an effort to protect some sort of national, architectural tradition doesn't know a thing about ecclesiastical architecture in Switzerland -- past or present.

Just one example. There are dozens more, and some of the worst offenders are the Catholics!

Here's another, clearly, CLEARLY in the Gothic tradition of bisected water coolers...

"please show me one example of peaceful coexistence with between a Western country/city and a growing Islamic population."

the united states of america.

The referendum had nothing to do with architecture. It was the biggest insult to the Muslim minority that its backers thought would pass. If they had thought banning mosques would win, they would have endorsed that. The goal was to gain political power for the right wing by dividing people and demonizing a minority, and it worked. It's noteworthy that in the four cantons where there actually are mosques with minarets the referendum failed. By the way the existing minarets don't have loudspeakers calling people to prayer, and in all the pictures I can find they don't loom menacingly over any churches. But who needs facts when there's scary scary Muslims to be scared of. Rod's endorsement of Warner's bigotry is shameful - calling ordinary Muslims wanting a place of worship of their own "triumphalist" and enemies of "Christian civilisation". Someday they will build a Christian church in Riyadh - will the Christian builders be attacking Islamic civilization and enemies of Islam?

Someday they will build a Christian church in Riyadh - will the Christian builders be attacking Islamic civilization and enemies of Islam?

Certainly the Saudis will be of that opinion. Because to build a church in Riyadh, or any other part of Saudi Arabia would violate the last wish of Mohammed. There won't be any Christian church built in Riyadh. Nor will any new churches be built in "secular" Turkey, either, for similar reasons.

It's a one-way street. And since Sharia follows Islam, that tends to be a one-way street as well.

Rod is correct that this effort has no serious effects. I rather expect the Swiss Federal government in Bern already has bureaucrats seeking to find a way to circumvent this law.

I take it CAP doesn't like white, Western, Christian people very much. Any effort on their part to preserve the environments they settled and built up from the ravages of 'the market' and mass migration is anathema to him or her.

i love white, western, christian people!
i'm especially fond of the one that i see in the bathroom mirror every morning.

Rod, I did read your entire post before commenting. Some time passed between when I read your post and when I commented, so you have misattributed "rushing" to me.

I am mindful of the Muslim problem in Europe. I also live in a neighborhood with substantial building style restrictions. I have a problem with the Swiss action, though, for several reasons. First, any fair amd just governmental encroachment on religious liberty cannot be specific to a particular religion. Second, the referendum ought not to pass any sort of reasonable judicial review. It is too narrow to accomplish its intended purpose of maintaining some uniquely Swiss architectural heritage while being too broad with respect to the specific class of architectural appurtenance it does restrict. It is also too narrow to accomplish its unspoken purpose of limiting Islamic immigration. It has but one purpose - to marginalize and discourage the practice of a particular religion. Legislation serving that purpose has no place in any civilized society.

And while I hold all nations to the same standard, I certainly have higher expectations of Switzerland that Saudi Arabia or Uganda, and feel a concomitantly greater disappointment in its lapses.

This post shows that the intersection between power and religion is one of Dreher's weaknesses. Arguing that a ban on minarets to preserve local architectural standards would be OK is as meaningless as arguing that it's OK to arrest Catholic priests who molest children. Of course it's generally acceptable to apply religiously neutral statutes behavior by religious people. But that's not what the Swiss did here. This act was specifically a protest against Muslims as Muslims. It also did nothing to deal with the behavior the Swiss might justifiably want to prohibit.

(Also, the issue of crosses in public school is significantly different because that's government action and government speech.)

Back to my main point. In post after post, Dreher argues against or for this or that liberty restriction that can be tied to religion. He supports governmental discrimination against gay people even where some people's religious faith calls for tolerance (gay marriage, where some faiths permit or encourage recognizing gay marriage). But he wants to government to prohibit people with religious beliefs that opposes antiigay discrimination from acting on those beliefs. He wants to permit employees who don't want to provide birth control to defy their professional duties and their employers, but he doesn't give the same liberty to employees who want to provide birth control in defiance of their employer's wishes.

Basically, without any coherent theory of how governmental or social power should be exercised against dissenting minorities (religious or otherwise), he almost always comes down on the results-oriented side that people with politically conservative Christian religious beliefs should be free of social or governmental restrictions, and that people with politically conservative Christian religious beliefs should be able to use social and governmental restrictions to enforce those beliefs on others.

I strongly recommend that he track down a copy of the Culture of Disbelief by Stephen Carter. Carter's books "Integrity" and "Civility" would also be helpful. Carter is a mostly liberal Evangelical Christian who is unsympathetic to claims that the public square should be secularized. I don't always agree with Carter, but he has thought through many of the issues that Dreher dances around.

Doug Bandow at the American Spectator blog said it best;

"Switzerland's response to its Muslim critics should be a simple "Shut up!" When Indonesia, Egypt, Pakistan, and other Islamic nations start protecting the rights of Jews, Christians, Bahais, and other religious minorities, then they can lecture the West on religious liberty. Until then, they should just Shut up! "

http://bit.ly/70uP3H

I am reminded that the British once passed laws prohibiting Catholics in Ireland from having steeples on their churches. The idea was - at that time - the church steeple would be the highest building visible for miles around - and without steeples the Irish would not be able to locate their churches.

I think we would all recognize that the British were wrong in prohibiting Catholics from worshipping and that the steeple legislation was foolish too. I don't see much difference between those old penal laws and what the Swiss propose doing re: minarets.

One can understand the concern the Swiss may have about preserving their culture - but this hardly seems they way to go about addressing that concern.

I would think a feature of their culture the Swiss might want to preserve is freedom to worship.

Re: And when you voluntarily make a deal with Caesar to not pay him taxes in exchange for limitations on your freedom of speech,

Just what should religions be taxed on? The value of their land -- OK, I'll grant that much. But what else? Clergy and other church workers do pay taxes on their salaries same as you and me. Churches as a whole however are non-profit enterprises so it's hard to see how they could be taxed apart from property taxes.

Jon,
I don't know all of the tax implications of 501(c)(3) status, but one is that donations are tax deductible. My point is that churches should follow the same rules as other organizations. No special privileges. No special restrictions.

Siarlys,

Donations and dues to churches and synagogues (and other 501c3's) are deductible for the donors. Donations to the ACLU and NRA are not tax deductible for the donors because those organizations have chosen not to avail themselves of 501c3 status (although they both have 501c3 organizations attached to them that do follow the 501c3 rules). Any religious institution that wanted to could get more freedom of expression by following the path of the NRA, ACLU and countless other advocacy groups.

Anything more than that goes beyond my knowledge of tax law, so I'll stop with that.

You are really taking this out of context. Concepts of race, ethnicity and language are completely different on the other side of the Atlantic.

libero, I quoted France's reservations to the treaty to show that government's hostility to group rights, whether for indigenous groups for immigrant groups. You will notice that their position I quoted above includes 'origin'. There is other evidence. For example, you can't get ethnic/racial breakdowns on crime in France, because the government refuses to keep any. It really doesn't matter what the source of the "groupness" is -- French citizens, is as far as the government is concerned, are absolutely identitical. It is the neo-con, assimilationist dream. It does not work, because it is contrary to human nature. BTW I have lived in that country for extended periods of time.

You are correct in asserting that in most European countries, at least until recently, indigenous minorities were what folks thought of as minorities (the Suomi in Norway, for example). One reason is that there were no other minorities until relatively recently in most countries. However, in my particular residence, the UK, the term 'Ethnic minority' *never* refers to, say, the Welsh. (BTW Welsh quite literally means 'foreigner' in Anglo-Saxon) 'Diversity' is exclusively based on phenotype -- browns and blacks are 'diverse' and thus eligible for all sorts of 'positive discrimination' (at least a semi-truthful term), just like in the US.

The point is that this 'Europe doesn't integrate its immigrants' BS is offered without a shred of proof, usually from the neo-con region of the political landscape. The UK practices a vicious multiculturalism (I say vicious because it really is a war on its white, indigenous population, esp. the working class) . The French try to be blind to ethnic difference. Neither approach works, though I supposed the French is working better - their immigrant 'youth' simply riot and engage in random attacks on the indigenous -- the UK's immigrant stock population has produced more organized terror, as well as additional random crime. Meanwhile, Germany is the major country with the least 'integrationist' policies, where it was very difficult until recently for immigrant stock folks to gain citizenship, and which still does not grant automatic citizenship and puts obstacles in the way of non-indigenous people becoming citizens. I don't think it is a coincidence that it is also the country that has had the least trouble with its Muslim population. Must people, realizing they are guests in someone else's society, will hunker down and not make waves.

Italy. "All of us" don't and didn't get a say on prayer in the schools. All Italians didn't get a say in the crucifix case. Both were court cases with the non-democratic. . . .

But judges were applying the law, which we all have a voice in. Even constitutions can be changed with sufficient popular will (as the Swiss showed). And in the US, we all have an influence on who the judges are through who we elect as president and senator.

And no one has ever prayer in public schools. True, government-sponsored prayer has been largely banned, but who in their right mind would want to give the government control over the prayers our kids say? That's not good for government, and it's not good for anyone who takes the concept of prayer seriously.

Bringing this back to Dreher's topic, support for government-sponsored prayer in public schools might change a bit in a community where Muslims were the majority. Imagine the outrage if Christian kids were asked to take out their government-provided prayer rugs to pray to Arabic prayers piped in over the schools PA system.

Public schools have enough trouble teaching reading, science, social studies, and math. I don't expect them to also be able to navigate the difficult theological, political, and legal questions needed to lead a meaningful prayer for a diverse group of students.

Stari,

I think you are also confusing "having a voice" and winning the argument. In a democracy, sometimes you lose. In a constitutional democracy, sometimes you lose based on the constitution. You can have a voice and still lose.

Jon,
Now, churches do haave to follow the same rules. But I have read a lot of complaints from religious conservatives that the non-profit rules should not apply to them. They see the non-profit rules as something imposed on them instead of as something they have chosen.

Why is it that Islam gets a pass every time. Do people not realize the constraints in a Muslim country placed on Christians and Jews? Most of the time non Muslim houses of worship are destroyed by Muslims! When "other" places of worship are destroy there is no outcry from the people who live in Muslim countries. Non Muslims in Muslim countries have to pay taxes because they are not Muslim. Does the world not realize that Muslims intend to take over all countries and destroy all religion except Islam? What do you think all this terrorist activity is about? Why do you think that Muslims are spreading to every country and over populating every place they live. Its about taking the country and Sharia law when their population reaches a high enough percentage. Any encouragement we give Islam in a so called non Muslim country, is a shovel of dirt on the grave of Christianity and Judaism and all other religions.

rod, a sincere suggestion;

after you get all moved in and settled in, visit a mosque in philadelphia.

philadelphia is going to be your new community and that of your children. there are a fair amount of mosques in philadelphia. they are part of your community. just like the vietnamese grocery stores. they are part of your community. you don't have to be born in da nang to stop in and visit and explore. just tell them that you are new to the neighborhood, and you are going around and meeting some of your new neighbors. don't be intimidated by the fact that you don't know what most of the foods of the shelves are. they'll probably be eager to show you around. you might even leave with a homemade pho recipe. or you may just introduce yourself, chat about the weather, and kids, and that'll be that.

just go visit a mosque. you don't have to conduct an 'interfaith' service. you don't have to do anything other than visit and explore a little. someone there will assuredly appreciate your neighborly gesture to take the initiative to come say hi. they may even show you around and explain some of the history of their mosque, and some of their programs, and which multiplexes have the most family-friendly movies. it's no big deal. you don't have to launch into some heavy discussion about spain circa 1480. it's just getting to know your neighbors. and beginning the process of getting to be familiar with your family's new community.

that's all. no big deal. no expectations. just go out and get to know your community a little.

he could ask them that. but it might seem kinda crass for someone you just met.
it would be like asking a russian you were just introduced to, "so, ya like vodka?"
nothing wrong with it. but one should be aware about any implications, implied or perceived.

While the concerns of the majority of Swiss folk who supported the referendum are understandable, I think these concerns more reflect an unfamiliarity with the actual Muslims who live in their communities. It's the stereotyping that leads inexorably to treating real people as caricatured objects, and its the resulting dehumanizing of the group that leads by steps to the sort of violence you mention in your later blog about antisemitism. It's hard to hate someone you actually know and have a relationship with. I think the Swiss could benefit from learning how to treat others the way they themselves would like to be treated.

PDON: "What am I missing here, how and why are Muslim citizens of Switzerland responsible for behavior and policies of Saudia, Turkey or TImbuktu ?"

I figure the average conservative's response would be to call you a liberal apologist and ignore you.