Do you think the the banning of minarets in Switzerland violates the countries obligations to freedom of religious expression?

Yes, I think it does. It certainly seems aimed at one religion. I’ve heard the argument that minarets are not a symbol of religious expression as much as a symbol of Islamic power (and that they’re considering the ban on those grounds). However, Church steeples would seem to fit the same criteria (as a symbol of Christian power) and are not included in the ban.

That’s the bugaboo with religious freedom. If you want to be allowed to worship your own way, you need to either allow others to worship their own way, or you need to start knocking heads together in the name of religion. I know which is more civilized…

Does Switzerland have an obligation to freedom of religious expression? What is it?

Switzerland’s Constitution

Specifically, article 49–50

The [Swiss] Constitution provides for freedom of religion, and the Government generally respects this right in practice.

Source

A minaret is a building. It’s not an expression of a religion.
If this were about banning a Muslim magazine, I’d concur.

Thanks, Laureth

Under 50–2, they could restrict most anything.

(2) The Cantons and the Confederation may take appropriate measures for the preservation of public order and of peace among the members of the different religious communities, as well as against encroachment by religious authorities on the rights of citizens and the state.

@Fyrius I think a building can be an expression of a religion

Temple of Sobek and Haroeris, Kom Ombo
York Minster
Old Sukhothai Historical Park

In addition to the articles of the Swiss constitution that Laureth linked to, Switzerland is also a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights. Swiss courts have affirmed that the statement of religious rights put forth in Article 9 of the ECHR is tantamount to Switzerland’s official position on freedom of religion:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, and to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

So according to this second provision, any legal restrictions on the manifestations of religion would have to be based on the grounds of public order, public safety, health or morals, or protection of the rights and freedom of others. It’s difficult for me to see how the construction of a minaret affects any of these concerns.

What this is really about, of course, is Europeans dealing with an influx of Islamic people immigrating into their countries. Different European countries have aimed to limit the expansion of Islamic culture different ways: France has chosen the head scarf as their way to limit the range of Islam, Germany’s issue is with Mosque construction, and in England, they seem to want the Muslims to try harder to integrate into British culture. Switzerland seems to have minarets as their pet sticking point.

@Fyrius: Actually, it is Muslim law that every mosque be built to similar specifications. Minarets is one of those specifications. Every mosque must have minarets so banning them means banning an expression of the religion.

Edit to add: It would be like banning steeples, stained glass or any other architectural norm on churches which I’m sure would never happen.

@KatawaGrey
I don’t think I would have any problem with a ban on steeples and stained glass if I were a Christian in a Muslim country. I think there are already plenty of modern churches without either.

I also think there is an important distinction to be made between a church and a religion. A religion can be believed anywhere, be it in a temple, at home, or on the North Pole. I wouldn’t consider the place where people gather to practise their religion as part of the religion proper.

I also think Islamic cultural assimilation is really something to be a bit worried about.

@Harp
“It’s difficult for me to see how the construction of a minaret affects any of these concerns.”
This I agree with.
It seems to be more of a socio-culturally symbolic objection than a legal one.

If a rosary, for example, is crucial to the Catholic faith, would not the banning of rosaries be detrimental in the same way to the Catholic religion? Sure, you can still be Catholic at the North Pole, but it’s harder to say your rosary without one.

I’m finding many Muslim sources that state flatly that the minaret is not a required feature, merely traditional.

Here’s a very thorough article on the minaret that predates the current controversy. It’s a long article, but here are a few excerpts:

“According to Islamic tradition, Bilal and his successors normally gave the call to prayer from a high or public place, such as the doorway or roof of a mosque, an elevated neighboring structure or even the city wall, but never from a tall tower. Indeed, it is said that ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, the Prophet’s cousin, son-in-law and fourth caliph, ordered a tall mi’dhana (a place from which the call to prayer was given) torn down, because its height enabled the muezzin to see into the homes around the mosque. The call to prayer, ‘Ali believed, should not be given from any place higher than the roof of the mosque.”

”...tower minarets were unknown in Muhammad’s lifetime and for many decades after his death…”

“the Umayyad caliphs ordered similar tall, slender towers erected in the corners of the Great Mosque in Makkah (also repeatedly repaired and restored in later times), but no other mosques had towers at this time. One must imagine that in both cases the towers were erected not for the call to prayer—which was given from all mosques—but to mark and proclaim the particular sanctity of the sites they adorned.

In contrast, some early mosques—though certainly not all—are known to have had structures on their roofs used to shelter the muezzin when he gave the call to prayer. These small structures, normally called “sentry-box” or “staircase” minarets, were reached by a staircase outside the mosque, and they resemble a small version of the minbar, or pulpit, normally found within congregational mosques.”

@laureth
Regarding the religious-traditional aspects, that is a good analogy. Well done, and your point is noted.

But one crucial difference is that a rosary is a small, discreet necklace, while a minaret is a large, dominating tower that can be seen from afar. I think subtlety is an important part of the socio-cultural symbolic aspects of the issue.

If the government represents the people and the majority of the people voted against the building of more minarets, how does that figure into the equation? This isn’t a group of politicians saying this, it is the majority of the tax payers, residents of the country.

It is not being legislated that you cannot be a muslim, to me it is more like a zoning ordinance that says you can’t build a 12’ high chain link fence around your front yard, or build a 50 story building in an area that has height limitations.

The question in my mind is, are other religions in the country allowed to build churches with steeples or domes that are just as tall? I just care that the law would be applied equally. If in this country they are accustomed to very discreet types of building structures (I don’t know if they are?) then I think the Muslims need to conform. I wish we had a rule where I live about things like height and width of religious symbols along the road and near churches.

For me it is not so much what the majority wants, but what is the law in the country and that all religions are treated equally.

My girlfriend lives near Dearborn and many there complain about the call to prayer being heard in the community and the streets, and to me that is the same as church bells, both are annoying if they are waking me from a comfortable sleep. In MI many work 2nd and 3rd shift being such a factory oriented state. Complain about one, gotta complain about all.

@Harp: Ah, thank you. I had always been taught that minarets were required, not just encouraged.

@rooeytoo I don’t think that it being citizens or politicians deciding this makes a difference here, but I guess it shows one of the dangers of direct democracy being in majorities forcing their will on minorities.

@RareDenver – but isn’t that the way the world is supposed to work, the majority rules?

@rooeytoo
Supposed to?
But the rights of the few need to be protected. A civilised nation cannot rely only on mob rule.

@Fyrius – are you saying that democracy equals mob rule?

@rooeytoo But that’s where rights come in. Democracies have to shield certain things from being tampered with by the majority. Once something is declared a “right”, then the majority has to respect that even when it becomes unpopular or inconvenient to do so.

@rooeytoo
Actually, I had the impression that was what you were saying. Or rather, I had the impression you were saying it the other way around – that mob rule is democracy.

If “the majority rules” with no regard for the needs of the minorities, that’s mob rule. This is why individual rights were invented, and incorporated into modern democracy – to ensure that the majority does not politically have the power to discriminate against, oppress, persecute or kill off smaller social groups, even if 90% of the people wants it.

Of course, in this case the intentions of the many aren’t that grave (I should hope), but the point is that the fact that the majority says so does not automatically make something right.

Incidentally, I have the impression you’re probably playing devil’s advocate on purpose now.

Fyrius is right. Laws are there to protect the minority. Majority rules would have kept blacks as slaves; or at minimum separate, but equal; in my country and bi-racial marriages illegal. The trick is for the majority to be able to put themselves in the place or shoes of the minority, what if you were them? But most people don’t do that. The majority is often morally wrong unfortunately.

@rooeytoo and @Fyrius so we are back to the question are we not? Has the banning of the building of minarets in Switzerland (by the majority) violated the governments obligation to protect the right of the individual to freedom of expression of religion?

I don’t know. I still think it’s a bit of a stretch to say building a tower is an expression of your religion. If expressing their religion is all the Swiss Muslims want to do with this, I think making badges saying “Hi, I’m a Muslim! :D” would be a whole lot cheaper.

I think the freedom of practise of religion is a lot more relevant.

Architecture has always been one of the main modes of religious expression. Many, if not most, faiths see the actual physical form of their places of worship as highly symbolic, not just functional. It’s as much an expression as is any other form of sacred art.

My mind is muddled on this sort of thing. I think if the “majority” went out and burned down the offending objects, that would be mob mentality and obviously not acceptable. However this was done according to the law of the land and the majority spoke their opinion with their votes. They do not have to take down existing ones, just no new ones built.

To me it is not unlike when a community bands together and does not allow MacDonalds to put up its golden arches because it will dominate the skyline and change the ambience of the town.

In my town there is only 1 church, it does not have stained glass, a steeple or a minaret and all the religions share it.

I guess it depends on what sort of demands your particular god makes upon the congregation. If your god demands a minaret or else he/she/it ignores you, then you are in a heap of trouble if you live in Switzerland.

Wonder what would happen if Evelyn’s Pet Zebra wanted to build a 300’ statue of his Evelyn god with her 6 breasts in his front yard, would that be acceptable under the freedom of religion theory or would his neighbors have a right to complain?

@rooeytoo
“In my town there is only 1 church, it does not have stained glass, a steeple or a minaret and all the religions share it.”
O_O
All the religions share one church? Seriously?
That’s… beautiful.

I agree with the skyline domination thing as a reasonable objection. I think it would make an impression of saying “this is a Muslim neighbourhood.”

great discussion btw, loving it

@Fyrius – yep only 1 little church, I know it is used by catholic and assorted protestants. There are a fair number of people in town from countries where islam is widely practiced so I assume there are muslims here but I don’t know if they use it or not. Their presence is not obvious because the only source of employment requires uniforms and because of safety would not allow burkas. The most charitable thing that happens there is that they allow a homeless guy to pitch his tent in the back yard and use their facilities.

@RareDenver I still hold to my original answer if other places of worship are not allowed to build that tall or that conspiciuous than the Muslims cannot either. I don’t know if this has to do with laws or ordinances about buildings, but if that is the case the Muslims have to comply to the building codes and what is accepted in that neighborhood, county, or country, whatever applies.

@all As an aside, do you think Switzerland, Italy, Denmark and other countries have a right more than USA to let the original people of that country make these types of decisons? America was founded on freedom of religion, and a country of immigrants. These other countries were built by…not sure how to word it…I mean Denmark was built by the Danes and Italy was built by Italians. I think in 2009 all civilized people around the world want to be PC, accepting of all races and religions, but is there an argument not to destroy what makes countries like France and Italy, French and Italian, and if you want to live there it is because you want to live in France or Italy, not because you want to bring what you were raised with and replant it onto other soil.

@JLeslie Who would the original people of Switzerland be? The German speakers, the French speakers, the Italian speakers, or the Romansh speakers? All of those displaced the original Celtic and Rhaetian inhabitants.

The Swiss had their say in the formulation of their country’s immigration policies and in defining the rights guaranteed by their constitution and in deciding whether to sign on to the European Convention on Human Rights.

I heard the leader of the right-wing party that sponsored this legislation speak about it after its passage. He made no effort at all to paint it as some kind of attempt to preserve the Swiss aesthetic in the urban landscape. Not at all. He said that this was intended as a clear message to the Muslims that they’re not welcome there.

Nothing obliged the Swiss to adopt a policy of freedom of religion. But they did. Rights are by their nature not subject to change on a whim. People need to be able to count on them.

@Harp I had not thought Switzerland through well, of course your point about them being many cultures already as a country was overlooked by me. And, the question I asked above was simply a question, not an opinion of mine. I have said many times on fluther that one of the greatest things about America in my mind is freedom of religion and seperation of church and state. So my next question is, does Switzerland have a clear separation of church and state? I realize that even in America we muddy the line a little. I was speaking to my brother-in-law who is from Scottland and he was explaining that even public schools are religious. There are Catholic public schools and Protestan public schools. I also understand that the Arab Muslims are not assimilating well in some European countries. Actually trying to change laws, I’m not sure if they are trying to get into the government yet to have representation?

My experience in USA is my Muslim friends from Iran, Iraq, even Palestinians are very assimilated, not very religious, and fled their countries for the freedom in America away from religious rule. The religions and cultures who have been very separated like the Amish lets say, do not try to change our government of affect laws from what I know of.

So, I wonder if the right wing in Switzerland who you speak of are reacting from several years of Muslims trying to cause change in the country that is not welcome and goes against some of their basic philosophies? If there has been a build up to this point?

@JLeslie

Switzerland is less centralized than most other western states. The cantons have considerable autonomy. If I remember correctly, two of the cantons have some provision for legally recognizing certain religions; in other words these cantons have lists of religions that they’ve approved as being eligible for the full range of rights accorded to religion (Islam being one of these). The other cantons don’t have this kind of screening process.

The majority Swiss government is actually aghast and deeply embarrassed at the result of this referendum. By all accounts, the Muslim population of Switzerland is well assimilated and tensions have been low relative to other European states. The only apparent motivation for this move is xenophobia.

@Harp Thanks. I had little knowledge of the particulars regarding Switzerland, and knew I might be overgeneralizing, mushing it in with other European countries I have heard about, which I realize is a big no no.

Side note:
@JLeslie
“that one of the greatest things about America in my mind is freedom of religion and seperation of church and state.”
The phrases “in god we trust” and “one nation under god” suddenly come to mind…

@Fyrius which is why I also wrote “I realize that even in America we muddy the line a little” because of the very things you name and others For me I save the fight for the big things, like no prayer in school, no official religion for my country, etc.

@JLeslie
Granted.
Incidentally, even the generally comfortably secular Netherlands still make Euro coins that say “god be with us” on the rim. And it pisses me off.

Not until freedom of religious expression is equally upheld in muslim countries.