Bloomberg News: Minarets and Slender Arguments

If it did nothing else, Switzerland’s vote to ban the building of minarets drew attention to Europe’s identity crisis. The Swiss ”” like the French, or the Germans, or the British for that matter ”” are clearly worried about the Muslims living among them.

The Swiss vote (which may end up getting knocked down by the European Court of Human Rights) has succeeded in shifting the focus away from the social and economic problems of immigration and toward religion. To put the full weight of Europe’s cultural identity crisis on a slender spire of traditional architecture meant risking a dangerous debate, which has now erupted, and not only in Switzerland.

Previous debates about the role of Islam in Europe involved issues other than religion. The 2004 French ban on head scarves in schools was about the submission of women; the 2005 publication of Danish cartoons lampooning the Prophet Muhammad was about free speech.

A minaret, by contrast, is no more and no less than a symbol. Other religious symbols draw protest ”” a nativity scene in front of City Hall, say, or a cross on a mountaintop ”” but they, unlike the minaret, are not part of a house of worship.

Read it all.

print

Posted in * Culture-Watch, * International News & Commentary, * Religion News & Commentary, Europe, Islam, Law & Legal Issues, Other Faiths, Religion & Culture, Switzerland

11 comments on “Bloomberg News: Minarets and Slender Arguments

  1. art says:

    [i] Duplicate comment deleted by elf. [/i]

  2. art says:

    The writer clearly sees an issue. But does s/he ‘get it’? I am not sure that s/he sees the real power of the minaret, as the call to prayer to a ‘god’, from whom/which everything else he talks about derives … The writer is trapped in their own schism between the public and the private and their own cultural appraisal of any religion – Christian, Muslim, agnosticism. For knowing the Swiss more than a little, while there almost certainly some “rural” types who are “ignorant” and ‘prejudiced’, I know many who are very well informed and do ‘get it’.

    So perhaps their own assessment is rather “slender” …

  3. Br. Michael says:

    If the Swiss have any sense they will get out of the EU as soon as possible.

  4. azusa says:

    #3: They’re not in. That’s why they can do this.

  5. A Senior Priest says:

    I do not see why the Swiss cannot ban architecture which they find inappropriate for their nation. That is just as ok as the COMPLETE ban on any religious edifices or even formally announced services which are not Muslim in Saudi Arabia.

  6. CanaAnglican says:

    Azusa is correct. I do not think there is any sentiment in Switzerland to become part of the EU. I think they will give little attention to the European Court of Human Rights.

  7. Br. Michael says:

    This sentence: “The Swiss vote (which may end up getting knocked down by the European Court of Human Rights) has succeeded in shifting the focus away from the social and economic problems of immigration and toward religion.” led me to think that the Swiss were subject to that court. If they are not then God bless them.

  8. John Simmons says:

    Br. Michael:

    Europe [i]is[/i] a bit confusing, we have to confess.

    Switzerland is [i]not[/i] a member of the European Union, nor has any wish to be so.

    The [b]European Court of Human Rights[/b], however, is a separate legal institution which is much larger than the EU, and pre-dates it. Switzerland has signed up to this organisation. It is its sovereign right to do so.

    I hope that helps.

  9. Br. Michael says:

    8. thanks. They were stupid to sign away their sovereignty however they did it which was my point.

    The US needs to learn from this before our leaders sign away our sovereignty.

  10. John Simmons says:

    What’s so good about national sovereignty? Do you think it’s something the Bible teaches the importance of?

  11. NoVA Scout says:

    I think the appropriate response to this is for Christians to voluntarily dismantle steeples and bell towers until the measure is rescinded. I can’t see how one distinguishes between one structure and another for legal/regulatory purposes.