Swiss to ban the building of Islamic minarets

[ddt]

What, exactly, is a secular Muslim?

A Muslim who sees religion as a private matter and wants state and religion well separated? Is it really that far fetched to believe?

Or what about Muslims who hardly practice their faith anymore - like Catholics who only attend mass on Xmas eve, baptism and wedding. Or is it better to call those "cultural Muslims"? It's not like all those who are counted as Muslim go to mosque every Friday and pray 5 times a day daily.

[Oliver]

Well, if the Swiss people did a referendum on this and it actually represents a majority in a democratic country, so be it. Why would anyone oppose the democratic majority at this point anyway?

[Ryokan]

Well, if the Swiss people did a referendum on this and it actually represents a majority in a democratic country, so be it. Why would anyone oppose the democratic majority at this point anyway?

As a German, do you really need to ask that?

[Oliver]

As a German, do you really need to ask that?


Yes, since we don't have Swiss referendums ... at all ...

[Ryokan]

Yes, since we don't have Swiss referendums ... at all ...

Are you saying that if the final solution had the backing of a national referendum, that would've made it okay?

Are you saying that if Saudi Arabia had a national referendum showing the majority backed the oppression of women, they'd be free of criticism?

Injustice done through democratic means is still injustice.

[Oliver]

Are you saying that if the final solution had the backing of a national referendum, that would've made it okay?


From a moral point of view: No
From a Democratic point of view: Yes
From a Democratic point of view violating the existing democratic Constitution: No

[Ryokan]

From a moral point of view: No
From a Democratic point of view: Yes
From a Democratic point of view violating the existing democratic Constitution: No


But you wouldn't oppose the democratic majority if it did happen? Those were your words.

[Oliver]

But you wouldn't oppose the democratic majority if it did happen? Those were your words.


I would not be happy with the majority but would have to accept the democratic majority unless it opposes the countries constitution. And being a German, the referendum most probably violated the German constitution, while it didn't violate the Swiss one - as far as I know ...

[Cavemonster]

From a moral point of view: No
From a Democratic point of view: Yes
From a Democratic point of view violating the existing democratic Constitution: No


Yes, we've established that there is nothing wrong with the referendum from a legal point of view.

What I'm having trouble understanding is why you seem to feel that it cannot be opposed.

[Oliver]

Yes, we've established that there is nothing wrong with the referendum from a legal point of view.

What I'm having trouble understanding is why you seem to feel that it cannot be opposed.


It can be opposed if the referendum violates the Swiss constitution - or it can be criticized by foreigners who give a **** about the Swiss constitution.

However, if the Swiss referendum did not oppose the Swiss constitution, it's completely in line with their democratic law, is it not?

[ThatSoundAgain]

Well, if the Swiss people did a referendum on this and it actually represents a majority in a democratic country, so be it. Why would anyone oppose the democratic majority at this point anyway?

I've been reading this thread with interest - all of it - and I have a comment to this. It's more of a general point than one of contention with you, Oliver, so using your post as a springboard:

The minaret ban is only democratic for some definitions of democracy.

What's normally implied by the word has other important components than majority rule by referendum or representative election. Among the most important other parts is adherence to human rights (these including civil rights), and minority protection. The Swiss ban falls afoul of both these, whic is ironic considering Switzerland's role in the UN and long history of dealing with a heterogenous population in terms of language and culture.

But, if you use the word "democratic" in a manner that includes North Korea and Libya, then fine, the ban is perfectly democratic. And you can certainly use the word that way, I just don't think it's terribly helpful.

I know this point has been made before, but I'm not convinced by the arguments against it. This isn't "democracy, warts and all", it's "majority rule, warts and all". There's a difference.

[Oliver]

I've been reading this thread with interest - all of it - and I have a comment to this. It's more of a general point than one of contention with you, Oliver, so using your post as a springboard:

The minaret ban is only democratic for some definitions of democracy.

What's normally implied by the word has other important components than majority rule by referendum or representative election. Among the most important other parts is adherence to human rights (these including civil rights), and minority protection. The Swiss ban falls afoul of both these, whic is ironic considering Switzerland's role in the UN and long history of dealing with a heterogenous population in terms of language and culture.

But, if you use the word "democratic" in a manner that includes North Korea and Libya, then fine, the ban is perfectly democratic. And you can certainly use the word that way, I just don't think it's terribly helpful.

I know this point has been made before, but I'm not convinced by the arguments against it. This isn't "democracy, warts and all", it's "majority rule, warts and all". There's a difference.


A minaret (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minaret) is a *********** part of a *********** building. A building does not apply to "Human Rights" at all ... DOES IT??? :boggled:

[Darth Rotor]

The minaret ban is only democratic for some definitions of democracy.
... snip ...
Indeed. But North Korea isn't one, in practice, while Switzerland is.
I know this point has been made before, but I'm not convinced by the arguments against it. This isn't "democracy, warts and all", it's "majority rule, warts and all". There's a difference.
This certainly is the problem with using the term democracy, as its original form has morphed a bit. But the Swiss model of democracy closer to direct democracy compared to the forms other nations use, is still democracy, with it risks and warts exposed in its closer reliance to "majority rule" and the problems that can arise from that. Yet in political rhetoric for the decades since WW II, democracy has been hoisted up as a sacred cow by politicians and activists of a myriad of stripes. (IMO, democracy that does not grow from the ground up doesn't stand a chance, but let's not digress).

So given the variety of forms democracy takes, be it Westminster system, or the American system, or other systems, this is indeed democracy, warts and all. It's a wart. It's a wart predicted by the Greek founders of democracy, who themselves practiced "democracy" that included slavery and limited suffrage. Outcomes such as this are why many modern democracies mitigate the risks of developing such warts. (In the American case, via the super majority requirement for amendments to the Constitution). In the British system, apparently not writing the Constitution down is a good risk mitigation! :D

Flash to my veiled reference file for this thread -- Iraq ---- and our importing of democracy there via the bayonet, the examples of the risks of what a democracy can do (depending upon how it is set up) could be a damaging symbol or image when the advantages of democracy are being sold to those who don't have it yet. I won't digress into what comes first, prosperity or democracy, but I suspect that too can rear its ugly head in transition.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

A minaret (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minaret) is a *********** part of a *********** building. A building does not apply to "Human Rights" at all ... DOES IT??? :boggled:
Oliver, I speak to you from American frame of reference: since the minaret is part of a religious building, its form can potentially raise a protection of the religion from State interference, first amendment issue, or an unequal treatment under the law problem, fourteenth amendment, to our Constitution, if all religious buildings are not so constrained.

Sometimes, a minaret isn't just a piece of a building.

If we are to believe the Turkish PM, a few years back, minarets are (symbols for) missiles of Faith. :cool:

FWIW, the wiki article on this controversey shows some interesting rhetoric about "what a minaret is" in context. The folks who were agitating for this ban put this forth:
The initiators justify their point of view by stating parts of later Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's 1997 speech, which holds: "Mosques are our barracks, domes our helmets, minarets our bayonets, believers our soldiers. This holy army guards my religion."
Note on PM Erdogan: His party trends a bit more Islamic in character compared to some other political parties in Turkey. The late 1990's election where his party gained a lot of support caused my more secular Turkish colleagues a lot of concern. To date, their concerns seem to have been a bit overstated, now that the PM has shown that he isn't the next ayatollah. :)
Ulrich Schluer, who is one of the Egerkinger committee’s most prominent exponents, states in this respect: "A minaret has nothing to do with religion: It just symbolises a place where Islamic law is established."
I have no idea how accurate his remark is, if at all.

Oliver, regarding the gastarbeiter in Germany from Turkey: is it only skinheads and neo Nazis who don't like them, or are regular German folk also uncomfortable with them? I am about 40 years out of date on that. My childhood memories on the topic from the late 60's was that gastarbeiter were tolerated more than welcomed, but it's the vague memory of being a seventh/eighth grader.

DR

[Oliver]

Oliver, I speak to you from American frame of reference: since the minaret is part of a religious building, its form can potentially raise a protection of the religion from State interference, first amendment issue, or an unequal treatment under the law problem, fourteenth amendment, to our Constitution, if all religious buildings are not so constrained.

Sometimes, a minaret isn't just a piece of a building.

If we are to believe the Turkish PM, a few years back, minarets are (symbols for) missiles of Faith. :cool:

FWIW, the wiki article on this controversey shows some interesting rhetoric about "what a minaret is" in context. The folks who were agitating for this ban put this forth:

Note on PM Erdogan: His party trends a bit more Islamic in character compared to some other political parties in Turkey. The late 1990's election where his party gained a lot of support caused my more secular Turkish colleagues a lot of concern. To date, their concerns seem to have been a bit overstated, now that the PM has shown that he isn't the next ayatollah. :)

I have no idea how accurate his remark is, if at all.

Oliver, regarding the gastarbeiter in Germany from Turkey: is it only skinheads and neo Nazis who don't like them, or are regular German folk also uncomfortable with them? I am about 40 years out of date on that. My childhood memories on the topic from the late 60's was that gastarbeiter were tolerated more than welcomed, but it's the vague memory of being a seventh/eighth grader.

DR


While you are right that the common status of "Gastarbeiter" changed over the years, the term did not change concerning it's minority status within the established constitution. So no matter who says what about minorities or Gastarbeiter, the constitution still protect those minorities, no matter if a referendum is involved or not.

However, since the German constitution does not apply to the Swiss constitution, the Swiss referendum most probably is valid unless it violates the Swiss constitution or does not represent the majority voting on the ban of minarets that are part of a religious building, not part of a minority religion/group of people.

[GreNME]

What, exactly, is a secular Muslim?

A Muslim who sees religion as a private matter and wants state and religion well separated? Is it really that far fetched to believe?

Or what about Muslims who hardly practice their faith anymore - like Catholics who only attend mass on Xmas eve, baptism and wedding. Or is it better to call those "cultural Muslims"? It's not like all those who are counted as Muslim go to mosque every Friday and pray 5 times a day daily.

Ryokan and the others who pointed out nations with a very large secular Muslim population are correct, but what ddt describes above here is the first example that popped to my mind as something that is highly under-rated by the majority of the Western population who is culturally unaware (or ignorant) of the various instances of Muslim culture. A huge segment of self-identifying Muslims, particularly in the West, are essentially "cultural Muslims" in the sense ddt explains (yes, "cultural Muslim" is the most common descriptor I've seen, ddt).

Also, in-between the cultural Muslims and the very pious Muslims sits the largest block of the Muslim population on the planet: believers, often casual in their belief but taking part in their local religious culture regularly, many of whom take the same "try to be a good person" approach as Christians who fall into the same type of category regarding an underlying belief but otherwise not a great deal of fanaticism.

[Darth Rotor]

the Swiss referendum most probably is valid unless it violates the Swiss constitution or does not represent the majority voting on the ban of minarets that are part of a religious building, not part of a minority religion/group of people.
I don't think anyone is disputing its Swiss constitutional validity (the Wiki link also referenced some challenges to it before it was put to vote, which challenges failed) but what its impact is on a democracy who has amended its constitution in a way that seems to contradicts its constitution. While one observation is "they are discriminiating" and that's been all over this thread, it poses the Swiss a bit of a problem: how does one square this amendment with the Title II and Article 8 provisions I cited, from their own Constitution?

DR

[Oliver]

I don't think anyone is disputing its Swiss constitutional validity (the Wiki link also referenced some challenges to it before it was put to vote, which challenges failed) but what its impact is on a democracy who has amended its constitution in a way that seems to contradicts its constitution. While one observation is "they are discriminiating" and that's been all over this thread, it poses the Swiss a bit of a problem: how does one square this amendment with the Title II and Article 8 provisions I cited, from their own Constitution?

DR


They [the Swiss people] would violate minority laws if their vote would be based on people, yet they voted based on architecture, and since architecture isn't protected by human rights or the constitution, the referendum was legal according to Swiss law, was it not?

[ddt]

While you are right that the common status of "Gastarbeiter" changed over the years, the term did not change concerning it's minority status within the established constitution. So no matter who says what about minorities or Gastarbeiter, the constitution still protect those minorities, no matter if a referendum is involved or not.
I don't think Darth's question was so much to the legal aspect, as well as to the attitude of the German people towards Gastarbeiter.

But as to the legal status: Germany always had very strict naturalization laws, and widened them considerably around 2000, so that now every immigrant who lives there for 5 years can apply for citizenship. Have many immigrants used this option?

[Sideroxylon]

Ryokan and the others who pointed out nations with a very large secular Muslim population are correct, but what ddt describes above here is the first example that popped to my mind as something that is highly under-rated by the majority of the Western population who is culturally unaware (or ignorant) of the various instances of Muslim culture. A huge segment of self-identifying Muslims, particularly in the West, are essentially "cultural Muslims" in the sense ddt explains (yes, "cultural Muslim" is the most common descriptor I've seen, ddt).

Also, in-between the cultural Muslims and the very pious Muslims sits the largest block of the Muslim population on the planet: believers, often casual in their belief but taking part in their local religious culture regularly, many of whom take the same "try to be a good person" approach as Christians who fall into the same type of category regarding an underlying belief but otherwise not a great deal of fanaticism.

There are certainly plenty of cultural Muslims out there. Many of these even find the idea of regular prayer a bit extreme and don't mind a glass of beer, raki or whatever the local drop is. They won't touch pork but this is clearly due to cultural perceptions rather than religious prohibition. They seem to have their faith in a merciful judgement from God when their time comes.

Muslims don't hold weddings at mosques but funerals are held there. In my experience of Australia at least, the mosque is an important community focus point for immigrants, especially at festival times - just as the Church is for some Christians.

Drawing parallels with the various stripes of Christians from your personal experience goes a long way to understanding that there are many different kinds of Muslims out there.

[GreNME]

Yeah, you'll notice a lot more cultural Muslims during times like Eid but otherwise in daily life they're pretty indistinguishable in terms of religion. I've know a couple of cultural Muslims who have even observed hijab in a loose sense (as well as having known some cultural Jews who do the same in Orthodox communities), but their form of dress didn't distinguish them from observant Jews with headscarves or other cultures where a headscarf is a common accoutrement. I also used to have a friend who would have a beer or two every now and then, prayed at least twice a day, and saw nothing out of the ordinary about it. I knew another guy who drank, slept with his girlfriend, and still identified first as an Egyptian-American with a close relationship to his extended family in Egypt, and as a Muslim. The term "cultural Muslim" really is sort of a vague descriptor for a great deal of the Muslim population.

[ThatSoundAgain]

A minaret (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minaret) is a *********** part of a *********** building. A building does not apply to "Human Rights" at all ... DOES IT??? :boggled:

Whoa! That's ... loud.

No, the building doesn't have rights. It's the singling out of a minority group that's the problem.

If the Swiss had amended their constitution to ban the building of towers altogether, that'd be stupid but not contrary to democratic principles. It's the naming a specific type of tower associated only with a specific religious minority that makes it so.

... snip ...
Indeed. But North Korea isn't one, in practice, while Switzerland is.


I think I understand your point, but I simply don't agree.

Yeah, it's a muddy term, but by any definition in common usage, Switzerland is not acting democratically on this point. There are lots of almost-democracies out there (the U.S. has capital punishment, Denmark a monarch), but "everybody does it" is a poor excuse.

Any country that does this - lets a majority vote to take away rights from a specific minority - is, on that point at least, acting contrary to [liberal] democratic principles. Protection of minorities from the tyranny of the majority is right up there with the process of referendums and elections.

That's all I'm saying. Unless you're speaking of some other sense of the word "democracy". (Which is possible).

Agree on your other points, especially those about imposing democracy at gunpoint. What the hell were they thinking?

[Darth Rotor]

I think I understand your point, but I simply don't agree.

Yeah, it's a muddy term, but by any definition in common usage, Switzerland is not acting democratically on this point.
You seem to be mixing various usages of "democracy" with internal connotations.

Yes they are acting democratically, and even constitutionally. They are using a lawful democratic method (voting per the lawful methods) to change their constitution. The core problem here is that in doing so, they are also acting in contradiction to their constitution's explicit language. So maybe you are in part right, if you hold "acting consistently with your constitution" to be "acting democratically" here. Acting inconsistently with a constitution would thus be undemocratic. (I think I read their constitution correctly, and posted some Title II / Article 8 issues to point this out). You might call this outcome a paradox.

How can a constitution be amended to contradict its own language?

In other words, in approving this amendment, language in the Constitution that contradicts it was not repealed, so there is a bit of a mess here, all unfairness left aside for the moment. (Characterizing the outcome as other than unfair seems a non issue).
Agree on your other points, especially those about imposing democracy at gunpoint. What the hell were they thinking?
It's actually an old American habit from the New World. Too bad it was raised from the Progressivist/Wilsonian graveyard. If you check the 20th century, before FDR finally threw up his hands and instituted the Good Neighbor Policy, (1930's) the United States embarked upon continued attempts to establish American style democracy on the banana republics. Funny old dog, they kept turing sour.

DR

[Giz]

Flash to my veiled reference file for this thread -- Iraq ---- and our importing of democracy there via the bayonet, the examples of the risks of what a democracy can do (depending upon how it is set up) could be a damaging symbol or image when the advantages of democracy are being sold to those who don't have it yet. I won't digress into what comes first, prosperity or democracy, but I suspect that too can rear its ugly head in transition.

......

It's actually an old American habit from the New World. Too bad it was raised from the Progressivist/Wilsonian graveyard. If you check the 20th century, before FDR finally threw up his hands and instituted the Good Neighbor Policy, (1930's) the United States embarked upon continued attempts to establish American style democracy on the banana republics. Funny old dog, they kept turing sour.

DR

To be fair, it worked fine in Germany and Japan. Maybe the US just wasn't firm enough with the banana republics?

[gumboot]

A Muslim who sees religion as a private matter and wants state and religion well separated? Is it really that far fetched to believe?

That would be a Muslim who supports a secular state. A secular Muslim would be a Muslim who was "separate to religion", or non-religious. I am sure you can see the problem with such a term?

[Ryokan]

That would be a Muslim who supports a secular state. A secular Muslim would be a Muslim who was "separate to religion", or non-religious. I am sure you can see the problem with such a term?

So a secular Muslim is a Muslim who is not a Muslim? I'm sure there are other words for that... It's like saying I'm a secular Christian because I grew up in a Christianity dominated country, and I would resent that.

[gumboot]

A minaret (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minaret) is a *********** part of a *********** building. A building does not apply to "Human Rights" at all ... DOES IT??? :boggled:

Neither would geometric symbols right? I mean, they're just shapes...

[Cavemonster]

So a secular Muslim is a Muslim who is not a Muslim? I'm sure there are other words for that... It's like saying I'm a secular Christian because I grew up in a Christianity dominated country, and I would resent that.

I'm a secular Jew.

I don't believe in any sort of God and don't attend services with the exception of weddings and other family functions, but I embrace much of the cultural heritage that my family has inherited from it's Jewish roots.
I love eating apples and honey on the Jewish New Year and lighting candles for Hanukah.

Would you call me a Jew who is not a Jew... maybe, but especially for a non-majority religion, there is a strong appeal to keeping traditions and rituals alive for the sake of a connection to family and a sense of identity, even if you reject the supernatural ideas that once went with those traditions.

[Ryokan]

You know very well that Jew is both a religion and an ethnicity. The same is not true for Muslims and Christians, or even most religions. I would not appreciate to be called a secular Christian, and I suspect that goes for most non-religious people on this board. Cultural Christian I can live with, although I prefer Human Being.

[gumboot]

So a secular Muslim is a Muslim who is not a Muslim? I'm sure there are other words for that... It's like saying I'm a secular Christian because I grew up in a Christianity dominated country, and I would resent that.

I'm saying there's no such thing as a secular Muslim. A Muslim is, by definition, non-secular. Same goes for a Secular Christian. "Secular Jew" is a little different because "Jew" could be either an ethnic or religious term.

[Cavemonster]

I'm saying there's no such thing as a secular Muslim. A Muslim is, by definition, non-secular. Same goes for a Secular Christian. "Secular Jew" is a little different because "Jew" could be either an ethnic or religious term.

Then who the hell are these people?
http://www.secularmuslims.com/

[Cavemonster]

You know very well that Jew is both a religion and an ethnicity. The same is not true for Muslims and Christians, or even most religions. I would not appreciate to be called a secular Christian, and I suspect that goes for most non-religious people on this board. Cultural Christian I can live with, although I prefer Human Being.

In America there's not much of a point in saying "Cultural Christian" simply because it's the overwhelming norm.

It would be sort of like saying "FDR is my favorite White Protestant President"

[Kestrel]

In America there's not much of a point in saying "Cultural Christian" simply because it's the overwhelming norm.

It would be sort of like saying "FDR is my favorite White Protestant President"

Do you like JFK or Obama more than FDR?

[Ryokan]

In America there's not much of a point in saying "Cultural Christian" simply because it's the overwhelming norm.

It would be sort of like saying "FDR is my favorite White Protestant President"

I define a cultural Christian as someone go grew up in a Christianity dominated country, but don't considers himself a Christian.

I grew up in Norway, in a Christian culture, but I don't consider myself a Christian. However, there's no doubt that it has influenced me in some ways, and I do keep most Christian holidays. Therefore, I could be considered a cultural Christian.

As such, I'm quite sure there are lots of people who could be considered cultural Christians and yet not Christian in the USA.

[gumboot]

Then who the hell are these people?
http://www.secularmuslims.com/

You might want to read their "About Us" page. Here's the first paragraph:

One short answer is they are humanist secularists of a Muslim background or ancestry. They do not necessarily follow, believe in, or adhere to any "Muslim" doctrines. But because of their knowledge of Muslims and Islam (either through direct contact with them, or through being raised among them) know that most of the accusations made against their people are false, and therefore feel a responsibility to defend them, if they can, against such gratuitous hate attacks, even if they may not formally and officially belong to that faith as believers and worshippers within the faith.

They're not Muslims. In fact they later state:

"consider us non-Muslims who strongly support Muslims against the malicious hate, the unjustifiable fabricated lies and myths propagated against them by some very vocal and loud, basically intolerant people"

[Giz]

In America there's not much of a point in saying "Cultural Christian" simply because it's the overwhelming norm.

It would be sort of like saying "FDR is my favorite White Protestant President"

Surely Washington or Lincoln?

[gumboot]

I define a cultural Christian as someone go grew up in a Christianity dominated country, but don't considers himself a Christian.

I grew up in Norway, in a Christian culture, but I don't consider myself a Christian. However, there's no doubt that it has influenced me in some ways, and I do keep most Christian holidays. Therefore, I could be considered a cultural Christian.

As such, I'm quite sure there are lots of people who could be considered cultural Christians and yet not Christian in the USA.


I have a major issue with the above logic. Far as I can tell it basically assumes that "western culture" = "christian culture" but this couldn't be further from the truth. You keep most Christian holidays? Let's take two of the core Christian holidays - Easter and Christmas. What, exactly, do you observe at each of these holidays that is "Christian"? I observe both of these holidays, but do not do anything remotely Christian during either of them, and the same is true of most people I know. That's because each consists of both a "Christian holiday" and a "western holiday". Some observe both, some observe just one or the other, some observe neither.

[Cavemonster]

You might want to read their "About Us" page. Here's the first paragraph:



They're not Muslims. In fact they later state:

From the site
It also stands up for the rights of non-religious Muslims - namely Muslim humanists/atheists/ secularists,

And the Wikipedia article on cultural Muslims (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Muslim)

There is, however, a secondary meaning to Muslim which may shade into the first. A Muslim is one born to a Muslim father who takes on his or her parents' confessional identity without necessarily subscribing to the beliefs and practices associated with the faith, just as a Jew may describe him- or herself as Jewish without observing the Halacha. In non-Muslim societies, such Muslims may subscribe to, and be vested with, secular identities. The Muslims of Bosnia (Bosniaks), descendants of Slavs who converted to Islam under Ottoman rule, are not always noted for attendance at prayer, abstention from alcohol, seclusion of women and other social practices associated with believing Muslims in other parts of the world. They were officially designated as Muslims by nationality to distinguish them from Orthodox Serbs and Catholic Croats under the former Yugoslav communist regime. The label Muslim indicates their ethnicity and group allegiance, but not necessarily their religious beliefs. In this limited context (which may apply to other Muslim minorities in Europe and Asia), there may be no contradiction between being Muslim and being atheist or agnostic, just as there are Jewish atheists and Jewish agnostics... It should be noted, however, that this secular definition of Muslim (sometimes the terms cultural Muslim or nominal Muslim are used) is very far from being uncontested.

[GreNME]

That would be a Muslim who supports a secular state. A secular Muslim would be a Muslim who was "separate to religion", or non-religious. I am sure you can see the problem with such a term?

I'm saying there's no such thing as a secular Muslim. A Muslim is, by definition, non-secular. Same goes for a Secular Christian. "Secular Jew" is a little different because "Jew" could be either an ethnic or religious term.

Nice to know that you're the one who makes the rules about these things.

Did you even bother reading the posts by Sideroxylon and myself?

[ThatSoundAgain]

You seem to be mixing various usages of "democracy" with internal connotations.

Well, I'm trying to be clear and consistent on this point (as always, maybe not that successfully). When I say "democracy" I actually mean it in the sense of "liberal, western-style democracy". My argument is that so does almost everybody else when the word is used in discussions such as these. Now, that can be a muddy term, but the one thing pertinent to my point I believe is universal:

In these senses of the word, if you don't have minority protection, you don't have democracy, but majority rule.

(That is, for any definition I can think of offhand that excludes Libya, North Korea, Kirgizstan and what Iraq had under Saddam. Which are sensible exceptions.)

As for the legal matters, I agree that this seems bizarre, even though I'm not confident enough to say the Swiss constitution is now self-contradictory in legal terms. But it is a weird thing to have in a constitution at all.

All in all, I think this in itself is a minor issue. What got me angry initially is that this line - in my understanding - is one that you cannot cross and claim you're acting democratically. On the other side of the line you have the singling out minorities and disregard for the principle of equality before the law. So while this amendment may be a fraction of an inch on the wrong side of the line, it's still the wrong side of a line that's there for good reason, and this needs to be nipped in the bud.

ETA: Another reason it got me angry is that while I'm not in Switzerland, I am in the EU. And this stupid thing has already spread so that the bigots of other countries - including my own - are agitating for similar laws. What we don't need right now (when do we ever) is an escalation of tensions between ethnic groups.

[gumboot]

Nice to know that you're the one who makes the rules about these things.

Did you even bother reading the posts by Sideroxylon and myself?


You were referring to cultural Muslims, and although your post was rather vague and not particularly useful, Sideroxylon was clearly referring to people with religious beliefs.

I'm not talking about "less-religious Muslims". Obviously the degree of adherence varies from Muslim to Muslim, just as it does in any religion.

But to be a Muslim requires some degree of religious belief, otherwise you're not a Muslim.

"Secular Muslim" is a contradiction in terms. Period.

[Sideroxylon]

You were referring to cultural Muslims, and although your post was rather vague and not particularly useful, Sideroxylon was clearly referring to people with religious beliefs.

I'm not talking about "less-religious Muslims". Obviously the degree of adherence varies from Muslim to Muslim, just as it does in any religion.

But to be a Muslim requires some degree of religious belief, otherwise you're not a Muslim.

"Secular Muslim" is a contradiction in terms. Period.

I am certainly talking about people with religious beliefs - these are people who declare a belief in the prophethood of Muhammad, angels, jinn and God. I see now that I was hasty in using the term "cultural Muslim" without examining existing definitions of the term. It just seemed apt to describe those Muslims who I have observed whose faith is deeply ingrained in their cultural and national identity while not strictly adhering to Islamic tenets.

I agree that "Secular Muslim" is flawed. How about "secularist Muslim" to describe Muslims who are pro separation of "church" and state?

[Darth Rotor]

ETA: Another reason it got me angry is that while I'm not in Switzerland, I am in the EU. And this stupid thing has already spread so that the bigots of other countries - including my own - are agitating for similar laws. What we don't need right now (when do we ever) is an escalation of tensions between ethnic groups.
Welcome to the fun of state and federal governments bickering at the continental level. You'll hopefully not have a civil war in the Holy Roman Empire, Less one pope, Fourth Edition EU. ;)

DR

[bigred]

ETA: Another reason it got me angry is that while I'm not in Switzerland, I am in the EU. And this stupid thing has already spread so that the bigots of other countries - including my own - are agitating for similar laws. What we don't need right now (when do we ever) is an escalation of tensions between ethnic groups.

Yeah - we need more "tolerance." That's worked SO well for Europe lately.

:boggled:

Agree or not w/their stance, I applaud and respect Switzerland saying "we don't like it and don't give a flying flip about the political correctness BS. It's our country. You don't like it, get tf out."

[ThatSoundAgain]

Yeah, that's exactly what they're saying here, too -

And trust me, it ain't helping with any of the real problems.

Vocal knuckle-dragging bigots taking it on themselves to speak for a WASP majority with the easy soundbyte hard stance to a bogus, excluded-middle, hypohetical problem such as this solves no problems. It creates them.

[Prometheus]

Yeah - we need more "tolerance." That's worked SO well for Europe lately.

:boggled:

Agree or not w/their stance, I applaud and respect Switzerland saying "we don't like it and don't give a flying flip about the political correctness BS. It's our country. You don't like it, get tf out."

Wow. You 'applaud and respect' what I see as the national equivalent of a selfish three-year-old throwing a tantrum. I don't know about you, but I think it's kinda cool to live in a country where two people can voice such completely opposed viewpoints, and neither one can ever force the other to get out just for being different. ;)

[DC]

Yeah - we need more "tolerance." That's worked SO well for Europe lately.

:boggled:

Agree or not w/their stance, I applaud and respect Switzerland saying "we don't like it and don't give a flying flip about the political correctness BS. It's our country. You don't like it, get tf out."

well a bit late but wasnt online for a while.

it is also my country and i totaly dislike this racist crap minaret ban, do i have to leave my country now?

i would love the ban if it would also include other religous buildings. like Churchtowers etc.

[KingMerv00]

Agree or not w/their stance, I applaud and respect Switzerland saying "we don't like it and don't give a flying flip about the political correctness BS. It's our country. You don't like it, get tf out.

It's sad when freedom of religion is considered "PC".