anchor
Swiss want to ban an Islamic building component
Swiss People's Party, country's largest, moves to ban minarets for what they represent. If it goes ahead, the move would be first ever to censor architecture for it's 'meaning' in modern times. Islamophobic? SwissInfo
24 Comments
"Islamophobic?" For chrissake yes!!
earlier, but perhaps tangentially related.
I don't think you can say it would be the first ever contemporary censorship of architecture for its meanings -- that sort of thing happens all the time on a parochial level in planning decisions. And the Swiss militia system of democracy is going to tend to amplify that kind of parochial situation.
Islamophobic, definitely. It's surprising that it's so explicit.
I see. But we are talking about a legislated civil law to be written in said country's justice system. Not a planning preference or a design strategy.
Switzerland has always been an european island, sometimes for good and others for bad...
but...... to be honest, if someone's putting me a minaret next to my house, I'm going to get EXTREMLY annoyed... and I'm not a christian, I'm an agnostic, but I'm not gonna tolerate having a bunch of religious fanatics yelling each morning to come to pray in the building at the other side of the street...
so, somehow, and even if I'm more a lefty than anything else, I can understand this... the muslims have the same right to have a minaret as I have my rights to not be disturbed by either extra noise pollution... let them build a mosque and practice whatever they want INSIDE a building..
the idea of a minaret "demarcating a Muslim community" sounds like creating a muslim ghetto.. how about people who have lived there for ages and are not interested in anything islamic?
Public space (and public air and public ambient) is sacred, and must remain neutral -must remain "agnostic" if you will-. It is in fact, more sacred than their minarets (and their catholic churches too, by the way).
how is a minaret different from a sign, though? if it were u.s., it would become a free speech issue.
if the problem is gathering, noise, annoyance, THOSE should be the issues addressed, not a sign. if the minaret broadcasts calls to pray, the volume could be addressed.
the minaret as symbol is the wrong target.
I don't really care if the volume is up or down.. how about if I want to wake up either in SILENCE or listening the radio news INSIDE my home quietly or listening a piece of music with no more noise pollution than the cars outside my window?
is their right of "free speech" better than or predominant over my right of enjoying a clean, non-religious atmosphere each morning in my street? .. why everytime an agnostic claims to be offended by public displays of religiosity is responded with the "free of speech" issue? can a muslim understand that I can be profoundly offended by medievalesque religious practices EXACTLY like I'm offended when I see stupid Christmas ads in TV? ...
at least most catholics understand that some people don't want to be disturbed with religion in the public sphere, why islamists get so offended when they are denied the possibility of turning a place into a "muslim area" -which, according to the Wikipedia article is what a minaret -not a mosque- are for?-
I think the minaret -again as explained in the Wikipedia article- is more than an element with an specific function -call the muslims to pray- it is also a "symbol" of what is -or what some people would like to be- the predominant metaphysical inclination of the population of a certain neighborhood... and this desire "to be" attempts directly to the rights of people who are living in the same area who don't want "to be" the same.
I don't think the original minarets being tall buildings comes mostly from a "form follows function" issue -having someone on top to scream each morning- but a "this is a muslim area", ergo, if you agree with this, the minaret is, most than anything else, a "symbol".
I know I sound radical, but then I'm in Barcelona metro area.. the Rose of Fire (La Rosa de Foc).
My (our) agnosticism -and the agnostic character of the public space,- is as important to me as their religion (and their religious buildings and symbols and practices) are for them ("them" includes catholics, islamists, buddists and other old, anachronic traditions).
And our agnosticism is as valid as a Culture (capital C) as their religious culture is. No more no less.
(and yes, I know we have that Sagrada Familia monstruous thing -as a symbol, not as architecture, though this is also debatable- right in the middle of the city...)
by the way, here's an example from today's news (in a Catalan newspaper) of how certain muslim practices cannot simply be tolerated just because their "freedom of speech":
a woman in Tarragona -south of Barcelona- has a bar, comes summer and she wants to put some tables outside the bar, in the street -like any other bar-.
Problem is, that just next door there's a mosque, so muslims ask her not to put tables in the boardwalk because there will be people drinking alcohol in those tables and that they see this as an offense to their mosque [exact words: "No volem vicis davant de la nostra mesquita, això és una provocació" ["We don't want vices in front of our mosque, this is a provocation"].
Now, this is completely intolerable and inadmissible. Well, more exactly this is completly stupid. You don't travel to another country, put your religious temple there and expect natives to change their habits and their way of life just because you have certain religious necessities. It is you who are travelin' not others. If you don't know how to adapt to other places, just stay home (of course, if you travel by necessity -a refugee or whatever- you'll be given the help needed, which, by no means, includes extra civil rights that not even the natives have - that is, tell your neighbour what to do, like the Tarragona bar case told above).
Switzerland should enact this law right after they ban church bells as a public nuisance.
Medit & all,
There is NO call to prayer from the muezzin in the minaret, in Switzerland or anywhere else in Western Europe.
The minaret is a lightning rod for fear. Obviously signs are never neutral; their power is directly proportional to the degree of intercultural ignorance. In this case, that power is asymmetrical and therefore intolerable.
You can't simply invoke free speech absolutism and expect a panacea Steven. It’s precisely that kind of declarative thinking that collapses substantive dialogue.
No dialogue, no peace.
Even a reasonable accommodation, without dialogue, is fruitless in the long run. France is only the most recent example.
Orhan,
The minaret opponents, if their petition meets the quota of 100k signatures, would have recourse to Article 72 of the Swiss constitution:
Article 72 Church and State
(1) The regulation of the relationship between church and state is a cantonal matter.
(2) The Federation and the Cantons may, within the framework of their powers, take measures to maintain public peace between the members of the various religious communities.
Given article 72, there is no requirement for a civil law to be written . This is a perfectly legitimate legislative appeal. Call it Islamophobia if you will, but it’s bloodless. If it provokes civic leaders to initiate a dialogue - hopefully - then the initiative will have been worth it. God help them if it doesn’t.
Tzvetan Todorov
xentropy very beautiful words, The minaret is a lightning rod for fear
I am very interested to see how this all plays out, particularly against the backdrop of medit strongs views regarding native/diasporic rights to culture
my 2 cents is that it's a difficult juggling act to respect all cultures and rites, with allowance of practice and particularly how this affects the public space. How the symbol of a minnaret versus its actual use is a powerful and necessary element of a mosque and/or Islamic culture and as such should be allowed. Many of the church bells here are there as objects not as functional items...usually rung only during feasts (pre-arranged public holidays)
Well as a Swiss I must say I feel very uncomfortable with this initiative. Of course having dialog is great and if such a fruitable is happening then maybe to the good of all. But this inititive by some right-wing parts of the people's party in Switzerland, which as a party apparently hasn't even approved of it - yet, has to be seen in the perspective of this year's election. For that right-wing part it is absolutely legitimate to gain votes out of this initiative, which obviously is it's only reason. Sure there is a small opposition to the erection of one or the other Minaret, but mostly has nothing to do with islamophobia and there have been Minaret and Mosques erected in the last thirty years all over Siwtzerland, without notice or opposition. Why now all the fuss, because of the elections. And since the churches stepped in for defense I suppose the common sense of the Swiss people will lead to a dismissal of that initiative, even if it reaches it quota.
You know, Switzerland is one of the most liberal countries in Europe concerning the Governments intererest in ones personal lifestyle, rligious beliefs or sexual orientation, or in the lack thereof. It is not in the interest if the goverment, parliament and lawmakers to interfere with this personal sphere. Having said that, living in a democracy where you can pretty much vote on anything, there is automatically a responsibility of not misusing that freedom, and unfortunately there will be always those who tend to do that, for their won good.
But I still beliefe in the common sense, that if a vote happens, and I am sure it will, because they will certainly find some biased and shortminded people to sign the vote, the majority will dismiss it. Even the government will most certainly issue a recommandation of dismissal, along that justice minister of the people's party. What he probably won't like but if the goveernment decides on it, he'll have to follow it.
With all this trying to explain, I must admitt I think this inititve is absolute nonesense. The opposition has been very local two two projects, and in one the opposition is lead by one of those right-wing politicians. But in the last thirty years dozens of mosques and minarets have been built and erected, with no opposition at all, most are even fully accepted by the neighbours and local community.
This whole issue is a propaganda stunt, that is absolutely clear, nevertheless we have to deal with it.
One last word to Orhan:
It is not "the Swiss" that want to ban it, by now only a small comittee, and it is my strong belief it will stay that way.
was it ever swiss?
note that i said that if this were the u.s., it would be a freedom of speech issue. i don't know that switzerland has the same. all i was saying is that i don't think this could happen in the u.s. hope not.
i do understand some of the anger about extremism. what i don't understand is direction of that anger at a form, or at construction, unless that form/construction is being used for something bad. if the muslims can't build a minaret, will the swiss ban other towers?
a parallel might be saying that flags are ok, except for muslim flags.
I didn't misread you Steven. I was simply responding to what I sensed was a false sense of security regarding the First Amendment.
I have family and friends all over the E.U. Their accounts of the struggles with Islam are dismaying to say the least. I travel there frequently and read the best literature I can find on the subject. I don't want to be an alarmist, but we're just not doing enough to stimulate the Great Conversation that has to take place to avoid further strife. Europe is our petry dish for Islam to be sure. Relying on our laws without a corresponding depth of dialogue is foolhardy. Imho.
There are related freedom of speech issues unfolding in the U.S. Numerous small squabbles - plebiscites, I'm not so sure - here and there. The one that immediately springs to mind arose back in December in Katy, Texas. Different parameters, same fears at work. The common thread is invariably the use of artless casuistry to mask racist fears. The same old "property values", terrorist-connection" bs. There are moderate Muslims that are finally going public in the U.S. The recent Secular Islam Summit in Florida is a good example. Unfortunately, the press was positively narcoleptic for that one.
Of course your right Steven, about the misplaced anger. But this isn't rational. Fear of this kind seldom is.
thnx arch.
I appreciate your Swiss point of view Sasha. The context you provide is a useful counterpoint.
aren't the swiss supposed to be neutral...
this is one of the most ricockulous things that i've ever heard... if they're going to do this then they should ban crosses, church bells, stars of david, and all other "religious" symbols...
ridiculous..
how many kernels of paradoxes can you deduce from Medit's :
"Public space (and public air and public ambient) is sacred, and must remain neutral -must remain "agnostic" if you will-. It is in fact, more sacred than their minarets (and their catholic churches too, by the way)."
and then:
"I don't really care if the volume is up or down.. how about if I want to wake up either in SILENCE or listening the radio news INSIDE my home quietly or listening a piece of music with no more noise pollution than the cars outside my window?"
i fail to understand why the noise incurring environmentally detrimental rights of car-using people are justified whereas mosque-using people's are not. the fact that you expect one and reject the other shows your concept of a 'neutral space' (an encompassing contradictory notion: something u deem neutral others will not be deemed neutral by others) to be a farce, even moreso a 'religious' cliche (i dont see why modernist agnosticism is any less religious or ideologically noisey (and not theological) than islam or judaism)
the fact is you do not want to tarnish 'your' ( space with the semblance of another culture (islam)...this is for your neutrality...your own neutrality, the neutrality of someone who wants to maintain the hegemony, the consistency of his or her agnostic culture., which can only celebrate a diversity as hyper-spectacle, renders the diverse into a safe urban catalogue of skin coloures and anthropological tics (god...or lackthereof..forbid these cover religiousity)..a culture that for her/him can happily recline into the background setting of her/his life without causing them annoyance. you want to be able to listen to your sanitized (by your expectations of homogeneity) karajan's eine kleine nacht musik, a european 'a neutral' sound, and not a mu'athin's call to prayer.
i think that it is hardly a question of neutrality or imbalanced charge, but rather a plain animal territorialism. you want the stain of your pee to mark the space and not that of others'. how absurd that such a small organism can pee all over a continent and call it hers or his.
I was thinking the same thing about Medit. How would this ban do anything about quieting outside noise, anyway? I live behind a row of restaurants and let me tell you, the late night bar crowd keeps me from getting to sleep and the early morning garbage trucks (daily pickup!) get me up at 5. Should I file a suit? I also have a neighbor upstairs who watches TV too loud, and he ain't a Muslim. What do you have to ban to get some peace and quiet around here, man?
I find the focus on the minaret to be misleading in this discussion. It seems to me to be less the minaret that causes the problem, but the fact that the building is identifiably religious.
To take the point about public space being secular does this mean that it would be acceptable to medit if the function of the building is not expressed on the outside? Or is the real point that medit does not want any religious buildings at all?
“I'm an agnostic, but I'm not gonna tolerate having a bunch of religious fanatics yelling each morning to come to pray in the building at the other side of the street...”
I find it hard to see this quote from Medit written on archinect – the assumption that all muslims are fanatics is an unbelievable standpoint for an educated person., and if it was an exaggeration to make a point, it was very insensitive.
It seems as if this ban is almost an attempt to hide away the people who are not mainstream. If you do that, you don’t have to confront the difficult issues in society. what about diversity and, you know, learning from it?
living in the uk i know the discussion in the public realm about multiculturalism is extremely difficult, and i acknowledge the fact that you won't get anywhere if people are too afraid of being called racist or phobic to speak their minds, however i can't see how banning a main symbol of a peaceful religion is going to help.
well, I know I may look like some kind of extremist, but I don't go around burning churches with a Nietzche book in my pocket or anything like that if that's what you thought (my poor English probably does not help to clarify my point of view, at least the "tone" or "intensity" of it)...
but, yes, as belle says I "don't want any religious buildings at all" as I don't want military facilities at all or don't want nuclear plants at all...
and it hasn't anything to do with "sensitivity" but how I understand what religions are, what are they for and how affect not only the people who practice it but also the non-religious people around it (just like a non-smoker sitting in a restaurant next to -and not in- a smoker's area)
in fact I'm extremely "sensitive" but the other way around: I'm sensitive to the non-religious people who can be affected by the use of religious symbols or practices in the public space... because, believe it or not, some of us are "sensitive" this way. Like I see an european gothic church just a like an extremly interesting piece of architecture but with a defunct function, something that maybe was useful in the 15th ct but not now, I see a mosque maybe useful in some parts of the third world but not necessary here.
Part of it, it's a personal question -I'm profoundly anti-religious (to any kind of religion) and I have such a right as I recognise the right for some people to be extremely religious-, and part of it it's cultural - I don't know if some of you know the history of Barcelona, but this was the anarchist's paradise in the 1930s-, though the "target" then was the catholic church, and the anti-clericalism was a "transversal" thing, from the workers to the bourgeois..
Of course things have changed and evolved but the non-religious character of the people (and the public space, ergo the city herself, I insist) persists more or less, and must stay like that, not only for us who don't want religion but even for themselves because Barcelona has reached a level of multiculturalism -like London or Paris- that creating different "religious ghettos" for each part of the city would be negative for all.
I apologise if anyone have been offended with my previous posts but I wouldn't change a comma of it -except for the multiple typos I do-...
if I can understand that someone wants to live his/her life through religion -even if you invent a new, personal religion for yourself- and expect people to respect it -and I respect whatever you want to do INSIDE your home- you must understand that if some of us -specially if it's a sort of cultural tradition- want to live without religion in the public sphere you should -wether you like it or not- respect it (and the minarets -like catholic belltowers-, specially if they are new constructions, doesn't help for that... see we did the '92 Olympics and we did that Abraham multireligion center for all religions that saddenly now has turned into an exclusivily catholic center.. that was tolerable: if you want practice religion do it in a "neutral" space -the abstract architecture of the center also helped to keep the building "neutral":
Architectural Record article
Medit – I’m sorry – I didn’t mean to imply your whole argument was insensitive, (although I do disagree with it), just the assumption of extremism in your post.
I can understand your point of view about the neutrality of public space, I am also an atheist, and if I was god I would ban all religions. However, we have to accept the reality we live in, and the deeply held beliefs of others, and I think for some people denying the visibility of their religion would be similar to denying their religion altogether. (It would also have the effect of sending it underground which, as we have seen in the uk with the very few extremist preachers in the mosques, is the last thing we want, but that’s a different discussion)
This might be stretching the point, but if you allow people who don’t agree with religion to say it should be invisible in public space, what about all the other people who disagree with things – homosexuality, race and so on…
I’m a bit of an idealist but I really think it’s so much more productive to generate discussion and understanding about difference rather than say I don’t believe, I’m offended by your belief, I don’t want to see any religious references in the street.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.