Talk:2009 Swiss minaret referendum
 | Islam Start‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
contentious issues
The call to prayer may be one of the main contentious issues with Islam in Western countries.
why? Isn't terrorism one of the more contentious issues? freedom of speech? the Islamic dress controversy? Misheu 07:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think it should be: The call to prayer may be one of the main contentious issues with minarets in Switzerland.Hup 20:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- sounds much better. though supposedly no mosque has a call to prayer. i think it's more the symbolism of a minaret Misheu 22:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Cannot provide a citation but I lived near the mosque in Zürich for a few years. They don't make a call to prayer.
- sounds much better. though supposedly no mosque has a call to prayer. i think it's more the symbolism of a minaret Misheu 22:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Arguments
- According to the initiative committee, the minarets are not religious structures. They are not mentioned in the Qu'ran or Islamic scriptures. Many Mosques around the world do not have minarets. The minaret is a symbol of political-religious power which ignores the tolerance of guaranteeing the freedom of religion for all. Quoting a speech of current Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in 1997 (then Mayor of Istanbul): "Mosques are our barracks, domes our helmets, minarets our bayonets, believers our soldiers. This holy army guards my religion." The committee argues that by allowing minarets, it would have to allow muezzins because of freedom of religion. Leading Islam groups would give up the muezzins only on condition that Christian church bells stop ringing. Thus the minarets are instruments to eliminate other religions.
First, this seems to be supporting this opinion, and is largely written as if it is an original thought. Though I'm sure its not, it needs to be reworded to make this clear. Second, it sort of devolves into non sequitors at the end. "...by allowing minarets, it would have to allow muezzins." What? Why is there a problem with muezzins? Then it goes on, "Thus the minarets are instruments to eliminate other religions." How? Because they refuse to give up muezzins (which they have to give up because..?) unless the church bells are given up? so by forcing their evil freedom of religious agenda on this and demanding equal rights, they are eliminating other religions? This whole section just doesn't make sense. Atropos 08:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
four mosques with minarets
There is also a mosque with a (little) minaret in the city of Winterthur. [1]. Besides, the minaret in Wangen was built in the meantime.[[2]] Primusinterparem (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
The Position of the Government and the Parliament regarding the popular initiative
It seems to be reasonable to add the following passage to the chapter "Opposition - The Swiss Government":
The Swiss government (Swiss Federal Council) and both chambers of Parliament are opposed to the initiative and have recommended that voters reject it at the voting polls. Press release „Federal Council opposes building ban on minarets“, August 27th 2008[1] Both chambers of the Swiss Parliament treated the initiative between March and June 2009.[2] The National Council recommended in its final voting with 132 to 51 votes (with 11 abstentions) the rejection of the initiative, the Council of States with 39 to 3 votes (with 2 abstentions).
The Swiss government believes that a ban on the construction of minarets would represent an inadmissible restriction of the right of members of the Muslim community to openly profess their religious beliefs In the view of the Swiss government and of Parliament, a prohibition on the construction of minarets would not be compatible with the values of a free and democratic society.
In its official press conference of October 15th 2009 the Swiss Federal Council emphasizes [3] that acceptance of the initiative would constitute a violation of the freedom of religion, the freedom of conscience, as well as the right to equal treatment under the law and thereby endanger religious peace in Switzerland. [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.5.216.100 (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
A systemic question about weight, content and bias
In the current state of the article, arguments and views are described against the proposal with 4x the amount of space and text as for the proposal. The proposal however won the majority vote, which raises some questions about bias:
- Have nobody who is for the ban spoken anything which can be quoted? If so, why isn't it quoted? If pretty much nobody is for the ban, how come that the majority of the population is for it?
- The views of the people who are for the ban are responded to and commented in-line by those who are against the ban. But the views of the people who are against the ban where they are described are not responded to or commented by those who are for the ban. Does this mean that in the reality of Switzerland, no such comment has been made? Or is it just that it hasn't been quoted and incorporated into the text?
- "The Society for Minorities in Switzerland calls for freedom and equality." - is this a view or an authoriative statement? I am sure that the Egerkinger committe also would describe itself as calling for freedom and a good society. Should I therefore add this to the Egerkinger section: "The Egerkinger Commission calls for freedom and a good society"?
- The quotation "it appears that the material content of popular initiatives is subject to ill-considered draftsmanship because the drafters are affected by particular emotions that merely last for snatches" is included. This quotation effectively says nothing that 'the proposers are evil idiots'. If I source interviews and quotes from newspapers where people who are for the measure describe the organisations against, such as the Red Cross, Amnesty, the Bishops etc. as evil idiots, is that a relevant view to include? What determines if a quote which contains nothing but scorn and derision is relevant and notable?