Thank god Sam revived this thread with the invaluable lessons he learned in history class. You have no clue what modern Swiss culture is like. The Netherlands???? This is not an issue with answers from a history textbook. Many of you seem to draw inferences based on Swiss history about their generalized tolerance, identity, and neutrality as a gesture of universal liberalism: openness to all ideas and peoples. Swiss governments have engendered such a history of tolerance for one reason only..... $$$$. Swiss Finance is STILL the backbone of the economy, and keeps the nation stable.
I think it was a contrasting reference. Having been to both countries, and having good friends who grew up in each, I would actually say that the contrast is spot on. People I know who have moved to Switzerland from the US find it very rigid and stuffy, FWIW. But please, do share your knowledge of Switzerland with us. Were you surprised by this vote? I was not surprised and have never considered them "liberal" or "open-minded," but I'm up to learn some more about it.
YOu know a lot of this sounds similar to the argument that Muslims and Christians have made when pointing out bad things commited by or in the name of Islam or Christianity. That these people aren't really Islamic or Christian. In your case though you are saying that these people aren't truly secular. I don't believe there is a true secular dogma that embraces tolerance as there have been many secular regimes that crack down on religion directly as a threat, consider the PRC. Your point seems to be that there is some secular ideal not being lived up to in the case of Switzerland when I don't think that is the case, especially when there isn't some canonical authority to point to as in the case of Islam or Christianity where you can show how a particular society differs from what the religious text says. A secular society can be as intolerant as any religious society, consider secular regimes such as the USSR, PRC and etc..
If the Swiss system was similar to the US it would absolutley be illegal. This kind of law would be prohibited by the constitution under the first amendment and under equal protection. In order to infringe upon religious right (and yes building minarets is infringing on religious rights in the same way that building church towers, etc would be) you have to have a reason to do it. You can't just do it because eh you don't think its right. A law like that would be struck down immediatley - it wouldn't even have to go to the SC. I am frankly appalled at the number of people who think this is ok on this board. It is just disgusting.
You're shifting goalposts. A secular society is designed to be tolerant. Arguing to the contrary makes no sense. Of course, people can screw this idea up - welcome to reality. It would be extremely difficult for a non-secular government (i.e., theocratic - although just about any form of despotism or monarchy would equally apply) to be tolerant. It's just not built that way. Consequently, my point still stands. Assimilation is far easier into western secular democracy than a non-secular government and/or monarchy. I'd argue that is because those secular governments better fullfill fundamental rights to all people as equally as possible.
You could argue it a building code, FWIW. But I changed my tune on the illegality aspect later on in the thread.
Secular only means it isn't run by religion it doesn't necessarily mean it is tolerant. The PRC under the Cultural Revolution was secular but not tolerant. The Websters definition of secular is "not religious, not connected with a church." It doesn't say anthing about tolerance. I tend to agree with you but again given the examples of secular regimes persecuting religions, ethnic minorities and political opponents I'm not sure the overall record is that good. At the sametime you could have a theocractic government that still allows for the free practice of other religions, Malaysia comes to mind. The original point though by MB that kicked off our debate though is that you should assimilate to the culture that you move to. I asked him if that meant that a Westerner should assimilate to a culture with Sharia laws. That isn't a matter of which is easier to assimilate to but is whether it is important to assimilate even if you find it distateful. You are making a qualitative argument regarding the cultures. That is somewhat a side track but I would say that a qualitative argument is one that is subjective.
Take that SUCKA!!! Naw its been a good debate and if you feel shaky now I'm sure you will get me back in the future. :grin:
I was away for some time (holiday) so I missed this thread. Switzerland is known for being a xenophobic and racist country, not surprised they do such a thing.
There are different levels of distasteful. Being forced to tolerate non-muslim displays and activities may be "distasteful" to an immigrating muslim. However, none of these non-mulsim displays are impinging upon said muslims rights to live, pursue prosperity, or worship. The same cannot be said for, as in our examples above, sharia law. As I alluded to earlier - assimilation is a two way street and sharia law would be a one-way signpost. But, I agree that it would be overly broad to generalize seculr society as de facto tolerant.
