There was something in the USAToday story I wasn’t fully grasping:
By Stephen Brown, Religion News Service
GENEVA — The Swiss Council of Religions, which includes Jewish, Christian and Muslim leaders, has issued a statement rejecting a call for a nationwide ban on the construction of minarets at mosques. Some Swiss groups want to ban minarets out of fear of Europe’s growing Muslim population.
“For the members of a religious community, religious buildings are not only places to gather but also a symbol of their faith and an expression of their reverence for God. For many Muslims, therefore, mosques need to have minarets,” the council said in a 5-page statement issued Wednesday.
“The prohibition of minarets would injure these people in their dignity and their basic right to practice their religion,” the council warned.
The move to ban the construction of minarets was submitted in July 2008 with just under 115,000 signatures, and will be decided in a national referendum on Nov. 29.
If passed, the measure would amend the country’s Federal Constitution to include a new article stating that, “The construction of minarets is prohibited.”
…”Everyone has the right in this country to live their faith visibly, freely and in a community within the framework of the public order,” it [the Council of Religions] stated. “This also includes the construction of places of worship that are typical for their respective religions.”
~~read the entire article, with reader comments, here.
So I e-mailed someone who lives there, who I’ll let remain anonymous. This provides more backstory, the section in italics (added) really holds the key:
Right now it’s not illegal to build a minaret. However, like trying to build anything in Switzerland, there’s a TON of red tape! There are already 4 or 5. However there is one political party that collected over 100,000 signatures against building them, enough to send it to a referendum.
Their argument is that minarets are not mentioned at all in the Koran, and that they are more a political symbol of conquest than they are of religious freedom. They also question why these people have fled places where they are not allowed to practice their religion, so why didn’t they go somewhere that is mostly Muslim, instead of coming to Switzerland? In Switzerland there are only two recognized religions, Christianity (Protestant and Catholic) and Jewish, other religions have the freedom to practice and the meet, but they are not recognized by the state.
They are also concerned about Muslims asking for changes in other areas, like what is taught at school. Bible reading used to be normal in Swiss schools, since it is considered a Christian country, but the Muslims are fighting it, and now it has all but disappeared. I guess the idea is, they chose to be here knowing it was predominantly Protestant (the church is state run), it’s not fair that they want to change it now to suit them. I’m not saying I agree with all of that, but that’s the stance of the party that is fighting against the building of the minarets.
Not to mention that a sunrise call to worship would never get past the noise laws here; or the architectural laws for that matter…they are REALLY picky about the style you build here…we were afraid they wouldn’t accept the siding on our house!
So what happens when people of faith groups which are foreign to a particular piece of geography decide to move there? Do they do so with the express intention of changing the religious climate there? Increasing tolerance? Warming the local population up to greater cultural and political influence and involvement?
Obviously the question that forms the title of this post is moot in some respects. It’s possible that some people of other faith groups move into areas specifically because they are dominated by Christians.
But that brings us to something else altogether:
How is this different from the Christian Missionary movement? Do we not also go into countries which are dominated by other faiths to proclaim the message of Christianity? Do we not erect places of worship in those countries with our symbol (the cross) clearly visible on the exterior of these buildings? Do we not seek to build bridges into the larger community so that these people have a day-to-day, living, breathing experience of what Christ-followers look like?
We tend to see this issue from our Christian point of view, forgetting that whatever freedoms apply to us have to apply to all. But obviously here there is another factor at work, to which I added italics in the second quotation — “they are more a political symbol of conquest than they are of religious freedom.” One campaign initiator (watch the video link below) believes the desire to build minarets is a desire to “change the social order.”
But who decides this?
And does a referendum somewhat defeat the purpose? Will voters grasp the larger issues or will they simply maintain the status quo?
You can almost feel the tension here on the other side of the Atlantic.
Upper: This is the picture that accompanied the USAToday story, juxtaposing the minaret with a Protestant church steeple. From this angle, neither seems much different than the other.
Lower: This picture shows minarets towering over a local skyline. Are voters picturing the upper picture or the lower one?