No more minarets in Switzerland.

[Mafiaaffe]

Yes there are passages of the Koran that say some disturbing and awful things, but so does the Bible, why aren't Christian bell-towers being banned?

Yes fundamentalist Muslims have commited awful crimes in the name of their faith, so have fundamentalist Christians, are you campaigning against their centres of faith?

If i would see horrible crimes done to people in highly christian countries entirely in the name of religion I would campaign against it the same way i would campaign against any ideology that i see as a threat to my freedom. But the bible especially the new testament is in no way as disguting as the entire quran. I can only repeat my example if you see a national socialistic ideology sneak in your country wouldn,´t you sign a petition to stop it?

So, you're exactly like the Muslim radicals, but in the opposite direction?.

Well, thanks for the compliment. I do not see as a negative to be "radical" supporter of women and homosexual rights.

 

[5810Singer]

I have to add more emphasis on this. I've seen numerous onion-domed buildings, and have an aesthetic appreciation for them. All I'm pointing out is that if it is USED as a statement in itself and that statement is one that promotes sharia law, then I'm against that. That is all. It's not as if I'm going to call for the ban of Tetris because of the onion-domed buildings it's pictured to have. That would be ludicrous.

OK, I hear you.

The point I'm making is HOW can an architectural form that has been used in Christian and secular buildings for nearly a thousand years be synonymous with sharia law?

And if it's sharia law that's the problem then why pick on the tower, why not pick on the whole mosque?
It's the mosque that is the centre of sharia teaching, and even without a minaret tower the faithful will still be called to prayer.

The SVP (the political party who lobbied for the ban) actively want to see Islam removed from their country wholesale, because they claim Islam is tantamount to Nazism.
If this were true I would be at the forefront of anti-Islamic protest, trust me.

But how can this claim be considered rational when the vast majority of Muslims are moderate and peaceful?
How can Islam as a whole be seen in this light when many majority Islamic states have secular government, and separation of church from state?

It just seems like millions of ordinary people are getting tarred with the same brush as a minority of psychos, to me, and I don't understand how that can be rational, let alone how it can be rational to outlaw an architectural form that is shared by three faiths, and a multitude of nations, on the grounds that it is a symbol of an extremist minority belief.

 

[Warhawk57]

People should have the right to do build whatever they want as long as they have the rights to the land and permits. ( providing no person is being harmed and it's on private property).... It's wrong also to say that it would ruin the landscape sorounding the area because it is subjective reasoning..


This is almost like those blasphemy laws passed all over..

 

[Aught3]

And if it's sharia law that's the problem then why pick on the tower, why not pick on the whole mosque?
It's the mosque that is the centre of sharia teaching, and even without a minaret tower the faithful will still be called to prayer.

I think the argument is something like: building a large tower in the skyline is a way to loudly proclaim your presence and dominance over the people who have to live in its shadow.

It's wrong also to say that it would ruin the landscape sorounding the area because it is subjective reasoning..

Well, I think that it is worth protecting the historic nature of towns and villages that have been around for hundreds of years. My judgment on what looks nice might be subjective but the pleasure that I and many others get out of viewing these places isn't and I don't see why that shouldn't be taken into account when making a planning decision on the future of the town.

 

[monitoradiation]

The point I'm making is HOW can an architectural form that has been used in Christian and secular buildings for nearly a thousand years be synonymous with sharia law?

And if it's sharia law that's the problem then why pick on the tower, why not pick on the whole mosque?
It's the mosque that is the centre of sharia teaching, and even without a minaret tower the faithful will still be called to prayer.

I wouldn't equate sharia law with the muslim community. The way I see it is that sharia law is akin to the muslim counterpart to the 600-some old testament laws that tell you how to own slaves, how much to pay, when you can beat them, how often, etc. Just because I'm against those 600-some OT laws doesn't mean I'm against the entire christian community. It'd be discrimination based on their religion - and we wouldn't want that. All I'm submitting here right now is that IF onion-domed buildings are used by who builds them to promote sharia law, then I'm against that. If there is an existing onion-domed building that has survived until now and serves more value as a historic/cultural site, then I'm for preserving it.

The SVP (the political party who lobbied for the ban) actively want to see Islam removed from their country wholesale, because they claim Islam is tantamount to Nazism.
If this were true I would be at the forefront of anti-Islamic protest, trust me.

But how can this claim be considered rational when the vast majority of Muslims are moderate and peaceful?
How can Islam as a whole be seen in this light when many majority Islamic states have secular government, and separation of church from state?

It just seems like millions of ordinary people are getting tarred with the same brush as a minority of psychos, to me, and I don't understand how that can be rational, let alone how it can be rational to outlaw an architectural form that is shared by three faiths, and a multitude of nations, on the grounds that it is a symbol of an extremist minority belief.

I don't equate islam with Nazism. I deal with islam the same way I deal with christianity. For each idea they present I assess their outcome/truth values individually. Unfortunately it just seems like sharia law is a bundle of ideas that are outdated by today's zeitgeist and I cannot assess each judicial idea it presents. The most pragmatic way is to reject sharia law as a whole. Tentatively.

To say that we paint the moderates and fundamentalists with the same brush isn't fair. What I'm concerned about isn't how fundamentalist they are, it's how true their beliefs are.

Moderates can go either way. They can tilt towards fundamentalism when the conditions are right, and the other way towards deism and maybe atheism, again depending on conditions. What I'm most concerned about isn't that they are peaceful RIGHT NOW. It's that their belief system isn't based on skeptical inquiry. That's never good. I'm not advocating that we should ban islam. I'm saying that they need to be challenged on their beliefs. Muslims as well as christians.

Lastly, the swastika has been used differently throughout history. Would you recommend that a gigantic swastika be erected in your neighbourhood, given the right permits and such? (I know I'm dangerously close to invoking Godwin's law here) It was only used by an extremist minority belief.

Now of course I don't say that the minaret is anywhere close to provoking the same level of emotional responses, but IF the purpose of building one is for the purpose discussed here (promoting sharia law) then I would still be against it. It's about INTENT. That's why I said in my previous post that I'd leave it to the local jurisdictions to figure out intent and the such, and that's why this should not be a nation-wide law.

 

[Giliell]

I AM shocked by the racism my neighboirs oppenly showed in this refferendum.
That's why I think that minority rights mustn't be subject to majority vote.

There's nothing in a minaret that indicates "Sharia Law" which I'm the first to object.
Secondly, muslims in Switzerland are a small, quiet minority. It's not like they were a breeding swamp for little bin Ladens.
Thirdly, what is preached inside a building is totally independet from the outside look. I rather fancy a law like bad old Bismarck introduced in Germany which forbids preachers to include politics and especially advice on voting in their sermons.

 

[Mafiaaffe]

I AM shocked by the racism my neighboirs oppenly showed in this refferendum.
That's why I think that minority rights mustn't be subject to majority vote.

This has nothing to do with racism. They don,´t judge people by their skin color, by their homeland, by their gender or by their sexual orriatination. What they judge is the islamic ideology. The quran should be found next to hitler,´s book "mein kampf" in the bookstore it is a disgusting book that calls for the murder of disbelievers and "rejecters of the truth", it discriminates women and homosexuals and taking a closer look in the countires under sharia law, in the case of human rights, i do not see much difference to nazi germany. Nobody acts when national socialistic propaganda is banned in a country but when doing the same to islam people start crying about the "sacred" religious freedom which is kinda ironic since even the quran is trying to oppress it. Sure the muslims are still a minority now so are nazis in germany does it mean we should legallize them to build propaganda centers (what they actually tried)?

 

[nemesiss]

its an interesting situation.
some people were already making jokes of radical muslim burning swiss flags ( and the rising sell of them).

from what i read the most intelectual reaction from imam Youssef Ibram of the geneve mosque.
"it will help to stop the trades with Switzerland of to cut the ties. Muslims must show respect the decision of the Swiss"

its a weird situation, if there were someone to blame... id say radical muslims.
I think the decision was partially based on fear which it shouldn't need to.

i remember the whole situation with the Fitna film of geert wilders.
People freaking out over what could be from both sides, hysteria on what could be...
in the end, mostly a big disappointment.
nothing happened, most if not all muslim rejected the movie as an inaccurate interpertation of the "militant muslim".
no riots, no protests, no killing or such things...

i wonder how this will end..

 

[5810Singer]

The point I'm making is HOW can an architectural form that has been used in Christian and secular buildings for nearly a thousand years be synonymous with sharia law?

And if it's sharia law that's the problem then why pick on the tower, why not pick on the whole mosque?
It's the mosque that is the centre of sharia teaching, and even without a minaret tower the faithful will still be called to prayer.

I wouldn't equate sharia law with the muslim community. The way I see it is that sharia law is akin to the muslim counterpart to the 600-some old testament laws that tell you how to own slaves, how much to pay, when you can beat them, how often, etc. Just because I'm against those 600-some OT laws doesn't mean I'm against the entire christian community. It'd be discrimination based on their religion - and we wouldn't want that. All I'm submitting here right now is that IF onion-domed buildings are used by who builds them to promote sharia law, then I'm against that. If there is an existing onion-domed building that has survived until now and serves more value as a historic/cultural site, then I'm for preserving it.

The SVP (the political party who lobbied for the ban) actively want to see Islam removed from their country wholesale, because they claim Islam is tantamount to Nazism.
If this were true I would be at the forefront of anti-Islamic protest, trust me.

But how can this claim be considered rational when the vast majority of Muslims are moderate and peaceful?
How can Islam as a whole be seen in this light when many majority Islamic states have secular government, and separation of church from state?

It just seems like millions of ordinary people are getting tarred with the same brush as a minority of psychos, to me, and I don't understand how that can be rational, let alone how it can be rational to outlaw an architectural form that is shared by three faiths, and a multitude of nations, on the grounds that it is a symbol of an extremist minority belief.

I don't equate islam with Nazism. I deal with islam the same way I deal with christianity. For each idea they present I assess their outcome/truth values individually. Unfortunately it just seems like sharia law is a bundle of ideas that are outdated by today's zeitgeist and I cannot assess each judicial idea it presents. The most pragmatic way is to reject sharia law as a whole. Tentatively.

To say that we paint the moderates and fundamentalists with the same brush isn't fair. What I'm concerned about isn't how fundamentalist they are, it's how true their beliefs are.

Moderates can go either way. They can tilt towards fundamentalism when the conditions are right, and the other way towards deism and maybe atheism, again depending on conditions. What I'm most concerned about isn't that they are peaceful RIGHT NOW. It's that their belief system isn't based on skeptical inquiry. That's never good. I'm not advocating that we should ban islam. I'm saying that they need to be challenged on their beliefs. Muslims as well as christians.

Lastly, the swastika has been used differently throughout history. Would you recommend that a gigantic swastika be erected in your neighbourhood, given the right permits and such? (I know I'm dangerously close to invoking Godwin's law here) It was only used by an extremist minority belief.

Now of course I don't say that the minaret is anywhere close to provoking the same level of emotional responses, but IF the purpose of building one is for the purpose discussed here (promoting sharia law) then I would still be against it. It's about INTENT. That's why I said in my previous post that I'd leave it to the local jurisdictions to figure out intent and the such, and that's why this should not be a nation-wide law.

My friend.....

There seems to be little point of contact between my words and your response to them.

When you say you wouldn't equate sharia law with the Muslim community, I say: "Well I would and I wouldn't."
Sharia law is Muslim, it is taught in mosques, and on that level it equates.
But, the excessive brutality meted out by some sharia courts is not representative of the vast majority of Muslims, so on that level it doesn't equate.

Later you say "I don't equate Islam with Nazism."
Well I certainly didn't suggest, imply, or infer that you did. But the Swiss lobby group that pushed for this ban do, and so does the OP in this debate.

You then go on to make some points about the Islamic belief system, and sharia law, to which I can only say: "If it's Islam and sharia law that are the problem then ban THEM."
Banning towers on mosques will not stop the teaching or practice of sharia law.

Finally, you keep justifying this position: "If minarets DO promote sharia law, then I'm against them."
I've provided evidence that the link between sharia law and minarets is purely circumstantial, I've also provided evidence that towers with onion-domes, and towers that are used to call the faithful to prayer are not even synonymous with Islam, let alone sharia law.

So, will you please offer me some evidence that refutes my assertions, assertions which are based on repeated observation and historical fact.

 

[Giliell]

I AM shocked by the racism my neighboirs oppenly showed in this refferendum.
That's why I think that minority rights mustn't be subject to majority vote.

This has nothing to do with racism. They don,´t judge people by their skin color, by their homeland, by their gender or by their sexual orriatination. What they judge is the islamic ideology. The quran should be found next to hitler,´s book "mein kampf" in the bookstore it is a disgusting book that calls for the murder of disbelievers and "rejecters of the truth", it discriminates women and homosexuals and taking a closer look in the countires under sharia law, in the case of human rights, i do not see much difference to nazi germany. Nobody acts when national socialistic propaganda is banned in a country but when doing the same to islam people start crying about the "sacred" religious freedom which is kinda ironic since even the quran is trying to oppress it. Sure the muslims are still a minority now so are nazis in germany does it mean we should legallize them to build propaganda centers (what they actually tried)?

It has everything to do with racism.
As my fellow posters showed, outlawing a piece of architecture is ridiculous, so clearly it's a non-issue. So the real target must be something different. The real target are muslims as an ethnic an religious minority. And yes, the Quran is a disgusting book. So is the bible. Horrible attrocities are/were commited in the name of Islam. Same thing with christianity.
Now, I clearly think that the world would be a better place without either. But when a white christian majority decides what kind of buildings a (mostly) tawny muslim minority can build, it's racist discrimination.
And if you look at the campaign against the minarets where people could shoot muslims in a little video game it clearly shows who's of the nazis' spirit.
If they preach killing and slaughtering inside a mosque, close it down.
If they're collecting money to buy weapons for the Djihad, confiscate it and prosecute them, hit them with the law.
If they want to intruduce Sharia Law, make your constitution water-proof.
But a minaret does none of those things.
And unless bell-towers are ruled out on churches (no-one may disturb the peace by making religious noise that carries further than the religious building), forbidding minarets is racist discrimination.

It will only serve the extremists on both sides.

 

[5810Singer]

And if it's sharia law that's the problem then why pick on the tower, why not pick on the whole mosque?
It's the mosque that is the centre of sharia teaching, and even without a minaret tower the faithful will still be called to prayer.

I think the argument is something like: building a large tower in the skyline is a way to loudly proclaim your presence and dominance over the people who have to live in its shadow.

So why doesn't that apply to Christian towers, or towers belonging to government and corporate buildings.
Have a look at Donald Trump, and Trump Tower and then tell me that it ISN'T proclaiming Trumps presence and dominance over the people who have to live in IT'S shadow.

It's wrong also to say that it would ruin the landscape sorounding the area because it is subjective reasoning..

Well, I think that it is worth protecting the historic nature of towns and villages that have been around for hundreds of years. My judgment on what looks nice might be subjective but the pleasure that I and many others get out of viewing these places isn't and I don't see why that shouldn't be taken into account when making a planning decision on the future of the town.

I can't think of a single western country that doesn't have local planning laws, and laws that protect historic buildings, skylines, cultural practices, etc etc.
If raising a tower contravenes these laws then it can be taken care of within the current legal system, there is no need to introduce a new law that is biased against one religion in particular.

 

[5810Singer]

I AM shocked by the racism my neighboirs oppenly showed in this refferendum.
That's why I think that minority rights mustn't be subject to majority vote.

This has nothing to do with racism. They don,´t judge people by their skin color, by their homeland, by their gender or by their sexual orriatination. What they judge is the islamic ideology. The quran should be found next to hitler,´s book "mein kampf" in the bookstore it is a disgusting book that calls for the murder of disbelievers and "rejecters of the truth", it discriminates women and homosexuals and taking a closer look in the countires under sharia law, in the case of human rights, i do not see much difference to nazi germany. Nobody acts when national socialistic propaganda is banned in a country but when doing the same to islam people start crying about the "sacred" religious freedom which is kinda ironic since even the quran is trying to oppress it. Sure the muslims are still a minority now so are nazis in germany does it mean we should legallize them to build propaganda centers (what they actually tried)?

Nothing you say about the Koran delineates it from the Bible.
Yes, some sharia courts are utterly repressive and they mete out brutal sentences that aren't acceptable to any right thinking man, BUT if you destroy every minaret, prayer tower, and onion-dome in the world it will not make one iota of difference to the quality, fairness, or reach of sharia law.

Next, you assert that countries under sharia law aren't much different to Nazi Germany.
FYI in Uganda, whose population is 85% Christian, homosexuality is illegal, and their government is proposing to introduce the death penalty for people indulging in homosexual sex, life imprisonment for "touching someone with the intent of having homosexual sex", and three years imprisonment for those who fail to report homosexual behaviour amongst their friends, families, and neighbours.

Other Christian countries are moving towards these kind of repressive and inhumane laws.

In India Christians, Muslims, and other faiths face violence, repression, and harassment from the Hindu population, churches, synagogues, and mosques have been bombed and suffered arson attacks, whilst the Indian government largely turns a blind eye.

Are the actions of the Ugandan and Indian governments not akin to the actions of Nazi Germany?
Are the SVP planning to lobby against the public display of crucifixes, or statues of Ganesh?

The SVP have likened Islam to Nazism, and in some of your posts you have repeated that sentiment, so now I'm going to take my turn at calling people Nazis.
This ban on mosque towers is no different to the kinds of restrictions placed on Jews under the Nuremberg Laws.

Here's some food for thought....The SVP don't deny the Holocaust......any longer, but they used to.
They stopped denying the Holocaust as a political move to avoid being made an illegal organisation.

Lastly, do I want to stop neo-Nazi propaganda? Yes.
Do I want to see an end to Islamic propaganda? Yes.
Do I want to see an end to all brainwashing, indoctrination, propaganda, and damned lies? YYYEEEESSSSS!!!!

BUT, if we're going to do that then we need to ban nearly all religions, and most political organisations, and then a whole bunch of other insane propaganda organisations that aren't readily associable with organised politics or religion,.................and how many freedoms will we lose along the way?

 

[Aught3]

I think the argument is something like: building a large tower in the skyline is a way to loudly proclaim your presence and dominance over the people who have to live in its shadow.

So why doesn't that apply to Christian towers, or towers belonging to government and corporate buildings. Have a look at Donald Trump, and Trump Tower and then tell me that it ISN'T proclaiming Trumps presence and dominance over the people who have to live in IT'S shadow.

It doesn't apply to Donald Trump because he, or some part of his organisation, is not attempting to have Sharia law implemented worldwide. You have political Islam often funded by Middle Eastern countries asserting their dominance in a foreign country. A minaret towering over the landscape is like a deadly promise to some people. You only have to look at the SVP propaganda posters to see what they are thinking. Now, I don't actually accept this argument as a reason to ban all minarets, but you did ask why the SVP were only trying to ban the tower part of the mosque and I think this is the reason.

Well, I think that it is worth protecting the historic nature of towns and villages that have been around for hundreds of years. My judgment on what looks nice might be subjective but the pleasure that I and many others get out of viewing these places isn't and I don't see why that shouldn't be taken into account when making a planning decision on the future of the town.

I can't think of a single western country that doesn't have local planning laws, and laws that protect historic buildings, skylines, cultural practices, etc etc.
If raising a tower contravenes these laws then it can be taken care of within the current legal system, there is no need to introduce a new law that is biased against one religion in particular.

Exactly, it's what I've been saying from the start.

 

[monitoradiation]

There seems to be little point of contact between my words and your response to them.

And the feeling is mutual, it seems.

When you say you wouldn't equate sharia law with the Muslim community, I say: "Well I would and I wouldn't."
Sharia law is Muslim, it is taught in mosques, and on that level it equates.
But, the excessive brutality meted out by some sharia courts is not representative of the vast majority of Muslims, so on that level it doesn't equate.

Sure, but since I don't study sharia law as a hobby, all I'm suggesting is that we seem to have a better system of law than muslims were taught.

Later you say "I don't equate Islam with Nazism."
Well I certainly didn't suggest, imply, or infer that you did. But the Swiss lobby group that pushed for this ban do, and so does the OP in this debate.

I'm just saying that I don't make that conflation, since you brought up that the Swiss lobby group did. That's just to clarify my position.

You then go on to make some points about the Islamic belief system, and sharia law, to which I can only say: "If it's Islam and sharia law that are the problem then ban THEM."
Banning towers on mosques will not stop the teaching or practice of sharia law.

I agree.

Finally, you keep justifying this position: "If minarets DO promote sharia law, then I'm against them."

That's not my position; you've oversimplified my position to the point where it's mangled.

My position is:

If someone can provide conclusive proof that minarets are ONLY for promoting sharia law, then I'm against building them entirely.

As of now, I think that each and every individual minaret that exists today and are continuing to be built seems to suggest that it is not for that use - therefore, there should be no nation-wide ban on minarets. It should be up to a local authority to decide to permit the building of minarets by determining intent of the builder and issue permits on that basis. If the intent of a builder who wishes to build a minaret for the sole purpose of promoting sharia law, then I'm of the opinion that the local authorities should not give them permission to do so.

So, 5810Singer, what you've done is provide evidence for my position. That's not the kind of evidence I'm seeking, because I actually agree with you that the evidence points towards minarets not used to promote sharia. I'm stating the kind of evidence I need to change my mind about NOT BANNING MINARETS.

I've provided evidence that the link between sharia law and minarets is purely circumstantial, I've also provided evidence that towers with onion-domes, and towers that are used to call the faithful to prayer are not even synonymous with Islam, let alone sharia law.

I agree with you. I didn't say ban towers. I said leave the decisions to allow or disallow building minarets to the local authorities.

Secondly, I thought I made my position quite clear on the subject of minarets. I don't equate minarets with sharia law neither, and as I've said previously, I don't advocate banning them. However, if someone were to want to build a minaret for the sole purpose of promoting sharia law (which I'm not sure how you can prove unless the builder states this) then I will be against them building it.

That doesn't in any way mean that I'll want them banned. I might express concern to whoever will be providing the permit for the builders, but I won't call for having minarets banned. I don't know how to make this clearer, that my position on each and every minaret that exists, and are proposed to be built, will be different and situational.

So, will you please offer me some evidence that refutes my assertions, assertions which are based on repeated observation and historical fact.

I haven't challenged anything you said, so before you want me to provide evidence for what you think is an opposing viewpoint, can you please read my post and point out anything that you think is vague and I'll clarify. Secondly, I'm agreeing with you, so why would I provide you evidence to refute your assertions?

Plus, most of what I posted were opinions. I do not have to provide evidence for my opinions just like I don't have to back up the assertion that I don't like oranges.

 

[5810Singer]

monitoradiation: I take your point, I concede I have misinterpreted some of your comments, but I suggest that some of your comments weren't as clear as you thought they were.

However I condemn your blatantly anti-orange stance.


TO ALL:

There seems to be an automatic assumption by western people in general (not just the ones in this debate) that Islam as a whole is bent on world domination.

This seems to me to be an irrational view because the majority of Muslims and Islamic nations do not appear to be trying to dominate anything or anyone, or at least they're not doing it more than any one of a number of other religious or political groups. Many people can and do make the accusation of attempted world domination by the USA, Christianity, people who accept AGW, etc, and they seem to me to be able to justify their view of those "institutions" in a similarly plausible way to the way that others justify their view of Islam.

In fact I get the same feeling of distaste and nausea when I hear the word "Islamisation", as I do when I hear the phrase "international Jewish conspiracy."

It seems to me that if there is any one group at which you could lay the blame for the demonisation of Islam, then it's the American Christian Right-wingers typified by the Bush Sr., and Bush Jr. administrations.
I have never found much rationality to their view, and I have found their "evidence" of secret funding, and secret agendas in the Islamic world dubious at best.
I particularly find their view point unacceptable because it seems to be born out of their religion rather than any real concern for freedom, or national security, which effectively reduces their position to the level of "Our God's right, your God's wrong."

This is my opinion, I'm not stating it as objective fact.



Here's a thought for you, and again it's opinion, but at least I can provide a logical argument to support it.

The SVP are trying to stir up disorder and animosity in Switzerland.
I believe this because removing towers from mosques will have no effect on the spread of Muslims, Islam, or sharia law, and the SVP are intelligent enough to know this.
The restriction they have placed on mosque architecture will achieve two things, resentment amongst the Muslim population, and a sense of legitimacy to disaffected Swiss people who are looking for someone to vent their resentment on.

 

[bruhaha2]

Well, i don,´t think it will be illegal to build towers that merely look like minarets. But when I say "Mein Kampf" is my holy book and I want to build towers to preach nazi propaganda i am sure you would also sign a petition to stop me. Islam is at least equally dangerous and disgusting and should be treated same way as national socialism. I would sign any petition that keeps sharia law out of europe.

No, not all Muslims should be regarded in this way. Not many Muslims are like the extremists portrayed on television. Indeed, I think all religion is bad, but religious discrimination... discrimination of any kind should be viewed as a bad thing, in my opinion.

 

[Aught3]

 

[nemesiss]

hmm, i just read an article about the opinion of architects on minarets.
though it didn't state if this also included architects with islamic background, the vote was unanymous in that minarets are ugly.

the only reason why mosques are build with minarets are for what are called homesick-muslims who need something to attach them to their old place. this reminded me of a documentary of a couple of young muslim designing a "new-age" mosque, which looks nothing like a "traditional mosque" and have ALOT more functions then just a place of worship, such as a library, townmeeting hall, cinema, parking hall, etc.. something that would attract and connect people...

That might be an interesting topic, which would be alot more interesting if theists would join in the discussion.
How should a place of worship of worship (church, mosque, temple, etc) be designed for a multi-cultural society with and which additional (non-religious) social functions?

 

[madjyle]

Personally I hope this ban allows this kind of policy to be expanded to all buildings of worship. I'm tired of living under massive, gaudy religious structures that serve no purpose other than to pollute the landscape with their ideology.

I doubt here in the states we would ever adopt a policy like this, wishful thinking on my part. I have to live with these things looming over my head every day.

 

[Aught3]

Ugh, those crosses are like a bloody promise of torture.