why the minarets, why not the mosques - the secular line - the other side of the story

Submitted by myth (Germany), Dec 12, 2009 at 05:36

"why the minarets, why not the mosques" you ask. There will be more than one answer to this question per vote, start counting. Technically the question about the mosques itself was not part of the initial referendum. Let me assume there would not have been a minor chance for a majority to have the mosques forbidden. Legally this would have meant to define what is a mosque after all, what is a muslim. One tiny step over the secular line and the law would have to take over all of religion including its definition. Naturally the legislation faces the certainly funny task to define what is a minaret. Not banning the mosques is the other side of the story. It is part of that vote as well. The swiss trade some tolerance for modesty here. And after all, you can hardly fight for your own relgious rights on a basis of common sense. It takes others to do so. As for obeying, let the people living in Switzerland obey the will of the swiss people. Call it power if you will. The people is where the power belongs.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".