4 ms·

That banning is only a point against liberty if your definition of liberty is very American (religion above welfare of people) for most people maintaining the c

That banning is only a point against liberty if your definition of liberty is very American (religion above welfare of people) for most people maintaining the culture that gives that liberty is as important as liberty so changing that culture would obviously destroy the possibility of that liberty I really do not understand why people simply close this eyes when this bans go against Catholics and christians but freak out as soon as separation of church and state touches any non Christian

tompagenet2 6y ago
Asked out of genuine inquiry and curiosity not to bait (I know it can be difficult to tell online): The referendum was simply to add the words "The building of minarets is prohibited" to the constitution. This only affects someone who would wish to build one (so Muslims) and in my mind says that your type are less welcome here. Why would Christians be negatively affected by this? I would take the view that banning the form of your religious buildings (and implicitly, to your comment, being hostile to Muslims who in your response you seem to equate with a culture that destroys the possibility of liberty) seems more of a betrayal of the principle of liberty and freedom for all than allowing different people to pray and associate as they wish, providing they follow basic tenants of human law (not harming people etc).
halflings 6y ago
That had nothing to do with "separation of church and state". It was banning private individuals to use a specific form of architecture. Pretty much any country in the world allows building mosques with minarets... did they threaten anyone's liberty / change their culture? Going back to GP's point, the deeper issue is that people thought this was worth writing in the constitution. Other countries apply such laws in different ways, so I don't think the Swiss direct democracy is to blame here.

tompagenet2 6y ago

Asked out of genuine inquiry and curiosity not to bait (I know it can be difficult to tell online): The referendum was simply to add the words "The building of minarets is prohibited" to the constitution. This only affects someone who would wish to build one (so Muslims) and in my mind says that your type are less welcome here. Why would Christians be negatively affected by this? I would take the view that banning the form of your religious buildings (and implicitly, to your comment, being hostile to Muslims who in your response you seem to equate with a culture that destroys the possibility of liberty) seems more of a betrayal of the principle of liberty and freedom for all than allowing different people to pray and associate as they wish, providing they follow basic tenants of human law (not harming people etc).

halflings 6y ago

That had nothing to do with "separation of church and state". It was banning private individuals to use a specific form of architecture. Pretty much any country in the world allows building mosques with minarets... did they threaten anyone's liberty / change their culture? Going back to GP's point, the deeper issue is that people thought this was worth writing in the constitution. Other countries apply such laws in different ways, so I don't think the Swiss direct democracy is to blame here.