1

The Swiss Minaret Initiative

10 questions – 10 answers

on

Why the Referendum Initiative “Against the Construction of Minarets” is unacceptable

2

3

Introduction

We can argue about minarets – about how they look, how tall they are, and their locations.

These mosque towers have not, however, been making recent headlines for these reasons

but instead due to the controversy over their function and significance, and even the question

of whether they should even be permitted at all. Issues of esthetics and the like are a matter

for architects and building laws. Questions on their symbolism and public visibility do not

however impinge upon buildings alone but on the religion itself, which the minarets render

much more visible, and on the people for whom the buildings serve as a type of home. Reli-

gious symbols – as the critics have said – need to be suited to their location, environment,

and local cultural and religious habits and “values”. But when is a building suited to which

surroundings? And how can a tower be seen to agree – or disagree – with various convic-

tions and traditions? What is suitable and what is not – and according to which criteria and

guidelines? There is only one simple and yet highly complex answer to this: Things are

suited to places because they are part of the lives of the people who live there. And other

things are not suited because nobody is in those places for whom they would be meaningful.

A discussion about minarets thus means talking about the people for whom the minarets are

of a particular importance.

4

1. What does the law have to do with religion?

“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and

religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or

belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others

and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in

teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art. 18

Questions about how people can and may confess,

express, and live their faith all return to the fundamen-

tal question of the nature of humanity and what we are

entitled to.

Modern democratic states provide as much leeway as

possible for the individual convictions of their people.

They are free to believe and agree with what they

want, and to decide what is important and desirable

for their lives. The secular constitutional state not only

expressly keeps out of these decisions, but also protects the freedoms of religion and opinion

in its constitution and laws. This of course includes the freedom to publicly express these

convictions.

5

2. Why religious freedom? What does it help?

“At the center of our Protestant faith lies the freedom that God

grants us through Jesus Christ. It is the freedom for a life of

responsibility and respect for people with different convictions

and faiths. Religious freedom emerged from the spirit of the

Christian faith even as it had to be fought for in large sections

of the major Christian churches.”

Thomas Wipf

These state obligations to protect freedoms are re-

ferred to as “religious freedom” in the language of

democratic constitutions and human rights. This can be

both positive and negative. Positive in the sense of

protecting the religious views of each and every indi-

vidual; and negative in the sense of protecting people

from being forced to take on or to maintain any particu-

lar faith. The state itself must deliberately remain reli-

giously neutral, neither prescribing nor prohibiting any

single religion. This would indeed be entirely impossible from a Christian understanding for

“we must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). From a Christian, and especially from a

Reformed point of view, therefore, any specific religious demand or compulsion must be

strongly rejected. Since faith is not of human but of divine provenance, no state has the right

to demand religious obedience from its citizens or to ban any other religion.

6

3. What is the purpose of the Minaret Initiative?

The referendum initiative “Against the Construction of

Minarets”, which was launched by the “Egerkingen

Committee” in May 2007 and officially submitted in July

2008, seeks an amendment to the Swiss federal con-

stitution to include the words “The construction of mi-

narets is prohibited” in Article 72, paragraph 3. The

initiators see the minarets not as religious buildings but

as symbols of a “religious-political claim to power” that

casts in doubt the “basic constitutional rights” and thus

opposes Switzerland’s legal order. Religious freedom would thus not be affected by the

amendment. The initiators did not attempt to hide the fact that the initiative would also serve

to support a repressive, conservative policy toward foreigners.

7

4. Do Muslims need minarets?

“The secular part of society is particularly upset, irritated by

this demonstration of a strong faith, carved in stone, and feel-

ing a type of phantom pain of their own faded ability to be-

lieve.”

Claus Leggewie

The minaret opponents like to point out the holy writ-

ings of Islam do not mention any minarets. It is, how-

ever, just as true as the fact that the Bible makes no

mention of church steeples.

Minarets were first raised in eighth-century Syria,

which was a predominantly Christian area at the time,

with churches and church towers. Many believe that

minarets were derived from these towers to present

the religion publicly. As is the case with Christian churches and steeples, not all Islamic

groups have mosques with minarets. But just like Christian denominations and churches, it is

the communities of faith themselves that decide on the public symbols of their religions and

their faiths. Whether Muslims require minarets is a question for them to answer themselves

as members of their communities. This right of self-determination extends equally to all reli-

gions, churches, and communities of faith.

8

5. Is there a “clash of cultures” or why not?

“The intricacies of plural groups and multiple loyalties are obli-

terated by seeing each person as firmly embedded in exactly

one affiliation, replacing the richness of leading an abundant

human life with the formulaic narrowness of insisting that any

person is ‘situated’ in just one organic pack.”

Amartya Sen

The American political scientist Samuel P. Huntington

published his book “Clash of Civilizations” in 1993. But

only after the events of September 11, 2001 did his

conservative and discriminatory ideas of a supposedly

superior “Western culture” (“the West versus the rest”)

begin to gain traction. Huntington’s theories, however,

foundered on their own false assumptions. One would,

first of all, have to accept there being a clearly defined

and delineated “Western world”, “Islamic world”, “Hin-

du world”, “Buddhist world”, etc. And one would also have to posit that every person in the

world belonged to one of these worlds exclusively. Both presumptions are inaccurate not

only in today’s globalized world, but ever since people have been aware that they are not the

only people in the world. A “clash of cultures” can therefore only be seen in the guise of poli-

cies of marginalization in an attempt to denounce or prevent any “encounter of cultures”.

9

6. What is so Christian about the so-called “Christian West”?

“The Christian West is invoked especially when one seeks to

slow down the process of modernization and all that it impos-

es on us. Belligerent escalations and apocalyptic global sce-

narios form a part of these views of the West alongside the

marginalization of others and a cultural sense of superiority.”

Wolfgang Huber

But which “culture” can be derived from the Bible and

Christian traditions? The stories of the Bible – with the

exception of the Old Testament age of kings – all take

place in the realm of foreign cultures. The old Euro-

pean, Judeo-Christian, and Greco-Roman roots and

traditions all grew, from the very beginning, from a

plurality of views and convictions that competed and

struggled with one another. The concept of a “Chris-

tian West” stands for a completely non-uniform history

and is thus not at all useful in delineating one culture and tradition from another. It was in-

deed this very diversity that led, in an arduous but eventually successful process throughout

the course of European history, to the rise of a way of thinking anchored in tolerance and

respect. The “other” is then seen not as a threat but as an enrichment and is integrated into

the known. This pluralism of culture in European history and the resultant idea of tolerance

and equality thus provide a trailblazing example for a global sense of mutual respect that is

so urgently needed today.

10

7. Is Islam a danger to Switzerland?

“But it makes an immigrant laugh to hear the fears of the na-

tionalist, scared of infection, penetration, miscegenation, when

this is small fry, peanuts, compared to what the immigrant

fears - dissolution, disappearance.”

Zadie Smith

There are those who would say that Switzerland’s

Muslim population would like to repeal the constitu-

tion, end democracy, and proclaim an Islamic state

based on Sharia law. Although there is no reason to

fear this for Switzerland, this rhetoric, removed from

reality, still strikes a political chord. More and more

people are afraid of Islam, of people from Arab coun-

tries, or even of foreigners in general. These fears are

based on a false understanding of Switzerland as an

isolated country resistant to modernization in a world of national states with homogenous

cultures that close themselves off from one another. There has in fact never been such a

country. This, moreover, particularly contradicts the history and self-image of the Swiss Con-

federation, which has always been characterized as a voluntary association of autonomous

and heterogeneous entities. The globalized world, in which people, cultures, and religions

have grown ever closer together, actually reflects the model of a global Switzerland, a world

in which national law is complemented by globally binding human rights and by international

law. The only people who need to fear in this globalized Switzerland are those who are re-

fused a place to call home.

11

8. What does the Church say about living with people of other reli-

gions?

“I was a stranger and you welcomed me.”

Matt 25,35

The Christian churches are anchored in a universal,

biblical message of peace that extends throughout the

history of salvation. This certainty gives way to five spe-

cific principles regarding life with people of different reli-

gions:

1. An equanimity born of a certainty of faith instead of

the suppression of other convictions;

2. The secularization of the state as the precondition for

its religious neutrality and the renouncement of the in-

strumentalization of the state and law for one’s own

religious purposes;

3. Respect – and not merely tolerance! – for others as one’s neighbors;

4. The rejection of the view that only a “tit-for-tat” logic of retaliation can serve one’s own po-

litical interests;

5. The ability and willingness to “debate the truth”.

12

9. Why is the Referendum “Against the Construction of Minarets” un-

acceptable?

“There is no alternative, from a Christian viewpoint, to the un-

conditional validity of human rights and the right to religious

freedom all throughout the world.”

Declaration of the three major Swiss churches

The FSPC calls upon the state “for the sake of the

state’s statehood” (Dietrich Bonhoeffer) to carry out its

duties as the “protector of freedom” (Thomas Wipf).

The state has the task of protecting the rights of its

citizens to their own personality and freedoms, and to

take action against any inequalities. The proposed

constitutional change would violate the central prin-

ciple of equality before the law. The FSPC decisively

rejects each and every form of state inequality. Dis-

criminatory legislation cannot serve to reduce xenophobia in society but – on the contrary –

only to cement it further. The Christian churches speak against this stance of mistrust and

marginalization. Jesus’ message “not to be afraid” (Matt. 28:10) also addresses our liberation

from the reign of human fear. The FSPC is committed to a dialogue among religions and to

meeting with people of different faiths and backgrounds. There is no alternative to working

together for a culture of understanding as the only way out of isolation in a world full of mi-

strust, aggression, and fear.

13

10. Why do we need interreligious dialogue and what can we do

to bring it about together?

“A dialogue worthy of its name requires that one not only re-

spect others as people but that one is also able to value their

convictions for what they are. ... It will become more and more

important to know the historical, social, and cultural back-

grounds of religions in order to get to know both their uncon-

troversial positive sides as well as their dark sides, while sup-

porting an understanding of the Holy Scripture that follows as

the primary principle of interpretation the verses from Prov-

erbs that state that ‘her ways are ways of pleasantness’ and

‘all her paths are peace’.”

Michel Bollag

We live in a society in which people meet and coexist

from a variety of backgrounds with different traditions

and religious convictions. Diversity leads to new oppor-

tunities and perspectives, but also to misunderstand-

ings and conflicts. We do not have the choice of living

together or not. We only have the choice of how we

are to live together. The FSPC chooses dialogue over

confrontation and marginalization. Interreligious dialo-

gue opens up opportunities for people of different

faiths to meet, get to know one another, and to share with one another, choosing encounter

over mistrust and prejudice. Respect for those with other convictions and tolerance of their

religions must not, however, ever entail glossing over differences and contractions. Interreli-

gious dialogue, on the contrary, thrives on a respectful and serious dispute over the truth of

our different convictions.

Interreligious dialogue does not lead to a single homogenous religion but instead teaches us

to understand differences, to respect the beliefs of others, and to embrace the view that

every individual has the same right to live in accordance with their religion in freedom and

under the full protection of law.

14

Further information and materials can be accessed at www.sek.ch Topics A-Z Minaret

Initiative

15