Minarets in Switzerland

[OakLeaf]

Honor killings are very common in the USA, they just don't call them by that name.

Women in the USA who wear less clothes than local standards of modesty dictate, are harrassed, and if they are raped there's rarely a prosecution or conviction. It's true that majority standards in the USA don't require the hair to be covered, but what is required to be covered is merely a technical detail. What happens to a woman if she doesn't, is not.

Some churches ring Angelus bells several times a day; others broadcast music before services and during holy seasons; a few have carrillons.

If you disregard the specific forms of a particular religion and look only at the substance, it's plain that fundamentalism is fundamentalism and misogyny is misogyny, and they really don't have anything to do with whatever Scripture they're using for cover.

[papaver]

Honor killings are very common in the USA, they just don't call them by that name. Well that didn't excisted here.

Women in the USA who wear less clothes than local standards of modesty dictate, are harrassed, and if they are raped there's rarely a prosecution or conviction. That is very uncommon here, people are used to see nudity.

It's true that majority standards in the USA don't require the hair to be covered, but what is required to be covered is merely a technical detail. What happens to a woman if she doesn't, is not.

Some churches ring Angelus bells several times a day; others broadcast music before services and during holy seasons; a few have carrillons.
Here it's not allowed anymore... only on very special occasions.

If you disregard the specific forms of a particular religion and look only at the substance, it's plain that fundamentalism is fundamentalism and misogyny is misogyny, and they really don't have anything to do with whatever Scripture they're using for cover.

Like I said, if there would have been mutual respect there would not have been this kind of debate. Belgium is a very liberal country where church and state are strictly divided. And we would like to keep it that way. In the seventies there were hardly any muslims here, now they represent about 10% of the population. It's going really really fast for us...

[lph]

In countries like Belgium, France, Holland there's a whole veil debate. Are they allowed to wear one at school? Or at work? It's a huge statement, you know. It's not like you're wearing a discrete cross or whatever.

I know quite a few Turkish and Moroccan girls and they are all forced to wear a veil. The men have become a lot more fanatic the last ten years or so. I've been to muslim countries and there the people are much more tolerant to Europeans and to women in general.

I wanted to jump in on this one, because there was recently a veil debate here in Norway too. Actually it's an ongoing issue, and I've been back and forth a million times.

There are girls in my son's class who never covered their hair before, but are doing so now as 11, 12-year olds. They're probably not forced to, but I'm guessing they are just told that this is how proper Muslim girls dress. To me it's not really a strong religious statement, but I do object a bit to the reverse, that it should be in any way improper for a 11-year old to have her hair visible. (btw I think the current norm here is that it's ok to cover your hair for religious reasons in class, but face veils are not ok, since they hinder communication.) And I heartily dislike the growing trend that these girls are not allowed to wear ordinary gym clothes for phys.ed., shower with the other girls, or go to overnight events. It seems to me that they are slowly being taught to feel shameful or insecure about perfectly normal events in any Norwegian teenagers life.

On the other hand there are plenty of Muslim women who proclaim that it's their own free choice to wear a veil to show respect for Islam. A policewoman recently applied to be allowed to wear a hair veil with her uniform. Which seems to be a harmless request, but it caused massive debate.

It's hard to draw the line between showing respect for other religions, but not accepting misogyny and indoctrination done in the name of that religion. It would be a lot easier if one could just forbid all religious expression one didn't like, but that is a bit too reminiscent of states we don't like to compare ourselves with.

And sometimes I can understand the traditionalists that move here and are shocked by how young Western women dress. I was out late in the centre of Oslo Sunday evening, and ended up walking behind 3 young women teetering along in the snow in very short skirts, thin stockings and high-heeled shoes. If my mother had seen them she would have wanted to scold them and send them home to change. But that is what living in a free society is all about - the right to dress like, ahem, wh0res, and not be harassed for it. Conversely I guess I should accept that women want to dress in full-coverage if they want to. But I sincerely wish that young girls could be left alone long enough to be able to truly make that decision for themselves.

[Thorn]

Thanks papaver and lph and oakleaf who pushed papaver's buttons...to me, you've put this into the perspective that I needed. As an American, I forget that I really don't live in as free and welcoming a society as I would like to think.

Founded by religious fundamentalists, in America a conservative religious environment still exists in the every day as oakleaf pointed out. To some that is proper; to others, it has made the concept of dealing with fanaticism an every day occurrence. Both sides of us see the mineret law as troubling (as evidenced that this thread has remained and not been pulled) because it seems to us to stifle freedom.

However, if you live in a country where the religious fundamentalists are not as vocal and are a much, much smaller population, to suddenly have a conservative religious environment thrust upon you has to be scarey. Heck, I'll admit, the religious right's influence in politics scares the heck out of me, but they've been scaring me for way too many years. Would I have voted to constrain them? Don't know. I have too much American-baggage to know, but thanks papaver and lph for helping me see that.

[shootingstar]

I wanted to jump in on this one, because there was recently a veil debate here in Norway too. Actually it's an ongoing issue, and I've been back and forth a million times.

There are girls in my son's class who never covered their hair before, but are doing so now as 11, 12-year olds. They're probably not forced to, but I'm guessing they are just told that this is how proper Muslim girls dress. To me it's not really a strong religious statement, but I do object a bit to the reverse, that it should be in any way improper for a 11-year old to have her hair visible. (btw I think the current norm here is that it's ok to cover your hair for religious reasons in class, but face veils are not ok, since they hinder communication.) And I heartily dislike the growing trend that these girls are not allowed to wear ordinary gym clothes for phys.ed., shower with the other girls, or go to overnight events. It seems to me that they are slowly being taught to feel shameful or insecure about perfectly normal events in any Norwegian teenagers life.

On the other hand there are plenty of Muslim women who proclaim that it's their own free choice to wear a veil to show respect for Islam. A policewoman recently applied to be allowed to wear a hair veil with her uniform. Which seems to be a harmless request, but it caused massive debate.

It's hard to draw the line between showing respect for other religions, but not accepting misogyny and indoctrination done in the name of that religion. It would be a lot easier if one could just forbid all religious expression one didn't like, but that is a bit too reminiscent of states we don't like to compare ourselves with.

And sometimes I can understand the traditionalists that move here and are shocked by how young Western women dress.

Of course what complicates all of this, is the 'freedom' that parents want to have to raise their children according to their interpretation of values. Seen as a private manner until child is hurt or child ventures into the public realm.

The face veil for some fundamentalist Muslim women, is probably the most complicated matter in terms of clothing cover-up, in the public sphere. I have no problem with headcoverings and neck-to-foot coverup IF the woman wants it and she feels greater freedom to be judged by her character vs. her body. It can be (not always) an expression of feminism that's very real and assertive.

It actually continues to amaze me, a non-religious person, to see some working women who wear tops that show overtly decolletage. What for? I went to a job interview months ago, where 3 women interviewed me. One of them wore a low-scooped t-shirt with a neckline that showed half of her decolletage. I don't get this--at all. She was an info. tech. manager so maybe that's an expression of her self-confidence in what used to be a traditionally male-dominant industry. I don't know. Do men who are fit, walk around in muscle t-shirts in office to show their biceps?

--From a woman who wears her cycling jerseys looser even if she's decently fit/slim. Who hasn't worn any low-backed sundresses over last 15 yrs.
________________________________________________

I become cautious or even suspicious whenever I see repeatedly tv and photo images in some countries, where it's crowds of MEN protesting or just hanging out en masse, in a friendly way having coffee or chatting up on the streets. Where ARE the women in those tv/photo images I ask myself,....doing all the childcare/housework at home or grocery shopping? Cloistered at home?

The issue of just building a mosque in Switzerland...is now overblown by the voting Swiss. They weren't voting on use of the call to prayer. It was just building more mosques.

To address to papaver, who felt uncomfortable stared at by some men who looked other than Christian/white, I would ask yourself if you would feel the same wandering into a predominantly black /AFro-American neighbourhood.

It's a perception of feeling threatened, suddenly looking highly visible because you are "different".

I am willing to bet papaver you would have been safe 99% of the time you were there at that time of the day. After all, you are in Brussels (or whatever city in Belgium)

[papaver]

It's not staring, it's really verbally harassing. It has happened numerous times and not only to me, but to my colleagues as well. And I'm not exactly dressed in high heels and a short skirt either.

I would gladly avoid that neighborhood but that's just not possible. It's unfortunate that extremism leads to extremism.

And I know they were voting against the minarets and not to the call to prayer... that is in MY country, not in Switzerland.

Trust me, I don't mind staring, I don't mind being the only white on the block. I really don't care, but I do care when a bunch of men form a circle around me and start threatening me because I don't wear a veil.

[lph]

I would gladly avoid that neighborhood but that's just not possible. It's unfortunate that extremism leads to extremism.

It is very unfortunate I know that if I had experienced this sort of thing often I would be a lot more sceptical myself.

I would like to be able to say that this kind of harassment is an example of the worst part of male-dominated culture in some Muslim countries, and not an expression of Islam in itself. But it niggles at me that Islam does seem to be fundamentally less tolerant of female rights. I would like to be proved wrong. There are certainly Muslim countries and many many Muslims that are tolerant, modern and pro equal rights.

Regards the call to prayer: somebody mentioned somewhere that this is generally not allowed in Europe, I presume purely for disturbance reasons. I don't know if this is correct but fwiw, I have never heard a call to prayer outdoors anywhere except in Muslim countries.

Don't we have any Muslim women here who could give us a note from their point of view? That would be really interesting.

[Tuckervill]

In cities like Brussels there are A LOT of muslims. In large parts of the city every westener has moved. Sometimes I have to go in these parts of the town and each and every time I'm harassed by the men. Why? Because I don't wear a veil. Sometimes they stand around you with 6 to 12 men at the same time, and I can tell you, it is NOT a nice feeling. They say I don't respect their religion. I'm sorry, but where is their respect for me?????

Now they want to announce their moments of prayer via megaphones. We really don't want that. It's like we're living in a muslim country and we're not.

In countries like Belgium, France, Holland there's a whole veil debate. Are they allowed to wear one at school? Or at work? It's a huge statement, you know. It's not like you're wearing a discrete cross or whatever.

I know quite a few Turkish and Moroccan girls and they are all forced to wear a veil. The men have become a lot more fanatic the last ten years or so. I've been to muslim countries and there the people are much more tolerant to Europeans and to women in general.

Last month a Moroccan girl was killed by her parents and their imman, her crime: she had a girlfriend. They tortured her with boiling water. There are quite a few 'murders for honour' here where brothers or fathers kill their sister because she doesn't want to marry the man of their choice or because she has a relationship with another boy.

There is absolutely NO integration whatsoever with the local population. They don't want to. They only go to their shops, pay with their native currency, you don't see them on TV. They just live on their island and it's getting bigger and bigger and bigger...

So yes I can understand the Swiss population. I wish I didn't though.

Okay, this is getting further to the point of my distress over the minarets. Minarets are just a SYMBOL of this kind of behavior, I'm to presume?

But, aren't these behaviors prosecutable under current law? Is it legal in Belgium for a large group of men to harass a woman on the street? (How frightening that must have been!) Is it legal to disturb the peace with loud announcements? (We have church bells here and no one seems to mind them--and they don't even call anyone to anything. They're just for fun!)

Why don't the citizens of Brussels call the police on this behavior, and control it with existing laws? Is it too far gone? Do the police ignore the complaints? What?

Karen

[papaver]

what can they do? There's just verbal violence. In those streets there are no more local people. And the ones that do stay there, keep very very quiet.

There are some area's in Brussels the police won't even go any more. It's just too dangerous.

It hasn't always been like that, you know. When I lived in Gent there was a large population of muslims too. And there was never a problem, the muslim girls at my school never wore veils. It since the last 10 years or so that they became so radical.

[Tuckervill]

As "visitors" to your country, you'd think they'd be a little more careful about what they do. Maybe they don't fear being deported enough.

I'd have a real hard time with knowing there are parts of town the police WON'T go into. Sounds like they're just giving up, to me.

Karen

[OakLeaf]

(We have church bells here and no one seems to mind them--and they don't even call anyone to anything. They're just for fun!)

Angelus bells are a call to prayer; bells are rung on Sundays to call parishioners to worship, and some churches ring their tower bells as the Sanctus bells during the Mass. I don't think your local clergy would consider the bells and music "just for fun." Your non-Christian neighbors might not mind the bells - as I, a non-Muslim, enjoy hearing the adhan - but I can see how any of those might offend some people.

Wearing a veil is no more an "ostentatious trapping of religion" than wearing a shirt. It's a cultural standard of modesty.

I acknowledged before that secularism in Europe is very different from secularism in the USA. If churches aren't allowed steeples, then sorta fine - sorta, just because no one actually is building new churches, and fundamentalist Christians could safely enact such a law without it ever actually affecting them. But when different standards are applied depending on the race and religion of the people they're applied against, that's when I start to have a problem. And when immigrants and the children and grandchildren of immigrants are treated as "visitors" with rights subordinate to the native born - just as Mexican-Americans are here - that, I have a problem with, too.

[Grog]

As "visitors" to your country, you'd think they'd be a little more careful about what they do. Maybe they don't fear being deported enough.

I am not quite sure what you mean, but certainly "immigrants" are not "visitors" and the children of "immigrants" in most countries are called "citizens" and should definitely not have to fear deportation. (To say nothing of naturalized immigrants.) Immigration is crucial for the future of Western countries, if only because we have a lot more old people than young people, and someone needs to work and keep the economy going. Countries like Canada and a number of European countries have assertive immigration policies, and depend on the influx of people from other countries.

I am not Muslim, but if I was, I would think twice before posting to this thread. This is not an easy topic to address, even more so if one feels personally connected to it (as Papaver and LPH mention).

I definitely do not agree with it, but I can very well understand how Islam became radicalized these last few years, and how the opposite point of view is getting equally radical, and how the escalation is hurting all of us. It worries me quite a bit, actually.

[papaver]

I definitely do not agree with it, but I can very well understand how Islam became radicalized these last few years, and how the opposite point of view is getting equally radical, and how the escalation is hurting all of us. It worries me quite a bit, actually.

It worries me a lot too. Because for now, there is no solution.

I want to point out that I'm not against Islam. Nor any other religion. But I'm saddened by the fact that some individuals abuse their religion to show their disrespect to others. Aggression leads to more aggression, and where does it all end? It's sad because hundreds of years ago, Islam was very respectful towards women. A lot more than catholicism was in those days. I have no problem with women chosing for a veil, but unfortunately at least 50% are forced into wearing one. And that's 50% too many.

[Tuckervill]

Angelus bells are a call to prayer; bells are rung on Sundays to call parishioners to worship, and some churches ring their tower bells as the Sanctus bells during the Mass. I don't think your local clergy would consider the bells and music "just for fun." Your non-Christian neighbors might not mind the bells - as I, a non-Muslim, enjoy hearing the adhan - but I can see how any of those might offend some people.

Wearing a veil is no more an "ostentatious trapping of religion" than wearing a shirt. It's a cultural standard of modesty.

I acknowledged before that secularism in Europe is very different from secularism in the USA. If churches aren't allowed steeples, then sorta fine - sorta, just because no one actually is building new churches, and fundamentalist Christians could safely enact such a law without it ever actually affecting them. But when different standards are applied depending on the race and religion of the people they're applied against, that's when I start to have a problem. And when immigrants and the children and grandchildren of immigrants are treated as "visitors" with rights subordinate to the native born - just as Mexican-Americans are here - that, I have a problem with, too.

Except, these are on the Baptist churches. There is one Catholic church in my town (20,000 people), and it's so far away from any residences or businesses that no one would hear the bells if they rang them (the church does have a bell on top of it, which I recall from my exploration of Catholicism in the '90s is used in certain rites and ceremonies). "Just for fun" was a little flip, but bells on churches are really just "traditional" here--not used for any real purpose.

Karen

[Tuckervill]

I am not quite sure what you mean, but certainly "immigrants" are not "visitors" and the children of "immigrants" in most countries are called "citizens" and should definitely not have to fear deportation. (To say nothing of naturalized immigrants.) Immigration is crucial for the future of Western countries, if only because we have a lot more old people than young people, and someone needs to work and keep the economy going. Countries like Canada and a number of European countries have assertive immigration policies, and depend on the influx of people from other countries.

I am not Muslim, but if I was, I would think twice before posting to this thread. This is not an easy topic to address, even more so if one feels personally connected to it (as Papaver and LPH mention).

I definitely do not agree with it, but I can very well understand how Islam became radicalized these last few years, and how the opposite point of view is getting equally radical, and how the escalation is hurting all of us. It worries me quite a bit, actually.

I believe absolutely SOMETHING should happen to large groups of men who surround and harass non-Muslim women [eta: and Muslim women for that matter] in Brussels, immigrants or not. If deportation is the answer, let them be deported. Even if it's just "verbal violence". What is wrong with their justice system?!?

If I were walking through a neighborhood in a large, densely populated city, say, like Memphis where I used to live, and had to run that gauntlet, you can bet I would be calling the police! Why give up and let it happen to the next person? Why let them get away with it? And WHY, instead of creating a whole category of what is basically "architectural discrimination" in your laws, why not enforce the existing laws designed to prevent violence and disturbing the peace?

That's my whole question.

And by the way, non-naturalized citizens, in the US at least, do not enjoy the complete smorgasbord of freedoms that the rest of us do. They can be deported. If the justice system has this option at their disposal, then I don't see the harm in using it when appropriate.

Karen