[Erunsenef]

It should be noted that 9/10th of this forum is just about NYC,

For a while there, 3/10ths was about NYC and 1/10th about the UK.

And the rest was about Italy.


--

[FelikTen]

Judging from what she writes she sounds against fundamentalist Islam. But let's talk about what she has written. Sounds reasonable to me. Passages you don't agree with?

OK, let's return to the title: a ban = tolerance. That is meant to be provocative, as is her right, but I don't think she is advocating tolerance toward religious Muslims.

(I am off to bed -- late here -- so I will follow up in the morning.)

[DoterForeva]

By religious Muslims...if you mean those who abide by Sharia law, teach such laws and those who dictate it to their followers... then of course she's not tolerant.

I don't think feminists would be.

[Bill-Watson]

What if the Swiss voters were asked in a referendum to ban the building of an equilateral cross with its arms bent at right angles as a symbol of the belief of a small minority? Or imagine a referendum on building towers topped with a hammer and sickle – another symbol dear to the hearts of a very small minority in Switzerland. Political ideas have symbols: A swastika, a hammer and sickle, a minaret, a crescent with a star in the middle (usually on top of a minaret) all represent a collectivist political theory of supremacy by one group over all others. A big stretch by the author on how symbols are viewed. It's not necessarily by the historical roots or history. Should the Christian cross makes us think of the Inquisition?



The original shoulder patch of the US Army 45th Infantry Division. It was a symbol for Native Americans in the southwest where the unit was located. Other cultures have used it. Its adoption by the Nazi movement have rendered it useless to express anything other than Nazism.

It's pretty clear what people think of when they see a swastika. Is it the same for a minaret?

[lapyignipinge]

This symbol is still used by Buddhists on Temples and statues, as it was there use of this emblem goes back well before Nazi use. The again Hitler was obsessed with ancient artefacts and symbols of power, and the Raiders of the Lost Ark films weren't that far from reality, with Hitler aquiring the Spear of Destiny or Holy Lance of Longinus (believed to be the Lance used to stab Christ in the side whilst on the cross) and other such powerful artefacts. Napoleon Bonoparte also tried to gain possesion of the Lance. As for the Nazi salute that was derived from the Romans, whose Empire Hitler drew upon for inspiration.

http://bibleprobe.com/holy_lance.htm

The Lance is now part of the collection at Hofburg Museum in Vienna

http://www.hofburg-wien.at/en/home.html

As for the Ark of Covenant, that is believed to be in the vaults of the British Museum in London alongside numerous other unknown artefacts. The Vatican in Rome is also full of such ancient and religous artefacts.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...rs-535318.html

Other such artefacts include the Holy Grail, believed to be either the Velencia Chalice or Genoa Chalice, and the true cross on which Christ died.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Chalice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Cross

The Holy Lance of Longinus



Buddhist Statue and Temple -

[gSjQEEmq]

With London's large Muslim community there must be a number of minarets in London by now. I'd love to see some photos of them to see how they look on the skyline. And some pics of minarets in NYC ? Anyone? Thanks in advance.

[8IhGpvH0]

^ http://images.google.com/images?q=lo...N&hl=en&tab=wi

[wp6Eg2Fm]

^ from what I understand this at the edge of London is new:

Op-ed from from the Guardian:

Mosques don't need minarets

I saw a big yellow crane had gone up outside the Brick Lane mosque when I walked past there the other day, and my heart sank.

Is this – finally – the start of the minaret project?

Let me remind you, the building is a handsome, understated 18th century one. It was built first of all by refugee Huguenots as their place of worship and then – 100 years or so later – taken over by refugee Jews as theirs. And now, another 100 years on, it's become a mosque used largely by Bengali Muslims.

Each time a new community has moved in, all they have done, effectively, is change the wallpaper. It is the best example of a shared multicultural space (the sharing separated, of course, by many decades) that I can think of. And I can only regret that I won't be alive 100 years hence to see who the new tenants will be.

Except that they'll have the problem of what to do with that identifiably Muslim item, a minaret, or at least a structure that is meant to symbolise one.

My borough of Tower Hamlets, which is responsible for the minaret scheme, does many excellent things and I know from my own time on its Conservation Design Advisory Group how meticulous and searching it is. But the minaret raises a number of questions.

Why does a mosque have to look as if it had been transported directly in from the Middle East? There is no specific directive in the Qur'an about minarets. The building simply has to face in the direction of Mecca. Just that. But over time we have come to stereotype the mosque. The traditional has become the conventional, and convention has become thoroughly identified with sanctity. Cupolas, domes and minarets are it.

The result is the exoticisation of a faith that tries hard to stress – especially nowadays – its desire for openness and links. Instead of proclaiming commonality, the orientalised mosque immediately announces foreignness. The larger East London mosque, a few hundred metres from Brick Lane, makes a point of facing outwards. It runs courses, and guided tours, and contains a gym that is open to all, Muslims and non-Muslims.

"The typology of the mosque is a myth," said architect Ali Mangera at a debate hosted by the mosque last week. Run as part of the "This Is Not A Gateway" festival – and supported by the Arts Council's useful Arts and Islam initiative – the session focussed on the social and spatial role of faith buildings in European cities. But it proved more an introduction than the last word, leaving open many questions about the visual "message" of a faith building. Should it present a clear sense of difference and of sanctuary from the material world, or should it tacitly make the point that the mundane is spiritual too? How does the average punter having lunch in the pleasant crypt of St Martin in the Fields come to realise the church does sterling work with the homeless and operates a night shelter?

So what is the message for the mosque? Mangera's presentation showed what could be done if the mosque is reconfigured in the light of contemporary society. His images of lovely curved buildings looking like folds of white cloth made the conventional mosque look chunky and retrograde. Some existing mosques overseas mosques do the same. The splendid Grand National Assembly mosque in Ankara (no minaret) has, instead of a wall on its prayer or qibla side, a huge glass window that gives worshippers a view over a serene body of water.

Now more than ever, our faith buildings – mosques and all the others – should avoid presenting themselves as places that seem to hold up a "keep out" sign to the world. It's of course not surprising, given the current climate, that mosques stick to the safe and familiar. A sizeable body of opinion calls strongly for the retention of tradition and heritage. But devotion is created by use. Minarets are extraneous. Indeed, the most memorable mosque I have encountered was simply an outline of rocks made by nomads on the bare earth in the midst of the Hoggar desert in Algeria.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...minaret-mosque

[syptopsygieds]

For what it's worth:

75% support for the ban on minarets in London Daily News poll

News Desk

Londoners support the Swiss government’s decision to ban minarets and mosques according to a new poll in The London Daily News, further highlighting the "sensitivities" and concerns in the capital at the growing influence of Islam.

Callers to London's leading early morning radio show, the Nick Ferrari programme on LBC, also expressed their concerns with one caller citing how "out of character" a minaret would be if built in London.

London is the home to one of the largest number of mosques in the western world,apart from Turkey, with estimates putting the number at over one hundred. The "minaret" issue has become ever more controversial with the growth of Islamic extremism in the capital, and calls by a minority for Sharia law to be observed by all.

Harrow Council recently approved the building of the largest mosque in the capital, which will see Harrow Central Mosque serving Muslim worshippers from across north London when it is built on Station Road. Construction News in a report said:

"The designs include a 40m-high minaret, a gym, a crèche and a café within the 5,745 square metre developments. It is expected to open next year after Harrow Council approved changes to the original plans, which were passed in June 2000."

Increasingly London Muslims are demanding mosques to be built with traditional minarets, which reflect the liberal regime in place in the capital city. There are an estimated 1 million Muslims in London.

http://www.thelondondailynews.com/lo...al-p-3609.html


----------


How we doing in NYC?

[Stasher11]

Londoners support the Swiss government’s decision to ban minarets and mosques according to a new poll in The London Daily News...

Swiss banned only minarets, not mosques. London Daily News doesn't know the difference?