Let’s be clear about what happened recently in Switzerland: a nation that until recently had been widely known for tolerance and civility took away the right of one religion, Islam, to build minarets on top of their places of worship, despite the fact that there are currently only four minarets in all of Switzerland, and even those do not issue the traditional call to prayer. This ban was enacted under the guise of protecting Switzerland’s culture. Such a trampling of religious rights is indefensible in a free nation. 

The Swiss have enacted a reactionary law to “protect their culture.” They do not want Islam to become a prominent part of their country. Such a stance is totalitarian—the law cannot dictate a country’s culture because culture is an organic feature that grows and changes over time on its own. Attempting to freeze culture at one point in time by legislative fiat is the definition of fundamentalism. Ironically, if the Swiss had “protected their culture” before the adoption of their 1891 constitution, then they wouldn’t even have the right to vote on a popular referendum banning minarets! Culture will evolve, and trying to stop it is futile and reactionary.

The minaret ban is not resisting dhimmification. Switzerland is not changing its own practices to appease Muslims, it is taking away Muslims’ rights. There is a fundamental difference between trying to water down one’s own culture so that it offends no one and telling another culture that its rights to build simple structures as part of their faith will be revoked. One is defensive appeasement; the other is offensive discrimination. The Swiss minaret ban is the latter. Minarets do not harm anyone. The Swiss People’s Party, the group behind the ban, claims that “The minaret is a sign of political power and demand, comparable with whole-body covering by the burqa, tolerance of forced marriage and genital mutilation of girls.” This is as ridiculous as claiming that the angel Moroni statue atop the Bern temple is comparable to forced polygamous marriages of underage girls. Both claims conflate small fundamentalist sects with a peaceful mainstream religion. The precedent is now set for Switzerland to discriminate against any religion a simple majority deems foreign or vaguely dangerous.

Closer to home, this event is an opportunity to ask ourselves about our own country’s identity, especially as many voices from the right clamor to protect our “Judeo-Christian” culture. To what extent should we legislate that goal? Should we acknowledge our nation’s growing religious cosmopolitanism? If Muslims start to exert a much larger political and cultural influence here, how will we react? As members of the LDS Church, we should discuss what scriptures mean by “I will have all men that dwell [in this land] that they shall worship me, saith God.” Is that an admonition for our government to favor Christianity? As Mormons, I believe that we can accept and support all who worship the God of truth, light, and love. This includes those who practice religions foreign to us as well as those good people who practice no religion at all. If we are willing, we can learn from today’s Swiss controversy that xenophobia and fear are still alive and well, and with that knowledge we can prepare to open our hearts and our laws to protect all men and women who live peaceably in our nation.

Austin is a senior studying computer science.