Stuck Up A Minaret

Barbara Kay in the National Post writes:

Churches were built with steeples so that everyone in the surrounding landscape could find their way to them. They were always situated as the central point of a town. People flocked to them on Sundays. The steeple was a natural expression of unified opinion as to what the ruling belief was for the townspeople. That is part of our western heritage and our national histories.

But who is building churches today with this message of dominance and cultural importance? Look around. Churches and synagogues are no taller than their surrounding neighbours. That too is a message.

Switzerland is not banning mosques, in which religious activity and observance takes place. They have banned what in Islamic countries is very well understood as a symbol of cultural dominance.

You will not find church steeples in Muslim countries. No other religious symbol would ever be allowed to challenge the dominance of Islam. Minarets in western countries are meant as a statement of cultural challenge: They say in their own tangible and unavoidable way, “Islam is the religion you must literally look up to.” A landscape dotted with multiple replications of this message would create a psychologically intimidating atmosphere for non-Muslims. The Swiss were right to nip this thorny flower in the bud.

And at 9:08, someone left this comment there:

Those who have previously posted that we should practice a "tit for tat" policy with Islamic countries are neglecting to consider the example of Jerusalem. Here the three faiths that claim Abrahamic and Mosaic roots, have churches, mosques and synagogues co-existing within the old city for thousands of years. To those who would demand a right to open a Christian church on the Temple Mount or within the al-Aqsa grounds would blanch with indignation of a Muslim community demanded to set up a mosque in the Vatican!

A comment which misses the point altogether.

For the Temple Mount, as its name indicates, if the writer was alert, is foremost a Jewish sacred site which was conquered by Arab Muslims at a time when, while Jews were still resident in numbers that, admittedly, were not overwhelming but not insignificant, they had lost their political independence.

Instead of asking why can't Muslims share the Temple Mount compound and allow Jews a small location at specific times, for a start, to commune with God, the commentator asks why a church can't be built there. Why not a synagogue first? After all, we all know that eventually the Third Temple will be rebuilt there and even the Muslims are aware of it.

And a mosque in the Vatican? What has Islam to do in the Vatican? I presume there are mosques in Rome, and my friend Sheikh Palazzi is the head of the Islamic community there, but why in the Vatican to make a (silly, nonsensical) point?