Try googling Lords Resistance Army, Anti-Balaka, Tripura, Christian Identity, ....


Again. I am not going to condem 1.5 billion people based on the activities of a few dozen in the west.

"And in the US, which I don't care about, because I live in Switzerland.
They're building walls around the Eiffel Tower, they're putting concrete blocks across Westminster Bridge to stop Islamic terrorist attacks."

Do you see the hypocrisy between these two sentences?
You live in Switzerland so why do you care what happens in France or UK

Switzerland likes to think of itself as an island but it's in the middle of a rather large, diverse continent - one that's getting more diverse whether they the SVP likes it or not. The idea that what happens in Paris (or even the U.S.) won't happen here or doesn't affect life here seems a bit short-sighted, imo.

Take banking for example, to go OT a bit. Switzerland was once the haven for numbered-only bank accounts, hiding your wealth, etc. Now it's preparing to share banking details with dozens of countries. It's not an EU member but it's had to capitulate to numerous EU laws/demands just to get along. I don't see that changing any time soon.

Or what about Latin Mass?

All those decsendants of Roman soldiers are being radicalized. Time to put an end to this.

Why should I google some obscure group operating out of a jungle in central Africa when I can open a newspaper and read about Nice, Paris, London, Barcelona, Berlin...

Preventing Mosques being funded by God knows what foreign power/agenda and ensuring that preaching takes place in a local language is not condemning 1.5 billion peoples, it's just being prudent.

More fake news.
There is a Wikipedia page with this title but this graph is not on this page.

The 1964 Instruction on implementing the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy of the Second Vatican Council, which laid down that "normally the epistle and gospel from the Mass of the day shall be read in the vernacular".

So for 50 years the Mass has been celebrated in the local language

Benedict XVI has decreed in 2007 in a Motu Proprio that the mass including the sermon can be held in Latin if "a group" of the commune requests. In the Sentikirche in Luzern and the church in Saint-Pierre-de-Clage the mass is held in Latin regularly (though just once a month in the latter). I guess it's easy to find more if you take the effort, these two popped up immediately.

With that said, Catholics (Christians in general) these days don't intend to overthrow the secular state.

I think demanding the Vereine to publish their finances is a workable approach. One could easily apply some limit, say 100k revenue, to be able to focus on the bigger fish. The data could also be used to prevent money laundering. It could also cover the political parties, FIFA, etc.

Many more than that. I know of two churches in Zürich alone that offer Latin mass regularly.

One of them even in the Tridentine form (that is, according to the pre-vatican-II liturgy, with priest facing the tabernacle rather than the congegation)

Agreed.

Just imagine the outcry if you have to start telling foreign visitors they can't drop a donation into the collection box because it's against the law.

I am sure a tiny minority of Catholic churches still celebrate the Mass in Latin but so what? Possibly some are still using Church Slavonic.
That is not a convincing argument against legislating the local language?

Publishing their finances is a good idea.

I assume the Churches financed by the Gemeinde publish their finances?
I get a regular Church finance report from my Gemeinde but I never read it so I do not know if it is sufficiently detailed for your purpose?

I'm not sure how tiny that minority is. Traditionalism in the Catholic Church has seen a bit of a revival, especially under Benedict XVI.

Furthermore, concerning non local languages, you can find churches offering services in at least 10 languages, possibly quite a few more, in Zürich alone. Many immigrants attend such services because they aren't comfortable with the local language, or because they like to socialize with people from their own background, or like to sing hymins from their country of orgin, or a myriad of other reasons.

Legislating agaisnt that would constitute a massive attack on religious freedom.

In the case of the Anglicans it would even cause a problem. The Anglican Church has a treaty of communion with the so-called Old Catholic Church of Switzerland that they mutually recognise one another's sacraments and hierarchy and many such things, and that they are allowed to set up congregations in the other's countries, but only under the condition that they offer services in their own language only. If the Anglican Church were to offer services in German in Zürich they would be in violation of that agreement.

I've been out of the Catholic church for 25 years or more now, but I remember receiving that too before. From what little I remember that level of detail isn't enough. At the same time you need to protect ordinary donors as some people want to stay anonymous for honest reasons, for instance to not be huntable by fundraisers and beggars.

You certainly know that as renter of an apartment you have the right to check the underlying data that concern your Nebenkosten-Abrechnung, the contractor's bills and related bookkeeping stuff. I'm thinking of something along these lines. Perhaps for people who can prove a an overriding interest, eg journalists, full access is to be given after signing a confidentiality agreement. That should also protect the Muslims from being overrun by an organised group of idiots.

But that wouldn't solve the problem of anonymous donations.

Such legislation wouldn't touch just on freedom of religion but also freedom of expression, of personal development and of self-determination.

To me there's a very strong argument against such legislation. In an absolutistic sense it doesn't matter if it's one mass a year or all churches, after every step the next is easier, and the next, and the next. This fundamental issue is the same as for/against banning the burqua, you need to make sure the use is worth the cost.

So far there is
- a ban on (additional) minarets
- a ban on wearing the burqa in at least one Kanton
- a (vote on a) ban on wearing the burqa in all Switzerland in the works

I trust you see the pattern. Steter Tropfen höhlt den Stein (a proverb, roughly "even something as little as a constant drip will eventually do away with the hardest rock").

Stopping financing from Abroad makes some sense, but preaching in a swiss national language won't help. mostly it's the second generation which become terrorists ("radicalized") and they would speak the language.

Maybe the guys who were radicalized were second or even third generation, but the preachers who influenced them were relatively freshly arrived with little or no understanding of the host culture.

I think nailing this down to language or even banning languages is barking up the wrong tree. But recruiting preachers who are well integrated and ideally grew up here may have a positive effect, especially on congregations with many recent arrivals, who may see such preachers as role models. So in fact it would be good if preachers did use foreign languages to be able to better reach out to such people. But there need to be facilities for training preachers here in Switzerland.

I always found it to be a curious tradition that the language used is from the country that persecuted the early Christians. Aramaic, which is believed to be the language Jesus spoke, would have been a more logical choice?

The more steps you have between the original language and the language actually used in the Service then the higher the risk of errors and of mistranslated results.

After the persecutions, Emperor Constantine ordained that Christianuty was a state religion. It was all about power and influence. Latin was of course also the only common language across the Roman Empire so the choice also had some logic.

But sometimes things outlive the reasons they were set up for.

Don't be naive, or pretend not to see the real problem. In the Quran there are a lot of verses that says a believer should "fight" a non-believer. They are crystal clear and direct, containing instructions such as "...chop off heads of the non believers".

I think I posted this video ten times in this topic but it's worth once again:

Quoting single verses completely out of the context of the chapter they are in makes you a religious scholar!

How many Christians do you know who follow these Christian Bible verses?

Deuteronomy 25

The way I understand things, that would require recognising Islam as an official religion, on par with the two Christian denominations. This in turn requires a responsible and governing body on the religion's side. However, denominations that don't partake in that governing body are still outside and unregulated. Similar to the evangelists on the Christian side for example.

However, this may be asking too much after banning one the religion's most showy symbols, the minaret. Which believeing Christian would once churchtowers got banned?