[eloweeth]

Well would you call not being able to wear a headscarf freedom of religion?

There are many women in Turkey wearing headscarves,it is banned in public places only.There also are many private or foundation universities or companies that allows women with headscarves to study or work.Although that type of secularism "laicism"is a controversial one it doesn't really limit freedom of religion as the way it is told in my opinion.But it definitely takes it out from public sphere.

Kemal's enduring Fascism was manifest in the early days of his rule. For example, the Turko-Arabic alphabet was replaced by Roman letters, which Kemal forced everyone to learn

Kemal most possibly didn't like Arabs and their culture.(He stayed in Syria for some time when it was very underdeveloped.)Yet changing alphabet was good for a nation that was speaking almost a different language than the elite of Ottoman and were highly illiterate.

Ataturk" therefore had a very odd Fascism

Who didn't have it in that era?

What if the Ottomans had raised an army to resist the British, what if they armed the population

They recognized mandates instead!

[Beirut]

Unerringly positive.

There are many women in Turkey wearing headscarves,it is banned in public places only.There also are many private or foundation universities or companies that allows women with headscarves to study or work.Although that type of secularism "laicism"is a controversial one it doesn't really limit freedom of religion as the way it is told in my opinion.But it definitely takes it out from public sphere.

Why???What's the reason behind that suppression?
Here, for example, women are free to chose whether to wear bikini, microshorts or to be modest and wear hijab in public... No one cares..
It's her choice.

[Dr House]

You honestly believe this? The belief in freedom of religion is a fascist one?

He said secularist. Freedom of religion and secularism aren't quite the same thing, even if they often overlap.

[eloweeth]

Here, for example, women are free to chose whether to wear bikini, microshorts or to be modest and wear hijab in public

Lebanon has large numbers of Christians,Druzes etc.. who will not prefer to wear hijab naturally.That also creates a social atmosphere where others(sunni or shia muslims)do it what they like to do if they are not pressurized by family.On the other hand Turkey has a long history of caliphacy,the centre of Sunni Islam where majority of the Muslim women were veiled whenever they go out regardless of their social background which also created a social atmosphere which is more repressive for women who don't prefer.Ataturk preffered to have a certain limit on where to wear hijab and where not to so that we came into a level of tolarence which women may prefer bikinis and microshorts I assume.I wouldn't call the current system in Turkey ideal and don't like defending it,I am trying to give the background of these regulations,but comparing it with multicultural Lebanon which both by geography and population easy to deal with the repressive tendencies it carries doesn't make sense.We might be compared to Iran,Egypt,Pakistan where just like these countries(particularly like Iran)
we have a certain amount of clash between the needs of urban and rural classes where the gap isn't so small but hopefully getting closer by social mobility.So whether we need to be that strict today is a question but looking on those regulations from a more broad perspective would explain why they were necessary a century ago.

[Mazhi]

Other: Some parts of Turkey positive, others negative, others neutral.

[Doomhammer]

is sadly oppressed by the culture of secularist Fascism as instituted by Mustafa Kemal and preserved by the current military clique.

PI. Figures...
You are angry because Ataturk advocated modernity, science, reason etc. Everything religious people hate...

Well would you call not being able to wear a headscarf freedom of religion? If Turkey is so secular and free, why must women who want to wear headscarves take them off in public buildings or when attending university?

Why can't you religion-people get it through your skulls that the headscarf is almost never worn by choice? Why can you not comprehend that Sharia, a "legal" system that subordinates women and considers non-Muslims to be inferior, contradicts fundemental human rights? It is a matter of principle. The practice of wearing headscarves is not a problem in itself as Anatolian women (peasants) have always warn similar headgears (not for religious reasons). However, we know that families who propagate this practice today have certain ideological goals... In short, as always, you and your kind are wrong.

Also, if a woman has implictly accepted her subordinate role by "consenting" to wearing a headscarf, then I'm afraid that college would not have been right for her to begin with.

Do not call it "Islamic fundamentalism", they are only exercising their right to practice their beliefs. Turkey is also a Muslim country, what they are doing has been done for centuries before.

See above.

For example, the Turko-Arabic alphabet was replaced by Roman letters, which Kemal forced everyone to learn.

The literacy rate in the Ottoman Empire and Turkey were roughly at 5% prior to the alphabet reform and education reforms. Moreover, the Arabic script could not accomadate certain Turkish and we can see that the Latin script has. Basically, everyone thinks it was a good idea. Everyone except... well, you know who.

also banned the Fez, the symbol of the Ottoman Empire and something that was more Turkish than the western European suit he so strictly imposed.

It was considered as a symbol of feudalism. The Turks made it popular but stopped wearing it. Why make an issue of it?

"Ataturk" therefore had a very odd Fascism in that it was not really an expression of Turkishness, but more a western European identity he wanted Turkey to assume.

His words were,"...rise to the level contemporary civilization." "Civilization" at that time (and still today) meant modernizing and becoming more European. Aekos has accurately told you the alternative. You'll beg our pardon if we wanted to culturally distance ourselves from a bunch of useless colonies. Those, who, in their arrogance, refuse to follow contemporary trends, are doomed to drown in the rising tide of civilization.

While there was still that national pride of Turkishness, it was very much the Kemalist conception of the Turkish identity.

I'm afraid you've been misinformed or that your ideological preferences have distorted your understanding of Ataturk. Ataturk had no concept of "Turkishness". Nationalism, according to Kemalism, is based on citizenship and/or the desire to live in and benefit Turkey.

Kemal most possibly didn't like Arabs and their culture.(He stayed in Syria for some time when it was very underdeveloped.

1. I think he was right.
2. Syria was a very wealthy province in Ottoman times.
3. Syria is still comparatively underdeveloped (although it is a decent place).

It's her choice.

It never is. Do not be fooled.

Although that type of secularism "laicism"is a controversial one it doesn't really limit freedom of religion as the way it is told in my opinion.But it definitely takes it out from public sphere.

You are mistaken, my friend. We are taught in school that "laicism" is the seperation between state and church when in fact the truth is the opposite.

You see secularism really is about allowing religious freedom insofar as it does not interfere with public affairs. Christianity, for example, can work in a secular state because "redde Caesari quæ sunt Caesaris" (Sezar'a hakkini Sezar'a ver). It makes a distinction between a realm of worldly affairs and Godly-affairs (couldn't thunk up a better word). Contrast that to Islam where religion, law and the state are one. You simply cannot have Islam and secularism coexist. Sooner or later, there will be a problem.

Enter, laicism. Laicism, like secularism, wants to keep rational man-made laws and maintain a logical system. However, to prevent religion from imposing on the state and public realm, the state actually takes charge of the religion. It manipulates the religion to avoid people from practicing things that contradict democracy, human rights, rule of law, science etc. In fact, the state monopolizes religion so as to prevent extremists from preaching dangerous ideas to people. That is the point of lacisim. State control of a dangeros dellusion. Control because religion cannot be trusted - our history is full of examples. Why do you think we have a Presidency of Religious Affairs (Diyanet Isleri)? And the state controlled Imam schools?

But... and sadly... there is a problem. It was Inonu's idea to create a system where Imams would be paid civil servants and would preach moderately (aka the stuff the state wants... not the terrorist crap you get everywhere else). His idea was reasonable. "I raise and pay the wackos to stop people from being wackos". The road to hell is paved with good intentions... By creating these institutions, Inonu ensured the survival of religious people. Had there never been any Imam Hatip Schools, religious people would have starved out long ago because the poor Anatolian peasant could not have maintained them. Inonu set a precedent by keeping them on a regular payroll - he gave them money, made them civil servants, and gave them extra legitimacy. Now they have rapidly multiplied... like a virus. Sigh.

we have a certain amount of clash between the needs of urban and rural classes where the gap isn't so small but hopefully getting closer by social mobility.

Yes. What was once a kulturkampf has recently degenerated in to a class conflict.

[eloweeth]

Syria was a very wealthy province in Ottoman times

I know.But the era Ataturk lived the empire was no longer wealthy.I remember reading him saying he didn't like Syria,I don't know where.

You are mistaken, my friend. We are taught in school that "laicism" is the seperation between state and church when in fact the truth is the opposite

That's why I called it controversial.

You see secularism really is about allowing religious freedom insofar as it does not interfere with public affairs. Christianity, for example, can work in a secular state because "redde Caesari quæ sunt Caesaris" (Sezar'a hakkini Sezar'a ver). It makes a distinction between a realm of worldly affairs and Godly-affairs (couldn't thunk up a better word). Contrast that to Islam where religion, law and the state are one. You simply cannot have Islam and secularism coexist. Sooner or later, there will be a problem

There had been times when Chritianity couldn't work in a secular state,why not the same can't happen for Muslim societies.You will make the majority atheist,agnostic or whatever and the rest can pray and call other for prayer

the state actually takes charge of the religion

I don't have a problem with that as long as it is done wise.Ignoring Alevism and folk traditions,Sufism etc...and sticking to the old ways is mostly most of the time what Presidency of Religious Affairs does.

. Inonu set a precedent by keeping them on a regular payroll - he gave them money, made them civil servants, and gave them extra legitimacy. Now they have rapidly multiplied... like a virus. Sigh.

Yes,it is a well paid job for many.We should protest that.No religious bigotry with my taxes

[Lensky1917]

Positive.

I love turkey.

Especially when it's deep-fried.

I also enjoy turkey grinders/sandwiches/subs.

Wait, what does turkey have to do with politics?

Do you mean the country?

In that case, I choose to stick with my answer so Doomhammer doesn't get mad.

[Aekos]

@Doomhammer

What are the chances that Turkey will regress to a completely Islamic state? Would it be less stable under such circumstances?

[Beirut]

Lebanon has large numbers of Christians,Druzes etc.. who will not prefer to wear hijab naturally.That also creates a social atmosphere where others(sunni or shia muslims)do it what they like to do if they are not pressurized by family.

Exclude the Druze!They wear a black&white veil, e.g.:

On the other hand Turkey has a long history of caliphacy,the centre of Sunni Islam where majority of the Muslim women were veiled whenever they go out regardless of their social background which also created a social atmosphere which is more repressive for women who don't prefer.
So whether we need to be that strict today is a question but looking on those regulations from a more broad perspective would explain why they were necessary a century ago.

True; but banning hijab from public institutions won't threat secularism...it has nothing to do with it. It's just a personal faith.
The only ones that can menace secularism are the Turks(by their votes).

Everything religious people hate...

Doom, religious people don't hate science;on the contrary!Religion and science complete each other.

[Aekos]

Exclude the Druze!They wear a black&white veil, e.g.:

Man, that looks awesome. Seen any hot Druze chicks with their black and white veils recently?

[Doomhammer]

I know.But the era Ataturk lived the empire was no longer wealthy.I remember reading him saying he didn't like Syria,I don't know where.

Aleppo and Damascus were still pretty decent places to live in, even during the early 20th century.

In that case, I choose to stick with my answer so Doomhammer doesn't get mad.

Whatever pal. I don't get mad. Pshh. You know me, ol' Doomhammer, amiable as always.

What are the chances that Turkey will regress to a completely Islamic state?

Unlikely.

Religion and science complete each other.

No. Explain.

[eloweeth]

Exclude the Druze!They wear a black&white veil

Whatever!Theirs is a reformatory sect.

it has nothing to do with it. It's just a personal faith

To which extent hijab is a must for Islam is still a question but true,it is not a direct threaten for secularity.My opinion is it is a direct threaten to gender parity with the logic behind.

The only ones that can menace secularism are the Turks(by their votes).

True

[Potemkin]

Enter, laicism. Laicism, like secularism, wants to keep rational man-made laws and maintain a logical system. However, to prevent religion from imposing on the state and public realm, the state actually takes charge of the religion. It manipulates the religion to avoid people from practicing things that contradict democracy, human rights, rule of law, science etc. In fact, the state monopolizes religion so as to prevent extremists from preaching dangerous ideas to people. That is the point of lacisim. State control of a dangeros dellusion. Control because religion cannot be trusted - our history is full of examples. Why do you think we have a Presidency of Religious Affairs (Diyanet Isleri)? And the state controlled Imam schools?

But... and sadly... there is a problem. It was Inonu's idea to create a system where Imams would be paid civil servants and would preach moderately (aka the stuff the state wants... not the terrorist crap you get everywhere else). His idea was reasonable. "I raise and pay the wackos to stop people from being wackos". The road to hell is paved with good intentions... By creating these institutions, Inonu ensured the survival of religious people. Had there never been any Imam Hatip Schools, religious people would have starved out long ago because the poor Anatolian peasant could not have maintained them. Inonu set a precedent by keeping them on a regular payroll - he gave them money, made them civil servants, and gave them extra legitimacy. Now they have rapidly multiplied... like a virus. Sigh.

That's interesting. A similar process happened in Britain in the 16th and 17th centuries - the state swallowed up religion and reduced it to merely one more government Ministry. The process was so successful in fact that the notorious 18th century atheist David Hume once said that he was strongly in favour of an official state religion because it had "destroyed the pestilence of religious enthusiasm". Unfortunately, it seems not to have had that effect in Turkey. The reason is probably that Ataturk allowed too much religious tolerance; in Britain, all religious sects other than the official state religion of Anglicanism were repressed. Anyone who wanted to become a government official had to be a follower of the Anglican Church. In fact, anyone who even wanted a university education had to be in communion with the Church of England. University lecturers had to actually be ordained into the Anglican Church before they were allowed to teach. The official state religion was used as a loyalty test by the state authorities. Over time, this meant that those with any genuine religious feelings were reduced to impotent irrelevance, and the vast majority of adherents to the official state religion had no genuine religious beliefs; praying in church was merely a rather quaint way of swearing an oath of loyalty to the secular authorities. This process has made Britain into one of the most secular and godless nations on Earth. The same thing might have happened in Turkey of only Ataturk had not been so tolerant and if he had bound the state and the official state religion more closely together.

[Beirut]

Man, that looks awesome.

Seen any hot Druze chicks with their black and white veils recently?

No. I rarely go to the Chouf District where 90% of the Druze live (among the religious ones... btw they constitute 5% of the Lebanese population.)

My opinion is it is a direct threaten to gender parity with the logic behind.

hmmm

To which extent hijab is a must for Islam is still a question

True

No. Explain.

The Qur'an referenced the heavens and earth as originally being an integrated mass before God split them "Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them" [21:30], which has been interpreted by some as being "nothing short of a condensed version of the Big bang theory".
The Qur'an (in 51:47) also hints that the universe is expanding
“ "The heavens, We have built them with power. And verily, We are expanding it"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur'an_and_science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_ ... lamic_view

"It is not permitted to the Sun to catch up the Moon, nor can the Night outstrip the Day: Each (just) swims along in (its own) orbit (according to Law)."
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc ... ml#036.040

[Bosnjak]

What are the chances that Turkey will regress to a completely Islamic state? Would it be less stable under such circumstances?

Turkey is our closest ally.

I hope that turkey becomes a Islamo-fascist state, like demanded by the grey wulfs, and the MHP.

I love Bozcourt Turks.

[Aekos]

I hope that turkey becomes a Islamo-fascist state, like demanded by the grey wulfs, and the MHP.

Thank you for your input, Bosnjak.

[Thunderhawk]

religious people don't hate science;on the contrary!Religion and science complete each other.

The religious adopt science to fill the holes their religion creates or doesnt explain. What science does not cover, does not matter to science.

[Political Interest]

PI. Figures...
You are angry because Ataturk advocated modernity, science, reason etc. Everything religious people hate...

No, if you read the works of modern Islamic revivalists you will no doubt find them calling for a revived Islamic society with all of the modern applications. Simply because the Ottomans were reluctant to take on modernity does not say anything about the invalidity of the Caliphate as an institution.

Why can't you religion-people get it through your skulls that the headscarf is almost never worn by choice?

I saw a documentary in Turkey and several women were wearing the headscarf by choice. You cannot say it is forced upon people. If there is any problem the woman's parents, family or friends, then cans he not run to Mr. Kemal and the state?

However, we know that families who propagate this practice today have certain ideological goals... In short, as always, you and your kind are wrong.

Tell me, what is more authentically Turkish, an Islamic society which Turkey has been for centuries, or this ideological sterile atheistic state in which there is no freedom of religious expresison?

Also, if a woman has implictly accepted her subordinate role by "consenting" to wearing a headscarf, then I'm afraid that college would not have been right for her to begin with.

Men and women are equal in Islam. She does not "consent" to it in the sense that she is doing it in submission to her husband, it is "consent" in the language of political correctness in that it is suggesting there is some force behind it. No, she is not consenting, she is pushing it with full force and doing so as a free thinking independent woman! Why can you not understand that some may wish to wear it because they feel it is immodest not to?

The literacy rate in the Ottoman Empire and Turkey were roughly at 5% prior to the alphabet reform and education reforms. Moreover, the Arabic script could not accomadate certain Turkish and we can see that the Latin script has. Basically, everyone thinks it was a good idea. Everyone except... well, you know who.

That was because Kemal was so forceful with it. The Ottoman Empire was poor at that time and granted, they should have done more to increase literacy. Nevertheless, this was a mistake of the Ottoman leadership of the day and not a mistake of the Caliphate.

It was considered as a symbol of feudalism. The Turks made it popular but stopped wearing it. Why make an issue of it?

Because it was a uniquely Turkish symbol, was it not? Would Turkish nationalism not be ready to receive it? In this sense, Kemal was not really a nationalist, only an ideologue.

His words were,"...rise to the level contemporary civilization." "Civilization" at that time (and still today) meant modernizing and becoming more European. Aekos has accurately told you the alternative. You'll beg our pardon if we wanted to culturally distance ourselves from a bunch of useless colonies. Those, who, in their arrogance, refuse to follow contemporary trends, are doomed to drown in the rising tide of civilization.

Could you really say those were colonies? Furthermore, one can still maintain the old institutions and be modern at the same time.

It never is. Do not be fooled.

Is that a fact, is it?

[Aekos]

PI, plenty of people agree with you when we say that Ataturk should have failed. What we realize though is that if he had not succeeded, Greeks would have retained their territory in many now-Turkish areas and Istanbul would have returned to Christendom.