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.
"It is a dangerous thing to be a Machiavelli. It is a disastrous thing to be a Machiavelli without virtū."
- Hans J. Morgenthau