Tag: Secularism

  • Do all Turks and Iranians want secularism, and why?

    Do all Turks and Iranians want secularism, and why?

    I can’t speak about Iran, because it’s mostly very closed society, at least when you look from outside. But when I have travelled over there, that I felt, that especially the cities in Iran are actually very liberal in comparison to their state. When you go more into rural areas, you’ll meet some more conservative people.

    When we talk about Turkey, there was actually never a ‘’real discussion’’ about Secularism or Religious rule. It was over the years and decades an artificial debate between both intellectuals, liberals, and conservatives.

    The fight was always about ‘’If you rule the country or me…’’

    Over the last 50 years, the fight of the conservatives in Turkey was to become a ‘’face’’ inside of the society and reach the same privileges of the chosen white Turkish bureaucratic oligarchy. Since 2002 they became finally this face, even with loads of setbacks, but after 2013, for sure, they have also arrived at the top of the state and critical positions inside of the society.

    And anything has changed? Well, not much. They have reached the same level of ‘’arrogance’’ that the previous secular oligarchy has shown to the rest of the population. So it turned out very clearly, that the problem of Turkey was never about secularism, or becoming a face, but it was about ‘’power for me or for you’’ and more structural and moral aspects of the society.

    If I speak to most of the Turks, even though the divide is generally nowadays 50/50, around 80 % of the Turks are happy with Secularism. This includes readers of Hurriyet, Cumhuriyet, Milliyet, Sabah, Sözcü newspapers.

    The rest of the 15 % would love to see some more harsh penalties regarding horrible crimes and they think regarding this subject that if there are some more Islamic laws also incorporated into the secular system, that the crime rate would go down. You would land in that particular thought more by newspapers like Yeni Şafak etc. Similar to the conservatives in the US who debate about the death penalty etc. But that’s all about.

    And people who advocate for a change from Secularism into Shariah law has never exceeded in Turkey 3–5 % at all. Those are mostly people who read the crap like Yeni Akit newspaper.

    There is no real problem in Turkey regarding Secularism, they have other sociological and political things to solve. Secularism-Conservative divide generally has served over 50 years to distract the people from the real problems of the country. Sad, but this is the reality.

    Thanks.

    Alexei Yahontov

  • IS SECULARISM IN RETREAT?

    IS SECULARISM IN RETREAT?

    AYHAN OZER 1

    Lately, the issue whether the American government was founded on human reason or on Divine Authority has come back to the public discussion forum, and the perennial argument between the Liberals and the Traditionalists has been revived. The Liberals assert that the Framers of the Constitution deliberately omitted any mention of God in the text in order to assign supreme governmental power to “We the People”. No Deity inspired any part of the Constitution.

    The Traditionalists (or the religious rights proponents) counter this argument by saying that “In the 1780s Divine omnipotence was considered a “given”; therefore, the Framers had no need to acknowledge God in the Constitution as His dominion was self-evident in everything”. Obviously, the Framers felt that as government officials they had a constitutionally mandated obligation to devise public policies based not on religious interests, but on a secular concept of public good. Every American citizen must be free to pursue his or her moral vision in the American society.

     

    Admittedly, the European culture and civil progress of our times have grown from Christianity. The Renaissance, Humanism, Age of Discovery, Reformation,  Enlightenment…all have roots in Christian Europe. Art and science have flourished in the service of Christianity.

    However, in addition to the religious roots of Europe there is another equally important dimension in the evolution of the European culture, and it is the humanistic inheritance. It finds expression in the Roman and the Greek civilizations. Therefore, Europe’s identity is a whole, it cannot be separated or divided; it is anchored in its history and in its authentic values – secular and religious.

     

    Actually, secularism is a Christian concept. Some attribute the seeds of Secularism to Jesus Christ. In Matthew 22:21 Christ is quoted as saying, “Render unto to Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” Thus, separating the divine and the temporal. Secularist notion first emerged in the Protestant countries of northern Europe, and then it was  given legal and constitutional status in the United States. In a letter dated 1689, John Locke, the English philosopher (1632-1704) states that, “Neither pagan, nor Muhammedan, nor a Jew ought to be excluded from the Civil Rights of the Commonwealth because of his religion.”  This document, in English and Latin, clearly separates the sacred and the temporal.

     

    The goal of Secularism is not to eradicate religion from public conscience, but to prevent the state from lending its coercive power to any upholder of a specific belief. The following quotation from Professor Bernard Lewis, the eminent scholar of the Middle East, supports this notion. “Separation of church and state is designed to prevent two things. First, the use of religion by the state to reinforce and extend its authority; and second, the use of state power by the clergy to impose their doctrine and rules on others.” In European history there are reflections from this wisdom. In mid- seventeen century it dawned on Christians thinkers that long and bitter struggles and wars of religion with other faiths as well as the sectarian wars with fellow Christians of other churches were caused by religious intolerance. It dawned on the Christian world that only with the separation of the ecclesiastical affairs and the mundane the adherents of rival churches or different faiths could live side-by-side in peace. In fact, in 1648 the European countries signed the Treaty of Westphalia that brought an end to such wars.

     

    Secularism is an alien concept outside the Judeo-Christian belief. For instance, Islam abhors Secularism. Prophet Muhammad was a soldier and statesman in addition to his mission as a prophet. He combined the state and the religion in his person. Islam is concerned with the “whole”  life. The state is God’s state, the law is God’s law, the Army is God’s army, and the enemy is God’s enemy. As there are no two entities to be separated, religious and political authorities are one and the same; therefore, the word and the concept of Secularism are meaningless to Muslims. Not only that, the following pairs of terms expressing Christian dichotomy are alien to Islam: Lay and Ecclesiastical, Spiritual and Temporal, Secular and Sacred.

     

    In that connection an anecdote from the Turkish history is meaningful. In 1923, when Ataturk founded the new Turkish Republic out of the ashes of the Ottoman Empire he held a press conference with several foreign and local journalists and newspapermen. A French journalist asked Ataturk:

    “What is the religion of your new state?” It was a “loaded” question to trick Ataturk into admitting in public that the new state was a theocratic state. But Ataturk was too sophisticated to fall for such a ploy; besides, he was an ultimate secularist. He used the occasion to proclaim to the world that the new state was a secular Republic. He responded:

    “State is not a person, it is a legal entity; so it can not have a religion. People who make up the state do have religion. We are a laic Republic (He used the French term for “secular”). Within our State there are various communities from different faiths, all with the same equal, civil and human rights accorded by the state. So, talking of a state religion does not make any sense; besides, favoring or promoting a certain religion would sow the seeds of alienation among our citizens, which is detrimental to our unity and cohesion. Religion is a private matter, strictly personal. Whereas our state is a communal and societal body. ”  

     

    Islam is still far behind this enlightenment. It desperately needs a Martin Luther, a courageous voice to give Islam an impetus. Until the Muslim nations achieve an Islamic Protestantism that rejuvenates Islam, and rescue it from the clutches of ignorant mullahs, Islam will keep its antiquated status in the foreseeable future.

    By: Ayhan Ozer

  • Secularization is best thing that ever happened to religion

    Secularization is best thing that ever happened to religion

    by Douglas Todd

    large

    Douglas Todd argues that, properly understood, secularism is the best thing that has happened for modern religion and religious believers, and that secular societies can be breeding grounds for religious pluralism.

    Secularization is the best thing that’s ever happened to religion. That might seem like a shocking statement for both religious and secular people. But its implications become clear when we unpack new understandings of secularization. Canada is often called one of the world’s more “secular” countries. Observers like me use the term because Canada, especially B.C., has among the highest proportion of residents who say they have “no religion,” i.e., don’t attend a church, synagogue, mosque or temple.

    But it’s time to get beyond a narrow understanding of secularization. We need not restrict it to the separation of “church and state” and to describing how an increasing number of people are rejecting formal religion.

    A growing collection of philosophers and theologians, including Canada’s Charles Taylor, author of A Secular Age, maintain we have to move beyond understanding secularization merely as a process of “subtraction,” “loss” and “disenchantment.”

    I support such thinkers’ efforts to re-define secularization – as a social development by which religion loses its state-sanctioned authority and moral absolutism (as the Catholic Church once functioned in Europe and Quebec). Secularization is creating societies in which religion is treated as one option among many.

    The word “secular” now has as many different meanings as “love” and “spirituality.” Because there is a great deal of confusion about it, Britain’s Guardian newspaper ran a five-part series on secularism in June.

    At prestigious Pitzer College in Claremont, Calif., Professor Phil Zuckerman is starting this fall to offer a bachelor’s degree in secularism. In Cambridge, Mass., Trinity College has a vibrant Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society.

    These media and scholarly outlets are going far beyond the one-dimensional cheerleading for secularism led by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, who believe society advances only when religion is eradicated.

    In contrast, I strongly endorse the emerging argument that secularization leaves open a great deal of room for new forms of religion and spirituality. Whether in Canada, India or Brazil, secular societies can be fertile places for spiritual expression in a pluralistic context.

    One of the most welcome and quoted new books on the subject is Taylor’s A Secular Age, an 896-page opus that argues that secularization has been largely positive – as long as it leaves open a “window on the transcendent.”

    The spiritual and religious impulse in humans will never die, says Taylor. Even if religion doesn’t dominate a society, as it once unfortunately did in Europe and elsewhere, people will always seek the transcendent; something ultimate, larger than themselves.

    The great sociologist of religion, Robert Bellah, author of Habits of the Heart, says what is needed most now is new forms of religion that work in a secular age, where they are subject to analysis and don’t rely on political endorsement.

    We are seeing this today. Many open-minded forms of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and of smaller spiritual movements, including meditation, yoga and healing, are maintaining a sense of the transcendent in some secular, pluralistic societies.

    We can partly thank the Enlightenment for the rise of secularism, with the era’s emphasis on freethinking, rationality and science. But many thinkers, including 19th century sociologist Max Weber, also credit the advance of secularism to Protestantism.

    The Protestant Reformation rejected the absolute authority claimed by the Roman Catholic church of the time. It brought a new wave of reform, choice and intellectual questioning to Christianity. By the 19th century, Protestants were critically analysing the Bible and trying to discern the difference between the “historical Jesus” and the Christ of unquestioned mythology.

    This so-called “critical method” wasn’t an attack on the faith, as some traditionalistic Christians continue to argue today. But it was what many consider a valid attempt to challenge the taboos that surrounded Christian orthodoxy.

    In his new book, Spiritual Bankruptcy (Abingdon Press), philosopher John Cobb Jr. maps out some of the pros and cons of secularism.

    Cobb believes the religions and philosophies that took root in the so-called Axial Age, about 500 years before Jesus of Nazareth, began as “secularizing” movements. Early Judaism, Buddhism and Greek philosophy challenged the religious authorities of their day, condemning hypocrisy and superstition.

    The fiery Hebrew prophets, who denounced injustice and royal arrogance at every turn, were profound secularizers, according to the refreshing definition provided by Cobb, director of the Centre for Process Studies in Claremont, Calif.

    Secularization does away with taboos, Cobb says. “It does not give any privileged authority to tradition.”

    However, reforming movements often develop followers. And they can frequently turn a positive secularizing trend into a static religion or ideology, which tries to create divisions between “us” and “them.”

    The early Jesus movement was highly critical of Jewish leaders’ strict adherence to religious laws. Later, however, Cobb says, much of the Jesus movement turned into what he calls “Christianism.”

    Some forms of Christianity became theologically and morally authoritarian. Such static religions often expect a place of privilege in society, says Cobb – as Christianity did in Europe and Latin America and Islam has in some Middle Eastern countries.

    Dawkins et al. are not wrong to attack such dogmatic, power-hungry religious sects in the name of secularism. Many people justifiably rebel against hard-line forms of religions.

    But it is not religion itself that is the problem. It is any ideology that becomes too doctrinaire; that has too rigid a definition of what is acceptable behaviour.

    If we are called upon to resist dogmatic religion, we also need to oppose Nazism, fascism, state communism and other ideologies.

    Indeed, Cobb believes that for many in the West the dominant ideology is the unrestrained accumulation of wealth.

    That, he believes, is the current unquestioned, almighty “God.”

    Cobb says contemporary economic theory needs to be “secularized.” It needs as much criticism as do the over-bearing religions of the past and present.

    Like the 19th-century philosopher-psychologist William James and Charles Taylor, Cobb is trying to wed philosophy, theology, science and ethics to create healthy spiritualities within sustainable secular communities.

    Canadians, especially residents of highly secularized British Columbia (where more people than anywhere else say they are not traditionally “religious”), should be at the forefront of this campaign. (For related reading, see the book I edited, Cascadia: The Elusive Utopia.) As an active member of the United Methodist Church, Cobb believes “secularizing Christians” should use their minds and imaginations to challenge all religious and non-religious ideologies.

    Indeed, Cobb may stun many when he makes the theological statement: “God is always secularizing.”

    Says Cobb: “God doesn’t call us to ‘religionize.’ God calls us to ‘secularize;’ to take seriously the past, without being slaves to it. God calls us to bring out of each moment the value that can be achieved; in the name of truth, justice and beauty.”

    Douglas Todd is a decorated spirituality and ethics writer in North America with more than 35 journalistic and educational honours. His Vancouver Sun blog – where this piece first appeared – explores religion, politics, immigration, diversity, sex and ethics. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the NSS.

  • Is Turkey’s Secular Model Broken?

    Is Turkey’s Secular Model Broken?

    With the government lifting the ban on the Islamic veil in public administrative buildings, restricting the sale of alcohol and taking control of the army, the Turkish secular opposition is worried. Are the Islamists trying to change a society founded on the separation of prayer and power? We investigate a country torn between Islam and secularism.

    Under the leadership of the AKP — the party for Justice and Development — Turkey has grown into a regional powerhouse. When the Islamist and conservative party came to power 11 years ago, the country was just recovering from a serious financial crisis. Since then, it has enjoyed renewed growth and begun the negotiation process to join the EU.

    But talks with the EU are now bogged down, and the Islamist policies of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan are raising concern, in a state born from the nationalist and secular vision of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk.

    On September 30, the prime minister unveiled a series of reforms, including the right of some civil servants to wear the Islamic headscarf, in a clear tip of the hat to the country’s most conservative fringe. Veiled university students have welcomed the reform.

    Another landmark was a law voted last spring to restrict the sale of alcohol. Prime Minister Erdogan said the law would create a “pious generation” rather than one of “drug addicts”. The secular opposition reacted strongly, denouncing a “creeping Islamisation” of Turkey. The same anger at the government’s policies, perceived as authoritarian and Islamist, was expressed in the mass social protests of last June.

    But the government cracked down hard on the protesters, sending a clear warning ahead of next March’s elections.

    via Is Turkey’s Secular Model Broken?.

  • Turkey Cracks Down on Cleavage

    Turkey Cracks Down on Cleavage

    Turkey Cracks Down on Cleavage

    By Marc Champion Oct 9, 2013 5:29 PM GMT+0200

    i3HR5V4MGB38

    How do you know whether a regime that frees women to wear Islamic headscarves at work is liberal and furthering democracy, or Islamist and restricting it?

    The question concerns Turkey’s government, which in the space of a few days has ended a headscarf ban for civil servants (except in the judiciary and security services), but also caused a female TV music-show presenter to be fired for showing too much cleavage.

    The headscarf ban was a piece of unabashed social engineering introduced in the 1920s to make Turkey, the rump of the former Ottoman Empire and Islamic Caliphate, secular. If you are liberal and not Islamophobic, ending the ban is a good thing: Women should not be excluded from the workplace just because they are devout and believe this requires covering their hair, period.

    But what if the change — which Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan introduced as part of a broad “democratization” package — is part of a wider plan of social re-engineering, this time designed to impinge on the liberties of non-religious conservatives? If so, the numerous cases in which women were discriminated against, fired or passed over for promotion for wearing a headscarf even outside of work would now be repeated in reverse: Women who don’t wear headscarves to work, and men whose wives don’t cover their hair, will be discriminated against, fired and passed over for promotion.

    Turkey’s secularists say this is already happening to men whose wives show their locks. That’s hard to prove, but the real issue is trust — secularists believe the worst of Erdogan’s intentions. Are they right?

    The firing of a TV presenter, Gozde Kansu, this week is indicative. Huseyin Celik, spokesman for the ruling Justice and Development Party attacked Kansu (without actually naming her) for wearing a dress with a plunging neckline while on the air. A few days later, she was fired. There are a few points to make.

    First, Celik should watch more Italian TV — he would then understand that Kansu is a model of shy decorum. Second, Celik’s words were as follows: “We don’t intervene against anyone, but this is too much. It is unacceptable,” according to Hurriyet Daily News. He later complained that it wasn’t his fault that she was fired, and he had a right to express his opinions.

    None of this is credible. Celik knows what “unacceptable” means; he knew that Kansu was on ATV television, which belongs to a company called Calik Holding; and he knew that Calik’s chief executive officer is Erdogan’s son-in-law, Berat Albayrak. There is no coincidence or unintended consequence here. Celik wants to re-engineer Turkish TV.

    There are plenty of other pointers about the depth of the government’s commitment to “democratization,” such as the repeated tightening of restrictions on the sale of alcohol, frowned upon by devout Muslims; the routine prosecuting and jailing of journalists; and the crushing of dissent in the Gezi Park protests earlier this year.

    One last piece of evidence: A Turkish appeals court today upheld the convictions 237 Turkish military officers convicted of plotting a coup against the government in 2003. The case, called Sledgehammer, has been thoroughly discredited. Forensic examination showed that the evidence on which the conviction rested was forged: The documents involved were on a CD-ROM date-stamped 2003, yet were written using a 2007 Microsoft program.

    Again, a case first hailed abroad as good for democracy — an effort to hold the country’s generals accountable after decades of impunity — turns out to be something else. The Sledgehammer case shows only continuity in Turkish governments’ use of politicized courts against their enemies: In the old days the military and secularists abused the law to suppress Islamists; now the Islamists are returning the favor.

    (Marc Champion is a Bloomberg View editorial board member. Follow him on Twitter.)

    via Turkey Cracks Down on Cleavage – Bloomberg.

  • Quebec Government walking in footsteps of Turkey’s Ataturk

    Quebec Government walking in footsteps of Turkey’s Ataturk

    ZAMANLAMAYA BAKIN!

    Kanada’da Quebec hükümeti Atatürk’ün izinde kamusal alanda dini sembolleri ve kıyafetleri yasaklıyor.

     

    8a01d96140d32bae4adefb2d46f25142

    Following announcement by a Quebec cabinet minister that religious symbols have no place in the public service Bloc Quebecois kicked out an MP yesterday out of its caucus for publicly criticising the Quebec Values Charter. Quebec’s Parti Quebecois government has been under attack by politicians of all colours for what brought a Muslim nation out of the Medieval Age in 1923: Turkey’s Ataturk Reformation and its dress code. Do religious symbols have a rightful place in the official places of a modern secular society?

    Although the proposed Quebec Values Charter is a legislation tabled by the minority provincial government of Parti Quebecois, the federal Bloc Quebecois punished Montreal Member of Parliament Maria Mourani for her public criticism. Mourani, a Lebanese immigrant, said the legislation represents ethnic nationalism that will damage the separatist cause in Quebec.

    The legislation will be an official declaration of secularism along the lines of the Ataturk Reformation in Turkey separating state and religion. It will set Quebec apart from the other provinces and the rest of Canada where the boundaries of state and religion have been blurred since the inception of the Canadian confederation. Quebec already has its own charter of rights and a set of legislated civil statutes in contrast to other provinces’ English Common Law. If it becomes law the new charter will prohibit public sector employees from wearing religious garb and conspicuous religious symbols on the job. It will also require those giving or receiving public services to uncover their faces.

    It was in 1923 that Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, one of the greatest visionaries of all time, proclaimed the secular Turkish Republic out of the ashes of the Ottoman Empire, a defunct theocracy that was dubbed the Sick Man of Europe for hundreds of years. Realising that mixing religion and affairs of state was mostly responsible for the nation’s failure to catch up with the 20th century Ataturk went one step further. He passed a dress code and a “hat law” that prohibited the wearing of traditional garb and headdress like turbans and fezzes. Chadors and burqas were prohibited as demeaning of women. Headscarves could not be worn in government offices, universities or public schools.

    The dress code and hat law contributed in no small measure to women’s equality before the law and in social life, and Turkey’s recognition as a modern progressive country. Turkish women were franchised ahead of many of their European counterparts. Until the recent emergence of the reactionary forces and exploitation of religion by politicians Turkey was regarded as a country worthy of membership in the fledgling European community of nations. Ataturk often said that his nation would be guided by reason and science, not voices and dictates from the occult. There was no question, however, that the predominantly Muslim population of Turkey had no impediment to practising their religion freely as long as they did not bring their beliefs out on the street and respected the laws of the land that separated the State from the Mosque.

    There is, of course, a big difference between Quebec and Turkey. For one thing, neither Quebec nor the rest of Canada are threatened by religion or religious symbols. While many secular Muslim countries like Turkey are at risk of sliding back into the Medieval Age under Islamist governments, it’s not likely that Canada will bring back any time soon the Spanish Inquisition or the burning of witches at stake. To non-believers or the differently persuaded Canadians religious symbols and attire are either a non-issue, a comical spectacle, or a nuisance at worst. This is why most Canadians, politicians, and even judges, can be persuaded by arguments of freedom of religion to overlook the dangers to fundamental human rights lurking behind religious symbolism.

    This is not a question of freedom of religion or expression, which have been daftly exploited by politicians in Muslim countries like Turkey and Egypt. The real issue is the separation of state and religion and the supremacy of the laws of the secular state. As a country of immigrants Canada must be mindful of the fact that some religious beliefs and practices, such as the treatment of women, are incompatible with the country’s fundamental values. It’s a fact that some immigrants with antagonistic cultural values and little tolerance of their own to differing beliefs are taking advantage of this country’s tolerance to justify their transgressions with freedom of religion. When there is a conflict between religious practices and this country’s fundamental values such as, and especially, women’s rights, there must be no question that all citizens must comply with the laws of the land and not vice versa. Compliance has to start with the government.

    Quebec’s proposed Charter of Values to ban religious symbols and attire from public service is a step in the right direction. It’s a bold and honest move by Premier Pauline Marois that should be commended.

    via Quebec Government walking in footsteps of Turkey’s Ataturk – Vancouver Government | Examiner.com.