Tag: Secularism

  • Secularists wage battle for survival against Turkey’s ‘Caliph Erdogan’:.

    Secularists wage battle for survival against Turkey’s ‘Caliph Erdogan’:.

    Turkish police fires tear gas, water cannons at around 10,000 demonstrators protesting trial of hundreds accused of plotting to topple government.

    _57993_A2

    Middle East Online

    Revolt against ‘Islamisation’ of Turkey

    SILIVRI (Turkey) – Turkish police on Monday fired tear gas and water cannons at around 10,000 demonstrators protesting a mass trial of hundreds accused of plotting to topple the government, leading to three injuries and a lengthy delay in the hearing.

    A photographer saw protesters trying to breach a security barricade by hurling stones at the police outside the prison complex in Silivri, a suburb on the outskirts of Istanbul.

    One demonstrator suffered a non-fatal heart attack and two journalists were injured, CNNTurk channel reported, as police tried to disperse the protesters who waved Turkish flags and chanted “justice for all”.

    The police resorted to water cannons and tear gas, which spread to the courtroom in wind and led to a more than two-hour delay in the hearing of 275 defendants scheduled for Monday.

    The protest was called by opposition groups and political parties as an Istanbul court prepared to hear the closing arguments in a four-year trial of defendants who stand accused of having ties to an ultranationalist “terrorist network” known as Ergenekon.

    Hearings are frequently delayed due to similar scuffles breaking out in front of the high-security compound, as well as quarrels inside the volatile courtroom.

    The hearing has been postponed to Thursday.

    A vast array of top military figures, lawyers, academics and journalists are accused of instigating an uprising against the Islamic-rooted Justice and Development Party (AKP) government, in power since 2002.

    If convicted, they face sentences ranging from seven-and-a-half years in prison to life.

    Prosecutors last month sought life jail terms for the 64 top suspects, who include former army chief Ilker Basbug and nine other active and former generals, accused of “attempting to overthrow the Turkish government by force”.

    A final verdict is not expected before a few weeks.

    The trial is one of several cases brought by the AKP against the once omnipotent army which has been responsible for four coups in half a century.

    In a separate case last year, dubbed the “Sledgehammer” trial after a military exercise, Turkey jailed three former generals for 20 years each and handed prison terms to dozens of officers.

    via .:Middle East Online::Secularists wage battle for survival against Turkey’s ‘Caliph Erdogan’:..

  • Sex Is Not a Secular State: Love and Politics in Turkey

    Sex Is Not a Secular State: Love and Politics in Turkey

    By Roger Friedland, in collaboration with his seminar students

    One’s sex is never just one’s own. Our sex participates in creation, God’s inestimable gift. Wherever religion seeks to shape social life, sex is always a space of acute concern, a battlefield.

    Turkey, like many countries where Islam and blue jeans are both ascendant, is in the midst of a war over its citizens’ sex. The stakes are much more than the conditions of access to pleasure. Manhood, modesty and divinity are all at stake. The struggle, fought most fiercely over the bodies of women, will condition the future of democracy and the way in which popular sovereignty and the revealed law of Allah share the public sphere.

    2012-11-12-IMG2012102900040hp.jpg

    When Kemal Ataturk founded Turkey’s republic in 1923 he sought to expel Islam from the public sphere and promote the liberation of women — their enfranchisement, their schooling and their modern dress. Women were urged to shed their headscarves, men forced to take off their fezes. In the 1980s, in the wake of the Iranian revolution and the rise of Islamism within Turkey, the military came down even harder, refusing admission to schools and universities to any girl who dared cover her head. A woman couldn’t wear a headscarf in parliament, nor for her passport photo. Young women who came to school with them were sometimes taken into closed rooms for reprogramming. Turkey was modern; modesty was not. A headscarf was considered a Trojan horse for Islamism.

    And it was. Popular resentment at the state’s heavy-handed regulation of female head covering helped elect Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s conservative Islamic party in 2002. Thousands of religious women of the AKP’s women’s branches went house to house to bring out the vote for the party that promised to respect their piety and their commitment to religious modesty.

    The Justice and Development Party, or AK Party, as it is called by its supporters, has now been in power for a decade. The AKP has done, or tried to do, a whole series of things aimed at reducing the opportunities for sin. It has, of course, promoted the use of headscarves for women, enabling them to signal their modesty, both to young men who would approach them, and to other women as the proper way to be in the world. In 2008, the government lifted the university student headscarf ban. (Women professors, on the other hand, still cannot teach with their heads covered.)

    That was the least of it. The new government sought to re-criminalize adultery — eliminated as a crime only in 1996 — in order to prevent extra-marital affairs. Some in the party even argued that they re-legalize polygamy to achieve the same end. It reduced the age at which school begins to 5 years old so that when young girls reach puberty they can be sent off to a rapidly growing sector of religious middle schools and avoid daily contact with hormonally charged young boys. It has undercut maternity leaves and employer-provided daycare both to further the promotion of motherhood as the highest feminine ideal and to keep young married women from working in mixed-sex offices and factories. It has encouraged Turkish mothers to aim to have at least three children. It has argued for the abolition of abortion as “murder,” both to promote population growth as a source of national strength and to eliminate the ultimate birth control device for young women who have gone too far. All pregnancies must now be registered with the state. It has shut down health clinics providing contraceptives and family planning information to women. And it has closed down homosexual clubs in major cities like Istanbul.

    We can feel the heat of these intimate politics on the streets. I have come here with my NYU Abu Dhabi students as part of a research practicum as we speak with ordinary Turks in their offices and on the streets.

    Pious women who now wear their chic, colorful headscarves to school and work, indicating that they are religious and modern, are pleased, they tell us, they can finally be themselves in public life. We meet young scarfed women on the street who tell us how they had to leave high school or could not go to university because they wouldn’t uncover their heads.

    While liberal secular feminists have supported religious women’s right to cover their hair, that does not mean they are not ambivalent about it. Barcin Yinanc’s grandmother always wears a headscarf, she explains to us, “not because she believes in political Islam … but because that was the way she was brought up. … Asking my grandmother to take off her headscarf would be equal for you guys to ask me to talk to you naked.”

    2012-11-12-IMG_6939huff.jpg

    Barcin Yinanc and NYUAD Students at Hurriyet

    The vibrant opinion editor at Hurriyet, the Turkish equivalent of the New York Times, still respects her grandmother and her right to cover. But, she continues, “the fact that she was raised like that doesn’t mean that we should go on repeating the same mistake.” Forcing Muslim women to wear a headscarf, she insists, demeans women, reducing them to sexual objects, people whose hair has to be covered to avoid evoking erotic desire in men, desires, it is presumed, they will not be able to control. “If a man sees a piece of hair, he’s going to think sex.” The rise of the headscarf among young women, she complains, is also dividing the country into a covered kind of woman who is assumed to be moral, and the other uncovered kind who is presumed to be available.

    “I don’t even care if it’s written in the Quran. … It is not something that is sacred and it should not change. I’m sorry. Everything changes in life, you know, and to me religion can change as well.”

    Turkey is a patriarchy, where the differences between men and women are believed to be both etched into their physiology and given by God. Turkey has one of the lowest levels of woman’s empowerment in the world, ranking just above Yemen and Bangladesh. It has the lowest rate of paid female labor force participation in the developed world, hovering under 20 percent. Yet in 2011 Prime Minister Erdogan scrapped the Ministry for Women and Family, dedicated to women’s rights, and made it into the Ministry of Family and Social Policies, at a time when domestic violence against women was soaring.

    Ayse Yuksel, who heads the Gender Forum at Sabanci University, crisscrosses Turkey talking to secondary school teachers. She despairs at the women teachers who claim that girls cannot become doctors because they will faint at the sight of blood, and the official world literature textbook that cites 440 male authors but just nine women. She wants girls to be encouraged to aspire to continue learning, to get jobs other than as school teachers and nurses.

    Her mission is to teach the teachers about gender, that women are not just natural mothers, but should be able to work at any job. The teachers have never even heard the word, which translates as “social sexuality” in Turkish. “Should men give birth?” one participating teacher asked her. They do not accept that women can do men’s work. Gender, some retort, is a Western importation, “totally foreign.” Her efforts are “against “God’s will.” “We are,” some accuse, “trying to create another sex.”

    In Turkey a young woman’s honor is still located between her legs. Forced virginity tests were banned a little more than a decade ago. A school girl or a woman coming home late from work could be taken into custody and forced to comply. Refusal would anyway signal immorality. A Turkish man’s honor is still located in the untouchability, and inviolability, of his women, both his daughters and his wife (or wives in some cases). Still today honor killings are not infrequent. In the rural eastern part of the country, a young woman can be killed or expelled from her family just for hanging around and flirting with an unrelated boy. Families force their daughters who have had sex with somebody to marry them. Fathers sometimes pressure their sons to shoot a sister who has gone too far. For the son to refuse would be considered unmanly. Wives expect to be beaten, if not killed, for an extra-marital affair.

    My students fan out on the street with their Turkish peers to talk to people about gender and sexual morality. I have been told that Turks are tight-lipped about such matters. Sex is taboo; this is a country that does not provide any public sexual education for its young citizens. I have told my students to be particularly careful when talking to young women: Do not offend their modesty. Do not, I instruct them, ask any questions about people’s intimate lives. They are to deal in hypotheticals, in generalization, about what people, particularly people like you, think about marriage and morality. They are to be ready for strangers to walk away. It does not work out the way I expect: Almost everybody — both the secular and the pious — wants to talk, to give their opinions, even to tell about their own love lives.

    On Istanbul’s streets, many of the young men and women with whom we speak have boy and girlfriends. They hold hands, but they don’t kiss in public. “”Kurdish people don’t kiss each other, there’s no such thing,” declares a head-scarfed girl from one of Turkey’s minority communities, arm in arm with a boy. It would mark them and likely offend the sensibilities of passersby. The young people don’t tell their parents about their relationships, and certainly not the kinds of things they do together when nobody can see. The girls don’t tell their friends either. It is too dangerous: The honor that inheres in virginity still weighs heavily on their personal lives. Only a quarter of all Turkish young people think there is nothing wrong for an unmarried woman to have sexual intercourse with somebody with whom she is in love. One such woman spoke to my students. It is not important for her if a woman is a virgin when she marries, she declares in front of her very affectionate boyfriend. “But it is important to him,” she says, pointing at her suddenly blushing boyfriend. Among the more liberal Istanbulite young people, a gender gap consistently emerges: Many young men who are having sex still want the women they marry to be virgins.

    A persistent love story emerges from Istanbul’s streets. My students catch up with a religious couple walking with their two children. We follow traditional Islamic values, they say. They do not, however, intend to arrange their children’s marriages. They want them to fall in love, just like they are. “Nothing is more important than love,” one says. Another young, religious university-educated man in his 20s gushes that love is “the greatest thing in the world.” He knows when he is in love when his “heartbeat gets faster.”

    The young people in the cities no longer want their marriages to be arranged. Arranged marriages are essential where unrelated men and women cannot meet, let alone flirt. Religion may divide the city; but love unites it. Young people from the secular and the religious sectors of the city all speak to us of the importance of love as a basis for choosing their mates. They will choose, they say. Their parents will go along. An older man, who migrated to Istanbul from the east some 15 years ago, tells us that his marriage had been arranged. But his children, he says, “should choose their own partners. If they like me, that’s better, but if they don’t, it doesn’t matter.”

    Religious men are the most romantically expressive. That religious Turks are seeking love as the basis of marriage is consistent with our seminar’s findings. Analyzing our survey data we found those Turks who were looking to find a pious mate were precisely those most likely to make love important in their mate choices.

    2012-11-12-sargut2_2huf.jpg

    Celmanur Sargut (right) and her translator

    When I tell Celmanur Sargut, the celebrated Sufi teacher and thinker, about this, she is not surprised. Turkish Islam is saturated with Sufi influence. Sufism celebrates love, both between humans and God, and between man and wife. Loving another is a step toward loving God. It is through God’s love, what they call ask, a passionate love, that one finds oneself in nothingness and comes to see only love in the other. But real love is not found by looking into the eyes of the beloved. “To walk towards Allah, hand in hand,” she explains, “can be called real love.” But even so sexual relations between husband and wife are saturated with spiritual possibility. Ibn Arabi, she explains to us, declared that a sexual relation — a true one — is a “small sample” of the relation of love between a human being and Allah. It is for this reason, she goes on, that a pious Muslim carries out ablutions after sex. It is not just a purification; it enables one to return to the profane, physical world. In passionate love, one has touched the divine realm.

    Romantic love remakes the world. In the history of the West, when love as the basis of marriage emerged in the late 18th and 19th centuries, it empowered women, rendering wife-beating an unthinkable brutality. Love requires freedom, an ability to choose, for the woman as well as the man. It is no accident that romantic love became a basis of marriage in the West in the aftermath of the rise of wage labor which enabled women to earn outside their parents’ control, with the Enlightenment which located the foundation of property in one’s control over one’s body, and against the backdrop of democratic revolutions that made the choice of one’s sovereign an elemental human right. Husbands, like sovereigns, should rule by consent. Love is an unsung, unnoticed part of the liberal heritage, an existential ground for the ethics of choosing.

    Private lives have political consequences. The intimate revolution with most political consequence is not sexual, but romantic. Perhaps Turkey’s future — both the rights of women and the democratic accommodation of Islam — hinges not on the freedom of flesh but on the common beating of hearts.

    2012 11 12 523491 428983120484608 4148050huff60 n 2

    Members of the NYU Abu Dhabi 2012 Research Practicum Seminar: Anishka Arseculeratne, Nino Cricco, Chris Fanikos, Diana Gluck, Caroline Gobena, Joi Lee, Cambria Naslund, Meike Radler, Julia Saubier, James Smoley, Magda Socha, Ramina Sotoudeh, Mastewal Terefe Taddese, Ankhi Thakurta (staff) and Megan Vincent.

    Photography by Roger Friedland, Diana Gluck and Julia Saubier.

  • Is Turkey’s secular system in danger?

    Is Turkey’s secular system in danger?

    63644698 flag mosque afp

    Those who founded the Republic in 1923 might well be turning in their graves: their vision of Turkey as a strictly secularist and nationalist state – not just a separation of state and religion, but also the removal of religion from all aspects of public life – is being questioned.

    In the lead-up to the 89th anniversary of the Turkish Republic on 29 October, political values have never been more openly debated, thanks to a public consultation process, initiated by Turkey’s parliament, for a new constitution.

    Generally, society has welcomed the initiative, viewing it as a new political framework, to replace the one that was put in place after the 1980 military coup.

    But the process has opened old wounds, with heated debate on the role of religion in politics and the increasingly conservative nature of public life.

    Secularism is hard to define in Turkey, according to Fadi Hakura of London-based think tank Chatham House. Turkey is constitutionally a secular state, but secularism seems to have taken a unique shape, because of “historical and geographical circumstances in the country”.

    For example, while there are clear examples of the symbolic application of secularism in daily life, such as the ban on headscarves in public institutions, there are other aspects of the Turkish state that do not sit with secularism.

    Vocal debate

    Some critics have pointed to the Directorate of Religious Affairs, and question its existence in a supposedly secular state. The directorate is staffed by public officials and funded from state coffers; but it only offers services to Sunni Muslims – the majority of Turks.

    Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in parliament in October 2012 Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been accused of subtly promoting religious conservatism

    Minorities such as Christians and Jews, non-Orthodox Alevi Muslims and non-believers do not receive any services from the directorate.

    The public consultation process kicked off discussions on whether Turkey’s current form of secularism should be reformed or redefined. This debate is highly significant since it will decide the level at which religion will be able to influence public and political life in the country.

    On this matter, many non-governmental organisations have been vocal.

    The Turkish Industry and Business Association (Tusiad), a leading NGO, has suggested “secularism in Turkey is different from its version in the West because the state has not distanced itself equally from all religions, beliefs and non-belief.

    “The current status of the Directorate of Religious Affairs is against both secularism and the freedom of religion and conscience.”

    Redefining secularism

    Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has never shied away from controversy. He and his Islamist-rooted Justice and Development Party (AKP), in power for a decade, have tried to reinterpret secularism.

    For example, Mr Erdogan and his party refused to continue the strict ban on religion from all public domains and its limitation to private life.

    Kemal Ataturk, Turkey’s first president, in 1930 Kemal Ataturk was the architect of Turkey’s secular republic

    Moreover, the prime minister has said again and again that “only states can be secular, not individuals”.

    And earlier this year, Mr Erdogan caused a stir when he said he would like to see a “pious generation”. Furthermore, parliament approved a law which allows religious schools, known as imam hatips, to take on students as young as 11.

    The prime minister promoted this new interpretation during his first visit to Egypt in September 2011. He described himself as a Muslim prime minister of a secular state. This new approach was branded by Turkish columnists as a revision of “laicism”, a Turkish term for separation of state from religion.

    Such moves have sparked criticism of Mr Erdogan. He has been accused of having an Islamist agenda and promoting religious conservatism by stealth.

    The future shape of secularism in Turkey depends on changes that may yet be introduced to the political system.

    ‘Too much power’

    It is widely believed that the prime minister favours a presidential system with boosted constitutional powers.

    It is thought he may seek an amendment to the constitution and introduce a presidential system. His opponents fear that the change from the current parliamentary system would grant too much power to a man they already accuse of authoritarianism.

    Erdogan Toprak, deputy chairman of the opposition Republican People’s Party, has said the prime minister “would like to bring the sultan back” – a reference to the old days of the Ottoman Empire before Turkey become a republic.

    “The AKP aims to take society back and turn it into an ummah [Islamic community]. It wants to reverse the concept of the individual, created by the republic, and turn citizens into subjects,” he says.

    But Mr Erdogan believes the country’s Islamic beliefs should not be hidden. In an address last month, he said Turkey’s balance of democratic values and religious beliefs should be an inspiration to others.

    “In a country where the majority is Muslim, we let democracy rule in its most advanced form and became an example for all Muslim countries,” he said.

    BBC Monitoring reports and analyses news from TV, radio, web and print media around the world. For more reports from BBC Monitoring, click here

    via BBC News – Is Turkey’s secular system in danger?.

  • Blaming It All On Muslims

    Blaming It All On Muslims

    Turkish Secularists

    Blaming It All On Muslims

    by ANDRE VLTCHEK

    In many aspects, Turkey is much like Indonesia – on paper the country’s economic growth is truly impressive, but talk to the people, and they will tell you that the place is collapsing, becoming unlivable in, overpriced, and that daily life is now extremely brutal. In both countries, a big portion of the wealth disappears into the deep pockets of the super-rich ruling elites: to obnoxiously glitzy yacht docks and marinas dotted around Istanbul, and in the glitzy shopping malls of Jakarta.

    There is suppressed anger and frustration on the streets of Istanbul. My good friend, a writer, had recently been injured in a public bus, as two buses raced through the narrow streets, with a total disregard for the passengers onboard. Last night I witnessed how a veiled woman was almost crushed by the doors of the metrobus; she begged and screamed to be released, whilst the driver obviously seemed to be enjoying her agony, and all in full view of the passengers. There were several people near the doors, but no one came to her rescue.

    People don’t shout here, but they elbow each other, walk through each other, and often show absolute spite for their fellow citizens. There is generally a ‘bad mood’ everywhere at street level; there is an apparent diminishment of kindness, as well as something that could only be defined as, chronic fatigue.

    Come as a tourist, to see the great ancient mosques and palaces, museums and traditional baths, and you will fall in love with the city in one instant. Live here for a while, and the chances are, that you will soon be exhausted and defeated.

    ***

    Istanbul is a ferociously divided city. There is a clear distinction, between those who think that the greatest human right, is to be able to booze up in the open, at the tables placed right on the sidewalk, and between those who choose faith over worldly pleasures.

    To be precise: the city is divided between those secular (and historically, although not of recent, governing) upper and middle classes, and their hated adversaries: the practicing Muslims of Turkey, the majority of the nation.

    “Woman who wear headscarves have no brains”, a renowned Turkish author shouts at me, a woman, and needless to say, ‘a secular’ one. We are on the shores of the Bosporus, in a public place, at a café. People are looking at us and I feel embarrassed. There was no chance of even beginning to argue with her. She was having one of those Istanbul fits – a familiar outburst of: “I have no sympathy, no use for the Muslim religion. Have you ever read their Book?”

    I did. And just a few days ago, I had the great pleasure of discussing the Book with the great British Muslim scholar, Ziauddin Sardan in London. I am better off keeping the fact to myself, for fear of being quartered, and my body parts thrown into the darkness of the legendary waterway dividing Europe, and Asia.

    She is not the only person I know in Istanbul who has those moments. In ‘the City of Dreams’, to show spite for Islam and for practicing Muslims, is clearly some commonly used secret ‘password’ to the universe of what is acceptable here as brainy and hip.1

    As she speaks, a Ferrari is racing along the narrow road connecting two posh neighborhoods on the shores of the Bosporus – Arnavutköy and Bebek. It only slows down when confronted by the massive body of a public bus. If it could torpedo the bus, it would. Stripped of its muffler, the car is making an obnoxious roaring noise, frightening the seagulls, children and old passersby. The man driving it is definitely not a religious type: sporting a crew-cut, and a cool, bored Italian-actor-from-the 1960s look, with a woman sitting next to him, her hair flowing in the wind, wearing a sleeveless blouse, with designer glasses lifted up her forehead, and a cigarette between two slender fingers.

    Turkey is segregated. In a way, it is more divided than either Israel or South Africa, before the collapse of apartheid. But you would never hear anyone talking about it here.

    ***

    I have three books translated into, and published in the Turkish language; several of their television stations often interview me. I know many men and women in Istanbul. Some are secular, others are Muslim; but I never see them ‘mixing together’. Most of the secularists I know here, despise Islam; they make sure to demonstrate how Western, how pro-Western, how ‘European’ they are. In their eyes, being religious equates to being a degenerate, an idiot, and even ‘unpatriotic’.

    Try to define Turkey as a Middle Eastern country, and you will lose all your friends and acquaintances in an instant.

    The Muslim-bashers don’t hide their ideas: they actually advertise them; firing up each other in what to an outsider, may easily appear as bigotry.

    Not once did my publisher, my fellow writers, acquaintances, or those pro-Western intellectuals ever invite out to dinner or a night out, someone who would happen to be a religious man or a woman. Not once in Istanbul did I have a chance to talk to a woman wearing a headscarf. Practicing Muslims are ‘un-people’ in all those ‘literary’ and ‘intellectual’ circles; they are not included, not talked to, not consulted. “One can learn nothing from them”, a ‘secular’ poet once told me in posh café overlooking the Bosporus.

    To me all this is particularly shocking, because, for a big part of my life I live in Southeast Asia and in East Africa, in two places where people mix readily. In Malaysia, there could hardly be any party, or night out with friends, without people of different races and religions sitting at the same table. To be Malaysian is to be Malay, Chinese or Indian, Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu or secular. Of course even there it is not easy; it is not smooth, there are outbursts of intolerance, and even institutionalized discrimination, especially towards the Indian minority. But there is definitely no ‘segregation’. And if one attacks or puts down entire nationalities or religious beliefs, he or she is considered ‘uncool’ and very badly brought up. It would not be tolerated, especially in the company of educated people.

    I have to repeat once again: I have only observed segregation such as that in Istanbul, in South Africa before the collapse of apartheid (and in some parts of the country after the collapse), in several parts of Israel and for different reasons, in Central Australia.

    ***

    Secularists point fingers at Muslims, accusing the present religious Government of taking away their ‘sacred’ liberties (including, so often quoted, the right to booze up in full view of pedestrians).

    But much more serious issues could be detected.

    For instance, the West had been a determined sponsor of the present Turkish regime of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and President Abdullah Gul. There have been massive arrests and disappearances of many top Kemalist generals and intellectuals, including those who have been demanding that Turkey breaks up with the US political and military diktat, instead forging alliances in the east.

    So here is the paradox that is hardly understood in the West, even amongst some well meaning and left leaning intellectuals: while promoting Islamic ideals, the present government is taking direct orders from the West, destroying anti-imperialist intellectuals and the top military brass.

    While banning exposed drinking establishments and encouraging women to cover up, the present government is helping to train the Israeli air force within Turkish territory, as well as arming and training the so called ‘Syrian opposition’, in specially designated camps.

    ***

    It is not only Turkey’s present that is complex; it is also its past. Turkey harbors many grievances from the by-gone eras. Simultaneously, it is accused of inflicting pain on many in the region. There are hardly any simple answers to the historical questions.

    One of the most burning and controversial ones is that of PKK and ‘the Kurdish issue’: are Kurds really the victims of Turkish discrimination, brutality and neglect? Or are they allies of the West, and themselves the perpetrators in the drive to fragment and destabilize the region, which includes the Turkish state (the case of pro-Western Iraqi Kurdistan is often quoted)? The common wisdom in the West is that the Kurds are victims, but talk to Left wing intellectuals and analysts in Istanbul or in the Middle East, and you will learn that the potential Great Kurdistan (with its seeds in Iraq) is nothing less than a sinister Western plot.

    It is also true that the most dedicated fighters against Western imperialism are the secular generals, the high-ranking officers and intellectuals, many of them now imprisoned, most without any charges or trials.

    Turkish reality is often paradoxical.

    ***

    “The society should aim at the wellbeing of all its people. It is absurd to discriminate against citizens for being Kurdish, for being believers or non-believers, atheists or Islamists. These things should not matter and they take attention away from the real problems this country is facing: the issues, like the unbridled privatization of the national wealth of the country, the skyrocketing prices and the deteriorating conditions of the common people, as well as the Western imperialist interests in the region”, declares Sezer (even he prefers not to use his full name), a Turkish intellectual who believes in Turkish unity and who embraces the ideals of Kemal Ataturk, whose nationalist ideas as he says, never relied on the ethnic origin of the people, but instead on their citizenship; on belonging to the country.

    No matter how noble his ideas, they appear to resonate in the mind of only a tiny minority of this fragmented nation. Sezer is expressing progressive, secular, urban views. But there is very little communication and understanding between the Turkish cities and the countryside, between the posh neighborhoods on the Bosporus and the humble dwellings of the have-nots, between those who wear headscarves and pray five times a day and those who are sipping wine in ridiculously overpriced and smart cafes, sitting cross-legged and wearing imported designer outfits.

    The founding father of the Turkish state – Mustafa Kemal Ataturk – would probably find it difficult to fit into the nation he was trying so painstakingly to unite. No matter how secular his beliefs, it is unlikely that he would join that upper class, the Bosporus/Ferrari anti-Islamic choir.

    But Ataturk would also certainly clash bitterly with the present government, which is combining religious practices with servitude to the West. In fact both camps would be reluctant to accept Ataturk for what he truly believed. In today’s world, his nationalism would be seen as inconvenient. Both sides – the Islamic government and the secular elites – are in two different ways collaborating with the West.

    It is actually probable that, would he be living now, Ataturk would end up like many other brave Turkish opponents of Western imperialism, in jail.

    Andre Vltchek is a novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. His book on Western imperialism in the  South Pacific – Oceania – is published by Lulu . His provocative book about post-Suharto Indonesia and market-fundamentalist model is called “Indonesia – The Archipelago of Fear” and will be released by Pluto Publishing House in August 2012. After living for many years in Latin America and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides and works in East Asia and Africa. He can be reached through his website.

  • Secularism

    Secularism is the principle of separation between government institutions and the persons mandated to represent the State from religious institutions and religious dignitaries. In one sense, secularism may assert the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, and the right to freedom from governmental imposition of religion upon the people within a state that is neutral on matters of belief. (See also separation of church and state and Laïcité.) In another sense, it refers to the view that human activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be unbiased by religious influence.[1] (See also public reason.) Some scholars are now arguing that the very idea of secularism will change.[2]

    Part of a series on
    Irreligion
    "αθεοι" (atheoi), Greek for "those without god", as it appears in the Epistle to the Ephesians on the third-century papyrus known as "Papyrus 46"
    Irreligion
    • Deism
    • Secular humanism
    • Secularism
    • Secularity
    • Freethought
    • Post-theism
    • Nontheism
    • Anti-clericalism
    • Antireligion
    • Criticism of religion
    • Parody religion
    Atheism
    • Demographics
    • History
    • State
    • New
    • Implicit and explicit
    • Negative and positive
    • Criticism
    • Discrimination
    • Existence of God
    • Antitheism
    • Atheism and religion
    Agnosticism
    • Strong
    • Weak
    • Agnostic atheism
    • Agnostic theism
    • Apatheism
    • Ignosticism
    Naturalism
    • Humanistic
    • Metaphysical
    • Methodological
    • Religious
    People
    • Atheists
    • Agnostics
    • Humanists
    • Pantheists
    • Deists
    Books
    • The God Delusion
    • God Is Not Great
    • The End of Faith
    • Letter to a Christian Nation
    • Why I Am Not a Christian
    Organizations
    • Atheist Alliance International
    • Freedom From Religion Foundation
    • Reason Rally
    • World Pantheist Movement
    • Atheism portal
    • WikiProject Atheism
    • v
    • t
    • e

    Secularism draws its intellectual roots from Greek and Roman philosophers such as Marcus Aurelius and Epicurus; medieval Muslim polymaths such as Ibn Rushd; Enlightenment thinkers such as Denis Diderot, Voltaire, Baruch Spinoza, John Locke, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine; and more recent freethinkers, agnostics, and atheists such as Robert Ingersoll and Bertrand Russell.

    The purposes and arguments in support of secularism vary widely. In European laicism, it has been argued that secularism is a movement toward modernization, and away from traditional religious values (also known as secularization). This type of secularism, on a social or philosophical level, has often occurred while maintaining an official state church or other state support of religion. In the United States, some argue that state secularism has served to a greater extent to protect religion and the religious from governmental interference, while secularism on a social level is less prevalent.[3][4] Within countries as well, differing political movements support secularism for varying reasons.[5]

    Contents

    • 1 Overview
    • 2 State secularism
    • 3 Secular society
    • 4 Secular ethics
    • 5 Organizations
    • 6 See also
    • 7 References
    • 8 Further reading
    • 9 External links

    Overview

    The term “secularism” was first used by the British writer George Jacob Holyoake in 1851.[6] Although the term was new, the general notions of freethought on which it was based had existed throughout history. In particular, early secular ideas involving the separation of philosophy and religion can be traced back to Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and the Averroism school of philosophy.[7][8] Holyoake invented the term “secularism” to describe his views of promoting a social order separate from religion, without actively dismissing or criticizing religious belief. An agnostic himself, Holyoake argued that “Secularism is not an argument against Christianity, it is one independent of it. It does not question the pretensions of Christianity; it advances others. Secularism does not say there is no light or guidance elsewhere, but maintains that there is light and guidance in secular truth, whose conditions and sanctions exist independently, and act forever. Secular knowledge is manifestly that kind of knowledge which is founded in this life, which relates to the conduct of this life, conduces to the welfare of this life, and is capable of being tested by the experience of this life.”[9]

    Barry Kosmin of the Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture breaks modern secularism into two types: hard and soft secularism. According to Kosmin, “the hard secularist considers religious propositions to be epistemologically illegitimate, warranted by neither reason nor experience.” However, in the view of soft secularism, “the attainment of absolute truth was impossible and therefore skepticism and tolerance should be the principle and overriding values in the discussion of science and religion.”[10]

    State secularism

    See also: Secular state

    250px Liberte egalite fraternite tympanum church saint pancrace aups var

    Motto of the French republic on the tympanum of a church.

    In political terms, secularism is a movement towards the separation of religion and government (often termed the separation of church and state). This can refer to reducing ties between a government and a state religion, replacing laws based on scripture (such as the Torah and Sharia law) with civil laws, and eliminating discrimination on the basis of religion. This is said to add to democracy by protecting the rights of religious minorities.[11]

    Secularism is often associated with the Age of Enlightenment in Europe and plays a major role in Western society. The principles, but not necessarily practices, of separation of church and state in the United States and Laïcité in France draw heavily on secularism. Secular states also existed in the Islamic world during the Middle Ages (see Islam and secularism).[12]

    Due in part to the belief in the separation of church and state, secularists tend to prefer that politicians make decisions for secular rather than religious reasons.[13] In this respect, policy decisions pertaining to topics like abortion, contraception, embryonic stem cell research, same-sex marriage, and sex education are prominently focused upon by American secularist organizations such as the Center for Inquiry.[14][15]

    Most major religions accept the primacy of the rules of secular, democratic society but may still seek to influence political decisions or achieve specific privileges or influence through church-state agreements such as a concordat.[citation needed] Many Christians support a secular state, and may acknowledge that the conception has support in Biblical teachings, particularly the statement of Jesus in the Book of Luke: “Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”[citation needed]. However, some Christian fundamentalists (notably in the United States) oppose secularism, often claiming that there is a “radical secularist” ideology being adopted in current days and see secularism as a threat to “Christian rights”[16] and national security.[17] The most significant forces of religious fundamentalism in the contemporary world are Fundamentalist Christianity and Fundamentalist Islam. At the same time, one significant stream of secularism has come from religious minorities who see governmental and political secularism as integral to preserving equal rights.[18]

    Some of the well known states that are often considered “constitutionally secular” are USA,[19] France, India,[20] Mexico [21] South Korea, and Turkey although none of these nations have identical forms of governance.

    Secular society

    In studies of religion, modern Western societies are generally recognized as secular. This is due to the near-complete freedom of religion (beliefs on religion generally are not subject to legal or social sanctions), and the lack of authority of religious leaders over political decisions. Nevertheless, religious beliefs are widely considered[by whom?] a relevant part of the political discourse in many of these countries. This contrasts with other Western countries where religious references are generally considered out-of-place in mainstream politics.

    The nature of a secular society could characterize a secular society as one which:

    1. Refuses to commit itself as a whole to any one view of the nature of the universe and the role of man in it.
    2. Is not homogenous, but is pluralistic.
    3. Is tolerant. It widens the sphere of private decision-making.
    4. While every society must have some common aims, which implies there must be agreed on methods of problem-solving, and a common framework of law; in a secular society these are as limited as possible.
    5. Problem solving is approached rationally, through examination of the facts. While the secular society does not set any overall aim, it helps its members realize their aims.
    6. Is a society without any official images. Nor is there a common ideal type of behavior with universal application.

    Positive Ideals behind the secular society:

    1. Deep respect for individuals and the small groups of which they are a part.
    2. Equality of all people.
    3. Each person should be helped to realize their particular excellence.
    4. Breaking down of the barriers of class and caste.[22]

    Modern sociology has, since Max Weber, often been preoccupied with the problem of authority in secularized societies and with secularization as a sociological or historical process.[23] Twentieth-century scholars whose work has contributed to the understanding of these matters include Carl L. Becker, Karl Löwith, Hans Blumenberg, M.H. Abrams, Peter L. Berger, Paul Bénichou and D. L. Munby, among others.

    Some societies become increasingly secular as the result of social processes, rather than through the actions of a dedicated secular movement; this process is known as secularization.

    Secular ethics

    Main articles: Secular ethics and Secular religion

    George Holyoake’s 1896 publication English Secularism defines secularism as:

    Secularism is a code of duty pertaining to this life, founded on considerations purely human, and intended mainly for those who find theology indefinite or inadequate, unreliable or unbelievable. Its essential principles are three: (1) The improvement of this life by material means. (2) That science is the available Providence of man. (3) That it is good to do good. Whether there be other good or not, the good of the present life is good, and it is good to seek that good.[24]

    Holyoake held that secularism and secular ethics should take no interest at all in religious questions (as they were irrelevant), and was thus to be distinguished from strong freethought and atheism. In this he disagreed with Charles Bradlaugh, and the disagreement split the secularist movement between those who argued that anti-religious movements and activism was not necessary or desirable and those who argued that it was.

    Contemporary ethical debate is often described as “secular”, with the work of Derek Parfit and Peter Singer, and even the whole field of contemporary bioethics, having been described or self-described as explicitly secular or non-religious.[25][26][27][28]

    George Jacob Holyoake (1817–1906), British writer who coined the term "secularism."

    Organizations

    Main article: List of secularist organizations

    Groups such as the National Secular Society (United Kingdom) and Americans United campaign for secularism are often supported by Humanists. In 2005, the National Secular Society held the inaugural “Secularist of the Year” awards ceremony. Its first winner was Maryam Namazie, of the Worker-Communist Party of Iran. And of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain[29] which aims to break the taboo that comes with renouncing Islam and to oppose apostasy laws and political Islam.[30]

    Another secularist organization is the Secular Coalition for America. The Secular Coalition for America lobbies and advocates for separation of church and state as well as the acceptance and inclusion of Secular Americans in American life and public policy. While Secular Coalition for America is linked to many secular humanistic organizations and many secular humanists support it, as with the Secular Society, some non-humanists support it.

    Local organizations work to raise the profile of secularism in their communities and tend to include secularists, freethinkers, atheists, agnostics, and humanists under their organizational umbrella.

    Student Organizations, such as the Toronto Secular Alliance, try to popularize nontheism and secularism on campus. The Secular Student Alliance is an educational nonprofit that organizes and aids such high school and college secular student groups.

    In Turkey, the most prominent and active secularist organization is Atatürk Thought Association (ADD), which is credited for organizing the Republic Protests – demonstrations in the four largest cities in Turkey in 2007, where over 2 million people, mostly women, defended their concern in and support of secularist principles introduced by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk.

    Leicester Secular Society founded in 1851 is the world’s oldest secular society.

  • Secularism in Turkey is dead

    Secularism in Turkey is dead

    CNN Contributor: Secularism in Turkey is dead

    By Ben Barrack on May 5, 2012 in Blog, General

    Walid was roundly ignored when he warned about what was happening in Turkey several years ago. In 2006, during an appearance on Glenn Beck’s Headline News program, Walid warned that Islam was on the rise in Turkey and that secularism was in danger of being thrown into the dust bin.

    Now that it’s already happened, CNN doesn’t seem to have a problem reporting it. Soner Cagaptay writes, in part, about Atif Hoca, one of the most strident anti-Kemalists in the 1920′s, when Kemal Ataturk insisted on a secularist Turkey.

    Via CNN:

    Recently though, Atif Hoca’s legacy has been reversed in the public eye. In February 2012, the government decided to name a public hospital in Iskilip – Atif Hoca’s hometown – after him. This dedication carries remarkable symbolic significance, as it is tantamount to honoring one of the best known anti-Kemalists to date, as well as signaling Turkey’s move to a post-Kemalist era.

    Kemalism appears to have lost its influence, not just symbolically but also politically. In the past decade, Turkey has undergone a complete transformation. The ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) has won three consecutive elections since 2002, with increasing majorities. The AKP, representing a brand of Islam-based social conservatism, has since replaced Turkey’s former Kemalist ideology and secular elites. Turkey seems to be moving to a post-Kemalist era.

    Cagaptay then turns to Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, an Islamist who continues to deceive the West:

    A second aspect of Ataturk’s legacy that remains alive in post-Kemalist Turkey is top-down social engineering. In the same way that Ataturk wanted to shape modern Turkey in his own image, his successors will now want to do the same, imposing their own worldview on Turkish society.

    In this regard, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is a case-in-point. Like Ataturk, Erdogan seems willing to use the weight of his personality to remake Turkish society to match his worldview. Erdogan has already ruled Turkey longer than any other democratically-elected prime minister, and he might replace Ataturk as the country’s longest-reigning leader if he is elected as the president of Turkey in 2014. Like Ataturk, Erdogan seems willing to use his personal charisma to remake Turkish society to match his vision.

    Ataturk often said “he wanted to raise contemporary European generations” among Turks. Recently, Erdogan said “he would like to raise religious generations” among the Turks. Kemalism may be dead, but Ataturk’s way of doing business appears to be alive and kicking in Turkey.

    Here is Walid’s 2006 interview with Glenn Beck. Contrast Cagaptay’s 2012 piece with Walid’s 2006 words. Perhaps upon doing so, people might stop questioning Walid’s loyalty to the United States and start questioning CNN’s.

    It’s mildly interesting to note that CNN goes out of its way to make it clear that Cagaptay’s views are his own and do not necessarily represent the views of CNN. Perhaps, if they’re truly an unbiased news organization (cough, cough), they’d consider giving Walid equal time.

    If they’re willing to feature one perspective while distancing themselves from it, not featuring an opposite perspective only draws them closer to Cagaptay’s views.

    h/t Jihad Watch

    Ben Barrack is a talk show host and author of the upcoming book, Unsung Davids

    via CNN Contributor: Secularism in Turkey is dead | Walid Shoebat.