1. The wonderful question that Souza fails to ask is "Just how are they going to keep radical islam in check?" Let's look at other muslim nations that Souza strangely omits... Pakistan. With a dictator only marginally in power, and our ally curiously enough, the muslim world's only confirmed nuclear power is one election from behind in the hands of Al-quida. Do you trust the miracles of democracy to prevent a Hamasesque take over of a largely moderate nation plagued by radicalism?

Or how about how the Taliban gave muslims a version of Islam that allowed Osama Bin Laden the opportunety to kill American lives? True, the Taliban wasn't a democratic organization... who would dare to vote against them if they were? When democracy translates to 'kill everyone who doesn't vote for me' then a government of and for muslims doesn't matter much, now does it?

But Souza talked about democratic elections of religous parties. Funny how he forgot a doozy... Iran. Now there's a nation that puts it's faith first. It can't even pass laws without clerical approval first. A nation of muslim extremism and for muslim extremism.

Souza seems to think that, if a group is secular in nature then any sectular organization must be implicitly more ethical or less corrupt. Reality proves that there are strains of religion that are far more insidious and pernicious than any secular organization. Sects that think blowing yourself up to kill others is a virtue. Certainly, it is possible that muslim extremists won't do to Turkey what was done to Pakistan, Afganistan, and Iran... but it is certain that no matter how corrupt they may be the secularists would not.

Somber

Somber at 12:40AM on Aug 30th 2007

2. Dinesh, I really needed to get this friigin' aggravated at this hour. How many Turks that live in Turkey do you actually know? I mean realllllllllly know? My daughter just got back and my husband is there now. Turkish people despise the thought of an Islamic controlled government. I am calling my husband as soon as I am done and find out in what way you came upon such idiocy!!!! It's 7:31 am in Turkey now, I suppose I'll let him sleep a tad longer.
Western Turkey is very European in dress, woman who hold high paying positions due to the fact the Turkish Government educates male and female alike. Turkey has some of the finest Universities in the world.
If you attempt to tell a Turk face to face what you said in that article, let me just say, I hope you can run a 3 minute mile.
To take away a persons freedom after having it for so long, do you not think they will revolt? Turkish militia is well known among our armed forces as loyal and fierce warriors. What in the name of all that is good makes you think that if Turkey were run by Islamists that within a short time they would
not be calling the name 'Ayatollah'? I have experienced the Turkish culture for 23 years and I know the people well. My family and friends would never allow such a thing to occur.
You are from India, a caste system, minority Muslim. What if The Islamists grew in strength and numbers, were voted in, and although you say in Turkey the new PM is moderate, would you then think this to be okay?
I am calling my husband now, I am going to wake him after I forward this article to him and have him forward it to all of our doctor, lawyers, politician friends and see what they have to say, yeah?
Damn, I am so pissed I won't sleep. Thanks Dinesh!
Iyi geceler

rhodalee at 12:53AM on Aug 30th 2007

3. Incidently... Souza asked a question: why is secular thuggery preferable to Muslim democracy? Let's really get at the root of this question: Why is secularism preferable to sectularism? The tags of thuggery and democracy are irrevelant. Democratic elections are almost always preferable to corrupt ideology.

But secularism vrs sectarianism is a simple argument. The sectular person subscribes to morals and ethics prescribed by a religion, faith, or philosophy that is dependant upon a supernatural agency. You can't question it. You can't prove it. In fact, demanding proof is to invite condemnation. For the sectularist, you simply must accept the teaching of X, the word of X, the scripture of X... and the debate is over.

For the secularist, morals and ethics are not founded on the demands of a supernatural boogyman. They are founded on the real world. On science. On philosophy. And they can, and frequently are, flawed and unfair. But the secularist doesn't pretend that there is some perfect authority looking down on us and saying 'do it or I'll spank you'. And because they are imperfect then they are subject to change, interpretation, examination, and alterations to make them more fair... or not. There is no inherent magic in secularism. But it is better than the hypocracy demonstrated time and time and time again by those who presume to speak for this all powerful and perfect agency.

So why does secularism ultimately win in every modern civilization? Because faith is an individual thing, and not all individuals subscribe to one belief. When laws are founded upon secular values, then their merit is limited only within the body of the law. When laws are founded on religious principle then an inescapable injustice is commited to those who do not subscribe to those beliefs. Would you think it fair to be fined for eating a hamburger on friday because catholicism believes it to be a sin? Do you think it fair that all pork products be banned because it violates orthodox Jewish dining restrictions? As a woman, do you think it right that you must, under penalty of disfigurement, rape, or death, wear a burka in public at all times simply because conservative muslims demand it? Secularism makes none of these demands because it can not pretend some supernatural being is demanding it.

So yes, Mr. Souza. Secularism is preferable over sectarianism. Time and time and time again.

Somber at 1:04AM on Aug 30th 2007

4. Somber - your concerns are valid. But, DD is right.

Turkey is a sovereign nation. We have to let them chose their leaders as they see fit. We can criticize and complain if, and when, the Muslim extremists start oppressing other people, but, until that happens, we have to sit back and hope, pray, & encourage.

There are Muslim countries without extremist leaders (Eqypt, Indonesia). Let's let Turkey have a chance. After all, if the Turkish citizenry was willing to stand up against their military, perhaps they will be willing to stand up to extremists.

ray at 1:05AM on Aug 30th 2007

5. I do hope that Turks continue to uphold a system of government that demonstrates peace, equality, and tolerance of those who do not subscribe to articles of faith. As some one who had their leg broken by a christian for being gay, and who subsequently watched those individuals get off because two jurers couldn't condemn a fellow christian for following the word of god, I remain ever skeptical. Sectarian nations can follow the path of religous extremism. Secular nations can persue dehumanizing fascism and corruption. Neither is immune. Perhaps that is what makes Souza's claim so galling.

Democracy isn't about majority getting what it wants. America's founders wisely realized that placing absolute power in the hands of the mob, a mob easily swayed by demogogues of the day, was a terrible idea. They installed in the constitution laws that weren't designed to protect the christian or the white or the wealthy, but to protect everyone regardless of their faiths and beliefs. That is the essense of secular law. Not to protect people because of what they believe but to protect them in spite of what others believe. No other system can exist and have real freedom and democracy. So to hear Souza proclaim that the religious majority will some how be implicitly more ethical is intolerable. People, secular or not, are always capable of corruption and abuse of power, but at least with the secularists you don't have to argue against a mythology.

I do hope that Turkey does maintain equal freedom for all while eliminating corruption. I just don't see it happening magically just because the majority follow a faith.

Somber at 1:23AM on Aug 30th 2007

6. Well, Rhodalee (#2), here we go again. I am tempted to say again that you are full of BS, but, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt this time. Please explain just what is it that DD writes in this article that you consider "idiocy"?

I am not a DD fan. Many of his articles are poorly argued and written. But, this article is predominantly a summary of recent HISTORY and core values that most of us living in a republic or democracy agree with.

Yes – DD throws in a few opinions. Looking at the 1st paragraph, DD writes:
"the Turkish people just administered the secular parties and the goons in the military a well-deserved kick in the rear end."
"secular parties have for decades considered Turkey their private property"
But, he closes this paragraph with a fact. "Indeed the military has staged four coups since 1960."
Was it these opinions that made you "friigin aggravated"?

Later, DD calls the seculars "sore losers"? Did that push your button?

Or, was it this question: "Why can't Turkey, a Muslim country, stand up for Muslim interests and be governed by the Muslim values of its Muslim people?"
Seems to be a fair-minded and rational question?

I find nothing in DD's article that suggests he believes the Muslim leadership will "take away a persons freedom". It is possible that the Muslim leaders may try, but, until then, we are being meddlesome to cast such cynical projections.

Unless I seriously misread DD's article or your post, your ranting is completely unsubstantiated.
Or, perhaps you are simply one of those "secular sore-losers"?

ray at 1:32AM on Aug 30th 2007

7. For once I find myself kind of agreeing with D'Souza. I consider myself in favor of secular government. However I like how this brings about the irony in the way many here in America think: more religion (10 commandments in courts, opposition to gay marriage etc) in government here but nations with non-Christian majorities should (HAVE TO BE OR ELSE WE"RE NOT TALKING TO YOU!) secular. I would prefer that no overly religious government take power in Turkey, but we cannot deny that that is what the people chose. And just like they put them in power I have faith that the Turkish people will get them out of power if their rights are taken away or if the government were to somehow become Taleban-esque. It may be a little naive but some habits/rights/freedoms are hard to give up. Just like I cannot imagine citizens in any Western country giving up their freedoms without a fight, I think the same can be applied here.

Haro at 2:15AM on Aug 30th 2007

8. Dinesh says of Abdullah Gul "at least the guy was freely elected." Well, so was Hugo Chavez. And so was Hamas. When are we going hear Dinesh singing the praises of those elections?

Ah, the neocons and their mouthpieces like Dinesh! They only support democratic elections when the results are to their liking. And why would they want to see a potentially Islamist Turkey? Well,for one thing, Islamists certainly know how to keep women in their place which is a goal that "family values" Republican misogynists ardently share. As for the rest of the population, keep them baffled with religious mumbo-jumbo and an occasional beating from the "virtue and vice police"(unless its men soliciting sex in the men's rooms of airports or bus stations, then that is OK).

And, hey, who knows? If things go really well, in maybe in ten years neocon stooges like Dinesh can beat the drums for a US invasion of Turkey, all the while lamenting: "who could have known?"

emelpe at 2:30AM on Aug 30th 2007

9. Somber – not to be picky or argumentative, but, I need to respond to some of your points in #3.

First – I need to understand your definition of "sectarian"? Are you limiting it to "religious" groups only, or do you include any groups with an established philosophy or set of ideals? (Which would include almost all groups in the 20th and 21st century, even most secularists.)

You wrote: "But secularism vrs sectarianism is a simple argument. The sectular person subscribes to morals and ethics prescribed by a religion, faith, or philosophy that is dependant upon a supernatural agency. You can't question it. You can't prove it."

You have oversimplified the way most religious groups work. While we "claim" that we are following the teachings of God or who-ever the "supernatural agency" is, in reality, we all know that we are actually following our INTERPRETATIONS and UNDERSTANDINGS of these teachings. There is much debate within most religious organizations. Even within Muslims, there is debate over significant positions. Thus, the edicts are handed down from a group of people, just like a secular group.

Now, you may respond, "That is what I am concerned about?"

Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but, there is significant disagreement between secular camps. For decades, there was millions of Soviet and Chinese soldiers lining the Sino-Soviet border due to "doctrinal" differences between Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin. Following our war in Vietnam, to their credit, the communist/secular Vietnamese went into Cambodia and shut down the murderous communist/secular Khmer Rouge. And not long after that, China and Vietnam, had their squabbles.

Quite frankly, if you use the body count as the measuring stick, atheist/secular governments in the 20th century were far worse than any sectarian conflict. According to secular historians, the 20th century was the bloodiest in recorded history. And the overwhelming majority of those deaths were at the hands of secular/atheists governments. Between Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and others, the body count is anywhere from 60 – 100+ million.

And that does not include the 30 million Chinese who died under Japanese occupation, which I doubt any expert would consider sectarian. Unless you open up the definition of "sectarian" to include nonreligious philosophy?

BTW – some of the "sectarian" conflicts in the world are essentially "political", with no theological conflicts between the groups. Example: Northern Ireland. Though the media constantly referred to the groups as "catholic" and "protestant", the differences had nothing to do with church allegiances. The overwhelming majority of people in both camps were quite "unorthodox", attending their respective worship services only frequently. The issues between the two camps were about government allegiance (London or Dublin) and the alleged inequalities/discriminations suffered by the catholics.

ray at 2:44AM on Aug 30th 2007

10. Continuing to respond to Somber's #3 post:

You wrote: "For the secularist, morals and ethics …are founded on the real world. On science. On philosophy."

There is far more in common between philosophy and religion than between philosophy and science.

Before I provide my comments, let me precede them with a few quotes from Albert Einstein:
"A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be."
"It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity.
"Most people say that is it is the intellect which makes a great scientist. They are wrong: it is character."
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
"We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality."

I like these last two the best:
"The man of science is a poor philosopher."
"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal."

My comments:
Science asks and answers: "What IS man and the rest of the universe like?"
It does NOT answer "What SHOULD man and the rest of the universe be like?"
Feel free to base your answers to the second question with answers from the first, but, the answers to the 2nd question will not be "scientific".

With regard to utilizing technology, too often the scientists ask only, "Can we?", when they also need to ask "Should we?" Many secularists oppose human cloning and genetic engineering. These concerns are not limited to people of faith.

Another point:
After the collapse of the USSR, an evangelical pastor from my town was invited to travel to one of the former Soviet blocs (Lithuania I believe), and go into one of their schools, and teach what he believed about "moral absolutes". Were they ready to embrace Christianity? No, they were and are still overwhelmingly committed to "Darwinism".

But, they did realize that under the communist regimes, they had failed to base their government on the idea that there are moral absolutes. Under Lenin and Stalin, the "party" decided what was "right and wrong". And, they could change their minds from one day top the next. There were no absolutes and no rights. Just rules.

You seem to think that is OK? You wrote: "But the secularist doesn't pretend that there is some perfect authority looking down on us and saying 'do it or I'll spank you'. And because they are imperfect then they are subject to change, interpretation, examination, and alterations to make them more fair... or not. There is no inherent magic in secularism. But it is better than the hypocracy demonstrated time and time and time again by those who presume to speak for this all powerful and perfect agency."

The lack of a "divine authority" only established the decision makers as the replacement for the "divine authority". True – if the citizenry chose who those decision-makers are (such as with a democracy or a republic), then, you do have some say in how those rules are made and revised. But, that did not happen in many atheist/secular governments. Quite frankly, most religious governments are more tolerant and open-minded than these secular governments.


You also wrote: "faith is an individual thing, and not all individuals subscribe to one belief. When laws are founded upon secular values, then their merit is limited only within the body of the law. When laws are founded on religious principle then an inescapable injustice is commited to those who do not subscribe to those beliefs."

Again, there is no uniformity in the values of seculars. What if one secular disagrees with the rules handed down by the secular decision-makers? Can he/she refuse to obey? How is that different whether the decision-makers are religious or secular?

ray at 2:51AM on Aug 30th 2007

11. Responding to Somber in #5, you wrote: "As some one who had their leg broken by a christian for being gay, and who subsequently watched those individuals get off because two jurers couldn't condemn a fellow christian for following the word of god."

First - I know of no biblical passage that would condone or support someone breaking your leg because you were gay.
Secondly - do not assume that seculars would automatically be tolerant. Homosexuality was illegal in the USSR!

ray at 2:55AM on Aug 30th 2007

12. dd: "islamic democracy" is antithetical and oxymoronic. BTW, Iran touts itself as the ISLAMIC REPUBLIC. they hold elections. they believe they are free. theocrats continue to hold absolute power. the politicians are window dressings.

as for turkey,you are woefully undereducated. turkey has been and continues to be a schizoid country. attaturk demanded and implemented laws to outlaw any and all ethnic/religious traditional appearance/costume. he was,however, less successful in eradicating traditional thoughts and beliefs. read nobel prize winner, ORPHAM PAHNUK's novel SNOW. as a conscientious human being, he attempts to illustrate turkish national schizophrenia. it is one of the most enlightening books i have read on the complex,conflicting conumdrum that is islam, its tenets,its obligations,its call for perdition regarding anything secular(vulgar/corrupting.)unlike democracy,individuality is neither tolerated nor valued in islam. beware, dd, of offhandedly marrying words when you write (vent, complain, moan,groan).

turkey, according to DD is another black and white proposition: secular vs sectarian=radical(left)vs fundamentalism(right/conservative). you suggest some islamic tenets flourish as "basis for laws." islam is a religion of might makes right or vice versa. mohammed realized world domination as preferrable to regional domination and set about to overrun the arabian peninsula. thereafter,parts of africa and asia fell under its sway. modernity is islam's defiler,dd. islam believes the very culture which thrives today as one aspect of "modernity" is vile and needs to vigorously stamped out by force. turkey had a bill waiting approval for passage by parliament. it wanted to make adultery a felony. the bill was also weighted against women. they want to become a member of the European Economic Union. however, the union proscribes member nation's from isolating a part of its population- based on gender, ethnicity,income,religion,region-to indict, humiliate, criminalize those groups or members of those groups. turkey has hesitated in its eradication campaign geared toward those perrenially pesky kurds. but the ECU frowns on mass murder (genocide) as a means to an end. yeah, right,dinesh,turkey's policies swayed by religionists because their traditional, majority-approved values are better than some of the mean souless,secularists who want to run a country not a relgion. there are slimers on each side of the avenue but, c'mon, the islam we are talking about is not your mom & pop variety. it is of the advant determinist political entity variety with a new brand recognition. this prepossessing islam has the will to subjugate passive believers and nonbelievers alike. DHIMMITUDE is the new islam's answer; their goal is to dominate the world.nothing less. it is an aggressive,petulant,bullying sort of islam that most of the world rejects. but also accepts as a power to be reckoned with.

turkey is just getting greased up(a la turkish wrestling) for it's future battles. islam,like most religions, is not a coexisting type of religion. it prefers to coexist with their allies and brethren and sycophants. today's pugnacious breed of islamists have stated over and over that america is to be their jewel in the crown of colonies. as one potent islamic propogator put it with regards to the spiritual-political-expanionist that has become the islam-to-fear,"thanks to your democratic laws we can invade you; thanks to our relgious jihad we will dominate you." prophetic or not, these are fightin words. keep you helmet and flak jacket nearby, dinesh.

boredwell at 7:26AM on Aug 30th 2007

13. HOW CAN BE SO SURE THAT THEY WERE FREELY ELECTED???
LOOK VENEZUELA AND ALL THE TRICKY TRAPS CHAVEZ HAS USED TO STAY IN POWER, THAT IS ALREADY PROVEN.
IN IRAK CHRISTIAN CAN'T GO TO CHURCH THEY GET KILLED BY MUSLIMS. IT'S A FACT, THEY GET BEHEADED.

pascual at 7:47AM on Aug 30th 2007

14. Well, Well, finally Dinesh D'Souza does it. He finally put one foot in his mouth and other one in his where sun doesn't shine. This is what happens to arm-chair bloggers. Sitting in front of the computer thinking they can feel the pulse of the world and then write a blog. When you don't know anything about how Turkey people feel why write a blog about it. Islam is a religion in the mode of ignorance and ignorant people are narrow minded and what do the narrow-minded people do. My way or the highway. Dinesh use your noodle, you don't have answer for everything, you always write you know everything and you have an opinion for everything. You don't. Today by this blog you confirmed my view. Grow up. Don't glorify religions or people whose followers sooner or later will do what their religion inspire them to do. You will not become popular by displaying your so called openness. Certain things is best left alone and let it defend or destroy itself and Islam is destroying itself and if you are going to stand next to it don't complain when they kick you from behind because you are also not a muslim.

Deva Kumar at 8:08AM on Aug 30th 2007

15. Dinesh, with all due respect, it aint going to happen. My turkish father was horrified and wouldn't even allow me to speak and cut me off. This is out of the preamble of the Turkish Constitution:

The understanding of the absolute supremacy of the will of the nation and of the fact that sovereignty is vested fully and unconditionally in the Turkish nation and that no individual or body empowered to exercise this sovereignty in the name of the nation shall deviate from liberal democracy and the legal system instituted according to its requirements.....The recognition that no protection shall be accorded to an activity contrary to Turkish national interests, the principle of the indivisibility of the existence of Turkey with its state and territory, Turkish historical and moral values or the nationalism, principles, reforms and modernism of Atatürk and that, as required by the principle of secularism, there shall be no interference whatsoever by sacred religious feelings in state affairs and politics.......

and how to change the Turkish constitution?

In Article 175, it sets out the procedure of its own revision and amendment by either referendum or a qualified majority vote of 2/3 in the National Assembly. It does not recognize the right to popular initiatives: Only the members of Parliament can propose modifications to the Constitution.

Kemal Sanli at 9:56AM on Aug 30th 2007