Turkey just had an election, and the Turkish people just administered the secular parties and the goons in the military a well-deserved kick in the rear end. The secular parties have for decades considered Turkey their private property, with elections a kind of formality to confirm their inheritance. If elections go the wrong way, they felt, that's no problem: the generals can always stage a coup and restore us to power. Indeed the military has staged four coups since 1960.
But not this time. When the ruling Justice and Development party nominated economist Abdullah Gul as president, the military began to threaten its usual thuggery, at which point Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan shrewdly called a new election. The ruling party won a thumping majority and the secular parties were soundly beaten. Now the elected lawmakers have approved Abdullah Gul as president with 339 votes, with two other candidates sharing 83 votes. The secular sore losers boycotted the balloting, recognizing that they were completely outnumbered.
Many in the West--including some conservatives--are visibly scared by the prospect of practicing Muslims ruling Turkey according to Muslim values. Yet the "separation of church and state" they invoke does not apply anywhere in the world except in America. Israel doesn't have separation of church and state: it is a Jewish country that openly worries about protecting its Jewish identity. Britain has an established Anglican church, and virtually all European countries provide state subsidies to religious institutions, including religious schools. Why can't Turkey, a Muslim country, stand up for Muslim interests and be governed by the Muslim values of its Muslim people?
Conservatives like to use the rhetoric of democracy, but many of them have forgotten the degree to which they have become apologists for secular despotisms throughout the Muslim world. Abdullah Gul may drink soft drinks instead of alcohol and his wife may wear a headscarf. But at least the guy was freely elected. I'm sure Musharraf, Mubarak and the Saudi royal family are familar with the best types of wine and Scotch, and we know how the Saudi princes completely case aside their show of piety when they are out of sight of their people. Yet these are unelected despots who rule with an iron hand. Must traditional Muslims choose between Islamic tyranny of the Khomeini variety and secular tyranny of the Mubarak variety?
No. Turkey, like Iraq, offers a better model. This is the model of traditional Muslims who support modernization and free markets and free elections. These traditional Muslims are willing to work with America and they are fiercely opposed to Al Qaeda and to the radical Muslims. Yet at the same time they believe that traditional Muslim values that enjoy majority support sometimes should become the basis of law. I'm not Muslim and most of the readers of this blog surely aren't either. We don't support all these laws, but then Turkey is not our country. Why should America or the West dictate how the Turkish people govern themselves? Why is secular thuggery preferable to Muslim democracy?
Reader Comments ( Page 3 of 5)
31. A number of responses to Ray.
An organization possesses legitimacy to act from various sources. The US Government's legitimacy is founded in the consitution. The Vatican's is founded in the Roman Orthodox bible. A sectular organization's legitimacy has it's roots in some otherworldly source. It doesn't matter if it's God, Jesus, Allah, Zeus, Elvis, or Aliens from planet X... the source of legitimacy is some unconfirmable thing that people who subscribe to the sect generally must accept as true without proof. Secular organizations are generally founded upon aspects of political science, philosophy, ideology, racial unity, or some other tangible or humanist source. Unlike sectular organizations, you can argue and debate the merits of the legitimizing philosophy of the organization. There is no mysticism or old books; simply a view point that others may subscribe to, or reject utterly. With sectular organizations, there is little possibility for debate. If two groups of people disagree on points of faith, they can't call God up on the phone and get a confirmation of which one is right... and God certainly isn't appearing on Fox News to set the record straight.
Now I fully and completely acknowledge that secular camps disagree. In fact, their disagreements are probably far greater than sectular ones. But whether you subscribe to capitalism or communism... fascism or liberalism... you can debate the points and merits or flaws of each. You can not do so with sectularism. You can argue over points you think God cares about, but in the end it is impossible to confirm or test those points. With secular disagreements you may use political science to see them at work and determine which secular principles are successful or not; which are ethical and which are corrupt.
Incidently, while the 20th century may have been the century of secular butchery, what percentage of the world has been killed in the name of supernatural causes for the last 10,000+ years?
But you and I will find no satisfaction trying to point at which has been the bloodier points of view. Secularism has absolutely no guarentee of virtue. It is left in the hands of the people to adopt fair and ethical laws and ways of life. People who use a secular excuse for butchery are no better or worse than those claiming to act on divine guidance. Blood is blood and butchery is butchery.
As to your point of religion, philosophy, and science I must object. Religion can not be proven with imperical evidence. It is not logical that God should use a burning bush to talk to moses. It is not logical that God should demand Issac's sacrifice and then back out at the last minute when God knows his heart. Philosophy is rooted in logic. It is not arbitary. There is no philosophical principle in which a woman is turned into salt for looking back. Philosophy is based upon a premise and the logical examination of that premise. And while philosophy can not ever be conclusively proven, it can be used to confirm and validate trends and observations. True, the same can be said for religion, but without the logical examination. So if religion and philosophy are related then they are no more so than wolves and dogs.
Again, there is a world of difference between God and men. When a government of men is corrupt, you can cut off their heads. When a government of God is corrupt, how do you cut off God's head? The point, of course, is that worldly secular governments are just that: in this world. Yes they can be as authoritarian as the most blindly rabid fundamentalist state. But the party leaders are human. They will age. They will die, and others will replace them. Consider the China of Mao versus the China of Deng. Diametrically opposed and yet China is still ruled by the same ideology. God doesn't change. He is supposed to be perfect and unquestionable. If he is questioned, it is a failing on the part of he with weak faith, not God. And yes, the methods in which people exploit this unchanging myth varies as widely as its secular counterparts, but ultimately God is not going to go away, nor can he be questioned for his opinion on matters.
Last point... secular disagreements. Of course secular individuals disagree. Human beings, faithful or not, couldn't universally agree on anything if our lives depended on it. However, secular governments tend to have an easier time granting minorities protection from the whims of the majority.
Somber at 6:26PM on Aug 30th 2007
32. Most religious or ideological institutions, by their nature, will try at one point,given the power, to prescribe and impose their values and views on all aspects of human life.
As an individualist, I would not like to live in a world or society where the state (represented by parties or individuals) is mostly or totally aligned with those institutions or ideologies (religious or social) that seek to control behavior, and thought, period.
Popes,Ayatollahs,Lenins,Pol Pots,Maos, Fidels, Saudi Royals, - We can go on and on.
Despite evident political inadequacies as anyone well informed can enumerate, and they are not part of the subject being discussed here, the Turkish state as established by Kemal Ataturk after the fall of the Ottoman empire,does not prevent devout muslims, christians or jews from practicing their religions in private.
MEF at 8:28PM on Aug 30th 2007
33. Turkey does not allow the public practice of any "religion" except Islam. Muslims took over Christian Churches such as Haggia Sophia, its time to return Haggia Sophia to the Christians.
Turkey was once a beautiful Christian land.
Anne at 9:51PM on Aug 30th 2007
34. Islam is dangerous. They should not nominate a Muslim who believes in the Quran. The military at least does not kill in the name fake Allah (ishear not eicbeer) The Muslims fanatics will figure the last sentence out!! Check out the prologue at http://faithfreedom.org for some insight from a intelligent not fanatical Muslim.
Sam Heston at 10:22PM on Aug 30th 2007
35. I'm not opposed to people in Muslim countries electing leaders that are practicing Muslims, as opposed to the Muslim equivalent of the C&E (Christmas & Easter) Christian.
The problem is that many devout Muslims truly don't believe in separation of church and state. I once represented a Muslim gentleman in an eviction matter. He was ashamed of having to go to court and explain his business to a judge, to get deadbeat tenants out of his apartment building.
In Pakistan, he and the tenant would have gone down to the mosque and explained the situation to the imam. The imam would have written his decision, and if the tenant didn't follow the order, the landlord could go to the police to have the tenant evicted, on the imam's decision.
Would you want to have legal disputes decided by ministers and priests?
I also met a gentleman from Pakistan who had been a bridge engineer with the state of Illinois. One thing he couldn't understand about America was the separation of church and state. He believed that America would be much better off if the state and the church were one.
Obviously, he didn't understand the history of the Protestant Reformation and that today, you probably couldn't get a Catholic priest, a Methodist minister, and a Southern Baptist minster to agree on anything, in terms of government policy.
But my point is that many Muslims see government as advancing the cause of Islam, rather than advancing the cause of a political philosophy or a voting bloc.
I'll be the first to admit that my political philosophy is diametrically opposed to the social teachings of my denomination, the United Methodist Church. But it seems like conservative Muslims always vote to follow Islam and impose Islam's teachings on non-Muslims.
If a Muslim woman wants to wear a burkha, that's fine. But a Christian woman living in a Muslim country should be free to wear a tank top, a mini skirt, and stiletto heels, if she wishes.
That happens when secularlists run the government, but less likely if devout Muslims, who see the state advancing Islam's teachings, run the government.
By the way Dinesh, if you notice, the state churches in Europe are doing very poorly in terms of membership. There was an article in the Wall Street Journal on how non-state churches are fairing much better than the state-supported denominations.
Kent at 1:20AM on Aug 31st 2007
36. Goons in the military? You idiot.
Jade Mullaly at 4:21AM on Sep 5th 2007
37. Oh poor, poor Anne. The true disseminator of half-truths and misguided mania at it's worst. 3 whole friggin' months, whoa annie, you must have mastered the language, completely understood all the cultural nuances and wrote a travel book, as well! Cok Deli!!!! I wrote in Turkce because after three whole months you must know what those two little words mean,yeah? Please do not faint in the Haghia Sophia. Praying that rosary ritual of Catholocism. did you not notice that in that Cami( Mosque ), Islamic AS WELL AS CHRISTIAN art is in that Mosque? Maybe you fainted and you did not happen to notice the CHRISTIAN ART. Sweetie, turkey is a secular country, the only Muslim country in the world that has NO state religion. The Turkish Constitution guarentees religious freedom. Because Turkey is 97% Muslim does not mean other religions do not have freedom to worship. The remaining 3% are Catholics and Jews. Do you not read the newspaper? Awhile back in Istanbul, one of the largest Synagogues was bombed by the PKK. If you are not allowed to worship freely unless Muslim, tell me annie, WTF was a gigantic Synagogue doing in the center of Istanbul? You'll chalk it up to an Islamists version of 'the man on the grassy knoll' conspiracy. You mean to tell me, all that rosary ritualistic praying, you have never attended services in one of the many Catholic churches in Turkey? Not Catholic yet I attended 3 services in 3 cities at a Catholic church.
Whay an imbecile! Typical tourista, thousands of years of history and the only things you get perky over are lokum, pismania and chai, Oh I meant elma chai. No Ephesus where Paul made his mission and where he cared for Mary at Jesus bequest until the day she died. They are both buried there.
I hope with all your hatred towards the culture, religion and government you never go back, I know I certainly hope not to ever see you there. i sat in the first baptismals ever, ever. I strolled through the ruins of an ancient church wher Paul spoke. Letters from Ephesus, remember? Typical damn american tourist with your elitist attitude, when in anothers country YOU ARE THE ALIEN, show some respect, missy. Men oggling and chasing you down the street. They do it in many European countries, also. Because you are American and ARE a VISITOR when in others homes, act with eloquence and tolerance. Americans are despised overseas due to behavior like yours. Shame on you, shame on you!!!
Mary K, Cuckoo, Cuckoo. please take your prescribed psychotropic meds before posting, K? K.
Hmmm, taquiya. Where to begin, oh where to begin. The Shi'i concept of taquiyawas a survival practiced in order to avoid persecution by Sunni or Pagans who might kill them, as in really, really dead. Mind you this practice occurred between the 8th and 10th centurys.
In your case, cultural understanding is sacrificed for cultural superiority.
Read the Qur'an and then speak. It is a book that promotes peace and equality. Apparently you web surf and find Isalmic fundamenatalist sites, which in no way has one iota to do with the actual Qur'an.
You are in dior need of help, to ask to destry a religion and at the same time label Islam 'EVIL', assures me that you are most certainly the definition of Islamophobe. By the by, why in heck does turkey have such tasty tomatoes, peaches karpuss and melon, to name but a few. They thrive and grow, discounting your moronic statement. Oh My, I forgot it is another evil plan by Islamists to kill all plantlife. Gracious you are truly insane. How sad for your family to have a racist as a mom, sister or daughter. Wow, you are out of your gourd, truly whacked out. Get some help, dear.
Mr. Heston the words you tried to use were indecipherable and have no meaning at all. False means yanlis, takma, sahte. True means dogru, gercek. God means Allah. So what in the world are you trying to say? Your whacky link is no more than a neo-nazi, facist, white supremacist website. It is indeed cruel and intolerant and that website should be removed, post-haste, from your post, sir.
Christopher, hmm, better answers than 'religionists', new word, yeah? You talk of religions being inherently evil and reasons due to the smallest flux makes all impossible to predict. Meaning what you have to say is as impossible to predict.
I find Ghandi and Buddha to be infallible. Whereas I find you and your preening while discounting everyone, save the Atheist, to be quite fallible.
I suppose you had a Dictionary that really sucked because you sure as hell do not know the meaning of 'Oxymoron', beacause you frequent your posts with a frightful many.
rhodalee at 2:16AM on Aug 31st 2007
38. Mr. Kent, sir, Muslims are not all alike as all other persons of their chosen beliefs are not the same. An extremist in any religion is most disturbing.
Your post was blatantly Islamophobic. As experienced as you are, having known a whole 2 Muslims, from Pakistan at that, makes you undreducated regarding the Muslim religion. Orthodox Jews and Hasidim have religious tribunals that are there to solve problems of all sorts. Fair is fair. hate to bring you down, Turkey is the only Muslim country in the world that has separation of church and state. Read their Constitution, it's in there......
The only Muslim country that wear Burqa is afghnistan, all other Islamic states the women wear niquab and abaya.
Sir, in Turkey women can walk down the street in minis and heels whenever their little heart pleases.
The head scarves that others are consistantly referring to , the majority of the time, are culturally based. Women from small villages wear colorful scarves indicative of their village locale, it has nothing to do with religious belief.
mr. genckemalist, you are indeed right. Cok, cok tamam.
rhodalee at 2:35AM on Aug 31st 2007
39. And a response back to Somber in #30:
Again, not to be picky or argumentative, but, the US government's legitimacy is not founded in the Constitution, but is founded in our Declaration of Independence. I offer the design of a building as an analogy. The Declaration of Independence is the foundation for our government and the Constitution is the structural framework built on top of that foundation. I offer these tidbits to support my claim:
(a) We recognize the birth of our nation as July 4, 1776, yet the Constitution was not written until 1787. Was our nation "illegitimate" for 11 years?
(b) For most of those 11 years, the Articles of Confederation provided our governmental framework. When the delegates gathered in 1787 to discuss revisions to these articles, they decided to write a new constitution, a new "frame of government". You could argue that in 1787, the delegates simply replaced the "first constitution" with a new one, thus, the articles of confederation provided us with legitimacy until 1787. But, that first one was not written until 1777 and not ratified until 1781. Again, were we a "bastard" nation for 5 years?
(c) If you read the texts of each of these documents, it is clear, the legitimacy of our nation and government is proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence.
Why is this piece of trivia so important?
Whether secularists and atheists like it or not, our nation is founded on an ideology. And we find that ideology recorded in the Declaration of Independence. I offer a few excerpts:
"in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"
"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES"
Note two things that are very important.
(1) This declaration is based on the AUTHORITY OF THE PEOPLE. The founders of our nation recognized and appealed to a higher power, yet, placed the authority of the government in the hands of the people.
(2) These "inalienable rights" are granted by the Creator, not by the government. In other words, these rights do not come from a government, or from its people, thus, government and the people can not take them away. While the authority rests with the people, there is still a source of authority higher than them.
That is what happened in the USSR and Communist China. The leaders set themselves up as the "higher power", thus, they had the authority to give and take away any of these rights.
We, at least most of us, do not believe that our rights come from the government. But, here is where I am trying to get to:
Can you provide empirical evidence or proof that these ideals are right? Of course not. They are ideals, hence, our nation is founded on an ideology. Not logic, not science, not philosophy. You may use logic or philosophy to argue that these ideals are good and true and worthy of allegiance. But, many people have used logic and philosophy to reject them. (Karl Marx for one.)
ray at 6:56AM on Aug 31st 2007
40. More responses to Somber #30:
You wrote: "Religion can not be proven with imperical evidence."
True – religion "can not be proven with empirical evidence. Neither can philosophy.
You also wrote: "It is not logical that God should use a burning bush to talk to moses. It is not logical that God should demand Issac's sacrifice and then back out at the last minute when God knows his heart."
And, what "logic" can you offer to support this claim? I will admit it seems strange and outside our understandings, but, you and I do not understand God himself, so how can you say His actions are illogical? Again, what is your LOGIC? Are you suggesting that anything we do not understand must therefore be illogical. Sounds like centuries old hysteria, "That which we do not understand must be magic or witchcraft."
You wrote: "Philosophy is rooted in logic. It is not arbitary."
Let me use a little logic: If that were true, then, all philosophers would agree with each other. We know that is not true, ergo, your premise is false.
You wrote: "And while philosophy can not ever be conclusively proven… True, the same can be said for religion, but without the logical examination. "
You actually supported my claim, unless you can show how religion lacks logic.
You wrote: "So if religion and philosophy are related then they are no more so than wolves and dogs."
I never said that religion and philosophy are the same, I said they had more in common than philosophy and science. And you effectively agreed with me. Religion and philosophy are essentially untestable. (We might be able to "test" the successfulness of living under a particular religion or philosophy, but, I doubt we could claim that it is a true unbiased test.) Most of the concepts in science are testable.
ray at 7:00AM on Aug 31st 2007
41. Let me provide some brief responses to others:
To Pascual (#13), you wrote: "HOW CAN BE SO SURE THAT THEY WERE FREELY ELECTED???"
This is a fair and important question. However, no one has suggested that the elections in Turkey were unfair. And in the past 50 years, when the Turkish military overturned the elections, I do not recall "election fraud" as being the basis.
To genckemalist (#19), you wrote: "A large majority (54%) of the population did NOT vote for the islamists."
So what! 52% of the American voters did not vote for Bill Clinton in 1992. In fact , in many of our presidential elections, the "winner" received less than 50%of the vote.
You also wrote: "The Turkish military originally gave the people the democracy under which they live and are the most respected institution in the country. And, it is the Turkish military that saved the country from civil war back in 1980 when extremists, both islamic and reactionary leftists, were murdering people at the rate of 25+ per day."
I might agree with the concerns and sentiments of the Turkish military. I might even agree that the actions of the Turkish military were the lesser of two evils. But anytime a relatively small group of people thwart the will of the people (regardless of their intentions), it is NOT GOOD. Again, it may be the lesser of two evils, but NOT GOOD.
And I am nervous by your statement: "The Turkish military originally gave the people the democracy"
My view: "What the military (or government) gives, the military (or government) can take away."
To Sam in #33, you wrote: "They should not nominate a Muslim who believes in the Quran."
What about nominating a Christian who believes in the Bible?"
Or a Jew who believes in the Torah?
What about a follower of Gandhi who adheres to Gandhi's teachings?
You may have a legitimate concern regarding teachings from the Quran, but, you have to make that argument and provide support. Otherwise, your statement is bigoted.
ray at 7:02AM on Aug 31st 2007
42. Responding to the self-appointed expert on Turkish muslims because she lives in Turkey and is Muslim.
First of all, I will use you own words from another blog. You wrote: "I really am not educated on this subject, but I know enough to see it's damn hot in Philly, not to mention the humidity."
I am not educated on Turkey, Islam, or the military coups, I do not have to be. I am not a gourmet chef. I am not trained in the culinary arts, but, I know enough that I can still smell food that is rotten. As I stated, it is NOT GOOD when the military or a mob or a president or a court overturns the will of the people. I do not care whether the justification for the coup was "right vs left". I might ideologically agree with the military. The coups may have been the lesser of two evils, but NOT GOOD.
You wrote: The 'idiocy' I referred to was inherent to Dineshs' pretense that Islamic government in Turkey would be just okey-dokey."
OK – so you have made a claim, but, you have not explained it. Are you suggesting that we should not trust this newly elected prime minister? Are you suggesting that problems and conflicts will occur? If so, then, make that claim and offer explanations. DD never claimed there would not be problems. All he said, was "give them a chance." And that is all I said. Again, you are simply ranting and pissing all over yourself. You are not offering a coherent argument. You may be knowledgeable. You may even be educated. But, I have met my share of educated idiots.
You wrote: "As a Secular Democracy, why in the world ray-ray would you think that would aggravate me?"
Because you @$$hole, you wrote that you were "aggravated". You did not explain what aggravated you and you still haven't. Are you aggravated because you disagree with DD?
You wrote: "I have lived the Turkish Muslim life for almost a quarter of a decade and I know how Turks feel about their lives and goverments, you and Dinesh DO NOT. That is why I was upset."
Are you suggesting that your biography automatically makes you right and anyone else who disagrees with you wrong? I have a friend here in town, born, raised, and educated in Turkey. She agrees with DD and me. Not you. So, I guess our position now trumps yours!
BTW - one comment you made indicates an objection to the war in Iraq. I will not assume you have an overall objection to Bush's administration. Perhaps you do. But, if Bush's critics are correct, then the US Supreme Court overturned the will of the voters. Do you still support overturning the will of the people? How is the actions of the USSC any different from the military coups in Turkey?
ray at 7:09AM on Aug 31st 2007
43. From "Today's Zaman":
Although it won more votes than it did in the past, the AK Party is set to get fewer seats given the fact that the parliamentary seats will be distributed among three parties now, instead of two as was the case after 2002 elections. The AK Party is still certain to form a single-party government, controlling, however, fewer seats than required to change the Constitution or elect the president on its own.
Kemal Sanli at 9:54AM on Aug 31st 2007
44. another interesting article :
Turkey’s army lost presidency battle, war not over
Turkey’s military, stern upholders of secularism, failed to keep former Islamist Abdullah Gül from winning the presidency, but it is likely to try to make life difficult for him and the ruling AK Party.
President Gül (C), Chief of Staff Gen. Büyükanıt (L), and PM Erdoğan (R) watch a military parade on the Victory Day.
Almost no one expects a military coup, given the strong support for the Islamist-rooted AK Party in general elections in July, and it may be that only a series of blunders by the ruling party would give the army cause to go beyond vocal criticism. Gül, the respected ex-foreign minister, was sworn in as president on Tuesday after winning a vote in parliament, making him the first former Islamist to take the symbolically important post.
Gül strongly defended secularism in his inauguration speech, but will now have to tread carefully to avoid upsetting either the secularists or the AK Party’s religious-minded supporters. “The military have lost a battle but not yet the war. They are in it for the long run. It is a holy mission for them,” said Gareth Jenkins, an expert on Turkey’s military.
“They made a major miscalculation ... but behind the scenes they will now be working on how they ensure they protect their core values,” he said. They may for instance encourage media and opposition attacks on the government, he added.
The military and the secular elite mounted a fierce public campaign to block Gül’s candidacy earlier this year because of his Islamist past and the fact that his wife wears the Muslim headscarf, seen by secularists as a provocative religious symbol. The crisis sparked early parliamentary elections, which the AK Party won overwhelmingly.
Turkey, while predominantly Muslim, has a secular constitution, and the military considers itself the ultimate guardian of the secular republic founded by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. The army and the secular elite fear the AK Party has a hidden Islamist agenda and wants to bring back religion into public life.
The military has removed four governments in 60 years, most recently in 1997 when it mounted a public campaign that forced the ruling Islamist Welfare Party to quit. On that occasion, unlike now, the ruling party was already increasingly unpopular.
Centers of evil
The military’s latest veiled criticism of the AK Party was a warning on Monday that centers of evil were trying to undermine the secular system.
“It will be up to the AK Party to give the military proof that they are a threat to secularism. If they don’t, then the AK Party will be starving the military of oxygen,” Jenkins said. If the AK Party doesn’t give them anything then these (army) statements will look increasingly irrelevant.
Analysts expect the military to keep making harsh statements in coming months, ultimately hoping the opposition will take on the role of challenging the government.
The military leadership and some in the secular elite snubbed Gül’s swearing-in ceremony in parliament -- unheard of in modern times because the president is commander in chief.
When leaders round the world congratulated Gül, the military in Ankara remained silent. Gül also appears to have had a chilly reception at a military academy ceremony attended by the top brass. “I think it wasn’t appropriate for the armed forces to stay away and I think they have harmed their own image,” said Semih İdiz, a leading liberal Turkish columnist and commentator.
Few expect the army to intervene directly, as its strong defense of secularism in April -- when it threatened to intervene in the election process -- seemed to backfire and help give the AK Party more votes in the July elections.
The AK Party won 47 percent of the vote while the main secular opposition Republican People’s Party, with close ties to the army, scored poorly with 21 percent.
The military is regularly voted Turkey’s most trusted institution, but analysts say the election result and absence of negative public reaction to Gül’s presidential victory show Turks do not like it meddling in politics in normal times. Prime Minister Tayyip Erdoğan has tried to ease tensions.
“I want to say on this meaningful day that we need to unite around the values of our nation, qualities of our republic and common goals more than ever and put aside our differences,” Erdoğan said in a speech marking the Aug. 30 Victory Day.
The army and secularists will now watch Gül’s performance closely, noting whether he tries to weaken the strict separation of state and religion -- and particularly whether his wife wears the headscarf at official events.
The garment is banned in public offices and universities and is not traditionally worn at presidential palace receptions.
31.08.2007
PAUL DE BENDERN ANKARA
Kemal Sanli at 10:00AM on Aug 31st 2007
45. "Why should America or the West dictate how the Turkish people govern themselves? Why is secular thuggery preferable to Muslim democracy?"
The West has ostensibly committed itself to letting Muslims of various sorts govern themselves. To the exclusion of non-Muslim minority groups, we've committed ourselves to ensuring that the new Iraqi government incorporates elements of Islamic law, with a predominantly Shi'ite slant.
In Afghanistan, we've been careful to emphasize our commitment--whether or not we actually follow through is another matter entirely--to respecting the traditional Islamic values of the people of that country.
If anything, the West (and principally the United States) has bent over backward for the sake of letting Muslims do whatever they claim their religion compels them to. Maybe we're being inordinately careful not to offend Muslims out of fear that it might inflame their passions and provoke more attacks against innocent people?
I don't recall any such declaration of respect for the religious traditions of other countries the U.S. has engaged in combat against at any time in the past. Allied forces destroyed countless churches during the second World War and, in Japan, we even insisted that a very severe reformation of that country's national religion take place as a condition of accepting their surrender. Nevertheless, we've committed ourselves to preserving mosques that may harbor terrorists because of their cultural and religious significance. We delayed our invasion of Iraq out of respect for the observance of Ramadhaan. A few years earlier, without hesitation, we participated in the bombing of Serbia on the eve of Pascha, the Orthodox Christian equivalent of the Western Easter. That particularly egregious disregard for a Christian religious holiday was done in the defense of Muslim Bosnians, some of whom undoubtedly today are in terrorist cells plotting against the same United States who championed their cause a decade earlier!
We've committed ourselves to scolding the Russians(who despite 70 years of secular, atheist thuggery have a Christian history that predates the existence of most Western countries) in their own battle against Islamic insurgents in the Caucasian hinterlands, telling them that their "human rights abuses against these Muslim minority groups" is unacceptable in this modern age.
"Yet the "separation of church and state" [Westerners] invoke does not apply anywhere in the world except in America. Israel doesn't have separation of church and state: it is a Jewish country that openly worries about protecting its Jewish identity. Britain has an established Anglican church, and virtually all European countries provide state subsidies to religious institutions, including religious schools."
Very true, but I seem to remember that, in the not-too-distant past, the U.S. threatened Russia with aid sanctions because of a proposal to restrict the proselytizing efforts of non-native faiths (mostly American Christian evangelical groups) which were seen as a threat to the revival of native Russian religions that had been suppressed by decades of atheist tyranny. What an uproar that caused here in the United States! How dare these people be denied the right to religious freedom!
Yet on those occasions that Christian missionaries have been held hostage by Muslim extremists, their release being contingent on the cessation of missionary activity by whatever group is held captive at the moment, compliance is met swiftly without question often at the recommendation of the local government. Stories of forced conversion abound in countries such as Egypt (a supposed "secular" state), home to one of the most ancient Christian communities, yet we're deaf to their tribulation. The countries sheltering these terrorists continue to collect aid from the West, with the United States leading the pack.
Why should America dictate how the Turkish people govern themselves? Because it has become obvious that democracy is incompatible with traditional Islam. If the West can meddle in the moral and religious affairs of non-Muslim countries, there's no reason to behave any differently toward a Muslim country.
Mark at 1:33PM on Aug 31st 2007