Blasphemy in Turkey

I visited Turkey two years ago. It wasn’t all what I expected, it seemed very European and developed for the most part, particularly Istanbul. Yes, they had 5 times daily calls to prayer from loudspeakers, but otherwise religion didn’t seem too intrusive. The major mosques are tourist attractions, and while you need to remove your shoes to enter them, that was about it.

Yet today a headline caught my eye: Court Sentences Top Pianist for Tweets Insulting Islam. Apparently, in Turkey blasphemy is still a crime which can send you to prison, like the more backward theocratic nations in the region. I suspect the only reason he got a suspended sentence instead of actual prison time was he’s a celebrity. Yeah, a suspended sentence is definitely a step up from what would happen to him in Iran, but it’s still very disturbing to me.

It’s clear from legislation introduced in places like North Carolina (“the 1st amendment doesn’t apply to us”) that there are people in this country who’d like to see the US become a theocracy with similar laws. Not many, but some.

Turkey has been becoming less and less secular since 2002. In the same time, the AKP has been conducting a quiet war on journalists, opposition political figures and the military.

While Turkey still gives the outward impression of a secular, progressive and modern society seeking entry into the EU and the first world - the reality is exceedingly different.

Also, while they’ve conducted significant paper reforms of the judiciary to strengthen its independence, the reality is the exact opposite.

When you are truly in control, you don’t have to give a fuck what people say about you. When you are scrambling to keep everyone from simultaneously disclosing that they don’t buy into your shit and finding out the secret was not theirs alone, you have to work for it. Ronald Reagan went around repeating jokes about the Soviet Union that were told by its citizens for just that reason.

But, most blasphemy laws are used to stifle political dissent, not actual antifaith antagonists. His mistake was probably mentioning politicians.

Kemalism is collapsing in Turkey.

It’s a combination of local and regional trends really. The secular parties and the followers of Nasr and Kemal have largely been discredited across the Middle East. Meanwhile, with the end of the Cold War the West is unwilling to support another Army coup. The Army was the one thing keeping Islamism in check in Turkey. The AKP is in-itself revolutionary, they’ve created a platform that brings together the middle class with conservative rural Turks. Many of their supporters are people who felt marginalized by the electoral process and who believed democracy was un-islamic.

I went to school with a number of secular Turks, it’s difficult to overstate how much they hate Edrogan. Their world is under siege, and they don’t expect it to survive.

Yes, unfortunately once official separation is used to hide religious policy behind a shield of “it can’t be religious, the law says it can’t be”.

The real test will be the next elections. You can’t under Turkish law run for Parliament more than three times. 73 of the AK’s MP’s are up against that, of 327 - basically all the senior cadre.

(There’s also the little matter of the law change where the Prime Minister can be elected President under the revised constitution…no possible abuse there, no!)

Erdogan is a gifted politician, I’m wouldn’t bet against him.

The I guess Turkey should should expect to lose all support from the EU if they continue this trend?

No. But at least I don’t have to worry about Turkey joining the EU.

edit: jpinard - Ha, great minds…

And well, the EU’s been quite soft on this. Hungary’s not suspended from membership, for instance. But when national vetos come into play, for new members, well…

I doubt it, barely a murmur out of the EU other than some whimpering about Kurds and Human Rights abuses - but the EU position on Turkey is complex.
Essentially, we seem to want to keep them as economic partners but without any of the social integration or requirements.

Agreed.

As an American I always supported their bid, I hoped it would keep Turkey in the West. If I was an European though I know I would have felt differently. They are neither East nor West, and I wouldn’t want to deal with their complex ethnic, political, and culture issues.

Many of their supporters are people who felt marginalized by the electoral process and who believed democracy was un-islamic.

Source?

Sorry but what you have written sounds like hyperbole. I also have many secular Turkish friends and they don’t see Turkey disintegrating into an Islamic dictatorship just because the Turkish equivalent of the Republicans have been in power for the last ten years or so. They aren’t happy, and they call Erdogan all kinds of names, but he’s not the next Ayatollah.

There’s a strong current of anti-democratic thinking in Islam Tim. Community is the primary tenet of Islam, and factionalism is one of the greatest sins. Party based elections were considered divisive and often un-islamic for that reason. That also explains Islamic opposition to Communism, class warfare is anathema to Islamic thinkers.

You state that as if it is a fact, and specifically applies to Turkey, but you don’t back it up with anything. What do you mean by “strong” - what is its value? How Islamic is Turkey? Who considers party based elections divisive? Extremists or ordinary Muslims?

Let’s look at some actual numbers. According to Pew global surveys, the majority of Muslims want democracy. They say 71% of Turks prefer democracy to any other kind of government. Also according to Pew, as a comparison, 77% of Hungarians are dissatisfied with democracy. Not a direct comparison, but it shows that a love of democracy isn’t necessarily prevalent in Christian countries either.

And Russians, hell barely 40% of them care even for multiparty elections, less for free speech and media.

Tim, western democracy is anathema to Islam (although in fairness, Christianity was hardly better). I could quote scripture and clerics and stuff, but I don’t think it’s really necessary? I could similarly quote stuff from the Bible that showed the same for Christianity, the difference being how much of a role Christianity has in politics in the western world vs Islam in the Middle East (Indeed, the Pew polls you linked seem to confirm this).

In the Western World? You mean like in America where most people would refuse to vote for a president just because he was an atheist? Some states in America are more religious than Iran.

I could quote scripture and clerics and stuff, but I don’t think it’s really necessary?

No it wouldn’t be necessary, because scripture can be interpreted many ways, and clerics only state their own opinion. I could quote you tracts of the bible and priests that show that Christianity runs counter to democracy, but what would that prove when the majority of Christians, like the majority of Muslims, think democracy is the best form of government?

What would be better is if you could show a convincing argument for why Turkish Muslims, the vast majority of which think that Islam is an important part of their lives, also are able to think that democracy is the best form of government when, as you claim, “democracy is anathema to Islam”. You could also explain why this is even relevant to the claim that Turkey’s democracy is “under siege” from Islam, when support for democracy in the country has been shown to be growing?

America is a bit of an anachronism when it comes to the role of religion and a modern, secular society, in fairness

No it wouldn’t be necessary, because scripture can be interpreted many ways, and clerics only state their own opinion. I could quote you tracts of the bible and priests that show that Christianity runs counter to democracy, but what would that prove when the majority of Christians, like the majority of Muslims, think democracy is the best form of government?

Islam as a religion is anathema to democracy if strictly adhered to. I never argued or stated anything else. You’re now arguing that because most muslims don’t follow it strictly, Islam as a religion is not anathema to democracy - which doesn’t seem particularly logical. It’s akin to arguing that the KKK isn’t anathema to civil rights, because most White Americans don’t pay much attention to them.

What would be better is if you could show a convincing argument for why Turkish Muslims, the vast majority of which think that Islam is an important part of their lives, also are able to think that democracy is the best form of government when

Because it’s better than totalitarian dictatorial regimes? When your only choice is between a shitty one, and a slightly less shitty one, you’re going to take the less shitty one in fairness.

as you claim, “democracy is anathema to Islam”.

It’s pretty much widely accepted than any strict following of Islam precludes the modern notion of democracy, the closest Islam comes is a Theocracy.

You could also explain why this is even relevant to the claim that Turkey’s democracy is “under siege” from Islam,

I didn’t say that? I merely pointed out than a strict adherence to Islam is anathema to democracy.

when support for democracy in the country has been shown to be growing?

Ah, but it’s support for democracy where Islam plays a strong and positive role, as shown by your Pew polls. How much support would democracy have if it was a secular party in control? (hint: not much)
It’s less about democracy, and more about populism. E.g. tea party members going from 30% supporting democracy to 75%, after the tea party forms a Government.

Also, Turkey’s democracy is ‘under siege’ from the AKP due to:
Erosion of civil liberties
Erosion of political freedoms
Mass intimidation of journalists
Erosion of judicial independence

I’d like to throw in eroding the independence of the Military, but it’s hard to justify that as an attack on democracy - more an attack on social and human freedoms.

Strict adherence to ANY code is, by definition, anathema to “Western Democracy.” That’s kind of the point of a code in the first place: if A, then B. Not if A, then think about it, consult with others, collectively decide to do whatever. Throwing any particular name into that statement with no mention of others seems to be an odd choice worth a little self examination, especially considering the majority of its adherents are not strict (just like Christianity, the law, Java, Bushido - you name it). Relaxed and strict adherents to Islam are subsets of the same group. To lump them together and then make such a strong statement would be ill-advised if accuracy was a motivating factor. Relaxed adherence to a code is, on the other hand, quite compatible with democratic ideals and institutions. Within that, you have a framework where you feel you can modify or set aside parts of it whenever the time is right to do so based upon an evolving understanding of your circumstances. Kind of like how democratic legislatures work.

First logical flaw :> only if the code itself is anti-democratic. Having a strict moral code is not necessarily anathema to the rule of law, for example.

That’s kind of the point of a code in the first place: if A, then B. Not if A, then think about it, consult with others, collectively decide to do whatever.

I can’t really make any sense of this.

Throwing any particular name into that statement with no mention of others seems to be an odd choice worth a little self examination

I didn’t throw a particular name into that statement? I also mentioned that strict adherence to Christianity was at one point anathema to democracy too. What exactly am I self examining?

especially considering the majority of its adherents are not strict (just like Christianity, the law, Java, Bushido - you name it).

I haven’t seen any evidence that the majority of muslims are not strict adherents (or that they are strict adherents).

Saudi Arabia and Iran both give significant power to the Ulama. Pakistan needs no introduction, Indonesia, while still remaining a strong democracy has seen a huge rise in militant Islam, accompanied by the rule of a lame duck and ineffectual President. Militant and conservative Islam is on the rise in Bangladesh (hefazat-e-islam and JI), and Egypt…well. :)

I said (as you quoted above) "Strict adherence to ANY code is, by definition, anathema to “Western Democracy.” That is not “rule of law,” but we’ll go with what you said just for the fun of it: if your strict moral code prevents you from treating those you consider to be sinners with equality, and such a definition of sin includes classes that are protected, you could run afoul of the rule of law. If you wanted to say “ethics,” you could likewise be ethically bound to commit an action that is against the law (freeing animals from being tortured in labs, for instance). So as you can see, strict adherance to a code can certainly cause problems with the law.

I can’t really make any sense of this.

That’s okay. I’ll try to explain: a code (in this context) is a set of rules and regulations that apply to procedures of conduct. If thing “A” occurs, you are to do thing “B” according to the almighty “Code of A and B.” That’s how codes work. Compare this to democracy: is thing “A” occurs, you have debates both public and private, appeals from special interest groups, marketing blitzes to get the public behind their ideas, and then finally people vote on it (if it gets out of committee and passes any fillibuster) and something may or may not happen as a result. That’s not a code being followed … that’s politics in a Western-style democracy.

I didn’t throw a particular name into that statement? I also mentioned that strict adherence to Christianity was at one point anathema to democracy too. What exactly am I self examining?

That’s alright. I’m not here to bring you to the light, or anything. You’ll note I didn’t quote anyone in my post above. That was because I was trying to address everyone as a whole without calling out individuals in an antagonistic manner. Sometimes clarity is what suffers when I do that. It’s a fair trade for peace, in my opinion.

I haven’t seen any evidence that the majority of muslims are not strict adherents (or that they are strict adherents).

Saudi Arabia and Iran both give significant power to the Ulama. Pakistan needs no introduction, Indonesia, while still remaining a strong democracy has seen a huge rise in militant Islam, accompanied by the rule of a lame duck and ineffectual President. Militant and conservative Islam is on the rise in Bangladesh (hefazat-e-islam and JI), and Egypt…well. :)

You bring up an interesting dillemma. How does one effectively first glean and then extrapolate understanding of a faith from news headlines? You really can’t. And yet people seem to be trying it all the time, and more foolishly claim to be successful at it.

How about this for a juxtaposition: we have the afore-mentioned push to make Christianity the state religion in NC. We fairly recently had a huge stink over whether or not Obama was a Christian. Right now, there’s a huge debate that has reached the Supreme Court regarding whether LGBT couples will be able to have the same rights as heterosexuals. In the last decade we’ve had prominent public figures declare that natural disasters have occurred because of the sins of our people. Annually, there’s outrage over “the war on Christmas” whenever some community tries to be more inclusive. With all of the above and any other examples you can find, can someone say whether or not strict Christianity constitutes the majority of Christians in this country? It demonstrably does not, and yet cherry-picked headlines can paint a different picture.

Now consider what you brought up: political bodies and movements. Do Republican and Democrat platforms really represent the opinions of 95% of this nation? Certainly not, and yet that’s what voting tallies seem to indicate if someone doesn’t tease apart the underlying factors that led to such results. You often get extremes in office and positions of power, not because that’s what represents the typical outlook, but because they take the typical and place it on steroids. That helps them get past challengers. For instance, <silly alert> if someone is in a contest for official ice cream taste tester, a lucrative job that gives you some modest control over what flavors are present at public functions, they’d want to appeal to those who are voting. This can have strange results:

Candidate A says “I like all flavors, and I’ll be happy with whatever flavor winds up on our plates as long as it is the highest quality, because that’s what you all deserve.” All around, people clap. Nothing disagreeable whatsoever. A totally safe thing to say, or so he thinks …

Candidate B, on the other hand, did some research and found a slight favoratism for chocolate by the majority of the public. They still like the other flavors, but that rich chocolaty goodness just barely wins out when stacked up against the rest. “I love chocolate,” he says. A murmer of approval starts to spread. “Chocolate is by far and away the best flavor of all time. I’ll make sure we have the best chocolate around at every public outing.” People cheer: he’s championing the favorite of the majority, even though it’s to an extent that none of them feel.

Candidate B wins. Now what the voters don’t always realize is what unintended consequence this may bring about. Sure, there’s some awesome chocolate to be had, but the other flavors get ignored. When someone brings up the issue, they get rebuffed because the topic is not chocolate-related, and therefore of lesser importance. People who like vanilla or strawberry, even those who have a slight preference for chocolate, are now relagated to has-beens in the field of candidates. The only way you can beat this fellow is by professing that you love chocolate even more and then go out and find some way to prove it.

Thus, we can get our extremists arising from the primordial ice cream soup, going further and further extreme as time goes on.

In short, bombastic political movements are frequently not the best way to determine what view a majority holds. What’s worse, is they essentailly create feedback loops.

Agreed.

The military was certainly anti-democratic, they overthrew a series of elected governments when it suited their purposes, but they were also the guardians of a western and secular Turkey. The attacks on the Army were an attack on that tradition. At this point most of the senior generals were appointed by the AKP. I assume they are well in hand at this point.