Blasphemy in Turkey

Politics and religion
21

So when you say that Christianity doesn’t play a strong role in Western democracies you’d like to exclude the biggest, oldest and most powerful Western democracy as an outlier in order to argue your case? Ok…

How much support would democracy have if it was a secular party in control? (hint: not much)

You can’t make assumptions like that. The data doesn’t support it. There is majority support for democracy and Islamic values, but only a minority support for strict Islam. I mean the Turks have voted in secular governments before, despite their belief in Islam. So are you going to say that they don’t support the parties they vote for?

If you are going to make huge leaps of logic like that, then you’d have to assume that most Americans only support democracy when there is a Christian in the White House because they won’t vote for an atheist. Do you really think that’s true? Or do you just follow illogical conclusions when they support your argument?

Also, Turkey’s democracy is ‘under siege’ from the AKP due to:

Again, you just state things as if they are fact, without anything to back it up, and yet again evidence suggests differently:

The Economist says that Turkey’s democracy, for all its problems, is actually improving slowly in recent years. Its democracy index score was 5.70/10 in 2006 and has increased to 5.76 in 2012. These modest improvements aren’t that surprising given how much Erdogan would like Turkey to join the EU and his efforts (however strained) to meet with the EU’s demands for improved freedoms in the country.

I’d imagine that most of Turkey’s problems, like the blasphemy laws that kicked off this discussion, date back way before Erdogan came to power.

22

I was going to reply to your post, but upon closer reading it appeared to be content that was created by one of those “automatic essay/argument” generator. It is inherently illogical, and incredibly and unnecessarily lengthy.
In short, you argued that “strict adherence to any code is anathema to Western Democracy”. Your defence of this insane statement is “strict adherence to a code can certainly cause problems”. Yeah, there’s a huge gaping difference between those two statements.

You then wrote an essay on political movements to show how it’s impossible to measure the role/rise of militant and conservative Islam, despite you being the first person to ‘measure’ the role of it by stating the majority of adherents to Islam are not strict. So you’re arguing against yourself.

Only it took you several hundred words to expertly disarm your own original points.

23

Yes, because the United States is an outlier. It’s electoral systems are also pretty damn undemocratic, as western democracies go.

You can’t make assumptions like that. The data doesn’t support it.

The data doesn’t disprove it either.

There is majority support for democracy and Islamic values, but only a minority support for strict Islam.

Three out of the Six countries surveyed had a majority support for strict Islam. All 6 had majority support that laws should strictly follow the Quran or follow the values and principles of Islam. Five out of six said Islam played a large role in politics, all six had more polling that a strong role of Islam in Politics was a good thing, and all six said it was a bad thing Islam played a small role in politics (which suggests that they think it should play a larger role). The data is heavily supporting my view, and not yours.

I mean the Turks have voted in secular governments before, despite their belief in Islam. So are you going to say that they don’t support the parties they vote for?

You’re showing a complete and utter ignorance of Turkey’s history, constitution and laws here - specifically, that secularism is enshrined in both the constitution and laws and that the military has deposed overtly Islamic governments. Why are you talking about Turkey if you know absolutely nothing about it?

If you are going to make huge leaps of logic like that, then you’d have to assume that most Americans only support democracy when there is a Christian in the White House because they won’t vote for an atheist. Do you really think that’s true? Or do you just follow illogical conclusions when they support your argument?

What huge leap of logic? Also, you must have missed both of the last Presidential elections in America where many ordinary people and politicians threatened to leave the country/secede/not participate in democracy if Obama was elected. I’m pretty sure you would see a huge drop in support for democracy in the US if there was a gay black and atheist female President, and you would also have plenty of people stating that they believe in Democracy but that the current President is somehow, magically undemocratic somehow (also, you seem to have forgotten about Birthers)

Again, you just state things as if they are fact, without anything to back it up, and yet again evidence suggests differently

Why would I quote tens of news articles? You have no interest in changing your mind, if you had an open mind about this subject you would have researched it yourself after my post. People who demand and insist on citations and references as if a bulletin board post was a scholarly essay, never have any interest in actually reading citations and references. Where they run contrary to opinion, they are ignored. All of my listed points are in the very public domain, and it’s quite easy to find evidence of such - even the most half-arsed cursory google search will give you literally hundreds of news articles, press releases, and reports to read.

I’d imagine that most of Turkey’s problems, like the blasphemy laws that kicked off this discussion, date back way before Erdogan came to power.

You imagine a lot. I’m sure the AKPs actions around ‘Ergenekon’ date to way back before the AKP existed. Cuz yeah, time travel.
Also, Erdogan’s push for worldwide (and EU wide) blasphemy law to prevent Muslims being ‘offended’(his word), is a problem stemming from before he came to power. Because time travel.
The 2004 attempt to criminalise Adultery was certainly dating from way back before Erdogan came to power too!

Here are some select quotes from Erdogan, before he became a ‘moderate’.

Thank God almighty, I am a servant of Sharia.

(as mayor of Istanbul) I am the imam of Istanbul.

(on democracy) You ride it until you arrive at your destination, then you step off.

Yeah.

24

Ah. So you’re not interested in discussion. Still. Alas, I had hoped times had changed. I’ll keep you on my ignore list and periodically check in when the subject may be of interest again. Feel free to step up your game in the future, as right now it’s pretty woeful.

25

I find the blasphemy laws fascinating because their a clearcut example of relative values, free-speech is abhorrent for many Muslims.

26

Well, to be fair, American-style free speech is unwelcome by a lot of different types of communities, especially those that feel the exercise of individual freedom should never undermine collective unity or stability. The Chinese, for example, or perhaps even the Russians, fall into that category. Hell, even here we have difficulty trying to sort out just how much free speech we want to tolerate–Westboro Baptist, for instance. The Kuwaitis, who just tossed a guy in jail for “insulting” the boss there, could be said to be doing so due to Islamic ideals…or they could be said to be doing so because they’re feudal autocrats who don’t tolerate dissent because, well, they’re feudal autocrats.

OTOH, in Iran, the tradition of Shia jurisprudence and political philosophy–at least from what I recall from reading Khomeini and his ilk a while back–certainly bases a lot of its opposition to Western-style democracy on an interpretation of Islam. Then again, the Iranians do actually consider themselves democratic–it’s different definitions of democracy that are at work there.

I won’t weigh in on kedaha’s arguments, as I confess to knowing rather little about Turkey, except that the food there was really good, and the like their soccer team.

27

That’s a very fair point.

The Kuwaitis, who just tossed a guy in jail for “insulting” the boss there, could be said to be doing so due to Islamic ideals…or they could be said to be doing so because they’re feudal autocrats who don’t tolerate dissent because, well, they’re feudal autocrats.

And again, a fair point. That’s often how they’re used. There was a case a couple months ago in Pakistan between a Christian and a Muslim who disagreed over money.

28

The last defence of the ignorant. I’m perfectly interested in discussion, not vapid, rambling nonsensical essays where you disprove your original points. To repeat: "In short, you argued that “strict adherence to any code is anathema to Western Democracy”. Your defence of this insane statement is “strict adherence to a code can certainly cause problems”. Yeah, there’s a huge gaping difference between those two statements.

You then wrote an essay on political movements to show how it’s impossible to measure the role/rise of militant and conservative Islam, despite you being the first person to ‘measure’ the role of it by stating the majority of adherents to Islam are not strict. So you’re arguing against yourself.

Only it took you several hundred words to expertly disarm your own original points."

TheWombat, Iran is a ‘democracy’, but the democracy is subservient to the theocracy. Despite being a theocracy, it’s relatively secular and culturally, far more open/western than pretty much any other Islamic country - excluding Turkey and Indonesia. Certainly far more democratic and free than Saudi Arabia for example. Likewise, the widespread support/wish for democracy in the middle east can at least be partly explained by the fact that many of the autocratic and totalitarian regimes are not particularly supportive of Islam.

29

Uh. The UK, as an example, is worse. We have a House of Lords, an appointed Cabinet (by the PM, the leader of the party commanding a majority - and no party has ) and these days retrospective legislation to fix their blatant errors of law and deny people compensation for outright illegal actions.

You have to go back to 1931 to find a Government which won 50%+ of the popular vote, in fact…

30

Arguing that the House of Lords makes the UK undemocratic is similar to arguing that having non-publicly elected Judges make judgements on legal issues is undemocratic, imho. Also, while I despise FPTP, it’s a feature of single representative districts. I also don’t see how either an appointed cabinet (comprised of elected MPs and appointed by the party with the ruling majority) or legislation legally and democratically enacted by the democratically elected MPs are undemocratic?

Actually, might be getting a bit theoretical now and descending into arguing about electoral systems, tyranny of the majority, human/constitutional rights and freedoms etc. I should probably clarify that when I say democracy, I mean liberal democracy.

Back to Turkey?

31

Ok, I spent twenty mins gathering a few links for anyone interested:

Blasphemy:

TV channel fined over ‘blasphemous’ Simpsons episode: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-20598262
Erdogan rants and condems soap opera for inaccurate depiction of Suleiman the Magnificant and threatens the creators with the judiciary: http://www.npr.org/2013/01/03/167981036/prime-minister-finds-soap-operas-turkish-delights-in-bad-taste http://world.time.com/2012/12/26/why-is-turkeys-prime-minister-at-war-with-a-soap-opera/
Government charges Turkish army officers with the crime of “insulting Turkishness” for showing Game of Thrones: http://www.latitudenews.com/story/in-turkey-the-simpsons-and-game-of-thrones-are-blasphemy/
Erdogan pushing for an EU/International blasphemy law: http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2012/09/19/comment-calls-for-international-blasphemy-law-must-be-r http://frontpagemag.com/2012/andrew-harrod/turkey-pm-pushes-international-blasphemy-laws/
Turkey threatens veto on new NATO sec-gen for refusing to apologise about the Danish cartoons: http://www.examiner.com/article/anti-blasphemy-gone-wild-turkey-disrupts-nato-chief-s-appointment-over-danish-cartoon

Freedom:
Students sentenced to eight years for unfurling banner: http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/students-sentenced-to-eight-years-for-banner-in-turkey.aspx?pageID=238&nid=22632&NewsCatID=339

Judiciary:
Democraticisng the courts and removing Judges insulation from popular opinion/backlash: http://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/a-populist-assault-on-judicial-independence-newt-gingrich-recep-tayyip-edrogan-and-benjamin-netanyahu

Constitutional reforms:
Erdogans attempts at creating an executive Presidency that allows him to retain power: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/18/us-turkey-constitution-idUSBRE91H0C220130218 http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/c541c476-3e46-11e2-91cb-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2QmtvB983 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/15/turkish-opposition-leader-dictator-erdogan http://www.opendemocracy.net/aslan-amani/turkeys-growing-constitutional-conundrum

Attack on free press:
Turkey’s quiet war on Journalists results in Turkey imprisoning more journalists than any other country in the world: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/10/turkey-free-speech-erdogan-crackdown http://www.trust.org/trustmedia/news/ipiosce-study-confirms-nearly-100-journalists-currently-in-prison-in-turkey/
Jouranlist sacked and her tv show cancelled after she was publicly criticised by Erdogan: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/10/turkey-free-speech-erdogan-crackdown

I can’t find any good links, but there are hundreds of cases of illegal wiretapping being used against politicians/activists/journalists, including the illegal wiretaps being used in Court. http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/default.aspx?pageid=438&n=illegal-wiretaps-puts-their-role-under-scrutiny-2010-06-15

I also suggest looking into Mustafa Balbay and Tuncay Ozkan (related to both press and Ergenekon)

Army:
Defendants facing life imprisonment in the Ergenekon trials given between 1-2 hours to present their defence: http://www.todayszaman.com/news-312702-time-limit-in-ergenekon-trial-sparks-outrage.html

There’s god knows how much more information out there and if genuinely interested, I suggest you go and research it further.

32

I’m just going to laugh at that apologia for the problems of the UK system.

I agree with you on what’s happening in Turkey, but there are major problems in many Western nations as well, not just the US.

33

Apologia? A democratically elected government democratically enacting retroactive legislation /=/ undemocratic. Similarly, a democratically elected government choosing members of it’s cabinet from amongst the democratically elected parliament /=/ undemocratic.

The UK has a lot of problems, but I’d single out FPTP and the rabid erosion of civil liberties and rights before I started accusing the Cabinet of being undemocratic and using that as an example as to the problems with the UK :)

34

From a nit-picky standpoint, the United States is a Constitutional Republic where the representatives are chosen by democratic processes at the lowest levels. It was never stood up as a “pure” democracy and has only migrated in that direction slowly over the centuries. If you look at the political and philosophical writing of the first 50 years of the US’ existence, the term “democracy” is rarely used in a positive fashion – later due to the horror-show that was the French Revolution souring people on the idea of “mob rule”, but even before that.

I could be wrong, but I don’t believe that the words “democracy” or “democratic” appear in the US Constitution or even the Declaration of Independence. You can find it in the Federalist Papers, but usually in a semi-negative context:

This has been your pedantic history lesson for the day.

35

Pedantic, perhaps, but generally spot-on. The founders of the USA were pretty skeptical of this “democracy” stuff; hence the checks and balances, bicameral legislature, somewhat arcane electoral college, senators elected by state legislatures, etc. “Mob rule” was feared as much as tyranny; by some, more so. I mean, the American revolution wasn’t exactly carried out by a bunch of sans-culottes waving red flags.

I do think that the USA today is rather unique in many ways, when compared to other Western democracies. It’s not that any one of our characteristics is unheard of elsewhere, it’s just that we combine so many of them–strong religious influence, extreme diversity, relatively limited two-party representation, extreme individualism, regionalism, egalitarianism balanced by near hero-worship of the wealthy, all sorts of interesting things. Just by not being a parliamentary system we make ourselves sort of stand out from the herd, as well.

36

The systematic structural problems don’t worry you? And the rabid erosion is THANKS to things like the retrospective legislation. Also, a lot of it gets stopped at the ECHR and EU level, but that’s never reported abroad I note.

37

The US is “pretty damn undemocratic”? I really should just stop there. I really should. The Economist democracy index ranks the US 21st in the world, ahead of France, Belgium, Portugal, Japan and Italy. What’s your definition of “western democracy” - Scandinavia?

The data doesn’t disprove it either.

This is childish debating. The data doesn’t disprove a flat earth, but you can’t use it to support the claim that it is!

Three out of the Six countries surveyed had a majority support for strict Islam. All 6 had majority support that laws should strictly follow the Quran or follow the values and principles of Islam. Five out of six said Islam played a large role in politics, all six had more polling that a strong role of Islam in Politics was a good thing, and all six said it was a bad thing Islam played a small role in politics (which suggests that they think it should play a larger role). The data is heavily supporting my view, and not yours.

Which point of view? I assume it is this: Islam is incompatible with democracy.

You think the data supports this because people in some countries who support democracy also support strict Islam. Because you already believe this is incompatible, they must therefore be mistaken and they DON’T actually support democracy. This argument is predicated on your original argument being true, and is therefore hilariously circular.

You’re showing a complete and utter ignorance of Turkey’s history, constitution and laws here - specifically, that secularism is enshrined in both the constitution and laws and that the military has deposed overtly Islamic governments. Why are you talking about Turkey if you know absolutely nothing about it?

Wut? Your argument now is to just insult me? Brilliant. Ad hominems. Is this some kind of logical fallacy bingo?

Also, you must have missed both of the last Presidential elections in America where many ordinary people and politicians threatened to leave the country/secede/not participate in democracy if Obama was elected. I’m pretty sure you would see a huge drop in support for democracy in the US if there was a gay black and atheist female President, and you would also have plenty of people stating that they believe in Democracy but that the current President is somehow, magically undemocratic somehow (also, you seem to have forgotten about Birthers)

So because some Americans (you have no data to show how many) don’t like the president, and make threats to leave but don’t, they must hate democracy? And you don’t think that’s a huge leap of logic?

Why would I quote tens of news articles? You have no interest in changing your mind, if you had an open mind about this subject you would have researched it yourself after my post. People who demand and insist on citations and references as if a bulletin board post was a scholarly essay, never have any interest in actually reading citations and references. Where they run contrary to opinion, they are ignored. All of my listed points are in the very public domain, and it’s quite easy to find evidence of such - even the most half-arsed cursory google search will give you literally hundreds of news articles, press releases, and reports to read.

Yeah, why back up your arguments with facts, because stuff! You know if I provide you with evidence that something isn’t true, you might think it would help your cause to provide evidence to the contrary. Saying “just google it” is really lazy. Much easier to just write lots of lots of words in the hope of drowning everyone else out.

You imagine a lot. I’m sure the AKPs actions around ‘Ergenekon’ date to way back before the AKP existed. Cuz yeah, time travel.
Also, Erdogan’s push for worldwide (and EU wide) blasphemy law to prevent Muslims being ‘offended’(his word), is a problem stemming from before he came to power. Because time travel.
The 2004 attempt to criminalise Adultery was certainly dating from way back before Erdogan came to power too!

Erdogan is a conservative. That doesn’t make him anti-democracy, nor does supporting conversative laws. Half of American states have laws against adultery (I know the USA is a dictatorship to you but I’m trying to maintain a logical argument here). It’s also illegal in places like South Korea. It’s not in itself undemocratic. Neither are blasphemy laws. Neither are laws forbidding the burning of flags because it offends nationalists (even Denmark forbids that). These are just laws. You are trying to show Erdogan is destroying democracy in Turkey by showing he supports conservative laws. It’s nonsensical.

Here are some select quotes from Erdogan, before he became a ‘moderate’.

Yeah.

The big “yeah”. You post a bunch of quotes without context, which could mean absolutely anything, and think that refutes analysis from one of the world’s most respected sources on global democratic progress, the EIC, which shows the exact opposite of what you claim?

I’m no fan of Erdogan, and none of my Turkish friends are. In truth I could accept that Islam isn’t conducive to democracy (but what religion/ideology is) and that Erdogan is harmful to Turkish democracy. My original point was just to ask IL to support his claims, but now I’m hammering you because your arguments are just bad, bad, bad.

38

As a democratic system, the US electoral process is pretty damn undemocratic compared to most other western democracies. You can really top wherever you like, it’s still true and even a cursory read on democratic deficit and electoral systems will back it up.

This is childish debating. The data doesn’t disprove a flat earth, but you can’t use it to support the claim that it is!

You linked to a series of polls on democracy in six Islamic countries to show that support for democracy is strong. I pointed out that the series of polls do nothing to disprove my opinion that the support for democracy is strong because democracy is seen as strengthening the role of Islam. Somehow that’s the same as stating that the polls don’t disprove a flat earth?

I’m not the one debating childishly.

Which point of view? I assume it is this: Islam is incompatible with democracy.

You think the data supports this because people in some countries who support democracy also support strict Islam. Because you already believe this is incompatible, they must therefore be mistaken and they DON’T actually support democracy. This argument is predicated on your original argument being true, and is therefore hilariously circular.

It’s an objective independent fact that following a strict interpretation of Qu’ran, the Sunnah and the hadith, Islam is anathema to a liberal democracy. My argument is not circular, you’re just ignoring the fact. Laugh all you like, all you’ve shown so far is a startling lack of knowledge on Islam and Turkey, in a topic on Islam and Turkey.

Wut? Your argument now is to just insult me? Brilliant. Ad hominems. Is this some kind of logical fallacy bingo?

No, my argument was to point out that you don’t know even the most basic facts about Turkey and question why you were posting authoritatively in a topic about Turkey.

So because some Americans (you have no data to show how many) don’t like the president, and make threats to leave but don’t, they must hate democracy? And you don’t think that’s a huge leap of logic?

It shows that even in the bastion of democracy (according to you), it’s perfectly easy and apparently reasonable for there to be a serious cognitive dissonance with people supporting democracy but finding reasons to invalidate a candidate/politician when someone/something anathema to your personal beliefs is elected democratically i.e. supporting democracy in beliefs, but when democracy delivers something they don’t like, not supporting democracy in actions - while still ‘believing’ in democracy.

Yeah, why back up your arguments with facts, because stuff! You know if I provide you with evidence that something isn’t true, you might think it would help your cause to provide evidence to the contrary. Saying “just google it” is really lazy. Much easier to just write lots of lots of words in the hope of drowning everyone else out.

What facts have you brought to the table? A bunch of polls that didn’t prove anything, and repeatedly linking to a flawed measure of democracy? And yes, the EIU Democracy Index is flawed, even an introductory course to Pol Sci will explain why, and in great detail.

Erdogan is a conservative. That doesn’t make him anti-democracy, nor does supporting conversative laws. Half of American states have laws against adultery (I know the USA is a dictatorship to you but I’m trying to maintain a logical argument here). It’s also illegal in places like South Korea. It’s not in itself undemocratic. Neither are blasphemy laws. Neither are laws forbidding the burning of flags because it offends nationalists (even Denmark forbids that). These are just laws. You are trying to show Erdogan is destroying democracy in Turkey by showing he supports conservative laws. It’s nonsensical.

What are you shiting on about? You said “I’d imagine that most of Turkey’s problems, like the blasphemy laws that kicked off this discussion, date back way before Erdogan came to power.”, I showed that it was under Erdogans direction that a lot of Turkey’s problems have been aggressively pursued, and you start blathering on about how he’s a conservative? I showed you to be absolutely wrong, and you’ve completely changed the argument to make yourself right - grow the hell up.

The big “yeah”. You post a bunch of quotes without context, which could mean absolutely anything, and think that refutes analysis from one of the world’s most respected sources on global democratic progress, the EIC, which shows the exact opposite of what you claim?

See? When I do quote/link stuff, you just dismiss it out of hand - thus proving my point.
You’re an ignorant fool posting on two topics you’ve unequivocally shown yourself to know nothing about, you have no interest in discussing it, you have no interest in learning about it, and you certainly have no interest in reading anything I link to on this thread.

Case closed.

39

Why do you hate Islam, kedaha?

40

Sometimes I love you :)