GameBanshee Forums

well back on topic...this past week, the president of turkey (an Islamic country) strongly urged the war to continue through Ramadan.
just thought i'd throw that out there.

Originally posted by nael:
<STRONG>well back on topic...this past week, the president of turkey (an Islamic country) strongly urged the war to continue through Ramadan.
just thought i'd throw that out there.</STRONG>

Turkey is *not* an Islamic nation. Islam is the religion of the majority of its residents, but for a nation to be "an Islamic nation" it has to employ the Shari'ah, the Holy Laws, as the basis for all juridical processes. The founder of modern Turkey, the brilliant Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, deliberately set up a modern, non-theistic state.

By contrast, Israel is a Jewish nation. Religious bias is inherent in its constitution and other laws. For instance, a pair of Israeli Jews who want to be married in the eyes of Israeli law cannot simply go to their local rabbi; they have to employ an Orthodox rabbi--Orthodox Judaism being the strictest of the sects, although a lot of modern Jews belong to the other two major divisions of Conservative and Reform.

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>Turkey is *not* an Islamic nation. Islam is the religion of the majority of its residents, but for a nation to be "an Islamic nation" it has to employ the Shari'ah, the Holy Laws, as the basis for all juridical processes. The founder of modern Turkey, the brilliant Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, deliberately set up a modern, non-theistic state.

By contrast, Israel is a Jewish nation. Religious bias is inherent in its constitution and other laws. For instance, a pair of Israeli Jews who want to be married in the eyes of Israeli law cannot simply go to their local rabbi; they have to employ an Orthodox rabbi--Orthodox Judaism being the strictest of the sects, although a lot of modern Jews belong to the other two major divisions of Conservative and Reform.</STRONG>

Also Turkey tends to persecute any religious leaders.
Women are by LAW not allowed to wear a head scarf in any govt job - a violation of their basic rights to practice their religion as they see fit.
And any people who are religious aren't allowed in govt.
Amnesty International has a good series of information on this.

Originally posted by Fas:
<STRONG>Also Turkey tends to persecute any religious leaders. </STRONG>

@Fas, I think you're overstating the facts a bit. Turkey has sizable Christian (both Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic) and Jewish minorities, yet it doesn't have problems with those religious leaders. Also, your use of the word "persecute" implies a support on your part for one side in the ongoing national debate: that the leaders in question are persecuted, hence innocent, while the Turkish authorities are wrong. It would be fairer to say that the Turkish government is historically opposed to the mixing of religion with politics, a point that came from Ataturk's study of Western governmental models; and that they have an extremely low tolerance for even a hint of Shar'iah showing up in the agendas of elected Islamic politicians.

Women are by LAW not allowed to wear a head scarf in any govt job - a violation of their basic rights to practice their religion as they see fit.

The "basic right to practice religion as a person sees fit" only exists 1) in political entities that do not feel threatened by the result; and 2) in cultures that do not feel threatened by the result. Turkey views its theocratic past with alarm, and this is the result. You may not agree with it, but surely you can understand it.

And any people who are religious aren't allowed in govt.

Come on, now. Have you really looked at Turkish politics? They've had two Prime Ministers in government in the last decade (most recently, Necmettin Erbakan) from the Islamic Welfare Party, which openly advocates Shar'iah in Turkey. They have significant numbers of parliamentary representatives and regional officials from the IWP, as well. I suspect you'd find them quite "religious," if by that you mean advocating a much larger role for both Islam and Islamic religious law in the daily running of government. That's not to say that they find it an easy job to govern in Turkey, but they've never been jailed.

(I should add in fairness that where Turkey has significant problems is in dealing with its minority Kurdish population, which has been denied political representation. As a government, Turkey has never developed political tools for negotiation, and tends to see nearby non-Turkish forces as threats--again, a matter of history. My hope is that, with numerous high-ranking officials of the PKK jailed, the UN will try to broker peace talks beetween the Kurdish community in Turkey and the politicians, but that is unlikely; the UN has no internal role where a government denies it one.)

[ 11-03-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>...<snip>...Does the Soviet have two allies in Central Western Africa? Fine: let's provide enough tax money for one of the rebels in a third nation to buy arms from our suppliers (ain't capitalism great?) so he can seize control and set up a ruthless dictatorship in our hands rather than the uncommitted ruthless dictatorship that was there before...<snip>...</STRONG>

@fable: "capitalism?" I fail to understand how you can intimate that capitalism is in any way shape or form responsible for the scenario you describe here. And, if it is not respsonsible, then I would question your dropping of the term in that context.

Originally posted by Lazarus:
<STRONG>@fable: "capitalism?" I fail to understand how you can intimate that capitalism is in any way shape or form responsible for the scenario you describe here. And, if it is not respsonsible, then I would question your dropping of the term in that context.</STRONG>

You're right. I should have been more specific, and written "laissez faire capitalism." Though this is precisely the way the situation works when the US doesn't wish to directly supply arms from government to government.

[ 11-04-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

Originally posted by fable:
@Fas, I think you're overstating the facts a bit. Turkey has sizable Christian (both Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic) and Jewish minorities, yet it doesn't have problems with those religious leaders.

My bad is should have said muslim religious leaders.
Azaan - call to prayers in english - can not be performed by any mosque.
I don't know why, because it is allowed in the US, UK and even Swiss - some examples.

Also, your use of the word "persecute" implies a support on your part for one side in the ongoing national debate: that the leaders in question are persecuted, hence innocent, while the Turkish authorities are wrong. It would be fairer to say that the Turkish government is historically opposed to the mixing of religion with politics, a point that came from Ataturk's study of Western governmental models; and that they have an extremely low tolerance for even a hint of Shar'iah showing up in the agendas of elected Islamic politicians.

I think people are persecuted by the military govt - there is no democracy in my opinion in turkey.
The ecomonist had a good article way back about a cheif justice who got sacked due to his view that muslims in turkey should perform Haj - pilgrimage.
[url="http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:uOuVmWkMeoQ:www.ahiworld.com/turkeycompliance/2.pdf+religious+violations+in+turkey&hl=en"]http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:uOuVmWkMeoQ:www.ahiworld.com/turkeycompliance/2.pdf+religious+violations+in+turkey&hl=en[/url]

Religious freedom:
in the section on Turkey contained in its 2000 Annual Report on International Religious
Freedom released on September 5, the State Department states that " the Government imposed some restrictions on
religious minorities and on religious expression in government offices and state-run institutions, including universities."
Specific complaints charge that "some converts to Christianity face harassment," that "the Government brought legal
action against several prominent Islamist politicians, business persons, and writers, for allegedly "inciting hatred" through
speech" and that "police detained and arrested some Turkish Christians for allegedly proselytizing or for unauthorized
gatherings. No action was taken by Turkey to reopen the Halki Theological Seminary."

From the link above.

The "basic right to practice religion as a person sees fit" only exists 1) in political entities that do not feel threatened by the result; and 2) in cultures that do not feel threatened by the result. Turkey views its theocratic past with alarm, and this is the result. You may not agree with it, but surely you can understand it.

I can understand it fine, but does that mean people can't practice Islam in freedom?
Here is another link: [url="http://www.hrw.org/worldreport99/europe/turkey.html"]http://www.hrw.org/worldreport99/europe/turkey.html[/url]
In this case a pro-islamic party is banned for being pro-islamic.

Come on, now. Have you really looked at Turkish politics? They've had two Prime Ministers in government in the last decade (most recently, Necmettin Erbakan) from the Islamic Welfare Party, which openly advocates Shar'iah in Turkey. They have significant numbers of parliamentary representatives and regional officials from the IWP, as well. I suspect you'd find them quite "religious," if by that you mean advocating a much larger role for both Islam and Islamic religious law in the daily running of government. That's not to say that they find it an easy job to govern in Turkey, but they've never been jailed.

Look at the link above, he wss removed from office and the party has been banned.
So much for religious freedom.
But yes it is turkey's military democracy!

(I should add in fairness that where Turkey has significant problems is in dealing with its minority Kurdish population, which has been denied political representation. As a government, Turkey has never developed political tools for negotiation, and tends to see nearby non-Turkish forces as threats--again, a matter of history. My hope is that, with numerous high-ranking officials of the PKK jailed, the UN will try to broker peace talks beetween the Kurdish community in Turkey and the politicians, but that is unlikely; the UN has no internal role where a government denies it one.)

[ 11-03-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

Correct!

I wrote:

The "basic right to practice religion as a person sees fit" only exists 1) in political entities that do not feel threatened by the result; and 2) in cultures that do not feel threatened by the result. Turkey views its theocratic past with alarm, and this is the result. You may not agree with it, but surely you can understand it.[/quote]

Fas replied:

I can understand it fine, but does that mean people can't practice Islam in freedom?...In this case a pro-islamic party is banned for being pro-islamic.

If I understand you correctly, this is the kernel of your reply, @Fas. So I hope you won't mind if I focus on just those sentences, since it will make focusing content much easier.

First off, the IWP was *not* banned for being pro-Islamic. It was banned for threatening the state by advocating the overthrow of the existing system of laws, and replacing it with the Shar'iah. That would be equivalent to a party in the US advocating the removal of the Constitution and its replacement with a series of hard laws about "Christian family values." That would never be allowed.

Revolution by the IWP was not ruled out. To be more specific, Turkish charges against the IWP mentioned "...remarks by Erbakan calling for a legal system...where people select the system that suits their religious beliefs." It was also noted (and widely reported in the press) that Erbakan had made remarks "to the effect that his party was coming to power whether this be in a bloodless manner or a bloody manner."

Please note, too, that the IWP also wanted to enact mandatory wearing of head coverings (the chador) for women. Not elective, mind you. This was an announced part of their agenda. It would seem that democracy was great for the IWP as long as it could get into power. Once there, it would seem it had other, very non-democratic agenda to pursue.

You want complete freedom in Turkey for Islamic parties; but elective freedom requires a secular state in which no party is favored. Please, let's not pretend that either of us has an answer that's better than Turkey's, to the nightmare situation of what to do when one of your most powerful parties turns out to be a religious one which has made institution of the Shar'iah a plank in its campaign platform. There hasn't ever been a democracy that survived Shar'iah--and I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing. But if you want "freedom" in the Amero-West European sense of the word, that requires a national culture which is heavily secular, largely homogeneous, and secure in its national identity. Turkey fails at least on the first count: the military deposed the last Islamic prime minister precisely because he let it be known at Islamic rallies that he was planning to push for enactment of the Shar'iah. The military "cut him off at the pass," so to speak, and rightly so, from your own democratic standpoint.

It should be noted that although the IWP was banned, its politicians were not arrested, and their political activity was not stopped. They simply had to reorganize, and submit to the courts a proposal for a new Islamic party, which they did. They are currently holding many federal and state offices once more. The government's idea seems to have been to "reset" the Islamic will to power in the hopes that it will fit a more constitutionally acceptable form. By contrast, once Communism was perceived as a threat to the state in the US, the party was permanantly outlawed. This of course did not prevent it from acquiring members; if anything, going underground probably provided it with a kind of romantic "mystique" that fooled some people into overlooking the Iron-hard Stalinist background. From this vantage point, Turkey's willingness to allow Islamic politicians to still take a major part in local and national affairs is--well, more democratic.

[ 11-04-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>You're right. I should have been more specific, and written "laissez faire capitalism." Though this is precisely the way the situation works when the US doesn't wish to directly supply arms from government to government.

[ 11-04-2001: Message edited by: fable ]</STRONG>

I don't think you answered my question. How is the US government pouring money into some petty dictatorship the fault of capitalism? The Soviets did the same thing, and one can hardly call them "capitalistic." I think you are confusing government (or politics) with economics.

Originally posted by Lazarus:
<STRONG>I don't think you answered my question. How is the US government pouring money into some petty dictatorship the fault of capitalism? The Soviets did the same thing, and one can hardly call them "capitalistic." I think you are confusing government (or politics) with economics.</STRONG>

My remarks were in the way of an ironic commentary on a form of capitalism which supports a thriving and largely uninhibited arms trade in its private sector.

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>My remarks were in the way of an ironic commentary on a form of capitalism which supports a thriving and largely uninhibited arms trade in its private sector.</STRONG>

No, it is the US government which supports that arms trade. Were these backwater dictatorships left to themselves, it is unlikely that they could afford such weapons. I always have to do a double take when I see these poor nations where the personal income is somewhere in the neighborhood of $1,000 per YEAR, and yet every single male between the age of 12 and 42 has a personal weapon that must have cost at least that much. That ain't capitalism. Capitalism says you buy what you earn.

Originally posted by Lazarus:
<STRONG>No, it is the US government which supports that arms trade. Were these backwater dictatorships left to themselves, it is unlikely that they could afford such weapons. I always have to do a double take when I see these poor nations where the personal income is somewhere in the neighborhood of $1,000 per YEAR, and yet every single male between the age of 12 and 42 has a personal weapon that must have cost at least that much. That ain't capitalism. Capitalism says you buy what you earn.</STRONG>

Traditionally, capitalism has nothing to do with the morality of relative sources of income. The definition is one of an economic system where the means of production and distribution are privately and/or corporately owned. I suspect we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Let's assume for the moment that the Northern Alliance does push the Taliban into a small area of Afghanistan, and forms a ruling coalition (however unstable) with the old Pashtuni king and his grandson. I'm curious how likely it will be for bin Ladan and al-Qua'ida to successfully escape capture and live in the mountains. Any ideas?