Turkey

User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11574
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Turkey

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

.



Independent polling group KONDA, told the Wall Street Journal that Turkey is experiencing a "worrying polarization of identities" and that "this is a dangerous direction"




Said in previous posts, "national Identity" key for survival of a nation .. and .. speaking Turkish not a "National Identity"

Turkish identity is in the east



.
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Turkey

Post by Ibrahim »

Endovelico wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Endovelico wrote:Bringing religion into politics is an idiocy, whether the religion is Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism or Shintoism. Religion is a private matter and people who want to impose their religious traumas onto others should be banished to a remote place, preferably beyond Jupiter... If I were God I would literally send them all to hell...
The majority of the population want politics and the law to reflect religious ethics and ideals. Thus, to have politics and laws that reflects religious ethics and ideals is not idiocy, its democracy.

Moreover, in the Turkish modern historical context the impositions were secular, not religious. Forced dress codes banning religious headwear, banning certain religious groups and schools, etc.
What the majority of the population should want is politics and laws that do not prevent them practicing their religious ethics and ideals. What you propose is not democracy, is more like the dictatorship of the proletariat...
Two hypothetical candidates: one says more religion in government, the other less. People voted for the one that offered more religion in government. You can't de-legitimize a democracy because you disagree with the outcome.
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Turkey

Post by Nonc Hilaire »

"Well, we are just filling light bulbs with paint," said my friend, a cafe owner in Cihangir, the Soho of Istanbul. Speaking to me on the phone, she sounded as relaxed as if she was baking an apple pie. "You know," she continued, "the only way to stop a TOMA is to throw paint on its window so that the vehicle loses orientation."
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... re-growing
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
Endovelico
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Turkey

Post by Endovelico »

Ibrahim wrote:
Endovelico wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Endovelico wrote:Bringing religion into politics is an idiocy, whether the religion is Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism or Shintoism. Religion is a private matter and people who want to impose their religious traumas onto others should be banished to a remote place, preferably beyond Jupiter... If I were God I would literally send them all to hell...
The majority of the population want politics and the law to reflect religious ethics and ideals. Thus, to have politics and laws that reflects religious ethics and ideals is not idiocy, its democracy.

Moreover, in the Turkish modern historical context the impositions were secular, not religious. Forced dress codes banning religious headwear, banning certain religious groups and schools, etc.
What the majority of the population should want is politics and laws that do not prevent them practicing their religious ethics and ideals. What you propose is not democracy, is more like the dictatorship of the proletariat...
Two hypothetical candidates: one says more religion in government, the other less. People voted for the one that offered more religion in government. You can't de-legitimize a democracy because you disagree with the outcome.
More religion in government is not a legitimate goal in democracy because it means imposing religion on those who are not religious. It's like saying "more religion in schools" so that everybody must attend classes on religion or be present on religious services. Freedom of religion must also mean freedom from religion. Nobody stops a religious person living in accordance to his religion, but nobody may be allowed to impose on a non-religious person his religious values or practices. Sharia may be valid for Muslims, but it can never be imposed on non-Muslims under the guise of majority rule.
noddy
Posts: 11326
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Turkey

Post by noddy »

Endovelico wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Endovelico wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Endovelico wrote:Bringing religion into politics is an idiocy, whether the religion is Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism or Shintoism. Religion is a private matter and people who want to impose their religious traumas onto others should be banished to a remote place, preferably beyond Jupiter... If I were God I would literally send them all to hell...
The majority of the population want politics and the law to reflect religious ethics and ideals. Thus, to have politics and laws that reflects religious ethics and ideals is not idiocy, its democracy.

Moreover, in the Turkish modern historical context the impositions were secular, not religious. Forced dress codes banning religious headwear, banning certain religious groups and schools, etc.
What the majority of the population should want is politics and laws that do not prevent them practicing their religious ethics and ideals. What you propose is not democracy, is more like the dictatorship of the proletariat...
Two hypothetical candidates: one says more religion in government, the other less. People voted for the one that offered more religion in government. You can't de-legitimize a democracy because you disagree with the outcome.
More religion in government is not a legitimate goal in democracy because it means imposing religion on those who are not religious. It's like saying "more religion in schools" so that everybody must attend classes on religion or be present on religious services. Freedom of religion must also mean freedom from religion. Nobody stops a religious person living in accordance to his religion, but nobody may be allowed to impose on a non-religious person his religious values or practices. Sharia may be valid for Muslims, but it can never be imposed on non-Muslims under the guise of majority rule.
damn straight, if only we could enforce the same for the secular religions of reactive conservatism and progressivism.

truth is, their is no seperation of politics and religion and its a quaint concept from another time, barely understandable or relevant - it was something todo with catholics and protestants agreeing to disagree on a few minor matters.. no more, no less.
ultracrepidarian
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Turkey

Post by Ibrahim »

Endovelico wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Endovelico wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Endovelico wrote:Bringing religion into politics is an idiocy, whether the religion is Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism or Shintoism. Religion is a private matter and people who want to impose their religious traumas onto others should be banished to a remote place, preferably beyond Jupiter... If I were God I would literally send them all to hell...
The majority of the population want politics and the law to reflect religious ethics and ideals. Thus, to have politics and laws that reflects religious ethics and ideals is not idiocy, its democracy.

Moreover, in the Turkish modern historical context the impositions were secular, not religious. Forced dress codes banning religious headwear, banning certain religious groups and schools, etc.
What the majority of the population should want is politics and laws that do not prevent them practicing their religious ethics and ideals. What you propose is not democracy, is more like the dictatorship of the proletariat...
Two hypothetical candidates: one says more religion in government, the other less. People voted for the one that offered more religion in government. You can't de-legitimize a democracy because you disagree with the outcome.
More religion in government is not a legitimate goal in democracy because it means imposing religion on those who are not religious. It's like saying "more religion in schools" so that everybody must attend classes on religion or be present on religious services. Freedom of religion must also mean freedom from religion. Nobody stops a religious person living in accordance to his religion, but nobody may be allowed to impose on a non-religious person his religious values or practices.

This argument makes no sense. To use the example you gave, you can either have religion in schools or no religion in school. Either way you impose something on the students - secularism or religion. How do we choose which to do? Well the will of the majority is an obvious way to do it. What, other than personal preference, makes you believe that imposing secularism is naturally and inherently superior to imposing religion?

Coercion is another matter entirely. An atheist having to listen to a prayer is not a crime against humanity, but to punish people for being atheists (or the wrong religion) is. This is indeed a concern in some places, but Turkey is not one of them at this time, and this is not a legitimate grievance of the protesters.

Sharia may be valid for Muslims, but it can never be imposed on non-Muslims under the guise of majority rule.
"Sharia" just means "holy law," and if a legal system is based on Sharia then it certainly can be imposed on anybody and everybody within that jurisdiction. That's how the law works. The minority of people who disagree with the prohibition of murder under the Canadian Criminal Code are sh!t out of luck, the majority view is imposed on their marginal sensibilities. Why do you believe that imposing laws is different based in their underlying philosophy?
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11574
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Turkey

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

.



WSJ - many Turks are enraged by signs that Mr. Erdoğan and his aides have enriched themselves while in power. Few believe the prime minister's explanation that his newfound wealth—millions of dollars in property and a reputed eight Swiss bank accounts, according to U.S. diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks—is the result of wedding gifts received by his son. :lol: :lol:



.

He antagonized Turkey's minority Alevi population—one-quarter of Turkey's 75 million citizens—by naming the new Istanbul bridge now under construction after Selim I, a 16th-century sultan who massacred 40,000 Alevis. The proposed skyline-dominating mosque antagonized secularists, and new laws that would dramatically restrict the purchase and drinking of alcohol in Istanbul's Western-leaning districts provoked liberals. So on May 31, when Mr. Erdoğan dismissed the environmentalist protesters as "marginal elements" after the first police assault, for many it was the last straw.

[..]

While Turkey's balance sheet looks good at first glance—its debt-to-GDP ratio was 36% in 2012, compared with the U.S.'s 105%—Mr. Erdoğan has accumulated more foreign debt in his rule than all of Turkey's previous prime ministers combined. Last year's drop in growth to 2.2% from 8.8% in 2011 was a wake-up call that Turkey might not always be able to make its payments. Turks are also saddled by household debt, which has increased 3,600% since the AKP took office.

Against this backdrop, many Turks are enraged by signs that Mr. Erdoğan and his aides have enriched themselves while in power. Few believe the prime minister's explanation that his newfound wealth—millions of dollars in property and a reputed eight Swiss bank accounts, according to U.S. diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks—is the result of wedding gifts received by his son.

Turks remember that 13 corruption cases pending from his Istanbul mayoral tenure remain suspended only because he enjoys parliamentary immunity. Many Turks suspect that Mr. Erdoğan's personal investment in the redevelopment of Taksim Square—where the protesters now face off against police—is quite literal.

[..]

As Istanbul's mayor, Mr. Erdoğan once said: "Democracy is like a streetcar. When you come to your stop, you get off." Perhaps desperate to find in Turkey proof that Islamism is compatible with democracy, the West has refused to believe what Turks know: Mr. Erdoğan arrived at his stop years ago.

.


Told you, Ibrahim, told you .. now, West stabbing Turkey in the back



BTW : Alevis are still hunted in Turkey, that is why many Alevis Turks do not show they Alevis .. meaning Alevis are @ least 50% of Turkey

AND

FYI

Alevis are "Iranian Shia Safavi" :lol: .. they Gizilbash


.

Qizilbash or Kizilbash (Nastaliq: قزلباش - Qızılbāš; Ottoman Turkish for "Crimson/Red Heads"; sometimes also Qezelbash or Qazilbash) is the label given to a wide variety of Shī‘ī Islamic militant groups (ghulāt) that flourished in Anatolia and Kurdistan from the late 13th century onwards, some of which contributed to the foundation of the Safavid dynasty of Iran. The expression "Red Heads" is derived from their distinctive twelve gored crimson headwear (tāj or tark in Persian; sometimes specifically titled "Haydar's Crown" / تاج حیدر / Tāj-e Ḥaydar), indicating their adherence to the twelve Ithnā‘asharī Imāms and to Shaykh Haydar, the spiritual leader (sheikh) of the Ṣafaviyya movement.

[..]

The origin of the Kizilbash - as they were called by their Sunni Ottoman foes, and who later adopted that name as a mark of pride - can be dated from the 15th century onward, when the spiritual grandmaster of the movement, Haydar (the head of the Ṣafawiyyah Sufi order), organized his followers into militant troops.

Connections between the Qizilbash and other religious groups and secret societies, such as the Mazdaki movement in the Sassanid Empire, or its more radical offspring, the Persian Ḵhorrām-Dīnān (Khurrāmīyah) sect, have been suggested. Like the Qizilbash, the latter were an early Shī‘ī ghulat group and dressed in red, for which they were termed "the red-haired ones" (Arabic: محمره‎ muḥammirah) by medieval sources. In this context, Turkish scholar Abdülbaki Gölpinarli sees the Kizilbash as "spiritual descendants of the Khurramites"

.

Meaning the Sunni Turks are in Reality MINORITY .. Alevis are the majority in (Turkish) Turkey (considering Christians and Armenians and Kurd (Sunni)) .. Alevis Turks, 50% of Turks, are pissed off Turkey waging war against their brothers Syrian (affiliated) Alevis

Alevis want alien Turkey to east, to Iran .. and not to west, Europe

This a fundamental split in Turkey .. the conflict will deepen




.
Ammianus
Posts: 306
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:38 pm

Re: Turkey

Post by Ammianus »

So Endo is arguing that a complete majoritarian democracy imposing Sharia law is not ideal or desirable, and Ibrahim is arguing that kind of democracy is still fair, legitimate and worthy of respect.

Great debate you guys are having.
Last edited by Ammianus on Wed Jun 05, 2013 11:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
Ammianus
Posts: 306
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:38 pm

Re: Turkey

Post by Ammianus »

Ibrahim wrote:
Not sure if Ammianus is being serious or making deliberately absurd comments as a form of parody. Will refrain from comment until he clarifies.
When reality stopped being serious I don't see the reason why anyone needed to start and pick up where it left off.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11574
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Turkey

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

.


Sunni Turks aliening themselves with Wahhabi Saudi and Qatari

Alevi Turks with Iran and Syria

AND

Alevi are spiritual as Alavism and Shiism is "SPIRITUAL" "sufism" and not that Wahhabi stuff made for Bedouins




.
User avatar
Endovelico
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Turkey

Post by Endovelico »

Ibrahim wrote:
Endovelico wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Endovelico wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Endovelico wrote:Bringing religion into politics is an idiocy, whether the religion is Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism or Shintoism. Religion is a private matter and people who want to impose their religious traumas onto others should be banished to a remote place, preferably beyond Jupiter... If I were God I would literally send them all to hell...
The majority of the population want politics and the law to reflect religious ethics and ideals. Thus, to have politics and laws that reflects religious ethics and ideals is not idiocy, its democracy.

Moreover, in the Turkish modern historical context the impositions were secular, not religious. Forced dress codes banning religious headwear, banning certain religious groups and schools, etc.
What the majority of the population should want is politics and laws that do not prevent them practicing their religious ethics and ideals. What you propose is not democracy, is more like the dictatorship of the proletariat...
Two hypothetical candidates: one says more religion in government, the other less. People voted for the one that offered more religion in government. You can't de-legitimize a democracy because you disagree with the outcome.
More religion in government is not a legitimate goal in democracy because it means imposing religion on those who are not religious. It's like saying "more religion in schools" so that everybody must attend classes on religion or be present on religious services. Freedom of religion must also mean freedom from religion. Nobody stops a religious person living in accordance to his religion, but nobody may be allowed to impose on a non-religious person his religious values or practices.

This argument makes no sense. To use the example you gave, you can either have religion in schools or no religion in school. Either way you impose something on the students - secularism or religion. How do we choose which to do? Well the will of the majority is an obvious way to do it. What, other than personal preference, makes you believe that imposing secularism is naturally and inherently superior to imposing religion?
Your argument is faulted. A religious person who has no religion classes in school may get them in church or at the mosque. A non-religious person has no escape nor alternative if religion classes are compulsory in school.
Ibrahim wrote:"Sharia" just means "holy law," and if a legal system is based on Sharia then it certainly can be imposed on anybody and everybody within that jurisdiction. That's how the law works. The minority of people who disagree with the prohibition of murder under the Canadian Criminal Code are sh!t out of luck, the majority view is imposed on their marginal sensibilities. Why do you believe that imposing laws is different based in their underlying philosophy?
What does sharia say about adultery? Is it legitimate to impose those rules on non-Muslims?
User avatar
Alexis
Posts: 1305
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Turkey

Post by Alexis »

Ibrahim wrote:"Sharia" just means "holy law," and if a legal system is based on Sharia then it certainly can be imposed on anybody and everybody within that jurisdiction. That's how the law works.
No. The law can be passed on the sine qua non condition that it conforms to the Declaration of Human Rights. That's the hierarchy of norms, where laws from Parliament have a high, however not the supreme position.

In France, any law that does not conform to the Declaration of Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789) and the preamble to the 1946 Constitution (completing the previous version) is illegitimate and will be cancelled, no matter what Parliament says. Other countries will have different versions of such a declaration as a reference, depending on their past history, but the general principle holds. And the different versions of such declarations though varying in some details generally say the same things.

Regarding the particular case of a given interpretation of Sharia, the parts within such an interpretation which conform to Declaration of Human Rights can obviously be implemented into law. The parts that do not conform, cannot be implemented into law and are illegitimate.

The Wahhabi (18th century) interpretation of Sharia whose popularity was increased in recent decades within many Muslim countries thanks to religious propaganda lavishly funded by the most prominent proponents of that interpretation -the Saudis- does contain quite a few parts contradicting the Declaration of Human Rights: what with equality of man and woman in front of the law, equality of all persons regardless of their religious persuasion or absence of religion, right to change one's religion including so as to leave the Muslim religion...
Endovelico wrote:It's like saying "more religion in schools" so that everybody must attend classes on religion or be present on religious services. Freedom of religion must also mean freedom from religion. Nobody stops a religious person living in accordance to his religion, but nobody may be allowed to impose on a non-religious person his religious values or practices.
Actually, inclusion of lessons on a given religion in the compulsory curriculum of schools is not, to my understanding, in contradiction with the Declaration of Human Rights.

Neutrality of school with regard to religion and philosophy is a principle I most heartily support, but it does not happen to be a fundamental right of the person as defined by the Declaration of Human Rights.

Note that compulsory lessons in religion do not contradict religious freedom: a person may have learnt a given religion, and not believe it. Compulsory belief and observance would obviously contradict religious freedom.
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Turkey

Post by Ibrahim »

Endovelico wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Endovelico wrote:More religion in government is not a legitimate goal in democracy because it means imposing religion on those who are not religious. It's like saying "more religion in schools" so that everybody must attend classes on religion or be present on religious services. Freedom of religion must also mean freedom from religion. Nobody stops a religious person living in accordance to his religion, but nobody may be allowed to impose on a non-religious person his religious values or practices.

This argument makes no sense. To use the example you gave, you can either have religion in schools or no religion in school. Either way you impose something on the students - secularism or religion. How do we choose which to do? Well the will of the majority is an obvious way to do it. What, other than personal preference, makes you believe that imposing secularism is naturally and inherently superior to imposing religion?
Your argument is faulted. A religious person who has no religion classes in school may get them in church or at the mosque. A non-religious person has no escape nor alternative if religion classes are compulsory in school.
Huh? You mean they can't be not-religious on their own time?
Ibrahim wrote:"Sharia" just means "holy law," and if a legal system is based on Sharia then it certainly can be imposed on anybody and everybody within that jurisdiction. That's how the law works. The minority of people who disagree with the prohibition of murder under the Canadian Criminal Code are sh!t out of luck, the majority view is imposed on their marginal sensibilities. Why do you believe that imposing laws is different based in their underlying philosophy?
What does sharia say about adultery? Is it legitimate to impose those rules on non-Muslims?
There is no unified code of sharia law with mandated punishments that everyone agrees upon, but in a country where the law said adultery was illegal and punishable by X then that would apply to everybody.

I don't really see what argument you have here besides "I disagree with these people, therefore their democracy is invalid."
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Turkey

Post by Ibrahim »

Alexis wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:"Sharia" just means "holy law," and if a legal system is based on Sharia then it certainly can be imposed on anybody and everybody within that jurisdiction. That's how the law works.
No. The law can be passed on the sine qua non condition that it conforms to the Declaration of Human Rights. That's the hierarchy of norms, where laws from Parliament have a high, however not the supreme position.
There is no basis for this statement besides an idealistic belief in international law. Practically speaking legislative bodies are not bound by international agreements. Even smiley-happy countries like Canada and Australia maintain the supremacy of Parliament. We'll try to play nice with everybody but we do what we want in our own country. This is the basis of the nation-state system.
In France, any law that does not conform to the Declaration of Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789) and the preamble to the 1946 Constitution (completing the previous version) is illegitimate and will be cancelled, no matter what Parliament says.


That's a legal test that is constitutionally imposed, but a Parliament can alter a constitution (according to the amending procedures built into that constitution) so this is not really a limitation on the supremacy of Parliament. Unless the French constitution is not amendable, I don't really know that much about its specifics.


Regarding the particular case of a given interpretation of Sharia, the parts within such an interpretation which conform to Declaration of Human Rights can obviously be implemented into law. The parts that do not conform, cannot be implemented into law and are illegitimate.
Again, there is no unified definition of "Sharia" that everybody can agree with/oppose, so these types of statements aren't very useful. But even so a country can implement whatever laws it wants. You think introducing religion into public life invalidates Turkish democracy? That's nice. I happen to think that the French ban on headscarves is a racist policy that violates the human rights of French citizens, but France keeps having the law anyway. Oh well.
The Wahhabi (18th century) interpretation of Sharia whose popularity was increased in recent decades within many Muslim countries thanks to religious propaganda lavishly funded by the most prominent proponents of that interpretation -the Saudis- does contain quite a few parts contradicting the Declaration of Human Rights
The point of this thread isn't to debate whether Saudi Wahhabism is the normative public face of the religion. There are already numerous threads for propaganda slandering Muslims collectively. But specific to the legal and political argument you are trying to make, the example of Saudi Arabia further demonstrates my point. Saudi law prevails in Saudi Arabia, regardless of our objections to it. The Saudis didn't ask our opinion. That's how laws/nation states work.




Note that compulsory lessons in religion do not contradict religious freedom: a person may have learnt a given religion, and not believe it. Compulsory belief and observance would obviously contradict religious freedom.
Compulsory belief is a philosophical impossibility, which was recognized early on in Islamic history (and elsewhere of course) and is enshrined in the Quran. Compulsory observance has been attempted throughout history and in all faiths, and would indeed violate both the DHR, and, relevant to this subject, Turkish law and the Turkish constitution.



But back to the original story of the protests: There are protests against the government (fine), and the police response has been overly violent (I always say this anyway), and I'm sure they have legitimate grievances, but to argue that the current Turkish government is illegitimate or dictatorial is absurd and false. Black Bloc types where I live say the same thing about the Canadian PM, and its just as crazy.
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

Sending Turkeys to the Stars.....

Post by monster_gardener »

Endovelico wrote:Bringing religion into politics is an idiocy, whether the religion is Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism or Shintoism. Religion is a private matter and people who want to impose their religious traumas onto others should be banished to a remote place, preferably beyond Jupiter... If I were God I would literally send them all to hell...
Thank you VERY Much for your post, Endo.
people who want to impose their religious traumas onto others should be banished to a remote place, preferably beyond Jupiter...
Although deporting the religiously insane could be a practical solution if we had cheap space travel, as it is, we need to concentrate on getting any Depraved Sinful Egotistical Chaos Monkeys off planet.

Jupiter's moon Callisto which is beyond the radiation belts might be a fair place to try colonizing but right now I'd be VERY Happy with Lunar, Martian & Asteroid colonies.

But IMO you are ultimately correct: needs to be beyond Jupiter. Best to head for the stars...
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

An Insane Planet may need Crazy Solutions........

Post by monster_gardener »

Ammianus wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Not sure if Ammianus is being serious or making deliberately absurd comments as a form of parody. Will refrain from comment until he clarifies.
When reality stopped being serious I don't see the reason why anyone needed to start and pick up where it left off.
Thank you VERY MUCH for your post, Ammianus.
When reality stopped being serious I don't see the reason why anyone needed to start and pick up where it left off.
;)

Nevertheless, I want to try: An insane planet may need crazy solutions............

Like Orion Rockets carrying a remnant to safety on top of mini nuke explosions..
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

Not if the non-Muslims are well armed, numerous & fight.....

Post by monster_gardener »

Endovelico wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Endovelico wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Endovelico wrote:Bringing religion into politics is an idiocy, whether the religion is Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism or Shintoism. Religion is a private matter and people who want to impose their religious traumas onto others should be banished to a remote place, preferably beyond Jupiter... If I were God I would literally send them all to hell...
The majority of the population want politics and the law to reflect religious ethics and ideals. Thus, to have politics and laws that reflects religious ethics and ideals is not idiocy, its democracy.

Moreover, in the Turkish modern historical context the impositions were secular, not religious. Forced dress codes banning religious headwear, banning certain religious groups and schools, etc.
What the majority of the population should want is politics and laws that do not prevent them practicing their religious ethics and ideals. What you propose is not democracy, is more like the dictatorship of the proletariat...
Two hypothetical candidates: one says more religion in government, the other less. People voted for the one that offered more religion in government. You can't de-legitimize a democracy because you disagree with the outcome.
More religion in government is not a legitimate goal in democracy because it means imposing religion on those who are not religious. It's like saying "more religion in schools" so that everybody must attend classes on religion or be present on religious services. Freedom of religion must also mean freedom from religion. Nobody stops a religious person living in accordance to his religion, but nobody may be allowed to impose on a non-religious person his religious values or practices. Sharia may be valid for Muslims, but it can never be imposed on non-Muslims under the guise of majority rule.
Thank You Very Much for your post, Endo.
but it can never be imposed on non-Muslims under the guise of majority rule.
Not if the non-Muslims are well armed, numerous enough and willing to fight hard enough to make it impractical...... One reason there are still Christians in Lebanon for the moment.......

But this is not always the case......

So too often Sharia and its worse than the Mafia protection racket has historically often been implemented.......

Or worse happens as in Afghanistan which was once Buddhist...........
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

Aztec Sharia

Post by monster_gardener »

Ibrahim wrote:
Endovelico wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Endovelico wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Endovelico wrote:Bringing religion into politics is an idiocy, whether the religion is Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism or Shintoism. Religion is a private matter and people who want to impose their religious traumas onto others should be banished to a remote place, preferably beyond Jupiter... If I were God I would literally send them all to hell...
The majority of the population want politics and the law to reflect religious ethics and ideals. Thus, to have politics and laws that reflects religious ethics and ideals is not idiocy, its democracy.

Moreover, in the Turkish modern historical context the impositions were secular, not religious. Forced dress codes banning religious headwear, banning certain religious groups and schools, etc.
What the majority of the population should want is politics and laws that do not prevent them practicing their religious ethics and ideals. What you propose is not democracy, is more like the dictatorship of the proletariat...
Two hypothetical candidates: one says more religion in government, the other less. People voted for the one that offered more religion in government. You can't de-legitimize a democracy because you disagree with the outcome.
More religion in government is not a legitimate goal in democracy because it means imposing religion on those who are not religious. It's like saying "more religion in schools" so that everybody must attend classes on religion or be present on religious services. Freedom of religion must also mean freedom from religion. Nobody stops a religious person living in accordance to his religion, but nobody may be allowed to impose on a non-religious person his religious values or practices.

This argument makes no sense. To use the example you gave, you can either have religion in schools or no religion in school. Either way you impose something on the students - secularism or religion. How do we choose which to do? Well the will of the majority is an obvious way to do it. What, other than personal preference, makes you believe that imposing secularism is naturally and inherently superior to imposing religion?

Coercion is another matter entirely. An atheist having to listen to a prayer is not a crime against humanity, but to punish people for being atheists (or the wrong religion) is. This is indeed a concern in some places, but Turkey is not one of them at this time, and this is not a legitimate grievance of the protesters.

Sharia may be valid for Muslims, but it can never be imposed on non-Muslims under the guise of majority rule.
"Sharia" just means "holy law," and if a legal system is based on Sharia then it certainly can be imposed on anybody and everybody within that jurisdiction. That's how the law works. The minority of people who disagree with the prohibition of murder under the Canadian Criminal Code are sh!t out of luck, the majority view is imposed on their marginal sensibilities. Why do you believe that imposing laws is different based in their underlying philosophy?
Thank you Very Much for your post, Ibrahim.
"Sharia" just means "holy law," and if a legal system is based on Sharia then it certainly can be imposed on anybody and everybody within that jurisdiction. That's how the law works.
Then what about Aztec Holy Law Sharia which mandates human sacrifice* ........... ;) :twisted:

And for that matter Muslim Holy Law Sharia can mandate what is effectively human sacrifice of non Muslims who refuse to convert to Islam........

Doesn't always happen because of practicality and greed (tax money) but that is what is supposed to happen to pagans to refuse to convert........

FWIW I prefer the wolves and well armed sheep scenario when it comes to majority rule.............
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
*often semi-consensually
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

Re-programming..........

Post by monster_gardener »

Ibrahim wrote:
Alexis wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:"Sharia" just means "holy law," and if a legal system is based on Sharia then it certainly can be imposed on anybody and everybody within that jurisdiction. That's how the law works.
No. The law can be passed on the sine qua non condition that it conforms to the Declaration of Human Rights. That's the hierarchy of norms, where laws from Parliament have a high, however not the supreme position.
There is no basis for this statement besides an idealistic belief in international law. Practically speaking legislative bodies are not bound by international agreements. Even smiley-happy countries like Canada and Australia maintain the supremacy of Parliament. We'll try to play nice with everybody but we do what we want in our own country. This is the basis of the nation-state system.
In France, any law that does not conform to the Declaration of Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789) and the preamble to the 1946 Constitution (completing the previous version) is illegitimate and will be cancelled, no matter what Parliament says.


That's a legal test that is constitutionally imposed, but a Parliament can alter a constitution (according to the amending procedures built into that constitution) so this is not really a limitation on the supremacy of Parliament. Unless the French constitution is not amendable, I don't really know that much about its specifics.


Regarding the particular case of a given interpretation of Sharia, the parts within such an interpretation which conform to Declaration of Human Rights can obviously be implemented into law. The parts that do not conform, cannot be implemented into law and are illegitimate.
Again, there is no unified definition of "Sharia" that everybody can agree with/oppose, so these types of statements aren't very useful. But even so a country can implement whatever laws it wants. You think introducing religion into public life invalidates Turkish democracy? That's nice. I happen to think that the French ban on headscarves is a racist policy that violates the human rights of French citizens, but France keeps having the law anyway. Oh well.
The Wahhabi (18th century) interpretation of Sharia whose popularity was increased in recent decades within many Muslim countries thanks to religious propaganda lavishly funded by the most prominent proponents of that interpretation -the Saudis- does contain quite a few parts contradicting the Declaration of Human Rights
The point of this thread isn't to debate whether Saudi Wahhabism is the normative public face of the religion. There are already numerous threads for propaganda slandering Muslims collectively. But specific to the legal and political argument you are trying to make, the example of Saudi Arabia further demonstrates my point. Saudi law prevails in Saudi Arabia, regardless of our objections to it. The Saudis didn't ask our opinion. That's how laws/nation states work.




Note that compulsory lessons in religion do not contradict religious freedom: a person may have learnt a given religion, and not believe it. Compulsory belief and observance would obviously contradict religious freedom.
Compulsory belief is a philosophical impossibility, which was recognized early on in Islamic history (and elsewhere of course) and is enshrined in the Quran. Compulsory observance has been attempted throughout history and in all faiths, and would indeed violate both the DHR, and, relevant to this subject, Turkish law and the Turkish constitution.



But back to the original story of the protests: There are protests against the government (fine), and the police response has been overly violent (I always say this anyway), and I'm sure they have legitimate grievances, but to argue that the current Turkish government is illegitimate or dictatorial is absurd and false. Black Bloc types where I live say the same thing about the Canadian PM, and its just as crazy.
Thank You Very Much for your post, Ibrahim.
Compulsory belief is a philosophical impossibility,
But not a physical impossibility.

Even cats and Depraved Sinful Egotistical Chaos Monkeys can be reprogrammed like Pavlov's dogs.....

Some easier...... No Jizya and more privileges.........

Others harder..........
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
User avatar
Endovelico
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Turkey

Post by Endovelico »

Ibrahim wrote: Huh? You mean they can't be not-religious on their own time?
Not receiving something you would like to have (but can get elsewhere) is the same thing as being forced to take something it is distasteful to you? I'm not a jurist but I think there must be a difference...
Ibrahim wrote:There is no unified code of sharia law with mandated punishments that everyone agrees upon, but in a country where the law said adultery was illegal and punishable by X then that would apply to everybody.

I don't really see what argument you have here besides "I disagree with these people, therefore their democracy is invalid."
Condemnation of adultery is a moral concept which can only be valid to believers. Cheating on your wife or husband is not a legitimate concern from a legal point of view, so you cannot impose a penalty for adultery on non-believers. I find it hard to understand that you choose to defend the opposite view.
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

Adultery responses.........

Post by monster_gardener »

Endovelico wrote:
Ibrahim wrote: Huh? You mean they can't be not-religious on their own time?
Not receiving something you would like to have (but can get elsewhere) is the same thing as being forced to take something it is distasteful to you? I'm not a jurist but I think there must be a difference...
Ibrahim wrote:There is no unified code of sharia law with mandated punishments that everyone agrees upon, but in a country where the law said adultery was illegal and punishable by X then that would apply to everybody.

I don't really see what argument you have here besides "I disagree with these people, therefore their democracy is invalid."
Condemnation of adultery is a moral concept which can only be valid to believers. Cheating on your wife or husband is not a legitimate concern from a legal point of view, so you cannot impose a penalty for adultery on non-believers. I find it hard to understand that you choose to defend the opposite view.
Thank you Very Much for your post, Endo.
Condemnation of adultery is a moral concept which can only be valid to believers.
Not so.

Male Depraved Sinful Egotistical Chaos Monkeys often don't like wasting their time and money on children which are NOT theirs.

Female Depraved Sinful Egotistical Chaos Monkeys don't like the male spending their money on other females and their cubs and worry that he may leave permanently. They also don't like the male bringing home a disease.......

For an extreme example, in England adultery by the queen against the reigning king was considered treason because it subverted the succession.

Recalling offhand that adultery could get the death penalty in historic China, Aztec & Inca Empires..........

Selfish genes..........

Can be seen in other species such as wolves where there is conflict over who gets to breed, eat first etc..........

NOTE: I personally do NOT endorse the death penalty for adultery........ Divorce or forgiveness is the proper response.......
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Turkey

Post by Ibrahim »

Endovelico wrote:
Ibrahim wrote: Huh? You mean they can't be not-religious on their own time?
Not receiving something you would like to have (but can get elsewhere) is the same thing as being forced to take something it is distasteful to you? I'm not a jurist but I think there must be a difference...
There is a difference, but neither is fundamentally unjust. To say "they can get their religion at home or church" is no different than to say "they can get their secularism at home or at their local 'free thinkers' club." I can't see an argument for one over the other, especially not one that runs contrary to the majority of the population.

Ibrahim wrote:There is no unified code of sharia law with mandated punishments that everyone agrees upon, but in a country where the law said adultery was illegal and punishable by X then that would apply to everybody.

I don't really see what argument you have here besides "I disagree with these people, therefore their democracy is invalid."
Condemnation of adultery is a moral concept which can only be valid to believers. Cheating on your wife or husband is not a legitimate concern from a legal point of view, so you cannot impose a penalty for adultery on non-believers. I find it hard to understand that you choose to defend the opposite view.
That's not at issue here. But in any case all laws are predicated on abstract moral concepts, and any given law will be either violated or at least objected to by some portion of the population. This certainly does not make the law invalid.

Your position, which I don't think this helps to support, is that wanting more religion in the political/public sphere is fundamentally invalid, and any government that democratically chooses to do so is also invalid.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11574
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Turkey

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

.


36 Photos .. What a disaster, what a disaster



Not Iran, but NATO member, candidate to enter EU, has the most journalist and judges and lawyers and and and IN JAIL

Erdogan "must go" .. he is a western agent on mission to destroy our beloved Turkey .. that CIA-MI6 orchestrated "Qatari Wahhabi Turkish" alliance a treason for Turkish interest .. get in bed with Iran (the real Turkey) :lol:





.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11574
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Turkey

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

.



Ibrahim, Brits executing Phase II .. they did to Ottomans and now stabbing Kamal Pasha



Democrat or Sultan.jpg
Democrat or Sultan.jpg (19.66 KiB) Viewed 1094 times





.
User avatar
Endovelico
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm

Atatürk

Post by Endovelico »

The Middle East needs more like him...

Image
Post Reply