Turkey

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

Re: Turkey

Post by Ibrahim »

Its not 1924 anymore. You can't seriously favor the imposition of secularism via military rule over democratic institutions.
User avatar
Endovelico
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Turkey

Post by Endovelico »

Ibrahim wrote:Its not 1924 anymore. You can't seriously favor the imposition of secularism via military rule over democratic institutions.
Religion is a strictly personal matter, and the right to believe and to live according to a person's religion must be strictly protected. But there is absolutely no place for religion in public affairs. If it takes force to ensure that separation between state and religion, so be it. Civil law, the only universal and compulsory law, must be solely based on the respect and protection of human rights. Religious law is strictly voluntary and must not be enforced on non-believers. Those who cannot accept this separation must not be allowed to rule.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11567
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Turkey

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

Ibrahim wrote:.

Its not 1924 anymore. You can't seriously favor the imposition of secularism via military rule over democratic institutions.

.


This thing absolutely nothing to do with democracy etc etc


Fact is, religion is a belief, a mind set .. only way to change any mindset (and belief), is, free cultural and social evolution leading to higher level of belief and mindset .

Meaning

the culture, society, must advance to a higher level civilization

That can only happen in free, stormy, Sturm und Drang

.

Sturm und Drang (German pronunciation: [ˈʃtʊʁm ʊnt ˈdʁaŋ], literally "Storm and Drive", "Storm and Urge", though conventionally translated as "Storm and Stress")[1] is a proto-Romantic movement in German literature and music taking place from the late 1760s to the early 1780s, in which individual subjectivity and, in particular, extremes of emotion were given free expression in reaction to the perceived constraints of rationalism imposed by the Enlightenment and associated aesthetic movements. The period is named for Friedrich Maximilian Klinger's play Sturm und Drang, which was first performed by Abel Seyler's famed theatrical company in 1777.

The philosopher Johann Georg Hamann is considered to be the ideologue of Sturm und Drang, with Jakob Michael Reinhold Lenz, H. L. Wagner and Friedrich Maximilian Klinger also significant figures. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe was also a notable proponent of the movement, though he and Friedrich Schiller ended their period of association with it by initiating what would become Weimar Classicism.

.


That means, the society, the culture must go through "extremes of emotion were given free expression in reaction to the perceived constraints of rationalism imposed by the Enlightenment and associated aesthetic movements"

That is what is happening in Iran now



Iran is in a period of Sturm und Drang

Atta Turk did not understand all this, thinking cultural and human evolution can be legislated and forced


This thing must be "from bottom up" and not from "top to bottom"




.
Last edited by Heracleum Persicum on Sun Jun 09, 2013 9:13 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Turkey

Post by Ibrahim »

Endovelico wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:Its not 1924 anymore. You can't seriously favor the imposition of secularism via military rule over democratic institutions.
Religion is a strictly personal matter, and the right to believe and to live according to a person's religion must be strictly protected. But there is absolutely no place for religion in public
affairs.
It sounds like you are repeating an article of personal faith. You're just declaring this as a "fact" without any supporting evidence and contrary to the majority of human history, in which religion and politics were inextricably linked.

If it takes force to ensure that separation between state and religion, so be it.
Then you are a fascist. You wish to impose your ideology with military force, even against an unwilling population.


Civil law, the only universal and compulsory law, must be solely based on the respect and protection of human rights. Religious law is strictly voluntary and must not be enforced on non-believers. Those who cannot accept this separation must not be allowed to rule.
More prayer chanting from your personal religion. These declarations are by no means objectively true, nor do they justify your fascism.
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Turkey

Post by noddy »

endo - how does one seperate an atheists preferences on life,relationships,diet and so forth from the state.

wtf do the words even mean ?

i say it again, the words "seperation of church and state" used to mean a small handful of issues the catholics and protestants agreed to disagree on.
ultracrepidarian
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Turkey

Post by Ibrahim »

noddy wrote:i say it again, the words "seperation of church and state" used to mean a small handful of issues the catholics and protestants agreed to disagree on.
In Northwestern Europe (and subsidiaries) this is exactly correct, but the concept of violently enforced secularism has other precedents. If you don't go in for the Peace of Westphalia then there's always Stalin and Mao.
User avatar
Endovelico
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Turkey

Post by Endovelico »

noddy wrote:endo - how does one seperate an atheists preferences on life,relationships,diet and so forth from the state.

wtf do the words even mean ?

i say it again, the words "seperation of church and state" used to mean a small handful of issues the catholics and protestants agreed to disagree on.
Let's put it like this:

A non-religious person demands his right to peace and silence. A religious fundamentalist demands his (eventually majority) right to blare noisy music throughout the neighbourhood. Ibrahim is saying that the right to impose music is greater than the right to peace and silence, but that's because the music happens to be agreeable to him... Of course I don't want to prevent people from listening to music, as long as it is done in their own houses and in a manner which will not interfere with the neighbours.

Can anyone disagree with this?...
User avatar
Endovelico
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Turkey

Post by Endovelico »

Ibrahim wrote:
Endovelico wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:Its not 1924 anymore. You can't seriously favor the imposition of secularism via military rule over democratic institutions.
Religion is a strictly personal matter, and the right to believe and to live according to a person's religion must be strictly protected. But there is absolutely no place for religion in public
affairs.
It sounds like you are repeating an article of personal faith. You're just declaring this as a "fact" without any supporting evidence and contrary to the majority of human history, in which religion and politics were inextricably linked.
The fact that religion and politics have been linked in the past does not mean that it is good or should continue being so in the present. There was a time when people used torture as a widely accepted way to find out whether someone was guilty of a crime. Should we continue torturing?... Or is torture unacceptable only because the majority of the people now disagree with it?... Is it right for the Swiss (or was it the Austrians?) to ban minarets in mosques, just because a majority object to those outside symbols of a religion they dislike?... Mutual respect is an essential part of community life, but religious people do not respect those who do not share their fantasies... Ban alcohol, cover your face, punish fornication... Allahu akbar!...
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11567
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Turkey

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

.



A New Wall Street in Taksim Square




.

The general outline and major factors inciting Turkey’s protests can be summarized in the following three categories which also include the main reasons behind political disagreements in the country:

A) The process of the accession of Turkey to the European Union – whose negotiations started on May 1, 2004 – has become more serious and Erdogan has promised that Ankara will be a member of the EU in the next 10-15 years.

B) The next reason behind the ongoing protests is the proposed change in the country’s political system from a parliamentary system to a presidential one; the opposition parties are doing their best to prevent this from happening; and

C) The local structure and social texture in certain parts of Turkey, especially its southern parts is such that interfering foreign forces can easily set the direction of the Alawite and Kurdish minorities toward their own desirable ends.

On June 6, the Turkish protesters changed the slogans they shouted at Taksim Square: “We do not belong to political parties. We are the people. We want a religion without the Justice and Development Party; an Ataturk without the Republican People's Party; our homeland without the Nationalist Movement Party; and the rights of Kurds without the Peace and Democracy Party. We are the people.” In my opinion, the contents of the aforesaid slogans cannot be summed up with simple focus on their combination and political coordinates.

As a result, some analysts have argued that these protests will finally become a turning point in the history of Turkey as they will make Erdogan see the nation anew by looking beyond the limited circle of his supporters.

By now, he should have understood that his nation does not have any interest in the history of the Ottoman Empire and there is a substantial gap between neoliberal economic development and political development in the country.

Therefore, I believe that the political demonstrations in Turkey do not conform to the known model of the Arab Spring, but are more similar to protests launched by the American people in what has come to be widely known as the Wall Street Movement.

.





.
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

General and Special Relativity of Tolerance.......

Post by monster_gardener »

Endovelico wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Endovelico wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:Its not 1924 anymore. You can't seriously favor the imposition of secularism via military rule over democratic institutions.
Religion is a strictly personal matter, and the right to believe and to live according to a person's religion must be strictly protected. But there is absolutely no place for religion in public
affairs.
It sounds like you are repeating an article of personal faith. You're just declaring this as a "fact" without any supporting evidence and contrary to the majority of human history, in which religion and politics were inextricably linked.
The fact that religion and politics have been linked in the past does not mean that it is good or should continue being so in the present. There was a time when people used torture as a widely accepted way to find out whether someone was guilty of a crime. Should we continue torturing?... Or is torture unacceptable only because the majority of the people now disagree with it?... Is it right for the Swiss (or was it the Austrians?) to ban minarets in mosques, just because a majority object to those outside symbols of a religion they dislike?... Mutual respect is an essential part of community life, but religious people do not respect those who do not share their fantasies... Ban alcohol, cover your face, punish fornication... Allahu akbar!...
Thank You Very Much for your post, Endo.

Or is torture unacceptable only because the majority of the people now disagree with it?...
IMVHO, Yes.

It may be wrong but it is only "unacceptable" because enough people oppose it.

Many things can be what you or I call wrong but can still be quite popular...........

A good reason to always be armed if possible.

but religious people do not respect those who do not share their fantasies...
Some do and some don't. And even the tolerance is relative: tolerant of some religions and practices but not others........
And IMVHO rightly so....... Not eating pork is fine but Jihad and Aztec Wars of Flowers to get sacrificial victims are not.


And the same for allegedly non-religious people: some are tolerant and some are not.

Recalling too many atheistic communists more than a bit intolerant of any sort of religion except the non-theistic judeo-christian heresy called communism even though it had its own human sacrifice rituals called purges :twisted: :evil: :roll: done in the vain hope of promoting a future paradise on Earth when the Dictatorship of the Proletariat would no longer be necessary.......
future generations would not become capitalist owners, and class divisions would no longer exist within the electorate. As a result, the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' would wither away, resulting in an entirely classless, stateless form of society known as pure communism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorsh ... roletariat


That said, I believe I much prefer Mustafa Kemal Ataturk to control freak religious regimes if for no other reason that Mustafa Kemal liked booze..... probably unfortunately too well...... he might have been able to do more and more thoroughly on his Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea ;) if his liver had lasted...... ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Ke ... d_Politics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyage_to_ ... _series%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Ke ... .80.931938

Moderation ;) in all things as said Harry Stottlemeyer ;) ,the nuclear engineer ;) , except when defending oneself or life

Or was it Aristotle the Geek ;) Philosopher :lol:
Last edited by monster_gardener on Mon Jun 10, 2013 5:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11567
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Turkey

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

Endovelico wrote:
... Ban alcohol, cover your face, punish fornication... Allahu akbar!...

.



“ Cheers, Tayyip ! ”


Drinking is far from the only issue held up in the intense antigovernment protests that have convulsed Turkey for more than a week. But it has become closely intertwined with the broader complaints of demonstrators fighting what they see as the rising authoritarianism of the Turkish government.

It also cuts to the heart of Turkish identity, as both sides have cast it as a clash of Islamic and secular values. While protesters have held up new limits on drinking as an affront to the secular values of modern Turkey, Mr. Erdogan has said that “religion demands” curbs on drinking. He has gone so far as to implicitly refer to Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of Turkey and a notoriously heavy drinker, as a “drunkard,” and in one of a series of speeches he delivered Sunday to cheering supporters, accused protesters of taking beer into mosques.

There are some signs, however, that the push to further limit alcohol use may be weakening. A local court here quietly issued an injunction overturning a local law that restricted the sale and consumption of alcohol. A court in another small community outside Ankara, Turkey’s capital, issued a similar ruling.



Prost




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

Re: Turkey

Post by Ibrahim »

Endovelico wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Endovelico wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:Its not 1924 anymore. You can't seriously favor the imposition of secularism via military rule over democratic institutions.
Religion is a strictly personal matter, and the right to believe and to live according to a person's religion must be strictly protected. But there is absolutely no place for religion in public
affairs.
It sounds like you are repeating an article of personal faith. You're just declaring this as a "fact" without any supporting evidence and contrary to the majority of human history, in which religion and politics were inextricably linked.
The fact that religion and politics have been linked in the past does not mean that it is good or should continue being so in the present.
This is not support for your declaration that the two must be separate. You've only repeated that as an article of faith, and you've declared that you're so ideologically wedded to it that you are willing to impose it on people with force (i.e. fascism). At best the issue of religion vs. secularism is debatable, and the best way of resolving that debate is democratically. Not by imposing your secular ideology on people through violence.

Mutual respect is an essential part of community life
Not according to you. You want to impose your ideology on other people with force if necessary, heedless of democratic institutions. This is a complete lack of respect and a violation of human rights.

Ban alcohol, cover your face, punish fornication...
If a society legislates these laws through a democratically elected government then what right do you have to overthrow their laws and impose your own with violence just because you disagree? Again, you are advocating nothing but fascism based on your personal subjective preferences.
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Turkey

Post by Ibrahim »

Endovelico wrote:
noddy wrote:endo - how does one seperate an atheists preferences on life,relationships,diet and so forth from the state.

wtf do the words even mean ?

i say it again, the words "seperation of church and state" used to mean a small handful of issues the catholics and protestants agreed to disagree on.
Let's put it like this:

A non-religious person demands his right to peace and silence. A religious fundamentalist demands his (eventually majority) right to blare noisy music throughout the neighbourhood. Ibrahim is saying that the right to impose music is greater than the right to peace and silence, but that's because the music happens to be agreeable to him...
This is a dishonest misrepresentation of my position, and a false slander against me personally. I haven't stated that I prefer religion in government, and you are falsely attributing that position to me. I am stating that, in Turkey, the present government has a democratic mandate, and ran on the platform of increased religion in society, and therefore there is no grounds for ousting a government so constituted in free and open elections.

Your position, which you have clearly stated, is that you wish to overthrow such governments with violence and impose your ideology through military force:
Endo wrote:If it takes force to ensure that separation between state and religion, so be it.
You wish to subvert democracy through violence. Fascism.
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

Three Cheers for Ataturk and Beer! Wine,Whiskey&Spirits too.

Post by monster_gardener »

Heracleum Persicum wrote:
Endovelico wrote:
... Ban alcohol, cover your face, punish fornication... Allahu akbar!...

.



“ Cheers, Tayyip ! ”


Drinking is far from the only issue held up in the intense antigovernment protests that have convulsed Turkey for more than a week. But it has become closely intertwined with the broader complaints of demonstrators fighting what they see as the rising authoritarianism of the Turkish government.

It also cuts to the heart of Turkish identity, as both sides have cast it as a clash of Islamic and secular values. While protesters have held up new limits on drinking as an affront to the secular values of modern Turkey, Mr. Erdogan has said that “religion demands” curbs on drinking. He has gone so far as to implicitly refer to Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of Turkey and a notoriously heavy drinker, as a “drunkard,” and in one of a series of speeches he delivered Sunday to cheering supporters, accused protesters of taking beer into mosques.

There are some signs, however, that the push to further limit alcohol use may be weakening. A local court here quietly issued an injunction overturning a local law that restricted the sale and consumption of alcohol. A court in another small community outside Ankara, Turkey’s capital, issued a similar ruling.



Prost




.
Thank You VERY MUCH for your post, Azari!

Seconded!.......

Cheers!...........

Three Cheers for Ataturk and Beer!

And Wine, Whiskey, & Spirits too...........

And hoping that someday cannabis will be legal too..........

Again all this done in Aristotelian ;) moderation ;) and not when doing things like driving cars or other delicate operations....
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:
Endovelico wrote:Mutual respect is an essential part of community life
Not according to you. You want to impose your ideology on other people with force if necessary, heedless of democratic institutions. This is a complete lack of respect and a violation of human rights.

Ban alcohol, cover your face, punish fornication...
If a society legislates these laws through a democratically elected government then what right do you have to overthrow their laws and impose your own with violence just because you disagree? Again, you are advocating nothing but fascism based on your personal subjective preferences.
You missed the rest of my argument:

The fact that religion and politics have been linked in the past does not mean that it is good or should continue being so in the present. There was a time when people used torture as a widely accepted way to find out whether someone was guilty of a crime. Should we continue torturing?... Or is torture unacceptable only because the majority of the people now disagree with it?... Is it right for the Swiss (or was it the Austrians?) to ban minarets in mosques, just because a majority object to those outside symbols of a religion they dislike?...

A majority for torture or for banning minarets would seem, according to your stated views, an acceptable basis to implement them. Is that so?...

By the way, I am a weird sort of fascist, who wishes to protect minorities against the intolerance of the majority... In your view it would seem it was legitimate to persecute Jews in Nazi Germany, because the majority agreed to it...
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

Weird Fascist Protectors of Minority Rights.....

Post by monster_gardener »

Endovelico wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Endovelico wrote:Mutual respect is an essential part of community life
Not according to you. You want to impose your ideology on other people with force if necessary, heedless of democratic institutions. This is a complete lack of respect and a violation of human rights.

Ban alcohol, cover your face, punish fornication...
If a society legislates these laws through a democratically elected government then what right do you have to overthrow their laws and impose your own with violence just because you disagree? Again, you are advocating nothing but fascism based on your personal subjective preferences.
You missed the rest of my argument:

The fact that religion and politics have been linked in the past does not mean that it is good or should continue being so in the present. There was a time when people used torture as a widely accepted way to find out whether someone was guilty of a crime. Should we continue torturing?... Or is torture unacceptable only because the majority of the people now disagree with it?... Is it right for the Swiss (or was it the Austrians?) to ban minarets in mosques, just because a majority object to those outside symbols of a religion they dislike?...

A majority for torture or for banning minarets would seem, according to your stated views, an acceptable basis to implement them. Is that so?...

By the way, I am a weird sort of fascist, who wishes to protect minorities against the intolerance of the majority... In your view it would seem it was legitimate to persecute Jews in Nazi Germany, because the majority agreed to it...
Thank You VERY Much for your post, Endo.

IMHO a good argument.........
A majority for torture or for banning minarets would seem, according to your stated views, an acceptable basis to implement them. Is that so?...
Or a majority for using drones instead of arrest Warrants against Wild Taliban TallyWackers.......... :twisted:


Which may be something that Ibrahim cares somewhat ;) more about than Jews in Germany ;) :twisted:

By the way, I am a weird sort of fascist, who wishes to protect minorities against the intolerance of the majority...
And given the Depraved Sinful Egotistical Chaos Monkey Nature of Human Beings, one of the ways to do that is being armed and fast on one's feet.....

Better to be Sikh ;)
And always armed
Than to be made sick....
Or worse....... :evil:
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:
Endovelico wrote:Mutual respect is an essential part of community life
Not according to you. You want to impose your ideology on other people with force if necessary, heedless of democratic institutions. This is a complete lack of respect and a violation of human rights.

Ban alcohol, cover your face, punish fornication...
If a society legislates these laws through a democratically elected government then what right do you have to overthrow their laws and impose your own with violence just because you disagree? Again, you are advocating nothing but fascism based on your personal subjective preferences.
You missed the rest of my argument:
Nope. My reply covered everything relevant.

The fact that religion and politics have been linked in the past does not mean that it is good or should continue being so in the present. There was a time when people used torture as a widely accepted way to find out whether someone was guilty of a crime. Should we continue torturing?... Or is torture unacceptable only because the majority of the people now disagree with it?... Is it right for the Swiss (or was it the Austrians?) to ban minarets in mosques, just because a majority object to those outside symbols of a religion they dislike?...

A majority for torture or for banning minarets would seem, according to your stated views, an acceptable basis to implement them. Is that so?...
The minaret ban is valid, if vaguely racist. Torture is another order of magnitude, but nobody is talking about torture here. You want the military to overthrow the government because people might have to hear prayers in schools.


By the way, I am a weird sort of fascist, who wishes to protect minorities against the intolerance of the majority...
False. You declared Turkish democracy invalid because it doesn't conform to you
In your view it would seem it was legitimate to persecute Jews in Nazi Germany, because the majority agreed to it...
I think I'd file your views more with the Maoists torching monasteries and engineering famines in Tibet. But your persistent efforts to divert the discussion from prayer in schools to mass murder and torture are noted and appreciated.
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Turkey

Post by noddy »

Endovelico wrote:
noddy wrote:endo - how does one seperate an atheists preferences on life,relationships,diet and so forth from the state.

wtf do the words even mean ?

i say it again, the words "seperation of church and state" used to mean a small handful of issues the catholics and protestants agreed to disagree on.
Let's put it like this:

A non-religious person demands his right to peace and silence. A religious fundamentalist demands his (eventually majority) right to blare noisy music throughout the neighbourhood. Ibrahim is saying that the right to impose music is greater than the right to peace and silence, but that's because the music happens to be agreeable to him... Of course I don't want to prevent people from listening to music, as long as it is done in their own houses and in a manner which will not interfere with the neighbours.

Can anyone disagree with this?...
this occurs all the time in my area when they gentrify a suburb and then all the pubs and clubs get shutdown due to noise complaints.
nothing religious in this - noise pollution laws are quite common in the west and i agree it would be odious if they made a special case of religous noise.

i have full faith in the whine of the sheltered middle class - back when i was musician i quite often had to deal with the police getting called out to shutdown one of my jams so id expect them to stay true to form.

as for the other examples you mentioned - alcohol and fornication - the puritanical streak in both our own religious conservatives and the health nut progresive foodnazis and feminazis is far more real to me at this stage and the latter is atheist and they quite amusingly believe their opinions dont need to be seperated from state because they are secular by definition and they have statistics.

they dont punish crudely in public like sharia loving rural conservative muslims but they have no problems setting the police and tax dogs onto it and dont blink at slut shaming or police brutality provided its below the radar.

i really wish their was a difference between religious opinions and atheist ones.

if the magority is christian or muslim then the legal system will reflect their views on morality, it cant be stopped, ditto if the magority is progressive lefty atheists.

right now as someone who pays 75% of my income in taxes to crap i barely believe in and quite often despise im wondering just what the dhimmi tax rate actually is.

i absolutely do agree that individual rights need to be protected against mob rule but im a loony fringe in the modern west, such is life.
ultracrepidarian
User avatar
Endovelico
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Turkey

Post by Endovelico »

Ibrahim,

I sometimes feel you argue just for the sake of the argument, not because you actually believe what you are arguing for.

You still insist in considering that it is fully acceptable and democratic for a majority to impose certain values on the minority, even when those values are subjective and are completely unrelated to fundamental human rights. Let's look at it on a different sphere:

I'm not familiar with the Canadian sports scene, but using the British scene as an example what would you say if a majority of the British people were Chelsea fans and decided to impose on students the obligation to attend lectures on the history and glory of Chelsea Football Club. Do you think it would be acceptable to impose the majority will on Arsenal or Manchester United fans? What about imposing on all women the obligation to wear at least a piece of clothing in Chelsea blue? And stopping all tv channels from broadcasting any other football games, when a Chelsea match was being broadcast? Is this crazy? Well, not crazier than imposing any particular religious fantasy on people who are non-believers. Should shops owned by Buddhists be forced to close at the time of Muslim prayers? Should the purchase of wine be forbidden to Christians? Should a Shinto woman be arrested if she was guilty of cheating on her husband with an atheist?... What about imposing on Jews wearing a yellow star of David on their jackets?...Or forbidding the use of a veil to Muslim girls in public schools?... Or forbidding circumcision on supposedly health grounds?...

Democratic values may not be called upon to justify all these violations of people's rights. In my very modest opinion, that is...
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11567
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Turkey

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

Endovelico wrote:.

Ibrahim,

I sometimes feel you argue just for the sake of the argument, not because you actually believe what you are arguing for.

You still insist in considering that it is fully acceptable and democratic for a majority to impose certain values on the minority, even when those values are subjective and are completely unrelated to fundamental human rights. Let's look at it on a different sphere:

I'm not familiar with the Canadian sports scene, but using the British scene as an example what would you say if a majority of the British people were Chelsea fans and decided to impose on students the obligation to attend lectures on the history and glory of Chelsea Football Club. Do you think it would be acceptable to impose the majority will on Arsenal or Manchester United fans? What about imposing on all women the obligation to wear at least a piece of clothing in Chelsea blue? And stopping all tv channels from broadcasting any other football games, when a Chelsea match was being broadcast? Is this crazy? Well, not crazier than imposing any particular religious fantasy on people who are non-believers. Should shops owned by Buddhists be forced to close at the time of Muslim prayers? Should the purchase of wine be forbidden to Christians? Should a Shinto woman be arrested if she was guilty of cheating on her husband with an atheist?... What about imposing on Jews wearing a yellow star of David on their jackets?...Or forbidding the use of a veil to Muslim girls in public schools?... Or forbidding circumcision on supposedly health grounds?...

Democratic values may not be called upon to justify all these violations of people's rights. In my very modest opinion, that is ....


.



Main pillar of democracy, heart of democracy, is, Protection AND "respect" for " Minority Rights " .. Very few cultures and civilizations
would pass that test

Respect does not mean "just tolerate" but to accept as equal

4get Turkey, most western nations even do not qualify for that .. things not become better, rather worst



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

Re: Turkey

Post by Ibrahim »

Endovelico wrote:Ibrahim,

I sometimes feel you argue just for the sake of the argument, not because you actually believe what you are arguing for.

You still insist in considering that it is fully acceptable and democratic for a majority to impose certain values on the minority, even when those values are subjective and are completely unrelated to fundamental human rights.

There is no violation of human rights here. Your declaration of a democratically elected government as country invalid, and your stated preference for the imposition of your own preferred ideology by force, are extreme positions that you are trying to back down or distract from by coming up with increasingly abstract examples and implying that I am arguing in bad faith.




Let's look at it on a different sphere
No. We are talking about the Turkish state, which at present has a democratically elected government led by an admitted religious conservative.
User avatar
Endovelico
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Turkey

Post by Endovelico »

Ibrahim wrote:
Endovelico wrote:Let's look at it on a different sphere
No. We are talking about the Turkish state, which at present has a democratically elected government led by an admitted religious conservative.
Image

Chicken! Can't answer the argument and decided to retreat?... :twisted:
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Turkey

Post by Ibrahim »

Endo wrote:Chicken! Can't answer the argument and decided to retreat?...
I'm not indulging your efforts to backpedal from your fascist statements. Your disdain for democracy and taste for authoritarian violence will be remembered more than your rambling attempt at sports analogies.
User avatar
Endovelico
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Turkey

Post by Endovelico »

Ibrahim wrote:
Endo wrote:Chicken! Can't answer the argument and decided to retreat?...
I'm not indulging your efforts to backpedal from your fascist statements. Your disdain for democracy and taste for authoritarian violence will be remembered more than your rambling attempt at sports analogies.
Why are my sports analogies not adequate? Because you think that religion is a more serious thing than sport? Because by looking at my analogy you realize how ridiculous is your effort to try and justify imposing a religious bias disguised as democracy?
Post Reply