Talk:Secularism in Turkey

Introduction

From the last sentence of the introduction: "...actively monitors the area between the religions." I don't fully understand what this means; it may need to be rephrased. Is it alluding to the government taking a neutral stance on religion, or the government actively promoting religious tolerance? EyeSerene^TALK 17:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Not Neutral Point of View

Despite the fact that sources are cited throughout, several sections of this article seem to reflect a bias against Turkey and need to be cleaned up to meet Wikipedia's standards for NPOV, such as the following passage:

"...Therefore by being a secular republic, Turkey is a poor representation of a democracy due to the fact it harasses people who pratice religion in public while it is evident in the West that many people practice religion openly without facing discrimination a law upheld by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights as "legitimate" on November 10, 2005 in Leyla Şahin v. Turkey.

^^ Leyla Sahin lost that case, as freedom has limit of individual area and religions has a tendency of expansionism, this article above does not represent the court decision also France has won a similar case against a Muslim woman. This article must be removed immediately due to misleading people by playing words

The strict application of secularism in Turkey has basically led to oppresion and has made for many individuals in Turkey a huge obstacle of expressing freedom, values, social life, and way of thinking#PPA28,M1 }}</ref>"

Therefore I am going to put the disputed-neutrality template on its page. —Edward Tremel 00:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

O.K. The article is based on cited information. The available concepts are distributed to their correct places. The concept is very popular and biased edits are expected. That is the nature of the Article. From my perspective the article has problems but not really bad. Any other recommendations?? --OttomanReference 16:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

it was an anon who declared Turkey as an Islamic state, his/her edit was reverted immediately. see this diff. Deniz^T_C 03:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Secular Paradox

While its almost indisputable that Turkey is more secular than many of the countries neighbouring it how can they claim to be a completly secular republic when.

• 1) Its flag bears the imgae of the Islamic crescent

• The 'Islamic crescent' comes from Turkey/Ottoman Empire

• Which in turn used an Islamic symbol, to underscore its claim to the caliphate. Interestingly, religion was one of the ways by which Turks were *defined* during Republican-era conflicts with Greece and Greeks.

read more about Turkish flag, you will see it was long before used in anatolia, it really was the symbol adopted after Kosovo battle as state symbol of Ottomans, 5 point star is hand of Ida ottomans used a sun(like azeri flag), this article shall be removed instantly cos it doesnt represent truth.

• 2) The Government funds the construction of Mosques

• They are donation based as far as I know. In Turkey every now and then you can find someone on your door who asks whether you want to donate money to a mosque construction

• Their preachers receive government salaries

Also funds churches and synagogues by power and water (yes this is not laicite i dont use anyof them but i pay)

• 3) There is (Islamic) religious education in state funded schools

• This one is in a way true, there is a course called 'Din Kültürü ve Ahlak Bilgisi' (direct translation: "Culture of Religion and knowledge of Ethics")

• The teachers are invariably these same government-subsidized Sunni preachers. A common Alevi complaint is that (a) these teachers use the opportunity to proselytize, and belittle Alevi beliefs, and (b) Alevi children (unlike those of recognized religious minorities) cannot be excused from the class.

This education is totally against laicite and caused ilamist to gain influence on society must be removed, because of that lesson my graduation point was reduced in high school which effected my university success.

• 4) There is a Government "Department of Religion"

• Ministry for Religious Affairs, which on paper oversees the area between the religions, but in practice it is like a Department of religion, maybe since almost everyone in Turkey is at least nominally Moslem. It is not a state church

• Most Turks are at least nominally Muslim, but many are non-Sunni (i.e., Alevi), while others disapprove of the state-supported mosque system. The only thing that distinguishes this system from a "state church" per se would be the Turkish government's insistence that there is no state religion.

• In Denmark, England, Germany etc most churches are paid for by the state. In Italy, the law confers many fiscal privileges to the Catholic Church instead of directly paying for churches.

there is nothing called ministry or secretary of religious affairs, it can be translated chiefhood of religious affairs as it is not political, works similar to churches in Turkey (which are subjected to their local government office, Greek Orthodox church is to İstanbul Valiliği).

• 5) Until recently Adultery was a crime (and there have been proposals for recriminalising it)

• No it wasn't, but there was a discussion initiated by some politicians

• There used to be laws against hotels renting rooms to unmarried (or unrelated) Turkish couples.

• So? Until 20 years ago it was legal for a Spanish man to shoot and kill his wife and her lover if he caught them in bed. One needs to only visit southern Turkey to see if that law about hotel rooms still applies :)

laws do not permit or prohibit actions, they represent reactions, if someone kills for any reason he/she will suffer the consequences. Insult has a reducing effect on punishment all over the world.

• 6) Identity cards state the bearers religion (surely in a truly secular state a persons religious beliefs would be of no more interest to the agencies of the state than their favorite footbal team)

• Correct.

• True, however it is NOT obligatory to have such a mention on ID cards. The law was changed a while back. In any case, you are right that there should be no such mention. But remember that in EU member Greece ID cards still have the mention of religion. This was used back in the day, in TR and GR for example, to make sure that someone wouldn't be a "threat to national security" by making sure that they were "true" X's or Y's. Remnants of the Cold War, what can I say?

Thats true in any period of my life i haven't been a muslim but my ID dictates that i am. but at least i dont have to carry any religious symbols like many EU citizens has to due to their flags.

• 7) There are widespread allegations of (past and present) persecution of and discrimination against religious minorities

• unfortunately, but not related, the laicite of the Turkish government does not imply that no teen will be a murderer

• In the Sivas massacre, the police were credibly accused of "looking the other way" while Sunni mobs attacked Alevis. Similar events happened in Istanbul.

• It was a horrible and condemnable incident. However it was nearly twenty years ago. The Sunni-Alevi tension no longer exists in Turkey, and that event was one of the last events in those dying tensions.

that was not a sunni-alevi event, it was totally against Aziz Nesin who in fact was a non-believer, he was crticizing not only islam also alevism. The heads of the mob were sentenced.

80.229.222.48 20:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Deniz^T_C 00:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

--Side Comment to number 6: Germany, an undisputed secular democracy, requires citizens to state their chosen religion as part of tax forms since tithing is done by the state. Germany also requires State recognition of religious sects.

I would have thought the Germans of all people would know why letting the Government know your religious affiliation might not be such a good idea but we are discussing Turkey here not Germany (or Spain or Denmark or "England" or Italy....). 80.229.222.48 21:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This "Flag issue" must be removed immediately, Turkish Flag does not have any religious symbols read about it on Wikipedia, you can also check Gagauz flag who are Eastern Christians. A coin in found Cyprus dated back to Hellenistic Era has also same (5 point star) symbol and that doesnt make them muslims or does it?

Public Reason

I see the reference to "public reason" was added to the lead; I'm not sure that's appropriately used in reference to Turkey. The phrase has some currency, but is somewhat central to John Rawls, at least to my understanding (meaning I doubt it has much influence on Turkish politics). I would rephrase that unless someone disagrees. Mackan79 14:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ateistforum

I think that the blocking of Ateistforum (Turkish atheistic internet-forum) should be mentioned. Abdullais4u (talk) 15:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Secularim or Laicite?

they are different concepts for same problem secularism does not provide shelter for non-religious people(as in Germany they are obligated to pay church tax) where in laic countries religious symbols are not permitted , by this sense laicite is better deveplopped than secularity but the criteria of religious freedom in secular countries may be better for majority of believers

State control

According to a report I heard on the BBC, the state appoints all the imams & writes their sermons, faxing them through to the mosques. If this is true, it's a very important fact that ought to be mentioned in the article, since it means that Turkey's concept of secularism is totally different from those of France & America, say. Peter jackson (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı 70.171.33.155 (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Little Opposition

In this article there is very little opposition to the secularism... last time i checked turkey is a moslem country and many people will be offended if their islamic cultures are banned eg the headscarf.. recommend more addition to the opposition by a turkey specialist... Canadian (talk) 03:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

What is your definition of "moslem country"? By Article 2 of its Constitution, the Republic of Turkey is a democratic, secular and social state governed by the rule of law. If there is notable opposition against this, it should be added to the article, but only if there are reliable sources for such content. The governing party was recently accused of anti-secular activities, but adamantly denies this itself.  --Lambiam 11:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

New section "Headscarf controversy"

The article has become a mess in the last couple of days, with unsourced or unreliably sourced points-of-view, in particular in a new section entitled "Headscarf controversy", which completely ignores that there were already sections called "Impact on ..." dealing with the issue, sections that have been collapsed together in a section "Impact on society". Putting this new section "Headscarf controversy" first, before "Impact on society", gives this undue weight in the whole context, and is also strange – as if this is not part of the impact on society.  --Lambiam 12:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I couldn't do further work on the headscarf section, but I moved the impact on society section higher, as it was meant to be since it is not a part of the criticism section.. 82.230.24.185 (talk) 03:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Latife Hanim

Abdullah Gül is not the the first president of Turkey whose wife wears a headscarf (hijab).Latife Hanim is the first "first lady" (wife of Ataturk) who wears a headscarf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.217.43.145 (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Wife of Ataturk used to wear headscarf only in the beginning of her life, later she ceased this practice and called other women to do the same, that important difference with Abdullah Gül's wife who insist on wearing headscarf and therefore they cannot be grouped together. Also according to photo in wiki's article about Latife_Uşşaki in 1923 when she married Ataturk she already hadn't been wearing a headscarf, so during the time she was a first lady she hadn't worn a headscarf so wife of Abdullah Gul should be considered the first first lady to wear headscarf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.237.227 (talk) 14:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Secularism in Turkey was introduced with the Turkish Constitution of 1924

The intro sentence is flawed. Secularism in Turkey was introduced during the last era of Ottoman empire. But it is "officially" introduced in 1924. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.217.43.139 (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Neither! Turkey introduced official secularism first in the 1928 amendment of the 1928 constitution, then, as an article in 1937. --81.213.66.248 (talk) 02:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Guys check your facts, Wikipedia is becoming a more important source day by day. --81.213.66.248 (talk) 02:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

What I don't understand is...

... how come a country where 99% of the population is Muslim exists as a secular state? I would expect citizens to push for a Muslim republic. It is unreasonable to believe that almost all population is Muslim and that at the same time these Muslim overwhelming majority fiercely opposes a Muslim state in the name of secularism. It just doesn't compute for me, and I checked this article out in order to understand this apparent paradox. Yet I could find no answer to my dilemma. Can anyone help me understand? 91.195.98.214 (talk) 04:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well based on current social trends in Turkey, they should be the new Iran within a decade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.246.64 (talk) 02:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Not %99 ! It's %94 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.184.2.100 (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The exact percent of Islamic Turks is not what I was asking for. I also did not ask for future predictions. I just want to know how the past and current situation in Turkey was/is possible. 91.195.98.214 (talk) 01:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Turkey -never was and- is not a Secular State

The article -obviously- is written by Kemalist and Islamist writers like a boxing match. Regarding secularism, it doesn't explain the history of Turkey and current situation correctly.

Facts:

1. Ottoman Empire was an Islamic state governed by a Caliph.
2. There was no "secularisation" in Ottoman Empire. Existence of a few Westernist journalist doesn't count "secularisation.
3. Mustafa Kemal never "introduced" secularism in Turkey.
4. Mustafa Kemal founded Presidency of Religious Affairs.
5. Mustafa Kemal expelled non Muslim Turks to Greece just because they were not Muslims.
6. Mustafa Kemal founded "İlahiyat Fakültesi" in Istanbul University.
7. Mustafa Kemal put religuous courses in public schools in all stages.
8. Kemalist army increased religuous presence in education after every coup.
9. Mustafa Kemal's state, funded the followings
   1. sallaries of imams.
   2. construction of mosques.
   3. sallaries of muslim clergy.
   4. electricity, water, gas, and other expenditures of mosques and other religious establishments.
   5. funding a giant islamic clergy of which all crew members are civil servants.
10. Mustafa Kemal sticked with the millet system of dividng the population according to religion.

The misconception arises from laicite amandment in the constitution which was just an eyeservice for Mustafa Kemal's Western allies.

Both Kemalists and Islamists claim that Turkey was and is a secular or laic state. Kemalists assert it for sake of masquerading (themselves and Mustafa Kemal) as progressive or "left" while Islamists assert it for sake of masquerading as "persecuted" ones.

From a liberal point of view, there was never a scent of secularism in Turkey and there is still non either.

Westerners are illusined with the costume of Mustafa Kemal and alcohol drinking customs of Kemalists but the reality is as outlined above.--144.122.104.211 (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Turkish Secularism = Soviet Fascism

Turkey was never a democratic country let alone secular. The kemalists tend to have racist attitude towards Kurds and other minorities often calling them with names. So-called founder of Turkey was a fascist himself, he admired Mussolini and gave inspiration to Hitler. We know that Hitler likened the young turks for his atrocities and Kamal was one of them. Kamal was an ultranationalist like Nazis who believed that all other "races" stemmed from the Turks as he "theorized" his so-called "Sun-Language Theory," which is ludicrous if anyone reading it sober.

I agree with the above comment, I read in Time magazine reporting as "Champaign sipping Kamal" and for Inonu "Swank little" was describing their behavior very accurately. Some editor seems to be admiring Kamal, but he was a fascist murderer. For instance in this article, The Progressive Republican Party was a liberal party, not a fundamentalist. One of the people who was executed after a farcical tribunal, Javid Bei was from a Jewish descent, he was the former Minister of Finance of the Ottoman Empire. Along with Javid Bei, Dr. Nazım Pasha and few others were executed. Dr. Nazım Pasha was one of the leader of the Young Turks junta, which resorted to a coup d'état in 1913, a year later Turkey entered WW1.

The general consensus among historians is that Javid Bei was murdered for his knowledge of Kamal's corruption, for instance stealing of billions from the Ottoman bank, 5000 gold coins arrived as an aid to the Caliphate fund from Indian Muslims which explains his "ownership" of 28% of Turkish İş Bankası. People who are admirers of this fascist stealer of democracy, people's struggle against imperialism should not have a voice about this country. Kamal died of his greed at Dolmabahçe Palace in a way deserving such divine justice of the circumstances he prepared for his own demise. Once calling himself "Selatin-i Ahirin," which means "the last of the Sultans," as he was a resident of the Palace died of cirrhosis of liver, oh well, too much alcohol consumption of a "champaign sipping Kamal."

Secularism in Turkey under the Kamalists is nothing but whitewashing of their dirt, especially killing Armenians, causing the demise of not only minorities but also their very own people. I guess nation building is something like this and it must be how Hitler wanted to imitate the young turks who are known as the Kamalists in the latter republican era. Alien sojourner (talk) 07:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC) ""---This (talk) is a resentful bias ridden moron, writes like a perpetual teenager whose personal attacks and "arguments" fathom only a facepalm or a least cringe. His argument is very weak, but his tantrum is really strong. The outburst has very little to do with Secularism in Turkey, but a personal attack on Ataturk. Either this is a either a bigoted foreigner, resentful fundamentalist Turk or a just a troll.

()Alien sojourner, all of these are just personal opinions, you admit by saying you agree with the Time's magazine reporting on their behaviour, it self an opinion piece, so you already lost a lot credibility. Let's say it is true that the "general consensus" among historians is that he had 'Cevid Bey' executed for investigating corruption, by that same token, the general consensus among historians is he is far from a fascist. Yes, that whole Sun Language Theory is a WTF moment in his life, hotly debated today is Ataturk was just trolling himself and didn't really believe in it. But the comparison to NAZIS is week and offensive as the Sun Langue Theory promotes language for the sake of a strong national identity not race and racism. Admiring Mussolini doesn't make one a fascist, in fact he admired the relatively successful economic polices Mussolini had in the 1920s of 'state corporatism' which Kemal blended some of it into Turkey, which synergies well with his pillar of Statism. Do you know who also "admired" Mussolini's state corporatism? US President Franklin D Roosevelt, who implemented bits of it into his New Deal. Does that make FDR a fascist too? And Hitler was influenced by Mussolini not by Kemal, Hitler gave a few compliments to him in regards to his tenacity and his state building, that's all. So being complimented (not inspired) by Hitler makes Ataturk evil? Hitler also complimented and admired Islam, is Islam then evil and fascist, please debate that with a few Muslims.... The stench of your false equivalence fallacy is overwhelming, son.

The Ottoman Bank Collapsed because the Empire collapsed, so what ever assets where went to the new state, and Ataturk was the state, duh. And the Ottomans left new Turkey their colossal debt, so there really wasn't anything to "steal". That 28 % is correct, but with context, Turkey needed a bank, for a line of credit, like every nation has, and he founded it, his guy from his party managed it, which explains partially the 28%, using left over gold bullion sent as aid by Indians to Muslims during the war of Impendence, not clear if so solely the gold was for to the Ottoman Caliph, as the National Movement who won the War of independence had Muslims in it so it could go for them. But's it's pointless argument anyways because to the victors to the spoils and they needed that spoils because the Ottomans left Turkey their huge debt. I could go with your infantile rambling's but can't be bothered anymore to engage.

There are legitimate criticism of his conduct as head of state and legitimate personal grievances of his lifestyle and the content of his character, but's that's the thing none of these come close to a legitimate augment or even a concise and measured personal opinion, just an inept angry troll, so much so that you even make legitimate critics of Ataturk look like fools. A lot of them would be embarrassed. Epic Fail.---"""

Lets also remember Erdogan isn’t also big on Armenians or Kurds for that matter. He openly denies the Armenian genocide and he’s an Islamist fascist authoritarian dictator Nlivataye (talk) 10:51, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Erdogan and Islamization

This section is not only poorly written with many technical errors in English, it is not neutral in its choice of sources or the facts presented. It strikes me as highly selective to push a political agenda of the relevant editor. I don’t know enough about the subject matter to correct the issues but other editors need to balance the section so it reads less like a veiled attack on a politician you aren’t sympathetic to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.236.206 (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a discussion forum

As noted at the top of this page, This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Secularism in Turkey article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Please use this page for its purpose: to propose and discuss improvements to the article. Thank you. Ruby Murray 17:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

They gonna see us from outer space — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.73.16.206 (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)