Another Question From a Turkish Friend
I really enjoy trying to explain America's political life to Turks. The questions they ask always force me to think about the things I take for granted from different perspective. Last night I watched the Republican debate with a Turkish friend. He was surprised that the candidates were identified by their religion--Lutheran, Catholic, etc. What kind of secularism is that, he wondered? Wasn't that inappropriate in a country that prides itself on the separation of Church and State?
Turkish secularism is so strict that if that happened here, it could conceivably be grounds for the courts to step in and ban the candidate's whole political party. It would certainly be a scandal.
Think about that--how do you explain it? He's been taught that secularism means keeping religion completely out of the political arena. You know the saying--"It's fine to have one, it's even fine to be proud of it, but you don't whip it out in public."
The standard AKP line is that they don't want a theocracy, they just want to be able to be as pious in public as American politicians are. Many of them are completely sincere about this. Some aren't. The ones who aren't scare the hell out of people like my friend.
How would you explain exactly how we reconcile the pride we take in our separation of church and and state with these public displays of piety?
Why do we not worry that this will devolve into theocracy or sectarian violence?
- Comment (30)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Re: Another Question From a Turkish Friend
“Practice, man, practice.”
Also, American-style neutrality among religions versus Franco-Turkish laïcité is a whole different ball game. Without spending time here, I think it's very confusing for Turks (and probably French people) to really understand the difference.
Dec '10
Re: Another Question From a Turkish Friend
Separation of church and state is not the same as separation of church from state: the Constitution forbids the Government from imposing a religion on its people but does not prohibit its people from expressing their respective religions in their political beliefs and actions. You may not worry that this will devolve into theocracy or sectarian violence, but the Left fairly constantly accuses the religious Right of seeking to impose theocracy in America, and aside from the sectarian violence we see today on the part of American jihadis, we've in the past seen such violent sectarian movements as the Ku Klux Klan (sworn to defend America from Negroes, Papists and Christ-Killers).
Jan '11
Re: Another Question From a Turkish Friend
Another classic example of the intersection of two Ricochet threads ... hear me out ...
I've argued elsewhere that Europe had long maintained a policy that the local sovereign determined the religion of the locality. If the local prince was a Protestant, so were you. If he converted to Catholicism, so did you, whether you liked it or not.
By colonial times in America, this still remained as a remnant, in the institution of a "state" church. Catholics had to pay taxes to maintain the Protestant churches.
By the time of the Founders, even that remnant had been rejected. The Founders refused to allow a state religion, and Jefferson's letter (from which we get the phrase of separation of church and state) is based on that understanding. Individuals chose their religion for themselves, and it couldn't be chosen for them by the state.
The original intent, therefore, of the Founders requires you to know that religious history. Lacking that historical awareness, others came along later and misinterpreted it as a banishment of religion from the public square. However, misinterpretation doesn't prove ambiguity ... in this case, it simply proves an unwillingness to investigate the issue.
Jun '10
Re: Another Question From a Turkish Friend
Claire Berlinski, Ed.:
How would you explain exactly how we reconcile the pride we take in our separation of church and and state with these public displays of piety?
Why do we not worry that this will devolve into theocracy or sectarian violence? ·
That presumes there is a spectrum with theocracy on one end and secularism on the other, with the American system as a compromise somewhere in the middle. If that were the case then for Turkey to become more like America means moving closer to the theocracy end of the spectrum, and thus the concern about moving too far in that direction.
I see the spectrum differently, I put theocracy on one end, secularism in the middle, and freedom of religion on the other end. In America we are free to practice our religion proudly in public. A theocracy has no religious freedom, you must follow the state religion. Secularism lies in the middle, you may practice your religion in private but not in public. So in that case, for Turkey to become more like American means moving further away from theocracy. It means more freedom, not less.
Jun '10
Re: Another Question From a Turkish Friend
There's a very simple litmus test: do they support the right of Jews and Christians to be pious in public as well? Do they support building new synagogues, churches, and seminaries? Do they support the right of Christians to evangelize and hand out Bibles? Do they support the right of Muslims to publicly convert to other faiths or to atheism? If so, they are completely sincere. If not, they are crypto-theocrats.
Jun '10
Re: Another Question From a Turkish Friend
I don't have to love and adore your spouse, or your children, or your religious faith, but it's somehow very comforting to know that YOU still do.
May '10
Re: Another Question From a Turkish Friend
"Separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution. You might start out by pointing out to your Turkish friends that what the Constitution provides for is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
So if a politician wishes to identify as this or that religion, or none at all, that is his/her right.
May '10
Re: Another Question From a Turkish Friend
Claire Berlinski, Ed.: How would you explain exactly how we reconcile the pride we take in our separation of church and and state with these public displays of piety?
Why do we not worry that this will devolve into theocracy or sectarian violence? ·
I think we can't ignore fundamental differences between Islam and Christianity.
There is a natural harmony and coherence (it's not perfect, but it's real) between Judeo/christian belief and practice and principles like self-government, equality before the law, freedom of conscience, and separation of church and state. There is a disharmony, a radical tension, and an incoherence between Islamic belief and practice and those things.
Re: Another Question From a Turkish Friend
Nick Stuart: "Separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution. You might start out by pointing out to your Turkish friends that what the Constitution provides for is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
So if a politician wishes to identify as this or that religion, or none at all, that is his/her right. · May 7 at 4:12am
That's in fact just where I started! It was interesting to me to realize that I had to begin there.
Jun '10
Re: Another Question From a Turkish Friend
...our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. If it be said, his testimony in a court of justice cannot be relied on, reject it then, and be the stigma on him. Constraint may make him worse by making him a hypocrite, but it will never make him a truer man. It may fix him obstinately in his errors, but will not cure them. Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error. --Thomas Jefferson, 1743-1826 . Notes on the State of Virginia
Aug '10
Re: Another Question From a Turkish Friend
We Westerners settled the religious question during the Reformation, hundreds of years ago, and we don't need to fight wars over doctrine anymore. We should make a list of the salutary wars of history. It's saddening that Islam never had a Reformation.
We think it's important to know the foundation of a candidate's thought.
The "wall of separation between church and state" is a phrase from a personal letter Jefferson wrote to a friend. It was used by a delusional Supreme Court Justice to justify the removal of religious images from the public arena, even though the Supreme Court building in D.C. has marble sculptures of Moses, the tablets, the Ten Commandments, and even Hammurabi and his Code.
May '10
Re: Another Question From a Turkish Friend
Paraphrasing Mark Steyn:
"I fear that Islam has had its Reformation, and jihad is it."
I can't help stressing again the essential differences between Christianity and Islam on this score. The philosophical and theological disputes surrounding the Reformation had the outcome they did (in terms of establishing separation of church and state as a basic principle of right governance) because that principle coheres (at least in certain respects) better with Christian doctrine and philosophy (as well as with human nature) than what had preceded.
Appeal to a more pure and/or fully developed essential Islam, however, and the results are very different.
May '10
Re: Another Question From a Turkish Friend
Historically, we've never had a theocracy. This corresponds neatly with, say, European limits on speech. Their history with fascism has led to an overreaction of outlawing any speech that hints at such a danger, long after such danger has passed. Laws are usually not passed unless theres a problem. We have never had a theocratic problem here, so the question doesn't arise. We'd be just as likely to pass a law banning extraterrestrials or djinn.
Two points on the Constitution. First, it is a negative document, declaring what laws Congress shall not pass. The passage of a law limiting speech or religion is antithetical to it. Second, it is practically inalterable at this point, and acts as our protection against Theocracy, which would involve banning some religious practices while favoring others. The Constitution is strongly enforced, especially the speech and religious guarantees.
Your friend does have a point, in that it's hard to be elected as a declared atheist, or indeed anything but a professed Christian or Jew. Those elected, however, do not impose their beliefs through law in a significant way.
Oct '10
Re: Another Question From a Turkish Friend
The religious affiliation of a political candidate is, I think, a shorthand way of gauging the politician's values and worldview, though I actually agree that it's strange they would announce that during the debates.
I have no problem with a politician answering a question about his faith, or even using his or her own religious experiences to illustrate a point, but in general I am suspicious of politicians using references to religion gratuitously.
Maybe it's that the country is more individualistic than most, but I've always seen religion as a personal thing, something that informs personal behavior, but not something that informs public policy. A politician can make the argument that drinking alcohol while driving is bad because it's a public safety issue, but they can't (or, you shouldn't) be able to make the argument that drinking is bad because it's a sin.
Oct '10
Re: Another Question From a Turkish Friend
The Constitution does not mandate the separation of Church and State. It only prohibits the creation of a state religion. Anglicanism in the UK is an example of a state religion. The Constitution does not preclude the presence of religion in the political sphere.
America has historically been a religious country, strongly influenced by the Judeo-Christian philosophy. We generally believe that outside of theological differences the precepts of the Christian and Jewish religions allow us to live in a safe, just and ordered society that allows us to try and prosper from our individual capabilities without impacting others negatively.
America was founded on the belief that individual rights flow from God to the individual, not from the government to the individual. Individuals have the right to believe and practice their respective religions independent of the government. This is not “secularism”.
Americans generally respect the religion of others when it is different than their own. There is no negative connotation associated with someone belonging to a religion different than one’s own.
Americans generally believe that religious practice is one indicator of a person’s character. Therefore it’s not unusual to see it mentioned in a presidential debate.
Aug '10
Re: Another Question From a Turkish Friend
"Memleketinizde Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı var. Memleketimde yok." (And here's the website,)
Doesn't exactly answer the question, but parries it effectively. And you can always teach a Third-Worlder about his own country.
It's always a good idea, in foreign countries, to read their schoolbooks. The things they tell kids there!
Mar '11
Re: Another Question From a Turkish Friend
katievs
I think we can't ignore fundamental differences between Islam and Christianity.
Not only can we not ignore it, but that is the simple answer to your friend's question (which is much easier than the Navy Seal one).
So many good answers, here, that I need add nothing more.
May '10
Re: Another Question From a Turkish Friend
Claire, the best way to explain it is that their religious affiliation wasn't being highlighted by the party but by an independent news organization and our media is obsessed with classification. The first black to... the first woman to... the first one-legged Episcopalian to... fill in the blank.
It has nothing to do with the state. And it's another sign of of our freedom to be interested in the minutia of the candidates. (Even if the MSM didn't care to show any interest in Obama)
Re: Another Question From a Turkish Friend
I love it that so many Ricochet members find Turkey as interesting as I do. For those who didn't follow the link, the Diyanet is the secular Turkish Republic's official, state religious authority. The what, you say? How can a secular state have an official religious authority? Exactly! Good question! It's been around since 1924--it's a Kemalist invention.
Re: Another Question From a Turkish Friend
Of course, everyone here knows exactly what the Diyanet is. But I suspect many would be puzzled by the question, "But how is that secular?" They'd have to think about that one.