Turkey is secular but people are predominantly Muslim. Therefore law enforcement and ruling people are Muslim. They can control most things for their own sake.
Let’s say you stated you are an atheist openly or you criticized Islam openly, then you can be charged and punished by the law for that you disturbed the state of being in peace of the country. I recommend you not to trust the etiquette of the country.
Oh really :eek: You are admitting you are sarcastic?
:dubious: Um, yeah. Like the vast majority of humanity, I occasionally use sarcasm.
How do you that?
He uses a Sacasmotron, just like everyone else.
Nevertheless, a lot of rulers in that time have tried to swim against that current, in varying other directions, and they never seem to learn from the others’ failures.
[QUOTE= Otkakönmişkılıç]
How do you that?
[/QUOTE]
The whole that?
Since religion is just something a bunch of people made up, it generally does whatever it takes to serve those people’s purposes. Doctrine has never once kept people from picking and choosing whatever parts or the religion suit their needs at the time.
Radical Islam in the form we see now is actually a pretty new thing,and is shaped by entirely modern forces.
Good point. It’s a type of evolution. The stuff that doesn’t work dies off, and the stuff that does work proliferates.
However, there’s still a religious test applied where the PM cannot be a Catholic. Tony Blair made no attempt to reveal it despite being a crypto-Catholic. No such thing in the US.
Yeah, sure there isn’t. There’s no way that an atheist is going to be President, for example.
It is, and has for some time, already been happening. It is the reason behind all the bullshit with Islamism, and etc., when a part of the population, mostly those that benefit from the existing order of things, have their knickers in a bunch over the changes. But the changes are inevitable. It’s the Borg. Resistance is futile.
A big part of the way it plays out is that modernism, humanism, and rationalism is equated with the West (and by proxy, if your mind is set in religions ways, by Christianity), and so you have things like airplanes flying into skyscrapers, and Islamist railing against the Eurovision, calling for the blood of European scum to be shed by the will of Allah, and other fun stuff. But off they go, to have their heads chopped off by the march of history.
Substitute “Christian” for “Muslim”, and that’s true of a lot of countries in the western world. Most law enforcement officers in the US are Christian. It would be difficult for a non-Christian to get elected as President in the US. How is this different from the situation in Turkey?
If more than 90% of Italians are Catholic, I’d bet most police officers and most holders of national office in Italy are Catholic. Again, how is this different from Turkey?
It is different because in Italy there are no powerful religious groups, parties (like AKP in Turkey), and orders which aim to change the secularism and expose their sick, anti-humanist, and anti-Western on society as in Turkey. To mention again, they are able to find support from public and pretty powerful.
Moreover, Muslim people in Turkey are far more conservative than a Catholic people in Italy. Not to mention Muslim ones tend to impose their religion on you.
What I mean by
is that: “How do you know that?”
But we do have people in the US who are doing that kind of thing. We had until recently a contender for the presidential nomination of a major party who wanted to allow states to outlaw birth control. Obviously, nobody except Rick Santorum knows exactly why he thinks that, but it’s not implausible to think that it has something to do with his Catholic faith.
We have a likely nominee by the same major party who is a member of a religion that does impose itself on others. You can’t argue that Mormons don’t try to convert others to their religion. They’re famous for their missionaries. They influenced a vote in California to ban same-sex marriage. How is that different from what Muslims in Turkey do?
The Vatican comes to mind. Except for the “anti Western” part, and as far as I’m concerned a Western theocracy is no better than any other kind of theocracy.
Worse. Much worse. I am tired of explaining it to people who don’t live in this country. If you think it is no worse, come here and live for a few years.
Well, what do you expect?
Whether you like Christianity or not, there’s a HUGE difference between Christian doctrine and Muslim doctrine in this respect: from the very beginning, “render unto Caesar what is Caesar and to God what is God’s” was a key Christian teaching. Jesus, and his followers (including St. Paul) ASSUMED from the very beginning that they would always be living under the rule of secular authorities.
Jesus’ teachings don’t provide any kind of basis for governance of a community, let alone a nation-state, and they were never supposed to. To Christians, religion and government were always assumed to be two entirely separate entities.
Sharia is different- it WAS intended to cover every aspect of human life, and was supposed to replace secular governmnet… or at least to render it unnecessary.
But if you’re not going to explain it to us, or give us concrete examples, we’re going to have a hard time debating you on it.
Jewish law was also intended to cover every aspect of human life. We’ve managed to adapt it to situations where we’re living under secular law.
People have used Christian teachings as the basis for governments. People do attempt to get laws based on Christian teachings into secular law (see: laws against homosexuality and same-sex marriage- every secular justification of this that I’ve seen has looked pretty flimsy).
Muslims do live in societies where sharia is not the law of the land.