The Trojan Horse Boogey Man


Turkish FlagsI’m a bit of a Turcophile, as many of you are aware. That’s why I read this post by Arianna Hufffington’s ex-husband with interest. A friend of mine, who is also a bit of a Turcophile sent me the link. We had an interesting discussion via email and I'll append his thoughts at the bottom of the post. Needless to say, he disagrees with me to a certain extent.

As to Huffington: he makes some good points, but overall the tone is such that he cannot separate the Turkish Islamists from the Turks. And that is unfortunate. Michael Huffington writes:

Last night on 60 Minutes there was a 14-minute segment about Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul). It was an honest look at religious freedom (or lack thereof) inside one of America's military allies. It is a story that should be seen by the leaders of the free world as well as people of faith.
The Ecumenical Patriarch of 300,000,000 Orthodox Christians (of which I am one) is similar to the Pope of the Catholic Church. And yet he is a treated as a second-class citizen in his own country where he was born. The Orthodox "Vatican" is called the Phanar and it is located on less than an acre of land in the city of Istanbul. There have been so many threats of violence that they have had to use barbed wire and cameras to protect the priest inside the property. The last century has seen the Orthodox Christian population diminish from 2,000,000 in 1900 to less than 4,000 in all of Turkey today. Most were forced out. Yet this geographical area of the world was mostly Christian a thousand years ago.

More after the jump.

First, a little reality check. There very well may be 300,000,000 Orthodox Christians in the world. At least many of them are nominally Orthodox, in such post-Communist places as the Ukraine, Belarus and the Russian Federation? But, it must be remembered, the Orthodox Church is semi-autonomous, the separate national churches like the Russian or the Bulgarian or the Greek don’t take their marching orders the way Catholics do the Pope. The idea that there are 300,000,000 pious Orthodox in the world is fanciful, at best.

Furthermore, there was a vibrant community of Nestorian Christians in Central Asia all the way to China—the mother of the the Great Khan Mongke was a Nestorian for that matter—and in China there was a bishop, in the Middle Ages. Should we be poking our noses in their business as well, trying to resurrect the faith there too? I make this point, not to invalidate Huffington’s point about religious freedom. I simply make it to point out the absurdity of worrying about a religion that began dying out in Anatolia almost a thousand years ago (1071AD) and finally did so in the last century.

Over the past 20 years, Turkey has been trying to gain admittance to the European Union. Turkey is not a European country. Most of its land mass is in Asia Minor. It is not ethnically, socially, culturally or religiously European. Yet the U.S. government (especially under President George W. Bush) has lobbied the Europeans forcefully to admit Turkey into the EU because Turkey is our military ally, and the American military and political establishment didn't want them falling into the Russian or the Iranian sphere of influence.

Couple of different issues at play here. Yes, Turkey has been trying to gain admittance for quite some time. And the Euros would have been wise to have accepted Turkey 15 years ago. This would have forced the secularists in government to change the economy for the better. And it was a huge missed opportunity, if Europe truly cares about Turkey remaining secular. Here’s what happened instead. The Turks grew disillusioned with the secularists and voted for the soft-shoe Islamists to run the country and economy, making what I would call a Faustian bargain, hoping they would fix the economy and not impose their brand of religious politics along with it.

The Turks got an exceptionally strong economic recovery, as I documented during my time there. But they also got the Islamist baggage along with it. And now that the economy threatens to head south in light of the global financial crisis, the Turkish Islamists are using the culture war card to stay in power.

This is a shame. It is also worrisome. Just look at the power the culture war has over the American imagination.
Now, as to Huffington’s contention that Turkey isn’t a European country. Well, a good 15% of the landmass sits in Europe. So does Istanbul. Of course, that’s easy to dismiss. But what isn’t is this: Turkey has been an integral partner in the European state system since the French allied with the Turks several hundred years ago to outflank the Hapsburgs. So, feel free to dismiss Turkey as an “Asian country.” But let’s not forget history.

I visited Istanbul in 1972, and Ankara in the 1980's when my company had an office there. The Republic of Turkey was founded less than a century ago by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk on October 29, 1923. His government changed the local culture from an Islamic dominated society into one that was modern, democratic and secular. One of the major changes was that women were given the right to vote. They were also given the freedom and encouraged not to wear the veil. But today Turkey is returning to its Islamic traditions under the government of Prime Minister Erdogan who took office in 2003. He belongs to the Justice and Development Party which was founded by former members of an Islamist political party. Whereas I never saw women wearing the long black burqas during my visits, I did notice in the 60 Minutes segment that women are now doing so. (Under the Shah of Iran burqas were banned by law, but under the law of the Islamic Republic of Iran they are required.) Will that someday happen in Turkey also?

What Huffington describes is terribly, terribly true. As you are all aware, I have a very difficult relationship with hejab—defined loosely as Islamic dress for women. And hejab in Turkey is just a symbol of the creeping Islamism in the country. Alcohol has been banned in many places in Istanbul for Turks. (Of course, for an economy that derives a quarter of its GDP from tourism, foreigners can still drink to their hearts content.) The freedom of the press in the country has been losing ground for a decade. You Tube is unavailable in the country. Instead they have a what is called, “Turktube,” or some such. Evolution is being challenged in the public schooling system. Honor killings happen more than most will admit. Harassment of key secular intellectuals and artists. I could continue but the point is that the Islamists are pushing the outer boundaries of Turkey’s secular past for the worse.

Now, to Huffington’s other comment: could Turkey go the way of Iran? Not any time soon, because the civic space is still very vibrant and filled with the secularists. But they are losing ground. Were the economy really to head into a tailspin? Perhaps. The larger point is to remember what I wrote when I was out East near Lake Van: I really felt like I was in Iran already. Less than 10% of the women were uncovered. Worrisome, indeed.

It is clear that Turkey is a different place than it was in 1987 when it originally made its application to accede into the EU. If Turkey were ever allowed to join the European Union, the consequences would be reminiscent of those that happened to the city of Troy when it allowed the Trojan Horse inside its fortified walls. The Muslim culture would ultimately dominate Christian and secular Europe. As can be seen in Turkey today that country does not welcome or protect other religions within its borders. They have seized Orthodox Church properties, closed churches, monasteries and schools. If one walks with a priest down the streets of Istanbul it is not a comfortable feeling. Many priests will change out of their church clothes and wear business suits once they leave the confines of the Phanar. This is not religious freedom as we know it in the west. While we welcome people of all faiths in America we cannot be so naïve as to expect all countries to do the same. But we cannot allow their cultural mores to snuff out our religious freedoms or the freedom of women to have equal rights.

This is where I get off the Huffington bus. He’s engaging in the whole, “Muslims are going to take over Europe” concern trolling here. Nonsense. As I have repeatedly stated in posts about Iran and Turkey: the best way to counter the Islamists is to engage them and play their own game. Tell Turkey, sure, you can join the EU, but remember, hejab in the EU is a no-no. You don’t like it, too bad. Moreover, religious tolerance is a key virtue in the EU and a fundamental aspect of the acquis communitiare, and if you can’t ratify that, well, you’ve got no chance of joining the EU. The bottom line here is that the EU has leverage over the Islamists in Turkey it’s too pusillanimous to use.

France and other European countries rightfully have serious and well-founded reservations about admitting Turkey into the EU. If Turkey were admitted any Turkish citizen could travel, work and reside in any EU country because they would no longer need a visa. There are Islamist fundamentalist in Turkey as there are in Iraq, Iran, Egypt and other Muslim countries. This would be a security nightmare. The American Administration should butt out of this issue and let the Europeans make their own decisions.

Clearly Huffington has been huffing some glue here. Yes, of course, there are Islamists in Turkey. But not of the virulent al Qeada type. Please. Are there terrorists? Yup, sure are. But they are Kurds. A people who speak an Indo-European language who value secularism just as much as the secular Turks and Europeans do. Again, the Kurdish issue is more leverage the EU could and has used. But I do agree with Huffington in that the US should butt out.

This brings me back to the interview with Patriarch Bartholomew. At the end of the interview the Patriarch says that he feels crucified in his own country. It is clear that over the last century the church has been crucified in that there are only 4,000 Orthodox Christians left out of a population that totals 72,000,000 people. In the Bible Luke 9:5 says "And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them." It is probably past time for the Patriarchate to leave its homeland. The Turks have made it unbearable to live and work there. There are many other countries in this world that would welcome the Patriarch and the several dozen priests that remain. And why should the next Ecumenical Patriarch of 300,000,000 souls have to be a Turkish citizen just because the Turkish government "won't allow" any other citizen of any other country to hold that position? A government should not hold a veto right over the spiritual leader of any religion. Orthodoxy will grow faster and more soundly if its roots are planted in nourishing soil. After all Jesus Christ did not stay in Jerusalem or Bethlehem for most of his ministry. He had no physical house or building to live and work in. Instead he wandered the countryside meeting all who wanted to listen.

I agree. The Patriarchate would be better off in Greece. Will it happen? Probably not. It would be a serious blow to the Turks internationally if the Patriarchate announced it was leaving. But if it did, it might force the Turkish Islamists into a nasty little corner, one the secularists could capitalize on.

I'll let my friend have the last word here. He's much more positive than I am about Islamism in Turkey:

On the topic of Turkey, I'm less concerned than you are, but keeping a very watchful eye on things. Yes there is harassment, which is not good, buts its unclear to me to what degree this is being done by isolated but vocal fundamentalists, part of a broader movement, supported by the Erdogan government (directly or indirectly) and so on.

Like you, I know and have had conversations with a range of people in Turkey. My general feeling is that while Erdogan's government is introducing religion into the government its happening in a way that is different than the religious fundamentalists here or elsewhere in the Middle East. While it may seem similar I think that something different is happening, that at least so far, does not raise the same alarms for me as elsewhere. Of course I could be smoking crack, but it feels different to me.

Having said that, I also don't think that Ergogan can take things very far. Both the military and the "deep" government (there's a word for the permanent part of the Turkish government that I'm blanking on at the moment) control too many levers of power and will not permit much movement on the issue. As such I suspect that introduction of religion into Turkish society and government will be more superficial than all encompassing. Enough to sate the majority of the vocal supporters while leaving the real crazies disappointed, think abortion clinic bomber types.


Sean Paul Kelley December 22, 2009 - 2:06pm
( categories: Turkey )

... nevertheless I thought it was quite a bit hypocritical when the Turkish government lambasted the Swiss moratorium on minarets. Not that I endorse this decision - yet for Turkey to pretend to be the poster child defender for religious freedom was a bit rich.

quax December 22, 2009 - 4:24pm

the Swiss decision.

"Sí che dal fatto il dir non sia diverso."

-Dante

Sean Paul Kelley December 22, 2009 - 4:29pm

Please explain your why you think the Swiss decision was correct

mjsteckel December 22, 2009 - 5:40pm

the Swiss were right in doing what they did:

The Swiss people have defied their government by voting against having any more minarets in Switzerland. Unexpected by mainstream opinion, this vote is sure to be portrayed in a most unfavorable light, as an unhelpful example of narrow-minded parochialism if not downright racism. But that would be a mistake. All cultures are not relatively equal, nor should we pretend that they are. The Swiss are perfectly justified in wanting to keep what they've got, just as are the French in banning headscarves from classrooms, and as are various international efforts to ban the burqa.

Instead of meekly accepting cultural practices we don't like we should remind ourselves that they can, and do, evolve. Once upon a time, for example, the Hindus in India practiced Sati, the (often forced) immolation of a widow upon her husband's funeral pyre. The British put a stop to it.

General Napier is famously quoted thusly:

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."

Most Hindus now consider Sati completely barbaric and in today's India it is against the law. Similarly, the common Muslim practices of segregating women, effectively discriminating against them, are not at all immutable. Nor are sanctioned deaths by stoning in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, or beheading, or other such primitive, atavistic behavior, wherever it may take place.

Sometimes a minaret is just a minaret. Sometimes it's not. The Swiss have judged it a powerful symbol of an alien, inferior culture that threatens Swiss norms. But that is not the same as the Swiss rejecting Islam. We should understand the difference.

Now, suffice it to say I don't agree with his "inferior" characterization. But as to the rest: sure, it's their country and the voters voted on it. It's also important that the Swiss didn't ban minarets outright. They banned the construction of new ones. There is a large difference.

I need to develop this into a large post. Give me some time, but by all means keep the comments coming.

"Sí che dal fatto il dir non sia diverso."

-Dante

Sean Paul Kelley December 22, 2009 - 5:54pm

I believe that analogy quoted by Kenney is both wrong and inappropriate.

While you could claim that both acts, the burning of widows and building minarets, are cultural expressions, the one is a physical act of violence where the other is not.

Banning the building of minarets and is really no different than banning minarets outright. Its an act that devalues and discriminates against a group simply because they are different. In this case where the predominant group is uncomfortable with the minority.

I'd actually argue that the swiss decision is a form of intimidation.

You may argue that they Swiss are entitled to vote however they want. OK, but we generally recognize that the majority should not discriminate against a minority simply because they are different.

The easiest way I find to evaluate such decision and acts is to imagine myself a member of the group losing out. If it feels bad to me its going to feel bad to them. And I'm not talking about an "eat your vegetables" sort of feeling bad, I'm talking about social justice.

Just as violence creates more violence, intolerance creates more intolerance. Nothing good will come from the Swiss decision.

mjsteckel December 22, 2009 - 6:38pm

The Islamic population in Holland rejects Dutch culture. Many Moroccans refuse to assimilate; they will not learn Dutch, view only Arabic tv stations, and listen exclusively to Arabic radio.

It's beginning to take on the appearance of a trend. While European immigration ministers emphasise the need for migrants to integrate - and preferably even assimilate - politicians from their countries of origin underline the need for migrants to preserve their cultural identity. Last week, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdoğan sparked an outcry when he said that assimilation was no less than a crime against humanity. The Moroccan minister appears to have taken a page from his book. Source


Tolerating prostitution is tolerating abuse and torture of women and children.

adrena December 22, 2009 - 7:05pm

...how,exactly? And folks wonder how it is that muslim immigrant populations in North America integrate so much better than in Europe...

I don't want my Muslim friends to assimilate, exactly - I want them to adopt a rights based, individual focused approach to relations with the state and their fellows. That I demand - other than that, go to town.

Me, I'm a bit of a prick - you want planning approval, the minaret has to be at least 80 feet high, the mosque has to not look like a warmed over shopping mall and the mu`edin has to actually be live and good. Play a tape just once and it's game over.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

JustPlainDave December 22, 2009 - 9:38pm

in Holland. And there is hope. Apparently, the younger generation of Dutch Muslims is dissatisfied with the conservative ways of their parents, the ones I described in my post.

Many young Dutch Muslims don’t feel at ease in the mosques attended by their parents and grandparents, which are often closely associated with a particular cultural group and country. Mohammed Cheppih calls them “homesickness mosques”. The Imams often don’t speak Dutch, preach in Arabic, and know nothing about Dutch society.

Sermons in Dutch

The mosque in Slotervaart, which will open informally in June, wants to offer young people an alternative. Dutch will be the language used in the mosque, also for sermons, says Mr Cheppih. Plus, the form of Islam will be free of cultural influences from other countries. The aim is to make it attractive to young people from a variety of cultural backgrounds, ranging from Moroccan and Turkish to Somali and Surinamese. Mr Cheppih is expecting young people from all over the country.

The mosque is to be more than just a place of worship, it will also host lectures and debates. Young people often find it hard to associate with their parent’s experience of religion and many young Dutch Muslims have gone adrift. They are looking for an Islam that connects with their experience of modern life in the Netherlands, and Mr Cheppih wants to help them. More


Tolerating prostitution is tolerating abuse and torture of women and children.

adrena December 23, 2009 - 12:06am

...that's integration - taking one's beliefs and interweaving them with other elements of the culture, even re-interpreting them though this can be very tough to do as a Muslim immigrant (not infrequently one's imam is somewhat more fundamentalist than oneself). It's like building a brickwall where one continues an existing one, starting with interweaving the existing and new bricks, tying into it at a very fine level. Assimilation frequently ends up without things being tied in - one brick wall abuts another. From the outside it can even look continuous, but actually they're weak because they're independent structures.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

JustPlainDave December 23, 2009 - 1:00am

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8414422.stm

Amr Khaled's unique brand of Muslim preaching has made him one of the most popular preachers in the world.

Such is his appeal, he was recently named the 13th most influential person in the world by Time Magazine.

In Cairo, his DVDs stand on the top shelves reserved for best sellers in the Virgin record store, next to Bruce Willis and Charlie Chaplin.
His controversial style, comparable to the almost rock star approach of some of America's Christian evangelists, has drawn criticism from the religious establishment and he has moved away from his native Egypt.

Ironically, thanks to the proliferation of satellite channels, he is now able to reach far greater numbers than he could have ever done had his message remained within the confines of a mosque or a lecture hall.

graham December 23, 2009 - 2:26am

... similar to Germany that make it very hard to build intrusive structures in areas that are considered culturally and historically significant.

That is why I consider the Swiss decision rather extreme and it seems to be an expression of the phobia of the majority direct against the scary "others".

quax December 22, 2009 - 7:08pm

for many Islamists, the Europeans are the scary "others".


Tolerating prostitution is tolerating abuse and torture of women and children.

adrena December 22, 2009 - 7:13pm

"If they become more tolerant of us, we will become more tolerant of them".


Tolerating prostitution is tolerating abuse and torture of women and children.

adrena December 22, 2009 - 7:21pm

Just don't think that disallowing mosques even in mix-use or commercial districts is going to help overcoming this alienation.

BTW I don't think any mosque should be tolerated that preaches hate. I don't subscribe to the American idea of 'free speech trumps all'. If a cleric promotes crimes he/she needs to be shut down.

quax December 23, 2009 - 12:07pm

To clarify - the Swiss have banned minarets, not mosques.

hvd December 23, 2009 - 12:18pm

... architecturally without a minaret it'll just look like yet another building.

quax December 24, 2009 - 2:53pm

the Swiss were right in doing what they did:

The Swiss people have defied their government by voting against having any more minarets in Switzerland. Unexpected by mainstream opinion, this vote is sure to be portrayed in a most unfavorable light, as an unhelpful example of narrow-minded parochialism if not downright racism. But that would be a mistake. All cultures are not relatively equal, nor should we pretend that they are. The Swiss are perfectly justified in wanting to keep what they've got, just as are the French in banning headscarves from classrooms, and as are various international efforts to ban the burqa.

Instead of meekly accepting cultural practices we don't like we should remind ourselves that they can, and do, evolve. Once upon a time, for example, the Hindus in India practiced Sati, the (often forced) immolation of a widow upon her husband's funeral pyre. The British put a stop to it.

General Napier is famously quoted thusly:

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."

Most Hindus now consider Sati completely barbaric and in today's India it is against the law. Similarly, the common Muslim practices of segregating women, effectively discriminating against them, are not at all immutable. Nor are sanctioned deaths by stoning in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, or beheading, or other such primitive, atavistic behavior, wherever it may take place.

Sometimes a minaret is just a minaret. Sometimes it's not. The Swiss have judged it a powerful symbol of an alien, inferior culture that threatens Swiss norms. But that is not the same as the Swiss rejecting Islam. We should understand the difference.

Now, suffice it to say I don't agree with his "inferior" characterization. But as to the rest: sure, it's their country and the voters voted on it. It's also important that the Swiss didn't ban minarets outright. They banned the construction of new ones. There is a large difference.

I need to develop this into a large post. Give me some time, but by all means keep the comments coming.

"Sí che dal fatto il dir non sia diverso."

-Dante

Sean Paul Kelley December 22, 2009 - 5:55pm

Needs to keep his opinions at home.

If an European politician discuss reparations for native Americans, or return to Mexico of all or part of he South West there would be a nationalist uproar.

Europe & Turkey are none of his business.

Synoia December 22, 2009 - 6:09pm

There are some really weird and baroque political formations in Turkey. To begin with, what exactly were the Young Turks?

Wikipedia refers to Ergenekon as the deep state. Some argue Ergenekon was an extension of the NATO Operation Gladio rightwing security plot. The Susurluk car crash involving "The victims included the deputy chief of the Istanbul police, a parliament deputy who led a powerful Kurdish clan, and the leader of the Grey Wolves (who was a contract killer on Interpol's red list)" indicated that, surprise, politics is a big racket and everyone really just deals behind the scenes.

Also like everywhere else they are dominated by a large military-industrial complex and the American Turkish Council is basically a corporatist-militarist club of chums -- ATC, AIPAC and the war profiteers like to see a lot of stylized conflicts. As long as no one asks about that 1/4 or so of GDP from the opium money, converted into arms...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergenekon_%28organization%29

"Ergenekon" is the name given to an alleged clandestine, Kemalist ultra-nationalist[1] organization in Turkey with ties to members of the country's military and security forces.[2] The group is accused of terrorism in Turkey.[3] It is named after Ergenekon, a mythical place located in the inaccessible valleys of the Altay Mountains.

Its agenda has variously been described as Eurasianist,[4][5][6] and isolationist.[7] The defendants portray themselves as defenders of secularism, and national sovereignty. According to the indictment, the group's claim to legitimacy is that it allegedly protects national interests, which the defendants believe are incompatible with the rule of the democratically elected government of Justice and Development Party and are harmed by Turkey's alleged concessions to the West.[8][9] In Turkey, the extensions of the state—the establishment—that are considered responsible for this are referred to as the "deep state".[10] The existence of the "deep state" was affirmed in Turkish opinion after the Susurluk scandal in 1996.[11]
--
Hongpong.com

HongPong December 23, 2009 - 3:34am

Not that (thankfully) people are building many these days.


Photo: Steeple and minaret in Wangen bei Olten, 7 August 2009 / Michael Buholzer

Center For Inquiry

Like the burqa, the minaret has become a symbol for projecting intolerance and fear towards Islam in Europe. European countries permitted the voluntary immigration of Muslims, and now consider denying them their rights to religious practice and religious expression. Ban the burqa but not the nun's habit, ban the minaret but not the steeple. The contradictions send a clear message: don't bother trying to integrate. Muslims who receive second-class citizenship or no citizenship will not integrate quickly according to European standards of religious toleration.

Any country has the legitimate power to regulate public architecture and public noise. Illegitimate power hides and silences one religion while promoting others. Any country has the responsibility to help its inhabitants to integrate (NOT assimilate) into accepting basic rights and laws for all. Illegitimate power denies basic rights and equal protection to some citizens so that other citizens can have extra rights. If a country put more effort into providing a welcoming and fair home to its immigrants, it wouldn't have to worry about regulating the height of religious buildings or the amount of religious clothing.


""If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can’t it get us out?" - Will Rogers (1879-1935)

Chickadee December 24, 2009 - 3:27pm

That's like the most Gucci minaret I think I've ever seen. It's positively a monument to acculturation - frickin thing looks like Hansel's gonna climb up and do the call to prayer or a damned cookoo bird is going to pop out of it and chirp the time.

Seriously, I'm of a mind to change my mind and support the legislation - damned thing looks like it's cast in porcelain. Probably couldn't find one that looks like that anywhere in the muslim world - certainly not any part of it I've ever seen.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

JustPlainDave December 24, 2009 - 8:13pm

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.