»

[iMiga]

Anybody from Turkey post on here, or anybody here who knows about this goings-on in more detail? My general view is that I hope the Secularists get what they want and have Turkey not become the latest Islamic state. If Turkey did become an Islamic state, that would give the EU some pretty major headaches.

[CannonFodder]

Let me get this right.

The majority of the MP's elected are from one particular party, meaning that the majority of the population voted for them I would assume.

A minority of the population don't like democracy so they protest against it.

Bizzare.

[metalman]

CannonFodder wrote:
Let me get this right.

The majority of the MP's elected are from one particular party, meaning that the majority of the population voted for them I would assume.

A minority of the population don't like democracy so they protest against it.

Bizzare.

They're protesting the Islamist agenda of Prime Minister Erdogan's government.

Turks protest Islamic-rooted government

Protesters demand the resignation of the government, saying the Islamic roots of Turkey’s leaders threatened to destroy the country’s modern foundations.

"They (Prime Minister Erdogan's government) wants to drag Turkey to the dark ages,"

More than one million rally in Turkey for secularism, democracy

"Turkey is secular and will remain secular," "Neither Sharia, nor coup d'etat, democratic Turkey," they chanted protesters.

The prospect of Gul becoming head of state has alarmed secularists who fear the strict separation of state and religion will be eroded and Islam will creep into all fields of life if he is elected.

[countzero]

CannonFodder wrote:
Let me get this right.

The majority of the MP's elected are from one particular party, meaning that the majority of the population voted for them I would assume.

That's not true. Turkey has a stupid election barrier which leaves out smaller parties out of the parliament. Any party that fails to get %10 can't be represented in the parliament. The last elections saw many small secular parties left out of the parliament, and the government party got a landslide victory, they had something like %60 of the seats in the parliament with only %35 vote.

A minority of the population don't like democracy so they protest against it.

Bizzare.

That's not true either. The protest is mainly triggered by the opposition party who played skillfuly to show the government party as having a secret agenda. I personally don't think the government has any ambitions to change anything about the secular identity, Mr Gul was probably the best candidate they could offer for presidency, but still it was not good enough for the opposition, who wants an election as soon as possible cause they think they got the government at a good time.

Mr Gul lost the presidency voting with only 7 or 8 seats in the parliament, and there are talks which say government is trying to talk opposition MPs to support their cause, offering them good position in the election lists in the upcoming election at august. Which is very disturbing.

[motorollin]

I think it's a bad idea for any political party to have a religious agenda. Religion blinds people to the facts and makes them behave irrationally.

--
moto

[Karlos]

motorollin wrote:
I think it's a bad idea for any political party to have a religious agenda. Religion blinds people to the facts and makes them behave irrationally.

--
moto

Burn him!

Oh, right. Sorry

[CannonFodder]

motorollin wrote:
I think it's a bad idea for any political party to have a religious agenda. Religion blinds people to the facts and makes them behave irrationally.

--
moto

A sweeping generalization you have made there.

[CannonFodder]

@CountZero

Thanks for that info. :-)

[motorollin]

CannonFodder wrote:
A sweeping generalization you have made there.

I'll take it back if you can give me an example of a religion which allows people to think for themselves.

--
moto

[CannonFodder]

motorollin wrote:

I'll take it back if you can give me an example of a religion which allows people to think for themselves.

--
moto

Buddhism.
Islam.
Taoism.

[motorollin]

CannonFodder wrote:
Buddhism.

... teaches non-materialism. What kind of effect would that have on the economy should those practices begin to influence the government?

CannonFodder wrote:
Islam.

... takes a dim view of homosexuals, and some argue women

CannonFodder wrote:
Taoism.

I don't know much about that religion. So in the spirit of the Precautionary Principle, I choose to believe you are wrong until you prove yourself right :-P

In all seriousness, I think that religion hinders free thought, complicates issues which are actually social (not religious) in nature, and encourages prejudice. None of these are good qualities in a government.

[EDIT]
Various silly grammatical/syntactical errors
[/EDIT]

--
moto

[Karlos]

None of these are good qualities in a government.

People should be free to vote in the most retarded loonies, if that is their wish (heh, worked for one president who's name will remain unsaid). Otherwise, what is the purpose of democracy?

[Karlos]

... takes a dim view of homosexuals, and some argue women

At the rist of sounding like a Quran thumper:

Correction: Islam takes a "dim view" of homosexual intercourse and same sex relations.

Suppose a person, believing in Islam were to find themselves attracted to the same sex but strove to follow its teachings and refrain from acting upon their desires in spite of the immense personal burden involved in the process. Based on my understanding, such a person would likely be rewarded in the hereafter for their "Jihad an Nafs" since Allah (SWT) understands the difficulty of their adherence to their faith.

Muslims, on the other hand are for the most part a different kettle of fish. If they think you are a gandhu, you're buggered. Proverbially speaking of course ;-)

[motorollin]

Karlos wrote:
People should be free to vote in the most retarded loonies, if that is their wish (heh, worked for one president who's name will remain unsaid). Otherwise, what is the purpose of democracy?

Yes of course. Democracy requires anybody, no matter how inappropriate, to run for election. I just don't think a government with a religious agenda is a good idea. I wouldn't vote for one.

Karlos wrote:
Correction: Islam takes a "dim view" of homosexual intercourse and same sex relations.

So what hope do homosexuals have of equality if the government of the country in which they live disapproves of their lifestyle, whether or not they themselves belong to that particular religion?

--
moto

[Karlos]

So what hope do homosexuals have of equality if the government of the country in which they live disapproves of their lifestyle, whether or not they themselves belong to that particular religion?

Well that would depend entirely on what said government chooses to do about it. As I just said, there's often a big difference between Muslims and Islam.

This is a more general problem stemming from majority rule and it isn't unique to any particular minority group.

For example, do you think polygamous marriage should be accepted in the UK? Presently, bigamy is illegal as far as I am aware. I don't think it would suit the mood of the general population either. Yet there are various cultures where it is perfectly acceptable. Do people belonging to these cultures have equality here?

-edit-

Incidentally, that previous post just got me thinking. May I ask you what your view would be of someone who, on realisation of their homosexual preference, did not embrace their sexuality but made the concious effort to distance themselves from it on religious grounds. Would you try to persuade them otherwise?