Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

rug

(82,333 posts)
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 10:26 AM Jun 2014

Atheists, the “Ultimate Other” in Turkey



Tolga Inci, one of the founders and interim chair of the Atheism Association, outside the association’s office in Istanbul. Credit: Nick Ashdown/IPS

By Nick Ashdown

ISTANBUL, Jun 24 2014 (IPS) - “Being an atheist isn’t something you can easily express in Turkey,” says Sinem Köroğlu, a member of the Atheism Association, the first official organisation for atheists in the country. “It’s becoming more difficult with the current government as well,” she adds.

Set up earlier this year in Istanbul, the aim of the Atheism Association is to give a voice and support to non-believers in Turkey, a country not known for its fondness of atheists.

Politicians in the religious conservative Justice and Development Party (AKP) have been making hostile comments about atheists. Last year, a high-ranking member of the party, Mahmud Macit, used Twitter to attack “spineless psychopaths pretending to be atheists”, saying that they “should be annihilated.” Prime Minister Erdoğan himself has also insulted protesters by calling them “atheists and terrorists”.

“It’s just really degrading,” says Köroğlu, speaking from the group’s small office in Istanbul’s cosmopolitan Kadıköy neighbourhood, known as a stronghold of secularism. But she says politicians’ comments reflect the larger views of Turkish society. “This is the mentality of the majority of Turkish people, and we need to break this.”

http://www.ipsnews.net/2014/06/atheists-the-ultimate-other-in-turkey/
37 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Atheists, the “Ultimate Other” in Turkey (Original Post) rug Jun 2014 OP
Those who want to control a populace xfundy Jun 2014 #1
Yeah, sota like Mao and Stalin and Pol Pot did! cbayer Jun 2014 #3
Stalin used an existing template, as you well know. AtheistCrusader Jun 2014 #5
So did he use or hide behind religion in order to control a populace, cbayer Jun 2014 #12
He replaced one with another theocracy of his own design. AtheistCrusader Jun 2014 #16
The Party for the Faith? Never heard of it cbayer Jun 2014 #17
There is no theocracy of atheism. AtheistCrusader Jun 2014 #18
I agree that there is no theocracy of atheism. cbayer Jun 2014 #21
I feel I already explained it but AtheistCrusader Jun 2014 #22
So communism is a religion but not a theistic one cbayer Jun 2014 #25
Atheism COULD be, but you'd probably call it by it's proper name AtheistCrusader Jun 2014 #27
I'm sorry, AC but this is a ridiculous debate. cbayer Jun 2014 #28
Post that spawned this thead fork didn't say 'always'. AtheistCrusader Jun 2014 #29
His statement is completely without merit. cbayer Jun 2014 #31
I agree that there have been cases of it. AtheistCrusader Jun 2014 #33
Frankly, I couldn't be less interested in that tired game of "What has caused the cbayer Jun 2014 #34
You could just say 'I'm not able to back up my position' and be done with it. AtheistCrusader Jun 2014 #35
No one is able to back up their position in this particular debate. cbayer Jun 2014 #36
Only two of the exceptions raised appear valid so far. AtheistCrusader Jun 2014 #37
Opposing religion can be as much of a political dog whistle as promoting it. rug Jun 2014 #7
Oh, right!! I forgot. That makes religion responsible in both cases! cbayer Jun 2014 #11
I hate when that happens. Htom Sirveaux Jun 2014 #32
I prefer 'monster' to 'terrorist', thank you. AtheistCrusader Jun 2014 #2
I really don't understand this embrace of the cliche of baby-eating atheist, sarcasm notwithstanding rug Jun 2014 #4
'sarcasm notwithstanding' well sure, if you're going to outright dismiss my reason from the start, AtheistCrusader Jun 2014 #6
Sarcasm is a weak tool in a deadly serious fight. rug Jun 2014 #8
I disagree. AtheistCrusader Jun 2014 #9
There were peals of laughter at Stalingrad. rug Jun 2014 #13
Are you comparing religious/political unrest in Turkey, to the battle of stalingrad? AtheistCrusader Jun 2014 #19
No, I was pointing out how ludicrous your quote was, politically. rug Jun 2014 #20
Politically, it's perfect. I suspect you misread it. AtheistCrusader Jun 2014 #23
Which completes the circle. rug Jun 2014 #24
That's what I'm saying! AtheistCrusader Jun 2014 #30
Tell that to Jonathan Swift. n/t Goblinmonger Jun 2014 #10
What enemies did he destroy? rug Jun 2014 #14
I wish them the best of luck. cbayer Jun 2014 #15
Yet another case where I hope god saves someone from his people. JNelson6563 Jun 2014 #26

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
12. So did he use or hide behind religion in order to control a populace,
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 11:12 AM
Jun 2014

as the member I responded to said is "almost always" the case?

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
16. He replaced one with another theocracy of his own design.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 11:24 AM
Jun 2014

Little more than word substitution. The Party for the Faith.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
17. The Party for the Faith? Never heard of it
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 11:31 AM
Jun 2014

So you are saying that he substituted the theocracy of atheism for theism?

This seems to be a very silly line of reasoning.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
18. There is no theocracy of atheism.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 11:36 AM
Jun 2014
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-Stalinization

Perhaps you can point me to the section about de-emphasizing or removing 'atheist theocracy' post-Stalin? Or allowing religious freedom, post-Stalin.

Oh right, that had nothing to do with the horrors under his rule.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
21. I agree that there is no theocracy of atheism.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 11:45 AM
Jun 2014

That's why I found your comment about him replacing one theocracy with another so odd and confusing.

So did Stalin use or hide behind religion in order to control a populace, as the member I was responding to stated "almost always" is the case?

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
25. So communism is a religion but not a theistic one
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 11:56 AM
Jun 2014

and atheism isn't.

Sorry, but neither communism nor atheism are religions. That article is a pile of bogus horseshit and the author an authority on absolutely nothing.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
27. Atheism COULD be, but you'd probably call it by it's proper name
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 12:09 PM
Jun 2014

according to the associated doctrines, such as secular humanism.

I suspect Stalin's rationale was along the lines of 'why attribute all this to god, instead of me?'. It's a perfect template.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
28. I'm sorry, AC but this is a ridiculous debate.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 12:13 PM
Jun 2014

If we can call anything we want a religion, then I guess the member statement is correct.

Because something is always used to control the populace and if religion can be anything, then religion is always the thing controlling it.

The proper name would be atheistic religion I guess, that is religion without a god, I guess.

Can I use this argument in the future when talking about other groups without gods?

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
29. Post that spawned this thead fork didn't say 'always'.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 12:16 PM
Jun 2014

It said 'almost always'. And there were three objections to that specified, and I pointed out a problem with only one of the three for a reason. Communism under Stalin can easily be compared to a theocracy, for a variety of very obvious reasons. Note that I never said 'communism writ large'. I don't feel China's implementation of it constitutes a theocracy, or near-spectrum theocracy.


It seems sometimes that you only read what you want to read.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
31. His statement is completely without merit.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 12:21 PM
Jun 2014

I was illustrating that there have been major moves to control huge swaths of populace where religion was not used or hidden behind to do so. That eliminates the "almost always".

Full stop.

Whether you want to "compare" it to a theocracy or not, Stalin did not use or hide behind religion to control the people.

Yes, AC. I only read what I want to read.

Or perhaps i respond to knee jerk reactions which are ludicrous in ways that you don't like.

Who knows.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
33. I agree that there have been cases of it.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 12:32 PM
Jun 2014

The two that I DID NOT object to, are fair objections.

That in no way invalidates 'almost always'.

Stalin copied, verbatim, the tactics, methods, and means that religions were using in his timeperiod to do the same. He simply supplanted 'god' with 'the party', with himself at the head.

Surely you do not discount his contemporary, 1944 Japanese Emperor Hirohito, as clearly just a man, a self-important mammal, rather than a god/emperor, and even worse, a man/position abused by military figures to enact certain policies by proxy, as an example of religion being used to hide motives, and control people? Under the hood it was more of a cult that brought about horrible things like fanatical suicide/kamikaze attacks, etc. Not resembling it's public face at all. Still, it fits the 'almost always' use above.

Communism under Stalin (And not outside that period) was much like Imperial Japan of WWII.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
34. Frankly, I couldn't be less interested in that tired game of "What has caused the
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 03:13 PM
Jun 2014

most strife throughout history - religion or not religion".

It's useless and tedious. But I will object when someone takes the position that it "almost always" something when it's clearly not.

It's almost always power and greed, whatever drives that.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
35. You could just say 'I'm not able to back up my position' and be done with it.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 03:21 PM
Jun 2014

Because if you're going to object, you should probably be willing to prove it, or at least point out metrics that show they haven't proven their assertion.

Because you've done nothing to show that the use of 'almost always' is incorrect.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
36. No one is able to back up their position in this particular debate.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 03:23 PM
Jun 2014

It's too multifactorial and the discussion always just leads to some impossibly stupid circle jerk.

I will object all I want and feel no need to prove anything that can't be proven. Plus, as is repeated over and over and over again here, it is the person making the positive assertion on whom the burden of proof lies, not the objector.

Bye now, you are irritating me and I am in the middle of nicotine withdrawal.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
37. Only two of the exceptions raised appear valid so far.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 03:25 PM
Jun 2014

Which seems well within the scope of 'almost always'.

One could ADD more exceptions to the list, if one wanted to prove the 'almost always' scope is incorrect.

Htom Sirveaux

(1,242 posts)
32. I hate when that happens.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 12:22 PM
Jun 2014

Playing power games by demonizing outsiders is immoral and shaky ground to build a society on, and not what religion should be about. The whole idea of special revelation to specific individuals, as I see it, is that God doesn't actually endorse the present world of authoritarianism run amuck. If God did, there would be no need to say anything to anyone, because the "blessing" of authoritarians would be plain from their success.

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
4. I really don't understand this embrace of the cliche of baby-eating atheist, sarcasm notwithstanding
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 10:49 AM
Jun 2014

Fascist assholes should not be indulged with wry sarcasm.



AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
6. 'sarcasm notwithstanding' well sure, if you're going to outright dismiss my reason from the start,
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 10:54 AM
Jun 2014

probably hard to understand.

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
8. Sarcasm is a weak tool in a deadly serious fight.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 10:57 AM
Jun 2014

It has its uses certainly but it won't do the job.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
9. I disagree.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 11:05 AM
Jun 2014

“Only laughter can blow to rags and atoms at a blast. Against the assault of laughter nothing can stand.”

-Samuel Clemens

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
13. There were peals of laughter at Stalingrad.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 11:17 AM
Jun 2014

“The essence of fascism is to make laws forbidding everything and then enforce them selectively against your enemies.” ― John Lescroart, A Plague of Secrets

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
14. What enemies did he destroy?
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 11:20 AM
Jun 2014

"Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own."
- The Battle of the Books, preface (1704)

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
15. I wish them the best of luck.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 11:20 AM
Jun 2014

While there are an assortments of religious traditions tolerated in some parts of Turkey, it does not surprise me that the non-religious face a different plight.

Istanbul is clearly the place to start.

JNelson6563

(28,151 posts)
26. Yet another case where I hope god saves someone from his people.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 12:05 PM
Jun 2014

I fear for this brave soul and his known associates.

Julie

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Atheists, the “Ultimate O...