Tweet
THE ROAD TO TOWERS, MINARETS AND WISDOM (I)
Hurriyet
Dec 22 2009
Turkey
Former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder once quite wisely argued,
"There is an undeniable lack of religious freedom in some Islamic
states, but they cannot serve as an excuse to restrict rights in our
own country."
In the article, "The Road to Towers" (Social Europe Forum, Dec. 12,
2009), the former chancellor wrote: "We perceive ourselves as an
enlightened society. And enlightenment does not mean repeating the
shortcomings of other societies in our own."
Nice words, powerful argumentation that reminded me of Andre Feuz,
the priest of a Protestant church in Basel. Feuz recently put a sign
on the gate of the Elizabeth Church that, in protest of the Swiss
ban on mosque minarets, declared the church's tower to "also [be]
a mosque minaret."
Reading the story on the front page of daily Hurriyet, most Turks must
have felt affection for this brave priest. Few must have questioned
whether it would be possible for an imam, say, in solidarity with slain
missionaries in Turkey or the deprivation of the religious rights
of non-Muslims, to declare a mosque minaret "also a church tower" -
or whether they would feel the same affection for that imam too.
Precisely for that reason, I was amused to read the columns of most
Islamic "free thinkers" in reaction to the Swiss ban. Words like
Nazism, Swiss racism, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia were in boring
abundance.
Racist Swiss? A country where "foreign" immigrants constitute a
quarter of the population? Could the Turks really cohabit peacefully
with 18 million foreigners in their country? Could they really cohabit
peacefully with 4 million non-Muslims? How many Swiss journalists have
been murdered by "pure-blood" Swiss because they have non-Swiss DNA?
Fine. Let's forget the too-visible and disturbing asymmetry and, for
a moment, subscribe to Schroeder's wisdom and admit that failings in
Muslim lands cannot be an excuse for failings in Christian lands. But
does that mean we should not criticize failings?
Yes, we wholeheartedly praise the government in Ankara for eventually -
albeit slowly - paving the way for the opening of Akdamar, an Armenian
church in Van, for services next fall. But where in Schroeder's epic
optimism could we locate the almost nationally uniform uproar over
the words of the leader of the world's 300 million Orthodox Christians?
It is totally futile to put Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew's
"we-are-being-crucified-daily&q uot; plea under the magnifying glass.
Focusing on the wording and its various connotations in different
languages will only cause distraction from the big issue.
The heart of the matter should not be which words the patriarch chose
to express himself; it should be why he, a Turkish citizen, feels
the need to complain that "we are treated as second-class citizens,"
and why he feels "crucified under a government that would like to see
[his] nearly 2,000-year-old Patriarchate die out."
Forget further legitimate questions as to why Turkey would not
recognize the patriarch as ecumenical or re-open the Halki School of
Theology. You might have to listen to a long Islamic sermon telling you
it is the secularists who (have) block(ed) all that, or a conspiracy
theory linking the torment of the tiny Greek Orthodox community to
wicked plans at the General Staff headquarters.
But there is something more alarming than the patriarch's plea. It is
how Foreign Minister Ahmet "Strabismus Depth" Davutoglu commented on
Patriarch Bartholomew's remarks: "I hope it was a slip of the tongue."
Very simple. Spot on. A veiled threat? What are you going to do, Mr.
Foreign Minister, if it was not a slip of the tongue? Tell your
friends to fabricate a link between the patriarch and the Ergenekon
gang? Send him determined tax auditors and charge his church a tax
fine of $1 billion?
But is it not bizarre that the "foreign" minister has to comment
on the opinion, either right or wrong, of a Turkish citizen? Since
when is it in the Foreign Ministry's jurisdiction to deal with
the domestic affairs of Turkish citizens? Would Minister Davutoglu
also like to comment on the salary problems of imams? Is this not
telling us clearly that the Turkish citizens of non-Muslim faiths are
"somewhat foreigners"?
The truth is, Patriarch Bartholomew was absolutely right when he said
Turkey's Christians are treated as second-class citizens - because
they are. Most recently, the European Court of Human Rights found that
a Turkish court ruling barring a church from starting a foundation
violated the congregation's right to freedom of association. A ban
on launching a foundation in a country where every other building
on your street may officially or unofficially belong to an Islamic
foundation...
But let's apply Schroeder's noble logic to the Turkish example and
see where we might end up. "Enlightened" nations should not seek
reciprocity in safeguarding religious rights and use "others'"
shortcomings as an excuse for "our" shortcomings.
We, therefore, cannot cite some of the problems Turkish minorities
in Christian countries might be facing, or the Swiss ban on minarets
as a reason to treat Christian Turkish citizens as second class.
God forbid! If we do that, we might be tagged as "not an enlightened
nation." But we aren't that, are we?
Hurriyet
Dec 22 2009
Turkey
Former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder once quite wisely argued,
"There is an undeniable lack of religious freedom in some Islamic
states, but they cannot serve as an excuse to restrict rights in our
own country."
In the article, "The Road to Towers" (Social Europe Forum, Dec. 12,
2009), the former chancellor wrote: "We perceive ourselves as an
enlightened society. And enlightenment does not mean repeating the
shortcomings of other societies in our own."
Nice words, powerful argumentation that reminded me of Andre Feuz,
the priest of a Protestant church in Basel. Feuz recently put a sign
on the gate of the Elizabeth Church that, in protest of the Swiss
ban on mosque minarets, declared the church's tower to "also [be]
a mosque minaret."
Reading the story on the front page of daily Hurriyet, most Turks must
have felt affection for this brave priest. Few must have questioned
whether it would be possible for an imam, say, in solidarity with slain
missionaries in Turkey or the deprivation of the religious rights
of non-Muslims, to declare a mosque minaret "also a church tower" -
or whether they would feel the same affection for that imam too.
Precisely for that reason, I was amused to read the columns of most
Islamic "free thinkers" in reaction to the Swiss ban. Words like
Nazism, Swiss racism, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia were in boring
abundance.
Racist Swiss? A country where "foreign" immigrants constitute a
quarter of the population? Could the Turks really cohabit peacefully
with 18 million foreigners in their country? Could they really cohabit
peacefully with 4 million non-Muslims? How many Swiss journalists have
been murdered by "pure-blood" Swiss because they have non-Swiss DNA?
Fine. Let's forget the too-visible and disturbing asymmetry and, for
a moment, subscribe to Schroeder's wisdom and admit that failings in
Muslim lands cannot be an excuse for failings in Christian lands. But
does that mean we should not criticize failings?
Yes, we wholeheartedly praise the government in Ankara for eventually -
albeit slowly - paving the way for the opening of Akdamar, an Armenian
church in Van, for services next fall. But where in Schroeder's epic
optimism could we locate the almost nationally uniform uproar over
the words of the leader of the world's 300 million Orthodox Christians?
It is totally futile to put Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew's
"we-are-being-crucified-daily&q uot; plea under the magnifying glass.
Focusing on the wording and its various connotations in different
languages will only cause distraction from the big issue.
The heart of the matter should not be which words the patriarch chose
to express himself; it should be why he, a Turkish citizen, feels
the need to complain that "we are treated as second-class citizens,"
and why he feels "crucified under a government that would like to see
[his] nearly 2,000-year-old Patriarchate die out."
Forget further legitimate questions as to why Turkey would not
recognize the patriarch as ecumenical or re-open the Halki School of
Theology. You might have to listen to a long Islamic sermon telling you
it is the secularists who (have) block(ed) all that, or a conspiracy
theory linking the torment of the tiny Greek Orthodox community to
wicked plans at the General Staff headquarters.
But there is something more alarming than the patriarch's plea. It is
how Foreign Minister Ahmet "Strabismus Depth" Davutoglu commented on
Patriarch Bartholomew's remarks: "I hope it was a slip of the tongue."
Very simple. Spot on. A veiled threat? What are you going to do, Mr.
Foreign Minister, if it was not a slip of the tongue? Tell your
friends to fabricate a link between the patriarch and the Ergenekon
gang? Send him determined tax auditors and charge his church a tax
fine of $1 billion?
But is it not bizarre that the "foreign" minister has to comment
on the opinion, either right or wrong, of a Turkish citizen? Since
when is it in the Foreign Ministry's jurisdiction to deal with
the domestic affairs of Turkish citizens? Would Minister Davutoglu
also like to comment on the salary problems of imams? Is this not
telling us clearly that the Turkish citizens of non-Muslim faiths are
"somewhat foreigners"?
The truth is, Patriarch Bartholomew was absolutely right when he said
Turkey's Christians are treated as second-class citizens - because
they are. Most recently, the European Court of Human Rights found that
a Turkish court ruling barring a church from starting a foundation
violated the congregation's right to freedom of association. A ban
on launching a foundation in a country where every other building
on your street may officially or unofficially belong to an Islamic
foundation...
But let's apply Schroeder's noble logic to the Turkish example and
see where we might end up. "Enlightened" nations should not seek
reciprocity in safeguarding religious rights and use "others'"
shortcomings as an excuse for "our" shortcomings.
We, therefore, cannot cite some of the problems Turkish minorities
in Christian countries might be facing, or the Swiss ban on minarets
as a reason to treat Christian Turkish citizens as second class.
God forbid! If we do that, we might be tagged as "not an enlightened
nation." But we aren't that, are we?