×
Of Baykal’s chador, Erdoğan’s laicism and a reader’s atheism
Paylaş
LinkedinFlipboardLinki KopyalaYazı Tipi
Fortunately, not all readers’ letters are full of (sometimes never heard of) curses, insults and threats almost each time after I impersonate this paper’s ’religion editor.’ This week, a reader reminded me there is another world beyond our narrower disputes
These days the main opposition leader, Deniz Baykal, is playing the tolerant secular who can even embrace women in chadors, and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is playing the secular Muslim who embraces women without the Islamic turban and see eye-to-eye with the generals, a man who no longer wakes up to a day with fresh Islamic ideas in his mind. Both men are probably aiming to overcome the local elections with minimal scratches and bruises.
Mr Baykal’s emotional speech in Parliament on Wednesday was impressive, but also a confession. When the leader of the Republican People’s Party, or CHP, said that "not everyone wearing the turban (or the chador) were enemies of our secular constitution," he admitted that his loud and big "No" to the Islamic headwear on campus was just being unfair. If, as Mr Baykal claims, most girls wear the turban for tradition or honest belief while "some" do so to fight our secular regime, is he not punishing an innocent majority to battle a harmful minority?
And Mr Erdoğan has tackled his opponent’s "overture" for conservative Turks very smartly when he encouraged the secular Mr Baykal to welcome more women in chador/ turban/ headscarf. Too bad, all that "normalization" along Turkey’s political fault line can only be misleading, that is, until after the elections in March. Then the warring armies will probably take up more arms and ammunition and fight an even worse battle. Religion in politics is like nuclear weapons in warfare.
Here I wish to leave the floor to the reader who shall remain anonymous. S/he begins with a quote from Al Seckel, in preface to Bertrand Russell on God and Religion:
"In conclusion, there is a marvelous anecdote from the occasion of Russell’s 90th birthday that best serves to summarize his attitude toward God and religion. A London lady sat next to him at this party and over the soup she suggested to him that he was not only the world's most famous atheist but, by this time, very probably the world's oldest atheist.
"’What will you do, Bertie, if it turns out you are wrong?’ she asked. ’I mean, what if -- uh -- when the time comes, you should meet Him? What will you say?’ Russell was delighted with the question. His bright, birdlike eyes grew even brighter as he contemplated this possible future dialogue and then he pointed a finger upward and cried, "Why, I should say,’God, you gave us insufficient evidence.’"
Then, after a well-structured section devoted to definitions of atheism, agnosticism and theism, the reader writes these (my excerpts from a longer text):
"...Now how do we get the maximum pleasure by believing in God or not believing? I don’t know... But I know seculars and atheists do not have much in common, except for the fact that public display of religious icons might be disturbing to both groups at times. There are very devout people who can be secular in their attitudes. Try belonging to a minority religion, you would want secular attitudes where your beliefs would be respected, not dominated.
"When we accept differences, we can actually benefit from them, (as we would see) diversity and its benefits for the whole society. When we tolerate differences, it is much like an unwanted guest, we have to keep (the guest) there, but we cannot wait for him to leave our house, alas tolerance no longer is sufficient. We must learn to accept and enjoy (differences)... In a country where people still get persecuted solely because of their words, their thoughts, their writings, dreams get circumvented... We should be able to discuss about ideas without necessarily believing in them wholeheartedly. Ideas are the lubricants of our minds, we should be able to say, maybe God has alzheimers and he just forgot about us? We might be hardwired for God, for religion, for the will to believe... But I would also cherish the argument that some of us can break over the genetic code, and people change... former atheist may become a born-again Christian, a devout Catholic might convert to Islam...
"...One can have many responsibilities, and spiritual bonds without God or religion. A society might be excruciatingly detail-oriented in organizing its members’ lives, one can lead a fulfilling life without religious codes, there are many paths to happiness and meaning, and not all atheists are irresponsible people... Stating (that) faith is more comforting than skepticism can be likened to the state of drunkenness (that) is more pleasant than soberness.
"As Bernard Shaw has succinctly stated: ’The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.’ We should ask more questions not less, otherwise we will all be alike, and what can be more scary than bland?"
Mr Baykal’s emotional speech in Parliament on Wednesday was impressive, but also a confession. When the leader of the Republican People’s Party, or CHP, said that "not everyone wearing the turban (or the chador) were enemies of our secular constitution," he admitted that his loud and big "No" to the Islamic headwear on campus was just being unfair. If, as Mr Baykal claims, most girls wear the turban for tradition or honest belief while "some" do so to fight our secular regime, is he not punishing an innocent majority to battle a harmful minority?
And Mr Erdoğan has tackled his opponent’s "overture" for conservative Turks very smartly when he encouraged the secular Mr Baykal to welcome more women in chador/ turban/ headscarf. Too bad, all that "normalization" along Turkey’s political fault line can only be misleading, that is, until after the elections in March. Then the warring armies will probably take up more arms and ammunition and fight an even worse battle. Religion in politics is like nuclear weapons in warfare.
Here I wish to leave the floor to the reader who shall remain anonymous. S/he begins with a quote from Al Seckel, in preface to Bertrand Russell on God and Religion:
"In conclusion, there is a marvelous anecdote from the occasion of Russell’s 90th birthday that best serves to summarize his attitude toward God and religion. A London lady sat next to him at this party and over the soup she suggested to him that he was not only the world's most famous atheist but, by this time, very probably the world's oldest atheist.
"’What will you do, Bertie, if it turns out you are wrong?’ she asked. ’I mean, what if -- uh -- when the time comes, you should meet Him? What will you say?’ Russell was delighted with the question. His bright, birdlike eyes grew even brighter as he contemplated this possible future dialogue and then he pointed a finger upward and cried, "Why, I should say,’God, you gave us insufficient evidence.’"
Then, after a well-structured section devoted to definitions of atheism, agnosticism and theism, the reader writes these (my excerpts from a longer text):
"...Now how do we get the maximum pleasure by believing in God or not believing? I don’t know... But I know seculars and atheists do not have much in common, except for the fact that public display of religious icons might be disturbing to both groups at times. There are very devout people who can be secular in their attitudes. Try belonging to a minority religion, you would want secular attitudes where your beliefs would be respected, not dominated.
"When we accept differences, we can actually benefit from them, (as we would see) diversity and its benefits for the whole society. When we tolerate differences, it is much like an unwanted guest, we have to keep (the guest) there, but we cannot wait for him to leave our house, alas tolerance no longer is sufficient. We must learn to accept and enjoy (differences)... In a country where people still get persecuted solely because of their words, their thoughts, their writings, dreams get circumvented... We should be able to discuss about ideas without necessarily believing in them wholeheartedly. Ideas are the lubricants of our minds, we should be able to say, maybe God has alzheimers and he just forgot about us? We might be hardwired for God, for religion, for the will to believe... But I would also cherish the argument that some of us can break over the genetic code, and people change... former atheist may become a born-again Christian, a devout Catholic might convert to Islam...
"...One can have many responsibilities, and spiritual bonds without God or religion. A society might be excruciatingly detail-oriented in organizing its members’ lives, one can lead a fulfilling life without religious codes, there are many paths to happiness and meaning, and not all atheists are irresponsible people... Stating (that) faith is more comforting than skepticism can be likened to the state of drunkenness (that) is more pleasant than soberness.
"As Bernard Shaw has succinctly stated: ’The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.’ We should ask more questions not less, otherwise we will all be alike, and what can be more scary than bland?"
Paylaş
LinkedinFlipboardLinki KopyalaYazı Tipi
