NationStates Jolt Archive

"The issue is not the head scarf; the issue is secularism"

Turkish Lawmakers Vote to Scrap Head Scarf Ban

Turkish lawmakers on Thursday voted in favor of a constitutional amendment that will end a decades-old ban preventing women from wearing head scarves at the nation's universities. Critics warn it could mark the end of Turkey's secular identity.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,533762,00.html

I've never been happy about the Turkish ban on head scarves in the university, but I can understand some of the fears that it'll harm the secular ideals of Turkey. Yet on the other hand, even if the ECHR disagrees with me, I've always felt that it was limiting freedom of religion unnecessarily and hurting the religious people by barring them from higher education.

So I believe I'm in favour of the removal of this ban. In principle at least. Any thoughts?

The problem is that now universities might make it mandatory.

Secularism should include the freedom of choice ultimately. Being forced to wear a headscarf or being forced to not wear it are extremes that nobody should find comforting.

Oh, and in before the rants about how the freedom to wear headscarves is yet another step in teh ebil moslem plotz to create teh caliphate.

i agree that the ban is extreme, and it will be nice if this undemocratic law will be withdrawn.
but thismatter is far more negligible than others such as the imminent invasion in north iraq, the problem of cyprus or the daily dogfights with greek aeroplanes..

I agree that's it's a good move. In my opinion, a ban on head scarves is no better than a requirement to wear them. Both are unnecessary limits to an individual's choice and both infringe upon freedom of religion.

Secularism should not denigrate or exclude those who are religious.

Oh, and in before the rants about how the freedom to wear headscarves is yet another step in teh ebil moslem plotz to create teh caliphate.

teh eb1l moslem plotz to...

Damn it! :mad:

The problem is that now universities might make it mandatory.
There's no indication of this whatsoever.

And I'll echo Gauthier and Dem's words that secularism shouldn't mean the complete removal of religion from society.

The problem is that now universities might make it mandatory.

Unlikely.

Unlikely.



You are going to deny that possibility? Really?


In the mid east I rule nothing out.

You are going to deny that possibility?
We're not denying the possibility, we're saying it's incredibly unlikely, and there's no indication that it'll happen in the slightest. It's taken years, decades even, for the ban to be lifted. Why on Earth would magistrates suddenly go religiously nutty?

Churches are allowed to be set-up/built in both the US and the UK. Does this mean that it's likely we'll all be forced to go to Church on Sundays?

You are going to deny that possibility? Really?

In the mid east I rule nothing out.

The only universities that would make headscarves mandatory are the ones that were heavily under the influence of Islamic fundamentalists and/or extremists to begin with, and most universities are too secular by their very nature to go on that path.

We're not denying the possibility, we're saying it's incredibly unlikely, and there's no indication that it'll happen in the slightest. It's taken years, decades even, for the ban to be lifted. Why on Earth would magistrates suddenly go religiously nutty?

Churches are allowed to be set-up/built in both the US and the UK. Does this mean that it's likely we'll all be forced to go to Church on Sundays?



In many US private universities, Church is mandatory on sundays.

In many US private universities, Church is mandatory on sundays.

Yeah, because they're universities operated by and for religious institutions. They're not part of the public education sector and are free to set whatever rules and standards they choose.

In many US private universities, Church is mandatory on sundays.

And they are private universities. If they were public universities, that would be a serious breach of Church and State.

Atatürk is rolling in his grave.

Ok ok, apperantly by voicing a concern that by stripping away a bit of secularism in he mid east might result in radical islam taking control (because thats never happened before:rolleyes:) Ive hit a sore spot.

Man, Im not even attacking them muslims...

Man, Im not even attacking them muslims...

"Them"?

In many US private universities, Church is mandatory on sundays.
See Potarius and Gauthier's posts above.

I may well agree with you that there needs to be more seperation between Church and State, but the idea that we are a few steps away from a theocracy is exaggeration at best.

Even in the US, those calling for a Christian leader pushing Christian laws are a (vocal) minority.

Ok ok, apperantly by voicing a concern that by stripping away a bit of secularism
How is religious discrimination equatable to secularism?

Ive hit a sore spot.
No, you've just posted illogical tripe.

Ok ok, apperantly by voicing a concern that by stripping away a bit of secularism in he mid east might result in radical islam taking control (because thats never happened before:rolleyes:) Ive hit a sore spot.

We aren't talking about "stripping away a bit of secularism." We are talking about increasing individual freedom.

There is no reason in secularism to support this type of ban. The idea is that institutions should be separate from religion, not that individuals should be. An institution that seeks to exclude people based upon their religious beliefs is not secular.

"Them"?
You know. The hive-mind.

Atatürk is rolling in his grave.

Ataturk only pushed for extreme secularism as part of his plan to modernize Turkey and have it catch up to the Western world. Seeing as how the country isn't too far behind the West in terms of society and technology, he'd at worst turn to the side.

Roll? Hardly.

Ataturk only pushed for extreme secularism as part of his plan to modernize Turkey and have it catch up to the Western world. Seeing as how the country isn't too far behind the West in terms of society and technology, he'd at worst turn to the side.

Roll? Hardly.

Maybe twitch slightly.

You know. The hive-mind.

No no no, no. He was using hickspeak there, and I was aghast.

I've always felt that it was limiting freedom of religion unnecessarily
As Fass pointed out, Freedom of religion is generally redundant. It shouldn't even be a freedom regardless.

and hurting the religious people by barring them from higher education.
Religious people and higher education is an oxymoron.


I'm against this btw. The ban helped enforce secularism against the temptations of religion. Ataturk would not be happy.

When religion was so pervasive in the society that women were under heavy social pressure to wear the scarves, forcibly banning the scarves made some sense. Now, however, I think that the women who are wearing scarves are doing so because they actually do freely choose to do so; and the freedom to do so can be granted without much realistic danger of Turkey reverting to a Caliphate. That so much has changed ought to make Ataturk smile.

Of course religion ought to be banned anyway, so this really is a step in the wrong direction.

Religious people and higher education is an oxymoron.


Please, unless you think Issac Newton was an idiot of course... Here's a quote from him.
Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done

its a good thing to lift the ban.

it is wrong to make a woman choose between her religion and her education in a way that men will never have to do.

between this and allowing Kurds to teach Kurdish I'm really seeing an improvement in Turkey

now lets have the nation admit homosexuality is not a mental illness and that marital rape can happen and we will be getting somewhere

by stripping away a bit of secularism in he mid east might result in radical islam taking control

too bad Turkey is more in the near East :p

No no no, no. He was using hickspeak there, and I was aghast.

Or I just mistyped...
:rolleyes:


I also dont recall saying "ZOMGZ TEH EBIL MOSLAMS WILL NOW BECOME TEH IRAN!!!!11!!!1!!!!1"...I just pointed out a possibility that has happened in...well...almost every country in the middle east, and everyone freaked out.


So yes, I maintain that I somehow hit a sore spot.

Or I just mistyped...
:rolleyes:


I also dont recall saying "ZOMGZ TEH EBIL MOSLAMS WILL NOW BECOME TEH IRAN!!!!11!!!1!!!!1"...I just pointed out a possibility that has happened in...well...almost every country in the middle east, and everyone freaked out.


So yes, I maintain that I somehow hit a sore spot.

It's kind of funny how one could mistype "them" for "those".

Someone tried to tell me I couldn't wear a cross around my neck, they were not so happy when I perfectly cited the court case that ruled that religious atire could be worn in schools.

We aren't talking about "stripping away a bit of secularism." We are talking about increasing individual freedom.

There is no reason in secularism to support this type of ban. The idea is that institutions should be separate from religion, not that individuals should be. An institution that seeks to exclude people based upon their religious beliefs is not secular.

Well said, Dempublicents1.

Someone tried to tell me I couldn't wear a cross around my neck, they were not so happy when I perfectly cited the court case that ruled that religious atire could be worn in schools.

...how big was this cross? was it large enough to have an actually body attached and was this someone a police officer?

Ataturk only pushed for extreme secularism as part of his plan to modernize Turkey and have it catch up to the Western world. Seeing as how the country isn't too far behind the West in terms of society and technology, he'd at worst turn to the side.

Roll? Hardly.

He also wanted a strong national secular society for Turkey, and not to be gobbled up by fanatical religious sectarianism.

You must have Turkey mistaken for Iraq. I don't recall Istanbul being engulfed in a mass sectarian strife like you're trying to conjure up visually. Kabul, yes. Istanbul? hardly.
No, my point is that it could have happened, after the strife of the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, and the outbursts of Islamic violence in the Middle East, Turkey could have easily gone down that path if Ataturk hadn't taken those actions.

He also wanted a strong national secular society for Turkey, and not to be gobbled up by fanatical religious sectarianism.

You must have Turkey mistaken for Iraq. I don't recall Istanbul being engulfed in a mass sectarian strife like you're trying to conjure up visually. Kabul, yes. Istanbul? hardly.

The problem is that now universities might make it mandatory.
Where did you get that idea from?

Especially since the secular intellectual elites are the ones currently in control of the universities?
As Fass pointed out, Freedom of religion is generally redundant. It shouldn't even be a freedom regardless.
I don't think you've understood him, really. But you're saying that the ban on head scarves shouldn't have been there in the first place?

Religious people and higher education is an oxymoron.
Not at all.

I'm against this btw. The ban helped enforce secularism against the temptations of religion. Ataturk would not be happy.
So how do you hold that view while claiming what you did above? That's quite a logic disconnect there.

Religious people and higher education is an oxymoron.

No, it isn't.

I'm against this btw. The ban helped enforce secularism against the temptations of religion.

I'm so glad you think "secularism" means "force women to wear less clothing than they feel comfortable with or give up education." Along with your ridiculous statement above, it makes it clear that you can be completely ignored.

There's no indication of this whatsoever.

And I'll echo Gauthier and Dem's words that secularism shouldn't mean the complete removal of religion from society.

Yeah, honostly the law is wrong in banning head scarves. Maybe if it was head scarves other then that for relegious obligation. But yes it's ok to wear head scarves as long as its not mandadtory to wear or not wear them.

Question is, will this move endanger the rights and freedoms of others? Will women now be pressured into wearing the head scarves even if they don't want to do it out of a religious duty.

Question is, will this move endanger the rights and freedoms of others?

How could it?

Having the ban was an obvious and direct infringement on the rights and freedom of the women in Turkey. Not having it increases their freedom.

Will women now be pressured into wearing the head scarves even if they don't want to do it out of a religious duty.

Wearing a head scarf in general wasn't illegal. Just if you wanted to get an education or work in the government - that sort of thing. I doubt this is going to increase the pressure on women to wear them.

What it can do is allow those who have been pressured to do so the means to get out of their situation. If a woman's family pressures her to wear it, and wearing it keeps her from getting an education, how exactly do we expect her to get away from her family? She's basically being forced to depend upon them.

How could it?

Having the ban was an obvious and direct infringement on the rights and freedom of the women in Turkey. Not having it increases their freedom.
Well, it was the argument used when the ECHR upheld the ban back in 2005:
Like the Constitutional Court, the Court considered that, when examining the question of the Islamic headscarf in the Turkish context, there had to be borne in mind the impact which wearing such a symbol, which was presented or perceived as a compulsory religious duty, could have on those who chose not to wear it. The issues at stake included the protection of the “rights and freedoms of others” and the “maintenance of public order” in a country in which the majority of the population, while professing a strong attachment to the rights of women and a secular way of life, adhered to the Islamic faith. Imposing limitations on freedom to wear the Islamic headscarf could, therefore, be regarded as meeting a pressing social need by seeking to achieve those two legitimate aims, especially since that religious symbol had taken on political significance in Turkey in recent years. The Court did not lose sight of the fact that there were extremist political movements in Turkey which sought to impose on society as a whole their religious symbols and conception of a society founded on religious precepts. It considered that the regulations concerned were also intended to preserve pluralism in the university.
Leyla Şahin Vs. Turkey (http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Press/2004/June/ChamberjudgmentsSahinandTekin.htm)

They argued that it was necessary in a democratic society and thus a legal infringement. Obviously there were fears that the rights of the others would be harmed in the long run. I see the argument, but I'm not sure how much weight I would place on it.

Wearing a head scarf in general wasn't illegal. Just if you wanted to get an education or work in the government - that sort of thing. I doubt this is going to increase the pressure on women to wear them.

What it can do is allow those who have been pressured to do so the means to get out of their situation. If a woman's family pressures her to wear it, and wearing it keeps her from getting an education, how exactly do we expect her to get away from her family? She's basically being forced to depend upon them.
That's true - but societal pressure may force some to wear it to be accepted. I do believe it is going to increase the pressure, but I'm uncertain about how much. And obviously, the "secular elite" fears this too...

Well, it was the argument used when the ECHR upheld the ban back in 2005:

Leyla Şahin Vs. Turkey (http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Press/2004/June/ChamberjudgmentsSahinandTekin.htm)

They argued that it was necessary in a democratic society and thus a legal infringement. Obviously there were fears that the rights of the others would be harmed in the long run. I see the argument, but I'm not sure how much weight I would place on it.

I think the argument is full of BS. What I choose to wear is what I choose to wear. If I feel that I need to cover a certain part of my body to maintain modesty, and I think modesty is important, that is my business.

The idea that a democratic society requires giving the government authority to restrict how an individual dresses is complete and utter bunk.

That's true - but societal pressure may force some to wear it to be accepted. I do believe it is going to increase the pressure, but I'm uncertain about how much. And obviously, the "secular elite" fears this too...

Societal pressure already forces some to wear it. If the government wants to address that, they need to address that, not restrict the individual freedoms of those who want to wear it and give up on those who are pressured into it by leaving them with no way out of their situations.

Punish the people who try and force others to bend to their will, not the people who they are victimizing or people who choose freely to do so.

I think the argument is full of BS. What I choose to wear is what I choose to wear. If I feel that I need to cover a certain part of my body to maintain modesty, and I think modesty is important, that is my business.

The idea that a democratic society requires giving the government authority to restrict how an individual dresses is complete and utter bunk.
Personally, I have never felt modesty was important, and when it's warm, I would rather not wear anything (TODAY, of course, I prefer to be heavily bundled!). I hope you agree that's *my* business? But societies do, in fact, restrict how individuals dress, to varying extents.

I think the argument is full of BS. What I choose to wear is what I choose to wear. If I feel that I need to cover a certain part of my body to maintain modesty, and I think modesty is important, that is my business.

The idea that a democratic society requires giving the government authority to restrict how an individual dresses is complete and utter bunk.
Well, when the clothing becomes a political statement, then what? In Germany, the use of nazi paraphernalia and symbols is regulated. Walking around in an SS uniform is not acceptable. This is due to the historical connotations and for the protection of democracy in Germany. The same argument is used in connection with the head scarves, which has become something of a symbol for the islamists. So I see the argument, even if I don't think it trumps the right of the individual in this case.



Societal pressure already forces some to wear it. If the government wants to address that, they need to address that, not restrict the individual freedoms of those who want to wear it and give up on those who are pressured into it by leaving them with no way out of their situations.

Punish the people who try and force others to bend to their will, not the people who they are victimizing or people who choose freely to do so.
How would you do that, if your goal was the long term survival of the secular state?

Ok ok, apperantly by voicing a concern that by stripping away a bit of secularism in he mid east might result in radical islam taking control (because thats never happened before:rolleyes:) Ive hit a sore spot.

Man, Im not even attacking them muslims...

By voicing a concern about giving women more rights that don't infringe on the rights of others could some how be bad people rebuked you. Get over it.

This has already been covered, but I so strongly object to the line of thinking that insists religion must be banned or completely destroyed before we can become ‘secular, I had to post.

As Fass pointed out, Freedom of religion is generally redundant. It shouldn’t even be a freedom regardless.
So you go from ‘freedom of religion is adequately covered by the other guaranteed freedoms in the Swedish constitution, and thus need not be explicitly provided for’, via ‘freedom of religion need not be provided for’ to ‘there should be no freedom of religion’.

That some logical leap.

Religious people and higher education is an oxymoron.
What absolute nonsense!

I’d invite you to watch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVq5-XOxrh8) at least a smidgen of the fantastic interview with the Cambridge theologian Denys Turner, himself somewhere between a Christian and a Deist; one of The Atheism Tapes, a shoot-off of the excellent series Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief.

A few seconds of the interview are enough to see how much waffle your statement is.

The ban helped enforce secularism against the temptations of religion.
Are you that weak-willed regarding your beliefs that you need legislation supporting them?

Of course religion ought to be banned anyway, so this really is a step in the wrong direction.
After centuries of dangerous and sometimes deadly opposition to the authorities of the various religions, we are finally at a stage where one can freely believe what one wishes to.

Are you really willing to to replace one tyranny with another?

Personally, I have never felt modesty was important, and when it's warm, I would rather not wear anything (TODAY, of course, I prefer to be heavily bundled!). I hope you agree that's *my* business? But societies do, in fact, restrict how individuals dress, to varying extents.

Actually, yes, I do. Well, for the most part. I could see a certain small amount of covering being required for sanitary reasons, but if you wanted to walk around in a loincloth or something like that, I do think that is your right.


Well, when the clothing becomes a political statement, then what?

It is just as, and perhaps even more, important than restrictions on any other type of clothing.

In Germany, the use of nazi paraphernalia and symbols is regulated. Walking around in an SS uniform is not acceptable. This is due to the historical connotations and for the protection of democracy in Germany.

How does it protect democracy? Are people who hold unpopular views lesser citizens?

For the record, while I find the views of Nazi-types to be absolutely indefensible, I also find the German law to be indefensible.

How would you do that, if your goal was the long term survival of the secular state?

Make sure that women who feel threatened have authorities they can freely get to. Make sure that they are protected if they need it and punish people for things that are already illegal - like threatening and harming others.

Punishing the women gets you nowhere.

I think the ban on head scarves was a violation of the idea of the freedom of religion. In the United States if such a ban was enacted it would be ruled unconstitutional because of the First Amendment.