From: clcr17@vaxa.strath.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.culture.turkish
Subject: Re: A question
Date: 25 Jan 93 12:23:16 GMT
Organization: Strathclyde University VAX Cluster

In article <MUCIT.93Jan24155646@slate.cs.rochester.edu>, mucit@cs.rochester.edu (Bulent Murtezaoglu) writes:
> 
> 
> While I am no fan of Ugur Mumcu, I am deeply disturbed by the recent
> series of murders of people who clearly did nothing more than expressing
> their ideas.  Their ways of expression might have been strong and maybe
> unorthodox to for some, but nevertheless there was no clear-cut libel, no 
> swearing, but just expression and publication of thoughts and investigations.
> Judging by the sampling of people on s.c.t. , there doesn't seem to be a 
> widespread respect for free expression of thought.  A disturbing number of
> people seem to want to ban the expression of whatever set of ideas they are
> against, and some others resort to associating disagreement with their
> set of taboos with treachery and sacrilege.  This pattern seems to prevail
> across "party lines" as evidenced by the assertions that one needs to 
> buy into the hard-line approach to Islam to even be considered a decent
> person, and that one needs to shun all criticism and indeed suppress evidence
> of despotic tendencies of Ataturk to be a patriotic Turk, or that one needs
> to blindly support "Argic" no matter what he says and how he says it to
> protect the image of our country.  If one doesn't fit the above descriptions
> one is an idolator or an embodiment of evil in one case, unpatriotic and 
> disgraceful in other, and a "brown nose" whose motives in questioning
> a style of discourse must be somehow dirty in yet another.  More often than
> not, some folks claim that Turkey would be better off w/o the people they
> disagree with.  A smaller, but still a disturbing number prescribe cures
> for what they're convinced is a sickness.  Those solutions are mostly radical
> such as military coups, banning non-violent associations, and doing away with 
> secular government.  Pervasive in most such points of view is the call for
> some sort of coercion from a higher institution towards people who simply
> talked/thought a certain way, wore certain things, or did or didn't partake 
> in certain ceremonies and did nothing else.  
> 
> Now, I know the above description is overly pessimistic
> and there is a silent crowd if not a majority who just go about minding their 
> own business.  But it is also evident that there's much truth in the above 
> description.  What I'd like opinions on is how and when in people's
> upbringing in Turkey this tendency towards intolerance and blind 
> acceptance of taboos creep into people's intellectual make-up.  In other
> words, what characteristics of our culture are conducive to intolerance and
> blind faith?
> 
> It could also be that I'm way off base here.  If so, I'd like an
> explanation of the difference between asserting that it's the duty of
> patriotic Turks to disallow critical analysis of the early history of the
> republic, and the assertion that it's the duty of the "submitters to God's 
> will" to disallow critical analysis of origins of Islam.  I think that I could 
> do a semi-smart global search and replace of some buzzwords in some postings 
> and transform one sort into another :).
> 
> What do you think?

ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH YOU.
> 
> cheers,
> 
> BM
REGARDS.

T.Y.