You might have heard that Richard Dawkins' website has been blocked in Turkey because of that moron Harun Yahya (H/T Thabet). Here's the justification:
His press assistant, Seda Aral, said: "We are not against freedom of speech or expression but you cannot insult people. We found the comments hurtful. It was not a scientific discussion. There was a line and the limit has been passed. We have used all the legal means to stop this site. We asked them to remove the comments but they did not."
This isn't that strange of a claim; contemporary Anglo-American and to a lesser extent Continental European (to a greater extent Scandinavia, to a lesser extent France and Germany) attitudes toward free speech and expression are alien to most of the world. They would have been alien to the pre-modern West. They're still alien to the nature of most people even in places like the United States. To some extent outrage at indecent transgressions against norms is species typical and probably adaptive. Overriding this tendency are various institutional structures, intellectual movements, and something called the frontal cortex. I've gotten into arguments with people who are not fully assimilated to the Anglo-American way who simply don't grokk on any deep level that speech should always be given the extreme benefit of the doubt. More prosaically the little childhood ditty about "sticks & stones" is obviously not something that is imaginable in much of the world where people routinely kill each other over non-existent deities (granted, the West engaged in this sort of behavior until about 1700). Being raised in a subculture with primitive folkways naturally leads to primitive (that is, species typical) instincts on these topics and to some extent dialogue is rendered impossible because of the lack common normative referents.
But another issue to bring up here is the relatively primitive state of the Muslim world when it comes to basic freedoms we take for granted in the civilized world. I've pointed out before that Turkey, purportedly a shining beacon of religious liberalization in the Muslim world, is actually at least as religious as the United States (with a greater number of Creationists proportionally than the United States by a large margin). In Europe America is routinely perceived to be a nation of religious loons, but they're entertaining the idea of allowing Turkey into their EU???1 Richard Dawkins and Usama Hasan both assert that Creationism is dominant in the United Kingdom among Muslims. Who wants tens of millions of more of these types flooding the EU?
In the USA the Muslims are relatively civilized because of immigration which skew toward those with industry and education, which naturally means inculcation in many disciplines which presuppose a Western outlook. Nevertheless, I have pointed out that by the data the average American Muslim has views in line with the average Evangelical more than the typical religious person. On a pan-religious distribution of traits in many ways moderate Muslims and conservative Christians are isomorphic. There are Muslims who might be the equivalent to liberal Christians, but their numbers proportionally small even in a relatively assimilated and integrated community such as American Muslims.
I only bring this up because many American secularists are in the habit of mocking and attacking the "American Taliban" and the primitive knuckle-dragging predispositions of Bible-believing white Evangelicals. On the other hand, to a great extent they treat Muslims like they treat black Christians; with benign neglect. This makes sense to some extent, Muslim politics today resembles that of black Americans; roughly, relatively fiscally liberal and socially & religiously conservative, and strongly Democratic. Muslim and black Americans are not perceived to be a threat to abortion rights, for example, despite their avowed opposition to the practice, because they support a political party which generally supports the maintenance of Roe vs. Wade. In contrast, large numbers of white religious conservatives are mobilized around this issue. The social conservatism of Muslims and black Americans is directed inwardly, against deviants and misfits within their own communities, and so to a large extent invisible to the anti-religious progressives who are allied with these communities politically.
But context matters. Turkey is not the United States, it is a 99% Muslim country where religious conservatives flex their muscle in a manner very reminiscent of American religious conservatives, except to a far greater magnitude of medievalism. For example, the stalled attempt to criminalize adultery. Across the Muslim world heterodox men and women exist under an oppressive traditionalism which would put small town Mississippi to shame. Of course despite any universal avowal of human rights there is only so much that one can practicably do. Here in the United States gay rights activists usefully turn their attention to religious conservatives as their primary opponents despite the much greater repression of open homosexuality in most of the world, especially the Muslim world. It is to some extent a matter of bang-for-your-buck, and also an issue of concerns near which are realized in our day to day life vs. abstractions of justice and fairness on the grand scope.
I'm a admitted "appeaser" when it comes to religion in comparison to someone like Sam Harris. In all honesty, though I find Harris' rhetoric sometimes amusing, mostly he seems a dull fellow whose brilliance only shines because of the accolades showered upon him by the choir. Nevertheless, despite what I perceive to be the modesty of Harris' cognitive endowments he has some definite boldness. I appreciate his forthright accusation that many Western liberals are hamstrung in their critique of Islam by white guilt. I don't think this is the only issue, as I said above the misery of people in dusty poor countries is not a primary concern for most in the modern world. Even in places like Europe there are instances where neglect of women oppressed by minority subcultures occurs, but their residence in Europe is a matter of technical geographical detail, not a state of mind. They are in Europe, not of it. That's reality. But with all that, I admit that I put a special focus on Islamic Creationism and all the myriad medieval panoply associate with "moderate" Islam because there will come a day when matters of practicality mean that the self-identified children of the Enlightenment have to confront the most unreconstructed sect of the One True God, Inshallah.
Note: For corraboration for most of my claims please see the US Religious Landscape Survey. Unfortunately its Web 2.0 architecture renders linking difficult....
1 - Thank god that it seems like this is only for show, and that nations like France will always veto Turkish admission no matter what they say in public.
- Log in to post comments
What's interesting to me about Turkey is that, if you spend any time at all in any of the seedier corners of the Internet, you see so much Turkish porn, aimed at a Turkish market.
I would say, that in terms of Internet presence at least, Turkish porn rivals, say, French porn in terms of market saturation (if not in terms of production values and eroticism).
There is something about the contrast between Turkey as a conservative Muslim nation and Turkey as a porn producer that I find fascinating. The conflict between nominal secularism and obligatory piety is certainly a fertile ground for digicam footage of Turks gettin' it on.
Turkey is a Janus-headed country -- perhaps not surprising for what was once the crossroads of Homeric and Persian religious practices.
[By the way, Razib -- I just now noticed your latest avatar. I never thought about you this way before, but now I feel funny inside.]
Turkey is a Janus-headed country
it's france overlain on top of iran.
[By the way, Razib -- I just now noticed your latest avatar. I never thought about you this way before, but now I feel funny inside.]
this is a Safe Space from the Heteronormative Male Gaze. check yourself bitch.
Sam Harris? Mostly a dull fellow? This observation stands in horrid juxtaposition to the rest of what you wrote. I am puzzled and for good reason. Have you read Harris and are being swayed by his more vocal critics?
Have you read Harris and are being swayed by his more vocal critics?
just because someone is dull does not mean that they are always wrong. on the specific issue that i'm point to, white liberal guilt, i think he is probably right to the first approximation.
To take the example of Hillary Clinton and George Bush, both are Methodists. And they are by world standards nearly identical in political views, far apart as they appear on the US spectrum.
Both are solidly in the US mainstream.
Years ago a British friend referred to the US as the country with 2 right wings, and no left. He had a point then and more or less still does.
Our "knuckle-dragging Evangelicals" are also part of the US mainstream, and most would be, if magically transformed into Muslims, very liberal.
Our "knuckle-dragging Evangelicals" are also part of the US mainstream, and most would be, if magically transformed into Muslims, very liberal.
well, not necessarily if they were american muslims. see the data here. but, excepting albania, kosovo and bonsia, i think it would be fair to say that american evangelicals would be liberal in any muslim majority country.
cold turkey
There are obviously people within the EU who are opposed to admitting Turkey, for pretty much the reasons outlined. The folk who want them in probably hope that we'll be a good influence on them, encouraging and strengthening the secular forces within Turkey and potentially establishing them as a liberal, democratic example in the muslim world.
That would seem to be the ideal outcome, (to me), but it's not without risks. I don't foresee a bunch of millitant islamists spreading throughout western Europe, but an influx of Turkish workers would probably inflame racial and religious tensions.
There are also people who are mainly interested in expanding the EU so that we can take our rightful place as the world's premier economic superpower.
harun yayah banning just one website might be seen as a sign of him becoming more liberal...
http://en.blog.wordpress.com/2007/08/19/why-were-blocked-in-turkey/
but they're entertaining the idea of allowing Turkey into their EU???
Turkey is straddling not only the Bosphorus, but also the border between Western civilization and conservative Islam, and it has been for centuries (one could make a point that Suleiman Kanuni's Ottoman Empire was about as liberal as François Ier's France and more than Carlos V's Spain, and Atatürk is a most interessing historical figure; besides, you just have to look at those Turkish movies from the 60s, they are really the same as French or Italian movies from the same period). Excluding them definitely from the EU would push them in the other direction, while admitting them inside would certainly expose them to a lot of Western values: how can we fight Muslim creationism better than by exchanging thousands of students between Turkey and other EU countries? (Erasmus is one of the largest impacts of the EU on the daily lives of Europeans).
And you say that France will block the entry of Turkey in the EU: this is not really clear. The position I stated above is more or less the position of the left (Parti Socialiste) here, while the right (in office now) propagates underhand memes of Turk = Muslim = Arab = "sun-tanned" = evil. Just listen to them claiming that "Turkey is not in Europe. It is in Asia Minor." As if the Bosphorus were an inpassable barrier. Instead, it is a crossroads of civilization, and there have almost never been two different countries on both sides of it. The real barrier is the Taurus mountain range, which separates Anatolia from Mesopotamia, and across which exchanges have been far fewer. Well, the French position is likely to be more moderate as soon as the left goes back in power.
Besides, the admission of around 10^8 Muslims in Europe would also be a way to balance religions against each other; it sometimes feels like Europe were a "Christian club", which is a bit deletere. And because of this, a country such as Poland is much more likely to block Turkish entry than France.
Look at the photo. This man looks just like Theodore "T-Bag" Bagwell, from Prison Break, the US TV series.
What a match inside and outside.
The Turks who matter,in the elite and army, are never going to permit an openly Islamic party to stand, they declared the crypto Islamic one illegal when it tried to remove some of the the anti religious laws.
The Algerian experience shows that the Islamic parties are politically too strong if they are allowed to stand. Algeria also showed that if the secularists are prepared to cancel elections and massacre 100,000 of their people they'll win,Turkish Islamic parties have taken note of this.
The Algerian experience shows that the Islamic parties are politically too strong if they are allowed to stand. Algeria also showed that if the secularists are prepared to cancel elections and massacre 100,000 of their people they'll win,Turkish Islamic parties have taken note of this.
in most muslim countries the islamic parties are minor forces. e.g., pakistan, bangladesh, indonesia. in places like iraq where they aren't they hook themselves up to communal/nationalist causes. so i think you need to be cautious about generalizing. granted, the muslim brotherhood would win in egypt, but we're talking about backlash due to a corrupt current authoritarian regime.
even in turkey the muslim parties have done well because of the the first-past-the-post system which allows them to do well in winner take all districts because of their plural majority.
So in Turkey the Islamic party's strength is able to be gauged through elections and is even exaggerated somewhat. I think If they get any more popular they will be held to be unconstitutional like the Vaams Blok in Belgium.
Very unlike Algeria where first round of the first elections showed them to have a level of support that the gov. never dreamed of.
With the Algerian example Egypt will never take this risk.
So in Turkey the Islamic party's strength is able to be gauged through elections and is even exaggerated somewhat. I think If they get any more popular they will be held to be unconstitutional like the Vaams Blok in Belgium.
in which case the EU will say that they're not democratic enough! problem solved ;-)
The EU gave huge loans to Algeria when the "eradicators" were about their work, I doubt they will they bat an eye at anything Turkey does to secure secularism (and full EU membership in due course).
The EU elite wants Turkey, it at least has more young than old, they see this as increasing "soft power"
Migration gains are going to be essential to pay for keeping the millions of pensioners in Bulgaria, Romania ect. that the EU enlargement has added.
Migration gains are going to be essential to pay for keeping the millions of pensioners in Bulgaria, Romania ect. that the EU enlargement has added.
baring economic productivity gains.
Migration gains are economic productivity gains in the minds of the policy elite of the EU.
Really, I'd rather Turkey didn't join the EU. Not because they are "insufficiently european" (so are greeks), but because they are a great role model to non-arab Asian Muslim countries. Pakistan, Afghanistan, Central Asian republics, even poor, benighted, basket-case, fourth-world Bangladesh. And, one day, post-revolutionary Iran.
If they became "european", officially, they wouldn't be much of a role model any more.
You might be interested to read the opinion of a Turkish liberal (Ãzlem ÃaÄlar YILMAZ) on what has to be fixed in Turkey before it can enter the EU: http://www.stockholm-network.org/downloads/publications/SN_EYE15_amende… (the first essay in the pdf)