and what happened at the end? that "someone" you`re referring to is just a prosecutor who legally has rights to take the government to court. he is not god or the secret ruler of Turkey.

see, that`s why I`m saying you`re living in the past(it`s not 4 but 3 btw)., and it`s not the army who makes decisions about judicial issues.

it`s the Turkish constitution which bans insulting Ataturk, not a "secret Kemalist  institution"

Ermmmm maybe the Ergenekon gang?

have you given your password to thehandsom?

Ahh sorry - I realise it is funny to mention the Ergenekon gang - it amuses me too to think of Kemalists working with such skum.....

The court case was really nothing more than an attempt at coup by triall You dont have to use such words as "secret ruler" as I am not afflicted with the paranoia of nationalists

Anyway, I think you missed me

+10000000000000000000

I wish there was a strong secular group in Turkey with equal amounts of money that would start banning religous web sites.

+ 100000000000

Can we all sign that petition?

Yes, along with donating money! Your signature alone Trudy is not good enough.

Adnan Hoca really has a lot of money.  My business partner was just invited, as a foreign journalist, to an iftar meal he is hosting at the Çirağan Palace this Wednesday!

Harun Yahya , i think he is charlatan ... 

 İn a country which let´s even say %60 of the people are muslims,do you want them to ban the İslamic sources/sites ?

Because what ? assuming that they hate their own religion ?!!

Want/wish them to fight them on their own religion ?!!

Well, so you are making it sound like religious rule is a tyranny. When the majority of people are religious, non-religious people can be squandered, banned, censored, but never the other way round. In other words - you can deny rights of minority, but not of the majority? People belonging to the majority are privilaged and superior, have higher human rights then those who belong to minority! This is plain mob rule.

In a democracy, all people should have equal rights - whether they are religious or not, whether they are the majority or not. If a religious person can ban a site because he ´proves´ that a web site talking about evolution insults feelings of a group of people, then a non-religious person should have equal chances of banning a religious site, if she/he shows that it insults feelings of another group of people. If these two people do not have equal chances, then we can say that the country is a religious tyrannical state, where non-religious people or minorities do not have equal rights as the people who belong to the majority.

If you allow sites to be banned because they insult someone´s feelings, then all people´s feelings should be equally valued and all groups of people should be able to ban other web sites. If you don´t want that, then simply no web sites should be banned.