Turkish Politics |
|
|
|
|
|
Creationist Adnan Oktar wins ban on Richard Dawkins site
|
| 10. |
21 Sep 2008 Sun 06:51 pm |
|
Really? Strange because I seem to remember that "someone" took the present government to court earlier this year.
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.
The military (as far as I am aware) is still not under the rule of the elected government, and has overthrown four civilian governments in the last 50 years.
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.
Please also advise me who bans any unsavoury talk about Ataturk? The AKP?
Please correct me if I am wrong 
it`s the Turkish constitution which bans insulting Ataturk, not a "secret Kemalist institution"
|
|
| 11. |
21 Sep 2008 Sun 06:53 pm |
|
Ermmmm maybe the Ergenekon gang?
have you given your password to thehandsom?
|
|
| 12. |
21 Sep 2008 Sun 06:57 pm |
|
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
|
|
| 13. |
21 Sep 2008 Sun 07:07 pm |
|
Anyway, I think you missed me
|
|
| 14. |
21 Sep 2008 Sun 07:59 pm |
|
But, seriously, why don´t Turks start civil trials for the violation of their rights? If somebody considers atheism blasphemy, somebody else may consider Islam blasphemy and demand banning Islamic sources. This is a vicious circle, all online content may be considered improper by some people.
+10000000000000000000 
I wish there was a strong secular group in Turkey with equal amounts of money that would start banning religous web sites.
|
|
| 15. |
21 Sep 2008 Sun 09:29 pm |
|
+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?
|
|
| 16. |
21 Sep 2008 Sun 09:33 pm |
|
Can we all sign that petition?
Yes, along with donating money! Your signature alone Trudy is not good enough. 
|
|
| 17. |
21 Sep 2008 Sun 10:52 pm |
|
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!
|
|
| 18. |
22 Sep 2008 Mon 05:13 am |
|
Harun Yahya , i think he is charlatan ...
|
|
| 19. |
22 Sep 2008 Mon 05:35 am |
|
But, seriously, why don´t Turks start civil trials for the violation of their rights? If somebody considers atheism blasphemy, somebody else may consider Islam blasphemy and demand banning Islamic sources. This is a vicious circle, all online content may be considered improper by some people
+10000000000000000000
I wish there was a strong secular group in Turkey with equal amounts of money that would start banning religous web sites.
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 ?!!
|
|
| 20. |
22 Sep 2008 Mon 05:48 am |
|
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.
|
|
|
