I thought they could fly.

OMG! THE TURKEYS ARE HITTING THE GROUND LIKE BAGS OF WET CEMENT.

qualopec: I thought they could fly.

They can.

Very interesting article. To bring things home for a second and put things in perspective:

ninjakirby: Very interesting article. To bring things home for a second and put things in perspective:

lol and look at whose at the top of the list the country whose economy just went the way of the dodo. Ironic?

Death to New Rome: Ironic?



IRONY DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!!

Time to move. Cyprus is looking better every day. Iceland is just too cold/poor.

Hamidou likes Turkey the way it is.

FTFA Evolution is a lightning-rod issue in Turkey.


Is this an electrical theory joke?

Fighting turkey?

I came for the map of the world, showing each country talking about their scientific achievements, with the USA saying "at least we're not monkeys"


/but leaving disappointed

Doctor Jan Itor: Time to move. Cyprus is looking better every day. Iceland is just too cold/poor.



I have always wanted to go to Iceland. They have some of the hardest-core off and on road mentalities on Earth.


I hope they get their fiscal problems in line soon. Cool country and cool people (Halli excluded, of course)

Phil Herup: Doctor Jan Itor: Time to move. Cyprus is looking better every day. Iceland is just too cold/poor.



I have always wanted to go to Iceland. They have some of the hardest-core off and on road mentalities on Earth.


I hope they get their fiscal problems in line soon. Cool country and cool people (Halli excluded, of course)

I see I have upset the resident attention whore a little bit.

Halli (favorite: Icelandic stalker dude): I see I have upset the resident attention whore a little bit.


Awesome. I figured you were out there....lurking....stalking.


Am I right about Iceland and their off-road freaks? I do want to go there one summer with an adventure bike.

As god as my witness..

Turkey is Islamic.

That's basically like a malignant brain tumor. The long-term diagnosis is not good.

Phil Herup: Halli (favorite: Icelandic stalker dude): I see I have upset the resident attention whore a little bit.


Awesome. I figured you were out there....lurking....stalking.


Am I right about Iceland and their off-road freaks? I do want to go there one summer with an adventure bike.

Dude you comment on every single thread in the politics tab. I might as well be stalking the sun and the moon.

But yes you are correct about the off-road nutsos. I see a lot of them on the road and one those guides lives in the same apartment complex. He tends to take up two spaces that jerk. If you are going to come here I would do to it as soon as possible. The exchange rate is very tourist friendly at the moment.

Swampthing in Korea: Turkey is a legally secular Islamic democracy.

FTFY. Separation of mosque and state yada yada.

Most Brits would let Turkey join the EU tomorrow, if only because it would annoy the French.

Halli: Dude you comment on every single thread in the politics tab.


No I don't. But I do stay on about 4 threads/day. If it is about blind Obamadulation, or raising taxes, or hypocrisy... I am interested.


At least I say something more than "attention whore!"


When is the best time to come to Iceland weather wise?

Phil Herup: Halli: Dude you comment on every single thread in the politics tab.


No I don't. But I do stay on about 4 threads/day. If it is about blind Obamadulation, or raising taxes, or hypocrisy... I am interested.


At least I say something more than "attention whore!"


When is the best time to come to Iceland weather wise?

Yeah you say "moonbat" and post your stupid pics.

June/July is fine. August is too rainy.

opiumpoopy: Swampthing in Korea: Turkey is a legally secular Islamic democracy.

FTFY. Separation of mosque and state yada yada.

Most Brits would let Turkey join the EU tomorrow, if only because it would annoy the French.

Yeah, well, Islam does not have a real strong history of separation of church and state, so I am not optimisitc about Turkeys experiment in the long-term.

Swampthing in Korea: Turkey is Islamic.

That's basically like a malignant brain tumor. The long-term diagnosis is not good.

They are also a secular country with, in general, a pretty high acceptance of science. As the article points out the military coup started a backslide from secularism to increasingly religious governments. Surprisingly the problem in Turkey isn't much difference from the involvement oif evangelicals in US politics, it's just that even the more moderate Islamist governments support things like teaching Creationism in schools.

Islam isn't any more of a "brain tumour" than Christianity, Judaism, or any other religion really, it is just that extremism has been much more prevalent due to geopolitical factors in the Middle East. Fundamentalism/Literalism I would agree IS a toxic poison.

Halli: Yeah you say "moonbat" and post your stupid pics.


Lots of moonbats here.

Swampthing in Korea: Islam does not have a real strong history of separation of church and state, so I am not optimisitc about Turkeys experiment in the long-term.

Yeah, well. The experiment has been going on about as long as the US experiment with votes for women. I'm not optimistic about that one either.

entropic_existence: Swampthing in Korea: Turkey is Islamic.

That's basically like a malignant brain tumor. The long-term diagnosis is not good.

They are also a secular country with, in general, a pretty high acceptance of science. As the article points out the military coup started a backslide from secularism to increasingly religious governments. Surprisingly the problem in Turkey isn't much difference from the involvement oif evangelicals in US politics, it's just that even the more moderate Islamist governments support things like teaching Creationism in schools.

Islam isn't any more of a "brain tumour" than Christianity, Judaism, or any other religion really, it is just that extremism has been much more prevalent due to geopolitical factors in the Middle East. Fundamentalism/Literalism I would agree IS a toxic poison.

Actually, the army has been the only thing keeping Secularism intact. The current party in power has been working to loosen the political grip of the armed forces, and has also been introducing some disturbingly Sharia-like policies, such as banning alchohol in Constantinople, establishing prayer sections in schools and to ban pornopgraphy

For societies with an Islamic tradition, secularism is an alien concept and will rarely survive in the long-term. What we are seeing in Turkey is, in my opinion, a gradual move back to Islamic governance.

It's a shame watching the last significant bastion of hope for the Muslim world descend into the fundamentalist cesspool that their dark age Arab and Iranian neighbors dwell in.

What happened to you Turkey, you use to be cool.

opiumpoopy: Swampthing in Korea: Islam does not have a real strong history of separation of church and state, so I am not optimisitc about Turkeys experiment in the long-term.

Yeah, well. The experiment has been going on about as long as the US experiment with votes for women. I'm not optimistic about that one either.

Who gives a flying fellatio what you think about US universal sufferage. Shove it up your equivalency-encrusted butthole.

Swampthing in Korea: Sharia-like policies, such as banning alchohol in Constantinople, establishing prayer sections in schools and to ban pornopgraphy

Sounds like Kentucky.

DarnoKonrad: Swampthing in Korea: Sharia-like policies, such as banning alchohol in Constantinople, establishing prayer sections in schools and to ban pornopgraphy

Sounds like Kentucky.

Excellent comparison! Very relevant, especially when you take into account Kentucky's large Armenian population at the turn of the century.

beoswulf: What happened to you Turkey, you use to be cool.



wondered the same thing

Swampthing in Korea: Excellent comparison! Very relevant, especially when you take into account Kentucky's large Armenian population at the turn of the century.

Agreed. My equivalency-encrusted butthole says it was native Americans - rather than Armenians - that the US gave the comfy-cushion treatment to, not that many years earlier.

/ Do carry on being superior, now.

Swampthing in Korea: For societies with an Islamic tradition, secularism is an alien concept and will rarely survive in the long-term.

It has problems, anyway. Church-state separation is a novel enough idea that there's not enough data to project "long term" with much accuracy.

ninjakirby: Very interesting article. To bring things home for a second and put things in perspective:

Thank you, I came to post this. This whole western idea of "Turkey is proof that a secular muslim state works just fine" is laughable when you see that it's pretty much just for show.

It's kind of how separation of church and state works in, say Alabama. Looks good on paper, doesn't really work that way in reality. They had anti buttsex legislation on the books for how long? Or is it still there? And where do you think that comes from, the secular or the religious?

It doesn't mean they don't have good educational institutions, etc, etc. But if anyone thinks it means that anything outside of the mosques is secular, particularly the government, you're the biggest idiot alive.

opiumpoopy: Most Brits would let Turkey join the EU tomorrow, if only because it would annoy the French.

That'll happen over quite a few country's dead bodies. The majority believes "Turkey is not in Europe = no Union for you". If it EVER happens, it'll take a minimum of 10 and upwards of 20 years. There's just no way.

It's almost as laughable as when some countries wanted to set a Union-wide speed limit, effectively setting all stretches of autobahn to 100 km/h (60-ish mph). The Germans will give up a lot of things (cue jew joke), but you try to take their vehicular freedom, and you're screwed. It's akin to trying to pry firearms from every 2nd amendment loving American. Think about how well that would go.

abb3w: Church-state separation is a novel enough idea that there's not enough data to project "long term" with much accuracy.

Long term? Hasn't your country had it since 1791? What's that, almost 218 years now?

opiumpoopy: Swampthing in Korea: Excellent comparison! Very relevant, especially when you take into account Kentucky's large Armenian population at the turn of the century.

Agreed. My equivalency-encrusted butthole says it was native Americans - rather than Armenians - that the US gave the comfy-cushion treatment to, not that many years earlier.

/ Do carry on being superior, now.

I'm sorry, does that fact somehow negate my right to criticise Turkey?

No?

Then STFU you intellectually-servile twat. Stick to the topic and not introduce unrelated arguments.

Schadenfreude ist die schoenste Freude: abb3w: Church-state separation is a novel enough idea that there's not enough data to project "long term" with much accuracy.

Long term? Hasn't your country had it since 1791? What's that, almost 218 years now?

Actually, it's been 1800 years or so, ever since the Christian church established a religious structure seperate from Roman administration.

Schadenfreude ist die schoenste Freude: opiumpoopy: Most Brits would let Turkey join the EU tomorrow, if only because it would annoy the French.

That'll happen over quite a few countries' dead bodies. The majority believes "Turkey is not in Europe = no Union for you". If it EVER happens, it'll take a minimum of 10 and upwards of 20 years. There's just no way.

I'd guess at least twenty years, too.

But nobody knows the future of the EU. I'm taking bets on Germany electing a communist government, defaulting on its debt and leaving the EU after unemployment rises to twenty percent.

:-/

Swampthing in Korea: Church-state separation is a novel enough idea that there's not enough data to project "long term" with much accuracy.

Long term? Hasn't your country had it since 1791? What's that, almost 218 years now?

Actually, it's been 1800 years or so, ever since the Christian church established a religious structure seperate from Roman administration.

In the UK, we still have bishops and a cardinal in Parliament, and state-funded Christian, Muslim and Jewish schools.

What's this "separation of church and state" thing like?

Swampthing in Korea: Actually, it's been 1800 years or so, ever since the Christian church established a religious structure seperate from Roman administration.

Not so sure about that. You couldn't be Holy Roman Emperor without papal investiture. The HRE and the papacy were one institution with two heads.

I would say it was from about the Enlightenment that you can really start talking about a de facto separation.

opiumpoopy: and a cardinal in Parliament,

whoa. Is that Cardinal O'Connor?

Anglican bishops I can deal with (barely), but a damned papist?

/I'm an atheist, but dammit, I'm an Anglican atheist.

opiumpoopy: Swampthing in Korea: Church-state separation is a novel enough idea that there's not enough data to project "long term" with much accuracy.

Long term? Hasn't your country had it since 1791? What's that, almost 218 years now?

Actually, it's been 1800 years or so, ever since the Christian church established a religious structure seperate from Roman administration.

In the UK, we still have bishops and a cardinal in Parliament, and state-funded Christian, Muslim and Jewish schools.

What's this "separation of church and state" thing like?

Probably will include an Iman too soon since Prince Charles' conversion to Islam he has already declared he is no longer the traditional Defender of the Faith (Church of England) but Defender of Faith. Doubt it would make much of a difference in UK politics.

opiumpoopy: Swampthing in Korea: Church-state separation is a novel enough idea that there's not enough data to project "long term" with much accuracy.

Long term? Hasn't your country had it since 1791? What's that, almost 218 years now?

Actually, it's been 1800 years or so, ever since the Christian church established a religious structure seperate from Roman administration.

In the UK, we still have bishops and a cardinal in Parliament, and state-funded Christian, Muslim and Jewish schools.

What's this "separation of church and state" thing like?

Ruz: opiumpoopy: and a cardinal in Parliament,

whoa. Is that Cardinal O'Connor?

Anglican bishops I can deal with (barely), but a damned papist?

/I'm an atheist, but dammit, I'm an Anglican atheist.

While in medieval history there has been a religious basis for government, the religious entity was still distinct from the political entity.

The two where often at loggerheads, such as the investeture conflict between the HREmperor and the Pope.

While the idea of secular governance, that of government without a religious basis, is relatively new, such an idea only found traction because of the pre-exisiting division of the political body and the religious body.

Swampthing in Korea:
While in medieval history there has been a religious basis for government, the religious entity was still distinct from the political entity.

The two where often at loggerheads, such as the investeture conflict between the HREmperor and the Pope.

While the idea of secular governance, that of government without a religious basis, is relatively new, such an idea only found traction because of the pre-exisiting division of the political body and the religious body.

Didn't the investiture conflict end with the Walk to Canossa?

I think I mis-read your original point. You're arguing that the philosophical underpinnings of secular governance come from an early separation of the apparatus of Empire and Church. Not that there was real separation back then?

I can agree to that to a certain extent, I think, but I still think the Rennaissance and Enlightenment were far more important. They were what actually broke the church's practical strangehold over politics, and allowed later secuarlism.

I was wondering what the relations of church and state were during the 'islamic golden age'. Anyone know?

Ruz: Swampthing in Korea:
While in medieval history there has been a religious basis for government, the religious entity was still distinct from the political entity.

The two where often at loggerheads, such as the investeture conflict between the HREmperor and the Pope.

While the idea of secular governance, that of government without a religious basis, is relatively new, such an idea only found traction because of the pre-exisiting division of the political body and the religious body.

Didn't the investiture conflict end with the Walk to Canossa?

I think I mis-read your original point. You're arguing that the philosophical underpinnings of secular governance come from an early separation of the apparatus of Empire and Church. Not that there was real separation back then?

I can agree to that to a certain extent, I think, but I still think the Rennaissance and Enlightenment were far more important. They were what actually broke the church's practical strangehold over politics, and allowed later secuarlism.

I was wondering what the relations of church and state were during the 'islamic golden age'. Anyone know?

There always was a real seperation, except in ideological terms at the royal level. The two entities have always been distinct from one another.

Likewise the idea of a religious strangle-hold is a myth, since there was always a conflict over who had power in selecting Church authorities.

Swampthing in Korea: There always was a real seperation, except in ideological terms at the royal level. The two entities have always been distinct from one another.

I really don't think it's that cut and dried. Bishops were prince-electors for the HRE, the pope invested etc. The church performed state administrative functions because they were the best educated. There was a nominal separation, but a 'real' one would have to wait until later.

/this argument has been raging for about 200 years among historians. I say we can solve it here on Fark. This totally isn't a futile exercise...

Ruz: Swampthing in Korea: There always was a real seperation, except in ideological terms at the royal level. The two entities have always been distinct from one another.

I really don't think it's that cut and dried. Bishops were prince-electors for the HRE, the pope invested etc. The church performed state administrative functions because they were the best educated. There was a nominal separation, but a 'real' one would have to wait until later.

/this argument has been raging for about 200 years among historians. I say we can solve it here on Fark. This totally isn't a futile exercise...

Oh course, nothing is that simple, but in many other places, there was a solid distinction, and in ideological terms the Church was seen as independent of political authority.

You have to remember how the Church developed. It was an entity in opposition to the Roman Empire for several centuries. This led to the development of an identity thoroughly seperate from that of the existing state.

opiumpoopy: In the UK, we still have bishops and a cardinal in Parliament, and state-funded Christian, Muslim and Jewish schools.

What's this "separation of church and state" thing like?

Actually one could argue that today there are many modern secular countries without explicit separation of church and state that have far less religious influence on every day life or government then somewhere like the US with its explicit separation. Canada for instance has no official separation of church and state (but no official state religion either), and the same goes for the UK and yet there is less religious influence on government. And of course there is Sweden with the state Church of Sweden and it is one of the least religious countries in the world.

Food for thought anyway. I read an article on the subject awhile back but I forget the author. His idea was that explicit separation leads to religious groups feeling excluded and so they become more political as a result.

Swampthing in Korea: ideological terms the Church was seen as independent of political authority.

Yes, I agree with you there, but I really don't think it works the other way around. From about 800 AD to about 1600 the state was not independent of Church authority, and in those few instances where a head-of-state directly opposed the Church, more often than not he was forced to grovel (Henry IV).

But I do agree that the early church strove for independence from domination by the State; as it developed and got more powerful it exercised its influence over medieval governance.

entropic_existence: Food for thought anyway. I read an article on the subject awhile back but I forget the author. His idea was that explicit separation leads to religious groups feeling excluded and so they become more political as a result.

My favourite argument about that phenomenon is the economic-based one.

Some European countries have one religion and for years fought agains the introduction of any others. They expelled the [Catholics/protestants/jews/muslims delete as required], and intertwined their state was a particular relgious demonination. This effectively creates a monopoly, and we know the problems of monopoly in a market. They lack incentives to innovate, they don't care for their customers, etc. Thus customers have decided that they can take-or-leave the product that's being sold, and have become apathetic.

Whereas American, by its explicit rejection of a state-founded religion has basically opened its collective soul to an unregulated market for religion. Separation of Church and State essentially means the government can't/won't interfere in how a church markets itself, or how it appeals to the congregation. What you have, therefore, are a bunch of small-medium denominations trying to out-compete each other, racing to the extreme; their competition point is righteousness (i.e. follow us and you'll be saved), rather than price.

Due to the competition, choice, and 'quality' of the product, religion is a lot more popular in the US.

/Go free market!
/I know that model has a lot of flaws, but it's always been one that's appealed.

Ruz: Due to the competition, choice, and 'quality' of the product, religion is a lot more popular in the US.

/Go free market!
/I know that model has a lot of flaws, but it's always been one that's appealed.

An interesting argument to be sure. I don't know whether I would consider it a good thing or not except that is also does give us more liberal religious denominations as well, they just tend to be a minority, such as Universalists (or Unitarians in general), the United Church here in Canada, etc.