One of the purposes of the Ataturk Society of America (ASA) is to get the general public acquainted with the ideas and the legacy of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. He had just fifteen years to express these ideas. After him some of his principles have been interpreted by many people in such a way that they can appear to endorse the agenda of the interpreter. Thus, one of the tasks of this column will have to be the sorting out of these interpretations and the cleansing of Ataturk principles from any phony interpretations. We will return to this point when discussing Ataturk's so- called statism.
One of the common mistakes encountered among many writers is the mixing up of the six arrows of the Republican Peoples' Party (announced in the mid- twenties) with Ataturk's principles. The six arrows were the six planks of the platform of that party and were designed for the Turkish society of the 1920's. On the other hand, the principles of Ataturk are universal and are applicable to any society at any time. We should not be surprised to find that even some of the staunchest supporters of Ataturk are not quite clear on this point. A dear old friend of mine wrote me recently, that his father (Who was very close to Ataturk)thought that Ataturk was not really correctly understood by many of his close associates, most probably because he was way ahead of his time. It is much easier of us to appreciate him now in retrospect. Another dear friend of mine (also a staunch Ataturk admirer) wrote me recently from Turkey that, "It would be useful [for the ASA](*) to investigate the influence of new [social] factors. Today the Turkish person of the large masses is searching for ways of a subjective happiness. He probably is trying to compensate for the difficulties of reaching prosperity [in the present Turkish society.] This breeds social factions that are receptive to religious fundamentalism. It would be difficult to find the conditions of the 20's in this atmosphere. Thus, a synthesis seems necessary to prevent further desertions[of good people to fundamentalism]There must be a synthesis between rationalism for living a contemporary life, and religion that would satisfy peoples' inner worlds."My friend was genuinely concerned. I think, I can allay his fears, because Ataturk's principles do provide for the need of that proverbial "mass person" who wants both to live as a modern man and also would like to have a religious inner life. In this system of thoughts, there are no conflicts at all between these two desires. Let me explain:
Ataturk found out during his studies of the writers of the French Enlightenment Period, during his school years, that a society that makes its daily decisions based on religion, tradition,and superstition, is not fit to survive in the modern world where people make such decisions rationally, i.e. by using their heads. This is especially true for Islamic countries, since the Koran prescribes a complete way of life extending to every daily task of a person. Consequently, the first thing to do to save the "Sick man on the Bosphorus" was to get him started to ACT RATIONALLY in his daily life. Ataturk coined the phrase, "THE TRUEST GUIDE IN LIFE IS SCIENCE" that he let the Ankara University inscribe on its portico. That is one of his most important principles. We may call it the "rationalism principle." When one uses one's head, instead of following what the Koran, or some other book say on that matter, one obviously steps on a territory claimed for centuries by religion. If one analyses the Koran, the message that Islam is projecting can be classified as follows:
(a) Belief in a supreme being called "Allah" or "God" and the necessity to worship that being -- The attributes of that being. Much of Jewish and Christian theology is included.
(b) A history of the formation of the World and of the universe (Genesis.)
(c) Rules of individual human and social behavior and morality.
(d) Rules of personal hygiene.
Let us start from (d): No sane person would ignore today modern medicine and Western comfort and start using 1370 years old rules of hygiene made for the Arabian desert. It simply would be preposterous. We would not want to rub our skin with dirt when we can wash it with deodorizing soap and warm water.
Let us move up to (c):The rules of human behavior and morality were strictly formulated in the Sharia, or Islamic law, that defined women as second-class citizens completely dominated by men. Most of the Sharia system is simply unacceptable for a modern person. That is why Ataturk officially replaced it in the 1920's by contemporary legal codes borrowed from the most advanced civilized nations of Europe.
Let us move up to (b): The history of the formation of the World and of the Universe, as described in the Koran, has been taken from the "Genesis" section of the Bible. Modern science tells us with great persuasion that the World WAS NOT created in seven days, or in seven years, or in seven centuries. The estimated age of the World, as measured by carbon dating, is about five billion years. The age of the universe is calculated to be about fifteen billion years, give and take a few billion years. Are we going to ignore all these scientific proofs and accept an unsubstantiated story, because it is in "the book"?
Let us now come to (a): That is the only aspect of religion that Ataturk's principles left untouched. Because science cannot tell us how to select our goals and aims, what kind of person we would like to become, and what kind of life we should live. This whole area is properly left to religion. Thus, without calling it a religious reform, Ataturk succeeded in eliminating a large part of Islam from our life and left just "a" in the realm of religion.
Here comes the concept of SECULARISM that gives every one the right to chose his or her religion and the ban on mixing religion and politics. It means that in everyday life, a person will act rationally and not by following the tenets of any religion, tradition, or superstition. (This would not make any difference to a Christian, since Christianity did not prescribe a complete way of life as Islam did. Christians in the Western World have been living a rational life for a long time) Although Islamic fundamentalists accused this view of Ataturk as "religion-lessness", or heresy, secularism never argued against the credos of any religion. That was left to citizens as something between them and their "God." But this does not satisfy the "Islamists," as the Islamic fundamentalists want to be called.They state that, "Islam is not a menu from which one may select a few items and leave the rest. One has to take the whole menu, otherwise one is not a Moslem.That means, that in order to call one self "Moslem," a person would have to renounce modern laws and accept the Sharia, integrate politics and religion, thus give up democracy and human rights as we know it today.In a secular and democratic society, as in Turkey, no one can dictate to others what he should believe, how much of the menu he should select, and what he should do to call himself or herself Moslem, Christian, or Jewish, or what ever. FIRST PRIORITY IS THE NATION'S SURVIVAL IN THE MODERN WORLD, and if that is not satisfying some groups, so be it.
So, let us return to my dear friend's concern. Actually, no synthesis is required between the principles of Ataturk and the needs of an inner life. A synthesis between two ideas (or two chemical compounds) means that both original ideas (or chemical compounds) are changed to form a synthetic product. However, there is no need for the principles of Ataturk to be modified, since a person's inner life is outside the realm of science, and hence, there is no conflict between Ataturk's principles and the so-called "spiritual needs" of a person. A person may perfectly live a rational everyday life, and yet search for an objective or subjective way to happiness through religion, philosophy, or whatever. Neither in Turkey, nor in any Western country are there any legal impediments for it. The best insurance for preventing defections to fundamentalism is a sound secular education,like the one my friend and I have received in Turkey in the 1930's.
As peoples in civilized countries are increasingly better educated, there are some movements to fix the religious theologies that appear "broken" to a modern person. This is a very exciting, but a very tough and touchy problem. The true purpose of a modern religion is being discussed, one that should emphasize the improvement of the individual and of the society, rather than insistence on colorful rituals or faith on ancient theologies. Such discussions are possible and very desirable in free societies. Try to do it in Iran, and you will get a contract on your life. However, all of that is none of the business of the ASA. We will defend everyone's right to believe what he likes to believe, but we will never tell him what to believe. That is, as long as he or she does not jeopardize the survivability of the society. That is responsible religious freedom that is guaranteed by the constitutions of Turkey, as well as that of the United States.
What we cannot be impartial to, is the interference of the Turkish State in the struggle between fundamentalist Islam and the constitutional secularism, especially when the state interferes on the side of fundamentalism by financing thousands of Imam-Preacher schools that are production centers for fanatical fundamentalists. This is unbelievable! How can a government be supporting something that is aimed at destroying the very state system, that its members have sworn on their honor to protect? What kind of people are they? We will talk more about that in future editorials.
In the foregoing,we discussed the rationalism and the secularism principles of Ataturk. We will discuss other principles in future columns.
Orhan Tarhan <TURDEDE@aol.com> Vice President , ASA
(*) Bracketed words were added by the editor to clarify the quotations for our readers.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
ORHAN TARHAN
M. ORHAN TARHAN is a founding member and the vice President of the Ataturk Society of America (ASA) . He is editing the "Voice Of ASA" , and for the last nine years, he has been an associate editor of "TUrkish Times". For seven years in the 1970's, he wrote articles in "Turk Evi" a periodical published in NewYork City.
In the 1960's and 1970's he was involved with the Foreign Policy Association of the Lehigh Valley and he was elected its president for two years. He was born in Istanbul and studied Chemical engineering in Germany during WWII. He worked in the steel industry both in Turkey and the United states for 38 years. He also taught courses at Lehigh University and in Private continuing Education courses he organized. He is the author of a book on Catalytic Reactor Design published by McGraw Hill and has 16 USA and foreign patents.He is a professional Engineer registered in Pennsylvania and Maryland.