Being a Religious Democrat

“A Modern Typology of Religiosity”

Religion, which is the sum of divine principles that will ensure the happiness of people in this world and in the hereafter, appeals to those who have reason. We saw what would happen when it appealed to minds manipulated by some secret centers on July 15, 2016, during the terrorist coup attempt.

Religion is expressed as faith, Islam (peace) and ihsan (correctness in word and deed). In this context, religion has two sources. The first is “fitrat”, which is a gift from God and its direction. The second is “kesb”. Within the framework of internal and external conditions, it is related to the thought in which emotion is also a factor. Therefore, kesb; Contrary to nature, it can adapt a person to his whims and whims, and lead him to rebellion, violence and terror. To avoid this, it is said, "Hold on to the nature of Allah". Because "religion" is not to change the nature, but to improve the general peace and peace in the nature. In that case, religion is all of the laws of right and goodness that can be imitated by reason and free choice as the law of faith and practice of man.

Religiosity is an attribute of a person, an attitude that belongs to the person; In other words, it is the competition of goodness and beauty by knowing the principles of the religion/fitrah of man. Therefore, piety and piety are what people earn by working. Failing to make this distinction means falling into informational errors. Besides, being knowledgeable about religion is not enough to be religious. Putting this into practice takes place with justice, which is the sum of three theoretical achievements (wisdom, chastity, bravery).

A Religious Democrat Cannot Say Goodbye:

The coup attempt of 15 July 2016 has shown that "Religious Democrats" can be free and self-confident individuals who prioritize individual rights and freedoms, and cannot be a member of a community that demands collective rights. Because the person identifies with the religious imagination of that community and the political party it supports, one may think that the imagination of other political structures and/or communities or religious groups is absolute heresy. There may be a risk that partisanship in politics will turn into partisanship between communities this time, and this situation has become more evident after 15 July.

For this reason, the Religious Democrat does not have to provide legitimacy to say "ehvunu'ş-şer" and choose one of the two wrongs. Because in this case, the following questions are prioritized:

Questions:

- It is essential to get rid of greater evil and not harm, but does it require support because it is less harmful?

- If the basic principle is not to say yes to wrong in any case, wouldn't doing something useful to the government's benefit by saying that they will not do any more harm will not cause them to perpetuate the other rare evil/evil?

- If we ask in the context of Islamic moral philosophy, doesn't it mean to indirectly contribute to the corrupting structure of power in cases where the passion for power (wrath/anger) could not balance and there is a high probability of exaggeration?

- If every group and congregation thinks alike and gives support to help me, how will the government see its mistakes?

Because those who balance the power of lust in Islamic moral philosophy are chastity; Those who use the power of reason moderately have wisdom, those who use the power of wrath appropriately have courage. At the end of these three modest powers, justice is realized. If one is missing, justice becomes more difficult.

Before and After the Referendum:

The conclusion I have drawn from the debates before and after the 2017 referendum in Turkey in the context of this conceptualization is as follows:

Before the referendum, people who had a religious and democratic attitude did not surrender to the polarizing language regardless of which right conservative party (MHP, BBP, SP). In this respect, the fact that the ethnic and/or religion-centered polarizing and polarizing language is no longer a solution to be fed by ethnic and religious divisions was perhaps the most important and positive contribution of this referendum.

After the referendum, since the beginning of the European Union membership process, Turkey's stability has been an anchor in terms of economic and political reforms, with a religious and democratic vision, without falling into the Muslim and Christian dilemma.

Democratic Attitude:

A democratic attitude confirms the following findings of Karluk. “He wants Turkey's relations with the EU not to be severed. Because the standards valid in the EU; It brings contemporary regulations to fundamental areas such as individual rights and freedoms, the rule of law, separation of powers, pluralist democracy, independence of the judiciary, and impartiality of justice. The European Union membership process has served as an anchor for Turkey's stability and economic and political reforms from the very beginning.

This may be the political outcome of the Religious Democrat vision, which does not fall into the Muslim and Christian democrat dilemma; It will also contribute to the philosophical and sociological aspects as follows. Values ​​that are eroded by making politics an instrument of religion and/or atheism may cause them to think that there will be no "moment" to be accounted for, and this may feed social turmoil and anarchism.

A further stage of this is nihilism. Indeed, there is a close relationship between anarchism and nihilism. Nihilism (nihilism) ignores all religious/moral and metaphysical values. 

The Importance of the Republic and Secularism:

At this point, it is necessary to emphasize the importance of secularism as a system that provides an equal distance to all religious values ​​and to be fair in terms of the number of its followers when the Republic was established.

Secularism can provide the opportunity for all religious conceptions to live in a peaceful environment with a pluralist universality design and can prevent religion-centered polarizations. As such, the problems that arise from using politics as a tool for religion and/or irreligion can be minimized and resolved. I attach great importance to this issue, because paradoxically, those who want to "use secularism as a religious ideology" make the greatest contribution to those who try to ensure access to power and authority by using politics as a tool for religion.

In order to break through this paradox and produce a solution, it is necessary to show that the "Secular Modern Identity and Religious Anti-Modern Identity Distinction" is inconsistent.

Religious Democrat: May Be Barrier From Using Religion In Politics

Religious Democrat, ignoring the multidimensional and complex nature of secularism at the political and social level; As a result of a monolithic, one-dimensional and reductionist definition of religion-state separation, secular modern identity and religious anti-modern identity may prevent the consolidation of the separation.

In this context, if we make a logical analysis of the distinction between secular modern identity and religious anti-modern identity, briefly; While identifying secularism and modernity, it is presented as contradictory to religiousness; one does not require the absence of the other, a medium understanding and understanding can be achieved.

In this respect, modern Turkey is both a Muslim country; If the analysis of its emergence as a nation-state, which is also secular, is analyzed, the difference will emerge at this point. The Republic of Turkey, as a secular, democratic and social state of law, as a result of the search for a parliamentary system, the foundation of which goes back to the I and II constitutionalisms; It shows that secularism and religiosity are not contradictory, and the existence of one does not necessitate the absence of the other.

Secularization and Modern Nation Building:

Secularization means transforming the society, which is thought to have fallen behind as a founding element of Turkish modernization, into a secular and modern nation; It has also functioned as a vital political project involving claims of recognition and difference of religious identity. Therefore, secularism and religiosity are not contradictory to each other. Necessary conditions have been tried to be prepared for both of them to live together at the same time, but in different fields (secular state, religious or secular individual).

In this framework, the founding elite, who thought that the construction of the modern nation would be possible with Western secular logic and scientific rationality, made a series of radical changes known to everyone in order to achieve objective secularization. Secularism, the natural result of the separation of religion and state, the state's policy of being neutral towards all religions and not preferring one over the other, continued to function as the institutional and constitutional control of religious affairs, and the Directorate of Religious Affairs was established. This institution states that there is no contradiction between secularism and religiosity; It is the study of whether one can live in a pluralistic way without ignoring the other. The aim here is to prevent the use of religion as a political tool by developing a "Modern Religious Typology".

Conclusion:

Religious Democratic attitude; The principle of "do not do evil and violate the rights of anyone, if you do not want to live with evil" knows no time, place and limit. Therefore, staying away from the current chaos and confusion means not being a party to the conflict, being on the side of the right and truth. In this sense, if necessary, one cannot choose one of the existing political structures as the lesser evil. He risks being expelled from 9 villages by keeping an apolitical attitude and talking about truth/justice, but he knows that the 10th village is getting crowded. Since he is aware that the injustice done to a person is against the whole humanity, he does not feel uncomfortable about it.

In this sense, a “Religious and Democrat” attitude may seem like a political one; but it is actually a political stance. Therefore, the Religious-Democratic attitude, in order not to harm the eternal wisdom/truth, especially in the conflicts made in the name of religion and religious values, is actually to be a party in itself, by staying in a positive action without hurting, without resorting to violence, and standing politically moderate.