Turkey as an EU candidate

I do not think that a military state as Turkey,with a regime being in power for more than a half of the century,with a corruption so big that you cannot find any solution, will change just because half of Europe "asks" it.

- Croatia: Involved in ethnical war with neighbours just 10 years ago or so. Still harbouring war criminals. I am not sure how democratic it is but I think not much. I am sure it is quite corrupt. Fasttracked because Germany owns most of it anyway and they want to buy the rest too, probably. Is set to start accession talks the same time as Turkey, although it was not even a candidate until recently.

And Croatia started a lame dispute about the naval border in some bay between Croatia and Slovenia, mainly because Slovenia might not be allowed to join the EU because of that. So it was just jealousy.
The no border dispute demand is really subject of double standards. Almost every European country has a border dispute. Even the Netherlands have one. (with Venezuela)

Originally posted by Winterhaze13 First, it is primarily Muslim, but the country is very secularized as well as westernized. Although, there are countries liek Poland who want the EU consititution to restrict Muslim influence.

 

Where did you take it from? All that Poland wanted to put into constitution was a little mention of christian heriate of Europe. Personally im atheist but i see nothing wrong in saying truth. Christianity in medieval times made Europe united, even if divided on many countries.

Edited by Mosquito

I am quite certain the Christians of the time didn't much appreciate their kids becoming yeni ceri ...but whatever. For many Christian families that was a way to give their kid a better future, and themselves one as well.

I wouldn't call the Ottomans "more tolerant" than the Byzantines, although there is little doubt that tht Ottoman Empire was indeed the most advanced state after the collapse of the Roman Empire.

And as a sidenote, Christian Church (any Christian Church) was never heavy on the tolerance side. Centuries upon centuries of inquisition, burning of ancient manuscripts, extermination or conversion of the heathens, crusades, countles crimes against humanity, are speaking volumes about this.

Islam's record isn't excactly spotles either

Originally posted by azimuth Let's not hijack this interesting thread with "who was more tolerant Isalm or Christinity" - if you are really interested open a relevant topic. Alright?

no, not interested

Originally posted by Beylerbeyi If by this you mean converting the young Christian boys and putting them in their janasaries than your correct. ( Hence the reason why alot of Turks have a European look to them) But, I think you already no that.  Coverting christians to become Janisseries, on the other hand, is definitely not the reason why Turks look like 'Europeans' (whatever that means).

I think you know whatever that means. Maybe this will help you. It means NOT having an asiatic look such as the Mongols and the Stepe (dono how to spell it) look, because that is were the "original" Turks came from.

 Actually ban of relgigion was one of the very few good points of communism. People should believe in the state, the leader or something else that definetely exists and can actually be asked for refferrence on stuff. Not some anceint book that is not clear in many parts.

Originally posted by Mosquito Originally posted by dark_one  Actually ban of relgigion was one of the very few good points of communism. People should believe in the state, the leader or something else that definetely exists and can actually be asked for refferrence on stuff. Not some anceint book that is not clear in many parts.   Thats what i was talking about. Barbarian in the roman garden. Thats not our european but rather asian ideology.

I don't think many opponents of mentioning Christianity in the constitution think people should fully believe in the state of the leader or something like that.

I think you know whatever that means. Maybe this will help you. It means NOT having an asiatic look such as the Mongols and the Stepe (dono how to spell it) look, because that is were the "original" Turks came from.

I just wanted to clarify. Europeans are confused about their identity. Apparently you consider the Mediterranean-Middle Eastern look European (I guess you would since that's what the Greeks look like as well). But not all people do so.

thats stinks, its comunist way of thinking. Burn everything what was in the past and build new world on the ashes and ruins of the old world. You cant cut off the history and start everything from begining.

This is completely wrong. You are confusing Modernity with Communism. Communism is indeed a modern ideology, but not all that is modern is Communist. One of the first and most radical and anti-clerical of revolutions was the French revolution of 1789, and it was basically a Bourgeois revolution.

As well as being European means somthing more than just being born in Europe. Its a culture, tradition, way of thinking, philosophy, which is deeply rooted in every real European.

Like all other modern identities, this one is 'artificial' as well. In pre-modern times there was no European identity. And in the beginning, it did not include the Slavs and the Balkans (talking about the Western point of view). Now they are expanding it. Look carefully and you can see that it is being manufactured right now. Reading history will show you that Western Europe has considered itself a separate entity from Eastern and Southern Europe until very recently. Middle East is called the 'middle' because Eastern Europe was the 'Near East'. Even in the 19th century Metternich said 'Asia starts where the East-bound road leaves Vienna'...

And christianity (doesnt matter if it was catholicism or protestantism) was for more than millenium the basic background of everything what was made in Europe.

Someone said science and technology did more for Western culture in 100 years than Christianity did for 1000 years. You say Christianity unified Europe, but you are wrong because it unified only the areas with the same level of development and the same sect. For the Catholics of the west, there was little difference between the Muslims and the Orthodox... Events of the Crusades prove this point.

Thats what i was talking about. Barbarian in the roman garden. Thats not our european but rather asian ideology.

Here you see the different people trying to define what European identity is. Mosquito is quite convinced that secularism and modernism are non-European ideas, belonging to Asia, a popular view among the Poles, apparently. Whereas many people here (and in more developed states of Western Europe) would say modernism and secularism are European inventions and traditionalism and religious politics are 'Asiatic'. My personal opinion is that it is ridiculous to claim that modernism or strictly modern ideologies like Communism, Fascism, Democracy, Nationalism, etc. are 'non-European'. Like it or not, Communism is far more European than Christianity ever was or ever will be.

I just wanted to clarify. Europeans are confused about their identity. Like all other modern identities, this one is 'artificial' as well. In pre-modern times there was no European identity. And in the beginning, it did not include the Slavs and the Balkans (talking about the Western point of view).

When i talk about european culture im talking about the culture which have its roots in ancient Greece and Rome - which were brought by catholic church to even such far countries like Poland, which has never been a roman province. In fact in Poland in the 16th and 17th century more people spoke latin than in any other european kingdom. One English traveler even wrote that in Poland more people speak latin than in Latium.

Someone said science and technology did more for Western culture in 100 years than Christianity did for 1000 years. You say Christianity unified Europe, but you are wrong because it unified only the areas with the same level of development and the same sect. For the Catholics of the west, there was little difference between the Muslims and the Orthodox... Events of the Crusades prove this point.

Again wrong. Many times you have been stressing that catholics were not tollerant or that for them was no difference between  the Muslims and the Orthodox. But in Poland - if you will allowe me to use again this example were living in peace members of all the religions, catholics, protestants, orthodox christians, jews and muslims. All agreed to live in peace together. And some of the orthodox christians joined to catholic church and formed new Greek Catholic Church - so called unite church. Individuality and freedom of belives was first and most important right of every man and noone was forcing anyone to change religion.

Affcourse you can say that Spain also was a catholic country and there situation was different but it doesnt proove anything. It only means that situation in every country was different and the fact of being "catholic" is not same with being "crusader", "non tollerant" or "secret agent of holy inqusition". As well as today being muslim doesnt mean the same as being terrorist.

Here you see the different people trying to define what European identity is. Mosquito is quite convinced that secularism and modernism are non-European ideas, belonging to Asia, a popular view among the Poles, apparently. Whereas many people here (and in more developed states of Western Europe) would say modernism and secularism are European inventions and traditionalism and religious politics are 'Asiatic'. My personal opinion is that it is ridiculous to claim that modernism or strictly modern ideologies like Communism, Fascism, Democracy, Nationalism, etc. are 'non-European'. Like it or not, Communism is far more European than Christianity ever was or ever will be.

Im glad that you mentioned Communism, Fascism and Nationalism.

The problem with these ideologies was that they were not based on humanism while humanism seems to be the essence of Europe and main difference between european culture and other cultures. 

Humanism is present in christianity and to lesser extent also in islam. First from christianity and later also from human nature, reason etc philosophers and lawyers since the medieval times till the 20th century were deriving the roots of natural law. This was the background of all the philosophical and legal systems invented in Europe since medieval ages till today, including liberalism - with the exceptions - communism and fascism. From St. Francis, trough Grotius, Pufendorf, Spinoza to Locke, Kant or Stammler. Do you think that without those earlier philosophers you would have those who came later?

Technology, secularism and modernism  is a one thing but without some humanist background they change into such monstrums like fascism and communism.

Edited by Mosquito