The November 10th Tribute to Ataturk in Turkey

Mar 2016
806
Antalya
"Revered" means what it means,
revereDictionary result for revere
/rɪˈvɪə/
verb
past tense: revered; past participle: revered
  1. feel deep respect or admiration for (something).
    "Cézanne's still lifes were revered by his contemporaries"
    synonyms:respect, admire, think highly of, have a high opinion of, hold in high regard, esteem, hold in (high) esteem, think much of, approve of, appreciate, cherish, value, set (great) store by, prize, treasure, look up to; More

Deep respect and admiration. It doesn't imply a religious admiration. Hyperbole is not an argument.

Non-Turks can reasonably acknowledge his importance, even admire his skills as a nation-builder and a reformer.
I will not dive into semantics discussion. It's boring and tiring but this part of your post is rather interesting and is in line with what I have been saying since the start. The ethnicity and nationality is relevant to admiring respecting a historical figure in what way? Why shouldn't I revere Peter the Great? Why shouldn't I have respect for him? Because I am not Russian?

But "revere"? Why should they, in your opinion?
The actual question is if you think the achievements of Ataturk are something to be respected, why shouldn't you?
 

Solidaire

Ad Honorem
Aug 2009
5,598
Athens, Greece
"Revered" means what it means,
revereDictionary result for revere
/rɪˈvɪə/
verb
past tense: revered; past participle: revered
  1. feel deep respect or admiration for (something).
    "Cézanne's still lifes were revered by his contemporaries"
    synonyms:respect, admire, think highly of, have a high opinion of, hold in high regard, esteem, hold in (high) esteem, think much of, approve of, appreciate, cherish, value, set (great) store by, prize, treasure, look up to; More

Deep respect and admiration. It doesn't imply a religious admiration. Hyperbole is not an argument.



I will not dive into semantics discussion. It's boring and tiring but this part of your post is rather interesting and is in line with what I have been saying since the start. The ethnicity and nationality is relevant to admiring respecting a historical figure in what way? Why shouldn't I revere Peter the Great? Why shouldn't I have respect for him? Because I am not Russian?


The actual question is if you think the achievements of Ataturk are something to be respected, why shouldn't you?
I'm sorry, I understand the term "revere" differently, not as another word for "admire" or "respect". To me, it implies deep honour, held in the highest possible regard, almost in a religious manner. Something along these lines:

Definition of REVERE
: to show devoted deferential honor to : regard as worthy of great honor

Synonyms for revere
Synonyms: Verb
adore, deify, glorify, reverence, venerate, worship

Perhaps a native English speaker could help us with the term.

Anyway, I do agree that a discussion about semantics is boring, as long as we can get across what we really mean. Perhaps this whole thing has been a misunderstanding. I do respect Ataturk, acknowledge him as a great statesman, even admire several of his skills. I thought that much was clear in my posts. But I do not revere him. I had been clear about this too from the start, to me, reverence is something reserved for very few individuals that have pan-human weight, people that have contributed in one way or another to the advancement of more than a group of people. Ethnicity and nationality have nothing to do with it, on the contrary, those worthy of reverence are exactly people transcending these group definitions. I can understand admiring Peter the Great, Ataturk, or any other historical personality, irrespective of nationality or any other group characteristics. But if you say you feel reverence for, say, Peter the Great, I'd be curious to understand why, as I see no reason for that myself. The same with Ataturk. I think by now I have made myself clear in which context I understand the word "revere".
 

JoanOfArc007

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
3,810
USA
Surely you can see the fact that Islam as a religion is practiced peacefully by the many Muslims that live with Christians, Hindus and other non Muslims. In Catholic Majority Rwanda in Africa, where 95 % of the population is Christian there are also Muslims. In speaking with a Rwandan Immigrant(she was very attractive and intelligent she was 5"10 tall just a few inches shorter then me) to my area in the USA, she said that in Rwanda there is respect for each others religious traditions and there is a growing tourist market. Islam is a liberating religion that supports equality among man. Its why Muslims today are the 2nd biggest religion and contribute in the Science and medical fields. There over 50 Muslim majority countries in the world, and there is also Lebanon which is half Muslim half Christian. It is a fact that in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq that Muslims, Jews, and Christians and more work together in the military, in hospitals in the police force, etc. A Its the first hand experience of people and history that show us both Islam and Christianity are religions that support freedom. Crime otoh which includes intolerance is a worldwide issue and there have been bad Christians and bad Muslims throughout history but one simply cannot deny how today that Christianity is the most followed religion and Islam the 2nd most both religions peacefully gaining adherents everywhere in the world. Every day someone makes it their own choice to join Islam or Christianity. And yes perhaps everyday a Muslim freely leaves Islam, and a Christian freely lives Christianity.



The very fact of the matter is that today Spain is 2 % Muslim, Spain of course had a rich Islamic history see the Golden Age of Islam in Spain. And Turkey today sees a 1 % Christian population. The USA used to be a Pagan entity before the European Christians arrived. Today the USA is some 80+% Christian but 1500 years ago the masses had a different religion. History shows us that things change, and often the change brings with it more liberal values. If anything all the more reason for you to side with Ataturk and with Islam even. Any Muslim can go and visit Spain, and any Christian can visit Turkey. Sure each group has its controversial history that being said we can clearly see that Spaniards do not hate Muslims. And Turks do not hate Christians. Also where Turkey prevails ahead of all other middle eastern countries is in terms of its social life, intermarriage and inter dating is allowed in Turkey as it is in Spain. Today while Spain is 2 % Muslim, one can find Mosques in Spain. In Turkey one can note Catholic Mass Ceremony celebrated in Sunday in Ankara for example.

5 Most Impressive Historic Mosques in Spain - History Lists

5 Most Impressive Historic Mosques in Spain - History Lists

One can be glad that it is Ataturk that is respected in Turkey and that the perhaps most famous Turk of all time to the world is Ataturk. Would you rather Ataturk not have existed?

Ataturk did bring women the ability to vote in Turkey in a time when some Christian majority countries did not allow women to vote. In Switzerland for example, women did not get the right to vote until the 1970s. In Turkey under Ataturk a women could dress as she pleased.. Those that oppose these basic types of rights of the people of ISIL and AQ is that the types of people you would have rather had led Turkey?
Forgot to add this link to the above post. In Turkey and in part due to the legacy of Ataturk, there are to this day proudly standing Christian Churches in Turkey,

6 Churches In Turkey You Need To Visit On Your Next Trip!
 

JoanOfArc007

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
3,810
USA
No, you have not responded to the allegations of the Armenian Genocide and the behavior of the Turks who deny it unless you are forced to it, and even when forced then you only do it reluctantly and with precautions.

We both know that you have praised the Dhimmi-system and Devshirme-system and idiotically asserted that it was good for the Christians.

We both know why. ;)




Not every country have “controversial history” in such a degree to outright deny the genocide, sponsor genocide denial and create museums to deny the genocide as the Turks do. Turks are particularly famous for it, hence why the Armenian Genocide has replaced Holocaust as the most researched topic the last 10 years due to the attention Turks’ denial have caused.





No, Turkey don’t have liberal values, never have, and even these days Turkey jails more journalists than Iran does.

Ataturk caused modernization and secularism. Not liberalism or "liberal values".




You have been destroyed both historically and logically and your meltdown shows it.
Its all in your head my friend. Now your making up additional beliefs for me. I have always stood by all the great religions of our world which support equality among man. The way you use the word Dhimmi is how anti Jewish people used the Word Goyim...and in response to you we have liberal people of all religions and skin colors saying Islam, Christianity and other religions stand for equality among man. Im not getting into this religious debate here itt, this is a thread about Ataturk but all throughout this board various posters have shown Islam like other religions supports democratic and free values.

In Islam a Christian, Atheist and Muslim are to be equally treated. If you want to disagree feel free, but you lose the conversation every time you resort to making up other peoples beliefs or using slurs to describe entire groups of people. You should know I have nothing agaisnt you, I humbly ask you to not engage in personal suggestions and the like.

You are bringing up the Armenian genocide but not responding to the point about how every country has a controversial history. Its on you to accept people for whom they are. Of course in any discussion, anyone can say well I think this person is not a Catholic, but in a civil setting you can not talk like that. Facts overcome the bullies of the world. You are a better person then what you have been showing itt, look at your language your using this term "Camel Urine" what are you doing? You are better then this my friend.

Ataturk was indeed a contributor to liberal values. The points have been posted as in the liberal way, Ataturk brought women equal rights in a time in the 20th century when some countries in Europe and worldwide did not allow women the right to vote.
 
Mar 2016
806
Antalya
I'm sorry, I understand the term "revere" differently, not as another word for "admire" or "respect". To me, it implies deep honour, held in the highest possible regard, almost in a religious manner. Something along these lines:

Definition of REVERE
: to show devoted deferential honor to : regard as worthy of great honor

Synonyms for revere
Synonyms: Verb
adore, deify, glorify, reverence, venerate, worship

Perhaps a native English speaker could help us with the term.

Anyway, I do agree that a discussion about semantics is boring, as long as we can get across what we really mean. Perhaps this whole thing has been a misunderstanding. I do respect Ataturk, acknowledge him as a great statesman, even admire several of his skills. I thought that much was clear in my posts. But I do not revere him. I had been clear about this too from the start, to me, reverence is something reserved for very few individuals that have pan-human weight, people that have contributed in one way or another to the advancement of more than a group of people. Ethnicity and nationality have nothing to do with it, on the contrary, those worthy of reverence are exactly people transcending these group definitions. I can understand admiring Peter the Great, Ataturk, or any other historical personality, irrespective of nationality or any other group characteristics. But if you say you feel reverence for, say, Peter the Great, I'd be curious to understand why, as I see no reason for that myself. The same with Ataturk. I think by now I have made myself clear in which context I understand the word "revere".
Yes, it's cleared now. Peter the Great is appreciated by me, not by many Turks. I'd put any reformist to my revered list but Ataturk is a bit different. He valued rights for women, and democracy, science, education. He also valued diplomacy over aggression. If you think he has little to no "panhuman" values, you may want to read more about him. If there was more predisposition towards democracy in Turkey in 1920s, he probably wouldn't be that authotarian. This is evident by his attempts to form a opposition party. He isn't Ghandi, but not just a soldier or a successful politician as well. He was a reformist, and he transformed Turkey to be more modern.
 
Last edited:

JoanOfArc007

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
3,810
USA
If you're referring to me as a "hardcore nationalist" type, as turing suggested, you're insulting the wrong person. Frankly, it gets tiresome and annoying getting branded this or that because you disagree with someone. I have no problem with any foreign nationality, my first and best friend on this forum is a Turk. As I have said, I have no problem with Ataturk because he is a Turk, or because he fought against Greeks, good for him and for his country. I'm merely saying that Ataturk is the most important figure of modern Turkish history, but has limited impact on world history as a whole. Read my above post, no need to repeat myself.

In fact I have nothing against you. I never thought or assumed that you hated Ataturk. I was presenting a civil disagreement with you earlier irt the worldwide popularity of Ataturk.

Its a good thing to hold someone such as Ataturk in high esteem that is part of my position.
 

Solidaire

Ad Honorem
Aug 2009
5,598
Athens, Greece
Yes, it's cleared now. Peter the Great is appreciated by me, not by many Turks. I'd put any reformist to my revered list but Ataturk is a bit different. He valued rights for women, and democracy, science, education. He also valued diplomacy over aggression. If you think he has little to no "panhuman" values, you may want to read more about him. If there was more predisposition towards democracy in Turkey in 1920s, he probably wouldn't be that authotarian. This is evident by his attempts to form a opposition party. He isn't Ghandi, but not just a soldier or a successful politician as well. He was a reformist, and he transformed Turkey to be more modern.
I'm glad it's settled then. And perhaps you are right that I should read more about him, as in my mind he is the father of modern Turkey and above all a nationalist, a trait that in my view is antithetical to pan-humanism. I understand that many of his reforms are in the sphere of liberalism, but I'd hesitate to call Ataturk a liberal himself. He did several liberal things, as well as several not so liberal ones, all in, what at least he thought was, the best interest of his nation. He wasn't a liberal per se, but rather a circumstantial one, everything served his intent to reform his country and create a better future for it. In other words, he did many great things, but they were so much painted with the colours of the Turkish flag, that I find it hard to separate the two and view his contributions as having panhuman weight.

Then again, this is strictly my impression and I might be wrong. Feel free to correct me, as clearly you are far more knowledgeable in the subject.
 
Mar 2013
1,441
Escandinavia y Mesopotamia
Its all in your head my friend. Now your making up additional beliefs for me. I have always stood by all the great religions of our world which support equality among man. The way you use the word Dhimmi is how anti Jewish people used the Word Goyim...and in response to you we have liberal people of all religions and skin colors saying Islam, Christianity and other religions stand for equality among man. Im not getting into this religious debate here itt, this is a thread about Ataturk but all throughout this board various posters have shown Islam like other religions supports democratic and free values.

In Islam a Christian, Atheist and Muslim are to be equally treated. If you want to disagree feel free, but you lose the conversation every time you resort to making up other peoples beliefs or using slurs to describe entire groups of people. You should know I have nothing agaisnt you, I humbly ask you to not engage in personal suggestions and the like.

You are bringing up the Armenian genocide but not responding to the point about how every country has a controversial history. Its on you to accept people for whom they are. Of course in any discussion, anyone can say well I think this person is not a Catholic, but in a civil setting you can not talk like that. Facts overcome the bullies of the world. You are a better person then what you have been showing itt, look at your language your using this term "Camel Urine" what are you doing? You are better then this my friend.
Your rambling is just as nonsense as Muhammad’s pedophile-relationship with his 6-9 years old Aisha.

Goyim is a term for non-Jew, often as insult. Muslims have “Kufar”, and the Christians have “infidel”. And what has it to do with the facts that you have praised the Islamic-socioeconomic discrimination of Christians under Dhimmi-laws and even asserted idiotically that Devshirme-system, where the Turks abducted Christians boys to make then Islamic soldiers, was something good?

Not every country has that “controversial history” in such a degree as the Turks who deny the genocide, sponsor genocide denial and create museums to deny the genocide. But I understand that you won’t condemn the genocide deniers since you have befriended many them. :)

With regards to your rambling that Islam or Islamic countries allow atheism or that they promote democracy then the answer must be that it sounds like nonsense just as when your “hero”(your own word), that is Muhammad, recommended to drink camel urine because he thought it was healthy.

Muslim states are notorious of having apostasy laws that forbids leaving Islam:

Which countries still outlaw apostasy and blasphemy?


And 78 percent of Muslim-majority countries have high levels of government restrictions on religious freedom, compared with 43 percent of all other countries and 10 percent of Christian countries:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/?destination=/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/07/10/are-muslim-countries-really-unreceptive-to-religious-freedom/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.fba0496e4df4&noredirect=on&utm_term=.6495c5bf825a


And from the survey made by Economist Intelligence Unit for year 2018 where dark green is high degree of democracy while dark red is the opposite it is very obvious that Allahu-Akbar-countries are not akbar in having democracies:

2018.png



So no, not much is suggesting that Muslims allow apostasy, give rights to disbelievers or treat non-Muslims equally as you assert. And taking into consideration of Muhammad’s deeds where he expelled and massacred non-Muslims and even took their women as sexslaves to distribute them to his soldiers and himself that is not surprising I think.


Ataturk was indeed a contributor to liberal values. The points have been posted as in the liberal way, Ataturk brought women equal rights in a time in the 20th century when some countries in Europe and worldwide did not allow women the right to vote.
He was not. That he gave voting rights to women to vote in a one-party-system doesn’t mean he had liberal values or promoted liberalism. Not even if some few Europeans state did not allow that during that time.

As already explained in my post 28, 31 and 64: Liberalism is a philosophical idea that there should be no absolutism (authoritarian rule gathered in one person’s hand) and that arbitrary imprisonments should be ceased and each citizens should have basic rights. It started and spread around 1700 or so in England/France. It is not the historians’ impression that Ataturk imposed democratic multi-parties-system or that he granted the “Mountain Turks” rights, or that he did not have dictatorial power.

What do you think about Armenian Genocide and the behaviour of the Turks who deny the Armenian Genocide? You have no problem with it, right?
 
Mar 2016
806
Antalya
I'm glad it's settled then. And perhaps you are right that I should read more about him, as in my mind he is the father of modern Turkey and above all a nationalist, a trait that in my view is antithetical to pan-humanism. I understand that many of his reforms are in the sphere of liberalism, but I'd hesitate to call Ataturk a liberal himself. He did several liberal things, as well as several not so liberal ones, all in, what at least he thought was, the best interest of his nation. He wasn't a liberal per se, but rather a circumstantial one, everything served his intent to reform his country and create a better future for it. In other words, he did many great things, but they were so much painted with the colours of the Turkish flag, that I find it hard to separate the two and view his contributions as having panhuman weight.

Then again, this is strictly my impression and I might be wrong. Feel free to correct me, as clearly you are far more knowledgeable in the subject.
No, you impression of him is not wrong, it's incomplete. He was a pragmatist, nationalist -- not in a pan-Turkic sense but more in the lines of romantic nationalism. I am not sure if he truly believed it or just used nationalism as a tool. One thing is true tho, he probably didn't like war, especially unjustified ones and valued diplomacy.
 

At Each Kilometer

Ad Honorem
Sep 2012
3,947
Bulgaria
Turing, my intentions were not to offend you in any way, if i did i apologise. I am not going into this semantics debate you have here veneration / reverence / admiration/ respect etc. I am writing this post to let you know that i truly like to read and learn more about Mustafa Kemal Atatürk.

.