The best thing that the Republic"s founding ideology has done was to produce "an enemy". This method as a means of what the militarist ideology appeals to restore the system is applied in every period. In the initial years, we grew up with the notion of creating a nation and then putting the army in an order, later on with the idea of being integrated to the international system, finally in many conflicts where the militarist ideology exists. Now those who make of the safety umbrella of Turkey need a different change. Streets are boiling or are being aroused. Sleeping cellular organizations are awaking, armed conflicts; polarizations are causing separatist a kind of painful sectarian incidents. Just as in the past this attitude did not give way to the public authority, it will not work out today.
It will only help militarism toughened. The increase of street fights will only empower the militarist ideology today just as how it use to in the past.
THE NARROW STRAIT
We are watching a similar medium, which was founded prior to the September 12 coup in 1980, the third coup d''état headed by Chief of the General Staff General Kenan Evren. So, how are we going to take a stance on all these kinds of events? Are we going to become enemies after being deceived with the kind of formulas that were repetitively experimented and confirmed in the past for their separationist effect? Alternatively, are we simply going to continue on our way disregarding all these while protecting our common human roots? There is no privilege for anyone to stay away from all this apolitically in such a narrow strait, where the good and the bad is indistinguishable. However, if we surrender to the policies of hostility we will be wasting the next 30 years. Experiences both in the spiritual and material sense prove that.
Although there are those who claim "religiousness is already meaningful itself", such a meaning must be reinforced with support, particularly in this century. If we do not extract Islam out of formalism, we will be damaging Islam. Muslims can become the subject of things, which may increase the hate against Islam. We need to fill inside the crust of the religiousness in the world where development is measured with material evidence. We need to answer the question "how can we apply the values that identify us as Muslims?"
In our century where the valuable thing is perceived through certain indicators, it looks chaotic to harmonize these values with our worldview, which then puts spiritual values to the front. We are confronting a situation, which disrupts our values when we attempt to harmonize the spiritual evidence with the material one.
There emerges a new type of religious identity: Is it religious? A citizen of the world? Democrat? Leftist? Nationalist? Militarist? Conservative? Islamist?
This is the context where the identification of the religious one becomes significant. The essence of many terms is vacuumed. The relationship between what is being indicated and what is indicated is getting lost, and meanwhile, we are finding ourselves drifting away to completely irrelevant places. Apart from anything else, as the source of communication and the meanings of words are becoming lost. Of course, we enjoy using words such as serving to humanity, charity, aid or the realization of civilization. However, the emptiness of these terms makes our effort useless. When we call ourselves "religious", and that the state of not being so makes us troubled. The differences between generations also adds a burden to it, too. The youth whom we assume to educate in fact is educating us. I find more clearly the differences of generations when being stuck in indicators by getting out of the process of pursuing the meaning.
The picture portrays to us that: on one side the "religious youth" who have submitted themselves to the culture and lifestyle of consumerism and who never question capitalism as the brand-lover "religious youth", and on the other side the "religious youth" who side with socialists and stand for the oppressed but never question the ideology of the people they are siding with. The terms such as "apolitical religiousness" and "political religiousness" are getting into our literature. We need a sincere confrontation in order to maintain our connection with the youth around us and interpret and explain our religiousness.
THE SYNDROME OF SPIRITUAL LONELINESS
Last week Etyen Mahçupyan made me imagine a kind of scene that was literally witnessed in our actual life the way he described intellectuals in his article, "Syndrome of Spiritual Loneliness".
"Those who are omniscient but only relate a part of it to the public were aware of the background of the ostensible truth. Furthermore, they were all fine in terms of economic status. They were using the privilege of having made their gateway to the core of the public and they were considering themselves indispensable through the information and network regarding one another. They probably did not pay attention to any friendship. Perhaps they lost the capability of genuinely opening up with others. They are angry and feel defeated. Moreover, they cannot create a new position where they can feel better.
When you play the honorary politician by getting out of your journalist identity, what you have is the apologetics of your standpoints and unfortunately, certain standpoints don''t let people make analyses.
We are so familiar with opportunism, the mindset of being power-oriented and a wannabe. We know the mentality that while it whispers criticisms silently, it makes eulogies in abundance.
