« American Neo-Conservatives and the AKP | Main | Thus Spoke the Zarathustrian Kurds »
March 31, 2007
Render Unto ‘Akdamar’ What Is Ahtamar’s
[Originally published in Turkish Daily News]
One of the commonly used quotes from Jesus Christ is his words that put an equal share between the divine and temporal authorities. “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's,” he said according to the New Testament, “and unto God the things that are God's.” Some political theorists think that this particular phrase in the gospels opened the way for the separation of church and state in the West. The state, which we finance by our taxes and serve us in return with earthly goods and services, can have our material loyalty. But it has neither the power nor the right to interfere in our spiritual beliefs and practices. It should, in other words, simply respect the church, the synagogue or the mosque.
This seems to be quite a fair division. However it is not always observed. Sometimes people who act in the name of this or that religion try to dominate the state and that's what we call “theocracy.” It is bad, because it leads to tyranny in the name of God, about whom we have very different sets of beliefs.
The Trouble With Libido Dominandi
But sometimes tyranny comes from the other side. Sometimes states try to dominate the religious sphere simply because they love to dominate everything. One of the early church fathers, St. Augustine, in his classic, “City of God,” termed this desire as libido dominandi, or the “lust for power.”
Unfortunately, unlike the tolerant and grown-up Ottoman Empire, the young Turkish Republic has inhibited a very dense libido dominandi since its beginning. It tried to dominate virtually every sphere in society, which included, of course, religion of all kinds. Islam was completely taken under control and independent Islamic institutions like the Sufi orders were closed down. Some major Christian Churches like that of the Greek Orthodox and the Armenian have been given some limited space with the Treaty of Lausanne, but even that has been shrunk gradually over time.
It’s a Church, Not a ‘Museum’
Some of the weird things that took place around the re-opening of the Ahtamar Church will be better understood within this context. It is of course a kind and nice move to restore and open the 1000-year old sanctuary, but the steps taken in order to Turkify — and de-churchify — it are absurd. First, it was renamed in Turkish as “Akdamar.” Second, it was opened not as a church but as a “museum.” It was also denied the right to have a cross at the top. In the opening ceremony, giant posters of Atatürk and huge Turkish flags were more visible then any thing else. No wonder some Armenians have felt unhappy about all that.
Why do we feel the need to show our dominance on a little building? How do we have the right to define it as a “museum,” whereas it was built in order to worship God? And what do we gain by all that?
These are questions the Turkish authorities should ask themselves. It was a good step to reopen the Ahtamar Church, but it is only a half step. The Armenian community should be allowed to worship and organize services in the church, as Patriarch Mesrob Mutafyan has demanded. Again, as he demanded, the Turkish Foreign Ministry should return the cross of the temple to its original place.
We should understand that Ahtamar is not a government building; it is a sanctuary built to worship God and by people who were living in this land many centuries before the Turkish Republic ever existed. It should be treated as such.
Posted by Mustafa Akyol at March 31, 2007 10:13 AM
I agree
Posted by: mustapha at April 1, 2007 12:09 PM
Hello Mr. Akyol,
Good piece. I agree with you.
Can i ask you a question ? What do think about letting the Haghia Sophia also become what it is also supposed to be - a church ?
Posted by: Celal at April 1, 2007 8:42 PM
Mr Akyol, excellent piece! Thank you.
To answer your rhetorical question, why the government feel the need to show dominance over the little building; I think very simply that most Turks, unlike you, do not feel confident in their beliefs. They feel threaten by "non islamic" symbols. Why else would they see the need to prevent all other symbols? Ironically, I feel more compelled to listen to you and your tolerant views... and I have learned more from you about Islam than any so called Imams in Turkey.
You simply project strength in your beliefs. That I respect and makes me want to know understand more.
Regards,
Celal Brown
Posted by: Celal Brown at April 2, 2007 3:50 AM
The sharia law applies in Turkey, although Turkey regards itself as secular, and the authorities obstruct the practice of other faiths. The politicization of religion in Turkey is stronger than in any other country.
Therefore, non-Muslims cannot speak openly about their beliefs. Moreover, they cannot practice their faith in public (like in churches).
Posted by: Toixorixos at April 2, 2007 10:22 AM
Dear Toixorixos,
Have you ever been in Turkey?. It seems you haven't so far. Let me tell whats going on here:
The obstructions are not on other faiths but on Islam as well. As a veiled woman, you cannot enter public places, universities. Even you have no right to be a teacher in the private sector. Even, prime minister's wife cannot enter the public places, a problem occured last year in one of the hospitals... As a practicing muslim, you don't have right to pray on Fridays, you cannot make a career in the army, they just dismiss you whatever talent you have, same happen in universities, and other public institutions as well.
The obstruction are nothing to do with Islam, sharia, whatsoever. It's the iron hand of secular breaucracy of Turkey.
Muslims have no problem with other faiths. The ones having problem is what we called "ulusalcılar" can be translated as "fascist racialists" of Turkey.
It's very suprising that Turkey can be seen as utterly different from outside !
Posted by: blue at April 2, 2007 2:20 PM
Dear Mr. Akyol,
This is an excellent piece, and thank you for writing it. What perplexes me is why the Turkish government is afraid of other religions, particularly the Armenians. Unlike other Christian sects, the Armenians have never been and never will be proselytizers. We do not try to sell our beliefs on others. That's why we co-exist peacefully in every muslim country in which we exist, even in Iran, where we have lived peacefully and quietly for 400 years among the Mullahs. Why should the Turkish government have any fear whatsoever about treating this monument in the way it was intended to be treated when it was built 1100 years ago? Does it think that Armenians are all of a sudden going to swarm into Van and convert everyone into Armenian Apostolic Christians? Just the thought of it makes me giggle.
Posted by: Phantom at April 4, 2007 8:32 AM
what about a glance to the cituation of Hagia Sophia, then? Would you exactly say whatever you say for Akdamar for Hagia Sophia without any distraction? So, what about the fact that the libido dominandi in this situation, as you supposed, seems much more likely an effort of embracing the cultural heritage of Turkey without any odds? Think about your sentiments. You are very superficial in your comments.
Posted by: alp at April 4, 2007 10:31 AM
Dear Mr. Akyol,
Thank you for a most excellent essay. I visited Ahtamar last summer. Frankly, I was pleasantly surprised to find the restoration taking place. And yes, I agree that it is disappointing about the cross and the fact that Armenian Orthodox Christians cannot use the church for worship. But I was encouraged by the fact that the Turkish government was doing anything at all (I was also pleased to see restoration of some of the Greek and Armenian Orthodox churches and monasteries in Trabzon--some just in the nick of time).
Ahtamar Island seemed popular with tourists. The day I visited, 4 ferries were plying the waters--all day long--between the shore and the island. On my ferry, I was the only non-Turk among the 36 passengers. So, Ahtamar is beginning to get quite a bit of exposure in Turkey. And cross or no cross, there is no denying what it is, a holy Christian site--there is no way to Turkify it. One would have to scrape the frescoes off the walls, as well as the large crosses on the innumerable Armenian gravestones around the church. Hopefully, in time, in can be reconsecrated as a place of Christian worship. As isolated as it is, it would have no effect on any of the surrounding area to do so.
I love Turkey and the Turkish people. This coming summer, I will return for my 4th visit. That being said, I am troubled by the extremes of Turkish nationalism, which sometimes borders on paranoia when it comes to anything within Turkey that is even marginally non-Turkish (such as anything pertaining to the Greek, Armenian or Suriani Orthodox Christian minorities). Turkey is is absolutely no danger from any of these groups, although you would think so to hear some of my Turkish friends speak.
Posted by: John at April 4, 2007 8:15 PM
Let me ask you some questions with an opposite point of view,
1)WHY DO YOU INSIST ON, TO USE AKDAMAR AS A CHURCH WHETHER THERE IS NOT AN ORTODOX CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY LIVING CLOSE TO IT?
2)What do you think about the demolished or abandoned Mosques all over Balkans, Spain, Greece,Cyprus,Russia,Ukraine, should they rebuilt or restorated and used for worship again?
3)Why Catholics destroyed all Orthodox buildings, when they occupied Istanbul?
4)When you are not a Christian, is it a necessity to see the world with a Christian point o view?
Please sometimes try to respect our intelligence too, when someone is a Muslim or a Turk he doesn't need to be stupid.
Posted by: Sadettin at April 20, 2007 1:09 PM