« Nutty Professor Asks For Atheist Tyranny | Main | A Politically Incorrect Q&A on The Headscarf »
February 3, 2008
How Atatürk's Church Became an Ultra-Nationalist Base
[Originally published in Turkish Daily News]
Any quick history of Turkey's founder, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, will surely include the institutions he created, from İş Bank to Ankara University to the ideology that bears his name. But who knew the story of the little church that he created until it found itself entangled in the alleged ultra-nationalist criminal gang called “Ergenekon”?
This group of about three dozen nationalist figures, including a former general and a colonel, and one of Turkey's most active lawyers who sued many liberal intellectuals for “insulting Turkishness,” has been making headlines in Turkey in the past few weeks. The groups' members were arrested in a midnight raid and several of them are still under arrest. One name among them that looked a bit unusual in the first sight was a middle-aged woman named Sevgi Erenerol who claims the title of “public relations representative of the Turkish Orthodox Church.”
‘A Closed Box'
This curious church is located in one of the narrow streets of Karaköy, one of Istanbul's busiest and oldest districts. But unlike the other houses of worship Istanbul, in which you can go, see, and join the mass, this one is peculiarly unwelcoming. When you walk into the garden, solemn men warn you not to take pictures, and say there is “no one to answer questions.”
“This place is really a closed box, brother,” says Hüseyin Karaşimşek, who works in a small manufacturing outfit right across the street. I've been here five years and haven't felt comfortable enough to go in and ask for a glass of water. In his view there is not much worship going on inside. I have never heard any music or hymns here; just some guys come in and nobody talks much.”
As the Ergenekon inquiry unfolds, it appears that the church might not only be linked to Ergenekon, but could actually be its very base. According to the prosecutor, the church has been “the headquarters and the financial hub” of the covert gang. Mrs. Erenerol and her 12 friends are now on trial and under arrest by an Istanbul court for “establishing an organization to provoke public unrest” and preparing the way for a military coup.
By state, for the state
The story goes back to Turkey's War of Liberation, when Turks and Greeks were at war. At the time, the traditional Greek Orthodox Patriarchate in Istanbul, which to date calls itself “Ecumenical Patriarchate,” looked as if it was content with the occupation of Anatolia by Greek forces. Some Orthodox Christians in Anatolia were rather pro-Turkish and one among them, Pavlos Karahisarithis, established the “Autocephalous (Independent) Orthodox Patriarchate of Anatolia” in 1921 in Kayseri, to support the Turkish national struggle. General Mustafa Kemal, unsurprisingly, liked this unorthodox orthodoxy, and after winning the war, he favored them over the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate.
In 1924 Karahisarithis, who later changed his name into Zeki Erenerol, called a Turkish ecclesial congress that elected him “Papa (Patriarch) Eftim”. He and his family members were exempted from the population exchange between Turkey and Greece and were given official support — which included valuable real estate in Istanbul.
When Zeki Erenerol died in 1962, the “Patriarchate” passed to his son Turgut Erenerol, or “Papa Eftim II.” Then it passed to Papa Eftim's other son and grandson, Selçuk Erenerol and Paşa Ümit Erenerol, or Papa Eftim III and Papa IV. Sevgi Erenerol, or Mrs. Ergenekon, is the daughter of Papa Eftim III and the sister of the current papa. The church remains unrecognized by all Christians except as its own members, which, according to estimates, consist only of a few dozen people.
Recently daily Hürriyet called it “the church with no congregation but lots of finances.” Actually some consider the whole affair to be some sort of family business. One of the employees of the beer hall across the street from the church supports the idea that the tiny institution is super rich. “They own about three hundred shops in this neighborhood,” he says, “including mine, so don't use my name.”
According to Hadi Uluengin, columnist for daily Hürriyet, as “a temple with no believers” the Turkish Orthodox Church is “an unrivalled absurdity in the world.” In his column Uluengin recently recalled how “Papa Eftim” was seen by traditional Greek Orthodox followers in his childhood, in the 1950s. “When the ‘Patriarch' was passing by the restaurant of Ilya Dayı, he wrote, the Orthodox owner would murmur, Ah, he is going to collect monthly rents again'.
No king but the Caesar
What makes the church more interesting is its politics. Its “public relations representative,” Mrs. Erenerol, used to make news in recent years with her furious remarks on the “conspiracies” cooked up against Turkey. She was especially abhorrent of her co-religionists. “Missionary activities in Turkey are aiming at more than religious goals and they pose a threat to national security,” she said in 2005 at a conference held by Turkish Education Workers' Union (Türk Eğitim-Sen). The ulterior motives behind missionary activities are to seize our country, she argued, feeding the very paranoia that would lead to the killing of Priest Santoro in Trabzon and three missionaries in Malatya.
Mrs. Erenorol also made a name for herself by writing for the marginal magazine “Turkish Left,” which promotes a unique combination of Kemalist secularism and a fierce Turkish racism with strong anti-Kurdish tones.
On almost all political issues, Mrs. Erenerol sounds like the most rigid Kemalists. Owing its genesis and resources to the Turkish state, her church apparently has become a devotee of the most radical version of its founding ideology.
Perhaps the symbolism on the front wall of the church is meaningful. Above the small sized cross, lies a huge poster of Atatürk superimposed on the red and white Turkish flag. In the room beneath, there is another poster of Atatürk with a controversial quote: “When the homeland is in question, everything else is trivial.” This slogan, attributed to the Great Leader, has recently become the battle cry of ultra-nationalists, who say that Turkey is in danger, and thus all other values, such as democracy, human rights and freedoms are secondary. Apparently those trivialities include even the real great leader that a real church must be dedicated to — Jesus Christ.
Posted by Mustafa Akyol at February 3, 2008 11:00 AM
Errr..."Ataturk's church" would be the one he prayed at--if such a church existed--or, by extension, the denomination it belonged to. To call a church he helped found, presumably so Christians could congregrate, "Ataturk's church" is an abuse of language.
Posted by: emre at February 4, 2008 8:16 PM
There is indeed something very interesting here. I would like to bring attention to the flag being used on the signpost outside this ‘church’.
The sign bares a flag which I can only describe the flag of St George (National flag of England and Georgia) with a smaller Turkish flag in one of its quarters.
St Georges Cross was adopted from the garment of Christian Crusaders, in particular that of the Knight Templars, worn during the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries in their quest to occupy Muslim lands. This flag truly symbolises the quest of European Christian Fundamentalist forces against Islam.
This is a Knight Templar symbol which has become a national symbol to some.So why use it to represent ‘Turkish Orthodox Church’? Surely it is not to mark some kind of affiliation with England (or Georgia) therefore we can neglect the fact that it is a national flag. The flag has never represented broader Christianity. In light of accepting this as the symbol of the Knight Templars in this context, why is it being used?
The most prominent use of Knight Templar symbols in past and contemporary times is by a Freemason Lodge of the same name. Some argue that the latter originated from the first,some argue that they are completely detached. What we do know is that this Freemason lodge has used Knight Templar symbols and doctrines in their close knit secretive world.
Freemasons are fraternal organisations of members who work and operate secretively for the benefit of each other. Their origins and aims are often obscure. The more we hear about Ergenekon, the more it seems that this group operated as a freemason organisation. Further more, the fact that this ‘church’ has been operating since Mustafa Kemal’s times but never as a genuine church is worrying.
Why worrying? I have often read and heard conspiracy theorists accuse Mustafa kemal of membership to a freemason lodge. They attribute many aspects of the 1st world war and the Turkish war of independence to the manipulation of events by the freemasons, aided by their member Mustafa Kemal.
Is this misuse of an institution created by Ataturk or is this the continuation of what Ataturk and ‘friends’ may have started?
If the latter can be found out and proven, we Turks indeed need to re-examine and even re-write our modern history.
Posted by: Ceyhan at February 5, 2008 3:48 PM
I'm not sure that this is a St George but simply a cross (which is the symbol of Christianity before it is the symbol of any nation like England or Georgia) with the Turkish flag in its upper left corner.
I would like to relate a personal anecdote about this entity called the Turkish Orhtodox church.
I first heard about it about 20 years ago. I had been a Turkish Christian for 10 years prior to that. At that time Turkish Christians were a rarer 'bird' than they are today.
While unfortunately it is the case even still, back then many of us, certainly i, keenly felt the pressure to demonstrate our continued and genuine 'Turkishness' in the face of accusations that we had become an Armenian or some other supposed lower form of life.
So when a Christian back then told me that there were Orthodox who wanted to demonstrate their national loyalty and formed a denomination called 'Turkish Orthodox'. I thought at the time "what a good idea". But i did not particularly pursue them because i was quite happy with the Christians i was meeting on a regular basis in Istanbul.
The next time i heard about the Turkish Orthodox was when their public relations officer ( a lady whose name escapes me) started to make public statements in the aftermath of the Malatya slayings. I was simply appalled !
I immediately realised that they had gone far beyond wishing to demonstrate their national loyalty (something all Christians in every country understand and support as a moral duty) but they have become "more royalist than the king" ("Kral'dan cok kralci - as we say in Turkish) and were actually making vile accusations against other Christians and giving moral support to murdereres and other persecutors of Christians. How odd !, i thought to myself.
The moral of this story for me is that church and state must exist in independent spheres of authority. You cannot have the state ruling OVER the church othwerise you get these ugly distortions.
The concept of the separation of the Church and State goes back to the Bible - Old and New Testaments. In the Old Testament the King was FORBIDDEN by God to sacrifice at the Temple. You can read about this in the story of King Rehobaoam HERE. The New Testament example comes from the very words of Jesus who said "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's".
Of course, i don't think this is or will ever be understood in Turkish society (or in any primarily Muslim society)since it is a concept totally foreign to Islam where "God and Caesar" are tighly joined and operate as a single authority over man.
Posted by: Celal at February 6, 2008 2:01 PM
Celal sleighted:'Of course, i don't think this is or will ever be understood in Turkish society (or in any primarily Muslim society)since it is a concept totally foreign to Islam where "God and Caesar" are tighly joined and operate as a single authority over man.'
This is already understood in Turkish society by many educated and informed Muslims. The most important thing for a Muslim in essence is to practice his/her faith. The duties of Muslim leaders is to provide a free and prosperous land for others to so. Humanity has devised a formula which suits this perfectly, as well as other criterias, the formula is secularism and democracy. Muslims have been trying to embrace this for quite a while now but keep stumbling because bad politicians.
Islam, as well as other religions including Christianity, can thrive and prosper under real secular democracy. Secularists thought a secular system would forge secular citizens.That's why when they realise it is not the case, they start getting all undemocratic and inventing new definitions for secularism. Turkey has only tasted this formula so far, the best is to come.
Celal, if you find what you're looking for in Christianity, that's fine. I don't know whether you left Islam with bad feeling or not. What I do know is that very few informed spiritual Christians would pass judgement on Muslims in such an insulting manner. 'Islam where Ceaser and God are tightly joined'. Let me tell you this, 'Allahu Akbar' (God is the Greatest), 'La Ilahe Ilalah' (There is no God but God)... I don't know what you think Islam is, but I will die before I take Ceaser as God or join him to God!
Posted by: Ceyhan at February 6, 2008 8:01 PM
I am not trying to be insulting to Muslims or to Islam, merely to point out a certain concept that is foreign to the Islamic worldview.
Two pieces of evidence that futher demonstrate that the separation of church and state (i.e genuine secularism) is not really understood in Turkish society is the existence of this strange body called 'Turkish Orthodox church', which is the subject of this post, and also the strange objection raised by the Turkish government to Greek Orthodox Patriarchate calling itself "ecumenical".
You and many other Muslims may believe that "secularism" and "democracy" are somehow compatible with Islam. Well, that is fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. And, i would agree that a secularism and a democracy which is truly and correctly applied in Turkey is the best thing for the health and well-being of Turkish society.
Nevertheless, I choose to look deeper and make the observation that "secularism" and "democracy" did not originate in countries where the Islamic worldview dominates but in places where people have a Christian worldview. Do you consider that irrelevent ? I don't, because that is simply historical FACT and i choose to recognise and honour facts not ignore them.
Another fact of history, of Islamic history, is that a state must be governed by some immutable divine Sharia. Are you now going to claim this is not the case ?
Perhaps i would have been better understood had i instead written that in Islam "the WILL of God and the WILL of Caesar are tightly joined and operate as a single authority over man".
Posted by: Celal Berker at February 6, 2008 9:56 PM
Celal stated: ‘’Nevertheless, I choose to look deeper and make the observation that "secularism" and "democracy" did not originate in countries where the Islamic worldview dominates but in places where people have a Christian worldview. Do you consider that irrelevent ? I don't, because that is simply historical FACT and i choose to recognise and honour facts not ignore them. ‘’
I don’t only consider your statement irrelevant, it is also completely false. This is not ‘historical fact’ as you put it, but historical fiction. What on earth have you been reading to be so misinformed?
The term ‘secularism’ was coined in 1846 by the British AGNOSTIC George Holyoak. The earliest secular ideas though, separating religion and philosophy, are traced back to Ibn Rushd (Averroes), a Andalusian MUSLIM ARAB (from when Spain was Islamic) and The Averoism school of Philosophy. He is considered the founding father of secular thought in the West, especially by Westerners.
This is a fact that you ignore but many chose to honour. Your knowledge regarding the origins of secularism seems as weak as you knowledge of Islam. As exemplified in the following:
‘’Another fact of history, of Islamic history, is that a state must be governed by some immutable divine Sharia. Are you now going to claim this is not the case ?’’
I do claim that this is not the case at all. There is much debate between Muslims in regards to the necessity of Shariah, but more importantly it’s content and historical authenticity. Today, only fringe groups ask for the establishment of Shariah as they understand it. Your perception of Islam is limited to Wahabi and Salafist extremist doctrines, not mainstream Muslim ones. No wonder you converted to Christianity.
Posted by: Ceyhan at February 7, 2008 1:48 PM
Hello Ceyhan,
I'm not a student of secularism, as such. What i am sure of is that in any society many, in fact most people, will not be God fearing.
While secularism is not a Christian philosophy it is a better friend of Christians than is Islam.
The fact is that as secularism weakens in Turkey, Christians start being murdered for being Christians. The Malatya incident is the first such incident since the founding of the Republic. Is there more to come ?
You write :"There is much debate between Muslims in regards to the necessity of Shariah, but more importantly it’s content and historical authenticity. Today, only fringe groups ask for the establishment of Shariah as they understand it.
Yeah, 'fringe groups' like the state of Saudi Arabia, the state of Pakistan, the state of Iran, the state of Sudan... all these states are merely 'fringe groups' who are confused and 'debating the necessity of Shariah', right ? It's time to wake up!
In the U.K. there is such pressure coming from Muslims for Shariah law that the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams stood up today and made a speech saying that Shariah law should be allowed (see , HERE.
Posted by: Celal at February 7, 2008 11:15 PM
When I said fringe groups, I was talking in the context of Turkey. Saudi Arabia is Wahabi state which has enormous influence on countries such as Sudan. Iran is a fundamentalist Shiah state. Pakistan suffer's immensely from the salafist presence. None are Turkey or like turkey. But, just like Turkey though, their states cannot be said to be representative of its people. Besides, you are trying to incriminate Paul by describing John.
Malatya was most probably organised by a group such as ergenekon,if not themselves, who claim to protect 'secularism' and Turkey. You say That the 'Malatya incident is the first such incident since the founding of the Republic.' in regards to the killing of christians... Ataturk is responsible for many atrocities against Christians in Turkey...It is nothing new, it in fact coincides with the establishment of the republic. As Ottomans, we had a duty to protect them but when we became 'New Turks', we were told by kemalist that they were now enemies...
As you pointed out,the Arbishop made a statement but he certainly was not under pressure to do so. This came from his own mind. How ironic, a Christian calling for Shariah in britain, the country I reside in. He probably thinks he is doing us a favour, instead he fuels the islamaphobia in the world as exemplified by your reaction. There are fringe groups of British citizens of Pakistani rural descent, who run salafist and wahabi mosques in the UK, who would like Shariah for their own community. How is this relevant to Turkey?
Celal, you do not seem bad intentioned but you definitely confuse too many issues and quote completely irrelevant facts and theories to prove your points.
You do not have to be a student/scholar to gain knowledge of certain subjects. As the angel gabriel said to our beloved prophet Mohamed: 'Read!'. That's all.
Posted by: ceyhan at February 8, 2008 2:47 PM
who do you think you are thinking you have the right to say such a thing like ataturk's church? who are you? and how dare you??
i agree with the abuse of the language. but i would like to add the word "intentional" to the front of it.
Posted by: didem at February 11, 2008 6:21 AM
The talk of shariah in the UK is blown out of proportion. The archbishop himself stated that the use of sharia would be in regards to CIVIL matters, not criminal, as the right-wing Islamophobes have stated.
Jews have their own courts in the UK as well. Beth Din ring a bell?
Why is it okay for other religious groups to have benefits but God forbid if Muslims ask for them? For argument's sake here.
Posted by: Danial at February 11, 2008 11:14 PM