'De-Crucifying' Turkey's Christians?

Interesting article by Mustafa Akyol here about recent developments in Turkey re: Christians. He also writes what seems to be a classic situation of being caught between a rock and a hard place. Take your pick:

Today, what is ironic is the nature of the opposing camps on the Turkish side: Those who keep fueling paranoia against the Christians are often the secular nationalists, who take inspiration from the arch-secularist Mustafa Kemal. Those who are more tolerant on this matter are often the so-called "Islamists," who take inspiration from the Islamic Ottoman Empire.

Comments

[Gian]

Exactly what is ironic in it? On what basis we presume Secularists to be more friendly to Christians than Traditional Muslims?

Indeed, using the concept of Tao of CS Lewis, we see that Muslims are well-within the Tao, the Christians being necessarily at the centre of Tao.
While the Secularists are entirely outside it.

[Michael Bauman (not Dr.)]

Muslim 'toleration' of Christianity is cold comfort at best. They will tolerate us as infidel dogs as long as we lie quietly in the shade and don't really act like Christians by, say, oh telling others about the saving grace of Jesus Christ, or educating our own leaders. Of course, if the Ottoman Empire is the guide: heavy extra taxes, simony, corruption, and the forced conversion of Christian children would be pretty normal stuff.

The choice: immediate, clear opposition from the secular statists or the slow, relentless strangulation by the Islamic state as dhimmi, i.e, subservient second-class citizens who are not protected by law and can be killed without recourse to justice (see current day Egypt, Iraq or any Islamic state). Wonderful choice!

Islam is not part of the Tao.

[sdf]

Christians are just as much dhimmis under a liberal secular state, including our own, as under an Islamic one Michael, with the exception of the liberal secular state being a far more virulent solvent of Christian culture and identity.

[Robert Espe]

Please, if someone even threatens you or a family member, the liberal secular police will be at your home within an hour risking their lives to protect yours, whether you be Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Statist, or Pastafarian.

[sdf]

In regards to physical violence, yes. Christian society survived intact under the Muslims for a thousand-plus years. Secular modernity, though, has succeeded in destroying Christian culture (all culture, really) in slightly more than two hundred. This situation is not the claimed paradox, but par for the course.

[Benighted Savage]

Secular modernity, though, has succeeded in destroying Christian culture (all culture, really) in slightly more than two hundred.

"ALL culture." Really? One wonders which definition of "culture" you are using here.

[Michael Bauman (not Dr.)]

The secular revolution was proceeded in Europe by several hundred years of "Christian" humanism. Secularism is the result of that.

The degradation of faith and belief is not a result of secularism, secularism is the result of the degradation of faith and belief. Tryranny is the end result which we saw in National Socialism, communisim and other totalitarian 'solutions' of the 20th century.

[Benighted Savage]

The secular revolution was proceeded in Europe by several hundred years of "Christian" humanism. Secularism is the result of that.

The degradation of faith and belief is not a result of secularism, secularism is the result of the degradation of faith and belief...

Looks like Lorenzo Valla, Boccaccio, and Erasmus would NOT be high on your "to read" list. Sad, if true.

Tryranny is the end result which we saw in National Socialism, communisim and other totalitarian 'solutions' of the 20th century.

"Michelangelo! Michelangelo! Put down that brush, lest thy work give birth to some shambling TYRANNY several centuries hence. We'll have someone else paint the chapel ceiling."

[Michael Bauman (not Dr.)]

Benighted, thank you for acknowledging the superiority of my argument by descending to the ad hominum.

[Benighted Savage]

Benighted, thank you for acknowledging the superiority of my argument by descending to the ad hominum.

Actually, I called attention to your uncharitable and unsubstantiated ad hominem against an unnamed and unnumbered group of humanists whose Christianity you bracketed with scare quotes. I could say that I defended Boccaccio, Erasmus and others from the charge of being "Christians" -- but in truth they need no defense on that matter.

As for my bit about Michelangelo, it's my attempt at a disproof of your "naughty humanist" thesis via a reductio ad absurdum. I await your proof that Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling paintings are evidence of a "degradation of faith and belief" which has ultimately resulted in 20th century tyrannies like Communism and National Socialism. I'm sure your chain of reasoning would be quite illuminating.