Should Turkey be allowed into the EU, and if so, will she ever keep her promises (which she hasn't until now) on religious freedom?

SEE:

'Patriarchate Row Grows'
www.ekathimerini.com [ekathimerini.com]

Turkey is reputed to be and probably is one of the most "liberal" of all of the Muslim dominated countries. But can anyone say with a straight face that their treatment of Christians and Jews is not simply based upon the Dhimma? It may well be true that there are forms of Islam that are not hostile toward the rest of the world but sadly those Muslims do not control any of their own governments so far as I can tell. Islam has always seemed peaceful when its people did not have the upper hand but when they got it everyone else has hell to pay.

Here's the article referenced by Alice:

ISTANBUL (AP) � Two weeks before the European Union�s decision on whether to open membership talks with Turkey, there comes a reminder of the issue�s complexities.

A US Embassy reception in Ankara yesterday in honor of US Orthodox officials ignited a furor between the Turkish government and the Istanbul-based spiritual leader of the world�s Orthodox Christians � underscoring concerns about the largely Muslim country�s treatment of minorities.

Ecumenical Patriarch Vartholomaios, a Turkish citizen and ethnic Greek, is considered �first among equals� of the world�s Orthodox patriarchs. But Turkey has long refused to accept any international role for the patriarch, and rejects his use of the title �ecumenical,� or universal. It claims Vartholomaios is merely spiritual leader of Istanbul�s dwindling Orthodox community of less than 3,000.

So when the US Embassy sent out invitations for the reception hosted by Ambassador Eric Edelman that referred to Vartholomaios as �ecumenical patriarch� � a term long accepted by Washington and European governments � Ankara was furious. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan�s government sent out a decree to public officials ordering them not to attend.

�We find it wrong that although none of our citizens has such a title, that invitations are issued in this form,� he said in a television interview on Wednesday.

[On Wednesday, Vartholomaios complained bitterly about Ankara�s backtracking on a promise to reopen the Halki Orthodox Seminary, that was closed by Turkey in 1971. The status of a Greek orphanage on Prinkiponisos is also a problem.]

The EU report that cleared the way for the December 17 summit decision warned that, in Turkey, �religious freedom is subject to serious limitations,� mentioning the Patriarchate�s problems with the seminary and orphanage. It also noted the precise issue that has now emerged, saying that �the ecclesiastical title of ecumenical patriarch is still banned.�

[Yesterday, the US State Department stepped in on the Patriarchate�s side, with spokesman Richard Boucher observing that Vartholomaios is the leader of millions of Orthodox Christians throughout the world. Edelman also noted that the Patriarchate�s problems are of concern to the US government. In Athens, the government said Turkey must meet EU requirements on respecting religious freedoms. Meanwhile, about 100 ultra-nationalist Turks protested outside the US Embassy yesterday, during the reception.]

We never learn anything, do we? I guess we should be grateful that Turkey is no longer killing Christians, only oppressing them. These Muslim governments are not our friends - never were, never will be.

byzanTn,

Ah, but the Dhimmi treaty may be and usually was broken at any time by the Muslims, but never by the Christians and Jews. Under the Dhimma the Muslims are the only citizens, Islam the only true religion.

Dan L

Had the West wholeheartedly supported Emperor St. Constantine Paleologus in his time of need in 1453, and not allowed the largest Christian empire of the time to fall to the Muslims, we would likely not be in this situation.

I concur, Diak. The West is to blame for the this Turkish problem.

But, in all seriousness, one can always throw out "ifs" for any situation. But we cannot really know how something would've turned out; it's all completely theoretical. I don't think it's fair to say, "If the West had done this, then X would've occured." This is merely speculation and certainly opens up the thread to hostility, based on the "East vs. West" mentality, especially in regards to the history of that unhappy Istanbul.

Logos Teen

Teen, do you have difficulty with the historical background? Had Constantinople and the Empire been preserved, it's pretty clear things would not be the same? Major historic events such as the collapse of the Roman Empire don't happen without very long-ranging consequences.

It is certainly at least partially the fault of the west. The fall of Constantinople was preventable. If you can keep an accident from happening, and you don't there is some responsibility that needs to be acknowledged.

I think as a member of a Western society (i.e. USA) I most definitely have the right to be self-critical of the history of my society. There is no undercurrent of polemic, only objective realization that the West blew an opportunity to halt the incursion of Islam and the fall of Constantinople.

Diak,

I don't think it's healthy to point fingers and pull out theoretical situations- - -it's in the past. How is blaming the West going to help anything? If you can list off a few good results that (theoretically ) would result from blaming the West for these problems, then I'll consider your point. Otherwise, I must respectfully disagree and say that I think pointing fingers for something that happened 500 years ago by no one who is still living today is unnecessarily divisive.

Logos Teen

So considering root causes for current affairs is meaningless? That's what I'm reading. And I disagree that it is in ANY way devisive, because as the son of a Western culture I can most certainly be self-critical of the historical failures of that culture and history.

One doesn't learn anything by forgetting the past. One only makes the same mistakes.

I agree with you, and now the West has another historical oportunity to help our Orthodox Brethren, not by war but by diplomacy. Hopefully also the US can be of help in such dialogue... although we all know how zealous are Muslims on these matters... let us all pray to the Lord for the freedom of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome.

God Bless

I unite my prayer with Alice's, and hope that the U.S. and other Western European countries can settle this thing out in whatever way will benefit the Patriarchate.

No, Diak, I don't eschew considersations of historical decisions and their impacts on today's status quo. I must persist in saying, though, that I don't think "what ifs" are helpful to this already divisive conundrum.

This is only my opinion and I certainly don't mean to offend. Your position is not offensive to me, but I do disagree. I hope we can leave it at that in a respectful manner.

Logos Teen

No offense taken, obviously. Others will agree.

That is one of the great things about history, having these kinds of civil discussions regarding interpretive opinions. I too unite my prayer that the successor of St. Andrew the First-Called can practice, along with his entire church, the Holy Orthodox faith in complete freedom.

The problem is that the Byzantine Empire was so weak and, let's face it, so corrupt that it's fall probably would have happened no matter what the west had done. Though I have very little regard for Islam many people were happy to get out from under the yoke of Constantinople. Sadly, they took on a yoke even worse, but they took it on anyway. Constantinople was virtually only a city by 1453.

Dan L

In reading some Orthodox books involving Russia, what stood out most to me was that the pious Orthodox laypeople blamed their own collective sins for their Soviet predicament.

Who knows what the state of Byzantium's collective soul was in those last years? Might it have been apostasized?

Earlier in Byzantium's history, all the inhabitants of Constantinople turned to our Lady in the all night prayer vigil of the Akathist Hymn, and they were miraculously saved.

Who knows what God's will is in history and in our personal histories and lives?

The most liberating thing I have come to realize in my own growth in Christ, is that God's will is supreme, and if a prayer gets answered, or doesn't get answered, or is unbelievably delayed in an answer, it is because it is God's will. Earlier in my life, I sometimes blamed persons for situations that made my life difficult. I have come to realize that even those people and the situations they bring, are there because of God's will and plan for our lives. This was most recently confirmed in a conversation I just read between the author of 'The Mountain of Silence' (Prof. Kyriakos Markides) and a young, educated Athonite Elder who is sent to Cyprus to start up monasteries for the good of the people.

Therefore, with all due respect to Diak, (and I have ALOT of it for brother Diak) I will have to agree with Teen that this part of history is divisive. As a cradle Orthodox, and a one of Greek background to boot, I know that the sentiment of blame posed by Diak in regard to the West and the fall of Byzantium, is a source of great bitterness and anomosity for the Greek Orthodox. History seen through secular eyes confirms the weakening of Constantinople because of the West. History seen through spiritual eyes, can only speculate.

I will join Pope John Paul II in his plea for a purification of memory. I think the time is right.

In Christ,
Alice

In a statement issued by the Vatican after a recent audience by the Ambassador of Turkey to the Holy See with Pope John Paul II, it was stressed that the Holy See will stay "neutral" on Turkey's application for membership in the EU. Turkey was/is hoping for an open Vatican support for her EU bid.

The Vatican "merely" reiterated one of the principles for EU membership: the guarantee by a State of religious freedom for all its citizens within its boundaries, which I think is a strong but veiled reference to the plight of the Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarchate and of other Christians in the Phanar.

There is a significant but relatively small community of Latin and Eastern Catholics in Turkey requiring the presence of an Apostolic Nuncio in Ankara.

Add to this the just concluded translation of the Holy relics of Sts. John and Gregory from Rome to Constantinople and you can hear subtly the undertones of the Holy See's position.

Amado

Shlomo Dan,

You state: But the same can be said of the Byzantine Church. Here is what one Coptic site has to say about how the Byzantines acted:

Here is what a Maronite site has to say: Here is a quote from an Armenian site: And lastly here is what the Syriac Orthodox have to say: My point is that if it was not for how the Byzantines treaded their fellow Christians then Constantinople would never had faced the Muslim on-slaught that brought about the collapse. That and if they had not owed money and not paid.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Corrupt? A nation which kills millions of innocent children every year legally, now that's corrupt We are not going to help anyone until our own moral house is in order.

Yuhannon,

We all realize that both the West/Old Roman and East/New Roman empires have persecuted and devastated. I haven't heard of any apologies from the Phanar in regards to the devastation wreaked on Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and Armenia, but I don't know if that's altogether necessary, just as I don't know if the papal apologies to Constantinople were entirely necessary.

I've always had my own issues with a group of people apologizing to someone else for wounds inflicted by those long dead and gone to the grave. I think, because now-living Roman Catholics are part of the same Church that devastated Constantinople during the Crusades, that people, subconsciously perhaps, view these moderners as almost the same people who commited these atrocities. Of course I, being a Roman Catholic (as well as the Pope himself and other ecclesiastical leaders) have no more a connection to those Crusaders than anyone living in Greece nowadaus, except for the fact that both I and the Crusaders are/were Roman Catholic.

In the same vein, the leaders of the Church of Constantinople today are not, and really have no connection to the actions of, those patriarchs and emperors who authorized or supported these atrocities against the abovementioned nations.

I think people feel the need for apology because these actions can be taken as being reflective of the general mind of the Church to which these members belong, so that a Greek Orthodox may think, "Well, these people are part of the Church that did this 900 years ago, so that must mean they support those actions." Obviously, the Most Holy Father wishes to make clear to those skeptics that the Catholic Church does not support the actions of these deviant Crusaders (nor did the Pope approve of these measures 900 years ago). Still, I don't see the rationale behind the connection; just because one belongs to the same ecclesial body as someone else doesn't mean they approve of their actions, especially inasmuch as they depart from how a Christian should act.

I think this is true both of the Crusaders and Constantinople as well as the oppression of the Egyptians, Maronites, Syrians, and Armenians by the Byzantine Empire.

Logos Teen

Dear Yuhannon,

What you say is very true.

The Byzantine empire's persecution of the Oriental Churches is a page of church history we BC's don't like to reference . . .

The antipathy EO's and OO's feel toward each other has much more to do with that painful memory than even the issue of Christology and mutual anathemas.

sldln. . . sorry, my orange scarf keeps falling on my fingers as I type . . .

Alex

An interesting story on yahoo and this subject.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...on_re_mi_ea/turkey_problematic_patriarch

Shlomo Teen,

I was not saying that the present Byzantines should apology, but what I was saying is that they need to look at what they did historically to undermine Christianity in the Near East.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

I think there is plenty of blame to go around for the fall of Constantinople. Yes, the Latins did weaken the empire and could have helped at the last moment, but didn't. But did Byzantine leaders, religious and secular, ever teach heresy? Did the Byzantine armies lose key battles long before the fall of the City, from which they never recovered? Did the Byzantines fail to update their military technology and become weaker than their enemies who did? Were Byzantines always examples of Christianity to other Christians? This could go on and on. Like I said, there is plenty of blame to go around, and part of it rests with the Byzantines.

Thank you Don for the additional article.

As my priest said, Istanbul is the only place where visiting priests and bishops have to wear suits and ties, because they are not allowed to wear a collar or rasso.

Since the numbers of Greek Orthodox are dwindling dramatically and dying off after the 1921 ethnic cleansing, and since it is Turkish law that anyone voted to be Patriarch has to be a Turkish citizen, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out their intentions: to eradicate Orthodoxy Christianity and the Patriarchate from its soil.

This is such a mess!

Although I disagree, I do understand *why* there are some that think the Patriarchate should move to the United States or Europe. They are sick of seeing our spiritual Patriarch, his rights, and Christian's religious rights being abused!

On the other hand, I recall that just a few days ago the relics of the great St. John Chrysostom were brought to Istanbul..and now they lay in the Phanar with countless other treasures of Byzantine Christianity and history, and know that if the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople was ever forced to move, all of that would remain with the infidels in Turkey.

Alice, who is feeling very down about all of this because Turkey NEVER keeps its promises to the Greek Orthodox-- NEVER! (Even to get into the EU, they cannot swallow their pride and arrogance, show good will, and keep their formal and public *promise* to open the theological school of Halki!) Anyway--I think that the EU is watching this very closely.

Maybe you're right, Charles...had the West actually kept the empty promises it made to St. Constantine Paleologus, got themselves together and defended Christianity under attack by Islam, they likely would have turned on the weakened Constantinople and created a replay of the fourth Crusade afterwards.

Well if you really want to go back to the beginning, dividing the empire was a collosal mistake to begin with. It created two weaker entities with no common culture or language.

But perhaps the desire for membership will be the carrot that moves Turkey in the direction of religious freedom? Wouldn't that be a good thing, not only for the Christians of Turkey but for the Islamic world?

For the most of Islam that would be unique.

Dan L

This is much too simple a statement. At the Council of Florence, there was an agreement for unity and help, but when word reached Constantinople, the people were furious. Now they had been aroused by certain individuals, but that is neither here nor there. The persecuted hierarchs in favor of the treaty, both Greek and Latin, were forced to flea the city.

What the Greeks also did, was refuse to step into the church of Aghia Sophia (Holy Wisdom) for six months, simply because it was cataminated by a Latin Rite.

Fighting kept breaking out between the Italians and Greeks, and between the Venetians and Genoese. It didn't stop until the day before the city was taken. Nor did the people decide to pray in the great church until the day before it was taken.

Most of the upper class did leave for the Greek islands, and for the city of Mistra. The rest were massacred...and the Italians with them. The Genovese fought bravely, but the one's in the Genovese fortress of Galata, could only look on in horror... knowing that if they helped, they would be next.

What is interesting, is that the Greeks, love to lick their wounds. They like to perceive themselves and their church, as matyrs. Never does one hear among the Greeks, that their suffering might have been caused by their spiritual shortcomings.

Mind you, this does not mean that I am in complete agreement with the treaty of Florence. Believe me, I am not that knowledgable as to its contents.

As for Turkey, It tried to establish a land for itself after it was stripped of so much when it was defeated in WW I. It held on to the territory it now covers through genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Zenovia

Florence was really a disaster. It is proof that unity has to be from the "grass roots" of the people. When it was forced from above, because of the desires of a few bishops, it simply did not take. This created negativism about the union that continued for centuries.

Regarding being "too simple", admittedly any discussion of something as complicated as this history would be too simple outside of volumes of text with references. Perhaps it is not too simple to expect someone who promises you support in combating a common foe to actually come through on that promise. Certainly every man sins, Greeks, Italians, Turks, all.

As for licking wounds, when they are inflicted by others supposedly calling themselves Christians, those wounds are deeper and take longer to heal. But they certainly can be healed by the love of Christ and the intercessions of the Theotokos.

Shlomo Yuhannon - I have to agree with Alex that the treatment of the Oriental Orthodox was most terrible by the Byzantines. We share the pain and guilt of that treatment, which also created the first Uniate church in history, predating Brest or Florence by a millenium - the dual and rival Patriarchate of Alexandria.

It looks more and more like the Greeks got what they asked for. Before this discussion I tended to agree with Diak, that even though the Byzantine Empire was corrupt and treated others in a manner that no one would wish to be treated, they nevertheless deserved better from the West. It seems now that the Byzantine Empire was its own worst enemy. They couldn't be rescued because they didn't wish to be. The Empire had outlived its usefulness.

The issue now isn't whether Rome should or could have done more in 1453. The issue now is "Will Christianity be able to thrive in a hostile land controlled by those (The Turks) who consider them nothing more than pawns or slaves?"

Dan L

...excellent point.

Dear Iconophile,

Please read the original article of this thread...

The whole discussion here is about *formal promises* made regarding our religious rights that are being ignored TWO weeks before the EU is prepared to discuss their membership. If they can't keep a promise about religious rights NOW, what makes you think that this leopard will change its spots AFTER?

Alice, who is very discouraged.

I really don't know what the answer is.

Please read the original article of this thread...

The whole discussion here is about *formal promises* made regarding Orthodox religious rights that are being ignored TWO weeks before the EU is prepared to discuss their membership. If they can't keep a promise about religious rights NOW, what makes you think that this leopard will change its spots AFTER?

Alice, who is very discouraged by this news article.

I really don't know what the answer is.

The Turkish government is one of the worst human rights abusers and religious repressors. Since the tryumph of Kemal Ataturk, the US-backed Masonic dictatorship has murdered thousands of Christians and repressed Muslims.

Turkish gaols are full of disidents and political prisioners who are brutaly tortured (leftists, Kurdish Nationalists, Catholic Kurds, Armenians and religious Muslims).

The Ecumenical Patriarchate has been used by the Masonic government to promote its suposed image of "tolerance" throughout the world while the Church is facing destruction there (it's not a secret that among the Bishops presiding the Synod there are some who do not have more than 100 parishioenrs in the whole diocese!).

Dan, I don't know quite what you are getting at, considering the West promised help but never delivered, the Emperor St. Constantine Paleologus the Martyr dying on the walls of Constantinople in the midst of Turkish lances in expectation of help which did not come.

This is perhaps even more heinous considering that the Emperor did try to support Florence in accord with Rome. It certainly was NOT an issue of not wanting to be rescued. And one can hardly place all of the blame on the Greeks for the lack of success of Florence. But perhaps the outcome was a lesser injury, as the armies of the West would possibly have been tempted to replay the Fourth Crusade after rescuing a weakened Constantinople.

Certainly, as any secular government, the Empire had its share of despots and intrigue. No argument there.

Compared to our current country where the death of infants ranging in the millions annually is legal and sometimes government-funded, to me the allegation of corruption pales in comparison. I don't think the Byzantines ever sanctioned or had official proclamations condoning infanticide.

Moving to the present, I think the question is rather will Christianity be able to survive there, much less thrive. The vise continues to close on His Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch and the thinning ranks of his Church. It is difficult to evangelize with the restrictions and disabilities the EP currently has placed on it. May God through the Most Holy Theotokos, who saved Constantinople many times in the past through her intercession, save their people and bless their inheritance.

Dear Diak,

The Pope did send an army to help Constantinople, but they lost the battle. That helped to add to the consternation of the Greeks. Actually what happened, (and correct me if I'm wrong), was that the council of Basle was being held at the same time as the council of Florence. The Emporor had the choice of attending that one, which would have weakened the Papacy, or the one at Ferarra, ( later Florence).

Because of climate, etc., the Greeks preferred the one called by the Pope at Ferarra. This move on their part strengthened the Papacy, but left the Emporor with a weaker Western force to fight the Turks.

All this goes back to the treaty of Lausanne at the end of the war between Greece and Turkey in 1923. Two million Greeks were expelled, (rather harshly) from Smyrna (Ismir), and the rest of Asia Minor.

According to the treaty, the Patriarch was allowed to remain in Turkey, as long as some 25,000 Turks were allowed to live in Greek Thrace.

The result is that the Greeks in Istambul left during the pogroms of the 1950's and 1960's, yet the Turks living in Thrace have now exceeded one hundred and twenty thousand.

It seems that no matter what agreements are made, the Turks will always win out in the end. There's a method to their madness.

Today, they threaten Greece and Cyprus with squadrons of jets, (thanks to us). They fly over air space that is prohibited to them, and have to be escorted back by Greek jets.

You would think that the situation would be getting better, now that Greece and Cyprus have been backing them as members of the EU. But it's not. It's getting worse. But then again, if they didn't threaten, would any E.U. member state want them?

Zenovia