I was at the Istanbul Palace of Justice yesterday.
It's not like a wedding invitation. It is an “invitation” that if I don't go, I will be taken to the next hearing by police force. As a witness.
Court has started. The main cases have been taken inside. We three witnesses were waiting at the door. First they called someone, then me.
Identification is done. It was time for the oath. Everyone stood up. I put my hand to my chest, as I had done since I was a child. In the Christian tradition, when you take the oath.
The judge looked:
“What are you doing?”
“I swear.”
“Why is your hand on your chest?”
“I'm a Christian, I'm used to it.”
Response:
“This is a secular country. You can't do such things here.”
And a smile under his mustache. As if to say, “Who sent this lunatic?”.
That's when I thought.
What does secularism mean?
It means that the state is not affiliated to a religion.
It means that the state stands at an equal distance to all beliefs.
It means that the individual can freely live his or her faith.
Secularism is not about suppressing faith.
Secularism means that the state does not impose faith.
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, who systematized this principle when he founded the Republic of Turkey, did so not to erase religion from public life, but to free the state from the tutelage of religion.
But over time we developed another reflex:
Instead of remaining neutral, the state has become uncomfortable with religious visibility.
But I wasn't imposing anything on anyone there.
Nor was I disrupting the court order.
Nor was I interfering with someone else's freedom.
I just wanted to swear in the way I was used to.
In many secular countries, a witness can either put his or her hand on a holy book, say “on my honor” or simply make a statement. It is not the form that matters, but the legal bindingness.
In our country, freedom is often served like a hamburger menu.
There is a choice.
But it is limited.
You're this free.
This is too much.
You can do it.
But don't make it visible.
Secularism is not about ignoring faith.
Secularism is not about controlling faith at all.
The state should not stand in front of society with a stick in its hand like a lion tamer.
The state becomes neutral.
Citizens will be free.
If there is a “binge”, a tension, a feeling of being stuck in the country today, perhaps this is at the root of it:
Freedom measured and measured within rules.
But true freedom is this:
You are as free as you are born to be, not as I give you.
The duty of the state is to secure that freedom, not to curtail it.
That small moment in the courtroom was actually a tiny frame in a big picture.
And in that frame I saw this:
We still use secularism to draw boundaries, not to expand freedom.
Perhaps what we should really swear to is this:
To be a country that can tolerate each other's existence without fear or hesitation