RE: The Supportive Hands

The void can never be filled by anything. We have got something superior to material that gives us life. No philosophy can quench the spiritual thirst of our spirits.

Yes, I see it that way, too, though I include and not exclude philosophy, since that is the very discipline which enables debate of theological nature - faith is the nutrition while philosophy is a tool. Many of former atheists, who had to try out atheism, come to that very same conclusion. People obviously need to make mistakes in order to come to insights.

The realisation that people are fighting something that they themselves have been steeped in for thousands of years is probably one of the most difficult things of all.

It throws you into a dilemma that cannot be solved by eradicating the part you reject while keeping the other part you accept. But if you don't want to let go of fighting one and keeping the other, you will also lose the other. In other words, the dilemma cannot be solved by killing or persecuting people, or by glorifying and favouring them, but only by killing the dilemma itself (the idea).

Killing an idea can only be done with words.
With the best and cleverest arguments a person is capable of. But if you don't practise debating and letting the better arguer win, you won't want to debate. Because someone rejects debate, he will not allow it and so he will want to silence people. And if they do not remain silent, he declares their words to be lawlessness.

Someone who finds it all too tedious and too slow and someone who wants it done quickly will think that speakers are nothing but weaklings. And that the weak speak because they have no strong arms and muscles to talk with. Since such mind itself is weak, it will not tolerate any contradiction to what it thinks and it does not know how to assert itself with words, it first gives bad names instead of good arguments, and if bad naming does not help to silence the opponent talker, it will want the weapon. Either its own weapons or those of others who are willing to silence or prosecute, or imprison or kill the opponent. If already in power, one deconstructs the symbols and buildings.

Attatürk's conversion of the Hagia Sophia into a museum in 1934 could be seen as a clear intention to secularise Turkey. If its largest and most famous building was no longer seen as a religious place, it seemingly was assumed that religion itself would also be discarded.

Like all such drastic measures, however, this has presumably offended devout Muslims to no end and probably cost non-believing Muslims no more than a shrug of the shoulders. It is impossible to say who is ultimately to be regarded as a believer or non-believer in a nation, as it is impossible to look into people's hearts. When they see that their places of worship have nothing more to offer them spiritually, they stay away and pray for themselves. Or stop praying altogether, both of which happen.

To have Hagia Sophia reopened in 2020 by Erdogan is viewed manyfold from an outlandish perspective; as radicalization , as comeback of religion, as an attempt to demonstrate strength and nationalism, as a benevolent or a malevolent action, as a strategic move etc. etc.

We have many Turkish people living here in Germany. I did not get in close touch with them and was not interested in the men, since where I grew up there weren't so many, compared to the big cities. I did not think much of them, since I perceived them as criminals and oppressing their wives and daughters.

A childhood friend of mine got in close relationship with a Turkish man and that did not go well. His brother was a known drug dealer and we heard that he carried always a gun with him. (I was fifteen or sixteen by that time).

Since what you don't do as a German is attending a gathering in a mosque, but you go to your own church (if so). So, to meet each other as devout believers, rules itself out. You tolerate each other from the distance. If you meet one another in the streets, you can't tell.

I stopped going to church myself and may be seen as part of the problem. When all the years go by in which one human being seemingly turns his back on religion, but still questions what it can mean at all, this is actually not a real turning ones back, but struggling with the self. Now I am old and came to the realization that I never stopped being a Christian, since I swam in Christian waters since my birth. But as I said, I was like the fish, not aware of the water.

Is it because Turkey is seen as a traitor and now wants to offer itself as an ally to nations like yours that see themselves as Muslim, but will not accept this offer if Turkey does not leave the EU, for example?

To summarise, I would say that if a person's inner struggle is not dealt with and pacified within themselves, it shifts to the outside and draws countless people into this struggle - on a personal level and a collective level. These are the effects that we all experience and if we are very unlucky, we find ourselves in the eye of the storm.

It is difficult to say whether it is a good or less good sign that previously inactive Christians are beginning to actively defend their values because they are being met with scepticism from within their own ranks. Because every religion has also been abused - which you also pointed out - and become known precisely for not being able to refrain from oppression. So, that scepticism shall be met and debates shall be held.

I could say so much more, and you see that this is something which keeps me occupied. I do appreciate your points of view and how you express yourself. We can continue and see where it leads us.