1. Introduction
In his book In Europe. Travels Through the Twentieth Century
1
, the Dutch author Geert Mak reports about a journey he took through the major cities of Europe in
1999. One of the chapters of this book is devoted to Istanbul. The author sketches the vicissitudes of this city, which is in fact the biggest metropolis of Turkey, and
which in the twentieth century underwent drastic changes under the reign of Mustafa Kemal, also known as Atatürk. It was indeed Atatürk who enforced far-
reaching secularisation in Turkey in the 1920’s and ‘30’s. This secularisation meant a revolution without precedent: women were no longer allowed to wear a
veil, men no longer a fez, the Islamic lunar calendar was abolished, as well as polygamy, Arabic script, and Islamic law. Friday was replaced by Sunday as the
day of rest, and all Koran schools were closed. Atatürk, Mak asserts, is for many the symbol of progress par excellence, of a strict separation between church and
state, and of the restriction of the power of the faithful. His reforms marked the final break with Turkey’s image as the “sick man of Europe,” as Turkey was once
known.
Today Turkey is still an Islamic country, in demographic terms more than ever before.
2
It is so even in a fatal way, at least according to those who are against Turkish membership of the European Union. The former French president
Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, for example, who was the chairperson of the European Convention that had to result in the European Constitution a failed attempt as we
know by now, said that Turkey represents a culture that is hostile towards Europe, and also represents a religion that has not known Western Enlightenment
and thus does not accept a strict separation between church and state.
3
In the light of these circumstances, Mak poses the question as to what in fact constitutes the greatest barrier between Turkey and the rest of Europe. “Is it
actually the countrys traditional Muslim character? Is it not, rather, Atatürks staunchly nationalist and dictatorial modernisation that blocks a lasting
rapprochement with modern-day Europe? Or, to put it differently: does the
1
Geert MAK, In Europe. Travels Through the Twentieth Century, London, Vintage, 2008, 896 p.
2
The large groups of Christians, for example, still present in Turkey after the First World War disappeared since then, partly as a consequence of the population exchanges after the Greek-
Turkish war, in application of the Treaty of Lausanne 1923. Already in 1924 Toynbee came to the conclusion that “the realm of the Oecumenical Patriarch has in effect become confined to the
Greek community in the city of Constantinople.” Arnold J. TOYNBEE, “The East after Lausanne”, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 84, 1923-1924, 84 p.94. An effort to establish a national home
for the Christian Armenian minority cfr. the fate of Armenians during the First World War failed, according to Turlington. See E. TURLINGTON, “The Settlement of Lausanne”, American
Journal of International Law Vol 18, 1924 696 p.700.
3
In the prominent French daily newspaper Le Monde, 8 November 2002. 1
Adams and Overbeeke: The Constitutional Relationship between Law and Religion
Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2008
problem really have to do with Muhammed? Does it not have just as much to do with Atatürk?”
4
Rephrased in the terminology of government policy: should the relationships between church and state be arranged in such a manner that
manifestations of religion are only allowed in the private sphere? Or should the state rather be tolerant of religion in a more generous manner? We will return to
these questions at the end of this article.
Before we attempt this, however, we would like to highlight a number of recent developments regarding the relationship between church and state in
Belgium. These developments sketch the atmosphere in which this relation exists at present. They seem to indicate a changed attitude of at least the Belgian
Kategori