Not when he's using my taxes to fund his trips, his phone, and lecturing the rest of us on morality. He ran on a platform of "purity" of spirit and being "a law and order" type. Well, it's against the law to use Tax money for illegal purposes. And, what he did was-in this State and in this Country against the law. He's welcome to move somewhere that he can say one thing and do another - he certainly has the wealth to go anywhere.

Hmm, I would rather live under a weak secular system for another 5 or 10 years than jump right into the endless pit of strong theocracy...

A very wise person said: Religion is the opium of
the poor . If you keep the opium out of sight,
people will less likely get addicted. So, keep Religion out of sight!

I fully agree with Mr Aiyar that if removing of headscarves ban means end of secularism, I must admit that it is based on falsehood and sham secularism. Over the past few decades, instead of the Turkish society being evolved into a modern secular and democratic entity, it has tragically ended into the quagmire of overt radicalization of Islam. This global syndrome in a very intriguing way started post 9/11 irrespective of the underlying pathologies of the tragedy itself. Now the question of head scarf could be explained in a variety of way. If it means a particular cultural trait in a harmless and very personal way independent of the propaganda of the state machinery, it´s probably OK. But if headscarf means isolation of our Muslim sisters from rest of the world, it is condemnable. If headscarf means "protection" from free world, it is condemnable. If headscarf means symbol of torture and domination it is condemnable.A personal dress code MUST never be linked to a national ideology or faith and certainly not go beyond the personal limits of choice. If it does, I do not see any difference between Nazi culture and the overtly Islamic trend that we are unfortunately observing across the continents. The question however must also be raised why an apparently secular country slipping into a dogmatic one. Why instead of Turkish govt lobbying for bringing Turkey within EU, they are lifting ban on headscarves? This move would make Turkey a difficult candidate for joining EU, I am afraid.

We have to understand that 'Secularism' as practiced in India is very 'different' from the kind practiced in Turkey. India's secularism is 'inclusive' whereas the Turkish variety is 'exclusive'. Kemal Ataturk would have known very well the profound influence of Islam on its population and that could have been the prime reason for him to enforce a 'ban' on wearing headscarves by women.

And the way the nations with muslims in majority are increasingly getting sucked up in the whirlpool of radicalism, it would be no shock or surprise that tomorrow an otherwise 'secular' Turkey also votes for complete Islamicization of its political and social setup.

"then it’s so weak it would have collapsed anyway."

This is logic to support allowing the collapse of secularism in Turkey?

Symbols are important, how will the average Turk see this? Perhaps a sign of the lessening power of the military over the civilian government.

How will Turkey's Islamists see it though?

It appears Turkey is making it's choice as far as potential membership in the EU. Turkey is going the Arab way, and not the European way. It's their choice to make.

Good luck Turkey, you're going to need it.

Part of the problem when discussing Turkish politics on the headscarf is the lack of differentiation between secularism as practiced in the US and India, and laicite. Turkish laicite, modeled after France, posits that religious symbols not be displayed in the political, hence public, space. "Laik" Turks feel that the founding principles of the country are being undermined by the changing of the constitution. Turkey, with or without the support of the whole public is moving away from laicite, hopefully towards secularism, rather than an Islamist state so many fear.