There is an interesting court case in Turkey.

The background is as follows, in 1980, following a military coup, the Turkish Junta created mandatory religion classes in the schools as a way increasing government control of religious activities.

Additionally, the government either created or gave new powers to (not clear from the article) the directorate of religious affairs in Ankara, a government agency which which appoints imams, pays their wages, and reviews the sermons they give.

You see the Orwellian bit here. The government is micro-managing religion in order to maintain the secular character of the Turkish state.

It turns out that there is a problem though, Turkey is not completely Sunni Moslem, court cases have been filed, including this one by a member of the Alevi religious minority:

A court victory by Alevi mother Hatice Kose has prompted public questions over the government’s commitment to minority religious rights.

In 2004 Kose sparked a long legal battle when she tried to exempt her son from mandatory religious classes in elementary school: these include lessons on praying in a mosque as well fasting during the holy month of Ramadan and the obligatory pilgrimage to Mecca.

“We have our own beliefs and our own culture which is not what is being taught in schools,” said Kose, who says she was ridiculed as a pupil in her religion class as a child because she didn’t know how to pray.

“I can’t accept them trying to impose a foreign religion on us.”

In February Kose won her case in the Turkish Court of Appeals, which would have forced the ministry of education to change the content of the curriculum in religious education classes earlier this month.

But the government has appealed the decision in the Kose case, as it has other cases, saying it does not have the power to alter mandatory religion classes.

“Because religion classes are protected in the constitution there is nothing that can be done right now, it is beyond our authority,” said Mustafa Oymak, a spokesman for the ministry.

There are any number of reasons to support the plaintiffs, both in terms of civil rights, and the basic fact that a wall between the state and religion is a good thing.

What is notable in this case is that the plaintiffs also appear to be admirable in their own right, which is often not the case in civil rights litigation, “Alevism stresses tolerance and respect for all and equality between the sexes.: