Faith and fundamentalism

by Petra Gimbad

I FELL in love with the concept of constitutional law a few years ago; the rights it enshrines are based on principles every man and woman must uphold in order to ensure human dignity, yet, in such a way that we are able to live together harmoniously.

It makes sense that if we wish others to respect our way of life, we must also be willing to do the same for others.

Therefore, it follows that if we expect others to uphold and fight for our right to live in the way we choose, we must also be willing to uphold these same rights for them.

My flatmates recently recommended that I read the book The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins. I plowed through it at a snail’s pace for the last few weeks, which is painful for someone who can breeze through 10 books in a day.

I just completed Chapter Three. Kiasuness decrees that I finish Chapter Four, even though I had a headache the last time I read the book. I cannot say for sure what it is about (I have not read even half of the book) although it is clear that the writer does not think much of religion.

My flatmate tells me that it is a convincing treatise on how the world will be a better place without religion. It was difficult to explain to him how my cultural upbringing as a Catholic woman has made me a more compassionate person. This does not mean that an atheist cannot be just as loving as a person who professes a faith. I just think that after a while, labels are useless in labelling a person as just or unjust.

The problem, as I see it, is this insistence we have on claiming an identity. How can an identity represent entirely who a person is? Therefore, how does being a Christian tell you who I am, or a Chinese for that matter? Or in the author’s case, an atheist British man?

Being Chinese does not make one filial, neither does being a Christian make one charitable. My atheist flatmate seems to love his parents and has worked in an area which was ranked one of the poorest places in Britain. Something which most of the people I used to attend church with would never contemplate doing, for all their posturing on how Jesus of the Bible transforms you.

Primarily, what disturbs about religion is not so much the concept of spirituality. My personal definition of spirituality is this: that there is a force out there called Love, which is the God I believe in. How we learn to embody this force is a personal journey. We experience Love along individual paths.

Instead, what disturbs is fundamentalism and the institutionalisation of religion.

Fundamentalism takes the view that "it is my way or the highway". It means imposing your perspective and will on others. Faith, to me, can only be carried by one who realises that he or she knows nothing. True humility decrees that what we know goes as far as our best knowledge, which can only be experienced.

Words fail to describe experience.

Words, anyway, are a mere invention to describe what we perceive. What we perceive is only one perspective that may be inaccurate. Language can further distort this perspective. More truthful is, therefore, the truth that is felt with the heart.

Institutionalisation of religion is another form of the "my way or the highway" approach. A friend once pointed out that only a secular country can truly enable a religion to flourish.

With a political system that institutionalises religion, there can be only one interpretation of the Quran, the Bible, the Buddhist scriptures or the Mahabharata and Ramayana.

History has shown, time and again, that this approach had led, for example, to the murder of children during the Christian Crusades and the mistreatment and violence that both men and women suffer on a large scale.

One fails to see the God in this.

One must therefore ask, will we ever learn? Do we have the courage to acknowledge these historical occurrences?

Theology has shown how, with time, interpretation changes with society. Our interpretations of whatever scripture we subscribe to therefore hold no guarantee of perfection.

To the best of our knowledge, even with the most loving intentions, there is never any guarantee that we know exactly what we are doing in the moment. The consequences of our actions carry across miles and through the cosmos, far beyond the boundaries of what we can foresee.

This is what I believe the Constitution protects: the freedom to pursue our paths of choice, but without impinging on the freedom of others or in a way that leads to the detriment of one’s neighbour. How well this freedom and system of mutual respect is protected is up to us.

Who we are as human beings must inevitably evolve. We are constantly moving towards increasing complexity. As opposed to a more complex bigoted and violent reality, hopefully, towards a direction of increasing compassion – for love, truth and peace.

Can't stand it

i really cannot tahan when some ppl say genocide/ethnic cleansing is happening here. I wan to state my stand here clear. Genocide/ethnic cleansing is not happening here. i don't like the way you guys twist the definition of genocide to suit your cause and by saying "other's should look at it in an indian perspective."

go tell the people of the former Yugoslavia that what is happening here is genocide. you can also go tell the people of Darfur,Sudan or even Iraqi Kurds. Tell the Jews what happened to them in WW2 is similiar to what is happening to you right now. how can you similiarize your plight with what happened in the killing fields of Cambodia. In Rwanda, almost a million Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed by Hutus. they were slashed to death with machetes. a painful and cruel death. do you still think the same is happening to you?

if you think that twisting universal definitions to suit your cause is alright, then consider this. Two persons which i would call the former, A and the latter, B. A is a good citizen whereas B is a thief, rapist, murderer. One day, B stole from A and raped a family member of A. A was very bitter about it and set out to find B. He eventually found him and killed him. When he was brought to court he protested his innocence and said "B's time is up, he should die. i just did him a favour and took it away for him instead of waiting for the court."

the courts would still sentence A to go to prison bcoz a murder is still a murder no matter how u twist the definition. if i were to agree with you that genocide is happening in m'sia. then i would have to agree that A is innocent too.

Right or Privilege

recently there's this Hindraf thing that sparked the outrage of the govt and malaysian alike. Datuk Seri Ali Rustam recommended that the leaders of Hindraf be stripped off their citizenship.

first of all. i wan to make clear that i do not support what Hindraf had done. they deserve to be punished but not to the extent of stripping their citizenship.

i am of the opinion that citizenship for someone born in that country is a right and not a privilege. no one can take away a person's rights. if their citizenship is stripped, then there's no difference to denying them basic human rights.

so what say you guys?

What really happened in the 1988 judicial crisis.

6 Supreme Court judges were suspended during that time which means theoretically, the Supreme Court itself had been suspended. How can one of the pillars of the Separation of Powers Concept be suspended? For those of you who dont know much about law and courts, there are 10 Judges in the Supreme Court at that time including the Lord President/CJ.

to know more on what really happened back then, read this. it is an account by Datuk George Seah, one of the judges suspended. you will be shocked to no end.

Issues of Judiciary

For those of you who are more interested in the current judiciary crisis going on in our country right now instead of the Nurin case, you are welcome to my blog to read up comprehensive information on that issue.

i also have a detailed transcript of the phone call recording by the lawyer VK Lingam. even did some research to give readers understanding about the whose who in Lingam's conversation. when i first heard it, i couldn't really understand also coz no context ma. the deixis also not clear.

already explained things in my blog. so happy reading and you can ask me questions if you are not clear about it.

disclaimer: i want to clear things here first. its not that i'm not interested with the Nurin case but the problem is, this kind of murders do happen from time to time, i am looking at it without emotions so that i can analyse it better and find solutions to improve the situation in our country concerning crime. what is the priority now? the nation as a whole or individual cases?

i din want to post the judiciary issue here because there are too many things being discussed here already. peace out..

Should Syariah Law replace the British Common Law?

This is what I saw from Tha Star:


N E W S
Nation Friday August 24, 2007

Minister: Study proposal on switch to Syariah law thoroughly

PUTRAJAYA: The proposal to use Syariah law to replace English common law in court proceedings should be studied thoroughly first, said Datuk Dr Abdullah Zin.

The Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department said the move, if approved, should be done in stages.

Lauding the proposal by Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim, he said Syariah law gave importance to justice.

It would also be a further development for Syariah law in the country in addition to introducing a uniform syariah law in all states, Dr Abdullah sai d yesterday.

“We are already in the process of getting a uniform syariah law in all 14 states including the Federal Territory relating to family, administration and criminal law.

“If there are more proposals for the development of Syariah law, they are most welcome but it should be done in stages,” he told reporters after opening the seminar on
counselling for Muslim terminally ill patients here.

Ahmad Fairuz had said that there was no need to use English common law after 50 years of independence, suggesting another procedure as a substitute.

He said Sections 3 and 5 of the Civil Law Act permitted judges wide discretion to import English common law, equity and statutes
into the legal system to fill gaps in Malaysian laws.

Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail also responded positively to Ahmad Fairuz’s proposal.

On the seminar, Dr Abdullah said the Islamic way of treating terminally ill patients was not to tell them how many “months they had left to live”.

“The Islamic way is to give them hope and the will to continue to survive and let them depend on their own physical strength to keep them alive,” he said.

************
I was shocked seeing this...how could it...???!!! i mean,can the religious law be applied to ALL without the consider of their own religion?I thought Mlaysia is a harmonious multicultural and multi-all country...