Source: https://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/17365/84/
Abolish UMNO - as no political will to eradicate corruption in the most corrupt institution? PDF Print E-mail
Posted by admin
Thursday, 29 January 2009 16:09
Should UMNO be abolished altogether as there is no political will whatsoever to eradicate corruption in the country's most corrupt institution
Media Statement (2) by DAP Parliamentary Leader and MP for Ipoh Timor Lim Kit Siang in Petaling Jaya on Thursday, 29th January 2009:
Just as no one expects that the proposal of the Umno disciplinary board chairman Tengku Tan Sri Ahmad Rithaudeen to abolish the Umno wings - Wanita, Youth, Puteri and Putera – to end the scourge of money politics in Umno would be taken seriously by an Umno leader, nobody believes that it is possible to eradicate corruption in the country's most corrupt institution, Umno, because of the sheer absence of such political will.
Sure enough Rithaudeen's proposal encountered immediate objection yesterday from the Umno top-guns, like Umno vice president Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, Umno Youth leader Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein, Umno Wanita leader Tan Sri Rafidah Aziz and Puteri Umno leader Datuk Noraini Ahmad with the de facto Umno President and Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak delivering the coup de grace when he said today that Umno will not abolish any of its wings as they are important in nurturing future leaders of the party.
If Rithaudeen is right – and he is right – that the many elections for the Umno Youth, Wanita, Puteri and Putera wings created opportunities for money-making, all that Najib meant about "nurturing future leaders of the party" is to give them opportunities to be adept in the art of corruption in Umno party elections.
No wonder Umno has the notoriety as the most corrupt institution in the country and Rithaudeen is totally helpless to check money politics, to the extent that he has to concoct a totally unacceptable analogy to justify the Umno disciplinary board's failure to hand over all cases of Umno money politics to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).
New Straits Times reported Rithaudeen's attempt to differentiate the powers and jurisdictions of the MACC and the Umno disciplinary board, as follows:
Rithauddeen differentiated the powers and jurisdictions of the MACC and the board, after Umno asked the commission last July to help it arrest rampant vote-buying in the party.
He used the analogy of a doctor who operated on a patient while drunk.
"Under criminal law, the doctor can be charged with negligence if the patient dies. The deceased's relatives can also sue for damages under civil law and, finally, the Malaysian Medical Council can also take action against him by stripping him of the ability to practise.
"This is the same with Umno members caught for money politics. They can be charged under criminal law for corruption and sentenced to prison or fined.
"At the same time, the board will also take action against them by suspending their membership," Rithauddeen said.
Investigations by the MACC and the board will be done separately by each body and any sharing of information will be done on a case-by-case basis, he said.
"The MACC has its own investigations and we have our own investigations. We do not get involved with the MACC."
Rithaudeen should realize that his analogy is erroneous, fallacious and highly dangerous – just as it is wrong for him to suggest that the charge of criminal negligence in the case of a doctor who operated while drunk resulting in death could be avoided by refusing or failing to report the crime to the proper authorities.
Similarly, Rithaudeen and the members of the Umno disciplinary board could be violating the law and committing crimes themselves if they withhold from the MACC any case of Umno money politics - which MACC Chief Commissioner Datuk Seri Ahmad Said Hamdan had said categoricaly as "corruption" in Sunday Times interview (January 25, 2009) –by not reporting every crime of corruption to the authorities.
Rithaudden's sense of despair and futility in the impossible battle against corruption and money politics in Umno caused him to make the radical proposal to abolish the various Umno wings.
When will an honest and upright Umno leader make the next logical proposal – that UMNO be abolished altogether as there is no political will whatsoever to eradicate corruption in the country's most corrupt institution?
Lim Kit Siang
Comments (23)Add Comment
...
written by Raja Chulan, January 29, 2009 16:17:41
Registrar of Society can de-register UMNO. Let us file a report with ROS.
report abuse
disagree 1
agree 38
...
written by Raja Chulan, January 29, 2009 16:23:53
Corruption is a crime NOT a way of life. As such UMNO is indulging in Criminal Activities. As such it is in breach of Society Act. Reasonable grounds for deregistration.
report abuse
disagree 1
agree 27
...
written by eloofk, January 29, 2009 16:37:37
Under criminal law, any UMNO member found guilty of money politics, he or she can be charged for the offence.
Under civil law, the acused can sue MACC for damages as a result defamation, wrongful arrest etc...
How can MACC have the cloud to eradicate corruption?
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 15
...
written by arazak, January 29, 2009 16:38:15
Why would Najis want to abolish the Youth, Putri and Putra wings? It suits them well as a training ground to be corrupt leaders in the future. It is also a training ground to be robbers and thieves when they hold high offices in the future! Thiese wings teaches them how to rob the rakyaats' money and the nation's wealth.
The only soultion is to kick them out in the next GE (that. . ., if it is a fair election)! Which, I do not think will happen as long as the SPR still prostitute itself to UMNO!
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 17
...
written by justinlian, January 29, 2009 16:41:22
Lim Kit Siang should correct one statement of his.
It is the most currupted institution in the world not country
They do it and they have to die with it.
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 27
...
written by eloofk, January 29, 2009 16:44:04
This is the internal affairs of UMNO and let the members themselves decide if they want to abolish, destroy or exterminate their own party or not.
I would rather see UMNO in my history book and let my children and grandchildren know how UMNO has come to an end through the book.
report abuse
disagree 2
agree 16
...
written by quietguy, January 29, 2009 16:47:11
To Margeemar,
Huh? You comment is totally off-topic.
NOTE: Irrelevant comment by Margeemar has been removed
report abuse
disagree 4
agree 6
...
written by Awaken64, January 29, 2009 16:50:42
LKS UMNO is just a acronym, deregistering it will not help. It is the people and thier mentality that is in a pitiable state. GREED, REVENGE AND ILLWILL
breeds like wild fire.
The nation needs a total shift in their thinking and ALL Politicians are doing is fighting for their own shallow cause. Making hay and going about with narrow views.
What we need is a unity campaign and a grass root activities NON POLITICAL.
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 8
...
written by Wisdom above, January 29, 2009 17:06:14
After reading this article I have only this to say.
"Mari kita Berpuasa dan Berdoa" for Wisdom, Revelation, Peace and Tranquilty to Prevail.
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 5
...
written by ahmadneil, January 29, 2009 17:27:25
A den full of thieves,corrupted and racist.
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 9
...
written by ibabonma, January 29, 2009 17:56:24
Why is UMNO corrupted? Because they have the money to buy votes.
Where do their money come from? The close tender contracts UMNO controls at the various PPT (Government Departments, local council etc).
How to check them in their paths? Open up the tenders, who ever quotes the lowest gets the contract.
In no time, nobody will be interested to be Ketua Cawangan or Ketua Bahagian.
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 16
...
written by DreamLady, January 29, 2009 18:21:10
Rethaudeen, please back off from making further attempt to correct the goons. When you failed miserably to do a thorough cleansing for UMNO regime, I doubt anyone could. Do allow these corrupted devils to die a natural death!!
report abuse
disagree 1
agree 7
...
written by KARMANNGHIA, January 29, 2009 18:32:35
KKK, Neo Nazism, learn from the very best, learn from AMno goons.
They are the most racist buggers in history.
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 6
...
written by Msian Idol3, January 29, 2009 19:11:50
A racist party that threatens the national security of the country.
A corrupted party that steals every opportunities for all Msians irrespective of colour for their self interest & has high officials who are tainted as sexual predators, money launderers, even a PM in waiting tainted with murder.
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 5
...
written by Fuminari, January 29, 2009 19:18:57
abolish the wings would be jus as good as shattering these thieves' n bandits' rice bowls n lubangs,no they will not do that.
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 4
...
written by T Square, January 29, 2009 19:20:35
................Perhaps the Honorable Tengku Ahmad Rithaudeen and Razaleigh Hamzah wish to consider switching sides.
No point hanging around to do the right thing when it is always wrong.
UMNO cease to exist as a respectable entity after TDM re-register the party.
UMNO Baru and it's reputation as the most corrupt instituition is the brainchild of TDM.
Now it's turned into a monster and the only cure is to put it down.
There really is no other options left.
Najib is a potential murderer, very corrupted, and one of the contestants for the post of Deputy is convicted for corruption.
Of the remaining two, one is very very corrupted from south of the country and the other, well utters nonsense most of the time.
How could any respectable leader of other countries take our current crop of leading politicians seriously.
It's a joke. Foreign investor are not going to come near any of of those jokers.
Picture this sometime in the future, a leading investor from say Germany talking to 2mohd, our DPM about investment.
2mohd's message to them in malay of course is "apa pun boleh" just to bring a few suitcases of cash otherwise no deal.
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 6
...
written by densemy, January 29, 2009 20:02:29
There is one factor common to 14 of the bottom 25 countries with the worst Corruption Index ....and its not UMNO
There is one factor missing from the top 25 countries with the lowest Corruption Index... and its not UMNO either
report abuse
disagree 1
agree 1
...
written by Beezee_Beezee, January 29, 2009 22:35:42
UMNO Leaders Knows whatacto LAW Minister will happened if our former De Facto LAW Minister proposal accepted by all UMNO Leaders. This where he is coming from. UMNO can smell the sting is coming and rather reject all the proposal. So what left. To fight and Removed UMNO completely. Either by defaction or by vote of no confidence. From what being discussed above two whole of UMNO Party is a TOTAL Corrupt including the Administratives, Judicary and made the constitution defunk and only good for UMNO.
Even SPRM cna bring them to court this will be kautim. So what's the point. KIMO pun tak bolih jalan. Waiting for DooMs day for UMNO.....
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 0
...
written by Msahibul56, January 29, 2009 22:56:03
Most Umno members will tell you that they join the party to serve the people but actually the real reason is to make money either by hook or by crook.
So the bottom line is they are actually CROOKS. All of them, from top to bottom.
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 1
...
written by wood, January 29, 2009 23:51:13
Saudara LKS, no need to abolish UMNO ! Perhaps they have started to press the self destruct button and the countdown has already started. Maybe they did not realise it yet ! Then one fine day we hear a LOUD BOOM !!!!!! and Goodbye !!!!!!
smilies/wink.gif
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 2
...
written by batsman, January 30, 2009 10:00:28
UMNO says it wants to fight corruption but it is unable to control politik wang within its own ranks. UMNO says it defends democracy when it detains people without trial under the ISA, but it suppresses competition during elections for its top 2 posts within itself. Is this the picture of an honest and righteous party?
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 0
...
written by carribeanking7, January 30, 2009 21:37:22
UMNO fighting curruption ? Huh ? next thing you know drug dealers will start an anti drug drive, gimme a break.
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 0
...
written by Milo, January 30, 2009 21:40:39
UMNO has transformed itself from that of mild closet corruptionism to radical open corruptionism. Corruption has evolved to become a religion of sort for the UMNOputras, where non-believers within and without the party will be marginalised or destroyed to preserve their survival. UMNO has to fall in order for the country to be saved.
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 0
Write comment
You must be logged in to a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
Friday, January 30, 2009
MT: Why should I respect these oppressive religions? — Johann Hari
Source :https://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/17362/84/
Why should I respect these oppressive religions? — Johann Hari PDF Print E-mail
Posted by admin
Thursday, 29 January 2009 15:49
(The Independent) JAN 29 — The right to criticise religion is being slowly doused in acid. Across the world, the small, incremental gains made by secularism — giving us the space to doubt and question and make up our own minds — are being beaten back by belligerent demands that we "respect" religion. A historic marker has just been passed, showing how far we have been shoved. The UN rapporteur who is supposed to be the global guardian of free speech has had his job rewritten — to put him on the side of the religious censors.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights stated 60 years ago that "a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief is the highest aspiration of the common people". It was a Magna Carta for mankind — and loathed by every human rights abuser on earth. Today, the Chinese dictatorship calls it "Western", Robert Mugabe calls it "colonialist", and Dick Cheney calls it "outdated". The countries of the world have chronically failed to meet it — but the document has been held up by the United Nations as the ultimate standard against which to check ourselves. Until now.
Starting in 1999, a coalition of Islamist tyrants, led by Saudi Arabia, demanded the rules be rewritten. The demand for everyone to be able to think and speak freely failed to "respect" the "unique sensitivities" of the religious, they decided — so they issued an alternative Islamic Declaration of Human Rights. It insisted that you can only speak within "the limits set by the shariah [law]. It is not permitted to spread falsehood or disseminate that which involves encouraging abomination or forsaking the Islamic community".
In other words, you can say anything you like, as long as it is precisely what the reactionary mullahs tell you to say. The declaration makes it clear there is no equality for women, gays, non-Muslims, or apostates. It has been backed by the Vatican and a bevy of Christian fundamentalists.
Incredibly, they are succeeding. The UN's Rapporteur on Human Rights has always been tasked with exposing and shaming those who prevent free speech — including the religious. But the Pakistani delegate recently demanded that his job description be changed so he can seek out and condemn "abuses of free expression" including "defamation of religions and prophets". The council agreed — so the job has been turned on its head. Instead of condemning the people who wanted to murder Salman Rushdie, they will be condemning Salman Rushdie himself.
Anything which can be deemed "religious" is no longer allowed to be a subject of discussion at the UN — and almost everything is deemed religious. Roy Brown of the International Humanist and Ethical Union has tried to raise topics like the stoning of women accused of adultery or child marriage. The Egyptian delegate stood up to announce discussion of shariah "will not happen" and "Islam will not be crucified in this council" — and Brown was ordered to be silent. Of course, the first victims of locking down free speech about Islam with the imprimatur of the UN are ordinary Muslims.
Here is a random smattering of events that have taken place in the past week in countries that demanded this change. In Nigeria, divorced women are routinely thrown out of their homes and left destitute, unable to see their children, so a large group of them wanted to stage a protest — but the shariah police declared it was "un-Islamic" and the marchers would be beaten and whipped. In Saudi Arabia, the country's most senior government-approved cleric said it was perfectly acceptable for old men to marry 10-year-old girls, and those who disagree should be silenced. In Egypt, a 27-year-old Muslim blogger Abdel Rahman was seized, jailed and tortured for arguing for a reformed Islam that does not enforce shariah.
To the people who demand respect for Muslim culture, I ask: which Muslim culture? Those women's, those children's, this blogger's — or their oppressors'?
As the secular campaigner Austin Darcy puts it: "The ultimate aim of this effort is not to protect the feelings of Muslims, but to protect illiberal Islamic states from charges of human rights abuse, and to silence the voices of internal dissidents calling for more secular government and freedom."
Those of us who passionately support the UN should be the most outraged by this.
Underpinning these "reforms" is a notion seeping even into democratic societies — that atheism and doubt are akin to racism. Today, whenever a religious belief is criticised, its adherents immediately claim they are the victims of "prejudice" — and their outrage is increasingly being backed by laws.
All people deserve respect, but not all ideas do. I don't respect the idea that a man was born of a virgin, walked on water and rose from the dead. I don't respect the idea that we should follow a "Prophet" who at the age of 53 had sex with a nine-year old girl, and ordered the murder of whole villages of Jews because they wouldn't follow him.
I don't respect the idea that the West Bank was handed to Jews by God and the Palestinians should be bombed or bullied into surrendering it. I don't respect the idea that we may have lived before as goats, and could live again as woodlice. This is not because of "prejudice" or "ignorance", but because there is no evidence for these claims. They belong to the childhood of our species, and will in time look as preposterous as believing in Zeus or Thor or Baal.
When you demand "respect", you are demanding we lie to you. I have too much real respect for you as a human being to engage in that charade.
But why are religious sensitivities so much more likely to provoke demands for censorship than, say, political sensitivities? The answer lies in the nature of faith. If my views are challenged I can, in the end, check them against reality. If you deregulate markets, will they collapse? If you increase carbon dioxide emissions, does the climate become destabilised? If my views are wrong, I can correct them; if they are right, I am soothed.
But when the religious are challenged, there is no evidence for them to consult. By definition, if you have faith, you are choosing to believe in the absence of evidence. Nobody has "faith" that fire hurts, or Australia exists; they know it, based on proof. But it is psychologically painful to be confronted with the fact that your core beliefs are based on thin air, or on the empty shells of revelation or contorted parodies of reason. It's easier to demand the source of the pesky doubt be silenced.
But a free society cannot be structured to soothe the hardcore faithful. It is based on a deal. You have an absolute right to voice your beliefs — but the price is that I too have a right to respond as I wish. Neither of us can set aside the rules and demand to be protected from offence.
Yet this idea — at the heart of the Universal Declaration — is being lost. To the right, it thwacks into apologists for religious censorship; to the left, it dissolves in multiculturalism. The hijacking of the UN Special Rapporteur by religious fanatics should jolt us into rescuing the simple, battered idea disintegrating in the middle: the equal, indivisible human right to speak freely. — The Independent
Comments (32)Add Comment
...
written by Zym Zym, January 29, 2009 16:10:30
Of all the inventions that we human beings had invented thus far, religion is the most pathetic and the most destructive man-made concept in all of history. For the tyrannic leaders, it's some kind of oppression over the masses. Well, seriously, of all the religions that I wish that it could be wiped out from the crust of the earth once and for all is the theist religion! If you think that humans need religion to be good then you're dead wrong! Look at the Danes and the Swedes and check this out: http://www.slate.com/id/2203614/?GT1=38001
report abuse
disagree 7
agree 43
...
written by Wisdom above, January 29, 2009 16:22:21
A explicit exposition on contemporary religious 'Righteousness'.
It helps to reflect deeper as to why 'Righteousness' was high-jacked by their elders.
report abuse
disagree 1
agree 13
...
written by johntyc, January 29, 2009 16:46:38
Allowing religious authority to control our lives is so Middle Ages! I believe God is always fair to everyone but unfortunately, most religious authority are corrupt to the core, just like most politician. They 'modifies' bible or kitab to suit their own interests, and also their master's interests!
report abuse
disagree 2
agree 22
...
written by Anti Relon, January 29, 2009 16:46:47
I never thought MT Admin would pick up this report from The Independent (UK.
Thank you
Links: www.independent.co.uk
Now that Admin has audiciously picked up this report, why not pcik some reports from The Freethinker
Links: www.freethinker.co.uk
Thanks again
report abuse
disagree 2
agree 22
...
written by mountainking, January 29, 2009 17:04:12
it's the same thing in malaysia. Once you are accused/framed to be insulting the prophet Muhammad or Islam, you will be either in ISA or seditious charge. but you are free to condemn buddhism, hinduism, christianity, bash judaism to the max, making Jesus appears to be gay is non-seditious.
if there is a restriction on condemning/insulting the prophets/islam, the same rule should apply to other religions too.
my view, things should not be selective. either you restrict or you permit.
report abuse
disagree 5
agree 37
...
written by Liberace, January 29, 2009 17:21:52
Mr Johann Hari,
If your faith is in the UN, you are no less misled than the practitioners of all those ideas and beliefs you don't respect. At the end of the day, it's just another idea, subject to manipulation by men as all religions are.
report abuse
disagree 19
agree 17
...
written by jibbief, January 29, 2009 18:23:31
They has never been or will ever be a god. This god of the Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Bahais and what not is a man-made creation. All men of religion say that theirs is the true god but I ask, whose god is the true god? Till today no one has answered this question becos they know that they will never be able to prove it.
More men have died in god's name than for any other reason. If there relly is a god, he must reappear to us and put things right so that man can live in real peace. But we all know that this will never happen and so our suffering goes on and on and on.
report abuse
disagree 11
agree 32
...
written by densemy, January 29, 2009 18:37:17
Read this article alongside Doctor in the House... and cry for insanity that plagues Malaysia
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 9
...
written by Kopi37, January 29, 2009 18:48:55
I am a free thinker, I don't believe in any religion but do believe in the Deity. The Deity is omnipotent which is symbolic of a good character - philanthropic, compassionate, empathetic and kind-hearted and all these are omnipresent in my heart to feel and in my mind to think of what the dos and not dos in my life as a human being, as the servant of the Deity!
I don't listen or trust the words of the evangelist or the preacher for I regard them as salesmen who are out to hard sell their product which they relied on earning a living or earning fame! I hate those behave hypocritically who preach for one thing and do another totally controversial to what they preach as much as I hate the politicians who are hypocrites in masquerade of a pious religious preacher! They are the insults to their God who virtully have betrayed the product - the religion - they are promoting! How to trust them?!
report abuse
disagree 3
agree 11
...
written by razzwill, January 29, 2009 19:00:57
Thank you for reproducing this article in all its controversial and provocative glory. Indeed, if we were approached by an insurance company (for example) which demands that our trust in it was based purely on faith, we would chase it out of our sight with brooms and sticks. Yet, with religion, which operates on a similar basis of faith and nothing else, human kind, from the lowest rung of society to the most educated and intelligent, do not question it's motives but accept them wholesale.
report abuse
disagree 1
agree 16
...
written by lynn, January 29, 2009 19:30:10
Religion had been one most useful tool for politicians in Bodohland, to divide & rule, to brainwash the masses, threaten the non-Malays into supporting BN by warning them abt Hudud law if their votes went to PAS. Yet no one from PAS or Umno had ever educated us abt what kind of punishment they intended for corrupt politicians & cronies, if any..
razzwill, strange you mentioned insurance ... other Atheists I had met were like me: we despised insurance agents & their smooth talk which gives one goosebumps. The worst combo would be an agent who is a extreme x'tian. That's when I promise them faithfully I would bring out my brooms if they come to my door to preach.
This Almighty God's existence can only be accepted with concrete proof. After all, seeing is believing. You see the sun rises every morning without fail. The sun's existence is self-evident & the sun don't make demands on us, nor preach abt hell. But not this God theory; x'tians asked me to prove God's non-existence. Of course I can't prove it because He just doesn't exist! Besides all religions are man-made. The word "faith" is an insult to my intelligence. The only time one uses that word is when we end our letters politely with "Yours faithfully,".
report abuse
disagree 8
agree 21
...
written by InEffective, January 29, 2009 19:59:14
From time immemorial, men have leveraged and used religion for their personal gain.
(and many have suffered their terror).
What is so disappointing in Malaysia and a total letdown, is that those entrusted with the preservation, application, and the custodians of religion failed miserably to defend religion and prevent it from being abused and leveraged by politicians.
So who is the self-proclaimed custodians of religion in Malaysia ? - why its our privileged rulers of course.
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 8
...
written by varvoom, January 29, 2009 20:10:55
Religion: Roots of all evil...watch this video and be enlighten http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=I_1Gpt6dKFo
report abuse
disagree 5
agree 9
...
written by cabearth, January 29, 2009 20:16:12
To start off with, most of the questioning of religions are false anyways. And, as if the Humanists are free from faults.
All of the so call questions against Islam turned out to be a figment of liberal's imagination which forced Muslims to write their own version of Human Rights declaration.
The Islamic Human Rights declaration are more humble and respectful to human nature, that is submission to creator.
Libeals on the other hand are arrogant. They think God does not exist and as such God should not play a part in our daily lives.
So, the motivation of this article is the feeling of regret for their arrogance are now being stimied.
One question: Why do we need to question religion? Is there a pressing need for it?
report abuse
disagree 25
agree 5
...
written by Tompios, January 29, 2009 20:43:08
Well done Johan! Anyway, I still need religion and the philosophy of the religion. Without religion, most of the Borneons including me will hunt your head for fun!!
report abuse
disagree 6
agree 14
...
written by born2reign, January 29, 2009 21:26:17
The way humans are behaving you'd have to agree we are worse than animals and are not eligible to enter the animal kingdom. Therefore we cannot be of animals.
We are just the opposite of good humans. We are by nature, evil. Islam will create such a dark world (sorry for those who believe that it is a beautiful religion) mainly because the Muslims do not crucify their cancerous brothers, but allow these men in robes to rule with free hand. What's the difference between Nazi Hitler leading the Germans to murder, and the Muslim cleric leading the entire Muslim population to degrade and kill women and children? Same action, different leader.
The obscene thing is that a Muslim will kill a non-Muslim for questioning Islam, but will stand by cowardly while a Muslim man rape and rob a non-Muslim.
Race and religion are just an illusion. It is a fantastic divider, and one that gives absolute power to the leader. I for one believes God has the absolute power, and yet He gives us the power to choose and decide. Man on the other hand, should never, ever, ever be given absolute power. There must always be check and balance (and sack the bugger who fails)
report abuse
disagree 2
agree 16
...
written by crazygweilo, January 29, 2009 23:15:16
The 20th century, has been the most bloody and vicious in the history of mankind, and the 21st looks no better so far. Religion can be a force for good, and it is divine in its best form. The problem are people, seeking power, wealth, and land. Selective interpretation results, and religion is used and abused as a lever towards power. It must be avoided at all costs, and the proven solution, despite my studying the Shariah Law option is a secular state, with respect for freedom of worship.
One night at my local pub I ordered a Jug of Tiger beer. My friends and I drank most of it initially. We were on the topic of "Religion is bad"
I demonstrated. "See that Jug, we have almost drank most of it"
Yes.
The amount of beer remaining represents the amount of people who died due to religious conflicts in the 20th century to date.
I called - Lagi Satu Jug.
Along it came.
In this Jug, THIS represents the amount of people murdered due to regimes that had no respect for religion.
I finished the last of the first Jug and said:
"I'll take some religion before no religion"
Is'nt ironic that those who profess to love God, are those who seek to oppress their fellow man. Is'nt it ironic that those who profess to hate their enemies do not love their children enough. As a result, conflict continues.
I do not single out Muslims or Islam alone in this. I can certainly point out the Ku Klux Klan in America. I can point at the anti protestant pogroms in Ireland and the anti Catholic pogroms in Northern Ireland, and Scotland. I can point at the continued oppression of the Thai Muslims. I can point at Spain and Italy abusing religion under Fascism. The wars in former Yugoslavia. AND that, is even before I start pointing fingers at Predominantly Muslim nations.
Meanwhile, without religion, who got power.
Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, Josef Djugashvili Stalin, Vladimir Lenin, Adolf Hitler, Slobodan Milosevic.......between them they account for around 100 Million people.
The religious regimes barely account for a fraction of that. Perhaps 5 Million if you are unfortunate. Thats in 109 years.
report abuse
disagree 9
agree 5
...
written by AsamLaksa, January 30, 2009 00:07:28
Cabearth, who cares if the questioning of religion is false? Just tell me where in the primary sources of Islam does it definitely tell you that no one can question Islam? Tell me with any evidence you have that the Prophet forbid anyone from questioning Islam?
The questions on religion are not the problem. It's the people who get offended with the question that are the problem. Are they the worst kind of fools; those that do not know that they do not know?
Please tell me why is questioning any religion a big problem?
report abuse
disagree 1
agree 14
...
written by Davy McChester, January 30, 2009 04:41:47
Money talks,UN has been sold out to the highest bidder. We will see the emergence of a new world order which will possess all the qualities of tyranny. If ex UN chief Kopi Anan could find ways to circumvent UN embargo on Irag to help his son,you can also expect the unthinkable from UN: Curtailment of speech freedom through charters created to protect religion, something which caused,and still causing, most deaths to mankind,committed in the name of God. So,people,we are back again to reinforce justified killing machine called "religion". It is time to throw out "religion" that deprives human of their fundamental rights:Freedom of conscience,freedom of choice,freedom not to be killed in the name of religion. We need to speak up against pea-brain religious zealots who wish to control and divide and suppress new thoughts that challenge their stupidity. They want to control you ! It is about control ,not about finding salvation,here on earth. The retards want to control the masses and divide them whenever the retards feel threatened. Most retards,today, run the Middle East countries
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 8
...
written by varvoom, January 30, 2009 05:28:45
Here2 Davy McChester, we conscious educated earthlings will continue to make this planet a better place for all star dust to propagate as we have the universe to colonize.
report abuse
disagree 1
agree 0
...
written by Rozlan, January 30, 2009 09:06:42
dear Johann
You can always aked for a public debate with muslim scholars for anything you wish to criticised about Islam.YOu are free to choose a topic..Anyway I am not so sure you are free to debate with other religion..
report abuse
disagree 9
agree 0
...
written by Littlebird, January 30, 2009 09:29:17
For thousands of years no one has seen god yet billions believe in him. How could so many people believe in something which no man has seen or heard or even performed any direct intervention to save so many suffering people?
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 3
...
written by mawi, January 30, 2009 09:52:40
The song's lyric ask humans to imagine that there are no religions.Then , the song went on to ask us to imagine that there is no war, no hunger, freedom etc etc. But this can only remain as imagination because even when there are religions, devastating wars still lingers. There is hunger everywhere and humans are still suspicious of one another. The writer lives in imagination. Confined to his own world or probably within small groups of people, his imaginations pictures reality and reality in the making justifying imposition on to the human race across the board.But the reality is, he has no answer to all the complexities that faces human beings ever since time immemorial. He has no right answers as any answers bears no right and no wrong, the very basis of human collusion and the very fact that this has been the only reason, ever since on why humans degrade and exterminate each other.
The answers are in religion.
report abuse
disagree 4
agree 0
...
written by batsman, January 30, 2009 09:55:45
The US uses Human Rights to attack weak nations. You are joining the pack of dogs controlled by the US.
report abuse
disagree 5
agree 0
...
written by mawi, January 30, 2009 10:06:22
Deat Littlebird,
I guess you do not believe that the wind exist as you can't see it. Nor would you believe that air exist since we also cannot see air. But one may argue to say that we can "see" wind when it sways trees, moves objects and we can even feel it when it gushes across our face.You can't see god as how you see an object but you can "see" God as how you see the wind or the air exist.
report abuse
disagree 2
agree 1
...
written by panca, January 30, 2009 10:10:37
Perhaps go sit under a tree and do some good quiet thinking by yourself!
Feel the lovely breeze that caress your face.
Know what is an illusion and be disillusioned!
smilies/grin.gif smilies/grin.gif smilies/grin.gif
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 0
...
written by mawi, January 30, 2009 10:18:11
Assam Laksa,
There is a contrast between questioning Islam and ridiculing it.Is flushing the Quran in the toilet bowl for the Muslims to see or painting Prophet Mohammad in a degradable manner; questioning Islam? Muslims are open to questions and Islam requires its followers to open the religion to questions. But you have to draw the line between what is questioning and what is bashing.
report abuse
disagree 2
agree 1
...
written by temenggong, January 30, 2009 11:41:40
Excellent article and excellent discussions. Let me add.
"You see the sun rises every morning without fail. The sun's existence is self-evident.."
In philosophy and metaphysics this is called Axiomatic Truths. Any religion or philosophy that is not built on axiomatic truths is a camoflaged lie. Which is most of the religions today (but not all). Faith without such truths is superstition. Today Faith is a synonym for Superstition.
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 1
...
written by hellosunshine, January 30, 2009 11:54:33
I do believe there is a God but why did he only appear to the people thousands of years ago and not now? His messengers could have passed on to their disciples down the lines, distorted and altered messages over the years, as can be proven by present day management trainers where trainees changed a basic message completely from the original. These trainees are mostly uni-grads compared to the disciples, mind you. Go figure.
Man has killed each other in the name of their Gods over the centuries and it is a good time now for God to appear since we can now spread His message and photos over the internet in an instant.
Or with the present signs, are we heading towards Armageddon?
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 2
...
written by CPY, January 30, 2009 12:02:41
Not all religions are bad. Though there are theological disagreement, they have at least 1 common point, that is 'do to others what u want others do to u'. Obviously some are misused, & deviated too.
report abuse
disagree 2
agree 0
...
written by tan_eng, January 30, 2009 14:40:08
Hi Everyone,
The conclusion is all religion are cult. There are no exception, its just that after so many years believing in a religion, majority humans find it hard to accept the fact. :-)
To Cabearth,
You asked this question...
1. One question: Why do we need to question religion? Is there a pressing need for it?
My answer ...
1. Yes there are. You see my brother, people are being deprived of their basic rights because of religion.
2. Wars are happening in the name of religion
3. People are being killed in the name of religion
4. People are being sidelined in the name of religion.
5. Humans are not being treated equally because of religion.
And the list goes on. Humanity must prevail so whenever Palestine or Israel gets bombed then every human will cry for them. Now we live in the age of hypocrisy because religion blinds our mind.
Malaysian fighting For Malaysia
smilies/grin.gif smilies/grin.gif smilies/grin.gif
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 2
...
written by kavidibaku, January 30, 2009 15:00:05
Well said tan_eng.
Religion should be left at home and not to be brought to public or politics.
written by Tompios, January 29, 2009 20:43:08
Well done Johan! Anyway, I still need religion and the philosophy of the religion. Without religion, most of the Borneons including me will hunt your head for fun!!
Tompios, religion is not only to prevent you from chopping other people's head for fun but also to treat every human equally. If a religion doesn't promote that, that's when all the problems starts. Religious extrimism is the root cause for every single problem.
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 0
Write comment
Why should I respect these oppressive religions? — Johann Hari PDF Print E-mail
Posted by admin
Thursday, 29 January 2009 15:49
(The Independent) JAN 29 — The right to criticise religion is being slowly doused in acid. Across the world, the small, incremental gains made by secularism — giving us the space to doubt and question and make up our own minds — are being beaten back by belligerent demands that we "respect" religion. A historic marker has just been passed, showing how far we have been shoved. The UN rapporteur who is supposed to be the global guardian of free speech has had his job rewritten — to put him on the side of the religious censors.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights stated 60 years ago that "a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief is the highest aspiration of the common people". It was a Magna Carta for mankind — and loathed by every human rights abuser on earth. Today, the Chinese dictatorship calls it "Western", Robert Mugabe calls it "colonialist", and Dick Cheney calls it "outdated". The countries of the world have chronically failed to meet it — but the document has been held up by the United Nations as the ultimate standard against which to check ourselves. Until now.
Starting in 1999, a coalition of Islamist tyrants, led by Saudi Arabia, demanded the rules be rewritten. The demand for everyone to be able to think and speak freely failed to "respect" the "unique sensitivities" of the religious, they decided — so they issued an alternative Islamic Declaration of Human Rights. It insisted that you can only speak within "the limits set by the shariah [law]. It is not permitted to spread falsehood or disseminate that which involves encouraging abomination or forsaking the Islamic community".
In other words, you can say anything you like, as long as it is precisely what the reactionary mullahs tell you to say. The declaration makes it clear there is no equality for women, gays, non-Muslims, or apostates. It has been backed by the Vatican and a bevy of Christian fundamentalists.
Incredibly, they are succeeding. The UN's Rapporteur on Human Rights has always been tasked with exposing and shaming those who prevent free speech — including the religious. But the Pakistani delegate recently demanded that his job description be changed so he can seek out and condemn "abuses of free expression" including "defamation of religions and prophets". The council agreed — so the job has been turned on its head. Instead of condemning the people who wanted to murder Salman Rushdie, they will be condemning Salman Rushdie himself.
Anything which can be deemed "religious" is no longer allowed to be a subject of discussion at the UN — and almost everything is deemed religious. Roy Brown of the International Humanist and Ethical Union has tried to raise topics like the stoning of women accused of adultery or child marriage. The Egyptian delegate stood up to announce discussion of shariah "will not happen" and "Islam will not be crucified in this council" — and Brown was ordered to be silent. Of course, the first victims of locking down free speech about Islam with the imprimatur of the UN are ordinary Muslims.
Here is a random smattering of events that have taken place in the past week in countries that demanded this change. In Nigeria, divorced women are routinely thrown out of their homes and left destitute, unable to see their children, so a large group of them wanted to stage a protest — but the shariah police declared it was "un-Islamic" and the marchers would be beaten and whipped. In Saudi Arabia, the country's most senior government-approved cleric said it was perfectly acceptable for old men to marry 10-year-old girls, and those who disagree should be silenced. In Egypt, a 27-year-old Muslim blogger Abdel Rahman was seized, jailed and tortured for arguing for a reformed Islam that does not enforce shariah.
To the people who demand respect for Muslim culture, I ask: which Muslim culture? Those women's, those children's, this blogger's — or their oppressors'?
As the secular campaigner Austin Darcy puts it: "The ultimate aim of this effort is not to protect the feelings of Muslims, but to protect illiberal Islamic states from charges of human rights abuse, and to silence the voices of internal dissidents calling for more secular government and freedom."
Those of us who passionately support the UN should be the most outraged by this.
Underpinning these "reforms" is a notion seeping even into democratic societies — that atheism and doubt are akin to racism. Today, whenever a religious belief is criticised, its adherents immediately claim they are the victims of "prejudice" — and their outrage is increasingly being backed by laws.
All people deserve respect, but not all ideas do. I don't respect the idea that a man was born of a virgin, walked on water and rose from the dead. I don't respect the idea that we should follow a "Prophet" who at the age of 53 had sex with a nine-year old girl, and ordered the murder of whole villages of Jews because they wouldn't follow him.
I don't respect the idea that the West Bank was handed to Jews by God and the Palestinians should be bombed or bullied into surrendering it. I don't respect the idea that we may have lived before as goats, and could live again as woodlice. This is not because of "prejudice" or "ignorance", but because there is no evidence for these claims. They belong to the childhood of our species, and will in time look as preposterous as believing in Zeus or Thor or Baal.
When you demand "respect", you are demanding we lie to you. I have too much real respect for you as a human being to engage in that charade.
But why are religious sensitivities so much more likely to provoke demands for censorship than, say, political sensitivities? The answer lies in the nature of faith. If my views are challenged I can, in the end, check them against reality. If you deregulate markets, will they collapse? If you increase carbon dioxide emissions, does the climate become destabilised? If my views are wrong, I can correct them; if they are right, I am soothed.
But when the religious are challenged, there is no evidence for them to consult. By definition, if you have faith, you are choosing to believe in the absence of evidence. Nobody has "faith" that fire hurts, or Australia exists; they know it, based on proof. But it is psychologically painful to be confronted with the fact that your core beliefs are based on thin air, or on the empty shells of revelation or contorted parodies of reason. It's easier to demand the source of the pesky doubt be silenced.
But a free society cannot be structured to soothe the hardcore faithful. It is based on a deal. You have an absolute right to voice your beliefs — but the price is that I too have a right to respond as I wish. Neither of us can set aside the rules and demand to be protected from offence.
Yet this idea — at the heart of the Universal Declaration — is being lost. To the right, it thwacks into apologists for religious censorship; to the left, it dissolves in multiculturalism. The hijacking of the UN Special Rapporteur by religious fanatics should jolt us into rescuing the simple, battered idea disintegrating in the middle: the equal, indivisible human right to speak freely. — The Independent
Comments (32)Add Comment
...
written by Zym Zym, January 29, 2009 16:10:30
Of all the inventions that we human beings had invented thus far, religion is the most pathetic and the most destructive man-made concept in all of history. For the tyrannic leaders, it's some kind of oppression over the masses. Well, seriously, of all the religions that I wish that it could be wiped out from the crust of the earth once and for all is the theist religion! If you think that humans need religion to be good then you're dead wrong! Look at the Danes and the Swedes and check this out: http://www.slate.com/id/2203614/?GT1=38001
report abuse
disagree 7
agree 43
...
written by Wisdom above, January 29, 2009 16:22:21
A explicit exposition on contemporary religious 'Righteousness'.
It helps to reflect deeper as to why 'Righteousness' was high-jacked by their elders.
report abuse
disagree 1
agree 13
...
written by johntyc, January 29, 2009 16:46:38
Allowing religious authority to control our lives is so Middle Ages! I believe God is always fair to everyone but unfortunately, most religious authority are corrupt to the core, just like most politician. They 'modifies' bible or kitab to suit their own interests, and also their master's interests!
report abuse
disagree 2
agree 22
...
written by Anti Relon, January 29, 2009 16:46:47
I never thought MT Admin would pick up this report from The Independent (UK.
Thank you
Links: www.independent.co.uk
Now that Admin has audiciously picked up this report, why not pcik some reports from The Freethinker
Links: www.freethinker.co.uk
Thanks again
report abuse
disagree 2
agree 22
...
written by mountainking, January 29, 2009 17:04:12
it's the same thing in malaysia. Once you are accused/framed to be insulting the prophet Muhammad or Islam, you will be either in ISA or seditious charge. but you are free to condemn buddhism, hinduism, christianity, bash judaism to the max, making Jesus appears to be gay is non-seditious.
if there is a restriction on condemning/insulting the prophets/islam, the same rule should apply to other religions too.
my view, things should not be selective. either you restrict or you permit.
report abuse
disagree 5
agree 37
...
written by Liberace, January 29, 2009 17:21:52
Mr Johann Hari,
If your faith is in the UN, you are no less misled than the practitioners of all those ideas and beliefs you don't respect. At the end of the day, it's just another idea, subject to manipulation by men as all religions are.
report abuse
disagree 19
agree 17
...
written by jibbief, January 29, 2009 18:23:31
They has never been or will ever be a god. This god of the Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Bahais and what not is a man-made creation. All men of religion say that theirs is the true god but I ask, whose god is the true god? Till today no one has answered this question becos they know that they will never be able to prove it.
More men have died in god's name than for any other reason. If there relly is a god, he must reappear to us and put things right so that man can live in real peace. But we all know that this will never happen and so our suffering goes on and on and on.
report abuse
disagree 11
agree 32
...
written by densemy, January 29, 2009 18:37:17
Read this article alongside Doctor in the House... and cry for insanity that plagues Malaysia
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 9
...
written by Kopi37, January 29, 2009 18:48:55
I am a free thinker, I don't believe in any religion but do believe in the Deity. The Deity is omnipotent which is symbolic of a good character - philanthropic, compassionate, empathetic and kind-hearted and all these are omnipresent in my heart to feel and in my mind to think of what the dos and not dos in my life as a human being, as the servant of the Deity!
I don't listen or trust the words of the evangelist or the preacher for I regard them as salesmen who are out to hard sell their product which they relied on earning a living or earning fame! I hate those behave hypocritically who preach for one thing and do another totally controversial to what they preach as much as I hate the politicians who are hypocrites in masquerade of a pious religious preacher! They are the insults to their God who virtully have betrayed the product - the religion - they are promoting! How to trust them?!
report abuse
disagree 3
agree 11
...
written by razzwill, January 29, 2009 19:00:57
Thank you for reproducing this article in all its controversial and provocative glory. Indeed, if we were approached by an insurance company (for example) which demands that our trust in it was based purely on faith, we would chase it out of our sight with brooms and sticks. Yet, with religion, which operates on a similar basis of faith and nothing else, human kind, from the lowest rung of society to the most educated and intelligent, do not question it's motives but accept them wholesale.
report abuse
disagree 1
agree 16
...
written by lynn, January 29, 2009 19:30:10
Religion had been one most useful tool for politicians in Bodohland, to divide & rule, to brainwash the masses, threaten the non-Malays into supporting BN by warning them abt Hudud law if their votes went to PAS. Yet no one from PAS or Umno had ever educated us abt what kind of punishment they intended for corrupt politicians & cronies, if any..
razzwill, strange you mentioned insurance ... other Atheists I had met were like me: we despised insurance agents & their smooth talk which gives one goosebumps. The worst combo would be an agent who is a extreme x'tian. That's when I promise them faithfully I would bring out my brooms if they come to my door to preach.
This Almighty God's existence can only be accepted with concrete proof. After all, seeing is believing. You see the sun rises every morning without fail. The sun's existence is self-evident & the sun don't make demands on us, nor preach abt hell. But not this God theory; x'tians asked me to prove God's non-existence. Of course I can't prove it because He just doesn't exist! Besides all religions are man-made. The word "faith" is an insult to my intelligence. The only time one uses that word is when we end our letters politely with "Yours faithfully,".
report abuse
disagree 8
agree 21
...
written by InEffective, January 29, 2009 19:59:14
From time immemorial, men have leveraged and used religion for their personal gain.
(and many have suffered their terror).
What is so disappointing in Malaysia and a total letdown, is that those entrusted with the preservation, application, and the custodians of religion failed miserably to defend religion and prevent it from being abused and leveraged by politicians.
So who is the self-proclaimed custodians of religion in Malaysia ? - why its our privileged rulers of course.
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 8
...
written by varvoom, January 29, 2009 20:10:55
Religion: Roots of all evil...watch this video and be enlighten http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=I_1Gpt6dKFo
report abuse
disagree 5
agree 9
...
written by cabearth, January 29, 2009 20:16:12
To start off with, most of the questioning of religions are false anyways. And, as if the Humanists are free from faults.
All of the so call questions against Islam turned out to be a figment of liberal's imagination which forced Muslims to write their own version of Human Rights declaration.
The Islamic Human Rights declaration are more humble and respectful to human nature, that is submission to creator.
Libeals on the other hand are arrogant. They think God does not exist and as such God should not play a part in our daily lives.
So, the motivation of this article is the feeling of regret for their arrogance are now being stimied.
One question: Why do we need to question religion? Is there a pressing need for it?
report abuse
disagree 25
agree 5
...
written by Tompios, January 29, 2009 20:43:08
Well done Johan! Anyway, I still need religion and the philosophy of the religion. Without religion, most of the Borneons including me will hunt your head for fun!!
report abuse
disagree 6
agree 14
...
written by born2reign, January 29, 2009 21:26:17
The way humans are behaving you'd have to agree we are worse than animals and are not eligible to enter the animal kingdom. Therefore we cannot be of animals.
We are just the opposite of good humans. We are by nature, evil. Islam will create such a dark world (sorry for those who believe that it is a beautiful religion) mainly because the Muslims do not crucify their cancerous brothers, but allow these men in robes to rule with free hand. What's the difference between Nazi Hitler leading the Germans to murder, and the Muslim cleric leading the entire Muslim population to degrade and kill women and children? Same action, different leader.
The obscene thing is that a Muslim will kill a non-Muslim for questioning Islam, but will stand by cowardly while a Muslim man rape and rob a non-Muslim.
Race and religion are just an illusion. It is a fantastic divider, and one that gives absolute power to the leader. I for one believes God has the absolute power, and yet He gives us the power to choose and decide. Man on the other hand, should never, ever, ever be given absolute power. There must always be check and balance (and sack the bugger who fails)
report abuse
disagree 2
agree 16
...
written by crazygweilo, January 29, 2009 23:15:16
The 20th century, has been the most bloody and vicious in the history of mankind, and the 21st looks no better so far. Religion can be a force for good, and it is divine in its best form. The problem are people, seeking power, wealth, and land. Selective interpretation results, and religion is used and abused as a lever towards power. It must be avoided at all costs, and the proven solution, despite my studying the Shariah Law option is a secular state, with respect for freedom of worship.
One night at my local pub I ordered a Jug of Tiger beer. My friends and I drank most of it initially. We were on the topic of "Religion is bad"
I demonstrated. "See that Jug, we have almost drank most of it"
Yes.
The amount of beer remaining represents the amount of people who died due to religious conflicts in the 20th century to date.
I called - Lagi Satu Jug.
Along it came.
In this Jug, THIS represents the amount of people murdered due to regimes that had no respect for religion.
I finished the last of the first Jug and said:
"I'll take some religion before no religion"
Is'nt ironic that those who profess to love God, are those who seek to oppress their fellow man. Is'nt it ironic that those who profess to hate their enemies do not love their children enough. As a result, conflict continues.
I do not single out Muslims or Islam alone in this. I can certainly point out the Ku Klux Klan in America. I can point at the anti protestant pogroms in Ireland and the anti Catholic pogroms in Northern Ireland, and Scotland. I can point at the continued oppression of the Thai Muslims. I can point at Spain and Italy abusing religion under Fascism. The wars in former Yugoslavia. AND that, is even before I start pointing fingers at Predominantly Muslim nations.
Meanwhile, without religion, who got power.
Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, Josef Djugashvili Stalin, Vladimir Lenin, Adolf Hitler, Slobodan Milosevic.......between them they account for around 100 Million people.
The religious regimes barely account for a fraction of that. Perhaps 5 Million if you are unfortunate. Thats in 109 years.
report abuse
disagree 9
agree 5
...
written by AsamLaksa, January 30, 2009 00:07:28
Cabearth, who cares if the questioning of religion is false? Just tell me where in the primary sources of Islam does it definitely tell you that no one can question Islam? Tell me with any evidence you have that the Prophet forbid anyone from questioning Islam?
The questions on religion are not the problem. It's the people who get offended with the question that are the problem. Are they the worst kind of fools; those that do not know that they do not know?
Please tell me why is questioning any religion a big problem?
report abuse
disagree 1
agree 14
...
written by Davy McChester, January 30, 2009 04:41:47
Money talks,UN has been sold out to the highest bidder. We will see the emergence of a new world order which will possess all the qualities of tyranny. If ex UN chief Kopi Anan could find ways to circumvent UN embargo on Irag to help his son,you can also expect the unthinkable from UN: Curtailment of speech freedom through charters created to protect religion, something which caused,and still causing, most deaths to mankind,committed in the name of God. So,people,we are back again to reinforce justified killing machine called "religion". It is time to throw out "religion" that deprives human of their fundamental rights:Freedom of conscience,freedom of choice,freedom not to be killed in the name of religion. We need to speak up against pea-brain religious zealots who wish to control and divide and suppress new thoughts that challenge their stupidity. They want to control you ! It is about control ,not about finding salvation,here on earth. The retards want to control the masses and divide them whenever the retards feel threatened. Most retards,today, run the Middle East countries
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 8
...
written by varvoom, January 30, 2009 05:28:45
Here2 Davy McChester, we conscious educated earthlings will continue to make this planet a better place for all star dust to propagate as we have the universe to colonize.
report abuse
disagree 1
agree 0
...
written by Rozlan, January 30, 2009 09:06:42
dear Johann
You can always aked for a public debate with muslim scholars for anything you wish to criticised about Islam.YOu are free to choose a topic..Anyway I am not so sure you are free to debate with other religion..
report abuse
disagree 9
agree 0
...
written by Littlebird, January 30, 2009 09:29:17
For thousands of years no one has seen god yet billions believe in him. How could so many people believe in something which no man has seen or heard or even performed any direct intervention to save so many suffering people?
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 3
...
written by mawi, January 30, 2009 09:52:40
The song's lyric ask humans to imagine that there are no religions.Then , the song went on to ask us to imagine that there is no war, no hunger, freedom etc etc. But this can only remain as imagination because even when there are religions, devastating wars still lingers. There is hunger everywhere and humans are still suspicious of one another. The writer lives in imagination. Confined to his own world or probably within small groups of people, his imaginations pictures reality and reality in the making justifying imposition on to the human race across the board.But the reality is, he has no answer to all the complexities that faces human beings ever since time immemorial. He has no right answers as any answers bears no right and no wrong, the very basis of human collusion and the very fact that this has been the only reason, ever since on why humans degrade and exterminate each other.
The answers are in religion.
report abuse
disagree 4
agree 0
...
written by batsman, January 30, 2009 09:55:45
The US uses Human Rights to attack weak nations. You are joining the pack of dogs controlled by the US.
report abuse
disagree 5
agree 0
...
written by mawi, January 30, 2009 10:06:22
Deat Littlebird,
I guess you do not believe that the wind exist as you can't see it. Nor would you believe that air exist since we also cannot see air. But one may argue to say that we can "see" wind when it sways trees, moves objects and we can even feel it when it gushes across our face.You can't see god as how you see an object but you can "see" God as how you see the wind or the air exist.
report abuse
disagree 2
agree 1
...
written by panca, January 30, 2009 10:10:37
Perhaps go sit under a tree and do some good quiet thinking by yourself!
Feel the lovely breeze that caress your face.
Know what is an illusion and be disillusioned!
smilies/grin.gif smilies/grin.gif smilies/grin.gif
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 0
...
written by mawi, January 30, 2009 10:18:11
Assam Laksa,
There is a contrast between questioning Islam and ridiculing it.Is flushing the Quran in the toilet bowl for the Muslims to see or painting Prophet Mohammad in a degradable manner; questioning Islam? Muslims are open to questions and Islam requires its followers to open the religion to questions. But you have to draw the line between what is questioning and what is bashing.
report abuse
disagree 2
agree 1
...
written by temenggong, January 30, 2009 11:41:40
Excellent article and excellent discussions. Let me add.
"You see the sun rises every morning without fail. The sun's existence is self-evident.."
In philosophy and metaphysics this is called Axiomatic Truths. Any religion or philosophy that is not built on axiomatic truths is a camoflaged lie. Which is most of the religions today (but not all). Faith without such truths is superstition. Today Faith is a synonym for Superstition.
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 1
...
written by hellosunshine, January 30, 2009 11:54:33
I do believe there is a God but why did he only appear to the people thousands of years ago and not now? His messengers could have passed on to their disciples down the lines, distorted and altered messages over the years, as can be proven by present day management trainers where trainees changed a basic message completely from the original. These trainees are mostly uni-grads compared to the disciples, mind you. Go figure.
Man has killed each other in the name of their Gods over the centuries and it is a good time now for God to appear since we can now spread His message and photos over the internet in an instant.
Or with the present signs, are we heading towards Armageddon?
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 2
...
written by CPY, January 30, 2009 12:02:41
Not all religions are bad. Though there are theological disagreement, they have at least 1 common point, that is 'do to others what u want others do to u'. Obviously some are misused, & deviated too.
report abuse
disagree 2
agree 0
...
written by tan_eng, January 30, 2009 14:40:08
Hi Everyone,
The conclusion is all religion are cult. There are no exception, its just that after so many years believing in a religion, majority humans find it hard to accept the fact. :-)
To Cabearth,
You asked this question...
1. One question: Why do we need to question religion? Is there a pressing need for it?
My answer ...
1. Yes there are. You see my brother, people are being deprived of their basic rights because of religion.
2. Wars are happening in the name of religion
3. People are being killed in the name of religion
4. People are being sidelined in the name of religion.
5. Humans are not being treated equally because of religion.
And the list goes on. Humanity must prevail so whenever Palestine or Israel gets bombed then every human will cry for them. Now we live in the age of hypocrisy because religion blinds our mind.
Malaysian fighting For Malaysia
smilies/grin.gif smilies/grin.gif smilies/grin.gif
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 2
...
written by kavidibaku, January 30, 2009 15:00:05
Well said tan_eng.
Religion should be left at home and not to be brought to public or politics.
written by Tompios, January 29, 2009 20:43:08
Well done Johan! Anyway, I still need religion and the philosophy of the religion. Without religion, most of the Borneons including me will hunt your head for fun!!
Tompios, religion is not only to prevent you from chopping other people's head for fun but also to treat every human equally. If a religion doesn't promote that, that's when all the problems starts. Religious extrimism is the root cause for every single problem.
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 0
Write comment
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
There Is No "Muslim World"
Source: https://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/17351/84/
There Is No "Muslim World" PDF Print E-mail
Posted by admin
Thursday, 29 January 2009 10:31
There is no Muslim world, only a variety of nations with Muslim majorities. Some of these call themselves Islamic states, but the extent to which even these are governed according to Islamic principles and under Islamic law is a matter for debate.
Aloysious Mowe, Washington Post
At his inauguration, President Obama said: "To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect." Is that possible? What must happen?
Substitute "Hindu" or "Christian" where President Obama has "Muslim", and we begin to see the problems as well as the promise in his overture to the "Muslim world".
Tempting as it might be to adopt Samuel Huntington's Manichean view of global conflict or some variation thereof, President Obama has to resist the impulse to speak of Muslims as a single bloc. This master of language knows that words matter. It may be convenient to speak of the "Muslim world" in a speech, but there are dangers in painting with so broad a brush when it comes to the articulation and implementation of policy.
It makes no sense to speak of a "Christian world" as though it were possible to extrapolate, from their religious affiliation, the shared values of all Christians everywhere. Even within a major denomination such as Roman Catholicism, there are major disagreements as to how the hierarchy of values should be stacked. Some U.S. bishops made opposition to abortion the one and only criterion for how one was supposed to choose a candidate to vote for in the recent elections. The outcome of the elections showed that the majority of U.S. Catholics had greater moral discernment than some of their shepherds.
There is no Muslim world, only a variety of nations with Muslim majorities. Some of these call themselves Islamic states, but the extent to which even these are governed according to Islamic principles and under Islamic law is a matter for debate.
The Arab world does not represent Islam, but one would be hard-pressed to recognize this fact when faced with what is written and said about Islam in the U.S. Many commentators identify the Palestinian problem as the key neuralgic point behind Muslim discontent. The Palestinian problem is not a Muslim one - many of the most important and prominent Palestinian activists and leaders have been Christians - and should not be viewed as such. The political leaders in Arab countries are more than happy to highlight the sufferings of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, and to call for "Muslim" solidarity with them: this distracts their own populations from the democratic and economic deficits that mark so much of that part of the world. When I lived in Egypt in the 1990s, I saw the conditions in the settlements there for displaced Palestinians, and the legal, social and political constraints under which they lived: there was little evidence of Egyptian solidarity with their "Muslim" brethren.
If the U.S. is to be seen as an honest broker in the Palestine-Israel conflict, it has to be seen to be speaking the truth of political pragmatism and compromise to Israel, just as it should speak the truth of democratic change, human rights, and economic equity to its Arab neighbors.
There are more Muslims in Indonesia and Malaysia than in the entire Middle East, but they seem to have little impact in shaping American perceptions of Muslims. The president's family ties and lived experience in Indonesia should give him a unique vantage point from which to appreciate the complexities of Muslim identity.
We have a tendency to form our opinions about any group of people according to what we hear from their loudest members. Greedy hedge fund managers and unscrupulous lawyers come to mind. The loudest voices among Muslims today are those of the jihadists and extremists, and so much of U.S. public perception and political reaction has been formed by the violence of these voices.
There are other Muslim voices, muted, even totally unheard, and often silenced by their own governments. In Malaysia and Indonesia, these voices are often asking for greater government accountability, for the elimination of corruption, for a more equitable distribution of the economic pie, for laws to protect women against violence and discrimination, for a system of education that prepares young people to compete in a globalized marketplace. When President Obama calls for a conversation to find a way forward based on mutual interest, these are the voices he must strain to hear.
Muslims are not one political and cultural bloc; neither are they a separate and different species from the rest of humanity. They want their children to have a better life than they themselves have had. They want lives secure from poverty, crime, violence, disease, and all the other pains to which we are all prey. During the recent Gaza conflict, some political leaders in Malaysia called for a boycott of American goods and the dollar. No such boycott ensued. Malaysian Muslims were more concerned with their economic wellbeing than with making political gestures. If the president is looking for mutual interest, then it is at this level of interest that he must pitch his policies, rather than at the level of the mutual political interest of the US and the Egyptian or Syrian police states, or the web of economic, military and political interests that link the U.S. with that paragon of oppressive and undemocratic rule, Saudi Arabia.
The president also said during his inauguration address, "We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense." He should give the speechwriter responsible for this tone-deaf bit of rhetoric his walking papers. The present economic crisis is clear evidence that the American way of life has to change, and that Americans should apologize for it. For too long there has been in the U.S. a sense of entitlement, expressed in a lifestyle that has resulted in the consumption of a disproportionate share of the world's resources, and the wholesale plunging of the nation into debt as a way of life. The thirst for oil and for markets has distorted U.S. policy, and its relations with Muslim states, for far too long. The way of life here in the U.S. has now been discredited, and it cannot be defended. The task before the president is to seek for the U.S. a sustainable and common way of life with the rest of the world, and to convince his fellow citizens that there is no alternative
Aloysious Mowe, SJ, is a Woodstock International Visiting Fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center, Georgetown University.
Comments (10)Add Comment
...
written by ahmadneil, January 29, 2009 11:38:00
Christians,Hindus,Buddhist,muslims etc ,are all the same but for muslims they practice extremism .Most of the time muslims are associated with terror and violence.
report abuse
disagree 12
agree 16
...
written by Dominic, January 29, 2009 11:54:22
If only Muslims around the world can shed their infamous word `jihad`,am sure the gobal community can accomodate them more cordially. Preach freedom instead of dying as jihad and hoping to reach heaven. It is through good work and showing compassion that one find the ultimate journey with their chosen god. Time to wake up after decades of day dreaming in their so called `holy war`. Fight for your 3 meals ,not war !!!
report abuse
disagree 5
agree 13
...
written by Tompios, January 29, 2009 12:35:00
Yes, you are right Mowe, Palestinian crises are not viewed as Islam's problem. Most Malaysians, Indonesians, Bruneians and Southern part of Philippines' Moslem and Moslemah are too shallow on History and Geographically things happened in Palestine. Most of them only reach on Islamic's stages. Some of the leaders in Palestine are Christian Arab. Eventually, not may genuine Palestine lived in Palestine. The population conquered by Arab and not the native Palestine.
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 6
...
written by Desert Fox, January 29, 2009 12:50:15
The whole world belongs to God Almighty,the creator of the Universe and all living things - it is the devils in disguise that divide mankind under the pretext of religion. Please note: There is nothing wrong with Islam,it is the blind followers who corrupt the meaning.
report abuse
disagree 4
agree 5
...
written by wolf, January 29, 2009 12:53:52
ahmadneil,
i can't help but notice your comments on 99% of the articles here in MT. You claim you're a malay but you don't sound like it. For one, nobody would be so negative as to actively insult & disparange his own kind & religion.
Most of the time muslims are associated with terror and violence.
Are you a cybertrooper out to incite racial & religious tensions?
report abuse
disagree 5
agree 1
...
written by Desert Fox, January 29, 2009 13:00:55
The Muslim image of terror and violence is created by the devil in disguise,who sits in all religious establisments,looking holier than thou giving their so-called opinions based on supposedly profound knowledge obtained through learning.
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 6
...
written by wolf, January 29, 2009 13:01:14
Sorry forgot to add in, nobody would have that much free time. Hallo, tak payah cari makan ka? Sorry to say that but you struck me as either one of these:
a. Someone with obsessive compulsive disorder to view & comment this site 24/7
b. Someone who is rich enough not to work and thus have plenty of time to view & comment this site 24/7
c. A paid cybertrooper to view & comment this site 24/7
So which one are you?
report abuse
disagree 2
agree 1
...
written by densemy, January 29, 2009 13:10:19
Desert Fox... How convenient it is for you that all the evil muslims are the devil in disguise. Do you apply that reasoning to all muslims who stray from the path of trugh and righteousness
... and what about all those righteous muslims who through neglect fail to reprimand the agents of terror and corruption and repression. Are they to the agents of the devil??
You are a hypocrite and a coward
report abuse
disagree 1
agree 1
...
written by cruzeiro, January 29, 2009 13:16:50
Wolf,
ahmad neil is "da man" ... and he's got many admirers in MT for his rubbish.
Remember his "James Bond" trip to France? Apparently he got pally with quite a number of guys on his trip - and he's got it all.
This guy has even declared himself an apostate on MT, apparently halfway through a six-pack!!
Leave him alone lah ... let him have his thrills - just be more discerning with his goofy comments.
Now - I believe Alloysius has made plenty of sense here where Palestine & Islam are concerned.
There was a current affairs program on TV those days - about 10 yrs ago- called "Global" or something like that, where they were discussing this issue.
Some Tan Sri hotshot (from "ISIS" I think) who kept saying "Palestine this, Islam that. Islam this, Palestine that".
I sent in a comment stating that Palestine has nothing to do with Islam, and that Islam was just a rallying call for war against Israel - just as the Crusaders called their war "Christian".
Bunn Nagara who was the MC/moderator agreed, while this Tan Sri hotshot said, "No Comments".
It is sad that many politicians don't want their unthinking followers to see the truth.
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 3
...
written by axppin, January 29, 2009 13:21:37
Err, does anyone here care to remember the IRA? Or even NAZI? Tamil Tigers? Bintang 3? Ohh I fogot la. "One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighters". Haiyaa. Got to think again.
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 0
There Is No "Muslim World" PDF Print E-mail
Posted by admin
Thursday, 29 January 2009 10:31
There is no Muslim world, only a variety of nations with Muslim majorities. Some of these call themselves Islamic states, but the extent to which even these are governed according to Islamic principles and under Islamic law is a matter for debate.
Aloysious Mowe, Washington Post
At his inauguration, President Obama said: "To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect." Is that possible? What must happen?
Substitute "Hindu" or "Christian" where President Obama has "Muslim", and we begin to see the problems as well as the promise in his overture to the "Muslim world".
Tempting as it might be to adopt Samuel Huntington's Manichean view of global conflict or some variation thereof, President Obama has to resist the impulse to speak of Muslims as a single bloc. This master of language knows that words matter. It may be convenient to speak of the "Muslim world" in a speech, but there are dangers in painting with so broad a brush when it comes to the articulation and implementation of policy.
It makes no sense to speak of a "Christian world" as though it were possible to extrapolate, from their religious affiliation, the shared values of all Christians everywhere. Even within a major denomination such as Roman Catholicism, there are major disagreements as to how the hierarchy of values should be stacked. Some U.S. bishops made opposition to abortion the one and only criterion for how one was supposed to choose a candidate to vote for in the recent elections. The outcome of the elections showed that the majority of U.S. Catholics had greater moral discernment than some of their shepherds.
There is no Muslim world, only a variety of nations with Muslim majorities. Some of these call themselves Islamic states, but the extent to which even these are governed according to Islamic principles and under Islamic law is a matter for debate.
The Arab world does not represent Islam, but one would be hard-pressed to recognize this fact when faced with what is written and said about Islam in the U.S. Many commentators identify the Palestinian problem as the key neuralgic point behind Muslim discontent. The Palestinian problem is not a Muslim one - many of the most important and prominent Palestinian activists and leaders have been Christians - and should not be viewed as such. The political leaders in Arab countries are more than happy to highlight the sufferings of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, and to call for "Muslim" solidarity with them: this distracts their own populations from the democratic and economic deficits that mark so much of that part of the world. When I lived in Egypt in the 1990s, I saw the conditions in the settlements there for displaced Palestinians, and the legal, social and political constraints under which they lived: there was little evidence of Egyptian solidarity with their "Muslim" brethren.
If the U.S. is to be seen as an honest broker in the Palestine-Israel conflict, it has to be seen to be speaking the truth of political pragmatism and compromise to Israel, just as it should speak the truth of democratic change, human rights, and economic equity to its Arab neighbors.
There are more Muslims in Indonesia and Malaysia than in the entire Middle East, but they seem to have little impact in shaping American perceptions of Muslims. The president's family ties and lived experience in Indonesia should give him a unique vantage point from which to appreciate the complexities of Muslim identity.
We have a tendency to form our opinions about any group of people according to what we hear from their loudest members. Greedy hedge fund managers and unscrupulous lawyers come to mind. The loudest voices among Muslims today are those of the jihadists and extremists, and so much of U.S. public perception and political reaction has been formed by the violence of these voices.
There are other Muslim voices, muted, even totally unheard, and often silenced by their own governments. In Malaysia and Indonesia, these voices are often asking for greater government accountability, for the elimination of corruption, for a more equitable distribution of the economic pie, for laws to protect women against violence and discrimination, for a system of education that prepares young people to compete in a globalized marketplace. When President Obama calls for a conversation to find a way forward based on mutual interest, these are the voices he must strain to hear.
Muslims are not one political and cultural bloc; neither are they a separate and different species from the rest of humanity. They want their children to have a better life than they themselves have had. They want lives secure from poverty, crime, violence, disease, and all the other pains to which we are all prey. During the recent Gaza conflict, some political leaders in Malaysia called for a boycott of American goods and the dollar. No such boycott ensued. Malaysian Muslims were more concerned with their economic wellbeing than with making political gestures. If the president is looking for mutual interest, then it is at this level of interest that he must pitch his policies, rather than at the level of the mutual political interest of the US and the Egyptian or Syrian police states, or the web of economic, military and political interests that link the U.S. with that paragon of oppressive and undemocratic rule, Saudi Arabia.
The president also said during his inauguration address, "We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense." He should give the speechwriter responsible for this tone-deaf bit of rhetoric his walking papers. The present economic crisis is clear evidence that the American way of life has to change, and that Americans should apologize for it. For too long there has been in the U.S. a sense of entitlement, expressed in a lifestyle that has resulted in the consumption of a disproportionate share of the world's resources, and the wholesale plunging of the nation into debt as a way of life. The thirst for oil and for markets has distorted U.S. policy, and its relations with Muslim states, for far too long. The way of life here in the U.S. has now been discredited, and it cannot be defended. The task before the president is to seek for the U.S. a sustainable and common way of life with the rest of the world, and to convince his fellow citizens that there is no alternative
Aloysious Mowe, SJ, is a Woodstock International Visiting Fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center, Georgetown University.
Comments (10)Add Comment
...
written by ahmadneil, January 29, 2009 11:38:00
Christians,Hindus,Buddhist,muslims etc ,are all the same but for muslims they practice extremism .Most of the time muslims are associated with terror and violence.
report abuse
disagree 12
agree 16
...
written by Dominic, January 29, 2009 11:54:22
If only Muslims around the world can shed their infamous word `jihad`,am sure the gobal community can accomodate them more cordially. Preach freedom instead of dying as jihad and hoping to reach heaven. It is through good work and showing compassion that one find the ultimate journey with their chosen god. Time to wake up after decades of day dreaming in their so called `holy war`. Fight for your 3 meals ,not war !!!
report abuse
disagree 5
agree 13
...
written by Tompios, January 29, 2009 12:35:00
Yes, you are right Mowe, Palestinian crises are not viewed as Islam's problem. Most Malaysians, Indonesians, Bruneians and Southern part of Philippines' Moslem and Moslemah are too shallow on History and Geographically things happened in Palestine. Most of them only reach on Islamic's stages. Some of the leaders in Palestine are Christian Arab. Eventually, not may genuine Palestine lived in Palestine. The population conquered by Arab and not the native Palestine.
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 6
...
written by Desert Fox, January 29, 2009 12:50:15
The whole world belongs to God Almighty,the creator of the Universe and all living things - it is the devils in disguise that divide mankind under the pretext of religion. Please note: There is nothing wrong with Islam,it is the blind followers who corrupt the meaning.
report abuse
disagree 4
agree 5
...
written by wolf, January 29, 2009 12:53:52
ahmadneil,
i can't help but notice your comments on 99% of the articles here in MT. You claim you're a malay but you don't sound like it. For one, nobody would be so negative as to actively insult & disparange his own kind & religion.
Most of the time muslims are associated with terror and violence.
Are you a cybertrooper out to incite racial & religious tensions?
report abuse
disagree 5
agree 1
...
written by Desert Fox, January 29, 2009 13:00:55
The Muslim image of terror and violence is created by the devil in disguise,who sits in all religious establisments,looking holier than thou giving their so-called opinions based on supposedly profound knowledge obtained through learning.
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 6
...
written by wolf, January 29, 2009 13:01:14
Sorry forgot to add in, nobody would have that much free time. Hallo, tak payah cari makan ka? Sorry to say that but you struck me as either one of these:
a. Someone with obsessive compulsive disorder to view & comment this site 24/7
b. Someone who is rich enough not to work and thus have plenty of time to view & comment this site 24/7
c. A paid cybertrooper to view & comment this site 24/7
So which one are you?
report abuse
disagree 2
agree 1
...
written by densemy, January 29, 2009 13:10:19
Desert Fox... How convenient it is for you that all the evil muslims are the devil in disguise. Do you apply that reasoning to all muslims who stray from the path of trugh and righteousness
... and what about all those righteous muslims who through neglect fail to reprimand the agents of terror and corruption and repression. Are they to the agents of the devil??
You are a hypocrite and a coward
report abuse
disagree 1
agree 1
...
written by cruzeiro, January 29, 2009 13:16:50
Wolf,
ahmad neil is "da man" ... and he's got many admirers in MT for his rubbish.
Remember his "James Bond" trip to France? Apparently he got pally with quite a number of guys on his trip - and he's got it all.
This guy has even declared himself an apostate on MT, apparently halfway through a six-pack!!
Leave him alone lah ... let him have his thrills - just be more discerning with his goofy comments.
Now - I believe Alloysius has made plenty of sense here where Palestine & Islam are concerned.
There was a current affairs program on TV those days - about 10 yrs ago- called "Global" or something like that, where they were discussing this issue.
Some Tan Sri hotshot (from "ISIS" I think) who kept saying "Palestine this, Islam that. Islam this, Palestine that".
I sent in a comment stating that Palestine has nothing to do with Islam, and that Islam was just a rallying call for war against Israel - just as the Crusaders called their war "Christian".
Bunn Nagara who was the MC/moderator agreed, while this Tan Sri hotshot said, "No Comments".
It is sad that many politicians don't want their unthinking followers to see the truth.
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 3
...
written by axppin, January 29, 2009 13:21:37
Err, does anyone here care to remember the IRA? Or even NAZI? Tamil Tigers? Bintang 3? Ohh I fogot la. "One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighters". Haiyaa. Got to think again.
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 0
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)