Keep religions out of politics and civil laws

A belated Selamat Hari Raya to all Malaysians - I've been away on personal matters, to attend a funeral, that  for the father of my friend - more about this much later in another post.

Today, on reading The Malaysian Inside I was intrigued by an article The adulteress, the accusers, politics and Afizal, written by Rama Ramanathan. It's about the inexplicable unprecedented Appeals Court judgement in the case of rapist Noor Afizal Azizan, where the word 'consensual sex' was even raised and shockingly, accepted in a charge of statutory rape.

'Consensual sex' means both parties (in the case discussed in this post, included one mere 13 year old) had agreed to have sex with each other.

It shows the pathetic pariah-ish poverty of our legal system where the term 'consensual sex' was allowed to be employed in a case of statutory rape, in which one person, 13 years of age, was well below the age required to legally consent to the act. In fact, in statutory rape, unlike forcible rape, there is no requirement to prove force or threat preceded or was involved in the rape. The laws automatically presume coercion, because a minor or an adult who doesn't have normal mental capacity is legally incapable of giving consent to the act.

Perhaps Ramanathan was teasing the readers into drawing a parallel between the court releasing the rapist on a bond of RM25,000 (thus compassionately forgiving him for his crime) instead of jailing him for raping a minor, with the biblical story of Jesus saving a female adulterer from being stoned.

While some bibles do not include the verses of this tale, some do, like the King James version (KJV), which tells us (no worries, this is not a biblical lesson for I'm an atheist wakakaka, but merely an essential component of my post):

And early in the morning He came again into the Temple, and all the people came unto Him; and He sat down, and taught them.

And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto Him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto Him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the Law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest Thou?

This they said, tempting Him, that they might have to accuse Him.

But Jesus stooped down, and with His finger wrote on the ground, as though He heard them not. So when they continued asking Him, He lifted up Himself, and said unto them, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."

And again He stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

When Jesus had lifted up Himself, and saw none but the woman, He said unto her, "Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?"

She said, "No man, Lord."

And Jesus said unto her, "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." (John 8:2-11 KJV)

Ramanathan then asked: "I wonder whether some Malaysians think there is a similarity between the woman and Afizal the bowler who doesn’t deny having sex with a 13-year-old girl."

Well, I am still trying to draw a comparison between rape and adultery, where the former is a blatant crime of forceful physical violation, and the latter, a crime of morality but only in some religions and medieval societies. I'm afraid I have to confess I just couldn't see any similarity! Afizal admitting to his crime of statutory rape against a minor could not be equated to admission of adultery between two adults.

He continued: "I am not aware of anyone appealing to this story as a basis for compassion towards Afizal but I’m drawn to it."

Is Ramanathan claiming originality for postulating the parallel, and that there was a biblical precedent in favour of Afizal, wakakaka?

He continued: “The story of the Messiah and the woman caught in adultery is the most often told story of compassion sympathy and pity for the sufferings of others — in this case the woman’s humiliation and unequal treatment. Compassion is exercised where suffering is recognized”

… no doubt challenging us to consider whether we should extend to Afizal compassion, manifested in his bond rather than jailing.

Then rather confusingly, he wrote: “We are asked to believe the High Court judge who sentenced Afizal to a jail term did not have compassion, did not have enough sympathy or pity for the national bowler".

Hmmm, perhaps Ramanathan meant the 'raped victim' (rather than the bowler who raped the victim-minor)?  See following sentence (below) for context.

Continuing, he asked: "We are asked to believe the Court of Appeal acted compassionately in “freeing” Afizal binding him over as an encouragement to “sin no more”.

“Is that what the story of the Messiah and the woman caught in adultery is about?. Are we called to act as the Messiah did with respect to those who break the law?”

Then inviting us to ‘cast the first stone’ he asked of us:

“After all which of us has not broken the law? Have we not bought illegal DVDs? Have we not run red lights? Have we not driven in excess of speed limits? Since we ourselves are mean pieces of work and gladly not in jail. shouldn’t we be glad Afizal’s not going to jail? After all Afizal’s offence (let’s not call it a “crime”) is only consenting sex with a minor. A minor incidentally who can’t consent to abortion or breast enlargement. Is that what compassion means?"

Running red lights, speeding, buying pirate copes of DVDs? Can we equate these crimes to rape?

And Ramanathan cynically answered his own query on the question of 'consent' in that rape case where 'consent' didn't legally exist, as would be also the case of a minor 'consenting' to abortion.

Since Ramanathan has raised the issue of Jesus and his "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her", let me answer by recalling a statement of Jesus, which I had previously used to answer Rev Dr Hermen Shastri and Paul Sinnappan.

The two had on 07 August 2012, addressed a public forum in PJ, Section 8, at the Dignity International, A-2-7 Pusat Perdagangan, on the upcoming general election from a Christian perspective, where their topic was “What will Jesus be doing in Malaysia today?” – see Free Malaysia Today - GE 13: What would Jesus do?

I was not bloody impressed by their questionable attempt to use religion (Christianity) to influence Malaysian voters who are Christians. When I read of such clerical naughtiness, I am reminded of what a sweetie once told me about Denis Diderot's advice on priests - can't produce that quote here lest I be accused of lèse majesté, wakakaka.

In replying to Rev Dr Hermen Shastri and Paul Sinnappan's “What will Jesus be doing in Malaysia today?”, I wrote in my post precisely what Jesus told us 2000 years ago, as recorded in Matthew 22:21:

"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."

I'm not supportive of any religion intruding into Caesar's realm of politics and civil law, so please, let's leave Jesus and his "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her" from the case of Noor Afizal Azizan.

Besides, there was/is/will be no* stoning of him under Malaysian civil law, nor I suspect, even under religious ones as well.

* last night I left out a vital word 'no' from the above statement - hope it gave the sh*ts to the rapist wakakaka 

From my observations, in religious laws, the poor woman usually gets the worst of the lot, as was the case in the story of Jesus and the attempted stoning of the woman adulterer, because we may well ask: just where was that bloody man adulterer?

Read also: Malaysian Laws like Spider Webs?