TMI reported that an ulama, Abdullah Sa’amah, told Utusan Malaysia it would be haram for Muslims to vote for DAP and its two allies PAS and PKR in the coming general election, because DAP has refused to accept hudud.
Then, Abdullah told Muslims it would be halal to vote for MCA and MIC because these two BN branches were prepared to accept Islamic rule.
Then, Abdullah told Muslims it would be halal to vote for MCA and MIC because these two BN branches were prepared to accept Islamic rule.
Regardless of whether MCA and MIC and presumably Gerakan had accepted hudud, who the hell was Abdullah Sa’amah other than a cleric. He should not stick his bloody nose into politics.
But then Free Malaysia Today published GE 13: What would Jesus do? in which the news online portal informed us about a public forum in PJ, Section 8, at the Dignity International, A-2-7 Pusat Perdagangan also in Nov 2012, about the then pending 13 th general election, as seen from a Christian perspective.
In that forum the topic was 'What will Jesus be doing in Malaysia today?' with speakers Rev Dr Hermen Shastri and Paul Sinnappan. Two clerics again, and worse, telling us about Jesus who was crucified two thousand years ago and by then (in 2012) very dead.
FMT then reported:
A media statement on the forum explained that the cowardly fence-sitters are the sole obstacle in preventing political change in Malaysia.
“As the winds of change blow in this most exciting times of political change in Malaysia, the only obstacle that is preventing the change from actually taking place is the Malaysian ‘fence-sitters’ who for the last 54 years have been afraid to make that choice for change. "
“Many among this also reside in our Churches and sit glued to benches and pews during Sunday service without fail, listening fervently to what Jesus may be saying to them,” it read.
The statement added that there is a growing awakening among all Malaysians on the need for real change – a reform of the political landscape for Malaysians.
“Yet there seems to be a disjoint of the faith growth within the Churches and the growth without among all Malaysians. This seemingly two worlds of faith and politics are a challenge to all Christians. Are there two lives or only one life, [which] we live according to the will of God?,” it said.
The speakers, read the statement, will take the audience through the Bible to study the political implications and experiences of being a Christian.
“This is to help us enter into present-day reality of the Malaysian political context, and answer the perennial thought: what would Jesus do in Malaysia Today?” it added.
A media statement on the forum explained that the cowardly fence-sitters are the sole obstacle in preventing political change in Malaysia.
“As the winds of change blow in this most exciting times of political change in Malaysia, the only obstacle that is preventing the change from actually taking place is the Malaysian ‘fence-sitters’ who for the last 54 years have been afraid to make that choice for change. "
“Many among this also reside in our Churches and sit glued to benches and pews during Sunday service without fail, listening fervently to what Jesus may be saying to them,” it read.
The statement added that there is a growing awakening among all Malaysians on the need for real change – a reform of the political landscape for Malaysians.
“Yet there seems to be a disjoint of the faith growth within the Churches and the growth without among all Malaysians. This seemingly two worlds of faith and politics are a challenge to all Christians. Are there two lives or only one life, [which] we live according to the will of God?,” it said.
The speakers, read the statement, will take the audience through the Bible to study the political implications and experiences of being a Christian.
“This is to help us enter into present-day reality of the Malaysian political context, and answer the perennial thought: what would Jesus do in Malaysia Today?” it added.
Just as Islam in Malaysia was and still is being highly politicized, so it seemed too with the Christian Church.
The common denominator was/is busybody clerics who should NOT poke their noses into politics..
The two church priests had the shameless brazen nerve to talk about 'political changes' and 'fence sitters', meaning they had already taken sidesin order for effecting political change.
Those words and thoughts would have been fine for ordinary citizens, but the two churchmen seditiously recruited a long-dead Jesus and the Church into taking sides in Malaysian politics.
Today Bishop Bernard Paul, head of the Catholic Church’s Malacca-Johor diocese, is doing the same. He said that taking part in Bersih 5 was a citizen’s right and not a matter of party politic, but doesn't he not know who Maria Chin Abdullah is? Or is he just pretending ta'tahu?
The reality is that Maria Chin has already deviated Bersih off track from being a neutral election watchdog into being an anti-BN so-called NGO. Maria Chin has already taken sides in our politics. It's okay if she stops pretending Bersih is just about being an election watchdog as the NGO had started life as.
Anyway, Bishop Bernard Paul surged Malaysians to take part in the Bersih 5 rally and “to claim [Malaysia] back from destructive leaders”.
Who is or are the destructive leaders? Lim Kit Siang? Pak Haji Hadi Awang? Najib Razak? Mahathir? And tell em why he or they is/are destructive?
As an atheist, may I humbly draw the attention of Rev Dr Hermen Shastri, Paul Sinnappan and BIshop Bernard Paul to (and ulama Abdullah Sa’amah can listen in) what Jesus told us in Matthew 22:21, which was:
"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."
Yes, that's what Jesus would have done and said if he was here today, as he did two thousand years ago.
And don't try to put your own words into his mouth.
Isn't it troubling enough that we already have so many Islamic clerics politicizing their religion for political gains in Malaysia? We certainly don't need any more clerics of other religious denominations interfering in politics. We need a clear separation between State and Church.
Anyway I wish to say this about Bishop Bernard Paul, that he seems to lack understanding of the doctrine of separation of church from the state.
He told politicians who criticized his political move to grow up, but I say he is the one who needs to grow up most.
He also lacks understanding that when he marches with Bersih 5, his position as a Roman Catholic Bishop does not disappear, no, not in the least.
Yes, the reason why people have been talking about him is not that he is Bernard Paul, basically a nobody who I do not know from Adam (pun not intended), but that he is the one and only Bishop Bernard Paul, the Roman Catholic Prelate who is head of the Catholic Church’s Malacca-Johor diocese.
Who would have paid attention to him or which news media would have reported on him, if he is not a Catholic Church Prelate?
Thus no matter that he has said he will be marching in his personal capacity, that's bullshit. He will definitely influence Malaysian Catholics (in his own words "... and get my people to support them ...") because he wears the cloth of a Roman Catholic Prelate, one who is now interfering in Malaysian politics.
In December 1972 in Sabah the late Tun Mustapha, then CM of that state, expelled several Roman Catholic priest for allegedly interfering in local politics. I hope this won't happen to Bishop Bernard Paul, but he must be mindful of the reality that the Catholic Church must NOT interfere with Malaysian politics, as the case also with other clerics of the Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist, etc, faith.
Will no one rid us of these turbulent priests and ulamas?
- (with apologies to Henry II - 1170)
The Church must not engage in partisan politics , supporting one or another party. However, this should not be construed as the Church must remain mute in face of the major issues and problems facing the society. It may be unavoidably political, but it is acceptable, nay, necessary, as long as the church steers clear of being partisan.
ReplyDeleteIn the context of Malaysia TODAY, there is no greater evil than the industrial-scale corruption being carried out at the highest level of Malaysia's leadership, with complete impunity. The Church is right to take a stand on it, again without engaging in partisan politics.
In fact, the Church should have spoken out during the widespread abuses of power in the 1990's. They did not, in the mistaken assumption that the Church must completely stay out of anything that could be construed as political.
But it is not too late to speak up.
There is no problem with the cleric attending Bersih as a private citizen. In fact, he should.
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/360150
"As Bersih is clearly political and partisan, it is wise for all religious leaders - including a certain bishops in the news - to refrain from joining or openly asking others to join Bersih's activities,"
Ktemoc sounds just like Rosmah's aide - which is not coincidental.
Kt's relentless attacks on Bersih arise from his partiality towards Malaysian Official 1.
wakakaka,I've never heard such bullshit spin such as yours, where you said the church must not engaged in partisan politics yet must speak out against one side of politics because it's for Malaysia. Speak out against a side of politics is NOT partisan? wakakaka, what have you been smoking?
DeleteEvery bloody politician, whether Najib, Mahathir, Anwar, Pak Haji, LKS will tell you he speaks out for Malaysia, wakakaka
Speaking up against industrial-scale corruption is considered partisan politics ?
DeleteThank you for making clear where you stand, Malaysian Official 1.
Now we know why you are so dead set against Lim Kit Siang, Ambiga and Bersih.
The United States official position on the separation of Church and State.
ReplyDeleteTo me Item 1 is no less important than the rest.
1. Religious groups have the right to speak out on political and social issues.
2. Federal law, however, prohibits most tax-exempt bodies, including houses of worship, from intervening in elections by endorsing or opposing political parties or candidates for public office.
3. Churches are not political action committees and should not act like them.
4. Religious leaders should abide by the law and refrain from turning their congregations into cogs in a political machine.
The full text to your No 1:
DeleteReligious groups have the right to speak out on political and social issues. Federal law, however, prohibits most tax-exempt bodies, including houses of worship, from intervening in elections by endorsing or opposing candidates for public office. Churches are not political action committees and should not act like them. Religious leaders should abide by the law and refrain from turning their congregations into cogs in a political machine.
Don't bullshit lah, wakakaka
Huh ?? I have not left out anything from the original text, just broke it down to 4 points to make it easier for people to read and understand.
DeleteThis lousy specimen of a Uni of New South Wales graduate obviously has worse English skills than Mara Institute products.
And he has denied a no less important right which is
"Religious groups have the right to speak out on political and social issues"
as you obviously have lousy reading skills, I am reprinting what I commented earlier:
DeleteReligious groups have the right to speak out on political and social issues. Federal law, however, prohibits most tax-exempt bodies, including houses of worship, from intervening in elections by endorsing or opposing candidates for public office. Churches are not political action committees and should not act like them. Religious leaders should abide by the law and refrain from turning their congregations into cogs in a political machine.
'First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
ReplyDeleteBecause I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.'
Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)
So, kt would want man of the cloth NOT to involve in sopo issues, even in his/her personal capacity, errrh!
What a wordsmith of free speech & human right! Perhaps, he thinks sopo issues SHOULD be the playing field of the politikus & spinmasters - in his selective mode!
Wakakakaka.. sigh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-partisan_democracy
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics
Engaging in Partisan politics is a subset of simply being political.
Partisan politics is engaging in activities in support or against specific political parties or political candidates.
Politics is a much broader activity engaging in the process by which a society takes actions or decisions.
The Church can and should take a stand on major concerns the society is facing, but should refrain from taking sides for or against political parties.
Susah to explain to a person with a sub-standard brain...wakakakakaka
One of the execrable acts of the Najib Government has been to paint anybody and everybody who is demanding action on 1MDB and corruption as "attempting to overthrow the Government".
ReplyDeleteIt is an attempt to criminalise dissent, and silence anyone daring to speak up.
Tony Pua, Rafizi Ramli, Lim Kit Siang, Aliran have been clinically dissecting the trail of stench arising from 1MDB fraud starting way back in 2013. In those days, we never had an idea how much of a monster it was. Najib and Co. just swatted the issue away, pretending there was nothing wrong.
The issue only gained mass traction when Mahathir jumped on the issue, for his own (whatever) reasons ... that was also when Najib & Co. started the defence against "activities contrary to Parliamentary democracy"...I consider that bullshit.
The issue goes beyond partisan politics, and it is a vital one for any citizen or group of citizens to be concerned about.
Please do not deny the right of citizens to take a stand on it.
Yes- that includes clerics and religious groups.
but never a cleric. and that's why a military man cannot be a member of a political party nor voice his/her opinions on politics.
DeleteBoth clerics and military personnels possess inordinate powers and are dangerous to political persuasion
oh, by the by, please see my letter to Malaysiakini and KT post titled Keep soldiers in their constitutional barracks - http://ktemoc.blogspot.com.au/2015/08/keep-soldiers-in-their-constitutional.html
DeleteThe military with their tanks , heavy machine guns and laser guided bombs must absolutely respect the direction of the elected government.
ReplyDeleteThat is drilled into officers, and as or the enlisted men, they absolutely obey orders as directed.
The list time the English army defied the Crown was in 1642.
How many Divisions does the Pope have ? Stalin sneered once.
Ans. None.
inordinate powers are not just about arms, but also spiritual or emotional influence, using the imprimatur of God's name - which are by far greater than mere arms
Deleteso, an integrated and holistic politics is not a choice because of its powerful synergy between ethnic and cultural nationalism especially when the rulers and the ruled are predominantly from one particular race/religion eh?
Delete