Monday, March 05, 2018

In politics, leave god alone, leave the churches outside

definition: 'churches' as in post title is generic, meaning all organised religions, whether that be Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, etc

Malaysiakini - 'Haram' to vote for Umno's walking stick, says Husam (extracts):

Amanah vice-president Husam Musa has said it is "haram" to vote for Umno's "walking stick" in the coming polls, in a reference to PAS.

"PAS says not voting for PAS is haram as it would bring down an Islamic government.

"I would say that voting for PAS, which is being a 'walking stick' for Umno that takes the people's money, is haram.

"So vote for who? Vote for Pakatan Harapan and receive the divine reward," he told a ceramah in Kuala Krai last night.

This is exactly what gives BOTH religion and politics each a bad bad name. And that's why religion and politics shouldn't mustn't ever mix.

They are like oil and water, chalk and cheese and bah-kut-teh and nasi lemak.

And never the twain shall meet. The concept of separation of state and church is at this stage never more brilliant, relevant and the only political solution for a unified happy and progressive nation. 

It doesn't matter it has been Husam Musa who has said it. It could as well be Hadi Awang saying, or Najib Razak or Mahathir, or worse, anyone from the Hallelujah gang.

how can he claim to be a holy man? 

Religion and politics MUST be kept separate. AS a matter of interest, just how is Husam Musa able to justify his Vote for Pakatan Harapan and receive the divine reward or Hadi Awang likewise in its PAS says not voting for PAS is haram?

What right do they have in dragging God into politics?

Last year Keningau Diocese Bishop Cornelius Piong told FMT that 'The Catholic Church has always been non-partisan when it comes to politics' but I have reservations about his word 'always', because that have not been so.

Bishop Cornelius Piong 

Also, by saying 'even though the clergy is free to discuss politics, in the end, when it comes to voting, such decisions lie with each individual person', has been, for all intents and purposes, making excuses for politicking clerics (and virtually putting the blame on the individual voter).

Let me take you back to 2012, precisely to 07 August 2012, when FMT published GE 13: What would Jesus do?:

The news online portal informed us about a public forum in PJ Section 8, at the Dignity International, A-2-7 Pusat Perdagangan, regarding the then pending 13th 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 the year 2012, a very much dead Jew, as to what he would do in GE13.

according to the BBC who engaged experts to reconstruct Jesus 

according to orang putih who created Jesus in their own image

according to the Koreans who created Jesus in their own image 

Thus in reality, what Jesus would do in GE-13 would be exactly what those two clerics personally wanted to do. The forum was reported as berating fence sitters. The following has been what came out of teh forum:

“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.”

"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?”.

Was the church through its two priests advocating "change" in GE13?

Wasn't that attempting to influence the voting trend amongst Christians by using the name of Jesus? Just as Husam and Hadi have been doing, unscrupulously (mis)using the name of god to influence voting.

Then, on 23 October 2016, Bishop Bernard Paul, head of the Catholic Church’s Malacca-Johor diocese, did the same. He said that taking part in Bersih 5, which you my dear Bishop Piong claims to be apolitical (ie. NOT political or NOT politically aligned), was a citizen’s right and not a matter of party politic.

But didn't he know who Maria Chin Abdullah was by then? Or is he just pretending dunno (ta'tahu)?

The reality has been that Maria Chin has already deviated Bersih off track from being an apolitical (NOT politically aligned) election watchdog into being an anti-BN NGO. Maria Chin has already taken sides in our politics.

But that's okay if she stopped/stops pretending Bersih was/is just about being an election watchdog as the NGO had originally started life as.

Anyway, Bishop Bernard Paul then urged Malaysians to take part in the Bersih 5 rally and “to claim [Malaysia] back from destructive leaders”.

How would that make Bishop Bernard Paul into, from being supposedly a "apolitical" cleric, when he accused some politicians of being "destructive leaders"?

Who were the destructive leaders? Lim Kit Siang? Hadi Awang? Najib Razak? Mahathir?

Bishop Bernard Paul should at least have explained why they were destructive? Or, were his words as a cleric supposed to imply those vague words were words of god and thus not/never to be questioned?

Anyway I wish to say this again about Bishop Bernard Paul, that he seemed to lack understanding of the doctrine of separation of church from the state.

He told politicians who criticised his political move to grow up, but I did then say he was the one who needed to grow up most.

I detest religious influence in politics, especially in voting. There should be a law against this as it amounts to (mis)using the powers of the divine or the supernatural to influence, affect or frighten the voters.

Ban religion from politics, which should include banning political parties with religion as its party ideology. We should thus ban PAS, Amanah, Hindraf and any political party having Christianity or Islam or Buddhism or Confucianism, etc, as its party ideology.

Any priest caught preaching on politics or any politicians caught invoking god's name should be jailed, at least until the elections are over.

Malaysia will be a happier nation when religion is confined in the individual minds and hearts of its citizens and out of state affairs (and politics).


  1. The Catholic Church neither endorsed nor criticised any political party.
    No politicking was involved.

    The Church made a stand on certain non-religious issues affecting the country, which impacts Catholics as well.
    Pope Francis has spoken up many times in issues of social justice and integrity, without taking political sides.
    That is a right thing to do.

  2. Observing closely, religion & country r siamese twin!

    Religion sets rules, to govern the flock of believers/followers, with hierarchical administrators doubled up as group captains.

    Similarly, country operates on the same mould.

    The ONLY difference is religion has a Paramount leader who rules forever with his/her written/oral doctrines that CANNOT be altered w/o major bloodbaths, via a selection of the elite top dogs.

    The country has a change of top leadership via any means every now&then. The country's Constitutions/rules r man-made & can be change by the show of majority.

    Thus, the different terms to describe the same human sopo creation, r just based on yr individual understanding le.

    If u insist on the doctrine of separation of church from the state, then u r talking about an OXYMORONIC (a hard to understand big word, wakakakaka) distinction since both r just the same 'spirit' but of different 'representation'!

    They CAN'T ever be separated!

    BTW, why all the 'examples' from the Christian flocks. Mana tu ummat islam - sensitive ke?

    Perhaps, next time u SHOULD use a more generic term of Abrahamic faith. This bloody(note the term usage, OK?) humanity legacy HAS always the most vocal/influence on the affairs of human, believers/non-believers inclusive lah.

    That would be a fair start for yr religious/political diarrheas!


  3. Neither Islam nor Christianity can said to espouse separation of state and religion, as throughout their entire history with governments, state and religion work hand in hand to develop societies of old.

    Those supposedly secular states are just paying lip service to that phrase. Their leaders gets sworn in with the Bible, their currencies are stamped "In God We Trust", their government donates & subsidises churches and religious bodies, their house members are allowed to quote from the Bible. Those are just the most obvious ones, there are more.

    In reality, there can never be true separation unless humanity ditches religion.