Wednesday, 6 June 2007

my response

cruzeiro wrote:

I know lah you're being "sarcy" .......
but the problem is I know you don't like ISA.
it is precisely this simplistic rationale that is used for its perpetuation by it's proponents.
the question now is, what alternative do you suggest - and mind you, your argument against ISA "must hold water".
Let's hear it, Pete.

06/06 11:07:33

RPK's reply

Raja Petra wrote:

Dear cruzeiro, it IS simple. Extremists (or pelampau in BM) means people who are extreme (melampau, too much) and terrorists are people who terrorise others (menakutkan, ganas). Malays are terrified that the Chinese extremists will take away their rights and special privieges (including the NEP). They are also terrified that the Malay language will no longer be the National Language with Chinese asking for more Chinese schools and mother-tongue education. They are also worried that the non-Muslims are demanding that Muslims be allowed to leave Islam which will erode Islam.

Non-Malays support the ISA because they are scared of Muslim extremists and terrorists while the Malays support the ISA because they are scared of the extremists Chinese, Christians, etc. who challenge the position of Malays-Islam which the Constitution has already protected and given a special place.

You see, while the non-Malays have their reasons for supporting the ISA, the Malays too have their own reasons. Operasi Lalang was to stop the non-Malays from challenging the Malays rights and special privileges, Islam as the oficial religion, and Malay as the National Language.

So it is actually really very simple and that is how Malays see it. What's not 'simplistic' about this whole issue?

Oh, and of course we are all using our own yardstick as to what is extreme and what warrants detention under the ISA. But this will have to depend on the colour of your skin and the religion you believe in. The majority of Malays have no problems if murtads get detained without trial including those non-Muslims who instigate Muslims to leave Islam. Some even agree that they be put to death (worse than detention without trial).

06/06 10:58:57

RPK's Response to OU- my perspective

Dear Sir,

A wise man once said, "even if there is no God, Man has to create him".

Friedrich Nietzche, who was the son of a pastor, said that "God is dead", and landed in a lunatic asylum, trying to prove his point.

Since the advent of "institutionalized religions", wars were waged in the name of God. Religion (not God) has been, once too often, a curse to mankind. It has often been politicized (as correctly mentioned by you) for the sake of economic conquest, rather than spiritual.

I do believe in "GOD". However, while I accept the need for religious institutions as a necessary evil, I do not surrender my mind to them (meaning the "dogma").

As easy as that may seem to you and me, a vast majority of people (more so, those who aren't capable of “thinking” logically – whatever the reason may be) need these godmen to justify their actions using God as a tool of convenience. Therefore, one's perception of God, would depend a lot on Culture.

Culture is the totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought. Culture is learned and shared within social groups and is transmitted by nongenetic means.

The "Godmen" (not "men of God") on the other hand, manipulate the ethics/ laws to influence the politics, thereby reaping the harvest from "lost souls". Therein sets in the corruption of "values" espoused by religions.

While it may be easy for one to say that "all Gods are One" or ""your God and my God are one and the same", it would be advisable for one to remember that people differ in their perception, definition and understanding of "God".

Therefore, while it may be correct as you understand, define and perceive God, it may not be the case with another. This difference in opinion needs to be respected first and foremost, should we discuss the nature of GOD.

These, I believe, are the facts that, both you and OU have been trying to illustrate in your own ways.

Although OU had mention the word "God", what he appears to me to be condemning, is actually, Religion.