Ban on use of "Allah" in Alkitab: Make Malaysia more of a loony bin than it already is!

Written by  Joe Fernandez & Stan Lee. Published by The Malaysia Chronicle on 31 December 2012.

It’s confirmed now that Malaysia has become one big loony bin! This is the only country in the world where politicians and government lackeys such as Perak chief cleric Harussani Zakaria have nothing better to do than to quarrel over who and who cannot use the term Allah for God in print in Peninsular Malaysia i.e. in this case in Malay print in the Bible.

The Internet is exempted. Likewise, there’s no Umno Government prohibition on using the term Allah for God in Malay print for the Bible in Sabah and Sarawak. There’s also no Government prohibition on using the term Allah for God in non-Bible print.

In fact, not many realise that there’s no Government prohibition either on using the term Allah for God in English print or any other language whether in the Bible or non-Bible material. There’s also no Government prohibition on using the term Allah for God in song, prayer and worship by anyone in any language.

This explains why there has been only ominous silence from the Home Ministry on Allah in the Sikh Holy Book and in Bahais and Mizrahi Jews also using the term.

Use religion to do good, weed out sins like corruption, not  hide wrongdoings

Sikhs too call their God Allah since Sikhism is a synthesis of Hinduism and Islam created by Guru Nanak in Lahore, now in Pakistan but then in undivided India. Guru Nanak claimed in Guru Granth Sahib, the Sikh Holy Scriptures written in Gurmukhi in eastern India, that he was taken to God’s Court and given nectar by God to drink. Apparently, he was then instructed to reveal to mankind that God was neither a Hindu nor a Muslim and had no religion.

But argue all you like, it won't stop ruling party, Umno, and its religious chiefs from stirring up religious mischief.

There's little doubt Umno - embattled and corruption-riddled - is now at its weakest. It needs to deflect attention from its string of shocking corruption scandals. Umno leaders know they need to rally the Malays behind their party as never before. And what better way than to use, or is it abuse, Islam to claim the moral high ground.

"“The matter is already in the (Islamic) enactments of every state, they’re provoking Muslims on purpose so Muslims will melatah (over-react). Christians should not interfere with Islam, they’d be better off taking care of their own religion. If they want to use Allah, convert into Islam,” Harussani was reported as saying.

Perhaps the Malaysian Gurdwara Council's rebuttal captures the core of the issue best. As MGC president Jagir Singh pointed out the National Fatwa Council’s 2010 edict on the Allah word cannot apply to non-Muslims. The fatwa council does not have direct jurisdiction over non-Muslims and therefore cannot issue fatwas to bar them from using a specific word.

The dumbest contradiction and clearest proof of abusing Islam for politics

Again, the Umno government does not want to see the term Allah for God in this print. Allah activists can however make an issue of the fact that Bahasa Melayu and Bahasa Malaysia are not one and the same language and that the Bible is not in Malay but in Bahasa Malaysia, among other languages.

The Government’s reasoning against Allah in Malay Bible print is that Muslims would be confused. The population estimate in 2004 was as follows, according to the CIA World FactBook on Malaysia: Malay 50.4%, Chinese 23.7%, Orang Asal 11%, Indian 7.1%, others 7.8%. The religious picture: Muslim (or Islam) 60.4%, Buddhist 19.2%, Christian 9.1%, Hindu 6.3%, Confucianism, Taoism, other traditional Chinese religions 2.6%, other or unknown 1.5%, none 0.8%.

In a contradiction in terms, the government doesn’t seem to realise that Christians in Peninsular Malaysia who use the Bible in English might be confused as well.

The fact is that neither Muslims nor Christians in Sabah and Sarawak would be confused. The Sikhs aside, Allah in Malay, English or other print is a peculiarly Borneon problem in this part of the world. This is a key point which seems to have escaped the politicians in Peninsular Malaysia or Malaya as Sabahans and Sarawakians prefer to call it.

Muslim politicians suspect a sinister plot by Christians to confuse Muslims

One development which might be troubling Muslim politicians in Peninsular Malaysia is that Christians in Malaya too now want to use the term Allah for God in all print. They see this approach as necessary to be in solidarity with fellow members of their faith on the side of the South China Sea. The sea, according to the Catholic Church in a novel take, does not divide Malaysians but brings them together.

Muslim politicians in Peninsular Malaysia, on the other hand, suspect a “sinister” Christian plot to confuse Muslims through Allah and lure them away from their Faith. They fear that Muslims might conclude, and not entirely without justification, that Islam is just another branch of Christianity like the Protestant denominations which rebelled some 500 years ago against the authority of the Vatican.

When yours truly was in school in Peninsular Malaysia and long after, the thought of a Christian calling God Allah as in Borneo and in the Middle East never crossed the mind.

In fact, had such a thing been suggested in school before by the Christian brothers, the initial reaction would have been one of shock, horror and confusion. The word Allah would have definitely stuck in the collective throats of Christians in Peninsular Malaysia and probably strangled them to death.

The reason that Christians in the Peninsular Malaysia now want to use the term Allah for God may also be due to the reason that they can only smile if asked something in English, and prefer to use the Malay language. An added factor is that there are many Sabahans and Sarawakians in Peninsular Malaysia, as many as 200,000, formidable block in the electoral rolls.

Also, Muslims settling down in Europe in large numbers partly to make up for the virtual elimination of the Jews by Adolf Hitler, Christians on that continent too appear to have since discovered that Allah is the right term for their God as well.

Syed Hamid’s political mischief-making will haunt our political future

This Allah problem was wholly created not so long ago by former Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar – he claims to be Arab and not an Indian Muslim tracing his roots to the Indian subcontinent -- for political reasons. He was then eyeing a high post in the Umno hierarchy. He used the Printing Presses Act in going after the Catholic Church on the issue. For his troubles in “protecting Allah for the Muslims”, Umno members kicked out Syed Hamid from all party posts and he was dropped from the Federal Cabinet.

Even then, Syed Hamid did not want to bite off more than what he could chew and conveniently ignored the fact that Jesus, for example, was Isa in the Malay Bible as in the Quran. The difference was that Isa was Nabi (Prophet) to Muslims and Penyelamat (Messiah and Saviour) and Anak Allah (Son of God), both exalted positions, to Christians.

A Muslim reading the Bible in Malay would be intrigued that Isa (Jesus) in Christianity was not as portrayed by Islam in the Quran. However, this point seems to have escaped the politicians in their eagerness to harp on the term Allah for God in the Malay Bible.

Another point is that Mary, the mother of Jesus the Son of God, is Siti Mariam in both the Quran and the Malay Bible. In the Quran, Mary is portrayed simply as the mother of Jesus and not as how Christians revere her.

The third point is Allah – the Almighty, the All Powerful -- is not God’s name but just one of the Creator’s many attributes which function as names. God, according to Jews, Christians and Muslims, has 1001 attributes but only 100 including Allah is known and the rest have been hidden from mankind.

So, if the Umno Government prohibits Christians in Peninsular Malaysia from using the term Allah for God in the Malay Bible, what about the other attributes of God? No prohibition? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Islam

The final point is that Allah was known and in usage long before the coming of Islam 1,500 years ago. So, where’s the logic in prohibiting religions which have always used Allah for God from using the term just because some Malays are likely to be confused?

Allah was never a problem during the time of the first four Prime Ministers in Malaysia – Tunku Abdul Rahman, Abdul Razak Hussein, Hussein Onn and Mahathir Mohamad. Syed Hamid’s political mischief in the past has again caught up with us in the present to haunt our future.

Will PAS turn 'rogue'?

Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim, DAP Secretary-General Lim Guan Eng and various PAS leaders have all made the right noises on the issue until recently, when a certain faction within PAS shocked everyone by suggesting that non-Muslims should agree not to use Allah as a 'pragmatic' way of resiolving the issue.

The mainstream Malay media has gone to town on the issue and made it appear that both DAP and PAS are at loggerheads on the Allah issue. Such mischief-making is typical of the Umno-controlled press which probably wants to see the country burn so that they can boost their flagging street sales.

Now, Pakatan Rakyat wants to meet and discuss the issue again – already discussed before, noted Anwar – and re-affirm what they had already agreed on before. And that is to stick by the federal constitution, which does not prohibit non-Muslims from using the Allah word. This, of course, is totally opposite to the stance taken by Prime Minister Najib Razak and his Umno party.

Article 3 of the Federal Constitution guarantees Freedom of Worship. So no surprises what statement Pakatan will reiterate. The only wild card is whether PAS will throw a spanner into the works and reverse from its previous stand.

Link: 

http://www.malaysia-chronicle.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=45845:shut-up-harussani-dont-make-malaysia-more-of-a-loony-bin-than-it-already-is&Itemid=2

Clearing the confusion on the use of Allah in Bahasa Bibles

From Dr SK Teoh. Published by Free Malaysia Today on 31 December 2012.

Many Muslims and even some Christians have misunderstood the use of “Allah” in Bahasa Bibles.  To clarify some of the confusion:

• The BM Bible or the Alkitab is not translated from the English Bible but from the original languages, i.e.  Hebrew and Greek.
• The Hebrew word for God is El or Elohim (similar root as Ilah in Arabic) and YHWH or Yahweh for LORD. The Greek words are Theo for God and Kurios for Lord.
• Biblical translators all over the world have used the local language terms for Elohim and Yahweh e.g. God and LORD in English; Dios and Senor in Spanish, Shangti and Zhu in Chinese
• For 15 centuries, Arabic Bibles have used Allah for God and Rab for Lord (predate Islam)
• The first Malay translation of the Bible was made in 1612, and Allah was used for God and Tuhan for Lord in this and all the subsequent translations till today.
• Malay-speaking (and Iban) Christians have used the term Allah for more than 100 years in Malaya and the Borneo states in worship, prayers and reading their holy scriptures.
• Twenty million Christians in Indonesia have used Allah for years without any misunderstanding or objection.
• English Bibles nor Bibles of other languages obviously do not use the Bahasa terms.
• Forbidding the use of the term “Allah” by Christians not only infringes their rights to practise their faith but also leads to confusion. For example, is the “Tuhan” in Negara-Ku and Rukun Negara not the “Muslim God” or can Christians sing the Selangor Anthem where “Allah” is used?
• Theological  meanings between Christianity and Islam  will always be different whether the term used is “Allah” or “Tuhan” or “God”.

Link:
http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/opinion/2012/12/31/clearing-the-confusion-on-the-use-of-allah-in-bahasa-bibles/

Johor State Anthem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johor_State_Anthem

Allah peliharakan Sultan
'Nugrahkan dia segala kehormatan
Sihat dan ria, kekal dan makmur
Luaskan kuasa, menaungkan kami
Rakyat dipimpini berzaman lagi
Dengan Merdeka bersatu hati
Allah berkati Johor
Allah selamatkan Sultan

Related report: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/embrace-islam-if-you-want-to-use-allah-harussani-tells-non-muslims/

Perak Mufti Tan Sri Harussani Zakaria today told non-Muslims who insist on using the word “Allah” to refer to their Gods to convert to Islam if they refused to accept that the word belongs only to Muslims.

Malaise in Malaysia: Corruption in High Places

Posted by The Huffington Post on 27 December 2012.

It is an accepted cliché that power corrupts and is usually in reference to a country's leaders and their ability to amass private fortunes at the expense of their electorate. But the real tragedy is how corruption corrodes civil society. It creates cynicism, anger or voter apathy, with people losing confidence in politicians and therefore losing their connection with democracy. If the problem cannot be solved through the ballot box because of a corrupt electoral system, then a country is really in trouble.

Malaysia may not be in big trouble yet. While it still has a robust free press and whistleblowers are protected, the current issues have a chance to be addressed fairly. But the media is under pressure to conform and whistleblowers have been arrested instead of the corrupt officials. One of the foundations of the fight against corruption is the need to protect the messenger, and while many countries are being urged to adopt such legislation, it is only effective if respected and enforced.

Malaysia ranked 60th out of 182 nations last year in Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index, down four places from 2010, when 178 countries were included. Two recent scandals have rocked the establishment party of UMNO, bringing disrepute to people in high places from the Prime Minister down. The Scorpene submarines deal has exposed the hypocrisy of leaders who pledge to end corruption yet proceed as if winning elections is all about self-enrichment.

Malaysia was a signatory of the UN Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) in 2008 with a legal obligation to "prevent, investigate and prosecute" cases of international corruption. However, a complaisant majority party and judiciary allow for delays in hearings, refusals to release documents and in the case of the submarines deal, to deny that French law has jurisdiction over Malaysian transactions. The French government however, is actively pursuing its own inquiry and has released over 153 documents making it clear that apart from individuals, the ruling party (UMNO) was the biggest beneficiary, receiving commissions, bribes and support fees in the millions.

In spite of government harassment, the civil rights organization, SUARAM, is determined to uncover the truth in its pursuit for accountability and stated in a May 2012 press conference in Bangkok, that it will continue to make the results public as the case proceeds in the French Court.

Another scandal has recently become public and tarnished the reputation of a former government minister and family members when it was revealed that National Feedlot Corporation funds were misused for the purchase of condominiums using Malaysian government funds. Government patronage over the years has involved highway construction and defense contracts and a variety of other government arrangements with UMNO cronies. Prime Minister Najib Razak, who chairs the Finance Ministry Acquisition Committee, is in the powerful position of being able to award contracts and to charge whistleblowers instead as a smokescreen to protect his friends.

PKR leader Anwar Ibrahim has condemned such politically-motivated charges and his party is setting up a National Oversight and Whistleblower Centre to offer future informants protection via legal and monetary aid. Anwar promises to end corruption and dissatisfaction with UMNO and has been reinforcing the popularity of the PKR. But while the integrity of the electoral process is in doubt and the institutions responsible for anti-corruption and the rule of law have been compromised, it is difficult to foresee how the next election will play out.

It is ironic that the shining example of democracy, the U.S., has also been undergoing problems with electoral integrity, as right-wing public officials attempted to purge electoral rolls of potential Democratic electors, proving that nothing is safe, even in a democracy, if the judicial system is underpinned by a right-leaning Supreme Court.

Anwar Ibrahim is being hounded by the Prime Minister Najib Razak and the ruling party UMNO, and after surviving trumped up charges and years in prison under a previous administration, Anwar is used to having his reputation slandered by the opposition. However, the victimization is proving counterproductive as his popularity is increasing and his message of moderation, inclusion and hope is resonating with his growing coalition as well as the center.

Anwar may not yet have the following to counter the strength of UMNO, with its entrenched 20 years of patronage creating a loyal party base especially in rural communities, but he certainly has the attention of those who want to see Malaysia's democracy strengthen and mature. The educated voters of Malaysia hope that Anwar Ibrahim will be their country's next Prime Minister, leading Malaysia to an incorruptible leadership role in the global community.

Written by Dr Azeem Ibrahim, the Executive Chairman of The Scotland Institute and a Fellow at the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding.

Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/azeem-ibrahim/malaise-in-malaysia-corruption_b_2304185.html

Hunger Protest 100: Hazardous projects hunger strike 27 Dec 2012

By K Pragalath. Published by Free Malaysia Today on 27 December 2012.

A pro-environment group called Malaysian Youth Against Public Hazards (MYAP) is organising a hunger strike tonight at Dataran Merdeka to raise awareness against hazardous projects. The group had identified five projects – Lynas Rare Earth Plant, Bukit Koman Cyanide Gold Mining, Pengerang Oil Refinery, Sarawak Mega Dams project and the Rawang High Tension Cable. However, MYAP’s two immediate demands were focused on Lynas.

They are demanding for an end to Lynas’ temporary operating license (TOL) since there is data to show risk to public health and environment whereas their second demand is for a proper Detailed Environment Impact Assessment (DEIA) to be done and made public before a TOL is issued.

The hunger strike is called Hunger Protest 100. The 100 refers to the number of hours that the hunger strike would be held. The protest, which begins at 8pm, would end on the stroke of midnight on Jan 1, 2013. MYAP spokesperson and team leader Tan Woen Tien told FMT that at the time of writing 18 participants had confirmed their participation.

Student activist Adam Adli and PKR affiliated NGO Solidariti Anak Muda Malaysia would be participating as well. “Hospital Kuala Lumpur has been notified. In addition, a St John’s Ambulance will be stationed nearby,” said Tan.

According to MYAP’s Facebook page, non-Muslim participants would only consume water throughout the fasting period whereas Muslim participants would be fasting from dawn to sunset. During the strike, several speakers were scheduled to deliver speeches. Bersih steering committee member Wong Chin Huat is expected to start the ball rolling tonight with a talk entitled, “Would it be possible for Mat Kilau to accept Lynas?”

Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM) secretary-general S Arutchelvan would be giving a talk tomorrow. Meanwhile, Tan said another environment group Himpunan Hijau leader, Wong Tack, would be organising the “people’s congress to allow the people to decide the type of development that they want."

Link: 

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2012/12/27/hazardous-projects-hunger-strike-tonight/

Orang Asli Seletar Johor tuntut hak tanah ― Gabungan Penduduk Orang Asli Kg Bakar Batu dan Kg Sg Temun

Diterbit oleh The Malaysian Insider pada 27 Disember 2012.

Pada hari ini, 188 orang penduduk Kampung Sungai Temun dan Kampung Bakar Batu, Johor Bahru, yang berketurunan Orang Asli Seletar (Orang Laut), telah memfailkan kes saman pemula di Makhamah Tinggi Johor Bahru secara tindakan berkelompok terhadap Lembaga Pembangunan Wilayah Iskandar (IRDA), Pengarah Tanah dan Galian (PTG) Johor, Kerajaan Negeri Johor dan 10 pihak yang lain.

Pihak Orang Asli diwakili oleh Salim bin Palon (Batin Kg. Sg. Temun), Mat bin Inder (wakil Kg. Bakar Batu) dan Edy bin Salim (wakil Kg. Sg. Temun). Kami diwakili oleh peguam K. Mohan (K. Mohan & Co) yang bertindak untuk kami secara pro bono.

Untuk makluman, masyarakat Orang Asli Seletar telah menyuarakan masalah kami melalui pelbagai saluran pada tahun yang lepas. Antara lain, kami menghantar memorandum kepada Menteri Besar pada 15 Disember 2011

1. Apabila perkuburan kami ditolak pada 19 Januari 2012, kami telah membuat laporan polis dan kemudian berdialog dengan pihak berkuasa termasuk Jabatan Kemajuan Orang Asli (JAKOA) pada 27 Januari 2012.
2. Usaha kami telah membawa EXCO Kerajaan Negeri Johor, YB Asiah Ariff untuk melawat kampung kami beberapa kali dan pada 1 November 2012, beliau telah mengatakan bahawa perkampungan kami akan dikekalkan.
3. Lebih awal pada bulan Febuari 2012, YB Asiah juga memaklumkan bahawa Kerajaan Johor sedang mengenalpasti tanah di kawasan Selat Johor untuk tujuan pewartaan sebagai rizab tanah Orang Asli untuk kami.
4. Walau bagaimanapun, tanah dan wilayah adat yang kami diami secara turun-temurun telah dan masih diceroboh oleh ramai pihak yang tidak bertanggungjawab. Setelah sekian lama aduan kami dibuat kepada pihak kerajaan, janji-janji yang ditawarkan oleh pihak berkuasa secara mulut masih belum menjadi kenyataan dalam bentuk hitam putih.

Pada masa yang sama, adalah sangat ketara bahawa bahawa kawasan hutan bakau di sekitar muara Sg Skudai dan Sg Danga di mana kami diami dan mencari makan telah musnah akibat kerja-kerja pembinaan yang kononnya dibuat demi pembangunan. Tetapi siapa yang merasai buah hasil pembangunan ini?

Kami tidak tahu. Apa yang kami pasti, hidup masyarakat Orang Asli di sini semakin terancam kerana dengan hilangnya hutan bakau dan tercemarnya sungai dan laut, punca mata pencarian kami semakin berkurangan. Malah, tanah di atas berdirinya kampung halaman kami telah ditukar menjadi hak milik pihak-pihak ketiga yang tanpa pengetahuan kami.

Tujuan kami mengambil cara undang-undang adalah supaya ketidak adilan yang menimpa masyarakat kami dapat diperbetulkan. Sebagai orang asal di negeri ini, kami ingin terus hidup dan maju di atas tanah dan laut yang kami warisi dari nenek moyang kami.

Link: 

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/rencana/article/orang-asli-seletar-johor-tuntut-hak-tanah-gabungan-penduduk-orang-asli-kg-bakar-batu-dan-kg-sg-temun/

Berita lain: http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/217515

Seorang ADUN BN negeri menafikan dakwaan PKR  bahawa parti pemerintah dan Jabatan Kemajuan Orang Asli (JAKOA) mengadakan "sesi latihan" untuk membimbing pengundi Orang Asli di Tapah, Perak untuk mengundi BN.

ADUN Ayer Kuning yang juga pengerusi BN Tapah, Samsudin Abu Hassan memberitahu akhbar Sinar Harian bahawa program itu, yang dianjur bahagiannya, adalah untuk mendidik pengundi Orang Asli cara yang betul untuk mengundi.

Beliau menjelaskan ia diadakan selepas mereka mendapati bilangan undi rosak di kalangan pengundi Orang Asli dalam pilihan raya umum lepas adalah tinggi. Samsudin berkata, pihaknya tidak pernah memaksa sesiapa untuk mengundi BN kerana ia hak pengundi untuk mengundi sesiapa yang mereka mahu.

Sebaliknya, tegas beliau, pihaknya hanya mendidik mereka cara untuk memangkah dan mengundi dengan betul. Katanya, terpulang kepada PKR jika mereka juga mahu berbuat demikian. Samsudin juga mengakui 5kg beras telah diberikan kepada setiap pengundi Orang Asli, tetapi menegaskan bahawa ia bukan bertujuan untuk memancing undi.

Malaysia Prime Minister Najib's Pious Platitudes

Written by  Bob Teoh. Original title: "Christmas card to the Prime Minister of Malaysia". Published by Malaysia Chronicle on 25 December 2012.

Yuletide greetings of peace, love, and blessings.

Notwithstanding the crucifix controversy during the Christmas reception for you by the Christian community last year, you have decided to join their celebrations this year again. This reflects boldness and courage on your part, Sir.

This augurs well for peace and harmony in the country. It goes without saying that we in Malaysia, continue to enjoy good inter-faith relations despite efforts of incendiary bigots in our midst to destroy it. Alhamdulillah, such heinous acts are but in vain as the Lord God Almighty is indeed sovereign over our beloved homeland. Hallelujah.

You fondly recall your meeting with Pope Benedict XVI last year, and that Malaysia has formally established diplomatic relations with the Vatican City. As pointed out by you, “another step forward came last week as the government announced that it will ensure that any Malaysian Christian who wishes to travel to Jerusalem for a pilgrimage is able to do so.” This reflects the gentle face of Islam surely.

You also pointed out in your Christmas blog, “… since becoming Prime Minister I have placed a lot of emphasis on the unifying concepts of 1Malaysia and the Global Movement of the Moderates. These concepts are partly about establishing a dialogue, which is important, but I am also determined that they lead to real action too.”

I am also encouraged that you would, “…have the pleasure of taking part in a tea party with members of the Christian community to mark Christmas and listen to their views.”

Unfortunately, Sir, I would not be at the Christmas reception today as I am away from the country. Allow me to air my views by way of this Christmas card to you and I trust I will have your ear. Surely you are unlike the guy from Pahang who wants to cut off his ears and throw them into the Pahang River, probably polluting it in the process. Silly man, that one.

The Orang Asli Slapping Case – Kelantan

It’s already over two months since a teacher at SK Bihai near Gua Musang in Kelantan had allegedly slapped four Orang Asli non-Muslim students, aged between 12 and 14, on 23 October because they had failed to recite the Muslim doa over lunch at their school. They may be non-Muslims but they this is not the way to treat bumiputras like them. Sir, your 1Malaysia unifying concepts compels you to act with urgency. Indeed, Islam must be seen as a tolerant religion.

Conversion to Islam of an under-age Iban schoolboy - Sarawak

You may not know it yet Prime Minister but a top Iban Catholic student of Kolej Datu Patinggi Abang Haji Abdillah or the prestigious residential Mara junior college in Kuching, was recently converted to Islam. This occurred just before his SPM exams without his parents’ knowledge or permission. He comes from a very remote village.

This is not an isolated case as church leaders there will tell you that this has been going on for a very long time as part of the Umno-BN Islamisation strategy in Sarawak and Sabah. Sir, you have two options. This first is to kill the rumour if indeed it turns out to be one. This does not take much effort or time to determine this matter one way or another.

If indeed the conversion did take place, then the school need to explain how an under-age conversion can be allowed to take in its premises without his parents’ consent or knowledge.

There are no two ways about it, Sir. You have to act fast and quick to assure the Christian community especially that of the Malay speaking bumiputra Christians of Sarawak and Sabah that your 1Malaysia is exactly what it means. No backdoor conversion, please.

Under-age conversion of four Christian students in FT Labuan

Recently, four under-age bumiputra Christian students, one Catholic and three Protestants, at a government residential school in the Federal Territory of Labuan island were converted to Islam. The conversion allegedly took place during a school activity. Local pastors have taken the matter up to the school but it had denied the activity was organised by the school.

A comprehensive report has been compiled by church leaders there to be handed to the Sabah state government. But Labuan is a Federal Territory and as Jakim, or the Islamic Development Department, is parked under your nose in the Prime Minister’s Office, it is within your power to intervene and act immediately to resolve the dispute without damaging religious harmony further. All you need to do is ask to see the voluminous report. And act on it. We have had enough of cow stealing but in this case, no more stealing sheep from the Good Shepherd please.

MyKad Islamisation of bumiputra Christians

Sir, you are already familiar with this case as it was discussed by your Cabinet just recently. Indeed, you had asked two Christian Cabinet ministers, one from Sabah and the other from Sarawak, to act on the complaint immediately. But what has happened? Nothing as usual.

Does this mean that the National Registration Department can ignore Cabinet directives? The complaint is that bumiputra Christians in Sabah (and Sarawak) have been classified by the NRD as Muslims automatically when issuing them their MyKad simply on the basis that they have “bin” and “binti” in their names.  The NRD has refused to rectify their errors. Instead it has asked complainants to go to the Syariah courts to get an order saying that they are Christians and indeed not Muslims. How more ludicrous can your administration get? Sir, if you mean what you say, then give the two federal minsters a kick in their butts and while at it make sure one lands on the bum of the NRD chief too. Can be done Sir, just execute the famous Bruce Lee one-leg-three- kicks.

The Allah word and the Alkitab

It has been three long years since the Kuala Lumpur High Court ruled on 31 Jan 2009 in favour of  Herald, the Catholic Weekly, that even though Islam is the religion of the Federation, this does not empower the government to prohibit the use of the word Allah by others. It also found that the word Allah was not exclusive to Muslims.

But your administration has appealed against it. The Court of Appeal is out on a stroll and not in any hurry to hear it. This is a travesty of justice. As Prime Minster you should not allow a useless judicial traffic cop to erect illegal road blocks to justice. The Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur was the one who sued your administration and won. I wonder what you will say to him when you meet him at today’s tea party?

In closing, dear Prime Minister, my hope and prayer is that Umno’s Islamisation agenda will reflect moderation and not turn out to be worse than PAS’s proposed hudud as what your friends in MCA are claiming.

Link: 

http://www.malaysia-chronicle.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=45627:christmas-card-to-the-prime-minister-of-malaysia&Itemid=2

Related reports:
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/217426?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Catholic Bishop Dr Paul Tan Chee Ing described Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak's remarks at a hi-tea hosted by the Christian Federation of Malaysia (CFM) yesterday as "pious platitudes we are used to hearing on these occasions".

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/mobile/malaysia/article/i-am-pm-for-all-najib-tells-christians
Datuk Seri Najib Razak today reassured the Christian community in Malaysia that his government has not forgotten them despite growing feelings that they are being sidelined. The prime minister appeared to placate the community by praising the contributions of Christians in Malaysia, especially the role played by mission schools in raising the bar in education.

“I do not want to be a prime minister for only a particular section of the community. I’m a prime minister for all Malaysians, and I’ve said that repeatedly,” Najib reminded a Christian crowd at a Christmas party here. Najib cited the recent lift of a ban for Christian pilgrimage to Jerusalem as proof that the government recognises Christians as essential to the nation. “I believe that a God-fearing Christian, with strong values, would be good for Malaysia,” he added. Najib also called for Christian leaders to continue engaging in dialogue and to engage the government constructively.

UK Same Sex Marriage Policy: Ministers Are Barking Up The Wrong Tree

Published by BBC News on 26 December 2012.

Sir Paul Coleridge told the Times same-sex unions are a "minority issue". His comments come after the Roman Catholic Church's leader in England and Wales denounced the plans.

Archbishop of Westminster Vincent Nichols told the BBC the government had no mandate to push through same-sex marriage laws in England and Wales. And in his Christmas Eve sermon he said that marriage between men and women shares in "the creative love of God".

Sir Paul told the Times newspaper: "So much energy and time has been put into this debate for 0.1% of the population, when we have a crisis of family breakdown. While it is gratifying that marriage in any context is centre stage... but it [gay marriage] is a minority issue. We need... a more focused position by the government on the importance of marriage." Sir Paul last year launched independent charity Marriage Foundation to support married couples but said the charity did not take a stance on gay marriage. He added the breakdown of marriages and its impact on society affects 99.9% of the population, which is where more investment and time should spent.

'Strongest attack'

During his BBC interview, Archbishop Nichols said of the gay marriage plans: "There was no announcement in any party manifesto, no Green Paper, no statement in the Queen's Speech. And yet here we are on the verge of primary legislation. From a democratic point-of-view, it's a shambles. George Orwell would be proud of that manoeuvre, I think the process is shambolic." He claims during a "period of listening", those who responded were "7-1 against same-sex marriage".

BBC religious affairs correspondent Robert Pigott said this was Archbishop Nichols's strongest attack yet on the government's plans for gay marriage.

In the past, the head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales has likened committed gay relationships to "profound friendships". Pope Benedict XVI reiterated his opposition to gay marriage last week in a pre-Christmas address, saying it was destroying the very "essence of the human creature". "People dispute the idea that they have a nature, given to them by their bodily identity, that serves as a defining element of the human being. They deny their nature and decide that it is not something previously given to them, but that they make it for themselves."

The UK government has previously announced that the Church of England and Church in Wales will be banned in law from offering same-sex marriages, with other religious organisations able to "opt in" to holding ceremonies. The government plans to allow gay marriage but says it will not force religious bodies to perform services.

Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20842884

Related report:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20840531

Archbishop of Westminster Vincent Nichols told the BBC the government had no mandate to push through same-sex marriage laws in England and Wales. And in his Christmas Eve sermon he said that marriage between men and women shares in "the creative love of God"...

Meanwhile, the outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury, in his final Christmas sermon in the role, admitted that the Church of England's credibility had been damaged by the recent vote against women bishops...

Speaking in his sermon at Westminster Cathedral, Archbishop Nichols said "the love of husband and wife, which is creative of new human life, is a marvellously personal sharing in the creative love of God who brings into being the eternal soul that comes to every human being with the gift of human life".

He added: "Sometimes sexual expression can be without the public bond of the faithfulness of marriage and its ordering to new life. Even governments mistakenly promote such patterns of sexual intimacy as objectively to be approved and even encouraged among the young."

Why C.S. Lewis Was Wrong on Marriage (and J.R.R. Tolkien Was Right)

Posted by Christianity Today on 5 December 2012.

You won't find a more apt example of an excerpt that is contradictory to an author's broader writings than this bit from C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity:

Before leaving the question of divorce, I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused. The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is quite the different question—how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the Mohammedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine. My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognize that the majority of the British people are not Christian and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not.

This argument provoked a strong response from Lewis' friend and fellow Inkling, J.R.R. Tolkien. Tolkien drafted a response to Lewis sometime in 1943 but never sent it. After Tolkien died, the letter was found folded up inside his copy of Lewis' "Christian Behavior,"which would be republished as part of Mere Christianity. (I've added the emphasis.)

My dear L.,

I have been reading your booklet 'Christian Behavior." I have never felt happy about your view of Christian "policy" with regard to divorce. …

[Y]ou observe that you are really committed (with the Christian Church as a whole) to the view that Christian marriage—monogamous, permanent, rigidly "faithful"—is in fact the truth about sexual behavior for all humanity: this is the only road of total health (including sex in its proper place) for all men and women. That it is dissonant with men's present sex-psychology does not disprove this, as you see: "I think it is the instinct that has gone wrong," you say. Indeed if this were not so, it would be an intolerable injustice to impose permanent monogamy even on Christians. If Christian marriage were in the last analysis "unnatural" (of the same type as say the prohibition of flesh-meat in certain monastic rules) it could only be imposed on a special "chastity-order" of the Church, not on the universal Church. No item of compulsory Christian morals is valid only for Christians. … I do not think you can possibly support your "policy," by this argument, for by it you are giving away the very foundation of Christian marriage. The foundation is that this is the correct way of "running the human machine." Your argument reduces it merely to a way of (perhaps?) getting an extra mileage out of a few selected machines.

The horror of the Christians with whom you disagree (the great majority of all practicing Christians) at legal divorce is in the ultimate analysis precisely that: horror at seeing good machines ruined by misuse. I could that, if you ever get a chance of alterations, you would make the point clear. Toleration of divorce—if a Christian does tolerate it—is toleration of a human abuse, which it requires special local and temporary circumstances to justify (as does the toleration of usury)—if indeed either divorce or genuine usury should be tolerated at all, as a matter of expedient policy.

Under your limitations of space you have not, of course, had opportunity to elaborate your "policy"—toleration of abuse. … A Christian of your view is, as we have seen, committed to the belief that all people who practice "divorce"—certainly divorce as it is now legalized—are misusing the human machine (whatever philosophical defense they may put up), as certainly as men who get drunk (doubtless with a philosophic defense also). They are injuring themselves, other people, and society, by their behavior. And wrong behavior (if it is really wrong on universal principles) is progressive, always: it never stops at being "not very good," "second best"—it either reforms, or goes on to third-rate, bad, abominable.

The last Christian marriage I attended was held under your system: the bridal pair were "married" twice. They married one another before the Church's witness (a priest), using one set of formulas, and making a vow of lifelong fidelity (and the woman of obedience); they then married again before the State's witness… using another set of formulas and making no vow of fidelity or obedience. I felt it was an abominable proceeding—and also ridiculous, since the first set of formulas and vows included the latter as the lesser. In fact it was only not ridiculous on the assumption that the State was in fact saying by implication: I do not recognize the existence of your church; you may have taken certain vows in your meeting place but they are just foolishness, private taboos, a burden you take on yourself: a limited and impermanent contract is all that is really necessary for citizens. In other words this "sharp division" is a piece of propaganda, a counter-homily delivered to young Christians fresh from the solemn words of the Christian minister.

Tolkien understood the stakes. The debate strikes at the heart of what it means to confess that the Christian faith is "true." As Tolkien wrote, no article of Christian morality is intended exclusively for Christians. Rather, the faith teaches us that submitting to the laws of our creator is the surest way to live reconciled lives with his creation. This is what we ought to mean when we say Christianity is true. We don't simply mean that it provides factually accurate information about the world or that it offers an authentic path to spiritual fulfillment for those who choose to follow it. We mean that Christianity gives an accurate accounting of the world in its fullness and that it instructs us in how we ought to relate to the world.

In writing to Lewis on these matters Tolkien would have been preaching to the choir. Which is precisely what makes this oft-quoted section of Mere Christianity so baffling. If it came from any other pen, the natural thing would be to point out that the presuppositions behind the author's analogy are faulty. The argument simply assumes that religious dogma is strictly personal and, therefore, ultimately relative. You have your practices and I have mine. In this view, religious teachings are not a true description of how to live well and justly in the world, they are just a set of suggested behaviors that followers of a religion should consider practicing. There is no necessary connection between a religious command and human flourishing. This is simply the modern view of religion: Religion consists of private devotional beliefs and (empty) public ritual.

Of course, there was no greater debunker of that entire system of thought than C.S. Lewis. To read him is to come face-to-face with a man who, according to one friend, was "the most thoroughly converted man I ever knew." Few people wrestled with the absolute, pervasive nature of Christ's lordship more capably and intelligently than Lewis.

Consider the social critique in That Hideous Strength as one example of this "thoroughly converted" mind. In that book, Lewis is not merely defending an article of faith or a specific political platform. He's defending an entire orientation toward the world. To borrow a phrase used by Doug Wilson to describe his debates with Christopher Hitchens, the conflict between St. Anne's and the NICE in Lewis' novel is not an academic exchange of mutually exclusive beliefs. It is a collision of lives and worlds. The world of St. Anne's is for Christianity. The NICE is for applied science, modernity, and industrialization.

St. Anne's Christianity is worth describing in more detail: The home is defined by an integrated way of life directed toward creational flourishing. Some of the less appreciated aspects of this life will be recognizable to many younger evangelicals with broader social interests. St. Anne's is an agrarian home where they grow most of their own food, where animals come and go as they please, and where the boundaries between "mine" and "yours" are quite a bit fuzzier than they are in our own experience. It's a place where the land is valued as such and is not buried under the growing burden of human abuse. If it calls to mind scenes from Wendell Berry's Port William, you are on the right track. In all these ways, That Hideous Strength is extremely friendly to those of us concerned by the abuses of creation perpetrated by industrialization.

But we mustn't stop there in our analysis of Lewis' social imagination. If we reduce Lewis' critique to ecology, we have missed his point. Lewis' ecological views flow out of something more basic and essential. What Lewis is describing is an orientation toward the world. As such, it encompasses an ethic toward the land, but it is not limited to that.

To discover the bedrock of the book's social vision, one need look no further than the book's first word: "Matrimony." At its roots, That Hideous Strength is a book about marriage. The book begins with Jane Studdock contemplating the love poems of John Donne. The story ends with a chapter titled "Venus at St. Anne's." In that chapter, nearly every major character is paired off, including Ransom, who returns to the planet Venus. More on that shortly. Significantly, Mark and Jane are finally reunited, this time sans contraception with the expectation that their child will be the Pendragon, the one who saves England.

And if you scratch a little deeper, you find that this book actually dovetails marvelously with the planetary themes of Lewis' work discussed so marvelously in Michael Ward's Planet Narnia. St. Anne's, by the book's end, has come to represent the alliance of Venus and Jupiter. In fact, it isn't even that subtle. Jupiter's viceregent, Ransom, is whisked off to Venus. And that is not coincidental. Lewis didn't choose Venus based on whim. Venus, in Lewis' work, denotes beauty and fertility. Jove, meanwhile, signifies a secure and satisfied kingly joy. Their union signifies creation at its apex, as the beauty and fertility of creation (Venus) is brought under the wise, joyful lordship of its creator king (Jupiter). If you remove marriage, you are removing the beauty and the joviality that animate all of St. Anne's. If you lose the larger worldview implied by marriage's design, you lose the entire social vision of That Hideous Strength.

This brings us back to the oddness of Lewis' concession in Mere Christianity. Certain aspects of the Christianity articulated at St. Anne's are very much en vogue right now. Evangelical Christians are talking about how to build deeper ties to our local communities by shopping local. We're attempting to respect and sustain creation by being less wasteful with our resources. Some of us have a renewed interest in agrarian communities.

We've had many conversations at my church, a broadly reformed evangelical college-aged congregation, about these sorts of issues. My pastor and I recently attended the Prairie Festival at The Land Institute. At Grace, we're trying to articulate a broadly Christian social imagination that encompasses all of life. And we aren't alone in that pursuit. The growing number of evangelical publishers releasing books dealing with Christianity and ecology suggest a broader trend. So far as they go, these are all desires and ambitions that Lewis and Tolkien would warmly commend.

But Lewis—in the majority of his work—and Tolkien would say we must look more closely at the underpinnings of our social ethic. The dominant metaphor for all those commendable activities described above is that of marriage. The ecological, communal, and creational (a far superior word to "environmental") goals are all understood through the metaphor of marriage, by which we mean a permanent, communally recognized, community-sanctioned relationship characterized by affection and fertility. That's the best description you'll find for Lewis' ethic toward the land, but it flows out of his ethic of sexuality. In much of his writing, and especially in That Hideous Strength, that is quite clear. So understood, we can now see that Tolkien's letter is simply Tolkien's attempt to help his friend see that his concession in Mere Christianity actually undermines his larger social vision. That's why Tolkien pushes so hard in the letter above. In staking out his odd position on divorce, Lewis was giving away much more than a single law on the books of a single nation. Rather, he was giving away the metaphor that shapes all elements of the Christian worldview.

On a note more relevant to contemporary evangelicals, this is why we need to be crystal clear on what the defining themes of our social vision actually are. Matt is fond of saying that the problem with the culture war for evangelicals wasn't necessarily the "war" part, but the "culture" part. We were defending certain values in the absence of a culture that can sustain those values. Now younger evangelicals are reacting against that and are attempting to develop a robustly Christian social ethic that holds all of creation accountable to the claims of Christ. It's an undeniably positive and most welcome development.

However, it is important to understand that evangelical commitments to both the pro-life cause and the preservation of traditional marriage are not contrary to those broader counter-cultural concerns. Rather, they fit into that social agenda quite neatly. More than that, if Lewis and Tolkien are correct, the heart of that social vision is not an ethic of the land or economics or sustainability. It's marriage, understood as both the private union of a man and woman and the larger social vision implied by the imagery of marriage; of a community united together in formally-recognized union and relating to one another in an affectionate, fertile way. Such an ethic is good for all areas of life, but it is premised on a certain understanding of marriage. And if we move away from that, we're moving away from far more than sexual norms.

Jake Meador blogs at Notes From a Small Place. This article first appeared at Mere Orthodoxy and is reprinted with permission of the author.

The Birth of Jesus

Luke 2: 1-7 The Birth of Jesus

In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) And everyone went to their own town to register.

So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them.

John 14: 1-4 Jesus Comforts His Disciples

“Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God; believe also in me. My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. You know the way to the place where I am going.”

John 15: 18-25 The World Hates the Disciples

“If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the one who sent me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. Whoever hates me hates my Father as well. If I had not done among them the works no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. As it is, they have seen, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: ‘They hated me without reason.'

Season of goodwill

By The Sultanah of Johor RAJA ZARITH IDRIS. Published by The StarOnline on 9 January 2011.

DURING the days before Christmas last year, I wished my friends who were celebrating it “Merry Christmas” in much the same way they would wish me “Selamat Hari Raya” or “Happy Eid”.

I find it rather sad that such a simple greeting – one which I grew up with and which I have never regarded as something that would compromise or de-value my own faith – is now regarded as something so religiously incorrect for us Malaysian Muslims.

When I was at boarding school in England, I had to go to church every Sunday because it was part of the rules. My father advised me to consider it as part of my “education” and he had no doubt that the experience would strengthen rather than weaken my own faith.

I was able to see the similarities and differences between Christianity and Islam. I learned more than the average Malaysian Muslim would about Christianity. I learnt that just as we Muslims categorise ourselves according to the four different schools of thoughts of the four Imams (Imam Malik, Imam Al Shafi, Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Ahmad Abn Hambal) and are either Sunnis or Shias, so Christians too are divided into different sects or churches.

Going to church did not make me less of a Muslim when I was a young girl, and neither does saying “Merry Christmas” make me less of a Muslim now. My faith has not been shaken just because I wished some friends a time of joy with their families. Neither will I suddenly suffer from amnesia and forget what my religion is.

What I do not wish to forget, however, is that there are good, kind people who are not of the same faith as me.

As Harun Yahya, the Turkish writer (he was selected last year as one of the 500 most influential Muslims in the world by the Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre of Jordan) noted: “Islam is a religion of peace, love and tolerance.

Today, however, some circles have been presenting a false image of Islam, as if there were conflict between Islam and the adherents of the two other monotheistic religions. Yet Islam’s view of Jews and Christians, who are named ‘the People of the Book’ in the Quran, is very friendly and tolerant.

“This attitude towards the People of the Book developed during the years of the birth of Islam. At that time, Muslims were a minority, struggling to protect their faith and suffering oppression and torture from the pagans of the city of Mecca. Due to this persecution, some Muslims decided to flee Mecca and shelter in a safe country with a just ruler. The Prophet Muhammad told them to take refuge with King Negus, the Christian king of Ethiopia. The Muslims who followed this advice found a very fair administration that embraced them with love and respect when they went to Ethiopia. King Negus refused the demands of the pagan messengers who asked him to surrender the Muslims to them, and announced that Muslims could live freely in his country.

“Such attitudes of Christian people that are based on the concepts of compassion, mercy, modesty and justice, constitute a fact that God has pointed out in the Quran.”

I do not wish to be a self-centred Muslim who expects friends of other faiths to wish me Selamat Hari Raya or, for those who are not Malaysians and therefore do not know about Hari Raya, a Happy Eid and yet do not return their goodwill when it is Christmas, Chinese New Year, Deepavali or Vesak Day.

Every year, friends who are Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs or those without any faith come to our home to celebrate Hari Raya with us. They do so with sincerity and as a mark of respect for one of the most important days in the Muslim calendar. Why should we not reciprocate their kindness, show them the same mark of respect for their religion and wish them the same joy on their holy days of celebration?

An Islamic scholar and lecturer also reminded me that as Muslims we must remember the importance of both the five Pillars of Islam and in the six Pillars of Iman (Faith), which are:

> Belief in Allah;

> Belief in the angels;

> Belief in the revealed Books (which include the Bible, the Torah and the Holy Quran);

> Belief in the Prophets (May Peace be Upon Them);

> Belief in the Resurrection and the events of Kiamah, the Day of Judgement; and

> Belief in the predestination (Qada’ and Qadar) by Allah in all things.

The prophets include not just Muhammad (May Peace Be Upon Him) as the last prophet and as the Messenger of Islam, but also in the 24 earlier ones who are mentioned in both the Bible and the Quran. Four of them are Ibrahim (Abraham), Musa (Moses), Daud (David), and Isa (Jesus).

So, if Christmas is the celebration of the birth of Isa (Jesus), a prophet respected and revered in Islam, is it so wrong to wish a blessed day for those who celebrate it?

We are now in the second decade of the 21st century. Surely, we should, now more than ever, be far more enlightened at a time when information of any sort and of all kinds are so readily available to us.

What is most important is that we regard one another as fellow citizens and treat each other with respect, regardless of our race or religion.

> The writer is Royal Fellow, School of Language Studies and Linguistics, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), and holds a BA (Honours) degree in Chinese Studies, University of Oxford.

Link: 

http://thestar.com.my/columnists/story.asp?file=/2011/1/9/columnists/mindmatters/7762860&sec=Mind

Stop Lynas group vows to fight on

By G Lavendran. Published by Free Malaysia Today on 20 December 2012.

The Save Malaysia Stop Lynas (SMSL), a coalition of non-governmental organisations against the Lynas rare earth plan in Kuantan, has vowed to continue its legal battle against the granting of the temporary operating licence (TOL) to Lynas recently. 

The group said it will go on with its campaign against Lynas despite failing to win its appeal at the Court of Appeal yesterday, against a High Court decision which refused to grant a stay on the government’s decision to award Lynas the TOL. Tan Bun Teet, an applicant to revoke the TOL and a spokesperson for SMSL, said although “we didn’t think we would win the stay on the TOL through this appeal, we had to exhaust this legal avenue to test the court system”.

“We now have three judicial review cases, all armed with strong technical and scientific evidence in court. We will fight till the end to stop Lynas,” he said in a statement. “Radiation and hazardous substances are not something one should be complacent with. Lynas will be producing a massive amount of toxic waste. Lynas has no safe plan to dispose of this waste. Lynas is now at odd with our ministers who insisted that that waste be transported out of Malaysia, which Lynas has declined. Yet the court had done nothing to halt the TOL until the waste management issue has been sorted out,” he added.

“Lynas’ suggestion to turn its radioactive waste contaminated with other hazardous substances such as chemical compounds and heavy metals [into commercially safe products] will lead to its toxic waste spreading far and wide, subjecting more innocent public to its hazards. Once again I call on concerned residents and citizens to stand together with us to do something to protect your family, investment and your future in Kuantan and in Malaysia. The government has failed in its duty of care to protect you. The choice is now in your hands to do something to reclaim your safe space here in this country,” said Tan.

Another applicant to the case, Ismail Abu Bakar, said in the same statement that SMSL was disappointed with the outcome of the appeal as the court did not take into full consideration the scientific facts and technical details provided by our experts.

“We have been informed by highly qualified and skilled independent experts that the Lynas project has many problems with pollution and waste management,” he said.

SMSL also asserted that the court has neglected to take into consideration that the two judicial review cases are aimed at nullifying the approval of the TOL. “If these cases succeed, the TOL now granted to Lynas will no longer be legally valid and Lynas’ operation stopped,” the statement said.

Ram Punusamy, a local resident and active Stop Lynas campaigner, said the court did not accept SMSL’s request for the precautionary principle to be adopted to make sure that Lynas has settled its waste management and pollution problems identified by SMSL’s experts.

The application for a judicial review case will be heard in court on Jan 29, 2013.

Link: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2012/12/20/stop-lynas-group-vows-to-fight-on/

How dare the UK secretary of state try to redefine marriage?

Published by BBC News UK on 11 December 2012.

Other religious organisations will be able to "opt in" to holding ceremonies, Culture Secretary Maria Miller said. But she added that the Church of England and Church in Wales had "explicitly" stated strong opposition and would not be included.

Labour said the exemption for the established Church was "disappointing". The plans are due to be introduced before the next election, in 2015. Labour backs the government's decision to legislate on same-sex marriages, which will apply to England and Wales, and urged ministers not to be "too reserved" in promoting the policy. Party leader Ed Miliband suggested that Labour votes would "ensure that this measure is passed in the House of Commons".

The Church of England and Roman Catholics, among other denominations, have voiced opposition to same-sex marriage and are expected to oppose the bill, even with its caveats. But some religious groups, including Quakers, Unitarians and Liberal Judaism, are in favour.

In her statement, Mrs Miller promised a "quadruple lock" to protect religious freedom, involving:

• No religious organisation or individual minister being compelled to marry same-sex couples or to permit this to happen on their premises
• Making it unlawful for religious organisations or their ministers to marry same-sex couples unless their organisation's governing body has expressly opted in to provisions for doing so
• Amending the 2010 Equality Act to ensure no discrimination claim can be brought against religious organisations or individual ministers for refusing to marry a same-sex couple
• The legislation explicitly stating that it will be illegal for the Church of England and the Church in Wales to marry same-sex couples and that Canon Law, which bans same-sex weddings, will continue to apply.

Mrs Miller said the Church of England and Church in Wales had "explicitly stated" their opposition to offering same-sex ceremonies, so the government would "explicitly state that it will be illegal for the Churches of England and Wales to marry same-sex couples".

She also said: "I am absolutely clear that no religious organisation will ever be forced to conduct marriages for same-sex couples, and I would not bring in a bill which would allow that.

"European law already puts religious freedoms beyond doubt, and we will go even further by bringing in an additional 'quadruple legal lock'. But it is also a key aspect of religious freedom that those bodies who want to opt in should be able to do so."

For Labour, shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper, welcomed the announcement, saying: "We should not stop people from getting married and getting that recognition from the state on grounds of gender or sexuality.

"And we should not here in Parliament say that some loving relationships have greater value than others." Plans to legalise same-sex marriage have divided the Conservative Party and more than 100 Tory MPs are thought to be against the idea.

Religious freedom

One of these opponents, Peter Bone, asked the Commons: "How dare the secretary of state try to redefine marriage?"

Richard Drax said: "I would like to ask the Secretary of State and the government what right have they got, other than arrogance and intolerance, to stamp their legislative boot on religious faith?"

Another, Sir Tony Baldry, who speaks for the Church of England in Parliament, said: "For the Church of England, the uniqueness of marriage is that it does embody the distinctiveness of men and women. So removing from the definition of marriage this complementarity is to lose any social institution where sexual difference is explicitly acknowledged."

The Catholic Church stepped up its opposition, accusing ministers of ignoring a 600,000-signature petition supporting the status quo. Archbishop Vincent Nichols, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, and Archbishop Peter Smith, the Archbishop of Southwark, said opponents of gay marriage should lobby MPs "clearly, calmly and forcefully, and without impugning the motives of others".

In a statement, they said: "The meaning of marriage matters. It derives that meaning from its function as the foundation of the family. The union of one man and one woman for love and mutual support and open to procreation has over the centuries formed a stable unit we call the family."

But the Archbishop of Wales said that making it illegal for the Church in Wales to offer same-sex marriages would be a "step too far". "In my personal opinion it's a great pity it's illegal for us not to even have the possibility to do it," said Dr Barry Morgan. "It should be left for us to opt in or opt out."

The Bishop of Leicester, the right reverend Tim Stevens, warned the issue was creating a division between the political classes and practising religious people. He spoke out against the government's proposals in the House of Lords and said ministers needed to work towards a consensus on the matter.

But former bishop of Oxford, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, said in response that a "fair number" of serving bishops supported gay marriage but were unable to say so publicly.

Prime Minister David Cameron said last week that he believed same-sex marriages should be allowed in churches - but only if there was a "100%" guarantee that no church, synagogue or mosque would be forced to hold one against their wishes.

A number of other senior Tories, including Education Secretary Michael Gove, London Mayor Boris Johnson and former Prime Minister John Major, have also backed same-sex marriage by religious bodies.

Ben Summerskill, chief executive of the gay rights organisation Stonewall, said: "We're delighted about the government's statement today and welcome the promise to legislate for equal marriage as warmly as on the three previous occasions that this announcement has been made.

"We're particularly pleased that ministers have been persuaded to extend their original proposal in order to permit same-sex marriages for those religious denominations that wish to hold them. This is an important matter of religious freedom."

'Husband' and 'wife'

The consultation on plans for same-sex marriage received 228,000 submissions.

In its response to the consultation the government says it has no plans to change the definition of adultery or non-consummation of a marriage - which means neither could be cited as grounds for divorce in a same-sex marriage, unless the adultery was with someone of the opposite sex.

They also dismiss the fear that the terms "husband" and "wife" could be removed as a result of same sex marriages. The government says: "That is not the case - on the contrary these proposals will allow more people to use those terms.

"Couples will continue to be able call each other whatever they wish in their personal life, and in legal and official documents, the terms husband and wife will continue to be used."

They also say that teachers "particularly in faith schools will be able to continue to describe their belief that marriage is between a man and woman whilst acknowledging and acting within the new legislative position which enables same sex-couples to get married".

Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20680924

Supreme Court will hear DOMA, Proposition 8 cases

By Ben Johnson.

WASHINGTON, D.C., December 7, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – All nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court announced on Friday that they will hear two cases dealing with same-sex “marriage” in 2013, examining whether the U.S. Congress or the voters in any state have the right to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.

Both the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California’s Proposition 8 will be on the docket next year. The plaintiffs claim the U.S. Constitution blocks both laws.

The justices agreed to hear Windsor v. United States, which challenges DOMA’s right to define marriage for the purposes of the federal government, since some states like New York have redefined marriage.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said the 1996 law, signed by President Clinton, was “consistent with our principles of federalism,” allowing states to define marriage their own way, while DOMA sets the standard for the federal government.

Harry Mihet, senior counsel for Liberty Counsel, told LifeSiteNews.com this argument contends that “somehow the federal government does not have that same freedom to decide for itself …what marriage means.” 

“Should the Supreme Court decide to overturn the marriage laws of 41 states, the ruling would become even more divisive than the Court’s infamous Roe v. Wade decision,” Perkins warned. “Marriage, unlike abortion laws in the 1970s, has been incorporated into the state constitutions of 30 states. Voters in these states will not accept an activist court redefining our most fundamental social institution.”

The High Court will also hear Hollingsworth v. Perry, to determine whether the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbids the people of California from amending the state constitution to protect marriage. The state’s voters passed Proposition 8 in November 2008 by a 52-48 margin.

The amendment’s defenders were confident they will prevail.

“We believe that it is significant that the Supreme Court has taken the Prop 8 case,” said John Eastman, chairman of the National Organization for Marriage. “We believe it is a strong signal that the Court will reverse the lower courts and uphold Proposition 8. That is the right outcome based on the law and based on the principle that voters hold the ultimate power over basic policy judgments and their decisions are entitled to respect.”

“It’s a strong signal that the justices are concerned with the rogue rulings that have come out of San Francisco at both the trial court and appellate levels,” he said. He added that the author of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision striking down Proposition 8, Stephen Reinhardt, is “the most overruled judge in America.”

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals put a stay in place on issuing same-sex “marriage” licenses. The High Court did not reverse that order, so the plaintiffs would have to prevail before such ceremonies could gain legal standing. Authors on the SCOTUS blog say they believe the justices will hear the cases March 18-27.

It is not known how many justices will issue the decision. Some argue Elena Kagan should recuse herself from the DOMA case. In 2009 as Solicitor General, she participated in the Obama administration’s response to a DOMA lawsuit in the Gill case. Although that petition was not granted, Republican senators at her confirmation hearings believed she had been too involved in the administration’s legal procedure to issue an opinion without the appearance of a conflict of interest. 

In both cases, the justices may deny that the plaintiffs have the legal standing to file a lawsuit, dismissing the challenges without deciding the merits of either law.

Homosexual activists also greeted the news with optimism. “These big steps in the Supreme Court cap a transformative year in which we paved the pathway for President Obama’s support, led the campaign to secure a freedom to marry plank in the Democratic Party platform, and won the freedom to marry at the ballot in Maine, Maryland and Washington while defeating an anti-marriage amendment in Minnesota,” Evan Wolfson, an activist who favors marriage redefinition, wrote. “We now must turn this irrefutable momentum into more wins.”

Link: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-supreme-court-will-hear-doma-proposition-8-cases