MISSING THE TARGET: MCA’S HOMEGROWN JIHADIS OUT TO DESTROY ISLAM AND THE MALAYS

Guan Eng challenges "desperate" Soi Lek to beat Penang's debt reduction feat

MCA feared the fictitious threat of “creeping sharia” MCA should in the first place ask UMNO

Which Bar Council is this MCA man asking to study the implications of hudud implementation? Is it the original Bar Council or the latest UMNOBARU Bar Council? By the way, the MCA has it’s own legal bureau, right? Is it not capable of making that study, coming out with it’s findings? Why ask the Bar Council? He emphasizes about being impartial. Does he know of any issue which the Bar has made comments on to be partial or not impartial? MCA has been talking a lot about hudud lately. Is the party talking about a subject it has no knowledge about, without any advice from it’s legal eagles? Is the Bar Council working for MCA to make such a request? Is this man in the story a member of the Bar, if so which one? Trying to draw the Bar into a controversy to label it as anti UMNOBARUBN, right?The MCA has no locus standii [legal standing ] to even make this request. First as part of the Trengganu BN govt which gazetted the hudud laws of Trengganu that was passed by all state assemblyman both PAS and UMNO it has directly supported hudud. 2ndly the MCA through its Trengganu Exco member has failed to move any motion to repeal the Act even though it demonizes hudud for political reasons. Third it is part and parcel of the BN coalition whose members have openly called for hudud to be implemented for all races and religions versus PAS who are saying it is for Muslims only and yet MCA continues to sleep with UMNO Before the Bar council does this inquest it should demand that MCA move a motion to repeal the hudud laws in Trengganu. 2ndly a motion should be tabled in Parliament to repeal the Syariah Act if they are against it . They were part of the BN coalition that passed the Syariah Act. That is why this MCA hypocrites have no locus standii to ask for this.

here not to discuss but to mislead the public over Hudud. It was like pre-emergencies time (1948), the leftist people tell the chinese to support communists. some chinese believe it is true and bcos of the actions of 7000 communist guerillas in the jungle another half million chinese got quanrantine in the concentration camp called new villages.these old leftists had not suceeded in overthrowing the government in soon after Japanese surrender. They now come back again to do b4 they passes away. It is sort of life-long dream for them. But for the 1948-1960 sufferings in new villages, these old leftists just forgot conveniently.the chinese population suffered tremendous difficulties during emergencies time (1948-60) but who the hell want to say sorry and got blamed for this political mistakes ? If you ask the old living leftists today, they would not say sorry. Instead these are the people who turned out in large number during Dong Zong demonstration in 520 / 729 and 926.

MCA should in the first place ask UMNO to make its stand on Hudud , not accusing DAP of collaborating with PAS . Even if DAP support PAS , they still cannot get two third majority to change the constitution. MCA knows very well that without UMNO’ support, Hudud cannot be implemented in Malaysia . You think DVD Chua dare to ask UMNO to make a stand ?? MCA will threaten the chinese about HUdud , then UMNO will threaten the Malays with a christian state , this is the dirty game of BN.

why the Bar Council when you have so many brain surgeons in MCA. In case MCA is NOT aware there is another body formed to cater for the fanatics. Go ask your boss UMNO since your boss keep saying they are champions of Islam and Hudud. As usual MCA doesn’t seem to know who is running the country. This is a silly trick question that has nothing to do with Bar Council but everything to do with the Bully Council called UMNO.

wonder if he feared the fictitious threat of “creeping sharia” that has been engineered by a few individuals to forward Islamophobia. MCA has invited the Bar Council to conduct a thorough study of Hudud law implementation and its implications, including how the law will affect non-Muslims.There is a Chinese belief that a drug pusher if don’t pay for the sins during the lifetime will have their next of kin either being drug addicts and born without backside because of the harm they did to take away the lifes of so many due to their greed. Does not this apply to these MCA drug pushers who due to their greed will do anything to help their Umno partners in business and themselves to peddle ” false ” news which will ultimately lead to the death of many Malaysians when the country is raped dry by these Soi Lek .During the Japanese occupation in China, a lot of traitors were identified and after the war , these traitors will shot to death….can we prepare a list of these MCA traitors with their dirty sex chief Soi  Lek as the first on the list ?

This attack  mosque has made me consider with renewed anguish the horrendous attack on a gurudwara in Oak Creek, Wis., which left six dead, and the fire that razed the Islamic Society of Joplin, Mo., to the ground.

It’s also forced  think even more critically the attacks on the Ahmedis in Pakistan, the violent protests that erupted in the Middle East and South Asia in response to the “Innocence of Muslims” film, and the slew of grenade-attacks on churches in Kenya this summer.

And while the black-and-white beliefs that led to these events threaten to shroud the world in opaque shadows, there are bits of light to be found amid all the darkness. I’m sure that, as before, churches and small businesses from around my area will stand united with the mosque I so cherish. I’m sure there will be an outpouring of donations, as there were for the mosque in Joplin. I’m sure the Islamic Center will be full of lightheartedness, laughter and the smell of fresh falafel and french fries again.

But despite all that, it’s hard not to think about how much damage can be done by one man with a match in a mosque or one man with a movie camera in a Hollywood studio, or one man with a big TV audience and little to hold him accountable in Pakistan.

There is too much smoke and water damage in the Islamic Center of Greater Toledo for worship services to be held there for now, but police will maintain a 24-hour watch in the weeks to come. Once its deemed safe, my family will return there for Friday prayers and Sunday school. But for now, I can’t help but wonder and worry about the next time that one person decides he will shatter the sanctity of so many.

I hope I live to see the day where a humanitarian hero is referred to as the Christian Edna Adan.She’s also a Muslim.

Who’s Edna Adan? The short answer: she’s a nurse-midwife, founder of a hospital bearing her name, who’s saving and changing the lives of tens of thousands of people in Somaliland — a place not even recognized as a country.

Edna is as tough as General Petraeus, as compassionate as the Pope, as tireless as Michael Phelps, as beautiful at 75 as Tina Turner, and has a ‘get-it-done-no-excuses” work ethic to rival Bill Gates. I would not want to be on Edna’s bad side.

I had the pleasure of spending a week with her last month in Somaliland. Here’s one reason I think she’s extraordinary. After retiring as a senior United Nations diplomat where she’d championed women’s and children’s health, she could have chosen to have a cushy life in London or Paris or New York. That’s what most people do. But not Edna. Far from it. Instead she cashed in her pension, sold her Mercedes, her jewelry and even her dishwasher — a true sacrifice, if you ask me — to build her dream: a hospital in her home town of Hargeisa to provide safe deliveries for women who were far too often dying in childbirth. Somaliland has one of the world’s highest birth rates per woman and the highest maternal mortality rates. It took her the better part of a decade, much of that time she lived in the building as it was slowly being built.

As I said, Somaliland is not a ‘real country,” meaning it’s not recognized by the UN or really much of anyone. It’s a breakaway region north of Somalia, that emerged from a vastly destructive civil war with Somalia of Black Hawk Down infamy, to become a growing, if not quite yet prosperous, republic.

But here’s the other thing, Hargeisa — particularly 10 years ago when Edna opened her hospital — was no Paris, not even Nairobi, not even close. You see Hargeisa was practically leveled house by house by the murderous Somali dictator Siad Barre and his mad henchman. Think Dresden 1945, but with no infrastructure to rebuild on.

When Edna said she wanted to build a hospital people thought she was nuts. Some said so to her face, others behind her back. But, she barreled forward. Today, her hospital is one of the largest buildings in Hargeisa. Its medical reputation is so stellar, it’s become the ‘go to’ facility for UN and other development workers. Edna runs training programs, not just for midwives and nurses, but also for lab techs and pharmacists and soon, anesthetists, creating the human resource capacity in health Somaliland needs. She has a loyal group of supporters – Friends of Edna – to provide wind beneath her powerful wings and help raise the funds she needs.

Edna was the victim at seven of FGM, outlived a physically abusive husband, faced down war-lords and lived through two disastrous wars – the second of which killed 250,000 people in a country of 3.5 million. That old expression – that which doesn’t kill you makes you stronger – could be Edna’s motto. She’s turned horrendous loss and adversity into power and resolve.

Our organization, The Fistula Foundation, funded a new operating theater and support her work to treat the devastating childbirth injury obstetric fistula. That is part of why I visited. But Edna’s Hospital does vastly more than treat fistula; her hospital has delivered over 12,000 babies in the last decade and treats a range of devastating problems from cleft palates to spina bifida.

You can see Edna at work by turning into the powerful documentary Half the Sky Monday and Tuesday, October 1 and 2 on PBS. She’ll be featured on the 2nd night. You’ll also see the courageous and brilliant journalist Nick Kristof and the actress Diane Lane. (You may may want to secretly hate Diane because she’s beautiful, fabulously talented and married to Josh Brolin, but you won’t be able to any more than I could because she’s got a tender heart that beams through the screen.)

Seeing Edna in action reinforces what I think most of us already know: no religion has a monopoly on compassion. Our organization supports hospitals regardless of faith and I see the same caring in the eyes of Muslims, as I do in Christians — tireless people doing what good people of every faith do — look after their brothers and sisters. I have a large photo above my PC as I type this; it’s of a dedicated Congolese Surgeon, who is Christian, in his white medical coat . He is smiling brightly with a big pin on his coat pocket from Jewish World Watch saying “Do Not Stand Idly By.” For me that shot captures the heart of ‘we’re all in it together’ compassion.

I don’t know any Norwegians on the Nobel Prize Committee, but if I did, I would humbly suggest they honor Edna, one of the finest human beings God has created, with their glorious Peace Prize. In doing so perhaps they’d also help more people see that the world is full of humanitarians of all faiths — even if there’s only one incomparable Edna Adan.

Margaret Sullivan now wears the public editor hat at The New York Times and with a recent ombudsman column took on a huge media problem: False balance aka false equivalency. False balance reports are those that appear fair because they have two sides, except that one side reflects neither knowledge nor a right to speak. Reports on Catholicism are especially vulnerable to false balance, and often it is achieved through manipulation of the name “Catholic” and religious symbols such as veils and Roman collars. More media than The New York Times fall prey to it.

Some agenda groups who oppose one or more Catholic teachings, for example, use the name “Catholic,” even when there seems little evidence of Catholics in their ranks and no evidence that they represent Catholic teaching. Catholics for Choice, once known as “Catholics for a Free Choice,” comes to mind. When some reporters, especially inexperienced ones, cover a story with a Catholic angle, they presume a mere use of the term “Catholic” means knowledge. They will turn to any group with “Catholic” in its name to respond to an issue. Catholics for Choice is happy to talk whether it’s about abortion, nuns, pedophilia or the pope and AIDS. Apparently this satisfies some sleepy editor’s quest for balance. However, going to Catholics for Choice for a so-called Catholic view is like asking Catholic Atheists (yet to exist, I think) to opine on the meaning of God. Surely the Catholic Church has a right to its “brand” which includes getting to say who validly can use its name. Be assured that a group such as Catholics for a Free Choice, headed for 25 years by the former director of the National Abortion Federation, a trade association for abortion clinics, and funded by pro-abortion foundations specifically to neutralize the Church on abortion, doesn’t qualify as a legitimate Catholic group. It is hard to imagine how anyone can take seriously a group whose founder celebrated the first anniversary ofRoe v. Wade by having herself crowned pope on the steps of St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City. However, religious clothing drew attention then, and even today, religious clothing draws reporters. Media love veils and collars and attribute to them infused knowledge. For a picture, any nun in a veil will do. One sister who has been sans veil for decades, for example, donned one and drew cameras last February to lobby the Maryland statehouse for same-sex marriage. Her remarks about being a Catholic sister since 1961 were more crass in-your-face than Catholic as she stood against the Church on this issue. A Roman collar, imagined or otherwise, also works for media. Once I got a call from a reporter who wanted to interview a priest. With none available, I suggested he speak with a knowledgeable layman. The reporter said that if he couldn’t have the priest, he wanted me. Asked why, he said he wanted a collar. I explained gently that in the Catholic Church I would not be wearing a collar anytime soon. Clearly he was less after an informed opinion than a stereotypical image. Margaret Sullivan has her work cut out for her at the Times. I hope she can stand up to reporters and doesn’t opt to do her job the easy way, and that she can stand fast in her fight for coverage that’s a fair reflection of reality. It’s a great goal for the nation’s newspaper of record and for all media.

Alan Miller’s Oct. 2 post, “Spiritual But Not Religious: The Worst of All Worlds,” returns to an ongoing theme that Lillian Daniel raised in her much talked about piece last year. He asserts that such people — let’s call them SBNRs for short — adopt what he sees as the worst part of religion, namely superstition, without also adopting what he sees as the best parts: “hard work, diligence and observation.” (I’m certain that not all religious people would agree that these are the best parts, but let’s just go with it for now.)

Though secular people represent a minority of the 7+ billion people on earth, Miller is absolutely correct that there are some folks in secular societies who view religion with outright hostility. This is especially true of the highly intolerant New Atheism, which gets its fire from being deliberately anti-religious. He is also correct that current scandals in various organized religions, together with the violent histories of those religions, have provided plenty of fuel for this fire. (Though in my long experience with both religion and the academic study of religion, I have found it far more common for non-religious people to look at religion with something between mild disdain and bored apathy.)

But Miller, like everyone else who disapproves of those who self-identify as SBNR, far too quickly dismisses them as lazy, superstitious and too young to know better. Such labels are convenient but they are based on unsubstantiated assumptions, passed down for decades since the label first became trendy, about selfish “me-me-me what-ever” people who won’t just join a church already. (Meanwhile, “superstitious” has always been a favorite term of the intolerant; i.e., what I do is religion, what they do is superstition.) Does he know for a fact that people who go to yoga or meditation, but not church or synagogue, don’t volunteer in their communities or donate money to charitable organizations? Does he know for a fact that they aren’t committed to the non-religious institutions in their lives — their families, their workplaces, their cities, their school systems? Does he know for a fact that, when/if they pray, they aren’t praying to become less angry and more compassionate, so as to be a force for healing in the world rather than suffering? Does he know for a fact that they aren’t careful in their consumer habits because they care about leaving a healthy future for other people’s children? Does he know for a fact that they aren’t affirming life with every one of their mindful, SBNR breaths?

Miller hopes for a humanist culture full of “inspiring alternatives” that “inspire and engage,” and in which people’s ethics and behaviors are built on, as he puts it, “something beyond themselves.” It seems to me that this will require making room for SBNRs. Whether the “something beyond themselves” is God, society, the earth or karma, it is both unskillful and unfruitful to dismiss them outright, simply for not fitting in the boxes we have either inherited or designed. Such boxes generally rest on easy dualisms: true/false, intelligent/stupid, religious/not religious. “Come on, get off the fence! You either are or you aren’t!” But which one of us believes our whole being can be summed up by checking one box or the other? The queer community has long since drawn male/female into question; and as one Catholic blogger recently noted, even Democrat/Republican, which seems like an easy choice to many people, does not provide a place for every American to stand. Of course we want people to fit into our boxes, and we are upset when they refuse, but that doesn’t make it their problem.

Alan Miller defends the value of religious belief against the New Atheists, but seems to disapprove of all non-religious people who don’t therefore embrace his particular alternative. This is perfectly natural — most of us who care about anything deeply are wont to do the same. Yet Miller also invites us to join in vigorous discussion, debate and even battle! To this invitation I reply: The Spiritual But Not Religious are here to stay. Get used to it.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s