Bells
Staff member
Muslim magazine journalists pretended to be Roman Catholics :D
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
It seems that conversion from Islam is possible, but is often made very difficult by the government.
Malaysia: Conversion From Islam
:shrug:
nothing, the black rock isn't holy in anyway(contrary to what many muslims think), but we kiss it because the prophet did the same.
as for the main thing here, what would happen to a muslim who converts to another religion, well as far as my info goes, they get killed
of course it's not carried out as simply as that, it follows one of the most complex procedures carreied out in islam, one that many muslims are pretty ignorant about, hence all the explosive belts running around. and assuringly, many hot accusations will start running around here too.
but actually, i think this answer is a bit more.."subtle":
well if the law is islamic, then yes the law prohibits it.
and by living in a country you agree to follow its laws, no?
as for how do Christians become Christians in malaysia, i guess if they're raised so by their parents.
so let's make this clear, i don't know a lot about the process of executing a convert, neither do most of you it seems, wanna discuss it sure, even though if we follow the op it'll end by acid's answer, it was illegal by being illegal, period.
edit: it's called apostasy..
Bells
Staff member
Please, enlighten us.
Do you think it is right for any law to demand a particular religious belief and/or brand of faith from its populace?
We are well aware of what it is called.
But is it right?
It's quite tough.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_religious_freedom_in_Malaysia#Apostasy_under_state_law
Religious minorities are also pretty widely abused. It's a classic dhimmi scenario, with Islam putting slow screws to everyone else and proclaiming victory, while its ex-Presidents opine - not too differently to another poster in genesis - that Jews "needed a good massacring" every so often. It's an exceedingly dreary prospect.
Still, Tiassa may drop by to enlighten us with a very pertinent link to a completely unrelated issue, making us all feel both better and silly. Somehow.
Is it really such a big deal? What if they put Christ in a bucket of piss instead?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ
True, nothing like spitting and pissing to get the message across. Quite foolish of the Malaysian newspaper to apologise for ridiculing Christian cannibalism.
They should have taken a leaf from the Danes and sent every journalist they had to spit in the churches/
They should have taken a leaf from the Danes and sent every journalist they had to spit in the churches/
The obvious
I'm not exactly surprised that people have so much trouble understanding the point.
As Greenwald notes of Peretz:
So apply that logic to someone else:
See, it's not a matter of being a bigot, but being the right kind of bigot.
Is it striking to what degree people will split hairs in defense of their hatred? No, not really. Which is, of course, disappointing. But life can be disappointing, and goes on nonetheless. For the living, at least.
____________________
Notes:
Greenwald, Glenn. "The right kind of bigotry". Unclaimed Territory. March 6, 2010. Salon.com. March 8, 2010. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2010/03/06/peretz/index.html
I'm not exactly surprised that people have so much trouble understanding the point.
As Greenwald notes of Peretz:
The point here is so obvious that it makes itself. In the bolded sentence, replace the word "Arabs" with "Jews" and ask yourself: how much time would elapse before the author of such a sentence would be vehemently scorned and shunned by all decent people, formally condemned by a litany of organizations, and have his livelihood placed in jeopardy? Or replace the word "Arabs" in that sentence with "Jews" or "blacks" or "Latinos" or even "whites" or virtually any other identifiable demographic group and ask yourself this: how many people would treat a magazine edited and owned by such a person as a remotely respectable or mainstream publication (notwithstanding the several decent journalists employed there)?
So apply that logic to someone else:
"I thought this was rather funny, until I realized they were looking for illegal converts - also known as traitors or turn coats (turn yarmukle?) if you will. I wonder? And if they happened to find a group of Jews that dated Muslims? Then what? Were they there to share their joyous stories with their readers or going to turn them over to the Orthodox Gestapo? Reminds me of medieval Europe."
Reminds me of medieval Europe."See, it's not a matter of being a bigot, but being the right kind of bigot.
Is it striking to what degree people will split hairs in defense of their hatred? No, not really. Which is, of course, disappointing. But life can be disappointing, and goes on nonetheless. For the living, at least.
____________________
Notes:
Greenwald, Glenn. "The right kind of bigotry". Unclaimed Territory. March 6, 2010. Salon.com. March 8, 2010. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2010/03/06/peretz/index.html
What would be really funny is if they spit out the wafer and it looked like Jesus!
Or, both examples are instances of both phenomena. Freedom of expression includes the freedom to express intolerance.
The worrying intolerance here is in the confessional structure of the Malaysian legal system, the associated unequal treatment, and the society that supports and enables this. And, given that context, the implications of Malaysian reporters infiltrating Christian houses of worship, documenting and publishing acts of disrespect for their customs, etc. is very different from those of an otherwise-unknown American artist displaying transgressive works in an art gallery. The only reason we ever heard about the latter was due to the concerted efforts of right-wing political activists with an agenda of eliminating federal support for the arts, I'd note.
More generally, the premise that the social ramifications of an act can be located in its mechanics - spitting on this, pissing on that, etc. - is faulty. Social impact necessarily involves social context, and so stripping that out leaves your perspective vacuous. And to the extent that such vacuity is employed to advance superficial - spurious, even - trollings of political opponents, it looks an awful lot like intellectual dishonesty.
Bells
Staff member
Both of which was a big deal to Catholics, if I remember correctly.
But lets look at why it is a big deal in Malaysia. I would suggest we stop applying it to the West or the Middle East or any other country and look at why it is such a big issue in Malaysia.. I know, I know, any issue that involves Muslims and we have to bring in the Middle East and possibly Jews into the equation. But this does not involve the Middle East or Jews or even Pakistan. So how about we can the rhetoric.. hmm?
The religious tension that already existed in Malaysia prior to this issue makes me wonder at the intelligence of the reporters and the paper in the first place. Why make it worse? I guess it must have been a slow news day. Adding fuel to an already burning fire is a sure fire way to make sure you have something to put on the front cover.
This coming from a woman who claims to come from a country that embraces religious diversity.
But then you'd have Danish journalists sneaking bacon sandwiches into Mosques or breaking into them to have a pork BBQ and the whining would simply never stop.
At some point, I'd like to try to make a connection between the dreaded cartoons and what is happening in Malaysia, but honestly, I cannot.
I know the key words you are probably googling at the moment involve journalists and Muslims. But seriously, this is a whole separate issue and separate country.
It's amazing what you can do with vegemite these days!spidergoat said:
I don't see it as a big deal. I don't think Malaysians should either. Now if they start melting Christian children with white phosphorus because of ideological disagreements that is an issue.
But spitting out wafers?
Do you think we do it by being sensitive? Or politically correct?
But spitting out wafers?
Do you think we do it by being sensitive? Or politically correct?
Bells
Staff member
Why?
You seem to think the custom of snorting water up your nose and blowing it out again when you perform Wudu is rational. Not to mention the lifting of your arse in the air as you bow to the West rational to you.
Why is Catholic or any other religious custom less rational to you?I would be more concerned with the fact that it is urine and thus, unsanitary.