Singapore Malay Model Got Canned For Drinking Beer In M'sia.
- Thread starter MrSoftie
- Start date
Abitabh
New member
As a practitioner of Mahayana Buddhism, i must say everything has to be in moderations. We must neither eat too much nor fast too much. We must seek a balance in life. Even in alcohol,too much everyone knows is harmful, just that moderate drinking no one knows the benefits. However,canning doesn't serve a purpose, it only damage the skin of the woman concerned.
I hope she doesn't hate islam or suffer too much.
Amituofuo~
I hope she doesn't hate islam or suffer too much.
Amituofuo~
hecklerkoch
New member
Because it is a non-issue here in Singapore (flagellation), basically we wonder about it like we do when we see self-flagellation practised by some Christians in the Philippines and Latin America.
Most of us keep forgetting that the political climates of countries all over the world are different, and that nobody can agree on some things most of the time.
That's why you have different branches and sects of religions.
Most of us keep forgetting that the political climates of countries all over the world are different, and that nobody can agree on some things most of the time.
That's why you have different branches and sects of religions.
gsonique
New member
Religion ?
I like this from the Bible....
Jhn 8:1 Jesus returned to the Mount of Olives,
Jhn 8:2 but early the next morning he was back again at the Temple. A crowd soon gathered, and he sat down and taught them.
Jhn 8:3 As he was speaking, the teachers of religious law and Pharisees brought a woman they had caught in the act of adultery. They put her in front of the crowd.
Jhn 8:4 "Teacher," they said to Jesus, "this woman was caught in the very act of adultery.
Jhn 8:5 The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?"
Jhn 8:6 They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger.
Jhn 8:7 They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, "All right, stone her. But let those who have never sinned throw the first stones!"
Jhn 8:8 Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust.
Jhn 8:9 When the accusers heard this, they slipped away one by one, beginning with the oldest, until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd with the woman.
Jhn 8:10 Then Jesus stood up again and said to her, "Where are your accusers? Didn't even one of them condemn you?"
Jhn 8:11 "No, Lord," she said. And Jesus said, "Neither do I. Go and sin no more."
the teachers of religious law and Pharisees <---- BOOO :twisted:
I like this from the Bible....
Jhn 8:1 Jesus returned to the Mount of Olives,
Jhn 8:2 but early the next morning he was back again at the Temple. A crowd soon gathered, and he sat down and taught them.
Jhn 8:3 As he was speaking, the teachers of religious law and Pharisees brought a woman they had caught in the act of adultery. They put her in front of the crowd.
Jhn 8:4 "Teacher," they said to Jesus, "this woman was caught in the very act of adultery.
Jhn 8:5 The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?"
Jhn 8:6 They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger.
Jhn 8:7 They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, "All right, stone her. But let those who have never sinned throw the first stones!"
Jhn 8:8 Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust.
Jhn 8:9 When the accusers heard this, they slipped away one by one, beginning with the oldest, until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd with the woman.
Jhn 8:10 Then Jesus stood up again and said to her, "Where are your accusers? Didn't even one of them condemn you?"
Jhn 8:11 "No, Lord," she said. And Jesus said, "Neither do I. Go and sin no more."
the teachers of religious law and Pharisees <---- BOOO :twisted:
Abitabh
New member
This is from buddhism :
enjoy!
There was a young monk in China who was a very serious practitioner of the Dharma.
Once, this monk came across something he did not understand, so he went to ask the master. When the master heard the question, he kept laughing. The master then stood up and walked away, still laughing.
The young monk was very disturbed by the master's reaction. For the next 3 days, he could not eat, sleep nor think properly. At the end of 3 days, he went back to the master and told the master how disturbed he had felt.
When the master heard this, he said, "Monk, do you know what your problem is? Your problem is that YOU ARE WORSE THAN A CLOWN!"
The monk was shocked to hear that, "Venerable Sir, how can you say such a thing?! How can I be worse than a clown?"
The master explained, "A clown enjoys seeing people laugh. You? You feel disturbed because another person laughed. Tell me, are you not worse than a clown?"
When the monk heard this, he began to laugh. He was enlightened!
enjoy!
There was a young monk in China who was a very serious practitioner of the Dharma.
Once, this monk came across something he did not understand, so he went to ask the master. When the master heard the question, he kept laughing. The master then stood up and walked away, still laughing.
The young monk was very disturbed by the master's reaction. For the next 3 days, he could not eat, sleep nor think properly. At the end of 3 days, he went back to the master and told the master how disturbed he had felt.
When the master heard this, he said, "Monk, do you know what your problem is? Your problem is that YOU ARE WORSE THAN A CLOWN!"
The monk was shocked to hear that, "Venerable Sir, how can you say such a thing?! How can I be worse than a clown?"
The master explained, "A clown enjoys seeing people laugh. You? You feel disturbed because another person laughed. Tell me, are you not worse than a clown?"
When the monk heard this, he began to laugh. He was enlightened!
visa
New member
hecklerkoch:
(before I begin, I don't mean to attack your views! I'm using your post as groundwork for mine because it was so brilliantly constructed. Our views differ, but rest assured that I have respect and admiration for yours.)
Honestly, I think religion and faith is very personal.
Religion and faith is personal, but it's also more than that. It also happens to be one of the most powerful tools for unifying masses, which the elite never fail to utilize. It's quite like patriotism; loving Singapore is a personal decision for each and every one of us, but serving National Service isn't. Embracing Islam would be a personal choice, but being subject to sharia law isn't. However there is no perfect balance for this, as you rightly point out as well. It varies from community to community.
Islam is a way of life to most Muslims. It governs their daily actions and it provides a foundation and guidance to life. This is something that is taught from the time when a Muslim child becomes old enough to think and understand. It is weaved into the consciousness constantly throughout one's life via religious classes and through sermons by religious leaders during Friday prayers.
I feel it's necessary to point out that we impose religion onto children BEFORE they are old enough to think and understand. Isn't it strange how we find it perfectly acceptable to point at 3 year old kids and say "this is a Buddhist child, that's a Muslim child, that's a Catholic child", but we would be uncomfortable to say "This kid is a liberal democrat, that kid's a communist", etc? Most kids are too young to know or decide for themselves and they are indoctrinated by their families and communities. If I had been born into a Muslim family, I would no doubt be a Muslim myself today, because I would not have had any choice in the matter.
So, to most Muslims religion is not really something you change on a whim or fancy.
The main reason for this is that there is extremely strong social (and in some cases, legal) pressure against apostasy. It's not just 'an Islam thing'- many Catholics and Christians see no reason to commit to their faiths apart from the fact that their social lives would be destroyed if they renounced it. So they go through the motions to avoid the shame. Sometimes it's a case of realpolitik; there have been US Presidents in the past who have been known to be non-religious but still swore upon the bible to placate the masses.
A similar trend can be observed in divorce rates. Many people have different ideas about why there are more divorces these days than before, and many of the older generation like to say "Kids these days just don't value marriage anymore." Interestingly, divorce rates are highest where women are most empowered economically and socially. Women in unhappy marriages in the past had no choice but to remain in those unhappy marriages, because leaving the institution would be suicide.
So a Muslim today is bound to his religion the same way that women in older times were bound to their husbands, and a Muslim who does not want to practice Islam is forced to grit his teeth and put on a show just as the unhappy wife was. I'm not trying to suggest that there are many Muslims who would gladly jump ship if they could, but we would be foolish to ourselves if we believed that there are none.
It's like it's perfectly logical to know that driving a car too fast may result in and have proven to cause injury or death to yourself and/or others if you lose control of the car but people do it anyway because they like the rush. They like the experience. You don't blame the car or the maker of the car. You blame the guy who was behind the wheel, if an accident occurs because of the car being driven too fast.
While your analogy is well crafted and completely logical, it implies that everybody of every faith is on even playing fields. However, this isn't the case. A Muslim in Malaysia has fewer liberties than an atheist in a Western community. Let me expand the analogy- imagine that being in Malaysia is like driving on a wet stormy night, and being in America is like driving on a bright clear day. If you drive 60kmh on a slippery wet road and you kill yourself, it is your own fault. You might protest, "but I went 100kmh on a bright clear day and was totally fine!" It sounds silly, but that's the argument that most people use!
The issue of contention here is not about the driver's state of mind. Drivers who go 100kmh on slippery roads and Muslims who consume in alcohol in Malaysia are afflicted by the same range of problems- they're either deluded, ignorant, hopeful or plain stupid.
Sometimes I really wonder why people are so 'concerned'.
Personally I'm concerned because freedom of choice in religion is limited. If you were born to a Negro family in America before the 1860s, you were denied citizenship, freedom, equality under law. If you were born a woman in the 18th century, you were denied the right to education and vote. To this day, if you are born gay, you are still denied the right to marry in most places in the world.
For all of the above, causes have been stepped up to earn freedom for the oppressed. The Emancipation Proclamation and Thirteenth Amendment freed the Black people, and women today (though not all) possess equal freedoms as men. The LGBT community is fighting their war and making progress.
But little is done for those who are denied freedoms resulting from their birth into a religion which they did not choose for themselves. That bothers me.
(before I begin, I don't mean to attack your views! I'm using your post as groundwork for mine because it was so brilliantly constructed. Our views differ, but rest assured that I have respect and admiration for yours.)
Honestly, I think religion and faith is very personal.
Religion and faith is personal, but it's also more than that. It also happens to be one of the most powerful tools for unifying masses, which the elite never fail to utilize. It's quite like patriotism; loving Singapore is a personal decision for each and every one of us, but serving National Service isn't. Embracing Islam would be a personal choice, but being subject to sharia law isn't. However there is no perfect balance for this, as you rightly point out as well. It varies from community to community.
Islam is a way of life to most Muslims. It governs their daily actions and it provides a foundation and guidance to life. This is something that is taught from the time when a Muslim child becomes old enough to think and understand. It is weaved into the consciousness constantly throughout one's life via religious classes and through sermons by religious leaders during Friday prayers.
I feel it's necessary to point out that we impose religion onto children BEFORE they are old enough to think and understand. Isn't it strange how we find it perfectly acceptable to point at 3 year old kids and say "this is a Buddhist child, that's a Muslim child, that's a Catholic child", but we would be uncomfortable to say "This kid is a liberal democrat, that kid's a communist", etc? Most kids are too young to know or decide for themselves and they are indoctrinated by their families and communities. If I had been born into a Muslim family, I would no doubt be a Muslim myself today, because I would not have had any choice in the matter.
So, to most Muslims religion is not really something you change on a whim or fancy.
The main reason for this is that there is extremely strong social (and in some cases, legal) pressure against apostasy. It's not just 'an Islam thing'- many Catholics and Christians see no reason to commit to their faiths apart from the fact that their social lives would be destroyed if they renounced it. So they go through the motions to avoid the shame. Sometimes it's a case of realpolitik; there have been US Presidents in the past who have been known to be non-religious but still swore upon the bible to placate the masses.
A similar trend can be observed in divorce rates. Many people have different ideas about why there are more divorces these days than before, and many of the older generation like to say "Kids these days just don't value marriage anymore." Interestingly, divorce rates are highest where women are most empowered economically and socially. Women in unhappy marriages in the past had no choice but to remain in those unhappy marriages, because leaving the institution would be suicide.
So a Muslim today is bound to his religion the same way that women in older times were bound to their husbands, and a Muslim who does not want to practice Islam is forced to grit his teeth and put on a show just as the unhappy wife was. I'm not trying to suggest that there are many Muslims who would gladly jump ship if they could, but we would be foolish to ourselves if we believed that there are none.
It's like it's perfectly logical to know that driving a car too fast may result in and have proven to cause injury or death to yourself and/or others if you lose control of the car but people do it anyway because they like the rush. They like the experience. You don't blame the car or the maker of the car. You blame the guy who was behind the wheel, if an accident occurs because of the car being driven too fast.
While your analogy is well crafted and completely logical, it implies that everybody of every faith is on even playing fields. However, this isn't the case. A Muslim in Malaysia has fewer liberties than an atheist in a Western community. Let me expand the analogy- imagine that being in Malaysia is like driving on a wet stormy night, and being in America is like driving on a bright clear day. If you drive 60kmh on a slippery wet road and you kill yourself, it is your own fault. You might protest, "but I went 100kmh on a bright clear day and was totally fine!" It sounds silly, but that's the argument that most people use!
The issue of contention here is not about the driver's state of mind. Drivers who go 100kmh on slippery roads and Muslims who consume in alcohol in Malaysia are afflicted by the same range of problems- they're either deluded, ignorant, hopeful or plain stupid.
Sometimes I really wonder why people are so 'concerned'.
Personally I'm concerned because freedom of choice in religion is limited. If you were born to a Negro family in America before the 1860s, you were denied citizenship, freedom, equality under law. If you were born a woman in the 18th century, you were denied the right to education and vote. To this day, if you are born gay, you are still denied the right to marry in most places in the world.
For all of the above, causes have been stepped up to earn freedom for the oppressed. The Emancipation Proclamation and Thirteenth Amendment freed the Black people, and women today (though not all) possess equal freedoms as men. The LGBT community is fighting their war and making progress.
But little is done for those who are denied freedoms resulting from their birth into a religion which they did not choose for themselves. That bothers me.
visa
New member
How can he be enlightened when he hasn't gotten the answer to his question? All he knows is that he's "worse than a clown" for being disturbed by such... disturbing behavior. If the master laughed at a joke or something that was actually funny, surely the monk wouldn't be disturbed! We are not told why the master started laughing in the first place. Was the question funny? Was he faking his laughter just so he could call the monk "worse than a clown" for being disturbed by his odd behavior?
Personally, I would send the master to the psychiatrist. >_>
EngelFaeuste
New member
I never believed in putting on a false front to placate anybody. If someone disagrees with you, let him be. If the whole world disagrees, I wouldn't care either. Call it selfish, call it stubborn, call it arrogant. At least I stand by one thing -
INTEGRITY
No matter what, never sacrifice your integrity. Do what is right to you, not what is convenient. While I personally feel religion is wrong, in it's beliefs and teachings. This woman has thrown away her integrity by claiming to be a muslim and not adhering to it's teachings, she deserves it.
INTEGRITY
No matter what, never sacrifice your integrity. Do what is right to you, not what is convenient. While I personally feel religion is wrong, in it's beliefs and teachings. This woman has thrown away her integrity by claiming to be a muslim and not adhering to it's teachings, she deserves it.
james, good point...that could also b the atheist way of thinking...
i dun really follow any religion...but i'm sure most religions exist for good causes...n to guide the believers to the correct ways...
religion is not wrong, it's the interpreters who r wrong sometimes.
if i were to follow a religion, i'd choose to follow john lennon's imagineism...
hahaha...
back to the case, she already accepted the punishment. there shouldn't b anymore debate. whether u think it's harsh n ridiculous, u still can't change the syariah laws.
i just think she was super unlucky, or too daring to have done that.
i dun really follow any religion...but i'm sure most religions exist for good causes...n to guide the believers to the correct ways...
religion is not wrong, it's the interpreters who r wrong sometimes.
if i were to follow a religion, i'd choose to follow john lennon's imagineism...
hahaha...
back to the case, she already accepted the punishment. there shouldn't b anymore debate. whether u think it's harsh n ridiculous, u still can't change the syariah laws.
i just think she was super unlucky, or too daring to have done that.
LadyInTears
Well-known member
well its true that buddhism is regarded somewhat an atheist ideology , without a creator good, but i agree with engelfauste.
integrity is something which must never be compromised
integrity is something which must never be compromised
obzervr
New member
Hi All,
There were statements highlighting "you can't change syariah laws" and "you still can't change syariah laws". I hope it wasn't stated to represent Islam or Muslims as, if it was, it is simply a reiteration of fallacy.
Syariah laws have evolved with the times since it was codified. The codification process took place many many years after the demise of Muhammad. As it is there are four major mainstream school of thought in the sunni tradition on the Syariah. There is also a less prominent syiah tradition with variances between its schools of thought. A few decades ago, a conservative wave to attempt 'reviving' aspects of the syariah of the 8th century was done by a group promoting a school of thought now known as Wahhabism (even within it has differing views) which was known to claim that there is a need to literally return to the 'original' ways of Islam. With political backing, the group managed to control resources, institutions, media etc. With that the last couple of decades, the frequency of hardline rulings appear more frequently as students of religion from these institutions return to Malaysia and Singapore.
This is not unlike the situation in Christianity with Evangelical group attempts to what is now known as steeplejacking. A good example may be seen through the documentary movie Jesus Camp (Official Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RNfL6IVWCE).
However, should one day the more hardline group in each religion eventually control resources and power bases (inc government) and implements their interpretation of religion with a claim that it is the Only Truth and is unchangeable, should that be taken as representative of the adherents of the faith over centuries and generations?
Regards.
There were statements highlighting "you can't change syariah laws" and "you still can't change syariah laws". I hope it wasn't stated to represent Islam or Muslims as, if it was, it is simply a reiteration of fallacy.
Syariah laws have evolved with the times since it was codified. The codification process took place many many years after the demise of Muhammad. As it is there are four major mainstream school of thought in the sunni tradition on the Syariah. There is also a less prominent syiah tradition with variances between its schools of thought. A few decades ago, a conservative wave to attempt 'reviving' aspects of the syariah of the 8th century was done by a group promoting a school of thought now known as Wahhabism (even within it has differing views) which was known to claim that there is a need to literally return to the 'original' ways of Islam. With political backing, the group managed to control resources, institutions, media etc. With that the last couple of decades, the frequency of hardline rulings appear more frequently as students of religion from these institutions return to Malaysia and Singapore.
This is not unlike the situation in Christianity with Evangelical group attempts to what is now known as steeplejacking. A good example may be seen through the documentary movie Jesus Camp (Official Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RNfL6IVWCE).
However, should one day the more hardline group in each religion eventually control resources and power bases (inc government) and implements their interpretation of religion with a claim that it is the Only Truth and is unchangeable, should that be taken as representative of the adherents of the faith over centuries and generations?
Regards.
Last edited:
nope...no inclination of anything. could've been simply interpreted as "you can't change the laws". no fingers pointed specifically at syariah laws. =)
hecklerkoch
New member
Yo, visa!
Really do appreciate your post, man.
I'm always glad to engage in this kind of somewhat intellectual discussion because it means that I will learn to see someone else's point of view, his perspective on things and why he thinks as such. I always cherish the opportunities to learn but do forgive my limited vocabulary.
Yes, you are right to point out that religion is 'one of the most powerful tools for unifying masses' but in places like multi-racial Singapore where there are people practising many different religions and religious denominations - well, it is difficult eh. I'll go even further to say that among us, there are definitely still people who are suffering from xenophobia.
Yes, as I have said, Shariah law should be respected and adhered to wherever it is imposed upon all Muslims, just like Singapore's tough laws with regards to drugs apply to all human beings while they are on Singapore soil, no matter what nationality, race, skin colour or religion.
With regards to religion being imposed onto children, personally I don't think I was subjected to that, or know of anyone ever being in a similar situation. I don't think my parents have ever thought it necessary to identify and point out other children of different religions. As children, I think we didn't really care, or knew enough to think much about it. Yes, visually we could see that the other children had different skin colours and spoke differently (if they happened not to be speaking in English) but I don't think we had the intellectual capacity to delve further and ask why. Let alone ask about religion.
Regarding apostasy, personally I still believe that a lot of Muslims may feel that they still have much to learn about their own religion. You are spot on when you mentioned about the immense social pressure, and I believe that that is what most people worry about if they ever even consider renouncing their status as a Muslim. Although you may not be directly ostracized, it will be beyond most people to understand and subsequently accept. At least in Singapore, this will be most likely. I attribute this simply to the fact that most people would ask "Are you saying that what we believe in is false, now that you yourself have ceased to believe in it, after believing in it all your life?".
Continuing on this, don't forget that religion is part knowledge and part faith. It's like you have knowledge that your spouse is of decent character and have a high set of morals, but at the same time you know you have to put faith on her not to commit adultery and destroy your family. Yet, you can't do anything if she decides to go ahead and cheat on you. I know this is not the best of analogies :mrgreen: but the keyword here is faith in its most basic form.
So, it is logical to expect a follower of any religion to put faith on the rules and guidelines that a religion provides for him or for her, while constantly learning about the rules that may seem inapplicable or irrelevant to the times we are in. Sometimes, you just can't see how a certain punishment that is recommended is necessary in 21st century, metropolitan, '1st world' Singapore (for example) but you must take into account the history, situation, environment and political climate the punishment was invented. What may seem barbaric to us may not be so in 632 CE, just like eating guinea pigs may appear disgusting to most of us in this part of the world but it is a staple diet in Bolivia.
Hypocritical it may seem, I think most Singaporeans are glad that Shariah law in Singapore only cover the issues of marriage and inheritance (I think).
I have one question for you guys -
How many people do you know are truly experts in their own religions?
As in they know their history, they know the all about the proponents involved, they know the 'rules and regulations' inside out, and they know every single line of whichever religious literatures and their correct intended meanings?
Well, that's where faith comes in.
Some people put faith and let religion guide their lives based just on the fundamentals, some go further to study and understand and learn about, say, the relation between Quran and science, to sort of affirm their beliefs and hopefully understand more about their own existence and why they are here and all that.
So, as you can see - such information can be mind-boggling and complicated.
It's just what you want to do with it that matters.
:-D
Really do appreciate your post, man.
I'm always glad to engage in this kind of somewhat intellectual discussion because it means that I will learn to see someone else's point of view, his perspective on things and why he thinks as such. I always cherish the opportunities to learn but do forgive my limited vocabulary.
Yes, you are right to point out that religion is 'one of the most powerful tools for unifying masses' but in places like multi-racial Singapore where there are people practising many different religions and religious denominations - well, it is difficult eh. I'll go even further to say that among us, there are definitely still people who are suffering from xenophobia.
Yes, as I have said, Shariah law should be respected and adhered to wherever it is imposed upon all Muslims, just like Singapore's tough laws with regards to drugs apply to all human beings while they are on Singapore soil, no matter what nationality, race, skin colour or religion.
With regards to religion being imposed onto children, personally I don't think I was subjected to that, or know of anyone ever being in a similar situation. I don't think my parents have ever thought it necessary to identify and point out other children of different religions. As children, I think we didn't really care, or knew enough to think much about it. Yes, visually we could see that the other children had different skin colours and spoke differently (if they happened not to be speaking in English) but I don't think we had the intellectual capacity to delve further and ask why. Let alone ask about religion.
Regarding apostasy, personally I still believe that a lot of Muslims may feel that they still have much to learn about their own religion. You are spot on when you mentioned about the immense social pressure, and I believe that that is what most people worry about if they ever even consider renouncing their status as a Muslim. Although you may not be directly ostracized, it will be beyond most people to understand and subsequently accept. At least in Singapore, this will be most likely. I attribute this simply to the fact that most people would ask "Are you saying that what we believe in is false, now that you yourself have ceased to believe in it, after believing in it all your life?".
Continuing on this, don't forget that religion is part knowledge and part faith. It's like you have knowledge that your spouse is of decent character and have a high set of morals, but at the same time you know you have to put faith on her not to commit adultery and destroy your family. Yet, you can't do anything if she decides to go ahead and cheat on you. I know this is not the best of analogies :mrgreen: but the keyword here is faith in its most basic form.
So, it is logical to expect a follower of any religion to put faith on the rules and guidelines that a religion provides for him or for her, while constantly learning about the rules that may seem inapplicable or irrelevant to the times we are in. Sometimes, you just can't see how a certain punishment that is recommended is necessary in 21st century, metropolitan, '1st world' Singapore (for example) but you must take into account the history, situation, environment and political climate the punishment was invented. What may seem barbaric to us may not be so in 632 CE, just like eating guinea pigs may appear disgusting to most of us in this part of the world but it is a staple diet in Bolivia.
Hypocritical it may seem, I think most Singaporeans are glad that Shariah law in Singapore only cover the issues of marriage and inheritance (I think).
I have one question for you guys -
How many people do you know are truly experts in their own religions?
As in they know their history, they know the all about the proponents involved, they know the 'rules and regulations' inside out, and they know every single line of whichever religious literatures and their correct intended meanings?
Well, that's where faith comes in.
Some people put faith and let religion guide their lives based just on the fundamentals, some go further to study and understand and learn about, say, the relation between Quran and science, to sort of affirm their beliefs and hopefully understand more about their own existence and why they are here and all that.
So, as you can see - such information can be mind-boggling and complicated.
It's just what you want to do with it that matters.
:-D
hifi_killer
New member
I think parents have the right to influence their child in anyway they want to. Well, No it is not just their right, it is their responsibility.
and imposing religion at such a young age should be seen as "education" and helpful to the child's mental development. A child who has a religion 'imposed' onto him would probably fare better than a child without religion when it comes to moral development, mood stability, reaction to traumatic events. This is especially useful and important for children who at risk to mental illnesses and traumatic events
I believe this is more important than having freedom to choose your religion.
and imposing religion at such a young age should be seen as "education" and helpful to the child's mental development. A child who has a religion 'imposed' onto him would probably fare better than a child without religion when it comes to moral development, mood stability, reaction to traumatic events. This is especially useful and important for children who at risk to mental illnesses and traumatic events
I believe this is more important than having freedom to choose your religion.
Last edited:
fgl
Well-known member
I STILL HAVENT FOUND MY ANSWER: ?????
IS IT STATED IN THE KORAN THAT MUSLIMS DRINKING ALCOHOL MUST BE CANED ... ????????? or is this just a man made law based on the "authorities concerned's" guidelines ...
Religious terrorists all over the world have their own "guidelines" which in their eyes, the killing of of innocent lives is justified as long as their cause is served ..... In their world this is their "law" ... JUST AS THE RELIGIOUS AUTHORITIES THERE HAS TAKEN UPON CANING TO BE A JUST LAW???
fgl
Well-known member
Last edited:
fgl
Well-known member
I beg to differ - let me give you an example ...
Parents of KLU Klux Klan white extremist raise heir child to hate the non whites because of their beliefs.... so the child is "programmed" to hate from infancy ....
It is the responsibility of the individual whether a parent, a child or anyone - to regcognise the diffirent between right & wrong....but sadly, it seems that no one in the whole world cant do this- man kind has waged war & hatred among their fellow man since prehistoric times .... even till today .......
All religion teaches us good, somehow or other the meanings get lost in translation when they are passed down by the tongues of man.
