Why "Religion" and "God" Should be Removed from the Federal Constitution and Rukunegara

Read here article by Hafidz Baharom in The NUTGRAPH

QUOTE:

"... RELIGION should be a PRIVATE one.

It should NOT be used in the scrutiny of laws, concepts, or even (in) the Federal Constitution for that matter.

Do WE have a problem with people who DON'T believe in God altogether? Is there an ABSENCE of morality among THESE CITIZENS?

If not, then shouldn't Article 11 be reviewed and amended to UPHOLD THE FREEDOM BELIEF?

GOD has been used as an excuse for bigotry, bias, irrational behaviour, misguided education, and even suicide.

RELIGION is being used as a TOOL for IDIOCY.

I find the views of religious (Islamic) conservatives truly out of touch with the times. Parti Keadilan Rakyat Member of Parliament for Kulim-Bandar Baru Zulkifli Nordin's positions on Islam have been contradictory, at best, and downright hostile, at worst.

How could Muslims say that OURS is the ONLY correct religion in the world and the hereafter, and yet WON'T even hold inter-faith dialogues to argue why we believe this?

Are we, as an entire nation, not supposed to cater for the ENTIRE community, and not just to Muslims?

Religion is one way of enforcing a person to live a moral life.

However, most religions forget or totally disregard that biologically, human beings come with a brain capable enough of helping them make moral decisions of their own..."
-Hafidz Baharom

The Constitutional Right to Unbelief

by

Hafidz Baharom

Excerpts: Read here for more

Federal Constitution and Rukunegara Need to be Updated

• THE Rukunegara's first principle emphasises BELIEF IN GOD, (in case anyone has forgotten).



• In our Federal Constitution, Article 11 upholds FREEDOM OF RELIGION.

Personally, I view both items (ie the Federal Constitution and Rukunegara) to be out of touch with the rakyat of TODAY.

During a recent roundtable on the future of this country, I said that as a democracy, Malaysia is NOT moving fast enough to bring its laws, concepts, and constitution into the 21st century. For example, we amended our Federal Constitution to include the concept of gender equality only in 2001.

Going back to what the Rukunegara and (Federal) Constitution say about GOD and RELIGION:

• Do we have a problem with people who DON'T believe in God altogether?
  
  
• Is there an absence of morality among these citizens?

If not, then shouldn't Article 11 be reviewed and amended to "UPHOLD THE FREEDOM BELIEF”?

(Note: Article 11(1) of the Federal Constitution: "Every person has the right to profess and practise his RELIGION and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate’ it’ )

Accordingly, shouldn't Article 8 then also state that there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of BELIEF (not religion), race, descent, place of birth or gender?

In this day and age, when a book like The God Delusion (by Richard Dawkins) is widely available to the masses, the matter of RELIGION should be a PRIVATE one.


Therefore, it should NOT be used in the scrutiny of laws, concepts, or even the Federal Constitution for that matter.

Richard Dawkins Interviewed by Bill Maher

Personally, I DON'T see a problem with people NOT believing in God.

1. GOD has been used as an excuse for bigotry, bias, irrational behaviour, misguided education, and even suicide.
   
   
2. RELIGION is being used as a tool for idiocy.

Richard Dawkins Talks About the Idiocy of Religion
in 21st Century- PART I

Richard Dawkins Talks About the Idiocy of Religion
in 21st Century- PART II

For instance, how can you use RELIGION (read ISLAM in Malaysia) :

• as an excuse to ban a healthy activity like yoga?
  


• to tell women how to dress, so they don't look or act too much like men?

Muslims' Hostility Towards Dialogue

Frankly, I'll just focus on my religion, Islam, in this rant of mine. Because apparently, if you criticise someone else's religion you can be detained without trial and fed food fit for dogs.

In Islam, there is a concept called amar ma'ruf, nahi munkar which basically means “practising good, rejecting evil”. And this is of course congruent with the teachings of OTHER religions.

So how could Muslims say that OURS is the ONLY correct religion in the world and the hereafter, and yet WON'T even hold inter-faith dialogues to argue why we believe this?

Dr.Wafa Sultan Confronts Muslim Cleric on Islam


Dr. Wafa Sultan Confronts Muslim Cleric
on Islam and Terrorism

In fact, some of us were so scared that we held protests in Penang when the umbrella group of non-governmental organisations called Article 11 held a forum there in 2006.

So you can forgive me for getting the shock of my life when I read the article Overcoming religious sensitivity by Md Asham Ahmad of the "Institute of Islamic Understanding, Malaysia (Ikim)" . The shock, of course, comes from the fact that Ikim is finally asking for people to be LESS sensitive towards the issue of religion.

Asham says:

“It is senseless to restrain people from the urge to know and understand the environment in which they live. It is akin to reinforcing ignorance, which is actually at the root of fanaticism and racism.

Instead, why don't we make discussion concerning religion something interesting, enjoyable, and beneficial to all? To understand and to be understood we need to talk.

If we do not talk ABOUT RELIGION how are we going to understand it, and make others understand it? How are we going to eliminate misunderstandings about it, and differentiate truth from falsehood?”

I honestly think the same also applies for discussions ON LAWS pertaining to RELIGION.

When the Bar Council recently held a talk to discuss the laws involved in religious conversions, again it was certain Muslim groups who somehow saw this as a threat to Islam.

One of the protesters was Parti Keadilan Rakyat Member of Parliament for Kulim-Bandar Baru, Zulkifli Nordin, who was recently interviewed by The Nut Graph.

Zulkifli's positions on Islam have been contradictory, at best, and downright hostile, at worst.

Islamic Conservatives Are Out of touch

I find the views of religious conservatives truly out of touch with the times.

MUST WATCH VIDEO CLIP !

Ghada Jamshir Explains
Why Syariah Laws are BAD for Muslim Women and Children



Kurdish Intellectual Mariwan Halabjaee Condemns
Sharia Laws Governing the Lives of Women

For example, instead of having events and concerts banned for every single person, why not just advise Muslims not to attend these events, and let them come to their own conclusions?

Why instead disrespect the non-Muslims who want to enjoy such entertainment?

Are we, as an entire nation, not supposed to cater for the entire community, and not just to Muslims?

Even then, by disallowing Muslims to attend such events, are we actually stopping immorality?

Sure, you ban an Inul concert, but will that actually stop people from viewing her gyrations on a VCD, or even on YouTube?

When the Bar Council recently held a talk to discuss the laws involved in religious conversions, again it was certain Muslim groups who somehow saw this as a threat to Islam.

Are the numbers of mat rempits, drug addicts, rapists, and robbers somehow decreasing with this new-found zeal in moral policing?

The Disservice of Religion

Religion is, without a doubt, one way of enforcing a person to live a moral life.

However, most religions forget or totally disregard that biologically, human beings come with a brain capable enough of helping them make moral decisions of their own.

Bill Maher's Guests Discuss about
Fundamentalist Christians and Extremist Muslims


RELATED ARTICLE

Godless Constitution: Constitutional Law without Gods or Religion

by

Austin Cline

Read here for more

God, the (U.S.) Constitution, and the Christian Right:

The Christian Right regularly claims that America is a “Christian Nation” and was founded on Christian principles. If this is the case, then those principles should be identifiable in America’s founding legal document, the Constitution.

If the Constitution explicitly reflects Christian principles and doctrines, then the Christian Right is correct that America was founded on Christianity; otherwise, their claims are wishful thinking at best.

So where are God and religion in the Constitution?

No Religious Tests:

Article VI says: "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." In practice this prohibition was often violated, and even today there are unenforceable prohibitions in state constitutions against atheists holding public office.

If America is a Christian Nation, why weren't public offices limited to Christians, or even particular types of Christians? Why weren't public offices limited solely to monotheists or to theists?

Sundays Excepted Clause:

Some take hope from Article 1, Section 7, Clause 2 which gives the president an extra day to deal with a bill from Congress if the 10th day falls on Sunday — known as the "Sundays Excepted Clause." Is this an establishment of the Christian sabbath and thus of Christianity?

No, it was a recognition of the fact that many Christians wouldn't work on this day and that an extra day may be needed. It must be noted that at this time, the government continued to deliver mail on Sundays.

In the Year of Our Lord?:

At the end of the Constitution, the date is prefaced with "in the year of our Lord." Is this an expression of the fundamental role played by Jesus and Christianity in the Constitution?

No, this was just the standard dating convention. It's no more significant than using BC and AD when writing dates now.

At most, it's an example of the cultural importance of Christianity at the time; it's not a sign of the political or philosophical importance of Christianity to the Constitution.

Oaths and Affirmations:

The Constitution requires elected official take oaths or affirmations before serving; was this understood as an example of the importance of swearing an oath to God?

No — if it was meant to get people to swear an oath to God because only theists could be trusted, the Constitution would have said so (and would not have banned religious tests for public office).

Oaths can be taken on more than the Bible and God; the choice of using an affirmation signals that religious oaths were not privileged.

First Amendment: Free Exercise:

The first amendment to the Constitution protects the free exercise of religion. It does NOT protect just the free exercise of Christianity nor does it suggest that Christianity and Christians should be have special protections and privileges. The authors used the term "religion," meaning that all religions have exactly the same status before the law and the government.

If they had thought that Christianity were special, they'd have said so; instead, they treated it like every other religion.

First Amendment: No Establishment:

The first amendment to the Constitution also prohibits the government from "establishing" any religion. The meaning of "establishment" is hotly debated and some insist that it merely means that the government can't create a national religion.
This reading is too narrow and would make the clause all but meaningless. To have relevance, it must mean that the government can't favor, endorse, promote, or support any religions just as it can't hinder any: it must remain as neutral as possible.

We the People:

The Ameican Constitution begins with the phrase "We the People," and its significance cannot be overlooked. This establishes that sovereign power rests with the people and that all government power and authority derives from the consent of the people.

It's a repudiation of older Eurpean ideas that governments are established by God and derive their power or authority from God (for example, the divine right of kings). It's also thus a repudiation of the Christian Right's arguments today.

The American Constitution is Godless, Religionless:

No matter how hard conservative apologists for the Christian Right try, they CANNOT locate endorsements of religion, God, theism, or Christianity in the Constitution. At no point does the Constitution exhibit anything less than a fully secular, godless character.

The American Constitution was a novel experiment in the creation of a SECULAR government on the basis of popular sovereignty and democratic principles. All of this would be undermined by the Christian Right.

God, Deism, and the Authors of a Secular Constitution:

The authors of the American Constitution were not atheists, though some might be regarded as little more than atheists by self-righteous religious moralizers today. Many of the authors were deists. Among those who were Christian, few seem to have held same sort of religious beliefs common with conservative evangelicals in America today. The Christian Right would claim them as religious brethren, but the two groups are far too dissimilar for that.

Why does the Christian Right seek to make a big deal out of the religious beliefs of the authors of the Constitution, though? They seem to think that if these men can be identified as devout Christians, then it follows that the Constitution is a Christian document which embodies Christian principles and doctrines (as defined by the Christian Right, of course). This does not follow, however. A Christian is every bit as capable of creating a godless, secular document as an atheist is.

Indeed, the fact that many of these men were devout Christians (even if not in the way that the Christian Right imagines) bolsters the case of contemporary secularists because it makes the absence of overt religious and Christian language all the more glaring. If they had mostly been atheists, the non-religious language would be expected and unremarkable. Yet because they were religious and steeped in Christian education, the absence of Christian language and references must be read as both deliberate and purposeful.

What might that purpose have been? To establish a secular government, untainted by the many problems which sectarian divisions, religious violence, and Christian bigotry had inflicted on European nations.

For the most part the authors of the Constitution succeeded. Why does the Christian Right work so hard to undermine and undo what America's founders accomplished?