Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4

http://www.malaysia-today.

net/your-liberty-ends-where-my-nose-begins/
Page 1 of 4 May 15, 2014 05:10:56PM MDT
mt2014-no-holds-barred
Your liberty ends where my nose begins
malaysia-today.net
But why must only the Christian version of Gods
commandments and laws be defended while the Jewish
and Muslim version(s) must be opposed? If we oppose
theocracy then we must oppose all forms of theocracy
and uphold human rights and civil liberties. However, if
we uphold theocracy who are you to decide that only the
Christian doctrine should be upheld and not the doctrine
of the other religions?
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
You can read a comment posted by Pohchee Kay (University of Malaya) below. This comment was
posted in my yesterdays article I would like to respond to this comment because . Like children fighting
it is a well-argued comment and this is how we should debate issues instead of cursing, swearing,
scolding, vilifying, belittling and whatnot.
As I said yesterday, democracy merely means the rule of the majority. The critics of democracy also refer
to it as the tyranny of the majority over the minority. Another reader, Shiou Loh (Ohio State University),
commented that democracy is a form of government, which is not correct. Shiou Loh also said that the
rights of the minority are protected in a democracy, which is also not correct.
Sudan is a federal presidential representative democratic republic. In 2010, Sudan held its first democratic
election in 24 years where many parties participated. Al-Bashir won the election with 68% of the votes
against the backdrop of allegations of gerrymandering and fraud. The US-based Carter Center, which
helped monitor the elections, described the vote tabulation process as highly chaotic, non-transparent
and vulnerable to electoral manipulation.
Nevertheless, Sudan is still a democracy that practices majority rule never mind whether the manner in
how the government was chosen is suspect. The selection process or election procedure may be wanting
but the system is a democratic system.
But does Sudan respect human rights and civil liberties, and allow the various freedoms (dissent, thought,
association, choice, speech, opinion, lifestyle, etc.)? Just because Sudan practices democracy in the way
the government is chosen does not mean all the other liberties and rights are also present in the country.
In February this year, a nine-month pregnant girl who was raped by seven men when she was 18 was
sentenced to death for adultery ( ). Another woman was sentenced to death for apostasy ( READ HERE
). She will also be whipped for adultery (I assume before they kill her) and her adulteress READ HERE
act was for being married to a Christian man.
http://www.malaysia-today.net/your-liberty-ends-where-my-nose-begins/
Page 2 of 4 May 15, 2014 05:10:56PM MDT
Cycling2
Now, as I said, Sudan is a democracy but that does not mean they value human rights and civil liberties
plus allow freedom of dissent, thought, association, choice, speech, opinion, lifestyle, and so on.
Pohchee Kay disagrees with civil liberties because it violates Gods commands. In that case I assume
Pohchee Kay supports what Sudan is going to do to that girl and woman put them to death since
they violated Gods commands. Gods commands must override civil liberties as far as Pohchee Kay is
concerned.
Pohchee Kay argued that the list of civil liberties is too long and there is no Ultimate Arbiter on what is
right and what is wrong. Pohchee Kay then used the stealing chicken example.
It is actually very easy to decide what is and is not civil liberties (or what is and is not allowed) and is a
very fundamental issue for students of Political Philosophy. Your liberty ends where my nose begins.
Basically, this means you are free to do what you want (or think, say, etc., what you want) as long as it
does not harm another person.
This is according to John Stuart Mills Harm Principle. It basically sets out the grounds on which
government interference with individual lives is justified. How far can the government go in establishing
the boundaries of what is permitted and what is not? No doubt we have agreed to abrogate our authority
and mandate this authority to a group of people we call the government. But how much authority can this
government have in the effort to control what the citizens can and cannot do and say?
As I said, your liberty ends where my nose begins. You are at liberty to do and say whatever you want as
long as it does not harm anyone.
But then we come to the argument of how do we define harm? In the UK, you can even organise protests
by cycling nude all over London. This is your civil liberty. You may argue that this should not be allowed
because it is harmful. But then harmful to whom? If you do not like to see naked men and women cycling
then turn away and dont look.
Sudan has a different interpretation of harm.
According to Sudan, harm is whatever that harms
God. And you harm God when you defy God and
violate Gods commands. You also harm Gods
religion, Islam, when you bring shame to Islam by
opposing Islam or by opposing Gods laws. Hence you
must die.
Pohchee Kay argues against civil liberties and calls it
godless civil liberties where man can stick his tongue
out at God. Pohchee Kay is also against LGBTs and
abortion. But then Pohchee Kay is also against the
Jewish and Islamic laws of God. And Pohchee Kay
added, I am very glad that no Christian is trying to propose a Jewish or Christian Hudud.
So, on the one hand, Pohchee Kay defends Gods commandments. On the other hand, Pohchee
http://www.malaysia-today.net/your-liberty-ends-where-my-nose-begins/
Page 3 of 4 May 15, 2014 05:10:56PM MDT
Kayopposes Gods commandments from the Jewish and Muslim perspective. In other words, we should
defend Gods commandments only as far as it is the Christian version of these commandments and not if
they are the Jewish and Muslim version(s).
But why must only the Christian version of Gods commandments and laws be defended while the Jewish
and Muslim version(s) must be opposed? If we oppose theocracy then we must oppose all forms of
theocracy and uphold human rights and civil liberties. However, if we uphold theocracy who are you to
decide that only the Christian doctrine should be upheld and not the doctrine of the other religions?
We cannot be a little bit pregnant. Either we are we are not. And if theocracy and religious doctrine is to
be our yardstick then the Muslims have as much democratic right as Christians in rejecting human rights
and civil liberties in favour of Gods commands and Gods laws.
But then Pohchee Kay only defends the Christian doctrine in rejecting godless civil liberties and anything
un-Christian, such as civil liberties, must also be opposed. And, of course, this is also how Muslims see it
only Islam should be allowed and anything un-Islamic must be opposed.
Oh, and is it not also my civil liberty to reject all forms of religion and opt for atheism? And if not, why not?
Pray explain!
**********************************
Unfortunately, YM Raja Petra, your Civil Liberties movement is a religion which is not utopia. It is also not
the only view of Civil Liberties. It is a godless Civil Liberties where man sticks his tongue out at God. He
embraces LGBT even though God clearly forbids homosexuality. If man can take Godless liberties in the
face of Gods commands, then, why, we might even allow abortion. We might as well allow theft, murder,
corruption, etc. The list of what comprises liberties will be never-ending because there is no Ultimate
Arbiter on what is right and what is wrong. What is the point of protesting that you may not steal my
chicken if there is no agreement that stealing chickens is wrong in the first place? And who is to say what
is right and what is wrong?
So what you are proposing is Godless liberties, which are not just libertarian but also post-modernism.
That not only is there no right and no wrong, but that there is no way to determine what is right and what is
wrong. It is more lawless than the cavemen days, and more lawless than pre-feudal warlordism where
only might is right.
There is another kind of Civil Liberties. Godly Civil Liberties where the unalienable right of man against all
other men is guaranteed, but based on the Laws of God. Because only God can be trusted with
dispensing justice. Every attempt by man to do this has failed and will continue to fail. PAS Hudud is an
attempt at Godly Civil Liberties. But they went the wrong way. They did not try and prove that their God is
actually the one and only God. And they did not try to prove that their law is what God says. So it is not
just that people of other religious persuasions are not persuaded; I am sure many Muslims too are not
persuaded.
I am very glad that no Christian is trying to propose a Jewish or Christian Hudud which you pointed out,
would also have stoning to death and other punishments, if they really follow Gods Laws. Firstly, because
Christians must prove that their God is THE God Almighty. And they have not done that. And they have
http://www.malaysia-today.net/your-liberty-ends-where-my-nose-begins/
Page 4 of 4 May 15, 2014 05:10:56PM MDT
not proven that their Gods Law is actually from God. Anything that is from man will not cut it. And
Christians cannot prove it either, because if they are following God, then how come pastors steal millions
from their churches, make hundred million in salaries (as you pointed out), fly about in huge personal jets,
have committed adultery, have been homosexual, have been child molesters and so on. If they say Jesus
Christ is God then following Christ is no different that following your Civil Liberties. To use an old cliche,
Christ neednt have died. Surely He died for something more noble than this.
So your Godless Civil Liberties does not cut it. PAS Hudud has not been proven to cut it. Even if Jews or
Christians say their Law is supreme, so far, we have not seen that this is so. So without God, we have
nothing. And with what these religionists are proposing ostensibly with God, we still have nothing. We still
have not got a compelling God-based Law to follow, which, when made clear, no one in his right mind
would turn away from.
Since your read so much of ancient scriptures, you should try and carve out what God has said, and tell
us we should follow that. Dont read all these ancient scriptures and tell us RPK says his brand of Civil
Liberties which includes LGBT liberties, is what we, the common man must follow.
Kaypohchee