Politicians & Religion

Politicians cynically use the race or religion in order to further their political agendas and to validate the separation of people along ethnic and religious lines. Political and religious con artists are able to get people to associate their religious faith with particular individuals, thus transferring that faith to the individual political or religious leader.

This allows that person to achieve a greater control over others than would otherwise be possible

Through the advent of globalisation and the Internet, various cultures all around the world, including Malaysia, are starting to assimilate each other's values. Malaysians are beginning to consider themselves as citizens of the world, and no longer view themselves as a particular ethnic race.

For that reason, the government is turning its sight to religion as the next powerful tool to control its people. In a land where most of its population is obsessed with symbolism and idolism, religion is a very powerful tool to ignite a crisis between the various groups of people in the country. Thus we see our self-righteous leaders in various states scrambling for the honour to become holier than the leader of the next state.

What should be done about it?

The solution is obvious.Preserving the best of state and religion requires that the two be separated.

Religion and morality should remain as the personal responsibility of an individual. The government should not dictate how a person prays, or practice his or her religion. A government’s duty is just to administer the country to ensure a peaceful and harmonious atmosphere throughout. Only the well-learned religious leaders should handle religious matters.

However, it is sad nowadays to note that there are some dubious religious leaders who also double up as politicians and conversely, there are politicians who also put on religious apparel. These two figures will not allow the rest of us to privately discover the beauty of our own religion. These are the two characters who will always highlight the differences between the various religions but diligently attempt to hide their similarities.

If a society is able to sustain a government that is basically secular, isn't this because there is too little religious action to animate its politics significantly? Put oppositely, when any society's politics become religiously infected, how can its state structures be sufficiently inoculated to resist the virus?

There need be no limits to the free exercise of religion in politics as long as there is a strict prohibition of any religious establishment within the state. Politicians, as politicians, may campaign on - and even vote - their religious consciences; nor is there anything to prevent them from bowing to the bidding of their religious organizations. But state officials and state administrations have a different responsibility. They must remain formally and functionally neutral, and not only in the pluralistic fray between religions but also in the larger struggle between religion, on the one hand, and secularism, on the other. The overall result should be a necessarily contested but vital politics framed by an equitable state that rises above the fray to guarantee fairness to all.

For example, India's recently increasing communal violence reflects the tendency for state leaders and state structures to become embroiled in religious conflicts. As concessions made to one group require concessions made to its rival. Constructing state policy has come to resemble shortening a chair one leg at a time: the results are never quite even, and the seat of power becomes increasingly unstable. The assassinations of both Indira and Rajiv Gandhi offer tragic reminders of the possible consequences.

Meanwhile, over the last ten years or so, if we look at the key sources of violence, vacuity, vulnerability and vitality by examining the present and tending relations between religion, politics, we could find one thing in common. This variety involves the very different relations between religion and politics, on the one hand, and religion and the state, on the other. Few will be surprised to learn that campaigning politicians everywhere tend to invoke local religious themes and symbols as sources of legitimacy what is called "cultural power".

What may be more surprising is the frequent tendency for governmental regimes and their officials to try to keep religion at arm's length. While religion is often an ally in the pursuit of power, once power has been secured, religion can become an unwelcome constraint in the quite different processes of state administration.

Consider the case of Israel. Many Israelis would protest its categorization as a religious state, arguing that Zionism itself can be seen as a secular movement, and that the state makes ample provision for both secular practices and various non-Judaic faiths, especially Islamic and Christian. At the same time, there is no question that the Israeli state is perceived as Jewish by most Jews and non-Jews alike. Even if this were not the case, Zionism itself may be a sufficiently sacred commitment to qualify as religious in its own terms. Certainly there is no question that Israeli politics often take religious forms. This not only applies to the participation of Muslim Palestinians, including the Hamas, but also to the struggles among various Jewish groups - whether secularists on the left or contesting movements on the right, such as the Gush Emunim and the ultra-orthodox Haredi. As Yitzhak Rabin's assassination makes clear, the stakes are large and the rates of violence are correspondingly high.

Where are we heading to? We need to look in to it seriously.

********************************************************************************

Politicians need not abandon religion

By Barack Obama for USA TODAY

My faith shapes my values, but applying those values to policymaking must be done with principles that are accessible to all people, religious or not. Even so, those who enter the public square are not required to leave their beliefs at the door.

For some time now, there has been talk among pundits and pollsters that the political divide in this country falls sharply along religious lines. Indeed, the single biggest gap in party affiliation among white Americans today is not between men and women, between red states and blue, but between those who attend church regularly and those who don't.

This gap has long been exploited by conservative leaders such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who tell evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their church, while suggesting that religious Americans care only about issues such as abortion and gay marriage.

It's a gap that has also been kept open by some liberals, who might try to avoid the conversation about their religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that constitutional principles tie their hands. Some might even dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, thinking that the very word "Christian" describes one's political opponents, not people of faith.

And yet, despite all this division, we are united by the fact that Americans are a deeply religious people. Ninety percent of us believe in God, 70% affiliate ourselves with an organized religion, and 38% call ourselves committed Christians.

This is why, if political leaders truly hope to communicate our hopes and values to Americans in a way that's relevant to their own, we cannot abandon the field of religious discourse.

My lesson

I've fallen into this trap myself. During my 2004 Senate race, my opponent said, "Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama." I answered with what has come to be the typically liberal response: that we live in a pluralistic society, and that I can't impose my religious views on another. I said I was running to be the U.S. senator of Illinois, and not the minister of Illinois.
But my opponent's accusations nagged at me, and I knew that my answer didn't address the role my faith has in guiding my values. I, like other progressives, should have realized that when we ignore what it means to be a good Christian or Muslim or Jew, when we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced, when we shy away from religious venues because we think we'll be unwelcome, others will fill the vacuum: those with the most insular views of faith, or those who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends.

Moreover, it's wrong to ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square. Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan, Martin Luther King Jr. — indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history — were not only motivated by faith, they also used religious language to argue for their cause. To say men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into policy debates is a practical absurdity; our law is by definition a codification of morality.

If progressives shed some of these biases, we might recognize the overlapping values that both religious and secular people share when it comes to the direction of our country. We might recognize that the call to sacrifice, the need to think in terms of "thou" and not just "I," resonates with all Americans. And we might realize that we have the ability to reach out to the evangelical community and engage millions of religious Americans in the larger project of America's renewal.
But the conservative leaders of the religious right will need to acknowledge a few truths about religion as well.

For one, the separation of church and state in America has preserved not only our democracy but also the robustness of our religious practice. After all, during our founding, it was not the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of this separation; it was the persecuted religious minorities concerned that any state-sponsored religion might hinder their ability to practice their faith.

Universal values

This separation is critical to our form of government because in the end, democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. If I am opposed to abortion for religious reasons but seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
This might be difficult for those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, but in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics involves compromise, the art of the possible. But religion does not allow for compromise. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime; to base our policymaking on them would be dangerous.
In the months and years to come, I am hopeful we can bridge these gaps and overcome the prejudices each of us brings to this debate. I believe that Americans want this. No matter how religious they may or may not be, people are tired of seeing faith used as a tool to attack and divide.

Americans are looking for a deeper, fuller conversation about religion in this country. They might not change their positions on certain issues, but they are willing to listen and learn from those who are willing to speak in reasonable terms — those who know of the central and awesome place that God holds in the lives of so many, and who refuse to treat faith as simply another political issue with which to score points.


Compiled by Vineeth

My Suggestions for Better Malaysia

PAS and DAP could stop using Religion and secularism as the major factor and instead take somethings like this to their election Manifestos for better Malaysia.This could give a common platform to fight the election and the country would be much better.

MY IDEAS ON INITIAL REVAMPING OF MALAYSIAN SYSTEMS

Revamping the education system:-

• Compulsory and Free education to all citizens till SPM.
• Make Malay and English a Compulsory Subject.
• Provide Chinese & Indian languages as optional additional subjects.
• Free education for all, whose household income is below RM1500.
• Exams will never be allowed to intercept with any religious holidays.
• Reservations in all education system will be in same ratio of the population composition based on the latest government data
• Race and religion details in all the examination papers has to be replaced with just Serial Numbers.
  
• Start the education at the age of 5.Age of 5 is the age at which the children start grasping things. Also, this will enable our next generation to be graduated early.(Look at India).Also you could retire early.
  

Revamping the working Sector:-

• Fix the minimum Salary to RM950
• Implement an objective based evaluation and appraisal system for the government sector.

Revamping the reservation System:-

• All the existing reservation for Malays will remain with a change that these reservations are valid for ONLY the Malays, who’s income is less than RM2000
• Houses which are worth more that 250k wont have any bumi quota as these people are considered rich and do not need government assistance
  

Revamping the EPF procedures for the safety of the people:-

• Investment withdrawals are only allowed in the sectors where the government feels that there is minimum Risk.
• Create/Review the LIST of investments which government feels safe.
• Education withdrawals for education should only be allowed to the courses which are recognized by government.

Revamping of the Religious matters:-

• All the places of worship which are more than 25 years will be given land title; Provided it has been proved so in the court
• If any place of worship has to give way for development; the notice of 6 months will be given to the management of such places from the date of allocation of relocation place.
• All the places of worship which has mushroomed in last 25 years will be given notice to integrate with the older places of worship.
• Permits for new places of worship will be given, provided there is no such place existing in 10 sq km area of the requested place.
• Clarify the ambiguity between civil and Syariah law

Reassuring the Citizen’s freedom of Expression:-

• Press will be free to publish their views and other citizen views in all matters except the religious matters which are explosive in nature.
• Blogs and other media will be motivated and enlightened of the responsible journalism from time to time will be allowed to publish all the matters except the religious matters which are explosive in nature.
• ISA will be amended so that it won’t be able to use against any citizens for any political reasons. It will solely be used against terrorists and external forces trying to harm the country.

Revamping of the Election System:-

• The election commission is totally responsible for the Election. This means that "it supervises, guides, controls all aspects of the election process". Including the registration of the political parties.

• The election commission should enjoys full independence from the executive body in the state. The Agong appoints the high commissioner of the commission.

• The elected government is the executive power and it manages the administrative system of the state. Thus, the election commission is to ensure that the ruling party will not manipulate with the coming elections for forming a new government. Right now, the government is the body that supervises the general elections.

• The election commission supervises all government bodies during the time of holding the general elections. This means that the commission would have full control over the paramilitary troops and the police as well as all state property and their staff. This action guarantees the fairness of the elections. I have no doubt that all democratic powers in Malaysia would welcome the idea of establishing such a commission as the actual intervention of the police in the election process represents a great concern to all of us.

• The commission also acts as a judiciary body for solving election disputes. This means that it is the body that finally names the parliament members.

• Implement ELECTRONIC VOTING .We can copy the technology from India. It is well known that India is the first country in the world that managed to almost reach perfection regarding the standards of fair voting through ELECTRONIC VOTING.

To sum up, if we have the required guarantees to secure a fair election in place, we can catch up with India as a democratic country that is respected by its people and by the whole world

Revamping the judiciary:-

Present State of Judiciary: -

• There are reports that a section among the judges is corrupt. The dispute is only about the percentage. There are allegations that some judges are showing favoritism and some are inefficient. Some judgments are trying to rewrite the Constitution by giving innovative interpretations of the Constitutional provisions. Some judgments show intolerance to mass struggles and mass organizations. Inordinate delay in court proceedings are denying justice to common man. The people are increasingly loosing confidence in the judicial system.

How it should be: -

• The system of appointment of judges has to be changed and as in the case of other countries, the executive, the legislature, the public and the judiciary should be given appropriate role in the appointment of judges. The system of appointment should be transparent and subject to public scrutiny. The public should be given an opportunity to express their views on the names nominated for the post of a judge. Eg: In France, the president of the republic presides over an 18-member council comprising of minister of justice, prominent public figures and judges.
  

Recommendation: -

• I would recommend that the constitution of a National Judicial Commission with representatives from the three organs of the government – executive, legislature and judiciary – representative of the bar association and the general public. This commission should be vested with the powers to make recommendations for the appointment of judges, to conduct inquiries into the misbehavior of a judge, to impose minor punishments and to recommend to the president for the removal of a judge for proved misbehavior or incapacity.

- Vineeth Menon