[862] Of ensuring a liberal society

So say the Rukunegara in its first paragraph (tag):

Our Nation, Malaysia is dedicated to: Achieving a greater unity for all her people; maintaining a democratic way of life; creating a just society in which the wealth of the nation shall be equitably distributed; ensuring a liberal approach to her rich and diverse cultural tradition, and building a progressive society which shall be oriented to modern science and technology.

The paragraph is a direct contradiction to conservative ideas. They believe in unity only when they could practice fascism. They believe in democratic values only when they win. They believe in a just society only when they get their share while everybody else is deprived of justice. They support a narrow-minded conservative approach to society. And they are not interested in progressive society.

For the coming Independence and Malaysia Day, I wish to express my thankfulness for every bit of liberalism still available in Malaysia. Without a liberal society, Malaysia would probably be another Afghanistan. Or Kelantan for that matter.

Malaysia wouldn’t have gotten here with a heavy dose of conservatism. We have experienced intolerance before. Let’s learn from the past and move forward.

p/s – Today marks the 61st anniversary of the end of World War II.

pp/s – re: conservative blog, concerning Rukunegara. The following completes the Rukunegara:

We, the people of Malaysia, pledge our united efforts to attain these ends, guided by these principles:

Belief in God
Loyalty to King and Country
Upholding the Constitution
Sovereignty of the Law
Good Behaviour and Morality

That blog says point one (Belief in God) is equivalent to upholding Islam. I’m sorry mate but it didn’t say Islam. It simply says belief in God. Nothing more, nothing less. Perhaps, this is a proof that that particular conservative thinks Malaysian society is a monoculture or aims to make Malaysia a dull monocultural society. That itself is counter-thesis to the idea of Malaysia.

Given this, it’s not too astounding to see how that author frequently offends other people of different beliefs. That itself explains the intolerance exhibited by the author in that blog.

At the same time, liberalism isn’t about disbelieving in god either. So, this is an obvious misunderstanding or misrepresentation – deliberate or otherwise – of the term liberalism.

The blog further states point 5 is about moral police. Again, sorry mate. Good behavior and morality isn’t about moral policing. It’s about having a good moral. Period. In fact, morality is independent of religion. If the two were one, there would be no need to mention god and then morality in two different places. Talking about that, please count the number of cuss words available at that blog. I’d assume that the higher the count of cuss words written corresponds to lower the moral standard.

Religion and much less conservatism is no guarantee of morality.

Further:

They do not mind if you shag in the streets as long as it is kept within the realm of private life.

Do it in the streets but within private life? A contradiction in a single sentence, hence logical fallacy. Perhaps the author doesn’t comprehend the division between public and private sphere.

In any case, “shagging” in the street isn’t what most liberals would call decent. Most people and indeed most decent liberals would tell a couple that would want to shag to get a room.

Actually life in Kelantan pretty much goes on as usual and the situation in Afghanistan during the Taliban era isn’t as bad as one may make out to be.

The author likes the way the Taliban ruled Afghanistan. Remember what the Taliban did to that 1000-year old statue? Or how the Taliban treated women and deprived them of education? Taliban suppressed freedom and that conservative author likes it.

No wonder they call for murder of all of those disagree with them. They see no wrong in Taliban’s wrongdoings.

Until they stop imposing their liberal values upon the society which wants to preserve their religious values, perhaps their ignorance will persist. Moral chauvinism is, after all, the order of the day for them.

So, it’s the liberals now that try to impose liberal values on others?

Funny because liberals are simply fighting for their freedom and have no desire to impose their values on others. Even funnier, a conservative calls liberals as moral chauvinist.

Think about the whole concept of liberalism again. Just liberalism and let’s not get into the deeper division of liberalism. Who do you think would be most likely to practice censorship? A liberal or a conservative? Guess who would be more likely to tell you what to wear in public? Guess who would be more likely to tell you what to eat? Or tell you where to sleep at? Tell you who to marry to? Tell you what to watch on TV? On radio? On the internet? Tell you what to read? Tell you how to have fun? Who would be more likely to tell you what moral should we subscribe to?

Liberals will let you decide all that for yourself. Conservatives won’t. At least, that particular conservative won’t.

In fact, libertarians – of which I associate myself with – not only let, they in fact don’t mind whatever you do as long as you don’t infringe on their rights. That particular conservative on the other hand has no respect for individual liberty.

Libertarians only fight when our rights are infringed upon. Left alone, we’d be happy to enjoy the bright sunny day with a blue sky peacefully. Conservatives won’t. They will impose their moral values on others because they believe it’s their jobs to be guardians of morality. They appoint themselves and intrude on other people’s lives. Libertarian let you manage your own moral. In short, libertarians don’t mess with your liberty.

So tell me again, who is trying to impose some sort of moral standard on others?

ppp/s – re: liberalism in Rukunegera. Replying to a conservative’s points:

Surely we are not blind as to be unable to see that. However, the liberal is obfuscating facts The fact remains that Islam is the religion of the Federation, and that the status of Islam in the country is pretty much guaranteed (with Article 3 also stating that “other religions may be practiced in freedom and security”). While the liberal tries to obfuscate this and tries to label this as “conservatism” (also implying that Islam will be imposed on everyone wholesale, regardless of whether one is Muslim or not), we say that is bull. Islam is the ideology of the Federation, it will remain that way until a secularist leads a Revolution and changes it.

In 1988 in the Che Omar Che Soh case, the Supreme Court declared “the law in this country is still what it is today, secular law“. Furthermore, the court ruled:

If it had been otherwise (an Islamic State), there would have been another provision in the Constitution which would have the effect that any law contrary to the injunction of Islam will be void. Far from making such provision, (the Constitution), on the other hand, purposely preserves the continuity of secular law prior to the Constitution?.

That’s the Supreme Court, the ultimate authority in this country regarding the status of the Constitution. Unless the highest court in Malaysia undo that ruling, it shall be as it is, as it has been since the Reid Commission produced the draft of the Malayan and later Malaysian Constitution. The ruling is still binding, thanks to rule of precedent.

Revisiting Rukunegara, one of its authors is Prof. Khoo Kay Kim, a non-Muslim. Do you really think he was thinking of the Islamic god when he wrote that down? More important, the Rukunegara was introduced as a reaction to the May 13 Incident – the race riot. The Rukunegara aims to bring unity. Since this is the case, wouldn’t it be counter-productive to rally all Malaysians of various beliefs and backgrounds under an Islamic god instead? That rally would promote division instead of unity and hence, pulling the Rukunegara away from its aim.

Therefore, a contradiction, again.

As for the claim that morality is independent of religion, that is also total BS. Morality is part and parcel of religion. Certainly one cannot be considered as moral if he or she does not have some sort of principles guiding his or her life (we view Atheism as a “religion” of sorts). Man is a religious animal, a religio naturalis. Some educating in the sociology of religion, particularly Max Weber’s treatise on the matter, would perhaps knock some sense into the liberal’s head.

This whole paragraph reflects the conservative author’s failure in logical thinking. Notice the difference between “morality is independent of religion” and “religion is independent of morality”. The two statements may sound similar but logically, both mean different thing. More importantly, I argue for the former but the other person thinks I’m arguing for the latter. The other person’s failure to notice the logical difference itself makes his argument flawed in the first place.

Nevertheless, morality may be part and parcel of religion and I have little quarrel in that though I won’t risk generalizing it; there may exist an immoral religion though morality itself might be subjective and hard to measure. However, religion is not necessarily part and parcel of morality. Hence, morality is independent of religion.

If morality is dependent of religion, then how do you explain the existence of immoral theist? The existence of immoral theist itself is a proof that religion is no guarantee of morality and morality is independent of religion.

Then, let’s visit an outrageous statement:

Certainly one cannot be considered as moral if he or she does not have some sort of principles guiding his or her life (we view Atheism as a “religion” of sorts).

In order to solve the problem of moralistic atheist, the other person considers atheism as a “religion of sorts”. See how rules are bent just to suit his need.

Let’s tighten the definition of atheism. Atheism is disbelief in the existence of god. Here’s a proposal: a moralistic atheist could be as he is – i.e. moralistic – due to secular moral such as descibed by humanism. Would that mean secularism itself is a religion? Secularism itself by definition is freedom from religion. Unless this is a begging the question type of fallacy, how do you reconcile this apparent contradiction that atheism is itself religion?

Is any sort set of principles could be considered as religions? If yes, would that mean there is no such thing as a person without a religion?

But even if we accepted that atheism is religion and thus solving the problem of moralistic atheist, he still needs to solve the immoralistic atheist problem. If the former problem left unsolved, the idea morality is dependent on religion is flawed.

And yes, concerning Max Weber and “religious animal”, how would that explain a state of lack of religion?

But perhaps this is how liberals usually tend to think. Conservatism is evil, liberal is good. Such black and white colours are painted and suspension of belief is upheld regardless the cost. We cannot speak for the other religions nor do we wish to pretend to, but from the Islamic viewpoint, such a person obviously is a heretic and out of the fold of Islam.

Ah, but guess who played the black and white tactic first? Guess who played the false dilemma fallacy first? Guess who raised the word heretic or the ban on liberal thinking?

Only when the tactic comes to bite him back does he cry of false dilemma. See number 11 of [859] Of how to spot a religious conservative for a fun poke.

In any case, guess who supports murder as a mean to suppress individual’s freedom of religion?

Was not the Prophet Muhammad a guardian of morality? Did he not legislate the crimes for adultery and imposed the Islamic way of life on the Muslims of Madinah, the first Islamic city-state in the world? Truly, one has to not be a Muslim to ignore these simple facts or simply be plain stupid.

Because this argument is a natural follow up of the author’s failure to recognize a difference between two distinct logical statements, this statement by itself is irrelevant until the logical fallacy is addressed.

But to show how irrelevant the point made by the conservative author is, I’ve never questioned the existence of a moralistic theist. All I’m arguing is that morality is independent of religion. It’s a question of relationship of morality and religion, not the existence of moralistic theist.

Revisiting one of the main contentions, the conservative author argues that morality is dependent of religion. If that was so, why there exists an immoral theist?

In order to prove the morality is dependent of religion, the conservative author needs to prove the non-existence of immoralistc theist and moralistic atheist. Failing to do so means losing the argument and accepting that morality is independent of religion.

In stark contrast, the idea morality is independent of religion accommodates the existence of immoralistic theist, moralistic theist, moralistic atheist and immoralistic atheist, thus becoming a universal set by itself.

And that is the brutal truth.

I’ll add, brutal logical mistakes.

[This is Part 1 of 2. The second part will focus on the issue of “moral policing” and how liberals tend to compare the Islamic movement with the Taliban of Afghanistan and disparage both, with, of course, no understanding of the historical background of the Taliban.]

Finally, this needs clarification – I personally criticize Taliban and its conservatism along with its act and its supporters, not Islam. It’s important to note that Taliban as well as conservatives have no monopoly of Islam. I’d imagine he will try to paint criticism against Taliban is criticism against Islam. For the fun version, see number 5 of [859] Of how to spot a religious conservative?

And, heh, politically, any support of Taliban is a magnet for harsh criticism due to Taliban’s past acts. If he tries to justify Taliban’s intolerance, it would be too easy. Silence on my part would probably be best as he paints himself as a supporter of Taliban.