F-off deputy minister, I'm an atheist

MM Online - Putrajaya: Freedom of religion does not equal freedom from religion (extracts):

A deputy minister today claimed that atheism is a “very dangerous” ideology that goes against not only the Rukunegara that prescribes “believe in God” as one of the tenets, but also the Federal Constitution.

Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Asyraf Wajdi Dusuki alleged that the freedom of religion in the Constitution which guarantees the freedom to worship does not include the freedom to not believe."

“We have to understand that in the Malaysian context, our Federal Constitution states that the freedom of religion does not mean freedom from any religion because that is unconstitutional."

“This means we cannot incite someone to leave a religion or promote not having a religion. We cannot order or promote a belief of not having a religion, that is against the Federal Constitution.”

Stop bullshitting that 'freedom of religion' does not mean freedom from any religion. You are a Muslim where you are NOT free from your religion, namely, you MUST remain being a Muslim, BUT you are NOT allowed to shaft your belief down my throat - that's what 'freedom of religion' means, dumbo.

Stop your nonsensical personal interpretation of the Constitution. 

The Rukunegara was formulated in 1970 by the Tun Razak's government after the May 13 racial riots, and was shafted down our throat without our consent. You f**kers have a habit of shafting your belief and concept etc down our throats, just because you believe you're the ketuanan creed.

We know from popular rumours that the late Tun Ghazali Shafie, who was very much favoured by Tun Razak, was the author but regardless of whether indeed Ghazali had been the author, it was apparent that person was inspired by the Indonesian national ideology of Pancasila which in reality was inspired by the Buddhist 5 daily precepts (Pancasila or 5 personal undertakings).

late Tun Ghazali Shafie 

Pancasila Indonesia 

Pancasila agama Buddha 

So what was shafted down our throats have been the Malaysian Rukunegara as follows:

WHEREAS OUR COUNTRY, MALAYSIA nurtures the ambitions of:

• Achieving a more perfect unity amongst the whole of her society; 
• Preserving a democratic way of life; 
• Creating a just society where the prosperity of the country can be enjoyed together in a fair and equitable manner; 
• Guaranteeing a liberal approach towards her rich and varied cultural traditions; and 
• Building a progressive society that will make use of science and modern technology. 

WE, HER PEOPLES, pledge our united efforts to attain these ends guided by these principles:

• BELIEF IN GOD 
• LOYALTY TO KING AND COUNTRY 
• THE SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION 
• THE RULE OF LAW

Look minister, the aim of the Rukunegara has been to create harmony and unity among the various races in Malaysia, but of all the 5 rukun it has, it would seem that Rukun No 1, namely,'Belief in god' has been the least helpful to the aim of the national principles.

The most notorious examples have been the persecution of Catholic Churches in Sabah in the 70's, ...

... the oppression of Buddhism in Penang in the 70's where the 'original' proposed giant statue of Kuan Yin was forcefully truncated as a compromise to appease conservative Muslim objections and the almost continuous proselytism of children of parents with different religions of which one has been a Muslim. There have been more but these 3 suffice as examples.

Furthermore, stop bullshitting that the Constitution is against atheism - jangan buat suka sendiri saje, you syiok-sendiri-bandit.

In fact, law professor Shad Saleem Faruqi has just advised via Berita Daily's ‘Nothing in constitution that makes atheism unconstitutional’ that (see as follows):

Professor Shad Saleem Faruqi 

There is nothing in the Federal Constitution which makes atheism unconstitutional in Malaysia.

While belief in God is in the Rukunegara, atheism is neither permitted nor prohibited in the Federal Constitution.

Professor Shad Saleem also raised a question on freedom of religion in Malaysia, especially for non-Muslims, to wit, “The million dollar question now is, does freedom of religion includes freedom not to belief? For Muslims it is a crime but for non Muslims, it is not."

[may I humbly correct the English of the phrase "... includes freedom not to belief?"]

[It should either be "... includes freedom not to believe?" or "... includes freedom not to from belief?"]

The good professor added: “Under shariah laws, there is no right for disbelievers because Islam is about submission to Allah. Non Muslims have always been given a choice to belief.”

He said this in reaction to deputy minister in charge of Islamic affairs, Asyraf Wajdi Dusuki who said (see top of post) that Freedom of religion does not equal freedom from religion in Malaysia.

Then the professor went on to clarify matters which we understand but which the dumbo syiok-sendiri deputy minister does not, saying that there were many religions practised in Malaysia that did not have God, particularly in Buddhism and Chinese religions such as Confucianism.

Confucianism has instead sets of values (ethics) from inspired prophets such as honesty and integrity [which by the way are sorely needed in Malaysia, wakakaka].

Professor Shad Saleem also said that the government should not be imposing the concept of submission to God in Islam to followers of other faiths, just like what the dumbo deputy minister had tried to do.

He added what I have been saying over at Malaysia-Today,“Instead of searching for the devil that doesn’t exist, non Muslims should be left alone”, to wit, Satan (and Iblis) belongs respectively only to the Christians (and Muslims), wakakaka.

Berita daily also reported:

The Universiti Malaya-based professor also pointed out that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights also included the right to not belief.

He also dismissed the notion that atheism would lead to public disorder.

“It is a sensational statement. Atheism hasn’t created public disorder for 60 over years. There is a doctrine of clear and present danger in US. In this case, there is none.”

Looking at a bigger picture Shad said that there were countries without religion practising humanism.

“What is wrong in practising values such as honesty?”

He added that Asyraf’s claim that atheism can lead to public disorder was NOT supported by corresponding social data.