So to say that because such and such a religion is what they profess, then they have the sole right to teach and even ‘own’ and ‘posses’ it is erroneous. So there is no question of anyone protecting the religion from anybody else. It is just the individual and the religion. It is personal. It is religion which is protecting the people, not otherwise.

Religions encourage people to learn about them. Discussing about a religion, its teachings, and questioning about them are methods of learning about it. How could there be learning if there are no questioning? No one has a monopoly over the religion they profess. They cannot question anyone who is questioning it in the course of learning. Questioning should not be equated with disrespect.

To make a religion a ’state religion’ is just a preference, an inclination. In fact there is no such thing as a ’state religion’. It should not be imposed on anybody. God does not impose, He encourages seeking and learning. If God does not impose, who are people to do so? The choice rests with the individual him/herself.

Let’s not be overzealous. I think the wise know about this.

We have to move away from erroneous man-made rules.

The world has indeed changed. We are already in the 21st century and much has changed from even a hundred years ago. New scenerios call for new approaches and adaptations.

We can certainly recall past applicatins to guide us through. A thorough relook at rules and regulations is a must if we are to adapt. Of course there are bound to be some which are still applicable and relevant. Having said that, however, it must be accepted that novel and updated ones must be adopted.

We cannot afford to be over-emotional and clinging to old habits. Human activities have changed the world drastically. The era of globalisation is here. The internet is fast becoming the tool of communication for all. The way trade and business are done have changed. In fact everything else has changed.

Mother earth has to be protected from being over exploited, or at the very least needs to be harnessed in a more sustainable manner.
The rate global warming is going needs immediate and urgent atttention. Honest and impartial parties need to be roped in to chart the direction of action needed to be taken. A more concerted approach is indeed warranted. Or else more and more bizarre and dramatic climatic changes would occur, whose consequences would spell disaster for mankind.

Mankind have to wake up from their slumber and take cognisance of the fact that indeed we are in a NEW ERA! We simply cannot afford to live in the old ways anymore. Not that the old are bad, just that new realities call for new thinking. There ought to be a new awakening.

In fact religion has to be relooked. Progressive and New Realities are already available. Just that humanity is not not looking where they should. Perhaps the old order is not ready to be replaced by the new. Hence it is most important that new leaders with vision are needed to guide humanity forward.

Certainly, civil society needs religion to move forward, because the rules and guidelines are indeed found in the religious teachings. Thus,to ask whether religion could be reconciled with civil society is an understatement.

It is the stubborness of leaders or all sectors, whether political, religious, academic, business, etc., which is holding back the move forward. Some may be gunuinely ignorant and incapable of change. However there are those who are riding on the old ways, for personal and irrational reasons, to achieve their narrow and selfish ends.

We cannot afford to be blinded by teachings which are narrow in scope. Of course what constitute new and relevant must be made available to replace the archaic and obsolete. It should be pointed out that old and archaic do not mean weak or bad, just that they are past their useful age and need to be replaced.

The time will come for all these to change. The force will make its presence felt. The change would be for the better of humanity. Just that mankind would have to be ready for the change and move forward.

Good luck!

The excuse to shelve the Monorail and PORR for rural development, food production is lame. What is the point of building more roads when rural folks can’t afford the petrol? What is the point of producing more food when our production is small and cost is high to make no difference in the price?

Whatever the rational, his excuse that its not about placating Sabah and Sarawak politician is bullshit AND because it does little for the problems and issue, its a wrong compounded by another wrong.

Do we all want to be hypocrites?