Saturday, November 24, 2012

Freedom of Religion : Nurul Izzah's Blunder (Part 2)

Continuing from Part 1

Freedom of Religion

If readers, especially interested Catholics, had read the article "The Audacity of Power: President Obama Vs. The Catholic Church" part 1, you will understand that the author is articulating President Barack Obama is ignoring the US First Amendment to the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (emphasis added) for political capital.

It revolves around Health and Human Services rulings of the Obama administration that would be effectively bar the Catholic church in the US to practise, what the Church has long held sinful — abortion via the morning after pill, sterilization and contraceptives and when religious beliefs conflict with government decrees, religion must yield.

Obama, to energize his political base, positioned his Administration as the defender of “women’s health” for the Presidential campaign by government decrees granted to women which ran counter unalienable right to act in accordance with religious beliefs and conscience, overturn the First Amendment, and tramples the nation’s founding principles as announced in the Declaration of Independence.

Recall that important info on Obama winning by a slim margin? Juxtapose to the above, Obama would probably not have been re-elected had it not been for the women votes.

Read "By the numbers: Women voters", The Five Reasons Why Romney Lost", "Minorities, Youth, and Women to Obama: You Owe Us" and the "Vatican reminds Obama of differences on healthcare, abortion".

Hence, there is NO true or absolute Freedom of Religion, even in the greatest democracy in the world, when political interest supercedes religious interest.

(Next and final part - Nurul Izzah's Blunder)

4 comments:

Jasper Bloodstone said...

So, what's your point?

Why don't you address the fact that in the US, people are allowed to convert from one religion to another without facing the threat of legal sanctions and ostracisation?

Obama is governing as a secular President, even though he has publicly shown his Christian faith.

Is that so difficult to understand?

Freddie Kevin said...

Jasper,

The point is, nothing is absolute.

"Why don't you address the fact that in the US, people are allowed to convert from one religion to another without facing the threat of legal sanctions and ostracisation?"

My posting is twofold.

I am a Catholic.

I have great respect but do not concern myself with other Christian denominations.

1. I took the US example, where freedom of religion or the right to practise the religion according to it's core belief is challenged, even though enshrined in the American constitution.

2. I am also sending a message to political activism of Catholics in this country. Catholics who express locutions, like your good self, freedom to convert from one religion to another absolutely without any sanction.

Addressing your fact, is it right, while a Scientologist is free to convert to Catholicism without any sanction but now as a Catholic the freedom to practise the faith according to it's tenets and dogma is sanctioned by government decrees?

"Obama is governing as a secular President, even though he has publicly shown his Christian faith."

I wish to leave out and avoid "secular" in meaning or connotation. It inevitably leads to the other still uncharted shore which my postings are not a subject of.

Therefore, in what manner Obama governs and the faith he professes is not the issue enunciated.

Your comments, as all others, are always welcome.

Thank you
Freddie

Anonymous said...

Freddie,

Politicians are lawmakers. They are suppose put forward to the people what is the policies and laws that benefit the people.

If somebody ask a politicians whether Islam permit the freedom of religion, then as a politician, the answer should be within the perspective of law and policies of the country.

As of status quo, there is no provision in law that punish an individual converting to another religion.

There are cases where, Muslims converted to Christianity. These individuals had never been charged in the court of the land. There is nobody behind bars that commit apostasy.

Therefore, all these huha in the newspaper are trying to twist Nurul Izzah words into something else.

We can argue about this matter, but let us not forget what is the current position of the law at this time with respect to this issue.

The Syariah Court, correct me if I am wrong can only perform counselling to the individual involved to repent, that is the limit of the power they have.

Freddie, the election is near, I think most of the people had make up their mind already by this time.

Hashimoto

Freddie Kevin said...

Hashimoto,

"Freddie, the election is near, I think most of the people had make up their mind already by this time."

Well, I am sure you have made up your mind.

We all respect that.

But by that time, we will change many, of those minds.

Thank you and regards
Freddie