Malaysian Minister Calls For Atheists To Be “Hunted Down”

400px-1922_hunting_license85px-Coat_of_arms_of_Malaysia.svgMalaysian Minister Shahidan Kassim has made international news by proclaiming that atheists should be “hunted down” and that constitutional rights do not apply to them. He is not alone in the heavily Islamic nation in this hateful view and many support such a crackdown.

The sheer ignorance and intolerance of Shahidan Kassim is breathtaking.  He called on the public to help hunt for members of Kuala Lumpur chapter of Atheist Republic.  He insisted that these people were beneath the constitution and that indeed they are an offense to it:

“The (Federal Constitution) does not mention atheists. It goes against the Constitution and human rights. . . . I suggest that we hunt them down vehemently and we ask for help to identify these groups.”

Shahidan Kassim explained that an atheist was just an uneducated person who needed to be educated on Islam:

“They actually don’t want to be atheists but it happens because of the lack of religious education. They are misled with a new school of thought . . .We need to return them to the faith and correct their aqidah if they are Muslims. To all Mufti’s and state exco’s, take note.”

The hatred for atheists reflects the underlying belief that Sharia law should be imposed on everyone. Atheists in Malaysia have defied the continual threats to their safety to live their lives according to their own beliefs.  They fight for principles like free speech and free association against the constant threats from hateful leaders like Shahidan Kassim.

155 thoughts on “Malaysian Minister Calls For Atheists To Be “Hunted Down””

  1. Let’s be clear. Islam is just another totalitarian system that seeks to maximize control of people by the government mediated by the religious “scholars,” the ulema and mullahs. Under such a system, innovations will never be created and will always be resisted. People living in these “societies” will always be decades behind the rest of the world.

    1. Islam is just another totalitarian system that seeks to maximize control of people by the government mediated by the religious “scholars,”

      You’re grotesquely silly.

    2. Malcolm, DSS is right about your position. There would’ve been no Scholastic Movement without Islam. There would’ve been no Renaissance without The Scholastic Movement. Ergo, no Renaissance without Islam. Likewise, there would’ve been no Age of Exploration nor any Colonial Era nor any United States of America without The Moorish [Muslim] Conquest of Spain. The list goes on, Malcolm.

      The best you can do with your thesis would be to decry the closing of the door to Ijtihad [read: interpretation]. But that would put you in agreement with a majority of Muslims in the world today. Your complaint is against Wahhabism, not Islam.

      1. Diane, I understand what you are trying to say, but perhaps the way you say needs a bit of adjustment. Your statement places Islam at the center of things seemingly claiming that development would not have occurred without it. That is not true. Islam was an influence, one of many. It served an important historical role, but was not the progenitor of all development including the United States of America. Any change in history can alter events so that future events are not the same. The world developed before Islam and would have developed without Islam ever existing. As an example Islam did not exist when other great movements of western civilization occurred (Note Romans and Greeks) .

        I want to add that during the first 400 years of Islam independent judgement was expressed to a greater extent and appeared to be more flexible and inclusive. That seemed to end shortly after the turn of the millennia with the closing of the “Gates of Itjihad” (critical thinking and independent judgement”)

          1. “ I exaggerated my point in the same way that Malcolm exaggerated his.”

            Diane, Are we now in the business of figuring out if someone is exaggerating or not?

            I don’t know that Malcolm was exaggerating. His position is similar to the position of some scholars who have studied Islam and can explain, based upon text and fact, why they believe their position is correct,

            Even if one adjusts for exaggeration I would not accept your reply to Malcolm as an enlightened response.

  2. Shahidan Kassim: “The (Federal Constitution) does not mention atheists. It goes against the Constitution and human rights. . . . I suggest that we hunt them down vehemently and we ask for help to identify these groups.”

    This is what happens when a Constitution is used for ideological purposes or is poorly written. Thankfully our own Constitution is a well written document that unfortunately all too many wish to change for ideological purposes. Is this what those people wish?

    Apparently that is the case for many Americans today and can be seen as they follow and applaud Linda Sansour who pushes for Sharia Law.

    1. Our constitution is elegantly composed compared to (say) the French constitution. It’s not particularly ‘well-written’ and has a number of shortcomings. Texts which are group efforts commonly do.

  3. I am not sure the gentleman is Constitutionally correct. The Constitution does not seem to mention a lot of religions, his could be next.

  4. Get the ACLU to sue. Don’t they usually step up and sue on behalf of atheists and terrorists.

    1. waltern

      This “call” is a tactic to keep the focus off unpleasant matters such as the spectacular financial corruption of the 1% and possible involvement by the government in the death of Kim Jong-um’s brother. Most world leaders do similar things to “influence” media and citizens to “look! over there, behind that tree”.

      1. Bill, to which government do you refer when you write of “possible involvement by the government in the death of Kim Jung Un’s brother,” or uncle, for that matter?

    2. Malaysia’s a multi-ethnic and multi-religious society. Muslims form a slight majority and Malay form a slight majority. The minority population is largely Chinese and East Indian, with a scatter of others.

  5. A few days ago here in the Twin Cities there was an alleged pipe bombing of a Somali mosque. For me, there are a few flags that tell me this might have been self inflicted to get media attention. And it certainly has gotten that. The FBI is investigating. We’ll see.

      1. That is certainly the pathology. There’s no video, the timing is suspect, and a witness saw the bomber leave in a pickup truck, the ultimate stereotype. This pickup must have had a gun rack and confederate flag as well!!

      2. mespo727272

        You have to understand that the ‘gumshoe’ has the most extensive knowledge of everything criminal. He also knows all about BBQ, and just about everything else. He’ll tell you all about it.

  6. The big question here is when to the level headed muslims start stating that these mutts are not true muslims? The religion has to police itself. I think the word is anathema. As a ‘Whatifer’ (I belong to the cult of ‘What if there is a god?’-we can not describe our religion in any more detail than that.), can I go to these backward places and have rights?

    1. Malaysia is generally hospitable to the tourist trade, Isaac. But the folks in Singapore might cane you for being a Whatifer.

  7. America is the home to a huge opioid epidemic. These pills kill. Religion is the opioid of the people. Religion kills. We need to wipe out opioid pills and wipe out religion. Doctors who prescribe and pharmacists who provide need to go too. With religion start with the speakers and preachers- particularly those dressed in the zeut suits. We need to do this in the name of God. Or Gott. Dogs are not involved.
    Those who can do.
    Those who can’t teach.
    Those who can’t teach, teach preachers.
    Those who preach need to go. Straight to hell.

    1. People need consecrated weddings and consecrated funerals. Try wiping those out and you’ll go the way of The Bhuddists in India.

  8. Every once in while a politician comes around & picks on someone or something.

    Take a guy like Pol Pot, a Cambodian politician who led the Khmer Rouge revolution.
    These guys can give grave diggers a lot of work plus overtime.

    In all, an estimated 1 to 3 million people (out of a population of slightly over 8 million) perished as a result of the Pol Pot policies of his four-year premiership.

  9. The first thing The Nazis did when they came to power was to outlaw The Free-Thinkers, which is what German Atheists called themselves. The second thing The Nazis did was to outlaw secular education by making Christian religious education mandatory. There were three kinds allowed: Protestant, Catholic and Positive Christianity–(The Nazi’s mythical revision of Jesus as an Aryan freedom fighter).

    Darren is right; humankind has been down this road far too many times before.

    1. Diane

      Jesus was a freedom fighter, sh*t disturber, and one in a long line of freedom fighter/sh*t disturbers. He just happened to be coming along at the right time for some guys who saw an opportunity and took it; kind of like Trump, to some.

      1. You’re hopelessly addicted to persnickety sticklerism; aren’t you, DSS? Fine then, the first thing the Nazis did was burn down The Reichstag. The second thing the Nazis did was declare a national state of emergency because “somebody” had burnt down The Reichstag. And then they outlawed The Free Thinkers a few days later; and it was almost two weeks before they assuaged The Pope with mandatory Christian religious schools .

        Now hear this: DSS had damned well better not be another Nazi apologist like Lynette.

        1. Diane – the Nazis did NOT burn down the Reichstag, some nice little Communist did it. They did take advantage of it.

        2. You’re hopelessly addicted to persnickety sticklerism; aren’t you, DSS?

          No, you’re wrong, all the time and about everything. You also just have to have the last word, like someone’s difficult and shrewish wife.

            1. I will not be corrected by Nazi apologists. You cannot possibly be serious about communists burning down The Reichstag. And you cannot seriously deny that The Nazis outlawed The Free Thinkers and made Christian education mandatory simply because it wasn’t the first and second things they did. Get used to the virago routine.

              1. Diane – you need to read some history. A communist was caught inside the Reichstag by the fire brigade and admitted to starting the fires. They did not beat a confession out of him. I do not care who you read, it is going to be the same communist caught by the fire brigade.

                1. Paul, Marinus van der Lubbe, (or whatever his name was), was not a communist. The communists accused of the arson were acquitted at trial due to alibis, lack of evidence and Marinus van der Whatshisname’s claim that he had acted alone. The jury is still out on Nazi complicity with the Reichstag fire. But there would have been no Enabling Act without the Reichstag fire. So why apologize for them, Paul?

                  1. Diane – van der Lubbe was a Communist and was convicted, there was a supposed co-conspirator who was acquited.

                    1. mespo – I would posit he was a successful arsonist, just because of the damage of the fire. He was an unsuccessful criminal in that he got caught during the act.

              2. This is an interesting conversation. Was anyone proven guilty of starting the fire? If there is no real evidence to prove an individual guilty then how could anyone know whether the person was a communist or a Nazi? Either way that individual worked in a way to satisfy Hitler’s desires. I conclude that it was Hitler using the fire as a ruse so that he could garner more power. That is how the Nazi party manipulated the people early on.

                I don’t think there is a definitive answer. The newsmedia in the US, at the time, blamed the fire on the communists. But, we all know that the news media has a tendency to editorialize and thereby alters historical fact. It would be better if the news media only reported the facts and left it up to the op-ed page to interpret them.

                1. Thanks again, Allan. The evidence of van der Lubbe’s status as a communist comes from two sources: The Nazis, themselves, and Wikipedia (schmikipedia). Wikipedia routinely presumes all labor activists, such as van der Lubbe, to have been card-carrying members of this or that communist party. They are wrong. And they know it. And they don’t care about knowingly being wrong. But the misidentification gets repeated often enough that Schmikipedia can cite numerous sources to back it up. That, too, is how propaganda works.

                  1. Diane, though it may be good for a quick reference, I wouldn’t use Wikipedia to draw any conclusions. It is frequently written in a way that emphasizes some facts while forgetting others sometimes acting more as an op-ed page than an encyclopedia. You are right, the citations frequently can be circuitous and lead to the same primary source which may have had no basis to begin with. As you say, that does lead to propaganda which isn’t necessarily a good or bad thing, only that it leads to false impressions of fact.

                    1. D. Bugliosi (Diane?) I should have added that the answer to this question is unimportant for van der Lubbe satisfied a need of Hitler and gave him an opportunity which he took. We have to remember that others that were accused were found not guilty. Then we have to recall that this was not the first time van der Lubbe committed arson and to another independent crime he pled guilty wishing to assume all responsibility and to accept all punishment. He strikes me as a very useful pawn so one should consider the question as to whether he was a communist or a Nazi agent even after the fact. (NAZI = National SOCIALIST). I am not even considering the questions of a fair trial or a compromised intellect.

                    2. allan – van der Lubbe got a fair trial, as did his alleged co-conspirator. This enraged Hitler and when he took over, he took control of the judiciary. There would no longer be fair trials, unless Hitler allowed it.

                    3. allan – current studies have shown you have a 50/50 shot of getting correct information from a Wikipedia article. It is better to try the Catholic Encyclopedia, which surprisingly enough, is relatively neutral.

                    4. “allan – van der Lubbe got a fair trial, as did his alleged co-conspirator. This enraged Hitler and when he took over, he took control of the judiciary. ”

                      Paul see my earlier response at the top of the list not down here. This is exactly what Hitler wanted. That he may have been enraged made for good theater. Shirer contradicts most of what you say about this affair. Is Shirer correct? I don’t know. I am not an historian. The quotes (way above) demostrate the fire was orchestrated by the Nazi’s.

                    5. allan – again, I will stand by my early response to your kind response. I think Shirer is making an educated guess. There was never any evidence to back up the claims that the Nazis did it. Historians are on both sides of this. I go with the side with evidence. They caught van der Lubbe red-handed setting fire to the place. If you are familiar with theatre fires, you are aware how fast fabric burns and the fire spreads. A single person was capable of doing all that damage. He was lucky he got out alive.

                      It is convenient to blame it on the Nazis, because they took immediate advantage of it. However, it is like saying Bush is responsible for Katrina.

                    6. ” I think Shirer is making an educated guess. ”

                      Show me an authority, an historian, that disputes Shirers statements and quote the actual statements along with a citation. Everyone hedges their bets a trifle because a feeble man who earlier pled guilty to another offense ended up being found guilty during uncertain times that so happened to benefit the Nazi’s.

                      I think you have a hard time accepting a truth that is different than what you wish to believe otherwise you would have accepted that your statements were likely erroneous when you found out that your citation, Shirer, proved you wrong. If, as you suggest, this was merely an educated guess without facts and circumstances backing him up do you think Shirer would have said what he did? Absolutely not. He is a superb historian.

                      “A single person was capable of doing all that damage. He was lucky he got out alive.”

                      He got out alive of a very big fire and that by itself, considering he was feeble minded and not very apt, might indicate what Shirer writes. But, then you tell me “If you are familiar with theatre fires, you are aware how fast fabric burns and the fire spreads.” as if you have more familiarity than I. Are you a detective or firefighter that investigates arson? Are you a scientist that has calculated the rate the fire would likely burn? What are your credentials for you to make a statement like that? You already made a statement of expertise about what Shirer said and he contradicted you.

                    7. allan – Shirer both agreed and disagreed with me. However. I do know quite a bit about theatre fires and I know what caused many of them. A building like the Reichstag is like a theatre and prone to the same problems. I doubt that Shirer knew as much as I know. Nothing was fire-proofed.

                    8. “allan – Shirer both agreed and disagreed with me. However. I do know quite a bit about theatre fires and I know what caused many of them. A building like the Reichstag is like a theatre”

                      Paul, I don’t think Shirer agreed with much of anything you said. In fact his conclusion was quite the opposite of yours as was his evidence. If you wish to go sentence by sentence comparing what you wrote to what he wrote I will be glad to do so. Your basic agreement was that there was a fire at the Reichstag and that Lubbe existed, was likely a communist and was convicted. Unfortunately you differ in that you blame the communists and he blames the Nazi’s. You think the trial was fair. I don’t know what in your mind costitutes fair. Shirer thinks the Nazi’s encouraged him and doesn’t think he was a proficient enough arsonist. Because of how detailed Shirer was I believe he probably knows a lot more than you do about how a fire would spread at the Reichstag.

                      Let me hear your credentials with regard to arson and some citations. Can you tell me all the dimensions of the Reichstag along with its position and airflow? Do you know what the walls were made of and which part burned first? Do you know what Lubbe used to start a fire? Do you know what he had access to, could afford, could carry? I hate to say this, but I sincerely doubt your epertise.

                    9. “sorry it has taken so long to respond. ”

                      Paul, I don’t think it adds much to what as already been stated. See my response to Diane about her article which added a different side in some detail.

                      I am a great believer in ‘if it isn’t logical suspect it isn’t true’ and a believer in incentives. So there was a lot of reason for a lot of people to lie about the incident.

                  2. Diane – if you want evidence read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. I did. I did not even have to look at Wikipedia. There are newer authors but not newer information.

                    1. Paul, I read Shirer long ago. It’s still on the bookshelf. If you want someone to back your position read AJP Taylor’s article “Who burnt The Reichstag? The Story of a Legend.”


                      I’m old. I don’t do links. BTW, Taylor claims van der Lubbe was a socialist based on work by Tobias who was a Social Democrat and Mommsen whose political affinity was not mentioned..

                2. Allan, I appreciate your effort. But Shirer was still too close to the events at issue when he published Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Not only did the fall of communism in the Soviet Union lead to a significant increase in the number of nation-states recognized by The United Nations, but it unleashed a veritable deluge of suppressed histories and counter-histories both eristic and apologetic, alike. It’s still going on, Allan. We’re all up to our eyeballs in it. Caution is urged. For instance, it’s entirely possible that Paul is not apologizing for The Nazis. If so, then I’m going to have to apologize to him. O bother.

                  P.S. Read the link I put on my reply to Paul. AJP Taylor used to hew to Shirer’s view.

                  1. “But Shirer was still too close to the events at issue ”

                    Diane, Be careful of falling into the trap of excessive hubris. The statement you made is easy to say, but “too close” infers that Shirer’s interpretation of events didn’t permit him to adequately evaluate the situation. You have no proof of that and I think it is an errant statement absent proof.

                    I scanned your http, but I have put too much time into copying sections of the Rise and Fall… for Paul and do not feel the desire to do the same for you so I will have to discuss things based upon my memory which can be faulty since I read all of this years ago probably in a similar time frame to when Paul read it. My disagreement with Paul is not his belief in his conclusion, rather his attempt to use Shirer as his proof when Shirer proves him wrong.

                    The first words of Shirer I copied were, “The whole truth about the Reichstag fire will probably never be known.” That leaves plenty of doubt in anyone’s mind including my own, but if I had to choose a side I would choose Shirer’s and I believe many others would as well.

                    On scanning your http I noted that this historian relied greatly upon another individual’s research. I am not sure, but he mentions a man by the name of Tobias. In prior years I became aware of an alternative theory and whether that theory came from this man I do not know, but what I understand is that the alternate theory came from an individual with very little education who likely served in the Nazi forces and may have been connected to the Gestapo. Many of the people involved were very strong supporters of the Nazi “religion” so I have to always worry about their veracity and thus if your author relied too strongly upon this man then I have to worry about his veracity as well. Much of the investigation took place after the war and one has to consider the fact that many former Nazi’s were in the German government at that time. All of these things put together make it difficult to pick our truth from propaganda. I also recall (remember, this is old memory) that the origins of the fire were many according to, I think, the fire department at the time. This points to a conclusion that Lubbe was not alone.

                    An interesting thing for Turley to do as an aside would be to take a whole bunch of students to have a mock trial to determine what the truth really is. I would take Shirer’s position and you and Paul could take the alternative theory. 🙂

                    1. allan – evidently, no one has been reading my comments carefully. I walked back my original statement about Shirer. However, I am not far enough along to accept a group of Nazis breaking into the Reichstag and starting a fire. I will again say that Shirer was making an educated guess, albeit an incorrect one, about the Nazis and the Reichstag. And I have given you supportive proof of others who feels the same way I do.

                    2. Paul, I have read your comments and think I have acknowledged them, but if you think differently why not quote what you said that wasn’t adequately responded to.

                      I have no problem accepting that there are alternate opinions of the cause of the fire. Shirer right up front says no one can be sure so he leaves room for those alternate opinions as a possibility as well.

                      My only objection is your assumption of moral authority by emphatically stating that you read The Rise and Fall… and it agreed with your scenario. It turns out it didn’t agree, but by hedging you continued to cloud what was authoritatively stated. Even now you state Shirer’s was an educated guess as if any other scenario isn’t a guess as well and then stating that it is an incorrect guess instead of your preferred preference for another scenario. I don’t place your opinion in the same league as Shirer. You continue to have great desire in holding onto your “moral authority” as an expert when you aren’t one.

                      “ I have given you supportive proof of others who feels the same way I do.” No one doubted that alternative opinions existed, neither I nor Shirer as quoted directly from his book. Your problem was that you quoted the wrong source, were too attached to your own beliefs to recognize your choice was wrong and didn’t come up with a satisfactory alternative until Diane provided one.

                    3. allan – because of the way this blog works with my email, I sent mine before I saw Diane’s

                    4. Allan, the alternate theory to which you alluded was not Tobias’s theory. However, Tobias rebutted the theory that Karl Ernst and the Brownshirts did it–as was discussed in Taylor’s article. Tobias was a Social Democrat who had no connection to the Nazis; and, therefore, he was one of the people least likely to apologize for The Nazis.

                      Be advised, Allan, The Nazis were not the only ones to take advantage of The Reichstag Fire. The Communists [the real ones] fabricated “evidence” implicating The Nazis for the fire. The whole thing remains a bloody mess even to this late day and age.

                    5. Diane, I only scanned your article so I am open to correction. The historian responsible for your posting relied upon another who I assume was Tobias. I don’t think I said anything about Tobias rather I had remembered an alternate theory that relied upon a man who was in the Nazi army and who may have been a Gestapo. That man I believe was uneducated etc. (see my posting above. I question reliability of those that have incentives to protect something they believed in deeply) I also said that a lot of the administration of Germany post war had a lot of Nazi’s in it. That man may have been Tobias and I was concerned if the historian placed too much faith in these individuals.

                      So to straighten this out can you tell me exactly who Tobias was..person, time and place.

                      I am sure that both the Nazi’s and Communists both pushed their desired side of the story that makes things very difficult to sort out.

                      Paul, yes the blog is difficult to use and likely could be improved upon.

      2. DSS, the attempted Nazification of German religious schools did not make those schools secular instead of religious. There were no secular schools allowed in The Third Reich–only religious ones. Although, admittedly, your irrelevant observation does not apologize for Nazism–it apologizes for Christianity, instead.

    2. I don’t know the first thing the Nazi’s did for generally a movement moves in multiple fashions so such a determination is based upon the perception of the individual. That is of course unless Hitler provided a list, number 1, 2 and so on.

      Hitler was a bit fixated on religious imagry. “The fall of man in paradise has always been followed by his expulsion from it” and desired to abolish the individual turning individuals into a singular mind where reason was put to sleep permitting the monster, Hitler, to exist.

      1. I agree, Allan. And Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot and whole host of others were monsters as well. They keep coming down the turnpike one after another. The historical process of decolonization that began on July 4th 1776 was supposed to bring an end to it someday. But there’s too much unfinished business leftover. One cannot mention the Nazis without stepping in a big stinking pile of such unfinished business. Which is how Sqeeky got me started on it. So I’m one too. No. Not a monster. A big stinking pile of unfinished business.

        1. I am not certain of the origin of this train of thought that starts way above, Diane, but my point here was to point out a type of religiosity Hitler fixated on in his attempt to change the individual into one mindset. I am not sure if I would characterize the other dictators in the same fashion. But the important thing for us is that we are all individuals in this nation and we should keep it that way hoping that similar tactics used by the Nazi’s are not used here to push the people into one mindset. PC thinking does just that and some of the intense dislike of many on the blog towards Turley’s legal statements in favor of Trump sound like a one mindset mind.

          1. Allan, you could characterize Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Hitler as totalitarian; and the reduction of individuals into lumpen masses obedient to a single-minded will is a key feature that all totalitarian regimes have shared. The ideological difference between Fascism versus Communism fails to get around the totalitarian nature that they had in common.

            1. Yes, Diane, all of them can be considered of a totalitarian mindset just like many those on the left in the United States today (to which can be added some on the extreme right though presently to a much lesser extent.). It’s hard for a nation not to be totalitarian. The US has a Constitution that protects us as long as the people value it, but as we have been seeing in recent times some segments of our nation do not believe in it like they should especially Freedom of Speech which is one of the features in the Bill of Rights written to protect the individual.

              1. It’s hard for a nation not to be totalitarian.

                1. No it’s not.

                2. The antifa crew have no conception of dialogue outside stupid little hothouse zones. They’re not Joseph Stalin.

                The US has a Constitution that protects us as long as the people value it,

                3. Legal-formal institutions are less consequential than the properties of societies and cultures in maintaining an electoral and deliberative order.

                1. The antifa crew are not Joseph Stalin but they inadvertantly help open the doors.

                  Telll us DSS why so many nations in the world are totalitarian if it you disagree with the statement “It’s hard for a nation not to be totalitarian.”.

                  Absolutely the properties of society are very important and our founding fathers warned us of that, but as I say above many people don’t have the belief they should in the value of the Constitution and thereby have the ability to destroy it. At that time, should it happen, the properties of our society will make a choice of what type of government they want. The left seems to push for only one vision rather than a multiplicity. One vision can end up being totalitarian.

  10. I am Malaysian. This is absurd and truly worrying for the minorities like us, who aren’t Muslims. We live in harmony with everyone, but as long as there are political figures who make such claims, it only makes one wonder how long can harmony survive. It is really sad that governance is going back to being – somewhat strictly – based on religion in today’s

    1. *today’s world. Issues like these have never been made into such a big thing, until today. This is just one of the things the government is trying to eradicate.

  11. I don’t think that Roy Moore has ever called for atheists to be hunted down, but doing that when you are a judge is a bit awkward. If he becomes a US Senator, however, you never know what might happen.

    1. You are an idiot. The only senators that can change things are maine and alaska….moore if elected will be mere one side of a grain of sand….as irrelavant as anyone from we the people.

      1. And you need to look in the mirror before using the word “idiot “. The possibility I was referring to was that he might call for atheists to be hunted down, just like this Malaysian Minister.

        Of course, there is a whole movement out there that wants to return to the days when Senators were appointed by the state legislators. If that happens the Senate could be well populated with people like Roy Moore. Take a look at who controls the state legislatures.

  12. Here are some pertinent parts of the Malaysia Constitution:

    Article II

    8. (1) All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.
    2) E Except as expressly authorized by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion, race, descent, place of birth or gender in any law or in the appointment to any office or employment under a public authority or in the administration of any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.

    Freedom of speech, assembly and association
    10. (1) Subject to Clauses (2), (3) and (4)— (a) [Not applicable to this discussion] every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression;
    (b) all citizens have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms; (c) all citizens have the right to form associations.

    Freedom of religion
    11. (1) E Every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it.
    N No
    person shall be compelled to pay any tax the proceeds of which are specially allocated in whole or in part for the purposes of a religion other than his own.

    E Every
    religious group has the right— (a) to manage its own religious affairs; (b) to establish and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes; and (c) to acquire and own property and hold and administer it in accordance with law.
    4) State law and in respect of the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya, federal law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam. [that’s a bit unsettling]
    5) T This Article does not authorize any act contrary to any general law relating to public order, public health or morality.

    Rights in respect of education
    12. (1) W Without prejudice to the generality of Article 8, there shall be no discrimination against any citizen on the grounds only of religion, race, descent or place of birth—

    N No person shall be required to receive instruction in or to take part in any ceremony or act of worship of a religion other than his own.


    The Minister’s interpretation of the constitution hinges completely on accepting the notion that since Atheism is not specifically mentioned, that Atheists are not subject to the constitution. This is a long stretch. In fact, he seems to have missed the part where no person should be forced to accept a change to a religion or be impressed into a religious school.

    Yet what we have seen much in the past is when a person or group of people is declared to be unprotected by a nation’s constitution, it nearly always follows that oppression will occur. It is a form of de-humanizing a person in order to take them away easily.

    1. Entrenched clauses in your constitution are dead-letters if you’ve an unprofessional judiciary. In the United States, the judiciary’s a fraud.

  13. Religion is tyranny and the source of totalitarianism.

    And this story isn’t breathtaking. It’s typical.

    1. Dave137, you’ve overstated your case. The Soviet Union was a totalitarian state. It confiscated church property, prohibited the use of churches for religious services, forced priests to administer sacraments on a door-to-door basis, sent priests to forced labor camps if they were caught with bibles, crucifixes or rosaries and, worst of all, left a great many priests out in the cold without food to perish from hypothermia during the harsh Russian winters. And then there’s The People’s Republic of China with their forced re-education camps. Oy geveldt!

      Religion is not the only source of tyranny. Humankind is. And atheists such as you and I are human, too.

    2. Dave, the lack of religion leaves open the accptance of new types of religion that preach indifference towards others. Thus a lack of religion can open up the possibility that religion is replaced by government, dictators, etc. Look at the old Soviet Union and look at N. Korea.

      I am not saying that religion is a cure for these problems, rather that religion can fill a gap and can promote the moral type of thinking we all strive for.

    3. Religion is tyranny and the source of totalitarianism.

      I cannot figure out whether you’ve gone through your life uncorrected for uttering whatever nonsense appeared in the space between your ears or if the space between your ears is deprived of any gray matter.

    1. True enough, but hopefully in several hundred years we will never know such hardships. It is wishful thinking, certainly. But as long as kings, despots and political elites exist ordinary people will continue to be subjugated or worse.

      1. When I was younger, I thought the same way. Humans will some day be intelligent enough to break fee of all divisive thought and cruel actions. But today education is being dismantled, politics are a tool to divide, and bigotry has reared its ugly head higher than acceptance. What a shame.

    2. Where is there evidence that Malaysian women are especially ‘fearful’?

      BTW, Malay society is matrilineal.

Comments are closed.