FRIHOST • FORUMS • SEARCH • FAQ • TOS • BLOGS • DIRECTORY
You are invited to Log in or Register a Frihost Account!

So much for freedom of religion

   Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News
 


paul_indo
Jakarta Post 11 Nov 07

Quote:
Sect member sentenced to three years

Mustaqim Adamrah, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

The Supreme Court has sentenced senior member of the Lia Eden sect Abdul Rachman to three years in prison for blasphemy, a Jakarta Legal Aid Institute representative said.

Hermawanto, a lawyer from the institute working on Abdul's case, said his team was informed of the verdict by the Supreme Court on Friday.

"The Supreme Court said in its verdict an earlier Central Jakarta District Court ruling was annulled and the defendant was guilty of blasphemy," he said.

"Abdul was sentenced to three years imprisonment."

Abdul is second in command in the Lia Eden sect, otherwise known as the Kingdom of God, and claims to be the reincarnation of the Prophet Muhammad.

Supreme Court spokesperson Joko Sarwoko was unavailable for comment.

A written statement regarding the verdict from the Lia Eden community was released to the press Saturday.

"We were told by our lawyer yesterday that the Supreme Court granted the appeal made by the Jakarta Prosecutor's Office," the statement read.

Hermawanto said the Central Jakarta District Court acquitted Abdul of all charges brought against him by the Jakarta Prosecutor's Office late last year, including charges of blasphemy and igniting public hostility.

Hermawanto said the institute would study the verdict and appeal to the Supreme Court.

"We're still studying the verdict and preparing a case review as well as waiting for legal submissions from a number of coalitions concerned with pluralism," he said.

On Oct. 30, the sect's leader Lia Eden, also known as Lia Aminuddin, was released from the Pondok Bambu penitentiary after serving a two-year sentence for blasphemy.

Lia, who claims to be both the Angel Gabriel and the reincarnation of the Virgin Mary, said she would continue her teachings despite warnings.

"I received more of God's messages while I was in prison. I'll write them down and share them with the people," she said.


Why is islam so worried about what people people think? The leaders appear very fearful of loosing their hold over their followers. This makes me believe it is a very weak religion and it's leaders appear weak minded.
Sphaerenkern
Oh man, welcome to the middle ages Confused
It actually seems very weak. I mean, if I were, for example, a Christ (it's not about "Christianity is better than Islam" but I have not really a big idea of the Islam) and someone said "Hey, I'm the reincarnation of Jesus, Judas, the Virgin Mary, Moses and Isaac", I won't believe him anyway, so why should he be punished for that...
liljp617
-.- Source?
AftershockVibe
liljp617 wrote:
-.- Source?


Jakarta Post 11 Nov 07. As stated in the original post!

Would have been nice to have a link though:
http://www.thejakartapost.com/yesterdaydetail.asp?fileid=20071111.@02

However, given the URL it might be that the website doesn't allow that kind of thing (will "yesterday" be correct when the clock ticks over?)
liljp617
Might as well get your news from the black and white magazines in the grocery store checkout lane Wink
jwellsy
Are there any legal rights to religious freedom in that country?
Soulfire
What we need is freedom from religion.
Tim Graham
jwellsy wrote:
Are there any legal rights to religious freedom in that country?
What they have is the Pancasila - a system which conveniently outlaws communism by stating that everyone (under the consitution) must have a belief in God. This means that Islam is OK, and so is Christianity as well as (through a somewhat obtuse interpretation) Hinduism and Buddhism.

It also means you can't be atheist, or follow most polytheistic religions - so for legal reasons there are quite a large number of people who identify as Muslim or Christian when they're really neither. So in other words not really - probably more choice than freedom.
ThePolemistis
If the world had democracy, it would be much better. Democracy in the sense that it is voted by the people, not for instance by American in Iraq.

With democracy, it will give ppl what they want to believe in. Everyone has a right to their belief, but no one has a right to interfere with someone elses belief.
fx-trading-education
Sphaerenkern wrote:
Oh man, welcome to the middle ages Confused
It actually seems very weak. I mean, if I were, for example, a Christ (it's not about "Christianity is better than Islam" but I have not really a big idea of the Islam) and someone said "Hey, I'm the reincarnation of Jesus, Judas, the Virgin Mary, Moses and Isaac", I won't believe him anyway, so why should he be punished for that...


The guy would better have his place in a hospital for mad people rather than in jail.
fx-trading-education
ThePolemistis wrote:
If the world had democracy, it would be much better. Democracy in the sense that it is voted by the people, not for instance by American in Iraq.

With democracy, it will give ppl what they want to believe in. Everyone has a right to their belief, but no one has a right to interfere with someone elses belief.


The problem may be to define "intefere" because people who are recruiting for their own religion are clearly interfering, trying to convince others. So that should be forbidden as well.
Moonspider
fx-trading-education wrote:
ThePolemistis wrote:
If the world had democracy, it would be much better. Democracy in the sense that it is voted by the people, not for instance by American in Iraq.

With democracy, it will give ppl what they want to believe in. Everyone has a right to their belief, but no one has a right to interfere with someone elses belief.


The problem may be to define "intefere" because people who are recruiting for their own religion are clearly interfering, trying to convince others. So that should be forbidden as well.


I assume that what he meant by "interfere" is government interference. The government can't forbid people who practice a religion from proselytizing if it is part of their religion, as you would like, because that is interference.

Respectfully,
M
ThePolemistis
Moonspider wrote:
fx-trading-education wrote:
ThePolemistis wrote:
If the world had democracy, it would be much better. Democracy in the sense that it is voted by the people, not for instance by American in Iraq.

With democracy, it will give ppl what they want to believe in. Everyone has a right to their belief, but no one has a right to interfere with someone elses belief.


The problem may be to define "intefere" because people who are recruiting for their own religion are clearly interfering, trying to convince others. So that should be forbidden as well.


I assume that what he meant by "interfere" is government interference. The government can't forbid people who practice a religion from proselytizing if it is part of their religion, as you would like, because that is interference.

Respectfully,
M


Precisely, Moonspider is right once again Razz the government, or any political/military force must not interfere.

People conveying the message of any religion is okay so long as they do not go about it forcefully. All religions convey peace and try to install peace on the land. Sometimes of course, u need to fight evil to bring peace. But that should be to bring peace, and not necessarily one religions set of rules.

We are all children of Adam, and we should remember that when we goto war.
liljp617
ThePolemistis wrote:
If the world had democracy, it would be much better. Democracy in the sense that it is voted by the people, not for instance by American in Iraq.

With democracy, it will give ppl what they want to believe in. Everyone has a right to their belief, but no one has a right to interfere with someone elses belief.

If you knew what a true democracy was you wouldn't say that. No country flourishes under a true democracy.
ThePolemistis
liljp617 wrote:
ThePolemistis wrote:
If the world had democracy, it would be much better. Democracy in the sense that it is voted by the people, not for instance by American in Iraq.

With democracy, it will give ppl what they want to believe in. Everyone has a right to their belief, but no one has a right to interfere with someone elses belief.

If you knew what a true democracy was you wouldn't say that. No country flourishes under a true democracy.


I would disagree, but I do take account that there are different levels of democracy. Any extreme level, like with any other thing, is harmful. Too much democracy and too litlle democracy are both harmful.

But in my belief to establish true (not extreme) democracy, it begins with the media. The media must either be in private hands or, if funded by government, must have an independant voice (best example being the BBC, but private hands is prefereable). It would also be better if the private media are also independant of any party, but this is not imperative, as they may like one political policies over the other, but this affiliation should not be because of generous money donated by the party to the media station.
No media should be restricted from criticising the government at any time.

If we have this, then our leaders will never oppress our people, and would limit their oppresion on other nations.
fx-trading-education
Moonspider wrote:
fx-trading-education wrote:
ThePolemistis wrote:
If the world had democracy, it would be much better. Democracy in the sense that it is voted by the people, not for instance by American in Iraq.

With democracy, it will give ppl what they want to believe in. Everyone has a right to their belief, but no one has a right to interfere with someone elses belief.


The problem may be to define "intefere" because people who are recruiting for their own religion are clearly interfering, trying to convince others. So that should be forbidden as well.


I assume that what he meant by "interfere" is government interference. The government can't forbid people who practice a religion from proselytizing if it is part of their religion, as you would like, because that is interference.

Respectfully,
M


I think that it is the duty of the government to protect people. So they have to protect people against agressive religious people who want to convert them (usually only in order to take their money).
If we would say that the government cannot forbid things because they are part of a religion it would be the total chaos because you can put everything you want inside what is considered a religion.
for instance there are many different interpretations of the "holy books" of the major religions, so you can imagine what could happen with small ones. So after you can just interpret it your own way and then it cannot be forbiden because it is part of your religion. (I will just make my own where I am allowed to do everything I want Smile )
And if people figth about their religion , shouldn't you "intefere".
smarter
fx-trading-education wrote:
I think that it is the duty of the government to protect people. So they have to protect people against agressive religious people who want to convert them (usually only in order to take their money).


Wow! Did somebody put a gun to your head and demanded you to convert to his religion?

Quote:
If we would say that the government cannot forbid things because they are part of a religion it would be the total chaos because you can put everything you want inside what is considered a religion. for instance there are many different interpretations of the "holy books" of the major religions, so you can imagine what could happen with small ones. So after you can just interpret it your own way and then it cannot be forbiden because it is part of your religion. (I will just make my own where I am allowed to do everything I want Smile )


Nobody said that. Government interference means government's support/favor for a particular religion.

While usually there's no problem as regards the religious BELIEFS, some religious PRACTICES can be against the laws (of the state).

For illustrating purposes:
-Somebody worships Satan. No law can deny this guy his right to believe in and worship Satan.
-Let's suppose his religion requires to sacrifice a small child once a year. In this case the government would deny/severely punish such a practice not because the government is against Satanism but because to kill somebody is a violation of the supreme human right: the right to life.

Quote:

And if people figth about their religion , shouldn't you "intefere".


No!


Let's return to the topic:
It's no surprise that in third world countries an individual's rights are denied on the grounds of a group's "right". They have no clue about democracy. They see it as a European thing imposed on them.

What's worse the American-style of democracy which recognizes collective rights has already eliminated the European-style democracy. Now we have abominations like women rights, minority rights and even animal rights (special rights for these groups). Rights belong to an individual never to a group!
fx-trading-education
smarter wrote:
fx-trading-education wrote:

And if people figth about their religion , shouldn't you "intefere".


No!


Hum interesting !

You should move to some countries were people are killing each other because of their religion.

Or when people from one side massacre people from the other side.

No intervention is like assistance to massacre.
HollyK
I think the government and religion must remain separated. Combining the two is unstable, and a recipe for unrest. I think people should be free to believe in whatever they believe in, and be allowed to practice it IF it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. Many of the world's problems are caused by people not respecting each other's beliefs.
Recently, the interfaith group AAIM (Composed of multiple religions. The group includes Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, and Atheist people) booked a church gym for an annual interfaith meeting. The church canceled the rental after they saw that a Muslim group was cohosting the event. AAIM scrambled to find a new location, and a Jewish congregation opened their doors, even opened a side chapel for Muslim evening prayer and an area in the front to allow them to pray in the traditional manner. (Source: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/casey/5318510.html )
Related topics

Homosexuality, is it biologically natural?
Is Islam really a menace?
Why I hate Christianity so much. Reader disgretion advised,
Islamic claims of world rule
Join the fight against right wing hate radio!
[Official] God
Master Lockwolf 3.2
The Average Age Here?
Federal 'Hate Crimes' Bill Threatens Religious Freedoms
islam is...
science vs. religion
Fanfiction
religion issues
Intelligent Design?Or Evolution?
Anyone make their own RPGs?
NATO in final stages of prepping for strikes against Iran
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2007 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.