just minishorts.

Its probably obvious that I absolutely hate idiotic statements that keep appearing in our major papers these days. It really does seem as if in recent months, there are so many more important, supposedly learned, educated LEADERS, mind you, who make their thought-out opinions open, and in the process, pulling down the rules and deeds required by their religious background as a basis for such idiosyncratic releases.

Encik Abu Bakar, your statement just means that you agree that men, in the presence of a woman, cannot be blamed if they start to think with their dicks instead of their heads, and in that sense, a deviation from their normal duty is perfectly normal, valid, and accounted for. 'He can't help it, it's the woman's fault.'

When you talk like that, you're also saying in other words, if you fail miserably in your job, you're probably distracted because there is the presence of a pretty lady… oh of course you'll blame it on the woman's leg, but what if she was covered, wearing normal slacks, and cover tops, and all.. but what if the guy instead of filming the council's precedings, was filming the lady's face instead?

Are you going to come back and say, 'Oh its because she'a pretty, her fault lah, should have covered up her face.'

And then so many of my friends have said its because he's so devout he goes blindly but such Islamic requirements of women covering up, and he applies it to all areas of his life.

Bullocks okay? Don't blame it on the religious rules. Technically such rules do not have to exist if we were really moving in a collective towards civilization.

The idea of a utopian society is that human beings will have so much love and adoration of all things, all human beings, all animals, that there will be no need for rules anymore because 'self-control' will not have to be induced or affected by the placement of regulations. Peace will exist in its natural state, not because there are rules to help ensure its existence. That's when we will call that Utopia 'Heaven' on Earth.

And all over the world, nations make and pass law after law in evolving efforts to mimick the existence of a local utopia. Unfortunately for us, mankind's penchant for sin is so uncontrollable that we turn our backs on the rules we have (some, God-sent, like the laws you read in the various holy books of the time), and make funny faces at them everytime something ridiculous happens, or is said. Like what our man in Penang Encik Abu Bakar had to say about the camera focusing on the woman's thighs instead of on the council's precedings. Or that idiot who likened an uncovered woman to that of a piece of meat to a cat.

I'm not saying that religious rules are bad. But obeying rules must come with total subservience, total understanding. A rule exists to ensure control, somewhat like jail bars to prevent the sinful nature of man from leaking into society. Because it is in man's nature to sin, there always will be people who will want do terrible things (rape, kill, plunder)… unless some kind of regulation is placed to hinder such Godless acts from happening.

In ancient days when civilization was in its dawn, man had problems struggling with the transition from barbaric conditions to orderly systems so innate lust had to be controlled. We were like animals, and when the idea of God came in, we started to yearn to be like God. But because we couldn't do it on our own, He helped us by placing laws and rules for rightful prayer, rightful living. First and foremost came the requirement that 'sinful thoughts and animalistic behaviour' be forbidden in places of worship, in public places and confined to the bedroom. As men evolved, control did not become 'control' anymore, because being a follower of 'God' means one becomes more and more-Godlike, and control comes NATURALLY, without the need for laws to place things in order.

But I stress that I do agree that laws should be there in the first place, because these laws ensured that humankind would briskly walk and evolve from their barbaric animalistic natures into a polished and gender-respecting, God fearing condition. All these, in the process of preparing us for God's kingdom, if you like.

Also because, two thousand years on, and in certain places where this animal-to-human transition is still taking place, such rules are just and suitable, reliable and necessary. But these rules CANNOT serve to be an excuse for us to walk back towards that kind of barbaric nature. In all our versions of God and Heaven, each religion preaches the inherent need for mankind to develop towards becoming Christlike, Buddhalike, HEAVEN is a civilization that doesn't need rules for human beings to love each other, to respect each other. You qualify when you do good because you want to do good, not because a law made by God requires you to do good.

And that is why I frown upon certain pastoral teachings that require its followers to dress a particular way in order to honor God. I had a discussion with a friend who goes to a traditional orthodox church that relies heavily on the requirements written in Deuteronomy. She told me about the senseless talk among Catholics, or people like me, who always talk about going to church in our Sunday Best.

'Sunday Best is wrong. Some women take it as the opportunity to wear new clothes, such sexy, tight clothing, necklaces deeping into their bosoms, earrings, God frowns upon all these things, this is all in the bible. The worst thing is, they are distracting and you affect the men from doing what they have to do. We as women must be humble and modest and chaste, cover up, says the Lord, you don't want the men to stare at you instead of praying. And you cannot blame the men for being such lustful beings, God made them like that, it's in their nature.'

Sounds familiar? It isn't only in Islam, you see, even Christianity has followers like this. You might have heard your Grandmother, or even your mother complain about you wearing Black on Chinese New Year… is there a rule that says you cannot wear black on CNY? It's just that black is such a sad, colour, and red is so joyous… so don't you think that 'law' that says wear red on CNY came in order to ensure that you wear bright happy colours to usher in such a joyous occasion?

My friend mentioned the 'sin' of wearing glittering jewellery in church. 'I was praying, and this sister in another pew, she had her hands up, welcoming and worshipping the Lord. Oh it's seemingly good, but do you know that I was so distracted by the shine in her diamond, I just couldn't worship Him anymore because I kept thinking about the diamond! So you see, we shouldn't wear such glamourous Sunday Best stuff to church. Or clothes that expose our breasts or our legs, like tight pants, and fitting tops… when we distract other people from praying, we affect their chances of being favoured by God.'

I disagreed. 'If your thoughts are unpure and distracted by another person, or what she/he wears during prayer, you cannot blame that person for distracting you. It's YOU. '

Let's say for instance, Tom Cruise decides to repent to come to church finally, and he chooses to come to your church to pray for repentence. Wouldn't you be staring at him all the time during worship while he prays? Wouldn't you be distracted? And if that did happen, are you going to blame Tom Cruise for being who he is, and blame him for distracting your pursuit of God? So now because he is Tom Cruise, and worth more than a stupid diamond on a finger, far more distracting because he's a multimillionaire handsome movie star, and you can't help but stare at him instead of worshipping God, you're robbed of your opportunity to Heaven because of Tom Cruise?

When you treat rules like those written in Deuteronomy as your clinging anchor to help you get close to God, think about this. Are you being rule-led or are you being God-led? Because if its the former, maybe it's time to stop preaching your version of the Good News.