Absolute bollocks!
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.
November 14th, 2006 at 1:15 pm
oh that wanker bersongkok again. heard his name also gimme heart seizures gazillion times. hypocritical wanker.
November 14th, 2006 at 1:43 pm
idiotic is an overstatement for such pea-sized brain person such as him. His statements are similar to that of that guy in Australia recently. There was a public outcry and he stood down. Now will you see this over here? I bet my last ringgit (for what it’s worth) that he will still remain as the President and still capable of coming out with such rediculous remarks.
Bullocks to core! Bah!
November 14th, 2006 at 3:11 pm
I think the country’s ruled by dummies anyway.
Yeah, I agree that it’s stupid to say that it’s the woman’s fault for wearing sexily.
And also, what’s with the blame being on the female reporter? That abu bakar should put the blame on the fucking perv who was controlling the CCTV.
Cant…stand…idiots…incharge…of…our goverment….argh.
November 14th, 2006 at 3:44 pm
agree with your statement that if we’re distracted by others, then it’s our fault not others…but on the other hand.. we ourselves should see to it that we dont become a stumbling block to others..i.e. if we know it distracts others dont do it..
November 14th, 2006 at 3:55 pm
Tom Cruise is a Scientologist, you won’t be seeing him in church. Women shouldn’t shave their underarms and they shouldn’t use deoderant. If hair is so lovely on the head it’s also lovely on the underarms. Dyed brown even better.
November 14th, 2006 at 4:06 pm
Cb, i think you missed what she meant by repent. Actually, you will see tomkat in a church, just now a christian one that is.
November 14th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
As the saying goes, you can take someone out of the kampung but you can’t take the kampung out of them. Be prepared to hear cries of “I’ve been misquoted by the press” and “its a small matter why blow it up” in coming days, that is if he even have the balls to respond to the hulabaloo he caused. One thing I’m confident - he’ll have no shortage of apologists to angkat his sorry balls in this episode.
November 14th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
He has just claim that he has been misquoted by the media. Check NST.
….
November 14th, 2006 at 5:08 pm
“As the saying goes, you can take someone out of the kampung but you can’t take the kampung out of them”
perky, you are SPOT ON…
November 14th, 2006 at 6:56 pm
The correct term is BOLLOCKS ;p As in testicles.
A “bullock” is a young / castrated bull.
BULLOCK also happens to be the surname of a crap 1-dimensional actress who inexplicably shot to fame after appearing in the movie “While You Were Sleeping”
Right, I’ll get my coat…..
wooops huge spelling error there, and I absolutely missed it!! hahahahha thanks!
November 14th, 2006 at 8:35 pm
This lack of personal responsibility is quite irritating isn’t it?
And you cannot blame the men for being such lustful beings, God made them like that, it’s in their nature
No offense to your friend but I found this sentence quite insulting actually. To say this is to imply that people (and especially men) are incapable of controlling themselves.
This kind of thinking is why there are still people who use the “I can’t help myself” excuse without any feeling of shame.
God may have made men that way as it were, but the responsibility still lies with each individual. You and I know that of course. I wonder if everyone else feels that way.
By the look of things, unfortunately not everyone.
November 14th, 2006 at 11:01 pm
Totally agreed with what you said. Good post…
November 15th, 2006 at 2:25 pm
hi mini,
i can see your point. however, i think it is true that ‘revealing’ attire should not be worn to a place of worship, be it a church, mosque or temple.
it not only serves to curb the “distractions”, but also as a sign of respect to God. anyone who says that they’re not “distracted” by a female in a miniskirt and a top with a plunging neckline, is telling an utter lie. it is what we choose to do with that “distraction” that matters. you can choose to continue oggling at the person, or you can choose to concentrate on praying. men are made to be attracted to the opposite sex and vice versa. it’s human nature to be distracted by such things.
then again, just because a woman wears sexy attire does not mean that the CCTV guy had an excuse to zoom in on her legs. i personally dont even think that what the reporter was wearing was sexy. however, that’s besides the point.
my point is this - women should not deliberately wear revealing clothing to a place of worship (or anywhere else for that matter) and sit on the notion that “if men have pure and clean thoughts they wont be distracted by me”. men are bound to be distracted, it is how they deal with the distraction that matters. unfortunately we do not live in a perfect world and some men choose to deal with the distraction the wrong way.
when an incident like the CCTV one does happen, the man should not shift responsibility to the woman and blame the woman for wearing “sexy attire”. it is the man’s own lust that’s to blame.
November 15th, 2006 at 5:56 pm
So does it mean that when children run around naked, they are giving adults free rein to rape them, because SOME people find it sexy? Full-on bollocks.
November 16th, 2006 at 1:14 pm
I think we should pardon those snatch thief too when snatch a lady with LV handbag? It’s really not the thief fault, who ask her to have a LV handbag?
Beware Datuk! You can’t really blame on anybody if somebody hit you at the back and take you Rolex, can you? Because you ask for it….It might happened you know.
Erm…Wearing black on CNY isn’t really a religious stuff but a tradition, anyway I get your point.
November 17th, 2006 at 12:02 pm
I believe in God but I do not believe in religion. They are just a way the alpha males use to control women.
I’m sure you’ve heard of some Muslim leader churning out something along this lines in Sydney right?
I don’t understand why it is so hard for men to understand, if you rape a woman, you are already an unhinged psycho to start with. What’s this about women being held culpable for the way they dress?
Sexism and religion are poles apart.
November 17th, 2006 at 12:04 pm
Did someone say the man claimed he was ‘misquoted’?
Ah, that was exactly the same reason the Muslim leader in Sydney gave. That he was misquoted.
November 17th, 2006 at 2:25 pm
some ppl just dont get the point.
yes, it is inexcusable if a man rapes a woman, regardless of what the woman is wearing.
i’m not shifting blame.
but we do live in a f***ed up world, with f***ed up ppl, whether u like it or not.
so if a woman decides to wear skanky clothes, it’d naturally attract these f***ed up ppl. u may say that a woman who is all wrapped up from head to toe will also be as susceptible to falling prey to these f***ed up ppl. i’m not debating that. all i can say is, do it at your own risk. but i’m NOT saying that if anything does happen, the assailant’s behaviour is excusable because of what u were wearing. i’m merely pointing out a simple but harsh reality.
Re my learned friend beefstew’s comment above: if you feel that there’s no correlation between a person wearing expensive jewellery or carrying expensive bags and the chances of that person being robbed, then imagine this scenario:
two men are walking down the street - one’s dressed up extravagantly, in his designer suit and a gold chain around his neck. the other man is less flashy, dressed in an old pair of slacks, simple teeshirt, and a silver chain around his neck.
A snatch-thief on a motorcyle comes from the opposite direction towards the 2 men. The motorcycle comes in between the 2 men and is about to pass them. Million dollar question - which chain does he decide to snatch???
Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.
Does the fact that the man in the designer suit wears a gold chain make it right or gives the snatch thief a legitimate excuse to rob him? NO.
Does the fact that by him wearing a gold chain, it makes him more LIKELY to be robbed as opposed to the man wearing the silver chain? Possibly.
Does it mean that the man wearing the silver chain will never ever be robbed? NO - if he was walking by himself without the man wearing the gold chain beside him, it is possible that he might be robbed, even if it was only a silver chain.
Wear the gold chain at your own risk.
November 28th, 2006 at 10:33 am
actually, comments like these piss me off as well.
i recall a few years back when some local daily came up with a list of banned movies/concerts. one of it was a kylie minogue concert somewhere down under and it was banned because ‘it encourages men to do heinous acts’…
seriously, what the flying fuck?
these ‘educated ppl’ are merely finding their nxt scapegoat with blatant and inane accusations. how much good would it do, banning her concert video when her videos are played to death on tv? thing is, my argument isnt abt kylie minogue. my argument is how the flying filth can someone connect an old grandpa who constantly rapes his grand-daughter in some rural area to kylie minogue? yes, im sure he watches the ‘chocolate’ video over and over again masturbating to her every tone/move.
in that same article, a RHCP concert was banned because they were sporting mohawks…
to think that now this ‘mamat’ is saying things like the reporter was using some skimpy outfit, is not outrageous.. its bloody retarded. and f-all to the ‘misquoted’ retort.
this was my five minutes of fame. excuse the lagging comment.
July 10th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
[...] Minishorts [...]