Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. As dawn breaks in downtown Kuala Lumpur, calls to prayer blare out from speakers that sit atop the minarets of the city’s mosques, blanketing the ring of bells from neighbouring Hindu temples. In the background, churches and Buddhist temples quietly come alive.

To the many tourists who visit this vibrant city, this religious routine of the faithful exudes a charm of old Asia, showcasing a seemingly exemplary state of religious tolerance. As the sun rises from beyond the skyscrapers, the noise of new world traffic displaces the chants of old, displaying a 21st century city that visitors marvel at.

Malaysia is a nation of contradictions: modern in its infrastructure, archaic in its civil liberty; secular in constitution, Islamic in practice; its display of racial tolerance belied by an apartheid-like policy against its minorities.

TS-Si Opinion Columns

Removing Transsexuality from the Transgender Umbrella

A necessary action to improve the dialogue between Medical and Social Science ScholarsErie, PA, USA. In the fall of 2010 I began work on my Masters Thesis (which examined the life experiences of transsexual teenagers and youn...

read more...

---

What the 2012 Nomination Fight Taught Us about American Politics

Lancaster, PA, USA. It’s an ill wind that blows no good and a rare political season that brings no lessons. Here are six salient teaching moments inspired by the finally concluded Republican presidential contest. Some are ...

read more...

---

Santorum's Last Stand

Lancaster, PA, USA. It wasn’t supposed to happen this way. The Pennsylvania primary scheduled for April 24th was to be Rick Santorum’s triumphal return — celebrating his resurgence in national politics after his cru...

read more...

---

To Bite the Sun

Washington, DC, USA. Science observes the universe, records what has occurred, and then develops a testable theory that can explain those observations and make predictions on future ones. Albert Einstein was very good at thi...

read more...

Amidst universal belief by all faiths that there is a Higher Power, if someday God appeared to reveal Himself, the irony is that God would be rejected by the respective religious groups if the message God conveyed did not conform to their expectations and received teachings, from holy books and texts.

Their books define their God.Religious rows dominate national media: students arrested for handing Christian pamphlets to Muslims; protests outside churches suspected of facilitating Muslim apostasy; a ban prohibiting non-Muslims from using the word “Allah”; Islamic rehabilitation centres “persuading” Muslims against conversion; a Hindu widow fighting to reclaim the body of her late husband from authorities who claim the dead man had converted to Islam years earlier.

What might be deemed lunacy in the modern world pervades life in Malaysia, troubling its non-Muslim minorities and indeed its liberal Muslims.

While older nations strive to keep state and religion at arm’s length, Malaysia, a relatively young democracy, struggles to keep its admiration of Islam away from state governance. Even the common law, passed down by the British, has to compete for dominance as Sharia courts gain ground.

Malaysia does not stand alone at this crossroad. Many other nations are seeing a resurgence of religion, prompting calls for national identity along lines of faith. States that identify themselves with a faith face the challenge of managing religious tolerance, an idea which contradicts the assumed faith of the state.

While the idea of a state religion gains popularity in some parts of the world, the liberals of our time stress that religion is personal and has no place in state governance. International human rights conventions keep reinforcing the principle that each individual is entitled to hold his own belief — a right regardless of the majority’s view on faith. What international law may decree in the abstract is not necessarily adopted domestically, especially when state and church (or mosque, temple, or synagogue) form an alliance.

Religion can be a positive influence generally — it instills morality, a sense of purpose and belief, and enriches the cultures of the world. However, when taken to the extreme it can lead to ignorance, defining unwarranted parameters in the minds of the faithful. It can also sow the seeds of prejudice against “non-believers” as demonstrated in Malaysia. The religious often fail to appreciate that faith is not science, and that people can find spirituality in more ways than one, regardless of faith.

Amidst universal belief by all faiths that there is a Higher Power, if someday God appeared to reveal Himself, the irony is that God would be rejected by the respective religious groups if the message God conveyed did not conform to their expectations and received teachings, from holy books and texts. Their books define their God.

The TS-Si News Service is a collaborative effort by TS-Si.org editors, contributors, and corresponding institutions. Sources can include the cited individuals and organizations, as well as TS-Si.org staff contributions. Articles and news reports do not necessarily convey official positions of TS-Si, its partners, or affiliates. We welcome your comments. Use the form below to leave a public comment or send private correspondence via the TS-Si Contact Page. We will not divulge any personal details or place you on a mailing list without your permission.


TS-Si is dedicated to the acceptance, medical treatment, and legal protection of individuals correcting the misalignment of their brains and their anatomical sex, while supporting their transition into society as hormonally reconstituted and surgically corrected citizens.

Tweet

Comments (5)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/hide comments

Beliefs, tolerance, and their governance, This is one of

06 September 2009     

This is one of the most interesting and thought-provoking articulations describing the complications of religious beliefs vs. tolerance/acceptance I have read in quite some time. Its message gives rise to greater concerns regarding the rights of individuals to have and express religious beliefs vs. governance by nations to control the exercise and expression of those beliefs. Beliefs are funny things (and here I mean all beliefs, not just religious beliefs), they are both elusive and intangible - we can't see them, hear them, touch them or taste them; nor can we prove them. We often have difficulty expressing thier essence, understanding exactly how we came to accept them or the extent of influence they have in our daily lives. And yet they form much of our 'is-ness', our sense of self, giving us a profound sense of purpose, defining us along the way. Example: How many transsexuals believe they were born with the wrong genitals, that their gender is opposite from their physical sex? Prove it. You couldn't. (Well, maybe soon that will change, but for now, and particularly in your case, you couldn't prove your belief, though you knew it to be true.) That's the nature of belief: personal acceptance of the truth of something without objective evidence. When that 'something' is, itself, non-physical or otherwise invisible to an observer, you are left to your own defenses. And good luck, sister. We expect to be able to have our beliefs and express them without undue restrictions, but as history has proven time after time, beliefs and their expression often run afoul at the crossroads where expression and tolerance meet. And in case anyone hasn't noticed yet, this article is both timely and relevant regarding beliefs as applied to the impassioned and uber-emotional comments (and their aftermath) recently vented in the TS-Si article 'Classic Transsexual'. Sort of makes it easier to understand how religious beliefs invoke the passionate and often deadly responses they do, doesn't it? I've just ordered a copy of 'The Book of Walla' as a must-have in my personal library. In the words of Mr. Spock, "Fascinating!"

Kelly

Knowledge and Belief, Wonderful comment, Kelly. I am int

06 September 2009     

Wonderful comment, Kelly. I am intrigued by your use of the term "belief", which I most often associate with a certainty arrived at to account for phenomena beyond what can be documented as fact (what we "know" to be true). However, to be fair, we are dealing with human beings and it isn't always that simple. Many believers base their beliefs on what they claim to know and do not make any distinction at all. Philosophers most often distinguish between belief and knowledge. I have always known about my birth condition, but had to examine a variety of beliefs to ascertain what else might be true. That is, my birth condition, and my inner certainty about it is a fact (backed up by increasing evidence from science that supports my direct experience). What I believe about it's implications and activation in the real world tends to be more iffy, as they collide with culture. You pointed out ... this article is both timely and relevant regarding beliefs as applied to the impassioned and uber-emotional comments (and their aftermath) recently vented in the TS-Si article 'Classic Transsexual'. Sort of makes it easier to understand how religious beliefs invoke the passionate and often deadly responses they do, doesn't it? There is a shared experience so many of us share. We have a core certainty. For the ladies, a soft core, if you will, subject to empirical verification. Do you remember the time when cross-dressers and transvestites were so forthcoming with the imperial accusation that we didn't even exist? Beyond that fundamental insight comes a variety of beliefs that have nothing to do with our birth condition per se. The beliefs can range from specific views on sexuality, family, and politics that become conflated with the core experiential knowledge. And this happens to the point where some claim you can't possibly be transsexual unless you " fill in the blank ". The harsh reality, though, is that my distinction between knowledge and belief runs up against human nature. Some, dissatisfied with the misalignment of facts with their preferences, are more than ready to alter the facts and retain their beliefs beyond all evidence. Intelligent Design (nee Creationism) is one example of a religious movement that tailors facts to maintain a belief system and slides toward ever-increasing irrelevance. The inevitable outcome is bitter conflict with non-believers. I see the same dynamic in the transsexual v. transgender conflict where TGs are always finding new ways to devalue who we are by ignoring and/or altering the underlyong facts of our existence. Unhappily, too many transsexuals fall for that and emulate the tactics of their TG opponents, with a consequent dehumanization. As Mr. Krishn said at the end of his essay, "Their books define their God." The question is: which book?

Sharon S. Gaughan

Fact and Belief, The Universe exists and follows certain

14 September 2009     

The Universe exists and follows certain physical laws (fact). I exist as a part of those physical laws (fact or you would not be reading this). I am a woman (fact: long term direct observation) The Gods exist (belief: a matter of faith and unprovable using the scientific method). My God is the True God (belief: a personal refinement of the more general statement of faith as a distinct religious belief and unprovable using the scientific method). You are an unbeliever (value judgement and distinction based on personal religious declarations). A matter of parsing catechisms. You are a heretic (personal value judgement based on parsing personal catechisms and who we actively disagree with theologically). My God Wants Me to Kill You in the Name of the One True Religion (extreme form of the heretic personal value judgement). Another way of looking at Religious Beliefs is if we look at religion as a series of tribes, some smaller, some larger, but still, in the end, a tribe with its own culture and rituals. Tribes and nuclear weapons do not coexist easily. Especially if the Tribal God wants to expand his geographic horizons.

Lisa Thompson

Now as for me...., It was my religious beliefs attacked

14 September 2009     

It was my religious beliefs attacked on that thread.....and part and parcel of our theology is that all paths hold some validity so that's ironic enough. As for the topic of the article, well I think we at the Maetreum should be able to declare ourselves a separate Inn-State similar to the Vatican since the Vatican itself was originally the property of our religion! On other topics of holding belief systems......this whole Jasper uproar has me in stitches. Transgender activists who long and loudly proclaim that all that is required to be a woman is say you are one are now faced with a guy saying he is transgender, transsexual and intersexed because he says so and had his ears pierced! They are going nuts trying to distance themselves from him when he represents the purest form of their orthodoxy! Jasper is gender deconstructionism taken to it's illogical extreme in walking, talking, bloging and youtubing form. But what do I know, since I oppress so many by just waking up each morning?

Cathryn

Cathryn, You are welcome here in the morning (and around

14 September 2009     

You are welcome here in the morning (and around the clock). You do not oppress me in the morning, as I am at a stage in life where I appreciate every morning that I actually do wake up! As for the big mass-follow religions, they need to do lot of making up for past misdeeds before they can seek relevance. That could be a good joint project. Perhaps in the making up, they can form a solid foundation for the search.

Sharon S. Gaughan

Show/hide comment form

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.

Add Comment