Lina Joy: Contemplating the Truthfulness of Religion

Being following the saga involving a malay ethnic woman named Lina Joy because of her choice to leave Islam for Christianity. Was reading one of those articles when it came to this part on why Lina Joy's case in the Malaysian Courts cannot win.

"If Islam were to grant permission for Muslims to change religion at will,
it would imply it has no dignity, no self-esteem," said Wan Azhar Wan Ahmad,
senior fellow at Malaysia's Institute of Islamic Understanding.

"And people may then question its completeness, truthfulness and
perfection." (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060813/wl_nm/religion_malaysia_dc)

Let me ask a question: By the fact that a person who could not think for him or herself right after birth is being given a responsibility of being a muslim, is that fair in the first place? I think this point would have been put forth by a lot of people opposing to the idea that a person is believing in something without the capacity to .

Dignity: the quality of being worthy of esteem or respect

No one comes to this world without the basic dignity or respect to be a human being. Even animals are given their space to bear their off spring. So this point is a universal right for all living things on this planet.

On the other hand, religion or the knowledge of God or the unseen power has to be revealed by the powers above or by the minds of 'enlightened' persons be it real or not and it is not given automatically at birth since we need mental capacity to weigh in on the right or wrong of what is proposed.

However we do have something when we are born that of the state of conscience and justice which the young do possess. How come? Because if the Bible is to be believed, the eating of the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

So the question remains that all religion has to earn respect by being able to prove that it is real with our conscience and God-given intelligence to test the teachings. If a belief system is forced upon since birth, then it only goes to show one thing: the proponents who used the law to protect a religion thus exposing the fact that they are not confident in the belief system to proof itself to unbelievers. In other words, they trust more in their efforts to promote God than to allow God to promote Himself; or to say that God is impotent at worse or ineffective at best.

Faith of course is important for a belief system to work. People need to be taught and known of something before a faith the size of a small seed can even be planted. Faith and thus belief needed some sort of convincing first by the subject before it is given.

Imagine that we are born with the belief that McDonalds is the best food in the world. So I ate Big Mac since the day I was born being force by parents to eat it since I do not have the opportunity to try other food nor have the money to buy (since parents put the food on the table). Wouldn't that be sad since there are other good food around? (Malaysians and Singaporeans should know this: Hawker food to me is better than fast food anytime unless the hawker is really crappy).

Things out there can have multiple favourites amongst people. However with regards to law and justice, and definitely in the realm of spirituality, TRUTH has to be the yardstick. But TRUTH has to be proven, has to be tested and then believed by the tester and the truth that survives on its own is worthy to be believed.

If the social climate does not even allow the space to even test and then make the decision to a belief system, then what kind of dignity does the social climate possess? If people enjoy the freedom to make the choice of the food they want to eat, then the more important stuff such as spiritual belief must be given the opportunity to be chosen.

By hiding behind the law to force people to believe in something is just showing, contrary to popular belief, a lack of faith in the belief system that can convince people otherwise. It is precisely because a belief system that cannot survive questions on its completeness, truthfulness and perfection that needed human beings and human initiated laws to protect the belief system.

If one is so convinced of a belief, then that belief should be able to stand up to scrutiny. And the belief that can stand up to scrutiny, earn the right to be believed, and whoever believes will have stronger faith since the belief system can stand on its own 2 feet.

In short, a belief system that needed the law to justify its existence do not speak much of the god it is proposing since that god is powerless to convince human beings supernaturally.

That's the reason why I believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. That's the reason why I believe in Jesus being the true Son of God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Why? Because Jesus is able to proof Himself again and again without the help of the law. Evidence? Lina Joy can believe in Christ despite the law of the land: that speaks the power of the true God.