As per title, this thread discusses the pros, cons, criticisms, successes and downfalls of Ethnoreligionism

Ethnoreligionism is where the ethnic descent of a population is closely related to their religious beliefs.

An example of this would be the Jewish people where their default religion would be Judaism. One can be born into it, has related bloodline or be converted into Judaism to be a Jew.

The same trend can be seen in Malaysia where ethnic Malays are by default Muslims and cannot part with their religion without persecution.

While Ethnoreligionism can have its advantages where it is easier to 'communicate' (i.e control?) a population through a common ground, it can also impede on human rights to freedom of beliefs.

discuss..

This post has been edited by b3ta: Jan 15 2010, 07:08 AM

Unfortunately in Malaysia, these kinds of topics are considered taboo. In fear for our own personal safety. Maybe if you re-phrased the topic in a different way it would gather more replies.

maybe i should remove the malay part of it. meh.

I dont think its the same situation as the jews.

Jews religion = Jewish ppl
jewish ppl = jewish religion

jews dont let non-jews to their religion.

on the other hand:

malays may = muslim
muslim =/= malays

what I'm trying to say is not all muslims are malays. I know slightly off topic to the discussion. just wnated to clear it up

The way I see it, people should be given freedom of religion. As per mentioned countless times prior to this, it is about believing and not being forced to believe.

Religion should be chosen by the person him/herself and not be indoctrinated into their lives because of law from birth. If anything its more of a hindrance to human growth and development, and correct me if I'm wrong but there are definitely Malay people who do not wish to be part of the Islamic religion.


Once again, faith cannot be forced, so..how does ethnoreligionism help?

No you can convert to Judaism, just that it's somewhat less well-known

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_to_Judaism

the article you pointed to has many issues, as reported by wiki. therefore cant be trusted.

Maybe we should give freedom to all children to learn all religion/belief/way of life and make them choose it themselves at the age of, say, 15?

ethnoreligionism is a dying concept anyhow. people are free to embrace what they believe.

zeratos, as much as i hate that fact, the fact that some malays doesn't like to be muslims is right.

i dont see ethnoreligionism as something worth watching, as this concept is practically dying, maybe japanese shintoism or coptic christianity fulfill the requirement. agnosticism is more in trend nowadays.

Agree!!

i cant help but feel that you are contradicting yourself. you hate the fact that some malays dont want to be muslims but u embrace freedom of religion? what is your stand exactly. if it is freedom of religion, you shouldnt have any reasons to hate these malays.

btw as much as some think this is irrelevant, it is still practised in our country as of now. and the fact remains that people are still not free to embrace what they believe. the way i see it, there are definitely advantages in that ethnic groups are united through religion and through a mutual understanding of morals and ethics through religion.

This post has been edited by b3ta: Jan 29 2010, 05:29 AM

Well, in our country it would be a syariah offence for a malay to abandon their faith, which is muslim, take in the case of Lina Joy.

Ethnoreligionism is not healthy in my opinion because when a religion is associated with a race, there would be no freedom of embracing other religion for other races, and even if there is such freedom, would the other race will feel marginalized when they wanted to change their faith? Also, it may leads to racism.

Nah I don't think you should remove the malay part, because the current status quo is exactly how you said it. Plus, I'm sure the people here can handle issues like this in a better manner

The biggest issue about this is the freedom of choice of an individual to practice religion. By face value judgment, it does infringes the freedom of choice of that individual as he/she did not choose to be in the religion.

Sometimes, those of stronger faith are actually those who converted to the religion.

A world that values freedom would be in favor of freedom of whatever choices. People are free to believe anything they want. They also should be free to change it anytime they want. It should not be the chance to choose at age 15 and stick to it for the rest of your life. The only bad thing about enthoreligionism is that it does not respect an individual’s freedom of choice.

The S.court devoids basic human rights and claims we are a country of free religion. No other country prosecutes converters from Islam. I cant help to think but the S.court consists of money gobbling twisted morons who believes in Islam supremacy

You got it wrong then. What is it mean by country of free religion is non muslim is free to decide what religion they want for themselves. It's based on the Quranic verses which means "As for u, ur religion as for us, our religion". Therefore it's wrong to force someone to become a Muslim. So is harming the non Muslim when they are living with Muslims because the Prophet said "those who harm the good non Muslim that live with us is like harming me" to show that their safety is guaranteed.

About the S.court consist of money gobbling twisted morons? what's ur prove for the claimed made?