Tricia Yeoh

Marina Mahathir got it right in her recent Star column, in which she opines that if there was any movie even close to profaning the religion of Islam to the level that Da Vinci Code (book/movie) does to Christianity, you would have great acts of holy terror cast upon those responsible. I am sure that reasonable Muslims can rationally discuss such matters. And I am also sure that there will be quarters of Christians who would love to react in a more explosive and defensive manner.

However, the right way forward for this, and any other topic that can raise hairs due to its sensitivity, is to encourage open dialogue, a culture of discussion and discourse. Debate if you wish, but in a civilised manner, and with the mentality of agreeing to disagree.

Agreeing to disagree also means more than the formality and niceties of “tolerating” one another. The term “I tolerate you” in this country has taken to mean that “I am barely taking your presence; You are lucky I don’t push you out of this place just because I can. You exist only because I tolerate you so you’d better thank your lucky stars that I am so tremendously gracious.” Moving beyond a polite tolerance level, but to engage in attitude and behaviour that show utmost respect to the other. Looking at an individual without necessarily placing a label and tag (of religion, race or anything else) but considering the person as a fellow human.

What I’d like to see is a possibly heated interfaith dialogue (heated because each is passionate about his own subject, not for the purpose of inciting anger), and thereafter the two representatives of the faiths heading out to a Mamak session together, to continue discussing in congenial terms the differences between the two religions. And after a good handshake, a quick nod, each returns home without grudges because they have agreed to disagree.

A tiny gremlin-like kitten, abandoned literally on the doorsteps of my office compound. Shivering and cold, dirty and scrunched up, death-like, but picked up and washed, cleaned, wrapped up in warm cloth, fed, dried and brought to the vet. 

Driving home in the car, this sparked off a wave of thoughts on morality and what makes people desire to do good.  Is there an inherent altruistic nature to man? Is religion necessary to influence one to do good? Christians and other faith-based religious teachings would say that all moral good is derived from a higher being, a God. The reason being that God sets the standards for what is considered ethical – the highest point there is. Once the benchmark is set on what defines good, then anything that falls short is considered sinful.

Atheists believe otherwise. This article gives a brief outline as to why they believe morality can exist without a God… "A thing is good in relation to its consequences, or as it realises the end at which we are aiming"

Moral laws are to the social group exactly what laws of physiology are to the individual organism. There is nothing to cause wonder or mystification about moral laws; they express the physiology of social life. It is these laws that are manifested in practice long before they are expressed in set terms. Human conduct, whether expressed in life or formulated in "laws", represents the conditions that make social life possible and profitable. It is this recognition that forms the science of morality and the creation of conditions that favour the performance of desirable actions and the development of desirable feelings constitutes the art of morality.

Morality has nothing to do with God, is the postulation put forth.

I hope the little kitten survives.