Saturday, 28 March 2015

Malaysian 'Standard Operating Procedure' Against Witchcraft In Marriages & Divorces

Getting married is stressful and I hear divorces are absolute hell. Both involve dealing with legal gobbledygook, photographers, wedding hall people, cake people and, worst of all: two families. That last bit practically killed Romeo and Juliet. And as if that's not enough to make you stab yourself in the heart, you also have to deal with black magic. What a pain!
As an example, Mahyuddin cited the case of a woman who had sought divorce because she was not in a ‘rational thinking mode’ when she married her husband, whom she claimed had ‘charmed’ her into marrying him.

The wife only realised that the husband had used black magic to marry her after her mother had taken her to a witch doctor, who had later healed her.
I know several single people who question if anyone is in 'rational thinking mode' when getting married. Still, when you're a woman living in a Muslim dominated country like Malaysia, going to a witch doctor to get proof of witchcraft could be your best bet if your husband is unwilling to allow you to leave.

You've got to convince some Sharia court that your husband is either impotent or is abusing your somehow -- and even then, it's got to be a rough situation. Apparently, back in 2011, one woman tried to make the whole witchcraft argument but didn't get an annulment because the judge didn't take sorcery into account. Maybe he thought it was all a load of hooey.
However, he said the same argument could not be used to grant divorce to Yani Yuhana Mohd Zambri who had sought the Syariah Court to end her marriage to Pakistani, Muhammad Kamran Babar Nazir Khan on June 2011.

“Many times, judges are often at crossroads – should they use the claims of black magic and withcraft or simply reject them. That is what the SOP aims to address,” he added.
According to Dr Mahyuddin Ismail from the Committee for Advanced Studies in Witchcraft Law, judges like this ought to be following his university's new Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) to combat the use of witchcraft. I wrote about this earlier. It was the result of a multidisciplinary team of researchers at the Universiti Malaysia Pahang and cost taxpayers $65,000 CDN.
The committee’s chairman, Dr Mahyuddin Ismail said the claims of black magic and withcraft were often brought to the Syariah Courts when couples seek divorce.

“But, since there is no legal provision or procedure to consider the use of black magic and witchcraft in marriages and divorces, such claims are often dismissed,” he said in an exclusive interview with Astro AWANI.

“The SOP is to address this issue,” he said.
This would insert another layer of law -- based, apparently on Sharia law -- on top of their existing laws which take actual crimes into account rather than superstitious nonsense. The goal, it would seem, is to begin prosecuting and punishing people using laws based entirely on hysteria inducing immaterial metaphysical beliefs.

Notice that this is not a procedure to combat belief in witchcraft. It is apparent that everyone, including the police and the university researchers in the country firmly believe in sorcery. So, now dreadful processes are being devised to fight a non-existent enemy. We all know where that lead Europe.

What a bold step back into the middle ages -- all thanks to blind superstition.

Paranormal Enthusiasts Now Have Their Own Dating Site

Do you believe in visitations by aliens, haunted houses, extra sensory perception, astrology, mind control, curses, spirit healing, vampires, zombies, prophecy, contacting the dead, mind reading and anything in between? If so, I'm curious why you're reading my blog -- unless you are an mind-reading astrologer zombie alien. Are your sure you're not one of those?

Anyway, you probably have a hard time finding a date who gets you. Sure, everyone runs into dry spells -- especially if you happen to believe in stuff most people find ridiculous. Well, for just $15-$20 per month (free for the first 6 weeks!) you can find your soulmate without use of cumbersome dowsing rods, magic eight balls, psychic crystals, the Secret or whatever! Go take a look at the Amazing Kreskin's SUPERNATURAL DATING SOCIETY! -- just remember this easy-to-type URL:
A doorway is about to swing open. It welcomes you to join a very unique group of men and women who, in many instances, have secretly maintained an ongoing interest in anything that defies a conventional explanation (and I really mean anything).
Just men and women? Not, say, astrologer vampire zombie somethings?

You know, being an atheist and all, I shouldn't hurl frozen triffids into glass greenhouses. I do get where Kreskin is coming from and I'm rather surprised such a business didn't exist before now. There are already Christian, Jewish, Muslim, atheist and even gluten-free dating sites out there. People gotta hook up.

I just wonder about how complicated things could get. I haven't bothered to log in or anything, but I assume you need to click all your various supernatural beliefs and these are used to compute matches. What happens if one person believes in the friendly aliens of Close Encounters of the Third Kind while the other believes aliens will be popping out of our stomachs like on the Alien movies?

I think Kreskin gets into this a bit in an interview over at OpenMinds.
When asked if there are certain types of people who visit his site that should be careful because they might not make a good match, Kreskin had a warning for people who believe they may have been visited by aliens. He said, “It would not be as good a match if someone felt they had been visited by an alien and then they met someone who is interested in mainly telepathic phenomena, where they’re able to perceive thoughts of people that they know at a distance, because one of the areas, the aliens, is somebody else coming into their mind or life. Whether they’re influencing them or controlling them. The other person is not interested in someone coming into their life and controlling them if they’re interested in someone they can communicate with mentally or telepathically or what have you. So one could be a contradiction to the other and it could cause a conflict. I’m not advising people on who to meet and who not to meet. This is part of the excitement of life. But sometimes, I would maybe give them a warning.”
Right, that was just a hunch I had. I really have no idea what he meant there and neither did OpenMinds writer Alejandro Rojas, who suggested that perhaps only those who have been actually abducted by aliens would understand. Sure, I'll go with that.

It's interesting to think what the overlap would be between hardcore conspiracy theorists and the target audience of this website. Would there be successful crossover or would this paranoid group believe that the Amazing Kreskin has merely sold out to the Illuminati government overlords and is attempting to draw everyone out into his own website -- into the open! I suppose there's really no credible proof that this is not the case!

Conrad Black Has Done It Again

What have we done?
If I recall correctly, it began when Conrad Black wrote something about the shallow shabby world of the militant atheist. I assure you, I put my best men on round the clock duty to decipher his prose and tease out any meaning they could find -- even that guy who portrayed Alan Turing in that movieBenedict Cumberbatch. Yes, no expense was spared. Eventually I contrasted Black's work with a screed against atheists by a Zimbabwe preacher. It seemed like the right thing to do at the time.

Other atheist bloggers processed the Rorschach Test in their own way. They took what meaning they could from Black's words and attempted to address inaccuracies and absurdities outright. This was a noble endeavour, but what is the real cost here? Could it have agitated Black into writing this equally bewildering response piece in the National Post: A reply to my atheist critics — they protest too much? Can the planet sustain more of this?
Not since I have written about cats and dogs has a column of mine in this newspaper stirred such a voluminous and highly charged response as my reflections here last week on John Lennox’s success in debates, as a scientific Christian, with the most articulate and learned atheists on the anti-God debating circuit. These exchanges have become almost an itinerant counter-ministry of the media and academia throughout the Western world.

Most messages I have received have been favourable, but the tenor of the unfavourable messages the newspaper and I have received is so generally vitriolic, and often abusive and bigoted, that they incite my return to the subject. Obviously, if I had any problem with people taking exception to what I write, I wouldn’t write for publication, and as I have probably been more severely and lengthily defamed than anyone in Canada since Louis Riel (where the calumniators often had truth as a partial defence), I am not bothered by it. None of the abuse was noteworthy and there were only three cyber-assailants who were so unrelievedly uncivil that I asked my IT adviser to ensure that I never received anything from their addresses again.
Is this translated into English from some other language?

I'm sorry. I just had to get that out of my system, having read the piece in its entirety. I'll spare you the play by play on this. If you're interested in a little pain to break up a boring Saturday afternoon, please be my guest and assign any sort of meaning to it you wish. Believe me, there's enough there to write a book.

I will share this. During his piece, I felt like Black was being a real tease. It often seemed that concrete proof or specific argument was just a couple of sentences away --- like a mirage -- perhaps just beyond this historical or literary reference -- perhaps hiding behind that rhetorical flourish. But when I got there... nothing.

It was only the last paragraph that I obtained enlightenment. I got to a real piece of meat and it really stuck in my craw.
The atheists’ domination of our centres of learning and information is a great vulnerability in the West: it creates acute resentment and dissent among the more religiously tolerant majority, separates learning and information from the greatest pillar of our civilization’s historic development, invites contempt from violently sectarian societies, especially Islamists, and is repugnant to the entire concept of freedom of thought and expression that our universities and free press are supposed to be defending. This is why people like John Lennox, who flatten the marquee atheist tribunes at every encounter, perform such a valuable service. And it must also have something to do with the reaction, like that of roaring and wounded animals, of a distinct minority of my correspondents last week. If God were dead, they would not still be trying, very unconvincingly, to kill Him.
What the hell is Black talking about? Do we not have enough churches and religious schools in this country? Those are the places for religious instruction -- the point of a university is to provide an environment of absolutely free inquiry and learning outside of some stuffy minister's dogma. Is it possible for people like Black to give us a second, an instant outside of religion? Apparently not. Instead, universities must turn into places of religious regurgitation.

Oh, not religious? Don't bother attending, or shut up, or open your mind so we may fill it with our fairy stories.

Yes, when schools teach students to think on their own it can cause resentment and dissent among the more religiously tolerant majority, whatever that means. If it means that it upsets those who would prefer to tow the religious line and let the faithful call all the shots, then good.

As for inviting contempt from violently sectarian societies, whose problem is this exactly? Is this some sort of veiled threat? Is this a brave call to surrender? Is this informing us that we should shut up our opinions and questions lest someone get hurt -- lest someone have to drink the hemlock? People who cannot control their violent actions when they have their religious sensibilities upset need to be locked up, period -- even Islamists.

Then there's this absurd doublespeak:
... and is repugnant to the entire concept of freedom of thought and expression that our universities and free press are supposed to be defending.
That's right. Universities that do not shovel dogma down the throats of students and encourage them to think and express themselves in pursuit of truth in ways that may be offensive to some is actually against freedom of thought of expression! Has someone been drinking the Kool Aid, because this is profoundly wrong and either disingenuous or delusional.

Search This Blog