Can the MCA leadership stop Burning the Quran it can burns at Fahrenheit 451 Worshiping God, Not the Bible

Today is polling day for the Tenang by-election, the fourteenth since the 2008 general election.

The outcome of the by-election should be left to the 14,753 voters but it is most regrettable that MCA continues to peddle lies and falsehoods  through its newspaper The Star.

In its analysis report today headlined “Up to the voters now to choose who is best”, Sunday Star wrote:

“Never mind that the Barisan Nasional candidate Mohd Azahar Ibrahim is from Umno, it was the MCA that DAP, especially its adviser Lim Kit Siang, was after.

“A political observer viewed the DAP’s all-out effort to attack MCA as mainly an attempt to divert the community’s attention from the various breakthroughs the MCA has achieved since Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek became party president in March last year.

“’A stable and united MCA has always been a threat to DAP,’ reasoned a veteran MCA leader, pointing out that DAP’s survival hinged a lot upon MCA’s weaknesses as both parties banked on the support of the Chinese community.

“The fact that Dr Chua has adopted a low-key and personal touch in his campaign, such as personally meeting Tenang voters, has also put the opposition in a bind, remarked a political observer.

“As expected by many MCA supporters, Kit Siang had, in his ceramah in Tenang, challenged Dr Chua to step down if he failed to get the support of the Chinese community in the by-election.”

I had never in any ceramah in Tenang challenged Chua to step down if he failed to get the support of the Chinese community in the by-election.

Unlike the views of the majority of MCA leaders and delegates, I have no objection whatsoever if Chua continues as MCA President, regardless of the Tenang by-election result today. Good luck to him!

I had in my Tenang ceramah faulted Chua for trying to demonise DAP and his  “scare and fear” tactic in the by-election to frighten the Chinese voters alleging that a vote for the PAS/Pakatan Rakyat candidate, Normala Sudirman is a vote for Islamic state and hudud.

I had also responded to Chua’s warning to the Chinese voters that they would be sending a dangerous message to UMNO if they vote in support of the PAS candidate as it would be interpreted as support for PAS’ Islamic State agenda driving Umno to be more extreme and Islamic.

I had challenged Chua to be honest and have the courage to tell Umno not to misread and misinterpret Chinese votes for the PAS/PR candidate as both the DAP and the Chinese voters in the DAP ceramahs have made it very clear that a vote for Normala is not a vote for hudud and  Islamic state but a vote for PR programme for change, democracy, justice and progress.

Would Chua have the courage to tell this simple truth to UMNO leaders?

In the Tenang by-election campaign, Umno leaders have been telling Malay voters that PAS has betrayed Islamic values and principles after teaming up with DAP in PR, while MCA leaders have been telling the opposite lie, that the DAP had sold out its principles and objectives to PAS  in supporting hudud and Islamic state.

Is Chua prepared to be the first MCA leader to have the honesty and the courage to tell UMNO the truth -  that Chinese votes for PAS/PR candidate in the Tenang by-election is not a vote for hudud and Islamic State but a vote for political change, democracy, justice and progress?

The MCA newspaper, the Star, should have the journalistic ethics and professionalism to report what I actually said in the Tenang ceramahs instead of concocting lies and falsehoods to serve the vested interests of its political masters.

- Lim Kit Siang is the MP for Ipoh Timur and the DAP adviser

An outsider seeking to understand the angry debate over a Florida pastor who plans to hold an "International Burn a Quran Day" on September 11 would do well to consider two texts familiar to most Americans.

First is Ray Bradbury's novel Fahrenheit 451 (the title refers to the temperature at which paper burns).

This reading-list staple in American high schools tells the story of Guy Montag, a "fireman" of the future whose job is not to extinguish fires, but, in an over-entertained, savage dystopia, to burn books.

And thereby to extinguish independent thought.

The book echoes the anti-intellectual strain in American culture, something Bradbury worried about in the America of 1953. Fears of Soviet "enemies within" were tearing the nation apart; the country's politics and cultural life were polluted by a fantasy-based ideological witch hunt organized by Senator Joe McCarthy of Wisconsin.

The other document is the US constitution, a text Americans are taught to venerate as a model charter for ensuring life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Its first amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It is not, obviously, freedom of religion that explains the planned action of the Florida pastor.

It is rather the constitutional protection of free speech that is important.

The pastor could easily evoke it before the courts to say that he was merely expressing himself – as the constitution guarantees – with his anti-Islamic bonfire.

That's why the White House, national religious leaders, and even the top military man in Afghanistan, David Petraeus, can only beg and plead with him to reconsider the damage his bizarre auto de fé may cause to public order in the US, and to America's image overseas.

But there's more than politics to this: ask an average American what he or she thinks about Quran-burning, they will likely reply that it is offensive in the extreme, even "un-American," and that an utterly marginal pastor has grabbed the limelight by sheer power of childish provocation.

Now lest Muslims abroad think this kind of religious provocation is exclusively targeted against them, they might consider the very American controversy surrounding the fairly self-explanatory work of art known as "Piss Christ": a photograph of a crucifix immersed in urine.

It is hard to think of an object better designed to rile the religious Conservative right – and in the late 1980s it worked perfectly, firing up, notably, Senators Al d’Amato and Jesse Helms.

But, ultimately, the conservative public's and politicians' anger could only focus on the $15,000 a government-funded arts body paid for the work, because the principle of free speech behind the public exhibition of the work was considered constitutionally, well… sacred.

The situation is different now, of course.

The planned religious "statement" by sacred book burning offends not the majority Christian population of the United States, but the minority group of Muslims living here.

Their depiction and treatment in the right-wing media, and even in political campaign ads is increasingly beyond the pale, even if forever protected by the First Amendment.

As I discovered at a giant rally attended by followers of Fox TV host Glenn Beck, for a growing part of the US public, they are the new enemies within.

While in most Western countries hate speech laws would prohibit much of what is intimated, alleged and hinted at about Muslims in the right-wing media here, in the US it is "anything goes" speech-wise.

But it is difficult to not to ask yourself at times if the free speech fetish hasn't gone too far.

Especially when you consider the fear pushing American Muslims to tone down their Eid celebrations, because they happen to coincide this year with the 9/11 commemorations.

Or when you consider that American Muslims feel it necessary to create TV ads to prove they are not terrorists.

Or when you consider the increasing incidence of anti-Muslim violence, including an arson attack on a mosque in Tennessee.

Finally, when you consider that a Florida pastor wants to burn a pile of Qurans, it is hard not to think also of what the German Heinrich Heine poet and essayist wrote in the early 1800s of the very same activity, undertaken during the Spanish Inquisition:

Dort, wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man auch am Ende Menschen

"Where they burn books, so too will they in the end burn human beings."

Heine was Jewish. His books would be burned too: in 1930s Germany.

"If you still say the bible is not true, I will say that no book is more honest." My latest literary diet has consisted of an obscure historical novel entitled Honor's Kingdom. Written by Owen Parry, it is a nineteenth century tale surrounding espionage in London between Confederate and Union agents and their attempts to secure European support during the Civil War. In one chapter the lead character is bemoaning the decline in respect for the bible brought on by the Age of Reason and the scientific explosion of that generation. Wrestling with the tenants of Darwinism, he brings to light the doubt that many have for biblical authority. In frustration the character shares his personal credo on the matter: "If you still say the bible is not true, I will say that no book is more honest." Indeed, there is no more honest writing to, as Parry declares, "Show us who we truly are." But I wonder in this age of enlightenment, super computer technology and instant communication, if this honest book is really authoritative to most people's lives? Do you know what I mean by "authoritative?" To me that means seeing the bible as the guide, the source, and the inspiration for my life. In other words, through the writings in the bible I find the directions for how I choose to live. Through the bible I am introduced to God, to Jesus, to the Holy Spirit and the expectations for how to model my existence. But there is a challenge here that is at the heart of what defines the Christian community in particular and human relations in general. And at the sake of being called a heretic, I think many folks are confused about what to do with the bible. For instance, there are many who insist on taking the bible literally in every aspect. They refer to it as the "literal word of God." They then suggest if you or I do not believe it, accept it literally, then somehow we are wrong. And if you are wrong about that, then you probably better get it right or suffer eternal consequences. When I was ordained back in 1980 the first church I served was in a town of about 350 people. I preached my first sermon that morning and then that evening I led the bible study. I will never forget standing up to read the scripture from the bible my bishop had given me when a member of the church stood up and shouted at me: "That's what's wrong with you seminary boys. You don't read from the real bible!" He got up and left in an angry huff. Of course, the "real" bible was the King James bible. There is both the implied and literal assumption that if the bible is not literally true in every aspect, every KJV "jot and tittle", then it is somehow flawed and not to be trusted. I've heard it called "the perfect word of God." (Isn't that designation reserved for Jesus as The Word made flesh? John 1 for reference.) I have always struggled with that kind of belief. Is my faith to be in the bible? Or is my faith to be in the One the bible reveals? I choose the latter, regardless of the translation. For me, it is just more honest. Of course, folks who think the bible has to be taken literally are threatened when someone who does not believe like they do are still confident about going to Heaven and serving God. Gives 'em the willies! Take the bible literally? Here is what that would look like. We would stone homosexuals to death ... along with adulterers and misbehaving children. Sorry, but we would never, under any circumstance, allow women to preach the word of God. (But they can teach it to children in Sunday School?) And don't forget, you must tithe 10 percent of your income. Before taxes! Then there is that whole business about handling snakes. We preachers are notorious about moving in and out of scripture like it is some worn out back door, ever struggling with the temptation to use it to prove a point or leverage a position. I am guilty, I confess. But, if you will pardon the biblical quote, Jesus said we are to use our hearts, souls and minds in this faith adventure. Do you suppose he was saying there should be a logical dimension to our faith? I do. Of course, the biblical belief pendulum swings the other direction, too. There are many who see nothing absolute, nothing "true" about the bible. It is fiction, it is myth to them. Like reading of Greek gods and Roman mythology, it is just fable and literary meanderings that have defined a culture's pre-occupation with mortality and immortality. A few years ago I participated in an archaeological dig with the University of Oklahoma. The site was a 10,000 year old bison kill with artifacts from Clovis man. One day about a dozen professors and professionals from across the nation drove in to view the excavation. I chatted up a number of them and when I announced I was a volunteer there for the experience, they asked me what I did for a living. "Me? I'm the pastor of a church in Texas." It was like waving a red flag in front of a bull. One of those learned men turned on me with a challenging tone. "How do you reconcile what you are seeing here with what it teaches you about creation in your bible?" I told him that if I believed the bible was a science book, I might have some problems to explain. But in that it is a book of theology, I saw no conflict. His wife drug him off, huffing. Literal? Nope, not for me. Authoritative? Absolutely! Important to my life and faith? Without it, I would be lost. But, I must always remember, it is not through the bible that I am found. No, that is more about the one God I understand the bible to be revealing. And in that sense, it is more about honesty than anything else. God is the author of grace, not the bible. The bible reveals that grace, but can never dispense it. And as one reads the very real, very human struggles of biblical characters that, in all honesty, have the same failures and hang ups as the rest of us, we actually begin to see ourselves. Honestly. It was, I believe, Robert Schuler who warned Christians to beware of "bibliolatry". That is, worshipping the bible to the same degree that we worship the God the bible reveals. To be consistent, that means remembering the Trinity only has three sides, not four. Maybe we should stop buying those fancy versions bound in Moroccan leather with gold tipped pages and red letters for the words of Jesus. Maybe the bible should be made like a laminated auto mechanics manual or a good, serviceable travel atlas. You know, something we can handle and not be afraid of, something that is viewed as the honest tool we can trust as we negotiate the repairs we need to make and navigate through life. Ultimately, I think our engines of faith will run better and we will arrive at that final destination just fine.