Why was the cross issue raised only after years of coexistence?

Question

Accepted Answer

The Timing of the Cross Protest Raises Questions Amidst Long-Standing Religious Harmony

The recent protest against a church displaying a cross in Taman Medan, which ultimately led to the church agreeing to remove the symbol, has sparked debate regarding the timing of such an objection. The core of the issue lies in why this particular religious symbol became a point of contention only after years of the community coexisting as a multi-racial and multi-religious society, particularly when Malaysia's Federal Constitution guarantees freedom of religion.
Constitutional Provisions on Religious Freedom and Limitations

Malaysia's Federal Constitution, as the supreme law of the land, explicitly enshrines fundamental liberties, including the freedom of religion under Article 11(1). This provision grants citizens the right to profess, practise, and propagate their respective religions. However, Article 11(4) introduces limitations, allowing for restrictions on the propagation of religions to Muslims. Furthermore, Article 11(5) stipulates that the freedom of religion can only be curtailed if the religious activities result in public disorder, a disturbance of public health, or immorality.
Questioning the Rationality and Impact of the Objection

The author questions the assertion that a static religious symbol like a cross could inherently challenge Islamic faith or influence Muslim children. Such claims are presented as irrational, particularly given that the cross is a universally acknowledged symbol of Christianity, representing concepts like salvation and triumph. The incident occurred during a Sunday sermon, and the protest involved claims that the cross challenged Islamic faith and could influence Muslim children.
Violation of Religious Freedom and the Nature of Disturbance

The protest and the subsequent demand for the cross's removal are argued to have violated Article 11(1) by infringing upon the church's right to practise its religion. The author posits that the only legally permissible grounds for limiting religious freedom are public disorder, health disturbances, or immorality, none of which a displayed cross is shown to cause. The rally itself is identified as the primary source of disturbance, rather than the religious symbol it protested against.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Why was the cross issue raised only after years of coexistence?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends