Just read a quite a funny article today.........
The article was about a music album that is being sold with a free condom inside the CD case........
The funny thing is that this shouldn't have gotten any mileage at all in the press other than reason that the singer (Julia Perez) isn't that good (a bit like Paris Hilton, who I think is mostly only riding on her popularity more than her talent on her first album), at least for my taste...........
Guess what happened......... some religious organization, a provincial/ regional head of office and even a minister spoke out about banning it............
I do know that most Indonesian are smart...... especially........... those who hold official power like the ones I mentioned above............
Just because of those hot pistols shoot off their mouths the album sales actually shot up......
even some people are trying to download the music to hear if there are some promiscuous lyrics that they can make a story about.................
They should have calmed down about it and if they really need to get it off their chest they should have just played the sarcastic game for example by saying that the album will sink and even an air tight condom can't save it............... More ever how stupid do those people think Indonesian are??
There's no way people will buy an album just to get the condom and then sleep around.......
Helloooooo a pack of condom is definitely cheaper than a CD or cassette tape........
and they can be found in almost every convinience store in Indonesia now............
Also, why should anyone be surprise of the Julia Perez would do this when she was once chosen to be a part of the AIDS prevention programme......... which by the way as she said,..... her actual reason for doing so.
Although I'm not a fan of her, I applaud her efforts, because personally one of my ideas to prevent the spread of AIDS is to have a condom vending machine in every Restroom all over Indonesia and also to distribute condoms for free in High-Risk areas like Bali, Batam and Jakarta.
Give sex as well as reproductive system educations in Junior High (in Indonesia it's starts on the 7th grade after 6 year of Elementary school) or starting the age of 12 - 13 years old.
I say we shouldn't be banning her album in fact we should be doing the same thing if we want to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS............
If they say that by distributing condoms it promotes The Free Sex Lifestyle that is Morally wrong, well I say this;
"There is a bigger moral issue that is in play here and it is our God Given Moral duty to Prevent any loss of lives".
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Freedom of Speech & Expression
For a few days now Indonesia has been in turmoil over the freedom of speech & expression,
first of it was because of a stupid movie made by an ignorant man that is half way around the world away and the latest was of course the banning of a "dangdut" celebrity Ms. Dewi Persik who was allegedly dancing "too erotically" by the Mayor of Bandung.
First of all let's discuss about the freedom of speech and expression,
the idea of this of course came from our "big bro" the United States of America.
The idea was simple; every one has the right to speak about their opinions and express it so that they can be heard. This is done so that the minority opinion would have a standing in any matters that would alter the course of governance and way of life in the good old USA.
I thought that was genius, because in doing so a "Check and Balance" system was automatically in place, as basically pointed out today on The Jakarta Post Reader's Forum (17th April 2008 pg 7) by a man after my own heart Mr. Guile. The right of the people who makes porn sites to post their website is what guarantees that my right to post this blog of mine exists. That's how the check and balance works. In reverse the right for me to critize, protest and rebuke and warn people to take caution of a post is protected.
Now to Dewi Persik's problem, it is the same, the right for her to work the stage and dance "erotically" (in this case I utterly disagree that her dancing is erotic, to me its more like an amazement on her stamina to perform a song and still able to move like that) is the same right I enjoy to dance the Tango or Salsa or even to enjoy the Jaipong which is a traditional "sexy" dancing. The problem of banning her under the excuse of "making the men horny" is very much ambigous and may have further legal implications that is illogical. For example, If a woman went swimming even using a one piece suit and she got raped would you say that she brought upon against herself?? would you be comfortable in saying that it's not only the rapist fault but also the fault of the woman??. I'll bet that no one in his or her right mind would believe that. Not only that, would the mayor of Bandung ban paintings of Affandi and Basoeki that has a certain degree of nudity because it would invite "horny" reactions. Even in sports, in reverse would the same mayor ban men body building competitions because they only wear "under wears" and might incite housewives who watch the competition to commit adultery?.
Now the question begs, where do you draw the line?. My line is clear, it is the people who watch, see or looked that has to be responsible for their actions. If someone saw a so called erotic show and on the way home they raped someone, that someone is solely responsible and should be punished not the performer or the artist.
first of it was because of a stupid movie made by an ignorant man that is half way around the world away and the latest was of course the banning of a "dangdut" celebrity Ms. Dewi Persik who was allegedly dancing "too erotically" by the Mayor of Bandung.
First of all let's discuss about the freedom of speech and expression,
the idea of this of course came from our "big bro" the United States of America.
The idea was simple; every one has the right to speak about their opinions and express it so that they can be heard. This is done so that the minority opinion would have a standing in any matters that would alter the course of governance and way of life in the good old USA.
I thought that was genius, because in doing so a "Check and Balance" system was automatically in place, as basically pointed out today on The Jakarta Post Reader's Forum (17th April 2008 pg 7) by a man after my own heart Mr. Guile. The right of the people who makes porn sites to post their website is what guarantees that my right to post this blog of mine exists. That's how the check and balance works. In reverse the right for me to critize, protest and rebuke and warn people to take caution of a post is protected.
Now to Dewi Persik's problem, it is the same, the right for her to work the stage and dance "erotically" (in this case I utterly disagree that her dancing is erotic, to me its more like an amazement on her stamina to perform a song and still able to move like that) is the same right I enjoy to dance the Tango or Salsa or even to enjoy the Jaipong which is a traditional "sexy" dancing. The problem of banning her under the excuse of "making the men horny" is very much ambigous and may have further legal implications that is illogical. For example, If a woman went swimming even using a one piece suit and she got raped would you say that she brought upon against herself?? would you be comfortable in saying that it's not only the rapist fault but also the fault of the woman??. I'll bet that no one in his or her right mind would believe that. Not only that, would the mayor of Bandung ban paintings of Affandi and Basoeki that has a certain degree of nudity because it would invite "horny" reactions. Even in sports, in reverse would the same mayor ban men body building competitions because they only wear "under wears" and might incite housewives who watch the competition to commit adultery?.
Now the question begs, where do you draw the line?. My line is clear, it is the people who watch, see or looked that has to be responsible for their actions. If someone saw a so called erotic show and on the way home they raped someone, that someone is solely responsible and should be punished not the performer or the artist.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Follow - up of Separation of Church and State
In Matthew 22:15-22 we read:
Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. "Teacher," they said, "we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"
But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"
"Caesar's," they replied.
Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."
When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.
The last time I was talking about this topic it was aimed at my native country.... Indonesia who is currently according to my opinion not truly separating between Religion and State.
But as read through newspapers specially during this election battles that even in the United States this issue is still an on going battle between the conservatives and the liberals.
Sorry to say but I am more incline to side with the Liberals here, mainly because of the above Verse.......
The Passage taken from the book of Matthew above clearly states that even Jesus Our Saviour honours the separation of Church and States. He acknowledges that we must separate our obligation to the Church apart from what our obligation is to the Government.
That is why I agree that our religious disposition should not be compiled into the way a country is run.
Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. "Teacher," they said, "we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"
But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"
"Caesar's," they replied.
Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."
When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.
The last time I was talking about this topic it was aimed at my native country.... Indonesia who is currently according to my opinion not truly separating between Religion and State.
But as read through newspapers specially during this election battles that even in the United States this issue is still an on going battle between the conservatives and the liberals.
Sorry to say but I am more incline to side with the Liberals here, mainly because of the above Verse.......
The Passage taken from the book of Matthew above clearly states that even Jesus Our Saviour honours the separation of Church and States. He acknowledges that we must separate our obligation to the Church apart from what our obligation is to the Government.
That is why I agree that our religious disposition should not be compiled into the way a country is run.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
