I wonder if you can provide some advice on the violation of House Rules or By-laws whereby individuals living in aCondo decide that it is his right to hang religious figure portrait or symbols above the door of their unit outside their unit that cause offence to his neigbours. What can and should be done in such a case as religion is a sensitive issue in our multi-faith and religion country.
Can you give your view on such a matters and circulate it among other Condo email sites for advice and discussion.
I personally have no problem on whatever religious symbol other have but when there is an objection of fear or offence what then?
Request for removal resulted in fierce objection from offending individual.
Hope to hears some response .
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I have doubts about any by-laws being breached but since you mentioned house rules having been broken, could you please post the relevant clause here so that a more detailed assessment could be made?
Generally ...
We are talking about inter-ethnic and inter-faith tolerance. We are talking about a united Malaysia. In other words we are talking about a unity which is blind to colours and beliefs.
If something is done by Mr A which does not cause any physical obstruction or result in any other form of deprivation of liberty to any other person, let it so be. Live and let live. Life is too short to indulge in games of demi-gods.
If an object hung above the private door (albeit visible in the common area) offends somebody, will that somebody who is so offended swear that he or she will take the same offence at the illegal shrines and deities and other religiously or culturally symbolistic edifices installed in public places and employ the same vociferous demands for their removal?
Will the same offended person display digust with the same passion at activities which serve his or her community but result in some form of real hinderance and deprivation to others?
Let me quote a real life example.
Mr K made a great deal of fuss when Family S held a wedding festivity in the playground of their apartment. Mr K said that such activities should not be allowed in the apartment and Family S should have had celebrated their joys at their house of worship or other more conducive environment instead of in public. Many moons down the road, the eldest son of Family R got married. Mr K, together with most of the neighbours, was invited to the party. This was held under temporary tents sent up in the open air car park. Mr K deviated from the opinion of some neighbours who were not at all pleased at losing thier car park for two nights by rationalising that the setting up of tents along public roads and in public car parks for such celebrations were part of the local culture.
Back to the clause which is supposedly breached - don't forget to let me have a look at it - I will help to revise it to one which promotes a non-divisive community of one Malaysian race. Its not just about living in small communities - the whole nation is at stake.
I will also create one new provisio which states that if the world out there is offensive, the offended had better stay in their own privated protected pigeonhole lest they fall prey to the beck and call of such offense and sin.
May the good Lord bless you.
David
Post a Comment