Is Secularism under Siege by Thio?

Recently, Thio Li-Ann wrote an article in the Straits Times entitled, “Secularism, the Singapore Way,” on the 30^th Oct 2007,

There, she puts foward the proposition, 

“In Singapore, secularism is useful as a framework to promote co-existence of different religions and belief systems…..however, reading “secularism” in an anti- theistic manner to exclude religious perspectives would no longer be a neutral position.” 

To paraphrase, what she’s essentially saying: to exclude religious groups from ANY discussion of policy may NOT even serve the democratic process. As it may marginalize a segment of society.

She adds, Singapore may even have such a thing as a “unique” model of secular governance that doesn’t require the government to maintain as neutral an attitude as possible towards religion when deciding issues concerning the public policy.  

While, I don’t disagree consultation with religious bodies or for that matter the RSPCA does add considerably to the depth of any public debate and may even produce beneficial outcomes.  

The question is; whether it’s even desirable for political process to be influenced in part by religious groups?

No one disputes, churches, temples and mosques serve as bastions of moral rectitude and they even reach out deep into the community to reflect the sentiments of the ‘collective will’: however, what must be recognized is there are also systematic limits which will always work against the role religious organizations as being all inclusive to any dialogue – for example: religious organization are also counter cosmopolitan centers which regularly churn out the ideal, there is only ONE right way for ALL human beings to live: that all differences must be in the details.

How does any legal scholar propose to reconcile the diversity between religion and politics under those conditions? 

Well, it cannot be done. What Thio fails to recognize is the complexity associated with fusing religious alongside political discourse, not only do they differ conceptually. But they diverge in principle so acutely, as to even suggest these two incompatible dichotomies: cannot possibly ‘see eye to eye’ under practically every condition – to suggest one is able to compliment the other by adding value to the discourse remains facile and unconvincing. 

Not only does a wealth of evidence militate against such a proposition: religion and politics can consistently produce ‘good’ that necessarily out weights the bad.  

That’s only possible, if “good,” isn’t wholly dependant on how the beholder perceives ‘good’ quotient. Another problem with linking religion and politics even under ‘limited’ terms is:

how does one propose to delineate the ‘religious’ discourse from overcoming the substantive text, precedent and logic of the law?

What ‘methodology’ does one deploy to ensure the respective threads in the debate remain coherent without spilling over? When does religious inspired legislative discourse degenerate into institutionalized bullying, harassment and persecution? Surely, even Thio recognizes the slipperly slope of pursuing such a strategy without first addressing the discipline of methodology.  

Neither does she seem to appreciate, whenever the line between religion and politics is blurred, it throws out the hubris: which one takes priority under a given set of conditions?  Do religious considerations take precedence over constitutional law or vice-versa?

After all doesn’t the former belong to divine pedigree that cannot possibly be challenged in any court of law presided by man? Can God really be wrong? Besides how does one harmonize the competing religious interest to possibly flesh out the law, policy or directive so that it best reflect the sentiments and interest of all religious quarters? Is that lofty goal even possible? Given, all too often the ‘issues,’ often tug in different directions – which viewpoint under any given conditions should be given primacy? What will happen, when there is a conflict between lets say, Quranic and Biblical text? Or Should the Bhavagad Gita or Sutra be brought to light?

Realism requires recognition that any attempt to link religion and politics can at best only produce aberrations and in worst cases even injustices: while nothing should prevent individuals from reaching political decision that are influenced in part by their religious beliefs in the private sphere. To even advocate a ‘limited’ dialogue that permits politics to be colored with religious considerations places the tenets of constitutional law in an untenable position.

This raises the nagging question: can religious organizations resist the temptation to cross the line between merely coexisting with governments to full blown active political participation?

Is there a danger when religion and politics become too closely link, one will leach into the domain of the other ghosting the lines even further? Will religious justification be used in the legislative and executive process, as in the case of Bush administrations ‘war against terror?’ Would this breed a type of complicity where religion assumes the ratio of law making at the expense of higher constitutional ideals? 

The whole idea of even suggesting for one moment, it’s even possible to successfully balance the dichotomy of religion with politics, elides completely the a priori rationale; why secularism continues to be the only means by which so many successful governments around the world continue to maintain a fire wall between religion and politics – they see it as a deadly combination – a powder keg even! 

To the extent that all religions honor fundamental tenets of love, peace and justice is NOT in dispute. But to believe they are able to contribute to the ‘collective good’ without running the risk of breaching the doctrine of separation of powers, that requires religious organizations to remain outside the ambit of the legislative and executive process remains disturbing. As it denies the whole proposition; why there was even the doctrine of separation of powers in the first instance?

For if the truth be known our constitution and much of what forms the backbone of our constitutional law today, has little if anything to do with ‘Singapore’ or anything even remotely “unique” as Thio would have us all believe.

Rather much of what forms the substantive back bone of our constitutional law is simply an accretion that harks, all the way back to political philosophies which recognizes the importance of separating religion from statecraft viz- a-viz, Aristotle, John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Montesquieu.  

To even suggest for one moment, the whole idea of ‘limited’ secularism can be sensibly mooted without first recognizing the need to address these higher constitutional principles, and. The limits they impose on the role of the legislature and executive is to miss the wisdom of what in the 8^th century, the prophet Isaiah said, by way of teaching to the Jewish people,

“to strive to be in the world, but not of it.” i.e (keep God’s stuff separate from Man’s stuff.)

Thio would do well to remember Isaiah’s prophetic warning to all scholars in her future disquisitions concerning constitutional law in Singapore.

Only because by attempting to argue on the reverse of the dictum,

“to strive to be in the world, by being it.” (God and Man stuff are one of the same reality.)

All she’s doing is paving the way for religious denominations to directly influence public policy, allowing them to force their tenets on others, thereby repudiating the whole idea of the secular state – what I wonder would Ceasar think of that?

(By Dotseng, Anongal, Scimitar & Aurora – Law – EP 99018452 – The Brotherhood Press 2007)