Clear grasp of all issues necessary in religion-politics debate

Clear grasp of all issues necessary in religion-politics debate

I WAS happy to see on Wednesday an excerpt from the speech of Nominated MP Thio Li-ann on the issue of religion and politics ('No 'bright line' between religion and politics'), with some clarifications. Ms Felicia Tan's letter on Thursday ('Facts outshine faith') was helpful too, where it underlines that 'religion-based arguments have no place in public debate about policies'. I must confess I did not find the article by Professor Kishore Mahbubani, 'The virtues of secularism' (May 20), particularly clarifying or helpful, despite its claim to logic.

What we need in any constructive discussion are two things: first, a clear grasp of all issues involved, and second, a balanced presentation of the proposed solution, one that minimises tension by giving due weight to all elements, not eliminating one via dogmatic statements or cheap slogans.

In this sense, I am at a loss, to put it mildly, by the editorial liberty taken when a big and bold headline was added to Ms Tan's letter, or when Prof Thio's position was summarised as 'Agnostic secularism...is a virtue', while leaving out the most important qualification that was an essential part of her statement.

Positively, I propose my own understanding in these summary statements:

- The separation between church and state, religion and politics, religious affiliation and political parties, is a great good of our secular society.

- Deciding public policy is not simply a matter of expediency. The 'common good' necessarily implies considerations of an ethical nature, of respecting or degrading human dignity. In other words, there is something like political ethics, as we also have business ethics. This is not always accepted by all.

- Considerations that are based on religious conviction have no place in deciding policies in our secular society. This does not mean that, when a relevant (secular or humanist) argument happens to be shared by one or other religion, it would thereby lose its validity or become suspicious. People with religious convictions have the same rights as others when they advance secular, humanist arguments.

Paul Staes

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.515