Religion has legitimate place in influencing opinions

Religion has legitimate place in influencing opinions

I AGREE with Professor Thio Li-ann's analysis that secularism, as currently practised in Singapore, does not exclude religion ('Secularism practised in Singapore 'does not exclude religion'', Wednesday).

Nowhere do I find the statement or opinion in the report of Prof Thio's parliamentary speech, that 'religion is appropriate in the public sphere', as asserted by Ms Felicia Tan ('Facts outshine faith', Thursday).

'Pure' secularism, as espoused by Ms Tan, is possible only in a utopian world, simply because in the real world, one's opinion cannot help but be moulded by one's belief, whether religious or non-religious.

The example given by Prof Thio to illustrate her point, of MPs' admission of their particular faiths during a parliamentary debate over casinos in Singapore, is evidence enough of government recognition that religion influences opinion.

One should certainly not argue for or against public policies using points quoted from religious authorities or sources, but this is not the current practice here. Contrary to Ms Tan's views, the fact that Singapore is a multiracial, multireligious society is precisely why we, the public, should appreciate and ensure that we have a representative mix of organisational leaders from the various races and beliefs, both religious and non-religious.

Ms Tan's equating 'pure' secularism with arguing for or against a policy by appealing to 'scientific, sociological or economic facts of the issue' ignores the impact of one's beliefs on the interpretation of the so-called scientific facts, and on sociological matters.

One example is embryonic stem cell research using fertilised human eggs. One can argue for or against it, depending on whether one views the embryo as a mass of cells or the beginnings of human life. So on what 'scientific, sociological or economic' fact should a purely secular argument for public policy on this be based?

Another example is the Ministry of Education's policy regarding sexuality education in schools. That the ministry has reversed its initial policy because of a public outcry, much of it from parents with religion-related (described euphemistically as 'conservative') family views, is proof that their influence is being taken into consideration.

And what about legalising euthanasia? What secular facts should this policy be based on?

In the final analysis, the challenge in multiracial, multireligious Singapore is not to find purely secular resolutions, but ones which are acceptable to all as being for the common good.

Loh Chee Seen (Ms)


http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.519