Religiously informed views can make policies better

Religiously informed views can make policies better

I REFER to last Thursday's letter by Ms Felicia Tan, 'Facts outshine faith'.

Ms Tan advances the concept of pure secularism as the superior and only rational option for a multi-religious country like Singapore, believing that this is essential 'to ensure that no policies or public debates encroach on the beliefs or disbeliefs of any individual'.

I respectfully disagree. A non-religious policy has as much potential to encroach on the beliefs or disbeliefs of any individual as a religiously informed one. Even a non-religious policy such as on the integrated resorts will encroach on the beliefs of those who believe the state should not condone gambling, whether out of religious conviction or non-religious experience.

In my opinion, it is precisely because Singapore is multi-religious that it is necessary for a fair opportunity to be given to all views, whether based on religion or not, to be debated by any individual or parliamentarian who cares to raise them. What is essential is that this debate should be carried out respectfully, with the hope that different views will find common areas of agreement, and with the understanding that one view (or certain parts of one view) may sometimes have to give way graciously to another in the implementation of a policy or law.

Ms Tan also argues that, as part of pure secularism, 'only logic and reason should dominate discourse'.

And that 'scientific, sociological and economic facts' and not faith should form the basis for a policy or law.

The process of law or policymaking is not so simple.

The death penalty or castration would be highly effective in deterring rapists from re-offending. However, many of us would hesitate to prescribe such severe penalties for rapists. A clinical examination of scientific or economic facts alone does not determine law or policy.

This leaves secular values to mean the values held by the majority on a non-religious basis at a particular time. If so, Ms Tan must be prepared for the possibility that such values may change over time. What the majority perceives as cruel and unusual punishment for rapists today may be regarded as completely acceptable in the future.

Religiously informed values, on the other hand, do not shift with the mood prevailing in society, at least in theory. This is the positive contribution which religious conviction can bring to the debate and formulation of policies and laws.

Melvyn Lim

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.533