Don't legitimise government intervention in religion

Alex Au thinks the response by Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng in tackling increasing public religiosity is "inadequate" and that Wong should have used the opportunity to draw clear lines in the sand.

Wong should have drawn three red lines in the sand.

1. No religion may contest the secular foundations of the state, and "secular foundations" should have a broad meaning. All actions of the state shall be based on secular public reasoning. Wherever, for example, the state has to adjudicate between good and bad, right and wrong, prohibition and permission, such judgements shall be free from any religiously-motivated inputs. This is a necessary clarification of the "no religion in politics" rule.
2. No religion may carve out more and more public space for itself, where "public space" again has a broad meaning. This means that taking over other civic groups, buying over commercial property, muscling in on education services or dominating airwaves will be considered beyond the pale.
3. Any religion or member of such who goes out to propagate hate, discrimination and ill-will against any other group of people, will be considered to be challenging the secular principle of equality and non-discrimination, and the human rights of the target group, and will be dealt with with the full force of the law.

I fully agree and support the first point. While it is unrealistic to expect zero influence of religion or faith on policy-makers, it is only fair that religions not sway politics and policy. They should be free to craft and critique policy based solely on logic and reason, without the burden of religion. This is not the first time I have stated this, and I doubt it will be the last.

His second point I agree overall, but I am concerned about anything that is defined broadly. Au states some very good examples, and I believe religious groups can form their own advocacy groups or provide educational services, just as long as they play by the same rules as everybody else. All such affiliations should be declared and made public knowledge, and the public can make up their own minds about this. I am also strongly in favour of reforming charity investment laws so that CHC buying over Suntec City management can no longer happen.

The last part is what I worry about the most. Using the law in such a manner legitimises government intervention into any community, religious or not, creating a dependency on the government to enforce what should be guided by the conscience of a group's members or the public. Any religion, ideology, or practice should be allowed the freedom to speak and defend themselves, and the freedom to reject those practices or ideas should be left up to the people, and the people alone.

Any act which legitimises, or depends upon, the government to enforce a national "conscience" on any group ripens the ground for selective enforcement, and more nefariously, a weakening on the will of the people to speak out for their conscience. While I believe hate crimes should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, I do not believe that any form of speech, even hate speech, should be regulated. Instead, they should be subject to the full scrutiny of the public, without accorded the respect they demand, so as to completely demolish the arguments that are based in fear and unfounded hate.

The best way to challenge such hate speech is to reject it based on the secular principles of equality, inclusiveness, reason and human rights, and not using the law to intervene as a first resort. As Thomas Paine reminds us,

He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.