Month: August 2010

A war of words raged on these pages a few weeks ago. My article A Secular Society Interrupted led several readers to engage in a heated debate about whether there is such a thing as innate goodness.

I would very much like to believe in the ‘innate goodness’ of human beings. But I have no empirical evidence to support that belief.

The French philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau believed in the innate goodness of man, that man did not acquire ethical and moral values but was born with them. According to Immanuel Kant, the German philosopher, these innate ideas are the only things we have certain knowledge of, and thus are the most important and trustworthy of all.

Confucian philosophy is built on the l belief that man is basically good. He did say, though, “I for my part have never yet seen one who really cared for goodness, nor one who really abhorred wickedness.” (Analects 4:6)

What I was arguing in A Secular Society Interrupted was simply that one should not assume that those who do not subscribe to a religion have no sense of right and wrong, or that their stand on certain issues is suspect since they don’t believe in God.
In making that argument, my main concern is whether we are able, if we owe allegiance to a religion, to suspend our religious values in a public space in a secular society rich in diversity of religion, culture and race. This is not, however, a denial of the role of religion in public life and debate on issues and policies. Every individual has a civic responsibility to engage in public debate in areas that matter to them.

My point is that the need to suspend personal beliefs is a critical requirement of policy-makers. Every day, policy-makers are called upon to make decisions that profoundly affect the lives of people. Are they able to suspend the influence of personal factors, such as sex, race and religion, and make decisions based on facts? Or, at least, can they tell us, the citizens, on what basis they have made their decisions on matters that affect us? Are they able to be transparent?

As I see it, the problem, particularly in Singapore, is the lack of a safe place for such questions to be raised; for an open discussion on the role of religion, the role of conscience in public life.
Meanwhile, on the discussion about ‘innate goodness’ – my Google research revealed that it is a very hotly debated topic. I have yet to discover which side is winning the argument.

I conclude, on a lighter note, with a story. It’s from Faith without God: Finding Courage in Hard Times by Lawrence Bush of the Brooklyn Society for Ethical Culture. He writes:

There is a Jewish story about a devout man who is on a difficult business trip and realizes that he’ll never get home before the sun sets and the Sabbath begins. He presents himself at the home of the local rabbi and says, ‘Rabbi, the Sabbath is about to begin, please let me stay with you and keep me from sinning.’

The rabbi says, ‘My good man, I have a household full, I cannot fit one more. Go in good health; I’m sure that God will provide.’

The poor traveler goes to another house, with religious ornamentation on its door, and he gets the same friendly rebuff, ‘I’m sure God will provide.’ This keeps happening, as the sun sinks and darkness spreads.

Finally he comes to the home of the local Bundist, the radical, the atheist. And he is amazed to be brought in. And he is amazed that the Bundist has Sabbath candles on the table, waiting to be lit, and bread and wine, waiting to be blessed and eaten.

They do all that together, and the traveler says, ‘My friend, how can it be? All of the religious Jews in your town send me away from their door, telling me that God will provide; and you, a rascal, an atheist, you bring me in and treat me to kindness . . .’
‘Because, my brother,’ says the Bundist, ‘I know that God will not provide.’

Last year the extraordinary development that the media dubbed ‘The AWARE Saga’ forced us, AWARE members, to re-examine our commitment to a secular organization and to affirm our values. We – and many others in Singapore – realised that our secularism needs to be fought for, defended and protected.

History shows us that secularism is not a settled state but one that requires periodic reviews, and safeguards, especially when its concept and practice is threatened. Hindu fundamentalists in India, for instance, continue to challenge the secularism of India. Mahatma Gandhi paid the ultimate price when he was killed by a Hindu fanatic for his defence of pluralism. The main opposition to secularism comes from fundamentalism, and fundamentalism poses the greatest threat to women’s rights.

Singapore was a secular state at independence. With our early cosmopolitan population, we were in fact well on our way to being a secular state long before independence. The first Chinese Temple, the Thian Hock Keng Temple, was built in 1821; the first Hindu temple in 1823, the first mosque in 1824, the first Church in 1835.

Most secular states – UK, USA, and many European countries, for example – evolved their secularism over centuries, sometimes after bloody struggles to wrest power away from the dominant Christian Church. Countries which are well-known as constitutionally secular states include India, France, Turkey and South Korea.

So what is ‘secularism’?

Secularism, in its most extreme form, means completely denying any public voice to religious communities. In this view, religion remains in the private domain.

In political terms, secularism can refer to reducing ties between a government and religion and replacing laws and policies based on scripture (such as the Ten Commandments and Syariah law) with civil laws, and eliminating discrimination on the basis of religion. No one set of values has precedence over other value systems.

The more benign definition of secularism allows for public expression of religious views. In other words, religious groups have as much right as non-religious groups to promote and advocate their positions and their values. They are thus participants in the political process of the country. Last year’s takeover of AWARE by a group of fundamentalist Christian women was a highly political process as was the struggle by the secularist members to win it back.

Singapore’s secularism is a benign one given the existence of institutions, such as hospitals and schools, run by religious organisations which receive state aid but whose existence is contingent upon state approval and public policies. Their active participation in the state is a historical recognition of their contribution to society as serving the public good.

A more important condition of secularism is that public policies be based on facts and not on the basis of religious or cultural proscriptions. An obvious example of this is the attitude towards the use of condoms.

The fact is that the use of condoms prevents unwanted pregnancies and STI (sexually transmitted infections). That the use of condoms is wrong or immoral is a religious view not based on fact. Another example is the status of women. The claim that women should be subservient to men is a religious and/or cultural attitude and not one based on fact.

In this sense, secularism requires politicians to make decisions based on secular reasons rather than on religious ones. It follows then that decisions about many contemporary issues, such as stem cell research and sex education, should not be based on religious beliefs.

The opponents to secularism would argue that a secular system is lacking in values and is morally unacceptable. This argument, besides being arrogant and patronizing, also denies the possibility of moral human beings whose actions are governed by their innate sense of goodness.

George Jacob Holyoake, who coined the terms ‘secularism’ in 1851and ‘jingoism’ in 1878, defines secularism as ‘a code of duty pertaining to this life, founded on considerations purely human. Its essential principles are three: (1) The improvement of this life by material means (2) That science is the available providence of man (3) That it is good to do good. Whether there be other good or not, the good of the present life is good, and it is good to seek that good here in this world.’