How far should religion influence political decisions?

DEFINITION of political decisions: Laws passed by the government STAND: There should be religious tolerance but no religion should be favoured or discriminated against. Recently, the series of attacks on churches in Malaysia, due to the overturning of a law that banned the use of Allah to refer to the Christian God, has drawn much international attention. The issue sparked off a discussion on religion influencing political decisions. Religion, a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of people and sects, should be considered when making political decisions for it concerns the majority of people. However, an extreme bias towards a certain religion should not be encouraged, for it can cause social unrest due to the unequal treatment of people, possibly leading to serious implications such as economic instability.

When religion influences political decisions, many problems may arise due to the religious inequality, an issue that should not be taken lightly. In Northern Ireland for instance, rivalry is present between two main religious groups, the Catholics and Protestants. As the current government is largely Protestant, numerous laws which put Catholics at a disadvantage were passed, including limiting Catholics rights to education and preventing them from becoming Members of Parliament. These prejudiced laws have led to years of armed conflicts, and numerous deaths in the process. It is inevitable that people will revolt when forced to abide to such biased laws, hence political decisions should not, under religious influences, discriminate against other religions in order to avoid serious consequences like social unrest.

When only one religion is considered in political decisions, the laws passed may contradict certain religions or schools of thought, but will still be unfairly enforced. (Take the example of the marriage law in Malaysia) Islam has many different sects but Malaysia, which is an Islamic State, is based on Syafie rulings, where a single Muslim lady must have the permission of her father before she can get married. However in Hanafi ruling, a single Muslim lady can choose to marry whoever she pleases. Since Syafie rulings are enforced upon all Muslims, if a Hanafi Muslim ladys father disapproves, her marriage will not be recognized. Hence to prevent such unfair situations from

occurring, religious influences should not play such a major part in political decisions.

Also, when one religion openly influences political decisions above all others in extreme cases, believers of that religion may be led to think that no other religion has the right to be considered. For example in Malaysia, three churches have been burnt down by Muslims who were against a court ruling that allowed a Catholic newspaper to use Allah in its Malay-language editions. In this case, religious inequality has created the mindset of Islam superiority, which is causing increasing tensions amongst citizens. Such conflicts can actually be avoided, if the government does not pass religiously unfair laws. Therefore, political decisions should not be too openly influenced by a particular religion because tension may arise from laws that are not fair to everyone in the country.

At the other end of the spectrum, when religion does not influence political decisions, inequality and discrimination can still occur. France is a secular nation, and thereby does not encourage prominent displays of ones religion. The government has intentions to ban Muslim women from wearing the niqab (face veil) as it feels that it is too openly reflective of Islam and also demeaning to Muslim women in this modern society. However, the women feel that such a law would disrespect their religion and violate their rights to preserve their modesty. Therefore the complete abolishment of religion in political decision is also not ideal as certain concessions to religious rights should be made in order to maintain harmony.

Singapore is a good model of a country that has achieved social cohesion, with the right balance of religious tolerance and secularism. Singapore, being a multi-religious society, has succeeded in maintaining harmony, with no social unrest for the past 40 years. The Presidential Council of Minority Rights (PCMR) was set up to ensure that new laws passed by Singapores parliament do not discriminate against any particular race, religion or community. Not taking any side ensures equality and satisfaction for all, and thus social stability. Social stability is crucial in ensuring the economic growth of a country- more foreign investors would be willing to invest in a

country without religious conflicts, as in times of unrest, there will be losses sustained from riots and uprisings.

At the end of the day, political decisions should be made with the objective of achieving One people, one nation in mind, which means equal rights for every citizen in the country. Only when laws are fair to all religions, or even race and language, will unity and stability in the country be attained. As can be seen from the above cases of Malaysia and France, too much or too little religious influence in political decisions may lead to undesirable consequences like discrimination and unrest. Therefore, governments should carefully try to strike a balance between the two extremes in the interests of all citizens.