Straits Times forum article on religion and politics

The following controversial post was contributed to the Straits Times forum today. Sounds pretty cynical and touchy. My opinion is, if one doesn't put God before family, then how can one ensure that God is always the focal point of decision-making in one's life? It just doesn't sound logical. Then why look for a God in the first place?

Aug 1, 2005
Religion is a choice and don't mix it with politics (by Nigel Hee Dewen)


I REFER to The Straits Times Special Report, 'God and us' (ST, July 16). In the article, 'Nation of believers', the question of the 'place of religion in this modern city state' was raised.

Answers given were rather commonsensical: that religion was 'tied to race and ethnicity', and in Mr Andre Ong's case, tradition.

However, I feel that being born into a religious family does not necessitate the child taking after the same religion. To insist on such would be to infringe on the fundamental rights of freedom accrued to all by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which advocates: '...the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear...

'Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, this right includes the freedom to change his religion or belief...'

Why should the child take up the parents' religion? Is a child of suitable age not able to make an informed choice? By insisting on it, are the parents not violating the basic rights that are accrued to all?

Religion is not something that you are born into; it is something that you choose to be involved in.

In response to Mr Ong: Why allow yourself to be restrained by tradition? The decision towards higher education should be made of your own free will.

I agree with Mr Mohamad Ridwan that family should come before money.

But God before family? No matter what miracles that God can or has performed, he does not bring money home for your children's allowances. He does not provide in this material life - which is where we are.

In the article, 'Reaping a rich harvest of converts', it was mentioned that new churches have employed methods similar to modern marketing campaigns.

Mr Matthew Kang of New Creation Church says that 'such elements draw younger people' but insists that otherwise, 'we do nothing to recruit members'.

One can say the same thing of any marketing campaign to sell cellphones. These methods are but glamorous marketing tactics masked in religion. Why do we need to resort to these measures to draw the younger crowd?

Furthermore, why should the Government consider religious beliefs when it comes to making policies?

The usual argument would be that allowing gambling here would open the doors to other sins or crimes. There is no direct causal link between them. The existence of one does not necessarily imply the existence of the other.

Mixing religion and politics is a touchy issue - much like balancing a bottle of nitroglycerin on the tip of a sword. Why complicate things by trying to tap-dance at the same time?

My question concerning the issue of God is similar to that of Mr Esmond Chng, albeit with a twist: How much suffering is enough?

This question is not new, and it may be of interest to note that the Archbishop of Canterbury recently said he had questioned his own faith in God.

We cannot prove - nor disprove - the existence of God. It may be best to wield Occam's Razor here, and cut away the unneeded parts: There is no need for God.