Religion & Politics - Facets of a Gem

Introduction

The forerunners of many social science disciplines today, including Emile Durkheim, Karl Marx, James Fraser, Max Weber and Sigmund Freud, collectively predicted the eventual waning of religion in the future (Olson, 2003). Jose Casanova categorized this process of secularisation into the privatisation, differentiation, and decline of religion (Casanova, 1994). In this essay, the notion of separation will refer to the process of differentiation and privatisation as described by Casanova. The main thrust of this essay is to argue that the separation of religion and politics is not a necessary condition for the maintenance and development of society. I shall attempt to demonstrate this by comparing in detail the cases of Singapore and the Philippines. In the first part of this essay, we will examine the impossibility of separating religion and politics through the theme of sexuality and sex. Following that, I shall attempt to demonstrate that religion and politics can meaningfully interact, for the better of society, through the lens of regulation. In the final segment of this essay, we will explore the counterargument that religion should be privatised and differentiated due to its inclination toward fundamentalism and violence.

Definitions

In this essay, politics would refer to activity of governments and groups intending to influence the government (Bruce, 2003). It is assumed that these activities are aimed at and meant for the maintenance and development of society, or at least for a part of society. Next, religion would be functionally defined as systems of belief in supernatural powers that are expressed through ritual, morality, scripture and the community (Schmidt, et al.). The idea of separation can be conceptualize as differentiation, which refers to the delineation of religious and non-religious spheres in society, and thus the relegation of the role of religion to its sphere of influence only. Separation can also be thought of in terms of privatisation, which refers to the process of withdrawing the ‘quest for salvation and personal meaning’ into the private lives of individuals. The betterment of society will be discussed from different and, at times, even opposing perspectives. However, this will mostly be considered as the proliferation of human rights in society.

The Schizophrenic Citizen – Inseparability of Religion and Politics in Individuals

The separation of religion and politics is not a necessary condition for the maintenance and development of society because separation is impossible. In their book ‘Religion in Development: Rewriting the Secular Script’, Deneulin and Bano concluded that it is impossible to separate religion and politics because both are, by their very nature, devoted to the betterment of humanity (Deneulin & Bano, 2009). Since the activities and deliberations of the government and civil society are, in principle at least, for the improvement of the state, and since religions prescribe specific ways of living that are perceived by the pious as good, politics and religion are inseparable. That is to say, the notions of differentiation and privatisation, put forward by Casanova, are unfeasible at the level of individuals.
Bruce further explains this inseparability in the context of Christianity by quoting at least two reasons that nudge Christians into politics. Firstly, by involving themselves in the political life of the state, Christians believe that they can effect change in society and thus pleasing God or averting His judgement on their sinful nation. Secondly, Christians also exert their presence in politics because they, out of love and compassion, want to share their salvation in God with the other citizens in their nation (Bruce, 2003). With these rationales in mind, we will now examine this notion of inseparability in Singapore and the Philippines through the lens of sexuality and sex.

Inseparability in Singapore

This notion that politics and religion are inseparable can be clearly seen in the recent AWARE saga in Singapore. AWARE, or the Association of Women for Action and Research, is a leading civil society group that advocates for the rights of women in Singapore (Association of Women for Action and Research, 2009). This association rose to prominence earlier this year because it was supposedly ‘hijacked’ by a group of Christians. On 28 March 2009, Josie Lau, and her group of fellow Christians from Church of Our Saviour, took over as the executive committee of AWARE (Tan, Wong, & Yen, 2009) (Yawning Bread, 2009).

Their primary reason, as declared by Lau, for their taking over of the AWARE leadership is to curb the promotion of the homosexual lifestyle in Singapore, specifically and especially, through the education system (Han, 2009). This is because, as part of their activist programme to protect the rights of women in Singapore, AWARE conducted sexuality education programmes for school-aged children in Singapore (The Straits Times, 2009). The former leadership of AWARE was accused by Lau and her group of Christian friends of endorsing the homosexual lifestyle in Singapore, specifically through the sexuality education programmes formulated by AWARE (TODAY, 2009). This prompted Lau and her team to take over AWARE so as to effect a change of direction in the issue of sexuality.

Homosexuality is frowned upon by some Christians because the English translation of the Bible explicitly condemns it. Examples include chapter nineteen of the book of Genesis, where the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was recorded. In that story, homosexuality is perceived to be a sign of extreme depravity in society (Siker, 2007). Other examples include chapters eighteen and twenty of the book of Leviticus, and the epistles of Paul to the Romans and Corinthians, also contain unambiguous warnings against homosexuality.

Taking the perspective of the group of Anglican Christians who took over AWARE in March 2009, one can appreciate the inseparable spheres of politics and religion. As part of the civil society group that advocates for the rights of women in Singapore, Lau and her team would want to improve the lives of Singaporean women. As Christians, they would naturally believe that a heterosexual lifestyle is the best way to live. Examining their stance through Bruce’s reasons mentioned above, we appreciate that Lau and her team may have taken over AWARE to prevent God’s judgment on Singapore and to ‘save’ the homosexuals from their ‘deplorable state’. Converging their religious convictions and civil social fervour, we can see that their desire to improve the lives of women would inevitably translate to stamping out homosexuality in Singapore. The inseparability of their religious and political lives would explain their actions in the recent AWARE saga.

However, this is not to say that Lau’s position against homosexuality and her ideas of what is best for women, and by extension Singapore, went uncontested. There are those who believe that an embracing and more liberal stance toward homosexuality would be good for the Singapore economy because it will bring in a creative class of foreign talent to boost her economic position at a global level (Tan & Lee, 2007). Opposition to Lau’s actions can be observed even within the church when Archbishop John Chew issued a statement as the president of the National Council of Churches chastising the Christians who were involved in the AWARE incident (Chew, 2009). It is interesting to also note, however, that these views of homosexuality are not divorced from the private religiosity of the individuals who purport it too. Although vastly different, they are based on beliefs of what is best for Singapore too, thus supporting our stance of the inseparability of religion and politics.

Inseparability in the Philippines

Moving on, we can also observe the inseparability of politics and religion when we examine the issue of contraceptive use in the Philippines. This is a touchy issue in the Philippines because it is closely related to the religious lives of the Filipinos, and to the rising numbers sexually transmitted infections, specifically the human immunodeficiency virus or HIV (Apilado, 2009). The Philippines, being a dominantly Roman Catholic country, is bound to be influenced by the position of the Catholic Church at large with regards to the issue of contraceptive use (United Nations Statistics Division, 2006).

The official position of the Roman Catholic Church is one that is against the use of contraception (British Broadcasting Corporation, 2005). Various reasons are quoted for their position against the use of contraception, but the most frequent justification is the Biblical account of Onan, from chapter thirty-eight of the book of Genesis; Onan was struck dead by God for spilling his semen on the ground to prevent the impregnation of his sister-in-law. The Catholic Church interprets this account as God disapproving the use of contraception, reinforcing their stance that sex should be reserved for procreation purposes only (Brom, 2004). Further, the Roman Catholic Church believes that the way to combat the spread of HIV is through a life of celibacy and fidelity, not through the promotion of contraceptive use (Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines, 1993).

These religious beliefs came into the political foreground when the Filipino government tried to pass Republic Act 8504 or RA 8504 in 1998. Then President Fidel Ramos, a protestant Christian, encouraged the passage of RA 8504, which included a condom distribution programme (Department of Health, 1998). This was vehemently opposed by some Roman Catholic priests and organizations like the Opus Dei (Apilado, 2009).

In this case study, the notion of inseparability can be observed from the perspective of the Filipino Catholics too. As part of an engaged citizenry who wants the best for the Philippines, the Filipino Catholics would want to curb the spread of HIV in their country. As Catholics, they would believe that a life of celibacy and faithfulness is the best God-pleasing option. With the convergence of these perspectives in mind, we can now understand the rationale behind their opposition to the passage of RA 8504 and the distribution of condoms.

However, as with the case of AWARE in Singapore, the position of the Roman Catholic Church did not go unopposed. There are individuals, both within and outside the church, who are of the opinion that the endorsement of condom use is a ‘lesser evil’ as compared to the propagation of HIV because of the economic costs of this disease (The Kaiser Family Foundation, 2006). Others argue that condom distributions should not be opposed because the economic production of individuals diminishes when they are struck by HIV, and resources need to be channelled into their treatment too (Apilado, 2009). Once again, we observe an illustration of differing viewpoints having opposing ideas of development despite having the same intent of having the best interests of society at heart.

Perhaps Davie was right in suggesting that the very view that religion and politics can be separated can be traced historically to its European roots in the Protestant Reformation, the ascent of the modern state, capitalism and science, and is applicable there and then only (Casanova, 1994) (Davie, 2007).

The Convergence of Religion and Politics – Regulation

Having examined the inseparability of religion and politics through the lens of sex and sexuality in the Philippines and Singapore, we now examine the second reason for the non-necessity of separation. The separation of religion and politics is not a necessary condition for the maintenance and development of society because there are instances in which religion and politics can interact meaningfully for the better of society. We can observe the maintenance and development of society albeit the convergence of religion and politics when we look at Singapore and the Philippines once again through the theme of regulation.

In their essay about religion and regulation, Beckford and Richardson suggested that religion can be both an ‘agent’ and an ‘object’ of management (Beckford & Richardson, 2007). In this second part of the essay, we will examine how religion is both an ‘agent’ and an ‘object’ of regulation in Singapore and the Philippines for the better of both societies.

Meaningful Convergence in Singapore

Singapore is arguably a relatively developed state in Southeast Asia. Citizens enjoy high standards of living, economic and political stability, and excellent social services like transport and education (Wong, 2009). Many attribute the success of Singapore to her management of religion as an ‘object’ (Koh, 2004). This notion of managing religion was highlighted recently in Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong national day rally speech in the allegory of a paddling swan, where the government is portrayed as working very hard behind the scene to manage potential religious conflicts in Singapore (Lee, 2009). Overt methods of management can be seen in the form of the maintenance of harmony act where the law clearly states that religion and politics must be separate, and the formation of inter-religious confidence circles (Oon, 2009). Less direct ways of management include highlighting the dangers of religious fundamentalism through headline cases in the mass media. Examples include the Christian couple who was jailed for distributing objectionable religious materials, and the teenage Taoist medium who committed suicide because of his beliefs (TODAY, 2009) (Chong, 2009).

While some may argue that the relative peace and economic success of Singapore is attributable to the differentiation and privatisation of religion enforced by the government, I would argue otherwise. That is to say, I would argue that religion’s contribution to the maintenance and development of the Singapore society is not merely by being an ‘object’ of regulation, but also by acting as an ‘agent’ of regulation.

In his article about Confucianism in Singapore and China, Barr points out that one can argue that the leadership of Singapore is legitimized on Confucian grounds (Barr, 2009). Delivering economic benefits is a major source of legitimacy for the ruling party, People’s Action Party or PAP, in Singapore. However, one can make a case that the notion behind voting for the party that delivers economic benefits is a Confucian value – meritocracy (Tan K. P., 2008). Looking at the PAP’s legitimacy in this manner would mean to say that the PAP is legitimized by Confucianism.

This is hardly agreeable with the ideas of differentiation and privatisation advocated by the state rhetoric. Here is a case of religion acting as an ‘agent’ of regulation, whereby the legitimacy of the state is dependent on the religious ideal of meritocracy. Thus, one may need to be more careful in drawing conclusions attributing the success of the Singapore story to secularism. If Barr is correct in his hypothesis that the Singapore government is legitimised by Confucianism, we may conclude that religion and politics can interact meaningfully for the development of Singapore, thus demonstrating the non-necessity of their separation.
 
Meaningful Convergence in the Philippines

Moving northeast across the South China Sea, we examine the regulation of politics and religion in the Philippines. In comparison to Singapore, Catholicism is less an ‘object’ of regulation than an ‘agent’ of regulation in the Philippines. Although the faith is not managed by the Filipino state in the same manner the Singaporean state manages religion, Catholicism undergoes internal regulation by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines or CBCP. In fact, internal consolidation of divergent views is the primary purpose of the CBCP’s existence (Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines, 2009). The CBCP reserves its right to be the voice of the Roman Catholic Church in the Philippines and this gives it power to guard against schisms within the faith (Apilado, 2009).

On the other hand, the idea of Catholicism being an ‘agent’ of regulation is very much more obvious in the Philippines. On 25 February 1986, approximately two million Filipinos poured out on the Epifanio de los Santos Avenue or EDSA to topple the regime of then President Ferdinand Marcos. The ousting of Marcos can be perceived as a development of society because of his oppressive dictatorship when he was in power. During his term as president, he allegedly suspended the right to a fair trial, declared martial law, changed the constitution to remain in power, granted unfair concessions to his family and friends, and hid away $26 billion of state funds in his private account (Coloma, 2002) (Mnsa, 1986).

The beginnings of this revolution can be traced to the assassination of Benigno Aquino, an outspoken politician who opposed Marcos’ dictatorship, in August 1983 (Lane, 1990). His death was the first instance in which Catholicism became an ‘agent’ of regulating the political power of the Philippines when it was seen as a symbol of Christ’s death and of martyrdom (Bautista, 2006). His funeral became an excellent opportunity for the clergy to flex their political muscles since funeral rites are bound to include elements of religion (Nepstad & Williams, 2007). In fact, during the ten-day period of mourning for Aquino, approximately two million Filipinos turned up to pay their last respect and a million came together to observe his anniversary a year later (Wright, 1988). Another instance in which Catholicism became an ‘agent’ of regulation can be observed when Cardinal Jaime Sin, the Archbishop of Manila, encouraged people to join the demonstration on EDSA through the radio (Gomez, Pedro, & Romero, 1986). Following his rally, priests, nuns and Christians carrying images of Mother Mary and Santo Ninos poured out on EDSA, fulfilling their political and religious duties against Marcos. Eventually, the EDSA revolution brought about the departure of Marcos and his family.

While it may be too much to attribute the ousting of Marcos to religion alone, it is undeniable that religion played an important role in facilitating his removal. In fact, some believe that without Cardinal Sin’s encouragement, many peasants, though unhappy with Marcos, would not march out on EDSA (Gomez, Pedro, & Romero, 1986). Here, we observe another case of an interaction between religion and politics for the better of society.

In the examples of Confucianism legitimizing the Singapore government and the EDSA revolution overthrowing the Marcos regime, we observe that religion and politics can bring about the maintenance and development of society even when they converge, thus, supporting our stance that the separation is unnecessary. Perhaps Emile Durkheim was right in suggesting that religion produces collective meanings which foster group unity.

Examining the Counterargument – Fundamentalism

Having examined the inseparability of religion and politics through the theme of sexuality, and the meaningful convergence of religion and politics through the notion of regulation, we now move to consider the counterarguments against the position of this paper.

In their book about religion and development, Deneulin and Bano noted that opponents to the position of this paper would argue that religion should be kept out of the political sphere because the pious are inclined to fundamentalism and violence (Deneulin & Bano, 2009). A fundamentalist can be thought of as a person who does not open up his position on an issue to discussions and scrutiny, and attempts to impose it on others who may not share his beliefs even using violent means. Needless to say, there are many instances in which violence is committed in the name of God. Examples include the September 11 attacks in New York and the 2002 and 2005 bombings in Bali (British Broadcasting Corporation, 2003) (British Broadcasting Corporation, 2005) (NewspaperArchive.com, 2009).

In their book on religious fundamentalism, Weiberg and Pedahzur summarized the characteristics of a fundamental group. Some features include the tendency to evaluate issues in a dichotomous manner where everything has to be right or wrong, the separation of the group from the rest of the world and the organisation of the group in an authoritarian manner under a charismatic leader (Weiberg & Pedahzur, 2004).

I would refute the counterargument for the separation of religion and politics by pointing out that the problem of fundamentalism does not lie in religion per se. The non-religious are not free from having values and may be susceptible to fundamentalist inclinations too (Thio, 2006). Examples of non-religious fundamentalism and violence can be observed in the AWARE saga mentioned above too. Two envelopes containing suspicious materials were sent to the Church of our Saviour when Josie Lau and her team were elected into the AWARE leadership (Sujin, 2009). While one may argue that these crude pranks are not comparable to the atrocities of the 9/11 and Bali bombings, the underlying principle behind these acts is one and the same – fundamentalism.

A more extreme example of non-religious violence can be seen in Southeast Asia too. In Cambodia, the reign of the Khmer Rouge, a non-religious communist party which ruled Cambodia from 1975 to 1979, was responsible for the deaths for 1.5 to 1.7 million Cambodians (Sharp, 2005). Anthropologist Alexander Hinton proposes that a key reason for this genocide lies in the Khmer Rouge’s vision to create a pure and exclusive class of Cambodians (Hinton, 2005). This vision resulted in the purging of the ‘impure’ elements in Cambodia. Clearly, the Khmer Rouge exhibits traits of a fundamental religious group too. The regime categorises people dichotomously into ‘pure’ and ‘impure’ groups, is organised under a charismatic leader Pol Pot and does not subject their worldview to scrutiny (Kiernan, 2002).

While it may be true to an extent that exclusiveness may arise from religious groups, the case of the Khmer Rouge demonstrates that fundamentalism is not exclusive to religions, but to any worldview, religious or not.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the separation of religion and politics is not a necessary condition for the maintenance and development of society. This is demonstrated in the fact that they are inseparable at the individual level because the nature of both religion and politics involve the betterment of society, and that there are instances in which religion and politics can meaningfully converge for the good of the country. As revealed in the examination of the counterarguments, separation is unnecessary because the problem arise from fundamentalism, not religion in itself.