There is no such thing as absolute tolerance. Neither should we try to achieve one. If I accept pluralist democracy, I cannot accept Christian theonomy or Islamic theocracy. If I accept the rule of law, I cannot accept anarchism. But some systems are more tolerant than others. So we should opt for pluralist democracy, not because it is the absolutely tolerant system, but because it is more tolerant than any form of theocracy.

Accepting pluralist democracy is in line with the spirit of tolerance. It calls for tolerance towards non-Muslims on the part of Muslims, towards theists on the part of atheists, towards non-Christians on the part of Christians, towards non-Hindus on the part of Hindus etc…Such tolereance is what we need in a multi-religious nation.

Separation of religion and state does not require that political leaders have no religious beliefs.

Given that I’m merely a layman in politics or even political philosophy, let me quote from Dr. Ng Kam Weng again. In his ‘Pluralistic Democracy or Islamic State’, he explains that the notion of secular state is not inherently anti-religious:

‘The act to remove religious institutions from state sovereignty should not be seen as an act to undermine religion. On the contrary, the act alleviates the status of religion since its institutions become independent public institutions capable of censuring state authorities if it should arrogate for itself the final authority in human affairs. If anything, state authorities are morally held accountable to a higher transcendent authority.

Second, the separation between state and religious institutions is necessary to avoid possible conflicts in the event that some politicians exploit religious sentiments and incite disgruntled citizens to resort to violence. A quick look at Nigeria and the Indian sub-continent should serve as a salutary reminder against the temptation to mix religion and politics. Maintaining the precarious harmony between the various racial communities in Malaysia is already a most difficult task for any government. Confusing the boundaries between religious and political institutions will make matters worse given the conflictive nature of politics.

Some Muslims who are sympathetic towards a progressive and tolerant form of Islam may nonetheless feel obliged to back away from talk of a secular state because of the misconception that to support for a secular state is to betray one’s religion. Indeed, now and then, some Muslim activists accuse those who argue against the establishment of the Islamic state of insulting Islam. In the process, emotional rhetoric ends up forestalling efforts to develop an objective and rational approach towards resolving differences. The status of Malaysia as a secular state in our Constitution cannot be gainsaid. But we should move away from forcing the issue of having to choose either the secular state or the Islamic state. Instead, we should focus instead on the task of building a strong pluralistic democracy in order to avoid unnecessary emotional reactions.

The goal of strengthening pluralist democracy is a positive agenda. Acceptance of plurality is a vital prerequisite for building overlapping consensus among citizens with different ideologies and religious beliefs. In this respect, the goal of a pluralist democracy is to provide manageable platforms for the resolution of differences among citizens. That being the case, there should be a separation between religious and state institutions to ensure that national consensus is one that emerges from grass root interaction rather than one that is imposed from above.

Fundamental to pluralist democracy is the recognition of equal rights of persons regardless of their religious affiliation and their unrestricted participation in civil society. This is based on three democratic principles. First, the libertarian principle or principle of toleration. The state simply recognizes the inalienable right of citizens to practise – or even not to practise – religion. It is therefore inappropriate for state institutions to interfere with this religious freedom.

Second, the equalitarian principle requires impartiality of the state in not favouring a particular religion to the extent that it discriminates against other religions. This principle also demands that public offices should not be restricted exclusively to citizens professing a certain religious affiliation. This principle accepts that there can be different degrees of establishment of religion. Still, it deems the establishment of religion as, in general, an obstacle towards the maturing of democracy.

Third, the neutrality principle says that the state should not favour citizens simply because they are religious. The state must maintain impartiality between the religious and the non-religious, or between citizens of different religions. A pluralist democracy promotes a citizenry that is capable of transcending partisan politics and of exercising rounded judgment and careful weighing of ambiguous alternatives.

Hopefully, the above discussion will help dispel the common and unfair stereotyping of pluralist democracy – or even the secular state – as one that is inherently against religion. More importantly, the call for a pluralist democracy springs from a recognition of the fundamental concrete realities of Malaysian society. Furthermore, only a pluralist democracy is able to mobilize the resources from all citizens to ensure that our nation is able to cope with the unrelenting onslaught of globalization.’

http://www.kairos-malaysia.org/index.cfm?menuid=6

‘Most Muslims cannot accept a secular state’

Would you please support this claim.

I cannot affirm or deny this proposition without any statistics. However, the most populous Muslim nation in the world – Indonesia – is a secular state. Of course, this does not disprove or prove the proposition.

Perhaps what you wanted to say is that ‘most Malaysian Muslim cannot accept a secular state’.

But you’ll need to substantiate that as well.

What I said was ‘IF it is true that some religions have the natural tendency…to curtail the rights of other religious believers’ in response to Alistaire’s claim about evangelical Christians: ‘naturally they have interest in restraining the influence of a religion not being their own’.