Religion is personal, not political

Despite his three marriages, his boastful womanizing, Donald Trump has meagre Christian credentials. When he was asked during the Presidential campaign in 2016 if he ever asked God for forgiveness, he replied: “I don’t think so... I think if I do something wrong, I think, I just try and make it right. I don’t bring God into that picture. I don’t.”

Those analysing Donald Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton were at wits end trying to evaluate the “Christian” voting patterns. The Internet has volumes on this subject, but the eventual answer was that religion played a part in his success.

While Trump took a “don't care a damn” attitude, something the opposite happened closer to home. Indian politicians and parties, such as Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), have used religion and caste as a tool to garner votes and gain power since the 1990s.

However, in a landmark decision in January 2017, the Supreme Court of India banned the use of religion and caste in political activities in the run-up to state polls, where such affiliations often determine the fate of campaigns.

If the word “caste” is replaced by “race,” it presents a Malaysian scenario where race and religion have been the hallmark of campaigning by almost all parties in all elections.

The rhetoric that “My religion is better than yours” or “My religion takes you Heaven and closer to God” may be acceptable. But when you hear slogans like “If you don’t vote for our party, you can’t go to heaven,” it cannot be dismissed as a joke or political rhetoric.

Covert and, most times, overt messages have been sent to the voters – vote our kind and for our religion. It does not matter if he or she has the necessary requisites, let alone understand issues that affect the people.

If they remain just campaign slogans and are treated as such, there isn’t any problem. However, when it is used continuously to arouse the feelings, promote hatred and anger, especially of the gullible class, there’s a major problem on our hands.

“Our religion is under siege” has been the mantra when religion-based parties are on the campaign and if repeated often enough, there is the tendency to accept it as the truth as per Goebbels’ Gospel:

• Never allow the public to cool off;

• Never admit a fault or wrong;

• Never concede there may be some good in your enemy;

• Never leave room for alternatives;

• Never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong;

• People will believe a big lie sooner than a little one;

• If you repeat it frequently enough, people will sooner or later believe it.

Should the use of religious rhetoric in political campaigns be banned? Political campaigns are certainly not the platform for religious grandiloquence. A political campaign is a politician’s sales pitch to gain votes based on what he or she can deliver to constituents or the community, state or nation as a whole. In short, he or she should stick to the important issues that affect all of us.

A politician’s campaign should contain a summary of what he or she has accomplished or what he hopes to accomplish. He can talk on issues, and perhaps take a stand even if they are contentious.

Religious pomposity should not be used as a yardstick to measure a candidate’s ability to perform if elected.

God has no place in an election campaign, especially in Malaysia where there’s diversity both in race and religion. Religion must remain a personal and private thing. Any posturing should not offend people’s moral sensibilities.

There’s another school of thought – freedom of speech. A candidate should be allowed to express his opinion and views on religion and related issues. The electorate should decide if they agree with the rhetoric or disagree and reject such notions.

But by allowing them to add fuel to the simmering ambers where race and religious relations are concerned, it is playing with fire.

So, do we follow the Indian solution to put an end to the hatred and venom spewed before, during and after elections? Or do we leave the trouble-makers to chant their mantra, turning positives in their religion into negatives of other religions?

Can people be educated to take such inflammatory and, ultimately, counterproductive messaging with a pinch of salt? Can the various communities accept and dismiss raging speeches, religion-baiting and messages with racial undertones?

In a multi-racial and multi-religious society, banning the use of religion and race will be exploited, brow-beaten and turned into rhetoric as a "war on our religion” or “our race is under attack.”

Either way, we can never win with those who view issues with blinkers and engage their thoughts on one objective – win at all costs.

When will we change our ways by judging candidates purely on merit?

---

R. NADESWARAN believes religion is strictly a private matter, and it should never be a factor in electing our representatives. Comments: Citizen.nades22@gmail.com - Mkini