I have been following the ongoing public discussion about child marriage with much interest. The views put forth by individuals and groups engender hope that some time soon, T&T will begin to creep into the 21st century. However, child marriage is only a small portion of the larger, over-arching issue regarding the limits of religious practice in a secular state.
A democratic country like T&T guarantees the right to religious belief. No problem, but conflicts can arise regarding religious practice. This is what is fuelling the present discussion about child marriage and how it conflicts with child protection laws.
The discussion really ought to be, "should there be exceptions to law, or special laws, based on religious practices in a democratic secular state?" Many have expressed the view that there should be one law for all. This is the true spirit of secular democratic rights and protection. It also simplifies life and reinforces the attitude that "no one is above the law."
How much influence should religious groups have on government policy? Aside from the current issue of special laws regarding child marriage, I can think of issues in which the religious voice seems to be controlling government policy.
The matter of medically-induced abortions is one of these topics that attracts a loud religious reaction to any hint of altering the legal status of this procedure.
But seriously, no priest, pundit, or politician belongs in the wombs of the nation's females. Medically-induced abortion is a procedure agreed upon between patient and physician. Thankfully, removing a ruptured appendix or extracting a rotten tooth does not require an act of Parliament! Homosexuality is illegal in this country. A simple formula to follow for all sexual contact, homosexual or otherwise, is: consenting, adults, in private. That is, no violence, coercion, or threats; all parties over 18 years old; and no public spectacles. This is very simple.
Child marriage, abortion and homosexuality are seen as the big topics. But special allowances are often made for religious groups and so we must ask if this is desirable.
Sometime ago a vaccine to protect against cervical cancer was going to be made available to young girls at their schools. I thought this was laudable but religious people decided to raise hell about it and so the in-school vaccination plan was scrapped. Instead of scrapping the plan, a simple signed permission slip could have been used. But instead, the Government bowed to the will of religious groups, imposing their beliefs on the entire population, possibly at the peril of girls and women. Should a religious group be allowed the continuous use of a community centre as its church for well over a year, possibly two, and counting? Then have the audacity to use amplification to disturb the residents while preaching to a congregation of maybe seven people?
Should some people, in the name of religious practice, be allowed to appear in public with their faces completely concealed? Should some religious people be allowed onto the wards of Port-of-Spain General Hospital during non-visiting hours? Why are these strangers, hell bent on praying for patients, allowed by my bedside? I did not invite them. We need to accept that a secular state is not a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or any other kind of religious state. Freedom of religious practice should end when it goes contrary to the law or when it infringes on the rights and comfort of others. Everyone is subject to the laws of the land.
J Seaton
Cantaro, Santa Cruz
