Kevin Baldeosinghs letter (August 10) attacking the humanist response to the Governments Prayer Day commits several logical fallacies while using our statistical error to avoid engaging with the substantive constitutional arguments at stake. His critique reveals a troubling misunderstanding of both democratic principles and the role of minority rights in constitutional governance.
We acknowledge the error that Baldeosingh seized upon: the humanist letters claim that 20-30% of Trinidadians identify as non-religious was indeed inflated. The 2011 census shows 2.2% explicitly identify as having no religious affiliation, with an additional 11.1% declining to state religious affiliation. Even allowing for the 15 years, this was a significant aggregation error that should not have occurred.
Strangely, Baldeosinghs use of this mistake to dismiss the entire constitutional argument contains a fallacy of composition i.e. he uses a flawed statistic to invalidate an entire framework of legal and democratic reasoning. The strength of constitutional protections does not depend on the size of the minority they protect. This is precisely why we have constitutional safeguards in the first place.
Baldeosinghs most egregious error lies in his apparent equating of democracy with majoritarian rule, suggesting that minority viewpoints are somehow undemocratic. This reveals a profound misunderstanding of democratic theory and constitutional governance. Democracy is not mob rule disguised in electoral clothing. It is a complex system of representation, participation, rights protection, and institutional checks on power.
Modern democratic theory recognises that unchecked majority rule leads inevitably to the tyranny of the majority. This is why democratic constitutions establish counter-majoritarian institutions: independent judiciaries, bills of rights, and separation of church and state provisions that protect minority interests even when especially when the majority disagrees.
In T&Ts constitutional framework, the protection of religious liberty and the secular nature of State institutions is not subject to majoritarian override. These principles protect not just the 2.2% who explicitly identify as non-religious, but also religious minorities, converts, apostates, and anyone whose spiritual journey might someday place them outside the religious mainstream.
Baldeosinghs letter commits another fundamental error by mischaracterising the humanist argument as primarily about demographic representation rather than constitutional principle. The core argument was never we are many, therefore accommodate us it was the Constitution prohibits State establishment of religion, regardless of how many citizens find that tolerable.
The Governments replacement of Independence Day celebrations with a Prayer Day violates church-state separation not because of the size of any demographic group, but because it transforms civic celebration into religious observance, effectively establishing prayer as a State-sponsored activity. This constitutional violation exists whether it affects 2% or 20% of the population, Kevin.
The secular provisions of our Constitution protect everyone including the religious majority by ensuring that no particular interpretation of faith captures the machinery of government. Todays Prayer Day for all faiths becomes tomorrows prayer in a specific tradition, as political leaders inevitably privilege their own religious understanding.
The Authoritarian Utility of Statistical Deflection
Baldeosinghs focus on demographic percentages while ignoring governance failures reveals the authoritarian utility of his argument. By directing attention toward statistical debates, he avoids addressing the Governments spectacular failure to address crime and violence through the state of emergency, instead substituting prayer for policy.
This deflection serves the administrations interests perfectly. Rather than defending their decision to replace evidence-based governance with spiritual theatre, supporters can now debate census categories while citizens remain unsafe and the Constitution remains violated.
Humanists of Trinidad and Tobago
Diego Martin
