I refer to the letter written by Tracy Kuan, 'Separate country from religion' (July 13). I disagree that a country should be separated from religion. The idea to separate the country from religion originated from Western philosophers since the Renaissance. Prior to that St Thomas Aquinas in his book Summa Theologicia tried to rationalise between extreme submission to 'Christendom' and the human reasoning.

These ideas are quite distinct from our history and culture. The Federal Constitution which functions as the legal framework of the country recognises the role religion plays in society. For example, Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution states that Islam shall be the religion of the Federation and any other religion may be practised in peace and harmony.

The question is why did the Reid Commission whose members were western-educated, inserted this provision into the Constitution? The answer is because it was the aspiration of the people, which was the result of a unanimous agreement between the Malays, Chinese and Indians and other ethnic, and channelled through the Alliance Party.

It is therefore clear that Malaysian culture is coloured by religion be it Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism or Christianity. Even at that time, the colonial power recognised the function of religion in our society.

This opinion is fortified by statement from the ex-Lord President, the late Tun Mohd Suffian Hashim in his foreword to the book Law, Government and the Constitution in Malaysia : "The Malaysian Constitution is not something plucked out of the sky, on the contrary it is rooted in the country's past."

The author of the book, Andrew Harding, explains that it is not accurate to say that a country's constitutional development is a purely modern phenomenon, commencing at some revolutionary juncture such as the attainment of independence. On the contrary, it is much more organic and much more rooted in history than we suppose.

Given such position, how can we deny the virtues of religion by separating it from the country while our Constitution itself acknowledges the function of religion in shaping our history and culture?

Secondly, Dr Farish A Noor cynically criticises the government of Malaysia for not being ready to recognise lesbianism or homosexualism or their rights to exist in the Malaysian society ('Reaching out - gays and Islam', July 9).

I believe that no religion would approve activities of lesbianism or homosexualism (this fact is acknowledged by the writer). They would condemn such acts as immoral and against the ordeal of God.

The Quran and the Bible clearly condemns the act of the people of Sodom. Given the status of religion in the Constitution, the history and the culture of Malaysian people, they would obviously disapprove of such unnatural activities.

We can argue that the culture of lesbianism or homosexualism is being gradually accepted internationally and has become part of human rights, but even the concept of human rights itself is still debated as to whether they are universal or relative. Many jurisprudence scholars agree that religious and cultural rights are relative depending on the practice of a particular country and society.

Therefore, the culture and the practice of our country which recognise the role of religion and allow the practice of religion would not tolerate such acts. In fact, such acts, to a certain extent, would be contrary to the spirit of the Constitution which clearly acknowledges the practice of religion in this country.

In conclusion, I find no reason why the Malaysian society, whose background have been coloured by the virtues of religion, should or would approve lesbianism or homosexualism.

I also find no reason why we should separate country from religion as the Constitution gives due recognition to religions, especially Islam, unless the majority of the people want Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution to be repealed.