There is a rare beauty in the Constitution that founds our Democracy, bared by the whetstones of our recent discussions on God, politics and morality. That beauty in the Constitution is both poetic and rhetorical because once you see it, you realize that it distills a hidden and perhaps surprising truth about Democracy. Then a further mystery and a Big Question I cannot pretend to answer…
The relationship between Morality and Theology within established religions is well-understood. The “Ten Commandments” of Morality come from the God of Theology (whichever one prefers)– Yahweh of the Jews, Allah of the Muslims, Father-Son-N-Holy-Ghost of the Catholics, Jesus of the Christians, Shiva of the Hindus–who reveal themselves through Prophets, Revelations, and even Divine Messengers and whose will in moral dilemmas is constantly interpreted by Churches and Faiths as a matter of spiritual guidance to their adherents. Religion has been a most useful adaptation of humanity throughout history as a channeler of morality.
But we may well ask — what happens to Theology and Morality in a Democracy that upholds the Principle of Freedom of Religion?
1987 Constitution Bill of Rights Art. III Sec. 4
[1] No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
[2] The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed.
[3] No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.
Notice that [1] and [2] are statements of the absolute neutrality towards Religion and its free exercise demanded by the Constitution of the State, while [3] is really a statement about Morality in a constitutional democracy. Please notice that “the exercise of civil and political rights” by the citizens, is not to be subjected to any “religious test”. However, such exercise of human rights in a civil society is congruent with the personal moral universe of each citizen, and becomes the responsibility of the State which must apply legal tests to see whether or not such exercise of rights is legitimate, or if it violates the rights of others, or of the State itself. But not religious tests. Now, since we are referring here to the morality or immorality of the exercise of rights by citizens, the fact that the Constitution prohibits any religious test of such exercise effectively disconnects Morality from any particular Theology in a constitutional democracy.
It is most useful to think of the Constitution as a Social Contract between the People who ratify it and the representative Government they establish by it. As a contractual agreement between parties, the TEXT of the Constitution may be regarded as compleat and self-contained, until amended by them or revised. As such, it is only secondarily the Last Will and Testament of its possibly long dead authors and framers. The Constitution itself ought to be the primary source to be interpreted throughout the ages, and not some mysterious “rollos” of the deliberations and recorded opinions of Davide, Bernas, Maambong, et al in 1986 (and these rollos are after all, “text” themselves of a rather murky provenance and composition.)
The Constitution is a Social Contract between the people who ratify it and the Government they establish by it. As a piece of written text, the Constitution is a powerful combination of memes for it comprehensively defines the broad outlines of our entire way of life with rhetorical precision (if not always the ideal brevity) whose every phrase and punctuation inspires years of litigation and decides the fate and fortunes of men in their relationships with one another.
As a Contract between People and State, the Constitution defines a remarkable kind of Morality that governs them both, consisting of principles, rights, duties, powers, limitations, checks and balances, separations, unions and intersections governing the entire gamut of human and institutional behavior under various social and political arrangements. It is quite a Catechism of secular morality and philosophy that covers every conceivable area of human affairs in a representative Democracy.
The Constitution has morality — lots of it — but no theology, no religious tests for what is moral or immoral in the exercise of human rights. None.
And so the question remains: what IS the basis for, and the true test of moral behavior in a Democracy if the Bill of Rights explicitly forbids the use of God or Religion?
WHERE DOES DEMOCRACY’S MORALITY COME FROM?
[I must admit I don't know the answer yet...! Do you?]
Popularity: 1% [?]
Leytenian,
You come to the party late and expect us to describe what we ate?
Begin with the post. Read the commentary. Then come back here when you have something sensible to say and aren’t just wondering where the salad bar is. We’ll have a fork waiting for you once your are all caught up.
In case you missed it, we are talking about Freedom of Religion and what it implies for where Morality comes from in the Constitution. [Hint: not Religion, but what?]
Yes, Dean, Christ once preferred the company of “wise men” in the Temple, astonishing them by teaching with authority and wisdom.
But as a young “child” of twelve.
‘Let the children come to Me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God.”
And this is not balderdash.
djb… LOL I have no more arguments on this topic.
the beauty about your blog is the value of the information that could have not been shared. your great… Can I still have my fork? :)
Leytenian,
It comes with a spoon and my best regards. Filipinos are hospitable and kind. This I believe!
Amadeo,
Let us all be as children then, lest the preference of Christ Jesus for company move its benign focus from us as we grow into adulthood and leave behind the things of Childhood. I assume that all of his disciples and apostles were beyond the Age of Reason. He did not catechize or hypnotize them as children.
It is my theory that before we can ascertain whether or not democracy or any ‘cracy” has morality outside of religion or whether there is morality in constitution – minus theology or none, we must first resolve whether there is God, or none at all. Either of which when proven in the end can settle and set us free from any cyclical discussions of this sort next.
danilo,
you are free to pursue such a discussion and i shall be happy to participate. But I think it has been demonstrated in this post that an inner logic and coherence attends the very composition of the Constitution about the relationship of theology and morality in the Bill of Rights: none, illegal, thou shalt not! Otherwise Muslims would be disadvantaged by Christians where they are in the minority, and vice versa.
The existence of God is a philosophical question now, not a Constitutional one. That question is irrelevant and immaterial where it matters the most: in the exercise of civil and political rights by ordinary citizens, whose every thought and speech is protected. For the Constitution is a contract, it is all morality and no theology.
We can’t resolve this here. The debate between Reason and Faith has been going on for centuries.
From Inquirer:
http://showbizandstyle.inquirer.net/breakingnews/breakingnews/view/20090207-187985/Battle-of-the-ages-Bible-versus-Science
DJB (at 10:53PM), you may deny these people but not their ideas. Like it or not, you have been infected with Postmodern memes (which is not a bad thing).
PhilManila,
The debate between Reason and Faith is not what this post addresses, as I just mentioned to Danilo, that neither is it about the existence or nonexistence of God. Those are all matters of philosophy and theology.
What we are discussing here are the plain and simple Terms of Our Contract with each other and the Government we have established for our Democracy.
Simply put we are agreeing not to apply each other’s religious tests on each other’s moral behavior. Instead we are agreeing to a system of laws (and not of men) to which we agree to abide.
The desire to debate the irresolvabilities of theologies and philosophies is a way for newspapers like the Philippine Daily Innuendo, which is partly owned by Padre Damaso, to obscure the fell Hand of Religion on all sorts of things in this country, including them!
It is time to pry that Hand loose, even if it means cutting it off.
CVJ,
“Postmodern memes…” yucch…it sounds like a Disease!
That’s how homosexuality was viewed as well. (Sadly such view is still found today.) Give it time for acceptance (of your postmodern self) to set-in.
Democracy’s morality comes from humanity’s most basic and universal values.
And we derive our values from Religion. However, religions and belief system have different notions of right and wrong but all share a common, universaly accepted principles that allows man to live in harmony with each other.
This became the law.
This is very elementary.
You do not have problem with Democracy but with the people who suppose to work in its best interest: our Leaders.
Our leaders are our greatest symbol of democracy. When our leaders act as persons they cease to become the people’s embodiment of their most valued ideals.
This is where failure comes to a seemingly perfect and sound principle such as democracy.
Human error.
Religion or government. Who cares. We are all
in trouble now by mixing the two. Electing
people who are supposed to be religious. They
turned up to be con people.
Can we vote for the Roman Catholic Cardinal, or
the Iglesia ni Kristo Supremo for President ?
Maybe they can multiply one sack of rice to
feed 80 million Filipinos. I will vote for that !
Eureka! Darwinism is Atheism!
And among the consequences of atheism are the following:
No gods worth having exist
No life after death exists;
No ultimate foundation for ethics exists;
No ultimate meaning in life exists; and
Human free will is nonexistent.”
Please see:
http://www.muslimbridges.org/content/view/1124/37/
Now, I am interested with the third consequence here, that “there is no ultimate foundation for ethics that exists.” If this is so, then neither the atheists’ ethics nor their morality can be universal.
Now therefore, if the moral/ethical background of any constitution, say the American Constitution and its local copycat Philippine Constitution, is founded upon a godless basis which DJB admitted here that it does not yet exist at all, then how can it be an ultimate criterion for society? Where is now the moral ascendancy of its founding fathers to impose their constitution upon mankind if they did not thought of any durable ethical and moral base behind the backs of their heads that can withstand the tide of time when they formulated these “thou shall, thou shan’t…” and outside of religion (not theology) as claimed?
Anyway, God is known through reason. You may or may not check on this site:
http://www.muslimchannels.tv/component/option,com_seyret/Itemid,67/id,136/task,videodirectlink/
you may or may not see further:
The Skulls that Demolish Darwin
http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/skulls_demolish_darwin/skulls_darwin.php
danilo,
the golden age of islam is over. it will never return. the prophet has had his day in the sun. Allah is but one of many false gods and religions in which men have believed. His statue of grandeur and power is fallen to dust. Pazuzu has retaken the desert.
These fearful things from man’s Childhood you must yourself lay down upon the ground and take up the things of Manhood.
Most of all you must face Death with good humor. And Courage, man, courage!
“the golden age of Islam is over. it will never return.”
You seem to be physicist and concurrent psychic DJB hehe.
Anyway, the Qur’an that the Prophet sallallaahu ‘alayhi wasallam did bring during that past glory is still the Qur’an we have now. No alterations whatsoever even punctuation marks. I can guarantee you, you can verify it with the originally and manually written copies in Turkey and Saudi Arabia museums. Of course, I have not been there yet, I have not seen them yet.
“Allah is but one of many false gods and religions..” DJB
hahaha! so much with that boneless and staccato testimony of yours.
I have been challenging you to prove yourself in this aspect. Eh, wala pa rin.
“Most of all you must face Death with good humor. And Courage, man, courage!”
And who told you that Muslims are afraid of death? Facing and rehearsing for its coming has been a cornerstone of Muslims’ belief. Kaw naman DJB, ibahin mo naman ang Islam from those conventional religions you’ve known and hate for the life of you.
And oh, you believe on death? I thought it’s the atheists who fear its impending coming and so muster some sophisticated form of denials about it while hiding behind the bedrock of atheism that everything is permanent.
You know about the story of Pharaohs, especially Ramises II (?). He claimed the same as you do; and more than that, he claimed godship of himself. Face the same fate.
danilo,
I am unable to prove the non-existence of Allah, just as I am unable to disprove many other gods whose existence is claimed by others.
But for such powerful supernatural deities they seem to be quite unable to prove their existences say by having the stars write in the night sky: “I am Allah. Worship no false gods before me.”
It seems their main occupation is to accept the blind worship of men as a test of their “faith”.
Strangely enough, they are also tolerant enough of one another, since the One True God, if any of them be that, has not spoken up either to show up all the others as false ones. This despite their mutually contradictory claims for and against each other.
It’s a celestial beauty contest among the warthogs of man’s imagination in which the contestants are all pretty much deaf an dumb and the human beings are their ventriloquists when the interview portion arises.
“But for such powerful supernatural deities they seem to be quite unable to prove their existences say by having the stars write in the night sky: “I am Allah. Worship no false gods before me.”
Oh yeah? Is that your measuring stick DJB? That is so elementary way huh!
But no, Allah will never do that elementary way. Yet along those stars and the moon is His inherent Message that there is Him Who is behind them. And only those men who use their minds can deduce such wisdom behind these creations. Don’t you know that, among others, the creation of stars and the moon carries with it an appeal to the use of man’s wisdom (if he’s got some)?
He will not reveal His Message through that inconsistent way DJB, sky is not for writing right? But book does. So you can find what you seek for in His Book:
“Verily in heavens and the earth are the signs for those who believe.” Qur’an 45:3
Moreover, “Of His portents are the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. But adore Allah Who created them…” Qur’an 41: 37
Furthermore, it is said “Allah owneth the dominion of heavens and the earth, and it is He Who causeth life and death.” Qur’an 6:95
Now for those who wish or persist in their vain worship of false gods, here are Allah’s admonitions:
“Verily those who ye call upon besides Allah are servants like you; call upon them, and let them listen to your prayer, if ye are truthful indeed.” Qur’an 7: 194
“Say: See ye then the things that ye invoke besides Allah? Can they, If Allah willeth some penalty for me, remove His Penalty? Or if He willeth some grace for me, can they keep back His Grace? Say, Sufficient is Allah for me.” Qur’an 39: 38
“Allah forgiveth not (the sin of) joining other gods with Him; but He forgiveth whom He pleaseth other sins than this. One who joineth other gods with Allah, hath strayed far, far away (from the Right). Qur’an 4: 116
Think about it DJB.
“But book does.”
I mean “but book is,” sorry.
Danilo,
I prefer to read the Book of Nature, for IF there were a God or Yahweh or Allah or Shiva or My Flying Spaghetti Monster, for sure, that is the only Book that would contain his signature and not the obvious penmanship of a naked ape taking on theologic airs, scratching bits of dirt on the bark of trees.
But I appreciate the poetry of the Q’uran. It has that raw, brutal flavor of naked faith in stern-faced men. Very Old Testament or Mosaic.
BTW, do you read the Q’uran in the original? Or translated??
“Very Old Testament or Mosaic.”
Oh no, don’t you think those stuff the Qur’an talks about 1400 or more years ago which have been discovered only these recent times by the modern science are something old-fashioned?
I try my best to learn reading at its best the original arabic text DJB, for without the original text, it can never be the Qur’an – even the translation is rendered in arabic!
E.g. the recent discovery of the dead body of King Rameses II in Egypt. Both the Bible and the Qur’an taught us that he died by drowning as he pursued the Israelites to the sea. But the Bible (with due respect) has stopped at that particular point only. It does not talk about what would be the final destination of pharoah these modern days.
“Oh no, don’t you think those stuff the Qur’an talks about 1400 or more years ago which have been discovered only these recent times by the modern science are something old-fashioned?”
Oh this bullshit again? Where you cherrypick passages from some holy text and interpret them to mean that certain modern scientific discoveries were predicted by your prophet centuries ago? Puh-leaze.
All religions have petty excuses as to why their god never shows up.
“All religions have petty excuses as to why their god never shows up.”
So that is your measuring rod, quite different but of the same appellation with DJB i.e. you don’t believe in God because He doesn’t show up to you, do you?
Oh gotta very exciting engagement here, if you may missing link este missing point. Will you?
As for Pharoah, see Dr. Maurice Buccaile’s “The Bible, The Qur’an and the Modern Science.”
http://www.amaidhi.com/Books/eng/The Bible,The Quran And Science…Dr.Maurice Buccaile.pdf
Meanwhile, the famous physicist and Nobel Prize winner, Albert Einstein, has once said:
“Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.”
“Oh this bullshit again?” -missingpoint
with due respect to some, but this is the common trait of most atheists i.e. arrogance
but danilo, do you at least recognize the following problem? If I were to suddenly believe your story and say your Islam is not b.s., that would automatically mean I am calling all the other believers and religions which most surely contradict Islam and Allah on essential details, b.s. If I say Christianity is right, then Islam is wronged, as well as Buddhism and all the others that disagree with it. Is it not most likely that all these fantabulists are wrong?
Suffice it to say that “blind worship”, or “blind belief”, if I may, for faith, for the most part, should be sufficient enough description already. But that’s just me.
That would not be a problem DJB. Him who come to realize the existence of God must also apply the same wisdom and circumspection in investigating God’s true religion.
Him who have thought of it i.e. God’s existence must also realize further the necessity of single existence since, say in a territory, there can not be more than one governor in one province.
So if one has comprehended that there is only one true and powerful God Who in anyway doesn’t need men’s worships to stay on His power, s/he needs to appreciate further that that God must have taught of only one religion.
In my career as a blogger with over 1200 essays and posts, not counting thousands of comments at other blogs, I am most proud of this particular post at Filipino Voices.
I cannot take full credit for it as I think it was the Meme of Democracy itself that wrote it. But I have never seen anything more clearly in my life than the assertion made by the title of this post:
Democracy Has Morality But No Theology.
This is the real meaning of the Separation of Church and State and is what makes Freedom of Religion even possible!