The Pinoy Holy Week is probably one of the best times to observe how secular values interact with the inherent religiosity of the people. While my senior citizen relatives would say that the Filipino has become less “religious”, this meaning external manifestations of piety, mainly Tridentine, this isn’t really correct. Traditional Catholic rituals seem to fulfill their function and in concert with secularism. So during Pabasa, people eat Jollibee’s meat patties between buns.
Last Holy Tuesday, I was with two people with scientific and theological training in a Figaro coffeeshop. One is a Jesuit priest whose PhD I examined and one was a scientist who attended the same university I did. The scientist upon returning to the Philippines and teaching for a year, realized that he had a religious calling and went right into seminary. He graduated with dual degrees in ministry and biblical studies. Both clerics are ordained ministers of the Catholic and Evangelical churches. This was an unprecedented opportunity. I was sharing the table with Protestant and Catholic clergymen.
The topic of discussion turned to securlarism as both men had pastoral experience in England (The Jesuit spent time in Oxford and the Protestant minister spent time in London). In England I was told, the move for secularism has been much in the news lately. The government of the day wants that ancient laws discriminating Catholics be removed (allowing the Monarch to marry a Catholic). England is officially religious but in truth is waffingly secular. The USA on the other hand is officially secular but very religious. But in seems that in both societies, there is a line that divides the secular from the religious and that works for them.
In the Philippines, we agreed that the secular and the religious are hopelessly entangled. Since we all attended UP at some time, we noticed that even the UP icon “Oblation” is actually a Crucifixion allegory. This is something that cannot be lost even on the most atheisticallly secular. The statue has his arms stretched wide! After all the Latin “oblatio” is defined as a solemn offering to God.
So the secular and the religious are hoplessly enmeshed in the national university. No wonder when the more atheistic and secular admistrators in Quezon Hall decided to ban “prayer” on Palma Hall or threatened to revoke the leases on the Flying Saucer and Parabolic churches, the community essentially responded “Just you try”
Nothing ever came out of it. Ho hummm.
The debate in England may interest us according to the clerics. Not a few Catholics and other Protestants don’t support disestablishing the Church of England. They are afraid that once that happens, English society will be cast off its Christian moorings and with that secular values that the English uphold. The thesis is that Secularism will be a wimp without its Christian moorings.
And why is that so? Secularism derives much of its values from Christianity. And this is not the dogmatic bit but that secular values can be reached using reason like articles of the Christian faith can be understood using the same faculties. The Roman Catholic Church requires that a Catholic use his/her faculties of reason before assenting to doctrine.
There might be a grain of truth in this. In Europe, Islamic militant fundamentalism is on the rise. Perhaps you cannot reason with a suicide bomber. This is why even the British National Secular Society wants Christians to join them against moves to make Sharia part of English Common law.
The BNSS has a majority membership of atheists.
Pope Benedict XVI failed to make the EU acknowledge Europe’s Christian roots. But Benedict knows that a secular Europe is a wimp without Christianity. Benedict I believe understands it so well. He is much interested in what is happening in Turkey.
Turkey is probably the only majority Islamic country that is officially secular. But unlike in the majority Christian secular countries, the military keeps tight watch on political secularism. It has intervened in the past to ward off political Islam.
Israel is a Jewish state but many of its citizens are secular says this der Spiegel article. While many Israelis are discomfitted with religious Jews exercising much influence, they are forced to admit that their Jewish identity and their being Israeli are indissoluble. All Israelis for instance have to be married in religious rites. The secular nature of society is revealed when it is only in Israel that gays can be openly gay in the Middle East. Secular Israel seems to be viable only within religious Israel.
The parallels between a flourishing secularism in a majority Jewish state and in majority Christian states is worth noting. Is it that both faiths are so similar? After all Christianity according to one rabbi, is a form of Judaism.
Another case is Japan and China, which are secular but whose secular state institutions betray a religious nature. In Japan and China, people do worship but deny religious affiliation. In Japan 90% identify themselves as Buddhist and 90% identify themselves as Shintoists. But then again these classifications as constructed by the West. One can’t imagine Japan as secular in the Western sense.
The Philippines is officially secular but obviously religious. While its brand of secularism was inherited from America, there is no clear line dividing the two. There must be space for secularism but it should be in Church.
So if we take out the Roman Catholic out of the Philippines, would Filipinos be tolerant of secularism and minority beliefs? How will Islam in the Philippines interact with our brand of Roman Catholic secularism?
Popularity: 1% [?]
Blackshama wrote
Say what????
To me, above sentence is in the same ballpark as giving the fox the responsibility to report on how many chickens and eggs are in the henhouse.
The problem is that the fox will always be henpecked! But outside the henhouse, the fox will have its head cut off.
That’s the reason why even practitioners of the religion called Atheism have to enlist Christians in their crusade.
Ahhh…. that is for the Philippine setting.
What would Sydney do?
What would Beijing do?
Or… there should be divorce, but only if the husband’s parents give approval.
Religions had some use in our civilization. Since there were written
histories. There were Tales of Gods. Some have many Gods. Some have one God. We Filipinos were Animists before. Arab Traders came and introduced Islam. The Spaniards came with the Cross and the Sword.
And, we became Catholic Christians. The Americans came and we have the Protestants and other Christian denominations. We have also the Iglesia Ni Kristo. We have Agnostics and a bunch of Atheists, especially from the Academia.
Religion is used as a Vine to cling to the uncertainties of life, and our fear of the unknown. It is also used to give morals, peace and order of societies. It promotes good conduct, fair treatment of our fellow Earth Dwellers. It becomes trouble to us, when there
are extremists. Who are bent on shoving their Religion down to other
people’s throat. Who are willing to die for Paradise with 72 Virgins
and 72 Mansions. Or, who use Religion to attain political objectives.
We should be all Open Minded. There are a lot to discover about life,
spirit, and the universe. Happy Easter to all!
Religion started with many gods.
Slowly whittled it down to one god through the millenia.
And currently, given the developments in science and technology, there is a growing disbelief in a deity as a concept developed by primitive societies.
In the end, choose between prayer…. or penicillin.
Though some would cop-out and say, penicillin is an answer to the prayer? Really? Not a snap of the finger by an omnipotent all-knowing deity who wants his behind licked every sunday lest ye suffer eternal damnation… ROTFLMAO.
Are you saying that secularism without the context of religion has nothing laudable about it and is therefore a ‘wimp’? I can see the argument going the other way, that because secularism has to contend with the beliefs of a religion it is ‘strong’ for overcoming those beliefs.
If by secular you mean “of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal” (dictionary.com), then I think being secular in a non-religious society isn’t wimpy. Now feel free to turn around my previous argument and say that being religious in this context is ‘strong’.
As for the question that you pose:
“So if we take out the Roman Catholic out of the Philippines, would Filipinos be tolerant of secularism and minority beliefs? How will Islam in the Philippines interact with our brand of Roman Catholic secularism?”
I think this still would largely depend on society. The question brings up the tantalizing idea of a Philippines where the separation between church and state is much stronger in terms of government policies but where the status quo of roman catholicism being the dominant religion of the country remains.
Tolerating other beliefs would fall squarely on the shoulders of roman catholics while the government should be neutral except in terms of stopping discrimination based on beliefs.
As for the interaction of islam, I feel this is a bit of a loaded question. All belief/non-belief systems should interact on a level playing field in a secular society although that statement might be a bit too idealistic :) Lets take islam as an example anyway. If they wish to foist their religion onto a secular society and curtail its freedoms, it should be the duty of a society’s citizens to stand up against this.
In the example that you gave about British muslims wishing to put sharia laws into Common Law, it would only be right for the British National Secular Society to wish to join forces with christians to stop a religion from curtailing their society’s freedoms. The same principle should apply to a secular society in the Philippines. In an ideal world, this would also apply to the roman catholic’s agenda against the reproductive health bill. It would also apply if an atheist started spouting nonsense such as the banning of religions.
“Are you saying that secularism without the context of religion has nothing laudable about it and is therefore a ‘wimp’?”
Yes, since secularism is not a religion. It cannot resist religious fundamentalism. It can only do so by becoming religiously fundamentalist itself. We are seeing this as what some Catholics and Protestants in the US say various “Obaminations against God”.
In some secular countries, displaying religious symbols outside places of worship is deemed offensive against society.
“It would also apply if an atheist started spouting nonsense such as the banning of religions”
Or some atheistic Cambridge dons spouting unscientific nonsense that religions are delusions! :-)
Are you saying the only valid way to resist religion is with another religion? I would agree that being a ‘fundamentalist’ anything is a bit warped but secularism can resist the encroachment of religion into freedoms using reasoning and evidence which doesn’t have to be the blind adherence of anything, which is what I think fundamentalism is.
I think that secularism without the context of having to contend against religion sounds like a lovely thought but whether that makes it stronger or weaker I can’t say. I’m only able to say that without the context of religion, secularism would be meaningless and maybe we should come up with a new word for that.
This “meaningless without context” also applies to religion. If hypothetically we come up with concrete scientific evidence for god you could argue that without the context of faith religion becomes meaningless. Religious texts become historical works and believing its teachings on faith alone becomes well, intellectually wimpy when you are faced with hard evidence of gods existence.
As for secular fundamentalism I would agree that arbitrarily banning displays of religious symbols outside places of worship is bad not if the displays are in government owned spaces which should be neutral of religion and therefore there would be a good reason for not having religious displays in that area.
“Or some atheistic Cambridge dons spouting unscientific nonsense that religions are delusions! :-)”
Richard Dawkins is expressing an argument but he does not want that opinion to become public policy (or at least I hope so, I’ll confess to not having read the God Delusion yet) (oh crap I’m taking this on faith XD). Theologians should also be free to call atheists ‘false prophets’ or other demeaning terms just as long as they don’t try to enshrine their beliefs into public policy.
The atheist proposing a ban on religions would be attempting to foist his belief system upon society using the government which is why I would be comfortable condemning him alongside the catholics and the muslims who try to suborn the government into enforcing their beliefs upon the greater society.
try the talking serpent for “scientific” ROTFLMAO
Think of this question really well.
HOW COME? WHY?
Where are the female preachers and theologians?
The Philippine religious groups — Muslims, Buddhists, Roman Catholic and Protestant of all denominations — have fooled Filipinas into believing that they do not have the brain-cell neurons nor the heart to interpret the words of the heavens. [That's my opinion.]
Well, not in the church I belong to. Male or Female, if they have calling, they can go study theology and be ordained as preachers – Filipino or Filipina.
And I presume that Filipinas in the church you belong to have never had the calling to be preachers. So none have been ordained.
Wrong. We have Filipina ordained preachers locally and abroad.
As I’ve always said, don’t sum up everyone under one category when it comes to religion and faith.
The Iglesia Filipina Independiente and the Episcopal Church in the Philippines has had women priests and theologians.
In the Roman Catholic Church, we have Tina Astorga, who was chair of Ateneo’s Theology department when that issue on the Vagina Monologues being staged at the Ateneo came about.
“Secularism derives much of its values from Christianity.”
I don’t agree with this. Just because the values are the same (e.g., love of neighbor, thou shalt not kill, etc.) it doesn’t mean that one caused the other. For all we know, it may have been the other way around—i.e., Christianity may just have been able to articulate secular thought better.
IMO, religion in the Philippines is based more on cultural roots than based on actual faith. People now go to mass and celebrate Holy Week not because of their faith but because our ancestors (e.g. our parents) did it. To deny religion is the Philippines is like denying our Spanish heritage. It is just part of the Philippine identity.
Which is why, in the Philippines, people are not willing to establish a truly secular administration—one where prayer is banned in public offices and public schools. It is not about faith; it is about respect of our ancestors, a trait which is very strong in our culture. To prohibit prayer is like saying that our ancestors, our grandfathers, and our parents were all wrong.
OK cite me an example where secularism came forth from a non-Christian society? :-)
In Turkey’s case, Ataturk imported what really is a French idea of secularism. France is the Roman Church’s first daughter.
The roots of secular thought can be traced back to early islamic philosophers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Islamic_philosophy#cite_ref-0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Islamic_philosophy#Averroism
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2501/is_n2_v18/ai_18627295/pg_13/
http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/tvtk/ch21.htm (see the first and second question/answers)
blackshama’s response is another instance of :
That’s a false dichotomy. Even your example of France does not prove that secularism stems from Christianity.
Besides you fail to acknowledge that the Roman Catholic Church had to “mature” into a more rational religion. That the “Roman Catholic Church requires that a Catholic use his/her faculties of reason before assenting to doctrine” did not always hold true in its history.
Eh, my reply to this seems to be trapped in moderation cause of too many links but secularism can be traced back to islamic philosophers. The main link is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Islamic_philosophy#Averroism
More info can be found in the external links part.
Nah, we observe Holy Week because of our Faith not because of our cultural roots, not because of our parents, and definitely not because of our ancestors.
It doesn’t mean we do not respect our immediate parents up to our ancestral parents, no. We respect them so much that we ended up in a faith different than theirs. What is that? Live our lives to the fullest, search for the Truth and so we did, as passed down to us from generation-to-generation.
The reason why, for example, no one wants to accept banning praying in public offices and public schools is because of each individual’s faith. Remove faith overnight, the next morning praying will surely be banned everywhere in this country.
If it’s about our cultural roots, then we should go back to the two dominant faiths of our ancestors – Islam and Buddhism. That’s our real heritage, years before the Spain conquered our islands.
“The reason why, for example, no one wants to accept banning praying in public offices and public schools is because of each individual’s faith. Remove faith overnight, the next morning praying will surely be banned everywhere in this country.”
That is an absurd proposition, nobody wants to take away your personal faith from you. The reasoning for banning religious practices in public offices and public schools is that these institutions are supposed to be separate from religious practices in order to function for everybody in the country, not just a select religion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism#State_secularism
If anyone tries to ban prayer everywhere thus curtailing your freedoms, tell an atheist! They will want to defend your right to pray. Just not at public institutions please, they have a job to do for everyone.
In reply to Jeiel Aranal above.
It was an example to support the argument that the reason why praying is not banned, is not because of our cultural roots but rather because of faith. Which is in response to this:
And this:
I simply replied based on the examples given by the original poster (to whom I am replying to).
My post that was quoted is not about the banning of prayers in public places. It was only a reply and should be taken that way.
FYI: I am pro- “Separation of Church and State”, and with that said, yes, I do not agree with what the ‘majority’ is doing to this day.
So again, if faith is removed, if religion is removed, then no one will go against the banning of prayer not just in public schools and institutions, but everywhere. Because we do these things like praying NOT because of our cultural roots but because of our faith and our religion.
Well, people used to observe Holy Week because of their faith. But ask the youth now why the go to mass. Is it because of their faith? Or is it because their parents told them to attend.
This was covered in DJB’s post on Democracy and Morality (use the search thingie) which gave rise to his aphorism: ‘Democracy has morality but no theology’ which I thought was too reverential to democracy as if it were some ideological nirvana and not the tyranny of the majority that it is. Democracy is only as moral as the people under it. In a nation of cannibals, the cannibals rule.
And as we depart the vacation days of Holy Week, here is another thought.
FREE SPEECH IS A DIMINISHING COMMODITY
[Author: Jonathan Turley] For years, the Western world has listened aghast to stories out of Iran, Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern nations of citizens being imprisoned or executed for questioning or offending Islam. Even the most seemingly minor infractions elicit draconian punishments. Late last year, two Afghan journalists were sentenced to prison for blasphemy because they translated the Koran into a Farsi dialect that Afghans can read. In Jordan, a poet was arrested for incorporating Koranic verses into his work. And last week, an Egyptian court banned a magazine for running a similar poem.
But now an equally troubling trend is developing in the West. Ever since 2006, when Muslims worldwide rioted over newspaper cartoons picturing the prophet Muhammad, Western countries, too, have been prosecuting more individuals for criticizing religion. The “Free World,” it appears, may be losing faith in free speech.
Among the new blasphemers is legendary French actress Brigitte Bardot, who was convicted last June of “inciting religious hatred” for a letter she wrote in 2006 to then-Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, saying that Muslims were ruining France. It was her fourth criminal citation for expressing intolerant views of Muslims and homosexuals. Other Western countries, including Canada and Britain, are also cracking down on religious critics.
Islam is a religion that will not tolerate other people than Muslims.
Secularism is the trend of the present and future. We belong to different faiths. Some have no faith at all. Respect the other person’s
point of view. We dont think the same. Nobody is a Robot. We are humans, dwellers of this Planet Earth.
Well, the issue is that “other religions” is deeply rooted in some religions.
The Christian Bible for example, whether one is Catholic or Protestant or Pentecostal, it is deeply rooted to share the Word to others.
For Islam it is similar, but I can not speak for them, however I believe many of us are aware of it.
The next issue then is the “extremists” or “extremes”. Again, for the Christian Bible-based faiths, there are groups that are already in the extremes. For example, there are groups that are already judging other people just because they don’t belong to their own church (and you know who these are).
There are also those groups who are “forcing” other people to accept their faith. These ‘extremes’ are actually against the teaching of the Christian Bible if one will go and criticize and research it. I don’t remember reading anything like this: “Go and force everyone to be baptized in the Name of . . . ” or “If they do not accept the GIFT of salvation, then they are damned”. It’s a “gift”, and as such one has the right to accept it or not. But extreme groups will force everyone to or you’re damned.
Same with Islam, there are extremes and extremists. I heard and still hears alot about Muslims, this-and-that. But I have many Muslim friends and we all go along together, we respect each other.
Yes, there are times when we share our belief with each other. Yes, there are times when we debate. But at the end of it, no one is forcing the other to accept his own. No one is judging the other for his belief.
And yet, everyday, we hear that Muslims are this and that, but I haven’t seen any of my Muslim friends being this and that.
Heck, Muslim and Buddhism is the religion of the Filipino people before the Spaniards conquered what they called Philippine Islands.
Agree, except for the statement on the territory conquered by the Spaniards.
“Heck, Muslim and Buddhism is the religion of the Filipino people before the Spaniards conquered what today is called – Luzon and Visayas”.
***
During all the long period of Spanish of the Philippines, the internal affairs of the Sulus remained absolutely in the hands of their chieftains. Spanish jurisdiction was merely an external one. They managed their own local affairs in their own way. We, having accepted Spain’s sovereignty, had no more rights than she had among the Sulus.1
Jacob Schurman
Chairman of the First U.S. Philippine Commission, 1899
No discussion of the Filipino people would be complete without a reference to the Moros, a very picturesque and interesting people. Unconquered by the Spanish or by the Christian Filipinos, they surrendered to the United States Army because they thought they had an understanding that the American flag would govern and protect them from the Filipino flag forever.2
Carmi A. Thompson
Special Representative to the
President of the United States, 1927
Tasio:
Fundamentalist modern-day Islam is no different from the intolerant medieval Roman Catholic Church.
Hello BongV,
As I have been saying, today’s politically loaded term “fundamentalism” is but another western concoction vis-à-vis western foreign policy. Isn’t it that the word had once a constructive meaning like gay i.e. happy? Say, you can never be a true Christian unless you selflessly fulfill every fundamental teaching it has taught. Muslims too can never be true ones unless they fulfill, say, the basic 5 pillars of Islam and its six articles of faith as have been written in the Qur’an and prophetic traditions – without hypocrisy and perversion. And that both Christianity and Islam enjoin loving one’s neighbors, right?
Same way, the issue of a “militant Islam” should not be understood away from the context of western imperialism and domination. To defend oneself from the onslaught of neo-colonialism does not necessarily connotes religious militancy as everyone can defend him/herself, as everyone’s humanity calls for when faced with such a danger i.e. either to confront or withdraw away from it, even without any religious invocation. By practicality, Islam essentially enjoins self-defense than having oneself from misery and subjection as no man is lawful to oppress and exploit others. Self-defense is therefore a democratic choice against imposition of hegemony in the name of democracy.
And as I told, any “suicide-bomber” never thinks of this “72 whatsoever” in the first place when detonating his/her bombs and blow him/herself among the crowd of enemies. That is, when running out of effective and sophisticated weaponry to ward off his/her colonizers and the colonizers’ puppets, s/he has no way out but to offer her/himself. And among peace advocates and conflict resolution workers, this is too grim an actuality to happen in our midst. Other than this in the name of religion is something else outside of Islam.
Of course, there are draconian laws in some or many Arab countries. But these are not designed to curtail freedom. Because among those freedoms that Islam essentially upholds is the freedom of thought, conscience and belief:
“Let there be no compulsion of religion: Truth thus standeth out clear from Error.” (Qur’an 2:256)
The teaching of Islam has been clear among Muslims. Hence, such laws are but to protect human conscience and thought from perversion in the guise of human creativity. Among these perversions include unfettered, therefore irresponsible exercise of freedom of expression/speech that ultimately veers towards mockery and racism.
“Islam is a religion that will not tolerate other people than Muslims.” – Tasio
This is not true Tasio. In the Book of Governors Vol. 2, Thomas of Marga had written in p. 156:
“The Arabs, whom the Lord gave control over the world, treat us the way you know. They are not enemies of Christianity, but they praise our Faith, respect our clergy and saints, and offer help to our churches and monasteries.”
Allow me to quote these again:
“The Muslim rulers of Spain were generally tolerant of other religions, allowing both Jews and Christians to practice their faiths—a courtesy seldom extended to Jews and Muslims in Christian countries at that time.”
-Terrence Ball and Richard Dagger, Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal
“In its golden age, Islamic Spain was among the most civilized places on the planet—renowned for its scientists and philosophers, artists and architects, poets and musicians. In the matter of religion, Islamic sultans generally tolerated and protected Jews and Christians.”
-Cullen Murphy, Tales of the Alhambra : The Lost Islamic World of Southern Spain—and Its Modern Echoes, Reader’s Digest, June 2002
isn’t japan secular? there aren’t many religious japanese right? and they aren’t xtian.
The Japanese are religious but are loathe to be identified with a particular religion. It is un-Japanese to declare I am Buddhist, or Shintoist, or Christian.
really? but the problem with the japanese youth now is that they ARE secular… into materialistic things, into computers, into being lazy…
there are papers being written that the old ways are being abandoned, and knowledge lost…
look into the literature re modern day japan and you’ll see it.
@GabbyD,
If going to temples and praying for their dead relatives is considered religious, then the answer is yes. But based on what I have seen (based on years of Japanese life), it is more of a force of habit of the elders than anything else.
The youth now are “religious” about other things now—and it isn’t temples or prayer.
@Blackshama,
They don’t actually “loathe” the be identified with a particular religion. They loathe the fact that they used to worship an Emperor (considered before as the embodiment of the divine) who brought them to WWII and the atom bomb. So one can even argue that secularism in Japan was brought about by war. Not Christianity.
@buwa
yeah, i too think that japanese society is increasingly secular, if not mainly secular now.
i would expect the same from taiwan and china too.
Only the Roman Catholic Church can spawn a secular child. Her name is Scientia.
Now Science is secular brat. But like her Mother Holy Church she reasons.