Despite the lion’s share that Roman Catholicism has in the population of the country, I would still like to think that there are lot of people who see the value of having a secular government and society wherein policies and laws are debated and passed based on their merits rather than the blessing of some overbearing institution. I have a lot of friends who are men and women of faith but still find the arrogant and often brash posturing of church leaders in issues like reproductive health and education to be deplorable and downright tasteless.
Religion is an important thing to a lot of people and as long as the practice of such is done to nobody’s detriment, then individuals should learn to respect individual differences and live with the consequences of being a part of a highly diversified world. Unfortunately, like in any other scenario wherein one group holds a seemingly overwhelming virtual majority, that group can be quite deliberate in exercising their right to influence how things are run. It is one thing to lobby for what your religion supposedly holds as its basic tenets but going to the extreme end of blackmailing those who support something that goes against the teachings of one’s church just sets us back into a time when the merits of the case were a mere background to the personalities, prevailing dogma and ruling hegemony of that time.
As voters, we are bombarded with reminders to set aside personality politics and look at the issues in black and white. Non-government organizations, well-meaning social mobilizers and other people who care for the country try to inspire people into being independent when making decisions, but for some reason, a lot still yield to the church and expect the institution to do the thinking for them. It is a sad reality that a lot of Filipinos continue to be devoid of the ability to think out side of the box and think critically of certain concepts that could in fact mold their opinions into more inclusive and comprehensive ones.
Just like people who consider themselves Roman Catholics or Christians, those who value secularism come in a gradient of different temperaments and dedication. There are some who are wildly militant who will be willing to do everything to put the church down into its knees. While their tactics may seem very effective in capturing public attention and of course, getting the ire of the most conservative religious people in the country, it does little as far as the long-term goals of the secular movement is concerned.
A secular Philippines will only be possible when everyone realizes that all people are different and are free to choose and practice what they believe as long as they do in away that doesn’t infringe on other people’s rights. It seems like common sense, but to this day, discrimination happens at all possible levels – may it be on the basis of race, religion or philosophy, sexual orientation and political ideology. There is an alarming movement among Catholics and Christians who continue to act as if they own the world and it is in fact their responsibility to convert everyone into their fold. This arrogant and disrespectful behavior is hardly ever criticized and checked, yet the slightest criticism against religion would draw the ire of a lot of people – even atheists who choose to sit in a corner and do nothing about changing the status quo.
I lack the ability to faithfully believe that there is a million out of almost eighty million Filipinos who are looking forward to the day when the Catholic hegemony would learn that their religion is not an extension of the government and that people who don’t subscribe to their creed would not be denied of the benefits of legislation that their institution continue to block, but we have to start somewhere. Those who seek this goal is highly fragmented in terms of location and philosophy and I can safely assume that their methods for achieving change are varied. As a famous atheist once said, trying to herd Atheists, Agnostics, Freethinkers, Deists and Religious people who believe in genuine Secular Humanism is similar to trying to herd cats – each one is its own entity and their fiery passion and intellectual sophistication can easily cause any attempts at organizing them into a group. It is an uphill climb – but it has to start somewhere. Our apathy can only take us so far.
If you believe in the value for fighting for these ideals, please join us at Filipino Free Thinkers. No one claims to know what the best way to go about things would be. Share your insights and we would all take it from there. Peace.
Popularity: 3% [?]
Jeg,
Think of the Declaration as poetry, for that is what it was, not a Papal Encyclical.
But to brass tacks: What does it mean for the Constitution to demand that the State be absolutely neutral with respect to Religion?
Does it not mean that since it cannot choose any one particular Theology upon which to base the Official Morality of the Nation, that de facto, and de jure Morality has been untethered from Theology by the democratic constitution?
Bert,
I would probably have answered like a “vacuum” with ‘absolutely no matter nor energy inside’ and you as God being outside of it.
But I think Jeg’s explanation is better than mine.
BTW, I’m just a non devout Catholic.
Think of the Declaration as poetry, for that is what it was, not a Papal Encyclical.
But I dont think of it as poetry. And you dont either. We think of it as a creed. A sacred creed. “We hold these truths to be self-evident.” If it were poetry, why would people fight and give their lives for it? If it were poetry, then anybody could say, “Bollocks to that. Science tells me men arent created equal. The fittest survives and the weaklings perish and Im going to live by that creed instead.” Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler were all living by that creed.
What does it mean for the Constitution to demand that the State be absolutely neutral with respect to Religion?
It means what it means. The State cannot favor a religion, it cannot establish a state religion. Sure it means the morality we all humans recognize (one of the evidences for a Creator CS Lewis uses, btw) do not belong to a religion. We’ve established that. Our constitution is not atheist, but it guarantees the rights of atheists. The American creed isnt atheist, but it guarantees the rights of atheists. But by what right do we establish a ‘State Morality’ if you will? The American Fathers claimed by the Creator, Nature’s God. That’s why the creed endures.
Jeg,
So you DO admit that Theology is not NECESSARY for men to be moral, at least to the level expected of them by the Constitution, in practical and not metaphysical terms!
Sure we guarantee the rights of atheists and theists and everything in between btw.
But you cannot and do not now evidently deny that though Religion has in the past been SUFFICIENT to bring people to a state of good moral behavior, what historical Democracy has proven is that in fact theology is NOT NECESSARY for men to live in peace and harmony, to be charitable and just, to be fair and decent to one another, without Religion.
That is the true meaning of the Separation of Church and State.
The power of democratic politics is the philosophical and actual untethering of civic morality from theological foundations or dogma.
I am thus not questioning “faith” since it comes in such bewildering forms, most of them nonsense, or the right of people to that so-called virtue of faith.
Democracy has simply made Religion obsolete for the purposes of morality. It has made Churches a side-show since Religion as a form of free expression and speech is Constitutionally equivalent to Entertainment, a form of community drama and passion play, a pastime and ritual that gives people something to do on Sundays.
Religious services are not “more protected” than Wowwoweee as free speech.
But Jeg,
If it is a “creed” why did we have to vote upon it?
Naah. It’s a Social Contract that covers morals in a civil, secular society. That’s what the Constitution is to me.
So you DO admit that Theology is not NECESSARY for men to be moral…
Im thinking of something profound to say and can only come up with, ‘Duh’.
Permit me to view the rest of the post as more propaganda, though. Sorry. I mean ‘Democracy has simply made Religion obsolete for the purposes of morality’? Democracy did that? Hamas won free elections in Palestine. Hezbollah won free elections in Lebanon. Hitler won a free election in Germany. The list goes on. On its own, democracy is absolutely nuts! In a nation of cannibals, a cannibal will win a democratic election. It is faith that makes democracy moral, not the other way around. Faith in the Creed. ‘All men are created equal and endowed by their Creator certain inalienable rights.’
You may have the last word, DJB.
If it is a “creed” why did we have to vote upon it?
Im sorry, but huh? We voted for the constitution, not the Creed.
Sorry. Last word yours.
bencard,
if you do not even know how you became a fool, then you are a fool indeed.
bencard,
Adult sane conversation?
Coming from someone with infantile reasoning and infantile mind?
hahahaha…
now, lee, we are here to share ideas, and I think all will agree including Nick the owner that everybody is welcome here. Let us hear yours.
I think science can’t be all that bad. I mean, using carbon dating to know the age of a deceased seal, only to find out that it was 1500 years old and not 35 (obviously the real deal), makes you wonder on how factual it can all be.
DJB,
I just think you’re too fascinated with those stalkers at Wikipedia.
This particular article of yours caught my attention. I am currently writing a thesis relating religion and morality of student activists.
Can I interview you? Would you mind helping me out with my thesis?
Thanks!