Where art thou, secularism?

Photo by Rappler

In the Philippines, the concept of secularism is poorly understood. When followers of Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC) staged a protest in front of the Department of Justice against government interference in their church’s internal matters particularly by Secretary Leila de Lima, they shouted that separation of church and state, as enshrined in our 1987 Constitution, must be respected. Somehow to them secularism meant non-interference, or a hands-off approach when dealing with religious matters. Civil laws have no influence, weight or jurisdiction over religious communities. In short, INC wants to be exempted from any wrongdoings or crimes just by invoking separation of church and state; notwithstanding the fact that they, as a religious organization, have in multiple occasions, clearly interfered in national politics and state matters.

Senior INC leaders, who are facing complaint for illegally detaining some of their church members, try to agitate their supporters by accusing the government of persecution and unfair treatment. It is an old but effective tactic employed not just by religions, but by regimes like Cuba and North Korea. There is such a thing as “persecution mentality” where leaders rally their constituents to help justify their continuance in power. For a minority religion in a Catholic-majority country, this persuasion really comes in handy at a time when INC is facing major leadership crisis.

As a secular humanist, I had mixed reactions when I heard INC proclaimed separation of church and state. A part of me was glad that finally one religion was openly advocating for secularism; but then I got really worried when I read more deeply the news feeds on my Facebook wall. As a founder of a Facebook group, Secular Filipinos, I could not help but clarify to our INC brothers and sisters what ‘’separation” of church and state really is.

First, it must be noted that church and state separation or secularism means that religious people are free to practice their religion as long as they don’t interfere with the freedom of other religious and non-religious people; and as long as they don’t impose their beliefs in law-making, in government, in schools and in health. Secularism means freedom of religion and freedom from religion. Secularism promotes equality which is the reason why it is supported by both religious and non-religious people. Secularism is allied to democracy because it respects all religions and no religion.

Naturally, the nature of religions is to impose their beliefs on others. Secularism is the boundary that protects both the religious and non-religious from unwarranted imposition by one religious group. One case in particular was the RH Bill controversy wherein the Catholic Church, with all its might, tried to impose its particular theological interpretation and control women’s reproductive right. A religion like the Catholic Church, who had been used to getting privileged position in Philippine society, doesn’t want that privilege removed. So when the CPCP described the RH Bill as the “product of the spirit of this world, a secularist, materialistic spirit that considers morality as a set of teachings from which one can choose”, it was a shameless misrepresentation of what secularism really is. While secular moral principles recognize fairness, mutual consideration and promotion of well-being of all; secularism is not anti-religion. As Fr. Joaquin Bernas noted, secularism is about pluralism, “constitutionally protected pluralism includes nontheistic religions such as Buddhism, ethical culture, secular humanism, and a variety of ethical philosophies.”

Now when INC protesters marched at the DOJ premises, they were in fact doing exactly the reverse of secularism by interfering in a government investigation. Now it is legal to stage a rally as we have our right to free speech. However, if the purpose of the protest is to silence or stop investigations into possible criminal behaviour and irregularities in their church under the guise of protest to promote separation of state and church, that is a different matter altogether. We know the adage “no one is above the law” holds true even for the INC. For example, if you harass, threaten or prevent government authorities from investigating a possible crime, should it be considered obstruction of justice under PD 1829?

Of course INC leaders know that the 2016 Presidential election is just around the corner. Their marching protest is now gaining momentum and they have occupied EDSA! Presidential aspirant Jejomar Binay started demagoguing to INC members saying they are merely “fighting for their faith…from a clear act of harassment and interference from the administration.” Even Grace Poe, another contender for the seat in Malacanang, has this to say in support of the protest, "Those people are only defending their faith. We respect that, and we should also respect their rights." Words like these add fuel to the fire and can give INC’s so-called “secular” cause further legitimacy. I believe politicians should be neutral to religion and should take no sides. Which brings to mind Presidential candidate John F Kennedy, a Catholic, during his Sept 12, 1960 speech at the gathering of Protestant ministers, when asked about his allegiance to the Pope, he said:

“I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.”

I know many Filipinos look up to America and her democratic and secular values, more so to JFK and for all the values he stood for. His message of secularism presents a challenge to us Filipinos who are so easily swayed by religious affinities and loyalties. 

It is time to talk about secularism.

Secularism: the real people power

The August Twenty One Movement (ATOM) was the first one to call for strike and civil disobedience against the Marcos government. Although surprisingly Cardinal Sin and the Catholic Church got all the credit for starting the People Power that eventually led to the toppling of the Marcos dictatorship back in February 1986. If the Catholic Church did not steal the idea from secular heroes like Ninoy Aquino, Butz Aquino, Jovita Salonga and Lorenzo Tanada, who all labored tirelessly in defiance of Ferdinand Marcos, and who were obviously great leaders, then we would have witnessed a stronger foundation by which to build a democratic society. The Catholic Church definitely had the power, time and opportunity to counter the dictatorship, but lacked the imagination to mobilize an effective movement to counter the massive machinery of Marcos. That credit certainly belonged to secular and civil leaders, not the religious ones, who kept the fire of defiance up in the air.

This is the reason why when the Catholic Church took on the big leading role in the People Power movement, although it had an aura of success for a few years, it did not have the sustaining and liberating power that superior secular ideas have. What was initially a secular movement, of Filipino unity and solidarity, to topple the Marcos dictatorship, it was replaced with a facetious claim that the February revolution was divinely inspired, suddenly taking the credit away the poor people who have carried the burden for so long. Instead of ordinary people, the heroes became the priests and nuns who, for the most part, stayed silent, even worse as some colluded with the regime, regarding the many crimes committed against farmers, laborers and ordinary families. In essence, the 1986 EDSA People Power and the events after that was an advertisement for one religion, the Catholic Church, its power, influence and religious leadership in transforming the current zeitgeist in Philippine society. The strength and convincing power of this promotion, we found out, failed miserably. After almost 30 years after the original People Power, our society remains so divided by one religion who is actively blocking any attempt at social progress like same-sex marriage, divorce and RH Law by citing bronze-age dogmas, instead of focusing on more important issues like our 21^st century economy. Religion cannot unite humanity. Wherever religion touches, it poisons. As long as religion controls the government, there will never be true progress. This is the reason why secularism is the key to true people power for the following reasons.

Secularism is about equality.

Secularism is not about getting rid of religion, it is about treating all religions, and no religion, as equal. Secularism is about protecting minorities and the weak in our society. Secularism is democracy. Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine advocated for secularism, better known as the separation of church and state, because they saw and experienced the real danger of clerical tyranny, intimidation and clerical abuse when men in long, white clothes were given temporal powers. Jefferson believed that human and civil rights do not depend on religious opinions. This set the path in recognizing religious freedom. Jefferson knew about the history of Europe and its religious wars because religion and religious leaders were given free rein to do whatever they want. He absolutely made sure this scenario will not happen in America and so he put this trend to an end when he proposed the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, the founding document which was adopted into the US Constitution in 1786, and of course we see echoes of it in our very own 1987 Constitution: the principle of the separation of church and state.

Only in secularism where the issues of same-sex marriage, divorce, and free speech are fully recognized and actively promoted because it addresses the human need for equality and fairness. Religion, like the Catholic Church, will always be opposed to free speech, divorce and gay marriage because of their static and unbending dogma. As long religion sticks to ancient texts for guidance, it cannot claim to reform humanity while it alienates the minorities in society.

Secularism promotes true morality

It is often assumed that religion gives us morality, or that we derive morality from religion. What we don’t see is that religion is only telling us what to do. Telling people what to do or commanding people is not morality. The real test for morality is to be able to reason and come up with your own conclusion based on the best outcome and well-being for all. Most theists claim that humans alone cannot organize this world without the help of a supernatural being. This is an insult to all humans. We have innate morality. We can distinguish right from wrong without being divinely supervised. Even some animals have shown empathy to their fellow animals.

Secularism promotes science and reason

Since the state takes no sides in religious matters, it actively promotes science and reason that generates progress to society. The state recognizes that science and reason are the tools that unites society and solve problems that plague society.