Install secular gov’t in the Bangsamoro

Calling the Bangsamoro government a secular government might be an oxymoron. Why? Bangsamoro, a relatively new term, refers to the original ethnic inhabitants of Mindanao. But it’s not just an ethnic identifier anymore; it is religious as well. To state the obvious, the word “Islamic” appears in the official names of both the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters. Right after launching an offensive in Cotabato, the BIFF, true to its name, reiterated its intention to found “an independent Islamic state.”

I lived in Cotabato and the Sulu islands in the ’90s as a seminarian. Religion aside, it was not hard to sympathize with our Bangsamoro brothers and sisters, who, I thought, genuinely have fought for decades for the right to live in their own land. When Nur Misuari and the Moro National Liberation Front made a peace deal with the Philippine government, he envisioned a modern and prosperous Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), not some theocratic state like Afghanistan. (Although I noticed that labeling a region “Muslim Mindanao” seems by definition obviously countersecular.) For a time I thought Misuari was to become like Kemal Ataturk, Turkey’s secular champion. That is until Misuari, in November 2001, in a desperate grab for power, muddied himself with a sordid act of rebellion, which left 100 dead; an act that was repeated just last September when he organized an assault on Zamboanga City in protest over the MILF-GRP peace deal. This negation of the “peace deal” by Misuari, however, could not poison relations with the Philippine government. Misuari, a renowned UP professor, did not explicitly espouse a religious struggle. Building a secular government in the ARMM was obviously far from his mind.

When the MILF broke away from the MNLF, it did not help that that Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines brokered peace talks in 2003 between the MILF and the Arroyo administration. Archbishop Antonio Ledesma, in July 2008, said that “they should get some religious leaders and look at the peace process itself, because it’s the religious leaders who can provide the moral and spiritual underpinnings of the peace process.” Surely the archbishop must have realized at the time that the conflict in Mindanao was not about the lack of morality and spiritual insight. Christopher Hitchens famously said that “religion poisons everything.” We must well remember that in politics, religion is the problem, not the solution. This scenario has happened before in cities like Belfast, Belgrade, Bosnia, Berlin, Bethlehem, Bombay and Beirut where religious solutions to political problems were installed. This is a fact that the MILF, the current peace panel led by Miriam Coronel-Ferrer and even President Aquino realized. No wonder Catholic priest, Fr. Jun Mercado, principal founder of Kusog Mindanaw, to his consternation, is not the head of the current peace panel. Former party-list Rep. Patricia Sarenas in 2007 pointed out, “I guess we should consider the reasons why the MILF would not want a Catholic priest to head the GRP.” Even fellow priests cautioned that “the Church may be perceived to be on the government side rather than on the side of justice and peace and thus become ineffective as mediator. Clergy should be advocate and mediator, not negotiator.”

What’s crucial in the Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro is the “right to freedom and expression of religion and beliefs.” Is it possible to be a Moro and respect the secular government? I may be asking too much. While the 1987 Philippine Constitution explicitly states the “principle of separation of church and state,” equally guilty is the Catholic Church which still exerts a powerful influence on state affairs. Marites Vitug in her essay “Are we truly a secular society?” (Rappler 5/3/2013) believes that secularism does not work in practice in the Philippines. “Like many others, I feel the omnipresence of the Catholic Church in government. It’s a layer that seems to permeate policy-making (remember 14 years of the RH bill), government buildings and offices, the way our public officials conduct themselves, and now, our elections.”

In order to build an effective and working secular government, the solution not only rests on whether Catholic and Islamic religious leaders will exercise restraint. The national government must encourage and enforce equal representation of all religions in public life, and start a national conversation on the benefits of a secular government.

Read more: http://opinion.inquirer.net/71565/install-secular-govt-in-the-bangsamoro#ixzz3ASjOZH5D

Church acting like a political party

I get the feeling that some bishops are beginning to sound like heads of a political party. Consider this recent news: “Bishop says Church has the numbers in Congress to defeat RH bill in a vote” (Inquirer, 8/16/12). That the bishops seem to control about 140 Philippine lawmakers is an unavoidable inference from this claim. Of course, it is a violation of the Constitution for religious leaders to influence and impose their will on elected politicians. But the bishops, who are not elected representatives, even had the audacity to publicly threaten to campaign against pro-RH lawmakers in 2013.

Where do the bishops get the sense of entitlement such that they feel they can meddle in temporal concerns of the state? In “Humanae Vitae,” we find the Church, like its Founder, “destined to be a ‘sign of contradiction’.” A line from this encyclical: “The teaching of the Church regarding the proper regulation of birth is a promulgation of the law of God Himself.” To a moral pacifist, the absolute prohibition of artificial birth control methods is preferred. The idea that it is morally justified for one, who is without any means of sustaining the child beyond Grade 1, to cause the birth of every single zygote is nonsense. I don’t see any good reason to take “Humanae Vitae” seriously on this point. Ruling out artificial birth control makes no sense.

Lawmaking should not be made into a tool of, by and for any one religious group. While it is true that a few lawmakers are subverting the constitutional provision of religious liberty by siding with the dictates of their church, lawmakers should be responsible to all groups and obligated to none. It’s one thing when lawmakers are guided and informed by their beliefs; it’s another when they impose their religious beliefs on the rest of the country, and worse if they do so at the expense of helpless and poor mothers and their children.

I’m not saying that lawmakers should disavow their religious beliefs, or refrain from voicing their conscientious objections. We do not elect public officials on the basis of their faith. But we do elect politicians on their vow to protect and defend the citizens, and to uphold the Constitution. If there is an apparent conflict between their conscience and the national interest, then they should resign.

Obviously the bishops have the luxury and commitment that lawmakers don’t. They can easily refuse to cooperate and insist at the same time that their teachings are correct. The nature of religious doctrines dictates they should defend them at all costs, even if it means going to war. The Church sees its enemy as “heretics” and considers all human laws subservient to God’s. To this end, the Catholic Church started a campaign much more insidious than those done by political parties.

Read more: http://opinion.inquirer.net/35140/church-acting-like-a-political-party#ixzz3ASVEiLWS