 |
| 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.
