A false notion of secularism is that it prohibits any form of public religious expression. At least that much I can agree with on John Pesebre’s recent article. Where he chooses to go from there, however, is an entirely different train wreck.
First and foremost, he states that Red’s recent article exhibits the false notion stated above. Nowhere in the article was it stated that the act was an outright violation of the separation of church and state. All it did was express valid concern over how this prayer was done in poor taste.
Let it be clear that we know how secularism does not prohibit any form of public religious expression. If we’re going to delve strictly into legal terms–“No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”–there was no violation as no laws were made that pass the criteria for one. As some would incessantly insist, it would appear to be “just another prayer”. Well it would not have been a problem if our dear senator had said the prayer in his bed, or with his family, or before his meal, or before eating his family in bed. Heck, he could have even prayed in senate on his own and you wouldn’t have heard as much as a squeak from us. The clincher, however, is how the obviously Christian prayer was broadcast on a pedestal that is the highest legislative office of a country to its pluralistic people. If that does not send a message of Christianity dominating as the pseudo-official state religion, then I don’t know what does.
In the end, Pesebre even suggests that we just let it go, arguing that there are many more important things to speak up about. True, there are many other important things that we could speak up about, but that in no way stops us from speaking up about something seemingly small in society that we find wanting correction. Non-participation would be a valid option in most cases, but this is the Senate we’re talking about, and unless you’re willing to boycott the national facade that we call a democracy, I would suggest you speak up when there’s something you want to change about it. And it’s not like it will take tons of effort to fix this one problem. Pesebre’s suggestion of spending effort on other things implies that not praying would take lots of time away from other more important things, when the truth is all that has to be done by each senator to solve the problem of expressing religious favoritism during government time is not praying.
There are some of us who are sick and tired of being told to just deal with it, as if it was the most harmless thing in the world. It gets even worse when we see our taxes paying for time wasted on fancy words that don’t work. Yes, our taxes. Session time is secular time is precious time. And I can’t think of a worse way to defend secularism than to argue in favor of accommodating all forms of religious expression altogether. If the members of senate were diverse enough to belong to 10 different religious sects, I wonder how many would still be in favor of hearing each and every one of their prayers before settling down to finally do what their constituents are actually paying them to do.
In a nutshell, we contend that there should be no prayers or sectarian practices in any government-sponsored event. Whether or not this is legal is open to much discussion, but it is clearly an ideal that some of us seek to achieve, not only for our wish that religious influence in government affairs be lessened, but also for the simple courtesy of being considerate to people of other (or no) faith when engaging matters concerning our common government. If you say that you’re going to talk about something that concerns all of us, don’t go ahead and talk about something that doesn’t concern all of us. That is, unless you’re passive-aggressively hinting that we don’t matter. But c’mon, senators wouldn’t do that.
Would they?
—
[Image from: http://ashleyconnick.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/off-target.jpg]
wow – free comments. i guess i won.
balato naman
A sentence in this site's essay on secularism says, "Secularism does not intend to wipe out religion; it merely asserts that 'religion ought never to be anything but a private affair' and not to influence public policy." If you don't want to wipe it out, why can't you allow it to "influence" public policy. Don't religious people have the right to be represented ? Basically you just want to recognize religion but do not want religious moral, ethical, etc to be presented as variables in the discussion. That's a good mask. You pretend to preserve religion that permeates the life of many people and by default remove any form of moral and ethical language from them because they are religious. Good try. Sort of a back door maneuver. Yet religious people will resist. Non-religious people will resist. Who's going to mediate between them?
That is why we have legislation.
Honestly, I don't like the guy Sotto. Buti na lang, we live in a democracy. Legislation is not determined by a prayer. Sotto's actions prove that democracy is still alive in the sense that he can practice his right to pray in the midst of a secular gathering. Why be edgy about it? Are you scared that the prayer was a mantra that would control the minds of the legislators saying "No to RH Bill! No to RH Bill!" The very freedom that you have when you went to picket in an Pro-RH Bill gathering is the same citizen's right that Sotto was standing upon. Your picket was done in bad taste, so is Sotto's.
That prayer if it was done in bad taste could actually create two responses: ire or influence. Ire because to some it sucks (like the US Senate walk-out). Influence because it invokes a being in whom many in the session hall believe. You think it was bad because you are edgy, bitter and resentful of an issue that has a better side than your typical atheist/theist wrangling. It was an exercise of democracy.
If you don't like how I responded to Red, I apologize. But I have to work on my opinion of what he's doing in that letter. The back door maneuver, I see.
Sotto's prayer took place in a senate, a location that is not supposed favor any one specific religion in the first place. If Sotto had prayed in silence, there wouldn't have been a problem. The problem began when he made it a PUBLIC action that made it appear to be a consensus among the senate members. And he used public time – not to mention money – just to say that prayer. I do not pay taxes to watch senators pray. I pay taxes to let them do their job.
"Made it appear"? No wonder I mentioned "edgy" in that essay of mine.
If Sotto's right for personal prayer will be protected in a secular gathering, that means democracy is alive. That's just it.
I mean you want your personal right of speech din di ba? as well as your right to assembly etc. A prayer is not a brain washing technique: it's just the way it is, a personal communication to a higher being.
now as to your suspicion that Sotto was also using this prayer to influence the senate, i think it was a sagacious move but stupid.
Please explain how making a prayer part of a public speech is in any way "private"
[If you don't want to wipe it out, why can't you allow it to "influence" public policy.]
Five words: Separation of church and state.
[Don't religious people have the right to be represented ?]
Art. VI Sec. 5(2) of the 1987 Constitution: "The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total number of representatives including those under the party list. For three consecutive terms after the ratification of this Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by law, EXCEPT THE RELIGIOUS SECTOR."
"Separation of church and state"
Well it's good to know that you're on my side pertaining to upholding democracy. A good liberal posture is to allow rational, self-interested people to lay their cards on the table. Why? Because what rational, self-interested people present are variables. I'm not saying that we become a religious society, only that religious convictions are variables. You don't want these variables because they categorically oppose your unbelief.
Sotto's prayer would be appalling to me if he said, "This is not my personal prayer, but the prayer of the people I represent." But prayers in Sotto's theology is personal. He has the epistemic right to carry out something which is propped up by the law. You talk of "disrespect", I talk of constitutional right.
BTW, two things on your party-list-quote. First you are equivocating on my use of the word "represented." But it's good that you called me out on this so I would change my term. How about "speak for". I guess this would be supported by "freedom of speech."
Second, your motive is a back door maneuver. What that law says is that party-lists must not represent religious sector. You're, typical of many atheistic freethinkers, throwing the baby with the bathwater. It is not prohibiting the exercise of religion, just giving a clear boundary for who will party lists represent. Okay?
[I’m not saying that we become a religious society, only that religious convictions are variables. You don’t want these variables because they categorically oppose your unbelief.]
First of all, not all secularists are unbelievers. Second, it’s not the convictions/variables per se that secularists oppose, but the reasoning behind these variables. If a religious person can present a purely secular argument against the RH bill or contraception, we will hear it and might even be convinced to change our stand. Conversely, if a someone supports contraception (like we do) and disagrees with NFP-only policies (like we do) but argues his stand with 1 Corinthians 7:5 (“Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time…come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.”), in no way shall we use that argument for our advocacy.
[Sotto’s prayer would be appalling to me if he said, “This is not my personal prayer, but the prayer of the people I represent.”]
Different people are appalled by different things. Besides, Red never said he was “appalled” by Sotto’s prayer, only “bothered.”
[But prayers in Sotto’s theology is personal. He has the epistemic right to carry out something which is propped up by the law. You talk of “disrespect”, I talk of constitutional right.]
I don’t see any disagreement here. We are indeed talking of two different things.
[First you are equivocating on my use of the word “represented.” But it’s good that you called me out on this so I would change my term. How about “speak for”. I guess this would be supported by “freedom of speech.”]
When you say “speak for,” are you saying that legislators should “speak for” the religious sector by incorporating what they want to say into our laws? Our constitution says that “no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion,” and Fr. Joaquin Bernas explains, “The constitutional command, however, is more than just the prohibition of a state religion. That is the minimal meaning. Jurisprudence has expanded it to mean that the state may not pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.”
[What that law says is that party-lists must not represent religious sector. You’re, typical of many atheistic freethinkers, throwing the baby with the bathwater. It is not prohibiting the exercise of religion, just giving a clear boundary for who will party lists represent. Okay?]
Did I ever say that that particular section of the constitution which prohibits sectoral representation of the religious sector also prohibits the free exercise of religion? I was merely trying to answer your question, “Don’t religious people have the right to be represented?”.
Let me get this right, I certainly don't want to misinterpret anything. So, the author is saying he agrees Sotto did not violate the separation of church and state, but disrespected it?
How can someone go about disrespecting a law short of violating it?
Unless Sotto went about saying things like "you know what, I don't respect that separation of church and state thing, I just don't respect it!" — I doubt he ever did though.
hi miguel!
his prayer creates an atmosphere wherein religion is seen as capable of easily permeating secular institutions such as the senate. this makes an environment more prone to violations of state-church separation.
regarding how someone can go about disrespecting a law without violating it, i could make a song about how illegal drugs are great. i wouldn't be committing any crime, but i'd be setting up the stage for others to do so.
regarding how someone can go about disrespecting a law without violating it, i could make a song about how illegal drugs are great. i wouldn't be committing any crime, but i'd be setting up the stage for others to do so.
— I obviated this kind of response by asking if Sotto in any way vocally criticized or said he wanted to abolish the separation of church and state thing. People criticize prop 8, it's safe to assume they're disrespectful of that law while not violating it. But, with respect to the separation of church and state thing, I think Sotto will emphatically say he will be against anything of that sort.
So, again, how can someone be said to be disrespecting a law short of violating or criticizing it explicitly or implicitly?
well i already see his actions as falling under implicit criticism of the law. i really wouldn't know how to do that (disrespect a law without violating or criticizing it either explicitly or implicitly) aside from committing acts borne out of ignorance that could potentially be construed as disrespectful. but disrespect here would be subject to interpretation, since the intention is unclear and some would argue that it is necessary for disrespect.
well i already see his actions as falling under implicit criticism of the law.
— Maybe, but we're talking about his prayer here. And the author of this article already agrees the prayer does not violate the separation thing, but, interestingly, is disrespectful of it.
i really wouldn't know how to do that (disrespect a law without violating or criticizing it either explicitly or implicitly)
— Because I think you feel, like I do, that it cannot be done.
aside from committing acts borne out of ignorance that could potentially be construed as disrespectful.
— It would be a misplaced construal then if it is borne out of ignorance. If I was ignorant of some no-smoking law and happened to smoke at a non-smoking area, then I'm not disrespectful of that law, I was ignorant of it. But Sotto isn't being accused of ignorance now, was he?
syk0saje, thanks for responding to my comments.
good points miguel. i concede that his actions could have been a result of ignorance (hanlon's razor, anyone?) but given sotto's position, it would be quite dismal for him to be in that state. if the article seems to chide him for misconstrued disrespect, i would hope it also inspires him to educate himself with regard to matters like these. (or at least maybe make it clear that no disrespect was meant and learn from his mistake.) at any rate, more public discussion about this topic would be good in general.
(thanks for the comments as well. i'm the author by the way, syk0saje is just my handle haha)
O.K. Point taken. I did like the way the article was written.:)
As usual, Pesebre is in his standard persecution complex form. It's pathetic how when the Christian right finally starts getting some pushback from the people they've trampled over for decades, they cry oppression, when they, by far, still dictate the policy and direction of entire nations. And the propositions of the conservatives such as Pesebre are obstructionist and do-nothing—just naysaying without putting forward any solutions, as in the RH bill and as in the inequality enjoyed by the Catholic majority.
It has become too common for me to see the I'm-persecuted card from among religious fundamentalists. But from a distinguished lecturer, no.
you said, "just naysaying without putting forward any solutions". well the solution is already there: it's called the law. i understand that you're an anarchist, and that's basically the point.
it is distressing to hear this. and even more distressing when people do not understand why it matters. because most people are of the majority.
There is such a thing as a non-denominational prayer. In more politically-correct and enlightened countries, they sometimes start events by saying a short poem with generic themes of hope and positive virtues, stuff that everyone can relate to, regardless of belief or philosophical affiliation. I've even attended some non-denominational prayer services before and it did feel uplifting without being preachy, particularly because they don't shove agendas up your throat in the middle of all the praise and halleluiahs.
I do think Sotto's choice of prayer was in bad taste, specifically because it took very specific sides in various hotly contested issues. If you want to pray, there are ways to pray without taking potshots at differing ideologies and demonizing them.
Cheap shot, Sotto.
Thanks for the article sir.
But one thing I would like to comment on is that I believe our society is not dominated by Christians but by Catholics.
A lot of people would disagree with me but based on my education, not all Catholics are Christians and based on my observation, Catholics are dominant over Christians.
They worship Jesus Christ, right? They're Christians whether you like it or not.
Evangelicals try to hijack the name "Christian" so as to distance themselves from the Catholics. While I understand the sentiment behind wanting to be completely dissociated from Catholicism, the Catholic religion is within the Christian religion superfamily, by definition.
Yes, that's all true, and I believe I hadn't written anything contrary to what you've said.
The thing is, Catholic traditions, values, even holidays, dominate our society.
this world will be a better world without religions, won't it?
lolz. It is funny how freethinkers believe that "secularism does not prohibit any form of public religious expression" but is quite allergic with religion. How free they are indeed! lolz.