Kabataan party-list Rep. Raymond Palatino recently filed House Bill 6330 or the proposed “Religious Freedom in Government Offices Act,” which seeks to prohibit the display of religious symbols and the conduct of religious ceremonies within the premises and perimeter of government offices, including public places and corridors.
It is high time we have a law like this to give more teeth to the establishment clause under Art. III Sec. 5 of the Philippine Constitution, which states that no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, and uphold the inviolable separation of Church and State under Sec. 6 of our Declaration of Principles.
We can better appreciate the sanctity of this separation by looking into US jurisprudence. In Engel v. Vitale, the United States Supreme Court made a landmark ruling that determined that it is unconstitutional for the State to compose prayers and require them to be recited in public schools, including the following non-denominational prayer which triggered the parents of ten pupils to take the issue to court:
Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.
The US Supreme Court gave the following decision:
Because of the prohibition of the First Amendment against the enactment of any law “respecting an establishment of religion,” which is made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, state officials may not compose an official state prayer and require that it be recited in the public schools of the State at the beginning of each school day – even if the prayer is denominationally neutral and pupils who wish to do so may remain silent or be excused from the room while the prayer is being recited.
In delivering the opinion of the court, Mr. Justice Black said:
The Establishment Clause, unlike the Free Exercise Clause, does not depend upon any showing of direct governmental compulsion and is violated by the enactment of laws which establish an official religion whether those laws operate directly to coerce nonobserving individuals or not. This is not to say, of course, that laws officially prescribing a particular form of religious worship do not involve coercion of such individuals. When the power, prestige and financial support of government is placed behind a particular religious belief, the indirect coercive pressure upon religious minorities to conform to the prevailing officially approved religion is plain.
While Engel v. Vitale reinforced the Church-State separation in the US as early as 1962 when the case was decided, secularism is still facing many obstacles in the Philippines even in the 21st century. In Cebu City, some powerful people expressed opposition to Palatino’s House Bill 6330. Mayor Michael Rama said in Cebuano, “It seems he’s trying to fight religion. Why would he want to mess with tradition?” Msgr. Esteban Binghay also said in Cebuano, “Why should people want to keep God out of some places, when all of creation belongs to him?”
It seems that what the opponents do not understand about this bill is that it does not seek to fight religion or to keep God out of some places, but simply to prohibit the government from establishing any religion whether directly or indirectly, which is fully in line with the religious freedom guaranteed in our Constitution. Going back to Engel v. Vitale, Mr. Justice Black further said:
It has been argued that to apply the Constitution in such a way as to prohibit state laws respecting an establishment of religious services in public schools is to indicate a hostility toward religion or toward prayer. Nothing, of course, could be more wrong… [T]he First Amendment, which tried to put an end to governmental control of religion and of prayer, was not written to destroy either… it was written to quiet well-justified fears which nearly all of them felt arising out of an awareness that governments of the past had shackled men’s tongues to make them speak only the religious thoughts that government wanted them to speak and to pray only to the God that government wanted them to pray to. It is neither sacrilegious nor antireligious to say that each separate government in this country should stay out of the business of writing or sanctioning official prayers and leave that purely religious function to the people themselves and to those the people choose to look to for religious guidance.
While the Philippine Constitution guarantees that the free exercise of religion shall forever be allowed, it is a guarantee given to the people to choose their own religion; what is commanded to the State by the same constitutional provision is for it not to endorse any religion and discriminate against people of other religions or no religion.
Kudos to Rep. Raymond Palatino for filing the Religious Freedom in Government Offices Act! May this timely bill be passed to help uphold the supposedly inviolable principle that has often been taken for granted in this country – the principle of separation of Church and State.
* * * * *
Image by Jong Atmosfera
I oppose the passage of this bill. Sticking to the issue here: the display of religious symbols and rites in government offices does not violate the constitution which itself invokes the intercession of an almighty God. The invocation of the separation of church from state is not justification for a bill banning such display to be passed. Separation of church from state refers to the prohibition of either institution from directly involving themselves in the functions of the other.
If both institutions can interact and co-exist in harmony, then they should be allowed to harmoniously exist. In a nation where an overwhelming majority acknowledge their faith in an Almighty God, how can the peaceful co-existence of church and state be viewed as anything but beneficial to the good of the country? The justification that not everyone is a Christian also means that some people are Christian, and it is their right as well to display the symbols of their faith.
This country and its people should not succumb to the tyranny of the few. This bill might have good intentions in mind, but it will create divisiveness and may lead us, as a culture and a society, down a path we do not intend to tread. Look at the examples of other countries that have done this, America, France, Greece, Italy, etc… Their societies have suffered immensely in terms of loss of moral, social even family values. Are we prepared to choose that path? Do we want to?
Personally I believe the Church is a buffer against that loss of Filipino values in our culture. Our Values have already taken a severe beating due an unmitigated influx of global influences. While these influences are not bad, per se, they should be tempered by measured evaluation and critical appraisal. Our culture and history offers such tempering foundations, and our religion (of whatever denomination) is part of our culture.
While I admire the hot blooded enthusiasm of the bill’s supporters, I believe they have not fully thought of the full implications and underlying ramifications of their actions. I fear the passage of this bill will remove yet another fortification against the tide of immorality sweeping our nation. And I for one will oppose such an act.
//Sticking to the issue here: the display of religious symbols and rites in government offices does not violate the constitution which itself invokes the intercession of an almighty God. The invocation of the separation of church from state is not justification for a bill banning such display to be passed. Separation of church from state refers to the prohibition of either institution from directly involving themselves in the functions of the other.//
There is also no justification for a gov't office to be spending resources just for religious services, my friend – as the SC did when it held mass in its quadrangle for Corona.
Furthermore, the "Almighty God" phrase you're lifting is in the constitution's preamble, and not in the constitution itself; Neither did it specify which "God" was being invoked.
//If both institutions can interact and co-exist in harmony, then they should be allowed to harmoniously exist. In a nation where an overwhelming majority acknowledge their faith in an Almighty God, how can the peaceful co-existence of church and state be viewed as anything but beneficial to the good of the country? The justification that not everyone is a Christian also means that some people are Christian, and it is their right as well to display the symbols of their faith.//
Except that they DON'T coexist in harmony – in every instance that religion was injected in legislation, it's caused far more harm than good. To cite a specific, I refer to Lito Atienza's contraceptive ban for Manila, which did nothing to curb the incidences of maternal deaths or unwanted pregnancies in the city. Then there's Ang Ladlad's initial rejection by Comelec on "moral grounds," with Comelec officials citing the bible and Quran.
Could you kindly explain how being anti-choice and anti-gay are in any way beneficial to our country?
//. Look at the examples of other countries that have done this, America, France, Greece, Italy, etc… Their societies have suffered immensely in terms of loss of moral, social even family values./
In the case of America, the highest incidences of divorce, crime, teen pregnancies, maternal deaths, and STDs are smack in the middle of the Bible Belt where each state's ruling politicos remain religiously conservative.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2011… http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2012/04…
In the case of France, the recent civil unrest is attributed to their influx of Muslim immigrants, who haven't made any attempts to integrate into secular society, and are instead trying to impose their religion in everybody else.
http://articles.latimes.com/2005/nov/26/world/fg-…
It's clear that in their cases, the "loss of moral, social even family values" are due to religion. So either you're woefully ignorant, or you are lying. Personally, I think you're just full of shit.
Personal attacks on me will not change the fact that you chose to believe what you want, but you don't want anyone else to have an opinion or state a belief contrary to your own. You are pretty liberal at taking topics out of context. Your a hater. and you just want something to hate.
//Personal attacks on me will not change the fact that you chose to believe what you want, but you don't want anyone else to have an opinion or state a belief contrary to your own. /
Dude, freedom of speech is not the same as freedom from criticism.
From people like me, you can expect fairness in the sense that we will not resort to censoring your opinion just because we don't like it. That's why your comments haven't been deleted.
However, if you're going to make a statement, you better be damn sure you can back it up with evidence or data, or you can logically justify it. You have done none of these things, and are getting called out for it. Don't blame us for your inability to defend your point.
Now if you don't like what I say or the points I raise, feel free to rebuke them, but once again, remember that you'll need to back up your points with actual facts, as I did.
Furthermore, do review the mechanics of an ad hominem attack – if I called you out for lying or being ignorant AFTER I prove your points wrong, that doesn't count as an ad hominem. That's called stating facts.
//Your a hater. and you just want something to hate. //
Honey, I'm not the one trying to defend a religion that promotes gay discrimination. You are.
//Personally I believe the Church is a buffer against that loss of Filipino values in our culture.//
The Church was a tool to keep us subservient to the Spaniards, my friend. While I do acknowledge that I
//Our Values have already taken a severe beating due an unmitigated influx of global influences.//
FYI, Catholicism was also a foreign influence. Shall we remove that too?
//While these influences are not bad, per se, they should be tempered by measured evaluation and critical appraisal. Our culture and history offers such tempering foundations, and our religion (of whatever denomination) is part of our culture. /
What you fail to realize is that even your religion should be – and already has been – subjected to critical appraisal, and has been found to be morally bankrupt, bigoted, and baseless. Your religion has been used as an excuse to generate prejudice against the LGBT community without being required to present any solid evidence. Neither has it provided any meaningful solutions for the maternal deaths our women face every year, due to lack of access to modern family planning and education.
Your religion also endorsed an utterly corrupt president just because she decided to axe the RH Bill, and accepted bribes from her.
Why the fuck should we believe lying shitheads like you when you claim the moral high ground?
That is your jaded opinion. You seem to have no problem making haughty assumptions.
You claim is that religion has been weighed and found ***morally bankrupt, bigoted, and baseless.*** Again your opinion. Clearly you have no problem stating your opinion as fact. If we followed your arguments all the ills in the world would be laid on the feet of religion. convenient scapegoat, i'm sure. And I assume you mean to say that nothing and no one else is to blame.
Convenient argument for you. Not my problem if you are mad at the world, I'm sure if religion did not exist, you'd blame something else. Blame, blame, blame. Get over yourself and get a life already.
//That is your jaded opinion. You seem to have no problem making haughty assumptions. //
Haughty assumptions, or an opinions formed based on observations of current events?
http://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/2012/03/23118/
Is it any surprise that virtually all of the groups that demonize or promote discrimination against the gay community in the United States are religious in nature? Nope.
//Clearly you have no problem stating your opinion as fact.//
Ironic coming from the religious fundie who claims moral degradation in American society, and yet doesn't provide any evidence to back up his claims. The difference between us is that my opinion isn't running on bullshit.
//If we followed your arguments all the ills in the world would be laid on the feet of religion. //
I never said that ALL of the world's problems are caused by religion. Stop putting words in my mouth.
My point is that presuming that following religion is the better course of action in our country is a bad idea, on the grounds that mainstreams religions like Catholicism, Christianity, and Islam have a piss-poor track record when it comes to promoting love and tolerance.
Just ask the LGBT community. http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/106981/cbcp-wants-an…
Ask our women. http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/220983/unwed-pregna…
//And I assume you mean to say that nothing and no one else is to blame. //
Once again, I never said that or insinuated it. Just because I'm against religious dogmatism doesn't mean I'm not against corruption in general. Drive that into your thick skull.
Hey Twin_Skies, you forgot to mention the plague of pedophile priests. :p
This website should add the final nail to the coffin….
BISHOP ACCOUNTABILITY. ORG : http://www.bishop-accountability.org/
//Our culture and history offers such tempering foundations, and our religion (of whatever denomination) is part of our culture. //
Pinoy Machismo is also part of our culture, mate, but good luck telling that to your boss when that lovely secretary files sexual harrassment against you for slapping her ass.
[the display of religious symbols and rites in government offices does not violate the constitution which itself invokes the intercession of an almighty God.]
Are you claiming that the Almighty God invoked by the Filipino people in the Preamble of the Constitution is represented by something as mundane as, say, a Sto. Niño statue made of cement or plaster or whatever earthly material that was then formed by the hands of men? Take note that not all God-believers respect the Sto. Niño. Protestants and Born Again Christians detest graven images, and Muslims and INCs don't even acknowledge Jesus as God. If you then say that when the Filipino people implored the aid of Almighty God, are you sure you are not merely referring to Filipino Catholics?
//Look at the examples of other countries that have done this, America, France, Greece, Italy, etc… Their societies have suffered immensely in terms of loss of moral, social even family values. //
That's not what the latest FBI reports indicate:
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/11/1217…
As for family values:
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-08-25/living/divorce…
I can keep this up all day, mate.
You're more than welcome to disprove my points of course, or are you just going to once again whine that citing credible sources contrary to your claims is being a "hater"?
[…] atheist friend Jong Atmosfera presented in his article an opinion by US Supreme Court Justice Black stating: “The Establishment Clause, unlike the Free […]
frankly, i won't hold my breath that they would pass this bill. too many "religious" politicians. remember the mitsubishops? didn't some members of the senate even raise funds to replace the vehicles that the bishops returned?
i rather have all religious sectors pay taxes.. the time is now
And you call yourself a free “thinker". Do some research first before posting on something so basic such as the precept of our law or were you absent when your professor was teaching this particular facet of our constitution. Anyway here it goes again…
Church exemptions from taxes are based on the story of a Camel which stuck its nose under the tent: (if you don’t know this parable, you really have to do some research) Churches are tax exempt under the principle that there is no surer way to destroy the free exercise of religion than to tax it. If the government is allowed to tax churches (or to place condition on a tax exemption on a church refraining from the free exercise of religion), then the camel's nose is under the tent, and its body is sure to follow.
So by suggesting that churches be taxed, you are in effect curtailing the FREEDOM of religion. And if you curtail one freedom, why not another? Like say FREEDOM of SPEECH?
//Church exemptions from taxes are based on the story of a Camel which stuck its nose under the tent: (if you don’t know this parable, you really have to do some research) Churches are tax exempt under the principle that there is no surer way to destroy the free exercise of religion than to tax it. If the government is allowed to tax churches (or to place condition on a tax exemption on a church refraining from the free exercise of religion), then the camel's nose is under the tent, and its body is sure to follow. //
Churches not getting taxed also work under the presumption that the religion does not directly interfere in the workings of gov't, which the CBCP has been constantly doing over the years.
If the Church insists on meddling with legislation, bueno, they get taxed like everybody else. Fair is fair.
my opinion purely on humanitarian basis.. I'm haven't really read any religious books, maybe
you could educate me as to where its written that they should not pay taxes — cuz God says so..
curtailing the freedom of religion.. I don't believe in "religion" in the first place..
why so mad? Jeevus!
“Nganong did-an man nila ang Ginoo nga musulod sa bisan asa nga lugar nga siya man ang tag-iya sa tanang butang sa kalibutan? (Why should people want to keep God out of some places, when all of creation belongs to him?),” – Msgnr. Esteban Binghay
– When these dry men choose to open their mouths, they only do so whenever their practices are attacked or when their dogma is being challenged, but keep their lips sealed when questioned about anomalous financial dealings. Early this morning, I opened my Facebook account only to find a more delicious treat than pancakes: BISHOP JESSE MERCADO IS BEING GRILLED! Well not exactly fit for human consumption, the news tells of another scandal that is sure to add cherry on top of a scandalous cake. Yummy.
BISHOP ACCUSED OF DIVERTING MILLIONS: http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/7201-church-fund…
(Why should people want to keep God out of some places, when all of creation belongs to him?),” – Msgnr. Esteban Binghay
citation needed monsenor (funny when i clicked the spelling suggestion for this, the first word that pops out is "nonsense"). let the unworldly and metaphysical thrive to where they belong; the abstract side of the mind – far from the physical and real world.
A Cebuana myself, I can't help but give an understandable sigh for our beloved city mayor. Whereas the rest of the world are trying to launch space rockets and are developing a cure to AIDS or cancer, the esteemed mayor wants to preserve tradition, in the guise of protecting religious affiliates.
//appeal to tradition (similar to the bandwagon fallacy): (e.g., astrology, religion, slavery) just because people practice a tradition, says nothing about its viability.//
Here are just 5 of the numerous traditions being practised by Filipinos:
1.Colonial Mentality
2. "Ningas Kugon" or Crab Mentality
3. "Bahala na"
4. Filipino Time
5. Mañana Habit
6. ____________ (add yours)
So…. Why do we wanna mess with tradition again?
I wonder if this will entail a constitution change, since the constitution implores "the aid of Almighty God" to promulgate it.
Not necessarily. In the Preamble, it is the People who are imploring the aid of Almighty God; HB 6330 simply prohibits the State from endorsing any particular version of God (be it Catholic, Protestant, Islamic, etc.) which is very much in line with the establishment clause in Art. III Sec. 5 of the Constitution.
well essentially, its simply respect for diversity. why will u display a cross when not all ur officemates are chrisitians or even believers? 🙂
Why not display what you want? I disagree with that comment on principle. If you are a star trek, Madonna or lady Gaga fan, can anyone stop you from wearing a star trek Pin or Lady gaga logo on your shirt? Is not the Freedom to express oneself allowed? If you take offense, then look away. Bullies will use any excuse, whether religion, political belief, social preference, etc, as a scapegoat to justify human intolerance and discrimination. You don't have to believe in religion to be an intolerant prick. This isn't really about religion; people should stop blaming others for their own insecurities.
//Bullies will use any excuse, whether religion, political belief, social preference, etc, as a scapegoat to justify human intolerance and discrimination. You don't have to believe in religion to be an intolerant prick.//
So the fundie is whining about "bullying?"
Fucking hypocrite.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/one-tow…
//If you take offense, then look away.//
Same goes for you. If you find government to be stifling to your religious (in)sensibilities, then don't fucking work in government. Stop blaming them for your insecurities.
//You don't have to believe in religion to be an intolerant prick.//
True, but you can get away so much more easily with being an intolerant prick when you hide it behind religion.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org
“If you are a star trek, Madonna or lady Gaga fan, can anyone stop you from wearing a star trek Pin or Lady gaga logo on your shirt?”
Wearing a pin, a shirt or even putting figurines of Madonna on your table is so different from having an altar in your office, specifically devoted to her. Let’s not forget letting the whole office reverberate with her greatest hits.
Funny that you’re comparing “fanaticism” with “religion”, by the way.
Nice conversation, can I join?
@Twin_Skies, we are conducting mass every friday here in our office (gov’t office). Does really the government spending its resources to religion? I guess no, plus its our freedom to exercise our belief, our government is also spending its resources for Gender Awareness and health of its personnel. Gym facilities, basketball court tennis court and the like. So are you also trying to imply that a religion doesn’t have a good benefits for people and government? Religion teaches what is the right thing to do, it just really matters how the people ears will apply it to their daily life.