HEEDING THE 99.02% OF THE CITIZENRY SIMPLY WHO BELIEVE IN A SUPREME
BEING ISN’T THEOCRACY BUT DEMOCRACY. BELOW IS THE LATEST DATA FROM THE
NATIONAL STATISTICS OFFICE ABOUT THE STATUS OF RELIGION IN THE
PHILIPPINES. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines#Religion)
Religions in the Philippines
Roman Catholic 80.6%
Islam 5.6%
Protestants 4.35%
Evangelical Christians 2.7%
Iglesia ni Cristo 2.45%
Other Religions 4.29%
Atheists and Agnostics 0.08%
In 2014 Philippines in Figures by the National Statistics Office.
A group calling itself Filipino Freethinkers advocated for the removal of the word "God-loving" in Dep-ed's vision because the said group thinks that such is a "clear violation of the principle of secularism." Is this real democracy, or simply the tyranny of a minority, thus an Aristocracy or Autocracy? True, the Philippines is a secular society. Yet, even if it’s a secular society, it's one where 99.02% of its population still consider themselves to be believers of a Supreme Being. Being a secular state though doesn’t mean that the state must TOTALLY RID ITSELF of EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING RELATED TO RELIGION, and most specially if the citizens of the state are religious believers. Please let me cite a source that shows that where even states which are considered to be heavily secular also give official credence to religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_state):
Not all legally secular states are completely secular in practice.
• In France for example, many Christian holy days are official holidays for the public administration, and teachers in Catholic schools are salaried by the state.[4] In some European states (Germany, Switzerland, Belgium) where secularism confronts monoculturalist philanthropy some of the main Christian sects and sects of other religions depend on the state for some of the financial resources for their religious charities.[5] It is common in Corporate law and Charity law to prohibit them from using those funds to organize religious worship in a separate place of worship or for conversion; the religious body itself must provide the religious content, educated clergy and lay-persons to exercise its own functions and may choose to afford part of their time to the separate charities. To that effect some of those charities establish secular organizations that manage part of or all of the donations from the main religion(s). Religious and atheist organizations can apply for equivalent funding from the government and receive subsidies either based on assessed social results where there is indirect religious state funding, sometimes that assessment is simply the number of beneficiaries of those organisations.[6] This resembles Charitable choice in the United States. Overt direct state funding of religions is on the whole doubtfully in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights though it would not yet appear to have been decided at supranational level in ECtHR case law stemming from the rights in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which mandates non-discrimination in affording its co-listed basic social rights; specifically, funding certain services would not accord with non-discriminatory state action.[7]
• In India, the government gives a subsidy in airfare for Muslims going on Haj pilgrimage (See Haj subsidy). In 2007, the government had to spend Rs. 47,454 per passenger.[8] After considerable pressure from Muslim groups and the Ministry of Minority Affairs, the Congress government in 2010 decided to begin phasing out the Haj subsidy that had been in operation since 1993. The Central Haj Committee of India will work through the Ministry of External Affairs to restructure the air fares so that the richer Hadjis will pay a premium for the poorer pilgrims. The entire restructuring is expected to take about seven years and be completed by 2017.[9] India is also the only non-Muslim/Christian majority country in the world where Muslims and Christians have separate laws.[10][11]
Many states that nowadays are secular in practice may have legal vestiges of an earlier established religion. Secularism also has various guises which may coincide with some degree of official religiosity. In the United Kingdom, the head of state is still required to take the 1688-enacted Coronation Oath swearing to maintain the Protestant Reformed religion in the United Kingdom and preserve the established Church of England.[12] The United Kingdom also maintains positions in the House of Lords for 26 senior clergymen of the Church of England known as the Lords Spiritual.[13]
Sec. Armin Luistro must revisit this decision, not because he's a Catholic. But MOST SPECIALLY because 99.02% of the citizens of the Philippines are believers in a Supreme Being, and not non-believers. Heeding 99.02% of the citizenry doesn't violate the separation of church and state, nor makes our state a theocracy. Heeding the 99.02% of the citizenry simply is DEMOCRACY. Democracy demands that at least the majority of the citizens be heeded. Was there a PUBLIC CONSULTATION ABOUT THIS MATTER? Or was the said decision made only giving due consideration to one group, which doesn’t actually represent the MAJORITY of the citizenry? True, it’s quite discomfiting at times for a minority that it doesn’t always get what it wants. But that’s but part of the process of political democracy. Majority rules. Majority wins. That's political democracy. Allowing a small cohort to IMPOSE ITSELF upon the majority, especially when it’s against the WILL of the MAJORITY, is ACTUALLY AGAINST secular or democratic principles. It’s simply a TYRANNY of a FEW: AUTOCRACY or ARISTOCRACY.
Religions in the Philippines
Roman Catholic 80.6%
Islam 5.6%
Protestants 4.35%
Evangelical Christians 2.7%
Iglesia ni Cristo 2.45%
Other Religions 4.29%
Atheists and Agnostics 0.08%
In 2014 Philippines in Figures by the National Statistics Office.
A group calling itself Filipino Freethinkers advocated for the removal of the word "God-loving" in Dep-ed's vision because the said group thinks that such is a "clear violation of the principle of secularism." Is this real democracy, or simply the tyranny of a minority, thus an Aristocracy or Autocracy? True, the Philippines is a secular society. Yet, even if it’s a secular society, it's one where 99.02% of its population still consider themselves to be believers of a Supreme Being. Being a secular state though doesn’t mean that the state must TOTALLY RID ITSELF of EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING RELATED TO RELIGION, and most specially if the citizens of the state are religious believers. Please let me cite a source that shows that where even states which are considered to be heavily secular also give official credence to religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_state):
Not all legally secular states are completely secular in practice.
• In France for example, many Christian holy days are official holidays for the public administration, and teachers in Catholic schools are salaried by the state.[4] In some European states (Germany, Switzerland, Belgium) where secularism confronts monoculturalist philanthropy some of the main Christian sects and sects of other religions depend on the state for some of the financial resources for their religious charities.[5] It is common in Corporate law and Charity law to prohibit them from using those funds to organize religious worship in a separate place of worship or for conversion; the religious body itself must provide the religious content, educated clergy and lay-persons to exercise its own functions and may choose to afford part of their time to the separate charities. To that effect some of those charities establish secular organizations that manage part of or all of the donations from the main religion(s). Religious and atheist organizations can apply for equivalent funding from the government and receive subsidies either based on assessed social results where there is indirect religious state funding, sometimes that assessment is simply the number of beneficiaries of those organisations.[6] This resembles Charitable choice in the United States. Overt direct state funding of religions is on the whole doubtfully in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights though it would not yet appear to have been decided at supranational level in ECtHR case law stemming from the rights in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which mandates non-discrimination in affording its co-listed basic social rights; specifically, funding certain services would not accord with non-discriminatory state action.[7]
• In India, the government gives a subsidy in airfare for Muslims going on Haj pilgrimage (See Haj subsidy). In 2007, the government had to spend Rs. 47,454 per passenger.[8] After considerable pressure from Muslim groups and the Ministry of Minority Affairs, the Congress government in 2010 decided to begin phasing out the Haj subsidy that had been in operation since 1993. The Central Haj Committee of India will work through the Ministry of External Affairs to restructure the air fares so that the richer Hadjis will pay a premium for the poorer pilgrims. The entire restructuring is expected to take about seven years and be completed by 2017.[9] India is also the only non-Muslim/Christian majority country in the world where Muslims and Christians have separate laws.[10][11]
Many states that nowadays are secular in practice may have legal vestiges of an earlier established religion. Secularism also has various guises which may coincide with some degree of official religiosity. In the United Kingdom, the head of state is still required to take the 1688-enacted Coronation Oath swearing to maintain the Protestant Reformed religion in the United Kingdom and preserve the established Church of England.[12] The United Kingdom also maintains positions in the House of Lords for 26 senior clergymen of the Church of England known as the Lords Spiritual.[13]
Sec. Armin Luistro must revisit this decision, not because he's a Catholic. But MOST SPECIALLY because 99.02% of the citizens of the Philippines are believers in a Supreme Being, and not non-believers. Heeding 99.02% of the citizenry doesn't violate the separation of church and state, nor makes our state a theocracy. Heeding the 99.02% of the citizenry simply is DEMOCRACY. Democracy demands that at least the majority of the citizens be heeded. Was there a PUBLIC CONSULTATION ABOUT THIS MATTER? Or was the said decision made only giving due consideration to one group, which doesn’t actually represent the MAJORITY of the citizenry? True, it’s quite discomfiting at times for a minority that it doesn’t always get what it wants. But that’s but part of the process of political democracy. Majority rules. Majority wins. That's political democracy. Allowing a small cohort to IMPOSE ITSELF upon the majority, especially when it’s against the WILL of the MAJORITY, is ACTUALLY AGAINST secular or democratic principles. It’s simply a TYRANNY of a FEW: AUTOCRACY or ARISTOCRACY.
I agree with your post, thanks. There is a need though for some refinement based on our unique constitution that desires or assumes its citizens to be believers in God ("We, the sovereign Filipino people imploring the aid of Almighty God..." - Preamble) while maintaining the inviolability of the separation of Church and State (Art. 2, Sect. 6). The framers of our Constitution understood the harmful confusion in America regarding God and religion so they intentionally tried to avert it happening in our country by wisely and clearly differentiating Theism - faith in God which they State promotes for good citizenship - from Religion or the particular practice of a certain faith which the individual chooses for himself wherein the State is benevolently neutral (no preferred nor discriminated religion).
ReplyDeleteThe Religions though should conform to the values enumerated in our preamble (i.e., no Satanism) and preferred to be monotheistic (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) because of the "ALMIGHTY" attribute of the God the framers recognize.