Freedom of Religion is not Religion, Father

Written on Wednesday, September 3rd, 2008 at 11:10 am | by DJB

1987 FOUNDING FATHER and renowned Constitutionalist Joaquin Bernas, S.J. expressed himself recently on the matter of Pluralistic Societies in which he discusses two key concepts (1) non-establishment  and (2) free exercise.

The first clause prohibits making any religion the official state religion. More than that, however, the non-establishment clause has been understood to mean that: (1) government must not prefer one religion over another religion; (2) government funds must not be applied to religious purposes except where the Constitution allows it; (3) government action must not directly aid religion; (4) government action must not result in excessive entanglement with religion.

Of course, these tenets of non-establishment are all observed more in brazen exception than rule of the Law, when one considers that Pagcor is basically the CBCP’s piggy bank and Daily Catholic Masses are said on the Palace and Congress grounds.  Comelec has a religious shrine in its Intramuros offices that would put the Spanish Taliban to shame.  The President is said to own a Sto. Nino taller than her — a gift from Jose de Venecia no doubt. What national government office does not have all the sanctimonious iconography and statuary of Marian goddess worship?  (In regards the latter, it boggles my mind that Filipinos would rather believe the whole of order of Nature and the laws of biological reproduction had been turned on their head by Yahweh in the year 1 B. C. during the Immaculate Conception of Mary — “and not that a Jewish minx had lied!” — as Christopher Hitchens recently put it.)

The good Fr. Bernas does make a very useful distinction when he says that the freedom to exercise Religion “embraces two concepts—freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute, but in the nature of things, the second cannot be.”   As an example, you can believe in human sacrifice religion, but you may not actually practice it for real. I only wish he would apply this principle to the Islamic theocracy aborning in that “mere piece of paper” that would establish the BJE (Bangsamorostan).

Then the good Fr. Bernas delivers a revelation:

The constitutional doctrine on religious liberty is widely known in our society, even if perhaps not in its more detailed nuances. But what is perhaps not as well known is that religious liberty is also, especially since Vatican II, the official teaching of the Catholic Church. Learning what the Catholic teaching is on the matter is important for Catholics living and acting in a pluralist society such as ours.

Is it really?  In trying to force-fit Catholic dogma into the foundation of democratic ideology, he succeeds only in confounding Freedom of Religion with Religion itself:

In upholding religious freedom, however, the Church did not mean to proclaim that the human conscience is not bound by any divine laws but only by self-created norms. As Murray again put it, the Church still rejects “a concept of religious freedom that would be based on the ideology of religious indifferentism, that is, on the notion that all religions are equally true, or equally false. Furthermore, the Church today must still reject a concept of religious freedom that would be based on the ideology of doctrinal relativism, that is, on the philosophical notion that there is no objective criterion of truth.”

I think this is a very subtle distortion of the basic concepts and needs straightening out here at Filipino Voices, because it seems to be a round-about way of saying Catholicism is still the one, true Religion. We must concede to the Pope that all religions cannot be equally true, for they implicitly and explicitly contradict one another in the most fundamental (if humorous) ways.  However, the idea that they are equally false is not a matter of religious indifferentism, but of a growing human consensus in the 21st century.  There is this recently famous definition of an atheist as a theist who just happens to believe in one less god that I think applies here.

Personally, I do not believe that Religion is incompatible with Democracy. But I do think that Religion is incompatible with Science and Reason. I believe that Religion is to Science, what our childhood is to our adulthood.  Science evolved out of Religion, much as Homo erectus became Homo sapiens but it is time we as a species lay down the fears and delusions of our superstitious juvenility and infantile childhood.  Theology has no more utility or power to explain or inspire anything.  Morality is innate in us now, perhaps thanks to Religion, perhaps thanks to Darwinian natural selection.  But we can never give up the distinction.

The good Fr. Bernas cannot have his cake and eat it too.

Tags:
Add to del.icio.us | Digg this! | Yahoo MyWeb | Google Bookmark It! | Stumble It!
About The Author: DJB says: Science IS Religion! He blogs at Philippine Commentary and The Rizalist Press

Filed Under Politics

Related Entries:

Comments

17 Responses to “Freedom of Religion is not Religion, Father”

  1. Bencard on September 4th, 2008 3:38 am

    the essence of the non-establishment clause of the constitution pertains to the prohibition against the government OFFICIALLY, as an institution, from preferring one religion over the others. it doesn’t inhibit individual officials from exercising, or believing in, any religion that they want to. as it is, it just so happens that more of our public officers are catholic than jewish, muslim, protestant, etc.

  2. Bencard on September 4th, 2008 3:48 am

    btw, the practice of religion must be in conformity with the law, e.g. criminal or civil. thus, no one can kill in the name of religion without being prosecuted and punished accordingly. belief cannot be humanly sanctioned no matter how repulsive, heinous or unconscionable.

  3. Bencard on September 4th, 2008 3:55 am

    djb, science, like human truth, depends on empirical evidence. religion needs no evidence because it is based on faith and belief. while science holds that for every “effect”, there’s a cause, science cannot demonstrate the primordial or first cause, that is itself uncaused.

  4. Dean Jorge Bocobo on September 4th, 2008 8:29 am

    bencard,
    One of the interesting questions that the MOA-AD case in the SC has provoked is this business of whether the Executive can commit to arrangements that are “outside of the constitution” in pursuing a peace deal.

    I think the answer depends on what aspect of the Constitution would be affected. So it becomes a matter of discretion for the Executive. There have to be some things, like the Bill of Rights, that are simply nonnegotiable and would not be within the discretion of the Executive to bargain away.

    Doesn’t this mean Abe’s thesis is wrong, since clearly such a matter is the proper subject of judicial review, ie whether the executive abused its discretion, possibly to a grave degree?

  5. Religion: don’t let it ruin our spirituality | Filipino Voices on September 4th, 2008 2:01 pm

    […] expressed this interesting bit of insight in his last article Freedom of Religion is not Religion, Father: We must concede to the Pope that all religions cannot be equally true, for they implicitly and […]

  6. Manny on October 20th, 2008 6:24 pm

    Your concept of science’s relationship to religion is quite mistaken. The two are quite compatible. The Catholic Faith, for example, is not in contradiction to science, except perhaps to those who do not understand one or the other (or both).

    Our morality, or lack of it, most certainly needs guidance, and anyone who thinks that all necessary truths can be had without religion is quite sadly mistaken — as history shows.

    I find it interesting, but not surprising that you make such unfounded claims considering your well-known prejudice against religion, and the Catholic Church.

    No doubt you will try to cite some tired myths purporting to show the opposition of science to religion (such as the still-misunderstood Galileo affair), but that won’t really work. Not everyone is so ignorant.

  7. The Jester-in-Exile on October 20th, 2008 6:34 pm

    by the galileo affair, you mean that we are all under mistaken in our belief that galileo was excommunicated? :D

  8. Manny on October 20th, 2008 7:30 pm

    Of course. He was NOT excommunicated. He was condemned by an ecclessiastical court for “suspicion of heresy”. A strange and anomalous conviction, to be sure, since the Church had NO dogma declaring heliocentrism as heretical. The court seems to have overstepped its authority since even papal-appointed courts cannot define Catholic doctrine. And even the Pope himself did not make any ex cathedra statement on the matter.

    Now if that comes as a surprise I would strongly recommend reading up on the subject first as myths concerning it — such as Galileo being excommunicated — do abound.

    The Galileo Affair
    http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0005.html

  9. Dean Jorge Bocobo on October 20th, 2008 9:57 pm

    Manny,
    It was only 300 years too late, but Pope John Paul II did apologize for the “Galileo Affair” as well as numerous injustices, uncharities, and other sins of the Church. The apology is accepted even if it seems that some “devout Catholics” would like to exercise their discretion to withdraw it. It’s no use defending idiocies like the Assumption, the Virgin Birth and the daily Transubstantiation miracles claimed by the religious.

    As for the relationship of Science and Religion, they most certainly are contradictory and incompatible. Religious education is basically child abuse and mental slavery imposed on the innocent. The teachings like hell and heaven are wicked delusions based on sexual repression and guilt trips about our bodies, emotions and sensations. It is time for Man to stop being reverential to the keepers of the fears and ignorance of his childhood, the superstitious, supernatural “reverends”–who are mostly charlattans and have nothing left to offer by dried out dogmas and morality that belongs to us as human beings and is part of genetic heritage, not some God given gift intermediated by mystics.

    There is nothing you can do about it. Organized religions like Islam and Roman Catholicism are the vestiges of a terrible childhood. They have lost all credibility except with the credulous.

  10. Manny on October 20th, 2008 11:26 pm

    I think you have to be a little more accurate. Benedict XIV gave an imprimatur to the first edition of the Complete Works of Galileo way back 1741.

    And while you may not agree with certain doctrines of a religion, it is the height of ARROGANCE and BIGOTRY to start calling them names just because you don’t agree with them. The doctrines you took cheap shots at can quite readily be proven, far better than many fo the ridiculous claims you make here.

    Wake up. Such prejudice belongs in the cesspool. You shouldn’t accompany them.

  11. Dean Jorge Bocobo on October 21st, 2008 5:24 am

    Manny,
    You cannot prove or disprove matters of faith. Even Catholics know that. But the burden of proof does lie with those for whom it seems urgently important that others believe it too. For example, the “Virgin” Birth. Yes it is entirely possible that a Creator God the Father suspended all the laws of nature so that God the Holy Spirit could implant God the Son into a suitable blessed virgin who would become not quite God the Mother…or it is entirely possible that a Jewish minx lied about her sexual relations. We can neither prove nor disprove either theory. You believe the former, I, with Occam, believe the latter. But my side of the debate has never invaded, raped, tortured or killed others because they won’t believe the former, as your side clearly has.

    Now you call ME arrogant and bigoted?

  12. WillyJ on October 22nd, 2008 1:30 pm

    Hi DBJ, please excuse me for barging in late to the party. Very interesting bit here.
    I just checked that column of Fr Bernas and to my mind, there is that focus of attention
    on the free exercise clause in a pluralist society. It is a most difficult area where the
    balance of the state’s interest and religious freedom hangs. I’d like to take note here of a
    relevant point in the SC 1985 case of German v. Barangan in 1985 where then Associate Justice Teehankee registered a dissent which in subsequent jurisprudence would be cited as a
    test in religious freedom cases. His dissent stated in relevant part, viz:

    1. The right to freely exercise one’s religion is guaranteed in Section 8 of our Bill of
    Rights. (footnote omitted) Freedom of worship, alongside with freedom of expression and
    speech and peaceable assembly “along with the other intellectual freedoms, are highly ranked
    in our scheme of constitutional values. It cannot be too strongly stressed that on the
    judiciary - even more so than on the other departments - rests the grave and delicate
    responsibility of assuring respect for and deference to such preferred rights. No verbal
    formula, no sanctifying phrase can, of course, dispense with what has been so felicitously
    termed by Justice Holmes ‘as the sovereign prerogative of judgment.’ Nonetheless, the
    presumption must be to incline the weight of the scales of justice on the side of such
    rights, enjoying as they do precedence and primacy.’     (J.B.L. Reyes, 125 SCRA at pp.
    569-570)

    2. In the free exercise of such preferred rights, there is to be no prior restraint although
    there may be subsequent punishment of any illegal acts committed during the exercise of such
    basic rights. The sole justification for a prior restraint or limitation on the exercise
    of these basic rights is the existence of a grave and present danger of a character both
    grave and imminent,     of a serious evil to public safety, public morals, public health or
    any other legitimate public interest, that the State has a right (and duty) to prevent
    (Idem, at pp. 560-561).339

    (emphasis mine)
    It now becomes obviously evident that such point would have a significant relevance on the lively
    discussions on the RH bill. What is your take on this in view of the opposition to the bill
    in terms of conscientious objection, noting the prohibitive and punitive provisions therein?

    PS. You say “…raped, tortured or killed others because they won’t believe the former,…”. Ugh, such despicable acts. Might you be referring to the Inquisition?

  13. Jeg on October 22nd, 2008 1:51 pm

    But my side of the debate has never invaded, raped, tortured or killed others because they won’t believe the former, as your side clearly has.

    Ahem. By your side of the debate, I assume you mean atheism. Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, the Kims of North Korea, the French Revolutionaries have raped tortured and killed and more.

    “Yes but they didnt do it in the name of atheism.” No true Scotsman? Anyway, they did in the name of atheism, which is to say, they did it in the name of the belief that there is no higher authority than man’s.

    But youre still my favorite atheist and we need you. I just hope you’d stop channeling Dawkins. ;-)

  14. Dean Jorge Bocobo on October 22nd, 2008 1:57 pm

    WillyJ,
    Freedom of religion is a subset of freedom of speech and expression, which allows us to hold even such supernatural opinions as religion prefers. In a sense it is a guarantee that we can believe anything we want to, no matter how absurd it might seem to someone else. What we are not allowed to do is to impose such beliefs on others, or to behave in ways that violate other rights, like those to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    As such, “conscientious objection” is obviously allowed, and its expression may not be suppressed. But there is nothing different, as far as I can tell, between freedom of religion and say, press freedom, which is also an expression of the freedom of assembly, just as organized religion is. The churches are indistinguishable constitutionally from NGOs. Nothing more, nothing less. But even press freedom is strictly constrained by things like the Sotto law, and the libel statutes.

    I have a problem too with some of the “prohibitive and punitive” provisions, though I think their malign effects are exaggerated by the opposition. I don’t believe however that the bill would force anyone to do anything their conscience forbids. Yet it is our unremitting duty to obey the law. Conscientious objection is usually limited to matters of war and service in the armed forces, and requires some very stringent criteria to be fulfilled.

    Not sure if this is the opinion you were trying to elicit, but thanks for the question. Others have been alerting me to some of those provisions and perhaps I need to revisit the bill in its final form.

  15. Dean Jorge Bocobo on October 22nd, 2008 2:04 pm

    Jeg,
    Don’t like Dawkins? Hehe. How about Christopher Hitchens? He spends a chapter in his book, God is not Great addressing your point about atheists, which he admits is true, but observes that much of what they have done is in imitation of religious rulers, out of envy for the powers of religion. He cites the czar of Russia, who was more than king and pope all at once, as the model of Lenin and Stalin, who could not have failed to take advantage of a race of people so used to czarist rule for centuries. He also thinks that such atrocities as commited by atheists would’ve had more occasion to rear its head, had not religions so thoroughly monopolized the wicked enterprise.

    But I concede the point that belief in Man as God or Master has led to equivalent human suffering as supernatural worship.

  16. Jeg on October 22nd, 2008 2:11 pm

    Havent read god is not Great, but from what you wrote, like Dawkins, he attributes to religious belief what could be more correctly attributed to the fact that people suck.

    But I concede the point that belief in Man as God or Master has led to equivalent human suffering as supernatural worship.

    See why youre so much better than Dawkins or Hitchens? You know where all out troubles come from: People are such dicks. :-D

  17. WillyJ on October 22nd, 2008 2:46 pm

    DJB,
    I am in absolute agreement with your response, specially the bit: What we are not allowed to do is to impose such beliefs on others, or to behave in ways that violate other rights….

    I bear in mind (and I’m sure you do too) the penalties detailed in Sec 22 which includes “imprisonment ranging from one (1) month to six (6) months or a fine ranging from Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) or both such fine and imprisonment…”. While you revisit the bill, please take note of three items which stand out:

    SEC. 12. Mandatory Age-Appropriate Reproductive Health Education…”In support of the natural and primary right of parents in the rearing of the youth,…”.

    Take note mandatory, no option out, private and public, Catholic schools included. Questionable curriculum based on POPCOM standards. Parent’s judgment curtailed.

    Sec 21, A-5. Refuse to extend reproductive health care services and information…all conscientious objections of health care service providers based on religious grounds shall be respected: Provided, further, That the conscientious objector shall immediately refer the person seeking such care and services to another health care service provider..

    Negates conscientious objection. Enforcing formal and/or material cooperation (such as referral) is considered as coercive, against a conscientious ethical and moral stance. I take note of “grave and present danger” in Justice Teehankee’s opinion.

    Sec 21 5-e) Any person who maliciously engages in disinformation about the intent or
    provisions of this Act.

    Too…”Marcosy”. Evidently a “pikon” provision, and much has been said against this.

Leave a Reply