Where art thou, secularism?

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.