THE protests and demonstrations staged by members of the Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC) over the weekend created a veritable firestorm of discussion centered in large measure on the concept of the separation of Church and State.
We are not here to take a position, one way or the other, on the merits or lack thereof as the case may be on the usefulness of taking to the streets to further a particular agenda or to voice a grievance. Street protests seem to be valid or invalid based on whether or not you agree with the protestors, regardless of what the issue is.
However, the greater concern is the call that comes up from time to time that organizations defined by religious beliefs be limited as to their involvement in helping sway public opinion about government actions and decisions. The INC has been criticized as being too involved in being a political force, the same way that organizations of the Catholic Church were vilified about the reproductive-health law.
The Philippine Constitution embraces the concept of freedom of religion in that the government may not endorse a state religion and that a person is free to follow and exercise any religious belief he or she wants as long as practicing that belief does not violate basic laws.
But there are those that say church organizations violate the concept of church and state separation by being politically involved.
The US constitution was the first to prevent government from interfering in a person’s right to worship. A religious organization is not different legally from any other legally incorporated organization, and members of both groups have a constitutional protection of the right to free speech. Therefore, both groups have a right to “interfere” in the formation of government policy.
In some ways, such as with tax laws, religion is given what may be considered special privileges over other groups, and that creates a problem. Some people feel that because of this freedom from taxation, religious groups are treated more favorably under the law than other organizations.
The 1905 French law on the “Separation of the Churches and the State” defines the religious neutrality of the state, the freedom of religious exercise and public powers related to the church. The “public power” was interpreted as the separation of religion from political power. Specifically, the implementation of the law was to protect the public power from the influences of religious institutions.
“Freedom of Religion” is, at the core, simply “Freedom of Speech.” Should religious organizations have the same absolute freedom of speech and right to influence political discussion as everyone else? Should freedom of speech be limited only to secular groups?
The more dangerous concern is, who gets to decide the answers to these questions.
Image credits: Jimbo Albano