You might have missed my emphasis

by Lemuel G. Abarte (no login)

Your comments:
Religious? You are talking about the separation of church and state...and now you are claiming that since America is not religious you have doubts about her being a Christian nation. Non-religious and religious person who believes fundamentally in God are still Christians and being religious per se another aspect. I, myself, is non-too-religious.

My reply:
I am not talking about the separation of church and state, I am emphasizing, rather, secularism. Separation of church and state or for that matter separation of state and religion could come about from the first principles of secularism. I do not say that America is not religious. What I am stating in the specifics you mention still applies: that moral rights are not the basis of legal rights in the sense that America cannot promulgate laws that has a Christian conscience, rather, that America keeps herself under the principles established by the founding fathers.

Your comments:
There is no sense arguing these issues if you are not for the effect of it. If the existing government can not pass laws for the betterment of the majority, do you think they will do something for a few? Is that being realistic?

My reply:
You have assumed the principle of the common good for the greatest number. This is a false political theory. It cannot apply to the case I stated, say, divorce and annullment of marriage. One cannot insist that there is no divorce in a country because majority are Christians. Tell me, plainly, since the majority of people in the US are Christians, should others comply with their moral objections or moral principles? To assume that Christianity is betterment for the majority has one principle attached to it, to accept or reject Christ. We cannot say that America is a Christian nation. A nation has principles that are separate from a church.

Your comments:
By the way, what were the “moral tones” of the Filipinos before Spaniards and Americans came?
And what are really there to change for except for the legal rights of the few? Will these change make the Filipinos more civil? Societies are not founded on ideals but rather on the nature of man....evil. Our basic instinct generates a habit followed by feelings...such is the total sum of a man. However, since we love freedom and such freedom in a society requires some limitations base on morals. Where are these morals coming from? Mostly, if not all, from Judeo-Christian beliefs. Those who can not control their instinct and old nature are less to succeed in life compared to those who can. Make these freedom absolute....secular....and you will have chaos.

My reply:
The specifics I am talking about I have stated. The principle is secularism. The past has no bearing for the present. A person has a right to celebrate his tradition, that is the point. The Muslims are allowed to proceed according to their law. What about those who are not Muslims and those who are not Christians? Will you propose that they be governed by Christian laws? The points you raised are Christian, that is clear and secularism accommodates principles that are accepted by all. The point I am stating is that you cannot get a big share of laws because the majority accept those laws to the detriment or exclusion of the minority.

Our laws allow religious laws of the Muslims and Christians but this is not the way the state should undertake to include religious statutes simply because people are religious and along particular religious lines because there are people who do not belong to any religious lines.

Take the case of the Mormons. Their religion allows polygamy. How will the state handle this? Are you proposing what has been before, a convert is free to exercise his religious rights because he is under the accepted moral laws of his religion?

What you propose is political religious lobbying of our state functions to permit and allow religious functions with a religious basis for the exercise of permission of the state. You see, this approach in our laws and in our government has no basis. It is subject to the whims and caprices of our leaders. It is not grounded on the principle of separation of church and state.

I am proposing secularism that will provide a legal framework to remove religious lobbying.

Your comments:
France did not helped America for the reasons you stated. They knew they will be defeated by the British superior forces....they preferred a safe passage out knowing that eventually the Americans will win. One should not forget that France was a religious state prior to being a secularist. I cited this nation to show vividly the effects of secularism by their neurotic rapid changes in moral conduct and values previously opposed by their Christian religion. Since then it retarded their growth, I would say, because of their blind addiction with their “rights.”

My reply:
You assume that your brand of Christianity will bring progress and betterment, no? In any case because a person suffers for his philosophy or religion then you say that he is wrong?

Your comments:
Whatever rights the government enforces is legal. Our morals are rules by which our society exhorts us to comply consistent with our religion, security and for the advancement of our economic growth. While this will not apply to all but to majority of the people....this, do not forget, is the essence of democracy...the government is for the majority and not for the few.

My reply:
You are stating this because you are a Christian, no? You mean your personal brand of belief? You assume at the outset a setting that is the America of today. But America was not founded on religious principles but secular principles and the effect you assert happened for both America and France. Therefore, secularism is not false, rather, it is the true democracy, and it is neutral to any form of religion. It does not favor the majority or the few. It stands as a unique principle in political theory.

Posted on Feb 15, 2007, 6:24 PM
from IP address

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

  1. No...your ideas are oblique to what really is..... CoeL, Feb 16, 2007, 8:44 AM
    1. What religion do you want? You have not answered from your argument from history. Lemuel G. Abarte, Feb 16, 2007, 4:54 PM
      1. what questions...?. CoeL, Feb 16, 2007, 6:15 PM
        1. What religion....?. CoeL, Feb 16, 2007, 6:59 PM
          1. What is secularism?. Lemuel G. Abarte, Feb 18, 2007, 6:23 PM
            1. Who told you.... CoeL, Feb 18, 2007, 7:30 PM
              1. The John Adams in every member of the human race. Lemuel G. Abarte, Feb 18, 2007, 10:36 PM
                1. John Adam's strong beliefs is what you see now..... CoeL, Feb 19, 2007, 12:11 PM
                  1. The issue I raised remains unanswered. Lemuel G. Abarte, Feb 19, 2007, 4:48 PM

Find more forums on PhillipinoCreate your own forum at Network54
 Copyright © 1999-2018 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement