New and Used Car Talk Reviews Hot Cars Comparison Automotive Community

The Largest Car Forum in the Philippines

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 40
  1. Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,530
    #1
    Is the principle of separation of church and state really inviolable? The short answer is no. The 1987 Constitution itself provides for exceptions to Section 6, Article II in Section 28(3) and 29(2), Article VI, and Section 3(3), Article XIV.

    Read more: Free Expression For All: State and the Church

  2. Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    22,705
    #2
    Quote Originally Posted by b_9904 View Post
    Is the principle of separation of church and state really inviolable? The short answer is no. The 1987 Constitution itself provides for exceptions to Section 6, Article II in Section 28(3) and 29(2), Article VI, and Section 3(3), Article XIV.

    Read more: Free Expression For All: State and the Church
    The opinion is self-serving. It merely notes that the Separation of Church and State is not perfectly achieved, thus this entanglement is ideal. That's like saying corruption is acceptable because corruption exists.

    Section 28-3 does not give the State rights over Churches... in fact, the mere fact that the State grants Churches tax-exemption is in recognition that Churches do not fall under secular authority.

    Section 29-2 explicitly states that public money does not go to religious entities unless they are employed in service to the Government. In other words, taxes do not fund churches, but can be used to pay for services rendered. Religious entities are not being paid as religious entities, but as Government employees or subcontractors.

    This does not give the Church any authority over the state in such matters, it merely recognizes that religious entities might enter into government service.

    It is undeniable that some... or, likely... a majority of legislators allow religious beliefs to inform legislation. This cannot be prevented, but it does go against the spirit of the separation of Church and State, for in any legislation that must apply to the population in general, the law must not infringe upon the rights of believers of other faiths to push the agenda of one. The terms of marriage, as noted in your opinion piece, are influenced by religious feelings, but should not be. In my opinion, the entire Family Code is suspect on the grounds of Religious Freedom as enshrined in the Constitution... but it would take extraordinary circumstances for any laws regarding marriage to be changed, considering who we have in power in the halls of Congress.

    As an aside, the Code of Muslim Personal Laws are understood to apply to Muslims only. Which is appropriate... although it does state that the Code takes precedence over general law... my personal belief is that it should not supersede the Constitution or general laws. Though general laws should NOT touch upon religious beliefs... which includes marriage. I would need to study it further to give further comment.

    This brings up an interesting point: Why should the Family Code and laws regarding marriage be informed only by Catholic beliefs if they are generally applied? Why not have a Catholic Law section, as well?

    Ang pagbalik ng comeback...

  3. Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,530
    #3
    Niky I am not playing here anymore, unlike in the MP thread. I will give you time to read the sources and the caveat.

    Understand that when I said I directly lifted things from jurisprudence, I MEAN IT. Get the hint bro.

    Quote Originally Posted by niky View Post
    The opinion is self-serving. It merely notes that the Separation of Church and State is not perfectly achieved, thus this entanglement is ideal. That's like saying corruption is acceptable because corruption exists.

    Section 28-3 does not give the State rights over Churches... in fact, the mere fact that the State grants Churches tax-exemption is in recognition that Churches do not fall under secular authority.

    Section 29-2 explicitly states that public money does not go to religious entities unless they are employed in service to the Government. In other words, taxes do not fund churches, but can be used to pay for services rendered. Religious entities are not being paid as religious entities, but as Government employees or subcontractors.

    This does not give the Church any authority over the state in such matters, it merely recognizes that religious entities might enter into government service.

    It is undeniable that some... or, likely... a majority of legislators allow religious beliefs to inform legislation. This cannot be prevented, but it does go against the spirit of the separation of Church and State, for in any legislation that must apply to the population in general, the law must not infringe upon the rights of believers of other faiths to push the agenda of one. The terms of marriage, as noted in your opinion piece, are influenced by religious feelings, but should not be. In my opinion, the entire Family Code is suspect on the grounds of Religious Freedom as enshrined in the Constitution... but it would take extraordinary circumstances for any laws regarding marriage to be changed, considering who we have in power in the halls of Congress.

    As an aside, the Code of Muslim Personal Laws are understood to apply to Muslims only. Which is appropriate... although it does state that the Code takes precedence over general law... my personal belief is that it should not supersede the Constitution or general laws. Though general laws should NOT touch upon religious beliefs... which includes marriage. I would need to study it further to give further comment.

    This brings up an interesting point: Why should the Family Code and laws regarding marriage be informed only by Catholic beliefs if they are generally applied? Why not have a Catholic Law section, as well?

  4. Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    22,705
    #4
    Quote Originally Posted by b_9904 View Post
    Niky I am not playing here anymore, unlike in the MP thread. I will give you time to read the sources and the caveat.

    Understand that when I said I directly lifted things from jurisprudence, I MEAN IT. Get the hint bro.
    I did.

    The cited sections of the Constitution give the State no power over the Church, and the Church no power over the State, and do not provide entanglement for the two... merely stating that only in the cases where the State employs a religious entity to fulfill its work that said entities can receive any renumeration from the State, as private citizens.

    -

    As for the cited cases: I do not see where the entanglement lies. The Anti-RH poster is an exercise in free speech, whether done by a religious group or private citizen. The fact that the group that displayed the poster is a religious one is not the issue, as correctly stated in the decision of the Supreme Court. The issue stated is not a religious one.

    Of course, there are several legal ways to prevent the posting of such... libel and defamation is one, since the poster presents patently false information (something the anti-Rh bill crowd attempted a lot during the debate). There's also the question of whether the poster meets the educational requirement set for religious establishments to receive tax breaks... ...but personally, I support free speech, and it's up to the ones named in the poster as to whether or not to file any cases regarding being labelled "Team Patay"

    As for Estrada vs. Escritor, in this case, the law itself (the Administrative code), containing subjective words such as "disgraceful" and "immoral", is insufficient. A properly worded law should not rely upon subjective qualifiers.

    As for whether the defendant is guilty of breaking other laws (adultery), even if the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter, that does not prevent dissenting opinions, and there was a lot of dissent inside the Supreme Court over this decision. Personally, I agree with it, but this ties into the insufficiency of our laws regarding marriage. The strict Catholic interpretation of which was held up in the dissenting opinion.

    Specifically, I'd question whether any law should be enacted on the basis of religious beliefs, as the Family Code and laws on Marriage were, rather than applied in a secular manner. My personal belief is that the government has no right to restrict the form or shape of a marriage (religious or civil) and exists only to safeguard the terms of the contract of marriage... and must only step in when the rights of either the spouse or the children are being infringed upon.

    -

    Also: I don't understand where this hostility is coming from, or this smug sense of superiority you're showing. If you want a fight, I'm pretty sure there are others who are willing to give you one.

    Ang pagbalik ng comeback...

  5. Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,778
    #5
    How can there be total separation when the Preamble calls on God's guidance. From that point on, everything written is based on existing religious beliefs and biases of the framers.

  6. Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    25,038
    #6
    Do other religious schools (buddhist, muslim) get the same tax exemptions given to church-run schools?

  7. Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,530
    #7
    Niky: The cited sections of the Constitution give the State no power over the Church, and the Church no power over the State, and do not provide entanglement for the two... merely stating that only in the cases where the State employs a religious entity to fulfill its work that said entities can receive any renumeration from the State, as private citizens.

    Me: I was not arguing theocracy or non-separation. I was merely arguing that the 1987 Constitution is accommodationist. Thus, ALL laws have to accommodate religion, whenever possible.

    ***

    Niky: As for the cited cases: I do not see where the entanglement lies. The Anti-RH poster is an exercise in free speech, whether done by a religious group or private citizen. The fact that the group that displayed the poster is a religious one is not the issue, as correctly stated in the decision of the Supreme Court. The issue stated is not a religious one.

    Of course, there are several legal ways to prevent the posting of such... libel and defamation is one, since the poster presents patently false information (something the anti-Rh bill crowd attempted a lot during the debate). There's also the question of whether the poster meets the educational requirement set for religious establishments to receive tax breaks... ...but personally, I support free speech, and it's up to the ones named in the poster as to whether or not to file any cases regarding being labelled "Team Patay"

    As for Estrada vs. Escritor, in this case, the law itself (the Administrative code), containing subjective words such as "disgraceful" and "immoral", is insufficient. A properly worded law should not rely upon subjective qualifiers.

    As for whether the defendant is guilty of breaking other laws (adultery), even if the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter, that does not prevent dissenting opinions, and there was a lot of dissent inside the Supreme Court over this decision. Personally, I agree with it, but this ties into the insufficiency of our laws regarding marriage. The strict Catholic interpretation of which was held up in the dissenting opinion.

    Me: Good for you. I commend you for reading the cases and the dissents. But you missed the part where the Court discussed and explained the concepts. This is not about entanglement, it is a different legal term. This is about accommodation. In Diocese of Bacolod the Court discussed that not all religious acts are of a purely religious nature. Religious acts take the different forms, from beliefs to external acts. So, if certain acts are objectively secular then you can use that as base for law.

    ***

    Niky: Specifically, I'd question whether any law should be enacted on the basis of religious beliefs, as the Family Code and laws on Marriage were, rather than applied in a secular manner. My personal belief is that the government has no right to restrict the form or shape of a marriage (religious or civil) and exists only to safeguard the terms of the contract of marriage... and must only step in when the rights of either the spouse or the children are being infringed upon.

    Me: Because we are accommodationist. Even if atheists try to re-write the Family Code to be more secular, the 1987 Constitution would still WRITE INTO THEM the accommodation theory. So, we are back to a law written BECAUSE of religion.

    Now, should we amend the Family Code to allow different types of marriages? Well that is a public moral question, another legal term alien to the article. In a nut shell, public morals is the sum of the morals of the people. So if some people are Catholics, then public morals would somehow have a Catholic influence.

    I will write about public morals in the future.



    Quote Originally Posted by niky View Post
    Also: I don't understand where this hostility is coming from, or this smug sense of superiority you're showing. If you want a fight, I'm pretty sure there are others who are willing to give you one.
    I was not. Mea culpa.

    However, you are making an argument that is so our of sync with jurisprudence. So instead of doing a smack down ala JM (lawyer) style, i merely asked you to read the sources.

    Case in point is when you try to argue that Section 28(3) and 29(2), Article VI, and Section 3(3), Article XIV does not prove that the "inviolable" part in Section 6, Article II is nothing but an illusion. Problem is, the Court en banc said that the "inviolable" part IS an illusion because the 1987 Constitution is accommodationist.

    ***

    Niky: It is undeniable that some... or, likely... a majority of legislators allow religious beliefs to inform legislation. This cannot be prevented, but it does go against the spirit of the separation of Church and State, for in any legislation that must apply to the population in general, the law must not infringe upon the rights of believers of other faiths to push the agenda of one. The terms of marriage, as noted in your opinion piece, are influenced by religious feelings, but should not be. In my opinion, the entire Family Code is suspect on the grounds of Religious Freedom as enshrined in the Constitution... but it would take extraordinary circumstances for any laws regarding marriage to be changed, considering who we have in power in the halls of Congress.

    Me: Then you wrote this. This is a separationist argument. BUT, as I have said before we are not separationist. The paragraph it told me that you do not believe my article because you thought that those were merely my opinion. Hence, the reason I told you to read the source. Because if you did, then you would know that the Court en banc said we are accommodationist.

    ***

    Niky: As an aside, the Code of Muslim Personal Laws are understood to apply to Muslims only. Which is appropriate... although it does state that the Code takes precedence over general law... my personal belief is that it should not supersede the Constitution or general laws. Though general laws should NOT touch upon religious beliefs... which includes marriage. I would need to study it further to give further comment.

    Me: General laws should not touch on certain religious beliefs like how to worship God, who is God, etc. But, not all religious beliefs are purely religious. Some beliefs have secular, moral, and ethical bases. It is these beliefs that can be the base for a law, once it is law then it becomes purely secular and part of public morals.

    ***

    Niky: This brings up an interesting point: Why should the Family Code and laws regarding marriage be informed only by Catholic beliefs if they are generally applied? Why not have a Catholic Law section, as well?

    ME: Read the original of the Molina doctrine (335 Phil. 664 (1997) or 268 SCRA 198) in relation to psychological incapacity as base for an annulment. Very interesting case. One interesting part is the Court used Catholic court decisions. I do not have my trusty Supreme Court decision compilation with me so... I cannot give you the GR No. and exact date of promulgation.

  8. Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,530
    #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Monseratto View Post
    Do other religious schools (buddhist, muslim) get the same tax exemptions given to church-run schools?
    You have to register as a church with the sec and then you will get all the benefits other churches are enjoying.

  9. Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,530
    #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Bin Diesel View Post
    How can there be total separation when the Preamble calls on God's guidance.
    That is what the Supreme Court said in Escritor. Kaso hindi ko na sinali yang part na yan kasi pilosopo yung ibang tao eh hahaha

  10. Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,530
    #10
    I dedicate these to our very own Dutertards here in Tsikot.

    May part two na po tayo hahaha

    Click here

    The Constitution protects the church from the state!

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

The Church and the State