Separation of the Church and State

Separation of the Church and State basically is based upon the theory that no government law
shall favor a specific religion or church in order for its citizens to exercise the freedom and autonomy in
choosing the preferred religion. This is supported by the 1987 Constitution (Article II, Section 6) of the
Philippines that states; separation of Church and State shall be inviolable. In addition, the partition of
the Church and state is to the upside of the Church for it shields the Church from state control and
obstruction. The Church can openly do the central goal in announcing the Gospel and the virtues of the
Christianity, in decrying evil in the public, in serving the benefit of all, in working for the safeguard of life
and the climate, in battling for equity and harmony, and in working social activity projects that
advantage poor people. It doesn't keep the Church from contribution in the social and political field.

Apparently, despite the fact that separation of the church and state exist within the Philippine
law, there are numerous instances where it is being disregarded and violated. An example to this is the
Muslim beliefs and practices specifically pertaining to being able to marry underage individual under the
Shariah Law. While these exist in their religion, it does not exist in the Philippine constitution and yet no
action is being made to address these issues.

As a matter of fact, the government should abide by the laws that exist in general for Filipinos.
But in this case, it’s as if the government and justice are being swiftly dragged in hindsight to give
importance to these beliefs introduced by a religion. In addition to this, politicians utilizing taxpayer’s
funds for religious matter is also rampant but is neglected. Thousands of pesos are being used for
tarpaulins and other materials campaigning or sending wishes and greetings for a specific religion where
in fact, the politician’s face is much bigger than the message with complete name just so to campaign for
itself for the upcoming election as well.

Another one is that, the right to religion needs to work related to our different privileges and
because of the separation of church and state, religious people should have the same rights non-
religious people have. The right to life, freedom, and property is a vital right. It is maybe the most
fundamental of common freedoms. At the point when a man chooses to turn into a cleric, he eagerly
surrenders that squarely in the help of an apparent higher reason. At the point when somebody gets
wrongfully confined, this occurs without wanting to (for what other reason would they sue?) and is a
revocation of an individual's rights.

The government’s decisions are clearly being influenced by the religion, explaining the fact that
bills and laws are being hindered because of these “moral issues” that the church brings up such as RH
Bill, Divorce, same sex marriage, and others. Let’s say, for example, that a politician’s religion is atheism,
the church will definitely intrude its candidacy just because they think it is not “morally right” within
their jurisdiction, despite the fact that this specific politician possess all the qualities that a government
official should have.

In simple terms, our administration and church break the "separation" division between them at
whatever point it's helpful or favorable to do as such. These arguments have been only a feature in the
numerous ways the established arrangement of Separation of Church and State has been just a joke in
this nation, and it is possibly at any point raised as an issue when individuals' advantage on the matter is
tested. It is so imbued in us to be Catholic, or to be Christian, or to be INC, or to be Muslim, or to be
whatever other doctrine that it appears to be ordinary and proper when we need the public authority to
adjust to our convictions, regardless of whether others essentially share these convictions. Is it off-base?
Indeed. Is it evil? Not really. Yet, it is a mixed up idea that should be tested and revised. The strict are
advantaged in status in that the standard adheres to their normal practices such a lot of that when
others point out it being really biased in support of them, they cry "abuse" rather than perceiving the
truth about it: a call for equivalent treatment for everybody according to the law. No rich. No poor. No
man. No lady. No Catholic. No Iglesia. No nonbeliever. We will all be a Filipino resident with similar
privileges and opportunities just as everyone else.

What we actually need to do as an ordinary Filipino citizen to address this particular issue is to
pick the rightful candidate that apparently is upholding the values for the separation for the church and
the state. In that way, after the upcoming election, we can all observe and just see where it goes. After
all, we do not possess the absolute truth, only relative fact.