Freedom of conscience -Then and Now

Monday, 11 October 2010 06:36

Written by Tony La Viña

Reading my history books gives me a glimpse of the evolving nature of religious and political conflict in our society. Extant records on Spanish conquest and colonial rule in the country narrate how the Spanish colonial administrators and the Spanish missionaries were engaged in a stormy relationship with each zealously and jealously trying to protect its colonial authority and privileges. In the colossal struggle between the two great powers, the religious missionaries eventually gained the upper hand and reduced the Spanish secular authorities to pawns who could be dismissed capriciously should they prove to be intransigent. For the better part of this period, the native indio was an onlooker; a passive acceptor of change. Politics for him was but a game he could allegedly do without or at least pay lip service to in lieu of direct participation. This could very well be since the fraile, with his moral and temporal stranglehold over the natives, would stifle any incipient dissent by raining upon the would-be dissident threats of fire and brimstone should he persist in his crooked and atypical ways. By and large, the great majority of the masses meekly submitted to the Spanish temporal and spiritual authorities. We see an image of a peace-loving, religious, differential, hard-working, and hospitable native; always submissive to authority. The exception to this, as we now know, are those peoples – from the North of Luzon and from Mindanao – who resisted colonial rule.

The modern-day Filipino is a transformed creature. He I s certainly not as submissive type to Church and State. This transformation can only be ascribed to several factors, foremost of which are the effects of our national political and economic history; the Filipino diaspora phenomenon and the inroads of modern communications technology, such as the internet, television etc. Constant and prolonged exposure to different cultures espousing different value and belief systems that allow “modern-day” outlook to, slowly but surely, take root into the Filipino psyche. To the religious, the invasion of this “aberrant” influence is labeled as secularism, modernism and relativism – secular philosophies which, according to them, are slowly eroding the faith and the teachings of the Church. But to others, these are simply ways and means of adjusting to modern-day realities and addressing contemporary issues that the state can hardly cope and the church cannot possibly answer with its “backward, increasingly irrelevant and antiquated teachings”. According to them, it is the secular society’s answer to the seemingly insoluble problems of overpopulation, poverty, problematic marriages, to name a few.

The on-going debate on RH bill, abortion, divorce and other morally sensitive issues brings to the fore the stark reality that our society is now slowly opening up to these sensitive subjects. As time goes on, it is inevitable that more and more issues will trigger more clashes between secular advocates and the religious establishment. In the middle of this collision is the ordinary Filipino who is both a member of a secular body politic and a member of religious organization. Because of this struggle, she is perpetually placed in an ethical and moral dilemma with both sides pulling her sideways in a tug-of-war.

How should we approach this challenge of balancing of secular and religious values? As sure as the sun rises, disagreements between these forces will continue despite a well-conducted dialogue where everyone is in good faith. Working out the relations between religion and politics requires all the wisdom we can summon. Despite seemingly unbridgeable gaps between points of view common ground can be achieved, not by name-calling and acrimony, but through a reasoned and sober exchange where all persons are motivated by goodwill and charity.

All of us must understand that intolerance and bigotry have no place in a rational and balanced discourse. Those who look for absolutes are doomed to perpetual frustration. No particular viewpoint need be imposed on any individual by threats of violence or spiritual damnation; instead he must be allowed to freely choose the view he is so inclined based on the dictates of his conscience. On this matter, freedom of conscience and freedom of thought are paramount. For the religious who stringently spouse or oppose political policies on religious grounds, they must be made to understand that the government does not function for any particular religious sect or denomination – unless of course, we are a theocracy – which we are not. If ever ethical considerations are taken into account it must be seen from the perspective of the nation’s historical experiences.

On the other hand, the secularist must be made to settle with the fact that every individual or group, including religious believers, has the right to articulate its own ethical and religious beliefs, no matter how outlandish or old-fashioned it may seem. No single group can appropriate for itself the monopoly of what is morally right. Simply put, if you are a Catholic, Musli,m or a member of some Christian denomination or sect or other religion, integrity calls you to adhere faithfully to the magisterium of your faith. If you are an atheist, an agnostic, or an individual who happens to spouse secular philosophies, do as your conscience tells you. Gone are the days when we would allow ourselves to be dictated upon by others on matters of political and moral views.

In the end, the answer to our moral and ethical questions lies on the urgings of the voice within each and everyone of us – our very own conscience. As for me and my family, we know where we stand, do you?

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites