A call to an end to the influence of religion in PH society, politics, etc.

__bahay__kubo__

this is a call for this nation to finally end the nonsensical and absolutely unnecessary influence of religion in all aspects of Filipino life- society, politics, culture, day-to-day activities, etc.

we have seen the harm that religion can do our country. we cannot have competent State policies and leaders because of constant meddling by religious leaders such as members of the Roman Catholic clergy, the Manalos and the rest of the leadership of Iglesia ni Cristo, Mike Velarde and El Shaddai, the Villanuevas and JIL, Apollo Quiboloy and his own cult, the Muslim imams, and the leaders of the so-called Born Again Christian groups. worse, these religious leaders wield so much power that they can easily shake the set-up of the political establishment, the movement of the economy, how society should act and behave like, and even our ability to exercise effective and efficient external and internal security capabilities.

as a nation and as a people, it is now time that we effectively end the influence of religion in all areas of our lives akin to what the French did during the French Revolution a long time ago. it is time that we move away from the feudal, Dark Ages-like and religion-dominated country where we are now. it is time to have a Philippines that is SECULAR, honest, capable, credible, efficient, effective, progressive, prosperous and pragmatic.

it is high time to effectively end the role of religion in our lives, for religion is nothing but a creation of man that was merely created to satisfy the need to have a group to belong to and not really from God, as claimed by the religious leaders and their minions.

it is time to throw religion away and relegate it in a jail cell where it can never escape and harm the Philippines and its people once again.

sirena

That's a very big leap you are asking for.
The vast majority of the Filipino people are still stuck in the lower level of consciousness. Very young soul.
Deeply concerned about belonging to a religious group; strongly attached to belief systems and conventional ways.

Oftentimes, it takes life changing events, or negative experiences for a person to let go
of old habits and beliefs that hinder growth. It takes time or multiple lifetimes for a person
to wake up and learn what needs to be learned. For every person's experience is unique.
Each person has his/her journey in life.

freakster2k1

The French Revolution? Kindly explain. I think i missed this part?

Also, may I ask if you do know 'the key elements of religion?' That is, what definition or web of ideas define what a religion is.

thanks for replying

__bahay__kubo__

__bahay__kubo__

The deep roots of French secularism
By Henri Astier
BBC News Online
Wednesday, 1 September, 2004, 14:39 GMT 15:39 UK

France is not the only Western country to insist on the separation of church and state - but it does so more militantly than any other.

Secularism is the closest thing the French have to a state religion. It underpinned the French Revolution and has been a basic tenet of the country's progressive thought since the 18th Century.

To this day, anything that smacks of official recognition of a religion - such as allowing Islamic headscarves in schools - is anathema to many French people.

Even those who oppose a headscarf ban do so in the name of a more modern, flexible form of secularism.

This tradition can be seen as a by-product of French Catholicism, as progressives have always seen the pulpit as an enemy, rather than a platform, unlike in some Protestant countries.

French Enlightenment thinkers such Voltaire, Diderot and Montesquieu regarded religion as divisive, benighted and intolerant.

On the ropes

The French Revolution brought about a head-on clash between church and state.

Church assets were confiscated and priests made to swear allegiance to the republic.

Both during the revolution and its imperial aftermath, the Vatican resisted the republican order Paris was trying to impose across Europe.

The French responded by marching on Rome twice - in 1798 and 1809 - and abducting recalcitrant Popes.

Napoleon Bonaparte reached a peace of sorts with the church, which was brought under state tutelage, but left alone as long as it confined itself to spiritual matters.

The arrangement, known as the Concordat, lasted a century. In 1905, amid renewed anti-clerical militancy, the Third Republic decreed the separation of church and state.

Individual citizens

The law of separation meant strict official neutrality in religious affairs.

The French state could not allow any proselytising in public buildings - least of all schools, where the citizens of tomorrow were being taught.

The insistence on schools as religion-free zones goes to the heart of the French idea of citizenship.

The Republic has always recognised individuals, rather than groups: a French citizen owes allegiance to the nation, and has no officially sanctioned ethnic or religious identity.

Although it can be carried to extremes - such as colonial subjects being taught that their ancestors were Gauls - this view of citizenship is fundamentally non-discriminatory and inclusive.

School bans must be viewed in this context and are nothing new.

In 1937, the education minister of the day instructed head teachers to keep all religious signs out of their establishments.

This was not controversial - but then the state was confronted with a weak opponent in an overwhelmingly secular society.

Generation gap

In the 1960s and 1970s, mass immigration from former north African colonies brought a new challenge.

This did not lead to an immediate questioning of secularism. The first immigrants had no desire to find in France the mullahs they had left behind.

Many of these older migrants are now shocked to see their children adopt conservative Islamic practices, and are at the forefront of moves to ban headscarves from schools.

But younger second or third-generation immigrants see things differently.

They have lived only in France, mostly in deprived areas. For many, militancy and headscarves are a way of expressing anger and forging an identity.

No one knows exactly how many French Muslims there are - the oft-quoted figure of five million is probably an exaggeration. But recent elections to their representative body suggest young, anti-secular and at times, radical Muslims speak much louder than older and more moderate community leaders.

Split

Faced with this unprecedented challenge, the French establishment is divided.

Traditionalists argue that the Republic must uphold its secular principles as firmly as it did against divine-right monarchists in centuries past.

Headscarves in particular, it is argued, cannot be tolerated in schools, because they are instruments of propaganda for an intolerant version of Islam and symbols of the oppression of women.

The modernisers, on the other hand, say a ban would only strengthen the militants, and point out that the principles of secularism are not set in stone and can accommodate exceptions.

For instance, the eastern provinces of Alsace and Lorraine - which were German when the church was weaned off the state in 1905 - have kept the Concordat system which allows clergy to receive government salaries.

The legal status of the headscarf in schools remained unclear for many years, but a parliamentary vote in February 2004 finally decided the matter.

Backed by French President Jacques Chirac, ministers approved a law that will come into effect in September, banning all obvious religious symbols from schools - including headscarves, Christian crosses and Jewish skullcaps.

It is not yet clear whether this will achieve the aim of helping to unite the country or - as some have suggested - divide it more than ever.

__bahay__kubo__

What It Means To Be a Secular Singapore
Posted by: Nuraisha Teng June 30, 2014

National Day is almost upon us. We hear the fighter jets screaming in the air as they fly their practice rounds the Marina Barrage.

As I sat at my desk, feeling nostalgic, I recalled Singapore to be a happier nation years ago. Perhaps age has everything to do with the growing sense of despondency that I feel about my future today, but I genuinely wonder if our city-state was indeed more relaxed whose people were far more respectful and dignified to one another.

The social media platform offers more than a sneak-peak into the public discourse about national and social issues.

Keyboard warriors hiding behind their computer screens seem not to feel the need for consultation and restraint in their barrage of unbridled sentiment unloaded into cyberspace.

The recent spat between the Muslim-Christian group and the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transexual (LGBT) community over the Pink Dot event is one such example. Where both sides are throwing their different ideologies or ways of seeing the world at each other without trying to find some common consensus to live together.

At the heart of Singapore is a vibrant city of cultures, race and religions usually in harmony. But these days, Singaporeans are struggling to comprehend what it means to be a secular city-state.

To be or not to be

Secularism, coined by George Jacob Holyoake in 1851, is commonly known to mean the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institutions and religious dignitaries.

There is a second basic proposition to the principle of secularism that tends to be overlooked: people of different religions and beliefs are equal before the law.

For the tiny Red Dot buzzing with a plethora of varying opinions on contentious issues surrounding religion and beliefs of secular people, Singapore has somewhat forgotten that their comments would only hold water if they make sense in a secular Singapore.

Most certainly, the culture of blame-game, name-calling needs to cease if we are really interested in engaging an objective discussion.

While an Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) survey involving 3,000 participants aged between 20 to 49 years old states that a majority of 66.6 per cent of Singaporeans agree that the different religions do get along with each other, the current state of internal affairs appears to indicate the young nation is sorely equipped to feel, think and argue about differing belief systems in a disinterested or impartial fashion so that it becomes more a spirit of give and take.

Not too long ago, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said during the 2013 National Day Speech that rising religiosity could lead heightened tensions caused by aggressive proselytising, intolerance and exclusiveness from any religious group. Some 38.5 per cent of the IPS survey participants agree, stating that increasing religiosity of different religions among religious groups could harm religious harmony.

Could this social phenomenon hold true to happen with any other group which subscribes to any other belief outside the mainstream religious realms? Possibly so, simply because a set of belief can be an ideology, a quasi-religion that speaks to one’s sense of order of existence and meaning in life through philosophy, cultural norms, customs and practices, paving way for people to lead their life that may be different from our own.

When ideologies run vast and deep, there is often little room for due respect and tolerance in exchanging malicious content while claiming that it is simply one’s right to exercise free speech and expression. After all, it has to be remembered that some of 20th century’s well known ideologies have been non-religious and certainly very secular in nature such as communism but commanded a deep loyalty and sense of comradeship among its adherents. So simply saying a state needs to be secular does not mean an impartial or neutral state as beliefs and values are inevitably embedded in the state ideology.

Majulah Singapura!

Mr Zainul Rasheed, Former Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, once described Singapore to have a ‘unique’ secular model.

We are a multi-religious city-state, where we remain open to a diverse plurality of opinions made in the public sphere.

For Singapore to keep on maturing in its public political debate, we must firstly instill within ourselves the belief that Singaporeans see themselves as citizens of the state with a common identity.

Essentially, even though people may have different views on religion or non-religion, when in public debate, it is best to try to appeal to common values and give reasons which the other side can have common ground with or at least begin to comprehend. Appealing to God in an argument with an atheist is very simply unlikely to succeed.

Arguments thus conceived, shaped and put forth in terms which express values shared by the society at large can therefore be less divisive. Beginning with this attitude, then there is hope a way forward can be found through the thicket of secular ideologies and religious beliefs on any one issue and this can take a long period of time. I do not pretend to have any easy answers to the difficult questions which Singapore faces. Our wise elders among us with experience in mediation and negotiations are especially needed in these debates and discussions.

Cultivating and nurturing this culture of sensible, intelligent yet open debate is certainly a must if we do want discussions conducted with a sense of morality, regardless of what we stand for – Islam, Christianity, Buddhist, Taoism or a general humanist outlook.

Come August, we will celebrate Singapore’s independence. Certainly, it is also a time to celebrate our national identity as a pluralistic society, one for tolerance, respect and harmony.

freakster2k1

Dear Bahy kubo,

1. Thank you for the reference on the french revolution. For further reading
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Communism/robespierrereligion.htm Furthermore, I think the French revolution wanted to eliminate tyranny. Napoleon is a tyrant; he is not a central figure of the French Revolution.

2. You have not answered my question. As i will repeat it, what are the elements that make up religion?

Again, thank you for the resources.

__bahay__kubo__

re-posting here the response that i wrote on the LAFI version of this thread.

---

first, how i wish na keyboard warrior lang talaga ako. ang sarap ng ganung buhay eh- nakaupo lang sa harapan ng computer in an air-conditioned room, moving fingers and the brain. too bad hindi ganun ako. i'm more than just a keyboard warrior. i'm someone who is, in real-life, fighting for genuine change in a nation that has long resisted the idea for change because the people of this country are already comfortable with the corrupt status quo. the arena where i took the battle for change in this country- the academe.

well anyway, it looks like there is a "defender of the 'faith'" here, based on the responses that he wrote on this thread. he even assumed that i was advocating for a "godless society" when the truth is, no, i'm not advocating the total abolition of religion. in fact, i'm proud to say that i'm Christian- an Unaffiliated Christian, one who believes in Jesus Christ but does not belong to any one of the Christian denominations because doing so will be against my personal opinions and belief system. i'm also not a Communist or a socialist because i won't be one given my politics.

freedom is religion is, so far, guaranteed by the laws of the land. unfortunately, that same law-granted freedom of religion is the same thing that is being abused by the religious and cult leaders, who are behaving in the same way as the oligarchs and the politicians, in asserting political, social and economic hegemony over the gullible and uneducated majority. the State, as protector and grantor of freedoms through the laws of the land, must never allow that to happen, nor should it allow misguided religious practices to be used in corrupting the minds of the people.

religion must not be allowed to do what it is doing now in this country. religion is corrupting the politics, economics and society of this country, proof it can be seen everyone, although i'm sure that the "defender of the 'faith'" and other religious zealots here will say otherwise. if freedom of religion in this country is as controlled as it is in Singapore or France, and added to so many other courses of action that are necessary to change the status quo, then the Philippines will be able to get itself out of the quagmire that it got into right now. religion has proven to be more of a deterrent toward political, social, economic and moral progress and stability in this country. we should never let the law-granted freedom of religion be used by the same selfish and corrupt individuals who use the pulpit as a way of wielding power over the gullible and uneducated masses and plundering the wealth of the nation.

religion is the same poison that is killing this country one second at a time.

---

"When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow."

- Anais Nin

freakster2k1

Sir,

Your first point, that is, ‘how i wish na keyboard warrior lang talaga ako ... i'm someone who is, in real-life, fighting for genuine change in a nation’, is really inconsequential. Never did I question your conviction, I am merely taking it to an ‘ academe’ level as you are an academe.

Secondly, for an academe you somehow deduce based on my question that I am ‘ defender of faith’. Furthermore, you have deduced based on my question, I think you are advocating, ‘ a godless society’. Interesting observation and conclusion from an academe.

Thirdly, without answering the element of what makes a religion, you said ‘ freedom is religion is, so far, guaranteed by the laws of the land.’ What if the law of the land does not guarantee religious freedom? So what makes of religion? So religion is dependent upon the state’s constitution or laws?

Fourthly, again without answering my question, you said ‘ religion must not be allowed to do what it is doing now in this country, religion is corrupting the politics, economics and society of this country,’ I do understand this proposition, and I do understand your conviction. My question remains, that is, we need first to define religion. There is difference in religion and the application of, in dealing with real politik.

Fifthly,, you said ‘religion is the same poison that is killing this country one second at a time.’ Again, please define what you mean by religion. And to define it, you must specify the elements of religion.

Lastly, I am not an academe like you. I do not even question your position or your conviction. I apologize.

KidlatNgayon

__bahay__kubo__ wrote: »

this is a call for this nation to finally end the nonsensical and absolutely unnecessary influence of religion in all aspects of Filipino life- society, politics, culture, day-to-day activities, etc.

we have seen the harm that religion can do our country. we cannot have competent State policies and leaders because of constant meddling by religious leaders such as members of the Roman Catholic clergy, the Manalos and the rest of the leadership of Iglesia ni Cristo, Mike Velarde and El Shaddai, the Villanuevas and JIL, Apollo Quiboloy and his own cult, the Muslim imams, and the leaders of the so-called Born Again Christian groups. worse, these religious leaders wield so much power that they can easily shake the set-up of the political establishment, the movement of the economy, how society should act and behave like, and even our ability to exercise effective and efficient external and internal security capabilities.

as a nation and as a people, it is now time that we effectively end the influence of religion in all areas of our lives akin to what the French did during the French Revolution a long time ago. it is time that we move away from the feudal, Dark Ages-like and religion-dominated country where we are now. it is time to have a Philippines that is SECULAR, honest, capable, credible, efficient, effective, progressive, prosperous and pragmatic.

it is high time to effectively end the role of religion in our lives, for religion is nothing but a creation of man that was merely created to satisfy the need to have a group to belong to and not really from God, as claimed by the religious leaders and their minions.

it is time to throw religion away and relegate it in a jail cell where it can never escape and harm the Philippines and its people once again.

Kung ihahambing mo sa ibang relihiyon, walang "harm" na nagawa sa country ang INC, purokabutihan. Ang dinaranas ngayon ng INC ay internal problem na hindi lumalabas sa relihiyon. Anong harm ang sinasabi mo, "traffic"?

salermo

KidlatNgayon wrote: »

Kung ihahambing mo sa ibang relihiyon, walang "harm" na nagawa sa country ang INC, purokabutihan. Ang dinaranas ngayon ng INC ay internal problem na hindi lumalabas sa relihiyon. Anong harm ang sinasabi mo, "traffic"?

Ang pinakamalaking harm na ginawa ng INM o INC ay ang pagtanim ng "seed of zombie brains" in every individual that goes inside a cappella for indoctrination. Iyan ang harm na natatamasa ngayon ng bansa. Traffic jams, illegal detentions, bloc voting, lose of lives caused by their members, corrupting gov't officials etc,

__bahay__kubo__

freakster2k1 wrote: »

Sir,

Your first point, that is, ‘how i wish na keyboard warrior lang talaga ako ... i'm someone who is, in real-life, fighting for genuine change in a nation’, is really inconsequential. Never did I question your conviction, I am merely taking it to an ‘ academe’ level as you are an academe.

Secondly, for an academe you somehow deduce based on my question that I am ‘ defender of faith’. Furthermore, you have deduced based on my question, I think you are advocating, ‘ a godless society’. Interesting observation and conclusion from an academe.

Thirdly, without answering the element of what makes a religion, you said ‘ freedom is religion is, so far, guaranteed by the laws of the land.’ What if the law of the land does not guarantee religious freedom? So what makes of religion? So religion is dependent upon the state’s constitution or laws?

Fourthly, again without answering my question, you said ‘ religion must not be allowed to do what it is doing now in this country, religion is corrupting the politics, economics and society of this country,’ I do understand this proposition, and I do understand your conviction. My question remains, that is, we need first to define religion. There is difference in religion and the application of, in dealing with real politik.

Fifthly,, you said ‘religion is the same poison that is killing this country one second at a time.’ Again, please define what you mean by religion. And to define it, you must specify the elements of religion.

Lastly, I am not an academe like you. I do not even question your position or your conviction. I apologize.

my definition of religion is this:

religion is a creation of humans. religion was created to satisfy both the human need to belong to a group of like-minded individuals where one can be accepted and will have the chance to socialize, and the means to have a way by invoking the Name of the Supreme Being in order to hegemony over weaker human beings but without regard for the divinity of the Supreme Being. religion was created not to be a symbol of unity but a means to divide and conquer, and establish power oer a particular group of people.

on the "keyboard warrior" part, that wasn't meant for you. it's for someone else. sorry for the confusion.

__bahay__kubo__

KidlatNgayon wrote: »

Kung ihahambing mo sa ibang relihiyon, walang "harm" na nagawa sa country ang INC, purokabutihan. Ang dinaranas ngayon ng INC ay internal problem na hindi lumalabas sa relihiyon. Anong harm ang sinasabi mo, traffic"?

your group is openly violating the laws of the land and insulting the Republic with what you are doing now and with the way all of you are mocking the laws to pursue vested interests. salot kayo at ang iba pang religious and cult leaders sa bansang ito in the same way na salot ang mga pulitiko, the oligarchs, the media, and the Communists and the Islamofascists. wala kayong karapatan na sabihin na wala kayong harm na ginawa dahil parte kayo ng cancer ng lipunang Pilipino.

freakster2k1

Sir,

I broke down your statement based on the definition. May you verify if my understanding is correct, as my understanding is not at the academe level. Please fill free to correct the propositions as you see fit, as I want to understand the concepts of the element of religion.

1. Created by humans
2. To satisfy our need to belong to a group of like minded individuals
3. To be a mean to use the ‘Supreme Being’ in order to dominate the weaker individuals without regard for the divinity of the supreme being
4. Created to divide and conquer, and establish control over a particular group.

__bahay__kubo__

freakster2k1 wrote: »

Sir,

I broke down your statement based on the definition. May you verify if my understanding is correct, as my understanding is not at the academe level. Please fill free to correct the propositions as you see fit, as I want to understand the concepts of the element of religion.

1. Created by humans
2. To satisfy our need to belong to a group of like minded individuals
3. To be a mean to use the ‘Supreme Being’ in order to dominate the weaker individuals without regard for the divinity of the supreme being
4. Created to divide and conquer, and establish control over a particular group.

may i again express my apologies again for the confusing comment earlier.

1. religion was created by humans because religions were founded by individuals or groups of individuals. there is no proof that a supernatural being founded religion.

2. well, religions, like ordinary clubs, fraternities, etc., were founded mainly for people to have a venue to share things with like-minded individuals. they won't let anyone who thinks differently from joining their group.

3. history already gave proof that religion was used by certain individuals or groups of individuals to assert hegemony over weaker individuals or over a certain territory. take note of what the Taliban did in Afghanistan, ISIS in Iraq and Syria, the Pope during the old days in Europe, the Shia clergy in Iran, etc.

4. same answer as point number 3.

freakster2k1

Sir,

Again let me summarize
1. Religion is artificial
2. The doctrines are baseless, that is, there is the foundation of a supernatural being is not grounded.
3. Close knitted community, where to deviate from it is taboo.
4. Historically religion is used as a tool for real politik.
These are the elements of religion?
For definition sake, element is define as an essential characteristic of.

__bahay__kubo__

freakster2k1 wrote: »

Sir,

Again let me summarize
1. Religion is artificial
2. The doctrines are baseless, that is, there is the foundation of a supernatural being is not grounded.
3. Close knitted community, where to deviate from it is taboo.
4. Historically religion is used as a tool for real politik.
These are the elements of religion?
For definition sake, element is define as an essential characteristic of.

that's basically it. however, the claim of every religion that is founded by a "supernatural being" despite the fact that it is actually founded by a mere mortal or a group of mere mortals is questionable. there is more than enough proof, c/o history, to show what religion has done to people, societies and countries- they did more harm than good.

freakster2k1

Sir,

May I ask, where does

1. Buddhism fits in your definition.
2. How does moderate Islam fits in your definition
3. where do apolitical believers fit in your definition
4. How come there are doctrinal changes between medieval church and today's church (RCC)
5. And how do you define sect? Does it also need the element of real politik?

Jagon

I am a christian, and I agree with the thread title.

freakster2k1

Jagon,

1. you are a christian (known)
2. your ethical and epistemological belief is influenced by Christianity ( i had to assume)
3. You are part of the society
4. and your conclusion is ' Religion should not be part of our social spectrum'. how?

Jagon

freakster2k1 wrote: »

Jagon,

1. you are a christian (known)
2. your ethical and epistemological belief is influenced by Christianity ( i had to assume)
3. You are part of the society
4. and your conclusion is ' Religion should not be part of our social spectrum'. how?

it's not really a law or a rule, it's just not practically attainable.

well, atleast for christianity.

you can have a great muslim country, or buddhist country, that utilizes religion in ruling.

but christianity, time and again, it failed, not that there's something wrong with christianity, it just doesnt work with secular world.

it's either you get a failed society, or a distorted christianity