ON FREEDOM OF RELIGION (PART 2) | By: Arlou June D. Gomez

 ON FREEDOM OF RELIGION (PART 2) |

By: Arlou June D. Gomez

“No law shall be made respecting an establishment of Religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. x x x” (Article III, Sec. 5, 1987 Phil. Constitution)

This is the so-called NON-ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE.

The non-establishment clause holds that the State 

cannot set up a church or pass laws aiding one religion, all religion, or preferring one over the another, or  force a person to believe or disbelieve in any religion or to go or to stay away from church against his will (Everson v. Board of Education Case)

Thus, “strong fences, make good neighbors”; the application of biblical principle “render unto Caesar the things of Caesar, and render unto God the things of God.”

The State is prohibited to establish a STATE RELIGION, and must adhere to the STRICT NEUTRALITY approach. 

In Ang Ladlad vs. Comelec, the Court held that it was a grave violation of the non-establishment clause for the Comelec to utilize the Bible and the Koran to justify the exclusion of Ang Ladlad Party-list. Government reliance upon the Bible and Koran is inconsistent with the POLICY OF NEUTRALITY. 

The State cannot use biblical morality when defining “morality.” Morality must be SECULAR, i. e., independent of  religious  beliefs. Laws  and  rules  of  conduct must  be based  on  a secular purpose.  

In  Engel  v.  Vitale,  370  U.S,  421,  known  as  the  “School  Prayer Case,” the  recitation  by  the  students  in  public  schools  in  New  York  of  a  prayer composed  by  the Board of  Regents  was held unconstitutional because it is not part of the business of the government to compose official prayer for any group of individuals. 

Thus, it is my humble submission that a Bill which makes the Bible Instruction/Reading MANDATORY to all public schools, though favorable to all Christians, would be VIOLATIVE of the NON-ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE.

JESUS BLESS YOU TODAY!