Christopher Maboloc
The power of religion in the public sphere cannot be underestimated. This is because it is difficult to distance oneself from religious convictions. Religion influences the moral view of people. This means that religious values are critical in the way people see themselves and their role in society. Religion is a source of our moral intuitions or the way we understand the concept of right and wrong. In addition, religious convictions enable people to form basic communities. The reason for this, according to the German thinker Jurgen Habermas, is that religion helps in building the sense of solidarity of people.
The separation of Church and State means that there cannot be a preference for one religion over another. Secular values refer to those things that people choose on the basis of their autonomy outside the realm of the practice of their faith. This advent of humanism helped form the ideals of humanity on the basis of reason and the modern project, which gives the highest value to human freedom. The standard when it comes to secular morality is reason itself, which means that people decide on the basis of their non-religious values. People who are politically driven make judgements based on what John Rawls calls public reason.
What is public reason? Public reason concerns the political interests of the people. It has something to do with the basic structure of society. For Rawls, comprehensive or metaphysical doctrines must be suspended when we talk about the affairs of the state, which means that issues concerning the public good must depend on political values. The same must be constitutionally grounded. We set aside comprehensive doctrines or beliefs to the “background culture” because the state or basic structure must be insulated from the influence of religion. Public reason in this sense way must be the guiding framework on matters concerning the state.
On critical issues where religious values appear to influence public discussion on matters pertaining to the good of the people, Rawls introduced the concept of the proviso. The proviso is maintained until such time that the justification for certain decision will have been founded on public reason. In the meantime, a society can find support for its ethical and religious position on matters such as abortion or divorce by means of the proviso. In the Philippines, our religious convictions affect our sentiments and the position of our leaders on the above contentious issues.
The idea of separating Church and State is rooted in the idea that public reason cannot be subordinated to religious values. But the same should not preclude religious leaders from expressing their opinion on public matters. This is because religious leaders can also bring or voice out the truth in public. The public sphere cannot prohibit religious leaders from expressing their public opinion. The reason is that religious people are also citizens themselves. There is a valid moral and political justification for them to express their concerns as a part of the will-formation in the state.
Habermas is critical of limiting the state into the technical or practical, which for him is an alienating and dominating form of rationality that can set a dangerous precedent when it comes to the meaning and function of democracy. Rawls, however, has a different position because he believes that matters concerning the state should be strictly political. Rawls recognizes that the theory of Habermas is more comprehensive, which implies that the latter accommodates or assumes a moral position in politics as part of a pluralist type of democracy.
An example of the above debate happens to be the political relationship between Pastor Apollo Quiboloy and President Rodrigo Duterte. While many support the role of the Catholic Church then in the overthrow of former President Ferdinand Marcos Sr., which means that the Church actually played a vital role in our democracy at that time, many today are dismissive of the role of the pastor in terms of helping President Duterte pursue his programs. Pastor Quiboloy has to face the charges in court but the prejudice against him on the above role of religion in the public sphere is a different matter altogether. (Ryan Maboloc)