If anyone has time please help to refute

[alitaptap]

I’m having a debate with a Reproductive Health Bill supporter. I asked him the following questions:

1. What does “separation” really mean and why RH Bill supoorters don’t understand what it really means?
2. Do laws protect freedom of religion or regulate it?
3. When the Church tells you that it is sinful to do a certain act, does it take away your free will?

And then I asked him to summarize his points, complete with explanations why these are strong arguments for Reproductive Health Bill.

I am not sure whether this issue has already been discussed on this forum. If anyone has time please help to refute his response below.

1. What does “separation” really mean and why RH Bill supoorters don’t understand what it really means?

Uhm, in lay-man’s perspective, it merely means "distance in relationship between any religion and the government. However, in Lemon v. Kurtzman, it is not merely just that. For a government act not to violate this principle, the following must be present in that government act:

1. The government’s action must have a secular legislative purpose;
2. The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government’s action must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion.

Presence of any of these means that the government has violated the Separation of the Church and the State. Note that it is the government that violates it. Not any other. That’s why the legislators must not act in accordance with religion. Anyhow, most of those who are anti-RH Bill have not taken legal courses and most who want to advance RH Bill have taken up Bachelor of Laws in UP, namely, Edcel Lagman, Miriam Defensor-Santiago and Pia Cayetano.

The reason why there is such a separation is the occurrence of religious wars in England and United States, arising basically from divergent views of various religions. We don’t want a repeat of that here in our country.

1. Do laws protect freedom of religion or regulate it?

Protect: Yes. It’s one of the fundamental rights recognized by our Constitution. Regulated: Hardly. And I have not heard of any law/statute regulating this freedom. If there is any, the Strict Scrutiny Test will be applied if this law/statute is constitutional or not. Strict scrutiny is the most stringent standard of judicial review used by Philippine courts. It is part of the hierarchy of standards that courts use to weigh the government’s interest against a constitutional right or principle (Freedom of Religion included).

To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three tests:

1. It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.
2. The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.
3. The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest, that is, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this “least restrictive means” requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it separately.

This Strict Scrutiny Test gives you an idea how regulation of Freedom of Religion is restricted. It goes to show that regulation of this right is more of an exception than the general rule.

1. When the Church tells you that it is sinful to do a certain act, does it take away your free will?

No.

Note: To be continued on the next page due to space limitation (On the next page, you can read the summary of his arguments for Reproductive Health Bill)

 

[alitaptap]

This is the continuation of my first page.

Summary of his arguments.

Separation of the Church and the State - to prevent divisiveness among people, the State must choose a neutral side. All the other religions have already showed their support to RH Bill, while the Catholic Church, the contrary. If the State decides based on religion, any religion whose side was not favored may be strongly-prejudiced. Thus, the State must decide solely on constitutionality/legality/practicality/economically/ and other secular purposes. If the State finally decides in favor of opposing RH Bill on the ground that the Catholic Church abhors it, it is tantamount to denying the rights of people whose religions allow for them to have. This is tantamount to a prejudice against a constitutional right which their religion does not prohibit.

Freedom of Religion - a person’s Freedom of Religion is not merely the freedom to choose religion but also includes the Freedom to Believe without any outside interference.

Article 32 of the Civil Code provides:

Article 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages:

(1) Freedom of religion;

xxx

Thus, if other religions do not feel that the RH Bill is immoral, members of that religion must not be prohibited from executing acts involving the RH Bill. Freedom of Religion is actually very closely-related to Separation of the Church and the State. While the latter is a State Policy embodied in Article II of the Constitution, the former is, more or less, an incident of the latter but is a fundamental right highly-recognized by the Constitution. In fact, as I’ve said, it is highly-regarded that as much as possible, it shouldn’t even be regulated except for the instances embodied in the Strict Scrutiny Test.

Free Will - shows the malleability of Catholic-proscribed acts. Sins can be forgiven through the mercy of God. It shows that any act of any person must be done freely without any force, undue influence, violence, etc.

 

[alitaptap]

I have already posted my request, but nobody had helped me.:crying:

Can someone help me refute the arguments of a Reproductive Health Bill Supporter/Pro-Choicer?

 

[cho_pilo]

One comment. It seems that it’s ok for him to sin just to follow the law.

I have a little time on my hands today. Can anyone (Pro-Life) help Alitaptap please?

It’s obvious that Pro-Choice arguments are full of holes.