My thoughts on:

Merging the STATE and the CHURCH

Last night as I was watching TV, as I usually did whenever I can't sleep, I came across this local TV show and remembered that I had planned to watch it but then, I just forgot to remind myself. It also came into my mind that our instructor way back in High School had once raised this same question to us. As I was saying, naturally, because its a debate there are two panels that will contradict and defend their own reasons and statements. The panel which is in favor of merging the Church and the State is composed of TWO priest and a Congressman Miles Roces from the 3rd district of Manila, who I suppose was raised up from a family very attached to their faith. However, the other panel who were not in favor is comprised of Bro.E.Soriano ( I know you already know him!), Mr.Tulfo(the columnist, I think on PDI, but definitely not his brothers Erwin nor Ben, the other journalist.) and another politician and at the same time a pastor but I forgot his name.

I could say, they are all good, except for one. They all have a very concrete and reasonable statements that they all have defended. Actually, the one of them made me laugh at the same time, it really had made up my mind that somehow, he's at times "out of his league". I'm sorry guys who are a member of his congregation, but really, why couldn't he just put aside his personal issues with the "inglesia ni Manalo" as what he had called the other religious congregation mentioned for several times through out the whole session of the debate! I also noticed that, at times, some of the defenders are caught up in between, they wanna say no and yes at the same time.

If I were included in that debate, I wouldn't allow them to be merged. The records of our human history, in any part of this world, shows some very concrete evidences that these two essential part of our society are certainly immiscible. Both are important, but it can never be merged. A good example of this is the downfall of the Medieval Period. That time, Theocentrism was dominant. Everything was according to what the Church is saying and dictating and the political leaders are also the same people who leads the Church. They had tried to hold both offices, the Church and the State. Don't get me wrong that I'm an atheist or something(I am a Catholic okei?), but it's not the teachings of the Church that has gotten irrational and unjust through out the succeeding years of their dominance, it is the appointed leaders who become very abusive and corrupt. Yes, you read it right, CORRUPTion (which is a form of stealing.. one of the 10 commandments;<"walk your talk"-sir Guina from DLSU on our leadership seminar...>). Another was the time of the Spanish Era in our country. Spaniards have great respect to their Church ( and I believe that it was passed on to us) that's why they are much influenced by the Church Leaders which paved way in giving them authority over the towns and cities they govern. They are given more power to influence people and dictate to them what they are to do than those who are leaders of the towns and cities. Hence, with this unlimited authority, they became abusive ( "history repeats itself.."). It was just after the occupancy of the Spaniards that we were freed from the excessive authority of the Church that was once merged with the State.

My stance towards this issue is that we may never emerge this two but in the contrary, we cannot seperate them completely, I'm in between. One may not jive with the other but there is one thing for sure, it can seek for each of the other's opinion to achieve optimum enhancement for the benefit of mankind; or the Filipino People specifically. Remember, not all legal things are morally righteous and not all morally righteous are legal. One needs the other.