Niky I am not playing here anymore, unlike in the MP thread. I will give you time to read the sources and the caveat.

Understand that when I said I directly lifted things from jurisprudence, I MEAN IT. Get the hint bro.

Quote Originally Posted by niky View Post
The opinion is self-serving. It merely notes that the Separation of Church and State is not perfectly achieved, thus this entanglement is ideal. That's like saying corruption is acceptable because corruption exists.

Section 28-3 does not give the State rights over Churches... in fact, the mere fact that the State grants Churches tax-exemption is in recognition that Churches do not fall under secular authority.

Section 29-2 explicitly states that public money does not go to religious entities unless they are employed in service to the Government. In other words, taxes do not fund churches, but can be used to pay for services rendered. Religious entities are not being paid as religious entities, but as Government employees or subcontractors.

This does not give the Church any authority over the state in such matters, it merely recognizes that religious entities might enter into government service.

It is undeniable that some... or, likely... a majority of legislators allow religious beliefs to inform legislation. This cannot be prevented, but it does go against the spirit of the separation of Church and State, for in any legislation that must apply to the population in general, the law must not infringe upon the rights of believers of other faiths to push the agenda of one. The terms of marriage, as noted in your opinion piece, are influenced by religious feelings, but should not be. In my opinion, the entire Family Code is suspect on the grounds of Religious Freedom as enshrined in the Constitution... but it would take extraordinary circumstances for any laws regarding marriage to be changed, considering who we have in power in the halls of Congress.

As an aside, the Code of Muslim Personal Laws are understood to apply to Muslims only. Which is appropriate... although it does state that the Code takes precedence over general law... my personal belief is that it should not supersede the Constitution or general laws. Though general laws should NOT touch upon religious beliefs... which includes marriage. I would need to study it further to give further comment.

This brings up an interesting point: Why should the Family Code and laws regarding marriage be informed only by Catholic beliefs if they are generally applied? Why not have a Catholic Law section, as well?