In a Government Elected ‘According to Divine Will’, Who Truly Holds Power?

Original article: En un gobierno elegido «como Dios manda», ¿quién manda?

By Diego Inostroza Lucas

The state of Chile, since gaining independence from the Spanish Crown and establishing a true Republic, has undergone various historical and social processes of secularization.

There are several milestones and events that can be mentioned. From «The Sacristan Question» in 1856, through the Interpretative Law of Freedom of Worship of 1865, to the Secular Laws of 1883 and 1884 during President Domingo Santa María’s administration, these measures led the Chilean state to formally and definitively separate from the Catholic Church in the 1925 Constitution.

This matter does not seem to currently be at the center of the debate, appearing to be a settled issue, buried for good 101 years ago. The process is very objectively explained by historian Sol Serrano in her book What to Do with God in the Republic.

However, in recent months, certain alarming signs have begun to emerge regarding threats to the relationship between our democratic society and the, at least ideally expected, religious institutional neutrality.

Who hasn’t noticed that at least four masses are celebrated weekly in the facilities of La Moneda, utilizing public spaces and funds for religious services?

Isn’t it strange, in an implicitly secular state, that the Ministry of Sport, through then-minister Natalia Ducó, hired a spiritual guide or «shaman» for an amount of $4,119,545 to advise her on decision-making related to her position?

Doesn’t it seem unusual that the state, through this government, has chosen to provide public funding to a variety of religious organizations totaling $5,900,000,000 to construct religious community centers and places of worship?

This situation is beginning to shift from mere anecdotes to genuine concern, as it appears to reflect not just misguidedness but a troubling confusion regarding the open secular nature of the state, which is attempting to implement a state-sanctioned multi-confessionalism that is both impractical and inappropriate.

And it’s precisely here that we should remember that religion is a right, not a duty; however, given the current circumstances, it is necessary to reiterate this point.

Every citizen has the complete freedom to believe, not believe, change religions, practice, and express their beliefs. But this freedom cannot become an obligation for the rest of society.

As Fernando Savater points out in his «Five Theses on Secularism» outlined in his book Life Eternal, religious beliefs find acceptance in a secular society precisely as a right for those who profess them, but not as a duty that can be imposed on those who do not share them.

The citizenship appears justifiably irritated. Because one thing is that a candidate, sector, or political party bases its supposed moral superiority on its god or gods to deny and restrict rights that seem self-evident, while another thing entirely is to govern an entire country based on dogmatic values above other ethical sources.

And this behavior reoccurs each time legal and civilizational advancements are proposed. Because, let’s agree, religions can establish sins for their believers, but not crimes for society as a whole.

A person may consider a certain behavior morally reprehensible according to their faith, but in a democracy, laws cannot be founded solely on what a particular confession considers sinful. The law must apply equally to believers, agnostics, and atheists.

As Savater maintains, it is religions that must adapt to the laws of a democratic society, not the laws that must bend to religious dogmas.

There appears to be a historical agreement, legal duty, and constitutional obligation for the state to protect and guarantee freedom of expression, conscience, and worship, while also ensuring its practice under conditions of strict equality through secularism. And that equality must also start with what the state teaches.

Public education should impart knowledge that can be challenged, along with the civil and constitutional values that allow diverse individuals to coexist under the same rules.

Thus, it seems much more sensible to begin with the effective removal of the religion class in public schools rather than eliminating the right to receive a PC (personal computer for the less seasoned in English).

I clarify that this does not mean the state should declare itself an enemy of religion. Quite the opposite. Secularism precisely allows all religions to exist and express themselves without any being privileged as the official religion, state doctrine, or exclusive source of moral legitimacy.

The secular state does not pursue faith; rather, it protects it as both an individual and collective freedom, not as the official truth of the state.

Secularism must not only impose limits on the attempt of any religion to dominate society. It must also confront any other form of identity sectarianism that seeks to elevate itself above equality.

Religion is not the only «identity» that can claim privileges. Nationalism or any other collective belonging can do so when it seeks to dictate who deserves more rights than another. Citizenship and democracy must stand above those differences.

It is precisely here that we must ask ourselves, defend, and reaffirm that Chile truly is a secular state and express this in practice.

To continue explaining this concept, which we have been silently practicing to varying degrees until now, secularism does not imply that the state must be atheist, nor that individuals must abandon their beliefs when entering a public building.

On the contrary, it means that no one should have to believe in another’s God to be a fully equal citizen.

In a democratic society, Catholics, evangelicals, Jews, Muslims, believers from other religions, agnostics, and atheists can coexist. All can hold their own moral and religious convictions. But when governing for all, the reasons that justify state decisions must be able to stand up before everyone, not just those who share a particular faith.

That is, ultimately, the deepest meaning of secularism: that the state has no religion, precisely so that its citizens may have one or none, and that this choice be free.

And hence the initial question. In a government elected «as God commands», who truly holds power? Does God? Or does the Constitution, the law, and the sovereign will of citizens who are equal in dignity and rights?

Diego Inostroza Lucas