- Thread starter A.Hidalgo
- Start date
No separation of state and church here.
- Status
The DR has always been a state with no separation of the church.
Have you ever seen the government's budget? They set money aside to restore churches all over the country and the top ranking people in the Catholic Church receive income from the state!
Also, take a look of many of the monuments built by the state, particularly those built by Balaguer.
The Faro A Colon, the Plaza de la Bandera, the Teatro Nacional and the Teatro Cibao, the Altar de la Patria at Parque Independencia, so on and so forth. The common theme in all of this is that from above they all look like a Christian cross. Coincidence? Uuuuh.... :cheeky:
Plus, the DR government is not the only one that has these contradictions. I too was wondering why an entire prayer was said on Obama's inauguration (or any other inauguration for that matter) and why every president-elect has to swear on the Christian Bible saying that, in short, he will uphold the "secular" duties as the president of the most power country on earth. But hey, maybe my definition of what a secular state should do and not do is a little too drastic... :cheeky:
In any case, I don't see anything wrong with this.
-NALs
Most Dominican holidays have a religious origin, but today they are anything but religious. Go to any village celebrating their saint and see how that functions. If it wasn't for history, one would think people were partying for the sake of partying, which in a way, that's what it is. A reason to party, but the party has little to do with religion.
Or on Noche Buena do most Dominicans head to church to show respect to the Christ or do they head to their "compadres" house where music, food, alcohol galore is waiting to full fill the urges of the flesh, so to speak?
There are many Dominicans that are very religious, but they are outnumbered by the non-religious bunch who use religious holidays as an excuse for a secular party. Divide church and state, and those holidays will still remain -- at least the festivities will.
Having said that, I don't see anything wrong with the Church and State being interrelated.
-NALs
Mr. Lu: You seem very passionate about this topic. Anyhow I agree with you about the separation of church and state and personally I find it disgusting that The DR government gives money to the catholic church...money that IMO could be better spent on education, health care, etc.
...but just for the sake of argument let's consider for a moment your statement about the church's role in government and how it should be none. Now in a democratic society isn't the population supposed to elect a government that represents them the way they want? ... and if that population happens to be 90%+ of a particular religion (Catholic in The DR, muslim, budhist, etc in other places) then isn't it democracy to have the government be exactly like the population? If the people believe and do everything their religion says then where's the line anyway?
Depends how important you think religion is. If 90% of a country's population are fans of rap music, should that be reflected in the government too?
My point being that religion should be a personal thing and that some people's beliefs (or professed beliefs) should never be imposed on others. There is a word for that = theocracy.
I don't think any religious beliefs are being imposed on anyone in the DR, people do have the choice to believe and do what ever they want. The Catholic Church is not the only religious organization present in the DR.
If its the abortion deal that makes people think religious belief are being imposed on the general population, then such people should not see anything wrong if say, under secularism the institution of marriage would also be modified before the law.
Why should marriage only be between a man and a woman? Isn't that a religious inspired belief?
Or why should marriage only be between two people? If a man wants to marry fifty women (or vice versa), under a secular state he should be able to, right?
I think there can be a nice mix of secular and ecclesiastical within a state and trying to be "secular only" is as much of a BS as is trying to be a theocracy.
My point being that even states that claim to be secular are really anything but secular. The marriage issue, particularly polygamous marriage, is only one of many hot buttons that the most secular societies have problems with when, if they truly were secular, they should simply let people do whatever they want with their lives as long that it doesn't causes hardship on others.
Using the U.S. as an example, signs of the church are evident in everything related to the state. From the currency to the pledge of allegiance to everything else and this is suppose to be a secular state!
-NALs
Last edited:
Well yes
kind of tongue in cheek, but here the majority of the national holidays have a religious base. dia de altagracia as an example, not withstanding the NALs comment about most of them being a party time. I mean thats what most holidays are now in any country, religious holiday or orther. CHRISTMAS anyone, or how full were the churches last week.
kind of tongue in cheek, but here the majority of the national holidays have a religious base. dia de altagracia as an example, not withstanding the NALs comment about most of them being a party time. I mean thats what most holidays are now in any country, religious holiday or orther. CHRISTMAS anyone, or how full were the churches last week.
there can never be total separation of state and church. the constitution is drafted by people and it is the people who chose the government. and so it happens those "people" in DR are mostly catholic, however poor their morality may be - seeing that one bangs whatever comes without any regard to the sixth commandment.
These examples are not comparable because if you have an abortion or perform one you are at risk of being prosecuted, but if you choose to enter a same-sex relationship or a polygamous one, although you cannot have it recognised by the law, you are not going to be prosecuted for it either. It is funny that you mention polygamous marriage when in the DR de-facto polygamous set-ups are more part of the culture than they are in more secular countries. So much for the success of the church in imposing its morals on the population...
It should not come as any surprise that if I was in the US, I would also be questioning these things.
......
Just because it happens, doesn't make it right. I don't agree that in the US you pray on a bible in court or during inaugurations. By having a theocratic government, you, by default, marginalize those citizens that don't adhere to that main religion. So what are your options? Have a government that represents all religions and all beliefs and all the people equally or have a government that doesn't have religion at all? The comment is not an attack against religion, but its place in our society.
As was mentioned previously, religion is personal. It has no place in the public sphere, and moreover, tax money should not be paying for anything religious. No church, no mosque, no synagogue, NOTHING. If religions want a new church, they can ask god for it.
The idea that by voting for "religious leaders" is a representation of what the public wants (or best represents that public) is a false choice in a country where the only option is Catholicism. To Suarezn, your point would be valid in a homogeneous population where 100% of the country were Catholic. That remaining 10% needs equal representation. Having a church wield so much power is unnecessary, because the church will always act in its best interests, and disregard those who don't agree.
The Catholic church isn't the only church in the DR, but its the most influential one. In a country with a low education level as the DR, which has a population that doesn't read, and therefore is unable to generate thoughts of its own or embark on a quest of personal exploration, giving unlimited weight to an institution such as the church is dangerous. Fear of repercussions of a system, its ideals, its power structure and the absence of a viable second and third choice (the opposition) lead to linear thinkings. Development and progress are cut at the knees in such an environment. Why is it that the woman's movement in this country never took off? Why is it that women in this country are still relegated to the role of being "barefoot and pregnant, expected to know that their role includes being the other woman, cooking dinner and bearing children?" It could only happen in a country dominated by such a sexist institution. That is dangerous.
And just for sh*ts and giggles, people should marry who they want, and as many people as they want, as long as all parties involved consent. Do what you want, when you want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.
Mr. Lu
The DR has always been a state with no separation of the church.
Have you ever seen the government's budget? They set money aside to restore churches all over the country and the top ranking people in the Catholic Church receive income from the state!
Also, take a look of many of the monuments built by the state, particularly those built by Balaguer.
The Faro A Colon, the Plaza de la Bandera, the Teatro Nacional and the Teatro Cibao, the Altar de la Patria at Parque Independencia, so on and so forth. The common theme in all of this is that from above they all look like a Christian cross. Coincidence? Uuuuh.... :cheeky:
Plus, the DR government is not the only one that has these contradictions. I too was wondering why an entire prayer was said on Obama's inauguration (or any other inauguration for that matter) and why every president-elect has to swear on the Christian Bible saying that, in short, he will uphold the "secular" duties as the president of the most power country on earth. But hey, maybe my definition of what a secular state should do and not do is a little too drastic... :cheeky:
In any case, I don't see anything wrong with this.
-NALs
Just because it happens, doesn't make it right. I don't agree that in the US you pray on a bible in court or during inaugurations. By having a theocratic government, you, by default, marginalize those citizens that don't adhere to that main religion. So what are your options? Have a government that represents all religions and all beliefs and all the people equally or have a government that doesn't have religion at all? The comment is not an attack against religion, but its place in our society.
As was mentioned previously, religion is personal. It has no place in the public sphere, and moreover, tax money should not be paying for anything religious. No church, no mosque, no synagogue, NOTHING. If religions want a new church, they can ask god for it.
The idea that by voting for "religious leaders" is a representation of what the public wants (or best represents that public) is a false choice in a country where the only option is Catholicism. To Suarezn, your point would be valid in a homogeneous population where 100% of the country were Catholic. That remaining 10% needs equal representation. Having a church wield so much power is unnecessary, because the church will always act in its best interests, and disregard those who don't agree.
The Catholic church isn't the only church in the DR, but its the most influential one. In a country with a low education level as the DR, which has a population that doesn't read, and therefore is unable to generate thoughts of its own or embark on a quest of personal exploration, giving unlimited weight to an institution such as the church is dangerous. Fear of repercussions of a system, its ideals, its power structure and the absence of a viable second and third choice (the opposition) lead to linear thinkings. Development and progress are cut at the knees in such an environment. Why is it that the woman's movement in this country never took off? Why is it that women in this country are still relegated to the role of being "barefoot and pregnant, expected to know that their role includes being the other woman, cooking dinner and bearing children?" It could only happen in a country dominated by such a sexist institution. That is dangerous.
And just for sh*ts and giggles, people should marry who they want, and as many people as they want, as long as all parties involved consent. Do what you want, when you want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.
Mr. Lu
Last edited:
I am going to close this thread before it gets all out of control. I don't want the next DR1 get together to turn into a royal rumble.
- Status