Estrada vs. Escritor (Religious Freedom)

[karlkutu]

Love against all odds and even against the law. hmmmmmm....

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/am_p-02-1651_2003.html
A copy of the intro is pasted below.
The case at bar takes us to a most difficult area of constitutional law where man stands accountable to an authority higher than the state. To be held on balance are the state’s interest and the respondent’s religious freedom. In this highly sensitive area of law, the task of balancing between authority and liberty is most delicate because to the person invoking religious freedom, the consequences of the case are not only temporal. The task is not made easier by the American origin of our religion clauses and the wealth of U.S. jurisprudence on these clauses for in the United States, there is probably no more intensely controverted area of constitutional interpretation than the religion clauses.1 The U.S. Supreme Court itself has acknowledged that in this constitutional area, there is "considerable internal inconsistency in the opinions of the Court."2 As stated by a professor of law, "(i)t is by now notorious that legal doctrines and judicial decisions in the area of religious freedom are in serious disarray. In perhaps no other area of constitutional law have confusion and inconsistency achieved such undisputed sovereignty."3 Nevertheless, this thicket is the only path to take to conquer the mountain of a legal problem the case at bar presents. Both the penetrating and panoramic view this climb would provide will largely chart the course of religious freedom in Philippine jurisdiction. That the religious freedom question arose in an administrative case involving only one person does not alter the paramount importance of the question for the "constitution commands the positive protection by government of religious freedom -not only for a minority, however small- not only for a majority, however large- but for each of us."4

[¿m☺ÿ]

i like the case... thanks for sharing +karma for you

This is one example on how religion tried to make their own rules, find a verse then interpret their own way....in the case of the alleged, i disagree with their congregation, in the letter of Paul to the Romans 13:1-2 is says "1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."

Here, the Bible clearly says that everybody not only Christian should follow the rules of the land.... what they did does not really follow the laws. About the verse in the Bible that the minister qoute is not right, Matthew 5:22 refers to anger management not about marraige. He should have used Matthew 19:9, but i assume he made a mistake though not corrected on the record, anyway.
Yes, they qoute a verse in the Bible and i agree to what is written in there. But it doesn't give us the right to bypass the law of the land which is the Philippine law. Though we know that what her husband did is ground for annulment, she should've followed the procedure of the court to annul before settling in with her new mate. The punishment should be more severe than just disciplinary action and this is because she's part of the judicial system which she tried to go around. Some religious sect do makes some convinient ruling for her members just to attract followers, and its not right. Hiding behind a religion should not be practice and should not be authorized by the minister itself, they know its wrong, and are educated individuals. Following the law is not restricting the freedom of religious practice...even Jesus himself was also following the law by giving tax as said in Luke 20:20-26; and then facing the trials without question eventhough He has not done any crime... this is a good example of submitting to authority.

[karlkutu]

thank you very much sir. i will post more.