What Does Watery Cervical Mucus Mean

Church and State: AROUND THE ETHICAL FOUNDATIONS OF SEPARATION *

Gonzalo Gamio Gehri

The separation between religious institutions and state is one of the most important achievements of liberal culture, a principle that has been placed correctly in the political ideology of democracy. The policy expresses philosophical formulation of this thesis XVII century and responds to the tragic historical experience of religious wars in Europe. John Locke stated clearly that the state will correspond to protect the freedoms and rights of citizens, but in any case ensure the correct religious people: if God exists, if one person or many, is a matter that concerns the believer's faith and his thinking skills, and interests the individual himself or organizations in which the individual has chosen to participate. No one can force human beings to save their souls is a matter of conscience and personal freedom.

Since then it is considered that the state should guarantee religious tolerance and the right of everyone to believe or not believe in a free society, open to all faiths, and willing to provide spaces for dialogue and debate about the source of meaning in life (in a key religious and secular). It thus seeks to eradicate religious persecution - so common in premodern communities - where they are supposed to be a responsible leader should ensure the salvation of the souls of his subjects. institutions as the Inquisition unfortunate or dire measures such as removal of idolatry were permanently disabled. Over time, the liberal state itself was designed to "neutral" in religious matters - or rather, committed to ethical pluralism and respect for religious diversity - so that no position for or Contrary to some belief, provided it operates within the framework of respect for the law. In this perspective, in a liberal democratic society and there is no "official religion." Declaring a commitment, sympathy particular or special relationship with any religion would carry an unacceptable discrimination between citizens, that no exceptions should be treated as free and equal.

Separation Church / State seeks to prevent the politicization of faith as much as the sacralization of politics, and its pernicious effects on the public sphere. It is an expression of respect for the unique power of people to discern discuss and choose their beliefs and life plans. Sometimes the religious right have suggested that measures such as these contribute to undermine the "sense of transcendence 'between people and promote a kind of" spiritual retreat. " Slip the idea that this kind of position you have to minimize the place of religion in people's lives. Quite the contrary. Liberal separation recognizes the great value of religion for many people, so it proposes that citizens should have a space of freedom to discuss that value, reflect on what you assign meaning to life, and cultivar (if so choose) genuine faith practices. State coercion only severely damage the reflection and arbitrarily impose a single catalog of beliefs.

hold that space of faith is beyond the scope of influence of the state is not "privatization of faith." It is essential that people find places that can be rigorously and honestly discuss the points of divergence and where different faiths in an atmosphere of tolerance and open dialogue to other reasons. These social settings are available in their own religious communities and institutions of civil society. University, for example, is an important space for meditation on the academic value of interreligious dialogue, prevention of fanaticism and the role of multiple confessions in the foundation of a "global ethic" to use the felicitous phrase of Hans Küng. Argue that these places are off-state is not to advocate a kind of atomization of faith.

In Peru, the path towards the affirmation of a culture of separation between Church and State is still long. For example, the existence of a Concordat with the Holy See which states that public schools be taught a course in Catholic catechesis is inconsistent with what we are saying. In a truly secular state, such a course does not exist in public schools, religious education because it is the responsibility of families and parishes. Or, if it exists, it is a course in the history of religions (a course on the 'fact' religious), not a subject of an apologetic. Consolidate the separation in our country - for the sake of politics and for the sake of religion - democracy is a task that should be taken seriously.

* A corrected version of this brief text will be published in the journal Exchange.