YPS

As per Wikipedia, "Faith is a belief in an idea that is unsupported, or contradicted, by evidence."

AS per Miriam Webster,
2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

A while back there was this judge who consulted with dwarves before he made a decision.

He was disbarred for revealing this fact. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5261856.stm

What does this have to do with religious freedom?

First, a comment on Freedom of Religion in the Philippines ( from Wikkipedia):

The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines declares: The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable. (Article II, Section 6), and, No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights. (Article III, Section 5).

The Supreme Court of the Philippines, ruling in 2003[1] and 2006[2] in the landmark case of Estrada vs. Escritor, established the doctrine of benevolent neutrality-accommodation. The 2006 ruling, penned by now-Chief Justice Puno, explained benevolent-neutrality in the context of U.S. jurisprudence as follows:

Under the benevolent-neutrality theory, the principle underlying the First Amendment is that freedom to carry out one's duties to a Supreme Being is an inalienable right, not one dependent on the grace of legislature. Religious freedom is seen as a substantive right and not merely a privilege against discriminatory legislation. With religion looked upon with benevolence and not hostility, benevolent neutrality allows accommodation of religion under certain circumstances.[2]

Ironically, 3 years (or so) before the judges disbarment, it seems there was a ruling where the SC defended a woman's apparently immoral behavior on the basis of her claim the she was not Catholic...but rather a Jehovahs Witness.

Now I use the word defended with a grain of salt because what the SC really did was to;
".... in the decision dated August 4, 2003, we remanded the complaint to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), and ordered the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to intervene in the case so it can:
(a) examine the sincerity and centrality of respondent's claimed religious belief and practice;
(b) present evidence on the state's "compelling interest" to override respondent's religious belief and practice; and
(c) show that the means the state adopts in pursuing its interest is the least restrictive to respondent's religious freedom. [15] "

Despite the fact that this directive seems very pass-the-buck-ish, it does give us a few guidelines in determining the validity of ones faith.

One, the practitioner must be sincere in its practice.

Two, there has to be a damned good reason to penalize a person for his belief.

Three, that a practical compromise must be found to meet both ehe requirements of the state and preserve the freedom to practice any particular belief system ( assuming it violates no other law).

In the end ( which in this case was 3 years later) the result was admirable (you can read the entire decision here http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.M.%20No.%20...)

(excerpt) With the court deciding (with emphasis mine); "Thus, we find that in this particular case and under these distinct circumstances, respondent Escritor's conjugal arrangement cannot be penalized as she has made out a case for exemption from the law based on her fundamental right to freedom of religion. The Court recognizes that state interests must be upheld in order that freedoms - including religious freedom - may be enjoyed. In the area of religious exercise as a preferred freedom, however, man stands accountable to an authority higher than the state, and so the state interest sought to be upheld must be so compelling that its violation will erode the very fabric of the state that will also protect the freedom. In the absence of a showing that such state interest exists, man must be allowed to subscribe to the Infinite. "

Ironically, this decision came out a few months prior to the dwarf consulting judge was disbarred.
The court said in an en banc decision, "Psychic phenomena, even assuming such exist, have no place in a judiciary duty bound to apply only positive law and, in its absence, equitable rules and principles in resolving controversies,".

In short, while the court allows for the possibility that the Judge was psychic they STILL disbarred the Judge.

Ok. Fair enough.

Now my question is...how is consulting with a bunch dwarves( apologies to the little people) different from all the judges and politicians praying to the Virgin Mary and all the saints in heaven for guidance? Or how different is it from the Judges that open with a prayer begging from the guidance of our almighty Lord? Or wearing a cross for guidance?

If we adopt the benevolent point of the SC and assume that God in his Catholic form does exist it should be that these actions should be are equally disturbing as the practitioner defers to a higher spiritual power in a venue where decisions should be decided ONLY on provable facts and valid arguments.

From an objective point of view, the belief in the existence, and asking for guidance, of any spiritual entity should fall under the FREEDOM OF RELIGION. And if by using the three guidelines as outlined by the SC ,it can be said that if a chosen belief system meets the condition of sincerity and has no measurable impact on the state, then protection of ones belief systems is inherent in the constitution, regardless of entity or deity should be upheld.

While I am Catholic ( to a certain degree), the defense of Catholicism by a prejudice towards lesser known or accepted beliefs ( that have no real impact to anyone other than the practitioner) not only weakens the basic right to practice a belief system but it also undermines the concept of separation of Church and State.

But of course for it to be undermined, you would have to believe the fairy tale that THERE IS ACTUALLY A SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

And seriously speaking, Ill believe in dwarves and elves before I believe in that.