Introduction
I was instructed that the topic called " Differences between private life and public life " should be focused on theology, before such request I can first enter the study of the word theology.
It comes from the Greek: θεος theos 'God' and λογος logos: 'study, reasoning, science', meaning 'the study of God' and, therefore, the study of things or facts related to God is the study and set of knowledge about divinity.
Private life, can be defined as that part of the human being's life, constituted by a series of acts and consequences, that do not transcend the sphere of the life of other people, that is, they remain in the family circle, in the loneliness or inside the individual who performs the act.
Public life can be defined as the aspect of human life that transcends the atmosphere of other people's lives, either because the act or acts are subject to the judgment of the people, or because they are carried out in public, perhaps because violate any norm of public order or are surely executed by public figures who, by the charge or commission placed on them, are naturally public, and in the worst case, that public servants perform acts, apparently particular but that transcend the public life, abuse or influence.
Development
The theology as such, aims to study God as the central axis, this being defined, a personal opinion, as Being Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Formless who created man and all things in the universe, the earth and living things who live in it, where man believes in Him by Faith.
Therefore, Faith is the certainty of what is expected, the conviction of what is not seen.
But in the same way, God cannot be taken as an object of study with a view to religions, since as it is well known, never and never, the Bible or Jesus Christ, were present to proclaim any religion, dogma, color or flavor, in which man believed, but rather to promote brotherhood, love, mutual aid and various universal values that will happily lead man to eternal life.
Based on the aforementioned, belief in God, the study of his word, has been monopolized by various religions, the best known and expanded throughout the world being the Catholic, whose main cede is in the Vatican State.
Throughout the centuries, it has been abused in the name of God, of his Son, and of all the people that are mentioned in the bible, be it because they were servants of him, of his Son, or faithful followers of his word, call them apostles, saints, etc., various authors have treated the nature of God, his origin, his dogmas, principles, commandments and all conclude that there is no historical certainty regarding the real or true sources of the so-called holy book: The Bible.
The Bible is a source of inspiration for man, since, by Faith, the letters, words and messages contained therein are the Word of God, but it receives criticism regarding its collection, writers, sources of inspiration, for its selection to the time to name it Old and New Testament.
Precisely, at the time of its analysis, understanding and especially at the time of its dissemination, it turns out to have significance with respect to Public Life and Private Life, and for this purpose we quote Article 24 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States that to the letter says: " Every man is free to profess the religious belief that pleases him the most and to practice the ceremonies, devotions or acts of the respective cult, as long as they do not constitute a crime or offense punishable by law."
"Congress cannot pass laws that establish or prohibit any religion."
“Religious acts of public worship will ordinarily be held in temples. Those that are held extraordinarily outside these will be subject to regulatory law. ”
In the aspects of private life, it is clear to establish that each individual can profess the religion or religious belief that most pleases or accommodates him, being only he who decides regarding his preference.
But what is expected of a father, a mother or both, who want a son to profess the same religion as them?
Does the decision of whether or not the minor goes to a religious cult turns out to be in the sphere of private life?
Could it be from public life?
The answers to these questions are not clearly answered in the Constitution of Mexico, leaving only a few references regarding children or minors and reflected in article 4, and in which the following stand out:
"… Everyone has the right to an environment suitable for their development and well-being…"
"… Boys and girls have the right to satisfy their needs for food, health, education and healthy recreation for their integral development…"
It can be deduced that the parents' right to transmit their beliefs is limited not only by the age of majority of their children but also by their decision when they have the ability to discern.
The study of God depends on each individual, whether by profession he decides to exercise that knowledge, root it, publish it or transmit it, or to apply it in life, whether under the name that he is Catholic, Pentecost, Baptist, witness to Jehovah, of the seventh day, etc., the first of them, is aimed at the development of the individual as a person, who when acquiring the knowledge of God, decides to publish or transmit it, either as the head of a religious cult or as a private individual convinced of transmitting the knowledge or the word of God to his fellow men, in the second, remains within the individual's internal sphere, in his decision, in his private life.
To make it more illustrated, I quote the following thesis:
"RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND FREEDOM OF WORSHIP. YOUR DIFFERENCES. The religious freedomprotected by article 24 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States has an internal aspect that addresses the ability of individuals to develop and act in accordance with a particular vision of the world in which the relationship of man with the divine is defined; and an external aspect to which this constitutional precept particularly alludes, establishing that “every man is free to profess the religious belief that pleases him the most and to practice the ceremonies, devotions or acts of the respective cult, provided that they do not constitute a crime or lack punished by law. " Thus, the specific rule of the third paragraph of said article,According to which religious acts of public worship will ordinarily be held in temples and those that are extraordinarily held outside of them will be subject to regulatory law, it applies to a very precise subset of external manifestations of religious freedom, because of acts of Public worship must understand not only external but also collective or group, and also belonging to the field of institutionalized expression of religion. Indeed, not every act of external expression of a religious belief is an act of "public worship", since, for example, wearing the kippah or a medal of the Virgin on the neck, is a symbol and expression of the Jewish religious affiliation or Catholic, respectively, of the person who wears them, and to that extent they are an external manifestation of religious freedom,but they do not constitute acts of public worship. Similarly, the fact that several people carry these symbols together does not make that coincidence an act of public worship, nor would other expressions or collective experiences of certain religious beliefs, such as founding a religiously oriented private school or organizing an excursion. private to a sacred place; rather, the acts of public worship are those specifically aimed at collectively developing the rites, ceremonies and practices that the different religions recognize as institutionalized or formalized manifestations of their religious faith, defined and governed by rules pre-established by them. Amparo under review 1595/2006. Stephen Orla Searfoss. November 29, 2006. Five votes. Speaker: José Ramón Cossío Díaz. Secretary:Raúl Manuel Mejía Garza. ”
Thus, the acts of public or private life must be differentiated under the following parameters:
• The acts of individuals are not of greater interest to society, and only transcend for the family circle.
• Acts directed at the public are of interest because the subject submits the act or idea to the judgment or opinion of others.
• Public life has relevance in society by virtue of affecting the sphere of existence of the State, Society in General, human rights, values, guarantees, etc.
• Private life is only relevant in the mind of the subject and those around him, without affecting the rights of others.
• Public life is closely linked to the character, nature or position of the person who performs the act.
• In private life, acts can be carried out interchangeably.
• In private life, the performers can be public servants, without affecting the public sphere of others.
conclusion
The DIFFERENCE between private and public life is of great interest from a legal point of view, be it criminal or civil, and with the theological focus, it has profiles and inevitable Constitutional lines, and presses wounds that still hurt society regarding the Freedom of Creed and Worship, where, even though the Constitution is clear regarding these Freedoms, currently and without fear of being wrong, I assure that there are limitations, frank violations of the Constitution and Freedom of Belief and Worship as Human Right, just as it happens in the State of Chiapas, where a group or sector of a population cannot freely profess the religion that they like the most under pain of being expelled, injured, damaged or stripped of their property or property,being practical and documented cases those occurred in the municipality of San Juan Chamula, or the Mitzitón community of the Municipality of San Cristóbal de las Casas, where groups prevent others from carrying out certain acts of religious belief, or force them to carry them out even against or under the sacrifice of his own Faith.
The groups or sectors marginalized and denied the full right to profess the religion that they like, see limited fundamental human rights, guarantees that the Government must ensure that they are fulfilled, and where the private life of individuals is haunted and injured for the interest of other people, who in turn violate the Constitution, International Treaties, Secondary Laws and Regulations, this is established by article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which literally says: “Every person has right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; This right includes the freedom to change religion or belief, as well as the freedom to express your religion or belief, individually and collectively, both publicly and privately, through teaching, practice,worship and observance. ”
Bibliography
es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Portada
www.diputados.org.mx
The Bible.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
