REPORT Secularism Violations
PoliticsReligionSociety

What actually happened at Manila Cathedral: Revealing the lies and bigotry of Eric Manalang and Pro-Life Philippines

the Editors
the Editors

In TV interviews and several published articles, Pro Life Philippines President Eric Manalang lied about the events at Manila Cathedral, when members of Pro-Life Philippines harassed RH Supporters. Hopefully, this post (and the attached video) adds some clarity and reveals the lies Anti RH groups (including the CBCP) have been publishing — despite photos and videos that clearly shows what actually happened.

1. We were invited to this event.

Or at least we weren’t told that we couldn’t attend. There were invites posted on bulletin boards with the words, “Everyone is cordially invited.” The organizers did not say that the event was exclusively for anti-RH bill Catholics only. We were even given invitation flyers outside Manila Cathedral, despite the fact that we were visibly wearing Damaso shirts.

2. We were told to stay — at least initially. We weren’t asked to leave at once.

Marita Wasan, executive director of Pro-Life Philippines, told us we could wait outside until the mass was over. So we waited peacefully near the steps to the Cathedral — until Eric Manalang, president of Pro-Life Philippines attacked us, forcing us to leave.

3. Members of Pro-Life Philippines attacked us. We didn’t fight back in any way.

We were respectful — we kept calm, even as they repeatedly insulted us and eventually resorted to violence. They called us Satan. They asked us to tell our mothers that they should have aborted us. They pushed us and tried to grab our cameras. The media has made it seem that there was an exchange of harsh words. There was no exchange. We have videos proving that all the violence came from the Pro-Life side.

4. Eric Manalang is bigoted — even toward fellow Catholics.

When a Catholic mother said that she was still a Catholic despite her support for the RH Bill, Manalang said, “That’s an oxymoron.” Manalang was saying that you cannot both be a Catholic and a supporter of the RH Bill. If that is the case, then the Church should stop claiming that 85% of all Filipinos are Catholics, because recent surveys show that most Filipinos support the RH Bill.

But aside from claiming to know what it means to be a True Catholic, Manalang insults supporters of the RH Bill by calling them Satan. What’s worse, he — and other Pro-Life members — asked them to tell their mothers that they should have been aborted. Is he saying that he prefers RH Bill supporters were never born? Or worse — if abortion is killing — that they were murdered?

5. The Catholic Church Hierarchy and Pro-Life Philippines are liars.

In addition to expressing our support for the RH Bill, we attended the event to learn why the Anti-RH groups opposed the RH Bill. We found out that their opposition was based on nothing but lies.

They distributed pamphlets claiming, among other things, that even mere condoms — which they wrongly consider abortifacients — could give cancer, heart attacks, stroke, and disabilities to the user and their offspring. They claimed that there was universal evidence that condom use increased the spread of AIDS. There is absolutely no evidence that supports any of these claims — and plenty of evidence that contradicts them.

6. The writers of CBCP Online are liars:

In their retelling of the incident, they said that we “forced” to get inside the Church. We have video of the conversaton with Marita Wasan showing that there was no force — we simply asked if we could go in. When she said we should wait, we simply waited.

They said that the pro-RH group were mostly teenagers from the Filipino Freethinkers. Of the more than twenty people there, only two were teenagers. And more than half were members of the Democratic Socialist Women of the Philippines.

They lied about what Manalang said. They quoted him saying the following:

“You are Catholics but you are dissidents. We are Catholics but we follow God’s commandment to protect life strictly,” shouted Manalang as the rallyists were leaving the cathedral.

Manalang never said any of this — neither did any of the other members of Pro-Life — while we were leaving the cathedral. What they actually said was harsh beyond imagination — “Satan!” “Your mother should have aborted you!.” Fortunately, we have the video to prove it.

* * *

The Church has repeatedly said that it is open to have a dialogue on the RH Bill.

But it’s now clear that not only are they unwilling to have a conversation, they are going to use lies, harsh words, and even violence to ensure that only their monologue is heard.

Catholics believe that Satan is the prince of lies. When Manalang shouted for Satan to stay out of the Church, it may have been too late. He was already inside.

Related content

242 comments

  1. I will not tolerate ABORTION in any way! Even if it was an un-planned/forced pregnancy, NO ONE has the right to (even for a few days of conception) the life of the child. There are a lot of orphanage! People wanting to have a child but can't. We were all born the same way so imagine someone trying to dispose of you before you even had a chance. Maybe during EXTREME circumstances that the life of the Mother is in jeopardy and a decision have to be made, that's the time we can think about that (but in my own opinion, the child should deserve that decision).

    Regarding the other contraceptives (preventing conception.. again, for me, no actual conception to the 1st whatever milli/micro second) I believe it leads to promiscuity but hey, it's human nature. We are easily tempted. That's when parents/teachers/elders should do their best to educate and instill the good morals in young people today and the next future generation.

    • Maybe you should tell my uncle that back when he was still alive. His wife was pregnant and was told she wasn't going to be able to bring the baby to term because she can't handle the pregnancy, but her priest and other religious friends insisted.

      She died. So did the baby.

      Orphanages here aren't numerous enough to combat the rising population. Plus most parents won't give up their kids no matter how many they have. So by your own words you would rather have the baby be born only to die painfully a few years later from malnutrition, diseases, congenital diseases, being accidentally run over by cars, because their parents can't afford basic necessities because they have too many kids to take care of?

      Who even said anything about abortion? Have you even read the RH Bill? Because if you consider a condom an act of abortion, then it follows that any action that prevents released sperm from entering the vagina is an act of abortion.

      How many children have you killed every time you masturbate, then?

  2. "made under the assumption that RH bill supporters also support abortion"

    and might I add, a wrong assumption to make. The abortion thing was brought up by Manalang alone and the foul mouthed Pro-Life Catholics in that crowd. It's not the FF who said anything about it.

  4. Manalang and these subjective, prejudiced Anti RH bill supporters looked like they are the incarnation of the Inquisition fanatics in medieval times. One can only imagine how the thinkers in the old times who believed the earth was round and revolved around the sun were cussed, jailed and burned at the stake for thinking objectively.

  5. Manalang and these subjective, prejudiced Anti RH bill supporters looked like they are the incarnation of the Inquisition fanatics in medieval times. One can only imagine how the thinkers in the old times who believed the earth was round and revolved around the sun were cussed, jailed and burned at the stake for thinking objectively.
    It's a scary thought how narrow-minded Catholic fanaticism had slaughtered millions through the centuries. I'm sorry Galileo, but centuries after your death, bigoted and intolerant fanatics still use and misuse the name of God.

    • It is a scary thought indeed that thousands have died because of these fanatical people who twist Catholicism. Manalang and his cohorts showed a very scary face of the religious terrorists who dominated since ancient times.

    • please study the historical inquisition, not the myth perpetuated by the media as well as the Galileo trial before you spew IGNORANCE on the internet.

      the inquisition actually executed 6000+ people on its 500 year history all over europe, not millions. these are carried by civilian authorities mostly due to political reasons.

      • Agreed.

        We should really try to avoid opening old wounds, especially when there are church atrocities that are so prevalent in the 20th and 21st century 🙂

  7. C'mon guys, we're not that stupid…entering a church when mass is ongoing, wearing a "Damaso" shirt, what the hell is your reason, and the video, clearly edited piece of shit.

    To clear things out, you need to educate people, but what the "freethinkers?" did is not an act of the educated. You provoked other peoples feelings resulting to the words that they have said…you started it VERY CLEARLY

    And maybe the NEWS Department noticed it too

    • [C'mon guys, we're not that stupid…entering a church when mass is ongoing, wearing a "Damaso" shirt, what the hell is your reason, and the video, clearly edited piece of shit. ]

      Not stupid, but perhaps lacking in reading comprehension. Read the article – FF wasn't at the mass. Th groups was told to wait outside the Cathedral.

      [To clear things out, you need to educate people, but what the "freethinkers?" did is not an act of the educated. You provoked other peoples feelings resulting to the words that they have said…you started it VERY CLEARLY ]

      Questioning long-held ideals and traditions at face value is part of being a freethinker and skeptic. You don't learn anything by not asking questions, and unfortunately, the RCC sees any sort of questioning of its dogma, or raising criticism regarding its hypocrisy as disrespectful.

      [And maybe the NEWS Department noticed it too ]

      Oh you mean the Philippine Daily Inquirer? They've got a relatively accurate account of what happened:
      http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/na…

    • 1.) If what the freethinkers did wasn't "educated", then they would be shouting down the mass, hurling insults. Wearing the shirt was the closest and most peaceful option they had for protest. The only people shouting there weren't the pro-RH protesters, if your selective memory might recall.

      2.) You obviously fabricate your own evidence to justify your premises, all of which are fairly misguided, as seen in your "obviously edited" rant. Very hard to take the high road when you're grasping at straws.

      3.) Check your grammar, oh Obviously Educated One.

  8. [Come on, I'm sure you didn't expect them to give you a warm welcome, did you? You KNEW that there was no chance in hell (heh) that they would let you in wearing those Damaso shirts. That was EXACTLY the reaction you wanted to get out of them. ]

    Kindly read the first part of the account:

    "Marita Wasan, executive director of Pro-Life Philippines, told us we could wait outside until the mass was over,"

    And there you have it – our group was not told to leave initially. We were requested to wait outside of the Cathedral until the services were over, which exactly what we did. Read a little further – or watch the video – and you'll see it was Pro-Life Philippines that was accosting us.

    [As for the video cameras… I understand that it would be a good way to defend yourselves in case Mr. Manalang twists the story in his favor for the media (and he did). But is it really just a defensive measure, or did you have them ready in case you succeed in triggering an outburst?]

    So they had video cameras or to be exact, their cellphones had cameras. if you think that equates us as Paparazzi, well that's your opinion.

    The fact of the matter is that if it wasn't for those videos, Pro-Life Philippines would have gotten away with the distortions they've written in the CBCP Press Release. What you call TMZ-esque video recording, I'd compare more to investigative reporting. Our guys saw a need to record the incident, and took the initiative. That's Journalism 101.

    [Yes, I'm sure you take the pleasure in seeing your worst enemies burn.]

    It's called Schadenfreude, lady.

    And while I do admit feeling a bit of it watching the video clip, I do feel sorry of Manalang. Nobody asked him to act that way. Nobody gave him a script to act out. That wasn't faked. That was all him.

    Or to be more exact, I enjoy watching a hypocrite expose to everybody jusy how fucked up he really is when he thinks nobody is watching; It's like watching those Southerners and that drunk college kid act like buffoons on Borat.

    [The way certain people in this thread who associate themselves as "free thinkers" react to others' opinions have led me to believe that they are not free thinkers at all. ]

    Or maybe we're just royally pissed of that the Anti-RH people consistently resort to lies and half-truths to cover their ass. Maybe as atheists, agnostics, nontheists, and deists, we have gotten very, very tired of being treated like shit just because some bible-thumping blowhard need a whipping boy.

    [They are a bunch of self-righteous pseudo-intellectuals who crave reassurance from the truly open-minded to make them feel better about themselves. ]

    We get it, you don't like freethinkers and skeptics who refuse to just shut up, and let the Pro-Life do all the talking.

    You don't like the fact that we've decided to confront Pro-Lifers when they decide to play the victim, when they could have handled the situation with tact and civility, but despite their self-assured seniority, failed to do so.

    I'll even go out on a limb, and say that maybe if our group hadn't worn those shirts, then maybe Manalang wouldn't have acted the way he did. That was our bad. But then thin about it – all it took to piss these guys off was one line out of a book known for its anti-clerical stance.

    It wasn't even a phrase that physical harm, sexual assault, or slur against them or their family. It was just a word that condensed all the faults that their organization is known for today.

    In short – they were pissed not because it was a probably true.

    And speaking of which, you're not my mom. And it insults me that you claim to be, moreso that my mom is as angry at Manalang as I am, and is asking for four extra XL-size Damaso shirts.

    You're the one being self-righetous here, coming in with your condescending tone, and pretending to be my kin.

    YOU should be ashamed.

    • *In short – they were pissed because it was all true, like a politician being told to his face during his campaign speech that he's a liar, and a charlatan, and both accusations are accurate.

  9. tsk tsk tsk. kala ko ba anti- RH sila kasi RH Bill "daw" is pro- abortion, why are they telling this people to "ask their mother to abort them". doesn't it evident that they are the one who favors abortion? who are they to tell who are true catholics? shame on them, they are close narrow minded people hiding in the word "FAITH" that they've created. that is not the actuation of real catholics. do they own the church? i hope people will really rally behind RH bill so that they'll ate everything they've said.
    http://twitter.com/rojan88 http://ronmia-88.blogspot.com http://facebook.com/ronmia

  11. I BEG FOR YOUR FORGIVENESS FOR MR. MANALANG. He shouted "AWAY SATAN!" simply because there was no more room inside the cathedral for Satan because it is already full of evil and deceit on that night. FULL TO THE BRIM!

  12. Anti-RH FB pages claim that ALL Filipino Catholics are against the bill, yet after a short debate I made them ADMIT that they are NOT SURE ANYMORE because they have not surveyed all Filipino Catholics. See my point?! You fanatic Anti-RH are so quick to assume. Go ahead dig your holes deeper =)

    • That is to say true because if you support it and believe it to be right, you're not really a Catholic.
      Therefore, yes, it's not true that 85% of RP is Catholic. "NO WAAY!" Sad, but true… not really ("not" goes to sad). XD

  14. I think the next banner for the next article about RH should have the quote:

    "Pro-RH supporters should tell their parents they should have aborted them."

    – Message brought to you by Pro-Life Philippines

    Or something to that effect.

  15. the Catholic church of the Philippines stinks so badly. this is one of the reason why I do not go to the Church in the Philippines and I do not believe on what they preach. Almost all the priest in the Philippines are devils. they should be thrown out of the church.

  16. I am insulted. I do not need this Ed Manalang fellow to speak for me and say which of them should have been aborted by their mothers.

    Even I don't need to tempt people to come to me anymore. People do a good job of that on their own.

    • Satan ingat ka baka maagaw ni ED MANALANG ang trono mo sa baba… ikaw rin mukhang mas tuso pa sayo ang isang to eh kunwari nasa likod sya ng simbahan…

  17. MR MANALANG should have RESPECTED other's rights and voices BEFORE THROWING OUT people. HE'S CALLING EVERYBODY SATAN, GOD LOVE ALL HIS CHILDREN. Now here comes MR MANALANG SUGGESTING PEOPLE's mother to "ABORT YOU". HE DOEsnt represent the GROWING POPULATION of the COUNTRY nor SPEAKING FOR ALL CATHOLICS IN THE PHILIPPI…NES. He is not the CATHOLIC CHURCH of the country.

  18. I guess these people are simply misguided and close-minded. What kaya their comments now that the pope agrees that condoms are to be used to not spread HIV and other diseases.

    Always remember that people are afraid of change. They will follow what is being taught via hierarchy. Maybe we should pray for them for being hurtful and blasphemous. For being so un-Christlike. Everyone will always have different opinion about things.

    People who resort to hurtful comments are the ones backed up against the wall because they can no longer discuss in a calm and intelligent manner.

    People will always be people. Scared, confused, angry and aggressive. But those that are human enough to step back and be calm and respectful inspite of everything… that's what sets you apart.

  19. No one is defending Manalang or the church, per-se. The issue at hand are the DAMASO shirts. Stop being off-topic.

    Further, no Nazi analogies were made, the reference was for a legal precedent with regard to freedom of speech and the interesting fact that the CASE is similar to this one in that you have a party with an offensive "symbol" going to where there is a high concentration of people who would logically be offended.

    No one has yet to give an adequate reply as to why the shirts were material to the RH debate at that point in time and at that venue.

    • [Further, no Nazi analogies were made, the reference was for a legal precedent with regard to freedom of speech and the interesting fact that the CASE is similar to this one in that you have a party with an offensive "symbol" going to where there is a high concentration of people who would logically be offended.]

      False equivalence there. The DAMASO! shirt is meant to attack the very real hypocrisy of the Catholic Church when they speak of morality, and does not promote any form of physical threats against its congregation, nor does it demand they be stripped of their civil rights just because they're Catholic.

      Since when did telling the truth become hate speech?

      I stick to my argument: You did pull off a Godwin.

      • Again, how are the shirts relevant to the issue of RH bill? Why would you attack the church when you're talking about the RH bill? And again, the shirts were a clear provocation; you could've protested without the shirts and that would've been the more mature thing to do. The shirts may not incite physical violence, but it's nonetheless a provocation especially given the circumstances.

        And you would be wrong on my invoking a godwin since I didn't even compare Nazis to FF or to any other group. I was comparing the circumstances of the case with what happened at manila cathedral. It was contingent and completely immaterial that they were Nazis.

    • Comparing Nazis and people wearing the Damaso shirts is a dumb analogy, given that the context for the Nazis' bias was extremely different from the point Damaso wearers were trying to make.

      Nazis hate Jews simply because they considered them unfit. This stems from Hitler's personal hatred of Jews, not because the Jews did anything wrong. Same with the Ku Klux Klan – they hate blacks simply because they are blacks, without rhyme or reason.

      Damaso shirt wearers are targeting the hypocrisy of the church – from their corruption that stemmed from the time of Rizal, to many of the very wealthy parishes all around Metro Manila (many lobbies of the Opus Dei parishes and Mormon churches here outshine those of five star hotels; let's not forget some of these churches asking for 10% of EVERYTHING their members own) to the Catholic Church in the 1960s refusing to have the Noli and the El Fili taught in schools to their meddling in state affairs to the anti-RH bill now.

      Before you can make an analogy between Nazis and the Damaso shirtwearers, you should explain WHY they are similar, and not just because all the similarity they have is that they annoy a certain segment of the population. From where I stand, Manalang has a lot more in common with Nazis, with all his hate slurs.

    • What kind of analogy is that? How is that similar? Did the Filipino Freethinkers kill 6,000,000 Pro-Life supporters? "Damaso!" is a symbol against specific attitudes exhibited by the CBCP – deception, hypocrisy, and oppression – in maintaining this ignorant position of theirs that compromise the health of our society.

      The shirt was worn not as a statement against the Catholic faith in general (Hello? My parents are Catholic – they support the RH Bill), but as a protest against these specific attitudes – deception, hypocrisy, and oppression.

      There was a high concentration of Catholics, but unless they are deceivers, hypocrites, and oppressors, the prints were not directed towards them.

      I don't understand Catholics who hate the "Damaso!" print. We're not saying "YOU ARE ALL DAMASO!" It's basically a symbol that says, "May liars be exposed." It is directed only to those who are guilty and it should be offensive only to those who are guilty.

    • Actually the issue here is the "attack" on ff. it was un provoked. i stand by what twin says. youre using the shirts as an excuse to justify manalang's short fuse. its not the shirts its what we stand for that irks you the most. manalang could have spoken calmly. no need to hurl invectives and calling people satan.

  20. well mejo mali ang ating pambansang kamao noong sabihin niya na humayo kayo at magpakarami, ang inutusan ng Dios doon ay si Eva at Adan hindi po ang bansang Pilipinas na malapit ng sumabog ang population. nakakahiya ang mga pro-life leaders na ito halatang kasinungalingan ang ikinakalat kaya ayaw nilang mapakinggan sila ng ibang mga grupo. kahiya-hiya ang ganitong paguugali. kung bababa lang si Kristo tiyak binatukan na yang mga yan.

    • A lot of believers are in it because religion is a veneer, the coating that they put on publicly, so they can project that they have the moral high ground. You can see them dressed in their Sunday best on their way to church – to show that they are – by display, morally upright. Why cant they just worship in private?

      But it's artificial (superficial?). You scratch it and you will see their real persona. This dude Manalang and that other foul-mouthed lady are just a few examples of people who think that because they are in the service of their imaginary gods, they are acting morally. But we see it differently. An atheist is tempted to believe in Satan for if Satan really exists, it is in cohort with the public face of the Catholic church. Moral bankruptcy exist on either side of the fence. You don't need religion to be good and as this video shows us, even if you call yourself pro-life, true Catholic, morally upright people in public, their actions speak loudly that they can be as idiot as anybody else, Catholic or not.

      I learned from religion class that anger is one of the deadly sins. Repent sinner!

  22. Mr. Manalang does not represent Filipino Catholics — not by any measure. I hope that his unconscionable actions have not turned off our free thinkers from the truth and the way of the Christian faith. Otherwise, he has much to answer for before God.

    Keep up the vigilance, FilipinoFreethinkers.org!

  23. When did this happen? How come its not on the news??? Grabeh naman yung Manalang and his companions? You mean I'm sharing a church with these people? We don't seem to have the same belief, I may not be as old as the guy but MY GOD he is so MALEDUCATED! With that tongue even the Devil himself would have cringed in his crypt!

  25. The Pro-Lifers in the US have no qualms about murdering family planning doctors in cold blood or firebombing their clinics, so quite frankly, Manalang is one of the nicer ones I've read about 🙁

  26. Epic!

    Thank goodness for the internet and cheap video devices, dickheads like these are easily exposed for the asshole they truly are.

    Mr. Manalang, you spent your lifetime creating an image of godliness (whatever that means), us freethinkers only need a few posts to demolish it.

    say hello to your god for me when you die in shame.

    Go FFF!

  27. "Your mothers should have aborted you.." now that's harsh.

    Next time there is a natural calamity that happens and people are dying, do we just sit back, do nothing and just watch things unfold? That is probably nature's way of controlling the population…

  28. This just shows that when it comes to religion there will be division. Though the same in Religion doesn't mean the same in principles and values in life. Many "MISUSE" the scriptures (what is written in the bible) for their own interest and opinion that most often that not confuses and misleads a lot of people into thinking their predicament is right. That is how many are being manipulated by those who seem all knowing. To those people, please know and understand the context of the scriptures before even quoting a word, and to those people who listens please check and analyze before even commenting so as not to cause more confusion and more disorder. I like Mann P., and I admire his humility and courage and not to mention his attitude towards God, however, when he quoted Genesis 1:28 (Go forth and multiply), that really bothered me. We must be careful of using and quoting the bible if we really do not understand what it says or what it really means. It helps looking up the internet for commentary about the context of the scripture rather that just blurt out whatever comes first in your minds. Again, what we think would help solve the current problem might not be the total solution, thus we must not argue about who's right or wrong rather, we must unite and settle down and look for solutions than add up to the current problem or situation.

  29. Over acting yang mga cotholic dyan sa Pilipinas! Yung Papa nila sa Rome pumayag nga gumamit ng condome para Healthy daw. Then dito sa Europe the Catholic church are pro RH. Think economy yan ang advice nila. Anhin mo ang maraming bata kung wala kang ipakain. ´Crime ang resulta ng over population sa mga mahihirap na bansa gaya sa Pilipinas, kung ano ano na ang naiisip para mabuhay lang pamilya. Pa-ano gusto nila ng maraming tao para tumaas ang income nila.

    • you just misunderstood the news. What the pope was trying to say is that a male prositute who opted to use condom in order not to harm (infect) his partner is becoming a person with sense of responsiblity, a step to becoming a moral person. The RCC is still against condom as a contraceptive. Ever since RCC is against contraception. The only logical choices are…stay inside or stay out–obey or disobey, heaven or hell.

  30. I nearly cried when I saw the video. I am a long-time supporter of Pro-Life because as a mother, I deeply value the rights of the defenseless but upon seeing how our leaders acted, especially Mr. Manalang, I am now ashamed to even be associated with that organization. To all pro-RH people out there, please know that not all Pro-Life supports are like him. We only want to protect those who cannot protect themselves which is the very essence of love, but that man has no love in him, only hate.

    I cannot in good conscience support the RH bill but neither can I support what these Pro-Life people are doing. They only obey the letter of the law, not the spirit.

    • Ms. Lisa, I don't really know what happened since I wasn't there. All I can say is that Mr. Manalang is as human as any of us and his patience can be tested. I don't know what I would have done or said if I were in his shoes when those people wearing Damaso tried to walk in and expected to be treated with respect. That was simply not the venue for that and it was simply insulting, not just the people but the Church as an institution. Please do not be swayed by the tactics of these people, this is precisely what they want.

  31. RESPECT. Maybe if they really want to air their(Pro RH) stand, they should do it in a proper forum. They may sugar coat their intention and reason out that they were invited and being a Catholic, it is clear that they were there to attract attention. If they don't really want to cause any trouble, they should have left immediately when ask to do so. It's obvious that they were provoking a scene. Well they did it. I am a Pro RH simply because I am a woman and know it is my right to take care of my self. I just don't know the REAL reason of this group.

    • "I am a Pro RH simply because I am a woman and know it is my right to take care of my self. I just don't know the REAL reason of this group. "

      The real reason is what you said PLUS the dedication to promote secularism.

  32. For these Catholic bigots, the right to dissent belongs only to them when they barged into congress with their threats of excommunication. They can't accept dissent on their own turf. Arrogant asshats.

  33. Malangs Casting out of Catholics Goes against Church Protocol and Violation of Canon. So is the same for his Satan or Improvised Exorcism. Touting power He does not have is incriminating.

    Malang is subverting the Authority only allowed to the Pope, by seizing the right to declare Excommunication of the church. This makes him not A TRUE CATHOLIC.

  34. Eric Manalang is no Pope nor God! Who is he to asked me leave the chuch? He has no right! He is the desident of the Catholic Church. If these like this happens in the near future the Philippine Catholic church will lose their patrons, the Filipino people.
    anyhow Philippine Catholic church are full of lies.
    Eric Manalang should should publicly apologize.

  35. I'm proRH Bill – I believe that it will more advantageous for the country. This is as much as I know my right to express my thoughts in the proper place and the proper time. Wearing "DAMASO" shirts in an anti-RH sponsored event is a clear matter of DISRESPECT and a clear form of instigating friction between the two parties. There can be a different venue to hold protests and rallies in a more civil and educated way.

    Let's not misquote these people: their statements are just reflective of what they believe in – that some points of the RH bill may contain, as they would consider, abortifacients. And we people who believe in the RH bill, also consider abortion, as they alleged. We may agree or disagree, but that's what they know and that's what they're fighting for – as much as we have our points.

    If you really are freethinkers … then you would be able to see BOTH sides of the story.

      • Oh come on, Milk Dispenser. Anthony is right. The title of the event clearly identified it as a pro-life event. Don't rpetend for a minute that a group wearing clearly provocative t-shirts is not an obvious way to instigate a confrontation. If you really want to be freethinkers. you should respect the freedom of others to think DIFFERENTLY from you.

          • Twin-Skies, perhaps you think "everyone" also includes suicide bombers?

            Deliberately trying to instigate a confrontation is not helpful for anyone. If you want people to respect your right to "freethinking," then you have to respect the right of others to think differently.

            OK, now these so-called freethinlkers got what they wanted — an attention-getting incident. But I think intelligent people can see through their ruse.

          • [Twin-Skies, perhaps you think "everyone" also includes suicide bombers?]

            And how would you tell that somebody is a suicide bomber, or they had the intent to be one? The reason they're effective is because nobody bloody knows what a suicide bomber looks like.

            [Deliberately trying to instigate a confrontation is not helpful for anyone. If you want people to respect your right to "freethinking," then you have to respect the right of others to think differently. ]

            Freethinking is about questioning things and being a skeptical – respect is given to ideas that are well-argued, and backed with evidence.

            As for respect, I'll let Penn Jilette say it for me: http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2010/11/penn-jillett…

            [There’s a big difference between tolerance and respect. Tolerance is you saying something crazy and me smiling and saying ‘that’s nice.’ Respect is when you say something crazy and I say ‘you’re out of your f—ing mind.’ Direct confrontation, direct conversation is real respect. And it’s amazing how many people get that.]

            [OK, now these so-called freethinlkers got what they wanted — an attention-getting incident. But I think intelligent people can see through their ruse. ]

            Well that we can agree on – we got a lot of unintentional attention. As for seeing through anybody's ruse though, Manny, I think you have it the other way around.

          • "If you want people to respect your right to "freethinking," then you have to respect the right of others to THINK differently."

            The right word is FAITH – a verb. It's clear from that pro-life dude that to not support RH is to not be Catholic – to support RH and call yourself Catholic is an oxymoron – and I agree. There is no true thinking Catholic because if you think, you stop being Catholic. Catholic tradition and dogma requires the suspension of the active participation of the brain. To think is not to be Catholic, to faith is. Faith is a verb that you can substitute here.

            "If you want people to respect your right to "freethinking," then you have to respect the right of others to FAITH differently."

            There.

          • ang lakas mong mambanat pero hindi mo naman masyadong pinag-iisipan mga argumento mo. kung ganito lang ang mga malalatag mong argumento, sana di ka na lang nagsalita sa simula pa lang. Nagsasayang ka lang ng oras.

            But yes. I can see how the Church may be outraged by the simple wearing of the t-shirt, but they had crossed the line when the statements "SATAN, GET OUT" etc… were thrown into the air.

            You don't kill fires with gasoline. You kill 'em with water. In this case, the Church should have used a different approach like simple discourse. anyway, i grow tired of this pointless exchange. I assume you'll have something to say, but i'll not here it. Paulit-ulit lang naman sinasabi mo.

        • "If you really want to be freethinkers. you should respect the freedom of others to think DIFFERENTLY from you."

          —> so it's necessary for the other side to have to respect the freedom of the pro-lifers who think differently from them, but its not necessary for YOUR side to have to respect the freedom of expression of the freethinkers to wear what they want as long as they do it through peaceful means, even though they think differently from them.

          If they're the freethinkers, what's your side called? Narrowminded-ers? Hypocrites?

      • If the tides were turned and priests went to your event and started proclaiming their beliefs. Would you have accommodated them respectfully and not call them hypocrites nor bash them? It doesn't take a genius to know that this event is for the promotion of their advocacy and we all know that having or even wearing those shirts will make them angry.

        Is it safe to assume that freethinkers are not bound by established social and moral reasons? If so, then why shove ideals in other people's faces. Freethinkers should know how to acknowledge and respect other people's views who are experiencing the same freedom to think.

        Again, we are all entitled to our opinions, but there is the proper time and the proper venue for everything.

        • [If the tides were turned and priests went to your event and started proclaiming their beliefs. Would you have accommodated them respectfully and not call them hypocrites nor bash them?]

          Based on our past few meets? Yes. Unless they start telling us that Call of Duty sucks, then they'll have problems (with me at least).

          [Is it safe to assume that freethinkers are not bound by established social and moral reasons? ]

          If you mean Filipino social norms, and Catholic morality, no we're not. We're still Filipino by blood however, and we still have our morals. They're just not Catholic.

          [Freethinkers should know how to acknowledge and respect other people's views who are experiencing the same freedom to think. ]

          And religious institutions should understand that their belief systems, like any other idea, are open to criticism for a freethinker. They don't get a free pass just because they claim something is done in the name of faith. More so if said faith enroaches on the basic rights of people.

          [Again, we are all entitled to our opinions, but there is the proper time and the proper venue for everything. ]

          Yes, we're all entitled to an opinion. That doesn't make it immune to criticism however, especially if it's wrong.

          • Twin-Skies said: [Yes, we're all entitled to an opinion. That doesn't make it immune to criticism however, especially if it's wrong. ]

            The same can be said about the self-serving and irrational beliefs of these so-called freethinkers.

            No matter how you spin it, it is obvious you were trying to instigate a confrontation. Now you whine about how you got trreated? If the tables were turned you would have treated others with even far less respect — unless the cameras were on. Eric Manalang may not be as media-savvy as yopu, but he's a whole lot more honest.

          • The president of Pro-Life Phlippines is not media-savvy??!!!

            what the hell!!!

            maybe he should just resign then and there and let more intelligent people take over

          • [Now you whine about how you got trreated? If the tables were turned you would have treated others with even far less respect — unless the cameras were on. ]

            Try visiting some of our meets before making assumptions like that. To quote Richard Marcinko: Though shall never assume. It makes an ASS of U and ME.

            We've had wyccans, at least one mystic (Yo, La Serpiente!), and at least one Vegan visit our brood of carnivores in the past few meets. We've also had a couple of Buddhists, and one Christian conservative mom as well.

            They're all still alive and accounted for, and don't seem to mind out company.

            …at least that's how we programmed the nanites laced in their coffee XD (Joke).

            Now if you'd really like to test the waters, why not visit our our excommunication party this Friday?

            [Eric Manalang may not be as media-savvy as yopu, but he's a whole lot more honest. ]

            Agreed.

            We now all know the man seriously believes in Satan, and what he honestly thinks of women.

            As for media savvy, well I disagree. I'm camera shy 😉

          • If the freethinkers went to that mass and began screaming and hurling insults? Then yes, they were trying to instigate a confrontation.

            But they didn't. All they did was wear T-shirts.

            And if you sincerely believe that calling someone Satan and inviting their mothers to abort them is "honest", then I'm not sure what religion you're actually a part of, because that behavior definitely isn't the supposed Christian or Catholic attitude.

          • Teager, those TShirts though plain to you is already a form of protest. Although you have the freedom to express your views, always be reminded that all these actions of freedom have their responsibilities. We all know that a protest in these types of events would only cause additional conflict. There is the proper time and the proper place for such and that does not include a meeting of antiRH event.

          • I beg to differ. The fact that pro-RH rallyists exist is BECAUSE they are protesting. The action of choosing to become a pro-RH is in itself a form of protest against the church. They understood the consequences of wearing that shirt – this is one of the reasons why they brought cameras in the first place, I think – to prove that they were doing this peacefully despite their protests. They did not disrupt the mass, they did not shout out insults. The shirt was the only physical thing they could wear to show that they disagree with the church, and it was the best recourse to encourage a peaceful protest.

            Up until Ed Manalang came into the picture these pro-RH rallyists were treated well by those from the pro-Life group in the church, an indication that these people at least, respected their freedom of speech and didn't mind the shirts. The pro-RH people willingly waited outside when they were asked to by the girl from pro-Life.

            At that point, the protest was seen and duly noted. It was people like Manalang who didn't know how to respect other people's opinions that made this whole debacle seem about the shirts, when it's only right now being used as his scapegoat.

            Really. If Manalang never arrived, would we even be talking about the shirts in the first place? His reaction to it put those shirts into the controversy, not the other way around.

          • I will agree with Manny that for FF to go there after the Damaso incident and wearing Damaso t-shirt was inviting confrontation. But because it's confrontation, maybe it will do FF good in the long term. What the Catholic liars need is just that – confrontation. The Catholic hierarchy thinks the human body is good only for fondling by their "princes" – they don't need condoms for that. Let the church be confronted. The Catholic Church is a church of lies that should be pushed to social irrelevance. Good work fellas!

          • I totally agree. You have backed your RH bills ideologies with facts and reason. However, expressing these things in a venue via your method of instigating conflict is highly inappropriate, distasteful and unproductive.

            Instead of bickering and having pointless word wars against the Church, why not EDUCATE the people with regards to the RH Bill. Enlighten them with information campaigns and solid testimonies. Engage in a more aggressive drive to free the people of their ignorance. Be more tolerant and be less conflict driven and let the people decide among themselves the verdict. That is more productive than making noises in the church's backyard.

            With this, people will see that Freethinkers are not plain noise makers who want to make a scene. Freethinkers are social movers as well.

          • Like it or not though, spreading the truth will mean butting heads (again) with the Anti-RH people under the Church.

          • I'll agree that in a pragmatic sense, maybe FF shouldn't have worn those shirts, if it meant getting a better understanding of the Anti-RH group's agenda that night.

            However, I do think that confrontations are inevitable, so long as the RCC will try to ram its morality done everybody else's throats.

            And as for respect – I'd give them the same amount of respect as any idea proposed to me; with skepticism. They don't get to hide behind sacred cows, and declare "Blasphemy!" whenever they hear something they don't like.

          • They are bound by Church's laws and they will uphold that. It is their duty – as much as it is ours to think outside the box.

            But still, the issue at hand is the proper delivery of ideals, the proper time and the proper place to convey our beliefs. Conducting, this type of protest (shirt messages or rallies, etc) would be more appropriate in a venue where the the proRH bill is supported and definitely not in the opposing camp.

          • Name me any one protest in history remembered by the people because they did it in the 'proper' place and in the 'proper' time.

            We are a nation of protests. We are who we are because we were a country who protested in the most improper places and in the most improper times we can think of, because this is the only way we can attract our opponents' attention.

            Besides, nice guys finish last at this point, and the pro-RH rallyists were still as nice about their protest as any protest could possibly be. At least we didn't barge into Congress demanding that the pro-RH people be excommunicated.

          • And how exactly will these people try to disseminate information regarding the RH Bill if we have the parish contradicting every move the freethinkers make?

            Pinoys are for the majority Catholic, and sadly, sheep. They tend to follow everything the church says despite evidence to the contrary. So if they are aware logically that they should use condoms to limit the number of kids they have, but have the church telling them it's a sin and that they will go to hell for it, the majority will choose to follow the church anyway.

            How much headway do you think the freethinkers would be getting if they do disseminate information only for the church to countermand that? They need to reach an understanding with the church before anything else.

          • The Church will stand on its ideals; it is useless to even think that they will support the bill. Given that, why must we conduct unnecessary actions that will only instigate more conflict with the Church? Such actions are non-productive and are only diversions that would make us forget the core advocacy.

            I also beg to disagree that Catholics follow what the Church say. A lot of Catholics are mostly by paper – they really don't listen to Church as much as they used to. A lot of people don't use contraceptives primarily because of budget rather than religious beliefs. Given proper education, these people would support the bill, with or without the Church's consent.

          • Seriously, those "by paper" Catholics aren't really "Catholics." I had hoped by this time, that'd been clear already.

          • They were initially against showing the Noli and El Fili books in schools many years before. They've changed their minds since then.

            With Pope Benedict now allowing the use of condoms, what's to say the church will give way on this issue as well?

            Besides, if you want the masses to be educated, then that's not really in the pro-RH supporters' budget. You might want to talk to someone from the government for that (and with AbNoy – excuse me – Noynoy slashing the budget off of education, you're gonna need a lot of luck for that.)

          • In short, business as usual, and the Pope's still viable as this year's best Emperor Palpatine impersonation 🙂

          • They have faith. they dont think. youre wasting your time with closed minds. ive been reading the arguments from both sides for the better part of the week now and somehow, this argument, discourse if you like, is like a goddamned loop. we can sit here and argue till the proverbial savior comes and still we wont be able to agree on one thing, let alone dissuade each others "belief" (for lack of a better term). its like pounding at a locked door of a burning house whos occupants dont realize their house is up in flames.what can we do as logical men?force feed our logic to the blind followers? hasnt that been done to us before? faith being force fed to us from the time we can read? would we, as civilized persons who think before we act, want that for our brothers who are blinded by faith?

      • Watch the whole thing, use context clues and maybe then you'll understand. They claim that the some RH bill items are abortifacients; ergo saying "tell your mother to abort you!" is an irking response telling you'd never been born had your mother used a condom or a contraceptive. Harsh, but true. It's as annoying as wearing a Damaso shirt.

        This is a useless and pointless debate. People are derailed from the main topic of the RH bill. This has become an arena of Church vs Freethinkers, moralists vs liberalists; trying to put into topics which are irrelevant. It is sad that people overreact and make things seem to be in their side. This goes for both the Church and the Freethinkers.

          • Limit yourself in this particular topic, particularly in the Philippine setting; use relevant information so we will not to diverted from the main issue. Don't blow things out of proportion. Be less confrontational and be more proactive. At the end of the day, people will eventually choose which one for them will work; empty cans who rant without proper justifications and proper delivery of ideals cannot influence as much.

          • [Limit yourself in this particular topic, particularly in the Philippine setting; use relevant information so we will not to diverted from the main issue. Don't blow things out of proportion.]

            I was simply illustrating that the majority of the mindset and rhetoric of the Pro-Life people I have seen in RP runs parallel to a lot of the Pro-Life groups in the US, and that the latter has been known for their violence.

            At least now you know why I'm not very trusting of their group.

            [Be less confrontational and be more proactive. At the end of the day, people will eventually choose which one for them will work;]

            As I said earlier, part of promoting an a proper RH program will mean having to dispel the assertions being made by the Anti-RH people and the RCC.

            Confrontation will be inevitable, but at the very least we will back up our assertions with data. And if they try to claim the moral high ground, it's easy enough to call out their hypocrisy.

          • "Bigots, liars, hypocrites, satanists, abortionists"

            These will be continuous exchange of words mudslung from one party to another. So much anger, so much conflict. If we are also enslaved by our nasty and hasty generalizations of the Church and her people, can we call ourselves truly freethinkers? Think freely.

          • [If we are also enslaved by our nasty and hasty generalizations of the Church and her people, can we call ourselves truly freethinkers]

            Her people, not so much. I find most of them harmless and well-meaning folks, but they need to know what the institution they follow is truly like – rotten to the core.

            The Pro-Life Philippines and the RCC itself, however have already proven themselves to be bigots and liars. In this incident, it shows in their leaflet, and their accusation that we provoked Manalang, when it was clear that he fired the first shot.

            The RCC in particular has shown itself to be a bigot in its other wordly affairs, especially on the matter of LGBT rights.

            Mudslinging, or calling a spade a spade?

    • "Damaso!" is a symbol against specific attitudes exhibited by the CBCP – deception, hypocrisy, and oppression – in maintaining this ignorant position of theirs that compromise the health of our society.

      The shirt was worn not as a statement against the Catholics in general (Hello? My parents are Catholic – they support the RH Bill), but as a protest against specific attitudes – deception, hypocrisy, and oppression. There was a high concentration of Catholics, but unless they are deceivers, hypocrites, and oppressors, the prints were not directed towards them.

      I don't understand Catholics who hate the "Damaso!" print. We're not saying YOU ARE ALL DAMASO! It's basically a symbol that says, "May liars be exposed." It is directed only to those who are guilty and it should be offensive only to those who are guilty.

  37. Now that GMA has taken A side, what happens now that this video has aired? Will other Networks point out bias and try to report matters factually.

  38. Anyone or everyone with an effin' Twitter account… RETWEET THIS TO THE NEWS STATIONS ALREADY. So by tomorrow they will be airing Manalang's dirty laundry. Bombard them with tweets so they'll take notice.

    • I never trusted what our local news channels feed their viewers. I always have this feeling that somewhere down the line theres a man with a bag of money telling the media what bullshit to tell the people. If the statement "TV makes you stupid" were to applicable, I think it applies in this country. The media cannot be trusted. It is up to the people to decide whether or not they should look for the truth behind this tiresome issue.

  40. It's pretty obvious that these so-called freethinkers were trying to call attention to themselves and disrupt the proceddings. When people are invited to an event like a vigil, they are expected to assist or at leats not to cause dissension. If you want to express dissewnt, you go to an open forum or debate propely labelled as such. You don't go a mass and wear shirts that openly express your contempt for the Church (the organization holding the mass).

    I knew that Carlos Celdran's outrage would spark off more incidents of harassment of Catholics and pro-lifers. This attempt to disrupt a pro-life vigil is just more of the same. We can probably expect the se "freethinkers" to harass more people who freely think differently from them.

    • [When people are invited to an event like a vigil, they are expected to assist or at leats not to cause dissension.]

      So they wore shirts you didn't like. Boo-fucking-hoo. You're asserting an argument from emotion.

      If you want to avoid dissent, why not kick out all the guys who text and call during the service, or women who wear revealing clothes?

      [If you want to express dissewnt, you go to an open forum or debate propely labelled as such. ]

      …or take the CBCP's cue, and threaten to rally and protest and block traffic, or excommunicate those who disagree with you 😉 http://www.gmanews.tv/story/202186/bishops-threat…

      [I knew that Carlos Celdran's outrage would spark off more incidents of harassment of Catholics and pro-lifers. ]

      Wearing an offensive shirt, ugly makeup, or just really bad hair is distasteful, but I wouldn't call it harassment. Annoying, perhaps

      But screaming hysterics, calling people Satan, and they saying we should be aborted?

      Now that's harassment

      [This attempt to disrupt a pro-life vigil is just more of the same. We can probably expect the se "freethinkers" to harass more people who freely think differently from them. ]

      "Everybody is cordially invited."

      Doesn't say anything about a dress code either.

      [We can probably expect the se "freethinkers" to harass more people who freely think differently from them. ]

      So let me get this straight, you manage to miss the fact that it was your side that shouted the verbal abuse at not just the FF but at a women's welfare group, and are now equating wearing a shirt you don't like, and the fact we sat down and pulled off a Spock when your Mr. Manalang screamed at us, with harassment?

      • I love how every reply from you with regard to the damaso shirts always abstracts the idea from the context. You miss the point that while a shirt like that is perfectly acceptable, though possibly distasteful, at any other time, the wearing of the shirt at that particular point in time and at that specific venue was most definitely disrespectful and can even be construed as an attack/harassment.

        • [You miss the point that while a shirt like that is perfectly acceptable, though possibly distasteful, at any other time, the wearing of the shirt at that particular point in time and at that specific venue was most definitely disrespectful and can even be construed as an attack/harassment. ]

          An attack against who? The DAMASO! declaration was meant to target the church as an institution of hypcrisy and political meddling. I don't remember it being meant as a personal attack against Catholics.

          And I do understand the context. You think it's rude. We get it.

          They're paranoid.

          You've fail to tell me how being verbally abused and being told my mother should have aborted me is a justifiable reaction to one wearing a shirt one does not like.

          • People seem to forget Who Damaso is and what he represent. And Compare that to
            "Your mother should have aborted you"
            "AWAY, Satan AWAY"
            etc.

            Damaso was a Liars and Manipulators… Ehemmm
            The Leaflets were Evidence of Lies as well as the One sided Spin Doctors… oh yeah and the fact that these meddlers cannot be held accountable.

            Malang and his Ilk are Powerful Bullies, who override the Rights of Others for their own power.

            as for "who cast the first stone" watch the video carefully, there were some who did not wear the Damaso T-shirt and were not allowed. The first guy infront of the door didn't have a Damaso shirt. Convenient blindness.

          • What if a Nazi party, complete with Swastikas decided to march into a town full of Jews to hold a rally? What would you say about that?

            If you answer in the affirmative, then the courts would be on your side, good for you (see National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie). But what's legal is not necessarily moral/right. Skokie, though much more "intense," is in some ways very similar to the situation that happened at Manila Cathedral.

            You do not understand the context because the shirt does not add anything constructive in the given context of discerning whether the RH-Bill should be accepted or not, which was held at the manila cathedral no less. Why attack the church when the argument is about the RH-Bill? Are you admitting some sort of ad hominem and that such an attack is acceptable? Not only was it not relevant, it was understandably offensive for some people, and do remember that these people are Catholics who hold their leaders in very high esteem. You just attacked the very institution these people are part of, of course they're going to take offense. How is this not an unnecessary provocation?

            And i've definitely failed to give justification to Manalang's actions seeing how I wasn't even trying to justify his acts in the first place. I don't even support their group. Do not assume that I do, and do not assume that I think there was any justification for their actions. I don't know why you even brought that up.

          • [What if a Nazi party, complete with Swastikas decided to march into a town full of Jews to hold a rally? What would you say about that?

            If you answer in the affirmative, then the courts would be on your side, good for you (see National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie). But what's legal is not necessarily moral/right. Skokie, though much more "intense," is in some ways very similar to the situation that happened at Manila Cathedral. ]

            Easy. We send in the clowns 😉
            http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2007/09/04/cl…

          • Swastika = DAMASO?! Nice! Trigger happy to use the Nazi analogies for your arguments!

            Speaking of Rally against the Church: anti Damaso Campaigns in the Philippines is nothing New.

            "On March 1, 1888, the populace of Manila staged a public demonstration against the friars. This document was signed by most of the native officials of Manila and neighboring towns, accusing the Archbishop of Manila and the friars of disobedience and treason and demanded the friar’s expulsion from the Philippines."
            http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/265097/114th-death-…

          • [What if a Nazi party, complete with Swastikas decided to march into a town full of Jews to hold a rally? What would you say about that?

            If you answer in the affirmative, then the courts would be on your side, good for you (see National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie). But what's legal is not necessarily moral/right. Skokie, though much more "intense," is in some ways very similar to the situation that happened at Manila Cathedral. ]

            Ignoring the fact you just resorted to a Godwin… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

            …it's funny you should mention this, because it did happen recently in the US. They were counter-protested by the ARA (Anti Racist Action), in a way I encourage our fellow FF members to do:

            SEND IN THE CLOWNS!
            http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2007/09/04/cl…

            Their solution (

          • Wrong. The post wasn't about Nazis, it was about free speech as a concept. It was only incidental that the legal case was about a Nazi party. Check my other reply to Teager

          • No "other reply to Teager" here that I can see yet.

            Also, limitations to the freedom of speech include the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", which includes pornography and – guess what? – HATE SPEECH AND HATE SYMBOLS. THIS is why your comparison of Nazis and the Damaso shirt wearers is both misleading and very ignorant of what "freedom of speech" actually is.

            Unless you can explain in detail how a "Damaso!" shirt constitutes hate speech? Do the research before lobbying words like "freedom of speech" around. It'll save you the embarrassment in the long run.

          • hindi ako propesyonal dito ha pero sa aking pagkakaalam isang gawain ang discernment upang malaman kung aling landas ang nais ng diyos para sa atin. ibig sabihin, kahit may napupusuan ka nang landas na tatahakin kailangan mo paring maging bukas sa mga bagay-bagay na maaring nagpapahiwatig kung anong landas nga ba talaga ang nararapat. Ang punto ko, kung discernment ang nais ng mga tao sa Manila Cathedral, hindi ba dapat nakatutulong ang sinumang pumunta sa gawaing iyon? Pero, siguro nga naman kasi hindi na discernment ang ginagawa noon sa Manila Cathedral kasi naka ukit na sa bato ang pananaw ng simbahan tungkol sa paksang ito. Sinayang lang nila oras nila, hindi nalang sana sila nag prayer service.

        • That's the point I was trying to make. I guess you said it better than I could.

          Context is important. The so-called freethinkers knew that quite well, which is why they decided to wear those shirts at the event in the first place.

          it is quite sad to see that many (but not all) of the "frrethinker" comments here are just emotional rants as well, based on false notions of what the Church and Pro-Life Philippines are teaching/saying. One might fault some of the people there at the incident, but making hasty generalizations doesn't help anyone.

          • [Context is important. The so-called freethinkers knew that quite well, which is why they decided to wear those shirts at the event in the first place.]

            I'm sorry, but I don't believe in the "They had it coming" argument.

            I can use the same argument to say that because a girl was wearing provocative clothes, she was asking to be raped.

            That assertion assumes that the person who reacted didn't have any better choices or was not aware of their choices when they commit an act, as if they're no different from an animal acting on instinct.

            So FF wore DAMASO! shirts. Are angry, emotional rants really the Pro-Lifers only response?

            The Pro-Lifers could have approached and politely asked them to leave (as one of their heads did at the start). They could have voiced their disagreement in a clear and civil manner, and say "You're being rude." They could have simply ignored them. They could have entered dialogue with our group.

            They had options. And your members chose poorly.

            That your group would spend so much time trying to blame use for exposing just how hysterical you guys is sad, to be blunt.

          • Excellent use of the straw man, and although I wouldn't want to speak for him, I do believe you misunderstood Manny and what he was trying to say. The rest of your post doesn't even make sense seeing how the argument you're against isn't even his, nor mine.

          • Oh you mean this.

            [Context is important. The so-called freethinkers knew that quite well, which is why they decided to wear those shirts at the event in the first place.]

            Okay, fine. I admit that I did get carried away. Our guys wore t-shirts that in that context would piss people off.

            Now tell me, in what context does it becomes justifiable to call people satan, and tell them their mother should have aborted them?

            I stand by my assertion – Manny is trying to pin the blame on the ff group because they wore provocative T-shirts. You do realize that he also insinuates that the only possible outcome to this was that of Manalang's rant on the video. In short, we're being used as a scapegoat for Manalang's short fuse.

          • Twin-skies' point is – if Manalang never hurled those invectives in the first place, no one would even be arguing about whether or not people were wearing Damaso shirts.

          • So wearing a Damaso shirt can be considered harassment even though none of the violence came from the pro-RH side, but calling the other side Satan and calling on their mothers to abort them is NOT considered harassment, just because they allegedly speak for the church?

            Pot, meet kettle. Look who's making the hasty generalizations now?

    • [If you want to express dissewnt, you go to an open forum or debate propely labelled as such. You don't go a mass and wear shirts that openly express your contempt for the Church]

      You don't go to Congress with threats of excommunication

    • 1) You are clearly ASSUMING right away that the freethinkers will "disrupt the proceedings." You have accused and judged those freethinkers right away without even a benefit of a doubt. You remind me so much of Pope Leo the 10th and how he treated Luther, tsk tsk. Ganyan ba talaga kayong mga bigot catholics.

      Your Anti-RH FB pages claim that ALL Filipino Catholics are against the bill, yet after a short debate I made them ADMIT that they are not sure anymore because they have not surveyed all Filipino Catholics. See my point? You fanatic Anti-RH are so quick to assume. Go ahead dig your holes deeper =)

  41. "If that is the case, then the Church should stop claiming that 85% of all Filipinos are Catholics, because recent surveys show that most Filipinos support the RH Bill." Exactly the point. To the oxymorons: You're not Catholics. And to priests: you're not the majority, nor even if you are does it give you the right to dictate the state.

    • I really don't get why people would claim they are "Catholics" and yet they don't subscribe in the wholeness of the Catholic Church's dogma, which is really what makes someone a Catholic.
      But hey, don't worry, you can still be called "Christians" (if by being Christian just means "one believes Jesus is God, or appointed demigod–or some sort–by God").

      It's not bad to not care about religion/classifications, but it is bad to classify yourself as to what you're clearly not (bad in the sense of misinformation).

  43. [Catholics believe that Satan is the prince of lies. When Manalang shouted for Satan to stay out of the Church, it may have been too late. He was already inside.]

    Sweeping statements much?

    Red, you have to be careful with statements like this.

    While I loathe the RCC and the CBCP and think they're absolutely rotten to the core, I can't say the same for their followers. As we've already covered in previous posts, a sizable portion of them are in support of the RH Bill, and are as pissed off as we are at groups like Pro-Life Philippines.

    From one of your own posts: https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2010/11/04/cathol…

    I still disagree with their faith, but the ones I have met seems to be decent human beings, with or without their faith. Don't burn bridges by tossing our potential allies in with the haters.

    • Assuming that you or they believe Satan = Lucifer
      "But for someone whose sin is meant to be pride, you'd think that lying would leave something of a sour taste. […] He tells you the exact, literal truth. And he lets you find your own way to hell."

    • Go to hell, sinner and doon rin kayo magpakarami. Us agnostics / atheists don't believe in hell, so we won't ever have to see you again. 🙂

      • (Not in his defense) Yep, the equations are as follows:

        Pro-RH =/= Atheist
        but
        Pro-RH not only =/= Catholic, also
        Pro-RH = NOT Catholic
        Pero pwedeng magkaroon ng instance na
        Some Catholics respect the right of the state to pass such bills (though not in favor)
        and
        Some Christians (there are many kinds, mind you) support the bill (…but not Catholics).

        If you're one of those who claim they're both Catholic and Pro-RH. You can check my other posts on this same article. 🙂

    • I'm not an atheist at all. *clap clap clap* For a well-thought out argument.

      I'm sad to say that I'm a Catholic. Although, I do not practice. I'm not ashamed of it at all. I have my reasons and they're pretty sensible. As long as I'm personally connected to God and the universe, I don't have to prove myself to anyone.

      Have a good day, Kirby.

  46. God gave us our mind to think. God gave us sex organs to pro create. But it is up to us to teach one another how to use them wisely. I am PRO RH bill let us teach our fellow men how to be a more responsible Filipino.

  50. @Twin-Skies

    Hello Filipino Freethinker Peeps!

    I never did introduce myself when I started on this site like in the Introduce Yourself section in the Forums. So that is why I don't get any recognition. Maybe I'm just wary about it because I don't want to be associated with anybody. I'm Hyper Self-Conscious so I try to be reserved so that I won't feel that. But anyway Let me introduce myself.

    I'm turning 27 this month so I'm not a boy. But I chose this name because I feel like I still haven't matured socially because I've been living under a rock/in a cave(my house). Maybe I can share some of what I have learned. Though I always think that nobody cares about me.

Newer Comments »

Leave a reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

SUBSCRIBE

Stay Updated

Subscribe now

REPORT

Secularism Violations

Report here

one who forms opinions on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief; one who doubts or denies religious dogma

Contact us at [email protected]

© 2021 Filipino Freethinkers. All rights reserved.

Menu

Blog

Featured Articles