Assess Authority — Assert Autonomy

Bash Bigotry

Challenge Convention

Doubt Dogma

Examine Everything — Educate Everyone

Fight Fundamentalism — Forfeit Faith

Guide the Gullible

Help Humanity

Improve Intelligence — Investigate Inconsistencies

Justify Judgments

Keep Knowing

Love Learning

Mistrust Mysticism

Negate Norms

Outgrow Obedience

Prevent Persecution — Prosecute the Pope

Question Quackery

Resist Rationalization — Resort to Reason

Support Science — Secularize Society

Trash Theocracy

Understand the Universe

Verify Vigilantly — Venerate Veracity

Withstand Worship — Weed out Wishful Thinking

eXpunge eXtremism

Yield Youth

Zero Zealotry

RSVP on Facebook

1. Noynoy and Theocracy: Less secularism after Gloria?
2. Christianizing Islam: Do you agree with Ayaan’s strategy?
3. Child Indoctrination: Is it ethical to teach children religion?
4. Theist or atheist, what would make you change your mind about god?
5. Technology for parents to predetermine their child’s gender/gender identity — a good idea?
6. Short story workshop

* Newbies are welcome.
* Discuss anything with fellow freethinkers.
* Look for the FF sign (or the group of smart, sexy people).
* There is no required age, religion, philosophy, or IQ level.
* Discussions are informal yet intelligent (most of the time).
* You don’t have to talk; you can just sit in and listen.
* You don’t have to buy anything from Starbucks.

Note: This was written by Kenneth Keng.

I could go into the history of the Episcopal Church of the Philippines, detail its origins and trace its growth throughout the years since it was introduced in the American occupation. I could also scratch at the intermidable morass of interdemoninational politics (including all out open warfare, depending how far back one decides to go) that like as not have helped to define Protestantism and it’s Anglican/Episcopal denomination throughout its existence. Instead I will endeavour to as much as possible leave aside what would amount to paraphrasing Wikipedia articles and instead outline my church and its beliefs by hewing close to my own personal experiences and impressions of it.

The easiest religious body to contrast the Episcopal (in England, the Anglican) church with would be the Catholic church, for reasons of history and form. The Anglican Communion would be the body that Henry VIII ordered split from mainline Catholicism in his reign, birthing a new separate entity that most importantly for Henry did not answer to the Papacy. Depending on who you ask this was either a great victory for religious freedom against the tyranny of Rome or just another monarch following in Emperor Constantine’s footsteps, taking in a pet religion of his own to further secure his power base.

The end result however is a church that celebrates Mass and holds the Sacraments in the same manner as the Catholic church would. To a casual attendee of our Sunday services the form would be mostly familiar, except for the ‘ye olde English’ used in the prayers and the lack of elaborate decoration or ornamentation in the church itself. The priests dress the same, and communion is given after readings, prayers and a hopefully short homily; the liturgical calendar is followed so the year goes through its seasons of Lent and Advent and Easter and Christmas.

That priest however might be a man or a woman, and/or openly gay. These issues were more or less worked out in the latter half of the 20th century, and as it stands today the Archbishop of the American Episcopal Church is a marine biologist by the name of Katharine Schori. She herself has just recently caught equal parts admiration and derision (while causing a number of small schisms) for anointing the church’s first openly gay and partnered male Bishop, Gene Robinson.

A much older and long established tradition is the right of any of our priests to marry and raise children; this is in fact encouraged to avoid certain problems that might arise from sexual repression. As the Episcopal/Anglican Communion had at its inception rejected papal authority, the archbishops are the highest authorities within their national dioceses, most of which are independent of one another. The Archbishop of Canterbury stands as the closest thing we might have to a pope, but all acknowledge his role as that of an honored figurehead and not much more.

In terms of church governance even Archbishops answer to a power structure that devolves authority down onto congregations at every turn. Each church once established elects their own Vestry board which sits with the presiding priest and runs the day to day operations of the church as well as discusses stances on social issues; while archbishops and bishops are raised from the ranks of priests, they govern church matters always in conjunction with and are held accountable to members of the congregations in boards of various levels. Having attended some of these big church conferences, called diocesan conventions, I can tell you that they are raucous, messy and slow, but for the most part the decisions that come out of them are made with transparency and the input of elected representatives from every individual church involved.

Given the independence of the dioceses, the Episcopal Church of the Philippines, while considered radically liberal by the local Catholic church, is considered relatively conservative by Episcopalians from other parts of the world. While everyone is expected to accept practicing homosexuals as full members of the congregation without any ‘hate the sin but not the sinner’ hedging, most older priests would still have reservations if asked to consecrate a marriage between same-sex partners. While they remain a minority, female priests, addressed as ‘padi’, are accorded full authority and respect by church members and are considered nothing unusual. In the Philippines, an Episcopalian priest, male or female, who is married with children is considered the norm. Divorce, while extremely regrettable and always considered a last resort for the sake of the children, is also acceptable by the church.

The Episcopal church also acknowledges the supremacy of the scientific method and empirical evidence in matters corporeal, with many senior church leaders themselves coming from scientific backgrounds. Therefore there are, for example, no perceived conflicts with natural history and the teaching of evolution. The Bible is by no means to be taken literally.

As the ills of overpopulation are readily apparent given the evidence, family planning and articifial contraception is fully embraced by the Episcopal Church in the Philippines; our own church in fact ran a family planning clinic until complaints from the Catholic church down the street led to its closure.

Perhaps ironically for a church created from a political act, the modern Episcopal church espouses the separation of church and state, with secular governance held as the only realistically viable form in a multicultural, multireligious nation.

This open approach is reflected in the makeup of the average Episcopal church. There might be, in one congregation, people with views on either side of the sociopolitical spectrum- while I might be pretty liberal, my mother and most of the older members are definitively not. What I like is that we are encouraged to air these differences, discuss them openly over coffee and donuts then somewhere between it all sit quietly and celebrate mass together.

RSVP on Facebook

Date: Sunday, June 27, 2010
Time: 1:00pm – 4:00pm
Location: Starbucks (near cinemas) at Shangrila Mall

Discussion Topics:

1. Starting steps for virgin vegans
2. Short story writing workshop
3. Freethinker Solidarity Day
4. Shoptalk: family planning & contraception
5. How to save Sex Ed (brainstorming)

* Newbies are welcome.
* Look for the FF sign (or the group of smart, sexy people).
* There is no required age, religion, philosophy, or IQ level.
* Discussions are informal yet intelligent (most of the time).
* You don’t have to talk; you can just sit in and listen.
* You don’t have to buy anything from Starbucks.

Update: According to a GMA News TV article, Secretary Valisno was misquoted by the CBCP article: “The DepEd is not putting the sex education program on hold. Sec. Valisno clarified that no such decision has been made,” Malaya said. “It appears that she was misquoted in the CBCP article.”

An assistant secretary working for the DepEd also confirmed this when I spoke with her briefly at this morning’s hearing on the petition for a temporary restraining order on DepEd’s pilot-testing program. She also told me that we (civil society) will be invited to the forum to discuss the sex ed modules. If I can’t get some seats for you guys, you can be sure I’ll represent.

The GMA article also says that the plan to upload the sex ed modules to the DepEd website has been cancelled because it might be accessed by those who are not old enough and be corrupted by it. DepEd, I know your modules are controversial, but I’m pretty sure those horny kids could find something more sensational to be corrupted by.

When the CBCP meddles in government, it’s almost always a contest between democracy and theocracy. It’s certainly been the case in their recent “partnership” with DepEd as sex ed consultants. We’ve all been rooting for DepEd and the democracy that their sex ed program represents. But the game is over; score one for theocracy.

Thanks to pressure from the CBCP, DepEd has decided to suspend its sex ed program until after CBCP has given the go signal. “We decided to hold sex education module in abeyance until a final decision is made on the consulting process.”

That was Education Secretary Mona Valisno. Before deciding to suspend the sex ed program, she attended a mass in Manila Cathedral. She sat in the front row while Archbishop Rosales delivered a sermon:

“All of us in this cathedral are either teachers or students or collaborators of church. Ang misyon ng kristiyano ay ganito: isang engkwentro kay hesus, hindi mo maaaring ipagpalit mo ‘yun. [This is the mission of a Christian: one encounter with Jesus, which you cannot replace with anything.] This is addressed to all the schools, let them meet jesus, the compassionate person.”

Any doubts that Secretary Valisno (and her department’s sex ed project) was the target of that sermon was erased by what Archbishop Rosales did after: In front of all the teachers and students in attendance, he gave her a potted plant , which according to him, symbolized the sanctity of life. To me what the action symbolized is this: democracy sacrificed on the altar of theocracy.

Immediately I was reminded of COMELEC’s decision to disqualify Ang Ladlad. Ang Ladlad was not allowed to run for representation on religious grounds — for the religious bigots who made the decision, members of the LGBT community are immoral and are a danger to the youth. Yet Ang Ladlad was able to run, thanks to the Supreme Court’s more democratic ruling, one that obviously bears repetition (emphasis mine):

“Our Constitution provides in Article III, Section 5 that “[n]o law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” At bottom, what our nonestablishment clause calls for is “government neutrality in religious matters.” Clearly, “governmental reliance on religious justification is inconsistent with this policy of neutrality.”

We thus find that it was grave violation of the non-establishment clause for the COMELEC to utilize the Bible and the Koran to justify the exclusion of Ang Ladlad. Rather than relying on religious belief, the legitimacy of the Assailed Resolutions should depend, instead, on whether the COMELEC is able to advance some justification for its rulings beyond mere conformity to religious doctrine. Otherwise stated, government must act for secular purposes and in ways that have primarily secular effects…

As far as this court is concerned, our democracy precludes using the religious or moral views of one part of the community to exclude from consideration the values of other members of the community.“

That decision was a victory not only for the LGBT community, but also for our country’s democracy, and the secularism that guarantees it. I hoped that the issue was controversial enough for the decision to echo in the halls of government much longer. But in less than three months, it appears the voice of secularism has already been silenced.

What’s happening now is essentially a repetition of COMELEC’s mistake. Even the language being used is familiar: “Anything that will not be in accordance with moral values then we will remove it,” said Secretary Valisno.

But who decides what is in accordance with moral values? Here’s an answer from an article on the CBCP website:

Valisno said they are willing to modify the contents of the program if the church should find topics that contradict Christian values.

Note that what Valisno actually said was “moral” values. But the indirect quotation on CBCP’s website makes it clear: as far as the CBCP is concerned, what is moral is what is Christian, and what is Christian is what the CBCP says it is.

So until the CBCP approves the sex ed modules, DepEds sex ed program is on hold. And from the CBCP’s initial assessment, it looks like sex ed is on hold indefinitely. Here’s CBCP spokesman Msgr. Pedro Quitorio:

“Marami kaming hindi sinasang-ayunan sa modules na ito. Sa pagtatantiya namin ay hindi ito pasado [There are many things in these modules we don't approve of. This program will most likely not pass.],” he said.

I can only imagine what kind of program will emerge from the CBCP’s censorship process. But one thing’s for sure: it won’t be the sex education program that our country needs.

So as far as sex education is concerned, theocracy 1, democracy 0. But maybe the game is not yet over. Maybe it’s only half-time. Secretary Valisno said that her department would upload the sex ed modules to the DepEd website for public scrutiny, in a way employing the public as sex ed consultants. I’m not sure how, but if this is going to be worth the effort, they’re going to find a way for the public to have a valid voice in this debate.

This may be her way of evening the playing field, giving everyone a say. But I’d like to see it as her way of recruiting allies. In the first half, the DepEd was alone in facing the CBCP, Ang Kapatiran, and all those other Pro-lifers. The DepEd’s going to need our help. I’m in, and I hope so are you. Let’s win this for democracy.

The CBCP began fulfilling their duty as sex education consultants by doing three things: (1) urging President-elect Aquino to scrap sex ed, (2) filing a class suit against Education Secretary Mona Valisno and Undersecretary Ramon Bacani, and (3) telling the DepEd (and anyone who will listen) that there shouldn’t be sex education in the first place.

The geniuses at Malacanang who thought consulting the CBCP on sex ed was a good idea made an obvious mistake: they weren’t being realistic. Why? Because the CBCP is not compatible with sex ed, DepEd, and reality in general.

The CBCP is not compatible with sex education. Asking the CBCP to be consultants on sex is like asking creationists to be consultants on evolution. Not only is the CBCP as ignorant of sex as creationists are of evolution, they have the same aversion toward the topic they’re supposed to consult on: both dogmatically ignore scientific evidence about said topics, both think that teaching said topics has lead to the moral degradation of our society, and both prefer that the public remain just as ignorant.

The CBCP is not compatible with the DepEd. The DepEd is a democratic, secular organization. The CBCP is a theocratic, religious organization. The DepEd is responsible for all Filipino citizens, while the CBCP, although it also tries to be responsible for all citizens, favors only Roman Catholics, ignoring the rights and beliefs of those who have different faiths, or who have none at all.

To implement its projects, the DepEd uses unbiased scientific evidence from experts around the world. To perpetuate its dogmas, the CBCP chooses only the evidence that is consistent with its myopic worldview.

The CBCP is not compatible with reality. By ignoring scientific evidence about sex and sex education, they are denying the truth; by making claims based on tenuous evidence or no evidence at all, they are spreading lies.

But apologists will say that they do consult experts, they do listen to evidence. Whose experts? Which evidence? The Vatican’s? Who can forget the Pope’s irresponsible comments about the condom?

They say that sex education will result in children being exposed to sex too early. The truth is, earlier than ever, children are not only exposed, they are bombarded by sexual ideas — from their peers, the media, video games, the internet, and so on. And this will happen whether or not our children are educated enough to deal with it. It is wishful thinking to think otherwise.

Another fallacy based on wishful thinking is the idea that sex education should be left to parents. How likely is it that a Filipino parent has accurate information on sex and sex education? How likely is it that a Filipino parent will actually talk to their children about sex properly, if at all? Just because the CBCP believes that parents should teach their children about sex does not mean that they will.

The spread of sexually transmitted infections, unwanted teenage pregnancies, the rapid growth of the population — these are real problems that need real solutions. If only the CBCP could stop its wishful thinking and finally accept reality, they will realize — sex education is the best real solution that we have.

Malacanang’s experiment has failed: making the CBCP sex ed consultants was a gross mistake. They have betrayed their partners not only by asking for the suspension of the project they’re supposed to work on, but by filing a class suit against the people they’re supposed to work with. Yet the appointment was a mistake from the start — a failed hypothesis. Their way of thinking is antithetical to the success of a secular, science-based sex ed program (or any secular, science-based program for that matter).

Malacanang must revoke CBCP’s appointment immediately. If the CBCP can be consultants on anything, it’s not sex education — it’s sex ignorance. But if the DepEd wants to keep them as consultants, the best way to go about it is this: measure progress by how much the CBCP is pissed off. If they’re filing lawsuits and pressuring politicians, you’re doing a great job.

When classes start today, sex education will be integrated into the curriculum of 159 schools, while thousands of others will continue to lack this much needed education.

Meanwhile, the Department of Education (DepEd) continues to compromise its integrity by trying to appease their official sex ed consultants, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP):

In a letter to Bishop Odchimar dated June 4, 2010, DepEd Secretary Mona D. Valisno said their noble intention to introduce sex education in public schools “caused some misperception about our planned actions.”

Secretary Valisno said both the government and the Church “care for the welfare of our youth who are facing the realities of the modern times and who may not have control of the factors that could cause continuous degradation of our moral decadence in this era.”

She added she looks forward to seal agreements with the Catholic Church “on how to safeguard the physical and moral wellbeing of the country’s youth. She asked for an audience with Bishop Odchimar within the week.

When Valisno talks about “degradation of our moral decadence,” she panders to the bishops by using their language. And when she looks forward to sealing agreements with the Catholic Church on our youth’s moral wellbeing, she considers them more than just mere consultants — she grants them authority as gatekeepers of morality.

This has led to a castrated version of sex education — in both scale (only 159 schools?) and breadth (contraceptives not taught in sex-ed?). But it’s a start. Yet Valisno only succeeded in pilot-testing the program this year by ignoring Malacanang’s mandate to consult the CBCP — at least until classes open.

Now that she’s begun the consultation, I hope Valisno can take the pressure until June 30, when her term ends with Arroyo. And I hope that unlike Valisno, the next DepEd secretary won’t compromise too much in the wrong direction.

May 29 FF Meetup

RSVP on Facebook

Date: Saturday, June 12, 2010
Time: 1:00pm – 4:00pm
Location: Starbucks (near cinemas) at Shangrila Mall
Agenda:

* Is nationalism a good thing?
* The ethics of having sex with friends
* Starting steps for virgin vegans
* Should atheists preach?
* Atheist Solidarity Day brainstorming
* Lesson 1 of short story writing workshop

Dave O'Brien and Hemant Mehta

Dave O'Brien and Maggie Ardiente

This morning, our friend and supporter, American atheist Dave O’Brien, sent us some good news:

This weekend I attended the American Humanist Association annual conference in San Jose –quite close to my home. Great conference with good speakers and about 300+ attendees.

Maggie Ardiente is the development director of AHA and her parents are Filipino but she was born in USA (San Diego) and never visited the Philippines. We had been in contact for a while and she is thinking of writing an article on Freethought in the Philippines so I gave her an update and a FF Tee shirt .

I met Hemant Mehta at the conference and gave him an update and Tee shirt and also got Hemant to sign a copy of his book and dedicate it to FF.

Last week Ayaan Hirsi Ali was in Palo Alto giving a talk and I got her to sign a copy of her new book (Nomad) to “filipino freethinker women.” She was quite interested in the concept of women being active in the movement over there.

Dave is sending us these two books (Hemant’s I Sold My Soul on Ebay and Ayaan’s Nomad — signed!) as well as other literature soon, and it’ll be here in a couple of months.

Maggie, Hemant, Ayaan, and of course, Dave — thanks for all your support!

Sex education will be pilot-tested by the Department of Education (DepEd) in several schools starting June. This news should have been great. But thanks to CBCP Meddling™, it’s merely good.

The long overdue sex education desired by most Filipinos will reach relatively few — only 80 of the almost 38,000 elementary schools and 79 of the almost 6,000 high schools. That’s a tiny drop in the ocean of students expected this schoolyear — 13.1 million in elementary, 5.6 million in high school. (source)

But if it were up to the CBCP, not a single student would get sex education at all. And we barely avoided this fate — Malacanang recently ordered DepEd to consult the CBCP on sex education. (Yes, seriously.)

But despite the disagreement of the newly appointed sex education consultants, Education Secretary Mona Valisno said the project would push through. She added that “consultations are now set to immediately start after the opening of classes.”

So they’ve so far ignored the CBCP’s protests. But what happens when our education department finally takes the CBCP’s expert advice? Will DepEd suddenly suspend sex education? Will they ensure that all scientific evidence and ethical advice passes the Roman Catholic Church’s standards? Will they encourage natural family planning or abstinence-only sex education?

Whatever happens, I don’t see any good coming out of consulting the CBCP. For starters, a lot of Filipinos are not Catholic. Even those who are don’t necessarily agree with the CBCP’s views on reproductive health — surveys have shown that most Filipinos want sex education in public schools.

And not only is this consultation a violation of our secular constitution, it’s just plain wrong. What kind of educational advice can you expect from an institution that doesn’t want sex education in the first place? Simply this: that sex is only moral when it allows the possibility of procreation by a husband and wife ; and that contraceptives do not work in preventing unwanted pregnancies and the spread of sexually transmitted infections.

This is most (if not al) of the advice the DepEd will get from the CBCP. Call it unscientific, simplistic — even stupid. But if sex education is to happen at all — if the CBCP is to allow it — this is necessary. One of the main reasons the CBCP politically campaigns against sex education is their assertion that the responsibility belongs not to the schools but to the parents.

But think about it. Where do most Filipino parents get their sex education? Which institution outside of schools obsessively teaches about sexual matters, wielding absolute ethical and scientific (they have studies) authority? The Roman Catholic Church. So the bishops are OK with parents doing the teaching because they’re teaching the parents anyway.

But what if these parents were to teach their children something unCatholic (read: secular and scientific)? What if children were taught at home that homosexual sex and contraceptives are not evil? Would the CBCP still think sex education should be left to the parents then? Of course not.

When the CBCP says it’s against sex ed in schools, what it’s actually saying is this: no one has the right to give sex education — except us. And with their recent appointment as DepEd consultants, they just got their chance. So finally — reluctantly — they will allow it.

Yet whatever the CBCP has done or will do to castrate sex education, our country has taken a step in the right (read: secular and scientific) direction. Whatever happens this year in DepEd’s pilot testing, things can only get better.

So I take it back. This is great news. Still, a part of me is reluctant. The sexual well-being of almost 20 million children and adolescents are being entrusted to an insular institution of bishops and priests. Why does this bother me?

For the last time, Maria Ozawa isn’t a member. Nor do we have an equally eloquent expert on sex harassment. Those recent posts are entries in our June writing contest. Interested?

Just write an essay on any of the following themes:

• political correctness
• science vs. superstition
• loneliness and isolation

You may write on a combination of themes (like Ms. Ozawa did) but there’s no bonus if you do. (Except if you manage to allude to bukake.)

Two awesome prizes will be given during our second July meetup:

1. Reader’s choice prize: awesome certificate and any Starbucks beverage.
2. Writer’s choice prize: awesome certificate and the privilege to choose any freethought-related book worth P1,000 (the winner doesn’t have to pay anything, unless they want to get something more expensive.) Although the winner doesn’t get to own it — the book is added to the FF library — they get two months to finish reading the book before having to lend it to someone else. The winner must also post a short review of the book on our blog.

Joining is easy:

1. Register for a contributor account.
2. Compose your post (500-800 words) and tag it with “writing contest.”
3. Submit your post before July 1. Submissions of nonregular contributors will be reviewed before publishing.

Mechanics for voting and judging will be posted before the contest deadline. In the meantime, start writing!

Here’s some information from PNAC about the AIDS Candlelight Memorial this Friday. Be sure you read the event program at the bottom of the post.

Remedios Circle (click to enlarge)

PARTICPATION GUIDELINES

1. Registration starts at 3:00 pm at the Remedios Circle, Malate, Manila.
2. The group will march from Remedios Circle to Rajah Sulayman Park, Malate, Manila.
3. All participating individuals and organizations are requested to wear white during the event
4. Candles and ribbons will be provided by TLF SHARE Collective, Inc.
5. Transportation should be shouldered by participating individuals and organization
6. Participating individuals and organization are expected to take a light meal before the registration
7. Organizations are advised to bring their respective organizational banner/tarpaulin to be used during the event
8. Please bring an umbrella in case of rain

Republic of the Philippines

Philippine National AIDS Council

CONCEPT NOTE

2010 AIDS CANDLELIGHT MEMORIAL IN THE PHILIPPINES

Many Lights for Human Rights – Remember, Honor, ACT

Background and Rationale

Since 1983, the world has been commemorating the AIDS Candlelight Memorial (ACM). A program of the Global Health Council, this activity gathers and mobilizes different sectors and groups in order to remember and honor those who have passed away due to AIDS and also to eradicate stigma and discrimination through education, advocacy and partnership. ACM serves as an important intervention for global solidarity, breaking down barriers, and giving hope to new generations. (International AIDS Candlelight Memorial, 2010)

The Philippine National AIDS Council (PNAC) maintains its solidarity with the global community in commemorating the ACM. The ACM contributes to the fulfillment of policy declarations of Republic Act 8504 (the Philippine AIDS Prevention and Control Act of 1998, or R.A. 8504) such as promoting public awareness on HIV and AIDS, the protection of human rights and civil liberties of people living with HIV and addressing the conditions that aggravate the spread of HIV. The 2010 ACM global theme is “Many Lights for Human Rights,” meant to promote both global solidarity and the need for collective action around HIV and human rights. (www.candlelightmemorial.org)

In the country, the ACM shall serve as public advocacy to position HIV and AIDS as crucial issue on the advent of a new administration in government. Its tone shall be solemn but with very clear messages of priority actions in the national response to HIV and AIDS. The ACM global theme is adapted with an addition “Remember, Honor, ACT” to emphasize our solidarity with Filipinos living with HIV and their loved ones.

The PNAC Secretariat shall engage technical services of TLF SHARE Collective Inc., an NGO involved in HIV and AIDS advocacy with a proven track record of mobilizing sectors and groups in Metro Manila, for the coordination of related events and mounting of the main ACM activity.

Objectives

• To increase awareness on human rights dimensions of HIV and AIDS as social issue;
• To remember and honor Filipinos who passed away due to AIDS and support those affected;
• To mobilize government, private sector, development partners and affected communities for meaningful participation and foster solidarity between and among them; and
• To promote, respect and uphold the dignity of persons living with HIV/AIDS

Participation

1. GOVERNMENT

• Government agency members of PNAC

• Local government units in Metro Manila (GF HIV Rounds 5 and 6 sites)

1. CIVIL SOCIETY and AFFECTED COMMUNITIES

• Individuals and organized groups of people living with and affected by HIV and AIDS
• NGO’s and groups who work on HIV and AIDS
• NGO’s and groups who work on human rights
• Faith-based organizations and groups
• Other socio-civic organizations

1. PRIVATE COMMERCIAL SECTOR

• Corporations and networks with initiatives on HIV and AIDS
• Business networks for corporate social responsibility
• Business process outsourcing companies

1. DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS

• Multilateral and bilateral aid agencies
• International NGOs
• Intergovernmental organizations (e.g. UN agencies)

PROPOSED PROGRAM FOR THE AIDS CANDLELIGHT MEMORIAL

Remedios Circle and Rajah Sulayman Park, Malate, Manila

28 May 2010 (Friday), 4:00 pm to 9:00 pm, Malate, Manila,

Guidelines:

Participating organizations must bring the following on 2010 ACM:

1. Banner/Streamer of the organization supporting the 2010 ACM – prototype design is uploaded at www.pnac.org.ph
2. Food, Transportation and Communication means of the participants
3. Collaterals such as shirts, candles, red ribbons (if any)
4. Water, towels, umbrella and fans since the venue is open air

PNAC Secretariat Contact Persons:

Ms. Joane Corbe – 0921 6170380 / 0922 6305920

Mr. Glenn Cruz – glenn.cruz@pnac.org.ph