The advocacy for secularism is an advocacy for rights. More specifically, it is the advocacy for certain privileges and claims that are being denied due to the lack of separation of Church and State in our country.

The Hoefeldian system classifies rights into privileges, claims, powers, and immunities. The dynamics of these four elements can be appreciated by observing how a religious country like the Philippines attempts to change its laws as it slowly breaks away from the authority of the Church.

Privileges and claims are called first-order rights: entitlements to perform/not perform certain actions, or that others perform/not perform certain actions. To have a privilege to do something means to have no duty not to do it, while to have a claim on something means that some other person or entity has a duty to satisfy that claim.

Powers and immunities, on the other hand, are second-order rights that have a bearing on first-order rights. To have power means to have the ability to alter one’s own or another’s privileges or claims, and to have  immunity means that another person or entity lacks the ability to alter one’s privileges or claims.

To illustrate, take for example the right to drink alcohol. It is a privilege-right in the sense that people aged 18 and above have no duty not to drink, but it is not a claim-right because the government has no duty to provide alcohol, let alone for free. The government, however, has the power-right to suspend the right to drink (and the right to buy and sell liquor) as what the Commission on Elections (Comelec) is set to do four days before and during election day, although foreigners have a limited immunity from the Comelec ban since they can drink in certain hotels and establishments with special permits.

The rights commonly advocated by secularists today are reproductive health (RH), divorce, and marriage equality. The RH law grants certain claims to qualified citizens by imposing a duty on the government to provide free contraceptives. The divorce bill seeks to grant couples of failed marriages the privilege to start a new life with a new spouse by relieving them of the duty to remain married to their old partners. Advocates of marriage equality fight for equal rights – not “special” rights – of same sex couples so they can enjoy the same legal recognition, protection, and claims that heterosexual couples often take for granted.

Unfortunately, these rights have yet to see the light of day as the supreme court issued a status quo ante order on the recently-passed RH law, while divorce and marriage equality still have to hurdle a tedious legislative process which at any point could stop them in their tracks. While it is the State that holds the power to grant or deny these claims and privileges, those who represent the State are also human beings and may be influenced by their religious beliefs or dictated upon by their religious leaders, adversely affecting the citizens who don’t share their persuasions. In effect, religion – actually just one particular religion – still holds considerable power over all of us whether or not we subscribe to it, the constitutional inviolability of Church-State separation notwithstanding.

And so the advocacy for secularism is an advocacy against theocracy.  It is a struggle against the undue influence of religion in public affairs, a drive to remind our public servants that they answer to the people and not to some church hierarchy. The call for secularism is a call to our fellow citizens to wield their power to choose the life they want to live, to think and act free from fear of excommunication and hell fire while remaining grounded on reason and evidence, and to strive to increase happiness and lessen needless suffering in this world. Ultimately, the advocacy for secularism is an advocacy for immunity from religion, and the advancement of the rights of the rational individual.

If you share this advocacy, please join Filipino Freethinkers as we fight for a true separation of Church and State in the Philippines.

* * * * *

Image credit: Garrick Bercero

The Supreme Court of the Philippines voted 10-5 to put a status quo ante order on the RH law, which means that instead of the RH law being implemented the Philippines will return to the magical state it was in before the RH bill was passed.

We already have the law and the implementing rules and regulations. The Supreme Court has ordered the Philippines to regress, to freeze progress for four more months. Four more months that the CBCP and its allies can use to maneuver their political power to kill the RH law in the Supreme Court.

Which basically means more Filipinas would needlessly die from preventable maternal complications. Because this is the status quo.

Which means that the Philippines will continue to have one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancies in Asia. Because this is our status quo.

Which means we’ll continue to not have a comprehensive program to address the rising rates of HIV infection in the country. For that is the status quo.

Status quo ante. It means “the way things were before”. We already have the RH law. Why should we want to go back to the status quo? Sign this petition to ask the Supreme Court to lift their order.

Despite sounding like a very progressive Catholic, Ateneo de Davao University president Joel Tabora, S.J. has never really stated, at least not publicly, whether he agrees with the underlying logic of the Reproductive Health (RH) Law.

When asked on Twitter by Filipino Freethinkers president Red Tani if he believes that using artificial contraception is inherently evil (as defined by the Roman Catholic Church in Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae), Tabora replied:

“Based on the level of natural law that is presupposed in those encyclicals, yes. But I do not think an abstract category such as “inherently evil” is fruitful in understanding the demands of Christian ethics today.”

Notice that the first sentence is as qualified as it gets, and the second sentence removes whatever illusion of significance the first sentence has to Red’s question on Tabora’s stand on contraception. And if that wasn’t enough, Tabora further said:

“To illustrate: is it “inherently” evil to separate the conjugal act from both its unitive and procreative meanings? Do not get me wrong. The notion of natural law and its use as a foundation for moral teaching has developed. It is “complicated.” Doctrines develop. There was a time when the Church tolerated slavery and persecuted heretics.”

It seems that Tabora is being deliberately ambiguous or evasive by implicitly undermining the encyclicals without expressly going against the Church’s teachings. But does his doublespeak mean dishonesty? Let the reader be the judge, keeping in mind that the university president’s job description is unlikely to include the right to publicly deny the Catholic position.

But while his statements on RH are so carefully crafted, look how freely he speaks of things he truly believes in:

“I certainly believe there are grave sins. That’s why there is the Cross. And Resurrection.”

This time he didn’t mention the Church, let alone the encyclicals. He categorically stated his belief in Christ – something he did not do on the issue of RH and contraception and whether he agrees with the Vatican’s teachings.

It has been Fr. Tabora’s thesis that there is nothing in the RH law “which prevents a good Catholic from being a good Catholic.” He also said that

Image credit: Ateneo de Davao website

“If the “Catholic Church” is truly convinced of its position, convince first the Catholics of it, then propose law based on their collective witness. Running to legislation to do the job of proclamation and religious education will not convince Catholics who are not convinced.”

In those two sentences Fr. Tabora summed up everything secularism stands for. It doesn’t matter if he never clearly stated his support for reproductive health, because he left a reminder that the legislature ought not to aid any religion. And as far as the advocacy for the separation of Church and State is concerned, this Jesuit educator is as secular as Catholic priests ever get.

Many of you have said you’d like to help Carlos in his case — he’s been found guilty of offending religious feelings. On the legal side, he has decided to appeal the case instead of bargaining for probation, essentially telling all of us that, no, he’s not guilty, and he’ll fight this all the way to the Supreme Court if he has to.

But in terms of taking to the streets, we — fellow advocates and supporters of Carlos — are still discussing the most strategic course of action in terms of being as brave and effective as Carlos was while not jeopardizing his case. Rest assured that we will go to the streets (or even inside certain buildings) when the time is right, and we’ll let everyone know when we’re ready.

For now, we can support Carlos not by fighting but by celebrating. He’s hosting a La Solidaridady Walk to celebrate Rizal’s fight for freedom this Sunday (February 10) at 4pm. He’s already posted details of the event on his site:

Wanna walk with me in Luneta Park on February 10, at 4pm. Meet me under the trees at the Agrifina Circle in front of the steps of the National Museum of the Filipino People. and let’s make pasyal to celebrate Jose Rizal’s FIGHT for Freedom.

Let’s dress up as our favorite Rizalian era characters or whatever you cosplay character you wish, and let’s look at old photos of Luneta online on our iPhones and Androids, and capture this day on instagram, twitter, tumblr or facebook and FREELY upload it online so the world can see the awesome new renovations of our national park. We’ll hashtag #rizalpark #freedom #luneta

We’ll check out the new dancing fountain, the larger than life Philippine Map, the newly renovated gardens, and photograph ourselves in a “DAMASO” Rizal Derby Hat inside our Damaso Photobooth at Art Park!

We’ll cap the walk with a visit to the site where Jose Rizal was shot back in 1896. Of course, we’ll stop and have street food along the way.

Oh and this tour is FREE. YES. As in FREE. It’s my way of supporting the Rizal Park’s efforts in revitalizing Manila’s premier public space and supporting Rizal’s fight for FREEDOM. Mabuhay and Kalayaan!

Visit The National Museum and see the Spolarium before the walk to complete your Manila day. )

Text 09209092021 or email celdrantours@hotmail.com to confirm.
Oh. And dogs are welcome to tour. Dogs in costumes even more.

Many have already shown interest in going, so not only will you be there to support Carlos, you’ll meet the allies you’ll be marching with when the time comes. And if there’s a fun (and free!) way to start preparing for that inevitable day, this solidarity walk is it.

Celdran’s political protest challenges the hegemony of the Catholic Church, while his case tests the independence of the judiciary from the Church

Article 133: Legacy of Colonialism

In her review of Carolyn Brewer’s Holy Confrontation: Religion, Gender, and Sexuality, Barbara Watson Andaya tells us of how Spanish friars aggressively sought to replace the spiritual role of elderly women in the lives of our ancestors. During that time, women were the spiritual leaders.  Summarizing Brewer’s findings, Andaya tells us that “humiliation became a primary weapon [of Catholic friars], as young boys were recruited to locate sacred items and then urinate on them or perform other acts of desecration.” Our indigenous spiritual rituals and beliefs were replaced with “Christian rituals and symbols.” Our indigenous priestesses were called “bruja (female witch),” which we then “localized into bruha.”

If this happened today, we might say that under Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code our indigenous priestesses would have a cause for action against the Catholic Church. After all, what the Catholic Church did to our ancestors was not only “notoriously offensive;” it was arrogant, violent, cruel, and inhuman. They deprived our ancestors of their own beliefs. They oppressed and dehumanized our ancestors because they are of a different civilization. They did this because they were so convinced that they had a mission to civilize the world; and for our Spanish colonizers, civilized and human meant Christian and European. The rest are savages, barbaric, non-human.  Article 133 wasn’t intended to protect our ancestor’s indigenous religions. The revised penal code is largely derived from the penal code of our Spanish colonizers. Since during that time Church and State were not separate entities, Article 133 was probably not meant to protect all religions but a legal tool to secure the hegemony of the religion of our colonial masters, who believed that Christianity is the only one true religion.

Separation of Church and Judiciary

Celdran’s simple act of protest challenges that hegemony. He deliciously used Rizal’s critique of that hegemony: Damaso. Some say that Celdran is just seeking attention.  If we are going to reduce Celdran’s action as mere attention seeking, then what is stopping us from doing the same to all acts of revolt against the Catholic Church that happened all throughout history in all nations that have been colonized by this religion? Others say that there is a “civilized” way of protesting against the Catholic Church. This view needs to be interrogated by an analysis of hegemony.

In The Conservation of “Race,” Kwame Anthony Appiah informs us that “hegemony sets the framework. It defines the dominant system of concepts, the ‘common sense,’ in terms of which social and political reality will be lived.” The “civilized” way of protesting against the hegemon is determined by the hegemon itself, who became the hegemon precisely because of having such authority to determine the norm.  So the civilized way of protesting against the Catholic Church is determined by the Catholic Church. The acceptable way of objecting to the Catholic Church is determined by the Catholic Church. If the Catholic Church says there is no acceptable way of objecting to it, then every form of objection to them will be considered  “notoriously offensive.” This danger is actually reflected in the 2013 ruling against Celdran that quoted the 1939 Supreme Court ruling on the Baes Case.

The 1939 Supreme Court ruled that, “whether or not the act complained of is offensive to the religious feelings of the Catholics, is a question of fact which must be judged only according to the feelings of the Catholics and not those of other faithful ones.” In his dissenting opinion, to which Justice Imperial concurred, Justice Laurel objected to that circular argument:

I express this opinion that offense to religious feelings should not be made to depend upon to the more ore less broad or narrow conception of any given particular religion, but should be gauged having in view the nature of the acts committed and after scrutiny of all the facts and circumstance which should be viewed through the mirror of an unbiased judicial criterion. Otherwise, the gravity or leniency of the offense would hinge on the subjective characterization of the act from the point of view of a given religious denomination or sect, and in such a case, the application of the law would be partial, and arbitrary, withal, dangerous…

Given that the Philippines is 80% Catholic, judges would most probably be Catholics. Whether or not we can get an “unbiased judicial criterion” to determine whether an action is notoriously offensive to the Catholic Church is a question of how courageous our Catholic judges are in ruling against the feelings of their fellow Catholics. Can Catholic judges say that they are not experiencing undue pressure in ruling in favour of their religious group?  This now leads us to the greater significance of the Celdran Case: If the RH Bill tested the independence of the executive and legislative branch against the Church, the Celdran Case is testing the independence of the judiciary against the Church.  Since the passage of the RH Bill into law, we are witnessing what the formal separation of Church and State means in substantive terms. Hence, there are two trials here: a legal one, which involves Celdran; and a political one, which involves the judiciary who must convince us that they are independent of the Church.

To conclude, Celdran’s political protest is a challenge to the hegemony of the Catholic Church, a legacy of Spanish imperialist ambitions. Depending on our attitude towards our colonial masters, we may view Celdran’s political action either as an insult to our masters or as a rightful defiance against our colonizers.  On the other hand, Celdran’s case tests the independence of the judiciary, who must convince us that it can come up with an unbiased judicial discretion that will determine whether or not Celdran’s action is notoriously offensive to Catholics.

Decolonizing the Philippines is an ongoing process. The separation of Church and all branches of government is a continuous struggle. Celdran’s revolt is part of that process and an embodiment of that struggle. Celdran’s action is a legitimate political protest against the oldest living imperial power in the world.

//

On September 30, 2010, Manila tour guide Carlos Celdran was charged for Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code, or “offending religious feelings,” when he displayed the now-infamous Damaso placard to the crowd at the Manila Cathedral.

Two years later, after many efforts from the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines’ (CBCP) to shirk and delay the hearings, the Manila court has declared Celdran guilty of the said charge.

Below is the complete written decision:

You may also access the document here.

It is the function of a good university to turn out an educated and informed citizenry, trained in the skills of critical thought necessary in building and growing an electoral democracy such as ours. This is why it is with gladness that I would like to invite students of the University of Santo Tomas to attend the forum whose details appear below, wherein upcoming national Senatorial candidates have been invited to a public debate on the vital issues of health, population and development.

I am particularly heartened at the courage and forward thinking of the student officers that took the initiative to organize the forum, and the school administration that must have approved it, which as we know has a history of silencing any open discussion on national reproductive health issues unless it is in line with strict Catholic Church doctrine. Now that we have an RH Law, I am glad that the UST school admin decided to lead its students by example on how to work with national government towards the greater good. It is only fitting that a school such as UST, with its prominent medical education program, should take the lead on learning the stand of potential lawmakers on health issues.

…Wait, WHAT? The school administration had it canceled? Because ProLIFE Philippines, a group that has no problem having a punchdrunk thug like Lito David running for them, complained that Risa Hontiveros, a proRH advocate would be going?

Well, God forbid we should have an open intellectual discussion in the middle of a university! My parents went to UST. They met there. They used to be proud of it. And I think the students there who fight for their right to be informed should be proud of themselves as individuals. I’m aware that as a privately run institution those in charge of it can stuff their student’s heads with whatever they want. As generally conceived, however, a school, especially a university, is supposed to be a place for the mind’s liberation, not its indoctrination. Until those in charge of UST can remember that, those university leaders have only themselves to blame for outsiders like myself thinking of their school as a shitty pseudouniversity run by petty, small minded cowards.

Invitation to #YouthVote 2013

A few months away from the national elections, the Student Council Alliance of the Philippines and the Forum for FP and Development invite you to the first of a series of forums for national and local candidates for 2013 starting with the First Senatorial Forum on Health, Population and Development, January 11, 12nn-2pm at UST College of Medicine Auditorium.

Mainstreaming youth issues, sentiments and policy recommendations for the 2013 elections, the youth leaders spearheading this movement nationwide would like to champion responsible voting, challenge traditional politics and make politics work for the youth and the Filipino people as a whole.

Confirmed guests in the forum are: Ms. Risa Hontiveros, Ms. Grace Poe Llamanzares, Mr. Richard Gordon, Ms. Jamby Madrigal and Rep. Sonny Angara. The event will also be inter-active and on live stream in Bicol University and University of the Philippines Cebu powered by SMART

Details:

Now Trending: #YOUTHVOTE2013

1st Senatorial Debates on Health, Population and Development

January 11, 2013

12:00nn – 2:00pm

College of Medicine Auditorium, University of Santo Tomas

–

Image from varsitarian.net

The Reproductive Health Bill is now the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012. While the measure has passed all legislative hurdles, the RH Law is now facing a predictable challenge in the Supreme Court. More predictably, the challenge comes from Catholic Church associates. While the intention behind the challenge is supposedly to protect the unborn, it is clear that if the goal of Catholics is to protect as many unborn children as possible, striking down the RH Law is just about the worst thing you can possibly do.

On the first working day of the year, January 2, James and Lovely-Ann Imbong filed a petition for the Supreme Court to nullify the recently passed bill. “In behalf” of their minor children, the Imbongs also name their two offspring as petitioners. As has been pointed out, the “Imbong” name should be very familiar because the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines has Jo Imbong, mother of James, as its lawyer. Also, James Imbong is the first nominee of the CBCP-backed Ang Pro-Life Party-List, which claims to represent not the Church, but OFWs. Try to stop yourself from laughing; it gets better. The CBCP has come out to state that they are in no way involved with the petition against the RH Law. Melvin Castro of the CBCP said that their counsel’s relation to the petitioners was “purely incidental.”

Pro-Life Philippines: Abortion is okay sometimes

Reason and Science of Contraception

It is typical for conservative Catholics to equivocate the RH Law with abortion. On the contrary, the availability of contraception diminishes the number of abortions. The logic is simple: people who use contraception want to prevent pregnancy resulting from particular sexual encounters. They can choose to have children from later coital acts by stopping the use of contraceptives. By reducing the number of pregnancies of people who do not want to be pregnant, the number of unwanted pregnancies decreases. Since unwanted pregnancies are the targets of chemical and surgical abortion, less unwanted pregnancies means less induced abortions. After all, why would you willfully abort a wanted pregnancy? Consistent and proper use of contraceptives therefore ensures that a pregnancy that does occur is wanted and planned instead of unwanted and by chance.

But, let’s not rely on pure reason and let some empiricism enlighten us. A four-year study by researchers at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis came out last year to show that when free contraceptives were provided to a community, abortions decreased. It should be noted that from their study, most women (75%) chose to have “long-acting” contraceptives such as IUDs instead of pills, which must be taken daily. They found that abortions in St. Louis, Missouri, where the study was conducted, dropped by 20%, while the rest of Missouri’s abortion rates remained steady.

This result, however, is not enough to show that opposition to the RH Law will result in more abortions.

Intelligently Designed Abortion

Abortion is an unavoidable fact of pregnancy. Spontaneous abortions are more politely called “miscarriages,” but the essence is the same for either spontaneous or induced abortion—pregnancy ends and a fertilized embryo fails to develop into a child. Catholics would argue that the embryo is already a person and intentionally inducing abortion is murder. Miscarriages, then, would be accidental death. It turns out, however, that as much as 50% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. This estimate includes the great number of pregnancies that were never even noticed because the embryos were spontaneously aborted so early. That means, for any sexual act that successfully results in a fertilized embryo (which Catholics believe are people), 50% of all of these “people” will die. If the Christian God is anti-abortion, it’s hard to imagine greater hypocrisy.

The main mechanism of contraceptives is to prevent the meeting of sperm and egg altogether, meaning no embryo is formed. The opposition of the Church against condoms should have been a dead giveaway that their concern is sex and not unborn children. Chemical contraceptives, like the pill, prevent the meeting of sperm and egg through various means, such as by slowing down the transport of the egg from the ovaries to the uterus. But, even if a drug were specifically designed to prevent the implantation of a fertilized embryo (which is supposedly a person), its users would not rival the number of abortive events caused by well-meaning couples wanting to get pregnant. That’s not a strong enough statement. All the induced abortions performed in the world (over 470,000 in the Philippines according to 2000 data from the Guttmacher Institute), cannot even begin to compete with spontaneous abortions.

The Department of Health reported that there were 1,700,000 live births in 2000. If that is just 50% of all successful pregnancies, then that means there were also 1,700,000 embryos naturally aborted, or over three times the number of induced abortions in the same year. Therefore, if many pregnancies are prevented altogether through contraception, there will be less abortions. Thus, the Catholic plan of “openness” to pregnancy is tantamount to “openness” to spontaneous abortion. In contrast, a couple with no plans of ever conceiving risks no abortions. Comparatively, a couple that plans each pregnancy with contraceptives, and does not haphazardly sire dozens of kids, will not abort as many embryos as the well-meaning Catholic couple.

Accessories to Murder

If you want to avoid abortion altogether, the best way is not to have kids. If you want kids, you will risk having an abortion, whether or not you know about it. That is a fact we must accept as a nation. If you want to risk the least number of abortions, then you will need to plan your pregnancies and use contraception.

If you have as many kids as you want, you will abort just as many. It’s statistics. And if you want to kill as many unborn as possible, go a step further like the Imbongs and deny Filipinos the right to access to contraceptives.

The use of the Imbongs’ children in the petition, despite their being incapable to consent, is consistent with anti-RH values, since the Imbongs (and the Church) claim to represent children and the unborn in their crusade against reproductive rights. And in this crusade, they are not shy to employ the bloody imagery associated with the Catholic Church’s own medieval Crusades. About President Aquino’s signing of the RH Bill, Batangas Archbishop Ramon Arguelles compared him to the Connecticut shooter who killed 20 schoolchildren because the RH Law would supposedly kill millions. But, we can see from the scientific evidence that it is not contraception, and not even induced abortion, that will lead to the most aborted embryos—it is the Church’s anti-contraceptive dogma. If abortion is murder, the Imbongs are accessories, and the Catholic Church is the killer.

Sen. Pia Cayetano & Rep. Edcel Lagman: two of the many individuals we have to thank for our purple Christmas.

If there’s one thing reproductive health (RH) advocates want for Christmas, it’s the passage of the RH Bill. Many have been speculating that President Aquino will sign the bill into law as his Christmas present to the Filipino people — all 94,852,030 of them.

When you think about one person giving gifts to so many people, one mythical figure comes to mind: Santa Claus. Many have worked hard throughout the years to give Filipinos an RH law. And among them, none other reminds me of Santa than Rep. Edcel Lagman. His white hair and round figure are complemented by the constantly cool and humorous nature he displayed throughout the process of RH legislation.

But there’s more to the analogy than appearance and attitude. Because the historical figure Santa Claus was based on had something more in common with Lagman. According to Adam C. English, associate professor of religion and author of “The Saint Who Would Be Santa Claus: The True Life and Trials of St. Nicholas of Myra,” Santa had a soft spot for poor women.

He tells the following story, which he finds so “strange and surprising… that historians assume it must be based to a large degree on fact”:

It is the tale of three poor daughters.

Nicholas had been aware of a certain citizen of Patara – in Lycia, modern-day Turkey – who had once been an important and wealthy man of the city but who had fallen on hard times and into extreme poverty. The man grew so desperate that he lacked the very essentials of life.

The poor man reasoned that it was impossible to marry off his three beautiful daughters because they lacked dowries for proper marriages to respectable noblemen. He feared they would each in turn be forced into prostitution to support themselves.

Nicholas heard this heartbreaking news and resolved to do something about it. He bagged a sum of gold and in the dead of night, tossed it through the man’s window. The money was used as a dowry for the first daughter.

Sometime later, Nicholas made a second nighttime visit so that the second daughter might marry. Later tradition reported that, finding the windows closed, he dropped the bag of gold down the chimney, where it landed into one of the girl’s stockings that was hanging to dry.

When Nicholas returned to deliver anonymously the third bag of gold for the last daughter, the curious father was ready. When he heard a bag hit the floor, the father leapt to his feet and raced outside, where he caught the mysterious benefactor.

Nicholas revealed his identity to the father but made him swear never to tell anyone what he’d done. He did not want praise or recognition for his generosity.

Thus the legend of Santa Claus was born. Although millions recognize the legendary figure, few know that it all came from the story of how a rich old man did his part to help three women, each less fortunate than he was, have the opportunity to live better lives.

The people who made this purple Christmas possible are too many to mention, each of them deserving of our thanks and congratulations. But I think it’s OK to start with Rep. Edcel Lagman, the Santa Claus of the 15th Congress, who in his final term did his part to pass the RH Bill, giving every Filipino, especially the poor, the opportunity to live healthy, educated, and dignified lives.

Image from facebook.com/RHnow

***
INB4: In the context of my Santa — Edcel analogy, it’s quite ironic that St. Nicholas was a bishop, and that Santa Claus is most commonly depicted in red.

All of a sudden the RH Bill is a signature away from becoming the RH Law. Recently, it’s been progressing so rapidly that you have to wonder: Why has it been stuck in legislation for so long?

There are several culprits, but three groups share most of the blame: bishops, legislators, and voters. Bishops, for bullying and lying to legislators; legislators, for allowing this theocratic meddling to happen; and voters, for electing both into positions of power. You read that right. Electing both. Because as I’ll explain, bishops are elected, too.

Obviously, there are no elections for Catholic bishops. The Roman Catholic Church is a theocracy, a dictatorship led by the Pope, an institution of the bishops, by the bishops, and for the bishops. Ordinary Catholics — the laity — have as much say in who they’re supposed to obey as in what they’re supposed to believe. That is, absolutely none.

But although there are no democratic elections in the usual sense, Catholics can still choose their bishops. If they wanted to, they could change their religious leaders any time they wanted. But first, they have to understand what it means to belong to their church.

Corporations

The Catholic Church is a corporation. A multinational corporation with several branches called dioceses. Both legally and dogmatically, a bishop is the boss of his diocese. You don’t change your boss by incompetence or insubordination. And you don’t change your bishop by disobedience or dissent.

Because the Catholic Church is a monolithic corporation, changing the bishop because you disagree with him is as difficult as changing the Pope himself. If you work for a company that doesn’t allow you to change your boss, the only way to change your boss is to move to another company.

Many Catholics take for granted that they’re not forced to be Catholic. It may not have been the case a few centuries ago, but people can now choose their religion without fear of death or torture. So remaining Catholic is a decision, however consciously the choice is made.

Bishops

Bishops aren’t elected, so choosing Catholicism implies choosing the Catholic bishops. When it comes to most religions, you can’t have one without the other. Still, there is freedom of religion. You could’ve chosen Islam (and its imams) or Buddhism (and its monks) or Judaism (and its rabbis) and so on. By choosing to be Catholic, you’ve essentially voted for Catholic bishops to represent you, regardless of how much — or how little — you agree with them.

A lot of pro-RH Catholics would object to this. What kind of RH advocate would want to be represented by bishops who routinely misinform and fear monger, even blaming natural calamities (Sendong, Habagat, Pablo) and human atrocities (school shootings) on the RH Bill?

They prefer to think they’re represented by progressive Catholic leaders, the silent pro-RH clergy who anonymously spammed text messages in support of RH, or the progressive theologians who say it’s OK to dissent because there’s freedom of conscience and, thus, freedom to dissent.

But there’s a reason the pro-RH clergy are silent: They could be fired by the Catholic Church, losing the little authority they have — not to mention their source of livelihood. And there’s a reason theologians are so relatively noisy: They can’t be fired by the Catholic Church — at least not directly — and they have no official authority whatsoever — at least not when it counts.

Think of it this way. A bishop is like an anti-RH congressman. Priests are members of his staff, and theologians are informal advisers and critics. The anti-RH congressman can have one or even several pro-RH staff (silent clergy). He can even surround himself with pro-RH advisers and critics (theologians).

But no matter how progressive the people around him are, only the congressman gets to cast and explain his vote on the RH Bill. And no matter how popular his staff or advisers are with his constituents, they won’t even be allowed to say a single word.

Clout

Religious organizations are essentially the same as political ones because both are ultimately after the same thing: numbers. If the CBCP has political clout, it’s because the Philippines is predominantly Catholic. In political terms, they have the most votes when the most recent religious elections were held.

Because our politicians don’t fully appreciate the principle of secularism, religious clout translates to political power. It’s no coincidence that our government panders to religious leaders in proportion to their religion’s numbers.

When the Pope and his closest bishops attend international human rights conventions, the world’s leaders listen to them for one reason, and it’s not the strength or validity of their arguments. It’s the fact that they represent 1.1 billion Catholics. And whether they like it or not, every Catholic, no matter how progressive, is counted.

Politics

I don’t know for sure, but I highly doubt that anyone in these conventions has refuted the Pope by asking him how many Catholics actually agree with him. The Vatican contingent has routinely weakened, delayed, and even blocked progressive developments on a global level. And every Catholic around the world shares the blame.

In the same way, every pro-RH Catholic shares the blame for the delay of the RH Bill, and inevitably, the difficulty of its implementation — not to mention all the other irrational, unscientific, and theocratic things the CBCP has the power to do.

We’ll have to wait for the coming elections to vote against anti-RH legislators, but Catholics can do something about their anti-RH bishops today. Choosing one’s religion has political ramifications, and it’s time more Catholics realize this.

When you belong to the Catholic Church, it’s not the pro-RH priests or progressive theologians you put in power. At the end of the day, it’s the bishops you vote for.

The RH bill has been called divisive by its opponents over and over even as it is already about to become a law. And as if to cause further divide, another contentious issue is now being brought up by no less than House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte, who revealed plans of enacting the divorce bill next congress.

Some say that the passage of the RH bill paves the way not only to divorce but also to same-sex union, abortion, and euthanasia, as depicted by Inquirer’s editorial cartoon, in that order, which also seems to be in increasing order of insult to the Roman Catholic Church.

But are these bills truly causing division in our nation? Or does it seem more likely that our beliefs and opinions are already as diverse as our religions and philosophies, and that these bills merely polarize the issues for us to look into and discuss?

To discuss is to exert an effort of checking one’s beliefs and biases and openly listening to what the other has to say, and then trying to see points where we can agree. Is that divisive behavior? Now compare that to those who stubbornly hold on to their dogmas and refuse to hear the other side’s story.

In a democracy, there will always be issues that seem to divide the nation. But if a country has to progress, its people will have to iron out these issues instead of ignoring them. Conflicts are healthy as long as both parties aim for resolution, instead of allowing disagreement to become an end in itself because one or both parties only want to prescribe their principles to the point of depriving the other person the right to be heard.

We are already divided by our beliefs, and silencing the dissenting opinions that might lead to new legislation will only build up pressure on the cracks. Yes, the passage of the RH bill will definitely give a morale boost to the advocates of divorce, marriage equality, abortion, and euthanasia. And it is no coincidence that all these issues share a common divisive denominator: whether to listen to the Church teachings or to reason and evidence. The Church will always try to impose its absolute dogmas in government affairs, and the secularists will always want to see the reign of an oppressive medieval empire come to an end, or at least restricted to the “spiritual” realm and to people’s private lives.

But disagreement does not necessarily have to result to division. To those who rely on reason and evidence, the government is expected to provide a secular venue for fair discussion. And for those who rely on dogma, they are always free to preach to their flock inside the walls of their churches. If both sides would only stay in their respective places, it becomes possible to transcend our differences, and we as a people can take one more step towards living in harmony by respecting the rights of those who don’t share our beliefs.

* * * * *

Image credits: Philstar, Boy Santos

The Bishops of the Philippines have some really shitty logic and they have been using this logic to spew lies and misinformation regarding the RH Bill.

Just this morning I came across an article called, “Bishop compares President Aquino to Connecticut shooter because of the Reproductive Health bill.”

Here are some of the highlights of that article:

According to a report by Evelyn Macairan of the Philippine Star, “Batangas Archbishop Ramon Arguelles yesterday said that while a 20-year-old gunman killed 20 children in the US, President Aquino would be killing millions of children with a stroke of a pen if he signs the RH bill into law.” 

After Typhoon Pablo hit the southern Philippines, another Church leader, Manila Auxiliary Bishop Broderick Pabillo said, “the typhoon that left more than a thousand dead, could be a message from God about the RH bill.”

These conclusions don’t make sense. They infuriate me. So, as a thought experiment I wondered what arguments for the RH Bill I could come up with if, like these bishops, I used non sequitur arguments (“RH Bill caused Typhoon Pablo”), false analogies (Pinoy is like the Connecticut shooter), and other illogical statements.

Let’s call this game the “Bishop Logic” game.

Argument #1:

1. Bishops and other members of the clergy like to sexually abuse children. In fact, the Catholic Church even has a Wikipage dedicated entirely to information about Catholic sex abuse cases. “The Catholic sex abuse cases are a series of convictions, trials and investigations into allegations of child sexual abuse crimes committed by Catholic priests and members of Roman Catholic orders against children as young as 3 years old with the majority between the ages of 11 and 14.”

2. Children living in depressed conditions are often neglected or under-supervised. “A number of prevalence and incidence studies have highlighted the link between poverty and some forms of child maltreatment, especially neglect, emotional and physical abuse.”

3. Family planning will reduce the number of under-supervised and underprivileged children.

Therefore:

“Bishops don’t want the RH Bill to pass because there will be less underprivileged and under-supervised children they would be free to molest.”

Argument #2:

1. God often tests the faith of his “people.”

2. The Catholic Church are supposedly God’s “people.”

3. Typhoon Pablo hit the Southern Philippines.

4. The Catholic Church is rolling in money. In fact, they are able to afford over $2 billion worth of sex abuse settlements. This astronomical number is even expected to rise towards $5 billion in the near future.

Therefore:

“Typhoon Pablo hit the southern Philippines because God wants to test the priorities of the Catholic Church. God wants to find out wherther the Church will use their wealth to help the victims of Typhoon Pablo OR to keep more child molesters unpunished.”

Argument #3:

1. “Higher levels of education lead to lower levels of religious participation later in life“.

2. “Early childbearing can interfere with education, so those with early or frequent childbearing are likely to be less educated.”

3. Sexual education will prevent a woman from having early or infrequent childbearing. “Teens who received comprehensive sex education were 60 percent less likely to report becoming pregnant or impregnating someone than those who received no sex education.”

Therefore:

“The Catholic clergy is against the RH Bill because it wants you to be pregnant and out-of-school. They don’t want you to be educated because the more education you get, the higher the chance that you would stop believing their bullshit and giving them money.”

In summary, using “Bishop Logic,” we have 3 explanations as to why the Catholic church is against the RH Bill:

1. “Bishops don’t want the RH Bill to pass because there will be less underprivileged and under-supervised children they would be free to molest.”

2. “Typhoon Pablo hit the southern Philippines because God wants to test the priorities of the Catholic Church. God wants to find out wherther the Church will use their wealth to help the victims of Typhoon Pablo OR to keep more child molesters unpunished.”

3. “The Catholic clergy wants you to be pregnant and out-of-school. They don’t want you to be educated because the more education you get, the higher the chance that you would stop believing their bullshit and giving them money.”

However, regardless of how much “sense” these arguments “seem” to make, being a freethinker, it is my responsibility to tell you that these arguments, for varied reasons, are not entirely logical. I simply wanted to show what kind of arguments the pro-RH side would come up with if they resorted to the same “Bishop Logic” that these clergymen use to make their arguments.

So don’t listen to the dumb shit stupid old men say, because “Bishop logic” is not logical.

–

Image from justinvacula.com

On the second reading of the RH bill in congress, many incredible things were said on the floor of the Batasan in a vain attempt to stop the RH bill. Can you spot which ones were actually said by Congress Representatives and which are just attempts to live up to their crazy?

1. “Napakaswerte ko dahil nung kinasal ang magulang ko, walang RH law”
2. “Only God has the right to stop life. A big no to RH bill.”
3. “The RH bill does not care much about family/marriage but concerned with giving couples safe,satisfying sex life”
4. “We stand for the yearning that somehow, some higher power binds us to follow the light to goodness, righteousness”
5. “Without our population, we would not have large remittances. I believe RH bill is not good for our country, our population.”
6. “Sagot ba ang condom sa taong walang makain ngayon?”
7. “Our big population makes it so that the Filipino people can give more glory to God. Therefore, no to the RH bill.”
8. “RH bill directly violates fundamental law of the land, religious freedom; directly assaults Catholic Church”
9. “Nanaginip po ako kagabi na nagpakita sa akin ang Mahal na Birhen na may dalang isang aborted na fetus. Paano po kung kayo yung fetus na ‘yon? Hindi po pwedeng magka-RH Bill!”
10. “We don’t play dice with God.”
11. “There’s something wrong when bill disrespects religious beliefs, reduces to plain argument denial of right to life”
12. “Who stands to benefit most if this bill is passed? Hindi ko pwede isuko ang aking pagka-Katoliko”
13. “With the RH Bill, my wife would be so lonely at home without children to take care of.”
14. “Myth of overpopulation has been debunked.”
15. “They said that the RH bill is for the women, but that’s not true. The RH bill is for those men who can’t control their urges. It is always the men who want sex, never the women. If husbands will just abstain from sex when they don’t want their wives to get pregnant, there will be no unwanted children. I vote no to the RH bill.”

Highlight below for the answers

Real:
1) Rep Unico, 3) Rep. Garcia, 4) Rep. Gullas, 5) Rep. Antonino, 6) Rep. Tiangco, 8) Rep. Rufus Rodriguez, 10) Rep. Javier, 11) Rep. Del Mar, 12) Rep. Mikey Arroyo, 14) Rep. Karlo Nograles

Fake:
2, 7, 9, 13, 15

Source: ANC report, “#RHBill: How They Voted”

In a final attempt at scrounging for votes against the Reproductive Health Bill, CBCP President Archbishop Jose Palma exhorted CBCP loyalists in the House of Representatives with the words their god told Abraham, “Do not be afraid.” You may recall that Abraham was the man whose son Yahweh asked him to kill to prove his faith.

Palma told representatives to “listen to what God is saying.” By pure coincidence, I’m sure, what “God is saying” is exactly what Palma is saying, with God unable to speak for himself.

While Archbishop Palma entreats conservatives in Congress to be free from fear, the Roman Catholic Church sows fear everywhere else. Once Senate Majority Leader Tito Sotto conceded that the pro-RH side had the votes to pass the measure in the Senate, he had this to say, “May God have mercy on their souls.” This, of course, was a threat against pro-RH senators that while they may win in this world, they will face everlasting torment in the afterlife.

A similar tact has been repeatedly approached by other conservative Catholics, where they quote the Gospel’s injunction against those who “cause the little ones to sin.” Matthew 18:6 says, “…if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” They threaten RH advocates with death because they believe that the RH Bill will lead otherwise faithful believers into sin through the temptation of contraception. A cursory search through Google will reveal how popular the idiom is among conservative Catholics and just how much they would like to tie a rock around all our necks and drown us in the sea.

Centered on human sacrifice, violence is at the very root of the Catholic religion and it is not at all surprising that its most zealous adherents would resort to savage irrationality when things do not go their way (despite their confidence in a god). RH Bill sponsor Edcel Lagman has been well-aware of the Church’s history of violence, saying, “Fear has always been used by the clergy as an instrument of repression and reprisal like fear of damnation…”

Even before the RH Bill has passed either chamber of Congress, the CBCP has already issued a warning that the RH Bill is the start of a slippery slope towards what they call “DEATHS bills” or “Divorce, Euthanasia, Abortion, Total Reproductive Health, Homosexuality or gay marriages, and Sex education.” The CBCP Secretary General who was quoted saying this has obviously seen the trend in the greater part of the world toward equality for humans and rights over their own bodies. The CBCP fears that it might also happen in our neck of the woods. It is likely, in my view, that the Roman Catholic Church fears more that they will lose their centuries-long stranglehold on the Filipino people.

As RH advocates, we aim to make, with the RH Bill, this very small step towards a lasting and flourishing society in the Philippines. Our opponents have made it clear that they share no such interest. They would rather we be mired in disease, torment, and starvation, for the sake of avoiding some imagined damnation. But, if there is anyone who ought not be afraid, it is those who are on the side of equal human rights and the dignity of self-determination. It is those who are fighting for a better future, not in some invented paradise, but here, on this tiny planet we call home.

As we draw near into the final stages of passing the RH Bill, many are still hoping that both sides of the argument will come to a compromise. But, it is clear from all the threats of death and violence that there shall never be compromise for the Roman Catholic Church. For them, human souls are at stake and they will stop at nothing to prevent the evils that they foresee. None of their fears, of course, are based on any evidence.

The burden of proof is on the Church to show that the ruler of the universe does indeed think contraception is evil and that its users are going straight to hell. Nevertheless, they act as if this is self-evident. It is not. Their views betray a literally medieval mindset that has no room on the floor of the House of Representatives. Yet, it is given room by conservatives such as Rufus Rodriguez at the expense of those who live and die in suffering every day because of the denial of reproductive rights. It is time to say no to these men beholden to fear and superstition. It is time to acknowledge the right of persons over their own bodies. It is time to vote on the RH Bill.

_{Image Credit: Le sacrifice d’Isaac by Matthias Stom | Source: Wikimedia Commons}