In the meantime, here’s a short summary of the things that happened on Monday. Keep an eye out for our old friend Tolits, and our expertly coordinated Command Center Lift-off to occupy their intended occupation of the Occupy campaign.

Scene Selection

Group song welcoming people to Santa Clara (3:12)

First Act: Baptism (11:28)

Priest sings about sacrifice and the original sin (22:19)

Sister Soledad sings about the morality of changing and loving our bodies (24:50)

Second Act: Marriage (31:22)

Four women confront Sister Soledad about how society unfairly blames women (40:08)

Third Act: Funeral (46:49)

A happy, naughty song about the IUD (47:52)

Priest and mayor sing about their mutually beneficial partnership (1:05:05)

Finale: people sing about their hopes for Santa Clara (1:16:11)

Credits (1:20:24)

Religious conservatives don’t belong to just the Catholic faith. In September 30 2005, an artist in Denmark published a cartoon that caused Muslim conservatives to call for his death over blasphemy. Join the international community in marking September 30 as “International Blasphemy Rights Day.” With the CBCP actively trying to create a blasphemy law despite the UN Human Rights Commission declaring that blasphemy is a human right, this day is highly relevant to the Philippines.

Image from mattcbr.wordpress.com

Their demand, that their religious sensibilities be not offended by anyone else’ words or actions simply cannot be acquiesced to by any democratic society that values the freedom of expression. Sure, people have a right to take offense  but an expectation that no one can ever say anything which will offend you is unreasonable and has grave consequences for society.

It would mean a society crippled, unable to spread and criticize ideas for fear of offending other people. Without the spread and criticism of ideas, progress would essentially be dead. Society would not be able to move forward scientifically. Society would not be able to move forward ethically. Society would not be able to move forward artistically.

Perhaps one can see the appeal of such a society to religious fundamentalists.

So we stand against people who devalue the freedom of expression, for this freedom of expression gives us the ability to move toward a society that values reason and science. This is why representatives from the Filipino Freethinkers stood up in that forum and spoke out against the loud angry voices of the Catholic fundamentalists.

Interestingly, the Catholics of Pro-Life Philippines seemed to take offense at Red saying CBCP. It’s not a derogatory word folks!

It makes me wonder how all-powerful the fundamentalists really think their God is. I mean, if their God can be offended by a mere artwork, how all powerful can their deity really be?

On Sunday, February 27 2010, the Filipino Freethinkers were witness to more than a thousand women and their supporters marching up to the CBCP to let their grievances with the bishops be heard. Together, we marched in memory of the 11 women who die daily from lack of reproductive health services in the Philippines, services the bishops deny with their opposition to the Reproductive Health bill. In front of the gates of the CBCP, a stirring open letter was read and a die-in was staged to remind the bishops of the human cost of their opposition.

Full text of the Open Letter to the CBCP Regarding RH (letter in filipino)

27 February 2011

To the honorable bishops of CBCP,

Peace. We came to your office not to stir up trouble, nor to plead with you. We’re just here to give you a simple message.

Eleven women die every day from pregnancy and childbirth, a continuing tragedy that can be ended by the RH bill you are blocking.

We know that your opposition is based on a papal encyclical. We do not expect that you can change this encyclical.

We also do not expect you to stop speaking about social issues, even if many people do not agree with you.

But we do expect you to care as fellow Filipinos who preach about love, especially love for the poor. Despite your elevated social status, we expect you to respect the rights of others who do not agree with you. We expect that although all of you are men, you have learned affection and empathy from your mothers, your sisters and women friends.

Together with allies and friends, we are more than a thousand women, mostly from the crowded and tangled alleys of Metro Manila. If we could get you to live in our shanty homes; share with you the paltry meals that we have every day; have you witness the upright lives of neighbors who use contraceptives; let you listen to children longing for the mothers they lost to maternal complications—we would do so, to open your minds about our need for RH. But these are impossible wishes, so we have come to you.

It pains us to hear you downplay the deaths of mothers. You and your allies have dismissively said that many more die from other illnesses; that pregnancy is not a disease; that the government has more important things to fund; that the possible fusion of sperm and eggs is more important than a woman’s life.

How many more must die before you are touched?

There is a saying that perhaps you believe in as well: Whoever saves a single life, saves the world entire. Allow us to tell you the true story of a mother whose life could have been saved by programs in the RH bill.

Olivia was a quiet woman who kept to herself, and lived in the poor community of Barangay Tonsuya, Letre, Malabon. She was only eighteen when she got married, and after just a few years had nine children. Because she had no money, she delivered her tenth child at home, helped by a traditional birth attendant. Her youngest was delivered alive; but Olivia bled profusely afterwards.

Abigail, her thirteen-year old eldest child, was feeding her then. In between sobs, Abigail said that Olivia stopped eating, spilled her drink, and shortly bade her farewell with the words: “Abigail, take care of all your siblings.”

Olivia died on May 2, 2009. She was only 37 years old. After her death, Abigail and her two other siblings dropped out of school. The three youngest children, including the baby, are due to be given up for adoption.

How many stories of Olivias must we tell you before you believe? How many more Olivias need to die before you sympathize?

We bring eleven candles to symbolize the eleven women who have died or will die today. By lighting each candle, we remember and honor the life each woman had, which in unique ways, provided love and light to her children, to her partner, to her friends, to her siblings, to her parents, to her community, to her factory, and most probably, even to her church.

By letting each of the eleven candles stand in front of your office, we commit to memory the painful words you used to trivialize the deaths of mothers. We commit to memory the extreme actions that you took against the RH bill, and the reckless delay of a law that could have saved a majority of these mothers.

More than four thousand women die every year from maternal complications, deaths that could be prevented by RH education and services. The thousand or so of us who are here today will lie down in the street to show you a fraction of the scale of this tragedy: the lives lost, the children left behind, the hopes and relationships cut short, the contributions to society that have ceased.

We will leave your office in the same peaceful manner that we came. We only leave behind the eleven candles with their dying flames. May the memories of the eleven women who died today touch your hearts and minds.

Well folks, 2010 has been a great year for the Filipino Freethinkers and now we’re on the cusp of another great year to look forward to! Before the year is over though, we thought we’d try something new: vodcasts!

After luring Red and meetup regulars Frank, Margie and Dustin with promises of cake we sat them down on a couch and got them talking about their favorite FF memories of 2010 as well as what they’re looking forward to in the new year for the Filipino Freethinkers.

We’d like to do more vodcasts in the future, perhaps as a monthly thing. As this is our first vodcast, its still a little raw around the edges so we’d like to hear your feedback.

Happy new year, see you all in the first 2011 meetup!

I interviewed the elephant. After some media representatives interviewed him, I thought I’d take advantage of inertia and cut in right after with my trusty camcorder. It paid off. He took a look at my ID and asked about my surname. I told him my grandfather was Turkish. If that’s what he asked me, he must have missed “Filipino Free Thinkers” written below my name.

Anyway, are some highlights:

He was vague about condom use being a mortal sin. Last I checked it still is a mortal sin. But instead of using those words, he said it was a grave matter, which is the same thing.

He said that the Catholic statements against the effectiveness of condoms were supported by scientific surveys and facts.

He said that even if condom use were proven to be effective (by the CBCP “scientists”), if it was opposed to the principles of the Catholic Church, it would still be wrong. Which will always be the case, since condoms are intrinsically evil. (I was surprised he had to think twice about whether this was the case.)

He said that condom use would be OK between a married couple and only if one of the spouses had HIV or AIDS. Now here he is going against the official Catholic stance that condom use is intrinsically evil. Maybe there is hope. (Jail the Pope? Sorry.)

He said that half-Catholics, those who disagree with the Church’s position on matters such as condom use, “are not Catholics.” Though this would probably be bad for publicity, and as public affairs director, he knew better. So…

He said that Catholics who do not agree with the Church can still call themselves Catholic. But they would be erring Catholics.

I didn’t get to prepare, so now I have a lot of tougher questions I wish I’d asked. But I guess it’s good enough when you get a bishop to say, “Nadali mo ako dun a.”

I asked the titular question at this morning’s HIV Summit hosted by the Philippine National AIDS Council (PNAC). The event started with several speakers discussing the state of HIV and AIDS in the country; and the measures that must be taken by the people in attendance — mostly leaders from different sectors of society who share HIV/AIDS as an advocacy.

After the talks the participants were allowed to ask questions and make comments. Several participants had their say, some raising issues not mentioned in the talks. These issues were addressed, often at length, sometimes by more than one person.

Yet with the hundreds in attendance, in none of the talks, questions, and comments did anyone raise the CBCP issue. The CBCP is and has been the strongest political opponent of the DOH or any other sexual health advocacy group since Ever. The recent death of the RH Bill is almost entirely thanks to them. More recently, Secretary Cabral, PNAC Chairperson and Secretary of Health, has received harsh criticism and has even been pressured to resign from her post.

The CBCP Problem was the elephant in the room, and I couldn’t wait to cry elephant.

I got my chance toward the end of the open forum. I’ve embedded the video below. (It’s not in the video, but I asked the question using the microphone at the table assigned for members of faith-based groups, which was only a few meters away from mine.)

In case you’re wondering what the answer to my question was, there was none. The reason for this could have been the lack of time (we were about to have lunch) or the lack of an answer. But I realized later why they had their tongues tied.

Shortly after I asked the question, at the faith-based table sat an elephant — Bishop Yniguez, CBCP public affairs director. Ceremoniously, the event host acknowledged the presence of His Eminence. And the participants, leaders in the fight against HIV and AIDS, advocates of artificial family planning and comprehensive sexual health education, applauded.