Whenever I listen to Senator Sotto on the RH Bill, Manny Pacquiao on homosexuality, and the CBCP on pretty much everything, one word uncontrollably comes to mind: bigot. The impulse is almost as strong as God bless you! follows a sneeze.

In Catholic Philippines, it seems that some people can’t help sneezing, the most recent being former beauty queen Miriam Quiambao. And always, freethinkers everywhere can’t but say bigot! in response.

Recently, some conservatives have gone on the defensive, because intolerance is no longer as fashionable as it used to be back in the good old Dark Ages. Conservative cohorts of the CBCP are arguing that anti-LGBT Christians are being called bigots just because “it’s so cool” (it’s actually so mainstream that it’s not) and that their accusers are equally deserving of the accusation:

But you know, it’s so ‘cool’ these days to call Christianity bigotry… It’s funny, though, how those who scream and call for tolerance are the very same people who are the first to call ‘foul’ when their own beliefs, behaviors and/or lifestyles are challenged…

Let’s face it, anti-Catholicism/anti-Christianity is the last acceptable prejudice. Tolerance is only real when it goes both ways. The LGBT crowd have their own beliefs, let Miriam have hers.

In other words, calling out Christian bigotry is just as intolerant and prejudiced as being anti-LGBT in particular and anti-conservative-Christian in general. Thus, the critics themselves have become the bigots.

But is this true? Is harsh criticism of the Christian perspective a form of bigotry? If both progressives and conservatives can correctly call each other bigots, has the term bigot become meaningless? What does it really mean to be a bigot?

These questions are important to me because I’m guilty of being one of the first to call bigot! — sometimes even before whole sentences are formed — and I belong to an organization that recently gave out a Bigot of the Year award.

To answer them, I studied the word bigot: how it is defined, how it was formed, how it was originally used, and how related words clarify its meaning. By the end of this post, you’ll know who you can call a bigot and whether doing so makes you one.

Bigotefinition

The dictionary defines bigot as “a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.”

No one can be faulted for being opinionated, but bigotry lies not merely in having opinions but being devoted to them. Obstinate devotion means you believe something “in spite of reason, arguments, or persuasion.”

You might think that we’ve finally hit the nail on the head, but reason is another problematic word: everyone has their own criteria for what is rational, so it’s easy to accuse anyone of bigotry simply because you cannot persuade them with your reasoning.

When it comes to the second half of the definition, conservatives can deflect charges of hatred and intolerance with the usual excuses: “We hate the sin, not the sinner.” (Although there’s absolutely no excuse for inciting violence, the way Pacquiao recently did.)

At this point, some might think that “obstinate devotion” can equally apply to progressives, but this won’t be the case if you understand what it means to be devoted.  Devotion is more than mere commitment; it implies “religious fervor,” an act of “private worship.”

A bigot isn’t just passionate about an opinion — holding the opinion is a form of worship, a prayer to God. And as you’ll soon find out, it’s by God that we’ll separate the merely opinionated from the blatantly bigoted.

Bigotymology

There are three theories about bigot’s origin. The first is that it’s based on Visigothus, the name of a people in southern Gaul. The second is that it’s from the Germanic oath, “by God.” The third — my favorite — is that it came from the Spanish, bigote or mustache.

There’s not much evidence to support any theory, but they think the third is the strongest “by virtue of it not having any evidence against it.” (Maybe I’ll send them some articles on Sotto and pics of his signature ‘stache to cement the third theory’s position.)

Anyway, without no clear origin, we can focus on its original usage. Bigot was first used in the late 16th century to mean “sanctimonious person, religious hypocrite.” Bigotry (based on the French bigoterie) came in the late 17th century to mean “sanctimoniousness.”

A sanctimonious person is “hypocritically pious or devout” — he projects a righteous image through religiosity, a self-righteousness that is contradicted by his own actions. As hypothetical examples, consider an outwardly pious politician involved in the rape of Pepsi Paloma or a Bible-thumping boxer involved in an affair with Krista Ranillo.

Compared to its current usage, the earlier one lost this sanctimonious sense of hypocrisy, while retaining, however subtly, the sense of religiosity. In the original usage, a bigot projects a religious image through behavior; in the current one, he does so using belief.

It is this strong sense of religious belief that characterizes a bigot. This becomes even clearer when we examine bigot in relation to words with similar meanings.

Bigotesaurus

Searching Roget’s International Thesaurus (1922) online returns three words strongly-related to bigotry: credulity, certainty, and obstinateness. These words — and other related ones — illuminate how a bigot believes. As you look at the words below, think about whether it applies more or less to progressives or conservatives. I highlighted ones that are particularly revealing.

CREDULITY, credulousness &c. adj.; gullibility, cullibility [obs.]; gross credulity, infatuation; self-delusion, self-deception; superstition; one’s blind side; bigotry (obstinacy); hyperorthodoxy
BE CREDULOUS &c. adj.; jurare in verba magistri [L.]; follow implicitly; swallow, swallow whole, gulp · down; take on trust; take for -granted, - gospel; take on faith;

CERTAINTY; necessity [See Necessity]; certitude, sureness, surety, assurance; dead -, moral- certainty; infallibleness &c. adj.; infallibility, reliability, reliableness; indubitableness, inevitableness, unquestionableness.
gospel, scripture, church, pope, court of final appeal; res adjudicata, [L.], res judicata [L.]; ultimatum.
FACT; positive fact, matter of fact; fait accompli [F.].
BIGOTRY, positiveness, dogmatism, dogmatization; fanaticism.

OBSTINATENESS
BE OBSTINATE &c. adj.; stickle, take no denial, fly in the face of facts; opinionate [rare], be wedded to an opinion, hug a belief;
creed-bound; prepossessed, infatuated; stiff-backed, stiff-necked, stiff-hearted; hard-mouthed, hidebound; unyielding; impervious, impracticable, impersuasible, impersuadable, unpersuadable; untractable, intractable; incorrigible, deaf to advice, impervious to reason; crotchety [See Caprice] BIGOTRY, intolerance

A bigot is credulous: he believes things strongly, even superstition, to the point of self-deception because he takes things on faith.

A bigot is certain: he believes with such sureness the infallibility of his chosen authority to the point of dogmatism and fanaticism.

A bigot is obstinate: he believes even in the face of contradictory facts because he is married to his opinion and bound by his creed.

To a bigot, it’s not the opinion itself that has power; it’s the authority figure from whom the bigot received the opinion. Whether you believe by authority — especially religious ones — is ultimately what determines whether a believer is a bigot.

Bigotefinition Revisited;

I actually made a mistake and checked the thesaurus too early, entirely forgetting that the dictionary also provided related words: synonyms and antonyms, which can better define the boundaries of a word’s meaning. My dictionary lists the following related words:

Synonyms: dogmatist, dogmatizer, partisan (also partizan), sectarian
Related Words: doctrinaire, fanatic, purist; jingoist, nationalist; racialist, racist, supremacist; chauvinist, sexist
Near Antonyms: freethinker, latitudinarian, liberal

There’s so many here that we can use, but the first synonym and near antonym are more than enough.  A dogmatist takes dogma as fact, forming opinion based on it; A freethinker denies religious dogma, forming opinions independent of authority. Both form opinions; what differentiates them is whether they’re based on dogma. A bigot is a dogmatist, not a freethinker.

If the Bigote Fits

Let’s go back to our original question. Is harsh criticism of the Christian perspective a form of bigotry? If the criticisms are based on reason and not infallible dogma, then no. Criticizing Christianity, however harshly, is not a form of bigotry.

The term bigot has not lost its meaning. When examined closely, it correctly applies to only one side of the debate: the right (conservative) side.

Although both sides hold their opinions strongly, only one side does so because of their credulity, certainty, and obstinacy to believe the Bible and every authority that claims to represent their God.

Yet it’s not enough to call someone a bigot and just leave it at that. It’s better to explain why you think certain people are bigots — or at least hold bigoted beliefs. Doing so raises awareness not only of bad opinions but also of better opinions and the ways in which they are formed.

And who knows? Maybe someday Sotto or Paquiao or the CBCP will finally listen and learn. Even bigots deserve compassion. Remember: hate bigotry, not the bigot.

It’s a good time to be gay (and lesbian and bi and trans). Obama’s support for same-sex marriage came shortly after another LGBT win: Miriam Quiambao’s recent homophobic statements galvanized support for the LGBT community, raising awareness and even sympathy for their cause.

Momentum is on the LGBT community’s side, and with this week’s celebration of International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia (IDAHO), debates on marriage equality and other LGBT issues have reignited. Although an LGBT win is not guaranteed, the debate itself is a minor victory; the status quo is a defeat by default.

Dictating Definitions

To maintain the status quo, the Catholic Church and other conservative elements will try to dictate definitions — the terms of the debate. In the reproductive health (RH) debate, the most time-consuming distraction they use is the question, “When does life begin?” Pro-RH legislators would invariably fall into the trap of trying to define “life.” The anti-RH then argues as if it had a monopoly on the its meaning, which is to be expected from a group that has proclaims itself the “pro-life” side.

In the marriage equality debate, conservatives will use a similar tactic: they will try to monopolize the meaning of marriage. Marriage, they will argue, is a Catholic sacrament reserved for one man and one woman who love each other (unitive) and intend to have children (procreative) — to go beyond that definition bastardizes its meaning and endangers the institution of marriage itself. But even a brief look at history will show that the Catholic marriage is nothing but a modern invention.

What’s God got to do with it?

Long before God even created the world 6,000 to 10,000 years ago (if you’re a Young Earth creationist), people were getting married. The institution of marriage was invented before history was recorded reliably, and there’s as much variation in its practice as there are ancient cultures.

Back then, marriages were personal agreements that did not need the approval of the government or Church, and could easily be done informally — ceremonies were optional.

The Lesser Sacrament

It was only in the 12th century that Catholics started calling marriage a sacrament, and only in the 16th that they made the status official. And even then it was considered one of the lesser sacraments, and until the 10th century it was performed outside the Church. Priests didn’t officiate until the 13th century, a fact that mirrors the low esteem many Catholic leaders had for marriage.

Although Augustine believed that marriage was a sacrament, he thought that it delayed the coming of God’s kingdom. Jerome, a saint and Doctor of the Church, called marriage evil. Tertullian, called the founder of Western theology, said marriage “consists essentially in fornication.” Opinion varied, but it’s clear that marriage was viewed by early Catholic leaders as a necessary evil at worst and a lesser good at best.

What’s love got to do with it?

Far from the formal ceremony it is today, marriage was originally an agreement between individuals, a partnership — not a permanent commitment of love. It did not need the approval of the church or state, and it was often done informally — ceremonies were optional.

Rather than love or even lust, these agreements had more to do with money and power. Wives were not loved by their husbands and vice versa: women were simply child bearers; men, child supporters. As Demosthenes explained, “We have prostitutes for our pleasure, concubines for our health, and wives to bear us lawful offspring.”

When a man loves a woman

Before heterosexual marriage became the norm, same-sex marriages had been in existence for centuries. It was a socially recognized institution in Ancient Greece and Rome, in some regions of China, and in Ancient Europe.

The one-partner limit is also relatively new. In Old Testament times, husbands could take multiple wives at the same time. Solomon, with all his divinely inspired wisdom, thought it was a good idea — he had 700 wives and 300 concubines. It was only in 342 AD that Christian emperors enforced the one-woman-one-man rule and ordered the execution of those who disobeyed.

More than baby-making

Despite their differences, the Church version and the more traditional ones share having children as a goal. But unlike their other marriage restrictions (consanguinity, affinity, age, etc.) the intention to have children is impossible to check, and is therefore unenforceable anyway.

This is probably why marriage is evolving to be something more than just baby-making thanks in no small part to the rise of reproductive health services and education around the world.

Traditional Marriage?

This review of the history of marriage is hardly comprehensive, yet it sufficiently shows how marriage has changed. If we include in our scope the various versions of marriage practiced today, it will make one thing clear: there is no individual or organization that can monopolize the meaning of marriage.

Giving the LGBT community the freedom to marry is not a break from tradition but a return to it. To be more precise, although it is different from the Catholic tradition, it is part of an older one, and if history is any justification, it’s just as valid. So the next time somebody protests that same-sex marriage destroys the traditional one, ask them: which tradition?

___

Image Sources: 1, 2

An anti-Reproductive Health bill group composed of members of the Catholic laity is seeking accreditation from the Commission on Elections (Comelec) to run under the party-list name Ang Prolife. While the separation of Church and State prohibits the registration of religious denominations and sects as political parties, the prohibition does not extend to organizations with religious affiliations or to political parties which derive their principles from religious beliefs.

In a Supreme Court decision on the petition for disqualification filed against Ang Buhay Hayaang Yumabong, a party-list group backed by the Catholic charismatic movement El Shaddai, the court remanded the case to the Comelec with the directive to immediately conduct summary evidentiary hearings under the following guidelines for screening party-list participants:

[I]n view of the objections directed against the registration of Ang Buhay Hayaang Yumabong, which is allegedly a religious group, the Court notes the express constitutional provision that the religious sector may not be represented in the party-list system.  The extent of the constitutional proscription is demonstrated by the following discussion during the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission:

“MR. OPLE.  x x x

In the event that a certain religious sect with nationwide and even international networks of members and supporters, in order to circumvent this prohibition, decides to form its own political party in emulation of those parties I had mentioned earlier as deriving their inspiration and philosophies from well-established religious faiths, will that also not fall within this prohibition?

MR. MONSOD.  If the evidence shows that the intention is to go around the prohibition, then certainly the Comelec can pierce through the legal fiction.”

The following discussion is also pertinent:

“MR. VILLACORTA.  When the Commissioner proposed “EXCEPT RELIGIOUS GROUPS,” he is not, of course, prohibiting priests, imams or pastors who may be elected by, say, the indigenous community sector to represent their group.

REV. RIGOS.  Not at all, but I am objecting to anybody who represents the Iglesia ni Kristo, the Catholic Church, the Protestant Church et cetera.”

Furthermore, the Constitution provides that “religious denominations and sects shall not be registered.” The prohibition was explained by a member of the Constitutional Commission in this wise: “[T]he prohibition is on any religious organization registering as a political party.  I do not see any prohibition here against a priest running as a candidate.  That is not prohibited here; it is the registration of a religious sect as a political party.”

And the rest is history. With a Comelec that denied accreditation to the LGBT group Ang Ladlad based on “moral grounds” by quoting passages from the Bible and the Koran, it is no surprise that it did not choose to “pierce through the legal fiction” and instead dismissed the petition to disqualify Ang Buhay Hayaang Yumabong. And it should also not come as a surprise if Ang Prolife can ”go around the prohibition” and its application for party-list accreditation easily passes approval.

But all hope is not lost to the vanguards of secularism. While many are aware that the Supreme Court granted Ang Ladlad’s petition for Certiorari and directed the Comelec to grant its application for party-list accreditation, perhaps only few have read the jurisprudence where the decision contains many gems that can be cited as precedence in future cases involving not only the LGBT movement but the separation of Church and State itself:

• At bottom, what our non-establishment clause calls for is “government neutrality in religious matters.” Clearly, “governmental reliance on religious justification is inconsistent with this policy of neutrality.”

• Government must act for secular purposes and in ways that have primarily secular effects.

• The morality referred to in the law is public and necessarily secular.

• Religious teachings as expressed in public debate may influence the civil public order but public moral disputes may be resolved only on grounds articulable in secular terms.

• If government relies upon religious beliefs in formulating public policies and morals, the resulting policies and morals would require conformity to what some might regard as religious programs or agenda. The non-believers would therefore be compelled to conform to a standard of conduct buttressed by a religious belief, i.e., to a “compelled religion,” anathema to religious freedom.

• If government based its actions upon religious beliefs, it would tacitly approve or endorse that belief and thereby also tacitly disapprove contrary religious or non-religious views that would not support the policy. As a result, government will not provide full religious freedom for all its citizens, or even make it appear that those whose beliefs are disapproved are second-class citizens.

• In other words, government action, including its proscription of immorality as expressed in criminal law like concubinage, must have a secular purpose. That is, the government proscribes this conduct because it is “detrimental (or dangerous) to those conditions upon which depend the existence and progress of human society” and not because the conduct is proscribed by the beliefs of one religion or the other.

• Succinctly put, a law could be religious or Kantian or Aquinian or utilitarian in its deepest roots, but it must have an articulable and discernible secular purpose and justification to pass scrutiny of the religion clauses.

• We cannot countenance advocates who, undoubtedly with the loftiest of intentions, situate morality on one end of an argument or another, without bothering to go through the rigors of legal reasoning and explanation. In this, the notion of morality is robbed of all value. Clearly then, the bare invocation of morality will not remove an issue from our scrutiny.

If we cannot stop religions from circumventing the separation of Church and State by filling congress with their party-list groups especially when there is little resistance from a Church-friendly Comelec, we can at least stay vigilant and expose potential and actual violations of the constitution when such groups try to impose their own brand of religious morality without having the decency of articulating their arguments in secular terms. That way we can prevent the Church from wielding political power and violating our much-cherished religious freedom.

 

Marriage is a right, or more specifically, a privilege. According to the Hohfeldian system for describing the form of rights, to say that one has a privilege-right to do something is to say that one has no duty not to do it. Do gay couples have the right to marry? No – not in this country, or at least not yet.  While there is nothing in our Constitution that prohibits same-sex marriage, our Family Code requires that the contracting parties must be a man and a woman.

And this is why same-sex marriage advocates would be wasting their time if they try to convince the bishops of their so-called rights. Aside from the fact that the Church hierarchy could never go against its own doctrine, the fight should be brought where it belongs – in congress – to lobby our legislators into amending the Family Code by giving same-sex couples the right to marry.

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Rights dominate modern understandings of what actions are permissible and which institutions are just. Rights structure the form of governments, the content of laws, and the shape of morality as it is currently perceived. To accept a set of rights is to approve a distribution of freedom and authority, and so to endorse a certain view of what may, must, and must not be done.”

By giving gay couples the right to marry, we would be dramatically reshaping our country’s morality, and this is why the Church is vehemently opposed to same-sex marriage because it goes against its moral teachings.  At this point it is important to note that the bishops and priests are not violating the separation of Church and State by speaking out against what they believe to be a grave wrong; they are merely asserting their right to freely exercise their religion as guaranteed by the same constitutional provision that commands the State not to respect an establishment of religion by passing “laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.”

While the non-establishment clause commands our lawmakers not to listen to the Catholic Church or any religion for that matter, the more important issue to be resolved is, why should we grant gay couples the right to marry in the first place? The moral philosopher Warren Quinn gives a very compelling argument:

“A person is constituted by his body and his mind. They are parts or aspects of him. For that very reason, it is fitting that he have primary say over what may be done to them—not because such an arrangement best promotes overall human welfare, but because any arrangement that denied him that say would be a grave indignity. In giving him this authority, morality recognizes his existence as an individual with ends of his own—an independent being. Since that is what he is, he deserves this recognition.”

It is high time our society truly recognize that lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgenders are individuals with ends of their own, and if we look deeper we will find that beneath the differences in sexual orientation, their ends are not really unlike our own, and that is to find happiness in love and companionship. Giving them the right to marry accords them the much-needed legal recognition and protection of their partnerships, including property rights, successional rights, pension benefits, presumed insurable interest on the lives of their partners, and especially next-of-kin rights in hospitals. Is that too much to ask?

“The Philippines is a predominantly Catholic country.” Church leaders, anti-choice groups, and many others have made this a mantra, some using it to ward off the specter of secularism, others to respect their religious roots, and most out of mere routine — they’ve just heard it and said it so many times that it feels unnatural to think otherwise.

A Country of Catholics

But is it true? It depends. What does it mean to be a predominantly Catholic country? For some, it simply means that Philippine citizens are mostly Catholic. In this sense, it is true: around 80% of Filipinos do identify as Catholic. But what that Catholic identity implies is another story.

What bishops and anti-RH individuals think it means — or would like it to mean — is that as a country of Catholics, the Philippines is led by Catholic bishops: the Philippines is their Church, and they are its pastors. This interpretation — or some version of it — is the reason organizations such as the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) are still respected even by established institutions.

Unfortunately, one of those institutions is the Philippine government. Although secularism is enshrined in its Constitution, politicians pander to the Church out of the belief that bishops are also representatives of their Catholic constituents: Pandering is the respect paid by one representative to another.

This pandering is most apparent during elections, when candidates cower in fear of the Catholic Vote. Although many have shown that it is a myth, it is true in the way that matters: politicians behave as if it were real, and the bishops get what they want: politicians who perpetuate their version of a Catholic country.

But again, the Catholic Vote is in fact a myth. Catholics generally do not vote in block, and if past elections are any indication, nor do they obey bishops when it comes to voting. This is because most Filipino Catholics are cafeteria Catholics.

Cafeteria Catholics

Also referred to as eclectic Catholics, cafeteria Catholics choose what they believe independently from Church constraints, in the same way that a cafeteria customer would order food from different stalls instead of buying everything from a single one. I’ve never met someone who doesn’t believe something that is at odds with the Church, and even those who seem orthodox or traditional (the katoliko sarado) would reveal after some conversation that their views are not completely consistent with the Vatican’s.

Filipinos tend to hold beliefs inconsistent with Catechism — karma, reincarnation, feng shui, astrology, the Secret — and this attitude extends beyond religion into politics. The most salient example is the RH Bill, supported by 70-80% of Filipinos. The percentage is even higher if we consider Catholics alone.

The Philippines as a country obedient to bishops does not exist. It would be more correct to say that the Philippines is a cafeteria Catholic country.

The Church is a Country

Despite their differences with the bishops, cafeteria Catholics, especially the most progressive ones, can’t seem to leave the Church. I believe it’s because of different views of what the Catholic Church is.

One view is that the Church is an organization for people who share the same convictions. When your convictions change, you leave the organization. This is the implicit understanding of pro- and anti-RH groups: when you start supporting the other side, you leave. Obviously, this is not how Filipinos see the Catholic Church. If it were, there would be little to no Catholic Church to speak of.

Instead, many Filipinos see the Church as the country they’re born into, and Catholicism is their nationality. Most people — not only Filipinos — do not leave the country of their birth, and most — again, not only Filipinos — do not change the religion they’re born with. Once a Filipino, always a Filipino; once a Catholic, always a Catholic. Citizens criticize public officials, Catholics criticize their bishops, but rarely is leaving, let alone changing their national or religious identity, a valid option.

Yes, it takes more money and resources to emigrate. But even if leaving religion shouldn’t cost you a Peso, it can be just as difficult, if not more. By the time the average Filipino Catholic feels disappointed enough at their Church to leave it, they’ve already invested so much — mental energy spent on stress and sacrifice, time spent on Sundays and sacraments, and for even the poorest of the poor, money spent on tithing and other religious obligations.

Rooted in Catholicism

It’s not so much that the Philippines has Catholic roots — we are as much a Pagan country if heritage is the criteria. Filipinos just routinely root themselves in Catholicism so thoroughly that uprooting seems too painful a process.

So for many Filipinos, leaving the Church is unimaginable — on one hand, because it’s so unusual that many can’t imagine it; on the other, leaving has so many negative consequences that many don’t even want to imagine it. This is especially true for those who have nightmares of being tortured by Satan for all eternity — leaving the Church is a sin worthy of automatic excommunication, which is practically a one-way ticket to Hell.

I don’t have the numbers, but I’d wager that more Filipinos have changed countries than religious identities. (In case you do, please leave a link in the comments section.) Of course there are those who do leave Catholicism, but as with emigrating, it’s usually to a place that’s not too far away: a different Christian denomination, another Judeo-Christian religion, or a spirituality that’s thematically consistent with Catholicism.

And in most (if not all) cases, what the Catholic bishops think is not a consideration. Does anyone consider their Congressman or President when they make a decision about emigrating? They do, however, consider the culture — traditions, laws, economic and political structure — of their future country, and this brings us back to our main point: Filipino Catholics treat their Catholicism as a country they’ve grown used to, a nationality they’re born with — not as an obligation to, or even a membership in an institution.

A Secularizing Country

With all this in mind, calling the Philippines a Catholic country seems to be as trivial as saying that the Philippines is a tropical country. Filipinos have no more choice in their religious identity than our 7,107 islands do their distance from the equator. Politicians should recognize that the bishops claiming to dictate Catholic behavior is just as senseless as cartographers claiming to move the islands. They might have all the maps, but the islands are moved by a more powerful force.

When it comes to Filipino attitude toward religion, this force seems to be secularization, which sociologist see as part of an ever bigger movement toward modernization. Catholics are starting to see the value of religion less in divine commandments and heavenly promises, and more in human needs and real-world benefits.

It is a slow yet steady process, and sociologists have found it as inevitable as the drifting of the islands. But as with any movement toward progress, the Catholic bishops will try to stop it, doing everything in their power to remain representatives of their constituents, repeating, like a mantra, “The Philippines is a predominantly Catholic country.”

___
Image sources: 1, 2, 3

Pretty much every nation likes to believe that they are in favor of science and science education. The success of science is simply undeniable. Even those who are not sympathetic to its value for doubt, evidence, and self-correction pay lip service to science. It is under this backdrop that projects such as Philippine Science High School were created.

Philippine Science High School (called “Pisay” by later students), like the Manila Science High School that predated it, was modeled after the Bronx High School of Science (or “Bronx Science”). Pisay was established under President Diosdado Macapagal and had its first batch of students in 1964. Pisay’s mandate in its charter (RA 3661) is to prepare students for a career in science.

Pisay administers very rigorous admission examinations in order to obtain, from thousands of applicants, the top 240 students to invite to study in the prestigious school’s Main Campus. Through this, Pisay is practically guaranteed to have at least some of the country’s best pupils.

To be sure, Pisay has given invaluable service to the country by providing free science education. I myself owe the school a debt of gratitude for giving me four years of highly specialized education that I probably would not have found anywhere else. And this is why I am motivated by a deep affinity for my alma mater to point out where it has erred and what it can do more for society.

It is important for me to note at this point that my commentary is largely limited by my singular exposure to one Pisay campus, the Main Campus in Metro Manila. Any significant difference between the Main Campus and the regional campuses is bound to be missed by what I write here.

 

The thin wall of separation

It is a great shame, first of all, that the basic secular underpinnings of science are ignored by the foremost science high school in the country. It is perhaps due to a misguided but well-meaning concern for holistic development that the administration of Pisay (since my days there as a part of Batch 2007 up to now, as far as I’m told) flagrantly incorporates not just religious, but sectarian doctrines in its operations.

Pisay is a public and state-run high school. Despite this, Philippine Science High School walks an increasingly thinning wall of separation between church and state by offloading religious teaching to a program called Optional Religious Instruction (or ORI). This is run by concerned parents, who comprise the (largely Catholic) Parents’ Council for Optional Religious Instruction (or PCORI). Under PCORI, the administration is able to facilitate legally overtly religious activities such as batch recollections and retreats. (To be fair, not every faculty member is willing to give in to such sneaky affronts against secularism.)

A key part of the ORI program is the word, “optional.” No ORI activity is compulsory as it would be illegal for Pisay to officially back a religious activity. However, due to the lobbying strength of the parents of PCORI, non-Christians are ignored as recollections and retreats divide students into Catholic Christians and Evangelical Christians.

Why should non-Christians even bother with voluntary and exclusively Christian activities? Well, here in comes the complicated but very much real coercion of the Catholic majority in Pisay. Students that are not inclined toward such doctrines are left out of a very big student activity. Retreats involve weekends out of town with most of the whole batch. The minority non-Christian kids who opt out of the retreat miss out on the camaraderie their classmates experienced without them. Instead of allowing for an intellectual discussion and intimate sharing of diverse personal, even spiritual, values, PCORI opts to segregate by faith and completely alienate those who are not Christians.

Pisay’s offenses against secularism are not just of the “optional” nature. Freshman and sophomore students have a subject called “Values Education.” Despite what one might expect, this class does not discuss the categorical imperative, utilitarianism, or social contract theory (in detail, if at all). Instead, students are subjected to anti-abortion propaganda (Silent Scream) and taught only natural moral law.

Natural moral law is, unsurprisingly, the preferred Catholic ethical framework, where what is natural is good (since nature is of God’s design). While I do remember my Values Education teachers being very careful to avoid advocating specific Catholic doctrines, they were not shy to appeal to gods for values. It is unfortunate that Pisay has chosen to rubber stamp a Catholic-consistent worldview instead of recognizing that there is genuine philosophical diversity regarding morality. There is so much potential in a Values Education class for real personal growth and self-discovery. Is it not in the spirit of the pursuit of “the untarnished truth” for there to be genuine inquiry into the very values that we hold dear?

In science, there is no sectarianism and all ideas are held under scrutiny and challenged by attempts at disproof. In Philippine Science High, sectarianism reigns and challenges to faith are minimized as far as doublethink allows.

It is of course possible that some in the administration believe that scientific values are important or that its teaching is implicit in the course materials. However, Pisay must change this and be explicit in teaching a value for science. There is simply no cultural context in the Philippines for students to pick up on such subtle cues towards the more philosophical nature of science.

The apex of Pisay’s disregard for secularism is an entire chapel dedicated to Jesus and Catholic iconography. I think this speaks for itself.

At the end of a student’s time in Pisay, the administration holds an ecumenical baccalaureate service. Of course, “ecumenical” just means “all Christians” so the service involves Christian rituals and literature. I can be charitable enough to imagine that they might eschew the Bible readings if there were Muslims in the graduating class. However, there were definitely atheists (not including me, as I was an avowed Christian at the time) in my graduating class and their lack of religion was definitely not recognized as legitimate enough to warrant changes in the service.

Religious views are very personal and private. Even if the administration would adjust depending on the graduating class’ demographic, some people change religions multiple times in the span of one year. It is impossible to adapt to the fleeting whims of 240 confused teenagers. Certainly, the public and legally secular Pisay can find a way to reflect on the four years of hard work of the students without favoring one specific, albeit very large, subset.

The punctuation mark after four years of scientific education for all non-Christians (theists and atheists alike) is for their labors to be credited to a god they don’t even believe in.

 

Does Pisay value science?

Pisay’s romance with sectarianism and religious values is a symptom of its short-sightedness. It does not see the conflict between faith-based initiatives and science because it is not striving for the longer-term goal of a more manifest scientific culture in the Philippines.

Pisay has existed for over 40 years. In that span of time, there have been several prominent alumni to come out of the school. But, I think, that is to be expected just statistically, especially given its selection process. The real question is, has Pisay been a major force for the understanding of science in the Philippines? I think that is up for debate.

One of the simplest metrics for seeing Pisay’s impact on Philippine scientific culture is to assess the scientific literacy of its alumni. This would be a direct measurement of how effective Pisay has been in science education. It’s all well and good for Pisay to have scientist alumni (even accomplished scientists), it is a whole other thing for its graduates to value science.

This seems contradictory, but consider that a person can be in the profession of science but completely misunderstand fundamental science concepts. That is, they can be perfectly competent cogs in the science-industrial complex without having an appreciation for the greater body of knowledge and values of science.

In my undergraduate studies in molecular biology, there were several students who were creationists. This boggles the mind. Evolution, after all, is the unifying concept of biology. As the theistic evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky puts it, nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution. How could a molecular biologist possibly not understand evolution (it’s another thing to reject it on sound scientific basis, which would certainly merit a Nobel prize)? It seems the only way is for a molecular biologist to not care about intellectual honesty and logical consistency.

Despite the rigorous scientific knowledge training in Pisay, there is still certainly a significant enough proportion of creationists, even just in my batch. That it is quite worrying. Creationism is simply not going to be a belief held by a scientifically literate person. But, creationism, along with sectarianism, is just another symptom.

The overall disease of Pisay, as an institution, is that it does not value science. It values science careers and public achievement. Pisay has consistently failed to inculcate scientific values to its students. Here, we come full circle. That Pisay (with all the well-meaning in the world) views Values Education as a subterfuge for religion class is another clear sign of this negligence.

 

Coercion into science courses

The tragedy of this failure is further compounded by the fact that Pisay coerces students to take science majors in college. Children come into one of the first major contracts they will sign in their lives and they sign away their right to freely choose their college major. They must take a science course, else they must pay back all the money Pisay invested in them.

On the face of it, this seems fair. Pisay spends hundreds of thousands of pesos on each scholar and it is only making sure that the people of the Philippines get a return in their investment. However, this coercive practice only serves to punish the very students that Pisay has failed. For, if Pisay had been able to provide a science education that showed the value of scientific and critical thinking, students would freely choose a science course without the need for compulsion. And the few who would still choose majors outside of science, will still come away from the school ennobled by a scientific worldview that is priceless. Removing the coercive practice will serve as an incentive for the school to do its job well.

If all Pisay wants to do is to equip future employees with scientific training, then, good job. They’ve done that extremely well. But that, to me, completely misses the point of science. Such a goal is shallow, trivial, and not worthy of the pride alumni of Pisay tend to have of their alma mater. It is no wonder, then, that some Pisay graduates are science illiterate.

According to its vision, Philippine Science High School aims to train scholars with “a scientific mind,” “a passion for excellence,” and “committed to the pursuit of truth.” This implies that not only should Pisay scholars be scientifically competent, they should hold a worldview informed and shaped by science. Pisay scholars ought not to shy away from the what the pursuit of truth might lead to, no matter how controversial or uncomfortable these truths might be. This vision is not consistent with the practices of Pisay that I have laid out here.

 

A plea from a hopeful alumnus

Philippine Science High School has the potential to be our developing nation’s intellectual equivalent of the moon landing. It’s unlikely that we’ll ever have the ability to have a project such as the Apollo missions, which captivated the world and inspired the next generation of scientists to probe deeper into the mysteries of the universe. But, Pisay has an even more direct access to the brightest minds in the country. It is a pity that this opportunity is wasted on rote instruction for the unremarkable goal of employment.

Once students get to college and beyond, it’s very hard to shake off indifference, even antagonism, to scientific values. Pisay could be the country’s stellar nursery of intellectual pursuit and critical scholarship, molding minds in the formative years of high school. As it stands, Pisay’s impact on scientific understanding begins and ends with the scholar. Pisay is in a key position to change this and set forth a massive restructuring of the intellectual landscape of the Philippines. All it has to do is start being honest to its vision of the search for untarnished truth.

 

_{Update: A response to criticisms of this piece can be read here.}

Every conscious thing we do or choice we make is somehow motivated by the pursuit of pleasure or the avoidance of pain. The only variables are the kinds of things that bring varying degrees of pleasure and pain to each individual, the premises on which expectations of pleasure or pain are based, and the ability to delay gratification.

For example, many nature lovers go to work instead of spending the entire week at the beach because the former guarantees some future comfort that outweighs the immediate fun the latter brings. Some smokers quit because they’ve decided that the pleasure they get from cigarettes cannot compensate for the pain of a present or potential respiratory illness. Most people do not normally steal because the initial gain will be quickly neutralized if they get caught (or their conscience takes the fun out of taking things that don’t belong to them). And if they believe in an afterlife, getting away won’t even matter.

Which brings us to a common theistic argument against naturalism-based morality: If there is no eternal punishment, there is no ultimate justice and evil people like Hitler and Stalin can get away with atrocities. But there are many answers to this. One, the fact that there can be no ultimate justice without an afterlife does absolutely nothing to support the existence of either Heaven or Hell. Two, if most people believe in the afterlife, civilized societies will have less reason to be vigilant in preventing another Holocaust because they can just leave justice to God. Three, if Christianity is true, a serial killer who rapes and tortures his victims can still enter Paradise if he repents and accepts Jesus as his personal Lord and Savior just before he dies (while his atheistic albeit innocent victims’ suffering will resume in the Lake of Fire).

As the Holy Week approaches and Christians prepare to meditate on the passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus, many of them claim to worship Christ not out of fear of damnation or the expectation of eternal reward, but because of an overflowing gratefulness for His great love and “ultimate sacrifice.” If this is really the case then why won’t they worship the sun as well, or at least give it some devotion with the same level that Catholics give to the Saints considering the sun is the ultimate sustainer of all life on Earth and that we all get to survive because it burns itself up? Could it be because the sun can be expected to rise every morning and set every evening regardless of what people do or don’t do? If they argue that the sun is just mindlessly burning itself without intending to sustain life while Jesus purposely died so we could be saved, would such salvation be available to those who reject Christ?

No matter how people rationalize worship and obedience to God’s supposed commands, it still all boils down to pleasure and pain. It’s just a matter of adopting the premises set by one’s chosen religion and delaying gratification by giving up on earthly pleasures for the sake of some greater eternal pleasure in the next life. As a response to this, my fellow freethinker Andy wrote a short but profound piece on materialism:

The master passed by a minister preaching against materialism. He was exhorting the congregation on the virtues of sacrificing their earthly desires for the rewards of heaven.

“Our treasure does not lie here on earth,” he said, “But it lies in the bosom of our heavenly Father.”

“Interesting,” remarked the master. “You preach against materialism but yours is even worse because you desire to bring it to the next life. You tell people not to cling to their possessions here by guaranteeing that they will have all those and more in the next life. You are after intangible rewards, but a reward nonetheless. What is so virtuous about that?”

Indeed. And as Bertrand Russell said, “The people who are regarded as moral luminaries are those who forego ordinary pleasures themselves and find compensation in interfering with the pleasures of others.” In this country, people who officially gave up sexual pleasure preach that couples should not have too much fun while avoiding pregnancy and the consequential responsibilities and sacrifices that come with bearing and raising children. But in fairness to them, they are probably just acting on good faith based on the premise that God does not want us to enjoy life in this world too much because His plan is to give us the ultimate pleasure in Heaven. I just wish that our supposedly secular government would treat this premise with a little skepticism especially when crafting our reproductive health laws.

_________________________

Image by Jong Atmosfera

It’s been three years since the Filipino Freethinkers began their quest to uphold reason, science, and secularism (RSS) in the Philippines. To celebrate this fact and set the course for the future of RSS, we’re holding our 3rd official forum this Sunday, April 1, from 1:30 PM to 6:30 PM at Tech Portal Conference Rooms A and B at the UP-Ayalaland Technohub (directions here). Entrance is absolutely free–simply RSVP here!

Apart from presentations by FF’s various advocacy directors and allies, we’ll also be presenting very special awards to individuals who have truly championed reason, science, and secularism in recent years. Moreover, we’re also giving an extra-special award to the person voted Philippines’s Biggest Bigot 2012! Click here to cast your vote!

This is a special occasion for those of us who truly value our rights and our freedoms. Join us as we celebrate a new chapter for freethought here in the Philippines!

(Download the press release/press kit here.)

A few weeks ago, Kevin, an agnostic atheist member of the Filipino Freethinkers, posted on his blog about his frustrating experience with a substitute teacher in his Values Education class. He wrote:

Our regular professor was out so we had a substitute. The lesson for that day was about different personalities. He showed us a diagram:

1. Wise - someone who is god-fearing and is able to recognize mistakes.
2. Foolish - someone who doesn’t love god or someone who denies him and his orders.
3. Mocker - someone who rebels against god and mocks him.

Being a secularist, this set off alarms in Kevin’s head, and after raising his complaints and delivering an extensive explanation of his objections to his teacher…

He then went on saying, “Yes, okay. We understand that. But you still have to participate in this class. You have to understand that Values came from ‘God’. He is the root of it all. And we are defining personalities according to biblical terms and definitions.”

Read the whole article here

It’s bad enough that this happened in a school that was purportedly non-sectarian, but perhaps it was just a fluke. Maybe it was just this one teacher who was, after all, just a substitute. Surely their regular Values Ed teacher would be much more aware and sensitive of religious diversity and secular morality, right?

 

Wrong: How You’re Doing Education

 

Even with their regular teacher, the same thing happened again, only this time it was much worse. Aside from forcing everyone in the class to write “the goal of my life is to make God smile”, she reacted mockingly and condescendingly towards Kevin’s explanation of his stance, spouting the usual nonsense, such as “atheists are just rebelling against God for their hardships and pain in their sad life”. I find it quite appalling that this kind of force-feeding, where dissent and diversity are brushed aside or unthinkingly dismissed, currently masquerades as education. And all this, after a lecture that was supposed to enlighten the students about differences of belief. Such a performance deserves an award of sorts for its incredible display of sustained ignorance. Gee, I don’t know, maybe something like…

 

The Slowest Clap Ever

Fact: even their regular teacher exhibited a grave lack of perspective and competence in teaching a supposedly secular Values Education class. The question now would be: Is this a cause for alarm?

My personal experience would say yes. In my (public) high school, some teachers would have students lead prayers. Back then, however, I was still a theist and not yet aware of the principle of secularism and how holding prayers in class (or any school event, for that matter) was a violation of it.

It’s even worse when your school’s dormitory has a built-in Christian chapel. Others would argue that it’s fine if the school didn’t pay for its construction, but the fact remains that government space is being used and that not all people in the school would benefit from such a “facility”. It would be much better to have a multi-purpose “quiet area” that can be used by people of all/no religious beliefs for prayers, meditation, and/or reading.

However, this is all anecdotal speculation. I have yet to find numbers about how secular our Values Education programs are (at least for non-sectarian institutions) and how well-versed educators are in tackling morality from a secular standpoint. This is one study that I’d like to see, although my instincts tell me that I probably won’t be happy with the figures that might come out.

 

Could You Point to the Part on the Doll Where He “Taught” You?

 

Given that these incidents do happen on quite a regular basis, the problem then turns into “How do we prevent it?”.

The most obvious thing we’d need is a systematic review of curricula to ensure that secular schools stay secular and that enforcement is carried out accordingly. Many Values Education programs out there include mentions of faith in (a) god and other tenets incompatible with secular morality. Values Ed programs in particular are susceptible to mentions of a deity given how the majority of our population base their morals upon Roman Catholic doctrine.* However, note that it’s ultimately up to the teacher to decide whether or not to uphold secularism in the classroom, meaning any teacher in any subject could potentially use your class time to indulge in his/her personal religious rituals.

Another important thing is the courage of individuals to voice and follow through with their dissent. I mentioned earlier that I used to be unaware of how prayers in class were a violation of secularism. I am curious however, as to how I would have acted if I was already conscious of these things back then. It’s one thing to recite your opinion in class, and it’s another to escalate and go against an entire system if the educators themselves turn out to be incompetent at recognizing their incompetence. On the part of students, this would take a lot of courage and a strong conviction that what you are fighting for is worth the trouble. And with the growing public awareness regarding secularism, I’m hoping to read more stories of students standing up for this principle and serving as a vanguard against religious domination.

 

 

 

Do you have a story to share about a similar experience in school? We’d love to hear about it in the comments section!

 

~~~

Image sources:

• plus4chan.org
• 3.bp.blogspot.com

In The Bottomline episode aired last February 4, Red Tani agreed with Boy Abunda that no one actually wins in debates on the existence of God. And I concur because the god concept has too many facets lumped together and discussions often shift from one facet to another.

For example, in order to prove the existence of God (or at least the high probability thereof), apologists like William Lane Craig put forth logical arguments like First Cause and Fine-Tuning. Even granting that these are based on correct premises and sound reasoning, they only support the deistic concept of a generic creator that does not necessarily intervene in the affairs of the universe, while God with a capital “G” is a proper noun referring to the Judeo-Christian god who gave specific instructions on how to live our lives.

As such, I think what’s more important than the God/creator question is whether we have immortal souls, and especially if the welfare of our souls depends so much on us believing in God’s existence. Can the apologists offer evidence or even philosophical arguments for Heaven and Hell (as well as the entrance rules) that are at least as challenging to refute as the cosmological and teleological arguments?

Going back to Boy Abunda’s interview with Red Tani, I think it would have been more interesting if the discussion focused on secularism instead of atheism. As Red said, the only difference between believers and nonbelievers is their position on the God question, and this is really not a big deal because most of the day most believers act and make decisions without thinking of God, so belief (or nonbelief) does not necessarily dictate our actions, politics, or morality.

But if there is a specific god we are talking about, like the Roman Catholic god who abhors contraception, divorce, and gay marriage, then the issue is no longer about theism and atheism, but which religion or sect correctly represents God. And here the debate would degenerate into disarray because unlike the discussions on the existence of God where the contenders at least try to stick to the rules of logic in the absence of empirical evidence, different religions would simply attempt to ram their opposing “revealed” doctrines into each other’s throat.

While I do not mean to assert the logical positivist position that any unverified proposition is meaningless, being a freethinker compels me to require evidence that is more than circumstantial before accepting something as true. And such skepticism is one of the foundations of secularism, which is “a form of opinion which concerns itself only with questions the issues of which can be tested by the experience of this life.”

So going back to the question of souls and whether nonbelief or even doubt jeopardizes them, I think an even more important question would be, whose representation of God, assuming God exists, should we follow for the sake of our souls, assuming we have souls? And if we cannot figure that out, doesn’t this demand that we give precedence to our welfare in this life instead of denying ourselves carnal pleasures for the sake of some imaginable spiritual pleasures in the next life?

We really don’t know if there is an afterlife, and we have absolutely no idea how to secure our welfare in it – unless we seriously believe that the Bible is the true word of God (which is highly questionable given its circular claims) and that God revealed his will to certain individuals as claimed by the popes and some charismatic ministers (which is mere hearsay). All we really know about is the here and now, that there is real joy and real suffering in this world, and that we humans have the capacity to multiply this joy and reduce the suffering. Isn’t that a lot more important than trying to convince each other that there really is or isn’t a god?

* * * * * * * * * *

Image from Starmometer

Thanks to the Department of Tourism’s new campaign, people all over the world now know how much fun everything is in the Philippines. But beyond the wonderful marine life, historical sites, food and parades, our country has also become a shining beacon of freethinking and secularism. What better way of looking back at our struggle for reason, freedom and secularism than through a viral Internet meme? Read the full story

Not having fully recovered from a cough-cold combination this past week, I decided to repair at a known coffee shop chain to have some tea before a yoga class. Mint tea has always worked wonders when I am in this state, and I certainly needed to be delivered from my suffering, if only for a brief moment.

Little did I know that my “deliverance” would take an entirely different form. The fact that it comes in the most unexpected fashion serves only to up the incredulity factor.

As circumstance/luck would have it (depending on what you believe), the barista regretfully informed me that they have run out of the particular tea variant I wanted. So I settled for a good old Americano, anything that would keep my throat warm.

Downloaded e-books, ready for devouring? Check.

Cozy seat at a slightly secluded area? Check.

Appropriately cool temperature from an artificial source? Check.

Barely delving into my copy of Sex, Bombs, and Burgers - an excellent read, by the way – I was jolted when someone pounded on the table, and exclaimed: “That is why God is our salvation!”

 

One of the men is obviously a “convertee”, the one being preached to. Reading the body language, it is clear that the “sermoner” thinks of himself as the alpha dog in this scenario: an overbearing position even when seated, forceful voice, showy gestures. The listener was seated in a calmer fashion, head tilted in an inquisitive manner, trying to digest the “sermon”.

There goes my quiet time to read and sip my cup of coffee.

“You cannot have any other gods, and any other means of salvation!” bellowed Preacher.

Listener responds: “In my religion…(he utters something a little muffled as he turns to his book of reference)…and we are responsible for that.”

“The way is clear!” responds Preacher. And then he looks around the room, eyes ablaze with the fire of his intent to proselytize, looks just for a brief moment at Listener, then addresses the “congregation” (read: the clueless customers of the coffeeshop):

“You, or anyone else (gesturing to all of us) will not be saved by your own merits! You are damned, damned, I tell you! Know Him! Know God! Only He can deliver you from eternal damnation!”

To the credit of Listener, he isn’t backing down that easily. But because he is hunched over, speaks with a softer voice, and his back turned away from me, I could barely hear his response.

I immediately get my earphones and turn on my iTunes library, lest I be subjected to more “damnation”.

Why is this man using a coffeeshop as his personal pulpit? Is it to “attract” more followers? Basic commandment in interpersonal relationships: Starting off a conversation with “You’re wrong, I’m right!” tends to be seen as offensive and an affront. Not to mention rude.

But I gather that all religions have that same stance: A predilection to tell anyone outside their own fold that they cannot be happy/saved/fulfilled unless they follow “their” way. After all, religious leaders fancy themselves as arbiters of absolute morality and therefore have to be thoroughly convinced of their own self-righteousness. And followers are always told that “you will suffer for your faith, you will be ridiculed, maligned, and tested!”

The only maligning I saw was from the Preacher telling us of our “uncleanliness”, sitting on his moral high horse, content in being judgemental.

Freedom of religion also means the right to be free from religion.

I respect your right to have your own faith, wear whatever religious iconography you deem makes you feel “closer” to your chosen deity, say your own prayers, read your own religious books. You can conduct a seance or dance naked in your garden, I don’t really care.

Why do people like Preacher have such a hard time returning that same courtesy?

I went to a coffeeshop to have my caffeine buzz, to read, and to be relaxed. I did not go there to have someone make ill pronouncements on my character or the state of my being in an afterlife scenario. I have made my disdain for organized religion abundantly clear. I loathe anyone exhibiting intolerance – which I cannot tolerate at any level.

It is not a personal attack on you if someone doesn’t subcribe to your faith. It merely means I am living my own life, on my terms. Deal with it.

And as for the third person in that hallowed table? It was an acolyte of Preacher, who kept nodding at every pronouncement made or every text read. Someone whose purpose was merely to say “Yes” at every turn.

It’s your choice to turn off your mind.

–

Image from divinecrash.com

With the reproductive health bill still stuck in legislation, our legislators need a lesson or two about religious freedom. But I hope they don’t follow Michigan’s example.

Michigan recently passed an anti-bullying bill, but instead of discouraging bullies, the bill seems to empower them with a familiar excuse: religion. The bill allows bullying so long as it’s done in the name of God. Anti-bullying? The bill should have been named “Religious Bullying.”

Imagine the following scene:

Harvey: Teacher, teacher! Billy is calling me names and throwing rocks at me!
Teacher: Why are you doing this, Harvey?
Billy: Because Harvey’s a homo!
Teacher: Who told you it’s OK to do this?
Billy: My dad told me that God told him it’s OK, and God hates fags!
Teacher: Oh, in that case, carry on then.

Ironically, the Religious Bullying bill is called “Matt’s Safe School Law,” after Matt Epling, a bullied student who killed himself in 2002. Understandably, Matt’s father is not happy:

Matt’s father, Kevin Epling, expressed his dismay in a Facebook post after the state senate vote on Wednesday. “I am ashamed that this could be Michigan’s bill on anti-bullying,” wrote Epling. “For years the line [from Republicans] has been ‘no protected classes,’ and the first thing they throw in…was a very protected class, and limited them from repercussions of their own actions.”

Last year, in the span of around a month, at least five teens committed suicide because they were bullied for being gay. States such as Michigan are trying to respond, but I doubt that sectarian solutions such as the Religious Bullying bill will do anything to prevent incidents like this from happening. On the contrary, it gives a religious justification to actual bullies and a religious motivation to potential ones.

And Michigan students do not need a law to motivate them to bully homosexuals. They only need to follow their parents’ examples:

At the federal level, they unsuccessfully fought for the inclusion of a provision protecting religious freedom when Congress expanded the definition of a hate crime to include crimes motivated by a victim’s sexual orientation. They also strongly oppose legislation that would prevent discrimination against gay individuals in the workplace, charging that such a law would endanger religious freedom. A report on the Christian Broadcasting Network outlined one such concern: “The special protections for gay and transgendered teachers will make it extremely difficult for [public school] districts that might want to remove them from the classroom.”

In the Philippines, Catholic bullies use religious freedom to justify kicking out unwed pregnant mothers from Catholic schools. They use religious freedom to justify denying even non-Catholics the right to remarry. They use religious freedom to justify denying homosexuals the right to marry and be free from discrimination and violence. And to block the passage of the RH Bill, they use religious freedom to justify denying Filipinos their right to plan their families, protect themselves from HIV and pregnancy complications, and choose what’s best for their own bodies.

As Amy Sullivan wrote, they’re getting religious freedom wrong:

Social conservatives believe that efforts to protect gays from assault, discrimination or bullying impinge on their religious freedom to express and act on their belief that homosexuality is an abomination…

This belief, however, relies on a warped understanding of religious liberty. Freedom of religious expression doesn’t give someone the right to kick the crap out of a gay kid or to verbally torment her. It doesn’t give someone the right to fire a gay employee instead of dealing with the potential discomfort of working with him…

The same religious conservatives who applaud the religious exemption in Michigan’s anti-bullying bill would be appalled if it protected a Muslim student in Dearborn who defended bullying a Christian classmate by saying he considered her an infidel.

Worst of all, such abuses of the concept of religious liberty undermine efforts to focus attention on serious threats to religious freedom. A Christian pastor in Iran currently faces execution because he will not convert back to Islam. China openly represses religious minorities like Tibetan Buddhists and Uighur Muslims. Christians in Syria and Egypt continue to be targets of violence, and Muslims in Europe face civil penalties for wearing religious garb in public. Next to these realities, it takes a serious persecution complex to get worked up about defending the right of a Michigan high school student to target a gay classmate for ridicule.

I hope our legislators take the time to read Michigan’s Religious Bullying Bill. It serves as a perfect example of how religious freedom is done wrong.

To the editors of the Philippine Daily Inquirer –

I still recall a lot of basic journalism rules from my days as writer and editor for my high school paper. One of them is that the paper’s main editorial is supposed to reflect the views of the entire staff or, at the very least, of the editorial team. A consensus is made as to what topic to feature in the piece, as well as what the paper’s stand is on the chosen issue.

 

While most of your editorials reflect—or, at least, appear to reflect—these rules, I found today’s piece on San Pedro Calungsod a bit troubling. It talks about the impending canonization of Calungsod, to whom a doctor prayed in the hopes of recovering a woman who’d been clinically dead for two hours. It then goes on to mention Christianity in the Visayas and folk Catholicism, and even dismisses secularists’ notion that Catholic feasts are “wastes of time and resources” with a few handy quotes from two National Artists for Literature. The piece then ends with the following:

“The examples of Calungsod and Lorenzo Ruiz should indicate that the ‘hometown’ has grown to embrace as well the globe. Both of them earned the palm of martyrdom abroad—the latter in Japan, the former in what’s now Guam. They may as well have been the first Filipino OFWs! And although they died with clerics (Calungsod with the Jesuit Fr. Diego Luis de San Vitores, and Lorenzo with several Dominican friars), they were laymen, an indication of how Christianity had really taken root among the Filipinos. Their martyrdom having sown and watered the seed of Christianity elsewhere, they’re veritable ambassadors and embodiments of the catholicity of the Catholic faith. They’re the Philippine Church’s gifts to universal humanity. They make us proud to be Filipinos and Christians.”

Given the above rule as to what an editorial should be, is it true that every person working for your paper (or editorial team) is a proud Catholic? Is it true that all of you decided that this issue—which affects fewer people than you think, given that not all Filipinos are serious believers, much less Catholic ones—was significant enough to be the main opinion piece, when there are quite a few other issues (OWS, MILF, GMA, etc.) to be tackled?

I kind of understand why your editorial last October 17 was on the newly-appointed Archbishop Tagle.  Our country’s government, unfortunately, tends to be swayed by the opinions of the local Catholic Church’s leaders, so making mention of the new head honcho can be justified. As Antipolo Bishop Gabriel Reyes admitted, “He could wield more influence to spread the opposition against the [RH Bill] legislation.” This piece gives “unrepentantly secular” individuals like myself reason to be alert. (And by the way, your use of “unrepentantly” in the piece’s first sentence smacked of prejudice.)

But an editorial on some guy from Guam who magically healed a dead woman from the future by way of a doctor who closed his eyes and mumbled for help, which is a story that is not based on a shred of evidence and is only sincerely believed by some people?

Sincerely,

Marguerite Alcazaren de Leon