There’s been a lot of hullabaloo amongst the Freethinkers over the Reproductive Health Bill being stopped dead on its tracks because of the meddling of the Catholic Church. And why not? It’s not everyday (or maybe it is) the Church manages to run over “Secular” and “Humanist” at the same time. Now everyone’s practically screaming about how overpopulated the country is and how people should stop making babies they can’t feed. Fact is, however, population control isn’t a one-shot solution for poverty (which is really the heart of the matter). It’s only PART of the solution.
Poverty is a rather complex beast and solving it is no simple matter. In fact there are volumes of books dedicated to the issue and it’s practically an entire course in Development Management. Luckily, it’s very nicely illustrated in this little gem that I found called Ayiti: The Cost of Life. In the game, you control the lives of Jean, Marie, Patrick, Jacqueline and Yves – a small family in Haiti struggling to for a better life. It’s amazing how complicated it still is considering that it’s meant to be a simplified model of real life. Go ahead and attempt to beat it.
In the game, you’ll find yourself balancing the health, wealth and education of each family member. The goal is to reach a steady income level with enough security to withstand sickness, epidemics and natural disasters. The key to winning is to squeeze in as much education and productive investments while keeping the family healthy and financially afloat. It’s no small task.
Now why does this matter? Because while we rally for Secularism and push for an enlightened society free from religious dogma, we can never really pull it off while a quarter of our countrymen are starving. The Catholic Church is interferes simply because it can. They are no different from the wealthy, or the powerful, or the influential asserting themselves. We all know they shouldn’t, but they do it anyway. And they will continue to do so while the general public supports them. And general public will continue to support them as long as they are hungry and uneducated. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs theorizes that until a man’s basic needs are met (the bottom rung), he will not be motivated to seek self-actualization (the top rung). That is the difference between Our World and the First World – they have full stomachs to think about the bigger, heavier things.
That being said, our priority should already be clear – to raise the quality of life of Filipinos. Easier said than done, certainly, which is why Secularism will have to take a back seat. The RH Bill is only a small battle in a much larger war against poverty, and should we lose it, there would still be so much to do. Indeed, there is still so much we CAN do regardless.
a viewpoint stressing free choice in population choices..
http://aidwatchers.com/2009/12/malthus-vs-malthus…
I never thought that humanism and secularism could be considered mutually exclusive.
Hmm…
Thank you for pointing that out. You are absolutely right. It isn't. I'm thinking of changing the title…
Awesome post! I like that you emphasized on action and practical solutions. Its really hard to get the right answer until we butt heads and figure one out that accommodates the important considerations presented by both sides.
Thanks for the support! 🙂 Will do better next time.
@Chat
I'm sorry if I seemed to have downplayed the RH Bill. Really not my intention. And you're absolutely right, it's not just about poverty.
@Ram
"As a freethinker, a secularist, and a social activist, i have my own reasons for its advocacy… And since our issues revolve mainly on religion, it would be understandable that we attack the RH Bill’s opponents on our concerns against theocracy and for freethought…"
This hit home. Oh, and I've never heard of Max-Neef until you mentioned him. Very interesting stuff. Thanks for that too. 🙂
To start, the RH Bill isn't just for alleviation of poverty. Its advocacy meets everyone from a variety of traditions – women's groups, people's movements, and secularists – all with their own interests at stake. If the poverty card is being played primarily, then it's all a matter of tactics.
As a freethinker, a secularist, and a social activist, i have my own reasons for its advocacy. As a part of this group, i am speaking as a freethinker and a secularist. And since our issues revolve mainly on religion, it would be understandable that we attack the RH Bill's opponents on our concerns against theocracy and for freethought. Since the main reason for the obstacles met by the RHB is the Roman Catholic Church, what stops us from putting Secularism on the limelight?
Secularism cannot take the second seat anymore because it has its chance to go first because of its ability to unite the most pressing issues:
1. RHB
2. Anti-discrimination Bill
3. LADLAD rejection
These issues do not have poverty as its least common denominator. Its least common denominator is the issue of the separation of church and state. If you ask me what the problem is, it's not the way the freethinkers promote secularism, but it's the unwillingness of most of our colleagues to act what they say.
Oh and i don't really think Maslow's Hierarchy can present it well. I'm more for the Max-Neef Model of Human-Scale Development.
I agree with the sentiment that poverty is a complex beast.
I would also like to point out that the RH Bill is needed not just for poverty alleviation but for directly improving the quality of life of women, especially those who can not afford their own access to adequate reproductive and pre-natal healthcare. It's about children and mothers getting adequate and accurate sex education. It is about women freely making a choice with regards to their own fertility, family and health – their own choice, not the choice made because of deprived access to what they actually want. It's about shaping the dialogue away from "reproductive health and choice = abortion" to a more informed view that every woman can control her own body, and the position that the government needs to provide adequate basic services for women to be allowed to do so.
It's easy for us to say, "just buy a condom, do what you want", but for some poor families, subsidized access to condoms and pills and OB-gyne doctors is a big deal. It's not even that the government is forcing condoms down people's throats so that they could limit their own family size; there is a real gap between desired fertility and actual fertility – in other words, these families really don't want to have babies anymore but they don't know how to stop it. The freedom of not having children and having a choice in the matter has repercussions on an individual family's ability to survive and for a woman to be employed and contribute to the family income.
I guess this is all related to poverty but what I am saying is that it is not just about the macro effect on the economy (which can be argued and studied and debated on) but also affects the individual lives and well-being of women and their families.
That said, my feeling of this is that the Church has power not because of support of the poor but because of the indifference of the majority (including baptized Catholics). In making the majority aware of the Church's interference, I think we (FF) can help achieve the parallel goals of both helping alleviate poverty indirectly (by rejecting the Church's crap lobbies) and by moving towards secularism and reducing the Church's influence on the government.
Good post! Is this the drama you were talking about on Facebook? 😉
Anyway, onto your post. You seem to be suggesting that
We should prioritize improving the quality of life before secularism because secularism, or causes related to it, won't solve the quality of life problem anyway, and quality of life is a more pressing need.
Some points:
1. *We* don't all have to be doing the same thing. Some could work on the quality of life problem, some could work on secularism, others could work on totally different things or nothing at all. The point is, what people do depends on willingness, ability, and a whole lot of other factors.
2. The argument that secularism won't solve all problems and therefore should not be prioritized over the quality of life involves two fallacies. The first is that any quality of life improvement initiative will also not solve the whole problem entirely. The second — and this is more important — a solution need not be perfect or be able to perfectly solve a problem for it to be worth doing. This is known as the perfect solution fallacy.
3. Quality of life and secularism are so related that an advance in one will benefit the other. You can say that you are pushing for secularism because this is the best way you know to contribute to quality of life right now.
Anyway, it was a good post, and I look forward to your next ones. Thanks for giving my day a bit of drama 😉
"Is this the drama you were talking about on Facebook?"
Why yes. What better way to cause a ruckus than to write about something close to Ryan Tani's heart? :p
"We should prioritize improving the quality of life before secularism because secularism, or causes related to it, won’t solve the quality of life problem anyway, and quality of life is a more pressing need."
Not really. I'm saying it's difficult to promote Secularism because not very many people care. And not very many people care because they're worried about their next meal, so maybe we should work on that first.
On your points:
1. Regardless, that shouldn't stop me from trying to influence other people to do what I think, no? 😉
2. Never said anything about a perfect solution. Merely saying you can't have Secularism while the CC bully is around, and so perhaps we should think about eroding their influence first, one happy Filipino at a time.
3. Indeed, you may.
Seems I made a mess of expressing what I really wanted to say. Oh well, at least I succeeded on what I set out to do. 😀
"Not really. I’m saying it’s difficult to promote Secularism because not very many people care."
You promote secularism precisely because not very many people care. Do you think that very many people should care before you set out to make very many people care? 😉
"And not very many people care because they’re worried about their next meal, so maybe we should work on that first."
On your points:
1. Yup, you should always try to influence people with what you think is right. I just pointed out that your message could be interpreted as saying that we should have only one unified goal, when on the contrary, individuals or small groups can have different aims.
2. You never said anything about a perfect solution, but still, the logic you have used (that a solution is not good because it cannot solve some immediate/related problems) can still be classified under the perfect solution fallacy.
3. As another commenter pointed out, secularism and humanism are not mutually exclusive.
Congratulations on starting a good discussion 😀
"You promote secularism precisely because not very many people care. Do you think that very many people should care before you set out to make very many people care?"
Wiseguy. :p I meant promotion as in communication in the marketing sense. If the audience isn't receptive, perhaps we should examine why.
Again, on the points:
1. Oh, yes of course.
2. Ahhh, now I get it. You're saying I see this as black and white – either you solve it or you don't. If I define the problem as "Ensuring the RH Bill Passes", wherein either we succeed or we don't, would I still be guilty of the fallacy?
On a related note, what is the usual strategy for an advocacy? What does a typical campaign look like? Do you identify key people to convince to join the cause? How do you measure your progress? (I'm asking out of pure naivete)
3. You're both absolutely right. A lack of due diligence on my part. Perhaps I should change the title…
"Congratulations on starting a good discussion"
I know, I'm picking up a lot from the comments. I do wish there was a way posts can be discussed by the FF community before it's published. I don't want to sully the FF brand, if you know what I mean.
And again, the job of promotion is to enhance awareness so that people gradually become more receptive to the idea 😉
"Ahhh, now I get it. You’re saying I see this as black and white – either you solve it or you don’t. If I define the problem as “Ensuring the RH Bill Passes”, wherein either we succeed or we don’t, would I still be guilty of the fallacy?"
If you redefine your argument as "promoting secularism will not ensure that the RH Bill passes, and therefore, we should not promote secularism but prioritize something else first," then yes, you'd still be a guilty sinner 😉
Although promoting secularism will not ensure the passage of the Bill by itself, it can become a critical part of the overall solution, and should still be pursued in a multi-solution strategy in solving the problem — both RH bill passage, and poverty.
"On a related note, what is the usual strategy for an advocacy? What does a typical campaign look like? Do you identify key people to convince to join the cause? How do you measure your progress? (I’m asking out of pure naivete)"
Every campaign is different, and the usual strategy depends on the people involved in the campaign. This space is too limited for a discussion on this. But as a benchmark, check out Barack Obama's campaign, which spanned the whole spectrum, from grassroots, to online, to expensive traditional marketing.
"I know, I’m picking up a lot from the comments. I do wish there was a way posts can be discussed by the FF community before it’s published. I don’t want to sully the FF brand, if you know what I mean."
Part of promoting freethought is teaching that it doesn't matter much what you think — what's important is how you think. It's obvious that you have put thought into your post, and to me that's what matters. The FF authors are all different individuals, which makes the reading a lot more interesting than if only one or two people with the same voice and the same message were writing. Thankfully, our voices vary, and yours is a welcome addition to it 🙂