REPORT Secularism Violations
PoliticsReligionSociety

Anti-RH Bill Catholics Harass RH Bill Supporters

the Editors
the Editors

[UPDATE] For more comprehensive video coverage of the event, as well as clarifications on some damage control by the Pro-Life side, read this.

The Filipino Freethinkers and the Democratic Socialist Women of the Philippines went to the Manila Cathedral where an anti-RH bill discernment mass was supposed to be held. Representatives from these two organizations wanted to hear the reasons that would be given in the lecture as to why the CBCP was against the RH bill.

Unfortunately, they were denied entry from the chapel for wearing Damaso-printed shirts, which these organizations have worn to express their disagreement with the CBCP’s position. However, they were told that the organizers would consider letting them inside after the ongoing mass ends.

Afterbeing denied entry to the Manila Cathedral, the RH Bill supporters decided to wait outside the church for the mass to end. Several pro-life supporters handed FF and DSWP members Anti-RH Bill leaflets which had misleading information, including the claim that condoms caused cancer.

After a few minutes , a group of anti-RH Bill Catholics, led by Pro-Life Philippines president Eric B. Manalang confronted the RH Bill supporters and told them that their presence was not welcome. Several members of both the Filipino Frethinkers and the DSWP attempted to reason with these people, explaining how some of them were also Catholic and simply wanted to hear why the RH Bill was considered “evil.”

Lorna Ferrer, a member of the DSWP, told Mr. Manalang that she was Catholic. Mr. Manalang responded with, “You are not a real Catholic! You are an oxymoron!” — implying that Catholics who use or support any form of artificial contraception could not possibly be “real” Catholics.

Other members from both organizations attempted to calm down Mr. Manalang and company, but these pleas fell on deaf ears as the harassment escalated and the RH supporters were attacked with harsh words and mild violence.

Here are just some of the statements hurled at members of the Filipino Freethinkers and the DSWP by Manalang and company:

“This is our territory. Get out of here!”
“Damaso is a fake. You’re a fake! You are the Damaso!”
“Get out of here, Satan!”
“You should tell your mother that she should have aborted you!”

There is video footage of Mr. Manalang and company pushing several supporters and trying to take away cameras from two members of the group. Police officers intervened and escorted the FF and the DSWP away from the premises of the cathedral for the safety of these RH supporters.

As the organizations walked away, Pro-Life advocates continued the barragewith “Get out of here, Satan!” “Away, Satan, away!”

Meanwhile, the anti-RH reflection service was going on inside. One of the speakers, Dra. Angie Aguirre, asked the churchgoers inside: How many have read the actual text of the RH Bill? Less than ten percent raised their hands.

Update: In place of what’s actually in the RH Bill, these are the lies the Church teaches its flock about the RH Bill.


Update: Anti-RH supporters handed out invitations to the anti-RH service outside the Manila Cathedral, even to people visibly wearing DAMASO shirts. Click to view the invitation.

Related content

244 comments

  1. "Get thee behind me Satan" is what Jesus actually said — Luke 4:5-8.

    It is a call to resist temptation, it has nothing to do with literally calling someone Satan.

  4. Two Sundays ago after hearing mass, as we were making our exit from the church, agents of the anti-RH bill approached us soliciting our signatures against the RH Bill. You can just imagine how that put us in so an awkward a position as every eyes leaving the church were on us… but, of course, we stood our ground and just ignored the agent. I just can't help but wonder, can they not just set up a table with a banner asking every churchgoer who open-heartedly opposes the RH-bill to come to them in stead? Do they honestly believe every churchgoer blindly follows their position and are not thinking for themselves? Or was this intentional so that those who are afraid of being ostracized by the Church will unwillingly give their signatures? That was a very desperate move, pathetic even.

  5. Maybe the RH supporters should have shown more respect by not wearing the Damaso shirts? It's like they painted a bright red bullseye on themselves. Of course the anti-RH Catholics reacted that way. Respect should be observed by both sides. I hope the RH Bill gets passed, but this antagonism isn't helping the cause at all.

  6. I wonder how many of these anti RH bill people take in and help, with their own money of course, all the "accidental children" that we have in this country. Such children are a burden on the coffers of the government, meaning we the taxpayers!! I would be happier with the situation if the catholic church showed us a budget to support all these people that we taxpaxpayers can no longer afford. I bet these anti RH bill people are also the ones that pay their house staff garbage wages while they roll around in a luxurious lifestyle like pigs in shite.

    • what's the good of their message anyways…

      couples if you have problems with your children, unable to feed them, have no job. its not really your fault or responsibility its the government's problem. what the fuck is that. the couple should have dibs on responsibility.

  7. What is severely overlooked in this discussion is the FF's' assessment of the event in accordance to how they planned it and the goals to be achieved: (i) What were the specific goals? Does it include to project the FF to be the most militant in the forefront of RH advocacy? Was it to gain "overnight sensation" like how Celdran achieved it, albeit unintentionally? Frankly, the action was like a "storm-troopers" operation, similar to lighting rallies launched by militants at the height of martial law — the size of the enemy counts the most. (ii) What was the specific target mobilization of participants? Was the actual mobilization enough to insist on breaching the gates, so to speak, and confront the lead panel backed by supporters of the otherside? Did FF have a lawyer in tow? This commenter thinks that the FF action was ill-prepared, unorganized, with no clear-cut aims and goals laid out to fit the quality and size of the mass action vis-a-vis the size and quality of the target "enemy". Freethink!

    • Unlike some organizations with an fetish towards projection of the NAME of the group and having some soundbites to penetrate the wall of mainstream media, I honestly know that FF is more concerned about getting the messages through.

      On your case:
      About being a "stormtrooper" operation – If it was meant to be a lightning rally, it would be. But people involved just wanted to go in and listen. The adversity of the pro-lifers transformed it into something viewed as a lightning rally. I don't even see the "militancy" of the pro-RH contingent. If you would analyze it though, you will see that what FF is doing is radical in the eyes of the public because opposition to organized religion is not a common thing in the Philippines.

      The "mobilization" wasn't intended to breach the gates. By thinking that, you only affirm with the statements of the pro-lifers trolling here.

      If you think of the recent event as a planned mass action, then you would certainly think that it was ill-prepared and unorganized.

      • [I don't even see the "militancy" of the pro-RH contingent. If you would analyze it though, you will see that what FF is doing is radical in the eyes of the public because opposition to organized religion is not a common thing in the Philippines. ]

        Ram, from my experience, the FF idea of "militant" action IRL is photobombing a CBCP spokesman with a banner that reads "Citation Needed."

        Now if we really decided to get violent, we'll use *gasp*…Harsh language!

        I'd like to think that the FF stands for intelligent discourse over dogma, and that if we come off as pissed, perhaps it's because we are tired of being fed misinformation and apologetics.

      • When FF organize meetups, you fill and firm up the "what-where-when" form — the agenda beforehand. Then you put out invites. Now, that's planning. And maybe, the FF's specific objectives are already incorporated therein.

        That's why I ask, and suggest rather helpingly, review your planning notes of the Saturday activity and hold some assessment. Don't tell me FF didn't in anyway plan the entire thing and that uniformed participants spontaneously just went there for thrill-seeking! If your objective was "just to go in and listen" in uniformed Damaso shirts, still some planning took place prior — and with a good number of people involved, it was undeniably a "mass action." Did you guys anticipate and envision some kind of "violent" reaction on the part of the Cathedral leaders? The incident was in 6 o'clock news today. And my agnostic 14-year old son commented (as kids express it these days): You were owned!

        • Thanks for the helping suggestion! With regards to assessing a specific action that was done by FF, it's all covered.

          Since you are so knowledgeable and very much assuming that "we were owned" based on your assessment and your son's comment, then I guess it stops there.

          A word of advice from someone knowledgeable as well: not everything works within the established assumptions of the so-called "authorities" on a specific subject. Some stunts might not work well with a rigid framework, and not all political actors desire the same thing. Based on my assessment of the anti-globalization movement and the current trends in protest that earn the most results, I believe a dose of spontaneity and what you call "thrill-seeking" makes the difference.

  9. i fully support the RH bill. what happened here was not really a clash of opinions but rather a transgression of the rights of the anti-RH bill supporters to peacefully assemble. the UNINVITED presence of the pro-RH bill advocates, while with a peaceful intent as it may seem, was the ROOT CAUSE of the heated arguments that ensued. worse, the "damaso" shirts they wore sparked more provocation. the reaction of the anti-RH bill advocates, although a bit overboard, was to be expected. in the future, i suggest that the RH bill advocates choose a neutral venue so they can engage the other camp in an intelligent and open-minded debate.

    • This is simply false. Were the anti-choicers prevented from meeting in their giant stone fortress? No, even if that were the point, I sincerely doubt that would have been possible. Was there any violence on the part of the RH bill advocates? No, clearly it was all one-sided. Were the RH bill advocates uninvited? No, we even had invitations since they gave them out to everyone. If they wanted only the True Catholics™, they should have said so and rescinded our invitations. The root cause of the heated name-calling (rather than argument) was that the anti-choicers cannot fathom dissent. Outside their ivory tower far removed from facts, they cannot imagine how opposing views even exist.

      We're open to an intelligent debate. The thing is, we'd rather have the lies removed from the discourse. As you have seen in the flyers they sent out, they deliberately and irresponsibly spread misinformation and abject fraud. The playing field is simply not level. The amount of honesty about facts is simply not evenly distributed between sides.

      • well, the fact that they handed out fliers, even to the damaso shirt wearing freethinkers, changes everything. It was definitely wrong on their part. What I don't understand is, why did the policeman make the FF people leave? were they still on what was considered church property?

  10. Disrespect ang ginawa ng mga Pro-rh bill. Cmon, this video is not complete, Sinabi dun sa video "Kanina pa namin sinasabi yan, get out" Kaya i think, hindi sa sigawan nagsimula to. Cmon, yung nagvivideo pro rh bill e, sana pinost niyo whole video, pinagmumuka niyong hinarass kayo e kayo, naunahan lang kayo kasi kung nakapasok kayo sa loob kayo ang mag haharass.

  12. @Malditang Pinay- Use your common sense. Nakasoot sila ng Damaso Shirt in a prayer vigil of pro-lifers. Oh common. Malinaw na malinaw na hindi sila puede doon, dahil gathering yun ng mga Pro-lifers. Yung pag soot nila ng Damaso shirt is an obvious indicator that there purpose of going there is not to pray with the pro-lifers but to intimidate. COMMON SENSE!

    • [Yung pag soot nila ng Damaso shirt is an obvious indicator that there purpose of going there is not to pray with the pro-lifers but to intimidate. ]

      So if I wore a turban to your house, would you automatically assume I'm a suicide bomber?

      • no because the turban is associated with many things. The damaso shirt is only associated with the carlos celdran incident, hence the hostility

    • 15-20 something pro-RH and at the other side a church of what 300, a bishop or priest of high social stature, a GMA lawyer among others, security, police probably in their speed dials….can your common sense really do the math george?

  13. I agree twin-skies. but that's how they see it. They're narrow minded. It's the "culture" of these bigots. I'm not disagreeing with anyone, merely trying to show the way they think

    • I think from their side, the whole carlos-damaso issue was proof that these people wearing the damaso shirts were going to disrupt the mass.

      • Still, I can understand that if our group had gone without the shirt, we'd have made better progress by being able to sit in, and not attracting undue attention.

        Kawawa naman yung mga taga Pro-Life – they're obviously in need of heart medication (and therapy) if something as small as a shirt sets them off 😉

  14. justin, if Heaven is going to be populated with people like the Pro-Lifer "Templars" I saw in that video, I'd rather go to hell.

  15. The RH bill doesn't force anything upon anyone, it only provides education and the means should one wish to accept the alternative. I see nothing wrong with this. On the other hand the anti RH bill supporters want no choice available. WOW what kind of organization is that LMFAO.

    • for one, it forces everyone to to pay for the contraceptives others will use…if we are genuinely concern about poverty we should start with buying food, water, education, and shelter for everyone.

      • I'd level the same assertion at the people who are against the people against the RH Bill. Given how often they've termed the bill as something that can potentially lead to "sin," it's quite obvious they're trying to impose their dogma.

        [if we are genuinely concern about poverty we should start with buying food, water, education, and shelter for everyone. ]

        Poverty alleviation and population management are two programs that work towards the same goal, Reynor. It won't matter how much food and medicine you pump into welfare if the number of people to feed outstrips supplies.

        And do your research, most poverty alleviation programs will recommend an RH program as part of its plans.

  17. it's true though.. you guys shouldn't have worn those shirts. to them, you're treading on their territory and is just in bad taste. the equivalent would be for catholics to be in a Filipino freethinkers meeting with shirts saying atheists are murderers (or something similar). at most you guys should have worn Filipino freethinker shirts. If they had still attacked you, it would have looked bad on their part.

    Despite this, I still stand with my last post

    • If people come to our meetups wearing anti-RH shirts and are not confrontational, they will not be treated with the savage hostility that was demonstrated to us.

      If anything, the meetup will be more fun because of a discussion with them. There is a limit to the bullshit we'll hear out though, if anyone comes with a stupid argument we reserve the right to rip, tear, eviscerate or otherwise their retarded idea on the basis of reasoning and the facts that can be found through science.

        • Garrick: I'm not arguing who's underlying logic is right here. The point I'm making is on perceptions.

          To clarify, I'm not bringing down the Filipino freethinkers group to the same level of barbarity as these old men of the catholic church. I'm arguing that this is how these oldies viewed the "damaso" shirts. I know we wouldn't yell at anti RH proponents if they came to our meet up (even the bigoted ones). we also wouldn't and shouldn't hold back with our reasoning. What I'm trying to argue for is that the ignorance of these old men is due to our respecting and accommodating culture, which allows them to yell stupid things with out looking stupid to begin with.

          If the goal here was to hear out the opposition, which is what the articles states, then the best mode of action would have been to go wearing less "provocative" shirts. We will never know the outcome if no-one wore damaso shirts, but I'm guessing it would've been the same. SO I'm arguing from a PR perspective. We would have looked a lot better in many people's eyes had we not worn the shirts.

          Garrick please do not equate me with these old men because that really is insulting.

          • [If the goal here was to hear out the opposition, which is what the articles states, then the best mode of action would have been to go wearing less "provocative" shirts. We will never know the outcome if no-one wore damaso shirts, but I'm guessing it would've been the same. SO I'm arguing from a PR perspective. We would have looked a lot better in many people's eyes had we not worn the shirts. ]

            The problem is that the people who booted out the FF members there had no proof of intent that they were going to disrupt mass. So what if they wore shirts?

            I could use the same reasoning to say that someody who has a cellphone visible is obviously going to be disruptive by calling and texting during the service.

          • they were associating the damaso shirt wearers with the actions of carlos celdran. this is why the whole incident happened

          • [they were associating the damaso shirt wearers with the actions of carlos celdran. this is why the whole incident happened ]

            So they were paranoid. Thank you for clearing that up 😉

          • Paranoid that they'd shout at the servicing priests like Carlos did?

            No, I think the point is that wearing "Damaso" shirt is disrespectful in itself because it's basically name-calling, Damaso being clearly associated with the church by the FF group. Hence, Kakko's "atheists are murderers" shirt analogy.

          • To use an analogy.

            If I wore a short that said a racial slur, would a police officer be justified in beating the shit out of me if he happens to belong to the race being insulted?

            No. That would be excessive force, as was the case in the pro-Lifers case here. They asked the FF explicitly to wait outside after the mass was over, and they did just that.

            And yet it was also the Pro-Lifers that accosted the group while they were waiting outside the Cathedral, and began throwing out those insults and yelling at them to leave.

            They asked them to wait in the first place, and then they're going to play the victim card when it was clear they started the whole ruckus?

          • The analogy was "Damaso" is an equivalent to "Atheists are <insert bad adjective/noun>", NOT to the action that would occur later.

            And the point was that it's natural to feel angry and feisty at someone who name-calls you in disrespect, NOT that it is automatically justified.

            I hope that clears it up.

    • [the equivalent would be for catholics to be in a Filipino freethinkers meeting with shirts saying atheists are murderers (or something similar).]

      Well, I'd be offended. What happened to the more colorful accusations, such as rapists, home-breakers, witches, warlocks, heathens, and baby eaters?

      Seriously, just because they wear a shirt doesn't mean I'd assume they were up to no good.

    • "Damaso!" is a symbol against specific attitudes exhibited by the CBCP – deception, hypocrisy, and oppression – in maintaining this ignorant position of theirs that compromise the health of our society.

      The shirt was worn not as a statement against the Catholic faith in general (Hello? My parents are Catholic – they support the RH Bill), but as a protest against these specific attitudes – deception, hypocrisy, and oppression.

      There was a high concentration of Catholics, but unless they are deceivers, hypocrites, and oppressors, the prints were not directed towards them.

      I don't understand Catholics who hate the "Damaso!" print. We're not saying YOU ARE ALL DAMASO! It's basically a symbol that says, "May liars be exposed." It is directed only to those who are guilty and it should be offensive only to those who are guilty.

  19. the problem here is in Filipino culture, once an elderly person starts yelling no one can do anything about it. If a younger person raised his voice and tried to get to him through reason, or told him to calm down it would've been viewed as disrespectful.

    The old in the Philippines have a sort of tyranny on the young… through this notion of "respect". This is why a lot of them are so close minded. They can just shut of the voice of the young through "respect".

  20. satan get out!!! SHAME on you Macalintal.wala kang karapatan magsabi nyan,HINDI KA DIYOS!!! HINDI KAYO DIYOS!!!!!!!!! I don't think so God would ever say that to his children

  23. My God! Saying something like, "…your mother should have aborted you." THAT is just evil. And does that mean they are for abortion!? That's just sick!!! Pro-Life ba talaga yan? and "Satan"?! Look who's talking. Shame on you, Pro-Life Philippines president Eric B. Manalang!!!

  24. I was not present during the encounter. From what I saw, the comments of the anti-RH Catholics were crude and vulgar for that matter. True. Although, it was unethical for the RH supporters to have worn the shirts as well. For a lack of a better description, it really was a slap in the face for the antis. Both sides were out of line.

    To be able to sort this whole dilemma out, we need to have a well thought out debate. Not just one of those crappy arguments where people forget to focus on the topic and instead, criticize the opposing side. Seriously, let's have it. The best of the best from the antis and the pros. Demonstrators and priests are not allowed to participate. These kinds of people too stubborn to submit to reason. Get debaters and lawyers, make them go over each and every section of the bill. Let's just get this over with. It's getting a bit tiring to hear people defend themselves by using the language of the gutter.

    • This is false equivalency par excellence. Were the shirts offensive to the anti-choicers? Probably. Did the presence of these shirts disrupt their rites? No (unless they had strobes or sirens). The fact of the matter is, the Catholic Church uses its bully pulpit to strong arm politicians in need of votes to follow their lead. People who believe in informed choice simply want more options available. People who don't like condoms or sex in general can go on as they are regardless. One side is clearly the oppressor and is clearly trampling on the rights of the others.

      • Don't get me wrong, okay? I stand alone and I take no sides. To a certain extent, you are right but I am not pertaining to the entire picture. I'm specifically talking about this event.

        Both sides were out of line as I mentioned in my previous post. Of course the antis assumed incorrectly. The Damaso fiasco was too big to pass up. It affected everyone in a way, both the antis and the pros. What were they supposed to do? Smile and wave? It was understandable that they were taken aback by the pros' presence.

        Did the pros have the right to be there? Yes. Was it ethical at all to wear those shirts? No.

        Did the antis have the right to be angered? Yes. Was it ethical for them to insult the pros? No.

        What I'm saying is that this certain incident not only defines the antis, but the pros as well. For me, the pros were too naive to even consider the idea of being taken lightly at the assembly. On the other hand, I despise the way the antis reacted and dealt with the situation. It was as if they have not sinned. They were hypocrites and uncivil. I can think of a hundred more adjectives to describe them but it won't get me anywhere. It's not a solution, really.

        So, think what you may. You have your stance on this and I have mine. We are entitled to our own ideas anyway.

        We are freethinkers.

        • I think that the un-ethicalness of wearing Damaso shirts is an unwarranted assumption which as a freethinker I challenge you to justify. Yes, certain parties were offended, but those sentiments were irrelevant to the situation: clearly, a certain group claims authority to decide on everyone else's rights to their own body.

          This stance, that we should not advocate certain policies or claim certain truths because someone might take offense is just plain BS to me.

          • How is that an unwarranted assumption? Free speech is protected only in so far as it does not harm/incite to harm. The shirts were disruptive; it was uncalled for, especially given the venue. Granted, the anti-RH people were also out of line.

          • you lost me does Damaso mean disrupt? or does it say go make WW3 on anyone that opposes you?

            Yes it was called for considering the politics the church is engaged in and the sex scandals to boot, here and abroad. C'mon get in the spirit of disobedience your church has called for. Do you expect the opposing party just to lie down while you attempt to disrupt the government just so you can further your conceit.

            They were there to talk. Heads held high wearing tshirts say that i oppose you. As owner of the territory as one of gatekeepers have said in this encounter you could have given your terms. You know win someone over. Instead they were told that they should have been aborted.

          • I was using harm in a general sense.

            But tell me, how is "DAMASO" on a shirt even constructive to what they were trying to do? In like manner, what do the church's other issues (sex scandals, etc.) have anything to do with the RH-Bill (which was the issue at hand) that wearing such a shirt becomes justified?

          • My opinion about 'the un-ethicalness of wearing Damaso shirts is an unwarranted assumption.' Okay, I agree with you on that. All I'm saying is that the 'perceived truth' is what caused this whole fall out.

            Anticipation and foresight was not present in the planning process. Was it not an unwarranted assumption for you to believe that to wear Damaso shirts for the gathering was ethical? Apparently, it was. If this was all put into consideration and then, you would have gotten the results you wanted. It was all about perspective. The opposition should have been included in the deliberation.

            It's not all about you and 'your truth' or me and 'my truth'. It's about understanding human nature and the instincts that come with it. We are all so used to these natural tendencies that not everyone is open to reason. That's something we have to remember.

  25. i still say NO to RH BILL! 1st of all if this bill will be implemented the government will be funding this thing. 2nd it is not based on bible if you want to be sinners let to yourself and to legalized that. And most of all this FREAK NOY-AB supporting this when Obama talk about that let me think how much that the Pharmaceutical can get if this bill will be ok to our country. This DAMASO stupid Carlos Celdran is Bastos. People dont know that they came from rich family and that people used to be MAPANGMATA so how they can say its a right thing to do? i cant believe HYPOCRITE people will find this as HEROIC step out. Kung gusto niyo magpaka IMMORAL e desisyon ninyo un wag niyo ipilit ang MALI na TAMA. sabihin niyo ang dami squatter bakit tanong ko sa inyo nakatulong na ba kayo para itong less fortunate na bumangon e ito pa ngang sumusuporta sa RH bill ang unang unang nangmamata sa mga mahihirap at pinandidirian tapos tuturuan nio nang immoral kasi concern kayo para gumanda buhay nila KALOKOHAN!

    • "Kung gusto niyo magpaka IMMORAL e desisyon ninyo un wag niyo ipilit ang MALI na TAMA."

      May RH bill man o wala, kung ang tao'y maging immoral, magiging immoral iyan. Walang kinalaman ang RH bill dito.

    • Dear Damasong Bulok, whoever you are! Wether your a girl or boy, one thing for sure, mababaw ang utak mo at ang iyong pang-unawa. Nararapat lamang na ikaw ay bumalik sa school at mag-aral muli, Grade 2 section 13 row 5 dahil sa kabobohan mo!
      1. Mahirap ang mga pinoy dahil karamihan sa ating mga kababayan ay walang disiplina, walang alam, walang trabaho, magkukulong sa bahay at magpaparami. Hindi ko naman nilalahat pero as I said, karamihan. Kaya kailangan ng edukasyon, kailangan ang RH Bill.
      2. RH Bill leads to immorality??? HOY!!! MAMULAT KA SA PALIGID MO! MARAMI NG IMMORAL NA TAO SA MUNDO, MAY RH BILL MAN O WALA. ANG PAGIGING MORAL OR IMMORAL AY NASA TAO WALA SA BATAS. TANGA!!!

  26. at least people should have a choice… if you really don't support the RH bill then do whatever makes you happy as long as you don't hurt other people in the process… what manalang did was uncalled for… he didn't even bother for an intellectual conversation… kung sa bisaya pa "utok bulinaw"

  27. im pro-RH but I think the Damaso Tshirts were unecessary after Celdran (as there is good reason why Celdran had to do the act). But wearing Damaso cost you the entrance, the chance to hear whatever the fanatics were hearing from inside, and also the chance to engage with these people in a more successful manner.

  28. nakakatawang isipin sa ganitong bagay ay maaaring magulantang ang Inang Simbahan sapagkat sa kaanyuang panlabas nito ay umaalingasaw ang kanilang tunay na nais – na maipanatili ang hegemoniya ng simbahang burges paibabaw sa mga tupa ng bayan. ang kanilang pakikibaka laban sa ganitong mga isyu ay kasama lamang sa kanilang layunin ipanatili ang naipamanang pamumusabos ng mga hipokritong mananakop.
    ako ay umaasa na hangga't may laban ang mga mapagpalayang-isip upang ibahagi ang pagkilala sa syensya at rason, ang paghahariharian ng mga bulaang uri ay mananatiling may banta ng katapusan.
    hindi man tayo magwagi sa ating layon, ang pagpapakilala ng syensya at rason sa bawat bayan ay hindi mapipigilan lamang ng obskurantismo, kakitiran ng utak, at pang-aapi. isang tiyak na tagumpay.
    ang isang tiyak na tagumpay ang nasa atin ngayon, at ang diwa nito ay ating madadama sa mga susunod na mga taon.

  30. This is outrageous… Anti-RH Bill claim that they are real catholics but they are not acting like one. Even their manner of telling the RH Bill supporters to leave is not right. I quote them "Satan, get out!…" Their action is just making my support for the RH Bill stronger.. I hope the RH bill will be passed to law, I wanna see these people get pissed. LOL!

    but seriously, I support the RH Bill 200%. I believe that everyone should have the right to choose any method they think is right for them. The church should not interfere with that decision. They are not the one who pays for the expenses of the family. They are not even doing anything about the population growth of the country at least the government is.

  31. according to a pamphlet from the anti rh group that was given earlier at the manila cathedral…

    TANDAAN NATIN: WALANG ARTIPISYAL NA KOTRASEPSYONG HINDI NAGDUDULOT NG KANSER AT IBA PANG SAKIT SA GUMAGAMIT NITO…

    (we must remember: there are NO ARTIFICIAL CONTRACEPTIVES THAT DO NOT CAUSE CANCER and other diseases to it's users…)

    where does condom belong??

  33. I agree with ajp. Respect is needed on both sides. It's the pill that causes cancer. They are classified as carcinogens. They have many negative health effects. Wonder why someone had to lie and say that the leaflets said that condoms cause cancer…tsk

    • Respect the Church, why? I respect other human beings because they have thoughts and emotions realized in their brains. I respect other human beings because they can at least in theory change their minds when presented with evidence. I respect other human beings because they have the capacity to be kind and good without appealing to dogma. I do not respect the Church as an institution because it stands for the suppression of dissenting ideas, the protection of child rapists, the condemnation of human beings to eternal torture, the policing of thoughtcrimes such as blasphemy and doubt, and the spreading of provably false claims about science and medicine.

    • No we don't.

      If they lie, we are obligated to call out their lies. If they claim the moral high ground, we have to reveal their hypocrisy in the sex abuse cases that they have yet to address. If they try to impose their doctrine on the Philippine constitution, they need to be reminded that the country is not just a Catholic nation.

  35. I was there a while ago.

    And I have the said anti RH leaflets. They obviously didn't bother to read the "misleading" information that was there, because I can prove to you by showing everyone here the leaflets, that nowhere in those leaflets does it say that condoms cause cancer.

    Liars of the highest order.

    • I'd prefer to wait for a copy of the flyer itself before jumping to conclusions.

      Now the church insisting that NFP works, despite the various studies and medical organizations that have disproven their assertions?

      Or perhaps the church insisting on their moral superiority despite the rampant cases of child sex abuse among their ranks?

      THAT is lying of the highest order.

  36. I was there a while ago.

    And I have said anti RH leaflets. They obviously didn't bother to read the "misleading" information that was there, because I can prove to you by showing everyone here the leaflets, that nowhere in those leaflets does it say that condoms cause cancer.

    Liars of the highest order.

    • It's really strange seeing claims such as yours in this age of information. Another click would have told you that you were wrong. https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2010/11/21/anti-r…

      "2. Ano ang Reproductive Health Bill 96?
      a. Ang pag gamit ng mga nakakapigil sa pagbubuntis (abortifacients—condoms,pills, IUD, etc.) ay naglalagay sa panganib sa kalusugan ng ina at anak. Ito ay nagreresulta sa:
      – Kanser…"

      Either you are a liar or you have been sorely mislead. I hope that it is the latter case that is true and that this situation has been rectified by your encounter with the facts. (Note also that they lumped condoms under abortifacients: so laughably false a claim that any reader who has somehow stomached all the lies before this one should have by then suspected that the writer of the tract might not have been serious.)

      • I take it back, it was indeed in the leaflet.

        And yes, if anything, the fault here is typo. Condoms should not be treated as abortifacients.

        There is a serious case of misinformation here. The statement clearly indicates abortifacients as carcinogens. Condoms not included.

        Having said that, I still say you are liars. Why? because you expose half-truths like this and you fail to mention that contraceptive pills are carcinogens.

        • I commend you for conceding the point that it was in the leaflet. It's such a breath of fresh air to see this happening.

          Yes, it is possible that it was a typo. However, this was not the first time anti-choicers have lumped condoms with abortifacients. JC dela Cruz considered condoms as abortifacients in the past year's Inquirer Presidential Debate. Also, as a flyer meant to inform the masses, they have an obligation to make sure that they are clear about their message. The writer may have simply cynically used the noun series to imply to less critical readers that they all caused cancer and yet retain plausible deniability and say that it was a typo. Besides, this is not the only provably false statement in the flyer and to focus on this one particular bit of nonsense is to miss the forest for the trees.

          Anyway, I really don't think anyone here denies that contraceptive pills can cause cancer. The only reason, I think, that you say that we are still liars even though we've shown you completely factual statements is that you would feel embarrassed to fully rescind your harsh accusations of liars of the highest order (I usually save such phrases for people who cover up child rape cases). Burgers can cause cancer. Breathing can cause cancer. Yes, there are health risks with any pharmaceutical, from Biogesic to Amoxicillin. Let's discuss these using the facts. Let's use evidence from medical studies and scientific observation. Let's leave behind the mythologies and the outright lies and have a rational discussion in solving the problem of unwanted pregnancies and the problem of a misinformed society. And most of all, when the evidence is shown, let us be open to changing our positions.

  38. I was there. Common sense lang. They can protest all they want outside the Church, but for you guys to go in, where the function was not for you, that's something you shouldn't do.

    You can have all your excommunication parties and I wouldn't go there – simply because that function is not for me.

      • If indeed you say you are a freethinkers why would you choose sides isn't it absurd to claim freethinking if you anyway takes sides then it appears that you cease to be a freethinker? Just asking!

          • IMHO, If freethinking is taking the side of reason then both sides of the spectrum are freethinkers because they have there reasons?

          • You're confusing "reason" (logic, evidence-based assertions, etc.), with motive.

            From my experience, most of the Pro-Life crowd aren't above resorting to browbeating, emotional blackmail, and outright lying to further their point.

            Mr. Manalang in the video shrieking like an angry chimp on crack is testament to that.

          • O sorry Mr Twin-skies but I am not asking about the what is the motive in that video if you read my comment. I am asking the question that if indeed somebody is a freethinker then why take sides and the Mr. Hyangelo here replied "I'm no expert but I don't think freethinking is about not taking sides. If anything, I think it is about taking the side of reason." So I ask another question and it is above your reply you can read them. And with regards to the video IMHO those people inside the Cathedral are there to celebrate the Eucharistic Sacrifice to pray for discernment so what's the point of the other side in going there why have there own Eucharistic Celebration and also pray for discernment than be there anyway. It only boils to one thing they want to create something not good for being there right? If you are not invited to a party don't go or else you will get humiliated right?

          • i think mr jemt is in need of a formal definition of what "freethinking" and "freethought" is. if he googles (freethinker + definition) then most of the results would be more or less as follows:
            "one who forms opinions on the basis of reason independently of authority; especially : one who doubts or denies religious dogma" Merriam-Webster
            "a person who forms his ideas and opinions independently of authority or accepted views, esp in matters of religion
            freethinking n & adj" http://www.thefreedictionary.com/freethinker

            This is not to be mistaken for thinking about being "free" and without taking sides, but instead being free to think for yourself outside the confines of institutions / dogmatic teachings.

            And PLEASE tell the church to specify who is invited or not when they post invitations. Perhaps it will be helpful to add "Only Catholics who are against the RH Bill are invited to this event" and not "Everyone is cordially invited to…". The excommunication party asks whether or not one supports the RH bill and would be willing to be excommunicated. There is a big difference mr jemt in the CLARITY of who is invited between the two events, so please do not compare.

    • So you only want people who agree with you to come in? Catholics were denied entry and called false Catholics. I thought the Mass was for discernment? If the Church wanted guidance, maybe it should stop spreading lies and using threats and instead start listening to its flock and start looking at the destitution directly outside their opulent fortress.

  40. Haggard!

    I believe even Christ wouldn't do such a thing. If RH bill supporters were such sinners (in a Christian standpoint we all are or were) He won't hesitate to let them in the church, if not even go to a restaurant with them. If the mass really was for discernment over the bill, it would have been much better to have the other side listen, hopeful that their arguments will make them change their mind.

    Oh, by the way, when Jesus called Peter Satan (or so Matthew 16:23 seems to people) He didn't really drive Peter away…

    • I agree. Christ wouldn't do such thing, we are all sinners, even Christians are still sinners. The only difference is that we repent and trust in Christ for our salvation (please see website attached). But still, the Bible says that those who follow Christ should "rebuke gently" (Galatians 6:1), and this is not the way to "rebuke gently."

      And yes, Jesus was not referring to Peter when he declared "Satan, get thee behind me!" He was referring to the devil trying to work in Peter instead. It's good to see nonbelievers put verses in context when quoting them (but we still care for you that you would not go to Hell when you die or when Christ comes, please check the website out!!).

      All in all, I am also against the RH Bill, but I don't like how the Catholic church drove these people away.

        • You weren't there when it all happened…. you should have seen how it started…. it didn't start violently… until this PRO-RH didn't agree to leave… you should know where those Catholics were coming from so you know what drove them to this kind of emotion…

      • You know, I don't think you can expect respect when you have it for others in the first place. Going to such an event wearing a Damaso shirt? Come on.

  42. that arrogant guy macalintal should be disbarred for violating right to peaceful assembly. a lawyer should fight for advocacy w/ law & reason

    • Peaceful assembly? The Church is a sacred place. Isipin na lang natin, kunyari ang DLSU may dresscode, kapag may guard na nagsabi sayong bawal ka pumasok dahil maikli ang shorts mo, dapat bang tanggalin sa trabaho ang guard?

      Kung may churchgoer, who in this case happens to be atty. macalintal, na nagsabi sayong bawal ka pumasok (dahil may certain rules sa loob ng simbahan) dapat ba siyang i-disbar?

      I see no logic.

      • [The Church is a sacred place.]

        For freethinkers, there is no such thing as a sacred cow. Every idea is subject to criticism and questioning, including religion.

        [Isipin na lang natin, kunyari ang DLSU may dresscode, kapag may guard na nagsabi sayong bawal ka pumasok dahil maikli ang shorts mo, dapat bang tanggalin sa trabaho ang guard?]

        Isipin din natin: Would a guard scream that the person in question in SATAN, ask them if their mother is ashamed of them, or would resort to browbeatings and insults.

        If a guard did that, wouldn't it make sense not to boot them from their job for abusing their authority.

        [Kung may churchgoer, who in this case happens to be atty. macalintal, na nagsabi sayong bawal ka pumasok (dahil may certain rules sa loob ng simbahan) dapat ba siyang i-disbar?]

        A signboard outside the church explicitly stated that EVERYBODY was welcome to join their mass for the matter of the RH Bill. If the Cathedral posted that, what right does Macalintal have to claim he has the authority to boot the FF group out?

        Disbarred? No.

        Ridiculed and called out for being a grumpy, self-righteous, loathsome old prick? Yes.

        • [If a guard did that, wouldn't it make sense not to boot them from their job for abusing their authority. ]

          Typo.
          If a guard did that, it would not make sense not to punish them for being abusive.

      • [kunyari ang DLSU may dresscode,]

        But…the place were it all happened went DIDN'T HAVE A DRESS CODE saying that they couldn't wear those shirts. Sure, I can understand why the freethinkers may have angered some with their attire. But BEHAVIOR-WISE, they did nothing wrong. They were asked to stand outside and they did. In fact, originally, everyone was invited.

  43. well, i totally support the RH bill and i think that every citizen has the right to choose whatever they want but i think that every sanctimony should be given an equal amount of respect… it was kinda turn off when one someone answered "Maybe" when asked when your mother gets insulted, will you? Btw, I don't believe in religion and I think the catholic church has it's own share of corruptness. But the word respect should still be outlined in every action taken.

    • I'm the person in the video who said "Maybe" because that is accurate. It really depends on what my mother was doing when that insult was hurled. I'm willing to think through my actions instead of just reacting based on instinct alone.

      I think that we were extremely respectful considering the insults they were throwing our way.

      • You have a point Jeiel, but wearing a Damaso shirt is not really something I would consider as "thinking through my actions". I'd join your protest but not during a ceremony where most people think it's "Holy", it's outright disrespect. This video reminds me of the Westboro Church, where they picket and protest outside a funeral ceremony against "military soldiers" and "gays". I hope you guys won't be a servant of hate.

        • That's such a false equivalence. There was nothing disruptive or hateful about what FF or the DSWP did. They were just wearing shirts and they wanted to go inside a building for which we had received invitations. It was the anti-choicers who were confrontational. The differences in modes of discourse are clarified in the footage shown here. It was the so-called pro-lifers who were hateful, as they believe that there can be no greater personification of evil than Satan.

          The uncontested "respect" for religion is not just undeserved, it is extremely condescending. We believe that all ideas must be subject to criticism exactly because we value them and think that they rest on valid arguments. We criticize the sacred just like any other idea. We don't patronize believers. We look at them on the same level as we look at all other human beings: as people who have ideas that they believe reflect certain aspects of reality (ideas such as those relating to the suffering of souls in hell and the efficacy of latex prophylactics against sperm passage).

          • if you've worn normal shirts, u might have gotten in. I think what Carlos Celdran did was enough and I highly praise him for doing such. But another stunt like this? C'mon…you can do better than that….

            If you don't want to be bullied by the Church, don't mock them. Do your protests outside a religious ceremony. That's just my point and I might even join the cause. Trust me, I also get annoyed with the church meddling with the state. But it's annoying when I see any form of disrespect in any sides.

    • im with michael on this. you dont go to one's turf and mock them just so you can get your message across. yes the group was calm and cooperative but their shirts says otherwise. they went there to look for trouble and i think they got just that.

  44. reposting the youtube link to my fb wall. freethinkers going against the paidthinkers. at nakita ko na naman si macalintal, a GMA paidthinker.

    • yeah i wish you were there para naman nakita mo mismo ang pagkakamali ng mga pro RH na hindi marunung pakiusapan ng maayos at mga bastos. sana nakita mo rin kung pano sila basta2 pumustura sa tapat mismo ng pintuan ng Simbahan at gustong pumasok kahit na hindi sila pinahintulutan. Sana nakita mu rin kung panong ipinaglalaban nila ang pagpasa ng RH bill ngunit hindi maipaliwanag ang totoong nasasaad dito.

      • Juana, we've already gone over this: The Pro-Life people ASKED them to wait in front of the the door until the mass ended. If there's anybody at fault here, it's the group that asked the FF to wait there.

        And seriously Juana, is that really your online moniker, or are you posing as said famous comedian because you know we don't take very kindle to apologists, which you're proving to be with lines like:

        "Sana nakita mu rin kung panong ipinaglalaban nila ang pagpasa ng RH bill ngunit hindi maipaliwanag ang totoong nasasaad dito. "

  48. Let the people decide whether they wanna use contraceptives, the church nor the RH Bill supporters mustn't force the Filipino on what to do, just guide them.

    • The crux of the RH Bill is comprehensive education for each Filipino regarding their options for family planning. It's the Pro-Lifers who've been obssesed over contraceptive use – we the FF have been emphasizing the education aspect of the bill as far as I can remember.

      As you say, it boils down to choice. An informed choice.

  50. I agree to the first paragraph of mr. Decierdo's statements. The rest are uncertain claims.

    May I ask you a few questions, mr. innerminds?

    If it is true that men are to choose their existence, what's yours?

    Do you feel dignified as a human?

    Do you believe that we have sense of justice in the society?

    Please answer these questions so that I may know how to deal with you. =)

Newer Comments »

Leave a reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

SUBSCRIBE

Stay Updated

Subscribe now

REPORT

Secularism Violations

Report here

one who forms opinions on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief; one who doubts or denies religious dogma

Contact us at [email protected]

© 2021 Filipino Freethinkers. All rights reserved.

Menu

Blog

Featured Articles