The following was published in Manila Standard Today on August 27, 2011
If you respect the separation of church and state mandated by our Constitution, you can find better ways to start Senate hearings than saying a prayer. Yet this is just what our senators do, and the start of the debates on the reproductive health bill were no different.
What bothers me more than the fact that a prayer was said in a supposedly secular setting was what the prayer implied, politically.
The prayer was supposed to be led by Senator Panfilo Lacson, but because of problems with his voice, he asked Senator Vicente Sotto to do it in his place. Considering the content of the prayer, I’m sure Sotto was more than happy to oblige.
The prayer was originally delivered in 1996 by American Pastor Joe Wright to the Kansas House of Representatives. Legislators, including the House minority leader, criticized the prayer for its “extreme, radical” views. At least one legislator walked out. When the same prayer was said in the Colorado House of Representatives later that year, more legislators were angered; several walked out.
The reaction of our own senators to the same prayer was apathy—it was just another prayer. But senators who respect secularism, especially those who support the reproductive health bill, should have reacted at least as strongly as the American legislators did.
Not only is the prayer sectarian, it’s also anti-choice, and therefore, anti-RH. Here it is in full:
Heavenly Father, we come before you today to ask your forgiveness and seek your direction and guidance. We know your Word says, “Woe to those who call evil good,” but that’s exactly what we’ve done. We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and inverted our values.
We confess that we have ridiculed the absolute truth of your Word and called it moral pluralism.
We have worshipped other gods and called it multi-culturalism.
We have endorsed perversion and called it an alternative lifestyle.
We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery.
We have neglected the needy and called it self-preservation.
We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare.
We have killed our unborn and called it choice.
We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable.
We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building esteem.
We have abused power and called it political savvy.
We have coveted our neighbors’ possessions and called it ambition.
We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of expression.
We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our fore-fathers and called it enlightenment.
Search us O God and know our hearts today; try us and see if there be some wicked way in us; cleanse us from every sin and set us free.
Guide and bless these men and women who have been sent here by the people of Kansas, and who have been ordained by you, to govern this great state. Grant them your wisdom to rule and may their decisions direct us to the center of your will. I ask it in the name of your son, the living savior, Jesus Christ. Amen
What do these words imply?
“Heavenly Father, we come before you today to ask your forgiveness and seek your direction and guidance. We know your Word says, ‘Woe to those who call evil good,’ but that’s exactly what we’ve done. We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and inverted our values.”
Right from the start, the prayer privileges Judeo-Christian religions over non-Abrahamic ones. It implies that talk on good and evil should be done in religious terms, and it precludes the possibility of secular morality.
“We confess that we have ridiculed the absolute truth of your Word and called it moral pluralism.”
This implies that the Christian Bible is the basis for truth, and that pluralism —respecting the beliefs of many religions instead of just one—is bad.
“We have worshipped other gods and called it multi-culturalism.”
So belonging to religions other than Christianity is wrong?
“We have killed our unborn and called it choice.”
Although our senators do not support killing the unborn, this statement frames the discourse by associating choice with abortion, a tactic frequently used by anti-RH legislators and advocates.
“We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of expression.”
This part is more relevant to a previous Senate hearing on the Cultural Center of the Philippines’ “Kulo” issue. Just the same, it privileges the Christian perspective as the arbiter of what’s profane and pornographic.
“We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment.”
This implies that the “time-honored values” criticized by the Enlightenment —theocracy, anti-rationalism, clericalism, etc.—are better than Enlightenment values—democracy, rationalism, secularism.
“I ask it in the name of your son, the living savior, Jesus Christ.”
Although most senators are Christian, the content of the prayer promotes a particular brand of conservative Christianity. What’s worse, the prayer completely ignores the beliefs of Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and other non-Christian Filipinos our legislators are equally obligated to represent.
After Sotto concluded the prayer, not a single senator walked out. As far as I know, none have criticized it. Instead the other senators reverently made the sign of the cross and raised their bowed heads—like they always do. After all, it was just another prayer.
//The ones that have been became psychopathic nutbags who murdered millions of people.//
They also breathed air, and had moustaches. Some of them even wore…*gasp*…GLASSES! See how much that narrows it down?
They also breathed air, and had moustaches. Some of them even wore…*gasp*…GLASSES! See how much that narrows it down? //
— You do know I meant that extrapolations of that sort are ridiculous, right? I perfectly agree with you, given that, statistically, atheist leaders were murderers, doesn't mean we can conclude that all future atheist leaders are likely to be the same. And by the same token, it's as ridiculous to conclude that because some pro-lifers killed abortionist doctors, the logical conclusion of adopting a pro-life worldview is one towards violence.
I wonder if somebody can arrange a debate between Miguel and Twin_Skies? That would surely be interesting to watch! hehe
make it pay-per-view and turn it into a fund-raising event 😀
Exactly! FFF will have one great fund raiser…
lol fundies claim contraception and abortion are the same thing.
I'm sure the "good" senator had a field day. What I'm not so sure about is if the other senators were praying or even listening at all.
Anyways, maybe the reason Sen. Sotto is going to new lows to stop the RH Bill is because he (or his heirs) will lose on potential voters.
Imagine, a hundred million potential voters in 2025 (or 2028), most of those would probably be living below the poverty line and most of them will just vote for the most popular candidates (Sen Sotto, if still alive, or maybe someone else in the family)
Less population means we can concentrate more on education. Better education means future voters are able to make informed choices, better chances of electing better candidates. Better chance of better candidates winning elections means a lower chance of politicians winning just because they are popular comedians or actors.
If he saw that far into the future, then maybe I can give some respect to the guy. He is after all, investing in the future and based on surveys, investments are good.
//They're more like the lunatic fringe part of the pro-life movement. Whereas, it would be oxymoronic to be pro-choice and anti-abortion.//
From my experience, just about everybody in Pro-Life is fucking insane.
Although our senators do not support killing the unborn, this statement frames the discourse by associating choice with abortion, a tactic frequently used by anti-RH legislators and advocates.
Isn't pro-choice pro-abortion? I think the principle of charity is being violated here.
//Isn't pro-choice pro-abortion?//
It's also a pro-life thing. http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html
Other times, Pro-lifers have been pretty pro-death too. Just ask James Kopp, Paul Jennings Hill, Scott Roeder, Michael F. Griffin, and Peter James Knight.
I've pointed out the rule, and you're pointing out exceptions to the rule. Any unbiased, reasonable thinking person would be able to see who's being disingenuous.
Actually, calling them "exceptions to the rule" would even be a mistake. They're more like the lunatic fringe part of the pro-life movement. Whereas, it would be oxymoronic to be pro-choice and anti-abortion.
[edited my typo]
I've pointed out the rule, and you're pointing out exceptions to the rule. Any unbiased, reasonable thinking person would be able to see who's being disingenuous. //
Yup, they're looking at the one invoking a No True Scotsman argument
How convenient it must be for you to reason away that these people are just "exceptions" to the rule just because they decided to bring their reasoning to its next logical conclusion.
Abortion doctor killers to you fairly encapsulate what being pro-life is about? To say they aren't would be akin to making a "No True Scotsman" argument? And its the logical conclusion of someone who fights against abortion to be killing abortionists? Wow.
Not so smart are ya?
//And its the logical conclusion of someone who fights against abortion to be killing abortionists? //
Looking at the number of death threats family planning clinics and doctors get over the past few years, yes.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/… http://www.jstor.org/pss/2111316
Let me repeat your quote:
Not so smart are ya?
This is pure sophistry. Your idea that being an abortionist murderer is the logical conclusion of a pro-life worldview permeates all levels of stupid. All the web links in the world won't hide that fact.
//Your idea that being an abortionist murderer is the logical conclusion of a pro-life worldview permeates all levels of stupid.//
Sophistry? Oh my, what a big word you have learned today!
So instead of addressing my point that Pro-Lifers have consistently resorted to threats in the past – and after I have provided statistics – you're simply calling my argument stupid. Now you're using ad hominems.
Sophistry? Oh my, what a big word you have learned today!
Not so big. Hitchens uses it a lot. You really ought to have come across it by now.
So instead of addressing my point that Pro-Lifers have consistently resorted to threats in the past – and after I have provided statistics – you're simply calling my argument stupid. Now you're using ad hominems.
— Uh, no. I'm not going to let you worm your way out of your ridiculous assertion that the obvious conclusion of the pro-life worldview is to be abortionist murderers. That's what you said.
Sure, some lunatics killed some people. But you were saying they were representative of the whole movement.
And no, calling your argument stupid isn't an adhominem. Calling you stupid to discredit your argument would be. Nice that you bandy about words like "ad hominem" and "red herring" while scarcely knowing how to actually use them.
//Not so big. Hitchens uses it a lot. You really ought to have come across it by now. //
I know what sophistry means, and I know who Hitchens is, laddie. Using the word doesn't make you sound anything like Hitchens.
//I'm not going to let you worm your way out of your ridiculous assertion that the obvious conclusion of the pro-life worldview is to be abortionist murderers. That's what you said. '//
And I've already provided ample examples of the various death threats, firebombings, murders and other acts of violence that the Pro-Life movement has committed in the past. In short, evidence that their worldview's logical conclusion IS violence.
//Sure, some lunatics killed some people. But you were saying they were representative of the whole movement. //
And the statistics prove they are. They just decided to act on their reasoning ahead of the pack.
//And no, calling your argument stupid isn't an adhominem. Calling you stupid to discredit your argument would be. //
You're calling an argument stupid without directly rebutting it. I'd call that being a fucking moron.
[I know what sophistry means, and I know who Hitchens is, laddie. Using the word doesn't make you sound anything like Hitchens. ]
— I don't think anyone can sound like Hitchens.
[And I've already provided ample examples of the various death threats, firebombings, murders and other acts of violence that the Pro-Life movement has committed in the past. In short, evidence that their worldview's logical conclusion IS violence. ]
— And because there exists some nut bags, you say this is evidence that murder (not violence, your doing the worming again) is the logical "next step". This is ridiculous on its face. Really, the fact that you're saying this with much alacrity is going at the expense of your credibility.
Even if I grant your worming that you meant violence, it would make no difference.
[And the statistics prove they are. They just decided to act on their reasoning ahead of the pack. ]
— There has never been alot of atheist world leaders. The ones that have been became psychopathic nutbags who murdered millions of people. Therefore, if an atheist becomes a world leader, we must shit bricks. Now tell me why this, and your ridiculous assertion about pro-lifers being murderers if they follow their worldview to its logical conclusion does not commit the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy?
[You're calling an argument stupid without directly rebutting it. I'd call that being a fucking moron.]
— Because if anyone has to rebut it for you to realize it's stupid would mean you're necessarily a fucking moron. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
//And because there exists some nut bags, you say this is evidence that murder (not violence, your doing the worming again) is the logical "next step". This is ridiculous on its face. Really, the fact that you're saying this with much alacrity is going at the expense of your credibility.//
In short, you didn't even bother to follow any of the links posted, or the hundreds of cases of death threats that have been raised against family planning clinics over the years by the pro-life bloc.
What is ridiculous here is that you choose to remain so bloody ignorant despite the fact people are doing everything short of spoon-feeding you the facts.
//There has never been alot of atheist world leaders. The ones that have been became psychopathic nutbags who murdered millions of people. Therefore, if an atheist becomes a world leader, we must shit bricks. Now tell me why this, and your ridiculous assertion about pro-lifers being murderers if they follow their worldview to its logical conclusion does not commit the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy? //
Because there isn't anything in the atheist's bible that says an atheist should intentionally commit genocide in the name of unbelief.
Now compare that with the pastors , and right-wing commentators who have quoted the bible as a justification for murder.
Nah, I don't think we should do the comment parsing and frisking thing. All of what you said just diverts attention to the real issue which is your rather RIDICULOUS claim that the logical conclusion of adopting a pro-life worldview is to MURDER abortionists.
And to obviate any type of worming. Here is where you've explicitly implied it.
I said:
//And its the logical conclusion of someone who fights against abortion to be killing abortionists? //
twin skies replied:
Looking at the number of death threats family planning clinics and doctors get over the past few years, yes.
So, by your lights, these murderers, who undoubtedly are less than 0.000000001 % of the whole movement, and who haven't been elected by the movement in any meaningful way, nevertheless are representative of 'pro-life'. Genius.
Lets just let the unbiased, reasonable thinking people make their own decision on whether that's a sane encapsulation of what the pro-life movement is. I submit that it is, and always will be, a STUPID one. And your group's credibility will be taking a hard hit if you continue your attempts to justify that.
Thank you for proving to us that your math skills are as good as your reasoning skills. They're shit.
Thank you for proving to us that your math skills are as good as your reasoning skills. They're shit.
— Or maybe you're just dense.
//All the web links in the world won't hide that fact. // Not all, but a lot of web links will tell you your argument is full of shit.
To cite a few examples from the first few web links that popped up on a google search:
http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violen… http://www.alternet.org/rights/28838/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violen…
And since your previous posts pretended that these statistics don't exist indicating that the Pro-Life movement leans towards violence, I think it's only fair to say you are a fucking moron.
You, yet again, rather stupidly, make an epic extrapolation that because anti-abortionists can commit violence, then it necessarily is the case that the logical conclusion of a pro-life view is toward violence.
Nah, I think it's clear YOU are the fucking moron.
//Isn't pro-choice pro-abortion?//
And there you go, glossing over the fact we pro-choice people support services that ensure that abortions don't happen in the first place. red herring, anyone?
It's a red herring to say that pro-choicers are pro-abortionists? Right. That's exactly what the issue is. Me thinks you have no idea what a "red-herring" is.
It's a red herring to mislead people into assuming that abortion is what pro-choice is all about.
Yes that would definitely be a red herring. But that's not what I said. I said pro-choice is about pro-abortion (not just about 'abortion'). And so, that's not a red herring. A red herring is something that distracts from the main issue. Read my first comment and realize how you used "red herring" incorrectly.
//But that's not what I said. I said pro-choice is about pro-abortion (not just about 'abortion'). //
And even that is bullshit. You'd be surprised at how many pro-choice people will be against abortions.
And even that is bullshit. You'd be surprised at how many pro-choice people will be against abortions.
You'd be surprised about how many gay people are for prop 8. Therefore prop 8 being anti-gay is bullshit, right? The main contention between pro-life and pro-choice is the issue of abortion. Stop dancing around like a monkey.
//The main contention between pro-life and pro-choice is the issue of abortion. //
And as I've cited earlier, it's a fictional point of contention since anti-abortionists do undergo abortions. Hypocrisy, much?
No, the anti-abortionists who undergo abortions would be the hypocrites, not me.
"Its a fictional contention" — LOL. I'ts the MAIN CONTENTION, genius.
//No, the anti-abortionists who undergo abortions would be the hypocrites, not me. //
This is your second attempt at a Scotsman.
Maybe you'd like to actually figure out how the 'No true Scotsman' retort is actually used.
I was now able to point out your pathetic attempts at using the words "ad hominem", "red herring" and now this.
I guess if it makes you feel like you're actually making a point, then dance monkey, dance.
RH Bill <> US version of PRO-CHOICE,
there are no provisions for abortion at all in our local version of family planning. why are we even arguing about abortion on this thread?
Because Miguel insists that we pro-choice people are all hot for abortion.
Strawman. I said pro-choicers are pro-abortionists. Reading comprehension must be a problem for you.
Semantics game. You said.
//pro-choicers are pro-abortionists.//
I said
//we pro-choice people are all hot for abortion.//
Now quit squirming. It's harder to bludgeon your bullshit senseless when you're fidgeting like that.
LOL. You do know that the words "all hot" makes it seem like I was saying that that's all what pro-life was about, which necessarily significantly changes my whole statement, right ? Oh you didn't? Oh that's right, because you're dense.
because prolife aka antichoice = idiots.
they claim pills are abortion and they would claim condoms as abortion if they can.
Read my first comment which Twin replied to. I wasn't referring to the RH Bill, I was equating pro-choicers with pro-abortionists.
like the rc protecting the values of marriage by selling annulments worth 300k and illegalizing divorce. oh the hypocrisies!
//You'd be surprised about how many gay people are for prop 8.// Citations please. You have yet to provide any links proving your claims.
Citations please. You have yet to provide any links proving your claims.
You get an A for missing the point. Whether their actually (which their are) are is irrelevant to the point being made; the main contention of the pro-life/ pro-choice thing is the issue of abortion. Stop creating tangents to divert away from the idiocy you've just spouted.
//Because if anyone has to rebut it for you to realize it's stupid would mean you're necessarily a fucking moron. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. //
Shall we accept that as your admission that you can't back up the shit you spout?
Shall we accept that as your admission that you can't back up the shit you spout?
— More tangents to divert attention away from your ridiculous claim that murder is consistent with the pro-life view.
//More tangents to divert attention away from your ridiculous claim that murder is consistent with the pro-life view. // You have yet to dispove that violence is not the logical conclusion of the Pro-Life stance.
I've already cited numerous examples of death threats from the Pro-Life side.
You have simply regurgitated your tired argument that it's now consistent with the views, despite the evidence presented.
Or is calling another argument "stupid" without actually presenting a proper rebuttal the only reply you have that's anywhere near rational?
[I've already cited numerous examples of death threats from the Pro-Life side.]
— And you say that because of these, it's reasonable to conclude that pro-lifers end up as murderers as per their world view. This assertion is ridiculous and no amount of sophistry will change that fact.
[You have simply regurgitated your tired argument that it's now consistent with the views, despite the evidence presented. ]
— I'll presume you meant to say 'not'. Keep saying murder is consistent with the pro-life worldview if you want to. Let's leave it up to unbiased thinking people to decide what level of inanity that idea belongs to.
[Or is calling another argument "stupid" without actually presenting a proper rebuttal the only reply you have that's anywhere near rational?]
— Because murdering has nothing to do with the pro-life movement. Any mid wit would have gotten this by now. Keep saying it has everything to do with the pro-life movement, stomp your feet and beat your chest all you want, senseless is senseless.
Any "nitwit" with half a brain just needs to google up Pro-Life and Violence in the same search bar. Guess what pops up? a full page of links to anti-abortion related violence. But since you're too busy playing the ignorant moron, I guess it didn't cross your mind to actually do a search? If a nitwit can do it, so can you. Hopefully.
Just like what I said above:
You, yet again, rather stupidly, make an epic extrapolation that because anti-abortionists can commit violence, then it necessarily is the case that the logical conclusion of a pro-life view is toward violence.
Nah, I think it's clear YOU are the fucking moron.
The fact that you are pro-life says that you are pro choice.. you were able to choose your stand.. that the same with us.. we choose to stand by the rh bill.. to support it.. it doesn’t automatically mean that we choose to stand by abortion.. that’s choice, choosing a stand that you believe in.. it’s being open to possibilities, not forcing people to obey your ideology..
the way that you’re trying to equate those who support the rh-bill with those who support abortion amke it seem that you guys are just becoming desperate.. demonizing your opponent so you can gain more support.. i’m not surprised; you guys have been using that tactic since whenever..
the way that you're trying to equate those who support the rh-bill with those who support abortion amke it seem that you guys are just becoming desperate.. demonizing your opponent so you can gain more support.. i'm not surprised; you guys have been using that tactic since whenever..
— I'm not equating anything, buddy. I KNOW supporters of the RH bill aren't necessarily pro abortion. I was claiming the the word "choice" in the senators 'prayer' was meant to allude to the 'pro-choice'.
[Red: “Although our senators do not support killing the unborn, this statement frames the discourse by associating choice with abortion, a tactic frequently used by anti-RH legislators and advocates.”
Miguel: “Isn’t pro-choice pro-abortion? I think the principle of charity is being violated here.”]
In our country where abortion is illegal and where Catholic dogma on the “evils of contraception” is being taken seriously by some politicians, “pro-choice” has been associated with pro-contraception instead of pro-abortion. People are not free to choose abortion here – at least not without grave legal consequences, so the choice left is practically limited to contraception. This is how the author’s statement should have been interpreted if we’re going to apply the principle of charity, which “requires interpreting any argument considering its best, strongest possible interpretation.”
Innerminds, what the author said was a response to what the senator said in his prayer, which is as follows:
We have killed our unborn and called it choice.
So, I think, if we were to be charitable, we should definitely interpret the senator to have used the word in the more conventional sense –to allude to the pro-abortionists.
Adding to that is that the senator included the sentence:
We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable.
Obviously the whole prayer wasn't about the issues in the Philippines alone, unless you know of any filipino abortionist that's been murdered of late.
I guess you have a point there. Now let's see:
[Prayer (read by Sotto): "We have killed our unborn and called it choice."
Red: "Although our senators do not support killing the unborn, this statement frames the discourse by associating choice with abortion, a tactic frequently used by anti-RH legislators and advocates."
Miguel: "Isn't pro-choice pro-abortion? I think the principle of charity is being violated here….So, I think, if we were to be charitable, we should definitely interpret the senator to have used the word in the more conventional sense –to allude to the pro-abortionists….Obviously the whole prayer wasn't about the issues in the Philippines alone, unless you know of any filipino abortionist that's been murdered of late."]
But that's exactly what the author is saying. The statement "we have killed our unborn and called it choice" frames the discourse by associating the pro-choice movement in the Philippines (which is really just pro-contraception) with pro-choice in the "more conventional sense," which is pro-abortion.
[But that's exactly what the author is saying. The statement "we have killed our unborn and called it choice" frames the discourse by associating the pro-choice movement in the Philippines (which is really just pro-contraception) with pro-choice in the "more conventional sense," which is pro-abortion.]
— It's the implication of dishonesty on the part of the senator, innerminds. The author implied that Sotto was sneakily framing "the discourse by associating choice with abortion".
The implication of dishonesty was stressed when the author further said: "a tactic frequently used by anti-RH legislators and advocates. "
Now that may very well be the case. I certainly am not privy to Sotto's inner thoughts and intentions, but if we were a bit charitable, as I think we ought to be, then we should grant that Sotto was simply reffering to the broader pro-choice movement in how that term is conventionally understood.
But we (and Sotto) know very well that the conventional, broader pro-choice (pro-abortion) movement is very much different from the pro-choice (pro-contraception) movement in the Philippines, and so the statement "we have killed our unborn and called it choice," recited as a prayer at the start of the RH debates in the Philippine senate, is indeed Sotto sneakily framing "the discourse by associating choice (Philippine-style, meaning pro-contraception) with abortion."
Point taken. But again, that's the uncharitable interpretation. The fact that Sotto mentioned abortionists getting murdered very well puts at least some doubt on your interpretation. Again, I'm not saying Sotto didn't imply anything with it. It's more than possible he was giving himself some plausible deniability. That's why I said the principle of charity is being violated, since the author could very well be accused of interpreting too much into the prayer.
Okay, let me put it this way. Your original comment has two parts:
1. "Isn't pro-choice pro-abortion?"
2. "I think the principle of charity is being violated here."
I think I've already answered No. 1 to your satisfaction and agreement, that pro-choice in the Philippines is only pro-contraception, not pro-abortion.
The issue we have yet to settle is whether the author was indeed being uncharitable. I say no. Let's take into consideration the context in which the prayer was recited: at the Philippine Senate right before the start of the debate on the RH Bill. Interpreting Sotto's chosen prayer as simply "referring to the broader pro-choice movement in how that term is conventionally understood" without accusing him of framing the discourse by associating Philippine pro-choice (contraception) with international pro-choice (abortion) is not being charitable. It's being naïve.
The issue we have yet to settle is whether the author was indeed being uncharitable. I say no.
— Well, ofcourse you would say that. But that's not how you apply the principle of charity, my friend.
from wikipedia, the Principle of charity's goal:
the goal of this methodological principle is to avoid attributing irrationality, logical fallacies or *falsehoods* to the others' statements, when a coherent, rational interpretation of the statements is available.
"…when a coherent, rational interpretation of the statements is available."
Is saying that Sotto's prayer simply refers to "the broader pro-choice movement in how that term is conventionally understood" and does not frame the discourse by associating Philippine pro-choice (contraception) with international pro-choice (abortion) a "coherent, rational interpretation" considering the context in which the chosen prayer was recited? Take note that the prayer was recited at the Philippine Senate before the start of the RH Bill debate.
You're saying the imputation is valid considering the context in which it was recited?
No, that's not using the POC because your interpretation imputes malice and falsehood. Mine doesn't impute anything whatsoever. The principle of charity will render mine the interpretation to adopt.
[No it isn't. Because your interpretation imputes malice and falsehood. Mine doesn't impute anything whatsoever. The principle of charity will render mine the interpretation to adopt.]
You did not answer my question, which was whether your interpretation was a "coherent, rational interpretation." I presume when you answered "No it isn't," you were not answering my question but rather the question I did not ask, which is whether your interpretation violates the principle of charity, otherwise that would mean that your interpretation is not a "coherent, rational interpretation." Try again.
I notice you edited your comment so let me reply to updated version as well.
[You're saying the imputation is valid considering the context in which it was recited?]
No. I'm asking you whether you think your interpretation was a "coherent, rational interpretation" considering the context in which the prayer was recited.
See, I don't have to consider the context in which the prayer was recited. I'm reasonable in taking it as it is. That's just the consequence of using the POC.
Also, when using the POC, you cannot use context to validate any imputation.
Sorry I edited my comment, I thought you haven't responded to it yet, so I took the liberty of editing it.
[See, I don't have to consider the context in which the prayer was recited.]
I think I found the cause of our disagreement.
[From the article: “We have killed our unborn and called it choice.”
Although our senators do not support killing the unborn, this statement frames the discourse by associating choice with abortion, a tactic frequently used by anti-RH legislators and advocates.]
If we also apply the POC on Red's article, we should interpret that by "statement" the author is referring to the 'choice' of that particular prayer to be recited before the RH debates at the senate, not the prayer per se. The author is claiming that the prayer was used by Sotto as a statement to frame the debate. I don't think the POC is being violated here, unless you can think of a "coherent, rational interpretation" on why Sotto would choose that particular prayer on that particular setting without imputing an intention to frame the debate.
Let me put it to you in a simpler way.
Authors interpretation is plausible, and imputes malice.
My interpretation (POC applied) is plausible and imputes nothing.
Therefore, no matter how much more plausible the author's interpretation is –which we can argue ad nauseam– the fact that it imputes something, and the fact that another interpretation that's coherent and makes no imputation exists, makes it unescapable that if we apply the POC, it won't be the interpretation we would be obligated to take.
You're arguing yours is more plausible, but that's irrelevant. Even if I agree that the authors interpretation is more plausible, it is necessarily ruled out when applying the POC. Hence the "charity" part of the POC.
So all I have to do is show that your interpretation is not a coherent , rational interpretation, right? Okay:
Fact 1: Sotto is one of the most vocal critics of the RH bill, employing one tactic after another from mockingly downplaying the maternity-related deaths to actually saying that some RH bill advocates are pro-abortion.
Fact 2: Sotto chose that particular prayer to be recited before the RH debate at the senate.
Conclusion: Wala lang. Sotto chose that prayer at random with no intention of framing the debate by associating choice with abortion.
Now, is that a coherent, rational interpretation? Like I said much earlier, that's not being charitable. That's being naive.
[whether your interpretation was a "coherent, rational interpretation."]
— Yes, why shouldn't it be? You say it isn't in virtue of the context? That doesn't work. Context only matters to you because it validates your imputation. But again, the very fact that there is imputation, while another interpretation exists where there is none, makes the latter the more reasonable one to adopt, when using the POC.
There's one more thing that confuses me. You said in your original comment, "Isn't pro-choice pro-abortion? I think the principle of charity is being violated here." So you yourself have associated pro-choice with abortion, but then you're also saying that Sotto's choice of prayer does not really frame the discourse by associating choice with abortion. So which is it?
When I said "isn't pro-choice pro abortion" I was saying that's what Sotto meant to allude to when he used the word choice: the pro-abortionists.
When I said Sotto's prayer "doesn't frame…blah blah.." I meant that he has deniability and it's possible he didn't mean what the author was accusing him of, which was to associate abortionists with the the word 'choice' that's in turn associated with the pro-rh.
No, you won't find any holes in my logic, no matter how hard you try to look.
Now I'm really confused. First you said that Sotto meant to associate choice with abortion, but then you said that Sotto's prayer doesn't frame the discourse by associating Philippine pro-choice (contraception) with international pro-choice (abortion).
[No, you won't find any holes in my logic, no matter how hard you try to look.]
Ooh I love challenges like this, especially coming from you. 🙂
On the first part was 'pro-choice' with pro-abortion
Second part was 'choice'(pro rh) and pro-abortion. Notice the second part, aside from the "doesn't" word which was to negate the author, I pretty much used the authors owned words ( "frame the discourse by associating choice with abortion")
You're getting confuse, but we've already established that 'choice' here means 2 things. RP context = pro rh, conventional sense = pro abortion. I was saying Sotto meant the latter, and was not associating it with the former.
[I was saying Sotto meant the latter, and was not associating it with the former.]
Let me see if I got it. Are you saying that Sotto meant that pro-choice = pro-abortion in the conventional sense but that he was not associating it with the pro-choice movement in the Philippines, which is pro-RH? Then why did he recite that particular prayer (where choice was being used in the conventional sense) at the Philippine Senate before the RH debate (where choice meant pro-RH)? Isn't that tantamount to framing the discourse by associating choice with abortion?
I don't know why he recited the prayer in that context. It wouldn't matter to what I was saying. Yes it could very well be "tantamount to framing the discourse…" . Hence the "charity" part of the POC.
If a coherent explanation is available (which it is, since you cannot argue the charitable interpretation I was talking about is incoherent) then if you apply the POC, that's the interpretation you are obligated to take. Not the one with an imputation, no matter how much more plausible it is.
Reposted from https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2011/09/06/anothe…
So all I have to do is show that your interpretation is not a coherent , rational interpretation, right? Okay:
Fact 1: Sotto is one of the most vocal critics of the RH bill, employing one tactic after another from mockingly downplaying the maternity-related deaths to actually saying that some RH bill advocates are pro-abortion.
Fact 2: Sotto chose that particular prayer (in which choice was used in the conventional sense to mean abortion) to be recited before the RH debate at the senate.
Conclusion: Wala lang. Sotto chose that prayer at random with no intention of framing the debate by associating choice with abortion.
Now, is that a coherent, rational interpretation? Like I said much earlier, that's not being charitable. That's being naive.
Innerminds, that doesn't prove my interpretation is incoherent. That only proves the authors interpretation is more plausible. You're confusing plausibility and coherence.
Maybe not incoherent, but it sure is irrational. Remember that the POC only requires us to avoid attributing falsehoods "when a coherent, RATIONAL interpretation of the statements is available." We already know that Sotto has said elsewhere that some RH bill advocates are pro-abortion, so to say that he did not try to associate choice with abortion through his choice of prayer is absurd.
[It's being charitable, not naive. Naivety is if you sincerely are unsuspecting of the ulterior motives, in which case, we aren't.]
You're saying that you're not being unsuspecting of his ulterior motive and yet you conclude that he doesn't have an ulterior motive? That doesn't sound very coherent and rational, does it?
My interpretation is not irrational, in the true sense of that word. You say it's irrational considering the context. The POC does NOT consider context, just actual statements.
I didn't conclude anything. I KNOW the ulterior motive you keep mentioning is plausible. But that's irrelevant. We're applying the POC, not arguing between which interpretation is more plausible.
You're using the words 'coherent' and 'rational' colloquially. I understand that people will call anything they find silly 'incoherent' or 'irrational'. But you really ought to know that those words have precise meanings.
The space is getting narrow. I posted my comment here:
https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2011/09/06/anothe…
I answered this below. But to add what I already said (below):
It's being charitable, not naive. Naivety is if you sincerely are unsuspecting of the ulterior motives, in which case, we aren't.
I answered this below together with your other post to keep our discussion to a single thread.
Sotto didn't know what it meant so we cannot impute malice where there simply is none based solely from the fact that he was the one who recited it. Maybe Ping? 🙂
About pro-choice being pro-abortion, I think the pro-RH side should consider starting using another word viewed as less "dirty" by the Catholic majority than the word "pro-choice" because as Miguel already mentioned, pro-choice is by definition pro-abortion. (I am pro-choice and therefore pro-abortion.) I think the fact I can buy condom at the supermarket/grocery/conveinience store makes the debate about choice of contraception moot. Frankly, I was dismayed that the bill was not about abortion.
On the other hand, pro-life should consider the word anti-choice (or anti-abortion) because as Twin already pointed out, there are some people that has taken the extra step that killing abortionists follows logically from being pro-life.
because as Twin already pointed out, there are some people that has taken the extra step that killing abortionists follows logically from being pro-life.
— And those people aren't representative of pro-life, just the same way Mao Pol Pot, and Stallin aren't of atheism.
Let's not commit the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
I am not saying they are representative of the whole lot. What I am saying is that some people can make that reasoning based on their pro-life beliefs, which obviously is no longer about being for-life (not pro-life). And as Twin already mentioned, you cannot logically connect genocide from atheism. I would like to see you to do that if you can.
And as Twin already mentioned, you cannot logically connect genocide from atheism. I would like to see you to do that if you can.
–No, I agree we can't do this. But let me give you "some people..[who made].. that reasoning based on their" atheism: The torturers of Stallin were thankful God didn't exist, which they said allowed them to express the evil in their hearts as freely as they desired. Ofcourse, they're not representative of atheism just as much as those abortionist killers are of pro-life.
Guys, forget the insinuations and assumptions.
Tito Sotto has just blatantly linked Pro-RH in the Philippines to pro-abortion: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/55591/sotto-pro-rh-n…
By the principle of charity, you should've interpreted the author's statement as saying something to this effect: "To be pro-choice in the Philippines is not to be pro-choice in the broader sense."
Words — they change meaning in context. Hence, the author is saying that since we are debating a national issue, we should frame the debate in a Filipino context. In this said context, to be pro-choice isn't necessarily to be for the legalization of abortion. While I am for the legalization of abortion, I know that abortion is unconstitutional for one and unpopular even among the RH-supporting senators for another. Hence, I am one with the author in seeing Sotto's move as a dirty tactic aimed at discouraging people who are for contraception to support the RH Bill.
Finally, what does "pro-abortion" mean, anyway? I, for one, believe that the option should be made legal. In that sense, and in that sense only, I am "pro-abortion". However, I believe abortion is rarely the best solution. In fact, it should only be a last resort, something you turn to only in very extreme cases. If abortion were made legal, I would highly discourage it, and I would strongly support every move to make it unnecessary. In this latter sense, therefore, I am pro-choice but "anti-abortion".
Pecier, setting aside what you just said about how the text should be interpreted –since, we can argue about this ad nauseum– have you seen what a 24 week old baby looks like in the womb? Google it. And realize that it's legal to kill that baby a day before it hits the 24th week. There is no ontologically significant difference between a fetus and newborn infant. Unless you can tell me where the clump of cells ends and the human begins.
//Google it. And realize that it's legal to kill that baby a day before it hits the 24th week. There is no ontologically significant difference between a fetus and newborn infant. Unless you can tell me where the clump of cells ends and the human begins. //
Miguel, the woman carrying the baby is also a human being. So unless you can tell us where it becomes justifiable for people like you to deny her a right to control her own body, your assertion's not going anywhere.
[Miguel, the woman carrying the baby is also a human being. So unless you can tell us where it becomes justifiable for people like you to deny her a right to control her own body, your assertion's not going anywhere.]
— If you're talking about the prudential question of whether to kill the fetus to allow the mother to survive, I believe this is a separate issue. Ofcourse these are prudential questions. But a little research will show you that a non-negligible percentage of legal abortions are done for reasons as ridiculous as gender, down syndrome, cleft lip, autism and other things of this sort.
//But a little research will show you that a non-negligible percentage of legal abortions are done for reasons as ridiculous as gender, down syndrome, cleft lip, autism and other things of this sort. //
Can you back that up with actual statistics then?
And even then, you also failed to cite several other factors that may have influenced a woman's decision to have an abortion. Were they financially or emotionally able to raise the child? Are they healthy enough to survive the pregnancy?
[You already know we don't give a flying fuck about your opinion. Now back up the claim with actual figures, when maybe we'll stop laughing at you.]
— Well now you just want to hurt my feelings. Here's the one on gender: http://www.thelocal.se/19392/20090512/
*points and laughs*
The statistics you have posted are actually quite disturbing, and I do thank you for providing data on these cases. I do agree that abortions in these cases, as the NYTimes, is borderline eugenics.
However, what I'd like to know is how you'll manage to tie this with the Philippine pro-choice community. Percier has already stated – and I very much agree with him – that we need to frame this within the Philippine context.
Percier said he agrees with abortion (but not unreservedly, at least). Abortion is illegal in the Philippines, so obviously, we CAN'T frame it only within the Philippines in this instance.
Besides, if abortion were to be legal here in RP, obviously our laws will evolve to be similar to that of the U.S. Maybe not exactly, but to a non-negligible degree.
//Besides, if abortion were to be legal here in RP, obviously our laws will evolve to be similar to that of the U.S. Maybe not exactly, but to a non-negligible degree. //
That remains to be seen. Given the political atmosphere of RP, I doubt we'd have legalized abortion for a long time. I would prefer to focus on promoting sex education and responsible OC use though, given that these can decrease the odds of unwanted pregnancies from happening in the first place, leading to a decrease in abortions.
Well, finally, at least that's something we agree on.
And here's the one on down syndrome http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/09/us/09down.html
Here's some examples of abortions done because of fetuses having the cleft lip thing:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6556…
*points and laughs*
You just edited what you said and took the vitriol out. Now, I suppose I should be glad about that, but now it makes me look like the one who's combative as an ass below.
Not good.
[If you're talking about the prudential question of whether to kill the fetus to allow the mother to survive, I believe this is a separate issue.]
No, they are not separate issues. Killing a fetus to allow the mother to survive is, by any other name, induced abortion. After all, the definition of abortion does not say anything about intent. It is for this reason that I believe the option should be made legal. Abortion should be legal because it could be done for very legitimate reasons. If we keep abortion illegal in the absolute sense, then what will we do in those cases when induced abortion is a rational option?
However, knowing human nature, we must keep the option under lock and key, so to speak. It should be there, but it should not be as accessible as pancakes.
Note that I could make very similar cases for the death penalty and for guns. In fact, the analogy with guns is very apt: Just because something can be used immorally doesn't mean that we should make it absolutely illegal.
//Google it. And realize that it's legal to kill that baby a day before it hits the 24th week. //
Miguel, abortions are illegal in RP, regardless of the fetus' age. And instead of saving our women from birth complications, its only made things worse for them.
http://reproductiverights.org/en/forsakenlives
Miguel, abortions are illegal in RP
My mistake, I didn't clarify what i said; I was talking about abortion in some states in the U.S. and in U.K.
Stay on topic Miguel. We're talking about RP, not UK.
The links of those abortionist murderers you gave, were they only from "RP"? No I didn't think so. Keep dancing.
[There is no ontologically significant difference between a fetus and newborn infant.]
Kindly expound on this rather vague statement, Miguel.
[Unless you can tell me where the clump of cells ends and the human begins.]
No, I cannot. Now, can you? As we can see, the issue of abortion poses many serious dilemmas. However, before it can pose any dilemma it must first be an option. To absolutely make it illegal is to rob us of an important moral choice that we sometimes have to make.
Let me put it this way, Miguel: to make abortion illegal is, to me, tantamount to counting every manslaughter by self defense a murder. Now, is that rational? Convenient, yes. Imagine not having the burden of proving that accused killed the victim with a premeditated intent. But rational? I don't think so. So making abortion illegal makes for a very convenient justice system. But when has morality been about convenience, anyway?
Kindly expound on this rather vague statement, Miguel.
— I guess this would be the point of contention. Let me ask you instead, so we can see where we disagree, why to you is an infant –new born– different from a fetus, or better yet, from a baby that's 23 weeks in gestation.
To absolutely make it illegal is to rob us of an important moral choice that we sometimes have to make.
— To me, it's a human after conception. So, I don't see it as an "important moral choice" to be killing a human being, unless it's to save another, or it's for some greater good.
Let me put it this way, Miguel: to make abortion illegal is, to me, tantamount to counting every manslaughter by self defense a murder.
— Again, we should separate the issue of killing the baby to save the mothers life (or for some greater good) with killing the baby because the mother finds him inconvenient for whatever reason. Your analogy only applies to the first situation, which I argued is a separate issue.
I guess to make what I'm saying a bit clearer, here's what you said and what it means in my worldview.:
Let me put it this way, Miguel: to make [killing babies] illegal is, to me, tantamount to counting every manslaughter by self defense a murder. Now, is that rational? Convenient, yes. Imagine not having the burden of proving that accused killed the victim with a premeditated intent. But rational? I don't think so. So making [killing babies] illegal makes for a very convenient justice system. But when has morality been about convenience, anyway?
[So, I don't see it as an "important moral choice" to be killing a human being, unless it's to save another, or it's for some greater good.]
To me, this is where we disagree. You insist on separating "abortion" from killing a fetus for legitimate and rational reasons.
Miguel, induced abortion by any other name is still induced abortion. [See above comment where I explained this point in some detail.] However, it seems to me that you want to use the term "abortion" only in those cases where "the baby [is killed] because the mother finds him inconvenient for whatever reason." Now, is that a charitable definition of abortion or are you trying to use the abuse of abortion as a representative of abortion in general?
To me, this is where we disagree. You insist on separating "abortion" from killing a fetus for legitimate and rational reasons. //
–Both cases are abortion.
However, it seems to me that you want to use the term "abortion" only in those cases where "the baby [is killed] because the mother finds him inconvenient for whatever reason."//
— Charitable definition of abortion? Killing the fetus for whatever reason IS abortion. Killing the fetus for convenience is still abortion. Killing the fetus for fun is still abortion. Killing the fetus to save the mother from death is still abortion. Nobody is redefining anything.
are you trying to use the abuse of abortion as a representative of abortion in general?//
— The abuse of abortion? You might want to check the statistics. Killing the fetus because it's inconvenient to allow it to live is by far the biggest reason people get abortions. All I'm saying is that to get an abortion to save the mother is a separate issue, because if the fetus is a human, then it's like killing one human to save another.
[The POC does NOT consider context, just actual statements.]
The following is from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/davidson/ :
"The basic problem that radical interpretation must address is that one cannot assign meanings to a speaker's utterances without knowing what the speaker believes, while one cannot identify beliefs without knowing what the speaker's utterances mean. It seems that we must provide both a theory of belief and a theory of meaning at one and the same time. Davidson claims that the way to achieve this is through the application of the so-called ‘principle of charity’….In fact the principle can be seen as combining two notions: a holistic assumption of rationality in belief (‘coherence’) and an assumption of causal relatedness between beliefs — especially perceptual beliefs — and the objects of belief (‘correspondence’). The process of interpretation turns out to depend on both aspects of the principle. Attributions of belief and assignments of meaning must be consistent with one another and with the speaker's overall behaviour; they must also be consistent with the evidence afforded by our knowledge of the speaker's environment."
Innerminds, read what you just posted. It doesn't say that we can use context to validate imputations. It doesn't say that imputations are valid.
But, on occasion, context can be used to determine whether statements being made are rational. For instance, If I was talking about how red the sky is, and that it's so amazing that it's currently so red. If it turns out that the sky, during the time I was saying that, was in fact blue, then people are justified in saying I was making irrational statements about my observations of the sky.
Really, this is getting absurd, as you only seem to want to cherry pick definitions that, when taken out of context, seemingly agree with how you want the POC to be applied. If you want to pedantically stretch this minor point, then I can always out-pedant you.
The fact of the matter is, your interpretation imputes something, while mIne is coherent, rational, and therefore, despite being less plausible to you, would still be the interpretation to adopt using the POC.
Nobody is required to apply the POC. It doesn't even really say anything against the author if he chooses not to. If Twin Skies says he realizes I'm such a smart guy, I'm very much warranted in taking it as sarcasm given the context of the situation we are both always in. A good argument can even be made that I'd be a real bonehead to sincerely be under the impression that twin thinks I'm such an intellectually swell guy. But that's just a consequence of applying the POC. Hence the "charity part of it.
So I think we should just leave this issue and stop trying to out-pedant each other.
[Innerminds, read what you just posted. It doesn't say that we can use context to validate imputations. It doesn't say that imputations are valid.]
I thought we were arguing whether the POC has been violated and not whether imputations are valid, and what I posted shows why the POC wasn't violated: "Attributions of belief and assignments of meaning must be consistent with one another and with the speaker's overall behaviour; they must also be consistent with the evidence afforded by our knowledge of the speaker's environment." That's exactly what the author was doing when he asserted that Sotto was trying to frame the RH debate by associating choice with abortion.
[Really, this is getting absurd, as you only seem to want to cherry pick definitions that, when taken out of context, seemingly agree with how you want the POC to be applied.]
Now that's a violation of the POC! hehe
[If you want to pedantically stretch this minor point, then I can always out-pedant you.]
That's what I like about you, Miguel. You throw these irresistible challenges that stimulate my mind and push it to its limits, not to mention that I get to learn a lot from you directly and indirectly (by reading up and thinking hard on how to debunk your arguments). 🙂
[The fact of the matter is, your interpretation imputes something, while mIne is coherent, rational]
And I have argued that it isn't rational because if we use the POC, we take into consideration the "speaker's overall behaviour" and the "evidence afforded by our knowledge of the speaker's environment."
[Nobody is required to apply the POC. It doesn't even really say anything against the author if he chooses not to.]
Then I guess your original comment was posted out of pure pedantry with no practical point in mind.
[So I think we should just leave this issue and stop trying to out-pedant each other.]
Okay, fine. I did enjoy and learn something from this discussion, though, and I wouldn't mind if you continue by answering my points above.
I don't think I'll reply to every point you made, just this one:
Then I guess your original comment was posted out of pure pedantry with no practical point in mind.
— Bingo, you got it. Pointing out that someone isn't applying the POC is in fact as pedantic as anything can be. I won't deny it.
I already replied to this. But just to save you the time of going through that whole SEP article again to look for some parcel of words that agree with you, Donald Davidson summarizes his version of the POC thusly:
We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimises agreement.
Authors interpretation does not optimize agreement, while mine does. Therefore, you really ought to concede.
That being said, I don't think the author is being wrong in not applying the POC. That's up to him. Nobody can be faulted for being uncharitable to their opponents.
By interpreting Sotto's choice of prayer as one that frames the RH debate by associating choice with abortion, isn't the author trying to "optimize agreement" because that seems to be exactly what Sotto wants given his "overall behaviour"? Or am I interpreting the phrase "optimize agreement" wrongly?
No, *using the authors interpretation*, what Sotto wants is to make implications while leaving himself plausible deniability. That's why the author said it was a common "tactic".
Dishonest, yes, opitimize agreement, no.
The author never mentioned anything about Sotto "leaving himself plausible deniability." All he said was that Sotto tried to frame the RH debate by associating choice with abortion; whether or not such attempt by Sotto leaves him plausible deniability was not mentioned in the article.
[Dishonest, yes, opitimize agreement, no.]
You might want to clarify that because it seems that by dishonest you mean Sotto's use of the prayer while by not optimizing agreement you're referring to the author's interpretation.
The author never mentioned anything about Sotto "leaving himself plausible deniability."//
— I noted that *if* Sotto was to be interpreted in the way that the author says he should be, that leaves the tiny matter of Sotto's other statement about abortionists being murdered, which casts at least a little doubt on the authors interpretation and gives Sotto –whether he's aware of it or not, or whether he intended it to be so or not– plausible deniability.
You might want to clarify that because it seems that by dishonest you mean Sotto's use of the prayer while by not optimizing agreement you're referring to the author's interpretation.//
— To put it in a simpler way. The author interpreted the statement in a way that would strengthen his disagreement with Sotto. So, no, it does not "optimize agreement".
My interpretation would be more optimal for the "agreement" thing, unless the author would disagree more strenuously about Sotto calling pro-choicers –in how that term is conventionally understood–pro-abortionists. I think the author won't do anything of that sort since he very well knows the term pro-choice is conventionally understood to denote the pro-abortionists
"So belonging to religions other than Christianity is wrong?"
Any intellectually honest conservative Christian must answer this with a resounding yes. More so, he must affirm this fact even (or especially) in public in the presence of Muslims, Jews, Hindus and other non-Christians. It would be better that way because it would display the wisdom behind and the superiority of secularism.
What's sad about our culture is that people like Sotto simply love the contradiction inherent in political correctness. One moment they shove Catholic morality down everybody's throat and then the next moment they call Filipino Muslims their "brothers" and pay ridiculous amounts of respect to the dead leader of a religious group that bashes Roman Catholicism at a regular basis (I'm of course talking about Manalo and his church).
If the conservative Catholics are truly serious about implementing the absolute morality that they are so proud of, they should start by saying this to the face of every non-Catholic Filipino, "Your morality is wrong, so you better agree with us cause we're on the side of righteousness and absolute truth. Which brings us the the main point: How 'bout we change the constitution to remove the secularism bit?"
ugh… Sen. Sotto – the Philippine's very own Sarah Palin 🙁
is there some creepy secret fundie training center where they churn out characters like these?
People have to be taught to be this stupid? It thought it was a genetically inherited trait. 🙁
it is trained, its called catholic schooling. i be my left foot most of us entered that phase, one time or another.
I feel my heart palpitating. Good fucking Jebus, the arrogance is stupefying!