Rep. Raymond Palatino, Another Victim of Catholic Bullies

“You presented neither evidence nor logical deduction for your conclusion that there was malice behind all the articles you read here. Instead, you appeal to “common sense.” Common sense that is supposedly neither based in evidence nor logic.Now, you assert that the evidence is there despite admitting yourself that logic and evidence are both unnecessary.You can't have both ways.The question is, is the erroneous article due to being mistaken or due to malice. You are unable to solve the dilemma using evidence or reason, so you appeal to “common sense” in order to reach your desired conclusion.”I think common sense trumps logic when it comes to matters pertaining to vice and virtue. You mean I have to do a logical synthesis or analysis to come to this conclusion. Seriously? You mean you can't use common sense in rooting out whether a person intends malice or not based on background and what he has produced?I really can't argue with someone who denies something that is so apparent and obvious. Gosh either you make me out as a fool or you really honestly are convinced that you are doing all these in good faith. But because you took the time to make this exchange, I will play the fool and give you, only you, the benefit of the doubt.Good day

"Common sense trumps logic."

This from a public intellectual.

Even Thomist theologians wouldn't be so candid about Natural Moral Law. Even they wouldn't be so bold as to claim that it is not a logical system of ethics.

“This from a public intellectual.Even Thomist theologians wouldn't be so candid about Natural Moral Law. Even they wouldn't be so bold as to claim that it is not a logical system of ethics.”I think you under quoted me but i will take that in good faith. I said common sense trumps logic when we are talking about vice or virtue. You cannot logically analyze a persons good or bad character, you just observe and use your common sense.

Sometimes the only way to communicate with people who are that way is to talk the lingo they know. I have been to many fora both atheist and Protestant and have hardly gotten this kind of treatment. Did you expect that I would tolerate bad behavior? In the first place Gerrick our exchange (yours and mine) is a perfect example of how respect and decency begets the same. I think you have it the other way around. The material that your group writes about the church is scornful, accusatory and worst of all full of half-truths. It always happens that as an exchange is in progress, off topics are introduced when no answer can be given. How does one address that? In Red's case for example, I alleged that he made lies and fabrications in what he wrote/presented, did he rise up to the challenge by refuting them or replying? No it's always the attack dogs that do the dirty deed. My Christian witness is not simply to show docility, there is a place for that, my Christian witness is the exposure of lies and their correction. In the process I get scorned and cussed and even given innuendos of threat and the exchange pages will bear me out. I have tried to make it impersonal and devoid of any vulgarities, ad hominems and the like and yet many times no decency is shown. Could it be that while you are calling me to account for my demeanorthrough my being a Catholic witness, you conveniently don't account for yours because you have no higher standard by which to base this accountability except your individual standards?Sent from my iPhone

(Part 1 of 3)

To be quite honest, I've had more cordial and enjoyable conversations with Christians than this one. I quite enjoy having conversations with Christians and seeing their perspective on things. Whenever your name pops up, it is rarely ever a candidate for one of those enjoyable conversations.

Here you clearly came out accusatory and belligerent, in this case and in all others. You belittle my views as "whining" and you laugh at the, verifiably true, threats of violence against Palatino.

You should know that not everyone is privy to your extensive experience in dealing with atheists and Protestants. It is therefore unfair for you to hold grudges about their treatment of you and apply it to every single person who disagrees with you. We simply do not know, or care, that another person with similar views as ours was rude to you. I would hope that you would treat every interaction as if you were not personally attacked, because that is rarely ever the intention here. To be quite frank, we have more important things to do than personally attack you.

I am sure that you have received more than your fair share of vitriol from non-Catholics. But, I think you should see this from a perspective of charity. As the Christian, you should be aware that those most divorced from Christian teachings are those most needful of your grace and charity. I do not think you have afforded this, even at the very beginning of your interactions with Filipino Freethinkers.

Without any argument whatsoever, you call everything here, without exception, "full of half-truths." Now, it is the burden of the claimant to provide evidence to refute a claim. If someone claims to be able to fly, it is her burden to prove this and not ours to disprove. You claim that something is wrong here, disprove it with argument and reasoning—not with accusations and name-calling. It is possible that a specific article or talk is not argued well, but I would hope that you would grant that they were all argued with reasons, even if flawed. They were not mere assertions. It is your burden to prove with rational argument not only are specific claims here wrong, but they are done so in a malevolent and "bad" manner.

//It is therefore unfair for you to hold grudges about their treatment of you and apply it to every single person who disagrees with you.//

– you are correct. dibby here is a glaring example of a TYPICAL CATHOLIC APOLOGIST….

//It is therefore unfair for you to hold grudges about their treatment of you and apply it to every single person who disagrees with you…. I would hope that you would treat every interaction as if you were not personally attacked, because that is rarely ever the intention here. //

– Now we know what INTOLERANCE is all about.

(Part 2 of 3)

In philosophy, there is such a thing called "the principle of charity." This is the only real way to have meaningful discourse—by reading any argument in the best light. When, between two different meanings, the meaning that is most rational is chosen. You seem to come from interpreting any and all actions of members of Filipino Freethinkers under the most malevolent light. Not only that, you seem to paint that just because of your experience, that you've seen every argument that there can be and that they are all underserving of a full explanation of why they're wrong. You simply assert that our claims are "half-truths." That is unfair and uncharitable. It is unbecoming of an intellectual.

Even under the assumption that the rejection of Catholicism is completely untenable, it is impossible that there is absolutely no good argument that has been brought forward by members of Filipino Freethinkers. I have had many meaningful arguments with Christians here and do not believe that they would agree with your singular estimation of Filipino Freethinkers. At the very least, we provide an interesting counterpoint, if not a full refutation, to the orthodox Christian perspective. Even if we arrive at the wrong conclusion, I would hope you would grant, at the very least, that our intentions are towards the pursuit of consistent thought and rejection of logical fallacies.

You claim that it is your duty to expose lies and correct, but you eschew Christian meekness. How do you expect to have cordial dialogue with people who you call amoral, evil, and "have no higher standard by which to base this accountability except your individual standards"? Can you not see that we are human beings too and, no matter how wrong you think we are we are, we only desire the alleviation of suffering of our fellow man? Are atheists so absolutely devoid of moral action?

(Part 3 of 3)

Personally, I know the intentions behind Catholic opposition to reproductive rights, LGBT rights, and secularism and I know that they are well-meaning. I do not sympathize with the opposition, but I can understand that it only comes from a desire to prevent hellfire for more people. I understand this, but I do not find this metaphysical commitment credible. Despite your disagreement, I would wish that you would offer the same charity towards us.

Is it so inconceivable that our advocacy for reproductive rights is motivated by a concern for the lives of mothers and families that cannot possibly rear another child and provide a quality and loving existence?

Is it so incredible that our advocacy for LGBT rights is due to our longing for a society that finds consensual love between persons worthy of protection rather than ridicule and disdain?

Is it so unbelievable that our fight for secularism stems from a desire to be treated by society as equal human persons whose interests warrant equal consideration?

Do you honestly believe that assuming that your interlocutors are Satanic slaves is productive? Do you honestly believe that, even if it were the case, your methods would convince anyone to your worldview?

Mr. Boncan, you may not agree with us. You obviously don't even like us. But I would hope that you would, at the very least, treat us with as much charity and respect as you feel we should afford you, even if you believe that we frequently fail in upholding our end of the bargain. Is this not Christ's summary of the Divine Law?

Mr. Bercero First of all I would like to thank you for your exposition of how a Christian should behave and I can hardly find anything disagreeable with it. However in as much as I would like to believe that the intention of your organization is to merely give another, less orthodox perspective of things or to engage in freedom of thought, I am afraid much of the content put forth in the FFT pages would tell a different story. I do not wish to enumerate those that I, and many of my fellow Catholics, find to be, to put it mildly, disagreeable. I think my comments and blogs on your sites various articles is enough data for you to get the idea. My point is, I have been involved in this for nearly 12 years. I have debated and exchanged with atheists, Protestants and other groups and I can say that by now, I can tell the difference between what an honest, inquiring and intellectually stimulating forum is and what it isn't. I do not mean to imply or insinuate that all the content in the FFT site are lies and trash, I honestly don't. In fact I only concern myself with whatever is written about faith and morality, particularly the Catholic faith! From my very first encounter with your group, which was the De LaSalle forum, I could not believe that to this day and age, someone could actually still present the Catholic Church in such a willfully treacherous manner. I could not believe that here was a freethinker who, rather than put forth sound philosophical arguments would recycle 19th century Protestant anti-Catholic material. You know what Mr. Bercero, let me confine myself to those videos as an example of the anti-thesis of what you purport you stand for. And I ask you this: Do you honestly believe that what you and Red Tani did that day is an accurate depiction of the Catholic church in the world today? Was that an honest intellectual treatment of the issues surrounding the church? The purpose of your movement became very clear to me that day and it was to bring people to doubt their faith… which was, in not so many words, Red Tani's objective . When you lecture me about how a Christian should behave you first should ask yourself the question of whether you and your friends first acted or are acting in good faith. I think it's hypocrisy to expect and demand that I presume good faith from your group when you have not shown any of it in the material you generate. I believe I have acted in accordance with the teachings of my faith. I have avoided personal attacks, vitriolic language and vulgarities only to not be accorded the same. I have tried to stay within topics of exchange only to be taunted with topics that are obviously meant to either divert or upset me. Mr. Bercero as long as you put out material like the piece on Mother Teresa or Bishop Tagle and as long as you keep on pushing, not for a principled pluralism but an ideological secularism, where morals are made to be relative and people of faith are scoffed at, I will continue what it is I am doing. If I have been un-Christian in my words and demeanor in the past then I must apologize for that but I will not apologize for nor am I sorry for exchanges and writings of mine that were done to counter what I know were intentional lies or ideological propaganda. Up until now I still await an honest response to the issue I had brought up. The excuse I get from your group is that I should not be taken seriously but apparently you have taken me seriously since you took the time to reply… and yet the issues I had raised time and again have but been addressed in any straightforward manner.Sent from my iPhone

Again, I must protest. What specific “lies” about the Church did we say? And what evidence do you have that they were not only wrong but they were “willfully treacherous”?

I will not go into the details here since. I have dealt with them in my blog site last year when I answered you and Red Tani almost point by point regarding the videos you posted. If you really do pride yourselves in intellectual thought, why would you engage in the kind of misrepresentation of the Catholic Church. The content of the presentation was so clumsily done that there are two conclusions anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of Church history could conclude: 1. It was done under the false pretenses of an intellectual presentation or 2. The presenters were doing a hatchet job on the church. As I said, it is too lengthy to go into the details of those but I know that deep down, you know the motives behind every article that is written about the Catholic faith. If you would bother to check it out yourself, it is posted in my site.Good day.

You bring allegations here of lies and you fail to substantiate those with evidence. You say you are concerned with correcting our errors but you do not extend the courtesy of even pointing out what specific errors were made and why they were errors.I've read your articles and your arguments are composed of straw men and single sentence fragment dismissals such as “delusional rant” and “same o same o.” If these are the arguments you think substantiate your allegations, then you are grossly mistaken.More than that, you seem to insinuate that you are capable of mind-reading and that you are certain of not only our alleged errors, but of the malicious intent behind them. Unless you have evidence of such capabilities, any accusation of malice is unfounded.

As I said earlier the quality and content of the writings here especially as it pertains to faith and morals and especially as it involves the Catholic Church leads one to believe that motives are malicious. It only takes an honest look at whether they were done in good faith… good faith being well-researched and factual. The substantiation you ask for is at the links I sent you and so I will not belabor them again. if your afraid, like some of your members, of increasing my “internet traffic” oh please, that's a rather childish excuse. I care not about internet traffic I care for what is true!Good day

//if your afraid, like some of your members, of increasing my "internet traffic" oh please, that's a rather childish excuse. I care not about internet traffic I care for what is true!//

Dickie, you already got called out for lying out Ron De Vera, and you're repeatedly cited an anti-gay organization that's proven to be lying. Charges that you have ignored, nor have attempted to rectify.

And now you're reduced to making juvenile, low-brow jabs at the "cowardice" of FF's members, in a feeble attempt to feed your misguided male bravado.

It seems that threatening me with physical violence for a non-existent slight against your family wasn't really enough to stroke your ego, was it?

And what evidence do you have that they were not only wrong but they were \”willfully treacherous\”?Does this article ring a bell? My God anyone who sees the title of this work knows that this is a hatchet job and a poor one at that.“Mother Teresa: Blessed Billionaire, Holy Hypocrite”How about this:

Let's assume that every single detail of that article is wrong. Would that even come close to proving “willful treachery”? No.You claim omniscience over our own motives. How is such a thing possible?

Are you for any moment claiming that every article that was written about the church in your website was done in honest to goodness good faith?

No. I'm challenging you to provide evidence for your assertion.

It was a simple yes or no. If you tell me that they were done in good faith then I will shut up. My assertion stands based on the refutation in my blogsite. Are you asking me to post them here verbatim?

You claim that it was done in malice. You prove it. Even if it was wrong, can you prove that it was done with malicious intent?

//My assertion stands based on the refutation in my blogsite.//

Dickiespeak for: "I'm right because MY blog says so!!! You're all just loooooozers!!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!"

Don't mind me 'hon – just trying to speak in your lingo 😉

Why do you keep bringing up issues you have with other people? I have neither control nor concern for how other people have been rude to you. That is between you and them.

How does my own atheism affect the truth of what I say how a Christian ought to behave? How does it excuse how you have acted?

You insinuate that I am amoral and could not have possibly any ethical motives. You claim to know that what is here are "intentional lies" and "ideological propaganda." What evidence do you have that this is the case? You keep skirting the issue.

What specific claims are wrong? What about Mother Teresa? What about Tagle? What lies were said? And what evidence do you have that these lies were "intentional"? You can't just say we lied about the Church and expect that can stand on its own as an argument.

Unless you actually bring up a plausible case and argument, you must understand that you will not be taken seriously.

You mistake a Christian to be the gentle, meek, turn-the-other-cheek type of person. A true Christian is all these and more. I do not balk down to error being taught especially by people who have the intention of drawing people from their faith or pursuing a purely secularist agenda.With regards to your question: “You insinuate that I am amoral and could not have possibly any ethical motives. You claim to know that what is here are “intentional lies” and “ideological propaganda.” What evidence do you have that this is the case? You keep skirting the issue.Here is my answer <a href="http://:http://astrugglingdad.wordpress.com/2012/01/16/the-nightmares-of-a-freethinker-a-truly-catholic-philippines/:http://astrugglingdad.wordpress.com/2012/01/16/the-nightmares-of-a-freethinker-a-truly-catholic-philippines/<br />Whatspecificclaims are wrong? What about Mother Teresa? What about Tagle? What lies were said? And what evidence do you have that these lies were “intentional”? You can't just say we lied about the Church and expect that can stand on its own as an argument.”http://astrugglingdad.wordpress.com/2012/01/16/the-color-of-malice-is-red-part-ii-mother-teresa-k-o-s-tani/

As I said in my other response, you seem to think that sentence fragment dismissals and false construal of statements count as arguments. If it needs saying, I will say it, they do not.

What else can I say except you are being evasive. I gave you my side of the story as per my links and you take it in bad faith or ridicule it as non-arguments with a wave of a hand.Good day

I do not ridicule it. I read it and found it lacking. I will even produce all your arguments here:

"He confuses being secular with having a secular ideology or secularism. No Mr. Bercero, this country is not afraid to show her religiosity because her people are humble enough to know that things do not answer the deeper questions of purpose and meaning."
Being secular IS secularism.

"Unimpressive? Mr. Bercerro, arrogantly, with the wave of hand, dismisses the amount of linguistic, historical and archeological evidence that support the existence Christ and His establishment of a Church. He goes against 2000 years of historical record that demonstrates the way early Christians have lived and the reasons for their belief. Here we see the underlying “thesis” of this article! Read-on…"
Evidence you don't even show, merely allude to.

"There is no “Roman Catholic calendar.” There is the Gregorian calendar replaced the Julian calendar for reasons of seasonal accuracy after all, the Church had been in existence for almost 1500 years before this calendar was introduced . Even at the very start, the calendar, attributed to Pope Gregory VIII… a Catholic and a pope oversaw the accuracy of the time and seasons, made no effort to make it strictly for Catholic use and there is no reason why the Church would start now… that my friends is what we call a straw-man fallacy. Imagine that a Catholic and a Pope at that demanding accuracy of times and seasons… how scientific of him and a Pope at that!"
Straw man. I clearly meant the calendar of saints.

"I don’t know what planet Mr. Bercero is living in but this is an outright lie. A search of whether the Vatican is a state or not will clearly show that it satisfies the 8 criteria of what makes an independent country or state. See here. The only ones questioning this are the people who want the Holy See to have no say in U.N. policy matters. Mr. Bercero forgets that the Vatican has been in existence waaaaay before the criteria for international laws as to what constitutes a state even came into existence. The diffrence between any other country’s government and the Vatican’s is that the Vatican is run by a Ecclesiatical government. See this too: CIA World Fact Book So Mr. Bercero, sorry you score zero on this!"

There are experts, such as Geoffrey Robertson QC, who argue otherwise. Either way, the issue is not as clear cut and as dismissible as an "outright lie" as you think.

"This is the first of many delusional rants. As far as I know, the Philippines, corrupt and politically immature as it is, has the trappings of a democracy. The problem with Mr. Bercero is that he thinks that the ideal democracy must be free from any influence of religion or that religion adulterates democracy. This is strange considering that Catholicism and canon law contributed heavily to what we know as modern representative democracy, that no one may rule over another without their permission. "
No argument presented here. First, my argument is dismissed as delusional. Second, even if Catholicism was integral to modern democracy, it is no argument for its utility today. Might as well argue for alchemy.

“Being secular IS secularism.”The point is that secular as a perspective and secularism as an ideology. We are a secular state in that we do not make our laws based on any religion nor are we ruled by clerics unlike the shariah Muslim laws or the laws of ancient Israel. Your secularism as an ideology is an atheist agenda where the state must be devoid of any and all influence of belief. It is more akin to a Marxist form of seculirism… hmmm maybe I used too weak a word.”Evidence you don't even show, merely allude to.”My goodness of course I allude to it for one simple reason, it's searchable and can be found in the net! Some examples:1 <a href="http://.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14530a.htm.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14530a.htm<br />2 <a href="http://.http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence.http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence<br />3 <a href="http://.http://carm.org/can-we-trust-new-testament-historical-document.http://carm.org/can-we-trust-new-testament-historical-document<br />4.There is, I imagine, no body of literature in the world that has been exposed to the stringent analytical study that the four gospels have sustained for the past 200 years…. Scholars today who treat the gospels as credible historical documents do so in the full light of this analytical study. –F. F. BruceThere are tons more… but I think you get the point”Straw man. I clearly meant the calendar of saints.”Clearly there is no calendar of saints as this uses the same Gregorian calendar we all use, yes even you, and have just rotated saints feast days in it.”There are experts, such asGeoffrey Robertson QC, who argue otherwise. Either way, the issue is not as clear cut and as dismissible as an “outright lie” as you think.”Of course you'll find people disagreeing but lets face it, the common accepted and popular consensus by most all governments worldwide is that it is a recognized state, why would you then have to try and cast doubt to an otherwise commonly accepted norm except to, well, try and controvert it.”No argument presented here. First, my argument is dismissed as delusional. Second, even if Catholicism was integral tomodern democracy, it is no argument for its utility today. Might as well argue for alchemy.”You mean you don't intend to refute even what I just said?… “This is strange considering that Catholicism and canon lawcontributed heavily to what we know as modern representative democracy, that no one may rule over another without theirpermission.””What else can I say except you are being evasive. I gave you my side of the story as per my links and you take it in bad faith or ridicule it as non-arguments with a wave of a hand.”Evasive??? I seemed to have answered, at least, partly most of your assertions. I admit I did do some hand waving but that was because I did not want to belabor every detail in what you wrote.Good day!

No, the point is you said secularism is not equal to "being secular," which it is.

"Your secularism as an ideology is an atheist agenda where the state must be devoid of any and all influence of belief."

You can redefine secularism in any which way you'd like in order for you to retain your dislike of it. The fact of the matter is, the state should not sponsor any religion.

"Clearly there is no calendar of saints as this uses the same Gregorian calendar we all use, yes even you, and have just rotated saints feast days in it."

The issue is not the Gregorian calendar. I obviously meant the Gregorian calendar with the dates of saint feast days.

"Of course you'll find people disagreeing but lets face it, the common accepted and popular consensus by most all governments worldwide is that it is a recognized state, why would you then have to try and cast doubt to an otherwise commonly accepted norm except to, well, try and controvert it."

Argument from tradition/popularity

"This is strange considering that Catholicism and canon lawcontributed heavily to what we know as modern representative democracy, that no one may rule over another without theirpermission."

I don't need to refute this questionable claim because its use as a premise to prove the point that Catholicism is necessary to modern democracy is fallacious. Even if it was necessary to establish modern democracy, it doesn't mean that it is necessary to sustain modern democracy.

""What else can I say except you are being evasive. I gave you my side of the story as per my links and you take it in bad faith or ridicule it as non-arguments with a wave of a hand."

You do know that you wrote this, right?

So, it's quite startling that you offended yourself:

"Evasive??? I seemed to have answered, at least, partly most of your assertions. I admit I did do some hand waving but that was because I did not want to belabor every detail in what you wrote."

“The fact of the matter is, the state should not sponsor any religion.”Assuming your right that the Philippines is sponsoring Catholicism as a state religion what benefits has the Church gotten from this that she would not have gotten otherwise? Do any of the 3 branches of government decide based on Catholic Church doctrine? Does the church have a direct say in the running of state affairs?”Argument from tradition/popularity”I posted institutions and organizations including the UN that says so… that makes it popular I guess but is that a fallacy when it is an accepted fact that is properly documented… I am not making that argument, it's online. Do you have any country that does not accept the Vatican as a state because they don't think it qualifies as such?

How about lands? How about the denial of homosexuals from party-list accreditation? How about Catholic values education and prayer in public schools?”Do you have any country that does not accept the Vatican as a state because they don't think it qualifies as such?”The recognition of other states of a supposed state is not a criterion for statehood .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montevideo_Convention

“How about lands? How about the denial of homosexuals from party-list accreditation?Didn't know they had priests in the Comelec”How about Catholic values education and prayer in public schools?”That was optional and besides, it was the state that allowed it for convenience. I think they no longer do that.”The recognition of other states of a supposed state is not a criterion for statehood <a href="http://.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montevideo_Convention&quot;.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montevideo_Convention“<br />So what? I asked you that to find out it indeed any country has protested it on the grounds that you claim that the Vatican is not a state.

They sure had Catholics in Comelec.Catholic values education is not always optional. They teach Natural Moral Law in Philippine Science High School.So what? I asked you that to find out it indeed any country has protested it on the grounds that you claim that the Vatican is not a state.The issue is the statehood of the Vatican. I showed that recognition by other states is not the criterion. Then you ask me what states don't recognize it, which is a moot discussion. It is irrelevant to the issue of the Vatican's statehood.

“They teach Natural Moral Law in Philippine Science High School.”and it made you what you are today? is that good or bad? did anyone get psycho because of this?

Your appeal to consequences does not refute the fact that it is a violation of the establishment clause.

First of all, I don't think it actually violates the establishment clause because allowing worship in public offices and premises is not the same as the government actually requiring one to be Catholic. The fact is most people are Catholic and since freedom of religion is an established right, people practice it wherever they are, public or private. But I bet you would be hard pressed to find a government policy that categorically requires everyone to join in.As regards your natural moral law lessons, I take it to mean laws as they pertain to killing, abortion, euthanasia, and sexual morality and the like? How is that violative of the constitution when some of our laws are based on those moral laws? We have anti bigamy and adultery laws, we have anti-obscenity laws. The fact is civil laws pertaining to morals and ethics are based on a Judeo-Christian framework. Was it bring taught as part of religion class? Or was it bring given a religious perspective if so Perhaps a waiver could be done.Third it is important to appeal to consequences because they are the ones that affect us. When we humans act, we do so because of a purposeful consequence. We complain because of consequences that affect us negatively we don't complain because they affect us positively or are neutral at worst. So I ask you again, did those classes affect you negatively? Did it do so to others?Sent from my iPhone

That's not what the establishment clause says. As in Ladlad v. Comelec, the Supreme Court challenged Comelec's religiously-motivated denial of the party list based on the establishment clause even though the Comelec did not require anyone to be Catholic.Public schools should not even have religion class, but religious doctrines are brought into classes. Civil and Criminal law need not appeal to natural moral law, in the Thomist sense. Such appeals are unconstitutional.Appeal to consequences is a logical fallacy.Me: Natural Moral Law was taught in a public school.You: Well, did you suffer because of it?That's a non sequitur. It does not refute the main point that it is unconstitutional.

“That's not what the establishment clause says. As in Ladlad v. Comelec, the Supreme Court challenged Comelec's religiously-motivated denial of the party list based on the establishment clause even though the Comelec did not require anyone to be Catholic.”Well it was wrong for the Comelec to have ruled in that manner anyway. I was happy that it worked but I think the ruling was weak and did violate the law, hence the supreme court decision.”Public schools should not even have religion class, but religious doctrines are brought into classes. Civil and Criminal law need not appeal to natural moral law, in the Thomist sense. Such appeals are unconstitutional.”The religion classes in public schools is I suppose a carry over of the strong influence of Cartholicism in the country. You even have a dep ed secretary who is a religious (2x over). While I know you would like to go about it in a manner that always tries to follow the letter of the law all the time, unfortunately for you and those with similar inclinations, our politicians see no conflict between religion and state in the public schools. However, I believe that this practice has been stopped since and in some public schools, it has been made optional to attend them if it is given at all.With regard to civil and criminal law, how can you ban natural moral law (in the Thomist sense) if the very basis of civil law is canon law. IK think the better question is: Are the civil laws as they pertain to morals invasive of one's freedom? I think not. Looking at them, they at least serve the greater good of the country. Besides, if it did violate the establishment laws, dont you think it would have been challenged by now?

“Well it was wrong for the Comelec to have ruled in that manner anyway. I was happy that it worked but I think the ruling was weak and did violate the law, hence the supreme court decision.”Then you concede the point. The Supreme Court decided that using religious doctrine to support government decisions is a violation of the constitution.”Are the civil laws as they pertain to morals invasive of one's freedom? I think not. Looking at them, they at least serve the greater good of the country. Besides, if it did violate the establishment laws, dont you think it would have been challenged by now? “Of course the Catholic would have no qualms with having Catholic doctrine in schools. None of what you say refutes the unconstitutionality of the act, not even your appeal to tradition. Just because something has been the case for a long time, doesn't mean it is what ought to remain the case.

//Didn't know they had priests in the Comelec//

You don't have to be a priest to resort to bible-quoting.
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/lifestyle/11/12/09/com…

"This fellow has no idea what the crusades and the inquisition were all about. The crusades were a defensive was against Muslim aggression, it was a just war. The inquisition was a movement against false conversions and those propagating errors in Catholic teaching. The BBC production “Myth of the Spanish Inquisition” itself places the number of people executed in the 400 year span of the Inquisition to be less than 5000. The product of Mr. Bercero’s “enlightenment” is the “Reign of Terror” which itself killed 40,000 people in one year! Now that’s the product of “mother” enlightenment herself. Her baby, Atheistic-Marxism victimized up to 130Million people in the 20th century alone. Imagine this fellow harking about the “cruel religious institutions” and the “torture and sadism” and calls it “unthinkable” when he conveniently overlooks what his “enlightenment” has produced!"

First, your "just war" argument is just an assertion. Assuming it was just, you don't even explain why the Crusades were just. Second, you can bring your grievances to John Paul II because he apologized for the Inquisition. "The prayer I then addressed to God contains the reasons for the petition for forgiveness, which is valid both for the dramas linked to the Inquisition as well as for the wounds they have caused in the memory: "Lord, God of all men, in some periods of history Christians have yielded to methods of intolerance and have not followed the great commandment of love, thus disfiguring the countenance of the Church, your Bride. Have mercy on your sinful children and accept our determination to seek and promote truth in the gentleness of charity, conscious that the truth only imposes itself with the force of truth itself. Through Christ our Lord."" Then, you equivocate the philosophical Age of Enlightenment to political events during the time, as if support for the former entails support for the latter. Then you conflate atheism with Marxism. All of this with nary an argument, of course.

"… hahaha believe in like what, Transubstantiation? What Mr. Bercero actually means by “religious freedom” is the freedom for a person to make up his own morals. He caricatures the Church opposition to moral acts like abortion, contraception and same-sex marriage as an affront to “freedom of belief” or freedom all together. This  is a juvenile argument because it assumes that morals are the sole monopoly of Catholicism. As I have stated above, morals are a part of human nature and faith reinforces what the heart and mind, i.e. the conscience, already knows. "
Of course, the straw man here is that I mean something and you construe it in another way as in religious freedom meaning "freedom for a person to make up his own morals." Readers should also note the laugh of derision that begins this "rebuttal."

“First, your “just war” argument is just an assertion. Assuming it was just, you don't even explain why the Crusades were just.The crusades were just for one simple explanation, it was a defensive war against Muslim aggression. It was created so that pilgrims to the holy land could rightfully travel without fear of being persecuted by Muslims. Certainly, as in any war or any movement that had hardly the advantage of modern day communications, things went out of hand. The history of the crusades you purvey is not even a secularists “research”! It is a peculiarly 19th century German protestant revision.Second, you can bring your grievances to John Paul II because he apologized for the Inquisition.He apologized for it because the inquisition, which was meant to weed out heterodoxy, sometimes became abusive.”The prayer I then addressed to Godcontains the reasons for the petition for forgiveness, which is valid both for the dramas linked to the Inquisition as well as for the wounds they havecaused in the memory: “Lord, God of all men, in some periods of history Christians have yielded to methods of intolerance and have not followed thegreat commandment of love, thus disfiguring the countenance of the Church, your Bride. Have mercy on your sinful children and accept ourdetermination to seek and promote truth in the gentleness of charity, conscious that the truth only imposes itself with the force of truth itself. ThroughChrist our Lord.”” Then, you equivocate the philosophical Age of Enlightenment to political events during the time, as if support for the former entailssupport for the latter. Then you conflate atheism with Marxism. All of this with nary an argument, of course.”Isn't Marxism an Atheistic ideology which was derived from the Enlightenment?

That you explain the Crusades only proves my point. You merely asserted it before.

"He apologized for it because the inquisition, which was meant to weed out heterodoxy, sometimes became abusive."

That was the entire contention of the phrase you criticize (They have already apologized for their indefensible establishment of the Crusades and the Inquisition.)!

"Isn't Marxism an Atheistic ideology which was derived from the Enlightenment?"

So what if it came out of the Enlightenment? It doesn't mean other ideas from the Enlightenment are false or dangerous.

“That was theentirecontention of the phrase you criticize (They have already apologized for their indefensible establishment of the Crusades and the Inquisition.)!”From the point of view of our era it may be indefensible given the development of diplomacy and civility. For goodness sake put yourself in the culture of the 12th century and tell me that it was not a reasonable thing to do! The crusades did not happen a hundred years ago. The problem is that you judge an event that happened 500-800 years ago with the standards of your culture, I am sure there is a logical fallacy in doing that.”So what if it came out of the Enlightenment? It doesn't mean other ideas from the Enlightenment are false or dangerous.”Like what ideas?? Egalite', Fraternite', Liberte'… I believe this was borrowed or adapted from Christian philosophical thought. At any rate, perhaps not all ideas were false but look at her children… Marxism, Communism! I dont think I need to tell spell out what those two created in the 20th century, a holocaust bigger than that of Hitlers, the Inquisition and Crusades combined and it happened /still happening in our time!

The point of the phrase was that the Church has apologized for these two events. This is a fact. Whatever contextualization of it that you may have is irrelevant.”Like what ideas?? Egalite', Fraternite', Liberte'… I believe this was borrowed or adapted from Christian philosophical thought. At any rate, perhaps not all ideas were false but look at her children… Marxism, Com munism! I dont think I need to tell spell out what those two created in the 20th century, a holocaust bigger than that of Hitlers, the Inquisition and Crusades combined and it happened /still happening in our time!”By your reasoning, since the Enlightenment supposedly gave rise to Marxism and Communism, therefore the Enlightenment is wrong. Then, since the Enlightenment was “borrowed or adapted” from Christian philosophical thought, then Christianity is wrong.Let me illustrate for you how completely irrational your reasoning is.(1) If something results in Communism then it is wrong.(2) The Enlightenment resulted in Communism.(3) The Enlightenment is wrong [from (1) and (2) via modus ponens](4) The Enlightenment came from Christianity.(5) Communism resulted from the Enlightenment, which resulted from Christianity.(6) Therefore, Christianity is wrong. [From (1) and (5) via modus ponens]

“The point of the phrase was that the Church has apologized for these two events. This is a fact. Whatever contextualization of it that you may have is irrelevant.”That's pretty odd considering that the apology was made in that context and yet you don't accept the context to which it refers to…Let me illustrate for you how completely irrational your reasoning is.(1) If something re sults in Communism then it is wrong.(2) The Enlightenment resulted in Communism.(3) The Enlightenment is wrong [from (1) and (2) via modus ponens](4) The Enlightenment came from Christianity.(5) Communism resulted from the Enlightenment, which resulted from Christianity.(6) Therefore, Christianity is wrong. [From (1) and (5) via modus ponens]Except that I never said that the enlightenment came from Christianity… oops did you miss that? I said it borrowed some stuff from Christianity. Start over maybe you'll succeed.

The claim was that the Church apologized. You say there was a context. But who's arguing on the context? The claim is true that the Church apologized.Well, then did you consider that the Marxism borrowed some stuff from the Enlightenment? It's not like the Enlightenment was one philosophy. It was a whole slew of different schools of thought.

I am arguing on the context because that is the context of which the pope apologized …read the entire statement!

And the context does not matter since the pope apologized, which was the entire claim. I didn't even speculate on why the pope apologized, merely that it is a fact that he did.

Well I am telling you it is and I am suing so to educate you and your friends a bit about church history.”I didn't even speculate on why the pope apologized, merely that it is a fact that he did.Yeah but wouldn't it be nice to know the context of an apology especially if it is often mistaken to mean many other things except that which was what it was intended to be for?Sent from my iPhone

Well, thanks. It was quite unnecessary, but thanks.

I meant “I am DOING so…” not suing, darn product of science auto correct!Sent from my iPhone

//"Isn't Marxism an Atheistic ideology which was derived from the Enlightenment//

Actually, atheism was only a part of the greater body Marxist communism, and Marx himself noted it was no longer necessary for socialism and communism.

"Communism begins with atheism (Owen), but atheism is initially far from being communism, and is for the most part an abstraction. The philanthropy of atheism is therefore at first nothing more than an abstract philosophical philanthropy, while that of communism is at once real and directly bent towards action."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/e…

"Atheism, which is a denial of this unreality, no longer has any meaning, for atheism is a negation of God, through which negation it asserts the existence of man. But socialism as such no longer needs such mediation. Its starting point is the theoretically and practically sensuous consciousness of man and of nature as essential beings."

To say that Marxism is atheistic is tantamount to claiming that a brick is the entire house.

"Straw-man arguments again! I think that if you look at Catholic teaching, you would see that whatever she has to say about sexual matters are related to two things: Family and Life. Mr. Bercero seems to be projecting his own fixation to the Church. The FFT website is replete with sexual issues from supporting homosexual behavior to supporting pornography. All the honest person has to do in order to find out what the Church teaxhes about sex is to look at the Catechism and a cursory look will show that it is but a small part of Catholic Church teaching. "

If it was such a small part then why is it that it seems to be the issue the Church is most vocal about? Regardless, this argument diminishes in no way my account of what the Church thinks of sexual issues.

"In the remote chance that this becomes true, I will make sure to ask for a dispensation for you Mr. Bercero!"
I don't think this is supposed to be a rebuttal, but an uncharitable accusation of homosexuality, as if this makes my views less deserving of consideration.

"… Sure yeah, same o same o. "
Not an argument.

"Any Catholic knows that a forced confession and a forced conversion is no conversion at all but I would like to see confession and mass be made available in every prison.
If you read the piece, it said forced counseling, not forced conversion.

"… more delusional rant"
Not an argument.

"…”liberties” a.k.a. pornography, sodomy, divorce, adultery etc… "
Insinuations without merit.

"…more of the same delusional rant"
Not an argument.

"…the logical conclusions being that this is largely the product of a delusional mind."
Not an argument.

"if by “monolithic bloc” he means those who live out truly Catholic lives then Bercereo for once is right. The faithful do not comprise this “monolithic bloc”, never did and never will. I do not know where he gets it that the CBCP or the Church ever claimed this “monolithic bloc” to exist, perhaps in his nightmares."
The Church claims to have political power through its members, to intimidate politicians. The fallacy here is that Catholics do not comprise a monolithic bloc that votes consistently on issues such as reproductive rights.

"He says that there is a lack of orthodoxy that is why we are (still) this way and not under his delusional (“disgusting”) theocracy, he implies to mean that he likes the present set-up, but could be better if the Catholic Church were not meddling or if “cafeteria” Catholics did away with authentic Catholic teaching. Really, he likes our present state of corruption and moral depravity? If Bercero had his way, he would legalize, among other things, abortion and infanticide, after all, Catholic teaching is against those too. Heck it would be like living in the Stalin-era Soviet Union."

Straw man. In one sentence you admit that I think things could be better then on the next you say that I like our present state of "moral depravity."

"I know this is sarcasm but is this a wish-fulfilment statement… that there is a heaven that will make all these bad things go away, hmmm?"
It wasn't sarcasm. If Catholicism is true, the best way to live one's life is to be an orthodox Catholic. Of course, I don't think it's true at all.

“If it was such a small part then why is it that it seems to be the issue the Church is most vocal about? Regardless, this argument diminishes in no way my account of what the Church thinks of sexual issues.”Why do you think? What is the single biggest contributor to the destruction of families, the cheapening of women, the destruction of the institution of marriage and the holocaust we know as abortion? Isn't it sexual morality?”The Church claims to have political power through its members, to intimidate politicians. The fallacy here is that Catholics do not comprise a monolithic bloc that votes consistently on issues such as reproductive rights.”Exactly we are not but that doesn't mean that the Church cannot appeal to the people's sense of morality and ethics based on their traditional beliefs”If Catholicism is true, the best way to live one's life is to be an orthodox Catholic.No argumentOf course, I don't think it's true at all.”But of course you don't.

The single biggest contributor to the destruction of families is probably bad parents.

"Exactly we are not but that doesn't mean that the Church cannot appeal to the people's sense of morality and ethics based on their traditional beliefs"

This in no way refutes the point that the Church cannot rationally bandy about its non-existent voting bloc.

“The single biggest contributor to the destruction of families is probably bad parents.”I said contributor! divorce and philandering, pornographic addiction, adultery etc… that all pertains to sexual morality ending in broken families. Bad parents… really as generic as that, bad parents, like what is bad? Physically abusive ( yes of course), abandonment (yes definitely) but what breaks families irreparably if not sexual matters! Here you go ignoring the data again.

Ignoring the data? Where's the evidence that pornography is a contributor for failed families? I noticed you moved the goal post from pornography to “pornography addiction.” This is of course different. Might as well be mothball addiction and it would not be any less destructive. You seem to think that divorce is the worst thing to happen to a family, as if divorce just happens out of the blue. Hostile relationships between spouses lead to divorces. Divorces are the result of conflict, not the cause.How about showing one bit of evidence that pornography causes broken families? Certainly the data disagrees with you, unless, of course, you will now resort to “common sense.”http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/200904/does-pornography-cause-social-harm

<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vicki-larson/porn-and-divorce_b_861987.htmlhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/vicki-larson/porn-a… />”Divorce attorneys tend to agree with Fagan's findings. At a 2003 meeting of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, two-thirds of the 350 divorce lawyers noted that the Internet was playing an increasing role in marital splits, with excessive online porn watching contributing to more than half of the divorces. According to Richard Barry, president of the association, “Pornography had an almost nonexistent role in divorce just seven or eight years ago.”http://www.citizenlink.com/2012/02/21/pornography-infidelity-and-divorce/http://marriottschool.net/emp/boyer/financeseminar/s11_12/Tyler%20Shumway%20F11.pdfYour link below suffers from one major thing, it tries to draw conclusions from general societal data. Do you know how prone to error that method is?lets not forget that in front of that camera is either the daughter or mother of someone. would you be agreeable for your mother to have worked in that industry, how about your sister?

If they consent to being filmed, then that is their right.Again you move goal posts, that says “excessive.” Excessive anything should contribute to divorce. I'm sure excessive mountain climbing has been the cause of many divorces.How about Christianity? It seems to contribute to divorce.http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/15-familykids/42-new-marriage-and-divorce-statistics-released

“If they consent to being filmed, then that is their right.”It's their legal right but is it morally right? so yes, you would allow your sister or your mom to do that if they were brought into it by circumstances?”How about Christianity? It seems to contribute to divorce.”Thats a good joke… so in China where most people are atheists, I can say that atheism contributes to divorce…I dont even know where your really going with this!

I wouldn't allow them since it is not even my right to dictate on what they can do. They can do whatever they want. You seem to think that I own women.The study shows that Christians have higher divorce rates than atheists.

Ok let me rephrase would you condone or agree to it if they wanted to? It has nothing to do with possession it has something to do with love. Perhaps you missed that point that moral laws are there not to curtail freedom but to achieve the true potential and end of a human being. Of course that presumes that we are made for a higher purpose which you obviously don't believe therefor if we are just atoms and molecules then truly it should not matter how one uses his faculties. What is your basis then for trying to be ethical or moral? Why should you strive for this if you believe that at the end of the day our conscious persuasions serve neither a higher purpose nor comes from one. It sounds to me that its just being good just for goodness sake.Sent from my iPhone

It highly depends if they desire such an occupation. If so, go ahead. Some people find such occupations appealing and conducive to their well-being. I wouldn't presume to know what goes on inside their heads. After all, I'm not omniscient and I don't brag on the Internet about knowing the private motives of people using my “common sense.”

It's not about bragging about knowing about private motives. I may not know people who act in porno films but I know from my experience with different people that it is a self-demeaning occupation. It's calledbeing a human and loving.Sent from my iPhone

Your personal “experience” with different people isn't a scientific or conclusive case. That's just bad argumentation.

Do you use logical syllogisms every time you deal with people? Anyway, I leave you to your vanities and perhaps sooner or later you will not only acquire knowledge but wisdom too (hopefully sooner)!

If you're incapable of supporting your assertions with logic or evidence, I suppose snarky condescension is the way to go.

//What is the single biggest contributor to the destruction of families, the cheapening of women, the destruction of the institution of marriage and the holocaust we know as abortion//

Let's look at the evidence, shall we?

The cheapening of women
http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/stu… http://fromtheleft.wordpress.com/2010/07/15/vatic…

The destruction of families
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-08-25/living/divorce…

The holocaust we know as abortion http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2012/04…

Oh btw Dickie, since you decided to use the word "Holocaust," can we accept this as your admittance to losing the argument, as stipulated in Godwin's Law?

"Another straw-man… forcing Catholic teaching against victims of rape? Does he mean the Church’s opposition to abortion? Mr.&nbsp;Bercero, tell me, how does killing an unborn human-being punish the rapist?"
Forcing a woman to go through with the pregnancy due to a rapist inflicts suffering on both mother and the person that fetus will grow up to be. This is not about punishing a rapist. It's about avoiding suffering.

"Having faith and living in accordance with moral norms equals no enjoyment, that’s the materialist/utilitarian worldview. What&nbsp;would constitute this “enjoyment” then, divorce, adultery, unbridled sex, pornography, abortion, contraception? Doesn’t he see&nbsp;that for every kind of “enjoyable” act, there is always a victim who is miserable? This is the kind of world Mr. Bercero&nbsp;envisions, a world of utilitarian hedonism. A world where anyone is free to do as he pleases as long as he doesn’t “hurt” anyone&nbsp;or, at least, anyone useful to himself. The only problem with the kind of world he wants is that there is always someone who&nbsp;will get hurt at the expense of someone who is “enjoying this life.” "

Straw man. Never did I advocate hedonism.

If this is what you think passes off as arguments worthy of response, then you are sorely mistaken.

“Forcing a woman to go through with the pregnancy due to a rapist inflicts suffering on both mother and the person that fetus will grow up to be. This is not about punishing a rapist. It's about avoid suffering.”Avoiding suffering for whom?? The woman? What about post-abortion suffering and what about the aborted human being, who avoids that suffering? Are you sure that these fetuses are not suffering? How do you know that women who decide to keep babies who are product of rape will suffer? Don't you know that there are many adults in the world who were products of rape and are leading productive lives and have not felt any resentment whatsoever. Even the mothers feel they are better persons for having endured that agony. You see Mr. Bercero, when one is devoid of belief, morality, if it is present, becomes based on utility and the easiest way out. That is the difference between the “being good” of atheism and the “becoming good” of Christianity.

Pretty sure that an embryo cannot suffer, no more than a cow or a chicken slaughtered for food.

If you are comfortable with forcing women to give birth to their rapist's children, then I certainly cannot share such a view of human flourishing.

I wouldn't want to force a child to grow up knowing that they are the unwanted result of unspeakable violence. If you do, so be it.

Sure, you can caricature secular morals as "the easy way out." It certainly is easy to tell a woman that she has to raise a child she didn't want. It certainly is easy to have an embryo grow into a person regardless of the psychological consequences of being the product of rape.

“Pretty sure that an embryo cannot suffer, no more than a cow or a chicken slaughtered for food.See hee is the thing, regardless of whether there is suffering or not, a human being is a human being and if we know that, then we are morally bound to not to kill it. That's what I am saying Mr. Bercero by an amoral perspective. You would sacrifice a human life because it is virtually invisible to you and is not useful. Was I ever wrong in saying that about you after all?If you are comfortable with forcing women to give birth to their rapist's children, then I certainly cannot share such a view of human flourishing.Who made you the judge of what is and isn't acceptable to women who get raped to raise a child born out of that? As I said, there are whole books written about abortion survivors and about women who are forever ridden with guilt for aborting a baby that was a result of rape! Fact is, your utilitarian view can't grasp this.I wouldn't want to force a child to grow up knowing that they are the unwanted result of unspeakable violence. If you do, so be it”

I would also support organ transfer from bodies with no hope of recovering from brain death. This stems from ethical reasoning and moral concern for persons capable of suffering and experiencing further well-being. The principle is not based on the usefulness of a being, but in their capacity for conscious experience. No conscious experience = no moral value. Rocks have no conscious experience. Rocks have no moral value. Individual cells have no conscious experience. They have no moral value. It is not troublesome if you lose cells with every scratch of an itch.You seem to think you are the “judge of what is and what isn't acceptable.” You think books you've read about women happy to raise rape babies diminishes the right of other women against raising rape babies?

“I would also support organ transfer from bodies with no hope of recovering from brain death. This stems from ethical reasoning and moral concern for persons capable of suffering and experiencing further well-being. The principle is not based on the usefulness of a being, but in their capacity for conscious experience.”Who made you the judge of whether you should or should not kill a person? You have a moral concern based on YOUR morality. This is exactly what I am saying that an atheist has no higher moral standards wherein to base his morality. So in other words your morality is based on greater good… that is utilitarian. When you say capacity of conscious experience, isn't that double speak for usefulness? I mean really, to you a human being is only worth his weight in conscious experience… i don't know but that sure sounds like a utilitarian morality to me.

Utilitarian seems to mean to you “evil” and “amoral” when it is a moral philosophy that intends universal applicability. It's not my morality, since it's based on facts of nature that I have no control over. I don't decide whether rocks can feel. I don't decide whether chickens can suffer.A conscious person does not have to be socially useful to be worthy of ethical consideration. Your insinuations fall flat. You ought to argue against the principle not against some caricature of it.

Your criteria is capability of conscious experience… right? I never said socially useful, I said just useful. Human Capable of Conscious experience=human, Human incapable of conscious experience=useless human… can kill useless humancorrect me if I am wrong…”Utilitarian seems to mean to you \”evil\” and \”amoral\”only as it pertains to determining whether one lives or dieswhen it is a moral philosophy that intends universal applicability. It's notmymorality, since it's based on facts of nature that I have no control over.”oh but it is because it is not the philosophy that kills but the person practicing that philosophy!

Well, certainly not useless, we can harvest organs from brain dead bodies that have no hope of recovery. I have no qualms with such a system. Certainly, conscious beings will benefit from the misfortune of others. Organ donation is badly needed.Anyway, your caricature of utilitarianism is so grossly misinformed that it's not even coherent. Utilitarianism is an ethical framework that tries to determine what moral acts ought to be based on their consequences towards well-being or suffering. It is not your “determining whether one lives or dies” pastiche.In any case, a Kantian could still be an atheist but be more strict about not killing or not lying. This would obviate your claim that one needs to be someone like you.

//Who made you the judge of what is and isn't acceptable to women who get raped to raise a child born out of that?//

Certainly not you, dickie, or me for that matter. That remains the woman's choice.

//As I said, there are whole books written about abortion survivors and about women who are forever ridden with guilt for aborting a baby that was a result of rape!//

Debunked, my friend.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/03/06/437638…
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/03/oft-cited…

//What about post-abortion suffering and what about the aborted human being, who avoids that suffering?//

If you're referring to abortion and the supposed long-term mental problems it effects in women, the latest study regarding the connection has already been debunked.
http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/stu…
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/05/1071420/…

//How do you know that women who decide to keep babies who are product of rape will suffer?//

Strawman argument there, Dickie.

We're talking about giving the women the CHOICE of aborting a pregnancy resulting from rape, meaning women who decide to carry their pregnancy to term shouldn't even be part of the discussion.

It's clear that Garrick was referring to women who do NOT want to carry the child to term:

"Forcing a woman to go through with the pregnancy due to a rapist inflicts suffering on both mother and the person that fetus will grow up to be. "

“I have neither control nor concern for how other people have been rude to you. That is between you and them.”Considering that it is your organization and your forum, I am surprised you would readily wash your hands off this responsibility. When we run our organization and when we have fora like these, rules of decorum are usually enforced. It is telling then that the 'ethics” you speak of does not start at your own doorstep. Your default answer is always “you will not be taken seriously” but tell me, with a closer scrutiny of FFt articles that I address in my blog, would you consider that intelligent or well researched? You're a molecular biologist right, would you get away that kind of sloppy presentation in any of your scientific conferences or journals. I know that opinions are not at all similar to journal papers but my point is that if your pride yourselves in qualities that you say we are not, like being intelligent, reasonable, scientific and ethical then why is it that when it comes to the things written about the church, it does not show? Mr. Bercero, if you are truly sincere in your motives, then you should see to it that the venue by which you make them known, your organization, members and writings reflect this. Otherwise it is merely double speak. I can intelligently discuss topics that concern faith and morals but only if the topics are written in a manner fitting that of intelligent and civilized discussion.

It may come a shock to you that we do not operate on totalitarian thought policing principles. Members are free to be wrong as long as they argue on the basis of reason and evidence.

“Members are free to be wrong…” but that is not what decorum or demeanor means does it? It does not take a dictator to determine what is proper and what isn't. Is this part of freethinking that you are free to say and blurt out anything that comes out of your mouth regardless of how offensive or false it is?good day.

Being offended is not an argument against a proposition.

I would ask of you the same thing, Dickie.

"KSP kawawa naman talaga… ok here it is, okay ka na? "

"Humihirit ka pa eh nakatago naman ang buntot mo sa ilalim ng iyong puet?"

"Isa pang KSP… Kawawa!"

"Wow tough guy huh?"

"How does this relate to red Tani'a este Tani's lies?"

And many, many, many more.

Dickie, Is this part of being a real Catholic that you are free to say and blurt out anything that comes out of your mouth regardless of how offensive or false it is?

How about this quote:Shouldn’t they be doing more?” ,,,“Anything short of this would cast doubt on Tagle’s statement that the calamity “saddens us and breaks our hearts.” Tagle would also be a hypocrite. How can someone encourage people to have simple Christmas parties or remember “Jesus who became poor” while he has P17 billion he could share?Tagle 17 billion?? It's my turn to ask you “are we suppose to take this seriously?” For heavens sake, this isn't even the least bit accurate. Do you mean to tell me that you guys actually believe that an archbishop owns whatever money the archdiocese has? Do you expect me to believe that you don't know how moneys in large institutions go around and are disbursed or how any amounts were ever acquired. PArdon my candor but this kind of article is befitting of a tabloid and not of an organization that you claim you are part of. That is why my question to you is how can a bright fellow like you accept wholeheartedly to be linked/part/founder of such a group that churns this kind of stuff out?Good day!

You mean he doesn't even have a say on where that money goes? Not even the capacity to suggest using that money for humanitarian purposes?

The archbishop does not have the sole say on where the money goes. In every diocese, there is a financial committee that determines the disbursement of funds. You have to understand that the money is not under the archbishops name and he is not a sole signatory of those funds. See a little research may have clarified this… He certainly has the capacity to suggest where it should be given but tell me something, if you had an institution that has as big as involvement as the church, would you pour out all your chest into one calamity? Isn't that rather ridiculous and gross mismanagement owing to the fact that the amount of money that is given to the church is varies greatly from year to year. Did you also consider the fact that some of the alleged billions are actually stock, bonds and moneys held in trust wherein the principal cannot be touched as per agreement with benefactors? Are you aware that some the so-called stocks that the church owns in various corporations are trust donations or legacy shares that have been around for decades or hundreds of years.

The fatal flaw in this is that you assume that the article proposed using ALL the money. "if you had an institution that has as big as involvement as the church, would you pour out all your chest into one calamity"

The fatal flaw in this is that you assume that the article proposed using ALL the money. “if you had an institution that has as big as involvement as the church, would you pour out all your chest into one calamity”Oh come on you know that this was being alluded to or at least his (Tani's) point was He had billions and billions…. Fatal flaw yet you never addressed if indeed the Bishop really owned that kind of money or could in fact rightfully disburse it.

"Oh come on you know that this was being alluded to or at least his (Tani's) point was He had billions and billions"

I really don't know how you can claim knowledge of what's inside other people's heads.

Tagle needs only to have the power to suggest where that money should go in order for the argument to take hold. It's not even necessary that he's the only person that needs to sign off on it. It is only necessary that he is the leader of the body that controls that money.

The President of the Philippines does not have the "sole say" in passing bills, but this does not refute any criticism of a president's inaction toward a certain bill's passing.

The argument fails if you assert that Tagle has absolutely no say in the money. If present evidence that this is the case, then the argument fails.

“I really don't know how you can claim knowledge of what's inside other people's heads.”My friend, you're trying too hard to be logical. It does not take logic to judge someone's character, it takes experience.

Such a position is irrational.

How can you judge someone's character without evidence? How can you reach conclusions without using logic?

A persons character is judged not through logic but through common sense. One may be using logic to gather and analyze the data of a persons character but the ultimate judge is not a logical analysis, it's a common-sense. If you only use logic you are apt to misjudge a persons character. When I am able to “tell” what my kids will do whether good or bad, I do not crunch the data in my head in a logical manner, I go through my experience and make a decision based on my common sense! If my child asks for permission to go out maybe then I would use my logic to determine whether or not to allow him.

I will repeat here. Good and bad are determined through logic, even by your own magisterium. The Thomist ethical framework uses logic and reasoning not "common sense."

I agree with you that in an analysis of good and bad you use logic but we were talking about actually judging people, you know, the day to day interaction you have when everything your senses perceive help make you form a judgement: voice tone, gestures, body language, attire, appearance, the smile, the frown etc… You over-study things my friend. Sent from my iPhone

Well, it is literally impossible to have a productive discussion with someone who admits not to use evidence or logic and relies on anecdotal and unsubstantiated gut feels and “common sense”.

My friend, common sense is not an illogical method but the practical application of such. While it is okay to try and prove things by logical syllogisms, in reality, you are not a computer whose mind uses binary language. I think what I said is testable in real life, you know the place where people swindle and practice altruism at the same time.

Practical and logical need not be mutually exclusive. Rules of thumb can be practical but still based on solid evidence and logical reasoning. You provide neither in justifying how you are capable of omniscient knowledge of others' inner motives.

//Do you expect me to believe that you don't know how moneys in large institutions go around and are disbursed or how any amounts were ever acquired. PArdon my candor but this kind of article is befitting of a tabloid and not of an organization that you claim you are part of. That is why my question to you is how can a bright fellow like you accept wholeheartedly to be linked/part/founder of such a group that churns this kind of stuff out?//

Be believe you, dude.

I mean, how else is the Church going to pay for all of those uber-expensive legal settlements being raised every time its priests rape kids?

//The material that your group writes about the church is scornful, accusatory and worst of all full of half-truths. //

Says the man who cites the FRC, an organization that's been caught lying on several occasions.

//My Christian witness is not simply to show docility, there is a place for that, my Christian witness is the exposure of lies and their correction. In the process I get scorned and cussed and even given innuendos of threat and the exchange pages will bear me out. //

You're not being cussed because you're a Christian apologist per se, Dickie.

You are getting cussed because you are a hypocrite, a liar, and just plain nasty. You say we're being cruel, and yet you yourself have been caught making juvenile catcalls to FF, such as resorting to making an effeminate version of people's name, or diverting discussions yourself when your sources are shown to be blatantly dishonest.

Yes, I am not going to let go of FRC, Dickie. As much as you love to reference them, you have failed to convince anybody as to why they should be taken seriously, given the overwhelming amount of evidence showing that they are bigoted liars. Evidence, I might add, that you have intentionally ignored since you're being here, because if your own bias.

I will make it a sticking point every time you say something, until you actually man up, and admit that your source is bullshit.

Ron De Vera also caught you lying several occasions during your exchange with him.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/ffreethinkers/per…

But instead of facing up the the charges – which I might add are well-documented – you instead launch into more vitriol about how you're being proverbially "crucified" for "speaking the truth."

The truth of the matter is, Dickie, is that you're a dishonest asshole.

You are not fooling anybody with your persecution card. Schadenfreude.

(Addendum)

You say your motivation stems from the desire to correct. But this entails actually pointing out what and why things are in error. Instead, you simply call everything here "lies" without any argumentation whatsoever. You generalize that the material here is "full of half-truths" without even extending the courtesy of telling us what specific claims are being criticized.

If you ever wonder why people you criticize, whether it's I, Red or whoever, don't respond, it's probably because there's nothing to respond to. Please, have the thoughtfulness of, first, pointing out what specific item is erroneous and, second, presenting why it is erroneous. And, third, don't be uncharitable about it. Don't automatically assume that any error is malicious.

In rancorously and sweepingly generalizing everything here as "lies," you belie any supposed intention of "correction."

//Sometimes the only way to communicate with people who are that way is to talk the lingo they know. //

You don't sound like anybody I know, Dickie.

I talk about your lies on mother teresa and you send me a link of priestly abuse. How dies that address my statement? Besides show me any post of mine where I ever defended or denied the occurrence of sexual abuse. If you're trying to taunt me so be it perhaps you have nothing better to do with your life than that.Sent from my iPhone

//I talk about your lies on mother teresa and you send me a link of priestly abuse.//

You mentioned a blatant lie – "I am trying to correct a grave misunderstanding and a blatant lie against Catholics and the church" – so I posted links to your own church's blatant lies.

But since you mentioned Mother Teresa, I can do that too 🙂
http://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/book-review-…
http://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/hemley-gonza…

//Besides show me any post of mine where I ever defended or denied the occurrence of sexual abuse.//

To be fair, you didn't – we agreed that these priests should be brought to justice. Even a broken clock is right at least once a day.

That doesn't really change the fact that you continue to defend your church even knowing that it systematically protects offenders, however.

And then there's you attempting to split hairs over the Church's longstanding agenda against the LGBT community and women.

//If you're trying to taunt me so be it perhaps you have nothing better to do with your life than that.//

Oh please, dear. It's not all about you.

Hold on, how can he still speak with his head still in his ass? In fact, how can he even speak since his eyes are obstructed by his butt-cheeks? It's just not scientifically possible! Is this a medical miracle inspired by Human Centipede?

Christianity Is not meant to be a private affair which is not to mean that it should be preachy either. It is a faith that should integrate with ones work life and public life. It is an erroneous notion that Christianity has no place in the public square. The freedom to practice ones faith is guaranteed by the constitution wherever and whenever it is as long as it does not curtail other peoples rights.Sent from my iPhone

//The freedom to practice ones faith is guaranteed by the constitution wherever and whenever it is as long as it does not curtail other peoples rights.//

Tell that to you on church, my good man 😉
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2011…
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/06/22/…