Social Justice

Unlike what the carefully crafted Palace statement implies, the Philippines is not exactly a safe haven for women.

The official news website of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) recently published an article titled "Church and state: Why can't they be friends?" which tells of the Pope's warning on the dangers of secularism. The following are some key excerpts pertinent to the Philippine situation and worthy of analysis, in an attempt to answer the title question why the church and state can't indeed be friends.

In the aftermath of the 2011 Miss Universe, the most oft-discussed question in the internet is: Did Shamcey’s “Love My God” answer cost her the crown?

One of the arguments against legislating divorce in the Philippines is that spouses will no longer promise to love each other...

Let me be clear here: the CBCP wants to turn RA 10066, a law that protects our cultural heritage, into one that stops the further development of our culture. They wish to defile and twist the spirit of a law that has good intentions, the preservation of history, into a monster straight out of the dark ages: a blasphemy law thinly veiled to disguise its horrific effects on the freedom of expression.

Session time is secular time is precious time. And I can't think of a worse way to defend secularism than to argue in favor of accommodating all forms of religious expression altogether. If the members of senate were diverse enough to belong to 10 different religious sects, I wonder how many would still be in favor of hearing each and every one of their prayers before settling down to finally do what their constituents are actually paying them to do.

I would never imagine telling someone that "based on MY faith, you are doing something wrong!". Yet, day after day, I see Catholics who have no problem doing the exact same thing, and frighteningly, on a national scale. They see it as their "business" to meddle with someone who doesn't share the same faith at all!

While satire reveals truths about its target, straw man arguments say less about the target and more about its author. Are the anti-RH so helpless in the face of the real pro-RH position that they're left grasping at straws?

Why can't we learn to respect each other's preferences? Are tolerance and respect such alien and difficult concepts that men who claim to be the arbiters of morality cannot comprehend them on any given level?