Don't Force Your Niqab On Us, CBCP

It's supposed to be a personal choice.

(Courtesy of onislam.net)

Did you hear about the woman in Egypt who was assaulted and whose hair was forcibly cut?

On Sunday, a Christian woman had her hairstyle forcibly changed by two women in Egypt (who happened to be wearing niqabs), in an apparent attempt to instill the notion that ALL Egyptian women should be wearing the niqab when in public.

(See http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/women-assault-cut-hair-christian-woman-metro for more details.)

The niqab is the veil or face covering that Islam requires of its' female members to wear in certain instances. (Not to be confused with the burka.)

The Christian woman was called an "infidel", and was pushed off the train (they were in the metro/train station) which broke her arm.

It brought to my mind what the CBCP is doing in our own country.

Specifically, with the RH Bill.

You see, the niqab wearing women confused their religious choice as being the standard to follow for all of Egypt - it has been established that the woman they assaulted was a Christian, but that didn't matter one whit to them: all they can think of was, if you are a woman in Egypt, you should wear a niqab.

Similarly, our bishops are confusing the entire Philippines as being Catholic.

They don't seem to care that under our form of government, a democracy that is secular in nature, anyone is free to choose their religion. It means you can choose to be a Catholic. It also means you can choose to be a non-Catholic, however that fact is manifested (one chooses another religion or no religion at all).

Once these facts are clearly established, it becomes incomprehensible why the CBCP is so adamant in insisting that their view on the RH Bill - particularly as to which forms of contraception they deem "acceptable" and "moral" - is the only "way to go".

I think it's because they have gotten away with it for so long, this "unchallenged" position that they have occupied in this country as the religious majority.

They don't care that this country has a sizable religious minority. They make threats - both veiled and obvious - to our lawmakers regarding their political mortality if they will approve of the RH Bill. The lawmakers who are against the bill have reasons like "it is against our faith", clearly a statement of intolerance, one that presumes and assumes that we have a uniform faith and a singular religion.

Being the religious majority does not give you the right to run roughshod over everyone else, the way these two Islamic women in Egypt broke the arm of the Christian woman.

Being the religious majority does not give you the right to assault our beliefs or non-belief as "immoral", the way these two Islamic women in Egypt thought of the Christian woman for not wearing a niqab..

Being the religious majority does not give you the right to change the laws in this land to suit your taste, the way these two Islamic women in Egypt tried to change the Christian woman's hairstyle.

Don't force your niqab on us.

More Right Than Others

Solemn or intrusive?

(Courtesy of scientificamerican.com)

The recent editorial of The Varsitarian was hardly something surprising to someone who has been labeled an outcast by the religious majority of this country.

It is symptomatic of what can really be described as religious superiority, only this time, being asserted on those who are deemed to have strayed from "the one true path", by the ones who think they are truly faithful.

It begs a question that I have long asked, whenever the ugly condescension I experienced  from those of this country's dominant religion would raise its ugly (though bejewelled) head:

Since when did one's faith become a matter of public discourse and policy?

In this latest incarnation, the school paper of the University of Santo Tomas sought to publicly castigate the professors from two other universities, Ateneo de Manila and De La Salle, who have declared their support for the Reproductive Health Bill. The position papers of these professors made it clear that they were doing this apart from the official stances of their respective institutions.

As a non-Catholic, all I can do is chuckle at the faith infighting because what it all boils down to me is this: I am more Catholic than you are.

I am more religious than you are.

I am better than you are.

The fact that one party is addressing this to people who belong to the same faith lends it a rather comical air. I grew up basically on the same receiving end of this stick, as someone who is not Catholic, and from what I have seen all my life as the actions of certain Catholics - who unfortunately are its so-called leaders - I won't be inclined to join its ranks for the forseeable future. 

I recently read that some local Catholic officials are decrying the lack of enthusiasm of the younger generation for the faith they represent, and this was even briefly touched on by the Varsitarian editorial. So, if even the hierarchy admits that they have somehow lost their luster with the people who will be the eventual torchbearers of the faith, you don't have to imagine how outsiders like me look at the current state of Catholicism.

I have friends from all three universities, and the response from all of them - no exceptions - is that they regret this had to come to pass, and are one in denouncing, in their own ways, the level and tone of writing of the editorial in question. Those who come from UST are the most expressive, with the common theme centering on "this doesn't represent the majority of UST students!"

Let me be clear: I have always held the position that in a democracy, one's faith - if one chooses from the many faiths competing for membership - should be a matter of privacy, borne out of personal conviction and contemplation. 

It has always come as a shock to me when anyone uses their faith - a personal, private matter and affair - to insult, denigrate, humiliate and shame others who should necessarily be entitled to the same choice.

This use of Catholicism as a weapon to bend others to its will is so pervasive, no one even questions our legislators who say "I can't approve of the Reproductive Health Bill because it is against my religion": the inability to separate secular matters from personal faith is so ingrained that anyone who dares question this state of public affairs is seen as "offensive". (I'm sure non-Catholics like myself are labeled much worse, seeing as how the editorial calls other Catholics as "interlopers" and "lemons".) 

Until we impress the idea that faith should be a private decision, it will continue to interfere with public policy, laws and even our very interactions.

And sadly, faiths, which are supposedly sources of love, acceptance and compassion, will continue being the very thing they are supposed to be railing against.

All because they wish to prove how right they are.

Well, more right than anyone outside their faith. And even to some within their own.

Now, About These Bills...

Yes, this is directed to both Houses of Congress.

Where are you going?

(Courtesy of apgovernment2010.yolasite.com)

The past few days have been all about R.A. 10175, otherwise known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. Since some of the legislators who approved this bill are rushing to amend it, and given the overwhelming reaction of the public - a negative one, in case this needs to be spelled out - on top of the fact that the United Nations has declared internet freedom a basic human right, and add to that the many lawyers/groups who have gone to the Supreme Court to address this, we can safely assume that this bill was not fleshed out thoroughly.

And since the President has signed this, it's now a law, not just a bill.

What astonished many people - myself included - was the ease and speed by which this bill was approved. The only conclusion any rational person can come up with is that if there is political will, it can be done. If the legislators want to approve something, they can do it - see how quickly this bill was sent to the President for his signature.

So, may we direct your attention to these bills? And we ask that you act on them with the same swiftness and ferocity that you rushed the Cybercrime Prevention Act by us. Napabilib nyo kami sa bilis nyo, sana ganito din kayo sa mga ito. 

1. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL

This bill has not just been languishing in Congress for more than a decade, it's set up house, is done watching Home Along The Riles and has moved on to Korea-novelas, and has its feet up on the couch, with the rollers permanently glued in its hair.

How can we say this with finesse...oh, right: VOTE ON IT ALREADY!

Both sides have kicked around this political football, or more appropriately for us, dribbled this political basketball back and forth, with no one ever sinking a basket. Stop the period of amendments already. We, the citizens, are tired of it. What we want is an answer. Yes or no. Approve it or discard it.

Stop airing your grievances in public, wringing out sympathy, and whatnot. Desist from making veiled utterances like "at its current state, it won't have a chance of being approved" and...what's the phrase again...oh yes: VOTE ON IT ALREADY!

Let the record show who voted for and against it, as well as why.

Do this NOW so the people will judge you come election day.

You have NO REASON to delay this, given how fast you approved the Cybercrime Prevention Act.

2. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION BILL

What we, the citizens of a democratic country, want is accountability from our public officials. The only way we can ensure this is if government transactions and records are available to the public for scrutiny and review.

It may be time for a social science lesson: in a democracy, the power lies in its citizens, not public officials, who are also called public servants. So it makes sense that when the boss (that's us) gives you money (our taxes/your salary) to do a job (file bills), we have the right to know what it is you've been doing, yes?

Unless you want to contest this basic structure of democracy?

This bill will make it easier to see who's been sleeping on the job, or worse, stealing from public coffers or tampering anything illegally.

This bill is the one we want. We did not ask for a bill that will stifle our right to speak.

In case that wasn't clear, we are making it exceedingly crystal clear now.

--------------------

While we're at this, here's one thing we also want to ask:

Did you know that political dynasties are PROHIBITED by our Constitution? Eto ang nakasulat:

"The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law." (Section 26, Article II, 1987 Philippine Constitution)

If our law still hasn't defined it since 1987, can we do it now, ASAP?

We ask these questions because of the lineup being offered by "parties" - the quotes are used to distinguish it from the political parties in places like the USA, where these are anchored by issues and not personalities or name recognition - which seem to suggest that there is no such "thing" in our Constitution.

What will it take for this prohibition to be actualized in real life?

Nagtatanong lang po.

On Lady Gaga And The RH Bill

Unless you've been living under a rock these past few years, you would know who Lady Gaga is by now. Her "blood soaked" performance at the Grammy Awards, the sure-to-be-talked about "clothes" (the meat dress, the bubble wrap ensemble, literally wearing Kermit the Frog), her music videos that leave viewers wondering "What the...?!?". Anything and everything she does is almost guaranteed to keep people buzzing.

She's not blood soaked here.

(Courtesy of izismile.com)

As a child of this generation, the pop star has utilized platforms like Facebook and Twitter almost fully to her advantage: based on sheer online influence and reach, last year, she was named Time Magazine's Most Powerful Celebrity, knocking Oprah Winfrey off the top spot. It underscores the importance of social media in this day and age. (News for news and other media outfits who are still not on the cyberspace wagon: Get on it. Remember the dinosaurs.)

In what universe would she and the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill be sharing the same space?

The unlikely answer comes from Indonesia.

News reports have indicated that Indonesian authorities have revoked Lady Gaga's license to perform in that country (she was slated to perform there in June as part of her Born This Way Ball tour) after preselling 30,000 concert tickets. The reason: three Islamic groups have registered their protest and displeasure at the upcoming event, accusing the singer of promoting "satanic teaching".

(More here: http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/entertainment/05/15/12/lady-gaga-gagged-indonesia-after-islamic-opposition)

I initially dismissed the news item as a sad consequence of living in a theocratic country, until I read it further: did you know that Indonesia is a secular state?

Just like we are. Supposedly. But reading another news item yesterday - a priest urging people not to vote for lawmakers who support the RH Bill in 2013 - I began to see that, however unlikely, Lady Gaga and the RH Bill are actually occupying the same boat, on a route to nowhere. All because they both offend the sensibilities of a particular religious group.

Ever since our colonization from Spain, we have been subjugated by one sector long after the Spaniards have left us, and that is the Catholic Church. They have been so interwoven into our lives, they are already considered part of Philippine "culture", and no one blinks anymore at their blatantly direct involvement in politics. You can't get any more "direct" than stating to your religious flock who not to vote for.

As if you needed more proof of this meddling, the RH Bill has been languishing in Congress for decades. The most vociferous critic of the proposed measure is the said religion, with both overt and implied threats of their "voting power", rendering legislators largely immobilized by fear that they won't be voted into power for another term.

Most of the opposition of the Catholic Church stems from its reading of the RH Bill as a measure that supposedly will push people into having sexual encounters 24 hours a day, because artificial contraception is the "hidden" agenda of the bill. Online commenters who openly oppose the bill on the same religious grounds usually have the same retort: Bakit? Makakain ba ang condoms?!? (Can condoms be eaten?!?) It proves that there is a myopic, constricted view of what the bill is all about: sex.

It's not so different from one of the Indonesian religious leaders protesting Lady Gaga, who said that "she's a vulgar singer who wears only panties and a bra when she sings".

This obsession about sex reminds me of a statement by Stephen Fry, comparing it with people on a restricted food diet, who, because of the unnatural state, are naturally the ones most obsessed about food.

Dieters don't expect everyone else to go on the same restriction just because they voluntarily do it, do they? This analogy pretty much answers which group is most obsessed about sex.

Reading through the RH Bill and its provisions (there are several sites online that you can peruse), it is overwhelmingly a bill that pushes for education about reproductive health, and a measure that respects people's choices, religion being one of the bases for those choices. It will not, as one comment I've read puts it so animatedly, "sasaksakin yung condoms sa baga natin" (shove the condoms down our lungs).

But then again, most of the major world religions are not fond of the terms "education" and "choice". How could they, when they all insist that their body of knowledge - such as it is - is the only way to go, and any deviation from their religious code is an affront to their deity and beliefs?

At least, in Lady Gaga's case, all that will be affected will be her ticket sales. She earned $90 million last year, so I doubt her non-concert in Indonesia will cause a blip in her financial standing.

But what is the cost for the non passage of the RH Bill? We now have the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Southeast Asia. I saw a newsmagazine show over the weekend that featured a town filled with teenage moms, one of whom was still playing with dolls because she was still a child herself, barely a teenager.

Without education, there is no way people can arm themselves.

And as for choice? Well, the 30,000 tickets that were presold proves that Lady Gaga has fans even in conservative Indonesia. Similarly, in survey after survey conducted by reputable firms, people in "the Catholic bastion of Asia" favor the passage of the RH Bill.

People can live without seeing a Lady Gaga concert.

Wearing animal rights on your sleeve. Or body.

(Courtesy of squidoo.com)

But people are dying needlessly while the RH Bill gets kicked around as a political-religious football.

It is time for the government to score a goal for the RH Bill.

This "Bulaga" Doesn't Come From Sotto

Just when we thought we had heard it all from the anti RH camp.

Now comes the news, really more a nasty surprise (which is what the Filipino word bulaga would approximately mean) from Senator Alan Peter Cayetano, who, as of last count, was one of the senators against the RH Bill. (Ironically, his sister, Pia, also a senator, is one of the two main proponents in the Senate of the same bill. The title of this post is a reference to vocal anti-RH Senator Sotto, who was a mainstay of the noontime variety show "Eat Bulaga!", before heading out to more, uhm, legislative pastures.)

(Photo courtesy of inquirer.net)

Cayetano wants the RH Bill to be "supported" by the Catholic Church, on the grounds that the Philippines is "a country where majority of the population is Catholic". (See the article here: )
http://www.philstar.com/nation/article.aspx?articleid=731807)

The senator is lighting the fuse on something that should not even be on the table.

In a way, I am "glad" he brought this out, as it gives everyone a chance to see, once and for all, why he is hideously wrong in bringing this point up. And I am coming from the perspective of someone who has never been a Catholic, which makes my voice the perfect counterbalance to what the senator is suggesting.

To Senator Alan Cayetano:

I am a citizen of this country.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this country has a democratic form of government. One of the basic tenets of democracy is the Separation of State and Church, and one of the freedoms we enjoy is the freedom of religion. I would think that you, a Senator of this Republic, would know this first hand, seeing as the position you now enjoy is a result of a largely convoluted but still democratic process.

Your contention that the RH Bill should be "supported" by the Catholic Church is thrusting an unnecessary spear into my freedom to choose a religion of my own. If what you want should come to pass, you will unwittingly make me, nay, FORCE me to become a Catholic, against my wishes. Why should I be subjected to rules and regulations that, supposedly, are only under the jurisdiction of a particular faith - the Catholic one, specifically - when I do not wish to become a Catholic in the first place?

Many belief systems, faiths and paradigms do not find it "immoral" to use artificial contraception. But with your proposal, you would be empowering the Catholic Church in this country to dictate and impose its own religious views onto those who have elected - freely, under a democracy - to follow other faiths. That is a clear contravention into my right and freedom to have my own faith.

Also, this position of yours blurs the line between State and Church. Aren't religions, in a secular, democratic form of government, supposed to follow our secular laws? I would think that if any religion were to practice cannibalism or child molestation, and claim that these were not "answerable" to secular authorities, under the perverted mantle and guise of reasoning out that "our religion calls for it, we only answer to OUR God, we have freedom of religion!", not only would we find this monumentally laughable, but extremely offensive and of the highest disrespect for the secular laws of our land as embodied in the Constitution, particularly those that seek to punish murderers and pedophiles.

But this is exactly what you are doing, by saying that before the RH Bill is to be passed, that it should be "supported" by the Catholic Church. On what grounds should we consider the Catholic position on this, and any other matter, superior to the stand of other faiths, when the entire point of having freedom of religion is to enforce the legal truth in a democracy that no faith should be given preferential treatment, and should not even be a "deciding factor" when it comes to discussing secular matters? Should President Noynoy Aquino now pay homage to our bishops and subsume his decisions in deference to their preferences?

Your suggestion is, at its core, proposing a radical shift in our form of government; if you cut out any rationalizations, you are essentially endorsing a Catholic theocracy, where what Catholic leaders say become the law of the land, where no bill can be passed without their "support".

If that is what you wish, you may renounce your citizenship to this democratic country and move to the Vatican.

Until we officially become that theocracy, you would be well reminded of the FACT that this is still a democracy, and are a direct beneficiary of that form of government. You do not have the right to disregard me, or any one else who does not share the Catholic faith, on account of Catholics being the majority. In fact, BECAUSE this is a democracy, you actually have to make sure that those in the minority are to be heard and are to be included in any and all secular decision making laws and agenda.

You work for the citizens of this country, the Republic of the Philippines. You DO NOT work for the Catholic Church. You are obligated to us, not to them.

Do not just hear these words.

Listen.

Debate The RH Bill - In Any Language

Last week, the major dailies were all abuzz with one particular news about the RH (Reproductive Health) Bill debates: Actor-turned-Senator Manuelito "Lito" Lapid publicly acknowledging his weakness in English, and therefore his hesitation to go further into the RH Bill debates, since English will be considered "the" language to be used for questioning and interpellation. (See http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/62167/sen-lapid-dying-to-enter-rh-bill-debates-but-pia-miriam-scare-him)

(Photo courtesy of newsaroundus.com)

He is particularly hesitant to go head to head with two lady senators who have been at the forefront of chamipioning the RH Bill, Senators Miraim Defensor-Santiago and Pia Cayetano. Santiago, in particular, is well known for her sting with the use of the English language.

I say go ahead and let him debate in Filipino (which is Tagalog in terms of dialect, much to the frustration of the other dialects in the country).

Language should not be used to hinder someone from participating in something of such importance. That sounds to me as something "elitists" would do, and this Bill concerns ALL Filipinos, so the more people involved in the debate, the better. As a Senator - one I did not vote for, but he is one - he should make his voice known, if only to represent the people who did vote for him.

Both Santiago and Cayetano have said that they find no issue if he decides to use Filipino to engage them in debates.

Personally, I welcome it because I admit as well my weakness in the national language (one of them, since both Filipino and English are considered our national languages). I do not like learning it from inane telenovelas and local dramas, because while some of them may use terms I have never heard before, the insipid plotlines and endless caterwauling make my teeth literally hurt, and it's all I can do to stand through 5 minutes of the same drivel in every channel, every night, over and over.

I welcome the chance to learn it, as it will be used in discussions of a bill that I have great interest in - and most Filipinos should have that same interest as well, given how almost everyone I know has an opinion or something to say about it, nowadays.

One of the considerations switching from language to language is that some of the nuances and "hidden meanings" may be lost as they try to communicate in different ways. But that works both ways: an English speaking senator like Santiago would also find it hard to put her points across in Filipino without losing some of its intended meaning in English - that is both the bane and boon of languages.

And while I remember being punished severely as a youngster for speaking in "Taglish" (a bastardized form of speaking in English and Filipino intermittently) - my mom would always reprimand us that we should either speak in straight English or Filipino - this is one instance where the form should pay homage to substance, and if using "Taglish" will be something that will communicate an idea better without losing much of the translation for what the speaker intends to say, then I am all for it.

What would be deplorable, given this leeway, is if there is no substance behind the form.

Our senators should remember that the RH Bill is also a measure that respects ALL religions - and I know this acutely well, being a non-Catholic. I know exactly when something is being imposed on me, it is something I have lived with all my life in a country that proudly carries its "we are true blooded Catholic" credentials. (My past blogposts already relay this in more detail.) An overwhelming amount of the opposition to the RH Bill had been based on religious views, specifically the Catholic view that is it "immoral" to use or promote artificial contraception.

Our senators would do well to remember that our government is still a democracy, NOT a Catholic theocracy. The tenets and practices of one religion should NOT be forced  and enforced on others who do not share this particular faith. Many Catholics themselves are supportive of the RH Bill, if we go by current, scientific surveys. How they resolve this with the statements of their anti-RH leaders is a matter of personal choice, faith and conscience. I find it odd that that those who are rabid in opposing the RH Bill based on their faith keep invoking the "freedom of religion" as their basis for opposing it - while seeing nothing hypocritical about what they wish to happen as being disrespectful to others who do not share the same faith and see nothing wrong with using artificial contraception.

The RH Bill is a PUBLIC HEALTH issue. Period. Our lawmakers should keep this in mind when they make their debates and their decisions about the bill.

In whatever language.

Vote Already!

This is an open letter to our senators, many of whom I did not vote for, but nonetheless wield the power to either enact the RH (Reproductive Health) Bill into law or consign it to even more years languishing where it has been all these years: the back burner, never to see the light of day.

(Image courtesy of dinoacuna.wordpress.com)

Listen to the people, Senators.

Survey after survey have stated the same thing: Majority of this country wish to see the RH Bill approved. (http://m.gmanews.tv/story/207185/pulse-asia-69-of-filipinos-agree-with-rh-bill) These are polls done by reputable surveying organizations, not those hired by religious groups with a stake in these RH discussions.

As OUR representatives, you are REQUIRED to take all of our voices into account whenever you craft your pieces of legislation. You must consider what will benefit most, if not all of the people that you are serving.

I will take this moment to remind you: you are PUBLIC SERVANTS.

You are not in your positions to enrich yourselves at our expense. You are not there to lecture us about the particular tenets of your personal religions. You are there, imbued with power and being accorded respect based on your position, a secular one, on the assumption that you will do what will benefit this country. You are there to ensure that no particular religion gets to railroad this process into what suits their particular "morality" the best.

Let me also remind you: you are there to PROTECT freedom of religion.

The choices you make and the decisions and bills you will vote upon must predicate on this basic tenet of democracy and of our Constitution. There should be no establishment of a particular religion as supreme or revered when laws are made. They should respect the right of people to have their own religion while making decisions freely based on their own volition, in matters relating to reproductive health, planning their family size, and having correct, scientific and factual information regarding their own health and their own bodies.

This bill has been an "almost" for years. We cannot go by a discussion of the RH Bill without mentioning, even in passing, the Catholic Church, particularly its arm known as the CBCP (Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines), which has been leading the charge in opposing the RH Bill. They are entitled to their own opinion, but kindly remember, they do not have the monopoly on the word "morality". Many of the stances that this particular religion embraces are considered offensive by other people who draw their morality from other, equally valid sources. They are certainly not the authority when it comes to medical information and scientific facts, so do not use studies conducted by the CBCP as your "be-all", especially with something as important as the RH Bill.

More than anything, the RH Bill recognizes the many dangers that women face in childbirth, induced and illegal abortions, as well as maternal deaths. This bill will provide services and personnel that will address many of these concerns. There is no "perfect" bill, everything can still be further improved. But the longer you wait to "continue discussing and listening to other arguments", mothers are continually dying needlessly from dangerous childbirths. Teenagers are risking both their bodies and their futures with unintended pregnancies. Many of our citizens, particularly those at a financial disadvantage, engage in dubious and questionable practices because they do not have access to correct and factual information.

Population is our greatest resource, say those who oppose the bill. They even cite the remittances of the OFWs (Overseas Filipino Workers) as proof of this. Do you think our people wish to be away from their families in order to improve their station in life? There are not enough jobs to offer our people, and even if they are available, the wage they will provide is not enough to cover even the most basic of necessities for a family that has more than 6 members. And how can a person contribute to this country's development if they are suffering from malnutrition because there is no money to feed him and his 9 other siblings? Even if education is covered by the government, children are forced to stop schooling because parents need the older ones to help provide enough income for the entire family, which continues to grow day after day.

This is not a picture of a population that contributes to our country.

But this is what is happening right here, right now. Just take a look at the children scrounging around for trash or selling sampaguita flowers by the road, when they should be in school. Only the most callous of people will say they haven't seen one of these children.

You have had enough time to study the merits and the disadvantages of this bill. Do not bide your time, just to see how the political climate will sway. Do not "protect" your vote in an attempt to incur favor with a particular religious group. At the end of the day, we are in a secular society with a democratic form of government.

(Photo courtesy of philnews.com)

You are there to serve ALL Filipinos, regardless of religious affiliation.

VOTE ON THE RH BILL ALREADY!

Signed,
A Citizen of this Country