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.

You're Right, I Can't Get Pregnant

Think of the future matching this face.

(Courtesy of collegecandy.com)

The title formed my initial response to the person who posed to me a question that seemed easy enough to reply when I was first asked this:

"Bakit ba feel na feel mo ang topic ng RH, di ka naman mabubuntis, diba?" (Why are you so passionate about the RH Bill, it's not like you'll get pregnant, right?)

And, yes, as someone born biologically male, I won't get pregnant soon. Or ever.

On the surface, it seems like a fair question: why would someone (1) who doesn't have ovaries or a uterus, (2) who doesn't know what it feels like when the "regular visitor" comes every month, (3) who will never have to endure the intense agony (to understate it) of giving birth, and (4) will never have to feed anyone off one's body at the oddest hours, be utterly concerned with the right to decide how to plan one's family or the need for sex education to prevent teenage pregnancies?

The more I mulled about this seemingly innocent question, the more it dawned on me that this comprises a big component on why we are having difficulty passing the RH Bill. The question itself is laden with the very sentiment I was having a hard time pinpointing, but which became crystal clear once I spent time trying to answer it in any satisfactory manner.

It's not going to happen to me, so it's not my concern, and it shouldn't be yours, as well.

So, I would like to give a better response to the person who asked me this question, and it starts out with this: Just because I don't know what childbirth feels like doesn't mean I have to make it more difficult - and sometimes even fatal - for those who have to go through it.

I do not have to be a woman to know that they are still marginalized, cast aside, and ignored, their voices largely made out to be shrill when they are screaming in pain, and accused of being bitches whenever they instinctively draw their claws in a desperate attempt to be heard.

It is in the same vein, when I stand with people of color who are still discriminated on the basis of that uncontrollable quality, because I do not have to share color to know what being judged on something uncontrollable feels like.

It is in the same vein, when there is this gnawing ache in me when I hear children are abused - physically, sexually, emotionally - because I was a child once, and while it was not a "perfect" childhood, I was able to experience it without wondering when my very person would next be violated upon in ways that we should not even be thinking of inflicting on adults.

It is in the same vein, when I was told that there is only one "true" religion, that anyone outside of it was to be considered filthy and one who has chosen to wallow in debauchery and insatiable evil, that I found myself intolerant of intolerance, and I could not, in good conscience, call someone "evil" just because they happened to have chosen a different set of guidlines to live their life by.

The sum total of my life experiences - thus far - has led me to many realizations that have strayed far from the lessons that were taught to me as "indisputable" when I began my journey.

We each get one life - this one - and it would be the most hideous of tragedies if you would choose to spend it trying to live up to someone's belief of how you should run it. We are all distinctly, and amazingly unique. Until we realize the gravity and magnificence of that idea, we will still feel the need to belong to the herd, just because it has the cocoon's warmth of safety.

Not everyone will undergo both the joys and travails of childbirth - I am told that it is a package deal - so it is but right that when it does happen, you are prepared, in all ways. This is not a designer bag that you can just return whenever you don't "feel it", and it's certainly not something you can discard and replace it with next season's offering. (Technically, one could, but at a steep emotional cost.)

A child is to be treasured and loved, not someone seen to be contributing to the family income while other children are in school.

A child should never be made to feel like a curse, the heaviest of burdens, the bane of a family and its reason for not making any headway into economic relief.

A child is not to be seen as an extra pair of hands asking for alms.

How can a child be brought up, cared for and provided for, when the parents cannot even do the same for themselves?

It is time to eradicate this cultural insistence on bahala na (let's leave it to fate). Anyone who applies this on an individual level is free to do so - it is your life - but it is terribly unfair and unconscionable to force that world view on someone who is in no capacity to refuse it nor support him or herself.

We do not live in a vaccum.

We should act accordingly. All of us.

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.

That Nefarious RH Bill

Dear Faithful,

We write this message to you on the wings of eternal goodwill. We fervently hope that this finds you well, for the contents of this communication is anything but.

Now is the time when all that we have predicted is coming to pass...Attend now!

Yes, it also caused your baby to bawl.

(Courtesy of drmomma.org)

Yes, we are referring to that nefarious Reproductive Health (RH) Bill!

It must be stopped! It is evil, and it is the handiwork of unearthly creatures! An unprintable document of abominable proportions, it is! Even now, its' influence and reach has found a new nesting place - do not laugh, it is not yet law yet it already has this effect, how dare you think this is a matter of levity! - it has come to roost...in Monsignor Trisngobal Narnia. (MTN - My True Nature)

Have you noticed the timing of that article in International Geographical (IG)? It imputed the good monsignor as someone who advocates the use of "a certain substance" to make religious images! How dare they imply malice on our part! We cannot help it because (1) we didn't kill the animals in the process of collecting "a certain substance", at least not firsthand! (2) we only get quality products, for worship purposes!... and (3) we will show you a way to get "a certain substance" for yourself.

We had nothing but good intentions, and a willingness to be open, but IG paints us in so devious a manner, they have deceived us! We are soiled in the eyes of believers!

A sex case? Nonsense! There is no recording, just the whiny accounts of some imaginative and overactive bell boys! Why, they were the ones who "seduced" MTN! Besides, if it was not meant to happen, it wouldn't have happened! All is predestined! All is well!

Do you now see? The RH Bill is responsible for maligning our good name! Who will you believe...IG? The press? The government? All of them are foreign powers! They seek to destroy our national identity! They seek to inject us with...with...foreign ideas, from foreign sources of foreign lands! We must protect ourselves!...Yes, our faith is also foreign, but it is the harbinger of truth, so it is exempted from this tirade!

What? You dare to doubt how the RH Bill is doing this?

Because we said so! Kneel before us! We are the molders of your morality, we would never lie to you! We would never use an unrelated subject to distract you from what's really happening...of course not! We represent the light, the truth, and all that is good! Yes, the RH Bill is responsible for making you think that MTN has any responsibility for the things he is charged with, and the very reason why we are investigating him! It is nothing but RH propaganda!

If it is not stopped, the RH bill will bring to life your worst nightmares! Thunderstorms, why you slipped on your bathroom floor, the prices of bus fares, an accident on the highway involving 10 cars, world wars...these and so many more are the evil deeds of one thing alone: the RH Bill!

Blame it on the RH Bill!

Stand strong, oh, faithful one!

Rejoice for you now know why you have nothing to eat - yes, it is the RH Bill's fault! - and possession of this truth and knowledge will warm your insides with the force of ten hotel buffets!

We fight, we struggle against it, and we will win!

We will overcome the RH Bill and its notorious effects!

We cannot do it without you, for you are our soldiers, and we fight for righteousness!

Until we see each other again,

Your Moral Leaders.
Unquestionable,
Unassailable, and
Easily Offended.


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


Disclaimer: None of the people, events, places and anything else in the above post is meant to refer to anyone or anything in real life, and any similarities with real people, places, events, etc., are merely coincidental and not intentional.

In other, real news: http://globalnation.inquirer.net/51554/bishops-ivory-sex-abuse-controversies-related-to-rh-bill

The Camsur Envy of RH Bill Advocates

The smackdown that occurred the other day between Senate President Enrile and Senator Trillanes IV could not have been missed by news followers, which had the elements of a telenovela: insults, accusations of backdoor dealings, bombastic speeches, a walkout, and the casting of aspersions on character.

Have you placed your bets?

(Courtesy of untvweb.com)

My, my. What a show.

While social media is bursting at the (cyber) seams with commentaries on why a single senator is representing foreign policy decisions on behalf of our government (which is the gist of Enrile's speech in the Senate that day, punctuated with the never-neutral word "traitor"), I am focusing on why Trillanes IV spoke up: a bill that was not really brought to public consciousness until he did, pushing for the partitioning of Camarines Sur.

Apparently, the Lower House has approved this bill that would divide the said province, and it was forwarded to the Senate for approval.

Trillanes IV maintains that this was the handiwork of former President Arroyo, whose son is a legislator in the said province. He also brought to the fore the fact that Rep. Villafuerte has been seen "lounging" around Enrile's office, apparently lobbying for the bill to be approved. Enrile admitted as much during his interview posted at the ANC Facebook page, and considers the congressman a friend.

Which brings me to a confession: I have Camsur Envy.

I wish the Senate President felt an urgent need to discuss the Reproductive Health Bill, and bring the matter to a vote, the way Trillanes IV has described Enrile with regards to House Bill 4820: "pressured".

(See more here: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/274556/camsur-bill-dead-in-wake-of-word-war)

Far be it for a "mere" citizen like me to remind any senator that s/he was voted not as a local, but as a national representative. That they are supposed to give priority to measures and bills that are national in scope, that have implications for everyone in this country, that their votes have consequences that extend beyond their terms.

Comparing the scope, implications and consequences of the RH Bill with Camsur's division, and considering the latter to be more "urgent" says to me that our senators have a rather cavalier attitude towards matters like maternal deaths, but would rise up in parliamentary anger should their biases ever be questioned.

I chanced upon Enrile being interviewed by Mareng Winnie Monsod, who asked for his reaction when he is thought of as delaying voting on the RH Bill. He denied it, saying that without the amendments, the bill would surely lose.

You would think that as a staunch opponent of the said bill, he would immediately call for the period of amendments to end and to immediately vote for or against it in order to...how did Sen. Sotto say it, get it out of their hairs.

A quote I find to be truer with each breath I take is that "people may not always believe what you say, but they'll always believe what you do." Or in Enrile's case, what he doesn't do.

This latest revelation merely proves one thing: what is deemed "necessary" to be discussed in the halls of the Philippine Senate is a matter of will, political and otherwise.

Buti pa ang paghahatian ng Camsur, napagtoonan ng pansin ng Senado. (The partitioning of Camsur fared better, because the Senate gave it due attention.)

Kawawa naman ang RH Bill. Boto lang ang kailangan para mairesolba, di pa magawa. (Alas for the Reproductive Health Bill, all it needs for the issue to be resolved is to vote for or against it, and the senators couldn't even be bothered to do so.)

And so, my Camsur Envy goes on.

I Lost Lucy

Representative Lucy Torres-Gomez just showcased how our legislators have a problem differentiating their personal beliefs and their work as lawmakers in a secular democracy.

Morality's muse.

(Courtesy of southernleytetimes.com)

On a morning show hosted by anchor Karen Davila, she expressed her concern about the country's "moral fiber" - more specifically, what would happen to it should the RH (Reproductive Health) Bill be passed. She also mentions her faith as the force that drives her to oppose the said measure, claiming that the Philippines is a religious country and that she cannot make a decision that will go against it.

I don't know about you, but my first, instinctive reaction was to laugh out loud. (A real life LOL.)

See, the representative makes it no secret that she is devoted and loyal to the Catholic Church in the country. All one needs to do is to Google "Lucy Torres Gomez anti RH", and what comes out are articles that juxtapose the terms "RH", "CBCP", "church", "Catholic" and her name, as proof of this.

Clearly, the moral standard she is advocating or sees as "golden" is the morality as approved by the Catholic hierarchy in the country.

And let's not forget - how can we, when the CBCP reminds us every chance it gets - that a majority of this country identifies itself as Catholic, when asked for religious affiliation.

So why did I LOL?

The question is, how can anyone not laugh at the absurdity highlighted by such a devotion to the so-called Catholic "moral fiber", compared with what is happening around us? After centuries of Catholic "superiority", what moral tempertaure can be felt in this bastion of Christianity in Asia? (Full disclosure: I am not a Catholic.)

We are constantly rated as one of the most corrupt nations in the world.

We have priests - supposedly sworn to celibacy - who have sired offspring.

The pictures of priests surrounding former President Macapagal-Arroyo and former Chief Justice Renato Corona speak volumes: their eerie silence while various anomalous, highly questionable transactions happened and blatant disregard for public calls for accountability can render even the sharpest of hearing aids inutile.

We have the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Southeast Asia.

You can find vendors selling concoctions that are supposed to induce abortion right outside one of the country's most flocked Catholic churches.

Hundreds of thousands of abortions are performed in the country, every year.

News reports about a dead fetus showing up in a trash can have become staples in broadsheets, they have since desensitized us from the initial shock value.

Journalists are killed left and right in this country, making it one of the most dangerous places in the world to practice this vital profession, moreso in a democracy.

Our jails are packed to the rafters.

We have a mayor overly concerned with the supposedly "satanic" lyrics from a foreign performer, who earned revenue for the city by playing her concert in a place known for its sex dens, with permits to operate issued by the mayor's office.

We have elevated undisciplined behavior into a dubious art: public vehicles that unload passengers in the middle of the road, pedestrians who play roulette with their lives by crossing underneath a pedestrian overpass, throwing our plastic waste and cigarette butts wherever we please, motorists slapping traffic enforcers who try to do their jobs, and policemen who extort money from drivers, to start with.

And who could forget the priests who were satirically referred to as "Mitsubishops", an obvious reference to the car manufacturer, for even more obvious reasons?

Or politicians who like to claim the "high road", when they (1) run in their husband's place because the husband was disqualified from running; (2) post tarpaulins of their faces and supposed projects in public places, as if these were theirs to do so, some of whom even place pictures of their "Chief of Staff", someone who was not even elected; (3) appear in television commercials, and even host morning shows and "amazing" specials, while being a full-time legislator?

How can we not mention a special legislator who thinks nothing of plagiarism, under the pretext that it is not explicitly stated as illegal in our laws, who translates a famous American speech in the vernacular and claims no copying took place, all the while acting like some maligned defender of the "unborn" - yes, you may commence eye-rolling - and perched ever so highly secured in a self proclaimed mantle of superiority?

Given these facts, it becomes hideously indefensible - and indubitably laughable - to oppose the RH Bill on the absurd notion that its approval would cause the country's "Catholic morality" to be under attack.

Again, let me ask Rep. Torres-Gomez: what "moral fiber"?

This country that you claim as "religious" (let's not forget: most people here are Catholics) is so morally bankrupt, it surprises me that you would parade its Catholic credentials in so righteous a manner. One of your religion's recently deceased leaders has proclaimed your faith as "200 years" out of sync with the present time. I think he was even being charitable with that description.

How can a religion that has been described as misogynistic, homophobic and intolerant of any other views other than its own be considered a morality manual, at a time in the world where women are slowly catching up to the opportunities and earning potential of men (some even surpassing the men in "their own game"), where gay people are (glacially) gaining rights, denied for so long, but accorded every other human being, and where religious leaders like the Dalai Lama are saying that religion may no longer be solely sufficient to be the basis for ethical behavior?

In "I Love Lucy", the entire cast seemed to be in suspended ditziness, which is where it got its comic power, but at the end of the day, we know that it's only a show, it's just for fun, and it will end after half an hour.

It cannot be said in this case, where real lives are affected, it's called survival, and the end to suffering is nowhere in sight.

Explaining Secular Democracy To Tito

Hello, public officials of the Republic of the Philippines,

Some things to clear about us.

(Courtesy of iconarchive.com)

In recent days, there has been much intermingling of politics and religion (one in particular) in the news, particularly where the RH (Reproductive Health) Bill is concerned.

We've heard of a legislator invoking his deity should the bill pass. We've heard of another legislator saying certain provisions in the bill should be stricken out because it goes against religion (one in particular). And we've heard of a legislator aiming for a "compromise" by meeting with religious leaders (one in particular) to draft an "acceptable" version of the same bill.

Now, I realize that even though you are duly elected or appointed public servants, no one has explicitly informed you of the framework by which our government operates. Imagine my surprise when I did not see a Cliffs Notes version about this at all! (In my day - a long time ago - students who failed to write their term papers or book reviews were routinely saved by this creation, a condensed version of mostly literary works.)

Here, then, is my attempt to provide such a service.

(1) This country is a secular democracy.

For those who ran for their positions, you know this very well, having partaken of an important part in this type of government: the election of public officials.

A democracy is popularly known as a government "for, of and by the people", one where citizens have a say as to who should be running the government through elections, what bills are needed through its representatives, and an expectation of a fair hearing in disputes, through its judges. (Formally, the three branches of a democratic government.)

Ultimate power in this government lies in its citizenry, not officials, who are also called public servants. Officials are given certain powers to carry out their duties in the service of the citizens. (It was never meant to be used to enrich oneself or one's family.)

There is no requirement that says you have to belong to a religion (one in particular) to run for office or be appointed as one. This is enforced in our very Constitution, the document that gives life to our way of government. Something about "no religious test will be required", blah, blah - the lawyers can explain this better, because this is supposed to be the shorthand version, so we won't go into detail.

This also means that someone who says "I don't belong to any faith-based group" is eligible to run for public office, as eligible as someone who goes to a place of worship (one in particular) twice a day, seven days a week, and gives money to religious leaders (one in particular) when a collection plate goes by.

Secular, therefore, simply means we don't care about your religious status. A simple test for this would be: are you barred from voting based on your religion, or lack of it?

(2) It follows, then, that our laws should be secular and democratic.

Legislators create/amend laws, executives enforce it, and judges interpret it (and hand out punishments for those who go against it). That is how it works in a democracy. (For those who think this is too simplistic - condensed version, hello. I highlight the big things, don't worry.)

Since our rights as citizens are not in any way hampered by our choice of religion (one in particular) - see above example on voting - then the laws we have governing everyone should also be equally unhampered by any religion (one in particular), and should be applied equally regardless of religion.

In this respect, in a secular democracy, government laws trump any religion's (one in particular) beliefs. A simple test would be: since citizens are guaranteed the right to happiness, can a religion (any which one) get away with, say, raping a virgin, since it is "demanded" by its religious rules? Obviously no, the government can press rape and assault charges on those who claim that raping a young maiden is their "religious right".

And that goes for all so-called "religious rights".

I often hear rebuttals from theists about how they "answer to a higher power" and that they "will be judged in an afterlife". That is a personal call, guaranteed by our secular laws, our freedom to each choose our own religion. If it makes you feel "superior", kindly gloat in your own home, and wait until after your last breath to do so - the freedom to choose my own religion also means I don't have to believe in your specific interpretation of a higher power or your version of an afterlife.

Anyone can create a religion, just to prove that point.

(3) Religious leaders (one religion in particular) should stay out of formulating secular laws.

Time to drill the point home: public officials are not required to belong to any religion (one in particular), and laws cannot be made with any religion (one in particular) in mind.

It stands to reason, then, that anyone affiliated with any particular faith as its leader cannot be "in charge" of making laws in a government that allows you to choose your own religion. That would contravene - go against - the principle of being able to freely choose your own religion,  because that particular leader would make into secular law what he personally believes as a matter of faith.

Thereby, forcing a person of a different faith to follow that particular leader's religious rules.

As an example: vegetarianism is self imposed by some faiths because they believe that animal cruelty is heinous. (I find that reasoning odd - what about cruelty to plants, then? - but we'll save that for another time.) If a leader of such a faith became, I don't know, Secretary of Trade and Industry, would that person, based on his or her religious beliefs, be allowed to ban livestock trading because it "offends" his or her faith?

(4) It cannot be a numbers game.

One particular religion is saying that since they claim the most number of adherents in this country, "majority wins".

Aside from the reasons already stated, here's another one: what if that particular religion became number two in terms of claiming their "number of sheep"? If laws were enacted and made to suit that particular religion, should we overhaul these laws and repeal them if they aren't "top dog" in terms of membership?

Already, this one particular religion is losing members - just Google the statistics - because of its flock losing faith in its human leaders, child molestation cases, inability to follow their own advice to members about frugality and the temporary nature of earthly riches, and so many more reasons. It is not at all farfetched - maybe not in this country but worldwide - to think that they will soon be toppled off their supposed vaunted position and standing.

As my friend who voiced this out said, ano to, magririgodon tayo depende kung anong relihiyon ang inaangkin ng mayorya? (what's this, will we go on a carousel depending on which is the most "popular" religion?)

Secular laws - by definition free from any religious bias - should be able to withstand on its own regardless of where the faith-based winds may howl.

(5) Secular democracy is essentially agreeing to disagree.

Since we all have different "views" about beliefs, to each his or her own. Secular laws are the ones we all agree upon regardless of religious affiliation.

I hope that this very short primer on our way of government will help you conduct yourself in matters of the State.

While I do not claim to be an expert who can make perfect arguments, as a reasonably intelligent member of this country, I feel it is my duty to let you know how I think and feel.

Any mistake in my interpretation of our existing laws and social systems can be traced to the fact that I am not a lawyer or a social scientist by trade. It does not mean that I cannot participate in legal matters or cannot be a social observer, in the same way that not all our senators are lawyers, or how astute observations can come from the unlikeliest of sources.

It only means that I care for the direction that this country is headed.

Sincerely,
A Citizen of a Secular Democracy (known as the Republic of the Philippines)

Personally Yours, Sotto

One of the most vociferous critics of the Reproductive Health (RH) bill, senator Tito Sotto, has been front page material this week. In the Senate, on papers both printed and electronic, on social media platforms, his name has become ubiquitous as of late.

The lightning rod, as he calls himself on ANC's Head Start.

(Courtesy of philmusicregistry.net)

How can he not be, when he has made himself a spectacle.

The opening salvo was on Monday, when he "opened up" about his personal experience - the death of his 5 month old son - and directly linked his wife's taking of contraceptive pills to the baby having a weak heart and causing his death.

It seems obligatory somehow to preface any statement with "not to disregard the senator's tragedy/we're sorry for your loss" if you were to criticize him. And since everyone else has done it, let's get right to the accusation he inserted in his first speech: a causal link between pills and a weak heart.

Senator, here is a fact sheet from the World Health Organization for family planning methods. I urge you - in the strongest possible terms - to use science, not emotions, to make pronouncements about causes and risks regarding something that should be used with a doctor's consultation. It illustrates (in summary view) the pill as well as the "minipill", citing method, description, how it works, effectiveness to prevent pregnancy and comments that are inimical to the particular method.

(See: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs351/en/index.html)

This is a July 2012 Fact Sheet from WHO, as current as it gets. Your experience in the 1970's, especially where scientific advances are concerned, will be markedly different from the experience of women nowadays who choose to go on the pill. Science is not static: in fact, the one hallmark it is known for is that old ideas and facts must give way to newer ones, especially in the face of objective evidence.

There is NO mention of heart disease as a side effect of taking pills. To illustrate a "caution", in the same fact sheet, "monthly injectables" has this written under the Comments column: "irregular vaginal bleeding common, but not harmful" - it indicates per method any effect you may have as well as the degree or severity. I invite you to take a look at what it says for both pill types. If they thought it prudent to warn people about vaginal bleeding, wouldn't a cardiac side effect be practically mandatory to mention? Yet WHO makes no statement to that effect regarding pills.

The next item that online commenters have noted was that your speech was, in almost perfect fashion, lifted from a blogger, who calls herself Sarah.

(See http://raissarobles.com/2012/08/16/did-sen-sotto-just-lie-on-national-tv/ as just one of many, many items now online asking the same thing.)

I was surprised to learn that you are an English major, so the concept of plagiarism should not be at all foreign or unheard of. In fact, I would think it cardinal that this concept must have been drilled into all English majors as one of the most reprehensible things you can do. Your interview on ANC's Head Start with Karen Davila didn't really illuminate the questions raised by the plagiarism issue. You claimed that you and the blogger were quoting Dr. McBride. But in your speech, quoting your source, you said "According to Dr. McBride..."

Does that even make sense?

If you were quoting the doctor directly, wouldn't she have said "My research indicates..." and not mention herself in the third person? (I know someone who refers to himself that way, but then we've also written him off as an idiot.)

Did you plagiarize it from the blogger, senator? Yes or no?

On the second day of your speech, you adopted a more combative stance - was it to counter the crying episode of the previous day? - and in movie-like fashion, declared that you're barely getting warmed up. This is exactly why I prefer facts, not posturings. You are not on camera to entertain - not anymore, Senator. This is a piece of legislation that has an effect in the lives of mothers and children. You would be well advised to stop the emotional outbursts, as these may have worked in your previous occupations.

Not here. Not now.

I will wait for the replay of your interview, because you touched on how the RH Bill "restricts" choice, on how the bill is intruding in the Church (?), and how local officials should have the right to decide on what their public health centers contain owing to "freedom of choice". I saw the live interview but my head was spinning after one statement after the other from you - I had to check and see that it really was coming from a senator of this country.

Let's tackle your statements in the Karen Davila interview in the next post.

A Low Blow Amidst High Waters

We certainly don't need any of those given the terrible weather conditions.

Divine wrath?

(Courtesy of daylife.com)

Unfortunately, it was an opportunity too good to pass up to those who feel they have a direct line to God. (And how eagerly He supposedly agrees to anything they say.)

After yesterday's historic vote in Congress that ended the debates regarding the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill, an unusually large amount of rainfall characterized most of today, so much so that it has already exceeded the rainfall produced during typhoon Ondoy last 2009, which is viewed as the worst storm we've had in the country in recent years.

(See http://www.rappler.com/nation/10004-rainfall-over-metro-surpasses-ondoy-record for more details.)

Given the weather, most of us were "grounded" at home, giving us the time to stay online much more than normally possible (read: during work days). It also afforded us time to see posts from those against the RH Bill, claiming that "justice" is now being done from "high above".

"Heaven is letting out tears for the RH Bill."

"This is God speaking through nature for approving of immorality approved by Congress!"

"Maybe now you will understand that we will not be ignored! Down with the RH Bill! Let the rains wash it away!"

These are just a few of the online comments I have read, linking the heavy rainfall with the ending of the RH debates. Or, as these comments show, these posters believe the rains to be "God's response" for the RH Bill vote.

I don't know about you, but I would be very careful about claiming to speak for an all-powerful and all-knowing deity. If there's anything that stories about gods have shown us, it's that they don't need to justify anything they do: they do it precisely because they simply can.

You see that when Zeus had his way with any number of women. You see that in the God of the Christian Bible, who suddenly gave Abraham and his wife a son in their old age, only to tell them to kill their son as a sacrifice - all for a test. In modern day (psychology) terminology, we would call Zeus a rapist and the Christian God a sadist.

Their comments also disregard the fact that we have typhoons every year, aside from various weather disturbances not considered as a full-blown typhoon. Not to mention, when the anti-RH forces were having their "prayer rally", it was raining as well: we can quibble about the amount of rainfall, but if I followed their so-called "logic", God hates both those who are for and against the RH Bill?

But more importantly, it betrays who they are and what their priorities are: they disregard the suffering caused by the rains, and would rather gloat about their supposed moral superiority than trying to extend help to those who are directly affected by the rains.

They have painted their God as vengeful (for their cause), capable of causing loss and damage to innocent people, and quite frankly, petty, if a God so all-powerful didn't directly punish the lawmakers who supposedly "disobeyed His will."

Are they trying to drive people away from their religion? Well, they're doing a marvelous job.

Let's Get "Real" About The RH Bill

Last Saturday, the Catholic Church mounted its forces and called for a "prayer rally" in order to make a statement to the government that they are prepared to fight tooth and nail in opposing the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill.

I don't even know what to say to this.

(Courtesy of raissarobles.com)

I know of many friends who are actually against the RH Bill. I cannot and will not begrudge them their opinion, based on their religious beliefs and what their (religious) leaders have told them, based on what they perceive the bill to be all about. I don't know if any of them actually managed to make it to the said show of protest at the EDSA Shrine, which was befitting as the event venue since it was clearly a religious-based opposition.

I am directing my comments and questions to the Catholic leadership in this country.

As can be gleaned by various news articles and pronouncements, there is an overwhelming support by various sectors for the passage of this bill. 

The United Nations figures in today's headline of the country's most read paper, recognizing how family planning contributes to development.

(http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/243039/un-weighs-in-on-ph-birth-control-dispute)

Nobel prize winning economist George Akerlof has come out to refute how his words have been presented to suit the needs and biases of those against the bill, with special mention of the CBCP.

(http://www.rappler.com/move-ph/33-editors-pick-moveph/9859-nobel-prize-winner-contradicts-cbcp)

Business groups have publicly declared their support for the measure.

(http://www.interaksyon.com/business/39510/big-business-calls-on-congress-to-pass-rh-bill)

As this is a democracy, there are other religious groups existing as well, and some of them have given their support for the RH Bill.

(https://www.facebook.com/efraim.tendero/posts/10151161259219612)

Survey after survey have shown that majority of Filipinos want the bill to pass.

(http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20101201-306256/Pulse-69-favor-RH-bill)

My questions/comments, then, are:

(1) If you are truly against contraception, why do you support natural methods of family planning?

This has always been my biggest concern (if that's the word I should be using) whenever the prelates would start preaching against the condom, the pill, the IUD.

Why are you so vigorously opposed to modern methods of preventing conception, calling it "anti-life" even, when they have exactly the same end as the natural methods?

I never understood why you always seemed to be on some moral high ground. I remember how, in an online forum, one of your defenders was haughtily proclaiming that because of some Catholic doctrine and how natural methods are "open to life", it is perfectly fine to push these methods.

I countered that I am not a Catholic, so I am just going by what I see as someone "not immersed": Isn't that hypocrisy?

You are basically saying that one method is better than the other, but you do realize that both those methods have the same end? Namely, not letting the egg meet the sperm. It is spelled out clearly in the term contraception.

Contra = Against

Ception = Conception

It would be akin to someone defending his method to kill another person using his bare hands ("natural" method) to wring out the life of the intended target, but saying that he is morally superior to someone who employs a gun or a hacksaw (using weapons) to achieve the same end: murdering someone.

How can you sit on your moral high horse? I see no difference.

(2) You do know that the government and (any) church are separate in any democracy?

I need to point this out because whenever you make your pronouncements on how candidates should fear your "influence" should any of them decide to vote for the RH Bill's passage, you are clearly establishing a threat - it's not even a subtle one - that secular lawmakers in a democratic country have to bow down to one specific religion's doctrine.

Or else.

Do you understand what the terms "secular" and "democracy" even mean?

Yes, even though you are in denial of it, it means one thing: You in the Catholic leadership are in the same position as every other religion in the country. You are on equal footing, no one religion is supposed to be "better", and neither is one supposed to be favored. You only have an advantage in that Catholicism - imported via Spain - has been here since Magellan landed so you have almost 5 centuries of a headstart.

And I deliberately inserted the fact that Catholicism is a foreign concept to these islands, as many of your defenders like to say that it is "foreign influence" that is pushing for the modern methods of family planning. If these same people are so adamant about being "controlled" by concepts that are from other shores, they should be renouncing Catholicism this very instant.

The silence - and the hypocrisy - is deafening.

(3) Have you tried raising children or ever applied for a job?

I mean that question in the most non-antagonistic way possible.

Going with this post's title, it behooves me to wonder how is it that you think yourselves so well-versed in advising people on the ways of family life, or making claims like "contraception leads to corruption", as mentioned in last Saturday's rally.

Have you ever had a baby wake you up at night? Have you had 10 children simultaneously asking you where your next meal will be coming from? Have you had to fend off feelings of guilt, knowing in the pit of your stomach you can only send one of them to school, and just to elementary school at that? Have you tried walking around in the searing sun and horrendous rains, handing out your resumes and not hearing about a positive development in your job hunt for weeks, months, and even years? Have you even worried about where to sleep or what to wear?

The posturing, as if you had such a wealth of experience in these matters, is what is most offensive to my eyes, ears and most of all, heart.

Millions of people in this country - almost 100 million as of last count - are struggling to make it through the next day, even the next meal. Until you have come face to face with those stark realities, in an authentic way, that you have actually experienced and lived through, all your platitudes just come off as armchair pronouncements, one that is devoid of real world experience.

(4) Do you think subsidizing the distribution of modern methods of family planning is a waste of money?

Then you should be equally consistent and call for the immediate end of all subsidies provided for by government.

I highlight this because I read an online comment, saying that "condoms are legal and can be purchased anyway, don't use tax money to buy them, anyone who wishes to buy them should pay full price!"

Following that logic, we should tear down all public schools, demolish public hospitals, declare public health centers as a large deficit contributor, and so on.

These services have been provided because in a democratic government, it falls on the state to ensure that each citizen has a fighting chance of getting educated, having good health services, and everything else that make one not only have an existence, but a life. And they are given to support the most financially disadvantaged of its citizens.

Let me repeat that: it is the duty of the State to empower and equip its citizens with the right and basic tools to make it through life, whatever and however a person fashions that life to be. It is also responsible for managing the taxes it collects to fund these services - these are not "Catholic money", as some of your supporters claim they do not wish to "fund condoms" (as if that is the only thing the RH Bill provides). Public money, tax money - these are all property of the government, our "admission price" for being citizens in a democratic country. No religion can dictate a secular, democratic government what to do with it.

The RH Bill is meant to provide information and services regarding reproductive health for the country's poorest, those who don't even know where to get their next meal, much in the same way that public schools are meant for those who cannot afford it. You do not say "everyone should pay full price!" - have you seen what Catholic schools charge as tuition fees?

5. Lastly, the Philippines is not Catholic property. Deal with it.