According to the Philippine Constitution, impeachable public officers such as the President, the Vice President, Members of the Supreme Court, Members of Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of: 1. Culpable violation of the Constitution 2. Treason 3. Bribery 4. Graft and corruption 5. Other high crimes 6. Betrayal of public trust As far as the recently concluded prosecution presentation of evidence for Article 2 or the impeachment of Chief Justice (CJ) Corona is concerned, the prosecution is basing its case of the charges of Culpable Violation of the Constitution and Betrayal of Public trust. Article 2 of the impeachment charge states that the CJ failed to disclose his Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Networth (SALn) as prescribed by Section 17 of Article 11 of the Constitution which states: “A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as often thereafter as may be required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth. In the case of the President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional offices, and officers of the armed forces with general or flag rank, the declaration shall be disclosed to the public in the manner provided by law.” The fact that the SC Clerk of Court has produced the CJ’s SALn has effectively shattered the prosecution’s charge that the CJ did not file his SALn so the prosecution’s focus has shifted to the qualifier “shall be disclosed to the public in the manner provided by law”. However, this route was also obliterated by the SC’s 1989 resolution regarding the limitations on the release of the SALns of the Members of the SC. The resolution exempts the court from the legal requirement for all public officials to file their respective SALns and make these available to the public. The SALns may still be accessed by the public but under the permission of the court. This resolution was established to prevent fishing expeditions in an effort to harass and influence the decisions of the justices and this resolution has been reaffirmed by a succession of Chief Justices after CJ Narvasa. It is therefore clear that CJ Corona did in fact file his SALn and the issue of the access to his SALn was not due to his doing but a policy within the SC. The failure of the prosecution to pin the CJ on those two grounds takes the issue now to the “truthfulness” of the CJ’s declarations in his SALn. The prosecution successfully obtained permission from the Senate tribunal the issuance of subpoenas for the CJ’s bank accounts. Never mind that the subpoenas would stifle the Bank Secrecy Law and never mind that the request for the subpoenas emanated from a mere suspicion and not ultimate facts when they drafted the articles of impeachment, out of “liberality” and “public interest”, the Senate tribunal relented. (It is worth noting that the charge was from a mere suspicion and not ultimate facts because the prosecution never had access to the SALn prior to the day the Clerk of Court presented the CJ’s SALn in the impeachment trial) When the bank accounts were opened, sure enough, the prosecution noted discrepancies between the bank accounts and the CJ’s SALn. As of this writing, the prosecution has already admitted that most of the grounds of impeachment against the CJ are not applicable. Even if it is granted that the CJ may have committed perjury, according to the prosecution panel themselves, perjury is not considered as a “High Crime”. So given the admission, the prosecution took the route for “Culpable Violation of the Constitution” and “Betrayal of Public Trust” and this route seems to be anchored on the apparent dishonesty of the CJ’s declaration in his SALn. They claim that the declaration of the SALn is done under oath and is not merely a ministerial act. Hence, the discrepancy in the SALn versus the CJ’s bank accounts is a manifestation of Constitutional violation and public trust betrayal as “Public office is a public trust”, according to Section 1 of Article 11 of the Constitution. From how the scenario appears, it does seem to put the CJ on a bind. However, before we jump into conclusions it is important to note that the provisions of law actually allow public officers to correct discrepancies in the SALns. Under Republic Act 6713, Section 10a: “The designated Committees of both Houses of the Congress shall establish procedures for the review of statements to determine whether said statements which have been submitted on time, are complete, and are in proper form. In the event a determination is made that a statement is not so filed, the appropriate Committee shall so inform the reporting individual and direct him to take the necessary corrective action.” So it seems that according to the provisions of law, SALNs may be corrected by public officers when the SALns are determined to be defective. It would be a different case if the discrepancy in the CJ’s SALn was previously pointed out and if he was previously instructed to make the necessary corrective action and he refused to do so. However, this is the very first time such a discrepancy is pointed out so the law seems to actually provide the CJ remedy to correct any pointed discrepancies without the penalty for culpability. Given that the impeachment ground of “Culpable Violation of the Constitution” may not be enough to be supported by the prosecution’s evidence, the stronger basis of their charge seem to be anchored in the very vague notion of “Betrayal of Public Trust”. But what is it exactly? What does public trust really entail? Have you had flaky friends in your life? Have you had friends who disappointed you in a number of instances when they failed to deliver on things they promised to do for you? Let us consider this scenario… suppose that Tony forgets one time to feed his friend and roommate Bobby’s dog despite promising to do so. Bobby may very well decide to move out and take his dog with him. However, it would be absurd for Bobby to automatically justify ending his friendship with Tony simply on the grounds that Tony failed to deliver on his promise to feed his dog (at one time). However, let us suppose that Tony told a group of people about details of Bobby’s secret of having experimented with an incestuous relationship with his mother, despite having promised Bobby not to tell anyone, would this be a good justification for Bobby to end his friendship with Tony? The answer is “Yes”. The difference between the first scenario and the second scenario is the gravity of offense. In the first scenario, we would merely feel a sense of disappointment while in the second case we do feel a sense of betrayal. In the first scenario, Tony could buy Bobby a six pack and a Super Supreme pizza to compensate or make up for breaking his promise to feed Bobby’s dog. In the second case, what good would a six pack and a Super Supreme pizza do to compensate for telling others about Bobby’s dark secret? What possible use would those bring in repairing their friendship? If trust has been breached by betrayal, not only will it be almost impossible to be remedied, the offer of remedy would most likely not do anything to repair the broken trust. So now given this argument, let us go back to Republic Act 6713. Given the fact that the provision of law even allows public officers to remedy a discrepancy in their SALn, doesn’t this suggest that the gravity of the offense is more in line with disappointment rather than betrayal? Is disappointing the public trust an impeachable offense? If so, then almost all our public officials ought to be impeached. Why not start with the one-track minded vindictive lazy jaundiced man sitting on a throne inside the Palace by the stinking river? 
In 1992, I still had plenty of hair, was just fresh out of high school and I was in my first year of college. Back then I also held a job as a car wash and gas station attendant. If I remember it correctly, I was merely making around 7 dollars per hour and my bank account barely had 500 dollars in it as I wasn’t exactly a Donald Trump back then. Fast forward to the present time, I’m still not a Donald Trump but my assets have increased exponentially compared to my assets during my wild partying Vanilla Ice hair look-a-like days. Given this information, should I be branded as guilty of amassing ill-gotten wealth? To the prosecution team in the on-going impeachment trial of Philippine Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona (CJ), the answer appears to be - “Yes”.
Prosecutor Jose Justiniano presented witness Mariano Dimaantal, Chief of the Malacañang Office Records, to attest to the veracity of the CJ’s Statement of Assets, Liability and Net worth (SALn) being presented by the prosecution. The SALns being attested to are from 1992 to 2002, this is the period prior to the CJ being appointed to the Supreme Court as a member of the High Tribunal. It is interesting to note that the pertinent Article of Impeachment being deliberated upon merely charges the CJ of having violated the Constitution of failing to disclose to the public his SALn. Never mind that the period of SALn being presented is outside of the CJ’s tenure at the Supreme Court, what I find amusing is the justification of the prosecution to use the SALns being presented to “show the trend [in Corona’s wealth] over the years”. Prosecutor Justiniano, when asked to explain the relevance of the SALns outside of the period of the CJ’s tenure in the Supreme Court, said that these will be used and compared with his financial status when he worked for former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA) and when he was appointed to the Supreme Court by her. This gives the impression, of course, that the increased assets of the CJ throughout the years are ill-gotten which was made possible by his close association with GMA.
Let’s even put aside for now the fact that it has not been proven yet that the assets being pointed to were ill-gotten, let us focus for now the insinuation that the increase in assets were caused by the CJ’s association with GMA. The argument and logic being presented by the prosecution seems smacking of the logical fallacy called “Cum hoc ergo propter hoc”. The fallacy is to assert that because two events occur together, they must be causally related. It's a fallacy because it ignores other factors that may be the cause(s) of the events. To illustrate this point, I would like to point out that the United States of America is populated by approximately 79% “whites”. In addition, the United States of America also has approximately a 400% violent crime rate. If we are to apply the logic that the prosecution seems to embrace, given that the US, a country predominantly populated by “whites”, has a high average violent crime rate, does this mean that “whiteness” causes violent crime?
The fact remains that the prosecution’s basis for the charge of amassing ill-gotten wealth through his stature and close connection to GMA is merely a suspicion. Defense counsel Serafin Cuevas was correct to point out to the prosecutor:
“[By your logic], you and I can be sentenced to death by mere suspicion? We’re dealing here with the fate and future of the Chief Justice. [We are not basing case] on what is suspect,”
I am also bewildered, as Justice Cuevas is, why the prosecution’s plea is based on mere suspicions and not ultimate facts as the Rules of Pleading state that:
“A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations therein are true and correct of his knowledge and belief.”
If the prosecution charges the CJ of illegally amassing wealth as proven by the comparison of his SALns from before he was appointed to the Supreme Court up to during his tenure at the High Tribunal, then doesn’t this imply that they really had no basis to verify their allegation because prior to the Senate impeachment trial, they never had any access to the CJ’s SALn? How can the complainants have attested to the veracity of the prosecution’s pleading if they could not have any correct knowledge of the allegations? The main charge is the failure of the CJ to publicly disclose his SALn and that he is suspected to have amassed ill-gotten wealth which the prosecution said they intend to prove by showing the trend of the CJ’s increasing assets from his pre-Supreme Court years to his Supreme Court tenure. How could it be possible to correctly allege to have amassed “ill-gotten” wealth because of his positions at the Supreme Court from 2002 up to the present when the complainants never had access to the CJ’s SALns for that period?
From the prosecution’s line of attack, I see that contrary to their claim that they hold smoking gun evidences, their case seems more like cold as ice. I really commend CJ Corona for keeping his cool while he gets vilified with these half-baked allegations. He “keeps his composure when it’s time to get loose; magnetized by the mic when he kicks his juice. If there was a problem, yo he’ll solve it, check out the hook while his DJ revolves it, Ice Ice Baby!”  “Neither the President nor anyone else can truly expect to govern the next five years with nothing but a sorry mix of vilification, periodically recycled promises of action followed by lethargy, backed up by few if any results, and presumptuously encouraging gossip about one’s love life in which no one can possibly be interested.”
– Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo It is no secret that Philippine President Noynoy Aquino (PNoy) has been widely criticized as being lazy. This criticism is not just the product of attacks by the opposition, the laziness is reflected by the lack of progress and direction the country is in under his leadership (or rather, lack of leadership). No less than Yellow-leaning writer, Boo Chanco, himself said that:
“While I thought that so-called paper of Ate Glue on P-Noy’s economic performance is so much political propaganda, I can’t help seeing the danger of this lack of early visible results damaging P-Noy’s continuing credibility. … P-Noy’s administration appears clueless on the economy because it offered too much, failed to deliver and then flip flopped. “
There is a saying that: “A leader leads by example”. I am afraid that this saying may be true and PNoy’s example is being absorbed by his allies in government like sponge absorbs water.
To demonstrate this point, let us not even delve into the half-baked economic measures the PNoy bright boys have come up with so far. Let us look at the lethargic work his allies are doing in the on-going warfare they are waging against the Supreme Court Chief Justice. In the past few days PNoy’s Congressional lapdogs have been releasing to the media their “evidence” against the CJ of allegedly owning 45 properties in Metro Manila, suggesting that most of these properties were ill-gotten. This is being done, of course, in the Court of Public Opinion and what they are engaging in is called “Trial by Publicity”. Trial by Publicity is a very intellectually lazy route to take because it mainly relies on public emotion rather than the actual merits of the case. Public emotion is very susceptible to logical flaws as discussed in my previous article. Here are some examples of the prosecution’s glib…
On the charge that CJ Corona owns 45 properties in Metro Manila, most of which the prosecution suggested to be ill-gotten, prosecutor Erin Tañada said that: “this (the Senate) is the venue to disprove the claim”. Now, under the presumption of innocence until proven guilty concept, isn’t it the prosecution’s role to prove the charges to be true? I am astonished how much the prosecution is resorting to “Shifting the burden of proof”. Suppose we say that the Presidency of the country ought to be considered vacant because we charge the incumbent President is incapacitated for he is under the mind control of a flying spaghetti monster. Are we then justified to require anyone defending the incumbent President charged to disprove the allegations by perhaps starting with proving the non-existence of a flying spaghetti monster? No! We made the assertion so it is our responsibility to prove our claim. So technically speaking, it isn’t really the CJ’s responsibility to disprove the allegations; it is the prosecution’s responsibility to prove the allegations to be true. That is why in a Court of Law (which the Senate is playing the role of in the impeachment case), the accused is always presumed innocent until proven guilty. This means that there is no element of guilt yet that the accused (i.e. CJ Corona) is supposed to disprove during or before the trial. The fact that prosecutor Tañada alludes to the notion that the Senate is the venue for the CJ to disprove the charges hurled against him is not only resorting to “Shifting the burden of proof” but it is also smacking of the “Fallacy of presupposition”. It essentially begs for an explanation for something which is not yet established. Why on Earth should the case be about “disproving” the charges? The charges have not been proven yet to be true, so what is there to disprove?
Yesterday was supposed to be the first day for the prosecution to present its evidence. But by an interesting turn of events, the prosecution asked the Court to re-arrange their order of presentation. Instead of starting with the first item in the 8 Articles of Impeachment, they wanted to tackle and present evidence for the second item. The lead prosecutor, after being questioned by the Senate President (SP) and the defense team, admitted that they were not ready to present their evidence for the first item of the Articles of Impeachment. The embarrassment drew laughter amongst the Senator-Judges and spectators. It is indeed funny how eager they are to impeach the CJ and to present their proof to the media yet in the actual Court they are empty-handed. When given a sign of leeway by the SP on their proposition to re-arrange the order of their presentation, the prosecution team was again met with another embarrassing situation. The prosecution wanted to submit as evidence “certified copies” of documents that they claim would prove that the CJ owned the alleged ill-gotten properties. But when asked to present attestation to the authenticity of the “certified copies”, the prosecution team again came up short.
The lead prosecutor asserted that the copies they wish to present ought to be accepted as evidence because these are copies of public records and are “computer generated”. But just because these documents are “computer generated”, this does not mean these are duly authenticated! I work in the Pharmaceutical and Medical Device industry and we deal with 21 CFR Part 11 which deals with Electronic records and signatures. For the electronic documents to be accepted they have to show that the equipment used passed proper qualification (Installation Qualification, Operational Qualification, Performance Qualification, etc.) and validation; there has to be proper traceability and audit trail, especially to the person responsible for generating the data/document.
Let us not even predicate the issue with a different realm (Pharma and Med Devices)… let us just go with the Rules on Evidence as described in the Rules of Court. The prosecution was correct to suggest that the copy they wish to present ought to be accepted because it is a public record. (Rule 130, B.1.d). However, they merely stopped at that point and seem to have failed to look at other important aspects of the Rules on Evidence. What they are trying to present is considered “Secondary Evidence” and the pertinent rule on their Secondary Evidence states that the contents of the document may be proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer who holds the original. SP Enrile was correct to ask for a witness who will testify to the authenticity of the secondary evidence the prosecution wishes to present. Now if we go with Rule 132, B (Authentication and Proof of Documents), notice that Section 25 states that the copy must be attested to through an official seal of the attesting officer or by the clerk of court. Now if these documents are considered public records of private documents, Section 27 states that the legal custodian of the record must attest to the authenticity of the record and the officer must hold an appropriate certificate showing that he or she indeed has custody of the record.
Even if we go by the more specifically pertinent rules, Rules on Electronic Evidence, it clearly states that under Rule 5, Section 2, the documents must be authenticated by either any of the following:
(a) by evidence that it had been digitally signed by the person purported to have signed the same; (b) by evidence that other appropriate security procedures or devices as may be authorized by the Supreme Court or by law for authentication of electronic documents were applied to the document; or (c) by other evidence showing its integrity and reliability to the satisfaction of the judge. The prosecution's attempt to present their evidence fell flat upon failure to authenticate the documents. To save face, prosecutor Sonny Angara said that the notion that the prosecution was “not prepared” is a misconception. He claims that the prosecution team came to Court with “at least over a hundred documents, land titles, etc. and deeds of sale”. But even if they came to Court with a million documents but if the documents are inadmissible or at least questionable according to the Rules on Evidence (and Electronic Evidence) as mandated by the Rules of Court, this hardly means that they came in prepared!
It is unfortunate that the intellectual and legal laziness of the prosecution is adding to yet another item in the long list of items the PNoy administration has bungled. Palibhasa “L na L” kasi ang leader kaya “L na L” din ang prosecution team nya. Of course, “L na L” means…. “Lazy na Lazy”. 
The drama unfolding in the Philippines after the country’s President (PNoy) orchestrated a full frontal assault against the Chief Justice (CJ) of the Supreme Court has deeply divided the nation. While the prices of commodities, energy, and the overall cost of living in the Philippines continue to rise, wreaking havoc on the people especially the poor, PNoy continues to focus on attacking the judicial branch of government, particularly CJ Corona, in his crusade to crush his political opponents especially former President and now Congresswoman Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (CGMA). Many Filipinos assert that whatever PNoy is doing is on the side of righteousness. Never mind if PNoy’s actions violate the Constitution and never mind if the judicial institution is weakened, as long as PNoy delivers what most of the people want (CGMA behind bars), that is all that matters. As they say, “Vox populi vox dei”.
Many Filipinos accuse CGMA of having engaged in many corrupt practices during her time as President. The fact that CGMA appointed Corona as the CJ of the Supreme Court makes the people feel that CJ Corona is beholden to CGMA and he will always rule in her favor. Critics and detractors of CGMA would like to see her behind bars so they believe that what PNoy is doing (getting rid of the CJ) is the righteous way to fight against corruption. But let us assess the logic. Let us consider this statement:
PNoy ought to get rid of CJ Corona from the Supreme Court because if he doesn’t, CJ Corona will rule in favor of CGMA.
So what is wrong with this? Well, for one, saying that PNoy ought to get rid of CJ Corona from the Supreme Court is a value judgment. The reason given for why he ought to do so is a simple factual statement. The factual statement is that CJ Corona will rule in favor of CGMA. But does this seem like a perfectly good reason for PNoy to get rid of CJ Corona? No; at least not by itself.
There is a problem called the "is-ought" problem in philosophy and David Hume is known to articulate it well. There are 2 kinds of statements that we can recognize. The first kind is called "factual statement" (e.g. The sky is blue, John is a human being, etc.). These statements make factual assertions, nothing more. The second kind is what we call "value judgment" (e.g. it is wrong to tell a lie or to murder, etc.). These statements go further and state that something ought to be the case. The point in this is that these 2 kinds of statements are fundamentally different. There is a logical gap between the 2 and we can't move from one to the other without an adequate stepping stone called the "bridge premise". The problem is that this is often overlooked.
So if we go back to the claim, the folks agreeing with PNoy regarding getting rid of CJ Corona jumped directly from a factual statement to a value judgment. They seem to think that this factual statement alone supports the value judgment and shows it to be true. But it only seems like a strong reason because they are assuming something else. They are assuming that since CJ Corona is beholden to CGMA (due to the fact that GMA appointed him) he will always rule in favor of CGMA. They support this assumption using CJ Corona’s track record of favorable votes for CGMA.
Even if we grant that CJ Corona has voted predominantly in favor of CGMA, correlation is not necessarily causation. Just because two characteristics occur together does not mean one causes the other. The United States of America is predominantly populated by whites (~72%), given that the United States has a high average crime rate, does this mean that “whiteness” causes crime?
So we see that value judgments simply don't necessarily follow from the factual statement alone. By itself, the factual statement of CJ Corona ruling in favor of CGMA tells us nothing about what ought to be done. We need an in between assumption. If we had a different assumption, this factual statement might not make the value judgment true at all. Suppose that CGMA was innocent of the charges against her; then surely it would only be the right thing to do to rule in favor of CGMA. With this, the factual statement would no longer be a reason for thinking that the value judgment is true.
The point is that factual statements alone are not enough to give us an adequate reason for thinking that a value judgment is true. There is always a bridge premise. To show that the value judgment is true, we must not only show that the supporting factual statement is true but we must also show that the bridge premise between the factual statement and value judgments is true as well.
The problem is that people who support PNoy are already assuming that CGMA is guilty without this having been proven true yet. Regardless of how we feel about CGMA, an accused always has the benefit of being presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law. 
I have been involved in a few interesting discussions lately at the Get Real Philippines Facebook page. One of the most recent discussions we are having focuses on the virtues of what the Yellows and the Yellow supporters are doing; namely the vilification of the Supreme Court, the call for their resignation, and the support they give to Philippine President Noynoy Aquino on his tirades against the Supreme Court and his blatant disrespect for the Constitution by circumventing the law. For the Yellows, the mob rule they are embracing is justified because they feel that democracy entails the power of the people and the recent surveys reveal that Aquino has the support of the people through his high approval ratings. However, my take on this is that it is logically absurd to say that rightness is a function of an agreed upon principle. Just because a hundred Jews called to have Jesus crucified and to let Barabas free instead does not necessarily make their call (morally) right. Just because McDonalds serve 64 million customers a day does not mean they make the best hamburger in the world. But let me take things one at a time to explain why I see that the Yellow side is severely flawed. We proudly call ourselves a “Nation of Laws”. This means that we are supposed to be a country that follows a Rule of Law enshrined in the Constitution. Our Constitution clearly states the role and mandates of the three branches of government. The President holds Executive power and he/she is mandated to preserve and defend the Constitution, execute its laws, do justice to every man, and consecrate him/herself to the Service of the Nation (Art.7, Sec.5). The Supreme Court holds judicial power which includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government (Art.8, Sec.1). In addition, the SC’s Judicial powers include the power to Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in all cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question (Art.8, Sec.5.2.a). Congress (composed of the Upper and Lower Chambers) hold the Legislative power which means to craft laws, except to the extent reserved to the people by the provision on initiative and referendum (Art.6, Sec.1). So if we base things on an objective ground (i.e. through the Constitution and not through emotions) then it is clear that Aquino is legally bound to uphold the Constitution. The SC, on the other hand, is legally bound to make final decisions on settling questions in law. Hence, they do have the final say on how the law is interpreted. Given the stipulations in the Constitution, Aquino should be mandated to not only follow the Constitution but to follow the SC’s judgments regarding issues of law. Now, one of the participants in the Get Real Philippines Facebook page tried to justify the Yellow side’s tirades against the Supreme Court and justify the call for their removal through “People’s Initiative”. Okay, let us discuss that. Sure, the power of Congress to craft laws can be overcome through this route. Laws can be crafted or amended through “People’s Initiative” and/or “Referendum”. In fact, Art.17, Sec.2 tells that amendments to the Constitution may be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least 12% of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least 3% of the registered votes therein. So clearly there is an avenue for the people to take if they want to have reforms in our system. But the Yellows aren’t following the stipulations in the Constitution regarding going through the “People’s Initiative” avenue. What the Yellows, the Yellow apologists, and the noisy jaundiced demagogues are doing – public vilification of the SC to force them to resign so that more “Yellow friendly” magistrates can take over, blatant disrespect of the SC, circumventing the law, among other things, are outside of the Constitutional avenue. This is precisely why they are tagged as to be embracing mob rule! Now, if the Yellows insist on the current mob rule they are embracing then they can still go for it through a revolution. That was what happened in EDSA 1 when Cory was installed as the President of a Revolutionary government. In the Revolutionary government, Cory ruled by Presidential decree then set the grounds for a new Constitution (the one we have now). So if the Yellows really want to have it their way then they should go through a Revolutionary government path but they really should quit pretending that they have the utmost respect for the Rule of Law because what they are doing is really opposite to what they are saying. When someone says to believe in something (e.g. respect for the Rule of Law) but does the opposite thing (e.g. circumvent the law and defy the SC), last time I checked, that is hypocrisy. But the questions now are: Will the Filipino really support another Revolutionary government this time? Can the country still be called a Nation of Laws if a Revolutionary government is embraced? What would be the immediate effects of a Revolution to our present economy and would it decrease the plight of the Filipino people, especially the poor? Do the Yellows really understand the repercussions the country could face after they put in place a new order that is stacked in their favor? This whole mob mentality and efforts to change political order reminds me of the book “Animal Farm”. The story teaches us about how political and governmental organizations often work. In the "Animal Farm", we have Farmer Jones, the abusive owner, who was expelled by the exasperated farm animals. After the expulsion, the Animals ran the farm themselves and established equality for each and everyone of the Animals in the farm as the rule. Soon, however, the pigs (who represent the party bosses) begin to take special privileges for themselves (e.g. extra food). They enlist the farm's dogs as enforcers to put down any dissent, and they teach the sheep (rank and file) to speak the party line on demand. At first, this is, "Four legs good, two legs bad"- animals (four legs) are good, humans (exploiters) are bad. As time passes, the Seven Commandments (Animal Farm's Constitution) undergoes subtle changes as the pigs rewrite it to suit their own agenda. When Boxer the horse (symbolizing blue-collar labor, the "workers,") becomes too old to work, the pigs sell him to the horse butcher, whom they tell the other animals, is really the veterinarian. The pigs eventually learn to walk on two legs, thus imitating the animals' original exploiters, and they teach the sheep to bleat, "Four legs good, two legs better!" The Seven Commandments become one: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." The pigs rename Animal Farm the Manor Farm- its original name- and invite the neighboring human farmers, who symbolize the elite class against whom the animals revolted, to admire the results: "...the lower animals on Animal Farm did more work and received less food than any animals in the county." As the story ends, the pigs become indistinguishable from their human visitors. With the way the Yellows are circumventing the Rule of Law, isn’t it funny how they are becoming indistinguishable from the villains they are accusing of not having followed the Rule of Law? Now I am not saying that we all should stop questioning things we feel are unjust. If we feel there is injustice, we or anyone involved in political order shouldn't become complacent and merely despair. There is much we can learn from our national hero, Dr. Jose Rizal. Rizal never wearied in opposing political, economic, social, and religious injustice. Rizal was not complacent about the presence of Spanish tyranny but he was also not under the illusion that, on the basis of an absolute principle, the ills of man and society can be cured. The Yellows and the Yellow apologists in our midst seem to have an illusion that some political order change would cure the ills of our society. However, as Reinhold Neibuhr suggests, every social program, every political policy, even the actions we take are at best a compromise and an approximation of justice. It is not a simple black or white, good and evil issue, as the Yellows and their supporters like to paint things as. 
This morning I opened my email and noticed an interesting quote shared by Philippine Atheists and Agnostics Society (PATAS) Chairperson, Ms. Marissa Torres Langseth. Ms. Langseth quoted political activist Elie Wiesel from Wiesel’s book “The Night Trilogy: Night, Dawn, The Accident”. The words kind of struck me as something that may give a problem to some folks at the Filipino Freethinkers Facebook page, particularly those left leaning Muslim butt-kissing peaceniks who love to bash Christianity with so much gusto but also love to trumpet the virtues of tolerance. Anyway, at the risk of exhausting all my incendiary remarks about those living oxymorons in one paragraph, let me take a pause and share the quote: "We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere. When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant. Wherever men and women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must - at that moment - become the center of the universe." I agree. Sure we can ponder on things and take our time to assess which side to embrace but eventually we should really take a side. In a previous article I wrote, I agreed with Bill O’Reilly that even though that not all Muslims in the world are terrorists, this peace-loving silent majority is not doing anything or not doing enough to stop the extremists in their fold.1 Why is that? Writer Frank Gaffney Jr. has attempted to investigate that question with his “America at a Crossroads Series” documentary special. Gaffney Jr. said: “The documentary makes clear why the moderates are not more in evidence. Observant Muslims who dare to challenge the Islamists over ideological agendas pursued in the name of religion are shown being subjected to ostracism, intense coercion to conform and, in some cases, death threats. As long as these anti-Islamist Muslims are rightly seen as isolated, vulnerable and powerless, it would be foolish to believe that many of their co-religionists will want to emulate them.”2 So it would seem that fear may be the major impediment of the moderate Muslims in trying to impart some sense into the bomb-strapped hijacking lunatics in their fold eager to decapitate and blow up infidels to get their hands on those 72 virgins in Paradise that await them. Who can blame the silent majority? I don’t want to blame them. I certainly understand their fear. But as clinical psychologist, Dr. Susan Berry, said: “Honesty with ourselves, our families and friends, our colleagues, our fellow citizens, and our political leaders is hard. It involves confronting fear. But, those who are slaves to the denial, rationalization, and overcompensation of political correctness are not solving the problem. Instead, they are contributing to its strength and power”.3 Some of the Muslim butt-kissing peaceniks at the Filipino Freethinkers may very well just be invoking “tolerance”. That maybe the fearful majority in the Muslim world is not really afraid but are just practicing tolerance? Maybe that is what those left leaning Filipino Freethinkers are really into whenever they appear to be engaging in their Muslim butt-kissing. Oh, please stop the cheap sniping at Muslims! Oh, please stop denigrating the Muslims by positing that the Muslim nutjobs would act in a more vicious manner than their crazy Christian extremist counterpart! Oh, your cheap sniping at Muslims is merely an attempt to make yourself look clever with words! Wow! I suppose my “cheap” bashing of Muslim nutjobs and their ridiculous beliefs make me more bigoted or more intolerant than they are with their ad nauseam bashing of the Roman Catholic Church and anything else Christian under the sun? I suppose my beef against the Muslim wackos is false because I just want to look clever with my words? What a lot of crock! So let us get into tolerance and what the Muslim butt-kissing Filipino Freethinkers may mean with tolerance. From what I can see in their environment, a person is tolerant if you allow tirades and vitriol against Christianity and religion (their environment is predominantly atheist, or more appropriately anti-theist). But wait… apparently not all religion can be bashed. It’s okay to spit on Christianity and Christians but not Islam and those poor lovable Muslims. You don’t get flak for bashing Christians but you do if you bash Muslims. Hmmmm… why does tolerance have a favorite religion amongst the left leaning Filipino Freethinkers? “Camel” smokers, perhaps? Maybe they just mean that tolerance is not really about favoring any particular religion but merely to live and let live. That sounds really good! I like that! But here’s a problem… the concept of tolerance is not always good and may very well be being dishonest to ourselves. Dean Andy Bautista of the newspaper Philippine Star, in his commentary regarding the recent blasphemous art exhibit controversy at the Cultural Center of the Philippines, said: “Being “tolerant” is not always a good thing: to tolerate an alcoholic’s predilections is to enable him (who, himself, is a victim, partly, because of his “tolerance” for alcohol). There are those who would rather have “tolerated” this exhibit, with nary a peep, so as not to have drawn attention to the exhibit. That would have been far too convenient. Not expressing indignation, when the times call for them, is not an indication of “tolerance,” but of being a little dead on the inside.”4 If a person is offended with something but rather choose to keep his objections to himself so as to avoid confrontation or ugliness, he may be being dishonest to himself. Let me put it this way, does keeping quiet about something necessarily mean keeping judgment on it? No it doesn’t! The left leaning peaceniks may very well prefer to not say anything about those vicious Muslim nutjobs but deep inside they may still very well feel that those self-detonating lunatics are a bunch of morons. The author of the blog “CogitoErgoCogitoSum” offers an illuminating thought on this. He said: “Do you still consider yourself tolerant if someone pisses you off but you don’t act on your anger? I would argue that you are still intolerant because you still had a negative response, albeit emotional in nature and not physical. But in our society, for some reason, there must be physical actions for mentalities to be considered intolerant. Why? If you are so tolerant (accepting), why did you get angry in the first place? … The next time any of you have to count to ten (or some other technique) to get yourself calm and civilized… ask yourself if you’re really being the better person, or if you are just acting like it outwardly. … What moral virtue does tolerance in society have if you know those who tolerate you have a reason to need to tolerate you (I.e. they have a reason to dislike you but pretend not to)? The necessity for us to tolerate each other in order to function only proves what’s truly in our hearts, and just how small our hearts are. … Tolerance is our ability to “put up with others,” our ability to put on a show and act respectable. It says nothing for how we view them as a person. … I’m trying to suggest that our “tolerating” society has a lot of pent up emotions to deal with… because we, as a whole, are not an accepting society. We still acknowledge our differences, but law and social trends force us to “tolerate” those differences while they fail to provide an outlet for our true un-accepting emotional responses, which is quite literally why fights break out and hate crimes occur on occasion. … Mere tolerance, when left unchecked, can easily escalate to something far greater than a little under-the-breath huffing. How many “tolerating” people have had to apologize because they blew up at someone over what was insignificant in hindsight? … Tolerance is good if it keeps you bighting your tongue to prevent conflict, to be used circumstantially. But if tolerance is all you know then no issue will ever be resolved and bitterness grows.”5 That is the point of our rants and cheap sniping at whatever it is that pushes our buttons! We are acting on our objections to whatever pisses us off! I would argue that expressing through words (or in Mideo Cruz’s case – through art) how we object to Christianity or Islam or whatever ideology there is out there is a healthier step than to keep the emotions merely inside of us! At least if our objections are out there, there will be a better chance to have our objections corrected or addressed and there will be a better chance to discuss and to proceed to what is more important than tolerance, which is “acceptance”. For CogitoErgoCogitoSum: “…acceptance is when differences come together willingly and coexist at least contently. Tolerance is when differences coexist, regardless of the friction, and maintain peace only for the greater good of societies survival…. The inability to act out is helplessness… the fear to try is cowardly. Choosing not to act out negatively for logical, worldly, or even empathetic reasons is tolerance. But acceptance is not feeling any inkling to act out in the first place because your heart feels no emotional burden to tolerate, conflict, or retreat.”5 ====== 1http://hgamboa.multiply.com/journal/item/86/Political_Correctness 2http://www.radicalislam.org/content/where-are-liberal-muslims 3http://bigpeace.com/sberry/2010/10/29/political-correctness-and-the-muslim-problem/ 4http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?publicationSubCategoryId=64&articleId=716150 5http://cogitoergocogitosum.wordpress.com/2009/05/16/why-tolerance-is-bad/ 
It seems like I have earned the ire (again) of a lot of my fellow members at the Filipino Freethinkers Facebook page. Potshots, insults, and attempts to discredit me because of what I posited were hurled my way, which I gladly returned to those whom I believe deserved them. I don’t give any big deal about it, I’ve been in the Filipino Freethinkers scene long enough to appreciate what comes with the territory. However, what I find amusing is how a few of the leftist anti-Christian folks in the group seem so touchy when they hear a voice different from the usual tune they sing in their choir. You know… those tunes focused on bashing Christianity and Christians. So what did I posit that pushed the buttons of the left leaning anti-Christian mob in the group? Here goes…
Recently there was an art exhibit held at the Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP) that featured a controversial piece of work by artist Mideo Cruz. Archbishop Oscar Cruz (no relation to Mideo Cruz… I think), described the artist’s work as follows:
“AN image of Jesus Christ with an attached wooden replica of a male genital protruding directly over His Face. The genital is draped with a Holy Rosary, hanging by the base and the tip of the replica…. A Crucifix and Cross draped with a pink stretched condom… To a Crucifix is attached a red male organ.”
The artist’s work incited a flurry of objections and furor from offended Filipino Catholics which even led to threats of serious repercussions. In addition to the death threats that Mideo Cruz received, threats of setting the CCP on fire, and actual vandalism of the artist’s work, threats of lawsuits have also been given to both the artist and the CCP. (By the time this article gets done, it is likely that the lawsuit has already been filed.) It was quite a messy drama and a few of the left leaning Catholic Church bashing Filipino Freethinkers wasted no time in lambasting the Church and its adherents (especially the Bishops) with accusations of hypocrisy, bigotry, and a myriad of other unflattering labels. That is well and good and they have every right to object to how the offended Catholic faithful has reacted. However when I suggested that Muslims would have reacted in a more vicious manner if the artwork featured the Islamic icon Mohammed I got flak for it.
So why do I think that things would probably be worse with Muslim reactions to perceived blasphemy? In a nutshell, it is because of their awful recent record and because its core belief simply fosters and justifies violence in the name of their deity, Allah, and upon injunctions of their sacred book, the Qu’ran.
The way I see it, Islam is the worst amongst the major organized religions in the world today when it comes to threats to free thought and world peace. In 2004, Hirsi Ali (a former Muslim turned feminist and atheist activist) and film director Theo Van Gogh, released their film “Submission”. According to Wikipedia1:
“The film tells the story of four fictional characters played by a single actress wearing a veil, but clad in a see-through chador, her naked body painted with verses from the Koran. The characters are Muslim women who have been abused in various ways. The film contains monologues of these women and dramatically highlights three verses of the Quran,(4:34 2:222 and 24:2) that allegedly give authority to men over women, by showing them painted on women’s bodies. … Hirsi Ali has said "it is written in the Koran a woman may be slapped if she is disobedient. This is one of the evils I wish to point out in the film". In an answer to a question about whether the film would offend Muslims, Hirsi Ali said that "if you're a Muslim woman and you read the Koran, and you read in there that you should be raped if you say 'no' to your husband, that is offensive. And that is insulting." … On November 2, 2004, Theo van Gogh was assassinated in public by Mohammed Bouyeri, a Dutch-Moroccan Muslim with a Dutch passport. A letter, stabbed through and affixed to the body by a dagger, linked the murder to Van Gogh's film and his views regarding Islam. It was addressed to Ayaan Hirsi Ali and called for a jihad against kafir (Kafir is a disbeliever or infidel) against America, Europe, the Netherlands, and Hirsi Ali herself. Following the murder of Van Gogh, tens of thousands gathered in the center of Amsterdam to mourn Van Gogh's death. There were fire-bombings of mosques and Muslim schools, and counterattacks against Christian churches. Besides Bouyeri, eleven other Muslim men were arrested and charged with conspiracy to assassinate Hirsi Ali.”1
The motivation behind the killing of the film director was about Ali’s views regarding Islam. Notice too that in addition to the murder of the film director and threats to Ali’s life (Ali being one of the direct makers of the film), a jihad against entire countries and even a continent was declared! Such threats to parties not directly involved in whatever offended these Muslims are not new, of course.
In 2005, a Danish newspaper released editorial cartoons which depicted the Islamic prophet Mohammed. As Wikipedia has summarized:
“The newspaper announced that this publication was an attempt to contribute to the debate regarding criticism of Islam and self-censorship. … Danish Muslim organizations that objected to the depictions responded by holding public protests attempting to raise awareness of Jyllands-Posten's publication. Further examples of the cartoons were soon reprinted in newspapers in more than 50 other countries, further deepening the controversy. … This led to Islamic protests across the Muslim world, some of which escalated into violence with instances of firing on crowds of protestors (resulting in a total of more than 100 reported deaths), including the bombing of the Danish embassy in Pakistan and setting fire to the Danish Embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran, storming European buildings, and burning the Danish, Dutch, Norwegian, French and German flags in Gaza City. Various groups, primarily in the Western world, responded by endorsing the Danish policies, including "Buy Danish" campaigns and other displays of support. Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen described the controversy as Denmark's worst international crisis since World War II. … Critics of the cartoons described them as Islamophobic or racist, and argued that they are blasphemous to people of the Muslim faith, are intended to humiliate a Danish minority, or are a manifestation of ignorance about the history of Western imperialism. … Supporters have said that the cartoons illustrated an important issue in a period of Islamic terrorism and that their publication is a legitimate exercise of the right of free speech, explicitly tied to the issue of self-censorship. They claim that Muslims were not targeted in a discriminatory way since unflattering cartoons about other religions (or their leaders) are frequently printed. They question whether some of the riots were spontaneous outpourings as they took place where no spontaneous demonstrations are allowed, and whether the images of Muhammad per se are offensive to Muslims, as thousands of illustrations of Muhammad have appeared in books by and for Muslims.”2
Please note that the publication in Denmark of the cartoons deemed offensive to Islam has resulted in violence with more than 100 deaths and destruction of many properties in many countries outside of Denmark. Based on this record, it is not farfetched to think that this ugliness may also happen if Mideo Cruz’s work featured the Islamic icon. Offended Muslims do not seem to recognize international boundaries when it comes to engaging in large scale violence and mayhem when reacting to artistic expressions that they deem to be critical of their religion or their prophet.
Now, notice too that the Danish newspaper has also released “unflaterring cartoons about other religions (or their leaders)”. But the reactions of the offended adherents of those other religions did not result in the same magnitude (if any) as the case for the violent reactions of the offended Muslims! The Christians in the Netherlands, of course, have engaged in violence too as stated in the previous Wikipedia snippet in retaliation to the murder of Theo van Gogh. But to compare the scale of violence and destruction engaged by both sides in the van Gogh case and also of the Danish cartoon case, the Muslim side gave a larger scale!
Now who can forget the September 11, 2001 attacks? A summary of the motives behind the attack is as follows:
“Osama bin Laden's declaration of a holy war against the United States, and a fatwā signed by bin Laden and others calling for the killing of American civilians in 1998, are seen by investigators as evidence of his motivation to commit such acts. … In various pronouncements before and after the attacks, al Qaeda explicitly cited three motives: the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, U.S. support of Israel, and sanctions against Iraq. After the attacks, bin Laden and al-Zawahiri released additional video tapes and audio tapes, some of which repeated those reasons for the attacks. Two particularly important publications were bin Laden's 2002 "Letter to America", and a 2004 video tape by bin Laden. … Bin Laden interpreted the Prophet Muhammad as banning the "permanent presence of infidels in Arabia". In 1996, bin Laden issued a fatwā calling for American troops to get out of Saudi Arabia. In 1998, Al-Qaeda wrote "for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples." In a December 1999 interview bin Laden said he felt that Americans were "too near to Mecca" and considered this a provocation to the entire Muslim world. … In his November 2002 "Letter to America", bin Laden cited the United States' support of Israel as a motivation: "The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals. And of course there is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel. The creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased. Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its price, and pay for it heavily." In 2004 and 2010, bin Laden again connected the September 11 attacks with U.S. support of Israel. Bin Laden claimed in 2004 that the idea of destroying the towers had first occurred to him in 1982, when he witnessed Israel's bombardment of high-rise apartment buildings during the invasion of Lebanon. Several analysts, including Mearsheimer and Walt, also say one motivation for the attacks was U.S.support of Israel. … In the 1998 fatwā, al-Qaeda identified the Iraq sanctions as a reason to kill Americans: "despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation....On that basis, and in compliance with Allah's order, we issue the following fatwā to all Muslims: The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies—civilians and military—is an individual duty for every Muslim..."3
Bin Laden’s big beef, according to the snippet, is the presence of infidels in Saudi Arabia. With infidels, of course he was referring to the soldiers of the Western powers headed by the United States stationed in Saudi Arabia. But why was Bin Laden and many like-minded Islamic zealots so anal about the US presence in Saudi Arabia?
Because of the presence of the holy cities of Makkah and Madinah in its midst, Saudi Arabia is the heartland and center of the Islamic world.4 Islamic scholar, Professor Abdul Hadi Palazzi said:
“God wanted to give Avraham a double blessing, through Ishmael and through Isaac, and ordered that Ishmael's descendents should live in the desert of Arabia and Isaac's in Canaan.”5
So Bin Laden, together with many other Muslims, consider Saudi Arabia as their god-given land. Anyone who does not honor or recognize their land benefactor (Allah) nor the veracity of their sacred text, the Quran, is considered an infidel. An infidel is basically an “unbeliever”, not necessarily just an atheist but anyone who does not recognize Allah as the one true god nor revere the Quran as sacred. For these folks, the Quran says:
“When you meet the unbelievers, strike off their heads; then when you have made wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives.” (Quran47.4). … "And when the sacred months are passed, kill those who join other gods with God [i.e. moshrekin.] wherever ye shall find them; and seize them, besiege them, and lay wait for them with every kind of ambush: but if they shall convert, and observe prayer, and pay the obligatory alms, then let them go their way, for God is Gracious, Merciful."(Quran 9:5) … "Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been given and believe not in God, or the last day, and who forbid not that which God and His Apostle have forbidden..."( Quran. 9:29)
So clearly the injunctions of Allah, through his words reflected in the Quran, mandate every “believers” to decapitate, slaughter, and make war on the infidels. How can any faithful Muslim, even those who are “peace-loving”, disobey their god? For those who follow the injunctions of this god, how can we even consider them as “good” or “peace-loving” given the brutal nature of injunctions such as the ones shared above? A review of Ibn Warraq’s book “Why I Am Not A Muslim” gives a good point stating:
“Good and bad people are distributed in equal proportions in all nations. Yet in Islam good people are often forced to do bad things and go against their conscience. They often convince themselves that in this apparent injustice there must be a hidden wisdom that they do not understand and that God knows better. Many good people who claim to be Muslims are often ignorant of true Islam and dismiss the real orthodox Muslims as hard-liners and fundamentalists. But as Ibn Warraq in “Why I am not a Muslim” points out, unlike Christianity, Islam does not leave room for leniency and tolerance. Islam and fundamentalism are synonymous terms. You have to break the laws of Muhammad, just to keep your humanity and be good. No amount of intellectual acrobatics performed by Muslim apologists can justify the intolerant and ruthlessness of Muhammad’s religion.”6
Clearly it is understandable why a lot of Muslims resort to murder, violence and mayhem when it comes to what they perceive as an insult to their religion because not to do so would disobey the very injunctions of their god! Now, I recognize that not all or not even the majority of Muslims go chopping off people’s heads at a drop of a pen. However, the silence of these non-violent majority seems very deafening! Writer Frank Gaffney Jr. explains why:
“Since 9/11, many of us have wondered: Where are the moderate Muslims? If they are out there, why are we not hearing more, and getting more help, from them in the fight against our common foe -- the totalitarian Islamists? … In recent weeks in this space, I have chronicled the saga of an effort to answer that question. It took the form of a 52-minute documentary I helped produce for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's "America at a Crossroads" series. The film, entitled "Islam vs. Islamists: Voices from the Muslim Center," features compelling stories of anti-Islamist Muslims who have had the courage to stand up to co-religionists who are using faith to accomplish political ends. … The documentary makes clear why the moderates are not more in evidence. Observant Muslims who dare to challenge the Islamists over ideological agendas pursued in the name of religion are shown being subjected to ostracism, intense coercion to conform and, in some cases, death threats. As long as these anti-Islamist Muslims are rightly seen as isolated, vulnerable and powerless, it would be foolish to believe that many of their co-religionists will want to emulate them.”7
My detractors may argue that the majority (if not all) of the violence committed by the Muslim extremists are political and not religious in nature. I can meet them halfway on that. I am not entirely sold on that because we also have to acknowledge the fact that those crazy Muslim suicide bombers or “martyrs” have engaged in murder under the assurance that “God is on their side”, that the “infidels” deserve such death as stated in the Quran, and that their personal sacrifice will assure them of a free pass to Paradise with many 72 or so virgins for them. My detractors may say that the Islamic terrorist acts we often hear of are only committed by the fringe group who distort interpretations of the Quran to suit their ideology. Yes, I would agree with that. However, isn’t it almost always the fringe group who wreak havoc (Christian extremists included)? More to the point, in no other religion does their respective fringe group engage in unimaginable viciousness more often and more willingly than the case for the Muslim fold. My detractors may also say that the root cause is in the interpretation of the Quran. However, this is the problem with most (if not all) religious texts like the Bible! The Quran, like the Bible, contains a lot of verses that are just so susceptible for misinterpretation. One of my favorite authors, Bishop John Shelby Spong, has a book called “The Sins of Scripture” that exposes the “terrible texts” in the Bible that have been used by Christians to justify atrocities. But the level of violence committed by Christians in the olden days has decreased significantly more than the case for Muslims. Women’s rights, and human liberty, for instance, are now looked at with high importance and value within the Christian fold. I cannot say the same case for Muslims especially those who live under the Sharia law.
It is really amazing how the leftist anti-Christian folks at the Filipino Freethinkers Facebook page are so fixated on their disdain towards Christianity that they even go to the extent of painting Islam as a much better or peaceful religion. Others, in the typical leftist peacenik fashion, have given me flak about generalization against Muslims. Thousands of lives have been killed and many properties have been destroyed in the name of Islam within just these few recent years. The September 11, 2001 Islamic-inspired terrorist attacks have claimed the lives of around 3,000 people in one day. Wow! I suppose for these Filipino Freethinkers, generalization seems to be a lot worse than killing 3,000 people in one day. I am amazed how these dolts love to engage in Muslim butt-kissing despite the fact that Islam actually mandates that they (the non-believers) get killed for being infidels. Ooops… did I touch a nerve there? Boy, these Muslim butt kissers sure are touchy! J (Signing off with an obligatory smiley.) =============== 1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submission_(2004_film) 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy 3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks#Motives 4 http://www.templemount.org/islamiad.html 5 http://www.templemount.org/quranland.html 6 http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/why_i_am_not_muslim.htm 7 http://www.radicalislam.org/content/where-are-liberal-muslims 
An article written by Fr. Ranhilio Callangan Aquino in the Manila Standard Today recently became the target of the folks from the Filipino Freethinkers organization (an organization in the Philippines which aims to promote science, reason, and secularism in the country). Fr. Aquino’s comment regarding what he deems as a stupid idea coming from the group’s suggestion that the Bishops are “hypocrites”, as captured in one of their placards bearing the message “Define Hypocrisy”, has ignited some emotions amongst a few vocal members of the Filipino Freethinkers. There have been a few articles written as well as comments posted on the Filipino Freethinkers website expressing and detailing why they feel that the Bishops are indeed a bunch of hypocrites. While I do not wish to add another pointing finger at the Bishops for accusations of hypocrisy in this rather entertaining drama, I would however want to raise questions about the secularist group’s wisdom of discerning which folks are righteous and which ones are not.
Dr. Sylvia Claudio, an esteemed Women’s Studies educator at the University of the Philippines and a highly respected member of the Filipino Freethinkers organization, condemns the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) in a recent article she wrote that was published at the Filipino Freethinkers website. The article expressed Dr. Claudio’s personal sentiments which rang music to the ears of many Filipino secularists. While I can respect her grievances against the seemingly special privileges accorded by many government officials to the CBCP, I do not see how on Earth she could proclaim Margie Juico and the new PCSO as “righteous people”. Is righteousness qualified under a Yellow shade, I wonder? Will the word “hypocrisy” still spell the same way when viewed through a pair of Yellow lens?
As more information unravels in the Senate hearing regarding the PCSO scandal, it is becoming more evident that those accusations of bribery, graft and corruption are not only applicable to the previous administration of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA). While suggestions of GMA bribing the prelates for political support during her reign were floated by the Yellows, it seems that this practice is still being done under the “righteous” Yellow leadership. It turns out that even under the present PCSO, 2.25% of Small Town Lottery (STL) proceeds go to congressmen in their districts. The current PCSO claimed that the percentage is given directly to the STL operators. However, lo and behold, documented evidence indicates that these were given directly to congressmen! Tribune editor Ninez Cacho-Olivarez points out that:
“While the current PCSO officials claim that the percentage of the STL is given directly to STL operators, they were again caught lying, as records reportedly showed that money was given to the congressmen directly, who moreover, do not even bother to liquidate it — which merely tends to prove that the percentage these public officials get from the STL operations, is a bribe from the Aquino government.”
Don’t congressmen already receive multi millions in pork barrels to “supposedly” spend for projects to benefit their constituents? Why do these congressmen deserve anything extra?
In addition to the congressmen getting money from the PCSO, the Senate hearing reveals that Local Government Units (LGUs), provincial government, and even the Philippine National Police (PNP) get multi-millions from the PCSO as well! Senator Panfilo Lacson, a former fugitive and now a rabid Yellow lapdog, justified the allocation of PCSO revenue shares to LGUs and the PNP because he said that these groups are involved in the fight against the illegal numbers game, “jueteng”. Don’t LGUs and other agencies like the PNP get paid to do their jobs? Of course they do! After so many years of getting extra “incentives” from the PCSO to fight “jueteng” and the “jueteng lords”, has “jueteng” even been eradicated? Have “jueteng lords” been neutralized? No! In fact, the Aquino administration did not even bother to investigate allegations of jueteng payola benefits against his Yellow allies like his shooting buddy Undersecretary Rico Puno. In turn, they merely demanded critics to show proof first on the allegations or to bring the allegations to Court. Wow! That seems eerily similar with the GMA administration’s line every time it was faced with allegations back then.
So how come there are no “Define Hypocrisy” placards being raised by the anti-CBCP folks outside the gates of Malacanang? How come this Yellow government, as embodied by Margie Juico and the new PCSO in this latest controversy, are declared righteous if they are also into the same practice of bribery, graft and corruption that previous administrations have done?
The current PCSO, together with the critics of the CBCP, raised questions about the legality of donating vehicles to the Bishops for public welfare use, pointing to supposed Constitutional provisions and the policy on the Separation of Church and State. So how come the current PCSO are so righteous if they are doing the very same “legally questionable” practices? Margie Juico told the Inquirer that the PCSO under her watch is giving away ambulances, not SUVs. Juico herself admitted that her PCSO has donated ambulances to at least two parishes involved in health programs. Former PCSO Chairman Manuel Morato rightly commented:
“You don’t donate ambulances to priest. You give them to hospitals…. What would priests do with ambulances? "
More to the point, Morato demolished the CBCP’s critics suggesting the past administration’s bias towards the Catholic Church. An Inquirer article notes that:
Morato said the donation of vehicles under then President Arroyo was not exclusive to Catholic bishops or priests.
He said other religious denominations, including “ulamas,” nongovernment organizations and rotary clubs received donations as part of the PCSO’s charity program.
“It was open to everybody who needed our help—Protestants, Muslims, no problem,” he said. “We made them our partners because we could not reach remote places.”
Morato also revealed that Juico and Dinky Soliman (current DSWD Secretary as well as former DSWD Secretary during half of the GMA regime) proposed in 2005 that PCSO give all its charity funds to the Department of Social Welfare and Development. Morato said:
"Hindi yan pu-pwede because DSWD has different mandate. DSWD is supposed to help entire community especially during calamities such as landslides, floods and earthquakes. The PCSO is different and concerns individuals who need money for dialysis, liver transplants , etc. Doon nag-umpisa ang Hyatt 10. That is why they hate me because I know too much. Hindi naman ako papayag sa kalokohan nila."
Still think Juico (and the new PCSO) is righteous? Wait… here’s more!
Today’s headline news in the Tribune reveals that under the current Yellow PCSO, this new “righteous” PCSO is into illegal transfer of funds! The news article reveals that this new PCSO authorized the transfer of 1.9 Million Dollars (that’s Dollars, not Pesos) from the state-owned Land Bank of the Philippines to a private bank, United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB). Morato earlier revealed a much larger amount of more than 11 Million Dollars to the said private bank. Anyway, the PCSO justified the transfer under the reason that the private bank would give a much better interest rate than the State-owned bank. However, this justification falls flat as the PCSO is mandated by law to only deposit funds in government banks. To make matters even uglier, there will be suspicion that since the funds are now in a private bank, they would not be part of the government audit. Wow! It seems to me that we may be looking at the Yellow version of Jose Pidal where the “Bank Secrecy” defense can again be invoked! Couple all these illegal transactions under Juico with allegations of “nepotism” when she appointed her son as her chief-of-staff and allegations of “graft” through Juico’s “milk feeding program scandal” and any sensible person would hold off on raising Juico in a righteousness pedestal.
Again, how come there are no “Define Hypocrisy” placards outside the gates of Malacanang? Not even outside of Juico’s office? Why is Juico and the new PCSO being revered as “righteous” when Juico and the new PCSO seem very much into the same questionable practices previous administrations (especially the GMA administration) are being accused of? I have only the highest respect for my friends at the Filipino Freethinkers organization. A lot of them are intelligent, articulate, and kind-hearted individuals. However, I just do not understand their wisdom for assessing “righteousness”. Their strong bias against the Bishops when it comes to hypocrisy and their deafening silence against Yellow rot fortified by their exaltation for the sanctimonious Juico and her new PCSO leads me to think that this may be a case of a misplaced adulation or just a case of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. I would love to believe that “hypocrisy” even if viewed through a pair of yellow lens still spells the same. But under this Yellow administration and with its supporters like the Filipino Freethinkers, it seems like that notion is a huge leap of faith. ======= References:
http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/insideOpinion.htm?f=2011/july/18/ranhilioaquino.isx&d=2011/july/18 http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2011/07/17/apology-not-accepted/ http://www.philippinealmanac.com/2010/09/787/retired-archbishop-oscar-cruz-dropped-the-names-of-the-twelve-jueteng-payola-recipients.html http://www.tribuneonline.org/20100926/headlines/20100926hed5.html http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/22380/churchmen-still-getting-ambulances-morato http://ph.news.yahoo.com/morato-pcsos-juico-et-al-not-without-sin-151853518.html http://thepoc.net/commentaries/12027-the-pcso-scandal-and-the-sins-of-margie-juico-according-to-manoling-morato.html
Image from: http://www.maximumeyewear.com/productfolder/aviator-sunglasses/yellow-lens-aviator-sunglasses/yellow-lens-aviator-sunglasses.html 
My friends at the Filipino Freethinkers Organization seem to be up in arms about the recent scandal that hit the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP). Understandably so, they point out the hypocrisy of the men of the cloth for being a sanctimonious bunch yet being embroiled in distasteful practices that tolerate or even promote graft and corruption in the Philippines. Recently the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) detonated a bombshell that revealed seven bishops who received “luxurious Sports Utility Vehicles” (SUVs) from the much dreaded former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA) during her time. These bishops have been dubbed as the “Pajero bishops” as PCSO chairperson Margie Juico was quoted by the press that these bishops received “Pajeros” (a Mitsubishi SUV). Given the hostility of the current administration towards its predecessor, it is conceivable (and understandable) that the reason behind the expose is to attempt to go after GMA’s past “sins”. If GMA’s donation or gifts of these “luxury SUVs” violate the provisions of the Constitution, then GMA can be and should be made liable. While I do agree with making GMA accountable for her “sins”, I do not agree with treating the bishops as some sort of casualties of war. The bishops were smeared through a trial by publicity and were prejudged through guilt by association with GMA. Although I am not an admirer of the CBCP (or theism ), I am quite disgusted by the dirty and malicious ways of how this equally hypocritical Yellow administration stifles its opposition. This is why I do not share the sentiments of the majority of my friends at the Filipino Freethinkers organization regarding this issue.
Bashers of the CBCP have pointed out that what the bishops did was illegal. They have cited the case of one of the 7 Pajero bishops who has specifically requested GMA for a new SUV as a “birthday gift”. Records show that this bishop did receive his gift from GMA and because of Article VI, Section 29(2) of the Constitution, the bashers believe that what the bishops did was illegal. I respectfully disagree.
The mentioned stipulation reads:
“No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or employed, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister, other religious teacher, or dignitary as such, except when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or to any penal institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium.”
First of all, I would like to request from my religion-bashing readers to set aside for a moment their disdain of religion, of religionists, and of the hypocritical leaders of organized religion. Let’s try to look at this issue at hand on a more objective ground. Let’s ask ourselves, was the donation aimed to benefit a religious person or institution not assigned to the armed forces or other government institutions? Under a superficial look at things, it is tempting to say “Yes”. But if we look closer at the facts, it is not as easy to answer as it seems. The more sensible quick answer to the question is: “It depends”.
Where does the answer depend on? Well, it is on the purpose and use of the “donation”. The revelations from the issue seem to have shown that the vehicles donated (or at least money donated to purchase the vehicles involved) were for the purposes of these bishops delivering medications and food donations to far-flung areas, some of which are areas that are difficult to reach using ordinary front or rear wheel drive vehicles. Never mind the fact that none of the vehicles involved were actually “Pajeros” or “luxury SUVs” as the PCSO initially stated (although the 2008 Montero for Bishop Pueblos may be an exception), we have to take into account the purpose and use of these donations. Clearly the vehicles were used for charitable causes and even Bishops Pueblos’ letter of request to GMA states that the purpose of his request for a new SUV was for a replacement of his faulty seven-year old car that can no longer be relied upon to be used to go to far-flung areas of his province for the delivery of charity goods. So clearly the purpose of the donation was not for the mere personal benefit of a religious person. Even if there may be some personal benefits that the Bishop obtained from the new vehicle, this benefit is merely incidental. Now, the other question we may consider is: was the donation aimed to benefit the Catholic Church as a religious institution? Again, the answer to this is “No”. Any benefit that the Catholic Church may have enjoyed from the donation or “gift” by the government was again merely incidental.
Why am I downplaying the “incidental” benefit? It is because there is legal precedence! We have the Aglipay vs Ruiz case and the Manosca vs Court of Appeals case as two examples.
Aglipay vs Ruiz (from http://legallyemily.blogspot.com/2010/11/case-digest-aglipay-vs-ruiz.html )
Facts of the Case: The Director of Posts announced on May 1936 in Manila newspapers that he would order the issuance of postage stamps for the commemoration of the 33rd International Eucharistic Congress celebration in the City of Manila. The said event was organized by the Roman Catholic Church. Monsignor Gregorio Aglipay, the petitioner, is the Supreme Head of the Philippine Independent Church, requested Vicente Sotto who is a member of the Philippine Bar to raise the matter to the President. The said stamps in consideration were actually issued already and sold though the greater part thereof remained unsold. The further sale of the stamps was sought to be prevented by the petitioner.
Issue: Whether or not the respondent violated the Constitution in issuing and selling postage stamps commemorative of the Thirty-third International Eucharistic Congress
Ruling: No, the respondent did not violate the Constitution by issuing and selling the commemorative postage stamps. Ruiz acted under the provision of Act No. 4052, which contemplates no religious purpose in view, giving the Director of Posts the discretion to determine when the issuance of new postage stamps would be “advantageous to the Government.” Of course, the phrase “advantageous to the Government” does not authorize the violation of the Constitution. In the case at bar, the issuance of the postage stamps was not intended by Ruiz to favor a particular church or denomination. The stamps did not benefit the Roman Catholic Church, nor were money derived from the sale of the stamps given to that church. The purpose of issuing of the stamps was to actually take advantage of an international event considered to be a great opportunity to give publicity to the Philippines and as a result attract more tourists to the country. In evaluating the design made for the stamp, it showed the map of the Philippines instead of showing a Catholic chalice. The focus was on the location of the City of Manila, and it also bore the inscription that reads “Seat XXXIII International Eucharistic Congress, Feb. 3-7, 1937.” In considering these, it is evident that there is no violation of the Constitution therefore the act of the issuing of the stamps is constitutional.
The Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of prohibition, without pronouncement as to costs.
This case shows that there was no violation in the Constitution because whatever benefit the Catholic Church may have enjoyed was merely incidental to a legitimate government purpose.
Manosca vs Court of Appeals (from http://attymanueljlasernajr.blogspot.com/2011/05/eminent-domain-public-use-just.html )
Facts of the Case: Petitioners inherited a piece of land located at P. Burgos Street, Calzada, Taguig, Metro Manila, with an area of about four hundred ninety-two (492) square meters. When the parcel was ascertained by the NHI to have been the birthsite of Felix Y. Manalo, the founder of Iglesia Ni Cristo, it passed Resolution No. 1, Series of 1986, pursuant to Section 4[2] of Presidential Decree No. 260, declaring the land to be a national historical landmark. The resolution was, on 06 January 1986, approved by the Minister of Education, Culture and Sports. Later, the opinion of the Secretary of Justice was asked on the legality of the measure. In his Opinion No. 133, Series of 1987, the Secretary of Justice replied in the affirmative. At the same time, respondent Republic filed an urgent motion for the issuance of an order to permit it to take immediate possession of the property. The motion was opposed by petitioners.
Issue: Petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint on the main thesis that the intended expropriation was not for a public purpose and, incidentally, that the act would constitute an application of public funds, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of Iglesia ni Cristo, a religious entity, contrary to the provision of Section 29(2), Article VI, of the 1987 Constitution.
Ruling: Petitioners ask: But “(w)hat is the so-called unusual interest that the expropriation of (Felix Manalo’s) birthplace become so vital as to be a public use appropriate for the exercise of the power of eminent domain” when only members of the Iglesia ni Cristo would benefit? This attempt to give some religious perspective to the case deserves little consideration, for what should be significant is the principal objective of, not the casual consequences that might follow from, the exercise of the power. The purpose in setting up the marker is essentially to recognize the distinctive contribution of the late Felix Manalo to the culture of the Philippines, rather than to commemorate his founding and leadership of the Iglesia ni Cristo. The practical reality that greater benefit may be derived by members of the Iglesia ni Cristo than by most others could well be true but such a peculiar advantage still remains to be merely incidental and secondary in nature. Indeed, that only a few would actually benefit from the expropriation of property does not necessarily diminish the essence and character of public use.
All considered, the Court finds the assailed decision to be in accord with law and jurisprudence.
Again, this case shows that there was no violation in the Constitution because whatever benefit the Iglesia Ni Kristo Church may enjoy is merely incidental to a legitimate government purpose.
So let us go back to the case of the Pajero Bishops. Did the Bishops violate the law? The answer is “No”. Did GMA’s administration violate the law? Again the answer appears to be “No” as the donations were made for a legitimate government purpose (charity to benefit the poor in far-flung areas).
So President Noynoy Aquino’s administration, even without any legal leg to stand with regarding the case, has publicly damaged the reputation of the “Pajero Bishops” through its exposes from press conferences. PhilStar columnist Jose C. Sison is correct in pointing out that:
“The present practice of calling for a press conference to expose certain anomalies or alleged wrongdoings of officials in the past administration somehow does not jibe with the concept of fair play. Even if it is emphasized that the persons mentioned are not directly implicated or will not necessarily be charged until they have aired and explained their side, the proper and fair move here is still to refer the matter first to the appropriate investigating and prosecuting arm of the government like the Ombudsman or the State Prosecutors of the Department of Justice to give those involved in the alleged irregularities and misdeeds the chance to be heard before filing the case in the court of justice.
This practice is really very damaging because the officials holding the press conference have already formed their own conclusions or judgments which may be false or erroneous, while members of media themselves sometimes tend to exaggerate, sensationalize, give other meanings or conclusions or even misquote the statements or press releases made in connection with the incidents surrounding the exposes. Public opinion is thus prematurely formed condemning the alleged acts done and the people who allegedly committed them.
What happened to the seven Catholic prelates given assistance in kind by the PCSO clearly illustrates this point. While the main targets of the expose was the management of the PCSO under the Arroyo administration, the bishops had been unnecessarily and unfairly dragged into the picture for allegedly committing an unconstitutional and immoral act of receiving “Pajeros” or luxurious vehicles for their personal use when in truth, the vehicles given were heavy duty 4x4 utility vehicles used by the prelates mainly for the purpose of helping the PCSO and the government in their health and social welfare projects for the poor people in far flung areas.”
The end does not justify the means. I don’t care if President Noynoy Aquino advocates something that my secularist friends at the Filipino Freethinkers are pushing for (such as the RH Bill). PNoy's penchant to engage in despicable dirty play is most revolting! 
Priest Bel R. San Luis shared a story in his article today at the Manila Bulletin which attempts to argue against the controversial Reproductive Health (RH) Bill in the Philippines. In his article, he writes:
There is a story of two doctors in conversation. One said: “About the termination of a pregnancy, I want your opinion. The father was syphilitic, the mother tuberculous. Of the four children born, the first was blind, the second died, the third was a deaf-mute, the fourth also tuberculous. What would you have done?”
“I would have ended the pregnancies, “ the doctor said casually. “Then you would have murdered Beethoven,” countered the other.
* * *
Ludwig van Beethhoven, a German, who died in 1827, is regarded as one of the greatest — if not the greatest — composers of all time. As that doctor said, he was deaf and at 40 he became totally deaf. He never heard much of his monumental works but that did not interfere with his musical creativity. If there was an RH Law then, the world would have lost Beethoven. 1
I feel such lines of reasoning are flawed and utterly deceptive. It is such a shame that a “man of God” would purposely resort to a cunning attempt at trickery just for the purpose of drumming up emotional support for his organization’s cause. In addition to mischaracterizing the RH Bill into an abortion bill, this priest has also resorted to a logical fallacy called Argumentum ad misericodiam (special pleading). Through this article, I would like to explain why I feel this way.
Mischaracterization
Anti-RH folks love to equate the use of contraceptives (which plays a huge part of the RH Bill) to abortion. However, last time I checked, abortion is defined as follows2:
Dictionary.com - the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy - any of various surgical methods for terminating a pregnancy, especially during the first six months
World English Dictionary - an operation or other procedure to terminate pregnancy before the fetus is viable - the premature termination of pregnancy by spontaneous or induced expulsion of a nonviable fetus from the uterus - the arrest of development of an organ - a failure to develop to completion or maturity
Medical Dictionary - the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus - spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation - induced expulsion of a human fetus
Now, it is widely known that the Church believes that “Life Begins at Conception”. Conception occurs after the woman’s egg is “fertilized” by the man’s sperm. This “fertilization” process is defined as the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism.3 However, we have to note that the key event here is “fertilization”. If fertilization does not occur during or after sex, then technically speaking there is no “Conception” to argue about.
The problem is that there is no way one can tell if fertilization will occur prior to sex. Surely we can discuss about probabilities but the fact remains that women who have intercourse do not necessarily get pregnant all the time! The beginning of life, very much like “miracles”, does not always occur.
So now we come to “contraceptive”. The term is defined as follows4:
Dictionary.com - tending or serving to prevent conception or impregnation
World English Dictionary - able or tending to prevent impregnation - any device that prevents or tends to prevent conception
Medical Dictionary - Capable of preventing conception - A device, drug, or chemical agent that prevents conception
If contraceptives prevent conception, the initial component of life as the Church believes, then how on Earth can the use of contraceptives be qualified as abortion? There is no termination of pregnancy and in fact there is no conception to begin with that produces an embryo to terminate! More to the point, the use of contraceptives would even prevent the need to even think about having an abortion! It is amazing how the Church can perform such a twisted formulation that vilifies contraceptives.
The Church claims that sex must be open to procreation. They claim that:
“Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race… God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation.” 5
If such were truly the case, then aren’t priests and nuns, being part of the human race, violating God’s design too by being celibate? God designed men and women to have sexual organs and sexual desires to fulfill a natural end – procreation. So why is it okay for priests and nuns to deliberately go against God’s design while it is wrong for others to use contraceptives? Does it make it right if an act is done to serve God, even if the act itself is a violation of God’s will and design?
Argumentum ad misericordiam (Special Pleading)
This fallacy is committed when someone appeals to pity for the sake of getting a conclusion accepted. The priest in essence is pleading to his readers to reject the RH Bill because he asserts that such a bill will effectively deprive the world of the gifts of future Beethovens; and surely, as the priest pleads, this makes the RH Bill wrong. It would be quite a pity if we were deprived of the genius of Beethoven.
However, suppose that Klara Polzl6 had access to and chose to use the artificial contraceptives that we have in our present generation in 1888. Couldn’t this have possibly prevented the murder of around 6 million Jews during the time of Nazi Germany? Wouldn’t the use of artificial contraceptives done the world a huge favor by preventing the occurrence of the Holocaust sanctioned by one of history’s most evil men? Wouldn’t the world been better off had Hamida al-Attas (a.k.a. Alia Ghanem)7 used birth control pills? We wouldn’t have had to deal with Osama bin Laden if such were the case!
I suppose the priest can use all the great men and women of history to plead his point and I suppose I could use all the reviled men and women of history as well to counter the priest’s argument. However I do not wish to do that because the reasoning is just ridiculously flawed in any way one is to cut it. I choose to support the RH Bill not because I want to prevent Hitlers or Bin Ladens from being born but rather to give our people, especially the poor, better control of their lives and their future in a country plagued with hopelessness.
To end this piece, I see that in any logical angle, the priest’s reason appears to be bankrupt. It is a shame that this “man of God” seems devoid of intellectual honesty.
======== References:
1 http://mb.com.ph/articles/320728/contraceptive-budget-a-misplaced-priority
2 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abortion
3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilisation
4 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/contraceptive
5 http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp
6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Childhood
7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#Early_life_and_education 
The Citizens’ Alliance for the Protection of Human Life (CAPH-Life), a pro-life non-government organization (NGO) in the Philippines has called on the Filipino people to engage in civil disobedience and to refuse to pay taxes should the controversial Reproductive Health Bill gets passed into law. Philippine President Noynoy Aquino has warned those who will follow such calls made by the CAPH-Life and other similar NGOs on not paying their taxes would be charged of sedition.1,2 I submit that although Noynoy is justified in threatening to penalize those who will refuse to pay their taxes, the crime of “Sedition” is not the appropriate charge to make. The crime of “Tax Evasion” would be more appropriate. Now speaking of “Tax Evasion”, I also submit that it is now time to consider imposing tax on religious organizations like the Catholic Church.
Let me first start off with Noynoy’s threat of “Sedition”. Although I would love to see those sanctimonious Church-backed groups like the CAPH-Life to be appropriately charged for their insanities, what they are doing does not fit the definition of “Sedition” according to the Law. Article 139 of the Revised Penal Code states:
“The crime of sedition is committed by persons who rise publicly and tumultuously in order to attain by force, intimidation, or by other means outside of legal methods, any of the following objects:
1. To prevent the promulgation or execution of any law or the holding of any popular election;
2. To prevent the National Government, or any provincial or municipal government or any public officer thereof from freely exercising its or his functions, or prevent the execution of any administrative order;
3. To inflict any act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of any public officer or employee;
4. To commit, for any political or social end, any act of hate or revenge against private persons or any social class; and
5. To despoil, for any political or social end, any person, municipality or province, or the National Government (or the Government of the United States), of all its property or any part thereof.” 3
Please note that item #5 mentions the Government of the United States because the law was drafted during the 1930s when the Philippines was a Commonwealth country under the USA. This law was amended numerously by former President Ferdinand Marcos and it was restored to its original form after the Marcos-era in 1987. As you can see from the stipulations, Noynoy’s threat of sedition charges is empty and hot air at best, if we give the benefit of the doubt that President Noynoy really knows his legal salt.
So how can President Aquino threaten the supporters of the planned civil disobedience? Well, if refusing to pay taxes will be the act, then it only makes sense that the nature of the violation would be “Tax Evasion”! Republic Act 7642, Section 2 states:
“Attempt to evade or defeat tax. — Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed under this Code or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, upon conviction thereof, be fined not less than Thirty thousand pesos but not more than One hundred thousand pesos and suffer imprisonment of not less than two years but not more than four years.” 4
By threatening his critics with Sedition charges, not only does it show that Noynoy is ignorant of the Sedition Law, he is also inadvertently arming his detractors with anti-Marcosian rhetoric as Philippine bishops noted that Noynoy sounds like Marcos for issuing such a threat. Noynoy is winning the battle in the RH Bill because he has the support of the majority of the Filipino people. Why would he want to screw it up by giving the Church an opening to get the people’s sympathies through popular anti-Marcosian rhetoric, which he and his family has successfully exploited for many years? The “Tax Evasion” charge is the smarter and more appropriate threat to make. While this threat would only apply to tax deadbeat adherents of the Church and not the Church itself (as religious organizations are not taxed in the country) this could also open up the issue of the Church’s irresponsibility. What moral ground would the Church stand on if it willfully supports acts by its adherents with dire consequences while they have the luxury of being shielded from those consequences? The Church would be exposed as using its followers as “mere means” in which the philosopher Immanuel Kant argued to be the worst thing that can be done to another human being.
To be fair, I think the Church ought to give up its privilege first of being shielded against tax responsibilities before it supports its followers who do not share such privilege against the tax collection agency. Come to think of it, I think it is not even a matter of the Church’s decision to give this privilege up; it is the government’s duty to take away this privilege from religious organizations in the name of equity and justice and for it to live up to its State Policy to:
“…promote sustainable economic growth through the rationalization of the Philippine internal revenue tax system, including tax administration; to provide, as much as possible, an equitable relief to a greater number of taxpayers in order to improve levels of disposable income and increase economic activity; and to create a robust environment for business to enable firms to compete better in the regional as well as the global market, at the same time that the State ensures that Government is able to provide for the needs of those under its jurisdiction and care.” 5
Blogger Leiand W. Ruble is correct to point out that:
“The mystical exploitation of religion has created a hierarchy of sanctimonious pedagogues who prosper in an environment free of obligation to the society from which they profit immensely. There is no such thing as a non-profit religion. If there were non-profit religions, most established religions would not exist.
…
Why then, is religion exempt from taxation? There are those who assume that it is to prevent government influence into the activities of religion, and to prevent the same from interfering in the affairs of government. It is also thought that taxation of religion would restrict its growth, thus constricting the freedom of worship and making it difficult for religious activity to flourish. This does not make sense. If a mystical organization cannot prosper or survive because of taxation, it must not have a message or purpose worth sustaining, nor the ability to communicate a concept that appeals to the public. If it requires exemption from taxation as the only way it can exist, then it is a religion based on a superficial concept of Biblical nonsense that eventually the public will ignore.
…
What is Democratic, what is justifiable in allowing the churches the extraordinary freedom to exist exempt from taxation??? Especially when the exempted religions pursue as their objective, the influence of legislation favorable to their continued material advancement. The survival of organized revealed religion is dependent on not only the generosity of its members, but also from a government that is sympathetic to the continued domination of mystical authority in the affairs of state and society.
…
The established religions have prospered in an environment that is maintained through the taxation of others for such simple things as street upkeep, courts of law, police and fire protection, or any of the many other services that the public pays for. It is we the people, who are assuring that religious associations can perform their functions, while they are exempted from the same obligation. They have been granted an exclusion, that is based on the erroneous concept, that religion is a non-profit enterprise. Anyone who believes religion is not profitable and exists solely as a distributor of myth and magic, has not looked recently at the vast resources and property that churches have acquired as non-profit organizations.
…
Christian leaders add the ingredient of hypocrisy to themselves and their mythology by pretending to be followers of Jesus who allegedly believed religions SHOULD pay taxes to existing governments by saying, according to Luke 20:25, "Render to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." According to this quote from their holy book, their god would be against tax-exemptions for his followers.” 6
In light of the seeming hypocrisy displayed by the Church when it comes to paying taxes, let us see if their priorities would still be the “protection of the unborn” when the issue of taxing religion is raised. I have a feeling that they will switch its battle line to protect its pocket instead when its finances are directly threatened.
Benjamin Franklin once said:
“In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes”. 7
As long as the Church exists in this world with the rest of us, why should it be exempted from this certainty? If the Church already has a loophole for death (invoking "Eternal Life through Jesus Christ")... why should it have a loophole for taxes as well? ===========
References:
1 http://www.tribuneonline.org/headlines/20110514hed1.html
2 http://www.journal.com.ph/index.php/news/top-stories/5167-rh-foes-warned
3 http://www.chanrobles.com/revisedpenalcodeofthephilippinesbook2.htm
4 http://www.chanrobles.com/republicactno7642.htm
5 http://www.chanrobles.com/legal6nationalinternalrevenuecodeof1997.html
6 http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/y2k/tax_churches.htm
7 http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/benjaminfr151592.html  I have been a supporter for the approval of the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill in the Philippines.1 The principles of the RH Bill, I think, is not only sensible in terms of an attempt to alleviate the economic and emotional plight of many Filipinos especially the poor, it is also morally sensible. It is quite disappointing to hear earlier this year that Philippine President Noynoy Aquino took the RH Bill out of his priority list of Bills to push for.2 However, Noynoy has recently reiterated his support for the Bill and even announced that he was willing to risk being excommunicated by the Catholic Church for supporting the Bill.3 While the recent statements made by Noynoy sound encouraging especially for the advocates of the Bill, Noynoy’s preference to dub the Bill as “Responsible Parenthood” (RP) instead of “RH Bill”, seems a little suspicious.
In one of the few Facebook pages I belong to, I asked about the difference between the RH Bill and the RP Bill. One of the participants told me that there is no difference. This seems to be the prevailing thought as the two terms are often used interchangeably. However, the inquisitive part of me just couldn’t shake off the nagging feeling that something fishy is going on with Noynoy’s preference of using the term RP Bill instead of RH Bill. Could the use of the term RP Bill instead of RH Bill be indicative of an attempt to appease the Catholic Church (anti-RH Bill side) and continue to maintain the support of the majority of the citizenry (pro-RH Bill side)? Some facts seem to affirm this question.
It is no secret that the Catholic Church, through its Philippine representation – the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), holds a large political clout in the Philippines. The CBCP has been instrumental in toppling two Philippine Heads of State. With around 83% of the entire Philippine population as baptized Catholics and with roughly 68% of the entire citizenry regularly attending Catholic Mass4, one can have an idea of how immense the Church’s influence can be.
Interestingly enough, in spite of the huge (political) influence of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, it appears that the majority of the Philippine citizenry support the RH Bill.5 A previous survey from Pulse Asia states that the survey:
“…revealed that 69 percent of those polled expressed agreement with the bill, while 80 percent of Filipinos have shown a “high level” of awareness on the legislation that has been sharply dividing Congress.”
While it is known that Noynoy Aquino stands outside of the Church’s whims when it comes to this Bill’s issue, it has also been shown that Aquino has folded like a cheap pair of shoes in the past amidst threats of various forces (the Church included) to pull away support for Noynoy’s administration and to promote civil disobedience against his government.6,7,8,9
Recent surveys have revealed that Noynoy’s approval rating has taken a huge dip. The Social Weather Stations (SWS) survey revealed that Noynoy’s satisfaction rating has taken a nosedive from 64% last November to 51% in March of this year.10 If we consider Manila Times columnist Tony Lopez’s comment:
“This 51 percent looks good, but not if you consider that the SWS survey has an error margin of plus or minus 3 percent. Add three percentage points to 51 percent and you get 54 percent. Deduct three percentage points from 51 percent and you get 48 percent. … For all practical purposes, Noynoy Aquino’s public approval rating is now in negative territory, below majority. He is skating on thin ice insofar as his job and popularity is concerned. People are beginning to be pissed off with him, and they are telling him.”11
… it sure does look like Noynoy has grounds to be worried about being “the only president in the last quarter century whose satisfaction ratings dropped in the first eight to 10 months of office”11. In light of this, it is not farfetched to realize why Noynoy seems to be playing the populist stand by giving the people more rhetoric about something popular to the citizenry while attempting to accommodate the influential Church by seemingly premising the Bill on “Parenthood” instead of “Health”, thereby opening the possibility of the RH Bill being watered down. The advocates of the RH Bill, I think, are in a potential risk of being taken for a ride by Noynoy with his RP Bill choice and unfortunately this ride would not be in his nifty Porsche or comfy Lexus12.
So why can the RP Bill be potentially amount to a watered down version of the RH Bill?
The use of the term “Responsible Parenthood” instead of “Reproductive Health” may potentially entail a change in the scope for funding any programs in support of the law. The Constitution is supposed to guarantee the State’s responsibility for providing affordable essential health care to the citizenry and free medical care to the poor as mandated by the Constitution.13 If the Bill is clearly premised on Health, then the State is legally bound to provide effective and safe means of contraception to the citizenry at an affordable cost or for free to the poor. This translates to government subsidy. Now on the other hand, if the Bill is premised on “Parenthood”, this does not necessarily obligate the State to subsidize any programs supporting the Bill. According to the Family Code the State shall DEFEND the right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood.14 The State’s obligation to PROVIDE for the Health needs of the citizenry is inherently different from the State’s obligation to DEFEND the right of spouses to found a family according to the demands of responsible parenthood. What I fear the implications of the change in terminology is that if the Bill is premised on “parenthood”, all the government is responsible for would be to protect the people’s right to choose what kind of birth control they deem appropriate to use but will not mandate itself to actually provide for birth control. While educating the people on the many options on birth control is admirable, without providing contraceptives especially to the poor… this endeavor is utterly useless.
From the context of how the terms RH Bill and RP Bills are discussed, it seems to me that the RH Bill calls for access to cheap, if not free contraceptives, provided for by the government. The RP Bill, on the other hand, as from how Noynoy talks about it, calls for the government providing couples education on family planning through both the natural methods (i.e. Church-approved ways) and the use of artificial means (i.e. contraceptives). If the RP Bill only entails educating the people on birth control options and not actually providing affordable (or free) access to preferred effective and safe artificial contraceptives, then this whole endeavor is utterly useless! Without the provision of affordable or free contraceptives, the “education” people (especially the poor) will get will just go in from one ear and out to the other. This potential scenario resulting from a half-baked and a half-brained idea concocted out of political accommodation is doomed to fail!
Now I may be wrong in my suspicion and I really hope I am wrong on this one but I think supporters of the RH Bill need to be vigilant about political maneuverings that would water-down the Bill. This already happened with the Generics Act back in 1988. That Act initially intended to promote the use of generic drugs to save people money in buying their prescriptions. However, before they decided to pass the Law, they tinkered with it to ensure that the Law does not prohibit physicians to include “brand names” of drugs if they desire. This non-prohibition in section Sec. 6 b of the Republic Act 6675, I believe, defeated the purpose of promoting public purchase of the lower cost generic drugs.15 For more on this you can visit my article at http://hgamboa.multiply.com/journal/item/84/Prescribed_Corruption .
The Generics Act was crafted to accommodate a big interest group – the Pharmaceutical companies. Now with this tinkering of terminologies in the RH Bill by premising it on “Parenthood” instead of “Health”, the RP Bill may be accommodating another big interest group – the Catholic Church. Something really smells fishy here but like I said… I hope my suspicion is wrong.
======== Background References: 1 http://hgamboa.multiply.com/journal/item/92/On_Keeping_Rosaries_Away_from_Ovaries 2 http://www.gmanews.tv/story/212421/palace-rh-rp-bills-not-among-aquinos-priority-measures 3 http://www.gmanews.tv/story/218048/nation/aquino-willing-to-risk-excommunication-for-rp-bill 4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholicism_in_the_Philippines#Church_Influence_on_Government 5 http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20101130-306205/Majority-of-Filipinos-back-RH-billPulseAsia 6 http://www.newsflash.org/2004/02/hl/hl110094.htm 7 http://www.malaya.com.ph/feb15/edrey.html 8 http://newssimple.blogspot.com/2011/02/has-noynoy-aquino-been-bullied-by.html 9 http://hgamboa.multiply.com/journal/item/108/Cheap_Pair_of_Shoes 10 http://www.filipinoreporter.us/home/philippines/722-p-noy-rating-slips-13-points--sws.html 11 http://www.manilatimes.net/opinion/why-noynoy-should-worry/ 12 http://antipinoy.com/a-lexus-to-drive-and-god-on-his-side-noynoys-got-it-made/ 13 http://www.chanrobles.com/article13health.htm 14 http://www.chanrobles.com/article15family.htm 15 http://hgamboa.multiply.com/journal/item/84/Prescribed_Corruption  I am enthused by the things I have been reading recently at a discussion thread on the Facebook page of “Get Real Philippines”. The discussion is about the question on whether former President Ferdinand Marcos (FM) should be allowed to be buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB) or not. For my non-Filipino readers, the LNMB is the Philippines’ National Heroes Cemetery. Supporters of the late President say that FM should be buried at the LNMB because he meets the qualifications as he was a World War 2 veteran and a former Senate President and a former President of the Republic. Those who oppose say that FM was a tyrant and that he should not be considered as a “hero” because of his infamy on account of allegations of grand scale theft and atrocities. This article attempts to come up with a conclusion based on what the regulations about the qualifications for burial at the LNMB state and based on my best approximation of objectivity.
Before I get into the discussion, I would like to disclose my current personal inclinations on matters of today’s Philippine politics. I consider myself as a strong critic of the present administration headed by President Noynoy Aquino and I also consider myself as a strong critic of many of the President’s supporters (especially his friends and family). I also consider myself an admirer of the late President Ferdinand Marcos. Although I recognize that my assessment may be susceptible to my personal bias, I would argue that most (if not all) ideas and assertions are shaped in one way or another by the thinkers’ personal biases as well. I have always mentioned in many of my heated discussions in the past with my supporters and detractors alike that what we believe does not matter more than what we can prove. With that in mind, let me begin.
What qualifies a person to be buried at the LNMB?
The qualifications, as shared by Atty. Benjamin Maynigo’s blog, are as follows:
Paragraph 2 of AFPR G 161 374, entitled, Allocation of Cemetery Plots at the Libingan ng mga Bayani enumerates who are qualified to be interred in the cemetery. It says, “The remains of the following deceased persons are qualified and therefore, authorized to be interred in the Libingan ng mga Bayani:
· Medal of Valor Awardees · Presidents or Commanders-in-Chief · Secretaries of National Defense · Chiefs of Staff, AFP · General Flag Officers of the AFP · Active and retired military personnel of the AFP · Veterans of Philippine Revolution 1896, World War 1 & 2, and recognized guerillas · Government dignitaries, statesmen, national artists and other deceased persons whose interment or re-interment has been approved by the commander-in-chief, Congress or the Secretary of National Defense · Former presidents, secretaries of defense, CSAFP, generals/flsg officers, dignitaries, statesmen, national artists, widows of former presidents, secretaries of national defense and chief of staff are authorized to be interred at the LNMB
So in looking at the qualifications stated above, there is no doubt that FM is qualified to be buried at the LNMB. However, as Atty. Maynigo also pointed out that the regulations also have criteria for disqualification. The criteria are as follows:
“The remains of the following shall not be interred in the Libingan ng mga Bayani:
· Personnel who were dishonorably separated/reverted/discharged from the service · Authorized personnel who were convicted by final judgment of the offense involving moral turpitude”
Now Section 1 of Republic Act No. 289 states the purpose of establishing the LNMB. The purpose is:
“…to perpetuate the memory of all the Presidents of the Philippines, national heroes and patriots for the inspiration and emulation of this generation and of generation still unborn.”
Atty. Maynigo states that:
“…mere inclusion in the list is not sufficient. Anyone in the list must also serve as ‘inspiration and emulation’ for the current and future generation. So they must not therefore bring dishonor in any shape or form. That is why the provision on disqualification was also added.”
The argument being presented by those opposed to FM’s burial at the LNMB (including Atty. Maynigo) is that although FM meets the qualifications set forth in Paragraph 2 of AFPR G 161 374, FM also meets the criteria set forth under the disqualification rules.
Many anti-FM folks love to give a whole litany of FM’s alleged crimes against the Filipino people. The problem with this is that technically speaking, FM was never convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude. As Atty. Maynigo stated:
“Although we can cite several offenses involving moral turpitude allegedly committed by him, he died before he could be charged, tried and convicted. There are legal effects or consequences of death. In this material world, our finite courts cannot acquire criminal jurisdiction over the soul of the dead. It would be too late for any measure of personal and material reformation and / or retribution. The Divine courts take over for final judgment.”
Now here comes the tricky part… if FM cannot be disqualified because he was not convicted by final judgment of offenses involving moral turpitude, was he dishonorably separated/reverted/discharged from the service?
Many Filipinos love to glorify the 1986 EDSA People Power. This, as many people claim, marked the restoration of democracy in the Philippines and this marked the ousting of dictator FM. The anti-FM folks state that 1986 EDSA dishonorably separated/reverted/discharged FM from the Office of the Presidency. Many people assert that the 1986 EDSA People Power was one of the most successful peaceful revolutions in the history of mankind. Be that as it may be, the question now is… since technically the 1986 EDSA People Power was an unconstitutional exercise to remove a sitting President, was FM really dishonorably separated/reverted/discharged from Office if we go by what is objective (based on the Constitution) and not by what is subjective (personal sentiments)?
According to the 1973 Constitution (the one active during FM’s last days in power):
ARTICLE XIII Accountability of Public Officers
Section 2. The President, the Justices of the Supreme Court, and the Members of the Constitutional Commissions shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, other high crimes, or graft and corruption.
Even with former President Cory Aquino’s 1987 Constitution (the present one the country is under):
ARTICLE XI ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
Section 2. The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.
The removal of a sitting President, according to the Rule of Law, is done by impeachment. The Constitution spells out the particulars for the procedures for impeachment; mob rule, EDSA revolutions, coup d’etat and other similar shades of power grab are not sanctioned by the Rule of Law. FM was never impeached. FM was ousted through the parliament of the streets and through a power grab.
Would going against the dictates of the Rule of Law which the citizenry has ordained and promulgated be an honorable act? If so, where in the Constitution is this objectively spelled out? If there is no objective or Constitutional basis for FM’s “dishonorable removal”, then the main argument against FM’s burial at the LNMB does not fit the Law’s disqualification provisions. As Atty. Johnny Cochran once said: “If the glove don’t fit, you must acquit!”.
Whether one likes FM or not, his burial case does not rest upon personal sentiments. FM’s successors have permitted the burial of a dog and a general who committed suicide amidst allegations of corrupt practices. Former President Cory Aquino ordered state honors and state funeral for a military dog and under her son’s administration, General Angelo Reyes was accorded state honors and state funeral as well. Why does a dog weigh more than a former Head of State? Why is it okay for one official who was alleged to have committed dishonorable acts and not for another?
Again, without going through our subjective arguments of whether FM was a saint or sinner (which can really end up presenting itself as a big Red Herring on the matter), if we look at reasons with more objective basis (i.e. the Rule of Law), then FM is qualified to be buried at the LNMB. Any other arguments, I think, are merely Yellow noise. The Yellows love to quote: “Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat them”. But for crying out loud, why must remembering the past entail that we live in the past? FM has been long gone for more than a couple of decades. His successors have already learned from the failures and “sins” of FM that is why measures (through the 1987 Constitution) were taken to prevent FM’s alleged abuses from happening again. If we can put the more than 300 years of Spanish colonization, 50 (or so) years of American colonization and over 3 years of Japanese occupation in the past without necessarily harping about how awful the Filipinos were treated by our conquerors in those periods, why can’t the Filipinos also put the issues of the Marcos years in the past as well? 
An article from the Philippine Daily Inquirer tells of another criticism of Willie Revillame, this time from actress-director Monique Wilson. Ms. Wilson is calling on all Philippine artists to join forces to pressure TV networks not to “dumb down” the Filipino audience. Of course, Ms. Wilson is referring to the type of shallow shows Philippine TV networks provide to the Filipinos. She ponders on the question: “… how we as Filipinos, as artists involved in the same industry that created Willie Revillame and shows like his, could have allowed this to go on for as long as it has?” I think this is just as up-nosed as one could get. Entertainment is entertainment. While Wilson’s talent caters to the more affluent or folks with a more sophisticated taste, it doesn’t mean that Willie’s talent is any less effective or valuable just because he caters to the poor and the downtrodden. I would even argue that in the arena of entertainment, Willie is far more effective and far more accomplished than the pompous Monique Wilson, Jim Paredes, Lea Salonga, or any other sanctimonious elitists trying to bring him down. Willie is a far better entertainer than his detractors because at the end of the day, success in entertainment is measured by the number of appreciation earned.
Wilson said: “We keep saying Filipino artists are world-class. Well, let’s prove it now.” How on earth will shutting down the Willing Willie show prove that Filipino artists are world-class? What does it mean to be labeled as “world-class” anyway if there is little (if any) appreciation from the audience? Willing Willie is catered to the masses who appreciate the kind of cheap and shallow laughs Willie Revillame provides. Why should the Filipino masses care if foreigners who have a different type of humor and style won’t be able to appreciate the type of entertainment Willie provides? For once, these sanctimonious elitists like Wilson ought to get off their high horses and think about what the Filipino people want and not what they want for the Filipino people!
When I saw the controversial episode from the Willing Willie show, I thought the Jan-Jan segment was funny. Child abuse or anything malicious never crossed my mind and I believe that no one in the studio audience sensed any intent from Willie to abuse the 6 year old kid. I urge my readers to look at the whole Jan-Jan segment once more and look at the details of what has transpired.
You will notice that the kid was starting to cry before he started to dance. When Willie was interviewing the kid, you will also notice that there was a sad background music playing. This music, of course, was used to provide a more dramatic touch for the audience as the boy was giving the audience an idea of his family’s modest life. It was a tear-jerker moment and based on what I observed, even the boy was feeling the sympathetic spirit coming from the audience. Again, the fact is the boy started to cry even before he danced. Willie’s critics are wrong to say that the boy started to break into tears when he danced to win a Php10,000 prize.
Then of course, when the boy danced, everyone in the studio, including Willie Revillame, was surprised about the kind of dance the boy performed. Everyone in the studio found it funny to see a 6 year old boy gyrating like a “macho dancer”. The laughter and appreciation from the audience was so lively that the boy probably was also surprised about how his dancing was received by the audience. The boy was a hit with the audience and everyone in the audience applauded Jan-Jan’s performance. There was no moment during the whole segment where one can see or sense that the boy really did not want to dance. You could even see the joy in the boy’s eyes when Willie gave him his Php10,000 prize.
Now we hear these sanctimonious elitists like Wilson claim:
“The facts are plain to see. No one with a sense of respect for another human being can dispute that.”
Of course she is alluding to her “fact” that Willie subjected the kid to embarrassment by goading him to gyrate like a macho dancer just to gain cheap laughs. Well, apparently, Ms. Wilson, much like the other sanctimonious Yellow elitists trying to bring Willie down, is being unfairly selective on which facts to look at. If one fairly looks at the whole segment and not just the spliced segment where we see a gyrating boy crying, you will sense that there was no intent at inflicting any abuse to the kid by the show or by the show’s host. The demonization being orchestrated by these up-nosed elitists against Willie Revillame is simply revolting, especially considering the fact that Willie did not have any intent to inflict harm to the boy.
Wilson is calling for protest actions by boycotting the sponsors of objectionable shows and by using congressional hearings. Now who exactly is Ms. Wilson to dictate to the masses which shows ought to be objectionable and which ones ought to be acceptable? Wilson said that TV:
“…should be used to educate, empower, inspire and awaken… But shows like ‘Willing Willie’ and many others do the opposite. They dumb down audiences. They disempower them by creating a mendicant society with game shows that promise ‘quick money.’… They keep them dependent on handouts, instead of creating opportunities for them to build skills. There is nothing inspiring about this.”
I agree with Wilson. However, although I share this value judgment with her, I also do understand where Willie’s target market is coming from. For a starving person or someone with very limited means, I cannot blame that person for wanting to receive that handout from Willie. Has Ms. Wilson ever walked in a poor person’s shoes? Granting that shows like Willing Willie promote a mendicant society, the question is… why vent our anger on such television shows or hosts for such shows? Isn’t it more sensible to focus and vent this anger towards the incompetent government itself for failing to educate, empower, inspire and awaken the majority of its people?
The latest survey shows that hunger and poverty in the Philippines has increased under this Yellow administration. We also recently learned that there are about 2.4 million Filipino children who are exploited and being robbed of their childhood through Child Labor. President Noynoy Aquino has allocated more than Php20 Billion into this Conditional Cash Transfer program, a dole-out program basically intended to provide cash to our neediest countrymen. Isn’t that promoting a mendicant society? Many Overseas Filipino Workers in Libya opted to stay in a warzone instead of returning to their peaceful country for fear of not having any means of livelihood if they return. Can you blame them? The government is simply too inept and its policies are simply not conducive for the promotion of business due to its protectionism stance thereby preventing opportunities for business competition involving foreigners that would spur the economy. What is the reason why the government is holding onto this failed protectionism stance? It is because the very same persons in power are part of the oligarchy who want to maintain their power and status. It's funny that there seems to be a deafening silence from Willie's critics when it comes to these issues and problems in the Philippines that the Yellow government they are supporting is supposed to be responsible for!
It’s really funny how these sanctimonious elitists are vilifying Willie Revillame for the ills of society and yet we do not hear anything from these Yellows any objections on how their oligarchic ilk and this lemon of a government they are supporting has continued to be utter failures for our country. At least Willie Revillame is generous, entertaining and funny. These sanctimonious Yellows, on the other hand, are ironically too dumb not to realize that they are actually the ones to blame for why the current mindset of the Philippine masses is pathetic. It boils down to this…. at the end of the day, TV networks are all about business and making profits. The government, on the other hand, has responsibilities that cover the provision of education as well as economic and social reform. So why bark at Willie Revillame instead of the incompetent Yellow dolt sitting inside the stinking Palace beside the stinking Pasig River? 
A news article today at The Daily Tribune narrated a story about a woman having been conned by a “fixer” who was supposed to ensure her marriage annulment. The victim, who has been separated from her husband for about four years, paid the suspect Php85,000 in exchange for the suspect’s services to facilitate a “sure thing” and “hassle-free” annulment ruling. When the victim received the document for a favorable court ruling, she was very happy as this would enable her to proceed with her new life with her British boyfriend. However, her happiness was cut short upon learning that the court ruling document she received was a fake.
I see a couple of tragedies here. First, we have a victim who lost a huge sum of money from a scam. Second, we have someone whose hopes for having a new and promising life get crushed. While losing hard-earned money from a scam is a painful experience, I feel that having one’s hope be crushed compounded with a feeling of helplessness is even more devastating. The Philippine government is certainly not helping out in preventing such tragedies from happening with its zealous Family Code. The Code aims to preserve the “sanctity of marriage” but when a marriage is irreparably broken what is the point of being confined in a mere nominal union if not to merely preserve the sanctity of “sanctity” itself?
Cavite Congresswoman Lani Mercado-Revilla said that people should work in preserving the holiness and purity of marriage. Marikina Congressman Marcelino Teodoro expressed his surprise upon learning of an increasing number of annulment filing in the country. Teodoro said that the figure: “…is an alarming percentage for a predominant Catholic country. There is a need to strengthen the law on the family as an inviolable institution.”
He further states:
“The problem with couples getting married is the lack of informed decisions which should have been provided by the seminars required before marriage…What couples fail to realize before getting married are the legal implications of their actions as husband and wife which entails deep thought and understanding. These obligations stretch out from co-habiting, obligations of the man to woman and vice versa as well as supporting the family. These are vital legal obligations that must be fully understood by couples and strictly informed to them by legal and Church-related seminars… Annulment should not always be the option. We must not relax the rules on annulment but make the provisions of the Family Code be clearly informed before entering the marriage. Marriage should not be done out of impulse or mere feelings but both parties should be psychologically prepared and legally informed for the lifelong commitment that it entails.”
I feel that it is this kind of thinking that is to blame. While Teodoro and Mercado-Revilla may believe that marriage is a holy sacrament according to their religious inclinations, preserving this religious ideal may not spell justice and promote happiness to the many lives trapped in an irreparably broken union. Granting that it is an assumption on my part to assert that a marriage involved in an annulment application is irreparable, I submit that it is also an assumption for the respectable lawmakers to say that the root of the problem stems from couples’ lack of psychological preparation and lack of informed decisions for what is meant to be a lifelong commitment. We simply are not gods to have omniscience and omnipotence to ensure and maintain order in our lives all the time.
Is it a sin or is it wrong to have a marriage annulled by estranged couples? Why is this so wrong? Is it because of the perception of the “sanctity” of marriage? What does “sanctity” mean, anyway? When the marriage itself becomes a problem where can we find this “sanctity”? It may have been forgotten in bed the very moment the actual “sin” was committed!
I see marriage as a contract between two persons to love and honor one another till death parts them. Suppose that a man and a woman get married and everything is all nice and happy. Then after 10 years things in their lives have changed. Let’s say the man changed. Let’s suppose that he refuses to protect his wife; that he abuses, assaults, and tramples upon the woman he wed. Is his wife under any obligation to him? He has violated the contract. And despite all the counseling and intervention done to make the marriage work, the woman is still being hurt and tormented. Don’t we see that the husband has failed to live up to the oath in the contract, to love and honor his wife? In addition to physical injury and mental anguish, the kids are being affected by the constant violence they are seeing from their father. Is the wife under any obligation to the husband in that case? Is she bound by the contract the husband has broken? Must the wife live with the husband for the husband’s sake? Must the wife live with the husband and stay married to him for the sake of a religious ideal? Should we insist upon a wife to remain with a husband who torments her? Even married women have a right to personal security, don’t they? Do they lose their right of self-preservation the moment they say “I do” in the wedding ceremony? Does the woman have the right to seek a new life and a new happiness? Do we picture God, with His infinite wisdom and compassion, insist that His child remain the wife of a cruel man? If our honorable lawmakers insist that marriage is a sacred inviolable union under God, even for a marriage that threatens the happiness and self-preservation of an individual, then I can only wonder why God could be so cruel as to limit and permit a person to live in a living hell. It’s easy to say that “God will find a way to make the marriage work if you just have faith” as well as “Having faith in God will make changes in the cruel partner’s ways, thereby saving the marriage”. It’s easy to say that those who opt to annul their marriage do not have faith and are immoral and so on. It is easy to condemn and judge these people but it is another story to actually feel their pain by walking in their shoes.
Those who oppose relaxing the annulment requirements or any bills with a shade of divorce may invoke religious beliefs or even quote Biblical passages to support their contention. That is fine and dandy and they have every right to express themselves. However, it is quite ironic that the only time Jesus was known to have actually written anything was the time when he wrote something in the sand then challenged any sinless accusers of an adulteress to cast the first stone. Do all of our honorable lawmakers know how it actually feels like to be helplessly trapped in a miserable married life? Perhaps some of them do. But if they choose to remain in such a life, what makes it right for them to dictate how others, who perhaps don’t have the same means and privilege, ought to pursue their own new happiness and self-preservation? To our Philippine lawmakers, please read the writings on the wall. Please look at the facts and please look at pragmatism once in a while instead of being overly fixated on cultural or even religious beliefs that are just simply too archaic and out of touch with the present reality. Laws are made for the sake of promoting and accommodating justice, not for the sake of promoting and accommodating laws. 
It seems to me that Philippine President Noynoy Aquino is so much like a cheap pair of shoes that easily folds. We all know that the Filipino electorate voted for him because of Noynoy’s anti-corruption promises. He even impressed a lot of people who value common sense and social responsibility because he was the most vocal supporter of Responsible Parenthood amongst the other Presidential candidates. Like so many traditional politicians, he made promises just so that he could be elected. Well, it hasn’t been a year into his term yet but his list of broken promises seems to have already exponentially grown. If Noynoy this early on in the game cannot stand up and fight for the “principles” our people elected him in office for, then what good is he for?
The corruption case and scandal of disgraced and discharged former Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) general Carlos Garcia opened up a can of worms in the AFP. As most Filipinos know, Garcia’s family was caught laundering money into the United States just before Garcia was set to retire. The arrest of Garcia’s family revealed that the general skimmed funds from the military and engaged in other corrupt practices. This scandal has also tagged other prominent officials in the military. Just a week ago, a former Defense Secretary and military chief committed suicide amidst allegations of being in cahoots with the corrupt officials in the military such as Garcia. As the whole nation continues to learn more about the infestation of corruption in the Philippine military and as various corruption perpetrators are unmasked, all of a sudden we hear Noynoy Aquino suggesting that going after the protectors of the disgraced general is not his administration’s priority. Is he freakin’ kidding?
It seems to me that Noynoy Aquino does not really have any worthwhile priorities. Like a broken record, we keep on hearing from him and his mouthpieces about hot issues in the country not being a priority. This weakened stance on going after the big fish on the corruption scandal in the AFP is quite frustrating as the people voted for Noynoy because of his anti-corruption mantra. How can he live up to his promises if all he is doing seems to be merely lip service?
His weakened stance on going after Garcia’s protectors is just one of the many tell-tale signs that Noynoy is not sincere about his anti-corruption rhetoric. We all remember how he folded when the jueteng payola scandal involving some of his trusted allies, including his “best friend forever” (BFF) Under-Secretary Rico Puno, were implicated in the illegal numbers racket. All of a sudden, he sang a different tune when he said that jueteng was not his administration’s priority. This was the case in spite of the fact that jueteng is one of the major (if not the major) source of corruption in local governments throughout the country.
Now we all know that corruption in government is very difficult to crack because of some stipulations in the Constitution being used by crooked politicians to protect their loot from being discovered. Last year, Noynoy Aquino promised to have the Freedom of Information (FOI) bill prioritized so that the shroud of secrecy over government transactions and data will be lifted. However, not even a year after assuming power and position, he again folded like a cheap pair of shoes by taking the FOI bill away from his government’s priority lists. The bill is supposed to add teeth to his anti-corruption drive by taking away the means of corrupt officials to hide their anomalous transactions and ill-gotten wealth. If Noynoy was indeed an anti-corruption crusader as his yellow hordes try to paint him as, why is Noynoy going the other way? Is it because he knows that corruption still very much exists in his own administration and putting the brakes on the FOI bill will help protect the corrupt people within his circle? I wonder.
The other frustrating turn-around from Noynoy was his weakened stance on the Reproductive Health (RH) bill. You may remember that Noynoy was one of the staunchest supporters of the RH bill. Just last month he indicated that the RH bill is one of the bills he intends to present to Congress for approval this year. This bill is a very popular piece of legislation and it would have greatly improved his legacy. The bill is so popular with the people that his blunders and incompetence would have been forgotten and forgiven if the bill were to be approved. Instead, again like a cheap pair of shoes, Noynoy folded amidst threats by the Catholic Church to draw battle lines against his government should his administration push for this bill.
I couldn’t have expressed my frustration any better than how Senator Pia Cayetano did. She said that the de-prioritization of the RH bill from the administration’s list of priorities “indicates a leadership that is indecisive and vulnerable to pressure”. She further states:
“What was worse was that President (Noynoy Aquino) pulled out the RH Bill from the list of priority bills at a time when the congressional hearings are about to be concluded and the plenary debates would commence… This will be a true test of the political will of this administration, as well as the President’s sincerity and conviction.”
The Democratic Socialist Women of the Philippines decried Noynoy’s weakened resolve by saying:
“(The administration’s move) is not only anti-women, but also anti-poor. (The President) is betraying the millions of Filipinos who voted for him because he made a pact that he will listen to them. The RH bill was a campaign promise under his social contract with the Filipino people… Women’s organizations have repeatedly requested for a dialogue with P-Noy on this issue, but we were, and are continuously ignored. Instead, he gave in to the whims of the Catholic hierarchy.”
Well, it appears that Noynoy has been tested and has failed miserably. I’m at a loss for words and thoughts regarding why on Earth a lot of Filipinos are still optimistic about their lemon of a President. Noynoy Aquino has been harping about how busy he is yet he has not delivered anything noteworthy for the country. There must be something seriously wrong with the Filipino mindset when they give a thumbs-up to an under-achiever of a leader with nothing to show for but a nifty Porsche, a sleek BMW, and a bullet-proof Lexus SUV. The Filipinos have even given the Office of the President a pay raise. Noynoy’s predecessor, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo received Php57,750 per month while Noynoy Aquino gets Php95,000 per month ever since he started his Presidency. So what does Php95,000 a month give the Filipinos? Apparently, merely a cheap pair of yellow shoes. 
“There is no glory in battle worth the blood it costs.” – Dwight D. Eisenhower In an article I came across at fairly recently, the Catholic Church as represented by the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) is preparing to draw the battle line against the Aquino government should the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill gets passed into law.1 While I do not wish to join the bashers of the Church or Christianity as a whole who insist that the Church’s involvement in the debate itself is a Constitutional violation of Church and State separation (which I do not particularly agree with), I would like to submit a critical assessment of the Church’s stand and its battle’s misplaced cause.
Critics of the Church have been rooting “delusion” on the part of the Church as reason why the Church seems to hold on to beliefs that go contrary to reason and evidence. Just yesterday, one of my Facebook acquaintances, Ms. Rish Velasco, shared an interesting link that seems to correlate religiosity and psychosis.2 While I do agree that some of the aspects of religiosity such as “hearing divine voices” or zealotry may have some psychological kink like “Schizophrenia” or “Cognitive Dissonance”, I think it is important that we be careful not to jump into the conclusion that all people of faith are necessarily deluded or psychotic. I think it is important to understand why these folks, many of whom are quite normal and rational individuals, embrace some aspects in life outside of reason.
Filipino boxing sensation Congressman Manny Pacquiao said that he is against the RH Bill because “it is against God’s law”.3 While I do admire Pacquiao’s humility, passion, and excellence in the sport of boxing and even in some cases, outside of boxing, I think that Pacquiao, like many people who support his view, just do not understand the purported “God’s law”. It is one thing to know what the Bible says but it is quite another case to understand what it says.
Of course, Congressman Pacquiao was referring to Genesis 1:28 where God was claimed to have commanded Adam and Eve to “Be fruitful and multiply”.4 However, what Pacquiao and many others do not see is the history and purpose behind the verse. Readers of the Bible need to ask what the words meant to those who wrote them. How were these words first understood? What was the human experience that caused our ancestors to express these words?
The book of Genesis was said to have been written from 922 BC to 587 BC. It is also worth mentioning that the writer of the part in Genesis where the Creation story was described lived within the period before the destruction of Jerusalem in circa 586 BC5,6, which also covers a period in the ancient Jewish history when they were under Babylonian Exile.7 Putting the Genesis verse into historical perspective, we can say that the Jewish writer was part of the generation when the Jews were captives and deportees to the foreign land of their conquerors (Babylon). So it is not too farfetched to reason that the captive Jews had dreams about returning to their sacred land of Judah and/or at least for their culture to survive and realize this dream. However, since they were merely captives, they had very limited rights (if any) and they had no realistic hopes. According to Bishop John Shelby Spong:
“To reproduce and to grow their tribal numbers so that some of them might someday return home was keenly important.”8
The words behind “Be fruitful and multiply” came out from the human experience and instinct for survival and the enhancement of life; that is the universal context from which one must understand the verse. That should be the basis for reasoning out that the verse is a testament of loving and valuing life. The Church and many of its adherents see the surface about the love and value for (human) life. Unfortunately, they fail to see the message underneath the surface.
Our instinct for survival and life enhancement has pushed us to achieve scientific and technological (even moral) advancement. Medical breakthroughs have helped increase human life longevity. Agricultural and animal husbandry sciences and technology have helped us secure food supplies so that we can prevent hunger. All of our advancement paved the way to enhance our rate of survival resulting to the exponential rise in our population.
The increase in population comes with it the increase in the demand to use more resources to ensure survival and the enhancement of life. Unfortunately, we do have finite resources and as our resources get depleted this situation brings with it a threat to our survival and quality of life. Bishop Spong states:
“So the need to “be fruitful and multiply” has over the centuries slowly but surely lost its urgency. But if you have been programmed since the dawn of conscious time by a survival mentality and are convinced that this injunction was somehow the command of God, then the power of the injunction lives on when the need to obey it is no longer relevant. That is where we are today. The command originally given to enhance life has now become a command that threatens to destroy life. … Once the supposedly divine command to “be fruitful and multiply” was seen as necessary to enable the human race to survive. Now it must be seen as nothing less than a prescription for human genocide. Once it was accepted as the “Word of God”. Now it must be viewed as a terrible and life-threatening text.”8
To give a closer picture of the issue in the Philippines, I would like my readers to visualize this situation.
Suppose you have a devout Catholic couple with very minimal means. The husband does not have a steady job while the wife is focused on taking care of their 4 kids. The husband, so overburdened with the anxieties of his life and the absence of any hope drowns his pain in alcohol and drugs. The wife, old and haggard before her time, beaten down by the combination of inadequate diet and constant pregnancies and enduring traumas that a woman in those circumstances has to confront, is unable to care adequately for her kids. A doctor's assessment of the wife reveals a case of post-partum depression from their fourth child. The doctor urges the couple not to have any more kids because the financial and emotional resources of their family were simply not adequate to cover another pregnancy. But the couple believes that the “Word of God” must be obeyed by them - “to be fruitful and multiply”. Like many human beings and couples they do have sexual urges but they hold on to the dogma that the act of sex must be for procreation; this makes them rule out the use of artificial contraceptives because the use of such tools is a “sin” in the eyes of the Church and God. After a while the wife becomes pregnant again and gives birth to their fifth child. The depression has sunk in so low that the wife one day snapped and decided to kill all her kids.
The story above comes from a combination of stories told by Bishop Spong in his book “The Sins of Scripture”. Some of the details are inspired from the award-winning novel “Angela’s Ashes” and the true-to-life story of Andrea Yates.9,10 Stories like these are not uncommon in poverty-stricken countries such as the Philippines. We may not hear of extreme cases such as killing one’s kids much but stories of hardship, burden, and misery that come with having so many mouths to feed with very limited means and hope are very much common. Are institutions, such as the Church, responsible for expressing what they believe are divine laws, even if those laws turn out to increase or even cause enormous destruction? As Bishop Spong stated:
“Ignorance has certainly never been declared a crime. But this question does raise the issue of the responsibility of an institution that becomes obsessed with its ability to tell the gullible and easily manipulated what God thinks.”9
Can the Church, by placing its rules ahead of a woman’s health and her children’s safety, honestly say that it is acting on women’s best interest and their children’s? I do not think so.
So the CBCP is preparing to draw its battle lines against the government’s push to pass the RH Bill. The RH Bill is intended to ensure the people valuable information that may very well be life saving and enhancing – which are the very same values behind the biblical message discussed. The cause for the Church’s fight against the RH Bill is so misplaced that it actually threatens human life’s enhancement and even survival. Would the glory of the Church be worth the blood of many poor women and children? Heaven help them.
=============== Background References:
1 http://www.newsflash.org/2004/02/hl/hl110094.htm
2 http://www.bharatvani.org/books/pp/ch1.htm
3 http://www.usnewslasvegas.com/national/cbcp-elated-over-manny-pacquiaos-pro-life-stand/
4 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=NIV
5 http://mb-soft.com/believe/txs/genesis.htm
6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_diaspora
7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_captivity
8 The Sins of Scripture, pp. 33-35, 39, John Shelby Spong (2005), Harper Collins
9 The Sins of Scripture, pp. 29-32, John Shelby Spong (2005), Harper Collins
10 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Yates  Well, it seems that former Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) Chief of Staff Gen. Angelo Reyes is in hot water. Revelations from a whistle-blower who testified during a Senate investigation hearing revealed that Angie Reyes was given a 10 million peso welcome gift and a 50 million send-off gift in addition to the 500 million a year he allegedly pocketed during his tenure at the AFP’s highest post. The general’s alleged record of corruption seems odd considering that he, together with his top AFP brass, mutinied against their Commander-in-Chief, former President Erap Estrada because of the allegation of corruption under the former President. You would think that they junked Erap because they couldn’t take Erap’s corruption anymore. But how come they still engaged in massive corruption after Erap’s time? That’s the 500 million peso question, I suppose.
I am glad that the present Senate has decided to investigate this corruption. I think it is easy to assume that the Noynoy government will pursue this case especially because the folks involved are identified with the previous administration. He does have a vindictive nature and he does appear to be itching for a fight with whoever he perceives as getting in the way of his whims. But giving the benefit of the doubt that Noynoy is sincere about fighting corruption by promoting the “straight path” policy that fosters “transparency and accountability” in his administration, I hope he also gives the thumbs up to applying the same level of scrutiny against himself and his Yellows.
But for some reason I am skeptical that Noynoy would allow himself and his Yellows to be probed and to answer for any culpability. If we go with Noynoy’s record, any investigation that would show fault pointing to himself or his Yellows will merely get watered down and any punishment (if any) would merely be a slap on the wrist by a limp hand. Look at what happened to the IIRC investigation and recommendations against his allies including his “best friend forever” (BFF) Under-Secretary Rico Puno! The guy has been found to be liable for the botched rescue operation from the August 23 hostage-taking incident but accountability seems to be not applicable for BFF Puno. The guy was even alleged to have been a recipient of the illegal numbers racket payola but the Noynoy government did not bother to investigate the serious allegation. Heck, there has been a significant rise in criminality in the country recently but we don’t ever hear from BFF Puno about it even if he is directly responsible for the Philippine National Police! Accountability my foot!
The problem with the Philippine government (not just the present government but the past as well) is that it seems to have the penchant for targeting merely the direct causes of problems instead of addressing the root causes. There is a difference between the two. The direct cause of a problem is not necessarily the root cause of it. For instance, a lab technician passes out from inhalation of a chemical fume he’s working with in a laboratory. The direct cause of the injury is the inhalation of a toxic fume. The direct result is passing out. The root cause is the underlying safety system weakness that has somehow contributed to the existence of hazardous and unsafe conditions in the lab.
So what will the Noynoy government likely do? In the event that the Senate finds, say, Angie Reyes to have committed corruption, they may recommend to have him prosecuted by the government. If found guilty, he may be sent to jail just like what they did to Erap (although Erap’s sprawling resthouse in Tanay, Rizal isn’t exactly the same as the Bilibid in Muntinlupa). The Noynoy government will then say that punishing Angie Reyes will deter other military officers from committing corruption and plunder. They may even do some re-shuffling within the AFP organization or even re-organize the functional structure to prevent the modus operandi embraced by those found guilty of corruption from being practiced again by the current and future top brass. What’s wrong with this picture?
Well, for one, you may still very well have the same corrupt people pulling the strings in the re-organized AFP. You may also very well still have the same reasons and motivations that foster corruption within the organization. So going back to the laboratory example, we may post a number of warning signs in the lab that tell us to wear personal protective gear when working. We may even subject our lab workers through intensive training on lab safety. But if the weakness in the safety system of the fume hood is still present, accidents may still very well occur!
Of course this flaw is not specific to the AFP organization. Other departments have underlying weaknesses as well that foster corruption. Take for instance, the 21 Billion peso dole-out program known as the Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) program run by Dinky Soliman, a government official not exactly known to be unblemished by corruption allegations during the administration of the dreaded Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA). This government official also has been reportedly seen being driven around in a mahogany top of the line Mercedes-Benz. Nice touch for a government official who is supposed to be caring so much for poverty-stricken Filipinos.
Anyway, last year, the possibilities of the CCT program being open to corruption were heavily discussed. Roberto Bissio, executive director of the Uruguay-based Third World Institute, said that determining who falls under the poverty line can have a lot of biases in itself with consideration on gender, ethnicity and most importantly, family income. Early this year, lo and behold, revelations on anomalies in the program that fits perfectly well with Bissio’s critique were bared.
The CCT program is another case of addressing direct causes and not root causes of problems. Anakpawis Representative Rafael Mariano states that the Aquino administration would be spending so much on a project that does not address the fundamental problems in the country, or at least guarantee long term solutions that could reduce poverty in the Philippines. A study published by the Poverty Reduction, Equity and Growth Network reveals that CCT is not the answer to poverty reduction. The study states that:
“…CCT programmes are not a panacea against poverty and social exclusion and its limitations should be addressed by creating other strategies which focus on more comprehensive policy reforms such as the creation of productive options, temporary employment programmes, access to micro-credit and micro-entrepreneurial opportunities, among others.”
The study also shows that CCT programs do not invest in “human capital” by honing the parents’ skills, such as in agriculture, to enable them to earn a decent income after the program lapses. When the program is over, there are no strategies in place to prevent the poor participants from “falling back into the poverty trap”.
I’m really having a difficult time buying into Noynoy Aquino’s leadership on the matter. He harps about following the “straight path” through accountability and transparency but his actions and directions show otherwise. He may very well go after Angie Reyes and GMA’s gang of goons and goombahs but he isn’t likely to extend the same justice to himself and his fellow Yellows.
Now, his voters and followers may say that his nature and intentions are good but I hope a lot of people are now beginning to realize that although honesty may be good, competence also matter! In the seven months Noynoy has been in power he doesn’t exactly have anything to show for except for blunders and an international embarrassment which may very well have defined his Presidency. But hey… out of the Philippines’ non-performing incompetent lemon of a President the Filipinos at least are getting something to be proud of. At least the Filipinos have a 50 year old bachelor President (although incompetent) with a cool P4.5 million Porsche, an P8.5 million bullet-proof Lexus SUV, and a nifty new BMW. Darn, the similarly incompetent Angie Reyes should have bought himself a Ferrari out of the loot he allegedly got. At least he would have been cool too.
======== Background References:
http://www.tribuneonline.org/headlines/20110128hed3.html
http://www.manilatimes.net/index.php/top-stories/33119-hazy-criteria-for-cct-invites-corruption
http://www.tribuneonline.org/metro/20110103met4.html
http://bulatlat.com/main/2010/10/23/critics-slam-conditional-cash-transfer-program-as-unsustainable-corruption-prone/ 
(Scene from Star Wars: A New Hope)
Admiral Motti: "This station is now the ultimate power in the universe. I suggest we use it."
Darth Vader: "Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force."
Admiral Motti: "Don't try to frighten us with your sorcerous ways, Lord Vader. Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped you conjure up the stolen data tapes or given you clairvoyance enough to find the Rebel's hidden fortress… uurgh."
(At this time Vader, using the Force, was telekinetically choking Admiral Motti)
Darth Vader: "I find your lack of faith disturbing."
Grand Moff Tarkin: "This bickering is pointless. Vader, release him!"
Darth Vader: "As you wish." (Vader then releases Motti)
I wonder how respectable Filipino atheists such as my friend John Paraiso can tolerate a loud juvenile rabid atheist such as Rey Corneja? If John were Darth Vader he probably would have telekinetically choked the brat. The kid has nothing to offer but mere disdain for religion and theism. He even prides himself of being some sort a “theist executioner” at the Pinoy Skeptics FB group. He paints his opponents as a “theist” in order to discredit their position; as if being a “theist” is necessarily bad or inferior. He erects one straw man after another and knocks them down with so much gusto. It seems like the kid is just hardwired to dwell on cheap sniping at his opponents and religionists. Theist executioner? It seems to me that the kid has a very dull blade.
Now I don’t know which case is worse – Rey Corneja’s or his pompom girl Rojanie Arienza’s? Arienza claims to be a “humanist” although her hatred of religion emanates from her FB profile. She also claims to be “God’s loyal opposition” as she claims that she is simply sick and tired of biblical inconsistencies and evangelists who engage in indoctrination. Well, what does biblical inconsistencies and evangelism have anything to do with God’s truth? So God must be false because some book that describes what God is supposed to be is inconsistent or even incoherent? That God must be false because of some annoying jerk who just wouldn’t leave us alone without us having to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Personal Savior?
Sure, inconsistencies and incoherence are signs of incorrectness. If a set of ideas contain contradictions, if any idea conflicts with any other, the whole set may be doubted. However, it is one thing to say that incoherence shows incorrectness, it is quite another to say that coherence proves correctness. We cannot say that any coherent set of ideas must be true.
Arienza, I think, fails to see the possibility of constructing a set of ideas that agree with one another, yet still be incorrect. Let's take Nazi Germany, for example. Many Germans at the time convinced themselves that certain ideas are true. For example, that they convinced themselves that the Jewish race is inferior to theirs, that the Jews were subhuman. Once they became convinced of that, an entirely new moral system or viewpoint was allowed to emerge – and a coherent one at that. The rules about how humans ought to be treated no longer applied to the subhuman Jews. Killing them or using them for their benefit was, for them, justified.
The point is not whether we all agree with this moral viewpoint of the Nazis. It's not even whether all Germans at the time did it (many of them did not). That is not the relevant issue. The issue is whether coherence really determines truth.
So Arienza builds her argument on the idea that:
God = Bible
Bible = Inconsistencies
Inconsistencies = Falsehood
therefore
God = Falsehood
Being convinced that God = Bible, Arienza thinks her idea is coherent. But while she may be granted coherence, that does not necessarily mean she is correct. Are God and the Bible really the same? Is God specific to the Judeo-Christian tradition? Are there no any other Gods outside of Judeo-Christianity? Are there no other expressions of God other than those from Judeo-Christianity and even theism? It appears that Arienza is ignorant on the matter yet she seems quite sure of her position.
It’s quite disturbing, really. Rabid young atheists such as Corneja and Arienza project intellectual superiority when in fact they seem to be quite ignorant of the things they bash. Folks like these two kids, I think, are embarrassment to atheism and well-intentioned groups such as the Pinoy Skeptics. It’s as if we have a couple of padawan learners who are too eager to duke it out with Darth Sidius and Count Dooku just because they know a little something about the Force. It’s really quite pathetic.
It’s also interesting to notice the approach employed by “Young Turks” such as Corneja and Arienza. Maybe I’m just being a “Mustache Pete” but they do not seem to like to subject their position to the same kind of critical assessments that they demand of theists. Just because someone offered criticisms and expressed skepticism on a popularly held belief in their group, Arienza equates that to bashing their beliefs which justified her attacks. With that, I am skeptical about the sincerity of these types of self-professed atheists. It seems that there really is absolutely no real desire for them to engage in a balanced, open, reasonable discussion with others who do not share their beliefs. They express no desire to actually learn about what the other side embraces. Instead, they continually articulate the same old straw man arguments emphasizing their stereotypical characterization of theists (e.g. Christians) because it makes it easy for them to justify their rejection and in some cases, hatred of theists. A polemic built on intellectual laziness.
Anyway, Corneja says that atheism is not a worldview. Okay, let’s grant that. Let’s even grant that atheism is merely the "lack of belief" in God, nothing more… nothing less. If that is the case, then atheism entails not making any claims about God and that atheists don't make any God postulates or that they simply don't take God seriously. That is fine and dandy. However, if one is to make a claim, such as "God DOES NOT exist" or "God IS inexistent" or “God is a delusion” or merely an “imaginary product”, then the claimant also has the burden of proof for the claim(s). It’s funny that these types of self-professing atheists who make such claims deny that God exists while, at the same time, deny that they have a burden of proof. So they simply bring the burden back to the theist asking the theist to prove the existence of god instead of them having to prove the inexistence of God. It is as if for some reason the theist fails to offer any proof, that failure in itself affirms their claim for the non-existence of God. Wow… talk about pathetic! So they want theists to prove their belief in God, but they don't want to have to prove their belief in the non-existence of God. In other words, they refuse to provide the evidence for their belief while severely criticizing theists for failing to do the same. And if I may add, demanding that theists step out of their cocoon and deal with what they think “reality” is in order to meet the atheist mindset. Well my readers, that is called hypocrisy and if I may add, arrogance as well.
Now what is atheism suppose to be like? Well, I will leave this to the self-professing atheists. However, I would like to offer suggestions on what atheism should not be like. It shouldn’t be rude, arrogant, hateful and delusional as many self-professing atheists like Corneja and Arienza project.
Don’t get me wrong, I do agree that theism ought to be subjected to critique but atheism should not be about knocking down straw men in its critical analysis of theism. Projecting theists as merely non-thinking coddlers of an imaginary being to suggest more credibility to the atheist position is revolting and bone chilling at its very core. There have been a lot of people of religion who have been considered as great intellectuals and even scientists. In addition, projecting that theists are primarily driven by the desire or mandate to convert or “save lost souls” based on their own selfish motivation for salvation is smacking of ignorance and lack of empathy. Self-professing atheists who make such derogatory projections of theists do not do any service to atheism by characterizing people (a lot who are sincere in their goodwill intentions) that way. This attitude comes across as a bit arrogant and characterizing faith as something only idiots would attach themselves to won’t help atheism’s case and cause.
Secondly, atheism should not be merely about being skeptical. Skepticism is good, I like skepticism too. However, should skepticism, as a philosophical position, merely mean the tendency to doubt? Don't skeptics also need arguments to support their position? It is easy to raise skeptical doubts about the supposed absolute certainty of beliefs than the sufficiency of evidence for the beliefs. But what does it mean to have "sufficient" evidence? The skeptical position can also be skeptical about any "sufficient" evidence presented. Hence, it seems to me that the skeptical position embraces the notion that we do not or cannot know anything (or something). If so, then it seems closer to agnosticism.
Finally, atheism should not be delusional. A lot of self-professing atheists seem to want to merely magic religion away because of its past record of having caused too many atrocities and that it deals with ridiculous life experience questions. This sounds as absurd as one of the great humanist atheist thinkers, JS Mill, when he expressed his desire to magic away another part of human experience – sex, as the desire for it has also caused too much violence. Just like John Lennon’s song “Imagine” about dreaming of an alternative world of peace through a brotherhood of man without religion, JS Mill dreams of an alternative way to reproduce the human species sans sex. Like sex, religion has and will always be a part of humanity.
Atheists should not be delusional that they can kill theism simply by exposing theism’s folly. They have to have something else to offer other than skepticism, cynicism and hate. It’s really unfortunate that atheism often gets tainted by dolts like Corneja and Arienza.
But one thing I can say to rabid atheists like Corneja and his pompom girl Arienza is… the Force is with you… but you kids are not Jedis yet. 
Last night, after weeks (which felt like years) of screening and deleting the emails I get from the Pinoy Skeptics facebook group, I decided to participate in a discussion with a few folks there. When my friend John Paraiso invited and included me to join the FB group, I loved the idea and mandate of their FB page. But as soon as the FB page got established, I noticed that a lot of the posts there focused on god or religion bashing and I also noticed quite a few rabid self-professed atheists. It’s sad because that FB group could be a great group. The presence of a few rotten apples in the basket seemed to have tarnished the image of the group as I believe some folks have decided to leave the group (including myself). Well, in my discussion, I recognized a Dawkinian flavor in statements made by some of the participants. I also noticed the use of a few Dawkinian favorite words such as “delusion” (from his book “The God Delusion”, which many atheists hold dearly as if it is some sort of bible). That is fine and dandy; however, what is it about Richard Dawkins and his work such as “The God Delusion” that seem to induce polemic with rabid atheists such as some folks at the Pinoy Skeptics FB page? I wonder. In a forum I used to frequent, we discussed the (in)famous [depending on which side of the fence you are in] atheist-scientist, Richard Dawkins (RD) and his book – “The God Delusion”. I would like to share with my readers some comments I had with the book. Please note that my comments do not in anyway imply that I subscribe to the beliefs and mindset that RD attack. However, I would also like to point out that I also do not necessarily embrace everything that atheist saint Richard Dawkins says. In the first chapter, page 18, of the book, Dawkins laid out his definitions of terminology on theist, deist, and pantheist. He referred to deism as a "watered-down theism" while pantheism as "sexed-up atheism". Of course, with theism, he refers to the belief in the traditional supernatural deity who created everything and comes in from time to time to bend natural laws and interfere with human events. So, with respect to his definitions, I do see his point. But I guess it boils down to what one means about theism and God. If God is reduced strictly to the word, then I guess I can see the point. But if we go beyond the word and go with the meaning behind the word, it may be a different case. Some may even say that an atheist is not really an atheist. When an atheist says that there is no God, he may mean that there is no God that he has grown up with – that God is not capable of being God for him. Theism defines God as an external being (a.k.a. Supreme Being), supernatural in power, dwelling above the sky, occasionally invading the world to split the Red Sea, to bless and answer prayers…and of course, to punish disobedient ingrates. Of course, with the advent of freethought and modern scholarship, God is now unemployed. He can no longer do what he once was thought he could do. No one needs this God anymore to explain tsunamis, hurricanes, diseases, etc. So if God is strictly captured in theism, which is the belief in this unemployed deity, then the atheist may be just saying that he doesn't believe in this theistic God anymore. Anyway, RD brought out a good point regarding nominal religionists who are qualified as atheists. In page 14, he points out: "The present Astronomer Royal and President of the Royal Society, Martin Rees, told me that he goes to church as an 'unbelieving Anglican... out of loyalty to the tribe'. He has no theistic beliefs, but shares the poetic naturalism that the cosmos provokes in the other scientists I have mentioned… There are many intellectual atheists who proudly call themselves Jews and observe Jewish rites, perhaps out of loyalty to an ancient tradition or to murdered relatives, but also of a confused and confusing willingness to label as 'religion' the pantheistic reverence which many of us share with its most distinguished exponent, Albert Einstein." On page 18-19, RD says: "There is every reason to think that famous Einsteinisms like 'God is subtle but he is not malicious' or 'He does not play dice' or 'Did God have a choice in creating the Universe?' are pantheistic, not deistic, and certainly not theistic....Einstein was using 'God' in a purely metaphorical, poetic sense...Let me sum up Einsteinian religion in one more quotation from Einstein himself: ‘To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense, I am religious’. In this sense I too am religious..." Of course RD differentiated himself from Einstein with the reservation that "cannot grasp" does not have to mean "forever ungraspable". RD doesn't prefer to be called religious because he feels that the term is (destructively) misleading as according to him "religion" implies -- "supernatural". I also do not think Dawkins is necessarily giving Einstein a "pass" because Einstein was such a hotshot. I think this is more of an emphasis of what RD feels of a belief that has a "Deserved Respect", which is what the section is all about (pp. 11-19). He just gave Einstein as an example. Further reading took me to what RD said on page 14. He said: "An atheist…is somebody who believes there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe, no soul that outlasts the body and no miracles -- except in the sense of natural phenomena that we don't yet understand". Granting that atheists (may) espouse the words above from RD, but are those words necessarily sound? At first glance, sure. Afterall, RD rightfully posits the improbability of God. The issue is probability, not certainty. The justification for one's judgment is anchored from the point that observational evidence can never make a prediction or a generalization certain; it can however, gauge merely the ‘probability’. Now the question is – how probable? RD seems to recognize only two options – 0% probability (blind faith) and 100% probability (from overwhelming empirical evidence). On page 48, he said: "The view that I shall defend is very different: … Either he exists or he doesn't. It is a scientific question; one day we may know the answer, and meanwhile we can say something pretty strong about the probability". This reminds me of RD's lecture at the 1992 Edinburgh International Science Festival. This is how he ended the dismissal of the "God Hypothesis". "The alternative hypothesis, that it was all started by a supernatural creator, is not only superfluous, it is also highly improbable. It falls foul of the very argument that was originally put forward in its favour. This is because any God worthy of the name must have been a being of colossal intelligence, a supermind, an entity of extremely low probability--a very improbable being indeed…. Even if the postulation of such an entity explained anything (and we don't need it to), it still wouldn't help because it raises a bigger mystery than it solves." ( For the more complete speech, please see: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Dawkins_Richard/NoNothings_Dawkins.html) I'm just wondering… how improbable? What basis is this figure determined? RD says God is "an entity of extremely low probability". How low? On the basis of what evidence is this probability determined? I'm not busting RD's chops (nor his followers') but I am just wondering how RD arrives at any figure. And when does probability determine whether or not something actually exists? He did say that he will be defending the "Either he exists or he doesn't" view, did he not? On page 47, RD describes Agnosticism as a "fence-sitting" position. He also wittingly dubbed it as PAP which stands for Permanent Agnosticism in Principle. The PAP style, RD says, is "appropriate for questions that can never be answered, no matter how much evidence we gather, because the very idea of evidence is not applicable". I feel that this is somewhat misleading. If the scientific method (through empirical evidence) can neither prove nor disprove the existence or nature of God, then either we abandon the question (something RD does not choose to do) or we answer it on other grounds. I think that the question on God's existence or nature ought to be a matter of intellectual integrity in which all sides of the debate – whether atheist, theist, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, or whatever, seek to offer the "best explanation" of the available evidence. This is basic philosophy of science. It is not going away just because RD chooses to ignore the other explanations or he doesn't like the non-empirical (e.g. supernatural). Sure, I am with RD when he rejects the notion of giving equal probability of being right regarding the hypothesis of God's existence and non-existence. If the scientific method cannot settle an issue, it does not mean that all answers have to be regarded as equally valid, or that we abandon rationality in order to deal with them. Maybe this just means that we have to consider looking at a different level. If empirical evidence is not enough (or applicable) to determine the existence of a non-empirical, then a person has to infer its existence by different means of reasoning. Why can't God be demonstrated to exist, at least in principle, in the same way? Perhaps the scientific method alone cannot ultimately determine the God question, even though it has a lot of important contributions to give to the debate. Another thing that caught my attention is RD’s objection to what he sees as the disproportionate privileging of religion. I do recognize RD’s objection to this. I mean what is it about religion that also deserves a uniquely privileged respect? I think this is about attitude. Discrimination may be a product of people's bias or even fears. People with a strongly held belief may tend to move Heaven and Earth to protect such beliefs if they feel threatened. Just like how the Church has treated scientists in the past that threatened their strongly held beliefs and just like the example of the cop who wouldn't help the atheist activist in the story told by RD in his book. But I do not think atheists (or non-religionists) are necessarily the only ones getting the unfair treatment. Alister McGrath, from his book “Dawkins’ God” tells of the case of an Augustinian monk who, from 1856 – 1863, grew around 28,000 pea plants and observed how characteristics were transmitted from one generation to the next. His name was Gregor Mendel. Now, I think most of us here are familiar with Mendel's contribution to genetics from our high school biology so I would skip the details of his experiments. Anyway, during that time, Charles Darwin was becoming a very popular figure. Darwin's theory had considerable explanatory force which was recognized by many at the time, even those who were afraid about the implications of his ideas for the place of humanity within nature. Yet there was a problem with the theory. How did nature "remember" and "transmit" new developments in species? How could a rising generation "inherit" the traits of its predecessor? At that time, Darwin and his contemporaries believed that characteristics were "blended" when they were passed to the offspring. But if that were the case, then how could a single mutation be spread throughout the species? It would be diluted to the point of insignificance, like a drop of ink in a bucket of water. In Darwin's evolutionary hypothesis, variation would simply become diluted. Now, Darwin's theory for the mechanics of inheritance ( known as "pangenesis" ) was based on hypothetical "gemmules" – which are supposed to be small particles that somehow determine all characteristics of the organism. These "gemmules", at that time, had never been observed; nevertheless, Darwin argued that it was necessary to propose their existence to make sense of the observational data he had. It was an ingenious solution; yet still lacking solid support. Through Mendel's work, Darwin's theory would (much) later get some solid support it needed. With that, adaptive mutations could spread slowly through a species and never be "blended out". Darwin's theory of natural selection, building on small mutations over long periods of time, suddenly became much more plausible. Great story, eh? But it wasn't all peaches and cream. Mendel's studies were ignored not until 1900 when it was acknowledged and appreciated by Carl Correns et al. B.E.Bishop's article: "Mendel's Opposition to Evolution and to Darwin" (Journal of Heredity 87 [1996]: 205-13) offers an explanation why Mendel's views were ignored. The article says that Mendel's studies were seen to be in tension with Darwin's ideas, which were rapidly being accepted as scientific orthodoxy at the time. There was hostility towards Mendel within some circles that some even questioned the reliability of his experiments. It was argued that Mendel's studies would oppose Darwin's theory of evolution and they questioned the reliability of Mendel's studies given this personal agenda. I think this suggests that discrimination (or unfair treatment) is really more about human attitude and not necessarily because of religion. Here's another story. In July 1954, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union ordered an increased explicit commitment to atheism in its schools. Belief in God, at that time, had not yet been eliminated by argument or force. The only option seemed to be an indoctrination of the country's children. Soviet schoolbooks repeatedly asserted the malevolence of religion and credos such as "The Marxist must be a materialist, i.e., an enemy of religion" flourished. For more information on this, please see: http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/2002/2/022mail.html and http://www.uiowa.edu/~c16e051/porritt.doc So, if RD's arguments carry weight, can we conclude that atheism (or a non-religionist mindset) also had its share of unfair advantages? And would it be fair to say that such unfair advantages given are not necessarily specific to religion? Even if we widen the scope, not just about discrimination or unfair treatment, but atrocities and evil acts, are we to conclude that atheism (or a non-religionist mindset) is evil, immoral, given the case of the Soviets? No! Of course not! As McGrath says: “The institutional abuse of an idea does not discredit it, whether we are talking about atheism, theism, or democracy.” But I am somehow astonished that RD does not seem to care about this. Going back to my discussion at the Pinoy Skeptics FB group, there was this participant who was pontificating on the superiority of science. That is fine and dandy but does this necessarily mean that science should be the ultimate determinant of truth? On page 66 of “The God Delusion” a reference to Eugenie Scott on page 66 can be seen. Scott, as RD describes, is an activist of science and is the big cheese of the National Center for Science and Education. Anyway, in an article Scott wrote from the NCSE website, a demarcation problem in distinguishing which is science and which is pseudoscience is recognized. Here is an excerpt of the article: “First, science is an attempt to explain the natural world in terms of natural processes, not supernatural ones. This principle is sometimes referred to as methodological naturalism. In time, a consensus of how some aspect of nature works or came about is arrived at through testing alternate explanations against the natural world. Through this process, the potential exists to arrive at a truly objective understanding of how the world works.” (For the complete article, please refer to: http://ncse.com/rncse/23/1/my-favorite-pseudoscience ) Now, this makes me wonder again (as I have wondered about this before) about making the distinction between science and pseudoscience. Is there a science that is responsible for making this distinction? Which science is tasked to know what science is and what pseudoscience is and differentiating the two and providing the criteria for doing so? (e.g. Physics? Biology? Chemistry? Psychology?) Professor Steven Schafersman, in his article from: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/schafersman_nat.html said: “Naturalism is, ironically, a controversial philosophy. Our modern civilization depends totally for its existence and future survival on the methods and fruits of science, naturalism is the philosophy that science created and that science now follows with such success, yet the great majority of humans (at least 90% of the U.S. population) believe in the antithesis of naturalism--supernaturalism.” Naturalism, as Schafersman tells, is a philosophy, and the opposite of naturalism is supernaturalism (which is also a philosophy). Granting that science is the ultimate determinant of truth, going back to Scott’s article, if there is no science to distinguish science (materialism and/or naturalism, whichever side you are in) from pseudoscience (supernaturalism) then how are we to make a judgment call on the two? I think, as rational individuals as we claim to be, such questions can be a very humbling question to ponder on. When we talk about metaphysics and spiritual issues, and think of them as useless, non-sense, and illogical, we may have to think twice. Moving on with RD’s book, after RD gave his objections to the privileging of religion, he went on to attack the God Hypothesis. The very first words on that next chapter are: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction…” He then supported his assertion with a whole series of derogatory adjectives from parts of the Old Testament. But he doesn’t mention the compassionate love of God in Hosea, the justice of God in Amos, the tenderness of God in the twenty third Psalm, the suffering servant in Isaiah. The New Testament was not given some slack either. Dawkins asserts that the doctrine of atonement is a “vicious, sado-masochistic repellent, barking mad”. However, he shows minimal thought on the life and teachings of Jesus nor with Christian understanding of the death and resurrection. Sure, I am not a fan of the Christian theology of atonement either, but RD should have at least looked at why Christians live by the theology of atonement by looking at its Jewish roots (Yom Kippur). Then RD goes on to attack the many failures of religious people. The fundamentalists, the foolish experiments of believers, and so on and so forth. Nothing really new there and I do recognize he is just making a point. However, RD seems to overlook the good contributions of religious people in the world and the harm perpetrated by atheist regimes. In the third chapter, RD gives us a survey of arguments for the existence of God. For those who are not familiar with the counter-arguments, I’m sure they will find RD’s rebuttals to be spectacular. But for those who are familiar with them, there is nothing new. I do not have any major objections for chapter 3. For me, I think RD gave a nice rehash of the counter-arguments on the issue of God’s existence. I give him two thumbs up for sending the message that the arguments by theists (the ones he gave out as examples) do not prove anything. But then again, a theist may ask, who says these should be about proving God (as if it were all that possible)? A theist may say that the value is not in proving God but in exploring the rational implications of faith in terms of our experience of causality, beauty, purpose, morality, and so on. I think believers of RD may need to think about that should theists decide to throw them that curve ball. On page 79, RD says that the mature Darwin blew William Paley’s Natural Theology out of the water. Well, I think RD maybe getting carried away with giving Charles Darwin too much credit. The theology has already been rejected by many leading theologians during that time (before the time of the mature Darwin), such as John Henry Newman (1801-1890). Sometimes, I think RD and his fanatical legion (who may very well be Charles Darwin worshippers as well) just get too carried away with their anti-religious rhetoric, as seen in RD’s book and posts in web pages such as the Pinoy Skeptics FB page. | |
