Imbak para sa rights

Getting Back on the Wagon

Posted in Gulo ng buhay with tags , , , , , on Nobyembre 26, 2012 by Blue Dela Kanluran

I haven’t written anything in the last three months and I didn’t even notice. My time has been stocked with nothing but reading books and cases; activities of the frat; quality time with my girlfriend; and just trying to keep up with the daily news. I haven’t even thought of exercising and have the growing gut to prove it.

So, this is an attempt to try and get back on the writing wagon and hopefully display some of whatever talent I had squandered by neglecting to hone it for so long, and I can’t think of a better way to get back to what I love doing the most than by systematically bashing a stupid move, statement, or policy by a status quo institution like the government or the church (whichever commits one first) and the big winner is *ding* *ding* no other than the backward moaning of self-righteous prelates out to revert whatever social advances mankind has achieved back to the middle ages.

Was that too harsh? Ok, maybe not the middle ages but definitely colonial Spain. Don’t believe me. Then let’s discuss a recent little thing that has propelled modern society into a system of better governance and acceptance for the general populace of the world but an otherwise nasty thorn for established religion more specifically the Catholic Church, the separation of church and state.

The separation of church and state is a vague concept to many and very few really understand what it means, even those few have a hard time trying to explain it to those who don’t. The idea was first introduced at the birth of the United States of America during the signing of the Declaration of Independence by a faction of founding fathers most notably Thomas Jefferson. Solidified in the provision that stated no religious test be required for the holding of office.

The separation of church and state came about as a practical divergence from the way of government of the Empire of Great Britain because the founding fathers saw how a system wherein a religion integrated into government could easily corrupt. Pretty easy to understand if you consider that the Catholic government system is basically authoritarian in nature.

The writers of the Malolos Constitution realized this as well when they decided to use the same policy when we liberated ourselves from Spain (another country with considerable theocratic influence). So what does this all mean? So many questions. Does it mean the church has absolutely no say in government policy? Will public officials be forced to leave their faith at the door? etc.

No and no. The church, like all parties in a democracy has a say in the government process. Also we cannot expect people to simply discard what they consider as their values when making decisions concerning government. So where does the separation actually take place? Where is the line drawn?

Many people bemoan the constant nagging of the Catholic Church concerning the RH bill and the supposed moral issues it conflicts with. However (and I can’t believe I’m actually saying this), what they’re doing does not violate the separation of church and state. Yes they have made a very strong oppository stance to a proposed bill. They have that right. Yes they have campaigned and protested against it, also their right. They’ve even spread a lot of misconceptions about the bill and a lot of misinformation about the science around it. No matter how amoral, under-handed and dirty as it may sound it is also their right to do so and does not violate the separation. In such cases it is up to each of us to sift through all the information and (based on the science) identify which is true and which is false.

We cannot fault politicians who make decisions based on their values. We can only assume that they are only doing what they think is right.

The church has (rather unknowingly) toed the line between acceptable behavior given their complicated relationship with government and policy making, that is until now. In a rather nasty turn of events the Catholic Bishops Council of the Philippines (CBCP) actually told people who to vote for.

“If there is a candidate who does not follow Church teachings, we should reject this candidate. We must use the Catholic vote and show them what the real Catholic is. There are fake Catholics here, they are the ones ruling in our country,”

This is the most bare-faced, hair-brained piece of filth I have seen in a long time. Archbishop Ramon Arguelles’ brains must consist of complete horse shit still warm from the beasts ass crack! The only reason I can think of for him to say something so inebriated is that idiocy was bred straight into his DNA. He is basically saying that anyone who even dare challenge the church should be kicked out of office and replaced with those who would cow-tow to their every word.

And if any of you were wondering, yes this is a violation of separation of church and state. The man (and the CBCP) are spitting on the seeds of democracy. Our government was founded on the idea that its leaders would be decided by the choice of the individual, not that individuals parish priest. No one and I mean  no one  has the right to order people who to vote for, especially not the church.


We should discriminate against gays

Posted in Gulo ng buhay with tags , , , , , , on Disyembre 8, 2011 by Blue Dela Kanluran

The Senate has recently passed on third reading the bill which is after penalizing all forms of discrimination including discrimination against homosexuals. Sounds good right? Wrong! At least according to the Catholic Bishops Council of the Philippines (CBCP).

According to their lawyer Ronald Reyes the institution had no problem with the bill which was against racial profiling and religious intolerance but became “concerned” when Senators made an amendment to include sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity.

“This is alarming and it might change our society,” Reyes said.

Another CBCP lawyer Jo Imbong said the LGBT (lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgender) should not be considered the same as the elderly, the handicapped, and the poor.

“These people are disadvantaged not by their own choice. But the third sex, they choose this. How can you give protection to a choice like that?” Imbong said.

If you feel a sinking feeling of disgust and apprehension don’t worry it’s a normal reaction when faced by malevolent primordial slime left behind by an age long gone and should be happily forgotten.

This underscores the very real  situation out country faces on the topic of discrimination. We have to face the reality that even with the countrys so-called Christian morality of loving each others neighbor the Philippines is practically no different from the barbaric tribes still surviving in the jungles of Africa and the deserts of the Middle East.

In those worlds, rights are a fantasy with less substance than smoke, and if we don’t protect everyone then the concepts of rights, freedom, and equality are nothing but colossal jokes adults tell themselves to make them feel better.

Maybe they should re-phrase that to Love whoever we approve of and to hell with everyone else.

Being gay doesn’t delegate one into becoming a second-class citizen devoid of protection from discrimination which is their right, whether they chose it or not does not enter into the equation. The spirit of the anti-discrimination bill is precisely that. To respect your existence as a human being who is no greater and no lesser than anyone else. Man or woman, CEO or beggar, cripple or athlete. No one has any right to deny you rights or opportunities based on who you are or what you believe as long as it does not disturb the safety and welfare of the public.

Their main objections however are if penalties against discrimination are enacted it will open the way for homosexual marriages. And their right, it could lead to that, but that’s a whole different ball game. They aren’t valid grounds to support discrimination.

More and more the CBCP are showing how bigoted and narrow-minded their world view is behind the kindly facade they so desperately try to cling to in order to gain immunity from public scrutiny and rebuke. But the more they fight the world on how it decides to respect its people the more they show how ill fit they are for this world.