SUSI as key: random reflections on US political thought

my Trade Tripper column in the 13-14 August 2016 issue of BusinessWorld:

Just finished a US State Department sponsored “Study of US Institutions” (SUSI) program, with mine focusing on the Constitution and US Political Thought. The former was quite interesting for me, inasmuch as our constitutional system has inherent similarities with the US. But the latter was even more intriguing, considering the US (except perhaps for “pragmatism”) doesn’t really have an originally developed political thought.

Instead, what the US did was to adopt existing and emerging political philosophies and molded them as its own. And as an “experiment,” for even Americans today hold on to the belief that its country is an ongoing one, could only be honestly admitted as more successful than not. It’s a success we all should hope continues.

For the US was built not on racial or tribal lines but on an idea. Trite as it may seem (with Hollywood movies harping on it without necessarily understanding the implications), the notion that “all men are created equal” entitled to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is fundamental. More on this later.

As with all good programs, SUSI encourages one learn more outside the classroom than in it. And it gave a human face to the international events one reads in the news. So I smile at the memory of this delightfully mischievous devout Muslim Algerian, a most optimistically elegant Thai, an enviously urbane Rwandan, and a passionately conservative Bulgarian.

But it was a Chilean lawyer who, like me, also works on natural law that I had one of my more personally cherished insights. One Sunday mass with him, I was struck that a person I’ve never met before, from a country thousands of miles from mine, with barely a word exchanged between us, would utter the same exact prayers, kneel when I kneel, stand when I stand. Some ridicule doctrines and rituals. But I found myself deeply moved knowing that when I intone “I believe ...” of the Creed or say the Lord’s prayer, I am joined by, actually uniting myself, with so many others, including those I have yet to meet, those long dead, and those yet to be born. From there, I dare say, we get a glimpse of the universality and timelessness of the Church.

If there’s at least one reason why Filipino Catholic bishops should unanimously insist in strict uniformity with Rome on the rubrics, it is that.

Sticking with religion: being consistently bludgeoned at home -- from media and the academe -- of the misleadingly Jeffersonian notion of “separation of Church and State,” one gets surprised at the underlying religiosity in the language of US politics.

Liberal Americans would deny this, of course. But from John Winthrop’s “city on the hill, which later Reagan would make “shining,” the Declaration of Independence’s “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” to Lincoln’s “nation under God,” to today’s political speeches comes the point, as John Adams once remarked, that the US “Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

By the way, to those who still insist that the US Constitution never mentioned God, the fact is that the same closes with the words: done “in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven.”

The unfortunate thing is that many US academics attempt to deny or ignore this, all in the name of political correctness or inclusivity. Or simple antipathy towards religion. But doing so creates particular problems, leaving the US political system looking strangely unmoored, without a coherent context, or like a product of unnecessary randomness.

In any event, speaking of the US Constitution, quite telling is that the oaths of public officers (specifically the US president), as well as for US naturalized citizens, contain the duty to “preserve, defend, and protect” -- not the United States but -- the US Constitution. It is an incredibly profound difference and something (considering the similarity of our oaths) many here miss.

For the US definitely has its faults. A fact the academics I met made a point of highlighting. Which was completely unnecessary. Only a socialist fool would expect utopia here on earth. For the US system (founded, amongst others, by Thomas Jefferson and current Broadway star Alexander Hamilton) never promised happiness for all but simply the right to pursue it.

That it carries out its promise admittedly imperfectly but still better than anyone is what anchors US exceptionalism. And the hypocrisy lies not with the US but those expressing hatred for it while desirous of its possibilities.

Space constraints compel me to leave other observations for future articles. For now, I exaltingly commend the Donahue Institute, led by Mike Hannahan and Lonce Bailey, for a superbly organized program. And quite specially the exhilaratingly wonderful Becky Howland, who I egregiously left out in my farewell speech but the one I gratefully will always remember as having led me, fittingly enough, to Walden Pond.

Of selfies and dumbing down

is my Trade Tripper column in this weekend issue of BusinessWorld:

Came across this thoughtful article on what may be the most popular activity today: selfies. But, like all things, it does come with a price. As Olympia Nelson wrote ("Dark undercurrents of teenage girls’ selfies," Sydney Morning Herald, 11 July 2013): "If social media only caused narcissism, it wouldn’t be the worst thing. Instagram and Facebook are social networks that not only breed narcissistic tendencies but transform relations into a sexual rat race."

It’s the unoriginality, the lack of any creativity, the impulse to conform (sexually, politically, or whatever) that makes even this simple act of self-indulgence go from bad to worse: "Everyone likes receiving compliments and it makes us feel awesome that our own appearance can provide us with an ego boost. But what kind of photos produce an epidemic of ‘likes?’ Nothing with too much creativity but hip, titty and kiss. It’s the true scourge of the selfie."

In the end, one can’t help but agree with Nelson’s insight of the selfy being "a neurotic impulse, not a happy one." And, we have to note, this narcissism has nothing to do with gender: guys are as apt to engage in this narcissistic, self-indulgent sort of behavior as girls.

This reminds me of three Trade Tripper articles I wrote, noting down the seeming self-obsession of people nowadays. Somehow, it’s convincing me I may be prescient. Or something like it.

The first was written in 2010, "Everybody’s a Rockstar:" "Everybody’s a rockstar nowadays. People that normally would have no claim to fame (or notoriety) would find their faces (and complete range of poses) on the Internet. Being ill informed, unread, or without any semblance of writing skills? Doesn’t stop them from airing their views extensively on Facebook."

The resulting danger of a culture encouraging (even rewarding) intellectually lazy people is something related to what James Surowiecki wrote about. Interestingly (and ironically), the author of The Wisdom of Crowds, actually discards the idea of an infallible crowd and instead bolsters an idea we all already know: a deliberate and studied decision by an informed people will always be better than one made out of the emotional unthinking actions of the many. Our history is replete with the latter. The tragedy in such situations of "irrational" crowds is that any good, studied, and learned thinking by individuals become lost, discarded, or -- worse -- attacked. In this regard, Andrew Keen’s The Cult of the Amateur: How Today’s Internet Is Killing Our Culture would be good to read.

Which leads to the second article -- "The Anti-Intellectual State:" "But indeed, the reason for this anti-intellectual bias lies with our ‘intellectuals’ themselves. I mean: "do we even have real intellectuals?" After all, "Intellectuals are there to encourage the greater populace to think critically and objectively, to think calmly and methodically, to discuss politely, to like thinking (and learning), and to think for a purpose. Not paralyze people into inaction or scream loads of esoteric data in order to shut them up. In the end, our people have no respect for intellectuals (as well as politicians) because those who pretend to being it are merely into one huge ego trip and treat being an intellectual as a performance for people’s entertainment. They serve no purpose other than as a diversion during coffee breaks or cocktails. Intellectuals should exhort people to unify their actions with their thoughts, demand responsibility and accountability, all rooted in realistic and doable considerations. Above all, intellectuals should practice what they preach. Otherwise, they’re just encouraging the country to be basket cases like them."

The third article I referred to was written just a few months ago, "Me, Myself, and I:" "While indeed the democratization of information, the full utilization of the wisdom of crowds, and the greater participation of the public in the marketplace of ideas is ostensibly beneficial, not so if it leads people to sloppiness in thought.

Writer and Cambridge lecturer (never mind Oxford) Edward de Bono certainly thinks so. In an interview with news.com.au, he said: ‘There is danger on the internet and social media... that you do not have to think to be very dangerous. Social media causes laziness, that we feel will get more information and do not need to have his own ideas. We got the idea from someone else, we do not need to look at the data, we only see what others have to say.’"

In the end, we (specially the parents) either face up to this problem now. Or pay for it later. Of course, it’s easy to dismiss such concerns as being the product of an overly dogmatic mind. But ask yourself this question: would you really think that a child reared on the uncritiqued, unjudged, the "everybody is ok because you feel good" mentality can stand up to the rigors of the real world? I’m sure the parents of our neighboring Asian countries already know the answer to that.

On selfies

Came across this thoughtful article on what may be the most popular activity today: selfies. But it does come with a price. As Olympia Nelson wrote:

"If social media only caused narcissism, it wouldn't be the worst thing. Instagram and Facebook are social networks that not only breed narcissistic tendencies but transform relations into a sexual rat race."

But it's the unoriginality, the lack of any creativity, the impulse to conform (sexually, politically, or whatever) that makes even this simple act of self-indulgence go from bad to worse: "Everyone likes receiving compliments and it makes us feel awesome that our own appearance can provide us with an ego boost. But what kind of photos produce an epidemic of 'likes?' Nothing with too much creativity but hip, titty and kiss. It's the true scourge of the selfie."

In the end, one can't help but agree with Nelson's insight of the selfy being "a neurotic impulse, not a happy one." And, we have to note, this narcissism has nothing to do with gender: guys are as apt to engage in this narcissistic, self-indulgent sort of behavior as girls. Hence, there's Anthony Weiner in the US; while in this country there's this endless array of couples shooting videos of themselves having sex (so many, in fact, one wonders already why they even bother considering the practice already seems so pedestrian).

This reminds me of three articles I wrote, noting down the seeming self-obsession of people nowadays. Somehow, it's convincing me I may be prescient. Or something like it.

The first was written in 2010, Everybody's a Rockstar:

"Everybody’s a rockstar nowadays. People that normally would have no claim to fame (or notoriety) would find their faces (and complete range of poses) on the Internet. Being ill informed, unread, or without any semblance of writing skills? Doesn’t stop them from airing their views extensively on Facebook."

The resulting danger of a culture encouraging (even rewarding) intellectually lazy people is something related to what James Surowiecki wrote about. Interestingly (and ironically), the author of The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations actually discards the idea of an infallible crowd and instead bolsters an idea we all already know: a deliberate and studied decision by an informed people will always be better than one made out of the emotional unthinking actions of the many. Our history is replete with the latter. Surowiecki talks about crowds that made very bad decisions because the individual members of the crowd were not thinking, letting their own judgment be determined by those around them, to the point that a bandwagon is produced but of which everyone is simply imitating and conforming to the sloppy or emotionally impaired thinking of others (or of those sufficiently loud enough to let their positions known). The tragedy in such situations of “irrational’ crowds is that any good, studied, and learned thinking by individuals become lost, discarded, or - worse - attacked. In this regard, Andrew Keen’s The Cult of the Amateur: How Today’s Internet Is Killing Our Culture would be good to read.

Which leads to the second article - The Anti-Intellectual State:

"But indeed, the reason for this anti-intellectual bias lies with our 'intellectuals' themselves. I mean: do we even have real intellectuals? There’s this well-known management professor (later government official) who lectured constantly against oligarchs only to spinelessly end up covering for their corruption. A columnist happily namedrops Rawls or Chomsky for no useful purpose except to release hot air. He once analyzed a recently elected public official (acknowledged of humble origins) and weirdly concluded, due to etymological reasons, that he’s an 'ilustrado.' Even assuming that’s correct, what was the point? Then there’s this economist whose idea of public debate is to screech and scream against those who dissent from her views. It’s ridiculous to lecture as if one is the fount of infallible knowledge when, after all those years spent in government or academe giving economic advice, the Philippines is still in its economic quagmire.

Intellectuals are there to encourage the greater populace to think critically and objectively, to think calmly and methodically, to discuss politely, to like thinking (and learning), and to think for a purpose. Not paralyze people into inaction or scream loads of esoteric data in order to shut them up. In the end, our people have no respect for intellectuals (as well as politicians) because those who pretend to being it are merely into one huge ego trip and treat being an intellectual as a performance for people’s entertainment. They serve no purpose other than as a diversion during coffee breaks or cocktails. Intellectuals should exhort people to unify their actions with their thoughts, demand responsibility and accountability, all rooted in realistic and doable considerations. Above all, intellectuals should practice what they preach. Otherwise, they’re just encouraging the country to be basket cases like them."

The third article I referred to was written just a few months ago, Me, Myself, and I:

"While indeed the democratization of information, the full utilization of the wisdom of crowds, and the greater participation of the public in the marketplace of ideas is ostensibly beneficial, not so if it leads people to sloppiness in thought.

Writer and Cambridge lecturer (never mind Oxford) Edward de Bono certainly thinks so. In an interview with news.com.au, he said: 'There is danger on the internet and social media... that you do not have to think to be very dangerous. Social media causes laziness, that we feel will get more information and do not need to have his own ideas. We got the idea from someone else, we do not need to look at the data, we only see what others have to say.'"

In the end, we (specially the parents) either face up to this problem now. Or pay for it later:

"Which makes me think: what effect does this instant celebrity (or whatever it is) have on the population? Without the need to acquire the skills, humility, and patience garnered from the constant supervision by one’s superior, the burden of redoing repeatedly a piece of work until it’s properly done, without the need of honing craftsmanship, researching and verifying the credibility of sources, the constant nagging and disciplining by an elder whether a work has logic and methodical train of thought, how does that affect the development of their character? When all they have to do, by way of example, is copy and paste obscure articles on the internet, Google and Wiki their way through research, then publish their works to the admiration of their peers who wouldn’t know any better? What’s the point of hard work and a demanding experienced mentor if one can be an instant star on the internet or reality TV anyway?

Makes me miss the days when you have guys like Michael Jordan (although there’s still Kobe Bryant). Guys who listen to their coach (even when they don’t like what they’re hearing), guys who became great not because they were creative but because they repeatedly did (without complaining) the simple basic stuff over and over and over again until they got it right. And, most importantly, guys who understand that they are part of a team or institution, with a history and tradition, which are far more important than their individual sense of self, ego, or feelings."

Me, myself, and I

... is the subject of my Trade Tripper column in this Friday-Saturday issue of BusinessWorld:

A few years back I wrote how disturbing it was that everybody nowadays, even just doing ordinary things in ordinary places would unthinkingly, dramatically perk up upon having a camera thrust in their faces. You see it everywhere, people moseying along, bored expression on their faces, and then suddenly somebody takes a camera and people just switch on and start posing and projecting like mad.

Everybody now is a celebrity in their minds. People that normally would have (and should have) no claim to fame (or even notoriety) would find their faces and their most mundane activities on the Internet. Being ill informed, unread, or without any semblance of writing skills doesn’t stop them from airing their views extensively on Facebook.

Some people believe this is a good thing. I don’t. While indeed the democratization of information, the full utilization of the wisdom of crowds, and the greater participation of the public in the marketplace of ideas is ostensibly beneficial, not so if it leads people to sloppiness in thought.

Writer and Cambridge lecturer (never mind Oxford) Edward de Bono certainly thinks so. In an interview with news.com.au, he said: “There is danger on the internet and social media... that you do not have to think to be very dangerous. Social media causes laziness, that we feel will get more information and do not need to have his own ideas. We got the idea from someone else, we do not need to look at the data, we only see what others have to say.”

Reality TV is perhaps even worse. The behavior exhibited by the so-called “stars” often verge on the bizarre: every little thing results in violent arguments, no opportunity (even the lack thereof) for public sexual antics is wasted, and every mundane (actually stupid) opinion is aired out at the highest possible volume. While, of course, the rationale for such over-the-top behavior is understandable from the ratings perspective, it may (alas oftentimes does) sadly encourage (consciously or not) similar conduct from its fans.

Which makes me think: what effect does this instant celebrity (or whatever it is) have on the population? Without the need to acquire the skills, humility, and patience garnered from the constant supervision by one’s superior, the burden of redoing repeatedly a piece of work until it’s properly done, without the need of honing craftsmanship, researching and verifying the credibility of sources, the constant nagging and disciplining by an elder whether a work has logic and methodical train of thought, how does that affect the development of their character? When all they have to do, by way of example, is copy and paste obscure articles on the internet, Google and Wiki their way through research, then publish their works to the admiration of their peers who wouldn’t know any better? What’s the point of hard work and a demanding experienced mentor if one can be an instant star on the internet or reality TV anyway?

Ironically, having a “me,” self-centered, “if it feels good then do it” mindset (along with the capacity for instant gratification) has not made people any happier. In a 2009 study (reported in the Telegraph) involving Britain, for example, it was found that while its individualistic mindset made “for a dynamic and innovative population, it also appears to make it more anxious and unhappy, claim psychologists. The study by Northwestern University in Chicago compared levels of depression and anxiety in individualist societies like Western Europe and America with collectivist societies like China and Taiwan. They were surprised to find that there was a direct correlation between the two. The more individualistic the country, the higher the levels of depression.”

This reminded me of what Helen Alvaré, associate professor at George Mason University Law School, pointed out: the US sexual revolution had “four to five decades to prove itself.” And yet, “were increases in sexual liberty for women a key determinant of happiness (sufficiently key to raise birth control above even life-saving medicines for federal favor), a simple time-series graph correlating the percentage of women using contraception in the United States with the percentage of women reporting themselves as ‘happy’ would show a direct relationship. Instead, we have more women accessing birth control but less female happiness as described above.”

So much for the insane assertion that “satisfying sex” is a human right.

It would be great — to borrow from Paul Kengor — to have a leader who tells us that while “liberty is enshrined in our laws, but liberty should not be license for opportunities for the flesh. Our liberties, protected and permitted as they are, should not be exploited to do anything and everything we want, including things harmful to oneself, to one’s family, to one’s neighbors, to one’s culture, to one’s country.”

But, really, we can’t really blame people for indulging in madness if even our presidents, senators and congressmen, or even tourist guides, act like lunatics themselves.

Offending hate speakers

is the subject of my Trade Tripper column in the recent Friday-Saturday issue of BusinessWorld. Because I am running for Congress as the second nominee for the Pro-Life party list (No. 42 on the ballot), election laws dictate I have to go on leave from BusinessWorld starting next week up to the end of the campaign period in May. So this will be the last Trade Tripper for a long time indeed. Hope all you readers continue to visit this blog nonetheless. Cheers and have a good week ahead to you all.

Last week was full of statements calling for the unconstitutionality of Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code (Offending religious feelings). That such calls are reactionary and biased is to point out the obvious. The claims, however, were also based on fallacious reasoning and on assumptions that have no basis in or disregard reality.

We will ignore complaints that Article 133 violates Church/State separation for their utter obliviousness on what the concept really means. Also to be snubbed is that supremely asinine argument that Christians must forgive everything and forget about justice. That has never been the Catholic Church’s teaching. Forgiveness must always be coupled with justice.

Then there’s the dim-witted "Spanish-era" Article 133 is "antiquated" position. But by that "logic," the US Constitution and the Ten Commandments must be discarded as well.

Instead, we look at the argument that the foregoing provision is unconstitutional for conflicting with free speech. Such, however, ignores basic constitutional law: the right to free speech is not absolute. One cannot libel or slander people, commit vandalism to express opinions, display obscenities, falsely shout "fire" in crowded places. The point here is not to stifle dissent or contrasting ideas but to restrain speech that deliberately is meant to sow hate, violence, or intolerance.

The provision, as it’s currently viewed, has nothing theocratic about it. Neither is it meant to favor a specific religion. It simply acknowledges the fact that there are some things people feel strongly about. Hence, why crimes committed in another’s house or murdering one’s own family members, or assaulting teachers or public officials, have higher penalties. Considering today’s fears of terrorism, one can go to jail just by making a joke about bombs while inside an airport. That is why the Civil Code has a provision restraining rich people from flaunting their wealth in times of public want (see Article 25).

One incredibly bizarre argument recently made is that priests who speak against the RH law during Mass also offend the feelings of those who are pro-RH. But this ignores the constitutional right of the priest to religion and free speech, the constitutional right of the pro-RH individual to religion which includes the right to stop being a Catholic and not attend Mass, and the fact that what is being punished by our laws is not the contrary idea being expressed but the hateful, intolerant manner in which it is expressed.

Then there are people who argue that free speech shouldn’t come with restrictions. Such argument, again however, inanely disregards reality. And also quite hypocritical: I bet that any person who argues that, if confronted with someone who joins their family party and starts insulting them, causes a ruckus, makes them look silly in front of the cameras, and then posts pictures and smugly boasts about it in the Internet, would not hesitate to have the law fully enforced.

The other argument employed is why should religion be given distinct protection? If an Imam, it is argued, enters a gathering of atheists, disrupts proceedings, then why would that not be considered a crime? Actually, it is. On the top of my head, it could constitute qualified trespass, tumults, alarms, unjust vexation, or violating the right to peaceful assembly.

On the other hand, it’s also true that religion is given such protection because it is so fundamental, an inherent and self-evident inclination of people, that the right to religion is considered a primary human right that must be respected. Hence, this right to religious freedom is protected, not only by our Constitution, but also by international instruments such as the UN Declaration on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief.

That is why many countries in the world aside from the Philippines penalize hate speech (i.e., speech vilifying persons on the basis of some characteristic like race or religion). Poland, Norway, Singapore, Thailand, South Africa, Canada, Germany, Denmark, amongst others, impose punishments for it. The European Court of Human Rights has consistently ruled against speech offending religious sensibilities and hate speech. Britain punishes hate speech that seeks to "stir up religious hatred."

The point here is: whether or not you believe in religion or agree with the doctrines of a religion, the reality remains that religion is something fundamental to most people’s identities and their conception of rights. This fact, like the attachment to the ideas of family or marriage (both definitely established human rights as well) is something that liberals, progressives, or leftists have puzzlingly been unable to comprehend. The plea for tolerance (correctly understood from the Latin tol -- to endure a burden) should never be understood to mean that people must shut up about their religious rights.

Simply put, there may be room for sloppy thinking in the public square but none at all for bullying and boorishness.

LAST week was full of statements calling for the unconstitutionality of Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code (Offending religious feelings). That such calls are reactionary and biased is to point out the obvious. The claims, however, were also based on fallacious reasoning and on assumptions that have no basis in or disregard reality.

RELATED STORIES Trade Tripper -- Jemy Gatdula: "Me, myself, and I" Trade Tripper -- Jemy Gatdula: "China’s hunger games" Trade Tripper -- Jemy Gatdula: "Lies, statistics, and indexes" Trade Tripper -- Jemy Gatdula: "Manufacturing competitiveness" Trade Tripper -- Jemy Gatdula: "2013: sex, trade, elections"

We will ignore complaints that Article 133 violates Church/State separation for their utter obliviousness on what the concept really means. Also to be snubbed is that supremely asinine argument that Christians must forgive everything and forget about justice. That has never been the Catholic Church’s teaching. Forgiveness must always be coupled with justice.

Then there’s the dim-witted "Spanish-era" Article 133 is "antiquated" position. But by that "logic," the US Constitution and the Ten Commandments must be discarded as well.

Instead, we look at the argument that the foregoing provision is unconstitutional for conflicting with free speech. Such, however, ignores basic constitutional law: the right to free speech is not absolute. One cannot libel or slander people, commit vandalism to express opinions, display obscenities, falsely shout "fire" in crowded places. The point here is not to stifle dissent or contrasting ideas but to restrain speech that deliberately is meant to sow hate, violence, or intolerance.

The provision, as it’s currently viewed, has nothing theocratic about it. Neither is it meant to favor a specific religion. It simply acknowledges the fact that there are some things people feel strongly about. Hence, why crimes committed in another’s house or murdering one’s own family members, or assaulting teachers or public officials, have higher penalties. Considering today’s fears of terrorism, one can go to jail just by making a joke about bombs while inside an airport. That is why the Civil Code has a provision restraining rich people from flaunting their wealth in times of public want (see Article 25).

One incredibly bizarre argument recently made is that priests who speak against the RH law during Mass also offend the feelings of those who are pro-RH. But this ignores the constitutional right of the priest to religion and free speech, the constitutional right of the pro-RH individual to religion which includes the right to stop being a Catholic and not attend Mass, and the fact that what is being punished by our laws is not the contrary idea being expressed but the hateful, intolerant manner in which it is expressed.

Then there are people who argue that free speech shouldn’t come with restrictions. Such argument, again however, inanely disregards reality. And also quite hypocritical: I bet that any person who argues that, if confronted with someone who joins their family party and starts insulting them, causes a ruckus, makes them look silly in front of the cameras, and then posts pictures and smugly boasts about it in the Internet, would not hesitate to have the law fully enforced.

The other argument employed is why should religion be given distinct protection? If an Imam, it is argued, enters a gathering of atheists, disrupts proceedings, then why would that not be considered a crime? Actually, it is. On the top of my head, it could constitute qualified trespass, tumults, alarms, unjust vexation, or violating the right to peaceful assembly.

On the other hand, it’s also true that religion is given such protection because it is so fundamental, an inherent and self-evident inclination of people, that the right to religion is considered a primary human right that must be respected. Hence, this right to religious freedom is protected, not only by our Constitution, but also by international instruments such as the UN Declaration on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief.

That is why many countries in the world aside from the Philippines penalize hate speech (i.e., speech vilifying persons on the basis of some characteristic like race or religion). Poland, Norway, Singapore, Thailand, South Africa, Canada, Germany, Denmark, amongst others, impose punishments for it. The European Court of Human Rights has consistently ruled against speech offending religious sensibilities and hate speech. Britain punishes hate speech that seeks to "stir up religious hatred."

The point here is: whether or not you believe in religion or agree with the doctrines of a religion, the reality remains that religion is something fundamental to most people’s identities and their conception of rights. This fact, like the attachment to the ideas of family or marriage (both definitely established human rights as well) is something that liberals, progressives, or leftists have puzzlingly been unable to comprehend. The plea for tolerance (correctly understood from the Latin tol -- to endure a burden) should never be understood to mean that people must shut up about their religious rights.

Simply put, there may be room for sloppy thinking in the public square but none at all for bullying and boorishness.


Jemy Gatdula will be on leave from BusinessWorld starting next week until May 2013. He is running for Congress as a nominee for the Pro-Life party list in the coming May elections.

- See more at: http://bworldonline.com/content.php?section=Opinion&title=Offending-hate-speakers&id=65539#sthash.UEzvMSXY.dpuf

LAST week was full of statements calling for the unconstitutionality of Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code (Offending religious feelings). That such calls are reactionary and biased is to point out the obvious. The claims, however, were also based on fallacious reasoning and on assumptions that have no basis in or disregard reality.

RELATED STORIES Trade Tripper -- Jemy Gatdula: "Me, myself, and I" Trade Tripper -- Jemy Gatdula: "China’s hunger games" Trade Tripper -- Jemy Gatdula: "Lies, statistics, and indexes" Trade Tripper -- Jemy Gatdula: "Manufacturing competitiveness" Trade Tripper -- Jemy Gatdula: "2013: sex, trade, elections"

We will ignore complaints that Article 133 violates Church/State separation for their utter obliviousness on what the concept really means. Also to be snubbed is that supremely asinine argument that Christians must forgive everything and forget about justice. That has never been the Catholic Church’s teaching. Forgiveness must always be coupled with justice.

Then there’s the dim-witted "Spanish-era" Article 133 is "antiquated" position. But by that "logic," the US Constitution and the Ten Commandments must be discarded as well.

Instead, we look at the argument that the foregoing provision is unconstitutional for conflicting with free speech. Such, however, ignores basic constitutional law: the right to free speech is not absolute. One cannot libel or slander people, commit vandalism to express opinions, display obscenities, falsely shout "fire" in crowded places. The point here is not to stifle dissent or contrasting ideas but to restrain speech that deliberately is meant to sow hate, violence, or intolerance.

The provision, as it’s currently viewed, has nothing theocratic about it. Neither is it meant to favor a specific religion. It simply acknowledges the fact that there are some things people feel strongly about. Hence, why crimes committed in another’s house or murdering one’s own family members, or assaulting teachers or public officials, have higher penalties. Considering today’s fears of terrorism, one can go to jail just by making a joke about bombs while inside an airport. That is why the Civil Code has a provision restraining rich people from flaunting their wealth in times of public want (see Article 25).

One incredibly bizarre argument recently made is that priests who speak against the RH law during Mass also offend the feelings of those who are pro-RH. But this ignores the constitutional right of the priest to religion and free speech, the constitutional right of the pro-RH individual to religion which includes the right to stop being a Catholic and not attend Mass, and the fact that what is being punished by our laws is not the contrary idea being expressed but the hateful, intolerant manner in which it is expressed.

Then there are people who argue that free speech shouldn’t come with restrictions. Such argument, again however, inanely disregards reality. And also quite hypocritical: I bet that any person who argues that, if confronted with someone who joins their family party and starts insulting them, causes a ruckus, makes them look silly in front of the cameras, and then posts pictures and smugly boasts about it in the Internet, would not hesitate to have the law fully enforced.

The other argument employed is why should religion be given distinct protection? If an Imam, it is argued, enters a gathering of atheists, disrupts proceedings, then why would that not be considered a crime? Actually, it is. On the top of my head, it could constitute qualified trespass, tumults, alarms, unjust vexation, or violating the right to peaceful assembly.

On the other hand, it’s also true that religion is given such protection because it is so fundamental, an inherent and self-evident inclination of people, that the right to religion is considered a primary human right that must be respected. Hence, this right to religious freedom is protected, not only by our Constitution, but also by international instruments such as the UN Declaration on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief.

That is why many countries in the world aside from the Philippines penalize hate speech (i.e., speech vilifying persons on the basis of some characteristic like race or religion). Poland, Norway, Singapore, Thailand, South Africa, Canada, Germany, Denmark, amongst others, impose punishments for it. The European Court of Human Rights has consistently ruled against speech offending religious sensibilities and hate speech. Britain punishes hate speech that seeks to "stir up religious hatred."

The point here is: whether or not you believe in religion or agree with the doctrines of a religion, the reality remains that religion is something fundamental to most people’s identities and their conception of rights. This fact, like the attachment to the ideas of family or marriage (both definitely established human rights as well) is something that liberals, progressives, or leftists have puzzlingly been unable to comprehend. The plea for tolerance (correctly understood from the Latin tol -- to endure a burden) should never be understood to mean that people must shut up about their religious rights.

Simply put, there may be room for sloppy thinking in the public square but none at all for bullying and boorishness.


Jemy Gatdula will be on leave from BusinessWorld starting next week until May 2013. He is running for Congress as a nominee for the Pro-Life party list in the coming May elections.

- See more at: http://bworldonline.com/content.php?section=Opinion&title=Offending-hate-speakers&id=65539#sthash.UEzvMSXY.

The heresy of Pope Francis

is the subject of my Trade Tripper column in this weekend issue of BusinessWorld:

The newspapers gleefully cackled (on a Sunday no less!) at Pope Francis allegedly slamming the clergy’s “obsession” with homosexuality, abortion, contraception. From the way the media painted it, it was as if Pope Francis had called for the renunciation not only of the teachings of Pope Benedict XVI but also centuries and centuries of Catholic teaching. The truth, as usual, however, is that Pope Francis did no such thing.

I think it was Pat Archbold (“Quotes That Prove The Pope Is A Liberal,” National Catholic Register, Aug. 5) that best described how Pope Francis differs with Pope Benedict XVI:

“The press has been telling us that Pope Francis, in word and deed, is no less than the total renunciation of Pope Benedict’s papacy... I think it is time we face facts. The press is right. The Pope is a liberal and I have the quotes to prove it:

“Encourages Homosexuality: ‘It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the church’s pastors wherever it occurs.’

“He is focused on the poor: ‘Many people today lack hope. They are perplexed by the questions that present themselves ever more urgently in a confusing world, and they are often uncertain which way to turn for answers. They see poverty and injustice and they long to find solutions.' 'Yet if we refuse to share what we have with the hungry and the poor, we make of our possessions a false god. How many voices in our materialist society tell us that happiness is to be found by acquiring as many possessions and luxuries as we can! But this is to make possessions into a false god. Instead of bringing life, they bring death.’

“He is overtly humble and does not embrace his office: ‘The authority of the pope is not unlimited.’ ‘The cardinals have elected me, a simple and humble worker in the Lord’s vineyard. The fact that the Lord can work and act even with insufficient means consoles me, and above all I entrust myself to your prayers.’"

“He makes a point of extolling women and the Church: ‘It is theologically and anthropologically important for woman to be at the center of Christianity. Through Mary, and the other holy women, the feminine element stands at the heart of the Christian religion.’”

Which should pretty much close the argument that Pope Francis, who cares for gays, the poor, and women’s rights is the anti-Benedict. Except for one fact that Archbold points out: “Every quote above is from Pope Benedict. Every one.”

There is no break with established Catholic doctrine (the text of the Pope’s interview can be found here www.americamagazine.org/pope-interview). This is a fact that people, perhaps because technology and media have encouraged them to think in the short-term (particularly as far as gratification of desires are considered), have difficulty in comprehending about an institution that thinks in millenia or even eternity. Pope Francis’ point, as Matthew Schmitz, writing for First Things (firstthings.com, “Pope Francis on How to Talk About Abortion, Gay Marriage, and Contraception,” Sept. 20), insightfully declares is “not to compromise on or back away from truth, but rather to reject its caricature. This is good practical guidance. If it’s what he meant in his broader remarks, then those remarks offer wise advice well worth taking.”

I agree. Both sides of the moral debate indeed need to take a step back. Locally, pro-RH (or “pro-choice” or social “progressive”) Catholics need to accept that the faith does come with demands, that one can’t pick and choose only those doctrines they like from those they don’t. That by doing so they are actually placing themselves as their own god. On the other hand, the anti-RH (and “pro-life”) Catholics need to understand the utter subtleties of the doctrines of the faith, not reducing what essentially are beautiful and textured teachings into something merely as stark black and white, debasing a profound conversation about our shared humanity into a simple “us” vs “them” antagonism.

Thus, Catholic Vote’s Stephen White was correct in his assessment that the “challenge for the Church, as the Pope seems to see it, is not that people are unaware [or refuse to accept that] that the Church considers, for example, abortion, contraception, and homosexual acts to be sinful (everyone knows this); the problem is that they don’t understand why the Church teaches what it does.” The clergy’s problem, locally, for example, is not that they talk too much against contraception but that they don’t talk enough (and competently) about it to place it within the context of the power and beauty of the whole of Church teaching.

So, to sum up, Pope Francis never changed anything doctrine wise. Which is perhaps the real heresy that he may be committing, at least in the eyes of “pick and choose” Catholics and progressives.

Some comments to Fr. Bernas’ stand on the RH Bill

Here’s a good article e-mailed to me by a friend that I’d like to share. It’s by Fr. Julio Penacoba of Sampaloc, Manila:

I will limit myself to the issue of the Bill promoting contraception. This is presented mostly in points First and Second of Fr Bernas article.

As I understand it, Fr Bernas attempts to explain why it would be possible to accept the teachings of the Church (that says that contraception is wrong) and yet to support the RH Bill that promotes contraception.

His line of argument may be put like this: The rules of the Church apply to Catholics but should not be imposed on others.In my understanding that line of argument is very valid for religious issues that is, for matters related to faith and worship. For example, the Church has rules coming from his worship such as the obligation of attending Sunday Mass, or the prohibition of eating meat on Ash Wednesday, or the obligation to follow canon law provisions regarding marriage. The Church should not demand that the State impose those obligations to non Catholics.

However, Fr Bernas line of argument is not applicable on ethical issues. On those matters, the Church does not have ethical rules for Catholics only but declarations of the ethical values inherent to the dignity of any human person. Thus, when the Church speaks against corruption, bigamy or drunkenness she is not stating rules for Catholics only. Neither is she imposing limitations on the goods of others. She is simply offering a moral evaluation of certain behaviors for all men of good will who mind the dignity of the whole person including his ethical dignity.

In my perception, Fr Bernas position seems to treat contraception as it were a religious issue (a Church’s rule) rather than an ethical issue. For example, the first quotation that he cites in his Second point (Compendium of Social Doctrine, n.423) belongs to the section entitled Religious Freedom and not about morality or ethical issues. Any intelligent reader can see that it is talking of rights and privileges on the area of practicing ones religion --clearly not applicable to ethical issues. Regarding the second quotation from the same Compendium (n. 169); it belongs to a discussion on how the State should seek the effective good of all and not only of the majority but of the minorities as well. To apply that text to the discussion on contraception would assume that everybody agrees that contraception is an ethical good and therefore it should be given not only to the majority but to the minorities as well.

Since both quotes are from the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, may I quote now from the section (n.234) where that document refers directly to the debate going on.

All programmes of economic assistance aimed at financing campaigns of sterilization and contraception, as well as the subordination of economic assistance to such campaigns, are to be morally condemned as affronts to the dignity of the person and the family. The answer to questions connected with population growth must instead by sought in simultaneous respect both of sexual morals and of social ethics, promoting greater justice and authentic solidarity so that dignity is given to life in all circumstances, starting with economic, social and cultural conditions. [[italics in the original, the emphasis is mine]]

Obama and Asia's crockpot

my Trade Tripper column for this weekend issue of BusinessWorld:

With the country expectant at US President Barack Obama’s visit to the Philippines, political commentators are looking for clues as to how the US truly sees the Philippine. Oft times, the analysis verges on two extreme ends: either indicating full support (to the point of going to war) or a more “pragmatic” view decided substantially by US’ commercial interests.

One book doing the rounds is Asia’s Cauldronby “ultra-realist” Robert Kaplan. To say that Mr. Kaplan is somewhat unimpressed by the Philippines would be a gross understatement. The Philippines, so says Mr. Kaplan, is “less a country than a ramshackle empire ruled from Luzon.” And it kind of goes downhill from there.

“‘This is still a bad Latin American economy, not an Asian one,’ a Manila-based Western economist told me. ‘It’s true that the Philippines was not much affected by the global recession of 2008, but that’s only because it was never integrated into the global economy in the first place. What you have,’ he went on, ‘is admittedly steady economic growth, lately over 6% per year, undermined by population growth of 1.7%, unlike other Pacific Rim economies that have churned ahead by almost a third higher that amount for decades, and without commensurate increases in population.’ Crucially, a ‘staggering’ 76.5% of that GDP growth in recent years went to the 40 richest Filipino families. It’s the old story, the Manila elite is getting rich at the expense of everyone else.”

Of course, the usual reaction among Filipinos is to go into a blind rage at the impertinence of this foreigner. But I myself can hardly argue with Mr. Kaplan’s assessment that in our culture, “prominent are the luxury, gated communities, inside which the wealthy can escape the dysfunctional environment through life-support systems.” In short, where our so-called “elite” can pretend that they’re Caucasians living a Spanish, American, or Mediterranean life.

The Financial Times (through book reviewer David Pilling, April 4) seems to back up Mr. Kaplan’s claims, particularly on the Philippines: “The chapter on Vietnam is strong because it draws out the historic antagonisms that underpin present frictions. Another, on the Philippines, highlights the near impossibility of a poor archipelago with a decrepit defence force -- Kaplan comes close to calling it a failed state -- being able to resist the rising power of China. The author deals in raw power, dismissing the Philippines’ appeal to international law in pursuit of its territorial claims as ‘the ultimate demonstration of weakness’.”

It is particularly here, however, on national security that I doubt the correctness of Mr. Kaplan’s views. Not that I argue against his view that our legal suit against China is indeed a sign of “weakness” but that our ally in this area -- the US -- is moving on pure amoral calculations.

As pointed out by David Feith (in his book review in the Wall Street Journal, March 25): “Less compelling is Mr. Kaplan’s confused argument about whether there is any moral dimension to China’s bid for dominance. ‘The South China Sea shows us a 21st century world void of moral struggles,’ he argues. ‘It is traditional nationalism that mainly drives politics in Asia, and will continue to do so.’ In contrast to World War II and the Cold War, ‘there is no philosophical enemy to confront.’ Yet he acknowledges that ‘Chinese dominance in Asia would be very different from American dominance,’ partly because China’s ‘authoritarian system’ is ‘less benign than the American model of government.’ No kidding.”

The fact is, the ongoing struggle (of which the Philippines is part of) right now with China is indeed moral in character. In simpler terms, it is about respect for humanity vis-à-vis love for money or power (commercial or otherwise). On a grander scale, Mr. Feith points out: “Domestically the Chinese government disdains the rule of law, denies property rights and crushes political dissent. Overseas it operates as if only might makes right, and today it is forcing confrontations across nearly all of its borders -- not just around the South China Sea but with Japan to the northeast and India to the southwest. Though Mr. Kaplan doesn’t say so, such behavior derives not from natural Chinese nationalism but from the worldview -- or moral character -- of this Chinese regime.”

What complicates the issue is Mr. Obama’s somewhat confused foreign policy and misguided cutting of its defense budget by 7.8% (which is to be contrasted to China’s increase in defense spending by 7.4%).

In the end, however, Mr. Kaplan exaggerates by labeling this area as a “cauldron.” It’s actually a crockpot: slow burning and with truly significant developments unnoticeable to Western eyes.

And I agree with The Economist’s call (“Troubled waters”, March 15): Mr. Kaplan is “too optimistic about China and enlightened authoritarianism, and China will not for a long time, if ever, replace America as the safeguarder of the global commons. Pax Sinica is still far beyond the horizon.”

Why we must fight the RH bill our way

Condom confused

The disappointing thing surrounding the present debate on the RH bill (and there are actually many) is how easy it is for the pro-RH side, the so-called "free thinkers", to resort to lies, misleading statements, or even intellectual laziness in expressing their positions.

Case in point is the Pope's comments on condoms. Nowhere in his interview with Peter Seewald did he indicate a shift in Church position, impliedly agree to the lesser evil argument, impliedly agree to the "if you can't be good then be safe" position, or that condoms are permissible in relation to AIDS. And yet, the pro-RH advocates make it out as if there was a major shift in Church thinking. Or worse, they use it to declare that the Church is being inconsistent or confused. All this without even bothering to get the explanations of those really well-versed on the subject or, worse, without referring to the Pope's actual words (even going to the extent of inventing words he did not even say).

The Church is not inconsistent or confused; it is the pro-RH advocates who are. To anybody who actually read Light of the World (I did), far from the Pope showing inconsistency or confusion, he actually gave a vision full of hope and optimism, as well as a clear eyed view and understanding of the human condition. This is a Pope (and a Church) that understands. And this should encourage us, Christians, to have a better understanding as well.

This article is not about the Pope's comments (better explained in other articles by far better writers than I am) but rather as to how the nature of the debate on the RH bill, I believe, is to be conducted. None of what I am about to say is original. They have been culled from teachings stretching all the way from the most modern of saints to the early Church fathers to our lord Jesus Christ. Any error is mine and should not be attributed to the Church and its truthful doctrines. The important thing that I just hope to seek to emphasize is that for those (particularly Catholics) who are against the RH bill and are for a better, humane way of life is that they should always remember the correctness of our position ... and what, more importantly, that actually means.

Better right than popular

Listen to the pro-RH group and it is easy to spot the lack of logic, the inconsistencies, the shallowness of their arguments. Once in a while, they do come up with an argument that seems, on the surface, valid. But which, on closer examination, actually supports the argument against the RH bill and contraception even more.

On the other hand, the Catholic position in this regard is substantive, unified, logical, and cohesive. It is also incredibly rational: from the perspective of health, female and children's rights, labor, trade, the economy, social sciences, and the constitution, the position of the Church is solid. And this is without even reference to the religious doctrinal arguments at its disposal. No survey or popularity rating can or should distract us from this fact.

The arguments against the RH bill have been written extensively in other articles and by other writers and we need not repeat them here. What I am merely trying to stress at this point is the strength of our position, the truth that lies at the core of Church teachings.

And the pro-RH advocates (at least those smart enough to study on the matter) know this even though they won't admit it. That is why they repeatedly exhort and congratulate themselves on their supposed efficient use of public relations and marketing to advance their agenda, and why they mock the Church for it's supposed ineptness in the PR game. But even that betrays their fundamental lack of understanding, either of the consequences of what they are saying or of the Church and it's teachings.

By their heavy reliance on PR, they do not realize that they themselves are exhibiting acts of faith, albeit not faith in a god or higher being but faith in a shallower sense, faith in a very human, very transitory, practice or creation - public relations. And by their faith in the power of PR, they essentially destroy their own arguments in which they allegedly celebrate humanity and free will. By inadvertently framing the debate on who can make a more judicious, creative use of PR, they essentially view people as controlled and acting under mere compulsions and stimuli - that with a few choice words or pictures properly timed, any person can be made to decide in a certain way.

This is precisely what the Church is arguing against, the notion that people are slaves to compulsions and desires. Instead, it is the Church that believes that people have the free will to make a choice and that they have the ability to choose the right choice. And that is why, although it must be said that public relations, advertising, marketing, etc., are all honorable occupations, all of such are merely to be viewed as instruments for the truth. And when the instrument is overriding the very purpose for which it was created, then an imbalance of priorities is there, indicating that something wrong has gone in the process. The Church is staking its position on the correctness and truth of its teachings. Not on how cool, sexy, creative it is but on it simply being the truth, which by itself is powerful enough as it is. Perhaps the case would be different if there are competing truths on the matter, whether it be the better detergent, toothpaste, or politician. Then advertising matters as it does, spin would have the relevance it might have. But this is not the case in this regard. There is one truth and it is the Church that holds it.

Truth is as truth does

Of course, there will be the howls of protest about that last sentence. But indeed Catholics should not be ashamed of that fact. While other religions, denominations, etc., are free to believe what they believe and we respect them for that, we Catholics should not shirk from proclaiming that our faith possesses the complete and actual truth. Theologians can give a better explanation than I could but let me just put it this way: if we didn't have possession of that complete and actual truth, then why believe in the Catholic faith? We believe it, we fight for it, precisely because we believe our faith is true. Other faiths may possess portions of that truth (hence a good reason for us to respect and exercise tolerance for that) but our Church teaches us that the Catholic faith solely contains that perfect truth.

Having said that, then it all becomes the more obvious how disappointing it is that fellow Catholics should be acting the way they did. While clearly it is understandable for people in certain situations to lose their temper or act in a manner less than becoming, we should perhaps reflect again on what it means to be Christian, to be Catholic, particularly in dealing with the issues that we are confronted with today.

For certainly, we are in for a fight: a fight against the RH bill, a fight against an unhealthy form of secularism, a fight against a relativism that holds no respect for values or morals. These certainly are fights worth fighting. But our faith requires us to fight these fights as Christians, as Catholics.

The way, the truth, and pro-life

It is definitely no accident that Jesus referred to his teachings as "the Way" and, in fact, the term "Christians" would only come much later after His death. This means that Jesus' teachings, the tenets of our faith, is not limited to mere church attendance on Sundays but rather for every day and every moment of our lives. The way we eat, sleep, relate to other people, dress up, study or work – these should all be guided by the points of our faith. Christianity is not a mere religion, it is a way of life. And that life is one that is bound to struggles. Jesus never promised a smooth sailing in our earthly lives but he did teach us how to give meaning to the struggles we face everyday, to give sanctification to whatever ups or downs we encounter in our daily existence. Ultimately, what Jesus taught us is a way of living a better life, not only in this Earth, but also of a way of reaching our final and true purpose: to be with God.

Translated in relation to the debate relating to the RH bill, it means that before we act or say anything, such should be done with the consideration that God is always (as it should be) in the equation. Thus, it would be of the utmost help that our instinctive first step before doing anything is to pray. Pray for guidance, to offer to Him whatever actions we will do, to pray that our actions are in line with His will, to pray for grace, in thanksgiving, and to pray that our own wretched sins be forgiven.

The last is quite important. We should have the humility to recognize that we are all sinners. That nothing much is separating us from the pro-RH advocates except for the grace granted to us by God and which we don't deserve were it not for His generosity. Having made that recognition, we should then take the time to make acts of mortification and atonement. This is vital as it opens us all the more to properly being closer to His will. It also enables us to strengthen our faith and temper our actions with humility.

After that (and only then) do we act. For we should be incredibly and utterly careful not to fall into the trap of being self-righteous, which is but another disguise for arrogance. It is simply not Christian to insult others (no matter how insulting those others may be) and definitely very un-Christian for us to wish harm on others (even if those others wish that upon us). It would be a huge waste indeed if instead of turning people towards right we instead turn them off because we ourselves turned wrong by not practicing what we preach. I confess that I myself have resorted to teasing and at times have gotten carried away with that teasing, particularly in the heat of an argument (mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa …). But to call others as "Satanas" or to have hoped that "their mothers should have aborted them" is quite a bit over the edge. Albeit, it is quite understandable to lose one's temper in the midst of people who are apparently acting with malice and hypocrisy (pretending to join a pro-Life prayer meeting to "merely listen" while wearing shirts with slogans offensive to pro-lifers and distributing pro-RH pamphlets is not only rude but also not a very smart thing to do). And I mention this not to put undue reproach or blame. The past is past, and is only good to learn from but not to dwell in. The point here is this: we, specially from now on, when our struggle takes the point of being crucial, should always keep in mind who we are: Christians.

Yoda was right: not only is anger not good as it leads to hate (which leads to suffering), anger is also a manifestation of fear. We exhibit anger out of the fears we have. But a Christian should never have fear, should never fear anything. The reason is simple: we are God's children and God is our Father. The technical theological term for this is "Divine Filiation." But by however way you call it, in Christianity we have been called with Christ to share in his sonship and thus are able to call God as our Father. This should tell us one thing that should fill us with assurance: there's no way we can ever lose because our Father never loses because He is God.

In the context of the RH bill debate, this tells us that we should never let the fear or frustration that we might get beaten by the pro-RH people get to us because, simply put, they won't win. First of all, if the RH bill gets defeated, it did so not because of us but despite us. It was God working His will through us, His highly flawed instruments. Any victory attained was achieved by the Hand who wielded the instruments and not by the instruments themselves. If the RH bill gets passed it's because He allowed it, for reasons only He knows, but then we know that He allows things to happen because it will be to our good, because with God all is for the good, because God is good. If the RH bill is passed, let us not lose our peace because His will was done and to do His will is what we are here for. His will being done, let us be thankful, pray to understand His will better, and be happy. The point is, as children of God, we can never lose and this is our faith.

This does not mean that we do not give our best in defeating the RH bill. We should do our best for the simple reason that our acts are opportunities to be closer to God and we therefore offer our works (actually everything: our joys, sorrows, thoughts, words, etc.) to him, to praise Him, honor Him, and to give thanks to Him, and to bring, through our works, the world closer to oneness with God. We thus give our best because one simply does not offer mediocrity to God. In the same way we offer the best gifts we can give to the best of our abilities to our loved ones, then we offer the best to our ultimate love and that is God.

This means that in our efforts to combat the RH bill, it behooves us that we don't do it sloppily or half-heartedly. St. Peter tells us that we should always be ready to defend our faith. So we study well the theological and scriptural reasons why the Church teaches as it does, we study how we deliver that message, and we exhibit discipline in forwarding that message. It means that we be organized and methodical in our approach, that our arguments arise from deliberate study and research (and not mere religious motherhood statements or illogical appeals to emotions), and that we be very conscious and intelligent in the manner that we deliver and expound on our arguments. It also leads us to proceeding with perseverance, caring not who gets the credit, and that we always act with confidence. There is no reason for us to give up or be insecure for the reason that we believe that God, our Father, is guiding us and caring for us. Finally, it also means that we regularly and with great discipline read the Bible, particularly the New Testament, preferably on a daily basis. As St. Augustine said, "when we read, God talks to us." So we do this, even for short bursts during the day, regularly and with discipline, asking the Lord for the grace to appreciate His words better.

You bet your life

But the best way to fight against the RH bill is to live our faith. One of the interesting things when one reads the early accounts by pagan writers (e.g., Josephus, the Letter to Diognetus, etc.) on the first Christians is how impressed they were on the way the Christians lived their lives. For at that time, the behavior of the early Christians was quite unique: they were quite joyful and treated each other with the utmost charity and love. Joy, the ability to be cheerful even in the face of difficulties, is what truly set the Christian apart. Almost every other passage in the New Testament, from the Gospels to the Epistles to Revelations, encourages us to live our faith with joy. We are talking here not of the psychological joy brought about by hormones or drugs but the supernatural joy that comes – again, you guessed it – from the fact that we are indeed the children of God. We should be cheerful in our daily lives, in the way we treat each other, relate to each other, in how we do our work or study. We should be joyful because that is what it means to be Christian.

The other aspect is that we live the life of charity, that we demonstrate our love, to those who are our friends and to those who are not yet our friends. We should not fight this fight like others do; we should not fight this fight by being like them: we should not resort to hating, to spite, to bitterness, to anger, to pride. Because again all that betrays a fear that should not be present in a Christian who should be filled with the confidence of one who is a child of God. We should fight the good fight as who we are; we should fight the good fight as Christians.

In fact, for practical and historical reasons alone, we should not be quick to judge and dismiss those who do not share our faith, even to those who appear to us to be immoral. Remember St. Augustine. We should lament their state, strive to correct them gently, but never hate. We should also note that the pro-RH people aren’t even trying to kill us (or at least I think so). So think about this and remember St. Paul (who earlier on tried to kill the first Christians and see how that turned out for him). With God's grace anything is possible. And for every ferocious opponent we meet now could be that most staunch and effective ally tomorrow.

So we treat the other side (and each other) with charity, with cheerfulness, love, provide understanding in response to their refusal or inability (so far) to understand the wonderful teachings of our faith. We do this because that is what Christians do.

Defense, our way

William Perkins once wrote, "God does not look at the excellence of the accomplishment but at the heart of the worker." In all the heat and passions involved in the debate relating to the RH bill, we Catholics should take the time to reflect on what it means to live our lives within the Christian faith. The fight against the RH bill has nothing to do with our intelligence, talents, ego, education, or credentials. We give our best but the outcome has nothing to do with winning or losing. The outcome we pray for is that God's will be done. And with that we know we cannot lose. But what this debate does give us is an opportunity to demonstrate to all the others what our faith truly means. The "free thinkers" believe that they know how to lead the sophisticated, creative, vibrant life. They have no idea what they're talking about. We know we have the better way, the "way" taught to us by Jesus. Right is on our side. That should give us the security, confidence, cheerfulness, and charity in dealing with others and with this RH debate. Definitely, as St. Peter tells us, we should always be ready to defend our faith. But with the caveat that St. Peter also provided: such defense must always be done with "respect and gentleness" (1 Pet. 3:15).