The Church of the Philippines: Removal of "Offensive" Ads Ordered

Rappler has reported that the MMDA ordered the removal of sexually suggestive advertisements along EDSA after several Catholic bishops expressed their disapproval.

How did these bishops know what "come and play" meant?

(photo from Bench Facebook page)

The bishops found the billboards to be "offensive to the morals" of the country.  Thank goodness we have these unelected representatives to speak on all our behalves.  I do wonder how they know what my morals are?

Once again, the church has exerted its authority over the country.  We are all free people, and we are free to express our opinions and practice our religion; but the Catholic church has the pleasure and privilege of seeing its opinions virtually enacted into law and implemented hastily by the government. Congress is flush with envy.

The Republic is the country's upper management, but nothing happens without the approval of its Board of Directors--the Catholic church. We might as well rename to the CP: Church of the Philippines.

Read more...

Filipinos Don't Deserve Democracy

That's exactly what the Anti-Political Dynasty Bill is telling you.

YOU can't be expected to apply some critical thinking when voting.

YOU don't deserve to choose between political aspirants.

YOU are too stupid to be left alone to vote.

This bill isn't so much about the families in power as it is about you, the individual Filipino.

photo credit: Olivander via photopin cc

The Anti-Political Dynasty Bill was borne out of Article II, Section 26 of our 1987 Constitution. It declares, "The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law." The Bill would become the enabling law for this provision by prohibiting relatives from holding or running for office in successive or overlapping terms.

Of course, this was all done in the spirit of democracy, in order to avoid the potential oligarchy of having a few elite families in high political positions. Only, it actually makes a mockery of our democracy by allowing a small group of people (lawmakers) to judge whether family relationships are a basis in voting--and to what extent. In a way, we already concede some of our freedom to vote--our freedom to choose--by letting the lawmakers mandate that okay, relatives within the second degree of consanguinity are not fit to be in public service together. When was that theirs to decide? Isn't that already oligarchy?

We place judgment on our fellow countrymen who repeatedly use family relationships as a basis for voting. How many times have we heard that Noynoy only won because he was the son of Ninoy and Cory Aquino? Well, let's assume that it is, in fact, true. Let's say we could read the minds of the Filipino people, and we found that, indeed, they (notice how we conveniently use the third person pronoun) voted for Aquino because he was an Aquino.

Now, we want to prohibit people from voting based on family relationships? This is like a recruiter saying, "Let's not be racist against dark-skinned people. In fact, let's prioritize them over the fair-skinned applicants!" It's not about the dark-skinned people--or about the family relationships. It's about the criteria for choosing. It should be fair, not apologetic. Replacing a bias with another bias does not create justice.

May we instead focus on educating our countrymen--and ourselves--on who our leaders and candidates are, what traits to look for, and what their particular government roles are or will be. Then, we will become an empowered democracy.  The responsibility for electing officials resides with the electing public. Let us keep it that way.

Read more...