My qualm about the debate is that religious groups have such an insistent voice in this discussion. In last night's debate I was disappointed to find out that the CBCP's spokesperson and at least two medical experts affiliated with the Pontifical and Royal University of Santo Tomas were speaking in opposition to the RH bill. Rodrigo Tano, a Protestant bishop and chairman of the Interfaith Partnership for the Promotion of Responsible Parenthood, spoke in support of the bill, as well.
I'm not surprised that religious groups have a say on the matter of reproductive health in a society as conservative and religious as ours. The CBCP, I need not mention, has been furious in its offense against the bill, occupying all the airtime and column space the networks and publishers will allow them. Catholic teachings, of course, prohibit the use of artificial family planning methods, although Jay Salazar has pointed out that many clerics were in favor of contraception.
The church to which I belong, the Iglesia Ni Cristo, is opposed to natural family planning methods and advocates the use of modern family planning so long as it is not abortifacient; this has been the church's stance since at least the 60s. Ka Eduardo Manalo, the Church's Executive Minister, explained the INC's stand to Rep. Rogelio Espina, chairman of the House committee on population and family relations, in a letter he wrote in October of last year.
The Interfaith Partnership for the Promotion of Responsible Parenthood, Inc., comprising several Christian denominations, similarly expressed their support for legislated Reproductive Health.
The fact, however, is that these opinions do not matter in a secular debate such as this. Or at least, they shouldn't.
Much of the time that could have been spent discussing the merits of the bill in last night's debate was wasted on irrelevant religious banter; for a fleeting, painful moment the discussions swerved into excommunication and priestly celibacy. Many anti-RH bill tweets sadly professed that to prevent the bill's passage was to preserve our country's morality, as if anyone has a right to define morality for 90 million people based on their religious beliefs.
This is my problem with the debate. I am a non-Catholic Christian living in a secular democratic state. My being non-Catholic doesn't make me any less Filipino than Oscar Cruz; why should my opinion matter less than his?
So why don't we stick to our beliefs—you to yours, I to mine—and discuss the bill in a secular context? To do otherwise, that is, to use any religion's argument in any way in the RH debate, is to disrespect all other religions. It is, more importantly, an insult to democracy.
In simpler terms, I don't care what your or my religion's stand is, it doesn't matter in the debate.
Of course, I don't expect pious Catholics to oppose their Church's teaching, the same way I don't expect my brethren in my own faith to oppose ours. This is precisely the point, without getting too wordy: you do what is right in your belief, I do what is right in mine, and let's argue the RH bill without stuffing the King James Version down each other's throats. The result, hopefully, will be a bill that is forged on common ground and that respects the diversity of our country's culture and faith.
* * *
DISCLAIMER: I am a member of the Iglesia Ni Cristo. These are my personal views and opinions. They do not necessarily reflect those of the INC.
I believe your arguments quite resemble a postmodern structure of thought. having said that, we should take in mind the underlying motives of politicians in legislating this bill. at this point, the debate is beyond secular arguments. reproductive health is a primary concern for women but it should not be abused by opening opportunities for capitalist ventures. reproductive health policies are apolitical in nature but once it serves the interest of the few, it is imperative for us to oppose it in order to reestablish our country's lost democracy. keep in mind serving the people. this is the only democracy I know and it is unapparent in the philippines so it seems.
ReplyDelete@Anonymous: And that is exactly the kind of civil discourse we would be able to hold if only we would steer clear of all the religious debate.
ReplyDeletefirstly, as an outsider, I'd like to ask what the INCs stance on natural birth control method is? I've been assimilating relevant facts as to what factors or standards were considered that may have crystalized their firm opposition after, perhaps, teetering towards two respective stints. but in spite all this, matters appear to remain unclear.
ReplyDeletesecondly, as a pro-RH advocate and a Roman Catholic, I come from a vantage point that meets both ends at an equal footing. while I deem moralist sentiments coming from the CBCP as unnecessary and screwed-up pre-colonial concepts, I still recognize the legitimacy of their opinion. This is because a larger stake is at hand and that as a moralist sector, RH matters are still under the skirts of their best interest.
I do agree that RH bill debates must remain secular since it aims to perpetuate the filipino people AS civilians and not as catholics, muslims, etc..
Yes the INC discourages its members from using NFP methods. Again, this stand is independent of the RH bill. It's been in place for decades.
ReplyDeleteOf course the CBCP and other religious groups have a right to speak on the matter, being members of society and moral authorities for their flocks. What I find appalling is the fire-breathing, the sense of self-righteousness in many pronouncements from the religious sector.
I think you'll agree with Randy David's take on the matter: you don't have to drop your personal convictions during public discussions, but you must be able to make these convictions justifiable for all the participants in the discourse.
yes, but why is INC against it to begin with?
ReplyDeleteand second, ones personal convictions operate as a mere microcosm of an even larger opinion that is intrinsic in the collective consciousness of the people, but simply don't have the proper outlets to be conveyed. because in matters where opinion is fluid and may vary at any condition, we must avoid absolutisms and universality.
the fact that the RH bill attracts opinions from opposite poles justifies just that. And since the RH bill transcends secularity in terms of how it affects people regardless of ethnicity, and more than that, of belief, then moralist sentiments still play in the picture. it affects people by its mere presence and how it works in contrast with certain 'principles' and 'ideologies' particular individuals incur. This, however, does not mean that I am for non-secular opinions in RH bill debates.
the point here is that, aren't these personal convictions, justifiable for everybody? mindful of the fact that the CBCP does represent people in (unfortunately) vast quantities
I'd like to avoid a religious debate on the matter, but suffice it to say that the INC bases its opposition to NFP on the Bible.
ReplyDeleteYes, personal convictions are justifiable for everyone. But if we cannot argue for those convictions in a way that fosters inclusive discourse, there is no point in arguing for them at all. If the CBCP says the RH Bill is bad because "God said so," they should be able to explain that line of reasoning to a non-Catholic Filipino, or to an atheist for that matter. The same applies to religious groups that support the RH bill.
The CBCP does not represent anyone, as far as social issues are concerned, no matter how much it wishes it did. Bishop Cruz's or Bishop Odchimar's or Butuan's Bishop Pueblos's opinion on, say, the Rosary, should be heeded by Catholics; on, say, cheeseburgers or parallel parking, not necessarily.
yes, but the sad thing here is how these moralists sentiments are still deemed agreeable to certain individuals. this means that there is representation, thus justifying it for a collective group.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the CBCP or other religious organizations must not impose exclusively-catholic or exclusively-islamic ideologies upon the people in secular matters like this. however, religious belief is still at the best interest of the people.
we want to give people the choice to plan their family out. this justifies it for people who deem the bill as a social component that takes precedence over their religious belief, even if it is compromised to the bare minimum. and this is good.
however, considering that the money we use to fund for free condoms are out of taxpayer's money, regardless of whether those pretty pence are from moralists or not, then, the matter once again becomes an interest of the church.. well, something like that
But the bill doesn't take precedence over any religious belief. It won't force anyone to do anything. What it will offer is freedom of choice.
ReplyDeleteHow is a taxpayer-funded program an interest of the church? (The fact that the church takes an interest in many nonreligious matters notwithstanding.)
macrocosmically speaking, it does not take precedence over religious belief. individually, however, it does the moment people take compromises in the name of fostering a healthy family. freedom of choice is arbitrary for at the cusp of legislation, it will provide access to free condoms to only those who deem contraception as a social imperative.
ReplyDeletehowever, considering that taxpayer's money is used, whether the specifics belong to some anti-rh extremist or not, this means choice is intrinsically curtailed. why so? because even if a person is against the bill but decides to pay tax anyway, this money then converted into condoms, then his cause is fundamentally curbed.
Thus, the cycle takes full circle. RH matters, whether we like it or not, remain non-secular...ish. lol
I'd like to think the bill aims to allow access to contraceptives to those who need it, political beliefs notwithstanding.
ReplyDeleteThe debate on whether public money should be used to fund such a contentious program is another one entirely; that line of reasoning does not target the RH bill specifically.
That said, saying "I don't want RH programs to be funded using taxpayer money because they violate my religious beliefs" is, again, not a proper way to argue about secular legislation.
And frankly, if you want to talk about our taxes being used for something we're opposed to, there are many more things we ought to think about getting rid of aside from legislated RH measures, aren't there? Haha.
I do agree that RH matters can never be secular (not entirely, at least), but only because the Philippines is still such a deeply religious society. Imagine how much more motley the Divorce Bill debate will be once it generates the same amount of buzz the RH bill does now.
hmmmm.. I agree, I was just citing out, loopholes in the system with regards to preventing non-secular idealism from flourishing in what's-supposed-to-be-a-purely-secular-debate. I simply think these are areas that religious groups will most likely target
ReplyDelete