On yesterday's events at Quirino Grandstand

Now that the Iglesia Ni Cristo's Grand Evangelical Mission at the Quirino Grandstand in Rizal Park is over, I think it's worth clarifying the circumstances around the event and contextualize how media organizations treated the story in the days leading up to Tuesday.

Most media outfits have prominently and ill-advisedly angled the GEM story on the Church's alleged support for impeached Chief Justice Renato Corona. This angle has little basis in fact, but the newspapers and TV stations ran with it anyway, probably because it was an easy way to get hits and readers.

Reports have also frequently taken to calling the gathering a "prayer rally"—a term the Church has not used in recent memory. Maybe newsrooms haven't done away with the term because another religious group known for more frequent massive gatherings at the grandstand uses it.

The fact is that the event is what the Church calls it—a Grand Evangelical Mission, where members invite friends and loved ones to listen to the teachings that the INC espouses in a bid to attract converts to the faith. The GEM is no new thing. It is a cornerstone of the Church's missionary activities. The INC has been conducting evangelical missions such as this one since Brother Felix Manalo began preaching the Church in the Philippines in the early 20th century.

True, the Church has not conducted a missionary activity of this size and magnitude in recent years, which is another point reports have used to justify the Corona support angle. Mainstream media has failed to properly contextualize the gathering in this regard. At the beginning of the year, the Church leadership declared 2012 the Year of Intense Propagation of the Gospel (Filipino: Taon ng Puspusang Pagpapalaganap ng mga Salita ng Dios) to ramp up its missionary efforts as the INC approaches its centennial anniversary in 2014. The massive GEM, held not only in Luneta but in several other sites across the country, is in line with this year's theme, and not with any partisan political issue.

Anyone who might have still been speculating about the political intentions of the gathering should know that throughout the one-and-a-half hour event, there was only hymn-singing and a study of the INC's teachings (as is normal in this kind of activity). Not one mention was made about any political issue, much less Corona's impeachment. Any argument about a politicized INC gathering should by now be dead in the water.

I think the intention of the event can be better seen through the experience of tour guide Carlos Celdran, who was "surprised and pleased" at the atmosphere during the event. "You guys truly are a show of force. Disciplined, United, Dignified and EGALITARIAN," Celdran said on his Facebook page. "You have a lot to teach us all about being Filipino."

Frivolous Academic Oval photo 01

Diliman afternoons are pretty.

A short while after I took this photo I was accosted by a nice Protestant guy who began talking to me about Jesus and salvation. After his whole spiel he asked me if he could pray for me. I said no, I can pray for myself thankyouverymuch. He asked for my number, and I told him I'd give it to him if he considered going to a religious forum my church organization was going to hold the next day. Boss points retrieved.

Shoutout to George!

Thursday morning kabanalan

In support of a secular RH bill debate

Much has been said about the issue of Reproductive Health in the Philippines. The debate is sure to rage on for some time yet, tonight's Harapan debate on ABS-CBN being little more than the televised version of the discussions that happen all over the country every day.

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.