I’ve been posting way too much stuff on FaceBook (FB) about the RH Bill, and it’s not funny anymore. So I’ll try to just say everything in this post and hopefully not have to talk about it again (or if I do – I’ll sound less like a broken record)

While I [obviously] feel strongly about it, it’s not really that specific issue (RH Bill) which bothers me so much – it’s really the implications the issue entails. When I first heard about the Church’s intention to “meddle” (for lack of a better term) in the bill, a lot of concerns I’ve leveled against “religion(s)” in any of my past posts came screaming back. And so I felt compelled to reiterate myself.

Before I get into this, full disclosure: I’m not an atheist, in fact, I sing for a [fairly influential] religious group and if you’re curious as to how someone with my “temperament” has even managed to put himself in such a “situation” – well, you’re going to have to figure that shit out on your own ;)

While I do believe in God and the value of Religion, I admit to resonating more with the secularist view of the world on almost all real-world issues. Not because I’m a liberal thinker, nor to piss off religion, nor do I want to “challenge” my intellect by defending the minority¹ – but simply because pound for pound, the secularist view on real-world issues has always been the more reasonable/sensible one.

So this post is actually about my take on Secularism vs the Church – not the RH bill. I will be quoting, linking to, and commenting on articles that we’re written in lieu of the RH Bill issue. But the main meat of this would be why I think the Church has dropped the ball.

Carlos Celdran

So just to get it out of the way, my stance on Celdran’s stint is quite straightforward. In fact I think I’ve posted it already in FB.

For the record, what Carlos Celdran did was a pretty dick move. I think it was more offensive than it was compelling.

I understand his frustration though… so I guess it just evens out.

Now there’s the rub. Everyone knows what he did was inappropriate, but the question really is did he have any other choice? And we’ll never really get an answer to that. It’s just like asking the question “Could we have talked Marcos out of power?”, or “Could Ibarra have avoided his transformation to Simoun if he had just been more patient?”

The answer to those questions is “Who knows!?” – but, I personally like Lourd de Veyra’s explanation of it that for what Mr. Celdran wanted to say, timing was everything. It had to take a person of similar stature/influence as him, and it had to be staged in such a way to get the attention it deserved. Anything else, or anyone else wouldn’t have the same impact. It’s is indeed unfortunate, but that’s sad reality of the situation.

If you ask me, perhaps it had to be done sooner or later. I’m just glad I wasn’t the one who had to do it.

So now that we’ve got the Celdran issue out of the way, the real root of this dissonance is really a matter opposite ideologies. Randy David eloquently framed the issue in his article entitled “Modernity’s Pains”. I highly recommend you read that before going along – as it does give the reader a proper “frame of mind” when trying to decide on the issue.

Ultimately, there isn’t a right or wrong answer here… because both are right. (surprise, surprise!) The Church isn’t pushing against the bill because they want to doom their followers to a life of economic hell the same way the government isn’t pushing for it to promote promiscuity.

The question really is that, given the reality and situation of the people concerned, what is best for the people. – and so we go deeper into faith vs. secularism.

Faith vs. Secularism

While I’m no scholar, let me try to explain what I think these two are about (take it with a grain of salt) – and I’m assuming we’re all in agreement that all these debates are ultimately a moral issue. I might end up oversimplifying them a bit, but at least it’s important we get to understand the meat of the matter in layman’s terms.

Having a faith-based morality implies that the whole construct of morality is ultimately ordained by a higher being (i.e. God), Whereas a secularist view will imply that morality can be achieved relatively (via social sciences, etc.) without having to invoke a spiritual element.

Simply put, I guess it’s safe to say that Faith deals with the ideal (regardless of feasibility), while secularism deals with the practical (precisely by feasibility).

So given a person’s stance on, say, theft – Catholics will process that by how God want’s us to act – as we are made in His image and likeness. They can reference Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule, or ask the “WWJD question”² among other things. Whatever the case ay be, they’ll certainly come to the conclusion that you shouldn’t steal – and that conclusion will almost always be because of the [granted, oversimplified] fact that “God said so.”

Secularists, on the other hand will probably come to the same conclusion, but their reason will simply be because you’re a fucking douche-bag if you steal stuff. A pretty boring, and mostly “functional” thought process – as compared to Faith’s “meaningful” alternative.

Simply put, the secularists believe that a person’s conscience/moral compass is capable of operating just fine without having to invoke Religion/spirituality in the mix. It is not saying that you shouldn’t [invoke religion] – but that you don’t have to.

And that fact is why I resonate with the secularist approach despite my believing in God.

The Problem with “The Church”

A friend posted an article on their wall a while back which I felt compelled to comment on – specifically because of its last statement.

Tolerance is too precious an idea to squander through childish displays of anger. The pope may be wrong on contraception, abortion, stem-cell research, sexual orientation and many other things. But the errors of his critics touch on a more fundamental question of our age: the question of tolerating people’s beliefs.

Which I think, in a sense is the crux of the whole issue between faith and secularism: when do you “tolerate,” and when do you get to call a spade a spade. So my [edited] answer/comment was as follows:

When it says that “the pope may be wrong on contraception, abortion, stem-cell research, sexual orientation, and many other things” – one cannot help but point out that the saddest thing about all these issues is that they are “issues” we as a human race should really be past at this day and age – we should be focusing on solving bigger, more “universal issues.”

Yet because of religion(s) fundamental stance(s) on certain matters, and given how most people (faithful/unfaithful alike) [mis]intepret the teachings/doctrines of their respective religion(s) – this provides a natural opportunity for the “faithful” (or maybe even people like the Pope) to constantly “reboot” said issues – which is why we never get past them.

Just like how the education system needs to revamp its methods, so does religion if it wishes to be accepted without prejudice – it’s simply losing its potency because it’s losing its relevance. Times change (no matter how much the church wants to freeze it and its beliefs) – and the religions aren’t adapting quickly enough. Kelangan talga bagay sa panahon ang lahat ng bagay.

Given how slow it is in “changing” vis-a-vis how integral the church is to how its followers lead their lives (those who “live secularly” obviously aren’t penalized by this delay). It really has to find a way to be more relevant to the times.

Simply saying that “we have to make it relevant,” or actions that simply “go back to its roots” doesn’t cut it anymore (and in all honesty, is kinda going backwards IMHO).

I don’t know what will work really, but religion has to do something other than what it’s trying to do now – which is only inviting more criticism than acceptance.

The best analogy that explains what I mean is the question “what form of governance is best for a certain country?” all forms of government, even a dictatorship can work if applied to the right “society/culture.” (e.g. why Singapore’s dictatorship works, or China’s Socialism is meh for the most part, and our “democracy” seems to be utterly broken hehehe) – and the sad fact is that most religions (save for the likes of Buddhism siguro), really end up doing more harm than good in the modern world once they start “suggesting” the “right way” of living one’s life.

Simply put, all things being equal, factoring all the bad/good things that both sides bring to the table, it’s really not that much of a stretch to say that religions end up being crutches to any modern global society. Not because what they teach is wrong, but simply it gives more excuses for its followers to do stupid things – and it doesn’t have the same amount of accountability as we normally would, AND SHOULD expect from any person or entity of influence and authority.

I personally have always argued that the best way Religion could flourish is to simply be like a healthy hobby. That way, anyone who wants to engage in its practices may do so without risk of prejudice, nor will it be resisted (and it could certainly gain a massive following SAFELY) – just like how people can be vegetarians, or how people exercise, etc. Anyone who’s interested may indulge in such hobbies – but in no point is anyone trying to convince the other that they HAVE to do it.

But as my friend explained in one of our conversations, it seems Religion can’t work that way; that it HAS to be more than a hobby – and I think that’s why it’s getting so much flak from secularists.

Even if religion respects people’s decisions (or is in fact, “changing”) – most of its followers, with their zeal, tend to take it a notch higher every single time. So putting the blame solely on its followers having a “limited world view” can only go so far – the Church has to take responsibility for that… and even if it is, apparently it isn’t nearly enough.

It also doesn’t help how long it takes for these so-called “changes” to take place in the Church (literally, years) – we really can’t afford that slow of a change because after a few years, that change [they have done which has finally propagated throughout the world] might not be relevant anymore.

While it is indeed unfortunate that Dawkins et all have chosen [as the article would state] “childish intolerance” as their vehicle to get their point across… but that’s really what you get when people get fed up, and are [finally] in a position to push back.

At the end of the day, while I think there are certainly better ways to resolve these “differences,” but ultimately, in my opinion, Religion is in the state it is today because it was “asking for it.”

That “its critics are doing the same things are they are rallying against,” while true, isn’t enough of an argument to absolve the Church of the harm it has done, been doing, and continuing to do. Given how stubborn any religion’s supporters are, baka nga kulang pa ginagawa nila Dawkins hehehehe.

Another friend of mine posted this on his wall:

“From what I remember from my Theology classes, God gave man freedom, freedom to choose the good, “freedom for”… makes me now think what this truly means, given the stand of the Church on the RH Bill.”

What really gets me going here is that people shouldn’t have to be put in this sort of a dilemma. It’s unhealthy – and quite frankly, unfair. Which reinforces what I just said earlier about the church having to find a way to stay relevant. In any case, here’s my [edited] response:

Very good point. Was thinking that myself, Because on the one hand if we were all “responsible” (which is an integral part of [theistic?] “freedom”) then there shouldn’t even be a need for the RH bill in the first place – and I guess that’s what the church is pushing for (apart from how it treats the act of intercourse itself as something sacred).

On the other hand, there’s the sad reality that we live in a pluralistic society where issues involving those “freedoms” have different meanings to different people depending on the “culture” they resonate more with, or the religions they choose to align themselves with. Then there’s the reality specific to sex: that people will fuck – regardless of any “religious” connotation.

I think we all know naman the bill isn’t there to “challenge” the church (yung church lang naman ang nag-iinarte as usual). The RH Bill addresses a very real issue of population/family control which “religion” simply cannot solve by its “tenets” (as proven through the centuries) – especially in modern society.

I obviously have my own issues with the church (or any organized religion for that matter), but putting those aside, even if I were a very devout Catholic, I would still choose the bill because it address real modern issues and it addresses it with direct and concrete steps most people can easily follow. Do you honestly think that preaching abstinence or “the natural method” will work? (cuz those are pretty much the only alternate solutions the Church is going to be able to give when it comes to the issue of sex, pre-marital or otherwise) I’m more responsible than the average joe, and even I don’t believe in abstinence…³ pano pa mga masa who don’t know any better?

There’s a very good reason why there’s a concept of “separation between state and church,” and it’s issues like this that show the need for such separation. If you think about it, the Church’s stand is ultimately just to uphold a belief (i.e. to keep true to its tenets)… it’s ultimately a personal thing for them and for those who support them… and that’s what makes it less compelling compared to a legitimately rational and practical approach when applied to issues in a much larger scale.

So, we have to reiterate that it’s not about being right or wrong – but which is more applicable… which is more relevant. Let wrap things up with an exerpt from Conrado de Quiros’ article on the Celdran issue

It is not about whether the faithful should choose between God and Caesar, it is about whether the faithful should embrace faith or obscurantism. It is not about whether government has the right to distribute artificial means of preventing the birth of unwanted babies, it is about whether the Church has the right to cause by the ways of ignorance and superstition the birth of even more unwanted biases.

Celdran has drawn the attention to the real problem, which is that the burden to justify its ways does not lie with the government, it lies with the Church. The burden lies upon it to show to the faithful why they should not be faithless.

And right now, more and more are “losing faith” as it were – and “the church” has only its obstinacy to blame.