Those who know me, or got to know me fairly recently, will find it weird that I am writing on this topic: I am not exactly what one would call pious. But I had an intensely religious phase (i.e., Latin-praying, Hebrew/Greek Bible-quoting, EWTN-watching phase), and in the two years leading to Jubilaeum 2000 I was actively involved in online Catholic Apologetics. Although I am now quite removed from those discussions, I still consider those years as rich learning moments. I learned a lot about what Christianity is all about, had a deep understanding of Catholic doctrine and tradition, and engaged in many intellectually stimulating discussions, taking the side of the Catholic Church of course. I remember lively exchanges with a Lutheran pastor on the True Presence; an Orthodox deacon on the Filioque; and a Mormon missionary on the Hypostatic Union.
I don't do that anymore, but just for now I am going to put on my apologetics hat once more. Why? Because I see so many presumably well-meaning people "defend" Christianity in a very unchristian way. While I can just sit back and let them wallow in their inconsistencies and absurdities, my ethics demand that I at least try to educate them to raise the level of discourse. Although I was doing Catholic Apologetics back in the day, the pointers are fairly ecumenical; i.e., applicable to all Christians, Nicene or otherwise. So... apologetics hat back on [cue "Porcelain" by Moby].
So you want to defend Jesus Christ and His Church. Well, good. Not everyone feels the need to defend what they believe in and stand up for the Lord. Not every one is called to be an apologist, to speak out in defense of faith. But then again, every terrorist, bigot, and racist stands up for their belief and defends their faith. So it's not enough to be defending what you think is the truth. As a Christian, there is a proper-- a Christian-- way to defend Christianity. And it's not as simple as shooting out a Bible verse.
1. Don't shoot out Bible verses like bullets. We're very familiar with this situation. There's a discussion on homosexuality and someone dishes out Leviticus 18:22. Mention divorce and you're sure to hear Mark 10:9. A preacher makes a long, rambling speech interspersed with Bible verses here and there to support his thesis. This is called eisegesis and it is the wrong way to interpret the Bible. It takes verses out of their textual, historical, and spiritual context and injects the reader's own assumptions and presuppositions into the meaning of the verse. Doing so also opens you to an easy counterattack: if verse A is so great, how come you ignore verse B? If you use Leviticus 18:22 to support your stance against homosexuality, you will be hard pressed to explain why you don't isolate women on their menstrual period (Leviticus 15:19-24) or why you wear cotton-polyester shirts (Leviticus 19:19). Of course, there is a way to explain these "difficult" verses in the Bible and it is through a method called exegesis, which interprets Scripture within its proper context to avoid clouding God's word with the reader's own biases. That's the way one should quote the Bible, not play verse lottery with it.
2. The Bible wasn't written in English. This is a corollary to #1: the Bible you are using may or may not be an accurate translation of the original. If you've ever tried translating any foreign language into English, you will probably be very familiar with how difficult it is. And while it's hard enough when trying to translate a simple prose like a recipe or news article, it's much harder when the original contains a lot of allegories, figures of speech, and linguistic imprecision. And the Bible is just that. Its various books were originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, each with their own cultural and linguistic complexities and nuances that do not have exact translations into English. And not all of them are as precise as English when it comes to tense, number, or time. Translators thus tend to inject their own biases (inadvertently or otherwise) in their translations. A common example is the translation of the Greek "paradosis" (something handed over): Catholic Bibles tend to translate this consistently as "tradition" (from the Latin "tradere") while Protestant Bibles translate this as "tradition" or "teaching" depending on context. This is not to say that your English Bible is unreliable. Just be aware that what you're reading in English is a translation of something written in another language and era, and to understand what it means you need to consider the language, context, and purpose for which it was written (see #1).
3. Don't misrepresent what you're defending. This should be basic, but you'll be surprised how many times I've seen would-be apologists fail at this. For example, "The Bible says that sex is only for procreation [insert Bible verse here]." Um, not really. "Only those who believe in Christ will be saved [insert Bible verse here]." Er, kinda but not exactly. "It's in the Bible so it must be true [insert Bible verse here]." Well, yes, but.... Christian faith and morals have a lot of nuance and context, grounded on 2,000 years of philosophy and theology, and it is a misrepresentation to oversimplify. Know what the teaching is really about, what its grounds are, and what it means in this particular context.
4. Do your research. Saint Justin Martyr, one of the Church Fathers and an official Greek philosopher (i.e., authorised to wear a philosopher's robe), said that "All truth is Christian." Defending Christianity need not be afraid of science or history; if it is a fact, then it is Christian. If some scientific or historical fact does not square with what you think the Bible says, then chances are you are misunderstanding the Bible: this is actually the Catholic Church's official line regarding science (cf. Humani generis 1950, Truth cannot contradict Truth 1996). There is nothing to be worried about science or history, so do your research and do it using objective sources (that pamphlet you got from a church pew does not count). You do not want to ground your argument on some "fact" that turns out to be wrong. Get your facts straight.
5. Know your court. You can talk all you want about the 24-second rule, triple doubles, and 3-point plays, but if you're in a football field all you've accomplished is sound like a fool. Same thing when discussing religion with people who don't necessarily share your beliefs. Don't invoke papal infallibility when talking with a Mormon or a Lutheran. Don't expect everyone to fold before your curated Bible verse (see #1) when talking in a secular setting where not everyone is Christian. Having a proper discussion means being on the same field. Know what assumptions are acceptable. If you want to steer the discussion towards a Christian field, coax your audience towards it. Don't just dish out a Bible verse (again, see #1) when they're talking about a secular policy.
6. Shorter posts require longer thought. This wasn't an issue back in the late 1990s before Twitter and Facebook. Back then we had the time and space to think of our argument, do our research, and compose a proper essay. These days one may need to make a point in 140 characters. I've tried it a few times (obviously this is not one of them), but I found that shorter posts require longer thought. Each word needs to count. Drop "some" and you've just made a generalisation. Add "may" and you have added a bit of nuance to your statement. You do not want to write a short post only to go back and defend it in 5 paragraphs because you said something that is not entirely correct (see #3). Brevity is not an excuse for a lazy statement.
7. But most important is love. Ok, this sounds cliche, but love is really the most important part of apologetics. Apologetics-- the defense of Christianity-- is not meant to show how much you know or how great your logic is. Apologetics is really just another way to be a Christian witness, similar to doing charitable work or leading Sunday worship. Apologetics is not about demolishing the other person's argument. While it is tempting to make snarky remarks, call names, or make sweeping condemnations, the second you do this you have lost the cause. Defending Christianity is not about you making a point. It is about showing Christ's love through your words.
Defending Christianity is not easy: doing everything above takes a lot of time and thought. But no one ever said defending Christianity-- properly-- was easy. You might think that theological research and Biblical exegesis are too much work for a Facebook post when all you want to say is how much you hate gay marriage or artificial contraception, but to do any less would be a disservice to the faith you hold dearly. It would be unchristian.
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 1, 2016
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
On Sugon, McNamara and Intengan (2012): A Case for the RH Bill
On 26 March 2012, Sugon, McNamara and Intengan of the Ateneo de Manila University web-published a paper on Estimating abortion rates from contraceptive failure rates via risk compensation: a mathematical model, which puts forward a theoretical model linking the abortion rate and contraception (more on this later). More technically inclined readers can download the pdf here. It would probably have gone unnoticed, but Mr. Antonio Montalvan III of the Inquirer featured it in his column and sung it high praises. Bottom line, it presents a mathematical argument for not passing the controversial RH bill, at least at this time, because there is a chance that contraceptives can actually increase the abortion rate.
The paper presents a model for the number of abortions as a function of six determinants: how frequently a woman has intercourse, when she begins sexual activity, cumulative time she is pregnant (infertile time on top of the monthly infertile period), cumulative time she is breastfeeding (they assume a woman is infertile while she is breastfeeding), the contraceptive failure rate, and the risk compensation factor. Notwithstanding the other problems with the paper, this post will just take a look at their model and the conclusions they gather from that.
The Model in Brief (no pun intended)
In a nutshell, their contraception-to-abortion argument hinges on the risk compensation mechanism they set forth in their paper. They argue, using maths, that women (curiously, they make no reference to men in their paper) will be more sexually active if contraception is available (economists will easily recognise this as the moral hazard problem). Sugon, McNamara and Intengan begin by building a model of a woman's likely number of abortions (they couch the discussion in individual language, although I would presume they are referring to population averages) in equation (10):
where Na = number of abortions with contraception (this is actually the number of pregnancies, which the authors say may be aborted; later on this is just the number of abortions); s = interval between sexual intercourse in weeks (the lower this number, the more frequently she is having sex); ns = number of "womb years" (a proxy for fertile period depending on time being sexually active, so the earlier a woman starts having sex the higher this number); np = number of womb years a woman is pregnant; nb = number of womb years a woman is breastfeeding (she is assumed to be infertile during this time, even though LAM doesn't apply to all breastfeeding mothers); and ce = the success probability of contraception, with 0 < ce < 1, so (1 - ce) is the contraceptive failure rate.
The authors then lay out their model of risk compensation in section 5 of their paper (page 7). The crucial link between contraceptive use and frequency of sexual intercourse can be seen in equation (12) under hypothesis 3:
where k is a constant and the other variables are as earlier defined. In describing Hypothesis 3 and equation (12), the authors say that "we propose that a woman's intercourse interval s is proportional to the mth power of the contraceptive failure rate 1 - ce" (page 7). The boundary of equation (12) for s is then analysed when ce approaches zero, or (1 - ce) approaches one. This is done to examine the frequency of sexual intercourse when contraceptives fail miserably such that it is as if one is not using contraceptives at all. They find in equation (14) that
lim (ce -> 0) s = k = s0
where s0 = interval between sexual intercourse in the absence of contraception, or when ce = 0. Thus, equation (12) becomes equation (15):
s = s0(1 - ce)^m
Plugging in equation (15) into (10) and doing some algebra, they derive an equation linking the number of abortions with contraceptive use in equation (18):
where Na = number of abortions with contraception; Na0 = number of abortions without contraception; and ce and m are as before. One can see that
so that the sign of Na'(ce) depends on the sign of (m - 1): any value of m > 1 and we get Na'(ce) > 0, so contraceptive use will increase abortions. In other words, the way contraceptives affect the abortion rate depends on the magnitude of m.
The s(ce) Function and the RH Bill
The value of m is crucial for the paper because this is used to argue that the country should hold off on passing the RH bill. Since contraceptives could reduce, increase, or have no impact on abortions depending on the value of m, they argue that the government should hold off on the RH bill pending an estimation of m. After all, if m happens to be empirically greater than unity then the RH bill will increase abortions, rather than decrease them as the bill's supporters argue. Other than the obvious line of critique against this argument (risk compensation also applies to seat belts and health insurance), the problem is that there is no explanation for the functional relationship between sexual frequency and contraceptive effectiveness.
Their argument against the RH bill hinges on their arbitrary definition of the risk compensation mechanism as seen in equation (12), which introduces m and leads to equation (18). It is arbitrary because it is neither derived from other equations, the outcome of an optimisation exercise, nor taken from previous literature. While the other parts of the model were derived from other equations, they just assumed a functional form for s(ce) and went from there. There is also no reason, theoretical or empirical, to say that the risk compensation mechanism should follow the power law.
That said, their incorporation of the risk compensation mechanism is a valid exercise: it is reasonable to say that intervals between sexual intercourse could be inversely proportional to the effectiveness of contraception, especially those who do not wish to have children at the moment. Looking at equation (12), one can see that the risk compensation mechanism, through the s(ce) function, needs to satisfy two conditions:
Condition 1: s'(ce) < 0
Condition 2: lim (ce -> 0) s(ce) = k = s0
Taken together, the two conditions state that (1) contraceptive effectiveness is inversely related to the intercourse interval and (2) if contraceptives are totally ineffective s(ce) should revert to the no-contraception case of s0. This would be a more general formulation of their Hypothesis 3.
Using their exact same model, but being just as arbitrary as the authors in defining s(ce), one can define the risk compensation mechanism as
s*(ce) = k / (1 + ce)
which one can easily verify satisfies the two conditions above. This then becomes
s*(ce) = s0 / (1 + ce)
after the limits operation. The equation implies that, on average, women (men are not part of the authors' model) will be twice as sexually active with 100% effective contraception as they are without them. Plugging this into equation (10) gives us the following function for the number of abortions:
Na* = (1/s0)[10(ns - np - nb)(1 - ce^2)] = Na0(1 - ce^2)
So how does increasing contraceptive effectiveness affect the number of abortions relative to the no-contraceptives situation? One can easily see that
Na*'(ce) = - 2Na0ce < 0
so promoting contraceptive use will unambiguously reduce the number of abortions. In other words, using their same model while slightly changing the risk compensation function, but keeping the same properties, one can arrive at a totally opposite conclusion: approve the RH bill now because it will reduce abortions. In fact, if contraceptives were 100% effective there would be zero abortions!
So What's the Point?
The Sugon, McNamara and Intengan paper essentially sets out a thought experiment with the aim of bolstering the argument that contraceptives can increase, rather than decrease, the number of abortions. However, what we show here is that the driver of their thesis-- their formulation of the risk compensation mechanism-- is an arbitrary assertion meant to arrive at their desired conclusion. There was no attempt to buttress this formulation through a risk minimisation (or sexual utility maximisation) operation, or to generalise the functional form of the mechanism. What we show here is that, using essentially their same model and being as arbitrary as the authors, one can do a similar thought experiment and arrive at a totally different conclusion and policy prescription. Upon closer examination, the authors' conclusions are really just assertions dressed in the language of mathematics. Take out those assertions and the paper falls apart.
+++
[Postscript: As a critique, it would have been easy to just point out their unfounded assumptions, especially in equation (12), and do away with the paper, but it would be unfair to the authors. I really admire their effort to further their side through the use of hard logic-- this is really much better than the fear mongering and name-calling we have been hearing from other anti-RH campaigners. A bit more of this, and a lot less of Sotto's unoriginal dramatics, would be much appreciated.]
The paper presents a model for the number of abortions as a function of six determinants: how frequently a woman has intercourse, when she begins sexual activity, cumulative time she is pregnant (infertile time on top of the monthly infertile period), cumulative time she is breastfeeding (they assume a woman is infertile while she is breastfeeding), the contraceptive failure rate, and the risk compensation factor. Notwithstanding the other problems with the paper, this post will just take a look at their model and the conclusions they gather from that.
The Model in Brief (no pun intended)
In a nutshell, their contraception-to-abortion argument hinges on the risk compensation mechanism they set forth in their paper. They argue, using maths, that women (curiously, they make no reference to men in their paper) will be more sexually active if contraception is available (economists will easily recognise this as the moral hazard problem). Sugon, McNamara and Intengan begin by building a model of a woman's likely number of abortions (they couch the discussion in individual language, although I would presume they are referring to population averages) in equation (10):
Na = (1/s)[10(ns - np - nb)(1 - ce)]
where Na = number of abortions with contraception (this is actually the number of pregnancies, which the authors say may be aborted; later on this is just the number of abortions); s = interval between sexual intercourse in weeks (the lower this number, the more frequently she is having sex); ns = number of "womb years" (a proxy for fertile period depending on time being sexually active, so the earlier a woman starts having sex the higher this number); np = number of womb years a woman is pregnant; nb = number of womb years a woman is breastfeeding (she is assumed to be infertile during this time, even though LAM doesn't apply to all breastfeeding mothers); and ce = the success probability of contraception, with 0 < ce < 1, so (1 - ce) is the contraceptive failure rate.
The authors then lay out their model of risk compensation in section 5 of their paper (page 7). The crucial link between contraceptive use and frequency of sexual intercourse can be seen in equation (12) under hypothesis 3:
s = k(1 - ce)^m
where k is a constant and the other variables are as earlier defined. In describing Hypothesis 3 and equation (12), the authors say that "we propose that a woman's intercourse interval s is proportional to the mth power of the contraceptive failure rate 1 - ce" (page 7). The boundary of equation (12) for s is then analysed when ce approaches zero, or (1 - ce) approaches one. This is done to examine the frequency of sexual intercourse when contraceptives fail miserably such that it is as if one is not using contraceptives at all. They find in equation (14) that
lim (ce -> 0) s = k = s0
where s0 = interval between sexual intercourse in the absence of contraception, or when ce = 0. Thus, equation (12) becomes equation (15):
s = s0(1 - ce)^m
Plugging in equation (15) into (10) and doing some algebra, they derive an equation linking the number of abortions with contraceptive use in equation (18):
Na = Na0 / (1 - ce)^(m - 1)
where Na = number of abortions with contraception; Na0 = number of abortions without contraception; and ce and m are as before. One can see that
Na'(ce) = Na0(m - 1) / (1 - ce)^m
so that the sign of Na'(ce) depends on the sign of (m - 1): any value of m > 1 and we get Na'(ce) > 0, so contraceptive use will increase abortions. In other words, the way contraceptives affect the abortion rate depends on the magnitude of m.
The s(ce) Function and the RH Bill
The value of m is crucial for the paper because this is used to argue that the country should hold off on passing the RH bill. Since contraceptives could reduce, increase, or have no impact on abortions depending on the value of m, they argue that the government should hold off on the RH bill pending an estimation of m. After all, if m happens to be empirically greater than unity then the RH bill will increase abortions, rather than decrease them as the bill's supporters argue. Other than the obvious line of critique against this argument (risk compensation also applies to seat belts and health insurance), the problem is that there is no explanation for the functional relationship between sexual frequency and contraceptive effectiveness.
Their argument against the RH bill hinges on their arbitrary definition of the risk compensation mechanism as seen in equation (12), which introduces m and leads to equation (18). It is arbitrary because it is neither derived from other equations, the outcome of an optimisation exercise, nor taken from previous literature. While the other parts of the model were derived from other equations, they just assumed a functional form for s(ce) and went from there. There is also no reason, theoretical or empirical, to say that the risk compensation mechanism should follow the power law.
That said, their incorporation of the risk compensation mechanism is a valid exercise: it is reasonable to say that intervals between sexual intercourse could be inversely proportional to the effectiveness of contraception, especially those who do not wish to have children at the moment. Looking at equation (12), one can see that the risk compensation mechanism, through the s(ce) function, needs to satisfy two conditions:
Condition 1: s'(ce) < 0
Condition 2: lim (ce -> 0) s(ce) = k = s0
Taken together, the two conditions state that (1) contraceptive effectiveness is inversely related to the intercourse interval and (2) if contraceptives are totally ineffective s(ce) should revert to the no-contraception case of s0. This would be a more general formulation of their Hypothesis 3.
Using their exact same model, but being just as arbitrary as the authors in defining s(ce), one can define the risk compensation mechanism as
s*(ce) = k / (1 + ce)
which one can easily verify satisfies the two conditions above. This then becomes
s*(ce) = s0 / (1 + ce)
after the limits operation. The equation implies that, on average, women (men are not part of the authors' model) will be twice as sexually active with 100% effective contraception as they are without them. Plugging this into equation (10) gives us the following function for the number of abortions:
Na* = (1/s0)[10(ns - np - nb)(1 - ce^2)] = Na0(1 - ce^2)
So how does increasing contraceptive effectiveness affect the number of abortions relative to the no-contraceptives situation? One can easily see that
Na*'(ce) = - 2Na0ce < 0
so promoting contraceptive use will unambiguously reduce the number of abortions. In other words, using their same model while slightly changing the risk compensation function, but keeping the same properties, one can arrive at a totally opposite conclusion: approve the RH bill now because it will reduce abortions. In fact, if contraceptives were 100% effective there would be zero abortions!
So What's the Point?
The Sugon, McNamara and Intengan paper essentially sets out a thought experiment with the aim of bolstering the argument that contraceptives can increase, rather than decrease, the number of abortions. However, what we show here is that the driver of their thesis-- their formulation of the risk compensation mechanism-- is an arbitrary assertion meant to arrive at their desired conclusion. There was no attempt to buttress this formulation through a risk minimisation (or sexual utility maximisation) operation, or to generalise the functional form of the mechanism. What we show here is that, using essentially their same model and being as arbitrary as the authors, one can do a similar thought experiment and arrive at a totally different conclusion and policy prescription. Upon closer examination, the authors' conclusions are really just assertions dressed in the language of mathematics. Take out those assertions and the paper falls apart.
+++
[Postscript: As a critique, it would have been easy to just point out their unfounded assumptions, especially in equation (12), and do away with the paper, but it would be unfair to the authors. I really admire their effort to further their side through the use of hard logic-- this is really much better than the fear mongering and name-calling we have been hearing from other anti-RH campaigners. A bit more of this, and a lot less of Sotto's unoriginal dramatics, would be much appreciated.]
Monday, July 2, 2012
Why is the Catholic Church so stubborn on RH? Really?
If you know me then you know where I stand on reproductive health issues. This post is not to defend the Catholic Church's stand on artificial contraception, but to explain why she takes such a strong stance against it. I also hope to clarify some misconceptions on the Church's stance. If you wish to engage the Church on this issue you need to first understand where she's coming from and what motivates her. Maybe it will also help you evaluate the (f)utility of debating with the Church on this issue in the first place. This post is written with a lay (even irreligious) audience in mind, so I will dispense with the Bible quotes and Magisterial references.
It is no secret that the Catholic Church believes in the existence of God who created the universe. Duh. But corollary to this belief in a sentient and benevolent God is the assumption that everything He created has a purpose: nothing is random in God's creation therefore everything has to have been made for a purpose. So the Sun isn't just an amalgamation of cosmic particles brought together by gravity and heated by nuclear fusion; it was created to eventually sustain life on Earth. This belief system applies to all of creation, including the human body. Everything in the human body from the heart to the toenail you clip off has a purpose willed and designed by God. So far so good. No problem.
The problem begins when we start talking about the reproductive system. The Catholic Church believes that the reproductive system-- not just the womb and testes but also the pleasure-giving glans penis and clitoris-- have a dual purpose: to express mutual love and to procreate. The reproductive system was created to enable humans to express their mutual love for each other through sexual intercourse and to encourage procreation. Now take note of the "and". The Catholic Church's issue with contraception begins when that "and" becomes an "or". Artificial contraception, by removing any possibility of procreation, turns sexual intercourse into an exclusively love-making pleasurable affair. This, believe the Church, is contrary to God's will and purpose for creating the reproductive system.
But how about natural family planning? Or when one spouse is infertile due to natural causes or a needed medical operation (e.g., hysterectomy due to a tumour)? Won't sexual intercourse in those situations be divorced from the procreation purpose too, and therefore against God's will? Well, no. Natural family planning, by virtue of being natural, is part of God's plan: in God's wisdom He recognised the need for families to plan and space their offspring, but also recognised the need for spouses to make love, so He provided windows of opportunity to make love while vastly minimising the chance of conception. As for infertility due to natural causes or a needed medical operation, well, God had reasons for giving someone that affliction, and it definitely wasn't His intention to prevent spouses from expressing their love for each other. So in these cases any dichotomy between love-making and procreation was not man's will but God's, which is fine for the Church.
So the Church's real problem with artificial contraception is that man is divorcing love-making with procreation. In the case of artificial contraception, man wants the love-making part while eliminating the procreation part. Note that the same problem arises when man wants the procreation part while eliminating the love-making part, thus the Church's similar opposition to in-vitro fertilisation. Man cannot, should not, separate the expression of mutual love from the possibility of procreation. God can do it, but not man.
It is thus easy to see why no amount of medical, social, economic, democratic, etc. arguments or evidence will change the Church's position on artificial contraception-- they all pale in comparison to God's will and purpose for creating the reproductive system. Practical circumstances may mitigate the gravity of going against God's will through the use of artificial contraception (or in-vitro fertilisation, for that matter), but it is a sin nonetheless and bishops will be remiss in their duty if they tolerate it. So changing their stance on artificial contraception will require a change in their understanding of God's purpose for creating the reproductive system. It hasn't changed in 2,000 years, so it is quite unlikely that it will change any time soon.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Sex, Schism, and Excommunication
Seems religions are exceptionally prominent in the news these days. The Pope in Australia, the Anglican Church in the brink of a schism, Islamophobia in America and Europe.
Today was expecially abuzz with these news. Here are three articles on sex, schism and excommunication that range from the disturbing to the absurd:
Abortion: don't even think about it.
Gay bishop: to beat it or not to beat it?
Outside the white shirt and black necktie there is no salvation.
Today was expecially abuzz with these news. Here are three articles on sex, schism and excommunication that range from the disturbing to the absurd:
Abortion: don't even think about it.
Gay bishop: to beat it or not to beat it?
Outside the white shirt and black necktie there is no salvation.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Political Involvement
Today is the eighth anniversary of the EDSA II popular revolt. I won't detail what happened during those heady days of 2001, but if you need some background you can find it here.
Much has been said about the lack of commemoration of EDSA II, especially since the winners opted to shun the event. Amando Doronilla calls it the "unwanted child of RP history", apparently abandoned by all its progenitors. But whatever is said about the merits of not commemorating the event, the fact remains that many people still remember those days and a lot is still being written about it, in effect commemorating-- i.e., remembering-- it. One of those pieces is the Inquirer's editorial for today. Take the following lines on the inability to muster crowds in the aftermath of the 2005 Hello Garci controversy:
"The reason many people, particularly the youth, have given to justify their failure to act, politically, over the last few years, can be reduced to the singsong phrase, 'same same.' This is a great evil of our times, this 'pare-pareho lang sila' mentality, which justifies tolerating the status quo on the defeatist assumption that all leaders are the same."
It goes on to say:
"... the youth’s turning away from active involvement in the political sphere, even if understandable, isn’t excusable. A society that rationalizes its refusal to exact accountability from its leaders is a society conspiring to excuse itself from the basic responsibilities of citizenship."
Active involvement in the political sphere is not equal to going to the streets in an attempt to extraconstitutionally oust a president. For all the reasons given for not going to the streets every time there is a crisis, I hope it is for this reason-- we have learned that doing another EDSA is a bad thing. If you think about it, EDSA is anathema to the concept of democracy. EDSA is the rule of the people who went to EDSA-- one cannot assume that non-participation in EDSA is tantamout to abdication. More people did not participate in EDSA-- which is a valid political position-- yet the participants' preferences won the day. What's so democratic about that? Are we to say that the people who marched in EDSA are smarter or more patriotic than those who didn't and therefore their wishes should prevail?
On hindsight, I think it was good that EDSA II happened and things turned out the way they did. If GMA turned out to be a good president, we would just have EDSA after EDSA after EDSA whenever there's a crisis. EDSA should be treated like major surgery-- something to be done only under dire circumstances, not every time we feel an itch. It's about time we learned democracy the hard way. Real political involvement is being a good citizen, studying the issues, and making a wise vote. It's not joining political lynch mobs, peaceful or otherwise.
***
Still on political involvement, word is out that the Vatican ordered Cardinal Sin to stand down and not take any partisan action during EDSA II. This explains the sudden withdrawal of the Church from political activity after EDSA II, especially after Cardinal Sin's death. Political rallies are now largely prohibited on the EDSA Shrine, and even at the height of the Hello Garci scandal the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines did not issue any partisan statement even if a few of its members already did so.
Our bishops should re-read Gaudium et Spes, particularly par. 76, which begins with:
"76. It is very important, especially where a pluralistic society prevails, that there be a correct notion of the relationship between the political community and the Church, and a clear distinction between the tasks which Christians undertake, individually or as a group, on their own responsibility as citizens guided by the dictates of a Christian conscience, and the activities which, in union with their pastors, they carry out in the name of the Church.
"The Church, by reason of her role and competence, is not identified in any way with the political community nor bound to any political system. She is at once a sign and a safeguard of the transcendent character of the human person."
It is when the Church, or religion in general, gets mixed up with politics that we get the worst results. That's when we get the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Taliban, and George W. Bush.
Much has been said about the lack of commemoration of EDSA II, especially since the winners opted to shun the event. Amando Doronilla calls it the "unwanted child of RP history", apparently abandoned by all its progenitors. But whatever is said about the merits of not commemorating the event, the fact remains that many people still remember those days and a lot is still being written about it, in effect commemorating-- i.e., remembering-- it. One of those pieces is the Inquirer's editorial for today. Take the following lines on the inability to muster crowds in the aftermath of the 2005 Hello Garci controversy:
"The reason many people, particularly the youth, have given to justify their failure to act, politically, over the last few years, can be reduced to the singsong phrase, 'same same.' This is a great evil of our times, this 'pare-pareho lang sila' mentality, which justifies tolerating the status quo on the defeatist assumption that all leaders are the same."
It goes on to say:
"... the youth’s turning away from active involvement in the political sphere, even if understandable, isn’t excusable. A society that rationalizes its refusal to exact accountability from its leaders is a society conspiring to excuse itself from the basic responsibilities of citizenship."
Active involvement in the political sphere is not equal to going to the streets in an attempt to extraconstitutionally oust a president. For all the reasons given for not going to the streets every time there is a crisis, I hope it is for this reason-- we have learned that doing another EDSA is a bad thing. If you think about it, EDSA is anathema to the concept of democracy. EDSA is the rule of the people who went to EDSA-- one cannot assume that non-participation in EDSA is tantamout to abdication. More people did not participate in EDSA-- which is a valid political position-- yet the participants' preferences won the day. What's so democratic about that? Are we to say that the people who marched in EDSA are smarter or more patriotic than those who didn't and therefore their wishes should prevail?
On hindsight, I think it was good that EDSA II happened and things turned out the way they did. If GMA turned out to be a good president, we would just have EDSA after EDSA after EDSA whenever there's a crisis. EDSA should be treated like major surgery-- something to be done only under dire circumstances, not every time we feel an itch. It's about time we learned democracy the hard way. Real political involvement is being a good citizen, studying the issues, and making a wise vote. It's not joining political lynch mobs, peaceful or otherwise.
***
Still on political involvement, word is out that the Vatican ordered Cardinal Sin to stand down and not take any partisan action during EDSA II. This explains the sudden withdrawal of the Church from political activity after EDSA II, especially after Cardinal Sin's death. Political rallies are now largely prohibited on the EDSA Shrine, and even at the height of the Hello Garci scandal the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines did not issue any partisan statement even if a few of its members already did so.
Our bishops should re-read Gaudium et Spes, particularly par. 76, which begins with:
"76. It is very important, especially where a pluralistic society prevails, that there be a correct notion of the relationship between the political community and the Church, and a clear distinction between the tasks which Christians undertake, individually or as a group, on their own responsibility as citizens guided by the dictates of a Christian conscience, and the activities which, in union with their pastors, they carry out in the name of the Church.
"The Church, by reason of her role and competence, is not identified in any way with the political community nor bound to any political system. She is at once a sign and a safeguard of the transcendent character of the human person."
It is when the Church, or religion in general, gets mixed up with politics that we get the worst results. That's when we get the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Taliban, and George W. Bush.
Friday, December 28, 2007
Stuff, Religious Stuff
Stuff I found over at BBC:
God-u Akbar: Malaysian row over word for 'God'
Fighting monks: Unholy dust-up at Nativity church
***
Pretty scary what's happening in Pakistan these days.
God-u Akbar: Malaysian row over word for 'God'
Fighting monks: Unholy dust-up at Nativity church
***
Pretty scary what's happening in Pakistan these days.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Merry Christmas to All
No, Santa isn't Coca Cola's evil invention.
***
Only in America is it an issue whether to use Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays/Season's Greetings. And a contentious issue at that. Some people seem to have this idea that saying Merry Christmas to a non-Christian is offensive or tantamount to proselytising. It's a a non-issue, really-- Kuala Lumpur in December is awash with Merry Christmas signs after the Hari Raya Adilfitri signs come down. My Central Asian colleagues (mostly Muslim, and one Jew) greet me Merry Christmas, and I greet them back with Merry Christmas which they graciously accept.
So the next time someone feels offended at being greeted Merry Christmas on the 25th of December, tell him to go back to work and return all his presents. But do it nicely-- it's Christmas, after all.
***
Only in America is it an issue whether to use Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays/Season's Greetings. And a contentious issue at that. Some people seem to have this idea that saying Merry Christmas to a non-Christian is offensive or tantamount to proselytising. It's a a non-issue, really-- Kuala Lumpur in December is awash with Merry Christmas signs after the Hari Raya Adilfitri signs come down. My Central Asian colleagues (mostly Muslim, and one Jew) greet me Merry Christmas, and I greet them back with Merry Christmas which they graciously accept.
So the next time someone feels offended at being greeted Merry Christmas on the 25th of December, tell him to go back to work and return all his presents. But do it nicely-- it's Christmas, after all.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
God Hates the World (the video)
My friend dr.sbdink alerted me to this vid. I heard about this on the news some time back, but I saw the vid just now. If I didn't know better, I'd say this was some sick joke. Watch it and see for yourself.
http://view.break.com/278059 - Watch more free videos
http://view.break.com/278059 - Watch more free videos
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Advice for Your Excellencies
Just read this story over at Inquirer: Bishop opposes QC birth control ordinance. Now, Bishop Ongtioco isn't the first bishop to oppose such measures, and I'm pretty sure he won't be the last. So to help the Magisterium engage the "anti-life" propagandists over at City Hall and various reproductive health centres, let me offer Their Excellencies some pieces of advice:
1. Stop confusing the laity by abortion-baiting (i.e., lumping contraception and abortion in the hope of transferring the distaste for the latter towards the former). There is a clear line between contraception and abortion-- even abortifacient drugs don't blur this line-- and you know this. Abortion-baiting is dishonest and condescending, something I'm sure Your Excellencies don't want to be.
2. Avoid making medical claims because, however we look at it, DD does not equal MD. Also, if Your Excellencies will point out that some contraceptives can raise the risk of certain cancers, you will be hard pressed to explain away the fact that contraceptives can reduce the risk of some cancers, and sex without contraceptives raises the risk of other cancers.
3. Emulate the great apologists like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus of Lyons by avoiding name-calling and sloganeering. Do you think the Athenians would have listened to St. Justin if he called them "boy-lovers", Your Excellencies?
4. Do not use "freedom of conscience" in your argument if you are trying to stop the dissemination of certain, even destructive, information. Free will can only be directed towards God if the conscience is given complete information, Your Excellencies. How holy is choosing the strait and narrow if the wide and broad was never shown?
5. Drop the argument that a teacher should be allowed to choose what she teaches based on her conscience-- this is a very treacherous slope. What applies to the Catholic teacher will also apply to the Jehovah's Witness teacher and the Iglesia ni Cristo teacher. Think about it, Your Excellencies.
6. Do not oppose humane, non-judgemental counselling and health care for anyone, even those you consider automatically excommunicated. Being humane and non-judgemental are good things, Your Excellencies.
7. Stop telling the laity how to have sex, Your Excellencies. Celibate men do not exactly make the best sex therapists, just like Stephen Hawking doesn't make the best track coach.
1. Stop confusing the laity by abortion-baiting (i.e., lumping contraception and abortion in the hope of transferring the distaste for the latter towards the former). There is a clear line between contraception and abortion-- even abortifacient drugs don't blur this line-- and you know this. Abortion-baiting is dishonest and condescending, something I'm sure Your Excellencies don't want to be.
2. Avoid making medical claims because, however we look at it, DD does not equal MD. Also, if Your Excellencies will point out that some contraceptives can raise the risk of certain cancers, you will be hard pressed to explain away the fact that contraceptives can reduce the risk of some cancers, and sex without contraceptives raises the risk of other cancers.
3. Emulate the great apologists like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus of Lyons by avoiding name-calling and sloganeering. Do you think the Athenians would have listened to St. Justin if he called them "boy-lovers", Your Excellencies?
4. Do not use "freedom of conscience" in your argument if you are trying to stop the dissemination of certain, even destructive, information. Free will can only be directed towards God if the conscience is given complete information, Your Excellencies. How holy is choosing the strait and narrow if the wide and broad was never shown?
5. Drop the argument that a teacher should be allowed to choose what she teaches based on her conscience-- this is a very treacherous slope. What applies to the Catholic teacher will also apply to the Jehovah's Witness teacher and the Iglesia ni Cristo teacher. Think about it, Your Excellencies.
6. Do not oppose humane, non-judgemental counselling and health care for anyone, even those you consider automatically excommunicated. Being humane and non-judgemental are good things, Your Excellencies.
7. Stop telling the laity how to have sex, Your Excellencies. Celibate men do not exactly make the best sex therapists, just like Stephen Hawking doesn't make the best track coach.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)