Marry, marry, quite contrary: Must we change the law to welcome bride-bride / groom-groom nuptials?

Just let them marry whomever they wish.

This line -- and other statements expressing a similar sentiment -- makes its way into conversations more often these days, whether such conversations are face-to-face or virtual. You'd think it's a plea or a piece of advice directed at a concerned parent hesitant to let go of offspring who are of proper age to make up their own minds about life decisions. Dad believes grownup daughter isn't ready for wedded life and is jumping into it with the wrong guy (imagined scenario). But no, the statement in this case is being directed -- on one level -- at citizens who recognize marriage as something meant to be entered into by one man and one woman. On a higher level, Just let them marry whomever they want  is being directed at the State, to persuade decision-makers to legally recognize marriage between members of the same sex.

It's simply a civil union, some say, and everyone has the right to be in a partnership that is recognized by society.

It seems quite simple, and adjusting the law to accommodate the request of some individuals insisting on their preference may be regarded as a step toward justice for all. Is it simple? And would it be just to make such adjustments on the law? Most importantly, would it be the right thing to do?

Give them what they want, seems the easiest route to take. But think about what my friend Mark pointed out here, about whether believers that marriage should be between one man and one woman, should seek to stop the legislation of same-sex "marriage". I quote his written remarks:

It has been said that state-sanctioned marriage is civil, not religious in nature. Christians will not be forced to solemnize same-sex "marriages". We will not be forced to attend those. In short, we will not be affected. Hence, we have no reason to oppose same-sex "marriage". Worse, they say, the only reason we oppose [it] is our homophobia, our fear and hatred of same-sex couples.

But is this the case? No.

The motivation for us to take a stand in the political and legal arena is that we recognize the Law as one of the highest expressions of our collective beliefs. Modern liberals believe that the Law is simply the rules of the game. We do not believe so. We believe that the Law embodies what our people believe in. It forms the collective teaching we impart to the generation after us.

If we legislate same-sex "marriage", we in effect as a people say that same-sex relations, in the context of marriage which is inherently a sexual relationship, are OK. But that is precisely what we do not want to say. We do not think such relationships are OK. We do not think people will find complete fulfillment in those relationships. Hence, we are committed by our conscience to fight such a legislation. And we have a right and a duty to do so as citizens of this nation, to participate in the debate as we chart our nation's direction.

This is not yet an argument against same-sex "marriage". Rather, this is an argument against those who seek the passage of a law allowing same-sex "marriage" on the mere basis that we believers in "traditional marriage" will not be affected anyway. The basic answer to those people is that that is not true. We will be affected, as our children and children's children will be affected.

Apparently, it takes a broader perspective to see the entire picture, and a more other-centered mindset to learn to consider the repercussions of one's actions on the rest of society.

Maybe bathroom door signs should be "Male DNA" and "Female DNA"

There have been some topics in the past that I'd wanted to blog about but just couldn't, simply because I had nothing else to say beyond one sentence -- maybe two. For example, lately I've noticed a disturbing number of adults who cross the street with a child in tow, and with the little one on the dangerous side. Sometimes it's an adult and a child strolling on a sidewalk, with the child on the dangerous side and whose hand his/her older companion isn't even holding. I had wanted to write about it because to me that's a pretty important matter to point out. But I couldn't think of anything else to say besides "Don't people know the concept of 'the dangerous side'? Why do grown-ups cross the street with kids and let the little ones stay on the dangerous side?" Nothing else comes to mind, because in my opinion, this is something basic.

Another example is littering. You probably see a lot of them, too, specially if Manila is your home -- dudes flicking a cigarette butt just anywhere while walking, tossing a candy wrapper out of a car or jeepney window, and other such sights. Even now that care for the environment has become a concern that's broadcasted and marketed in the mainstream, these things still happen a lot. But I can think of only one thing to say regarding this:

"Don't litter."

That's it. Ah but there's one other thing:

"I am  tempted to make a citizen's arrest each time I see some fellow toss litter just anywhere."

As you can see, elaborating on the point is difficult for me. It's just so basic that more words seem superfluous.

Now lately, there have been instances which demonstrate that something I consider one of the most basic of all basic principles in life is not so basic to some people after all. And that is: boys belong in the men's room, and girls belong in the ladies' room. By that of course I mean males -- biological, natural-born -- and females -- biological, natural-born. The only exceptions I would consider are instances involving toddler and pre-schooler boys (and maybe a year or two more) in which the absence of their dad, uncle or any male relation necessitates their mom, aunt or any female relation bringing them to the ladies' room to do their bathroom business. So, basically, in my mind it's as simple as what I stated above: boys belong in the men's room, and girls belong in the ladies' room. Nothing else to say.

However, even in these times that the basic principle seems to be questionable in some quarters, I couldn't think of anything else to say to drive home the point. And then I saw this on Facebook:

Cute baby huh? The little one made me realize that it's largely about privacy.

And then, recent developments in other parts of the world regarding what have come to be referred to as "gender identity" and "sexual orientation" have helped me see that just because a person says and believes he is something doesn't mean it is so. More specifically, just because a guy says he feels that he's a girl does not mean that he is a girl and that he should expect the environment and everyone else to make adjustments to suit his belief about himself. As a matter of fact, those of us who know better are aware that condoning such a person by affirming his ideas about himself is akin to telling a dude who believes he is a superhero who can fly that he should be proud of himself for being a superhero and to go ahead and launch into flight. It simply is not helping the person any. What he needs is compassion, treatment, and to cultivate a life of faith. What he does not need is other people telling him that his delusions are real and congratulating him for being delusional. That does not sound compassionate to me; if anything, it sounds convenient -- for the people around him, because of course helping the person become grounded in reality can be immensely difficult and will require much effort.

That being said, here is one of the incidents involving the matter of bathroom privacy and the rest of society being forced by institutions to compromise their privacy (not to mention, safety and hygiene) for the sake of individuals who insist on their delusions and therefore demand that rules be adjusted to cater to these delusions. If I may say so, individuals with such a psychological condition need and deserve treatment (psycho-spiritual), not special treatment.

In this situation, a 17 year old boy decided he was actually a girl, and thus should be entitled to use the girls’ locker room and bathroom. The school bent over backwards trying to find a compromise, even offering the guy a private, unisex facility, but that wasn’t good enough. He wanted the girls’ bathroom, and of course, what the girls wanted was entirely irrelevant.

Encouragingly, some of the students in the school didn’t stand for it. They protested this week, insisting it’s not fair to expect girls to use the bathroom or undress around a boy. They’re right, obviously, but it’s worse than that. Let’s be clear: it is ABUSIVE to coerce, intimidate, or otherwise force young girls to share their facilities with a boy. I don’t care if he’s gender confused or not. I don’t care if he wears a wig or not. All I care about, all that matters, all that make a difference, is that he is a boy with boy parts, a boy’s body, a boy’s genetic makeup, a boy’s brain, a boy’s everything. He’s a boy. That’s all. That’s it. That’s the whole story.

Girls (and boys) deserve and are entitled to a safe and private place to change and do their business. It is simply unconscionable and despicable to take that away from them.

Read Forcing girls to share a bathroom with a gender-confused boy is abuse

Here's more food for thought -- involving privacy in locker rooms this time.

"Women and men being naked together in the same locker room, taking showers and doing all this and they're saying that doesn't have any component of a sexual nature to it," [Atty. David] Kallman said.

"You don't have those facts in this case," [Midland County Circuit Court Judge Michael] Beale replied.

Kallman said "we don't have to wait for that to occur" and that the transgender-friendly locker room policy itself is "sexual in nature by allowing men in the women's locker room."

Beale came back to the threshold required for sexual harassment claims several times and Kallman continued to respond by saying the policy itself is sexual in nature and that no actual sexual incidents needed to occur for that to meet the threshold.

Does Planned Parenthood offer discounts on fetal parts bought in bulk?

Who knows if such an inquiry would one day be brought up by some company or shady characters in the black market when Planned Parenthood makes an underground "Up for grabs! Healthy heart-and-lungs package from 24-week-old, and freshly harvested fully developed liver!" announcement?!

The latest news regarding Planned Parenthood is revolting, but it is only the latest of a string of practices that worsen already serious societal ills and which glaringly show why Planned Parenthood deserves to be shut down. The recently disclosed evidence showing the abortion provider's trafficking of fetal organs shouldn't distract us from the fact that it is still responsible for the death of more than 300,000 human lives every year.

And just in case you have allowed some people's dazzling arguments to convince you so that a part of you doubts the humanity of babies in their mother's womb, it's really simple:

This and this are worthy reads to bring you up to speed and help you form your own judgment on the issue. And more developments on the investigations to be conducted by the U.S. House of Representatives and five states (as of this writing) are here.

Stop the presses!

Or maybe that should be "Hold the publish button!"

Before anything else, share this with every atheist you know. And every believer, too. Everyone is bound to learn something new here.

In other news...

Let's get 'graphic'

And some "women's advocates" in my country are stubbornly pushing for a law that ignores all these.

I sure hope my faith -- and that of many others -- in the Supreme Court of the Philippines to do the right thing and uphold the Constitution will be justified. April 8 -- the crucial date.

Lavish lifestyles, poverty, and Napoles

What's wrong with flaunting one's wealth? 
Janet Lim-Napoles asks.  

Where did all that wealth come from? 
the Filipino people ask.

Janet Napoles' Pork Barrel Scam: Theft from a Nation?

Napoles wealth showcased on Jeane Napoles Instagram
(photos and video)

Giant

Giant -- that's the title of a classic 1956 movie with Rock Hudson, Elizabeth Taylor and James Dean leading the cast. It is set in Texas, which is massive and is the second largest state in  the US (Alaska is the largest) -- hence, the title. I was reminded of this film after reading news reports and commentaries and seeing pictures of the continuing developments taking place in this state showing the intense debate concerning abortion legislation. Some useful links are in a previous post to bring you up to speed about what's been happening there.

First, some photos posted at the Students for Life of America Facebook page (I'm copying the captions as they appear there, except for the second photo, which shows students on their way to a Planned Parenthood facility outside of which they spent some time standing and praying):

Missy talks about the Planned Parenthood Project at the Planned Parenthood rally

Our group at the Capitol

On the Students for Life of America website was an account of the Stand4Life Bus Tour in Austin, Texas the group embarked on. The post is dated July 11, so a lot has obviously happened since then, but it gives one a closer look at some things that transpired at the event. Related information and observations are in there, too -- some of them deeply disappointing but nevertheless necessary to open our eyes to the reality of what the culture of death is doing and will continue to do if left to spread and make more inroads in society. Here's an excerpt:

While things are looking grim for the other side, pro-abortion men have also stepped up to make their voices heard in the debate.  Ben Sherman, a pro-abortion boy, took to his blog to explain the #brochoice movement. He wrote that if abortion isn’t readily accessible, especially in his state of Texas, men’s sex lives are at stake. It was the ultimate form of male-chauvinism, yet NARAL and other pro-abortion women’s groups took to Twitter in support of the campaign.

Can you believe this actually happened? Here’s what Sherman wrote to other men as to why they should be #brochoice:

·         “Forcing women to adhere to the anti-choice attitudes of state legislators forces men to do the same, and will have serious consequences both on men’s lives and lifestyles.”

·         “Your sex life is at stake. Can you think of anything that kills the vibe faster than a woman fearing a back-alley abortion? Making abortion essentially inaccessible in Texas will add an anxiety to sex that will drastically undercut its joys. And don’t be surprised if casual sex outside of relationships becomes far more difficult to come by.”

Read Texas: A glimpse into the future


And for anyone who may still be holding out on the possibility that Planned Parenthood exists for a noble cause and actually cares about its clientele, here's something to think about:

 

When love and hate collide

 Very significant incidents and developments in the cause of life and family have happened the past couple of weeks in different parts of the world. They continue to happen, and since I have little time to spend on writing about them, let me instead share links to articles you will want to check out. Specifically, these will give you the lowdown on the goings-on in Ireland, Chile and the United States. Bravery, hate, faith, fortitude, evil... you'll see demonstrations of these as you learn more about the things that went on.

Ireland lower house passes permissive abortion law, 127-31

Texas Senate passes bill to ban late-term abortion despite abortion mob 

Texas police confiscate jars of feces, urine from pro-abortion activists

Lila Rose named one of the most influential women under 35 in Washington

Raped 11-year-old girl from Chile courageously rejects abortion

Radicals push for forced abortion of pregnant 11-year-old Chilean rape victim

* Photo of the All-Ireland Rally for Life 2013 (July 6) by Paul Keeling. More photos at the Youth Defence Facebook page

You learn something new everyday...

A couple of days ago, I realized that I had been breaking the law for some time already without my knowing it.

As I was on the road on my way to work, a friend gave me a call. It was about some things pertaining to election matters and those were pretty important, so we continued talking as I made my way through Espana and approached the area of Quiapo church. Traffic was so-so, neither bumper-to-bumper nor free-flowing enough to enable motorists to zoom on the road without occasionally hitting the brakes.

As I passed the church, one of the yellow-clad traffic enforcers a few meters ahead seemed to look my way and pointed at me. When the vehicle was within arm's length of the traffic enforcer, he gave the windshield a strong tap and flashed an exasperated expression. I quietly wondered what it was about while still conversing with my friend on the phone. My car is not coded today, so what could that have been about, I silently asked myself.

"Bawal ba makipag-usap sa cellphone habang nag-da-drive?" I asked my friend.

"Oo," he replied.

"Bawal? May law ba?" I countered, stunned by my ignorance.

"Oo, Buhay nag-initiate niyan!" he blurted out, chuckling, obviously amused by my ignorance of the law.

Was I flabbergasted. I knew there was some guideline or maybe a small ordinance or some equally insignificant (legally speaking) thing about refraining from using one's mobile phone while driving, but I was unaware that there was actually a law prohibiting the use of the mobile phone while driving. While part of me had an inkling as to the possible dangers one was exposed to in simultaneously driving and having a conversation on the phone, I in fact thought I was being responsible by refraining from texting while driving.

And I thought I was a responsible citizen *sheepish feeling here*

While I'm grateful for lawmakers having that kind of concern for the lives of the country's citizens (I'm told the same party list formulated and had the law on motorcycle-riders having to wear helmets passed as well), realizing my "you learn something new everyday" discovery led to some momentary contemplation about the assumption that one knows when he really doesn't. It reminded me of the oft-used line "Malinis ang konsensiya ko" or "I will decide based on my own conscience." Malinis nga ang konsensiya mo, pero formed naman ba ito? O deformed? O kaya ill-formed? Misinformed? One's conscience can be a reliable guide for one's judgment and choices if it is formed well -- and based on the truth and not someone's version of the truth. A version that can change according to one's whims or circumstances. I was confident that I was being responsible and could even declare that I was a responsible citizen... but it turns out the knowledge on which my actions were based was sorely deficient.

I'm just thankful that traffic that day wasn't so bad that crawling at snail's pace would've surely enabled the traffic enforcer to apprehend me! Well, what do you know? The very next day, I caught myself making a call again while I was on the wheel! I realized it after I had ended the conversation, and told myself that some things can really be hard habits to break. But it can be done. And since then I have been more vigilant about it, resolute in doing the lawful (and sensible) thing.

I wonder what other laws I've been unwittingly violating...


*Artwork from Creative Loafing Charlotte

Where woman and child are cared for

Till recently, the only things I associated with Ireland were U2, St. Patrick, the four-leaf clover (I'm not sure why), and The Corrs. Starting around four or five years ago, however, my regard for that nation has changed. Why? Because I learned about the importance that the Irish place on family and children -- so much that it's the only other country I know besides the Philippines in which the people see abortion for what it truly is -- murder -- and thereby persistently defend the right of every human being, including babies still in the womb, to live. They care about everyone.

I learned from a friend living in Ireland about a pro-life march/rally just hours before it was due to start. The Vigil for Life held on January 19 drew some 30,000 people -- all demanding the country's leader and the ruling party to keep abortion out of this very life-loving nation.

Here are a couple of videos I've watched several times already!









The Irish people rock!!

Among the organizers of the huge event were Youth Defence, Life Institute, Pro-Life Campaign, and Precious Life.

* See more photos and additional coverage on the Vigil for Life Facebook page 

Pep talks on the battlefield

Movies that revolve around sports are rife with scenes of pep talks. It's the same with flicks with plots that involve a teacher and wayward students. There's always bound to be one big scene in which the mentor will deliver some speech meant to push the mentee to give his all and defy his limits.

Have you ever heard such a speech in any movie that has the mentor talking about how convenience and comfort are the path to success? That commitment and sacrifice are better off forgotten? That aiming high is for losers? How about "Do whatever catches your fancy, and throw integrity, service and hard work out the window"? No, such lines and ideas sound more like what the enemy, the bad guy, the traitor would say to his minions or an apprentice he's training for life on the dark side.

Movies about basketball or football games may be worthwhile viewing for such plots and scenes, and though they're just movies, they may reflect slices of  real life. For instance, one lesson that's repeatedly conveyed in such films is that attitude is instrumental in a person's road to success or descent to defeat. And in this case, it's all about a basketball game, or a football championship, or a shot at a college education (if it's one of those maverick teacher - "dead-end future" students scenarios) that's at stake -- petty compared to, say, if it's the future of Middle Earth, the survival of Jedi Knights, or diplomatic relations between powerful countries hanging in the balance.

Think of the movies about wars and battles you've seen, and you're unlikely to remember any motivational speech given by the leader of the good guys that puts vice on a pedestal and downplays virtue, that doesn't tell the men to rise to the challenge or get out of their comfort zone. Right now I'm thinking of Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King since I saw parts of it today on TV.  Aragorn's speech outside the gates of Mordor is striking and rousing, one that men of valor would need to hear when up against evil (and seriously grotesque) opponents and they feel they are on the losing side. I couldn't help but liken the situation these men were in to that which we in the Philippines are currently confronted with. We had just lost a battle of sorts, and though it is merely part of a war, the loss has temporarily disheartened some young and tired souls. During such times it can be easy to forget that there is always hope and that the wisdom of God is infinitely beyond that of man.

I'm sharing two videos below: one is of Aragorn giving that speech at the Black Gate, and the other is the scene from Rocky Balboa in which the Rocky opens his son's mind about some things. Both are inspiring, but the second dwells more on a personal level as it imparts words of wisdom from a father to a son.

Attitude -- it can really spell the difference.

Celebrating the RH bill’s enactment into law: Doing the right thing?

How can it be the right thing when you help promote irresponsible parenthood by transferring to the State the parental duty of forming one’s children? When you needlessly endanger -- seriously in many cases -- the health of women and then even require taxpayers to finance putting women's lives at risk? When you treat poor people like animals and assume they can't learn or discipline themselves or think for themselves if given the correct information and encouragement? When you force people of faith to violate their faith and then call the measure something that promotes freedom of choice? 

How can it be the right thing when your message to people is basically to enjoy sex and make pill-popping or condom use a regular part of their lifestyle, then force others to pay for all that? When you keep insisting that what other people do in their bedroom is none of our business while you expect us to finance their enjoyment of sex – whether extra-marital, pre-marital, sodomitical or criminal?

How can it be the right thing when the basic premise of its sex education program is that satisfying, pleasurable and safe sex is a right – and a human right at that – and a priority in life starting from adolescence? When this message is delivered through six years of the same basic idea? When educators and educational institutions are required to deliver this message to their students?

How can it be the right thing when a massive budget will be devoted to ingraining in the youth such a message, when it’s goal-setting, decision-making, traits such as integrity, honesty, perseverance, self-mastery, diligence, other-centeredness, delicadeza, sincerity, respect for elders, love of family and country, and other life lessons that they need to be equipped with to prepare them for the future?

How can signing an RH measure into law be the right thing when it will clearly destroy the future and the very soul of the nation?

The goal is to build a nation, preserve it, and protect its people’s fundamental rights – not destroy the nation and strip its people of their rights.

Mr. President, you have wronged the Filipino people --

big time.

Let the Women Speak

The times call for it, and the times have equipped us with much, much more than typewriters, the Pony Express, and even "snail" mail.

With all the means at our disposal, there aren't many reasons not to take part in Let the Women Speak. In a nutshell, the Philippine government is poised to force upon the people a proposed bill that will carry out population control by way of institutionalized birth control and a comprehensive six-year sex education program for all schools -- brushing off intense and massive opposition from various sectors. In the middle of all this are the women.

Now is not the time to be a mere spectator. Filipinas, wherever in the world you are right now, be counted! Gentlemen, please share the following with the women in your life (wife, mother, sisters, other female relatives, friends and colleagues...). Believe that your signature will make a difference -- then pass this on.

WE are women who believe that the Reproductive Health bill, in all its past and present forms, is detrimental to us, our sex, our marriages, and our families.

WE are Catholics and non-Catholics. We are women of faith, and we are also women of reason.

WE believe in true women’s health. We believe in respecting our bodies and the natural processes with which we have been gifted. 

Far from empowering us as women, the RH bill promotes our objectification. It does not address the causes of exploitation and violence against women at their roots. It does not solve the problem of men seeing us as mere sources of pleasure. It does not promote our inherent dignity as human beings worthy of respect. State-funded, state-guaranteed access to contraception only empowers those who wish to take advantage of us without having to worry about consequences.

WE do not believe in artificial birth control. Birth control does not come free. As taxpayers we will be paying for it, and as women we will be suffering its effects on our bodies. We will not tolerate the deliberate dismissal of scholarly research that shows contraception’s deleterious effects. We will not tolerate the trampling of our Constitution that says life must be protected at all stages from conception to natural death. 

We will not tolerate the imposition of governmental contraceptive programs meant to control the population and to brainwash our youth. We do not want the long-term effects of the sexual revolution brought about by a contraceptive mentality.

Granting that the secular government is not beholden to the Catholic or Christian faith, attempting to speak for us women via a socialist agenda destroys the very fiber of democratic breath we have as a people. Doing this undermines our freedom to adhere to something Good, Moral and Ethical. Recognizing our “reproductive” rights as women should not include FORCING us to discard our right to freely believe in morality and goodness and if we choose to, our religious tenets and doctrines.

No one speaks for all of us on these issues. We stand with the Catholic bishops and all leaders, religious and otherwise, who recognize the truth of life-affirming teachings with regard to sex, marriage and family. We call on President Aquino and our Representatives in Congress to heed the voice of all Filipino women, not just the loudest ones. We call on all our leaders to continue to allow us to freely witness to our faiths and beliefs in all their fullness.

Please send your name, address and occupation to the person who sent you this message, or to thefilipinos4life@gmail.com or to thefilipinosforlife@gmail.com. Thank you!

From Filipinos for Life

Plain and simple

Treasure, not trash

Tutorials by the purple people

More words would be superfluous.





Mga ligtas na paraan ng pagpapalaglag = "Safe ways to abort your unborn child"

You may want to check out a previous post that's related to this

The big picture at a glance (with a dinosaur doing a cameo)

All this talk lately about the "reproductive health" bill or RH bill has been keeping more and more people occupied on separating truth from falsehood. And one thing I'm grateful for is that more of the facts have been brought out, and more sound views have been circulating on the internet.

Not everyone, though, has much time (or the inclination) to read and make heads or tails of numerous scientific findings, analytical write-ups or opinion pieces. But that's no reason to keep oneself from being informed. Here, some graphics that show the big picture and help one realize just what's been going on. Make sure you really ponder on that last question down there.

Then, to really get people out of the dark, I'm putting a link to an article that's quite revealing about the people who are deeply involved in the RH agenda, and what you should know about them. This has been making the rounds of Facebook, but then social networking sites are not top priority for everyone. So if you missed this, no biggie. Here it is.















The Road to Legalized Abortion

I'll bet some of these ideas have never occurred to you

Here's a topic that has never been boring, judging from the raised eyebrows, animated discussions, and thought-provoking viewpoints it often elicits -- especially nowadays. For now, I'm leaving the people in these videos to explore the subject. The first shows a 21-year-old lady who presents ideas that I'd say are wonderfully counter-cultural given the kind of environment Western nations have become.

The second is just as counter-cultural and she expresses her ideas as part of a women's panel during a discussion on one of the most contentious issues in America today.

And the third, well... just watch it.

Bad move by a young public servant

A public servant is seeking to impose a ban on the Creator of all human life.

That's what it all boils down to, but many -- particularly the lawmaker who proposed to legislate a path toward Godlessness -- fail to see it that way. Why? Perhaps for the same reason that it's easy to fall into professing one's faith then forget to live one's day-to-day life according to the teachings of that faith: the connection between faith/religious belief and daily life is overlooked.

When Congressman Raymond Palatino -- who represents Kabataan Party List -- filed a bill prohibiting the conduct of religious ceremonies and the display of religious symbols "within the premises and perimeter of offices, departments and bureaus, including publicly owned spaces and corridors within such offices, departments and bureaus," he obviously failed to consider that he was, in effect, imposing a ban on God. Ceremonies such as the Mass, and religious symbols such as crucifixes, pictures of the Blessed Mother, statues of canonized saints, for instance, are expressions of faith in God. Sure, a small statue of Our Lady of Fatima or a portrait of St. Pio may indicate a special devotion to Mother Mary or the Franciscan stigmatist, but if the person's faith and understanding run deep, the devotion is rooted in a love for the Source of all that's good -- God.

So really, though the solon claims legitimate reasons for the "need" for the bill, what he's doing is violating people's personal freedom. And as mentioned above, banning the Source of all life, the Maker of heaven and earth.

One of the things that occurred to me after considering this piece of legislation was that should it be enacted into law, then it wouldn't be surprising if corruption in government and the incidence of crimes being committed by workers in government offices see an upsurge. Why? Many times it's only simple reminders of right and wrong that keep a person on the right path. In government, which is not spared from situations that pose temptations to the people around, how much more will such temptations be difficult to resist if you take away the bible, the portrait of Mama Mary, the sight of the Savior showing his unconditional love via the cross, and images of heroic people down the centuries who persevered to stay faithful?

Good thing we have some legislators who don't let such things pass. Congressman Roilo Golez of Paranaque spoke up and inadvertently made it clear that the younger solon didn't spend a lot of time thinking things through before filing the bill.

Read all about it here

Church officials also made brilliant points about the matter here and here

* * * * * * * * * *

ABS-CBN came out with a report titled Solon withdraws 'Ban God' bill, says sorry days ago, yet nowhere in the article does it say that Palatino has already withdrawn his bill. The closest to this is:

In a statement, Palatino said he is withdrawing House Bill 6330 “in response to the appeal and clamor of some of our members, constituents and supporters, various groups, institutions and the general public to reconsider the filing of such measure.”

As a friend pointed out, is this merely your usual "press release" meant to appease protesters and vigilant citizens? Is there truly an intention of withdrawing the "Ban God" bill? Wish someone would ask the congressman point blank and get a straight answer.


Addendum: I came across this statement on the Kabataan Party List website just now. Same thing -- no mention of the solon already having officially withdrawn the bill. But there are contact numbers through which the lawmaker's Chief of Staff may be reached. Express your sentiments; clarify whether or not her boss has already done what he said he plans to do about the measure. Get in touch with:

Vanessa Faye Bolibol (Chief-of-Staff Kabataan PL Rep. Palatino)
0926-1703655/ 0933-5660635