Skip to content

The Catholic Priests have a Right to Influence the Government!

October 30, 2010
The pro-RH bill people are clearly talking CRAP!

The pro-RH bill people are clearly talking CRAP!

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” – Voltaire

This is a comment on a commenter codenamed Desideriius who wrote the following:



A COUNTRY THAT IS ALWAYS INTERRUPTED BY THE AGENDA OF A CHURCH WILL NOT PROSPER. Most nations colonized by protestant England and protestant America were rich and progressive, such as Australia, India, New Zealand. But countries colonized by Roman-catholicism were poor such as Mexico, Philippines, and other superstitious developing countries.

THIS CHURCH OPPOSES THE RH BILL, BUT HER CONSTITUENTS WERE THE FOREMOST IN VIOLATING IT. Look at some of Spain’s convents in the 1930, aren’t there fetuses, aborted infants by nuns who became pregnants? So you see, they strongly opposed it but the violators are the Roman-catholics. In this matter, the protestants are more disciplined and orderly. This church seeks to be pro-life, but her principles are coercive and brutal. Such hypocrisy is obvious. I do not believe about the purity of that church’s intentions.


Here’s what I said:

First, I’m a rabid atheist and I don’t like what the Church is doing. But I would never allow my atheism to distract my understanding of the concepts of individual rights and freedom. As a freedom loving individual (not an atheist), I believe that the Catholic priests or any religionists have the very right to spread their religious beliefs, defend their faith and doctrines, and even influence the government as long as they don’t initiate the use of force and fraud, and violate objective laws in this country.

READ: In Defense of the Troublesome, Meddlesome Catholic Church

What do you think you pro-RH people are doing? Are you not trying to influence the government? Anybody or any group in this country has the right to influence their respective congressman or solon to pass a bill that would say, protect their rights or interests. What is prohibited is when a group of individuals employs the use of force, fraud, or  illegal machination (like bribery or the use of indecent favor) to get what it wants. If you think that the Catholic priests have violated any of our laws, then why not lodge a complaint or a case against them?

But you can never claim that these stubborn, hypocritical, meddlesome Catholic priests have breached the “separation of church and state” clause in the Constitution by merely expressing their political or secular views. The priests have the right to express their political, economic, or even personal views just as you have the right to express yours. They even have a right to issue excommunication threats to the President or anyone who goes against their religious doctrines or dogmas. Who’s afraid of excommunication decree? Excommunication, which is totally harmless and ridiculous, is now a thing of the past. It belongs to the Dark Ages when the Pope held absolute political and religious power.

What is your concept of “meddling in political affairs”? When is this “meddling” prohibited by law?

What then is your proposal then to solve this “Catholic” problem?

  1. Propose a law that would prohibit them from expressing their political views.
  2. Public condemnation.
  3. Incarcerate them or lodge a complaint against them.
  4. Ban religions in the Philippines
  5. What?

Before Nazi Germany’s Adolf Hitler amassed absolute political power, his party, the National-Socialist German Workers’ Party, proposed the following program, which the Nazis religiously and strictly implemented:

“We demand freedom for all religious denominations, provided that they do not endanger the existence of the State or offend the concepts of decency and morality of the Germanic race.”

25 Comments leave one →
  1. John Christian Canda permalink
    October 30, 2010 3:38

    There is nothing with Priests engaging in politics so long as they engage in the politics of Christ the King, not in partisan politics, especially liberal politics.

  2. November 1, 2010 3:38

    It’s so easy to pass judgment on priests, as if they did not inherit human nature, as if they are not clothed with flesh.

  3. Seluj Albatini permalink
    November 1, 2010 3:38

    1. Propose a law… – waste of time

    2. Public condemnation – It can be done easily in the blogosphere.

    3. Incarcerate or lodge a complaint… – Hunt down Father Pedo and his ilk. 🙂

    4. Ban religion in RP – Isn’t that against the free market of ideas and free enterprise?

    5. What? – Remove the tax exempt status of the offending Church.

    • November 1, 2010 3:38

      Yes, that’s the best. Remove the tax exempt status enjoyed by religions.

      • Miles permalink
        November 1, 2010 3:38

        Yeah, that would give them more reason to be involved. Good idea!

      • November 1, 2010 3:38

        but no one has the right to stop the priests, pastors, or any religionists from expressing their political views no matter what their contents or purposes are.

      • Miles permalink
        November 1, 2010 3:38

        So the solution is to up the ante by giving, not only the members but also, the institutions the right to be involved?

      • November 1, 2010 3:38

        Please read my REPLY HERE.

      • Miles permalink
        November 1, 2010 3:38

        Nicely put. I want to make it clear that I am not for taking away anybody’s rights. I am wary about giving too much, more than needed.

        The Catholic Church, though the most vocal religious institution influencing politics, is not the only religious institution doing so. Truth be told, the Catholic Church’s influence is waning. But there is another religious institution heavily influencing Philippine politics and this one does behind closed doors of the government offices and locked doors of their “Sambahan”. They vote as a solid bloc and has heavily influenced the changes in the political landscape at local levels. And they have affected a lot of changes without the publicity that you normally see with the RCC. They too have their rights and freedom to act based on their belief and conscience.

        I’m pointing that out as this RHBill issue has become more an RCC bashing festival due to their being more vocal on the issue than others.

        The other issue I’m wary about is how an individual can stand against a corporation. By taxing religious institutions, specially ones with a solid bloc of followers and not fragmented as the RCC, it empowers them much as corporations are empowered to protect their interests/profit margins. Corporations pay big money to lobbyists (here in the US at least) to influence lawmakers to protect their interests (sometimes against the interest of the individual) in order to continue to contribute(pay tax) to the state interest.

        What’s to stop religious institutions from doing the same when they start paying taxes? Nothing. They would have as much right as corporations. With corporate, religious and political influences on government, where does that leave the ordinary citizen other than becoming a sacrifice for the good of the more influential?

  4. November 1, 2010 3:38

    @ miles:

    “But there is another religious institution heavily influencing Philippine politics and this one does behind closed doors of the government offices and locked doors of their “Sambahan”. They vote as a solid bloc and has heavily influenced the changes in the political landscape at local levels.”

    Oh yeah! That religious denomination is, by definition, a CULT.

    “I’m pointing that out as this RHBill issue has become more an RCC bashing festival due to their being more vocal on the issue than others.”

    The RCC’s arguments against the RHB must FAIL! But I think all they want is non-state funding of family planning programs, although I observed that they have a mystical argument against the issue of family planning. It is true that the RCC has the power to influence our politicians whose only duty is to stay in office, but it cannot control individual choice.

    I’m in favor of family planning. In fact, I’m also in favor of abortion, and it’s very unfortunate that we had constitution framers who were ignorant, contemptuous of the concept of rights who criminalize abortion in RP. Our Charter protects life from conception, which is the basis of anti-abortion law in the country. This “personhood” constitutional concept is anti-rights and against natural law.

    On the issue of corporations. The only way is to take away that power from the government. That is, the power of government intervention into the economy. Without that power, corporations would be powerless to influence legislation. But the problem here is we have a protectionist, semi-socialist Constitution that allows the government to intervene, or even to make special favors or privileges to private entities. The system allows it. This is the reason why an antitrust law is forthcoming. I’m against antitrust law because it’s anti-business, anti-free market, anti-economic freedom, and anti-poor. Observe that those who are pushing for this proposal (like Juan Ponce Enrile) have economic interests. Well, it’s simply because they’d benefit from this law.

    Religious institutions are legally considered corporations. The only difference is that they don’t pay taxes. I don’t see any difference here even if they start paying taxes. Of course they need money. Nobody- and not even the law- prohibits any religious institution from making profits. That’s their right. They need monetary contributions to exist and to expand. Like business corporations, religions also compete in the market place. They need members for funding. They need contributors. They are allowed to sell books or any products. Might as well tax them.

    • xyxy permalink
      November 2, 2010 3:38

      Can you recommend any article/blog post that aptly discusses abortion and “personhood” from the Objectivist standpoint? The RCC is anti-RHB primarily because they believe the bill legalizes abortion, arguing that most contraceptives are abortifacient.


      • November 2, 2010 3:38

        All I can say is that the 1987 Constitution is a departure from the American Constitution that does NOT protect life “from conception.” I believe that provision in our charter was inserted by the religionists and anti-abortion activists.

        This is what I wrote on abortion before. this is what I wrote:

        “I believe that every human being is responsible for his/her own body. Any woman who has no capacity- physically, financially, emotionally, intellectually or psychologically- to deliver and/or raise a child has the right to demand abortion. An embryo is not a person. This means that any society has no right to deprive any woman of her right to undergo abortion. To deprive any woman of such a right is to condemn her to carry an un-chosen obligation all throughout her life. I believe that abortion is a moral right, which should only be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved. An embryo has no rights simply because rights do not pertain to a potential, but only to an actual being (the woman). An embryo cannot obtain any rights until it is born. The living (the woman) take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).”

        Philosopher Ayn Rand offered the best defense against abortion during her time. I believe that Ayn Rand’s argument is true not because she’s my favorite philosopher, but because it is consistent with America’s founding fathers’ understanding of rights. It’s consistent with the law of nature.

        In “Of Living Death,” The Voice of Reason (p. 58–59), Ayn Rand wrote:

        “An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

        “Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?”

        In The Ayn Rand Letter “A Last Survey,” The Ayn Rand Letter, she wrote:

        “Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings.”

        In “The Age of Mediocrity,” The Objectivist Forum (June 1981), she wrote:

        “If any among you are confused or taken in by the argument that the cells of an embryo are living human cells, remember that so are all the cells of your body, including the cells of your skin, your tonsils, or your ruptured appendix—and that cutting them is murder, according to the notions of that proposed law. Remember also that a potentiality is not the equivalent of an actuality—and that a human being’s life begins at birth.

        “The question of abortion involves much more than the termination of a pregnancy: it is a question of the entire life of the parents. As I have said before, parenthood is an enormous responsibility; it is an impossible responsibility for young people who are ambitious and struggling, but poor; particularly if they are intelligent and conscientious enough not to abandon their child on a doorstep nor to surrender it to adoption. For such young people, pregnancy is a death sentence: parenthood would force them to give up their future, and condemn them to a life of hopeless drudgery, of slavery to a child’s physical and financial needs. The situation of an unwed mother, abandoned by her lover, is even worse.

        “I cannot quite imagine the state of mind of a person who would wish to condemn a fellow human being to such a horror. I cannot project the degree of hatred required to make those women run around in crusades against abortion. Hatred is what they certainly project, not love for the embryos, which is a piece of nonsense no one could experience, but hatred, a virulent hatred for an unnamed object. Judging by the degree of those women’s intensity, I would say that it is an issue of self-esteem and that their fear is metaphysical. Their hatred is directed against human beings as such, against the mind, against reason, against ambition, against success, against love, against any value that brings happiness to human life. In compliance with the dishonesty that dominates today’s intellectual field, they call themselves “pro-life.”

        “By what right does anyone claim the power to dispose of the lives of others and to dictate their personal choices?”

        However, this doesn’t mean that anybody can undergo abortion. There are a lot of cases wherein a woman is justify to undergo abortion, such as in cases of rape, incest, terminally deformed fetuses, and danger to woman’s health.

        I can only suggest the following articles co-written by Diana Hsieh, a philosopher and an Objectivist scholar from Colorado, and Ari Armstrong, an Objectivist.

        The ‘Personhood’ Movement Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception

        Subjectivism and Relativism in Arguments about Personhood –

        You may also read articles on “Personhood”, Abortion, and Family Planning here:

  5. xyxy permalink
    November 2, 2010 3:38

    That was quick. Anyway, thanks! I was having a discussion with a stranger regarding abortion who is against it which went something like this:

    Stranger: Because it is our belief that all of us needs to pass that stage (zygote/embryo) before we can even be born. No science can even contest that.

    Me: no science can contest that. an embryo is to a human like an acorn is to an oak tree, as they say. but is an acorn an oak tree?

    Stranger: Plants and animals are different species. Sorry.

    • November 2, 2010 3:38

      First, it is a philosophical issue. What the anti-abortion advocates try to do is criminalize abortion. Our anti-abortion law regards fetuses as fully developed human beings. We must understand that we have this concept of rights, and rights are important because they are a condition to man’s existence. Rights, which specifically and fundamentally means freedom of action or the right to act, pertains only to individuals. Rights pertain only to actual human beings, not to “potential” human beings. A fetus is a “potential” human life. Therefore, it is wrong to ascribe right to a fetus or to a potential.

      A pregnant woman is an actual individual who’s entitled to her rights. As a human being, that woman has all the rights to do what she’d like to do with her own body. We all have the right to do with our own body. Not even our society could dictate to us how we should conduct ourselves or how we should exploit our bodily energy. That pregnant woman has all the rights to undergo abortion if she wants to simply because she has the right to her own body. Maybe that woman was raped. Or that she’s suffering from serious physical condition that requires her to undergo abortion. Or she knows she wouldn’t be able to financially, intellectually and physically raise her child.

      But according to the anti-abortion activists and insane moralists, that woman must be deprived of her right to think and to decide on her own. They passed an anti-abortion law that prohibits that woman from seeking abortion even if she’s raped, suffering from serious physical condition, or won’t be able to raise her child. In this case, that woman is condemned by society to carry an unchosen obligation. Bearing and raising a child is a life-long obligation. Under our abortion law, abortion is a crime that could incriminate the woman and her abortionist.

      Second, it’s a scientific issue. The question is: Does a potential to be considered a human being? Is a fetus a human being? Certainly it’s not because that fetus is technically part of the woman’s internal organ. Personhood begins once that fetus is taken out of the woman’s embryo.

      The whole issue then is a moral issue. Rights only pertain to an actual human being, not to a potential. If you deny that woman a right to undergo abortion, that means you’re condemning her to carry an unchosen lifelong obligation.

      • xyxy permalink
        November 2, 2010 3:38


        “But according to the anti-abortion activists and insane moralists, that woman must be deprived of her right to think and to decide on her own.”
        – Anti-abortion religionists fail to realize this. They are too concerned about the potential person. Even when confronted with issues such as rape or incest, they wouldn’t see it. They use extraordinary cases where pregnancy is successfully carried (by a 5 year old rape victim) to “justify” their stand.

      • November 2, 2010 3:38

        Check the connection between abortion and the lowering of crime rates from Freakonomics. Economics can be related to abortion. According to Levitt and Dubner, both economists who co-authored a bestselling book entired Freakonomics, legalized abortion reduced crime rates in some part of the United States.

      • xyxy permalink
        November 2, 2010 3:38

        This is what I got as a response from our continued discussion:

        “aha. the acorn simile.

        let me quote directly from Randy Alcorn.

        “The fetus may be alive, but so are eggs and sperm. The fetus is a potential human being, not an actual one; it’s like a blueprint not a house, an acorn not an oak tree.”

        4a. The ovum and sperm are each a product of another’s body; unlike the fertilized egg, neither is an independent entity.

        4b. The physical remains after an abortion indicate the end not of a potential life but of an actual life.

        4c. Something nonhuman does not become human by getting older and bigger; whatever is human must be human from the beginning.

        4d. Comparing preborns and adults to acorns and oaks is dehumanizing and misleading.

        4e. Even if the analogy were valid, scientifically speaking an acorn is simply a little oak tree, just as an embryo is a little person.”

        I believe someone had told me about that (Freakonomics article) before. I’ll start reading as soon as I have the time.

      • November 2, 2010 3:38

        I used the google to track the source you just gave me.

        I found this one: “There is substantial scientific reason to believe frozen embryos are persons, and should be granted the same rights as older, larger and less vulnerable persons.”

        Like I said, this is fundamentally a moral and philosophical issue. Here we’re talking about “rights”. If embryos are “persons”, then that’s a perversion of the concept of rights, because philosophically, rights pertain only to human beings. If we grant rights to “frozen embryos”, then it follows that our tonsils or appendix are also entitled to the same rights. A “potential” is not an actual person. The rights of the “living” or an “actual person” is superior to the condition of a potential human life.

        If we follow the logic and reasoning of these anti-abortion mystics, then both the woman and her fetus stand on an equal footing when it comes to “rights”. What if the woman could not possibly give birth without sacrificing her life? Do the rights of the “potential” precede the rights of the living? If that’s the case, then these anti-abortion mystics condemn every woman of the same physical illness to die.

  6. November 2, 2010 3:38

    Here’s a good argument against anti-abortion people written by Gina Liggett from Secular Government.

    The “pro-life” atheist assertion that “abortion is wrong because it kills an innocent human being” violates the law of identity, which Ayn Rand explains as: “To exist is to be something….it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes.”

    What is a human being? A common secular dictionary definition defines human as: “of, belonging to, or typical of man (Homo sapiens)… [and] having or showing qualities, as rationality or fallibility, viewed as distinctive of people.”

    Ayn Rand defines a human being as a living biological being with the distinctive characteristic of a kind of “consciousness able to abstract, to form concepts, to apprehend reality by a process of reason… [A human] is a rational animal.” Ayn Rand further explains that reason is a human’s fundamental means of survival, it is how an individual forms values and it must be exercised by one’s own volition. This is the essence of the human being, qua human (despite when things go wrong, like head injuries, birth defects, Alzheimer’s disease).

    To further elucidate the distinctiveness of the human being, it is through this uniquely human process of reason that knowledge about reality is not only sought, but communicated to others across time. We don’t have to wake up in the morning, discover electricity, manufacture a coffee pot, and discover how to cultivate and harvest foods to make fresh hot coffee. In contrast, every generation of animal, such as a wolf or squirrel, repeats the same cycles of reproducing, obtaining food and fighting predators according to the natures of their species — by the law of identity.

    What is an embryo? In the same vein, an embryo is not a human being. While an embryo possesses DNA just like the plant Botrychium lunaria, the quality of having DNA is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to meet the identity of a human being. An embryo, beginning with one cell containing a complete set of human DNA then developing into a fetus, has its own characteristic identity, like every other entity in the universe.

    The distinctive and essential characteristics of an embryo are that it is potential human life, it is physiologically attached to the human mother, and it undergoes embryological cell division and differentiation according to DNA “instructions.” Its survival and growth are entirely passive and autonomic, and completely dependent upon the biological viability of the mother it is attached to. It has not yet entered the world as an autonomous, singular, separate entity.

    An infant is a human being and so is a pregnant woman. But once it is born, even as a day-old infant, he is forced to interact with the world at large and begins the process of developing a capacity of reason that will enable him to survive — as human qua human. The infant begins with perceptual-level reasoning–he wails and screams when perceiving hunger or a wet diaper. In contrast, an embryo functions entirely autonomically, passively receiving nutrients via the umbilical cord attached to the placenta. A pregnant woman, whose faculty of reason has developed beyond the infantile perceptual level, has learned that she can meet her need for pickles and ice cream by going to the store. A different woman with an unwanted pregnancy decides that having a baby is not in her best interest according to the values she holds by choice, by reason.

    The atheist “pro-lifer” is dispensing with the law of identity which distinguishes a human being from an embryo when he says: “ is ludicrous to then go on to say that ‘it is the woman’s choice’ (to have an abortion). It is as ludicrous as saying that you believe slavery is wrong, but that people should still have the choice whether they buy a slave or not. Science tells us that abortion kills a human being.”

    This statement muddles two different entities. Science and the law of identity tell us that a slave and a pregnant woman are both human beings — but an embryo is not; it is an entity called “a potential human being.”

    A Human Being Has Rights, an Embryo Does Not

    Since I have established by the axiomatic law of identity that an embryo is not a human being, an embryo does not have the “inalienable right to life” written in our Constitution by the Founding Fathers, as some “pro-life” atheists claim. This becomes clear when you integrate the law of identity with a proper application of the concept of rights.


  7. cebukonomics permalink
    December 8, 2010 3:38

    In the first place, Jesus was a politician (no wonder he was crucified). hehehe. So i think these priests must imitate him. Well, i am just joking but maybe there’s some truth to that ay?

    ay vincent, i already linked you in my blog bai. merry christmas by the way.


  1. In Defense of the Troublesome, Meddslesome Catholic Church « THE VINCENTON POST
  2. “Pro-life” Arguments Against Abortion are Fallacious « THE VINCENTON POST
  3. Separation of Church and State Should be Pro-Freedom, Pro-Rights « THE VINCENTON POST
  4. When UAAP Meets RH Bill: It Means More Than ‘Academic’ Tension! « THE VINCENTON POST
  5. Taming the Tamer « THE VINCENTON POST

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: