Socialists and Filipino Freefarters Versus Free Speech
- NOTE: A blog commenter made the following observation: “I don’t agree with a lot of stuff on your blog, but to be honest, with this particular post you do have a point. While I am pro-RH myself for a number of reasons (which may be construed as “socialist” or maybe even “fascist” though I personally am not here to debate about that) I do agree that the Church should not be denied free speech, and that free speech should not be misconstrued as trying to “take control of the state.” However, I think the line of free speech ends when the Church AND their believers to resort to misinformation and scare tactics (condoms causing AIDS and sex education actually contributing to unwanted pregnancies being among them) in order to get people to come to their side, or when they make threats such as “civil disobedience” to politicians whose views run contrary to their own.” (You may read the rest of the comment here.)
Here’s my reply:
I believe it’s OK to disagree on certain issues so long as the parties don’t resort to force – or the advocacy thereof, whether consciously or subconsciously- dishonesty, misrepresentation and propaganda. When one resorts to these disgusting, anti-intellectual tactics, that’s when the other party has to make a moral judgment. By ‘moral judgment’ I mean one must be ready to judge and be judged, for this is the rule in a rational society. Of all the social groups and interested collectives that I detest, on top of them are the socialists and the Filipino Freethinkers. These people know what they’re doing, which makes them morally guilty. However, it is very possible that a lot of them are not that conscious of the kind of movement or advocacy they’re trying to promote.
For instance, the “leaders” of the socialists know what they’re doing while those in the lower ranks or the new recruits (physically and mentally) do not understand the nature of the organization or movement they support. As for the freethinkers, these people have a lot of contradictions. They claim they’re for the propagation of reason, science and freedom, yet they support social programs that are opposed to these ideals. I’ve explained this very extensively in my previous posts. That’s the reason why this group must be opposed intellectually. The way I see it, the FF is like the new “liberal of socialist” America many decades ago when the leftists hijacked the term “liberalism” for their revolutionary struggle. Liberalism is now a new faction, a new collective, of socialists in the United States. Now the FF serves as the new sanctuary for “confused” wannabe leftists, leftists-in-denial, confused statists, Machiavellians, neo-fasctists-by-heart, and ordinary individuals who just want to have an “intellectual refuge”.
The commenter also wrote: “However, I think the line of free speech ends when the Church AND their believers to resort to misinformation and scare tactics (condoms causing AIDS and sex education actually contributing to unwanted pregnancies being among them) in order to get people to come to their side, or when they make threats such as “civil disobedience” to politicians whose views run contrary to their own.”
I don’t think so. When no one’s individual rights is deprived or violated in the exercise of the Catholics’ right to free speech, then the Catholics should not be legally condemned. This is not just my view. This is part of our laws and jurisprudence, which we based on America’s legal and judicial system. This is the essence of freedom and individual liberties, things that some FF fanatics might reject because probably they’re not “scientific”.
I find this line so disturbing: “the line of free speech ends…” This is my problem with the leftists and the FF- they don’t really understand the proper concepts of individual rights, freedom, and government role. The implication of that line- “the line of free speech ends…”- is that the fear-mongering Catholics and religionists who spread false information may be held liable under the law. That’s the mentality of the leftists and communists. That’s EXACTLY the mentality of Edcel Lagman, author of the RHB, who’d like to punish ANYONE who’d engage in what he calls “malicious disinformation” about the “intents” and provisions of his bill. I read the bill. Did you?
Free speech is the hallmark of a free society. A mere act of disinformation is not and should not be made punishable simply because it’s against society’s norm or the taste of some group of people. If that’s the case, then we would slide back to the rule of savages again. That’s why I’m against that crime committed by Carlos Celdran called violation or infraction of “religious feelings.”
The Catholics have the very right to spread their alleged “disinformation campaign” just as the socialists and freethinkers also have the right to spread their lies and evil propaganda. If you want to prosecute the Catholics for spreading false disinformation (because that’s the implication of your statement) then what assurance do you have that the leftists and socialists should be exempt from this rule?
Lest I be misunderstood, I am against the Catholics position on the RHB. I am for the use of condoms, contraception and even abortion, however, I don’t believe these must be “financially” and “legally” guaranteed by the state/government. Don’t we all have the right to buy condoms, undergo vasectomy or ligation for women, practice family planning under the current setup?
You RH bill people are barking at the wrong tree! Well, it’s because you want the government to provide the poor and women with their RH care needs. Reason? Poverty and overpopulation. This is what I hate about these freethinkers whom I call freefarters. They claim they’re for science, but their position on the RH bill issue is so unscientific. It is true that as long as human beings exist on earth, population continues to grow. But it’s against freedom, against science, and against individual rights to give the state the power to control population in the name of poverty and the poor. Capitalism is the best tool of population control and the best way to fight poverty and I explained this matter in my previous posts so extensively.
By the way, I claim that I offer the best and the most comprehensive argument against RHB in the Philippines.