Comments on: How the CBCP turned our Congressmen into Cowards

By: Natasha Gregorio

Natasha Gregorio — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 21:10:27 +0000

@Ryan Tani:
Excellent article! I’ve really enjoyed reading this.

Also, I’d like to share it with quite a few FB groups, if you don’t mind. Its amazing how 2 years after you’ve written this, we’re still concerned about the same issue.

By: Twin-Skies

Twin-Skies — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 05:07:38 +0000

@atheist boom

Regarding Villegas and De Vera’s papers, I can’t say regarding credibility given they’re both affiliated with the Opus Dei – a group that to my experience has a habit of distoring their own research to suit their religious dogma.

By: Atheist BooM

Atheist BooM — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 06:36:02 +0000

@kako. As you sound like a thinking man, what do you think of this? It contains so many arguments pros and cons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_Health_Bill_%28Philippines%29

By: Reynor

Reynor — Mon, 17 May 2010 20:48:06 +0000

“To your last question, yes, this is political meddling. But it is in their right to do so. The church, when they speak as an institution, does not have the same right because they are a tax-exempt religious organization. But once they lose their tax-privileges, they can meddle all they want. ”

The tax-exemption is not a “reward” of a “favor” given to the Church. Given the services that the Church provides to the citizens of the state (e.g. charity, healthcare, education, etc…) which the state should be providing in the first place it is only logical and reasonable to not burden her with taxes. it is the least that the government can extend to an organization that does the job that they should be doing.

also, meddling is always wrong…tax free or not.

By: Reynor

Reynor — Mon, 17 May 2010 20:34:03 +0000

“If our Constitution was a Christian one, why do you think they’d need to add the separation of church and state?” -Ryan

The wall of separation between the church and state is meant to protect the church from the state. This is supposedly a common knowledge, a quick search about the separation will provide facts. it is not difficult at all to get it right.

By: Reynor

Reynor — Mon, 17 May 2010 20:29:34 +0000

it is not an intervention/meddling. the priest, bishops, and Lay Catholics are citizens of the Philippines with the same constitutional rights that all of us have, enjoy, and exercise.

it is nothing more than your freedom and your ability to say what you will against the priests, the believers, and the Church.

By: Reynor

Reynor — Mon, 17 May 2010 20:21:30 +0000

The crusade is an attempt to protect the pilgrims and holy sites.

By: yea

yea — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:58:15 +0000

lol the damn church spreads lies about contraceptives is that fckn advocacy?

By: reynor

reynor — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 01:15:30 +0000

Advocacy is not meddling. The Church only defends the right of the people, especially in practicing their religious beliefs. The wall is there because the state should remain within its boundaries making sure that its people have their freedom to do what their right and moral conscience are dictating them to do.

Implying the inverse is letting the state establish its own religion which we all know is, not only wrong, but also against our constitution.

By: Laïcité

Laïcité — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 09:39:03 +0000

Thus implying that the inverse is inapplicable, huh? That the state cannot meddle with the affairs of the church but the church can mess around with legislation and public policy?