RA 10175: Barely Constitutional

In a news report released last January 29, 2013, government lawyers admitted that Section 12 of RA 10175 is "barely constitutional." The said provision reads: “law enforcement authorities, with due cause, shall be authorized to collect or record by technical or electronic means traffic data in real-time associated with specified communications transmitted by means of a computer system.”

Although the special law defines traffic data as that which “refers only to the communication’s origin, destination, route, time, date, size, duration or type of underlying service but not content nor identities.” Unfortunately, any computer literate individual will know that in the process of collecting said data as defined by RA 10175, the police or any government agency engaging in data collection, will be able to secure more than those defined by RA 10175. It will then be left to the discretion of the collecting authority how to dispose or manage those that are not supposed to be collected. The problem with such proviso is that it will inevitably and undoubtedly open the floodgates for abuse and exploitation. Can we really risk our private data to the honesty and good will, not to mention impeccable self-control and discipline, of our police officers or any government agency tasked with data collection?

RA 10175 also makes essential internet social communication functions such as "liking" or "sharing" in such tools as Facebook potential grounds for criminal conviction. This is clearly an affront to the basic right to an open and free communication channels as enshrined in the 1987 Philippine Constitution, specifically Art. III, Section 4 which states: "No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances."

It is just fitting and proper that the Supreme Court declare RA 10175 fundamentally unconstitutional and unfit for a modern, secular, and democratic state like the Philippines.

The Legacy of Religious Tyranny and Carlos Celdran

Metropolitan Trial Court Judge Juan Bermejo Jr. recently sentenced activist and Manila tour guide Carlos Celdran to a minimum of two months imprisonment and a maximum of one year for violating Art.  133 of the Revised Penal Code "Offending Religious Feelings" for the September 30, 2010 incident in which the former raised a placard with the word "DAMASO" at Manila Cathedral during a religious service. This happened at a time when fierce public debate was raging regarding the ratification of the Reproductive Health Bill then pending in both houses of Congress.

The fact that Art. 133 is still enshrined in the RPC of the Philippines is a testament to the critical need to revise many provisions of the RPC. Such provisions were promulgated at a time of religious tyranny when the Philippines was under the clerical and secular imperialism of Spain. There is a need to trash and bury such provisions in the dustbins of history. A modern, republican and supposedly democratic state like the Philippines has no room for religious bigotry in its laws. The essence indeed of democracy is the free, open and lively expression of variegated ideas and opinions - with a view of course to respectful exercise of such rights.

Although Celdran did not technically commit blasphemy, the right to express opposing views to established religion is a right and in fact, is a human right. On September 12, 2011 the United Nations' International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) promulgated General Comment (GC) No. 34, paragraph 3 of which reads: "Freedom of expression is a necessary condition for the realization of the principles of transparency and accountability that are, in turn, essential for the promotion and protection of human rights."In addition, paragraph 9 of the same adds: "All forms of opinion are protected, including opinions of a political, scientific, historic, moral or RELIGIOUS NATURE."

The Philippine 1987 Constitution, Article II, Section 2, portion of which states: "The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy and adopts the generally accepted PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AS PART OF THE LAW OF THE LAND...." As such, GC No. 34, being a generally accepted principle of international law, should be considered in revising provisions of the penal code, and such provisions as Art. 133 should be immediately scraped off from our penal book.

Blasphemy is a human right and should be allowed to stand in a modern, secular, republican state. Let religious bygones be bygones.

Love Lost in the Speck of Time

Unspoken memes of aching hurts
Traversing the paths of lonely nights
Searching for a hold in the darkness
Dreaming of your hands
Hoping for your breath
Come to me and hold my heart
And let time not wash away
Quivering longing that I have
For your touch and be not alone
In that moment of emptiness
Fill my void and be my light
Embrace my trust and let not be
Love lost in the speck of time.

Science and Religion: Conflicting or Complimentary

As a philosophy student way back in the early 1990's, I wrote a paper regarding science and religion, precisely the title of this article. It was my first foray into the perpetual tangle between science and religion. This question has been asked for centuries now, and has always aroused emotions between the defenders of science and the apologists of religion.

The perpetual question that have always bedeviled me is whether science and religion can really be complimentary, or that they will always be conflicting. I will herein present the two sides of the spectrum - the cold facts of science and the revelation of religion.

The question that has always ignited the oftentimes cantankerous relationship between science and religion is the nature of the interpretation of religious texts. In this case, I will focus on the Christian Bible. The tussle between science and religion rests essentially on the insistence on the part of Christian fundamentalists that the Bible is the word of God and should be interpreted in its literal sense. They insist on its literal and unambiguous truth.

Philo of Alexandria once said that the Bible cannot be interpreted literally. It reveals a far deeper truth than the words it signifies. This video shows the historical basis of the conflict between science and religion from the perspective a Christian believer who also believes in science, particularly evolution. The video shows that historically, Christianity was always open to religion but was only hijacked by the extremist views of 19th Century Christian fundamentalists. According to Fr. Gregory Tatum of the Ecole Biblique, the church fathers did not ask if the Bible is literally true but rather what are the truths that the Bible reveals. St. Augustine even wrote an article titled "The Literal interpretation of Genesis" and warned Christians not to interpret the Bible literally as it would deprive the Christian of theological reflection.

The original poster boy for the scientific side has always been Charles Darwin, although he would never have been comfortable with such designation. Indeed, Darwin waited for at least 8 years before he published his his ideas in the new famous "The Origin of the Species." The Darwinian assertion that life evolved and developed over time and that life is a product of its adapting to the changes in the environment was anathema to Christian fundamentalists. The reformation led by Martin Luther opened the Bible to interpretation from various quarters of the Christian world. And this is what practically happened in 1650 in Ireland when Bishop James Usher computed, based on the Bible, astronomy, languages, ancient calendars and chronology that the world began on the night of 22 October 4004 B.C. This sealed the rift between Science and Religion, for now, Christian fundamentalists have a "proof" as to when the world actually began. This idea has been carried on until today, fed by Christian Evangelicals in the U.S., who vociferously assert that from Usher's computations, the world is only 6,000 years old. Such unfortunate event is what St. Augustine warned against, the literal interpretation of the Bible.

In 1859, England was at the height of the Victorian Age, when Darwin released his now famous book. This  created a firestorm. The arrival of the Industrial Revolution saw the proliferation of machines and in this zeitgeist, William Paley formulated his "Watch Theory" which asserts that since life is a complicated system, much like the machines that powered England in the Industrial Revolution, then life must have been designed by an Intelligent Creator. In the same way that a watch, with its complexity and working mechanisms cannot appear without a designer, so much so life, with its symmetry and equally complex systems.

It is interesting to note that when Darwin's book "The Origin of the Species" was released, English society was actually accepting of it. The problem rose really in the 1920's in America. In the 1920's, the Dayton, Tennessee trials of John Scopes essentially cemented the animosity between Christian fundamentalists and science which has prevailed up to now. In the end, Scopes was convicted of teaching evolution in violation the Butler Act, a Tennessee law which prohibited the teaching of evolution in Tennessee.

The rise of commercialism in America in the 1960's scandalized conservative Christians, the proliferation of premarital sex, divorce, abortion among others galvanized the Christian right to move ever more deeper into conservatism, insisting that societal ills can only be cured by going back to the Bible and interpreting it in no other way but the literal one.

On the other side, science promoters like Richard Dawkin's "The God Delusion" propounds on the uselessness of God in modern society. Dawkin has been at times labeled as the other extreme of the scientific side known as "ultra-Darwinism" which teaches that all life is governed by biological factors and rejects the intervention of any god in the development of life. Paley's "Watch Analogy" however was reincarnated as "Intelligent Design" by contemporary evangelical Christians. Intelligent Design is even promoted as a science. However, it is peculiar in that it defines God as an active participant in the progress of creation and life. Such insistence has however brought the idea into much trouble, for it would imply that the Christian God, if he intervenes actively in the natural order, could have prevented the evils in society such as, among others, the murder of 6 million Jews in World War II. Such failure to prevent a monstrosity has led many Christians to abandon Christianity and has been a steady ammunition for atheists that the question of god is a meaningless and utterly baseless endeavor.

Is Science and Religion therefore mutually exclusive? Does belief in evolution lead to atheism?

Science is based on the scientific method which involves the formulation of hypothesis, the conduct of experimentation, analysis of data taken and the arrival of a conclusion. It is based on experimentation and is essentially a cumulative endeavor, involving the work of scientists over time. It does not claim a permanent truth but relies on new ideas, new techniques, new processes. Science is open to any possibility, it does not judge with finality but is receptive to new knowledge.

On the other hand, religion is essentially static and revealed. It's truth is based on the assumptions of its 'sacred literature' and is not open for individual verification. In fact, most religions rely on a body of clergy that is responsible for interpreting its core beliefs and values. In essence, religion is closed to creativity and rigid with regards to its fundamental assertions.

Some would like to insist that religion and science can co-exist and that it is possible to believe in science and evolution and be a Christian. While it is tempting to say that indeed it is, at its core, belief in evolution in particular and science in general implies the acceptance of the scientific method as the basis for ascertaining truths of the world and the rejection of unverified beliefs which is essentially the nature of religion. It is no accident that we call the belief in the unverifiable as faith, for faith requires no proof.

In the same way, a true believer in religion, with its closed and rigid structure of beliefs, can never really accept science because science is based on testable, repeatable, mostly verifiable beliefs, and those that cannot be verified experimentally, are theoretically discovered through the language of mathematics and physics. Religious beliefs are mostly based on religious literature, traditions and the cultural experiences of its original adherents suffused with the cultural experiences of its various believers across the world.

In the end, one has to choose which will govern his perception of reality - the hard, cold facts of science or the mystical truths of religious experience. Science and religion therefore are like water and oil, they will never mix.

MOVIE REVIEW: Anna Karenina (2012)

Leo Tolstoy's Anna Karenina is reincarnated in this artfully crafted and beautifully acted feature film. The Alexei Karenin of Jude Law was truly masterfully presented. Karenin exuded authority, wisdom, calm and I should say stoic strength. Keira Knightley's Anna Karenina was superb in her presentation of a love-struck aristocrat seemingly oblivious to the consequences of her actions in the strict norms of the upper crust. Aaron Taylor-Johnson's Count Vronsky was a teenage-like love smitten cavalry officer who was blinded by passion and broke societal conventions of his class. Domhall Gleeson's Konstantin Levin was a hardworking, sensible aristocrat who freely mingled and worked with his peasants. Rejected initially by Kitty, he nevertheless never lost his love for her. They were eventually married. Alicia Vikander's Kitty was a truly surprising character, initially attracted to Count Vronsky and possible life as a countess, she nevertheless showed true compassion for Levin's dying brother Nikolai, by taking care of him during his dying days, surprising even her husband Levin.

The movie presented the life of the Russian aristocracy as a shielded, choreographed routine. This was shown by the various scenes in the movie occurring in a stage. In fact, the movie open's with the characters on stage and practically ends with Karenin on stage. As with other aristocratic societies, the Russian elite lived their lives like a show, full of pomp, pageantry, drama and tragedies.

The movie captured the message of Leo Tolstoy's Anna Karenina in a modern, artistic, intellectual, non-judgmental way. Like the novel upon which it was based, it was a story of family, love, passion, pain, forgiveness, reconciliation, commitment, understanding and betrayal. The central core of the movie revolves around the interplay of societal norms, family and individual choice. As with the ordinary man, the elite too depends upon the family as a shield, an anchor and an avenue upon which a person extends himself to society. Society exerts a powerful influence on the individual's choices, the higher the social standing, the stricter the standard of conduct. Individual choices then are made in consideration of the family's needs and society's norms, breaking such can cause the individual and the family to suffer.

Tension is inevitable when the individual breaks the mores of accepted social behavior and such pressure can indeed have a radical impact on the individual. In the end, the movie's and the novel's protagonist, Anna Karenina, ends her life as the pressure of a broken marriage and the interests of a young, rich aristocratic lover slowly pinch on her expectations. The possibility of losing a love that has cost so much and has hurt so many was just too much for Anna and the frustration of it all, the perceived impending pain has lured her to the tracks of the train to end her life.

Which came first - the Chicken or the Egg?

This question has been asked to me since I was a young boy. Indeed, as a graduate of philosophy, this has become one of the most perplexing, yet seemingly simple question. I recently watched a video of such in which the question is being creatively tackled again. The author of the video asserts that it is the egg who came first. He presented the question: how do we define the egg? Is it merely one laid by a chicken or an egg which contains a chicken.

Then he presented two sides of the spectrum, the first he called the Team Chicken, from the name, we can surmise that these team proposes that the chicken came first because an essential protein for the formation of  eggs, OV-17, is only found in the ovaries of a hen. So without a chicken, the author surmises, there would, technically, be no egg, hence chicken would come first.

Then he presented the question earlier stated in the first paragraph: how will egg be defined? And then he gave an example to illustrate the trickiness involved in such question, if an elephant lays an egg which hatches into a lion, how will the egg be called? Lion egg or elephant egg.

The author then proceeds to present the side of Team Egg. This team asserts that in the production of an egg, genetic information from both parents (in this case, the hen and the rooster), would contribute one half each of their genes to the new egg, in the process of development and with the influence of evolutionary forces such as environment and diet, tweeks on the developing embryo may happen that would then produce a slightly different organism. This would then lead to the appearance of a sort of a proto-chicken. This proto-chicken would then mate with another proto-chicken from which they will produce an egg, which, affected by small mutations as it develops then produces the chicken. So in this case, the egg came first.

The author concludes that regardless of how the egg is defined, whether it is a chicken egg or a proto-chicken egg, the egg would have come first.

This is my take. First of all, the definition of chicken egg. This is a semantic play of words. When we say chicken egg, the ordinary definition should, I believe, be one which must be taken into account. An ordinary definition is one which is understood and accepted by most people of a given language to be what it symbolizes for. When we say chicken egg, the ordinary definition, as understood by people of prudence and sound mind, is one laid by a chicken, NOT AN EGG WITH A CHICKEN. Otherwise, we could call it Ostrich egg for example.

On the question therefore as to how an elephant who lays an egg which hatches into a lion be called. Elephant egg or lion egg? Of course, for arguments sake, it is Elephant egg. Why? because at least in the English language, when the subject comes first before its description, the subject owns the description. That is the ordinary definition. Hence, most English language speakers would understand an elephant egg is one laid by an elephant, regardless of what it actually hatches into. We should not create confusion when none is. The principle of parsimony applies here.

An egg is a product of something, in philosophy, it is a potentiality. A potentiality is something that is still not an actuality. In other words, it has not yet reached its biologic potential in this case. An egg will always be a product of something. In the video, the development into a chicken could have been made by proto-chicken who laid eggs that mutated and gave rise to the chicken, which then laid the egg. The author suggests that since the chicken come from a proto-chicken that mutated, the egg came first.

However, although it is true that the chicken is a product, technically, by the mutation of the egg of proto-chicken, why then should we exclusively define chicken only as the mutated one. Isn't the proto-chicken a chicken also? So the chicken would still come first. There would have been no chicken if the proto-chicken did not mate in the first place. Although such proto-chicken did not produce the usual chicken, it does not mean that they are no longer classified as chicken.

Even by any stretch of the imagination, the egg will never come first because it is not an actuality. It has yet to achieve its potentials as a thing. It is like asking which came first, the mother or the baby. Even the new chicken which rose from the proto-chicken egg will still share many characteristics of its proto-chicken forebears until eventually, by evolutionary processes, it eventually branches out to a separate taxonomic classification. Even then, it will still belong to a larger grouping with its proto-chicken origins.

From a philosophical perspective, the chicken would still come first. An egg by its very definition is a potentiality produced by an actuality. The hen is the actuality. A potentiality is one which has not yet achieved its actuality. An actuality is one which has reached its biologic potentials. So strictly speaking, the chicken would still come first. Even if the mutation occurred after the egg was laid, the mutation would not still be possible if the egg was not laid in the first place and no chicken would exist if it was not hatched. In other words, the chicken, even though it is still a proto-chicken, is still a chicken and still would have come first.

So emphatically I would say that the chicken will come first. The chicken will come first because an egg, even if mutations will take place after it is laid, would still not have been technically possible itself if the chicken did not reach its potentials first. Even if the chicken reached its biologic potential for example, if it could not find a mate, then no egg would still be produced.

The Truth of the Bible

I have become a secular humanist for about three years now. Sometime in 2012, a friend of mine converted from Catholicism to a little fringe Christian fundamentalist sect. After his conversion, gatherings with mutual friends became an exercise in emotional self-control on my part and practically a proselytizing session on his part. On my part, I was resisting the urge, which I could not for long contain, to air my doubts with regards to organized religion. That friend of mine became indoctrinated in a Christian sect that emphasizes and believes in the literal interpretation and reading of the Bible. As such, outings with friends were fraught with uneasiness, at least for the rest of us, as he no longer ate most of the food sold in stores. This was, according t him, in keeping with the teachings of the Bible.

On one incident, he commented that alcohol intake is prohibited in his faith. When I asked him why, he said that it was forbidden in the Bible. When I told him even Jesus drank wine, he responded by saying that actually they are allowed to drink alcoholic beverages, as long as the alcohol content is less than 5%. I then retorted, what is your basis? When Jesus drank wine, was the alcohol content known, and did the Bible actually specify the allowable alcohol content? He just shrugged his shoulders.

It is tragic indeed that fundamentalist Christians spend their lives chained to the literal interpretation of the Bible, and such belief has actually made them ever more arrogant, judgmental and hubristic. I can actually see the difference, or the change in my friends outlook in life - for me, it was a change for the worse as he became, as I said earlier, arrogant, judgmental and hubristic.

Nevertheless, being friends, I still tried to communicate with him as any normal friend would, with calm and reason. In a gathering after work, which we usually did during weekends, we came to talking about the author of the Genesis, the first book of the Bible. According to my friend, let us just call him A, Moses is the author of Genesis, and the other first four books of the Bible. I pressed him on this, and according to him, that is what his religion teaches. I demonstrated to him evidences that will show that Genesis could not have been written by one person. Take for example the first chapter of Genesis, it talks about the creation of the world. In chapter one, god created the universe and separated light and day on the first day, on the second day god separated the sky from the water, third day: land appeared and plants grew, fourth day: light was made to appear to separate day from night (I thought god already did this on the first day?), creating the sun to provide light for the day and the moon to provide light for the night (mmmm, isn't the sun the source of light in the first place?) , fifth day: animals were created, sixth day: god created human beings (it's not specified if they were male and female), only that humans were created (this of course tells us that males and females were created at the same time); seventh and last day: god made the seventh day a special day and he rested.

In chapter two of Genesis, this is the order of creation: man (as in the XY gene), followed by plants, then animals, then woman. It is safe to say that in chapter two creation story version, man was created ahead of plans and animals, yet in chapter one, plants and animals were created ahead of man. If the Genesis was written by one person, then how could that same person say two inconsistent versions of the same story in two consecutive chapters? Wouldn't he have noticed that he just wrote a version different from the one he earlier wrote? Researchers have concluded that this is one indication that the Genesis story was not written by one person.

I told my friend that another evidence that Genesis could not have been written by Moses can be found in the last book of the Deuterocanonicals, Deuteronomy Chapter 34. Chapter 34 talks about the death of Moses in a third person voice. If Moses wrote it, then he could not have died before it was written, especially since the tone of the chapter is from someone who actually witnessed the death of someone. Chapter four essentially describes the incidents occurring before Moses' supposed death. If Moses wrote it, it would lead to an absurdity since it would imply that he was actually present when he died! Verse one of the chapter: "Moses went up from the plains of the Moab to Mount Nebo, to the top of Mount Pisgah east of Jericho, and there the Lord showed him the whole land: the territory of Gilead as far north as the town of Dan:"

The Bible is considered by fundamentalist Christians as true literally and historically in its totality. Although it can be proven by archeology that there are certain things in the Bible that can be confirmed independently, at least with regards to the names of the places during Jesus' time, there are many things that are just not historically accurate, or  real for that matter. The wandering for example of the Jews in the desert for forty years is not supported by facts on the ground. The desert being referred to here is most likely the Sinai Desert, as this story happened after the Jews escaped from enslavement in Egypt on its way to the promised land. Archeologists have never found any traces of civilization in the Sinai. If the Jews were really wandering in that area for forty years, it would be impossible for them not to have left anything.

Eventually, my friend and I, together with our circle of friends, eventually drifted apart, but not only because his interests have already differed, but because we were no longer working in the same company, having been retrenched from work the previous semester.

It would be safe to assume that I lost a friend to fundamentalism. I think religion is more often a bane to man than a boon as it deprives man of his rationality and sense of humanism. And to be sucked into a life of religious fundamentalism is doubly more tragic, as one is straitjacketed into a set of beliefs that are at most irrational and baseless, even cruel and inhuman. It is tragic that one of the most self-disciplined and fun persons I have ever met, not to mention intelligent and logical, was brainwashed into a life of complete rational darkness and blind belief. But then again, he moved into that way of life after we were unceremoniously retrenched from work, and deep in my mind, I have always believed that it was probably his way of coping with losing a job he so dearly, we so dearly valued and loved. And that is something that I cannot condemn him for - man has always sought avenues for coping with the harsh realities of life. And for my friend A, it was into the arms of a religion that answered everything in black and white, were thinking no longer is needed as answers were ready and packaged to be given.

There will always linger in me what ifs. What if we were not retrenched? Would he still have drifted to fundamentalism? Bertrand Russel once said that "religion is a defensive reaction against the destructive forces of nature." And I think he is right.

White Wine Confessions

Clear and crystal it stands
In shapely glasses and fine exotic cocktails
To flavor and spice a swirling lip
And savor the sweet lumps of success
Tell me what is life?
If but a search for your comely, unique
Unabashed, dashing, eternal desire
And open hearts and loosen minds
Whispers of silence, taking sides
Kaleidoscope of laughs and smiles
Revealing insights, shocking lines
And awaken in a morning of dread
Dried and dreamy lips and eyes
Say to the rising sun
Did I say I was last night
A man full of wine?

The NRA and Guns, Ibid. Alex Jones

The rabid, almost psychotic reactions of gun enthusiasts and its body politic, the National Rifle Association when President Barack Obama placed initiatives to control the sale of automatic weapons speaks of the fanatical almost religious zeal the NRA and its brood of gun-o-philes sees its right to own weapons, even military grade. Their oft repeated logic: only by increasing gun ownership can the safety of individual citizens and their families be truly secured. Yet studies have consistently shown that among OECD countries, America has consistently ranked high, indeed number 1, in gun related deaths. Of course, the NRA will have none of this. The argument will then move on to the Second Amendment. Indeed, this is the be-all and the end-all of its paramount no-excuse dogma that gun ownership is a constitutionally guaranteed right, and because it is so, it cannot be regulated. The NRA, in essence, practically wants an unlimited exercise of that right, but alas, even rights have to be regulated, that is why in our constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech, there are attendant laws that accompany the exercise of such right such as libel and slander laws.

It is unfathomable that the likes of Alex Jones shout there away around gun arguments, as if to prove that by their crass loudness, they are able to articulate a more reasoned approach to the discussion. For the NRA and its single minded gun lovers, it is all or nothing - fanaticism at its height indeed. In fact, their insistence that their way is the only way smacks of religious fanaticism that we have become inconveniently accustomed to lately.

The NRA's insistence on a free for all gun spree smacks of common sense and elementary self-reflection, it is like saying that to lessen the incidence of household fires, each resident of the house should be provided with a lighter. The NRA seems to forget that violence becomes more accessible when instruments to its mass perpetration becomes conveniently accessible and widely available. In 2008, there were approximately 12,000 gun-related violence in the U.S.,  in Japan, were gun ownership is even more strict, there were 11.

Of course, if you ask the NRA, you will get the same diatribe about how guns keep the peace, ensures security for the individual and his family, and guarantees that the government will not become tyrannical, and if it does, then to shoot at it. Jeeez, not only is such arguments convoluted and primeval, it is almost juvenile and immature. There is a need therefore for the likes of Alex Jones, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh to see a shrink!

No good to Annex the West Bank

An article by Larry Derfner in Foreign Policy as to the possibility that Israel may annex the West Bank caught my attention. If indeed that happens, the article posits that Israel would be giving Israeli citizenship to 50,000 Palestinians. And with citizenship, such Palestinians will be eligible to vote.

I do not in the least believe that the current Prime Minister of Israel is seriously considering such proposal. If the aforesaid Palestinians are allowed to become citizens of Israel, they can have the potential to affect Israeli society and its very own survival as the Palestinians will now have a voice in the management of its conflicts with the rest of the Arab world. I do not believe that such Palestinians, if given Israeli citizenship, will have a solid loyalty to the Jewish state. If another war breaks between Israel and the Arab world, will they fight for example?

Demographic suicide is what will happen if Israel grants citizenship to more Palestinians. There are already Israeli Arabs, I do not think adding more Arabs to Israeli society will have a positive, long term benefit for the survival of the Jewish state. However, if Israel annexes the West Bank, it would also be bad PR if they will not grant citizenship because the alternative would be to marginalize the Palestinians. This will be another apartheid that will surely tarnish the international standing of Israel.

The government of Bibi, if he gets elected again in this months election, should not therefore annex the West Bank and to let the status quo stand. The settlements in the West Bank will have to stay in the West Bank but the West Bank itself should not have an official political status in Israel. While the current state of things suggest that the settlements in the West Bank are part of Israel, Israel should not officially annex it. It will create more problems than it benefits.

The whole of Jerusalem should be forever solidified as the capital of Israel, and the current actions of the Bibi government to do such that is a good and welcome development. I do not believe that the establishment of a Palestinian state will bring long term security guarantees for Israel. There will always be that destabilizing force in Palestinian society that will never accept a Jewish state and honestly, at the back of every Palestinian's mind, there will always be that eternal simmering desire to exterminate the Jewish state. Therefore, a Palestinian state may only be a future platform for Hamas to launch its anti-Israel diatribes. And such will not always be in words.

The Palestinians will have to unite first and must have a solid leadership structure that can speak for the whole Palestinian interests for any meaningful results to happen. In its current state, the Palestinians are ruled by two systems, a secular Fatah in the West Bank and a radical, Islamist Hamas in Gaza. A Palestinian state in the West Bank would be impotent in ensuring that Israel will live in peace.

The Palestinians will have to unequivocally reject the destruction of Israel mantra, recognize its right to exist, renounce violence as a negotiating tool, and be ruled by one system of government that is secular and moderate, unless all of these can happen, there can be no peace for Israel. Israel however, cannot and should not annex the West Bank as it will, if it will absorb its Palestinian inhabitants, be a demographic suicide for Israel. That is in itself a threat Israel's existence and integrity.

Algeria and Islamic Terrorism

The recently concluded operation of the Algerian military against a terrorist attack on one of its gas fields demonstrate that Algeria has no patience, and definitely no minutiae of respect for any form of terrorism. The Islamist rebels that have wrecked havoc in Mali have met their match in a government determined to exert its sovereignty and defend its interests against any and all threats by refusing to negotiate with the rebels. As of date, all the rebels have been killed, although some reports indicate that four of the terrorists were captured alive. It is worthy to note however, that many of the hostages were also killed in the operation.

In a way, the strong armed, no nonsense approach of the Algerian government shows that it has no patience for any talks with any terrorist threat. Its response is unequivocal in its message: do not mess with us. This will send a very, very strong message to would be terrorists or terrorist misadventures that they will be met with force, and force alone. Future terrorists, and in no uncertain terms, especially Islamic terrorists, will undoubtedly get the message that to mess with Algeria is to sentence themselves to death.

Personally, I support the strong handed response of the Algerian government. Without doubt, terrorists speak in the language of violence, and only by and through violence can one truly communicate with them. Harsh may this seem, this is unfortunately the reality of modern Islamic terrorism. As these are no ordinary political movements, extraordinary means have to be used. To negotiate with Islamic terrorists is to recognize their power, and recognition of their power, however subtle and sublime, gives them the impression and the bravado to commit ever more brutal and violent escapades.

However, such no-negotiation tactics will also send the message to terrorists that only the murder of hostages will show their solid determination to mean what they demand, whatever that may be. Their is a possibility that should another hostage event happen again, the first thing that terrorists would do would be to liquidate a good number of hostages to send a message that if no negotiations take place and no demands are met, the brutal possibility that all hostages will have to die becomes the overriding policy.

The Algerian government therefore has to step up operations within its border regions to clamp down on the unhindered movement of the terrorists, this has allowed the terrorists to take the gas field in question in the first place. By concerted and heightened patrol of the border regions, the Algerian government can significantly paralyze the operations of the Islamic terrorists that have taken over northern Mali.

Coupled with the operations of the French military inside Mali itself, with the assistance of some African troops, the global community can prevent another cancerous Islamic terrorist lump from growing  in West Africa, and potentially save the lives of hundreds of people the world over.

MOVIE REVIEW: Les Miserables (2012 Film)

For a classic story, the movie presented itself in more ways than one a universal, timeless tale of passion, love, patriotism, commitment, struggle, heartache, camaraderie, hope, salvation, justice, mercy, compassion and the search for meaning.

True to its christened title, in no uncertain terms is suffering and pain unequivocally depicted in such depressing and relatable manner. Hugh Jackman's Jean Valjean was dreary masterfully played to convey that universal human longing for a better life. Russel Crowe's Javert was as passionate in his unrelenting quest to capture a past escapee as he is in searching for his life's meaning. Anne Hathaway's Fatine was the epitome of a mother - dying for her child's future in the murky underbelly of prostitution. Amanda Seyfried's Cosette and Eddie Redmayne's Marius Pontmercy captures love longing for each other amidst pain and the pinchin vicissitudes of life. Samantha Barks's Eponine shows that perpetual irony of love - dying for it.

It is surprising that for a secular humanist such as myself, the best line of the movie I would say is: To love someone is to see the face of God. Indeed, to see the face of God is to see the essence of man and to discover the endless possibilities that is man himself.

The War in Syria and its Human Tragedy

The war in Syria will be almost two years now and there is no sign that it is going to get any better. The rebels are gaining more ground but the government of Bashar al-Assad is holding its own. The spectre for an even greater humanitarian tragedy than it already is is getting ever more real by the day. And upon all these suffering, it is the women and children, the sick and the disabled, the weak and the poor that are and will continue to suffer.

Bashar al-Assad will definitely fight on as long as he can, for as long as he can to a possibly very long stalemante. He will never abandon Damascus until all cards have been played and until his government can no longer defend and sustain the fighting. I believe he knows that he will never be able to rule Syria as before, so he will fight rather to keep the interests of the Alawite community to which he, his family and most senior members of his government and military belong.

The Syrian Civil War will range on through 2013 and will only be predictable, concerning its end, when Russia and China publicly withdraws its support for al-Assad's government. In as much as the rebels are determined to fight on, the government is equally determined to hold them at bay. The Alawites know very well that the collapse of the al-Assad dynasty will bring social, economic and religious marginalization at its best and reprisals at its worst.

If and when the rebels finally gain a foothold in Damascus, the Alawites will barricade themselves in their heartland - the eastern coast of Syria and the Alawite mountains bordering Lebanon. The new government will have to wrestle the Alawites to submission, which could prolong the war again for many years at best. I am sure that once the rebels win, the Islamists will  most likely grab power and impose a religious rule over Syria. The Christian minority will most likely ally themselves with the Alawites, and in an Islamist dominated rebel government, they will be persecuted. The scale of human tragedy will definitely not end with the fall of the al-Assads.

The future is bleak for Syria at it is now. Social reintegration will not be taking place for the forceable future, regardless who eventually ends up in power in Damascus.

The Arab Spring will have finally brought forth the downfall of four Arab governments and the potential to unseat the Hashemites of Jordan. When it does, the scale of human cost will once again rise.

The question is, will Saudi Arabia be next?

The Tyranny of Catholicism

It is ironic that for a church founded on compassion, love, charity and the so-called "preferential option for the poor," the Catholic Church, and especially the Catholic Church in the Philippines, has been anything but. Looking back at the history of the Catholic Church and how it practically exploited and raped its way (literally and figuratively) into the consciousness of the Filipino psyche is appalling to say the least. During the Spanish period, the Church, for all intents and purposes, was the Spanish authority. Indeed, secular Spanish authorities were only found in the large cities of Manila and Cebu, if at all. And even then, they always, always, deferred to the whims and caprices to the men in the frock. In all Christian Philippines of the Castilian period, the authority, secular and  ecclesiastical, was the Church as personified by its priests and religious.

The Church was so powerful it controlled vast tracts of land, effectively enriching itself and essentially pauperizing the Filipino masses which it has always, always looked upon with disdain. Why else would they not, after more than 350 years of occupation, not teach Spanish to the Indios? It was simply because of that hateful disdain and contempt to the Filipino masses. It is ironic that all these brutal realities are now forgotten. What has changed? Whereas in the Spanish period abuse was incarnated in the Castilian import, now, we have our own homegrown Filipino clergy who has taken on the mantle of continued spiritual and moral exploitation of the Filipino.

There were many abuses committed by the Church, for one, they executed Jose Rizal. For what? Essentially for fighting for the human rights of the Filipino people. For fighting to have the Filipino be treated with respect, compassion and humanity it rightly deserves.

During the height of the cantakerous fight for the Reproductive Health Bill, the Church again reared its ugly dark malicious side. It wanted Filipinos deprived of the right to plan their families, to have access to contraceptives that will eventually have a profound impact on the health, well-being and future of the mother but most of all, the future all members of the family, the children most of all. The Church opposed it because it was in its view immoral. In fact, it preferred that women continue to bear children they can never even care for, let alone provide a decent life and future, as long as the dogma it chose to enshrine is maintained. Regardless of what its practical and real world implications were. For the church, dogma comes first and foremost, the rest will have to follow. It does not care for the Filipino, it only cares that its dogma be at all costs be maintained. Control is what it has always wanted. Control over the lives of the Filipino people.

That is why a Filipino patriot and nationalist can never be a man of faith. He can only be a Filipino patriot and nationalist if he frees himself from the blind, unreasonable and immoral constructs of organized religion. Only through his belief in rationality, science and society can a Filipino serve the Filipino and the country that badly needs heroes.

I would like to end with an article by Valerie Tarico, who more than enough captures the perennial tyranny that is Catholicism.

Most Common Fallacies Used by Creationists

Fallacies:

1. Ad Hominem Argument - issuing an attack on the person making the argument instead of the argument.

2. Appeal to the Majority (ad populum argument) - since many people believe it, it is the truth.

3. Quote Mining - lifting out quotes from various literary sources, usually to support once argument and taken in the wrong context.

3. Man-on-the-street Interview - combination of appeal to majority and quote mining. Getting opinions from anyone randomly on the street.

4. Foundational Bias - admitting bias towards a certain conclusion before making an argument. Based on personal belief and preference.

5. Straw Man Argument - misrepresenting or oversimplification of an opponents argument and destroying it because it is too simplistic. Not responding to the substance of the argument.

6. Hasty Generalization - drawing conclusions from a minor subset of data.

7. Argument from Authority - using an authority on a subject to validate once arguments and exempting such arguments from criticism because they were made by a person in authority.

8. Non sequitur - "Does not follow." Does not follow from a logical train of thought. No relation with what is in reality.

9. Red Herring - a distraction technique. Making an irrelevant point to a point made, although it might be valid.

10. Argument from personal incredulity - because a person does not like or believe something, it is false.

11. Argument from ignorance - a premise is false because it has not been proven true and vice versa. "God of the gaps."

12. Violation of the Philosophy of Science - Science and the scientific method cannot be used to explain the supernatural.

13. Equivocation - misleading use of a word with more than one meaning. "theory" in science is different from theory in the conventional sense of the word.

14. False Dichotomy - two mutually exclusive options are set up as the only possible choices, if one is true the other is false. Fallacy: they might not be mutually exclusive.

15. Begging the Question - "Circular Reasoning." Conclusion is explicitly or implicitly assumed in the premise.

16. Tautology - premise and conclusion of an argument are identical. Does not prove anything.

17. False Premise - the conclusion of an argument is invalidated by an incorrect assumption in one of the premises.

18. Ad Hoc Reasoning - "For this purpose." Salvages an argument that rests upon a shaky foundation.

19. Slippery Slope - accepting a certain argument will lead to an undesirable outcome so the argument is false.

20. Correlation Implies Causation - because two events are correlated, they have a cause and effect
relationship.

21. Creative Math - odds of something happening without a given argument (e.g. Creationism) is small.

22. Moving the Goalposts - rules to obtain a satisfactory completion of a goal is changed just as it is being accomplished.

23. Plain Nonsense - massive disconnect from reality.

24. Outright Lie



Source

Tax Evasion in the Philippines

A January 15, 2013 report in inquirer.net regarding the rampant incidence of tax evasion among professionals in the Philippines was disheartening to note, not the least because these people are supposed to be professionals, and such actions are not only unpatriotic, they are utterly unprofessional and speaks volumes about the professionals' sense of professionalism and personal character. If such professionals are grossly dishonest about their incomes, how can they perform honest to goodness professional work?

The story of Greece and Italy is a warning sign. The collapse of the Greek economy last year has highlighted a very glaring reality in Greece, every year 15 billions euros in tax revenue is lost because of tax evasion. Indeed, tax evasion is a way of life in Greece. That is no surprise that such low tax collection has contributed in the social collapse of the Greek economy. The antipathy towards paying tax is so much a part of Greek culture that one eye doctor is quoted to have said: "Only the stupid pay tax." There are reports that some surgeons in Greece even earn more than 900,000 euros per year yet they don't declare any tax. This is not far away from the Philippines. Indeed, the same inquirer report I earlier quoted said that there are 3 million professionals in the country - 190,000 are doctors and lawyers who earn way significantly higher than the average office worker. These professionals earn the most, in fact, a Filipino surgeon in a far-away province earns at least PHP 300,000 per month. That is already a conservative estimate. As a nurse and as a resident of Leyte, one of the poorest provinces in the Philippines, I can attest to that. Even internists earn more than PHP 200,000.

Across all countries and cultures, doctors and lawyers, especially doctors, always earn more than the average worker. And they deserve that, however, what they do not deserve is to shy away from a social responsibility that they themselves benefit from such as roads, schools and other social services. It is sad that these professionals have a contempt for social responsibility. Of all people, they are the most educated, most revered, yet they are the ones who consistently hide from what they should lawfully contribute for the betterment of society.

Another rich European country with a history of poor tax collection is Italy. As the third largest economy in the Eurozone, Italy has a lot of potential government revenue, yet that has remained just that, a potential. Italians dislike paying taxes and most professionals do not declare tax. For a rich country, it has been reported that less than 1,000 persons declared an income greater than 1 million euros. As a result, Italy, like Greece, has been bogged by financial troubles throughout 2012.

The BIR should pursue relentlessly professional tax evaders and should aggressively prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. This will leave a stern warning to professionals, especially doctors, to step up to their social responsibility of paying the correct amount of taxes. Otherwise, the BIR should probably lump a set of prefixed taxes to certain groups of professionals. For example, for surgeons, the BIR should set a flat rate of PHP 150,000 per year, for internists, PHP 70,000. This will I believe encourage doctors and lawyers to be fortright about their incomes.

I just cannot believe many doctors tax declarations of incomes of only PHP 10,000 per month! That is a stretch of intellectual maneuvering and is simply stupid. Unless the BIR becomes more creative in flushing out tax cheats among the ranks of the professional elite of this country, the government will continue to bleed a lot of tax revenue.

Lance Armstrong and Doping

In a report filed with time.com, Lance Armstrong is said to have finally admitted doping in his interview with celebrity titan Oprah Winfrey. The interview will be aired over OWN, Oprah's television network. This is a sad postscript to a heroic story of cancer survival and winning the Tour de France seven times. In 2012, Lance Armstrong was stripped of all such titles. He also resigned from his post as a chairman of the Livestrong Foundation which he founded.

For all the things Lance Armstrong did, conquered and achieved - his unholy associations with the world of sports doping, of which many professional athletes, I am sure, are entwined, has certainly placed a blemish on his legacy. A legacy that is no mean feat indeed. However tragic this story is, I believe that it is an opportunity for all of us to reflect on what it means to succeed - is it just merely the accomplishment of lofty standards or a battle with our human limitations.

It would be easy for some to condemn Armstrong as a cheat. For others, it would just be explained away as a usuality, as one athlete in the Tour de France said, everybody dopes. Is success then to be based on an honest to goodness effort? Is the ideal success story one frought with struggle and hardship like the story of the ancient heroes of myth and legend?

In todays milieu, everyone is pushed towards being a success story. To use any and all means, although not always explicitly said, is nevertheless implied. Employers demand from employees results at all costs, military leaders demand tangible outcomes, politicians seek solid proofs, parents expect stellar grades. It seems to me that today's society places an inordinate amount of value on the crown of success, not the story to success.

The increased competition in all aspects of modern society, from the academia to the corporate boardroom, has imbued in all those who seek to make a mark to achieve results, that is all that matters. How you get there is supposed to be figured out yourself. Do what it takes is the unwritten rule.

This has been proven by the story of Lance Armstrong. I have read in an internet based article, I think it was from cnn.com, that said that those who participated in the Tour de France actually did dope. It was part of the culture of the sport. If you wanted to win, you had to dope. The doping was not and by no means exclusive to Lance Armstrong, nor to any elite athlete of the sport, it was done by most of those who aspired to make an impact in the sport. It was also reported from the same article that the athletes, at least a number of them, engaged in "high-end" (my term), difficult to detect, ultramodern drug regimen to beat out the random drug testing methods.

Unless the culture of greed continues to permeate in all aspects of modern society, that includes the world of professional sports, which is probably the most competitive and most demanding of the spheres of modern life, then doping will continue at its highest levels and at its most scientifically sophisticated levels. The rise and fall of Lance Armstrong is the story of modern man - that is the irony of this all.

Screaming Night

Howling dogs, buzzing insects
Cloudy skies, falling rain
Swaying leaves, crawling lizards
Swooshing bats, running rats
Tapping keyboards, viewing sights
Swirling mind, sleepy eyes
Screeching cars, whistling wind
Reaching branches, hustling whispers
Ringing phones, dripping water
Cheery laughs, pouting lips
Snobby poses, inviting eyes
Shapely bodies, nibbling thoughts
Fearful hearts, hoping spirits
Screaming night

The U.S. Gun Debate

After the massacre at Newtown, Connecticut, the on again, off again conversation about the need to regulate the sale and distribution of automatic weapons has once again flared up in America. The powerful gun lobby NRA, which has consistently funded politicians who are pro-gun, vehemently sent expressed its displeasure, through the emotional outburts of its most dedicated, dare I say, fanatical members. Among this is the fearsome, almost rabid Alex Jones, whose tirade in the CNN Pier's Morgan show clearly showed that these so-called Second Amendment Defenders are as dogmatic as any religious zealot can be.

Despite proven statistics that says that among rich countries with fewer guns, fewer gun related violence exists. The NRA and its minions insist that keeping guns, and arming more people will ensure a better protected society. Of course, if you look at the statistics between Japan and the U.S., this is clearly not the case. In Japan, gun ownership is a tough endeavor, potential gun applicants will have to pass a series of rigorous psychological, practical and financial hurdles even being given a license to own one, and that is just a handgun. Annual crime rates related to guns in Japan number less than 20, in the U.S., 12,000 gun related violence and deaths were reported in 2011 alone.

But of course, if you talk to the likes of Alex Jones, you will never go anywhere except be badgered by their own insistence that despite all proofs to the contrary, more guns means keeping the peace! They somehow see the world only in the eyes of their fanatical, religious zealot-like conviction that guns never really kill people, people do. And so providing access to guns to people is not the problem, the problem is preventing people with mental problems from accessing them.

The problem with this argument is that the mental status of people change depending on the circumstances of their lives. Indeed, a perfectly sane, at least from a clinical point of view,  person who has legally acquired and owned gun can out of the blue become temporarily insane as to use that gun to discharge pent-up emotions at someone or somebody for perceived slights, emotional outburts and the like.

Unless the American people, at least those that truly care about societal stability, should ask themselves if allowing the sale of military grade weapons is really necessary in a rich country with a credible police force and efficient government institutions. It is so easy to acquire weapons in America that the Mexican drug-cartels shops for them there and uses its deadly effects on the people of Mexico. So there, more weapons indeed for a better society!

MOVIE REVIEW: Zero Dark Thirty

The movie has received a lot of attention lately from members of the U.S. Congress. Some senators are questioning the historical accuracy of the use of torture, which opens the movie, in finding Usama bin Laden. The producers of the show has however stood their ground on the issue and has insisted that the movie is not a "documentary." Such incident will only fuel interest in the movie and could help it attract more moviegoers. Some sort of a talking point will always serve the dollar making potential of any movie.

Anyway, going to the movie, the opening was quite slow and dragging for me. The torture scenes were, well, tortuous to watch. It lacked urgency, terror (pun intended), and fear. The camera angles were weak such that the emotional aspect of the scenes were not quite communicated to the audience. The rest of the movie rambles upon scenes of the process of finding people linked to bin Laden with interposing of the different bombings incidents that happened after 9-11 like the London Bus bombings, the Marriott Hotel bombing in Pakistan among others.

I'm not quite blown away by the movie, for a long movie, running at two hours and thirty-six minutes, the excitement that is supposed to be present and the anticipation gripping the audience at the thought that the most infamous terrorist the world has probably ever seen is about to be found was absent. The movie could not present a sense of WOOH. Indeed, even the scene were the special ops guys comb through the compound was lacking that combat excitement. For a movie that claims not to be a documentary, it sure looked like one. In fact, I have seen more exciting documentaries!

However, the one redeeming part of the movie was the last scene. In it, Maya, the female protagonist, is transported off to some location, presumably to return to the U.S., alone in a giant C-130 Hercules transport plane. It somehow symbolizes her importance in the finding of bin Laden and she knows that she did a good job. Her importance could not be more represented by the fact that she was travelling alone in a big plane, as big as her contributions were to the final termination of a brutal terrorist.

And I always wondered why the movie was titled "Zero Dark Thirty", Maya answered it for me in a scene were she looks at the clock at 00:30 as the troops land in bin Laden's compound in the now famous Abbotabad, Pakistan.

Economic Freedom in the Philippines

The Heritage Foundation recently released its latest report on the freest economies of the world. Of 177 countries, the Philippines ranked 97th worldwide and 17th out of 41 in the Asia-Pacific Region. The countries were ranked according to the following categories: Rule of Law, Regulatory Efficiency, Limited Government, and Open Markets. With a score of 58.2, it was ranked under the Mostly Unfree group.

This data shows how much the Philippines has to catch up to with the rest of the world in providing a better life for its people. Even Cambodia did better, ranked 95th worldwide with a score of 58.5.

It goes without saying that in order for the Philippines to really join the ranks of the world's economic miracles, the following has to be implemented:

1. Eliminate corruption in the government. Billions of pesos are lost each year to corruption, and this causes a strain on the ability of businesses to thrive and to invest further. Corruption also makes goods and services expensive and prohibitive at times to the ordinary Filipino. I once talked to a colleague who owned an apartment and told me that in order to fumigate her apartment as a requirement for renewal of license, she had to pay the fumigating company P 5,000. When she asked why it was expensive, the company said that part of the money will be earmarked as bribes to the regulatory government agency overlooking such things - I think it was the City Health Office.

2. Efficient and independent judiciary. The Philippine judiciary is very slow, inefficient, corrupt and bureaucratic. Judges are appointed based on patronage given by politicians. Hence, they are prone to manipulation and control. The slow and glacial pace of litigation is unbelievable. Cases are decided at times after 30 years.

3. Control population growth. The recent passage of the long overdue Reproductive Law (RA 10354) will hopefully put a lid on the high population growth rate of the country relative to its ASEAN neighbors. Indeed, the chronically high population growth of the Philippines saps economic growth and creates a social strain as jobs are scarce, few and far-between. This feeds the proliferation of homeless, uncared for and malnourished children that is visible and rampant in cities across the Philippines. The strain this phenomenon puts on an already weak and inefficient government bureaucracy ensures that such street children remain outside the core of society and prone to exploitation by criminal organizations. The dearth of jobs, quality at that has forced millions of Filipinos to work abroad, breaking families and straining the social fabric. As if this is not enough, the obstructionist tactics of the powerful Catholic Church virtually locks the Philippines in a perpetual cycle of poverty.

4. Improve education. Education must be redirected to focus on the STEM subjects (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math), elementary and high school teachers must be incentivized to pursue graduate degrees in their chosen fields of study, medium of instruction must be based on the local language up to Grade 3, Filipino from then onwards. English of course will be a part, but it cannot be the only emphasis. Progress also means creating in the people a sense of nation and unity, which will ultimately ensure that we are emotionally invested in our country strong enough to fight for its betterment.

The Philippines has much to do and much to work on, but I believe that the future of the country lies in its people, and rightly so, as it is the people who creates the nation. Therefore, once the Filipino people aspire to greater heights for themselves, then true change and progress will dawn on the country.

The Delusions of the Anti-RH Advocates

After the spouses Imbong filed a motion for a temporary order against RA 10354's implementation, another such similar action was filed by the Alliance for the Family Foundation Philippines, Inc. or ALFI through lawyer and ALFI president Maria Concepcion Noche on the grounds "that (the RH law) allows the use of abortifacient devices (such as intrauterine devices) and the purchase of abortifacient substances using taxpayers' money." Second, that "(Republic Act) 10354 violates the right to religious freedom as it mandates health providers to provide reproductive (health) services even if (these are) against their religious convictions."

I will herein prove again, that these arguements are not only lame, baseless and absurd, it is already bordering on the psychotic-paranoid-delusional-immaturity scale.

On the first argument, that RA 10354 allows the use of abortifacient devices is clearly a manifestation that Ms. Concepcion has not understood the wording of the law, or cannot see in clear and level-headed manner (probably because her brain is swimming in a stew of dopamine induced delusions) that there are multiple statements in the said law specifically, constantly, categorically stating that it does not condone the use of abortifacient methods, to wit:

Section 2, paragraph 5:

"The State likewise guarantees universal access to medically-safe, NON-ABORTIFACIENT, effective, legal, affordable, and quality reproductive health care services, methods, devices...."

Clearly, unequivocally, the word non-abortifacient is stated. That is plain and simple. It goes without saying that neither does the law allow the purchase of such substances. PAMBIHIRA!!!

As if to underscore that RA 10354 is really serious about non-abortifacients, it is again stated in no uncertain terms in Section 3, paragraph d:

"The provision of ethical and medically safe, legal, accessible, affordable, non-abortifacient, effective and quality reproductive health care services and supplies is essential in the promotion of people’s right to health, especially those of women, the poor, and the marginalized, and shall be incorporated as a component of basic health care;"

Under Section 9, paragraph 1:

"The National Drug Formulary shall include hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectables and other safe, legal, non-abortifacient and effective family planning products and supplies."

Once again, only non-abortifacient family planning drugs are allowed. HOW DIFFICULT IS THAT TO UNDERSTAND!!! 

As to the question, are Intrauterine Devices (IUD) abortifacient? Let us answer first what are IUD's. IUD's are "a small, T-shaped plastic device that is wrapped in copper or contains hormones." There are two types of IUD's. Hormonal and Copper IUD. The first releases a substance called levonorgestrel that prevent pregnancy for at least five years. The second is a wire that prevents sperm from reaching the ovaries and can stay in place for 10 years.

IUD's are inserted by doctors and must be monitored by them. Hormonal IUD can cause pregnancy in 2 out of 1000 women in the first year while for copper IUD, it is about 6 in 1000 women during the first year. IUD's are not 100% effective and therefore pregnancies can occur, and in those that do, it is because "the IUD is pushed out of (expelled from) the uterus unnoticed. IUDs are most likely to come out in the first few months of IUD use, after being inserted just after childbirth, or in women who have not had a baby."

IN SUCH RARE CASES WHEN A WOMAN DOES BECOME PREGNANT, IT HAS TO BE REMOVED (IUD) BECAUSE IT CAN CAUSE MISCARRIAGE OR PRETERM BIRTH (so there is a possibility that the fetus can be born - IUD's are not even 100% abortifacients!!!). Ms. Concepcion SHOULD CHECK HER FACTS FIRST BEFORE ASSERTING CLAIMS WITH NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS, IT SAVES HERSELF AND EVERYONE AROUND HER ORGANIZATION FROM THE EMBARRASSMENT OF GROSS IGNORANCE.

As to the second assertion of Ms. Concepcion, that RA 10354 violates religious freedom as it mandates healthcare workers to provide reproductive services against the religious convictions of the person is TRASH  to say the least! In Section 3, paragraph h it states:

"The State shall respect individuals’ preferences and choice of family planning methods that are in accordance with their religious convictions and cultural beliefs, taking into consideration the State’s obligations under various human rights instruments;"

Without a doubt, the individual's preferences are enshrined and ensured to be respected, that includes the person's religious beliefs and cultural inclinations. 

Why do we need to provide reproductive services to women and families? Because it is a human right, I have explained this thoroughly already in a previous post. Reproductive health is a public necessity because it has far-reaching and profound implications for society  - indeed, it affects the health and well-being of the family over the long term. Of course, the Catholic Church and its minions will not see it that way as they are consumed MORE WITH THE PRESERVATION OF A DOGMA RATHER THAN THE STARK REALITIES OF WHAT IT MEANS TO LIVE AND TO PROVIDE FOR A SECURE AND COMFORTABLE FUTURE FOR ALL MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY.