Who is God?

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

Epicurus 

Epicurus could not have said it better. The question of God has always and will always bog man until man himself ceases to exist. For Socrates, God is the daimonion in him, what we would call conscience that commands him to do what is good and avoid evil. For Plato, he is the demiurge, the one who created the world but has since left it alone, much the same as the deist concept. For Aristotle, he is the First Cause, the Unmoved Mover.

Throughout the centuries, thinkers have refined and built upon the concepts on God articulated by the Great Thinkers of Ancient Western Philosophy as represented by Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. St. Thomas Aquinas gave us the five proofs of the existence of God: first cause, prime mover, necessary being, argument from gradation and intelligent designer. St. Anselm of Canterbury gave us the ontological argument for the existence of God: since we are imperfect, there must be something that created us that is more perfect.

The Abrahamic traditions gave us a patriarchal concept of God, a god who is jealous but merciful, just but strict, demanding yet comforting. Other major religions of the world, especially those of the Eastern variety like Hinduism with its multiplicity of gods, the Buddhists with their no-god centered way of life and the Sikhs with their one-god have gave humanity a pantheon of deities that compete for attention and followers.

Despite such powerful organized religious beliefs, there has always been the question as to whether there really is a God, and this question, depending on who you ask, will get one a panoply of answers. Nevertheless, regardless of religion, a god is always conceived of something that is higher than man. Dictionary.com defines God as a Supreme being, the creator and ruler of the universe.

The Abrahamic traditions conceives God as an active participant in the history of man and lists the following qualities of God: existence (think St. Anselm's proof - it is a necessary existence ), perfect (applies to all other traits mentioned here), timeless (eternal), spaceless or transcendent (incorporeal, not subject to physical laws), immutable (unchanging), omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), omnipresent (existing everywhere at all times), omnibenevolent (all-good), just (punishment always appropriate to offense), merciful, free, personal (answers and hears prayers), provident (affects the physical world), sovereign (source and ruler of all things), creator of the universe (see source).

From the aforesaid traits or qualities man has assigned to God, an analysis of some will lead us to the conclusion that God therefore could not be possible. A good illustration would be a comparison between the trait PERFECT and CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE. If God is perfect, we would say that he has no faults or cannot commit a mistake, that is a reasonable conclusion. Now the Abrahamic traditions insist that God is the CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE. We all know that the UNIVERSE is an imperfect entity. Imperfect because it has limitations like death and suffering among others. A logical analysis would tell us that if a perfect God created the universe, the universe would be perfect, but the universe is NOT perfect. So either the universe was not created by God or God could not exist.

Another trait would be OMNISCIENCE and FREE. An omniscient being would always know what he will and he will not do in the future. If so, then he could not be FREE since he would not be able to not do what he knew he will do in the future. In the same way, if he knows that in the future he will not do an action, then he cannot decide to do it. It goes without saying that an omniscient being cannot not do what he knew he will do and he will always do what he knew he will do - therefore he is not free because his actions have already been defined by his foreknowledge of them. An omniscient being cannot therefore be free.

Moving on, a God cannot be both OMNISCIENT and OMNIPOTENT. An omnipotent can do anything. However, an omniscient being can only do what he knows he will do and will not do what he knows he will not do. They therefore contradict each other. 

Furthermore, a God cannot be both JUST and MERCIFUL. Being JUST means giving what is due somebody. Being merciful means not giving what is due somebody because of some consideration or because of forgiveness. A God who is both just and merciful therefore is not possible. 

And finally, we come to the concept of EVIL. If God is omnipotent, then he can eliminate EVIL; if God is omnibenevolent, then ONLY the good can exist; if God is omniscient, HE KNOWS THAT EVIL EXISTS, and there is EVIL IN THE WORLD.

The concept of God therefore is a logical impossibility, no evidence substantially supports its existence. God is merely an invention of the human mind to cope with the vicissitudes of life at a time in the history of man were he did not understand most of what was in his surroundings. As Bertrand Russell would say, "Religion is a defensive reaction against the destructive forces of nature."

Divorce and the Philippines

After the successful enactment of the Reproductive Health Bill, a congressman from the Philippine Lower House has filed a bill that will effectively prevent the introduction of future divorce bills in the Philippines.

There is therefore the question, will the introduction of the divorce bill in the Philippines destroy marriage itself?

Marriage is an artificial phenomenon, created by and regulated by society in order to advance the interests of society itself and its future by ensuring that future generations are cared for properly and so as to transmit society's cultural values and mores. The question becomes clear: will the institution of marriage be destroyed by the introduction of divorce bills or later on, laws? I do not think so, for marriage exists as long as society itself values it. And the end of one marriage or marriages does not spell the end of marriage itself, for only the end of society will eventually end marriage itself. Marriage is relevant only so long as society and civilization thrive and consider it important.

Divorce will not destroy marriage. Indeed, what makes marriage a cross is when one two people are forced to maintain a facade of marriage simply because society says so. The inflexibility of such concept, especially in a supposedly secular and republican state like the Philippines, is that it is coupled with the religious tyranny of the Catholic Church. Insisting that marriage should be maintained, even to the point wherein the marriage itself becomes a source of suffering, abuse, unmitigated pain, even exploitation - is to tarnish the purpose of marriage itself, more than that, it is to disregard the best interests of the children of such marriage, and to doom them to a life of incalculable pain.

Divorce should be allowed because it is a human right! A right to find happiness, to the security of the children to have a good and better life. Most of all, divorce should be allowed in the Philippines because it is a fundamental societal institution - and to hostage it to some religious views is to ensure it will be robbed of its essential purpose of ensuring that all those who are invested in its success will fail!

Protecting marriage GOES BEYOND maintaining its physical form - we have also to look into whether its essence is still there. And that is something that requires flexibility, flexibility to think that sometimes, marriage between two people does not work, and it is only fair, reasonable and logical that it be terminated, and for life to move on. THAT IS LIFE.

Evolution and Reason

I have always been fascinated by Charles Darwin. His insights on the development of life on earth clearly has a revolutionary effect not only in terms of our understanding of life, it has shaped how man views himself in the light of his telos and his unending search for his meaning and his purpose.

Evolution is a concept that is undeniable in its actuality and unmistakable in its certainty. It is a manifestation of the dynamic nature of life and the power of life itself, in the spirit of Henri Bergson's elan vital, to aspire to a higher consciousness.

Reason is the only shield against the ignorance and creative suppression that religion has unfortunately wrought upon man. Sherlock Holmes, that fictional British inspector, puts it succintly when he said: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." From such words, it would be impossible to say that evolution did not exist, nor can we say it is unproven, for it would mean that the earth itself has always been the same from time immemorial. Science teachers us that the earth and life on it unfolded in a gradual manner, affected by the circumstances on earth, hence, life could not have existed at the same time that the earth was formed. Echoing the words of Sherlock Holmes, it would then be impossible for evolution not to have happened simply because life is a gradual unfolding, not a static event. The claims therefore of religion about the constancy of life and its manifest creation by a so-called "God" is a literary ejaculation, an exercise in creative writing. Proof must be based on the phenomenon of life itself and not on the creative machinations of any religious text.

All religions exercise an exclusive claim to the truth. And the truth for religion is revealed in a book, eliminating any rational and intellectual questioning that is the hallmark of any scientific endeavour. It proves its truth because it says it is the truth. It's truth is the truth because it is in a written "holy book." Is it reasonable?

Progress with a Conscience: Mining in the Philippines

Without a doubt, the Philippines is a mineral rich country. As such, mining is a big industry. The mining industry is a very powerful force in Philippine politics. Indeed, some politicians are themselves engaged in the mining industry.

Every year, a panoply of mining accidents are reported all across the Philippines. Every year, at least 20 typhoons ravage the Philippines. Every year, the interrelated effects of mining and typhoons are played out by the deaths of thousands of rural Filipinos who are buried alive by landslides caused by denuded forests which in turn makes mountainous areas ripe for disasters as trees that hold the soil in place are cut indiscriminately to make way for open-pit mining or similar mining related activities. Not to mention the unabated illegal logging that seems to permeate the higher rungs of Philippine society.

If mining is to be truly beneficial to the country, the following questions must first be answered:

1. Does it destroy the local environs?
2. Does it benefit the people in the towns and communities in which it is conducted?
3. Does it provide long term benefits both to the communities in which is is done and the country as a whole? If it does, does the benefits outweight the disadvantages?

The aforesaid questions must be honestly and thoroughly answered if mining is to be a truly responsible and sustainable activity. Otherwise, more people will die as that those that befell the residents of Cagayan de Oro City and Iligan City in the wake of Typhoon Sendong in 2011 or those that died after Typhoon Pablo ravaged Compostela Valley in Mindanao in 2012.

Thrusts for development must and should always be coupled with a sense of responsibility to the environment and a commitment to the local residents for their long term growth and benefit. That is progress with a conscience. That is true progress - one that is sustainable, responsible and progressive.

Kant, Nietzsche, Habermas and the Truth

What is the Truth?

So the question has been asked for centuries, indeed, from the time man developed the sense of wonder of the surroundings he has been thrust into. The rise of civilizations, and there inevitable fall, has always been governed about the search for truth, and its spread to others. For the Ancient Egyptians, the truth is the afterlife, for the Hindu's of India, the truth is a cycle of birth and re-birth, for the Muslims, the truth is to follow Allah, for Christians, the truth is to return to union with God in heaven.

In more secular terms, the rise of the nation-state in the 19th century brought with it new truths. For the United States of America, it was a belief in their manifest destiny to rule the world through the scepter of democracy, for the British Empire, the truth was to conquer the world for riches and for country.

The rise of the sciences from the time of Galileo challenged the monopolistic concept of what the truth is as propagated by the Catholic Church. From that moment on, the Catholic Church could no longer impose its version of the truth. Truth now became a science endeavour - detached from organized religion and based solely on the analysis of the universe.

In the realm of philosophy, three thinkers have made significant influence on the study of the truth. Kant, Nietsche and Habermas.

Immanuel Kant  (1724-1804) was a Prussian intellectual who lived his life almost exclusively on the Prussian City of Konigsberg. For Kant, man can never acquire the truth, for truth is only the invention of the human mind. The real truth he called noumenon is something that is beyond the grasp of human intellect. What can certainly be ascertained by man is the truth through the phenomenon, of the things surrounding man. This is incidentally also the realm of science, as science studies the truth based on the things around the universe.

Friedrich von Nietzsche  (1844-1900) was a great German philosopher who famously asserted that "God is dead." For Nietzsche, the truth is something man can never come to, what he has instead is just a mere interpretation of what he understands of the things around him. In other words, man creates the truth by his interpretation of things around him.

Finally, we have Jurgen Habermas (b. 1929), who like Nietzsche, is a German. For Habermas, the truth is not merely the confluence of what is in reality and what is in the mind of man - rather, the truth is a "communicative action" brought about by the "meeting of horizons" among peoples. In other words, the truth is what man, in dynamic interaction with his fellowmen, agrees to be the truth.

The great strides in science and technology over the past 100 years still makes the ideas of Kant, Nietzsche and Habermas on the concept of the truth still relevant. Indeed, it has been proven time and time again is that the truth, even in the sciences, changes as time moves on. The Newtonian physics was the gold standard until Einstein's Theory of Relativity, although it was never completely superseded. Nowadays, Stephen Hawking's search for a Theory of Everything will either consolidate the Standard Model of Physics, Quantum Theory and Theory of Relativity or completely bring about a new paradigm shift.

What is clear is that the truth that religions offer is becoming less and less relevant, reasonable and plausible. Science is becoming the telescope upon which man and his future is increasingly being viewed from. But as Kant would say, it is just the phenomenon, a knowledge gleaned by man through the invention of the instrument of physics and the other sciences. Nevertheless, maybe Kant missed the sublimity that nature offers in that in the study of the phenomenon, we will finally glimpse the face of the noumenon.

Nietzsche would fall along Kant in this, as both believe that the truth searched by science is indeed a truth based on things around him. Even Habermas would be right, after all, the search for the truth, even one based on hard science as physics is till a collaboration between men, although maybe initiated by individual men, it is increasingly becoming clear that the search for the ultimate meaning of life and of the universe, as manifested by the multinational and global effort that was brought into the building and design of the Large Hadron Collider in Europe, is a "communicative" endeavor in the light of Habermas thought.

For all its worth, the truth is indeed what man says it is.

The Philippines needs RA 10354: It's a Human Right Stupid!!!

After nearly  more than a decade of legislative gridlock and wrangling, the Philippines finally passed a Reproductive Health Law that will ensure, among others, access to sex education, quality contraceptives and medical assistance to post-abortion incidence. President Benigno Aquino III signed into law Republic Act 10354 otherwise known as "The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012" last December 21,  2012.


The Catholic Church in the Philippines have always argued against passing such a law, insisting that such undertaking will undermine the conservative social fabric of the country, promote promiscuity and destroy the sanctity of life. Some conservatives even believe that access to contraceptives will actually increase the spread of Sexually Transmitted Diseases and promote promiscuity.

Some friends of mine say why does the state have to provide free contraceptives to an act that is essentially personal in nature and is already available to be bought anyway. Still others say that the law does not even define what an unborn is - probably speculating that since "unborn" is not defined, it will in fact promote abortion.

The fight to to enact RA 10354 was not easy indeed. It polarized a nation, galvanized conservatives and freethinkers alike to take a stand. It consumed the Philippines practically the last quarter of 2012. And even after such success, the fight continues, indeed, a motion to have the law cancelled has already been filed by a son of the lawyer of the Catholic Bishop's Conference of the Philippines. James Imbong, together with his wife, Lovely, filed a 25-page motion arguing that the law "mocks the nations Filipino culture", adding further that "noble and lofty in its values and holdings on life, motherhood and family life – now the fragile lifeblood of a treasured culture that today stands solitary but proud in contrast to other nations." And repeatedly stating that although abortion drugs are banned, it requires health workers to provide assistance to post-abortion complications.

After all this brouhaha, the question perenially leads to: Do we really need RA 10354?

Let us comprehensively review the various laws, foreign and local, that clearly stipulates the need to pass a law such as RA 10354.

The UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, Article 25 states:

Paragraph 1: Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Paragraph 2: Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

It is clear from paragraph 1 that medical care is a human right, a necessary factor so that man can develop his potentials to the fullest. Governments who adhere to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are therefore obligated to provide its citizenry with adequate, credible and comprehensive medical care services: that includes access to contraceptive methods, which, although not at first a medical emergency, can have far-reaching implications on the health of the mother and the ability of the family to provide ultimately for the needs of the child. Indeed, a mother who is chronically sick because of the strain of raising children without proper spacing will not be able to provide adequate and needed care to the family. This can have far reaching implications to the rest of the family: studies have consistently shown that mothers and women who are empowered to make healthcare decisions have better chances of providing for the needs of the family.

Paragraph 2 clearly places a great importance on the need to ensure that mothers and their children, regardless of the circumstances of their motherhood, are entitled to care. Repeated studies have shown that the more the mother is successful, the higher the chance for survival of the children and the better they quality of life they will enjoy.

The 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article II, Section 15 states:

"The state shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them."

This is exactly what RA 10354 does under Section 3, paragraph e: "The state shall promote and provide information and access, without bias, to all methods of family planning, including effective natural and modern methods which have proven medically safe, legal, non-abortifacient, and  effective in accordance with scientific and evidence-based medical research standards...."

By providing women the RIGHT to make decisions with regards to their bodies, we EMPOWER women. Again, repeated studies have shown that the more empowered women are, the more the children are able to attain a a better, if not a higher standard of living. This was clearly confirmed by the findings of the study of Matthias Doepke and Michele Tertilt (April 2011) entitled "Does Female Empowerment Promote Economic Developemnt?" In fact, the study found that when women achieve higher incomes, there is a corresponding higher expenditure on children, whereas higher incomes for men increase spending on tobacco and alcohol.

Furthermore, the 1987 Philippine constitution clearly mandates women empowerment. Under Article II, Section 13 it states:

"The state recognizes the role of women in nation building and shall ensure the fundamental equality of before the law of men and women."

The INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS, Article 12 states: "The steps to be taken by the States Parties to the present Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall include those necessary for:


Paragraph 2, subsection  a: "The provision for the reduction of the stillbirth-rate and of infant mortality and for the healthy development of the child:"

The mother is able to have a decision on the number of children she will bear can better ensure a healthy physical and mental development of the child as she will be better use the resources she and the family has as its disposal more efficiently.

Paragraph 2, subsection  d: "The creation of conditions which would assure to all medical service and medical attention in the event of sickness."

It goes without saying that the more a child the mother has, the more it is difficult for her to provide adequate medical attention and services to the child. This is simple LOGIC!!!

The CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD, Article 24 states:

Paragraph 1: "States Parties recognize the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable
standard of health and to facilities for the treatment of illness and rehabilitation of health. States
Parties shall strive to ensure that no child is deprived of his or her right of access to such health
care services."

The Philippines is flush with street children, there future is bleak, they are prone to be abused, used and exploited simply because society has failed to provide families with the power to simply decide their acceptable capacity to raise children.  

RA 10354 clearly supports paragraph 1 as manifested in RA 10354, Section 2, Subsection b: "The right of children to assistance, including proper care and nutrition, and special protection from all forms of neglect abuse, cruelty, exploitation, and other conditions prejudicial to their development."

Paragraph 2, subsection d: "To ensure appropriate pre-natal and post-natal health care for mothers; "

Let us go back again to the petition of James and Lovely Imbong, one of which criticizes the provision of RA 10354, Section 2, subsection J which mandates the government to assist and provide medical assistance to mothers with post-abortion complications. In effect, Mr. James Imbong wants the government to abandon to DIE mothers who have post-abortion complications, accidental, medically induced or otherwise. For a so-called Christian, HE IS HEARTLESS, INSENSITIVE AND MISEDUCATED.

Do we also refuse treatment to Filipinos who have their hands blown by firecrackers simply because the have not anyway heed the incessant calls of the government to refrain from using firecrackers? THIS IS WHAT MR. IMBON IS IMPLYING, something we have to INFER if we are to rid our country of RELIGIOUS RIGHT WING NUTBAGS.


The INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, Article 5 states:

Section I, paragraph IV: "The right to public health, medical care, social security and social services;"

The right to public health includes access to affordable, quality and effective contraceptive methods. Therefore, by providing free access to reproductive education and contraceptives, RA 10354 provides mothers and families with the option to plan the size of their families. This will ultimately affect the medical, social security and social service delivery of the government as it will ensure that the system is not going to be overwhelmed and that families will have a better quality of life.

The CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN states:

Article 12

Paragraph 1. "States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the field of health care in order to ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women, access to health care services, including those related to family planning."

RA 10354 will clearly give women a voice in the management of the family, and this is something very crucial and important as the study of Doepke and Tertilt clearly shows - the more empowered the women are, the better the chances for success of the children.

Paragraph 2. "Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph I of this article, States Parties shall ensure to women appropriate services in connection with pregnancy, confinement and the post-natal
period, granting free services where necessary, as well as adequate nutrition during pregnancy
and lactation."

This is in-line with the states responsibility to ensure that women, a vital human resource of any nation, are afforded the care and services they need in order to ensure safe and effective healthcare services. RA 10354 Section 3, paragraph C clearly reflects this. It states:


"Since human resource is among the principal assets of the country, effective and quality reproductive health care services must be given primacy to ensure maternal and child health, the health of the unborn, safe delivery and birth of healthy children, and sound replacement rate, in line with the State’s duty to promote the right to health, responsible parenthood, social justice and full human development;'

Article 14

Paragraph 1: "States Parties shall take into account the particular problems faced by rural women and the significant roles which rural women play in the economic survival of their families, including
their work in the non-monetized sectors of the economy, and shall take all appropriate measures
to ensure the application of the provisions of the present Convention to women in rural areas."

Rural women, in any country, always faces the most challenging scenarios in the realm of healthcare as they are most likely least educated, least knowledgeable in natal management and care and least likely to have affordable access to healthcare. This is specially significant in an agricultural based country like the Philippines, were rural women are most likely to die of childbirth related complications. The government alone cannot do this, that is why it needs to partner with nongovernment organizations and other socio-civic groups, in fact, the 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article II, Section 23 specifically states:

"The state shall encourage nongovernmental, community-based or sectoral organizations that promote the welfare of the nation."

 That is why in this regard RA 10354 is a boon to rural women, as it affords them badly needed access to childbirth care services and education and the role NGO's and other socio-civic groups as essential partners. This is reflected in RA 10354, Section 3, paragraph i, which states:

"Active participation by nongovernment organizations (NGOs), women’s and people’s organizations, civil society, faith-based organizations, the religious sector and communities is crucial to ensure that reproductive health and population and development policies, plans, and programs will address the priority needs of women, the poor, and the marginalized;"

Paragraph 2, Subparagraph b: "To have access to adequate health care facilities, including information, counselling and services in family planning;"

Once again, access to quality reproductive healthcare is an essential component of human rights.

In the quest to provide comprehensive public health services to the citizenry, none are twice as disadvantaged than those who are disabled, women who have disabilities, more than just having a disability, are on an uphill battle, that is why the CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES, Article 25 states persons with disabilities are entitled too to adequate and effective public health services, and this is the goal of RA 10354. To make healthcare not merely a privilege of the well-to-do but a right for all.

In summary, I would like to say that RA10354 is a matter of Human Right and should not be subjected to the religious opinions of any one church, however powerful. It is not an insult to the Filipino culture, rather, it is an empowering instrument that will ensure Filipino women can have the power to plan the size of the family that they can comfortably care for and support - thus preventing strain on the meager resources of a developing country and ensuring quality life for as many citizens as possible. Finally, it is DOES NOT CONDONE ABORTION, this is repeatedly stated in RA 10354 Sections 3 (J), 19 (a ) (2), 19 (c), and 23 (1).

It is ironic that those who insist on painting RA 10354 as an abortionist piece of legislation will very well be served by the fact that studies have shown that women who have access to free contraceptives actually have lower incidence of abortion - indeed, almost eliminates it. This is a study published in a medical journal Obstetrics and Gynecology and conducted by the Washington University School of Medicine.

Only a reasoned, logical, scientific and patriotic paradigm can provide a truly wholistic understanding as to why RA 10354 is a pressing piece of legislation that is long overdue, and long worth the fight!!!

"Contraceptives unlock one of the most dormant 

but potentially powerful assets in development:

women as decision makers."

Melinda Gates

Blasphemy is a Human Right

On September 12, 2011, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) of the United Nations released General Comment No. 34, protecting blasphemy as a basic human right that should be respected and upheld by the state.

The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, Article 133 "Offending Religious Feelings" criminalizes blasphemy and therefore, should be repealed. This archaic and medieval provision of the Penal Code is a handover from the time when the Philippines served as the largest monastery of the Catholic Church.

GC No. 34, par. 3 states: "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 a modern, republican state, there is no place for religious bigotry, indeed, the history of religion, whatever religion, shows that there is a clear preponderance towards wanton violation of human rights in the name of religion. Paragraph 3 clearly states that human rights can only be protected when the right to express one's opinions is truly respected. In fact, religion is itself an opinion, therefore, it cannot be used to superside nor used to persecute those who express other opinions, either because of a different religious faith or because there is none. Par. 9 states: "All forms of opinion are protected, including opinions of a political, scientific, historic, moral or RELIGIOUS NATURE."

Par. 9 further affirms the inalienable right to free expression by stating that "no person may be subject to the impairment of any rights under the Covenant on the basis of his or her actual, perceived or supposed opinions."

Sometime in late September 2011, the Filipino Artist Mideo Cruz exhibited his artwork titled "Poleteismo" at the Cultural Center of the Philippines, after several weeks, the exhibit was closed citing threats to persons and property. This is an unfortunate event indeed for the right to free expression and speaks of the need to educate society about the essence of democracy in general and free expression in particular. Par. 11 extends freedom of expression to "political discourse, commentary on one's own and public affairs, canvassing, discussion of human rights, journalism, CULTURAL AND ARTISTIC EXPRESSION, teaching, and religious discourse."

However, the right to expression and by extension, to blaspheme is regulated, par. 28 states: "The first of the legitimate grounds for restriction.... is that of respect for the rights or reputation of others." These rights include "human rights." Under par. 29, "The second legitimate ground is that of protection of national security or of public order or of public health or morals." Under par. 33, "restictions must be 'necessary' for a legitimate purpose" and it must not be overboard (par. 34). What this means is that "restrictive measures must conform to the principle of proportionality; they must be appropriate to achieve their protective functions; they must be least intrusive instrument amongst those which might achieve their protective function; they must be proportionate to the interest to be protected...."

In circumstances which might require the need to regulate and restrict the freedom of expression, the state "must demonstrate in specific and individualized fashion the precise nature of the threat, and the necessity and proportionality of the specific action taken, in particular by establishing a direct and immediate connection between the expression and the threat" (par. 35).

Under par. 48, blasphemy laws of any form are incompatible with the concept of human rights, except in consideration of justifiable circumstances taking into consideration the rights of others and for the maintenance of national security, public health and morals and restrictions and punishments must always be proportionate to the act committed and specific to particular circumstances only.