Stop this nonsense

MANILA, Philippines - Let’s be honest. We’re all up to our necks in the RH Bill drama that the mere mention of those two letters is enough to make anyone cringe. While we do recognize the many lives on the line (whether you’re pro-life or “PRO-LIFE”—how they differ is anybody’s guess), we also recognize that there’s so much more to social responsibility and activism than just the damn bill. Unfortunately, the debates have come to the point of no return: pass the bill or not, chaos is bound to ensue.

In fact, it’s already begun.

But let’s be objective. Anyone who’s ever really thought about the bill has heard smart arguments from both ends of the spectrum. Sadly, TV relays none of it. It just so happens that we’ve already made up our minds, and the news reports only add more fuel to the fire; leaving no room for discussion.

But let’s be academic. We all have our subject positions, and relativism says that no singular truth is true for everyone. (Yes, this statement sits on a pretty high horse. It’s neither pro- nor anti- RH Bill. It’s really just anti-legislation per se.)

So what’s left for us to do?

Young Star writer Samantha King and I are into most things together. Aside from working for the same paper, we hail from the same department in the UP College of Arts and Letters; we eat, drink, and are merry together; and incidentally, we’re jogging partners, too, and occasional rallyists in Mendiola.

A lot of times, we bounce ideas off each other. A lot of times, we disagree. But then we just agree to disagree. And in this whole RH debate, we’re on really hostile terms: she’s on the pro- and I’m on the anti-.

So, we took it upon ourselves not to try and put an end to this debate, but to try to make a debate out of it. The way it’s standing now, the issue has become a pataasan ng ihi kind of thing, with certain parties having gained immunity from the criticism. And since the CBCP, Tito Sotto, and women’s rights proponents have already taken a beating on the internet, we’re using this space to call-out those figures, ideas, and institutions who’ve been left relatively unscathed from all this pandemonium.

After all, the pro- needs the anti- and the anti- needs the pro-. In the words of a wise philosopher, “Why so serious?”

1. The media should stop feigning impartiality. It’s just pathetic that we try to hide under slogans which both claim monopoly of the truth and speak for all sectors of society. It’s like saying you’re a president who’s lived in the slums all his life. Aside from being logically unsound, it’s just plain BS.

The media should come clean. Objectivity is a myth and impartiality is dead. Let’s be accountable for what we put out and firmly pronounce what we believe. If there’s anything the media knows too well, it’s conditioning the minds of its audience. And while some shows are obvious propaganda on the RH Bill, we can’t argue with them because they hide under the cloak of “fair play” and “Truth.”

Is it so hard to say that “Channel 72 supports the RH Bill”? TV Maria (Channel 160 on Sky Cable) is all out in saying they’re against the RH Bill for Catholic reasons. Well, it is CBCP’s channel...

2. Carlos Celdran could use a little self-reflection. This may be old news, but we still feel iffy whenever we recall the whole Damaso! stunt in Manila Cathedral two years ago. And frankly, we’d like him to recant. Not because of his antics, but because it should’ve been Salvi! instead of Damaso! If Celdran wanted to put the word out that our priests were meddling too much in the State’s affairs, invoking Padre Salvi would have worked as better protest.

By further analyzing Rizal’s novels, we’d see that Damaso wasn’t the villain who buried Ibarra underground. While Damaso did everything to keep Crisostomo Ibarra away from Maria Clara, it was Salvi who pulled the strings to make sure Ibarra would suffer. The fat priest only wanted to keep his beloved daughter away from harm; the thin one was evil. Damaso’s character is complex; in the end, one sees that he was human and that, indeed, he loved.

Something to chew on: Celdran might have inadvertently backed the CBCP.

It’s not that we’re nitpicking, but our beef here really lies in education and critical thinking. If we’re pushing for a bill to educate our countrymen, we must be educators ourselves. We must teach to educate. We must educate to liberate, not merely to inform.

3. Who are the Filipino Freethinkers kidding? The whole foundation of their existence lies on the bourgeois humanism of the white, imperialist, Western subject. Which, if we remember correctly, was a humanism that effectively legitimized the colonial agenda. After all, everyone is human, but some are more human than others. Of course, we, the little brown men and women of the Orient, were the ones “othered.”

The FF’s aim to promote reason, science, and secularism for the good of Philippine society is funny, considering that any regard for class dynamics and the particular socio-cultural context of our country is thrown out the window. Separation of the Church and State? We aren’t Western Europe, friends. Enlightened libertarian thinking can only go so far, especially when we consider the role of religion in our own country. Religion can be rational in specific societies, after all.

But to give a proper introduction of the FF, they are the largest group of “non-believers and progressive believers in the Philippines.”

We’ll leave you this phrase to scratch your heads over.

4. Twenty, thirty years after this is over and done with... we’d like to see the losers say, “I told you so,” just because this debate never enjoyed a healthy discussion. It might have even failed to reach quorum in Congress. Maybe we could’ve done a better job.

5. So a stressed out priest walks into a bar and asks the waiter for some Red Horse beer. And the bartender says, “I thought you were against RH?”