As I watch the “Grand Debate” on RH Bill at GMA NEWS TV, more and more ideas—conflicting and inflicting—dawned on me. The debate was divided into three general arguments on the controversial bill, namely: a. RH Bill & Poverty Reduction; b. RH Bill and Morality; and c. RH Bill and Women’s Health. And as the Debate went on, I continue to reassess the situation—including my stand on it. Later on, I came to a conclusion, RH Bill is a problematica—a term used in science which is used when the classification of organisms cannot be decided.
In the first place, I ask: What has made this Bill so controversial as compared to other bills presented in congress? The best answer that I could think of is religion. The very reason why this social issue has become very controversial is the presence of churches in the midst of it. So does that mean that churches should not have been allowed to enter the scene? NO. In fact, I think these debates are healthy and good for the formation of the Philippine society. Debates present a bigger picture of a situation and this provides us with better perspectives as regards our decisions. It makes us think more critically, making us more tolerant and mature—hopefully. However, the moment ANY religious institution comes into the scene and BARS its flock from the information they need to know, that’s where the problem lies.
For me, being educated inevitably includes being educated and mal-educated. This means that no matter what we do (e.g. parents teaching their children not to do this or that) people would inevitably do (or think, at the least) of something “bad” or immoral at some point in their lives. Why? Because
1.) as we educate our kids on what is right from wrong, the society (which is beyond our control) also consciously and subconsciously teaches them that the wrong may be right and that the right may be wrong and
2.) to err is human.
If this is the case, are we supposed to sit back and watch the moral fiber of Philippine society disintegrate? OF COURSE NOT! This is why constant reminders should take place—within the family and within the community. You see, life is about decisions. And most often than not, people decide based on what is available around them. For example, if a teenager lives in a community where the start of the menstrual cycle is tantamount to becoming a mother, she will more likely decide to be a mother at a very young age. UNLESS, of course, someone constantly guides her about the consequences of early pregnancy. Have you ever wondered why most rich or educated families control the number of kids they will have? Their DECISION is because of what is available around them—e.g. that having more kids would mean more expenses, more responsibilities, and if one cannot attend to it, might as well control.
Going back to the main point of discussion, there are so many factors that make the RH Bill a problematica, but for this particular blog, I shall only focus on one: MORALITY. From my observations and opinion, the reason why this has turned into a fuss—a very big one—is because of how churches operationalize the term “morality”.
Whenever I teach and conduct debates in my classes, I would always tell my students that I would not encourage “moral” arguments in the motions to be debated upon, not because I don’t like to discuss morality, but because morality, to some extent, is relative. Of course, there are “absolute” or “generic” morality, e.g. killing another human being is immoral, unacceptable in any society (as much as I know). But there are also some moralities that are relative, e.g. to some, it is immoral to have more than one wife, but to some cultures it is not. (NB: This is not limited to Islam. Studies from different societies reveal that other cultures also accept polygamy such as the Israelites of the old testament or the fraternal polyandry in some areas in Tibet and Nepal.)
The “wrongest” move, if I may say, of a church in this war against RH bill is to resort to the most absurd ammunition of all: excommunication of those supporting RH BILL. To me, it’s like a kid threatening not to give a candy if another kid doesn’t want to play.
(Didn’t the church threaten to excommunicate P-noy for supporting RH? See:http://www.mb.com.ph/node/280046/excommunication-hit)
I suddenly remembered Jonathan Edwards’s “Sinners in the hands of an angry God” upon learning about this fallacious (appeal to fear) and “malicious” move by a church. I felt sad at one point because this move has just made the war worse. It just reminded the people how the prayles of the past still lives today.
While it is true that it is the church’s obligation to teach values to its members, I believe that the priority of the church should not be focused on targeting those who do not like to follow their teachings. Instead, I think they should focus on how to make their teachings sound, appropriate, and practical in order to make the people follow them whole-heartedly and never forcefully. Isn’t it that when Jesus went out to preach the word, many criticized Him and mocked Him? I have never read, heard, nor learned any Bible passage that talks about Jesus retaliating against his detractors.
While morality is a very important factor in the formation and reformation of the society, I don’t think this should be used as a means for threatening the people and making them “believe” the stand of the church on a certain issue—by force nor by fear.
The RH Bill, to date, remains a problematica because I think the essential issues and core objectives on why this was proposed in congress is not tackled carefully. Sadly, the debates have gone out of way. It has started from poverty, went on to morality, and ended up in obscurity.
The saddest part is, as we continue to debate, think, and assess its effectiveness and appropriateness, more and more Filipinos are born, which means more and more Filipinos will potentially become poor tomorrow.
