Tuesday, March 12, 2019
Monday, March 4, 2019
Collapse of Civilizations Because of Climate Change: Is It Time To Worry?
I recently came across this article from the BBC which looked at whether or not we (the current humans living on earth and our civilization) are on the road to collapse. The author looked at and surveyed ancient civilizations from as early as 3000BC to see what led to their demise. There were a mix of factors (some with unique events which led to their sudden demise like a major defeat in battle, coups, etc. ). But what's striking are the common reasons why civilizations collapse. Of the six factors, three relate to how we are continuously destroying and misusing the natural earth: CLIMATIC CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION, and indirectly INEQUALITY AND OLIGARCHY. Let's briefly have a look at each and see if these are happening now.
No doubt (and I must say THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED) that climate change is happening. We have more severe (and unexpected) weather happening year after year in different parts of the world. Floods, droughts, snow storms, heat waves, cold spells, hurricanes, typhoons, cyclones - you name it and we've all experienced the worst of it. Just a few days ago, weather in London was reported to be at its highest during winters at 20 degrees Celsius. Sure people there had a good time basking in the sun and enjoying the warmer than usual weather - but it got scientists and climate activists worried at whats to come. In the Philippines, weather authorities are asking people to brace themselves for a stronger than usual El Nino year - which means a drier summer and a wetter rainy season!
Let's now talk about environmental degradation - another no brainer in my opinion. Despite the positive results we are seeing nowadays - more people are now aware and doing the bit that they can to save the environment that's left - it is all still not enough. Forests continue to be cut, species are still becoming extinct by the day (by some estimates), and our rivers, lakes, and oceans have yet to be freed from our plastic and rubbish. Our consumerism and wasteful lifestyle have pushed our natural resources and nature's carrying capacity to alarming levels. Last year, plastic was the enemy. This year, UN Environment is targeting fast fashion - a little-know massive waste producer by shoppers!
Lastly, you have inequality and oligarchy. These I think are the results of both climate change and environmental degradation. As natural resources become more scarce, those who are already impoverished will have more difficulty accessing their basic needs - while the 1% (the oligarchs in society) do everything that they can to ensure they keep their 1% status (but note that not all are like this, and there are philanthropists who are using their wealth to make a difference).
I'm sure all these seem familiar and many are not surprised. So back to my question - is it time to worry? My answer is yes. If you care about what's ahead in a few years time, then yes it is time to worry. If you want a world which can sustain life for your children and grandchildren, and their children, then yes it is time to worry. If you are disturbed at the path which society and civilization is taking now, then it's time to worry. If you are bothered because your own family member, your spouse, child, office mate, or friend simply doesn't care about climate change and the whole host of environmental issues, then it's time to worry.
But my message is this - translate that worry into action, channel your worry to inspire you and those closest to you to act. Use that inner voice telling you to worry to move to a more positive tone. Taking cue from Atty. Tony Oposa, now is not the time to worry, the time for action is now!
See:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190218-are-we-on-the-road-to-civilisation-collapse
No doubt (and I must say THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED) that climate change is happening. We have more severe (and unexpected) weather happening year after year in different parts of the world. Floods, droughts, snow storms, heat waves, cold spells, hurricanes, typhoons, cyclones - you name it and we've all experienced the worst of it. Just a few days ago, weather in London was reported to be at its highest during winters at 20 degrees Celsius. Sure people there had a good time basking in the sun and enjoying the warmer than usual weather - but it got scientists and climate activists worried at whats to come. In the Philippines, weather authorities are asking people to brace themselves for a stronger than usual El Nino year - which means a drier summer and a wetter rainy season!
Let's now talk about environmental degradation - another no brainer in my opinion. Despite the positive results we are seeing nowadays - more people are now aware and doing the bit that they can to save the environment that's left - it is all still not enough. Forests continue to be cut, species are still becoming extinct by the day (by some estimates), and our rivers, lakes, and oceans have yet to be freed from our plastic and rubbish. Our consumerism and wasteful lifestyle have pushed our natural resources and nature's carrying capacity to alarming levels. Last year, plastic was the enemy. This year, UN Environment is targeting fast fashion - a little-know massive waste producer by shoppers!
Lastly, you have inequality and oligarchy. These I think are the results of both climate change and environmental degradation. As natural resources become more scarce, those who are already impoverished will have more difficulty accessing their basic needs - while the 1% (the oligarchs in society) do everything that they can to ensure they keep their 1% status (but note that not all are like this, and there are philanthropists who are using their wealth to make a difference).
I'm sure all these seem familiar and many are not surprised. So back to my question - is it time to worry? My answer is yes. If you care about what's ahead in a few years time, then yes it is time to worry. If you want a world which can sustain life for your children and grandchildren, and their children, then yes it is time to worry. If you are disturbed at the path which society and civilization is taking now, then it's time to worry. If you are bothered because your own family member, your spouse, child, office mate, or friend simply doesn't care about climate change and the whole host of environmental issues, then it's time to worry.
But my message is this - translate that worry into action, channel your worry to inspire you and those closest to you to act. Use that inner voice telling you to worry to move to a more positive tone. Taking cue from Atty. Tony Oposa, now is not the time to worry, the time for action is now!
See:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190218-are-we-on-the-road-to-civilisation-collapse
Tuesday, February 19, 2019
The Green Thumb Coalition: Are Clean and Green Philippine Elections in 2019 Possible?
Last month environmental groups and frontline organizations from the Philippines launched the Green Thumb Coalition - with the goal of urging candidates to veer away from waste and embrace a green platform. They also want candidates to to commit to advance policies in promoting the environment, sustainable development, and people's welfare. The GTC is composed of over 40 national and local organizations which tackle various environmental and social issues.
The GTC also encouraged candidates to align their platform with solutions to issues concerning dirty and costly energy, waste management, comprehensive land use, mining, climate justice, biodiversity, human rights, and sustainable development, collectively known as the Green Electoral Platform.
Each elections green groups and environmental advocates have called upon candidates and politicians to adopt a green agenda, to openly commit to supporting legislative proposals that benefit nature and the environment. However and sadly, many politicians only pay lip service and their promises remain just that - promises. As the Filipino saying goes - mga pangakong napapako! (promises that hit a nail and burst a tire). Ask them their stand on a critical environmental issue, and most likely you'll get the same motherhood statements you usually hear. Details are missing, and commitment is often lacking.
Then there is the issue of electoral waste - tarpaulins, flyers, souvenirs, pocket calendars, baller IDs, and the the list goes on! Sure elections do drive up the Philippine economy with all the campaign spending and extra work for people as watchers and paid volunteers. But all these happens at the cost of the environment. Worse is the fact that environment and climate change are not really prioritized by the candidates. Who gives nature a voice during elections?
This makes the Green Electoral Platform of GTC all the more important during an election. Candidates should commit to the most pressing environmental issues, so if they get elected the people can hold them accountable for failing to fulfill their promises. It's a given that environmental degradation and climate change are most pressing challenges of our time. It's a crisis, and action is needed, now and urgently. Voters should also demand that candidates have a greener campiagn - go for environmentally friendly and recycled materials, use non-print media more to save on paper, and reduce waste in all aspects of the campaign operation. If voters start demanding, then candidates will start answering.
More later on the what the agenda can include, and some specific issues to watch out for.
For now, let's support the Green Thumb Coalition, and start giving mother nature a voice in our elections.
For more information and sources:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/green-thumb-coalition/green-advocates-call-for-clean-green-elections/2249392255376077/
https://www.rappler.com/nation/politics/elections/2019/221260-what-candidates-should-avoid-from-tarpaulins-funds-from-mining
The GTC also encouraged candidates to align their platform with solutions to issues concerning dirty and costly energy, waste management, comprehensive land use, mining, climate justice, biodiversity, human rights, and sustainable development, collectively known as the Green Electoral Platform.
Each elections green groups and environmental advocates have called upon candidates and politicians to adopt a green agenda, to openly commit to supporting legislative proposals that benefit nature and the environment. However and sadly, many politicians only pay lip service and their promises remain just that - promises. As the Filipino saying goes - mga pangakong napapako! (promises that hit a nail and burst a tire). Ask them their stand on a critical environmental issue, and most likely you'll get the same motherhood statements you usually hear. Details are missing, and commitment is often lacking.
Then there is the issue of electoral waste - tarpaulins, flyers, souvenirs, pocket calendars, baller IDs, and the the list goes on! Sure elections do drive up the Philippine economy with all the campaign spending and extra work for people as watchers and paid volunteers. But all these happens at the cost of the environment. Worse is the fact that environment and climate change are not really prioritized by the candidates. Who gives nature a voice during elections?
This makes the Green Electoral Platform of GTC all the more important during an election. Candidates should commit to the most pressing environmental issues, so if they get elected the people can hold them accountable for failing to fulfill their promises. It's a given that environmental degradation and climate change are most pressing challenges of our time. It's a crisis, and action is needed, now and urgently. Voters should also demand that candidates have a greener campiagn - go for environmentally friendly and recycled materials, use non-print media more to save on paper, and reduce waste in all aspects of the campaign operation. If voters start demanding, then candidates will start answering.
More later on the what the agenda can include, and some specific issues to watch out for.
For now, let's support the Green Thumb Coalition, and start giving mother nature a voice in our elections.
For more information and sources:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/green-thumb-coalition/green-advocates-call-for-clean-green-elections/2249392255376077/
https://www.rappler.com/nation/politics/elections/2019/221260-what-candidates-should-avoid-from-tarpaulins-funds-from-mining
Tuesday, February 12, 2019
And We’re Back!!!
Almost 10 years since I started my blog, and almost 9
years since my last post, I have decided to once again share my ideas,
thoughts, and ramblings to those interested out there. I began my blog to share
my views on current events and life in general – a way to share stories, start
conversations, stir emotions, provoke action, build support, and many more.
This space can be a place where people from all walks of life can hopefully
pick something useful for what’s important for them – be it their family, their
work or career, the country, religion, or simply life itself. I also saw this
blog as a place where I can share things I am passionate about, and hopefully
awaken your senses into sharing and fighting for the what is good, right, and
just.
10 years on and I by God’s grace I have become a
lawyer and legal practitioner. But not your usual type – I have specialized in
environment and climate change law, a bit on sustainable development, natural
resources, and governance and human rights in general. I’ve worked in
government, with NGOs, the private sector, and with international organizations,
both in the Philippines and around Asia. Hence the re-focus of the blog to
include the environment. You’ll hear more on this from me as we all grapple
with environmental degradation and the impacts of climate change (just before
writing this the BBC reported that due to climate change there will be a loss
of insects like bees and beetles, but more pests like cockroaches and flies!
Globalization and development indeed!!!).
Monday, December 6, 2010
Talking Points for the RH Bill (courtesy of the Simbahang Lingkod ng Bayan)
Issued jointly by Loyola School of Theology and the John J. Carroll Institute on Church and Social Issues
Authors: Fr. Eric O. Genilo, S.J., Fr, John J. Carroll, S.J., and Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J.
Talking Points for Dialogue on the Reproductive Health Bill (HB 96; filed July 1, 2010)
The polarization of Philippine society over the Reproductive Health Bill has been a source of discouragement and discontent among Filipinos. It is unfortunate that the debate has focused only on whether the Bill should be passed or rejected in its present form. Either option would not be good for Filipinos. The Church sees in the proposed Bill serious flaws that can lead to violations of human rights and freedom of conscience. It would not be acceptable to pass it in its present form. Total rejection of the Bill, however, will not change the status quo of high rates of infant mortality, maternal deaths, and abortions. It is a moral imperative that such dehumanizing conditions should not be allowed to continue. What is needed is a third option: critical and constructive engagement. By working together to amend the objectionable provisions of the Bill and retain the provisions that actually improve the lives of Filipinos, both the proponents and opponents of the Bill can make a contribution to protection of the dignity of Filipinos and an improvement of their quality of life.
The following are talking points and proposals for dialogue and negotiation on the objectionable portions of the Bill:
The Protection of Human Life and the Constitution
• The Church insists on protection of human life upon fertilization. The question to be answered by the State is if this is the same position it will take regarding the protection of human life.
• The Philippine Constitution says that the State will protect the life of the unborn upon conception. It is not specified in the Constitution whether conception means fertilization or the implantation of an embryo in the womb. The Constitutional Convention seemed to favor fertilization. The definition of conception will have a bearing whether contraceptives that prevent the implantation of embryos would be legally allowed or not. This definition of conception in the Constitution must be worked out both by medical and legal experts in order to determine the parameters of what reproductive services can be provided by the Bill.
Contraceptives that prevent the implantation of embryos
• At the center of the controversy regarding abortion and the RH Bill are IUDs and other contraceptive medications and devices that may have the possible effect of preventing the implantation of an embryo, which for the Catholic Church, is considered an abortifacient effect. [Contraceptives without abortifacient effects are treated differently in church teaching. They are forbidden for Catholics but other religious traditions allow them.]
• Proposal: The State first has to make a clear position whether it considers the prevention of implantation of an embryo as an abortion. If the State takes this position, there must be a careful and scientifically based evaluation of each of the medicines and devices provided by the Bill. Those contraceptive medicines and devices which are determined to have abortifacient effects are to be banned even now and regardless of whether the RH Bill is passed or not.
Age Appropriate, Value-Based, Integral Human Sexuality Education
• The mandatory nature of the sexuality education curriculum proposed by the Bill is a concern for the Church because it would compel Catholic educators to teach parts of the curriculum that may be unacceptable for Catholics. The Church is also concerned that the parents’ right to decide on the education of their children would be denied by such a mandatory curriculum for all schools.
• Proposal: For the purpose of protecting academic freedom and respecting religious traditions, should not the right of religious schools to write and implement their own sexuality education curriculum according to their religious traditions be respected? For public schools and non-religious private schools, an appointed panel of parent representatives, educators, experts in child development and psychology, medical experts, and representatives of religious traditions can write the sexuality education curriculum and the DEPED can monitor the implementation. Parents with children in public schools should have the right to have their children exempted from the sexuality education class if the curriculum is not acceptable to them. The Constitution allows religious instruction in public schools only if the parents consent in writing. Should a similar provision be enacted relative to sexuality education? The Bill must also respect the conscientious objection of individual educators who refuse to teach a sexuality curriculum that violates their religious beliefs.
Providing Reproductive Health Information and Services for a Multi-Religious Society
• Even if the majority of the population of the country are Catholics, our democratic system should ensure that public polices are not determined solely by majority vote but also by a careful consideration of the common good of all, including non-Catholics.
• The Compendium of the Social Teaching of the Church rejects any imposition of norms by a majority that is discriminatory of the rights of a minority: (#422) “Because of its historical and cultural ties to a nation, a religious community might be given special recognition on the part of the State. Such recognition must in no way create discrimination within the civil or social order for other religious groups;” (#169): “Those responsible for government are required to interpret the common good of their country not only according to the guidelines of the majority but also according to the effective good of all the members of the community, including the minority.”
• It is the duty of various religions to teach their faithful and form their consciences about what their religious tradition allows and prohibits with regard to family planning. It is the duty of the government to provide correct and comprehensive information on all non-abortifacient (as defined by law) family planning methods that are available. Consciences will thus be better equipped to make informed choices according to their religious traditions.
• Proposal: There can be two separate parallel programs for providing information and training, one for NFP and another for artificial methods of family planning (with separate budgets). The separation of the programs will ensure that NFP will get adequate funding and those trainers who wish to teach only NFP for religious reasons will not be forced to teach artificial methods. The conscience of health workers and trainers should be respected. If a Catholic health worker or trainer conscientiously objects to teaching contraception methods, he or she should be allowed to teach only NFP methods.
Limits to the Anti-Discrimination Provision
• The current Bill prohibits the refusal of health care services and information based on a patient’s marital status, gender or sexual orientation, age, religion, personal circumstances, and nature of work. This provision must have parameters. For example, if a doctor refuses to administer an IUD to a minor who requests for it, would that be considered age discrimination?
• Should the provision apply equally to both in the public and private health care providers or shouldn’t private practitioners have more leeway in practicing their medicine as they see fit?
Employers' Responsibility
• Employers should not be required to provide in their CBAs reproductive health services of their employees. To enforce this requirement would be a violation of the conscience of Catholic employers.
• Proposal: Such a provision is unnecessary because the general Philhealth medical coverage, which is mandatory for all employees, provides for such reproductive health services upon request of the employee. This allows employers with religious objections to contraceptives or sterilizations to avoid direct formal cooperation in the provision of such family planning methods to their employees.
Contraception as Essential Medicines in Government Health Centers and Hospitals
• The Church’s objection to this provision is that it appears to treat pregnancy as a disease.
• Proposal: The question of whether contraceptives are essential medicines should be resolved by a panel of objective medical experts such as the Philippine Medical Association. What contraceptives actually prevent diseases? It would be helpful to be able to present cases where the use of a contraceptive is a medically indicated treatment for a particular disease or emergency situation. If some contraceptives are ultimately decided as essential or emergency medicines that should be stocked in government health centers and hospitals, no contraceptives with abortifacient effects are to be allowed.
Freedom of Speech
• Proposal: The Bill’s provision that penalizes malicious disinformation against the intention and provisions of the Bill should be refined by a clear description of what constitutes “malicious disinformation,” or failing that, the provision should be scrapped.
Implementing Norms
• Proposal: The committee to be in-charge of the Bill's implementing norms should have representatives from major religious traditions to ensure that the rights of people of various faiths would be protected.
The above proposals are intended to generate constructive and respectful dialogue leading to concrete actions that would correct the RH Bill. It is hoped that the parties involved in the RH debate would move away from hard-line positions and consider negotiations as a more positive step towards working for the good of all Filipinos, with special consideration for the unborn, the youth, women and families in difficult circumstances.
Finally, we can turn to the following Christian maxim as our guide in our search for answers and solutions regarding the RH Bill: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity.” For things pertaining to protecting human life and dignity, we need to come to a consensus for the common good; for things that can be left to individual decisions without violating human life and dignity, we need to respect freedom of conscience of every Filipino both Catholics and non-Catholics; in all our discussions, we need to speak and act with charity and understanding as members of the same human family and community.
Authors: Fr. Eric O. Genilo, S.J., Fr, John J. Carroll, S.J., and Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J.
Talking Points for Dialogue on the Reproductive Health Bill (HB 96; filed July 1, 2010)
The polarization of Philippine society over the Reproductive Health Bill has been a source of discouragement and discontent among Filipinos. It is unfortunate that the debate has focused only on whether the Bill should be passed or rejected in its present form. Either option would not be good for Filipinos. The Church sees in the proposed Bill serious flaws that can lead to violations of human rights and freedom of conscience. It would not be acceptable to pass it in its present form. Total rejection of the Bill, however, will not change the status quo of high rates of infant mortality, maternal deaths, and abortions. It is a moral imperative that such dehumanizing conditions should not be allowed to continue. What is needed is a third option: critical and constructive engagement. By working together to amend the objectionable provisions of the Bill and retain the provisions that actually improve the lives of Filipinos, both the proponents and opponents of the Bill can make a contribution to protection of the dignity of Filipinos and an improvement of their quality of life.
The following are talking points and proposals for dialogue and negotiation on the objectionable portions of the Bill:
The Protection of Human Life and the Constitution
• The Church insists on protection of human life upon fertilization. The question to be answered by the State is if this is the same position it will take regarding the protection of human life.
• The Philippine Constitution says that the State will protect the life of the unborn upon conception. It is not specified in the Constitution whether conception means fertilization or the implantation of an embryo in the womb. The Constitutional Convention seemed to favor fertilization. The definition of conception will have a bearing whether contraceptives that prevent the implantation of embryos would be legally allowed or not. This definition of conception in the Constitution must be worked out both by medical and legal experts in order to determine the parameters of what reproductive services can be provided by the Bill.
Contraceptives that prevent the implantation of embryos
• At the center of the controversy regarding abortion and the RH Bill are IUDs and other contraceptive medications and devices that may have the possible effect of preventing the implantation of an embryo, which for the Catholic Church, is considered an abortifacient effect. [Contraceptives without abortifacient effects are treated differently in church teaching. They are forbidden for Catholics but other religious traditions allow them.]
• Proposal: The State first has to make a clear position whether it considers the prevention of implantation of an embryo as an abortion. If the State takes this position, there must be a careful and scientifically based evaluation of each of the medicines and devices provided by the Bill. Those contraceptive medicines and devices which are determined to have abortifacient effects are to be banned even now and regardless of whether the RH Bill is passed or not.
Age Appropriate, Value-Based, Integral Human Sexuality Education
• The mandatory nature of the sexuality education curriculum proposed by the Bill is a concern for the Church because it would compel Catholic educators to teach parts of the curriculum that may be unacceptable for Catholics. The Church is also concerned that the parents’ right to decide on the education of their children would be denied by such a mandatory curriculum for all schools.
• Proposal: For the purpose of protecting academic freedom and respecting religious traditions, should not the right of religious schools to write and implement their own sexuality education curriculum according to their religious traditions be respected? For public schools and non-religious private schools, an appointed panel of parent representatives, educators, experts in child development and psychology, medical experts, and representatives of religious traditions can write the sexuality education curriculum and the DEPED can monitor the implementation. Parents with children in public schools should have the right to have their children exempted from the sexuality education class if the curriculum is not acceptable to them. The Constitution allows religious instruction in public schools only if the parents consent in writing. Should a similar provision be enacted relative to sexuality education? The Bill must also respect the conscientious objection of individual educators who refuse to teach a sexuality curriculum that violates their religious beliefs.
Providing Reproductive Health Information and Services for a Multi-Religious Society
• Even if the majority of the population of the country are Catholics, our democratic system should ensure that public polices are not determined solely by majority vote but also by a careful consideration of the common good of all, including non-Catholics.
• The Compendium of the Social Teaching of the Church rejects any imposition of norms by a majority that is discriminatory of the rights of a minority: (#422) “Because of its historical and cultural ties to a nation, a religious community might be given special recognition on the part of the State. Such recognition must in no way create discrimination within the civil or social order for other religious groups;” (#169): “Those responsible for government are required to interpret the common good of their country not only according to the guidelines of the majority but also according to the effective good of all the members of the community, including the minority.”
• It is the duty of various religions to teach their faithful and form their consciences about what their religious tradition allows and prohibits with regard to family planning. It is the duty of the government to provide correct and comprehensive information on all non-abortifacient (as defined by law) family planning methods that are available. Consciences will thus be better equipped to make informed choices according to their religious traditions.
• Proposal: There can be two separate parallel programs for providing information and training, one for NFP and another for artificial methods of family planning (with separate budgets). The separation of the programs will ensure that NFP will get adequate funding and those trainers who wish to teach only NFP for religious reasons will not be forced to teach artificial methods. The conscience of health workers and trainers should be respected. If a Catholic health worker or trainer conscientiously objects to teaching contraception methods, he or she should be allowed to teach only NFP methods.
Limits to the Anti-Discrimination Provision
• The current Bill prohibits the refusal of health care services and information based on a patient’s marital status, gender or sexual orientation, age, religion, personal circumstances, and nature of work. This provision must have parameters. For example, if a doctor refuses to administer an IUD to a minor who requests for it, would that be considered age discrimination?
• Should the provision apply equally to both in the public and private health care providers or shouldn’t private practitioners have more leeway in practicing their medicine as they see fit?
Employers' Responsibility
• Employers should not be required to provide in their CBAs reproductive health services of their employees. To enforce this requirement would be a violation of the conscience of Catholic employers.
• Proposal: Such a provision is unnecessary because the general Philhealth medical coverage, which is mandatory for all employees, provides for such reproductive health services upon request of the employee. This allows employers with religious objections to contraceptives or sterilizations to avoid direct formal cooperation in the provision of such family planning methods to their employees.
Contraception as Essential Medicines in Government Health Centers and Hospitals
• The Church’s objection to this provision is that it appears to treat pregnancy as a disease.
• Proposal: The question of whether contraceptives are essential medicines should be resolved by a panel of objective medical experts such as the Philippine Medical Association. What contraceptives actually prevent diseases? It would be helpful to be able to present cases where the use of a contraceptive is a medically indicated treatment for a particular disease or emergency situation. If some contraceptives are ultimately decided as essential or emergency medicines that should be stocked in government health centers and hospitals, no contraceptives with abortifacient effects are to be allowed.
Freedom of Speech
• Proposal: The Bill’s provision that penalizes malicious disinformation against the intention and provisions of the Bill should be refined by a clear description of what constitutes “malicious disinformation,” or failing that, the provision should be scrapped.
Implementing Norms
• Proposal: The committee to be in-charge of the Bill's implementing norms should have representatives from major religious traditions to ensure that the rights of people of various faiths would be protected.
The above proposals are intended to generate constructive and respectful dialogue leading to concrete actions that would correct the RH Bill. It is hoped that the parties involved in the RH debate would move away from hard-line positions and consider negotiations as a more positive step towards working for the good of all Filipinos, with special consideration for the unborn, the youth, women and families in difficult circumstances.
Finally, we can turn to the following Christian maxim as our guide in our search for answers and solutions regarding the RH Bill: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity.” For things pertaining to protecting human life and dignity, we need to come to a consensus for the common good; for things that can be left to individual decisions without violating human life and dignity, we need to respect freedom of conscience of every Filipino both Catholics and non-Catholics; in all our discussions, we need to speak and act with charity and understanding as members of the same human family and community.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)