My point is, they can't justify it w/ religion, they simply use it as an excuse b/c they don't have anything better. (b/c there is no excuse. but that doesn't make religion bad. If not for religion, there'd be some other excuse. (like, Hitler told me to))

teds: yeah. you bring up an excellent point: Church isn't the only thing that influences kids or shapes their beliefs, even if they are actively religious when young. You chose different influences for yourself, just as anyone has the choice of who gets to influence him or her.

Churches don't have any business in politics. They aren't there to provide for everyone. They are there to provide for their followers. It's not bad when people trust the opinion of someone else. The church however should stay neutral because there is no reason for them to get involved in politics.

Now your argument is getting better. XD

but the only ways church is able to get involved in government are 2: 1, ask people to vote a certain way, which they still have the right to choose.
2, lobby government representatives, which many other organizations do as well, and nobody is saying they are bad for doing that.

so my question is, again: why is it bad for the church to get involved in either of those ways, b/c I don't see how else they might be involved w/ Filipino government.

Yes that is how Churches get involved in politics here, but that doesn't mean that churches should do those things. Churches should stay neutral. Does the US do anything to churches? No. They have no reason to get involved in politics. Churches shouldn't give official opinions or try to lobby a legislator. Yes many other organizations lobby a legislator, but they do it for political reasons, not religious ones.

They lobby a legislator for ideological reasons.
They being churches as well as other organizations.

Members of churches have their opinions, and if their opinions are similar, then they should be allowed to have their organization lobby as much as any other organization is allowed to lobby.

the church isn't separate from the law after all. just from the body that makes and enforces the law, known as the government. then they should have as much of a say in the law as anyone else who isn't separate from the law.

Churches lobby for religious reasons. Members are churches can share their opinions all they want, but the CHURCH should not. And yes the Church is separate from law. They should have no say in the government, because they don't belong in law. They are an institution that is set up for one purpose, to spread their beliefs. The only time Churches should get involved in government is when government tries to make a law banning the church.

Church isn't separate from the law. Churches often run day cares, for example, which have strict legal guidelines. Just separate from the government. (which I'm glad. too many people use their church as an excuse to do stuff that clearly goes against everything that church teaches)

You're right though. Each church is founded based on it's members' beliefs. just like the NRA, for example, is based on it's members' beliefs, or the NAACP is based on it's members' beliefs (or was. I don't remember if they're still around)

What do you mean by religious reasons anyway? The only mention I know of in the bible regarding government says keep your head down & stay out of trouble with the law, but it was said in a way that could also mean keep away from govt. entirely. (at least the translation I read. . .)

Those laws are for every daycare. But there are no laws that strictly apply to churches, except some tax ones. The NRA and NAACP ( yes it is still around) is based on political beliefs not religious ones. Religious reasons meaning, reasons based on their sacred text or sacred beliefs that apply solely to that church.

No, I had a 'real choice' because:
1. My parents weren't religious so didn't actively enforce any religious ideas I had at the time.
2. I was not in a religious community
3. I had room to actually 'question' my religious beliefs and decide it was ultimately not for me.

The parents are the first teachers, and so will thrust religion on to you whether you want to or not. The religious community will reinforcing such religious beliefs as right. It's a constantly reinforcing system for religion where everyone you know is probably religious and will reinforce whatever religious beliefs you have. 'Choice' in such an environment is an illusion imo. Sure, some 'snap out' of it, but most likely: you're staying where you are concerning religion.

Now religion by itself, isn't bad. I can see why believing in a god is comforting to others and some of the values I agree with.

But, it's bad to be political with religion because religious people as above can be swayed with such arguments as: It's in the bible *shows a verse*

As long as you put 'god' or 'sin' somewhere in there: you're swaying some people for non rational reasons.

(pretty much why i get really tired when religious people keep touting their religious book as evidence/proof. It's an 'all encompassing' excuse and not a real reason for me. Personal bias showing obviously. If you say you are against gays, I want to see something other than 'it's an abomination and saids so in the *insert holy book*' because that doesn't fly with me.)

Since this seemed like a huge rant against religion: I'm not against religion. I'm against people who use religion as an excuse to hurt or influence others negatively to do something.

edit:

like this trial judge denied interracial marriage because;

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and He placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix."

He should just admit he's a racist rather than using god as an excuse.

Regarding the Topic: I support the bill.

Regarding the Church Debate: Yes the Church has the right to express its opinions BUT only in the manner any other organisation or individual would, and it should not expect or be given, any special consideration or allowed to influence the government any more than any other organisation or individual would.

EDIT: I agree with KTC's post above. Far too many people around me are brainwashed into just accepting what is told to them by 'grown-ups' rather than forming their own opinion about something. My parents are religious Hindus but they gave me the room to question beliefs and form my own opinions so I do not consider myself a Hindu and that is okay with them. IMO, this is the way it should be for everyone, but is not. Most of my friends have probabely never even thought of a possibilty of a life without the religious beliefs taught to them since birth, let alone choose, even though there are no religious restrictions in my country. If your family is from a particular religious sect people automatically assume you believe in that religion too...

ok, it makes sense now. yep there are laws that apply strictly to churches, like the separation of church & state, that only mean it's even less separate from the law (nothing is separate from the law though. =P maybe a dictator but that's outside the scope of this because in that case, nobody would have much say in anything)

so religious reasons means because their text told them to? or just that the things they lobby for are what the religious text says is proper? If it's the latter, I don't see why people shouldn't vote that way if that's truly what & how they believe.

Going back to what you said earlier, I just remembered a study on racist attitudes & church affiliation. Oddly enough, it said that people who actually internally believe in god and go to church for that reason are less likely to discriminate against others than average, while those who go to church for more social reasons are more likely than average to discriminate.

odd little tidbit there, but yeah.

[EDIT]Teds: Social pressures are everywhere. In every situation, choice is but an illusion. Can't really say that churches are the only ones that are like that.

as for citing the bible as evidence, yeeah I sorta see it. but really, those people are easily influenced back by showing them another verse.
[END EDIT]
[EDIT2]
Swaying people for non-rational reasons: That's part of a commitment & consistency principle described in my textbook by Cialdini. This whole book is on how people get influenced by non-rational reasons with a couple pages in each chapter on how to avoid falling for those things.
Anyway, the point I'm making w/ that is there are a lot of other ways people get influenced irrationally. For example, when they have an actor who used to play a doctor on TV promoting toothpaste or sth. When they have any famous or good lookign person in the ad. almost anything you see them do in commercials nowadays. It's not just limited to any church or churches in general.
[END EDIT]

Sorry for going so off topic there Heimdall.

On the original topic, the long title of the act is this:

AN ACT
CREATING A REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH AND POPULATION MANAGEMENT COUNCIL FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF AN INTEGRATED POLICY ON REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH RELATIVE TO SUSTAINABLE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AND POPULATION MANAGEMENT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

later in the act, population management is defined as a program that aims to: (a) encourage the limitation of the number of children to an affordable level of two (2) children per family; (b) attain an optimum fertility rate vis-a-vis equitable allocation and utilization of resources; (c) realize a balanced spatial distribution of the population by discouraging migration to urban centers and decongesting thickly populated areas; (d) promote the effective partnership among the national government, local government units and the private sector in the design, implementation, coordination, integration, monitoring and evaluation of people-centered programs on population, development and environment; and (e) conduct studies on and provide incentives for the deceleration of population growth.

which just makes me go what the heck? when you look at the short title.
... yeah, I'm confused. :\

right on that chimera regarding the Church Debate

i think that the bill will take longer to be approved. election season is nearing and these politicians would need the church's support to win. certain sectors of the church (not the roman catholic church) support politicians a 100% that's what makes their opinion matter.

Another odd thing w/ the bill is it's sexuality classes are supposed to promote post-marital sex and say pre-marital sex is bad. . .

I don't see why the catholic sector disagrees w/ the bill.

@ryu:

Text, or basically their interpretation of the text. Though for some, it's enough to just listen to their pastor/priest/etc. to convince them.

(Hellfire priests anyone? "You will BURN in HELL if you don't repent!" Just scare the person into 'being good'. Check Hell houses for modern scaring ppl. Now these dudes need to get a life haha XD)

Providing text is just giving them the illusion/confidence they have actual proof/evidence. And text/religion can provide a very convenient cover up for your prejudices/problems/etc.

*points to trial judge using god.*


As for the title: O.o! my english teacher would rip that up for being so convoluted.

because according to the church there are only two options for family planning.

1. Abstinence
2. Rhythm method

@abby: I get abstinence, what's rhythm method?

rhythm method is using a woman's cycle. no sex when fertile...

Ryuzaki

Probably because the Catholic Church doesn't like to talk about sex. And that it should only be talked about between spouses.

Teds:{ I guess. . . usually people like that are easy to convince the other direction too. Just use the same things that were used to convince them initially. (IE have the pastor say sth else. =P )

Yeah, it's convenient, but that doesn't make all religion bad. It makes the perversion of religion bad.

The whole hellfire thing just made me lol since I heard of it. probably because I heard it from a very animated english teacher who read a passage from a hellfire sermon and got really into it, but her voice just doesn't fit the act. =P }

EDIT:
Mopiece: { Oh yeah. lol I feel silly. xP
Still, if Catholic ideals are gonna be taught. . . I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to convince that sector to agree w/ the bill.}

@abby: err, tons of problems with that if the woman doesn't have a reliable cycle due to messed up hormones. Or you just made an honest miscalculation. lol.

@ryu: eh, you were saying you have a choice with religion. i disagree when it comes to religion. Too many reinforcing factors in the 'correct' environment that in all likelyhood you're gonna be religious in a religious environment.

I agree that there are a lot of influences in which a person will decide irrationally. (clothes for example. name brands >>> generic, even if both made of same material and same design).

But I still hold to my 'idea' that religion used as an excuse to cover up prejudices/etc. and influence ppl to vote against relatively 'reasonable' things is wrong. Like, if you're a racist: accept that. But don't go using the bible as a defense to be racist and making policies against the race you hate in the 'name of god'.

Just like I think using the Twinkie Defense (and that lousy excuse actually winning. WTH), was an excuse for the jury to be anti gay or something.

And yeah, I agree that religion is not bad. but when it's getting twisted around all over the place to support the twister's ideas: heck yeah that's bad.