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.

Yeah that's true, maybe the Catholic Church doesn't realize the bill is promoting their ideals? I'm sure if someone explained that it promoted their ideals then the Catholic Church might support it.

@mopiece: lol, that might end up as a political embarrassment

First they're against. Then someone explains. They say "oops. We only saw reproduction aka sex in the title and were against it. Now were for it. Disregard the previous message."

XD

Lol that's true. The Catholic Church does take a long time to admit mistakes, and they seem to not like to do so. Wasn't it earlier in the 2000s they said this place that didn't exist or was it unbaptized babies didn't go there? It started with a L but I can't think of it. *goes to Google to try and figure it out*

@mopiece: limbo perhaps?

2000 thing: Huh, I don't remember that part in religion class O.o;;

Yes that is what I was thinking of. The Catholic Church just recently said limbo doesn't exists (the 2000 thing I was referring to this limbo thing)

And the Catholic Church still doesn't condemn the Pope that was pope during WW2. (I don't remember his name)

@KTC
yup, you're right (cycle thing). but maybe they don't know that

here is the context of the church's teaching on birth control

http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

@abby: *reads* Dang. no fun ppl DX But the Pope wants more kiddies so guess that's why he's against birth control too

@mopiece: not too surprising lol.

Wow. In just two days we have reached page 4!
I think you should merge this topic with Abortion since its quite related to each other.

@heimdall: naw, imo, it's not a match cuz abortion is purely abortion. But this thread hasn't really touched abortion anywhere. Mostly debating about religious abuses and religion related stuff XD

Actually, Heimdall, the bill that is pending in the government now isn't RH Bill 16 but a consolidation of RH Bills 16, 2029, 2042, & 2550 - the RH Bill 3773, more popularly known as the Responsible Parenthood and Population Management Act of 2005.

Though yes, the church is against it, that is not to say that all sectors of the church are against it (I think the CBCP, by far, is the most vocal about their stand against it). Even they question why most pro-lifers are against the bill.

http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=teodoroBacani_july26_2008

Last September, there was a forum in our uni, where different perspectives on the topic was presented. There was Bishop Bacani for the church's, a sociologist, an economist, and a senator for the government's. Each of them presented their view and it was so enlightening.

Anyway, as what is happening now, most of the critics have often accused the Church of ignoring the problem of overpopulation (many visitors and students even flooded the bishop with questions about that in the forum). But don't you think that it is possible that these accusations are erroneous inasmuch as the critics are too busy lobbying for their own side to understand what the other side is saying?

In that forum, we were then given information that their [church] stand about overpopulation is not that of a complete disregard. What they are against is the possibility that the use of contraceptives that are also abortifacients would be promoted. These are the pills that not only act as contraceptives but also those that dislodges a fertilized ovum from the womb had the contraceptive action not been successful.

Also, they said that they are against policies that promote limitation of the number of children. Rather, they suggest responsible parenthood.

But, I won't dwell on the church's stand. I support the bill as I see it fit for Filipinos to be properly educated when it comes to population control. I even remember that in an interview in 1966, Dr. Isaac Asimov said "Which is the greater danger - nuclear warfare or the population explosion? The latter absolutely! To bring about nuclear war, someone has to DO something; someone has to press a button. To bring about destruction by overcrowding, mass starvation, anarchy, the destruction of our most cherished values--there is no need to do anything. We need only do nothing except what comes naturally--and breed. And how easy it is to do nothing."

However, I question their reason which says that overpopulation is the reason for poverty and suffering. Though yes, it may be one factor, but I don't believe that it is the only factor. Poverty is a multi-faceted problem where population merely plays a part of the pie. The rest, I believe, includes economic reforms, good governance practices, better educational and health systems, reforming the larger social structure.

----------
Oh I found this one. I think this is an opposition to the bill. The RH Bill 3773 link is also there.
http://www.prolife.org.ph/article/articleview/525/1/87