Thanks for your support at the T@tt Awards!

by Red Tani

The prosecution has rested its case, but were they right? When Corona admitted to having undisclosed dollar accounts, the prosecution decided that no further cross-examination was needed.

But Corona thinks he has the perfect defense. Although the Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Networth (SALN) requires disclosure of all assets, the Foreign Currency Deposits Act (FCDA) states that dollar accounts need not be disclosed. The FCDA states it explicitly, and by adhering only to what is literally stated, Corona has chosen to obey the letter of the law.

The SALN, however implicitly states that all accounts need to be disclosed, and although it’s not explicitly stated, the spirit of the SALN implies that even dollar accounts must be declared.

But what is the spirit of the SALN? The basic idea is that if public officials declare their assets every year, it would be possible to learn how much they’re making from being in public office. If it exceeds the income expected of a person in their position, the excess can be interpreted as potential corruption, warranting further investigation.

For the SALN to fulfill its purpose, it is obvious that both peso and dollar assets must be declared: a corrupt politician who wants to hide ill-gotten wealth *could* and would use dollar accounts if these were indeed exempted from declaration.

I emphasized “could” because having undisclosed dollar accounts does not necessarily mean that a politician has ill-gotten wealth. It is possible for a politician to have undisclosed accounts — both peso and dollar — but still be clean (all their wealth is made honestly).

But the law is blind — it does not assume good intentions. That is, laws that are made to prevent crime do not make exceptions for the innocent — it applies equally to all.

Consider the following. It is illegal to board airplanes with explosives. This is because an explosive can be used to perform other illegal acts which is infinitely more harmful: taking the passengers hostage and potentially killing them all. Note that the bringing of explosives aboard the plane by itself is not harmful at all.

Hypothetically, a genius inventor could create a bomb that would avoid detection, take it on the plane, and fly to his lab in another country to continue development on his invention. Not a single passenger got hurt. But does that mean the inventor did not do anything illegal? No. He broke the law and deserves to be punished.

But he didn’t hurt anyone, right? Would it be better then if we modify the law so that passengers who promise to behave are allowed to board with bombs? Definitely not. Because the mere potential that a person *could* use the bomb for the more harmful act (detonation) is worth making the act of boarding with bombs illegal itself.

Read the full article on the Filipino Freethinkers website.

By Garrick Bercero

“Name me a moral action made by a believer that could not be made by a non-believer.” This was the late Christopher Hitchens’ storied moral challenge against theists who claimed that it is impossible for atheists to be moral without gods. Hitchens turned this around by showing how ethics is prior to religion. He continued, “If I were to ask, could you name a wicked action made by someone attributable only to their religious faith? There isn’t a person here who would hesitate for a second.”

In a debate between David Wolpe and Hitchens, Wolpe countered the moral challenge by presenting a personal example. Wolpe recounted a story about his father, “When I think of the most powerful and intimate moments that I had with my father, it was when he put his hands on my head and blessed me on a Friday night.” Such an action is definitely unavailable to the logically consistent atheist. Hitchens dismissed this response, saying that he was not convinced that this was truly a moral action.

Even as an atheist, it is apparent to me that Hitchens’ skepticism was misplaced. You don’t need to believe in a supernatural deity to accept that mystical activities could possibly be conducive to well-being, if only for the false consolation that things are going to be okay. This is not to say that there is any evidence for the supernatural any more than there is evidence that placebos are universal cures. This is also not to say that the comfort produced by delusion is even worth the opportunity cost of being mistaken about the nature of reality. It is sufficient to show from this example that even delusion can be compatible with ethical motivations.

In the middle of the culture wars, it is easy to get lost in the absolutist narrative (I’m often guilty of such thoughts): conservative Christians are backwards Puritanical parrots, atheists and liberals are the height of pure rationality. The opposite view that Christians are the sole keepers of moral truth and liberals are mindless instruments of Satan is also a popular belief. Obviously, such black and white views are seldom accurate for any argument. By embracing such unconditional beliefs, we lose sight of the fact that we share a common human nature, regardless of our views…

Read the full article on the Filipino Freethinkers website.

By Sass Rogando Sasot

Let’s say you’re having a conversation with someone. Perhaps with a friend who has a different perspective from yours. As a thoughtful and considerate person, you want to understand your friend’s perspective. You dissect it, analyze each part,  and in the process you ask questions whose answers can potentially dissolve the ground on which the perspective stands. But just like any one of us who has been so attached to our initial perspectives, your friend will attempt to escape this belief-threatening situation by uttering this effective conversation stopper: “I’m entitled to an opinion.” Along with “This is what God said…” and “Science proved it…”, this is one of those rhetorical abracadabras that when uttered will effectively close the cave of further investigation.

John Jackson aptly illustrates this so elegantly in this fictional dialogue between Tom and Jerry:

Tom: I believe X works.
Jerry: There’s no evidence to support the fact that X works.
Tom: Well, I believe that X works.
Jerry: X has been tested in scientific trials and was not found to work.
Tom: I’m entitled to my opinion.

In the non-fiction realm, this rhetorical abracadabra is currently being used by Manny Pacquiao.

The Christian Post Reporter recently featured Mr Pacquiao’s interview with the National Conservative Examiner. Reacting to US President Barack Obama’s support of extending State-sanctioned marriage to same-sex couples, Mr Pacquiao allegedly used Leviticus 20:13 as the basis of his objection. He allegedly reiterated the two elements in that verse. The rule: prohibition against men having sex with other men; and the punishment: they should be put to death. I say allegedly because according to this ABS-CBN news report, Mr Pacquiao denied saying what the Christian Post Reporter attributed to him. He even claimed that he has never read Leviticus. He defended himself, saying that he is not condemning gay people, but he is just voicing out his opinion: “Sinabi ko lang ang opinion ko na against the law of God ang same-sex marriage (I just said my opinion that same-sex marriage is against the law of God).”

In that statement, Mr Pacquiao used the two powerful rhetorical abracadabras at the same time: “God” and “I’m entitled to my opinion.”  These two are actually the same thing: God is simply the non-secular version of the other. Using both devices in a sentence has the effect of attracting support from both the religious and the secular camp. Who would be against what the creator, owner, and master of the universe says? And who would be against someone exercising their right to speak? The secular version is of course subject to more argumentation than God. Hence, if you really want to stop someone from further questioning you, use “God” immediately. Miriam Quiambao did this after she was told that her truth was just one of the many truth-claims out there. She salvaged her perspective from being weighed by other perspectives by using the God argument. By elevating her opinion to the Heavens, her opinion transformed into an absolute, irrevocable, eternal, and infallible Truth to which everyone should bow. In the secular world, God is oftentimes replaced by science, so that whenever someone says that this is the truth because “Science says so…” one is often bullied into a corner and forced to give up further inquiry.

One of the consequences of further dissecting the claims of those who already uttered these rhetorical abracadabras is being accused of being disrespectful. “Why aren’t you respecting my/God’s/science’s opinion?” “Why are you not respecting my culture?” When the “respect me card” is thrown onto the table, any further challenges would be considered rude, cruel, and as we call it in our language, bastos…

Read the full article on the Filipino Freethinkers website.

By Red Tani

It’s a good time to be gay (and lesbian and bi and trans). Obama’s support for same-sex marriage came shortly after another LGBT win: Miriam Quiambao’s recent homophobic statements galvanized support for the LGBT community, raising awareness and even sympathy for their cause.

Momentum is on the LGBT community’s side, and with this week’s celebration of International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia (IDAHO), debates on marriage equality and other LGBT issues have reignited. Although an LGBT win is not guaranteed, the debate itself is a minor victory; the status quo is a defeat by default.

Dictating Definitions

To maintain the status quo, the Catholic Church and other conservative elements will try to dictate definitions — the terms of the debate. In the reproductive health (RH) debate, the most time-consuming distraction they use is the question, “When does life begin?” Pro-RH legislators would invariably fall into the trap of trying to define “life.” The anti-RH then argues as if it had a monopoly on the its meaning, which is to be expected from a group that has proclaims itself the “pro-life” side.

In the marriage equality debate, conservatives will use a similar tactic: they will try to monopolize the meaning of marriage. Marriage, they will argue, is a Catholic sacrament reserved for one man and one woman who love each other (unitive) and intend to have children (procreative) — to go beyond that definition bastardizes its meaning and endangers the institution of marriage itself. But even a brief look at history will show that the Catholic marriage is nothing but a modern invention…

Read the full article on the Filipino Freethinkers website.

By Red Tani

Manila, Philippines — After the heartbreaking loss of Jessica Sanchez to another white guy with guitar in American Idol, proud Pinoys are pinning their hopes on one of the two finalists of America’s Next Top Singer (ANTS). But there’s a catch: they don’t know which one.

Both Jasmine Lopez and Evelyn Santos have been claiming in recent interviews to be part Filipino, raising the hopes of millions of Filipinos who watch ANTS on cable and via livestreaming websites.

But critics have accused both finalists of only claiming to be Filipino to get the Pinoy block vote, which has significantly helped the chances of Jessica Sanchez in AI despite her loss.

The controversy led popular online community Definitely Pinoy to conduct its own investigation into the ethnicity of Jasmine and Evelyn. “We need someone to be proud of,” said John dela Cruz, founder of Definitely Pinoy. “But first we have to verify which one of them is … definitely Pinoy.”

Jasmine and Evelyn have been subjected to a battery of scientific ancestry and ethnicity tests, giving DNA samples and taking various standardized Cosmo magazine quizzes…

Read the full article on the Filipino Freethinkers website.

By Red Tani

Whenever I listen to Senator Sotto on the RH Bill, Manny Pacquiao on homosexuality, and the CBCP on pretty much everything, one word uncontrollably comes to mind: bigot. The impulse is almost as strong as God bless you! follows a sneeze.

In Catholic Philippines, it seems that some people can’t help sneezing, the most recent being former beauty queen Miriam Quiambao. And always, freethinkers everywhere can’t but say bigot! in response.

Recently, some conservatives have gone on the defensive, because intolerance is no longer as fashionable as it used to be back in the good old Dark Ages. Conservative cohorts of the CBCP are arguing that anti-LGBT Christians are being called bigots just because “it’s so cool” (it’s actually so mainstream that it’s not) and that their accusers are equally deserving of the accusation:

But you know, it’s so ‘cool’ these days to call Christianity bigotry… It’s funny, though, how those who scream and call for tolerance are the very same people who are the first to call ‘foul’ when their own beliefs, behaviors and/or lifestyles are challenged…

Let’s face it, anti-Catholicism/anti-Christianity is the last acceptable prejudice. Tolerance is only real when it goes both ways. The LGBT crowd have their own beliefs, let Miriam have hers.

In other words, calling out Christian bigotry is just as intolerant and prejudiced as being anti-LGBT in particular and anti-conservative-Christian in general. Thus, the critics themselves have become the bigots…

Read the full article on the Filipino Freethinkers website.

by Red Tani

Some of your bishops have challengedCorona’s accusers to sign his waiver. Bishop Pabillo said that “there is really something wrong when they want a person to disclose his dollar accounts but his accusers refuse to do the same or don’t want to be transparent.” Your former president, Oscar Cruz, clarified that your message was to let people “know who have no sin and [let them] throw the first stone.”

You are saying that only those who are blameless can challenge others or throw blame. Since you have challenged Corona’s accusers, you must think that you yourselves are blameless. In the terms of Corona’s waiver, this means you think you have no ill-gotten wealth to hide. But you are mistaken.

No one knows ill-gotten wealth like you do, because you have founded your Church on ill-gotten wealth. Literally. Your organization wouldn’t be where it is today if it weren’t for the billionsyour predecessors stole from the Philippine government.

In case you’ve forgotten, I’ll remind you. When your former colleagues, the Spaniards, colonized us, they stole lands that belonged to Filipinos and gave it to your friars. These friar lands allowed you to control everything: business, education, politics, etc. So aside from money and property, you also gained power. You used this power to further amass wealth that went beyond the original value of the lands that were stolen.

When the first Philippine Congress was established, one of their first plans was to take back what was rightfully ours — to confiscate the land that was stolen and then redistribute it among Filipinos. But unfortunately, their plans were thwarted by another colonizer: the Americans. They would eventually give us back our freedom, but they didn’t give us back our property — well, not really. Instead, they did what capitalists do best: sell it to us.

Read the rest of the article on the Filipino Freethinkers website.

by Red Tani

After three hours of an emotional roller-coaster that went from balling to boring at every turn, Chief Justice Renato Corona steered the impeachment trial toward an upside down loop that made everyone breathless. He said that he would waive his right to secrecy on all his bank accounts, domestic and foreign, but only under one condition: all of his accusers in Congress should do it with him.

Reactions in the court of public opinion varied. Some thought that Corona was brave, a hero for having the courage to challenge government corruption by putting his own integrity on the line. Others, myself included, thought that far from heroic, the dilatory tactic betrayed cowardice, and by involving others, he revealed his fear of facing justice alone.

But while people were split on Corona’s conditional waiver, his subsequent walkout, and the drama that followed, practically brought supporters and critics to a consensus. Guilty or innocent, Corona should have known better than to walk out of an ongoing hearing, and for an acting Chief Justice his actions were just too unprofessional.

But I believe “unprofessional” would be putting it too kindly. The walkout, and everything that led up to and followed after it, deserves a different description, another adjective that Corona would surely disapprove of — childish.

Read the rest of the article on the Filipino Freethinkers website.

by Marguerite de Leon

What the fuck.