In an addition to issues raised by Caffeine_Sparks, the print edition of today’s Philippine Daily Inquirer carries a news item reporting that the Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines (CEAP) is seeking an exemption from the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) of the recently passed Magna Carta of Women. The law prohibits the dismissal of unwed mothers from employment and school. The law prescribes a civil liability for violators. The CEAP seeks an exemption from this clause.
The CEAP is seeking the exemption on grounds of religious freedom and academic freedom. Both are guaranteed by the 1987 Constitution.
My question for the legal eagle readers here is
“Is discrimination of unwed women (more often pregnant) central to religious belief?”
This is the logical question that must be asked and ruled by the civil courts since CEAP is seeking their exemption primarily on religious grounds. As an academic, I do not see an academic freedom issue here since being unwed and female are not impediments for admission to any school (In fact one Catholic school head publicly said on radio that these are not in the criteria for admission or non-admission). If my memory serves me right, a student can only be dismissed from school if he/she fails to make the academic requirements, proven guilty of academic dishonesty and/or other serious offences or has a health condition that can endanger the health of others (but in the case of HIV-AIDS, jurisprudence on the matter favours non-discrimination: Re: the plot of the Tom Hanks starrer “Philadelphia”)
When I was teaching in the US of A, I bought the interesting book “The Supremes’ Greatest Hits” at a Student Union book sale. It was not about Diana Ross and her backup singers but the most important US Supreme Court rulings. The book is targeted at non-lawyers (like me) who are addicts of legal eagle TV shows like “the Practice”.
Nonetheless it seems that the closest analogue that can answer my question is the case (which was in the book) brought before the Supremes about challenging the Boy Scouts’ right to kick out an openly gay scout master. (The gay scoutmaster in the case stepped out of the closet when he reached the highest scout rank) The court upheld the Boy Scouts since the justices ruled that the Boy Scouts were a “values based association” and that their freedom of voluntary association must be upheld. However the book’s author counterpoints a related Supremes ruling overturning a lower court’s decision upholding the right of the Jaycees to ban women from full membership. The court ruled that admitting women does not counter the organization’s values.
Of course none of the Supreme rulings just mentioned dealt directly with religious freedom but the Boy Scouts case comes pretty close since the values espoused by the Boy Scouts are also those espoused by some (large) US religious groups.
Another issue that I have for the legal eagles here is on the possible clashes between laws that promote civil rights equalities and religious belief. Can the courts give exemptions on grounds of religious belief that can affect the rights of others who may not belong to the particular group in question?
Our own Supremes follow the US Supremes in some cases, like when it upheld the rights of Jehovah’s Witnesses not to salute the Flag on grounds of religious belief. The Witnesses are much a minority religious group in the Philippines and the Pinoy Supremes took note of this. However with the CEAP, it represents in part the most numerous religious group in the country. How will our Supremes rule if a case is brought before them challenging the right of the most numerous Church to discriminate on grounds of belief? We have to be reminded by Mr Justice Robert Jackson’s famous line
“We are final not because we are infallible, but we are infallible because we are final”
(BTW, fans of Philippine Commonwealth history would know that it was Jackson who administered the Presidential oath to Sergio Osmena, upon the death of Manuel Quezon)
Nonetheless it is a clear sign that the Philippines is rapidly secularizing when the most numerous Church now seeks religious freedom guarantees. It may be good for the nation as a whole.
Popularity: 1% [?]
now this is really sad. I hope Gilbert Teodoro does the right thing when he becomes the president of our great land.
The last poll numbers of 1% is serious, but un an elections where 37% is enough, advertising, mass-rallies with movie stars and draws and the machinery of governors and local government units can put Teodoro-Puno into Malacanang.
Not to mention a computerized Garci.
since this is a national election where local candidates have stakes to uphold, they’ll feed themselves into the frenzy first before letting the machinery work for the national candidates. tried and tested practice. in which case, it’s a game of popularity for those trying to sweep votes across the archipelago. and so raises this question: ano nga ang pangalan ng magandang mrs ng kandidato ng lakas na sino nga yon?
And smoke’s detailed and meticulous analysis
http://smoke.ph/?p=1676
puts Teodoro above Manny Villar, Noynoy, Erap, Jamby, Gordon (as of today).
Admittedly, pedigree and destiny gives some candidates an edge, but that is why there are elections and COMELEC vote-counting processes and procedures!!!
If your nephew or cousin is not registered, tell them every vote will be needed.
@benj
I find the CEAP move Taliban like. That’s why it is unfortunate and may expose the real reason why some in the Catholic hierarchy is opposed to several pro-women’s initiatives in Congress.
Let me restate my first question, legal eagles……
“Does discrimination of unwed mothers (mostly pregnant) constitute religious belief?”
Two questions : Is the CEAP asking that should it have to dismiss an unwed mothers from employment, that it not be penalized? Is it another Magna Carta stipulation that the CEAP protests as purview of “religious rights”?
blackshama,
Couldn’t that best compliments the import of the RH bill when another law strengthens cases of unwed mothers?
This is the curse whose time has come, I guess.
Fact is, it happened for quite so long that pregnant but unwed female in the workplace are terminated or kicked out in the case of some schools.
This is moral lunacy, I would say.
Anything that a particular religion holds as part of its core dogma IS a religious belief, e.g. not eating beef. It doesn’t have to make sense to the common man (or woman.)
Frankly, such discrimination would be cruel. It may very well lessen opportunities for the mother to better herself and provide for her child. Perhaps, this may even push some to go to the streets and prostitute themselves for lack of a better future or out of desperation.
Dr Rizal wrote two novels to describe this cruelty.
The CEAP’s request also contradicts Christian values of charity and helping one in need. If you dismiss an unwed mother, you are depriving her of a job, and thus depriving her of chances to support herself. An unwed mother should be given the assistance she needs. What if she’s an unwed mother because of a rape? This should be put to the CEAP’s face.
It’s probably related to the cultural feeling that the IMAGE of an unwed mother is bad, and will promote more broken marriages. Yeah, again being more concerned about image than substance. I would consider it culture; organized religion falls under culture. The CEAP should be denied this exemption.
If you have an unwed mother, then you have either an 1) unwed father or a 2)polygynous father! The problem is that the CEAP like the Pharisees look at the externals of alleged immorality and sadly women easily manifest that. Jesus Christ could forgive “women with a past’. And in the Gospels, they did wonderful things for Him.
This question resembles the practical issues of divorce — alimony or child support. Legal judgments on divorce usually require the better-paid spouse (usually husband) to pay a monthly amount for 10 or 18 years to the other spouse.
The issue this — It is illegal when when because he becomes unemployed, the husband stops paying the monthly amount.
“You can’t fire me, I’m an unwed mother.”
“Yes, we can. Over the past 3 months, you have shown for work only two days a week when your job requires 5-days-a-week presence. And on those days you are here, you sleep for three hours on the job. You are fired!”
“You can’t fire me, I’m an unwed mother.”
“And your snoring disturbs your officemates.”
“Magna Carta. And do I really snore loud?”
Haha, very unrealistic scene for an unwed mother employee, UP n Grad. If you are on the side of the CEAP, then that’s too bad for your intelligence.
Well, if the Church can see reproductive health legislation as a step toward abortion, it is possible, in likeminded thinking, to see policies that penalize unwed mothers as a step toward stoning.
Joe
except, why should being pregnant and unwed be penalized in the first place?
my concern with this lies in the inconsistent application of the “religious” principle.
if women can be disciplined for being pregnant, men should be similarly disciplined for impregnating a girl.
agree with GabbyD, if the boy is enrolled in the same school, or another school.
if the boy is a plain istambay, there’s a problem.
We have too much trouble with Religious Dogmas in our times. It
veiled women like the Islamic Faith. It discriminated single women
who have children. It produced “suicide bombers”. When can we learn
the true Faith: “To love your God with all your being. And
to love other people as yourself”. Christ said:” These sums
up all the Laws and the Prophets”. It is the religious leaders on all
faith. That are putting hindrances on all religions.
Women, single, married or out of wedlock are people. They should be
treated as people. Dwellers in this Planet Earth.
Hayden Toro, Christian nuns are also veiled in emulation of Mama Mary, other religions too, so with Mother Teresa and even past people with outlandish beliefs too to preserve their chastity and observe modesty even through fashion. whom should you lodge on your unqualified respect and admiration devoid of lust hence not lustful craving: on a moderately veiled woman or one donned in scanty strip of cloth encouraged by unfettered secularism with abject lacking of any trace of morality? The west throws cloth on primitive men and women it discovers these modern times to replace their bahags so that any trace of backwardness and savagery are taken away from them. At the same time such countenance of being uncivilized is but observed in the west as its modern-day moral standard whereby westerners and pinoys who imitate them wear cloth more obnoxious than the bahag of those primitive people, say in beaches, golf courses, beauty shows, movies, papers, that feed males libido hidden through civil formality and hypocrite civility.
You still do not learn. You can read the scholarly work of Mahmood Mamdani “Good and Bad Muslims” and you will see for yourself who are the real producers of these “suicide bombers.”
With due respect, the best thing women can do to prevent themselves from becoming unwed mothers is to avoid entertaining irresponsible men with whom their marital future is not sure. Better yet, learn martial arts to crush and obstruct the libidinal expression of rapists. Even better, strip bomb so that victimized women take these son-of…rapists to hell! that’s how women should cherish their chastity.
Veils will do no good. Males have good imaginations
to look beyond the veils. It is the heart that matters.
If the heart is good, there is no need for veils.
As I said, there is a great difference between church
doctrines, dogmas, etc…from the true teachings that
come from God and the true prophets. And this comes only
of understanding from a pure heart. “Blessed are the
pure in heart for they shall see God”. Seeing God, is
seeing the truth in ourselves and about God.
“Veils will do no good. Males have good imaginations
to look beyond the veils.”
What about looking beyond scanty strip of cloth more obnoxious than the bahag of primitive people, will males still have good imaginations? And what about looking beyond sheer lack of any cloth this time, say, at beaches in the west where it outlaws wearing swimming suit and nudity is the rule? sure, you will still have good imagination. come on!
Imagination depends upon environment. when the world around is upright, same goes with mentality. Conversely, when all around are nothing but degeneration of humanity, human imagination will even transgress its moral bound. Just the way it is today, perversion and moral transgression are abetted in its sheer unfettered form e.g. pornography in the guise of arts and business!
This blogthread is a great exhibit of the power of throwing up a strawman. Blackshama can do great propaganda.
The strawman — “discrimination against unwed mothers”, and a lot of folks have expressed their thoughts on this item.
The real issue — (MC/W)Magna Carta of Women versus “Religious Freedom”.
“Should the CEAP be allowed to discriminate against unwed mothers?” is the wrong question. The better question : “Are there instances that the CEAP, while following religious doctrine, find itself in violation of MC/W provisions?” Even better : Has there been an instance that the CEAP (following religious doctrine) has found itself violating Magna Carta provisions? Is anybody suing?
Without a live case that bring “standing” to the matter, then blackshama’s post is merely request for opinions (UP-Diliman Law School students can provide that). The “strawman” makes things worse.
i dont get it. why is it a strawman?
a strawman argument is a argument that is set up by the author whose only purpose is to be shot down/debunked.
what is the difference between your question and blackshama’s question?
Your point is well-made. I (carelessly) used “strawman” to point out that blackshama’s question draws the eyes to the wrong focus. It is propaganda — a leading question — to ask if the CEAP has should be given the right to discriminate against unwed mothers.
A better way to formulate the question (better is my opinion) is this — Is MW/W intrusive on religious rights? If it is, then MC/W is unconstitutional. If MC/W is unconstitutional, then forget this CEAP asking for exemptions because laws with at least one unconstitutional provision is, well, unconstitutional. Unconstitutional “not-allowed” (and another law has to be crafted that passes constitutional muster).
You have to prove that misogyny is central to Catholic belief before you can say that MCW is unconstitutional since it intrudes on religious rights.
Misogyny central to Catholic belief! Papa Ratzinger would gag on that!
Thank you. I can do great propaganda since I am student of Herr Doktor Joseph Goebbles, Herr Vladimir Lenin and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Herr Dr Habil. Josef Cardinal Ratzinger. :-) However I am not a student of Prof Jose Maria Sison! :-)
Actually CEAP is seeking an exemption from the law. The exemption seeks to allow them to dismiss unwed mothers from their colleges and the incendiary thing is they seek that on grounds of religious belief. The question is not about an instance of CEAP violating the law but a belief of the CEAP that unless they get an exemption they are likely to violate the law.
That is no strawman at all. There is already a case presented not to a court but to the people writing the IRR.
Is there a section in the Bible that says CEAP should not hire or should fire unwed mothers?
Where’s the compassion? Single mom na nga, hirap na nga – ititerminate pa. WTF.
The CEAP should be reminded Mary was an unwed mother. :D
In human term, Jesus is a BASTARD!
The CEAP’s move also violates freedom of religion. When you mean freedom of religion, you are not just free to practice your own religion, but you are free from the imposition of another religion on you. The firing of unwed mothers is clearly an imposition of a religious principle. There are barely any reasons to firing an unwed other than religious or cultural reasons. Thus, CEAP exemption from the Women’s Magna Carta will violate freedom of religion rights.
ChinoF: There are many reasons to fire people. I’ll fire your cousin-unwed mother if for past 9 weeks (and after 2 or more warnings) she still sleeps on the job for 3 hours each work-day. And if I were her lawyer, I’ll tell her to sue using “MagnaCarta/Women and pregnancy-causes-drowsiness”.
ChinoF: Protection of pregnant employees is an ancient issue in USA. We can not fire anyone because of pregnancy, we can’t even fire an employee who admits to a drug-habit. (Abe or bencard can give “law” details, but…) USA laws tag drug addiction as a disability, and there is an “Americans With Disability Act”.
Yeah, USA laws can be played with, but I wonder how it is for Philippine laws? It’s interesting how you raise the issue of potential abuse of the Women’s Magna Carta. Still, the CEAP’s reasoning is flawed. They don’t deserve to be exempt, they’re just concerned about the “IMAGE” of the institution, like they don’t like to harbor these “immoral” pregnant singles. It won’t do well for the welfare of the woman, and neither will it convince the husband to come back and support the woman. And they still violate that “freedom of religion” principle for me.
Whoops, why did I say “husband,” that should have been the impregnating guy, what this culture’s mentality does to us, hahaha.
UPngrad
the law may be abused in the case of employees.
but what about students?
School throws female student the day after the student brings a balisong to school and slashes two of her classmates.
“Balisong! She’s out!”, school says.
MagnaCarta/Women and pregnancy-causes-chemical-imbalance, student’s lawyers say. She’s angry because she’s depressed and the depression is from the pregnancy, lawyers say. And her classmates keep staring at her stomach!!! Don’t you understand??!
Haha, this sure is one way to make fun of the Women’s Magna Carta… thing is, those situations are unrealistic, or at least will be only very few. I’m sure there till be protections against the abuse of that Magna.
Pray tell me why can’t ATENEO law students give me their opinions? Pang Bar exams lang ba sila? LOL!
I saw the online-inquirer news item.
It is still wiser, though (in my opinion) to leave the MC/W alone as written and wait until a student or employee sues. Why bother with writing in an exemption for CEAP? Given the quality of Catholic schools (both the priests or nuns, management, employees and students) it should never happen that a priest gets sued by a female clerk who claim he impregnated her, so unlikely a Catholic school will ever kick out a pregnant employee for lying.
Now, Protestant-run schools — different story. Those schools will need MC/W to be operational so a suit gets filed whereby a DNA or some other test becomes necessary to determine if MagnaCarta/Women had been violated.
The general feeling most people have who support this view is that “the Church knows better”. Even the teachings of Jesus of forgiveness mercy and compassion for these women are lost to the authoritarian power of the Church who rules even temporally in his name.
“Is discrimination of unwed women (more often pregnant) central to religious belief?”
I read the article. I think this question is a bit unrelated to the real message which is more about should schools be banned authority to dismiss unwed mothers. But anways back to the question…
No (God is?).
The law is basically giving permission for women to be irresponsible mothers unchallenged. My assumption here is that the women who were probably “kicked out” were done out of concern for the child rather than academic potential (like the woman was focusing more on her studies than her child). If this law was born out of religious conservatism having an unwed pregnant woman in school looking bad (like erich gonzales in katorse) then I think there should be limits.
In this case I don’t think it’s even a religious issue, its more like “taking care of life takes precedence than career” issue. I prefer Santos’ offer of having the right for shools to get them “on leave” on due process. This way it could be assessed if the would-be mother is taking care of her child or not. OR… there could be a provision in that law for the child to sue her mother for civil/emotional damages if she fails in her responsibilities.
Edward: The details of the law are already published. I did not see a provision in
The law .. basically giving permission for women to be irresponsible mothers ….
I agree with you that there is no religious issue in the CEAP’s request relating to unwed mothers. Without a religious issue, then CEAP can not be granted exemption.
Ed,
” I prefer Santos’ offer of having the right for shools to get them “on leave” on due process. This way it could be assessed if the would-be mother is taking care of her child or not.”
it would be great if this process were the mother, the doctor and the school coming together for the health of the baby.
but its the CEAP looking for an exemption for disciplinary action.
this implies that the school may unilaterally decide whats best for the girl and her child.
I am no big fan of the Magna Carta for Women, although I think this particular provision protecting unwed mothers from being dismissed from employment or school deserves some merit.
First of all, it is unlawful to terminate unwed mothers in the workforce. Articles 279/282 of the Labor Code allows termination only on the basis of authorized and just causes. However, the company might have a morality clause in the rules or in the contract of employment, and such a clause may be cited as a basis for terminating unwed mothers. While I am all for safeguarding the sanctity of marriage, dismissing unwed mothers is far from being a charitable pastoral tool towards this end. What the unwed mother needs (from the Catholic perspective) is fraternal correction, moral guidance, opportunities for conversion, compassion, and a decent livelihood to support herself and the person she is nurturing in her womb. No, this discrimination is not central to religious belief. As Jesus said to the adulterous woman: Has anyone condemned you? Neither do I. Go and sin no more.
What if the unwed mother is a freethinker, and does not believe in organized religion?
The CEAP needs to be reminded – Mary is an unwedded mother who got impregnated by an invisible thingie – and who in order to save face had to cohabitate with Joseph, so that her bastard child by the name of Jesus can be accepted by society.
The CEAP leadership is made up hypocritical morons.
Side-topic: For sparks and blackshama.
A name to remember : Robert Quinn, founder and executive director of Scholars at Risk (SAR).
Short blurb:
… Taslima Nasrin, who first had her life threatened in 1994 in her native Bangladesh. Her crime? Writing about women’s rights. Later, in 2008, while living in her adopted country, India, she again had her life threatened by religious fanatics when she continued to write and speak about women’s freedom. She cannot return to either country. Now a SAR scholar at New York University (NYU), she says, “SAR came to my aid by helping me to survive in a new land.”
Universities must operate freely because they stand on the front lines of change, Quinn says. . . . But sometimes those advanced new ideas threaten entrenched regimes.
The SAR team takes threats to scholars seriously. For example, in September 2001, Prof. Dayan Dawood, dean of Syiah Kuala University in Aceh, Indonesia, spoke publicly about the university’s need to provide neutral space to discuss peaceful resolution to the political violence in his country. Four days later, he was assassinated.
Suicide bomber are the products of the belief of an Islamic sect.
The Islamic sect believed that you can enter Paradise by martyrdom.
That is dying for Islam. It guarantees entrance to Paradise with
72 virgins and 72 mansions waiting for them.
I have not other comment out of respect of other religions. However,
the Christian religion have also some of this kinds of dogmas. Look
at the Branch Davidian tragedy in Waco , Texas, U.S.A. Members of that Christian sect died the same way as the Islamic suicide bombers.
The original suicide bombers, the Japanese Kamikaze pilots in World War 2, were followers of the Bushido Code, which was heavily influenced Zen Buddhism.
Have never read of a Japanese kamikaze pilot aiming at a procession of worshippers or a restaurant filled with civilians.
Yeah the same did Saddam Hussein do to civilian populace of Halabja in Iran while Iraq was under the tutelage of America. Several people including women and children died of chemical bomb unleashed by Saddam, but none was heard from America condemning such diabolism!
So with what the State of Israel has been doing with the civilian populace of Palestine e.g. in Jenin as well as last December 2008 where several international laws were violated. I will never believe that you do not know these. Those missiles and bombs indiscriminately thrown were trademarked “made in USA.” But America with all the required saintliness calls for protection and care of human lives!
No Toro, suicide bombers are the product of American imperialist foreign policy. When people run out of sophisticated armaments to repulse American neo-imperialist policy in the guise of demoncrazy,they have no way out but to make themselves a sophisticated weapon this time to crush their invaders’ obsession and defend themselves. I tell you Toro, when these human weapons strap bombs selflessly to blow themselves in the midst of their enemies, they are not thinking of these 72 virgins. They are thinking instead of liberating their people from the quagmire of utter decadence while being under foreign hegemony. If you are keen enough to study, breeds of suicide bombers sprouted in the context of Western imperialism! That is not running amok, that is selfless sacrifice that even “Filipino” heroes e.g. Andres Bonifacio must have took on. That is, while the former is lost from sound mentality out of despair, the later resort to such selflessness willingly with his/her mind intact. And the Philippine government must not wait this to happen before it gains its mind to look into Mindanao problem seriously.
di po kasi kayo masyado nagbabasa, or you just select what you read with only one eye opened. I tell you reading is sometimes educational–EVEN ENLIGHTENING.
Danilo
Interesting perspectives. I will start by acknowledging that hypocrisy and self-interest can come in many styles, sometimes wrapped in red, white and blue and sometimes wrapped in a robe topped with a turban.
My question is, do you think that you, an advocate of Muslim interests, and I, an American of free thought, can have an honest and forthright dialogue about the current situation in Mindanao and Afghanistan without reducing our selves to name-calling and slogan shouting? In other words, are our respective positions so hardened, so steeped in commitment, that we are incapable of listening or even bending a bit?
Joe
joe
good day,
of course, we can. I for one believe that the only human and humane way of resolving differences in human midst that metamorphosed into conflicts is dialogue. As such, conflicts are still useful when dealt with constructively even without resorting to violence.
The only thing to do is to unmask hypocrites who cover their mischief on earth with human values at one and justify mischief with same values at the other.
dui
Danilo,
Okay, good start then.
It seems premature to discuss issues yet. Key, I think, is figuring out how we structure a process that we both respect when neither may trust the other.
Challenge number one is separating fact from propaganda. For example, you indicate that suicide bombers are patriots, seeking to defeat a hostile enemy. In the US, we hear stories of children and retarded people being strapped with bombs and sent into the market place, unaware of their purpose. And I don’t believe the US is hostile toward Muslims in general; certainly not moderate Muslims.
Where is the truth when neither you nor I know for sure, or trust the other? How do we find a factual basis, a rational basis, for trusting one another? I assume you don’t accept that Muslims “use” helpless people, and I don’t accept that the US is fundamentally hostile toward Muslims.
Joe
helo
Good point of inquiry joe. But I think such stories often told there in the US and even made into primetime movies e.g. Body of Lies, The Traitor, The Kingdom, etc., is unlikely to be true all the time because making use of children in their sheer innocence or retarded persons would miss your coveted target. Nope! I do not insinuate here that suicide bombing is okey. If only super power can be awaken from their madness and stop the mischief of this sort which are of their own making from the start.
I believe in what Michael Moore opined that suicide bombers or terrorists are products of American double standard and imperialist foreign policy. With respect to US foreign policy, I always see America and its allies always seen either sponsoring puppet regimes or backing up insurgents aiming to topple down democratically established governments. Which sides the US is depends upon which accommodates US imperialist interests. Thanks to the covert operations of CIA complemented by the political and legislative back ups of hardliners in the US Houses.
Moreover, while America ensures democracy at home it erodes or even sacrifices observance of democratic ideals abroad. I do not see now those virtues and ideals that Abraham Lincoln and his likes were murdered for. Sorry to say these.
warm regards,
dui
Danilo,
I agree that US occupation of Iraq, and other offensive moves by the US, provoke suicide bombings, but I disagree they are the root cause. The root cause is a frame of mind that holds terror, through the murder of innocent civilians, is an acceptable way to wage war. The murder of Shiites by Sunnis, and vice versa, or Kurds by anyone, seems to me to have little to do with US aggression. It has been going on for as long as memories exist.
In your first note you said: “The only thing to do is to unmask hypocrites who cover their mischief on earth with human values at one and justify mischief with same values at the other.”
Are you open to the notion that there are Muslim hypocrites? I am open to the notion there are American hypocrites both in government, including government policies, and among the population.
In your second note, you wrote, pertaining to the US favoring or disfavoring governments: “Which sides the US is depends upon which accommodates US imperialist interests.”
I think we need to define what imperialism means. If it means acquiring land, I don’t think the US is imperialistic. If it means securing the peace worldwide, I would agree the US is imperialistic. If it means pushing other countries toward freedom and democracy, I would agree that the US is imperialistic. If it means advancing US commercial interests, I would agree the US is imperialistic.
The next step would be to agree which of these imperialistic pursuits is bad.
What do you mean when you say imperialist interests? And which of the three US motives for engaging other governments are bad: peace, freedom and democracy, or commercial self-interest? Or all three?
Why?
Joe
Dear Joe,
It’s true that there have been internal conflicts between and among sects of Muslims as other religions have. But these did not flared into sectarian violence just like nowadays where one bombs the other before US invasion of Iraq. Unfortunately and tragically, it turned uncontrollable when one sect sided with occupying US troops. If we notice that, to them, even one US soldier is already worth tons of bombs despite Iraqi civilians are around him.
Moreover, we notice further that during the initial entry of US Army in Iraq, it met few resistance because the Iraqi people that time saw US troops as a “liberation force.” Now that the US army has turned into an “occupation force” despite the sacking and hanging of Saddam, it’s not necessarily Saddam’s army who now fight the US troops; I think most of them are civilians turned armed.
Meanwhile, “a frame of mind that holds terror” is not necessarily inherent. Instead, it can develop with respect to any confronting circumstances and condition at a certain time and space that can trigger the breeding of such mentality. Say, when a crab is cornered, it has no way out but to use its weapon-arms or an ant will bite when step upon.
Meanwhile, there is no such a thing as “Muslim hypocrites” in the same way as there is none in other religions. But there could be hypocrites joining the Muslim ranks and proclaiming themselves as so though in utter hypocrisy.
On the other hand, it does not necessarily mean acquiring land when I say US is imperialistic. What I mean is that US government making use of all machinery and infrastructure – overt or covert, legal or illegal – so as to acquire world control and impose US hegemony abroad in the name of securing global peace or according freedom and democracy to other countries.
As I did say, when it comes to its foreign policy, US is either seen supporting any puppet regime which exploits and oppresses its own people or backing up insurgency that aims to topple down a democratically elected government which does not accommodate US interest. This has been seen both in the Middle East, Latin America and Southeast Asia. The US also befriends totalitarian and despotic countries which do not go against US way while so many legitimate governments elected by their own people are outlawed by US simply because the US does not like their leaders who are democratically chosen by their people.
Also, why can’t US Government make Cambodia mend its way as much as it did to Iraq and Afghanistan when it publicly executes its own people? Why can’t it make North Korea and India abide by its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Program when it does the other way against Iran?
In the case of Southeast Asia, it had deeply struck and stuck into my mind what former US Ambassador to the Philippines William H. Sullivan had said that when US intervenes abroad in the name of peace, freedom and democracy, it does not necessarily cares for the same with respect to Southeast Asian interest. Instead, the US foreign policy but cares for its own interest, and nothing else, when it goes abroad. These had been seen in Somalia, Africa, Latin America before with its proxy wars in those countries just to secure world hegemony.
These current times, the US has shifted to direct intrusion and invasion to secure the same i.e. global control and world power.
Thank you for your indulgence
dui
Danilo,
A very thoughtful response. I appreciate the candor and extent of your thinking.
Your response that there are no hypocrites among the Muslim faithful suggests only non-Muslims are hypocritical. Or if there are hypocrites, they are not true Muslims, although they may practice the faith. I will accept the answer as reasonable, because faith is always honorable, although its practice may not be.
With regard to suicide bombings in Iraq being directed at US troops, I would offer the tangential observation that there were no American troops in the World Trade Center buildings.
I would also say that the US has aligned with neither Sunnis nor Shiites in Iraq, and if Shiites emerged as more powerful than Sunnis, who were in charge prior to the American occupation, it is because of either the weight of population or outcome of Iraqi power politics, not American choice. All the US wants is reason and stability. The US cares not at all about the religion of those in power.
I presume you believe that both Sunnis and Shiites are faithful Muslims.
It is interesting to note that even US military people agree with you that the US is provoking anger in Iraq. Col. Timothy R. Reese shook up Washington DC a few weeks ago with his view: “As the old saying goes, ‘guests, like fish, begin to smell after three days.’ We are guests in Iraq, and after six years in Iraq, we now smell bad to the Iraqi nose.”
Question. Do you consider Osama ben Laden to be of Muslim faith?
And do you consider killing of non-believers properly within the right of the Muslim faithful?
I had to look up hegemony to make sure I understood it, and agree it is a much more appropriate word than imperialism. In the context of our usage, it means the dominance of one country over another, and I agree the US has been overbearing in situations where it ought not to have been, such as in Iraq.
You say that the US today is motivated “to acquire global control and world power”. I believe that is factually incorrect, and I would note that the US today under Mr. Obama has a very different foreign policy than did Mr. Bush. I do believe the US, in Iraq, sought strategically to remake the Middle East and open it wider to democracy, and the American government was duplicitous in its communication with the world and American people. Mr. Obama believes entering Iraq was a mistake, and that is one of the reasons he was elected.
This history is being written even as we exchange ideas.
I don’t believe the US seeks overt global control as you would find during the Roman Empire or great Chinese dynasties or Spanish conquests of the New World and Philippines, but it does pursue three goals pro-actively around the world: (1) security for Americans, (2) freedom and human rights for people generally under the banner of democracy, and (3) commercial self-interests.
The pursuit of these goals occasionally takes the US across borders and into the realm of apparent hypocrisy and hegemony. Sometimes the situation is complex, as in US backing of Israel, an undeclared but generally suspected nuclear state, and one with deep commercial ties within the US. Often the security motive comes into play; Cambodia and India and Israel do not pose much of a threat to the US. Iran and North Korea do. So you are correct, the US does little in Cambodia or Somalia or other places where humans suffer, other than plead for civilized behavior or back UN initiatives. However, can you imagine the outcry against the US if the US stepped into any country with problems? Or tried to get India to end its nuclear ambitions by sanctions or invasion?
So on one hand, I hear you saying that the US gets involved where it should not, but does not get involved where it should. Rather a difficult box you put America in, eh? Damned either way.
Where the US engages, it is usually in perceived defense of American security. This is what led to the US fighting in Viet Nam, a wasteful and tragic adventure if ever there were one (I served in the US Army in Viet Nam). Sometimes things are a lot clearer with benefit of hindsight or a shifting of the ambitions and actions of other countries.
The root of current difficulties in places like Afghanistan and Mindanao, I believe, resides quite simply in a conflict between those who advocate a secular state that accepts any faith, and a faith that does not easily tolerate non-believers. It has precious little to do with the US, other than that the US is the most powerful secular state in the world, is global by virtue of how World War II ended, and is not the malevolent state you suggest it is, seeking global control. Unless you consider freedom to practice religion a form of global control that is in conflict with Muslim faith. By that definition, I agree, the US is malevolent, to that faith.
Sorry for the length of my ramble. You gave me lots to digest and I find the subject most interesting.
Joe
Dear joe,
I am so sorry that I was able to make a reply just now.
“Your response that there are no hypocrites among the Muslim faithful suggests only non-Muslims are hypocritical.”
Nope, what I mean is that there is no such a thing as “Muslim hypocrites” as much as there is also none, say “Christian hypocrites” or other religions with respect to the strict meaning of these words. I believe that no religions, or no monotheistic religions for that matter, that teach bad things. I did not also mean it’s the non-Muslims who are hypocritical.
With respect to the bombing of the twin tower, I am still validating if what Michael Moore said in his Fahrenheit 9/11 and the other related documentary “Loose Change 2nd Edition are all true.
Meanwhile, I do not know much about Osama Bin Laden. It’s Bush and his cohorts in the US Government who knows him that much because they had been friends in business and in the military during the time of Russian war. Like Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden was once a close friend of US Government.
On the other hand, the Afghan experience is very much different from Mindanao. While Afghanistan has been a venue for US proxy war against USSR, Mindanao conflict is but a “sovereignty-based conflict” which had been orchestrated by US Government, either deliberately or not, since 1903.
Historically, the Moro people, 50 years or more prior to European and American colonization had their own sovereign sultanate form of government who had acquired state-like status as these were in military, trade and diplomatic engagements with other super powers, including America, during those times. The Moro people toppled down the Spaniards with such sovereignty still defended and upheld. But when the Americans came, these Moro sovereignty, ancestral lands, and indigenous national identity were usurped, integrated into the Philippine state which has just came into existence during mid-20th Century, suppressed such identity and arrested their supposed integral development. With successive agrarian laws legislated by the Philippine Commission manned by American legislators until 1946, Americans facilitated the Moro people’s political disenfranchisement and dispossession of lands. Wasn’t it that at the Filipinization of the Philippine’s public administration system, the Moros instead chose to remain at the tutelage of Americans than become administered by Filipinos?
It was Americans who fitted and trimmed Moro feet into Filipino shoes. The Americans did not learn from their experience that Moros and Filipinos can not live under one system. This should be the lesson why they had to establish the Moro Province, Department of Mindanao and Sulu, Bureau of Non-Christians Tribes and the Commission of Mindanao and Sulu from 1903 until 1935.
’til next
dui
Danilo,
Good to hear from you. One of the things I have found shocking since arriving in the Philippines is the heavy handed history of the US in its dealings here. From President McKinley’s outright racist perspective, to the (racist) bloodletting during the Philippine-American war, to the autocratic impositions of the US during its period as colonial master. I thank BongV for much of the historical background, and your overview adds depth to that. The gap between the ideal, that which is taught in school, and real, that which we meet outside the protective environment of rainbows and halos and heros, is sometimes wide, indeed, like finding one’s father is a crook or thug or drug addict.
As for today, I think the US is more respectful of Philippine independence, while remaining pushy. And I personally think Filipinos lock themselves in a colonial mode by refusing to think and act responsibly. If there is a vacuum, the US will push into it.
My view of Michael Moore is that he is part idiot, part liberal thinker, and mostly a filmmaker. His radical left views balance the extreme thinking of the conservative right, found in the blubberings of people like Rush Limbaugh, who is an entertainer in the guise of political and social sage. One can always say the US is to “blame” for 9/11 by perverting cause and effect, holding up arrogance and poor global decisions as a legitimate reason to bomb innocent civilians. But I think the greater truth is that there is an extreme element of the Muslim faith that is wholly intolerant of anyone who does not subscribe to their beliefs, and to them, murder is an acceptable faith-based initiative. Thus, the problems worldwide – Africa, Russia, China, and elsewhere– where extreme Muslims interconnect with non-believers.
The US does tend to “use” people, does it not? It used Osama Bin Laden to oppose Russian adventurism, then found itself bit by the same snake. And I believe he is a snake. Although the histories of Afghanistan and Mindanao are separate, the connection is Bin Laden, and that is the unifying “fear factor” that the US uses, rightly or wrongly, I don’t know, to pursue military offensives in both areas.
As I talk to you, and listen to BongV, it is easy to say, yes, give the Moro ancestors their due, and their land. But a voice inside me says that is like giving a portion of the US to Mexicans, because they were here well before the settlers from Europe. I don’t know how you put the toothpaste back into the historical tube, or what you do with the Catholics and other non-Muslims who have moved into that region. Are they forced to subscribe to Muslim faith-based laws?
You write: “The Americans did not learn from their experience that Moros and Filipinos can not live under one system.”
I assume that is because the laws of one are secular, and the laws of the other are faith-based? Or maybe it is racism, or ethnic discrimination?
I am not a person of structured faith; that is, I believe in God, but I believe churches are institutions of men, and often espouse the perversions of man as God’s way or will. I believe in secular laws, hammered out over the years as civilization becomes more enlightened. I don’t know how to deal with faith-based doctrine that, to me, seems locked in history or inhumane . . . such as the Catholic stand on birth control, or the fundamentalist Muslim stand that keeps women from receiving education, or the Mormon stand that, trivially, won’t allow its flock to drink coke or coffee. I believe strongly in gender equality, and am extraordinarily proud of my three daughter’s academic achievements. I can’t imagine taking that self enrichment away from them.
I suppose I would be most interested in how the leaders of a separate “Moroland” would propose to treat those who are not of Muslim faith, both in laws and in day-to-day engagement.
And I repeat the query, whether you believe Shiites and Sunnis are both faithful Muslims.
I appreciate very much the information you provide, and your straightforward willingness to discuss things.
Be well.
Joe
Dear joe,
Thanks for your candid reply.
As a Muslim since birth while reading about Islam, I have never come across with the thing which relates to what you said that “But I think the greater truth is that there is an extreme element of the Muslim faith that is wholly intolerant of anyone who does not subscribe to their beliefs, and to them, murder is an acceptable faith-based initiative.” None in Islam’s theological tenets that teach so.
Say for example, the Qur’an as translated by Marmaduke Picktahl, says : “There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.” – Qur’an 2: 256. Also in other instance, it says: “Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.” – Qur’an 109: 6.
Meanwhile, Islam values life more than others do. In another instance, the Qur’an also says, “Whosoever kills a human being without (any reason like) man slaughter, or corruption on earth, it is as though he had killed all mankind … (5:32) And “Do not kill a soul which Allah has made sacred except through the due process of law … (6:151)
This then may falsify the gross misunderstanding that Islam is a religion whose adherents can not live with other peoples with different religious affiliations. A proto-type of an Islamic state where Jews, Christians and Muslims lived together was once established by Prophet Muhammad in Madinah. It was then copied in Spain during its grandeur under Ottoman Caliphate. I think I should quote again the following:
In his Philippines: A Century Hence essay, Jose P. Rizal wrote “…And in spite of the chivalrous spirit, the gallantry and the religious toleration of the califs…”
Moreover, Terrence Ball and Richard Dagger wrote in p. 269 of their book “Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal,” “The Muslim rulers of Spain were generally tolerant of other religions, allowing both Jews and Christians to practice their faiths—a courtesy seldom extended to Jews and Muslims in Christian countries at that time.”
Also, Cullen Murphy wrote “Tales of the Alhambra : The Lost Islamic World of Southern Spain—and Its Modern Echoes at June 2002 issue of Reader’s Digest Magazine: “In its golden age, Islamic Spain was among the most civilized places on the planet—renowned for its scientists and philosophers, artists and architects, poets and musicians. In the matter of religion, Islamic sultans generally tolerated and protected Jews and Christians.”
This tolerant socio-political arrangement is in fact operating in Malaysia today. As such, the indie film Fitna by Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders in 2008 has made unfettered and malicious quotes of those “violent” verses in the Qur’an in order to portray this uninformed thinking against Islam. These verses were picked up and quoted out of their respective contexts while supported by cunningly selected data of specific circumstances then accorded with general interpretation so as to portray that Islam is a religion of terrorism. What about doing the same with other religious books; or, with US or Philippine constitutions i.e. quoting some provisions out of their general contexts?
And so, I am going back to my position that the Mindanao problem is political in essence without religious color and as such Islam is not the core issue in here. Otherwise, those non-Muslims in different civil society organizations will not rally behind the Moro people if the issue is merely religious. The issue is rather political rights i.e. right to self-determination as guaranteed in international laws. It only appears religious, then linked irresponsibly to what the US calls as global Islamic extremism and terrorism because it just so happened that it’s the Muslim south who clamor for political rights against the Philippine government mostly manned by Christian legislators and officials.
The secular – faith based laws dichotomy is not the issue too. Qur’anic injunctions are instead acted out into actuality by Muslims based on the earthly life of the Prophet. Continuous consensus of the scholars, as reflected in the richly dynamic Islamic jurisprudence is also necessary to deal with the actual applicability of the Qur’an in Muslim continuous spatial and temporal lives. Included there is the duty of Muslims in acquiring knowledge, both males and females.
With respect to what political treatment shall be accorded to the non-Muslims under the BJE, well they should be asked first if they would stay or prefer to leave. But I am very much sure that in whatever choice they’ll make, they shall be dealt with justly as what Islam honorably enjoins.
Sunni and Shi’ah: Originally, there is no such a thing as Sunni-Shi’ah dichotomy as Islam is only one and that there is only one Muslim community i.e. Ummah. Historically, Shi’ism was a small political group which claimed to back up the rightful Caliphate of the fourth Caliph Ali, a nephew and son-in-law of the Prophet, which the Sunnis also acknowledge. These current times, it rose into a religious sect with its own theological creed and religious dogma quite distinct from the Sunni’s.
Yet, sometimes or most of the times colonial superpowers use this sectarian grouping in the context of divide and rule to sow mutual discords between and among Muslims. Modern-day neo-imperialists bomb Muslims, in sheer disregard whether they are Sunnis or Shi’ahs, whenever they come their colonial way.
I hope I have given you some enlightenment.
May you always have a good health.
dui
Danilo,
I appreciate your extensive comment, especially the references and quotes from the Qur’an. I intend to get a copy, English translation, of course, and become more broadly enlightened. So your comments have indeed had their intended effect of opening my mind and changing by behavior.
You wrote: “These verses were picked up and quoted out of their respective contexts while supported by cunningly selected data of specific circumstances then accorded with general interpretation so as to portray that Islam is a religion of terrorism.”
I fear that the HUMAN interpretation is indeed the problem, and it cuts both ways, for those who would condemn Islam or try to stir up trouble, and those Muslims who would interpret its meaning to advocate violence. Those who want the US out of Iraq could have it immediately if the violence would simply stop. Every American want US troops out. So to lay the blame for the endless murders of innocents there on the US isn’t credible to me. Rather, it is the endless striving for power by local people, Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, Iranians and possibly Bin Laden, that is the root of the problem.
Again, I object to the term “imperialist” if applied to the US; I accept the term “hegemonistic”, oriented around defending Americans, advocacy for freedom and democracy, and representing commercial and economic self-interests. And the raft of problems worldwide suggests many difficulties have little to do with an outer world pushing Islam around, but certain elements of the faith pushing the outer world around, or, at best, mutual pushing. The US is not engaged in many of these areas (Soviet states, China, etc.), and US imperialism is not in play.
As I read what I consider the GOOD THINKING you have quoted from the Qur’an . . . its advocacy, for example, of knowledge or education for both men and women, I am reminded of my time a number of years ago when I gave the Christian faith a good run. I studied the bible weekly with a very intelligent tutor, and learned a lot about God, Christ, man, and myself. But, in the end, I could not tie up with a faith that rallied around the thinking of its radical conservative right wing. They think intolerantly, by my belief, whereas Christ was impeccably tolerant. Not knowing where the narrow interpretation of man’s church left off and the good works of God began, I decided to go my own way, and now do not recognize the authority of any man’s church.
Similarly, I think ultra-conservative Muslims have a narrow interpretation of the Qur’an that differs from yours.
Your writings are eminently reasonable, and I think if you were in charge of negotiations on Mindanao, I’d have confidence that something could be worked out. Alas, I am afraid my level of trust in others is low, occasioned by the recognition that, in many parts of the world, I am considered a proper target for death, along with my young son and my wife.
There is a reality to that condition makes mutual understanding difficult, no matter what good behavior we demonstrate and the rational conclusions we reach here.
Regards and best wishes,
Joe
Dear joe,
Thanks for your continuous openness.
I am very sorry for my use of “imperialistic” for US foreign policy. I think I can agree with you that it’s really “hegemonistic” instead.
By the way, I want to ask is there such a thing as different “brand of democracy” i.e. unlike what it really is as espoused by, say, Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, Barack Obama at one and the other one espoused by, say, Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush? I mean is conservatives’ democracy different from the liberals’? Is a republican democracy different from the Democrat’s? How individual philosophies have affected the interpretation of democracy, say, that of Wilsonian v/s Jacksonian philosophies of democracy? Hope you can generously enlighten me on these matters.
“Similarly, I think ultra-conservative Muslims have a narrow interpretation of the Qur’an that differs from yours.”
I have not one instructional experience to do the noble task. Interpreting the Glorious Qur’an requires having an intensive educational qualification before undergoing “tafsir.” Accordingly, a scholar must a have a mastery of all eight main branches of advance Islamic knowledge: Tafsir, Usul-i kalam, Kalam, Usul-i hadith , ‘Ilm-i hadith, Usul-i fiqh, Fiqh, Ilm-i tasawwuf; and, the twelve elementary branches as well: Sarf, Ishtiqaq, Nahw, Kitabat, Ishtiqaq-i kabir, Lughat, Matn-i lughat, Bayan, Ma’ani, Badi, Balaghat and Insha, together with all their subtle particulars, and to be as well learned as necessary in scientific knowledge. And these can not be learned all within, say, 50 years of schooling. I do not know and I have no knowledge of any one of them here. They are reserved for our scholars who have met the required educational qualifications.
This is strictly observed as Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) has said that “He who gives a false interpretation to the Qur’an according to his own mind, thought and knowledge, and who writes made up interpretations [those opposed to the interpretations which the great men of religion have prepared after learning them from our Prophet and from his Ashab i.e. pious companions] is a non-believer.” This simply tells that one can not simply interpret the Qur’an.
“…and I think if you were in charge of negotiations on Mindanao, I’d have confidence that something could be worked out.” hehehe not in my age and credentials Joe. But I am honored of your compliments. Thank you very much.
Have a nice day always.
dui
Danilo,
It seems to me that Islaam is a deep faith, indeed, both in intellectual study and the internalization of faith. I respect the wisdom of its elders and know that most speak for moderation, not violence.
You ask superb questions about democracies, the presidential styles, conservatives vs. liberal, republican vs democrat, and how specific presidents differ. I’m not a student of history or specific presidents, so can’t answer some of the particulars. But I can give you my general observations.
The US is a three-branch government with strong checks and balances. The president does not have as much authority as in the Philippines, where the president can buy allegiance by doling out money. The US president struggles if the legislature is dominated by the opposition party, but can get things done reasonably well if his party dominates, as is the case for Mr. Obama. The legislature passes the laws and budgets that allow the president to operate. The people are represented through the legislature, and also through the courts where they frequently challenge the constitutionality of certain government activities.
Party ideology drives a lot of the legislative voting. Republicans generally favor smaller and less intrusive national government (less regulation), more state’s rights, free-market capitalism as the mechanism that drives wealth throughout society, and generally conservative budgeting and financial management. Democrats favor national government taking a stronger, and often more “expensive” role in providing caretaking of the broad population. They believe that free-markets do not wholly take care of the disadvantaged; therefore taxes are generally higher under democrats to pay for social services. Republicans align better with the corporate boardroom, democrats with workers.
Historical events can make or break a president. Republican president Lincoln was “made” because his union army won the Civil War, which was fundamentally a bloody fight about ownership of slaves, whereas Republican and Democratic presidents Nixon and Johnson were broken by Viet Nam, and the protests that surrounded that war. The Viet Nam war was a branch of fighting flowing from World War II, when the US served as a balancing force against adventures of Russia and China.
Domestic issues affect a president’s standing with the public, such as economic performance (unemployment rate, for example) or this year’s contentious debate over health care which is causing President Obama’s ratings to fall.
During the early 1900′s up to World War II there has been a great tug of war within America as to how engaged the country should be internationally. President Wilson favored international engagement. After World War II, there was no choice. The US was the only power strong enough to oppose communism.
President G. W. Bush’s defining event was the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and Pentagon in Washington DC; that led to the Afghanistan and Iraq engagements, and ancillary anti-terrorist engagements such as in the Philippines. President Obama’s welcome into office was worldwide economic collapse; he has handled it well so far.
Presidential personalities and management style vary widely. Nixon was a thinker but a man of slippery values, and a very crude speaker. Lyndon Johnson and G.W. Bush were Texas cowboys, Carter a dry engineer, Kennedy a charismatic young man, Ford a decent but boring man, Reagan another charismatic man but older and with very different ideology than Kennedy (Reagan was a republican, Kennedy a democrat), and Obama, a polished, diplomatic man. Each had (has) his own style in making appointments and running things. Some were good managers, some not so good. Some were good speakers, some not so good.
Many, many forces affect a president and his government. Large corporations have lobbyists that try to influence policy, and citizens have advocate groups such as the Civil Liberties Union that advocate for their causes. Environmentalists, labor unions, military veterans, senior citizens, gun owners, the various states – many, many voices speak with power. These voices are much stronger than in the Philippines, where there seems to be no voice except the legislature, which does not always have the people in mind; rather, legislators have benefactors in mind.
One major international force arises from the close association between Israel and the US; Jews occupy top positions in finance and entertainment industry in America, thus the US is historically interjected into the Middle East with a pro-Israel bias.
The “conservative” or “liberal” elements of the democratic and republican parties are also important forces. The best short definition I can provide is that conservatives are traditionalists and liberals are more inclined to do new things, paying for them with new taxes, heh. Right now, the conservative (generally Christian) element of the Republican party is strong; this has narrowed the party and cost it broad support. Debates have become very partisan and bitter during the past few years.
Religions generally have little bearing on the president as laws separating church and state are very tightly adhered to.
I fear I have rather rambled here, and don’t know if I paint a picture that makes sense or not.
The president is rather like the conductor of an orchestra, the players of which sometimes seem to have different sheets of music. Presidents grow old fast.
Joe
Dear joe,
I am really privileged of your generosity to explain things to me. It has given me more enlightenment as I always read all your responses in and between their lines. Thank you very much.
If I am not yet an overburden, may I further ask you a personal question? But please do not misconstrue me as too personal. That is, without being personal, which of the two parties, Republican and Democrats, makes a responsible appeal to you with respect to their respective agenda of governance vis-à-vis the general welfare of the American people and other nations in the world?
Of course, I was able to read the works of some contemporary American authors who are respectively writing for and in behalf of these two parties, like those written by Mona Charen and Ann Coulter at one side and those by Jim Hightower, Michael Moore and Molly Ivins on the other side. Or that, the Washington Post is most of the time flooded by Democrats’ views and conduct of public affairs while the New York Times by the Republicans’. With these readings, it gave me some insights as to how Democrats and Republicans respectively behave politically at home and diplomatically abroad. What about the 3rd and the Green party; is there such a things as that in the US?
“…the president does not have as much authority as in the Philippines, where the president can buy allegiance by doling out money.”
This is the tragedy of the Philippine democracy. Traditional political crooks hiding behind hypocrite public concern and fake political will often make fun of those democratic ideals, pervert democratic values and railroad democratic processes. Recently, by virtue of Executive Order signed by the president, guaranteed democratic freedoms e.g. freedom of speech and right to public assembly were suppressed in order “to save and protect the Philippine democracy.”
Or, say, during national and local elections, traditional politicians who have got the means and access to corrupt said political process and rig its turn-out are often times “voted” into government post. Philippine democracy has no mechanism to check on this. Election has been an effective tool of the trapos to acquire post “legitimately” even the case is not so, or even without election being actually administered. Most of the time, it’s the case of “selection in the crafty guise of election.” It’s easy to implore and invoke the “will of the people.” And automation is never a solution.
The case is much worst here in the ARMM. Most in here believe that ARMM is just an extension of Malacanang while what its officials do here resembles much and therefore an actual copycat of what is actually happening there in the Malacanang. Added here is the innocence, let alone the ignorance, of the local electorate, even in the context of poverty.
But let it be clarified that these Moro trapos should not be mistaken with the Moro leaders who really aim for some taste of socio-political change here in Mindanao or Moroland in particular. While the former would chose to retain the status quo to perpetuate themselves in power in the guise of serving the Moro people, it’s the later who really and continuously strives to reverse such deplorable political management and abominable social order.
Some, either due to misinformation or sheer discrimination, lump them indiscriminately together and retain an uninformed opinion that, say, the MILF wants to secede from the Philippines because, as they believe or irresponsibly speculate that MILF leaders maintain a vast tract of public lands and farms within MILF camps and that they want to perpetuate these possessions for themselves while ordinary Moro people starve out of landlessness. This is not the real score on the ground. It is the local Moro trapos along with other non-Moro politicians who were originally settlers then likewise turned vassals of Malacanang, as guaranteed by their access to power, who spuriously maintain such portion of public lands after robbing the ordinary Mindanaons of the rightful land possession.
This is what happened in Luzon and Visayas. The new-found Philippine state, while it is dominated by powerful elites and hacienderous and therefore can not check on their greed, instead encouraged those peasants dispossessed of lands to migrate to Mindanao as all lands here were likewise proclaimed public lands by virtue of the Commonwealth regime, yet in sheer and abject disregard of Mindanao’s historical antecedents. This is where the Mindanao problem all begun and thence abetted during these current times by Moro politicians contracted of greediness in the government.
I am sorry. It seems I am now abusing your openness to listen, though it is not the case.
Yours always,
dui
Danilo,
I equally enjoy and read your comments with care.
I am not a typical American, I think, in that I don’t hold too many hard views, and no strict allegiances to either political party. I look at issues, mainly. That said, I usually line up better with Democratic views than Republican. Both are much too partisan for my liking; I prefer the dignity of mutual respect rather than someone shouting “liar” during the President’s speech to Congress. I find every party-line vote, where all Democrats vote the same and all Republicans the same, very disheartening, as I think our representatives have lost their principles and sense of public service.
Your readings are excellent. Michael Moore and Ann Coulter are certainly opposite ends of the spectrum, both thereby being a little “loopy” in my book.
The most popular third party choice is to run as an independent, or unaffiliated. A good independent can win. There is still a Communist party, I think, and probably a green party of some kind, but these draw such little attention, few voters are attracted to such limited platforms and they are not willing to waste a vote on someone who cannot win.
I’m fascinated by your perspectives on ARMM, Moros and MILF. Power is so intoxicating, eh? That seems to be a common theme across the Philippines, from national to local, and as you point out, within the ARMM leadership and Moro trapos. Those who crafted the US Constitution were very good at seeing the tendency for unchecked power to corrupt, so the checks and balances are ingeniously written. Here, the power threads run from the Palace through both the Legislature and Judiciary, and the money behind the Palace entices loyalty, as you point out, with offers of cash, re-election, and authority.
If we simply speculated about Mindanao, do you think the best solution is an independent state — “Moroland” — or would a federalist structure that gave Mindanao considerably more autonomy under a Philippine national government work?
My mind balks at a non-secular state, because I follow no structured religion. I’d be considered a pretty poor citizen in “Moroland”, I think, with some of my unfettered ideas.
Additionally, even if the Mindanao population was improperly seeded from Luzon and the Visayas to effectively “dilute and conquer” the land, I don’t know how the offspring of those imported families are dealt with under a Muslim constitution. Or others who have moved there for innocent reasons. I suppose it depends on how reasonable that constitution would be, in respecting differences and freedoms.
Maybe one should be drafted, for the peace and security it might offer. The understandings. And the choices.
Thanks for making me think. I am convinced it keeps my old brain limber, rather like stretching the limbs daily . . .
Be well . . .
Joe
Dear Joe,
Good day and thank you again for another informative and enjoying response.
Foremost here, let me clarify categories of conflict here in Mindanao. In the ladder include the conflict between the 1) GRP forces and the Moro fronts which falls under sovereignty-based conflict, 2) GRP forces v/s the communist party which falls under ideology-based conflict, 3) GRP forces v/s Abu Sayyaf/JI which is categorized as terrorism 4) GRP forces v/s criminal elements which is purely criminality by nature, 5) IP communities v/s business interest groups which is resource-based conflict and, 6) those conflicts among families and clans which are purely family feuds or “rido.” These categories must not be lump together so that each has its own unique way of resolution.
For instance, the sovereignty-based struggle among Moro fronts must not be lump together as having common footing with that of the conflict between military and terrorist or criminal elements. Unfortunately, the government sees things differently so that the Moro people’s clamor for right to self-determination raised by Moro fronts is dealt with the way it does to terrorist and criminal elements. This is where violence usually escalates on the ground. Or, while employing LIC, hawks in the government with its psywar experts usually exploit local lawless groups as part of its deliberate counter-insurgency measures, while reducing this sovereignty issue as mere insurgency, to discredit the Moro people’s clamor of its legitimacy.
For instance, every time a ceasefire is in place, the military usually contrives an orchestrated scenario to break the volatile peace; there it is usually common that a KFR group, say, Pentagon, now Abu Sofia, of military concoction will snatch a victim then deliberately flee toward an MILF lair so that armed confrontation eventually ensues. Afterwards, the military will boldly proclaim MILF casualties and not of the kidnappers. This stratagem was repeatedly used both during the 2000 and 2003 all-out-wars i.e. in search of hi-way extortionists then Pentagon members respectively, which displaced hundred thousands of residents in Central Mindanao.
But it was from the horse mouth that the truth behind this malicious stratagem was revealed: While having a verbal engagements with North Cotabato Vice Governor Pinol over the MOA-AD last September 2008, Gen. Esperon GRP Peace Panel Chair said: “I said remember this is not the year 2000 … when we had a national policy of capturing and occupying MILF camps, … and I said the policy had changed. We are pursuing the peace process.”
But the Moro people, say, through the MILF, are practical this time. Their clamor for right to self-determination is seen in the MOA-AD which is mutually crafted by both peace panels with associative nature with respect to the national government. While axed to death due to “unconstitutionality” by the SC decision, yet it inherently considers constitutional process i.e. holding of plebiscite in those Moro dominated areas under Christian LGUs. There is no question on the MILF with respect to consultation because as far as the GRP-MILF peace process is concerned, the MILF consults its people before its panel sits on the negotiation table. (I was able to attend to the Bangsamoro Consultation sometime in 2005 called for by the MILF at Camp Darapanan which was peopled by about a million or more coming from different parts of Mindanao.) That was during the event when the GRP-MILF peace talks was about to resume during that time.
It’s that the MILF was just overwhelmed and rode on the belief that it is talking to a strong government with a unanimous mandate over its people. Because after all, it is a “government” per se whom it is talking to for more than 10 years – the Government of the Republic of the Philippines. It failed to grasp the grim reality that, say, the present administration is still mustering a face to cajole or terrorize its people of its legitimacy.
Now then, should the Moro people have its clamor and rule according to the Shari’ah, what then is fearful in here? What is your reservation over “non-secular-based” governments? Or non-secular states? How do you define these stuffs? Do you qualify them as theocracy? There is no theocracy in Islam i.e. the rule of the clerics, as in Papacy let alone the advice of the clerics to Muslim rulers and their conformity and compliance to the Sharia’ah.
Unless we entertain “non-secularism” the way Harris, Hitchens or Dawkins sees these things are or mean, then we would really have a problem. Presently, I am reading “Greater Than You Think,” written by Thomas D. Williams, LC, ThD in response to atheism. Although I can always grin out of disagreement every time he mentioned about Islam, I am sure he observed great bulk of objectivity in tackling things in the book.
Good day always,
dui
Danilo,
Thanks for the continuing education of an American of endless amazement, that our simple lives can be so complex. The six categories of conflict on Mindanao are overwhelming to a peace-lover such as myself. In the US, there are probably more conflicts, but they are generally resolved with attorneys instead of guns. I appreciate understanding the distinctions on Mindanao.
I agree that government duplicity is despicable; nothing can arouse anger like betrayal.
re.: “clamor for the right to self-determination”. I don’t see how self-determination is possible unless a completely independent state is formed, apart from the Philippines. There cannot be two sets of rules. Being from a country that self-determined its independence in 1776, I could support independence, but would want to know the rules first. That leads me to your questions.
“What is your reservation over “non-secular-based” governments? Or non-secular states?”
There is freedom, and there is oppression. Unfettered freedom leads to chaos and disrespect; oppression leads to subjugation of the mind, body and spirit. Will my daughter have the right to an education? Will I have free speech? Must I dress as told, or as I wish (assuming it is not indecent)? What is my avenue of protest if I believe I am wronged (judicial system)? Am I allowed to own property? What is the process for revising the “rules”?
Again, someone who volunteers to suppress his rights is different than someone who is forced to. You might, for your faith, agree to give up certain freedoms. I, being a poet and free spirit, might not wish to do so. What does your self-determined state determine to do with or to me?
I would want to see the rules first, rather like a contract, before signing on. I would be hesitant to do it “on faith”.
I admire your dedication to reading. I fear too many kids of the TV age lack such nourishment. Somehow TV doesn’t do such a good job at teaching “reflection”.
Always good to hear from you. Be well,
Joe
Dear Joe,
I am glad you appreciate and therefore you can relate with the age-old sentiment of the Moro people.
As I said earlier, the Moro people or, say, the MILF is very practical this time. While it asks the Philippine government not to invoke (for) the narrow confines of the Philippine constitution as the framework of the GRP-MILF peace talks, it also likewise left independence as its main talking point, as asked of it by the GRP. This does not mean mere rejection of the Philippine constitution but the bare fact that continuous imposition of “thinking inside the box” is not just unproductive but even destructive this time.
This mutual compromise has lead both the GRP and the MILF panels to reach more than 10 years of talking, worthy of celebration. With the MOA-AD having an associative in character which surprisingly also considers application of all legal means e.g. constitutional process i.e. plebiscite, the Moro people can still cooperate with Filipinos through a “nations-within-state approach.” The Philippine government has to leave the obsolete “one-state-approach” invested with erroneous assumptions e.g. one people, one country. It’s that the Moro has to understand the Philippine state’s reluctance, let alone improbability, of letting go willingly of the Moroland despite the historical fact that their territories and sovereignty had been immorally usurped and illegally incorporated into the Philippine acquired territories without the concession of the Moro people.
Precisely, the “Bangsamoro State or Republic” shall have its own constitution which shall accommodate the general sentiment of the Moro people. A Bangsamoro constitution must be established not before the day when they shall acquire a Bangsamoro consciousness and identity. Of course, I know that during these current times, these thoughts are yet relegated to mere wishful thinking.
But, this Bangsamoro constitution shall be basically based on the Qur’an which shall spell out those remedies of what you are apprehensive of, say, guarantee of basic freedoms, under a system of government based on Sharia’ah. I understand you as you are exposed to Muslim states which are said to be draconian in its imposition of the Shari’ah. Draconian in the sense that sometimes, it is not applied uniformly and fairly which seems in this sense harsh to those weak and some kind of light to those who are strong.
How profound is the saying of the Prophet that among those best Jihads i.e. struggle is a harsh (probing) words against an unjust ruler. And I envy that the freedom to do such also exists in your country. Of course, as you said earlier, that you “prefer the dignity of mutual respect rather than someone shouting “liar” during the President’s speech to Congress” and that is very true.
Very truly yours,
dui
Danilo,
I think we have had an excellent exchange of views and I very much appreciate the courtesy and patience you have displayed to properly inform me of your points of view. I also appreciate that you listened to me with care. Perhaps we both have new perspectives now, and can carry them forward, with the dignity we both desire.
I shall follow developments on Mindanao with a newfound respect for what is going on there, from the point of view of the MILF. And perhaps our paths will cross in further discussions down the road.
Until then, best wishes, both for your aspirations of faith, and your personal well-being.
Joe
Dear Joe,
Likewise, thank you very much for your courtesy while reading my posts with openness. How I wish I was able to reciprocate it in my best capacity while making replies too of your posts.
God bless us always with enlightenment and sound conscience.
dui