House of God or House of Government?
“The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.”
- Article 2, section 6 of the Philippine Constitution
“There must be no separation between God and Man. Without these conditions, the (RH) Bill if enacted into law will separate our nation from Almighty God.”
- CBCP President Angel Lagdameo
Almost two years ago, Speaker Prospero Nograles proposed a study that could prevent the CBCP from making cowards of our Congressmen.
The study could reveal that the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) has no right to scare politicians with threats to campaign against them, and that the religious organization will lose tax-exempt status if it continues to do so.
As the elections draw near, the results of the study become more relevant. Sadly, it’s because of the timing that the study remains a proposal. As an online reporter for CBCP said, “Politicians tend to be wary of going against Church teachings for fear of losing votes.”
So as long as our politicians are afraid of some priests, the study will not happen. The CBCP will continue to meddle in politics, and our politicians will continue to let them. For instance, three groups will decide the fate of the Reproductive Health (RH) bill: Pro-RH politicians, anti-RH politicians, and anti-RH priests.
By now it should be clear that the CBCP is a critical part of this political debate. They have campaigned against pro-RH politicians, asked them to resign, and even tried to do their job for them, pushing for their own version of the bill. They are doing everything in their power to order politicians to their side and threaten those who don’t obey.
And it’s working. Our politicians are scared. Even our Secretary of Defense is “very afraid.” Before the RH debates resume, pro-RH politicians will try to get the blessings of some bishops. I believe the Church’s favor is a major factor most politicians consider before even hinting that they support the RH bill.
On the other hand, the CBCP is not afraid of our politicians. They wield the Catholic bloc vote (which is a myth, by the way) that got them enough political clout to be invited to a Senate hearing. And when they weren’t pleased with what they heard, they walked out, in disrespect to the privilege they’d been given.
Such political meddling is what motivated Speaker Nograles to propose the removal of their tax exempt status. But the CBCP simply shrugged off the threat. A CBCP spokesman further said that removing their tax-exempt status would require a change in the Constitution. I presume it is out of fear that Nograles later clarified that he was not proposing to remove it, only to study what the Constitution really says about the issue.
So what’s actually written in the Constitution? First, let’s look at how the CBCP understands it.
Should religious leaders choose candidates for their flock? According to Archbishop Antonio Ledesma, “that should be left to the wisdom and conscience of the mature Christian voter.” That answer might have contributed to his losing the CBCP presidency. Because where the CBCP is concerned, it’s the wrong answer.
In 1998, the CBCP released Catechism on the Church and Politics. Here are some excerpts:
What does “separation of Church and State” mean?
Separation of Church and State is strictly defined in the 1987 Philippine Constitution to refer to two points: (1) that no religion may be established as the official religion of the State; and (2) that the State may not favor one religion over others. At the same time, the State shall forever allow the free exercise and enjoyment of religion and shall not require any religious test for the exercise of civil or political rights…
To be noted is the fact that nowhere does the Constitution prohibit Clergy and Religious from partisan politics. What prohibits them from active involvement in partisan politics is the Church’s own laws and traditional wisdom.
Is there any case when the Bishops can authoritatively order the lay faithful to vote for one particular and concrete option?
Yes, there is, and the case would certainly be extraordinary. This happens when a political option is clearly the only one demanded by the Gospel… In this case the Church may authoritatively demand the faithful, even under pain of sin, to vote against this particular candidate…
- Catechism on the Church and Politics Part 2
This tells us two things about how the CBCP understands secularism. First, that they can be involved in partisan politics. Second, that they should be involved and order their flock to vote for or against candidates in cases where it is “demanded by the Gospel.”
One such case is the RH Bill, as emphasized by CBCP President Angel Lagdameo:
Even as we recognize the right of the government to enact laws, we also reiterate that there must be no separation between God and Man. Without these conditions, the (Reproductive Health) Bill if enacted into law will separate our nation from Almighty God.
Now it becomes clear why the CBCP has been so active in politics, especially in opposing the RH Bill. They believe it is their divine obligation and constitutional right.
But in their understanding of the separation of church and state, they don’t see the full picture. What does our Constitution actually say?
“The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.”
- Article 2, section 6 of the Philippine Constitution
“No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof… No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.”
- Article 3, section 5 of the Philippine Constitution
“No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or employed, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister, other religious teacher, or dignitary as such…”
- Article 6, section 29 of the Philippine Constitution
I think they read only this much, but even here they only see half the picture. Secularism means more than the state not interfering with church. It works both ways. The church must not interfere with the state. Religious organizations must not be involved in partisan politics. They totally missed this point even when our Constitution makes it absolutely clear:
“One-half of the seats allocated to the party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or election from … sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector.”
- Art. 6, section 5(2) of the Philippine Constitution
“Religious denominations and sects shall not be registered (as a political party, organization or coalition, by the Comelec)”
- Art. 9, C, section 2(5) of the Philippine Constitution
The last item makes it clear that religious organizations cannot register as political organizations. This is because religious organizations, unlike political ones, receive tax privileges:
“Charitable institutions, churches and personages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and improvements, actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious, charitable, or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation.”
- Art. 6, section 28(3) of the Philippine Constitution
This is repeated in the Corporation Code…
Non-stock corporations may be formed or organized for charitable, religious, educational, professional, cultural, fraternal, literary, scientific, social, civic service, or similar purposes, like trade, industry, agricultural and like chambers, or any combination thereof…
- Batas Pambansa Blg. 68 Title 11 Section 88
Any corporation sole may purchase and hold real estate and personal property for its church, charitable, benevolent or educational purposes, and may receive bequests or gifts for such purposes.
- Batas Pambansa Blg. 68 Title 11 Section 113
…and in the National Internal Revenue Code:
The following organizations shall not be taxed under this Title in respect to income received by them as such:
(E) Nonstock corporation or association organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, athletic, or cultural purposes, or for the rehabilitation of veterans, no part of its net income or asset shall belong to or inures to the benefit of any member, organizer, officer or any specific person;
- Republic Act 8424 Chapter 4, Section 30 E
Note that these 3 documents emphasize that religious organizations, who receive tax-exempt status, should be “organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, athletic, or cultural purposes, or for the rehabilitation of veterans.”
Partisan politics is not an authorized purpose. So once a religious group starts politicking, it no longer qualifies for tax exemption, and should be stripped of its tax privileges.
The CBCP’s involvement in politics should put their tax exempt status into question. Which is what Speaker Nograles did in February 2008:
Speaker Nograles said that in the US, tax exempt privileges being accorded to religious organizations, charitable institutions and non-profit organizations has some preconditions under its Internal Revenue Code (Section 501) and among which is the prohibition for any organization or institution which availed of tax privileges from “conducting lobbying activities and in participating and intervening, directly or indirectly, in political campaigns.”
Let me remind you that our Constitution, Corporation Code, and Tax Code do have the same preconditions. But in our case, what’s mentioned is what a religious organization can do. It only says what cannot be done implicitly (by its not being mentioned).
But the US, whose constitution and secularism are the basis of our own, explicitly states what a religious organization cannot do:
All IRC section 501(c)(3) organizations, including churches and religious organizations, are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office…
Religious leaders cannot make partisan comments in official organization publications or at official church functions.
Religious leaders who speak or write in their individual capacity are encouraged to clearly indicate that their comments are personal and not intended to represent the views of the organization.
- IRS Tax Guide For Churches And Religious Organizations
They also elaborate on how churches can avoid politicking when it invites candidates to speak, holds public forums, and releases voter guides. But in every case, they make it very clear that the mere indication that a church supports or opposes a certain candidate is grounds for removal of tax privileges.
Now let’s review:
Does the CBCP support or oppose certain candidates? Do their religious leaders “clearly indicate that their comments are personal and not intended to represent the views of the organization”?
“If you know of a congressman or senator who voted in favor of the Reproductive Health Bill, my request is not to vote for them in the next elections.” .
- Bishop Arturo Bastes over Radio Veritas(Cardinal Vidal) is now considering whether Aquino should be included in the Church’s list of politicians who should not be voted.
- Archbishop Ricardo Cardinal Vidal
Castro also said the Church’s family and life ministry with its affiliate groups nationwide might resort to bloc voting in the 2010 elections to ensure the defeat of “anti-life” politicians.
- Fr. Melvin Castro, executive secretary of the CBCP’s Commission on Family and Life
As you can see, CBCP’s politicking has gone beyond mere indication into blatant intervention. These are only three of the many similar cases you can find on their website alone.
What about the thousands of violations that go unchecked when priests give sermons about who Catholics should vote? The pulpits and church buildings, like the website and Radyo Veritas, are tax-exempt properties that should not be used for political, taxable purposes.
The CBCP has to decide what to use their resources for. Either they use it exclusively for religious purposes, or occasionally for political intervention. They can’t have it both ways.
In any case, our lawmakers must require CBCP to stop politicking or lose their tax-exempt status. What’s taking them so long to do this? Maybe they’re not sure whether there are violations in the first place. Or perhaps they just don’t understand what separation of church and state really means. If they did, speaker Nograles wouldn’t think that the issue needed to be studied.
In that case, why don’t they do the study already? I imagine it won’t take much effort. I got all this from a few hours of research online. With their experts, research teams, and related cases in other secular countries around the world (even the cases in the US are more than enough), they have all the resources they need.
More importantly, it’s their responsibility. If there’s the slightest chance that our Constitution is being violated, then our politicians should not put off the study any longer.
Unless, of course, our Congressmen are paralyzed by fear. I’m afraid no Church-fearing candidate would want to follow through and risk losing the Catholic vote. But our Congressmen must not forget. As public servants, it’s not the Church, not the bishops, not even the Catholics they should be afraid of. It’s the Filipino citizens — regardless of religion — that our representatives should respect.
Popularity: 2% [?]
In fairness, I see Speaker Prospero Nograles as a straight-thinking individual – issue or no issue – especially on matters germane to legislation. For one, he should not be speaker or bartopnotcher for nothing.
Next is the crystal-clear fact that there is no such thing as a Catholic vote or that a Catholic population constitutes a powerful voting bloc. By your own admission, this so-called Catholic vote is nothing but a myth.
Cowardice or congressmen being cowards in the sense that they can be cowed by priests or bishops coming from the seemingly but not objectively powerful Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines ought to be an unfair social label or stigma cast upon the House Membership, individually or collectively. Cowardice does likewise belong to those too brave enough to recite or even chant purely dogmatic if not secular views.
The bone of contention in this seeming clash between the CBCP and the House of Representatives revolves around the ability or inability of Congress to push for the RH bill or to, in fact, water it down.
Everything will follow the democratic process here and none has been yet jeopardized, come to think of it.
It is well within the rights of every member of CBCP to express his views on matters that he deems affect his flock on the morality side of the ledger.
Let them play moral metricians in these cruel and punishing times when the movement for reproductive health are indicatively bound by instruction than by conscience.
At the end of all these are a global drug industry waiting on the wings. And they can pay payola unto any member of Congress just to get their lobbying one inch next to hell – DONE.
Thanks for your comments, Primer. But you seem to have missed the point. My post was not about the RH bill. It was about the church endorsing and opposing politicians, which is unconstitutional.
What I meant by “no such thing as a Catholic vote” is that it does not work. History has proven than it takes more than the support of the church for a politician to win. But it does not mean it is all right for the church to even try it.
Again, my post is not about the RH bill. There have been enough debates about the issue and I don’t think anything else can be added. The only thing we can do now is let the people who are supposed to decide the issue decide on it without the bribery or blackmail of the CBCP.
pero mahilig sila sa photo ops, pumunta pa sa Roma para magpa-picture :)…kanya-kanyang gamitan yan…ngayon…nasa tao naman talaga ang desisyon…sa mga nakakakita…kaya lang may Garci talaga eh…di ba?
very interesting stuff ryan. thanks for the link to the IRC code re non-profits and churches.
an observation RE the code: its OK for individual priests and bishops to advocate, or declare support for one candidate or another. it is another to an organization to do it. this is important to remember.
You’re welcome.
That’s an important point. An individual bishop can say who he thinks should be voted for provided that:
1. It’s outside official church functions (masses, festivals, etc.)
2. It’s not using church channels (pulpits, church-owned radio/TV stations, websites, publications, etc.)
3. When 1 and 2 are fulfilled, that they make it clear their views are their own and does not reflect that of the entire organization.
Ryan,
This short excerpt from this conversation shows, an irresponsible quote and enough to incriminate Monsignor and His religious organization for such remarks!
[Tagbilaran City after visiting the Bishop’s House there last October 16.]
The “excerpts” run this way:
MM (name of a Bohol Catholic monsignor):
Is it true that you are for the reproductive health bill?
Noynoy:
Yes, monsignor, it is the key to the ills in our country, especially overpopulation. I always remember the poor couples in Payatas with 11 children; they got to be helped with contraceptives that should be made available to them.
MM:
You believe in overpopulation and contraception?
Noynoy:
Yes, monsignor, it is what you see around us. Contraception per se is not bad, as what my Jesuit priest friends told me in the Ateneo.
MM:
That’s the idea of the Jesuits. They are not the magisterium, they don’t represent the Pope.
Noynoy:
But that’s what my conscience tells me.
MM:
Are you sure? Consciences need to be formed under the teachings of the Church. If you insist on your pro-RH stand, I will assure you the entire clergy will campaign against you.
Noynoy:
Thank you for the conversation, monsignor.
………….End of conversation………….
i.e
“Noynoy should of countered and ended with conversation, sounding more like this…,
“With such requesition from your clergy, intern, we will not overlook your Tax Exempt status, if we so deem that your religious organization has participated on any political inquiry, monsignor.”
See [Jeopardizing Tax-Exempt Status] on page #5
Again, what Ilda says is so TRUE!
Politicians are too afraid of being accused of heresy and being burned at the stake. What the politicians need is to grow a couple of balls, rise up and speak against these meddling folks who know nothing about feeding a bunch of kids.”
Food for Thoughts!
How big of a repercussion would that be on his Presidency. Will the flock go against him for making a gesture such as this. Or, will the sheep herder still be in control of the flocks.
Thank you for this, Mario. I’ll add it to my growing list of violations to you as reference to the CBCP’s sins.
Very informative, Ig I understand correctly, the idea is to remove the tax free status of any religious organization when it participates in partisan politics. I think that’s the correct approach. The rught of religious organization to politic on any issue it wants is not taken away only it’s tax e.xempt statues
Thanks, manuel. You’re right. If they want to get involved in partisan politics, they first have to let go of tax-exempt status.
Members of the CBCP are just any other Pinoy — they will keep pushing the envelope and violating existing laws if the laws are not enforced. Now, the 1987 Constitution assigns enforcement of laws onto the EXECUTIVE Department.
Question for May-2010 : which candidate has the backbone to put the government jackboot onto the necks of the CBCP to keep them in check?
Or should Pinas policy be to “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to the people the things that are the people’s.”
Right now, I don’t think any of them have the guts for the job.
Practically all Filipinos, especially the Aquinos, feel some “utang-na-loob” to the CBCP hierarchy.
Exception — the Marcos clan. When BongBong runs for Pilipinas president, maybe his platform will include reducing many of the tax-exemption privileges being enjoyed by the CBCP.
Actually, I think it’s more fear than gratitude.
When rule of law is weak and broken at the very top, no such revocation of tax exemption can be implemented. Government transactions are not transparent as well. At least the bishops speak instead of PROMISE.
Speaker Nograles was applying the rule of law only applicable to the US. US Non profit law defines clearly what an organization or a church CANNOT do. The Philippine failed to mention and specify penalties. If there is, you should have included such penalties applicable to Philippines.
Much better blog Tani. If you can connect this blog to MB’s previous blog of ” right to know bill” then maybe public officials can enforce penalties. Right now, there’s too much abuse of power and non transparent executive privileges that people do not know.
An attempt to penalize the church may not be an stragetic solution. The church has too many followers, witnesses and victims of human rights abuse.
“Speaker Nograles was applying the rule of law only applicable to the US. US Non profit law defines clearly what an organization or a church CANNOT do. The Philippine failed to mention and specify penalties. If there is, you should have included such penalties applicable to Philippines.”
Like I said, they are prevented from participating in partisan politics by implication, that is, it is not included in what they must exclusively be involved in. Tax-exempt status is a privilege given them for following these conditions, and if not followed, they don’t deserve to receive it. This much is already written in the constitution.
Additionally, it also has this:
“TITLE XVI MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 144. Violations of the Code. – Violations of any of the provisions of this Code or its amendments not otherwise specifically penalized therein shall be punished by a fine of not less than one thousand (P1,000.00) pesos but not more than ten thousand (P10,000.00) pesos or by imprisonment for not less than thirty (30) days but not more than five (5) years, or both, in the discretion of the court.”
This is, of course, in addition to revocation of their tax exempt status for failure to adhere to the standards of a religious, nonprofit organization.
“An attempt to penalize the church may not be an stragetic solution. The church has too many followers, witnesses and victims of human rights abuse.”
It may not be strategic depending on your purpose. If you want justice to be served and the constitution to be respected, then it is strategic. But if you are a politician who only has self-interest in mind (winning the elections), then it is not strategic.
‘they are prevented from participating in partisan politics by implication’
It’s better if the law will specify what CANNOT be done. If the CBCP thinks that being involve in politics is also a religious activity then no one can prevent them from being involve in it.
It would indeed be better, but it is unnecessary. Like I said, you qualify as a religious organization if you exclusively perform the allowed purposes. Once you perform an unauthorized purpose such as partisan politics, you are disqualified.
It doesn’t matter whether the CBCP thinks political campaigning can qualify as a religious activity. What matters is what the lawmakers who wrote the constitution meant, and how our current lawmakers understand it. Which as I have shown, badly needs to be reviewed.
thanks for the research Tani but I do like your conclusion at the end.. “It’s the Filipino citizens — regardless of religion — that our representatives should respect.”
When a public official cannot respect his own people, then he/she gets what she deserved. Respect can be gain thru good governance not thru tyranny and bias policy. If an official wants to penalize the church, then he must prove that the church is at fault.
Going back to the issue of RH bill, there’s no solid evidence that a certain religious teaching can cause overpopulation however there’s a strong data supporting that overpopulation is a result of poor governance and weak policy-making. This strong evidence favors the church in the court of law… The tax exempt status will continue…
respect begets respect.
respect yourself by selecting a representative who can deliver the goods and services not just to you and your family but to your wider community.
however, when you sell your votes or you select haphazardly, you disrespect yourself – and you wind up with a candidate who disrespects you. in this case, when you point your finger at the congressman, remember that there are three fingers pointing right back at you :)
leytenian: the problem with the CBCP is that not only do these supposed virgins not want the pill or IUD’s and condoms made available to the citizenry, the CBCP does not even want the citizen-Pinoy and Pinay to be informed about reproductive health. “NO!” to knowledge, they say. “NO” to information about HIV/AIDS, the Pinoy brain is too small to understand such complexities of biology, they say.
lol… you are funny up n…
If CBCP says NO because pinoy brains are too small to understand the complexities of biology then the government must find other strategies. An independent NGO can do the same function as the State. Any pro-choice non profit organizations can implement what’s in the RH BILL. It doesn’t have to be legislated as long as the NGO is legally registered with the State to have a purpose, similar to what is in the RH bill. In terms of financing, an NGO can solicit donation legally from the STATE or from various private sectors. This strategy is shifting risk from one party to another. The role of State can be transferred thru an NGO manage by ordinary people not employed by any government . Any person who believes in Pro Choice can register as a non profit organization…
Not sure if this will work… but it’s an out of the box.
Leytenian:
I take it you are against the RH bill. “there’s no solid evidence that a certain religious teaching can cause overpopulation however there’s a strong data supporting that overpopulation is a result of poor governance and weak policy-making.”
I take it you also believe the Pope’s statement that condoms do not work in preventing pregnancies.
Many studies have already proven that abstinence-only policies do not work and contribute to overpopulation while condoms do reduce the instances of unwanted pregnancies. Do you want me to once again do your research for you?
This post was never about the RH bill, but blatant ignorance such as you have shown deserves to be pointed out.
i think you are assuming Tani that I am against RH BILL. I have not indicated that whatsoever…. Read my comment for UP N.. that should give you a better idea.
and please, provide more links from your research.. this is your blog and you are responsible to treat your commenters as your customers. regardless of my ignorance to the subject , I am expecting you to be professional about it. Did I insult you or offend you in the first place or you are still remembering the past… My God
so your back with a vengeance… LOL
“there’s no solid evidence that a certain religious teaching can cause overpopulation however there’s a strong data supporting that overpopulation is a result of poor governance and weak policy-making.”
This was not about my previous posts and your comments there. It was about this comment of yours. This may be my post, but this is YOUR comment, and you have the responsibility for it.
You have said:
1. There’s no solid evidence that a religious teaching can cause overpopulation.
2. Overpopulation is a result of poor governance and weak policy making.
Your 1st statement really irritates me. Not because of anything you have said previously. Just for the statement itself.
Let’s say a country religiously believes that contraceptives do not work, so they avoid using it. How do you think such a belief would affect the population of our hypothetical country?
Your 2nd statement need further elaboration, as governance could mean anything. If this is true, then the government is failing by making policies that provide better education to replace the religious lies spread by religion. Which brings us back to your 1st statement.
But just to clarify: What is your stance on contraceptives? Do you agree with the Pope when he says condoms do not work and even lead to more overpopulation?
Tani,
what would you be irritated? If you have taken the time to browse the internet, I may not be able to provide a good counter argument.
“On : What is your stance on contraceptives? Do you agree with the Pope when he says condoms do not work and even lead to more overpopulation? ”
Personally, I hate condoms. It is not pleasurable and my opinion has nothing to do with the pope. I don’t know Tani… I cannot relate for others sexual needs. The pope however did not like the LANGUAGE of the RH bill. the problem between the church and the state has been an old issue.
In my view, instead of corrupting the nation’s money, the state should allocate some of its budget to programs that would make the lives of our nation better such as the creation of jobs to numerous unemployed and underpaid Filipinos. Overpopulation is closely related to poverty. The government should provide Filipinos with jobs that they have promised to earn an income sufficient enough to meet the needs of the members of the family. When people have a sense of self worth due to an increase in income, a more educated public will be the result.
I am in agreement with family planning basing on income not SEX..
Tani,
Assuming that the RH bill will pass, how long can the state sustain financially if it cannot generate revenue from employment income taxes. Don’t tell me, we will forever ask for donations from the international communities or continue to borrow money?
The RH bill is only a policy but it requires money and good governance to sustain long term like 25 years or longer to see a positive result.
Who is then responsible to implement employment solution? The church or the State? Wondering why there are cowards ? obviously policy-makers have failed with their promises for employment. The country has always been engaged with wasteful spending like corruption.
Off topic:
Gasoline is now being rationed in Metro Manila starting tonight, at least in the city where I live.
Is this good for everyone, or, bad?
I was allowed only a maximum of P100.00 worth of gasoline for my car.
Me, I’m boycotting Shell stations. Very arrogant ‘yun si Edgar Chua from the very beginning. After blackmailing the government, nagpunta pa sa korte. At least ang Petron nag-offer i-open ang books nila. Kaya, as much as possible, sa Petron ako pumupunta. Consumers should teach these arrogant people a lesson in humility.
Para bang gusto nilang palabasin, pasalamat tayo sa investments nila. Kapal! Ang lalakas nga nilang kumita. Nakiusap lang ang taumbayan ng kaunting palugit dahil may once-in-a-lifetime tragedy, kung anu-anong ng pananakot ang pinalabas. Kesyo matatakot daw ang mga investors, oil shortage, whatever.
Nakakainis talaga. Boycott Shell stations! Buy only from those with social sensitivities like Petron which offered to open their books.
in this case, no such thing as good for everyone – the consumer’s “good” is the oil companies “bad”.
you mean, BongV, Gloria’s oil prize freeze is good for the people, the consumers, the “everyone”?
if the Filipino is “everyone”, and the oil companies not “everyone”, why did you say,”no such thing as good for everyone”? explain plez.
Bert:
Oil companies have people working for them too. If the company does not make the revenue then it starts trimming the fat. Guess which ones are the first to go – jobs.
Party A = “People working for oil companies – executives, gas boys, franchise owners” vs Party B = “People buying the oil”.
If you say “everyone” – that is inclusive, meaning Party A AND Party B.
In the case of the oil freeze – it becomes Party A VERSUS Party B – not Party A AND Party B.
Party A is a subset of “everyone”. Party B is also a subset of “everyone”. But Party A is not Party B. Not All A is B, Not all B is A.
Since both are subsets of “everyone” and what’s good for Party A isn’t necessarily good for Party B – you can’t say “good for everyone” – one way or another, someone’s gotta pay.
If the CBCP did what they did in the US, they will have the US IRS knocking at their door and removing their tax exemption status.
Yup. The IRS are very strict on matters such as this. How can we make the BIR do the same thing?
Our country is now suffering from too much population growth. To
block birth control processes. That control population is just insane. Just go to those Garbage Dumps. Where poor people live on garbage.
They survive on a day to day basis. They have many children. The children will multiply. And they will continue to live on those garbage dumps. People trapped in poverty. No good education. No good opportunities. If the Church wants to be Humane to these people. They have to teach them not to bring children on this Planet Earth that they cannot take care.
eh kasi nga.. iyut and multiply ang sigaw ni padre damaso :D
I thought you did actually point out that the Church does in fact endorses politicians and in effect backs up their stand on advocacy concerns.
As an example given to demonstrate this point, you did mention of the view that “they (the church) have campaigned against pro-RH politicians” to the extent that “they (the church) were pushing for their own version of the bill”.
In fact, the resulting political debate on the RH
bill as your blog’s thesis most graphically dramatized made cowards of congressmen as if CBCP has more gray matter up above their heads than those we found in the chamber.
It is not unsafe to think that the House Membership is a wealth or a pool of individuals who can be said to be experts in their own fields of interest which includes purely religious advocacies.
Any piece of legislation does not need the consent of the Church from even up the Papacy. The Pope himself cannot be more ‘trapo’ than the ‘trapocy’, if I may be allowed to coin a word.
The root of the problem is there is no avenue for rules to be litigated into being, precisely and clearly. No firm, quick efficient rendition of what the law means, and therefore no enforcement. The courts in the US exist to define the edges of law, but here, everything is muddled into fuzz that justifies any action, good or bad.
And why won’t anyone dare define what the law really requires? Because they are scared of the Church, because they want to be good, obedient Catholics who people would vote for.
Ang katotohanan ay nagpapakita lamang ng utang-na-loob ang mga Pilipino sa simbahan Katoliko dahil kung hindi kay Cardinal Sin, hindi nagtagumpay ang EDSA People Power.
You dont go for the wrong that a Church advocates.
No matter how right they may be in the past. Do you
think on your own?
And you don’t pardon a crime just because the offender has also committed good works — no matter how good. A crime is a crime and deserves punishment.
*hitch*
Ryan,
Hella good informations!
I’m overwhelm, also perplex.
Surely the Presidential Electives will back off to their begging, or should i say, to confront them as to, or maybe sounding like more of a threat to them. Where do these Cronis and Trapos put their Faith into? Now, you must understand, where do they stand on this matters when they become non conformists.
If you suggest a doubt as to the morality of these institutions, it is boldly said that “You are a dangerous innovator, a utopian, a theorist, a subversive; you would shatter the foundation upon which society rests. If you lecture upon morality or upon political science, there will be found official organizations petitioning the government in this vein of thought.
That science no longer be taught exclusively from the point of view of free trade (of liberty, of property, and of justice) as has been the case until now, but also, in the future, science is to be especially taught from the viewpoint of the facts and laws that regulate French industry (facts and laws which are contrary to liberty, to property, and to justice). That, in government-endowed teaching positions, the professor rigorously refrain from endangering in the slightest degree the respect due to the laws now in force.
Thus, if there exists a law which sanctions slavery or monopoly, oppression or robbery, in any form whatever, it must not even be mentioned. For how can it be mentioned without damaging the respect which it inspires? Still further, morality and political economy must be taught from the point of view of this law; from the supposition that it must be a just law merely because it is a law.
Another effect of this tragic perversion of the law is that it gives an exaggerated importance to political passions and conflicts, and to politics in general.
Thanks for your comment, but can you restate what you really want to say more clearly?
Ryan,
To clarify my saying.
“If you suggest…”
“You are a dangerous…”
“you would shatter…”
“If you lecture…”
“These four “you’s” are not pointing the finger at you, but to the issue!”
Now, you inject Politics and Religion, and combine them. You have the two most powerful authority or influence, that you can muster to the mass society. Who becomes Non Conformist? The Religious group or the Politicians. Who’s delivering the goods here.
As powerful as the Roman Catholic’s are, who will stop them. Even the United State of America would not even delibarate about their Tax Exempt status.
Oh! did Pope Paul get booted out when he address Nation on Abortion. I’m sure that was intended to some politicians. Did the United State administrations follow up on their tax exempt constitution, after that speech. I don’t think so.
So, who is in control here. Or, is all about polictics.
mario,
Are you saying that any government leader anywhere in the world who will subject themselves to a vote by the citizens of their country who proposes taxing religion will lose the election and therefore the same will happen here in the Philippines?
Are we perpetually then under the yoke of those self-serving religious bigots and so condemned to sufferings forever?
And, mario, we know that the politicians were not delivering, what, may I ask you, goods would you considers the religious been delivering to us aside, of course, the promise to deliver us to heaven, or hell.
We all know that a promise is just a promise until we see its fulfillment, and until now no one, as in NO ONE, has seen it.
Mario,
When you mentioned pope paul, were you talking about the Humanae Vitae encyclical?
Last year the pope rejected the request of more than 50 church groups for the retraction on the use of contraceptives.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/News2?news_iv_ctrl=-1&abbr=daily2_&page=NewsArticle&id=12037
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSL2497501620080725
Bert,
I am all for taxation on religious groups, as per mandated on the All IRC section 501(c)(3) [upload PDF File; Tax Guides for Churches & Religious Organizations]
And this is the way Roman Catholics Churches get’s away from harms way of being Tax Exempt. Read article (23.) “Appeal to Public Authorities” So, here comes the Pope addressing the Nation once more on Morality. We are trying propose saving lives, and countless others!
Just what IIda says:
“What the politicians need is to grow a couple of balls, rise up and speak against these meddling folks who know nothing about feeding a bunch of kids.”
Whoops!
“forgot to close “Appeal to Public Authorities”
you get the picture.
karl garcia,
Catholic groups ask pope to end contraception ban: An to open letter to Pope Benedict
The letter said:
“It is clear to us that the Catholic church cannot move forward until it honestly confronts the paradox of Humanae Vitae”.
The letter concluded:
“Pope Benedict, we call on you to use to use this anniversary as an opportunity to start the process of healing by being true to the positive aspects of Catholic teachings on sexuality and lifting the ban on contraception to allow Catholics to plan their families safely and in good conscience.”
I don’t think it was address to the people (don’t quote me on this, i could be mistaken…)
While criticism was plastered all over Italian newspaper.
karl garcia,
I don’t want to sound off as being a religious person.
Check it out and let me know your personal opinion to this matter.
Here’s a link from:
The Supreme Pontiff Pope Paul VI, in an audience granted to the undersigned Secretary of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on June 28, 1974, has ratified this Declaration on Procured Abortion and has confirmed it and ordered it to be promulgated.
Mario,
even if you are a religious person,I would hear you
I am open to ideas from the religious, and the aetheists and that is why I am reading Ryan’s post and the comments and before that I follow dJB here in FV(now sa FB na lang).
if i have not read the article that you linked and stuck to the title, I might have been confused that it was an open endorsement for abortion.
I am a catholic,but I listen to ideas
It was long so I just scrolled down, and of course it was not an endorsement of abortion from the pope himself.
let us get out from that letter and let me give my personal stand on abortion.
I may sound like a politician,but for me if it causes danger to the mother, I would choose the life of the mother than the child.Good thing It just almost happened to me.
naging delikado ang pregnancy ng wife ko,I was really had my anxious moments,buti na lang naging ok sila pareho.
On another note related to life.
hospital have their own ethics, euthanasia is frowned upon but we allowed our grandmother to breathe on her own without the assistance of a respirator until she expired, that is still technically euthanasia,but we have to decide.
This kind of problem only exist because the population still believes in witchcraft and superstition. The people only have the words of the men in robes to hold on to to protect them from the evil spirits. Such is the cr@p that holds the country together.
Politicians are too afraid of being accused of heresy and being burned at the stake. What the politicians need is to grow a couple of balls, rise up and speak against these meddling folks who know nothing about feeding a bunch of kids.
I just can’t believe that any population control measures are blocked by the church. And then the church blame the government for the poverty in the country.
Amen.
And if they are to meddle in politics, at least get them to pay taxes. The poor people born everyday from unprotected sex really need it.
What the late Cardinal Sin did in 1986–when he called on the faithful Filipino cowards to mass at EDSA–is already reason enough to deny the Church its tax free status. Include other religious groups that openly endorse and even field their own candidates too.
Who are you calling cowards? Eh, iyong mga sumagot sa Radyo Veritas noong araw na iyon, marami talaga ay galit na galit na sa mga abuso ni Ferdy.
Iyon namang iba, mga wala lang magawa at gustong manuod, he he he.
Pero ang katotohanan, hindi ba ubod daming obispo ang kakampi ni Marcos noon dahil kontro-komunista si Makoy?
Dante R
“The Philippines is a nation of 40 million cowards and one son of a bitch”–Wikiquote says that this statement was uttered “by unnamed ranking cabinet member of the Reagan administration, 1982. (attributed to Secretary of State George Shultz). Ninoy later quoted this in his speech.
What I merely wanted to underline with grim irony is that, although Cardinal Sin’s exhortation at EDSA in 1986 was a classic case of church meddling in politics, clearly a breach in the wall of separation, so to speak; this time around, Filipinos welcomed it.
The Filipinos do not understand the need for secularism. They do not reject Church intervention on principle, but on whether it benefits them. That is why they sometimes appreciate it and criticize it. The thing is, Church intervention is always bad. The “good” interventions only make the “evil” ones possible.
What basic principle is guiding these exemptions, I wonder.
ano nga ba?
separation of church and state?
sa germany me separation of church and state sa constitution nila
pero me church tax provision din.
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Separation_of_church_and_state
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_tax
It is assumed that the Church is working for the public good, doing something the government cannot do as well — which is provide for the spiritual needs of its people. They assume that religious organizations are better suited for this job so they let the churches do it. And in exchange, they give tax exemptions as a privilege. The problem is, political purposes are what the government is for, and when the Church oversteps its bounds and goes into politics, this is no longer a public good the government cannot do, and so the privilege loses its meaning.
The rules are vague and implementation spotty at best. The Catholic Church is only guilty of not fighting fair. Since you cannot depend on Congress or any part of the government to level the playing field for you then you have to fight back in your own little way.
The rules are not vague. I hope my post made this clear. The problem is the implementation is poor, and the implementers are afraid. If we do fight back, the thing to do is tell our representatives to do their job without fear.
Most religion is big business, their leaders are living in palaces and mansions and wallowing in wealth coming from their naive followers easily brainwashed by the glib talks of snake-oil-salesmen priests/pastors/ministers whatever. Like all businesses, they should be taxed, more so if they engaged in governmental politics outside of the sphere of their spiritual domain.
I don’t care what the church says. I practice my religion as I see fit. I say f@#$ it.
And now you are exposed for the impostor that you are, darwin25. On my other post you said that you were an atheist. Unless of course you see atheism as a religion?
hehehehe.
No Ryan. That “I practice my religion as I see fit” isn’t an admission that I have a religion. That simply means I choose and practice what I believe. That also means that I am a church going atheist because my family are devout catholics. No Ryan, I am not an impostor. What I am is a hypocrite.
And as far as I can remember, all you got on me are accusations of bigotry and being an impostor and no real arguments. Do you have any? I have answered all your questions and comments with arguments but you are yet to give me a counter argument. Unless you wanna focusing on mudslinging, that I cannot indulge you. But otherwise, give me a counter-argument and lets get it on.
Abortion clinics cast images such as these:
Clinic A – 50 patients
Clinic B – 100 patients
Clinic C – 75 patients
All in all, some 225 lives of pre-born human beings, babies no less, would be snapped off from these 225 pregnant women.
How does this come to the pro-RH politicians?
It comes off as a tired argument. RH is not about abortion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_tax
Pope Benedict is from Germany, was their an initiative
from the pope to stop the German government from taxing the churh?
Well I’m glad that the Congressmen can become cowards. It just means that they still have some conscience left in them. Fear, driven by conscience can be a good thing. But if they ‘re afraid because of losing votes that’s another thing. It means they’re not even fighting for what they believe in but are infected with the winnability virus.
I think the stance of the church is an objective one. They don’t want people to vote for certain candidates because of violating certain church principles. I don’t really see this as serious politicking. This is not different as feminists, environmentalists pointing out not to support legal moves that violate their beliefs.
I don’t even think copying secularism of the US is good for our country, just my personal opinion. One of the things I like about the Philippines is that we have not fully submitted to secularism.
Edward,
I agree there are many pressure groups out there and time will come that the catholic church may not be the most pressuring among the pressure groups.
I am not saying that it is a good thing or a bad thing.
But I like your point,that it is ok to be a coward.(of course if you do not mean spineless)
You cannot partially be a secular government. You’re either secular or not. Based on the constitution we are a secular government. Only there are those who do not understand it, who have forgotten why separation of church and state was added to the constitution by the Malolos Congress in 1899.
“I think the stance of the church is an objective one.”
Hardly. The stance of the Church is entirely based on the 1965 Papal Encyclical “Humanae Vitae”, which is in turn based on the writings of Clement of Alexandria and St. Augustine and “Casti conubii” encyclical by Pius IX. The key points rest on:
-Their opinion that contraceptives is not God’s Will because it contradicts their opinion of marriage.(Mater et Magistra)
- Their opinion that contraception, proposed as a solution for the development of third world countries, does violence to human dignity (Mater et Magistra) and misses the problem of social justice.
In other words, it it based on the belief that what the Pope declares is fact. The Pope could fart out any random thought and as long as it’s in an encyclical, it’ll be dogma.
In fact ou’ll find objection to Humanae Vitae WITHIN the Catholic Church itself.
- From Cardinal Leo Joseph Suenens, who questioned whether moral theology took sufficient account of scientific progress, which can help determine, what is according to nature; and begged the Vatican to avoid another Galileo affair.
-From the Catholic University of America, led by Rev. Charles Curran, which issued a statement claiming that Catholics’ individual consciences should prevail in such a personal and private issue.
-From the Bishops of Winnipeg, in the “Winnipeg Statement”, stating that those who cannot accept the teaching should not be considered shut off from the Catholic Church, and that individuals can in good conscience use contraception as long as they have first made an honest attempt to accept the difficult directives of the encyclical. The view was echoed by Dutch and German Bishops.
that’s to name just three.
it’s not objective. it’s theocratic bullshit at its finest.
All Churches should modernize their views. A qoute from the great
Physicist Albert Einstein:” You cannot solve a problem from the level
of thinking when you had created them”. That means to say you have
to widen and highten your level of thinking to meet these modern
problems.
The teachings and dogmas of all religions came when people were riding on horses, donkeys, and had monarchies. We have now landed on the moon, and have gone to the Planet Mars. This is the reason we have suicide bombers, religious fanatics, criminals using religions for their criminality, and all kinds of evils.
Hyden Toro,
But for the Suicidal Bombers, the way they brought up to their religious belief is that, when they act upon their hierarchy. That they would end up in Heaven with seven virgins. Not six, or eight, but Seven Virgins. What a concept. Is this a Myth, or realty.
Food for thoughts!
If this is for real.
Would, all men go to Heaven this way.
Is it moral!
Too much troubles and sufferings for a pittance, after the first night…no more virgins, heheh.
Bert,
Hehehehe…
Ang bilis mu naman, no left over talaga. LoL
SEVENTY TWO VIRGINS AND SEVENTY TWO MANSIONS TO BE
ACCURATE! How could you make love to seventy two virgins? Your sexual organ will malfunction and
will deteriorate.
Tribes people during Muhamad times were just ignorants. Now, they are still not thinking straight. I think they need their heads to be examined.
In Islamic society. You have to buy your wife. So, who
will not want 72 wives for free? Only you have to die
for the religion.
Check out – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houri
Interpretations
Margaret Nydell states that mainstream Muslims regard this belief about 72 virgins in the same way that mainstream Christians regard the belief that after death they will be issued with wings and a harp, and walk on clouds.[66]
Another interpretation of the relevant passages of the Qur’an is The Syro-Aramaic Reading Of The Qur’an written by Christoph Luxenberg. In respect of this particular point, Luxenberg argues that the relevant passage actually translates to a portrayal of paradise as a lush garden with pooling water and trees with rare fruit, including white raisins (considered to be delicacies at the time that the Qur’an was revelead), not virgin maidens.[67][68]
[edit] Criticism
Regarding the above statement, Hafiz Salahuddin Yusuf has said: “The narration, which claims that everyone would have seventy-two wives has a weak chain of narrators.” [49]
Also agreed by many others, this chain of narrations has been noted to be extremely weak, or Da’eef and was by Tirmidhi, who has been noted for having quite a few unauthentic or fabricated hadith, not to say it was his fault but that of the relaters.
***
Though am not surprised that ignorant Christians will feign more knowledge of Islam than the actual mainstream moderate Moslems themselves.
Ika nga.. little knowledge very dangerous :)
So, BongV, you, being a dude with big knowledge, you think the interpretations by ignorant Christians of what are stated in the Koran are wrong, and so, if wrong:
Do you think now that there are actually no 72 virgins or mansions, or, if it is stated in the Koran, that the faithfuls who do believed in it are either misled or ignorant too?
Yes, they are misled.
If you sit under a tree and allow your mind to encompass all of recent history, say from 1950 to today, you will see a fast-motion blur of social and technological development that brought racial equality, gender equality, space travel, global travel and cross-cultural enrichment, heart implants, and amazing whiz-fast tiny electronic processes and micro-manipulations of assorted materials. We are evolving creatures, before our eyes, becoming larger of mind and manner and way. Yet, these big ol’ religions cling to their crosses and virgins as if we were sitting on a rock somewhere east or west of the Jordan river counting snakes and praying for rain.
Well, they have become very backward people, these church folks, unable to keep up the pace, and they strain to keep the rest of us tied to the rocks. Some would even shoot our children as infidels in order to hold us back. Or keep people in poverty to preserve the needy flock.
The defining term is irrelevant, it is what they make of themselves with fairy tales of virgins not much different than Peter Pan’s eternal youth or Chicken Little’s falling sky, and we should aspire to accelerate their flight toward complete irrelevancy . . . or up-to-date relevancy . . . either is fine.
Joe
Power and riches, my friend Joe, riches and power. And the flocks wanting to be herded.
And the herder holding the power and the riches, what a convenient and intoxicating set-up.
You nailed it, Joe. And with poetic flair, too. :)
Geejay,
Thank you for the kind words. I think I was high on froot loops, which I bought for my kid, but scooped up myself in big handsful. Sugar is good for the brain and helps the keyboard type faster.
Joe
Thanks Joe America!
We need progressive minded people
to inform us. To take us away from this Age of Insanity
to the Age of Relevancy. From this Age of Nonsense
religious extremism. Idiotic religious wars; suicide bombers, religious beliefs that are just fairy tales. To the Age of True and Factual informations. We have hope with people like you.
Well said, Joe :)
So to borrow an old military mantra: “Adapt or die”?
Rather, “look at the facts before bullshitting”.
The building in the picture sure looks looks as old as the minds of the people withing it. Seemingly no change except for the paint job. I guess only the paint is changed like a whitewashed tomb. Nice symbolism.
I also heard from an old office colleague that an author named Charles MacKay, who wrote Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, identified Ten Useless Professions (dunno if it’s from the same book). One of these is the clergy.
Good point. Sadly, the CBCP needs more than a paint job to cover up their antiquity.
This is the reason I dont believe in any Organized Religion. I believe in God, but not in Organized Religions. I have seen througout
History that Organized Religions. Encourages people: to make war;
to kill and murder other people; to oppress and subjugate other
people; to take away your money and properties; to invade other tribes and countries, etc… All these on the promise of Heaven. If you dont believe, they promise Hell for you. I have yet to see any dead people resurrected back to life in my lifetime coming to me to tell me his/her experience in going to Heaven, Hell, or any other place. Or any suicide bomber coming back from the dead. To tell me,
he made love to 72 virgins, in his 72 mansions.
We argue for some beliefs from ancient people, we dont even know. Who
knows what kind of people they were? They may be con people, impostors, charlatans, fraudsters, pirates, etc…who were just accepted as some sort of holy people. So much for this religious nonsense.
I wish it were that simple to dismiss religious nonsense. But the problem is, the fairy tales are affecting our everyday lives. The 72 virgins may be mythical, but the bombs are real. Thanks for your comment, Hyden Toro.
It is like when religions sacrificed unwilling and
innocent Virgins to appease the Gods. Mankind cannot
learn from its mistakes from the past.
THOSE WHO FORGET THE PAST ARE COMDEMNED TO REPEAT IT!
The past is repeated now in our times. In different
ways, concepts and methods. Killing and murdering people in the name of religions. And in the hope of going to Heaven…
the strictures underlining the difference between issue advocacy and campaign interference are vague and subjective. (from the link provided by ryan)
the rules say its ok to speak out on issues important for the church, but its risky to connect these issues to candidates. this is confusing coz this is precisely how candidates differentiate each other — by advocating issues themselves.
at any rate, ryans examples above are clear examples of bishops calling for support (or not) of SPECIFIC candidates obviously violate the IRS provisions, and — speaking as a catholic– is also a sign of bad taste…
GabbyD,
Very responsible perspective. I doubt that you will find a candidate who does not have God in his heart. How can the Church favor one person over another, as if one candidate’s God were somehow more relevant than that of others? I always wondered that about football teams, too, who try to invoke God’s favor on their side.
Joe
Well, my friend Joe, most times God takes side in any game but in some games where the adversaries were evenly matched God just don’t have the heart to take side resulting to draws.
In politics, it’s easy for God to take side when the survey results says one candidate is way ahead of the pack. In close-call fight, God don’t have the heart to intervene, paving the way for the wily candidate to hire a Garci, and made the difference.
In the recent Pacquiao-Cotto fight, I’ll bet the devil lost some of his savings.
I hope I made it clear that even our provisions are violated (not just the IRS’s).
Joe, I have talked with some people in government who have told me that there ARE nonbelievers in public office. The problem is they are not out about it, for obvious reasons.
Ryan,
Yes, I knew there was a hole in my argument when I made it. It is a shame the Crutch (oh, oops, typo, I mean Church) is allowed to meddle where it ought not.
Joe
if thats your evidentiary burden, then you havent made the case. the word ‘exclusively religious’ doesnt cut it, unless you define what a religious activity is.
part of the church’s issue advocacy is to push for certain laws that agree with its worldview. there is nothing in the law currently that says they cannot ask the faithful to vote for candidates that line up with said world view.
the IRS rules are totally different. it restricts religious activity in certain clear (but confusing!) ways.
GabbyD,
By your reasoning, the CBCP can also make a profit for themselves if they classify this as a “religious purpose.”
It’s one thing if all the law said was “it should be used exclusively for religious purposes.” It’s another if it actually enumerates all the allowed purposes. And partisan politics clearly does not fit into any of the said purposes.
Take note that endorsing or opposing candidates are prohibited not just for religious organizations but all non-profit organizations, a classification religious organizations also belong to under the corporation code.
the prohibition on profit is an example of a restriction of the definition of “exclusively religious purpose”.
the prohibition on profit is explicitly stated in the philippine tax code, separately from the clause re “exclusively religious purpose”, because it is meant to guide us in our understanding of “religious purpose”
further restrictions, such as those in the IRS code, are exactly what is lacking here.
finally, you write: “Take note that endorsing or opposing candidates are prohibited not just for religious organizations but all non-profit organizations, a classification religious organizations also belong to under the corporation code.”
nothing in the philippine law says they are prohibited — other than the word ‘exclusively’, which can be interpreted as to include outright endorsement, unless explicitly restricted.
Gabby D,
Take this situation, for example. Say from now until the elections, all the Churches do during mass is talk about who their flock should vote for. In effect, they are using the Churches as campaign headquarters.
Would this be ok? If campaigning can be considered a religious purpose, there is nothing wrong. But obviously, this is not.
Either endorsing or opposing a candidate is a religious purpose or it is not. And either you exclusively perform the allowed purposes, or you do not.
You also have to consider why tax-exempt status is given to non-profits. It is considered that they are benefiting the public, not participating in partisan politics, which only benefits certain groups of individuals.
presumably, the RCC will pick candidates based on the positions they take on issues of importance to catholics.
in which case, its religious purpose.
note that this behavior, “vote for X coz of religious principle A” is prohibited under the IRS code.
the irs code is confusing to me, but thats something to discuss another time…
ryan,
Consider this:
“How the HOR (House of Representatives) turned our bishops into cowards?
Offhand, it did so. For instance, bishops are afraid that the RH bill in Congress will pass. They were also afraid that the then proposed death penalty law will pass. And so on.
Problem is, CBCP reflects the perception that it can be co-opted with the present dispensation. It failed to take hard enough stand against pressing large societal issues.
It was playing politics in exchange of some unknown ‘largesse’. I don’t know but I hope I am proven wrong.
Please clarify what you mean, Primer. Are you saying the following?
1. the CBCP is not taking a hard enough stance on the RH Bill
2. they are being soft because they are thankful for their tax-exempt status
If so, this does not make any sense at all. It seems I haven’t made a strong enough point (at least not in your case) that the CBCP is taking a hard stance on the RH bill, much harder than they’re even allowed to.
Sorry, Primer. The CBCP has not given any indication that it fears (or even respects) government. Remember the Senate walk out?
we are assuming of course that they were brave to begin with. cbcp doesn’t emasculate a person much less an entire institution because cbcp as an institution has no power/ jurisdiction – it doesn’t have any authority over individual catholic. of course the bishop in his diocese is a different story. but the thing again is- do they (congressmen) ever really listen to the bishops? of course not. they kow tow today because it’s politically convenient for them to do so.
now, are they cowards?- no, they are FOOLS!
what a stupid article. first of all, the very first paragraph is an irony unto itself. how can the Speaker of the House – yes, the SPEAKER – make such a ridiculous proposal! he is the Speaker of the House, for God’s sake, and yet he would cower in fear of the CBCP? what a moronic proposition.
congressmen are cowards only because they don’t care about the welfare of the people, except how to make money out of using them as an excuse. for their projects, their so-called proposed laws (that really favor big business, or put increasing pressure on the national coffers through inane legislation like witness compensation or compensation for illegal arrests – when the more important laws, such as the proposed pre-need law, investment act, etc. that protect consumer and investor, i.e. public, interests remain unacted upon). this moronic proposition of nograles – himself of dubious reputation – is just a ploy to feed the egos of those in the CBCP, and pretend that he is afraid (kuno) of its influence.
in truth, the true cowards are the filipino people, the CBCP and all other so-called civic groups, who cannot go to the streets and seek the relief of plundering politicians and bureaucrats. long ago, we should have chopped off the heads of these people, these thieves who have swindled us for too long. then throw their heads in manila bay, where the fish would make better use of them, and where their sickening virus would never infect us all.