Grounds for Opposition to the Local Development Plan for Children
April 11th, 2008 at 1:51 am (General, Health, Davao City)
Here is a summary of the speech delivered by Davao City Councilor Teresita Mata-Marañon on her Grounds for Opposition to the Local Development Plan for Children:
- It is a mockery of parental authority and not consistent with respect for family, motherhood and children’s dignity.
- It is offensive to the virtue of chastity.
- The civil authority should consider a sacred duty to acknowledge the true nature of marriage and family, to protect and foster them and to safeguard public morality (this is a mandate of our Philippine Constitution).
- It can promote pre-marital sex and reinforce the fallacy that sexual urges cannot be controlled.
- It impacts a wrong perspective about human sexuality and tends to stimulate the premature experience of sexual pleasure which could lead to vice, or worse, perversion.
- While the Church should not interfere in the temporal affairs of the State, She (the Church) has the duty and responsibility to give moral guidance to God’s people.
- If it is a depopulation scheme, then the LDPC is not needed because our population is not a real threat.
- Reproductive health or safe sex is definitely not an unmet need of our people, especially our children.
- Davao City Local Development Plan for Children
- Councilor Angela Trinidad-Librado’s Speech on the LDPC
- Divorce in the Philippines
- Davao City Council’s 20 Priorities
- On the hostage-taking of 26 schoolchildren
micketymoc said,
April 17, 2008 at 10:14 pm
So basically she parroted Church talking points, and practically admitted it in point #6.
For the record, the government isn’t in the business of promoting chastity or marriage. The government shouldn’t be in the business of promoting a single religion’s stance over other opinions. Last time I checked, we didn’t vote Capalla into office.
The government shouldn’t get roped into enforcing Catholic values on the rest of the Philippines. I think most Filipinos (even the media) have been hoodwinked into believing that the Catholic Church has some kind of supreme moral authority, though I’ve never heard a good argument to support such a claim!
Philippine Democracy Online said,
April 18, 2008 at 2:33 am
“I’ve never heard a good argument to support such a claim! ”
I believe there is. It is in “Religion in the Public Sphere” (2006) by Jurgen Habermas.
micketymoc said,
April 21, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Really? I’ve read the whole essay, and there is nothing in there to suggest that the Catholic Church possesses supreme moral authority. If I missed it, feel free to respond.
ryan said,
April 27, 2008 at 2:02 am
That’s not what I meant - H. argues for constitutional essentials in the public sphere to deny a majority religion, in our case, the Catholic church, to dominate public discourse…but he also says that religious people cannot be excluded from the public sphere, for it is wrong to underestimate the potential truth of what religious leaders say…if you find this truth unacceptable, you too do not have the supreme moral authority to argue otherwise against their case. The final arbiter is the public, not Arch. Capalla nor anyone.
micketymoc said,
April 27, 2008 at 6:38 am
“he also says that religious people cannot be excluded from the public sphere, for it is wrong to underestimate the potential truth of what religious leaders say…”
If you noticed, I wasn’t making that argument. I was saying that the Catholic Church possesses no supreme moral authority, and that the government does not have any business enforcing the Catholic Church’s version of morality on the public. I was never making any argument to exclude Capalla from the public sphere, and if you think I was, sorry, but you’ve been chasing a straw man.
ryan said,
April 27, 2008 at 8:04 am
“I was saying that the Catholic Church possesses no supreme moral authority, and that the government does not have any business enforcing the Catholic Church’s version of morality on the public. I was never making any argument to exclude Capalla from the public sphere”…
There’s no disagreement in this case then.
micketymoc said,
April 27, 2008 at 4:10 pm
No kidding, Emily Litella!