Connecting the Dots That Led DepEd To Secularism

Tags

, , , , ,

In a previous post, I had criticized the DepEd and Sec. Armin Luistro for capitulating to secular ideologues primarily by removing the phrase “God-loving” from their mission-vision statement. Bro. Armin, in a few interviews, denied having any agenda in removing the phrase, except to harmonize the DepEd’s M-V statement with the current administration’s thrust on education. (Which is, surprise surprise, exactly what we thought, to secularize Philippine public school education).

I am posting a link to a blog site that connects these dots … thank you to Elisa, great work!

Excerpt

From the beginning, Aquino’s administration has enacted policies that go directly against Christian/Catholic beliefs.  Aquino himself, however, cannot openly defy the Catholic Church, not when the main reason he was elected into power was because of the millions who loved his devout Catholic mom (subject to debate, but we’ll go with that for now). The only way PNoy and his cohorts can continue to push for manufactured rights, without encountering opposition, is to remove God completely from the picture.

Read the entire article… enjoy and share. Was Bro. Armin hoodwinked, negligent or did he accept this secularist move with full consent? You decide.

http://pinoytemplars.blogspot.com/2014/09/from-god-to-gay-deped-worships-at-altar.html

BENCH’s Depravity

Tags

, , , , , , ,

The disgusting and depraved BENCH underwear show dubbed “Naked Truth” was nothing more than soft-core porn being shown live on stage. I blame and I JUDGE and I condemn the owners of BENCH, the show directors, the ad agency, the producers and the venue management of Mall of Asia (SM) for allowing such depravity to be shown in our country. I also blame and judge the actors and actresses who participated and got paid to act like porn stars and animals in the guise of models. You people deserve to be called “IT”, a thing, an object, because it is exactly what you portrayed yourselves to be on stage, you participated in the objectification of something that is supposed to be dignified, beautiful, sacred and private; persons, their bodies and sexuality.

Please do not use the “art” or “free speech” cliché, that’s a bunch of crock, it’s porn marketing for commerce and you know it. You knew what it was that was being asked of you and you agreed to do it for a fee. You are worse than prostitutes because at least prostitutes sell their bodies to survive or are forced into that life by syndicates. But you “models”, you business owners, you had every opportunity to refuse, to say “no”, to do something worthwhile, something beautiful, but didn’t. Many years from now, the children and families of everyone who participated and contributed to this degeneracy will see how their fathers, mothers, aunts and uncles contributed actively to the lowering of Filipino moral and cultural values.

Following suit is another event by Cosmopolitan Philippines that suggests a similar style of perversion, if they do after this Bench fiasco, then the people at Cosmopolitan are genuinely STUPID.

Yes I am Catholic and before you use the “who am I to judge” line of Pope Francis against me, I suggest first that, you understand what he meant by it and that you send him a video of the event and see if he doesn’t have a thing or two to say about it.

I blame and I judge and I condemn you but still my faith tells me that I must pray for the salvation of your souls, so I will.

I refuse to post photos of the depravity that went on in that event so if anyone wishes to see the oozing gayness and beastial treatment of a female, just Google it.

Here are some bloggers who were also offended by BENCH’s stupidity…

http://getrealphilippines.com/blog/2014/09/kabadingan-and-kalaswaan-in-philippine-fashion/
http://www.theplumpinay.com/2014/09/the-naked-truth-about-naked-truth.html?m=1

BOYCOTT BENCH NOW: #‎BOYCOTTBENCH‬ #‎NakedTruth‬‪ #‎Bench‬

Did DepEd Capitulate to Secular Ideologues?

Tags

, , , , , ,

Religious liberty might be supposed to mean that everybody is free to discuss religion. In practice it means that hardly anybody is allowed to mention it.

G.K. Chesterton

The Philippine Department of Education or DepEd for short, changed their Mission-Vision (M-V) statement in 2013. Someone in Filipino’s For Life (F4L), noticed the change and expressed his dismay that the phrase “God-loving” had been struck out of the DepEd’s revised M-V statement. The issue was further escalated when an article by atheist, pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-whatever and no-to-religion advocate Sylvia Estrada Claudio came out with an article on the fish-wRappler claiming that she and the elitist Filipino Freethinkers, had a hand in that change. This is what she wrote in the article dated August 18, 2014,

The Department of Education did something I had requested of one of the undersecretaries more than a year ago. They revised their vision statement to remove the term “God-loving

and

I am sure that the change was not made because of my timid request at a forum about some unrelated topic. It may have been made because of the request of the Filipino Freethinkers who wrote a formal but still polite request to the Department of Education . (A pause for ethical disclosure. I am a senior adviser of the Filipino Freethinkers.)

It seems then that a miniscule group of pro-choice, militant atheists who are also avowed anti-Catholics, are behind or have influenced this change in the DepEd’s M-V Statement. This same group were the brains behind the Ban-God Bill that ex-Congressman Raymond Palatino filed two years ago and, to the public’s ire, quickly withdrew. (Representative Palatino apologizes, withdraws anti-God bill)

In an alleged letter to the CBCP, Br. Armin Luistro strongly denies this and claims he has been unjustly demonized in the social networks. He asserts not to have come in direct contact with this atheist group and that they had not influenced this change.

Now, this may be so but I know at least that Br. Armin has heard of this group, given that the very university from where he hails, De La Salle University, harbors atheists and religious syncretists in their philosophy and theology departments, who are supporters of this group. This same group, Filipino Freethinkers (FFt), has given talks in or around the LaSalle campus and I had written about them in the past… no-gods-allowedsleeping-with-the-enemy-de-la-salle-university-and-the-filipino-free-thinkerscheap-thinking-by-the-filipino-freethinkers-part-1cheap-thinking-by-the-filipino-freethinkers-part-2/

While I am still willing to give Br. Armin the benefit of the doubt, it seems that the President of the CBCP and Archbishop of Lingayen-Dagupan, Socrates Villegas, isn’t as keen in doing so. Bishop Soc, as he is fondly called, penned a letter, (I am assuming), in response to Br. Armin’s explanation of the change in the MV of the DepEd. Abp Soc writes…

A vision statement is not an empty platitude. It guides the articulation of policy. It orientates plans of action. While maka-Diyos remains one of the Department’s core-values, we maintain that the formation of God-fearing pupils and students is a vision that cannot be surrendered …Our pluralistic society indeed accords respect for the option of some to believe and for others not to. This respect for pluralism does not compel civil society to expunge the name of God from public life, especially when the majority of Filipinos continue to acknowledge God’s sovereignty and to trust in Divine Providence. Furthermore, the attitude of our laws in the Philippines towards religion is characterized as ‘benevolent neutrality’: the accommodation of religion whenever such accommodation does not offend law or public policy

As what Abp Soc said, a M-V statement guides policy, so when a phrase is deleted from it, it only means that there is a change in policy direction and Bro. Armin seems to prove that point in his alleged letter. According to my source, Br. Armin explains that the old M-V statement “does not capture” the spirit of the current administration’s thrust for Philippine education. It makes me wonder what this current thrust is because we know that this administration has a certain “spirit” that has encouraged the revival of the morally repugnant, anti-life bills in congress. The most prominent one being, the railroaded RH/Population control bill, now dubbed Responsible Parenthood Law passed in 2013.

Br. Armin seems to think that there will be no adverse effect in policy after this omission (We beg to disagree sir). In the first place, the old M-V which contains, “developing God-loving Filipinos”  and the apparent lack of moral compass in this current administration’s actions are truly at odds with each other. Secondly, the new M-V reads in part, “Filipinos…who passionately love their country…whose values and competencies… realize their full potential…”, no longer makes it necessary to teach and impart morally objective values that show Filipinos as God-loving. There is a shift toward the uplifting of the self through mere nationalism while espousing some vague mention of “values”. If I may ask, could this not have been integrated to the original M-V statement without radically tampering with it?

Br. Armin, the difference between the phrase “God-loving” and “maka-Diyos” (at least they capitalized the word “Diyos”), is in fact huge.  The first is an active affirmation and recognition that children should be educated within God’s moral precepts, which are objective and absolute. It is the way, as Bp Soc says, “…Filipinos continue to acknowledge God’s sovereignty and to trust in Divine Providence”. The second phrase, still found in the core values, is merely a passive phrase signifying a mere vague attitude towards God. I cannot in my mind understand how a Lasallian Brother cannot distinguish the difference between the two.

 

The question is, how then can we reconcile the disparity between Br. Armin’s denial of the DepEd’s M-V being influenced by this group and the claim of Sylvia Estrada Claudio that..

1. she had talked to an Undersecretary of the DepEd requesting for that change…

2. that the FFt, which she is an advisor of, wrote the DepEd formally for this change..
which appears to have resulted in…
3. a substantive (total) change in the M-V, omitting the very phrase that they, Claudio et. al., had wanted changed or omitted?

I think Br. Armin is not telling us all that he knows (or maybe he was caught flatfooted on this one and really does not know). I think he should explain to us or to Bishop Soc, what happened to that letter written by the Freethinkers addressed to the DepEd and he should also make known who that undersecretary was, whom Claudio talked to and refers to in her article and if he or she had anything to do with the change in the M-V.

If it were to be argued that secularism should prevail, I ask the question, why? Why is the mere mention of God offensive to them? Has that previous DepEd M-V statement turned out worse students? Has it harmed society? If someone would bring up the non-establishment clause in the constitution, I answer that it does not apply here because the phrase, “God-loving” does not in any way establish or favor one particular religion, in fact the Preamble of the Constitution reads… “We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of the Almighty God,…” surely the constitution cannot be accused of being unconstitutional!

*Addendum: In the same revised M-V statement of the DepEd, we see the phrase, “gender sensitive”. This phrase is a term often used to push the gay agenda and make it acceptable to students. This phrase alone makes the denial, that secular ideologues had nothing to do with the revision, doubtful but this is a topic for another blog.

 

Separation/Divorce: What’s at Stake? My Own Experience, Briefly.

Tags

, , , , ,

While there is no divorce in this country, I am not entirely foreign to the effects of marital separation. My parents separated when I was about seven years old and as my parent’s generation would habitually do (or not do), no explanations were given to me (to us). How would they explain marital separation to a seven-year old anyway? I realized later that aside from me, there were other casualties of this separation, my six other siblings all were!

To over-simplify, the main difference between a legal separation and a divorce is that divorce opens the possibility of remarriage by legally dissolving the previous marriage whereas legal separation doesn’t, since it still recognizes the validity of that marriage. In other words, divorce puts the final nail in the coffin that separation started. No matter what any study says to the contrary, the effects of either separation or divorce is damaging enough to the children.

So what are the effects of not growing up with both parents in the household? This is my personal experience as well as my observations with my siblings and may or may not be applicable to others.

Insecurity

As far as I could remember until I was about seven, I would come out of my room in the morning and see my parents having coffee and reading the papers side by side at the breakfast table. Suddenly, one day only my dad was there. I suppose at my age, I didn’t really know what was going on except that my mom was no longer at the breakfast table in the morning. No explanations were given and from then on, I would only see her, if someone would drive us, on weekends. I am not going to the details of how and why my mother left, suffice it to say that from then on, my dad became both father and mother to us. While my father labored to raise us seven kids, what really made a tremendous difference in our lives was our nanny (whom we fondly call Nanay) who never married and was the one who took over the role of “mother” to us siblings. While having Nanay there certainly gave a semblance of normalcy to our lives, I realized later that in spite of her unselfish and saintly sacrifice for us, the effects of a parent leaving does irreparable damage to a child’s psyche.

Oftentimes, I would see the mothers of my friends and cousins see them off to school and this made me very conflicted inside. I never realized it then but there was a point where I would shun Nanay’s affections when she would see me off to the carpool for school because I felt embarrassed that it was her and not my real mother seeing me off. My peers would tease me that the nanny was my mom and it came to a point where I actually had to transfer to riding the school bus for an entire year where no one really knew me and no one would tease me about my situation. Like any seven year old, I would not be able to voice out my insecurities and just lived though it until I got used to it. This time in my life also coincided with my waking up in the middle of the night and wanting to transfer to the room where my younger sister and Nanay slept. This happened for many months and resulted in possibly the worst year’s academic performance in my entire elementary school life.  Going though elementary was rather disconcerting especially when the time came for parent teacher meetings. About 80% of the time, my classmate’s mothers went to these meetings, as for me, my dad was the one there most of the time. Admittedly, my mom would go once in a while but that was a rarity. In situations where separated parents go alternately to these meetings, what often happens is a lack of any unified effort to address school problems that the teacher may bring up. How could separated parents do that anyway, since they don’t see or talk to each other with any regularity.

Lack of supervision 

It was fortunate that I had a close set of cousins who lived in the same compound I did because this allowed me to interact with peers who, more or less, were guided and supervised well by their parents. I am profoundly thankful that my grandmother saw to it that her three children, my dad and my two aunts, set up homes in one property. Without this positive influence and without my aunts looking over our shoulders and informing my dad about what would happen day to day, I would have been lost to seek counsel from peers who may not have been as well guided. In spite of this, as I was going though high school, I would engage in adventurous behavior, which at that time, would be considered rather excessive. I realize now that my dad, busy as he was, did try his best to give us the supervision we needed. However, because of this set up, a mother’s “governorship” of a household became alien to me and I would actually loathe this motherly role because I saw it as intrusive and taking over, what in my distorted view, was solely a father’s duty. I look back now and realize that it was purely God’s grace that made me (and my other siblings) survive a household with a broken marriage and this was in large part because we had a “Nanay”, a prayerful and selfless person, who prayed intensely for us and devoted her life for us (she is still doing that until now).

Relationship Issues

The most difficult part of growing up with separated parents is that I viewed marriage with ignorant skepticism. What I mean by this is in the absence of any benchmark for a loving marital relationship, I viewed marriage lightly and without any deeper purpose. My parent’s generation didn’t talk much about relationships or how men should treat women or how women should treat men or about dating and such. It was taken for granted that it was something that one learned as one was growing up. This formula of complacency and lack of information plus my parent’s separation was almost a sure fire way to make my marriage fail before it had a chance to take off. The batting average in our family is, out of seven children, four are already separated, which is about 60% marital mortality rate. Compare this to my cousins whom I grew up with, all of whom, the marriages are still intact. As for me, my wife and I constantly work on our marriage with the thought that separation is not an option and that no problem is insurmountable.

Getting over it

What I have narrated is only a small part of the story of the effects of a separation on one child, me. It is not difficult to think of the multiplier effect if and when divorce becomes a part of the laws of this country. Those who argue for divorce want to make things easier for people to separate and find “happiness”. Happiness for whom, themselves of course. What of the children? Well, they’ll understand, right… NO THEY WON’T! If we look back in history, we can see that every moral law that people have relaxed because of certain exceptional situations has led to that law being abandoned totally and that is a strong evidence of our fallen human nature. No, children may get over a separation or divorce but they don’t get over it without scars and without great difficulty. As I mentioned earlier, getting over what happened to my parents more than four decades ago was a long and tedious process attributable solely to God’ s grace and mercy. I am scarred to be sure and there are times when my marital difficulties threaten to open up these scars to become wounds and when these situations arise, I pray and pray hard and remember what I and my siblings went through, then I look at my five children and realize what is at stake and that I would never ever want them to go through what I did.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 541 other followers