Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 16

STILLING RH We tried our best with our GRAINS OF ALMIGHTY GOD (JULY 2011) AND TRILOGY (OF FOUR)

ON REJECTING HADES ( 23 AUGUST 2012). This time kindly allow us to do our worst: If, as RH strongly implies, "overpopulation" is a national problem (that RH proposes to solve), a theory that we reject without qualification, then its theoretical supporters are bright and we are not. Otherwise there must be some stupidities lying around somewhere. Has anyone ever heard of any solvent bank complaining of too many depositors (therefore of overpopulation)? And would it not be stupid of its President/Chief Executive Officer if he complained of "overdeposits? Has anyone ever heard of any supermarket complaining of too many customers (overpopulation)? And would it not be stupid of its managers if they complained of too much profits? Has anyone ever heard of any revenue-earning (taxes, fees, fines, surcharges) government agency complaining of too many (overpopulation) clients? And would it not be stupid of its officials if they complained of too much revenues? Has anyone ever heard of an Evangelist or Pastor, self-styled or institutionordained, complaining of preaching/orating/declaiming to/before too many (overpopulation) followers/fanatics/zealots/faithful? And would it not be stupid of them/their superiors if they complained of receiving too much tithes? Has anyone ever heard of a politician complaining of too many listeners (overpopulation) in his audience? And would it not be stupidly-hypocritical or hypocritically- stupid of him were he to complain of too many applauses, deserved or undeserved? Has anyone ever heard of a Congressman complaining of serving too many (overpopulation) constituents (unless he would rather spend less for buying votes)? And would it not be stupid of him to be complaining of winning the approval of more for better chances in the next elections? Has anyone ever heard of a foodstore complaining of too many (overpopulation) hungry men, women and child (unless perhaps of too many senior

citizens reducing profit)? And would it not be stupid of the cook to be complaining of labor for more appetizing recipes; the cashier, of fingering more dirty bills? Has anyone ever heard of an actor or actress( whose talent for projecting the "pseudo-reality" of make-belief in movies and advertisements enable him/her to rake in millions from the emotionally/psychologically bewitched masses who are further idiotized by progressively misleading appearances) complaining of too many (overpopulation) adoring fans? There are those who will be quick to point out that the poor (the obvious target of population reduction) are hardly the source of treasury-enriching taxes, fees, etcetera. But the benefitted would admit, albeit not quickly, that it is the poor man's sweat, and oftentimes creativity, in offices, factories, fields and laboratories that make it conveniently possible for them (the benefitted) to pay taxes, etc including the costs of their luxuries and excesses. There may, in truth, be "overpopulation" that can threaten the existence of the human race but only when it is established as actual reality that 1. There is an irreversible underpopulation of birds, fishes, animals and plants and 2. There is an irremediable bankruptcy of humans who are leading life possessed with uncompromising sense of humility, prudence, temperance, piety, knowledge, counsel, fortitude, holy fear, justice and who are ever-willing and vigilant in nurturing the God-given endowments of FAITH, HOPE and CHARITY. Or, are we, in fact, just being malignantly pigheaded. It is our right, by natural law and law of nature, not to be stupid. It is also a duty. Respectfully submitted, all for AGAL ( Almighty God ALways )

roberto siccuan de alban Sampaloc, for Tumauini, Isabela 10 Septembner 2012

TRILOGY (of four) FOR REJECTING HADES

RH POSITIVE NEGATIVES

The countrys alleged need for responsible motherhood is less in urgency than the peoples need for responsible leadership. It is submitted that a responsible leader loves, to the optimum, those he leads no matter how many they are. RH now seems to suggest that our leaders would love us less if the poor were not reduced.

Of course the demagogue would be quick to suggest: It is not that we love you less;it is just that we would love you more if you were reduced.

So-called overpopulation is invoked as the causative reducer of that love. And suspected/possible irresponsible mothers are impliedly fingered as the culprits.

RH: I. II. III. IV. Violates the Constitution Encourages Immorality Formalizes Political Hypocrisy Tolerates Greed

I.

RH VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION

The equal-protection clause of the Constitution mandates that laws should be applicable to all or to all of a predetermined class (it is understood that application of a law to a class of persons would redound to/for the general welfare).

Since RH supposedly seeks to promote responsible motherhood it seems clear, therefore, that RH assumes that all Filipino mothers are/will be irresponsible (in case RH is intended to apply to all) or that there are/will be suspected/possible irresponsible mothers (in case RH is intended for a predetermined class of mothers).

Given that it is unfair, as it is in fact unthinkable, to assume that all Filipino mothers are irresponsible, it should follow that RH cannot/may not apply to all and therefore would violate the general rule that laws apply to all.

RH could, therefore, apply only to a definite/predetermined class of irresponsible mothers: the critical question is -does such application not violate the equal .protection clause of the constitution.

That RH would violate the equal-protection clause of the Constitution is clear from, among others, these:

a.

RH does not have a working definition of irresponsible motherhood

and responsible motherhood.

b.

RH does not set standards or criteria for determining which

or how many irresponsible mothers belong to the class it (RH) is supposed to cover.

c.

Lacking verifiable statistics, all that RH may assume is that

there are, and probably will be, suspected irresponsible mothers.

d. RH does not explain why the responsible mothers(and that of uninvolved others) money (taxes) should be used to solve problems traceable to supposed irresponsibility.

e.

RH does not explain why errors of irresponsibility should be rewarded

with government funds for the correction of such errors, current or would-be.

f.

RH does not explain how its application in favor of irresponsible mothers

would redound to the benefit of the nation.

g.

RH does not explain why there is a need to set a general policy,

involving government funds, on the basis of exceptions, since it is clear that responsible Filipino mothers represent the majority; the irresponsibles, the yetto- be-determined minority.

h.

RH does not have the statistics on how supposed irresponsible mothers

were/are victimized by their own irresponsibility and how such self-victimization and consequential application of RH affect the moral, social, political and economic health of the nation.

i.

RH does not explain how its contraceptive pills and gadgets

can/may help millions of mothers who are at the stage of menopause. In a concrete sense these graduates are deprived of the benefits of government funds alloted for pills, etc. they have absolutely no need for !!!!.

II.

RH ENCOURAGES IMMORALITY.

Immorality is not an issue of random standards. We have legislated moral principles. This is clear from the provisions of the Revised Penal Code as amended; Administrative Code; Code of Conduct and

Ethical Standards for Government Officials and Employees; Civil Service Commission Rules and Regulations; special penal laws (child abuse, etc.). These laws penalize immorality.

Many of the supposed irresponsible mothers beget children through acts of immorality (sexual promiscuity, incest, premarital sex, adultery, concubinage, rape, seduction, child abuse, etc. ). The proposed funding by the government, advanced by RH, of solutions to problems traceable to irresponsibility abets, encourages and inspires more and further irresponsibility (in fact more criminality).

III.

RH FORMALIZES POLITICAL HYPOCRISY

Many politicians win elections because of the votes of the poor (from whose ranks the irresponsible mothers could probably emerge) who are manipulated by goons and money and sweet talk (the bottomless talent of swindlers and illegal-recruiters). Despite the poors vote-power they are treated with disdain or, at best, condescension. If the poor are abused now that they are numerous; they would be more vulnerable when they are reduced. Abused, when many; abused more, when few.

The theory that reduced population of the poor would benefit them more economically is true, yet even now, if there is equitable and just distribution of wealth.

IV

RH TOLERATES GREED

A one-legged carpenter, his sickly wife and their crippled child together with a rich and healthy couple are marooned on a one-coconut-tree island over which said rich claim ownership. A ladder is built by, and especially for. the less-fortunate couple. The RH proposes for the carpenter to plant additional coconut trees but to minimize their turn at the ladder. RH assumes that the carpenters wife would beget more cripples but that the rich would beget good climbers even without the ladder.

The labor of the needy and weak provides for the convenience of the rich and strong.

Such detestbale and disgusting absurdity of the ambivalence of greed.!!!!!!!

Dear reader, I should like to think that, like you, I am a responsible parent, father mother to our children. After all I believe that, with all the little blessings of life and our God-fearing neighbors, relatives and friends, it must take The Christ, the kindest of kings and of True Leaders, to make me one.

Respectfully submitted, all for Almighty God Always

Roberto Siccuan de Alban Sampaloc, for Tumauini, Isabela

N.B.: I hope you could find time to read Grains of Almighty God, Life Today, December 2011.

8 August 2012

Reproductive Habagat

RH, given the availability of existing laws on family relations and parental authority and the presence of the DOH, DSWD, DOST, DEPED etc.and their budgets,has the proposed superfluity of offering a cup of expensive wine to a man FULLY sUBMERGED in a pool of distilled water -perhaps well-intentioned but an unnecessary and wasteful contamination.

The problem with RH is that it seems to propose working on the theory that sexual promiscuity is a casual right (the supposed right to freedom from stress through sexual, or orgasmic, relief). A Catholic, such as I wish to believe I am,regards sexual intercourse as a mere privilege it being endowed with spiritual dimensions that must be treated with reverential prudence; otherwise, the act would just be the vulgar clashing of tools and channels for urination to produce stimulation of nerves that culminate in intense sensation not unlike the pleasures of overdue defecation or the equivocal titillation of rubbing off the inconvenience of athlete's foot!!

Contraceptives are not necessary for morally-safe sexual release since indeed mother nature provided man/woman with such release : "Wet dreams"; "windows of pleasure" ( non-ovulation periods);menopause ;

in-born infertility,etc. Nature provides us,rich or poor, with such harmless reliefs; all that She requires of us is discipline -patience and self-restraint, which RH seems to discourage.

There is not much debate on the fact that supposed RH goal-centered initiatives are already covered by existing laws and programs. Population-control policies have been tried since the '70s!.They only succeeded in a debasing MORAL DECONTROL!

When I want bread I go to the nearest bakery; for haircut, barbershop; for nails and screws ,Hardware store. I believe in the hierarchy of experience, expertise and excellence.So when I am faced with moral-value questions I seek the wisdom of the Catholic church. Our responsible parents taught us to obey priests( who can trace the origin of their authority through an unbroken chain of modern and ancient ordinations) and, even in these aging/hopefully-mellowing years, why not?

Respectfully submitted, all for Almighty God ALways

Roberto Siccuan De Alban Sampaloc, for Tumauini, Isabela

10 August 2012

RH BILL OF WRONGS

In addition to the imperfections of RH pointed out in our earlier "GRAINS OF ALMIGHTY GOD" (12 July 2011) , RH POSITIVE NEGATIVES and REPRODUCTIVE HABAGAT, the following are registered :

I. RH violates the Constitutionally-guaranteed right to privacy.

II. RH Degrades Natures Gift of Human Ecstacy.

I. Violation of Right to Privacy

These are noted:

a. The Bill of Rights of the Constitution is institutionalized as safeguard against possible abuses of the State, thru the Government, in violation of a persons human right.

Right to privacy is invoked by a person against the State ; not by the State, or anyone acting/pretending to act for the State, against a person (as is erroneously advanced by RH sponsors forgetting that RH is not a citizeninitiative bill). A judicial dispute between individuals is a different matter.

b. It is a view that improper/unauthorized intrusion

what

the

Constitution

prohibits

is

any

into a persons privacy, which, of course ,includes acts done privately and away from the disgusting curiosity of the nonparticipant

RH, by proposing legislated use of condoms and other contraceptives, wishes for goverment, its satraps and businessmen to participate in the most private act of sexual intercourse by , in effect, regulating the use of private parts through rubberized jacketing /blocking to prevent epidermal friction and the natural interaction among sperm and egg cells.

More of similar import may be said against government-sponsored/induced use of cell-killing pills.

As one had commented " Its implementation would have the moral equivalent of the installation of CCTV in every filipino bedroom, honeymoon or not.

Let us honor our " sacred" institutions; let us not provide an excuse for any enemy of these "great departments"" to describe their members as "salaried merchants of condom" or simply as "condom merchants".

c. What can be more unnecessarily and insensitively obtrusive than regulation of/meddling with the use of private parts?

It may be helpful to appreciate a distinction between public private parts and private private parts.

We might associate ourselves with statutes requiring fresh-breath, clean ears, mote-less eyes, neat noses , well-groomed hair . But such would involve private parts routinely open to publics senses.

d. Would our revered national and international heroes have consented/consent to such disgusting intrusions involving their reproductive assets or those of their honoured parents and forebears and other heroic kin?

Let our descendants honour us with a fitting answer.

II. Derogation of Nature's Sacred Gift of Human Ecstacy.

A reading of those for and against RH (given its seeming heavy reliance on synthetics/artificialities) has summarized friends' impressions into -

: A revulsion at the badgering flirtation of one MACked with the sex-appeal of dried "singkamas"

: A nagging preference for the lingering romance of a single, freshly-plucked Sampaguita over the bewitching splendour of a bouquet of american/caucasian plastic Roses.

The Filipino deserves no less.

Respectfully submitted, all for Almighty God ALways: Roberto Siccuan De Alban Sampaloc, for Tumauini, Isabela .23 August 2012

..........................................