Tuesday, August 7, 2012
INC Executive Minister Eduardo V. Manalo
A CRITIQUE OF IGLESIA NI CRISTO EXECUTIVE
MINISTER EDUARDO V. MANALO’S STATEMENT ON THE RH BILL
PART II
[This
is the second part of my critique of Iglesia ni Cristo Executive Minister
Eduardo V. Manalo’s position on the RH Bill. The words of Mr. Manalo are in green while
my comments are in black.]
In what they propose, they can bring about not
only an economic good for our countrymen but also a moral one.
What economic good Mr. Eduardo V. Manalo
exactly has in mind? Not being an economist, Mr. Manalo’s statement does not
count much. It is nothing but a motherhood statement unsupported by any
statistical data.
The Wall Street Journal praises the
economic gains of the Aquino administration but cautioned against
anti-population growth mindset
Recently, on 24 July 2012, the Wall Street
Journal published an article on economic reform in the Philippines. Entitled Keeping the Philippine Dream Alive,
the article mentions
this very telling fact:
Mr. Aquino still hasn’t found a way to overcome political
opposition to more mining investments, a problem given the contribution the
country’s mineral wealth could make to growth if it could be extracted. And his
promotion of a “reproductive health” bill is jarring because it would put the
Philippines in danger of following China’s path into middle-income development
followed by a demographic trap of too few workers. The Philippines doesn’t have
too many people, it has too few pro-growth policies.[1]
Ironically, the article was posted in the
President’s website, given Mr. Benigno Aquino III’s vocal support for the RH
Bill. Like Aquino, Mr. Manalo burrows his head in the sand like an ostrich which
prevents him from realizing that the problem really is not the population but
economic and social policies. More statistics and facts can be cited, but the
above is sufficient to give Mr. Manalo a reality check.
Clueless: Religious leader Eduardo V. Manalo cannot tell for certain if there are immoral elements in the RH Bill
We are ready to support the Bills on Reproductive
Health as long as there would be no immoral elements in them.
The statement above makes no sense. Read
closely, Mr. Eduardo V. Manalo’s position on the RH Bill is conditional: if there are no immoral elements in it.
As the leader of the Iglesia ni
Cristo and being a successor to “God’s last messenger,” isn’t it supposed to be
his duty to discern whether or not there are “immoral elements” in the RH Bill?
Who determines morality now in his church? Isn’t it Mr. Manalo’s duty to guide
his members on matters of morals? How come he is not able to say for certain
if, as presently worded, there are immoral elements in the RH Bill? Mr. Manalo
cannot shift the burden of ascertaining what is moral or not to Congress
without abdicating his duty to guide his flock on morality. Here, Mr. Manalo
loses his credibility as a guardian and defender of the morals of his members.
How come Mr. Manalo cannot determine with certainty what is moral and immoral
in the RH Bill?
Mobbed: What moral guidance do the INC
members expect from their Executive Minister who cannot discern what is
moral and immoral in the RH Bill?
No comments:
Post a Comment