Author: Andy Uyboco

A lot of people in our country misunderstand secularism. No, let me rephrase that. Majority of Filipinos do not even understand what it is. Yet, secularism is a basic principle of our government that is embedded in our constitution as stated in the Bill of Rights (Article III, Section 5):

“No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.”

Secularism is the principle of separation between church and state. In other words, the affairs, authority, principles, activities, teachings of one should not automatically carry over to the other. An example of this is that even if a priest, pastor, bishop or imam is head of a church, he has no power or authority in a government office. He cannot march into City Hall and demand all workers to stop working immediately and attend mass. Likewise, a mayor cannot simply march into church and collect the funds in the offering plate in favor of the government.

Some people have the mistaken notion that secularists want to promote atheism. Just recently, a student group from a religious school invited me to give a talk on secularism. The school authorities thumbed down the proposal because they thought it was going to be about atheism. In truth, the secularist abhors state-imposed atheism as much as state-imposed religion.

What secularism is all about, in one word, is neutrality. The late Isagani A. Cruz, former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, writes:

“The rationale of the rule is summed up in the familiar saying, ‘Strong fences make good neighbors.’ The idea is to delineate the boundaries between the two institutions and thus avoid encroachments by one against the other because of a misunderstanding of the limits of their respective exclusive jurisdictions…The doctrine cuts both ways. It is not only the State that is prohibited from interfering in purely ecclesiastical affairs; the Church is likewise barred from meddling in purely secular matters. And the reason is plain. A union of Church and State, as aptly remarked, ‘tends to destroy government and to degrade religion.’ It is also likely to result in a conspiracy, well nigh irresistible because of its composite strength, against the individual’s right to worship.” (Constitutional Law, 2007)

An interesting case is the recent brouhaha over the change in the Department of Education’s vision statement. The original phrasing had the intent, among others, of producing “God-loving” individuals while the restated (and current) text has removed that particular phrasing. (The core values though still include “Maka-Diyos” but that is a battle for another day).

The change prompted some strong reactions from the religious community and some media outlets capitalized on this by writing such sensationalist and provocative headlines as “DepEd No Longer God-Loving.” I myself penned a strong reaction against one religious leader (published in the Filipino Freethinkers website) and later wrote a satirical article in this column in an attempt to show how ridiculous it would be if the government made concessions to each religion instead of simply omitting the phrase altogether.

This is my argument, in a nutshell: DepEd, as a state-institution, cannot attempt to mold citizens to be “God-loving” for to do so would be to favor religion, or even only a certain brand of religion (what if the student’s religion involves a goddess, instead of a god, or involves honoring animal spirits, or a pantheon of deities?). This is not to say, however, that by removing the phrase, DepEd suddenly becomes anti-God or anti-theistic. That is a silly notion, especially considering the fact that the organization is headed by a religious brother. DepEd is only practicing neutrality and fairness, as mandated by the Constitution. Rather than include all sorts of concepts and definitions of “God” in the vision statement, it is much more efficient to simply remove the loaded phrase altogether.

Fr. Joaquin Bernas, a noted constitutional lawyer and former president of the Ateneo de Manila University, writes:

“What non-establishment calls for is government neutrality in religious matters…Government must not prefer one religion over another or religion over irreligion because such preference would violate voluntarism and breed dissension...Government funds must not be applied to religious purposes…Government action must not aid religion…Government action must not result in exclusive entanglement with religion because this too can violate voluntarism and breed interfaith dissension.” (The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines)

Secularism is important both for the religious and irreligious alike because it safeguards against abuses, and likewise preserves individual liberty and freedom of choice. A secularist is not anti-religion but simply someone who lives true to the idea of fairness and justice for ALL, not just a select few.

Originally published in Sunstar Davao.

Questions? Comments? Suggestions? Violent Reactions? Send me an email at andy@freethinking.me. View past articles at www.freethinking.me.

 

I would like to revisit a lengthy discussion I had with a friend some time ago when we talked about what would make me revert to my former belief in God, Jesus and Christianity. A bit of a disclaimer though, I’ve actually had this dialogue with several people so the conversation I’m about to relate may not exactly have come from one source but several, and I don’t necessarily remember who exactly said what. But to keep this narrative simple, I’ll write as if the arguments were coming from only one person, whom I shall call Marduk.

So Marduk asks me what it would take for me to be a believer again, and I say I’ll take the Thomas option. When the disciples told Thomas that a resurrected Jesus had appeared to them, he didn’t believe them and instead said that unless he sees the nail marks and touches the wounds of Jesus, he would not believe (John 20:24-29).

In a similar fashion, it would take a personal, vivid and conscious experience of the reality of God for me to believe again. If God was good enough to grant Thomas that privilege, then why should I not have the same?

After all, Christians like to talk about God wanting to have a relationship with us humans. How can he expect to have a relationship with me if he doesn’t even show himself; if the only way I can know him is by hunches and feelings that are prone to subjective interpretations; or by a book that he didn’t even write himself, contains many scientifically questionable and fantastic anecdotes, whose meaning even his own priests, prophets and theologians don’t agree on, and whose authorship is anonymous in many instances?

Imagine if you had daughter who has a suitor whom she only knows through a certain facebook account. Your daughter tells you, “Daddy (or mommy), this guy says he wants to have a relationship with me.”

“Well, have you seen him in person?”

“No. We only know each other through facebook.”

“Oh, does he have a picture?”

“Well, it’s not really his account. He just communicates with me through this other person who has an account.”

“And do you know this other person?”

“No.”

“Have you asked to meet him?”

“Yes, but he says he can’t show himself yet and that I simply have to trust him.”

At this point, I’d say, “Dearest daughter, I highly doubt this person exists, or if he is really sincere in having a relationship with you. Chances are, you’re being scammed.”

Marduk’s reply to this is twofold: One, he says it is quite presumptuous of me to dictate to God the terms of our relationship (he is God after all), and two, if God were to grant my request for a personal appearance or experience, then the very force of his identity and personality would make me naturally want to have a relationship with him, thus taking away “free will.”

He then trots out Mark Zuckerberg (the founder of facebook) as an example. If Zuckerberg would suddenly show up at my doorstep and then say he’d like to hang out with me, then I would naturally WANT to hang out with him because of his celebrity status. In other words, of course, I would want to have a relationship with Zuckerberg but maybe for all the wrong reasons.

To answer the first objection, I don’t think it’s presumptuous at all because after all, you guys tell me that he’s the one who wants to have a relationship with me. And I am simply expecting of this relationship what I would expect of any other relationship. One, I need to know who exactly I’m in a relationship with — not only have an idea of this person from indirect sources, and two, I expect open, honest and clear communication between the two of us.

On the second objection, what Marduk is in effect saying is that if God were to grant my request, then that would take away “free will” because I would essentially have “no choice” but to believe. Now that may seem a reasonable argument at first, but we only have to turn the pages of the very same Bible Marduk cherishes, to see that this is also fallacious.

If the stories are to be believed, the Old Testament Israelites witnessed firsthand their God and yet they routinely sinned and disobeyed. Jonah heard God’s voice yet he ran away. Lucifer was an angel in heaven and yet he rebelled. Judas was in Jesus’ inner circle yet he betrayed him.

The point is, these people all presumably had a direct experience of God, yet were STILL ABLE TO MAKE THE CHOICE of whether to follow or not. Their freedom to enter or not to enter into a relationship with God was NOT compromised by their knowledge of him. They were still free to accept or reject God.

That is simply what I ask, to know and have some contact with this person or being who supposedly wants to have a loving relationship with me.

Is that too much to ask?

Originally published in Sunstar Davao.

Questions? Comments? Suggestions? Violent Reactions? Send me an email at andy@freethinking.me. View past articles at www.freethinking.me.

I began this series by explaining what network marketing or multi-level marketing (MLM) was, followed by a discussion on how unscrupulous groups or individuals used the MLM concept to perpetuate illegal schemes. Today I want to deal with questionable, unethical, and unsavory practices of network marketing distributors. I have committed some of these in the past and I regret not having the maturity, foresight or discipline to refrain from them.

During that time, I was impressionable, idealistic and naive (in terms of business). Some MLMs create a clannish, cultish culture where you were expected not to question too much the practices of your uplines, but rather, to follow them. After all, they were successful, weren’t they? We would try to copy our uplines, the way they talked, the expressions they used (e.g. “Power!”, “Grabe!”), the way they dressed and the way they behaved. We were encouraged to do this because we were supposed to be duplicates of our uplines and in turn create duplicates of ourselves. “Don’t think too much. Just follow your upline,” was our mantra.

In some ways, it was beneficial. Former janitors, security guards or maids would get up on stage and explain the products and marketing plans, and even crack jokes — none of which were original but were simply copied from their uplines or other speakers. It was inspiring to see people like them gain tremendous self-confidence and self-esteem.

On the other hand, when we saw or heard questionable advice, the “follow your upline” mantra made it difficult to object to those. After all, we didn’t want to be seen as troublemakers or dissidents.

Dishonesty

Many questionable practices of distributors stem from dishonesty. There is the “kidnap” method of inviting people to business orientation seminars. This involves calling people you normally don’t call, or haven’t called for a long time, telling them you want to catch up or meet for coffee (or something to that effect). When that meeting takes place, you would either be waiting with your upline or try to persuade them to join a seminar, or present the business outright.

This seems like a harmless little lie but in truth, it already creates a small crack in your integrity. In hindsight, I now see that it was not  the best way to start a business relationship.

Omission of truth is another form of dishonesty. I remember, when I was presented with the marketing plan, that there were all these rosy promises of getting overriding commissions from my downlines. When I had actually joined and read the distributor manual, I found out that there was a monthly sales requirement I had to meet in order to earn my overrides. That was not explained from the start and it was a huge letdown for me. But I was already in at that time, and so had to make the best of it. Some MLMers still do this — presenting you all the good stuff up front but not letting you read the fine print until it’s too late.

Exaggeration

MLMers are fond of exaggeration. They promise you a 6-figure income in the span of a few months, your dream house or car, vacations, and so on. Some would even promise “no selling” which is a blatant lie — at the very least, you would have to sell the idea, so be wary of this. It is true though that there are many successful MLMers who can show you large paychecks, but you have to ask — how  much did they have to spend in order to earn those paychecks? Remember what Robert Kiyosaki says, “It’s not how much money you make that matters, but how much you keep, and how long that money works for you.”

Product Loading or Buying the Position

This is a very dirty trick where your upline persuades you to advance in your position by buying the product requirement needed for that position, or in the case of binary systems, to buy 3-heads, 7-heads, etc. This will require you to put up a lot of cash up front (in the hundreds of thousands or even millions) for the promise of a huge return. That return almost never comes and the only thing huge here is the commission your upline will receive at your expense.

Remember that the basic MLM concept is that for a small cash outlay, you get the chance to sell some products and build an organization of people who will do the same thing. Over time, you will be receiving small commissions and overrides from each of those people under you, and if you have a large group, then those small amounts add up into a huge amount. It makes no sense pouring in a lot of cash when you still don’t have a single person in your organization.

Conclusion

Looking back, my primary mistake was not using enough of my head when I did MLM. I was driven by my emotions and desires — not that those are bad things, but very often they need to be tempered by reason and rationality. Yes, we read of people who threw caution to the winds, followed their dreams and became deliriously successful — but those people are few, that’s why they are celebrities. To balance this, try doing some research as well into those people who followed their dreams, threw caution to the winds, and ended up worst than they were before. There are a lot of those as well, more than those who became successful, but they don’t get their stories written, they don’t have books or movies about them. That’s why we don’t hear about them.

It is true that there will be a select few who will go on to become wildly successful in MLM. But that is true in almost any endeavor be it business, sports, entertainment, showbiz, the arts, etc.

For non-MLMers, learn to look at the opportunity you have objectively. Hopefully these pointers I gave will give you a better idea of what to expect and what questions to ask. Don’t be taken in by sweet promises of easy money. There is no such thing. Being successful in MLM takes hard work.

To MLMers, do business the right way and don’t employ these dirty tricks. Always be honest and upfront with the people you talk to. Don’t promise the moon and only give a flashlight. Your reputation and relationships are more important than the short-term gains you achieve if you play dirty.

Originally published in Sunstar Davao.

Questions? Comments? Suggestions? Violent Reactions? Send me an email at andy@freethinking.me. View past articles at www.freethinking.me.