Politics and unreason

Herbie Gomez

I’M seriously thinking of dropping from my list of candidates anyone who swears to bring their dogma to the executive and legislative branches of the government if they win in the May elections. In fact, I’m thinking of really rejecting anyone who hints that he would think, behave, and act in government based on the dictates of his religion.

Reason: it’s either there’s nothing really going on up there in his head or that kind of politician is prepared to throw out his common sense, intelligence, and everything he learned at home, in school, in the streets, and just about anywhere all these years in the name of his dogma.

Friday’s “The Rundown 2016: An ANC Leadership Forum” highlighted the sad reality that in this country, the idea of a separation of Church and State is merely a paper principle because majority of our politicians are scared and beholden to organized religion and dogma if not, downright bigoted.

Only lawyer and senatorial candidate Lorna Kapunan had the balls to say, without batting an eyelash and swallowing saliva, that she wants a divorce law. “How many times did you think about putting poison in your husband’s coffee?” asked Kapunan rhetorically.

The cost of hiring experts and lawyers in order to get an annulment in the country is just too much, she and senatorial candidate Bayan Muna Rep. Neri Colmenares pointed out.

But while Colmenares beat around the bush and was careful with his words apparently because he did not want to “sin” or catch the ire of Bible-quoting bigots who have been imposing on government since the Aquinaldo presidency, Kapunan was blunt, and called it as it is: D.I.V.O.R.C.E.

One of the most outrageous positions was Rep. Samuel Pagdilao’s; he declared his opposition to divorce on “biblical, moral, and constitutional grounds.”

I was waiting for this lawyer and former general to build his case based on “constitutional grounds” after he gave a definition of the word divorce like the audience and televiewers did not have an idea about what it is, and declared that it was against his most cherished church teachings. And when he finally cited his “constitutional grounds”—that the family is recognized by the Constitution as the most basic social institution—he parroted the cliché that broken families mean the beginning of a national tragedy unmindful of the fact and reality that many families do get “broken” with or without a divorce law. Pagdilao made it sound like there is no broken family in this country, and that all married Filipinos are “living happily ever after” because of the absence of a divorce law.

I wonder if it has ever occurred to Pagdilao that a good majority of estranged couples in this country are sincere believers of the same set of church teachings that he proclaims to cherish and adhere to.

Two other candidates, Miguel Zubiri and Roman Romulo, pointed out that divorce “should not be used by couples as a solution to their problems, misunderstandings, and differences.” No one will disagree with that but what is their clear position on divorce?

Of course, couples are supposed to work it out. But what if all efforts failed, and there is no other way to stop an already broken family from being shattered into pieces but for the couple to agree on saying quits?

Zubiri, Romulo, and Rep. Sherwin Gatchalian’s solution is to strengthen the annulment law as they pointed out the rising number of women who get abused by their husbands. (I noted that there was no mention whatsoever of husbands who get abused by their wives.)

My wife and I have been fortunate to be among the list of happy couples in this country who never—not even for a moment—saw divorce or “separation” in the Philippine context as an option. The reason is simply because, imperfect as we are, all the needed “ingredients” are there, and the factors have been working in our favor for over two decades. But we understand that there are many marriages out there that are not working and cannot be salvaged anymore. I do not know how any bigot can deny this reality and fact.

The only “argument” against a divorce law is this line: “What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” Yeah, right. Says who? It’s not enough to just say, “I believe.” That’s naivety. Demonstrate it. Prove it.

Just how many unhappy couples and children have the prevailing interpretation of this verse tortured? To be blunt about it, the ridiculous interpretation of this verse is not an acceptable argument that should be introduced into any public debate, much more in Congress, because it’s clearly dogma masquerading as a legitimate assertion.

It amazes me how people actually get away with the assertion that a man and a woman who promised and signed a legal document to be together were also “joined together” by way of some magic power. How did they know that a magical extrajudicial union ever took place? And how did they know that such magical union wasn’t the handiwork of some invisible cartoon character named Lucifer? How did they know their assertion to be true? Come to think of it, only the act of making a promise and the act of signing a marriage contract qualify as facts. And it is a fact that sometimes, unfortunately, promises do get broken, and contracts do get breached, and can be rescinded.

I’ve had enough of doublespeak, and of politicians who project that they are intelligent and religious at the same time. Take Gatchalian’s pronouncement: “I’m not afraid of the church but I respect the church… I believe in the sanctity of marriage.” Sanctity? As in the quality of being “holy”? Holy cow! Just where did the word “sanctity” come from in the first place?

Only Kapunan scored a point in that debate over divorce as far as I am concerned. She passed the audition when she said, “I have this concept that if it talks like a duck, walks like a duck, f@#s like a duck, it is a duck. It is a duck, call it a duck.”

And the rest of the candidates? They’re either bigots or chicken s@#t.

The second part of the debate that included the thorny topic of gay marriage further highlighted the extent by which government and our political system have been contaminated by religious unreason. One of the panelists, lawyer Katrina Legarda, mocked former Interior secretary and senatorial candidate Rafael Alunan III for prefacing his answer with a declaration that he’s a member of one religious group. “Who cares?” asked Legarda even as she correctly pointed out that religion “has got nothing to do with running a government and passing legislation.” It’s about time somebody said that live on national television.

One should really treat his religion like a sex organ—love it, clean it, take good care of it, but never flaunt it especially in a public debate.

Pastilan.