The Philippines is a nation of suckers. Filipinos routinely elevate rabble-rousers to “hero” status, pardon convicted plunderers, allow dictators’ family and offspring to continue living the good life, and tolerate a uniquely-Filipino brand of banal criminality that is embedded deep in the very fibres that weave the social fabric of Philippines society. This quaint aspect of the national character puts a bit of context behind the recent “apology” of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) on behalf of the now infamous Mitsubishops led by Juan “The Pajero” de Dios Pueblo…
[Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO)] chairwoman Margarita Juico earlier revealed that former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo allegedly used PCSO funds to get support from the Church. She said Arroyo, who is now a Pampanga representative, had given 7 Mitsubishi Pajeros to bishops.
A 2009 Commission on Audit report also showed the PCSO gave P1.44 million to the Archdiocese of Cotabato for the purchase of a service vehicle, P1.5 million to the Zamboanga Archdiocesan Social Action Apostolate, P720,000 to Caritas Nueva Segovia, P1.125 million to the Roman Catholic Prelate of Isabela, Basilan and P1.7 million to the Diocese of Butuan.
Not surprisingly, the “apology” seems to be working wonders as far as what seems to be an emerging public relations campaign to repair the crumbling moral highground that the revered Catholic bishops of the Philippines once stood upon. A certain “relgious” group that goes by the presumptuous name “Coalition for Family and Life”, led by former Environment secretary and ex-Manila Mayor Lito Atienza is reportedly soliciting donations from the public to raise more than Php8 million to repay the Filipino taxpayer for the comfort of luxury sport utility with which the Mitsubishops transport themselves these days.
| SUPPORT INDEPENDENT SOCIAL COMMENTARY! Subscribe to our Substack community GRP Insider to receive by email our in-depth free weekly newsletter. Opt into a paid subscription and you'll get premium insider briefs and insights from us. Subscribe to our Substack newsletter, GRP Insider! Learn more |
Apparently the esteemed ex-Mayor seems to think that throwing money into the mess will make it go away…
The figure is the estimated amount of the vehicles received by seven bishops from the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) during the Arroyo administration.
“Sa ating paraan, maliit o malaki, ay magbigay tayo ng tulong maresolba lang itong isyung ito. Kung ang issue ay ang salapi, e di isoli na lang natin (sa PCSO). Ang mga lay leaders, alam ko, maraming gustong tumulong dito,” said Atienza.
[Translated: In our own small or big way, let us help resolve this issue. If the issue is about money, then it is a simple matter of returning said money [to the PCSO]. I know many lay leaders would like to help us.]
Interestingly, despite the CBCP’s official “apology” and the wave of sympathy it seems to be generating in predominantly Catholic Philippine society, a “senior prelate” seems to be implying that the mess that the Mitsubishops had caused was something “inflicted” by the Philippine Government.
A senior prelate said the fund mess at state-owned lottery maybe the “biggest wound†inflicted by the government to the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP).
In his 45-year experience as a member of the bishops’ collegial body, retired Archbishop Oscar Cruz said the recent issue has dipped the image and credibility of the Church.
So on one hand, while Filipinos are made to believe that the CBCP “apology” was made in the spirit of taking accountability for the mess it finds itself in, Cruz, on the other, is busy painting the all-too-familiar image of the bleeding martyr — an image that, for centuries, has been a favourite theme in Catholic iconography.
Last I heard, sincere apologies do not involve making pathetic excuses.
This rather subtle hint of the true intent of this much-publicised “apology” begs a closer examination of the words used in said “apology.” For this we defer to the GMA News TV report that broke the news of this statement of “apology” back in the 11th July.
I highlight a few salient points:
(1) The CBCP is “sorry” for the “controversy” but makes no mention of being “wounded” by the actions per se of the Mitsubishops.
In a pastoral statement read by its outgoing president Bishop Nereo Odchimar on Monday, the CBCP said the Church “has been deeply wounded by the controversies in the PCSO.”
(2) Reference is made to Jesus Christ to sweeten the payload of said “apology.”
“As shepherds struggling to love you like Jesus the Good Shepherd, we are sorry for the pain and sadness that these events have brought upon you,” the group said after its 103rd plenary assembly held at the Pope Pius XII Catholic Center in Manila.
(3) The “apology” makes use of the euphemism “inconsistency” instead of a more categorical statement of accountability for downright wrong behaviour.
“We are saddened many of you, especially the youth and the poor—our basic ecclesial communities, have been confused because of the apparent inconsistency of our actions with our pastoral preaching,” it added.
(4) The “apology” leaves the issue of legality open-ended by including a very prominent “IF” in its statement, which in effect renders said apology non-absolute.
“If it would be proven unlawful, anomalous and unconstitutional, we assure you that their action was done without malice. Out of their sincere desire to help their people, they failed to consider the pitfalls to which these grants were possibly done,” the statement read.
(5) Despite issuing a “sincere apology” supposedly aimed “especially [at] the youth and the poor — [the Church’s] basic ecclesial communities”, the CBCP declined to answer questions after reading its statement to the press…
Odchimar refused to answer questions from the media after reading the statement, saying that the bishops involved in the controversy will explain their sides on the issue once they attend the Senate probe on Wednesday.
…perhaps revealing the bishops’ selective regard for the importance of requests for clarification coming from its “ecclesial communities,” the basis of this selectiveness, we might hazard a guess, having something to do with political clout maybe? Apparently, some people have gotten away with hypocrisy for so long that they now find themselves utterly incapable of uttering even one truly sincere sentence much less an entire “statement.”
And so the comedy of errors continues as the Philippines’ venerable men in robes stumble from one communication snafu to another. One begins to wonder just how “in touch” these clerics really are with the people they presume to teach “morality” to.
benign0 is the Webmaster of GetRealPhilippines.com.
Great read! I never knew that there were varied opinions concerning the Philippine Catholic church. Keep up the smatter, it’s good for the soul. Ay, sus!
Definitely an awesome read, I doubt that there’s a puritan Catholic priest left out there let alone bishops. It’s funny that the CBCP have a Bible reference in their apology, comes to show how faithfully mindless most Filipinos are.
“(3) The “apology†makes use of the euphemism “inconsistency†instead of a more categorical statement of accountability for downright wrong behaviour.
”
holy nitpicking, batman!
both words are categorical. (i.e. without qualification)
Takes one to know one, right GabbyD? 😀
ouch! except its crystal clear u nitpicked — BOTH terms are categorical.
more importantly perhpas is that “inconsistent” is the appropriate term in this situation.
considering the CBCPs statement on gambling that it ISNT INTRINSICALLY WRONG.
but you arent interested in learning what their true position is. you dont wanna think too hard, eh?
yeah, –> no interest in the truth. no interest in thinking.
nice try tho, playing speech writer. but if u wanna do it professionally, you may have to do ACTUAL RESEARCH to contextualize your statements properly.
Sure. Whatever you say, GabbyD.
you dont have to trust me.
you can do your own research. i doubt you’ll actually take the trouble, coz it’ll ruin this meme you are running here.
but you COULD do it….
I am reminded that old people tend to get narrower as they get into the declining years, that life is a cycle from helplessness to helplessness and we all run about in between trying to avoid filling the gap with hopelessness. I wonder at what stage the Catholic Church thinks it is in, in its own life cycle. Seems really really old and stumbling to me. Like maybe it believes in its omnipotence, when it is just human like the rest of us.
You can apologize, and pretend to be sorry…however, deep inside…you are not sorry. If the SUV controversy would had not be blown, out of proportion. These Bishops would still be driving the SUVS…
Why did they not return the SUVS ealier? Why did they asked for SUVs? The Vatican is very rich…it can easily buy them, hundreds of SUVs, for charity work…there is too much hypocrisy in our midst already…we are tired of them…politicians…now Bishops…
I watched the interview with the Bishops before the Senate Blue Ribbon Panel. I think they were sincerely appreciative of the utility of the autos provided, and they were indeed used to help people. Only one of the Bishops seemed “political”. The real culprit here is PCSO, a government “Special Ops” program. Senator Santiago started the session with one of her classic rants. Better TV than those sappy soaps, for sure.
looks like randy david’s new column gets the analysis right… check it out B0!
http://opinion.inquirer.net/7604/when-bishops-apologize
—
By taking up the cudgels for the individual bishops and apologizing as a collective body, the CBCP achieves three things. First, it affirms its integrity as a community that is conscious of its responsibilities. Second, it signals to the larger society its determination to review and define its role and its entanglement with society in the face of the challenges of growing complexity. And lastly, it draws the line between moral responsibility, which it accepts and applies to itself, and legal accountability, to which the individual bishops are submitting themselves.
Sure, but David was commenting on the FACT of the apology. I, on the other hand, comment on the CHARACTER and NATURE of said apology. Big difference there, so unfortunately for you, you are comparing apples and oranges.
yikes! not this really is nitpicking…
so this ISNT about the NATURE/CHARACTER of the apology?
“And lastly, it draws the line between moral responsibility, which it accepts and applies to itself, and legal accountability, to which the individual bishops are submitting themselves.”
but THIS IS?:
“(3) The “apology†makes use of the euphemism “inconsistency†instead of a more categorical statement of accountability for downright wrong behaviour.”
yikes! but david just said they are categorical (without qualification) of what went down, morally speaking.
yikes! this goes to the nature, character of the apology, as characterized by mr. david.
btw, the “fact” of the apology? like the fact that it exists? yikes!
if anything, you are the one holding on to some “facts” — inconsistent vs morally wrong? too bad inconsistent is more factual than the latter, considering the cbcp position on gambling (googled that?)
Nothing shocking about it, GabbyD. Just plain old-fashioned logical reasoning at work there. 😉
haha… shocked? haha.. shocked you can use the word “logical” with a straight face…
so, maybe i should say you are “inconsistent”?
but that wouldnt be categorical? haha…
ah, but that speaks to the “FACT” of my being shocked, but not its, uhm, nature?….?
This is what in your latest blog –
“[Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO)] chairwoman Margarita Juico earlier revealed that former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo allegedly used PCSO funds to get support from the Church. She said Arroyo, who is now a Pampanga representative, had given 7 Mitsubishi Pajeros to bishops.
A 2009 Commission on Audit report also showed the PCSO gave P1.44 million to the Archdiocese of Cotabato for the purchase of a service vehicle, P1.5 million to the Zamboanga Archdiocesan Social Action Apostolate, P720,000 to Caritas Nueva Segovia, P1.125 million to the Roman Catholic Prelate of Isabela, Basilan and P1.7 million to the Diocese of Butuan.”
This is what in the news today:
“PCSO chief says sorry for Pajero tag on bishops
By Christina Mendez (The Philippine Star) Updated July 14, 2011 12:00 AM Comments (42) View comments
MANILA, Philippines – Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) chair Margarita Juico apologized yesterday to the Senate and the Catholic bishops for the controversy generated by her pronouncement that some bishops received Pajero sport utility vehicles (SUVs) as donations during the term of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.”
“I am so sorry for whatever this may have caused. I really do not know where that came from. In fact, I have already said that there was no Pajero here and in fact, I enumerated the cars,†Juico told the Senate public hearing on the PCSO anomalies.
Throughout the hearing, Juico maintained that she did not mention that Mitsubishi Pajeros were given to the bishops.
“I don’t recall saying Pajeros. It was, I think, an information that was given to us by one of the managers in the PCSO when they said utility vehicles were given to bishops,†she explained.
Juico compared the use of the word Pajero for utility vehicles to how some Filipinos generically refer to refrigerators as Frigidaires.”
If you have watched the hearing yesteday, both Juico and this COA’s Heidi Mendoza looked so dumbfounded for their stupidities (what can you expect from Penoy’s appointees). Kulang na lang magturuan. Pathetic is the operative word here.
And this is what I have commented in your previous blog:
“The durable 4 wheel drive power vehicle which we call 4 X 4 SUV is very effective as utility vehicle for rough roads and hilly ranges that are not normally inaccessible to regular vehicles. We call it “PAJERO†or by their other brand names if it will be used for one’s EGO-LIFTING or for STATUS SYMBOL.
This 4 X 4 SUV was the one that requested by Bishop Juan de Dios Pueblos from then President Arroyo. As his reason in his letter of request “for use to reach the far-flung areas of Caraga†and as his detractors are insisting †the PAJERO is for his personal useâ€. (Short of them saying †si Bishop naman, at your age, pajaforms ka pa rinâ€. That’s the one they want to subtly infer.)
And still you did not (or don’t want) get it.
You still insist for the Pajero spin.
Where is the Pajero?
Something is wrong with the way you pick your facts or I would say you’re just a fact-challenged person who would not let facts get in the way for a good Catholic bashing story. There are lots of people like you whose head will explode by just mentioning to them the word “Catholic”.
Though I would say this post is already tainted for its dishonesty (“one dishonesty becomes dishonesty of all” – just to reciprocate) I would take the items one at a time.
Here’s the sequence of events in my book:
(1) Story of Butuan Bishop asking President Arroyo for a Pajero for his “birthday” breaks the news.
(2) CBCP issues a statement claiming that their conscience is “clear.”
(3) CBCP issues an “apology.”
Something happened between that clearing of conscience (Item 2) and that issuance of an “apology” (Item 3). A sudden epiphany on the Bishops’ part with regard to political realities perhaps? 😉
I won’t mind being called a Catholic fanatic if for others it would look that way. I also have criticized the Catholic clergies including nuns for things that seems to be uncatholic.
http://casaveneracion.com/sometimes-tv-doesnt-suck/
“Those in the church particularly the nuns. Just because they don’t like the present administration, they will offer their protection to Jun Lozada, a confessed corrupt, just to show that they have the self-righteousness. They thought that it would be a repeat of EDSA I or EDSA II. Duh! (Hindi sumali ang APO at si Ka Freddie! He he he he…)
Or maybe even Bishop Bacani (or Bishop Cruz). The most vocal critics of the present administration from the church for the sake of self-righteousness. (I would not leave my young boy or my young girl a minute alone with these persons. Ayoko ng hilatsa nila.).
And Bacani’s idol president is Erap.â€
As you have commented:
“(1) Story of Butuan Bishop asking President Arroyo for a Pajero for his “birthday†breaks the news.”
(True. But it was not asked for his personal use. He apologized that he timed his request on his birthday.)
“(2) CBCP issues a statement claiming that their conscience is “clear.â€
(True. What is the infraction or whatever? Is it the first time they have done that? It has already become a tradition since time immemorial because no law is being violated. In yesterday’s senate hearing, it was proven again that they did nothing unconstitutional. It will be immoral if they are for their personal use. Prove that to your doubting readers and to their parishes.)
“(3) CBCP issues an “apology.—
(True. They have issued an apology for what it has caused.)
The fact is your judgment was clouded by your bias against the Church. As a blogger, you have a responsibility to at least do a “critical thinking” (which you always invoke). Your critical thinking always lean to your bias.
Well, you take a bit of liberties yourself twisting the facts. Father Pajero did not “time” the request on his birthday, he specifically asked it FOR his birthday as you will note in his words verbatim: “I hope you will never fail to give a brand new car which would serve as your birthday gift to me.”
Re your observation that “They have issued an apology for what it has caused”, presumably you mean what trouble the imbroglio caused, right? Well you’re quite spot on highlighting that because in it is the precise point I make. The CBCP apologised for the outcome of the issue but not the cause of said issue and certainly not for the WRONGNESS of said cause. Anarstan? Maybe not, but I’ll leave you to chew on those italicised words for now.
And, in case you haven’t noticed yet, everyone has a bias. And that’s part of the fun I feel writing these articles — because I get to express my biases. If you want pure facts, you’re barking up the wrong tree. Go to a police station. You’ll find a mob of “reporters” camping out there waiting to pounce on the next hostage crisis. Those are the guys you wanna talk to if you want cold “facts.” 😀
“everyone has a bias.”
nope. not everyone. but i’m glad ur honest about your bias. its the least we can do. thanks.
Sorry. I should’ve been more specific. I meant to say: Everyone whose opinion is worth considering has a bias.
really? its said that being unbiased is a virtue.
disagree?
I don’t necessarily disagree as it all depends on what one considers to be a “virtue.” If you consider having no opinion or being incapable of taking a position on any matter a virtue, then, yes, being unbiased is a virtue.
you are truly a strange one.
“If you consider having no opinion or being incapable of taking a position on any matter a virtue, then, yes, being unbiased is a virtue.”
if you are incapable of taking a position, thats a psychological disease, not virtue.
you are truly a strange cat.
Again, strangeness is relative. Strangeness varies from person to person. So your concept of what is strange may be yours alone.
But then you miss my point as usual. I’m saying I am biased and therefore take a categorical position on most matters. Whether you therefore see that biasedness (and this being evidence of my capability to form an opinion and take a position on most matters) is a virtue is up to you. It depends on how you define virtue. Understand first before you comment. Otherwise, every word you type here further clarifies the increasingly evident dismal scope of your comprehension.
wha?
you said: ” Everyone whose opinion is worth considering has a bias.”
implying that, if you dont have a bias, one’s opinion is NOT worth considering.
which caused me to ask: isnt unbiased ness a good thing?
then you accuse me of not understanding, –> “Whether you therefore see that biasedness (and this being evidence of my capability to form an opinion and take a position on most matters) is a virtue is up to you”
… when it is YOU who are suffering from a lack of logic.
while its true that being biased means taking positions, the converse is not true…
if one takes positions /has opinions IT NEED NOT MEAN ONE IS BIASED.
the unbiased can have opinions. and people say that unbiased folk’s opinions are better.
agree?
Sure. The unbiased can have opinions. But they wouldn’t be worth considering because those opinions wouldn’t have any bias in them to consider.
if u believe that only the biased can have opinions, then you are truly strange.
and no, its not relative. EVERYONE will think that.
Instead of describing an unbiased opinion, how about giving an example?
Personally, I think there is no such thing as an unbiased opinion. Opinion grows from personal experience, if that is not already a sign of being biased.
“But they wouldn’t be worth considering because those opinions wouldn’t have any bias in them to consider.”
yikes! holy circular arguments, batman!
hahaha…
1) if ur biased you are worthing considering
2) you are worth considering, if ur biased….
yey!
Yeah, I constructed that argument specially for you. Glad you like it. 😀
@kabayo
ah, that would be a legitimate point! alas, it escapes our buddy B0.
Nah, I think the onus is on you, GabbyD, to cough up an example of an “unbiased opinion.” But then again that’s asking too much because you yourself are incapable of forming said opinion. 😀
haha… wow, not only do u generalize, but u traffic in circular arguments too… its a sad day indeed!
had u come up with mr. kabayongtao’s point first, i would have lauded u for it.
alas, it didnt happen.
do u really wanna talk about unbiased opinons? i dont wanna take this too far afield, than it already has.
As the modern-day philosopher Kylie Minogue once sang: “especially for you,” GabbyD. 😀
for me? i dont deserve the honor.
luckily everyone online can see your circular logic and gross generalizations, and biased viewpoints.
Trust me, GabbyD, you do deserve this honour.
hey, if you wanna write the worst possible arguments and let the world see it, who am i to refuse?
the thing is, i keep hoping for better. i know ur smarter than circular arguments. but u keep playing in the muck… strange cat indeed.
It depends on who is better at convincing this “world” you postulate to see things a certain way. Is it you? Or is it moi? Hands down I’d say it is me, because you have so far demonstrated little ability to cobble together even just a three paragraph piece articulating coherently the position you take on any matter.
Oh wait, I forgot, you don’t have an opinion on any matter. 😀
“It depends on who is better at convincing this “world†you postulate to see things a certain way. ”
really? you convinced someone? about the cbcp apology? who did u convince? of what?
there’s a difference between not able and choose not to. but maybe u can’t tell.
Dude, recall that it is you who introduced a notion of a “world” out there that is reading what we are writing here. I just use this notion to respond to your quaint commentary. As to whether I “convinced” this notional world of yours or not, we will never know, will we? So what’s the point in asking? 😀
even stranger! i introduced the world of readers of B0? so there is no world out there? i am a god!
i only assumed people read your work. silly me!
hhmm.. its either people read you or people dont. so people dont? JoeAm is a fan. you have at least 1 reader…
by saying the world of readers of this blog is hypothetical, i suppose you mean…
wow! so, u dont believe that people read you, how can you say u can convince people?
perhaps you mean you can only convince hypothetical people? people that dont exist?
i seem to recall you, uhm, informing people that people read your book.
i can only hope that at least one of these came to you with a testimonial!
so, did u lie then? no one reads you? this is just for yourself? i can believe that.
Believe what you must. 😀
This is what is in your post –
“So on one hand, while Filipinos are made to believe that the CBCP “apology†was made in the spirit of taking accountability for the mess it finds itself in…â€
And now this is what you’re claiming now –
“Well you’re quite spot on highlighting that because in it is the precise point I make. The CBCP apologised for the outcome of the issue but not the cause of said issue and certainly not for the WRONGNESS of said cause.
Do they mean the same?
Definitely, the wrongness is in your perception and from the Bishops, their perception was they did nothing morally wrong. Since you are the one accusing them, the burden of proof is on you. Prove it and I’m sure the Bishops will apologize without hesitation.
I’ve commented “They have issued an apology for what it has caused.†Cause and effect, very clear that I was pertaining to the effect.
And for you it is not enough to apologize for the outcome (effect) which is the pain and sadness caused by the event. You want them to apologize also for the cause which is being maliciously accused of something that was eventually proven to be wrong. Jeez…
You are also preempting what Filipinos are going to believe –“… while Filipinos are made to believe…†Jeez…
Hard for you to say – “…the Bishops are fooling the Filipinos…â€?
This is the Bishops apology –
“We are sorry for the pain and sadness that these events have brought upon you,†said CBCP President and Tandag Bishop Nereo Odchimar.
They are admitting the accountability for the mess (effect) they have caused, no more no less except for your imputations.
Next item –
This is despicable anywhere and anyway you look at it as being requested by a bishop to a president of a republic as you’ve commented with your critical thinking:
“I hope you will never fail to give a brand new car which would serve as your birthday gift to me.â€
What the Bishop has written was:
“At present, I really need a brand-new car, possibly a 4 x 4, which I can use to REACH THE FAR-FLUNG AREAS OF CARAGA. I hope you will never fail to give a brand new car which would serve as your birthday gift to me. For your information, I have with me a 7-year-old car which is not anymore in good running condition. Therefore, this needs to be replaced very soon.â€
You really have to stoop so low for the sake of your bias.
As Juico (the accuser) has expressed later:
“The donations to the good bishops were received in good faith. PCSO values its partnership with the Church. The charity institution shares the concerns of the Church in extending medical and health services to the poor and in helping make their lives a little better. The Church is an indispensable ally and partner of government in nation-building.â€
WHERE IS THE PAJERO?
Re what you say: “Since you are the one accusing them, the burden of proof is on you. Prove it and I’m sure the Bishops will apologize without hesitation,” do something for me first before I respond:
Cite specific examples where I “accuse” anyone in the above article please.
FOR PETE’S SAKE, what is your obsession with the specific brand of the SUV they got?
Even if they got bicycles, IT STILL WOULDNT BE RIGHT. If they gave stuff only to a certain religion, it wouldnt be fair to other religious orgs WHO ALSO DO CHARITY WORK WITHOUT GETTING GOVT FREEBIES because such favoritism goes against secular laws. what part of the separation between church and state don’t you get?
Government funds are SUPPOSED to go to government social services, not to private NGO’s, for whatever purpose.
Even if those vehicles were used by the Catholic Church purely for charity work and not for personal use, its still using public funds to gain pogi-points for a specific religious org. Are we so used to seeing the faces of mayors and congressmen postered all over waiting sheds and other public works who use public funds to gain them PR points with the masa that pinoys actually think this is the right way of doing things???
If you give SUV’s to catholic charity projects, then you should also give vehicles to protestant, muslim, buddhist, and secular NGO’s for their social work whenever they request it (or somebody working there celebrates his birthday).
“Mitsubishops: the CBCP conveniently absolves its own and remains above the Law”
It’s not on the above article but it’s the title of your other post. Just like I said, prove it.
Can I ask you something?
Which is worse: purveying misinformation out of ignorance or incompetence, or deliberately and maliciously twisting the facts just to satisfy an agenda?
WHERE IS THE PAJERO?
Prove what exactly? It’s a title — a hook to dangle before readers. The substance is in the article. Looks like somebody is grasping at straws here. 😀
Don’t you think I haven’t anticipated that you’re going to say that. My previous comment in your other blog –
benign0: “(T)he CBCP conveniently absolves its own and remains above the Law†(Title of your blog)”
Me: What law have they violated? Well, according to you, it’s not actually they are above the law per se but citing Randy “The Infallible†David “moral authorityâ€. (My apology for not reading anymore the link. For me, Randy David is just a plain leftist whiner. I would rather invest my time reading your blog).
So it could be the “morality law†and not the law of man. Perhaps, I’m so dumb I’ve not interpreted it as a morality law. Very convenient and a master stroke he he he.”
And your follow-up comment:
“So be it then. I vilify the Church because they make it EASY for people like me to do so.”
In my book, vilifying is falsely accusing somebody. If it’s true then it’s not a vilification. It’s then a statement of a fact.
Vilify = To make evil, harmful, and often untrue statements about; speak evil of.
Just in case you have your own definition of vilification, I’ll let the readers decide.
Suit yourself. 😉
hay naku…all things being equal, “at the end of the day”(ugh!)…i would rather the bishops be given grants than the congressmen who already have pork barrels but still request for ambulances.
Bloggers like you are considered writers. They write to express and to impress. Free to express one’s self – no holds barred. For others, it is immaterial whether it is factual or misinformation. Bias or unbiased. Being bias is to the eyes of the beholder anyway according to some.
Examples of biased media personalities –
Conservatives: Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilley, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham.
Liberals: Bill Maher, Chris Mathews, Rachel Maddow, Katie Couric.
Media establishments/blog sites –
Foxnews vs the alphabet cables, Newsbusters and American Thinker vs. Daily Kos and Huffington Post.
(Read or listen to them and decide who are stooping so low on an issue.)
But one should also consider the element of persuasion when appreciating what is being read. In you case, I’m not persuaded by what you are blogging since it is more on expressing your emotion. What I have put up in my comments are items that I saw as either logical or supported by facts to test your claim.
I ask you again –
Which is worse: purveying misinformation out of ignorance or incompetence, or deliberately and maliciously twisting the facts just to satisfy an agenda?
My parting words for on this commenting board –
WHERE THE HELL IS THE PAJERO?
Bye-bye.
See ya! 😀