Patricia Evangelista on The Montalvan morality

Columnist Patricia Evangelista wrote on her column over at the Inquirer a response to Antonio J. Montalvan II’s column. The debate is on reproductive health. Miss Evangelista:

Montalvan’s misrepresentation of the issue in a national column is a testament to the state of the reproductive health debate—morality over rationality. He worries about a shrinking population in a nation that can barely feed its people, much less, educate, employ and house them like human beings. It is the reason why the separation of Church and State is held inviolable in the Constitution. It is to prevent policy-making based on faith. When the faithful move from Cathedral to Congress, they are limited by the same rules as the rest of those who figure in national policy debates—logic, rationality, and an understanding that moral ascendancy is a non sequitur.

It is why Montalvan can argue that Celdran has no right to pull his theater into the temple, but cannot argue that his temple should decide the rules of the national theater. Religious morality has no place in policy debate, only because policies concerning multiple religious moralities are different, because faiths are different.

Exactly.

Cocoy Dayao

Cocoy is the Chief Technology Officer of Lab Rats Technica, a Digital Consulting company that specialises in DevOps, iOS, and Web Apps, E-Commerce sites, Cybersecurity and Social Media consulting. He is a technology enthusiast, political junkie and social observer who enjoys a good cup of coffee, comic books, and tweets as @cocoy on twitter.

Cocoy is also the Managing Director and Editor-in-Chief of the ProPinoy Project.

Cocoy considers himself to be Liberal.