EVERYONE HAS AGENDA

I have an agenda when I wrote this book.

As a priest and educator, I would like to propose my own perspective of the world. A narrative of how I see the world, which I hope to share with others.

At the outset, I want to manifests that I would be writing this book with whatever biases that my two roles entailed. The idea of what a priest is has become diverse beyond our imagination. The same is true with being an educator. There are as many definitions as there are individuals.

Thus, the best thing that I can say is to let my thoughts and distractions on the pages of this book express my stand on specific issues that involve religion, society, and education.

I find it dangerous for “thought leaders” to hide behind the veil of objectivity and neutrality because it would immediately place in the defensive position those who do not agree with their perspective, labeling those who would question their beliefs as “biased or prejudiced,” in other words, not objective.

Udo Schnelle wrote that the use of the terms “objectivity” and “subjectivity” served as “a literary strategy of declaring one’s own position as positive and neutral in order to discredit other interpretations as subjective and ideological. The object known cannot be separated from the knowing subject, for the act of knowing always effects a change in the object that is known” (Schnelle, 2003).

You may ask: Is it not that what I am trying to do is to place the other party in the defensive by the suggestion that they identify themselves according to their own ideas?

The answer is yes, it is precisely the point. We have to declare publicly that our stand is biased according to our agenda and goals. We are doing things because we what to influence or convince people of the concepts, structures, and systems that we are convinced of. We all have agenda. To claim otherwise is pure deceit.

I wish the readers will realize that not everything they heard from academic authorities and researchers is accurate and objective while those that they heard from the pulpit are false and subjective.

This is one of the reasons why I enjoy politics here in the Philippines because it is as colorful as it can be. We have the reds, yellows, greens, and blues even the violets for the women’s rights advocates and the “rainbow” for the LGBT among many others. Yet, for some in the academia, these colors are too messy and too narrow. They would like to think that they are above the fray of the common people. Correct me if I am wrong.

Those, however, who are refined in their thought processes, would object that such “color” politics unnecessarily impedes inclusivity because there are issues that are “color blind.” I think this is where the crux of the matter is.

We may deal with the same issues, but our agenda might differ.

Let us look at an example. During the time of P-Noy’s administration, Congressman Lagman and his fellow proponents were for the passage of Reproductive Health Law in the Philippines.

Many bishops in the Philippines were against it because some provisions in the proposed law ran contrary to Catholic moral teachings.

When Rodrigo Duterte came into power, the party of P-Noy and Lagman came to its decline; there were alleged extrajudicial killings committed by the Duterte administration in its drive against drug addiction.

The current minority party (including Lagman) and the Catholic bishops are together in their condemnation of the alleged extrajudicial killings of suspected drug pushers and drug lords. Does it mean that the Liberal party and the Church in the Philippines are now of the same color?

Of course not, because of the differences in the principles from which these parties are basing their actions. Subtle as it may be, these fundamental principles that shape one’s agenda makes all the difference.

Unfortunately, in a country like the Philippines, politicians change their colors “faster than you can say, Jack Robinson.”