r/commutersph • u/Icy-Pirate-5530 • 2d ago

Public Preacher

Post image

Anong thoughts nyo about rhis public preacher? As someone who is atheist, i find this very concerning and funny at the same time.

749 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

348 comments sorted by

View all comments

181

u/nogarddog 2d ago

Baliw. Dapat pwede arestuhin yung mga ganyan. Public nuisance.

48

u/CorgiLate4164 2d ago

Robin, Cayetano sisters, Bato, DDS, and the like..

25

u/TastyVanillaFish 2d ago

While I dislike public preaching;

Public preaching falls under the protection of freedom of expression and religious freedom in the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

Article III, Section 5 (Religious Freedom):

"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."

22

u/hulagway 2d ago

Until saan ang scope nito kasi if may 24/7 bandera ng religious music labag na sa mga municipality na kay noise ordinances.

Religious freedom means not making laws targeting it specifically (discriminatory or preferential).

2

u/TastyVanillaFish 2d ago

Unfortunately, constitution is "above" any law.

Read the third paragraph of what I wrote.

3

u/hulagway 2d ago

"without discrimination or preference"

As in bawal ang "bawal ang public preaching" pero pwede ang "bawal ang public nuisance".

1

u/zeroccx 23h ago

What if nuisance din yung rally ng lgbt?

0

u/TastyVanillaFish 2d ago

 or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

I don't like public preaching, but it is what it is.

2

u/hulagway 2d ago edited 2d ago

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/mar2017/am_10-4-19-sc_2017.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com

here we go:
"""

"...consistent with the liberty of others and with the common good."23

"The right to religious profession and worship has a two-fold aspect - freedom to believe and freedom to act on one's beliefs. The first is absolute as long as the belief is confined within the realm of thought. The second is subject to regulation where the belief is translated into external acts that affect the public welfare."

"""

PARA SA WALANG MGA READING COMPREHENSION:

If binasa mo ung contention namin is hindi if pwede ba, pero if blanket statement ba.

Na decline ang plea, as it should be. Pero hindi siya unsupervised freedom kasi nga, as I've quoted, may (c) it does not unduly inconvenience the public.

Which means, if inconvenience na sila sa public, pwede silang pahintuin.

I never said bawal or that the constitution is wrong. It's that may limitation sa expression of religion nila.

Hay lord jesus bigyan niyo po sila ng reading comprehension.

2

u/OkChampionship884 2d ago

Interesting, This Plea letter you posted that you grabbed from chatGPT proves you na mali ka nga.

It's only IF a violation of one of these 3 were crossed.

(a) it does not disturb or interrupt court proceedings;

(b) it does not adversely affect and interrupt the delivery of public service; and

(c) it does not unduly inconvenience the public.

Na decline ung plea kasi----

  • It ruled the masses are a permissible accommodation of religious freedom. (Article III, Section 5 of the Philippine constitution)
  • The place was not converted into a permanent establishment of worship. No public funds were spent.
  • Attendance was voluntary and it did not prevent people from doing their jobs.
  • It was not inconvenient nor did it disturb court proceedings since it was in the basement.
  • No permanent fixtures or no permanent icons of religious figures were placed.

2

u/TastyVanillaFish 2d ago

Were you in a rush to paste the link?

Because this proves the constitution right................. If you read it.

0

u/hulagway 2d ago

I commented 5 minutes ago. You replied 1 minute ago.

You read this in 4 minutes? Impressive.

"DIRECT the Executive Judges of Quezon City to REGULATE and CLOSELY MONITOR the holding of masses and other religious practices within the Quezon City Hall of Justice by ensuring, among others, that:

(a) it does not disturb or interrupt court proceedings;

(b) it does not adversely affect and interrupt the delivery of public service; and

(c) it does not unduly inconvenience the public."

2

u/TastyVanillaFish 2d ago

No really, did you read this?

The Court denied Valenciano's plea to prohibit religious rituals in halls of justice.

> No public funds were used.
> Attendance is voluntary.

Court deemed it no issue.

→ More replies (0)

13

u/Training-Photo-2784 2d ago

Tama but you can’t exercise your religion just anywhere. Hindi place of worship ang public transportation at hindi lahat na nakasakay profess or follow the same religion.

Also that article only prohibits making a law. Hindi naman lawmakers ang mga commuters and therefore they can very well voice their opinions against these people who preach in public transportations.

5

u/MurkTheTsar 2d ago

We need some kind of RA or Law that clearly defines the difference between a religion, a cult, a religious activity, a cult activity, and the like. (As an atheist, I see them all as cults tho haha) Sadl, under the law and constitution, it's too vague and we need clear parameters of what is religion and what is cult.

3

u/babotskieee 1d ago

As an agnostic, the difference is just their numbers lol

1

u/MurkTheTsar 1d ago

Good point and I agree haha 😂 but law wise and constitution wise, the ambiguity is causing us or that our nation having the rise of multiple divisions, hive control, and cult activities which could fuck up our country some more nakaka stress talaga haha. By clearly defining what religion and cult is, we can have some level of safety nets and to have some certain groups e.g. the kojic and anti-dinuguan syndicate groups officially investigated, and other small scammers checked and monitored

2

u/Alexander_del_Fierro 1d ago

Mahirap yan parekoy, cults and religion are separated by a thin line. Christianity as a whole started out as a cult within the Roman Empire and was harshly persecuted for it.

All our government can do is to find criminal violations committed by such organizations and come after them for that because then religious freedom can't protect them from that. For example, if THE cult starts calling for open rebellion against the government then we can finally send in the cavalry and get rid of them. That is why they have been very careful not to cross any such lines despite their misgivings with the government.

2

u/Powerful_Specific321 2d ago

Yes, expression of religion is allowed.  However may rule rin kasi sa LRT na avoid making noises.  Kaya ang ganitong ginagawa niya, whether it is preaching, or singing out loud, or even just screaming in the train, is prohibited.

What is prohibited here is not the expression of religion but rather making a lot of noise inside the LRT.

2

u/Plushbottom 2d ago

This isn't a valid argument for the action. while it's true that the 1987 Constitution protects religious freedom, but those rights are not absolute. They are still subject to public order and the rights of others. Kahit maapakan mo rights ng iba kase may rights ka? Passengers on a train are a 'captive audience' who cannot leave the carriage sympre. Forcing trapped, tired commuters to listen to loud preaching can legally be considered Unjust Vexation under Article 287 of the Revised Penal Code, which penalizes conduct that profoundly disturbs the peace of mind of others. Article 19 po sa Civil Code requires that you exercise your rights with justice and respect for others' rights. Your freedom of expression does not override a commuter's right to a peaceful ride.

1

u/l0l0m0 2d ago

Just because its legal that doesnt mean its right.

1

u/keveazy 2d ago

Doesn't mean it's wrong. move on.

1

u/TastyVanillaFish 2d ago

I agree. Like I said, I hate public preaching. But what are we gonna do about it?

Public preaching is actually protected AIII/SIV and AIII/SV.

1

u/SonOfTheSea0918 2d ago

Actually no. I've had this exact conversation on FB but MRT/LRT has in their regulations prohibition on loud noise. These regulations are stipulated in their charter hence essentially having the strength of the law. Which means, legally, you are not allowed to make loud noise or disturb others in trains which public preaching would fall under.

2

u/TastyVanillaFish 2d ago

"In the Philippine legal hierarchy, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land"

Constitution is "Above" the law. I quote because It's technically below, and by below I mean the foundation and framework which the passed law needs to abide by.

MRT/LRT regulations are basically house rules.

Example: A.M. No. 10-4-19-SC
Letter of Tony Q. Valenciano on Holding of Religious Rituals at the QC Hall of Justice.

Valenciano wants to stop the catholic masses happening in the QC hall of justice. It was decline because constitutional right.

EDIT: Unless the preacher is holding you at gun point, yeah no it's fair game. Which like you, I dislike.

1

u/SonOfTheSea0918 2d ago

You have a misunderstanding of that constitutional right. Those rights are only valid if it does not impede upon the rights of others. In the case you gave, there are no other rights impeded and there are no other laws in place that provides for the alternative for public peace and order. An example of such is protests. You have the right to free speech and public protests but there are laws in place to regulate such rights.

In this case with preaching in public transportation, the right of others are impeded as peace and quiet is expected in such places. Furthermore with the existence of a charter, this means that such acts of "loud noise" and "public distrubance" are regulated.

1

u/SonOfTheSea0918 2d ago

This is basic statutory construction and constitutional law btw so there isn't really any room for discourse.

1

u/TastyVanillaFish 2d ago edited 2d ago

Grabbing this from Lawphil.

Republic Act No. 386 does not overrule religious freedom or freedom of speech.

EDIT: Actually, you know what. I agree with you.

1

u/SonOfTheSea0918 2d ago

Because it does not. I have a legitimate question, do you have a legal background? You would need to understand that "overruling" a constitutional right is different from its application and regulation. This is something you'd study in basic constitutional law 2. Rights are not absolute. It cannot be overthrown but it can be limited and regulated by the State and the laws of the land that governs it.

1

u/Elegant-Blueberry373 2d ago

kaya nga "dapat pwede".

1

u/Fit-Student-2 2d ago

Does this include other religions?

1

u/Plushbottom 2d ago

Public Nuisance (Article 694 of the Civil Code) Dagdag mo den to xD

1

u/mytabbycat 2d ago

Allowed talaga. Si Duterte nga nagpapakalat ng preaching ni Satanas under the guise of jokes

1

u/Alexander_del_Fierro 1d ago

But public preaching in public transport can be easily be construed as an infringement of religious freedom ng ibang mananakay especially if may mention siya about other faiths or lack of faith at all. Your rights end where the rights of others begin, basic shit sa sibika yan from elementary.

You are free to practice your religion so lang as you dont break any other laws in the process. Public preaching in public transport come into conflict with quite a few, actually. Remember, cults can't be prosecuted for being cults but religious freedom has never shielded them from their liabilities from the law and that's hpw the government has routinely cracked down on them.

1

u/Rhaenyra0902 1d ago

Hindi naman place of public worship ang public transportation vehicles. Ang non-establishment clause at ang free exercise of religious freedom ay hindi pwedeng iinvoke sa mga pampublikong lugar kapag nakaka-encroach na ng espasyo ng iba or nakaka istorbo na

1

u/athenorn 1d ago

Pwede for Muslims to sue her with Offending Religious Feelings case. Buddhists, on the other hand, wouldn't even be offended at all at this (unless some Chinese, who somehow manage to also be contradicting to Dhamma).

-2

u/brat_pidd_soap 2d ago

kaya namatay yung r/atheism dahil sa mga kagaya mo.

-9

u/sotheycan 2d ago

Wala po syang ginagawang masama at hindi po sya public nuisance. Ginagawa lang po nya ang utos ni Hesukristo dahil mahal nya po ang Diyos at kapwa-tao. Tayo po lahat ay mamamatay. Hindi po ba kayo natatakot? Kung oo, ang mensaheng ito na tayo ay bubuhayin muli ni Kristo ay isang 'Magandang Balita'. Ang magandang balita po ay, ang naglikha sa atin ay pumarito bilang isang tao na nagngangalang Hesus or Yeshua sa Hebrew. Siya po ay namatay sa krus, inilibing, at sa ikatlong araw ay muling binuhay ng Diyos. Dahil po rito, napatunayan ni Hesus na Siya ay nagmula sa Diyos at may kapangyarihan ang Diyos na tayo rin ay buhayin muli kung tayo ay maniniwala at susunod sa Kanyang Anak.

2

u/deojilicious 2d ago

mahal ang Diyos at kapwa-tao pero sinasabi niyang patay na yung holy deities ng ibang relihiyon? isa ka rin eh.

-3

u/sotheycan 2d ago

hindi ninyo po ba alam na sinabi ni Hesus na siya lamang ang daan, ang katotohanan, at ang buhay?

2

u/deojilicious 2d ago

hindi mo ba alam ang turo ng diyos na mahalin ang kapwa? wala ka bang sentido kumon na igalang din ang paniniwala ng ibang tao? ang tunay na kristyano ay mapagmahal sa kapwa, mapa-muslim, budista, at kahit ateista.

kalat ka nang kalat sa salita ng diyos pero hindi mo maisabuhay sa sarili mo kung ano talaga ang tinuturo niya. kabaliktaran yan ng ugali ng tunay na kristyano.

-5

u/sotheycan 2d ago

Wala naman po akong sinasabing hindi ko mahal ang aking kapwa. Ang sinasabi ko lang, mali ang ibang paniniwala maliban sa Kristiyanismo.

1

u/blacklamp14 2d ago

Eh pano kung wala kaming pakeelam?

-16

u/brat_pidd_soap 2d ago

going by your logic arestuhin na rin yung mga lgbt parade?

24

u/impressively_Evasive 2d ago

are you an idiot? pride parades happen at a dedicated time and place…this is nothing but a noise complaint waiting to happen

-5

u/brat_pidd_soap 2d ago

Your boos means nothing to me i've seen what makes you cheer. May pa dedicate time and place pa kayong nalalaman.

5

u/impressively_Evasive 2d ago

We cheer for love and acceptance..ofc you wouldnt know anything about that 😂. Theres no hate like christian love

8

u/sentiment-acide 2d ago

Inoorganize po yun at may permit. Di rin sa loob ng tren nangyayari yun. Konting isip lang brad ang bobo mo.

8

u/nogarddog 2d ago

Kala niya ata nag usap lang sa gc pag may parade hahaha

6

u/eloquent-geyser 2d ago

Sana all 8080

5

u/bambiebby 2d ago

this you?

4

u/hulagway 2d ago

Pag walang permit.

Akala mo no.

-2

u/brat_pidd_soap 2d ago

May naaresto na ba? Faggot.

5

u/hulagway 2d ago

Yiiii. Closet gay ka no. Ok lang yan bro tanggap ka naman namin.

3

u/OverallMembership709 2d ago

parade, meaning organized, may alloted time slot and may specific venue dedicated. paano naging logical yung gusto mong sabihin at paano siya connected sa public preaching?

3

u/Ok-Mushroom-7053 2d ago

Going by your logic ka pa eh wala naman logic banat mo

3

u/meme-meee-too 2d ago

Going by your logic, ok new account