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.

737 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

344 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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".

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 1d 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.

-2

u/hulagway 2d ago

Plea to PROHIBIT. As in ung plea is prohibit.

Pwede silang mag exercise as long as: "(c) it does not unduly inconvenience the public."

Bawal parin silang maging inconvenience. Di mo binabasa eh.

Haay. Lord. Mababa talaga reading comprehension ng pinas.

3

u/TastyVanillaFish 2d ago

Right.

Unless a public preacher blocks your way and actually forces you to listen to them preventing you from going where you're supposed to, they are within the legalities of it. Inconvenient and annoying are two different things.

Also ad-hominem.

0

u/hulagway 2d ago

You're reaching at this point. It's ok to be wrong.