[And also From what I understand labeling women "stupid" is sexist even by mere citing it as an example. Generalization about "women' erasing their place in history" is very uninfom. If Margaret Thatcher, Mother Teresa and Queen Elizabeth will read your comment, I think they will be very sad. ]

How exactly does cherry-picking a handful of famous people eliminate the reality that women generally earn less than men when given the same job position?

Unlike you btw, I'm not blowing smoke out of my ass. I'm basing my opinion on actual studies., http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-21698522

[If you don't want to be judge. Hide from the society. People will always have an opinion whatever is it you want do with your life. Good or bad. Just like you have an opinion to my comment. It's a free world after all. ]

There's the alternate that I enjoy far more than "hiding": Telling patronizing, clueless sexists to go fuck themselves.

Pray tell good sir,

Under whose authority are you to think you can dictate what a woman's place and role in society should be?

[ And not trying to be in equal footing with the opposite sex in terms of their actions and role. ]

Separate but equal, basically. they said the same thing to the blacks when they fought for desegregation.

From your link:

[Representatives from Russia and Armenia also made comments opposing the resolution. No one offered words in support of the resolution, not even Belgium.]

As your news link proves, LGBT equality has a long way to go in Europe. Especially in Putin's Russia:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/photos-from-russia...
http://www.travelandescape.ca/2013/07/russia-says...

Or how about Poland
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/07/world/europe/po...

Garrick,

If an accredited student-run religious organization doled out the bibles instead of the OSA, would it have merited this much outrage?

I'm just curious as to what extent this power dynamic you describe reaches.

[ In fact, the State itself recognizes the role of the Church in nation-building through the inculcation of sound moral values to its citizens thereby alleviating the inherent evils of man and society in general.]

Another fact:

Fr. Joaquin Bernas, one of the authors of the constitution, was also against religion imposing on Philippine Law.
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/insights/03/13/11/fr-b...

And if the church is so vital in nation building, can you explain why their much-vaunted Catholic Vote movement blew up in their face, with virtually all of their senatoriables finishing dead last?

Or how about the fact that the government pissed 50 million of taxpayer money away on an NFP program, gave it to CFC, only to see that program fail?
http://www.interaksyon.com/article/41778/natural-...

[To deny Christians the opportunity to evangelize and share the Faith is a violation of our right to freedom of religion.]

The funny thing is that every time I hear you self-righteous asshats say this, it usually right after you're called out for promoting intolerance and hate
http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2011/04/07/rcc-at...
http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2011/12/06/sheddi...

It cuts both ways.

While it is true that you are free to talk about your faith, you are NOT free to do it while wasting government money. Taxpayer's money. MY money.

Whether or not those bibles were donated is besides the point - the fact that they are being distributed by students who represent the school sends a clear message that the school is favoring that particular religion over others.

[Isa pa, halata namang mas pinapahalagahan ng batas yung paniniwala ng mga Kristyano kasi halimbawa nalang yung pagkakaroon ng maraming asawa.]

And yet when Muslims do marry, it is according to Muslim traditions, not Christian. For your reasoning to work, it has to follow that the Muslim couple has to marry through a Christian ceremony.

[ Dun nga sa article II section 12 at 13 may mga salitang "sanctity of family life" at "spiritual well-being" kaya masasabi mo rin na may lugar ang paniniwalang espiritwal o relihiyon sa batas. ]

Do show us where in the constitution it explicitly states "sanctity of life" and "spiritual well-being," ...as defined by the Catholic Church.

And furthermore, Joaquin Bernas' take on church and state separation: http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/colum...

His own words:

[The constitutional command, however, is more than just the prohibition of a state religion. That is the minimal meaning. Jurisprudence has expanded it to mean that the state may not pass ?laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.?

That is the ?separation part? of the constitutional command. The other part is the ?free exercise clause.? Both are embodied in one sentence which says: ?No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.?]

And here is more of Fr. Bernas, http://www.rappler.com/nation/12130-bernas-refute...

[“Constitutionally protected pluralism includes nontheistic religions such as Buddhism, ethical culture, secular humanism, and a variety of ethical philosophies. Of course, it also includes the bishop’s understanding of natural law. But his understanding is just one of the many, including those which do not arrive at the bishop’s conclusion,” Bernas added.]

It's your word versus that of one of the authors of our constitution.

You people just don't get it, do you?

This is clearly a ploy by Mr. Tolentino to get Dan Brown's attention, so he gets written into the next book :D