Risa Hontiveros: How can one be a communist and a Catholic at the same time?


Reading John Nery gush like a starstruck teenager about senatorial candidate Risa Hontiveros (Akbayan and the Liberal Party) in his recent Inquirer.net piece A Catholic vote for Risa, you could be forgiven for thinking Hontiveros is some sort of Filipino Mother Theresa. To Nery, Hontiveros is a “true child of Vatican II” and “most embodies Catholic social teaching”. Nery also cites how “A group that calls itself Catholics for Risa Hontiveros has circulated a statement online endorsing her as a Catholic candidate” noting that “[a] few of the signatories are his friends, some [he] know[s] only by reputation.” Of course, no endorsement of a candidate would be complete without a bit of pandering to certain politically-charged advocacies…

She was, of course, and controversially, among those who led the fight for the Reproductive Health Law; what many of her Catholic critics fail to see is that it was precisely her Catholic conscience, schooled in the gritty reality of Philippine society, that moved her to join the fight.

So let me ask Mr Nery and Risa’s prayerful followers this:

Subscribe to our Substack community GRP Insider to receive by email our in-depth free weekly newsletter. Opt into a paid subscription and you'll get premium insider briefs and insights from us.
Subscribe to our Substack newsletter, GRP Insider!
Learn more

How does one go from being a communist (the true adherents of which are avowed atheists) to suddenly becoming a celebrated Catholic pinup?

The multiple layers of confounding inconsistencies surrounding the philosophical and ideological underpinnings of the candidacy of Risa Hontiveros are too hard to ignore.

Lest we forget Risa Hontiveros is chairperson of militant Leftist group Akbayan. There is scant literature on the history of the Akbayan partylist, but a GMA Network report categorically states that the roots of Akbayan along with its bitter (albeit similarly Left-leaning) rival Bayan Muna “can be traced to the division of the Communist Party of the Philippines and its allies in the 1990s. Akbayan was formed by those who refused to be associated with both factions.”

But did Akbayan renounce its communist roots? According to a report published on the World Socialist Web Site, no.

Akbayan was formed in the wake of the break-up of the Maoist Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) in the early 1990s. Every decision made by Akbayan over the past two decades has born the stamp of its origin. The nationalist, opportunist and class collaborationist politics of Akbayan are the continuation of the Stalinist politics of the CPP. What differences now exist between Akbayan and its Maoist rivals are born out of the contingencies of alliances formed with different sections of the bourgeoisie.

Interestingly, the “official” history of Akbayan as laid out in their “official” website Akbayan.org is mute on the topic of its commie roots…

After twenty years of dictatorship under the Marcos regime, formal democracy in the Philippines was restored in 1986 through a broad “people power” movement. This democracy, however, proved to favor only the political and economic elite of the country. The moving force behind the anti-dictatorship struggle–concerned citizens and progressive groups–has been relegated to the periphery of decision-making and policy implementation. In response, social movements, trade union groups, and political organizations have emerged to challenge state policies through lobbying and pressure politics.

Despite the dynamism of Philippine movements, formal institutions of democracy remained in the hands of the few and the wealthy. It was within this context that the idea of building an alternative, a citizens’ political party, first emerged. Social movement groups wanted to be part of the formal processes of government. Akbayan was thus conceived as an effort to institutionalize people power and thereby deepen Philippine democracy.

Consultations on the party-building project began in 1994. Throughout the country, pro-democracy groups were enjoined to help shape the party concept and strategy. Aspirations of various sectors–labor, peasants, youth, women, gay and lesbians, professionals, overseas Filipino workers, urban poor–were discussed and consolidated into a program of governance, while ad hoc structures were formed in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao. Four years later, in January 1998, Akbayan was formally established through its Founding National Congress. In May of the same year, the new party tested its strength by participating in the local and party-list elections and won seats in the House of Representatives, and several local government units.

Hmmmm… “conceived as an effort to institutionalize people power and thereby deepen Philippine democracy.” That, together with the euphemism that these “social movement groups” of which the founding members of what was to become AKbayan were presumably part of “wanted to be part of the formal processes of government” sounds consistent with a Third Party perspective provided by GlobalSecurity.org on what the agenda of commie movements suddenly made irrelevant by 1986 “people power” politics…

As a result of the world-wide known “People Power” revolution in the Philippines, the National Democratic Front (NDF) made a comprehensive analysis on the new situation in the Philippines. The new government was viewed as a fragile coalition of the right and bourgeoise liberals. However, the Aquino government has a broader power base than the Marcos regime. As such, it adopted a critical collaboration stance with the present government fielding some of its members to fill some some post in government. With this style they could penetrate the bureaucracy while waiting for the Aquino government to weaken so the NDF goal can be fulfilled.

In summary, senatorial candidates who trace their political roots to communism seem to have a talent for metamorphosis to suit the most current political landscape. Some remain true to these roots and present themselves for who they really are in their campaigns. Others simply sell out to the Establishment and jump into bed with the mainstream hands outstretched ready to embrace whatever sort of label and branding it will take to win. To be fair, with the enormous sums of money involved in political campaign, it will really be always all about winnability — even for ex-commies.

[Photo courtesy Yahoo! OMG!.]

65 Replies to “Risa Hontiveros: How can one be a communist and a Catholic at the same time?”

  1. Ultimately, one cannot reconcile the two.

    Communist governments have treated religion in general and Catholicism in particular as a subversive force (cf. Red China). One (nominally, at any rate) communist state has managed to successfully co-opt religion to its own ends.

    The pontificate of Bl. John Paul the Great, on the other hand, saw the reunification of Germany, the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, and the dissolution of the Soviet Union; in other words, John Paul II saw the end of the Cold War.

  2. magagalit sa iyo ang NDF at ang Communist Party of the Philippines for calling Risa a communist. In fact, if u r a real netizen makikita mo kung paano balahurain ng kabataan, Piston,anak Pawis, Gabriela, Buhay Muna, Kalikasan, Kilusang Mayo Uno, Akap Bata, na mga “CPP” friendly si Risa sa twitter at ilang facebook page.

    In fact, just this morning, Risa filed a case before the DOJ against NPA election atrocities.

    I think this piece is full of inconsistencies and false assumptions. Kumbaga, wala ng isip-isip. Makabanat lang.

    And one more thing, salamat sa pagsusulat regarding Risa, remember, black or white propaganda is still propaganda.

    1. Cite specific examples of the “inconsistencies and false assumptions” that you claim exist in the article plez and articulate in precise terms why you think they are such. Thank you.

      1. I got one.

        Akbayan had already severed ties with the NDF a long time ago when they rejected the armed struggle, and has been condemning NPA atrocities. Heck, the MAKABAYAN bloc had already branded them as turncoats, reactionaries, social-democrats (LOL), and Aquino puppets (started way back around 2010, think). The last one they still yet to fix, unfortunately.

        So it’s wrong to immediately assume Risa Hontiveros (and Akbayan in general) to (still) be in cohorts with the communists just because of it’s roots.

        And to quote a respectable guy from a forum I always visit, “There are different shades of red… The leftists are not a single monolithic block.”

  3. I can name Fr. Conrado Balweg back in the day. However, it would seem he left the priesthood. I also agree that reconciling being Catholic with a pro-RH candidate is very difficult.

    1. A doctor friend of mine, a devout Catholic, expressed to me that the opposition he has towards the RH Bill stems from the leeway it allows in the use of abortifacients. Technically illegal under our constitution. The rest of the law he finds sound. The problem he feels lies with both sides’ all-or-nothing approach to the law’s language and implementation as well as the polarized advocacy for and against it.

      At any rate the RH Bill seems to be a moot point. It’s in limbo now. That suggests it was never taken seriously by Malacañang except as a chip to be used in political one-upmanship.

  4. risa hontiveros has shown she has little conviction and a desperation that makes her not only a red under the bed, but also in the bed if it helps her.

    1. Oh, PLEASE is this really necessary? This is unconscionable “…a red under the bed, but also in the bed if it helps her…” What is your problem? The woman seems to be a real champion of the people and what’s wrong with that? You sound like a DAMASO! Someone who want to do good for people is NOT NECESSARILY A COMMUNIST. GET REAL!

    2. Oh, PLEASE is this really necessary? This is unconscionable “…a red under the bed, but also in the bed if it helps her…” What is your problem? The woman seems to be a real champion of the people and what’s wrong with that? You sound like a DAMASO! Someone who want to do good for people is NOT NECESSARILY A COMMUNIST. And if one is a Communist, who cares? GET REAL!

      1. “What is wrong with being a communist”
        According to kim jong un, nothing.

        A communist is someone who wants to do good but only for themselves and on any hypocritical platform.

        Champagne socialists and caviar communists simply prefer to steal other peoples money than work for it.

        Risa hontiveros destroyed any pretence she may have had to principles or morals.

        1. the second paragraph is false.

          a true communist, in the simplest terms possible, is a person interested in the common good of his/her people. Castro, in Cuba, might be the closest thing to the real thing available on the planet today. the late Chavez being another, but he is dead and doesn’t count for much right now.

          The root word, commune or community, is easily understandable and defined:

          ‘an intentional community of people living together, sharing common interests, property, possesions, resources…’.

          Did someone tell you that definition? or you just make it up yourself?

        2. millionaire castro is a true communist – and a disaster for cuba.
          go there as i do and you can see the truth.

        3. I’ll pass. No desire to go to Cuba. it can’t be much worse than Manila, Cebu, CDO…from what I’ve seen.

      2. History has shown that one who exalts Communist ideals actually cares little for human rights and welfare.

        To say that Communism in the Philippines would be “different” (as Pinoy Communists espouse) from previous incarnations are deluding themselves, especially in a country where the past is often forgotten or buried under revisionist history.

  5. I’m so far out from the topic but I think there’s such a thing as Christian communism? Not sure though, it’s been ages since I’ve last read something about it.

    1. To date, there are 50 million Christians in mainland China from only 10 million in 2010. Brazil has only 40 million. In 2030 China will have 100 million Christians. The U.S. Christians are dwindling. No prayer in public places. So which is the godless ideology in reality?

  6. Communist llama walks into his bedroom with a sheep under
    his arm and says:
    – Darling, this is the pig I have sex with when you have a headache.
    His girlfriend chrisa is lying in bed and replies:
    – I think you’ll find that’s a sheep, you idiot.
    – I think you’ll find I wasn’t talking to you.

  7. Read: Tolosa, B. (ed.) (2011) Socdem: Filipino Social Democracy in a Time of Turmoil and Transition, 1965-1995.(Pasig: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung), pp. 85 and 90-91.

    Risa’s origins are not from communism, but Filipino and Christian social democracy/democratic socialism.

  8. Why not? Christ was a communist. After u get over the initial perceived sleight and read some passages attributtable Christ (“Whatso ever you do to the least of my bretheren”…). True communism has maybe only existed twice, the Indians of the America’s before the white-man and Christ. Communism remains a very misunderstood ideology.

    1. Wrong. Christ was never a communist. He admonished helping the poor and needy. Not violence to forcefully take from the rich and give to the poor.

  9. “True communism has maybe only existed twice, the Indians of the America’s before the white-man and Christ. Communism remains a very misunderstood ideology.”

    This is a misrepresentation of what Karl Marx actually articulated in his theory of historical materialism. Marx’s theory postulates the evolution of society from a “primitive communism” through capitalism and socialism to the final stage which he termed stateless or “pure” communism. It is this final stage that Marx and Engels considered as the ideal that societies would eventually achieve and it is towards this goal that Marxists strive.

    According to Scott and Marshall in the “Dictionary of Sociology” (2007), “primitive communism” was practiced in past hunter-gatherer societies and some subsistence agriculture communities. All able bodied persons would have engaged in obtaining food, and everyone would share in what was produced by hunting and gathering. There would be almost no private property, other than articles of clothing and similar personal items, because primitive society produced no surplus; what was produced was quickly consumed. The few things that existed for any length of time (tools, housing) were held communally. There would have been no state.

    Contrary to the quote above, in Marx’s model of socioeconomic structures, American Indian communities SHARED the key features of the communism proper. IT WAS NOT COMMUNISM AS DEFINED BY MARX AND ENGELS. They considered it as only the first of five successive stages of the development of the conditions of historical materialism in Western Europe. In fact, Marx DOES NOT give any particular attention to primitive communism, since by his time it had long come to pass, supplanted by other historical epochs.

    The misunderstanding here is the assumption that hunter-gatherers and subsistence farmers were aware of the concepts of communism as envisioned by Marx and Engels.

    1. I think the concept here is that what Communists believe is that everyone is inherently a Communist (with varying degrees). The problem of course is that in Marx’s view there is no such thing as individualism and identity.

      1. MidwayHeaven,

        There is a considerable variety of views among self-identified communists, including Maoism, Trotskyism, etc. and various currents of leftist ideology. However, the primary driving force for communism in world politics and as a socioeconomic structure during most of the 20th century are the Soviet and Maoist forms of Marxism-Leninism.

        A lot of so-called “liberals” and “progressives” may flirt with leftist ideas but Marx and Engels were very clear with what they meant when they published the Communist Manifesto and their works on historical materialism. For them it IS all or nothing. No varying degrees.

        1. That’s why Communism will never work. If those who claim to be Communists can’t even get their ideologies together to implement their unified Utopia, then they really won’t go anywhere.

    2. I am not talking about Karl Marx or Marism, OK? SO BUTT THE FUCK OUT and bark at someone else’s comment’s as I am fuckin sick of you. Communism, not MARXISM you fuckin douchbag!

      1. Do you even know what you just posted? Communism not Marxism? Go back and read the post. It explains in clear language what Marx thought about primitive communism in early American Indian societies. Are you saying Marx and Engels didn’t say those things? Or that they didn’t come up with the ideology of communism?

        1. OMG, Your logic is akin to me reciting the words to the Gettysburg address and attributting the speech’s origin to myself!Just because I said it, HOLY SHIT!!!!

          Really, STOP, or hey, keep going. its actually an even bigger laugh to read some of the brainless shit you come out with. Seriously, that is the funniest shit yet comin outta that big-mouth of yours.YOU Sonny, should be a comedian.

          You did get the answer to the question correct, but I am not impressed, it was an ez one. There may be some hope for you. BUT probably not!

      2. Communists will be the first to admit that pure or stateless communism has NEVER been implemented.

  10. “Christ was a communist.”

    Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Just look at the ideas of Marxism and Communism. In simple terms, Marxism is a philosophy and communism is the ideal state achieved when Marxism is lived out. A Marxist is a person who embraces the philosophy of Karl Marx; a Communist is a person who applies Marx’s ideas to the government and the economy. More formally, Communism is a purely materialistic, political ideology that seeks to establish a future without social class or formalized state structure, and with social organization based upon common ownership of the means of production. It has no room for religion.

    While Karl Marx’s initial position regarding religion was one of ambivalence, in the end he rejected it. Marx said “Religion is the opium of the people”. He also stated: “Communism begins from the outset with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction.”

    In later interpretations of Marxist theory, developed primarily by Russian revolutionary Vladimir Lenin, religion is seen as having a damaging effect on human development; socialist states that follow a Marxist-Leninist variant are atheistic and explicitly anti-religious. Lenin wrote regarding atheism and communism: “A Marxist must be a materialist, i.e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i.e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could.”

    Being both a political AND a religious figure, it is unlikely that Communist ideology could ever be reconciled with Christ. Again, this is a misunderstanding of the nature of Communism.

    It may be argued that communists SHARE goals similar to those of Judeo-Christian philosophy, such as egalitarianism. Also, as a political goal, communism’s future Utopian social organization has NEVER BEEN IMPLEMENTED. Much in the same way that Christians are still waiting for the “Kingdom of God.” But that is as far as it goes.

    From the start, the religious nature of Christ’s ministry, however, would have prompted atheistic militantly anti-religious Marxist-Leninists to execute him. And any followers who may be seen as representing an ideal antithetical to the communist state. The idea that implementing communism necessitates mass murder is also contrary to the Christian teaching of inclusiveness that allowed not only Jews but also Gentiles to become followers of Jesus.

    Christ a communist? The two are UTTERLY INCOMPATIBLE.

    1. yeah, OK!!!! according to Johnny Saint who has the be all , end all say in the matter.NOT!!!! Get a clue on this one on ur own there, Sonny as I won’t be explaining anything to you again.

      1. I do have one question for the guy who thinks he knows things: JOHN-boy, can you tell us the EXACT mechanism involved on WALL ST. right now that has destroyed ‘free-market’ economics as it pertains to price discovery?????

        Lets see what ya got there smart-ass!(it is not too tough a question and I will not be impressed if you actually know the answer).

        1. I assume you’re hinting at electronic high frequency trading. It’s the only significant new practice that has been criticized for creating excessive volatility in the market as well as interfering with normal price discovery mechanisms. I understand several European countries want to ban it as it is projected to cause new risks in the financial system.

          This is really off tangent. I thought you insist on sticking to the topic of the discussion. Need help with your homework I suppose? Needn’t be so dramatic when you ask your questions.

        2. still tellin people what to do, huh? Yeah, I’ll get right on it….u jack-ass!

          as far as stickin to the topic, why not learn to have some fun , if not with me, with someone else? Kork, I’d hate to be you!. stick and move, bob and weave!
          shit, shove a cand…..I don’t care!

        3. Apparently you do care. You’re always bothered by anything you perceive as a negative comment about you.

          For someone who has no time to answer, you certainly have a lot to say about how much you don’t care.

        4. @Gerry: Since you “don’t care”, then I suppose you’re not gonna mind if I permanently ban you from commenting here for repeated violations of our Terms of Service. So go ahead and continue this style of commenting to make it easy for me.

  11. “Risa Hontiveros: How can one be a communist and a Catholic at the same time?”

    You can’t. Risa Hontiveros is just pretending to be from the ‘Moderate Left’. In fact,there is no such thing as the Moderate Left in today’s Philippine society. Akbayan is as yellow as Noynoy’s Liberal Party and his pee-pee underwear. That’s why the true Left (Makabayan, Bayan Muna, Anakbayan, Kabataan, etc.) are pissed off at how Hontiveros and Akbayan style themselves as being part of the left when in fact, they’re just lap dogs of Noynoy. It needn’t be mentioned how many from Akbayan hold positions in government today.

    I’d rather vote for the true reds than these ‘cheesedogs’ (red on the outside, yellow on the inside). Akbayan is a sham. It should’ve been disqualified as a party list from the get-go. We should stop being allergic to communism by placing all of them in one bag under one label. Learn to differentiate those who are pretending to those who are truly fighting for something.

    Anyway, communism can never be truly attained and the path to it has been proven a failure. But you know what else is more of a failure? Our country and it’s phobia of the Left. Let’s keep voting the same old garbage trapos and Rightist pigs in office and see what all new lows we’ll achieve.

    At least the Left will shake things up a bit and if we’re lucky we might even have a bloody revolution to purge the country of the old ways – starting with the president.

    1. For starters, Hontiveros and her Akbayan pals are Social Democrats (sort of like the Center Left of many European political parties).

      Although I’m a bit confused by your words: by “bloody revolution,” you mean something similar to Mao’s “Cultural Revolution”?

      1. I find it funny that on Labor Day, Risa Hontiveros and Akbayan carried around banners proclaiming their party to be the ‘Democratic Left Party.” That’s the first time I saw a supposedly left party labeling themselves to be as such in a rally. Shouldn’t it be the government and media’s role to label them so? Sobrang pinipilit nilang Kaliwa daw sila, it’s pathetic.

        There are many intellectual individuals here at GRP and that’s one of the reasons why I frequently visit this site. However, many of them don’t differentiate those who are truly Left from the Pretenders. Granted, the Left has their own set of problems, but I’d rather vote for them than what we currently have.

        Yes, I meant something similar to the Cultural Revolution in PRC. The country needs to rid itself of these trapos, dynasties and corrupt officials. And if that fails, at the very least, the Philippines will have less idiots around (which is composed of the dumbed down masses).

        1. Will there be room in the future Philippine Cultural Revolution for me to have property rights?

        2. ‘Will there be room in the future Philippine Cultural Revolution for me to have property rights?’

          It’s hard to say. Could be. But if it happened in China, why can’t it happen in the Philippines?

          Anyway, there won’t be a Philippine Cultural Revolution because, 1. Filipinos are too dumb to engage in a real revolution and 2. Filipinos are too scared to ‘take up the gun.’

          Majority of my countrymen will forever be enveloped in economic mediocrity and political partisanship unless something drastic happens like a…(*insert future scenario here*)

  12. Politicians are like the animals that change their colors to blend with their environment. The late Lenin of Russia and Mao Tse Tung of China, called their communist government :”Democratic”. Adolf Hitler of Nazi Germany also called his government: “Socialist”.
    If you read the Christian Bible’s ,” Acts of the Apostles”. You’ll find that the first Christian were living like the communists. They shared each other’s basic neccessities.
    Aquino is a Haciendero. Yet, he identifies himself with the poor. A man who never knew how to be a poor person. Erap Estrada, the Jueteng King; has been successful in identifying himself with the poor. By distributing: sardines, rice, tuyo, etc., to the Squatters…

    1. YOU ARE CORRECT SIR!!! Christ lived like a communist.as did the American Indians of the middle ages up till the time the Europeans decided to rob and kill them all.

      Please point that out to the guy who calls himself “Saint”, he is in need of an education and I do not have the time.

    2. The comment says “Christian(s) were living like the communists.”

      Never disputed that, Gerry. I stated that earlier societies SHARED FEATURES of the socio-political ideology Marx and Engels formulated called Communism. Marx and Engels themselves pointed this fact out in their writings. You are the one lying and insisting that I did. And now you are lying about what you originally said.

      The operative word here is “LIKE.” VERY DIFFERENT from YOUR ORIGINAL STATEMENT that says “Christ was a communist” and “True communism has maybe only existed twice, the Indians of the America’s before the white-man and Christ,” a notion that Marx and Engels DISAGREED with.

      1. Mr. Saint, this one time, just for you, I will direct you to a few of the places where what I stated about the conspiracy to which I refferred can be found.

        “The Father of Reaganomics” Dr. Paul Craig Roberts…google his name. Reagans right hand Man, if you care to tell him he is ‘fantasizing’, he will just feel sorry for you.

        Another place you might look is RTTV.RU, the op-ed pages would be a good place to start.

        The current installment of “The Keiser Report” , episode 438.
        boombustblog.com by Reginald Miller, and a host of other places that do not report what the likes of ABS-CBN, Fox(faux) News and the rest of the mainstream media lie about constantly.

        As I said, it is not my job to enlighten you OR anyone else and I am genuinely surprised that the comments I made are so completely alien to you and that you do not already know these things as they are certainly true, backed up by facts and readily available for anyone who cares to look for them.

        I must also add the I really and truly do not care what your name is. You are a commenter on an internet web-site blog forum, just like 3 Billion other people whose names I do not care about either.

        1. And yet again you are bringing up another issue quite different from your original post. Stick to one thing at a time please. The comment I made was to point out that your statement about communism was erroneous as articulated by the original creators of the ideology, Marx and Engels. Now you go back to your world banking conspiracy as conceived by a Hollywood talk show host whose overriding objective is to boost the price of silver for his business by compromising the existing financial system.

          Incidentally, if you aren’t in the business of “enlightening” people, WHY post comments at all? So you can hear yourself talk? So you can have anonymous netizens swallow what you’re shoveling?

          Seems to me the only arrogance here is yours if you expect everyone who reads you to accept your posts as gospel truth because you repeat whatever Max Keiser says. Your behaviour is petulant and childish every time you throw a tantrum when other people post arguments you think remotely challenge your position.

          This will probably be lost on you because, as you said, you don’t care.

        2. No, not even close. Keiser is not where the facts come from. Be a good place to get up to speed as you are oh-so uninformed. You conveniently leave out what Dr. Roberts has stated, HUH?
          Calling me a paranoid liar who fantasizes is what I do not like about your arrogant ass. Especially after I sourced what I stated, you have some nerve buddy. Call me arrogant?
          Look dip-shit,you know not-much and I look at where it comes from, a dip-shit idiot who knows nothing soooo.
          If you can’t have a conversation w/out insulting me, YOU should be banned. ‘Flip’ the script and call me arrogant…ur just TYPICAL.
          MUCK SHOO!!!!!

      2. The invention of money, as “coin”, made people hoard riches. So, it was the begining of too much Greed…One person can hoard billions of coins or paper money. While other people have none. In our country; the owning of too much land; which they cannot till. Produced these Hacienderos, like the Aquinos and the Cojuangcos, and othewr political leaders. Politrical family dynaties are greed , itself…

  13. She is a social democrat, and as someone who adheres to certain fundamental principles of social democracy — reconciling basic political rights and civil liberties with tolerance, social equity, and poverty-alleviation — towards establishing a middle-class, productive, and truly democratic society (i.e., Germany, Sweden, and Nordic nations, NOT STALINIST-MAOIST states), I do not see any problem between social (and class) consciousness, on one hand, and piety, on the other. Akbayan is not a monolithic movements, and clearly within there are many strands of thinking.

    1. Agreed. The thing to do then is for them to take the bull by the horns and address their shared historical roots with the CCP-NPA and make categorical clarifications about it. The CCP-NPA is quite clear about what it stands for and, as such, one is either with them or against them. Risa Hontiveros should address that point blank rather than simply gloss over it and hope everyone simply looks the other way on cue.

  14. You guys make it seem like Atheist are bad people. Just because we Atheist don’t believe in your god doesn’t mean we’re all bad. In your bible, your god said that he’s the only one who can judge people yet you ignore your god and do bad things. You Christians are so hypocrite.

    1. I agree 100%! I am a catholic and most of them are the first to commit sin. Sometimes, I am beginning to wonder if God is real. I have been a good person but He never answers my prayers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.