http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2014/05/13/1322606/lacson-identifies-5-officials-napoles-luy-lists

http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2013/09/05/1175631/miriam-only-taxpayers-should-be-allowed-vote

For the most part, student orgs are independent and they are not endorsed by the university outside of registration.

How about: you're a vegetarian in a school whose charter prohibits the distribution of meat by the school, then an administrator starts handing out hamburgers to students.

You seem to have glossed over this tiny little detail where the government institution (OSA) was doing the evangelizing. Nobody is denying Christians the opportunity to evangelize. They're perfectly free to do so. The government cannot evangelize; it isn't even Christian. The government works for all Filipinos, not just for your club.

If it needs to be explicit, the context of "hurt" implied physical injury not emotional offense, which is already undisputed given the facts of the case.

That gets right to the heart of my piece. Certain feelings are privileged, religious feelings, over non-religious feelings. LGBT-ness is not a religious identity, but the LGBT do have feelings and they do have their activities intruded upon by people intending to offend. They have no special protection, unlike the religious.

Where in your citation does it say that "life begins at fertilization"?

It says "a new genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed." This in no way implies that this "genetically distinct human organism" was not composed of living material before (which is the topic of this piece). And even then, what is before what? Fertilization is a series of several steps. It is not instantaneous. There is no distinct moment of fertilization. Even your citation agrees that "fertilization is the procession of events."

To completely belabor the point, even "genetically distinct human organism" does not connote personhood. Two persons could be genetically indistinct (twins) and still be separate people. One person could be the amalgam of "genetically distinct" material (chimera) and still be one person.

My piece argues that "Whatever the first replicating unit was, we know that 3.5 billion years ago was the beginning of life… and life hasn’t stopped since." That's when life began.

If you want to argue instead that moral significance begins at fertilization, then be my guest. But, don't pretend that it's a scientific argument.

Human reason is finite, and then you, a human being (I presume), go on to make claims that, by your own concession, are beyond your own reason.

The funny thing about people arguing to put the Bible's hateful passages into context is that they concede that God himself is context-bound, as if his own morals were dependent on human culture. If slavery has always been wrong, God could have said so. But, no, he made humans decide for themselves that it was wrong centuries after he was supposedly in direct and visible contact with human beings.

Christianity claims moral superiority and absolute moral knowledge, but when it's challenged for its lack of foresight, Christians retreat to the "everyone else was doing it at the time" defense. Sorry, for people who claim to be speaking for a god, that doesn't fly.

You challenge my comprehension of "a masterpiece from God" and exhort me to humility but it is not I who make knowledge claims about what this "masterpiece" looks like, it is you who seems to be able to fathom what you yourself say is not fathomable.

I don't claim to comprehend this "masterpiece from God." I deny that this "morass" is a masterpiece at all.

Your argument boils down to, "you don't know, therefore I am right." That's not how rational discourse works. But, if you'd rather not play on that "platform," then there is little else to discuss.

They were from 2009. https://twitter.com/Abi_Valte/status/234516246421...

No. Read: http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2012/07/09/are-we...