L
Londoner
Guest
You need to put this in the context of everything else we hear about him. The extrajudicial killings, that rape joke. The media can’t be making it all up.
- Status
L
Londoner
Guest
I don’t think any country benefits from a government that rules through violence and has no regard for the rule of law. Look at Ellen Johnson Sirleaf in Liberia. Proof that good governance works. Unless you think Samuel Doe and Charles Taylor did a better job.
B
BarreandBark
Guest
There’s some truth to it, perhaps, but a lot if the good he had done is not being published by media since most of them are funded by the oligarchs who’ve been running the country for the past god knows how many years. Now that their footholds are shaken, they’re panicking and using all their might and power to bring this guy down. The people from the town he has was in LOVE him because he’s transformed the city. People who are tired of the oligarchy’s reign and their corruption and frankly he’s a breath of fresh air to them. They’re being given a voice and a chance.
The previous administrations have been glamorized if not, unrightly “canonized” by the media. They are portrayed as saints, saviours - name it. But in truth, they are just as ridden by “evil” as Duterte. They just have really good PR.
I grew up in the Philippines - went to private schools where the families of the oligarchs and the elite went. I didn’t realize how skewed everything was until I left the Philippines and experienced “real life”. Philippines is ridden with a hypocritical, social disease and I will say it again, Filipinos need a president who is not afraid to go against the tides to serve his people, not just the 1%
For the record, I’m not Duterte’s biggest fan. I think he’s made some slip ups here and there - - but based on what I know of the Filipino culture (while we are very submissive and obedient to the law OUTSIDE the Philippines, Filipinos tend to not give a effen Sh!t when in their own town country - ZERO discipline) and the palpable changes in the governance noted by the people who still live there), I think he ought to be given a chance. Maybe in time, Philippines can have a more “dignified” and “mild manner” and “conventional” president, but for now, Mr. or Ms. Londoner, Filipinos need an iron fist.
The previous administrations have been glamorized if not, unrightly “canonized” by the media. They are portrayed as saints, saviours - name it. But in truth, they are just as ridden by “evil” as Duterte. They just have really good PR.
I grew up in the Philippines - went to private schools where the families of the oligarchs and the elite went. I didn’t realize how skewed everything was until I left the Philippines and experienced “real life”. Philippines is ridden with a hypocritical, social disease and I will say it again, Filipinos need a president who is not afraid to go against the tides to serve his people, not just the 1%
For the record, I’m not Duterte’s biggest fan. I think he’s made some slip ups here and there - - but based on what I know of the Filipino culture (while we are very submissive and obedient to the law OUTSIDE the Philippines, Filipinos tend to not give a effen Sh!t when in their own town country - ZERO discipline) and the palpable changes in the governance noted by the people who still live there), I think he ought to be given a chance. Maybe in time, Philippines can have a more “dignified” and “mild manner” and “conventional” president, but for now, Mr. or Ms. Londoner, Filipinos need an iron fist.
Last edited:
A
Arkansan
Guest
What was true historically is true today. Then-Cardinal Ratzinger said that support for the death penalty is licit, when he was head of the CDF.
Britain isn’t a judicial tyranny like America, so you may not be familiar with the situation. Whereas British courts only interpret Acts of Parliament, which are sovereign, the pretense here is that Supreme Court rulings are interpretations of the Constitution, which means that they can’t be overturned by any other part of the government. In practice, the Supreme Court uses this power to do whatever it pleases (the decisions on abortion and gay marriage, or for that matter restricting the death penalty to murder and crimes against the state, are key examples of this, there is nothing whatsoever to indicate that the writers of the Constitution ever even thought those policies were mandated by it).
Last edited:
L
Londoner
Guest
Yes, I agree that support for the death penalty is licit. Where I don’t agree is that the Church allows for support for the death penalty in most circumstances. The Catechism and Evangelium Vitae make it clear that we are called to move towards a situation in which the death penalty is in effect not used. It seems to be the Church’s clear teaching that wherever possible imprisonment should be used instead of the death penalty, to the extent that the death penalty seems only to be licit in circumstances in which imprisonment is not possible. I appreciate that some Catholics seem to be oddly attached to the death penalty, but it seems obvious to me that they are very much out of step with the Catechism, the teaching of the late Pope St John Paul II, and the bishops.
M
mrsdizzyd
Guest
The ends do not justify the means. While it is desirable to have a country free of the clutches of drug cartels and drug addicts, it is not ok to kill people without due process.
A
Augustinian
Guest
Here in the United States, back in the 1860’s, the Federal Government went to war against the slave owners. The men who were killed at Gettysburg and elsewhere weren’t given a lot of due process either.
If the Philippines is involved in a civil war type situation, like America was during a previous era, its can be understandable.
E
Entwhistler
Guest
Not to mention thousands of other people who didn’t own slaves.
A
Arkansan
Guest
“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty” - Cardinal Ratzinger, written in the context of the 2004 US Presidential electionArkansan:
Yes, I agree that support for the death penalty is licit. Where I don’t agree is that the Church allows for support for the death penalty in most circumstances.
C
coop_veritatis
Guest
Be careful about believing hook line and sinker those sweeping statements from dallas_r. I don’t wanna be uncharitable here but I just want to set a few things straight.
One, Duterte may be from the backwoods but he’s definitely part of the ruling elite. His family’s claim to power began in 1986, after the revolutionary government installed his father in power in their region. They’ve had a grip on it ever since. (Her daughter is now in charge).
Secondly, dallas_r’s comments make our President look like a Saint. He is far from it. He promoted polticians who were accused of corruption despite promising to root them out. (Two Customs officials accused in a plunder case were recently appointed to a new post despite being kicked out of government months ago). The fighter of corruption “bato” released several memoranda making it harder to investigate erring policemen, and literally tried to refuse the Supreme Court’s order to produce data on the suspected illegal killings in police operations.
Simply put, the President, despite “good intentions” (every politician will claim to have this) does not always act in the spirit of that good intention. I can see dallas_r claims to be based in the US unlike myself who lives with this reality everyday.
On the point of this thread, his morality. I don’t think he can be placed on either side of the fence, since morality doesn’t seem to be of concern to him. Like every politician out there, he is more concerned with convenience. The Speaker of the House is promoting divorce, while Duterte shot it down. He is however, perfectly okay with the Death Penalty despite John Paul II’s wish that it be abolished (as well as treaty obligations such as the ICCPR and ICESCR preventing it).
As for his mouth, good intentions does not excuse the immorality of cursing left and right at individuals. I don’t think a joke justifies publilcly ridiculing the private sexual affairs of a senator despite the same senator being on trial for drug trafficking (the background of which demands an entirely different discussion).
My opinion on him is, he’s just like any other politician. Except that he’s brilliant at making his supporters believe otherwise. And by virtue of that, he is immoral.
One, Duterte may be from the backwoods but he’s definitely part of the ruling elite. His family’s claim to power began in 1986, after the revolutionary government installed his father in power in their region. They’ve had a grip on it ever since. (Her daughter is now in charge).
Secondly, dallas_r’s comments make our President look like a Saint. He is far from it. He promoted polticians who were accused of corruption despite promising to root them out. (Two Customs officials accused in a plunder case were recently appointed to a new post despite being kicked out of government months ago). The fighter of corruption “bato” released several memoranda making it harder to investigate erring policemen, and literally tried to refuse the Supreme Court’s order to produce data on the suspected illegal killings in police operations.
Simply put, the President, despite “good intentions” (every politician will claim to have this) does not always act in the spirit of that good intention. I can see dallas_r claims to be based in the US unlike myself who lives with this reality everyday.
On the point of this thread, his morality. I don’t think he can be placed on either side of the fence, since morality doesn’t seem to be of concern to him. Like every politician out there, he is more concerned with convenience. The Speaker of the House is promoting divorce, while Duterte shot it down. He is however, perfectly okay with the Death Penalty despite John Paul II’s wish that it be abolished (as well as treaty obligations such as the ICCPR and ICESCR preventing it).
As for his mouth, good intentions does not excuse the immorality of cursing left and right at individuals. I don’t think a joke justifies publilcly ridiculing the private sexual affairs of a senator despite the same senator being on trial for drug trafficking (the background of which demands an entirely different discussion).
My opinion on him is, he’s just like any other politician. Except that he’s brilliant at making his supporters believe otherwise. And by virtue of that, he is immoral.
M
mrsdizzyd
Guest
Except that the rebellious states tried to leave the union and the federal government in turn asserted its authority over its land.
Not analogous situations.
Not analogous situations.
L
Londoner
Guest
Yes, I do understand that it remains permissible for a Catholic to support the death penalty; it is not expressly forbidden. What I do not understand is why a Catholic would want to support the death penalty. And, indeed, not only advocate for its retention, but actually advocate for more widespread use of the death penalty, including for non-homicide crimes. While this position is not strictly illicit, it is clearly contrary to the spirit of both the Catechism and Evangelium Vitae. Furthermore, I do not understand why a Catholic would want to state his opposition to a position that has been clearly and repeatedly articulated by Popes St John XXIII, Blessed Paul VI, St John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is also strongly opposed to the death penalty. Worldwide, the only countries with a majority Catholic population that retain the death penalty are Cuba (an officially secular communist state with only about 3% of the population actually practising Catholics), Equatorial Guinea (a totalitarian dictatorship), Dominica (which has not actually carried out an execution since 1986), and St Lucia (no executions since 1995). So I do understand that you are permitted to support the death penalty; it just seems perverse for a Catholic to do so.
C
CTBcin
Guest
Hmm… sounds uncannily similar to an American politician I know of.
D
dallas_r
Guest
I’m saying he’s the best we got. I’ve had enough of Aquino the III’s lazy bottom taking office and doing nothing but blow Filipino’s hard earned money and literally do nothing. Can we agree that is what he did?
Of course, after all, we agree he isn’t a saint. I can’t think of a current president that is saint worthy.
Ah yes. “I don’t care if I go to hell as long as the people I serve will live in paradise”.
The majority of Catholics who bash Duterte for having a mouth should get on Trump for his early morning tweet storms.
Facts speak louder than words my friend. Again, he has done what no president has done in over a decade. It’s really that simple. As a Filipino, (you look Filipino too), I want someone who will make the Philippines great again, clean the streets, take care of the military, slaughter the Abu Sayyaf and guerilla warriors, and most importantly, take care of the people. He has done all of that in his term. **Made Davao safest city, must be doing something right.**Compare that to Noy-Noy. I respect your opinions and hope we can engage in a nice debate here. Just to lighten things up, here’s a funny meme of him.
A
Arkansan
Guest
I support the death penalty because I believe that it is beneficial to the common good. The death penalty provides a better deterrent than life imprisonment for organized crime, and gives societal expression to the gravity of the crimes which it is used for.Arkansan:
Yes, I do understand that it remains permissible for a Catholic to support the death penalty; it is not expressly forbidden. What I do not understand is why a Catholic would want to support the death penalty. And, indeed, not only advocate for its retention, but actually advocate for more widespread use of the death penalty, including for non-homicide crimes.
B
BarreandBark
Guest
Aquino family is “saintly”…Or so they claim! They should be placed back in power since they did such a great job. 
D
dallas_r
Guest
Yup, put them back in office! (Kidding haha)Aquino family is “saintly”…Or so they claim! They should be placed back in power since they did such a great job.
T
thistle
Guest
I am British and I’m a permanent resident of the Philippines (already for a long long time). I agree with everything you have said. People outside the country seem too eager to believe the lies spread by de Lima (currently held on drug related charges) and Trillanes (who was already jailed for leading an attempted coup in 2007). These are the ones who want to destroy the country. Duterte is a bit rough and ready in the way he talks but he is the one the country has waited a long time for. He is coming up for two years as President and his approval rating is still around 80%. That shows what the masses of the population think about him and what he has done for the country.
Everyone I have spoken to to feels it is now much safer to walk the streets.
M
masuwerte1
Guest
The Philippine Independent Church has been an outspoken critic of the culture of extrajudicial killings. Their website is worth a look: www.ifi.ph
T
thistle
Guest
So what??
There are no such things as extrajudicial killings.
Judicial killing would be a convicted criminal getting the death penalty but there is no death penalty currently.
Any other criminal killing would simply be murder.
Extrajudicial killing is the emotive expression used by de Lima and Trillanes to stir up trouble.
What the President has said on many occasions is that suspects should be arrested but only if a suspect violently resists arrest and the officers lives are threatened then they may use deadly force. This is exactly the same as the US and other countries.
People outside the Philippines should not let themselves be deceived by troublemaking opposition who do this because they fear investigation into their corrupt actions.
As I said filipinos feel safer since Duterte’s actions to stop the drug trade. Since the crackdown the number of murders and rapes has decreased because many of these are drug related.
Duterte still has an extremely high approval rating in the country (around 80%). That speaks for itself. The masses are behind Duterte and want him to continue to clean up the drug trade and corruption in the country.
- Status