UNDERSTANDING ATHEISM: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BELIEFS AND

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT

A Thesis Presented to
The Faculty of the Political Science
Institute of Arts and Sciences
Far Eastern University

In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Course
PS 162
Research Output




Submitted by:

Barlongay, Vince Zyrence T.
Fajardo, Kazzle C.
Ines, Antonio Jr. B.
Lazaro, Michael A.
Padua, Pat Anthony M.
Pineda, John Patrick
Sangcap, Aily Damaris S.

April 2017
 ii

APPROVAL SHEET

This Undergraduate Thesis entitled:

UNDERSTANDING ATHEISM: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BELIEFS

AND POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT

prepared and submitted by Barlongay, Vince Zyrence T., Fajardo,

Kazzle C., Ines, Antonio B., Lazaro, Michael A., Padua, Pat
Anthony M., Pineda, John Patrick M., and Sangcap, Aily Damaris
S. has been approved and accepted as partial fulfillment of the
requirements for PS 162- Research Output.

Professor Mark Salvador Ysla, M.A.

Adviser

PANEL OF EXAMINERS
Approved by the Committee on Oral Examination on
APRIL 21, 2017

Professor Odranreb E. Guillermo, M.A.

Chairman

Professor Rishirl Aberto-Cuario, M.A Professor Salome Lewis, M.A.

Member Member

 iii

ENGLISH EDITING
CERTIFICATION FORM

This is to certify that I have edited this undergraduate thesis entitled

UNDERSTANDING ATHEISM: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

BELIEFS AND POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT

and found it thorough and acceptable with respect to

Grammar and Composition

____________________________

(Signature over printed name)

____________________________

(Date)

 iv

ABSTRACT

The Philippines, as a predominantly Christian country, is a landmark of how

religion has played an important role in the lives of the people, especially its
influential stance on the different socio-political issues of the country; hence, having
an effect on how the religiously affiliated view and conduct themselves in the society
and in politics. The upsurge of atheism, with the establishment of several renowned
atheist groups in the country in the 21st century paved the way to a perspective
which dissents how the majority thinks: politics and a way of living that is not tainted
by religion.
Also, the biggest controversies the country is facing when the new
administration takes initiatives on a number of socio-political issues bathed with
morality is particular happenstance that prompted the researchers to explore the
political engagements of atheists by first looking into their perceptions on certain
socio-political issues and then their manifestation towards it. With the help of the
different atheist groups present in Metro Manila and on Facebook, the researchers
were able to determine that there is a significant relationship when it comes to
atheists’ beliefs and their perception due to their “politically engaged identity” by
employing a mixed type of methodology or by combining both qualitative and
quantitative methods. It is quite noting that the researchers have found out that
atheists are concerned with politics, specifically with socio-political issues that have
moral underpinnings. It is in these issues that atheists are very much interested and
have a lot to say, compared to the issues that only have a little relation with morality.
However, even though majority of the respondents and the key informants manifest
their actions in the platform of social media, the alternative hypothesis of researchers
that there is a significant relationship between atheism and political engagement
must be dismissed, for the study finds no significant correlation.
Nevertheless, even though atheists vary on their perceptions and consequent
actions on the different socio-political issues, it is still notable that the researchers
discovered that their perceptions and actions could be traced back to a common
cause, which is their concept of morality towards the common good.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The researchers would like to thank first their research adviser, Professor

Mark Salvador Ysla, the Program Head of the International Studies Department - Far

Eastern University. The door of the IS Department is always open for our group

whenever we have some questions and clarifications to ask. This thesis is our

collective work, and since throughout the school year you are continuously helping

us, you are welcome to use and present it. We cannot thank you enough for the

things that you have done for our group. To the times that we share meat and mead

while giving comments and suggestions to our thesis, we humbly thank you.

The group would also like to show our deepest gratitude to the people that

helped us during the data-gathering period. We deeply appreciate the unending

assistance and referrals of Chairwoman Emeritus Ma’am Marissa Torres Langseth,

Ma’am Jinjin Melany Heger, Ma’am Lee Sakura and Sir Marco Mendoza of the

Humanist Alliance Philippines, International. We also thank Sir Jose Juan Paraiso,

former President and one of the founders of Philippine Atheists and Agnostics

Society, and Sir Rodrick Tubil, a former member of the said organization for their

referrals and their patient participation on our interview.

The group also appreciates the participation of our respondents and key

informants from the groups: Humanist Alliance Philippines, International, Philippine

Atheists and Agnostics Society, Filipino Freethinkers. The participation of the

respondents from the following Facebook groups is also highly acknowledged due to

their valuable contribution to our thesis: Atheist Republic Metro Manila Consulate –

HAPI, Atheism in the Philippines, Atheist Movement of the Philippines, Atheist

Beings, and Rational Filipino.

 vi

We give our deepest appreciation to the Professors who validated our

research instruments last semester. The results of this research would not be

possible without your comments and suggestions that further enhanced our

instruments. To our friends who helped us in time of need, many thanks to all of you.

Most importantly, none of this could have happened without the continuous

support and encouragement of our parents, who not just supported us academically,

but also morally.

 vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract …………………………………………………………………………………… iv

Acknowledgement …………………………………………………………………….… v

Table of Contents ……………………………………………………………………….. vii

List of Figures ……………………………………………………………………………. xi

List of Tables …………………………………………………………………………….. xii

List of Abbreviations ……………………………………………………………………. xii

CHAPTER 1 – PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

Introduction ………………………………………………………………………. 1

Theoretical Framework …………………………………………………………. 5

Conceptual Framework ………………………………………………………… 8

Statement of the Problem ………………………………………………………. 9

Hypothesis ………………………………………………………………………. 10

Significance of the Study ………………………………………………………. 10

Scope and Delimitations ……………………………………………………….. 12

Definition of Terms ……………………………………………………………… 13

CHAPTER 2 – REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

Knowing the Atheists …………………………………………………………… 16

Atheism and Morality: Going Political…………………………………………. 17

Religion in Politics…………………………………………………………......... 19

Atheism and Political Engagement .…………………………………………… 22

Political Engagement and its Variables ………………………………………. 27

 viii

On Political Behaviouralism ……………………………………………………. 29

Methods of Analysis in studying Political engagement ……………………… 30

Synthesis …………………………………………………………………………. 32

CHAPTER 3 – RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research Design ……………………………………………………………….. 35

Locale of the Study ……………………………………………………………... 36

Key Informants ………………………………………………………………….. 37

Respondents ..………………………………………………………………….. 40

Research Instrument …………………………………………………………… 40

Data Gathering Procedures ……………………………………………………. 41

Method of Analysis ……………………………………………………………… 42

CHAPTER 4 – PRERESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

OF DATA

Profile of the atheist respondents

Age ………………………………………………………………………. 44

Educational Attainment …………………………………………….….. 45

Political Ideology …………………………………………………….….. 47

Monthly Income ……………………………………………………….…48

Atheists’ Concept of Morality ………………………………………….……….. 49

On Socio-political Issues ………………………………………....................... 52

Common Cause ………………………………………………………… 58

Atheists and their Manifestations on the Given Issues ……………...……… 60

 ix

Manifestation through Internet and Social Media …………..………. 62

Physical Forms of Engagement .………………………….…....…….. 65

Degree of Political Activeness in terms of Manifestations ………………..…67

Correlation between atheism and manifestations ……………………………73

On the Community and Government ………………………………….74

Significance of atheism to Political Engagement …………………………….76

CHAPTER 5 – SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary and Conclusion

On atheists’ Perception ion Socio-political Issues …………….……. 88

On atheists’ Manifestation of Political Engagement …….…………..89

On the Relationship of atheism and political engagement ….………91

Recommendations

To the Poiticians ……………………………………………………….. 93

Future Research/Study ……………………………………………...… 94

Methodologies ……………………………………………………..…… 95

References …………………………………………………………………………….... 98

Appendices

Appendix A: Instrument Validation Form

Appendix B: Letters to the respondents and key informants

Appendix C: Research Instruments

-Interview Questionnaire

-Survey Questionnaire

Appendix D: Transcripts

Personal Correspondence (PC)

PC 1

PC 2

PC 3

PC 4

PC 5

PC 6

PC 7

PC 8

PC 9

PC 10

PC 11

Key Informants Interview (KII)

KII 1

KII 2

KII 3

KII 4

KII 5

KII 6

KII 7

KII 8

Curriculum Vitae of the Authors

 xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 – The conceptual framework of the study

Figure 2 – Percentage of atheists according to age group

Figure 3 – Percentage of atheists according to educational attainment

Figure 4 – Percentage of atheists according to their political ideology

Figure 5 – Percentage of atheists according to their monthly

Figure 6 – Percentage distribution of engagement of atheists to the society

Figure 7 – Itemset length distribution of engagements/manifestations of atheists to

the society

Figure 8 – Percentage distribution of reasons of manifestations to the society

Figure 9 – Itemset length distribution of reasons of manifestations of atheists to the

society

 xii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 – Distribution of Socio-political issues of atheists

Table 2 – Distribution of perceptions on socio-political issues accountable to being

an atheist

Table 3 – Association rules between manifestation chosen by persons who are

affiliated with atheist groups

Table 4 – Distribution of engagements accountable to being an atheist

Table 5 – Distribution of frequency of manifestations of actions/manifestations in the

previous years

Table 6 – Association rules between reasons of manifestations chosen by people

who are affiliated with atheist groups

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

FFT – Filipino Freethinkers

HAPI – Humanist Alliance Philippines, International

OSN – Online Social Media

PATAS – Philippine Atheists and Agnostics Society

CHAPTER 1

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

Introduction

“Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god/gods. This is the only thing that binds

atheists together” – Seon Lewis

By hearing the word “atheist” terms such as, non-believer, faithless,

unaffiliated, agnostic, no-god, churchless, devilish and immoral may arise in an

instant. With these words, one might notice that all are related to “religion.” With that

said, existing conventions suggest that atheism is commonly attached with the

discussion the non-existence of god/gods. Most of the existing books, articles,

studies and researchers focus their attention on how atheists debunk present religion

and how they also possess morality despite of being unaffiliated. The past trend,

when it comes to atheism has been introducing their identity by presenting their

arguments against the established religion.

In retrospect, we cannot deny the fact that religion plays a huge role to

peoples’ decision-making and preferences. The dogma advocated by certain

religions greatly affects the way people perceive certain issues, especially on their

corresponding actions towards it. Wald and Calhoun-Brown (2007, p. 101) argued

that “churches and religious groups have been found to be important agents of

political socialization as they infuse religious beliefs, values and morals that affect

individuals and groups on a daily basis in various aspects of their life, including

political action and in expressing public opinions.”

In the Philippines alone, one might notice the overwhelming effect of religion

in the lives of the people, including their perception and how they engage themselves

in the society and government. In a published article of Rood (2012), he cited events

in which politics and religion have been inextricably linked together. One is the

prayer-rally conducted by the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) in 2012 to support the battle of

the impeached Chief Justice Renato Corona, when his chief defense council is a

prominent member of the INC, Serafin Cuevas. We must also note that the said

religious organization exercises a block voting, where members are instructed to

vote as a bloc for whoever is designated by their leaders, hence the INC has been

plagued by wooing politicians aiming to get their support every election period. There

are also some instances where religious individuals themselves penetrate in the

realm of politics. A good example would be Jaime Cardinal Sin’s famous calling on

the Filipino people to go out and join the EDSA people power on February 1986 that

led to the ouster of late President Ferdinand Marcos. Another is Bro. Eddie

Villanueva’s attempt to run in the public office in a number of Presidential elections

(Buenaobra, 2016) and lastly, the most recent election of the Filipino boxer Manny

Pacquiao in the Senate where he slams the opposition and bills using theistic

arguments.

With the entanglement of religion and politics, it has been a predominant

notion in the Philippines that moral foundations which guide man in making decisions

that could affect his social relation, interpersonal qualities and political behavior

come from these religions, and that a man needs a supernatural law-giver

(Smallwood, n.d.) in order to have a sense of morality and ethics. If so, then how can

we deal with people who do not subscribe to such belief? Specifically, how can we

understand them in the domain of politics?

These questions and statements become relevant with the recent emergence

of atheism to countries all over the globe, including the Philippines. As Myers (2014)

asserted, atheist groups is one of the fastest growing groups in the world. And the

Philippines has no escape in it.

The Philippines, being a predominantly Christian country, is sensing the

growing numbers of atheists, as well as their beliefs. Attas (2015) once noted that in

modern times, there are growing atheistic or rationalistic movements in Asia as well

as in Southeast Asia. He argued that atheism is on the rise on Muslim dominated

countries of Indonesia and Malaysia to Buddhist Thailand, secular Singapore and

including the Christian-majority Philippines (as cited in Athyal, 2015, p. 13).

Furthermore, Attas noticed, “the separation of church and state as provided by the

Philippine Constitution also serves a fertile ground for the growth and work of

atheistic groups in the country.”

The increasing number of atheists in the Philippines is evident due to the

rising number of organizations that promote secularism and some openly admitting

that they are indeed atheists. Organizations such as the Filipino Free Thinkers

(2009), Critical Thinking Filipinos Humanist Association (2010), Philippine Atheists

and Agnostic Society (2011), and the Humanist Alliance Philippines International

(2013) are just few of the active atheist and humanist organizations in the

Philippines.

Though may sound unpopular, these organizations have objectives that do

not only form part within the moral sphere of influence in social relations, but also a

political one. As an atheist, Stein (1998) once stated, “atheism has long ceased to be

a rare and often-ignored philosophical outlook. It has transformed itself into an active

political programme with clear objectives which, though they vary from state to state,

unequivocally include the elimination of state religion, religious education, and the

enshrinement of scientism.”

With this being said, atheists today, in order to advance their interests, need

to penetrate the political system and in so doing, need to voice out their concerns

and engage in politics. In relation to this, atheists from other countries manifest their

political perception through volunteerism and civic engagement, street rallies and by

means of social media (Savastio, 2013; Mellen, 2016; & Banks, 2016). Recent

studies show that the growing numbers of atheist population is accompanied by their

growing need and interest to be represented in the government. In the United States,

thousands of atheists gathered for their “Reason Rally” to push for more secularist

policies and their immediate representation in the US government. This shows that

atheism is not just about religion but also concerns itself about politics. However, we

should also consider what Lewis (2016) said, that what only binds the atheists is their

lack of belief in god/gods, nothing more, nothing less. This means that perceptions

and actions in a certain issue vary from atheist to atheist, for they do not have

anything in common aside from their disbelief.

With regards to scholarly works, there appear to be a scant of literature and

researches linking atheism on politics. A number of studies and literatures focused

only on religion being the source of one’s moral foundation and how

religions/religiosity affect social relations, thought and behavior of an individual. In

the United States, several studies have been conducted to determine how the

unaffiliated conducts themselves in the social sphere however, only a few tackled

about their participation in the political realm.

Aside from the lack of authoritative scholarly works patching the varying

beliefs of atheists, a need to further understand the unexplored side of atheism

becomes imperative as well due to the prevalence of issues that can be associated

with morality in the Philippines; the administration’s actions toward war on drugs,

revival of death penalty, statements in LGBT rights, Marcos burial, reproductive

health, and the immense extra-judicial killing. Thus, with the atheists being a loose

minority group, the present study aims to describe the perceptions and political

engagement of atheists in a relatively religious country such as the Philippines, and

seek if there is any link between atheism and political engagement.

The researchers consider B. Moody’s statement, “Being an atheist has made

me an active participant in life, rather than a bleating victim of it.”

Theoretical Framework

This part of the study presents the theoretical framework or the theory that

was used by the researchers to be the backbone of their study and served as the

lens in analyzing and exploring the different variables, factors and phenomena that

will be encountered in doing this research.

In pursuing this study, Behavioralism was used as the theoretical framework

in analyzing and understanding the perceptions and actions of atheists toward

political matters. Behavioralism suggests the principle of making the study of Political

Science limited to any political phenomena caused by observable and quantifiable

behavior of political actors. It connotes the idea that beyond the political institution is

the existence of different social forces thus; the study of Political Science must

meddle with society, culture and public opinion. For behavioralists to create a

statistical relationships between dependent and independent variables, they tend to

use different methods of social sciences especially psychology (Goskin, 2014).

Accordingly, behavioralism emphasizes the significance of how the society,

specifically the different political actors, conduct themselves in the political system

since their actions/behavior in the political system results into the grand political

phenomena. As for Hay (2002) behavioralism, “as one of the mainstream theories of

political analysis, deals with the use of different statistical techniques analyzing

political data and that it works to generalize outputs from the gathered data and

empirical regularities. With this, political outcomes are results of an ‘analysis of the

political inputs exerted into the political system’ specifically from group or individual

actors” (p.11-13).

Dahl (1992) traced the origins of this [behavioralism] approach to the 1920s to

the work of Charles Merrian and the so-called Chicago School of Harold Lasswell,

Gabriel Almond, V. O. Key, and David Truman. By the mid-1960s, one member of

this school—Almond (1966)—was proclaiming “a new paradigm” in political science

(p. 875). Almond described this paradigm as having three components: (1) a

“statistical approach” geared toward “test[ing] hypotheses” that would generate (2)

“probability” statements and (3) a study of the interaction of actors and units within

larger political “systems” (Ishiyama & Breuning in Dahl, 2011). With Almond’s

definition of behavioralism, it can be inferred that the objective of behavioralism is to

extract and understand the underlying actions of political actors in a political system

through the use of different statistical methods.

With regard to the relationship between atheism and political engagement,

the use of behavioralism contributed to the core objective of the research, which is to

understand the connection atheism to his/her political manifestations. Considering

that the atheists are unaffiliated and do not believe in a God, using the theory of

Behavioralism, the researchers will be able to understand more the actions and

perceptions of the atheists.

By using the three tenets as laid-down by Almond, first, the researchers were

be able to determine the things that atheists consider as political including their

perception of politics; second, they saw a clear vision of how atheists conduct

themselves in the political realm by analyzing and tracing some patterns such as

their perceptions toward the issues that they have identified; and lastly, by employing

behavioralism as the backbone of this study, the researchers were able to distinguish

if indeed atheism affects one’s behavior towards political matters and in what way

atheism affects political judgment through the use of statistical and social sciences

methods. When integrated, as what behavioralism posits, the researchers were able

to create a causal relationship between political engagement (dependent variable)

and atheism (independent variable) since behavioralism as a theory recognizes

different social forces that affects political phenomena, in this case, atheists as part

of the society having a different ethos and public opinion.

Conceptual Framework

ATHEISTS
>Age > Educational Attainment
>Political Ideology > Socio-econ. Status

Political
Domain

Actions/
Perceptions Manifestations

Political
Engagement

Relationship Between Atheism

and Political Engagement

Figure 1: The model above shows the paradigm of the study.

The researchers recognized the breath of atheism for like any other subject

matter; it encompasses economic, political, social, and cultural factors. But for this

research, the paradigm of the study delved only with the political side of the atheists.

The researchers proceeded with the study by looking first into the profile of

their respondents as to their age, educational attainment, political ideology and

income status. Based on the studies conducted in the past about atheism, these

indicators have bearings to the likelihood of one to be an atheist. After identifying the

atheists as well as their indicators, the researchers then continued to examine the

political domain of the atheists, who espouses two parts, first is their perceptions or

views on certain issues including their level of interest on such, which drive their

actions or manifestations regarding the political issues that they considered as

interesting to them as an atheist. Furthermore, after delving with the political domain

of the atheists, the researchers gave a conclusion about the respondents’ political

engagement. By doing so, the researchers studied the atheists on a direction where

they are engaging themselves with politics, and through that, the researchers were

able to analyze if there is really a causal link or significant relationship between

atheism and political engagement.

Statement of the Problem

This study aims to determine the relationship between atheism and political

engagement. Furthermore, the researchers also analyzed the said correlation to

know how the atheists’ belief on the absence of god/gods affect/s their political

engagement.

 10

Specifically, the researchers aim to answer the following questions:

1) What is the profile of the respondents in terms of:

a) age;
b) educational attainment;
c) political ideology;
d) income status?

2) What are the social and political issues that atheists feel strongly about?

3) How do atheists manifest their engagement on the issues that they feel
strongly about?

4) Is there any significant relationship between atheism and political

engagement?

Hypothesis

Based on the identified research questions, the researchers formulated an

alternative hypothesis:

1) There is a significant relationship between atheism and political

engagement.

Significance of the Study

The researchers conducted this study to determine the relationship between

atheism and political engagement. Also this study intended to produce a viable

output on how the ideas of unaffiliated individuals can contribute to the political

system, processes and institutions. Specifically, this study may benefit the following

sectors:

 11

Policymakers - The study may serve as a contribution to the efforts of elected

representatives in the legislature in making a more secular government. Different

atheist movements around the world have been advocating to abolish several

practices associated with religion that are being employed by state-run agencies and

institutions such as the Roman Catholics, being the majority religion, uttering

religious prayers in the morning, holding masses in government institutions, and

politicians anchoring on the bible and religious arguments to create or influence

public policies.

Atheists - The study may enlighten not only the affiliated but also those Filipino

atheists who want to know more about the political views and actions of their fellow

atheists. This research, by tackling a different aspect of atheism, aims to describe

the commonality of the views and manifestations of the atheists in the Philippines.

Likewise, this literature aims to help the atheists by debunking some of the theists’

claim about them, specifically when it comes to their politics where they are being

considered by some religiously affiliated to be conformists in their political and

societal life due to their faithless nature.

Students and the Filipino people (including the affiliated) - The students and the

religious Filipino people, including the dominant Roman Catholic Church should be

aware not just about the existence of the faithless, but also their political views and

manifestations on certain divisive issues which this study may offer. They should

know that atheists also belong in the society and though unaffiliated, they do also

have a certain political stand, which can be similar or different from the views they

hold that need to be respected.

 12

University Library - The researchers discovered that there is only one research/thesis

in the FEU-Library Graduate Studies section dealing with atheism. In line with this,

the thesis “Ateismo at Paniniwala” of Jovino Minoy dealt with the identity and beliefs

of atheists. The researchers hope that FEU-Library may be benefitted from this

study, for it may reinforce its thesis collection, especially concerning atheism and

politics since such researches are lacking nowadays.

In the Field of Political Science – In the field of Political Science, the researchers

may be able to shed light to the political aspect of the atheists since this kind of

research is rarely conducted in the context of the Philippines. Its academic

contribution may fall under the sub-fields of political behavior and likewise in political

dynamics because aside from analyzing why atheists behave and do what they do in

terms of their political manifestations based on their political views, the study will also

cover factors which might have a significant effect in relation with the atheists’

perceptions and manifestations, including but not limited to their lack of religion and

non-belief in god/gods.

Scope and Delimitations of the Study

The focus of the study was to understand the relationship between atheism

and political engagement. The researchers looked into the profile of the respondents

in terms of: age, educational attainment, political ideology and income status.

Accordingly, the respondents of this research are atheists who affiliate themselves

on atheist groups within Metro-Manila, which also have Facebook groups.

Based on the literature, it was found out that certain studies about political

engagement and political participation, and some studies covering atheism,

 13

espoused the use of such indicators. The rationale for such is that the authors saw

that the given specific profile contributes to the individual’s political participation

within the community. As such, there also exist some studies regarding atheism that

also use the said indicators, and thus in the end, it has been concluded that such

indicators affect one’s likelihood to be an atheist.

The research limited itself to the study of atheists and did not cover theists.

Also, the study only tackled the respondents’ identified political perceptions and their

corresponding manifestations. In order to achieve the objectives of this study, the

researchers employed a mixed type of methodology, combining both qualitative and

quantitative method, in order for the researchers to grasp both the subjective and

objective perceptions and manifestations of the respondents and key informants. The

time allotted for this research was within school year 2016-2017.

Definition of Terms

Agnosticism – is a group who has a disbelief in the existence of religion. It combines

the Greek ‘a’ (not) with ‘gnosis’ (knowledge). So agnosticism is literally someone

without knowledge. They suspend judgment about whether there is a god or not; and

they do this because they have imposed a limitation on what knowledge is possible,

claiming that all we can ever know is limited to the real world, the world of sense and

experience (Atheism for Beginners: A Course book for Schools and Colleges, 2013,

pg. 2).

Atheism – derived from the Greek word ‘a’ meaning not and ‘theos’ meaning god. It

may be defined as a belief that there is no God – (Atheism for Beginners: A Course

book for Schools and Colleges, 2013, page 1).

 14

Atheist/Non-Believer – a person who does not believe in the existence of a God and

who does not practice any religion. Atheists advocate and believe in secularism or

the principle of separation for the ordering of society, a principle that is neither

religious nor sectarian. (Atheism for Beginners: A Course book for Schools and

Colleges, 2013, p. 2).

Conformist – a person who usually accepts behavior and established practices. They

have a stand on societal issues and decide based on what is given and what the

majority thinks.

Deism – is the belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator

who does not intervene in the universe.

Free Thinker - one who forms opinions on the basis of reason independently of

authority (such as in religion and politics).

Morality – is a code or values to guide man’s choices and actions. It is used as a

non-exclusive concept or belief that both affiliated and atheist hold in distinguishing

what is good and bad.

Perceptions – The key informants’ understandings and stands on the issues that

they have identified.

Political Behavior – aspect of political science that attempt to quantify and explain the

influences that define a person’s political views, ideology and levels of political

participation (Encyclopedia, 2008).

 15

Political engagement – it refers to the political participation or manifestation of an

atheist to certain political issues.

Political Ideology – is a belief system that provide people with a perspective on the

proper role of elected officials, which types of public policies should be prioritized,

and how the various elements of society should be arranged. It is a set of beliefs and

ideas that one can apply on policies and events; ones political “moral code” and

world view.

Political Socialization –the development process by which one acquires political

orientation and pattern of behaviour.

Religion – an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies and rules used to

worship a God or a group of gods.

Religiously

Affiliated – it can be defined, as used in the study, as a person who officially

belonged or subscribed to a particular religion.

Unaffiliated – a status of not being officially attached or connected with any religion.

 16

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURES AND STUDIES

This chapter is composed of studies and literatures that provide accounts,

meanings and explanations on atheists and their political behaviour.

Knowing the Atheists

For over a century, atheism has generated more than enough debates

especially with its core belief. It has a range of inconsistency and seemingly

contradictory meaning and a long history summarized by controversy. As

complicated as it may seem, Zeller (2010) defined atheism “as simply having without

or no god.” The word is derived from Greek word “a” meaning, “without or not” and

“theos” meaning “God” (The Encyclopedia of Politics and Religion, 1998, p. 48). With

this definition, atheism could simply be defined as a reluctance to believe in any

supreme deity, god or supernatural being.

But in order for one to understand the atheists today, their views and beliefs,

a brief history of atheism from Greek history, Middle Ages, the Renaissance and Age

of Enlightenment must be discussed.

Based on the studies conducted on atheism, it can be noted that too little is

known when it really began. What is certain is that believers and non-believers have

been around since the beginning of recorded history. Before the rise of atheism as

we conceived it in the present, it has first endured an extensive history dating back

from the fourth or fifth century of Greece, where the word was first coined. Atheism

developed through the historical stages of the European Middle Ages, up to the

Renaissance Period, and the Enlightenment period. Throughout the ages, atheism

 17

grew gradually due to the dominant nature of religion in the society and their actions

towards the people. Correspondingly, people were persecuted for heresy; there was

an Inquisition, a judicial procedure and later an institution that was established by the

papacy and, sometimes, by secular governments to combat heresy (Shah, 2012).

From the Renaissance until the beginning of the twentieth century, historical

giants such as Da Vinci, Machiavelli, Galileo, Copernicus, etc. dwelled away from the

status quo and used scientific experiments and reason to explain phenomena rather

than to simply attribute it to the Almighty Creator. Since then, the trend for

secularization increased, the established religion fractured, which then led to the

influx of new secular religious orders (A Short History of Atheism, 2013). This

revolution gave rise to scholars and intellectuals writing about their unconventional

views about religion and God. The Oxford Handbook of Atheism (2013) stated that it

is in the twentieth century when European debate about atheism reaches its peak

when Hermann Reuter, John Robertson and Fritz Mauthner wrote the first

comprehensive histories of atheism. Due to its broad nature, they defined atheism as

heresy, criticism of the church and free thought as a part of the same opposing

movement against religion. It was understood as enlightened, scientific and

scholastic thinking. Until then, atheism is generally accepted as the denial of the

existence of God and the negation of religion.

Atheism and Morality: Going Political

Morality belongs to the individual. Individuals act according to his morals, and

through his actions, he affects others and the living arrangement of other people in

the community through conflict and resolution. The public’s collective opinions

determine policies, and through these policies, the individual is affected. Morality

 18

then, seems to connect the individual to politics. It drives the individual to contribute

to public opinion, opinion that impacts back on the individual through policies. And

indeed, morality dominates discussion on recent political issues (Chen, 2005).

Most atheists are usually asked about their concept of morality. Since they do

not believe in religion and that they have no concept of objective morality, the source

of their morality is still a question. According to Zuckerman, Galen and Pasquale

(2016) “one obvious reason that morality is linked to religiosity is because religions

have often claimed to be the source of moral rules and precepts, despite the fact that

other sources of morality clearly exist” (p. 147).

Zuckerman et. al. espoused that being an atheist does not necessarily mean

that you are an advocate of anarchy, lawlessness and crime hence, it is believed that

morality is innate to man, after all, nonhuman animals living in groups also exhibit

forms of proto-morality such as empathy and reciprocity that promote cooperation.

Likewise, successful human social groups often develop ethical codes that have

nothing to do with transcendent justification or supernatural monitoring.

Morality’s part is a critical measure to determine an individual’s political

reasoning, ideology and manifestation. Tracing the relationship between atheism

and political engagement is not isolated on getting the individual perspectives of the

respondents towards political processes and analysis of the researchers but rather, it

is also imperative that the research shall discuss morality, especially the moral

foundation of atheists. An individual’s moral belief or inclination is a strong driving

force to one’s worldview and how one conducts him/herself in the social and political

realm.

Baron (2000) once proved in his study of voting behaviour that voting,

according to him, is typically not justifiable by the narrow self-interest of the voter.

 19

“The low cost of voting and the lack of significant effect on the voter's interests

suggest that voting will typically be motivated by moral beliefs, or by expressive

concerns, rather than by rational calculation of self-interest” (Baron, 2000, in

Brennan & Hamlin, 2003).

The researchers goal is to establish the relationship of atheism to political

engagement; however, it would seem impossible for the researchers to decipher the

direct link between atheism to one’s behavior towards political matters and

processes without consulting their sense of morality since atheists still have a moral

foundation that somehow affects their political judgment and choices as prescribed

by Baron.

Religion in Politics

McDaniel (2008) argued, by citing Berelson, Lazarsfeld, and McPee (1954)

and Tocqueville (1945) that scholars have long noted that many of the key

ingredients that shape political behavior can be found in religious context. Evidently

throughout the history, “places of worship help shape political attitudes and mobilized

individuals for political participation” as stated by Huckfeldt, Plutzer, and Sprague

(1993) in McDaniel (2008). In relation with this, it is has been argued by McDaniel

(2008) that Churches, mosques and other religious institutions increase the political

participation of its members by serving as a meeting place; hence connections with

religion increases the activeness of individuals when it comes to politics. To support

this idea, Wald (2003) discusses a small library of studies, which allows him to

provide “a number of complementary explanations for the positive relationship,

including first, the development of civic skills as provided by Verba, Schlozman, and

Brady, (1995), second, experience in democratic decision-making as suggested by

 20

Peterson (1992), and lastly, development of community attachments given by Strate

et al., (1989). Wald notes, “a unifying theme across these studies, however, that

applies to this analysis as well, ‘‘Churches serve as social networks that seem to

draw participants into public affairs” (2003, p. 37).

In the twenty-first century alone, the political engagement of religious

institution can be seen at all levels of the government. “A growing numbers of

religious group have chimed in on contemporary political issues. In such areas as

placing the Ten Commandments in government buildings, advocating bans on gay

marriage, or adding creationism to textbooks, the intersection of religion and politics

is becoming ever more salient in the American political landscape” (McDaniel, 2008,

pg. 9). This could only mean that religion, as what the common knowledge suggests,

play a huge role when it comes to policies and advocacies that affects everyone.

Consequently, it has been showed by Verba, Schlozman and Brady (1995)

that religious organizations provide opportunities to learn civic skills, and possessing

these skills encourages political participation (as cited by Hail, 2011). Additionally,

the civic skills being learned by the people are partly a factor that contributes to more

participation in politics in the United States.

In some Asian countries like Taiwan, the presence and actions of the Church

are visible during the Nationalist Party’s martial law. The Presbyterian Church, a

Protestant denomination, by challenging this action by the Nationalist party

contributed to the democracy movement in the 1970s and 80s (Hail, 2011). Aside

from Taiwan, Protestantism is also connected with political discourse in South Korea.

After the period of Japanese colonization and the Korean War, Protestant

Christianity became tied with South Korean nationalism. Korean nationalists saw

Protestant Christianity as not only more “modern” than Buddhism, but also

 21

symbolically more distant from Japan. In South Korea, President Lee Myung-Bak, is

extremely vocal about his belief in Protestant Christianity. It has been estimated that

he won 80 percent of the Protestant vote (Hail, 2011).

In the history of the Philippines, Catholicism and the Spanish state were

inseparable, and the religious played a predominant role in the administration of the

Philippines. As a result, they were deeply implicated in the exploitation of Filipinos;

religious orders including the Augustinians, Dominicans, and Recollects, held the

largest tracts of land, haciendas and encomiendas granted by the Spanish

government, renting plots to tenant farmers. They were also responsible for the

religious education and spiritual well being of their tenants, and some friars

championed the interests of their parishes against the exploitation committed by their

orders and secular leaders. Catholic involvement in politics in the Philippines has

evolved through the decades toward stronger recognition of the need for political

education and lay participation in principled partisan politics. Catholic education in

politics has to include the missionary aspect of the political involvement of believers.

“In its political involvement, the Church, the communion of the faithful, is an

evangelizer of politics” (Gonzales, 2010).

“Catholic involvement in politics in the Philippines has evolved through the

decades toward stronger recognition of the need for political education and lay

participation in principled partisan politics. Catholic education in politics has to

include the missionary aspect of the political involvement of believers” (Gonzales,

2010, pg. 120).

It is evident from the studies above how religion plays a huge role in the field

of politics in different regions of the world. It is important to take note of these

evidences, for there exist a notion that since religion plays a huge role in politics,

 22

especially to the individuals political perceptions and actions, lack of religion or belief

in god/gods will also give the same results. However, unlike the religiously

unaffiliated where they have a bible and the Church to guide them for their actions

and perceptions almost uniformly, atheists do not have any institution to follow for

they are free to think and act. Without the existence of such, the prevailing notion

that atheism could greatly affect the perceptions and actions of the atheists is

questionable. In the context of the study, the researchers try, despite of the

differences of the atheists’ perceptions and actions, to find a common point that will

unite the atheists, whether that be a common reason or a common conclusion.

Atheism and Political Engagement

There exist a handful of literatures specifically correlating politics and atheism.

Most of which are insufficient in explaining atheists in relation to their political

engagement. However, before the researchers connect atheism with political

engagement, it is first best to discuss the brief concept of political engagement as

used by the researchers. The researchers contend that political engagement is not

merely a participation or action manifested by citizens towards the certain issues or

political events, but merely a combination of both their perceptions and actions.

Perez (n.d.) specified that according to Norris (2000), there are three components of

political engagement: political information, political participation and political trust.

Using this, the researchers operationalized their definition of political engagement as

the combination of both the perceptions (political information) and actions or

manifestations (political participation) of the respondents and key informants towards

the socio-political issues that they will identify. For a citizen to make a manifestation

or perception on certain issues, he must first have an understanding on the news

 23

and keeps up with the updates regarding the issues and political events. Then, he

will create an appropriate manifestation based on his considerations and

understandings of the issue. As argued by Perez (n.d.), “A person who is engaged in

politics is someone who keeps up with the news on public affairs, participates in

politics by (at least) casting a vote in the periodic elections, and trusts the political

system to provide solutions for collective problems” (pg. 2).

All told, atheism has regained a sudden momentum shift in the late 90’s to

early 2000’s as part of their growing population around the world, especially in the

United States, however, literatures about the development of a socially and politically

active atheism and atheists have been infrequent. Nevertheless, the existence of

some reported and published information on the political manifestations of atheists,

although limited and narrow, have been beneficial to the researchers to further

understand the political behavior of the unaffiliated and how they manifest it.

Anne (2013) argued that, the “National Atheist Party”, after changing its name

into “Secular Party of America”, started to advocate for a reform in the American

political system. The said change featured the inclusion and “broad coalition” to other

secular organizations in America to form part a stronger and more stable political

party that stands to two important reasons which is first “to give a political voice to

U.S. secularists, who have never enjoyed political representation before and and “to

stand against those elements and groups that would seek to undermine the secular

foundations of this great country” (Cimino & Smith, 2014, citing Anne, 2013). The

party considered themselves as a constitutional movement that promotes for the

protection of the very ideals of Founding Fathers which is to establish a secular state

that is free from political control, influence and authority of any religious sect.

To further support the claim that atheists are gaining force in the American

 24

political sphere, Kettell (2013) emphasized the emergence of atheism in politics

through the creation of different organizations such as American Atheists, Center for

Inquiry, Freedom From Religion Foundation, Secular Coalition of America, American

Humanist Association, Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, Council for

Secular Humanism and National Atheist Party which all set to oppose any religious

influence in policy-making and preserve the secularity of the United States

government. Through these organizations and social gatherings initiated by atheists,

atheism have has been attaining a relevant political attention in American politics.

Likewise, Mellen (2016) stated that, atheists have gathered recently this year

in Washington DC to take part in the so called “reason rally.” The purpose of such is

to make the American government and the American people aware that Atheism in

their country is growing in forces. During the said demonstration, atheist from

different parts of the country assembled in front of the Lincoln Memorial to call for a

more secular and non-religious approach to politics. They held that the “Reason

rally” is political in nature because they are conducted amidst the election season.

They call for the sole use of reason rather than the religiously driven ideology. Lastly,

the atheists in the rally argue that due to their growing numbers, they need to be

represented as well in the government because like others, their bloc also have

certain needs and interests (Banks, 2016).

Aside from gatherings and demonstrations, atheists, with the growing use of

technology, also use social media to further expand and spread their ideas and

political views. In her article, Savastio (2013) said that Facebook is not the only

medium used by atheists to express their ideas. Atheists for their convenience have

also used twitter, by sending out daily tweets, news and information about them. The

use of social media not only served as a channel for atheists to voice out their

 25

concerns, whether political, social or condemning religious sectors, but also social

media has greatly bolstered the membership of the atheists.

Atheists are also trying to battle and engage in politics by filing cases to

courts. Atheists, especially, in the Western area are using the courts to further

advance their views in the society. With the legal mandate of the Courts with regards

to their decisions, their views are being embedded in the norms of the society. One

example of this move was when atheists and the American Civil Liberties Union

(ACLU) have launched legal battles against the giant cross or the Mt. Soledad

Veterans Memorial cross that has stood since 1954. The case against the cross was

initiated by an atheist Viet Nam veteran named Philip Paulson (Hallowell, 2015).

Atheists and the ACLU were pushing for the selling of the public land where the

cross is located. In the case above, atheists are trying to push for a more secular

America and they do not want religious symbols be publicly displayed.

Regarding the views of the atheists, many would attest that true Christians

share common assessments regarding certain political issues, thus the assumption

is also popular and is alike to all atheists. However, Cline (2015), in his article,

contends that the only thing all atheists share in common is the absence of belief in

the existence of God. Beyond that, atheists may hold any position on any political

issue, and in fact atheists often disagree strongly in political debates.

In study conducted by Williamson and Yancey (2013), they suggested that it

is theoretically possible to have an atheist philosophy and also a conservative and

libertarian political perspective. Yet a vast majority of atheists exhibited a progressive

political belief system. They support abortion and same-sex marriage, mistrust of

capitalism and the military, opposition to the death penalty, support for gun control,

support for increase government regulation, and support of stem cell research.

 26

Active atheism in the United States is married to political progressiveness.

The Pew Research Center (2012) published a research comparing the voting

patterns, partisanship and ideology, views on social issues, role of the government

and religion on politics of the affiliated and unaffiliated in the US. Based on the polls,

the unaffiliated (atheists included) tends to vote for democratic candidates more in

the past recent presidential elections. Democratic candidates like Al Gore, John

Kerry and Barrack Obama received vast amounts of support from the religiously

unaffiliated. The research suggests that the partisanship and ideological leanings of

the atheists lie in the Democratic Party together with its liberal ideology, in which

51% of them considered themselves as liberals and only 13% identified themselves

as conservative. In the recent elections, religiously unaffiliated have become one of

the most reliable constituencies of the Democratic Party. Looking at the results on

how the respondents assess certain social issues, on their opinion about abortion, an

astounding 84% of both atheist and agnostics said that abortion should be legalized

in all/most cases and only 14% of them said that it is illegal. While on their view

about homosexuality and same sex marriage, the same pattern occurred where the

atheists gave major support on both issues; tallying more than 75% acceptance rate

compared to those religiously affiliated who has more percentage on opposition than

acceptance.

On the role of government, the unaffiliated closely mirrored the views of the

public (including the religiously affiliated). Half of the respondents on both affiliated

and unaffiliated said that they would rather have a smaller government with fewer

services than a big government providing more services.

Lastly, with regards in the involvement of religion in politics, only one (1) in

every ten (ten) atheist/agnostic respondents said that strong religious belief is not an

 27

important quality in a President.

The research/poll conducted by the Pew Research Center on 2012 gives us

an overview of the political and social behavior, specifically the views of atheists in

the United States regarding certain divisive issues.

Evidently, though not all, most of the atheists had shown support for politically

progressive causes.

Political Engagement and its Variables

Based on the literature and studies, age, socioeconomic status, education

and political ideology are found central demographic profiles that should not be

disregarded when studying political engagement.

Lamprianou (2013), found out that age is a relevant demographic because it

affects an individual’s decisions with regards to his political participation. It was

supported by Melo. and Stockemer. (2014), whose work concludes that age affects

one’s participation towards politics. In political engagement, elders are more active in

elections while active demonstrations are dominated by the youths. Ramakrishnan

and Baldassare (2004) noted the importance of age that the elders are more active

than the young when it comes to political participation. Though there is a clash

between the views of the researchers, and no constant and agreeable pattern of who

is more active (whether the elders or the youth) in politics, they still asserted that

one’s age really affects an individual’s decisions in their political engagement.

Aside from age, Ramakrishnan and Baldassare (2004) also look into the

socioeconomic status of their subjects. Knowing the socioeconomic status of the

respondents is also relevant for they posit that it creates a fissure between who

participates in politics and who do not. An example given by the researchers further

 28

explained how socioeconomic status affects political participation. They exemplified

that those who are employed are more likely to participate, not just because they

earn money than those who are unemployed or remain at home, but also because

they are more likely to be involved in social networks or work-related institutions

(unions, company political action committees) that encourages participation. Prior to

Ramakrishnan and Baldassare’s work, Gaviria, Panizza and Wallack (2003) already

found out that socioeconomic status is nearly universally seen as factors affecting

individuals’ political engagement.

On education, Aars and Christensen (2013) concluded that, “education is

generally considered to be among the strongest individual-level predictors of political

participation” (p. 1). Goel (2016) also espoused how education is important in

determining the political participation of an individual. He then concluded that

education has been found to have the greatest effect on political behavior.

In line with the Goel’s argument, Persson (2013) showed how relevant

education is when studying political participation. In his work, he said that the idea

that education has a causal impact on participation is widely held in political behavior

research. “Indeed, the relationship between education and political participation is

probably the single most well established relationship in the participation literature”

(p. 13). He later concluded that the importance of education lies in its ability to

increase the skills and knowledge, which might also affect political interest and

efficacy; factors that all in turn trigger participation and engagement to politics.

When it comes to political ideology, Pew Research Center (2014) found out

that political engagement is strongly related to ideology and partisanship. It means

that just like education, age and socio-economic status, by identifying one’s political

ideology, researchers can predict the political views and actions of an individual.

 29

Atheists, according to the poll conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2012, tend

to affiliate themselves with liberal ideologies. In line with this, atheists are in favor

with liberal ideas just like same-sex marriage, secularism, etc.

In that sense, we can assert that political ideology, indeed, is one of the most

important indicators when studying political engagement. Not only that ideology

serves as a guide for individuals in deciding divisive political issues, but it also acts

as effective and strong predictors of political participation.

On Political Behaviouralism

In studying the relationship between atheism and political engagement, it is of

primary importance on the part of the researchers to understand why atheists act this

way, or that way in the realm of politics. Since no comprehensive study yet have

been conducted regarding the topic, the researchers sought to relate studies about

political behaviouralism since it delves on analyzing behaviors of individuals and

groups toward politics. It is seen as the best theoretical approach in finding the

relationship between atheism and political engagement.

Basically, on the question “what is behaviouralism?” Sanders, as cited by

Marsh and Stoker (2010, p. 23), claimed that the behavioural approach to social and

political analysis concentrates on a single, deceptively single question: Why do

people behave in a way that they do? Sanders also note that there are two distinct

characteristics that differentiate behaviouralists from other social scientists;

behaviouralists insistence that observable behavior, whether it is at the level of the

individual or the social aggregate, should be the focus of the analysis; and second,

any explanation of that behavior should be susceptible to empirical testing.

Thus, a plausible explanation to how atheists engage themselves with politics

 30

may be derived by strictly following the ideas underpinning the theory of political

behaviouralism. Barrow, having a similar view with Sanders concluded that,

Behavioralism’s main methodological claim was that uniformities in political behavior

could be discovered and expressed as generalizations, but that such generalizations

must be testable by reference to observable political behaviors, such as voting,

public opinion, or decision making (2008, p. 313).

Another scholar, Walton (1985), (as cited in Wogu, 2013), defines

behaviouralism as, “the behavior, actions, and acts of individuals and groups in

different social settings and explains this behavior as it relates to the political system

(p. 4).” Bueno (2012), like Walton, offered his definition of Political Behavior as an

approach that concerns more on the empirical and scientific study of political

behaviors in the society.

Through this, the researchers can study atheists in the political domain by

identifying their political preferences, their kind of political activism and pressure

groups (if they have any), and their media participation in politics.

Methods of analysis in studying Political Engagement

After the researchers have gone through an extensive review of literatures, it

is noted that the use of both Qualitative (focus group discussions and interviews) and

quantitative (survey) method in studying political engagement of certain group of

people is more preferable than using a single method alone.

White, Bruce, and Ritchie’s (2000) study regarding the low political

participation of the youth employed a pure qualitative research method. The

objective of their study is to investigate the reasons why young people tend to

participate less in politics, and to further explore young people’s political views and

 31

behaviour. In order to assess why young people of Great Britain has low level of

interests and knowledge when it comes to politics, White et. al. (2000) used focus

group discussion and in-depth individual interviews. In doing so, the researchers

easily noticed what the hindrances are when it comes to the youth’s participation in

politics. Accordingly, the 24 focus group discussion and the 16 paired and 20

individual interviews helped the researchers to further understand what is the youth’s

conception and image of politics and politicians due to its direct nature of

questioning. On the contrary, in studying political engagement of young voters,

Jarvis, Montoya, and Mulvoy (2005) used survey for the fulfillment of their study. To

analyze the results of the survey, they used a quantitative method of analysis.

Blomgren (2010) has carried out another study that espoused a qualitative

methodological approach when examining the hindrances present for women to

participate and be represented in Georgian politics. The main objective of the study

is to get an understanding of what obstacles there are for women to participate in

politics as well as looking into actors; role in order to increase the women’s political

participation. The researcher resorted in using qualitative in-depth conversational

interviews.

LSE Enterprise also conducted a study about political engagement of young

people in the European democratic life in 2013. The research has its roots in the

evidently declining political participation (from electoral turnout to party membership)

in Europe and some countries in the world. To rectify this problem, the researchers

used both quantitative (survey) and qualitative methods of inquiry such as interviews

and focus group discussions to further know what are the barricades the youth faces

and their immediate needs to participate in politics.

As evidenced by the researches previously conducted by White et. al. (2000),

 32

Jarvis et. al. (2005), Blomgren (2010), and the LSE Enterprise (2013), the use of

interviews, surveys and focus group discussions in studying political participation is

highly of important because the researchers can directly find out what are the ideas

and problems of respondents with regards to their political participation since the

stakeholders (main respondents of the study) are free to talk without anything to hold

them.

Qualitative (focus group discussions and interviews) and quantitative (survey)

method of analysis has different objectives. Qualitative analysis is more on

understanding the subjective nature of the respondents. On the other hand, the

quantitative analysis is used when to understand a large number of samples. By

using this method, researchers are inclined to use statistics to further analyze the

results and to have a generalization as its conclusion. Nevertheless, the use of both

methods has been useful when studying political engagement as evidenced by the

researches mentioned above.

Tracing the relationship of atheism and Political Engagement is a complex

research study which requires the researchers to determine not just the statistical

pattern in their political participation but also the individual perception of the

respondents/subjects and how they perceive different political phenomena. And

mixed methods designs can provide pragmatic advantages when exploring complex

research questions. “The qualitative data provide a deep understanding of survey

responses, and statistical analysis can provide detailed assessment of patterns of

responses" (Driscoll, Appiah-Yeboah, Salib, & Rupert, 2007, p. 26).

Synthesis

As atheism tends to disregard god’s existence, people who subscribed to it is

 33

assumed to be in different position when engaging themselves with politics. With

their morals in question, one would think that atheists advocate anarchy, lawlessness

and crime, unless people believed that morality is innate to man. And with the

studies made by scholars mentioned above, this in turn can influence public opinion

and public policies as morality dominates discussions in recent political issues.

However, while atheism has its momentum in the contemporary time, it is

recognized that comprehensive studies relating atheism and political engagement

are infrequent. Having their numbers growing (specifically in the United States) and

as they start creating a scene through organizations and movements that aims to

assert their views in the social and political realm, it is but of great importance to

acknowledge their existence as part of the state we live in.

Upon reviewing related literature and studies, some demographic profiles

used by different researchers and literatures are found to be related with political

engagement. Factors such as age, educational attainment, political ideology and

socioeconomic status have been mentioned in great deal of studies regarding

participation of certain group of people to politics. Using a mixed qualitative-

quantitative method is also recognized as it is found effective in studies pertaining to

political engagement. With these, the researchers will gain an in-depth knowledge

about the link between atheism and political participation.

Likewise, with all the studies reviewed above, the use of both qualitative and

quantitative method proved to be effective in studying political behaviour and

participation because both methods augment each other. As such, the researchers

employed a mixed method for data collection.

Nevertheless, with all of the above-mentioned studies regarding atheists and

their political behaviour, it is true that atheism does not fit into a narrow and limited

 34

conception; confining our understanding in a philosophical manner, but rather a

complex one. It is possible to find a link between atheism and political engagement

thus, the purpose of this research.

 35

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter covers the methods and instruments employed alongside the

Research Design, Research Locale, Study Population and Sample, Data Gathering

Procedure, and Time Table.

Research Design

The researchers employed descriptive method of research for this study and

a mixed method as a procedure for data gathering.

The researchers recognized that there is a gradual rise of atheism in the

Philippines as evidenced by the establishment of atheist and secular groups in the

country this past decade. Accordingly, since atheism is closely related to the issues

of religion and god, atheists’ position on such has already been concluded. But, one

important aspect that should not be set aside is their view on politics. We cannot

deny the fact that though Philippines is a secular country, and religion plays a huge

role when it comes to their political perceptions and actions. An atheist, having no

religion, is still ambiguous with regards to the realm of politics. Basically, how do they

respond to political issues with no religion to anchor on?

Descriptive method then, according to Key (1997), is used to obtain

information concerning the current status of the phenomena to describe, "what

exists" with respect to variables or conditions in a situation. He posits that the

methods involved in descriptive research range from the survey, which describes the

status quo, the correlation study that investigates the relationship between variables,

to developmental studies, which seek to determine changes over time.

 36

With that said, by utilizing the descriptive method, the researchers tried to

elucidate and describe the political engagement of the atheists with regards to their

given political issues. Ultimately, the study aimed at establishing a literature that

would concretely explain if there would be any link or correlation between political

engagement and atheism.

To do so, the researchers utilized a mixed method. By using semi-structured

interviews and personal correspondence and quantitative surveys, the researchers

were able to concretely describe how atheists manifest their political perceptions.

Accordingly, the use of survey method enabled the researchers to describe a large

population of atheists, without generalizing, and is thus augmented by the qualitative

answers of the key informants from the interviews and their letters.

Locale of the Study

The study was conducted in Metro-Manila. The research locale has no

bearing to the study because atheists can be found anywhere in the country having

no differing views relative to the place they are residing; all are in the same position,

rejecting the idea of an almighty God. Nevertheless, the researchers specifically

chose Metro-Manila as it provided a more heterogeneous set of respondents with

regards to their age, political ideology, socioeconomic status and educational

attainment. The researchers also observed that a number of recognized and active

atheists groups within the country are present in Metro-Manila and the Universities

within it. The atheist groups, stated in the key informants and the respondents

section, are operating mainly in Metro-Manila, though they also have local chapters

within the Universities and in different regions of the Philippines.

 37

The researchers would like to know and analyze how atheists residing in the

identified locale respond to various political issues, given that the chosen locale is

the seat of the Government of the Philippines, and the study having some policy

implications.

Key Informants

The researchers recognized the existence of various atheist groups within

their chosen locale. For that reason, the research population for this method is

comprised of atheists coming from the organizations with their Facebook group listed

below:

Existing Organizations:

a) Philippine Atheists and Agnostic Society

b) The Humanist Alliance Philippines International
c) Filipino Freethinkers

Philippine Atheists and Agnostics Society (PATAS)

Founded in February 14, 2011, Philippine Atheists and Agnostics Society or

PATAS has quickly established itself as one of the leading organizations of Filipino

atheists and agnostics. As an organization, PATAS aims to raise awareness among

the mass Filipino people about atheism and agnosticism. Since public understanding

has been the goal of PATAS, it encourages its members and other non-member

atheists/agnostics to come out and speak. Also PATAS intend to create a platform

for Filipino atheists and agnostics for camaraderie and harmonious exchange of

information and ideas. As of now, PATAS is currently relocating their office at

Evangelista St., Pasig City from its original place at Quezon City.

 38

Humanist Alliance Philippines, International (HAPI)

Unlike most of the atheist organizations in the Philippines, HAPI or Humanist

Alliance Philippines, International committed itself in doing volunteer works and

advocacy projects such as environmental conservation, education, equality, cultural

diversity and other humanitarian works. Although the organization currently focuses

on its advocacy works, the organization also promotes modern science, anti-

religion/creationism, social secularism and democratic rights of the people. From its

foundation on December 25, 2013, HAPI became one of the most pro-active and

well-known atheist groups in the Philippines and as of 2015 it is already registered to

the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Filipino Freethinkers (FFT)

Started out in February 1, 2009, Filipino Freethinkers rose into prominence by

early 2010 up to the present using social media as a platform to raise social and

political awareness. Evidently, in 2011, Filipino Freethinkers was awarded in the

annual Globe Tatt Awards in the category “The One” or the most influential

trendsetter that shaped opinion and moved people. As an organization, Filipino

Freethinkers was composed of atheists, agnostics, deists, pantheists, humanists and

progressive theists. Also, Filipino Freethinkers has its university and regional

chapters, which can be located all over the Philippines.

The researchers chose these organizations because of vital factors such as:

reliability, diversity of advocacies and activeness both inside and outside the cyber

world. All three organizations have their own offices within Metro Manila and have a

set of officials leading the group. Also, PATAS have been a well-known organization

within the atheist circle, HAPI was registered under the Securities and Exchange

 39

Commission as of 2015 and with Filipino Freethinkers even receiving an award from

Globe Telecommunications. These three organizations have different focuses: first,

PATAS raising awareness about atheism and agnosticism to prevent further

discrimination. Second Filipino Freethinkers focusing on different social and political

discourse. Lastly, HAPI embarked on promoting volunteerism, environmental and

humanitarian works. Because of pro-active initiatives and campaigns, researchers

believe that these atheist organizations and its members will contribute genuine and

reliable ideas about politics and how they manifest their political awareness.

Sampling Technique

Since the study employed both qualitative and quantitative methods, in

administering semi-structured interviews, the researchers specifically used the

Snowball sampling. As defined by Burnham, Lutz, Grant and Layton-Henry (2008),

snowball sampling is the procedure in which the researchers or investigators use

their initial contacts to recommend people in similar circumstances in to be

interviewed. Snowball sampling has been known as a chain of succession of key

informants through recommendations.

Using this sampling technique, the researchers, starting with Atty. Jesus M.

Falcis III, asked if he has contacts with other atheists that he can recommend to be

interviewed by the researchers. By using this method, the researchers successfully

interviewed 8 key informants, including Atty. Falcis, and gave 11 letters of interview

to other key informants.

 40

Respondents

Like the qualitative method, the researchers chose to develop their survey

respondents from the same atheist groups mentioned above. But, to avoid confusion

and duplication, members of the said atheist groups who are already chosen for the

key informant interview and personal correspondence were omitted for the sample of

the survey method.

The respondents of the study came from the different atheist groups present

and active on Facebook:

a) Atheist Republic Metro Manila Consulte - HAPI

b) Atheism in the Philippines
c) Atheist Movement of the Philippines
d) Atheist Beings
e) Philippine Atheists and Agnostics Society
f) Filipino Freethinkers
g) Rational Filipino

Sampling Technique

The respondents for the survey method were chosen through a quota

sampling technique. The researchers set a specific number of respondents needed

for the survey and until the quota or the specific number has been reached. As such,

the researchers aimed to have a total number of 400 respondents for their survey.

Research Instruments

Questionnaire [Survey, and Key Informant interviews and Personal Correspondence]

The research used a mixed method; hence, it used survey questionnaires for

conducting survey and guide questions for key informant interviews and personal

correspondence.

 41

In the survey questionnaire, the researchers used a combination of Binary-

response and a more flexible questionnaire allowing the respondents to choose a

number of options that were deemed fit to them. To measure the degree on whether

the given political issues were interesting for them or not, the researchers used

binary choice. The researchers presented a number of issues and correspondingly,

the respondents identified with themselves whether it is in line with their interest or

not. By using such method, the researchers were able to grasp the issues that

atheists (respondents) felt strongly about. Likewise, the use of such method made

the results amenable to statistical analysis.

The questionnaire comprised three parts: the first part dealt with the profile of

the respondents in terms of their age, political ideology, socioeconomic status and

educational attainment; the second part measured the degree of interest of the

respondents on certain political issues; and lastly, the third part dealt with the types

of actions/manifestations of political engagement. Additionally, the researchers

approached a number of professors coming from different fields to validate their

instrument and guide questions. The validation of the instruments started on October

6 until October 26.

Data Gathering Procedure

The researchers executed a mixed type of methodology. They combined

qualitative method (Personal correspondence and individual interviews) and

quantitative method (survey).

Based on the literature, studies that deal with political engagement, political

behavior and political participation either used qualitative method or quantitative

method. By looking at the data analysis and remarks of the past researchers, they

 42

found that by using quantitative method, they could easily generalize their conclusion

about a large amount of sample. Though the accuracy of the statistics as to whether

the result really reflected for the whole population, nevertheless previous studies

showed that the results would still be reliable if done in a correct manner and the

error rests on the sampling technique used by the researcher. On the other hand, the

use of qualitative method of inquiry, i.e. interviews, focus group discussions, etc.,

stylize a face to face and a more direct way of data gathering. By resorting to such

methods, the researchers could easily get the relevant data for the study. Likewise,

since the respondents were subjected to an interview by the researchers, they could

easily express their thoughts.

Also, the researchers understand that both methods have their strengths and

weaknesses. And since the study of the relationship of political engagement and

atheism is somewhat new, they used mixed method so that they would capture,

analyze and express the results in objective (statistics-quantitative) complemented

by subjective data (interviews and personal correspondence). As argued by Wisdom

and Cresswell (2013), “such integration permits a more complete and synergistic

utilization of data than do separate quantitative and qualitative data collection and

analysis” Lastly, the use of both methods can increase the credibility of the

generalization to be made by the researchers on the atheist population in country.

Methods of Analysis

In dealing with the results of the survey method, the researchers used

association rules analysis, which is useful for discovering interesting relationships

between large sets of data (Tan, Steinbach and Kumar, 2005). By using such, the

 43

researchers were able to see the respondents’ frequent manifestations so as to

predict the possible manifestations of the atheists.

On the other hand, the results of both personal correspondence and key-

informant interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. By using the thematic

method of analysis, the responses of the key informants in personal correspondence

and from the key informant interviews were analyzed through common themes. The

use of common themes enable the researchers to group the answers of the key

informants and to easily assert its significance to the questions posed by the

researchers. As such, by reviewing and looking for codes and common

patterns/phrases on the responses of the key informants enable the researchers to

see how their answers are related in answering the main problem of the study.

 44

CHAPTER 4

PRESENTATION, INTERPRETATION, AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

In this chapter the results of the data analysis are presented. The data were

collected and then processed in response to the problems posed in chapter 1 of this

research. It presents the data collected from the persons who viewed themselves as

atheists.

(SOP No.1) Profile of the Atheist Respondents

Age

Figure 2. Percentage of atheists according to age group.

Age

65 years old and above 1.25

50-64 years old 4.5

Age Bracket

30-49 years old 16.75

18-29 years old 61.75

17 years and below 15.75

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Percentage

Figure 2 shows that of the four hundred atheists surveyed online, 247 or

61.75% were 18-29 years old while 16.75% and 15.75% belong to the age brackets

30-49 years old and 17 years and below, respectively. Age, as what Lamprianou

(2013) suggested, affects one’s political participation. Since majority of the

 45

respondents fell under the bracket of 18-29 years old, it can be discerned as what

the researchers have found out during the study that the respondents are more likely

to incline themselves with new forms of participation, aside from rallies,

demonstrations and voting. This is in line with the idea that the young people uses

social media and the Internet often, compared to the elders. In this age of technology

and information, the young ones often uses new platform to make their voices hear

and to show their manifestations, such as the social media and the Internet.

With regards to one’s atheism, Geare (2016) found out that, “atheism occurs

more often in young men then in other segments of the population.”

Educational Attainment

Figure 3. Percentage of atheists according to their educational attainment.

Educational Attainment

Vocational Graduate 4
Levels of Education

Past-Graduate Studies 7.5

College Graduate 38

College Level 29.75

High School 20.5

Elementary 0.25

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Percentage

We cannot deny the fact that education is significant when awareness about

certain issues is concerned. With the knowledge inculcated on the minds of the

 46

individuals, one can provide their perceptions on the issues, backed with sources

and evidences. As what Figure 3 presents, most of the respondents are college

graduates (38%), followed by college level (29.75%), high school graduates

(20.50%), and vocational graduates (4%). Education, as what Persson (2013)

noticed, is relevant in the study of political participation. He argued that the

importance of education lies in its ability to increase the skills and knowledge, which

might also affect political interest and efficacy; factors that all in turn trigger

participation and engagement to politics.

The researchers were able to see how education shaped the perceptions of

the key informants during the interview. When answering on the questions,

especially on the part of the issues, the key informants gave substantial answers to

the researchers; answers, which were no mere speculation, but based on the rational

understanding of the issue and backed by researches. Likewise, since most of the

respondents are educated, mostly college graduate, the results posted in figure 3

support the results of the past researches that most of the atheists are well

educated, id est finished college upto post-graduate level, because it has been

argued that atheists, since they are not barred with any religious considerations, are

free to critique and provide critical assessment on issues.

 47

Political Ideology

Figure 4. Percentage of atheists according to their political ideology.

Political Ideology

Very Conservative 0.75

Conservative 4.25
Moderate 23.5
Ideologies

Liberal 38.75

Very Liberal 16.5

I don't know 9.75

Others 6.5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Percentage

Figure 4 shows that the majority of the atheists are liberal (38.75%), followed

by moderate (23.50%), and very liberal (16.50%). Meanwhile, approximately 1 out of

10 atheists considered themselves as “very liberal” while 4 out of 100 said they are

the conservative type. Other types of political ideology earned 7.25% of the totality.

The data above concurs with what the Pew Research Center (2012) has

found out about their poll regarding the believers and the non-believers. Pew

Research found out, and as what the researchers also have seen in the results of

their survey, most of the atheists affiliate themselves with liberal ideologies than

conservative ones. As one of the important indicators when studying political

engagement, ideology guides to individuals in deciding divisive political issues, and

also acts as effective and strong predictors of political participation.

 48

This implies that atheists, being inclined with liberalism, are more favorable

with progressive policies like same-sex-marriage, divorce, death penalty, legalization

of marijuana, and others. In connection with this, the researchers have found out that

most of the respondents showed a high interest on issues that the researchers have

provided on their survey. Not only do these issues are bathed with morality, some of

which are also progressive.

Monthly Income

Figure 5. Percentage of atheists according to their monthly income.

Monthly Income

160,001 and above 2.5

120,000-160,000 1.75
Income Bracket

79,001-120,000 2.5

32,001-79,000 8

16,001-32,000 17.5

8,001-16,000 9.75
Less than 8,000 7.25

Non-earning 50.75

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percentage

Figure 5 presents that the majority (50.75%) of the respondents were non-

earning while 17.50% were earning between PHP16,000 and PHP32,000 per month.

Other income brackets followed with 9.75%, 8%, and 7.25% for PHP8,001-

PHP16,000; PHP32,001-PHP79,000; and less than PHP8,000; respectively.

 49

The results of the survey as long as monthly income is concerned, are

surprising, for these dwell away from the common findings that most of the atheists

fell under the bracket of high earning individuals. Since majority of the atheist

respondents are still non-earning, the researchers debunk the idea that atheism

mostly occurs on individuals who have higher standards of living.

However, the researchers still acknowledged that 50.75% of their

respondents are non-earning because most of them answered that they are still

taking their college education. All told, the rest of the respondents are already

gaining their profits.

(SOP No.2) Issues that Atheists Feel Strongly About and their Perceptions on

the said Issues

Atheists’ Concept of Morality

Since the researchers aimed to assess the relationship between atheism and

political engagement by providing specific socio-political issues and identify how an

atheist would respond to such issues, it is necessary to understand first their concept

of morality since the issues provided were undeniably issues with moral

underpinnings.

It has been a long-standing argument by most of the theists that religions are

the main sources and sole provider of morality; that without any subscriptions to

such, one cannot possess a set of moral values, hence rendering them immoral.

However, atheists dissent from the claim. It has been postulated by one of the

informants and a former member of Philippine Atheists and Agnostics Society, a

renowned atheist organization that, “morality has nothing to do with the existence of

God or religious belief…” Some informants further augmented the idea that religion is

 50

irrelevant to have a morality by positing that, “… logic and reason will tell you to just

live by the golden rule” and by stating that “I based my values not to supernatural

being but on science, humanism and rationality, reality.” With that being said, it can

be regarded that atheists believe that one does not need the existence of a

supernatural lawgiver or even affiliation in any religion to have a sense of morality.

Since the “non-existence of a god or gods” is the central point of atheism and

what holds them similar, their concept of morality varies from one atheist to another.

They extract their concept of morality from a number of sources. Some base their

moral values on humanism, equality and love for humanity. Another would be on

their rationality and the use of science. Others obtain it from their use of sheer logic

and reason, and evidence-based beliefs.

Expounding on these sources, equality and respect have been cited as tenets

of morality; that the existence of such would dictate the living arrangements of the

society, whether the citizens will experience a harmonious living or violence. The use

of rational thinking complemented by concrete evidences, logic and reason are also

important building blocks of the atheists’ moral values as it allow them to first assess

the situation and gather some evidences and facts before rendering any judgment or

action. Moreover, by using such as a basis of morality, the informants contend that

one will be able to discern what is right from what is wrong, and eventually even the

religious individuals will see that even without their religious belief to guide them,

they will realize that killing is immoral.

Other informants from Humanist Alliance Philippines, International (HAPI) call

this as “humanism,” which for them is their basis of moral values. The resident

psychologist of the said organization said that, “Yes I get my values from humanism

if you do your research we can see that may connection ang humanism sa atheism.”

 51

By anchoring their morality on humanism, some atheists believe that human beings,

even without religion, can be ethical and morally upright provided that proper

education is inculcated to them. However, despite of the atheists’ diverse source of

morality, the researchers have found out that by analyzing these sources, their

concept of morality are connected and pertains to a mutual end, id est the idea of

common good.

By using rational thinking, evidence-based belief, humanism, logic and

reason, the researchers inferred that atheists analyze and assess the conditions

thoroughly and see if the effect would be beneficial to the society or not; that to aim

for an equality and respect to exist in a society is tantamount to aim what is only best

and good for all. As espoused by one respondent, “So, morality for me is …sa

evidence based belief ko…na before we act there must be an evidence to tell us how

to act, so basta na prove that this actions work in helping the lives of people then for

me I will treat it as a moral good.” They see to it that before they act and make

actions, they make sure that it is based on proven facts and evidences and

additionally, beneficial for their fellow human beings. A number of atheists from HAPI

articulated this idea, stating that they approach the issues faced by the society for

“what is best for my fellowmen and what is best for society,” and that “moral

foundation is the protection of human rights through love of humanity and rational

compassion.”

The researchers asserted in simple analogy that the atheists’ concept of

morality is simple, if it is beneficial for the community and is supported by facts and

evidences, then it is the right thing to do.

By wearing the moral lenses of the atheists, one would see that their lack of

religion and lack in the belief in god or gods do not hamper them from searching

 52

other sources of morality. And since there are no religious doctrines and

supernatural beliefs to bind them, they turn their attention to reality and to the

humanity as their basis of ethics and moral values. As one of the informants argued,

“Once you’re outside of it [religion], you’ll be able to see the world and its laws in a

bird’s eye view: realizing your mistake and the things hardwired in you.”

On Socio-political Issues

Upon understanding atheists’ concept of morality, one can imply that unlike

religion, atheism is not a worldview per se; as one of the respondents posited,

“atheism does not find me a world view; it’s just a rejection of the concept of the

existence of a god or gods.”

While religions certainly provide a code that serve as an arbitrary rule for

people and delineate acts that are deemed good from bad, atheism does not.

Another key informant said, “I am simply not beholden to the same dogmas that

believers of religious groups often have.” This is why upon reviewing the answers of

atheists when asked about their perception on different socio-political issues, one will

find that there is no such thing as “atheistic argument” for social issues identified in

the Statement of the Problem. There are no established beliefs on the value of life,

the concept of justice, war, freedom and the essence of our very existence. It is also

noticeable that atheists, when differentiating themselves from religious, would always

mention that they do not consider religious arguments; that “god does not approve

homosexuality,” “that only god has the right to take away life,” etc. This is what hold

atheists together, their lack of belief in a god or gods.

Consequently, atheists can think freely away from the doctrines imposed by

religion. They assess situations in a manner they think it should be assessed. It is

 53

individualistic in a sense that they decide by their own selves. “If God doesn’t exist,

who is in control of your sexual health? You as a person. If there is no God that

dictates you to multiply or not, you can decide by yourself” and “No God to provide

for us, no one else to help us but ourselves and our other fellow humans;” these are

just among the many responses the researchers received revealing the individualistic

perception of atheists. And since the lack of belief in god/s is the only thing that binds

atheists together, there is a huge possibility that they had much differences when it

comes to opinions and perceptions on how the society is ought to be and on how the

government should work and function.

In order for the researchers to identify whether or not atheism affects atheist’s

perception on certain socio-political issues, the researchers had identified a number

of issues in their survey where religion has so much to say about such as issue on

war on drugs, death penalty, sex education, same sex marriage and divorce, the use

of birth control, LGBT Rights and abortion, while letting the key informants identify

their issues of choice in the survey. These issues put morals set by believers at

stake. More often than not, morals that people of faith embrace follow a conservative

view of life. It is easier to conclude that a devoted member of a Christian

denomination would not support the campaign on war on drugs, death penalty and

abortion as Christians put high value on the dignity of life; that there is no room for

same sex marriage, LGBT rights or divorce because Sacred Scripture says that

human beings were created men and women, and that marriage binds two people as

one; that bringing up the issue regarding sex education and use of birth control will

only promote promiscuity, and so against the moral code of the belief system.

Of course, this is not to say that religious people had uniformity of perceptions

regarding these issues. Members of some religions also have their own level of

 54

devotion thus, religion has influenced them in different levels as well. As a belief

system, religion also exists in a spectrum, such as differences between liberal

Catholics and conservative ones. But in some ways, push and influence these

people to think within the limits set by their faith. The clear-cut distinction from

atheists is that, all atheists are definitely without biases set by religious teachings. It

then became an opportune moment assessing whether or not atheism influence

atheist’s perception regarding these socio-political issues.

 55

Table 1. Distribution of socio-political issues of atheists (n = 400)

Socio-Political Issues Frequency (n) Percentage (%)

Government Corruption
Highly interested 357 89.3
Least interested 43 10.8
War on Drugs
Highly interested 297 74.3
Least interested 103 25.8
Extrajudicial Killings
Highly interested 331 82.3
Least interested 69 17.8
Death Penalty
Highly interested 341 85.3
Least interested 59 14.8
Same-sex Marriage
Highly interested 326 81.5
Least interested 74 18.5
Divorce
Highly interested 271 67.8
Least interested 129 32.3
Sex Education
Highly interested 358 89.5
Least interested 42 10.5
Use of Birth Control
Highly interested 355 89.8
Least interested 42 11.3
Gay/LGBT Rights
Highly interested 341 85.3
Least interested 59 14.8
Marcos Burial in Libingan
ng mga Bayani
Highly interested 191 47.8
Least interested 209 52.3

Table 1 shows the distribution of percentages of the responses on socio-

political issues by the persons who are affiliated with some atheists groups in Metro

Manila. As displayed, 9 out 10 were “highly interested” in government corruption, 7

 56

in war on drugs, 8 in extrajudicial killings, almost 9 out of 10 in death penalty, 8 out of

10 in same-sex marriage, almost 7 in divorce, 9 in sex education, 9 also in use of

birth control, and almost 9 in gay/LGBT rights. Meanwhile, almost half of the atheists

were not highly interested in Marcos burial in Libingan ng mga Bayani.

Considering the distribution of the percentages above, one can infer that the

atheists surveyed were “highly interested” in almost all of the issues provided. With

the numbers allocated to the issue of Marcos burial in Libingan ng mga Bayani (an

issue with little moral underpinnings), the researchers’ assumption that atheists are

more likely to react towards politics when the issues are with moral underpinnings

has just been attested. The same responses were also extracted from the qualitative

part of the study, in which the Libingan issue was seldom mentioned by the key

informants. It can be further deduced that political issues veering on the moral are

also the concern of atheists since these issues also concern them with regard to the

constitutionally-enforced separation of church and state. The state, a secular being,

must not be influenced by any religion whatsoever, a common theme that emerged

during the interviews.

When providing opinions on the drug problem, interviewed atheists would say

that drug use is primarily a personal issue. They are not quick in providing judgments

and deviate from what most of the people think of drug users. There is openness in

trying to understand how people end up using illegal drugs. However, they recognize

that there are crimes being committed because of drug abuse. It is also noticeable

that interviewed atheists are all concerned about due process. For them, it is not an

issue of who has the right to take away life, but rather, an issue of having an effective

justice system. As one of the interviewed atheists put it: “I believe that before they kill

the accused, they must presume his innocence and let the courts decide in this

 57

matter, [otherwise] we cannot take justice into our hands that is why there is a

purpose for the constitution [for due process].” Supposing that the justice system is

effective, most atheists then are supportive of the campaign on the war on drugs.

The same observation also arises on the issue of death penalty. However,

there are more differences than a common ground among atheists. Many who

oppose death penalty are more concerned about a defective justice system where

the poor are in an unfavorable playing field. They believe that people within the

higher socioeconomic strata will always find their way out. Others support death

penalty only for the purpose of deterring incidents of crime. Some still believe that life

cannot be taken away based on humanist outlook; for them, it is an injustice to take

away one’s life and that retribution is not the answer. Nevertheless, when looking at

the issue, atheists are much more concerned with the merits of the issue rather than

confining it to the ethical considerations. Interviewed atheists also agreed that sex

education and use of birth control are necessary to avoid sexually transmitted

diseases, early pregnancy, overpopulation and poverty, all for the sake of “human

progress”.

On same sex marriage, “religion did not invent marriage,” as said by one of

the interviewed atheists. All supported same sex marriage for the very purpose of

legal protection such as rights to share ownership, visitation rights, and other rights

enjoyed by heterosexual couples. Atheists viewed the issue as a matter of

separation of church and state where the church should not meddle with the state

affairs. Same sentiments have transpired with the issue on divorce. Because of

continued meddling of the church, divorce will never materialize in the Philippines;

and for the atheists, it always hampers and held back progress. This is also the

 58

same reason why they think that members of the LGBT community are being

discriminated and being deprived of the same rights the males and females enjoy.

On the issue of abortion and reproductive health, interviewed atheists insist

freedom of choice, especially for women. As one of the respondents suggest, “I am a

feminist and I believe women have the right to choose to be pregnant and to

terminate their pregnancies. And I think the Catholic Church has been holding us by

the neck with this.” Though they vary in opinion on when and what circumstances

abortion can be procured, all assessed the issue on the basis of whether it is for the

progress of society or not.

Common Cause

As it is said that atheism is not a world view per se, researchers expect that

an atheist's perception to certain socio-political issues might differ from another

atheist. Since there is no unified and consistent set of beliefs that atheists hold

together, their opinions vary from strongly supporting death penalty and abortion to

promoting life; from providing equal rights to all regardless of sexual orientation and

gender identity to probably limiting it under specific conditions; each also have

different issues that they feel strongly about. There are atheists who choose to

suspend their judgment on a specific issue, and there are those who have a lot to

say on the same issue.

Analyzing the data gathered through interviews, atheism is a factor that

influence the opinion of atheists to the given issues but only to the extent that they

provide assessments without the biases of religious belief.

With their lack of belief in a supreme being/s, atheists, in order to make sense

of reality, turn to science, logic, and rational and freethinking. Science, according to

 59

one of the key informants mentioned during the interview that, “…wala akong

bossing but the science, philosophy. If I f*cked up, it’s me. (I have no bossing aside

from science and philosophy. If I f*cked up, it’s me).” With the use of such, atheists

formulate their arguments and beliefs without being fettered by the religious

scriptures, and rely constantly on evidenced-based arguments and if it is clearly

beneficial to humanity as a whole. One respondent claimed that, “I think that the lack

of belief in a supreme being allows me to think more clearly about the connection

that bound us all to the core: common humanity. Solutions tend to be more strategic

as well as more inclusive when you use science and rational thinking.”

The researchers still recognize that their opinions might be personal and may

depend on their economic background, age, ideology, educational attainment,

experiences, environment or mere principles that they embrace and apply. From this

assumption, the researchers settle that atheism has no direct influence to atheists’

perception to politics in general.

Of course, having no direct influence does not mean not having any

connections at all. Since atheists are not being restricted by the dogmas of religion,

they are free from reservations or pretenses, thus allowing them to think beyond

what religious people would think of. What atheists consider then are the possible

benefits or harms when supporting or opposing a certain issue. They look on the

merits and put “progress” as the primary basis.

But, what is more necessary to consider when looking into their perceptions,

is the idea that atheists are very much interested to political issues when the issues

at hand are spoiled with moral questions. The same was reflected when the

respondents for the qualitative method were asked whether or not their perceptions

to the given socio-political issues account to them as atheists.

 60

Table 2. Distribution of perceptions on socio-political issues accountable to being an

atheist (n = 400)

Item Frequency (n) Percentage (%)

Do you think your
perceptions account to
you as an atheist?
Yes 241 60.3
No 159 39.8

Also, responses by the persons who are affiliated with some atheists groups

in Metro Manila, when asked if they think their perceptions on socio-political issues

account to being an atheist, 60.3% or 6 out of 10 responded “yes.” This means that

most of them perceived that being highly interested in government corruption, war on

drugs, extrajudicial killings, death penalty, same-sex marriage, divorce, sex

education, use of birth control, and gay/LGBT rights constitutes to accountability of

being an atheist.

(SOP No.3) Atheists and their Manifestations on the Given Socio-political

Issues

The separation of church and state is one of the important pillars in a secular,

democratic republic wherein the realm of politics is detached from religion. However,

as what the history of the Philippines has shown and up until today, it is believed that

the influence of the church over the government and the citizens has never ceased.

There are several ways in which religion plays an important role in political

engagement. As what Djupe and Grant (2001) have found out, active participation in

church translates into active political engagement when their church members see

that their religious actions have political consequences. Even in the predominantly

 61

Christian country such as the Philippines, Rood (2012) and Buenaobra (2016)

posited that religion could sway the political participation of the Filipinos through the

influence and dictates of their church leaders. These findings show that there is a

substantial correlation between religion and engagement, but does that also apply to

atheists or those who do not believe in god/gods?

The researchers have already noted that atheists, compared to the religiously

affiliated, do not have any codes that guide them in their everyday conducts.

Therefore, it is not surprising that people who subscribe to such have different

perceptions toward the socio-political issues that the researchers have utilized, for

there is no unifying factor that links them aside from the idea that “there is no god or

gods”. Nonetheless, by looking at the results of the survey participated by 400

atheists from the different and known atheist groups existing in and outside of

Facebook, it is quite noting that there are similarities on how they engage in politics.

Figure 6. Percentage distribution of the manifestations of atheists to the society.

Different Types of
Manifestations

Percentage

 62

Though atheists are only connected to their disbelief, statistics still imply that

there exist similarities when they manifest their political actions in the society. As

shown in the figure above, the percentage distribution of atheists’ actions to the

society display that sharing political issues with others (manis1) accounted for the

highest probability of manifestation with 82 percent. This means that approximately 8

out of 10 share political issues with others. It was followed by the sharing of political

opinions in social media (manis2) accounting for 62.25%. Fifty-eight percent (58%)

were actively voting on elections (manis7), and 53.75% visited a politically oriented

website (manis4). Meanwhile, half of the respondents participated in online political

discussions (manis3), helped to raise awareness around a particular political issue

(manis13), and signing petition for political issues (manis6). Also, 3 out of 10

attended talks or seminars about social and political issues (manis5) while only 2 out

of 10 had joined protest, march, rallies or any demonstrations. These observable

behavior or manifestations inhibited by the respondents show the variations of the

atheists’ political engagement.

Manifestations through the Internet and Social Media

By analyzing the results above, it is notable that most of the high percentile

manifestations involve the use, or may be correlated with the use of Internet. From

the sharing of political opinions, sharing of political issues, visiting a politically

oriented website, helping raise awareness around a particular political issue and

even in participating in online discussions, these manifestations have been used in

this time of the digital age through the platform of the social media. The researchers

found support in their key informants interview to further the interpreted notion of the

statistical results that atheists have mostly use the Internet and social media for their

 63

engagements, while fewer when it comes to physical manifestations such as rallies,

marches and movements.

“It doesn’t take much to express oneself on social media, though I have since tempered it as it achieves little
more than polarize people even more.”

“I post some stuff if you can access my facebook page, makikita niyo dun yung mga usual na mga subtle na
politics slash bash in religion posts (you can see my usual yet subtle political slash bash in religion posts).”

“I subtly protest through my facebook posts, I support through online pag may mga petitions na ganito, ganyan
(I support through online if there are petitions and the likes).”

“I respond by of course first giving my own opinion on the matter, posting status or writing an article or
publication or media outfit if it’s a big issue pero kung hindi facebook lang kapag everyday (if not I only use
Facebook everyday).”

“And of course I agitate other people, my friends na parang “o narinig niyo ba to, this is unacceptable” parang to
make them feel that they have to act if not voice out man lang
(And of course, I agitate other people and my friends as well, like have you heard of this; this is unacceptable,
just to influence them to act or voice out their concerns).”

-Statements from the Key Informant Interview

It is discernable that by looking at the statements given by the atheists during the key

informant interview, social media is one of the primary platforms for their

manifestations. Atheists manifest their perceptions on political issues in general

through the use of the Internet and social media. As one of the founders of the

Philippine Atheist and Agnostics Society (PATAS) has ratiocinated, “ano sa ngayon

you can use media... social media like facebook…type mo yung ano hashtag mo.

Example ako hinahashtag ko si Pacquiao diba so yun yung way eh, the cheapest

way eh kinse pesos lang naman isang oras ng internet. Makakakuha ka na ng way

na masabi mo gusto mo o make your blog kunwari blogger ako (in this time, you can

use social media… like Facebook…type hashtags. For example I always hashtag

Pacquiao [referring to the Senator’s use of religious references in the Senate],

because it is the cheapest way for only 15 pesos per hour, you can express yourself

or make a blog).” The use of social media is cheap and it is considered as the most

accessible way for our voices to be heard. By utilizing Facebook pages, groups and

chats, atheists are able to post their concerns and arguments regarding their

 64

perceptions on the varying socio-political issues, including their distaste on religion.

Their use of social media as one of the informants admitted is a kind of protest.

Aside from showing their aversion towards the status quo and the prevailing idea

towards the issue, they also use the online social networking (OSN) to form petitions

and even assail politicians such as Senator Manny Pacquiao on his continuous

usage of religious arguments in the Senate.

Additionally, the mere membership of the respondents and the key informants

in several atheist groups posits the idea that atheists mainly use social media as

their primary form of everyday engagement. Since OSN allows the vast population to

connect with each other, the use of the platform makes sharing of opinions and

political issues easier and faster. Writing and posting their statements on Facebook,

including their blogs regarding their stand on certain political issues can easily evolve

into an informal debate and rich conversations, not just with their fellow atheists, but

also with the theists.

Consequently, the resident psychologist of one of the atheist and humanist

groups, Humanist Alliance Philippines, International (HAPI) uses her profession as a

psychologist to show her engagement. She also utilizes Facebook in order to give

advice and counsels to other people as what she expressed during the interview, “I

counsel people for free kasi sa (because in) HAPI there are people who have mental

problems but they are just online they’re not yet talking to me face to face but I do

the counseling for free sa chat it’s not a problem for me it’s my advocacy you don’t

have to pay me for that.” Clearly, atheists have been using Facebook and other

OSNs as an all-around platform to show their political engagement: sharing of their

opinions and political issues, criticizing politicians, help raise awareness around a

particular issue, making informal debates, supporting petitions, visiting politically

 65

oriented website, and the like. We should also note that these responses made by

both the key informants and the respondents feature a clear observable behavior in

order to show their manifestations in politics.

Physical Forms of Engagement

By relying on the data presented on Figure 6, only one manifestation that

uses physical work in order to be accomplished was answered by the respondents

as fifty-eight percent (58%) of them are actively voting on elections (manis7). All

other manifestations that involves physical work aside from voting, only garnered 10

to 30% of the answers. Based on the results of the survey, only 1 out of 10 atheists

are doing manis 11 or contacting a newspaper, magazine, radio or television

program to express their opinion on an issue or candidate, manis 14 joining public

consultations initiated by the government, manis 9 or worked or volunteered for a

political campaign, and manis 10 or contacted or visited a public official to ask for

assistance or to express their opinion. While, only 2 out of 10 atheist respondents

answered that they are joining protest, march, rallies or any demonstrations (manis

8) and attending a meeting of town or city council, school board or neighborhood

association (manis 12). Lastly, 3 out of 10 atheists admitted that they are attending

talks or seminars about social and political issues (manis 5) as another way for them

to engage in politics.

Even in the interview, only few key informants have shared during their

interviews that they are performing other engagements of other avenues aside from

the use of social media, such as physical protests and movements.

 66

“For example dun sa Marcos burial, pumunta ko dito sa Luneta (For example, in the issue of the Marcos burial, I
wen to Luneta).”

“Rallies… yeah of course since 2001 I’ve walked yung malalayong lakad (far and long rallies). UP Diliman to
Batasan noon (back then).”

“…nagmamanifest din yung pagiging atheist ko in supporting policies like joining pride march, especially during
pride march we see people opposing the LGBT rights minsan nakikipagsigawan kami sa mga religious people…
(My atheism is also manifested when I am supporting policies like joining pride march, especially during pride
march we see people opposing the LGBT rights, sometimes we are yelling against the religious people).”

“ano din pala (Additionally,) in terms of movements, I link up with feminism and atheist movements to forward
LGBT rights.”

-Statements from the Key Informants Interview

Among the key informants only three (3) of the 20 key informants specified

that they are actively participating in rallies everytime that are issues that of national

importance or has a major effect on them. The founder, together with a former

member of PATAS shared that amidst the issue of the Marcos burial, they joined the

movement in Luneta to show their dissension on the move to bury the late President

in the Libingan ng mga Bayani. Atty. Jesus Nicardo Falcis III, a lawyer and a

professor from Far Eastern University, admitted he is actively joining rallies and

movements to promote his advocacy in LGBT rights and to make his stand on

certain political issues be heard.

Other key informants said that they are not active in rallies and

demonstrations, as what one of them said during the interview, “with the government

though, I do not actively participate with any forms of protest or support groups,”

while another key informant openly admitted that he “usually go with the flow” in

terms of politics. However, while others insulate themselves from active participation

in protest and rallies, others still affirmed that sometimes they involve themselves

with forums concerning various political issues as another way of showing their

political engagement. An atheist who is currently on his second year of law study

expressed that, “When it comes to voting, I get a list of laws that senators authored

and voted on. It’s a point system for me, though I frequently end up not supporting

 67

those that represent the church as they are often the ones I find most disagreeable

on the list of bills they support or not support.”

Degree of Political Activeness in terms of Manifestations

It is remarkable that based on the data gathered by the researchers, both

interview and survey results augment and support each other. The engagements

being manifested by the atheists on both methods – qualitative and quantitative –

show a recurring pattern. Using first the results of the survey as already indicated

above, atheists show an active participation in politics in varying ways using the

platform of the Internet and OSNs (Blogs, Articles, Facebook), compared to other

forms of engagements such as rallies, protest and movements which need their

physical presence and participation in order to undertake.

Figure 7. Itemset length distribution of engagements/manifestations of atheists to

the society.
Different Types of Manifestations

Percentage

 68

To prove this notion, Figure 7 displays itemset/transaction length distribution

of engagements of atheists to the society. Bar chart shows that 11 or 2.75% atheists

were actively engaged in all of the 14 political actions listed in the survey. Thirty-nine

or 9.75% of the total respondents chose the smallest possible size of itemset, 1. This

means that 1 out 10 atheists were engaged in at most one of the 14 political actions.

Meanwhile, 54 or 13.5% were doing 4, the highest size, of the political actions listed

in the survey. It was followed by 2 political actions with 52 counts or 13% of the

entirety.

Examining the figure above, the researchers have found out that almost 40 to

50 atheists among the 400 respondents have been manifesting their engagements

by doing one (1) to six (6) manifestations at the same time. The highest numbers of

multiple manifestations being done by more than 50 atheist respondents at the same

time were only six (6), where 51 respondents do it. This is followed by four (4) types

of manifestations being done at the same time, being done by 54 respondents. While

52 respondents have been doing two (2) manifestations at the same time.

Referring to Figure 6, where the percentage distribution of the manifestations

of atheists to the society are shown, the seven (7) most highest manifestations being

chosen by the respondents, which received 45% - 80% are: Manis 1 – Sharing

political issues with others (82%); Manis 2 – Sharing political opinions in social

media (62.25%); Manis 7 – Voting on Elections (58%); Manis 4 –Visited a politically

oriented website (53.75%); Manis 3 – Participated in an online political discussion

(47%); Manis 13 – Helped raise awareness around a particular political issue (47%);

and Manis 6 – Signing petitions for political issues (46.75%).

Cross-checking this data with Figure 7, it can be argued that the

manifestations being referred in the said figure, which shows the highest numbers of

 69

manifestations being performed at the same time by the respondents, can be

bounded in these manifestations that received the highest percentage distributions in

Figure 5, which shows the percentage distribution of the manifestations of atheists to

the society. This only further the researchers’ findings about the activeness of the

atheists in politics via Internet and social media, for the noted manifestations above

as augmented by the recurring statements of the key informants said that they use

social media in performing such manifestations.

On the other hand, by looking at the manifestations, which received low

percentage distribution from Figure 6, in relation with Figure 7, only few respondents

checked the “physical manifestations.” Though there is a rise in the number of

atheists who are doing eight (8) manifestations at the same time, the number of

atheists performing multiple manifestations higher than six (6) is still remarkably low;

8 manifestations being done by 30 atheists, being the highest, while 13

manifestations being done by only three (3) atheists as the lowest. As can be

gleaned from figure 6, the following manifestations received the lowest percentages

from the respondents: Manis 5 – Attending talks or seminars about social and

political issues (29.75%); Manis 8 – Joining protest, march, rallies or any

demonstrations (21.75%); Manis 12 – Attending a meeting of town or city council,

school board or neighborhood association (20.5%); Manis 10 – Contacted or visited

a public official (at any level of government) to ask for assistance or to express my

opinion (15.5%); Manis 9 – Worked or volunteered for a political campaign (e.g.

Campaigning political candidate/s) (13.5%); Manis 14 – Joining public consultations

initiated by the government (10.5%); and Manis 11 – Contacted a newspaper,

magazine, radio, or television program to express my opinion on an issue or

candidate (10.25%).

 70

With this existing data, the researchers recognize that when it comes to

tiresome and exasperating manifestations such as attending a seminar and

meetings, campaigning for an official, joining protests and public consolations or

manifestations that can be considered as highly political, the participation of the

atheists, as succinctly put, fades. The great difference between the percentage of

manifestations and the number of atheists performing such actions give us that as

the manifestations dwell away from the use of social media, if it necessities physical

presence in order to participate, or if the process to undertake the engagement is

longer, the number of atheists performing such actions are becoming low.

Table 3. Association rules between manifestations (engagements) chosen by

persons who are affiliated to some recognized atheist groups in Facebook

Rule LHS RHS Support Confidence Lift

1 manis13 → manis1 0.4250 0.9042 1.1028
2 manis4, manis6 → manis1 0.3000 0.9160 1.1171
3 manis2, manis6 → manis1 0.3275 0.9291 1.1330
4 manis13, manis4 → manis1 0.3000 0.9160 1.1171
5 manis13, manis2 → manis1 0.3475 0.9521 1.1610
6 manis3, manis4 → manis1 0.3025 0.9098 1.1095
7 manis2, manis3 → manis1 0.3850 0.9333 1.1382
8 manis1, manis3 → manis2 0.3850 0.9112 1.4638
9 manis4, manis7 → manis1 0.3075 0.9111 1.1111
10 manis2, manis4 → manis1 0.3600 0.9474 1.1553
Note. This table was generated using arules package in R programming language.
The number of data values used is n = 400 atheists.

The use of arules to analyze the pattern of engagement of the 400 atheists

also concurs with the findings of the researchers.

Table 3 shows the association rules between political manifestations done by

the atheists who are affiliated with some atheist groups in Metro Manila. As

displayed, 42.50 percent of the atheists have been doing helping to raise awareness

 71

around a particular political issue (manis13) and sharing political issues with others

(manis1), as indicated by Support. If there are 100 political actions that involve

helping to raise awareness around a particular political issue, then 90 of those also

have engaged in sharing political issues with others as indicated by the Confidence.

There is also a positive correlation, 1.1028, between the two engagements, as

indicated by the Lift.

On the other hand, if there are 100 atheists who are engaged in visiting a

politically oriented website (manis4) and signing petition for political issues (manis6),

then 92 of them also have been doing sharing political issues with others (manis1).

Sharing political opinions in social media (manis2) and signing petition for political

issues (manis6); and sharing political issues with others (manis1) altogether have

been doing by 30% of the atheists. If there are 100 atheists who are doing sharing

political opinions in social media (manis2) and signing petition for political issues

(manis6), then 85 of them also are doing sharing political issues with others

(manis1). Meanwhile, if there are 100 political actions done by the atheists that

contain helping to raise awareness around a particular political issue (manis13) and

visiting a politically oriented website (manis4), then 92 of those also have sharing

political issues with others (manis1). Doers of helping to raise awareness around a

particular political issue (manis13), sharing political opinions in social media

(manis2), and sharing political issues with others altogether accounted for 34.75

percent with confidence 95.21%. This means that if there are 100 atheists who used

to be doing helping to raise awareness around a particular political issue (manis13),

and sharing political opinions in social media (manis2) together, 95 of those also be

doing sharing political issues with others (manis1).

 72

Also shown in the table is 30.25% support for doing participation in online

political discussions (manis3), visiting a politically oriented website (manis4), and

sharing political issues with others (manis1). If there are 100 activities done by

atheists that involve participation in online political discussions (manis3) and visiting

a politically oriented website (manis4) together, then 91 of those also have sharing

political issues with others (manis1). Activities sharing political issues with others

(manis1), sharing political opinions in social media (manis2), and participating in

online political discussions (manis3) accounted for 38.50% support with higher

confidence, 0.9333, for sharing political issues with others (manis1) than sharing

political opinions in social media, 0.9112. This means that 4 out of 10 atheists are

engaged in the said three manifestations. On the other hand, if there are 100 political

actions done by atheists that cover sharing political opinions in social media (manis2)

and participating in online political discussions (manis3), then 93 of those also have

sharing political issues with others (manis1). There is also 91.12% chance of sharing

political opinions in social media (manis2) by the atheists with 1.4638 lift, given that

sharing political issues with others (manis1) and participating in online political

discussions (manis3) are involved. Visiting a politically oriented website (manis4),

voting on elections (manis7), and sharing political issues with others (manis1)

attributed 30.75% support from the surveyed atheists with confidence 91.11%. It

implies that if there are 100 atheists that did visiting a politically oriented website

(manis4) and voting on elections (manis7), then 91 of those also did sharing political

issues with others (manis1).

Even by relying on what the table presents, even the combinations of

manifestations given by the atheists during the survey as analyzed by arules show

that the pattern of combination only features the seven (7) manifestations which

 73

garnered the most percentages in figure 5. Through these data, it can be noted

easily that such observable and quantifiable manifestations, the researchers where

able to see the recurring pattern being made by the atheists not just in the surveys

but also in the interviews.

The Correlation between Atheism and Political Manifestations

The idea that atheists actively engage more when they can do it in incognito

or with little to no personal interaction with other individuals are needed, compared to

manifestations that needs personal interactions is a phenomena that the researchers

also try to answer using the data given during the key informants’ interview.

Although hailed as one of the strongest Catholic countries in the world, the

Philippine Constitution provides that the State must be secular in structure. As

mandated by Section 6 of Article II, Section 5 of Article III, and Section 29(2) of

Article VI, the 1987 Constitution establishes a wall between the government and the

Church. The informants are well in accordance to this notion as almost of all them

confront the idea of the eventual “fusion” or interdependence of the government and

the church, as posited by one of the informants, “basta ayoko lang madiktahan ng

religion and any belief yung pamamahala and yung mga policies na gagawin dito sa

Philippines (I do not want religion to dictate how [the governement] rules, as well as

the policies being made here in the Philippines).” However, even with these

Constitutional safeguards, the influence of religion to the development of one’s

perceptions and even their actions is undeniable in the Philippines.

In this Christian dominated country, the researchers found out that atheism

affects the conducts of those who subscribe to such as to their actions in the

community and in the government.

 74

On the Community and Government

First and foremost, atheism has been regarded as a minority group in the

Philippines. As argued by Atty. Falcis, “I also take into account that this (atheism) is a

minority position… so ako yung mas kailangan mag step up or mag engage

genuinely para maconvince ko sila (so I am the one who needs to step up or engage

genuinely, especially if I want to convince them).” As a minority group, some atheists

are being discriminated or harassed by the theists. Due to this, some of the atheists

are not yet openly admitting that they do not believe in a supernatural law-giver, in

fear that they will be branded as immoral, advocates of evil and a worshipper of

Satan. As posted by one of the key informants, “In a community of believers, it is

hard to agree on many issues. There are too many dogmas they hold sacred, but

which I do not accept.” The researchers believe that this is one of the primary

reasons why atheists based on the results are more active when it comes to political

engagement via social media than in personal or face-to-face engagements.

By using their concept of morality, which is their rational understanding of

reality towards the greater good; that their actions have an effect on others and vice

versa. The atheists conduct themselves in the society by being critical and a

freethinker. As a non-believer, they shun the idea of theistic arguments when making

rational considerations on certain situation, even when making a stand on the

different political issues. One key informant suggested that his engagement in the

community is that those people who uses religious arguments tends to be less

credible for him. When it comes in the conducts of elected officials, a number of key

informants also expressed their abhorrence to those politicians that anchor their

stand on certain issues or policy-making by using the Bible verses.

 75

“Politicians public officers, when they forward policies, its unacceptable for me to engage
with government on theistic grounds.”

“Secularism, again we live in a society with different religion so the government has to serve
everybody. They cannot forward religious based arguments for that would definitely be
specific to one religion like Manny Pacquiao. “

“Religious beliefs and superstition simply permeate everything.”

“…dapat walang religion sa picture ng political scene

(There shouldn’t be any religion in the scene of politics).”

-Statements from Key Informant Interview and Personal Correspondence

For the atheists, it is unacceptable that even politicians argue by using theistic

arguments because the former believes that the use of such is not rational. As a

freethinker, the key informants train themselves to question first before believing and

making judgments. Their rational understanding of the reality, outside the bounds of

any religious dogma, allows them to think freely and make some considerable

assessment on whether their judgment will benefit or harm the people. The use of

their concept of morality allows them to think and provide perceptions and critical

analysis on certain issues and at the same time consider how this affects the

community as a whole. Consequently, atheists’ actions on the said issues are guided

by their morality as well; that before they render judgment and actions, they will first

assess whether or not it is beneficial to the community or if there is enough evidence

to prove that the benefits outweigh the harms. This type of morality projects secular

morality wherein atheists prove that moral values are not exclusively provided by

religion.

The key informants believe that their engagement in the community has no

difference to their engagement in the government, for government and community

are closely attached to each other and is hard to separate. One of them clearly

stated the indifference, expressing that he “see[s] the government as part of, and as

 76

a reflection of the community” and that he “engage[s] with government personnel no

differently.”

(SOP No.4) On Significance of Atheism to Political Engagement

In order to identify the relationship between atheism and political

engagement, the researchers looked into the perceptions and the corresponding

actions of atheists regarding the issues that they feel strongly about. It is upon the

understanding of the researchers that perceptions and actions are two variables that

let atheists stay informed on issues (gaining political knowledge), and involved to

politics. Consequently, one can ascertain that there is a significant relationship

between atheism and political engagement if an atheist, because of his lack of belief

to a god or gods, led to a “politically engaged identity”.

In this case, delving more into atheists having one view or another pertaining

to a certain issue is unnecessary, but rather focus on the way they perceive political

issues they are well aware of and the corresponding actions that they manifest (i.e.

to know how they do things like stay informed, express opinions to lawmakers,

participate in the political process, assemble and associate, the ability to take part in

the conduct of public affairs and other political actions one can engage into).

With regards to atheists’ political perceptions, it is of high consideration that

an atheist, when providing opinions are well informed on the issue before

considering him “engaged” to it. And with the individual interviews and surveys

conducted, the researchers were able to identify political issues atheists feel strongly

about.

Atheists are highly interested in government corruption, war on drugs,

extrajudicial killings, death penalty, same-sex marriage, divorce, sex education, use

 77

of birth control, and gay/LGBT rights. These issues are socio-political issues with

moral underpinnings. Since all the issues provided posted moral dilemmas, the

researchers already established on the preceding discussions that these were issues

atheists have a lot to say about and were well informed of. With this in mind, atheism

led atheists to have a politically engage identity as far as their perception on political

issues are concerned and if the issues at hand are issues that put morals at stake---

socio-political issues. With that, the researchers conclude that there is a significant

relationship between atheism and political engagement if atheists’ perceptions are

the only variable to be studied that is, their perceptions on the socio-political issues

that they feel strongly about.

It is also notable that the six (6) out of 10 atheists recognize that their atheism

affects their perception on the socio political issues that they have interest with. Due

to the absence of a belief in a god, atheists, in order to make sense of what is the

reality, turn to science, logic, and rational and freethinking. Science, according to one

of the key informants mentioned during the interview that, “…walang wala akong

bossing but the science, philosophy. If I f*cked up, it’s me (I have no bossing aside

from science and philosophy. If I f*cked up, it’s me).” With the use of such, atheists

formulate their arguments and beliefs without being fettered by the religious

scriptures, and rely constantly evidenced-based arguments and if it clearly beneficial

to humanity as a whole. One respondent claimed that, “I think that the lack of belief

in a supreme being allows me to think more clearly about the connection that bound

us all to the core: common humanity. Solutions tend to be more strategic as well as

more inclusive when you use science and rational thinking.”

However, political engagement does not end up with political perceptions

alone. The researchers also recognize that perceptions, if not translated into actions

 78

are mere practice of freedom to speak out and form opinions. Political engagement

then, to be pragmatically understood needs to cover the corresponding actions the

atheists manifest.

Previously, the researches saw how atheists manifest their actions with

regards to the socio-political issues. A substantial amount of atheist respondents act

by using the social media and less on physical manifestation. However, even with

these manifestations, the researchers did not see any significant relationship

between atheism and political engagement. The key informants believe that their

atheism is just one factor among the many that moves them to engage in politics,

such as their gender orientation and others. Succintly put, atheism is only a support

pillar. As the key informants put it, even some of the theists engage in politics the

same way as they do; that many theists also participate on rallies, movements and

online manifestations if they disagreed with the actions of the government or if they

want their stand on the said issues be heard.

“Parang nagfa-factor lang pero not because of atheism talaga. Parang ano
lang… supports my actions parang… hindi talaga yung main motivation ko is
atheism (It is only like a factor and not purely because I am an atheist. It
supports my actions…and it is not my main motivation).”

“siguro as of now mga twenty percent (20% ) not so much because, I think the
biggest factor pa din that shapes my political engagement would be my gender
identity and sexual orientation. Atheism is not really an identity na parang or a
cause, but it is a pillar of support parang ganun
(I think, as of now, only 20% not so much because, I think the biggest factor
that shapes my political engagement would be my gender identity and sexual
orientation. Atheism is not really an identity or a case, but only a pillar of
support, something like that).”

-Statements from the Key Informant Interview

What differentiates the atheists and the theists, as what the researchers have

found is that the former’s acknowledgement that there is no god or god causes their

beliefs and actions to become stronger. As one of the key informants posited,

““Personal and yes yes maybe being an atheist, it has something to do with it. I

would be in there if I am not, if I am a believer I would be in there. Maraming

 79

Christians (There are also Christians) who are in the reproductive health scene,

mental health scene, but mas strong ang belief ko on that because I am an atheist.

Parang pinalakas (but my belief [compared to them] is much stronger because I am

an atheist, like it made my belief stronger).” It can be deduced from the statements of

the key informants that atheism is just a factor that drives them. Since they are

atheists, it is easier for them to make actions even if such is not in accordance with

the teachings of the Church.

Table 4. Distribution of the manifestations accountable to being an atheist (n = 400)

Item Frequency (n) Percentage (%)

Do you think your

engagement account to
you as an atheist?
Yes 128 32
No 272 68

Even the results of the survey show the respondents’ recognition that most of

them believe that their atheism do not account to their political actions. By looking at

the results above, table 3 posits that among the 400 respondents, seven (7) out of 10

of them consider that their engagement do not account to their atheism.

How their atheism partially affects their political engagement is that with their

lack of belief, atheists manifest their perceptions if they know that it will make a

difference on the society. Considering that the common good is central to their

 80

“…based on human needs, kung kailangan ng tao (if needed by the people)…not because
of any religion or lack of religion its because of the need of the humanity…”

“…I don’t really care what religion you have or if you believe in God/Gods…as long as no
one gets harmed…but in some cases where religion becomes a threat, that’s when I say, no
more”.

“…whenever I see people judging others based on their race, color, sexual orientation an
others, it triggers me…”

“The ones that drive me to react the most, is the peddling of false news, pseudo-science,
and conspiracy theories.”

“If, and only if, situation arises that totally disqualified the others’ rights and/or severely
aggravated.”

-Statements from the Key Informant Interview and Personal Correspondence

concept of morality, the researchers have considered it as the common cause for the

atheists to respond.

When asked about their reasons for responding, the answers of the key

informants boil down to this common cause. Their atheism allows them to engage in

politics without the fear of god’s retribution. Since most of the issues that they are

interested with deal with issues that have moral underpinnings and where the Church

have a lot to say about it using their dogma, atheists do not care if their actions

dissent from what the Christian majority thinks, as long as their engagement is for

the good of the society. Even those atheists who believe that their atheism do not

affect their engagement furthers the point that their common cause is the common

good when one of them expressed that “di dahil pagiging atheist ko yung sinu-

support ko dito kundi dahil sa what I believe in na mali talaga (it is not my atheism

which I support, but rather what I believe in that that is wrong).” Conversely, when

they perceive what is good for the humanity, they do not use religious worldviews

because they believe that it is not a universal fact. What they use is sheer logic and

their rational understanding of the reality. Regarding this, one respondent argued

that, “atheism shapes how I engage in different socio-political issues. I don’t launch

religious based arguments because I’m an atheist and I don’t believe in religious

 81

based arguments, but I can engage using their logic and of course my perspective

na that is not universal.”

Due to these considerations, the researchers have deduced that atheism

greatly affects the atheists’ perceptions on the said political issues. Due to their lack

of belief, they utilize science, rationality and freethinking, in order to have a view and

perceptions on the different issues. Using such, they are able to assess the different

sides and even the possible outcomes of their perceptions towards the issues,

without the taint of any religious beliefs. However, to reiterate, political engagement

does not stop on perceptions alone. In order to have an engagement, one must

manifest their perceptions and translate it to observable behavior. And with the prior

discussions, atheists do manifest their engagement primarily through internet and

social media while having low level of political engagement when it requires physical

presence and participation.

Table 5. Distribution of frequency of manifestations of actions/manifestations in the

previous years (n = 400)

Item Weighted Mean Interpretation

Based on your chosen
actions/manifestations
above, how often did you 2.51 Occasionally
manifest such actions in
the previous years

Legend: 1.00 - 1.75 = Always

1.76 - 2.50 = Frequently
2.26 – 3.25 = Occasionally
3.26 – 4.00 = Seldom

Even the table of occurrence of Atheists’ actions shows their low level of

participation. When atheists were asked how often did they manifest their actions

 82

(with the choices: always, frequently, occasionally and seldom), they occasionally

manifested such actions in the previous years. This is evident by the weighted mean

of 2.51, which means “occasionally,” as shown in Table 5.

Another important factor that the researchers considered is the motivation

behind the translated actions of atheists. Of course, when identifying whether or not

atheism has a significant influence to atheists’ actions, one needs to look on the

motivation of the doer of the action. It is recognizable that atheists, when manifesting

their perceptions through social media, internet, and other forms of political

participation regarding a certain issue, were acting not because they are atheists but

rather as members of the society with the primary purpose of bringing progress or

betterment to the society, if not, as responsible citizens of the nation. This became

evident when the respondent atheists were asked for the reasons behind their

actions or manifestations of perceptions.

Figure 8. Percentage distribution of reasons of manifestations to the society.

Reasons for their
Manifestations

Percentage

 83

Figure 8 shows the percentage distribution of atheists’ reasons of their

actions/manifestations to the society. As displayed, for the society’s betterment

(manres2) accounted for the highest probability of reason with 69.75 percent. This

means that approximately 7 out of 10 atheists perceived that they were doing their

political actions/manifestations for the society’s betterment. It was followed by for the

responsibilities they bear as a citizen (manres3) (68.5%). Approximately, fifty-seven

percent were doing their manifestations because they were disagreed and

dissatisfied with the current political system (manres5), and 22.25% were doing them

for leisure and entertainment (manres1). Meanwhile, approximately 1 out of 10 of the

atheists participated in their manifestations because they agreed and satisfied with

the current status (manres4).

With this data, we discover that atheists’ perception to different socio-political

issues though can be accounted to atheism, cannot not be automatically translated

to their actions and still account those actions to atheism. Succinctly put, atheism

might have a significant effect to an atheist’s perception to socio-political issues, but

for their actions, the same cannot be assumed. For when they need to put it into

action, there exist several factors, which might affect their decisions to continue

pursuing the their perceive actions, such as resources, support from others, if it can

backlash to them, society’s perceptions towards the atheists, for security reasons

and many more.

 84

Figure 9. Itemset length distribution of reasons of engagements/manifestations of

atheists to the society.

Reasons for their Manifestations

Frequency

Figure 9 displays itemset/transaction length distribution of reasons of

engagements of atheists to the society. Bar chart shows that 11 or 2.75% atheists

were doing their manifestations because of all possible 5 reasons. 107 or 26.75% of

the total respondents chose the smallest possible size of itemset, 1. This means that

3 out 10 atheists were doing their manifestations because of at most one of the 5

reasons. Meanwhile, 139 or 34.75% were doing 3, the highest counts, of the possible

reasons listed in the survey. It was followed by 2 reasons with 113 counts or 28.25%

of the entirety.

Deducing the data, atheists are engaging to politics not because of atheisms

but because of different factors stated above. In fact, they act not just for a sole

reason of what kind, but were acting for two or three possible reasons. This was

 85

shown in the Itemset length distribution of reasons of engagements/manifestations

of atheists to the society where there are five reasons provided (1 - For leisure and

entertainment 2 - For the society's betterment 3 - For the responsibilities you bear as

a citizen 4 - Agreed and satisfied with the current status 5 - Disagreed and

dissatisfied with the current status). The same deduction was further proven with the

data processed by the association rules, which explained how a reason of an atheist

for responding in a given political issue may lead to another reason.

Table 6. Association rules between reasons of manifestations chosen by persons

who are affiliated to some recognized atheist groups in Facebook.

Rule LHS RHS Support Confidence Lift

1 manres3, manres5 → manres2 0.3500 0.8589 1.2314
2 manres2, manres5 → manres3 0.3500 0.8092 1.1814
3 manres5 → manres2 0.4325 0.7621 1.0926
4 manres3 → manres2 0.5200 0.7591 1.0884
5 manres5 → manres3 0.4075 0.7181 1.0483
6 manres2, manres3 → manres5 0.3500 0.6731 1.1860
7 manres2 → manres5 0.4325 0.6201 1.0926
8 manres3 → manres5 0.4075 0.5949 1.0483
Note. This table was generated using arules package in R programming language.
The number of data values used is n = 400 atheists.

Table 6 shows the association rules between reasons of manifestations done

by the respondents who are affiliated with some atheist groups in Metro Manila. As

displayed, for the responsibilities they bear as a citizen (manres3), disagreed and

dissatisfied with the current political system (manres5), and for the society’s

betterment (manres2) altogether have been the reasons by 35 percent of the

respondents. If there are 100 atheists who have reasons of manifestations for the

responsibilities they bear as a citizen (manres3), and disagreed and dissatisfied with

the current political system (manres5), then 86 of them also have a reason for the

 86

society’s betterment (manres2). Meanwhile, if there are 100 atheists who have

reasons for the society’s betterment (manres2) and disagreed and dissatisfied with

the current political system (manres5), then 81 of those also have a reason for the

responsibilities they bear as a citizen (manres3). Disagreed and dissatisfied with the

current political system (manres5) and having a reason for the society’s betterment

(manres2) altogether and accounted for 43.25 percent with confidence 76.21%.

This means that if there are 100 atheists who are disagreed and dissatisfied

with the current political system (manres5), 76 of those also chose for the society’s

betterment (manres2) as the reason of their manifestations. Also shown in the table

is 52% support for the society’s betterment (manres2) and for the responsibilities

they bear as a citizen. If there are 100 reasons of manifestations perceived by

atheists that involve for the responsibilities they bear as a citizen (manres3), then 76

of those also perceived for the society’s betterment (manres2). Reasons, disagreed

and dissatisfied with the current political system (manres5) and for the

responsibilities they bear as a citizen (manres3), accounted for 40.75% support with

confidence, 0.7181. This means that given disagreed and dissatisfied with the

current political system (manres5) as the reason of manifestations, then 72 out of

100 atheists also thought for the responsibilities they bear as a citizen (manres3).

On the other hand, if there are 100 reasons chose by atheists for their

engagements/manifestations that cover for the society’s betterment (manres2) and

for the responsibilities they bear as a citizen (manres3), then 67 of those also have

disagreed and dissatisfied with the current political system (manres5) as the reason.

There is also 62% chance of having a reason disagreed and dissatisfied with the

current political system (manres5) by the atheists with 1.0926 lift, given that the

reason for the society’s betterment (manres2) is involved.

 87

The researchers then have found out that atheism does not affect atheists’

political engagement directly. Atheism, for them, is merely a factor among many

others that make them want to respond. More importantly, seeing that their actions

will benefit the common good is a driving force that let them raise their level of

political participation and engagement. And unlike religion, atheism is not an

institutionalize community of people where they can easily organize and create a

movement for political participation and engagement. The latter are diverse group of

people who can engage in politics and went to a rally, create a discourse over the

internet and express their dissatisfaction with the government by reasons they have

individually or personally. With this, the alternative hypothesis: there is a significant

relationship between atheism and political engagement has been discredited.

 88

CHAPTER 5
Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations

Summary and Conclusion

On Atheists Perception on Socio-political Issues

The first thing to consider when analysing the perceptions of atheists

regarding socio-political issues is that, unlike religious people, the former do not

provide arguments that hold them together except the rejection of the idea of an

existing god or gods. If in religion one can find moral arguments grounded in

scripture and theology, in atheism, one cannot find atheistic arguments pertaining to

socio-political issues. This is because atheism by itself does not, in any way, provide

a world view.

It is significantly proven that most of the atheists that were surveyed showed

high interests on the issues that were provided by the researchers. Again, their

acknowledgement of the different socio-political issues as highly interesting to them

does not follow that they have the same stance and ratiocination on the issues.

Since the only idea that binds atheists together is the lack of belief in god/s,

they think freely away from the doctrines of religion which allows them to create

unrestricted constructive criticisms. It is individualistic in the sense that they provide

opinions based on what they think the world is ought to be. The only thing similar to

their perceptions is not the conclusion per se but the causes behind the conclusions.

An atheist can support the war on drugs, while the other atheist may not. They differ

in substance but both have the same motivation; they provide judgments based on

what they think is deemed beneficial to society; whether supporting for or dissenting

from an issue will provide more good than harm. Most responses observed are a

reflection of a relativist moral position, as opposed to an objective morality usually

 89

offered by organized religion or belief system. This is where atheists derive their

morals: all in the name of progress. Some atheists are secular humanists who

believe in the value of life as building blocks of the society while others obtain it from

their use of sheer logic, reason, and evidence-based beliefs; the same reason why

atheists vary in opinions regarding the different socio-political issues. Nonetheless,

atheists still identified war on drugs, death penalty, sex education, same sex

marriage and divorce, the use of birth control, LGBT Rights and abortion as the

issues that they feel strongly about despite of their varying ratiocinations why they

are interested on such.

However, though there are variations, flexibility to perceptions is also visible.

This meant that atheists are open for changing their positions as long as there are

facts to be proven and evidence will support a claim.

On Atheists Manifestation of Political Engagement

Atheists are much concerned with politics when the Church, or any other

religion, started to meddle with governmental affairs. As nonbelievers, atheists

engage more with issues that have something to do with the separation of church

and state. They feel that the government is going beyond its mandate when it let

religious beliefs influence policy making, thus destroying the essence of a secular

democratic republic.

The personal issues that atheists feel strongly about are the same issues that

the church has a lot to say about. All believed that the morals used by religion when

arguing are nothing but a compromise to progress. This is the time when some

atheists engage outside and express their dissatisfaction.

 90

Atheists use social media to initiate discourse about politics. As evidenced by

the survey conducted, majority of the atheists show their engagement by the sharing

of political issues with others either personally or through social media. From there,

they gain memberships, form forums and collectively participate in street rallies, gay

pride marches and movements, though only minimal in this manifestation. Others

express their activism by joining organizations such as HAPI (Humanist Association

of the Philippines, Inc.), FFT (Filipino Freethinkers), Philippine Atheists and

Agnostics Society (PATAS), and other atheist Facebook groups, all of which do not

only delve with political issues but also promote certain causes for the benefit of the

community by utilizing its professional members, some of whom are doctors,

psychologist, engineers and writers who write articles for publication in responding to

pressing political issues.

However, not all atheists expressly engage in politics; going outside the

streets or advancing a certain cause for the community and government. Those that

can be considered active in engaging to politics are the ones who had their

membership to specific atheist groups. These atheist groups then serve as an

avenue for them to start mobilizing and advance a specific interest. But due to lack of

resources, those who are outside of these groups are less likely to act and manifest

engagement to politics and prefer to express it through informal discourses. This is

evident on the results of the survey, when the researchers discovered that only more

than 50 out of 400 of the atheists surveyed were doing two (2) to six (6)

manifestations out the given 14 manifestations. This means that being an atheist

does not necessarily follow an all-around active participation in politics.

 91

On the Relationship of Atheism and Political Engagement

The researchers reckoned that being an atheist does have a direct relation

with their perception on certain political issues especially when it comes to issues

that concern morality; however, statistics show that 272 atheists or 68% of the

respondents believe that their atheism is not the reason for their engagement.

However, we still cannot deny the fact that atheism still affects engagement in

politics. It can be deduced further that there are other intervening factors that may or

may not affect the perception of the person, aside from their professed nonbelief.

Since religion provides a code that serves as an arbitrary rule for the people to

determine what is good or bad, atheists, on the other hand, get their limitations and

their concept of what is moral from their rational understanding of reality. Since the

endpoint of their morality, as what the researchers have found out, is for the common

good, atheists understand that when they engage in society, their own actions have

an effect on the people around them, and that other people’s actions have also an

effect on them; that their understanding of this relationship makes them capable of

having moral lives.

With this, their use of concept of morality allows them to think and provide

perceptions and critical analysis on certain issues and at the same time consider

how this affects the community as a whole. As admitted by the respondents, 60% or

241 of them said that their atheism affects their perceptions. Consequently, atheists’

actions on the said issues are guided by their morality as well; that before they

render judgment and actions, they will first assess whether or not it is beneficial to

the community or if there is enough evidence to prove that the benefits outweigh the

harms. This is proven by the answers given by the key informants during the

interview. As stipulated by some of the key informants that since they do not have

 92

any religious codes that guides them in their actions, they acknowledged that the

simple understanding of reality or the actions that they will manifest will have an

effect on others and others’ actions will have affect them as well (vice versa) makes

them assess the situation first, and weigh its benefits and harms. This type of

morality projects secular morality wherein atheists prove that moral values are not

exclusively provided by religion.

The idea of secular morality breeds humanism, freethinking and

consequentialism. All of which believe that people do not need religion in order to

have moral values; that with right education and knowledge, one can see clearly

what is ought to be done or not. As can be seen on the survey results, almost 70% or

more than 270 respondents posited that they respond on certain issues because of

the obligations that they bear as a citizen and for the betterment of our society.

Atheism per se does not command its adherents, so to say, to get engaged in an

issue as it is not a structured belief system unlike the Christian churches in the

Philippines.

In conclusion, by using this idea as the central point of their morality, it

thereby produces a connection between one’s atheism and their perceptions and

engagement to politics, though not fully and directly, but rather a factor that guides

them. As the respondents and key informants noted, their atheism, through the guise

of their morality, noticeably affects how they perceive certain issues. However, when

it comes to their engagement, they contend that atheism is just a factor among

others that affect their manifestations. The substantial motivation still is dependent

on one’s personal biases alongside with the atheist belief. It simply allows them to

decide on the merits of a certain issue based plainly on what they think is beneficial

and what is not. Avoiding what religions think of the same and advance logical

 93

reasoning. In this way, atheism then is turned as a support pillar every time an

atheist looks into socio-political issues.

Recommendations

To the Politicians

Although hailed as one of the strongest Catholic countries in the world, the

Philippine Constitution provides that the State must be secular in structure. As

mandated by Section 6 of Article II, Section 5 of Article III, and Section 29(2) of

Article VI, the 1987 Constitution establishes a wall between the government and

the Church.

The research concerns itself with the atheists or those who do not believe

in the existence of god/gods, the researchers recommend that the policy-makers

initiate steps that will further strengthen secularism in the Philippines and likewise

wipe the present blur with regards to the boundaries between the Church and the

state.

The researchers do not contend that those who are running in the public

office do not need religion, however would like to assail the extreme role played

by religion in shaping the policies of the country when such arguments are being

used to justify policies that concerns both believers and non-believers. As far as

secularism is concerned, legislators must not anchor their arguments and policies

in theistic arguments by quoting the bible or “the will of god.” Legislators must

free themselves of their religious biases or else violate the “Establishment clause”

of our Constitution. Since the Constitution already provides us the framework of

 94

secularism, legislators must ensure that their actions are equally beneficial to

believers and non-believers alike.

To ensure that policies are not one sided, a need to conduct plebiscites for

socio-political issues with moral underpinnings are helpful to weigh what the

population wills. Discourse should also be encouraged to further elucidate the

rationale of their sides. In this case, public policies are being shaped in a more

democratic sense and are framed through secular considerations.

The researchers do not argue that secularism is about atheism, but rather

the equal treatment of all in the society, whether you are religiously affiliated or

not. Hence, with more secular policies, the Christian majority cannot impede the

rights of the non-believing minority, for such policies champion anti-discriminatory

acts and provide equal rights.

The era of Medieval Europe has already ended; no one should be

persecuted or discriminated by the society just because of non-belief in any

supernatural law-giver.

Future Research/Study

Other Variables

The researchers put little attention to other factors that might also influence

the perceptions of atheists regarding the socio-political issues that were identified.

The study looks solely to atheism as the independent variable influencing atheists’

perception towards politics and political engagement. It is however, within the

wisdom of the researchers that atheism or the none-belief on the existence of a god

or gods might not be the only visible factor that can be studied in analysing an

 95

atheist’s perception and engagement to politics. The components provided by the

researchers in profiling the respondents can be utilize in looking for answers why an

atheist act a certain way in regards to politics. And aside from age, educational

attainment, socio-economic status and ideology, one can also consider customs,

personal values, environment and other personal experiences in eyeing for more

comprehensive relationship between atheism and political engagement.

Consequently, in order to perfect the extent of how significant is the

relationship between atheism and political engagement; it is of high reference to

conduct a same and up-to-date study but for those that are religious, or a

comparative analysis between atheists and religious so as to put significance in

measuring the relationship of each variable to political engagement – relative from

each other.

Lastly, for the future researchers conducting a study about the politics of

atheists, this study may help them review atheism and its link with political

engagement. Moreover, this study can also serve as a reading supplement not just

for future researchers but also for non-researchers who are curious to read about

atheism.

Methodologies

The researchers used personal interview as a method in gathering data for

the qualitative portion of the research. Although the method was efficient in acquiring

essential data, the researchers recognize other forms of data gathering for qualitative

research. For the future researchers, the use of Focused Group Discussions (FGD)

is advisable. When participants of the FGD are stimulated to discuss, the group

 96

dynamics can generate new thinking about a topic which will result in a much more

in-depth discussion. With a dynamic environment, the moderator can modify the

topics, which are prepared before the session to make the topic more suitable for the

purpose. In a focus group session, conversation among participants results in a

discussion of data. In this way, focus groups elicit information that paints a portrait of

combined local perspectives because the research may seek ways to fit all together.

It is possible to gauge a groups’ overall reaction to educational materials, but not on

an individual basis. Unlike in the method of personal interview, this creates an

environment for the participants that will not put pressure in them while answering

the question. Thus, make them comfortable and help them express freely their

positions regarding the questions asked.

Addtionally, future researchers can also utilize a four (4) or five (5) choice

Likert Scale in order to increase the variation of the atheists perception towards the

issues. While conducting the study, the researchers have been informed of the

Dawkin’s Scale. Interested researchers can use comparative analysis to differentiate

the political engagement of the pure agnostics, weak atheists, de facto atheists and

the strong atheists. Lastly, aside from political engagement, one can also look on the

political culture of the atheists and correlate it with their political views.

Another method that can be considered is the participant observation. In this

method, future researchers can join in the gatherings of the atheist groups.

Participant observation is a research method, which involves the researcher joining a

group and looking at the members’ activities or daily lives. Interpretivist sociologists

favor it as it achieves their main goals of validity especially if it the observation is

unstructured. Observation methods are useful to researchers in a variety of ways.

They provide researchers with ways to check for nonverbal expression of feelings,

 97

determine who interacts with whom, grasp how participants communicate with each

other, and check for how much time is spent on various activities. Likewise,

participants behave as they normally do, so evidence can be considered valid. By

acting as a member, one can get insight into their meanings, viewpoints, values and

problems that gives authentic data.

The researchers recognize that there are other means of data collection that

was not used in the study. The comfort of the respondents should be considered so

that they can act freely; it allows the researchers to observe authentic actions from

the respondents and thus, provide essential data for the study.

 98
REFERENCES

Books

Athyal, J. (2015). Religion in Southeast Asia: An Encyclopedia of Faiths and

Cultures., Sta. Barbara California, USA: ABC-CLIO.

Bueno, B. (2012). The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always
Good Politics. USA: Public Affairs Publication.

Burnham, P., Lutz, K., Grant w., and Layton-Henry, G. (2008). Research Methods in
Politics: Political Analysis (2nd ed.). New York , NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hay, C. (2002). Political Analysis: A Critical Introduction. New York, NY: Palgrave
Macmillan

Hyman, G. (2010). A Short History of Atheism. Ltd. 6 Salem Rd, London: I.B. Tauris
& Co.

Ishiyama, J. Breuning, M, (2013). 21st Century reference: A Handbook. Teller Road

Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications Inc.

Johnson, D. (2009). Routledge Handbook of Political Management. New York, NY:

Routledge.

Lamprianou, I. (2013). Contemporary Political Participation Research: A Critical

Assessment. Democracy in Transition; Political Participation in the European
Union. Nicosia, Cyprus: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Marsh, D. and Stoker, G. (2010). Theory and Methods in Political Science. New
York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Martin, M. (2002). Atheism, Morality, and Meaning. New York, NY: Prometheus
Books.

Mills, D. (2006). Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person's Answer to Christian

Fundamentalism. Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press. ISBN 978-1569755679.

Myers, I. (2014). A Grace Deficit., Bloomington, Indiana USA: AuthorHouse.

Palmer, M. (2013). Atheism for Beginners: A Course Book For Schools and
Colleges. USA: The Lutterworth Press

Peters, G. B. (2012). An Institutional Theory of Political Science (Third Edition ed.).

New York, NY: The Continuum International Publishing Group.

 99
Ramakrishnan, S. and Baldassare, M. (2004). The Ties That
Bind: Changing Demographics and Civic Engagement in California. San
Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California.

Stein,G.(1998). God Pro and Con: A Bibliography of Atheism, New York: Garland
Publishing Inc.

Tan, P., Steinbach, M. and Kumar V. (2005). Introduction to Data Mining (1st ed.).
Boston, MA, USA: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.

Wald, K., and Calhoun-Brown, A. (2007). Religion and Politics in the United States
(5th ed.) Maryland, US: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Williamson, D. and Yancey, G. (2013). There Is No God: Atheists in America.

Lanham, Mayland: Rowan and Littlefield Publisher.

Wuthnow, R. (1998). The Encyclopedia of Politics and Religion. University of

California, Congressional Quarterly 1998.

Zuckerman, P., Gallen, L., & Pasquale, F. (2016). The Nonreligious: Understanding
Secular People and Societies. New York, New York: Oxford University Press.

Journals

Almond, G. (1966). Political Theory and Political Science. The American Political
Science Review, 60(4), 869-879. doi:10.2307/1953762.

Campbell, David E. (2004), ACTS OF FAITH: Churches and Political Engagement

(2) pg. 159. Retrieved from
http://wcfia.harvard.edu/files/wcfia/files/859_campbell_david_acts_of_faith.pdf
Goel, M. (2016). The Relevance of Education for Political Participation in a
Developing Society: Comparative Political Studies 3(3).
doi: 10.1177/001041407000300304

Huckfeldt, R., Plutzer, E., & Sprague, J. (1993). Alternative Contexts of Political
Behavior: Churches, Neighborhoods, and Individuals. The Journal of
Politics, 55(2), 365-381. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2132270

Kettel, S. (2013). Secularism and Nonreligion, 2, 61-78. Published at:

www.secularismandnonreligion.org.

Jarvis, S., Montoya, L. and Mulvoy, E. (2005). The Political Participation of College
Students, Working Students and Working Youth. Circle Working Paper 37.
Retrieved from http://civicyouth.org/PopUps/WorkingPapers/WP37Jarvis.pdf

 100
Langston, J. (2014). Explaining Atheism: Testing Hunter’s Durkheimian Theory.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion 10(10). Retrieved from
http://www.religjournal.com/articles/article_view.php?id=91

Melo, D. and Stockemer, D. (2012). Age and political participation in Germany,

France and the UK: A comparative analysis. Comparative European Politics
12(1), pp.33-53. Retrieved from
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/cep.2012.31

Shiviah. (1969). THE BEHAVIOURAL APPROACH IN POLITICAL SCIENCE: An

Essay on the Meaning and Orientation of a Movement. The Indian Journal of
Political Science, 30(1), 50-67. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41854307

Wisdom, J. Creswell, J. (2013). Mixed Method in Integrating Quantitative and

Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis While Studying Patient-Centered
Medical Home Models. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and
Quality. AHRQ Publication No. 13-0028-EF.

Wogu, I. (2013). Behavioralism as an approach to Contemporary Political Analysis:

An Appraisal. International Journal of Education and Research, Vol. 1 (12).

Online Sources/Web Pages

Anne, I. (2013). National Atheist Party Drops the Name “Atheist.” Retrieved from
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2013/07/national-atheist-party-drops-the-
name-atheist/

Banks, A. (2016). Atheists gather on the Mall to demonstrate their political muscle.
Retrieved from http://religionnews.com/2016/06/04/atheists-gather-on-the-
mall-to-demonstrate-their-political-muscle/

Buenaobra, M. (2016 February 24). The Politics of Religion in the Philippines.

Retrieved from http://asiafoundation.org/2016/02/24/the-politics-of-religion-in-
the-philippines/

Chen, Y. (2005). Morality and Political Discourse. Retrieved from:

http://yanpeichen.com/professional/MoralityAndPoliticalDiscourse.pdf

Driscoll, D., Appiah-Yeboah, A., Salib, P. and Rupert, D. (2007). Merging Qualitative
and Quantitative Data in Mixed Methods Research: How To and Why Not.
Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=icwd
meea

 101
Geare, J. (2016). Does Atheism Correlated with Education? Retrieved from
https://www.quora.com/Does-atheism-correlate-with-education

Geissbühler, S. (2002). No Religion, No Political Values? Political Attitudes of Atheist

in Comparison. Retrieved from
http://jsri.ro/ojs/index.php/jsri/article/viewFile/48/48

Hallowell, B. (2015). Atheists and the ACLU Have Launched Legal Battles Against
This Giant Cross for Decades — but This Key Move Could End All That.
Retrieved from http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/07/23/atheists-and-the-
aclu-have-launched-legal-battles-against-this-giant-cross-for-decades-but-
this-key-move-could-end-all-that/

Kettell, S. (2013). Faithless: The Politics of New Atheism. Retrieved from

http://www.secularismandnonreligion.org/articles/10.5334/snr.al/

Key, J. (1997). Research Design in Occupational Education. Module 2 Descriptive

Research. Retrieved from
http://www.okstate.edu/ag/agedcm4h/academic/aged5980a/5980/newpage21
.htm

Mellen, R. (2016). Thousands of atheists gather in DC for 'Reason Rally.’ Retrieved

from http://www.secularismandnonreligion.org/articles/10.5334/snr.al/

McAnulla, S. (2012.). Radical atheism and religious power: New atheist politics.
Retrieved from http://ojs.abo.fi/index.php/ar/article/view/168

Pew Research Center (2012). Social and Political Views of the Unaffiliated.
Retrieved from Http://www.pewforum.org/2012/10/09/nones-on-the-rise-
social-and-political-views/.

Pye, L. (2009.). The Behavioral Revolution and the Remaking of Comparative

Politics. Retrieved from
http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199270439.00
1.0001/oxfordhb-9780199270439-e-042

Rood, S. (2012 February 29). Religion and Politics Mix in the Philippines. Retrieved
from http://asiafoundation.org/2016/02/24/the-politics-of-religion-in-the-
philippines/

Roskin, M. (2009). Political science. Retrieved in

https://www.britannica.com/topic/political-science.

Savastio, R. (2013). Atheist Find Peace and Enlightenment Through Non-Belief.

Retrieved from http://guardianlv.com/2013/06/atheists-find-peace-and-
enlightenment-through-non-belief/

 102
Shah, Z. (2012). Heresy: Is Europe Really Founded on Christian Values? Retrieved
from https://themuslimtimes.info/2012/10/04/heresy-the-biggest-impediment-
to-european-renaissace/

Researches

Aars, J. and Chritensen, D. (2013). Education and Political Participation: The Impact
of the Educational Environment (unpublished master’s thesis, University of
Bergen, Begen, Norway). Retrieved from
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2300666##
Baron, J. (2003). Value analysis of political behavior - self-interested: moralistic:
altruistic: moral (Unpublished dissertation). Retrieved from
https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~baron/papers.htm/ratsymp.html
Blomgren, E. (2010). Women and Political Participation: A Minor Field Study on
Hindrances for Women’s Political Participation in Georgia (Unpublished
Undergraduate Thesis, Linnaeus University, Georgia). Retrieved from
https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:384843/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Buck, J. (2009). The puzzle of young Asian political participation: A comparative

discussion of young Asian political participation in New Zealand and the
United States: (Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of Canterbury,
Christchurch, New Zealand). Retrieved from
http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/handle/10092/2901

Frost, J. (2012). Atheist Scripts in a Nation of Religiosity: Identity Politics within the
Atheist Movement (Unpublished master's thesis). Portland State University.
Retrieved from
http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1548

Gaviria, A., Panizza, U., Wallack, J. (2003) Economic, Social and Demographic
Determinants of Political Participation in Latin America. Retrieved from
http://www.iadb.org/res/files/Participation_2004_GPS.pdf

Gonzalez, Dennis T. (n.d.), Catholic Political Involvement in the Philippines. Pg. 18

retrieved from
http://www.kas.de/upload/Publikationen/2013/wirtschaftsordnung_und_soziale
_gerechtigkeit/Wirtschaftsordnung_und_soziale_Gerechtigkeit_gonzalez.pdf

Hail, H. (2011). DO EASTERN RELIGIONS PROMOTE POLITICAL PASSIVITY?

RELIGION AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH KOREA AND
TAIWAN. Retrieved from
http://www.democracy.uci.edu/files/docs/conferences/grad/2011/Henry%20Ha
il%20-%20For%20CSD%202011%20conference%20-

 103
%20Religion%20and%20Political%20Participation%20in%20South%20Korea
%20and%20Taiwan.pdf

LSE Enterprise (2013). Youth Participation in Democratic Life. Retrieved from

http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/youth/tools/documents/lse_study_on_youth_partici
pation_2013.pdf

McDaniel, E. (2008). THE POLITICS TRANSFORMATION OF RELIGIOUS

INSTITUTION. Retrieved from
https://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/9780472070466-ch1.pdf.

Miles, M. (2014). Social and Political Exclusion: How America's Religious Interact
with Open Atheists (Unpublished dissertation)
Retrieved to http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2480067
Perez, F. (n.d.). The Internet and political engagement: Make a Difference. Retrieved
from
https://www.academia.edu/730532/The_Internet_and_political_engagement_
Making_a_difference?auto=download
Persson, M. (2013). Does Education Cause Participation in Politics? (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden). Retrieved from
https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/34121/4/gupea_2077_34121_4.pdf
Pew Research Center (2012). Nones on the Rise. Retrieved from
http://www.pewforum.org/2012/10/09/nones-on-the-rise/
White, C., Bruce, S. and Ritchie, J. (2000). Young people’s politics: Political interest
and engagement amongst 14–24 year olds (published master’s thesis,
Northhampton Square, London, England). Retrieved from
https://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/default/files/jrf/migrated/files/1859353096.pdf

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
Instrument Validation:

FAR EASTERN UNIVERSITY

This is to certify that the instruments of the research entitled, “Understanding

Atheism: Relationship between Beliefs and Political Engagement” has been
commented and validated on both its structure and contents.

The researchers presented their research instruments as well as their Statement

of the Problem to the following professors:

Professor Reynold Agnes (Political Science Department)

Professor Richard Talento (Political Science Department)
Professor Zoilo Adorable (Political Science Department)
Professor Mark Ysla (International Studies Department)
Professor Jan Albert Suing (Political Science Department)
Professor Mark Ermino (Mathematics Department)
Professor Frederick Gella (Mathematics Department)
Professor Jorge Cuibillas (Filipino Department)
Professor Joey Santos (English Department)

October 2016

APPENDIX B
Letter to the Key Informants:

Far Eastern University

Institute of Arts and Sciences
Department of Political Science
Nicanor Reyes St., Sampaloc, Manila

Good Day!

We, 4th year Political Science students of Far Eastern University, are conducting a
research study entitled Understanding Atheism: Relationship between Beliefs and
Political Engagement. With our vision to contribute to a more meaningful and in-depth
study of Political Science, our group embarked to tackle the said topic.

In line with this, the group is planning to conduct our data gathering by means of an
interview. We kindly request your participation in this survey. Rest assured that your
answers will remain confidential and will be used for research purposes only. Your
participation will be of great help in achieving the goal of our research.

Should you have inquiries about our letter or our research study, you may contact
Antonio B. Ines Jr., the group’s representative, via the following contact information:

Phone number – (0906-417-9003)

Email address – antonio.inesjr@gmail.com

Thank you so much.

Sincerely,

Researchers:
Noted by:
Barlongay, Vince Zyrence
Ines, Antonio Jr. Mark Salvador O. Ysla
Fajardo, Kazzle Research Adviser
Lazaro, Michael
Padua, Pat Anthony
Pineda, John Patrick
Sangcap, Aily Damaris

Letter to the Respondents:

Far Eastern University

Institute of Arts and Sciences
Department of Political Science
Nicanor Reyes St., Sampaloc, Manila

Good Day!

We, 4th year Political Science students of Far Eastern University, are conducting a
research study entitled Understanding Atheism: Relationship between Beliefs and
Political Engagement. With our vision to contribute to a more meaningful and in-depth
study of Political Science, our group embarked to tackle the said topic.

In line with this, the group is planning to conduct our data gathering by means of an
interview. We kindly request your participation in this survey. Rest assured that your
answers will remain confidential and will be used for research purposes only. Your
participation will be of great help in achieving the goal of our research.

Should you have inquiries about our letter or our research study, you may contact
Antonio B. Ines Jr., the group’s representative, via the following contact information:

Phone number – (0906-417-9003)

Email address – antonio.inesjr@gmail.com

Thank you so much.

Sincerely,

Researchers:
Noted by:
Barlongay, Vince Zyrence
Ines, Antonio Jr. Mark Salvador O. Ysla
Fajardo, Kazzle Research Adviser
Lazaro, Michael
Padua, Pat Anthony
Pineda, John Patrick
Sangcap, Aily Damaris

APPENDIX C
GUIDE QUESTIONS (INTERVIEW AND PERSONAL CORRESPONDENCE)

Profile

A. Name: ____________________________________ *optional (or alias)

Shade the circle that corresponds to your answer.

B. Age: C. Highest educational attainment:

(if still ongoing, please indicate the year)
o 17 years old below
o 18-29 years old o No-formal Education
o 30-49 years old o Elementary _________________
o 50-64 years old o High School ________________
o 65+ years old o College graduate ________________
o Post-Graduate Studies ________________
o Vocational Graduate

D. Political Ideology: E. Monthly Income:

How would you describe your own o Range of Monthly Incomes

personal political orientation? o Non-Earning
o Less than PHP 8,000 per month
o Very conservative o Between PHP 8,001 to PHP 16,000 per month
o Conservative o Between PHP 16,001 to PHP 32,000 per month
o Moderate o Between PHP 32,001 to PHP 79,000 per month
o Liberal o Between PHP79,001 to PHP 120,000 per month
o Very liberal o Between PHP 120,001 to PHP 160,000
o I don't know o At least PHP 160,000
o Others (please specify):
____________________

F: How did you become an atheist? Or what makes you an atheist? (Write here)

SET 1 QUESTIONS

a) What are the issues that you feel strongly about as an atheist?
b) Do you think that the issues you have mentioned are considered as pressing
issues? Why?
c) Do you consider the issues that you have mentioned as political? Why?
d) How does the lack of a Supreme being affect your perception on the issues that
you have identified?
e) As an atheist who believe in science, free and rational thinking, how does this
affect your perception on issues that you have identified?
f) Would there be any moral foundation from which the perception is based? If so,
what is it?
g) In you own view, how does your perception as an atheist differ from theists?
h) Are your perceptions on the said issues account to you as an atheist? Why or why
not?

SET 2 QUESTIONS

a) How does your belief in the absence of a God differentiate your perceptions when
engaging in the community in general? When engaging in the government?
b) As an atheist, do you use science, free and rational thinking when arguing? If so,
how does that affect your perceptions when engaging in the community in
general? When engaging in the government?
c) Do you think being an atheist as a whole affects your political engagement? Why
or why not?
d) What might be the reason for you to respond to certain political issues that you
have identified? In what way do you respond when hearing political issues?


APPENDIX C
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

Profile

A. Name: ____________________________________ *optional

Shade the circle that corresponds to your answer.

B. Age: C. Highest educational attainment:

o 17 years old below
o 18-29 years old
o 30-49 years old
o 50-64 years old
o 65+ years old
D. Political Ideology:
(if still ongoing, please indicate the year)
o No-formal Education
o Elementary _________________
o High School ________________
o College graduate ________________
o Post-Graduate Studies ________________
o Vocational Graduate
E. Monthly Income:

How would you describe your own Range of Monthly Incomes

personal political orientation?
o Non-Earning
o Less than PHP 8,000 per month
o Very conservative
o Between PHP 8,001 to PHP 16,000 per month
o Conservative
o Moderate o Between PHP 16,001 to PHP 32,000 per month
o Liberal o Between PHP 32,001 to PHP 79,000 per month
o Very liberal o Between PHP79,001 to PHP 120,000 per month
o I don't know o Between PHP 120,001 to PHP 160,000
o Others (please specify): o At least PHP 160,000
____________________

F: How did you become an atheist? Or what makes you an atheist? (Write here)


I. Socio-Political Issues

The following are prevalent socio-political issues in the Philippines. Please rate the following
whether the given issues are highly interesting or least interesting to you as an atheist. Shade
your answer (1 - Highly interested, 2 – Least interested).

Highly Least
interested Interested
(1) (2)

Government Corruption
1 2

War on drugs
1 2

Extrajudicial Killings
1 2

Death Penalty
1 2

Same sex marriage/union

1 2

Divorce
1 2

Sex Education
1 2

The use of birth control (condoms, pills)
1 2

Gay rights/LGBT rights

1 2

Marcos Burial in Libingan ng mga Bayani
1 2

Others (please specify):

Do you think you your perceptions account to you as an atheist?

Yes
No


III. Manifestations

The following are various activities that show one’s engagement in their society. If you
are practicing such actions, shade the circle beside the given action (can select/shade
more than 1 action).

Sharing political issues with others

Sharing political opinions in social media

Participated in online political discussions

Visited a politically oriented website

Attending talks or seminars about social and political issues

Signing petition for political issues

Voting on Elections
Joining protest, march, rallies or any demonstrations

Worked or volunteered for a political campaign (e.g. Campaigning political candidate/s)

Contacted or visited a public official (at any level of government) to ask for assistance or to
express my opinion

Contacted a newspaper, magazine, radio, or television program to express my opinion on an

issue or candidate

Attended a meeting of town or city council, school board or neighborhood association

Helped to raise awareness around a particular political issue

Joining public consultations initiated by the government

Others (please specify):

Do you think your engagement account to you as an atheist?

Yes
No


IV. Occurrence and motivation

Based on your chosen actions/manifestations above, how often did you manifest such
actions in the previous years (can select/shade more than 1 action).

Always/Regular (more than 10 times)

Frequently (7-10)
Occasionally (4-6 times)
Seldom (1-3 times)

Based on your chosen actions/manifestations above, which of the following would be the
reason(s) for you to do such actions? (Can select/shade more than 1 action).

For leisure and entertainment Agreed and satisfied with the

For the society’s betterment current status
For the responsibilities you bear as a citizen Disagreed and dissatisfied with the
current political system

Others (please specify):



Appendix D
Transcripts (Personal Correspondence)

PC 1

(Consolidated Answers)
SET 1:

I am better now than before.. I am more empathic towards people. This is one of the
many reasons why I founded 2 non religious societies. (PATAS) and now HAPI
(Humanist Alliance Philippines, International) website: www.hapihumanist.org.
I am liberal in a way that I respect every person’s right to pursuit of happiness.

I give everyone an equal opportunity. This made me very vulnerable also. I was
scammed several times by the very people I trust., some are my scholars. I had blind
kindness. But, I have learned my lessons the hard way, not all people are good, whether
they are atheists or not.

I fight for LGBTs because my sister is gay. I saw first hand the harms of religion. She
was thrown out from our house for being different and almost committed suicide
because my religious mother was against her sexuality. My mother also had hired
someone to kill her for being gay. This very reason why my religious mother and I had
stopped talking with each other.

LGBT rights / equality rights are HUMAN rights.. These are pressing issues.. We need to
respect everyone to attain peace. My moral code is based on common sense and
constitutional rights. Will you only do things right if there were police watching over you?
Integrity is doing what is right, even if nobody is watching. Even animals have moral and
ethical values, but, they do not have gods.

As a social human being, love and respect are important for a lasting union. I have been
married to a WASP (White Anglo Saxon Protestant) for > 20 years. We go to church
once in a blue moon and enjoy the camaraderie of some religious people.

I am an open atheist, but, I prefer to be called HUMANIST.. because atheism in action is

called humanism. My friends and some neighbors know I am a humanist, nobody has
questioned me nor put me in a precarious situation. It does help to be financially
independent. I did a lot of charity work and have proven that we can be “good without a
god.”

SET 2:

I do not like politics in general and I will never run for politics especially in the
Philippines, not because I have been a US citizen since 1995 and I am already an ex-
pat. I will not retire in my native land anymore.

My political discourse is based on my core values, that everyone has an equal right.


Critical thinking helps us atheists, because we “question everything” and will not follow
the herd. I was always going against the grain., so to speak, even when I was in grade 5.
I was different, I cannot accept anything without questioning it, even if the directive is
coming from an authority.

I am lucky to find a job despite my atheism, became financially stable early and retired in
Oct 2015, besides being married well. As an atheist, I am more empathic, even if I am
not directly affected by some political issues eg, LGBT issues, economic issues and the
like.

I always say, “If you have more, give more”. Do not build a wall, but bridges. But some
pinoy (Filipino) atheists hate me for my “guts”. They tried to pull me down but miserably
failed. All they do is try to humiliate me on FB, but, people know better. Kindly see my
personal blog about my experiences as an activist.
(http://narsdoktorsausa.org (crab mentality and gossiping) and misogyny.

I stopped buying signature bags and shoes ever since I founded my non-religious
societies so I can finance them from my own resources. I have spent a fortune to raise
awareness about atheism and humanism in the Philippines and been scammed several
times also. Humanism cannot be spread just by debating, and screaming on social
media. People need to see atheists in action.. that we are good without a god.

Check us out in www.hapihumanist.org

Thank you for this opportunity.

Kind regards,
Marissa Torres Langseth, RN, MSN, ANP (retired)
HAPI Founder
Chairwoman Emeritus, 2017


PC 2
SET 1

a) Environmental protection, sustainable and inclusive development, poverty alleviation

and protection of human rights.

b) Yes, because of their connectivity between all of them as well as the current situation
we are in.

c) They are political in a sense that they demand action from an institution bound to
protect the weak and the oppressed, which is the government.

d) I think that the lack of belief in Supreme Being allows me to think more clearly about the
connection that bound us all at the core: common humanity.

e) Solutions tend to be more strategic as well as more inclusive when you use science
and rational thinking.

f) Of course there is. That moral foundation is the protection of human rights through love
of humanity and rational compassion.

g) I think that atheists are less racist, bigot, sexist, etc. because we are not bounded by
mythology that favors certain races or gender, nor are we required to just have faith and
things will workout. Two working hands can accomplish more than a thousand clenched
in prayer.

SET 2

a) I engage with the overwhelming knowledge in my mind that nothing will ever step in
with our conflicts and problems except as human beings. Two World Wars and millions
of deaths later not divine being from the heavens ever stopped them. But when we
talked and compromised, that is when we made progress.

b) It makes me someone will not just argue for arguing’s sake but argue with reason and
integrity to back up my claims. In turn, it makes me want to have a government that is
more inclusive to all other people.

c) Yes

d) The knowledge that religion has caused the oppression of others made me want to
push for a more secular government. I join rallies, debates, and other avenues to the
best of my ability and time to show my support or dismay of the ways of the government.


PC 3

SET 1:

a) Yes. These are all issues affecting human beings from all walks of life. The goal is to
make the world better and easier for the succeeding generations. By improving the
quality of life during our lifetime, we will add less victims in the future. This can only
be done through secular, progressive and scientific systems that have been proven to
work and to avoid repeating the repressive mistakes of our less informed forbearers.

b) Yes they are. Issues, policies and systems that affect the population are all political in
nature. Drug use, the death penalty, sex education, marriage and divorce, family
planning and the choice of parenthood, these are all socio political issues that affect
everyone. To solve it, we need to understand the problems and solve them based on
the evidence, regardless of what we have been taught growing-up. The ball moves
forward and should not remain in a position where problems don't get solved.

c) It allows me to tackle problems logically, systematically, scientifically and properly.

Empathy and compassion dictate morals and ethics. It allows me to function as a
decision making adult who's responsible for my choices, mistakes and direction.
Rather than simply lemming with the crowd, one is forced to look at the problem with
an open mind and OPEN EYES. The realization that there will be no superhero to
save us makes us think critically on important issues affecting us on this pale blue dot
in the cosmos.

d) Science, freedom and rational thinking allows me to look at the evidence and adjust
my views and direction based on the facts and data rather than in trying to manipulate
the data to fit my views. No amount of well-wishing, fool's hope or prayer will change
the universe. The universe does not owe us anything. It is we who need to adjust.

e) Drug use can only be understood through research. As a psychologist, shutting down
research has proved detrimental to finding solutions. Making drugs illegal rather than
regulated has made more problems than improvements. No drug war can succeed
because the demand will always be there. To repeat the same thing thinking things
will change leads us nowhere.

The death penalty needs a very reliable system to recognize guilt and innocence.
Until we have such a system, it is prone to error. Strict enforcement of the rules of
engagement for police operatives need to be upheld and the justice system has to be
swift and precise.

Sex education is education. It's not and urging to have sex but a means to prevent
unsafe sex. We've done religion already and it doesn't work. Human nature does not
work that way. Education, not the prevention and withholding of it is essential. A well
educated person can make better decisions as proven in societies that have applied
the science, accepted the freedoms of individuals and applied rational and working
solutions. Abortion is also a choice. People should not be dictated lest we create
broken families, abandoned or badly raised children, increased poverty and such
based on an unsound belief that seeks to dictate morality. Fertilized eggs are no more


human than the skin cells humans shed. The science on life is quite clear and should
not be muddied by belief systems.

Marriage, in all forms, and divorce should not be dictated. Let people love and choose
their partners freely regardless of who their partners are. The life, freedoms and
choices of a private individual should not be infringed upon regarding this matter. To
force people into a situation that no longer is functioning for them is a form of torture
and slavery. If people want to be together, let them. Otherwise, we get more
problems. The statistics and data have shown solutions, we follow the evidence or we
get more social ills and on many occasions, crime. Humans are not binary beings and
nature has shown us this. We cannot marginalize people based on the sex organ they
received at birth. There's more to being human.

f) I think, they obey. I seek solutions, they follow dictates, I act, they pray. I have
evidence based beliefs, they have dictated beliefs. My eyes are open, theirs are
closed as they wait to hear orders.

(Consolidated Answers)

SET 2:

I value human lives. Empathy, compassion and I pursue future plans that don't rely on
the afterlife or a superhero. It makes me a responsible citizen and person. Rewards are
not an issue as there is no afterlife or wish granter. It's just us and what we do for the
next generation, the survival of our species in general. The lack of belief in gods is
nonsensical as a statement. One does not say that there is a belief in the absence of
elves or unicorns, there's just no evidence to support believing in one. To believe in
something, one needs evidence to support something and gods are nulls/negatives. You
can neither disprove nor prove nulls. Gods no more affect my functioning than a unicorn
or elf.
Decisions are based on evidence, human life and the human situation. To act based on
belief without evidence and contrary to the natural and actual state of things is like
shooting wildly and maintains the negative status quos. We cannot gamble on policies,
they need to be researched and studied thoroughly. Governments need to function this
way. Otherwise, we end up with bad leaders and policies. This is historically verifiable.

It's not about belief, it's about the evidence and fact based solutions for the improvement
of the quality of human life, environment and survival. The positive contribution to the
whole. I never interfere with the affairs of others unless children are crying, the future is
in jeopardy, humans are mistreated and victimized, marginalized or forced to deny
themselves.


PC 4
SET 1:
a.) War on drugs- I believe that before they kill the accused they must presume his
innocence and let the courts decide in this matter, we cannot take justice into our
hands that is why there is a purpose for the constitution.

Death penalty- yes I want death penalty for the heinous crimes committed by the
accused if proven guilty and no because I am afraid in Duterte’s administration
that innocent people could be killed without justice.

Sex education- I think it’s about time that we educate the teenagers regarding
sex in order for them to be aware of their actions and for them to realize if they
would try pre-marital sex what could happen to them. By sex ed. Teenage
pregnancy could be avoided somehow

Same sex marriage- Catholic Church should not meddle with the state affairs,
right now we cannot approve same sex marriage because it violates the art.1 of
the family code. However, if the legislators could amend or pass a law regarding
same sex marriage then it could be a huge step for the Philippines that lgbt
people can now legalized their union (civil rights for lgbt)

Divorce- the Philippines should have a divorce law because we cannot expect
the marriage to be perfect in the long run, usually the persona of the spouse/s
comes out after the marriage so if they are not compatible they are stuck into
each other because it is a burden for them to annul their marriage if the court has
no grounds to annul it and an expensive process.

Use of birth control – the health centers should provide it for free and educate the
slum areas

Lgbt rights- as a member of the lgbt community, I noticed that discrimination is

the number one issue here in the Philippines because some people can’t accept
our gender preference due to their beliefs (Adam and eve not Adam and Steve)
or sometimes they would drop degrading words that would embarrass the lgbt
community

Abortion- for me, it is okay to abort as long as the baby is not full developed.

b) Yes, this are all the issues that our country is facing, if we always disregard these
issues then how and are we going to deal with it? I don’t know if our country is
not ready to face it or it’s just that the people are not that sensitive with these
issues because they are ignorant about it or they don’t care at all or some of our
legislators like Manny Pacquiao is the reason why people are spreading hate
towards lgbt people.

c) Yes, this issues are also the problems tackled in the United Nations

d) Without god to believe in there are no limitations for new ideas and there is
always a hope for the benefit of the humanity


e) In general, I would say that I only choose from credible sources before I state my
opinion

f) Unlike religious people who limit themselves into their bible, me as an atheist I
always wanted to gain more knowledge and learn how to accept the beliefs of
other people

SET 2:
a) Normally I would not mention god/bible verses whenever I give advice or
solutions regarding issues that I mentioned, same for the government.

b) I always show a proven fact or studies that may help the issue to solve it, in
government I back it up with courts decision, some comments of the legal
authors that would enlighten the people somehow

c) Yes, because there is no limitation in obtaining evidences to believe and it is

easier to prove.

d) It triggers me to answer political questions when I see for example Manny

Pacquiao that keeps on cherry picking the bible and mix it in the constitution
which makes me cringe and comment that what he does is unconstitutional
because he always glorifies god and cite it in a wrong context. Or sometimes
whenever I see people that I know who are religious people that would comment
on a certain issue like war on drugs I would remind them that how come you
guys believe in god and yet you are the one to promote violence.


PC 5

SET 1:

a) An atheist does not feel strongly about any issues since atheism is a negative
proposition which does not claim to asset anything except that the claim "t least
one god exists" is not true, however, as a secular humanist, I am concerned
about civil rights, empowerment, anti-discrimination, secularism, and
environmental sustainability.

b) Civil Rights: Because the state should not have the authority to overrule
individual freedoms as long as such freedoms do not endanger civil society

Empowerment: Because those who enjoy privilege are morally obligated to use
resources to help others, especially if those resources are derived from the labor
of those who are underprivileged

Discrimination: Because baseless bias for or against a minority group is opposed

to the common premise that all are equal under the law.

Secularism: Because the country enjoys diversity of religion, and affords

individuals the freedom of religious belief and freedom from religious
discrimination. The separation of church and state prohibits the government from
favoring a particuar religion over others, and should give all religious practices a
level playing field especially when they relate to public policy

Environmental sustainability: Because without a proper environment to sustain

society, resources will not be able to keep up with the demands of the population,
and wars over resource ownership would be inevitable, leading to collapse of
society

c) Yes, because all of them involve participation from the government either through
enforcement or prohibition.

d) It does not. However, humanism believes that with or without a supreme being, it
is the responsibility of humanity to fix its own errors and be responsible its own
future.

e) Belief in science and free and rational thinking is not exclusive to atheists, nor are
all atheists’ believers in free and rational thinking. Being an atheist mostly has to
do with something that a person does not believe in, but it has very little to do
with what he may believe in.

f) Yes. Empathy and social contracts. Prescriptive laws shape morality, and laws
only exist within societies or groups of humans. Outside the environment of
society, humans derive morality of an action depending on how well they can
empathize with an external party. This is why it is more morally acceptable to kill
an insect, rather than a bird, or a dog, or another human - in that specific order.


g) Most theists derive morality from divine command. that being said, whenever they
believe that something is commanded by God, it must be good even if it conflicts
with laws from social contracts or even empathy.

h) These perceptions are caused by me being a humanist, not an atheist.

SET 2:

a) It does not.

b) Using science, free and rational thinking when arguing is my personal preference
and has little to do with being an atheist.

c) No it does not, because political engagement is a matter of my being a liberal

progressive, and not because of being an atheist. It is just that most atheists also
happen to be liberals.

d) I respond whenever I see that political power is misused in the context of the
above mentioned issues. Mostly participate in public forums, and occasionally
engage in public formal debates.


PC 6
SET 1:
a) The issues I think is compromising humanity over beliefs and norm whether it’s
from religion, politics, ideology or culture.

b) Yes. For instance, in Philippines where religiosity is high, I often get negative
reaction toward non-beliefs or atheism per se. In some group like LGBT, they
also discriminated. But in general, in personal experience, I don’t get such fuss.

c) Not really. But since majority is believer, politics is influenced, not the other way
around.

d) I see those issues are man-made and has no divine intervention. Even the
calamities and accidents. They are all event that happen because of the act of
nature.

e) I reason out based on personal experience, logic and collective knowledge not
on supernatural or some “unseen forces”. I see the reason that compromising
humanity is those believer has tendency to reason what they want or feel the
need to believe despite the fact that it has no connection in real world. Like man
having more privileges than woman in some culture or the spending lot of time
and money in a statue.

f) Yes. Altruism and collective knowledge.

g) I don’t make up reasons. Like “ God put it there to test us”, “God simply want you
to realize your strength” or as if everything has its reasons. I simply look to the
core of the issue. How people behave toward others? What is the cause of it? I
look at different angle and opposing sides to weigh the issues.

h) No. Not as an atheist but as human. We think, believe and experience things that
hurt us, things that makes us happy. I don’t think about my standpoint in god or
gods. It’s actually irrelevant. It’s all about choice we make and the act we take.

SET 2:
a) I don’t appease to god and reason that authority is made from “unseen force”.
When it comes to politics, difference of belief is less observed since our law is
based in secularity. I do however, in favor or HR bill and oppose death penalty.
In our community, I don’t participate in a lavish fiesta in regards to saint patron
organized by barangay officials or city / municipality.
b) Oftentimes, I don’t involve theism or religion in an issue, but if necessary I bring
up some notable behavior of religiosity, such as being fanatic and gullible.

c) Yes. I do however put it personal perspective, which admittedly bias. For

instance, the issue about death penalty and the EJK. Although, religiosity has no
connection on the issue, each party tend to give reason based on their own
personal belief influenced by their religion. At that particular stance, I make my
own analysis which is based on studies and research and statistical data. Thus,
I’m against the on both issue. I’m leaning toward liberal politics.


d) I’m mostly affected by many issues, especially if religious belief is incorporated in

political agenda or appeasing deity to a certain event. I do informal debates, but
less active.


PC 7
SET 1:

a) All of the above plus the SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. It should be
totally separated. Nothing on the constitution should be based on the bible.

b) Yes they are because all of those mentioned are basic human rights.

c) I don’t think any of these issues are political of nature. But most of them became
an issue because of the fact that we are a catholic nation and the church (not just
the catholic church) has a strong influence regarding these issues.

d) For me having no god is a motivation because we know there is no one else to

sort out our problems, no god to provide for us, no one else to help us but
ourselves and our other fellow humans... so we have to take good care of our
planet and each other.

e) As an atheist who believe in science, free and rational thinking, how does this
affect your perception on issues that you have identified?
It probably does, I am not entirely sure since like I said, I grew up in a liberal
house.

f) Moral foundation.. is a very interesting thing because nobody can really claim
moral high ground, but logic and reason will tell you to just live by the golden rule.

g) I know a lot of theists who share these perceptions and some atheists who do not.

h) It does and it doesn’t at the same time. For all I know I might have been very
liberal only because I grew up in a liberal family. Like I said, some atheists don’t
share the same view.

SET 2:

a) I have been an atheist almost for as long as I can remember to the point where I
can’t really differentiate how it is to engage in the community as a theist. Same
goes for engaging in the government. But as an atheist, I believe that I have
considered other people more with less prejudice and positivity.

b) As an atheist, having no god makes it all clearer. Although there will be a lot of
unanswered questions, I still believe that time will come that science will be able
to figure out stuff rather than praying and asking for prayers. Most of all I think
religion has always held back progress.

c) For the most part, I’d say yes. Mainly because our current government and
constitution is mostly based upon Christianity and it does affect it because being
an atheist involves rational thinking, and there is nothing rational about some
political stances.


d) Oppression. I despise that. Whenever I see people judging others based on their
race, color, sexual orientation and others, it triggers me. For I am personally, a
humanist. I don’t really care what religion you have or if you believe in god/gods.
Just don’t shove it into other people’s throats. Whatever you believe in, as long
as no one gets harmed, go with it. But in some cases where religion becomes a
threat, that’s when I say, no more.

As for me, I don't really participate in street rallies. I sign petitions and join online
forums. Atheists in my group are moving to legitimize our Facebook group by
gathering as many active members as we can, and if we feel we have enough
numbers then I think that will be the time that we will be at least heard by
registering it formally.

Also we are talking with other atheist communities to create a collective group
that will represent the whole thing other than PATAS (Philippine Atheists and
Agnostics Society)


PC 8

(Consolidated Answers)

SET 1:

WAR ON DRUGS

- Alam natin na laganap na talaga ang drugs sa bansa. Kung iisipin marami ang di
sangayon dito dahil sa extra judicial killing and tama din naman yung mga di
sumasangayon, "everyone deserves a second chance", pero ang nangyayari kasi lalo
na samin sa Mindanao (Lanao del Norte) is may mga taong sumusuko para di na sila
pagdudahan but after that balik uli sila sa pagbebenta tulad ng brother-in-law ko at mga
kasamahan nya kaya may mga natotokhang. Yung iba naman is yung mismong drug
lord ang nagpapapatay sa mga tauhan nilang sumuko sa batas para di sila maisuplong
sa authoridad. May advantage at disadvantage and war on drugs at may part sa akin na
nagsasabing ito ay mali dahil sa mga inosenteng nadadamay but mas malaki yung part
sakin ang sumasangayon dito para ma save ang kinabukasan ng mga kabataan. I don't
think theism/atheism should be linked on this issue since marami akong mga theist
friends na sumasangayon dito. Depende ito sa tao, sa estado ng pamumuhay ng tao, at
sa experiences ng tao. Kadalasan na sumasangayon sa war on drugs ay yung mga
taong nakatira sa squatters/urban area and geographically, mga taga Mindanao since ito
ang pangunahin naming problema na lagi namin hinaharap araw-araw.

- (We are all aware of the prevalence of drugs on our country. If we think of it, many
people were agreed towards it because of the extra judicial killings and I guess those
who disagreed were right about, “everyone deserves a second chance”, but what is
actually happening, just like on our case in Mindanao (Lanao Del Norte) is there are
some people who surrendered for them not to be suspected but after that they will go
back for selling drugs like my brother- in-law and others that is why many of them were
exterminated “natokhang”. In some case, the Drug Lord was the one who directly killing
their subjects for him not to denounce to the authority by its own people. The war on
drugs has its own advantages and disadvantages and there is a part of me that saying it
is wrong because many innocents were being affected. However, I am more agreed
because I believe that it will save the future of the youth. I don't think theism/atheism
should be linked on this issue since I have many theist friends that agreed with war on
drugs. It always depends on people, in the state of their living and through their
experiences. Many who agreed on war on drugs are those people who lived in squatters
or urban areas and geographically, in the area of Mindanao since it are the major
problems that we faced every day).

DEATH PENALTY

Sangayon ako sa death penalty not because di ako naniniwala sa dios at nawalan na
ako ng moralidad kundi dahil naniniwala ako na sa pamamagitan nito ma-leless ang
krimen dito sa ating bansa. If ma implement ito, mas may mabigat na na dahilan ang
mga kriminal para magbago at matakot. Let's face it, hindi natin pwedeng asahan ang
Life Imprisonment dahil di mawawala ang dayaan sa loob ng bilibid at pera lang ang


umiiral doon. Kaya hindi takot ang mga kriminal na gumawa ng masama dahil alam nila
na pwede lang sila magpakasarap buhay sa loob ng kulungan. In this issue, sinasabi ng
mga theist na mali ang pumatay ng tao at tama din naman sila. Pero kung ganyang
pagkalabas ng isang kriminal ay babalik lang din naman sila sa dati nilang gawain at
walang pagbabago ay mas nanaisin ko pa na i-implement ito.

- (I firmly agreed with death penalty not because I do not believe in god and I don’t have
morality as well but I am certain that through this crime rate will be lessen in our country.
If it will be implemented, there will have a reason for the criminals to change and to be
feared with the authority. Let us face it, we cannot rely on the life imprisonment because
fraud in the Blibid will not disappear and money can buy everything there. That is why
many criminals there were not afraid to commit delinquency because they already know
that no one will prohibit them in doing such bad actions inside the jail. In this issue, many
theist believed that killing people is wrong and they were right as well. But if the case
was when one imprison has been freed and yet they return again for being criminal and
there has no change I guess death penalty must be implemented).

SEX-ED, USE OF CONTRACEPTIVES & ABORTION

Iilan sa mga pangunahing problema ng bansa ay kahirapan, walang wastong edukasyon

sa kabataan, ibat-ibang uri ng sakit, polusyon at ang lahat ng ito ay iisa lang ang sanhi
"OVER-POPULATION". Kailangan maituro ang sex-ed sa mga paaralan para may
awareness ang mga kabataan lalong lalo na dumadami na din ang cases ng Early
Pregnancy sa bansa. Contraceptives at Abortion naman para macontrol ang bilang ng
tao at maiwasan ang paglaganap ng ibat-ibang uri ng sakit at nang masulosyunan na
ang mga problemang nabanggit. Hindi sangayon ang theist sa mga ito dahil hindi ito
ayon sa kanilang turo at sa bibliya. Pero kung ating iisipin, paano natin masusulosyunan
ang problemang ito kung karamihan sa atin ay mga irresponsable? Ito lang ang
natatanging paraan para ma less or maresolve ang mga problema na naglulugmok
sating bansa.

- (Some of the major problems of the country are poverty, improper education for the
youth, different kinds of illnesses and diseases, pollution and all of these is caused by
“OVER POPULATION”. Sex Education must be taught in school for the awareness of
the youth particularly to the fact that early pregnancy in our country is increasing.
Contraceptives and abortion is a must to control the population and to avoid the
spreading of different kinds of diseases and to solve all the problems abovementioned.
Theist were not agreed to all of these because it is not in favor to their doctrines and to
the bible. But if we think of it how can we solve those problems if most of us were
irresponsible? It is the only way to lessen or resolve all the problems that dragging our
country down).

DIVORCE, LGBT RIGHTS & SAME SEX MARRIAGE

Hindi natin mapipili ang ating pagkatao; kusa ito. Ang lalaki, kailanman ay hindi nya
maiintindihan lahat ng nararamdaman ng babae (vice versa) tulad lang din na ang isang
heterosexual ay hinding hindi nya kailanman maiintindihan ang taong napabilang sa
LGBT. Lahat ng tao ay may karapatang mamuhay ng masaya, malaya na walang
humuhusga. Sa usaping ito ang laging nambubully sa mga kabilang sa 3rd sex ay theist


sa kadahilanang hindi ito ayon sa kanilang turo o sa bibliya resulta ng pagdagdag ng

bilang ng Suicide Cases sa bansa (mga kabataan may gender identity disorder (GID) at
takot mahusgahan ng mga tao). Ang pagsasabatas ng LGBT Rights at same sex
marriage sa mga LGBT couple na walang ibang hangad kundi ang mamuhay ng legal as
couple ay ang tanging paraan para ma protektahan sila at ma less ang bullying at case
ng suicide sa bansa. Sa usaping divorce naman ayoko itolerate ang taong palit ng palit
ng partner pero meron din namang mga cases na may taong biktima ng isang
mapangabusong relasyon na sa wakas ay nakahanap ng taong totoong nagmamahal at
nagpahalaga sa kanila, mga taong gusto ng bagong simula at maging masaya. Ito ay
karapatan ng bawat isa at hindi natin pwedeng ipagkait ito sa kanila.

- (We cannot choose our being because it is has its own self-will. A man will never
understand the feelings of a woman (vice versa) just like a heterosexual will never
understand why such person belongs to LGBT. Every individual has its own right to live
happy, free from judgment of others. In this issue the one that often bullying those who
belong to the third sex are the theist for the reason that it is not in favor to their doctrines
or to the bible itself resulted to the increase of Suicide cases in our country. (Those
youth having Gender Identity Disorder (GID) and afraid of judgment of others). Enacting
LGBT Rights and Same Sex Marriage to the LGBT couple that the only wish is to live
legally as a couple, is the only way to protect them and lessen such bullying and the
increasing case of suicides inside the country. In the issue of divorce, I do not tolerate
those people who often change their partner but there are some cases of people who
were victims of abuses of relationship that finally found the one who will truly love them
and will give them importance, those people who wanted to start a new beginning and
wanted to be happy. It is a right of every individual and we have no right to deprived it to
them).

SET 2:

Isa ako sa mga nakikilahok sa public forums upang maihayag ko ang aking opinion
tungkol sa mga usaping ito, dahil alam ko na makakatulong din ito upang mabawasan
ang problema at mapaunlad natin ang ating bansa. Rational thinking ang nag udyok sa
akin upang mag agree sa pag implement ng mga ito at hindi kawalan ng belief sa dios o
ang pagiging atheist dahil may mga grupo din naman ng atheist na against sa Abortion,
Death Penalty at Extrajudiscial Killing (Pro-Life Atheist / Humanist).

- (I am one who always participates in every public forums to express my opinion about
a certain issue, because I know that it will help to lessen the problems of our country and
to help for its progression. Rational thinking pushes me to agree to implement all of
these things and not because of disbelieving to god or being an atheist because there
are some groups of atheist that against Abortion, Death Penalty and Extrajudicial Killings
(Pro-Life Atheist / Humanist).


PC 9

SET 1:

a) My top issues are: same sex marriage, LGBT rights, use of birth controls, and
abortion.

b) Yes. Because these issues shouldn’t have existed in the first place. Sex education
should be as normal as biology or math. We shouldn’t be fighting for same sex
marriage and LGBT rights, but unfortunately we are. Why? Because of what religion
has instilled in people’s minds: “Homosexuality is a sin. God did not create
homosexuals.” The use of birth control pills and abortion. Again, another issue we
have with the church.

c)Yes. Because it affects the society as a whole.

d) NOTE: Just want to point out that Atheism is NOT A BELIEF in the absence of a
god/gods. It's the lack of that belief. It is the rejection of it. It's not a belief system.
We don't have a pope or a pastor.
As Bill Maher puts it, "If Atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual act."
Other retorts about atheism as a religion go along the lines of "If atheism is a religion,
then bald is a hair color, or "If atheism is a religion, then health is a disease."
Please correct your question, for it is an incorrect literal definition of an
Atheist. I want to be clear on that. :)
Anyway, the lack in the belief of deities/god allows me to look at these issues
objectively. Since I don’t adhere to a certain religious dogma, I’m not limited to one
view: the view of “this is according to God so this must be the truth, ” which of course
is false.
With that said, my Atheism allows me to lean towards issues like that. But, it
doesn't mean JUST because I'm an Atheist I am bound to think in a particular way.
Atheists, like any other persons, are individuals. For me, I tend to care for the issues
that are linked to religion.

e) Note: I don’t just believe in Science I trust it! I trust that Science will correct itself when
new evidences are discovered. And without free and rational thinking , science
ceases to exist. They, together with logic, are the oxygen of science.
Science, and free and rational thinking allows me to see the world objectively. It
allows me to see the world in all perspectives.

f) To me, morality is relative. As Frank Zindler (former President and current Board
Member of American Atheists) explains, “The task of moral education, then, is not to
inculcate by rote great lists of do's and don'ts, but rather to help people to predict the
consequences of actions being considered. What are the long-term as well as
immediate rewards and draw-backs of the acts? Will an act increase or decrease
one's chances of experiencing the hedonic triad of love, beauty, and creativity?”
But one thing is for sure, you don't need the Bible, the Koran, or the Torah to know
that, say, killing and raping are immoral.


g) I assume you are talking about theists when you say "non-atheists." (Because there
are also agnostics, deist, etc.)
Being free from religious dogma, I see the world objectively. I seek knowledge
and scientific facts from reliable and verifiable sources to understand myself and the
universe, and not from the bible , the Torah, the Koran. That means I also don’t base
morality and ethics on these books.
Theists base their “moral” code on an ancient book--the right and the wrong
based on what these “holy” books say. These moral codes, though honestly
deemed by the theist as the truth, are out dated in this day and age. In fact, most are
considered immoral. Unfortunately, these codes are still practiced today. (In some
Islamic countries they follow the Shariah Law, which is based on the Koran. For
instance, stoning people to death and child marriages are, in their perspective, right
because their book says so. )
Sex education, the use birth controls, same sex marriage, LGBT rights, and
abortion are the socio-political issues that shouldn’t have existed in the first place, but
religion has created these issues. And now we have to fight for it. Do you see where
I’m getting at?
I can go on and on, citing numerous examples on how different an Atheist and a
Theist think. This is a generalization, however. I am not saying all the Atheists think
like me and all the Theists think like that. These are tendencies.

h) NO. The only common thread that links us Atheists is the lack in the belief in god and
the supernatural. We don't have a common belief system or sacred scripture. This
means that Atheists still debate each other and disagree on many issues and ideas.
However, freedom from religious dogma allows me (I speak only for myself ) to
think more openly and more objectively about these issues.

SET 2

a) NOTE: Just want to point out that Atheism is NOT A BELIEF in the absence of a
god/gods. It's the lack of that belief. It is the rejection of it. It's not a belief system.
As Bill Maher puts it, "If Atheism is a religion, then abstience is a sexual act."
Other retorts about atheism as a religion go along the lines of "If atheism is a religion,
then bald is a hair color, or "If atheism is a religion, then health is a disease."
Okay, to my answer The lack in the belief in god allows me to discern
objectively, which in turn allows me to make rational decision and plans. With no
dogma to adhere to, I see the community as one big diverse family.
In government engagement, I tend to be more concerned with policies about
equality and human/civil rights.

b) That's how I came to conclude to Atheism: science, free and rational thinking. I
absolutely use it when arguing. Same answer as letter "a": It allows me to see
objectively.

c) Affects how? negatively or positively. The question is unspecific. But anyway, if I were
to run for office and profess my Atheism, that would be a problem here in the
Philippines (and most probably in all religious country). But in terms of voting,
campaigning for a candidate, political debates, and other forms of political
engagement, being an Atheist does not affect me in a negative way. In fact, since I


turn to Science, logic, and reason, I handle or engage more objectively. That's
basically it. I dont know how else I'll put it.

d) Reasons for responding are empathy, care for humanity, value for equality, love, and
FACTS. Aptly enough, I show my care for these political issues by volunteering in a
non-governmental organization called Humanist Alliance Philippines-International. We
fight for LGBTQ rights, human rights,and the separation of church and state, among
others. We also educate about secularism. I am one of the writers in our website-
www.hapihumanist.org. Through writing, I am an activist.


PC 10
SET 1:
a) Among the abovementioned, I feel most strongly about LGBT rights. Death
penalty, sex education, and abortion are runner ups, but not contenders. I am
pro-life but they are not even on par with my passion about the discrimination
among LGBT.

b) Yes, absolutely. You see, LGBT are also human, like you and I. To be deprived
of rights just because their mind set is different than how they should be based
on their physical body, for me it is alarming.

c) Political, yes, definitely. Philippine government is very much affected by the

Church. Even in a court before its session, both party swears by the bible. The
collaboration of Church and Government is also the reason why our country is
very much conservative. Since the church is involved, it goes to show that LGBT
issue is political. Our country is even against same sex marriage which, if
legalized, would be equivalent to the acceptance of the government to the said
community.

d) Since there is no God that would punish the LGBT, it became easier for me to
slowly accept them. I am not gay, even now. But I once hate gay and transexual
people because according to my religion that is a grave sin. So grave that not
even repentance would save you, unless you change. All LGBT will definitely go
to hell. And I hated myself for having said that before. Since my advent on not
believing that there exists a god, I realize that I was looking down on most human
when in fact, all of us are equal.

e) Science tells that we are a single specie from the vast entirety of animal
kingdom. Look how humble? And I realized how arrogant I was. I realized I was
not rational. Who am I to degrade and judge others? We have our own opinions,
own ideas. And so do they. And it’s not fair to discriminate an individual, or a
community for this matter. They say it is human nature to judge others. That is
wrong. I may still have my personal bias but I am keeping them in check. More
on that later.

f) Moral foundation? I cannot quote a proverb or anyone. But I say, equality. I say,
equality is in the highest pedestal of morality. With or without it, it gravely shifts
the world to harmony or violence. Respect is also part of equality. I believe
respect should be earned. There may be part of the LGBT that had done horrific
things, but that’s just a measly few of them. Regarding my personal bias, I am an
atheist bordering to anti-theism. That being said, I harbor feelings of hatred
towards religious people but as I say I am keeping them in check. I do not hate
religious people who ARE empathetic, since they haven’t done anything that will
discredit my respect. It may seem contradicting, but most religious people are
delusional, like I once was. Of course, I still hope (pray?) that either they will also
be enlightened about their god or at the very least, realize that what they think is
right (like treating LGBT as sinful) is definitely wrong and unjust.

g) I have already given my answer before, about equality. I can now discern what is
universally right versus what I only think is right. Religion has a way of distorting


morality. Once you’re outside of it, you’ll be able to see the world and its laws in a
bird’s eye view: realizing your mistake and the things hardwired in you. I enjoy
the things that do not affect other people negatively but is still considered a sin by
religion, like sex and watching fantasy and video gaming. Yup, it is in the bible
that magic is an act of the devil and we shouldn’t patronize it. That being said,
religion can become a great hindrance to the development of human.

h) I don’t know if I understand the question precisely, but nonetheless I’ll answer
how I perceived it. Atheism has everything to do in my newfound belief in
equality. It would seem like, if I haven’t been enlightened by the fact that religion
is almost the same as mythology, maybe I will still be one of those people I hate
right now. Just to be clear, not all atheist hate religious people. It is my personal
feeling towards them. Atheist only means person who believe that a god does not
exist.

SET 2:

a. When engaging with the community, still normal. Though I vocalize more often
my contempt with discrimination, especially racial discrimination. I made clear
that I do not want unfair and unjust treatment. Or usually, I never mind them,
ever. With the government though, I do not actively participate with any forms of
protest or support groups. My passion really lies in racial discrimination. Not
really gender discrimination or LGBT rights but that’s what is closer to my
passion. That being said, I haven’t seen anything grave yet here in the
Philippines that would mean crisis to the LGBT or black people. Thus, I do not
actively participate in public affairs.

b. The very first rule I set myself as a freethinker, you should not believe what
others had said. Question it :what are their basis for such a statement, where do
they hear it, where do they see it, how are they going to prove that what they are
claiming is true? But, as far as government is concerned. Same answer I wrote in
the question prior to this.

c. For me, I really don’t think so. Ever since my transition to atheism, my political
engagement hasn’t changed. I’m still uninterested in certain political topic. I don’t
know if I may seem contradicting myself here, but in terms of politics, I usually go
with the flow. Note the term ‘usually’, Maybe if there’ll come a time and a need to
participate—like atheistic movement and promoting impartialism—maybe I’m one
of the person who will join the cause. If, and only if, situation arises that totally
disqualified the others’ rights and/or severely aggravated.

d. I am, personality-wise, a passive-bordering-semi-assertive type of person. I don’t

rise to action unless backed into a corner. So sometimes I involve myself with
forums. One proof that I am uninterested in some certain government topic, I am
of legal age but I never vote in election. I say, come what may. Whoever wins, it
means that what the majority chose. I don’t assume they’ll not be deserving of
the position. I prefer we should let them prove themselves. I, for one, am not a
fan of Duterte, but if that’s who people chose, then let us see. I nearly forget to
say, I also noticed some form of delusion when it comes to politics. This is most
noticeable in social media, people attacking other people just because of


badmouthing their candidate. Well, maybe not badmouthing, but critically

assessing. In any case, I surmise most atheist had undergone or is undergoing
depression. That also, I think, is one of the factors that we aren’t aggressive in
nature. I am not speaking in behalf of every atheist. That’s just what I’ve
observed.


PC 11
SET 1:

i) Separation of church and state.

j) Yes, because the PH is a very religious country and the influence that the church
has on political issues is very strong.

k) Yes, because it affects the government thereby affecting everyone.

l) It doesn't.

m) It doesn't.

n) NO

o) Theists claim there is a god. Atheists don't believe in the existence of god or
gods.

p) NO. Atheism is a single response to a claim. Everything else is everything else.

SET 2:

e) When engaging in the community, I am open about being an atheist when asked.
If you want a debate or discussion I am open to it as well. I don't however force
my disbelief on others nor do I look down on them for having different beliefs
than I do.

f) Yes, as much as possible, I make sure my points are rational, evidence based,
logical and free of fallacies.

g) No. Because atheism is a single response to a claim and has nothing to do with
my perception of the government

h) I respond because I am a law abiding, tax paying constituent.



Key Informants Interview

KII 1
Legend: R – Researcher
KI – Key Informant

R: Sir first question, what are the issues you feel strongly about as an atheist?

KI: Well first of all let me express my comment on the question because atheist is
someone who does not believe in god, it is not a world view so I think the grammar of
the question seems to be misplaced, atheism does not find me a world view it’s just a
rejection of the concept of the existence of a god or gods. Anyway, being a non-believer
the issues I feel strongly about is the issue of morality. What is good and what is not
good in our society which as you may see it compasses everything, such as the war on
drugs, abortion and everything like that.

R: Is morality considered as something political? Based on your own perception?

KI: I believe, yes! I believe morality also covers the political aspect of our society,
because the government for example enacts laws in order to govern our life and liberty.
I don’t think morality itself is political, but politics can be can be viewed through
the lens of morality. Because as I said, the government enacts laws in order to govern
or restrict our rights to liberty, property and life and in doing so the government should
consider what is good and what is right. Therefore, we can talk about morality when it
comes to politics.

R: So sir do you think that the issue of morality is considered as a pressing issue? Or
does it require an urgent action? Is it an urgent concern?

KI: Yes it is an urgent concern, for example right now the government is pushing a war
on drugs. You see, in this case we have to see whether this policy on war on drugs is
good or not? It is pressing because we have to determine whether the government
action is good or not, in order to react accordingly. So I think it’s really a pressing issue.

R: so next question po, as an atheist who believe in science, free and rational thinking
how does this affects your perception on issues that you have identified in this case sir,
you mention the case on morality.

KI: Again, I have to comment on the grammar of the question because an atheist doesn’t
necessarily believe in science or rational thinking but as a no believer or a person who
does not believe in god, I relies solely on my assessment or personal assessment on
morality. For example, whenever I decide if an action is moral or immoral, I based it
whether there are benefits or harms. For example, there was one issue raised regarding
with incest one time on the internet, sabi nila “ano payag ka ba na I legalize ang incest?”
(well they said, “do you support the lrgalization of incest?”) well actually it is not against
the law and incest is a crime, pero (but) the law considers it void kapag pinakasalan mo
yung kapatid mo. (you married your sister.) In this issue a person who does not believe
in god, I can only base my assessment on benefits and harms, kung walang (if there is
no) harm then so be it, pero (but) kung mag aanak sila there will be a genetic defect and
in that case that would be immoral. So, to answer your question directly, my atheism


influences my way of thinking regarding the issue of morality in the sense that I am
limited to the benefits and harms. I am not controlled by texts or by sacred scriptures but
I consider the benefit or the harm that the action may bring upon or society.

R: In your own view, how does your perception as an atheist differ from non-atheist?

KI: Alright that’s a very good question. How does my perception differ from non-
atheists? Well non-theism, meaning my non-belief in god covers many aspects of my
life. Pero ang nakikita ko dito na pinaka malaking (But what I see here is that, there is a
huge) difference between me and non-atheists is the way we see life and the way we
judge current events. What do I mean by the way I see life? Well I don’t worry so much
about life because I know I’m just an organism, pero itong mga (but these) believers they
worry so much about life. Well when it comes to assessing current events for example
kung ano ang nagyayari sa atin (what is happening to us), war on drugs, house speaker
Alvarez is pushing for the divorce and same sex marriage. I’m more on progress kasi
(because) as a human being, I don’t see myself a creation of a god whom I should follow
so ang gusto ko lang ay mapreserve ang (so what I want is to preserve) progress that
was established by those who came before me. So, whenever an issue presents itself
to me tinitignan ko kung (I look at it if) will this cause progress?

R: how about your take on Marcos’ burial po? And banning porn sites?

KI: Alright let’s go to banning porn sites. So first, let’s consider Japan and India, India is
a very strict country when it comes to pornography look at the rate of rape in India. Look
at japan where pedophilic porn videos are allowed yung tinatawag nilang (they call it)
“lolicon”. Those things are basically allowed in their society, not in the sense that it is
open to everyone but meron silang (they have) access to pornography. I think that a
person who has access to pornography is less likely to rape someone, I think. So as an
theist I think there is more benefit to allowing pornography of course, however the issue
of whether or not the actors or actresses are consenting to act in front of the video is
another issue, kasi ay mga issue na dina-drug daw ang mga babae (there were issues
that women are drugged) in order to perform in front of the cam, pero ewan ko di ko na
alam yun.(but I don’t know, I have no knowledge of that). Regarding Marcos burial,
dalawa kasing aspeto ng buhay ko yung ginagamit ko (there were two aspects I am
using) when it comes to assessing Marcos burial and I am not afraid to suspend
judgment whenever I’m not sure and the Marcos burial issue is one of the issues which I
suspend my judgement. Because number one, it has no direct benefit or harm in the
society, and number two di naman apektado ang pamilya ko (my family was not affected
by it), I am not a martial law victim nor my family members. And the second thing that I
consider is that I am a law student, as a law student I have to comply with the decision of
the supreme court. The supreme court held that its okay then me as a law student its
okay but for me as a citizen of the state, I don’t know.

R: Okay sir, we move to the second part of the questionnaire sir. How does your belief in
the absence of a god differentiate your perceptions when engaging in the community?

KI: Alright when engaging to the community, well in January 2016 I established an
organization of six people only, who are task to collect solicit money or toothbrushes
from other people and to distribute toothbrushes to the children, thirteen years of age
and below. Pero sobrang liit lang niya(but it’s just a small group), siguro nakakadistribute
lang kami ng(maybe we’re giving more or less) fifteen toothbrushes every week., so


masyadong maliit yun pero okay lang (so its just a small group but its okay). well as you
can see, I do not believe in god or god will punish me or reward me when I die pero I
engage in the community in a way that when everybody engages in such a way the
society will work. I approach the society in a way that whenever everybody behaves the
same way I do; the society will work perfectly. So, that’s my opinion on that.

R: So how about when engaging in the government?

KI: oh well yeah that’s interesting, as I told you I am a law student so I have two faces,
as a citizen of a state and as a law student. When I engage in the government as a law
student I kind of very technical about it, I base it on law. Because as you know we are a
society of laws and not of men, I depend all my opinions regarding on the law. As a
citizen of a state meaning as an atheist, I always watch out for the actions of the
government that would violate the non-establishment clause and the separation of
church and state. Bilang citizen na atheist yun ang lagi kong tinitignan(Being an atheist
Citizen that’s what I am always perceiving), will that violate the separation of church and
state? For example, the bible month was declared, paano yung mga muslim (how about
the muslims)? The Qur’an day? I think that violates the separation of church and state
and as an atheist I am very concerned about that.

R: do you think being an atheist as a whole affects your political engagement? Why?

KI: political engagement, well you see there are atheist who like Duterte, in my
community, and there are Christians who don’t like Duterte. There are atheists who don’t
like Pnoy but there are Christians who like Pnoy. It’s really a hard question really, you
see as a whole does my atheism affects my political engagement?
As an atheist, I don’t believe in the divine right theory therefore, in my opinion the
government is fallible, it is accountable to the people. I can criticize the government in
many form or shape that I want, because I think that god did not established the
government we have right now. I believe this is the same for other Christians but I don’t
know maybe that’s the only way atheism affects my political engagement.

R: so just to make it clear sir, you being an atheist accounts to your political
engagement?

KI: to some extent yes, because I don’t believe in the divine right theory. Some people
believe that the government we have was established by god, and therefore you cannot
question the government. But as an atheist I don’t believe in that theory hence I criticize
the government in every way I can.

R: last question sir, what might be the reason for you to respond to certain political
issues, and in what way do you respond when hearing such political issues?

KI: well my concern for my country, I am concerned for the future of my country
whenever apolitical issue presents itself. Because I am a member of a whole so I will be
affected by political issues one way or another.

R: so, sir you respond to political issues as a responsible citizen of our country and not
being an atheist?

KI: you’re right I don’t



KII 2
Legend: R – Researcher

KI – Key Informant
R: Ang question lang po naming ay tumutukoy sa dalawang bagay, una sir “How
atheism affects your perception about politics?” pangalawa sir, “How does atheism
affects your political engagement?” ayun po sir doon lang po siya iikot.

So start na po tayo.
First question sir, “What are the issues that you feel strongly about?”
KI: National? Or any political issues? That I feel strongly about, madami (many). On top
of my head, syempre (of course) LGBT rights, Sex education, Marcos burial, corruption.
Good governance mga ganun (like those).
R: Follow up question lang po sir, do you consider these issues as pressing issues or is
an urgent concern?
KI: Some of them are urgent concerns oo (yes), some of them I would say urgent for a
community but not urgent for everyone. For example, LGBT right di naman siya (its not)
urgent for everyone syempre (of course) mas urgent yung poverty, corruption but its
urgent for them to those who are discriminated and those who are harmed.

R: Tapos sir, do you consider this issues as political? Why?

KI: Well for me everything naman is political, of course this issues na I mentioned ah I
considered political kasi (because) politics is about influence and power so in all of this
issues you see some powerful people versus some less powerful people being able to
make decisions or not. For a certain issue, Marcos’ burial, granting or legalizing rights for
LGBTs of course that’s political.
R: So ito po yung next question sir “How does your belief in the absence of a god affects
your perception in the issues you have identified?” or will there any moral foundations
from which this perception partakes?
KI: Well ako kasi (for me) I would say a weak atheist in the sense that I don’t actively
belief that there is no god. I believe as of now there is no proof to prove that there is no
god so that belief in terms of proof so I’m more or less an empiricist basta ako evidence
based of course that affects how I believe in other thing how it shapes my other belief.
So, morality for me is, although of course yung (the) end goal yun yung iba doon (it is
different) but sa (in) evidence based belief ko how we get to that moral good is crucially
shaped by my belief not by atheism per se but belief in evidence na before we act there
must be an evidence to tell us how to act, so basta na prove that this action works in
helping the lives of people then for me I will treat as a moral good. If it shows na id
doesn’t work death penalty for example it does not really achieve its goal to deter crime
based on evidence then I will not support death penalty, different pa yan sa (from)
debate ng “should we stop crime by killing the convicted criminals” basta how I relate my
atheism with other issues is approaching those issues with evidence.


R: Do you think atheism affects your perceptions about the given socio-political issues?
Why or why not?
KI: okay going to atheism itself, of course when other people mention god or arguments
based on religion or god in those socio-political issues like LGBT rights sex education
and death penalty I don’t buy in to those arguments. So parang I do not believe
opposing death penalty based on the religious arguments that only god has the right to
take away life, that god gave us life so yung foundational arguments nay un hindi yun
yung pinang gagalingan ko (that’s not where I am rooting at) but I still also oppose death
penalty. On the other hand ditto naman sa LGBT rights of course I oppose yung other
sided sila mostly based now on religious arguments or theistic argument although of
course ewan ko kung (I don’t know if) I’m digressing I can also use theistic arguments
against them so parang I use it myself pero kung(but if) they will use it against me for
god does not approve homosexuality then I will use theistic arguments na if god created
everything then why would he also create homosexuals so parang ganun. Atheism
definitely shapes how I engage in different socio-political issues I don’t launch religious
based arguments because im an atheist and I don’t believe in religious based arguments
but I can engage using their logic and of course my perspective na that is not universal.
Diba ibabato ko sa kanila may (I will give them the) other argument na yun na your
belief in that religion is not universal because other people have different religions and
other also have no religion so parang ganun I used atheism as a foundation but also as
a way to engage the socio political issues.
R: Just to make it clear sir, your perception regarding this political issue does not
account to you being an atheist sir?

KI: What do you mean does not account?

R: sir yung mga issues na inidentify niyo sir, ito po ba personal na issues or marerelate
ba namin siya sa inyo bilang isang atheist o personal na bias niyo yun sir?
(sir the issues you’ have identified, is it porsonal ? can we relate it to you as an
atheist? Or personal bias?)
AJF: The question is not clear, but I think of course me being an atheist is a factor in to
or shapes substantially not everything. Substantially because the evidence to me, again
I’m pointing out to you that my atheism is based on absence evidence so it’s not an
active belief parang it’s just not proven to me, so my identity as an atheist, because I
believe in the evidence and if there is no evidence to support a position I don’t support
that. it shapes also my other positions that I care about, because for me the evidence
points to supporting that position LGBT rights, Sex education, opposition to death
penalty ganun.
R: Sir follow up lang po, so sir basically naniniwala po kayo sa hitchen’s razor sir?

KI: Hitchen’s razor or Occam’s Razor?

R: Hitchen’s razor sir.

KI: What’s hitchen’s razor?

R: things that can be argued without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.


KI: basically, parang ganun oo (like), russel’s teapot parang ganun.

R: How does your belief in the absence of a god differentiates your perception in
engaging in the community in general? And when engaging in the government?
KI: Sa (In) community in general, (my) perception ko when engaging in the back of my
mind kapag nagre-religious arguments yung ( when religious arguments are used by)
people I engage in the community generally they are less credible to me right away. But
of course I take into account that this is a minority position atheism it’s not the default so
of course it also shapes my perception na they will see me as less credible and so ako
yung mas kailangan mag (I am the one whoo needs to) step up or mag engage
genuinely para maconvince ko sila if ever if gusto ko sila I convince. Kasi symepre may
points in time na hindi ko naman sila goal I convince (the goal is to not convince them).
Definitely in the community I can be more generous on people who argue based on
religion or theistic arguments but definitely when engaging in government and how I
perceive government, politicians public officers, when they forward policies, its
unacceptable for me to engage with government on theistic grounds. Because of
secularism, again we live in a society with different religion so the government has to
serve everybody. They cannot forward religious based arguments for that would
definitely be specific to one religion like Manny Pacquiao.
R: Do you think being an atheist as a whole affects your political engagement? Why or
why not?
KI: siguro (maybe) as of now mga twenty percent (20% ) not so much because, I think
the biggest factor pa din that shapes my political engagement would be my gender
identity and sexual orientation, atheism is not really an identity na parang or a cause, but
it is a pillar of support parang ganun. Kaya twenty percent kasi the way I engage with
LGBT issues and other political issues I know ang kabangga ko diyan (opposing side will
be) theistic foundations or religious based arguments. So definitely atheism and my
knowledge about the existence of god helps or I use it to help the way I engage to the
issues.
KI: last na din of course ano din pala in terms of movements I link up with the atheist
movement thte agmostic movement in forwarding LGBT rights and feminist issues which
is not central sakin but it’s a support pillar din I link up with feminism and atheist
movements to forward LGBT rights.
R: last question sir,What might be the reason for you to respond to certain political
issues that you have identified? In what way do you respond when hearing political
issues?
AJF: siguro yung nakakapag paresponse sakin para sa political issues is yung ano (I
think whate makes me respond in the political issues), what I called brazen stupidity,
brazen incompetence ganun tsaka (and) brazen exploitation. That makes me respond,
kapag may Nakita akong sobrang tanga or parang sobrang palpak or sobrang nang iisa
ayun (when I see something foolish) that makes me respond.

R: how do you manifest sir?



KI: I respond by of course first giving my own opinion on the matter, posting status or
writng an article or publication or media outfit if it’s a big issue pero kung hindi facebook
lang kapag everyday. And of course I agitate other people my friends na parang “o
narinig niyo ba to, this is unacceptable” (have you heard about this?) parang to make
them feel that they have to act if not voice out man lang.

R: for the record lang din po sir, do you join rallies?

KI: yeah of course since 2001 I’ve walked yung malalayong lakad (long walks). UP
diliman to batasan noon.


KII 3
Legend: R – Researcher
KI – Key Informant

R: What are the issues that you feel strongly about and how does your atheism affects
such... or your perception on such issues? Yung pangalawa naman po (second ma’am)
Ma’am ay as an atheist how do you manifest or how do you respond in such issues?
Basically, dun po iikot yung questions po (the question will go around these). Ngayon
(now) po Ma’am the purpose of our thesis is to see if there is a relationship between
atheist beliefs and the political engagement of those people who engage on such or to
atheist.

KI: Ah okay. Ang aking political views and stands and my atheism okay. Yun yung
unang (first question to me) question mo sakin honey?

R: hindi po, yun yung pinaka main purpose po ng thesis naming.

KI: pinaka main ng thesis nyo?

R: Let’s start na po, the first question Ma’am as an Atheist Ma’am what are the issues
that you feel strongly about?

KI: Reproductive health and mental health.

R: Would you like to expand Ma’am?

KI: okay. I would like to expand of course. First yung issue and reproductive health. I am
a feminist and I believe women have the right to choose to be pregnant and not to
terminate their pregnancies if this they don’t have it. And I think the Catholic Church has
been holding us by the neck with this. That is for the reproductive part. On the mental
health part, in this country a lot of the psychology is kind a tainted with Christianity,
spiritual beliefs and I think me as a practitioner I want to open up a space for people who
have no beliefs to have psychotherapy what I mean is yung practice ko (my practice) as
a psychologist is walang halo na (not mixed with any( religion what so ever walang
halong na (not mixed by) anything about spirituality or something kase ang (because) I
hear horrible stories about people who have psychological disorders who are treated as
if they have a religious problem you know what I mean kunwari (for example) may
schizophrenia yung tao akala nila possess or killing voices (they would say that the
person is possessed); sinasaniban. Okay. Hi Erwin this is my husband…Sige ano pa?

R: next question Ma’am, do you think the issues that you’ve identified can be considered
as political, why or why not?

KI: they can be considered as that has something to do with politics, yes, they can be
political, because somehow action has to be taken and when you do that you have to
have something going on like a party or I don’t know I don’t really know but for me I’m
working as an individual.
R: Is it safe to say that, no, not safe to say that. You as an atheist you believed that God
is not present here whatsoever in this universe?


KI: God is in exist.

R: So, how does that affect your perception on the issues that you identified?
KI: okay, first dun sa reproductive okay, If God has in exist, who is in control of your own
sexual health and your own sexual say, you yourself as a person, so kung walang God
na nagsasabi sayo (no god is telling you) go for and multiply you can decide by yourself.
Second yung about mental health one part of it is walang (no) supernatural forces there
are no such thing as demons who will possess you and make you crazy what makes you
crazy quote unquote is your neurochemicals, your upbringing, your conditioning, your
social surroundings those are the things that make and do not make you have mental
problems.

R: As an atheist Ma’am is it safe to say that you argue based on science, free and
rational thinking?

KI: Yes

R: So, by using such ma’am, how does that affect your perception in building your
arguments on the issues that you have identified?

KI: I based my perceptions on the science not on the logic that how it affects me
because that’s my stands.

R: Ma’am let me ask you, how about an issues such as death penalty, same sex
marriage, divorce, LGBT rights.

KI: Okay, one by one. Death penalty. Aside from being atheist, I am a humanist and I
believe that life cannot be taken away. Abortion is a different thing especially under the
grounds of sexual abuse, and all those for example malformed yung fetus, but the death
of a fully conscious human being I’m not for that. I am not strongly against death penalty
per se but I am very strongly against killing people that what.

R: Ma’am just to clarify things so your opinion to the said issues does not account to you
being an atheist rather to you being a humanist or whatsoever.

KI: I am an atheist and a humanist. Most atheist we do not have religion so where do we
get our values?

R: So it has something to net to…

KI: Yes I get my values from humanism if you do your research we can see that may
connection ang Humanism sa Atheism.

R: So your opinions Ma’am to that social issues can also be accounted for you being an
atheist?

KI: It’s all in together.

R: it influences you opinion?



KI: It influences my opinion kasi I have a philosophy. Ito yung philosophy ko, ito yung
mga choices ko sa buhay at eto yung opinion ko na dapat mangyari sa society. Do you
get it? I am the center of my philosophy. What else? Go on..Go on.
(It influences my opinion because I have a philosophy, and this is my philosophy
and my choices in life and my opinion in the society that I think should happen. Do you
get it? I am the center of my philosophy. What else? Go on..Go on.)

R: So last question Ma’am, for the first pace, in your own view how does perception on
such issues affect or differentiate… no, let me rephrase it, in your own view maam how
does your perception as an atheist differ to non- atheist?

KI: Okay, very much so, first of all ah I based my values not to supernatural being but on
science, humanism and rationality, reality that’s how I differ walang wala akong bossing
(I have no boss out of science) but the science, philosophy. If I fucked up, it’s me. Oh
you recorded it.

R: Ma’am for the second pace ma’am we go to your manifestation of your political
engagement. First question, how does your belief in the absence of God different or
affects your perception when engaging as in general community?

KI: Okay the community in general, sa work ko, (in my work) I handle mentally ill
patients, mentally ill clients or people who are in between. Hindi ko naman
pinakawawagwagan na “Atheist ako” (I do not brag that I am an atheist) no, no I don’t
do that because to some people spiritually help them to cope them whatever it is and my
part in that is to check that the spirituality is not making them sick there is a way of
spirituality getting in the way of mental health and that is where is I differentiate,
Spirituality healthy or spirituality being a curse of degeneration so ayun.

R: How about engaging in the government?

KI: Honestly, I do support it all this many, many programs and the mere fact that it
signed the reproductive health diba he did? Dutertard na ko from the start nung singn
niya yun (when it was signed) “yes” pero yung (but the) death penalty medyo ngiwi ako (I
am quiet with that) dun the justice system is flawed, it is. But politically, mas concern ko
ang reproductive health at women’s right and the mental health din…

R: because? Because of?

KI: because that are my concerns.

R: personal concerns Ma’am?

KI: Ahh. Personal and yes yes maybe being an atheist it has something to do with it. I
would be in there if I am not, if I am a believer I would be in there. Maraming (many)
Christians who are in the reproductive health scene, mental health scene but mas strong
ang belief ko on that because I am an atheist. Parang pinalakas ( it strengthens).

R: Ma’am you said earlier that you have no bossing that science, humanism, rationality
you believe on that, is that affect when you engage in your community?


KI: Yes, I was telling it with my clients, patients community in general family this sort of
norm atheist they follow my blog so I have this chismosang (hear-say) auntie who reads
my blogs anyway wala na kong magagawa (I cannot do anything about that) she knows
and because she knows everybody knows and I come from a Christian family and they
sort of accept it and also can say I am out and out because I am of this age and I have a
profession it is easier now but I was an out when I was a kid because I was still
doubting.

R: So next question maam on the issues that you identify what might be the reason to
you to respond on such or what triggers you to respond.

KI: because I see it as my personal life goal to be a mental health profession din it’s my
mission in life I live for it and for a reproductive health I’m a woman as simple as that and
I am educated from St. Scholastic College, feminist talaga ang school namin.

R: In what way do you respond ma’am aside from the aside from practicing your
profession?

KI: Aside from that as a profession ko kasi there are people that wishy washy their
sexual power about their sexual say yung mga babae ako hindi ako pwedeng (women
are not allowed to) mag initiate... yung mga defeatist thinking like that kina-counter ko
that’s how I practice my atheism in my job kasi nga rational ang flow ko wala akong (my
flow is rational) oh don’t do that God does not tell you … kamot ang ulo ko jan ( I’ll
scratch my head on that idea) don’t do that you’re not a woman of God...

R: Do you join rallies or..?

KI: No. I don’t go rallies I join, ah I’m a member of HAPI and I do my activism there
human activism there I counsel people for free kasi sa HAPI kasi there are people who
have mental problems but they are just online they’re not yet talking to me face to face
but I do the counseling for free sa chat it’s not a problem for me it’s my advocacy you
don’t have to pay me for that. Ano pa?

R: Okay naman na po So..

KI: Ano pa gusto niyo. Sayaw haha.



KII 4
Legend: R – Researcher

KI – Key Informant

R: Sir? Good afternoon! Clear po ba yung voice ko?

KI: Yup

R: So sir, good afternoon po. You know naman sir na we are conducting a study about
atheism so, the main purpose of our study is to see if there is a correlation between
atheist beliefs and political engagement. So as such sir, our questionnaire has 2 parts
and first is, we will ask you about the issues that you feel strongly about and the next sir
is how do you manifest your opinions on such issues sir?

KI: Okay

R: So sir, let’s start. First question sir, as an atheist sir, what are the issues that you feel
strongly about?

KI: Issues?

R: Yes sir. Any issues here in the Philippines or even in other countries sir.

KI: Okay, ic-clear ko lang ano? Kasi ang point niyo kasi is atheism, right? (I would like to
clear it out, your point is atheism, right?)

R: Yes sir.

KI: Okay. Problema kasi dito sa bansa natin kasi (It is a problem in our country) the idea
of atheism is masyado kasing broad yan eh(that the idea of atheism is too broad). It’s a
broad ideology so technically, it is separated by two: those who practice atheism as full
and those na tulad namin (like us) as agnostics. By technicality, kin (what the o-consider
niyo rin kasi kami as atheist, right?

R: Yes sir.

KI: So by default, then you’re considering me as an atheist so, in my opinion, my issue

kasi is yung problema kasi ng state at church (my issue will be the problem between
churh and state). Yan ang talagang problema ko in terms of me being an agnostic (That’
what I consider an issue as an agnostic). Ang point ko kasi is, religion, kasi sa akin ang
issue ko talaga is bakit nakikialam ang simbahan sa gobyerno. We considered kasi na
trinity yan eh, na kailangan yan ng society, na kailangan yan ng government and
kailangan din natin ng religion. So once nawala yung isa dun, let’s say meron kang


society, meron kang religion pero wala kang government, magfa-fall yun. So kung meron
kang religion, meron kang government pero wala kang society, magfa-fall rin yun. Ang
problema is, yung nangyayari kasi sa atin is, meron tayong meron tayong religion,
meron tayong government, meron tayong society ang problema yung church natin is
culminating always sa government which is in practice ng agnostic, dapat hindi. Kasi lalo
na yung issues niyo ay regard sa population control yung mga ganyan-ganyan, as an
agnostic, I don’t give a shit about kung ano mang part ng bible yung (inaudible). I don’t
really give a shit about that kasi bilang agnostic, ang pinagkaiba lang naman kasi namin
g atheist is, atheist don’t believe in others, they just believe in themselves. Ang mga
agnostics na tulad namin, we don’t believe sa doctrine, we don’t believe doon sa beliefs
nila but they do believe that there is such thing as a supreme being, that’s all, yun lang.
So me, as an agnostic, we don’t give a shit kung ano man pinagsasabi nitong mga
paring to na dahil utos daw ganyn-ganyan. Eh kung hahayaan natin na sila yung lagging
makikialam, maniwala ka na walang kahahantungan tong bansang to kasi dapat hindi
eh, di dapat sila nakikialam. That’s religion to religion lang, government to government
lang, society to society lang, ganun lang yun eh, kailangan may jive. Kaya lang napu-
frustrate ako bilang agnostics na they always point doon sa libro nila. So, yun ang issue
ko jan, the correlation between the religion and the government.

(My point here is, the religion itself is the issue. How it intervenes in the
government. We considered it as trinity, that the society needs it, the government
needs it as well as the religion. So once it is removed, let’s say it is present in the
society and religion but not in the government it will fall. So, if you have religion
and government but no society, it would eventually fall as well. Our problem is
that we have a government, a religion and society, the problem is that the religion
always culminating with the government, which is wrong. Importantly when the
issue is concerned about population and the likes, as an agnostic, I don’t give a
shit about what part of the bible they get it. We differ from them, because atheists
don't believe in others they believe in themselves. agnostics like u don't believe
in doctrines, we do not follow their beliefs and in a supreme being, that’s all. As
an agnostic I don't give a shit on what does these priests tell. They should not
interfere in other aspects, it should be religion to religion, government to
government, society to society. So that's my issue the correlation between
religion and the government.)

R: Any other issue po ba bukod sa separation of church and state? (Another issue sir
aside form separation of church and state?)

KI: Ang issue ko pa jan is, ang religion kasi sa Pilipinas ay commodity. So, in terms of
commodity is kung nasaan ba kayo ngayon? Nasaang lugar ka ba ngayon?
(Another isreligion, the Philippines is a commodity, so interms of commodity is
where you are right now?)

R: Sa Luneta po
KI: Sa Luneta. So, from saan kayo nanggaling?


R: Sa may Morayta po.

KI: Sa Morayta. From Morayta to Luneta, wala ka bang nakita o napansin kung anong
meron pag Linggo?

R: Ah, napupuno po yung mga church?

KI: Sankaterbang religion ang nagsulputan sa bawat kanto, kalye, bawat lungsod. So
yun yung nangyayari.Ang idea ng religion sa Pilipinas is pag nagsabi ka ng isang
religion na ganito, you’re supreme being than the others. Sa akin bullshit yun e, let’s say,
these religions, once you’re encapsulated into it, parang ang tingin na nila sa atin you’re
just a low type of form of life. Ang nangayayari sa Pilipinas is, sa sobrang dami ng
religion, nagiging commodity. Ang religion it should not be like this eh. A religion, tulad
nga ng sabi ko kanina, it’s a trinity, a religion should govern the ideology of the society,
ibig sabihin, yung morality ng society, dun mo susukatin, dun mo kukunin sa religion.
Ang nangyayari sa atin, ang religion ang nagdi-dikta kung ano klaseng tao tayo rito sa
Pilipinas for example, siguro naman may experience ana siguro kung meron kang
kaibigan na inclined sa other religion and sometimes, you felt na kapag pumupunta ka
sa bahay nila, parang bakit you’re not welcome, right?
(Numerous religions are present in every corner, every streets and cities. So
that’s what happens, the religion in the Philippines is if you’re affiliated to one it
means that you’re a supreme being than the others,a nd that’s bullshit. Let’s say,
these religions, once you’re encapsulated into it, they tend to look at you as
you’re just a low type of form of life. What happens in our country is that because
of many religion man becomes a commodity. It should not be like that, , it’s a
trinity, a religion should govern the ideology of the society, it means you’ll
measure the morality of a person in it. What happens in reality is that the religion
dictates what kind of person we are in our country, for example I’m sure you have
experienced that when you go to your friends house you feel that your not
welcome, right?)

R: Opo

KI: In general ganun eh. Kasi sa akin, yun ang problema natin eh. Nagsusukatan tayo
sa bansang to kung ano religion mo. I mean, di na tayo nabubuhay sa middle ages.
Sure, sa middle ages ganun talaga na pag di muslim ka or nagpa-practice ka ng islam
noon, heretic ka. Or kung the other way around na kapag nagp-practice ka naman ng
islam sa mata ng roman catholic, heretic ka which is ngayon ay nangyayari sa atin eh,
the moment you say na ako, pupunta ako sa bahay ng kaibigan ko na let’s say, born
again Christian, parang feeling ko di ako welcome eh or puro basa ka ng basa ng
ganyan. Ganyan yung nangyayari sa kultura ng Pilipinas ngayon dahil yung religion is a
commodity. Kaya nga may kasabihan ako ngayon na, kapag ang pastor mo mas
mayaman pa sa’yo, mag-isip ka na, which is right. Diba? It’s a commodity eh, yan ang
nangyayayari sa Pilipinas ngayon kaya ang mga younger generation, kung minsan


natatawa din ako eh, lalo na sa mga kabataan tulad ngayon, sinasabi nila na they are
atheist kasi they don’t go to church – bullshit! They don’t go to church, atheist ka na?
Really? Kasi yun yung nagiging mindset eh, yung frustations nila towards sa religion,
dahil commodity nga sa Pilipinas kasi dahil kita nila sa mainstream, which is totoo. Ikaw
ba? Ano nakikita mo sa mga religion natin? Diba ganyan? Kaya napu-frustate kayo eh,
napu-frustrate kayo na naghahanap kayo ng idea bakit ganito sila, so yun issue ko, na
yung religion sa Pilipinas is just a commodity. Kaya nga I do salute yung ating mga
brother Muslims, because to them, ang tingin ko sa religion nila, they’re for quite perfect
in terms sa pag practice ng religion nila kasi they don’t think you as an outsider pag nasa
kanila, pag bumisita ka. Pero as much as possible, you know how to respect kung anong
tradition meron sila which is dapat alam mo. Pero pag pumasok ka sa, in-invite ka nila
as a visitor, you don’t feel na yung bahay na yun is pinamumugaran ng mga muslim, no.
You feel welcome to it not like other people, other religion na kapag ka nasa bahay ka
nila, you’re persecuted for not practicing the same religion as they are which is what
happened to our country, which is sa pagkaka-alam ko kahit ano man ang religion, dapat
pantay-pantay tayo. Hindi eh, mas superior yung tingin nila kapag eto yung religion mo
at di ka kasapi sa amin na superior so it speaks diba? So, yun pa yung isang issue ko
dyan na in terms of me, as an agnostic, which frustrates me , kasi naawa ako dun sa
mga let’s say kayo, yung mga common people na struggling to uncover, ano yung
meron ba talaga? Syempre kayo yung nahihirapan kasi at your young age, with a lot of
information na nandyan, nagkakaroon kayo ng information overload eh. Hindi niyo alam
yung tama, yung mali, sino yung nagsasabi ng totoo, sino yung nagsasabi ng hindi so
nagkakaroon kayo ng dilemma with that. Okay? So yun yung dalawang issue ko.
(In general, that’s my problem. That we are measuring man in terms of their
religion, I mean we are not living in the middle ages anymore. During that time
when you are a muslim it means you are heretic or the other way around and that
is happening to us right now. Let’s say you went to your friend’s house for
example a born again Christian, and you feel like you are not welcome because
they read and read. That is what happening in the Philippines because religion is
a commodity, that is why we have a saying that “if your pastor is richer than you
better start thinking” which is right, yes? That’s what is happening right now, and
sometimes I laughed at the younger generations because they associate
themselves as atheist simply because they do not go to church and that’s
bullshit, they don’t go to church and now you’re an atheist? Really? And that has
become the mind-set, they are frustrated in their religion because religion is a
commodity. Do you see it? They are frustrated that is why they find other ideas.
So that is my issue, the religion in the Philippines is just a commodity. That is
why I salute our muslim brothers, I see their religion as quite perfect in terms of
practice because they don’t think as an outsider when you are with them and as
much as possible you know how to respect their tradition, while in other religion
you feel like persecuted for not practicing the same religion as they are. Which is
what is happening in our countre, religions should be equal in treatment, but its
not there are hierarchy present. So that’s my other issue as an agnostic it
frustrates me because I pitty the minority or for example you the common people
who are curiously uncovering what is really the reality, you’ll undergo information


overload and it will be hard considering your young age. So there is a dilemma.
Those were my two issues.)

R: Sir magbibigay po ako ng sample issue sir, sample sir, how about issues like war on
drugs, death penalty, sex education meron po ba kayong take don as an agnostic sir?

KI: Wala(none). It’s the rule of the society. It’s the rule of the government. So we must
trust yung government natin( our government). With religion or no religion, we should not
put context into it.

R: So, under na po yung ibang issues dun sa mga unang issues niyo po na in-identify?
Na separation po ng ano, opo, naiintindihan ko po.
(So sor what are the other issues aside from the two you have identified?)

KI: Yeah, kasi kailangan maging solid tayo dun eh. Kasi ang nangyayari, nakikialam ang
religion sa government which is dapat hindi e. Di naman tayo tulad ng Rome or ng Italy
na ang kanilang form of government is governed by the church. We’re not like that eh.
Ang separation natin malinaw eh. We have the separation of the state, we have the
separation of the church which is the religion. So, in terms kung anong gustong i-
implement ng government in terms of war on drugs, about sex education, taxation and
then so on and so on, wala tayong pakialam diyan. Makikialam lang tayo diyan as a
citizen but not as one part of your religion, no, no, that’s b.s., that’s b.s. That’s why ako
as an agnostic, I don’t give a shit about it, hayaan mo lang siya diyan, diba? Kasi
trabaho niyo yan eh, trabaho ng gobyerno yan eh. So, lalo na ang mga atheist, lalo na
silang walang pakialam dyan, pakialam ba nila kung patayin nila yung mga durugistang
yan. Tuwang-tuwa pa ‘yan. Pakialam ba nila sa sex education? I mean, yun ang
pagkakaparehas namin diyan, we don’t give a shit about it. We really do not, diba? Kasi
it’s just waste of time. Kung relihiyoso kang tao, yun nga lang magiging problema mo
diyan. Yun yung lagi kong sinasabi na it should not be, it should not be.
(Yeah, because we need to be solid on that. Because what is happening is that
the religion interferes with the state, which is wrong. We are not like Rome or
Italy whom their government is governed by the church. Our separation is clear,
we have the separation of state and separation of church which is the religion.
So, in terms of what our government wanted to implement in terms of war on
drugs, same sex, taxaton and so on, we don’t care about that. We should
participate as citizen and not as a part of a religion that’s b.s., that’s b.s. That’s
why I as an agnostic don’t give shit about that, let the government be, right?
Because that is the job of the government, specialy the atheist, they don’t care
about that, they don’t care if those drug users die or on sex education, that is
what we have in common we don’t give a shit about that, it’s just waste of time.
R: Next question sir, though yung binigay niyo sir ay naka-inclined po sa separation of
church and state, sa religion as a commodity here in the Philippines, so tatanong ko lang
din po if you consider such issues as political, sir?

KI: Dito sa bansa natin (here in our country?), yes.



R: Then, why sir? You can give sir your meaning of politics sir.

KI: Yes. Ang problema kasi natin, the religion always inclines kasi sa political
arrangement natin eh. For example, during the EDSA Revolution. According sa history
books na binabasa niyo, sino main proponent nun?
(Yes, our problem is that the religion awlays inclines in the political arrangement.
For example, during EDSA revolution, according from the history books that you
have read who were the proponents of it?)

R: Sila Cardinal Sin sir?

KI: Oh, exactly, the church, diba? So, anong nangyayari? The church is always going
into the political side. Sa akin di ko talaga yun eh, I mean, why do these white robes
people na wala naming ginawa sa mundo kundi magbasa ng bibliya and mag mass
every Sunday is going into the political side, e’di sana nag politico na lang kayo? Di
nalang sana kayo nagpari. Oh may instance na tayo niyan, meron tayong kauna-
unahang paring pulitiko sa Pampanga? I don’t know if you’ve heard it pero I can’ recall
kung ano yung pangalan. Can you imagine that? Meron tayong politikong pari. Why? Or
his reason kasi gusto niyang magsilbi dun sa bayan niya. For God’s sake, come on! Yan
na nga ba ang sinasabi ko e, kasi masyadong lenient yung government natin into
dealing with the church na kung ano yung sasabihin ng church, susundin. Kaya nga
hands-up ako ngayon sa presidente natin. I’m not saying that I’m a Duterte fanatic, I’m
just saying, I do support the president for having the balls to stand up against the church,
why? Kasi kailangan yun eh. Hindi dapat sila nakikialam e. Kasi in the previous
administration, kapag sinabi ng church na, let’s say, after ng EDSA revolution, every
time na may ipatutupad na pagbabago ang gobyerno in terms of population control,
papasok ang simahan. Inabutan ko yan eh, na from the very beginning pinu-purse nan g
government to na magkaroon na isang subject about sex education and that was during
the 70s and the 80s. Pumasok ang simbahan at sinabi sa Presidente na ayaw namin
yan, e’di di napatupad. So, yun yung nangyayari every time na may gustong gawin yung
gobyerno every time na masasagasaan yung morality nitong mga ‘to, na feeling nila na
sila yung kailangan masunod. So, I commend yung ating President ngayon na kulang na
lang sabihin na mga putangina niyo, wag kayong makialam, diba? Kasi ganun dapat eh.
Kasi ang government, the government di naman dapat talaga nakikialam sa simbahan,
diba? Ang problema, yung ang nangayayari, the government lumuluhod sa simbahan,
eh ngayon, di na yan which is a good thing kasi, the government need to focus on the
problem itself, the problem at hand, kasi kung hahayaan mo tong mga to, walang
mangyayari sa atin.
(Exactly, the church right? Wo what happened? The church id always going to
the political side. For me what I mean is that, why do these white robed people
who reads the bible and hold masses on Sunday going on the political side?
They should be politicians instead. We already had instance with that, the first
priest-politician in Pampanga, I don’t know if you heared that already, I cant recall
his name, but can you imagine that? Why? His reason was, he wants to serve


the people for god’s sake come on! That is what I am saying, our government is
too lenient in dealing with the church. That is why I put my hands up to the
president, I’m not saying that I’m a Duterte fanatic, I’m just saying, I do support
the president for having the balls to stand up against the church, why? Because
its needed, in the previous administrations after the EDSA revolution for
example, if they implement laws in population they would listen to the church I
experienced that. Even beore, the government is planning to have sex education
in the 70s or 80s but it could not be done because of the interference of the
church. So that is why every time the government wants something and it
clashes with the morality of this people wo feels that they should always be
followed. That is why I commend our president. Our government do not interfere
in the church right? That is how its supposed to be. That is why I commend our
president today, who can just only say that “putangina niyo wag kayo makialam”.
The problem is that the government kneels down to the church, but now it can’t
be done which is a good thing because the government can focus on the
problem itself, the problem at hand. Because if we just let these religious people
be, nothing will happen.)

R: Sir, next question sir. Since you’re an agnostic sir and you do not cite or you do not
use any religious text such as the bible, Koran and anything, is it possible to say that you
use science, free and rational thinking when debating with others sir?

KI: Ah yes, rational thinking, always.

R: And as an agnostic sir, in your opinion sir, how does your opinion differ from non-
agnostic sir if you ever encounter one sir?

KI: Ah medyo mabigat yun eh. Let’s just say na medyo mababaw kasi yung logic nila in
terms of that natatali kasi sila sa religion nila e, so we must respect kasi ang asawa ko
eh is a practicing catholic and yet ako ay isang agnostic. So, when we have a
conversation on what she believes, I always make it a point na hinahayaan ko lang.
Kasi, when you converge in a discussion with other people wearing their religion, you
must respect them, always respect yung paniniwala nila, kasi in due time, it won’t hurt
you. Always respect. That’s all.
(Oh that’s heavy. Let’s just say, that their logic is shallow in terms of that they tied
themselves in their religion so we must respect, like my wife, she is a practicing
catholic and I am an agnostic so when we have a conversation on what she
believes, I always make a point to let her be. when you converge in a discussion
with other people wearing their religion, you must respect them, always
respecttheir belief in due time, it won’t hurt you. Always respect. That’s all.

R: Ah sir, proceed na po tayo sa next phase ng interview sir na tungkol naman po sa

(this is about ) manifestations niyo as an agnostic. First question sir, since you are an
agnostic sir, you have different set of beliefs sir underpinning that ideology, so how does


that belief sir or being an agnostic affect your perception when engaging in a community
in general sir?

KI: Sa akin ha? Kasi anti-social akong tao eh, talagang from the beginning I’m an anti-
social person so, for me being an agnostic, wala naman. I feel comfortable with it,
minding my own self sa public, sa mga social gatherings, it does not affect me.
Kumbaga as an anti-social person, you always mind yourself, your own business and as
an agnostic, you always mind yourself dun sa belief mo so nothing. It’s just normal.
(For me, I am an anti-social person from the beginning I’m an anti-social person
so, for me being an agnostic its nothing. I feel comfortable with it, minding my
own self in public, and in social gatherings, it does not affect me. Somehow as an
anti-social person, you always mind yourself, your own business and as an
agnostic, you always mind yourself in your belief so nothing. It’s just normal.)

R: Next sir, how about when engaging in government sir? if you have one sir.

KI: Ah kasi may business ako eh so wala naman. Wala naman.No discrimination naman
eh, no discrimination (I have a business, there is no discrimination).

R: Do you think sir, being an agnostic sir affects your political engagement sir? Or are
you engaging in politics like voting, joining propaganda, joining forums, participating in
issues, so on sir?

KI: Ang masasabi ko as an agnostic, medyo mas maganda yung disposition ko dahil I
don’t engage on that say, iba kasi yung pananaw ko eh. Kasi I’m not interfered by my
religion, I’m just contradicting with my logic. I think that’s one thing na talagang masasabi
ko na, we don’t engage in that kind of conversation dahil for us, it would just be a waste
of time.
(what I can say as an agnostic, I have a better disposition because I don’t
engage on that and say I have a different view. Kasi I’m not interfered by my
religion, I’m just contradicting with my logic. I think that’s one thing I can say, we
don’t engage in that kind of conversation because for us, it would just be a waste
of time.)

R: Next question sir, you identified issues like commodity sa religion, separation of
church and state. What might be your reason to respond on such sir? Ano po yung
nagti-trigger sa inyo to respond sa mga ganung klase ng mga (what triggers you to
respond to the) issues as an agnostic sir.
KI: Well, una, when they’re always referring doon sa kanilang doctrine, in refer dun sa
wake of possibility na maraming maaapektuhan. Kasi yan ang nangyayari lagi eh, na
once religion points na ganito na bawal yan sa doctrine namin and yet I see these
people na naghihirap dahil dyan sa katarantaduhan nila. Diba kasi if you could do
something, na hindi ka igo-govern ng doctrine mo, alam mong makakatulong, do it! Kasi
ang nangayayari, every time you would consult your bible kung ano pa man yung


binabasa mo when you could do it on the spot. Do it as a a human person, being a

human being not being a catholic, yan ang stand ko diyan.
(Wel first, when they’re always referring in their doctrine, in refer to the wake of
possibility that many will be affected by it. And that is happening, once the
religion points out what are not allowed in the doctrine and yet I see these people
suffering from poverty and it is because of their foolishness. If you could just do
something that would not govern you in their doctrine that you know can help
them, do it! What happens is that every time you would consult your bible or
whatever it is you are doing, when you could do it on the spot. Do it as a a
human person, being a human being not being a catholic, that is my stand on
that.)

R: So last question sir, on the the issues that you have identified sir, ano po yung mga
hakbang na inyong gingawa upang mailabas ang inyong mga opinion tungkol don? Or
how do you manifest your opinion or how do your express your opinion so the others will
know it?

KI: Ah, I’m the type of person kasi na my opinion always counts to myself only. Kasi if
you have known, ang Pilipinas is a catholic country, so parang sinabi mo na makikipag
suntukan ka sa halos 5 milyong katoliko sa Pilipinas, so parang ganun yung analogy
niyan. Siguro minsan, minsan lang pag the situation gives (inaudible). I always give my
opinion straightforward when it’s necessary pero when it’s just a non-sense topic like do
we need to use condom, then wag na lang. You would just waste my time. I don’t waste
my time sa gaanong klaseng mga opinion kasi alam mong matatalo ka eh.
(Ah, I’m the type of person whom my opinion always counts to myself only. If you
have known, the Philippines is a catholic country, its like saying you have to fight
those 5 million catholics in the philippines, that is my analogy on that. Maybe
sometimes, when the situation gives (inaudible). I always give my opinion
straightforward when it’s necessary pero when it’s just a non-sense topic like do
we need to use condom, then wag na lang. You would just waste my time. I
don’t waste my time in those kinds of opinion because I know I will lose).

R: Sir, follow up question sir, dun po sir sa case na sa tingin niyo ay worthy po yung
opinion ng iba, na willing po kayong makipag debate about doon, pag nage-engage kayo
sir sa kanila, via social media ba or personal debate or what sir?
(Sir, follow up question sir about the case that you perceive as worthy of other’s
opinion and are you willing to debate about that? If you engage with them, is it via social
media? or personal debate sir? or what?)
KI: Well minsan ano, (sometimes) I don’t debate on social media, most of the time it’s
social gathering when they ask questions and you need to answer it

R: So, personal interaction sir?

KI: Yes, yes, personal interaction.



R: All in all sir, do you think sir, as an agnostic sir, it affects your political engagement?
Yes or no sir.

KI: No.

R: So, bali yun lang po lahat ng aming question sir and maraming salamat po sa inyong
time and good luck sir sa inyong future endeavors sir. Thank you very much sir!


KII 5
Legend: R – Researcher
KI – Key Informant

R: So Sir, I’m Michael Lazaro ulit (again) sir. So kung di ko pa po nae-explain sa inyo, (If
I have not yet explained to you) outrthesis po is all about atheism Sir. Since most of
atheist studies sir are studies about debunking religion (battling?) about God so here sir,
we are trying to explore atheism and its relation to political engagement.

KI: Uhm.

R: So, iyon po yung case study namin. (that is our case study) So now sir, meron pong
(we have) two parts yung questionnaires namin, first is how does your atheism affects
your perception about certain socio-economic, political issues. Second sir at how do you
manifest you opinions or how does atheists manifest their political engagement sir based
on our atheist beliefs sir. So, ready na po sir?

KI: Sure, sige.

R: First sir, as an atheist sir, what are the issues that you, as an atheist, feel strongly
about sir?

KI: Usually RH Bill, discrimination against the LGBT. Ano pa ba (what else)? Yung
separation of church and state. Parang siguro ‘yon yung (those were the) top 3 siguro na
comes first in my mind.

R: How about sir war on drugs, death penalty.

KI: Ah death penalty. Oo yun nga pala (yes, right I forgot), sorry.

R: Next sir, do you think sir na yung mga minention niyo pong mga (what you have
mentioned are) issues sir ay political in nature sir?

KI: Ah may part, oo medyo. May part siya na maa-associate sa mga politics kasi yung
nga we have Manny Pacquiao for example ah, politician who asserts his beliefs in
politics. Yun nga, if may na public post ako noon na ano, na, if.. I think na-stalk niyo
naman yung profile ko alam niyo na marketing ako sa ano. Yun nga, if you believe in
(inaudible) for example, okay, okay ako dyan pero don’t, tawag dito, wag mo lang i-
assert sa akin, ah make me follow kung ano man ang bawal sa inyo for example kung di
kayo pwede kumain ng pork, wag mong sabihin na hindi ako pwede, parang ganun na
yun nga, you have your own beliefs I will respect that as respect na lang sa kanila
parang ganun kasi according to some naman praying and believing and those beliefs is
a way of meditation yun nga parang nakakapag-comfort sa isang tao so, as a respect na
lang sa kanila, pinababayaan nalang pero when it comes to kung naa-affect na yung
rights ko or rights ng ibang tao, diyan na tayo magkakatalo. Ayaw ko na gagamitin mo
yung beliefs mo para lang may ma…. May masaktang iba or ma-affect yung buhay ng
iba na (inaudible) beliefs mo, parang ganun
(Partly yes, there are parts that can be associated in politics, we have Manny
Pacquiao for example ah, politician who asserts his beliefs in politics. For me,
don’t assert your beliefs in me, for example if you don’t eat pork don’t say it to me
why I should not eat pork, if you have your own belief and I respect that.


According to some praying and believing and those beliefs is a way of meditation
and that comforts them, so as a respect I am letting them be. But when it affects
my belief then that is when I will argue, I don’t like it when people are using their
beliefs to hurt other.)

R: So, do you think sir na yung mga minention ninyong (what you mentioned are) issues
ay pressing issues in the Philippines sir?

KI: Ah, oo naman. Oo naman. (yes, of course)

R: So, next sir, since you are an atheist sir, is it safe to say that you, as an atheist, God
did not exist even before sir?

KI: Ah oo naman. Yung nga, according to the bible, if you do not believe in God, you’re
going to hell. Eh yung bible was written two thousand years ago, eh ano naman ang
mga tao before noon, so automatically ba they’re going to hell or those who doesn’t, di
nakatira sa mga Christian countries? Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Middle East and India kung
ganon, does that mean (inaudible)
(Yes, of course, according to the bible, if you do not believe in God, you’re going
to hell. But the bible was written two thousand years ago, and what happens to
the people before it was created? Wil they automatically go to hell?or to those
who does not live in Christian countries? Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Middle East and
India does that mean (inaudible).

(Group transferred to another place)

R: Sir, sorry po sa (for the) inconvenience
(inaudible)
R: So sir ang last po na in-identify niyong issue ay RH Bill, LBGT, separation of church
and state, death penalty and yun po. Tanong ko lang po, sinabi niyo din po na you can
consider it as political because of certain aspects sa mga issues na ‘to na ma co-
correlate natin sa politics, pwede po na ulitin niyo po yung sagot ninyo kanin sir?
(So sir, the last issue that you’ve identified was RH Bill,LGBT, Separation of
church and state and death penalty. Question sir, you said that you consider it as
political because of certain aspects in these issues can be correalated in politics,
can you repeat your answer on that sir?)
KI: (inaudible) mga policies na gusto nilang ipatupad dito sa county and yun nga, tulad
ng sinabi ko, you can believe whatever you want as long as di naaapektuhan yung
buhay, yung lifestyle ng ibang tao (inaudible)
(policies that they want to execute in our country and just like what I said, you
can believe in whatever you want as long as I does not affect the life and lifestyle
of others)

R: So sir, how does your believe in the absence of God affect your perception on the
issues that you have identified sir?

KI: Siguro (inaudible) parang di naman siya biglaan (inaudible) now I think I’m more
open-minded, I’m free to think whatever I want kasi walang restrictions. Then yung
question sa how…
(Maybe because it is not abrupt (inaudible) now I think Im more open minded, im
free to think whatever I want for there are no restrictions.)


R: Paano po nakaapekto yung kawalan po ng Diyos (how does it affect you, the belief of
absence of a supreme being?)

KI: For example, may Christians na are, uhm, di naman lahat, pero some are bigoted na
sinasabi nila na bawal ang ganito, bawal ang ganito nakasulat sa ano but, bible is one of
the most contradicting book. If I’ve read it twice na and everytime na mababasaa ko, I
still can’t believe that people believe in such (inaudible) by written and written and written
by countless of men throughout the years at yun lang, di ko lang gusto na okay,
maniwala kayo diyan pero ‘wag niyo lang i-push sa iba yung paniniwalaan niyo kasi not
all people kasi may iba na still hiding in their closet like LGBT na afraid especially sa
Philippines, na meron stereotype kasi na if ganito ka, if atheist ka, you in believe in evil
stuff, satan ano-ano haha. In my case, all of these are nits, uhm, things written in ano
lang, kung for example sila Zeus, mga old gods who were considered diligent in the
ages ago, seen as now, yung paniniwala sa mga religions ngayon na still meet and sana
yung something na sa future, maging open yung mga tao na, mas magising sila na “hey
manmade and religion, manmade ang God.
(For example, there are Christians but not all, some are bigoted, they keep
saying that this is prohibited because it is written in the bible, bible is one of the
most contradicting book. If I’ve read it twice and every time I read it, I still can’t
believe that people believe in such (inaudible) by written and written and written
by countless of men throughout the years. That’s what I am saying, that you are
free to believe in that but don’t push that belief to others for not all people follows
that, there are some who are still hiding in their closet like the LGBT, which are
afraid spcially in the Philippines, there are stereotype that if you are an atheist
you believe in evil stuff, satan and everything Ha! Ha! In my case, all of these are
nits, things written,for example sila Zeus, and the old gods who were considered
diligent in the ages ago, seen as nowthe belief in religions today still meet and
hopefully something in the future, we become open, “hey god is manmade and
religion is manmade”.

R: So sir, is it safe to say that you believe in science, free and rational thinking?

KI: Ah oo naman, sure.

R: If so, parang, how does this affect your perception sir?

KI: Uhm yung flexibility kasi okay, give me facts, give me proof, I will change what I
believe, maniniwala ako sa’yo pero in contrast kasi, sa kanila, kung example, you show
them facts, you show them figures but still, they will stick to their beliefs, parang di mo
talaga mapuputol yun, kaya nga tinawag na blind faith eh, nagbubulag-bulagan sila na
“oy eto na yung bago, this is what’s happening in the world right now”, for example ang
US, Donald Trump and his yung mga bago niyan in-appoint na secretaries, they don’t
believe in climate change. [They] don’t believe in revolution like dude, eto yung
evidence, like scientists, pinagaralan ‘to, may studies dito, eto yung mga facts, eto yung
mga evidence but they still hold for their beliefs – hold for their beliefs na, hindi eh, eto
yung pinaniniwalaan namin eh, you can’t change that pero if you are more of a
freethinker, sige give me facts, give me studies, I will change, flexible ako. Oo, strong
yung ano namin against ignorance, ayaw talaga namin dun. Meron kasing bobo kasi
nagbobo-bobohan lang na pinapakita mo na sa kanila yung mga back-up studies and
reports pero ayaw pa rin maniwala. In politics naman, for example yung mga online trolls
na kung ano nalang makikita, shine-share na lang agad, they don’t think critically, they


don’t research on their own, basta Makita nila na that they, that, passed sa kanilang own
bias, shine-share nila agad. So which promotes a culture of tawag dito, misinformation
sa country natin.
(Its about flexibility, okay, give me facts, give me proof, I will change what I
believe. In contrast when I show them facts they will still stick to what they
believe in and you cannot stop that, that is why theey call it blind faith. Hey this is
what happening to the world right now” for example the US, Donald Trump and
his newly appointed secretaries, they don’t believe in climate change. [They]
don’t believe in revolution like dude, these are the evidences and scientists have
studied it, here are the facts but they still hold on to their beliefs. But if you’re
more of a free thinker you can consider it just by providing facts and reading the
studies. I will change. We have strong urge against ignorance. There are also
some who stays ignorant about these, you have already provided facts and
studies but still would not change their minds. In politics there are this online
trolls those who would just share something and they don’t think critically, they
don’t research on their own and judge based on their personal biases, which
promotes a culture of misinformation.)

R: So sir magtanong na din po ako, sa mga nabanggit niyo pong issue kanina, tanong
ko lang po kung ano po yung take niyo sa mga issues like Marcos Burial sir and banning
of porn sites sir, may take po ba kayo dun as an atheist?
(sir another question, sir what is your take on Marcos burial and banning of porn
sites?)

KI: Siguro, let’s say part rin ng opinion ko because of atheist is sa porn, you can search
for it anywhere. Well you can ban 10, 12 pero internet is made up about 75% of porn
according to pornhub study yan, so even though i-ban mo yan, makakahanap pa rin ang
tao ng paraan, stupid deal and waste of time, nakakatawa. Tapos yung sa Marcos burial,
I think di naman t dahil atheist ako, yung ingrained kasi sa UP na eto nangyari nung
panahon na ‘yon. We were exposed to both sides and nakita talaga on how bad and
how critical Marcos era in the formation of the Philippines’ society. Sa ngayon na malaki
na nga ang utang ng Pilipinas, aside from that, yung human rights violation talaga, yung
marami talaga yung namatay, yun pa yung di nakikita and maraming buhay ang nasira
dahil sa Marcos era.
(Lets just say that partly my opinion as an atheist, is that porn can be searched
anywhere. Well you can ban 10 -12 pero internet is 75% porn according to
pornhub study yan, so even though they ban it, eventually they will find a way,
stupid deal and waste of time and also funny. Then in Marcos’ buria, I think not
because I am an atheist, it was grains to me in UP that this happened during
Martial Law. We were exposed on both sides, and I saw how bad and how critical
Marcos’ era in the formation of the Philippine Society. Now, our country is in debt
and aside from that, human rights violations are made and many lives were
ruined.)

R: Siguro sir, last question po for first phase, how does your perception as an atheist
differ from non-atheist?

KI: And main talaga si flexibility. Na I can adopt, adapt to changes na basta, pakitaan
mo lang ako facts, evidences and studies na nagpapatunay ng inyong side, okay
maniniwala ako. Whereas, if you have strong bias na usally common trait ng mga


religious na they’ll stick to what they believe in, they won’t bulge on their own beliefs and
mas less yung flexibility nila on these kind of issues.
(mainly, flexibility. I can adopt to changes just provide facts, evidences and
studies that would prove your side. Whereas, if you have strong bias, usually
common trait ng of religious, they’ll stick to what they believe in, they won’t bulge
on their own beliefs and less flexibility on these kind of issues.

R: So Sir, punta na po tayo sa second phase ng questionnaire about sir sa your

manifestation as an atheist with regards to political engagement sir. So, first question sir
is, how does your belief in the absence of God affect your perceptions when engaging in
the community?

KI: Siguro dahil in the Philippines may stereotype pa sa mga atheist, so medyo hindi pa
ako open na atheist since both my parents and family members are very religious. For
example, sumasama na ako sa church nila, respect ko na lang sa kanilang mga beliefs
since they’re my parents, di ko rin sila masaktan na kasi, religious nga sila, ayun. And sa
politics naman, ayun nga, I post some stuff if you can access my facebook page,
makikita niyo dun yung mga usual na mga sublte na politics slash bash in religion posts
and supportive ako sa mga advocacies ng mga against death penalty, pro-LGBT, basta
ayoko lang madiktahan ng religion and any belief yung pamamahala and yung mga
policies na gagawin dito sa Philippines.
(Maybe because the Philippines has stereotype on atheists, so somehow I am
not an open atheist since both of my parents and family members are very
religious. For example I join them in church and respect their beliefs since they
are my parents. And in politics, i post some stuff if you can access my facebook
page, you will see the usual and subtle politics slash bash in religion post and in
support of advocaies against death penalty and pro LGBT. I don’t want to
government be dictated by any religion and belief.)

R: S based po dun sir sa mga issues na in-identify niyo sir, what might be the reason for
you to respond to certain political issues like you identified sir earlier?

KI: Yun nga, even though I’m not openly atheist to social media or kahit sa mga friends
ko, di ko pa masyado sinasabi, in a way, I subtly protest through my facebook posts, I
support through online pag may mga petitions na ganito, ganyan pero sometimes,
nagme-meet-up kami ng mga… de, first time ko lang actually mag meet-up sa PATAS
and ano pa ba? If merong mga rallies or ano kahit di ako makakapunta ay shine-share
ko, kung sino man yung mga friends kong gustong sumama para ipaglaban, i-voice out
their opinions, parang ganun. For example dun sa Marcos burial, pumunta ko dito sa
Luneta.
(Even though though I’m not openly atheist to social media or even with my
friends, in a way, I subtly protest through my facebook posts, I support through
online. If there are petitions, or sometimes meet up with other PATAS friends. If
there are rallies and I cannot come I share post and voice out opinions, for
example Marcos burial I wento to Luneta.)

R: Just to make it clear sir, for example, you support LGBT rights, you went to Luneta to
show that you’re against Marcos’ burial, sir, does it account to you being an atheist, your
actions account to you being an atheist or you’re doing civil engagement because you’re
a responsible citizen or somehow you, being an atheist, influenced your actions.


KI: Siguro, primarily, siguro di dahil pagiging atheist ko yung sinu-support ko dito kundi
dahil sa what I believe in na mali talaga na since ililibing siya sa mga libingan ng mga
bayani, the next generation will think na “ah, si Marcos bayani ‘to”. So, yung concept
kasi ng pagiging hero nga dito sa country dahil we buried a dictator – a very bad one in
Marcos’ case. Yun nga, it can change history, it can change the beliefs of the next
generation, yung mga bata noon na “ay okay lang pa lang ganito, okay lang pa lang
magnakaw, okay lang pa lang ano”, kasi some people think na move-on na lang kayo
pero this could ano, may ripple effect kasi eh na once mailibing siya, may other factors
which could change yung beliefs and yung opinion ng tao about sa Marcos burial pero
kung pagiging atheist siguro, wala naman masyadong ano.
(Primarily not because of me being an atheist, its because of what I believe in.
that it is wrong since he was buried in Libingan ng mga Bayani, the next
generations will that Marcos is a hero. It will change the belief of future
generations of the concept of being a hero in our country for we buried a dictator.
They would think that it is fine to steal money from people for they will just move
on, but this could be a ripple effect that could change the opinions and beliefs in
Marcs burial, but being an atheist there is none.)

R: Pero on LGBT rights, sex education…

KI: Oo naman, kasi parang kasi napaka hypocrite ng mga religious kasi oo, there’s part
in bible na against the LGBT pero meron din text sa bible na do not wear na may mixed
na fabrics, eat seafood, dapat wala kang gawin ng Sunday, basta, napaka contradicting
talaga, marami talagang contradictions sa bible so if you believe that piece of literature,
pero you cherry pick, pinipili mo lang yung ano mang gustong paniwalaan dun, napaka
hiprokito naman at napaka ignorate mo naman dun at you don’t think for yourself, you
don’t think critically na…. basta, you are like sheeps na naniniwala lang, sunod lang ng
sunod, walang direction, sumusunod lang sa direction na sinasabi lang ng kanilang mga
pastol, ayun.. kasi I want people to think for themselves, read the other side of the story,
wag lang kayong sumusunod, be critical thinkers parang ganun.
(Yes of course, because its so hypocritical of the religious that yes it is said in the
bible that they are against LGBT but there are also text in the bible that says, do
not wear mixed fabrics, eat seafood, and don’t do anything on Sundays, for me it
is contradicting. It is contracitory because you believe in a literature but you
cherry-pick those what you want to believe in, and for me its very hypocritical.
They are like Sheep who just follows everything and has no directions. I want
people to think for themselves, read the other side of the story, don’t just follow
be critical thinkers.)

R: So, to clarify lang sir, sa Marcos burial sir, nag engage po kayo di dahil sa atheist po
pero as a responsible citizen pero meron kayong mga issues na sinabi niyo po kanina
na nage-engage po kayo dahil kayo ay atheist primarily sir?
(So, to clarify sir, in Marcos’ burial srir, you engage not because of you being an
atheist but as a responsible citizen, but sir are there still issues you engage in
because of you, being an atheist?)

KI: Parang nagfa-factor lang pero not because of atheism talaga. Parang ano lang…
supports my actions parang… hindi talaga yung main motivation ko is atheism pero
siguro in a part kasi since I’m an atheist, I’m more freethinker, mas open-minded ako.
Siguro naaapektuhan in some way na we’re all humans, we’re all equal but ayaw niyong
bigyan ng rights yung other people for example same-sex marriage, a religion didn’t
invent marriage naman, parang ganun. Civil rights kasi, kasi it’s not about naman yung


interaction ng dalawang gay LGBT kundi yung kanilang rights na that male and female
couples are enjoying, for example mas legitimate yung child nila, ang LGBT wala silang
ganun e they need ano pa, marami pang papers and all. For example, sa insurance rin,
dapat kailangan, if you’re LGBT may stereotype pa parang ganun eh, parang
discrimination. Di pa sila considered na legally partners.
(Somehow, it is factored not of me being an atheist but as a support to my
actions. Atheism is not my main motivation but partly. Maybe because I’m an
atheist, I’m more of a free thinker, more open minded. Maybe it affects me in
some way that we are all humans, we’re all equal but you don’t treat others
equally. For example same-sex marriage, a religion didn’t invent marriage, it is a
civil right. Its not anbout the interation of two LGBT but it is the rights that male
and female are enjoying., for example legitimate child of LGBT, they don’t enjoy
that they need papers and other legal measure. Another example insurance, if
you’re an LGBT there is a stereotype that discriminates you and they are not
considered legal partners.)

R: So sir bali that ends our interview sir, so, sir thank you po maraming salamat po sa
time niyo sir and sorry po sa abalang naidulot namin.

KI: Haha! Walang anuman!



KII 6
Legend: R – Researcher
KI – Key Informant

R: So, sir yung questions po namin, dalawang sets of questions lang naman siya. First
set, aalamin lang namin kung ano ang different perceptions niyo sa issues ngayon.
Second set of questions will be, we what to know how you manifest through action the
perceptions that are going to be identified. So, first question po sir, what are the issues
that you feel strongly about as an atheist?

KI: Issues sa ngayon? Pwede mag tagalog?

R: Yes sir

KI: Actually di ako masyadong aware sa mga nangyayari exactly sa mga ano ah, mga
balita these days pero as an atheist para sa mga issue na nangyayari? Kung tutuusin
naman meron naman tayong law ng tao eh, aside naman sa law ng diyos. Kumbaga sa
mga faithful, nauuna syempre yung law ng tao so kung meron mang mga nangyayari
like yung mga killings na, yun ang pagkakaalam ko eh. Well, sana may due process pag
may nangyayari. Sana, kaso mukhang nauuna yung ano eh, yung resulta kaagad e, di
nagkakaroon ng mga process na yan eh so medyo nakakalungkot. Well, as an atheist,
Pilipino rin naman ako e, e ang mga Pilipino naman walang pakialam so, di na ako
magpapaka-ipokrito, wala akong life haha.

R: So aside po sa war on drugs at extra judicial killings na sa tingin niyo…

KI: Yun nga eh! Kaso kumbaga wala naman tayo maitutulong diyan kasi kumbaga di
naman tayo army ng police at saka may kanya-kanya tayo ginagawa. Mas nagiging
Pilipino tayo na sarili lang natin yung iniintindi natin. Ganun ang nangyayari sa society
eh lalo sa Philippines. Well anyway…

R: Sir, other issues po kunwari like death penalty, gay rights..

KI: Death penalty kasi hindi siya makatarungan. I mean, di ako agree kasi buhay yun eh.
Well, diba, kumbaga, mas humane, mas okay eh. Gay rights, tao sila, di dapat sila i-
suppress or bigyan ng kung ano mang bawal or i-ridicule, tao sila eh.

R: How about sex education? Same-sex marriage?

KI: Sex education? Sakin kasi okay yun eh kung para bigyan ng knowledge yung
kailangan bigyan lalo mga bata kasi diba andun mga yung contraceptive basta,
maganda ituro yun. Kasi kunwari, unwanted pregnancy, obvious naman, at least
magkakaroon sila ng knowledge diba? Pero ano bang pinagdidiinan natin dito? Yung
morality ng religious teachings pagdating dun?

R: Ah yun sir, kasi po tungkol sa atheist so diba, di naman anchored sa mga values na
turo ng simbahan ang mga pinaniniwalaan niyo so, how can you deal with that?

KI: Well, atheist kasi di naman totally di naniniwala eh, diba? Kasi wala naman
pinpaniwalaan yung atheist na diety or supreme being na tinatawag or kung ano mang


religion na tinatawag at teachings. Ako kasi, into human lang talaga e. Kung ano yung
nararapat at nakabubuti sa tao na tipong fair.

R: Yung mga issues po na yun, do you consider those issues as pressing issues or does
it require an urgent concern?

KI: Oo. Well, culture natin is religious talaga e, pious, maka-diyos ganyan. Tingin ko,
kung ipe-press natin yun, matagal, kasi marami pang tao di nakakaabsorb nun
iKIediately eh, di agad sila nabibigyan ng focus kasi nga yung culture natin, malaking
percentage, di pwedeng bigyan ng tulak agad e. Pero kung time naman, matagala, pero
siguro baby steps, ganun. Kung pagdidiinan, dapat pero yung result, di agad-agad.

R: Sir, do you consider those issues as political?

KI: Ah oo. Showbiz eh, showbiz yun eh – media. Di naman kasi dapat talaga ganun ang
trabaho ng media. Kasi, sa ibang bansa naman di ganyan eh like Scandinavian
countries. Ewan ko ba, napakatatalino nila tska ang innate na sa kanila maging moral
eh, di na kailangan ng mga political agendas para sumikat, ewan ko.

R: So, pag-usapan natin po yung moral foundations, diba as an atheist, saan kayo
kumukuha ng hugot kumbaga?

KI: Nagkaroon kami ng topic na ganyan eh kung saan nakukuha yung morality talaga.
Well, kung religious ka, siguro kukunin mo yun sa teachings, siguro case to case basis.
Pero, depende siguro sa pag-uusap like kunwari, sa aking, naiisip na mag mabuti
maging fair sa isang tao kesa magkaroon ako ng reward afterlife. Sa pananawa ko, lahat
naman kasi tayo organism lang eh, apg nawala tayo, yung existence talaga, kumbaga,
kahit yung word na wala di mo rin made-determine. Kasi pag namatay ka, wala ka na.
So kailangan, habang nabubuhay ka, kailangan i-enjoy mo siguro yung buhay mo? Kasi
isa lang yan? Tapos at the same time, maging fair ka sa tao tipong yung dahil isa lang
ang buhay eh mangre-rape ka na, magnanakaw ka na lang, papatay ka bigla ng tao.
Maging fair ka kasi yung ang right thing to do. Ewan ko. Magkakasala ka dahil alam mo
naman na may magpapatawad sa’yo na deity? Ewan ko kung may mga ganun instances
pa ba sa mga faithful eh. Or sa mga sumasandal sa religion na pwede kang magkamali
kasi papatawarin ka naman ng diyos so, gawa ka na lang ng mali.

R: Are your perceptions of the said issues account to you as an atheist? Why or why
not? Does it differ ba sa mga normal na tao na may diyos? Kunwari yung mga insights
niyo po sa war on drugs, death penalty, sex education, nanggaling ba yun sa inyo bilang
atheist o wala?

KI: Actually, kung tutuosin pag-inisip mo talaga iyon yung kailangan ng tao eh…

R: So, hindi po yun’ dahil atheist kayo?

KI: ... Hindi naman, hindi naman

R: Okay po, ito naman, second set of questions, how does your belief in the absence of
a God differentiate your perceptions when engaging in the coKIunity?

KI: …


R: Wait lang po, actually kasi meron pong when engaging in the coKIunity tapos after
that question, when engaging in the government…

KI: Kailangan may government?

R: Sa coKIunity po muna?

KI: Community as an atheist?... wala, magi-engage ka lang na parang ay nakikihallubilo

ka lang sa tao ng normal, ay kasi ito pa pala hindi ako, tawag doon rebel atheist na
tinatawag, hindi ako nagproproselytize na hindi ako nagtuturo sa mga pananiniwala na
maging maconvert, hindi ako nagcoconvert sa mga kausap ko hindi, kasi ako ginagalang
ko yung mga paniniwala ng mga religious, well, kung magiging enlightening sakanila
yun’ good for them, pero kasi for me hindi ako yung tipong sasabihin sakanila na hindi
iyan magiging mabuti sa inyo yung ganyang suppression ng emotion, yung ganyan yung
pagiging tingin mo sa sarili mo maliit ka, hindi siya empowering for me eh, pero kung
enlightening iyon sa religious people yung tipong meron silang problema nagpripray sila,
well kung may nagagawa sakanila yun’ emotionally or sabihin nalang natin spiritually
kung sabi nila sakanila eh it’s good for them. Government.. ewan ko kasi ang atheist
naman nag-iisip din eh, di naman sila nag-iisip galling sa bibliya eh, tingin ko sakto lang,
ganoon din.

R: Ganoon din?

KI: Laws of tayo, constitution, magiging constitutional.

R: So, do you think being an atheist as a whole affects your political engagement?

KI: Hindi, hindi hindi hindi, wala wala wala hindi konektado

R: Hindi siya connect?

KI: Hindi hindi hindi kasi ano naman di ba? Kumbaga, kung ano yung iKIediate na issue
ng tao kunyari may issue ngayon, about kunyari OFW ganyan or kung ano man yung
mga maliliit na bagay… hindi naman namin pwede sabihin na hindi kami naniniwala o
ganito yung gawin natin hindi kami naniniwala sa Diyos eh o ganito yung gawin natin
wala, walang ganoon, kumbaga ganoon parin eh batas parin ng tao yung pipapairal
bakit doon, bakit doon pa ano matatapos? I mean kumbaga, iyon malawak na yun’ eh
batas ng tao eh, yung iba kasi nilalagyan pa ng religious verses ng bible, well, ewan ko
ba pero parang irrelevant yun’ pero yung constitution lang natin enough na.

R: Sir, do you join rallies po ba or debates ganyan?

KI: Debates?...

R: Or joining public forums regarding certain political issues ganyan?

KI: Hindi eh…yung maging militant?

R: Ay hindi naman po yung kanina po, example (KI: Hindi eh.) parang how do you
manifest lang, may mga certain manifestation po ba kayong mga ginagawa? Kagaya po


kanina parang nasabi niyo napagusapan niyo yung tungkol sa kung saan kumukuha ng
moral foundations ang atheist, so ano po ba yon’ public forums or?

KI: Hindi eh, (R: Casual talks?) ano lang, oo casual talks siguro, pero siguro personal
point of view lang ganyan pero sasali sa welga mga ganoon? Hindi, wala, hindi hindi eh
kasi sabi ko nga sa inyo tayong mga Pilipino wala tayong pakialam (R: Hangga’t di
naaapektuhan…) oo hangga’t di ka naaapektuhan hindi ka magugulantang, example
nalang yung sa local government natin eh yung kunyari example lang ha? Pondo sa
barangay sa tingin niyo ba nadidisseminate ng maayos yon’? Si barangay chairman,
siya ang humahawak let’s say kunyari, so, kung hindi siya nadidisseminate ng maayos
para sa barangay natin, hindi tayo kumikilos or kumakausap sakanya or what basta
ganoon, kasi di natin pinapansin eh local government nalang eh, ewan ko kung bakit
may mas matataas na issue mas magwewelga pa ko, ewan ko lang ha? siguro may iba
pang underlying ano don’ binabayaran yung mga nagwewelga for political ano nanaman
agenda kasi sa atin showbiz eh kailangan makilala ka para sa susunod na eleksyon,
mas iboto ka. Yun’ nga lang ganito ang COMELEC na nareread, tingnan mo yung hello
garci tagal tagal na non’ obvious naman na kumabaga ang computer eh madaling i-read
so boboto ka sa wala, nagpapakahirap ka magrehistro at the end of the day yung boto
mo nailipat sa kabilang ano (R: Pero nagvovote pa po kayo?) hindi ako bumovote, sorry
ha? Kasi ako di ako ano eh naniniwala ngayon sa eleksyon kasi nga nareread nga,
hindi effective yang mga PICOS PICOS na yan’ .

R: Pero yung hindi niyo po pagboto hindi yon’ accounted sa inyo bilang atheist?

KI: hindi rin, hindi. Kasi wala ayun’ sa nakikita mo lang na obvious kumbaga yun’ nga
boboto ka wala rin naming kwenta…

R: May ano po kayo, group sa Facebook ganyan, nakakasali ba kayo sa isang certain
org.?

KI: Akala ko alam niyo? yung Humanist Alliance Philippines (R: Hapi)… one of the ano
ko don’ eh incorporators, isa ko sa limang incorporators...

R: So, may mga meetings po kayo o gatherings?

KI: yeah, oo meron din di lang ako masyado nakakapunta dahil medyo busy ako, may
mga ginagawa din kaming mga humanitarian na activities, nagpapakain sa mga bata, sa
may muntinlupa pero binabantayan sila meaning hindi lang sila papakainin kumbaga
babantayan yung grades nila, yung weight nila kumbaga yung nourishment nila
masusustain hindi yung tipong nagkaroon ka ng humanitarian activities sa isang
squatter’s area magpapakain ka lang and then the next week, the next month, the next
year, wala ka na for the purposes lang yung ginagawa nong iba

R: Pero ayun po what urges you to form or to join such organization? Hindi po ba yon’
nanggaling sa pagiging dahil atheist ako I need to form an organization that advocates
this certain type of advocacy?

KI: Humanism kasi ang sa HAPI eh mas pinagdidiinan eh. Ewan ko ha? Parang mas
naging konektado ko sa ganoong idea noong nirecruit ako and then yun’ na everything
follows na kumbaga yung ibang atheist group kasi, medyo ewan ko kung ano
masyadong hindi ok din naman yung iba pero yung iba kasi nag-aano eh yun iba


nagproproselytize, nagcoconvert, nagtuturo, ng basta yung iba ano rin eh medyo mahilig
makipagdebate eh.

R: Pero ang HAPI po ba ano siya very engaging din sa politics o sa government?
KI: Hindi, actually, hindi eh

R: More on humanitarian…(KI: Oo eh, oo kasi kung ano nalang yung iKIediate na

kailangan ng tao, yun’ ang mas gagawin ng HAPI kasi wala ng ibang gagawa pulitiko
kasi parang showbiz lang eh pero well, minsan nagiging ok din yung ibang political
bodies pero yung pagkukulang nila, pinupunuan nalang namin…)

R: So, yun’ lang po sir Thank you po

KI: Yun’ lang?

R: Opo, opo. Maraming salamat po

KI: Ok ayos, Sana nakatulong ako ng kahit papaano…

R: Opo, po most of your answers naman po kaparehas din nong sa ibang mga
nainterviews namin…

KI: Talaga? Sinu-sino na mga nainterview niyo?

R: Meron din po from HAPI.

KI: Sino? sino?

R: Ano po siya eh psychologist, psychologist siya pero sabi niya yun’ nga daw po
nakwento niya parang minsan may mga ano kayo, may mga gatherings pero di din daw
siya nakakaattend…

KI: Si ano…

R: Meron nga daw po kayong headquarters (KI: Ano pangalan?) oo babae, nakalimutan
ko po pangalan (KI: Si Jennifer?)… psychologist siya eh may asawa chaka may mga
anak na (KI: Russel?)… hindi ko po maalala yung pangalan niya.

KI: Alam mo kami, malaki kami eh na org. eh di kami yung tipong lahat magkakakilala
talaga eh…


KII 7
Legend: R – Researcher
KI – Key Informant

R: Sa first question po, what are the issues you fill strongly about as an atheist?

KI: As an atheist, marami let’s start with issues that were religion is an obstacle to that
issue, to implementing a certain policy. I support legalizing divorce, it is not implemented
because religion is the obstacle diba. They’re influencing the politician to not pass the bill
at the same time once those politicians support bills that promote divorce they would
influence the election result. They would say that these politicians support divorce
therefore they’re not supposed to be elected in office. Yun ang mga actions ng religion
specialy ng mga authorities na hindi ko sinosoportahan kasi they are the ones
obstructing the passage of the bill.

Number two, legalizing the same sex marriage. Una muna naging atheist muna ako
bago ako nag come out as gay. Before I was an atheist but against same-sex mariiage
pero ngayon when I saw the arguments doon sa YouTube about legalizing same-sex
marriage this legal issues has nothing to do with moral issues, its all about legal
protections like yung visitation rights, rights to share ownership, legal ownership tsaka
mga financial. So those same-sex couple that stayed together in decades they are not
enjoying the same right that the legal married couples are enjoying. So, again religion is
an obstacle to the passing of this potential bill.

Since 2012 yung atheist organization naming is joining the pride march, some of them
straight and some of us gays, until this December I am still joining the LGBT rights pride
march. That is to promote legalizing same-sex marriage, and also supporting bills that
would protect LGBT rights to assimilate harmoniously with the society that includes
bathroom issues. I don’t know if you see this, in government offices you see religious
statues, you see sometimes kapag lunch break nila minsan during office hours umaalis
yung office workers sa mga government offices to participate in masses like yung first
Friday mass during office hours. Ok lang kung lunch break, the this is thy’re doing this
celebration in th government premises, where theyre using government resources.
Kuryente ng gobyerno, taxpayer’s money yun ang ayaw ko, although minor siya it affects
the overall yung pagkakadeclare nila na secular daw ang government. Especially when
they are trying to unite all religions. How can you promote equality in religion where
there is only one religion being celebrated in government offices, we cannot support that,
ayoko nun. Kung ganun din pala edi mag misa din tayo ng alahu akbar sa mga office,
but they don’t do that kasi minority sila. To remove yung discrimination or prejudice,
yung iba kasi feel nila may prejudice, because the majority is lantaran silang nagce-
celebrate ng mass in government offices, they have all the churches in places pwede
naman doon nila gawin yun.

Education, yung education may mga subjects na naiimpluwensiyahan ng religion like

yung mga public schools I can still see text books na when they talk about scientific
studies thwy still bring up the issue of god there, the word god is in those science books
which is wrong because science has never detected any existence of a god, not yey until
they do then that’s the time they can put that word in the science books. Though minor
lang siya pero in the future makikita natin yung negative effects ng religion pagdating sa
edukasyon.


ARMM, yung mga bangsamoro issues, ito yung epekto why muslims want their religious
laws to be impose in our government laws kasi they see catholic celebrating mass in
government offices, they see statues being put on senate and congress nad in oublis
schools. Bumabawi sila by wanting their laws to be impose in the society like yung
sharia law, but sharia law would divide people based on religion, magkakaroon tayo ng
different laws depending on people’s religion like kapag catholic ka you’re not allowed to
divorce pero kapag muslim ka you are allowed and this goes back to the policy na gusto
ko malegalize yung divorce. Hindi ko alam kung aware kayo per sabi sa constitution you
are not allowed to make laws that favors certain religion so that mean ang is based on
human needs regardless kung ano ang religion. May religion na nainvolve sa
bangsamoro laws kapag makikita mo yung laws lalabas at lalabas yung religion doon
kasi sasabihin nila religious rights yun. Oo religious rights yun, pero yung religious rights
should not trump over human rights.

Isa pa yung mga financial support ng governments sa simbahan, hindi dapat mangyari
yun. Unang una sa lahat, hindi taxpayer ang simbahan, so kunghindi taxpayer ang
simbahan you’re not entitled to any financial benefits from the government, at the same
time gusto ko magkaroon na din sila ng tax, kasi masyado silang vocal sa gusto nilang
mangyari sa government masyado silang influencial sila sa public why not I tax din sila
kasi tayong mga tao may mga gusto tayo pero di nasasabatas pero sila tapos yung mga
simbahan na ito hindi sila nagabbayad ni isang kusing and yet yung mga gusto nila
naipapasa sa gobyerno diba. That’s why napaka delikado yung mga taong naeelect kasi
yung mga policies na pinapasa nila sa government ay hindi based sa human needs
based minsan based pa sa bible like what Pacquaio is doing, lahat na lang ng laws na
pinapasa niya is from the bible and hindi naman ng policies moral sa bible eh.

R: sir sa issue ng abortion?

KI: Isa pa yun, isang malaking bagay na nakapasa ang RH Law. Sa abortion, unang una
sa lahat yung karapatan ng kababaihan na magdecide kung kaya niyang palakihin yung
bata specially sila naman nagdedecide kung kaya nilang palakihin yan eh hindi naman
yung mga pari. At yung mag nakikit aniyong mga bata diyan mga fetus diyan sa kalye
kaya yan nagyayari kasi hindi legal yung abortion, kung legal yung abortion hindi aabot
sa ganyan yan before three months pa lang yang fetus na yan tanggal na sa
sinapupunan yan. Kaya nagiging rampant yung pagiiwan ng fetus sa mga public places
yan ay kagagawan ng religion na hiyain yung mga tao sa pre-marital sex and all that so I
support abortion. At the same time mawawala na yang mga hilot hilot nay an kasi we’re
going to let the doctors do the proper way of removing unwanted pregnancies.

R: about war on drugs and death penalty sir?

KI: Ayan, this is where I support the church, hindi naman lahat ng church policies ay
masama, meron din namang Mabuti and this is one of the things na suportado ko ang
catholic church. I am against death penalty unang una sa lahat ang death penalty
mayayaman lang ang nakakaligtas diyan mga dukkha ang nabibiktima ng death penalty
they cannot afford to get lawyers hindi patas ang batas natin at hindi iisa ang husgado
there will be judge based on evidence but there will be also based on influence so dahil
hindi patas ang batas at minsan tiwali ang justice system ng pilipinas hindi appropriate
ang death penalty sa atin, at the same time pwede din natin alisin sa society. Ang
problema kasi sa atin sa gobyerno natin kapag life sentence, life sentence pero may TV
dapat life sentence at walang visitation rights ang visitation rights niyan hanggan pader


lang yung kakaway lang yung asawa mo, kailangan tight security. Ayoko ng death
penalty pero tight prison system dapat ang maging solusyon diyan.

Pagdating naman sa drugs, unang una sa lahat I don’t judge people who take drugs and
yung drugs nay an personal issue ng bawat tao yan, tapos sasabihin nila kapag naka
droga ang tao nakakapatay. Hindi lahat ng drug addict nagrerape at hindi lahat ng drug
addict pumapatay ng tao. Ang killer, killer yan whther drug addict o hindi, yun ang stand
ko diyan. Kaya yung mga liberal ang progressive countries they have legalized drug use
tulad ng Netherlands, sa USA legal na ang marijuana. Ang marijuana is used sometimes
as medicine so dapat maging legal siya pero yung abuse of drugs for personal issue na
yan. So ang drugs it’s just like alcohol in the 1930s where alcohol was illegal before,
kaya nga yung alcapone nakakulong dahil illegal yung mga alcohol noon pero in my
opinion mas dangerous ang alcohol dahil ang alcohol pag lasing ka nakakapatay ka sa
kalye, kung ganun din aman yung issue niyo bakit hindi niyo I legalize yung drugs kasi
parehas lang naman eh so it’s more of a personal use siya so I support the legalization
of marijuana and then the rest, pero I don’t support yung total legalization ng mga drugs.

R: so, do you think the issues you mention are pressing issues? does it need to be
addressed urgently?

KI: some of them are, like yung bangsamoro issue it’s a pressing issue kasi unang una
sa lahat, ongoing yung terrorism na influenced by religion eh. The government should
make a stand against being influence by religion. Kasi dito mag uumpisa yung equality
sa baway isa eh, so if we apply equality sa bawat isa tapos justice and walang favoritism
pag dating sa religion, eventually susunod ang mga religion sa batas ng tao hindi ang
tao angf susunod sa batas ng religion.

Abortion, in a way pressing issue kasi unag una sa lahat, talagang rampant na nag
overpapolation ng bansa natin. Dapat there are ways na macontrol ang population natin
like RH Law ayun malaking step yun. And the next step is abortin at the same time
malilimit yung mga fetus sa public places.

Same sex marriage, it is apressing issue kasi there are children na walanga parents na
mapupuntahan, ang allowed naman na mag adopt ay ang straight couples. Dapat thy
would also allow same sex couples to adoth these children by legalizing same sex
marriage. At the same time mawawala din yung street children.

Sa tingin ko yung drug issue is the least of those issues, uang una sa lahat, pgdating sa
drugs hindi naman doon yung life ng bansa eh ibig sabihin kahit naman may drug
problem ang bansa ang issue pa din ay yung job security, as long as may trabaho yung
tao hindi magiging issue yung drugs. I am more on LGBT issues, kasi may mga
companies pa din na nagddiscriminate ng LGBT, kaya mas pressing issue yung LGBT
issue kasi kailangan mas matanggao sila sa aociety para makaacquire sila ng financial
support sa mga trabaho nila.

R: Do you considered the issues you mention as political?

KI: a lot of them are political kasi unag una sa lahat, yung issues nay an they need
congress initiated bill para maipasa lahat yan. Definitely it is political, kasi yung mga
policy na yan ginagawang issue yan nag mga simbahan pagdating ng elections,
sasabihin nila a “oop baby killer yan, wag niyo iboto yan”. So lahat yan political.


Pagdating naman sa Mindanao, may mga politicians na nagpromise na I legalize yung

sharia law para Manalo sila sa eleksyon.

R: how does your brlief in the absence of a god affect your perceptions on the issues
that you have identified?

KI: compare ko siya sa sarili ko bago pa ako mag =ing atheist, kasi nag satrat ako
maging atheist nung 23 years old na ako. So lts start with abortion, nung di pa ako
atheist aginst ako sa abortion. Nung atheist na ako nagsupport na ako sa abortion.
Same sex marriage, dumating ako sa pagka atheist ko pero anti same sex marriage pa
din ako, kasi hindi siya issue sa akin. Pero medyo matagal bago nagsabay na favor ako
sa issue at sa pagiging atheist ko. Bangsamoro, in a way pero hindi siya issue nung
naging atheist na ako eh, naging issue na lang siya sakin nung atheist na ako, at the
same time oo mas madali kasi maging critic ng bangsamoro issue now that I am an
atheist. Death penalty, whether atheist ako or god believer ako against talaga ako sa
death penalty. Sa education, lumaki kasi ako sa catholic school eh, naging atheist ako
nung yung school namin nag visit sa museum ng dinosaurs doon sa araneta 1986. Sa
akin kasi it’s the other way around, yung science yung nag influence ng beliefs ko , hindi
yung beliefs ko yung nag influence ko sa science. So mas powerful yung education at
yung effect niya sa judgment ko when it comes to political issues. mas I care on human
needs, or kung may human rights ba na naapektuhan yung mga policies na yan.

R: so in your own view sir how does your perception as an atheist differ from non
atheist?

KI: I don’t have to worry to any fictional or fantasy punishments. All consequence exist in
our lives, kung may sinusuportahan ka titignan mo yung effects niya in this life. So I on
not have to worry about afterlife.

R: how do you manifest your actions? As an atheist how do you engage in the
community?

KI: unang una sa debates, specially my mom is religious so minsan nag tatalo kami ng
mom ko kasi religious catholic ang nanay ko. So pinag tatalunan namin kung saan mag
aaral yung pamangkin ko, ako supporter ako ng public school nanay ko gusto niya
catholic school. Doon nagmamanifest yung lack of belief ko sa diyos, sasabihin morali
issues, sakin walang moral isues sa diyos. Morality has nothing to do with the existence
of god or religious belief so doon nagmamanifest, at the same time nagmamanifest din
yung pagiging atheist ko in supporting policies like joining pride march, specially during
pride march we see people opposing the LGBT rights minsan nakikipag sigawan kami
sa mga religious people, doon nagmamanifest yun. Mas madali akong nakapag come
out as gay kasi naging mahina yung beliefs ko dati kinikimkim ko pa yung pagiging gay
ko. Kasi I don thave to worry people judging me or afterlife or a creature punishing me
for misbehaving and being gay.

R: on government?

KI: yun sa pride march, siguro sasabihin nila about LGBT rights lang pero eventually
kapag may protest about divorce I would join that, I wouln’t join protest against drugs
kasi drug issues ay walang effect sakin, I prefer to join protest in divorce issue or RH
issue. Anything to do with human rights and church opposed policies.


R: so do you think being an atheist as a whole affects your political engagement? Why
or why not?

KI: kapag against lang ako sa policy na iyon, tapos kung sumusuporta ako. So walang
affect yung pagiging atheist ko, kung pabor ang catholic church sa pinagallaban ko
kamipi kampi kamai diyan pero kung hindi magkakalaban kami diyan. In LGBT right may
epekto siguro kasi unang una sa lahat, naging atheist muna kao bago ako naging gay at
sumuport sa same sex marriage so mas naging madali na supportive ako ng LGBT
rights ngayong atheist na ako, pero the reason why I was easily influenced is not
because the argument of religion or I was the atheist but because of the arguments of
those who support it. Naging madaling supporter kasi atheist ako, specially kung ang
arguments nila is more rational.

R: so what might be the reason for you to respond to certain political issues? and in
what way do you respond?

KI: unag una sa lahat, it is based on human needs, kung kailangan ng tao ng divorce I
would support it. Not because of any religion or lack of religion its because of the need
of the humanity to have those laws implemented. Dapat walang religion sa picture ng
political scene


KII 8
Legend: R – Researcher
KI – Key Informant

R: First question po, What are the issues that you feel strongly about as an Atheist?

KI: To be honest, yang ano..yung Extra Judicial Killings ngayon kase well.. kase yung..
hindi naman ako humanist kasi ayoko ng labels eh, atheista ako, hindi ako naniniwala sa
Diyos but being non- believer ka, malapit ka sa tao kasi alam mo namang walang
makukuhang divine justice yan eh, diba? Kawawa, sa akin ah, kawawa yung mga
napatay na inosente nangyayari yan so, I am really strongly against sa extra judicial
killings na yan. Kase it represents us as a country, anong klaseng bansa tayo rito,
patayan tayo ng patayan diba? If we go to Japan for example, Japanese are not
Christians, majority Buddhist which are Atheistic, eh, tahimik sila, their police doesn’t any
carry guns, walang baril ang pulisya sa Japan. Ang crime rate nila masyadong minimal
so diba? lalabas nyan mas Mabuti pa, tayo, ipinagmamalaki natin Christian country daw
tayo, when we talk about the Philippines we say the biggest Christian country in Asia eh
ano tayo ngayon? Wala ginawa rito kundi magpatayan. So, I really feels very strong
against yang mangyayari ngayon sa ating Government. That is my political stand.

R: Sir, do you think the issues that you’ve mentioned are considered as pressing issues
or does it require an urgent ahhm concern or it needed to be address urgently?

KI: It should be address. Ah. In the first place, I was thinking, sana yung mga tao
talagang hindi lang puro facebook, comment facebook, lalabanan si Mocha, Sana hindi
lang puro ganun, sana talagang pinadadating nila sa high act. Look what happen right
now yung..yung South Korean na pinatay right there sa PNP, yung para sakin lilinisin
ang Philippine National Police, tapos bigla kang yung mismong pinatay nandun mismo
sa Philippine National Police, pulis pa ang gumawa, what happened? With the promise
of 6 years ahh,ah 6 months na mawawala yung crime lalo pang lumaki, lalo pang
naging above yung crime so it must be, dapat parating na dun sa kaya lang mismong
sinasabi ng tao baka pag pinarating don murahin lang sila ng murahin.

R: Sir, do you consider those issues as political?

KI: Yes, kasi unang-una paano magkaroon ng power na ganun diba?, paano nagkaron
ng power yung leche, este yung president natin, that’s politics naumpisahan na dyan sa
Marcos libing ngayon kesyo gustong magmartial law patago di raw sasabi...those are
political things, those are political issues and it should be address kasi public servants
yang mga yan di naman sila mga warlords so dapat inaaddress nila sa tao yan as public
servants. I find it political.

R: How does your belief in the absence of a God affects your perception in the issues
that you identify?

KI: Silent ang Church jan, but this thing is I have aware to be honest ahmm,I have to be
fair naman ako sa mga Christians may mga pastor akong kaibigan umaangal jan, but the
thing as an Atheist yun nga sabi ko nga walang divine justice eh, so san nangagaling
yung criticism? diba sa atin din? If we let it pabayaan natin yan sino apektado nyan, diba
tayo rin, hindi naman kahit magdasal tayo ng magdasal hanggang bukas eh biglang
magkakaroon ng solusyon lalamunin ng lupa si Andanar, Si Andanar nalang hwag si


Duterte, So wala rin hindi rin mangyayari yun lagi pa ring miscoated si ano..diba? kahit
anong gawin mo so as an Atheist syempre I believe na its tayo tayo ang bumoto jan,
tayo ang naglagay sa mga taong yan, tayo rin pwedeng eh ano bang nagyayari dito,
satin din manggagaling ang sagot or reklamo.

R: In your own view Sir, how does your perception as an Atheist differ from non- atheist?
KI: In politics?

R: Both in politics..and in.

KI: In politics wala beause Atheist is just a non- belief. Noh? I have to... I have to
emphasize kasi akala minsan ng ibang tao, porket Atheist ka magaling ka, may Athesit
ding gago, may Atheist din akong nakalaban kasi pro-Duterte siya, ako anti-Duterte nag
aaway din kami, pareho kaming Atheist so parehas lang pero as ano kasi syempre ang
mga believers dati rin naman akong believers dati rin akong naniniwala sa Diyos, yun
nga I always ano.. may divine justice magdadasal ka everything will...aayusin ng Diyos
syempre kung ikaw Atheist wala kang ganung concept eh so ang papasok sayo de sige,
those question can wait and tayo namang mga atheist we have to do something. Look at
the Filipino Free Thinkers for example do you know them? Filipino Free Thinkers may
movement sila on secularism so ano nagawa nila diba lumakad sila para maano yung
Philippine Health Bill naging Law which is gi- ginago ba ng ang Catholic Church? So ibig
sabihin kung ikaw non- believer ka kikilos ka kagad yung ano kasi ewan may nag aantay
pa kung kelan kikilos si Cristo second coming of Christ so matagal pa yun eh so mabuti
kumilos na tayo kagad, ganun kami eh.

R: tanong sa second part ng mga question.

KI: Sige.

R: How does your belief in the absence of a God differentiate your perception in
engaging in the community?

KI: Ahh..two side of a coin dapat itago mo muna at to be honest with that kung Atheist
ka that’s the problem kase alam mo naman we are living in a country na lahat halos
believers so authomatic pag sinabing wala kang Diyos masama kang tao diba?
Automatic yan kahit saan mong ano so para wala kang kagalit sa komunidad mo
mamayang konti sunugin ka pa sa plaza de mas mabuti sabihin, hwag mo munang
pagusapan yon, mamaya nakakautang ka pa ng ulam don eh yun pala Iglesia Ni Cristo
yun nalamang wala kang Diyos di kana pinautang diba? Well that’s practicality sense
kase sabi nga gusto mong magkaron ng kagalit o kaaway dalawa pag-usapan niyo
pulitika tsaka relihiyon may kagalit kana, ngayon kung mag usap.. wala ka pang Diyos
lahat kalaban mo so sad to say it’s a boring life kase sa mga atheist definitely ang mga
atheist no hindi naman no pero palabasa ng libro kaya nga naging atheist yang mga
yan eh mga definitely when you go in an atheist house hindi mawawala ang library kahit
may maliit lang may mailagay ng libro unfortunately pag atheist ka basa ka ng basa tas
community mo naman... pwede ka bang lumabas nag iinuman mga tao let’s talk about
philosophy baka palo pa sa ulo mo yung bote diba? Hindi mo magagawa yun kaya ang
malungkot sa mga atheist sometimes we have to go these far we have to..ako taga
Novaliches ako I have to go to Luneta may makausap lang kasi ang hirap nyan yung
lahat ng idea nasa head mo lang ang hirap nyan... you have to look for someone na
palabasa din mapag uusapan niyo yung mga binasa niyo mga philosophies... science


hindi mo maano yan sa everyday community mo, nakakapraning yan so that’s the sad
part of being an atheist para kang nag iisa especially sa isang lugar lahat religious or
yung iba naman doesn’t really give any damn. Ang Pilipinas sad to say is a country na
hindi palabasa, majority ng people dito hindi nagbabasa ng libro kaya pwede wattpad eh
atheist ba mag uusap ng wattpad? Sagwa naman non so ang pag uusapan nyo hindi na
mapaguusapan ano tv? Encantadia? Mabbwisit ka kung atheist ka kasi yun ang normal
ano ng tao sa age let’s say sa niyo games diba? Facebook? we cannot talk about
politics yung mga political theories wala kang makakausap unless kaklase mo o may
exams bukas so yung ung problem as an atheist hindi kami pwedeg yung everyday ,
tago mo nalang.

R: How about in engaging in the government naman?

KI: sa government mas nakakatakot, tandaan mo Pilipinas to you cannot proclaim

yourself wala kang Diyos walang boboto sayo, no, seriously, do you believe na si
Duterte? Pag usapan natin Philippine Politics wag tayo pumunta sa America wag kay
Trump masisira ulo natin dun. Si Duterte galing kay Joma, estudyante ni Joma si Senor
sa San Beda so naanggihan yan ng ideas ni Joma so humabol sya sa eleksyon. Do you
think sasabihin nya sayo hindi ako naniniwala sa Diyos? De di sya nnalo so sasabihin
nya naniniwala siya pero galit sya sa Catholic Church diba kinokontra niya ahh may
sinasabi sya non di sya naniniwala kasi dimo pwedeng sabihin na.. In even in ordinary
business wag ng pulitika dentista ka malamang wala kang Diyos walang magpapabunot
ng ngipin sayo baka patayin mo eh ganun kasi may stigma eh na pag sinabi kang wala
kang Diyos hwag pagkatiwalaan, sinungaling kasi we say na morality came from God
yan pumasok sa ulo natin eh, so if morality came from God a person who does not
believe in God automatically does not believe in morality so as a government official
sinong gago ang boboto sayo ng wala ka namang moral diba so matatalo ka so what will
happen is isang pulitiko kahit atheist sya sasabihn nya katoliko ako, sasabihin niya Born
Again Christian ako tingnan mo si Pacquiao kahit bobo nakapasok sa senado oh diba?
papaano nagpastor oh de ayos andun siya ngayon nakipag laban sya sa Death Penalty
gamit bibliya eh kung andon ako binato ko sa ulo nya un sa kanya yun pero that’s it eh
un ang Pilipinas panalo sya, tingnan mo si Miriam talo paano nagsalita sya noon God is
under achiever edi talo sya that’s it.

R: Do you think being atheist as a whole affects your political engagement?

KI: What do you mean political engagement?

R: The way you engage with politics sir, kunwari po, war on drugs ganyan, same sex
marriage…

KI: hindi, may mga issues..

R: mga opinion nyo sir, mga actions…

KI: yes it affects, unang una hindi ka papasukan ng lecheng Christian morality so LGBT
for example sa iba bawal yan masama, bakla satanas yan pero kungano ka atheist ka
de syempre wala kang issue dun diba o abortion yung tinatawag nilang death, yung
divorce, euthanasia diba, ano pa ba abortion tapos.. I forgot.. but those things issue sya
kung atheist ka or you kung ano ka sa may secularism dika affected kasi unang una in
their concept of abortion for example diba hanggang ngayon debatable pa naano ang


life nagumpisa ang life and ang reason ng Catholic is purely religious so kahit anong
gawin natin in scientific terms talo sila pero issue nila is religious,la tayong magagawa
religious country tayo edi oo lng tayo ng oo kung ano sabihin ng obispo so kung atheist
ka hindi ka nananiniwala sa mga kalokohan nila kagaya nalang eto nalang let’s go to ng
death penaty, ah death penalty sasabihin sayo ng Christian masama yan Diyos lang nag
pwedeng humatol diba wag na si Pacquiao sira ulo un sipsip kay ano...yun but the thing
is ayaw nila ng death penalty because of religious issue which is God daw ang hahatol
eh kung ikaw atheist ka will you look at it that way? Ako ayaw ko ng death penalty why?
kasi yung nabibitay yung mga mahihirap that is not religious issues that is economical
ang mayaman may pang abogado eh malas mo mahirap ka walang pangabugadong
magaling so bitay ka madali pero kung mayaman ka lusot ka that’s how I look at death
penalty ayusin mo yung sistema papayag ako sa death penalty kung naayos mo muna
yung system but in a Christian point of view ayaw ko ang death penalty because
magagalit sakin ang Diyos and I go to hell that is a very different issue sa aming dalawa
and how it be affected.

R: What might be the reason for you to respond to certain political issues that you have
identify and in what way you respond?

KI: for example, sa death penalty...

R: What triggers you, what provokes you to respond?

KI: kasi mahirap ako eh, nakikita mo yung mahihirap yung nangyayari sa kanila eh, eh
kung mayaman ako pakialam ko sa inyo, basta may kotse ako pupunta ako sa Sm Aura,
mambabae ako e diba ganyan mga mayayaman eh, pero kung mahirap ka makikita mo
dinadampot ng pulis yung kapit bahay mo, ginugulpi, naapektuahn ka, anu yun kasi ang
ang Pilipinas ang hirap satin masyadong masyadong maano yung separation ng poor
people sa rich people you see the rich people can get away with it samantalang yung the
poor people wala e malas mo lang eh mahirap kayo eh so hanggang ngayon yung
sinasabing change is coming hindi is coming, change is coming daw diba eh wala
namang change na nagyari eh anjan pa din yung mga rugby boys sa Bambang so for
example tingnan mo mga rugby boys mga bata palang humihithit na ng ano, who takes
care of them? Wala naman eh diba hanggang ngayon andun sila maya maya
magnanakaw na mga yun magiging mga petty criminals magiging criminals. Did the
government do something about it wala naman pero tingnan mo mga anak mayaman
nakakapag aral makikita mo difference naapektuhan ka saang side ka? So yun yung
mga kung sa akin even wala akong Diyos.

R: Ayun lang po,

R: Sir, Based po sa issue na in-identify niyo, in what way do you respond sir, Do you join
rallies…debates?

KI: Dati, nung malakas pa ko nagrarally ako, FEU hari tayo ng rally...lagi tayong... LSS
member ako ehem ehem LSS may hawak na ng tranction pero ngayon syempre
tumanda kana matitipalok kana sa ano nalang ako nagtutulak nalang ko Nazareno, de
joke, ano sa ngayon you can use media... social medias like facebook wag naman puro
ligaw mo, tsaka mga basted mo yung ttype mo if you concern type mo yung ano
hashtag mo example ako hinahashtag ko si Pacquiao diba so yun yung way eh, the
cheapest way eh kinse pesos lang naman isang oras ng internet diba unless puro porn


yung panonoorin mo run so, makakakuha ka na ng way na masabi mo gusto mo o make

your blog kunwari blogger ako. Blogs are good medium maraming nagbabasa ng blogs
si Mocha nga nagblog eh nga nakalusot nababayaran na ng 3 milyon... 300 thousand
tayo nga walang bayad kaya nating gawin yan so those are things ngayon which is
advantage ng kabataan may access kayo sa internet eh to... ngayon mahirap naman
ung rally masyado masaktan pa kayo so the best marerecommend ko ngayon is use the
social media ma-uuse nyo talaga ma uutilize nyo sya.

R: as an atheist sir, nagdedebate naman kayo, exchange of ideas with other Atheist din
or religious people?

KI: ahh. Religious people dito parang game nalang dati when I was young mga ugali
which mas mahirap pa nga sa point ko nun walang internet wala kaming computer non
kaya kung magdedebate kami dyan nakikita mo yung mga bag nating dala natin puro
libro lalatag mo dyan ngayon hindi naka internet na kasi pindot pindot nalang ngayon
kayo it’s good to exchange ideas yes but sinasabi ko sa mga younger atheists hindi
naman natin buhay yan you are not an atheist para baguhin yung mundo, you are
atheist kasi hindi ka naniniwala sa Diyos Period. Ngayon kung mayron kayong mga
advocacies, bahala kayo that’s your advocacy but I don’t recommend na lahat ng atheist
mag advocacy kasi may mga iba hindi naman nila kaya. Let’s be honest wala rin naman
sa puso nila so wag na lang kung ayaw nyo wag, kung gusto niyo mag advocacy, mag
advocacy kayo like the Filipino Free Thinkers ang adcvocacy nila ay secularism. So,
that’s good. Hindi ka pwedeng magadvocacy dito na walang Diyos. I had to be honest
that’s stupid na sisigaw ka sa plaza ng walang Diyos! Walang Diyos! Magmumukha ka
lang tanga you have to put yung energy mo to something useful ano yung will affect both
non-believer and believer pareho kayong win-win situation kesa namang nagsisisgaw ka
dyan useless lang yung pinaglalaban mo sayang yung energy mo, sayang yung pera mo
that’s it.

R: that would wrap up our interview sir.

KI: Tagal ng Interview natin.

R: Salamat po, Salamat po



ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Vince Zyrence Barlongay is a senior Political Science

major at Far Eastern University, a former ambassador to
the Association of Political Science Organizations of the
Philippines (APSOP) and currently the Vice President of
FEU Political Science Society. Vince is a consistent
scholar; FEU Academic Scholar from 2013 to 2017 and
Top One Scholar of Hermosa, Bataan from 2014 to 2016.

Vince is a profound reader of writings about Philosophy

and the Universe, an active student leader, and an Altar-
Server for a decade in their church in Hermosa Bataan.
He is a self-supporting student, a family-oriented
individual, eldest from brood of two, raised by an
Overseas Filipino Worker Father and Full-time
Housewife Mother. Vince would like to pursue the study
Law after obtaining his bachelor degree while working as Research Analyst, to be able to
support his graduate study, help his family and give back to the community he came
from.

Kazzle Cindy Mei Chan Fajardo is currently a 4th year
Political Science student at Far Eastern University
Manila. During her high school years, she had received
various awards, became assistant editor of their school
paper, and also run as president in schools’ student
council.
In FEU, she attended the following seminars: The
Bangsamoro and Prospects for Peace, 7th Political
Science Lecture Series (Effect on Security Situation of
War in Mindano), ASEAN: Its Role in the Region and
Global Order, 9th Political Lecture Series (A Look at the
Golden Age of Martial Law: Deconstructing the
Millenial Apologists' Beliefs), First Tamaraw Speaks
Forum (Status of the Philippine Foreign Relations under
the Duterte Administration: Challenges and
Opportunities), The PolSci Probe (A Look into the Duterte Administration), The DILG
Debate on Local Governance (Organizaer – Working Committee), Law School 101:
Meeting with Dean Mel Sta. Maria (FEU Institute of Law), and Media in Philippine
Society: Implications for Public Policy. She was able to complete her 200 hours On-the-
Job Training at Department of Justice in Padre Faura Manila.


After she graduates, she wanted to pursue a course/degree program in College of

Law at University of the East Manila.

Antonio B. Ines Jr. is currently a fourth-year student

taking up Bachelor of Arts major in Political Science at
Far Eastern University. He is also the appointed Political
Science Society-Public Relations Officer for the
academic year 2016-2017. He is a member of the
organization and serving the political science society for
three years, and in those years, he became proponents
and co-organizers of different forums and project such as
“First Tamaraw Speaks Forum: Status of the Philippine
Foreign Relations under the Duterte Administration:
Challenges and Opportunities”, “The PolSci Probe: A
Look into the Duterte Administration” and “The DILG
Debate on Local Governance”. He is also one of the
representatives of Far Eastern University in various
external forums, “Kabataan Pag-asa ng Bayan: A Forum on Sangguniang Kabataan and
the Importance of Youth in Philippine Politics and Nation Building” held at De Lasalle
University, Manila, “2016 Islam and Democracy Forum Islam, Democracy and
Leadership: The Bandung Experience in Creating a Smart, Collaborative, and Happy
City” held at GT Toyota Center, University of the Philippines, Diliman. He plans to take
up law with the degree of Jurisdoctor at Far Eastern University, Makati. He is a techie
guy, an aspiring photographer and a Jazz music lover.

Michael A. Lazaro is a lygophilic, an individualist and

an idiosyncratic Political Science student of Far Eastern
University-Manila. He obtained his primary education
diploma from San Roque Elementary School as the
Batch Valedictorian, while his secondary education
diploma from Juan R. Liwag Memorial High School.

As a student of Political Science he attended various

seminars inside and outside the University, and received
awards and scholarships: Entrance Scholar (1st year -1st
Sem), Academic Scholar (2nd year — 1st and 2nd sem,
3rd year — 2nd sem), Dean’s lister (2nd year — 1st and
2nd sem), Champion — PolSci Fair 2016 (Quiz Bee and
Poster Making), etc. Other than that, he also served as a
member of the Political Science Society Executive
Committee under the Events and Judicial Committee, the Parliamentary Floor Leader of
LAKAS Tamaraw for 2016-2017, and one of the founders of a socio-civic organization,


Lingap Nayon. He also became an intern in Foreign Service Institute under the Center for
International Relations and Strategic Studies.

His soul is in an eternal unrest and forever he will be in a state of superposition for the
box that holds the answers to his questions perchance exists and do not exist at the same
time.

Pat Anthony Padua is a graduating Political Science

student from Far Eastern University (FEU). He was born
in Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija where he graduated
elementary and high school. More than just being a
consistent FEU scholar, Pat is also a distinguished
student-leader in FEU. A former P.R.O., Treasurer and
President of different university organizations, now, Pat
is now serving as the Secretary of the FEU Central
Student Organization. As an awardee of Top Outstanding
Junior Student, Pat has initiated different flagship
projects such as the Tamaraws Against Marcos
Movement and authored significant resolutions for the
FEU community. For his future endeavors, Pat is
determined to pursue Graduate Studies in Public
Management to boost his bid for a meaningful political career.

John Patrick Pineda obtained his primary and

secondary education from St. Joseph's Academy, in Las
Piñas City, and his AB Political Science degree from Far
Eastern University, Manila, with internship at the Office
of Vice President Jejomar Binay in summer 2015. A
consultant for various student organizations in FEU
regarding policy-making and parliamentary procedure,
he served as Chair in the Philippine Model Congress in
2015, a gathering of young leaders of the Philippines. He
served as Vice President of the FEU Political Science
Society, the home organization of Pol Sci majors in FEU.
He is also a co-founder and Vice Chairperson for
Political Affairs at Kadiwa Student Coalition, an
organization of social democratic student-leaders in FEU.
He plans to take up graduate studies in Political Science after his Bachelor’s degree.

Outside FEU, Pineda is also involved in volunteer work, especially during the visit of
Pope Francis to the Philippines in January 2015, when he served as media volunteer for
the CBCP. He also volunteered for the campaign that catapulted then-Representative Leni
Robredo to the vice presidency.


His interests vary from philosophy, classical and postmodern literature, photography and
art, spirituality, music, astronomy, and some other fields outside politics, which
occasionally catches his interest.

Aily Damaris S. Sangcap is a fourth year student of Far

Eastern University taking up Bachelor of Arts in Political
Science. Prior to that, she graduated at Polytechnic
University of the Philippines with the course of Diploma
in Legal Office Management Technology. She is an
active member of the organization Christian Brotherhood
International from 2012 up to present and and an
incumbent District Vice President for Internals of the
said organization. She had conducted several leadership
programs and seminars for students including Dynamic
Leadership at Polytechnic University of the Philippines
(2016) and Leaders' Conference (2016). She also became
a speaker of the seminar "An Early Head-start: LEAD
(Leadership Exploration and Development) (2016)
conducted at Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila. She chose to have her training at the
Department of Justice (2013) and in Bureau of Customs (2016) to expose herself in
Public Administration since her initial ambition was to be a public servant.

Aside from Public Administration, she also wanted to become an educator and planning
to take up her Masters Degree in Comparative Politics in South East Asia after college.
This student is planning also to depart abroad particularly to Asian Countries to study and
observe their culture as to their arts, languages and beliefs. Also, she wanted to become a
volunteer and wanted to join several civic programs to fulfill her responsibility as a
citizen of her country.