When people are rejected from political or other activities when they do not follow the rules.
SEVERAL children’s rights advocacy groups have assailed those who “seek to marginalize foundlings,” saying that abandoned children should not be denied the basic right of a nationality and the aspiration to serve the country. (http://www.inquirer.net/pep-article/165791)
In the Philippines there is a law that to seek the Presidential office one must rove their citizenship and have at least 10 consecutive years of residency in the country and failing to meet those simple requirements means one is disqualified from that office. To claim that the orphans, or foundlings as they are called in the Philippines, are being marginalized because they are deprived of this freedom is muddying the waters and ignoring the responsibility to follow the agreed upon rules.
“All children did not ask to be born. But once born, they have the right to a name, a nationality, a family and to all other rights that will redound to their full development as human beings,” she said. (Ibid)
Yes this is true but that right does not dismiss the responsibility of those organizations who work with orphans to document their history and have those orphans ready to meet the rules of the Philippine nation.Just to automatically give them status simply because they are an orphan is unfair to those who can trace their history and know their origins.
The rules are meant to be fair to all people, not just to a few.
The plight of foundlings has come under scrutiny after Sen. Grace Poe threw her hat in the presidential ring. This set off the filing of disqualification cases against her from the Senate and from the presidential race.
The children’s rights groups said that foundlings had a right not to be discriminated against under the Convention on the Rights of the Child and enjoyed the fundamental constitutional right to equal protection. (Ibid)
Grace Poe, the other foundlings and those organizations which work to help orphans know the rules and why they did not take the time to document the answers to the questions they knew would be asked or have information ready to counter the challenges they knew would come, is mystifying and irresponsible. The onus is on the foundling to make sure they meet the rules. It is not the responsibility or duty of the government to change the rules because a few people do not want to comply with them.
The rules are not hidden from the orphans and then sprung on them at the last minute. There is no secret here and if we want to compare this situation with the Bible and Christianity, God’s rules are not a secret and have been known from the beginning. it is not the church’s responsibility to change the rules because some people do not like and do not want to follow them.
Failing to change the rules for a few exceptions is not a hate crime, it is not discrimination and it is not unfair. The support of the rules and refusal to alter them is fair, just and right as they apply to all people and all people need to meet them.
We have an obligation to be on the side of the child who needs protection,” Ma. Paz de Guzman, of the Parenting Foundation of the Philippines, said.(Ibid)
No, you have to be on the side of the rules, making sure that they are fair, honest, just and applicable to everyone. By making sure no one has special rights protects the children and all of society. The obligation is to protect the innocent from those who will make rules that harm people who have done nothing wrong and in this case, the foundlings have done something wrong when they assume the rules do not apply to them and they fail to provide the right documentation to support their claims.
Again we can relate this to the church and Christianity as we need to be on the side of God’s rules making sure that they are applied correctly, fairly, honestly and justly and that the innocent are not harmed. By the way, the word ‘innocent’ refers and includes more than children.
The Ateneo Human Rights Center and the Parenting Foundation of the Philippines, along with six other children’s rights groups, recently placed a full-page newspaper ad titled “In the Defense of the Foundling.” (Ibid)
While one can defend those who are at risk or disadvantaged, they cannot do so at the expense of the rules. Nor can they avoid their responsibility to help those people meet the rules and the requirements for political or other office. Being a foundling does not grant a free pass or special permission to skate by the rules and not meet one’s obligations.
The same goes for salvation. The Bible tells us that ‘all have sinned and come short…’ meaning that even the orphans have sinned and come short and are in need of salvation. Being disadvantaged or a foundling does not change the rules of salvation. They too need to accept Christ as their Savior if they want to go to heaven when they die. If you want to defend the foundling, then help them abide by the rules and meet their requirements. Do not look for special favors for them because that teaches the orphan the wrong lesson– that they can ignore the rules.
Telling all people the rules and making sure they abide by them is not discrimination, unfair, dishonest or even racist. It is the right thing to do. Our obligation is to make sure that the rules are fair, honest, just and apply to all not just a select few.