Black Nazarene, Black Opium

As the dust settles from another year of the Feast of the Black Nazarene, we again hear numerous reports of stampedes and injuries. Just shy of 1000 people were injured during the feast.

The feast is characterized by literally millions of devotees (largely comprised of children dragged along by relatives, the elderly, the infirm, the disabled, and the poor) moving along with an over 400 year-old statue of Jesus throughout the streets of the city of Manila. As in the tradition that St. Veronica (derived from the Latin for “true image”) wiped Jesus’ face as he marched to his execution, true believers scrimmage to wipe white cloths on the statue. The devotees shuffle and push against each other just to get a touch of the Black Nazarene wooden idol, which is believed to have magical powers of wish-granting.

Millions, particularly the poor, skip out on work (which likely earns them barely enough for a living) in the hope that the statue will turn their fortunes around. Of course, they are only met by rains and crushing stampedes. We can, naturally, expect at least some of the devotees to have a lucky day. It is practically certain that at least one of the poor and sick people marching in the streets of Manila will enjoy a significant cash windfall or be healed of a serious affliction—just by random chance. In fact, if none of the 3 million reported attendees had at least a marginally interesting anecdote of supposed providence, then something would be quite peculiar about the Feast of the Black Nazarene worthy of deeper investigation.

The familiarity of the Jesus story has anesthetized us from what is at the heart of the ritual. Millions of men, women, and children are parading around with a wooden statue of a bloodied victim of torture, capital punishment, and God-sanctioned human sacrifice. The Black Nazarene is an ironic pornographic celebration of violence—the overt violence of the past and the more subtle violence of the present.

The media attention to this event is huge, as expected for any congregation drawing millions. However, it is quite disgusting how society has made a spectacle of the poverty, ignorance, and anguish. And though, like the Feast of the Black Nazarene, the supposed terror threat appears to have been based on zero intelligence, the broadsheets praised not the fact that the threat was not plausible and celebrations were able to commence safely, but that the devotees ignored the warnings regardless of credibility. (In fact, some devotees relished the prospect of mass murder as an opportunity to test their faith.)

It is taken as a badge of honor that the devotees suffered for 22 hours—from the mild discomfort of crowding and walking barefoot to the intolerable pain of being trampled—in a desperate appeal for things to change for the better, if only they could get to touch an old block of wood. Stories such as those of the man with a disability, unable to walk on his two legs, are elevated as exemplars of faith and worthy of emulation. Suffering is glamorized as a bargaining chip, in exchange for which, God will grant them respite from the day-to-day torment of poverty and illness. Life on earth is reduced to a theological economy that runs on agony.

There is an often misquoted observation by Karl Marx that “religion is the opiate of the masses” or some other paraphrasing. The quotation in context reads: “Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”

Marx was not merely comparing the addictive and reason-diminishing qualities of the drug to religion. He was pointing out that religion is an illustration of despair from those whom state and society have failed. It is the imaginary relief for those who have been prevented access to real consolation.

Those who flock to briefly brush against the Black Nazarene are those whom our society has forced to take solace from fictitious sources. That we celebrate and glorify the misery and debasement of our fellow human beings—whether in the form of one Jesus Christ or three million of his devotees—is vile.

Image credit: GMA News Online

14 comments

  1. Throughout history, certain individuals have already battled it out against religion, claiming that it's like a social cancer that grips an enitire nation. From Germany's Karl Marx to Russia's Nicolai Lenin, and until Mao Tse-tung in the last century, they have lead a revolutionary philosophy that addressed the social concerns of their day. Europe and China emerged from hundreds and thousands of years of religious mysticism and THESE INTELLECTUALS actually had the balls to challenge dogma. My only wish is for the Philippines to be blessed by such.

    • umm marxism is what secularism is steering away from. as far as fundies are concerned, they cant tell the difference between secular-humanism to atheists-marxism.

      best examples of secular politicians who actually did good for their country in the long run would be singapore's lee kwan yew or america's founding fathers.

      a nice read are the quotes of ben franklin, thomas paine and thomas jefferson regarding organized religion. our own constitution is based from the american constitution – a good ground for what our nation is supposed to stand for – a secular nation. – relidiots nowadays want to change history saying both founders founded the US and RP as a xian nations.

      • John Locke, who is regarded as one of the most influential of the enlightnement thinkers, and who is credited for developing the natural-rights theory from which most of the West’s political traditions are based, wrote that all people were equal, independent and had a natural right to defend his “Life, health, Liberty, or Possessions”. This, ofcourse, became the basis for the phrase in the American Declaration of Independence “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. Locke’s political theory was central to the American revolution. Ironically –for the secular revisionists, anyway– the pillar from which Locke was able to erect his political theory was his theology. Because of this, Locke said with respect to his theory on natural rights, “The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all.”

        America's founding fathers knew that religion was very corruptible, that's why they wanted religion to be separate from state. That says more about people then it does about religion, however. But Western moral principles have been wholly derived from the Judeo-Christian tradition. It’s untenable to suggest that it’s possible to construct a completely secular foundation for universal human rights.

      • Not exactly.

        But I do wish that the Philippines can produce intellectual giants (in the fields of medicine, science, physics, etc…) that can spark a cultural revolution to free us from religious mysticism. But thanks to soap operas or the neverending blabber of the Roman Catholic Church with their outdated doctrines, all we have are drama queens on TV, thieves in the government, and wolves in bishops' clothing.

        • Two points:

          1. I don't think it's fair to blame the Roman Catholic Church (or religion, for that matter) for the sad state of Philippine governance. It's a complicated issue (taking into account a vast variety of societal and historio-cultural factors) and it seems to me a bit too easy to blame it all on some boogeyman based on religious oppositionalism.

          2. I resent the term 'religious mysticism'. I am a theist, by the way, and I don't agree that I am beholden to superstition or mysticism (at least, it's more negative connotations). Theism is a perfectly respectable and rational, intellectual position.

          • Thank you for you defense, but it seems I have offended your religious sensibilities (whatever your religion is). I used to be a Roman Catholic before, and it is in my humble opinion that this religion has its own share of mysticism, as with all other religions per se (to be fair).

            Yes, theism is a perfectly respectable and rational intellectual position; true. But I wanted to point out the fact that it would be a source of greater pride should the Philippines produce sons or daughters of reason and science, MAY THEY BE THEISTS OR NOT. There are many scientists and philosophers who are theists too, but I did not comment on this article for the purpose of dissuading a reader against his/her religion; I was merely stating opinion and observation based on historical facts, with regards to "the opium" in this article.

Leave a reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here