“We have enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another.” Jonathan Swift.

The above quote is a sad fact; instead of leading to a better life, a better world, religon has been used to hate, think less of the unbeliever, and dehumanize anyone who is different.  Society has many problems today and the religious groups still have this illusion that going back on the old ways will solve everything.

Maybe it is an oversimplification to say, at least from the three major religions, that there is one God and we are all his creations in one earth.  The closest analogy I can think of is parent (or father since the three refer to God as a man) and the children.  Do brother and sister fight over what their parents say to the point of killing each other?  Would any parent love to see that happen?

In the end we always end up fighting on how one God is better from the other; we fight over who has the correct idea of God, never minding if we end up killing one another.  If God really is a father, then with fatherly instincts I believe he would be furious seeing the world destroy each other over useless things.  Sam Harris was right in his view – religion leads to misplaced priorities.

Religion should never again take hold of government and society. It has no answers. It had its chance in the Middle Ages when it ruled and failed as depicted in the movie Kingdom of Heaven (2005).

Orlando Bloom played the lead, going from Middle Earth to the Middle East in this period-piece. Set in the religion-mad era of the Crusades, the Lord of the Rings heartthrob now plays a lost and tortured soul searching for salvation.

He is Balian, a blacksmith fresh from losing both wife and child.  He thought himself to be cursed and far from the grace of his God until some good news knocked on his door. A crusader knight named Godfrey who as it turns out was his father, a lord and member of the King’s court in Jerusalem, wants his company. So cursed by God, he thought, what else he could do than look for God in his city: in Jerusalem.

Now the place that he went to, Jerusalem, it was at this time far from heavenly because it was a drowning kingdom in a sea of Arabs led by an effective leader, Saladin.  Also, the city was fractured by two powerful religions hell bent on killing each other.

First, a warning: this film is by no means historically accurate. It has been commented more than once that Hollywood creates its version of history into something more palatable and sexy on the big screen, with the American audience having the highest consideration. What really happened in those days you have to read on your own, as I did – well at least a few pages of articles.

Saladin, like in the film, was a great general for the Arabs and was highly respected by both sides. Some have the point of view that Christians had a better respect for him than the Muslims. Jerusalem was indeed lost though I am not sure in which crusade or war did it fall. The odds of holding the city were just insurmountable.

But what I really agree with this film is that barbarism chooses no religion; the film even proposes that one needs no religion to do the right thing.

In Kingdom of Heaven the Templars were the most brutal, always with the insane line of “God wills it!” a phrase not so different from suicide bombers who cry out “God is great.”  Present day’s prominent version of those two statements is George Bush who said God wanted him to invade Iraq, and the western world’s villain of the hour, Bin Laden.

My favorite line in the film was made by the Hospitaller and it goes: “I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the Will of God.”

He goes on by saying, “Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. What God desires is here [points to head] and here [points to heart] and what you decide to do every day, you will be a good man – or not.”  Wise words in a movie filled with insane religious men.

That quote made me think of what happened then and what is happening now with religion coming in the forefront of many national debates here and abroad.

There are reported inequities in the theocratic states in the Middle East especially in the lines between the sexes.  Somewhere in Palestine and even in the United States there are still incidences of honor killings.  In Saudi Arabia women are not even allowed to drive.

The Catholic Church can’t even protect the interests of children, yet they have the gall to demand the right to dictate national policy.  Why give them the control over state policy when one, they don’t pay taxes and two, they don’t respect the state!

Cardinal Sean Brady, who is at the heart of Ireland’s current church scandals, was quoted as saying that there was ‘no moral obligation’ for him to report to the police. According to Irishtimes.com he said, “Is it a sin against the law of God not to report matters to the police…no I don’t think so…because there are certain people exempt from this moral obligation to report to the police.” Is that what you call respecting the state, much less the child?

A crime has been done to a child.  Talk with anyone less than a priest who confessed of pedophilia and you’ll be wondering where your children are, hoping they are far away.  If your children are victims then you would not even not care about internal mechanisms that an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times have credited the Pope for spearheading.

There is a system of laws, justice, criminal investigations; a penal system, available for every citizen who needs or deserves it.  Why have they not availed of it?  Is this the pro-family, pro-life, heavenly existence we can expect if religion is back in the forefront?

In the film Balian made his decisions outside of religion.  He ordered the cremation of the dead to avoid an epidemic, ordered the city to be abandoned, and made military decisions not out of Christian conceit that victory is assured.  He faced Saladin and his aides with respect even in the midst of the war.  The irony there is that he thought of himself as cursed, went to Jerusalem to find God; in the end did what he could outside of anyone’s concept of God – and found his salvation.

The film has an interesting message in that the kingdom of heaven is achievable out of religious hands, especially if you know enough history or read enough news and see that with religion in the forefront, full control in fact, little good has been achieved.

“Holiness is in right action,” the movie says.  It is time for us to find a way for just that to be enough.

Also seen in my blog.

Of all the areas that the issue of reproductive health has touched I have always considered that population should be removed from the table by virtue of agreement.   There is nothing more annoying than to hear the issue resurface and discussed over and over again.

Now how could I consider both parties agreeing when in the media they seem hell bent on tearing each other’s heads, hopefully not literally. The reason is family planning.  Yes, each side favors its own method: natural in the anti-reproductive health side and artificial for those in favor; but whatever the method, if people calmly think about it, the intent is the same: control.

Family planning is basically controlling the number of children being born to a family.   So it makes no sense to me why any anti-reproductive health advocate would want to argue population when they have already agreed to a method of family planning.   Favoring any method is agreeing that children should be limited or that there should be ample spacing between children.

Without the population argument all that is left is a superficial argument over tools and methods.   People will be judged as pious or condemned as sinners based only on which method they use.

I believe we have a saying for this: “Don’t judge a book by its cover”.  Man is far too complex a being to be judged simplistically.   Skin, religion, race, financial status, possessions – or in this case, tools – should not have any bearing on the goodness of a person.

Let’s a take a pen for example.   I have one, a Parker at that, and I have glasses, but that does not necessarily mean that I am a writer. It doesn’t make me sinister or violent either, but I have to ask, is it justified?

As for my Parker pen, I have to say I like its size and weight compared to the plastic ones or the silver Parker pen of some years ago.   It feels denser than the silver models.   Simple physics can tell you that I can impale anyone’s head or puncture someone’s jugular without a problem should I want to use it as such. And with it being in my shirt pocket it is easy to use.

With that being said, can I still be judged as a meek intellectual? Would people still tell me if I exceeded my commas or misused a semicolon? Perhaps people still would, but more carefully now.

How about a weapon, say a pistol, will it be different since its only use is to cause harm?

If I walked around the mall with a gun bulging at the back of my pants, wearing maong, rubber shoes, and maybe for dramatic effect a Che Guevara T-shirt, people would  most likely run away in a stampede because my attire gives out the signals I was up to no good.  But if I wore a police uniform which matches my enormous belly, people wouldn’t run; in fact, they might even ask me for directions.

In both cases, from a tool predominantly harmless to an outright deadly weapon, judgment depended a great deal on my (presumed) intent.  Now why is intent suddenly irrelevant with regards to reproductive health? A couple is judged to be pious when natural family planning is used and condemned as sinners when they use artificial.

What is the difference between ejaculating sperm in latex and ejaculating it in a uterus in its monthly off switch?   The intent is the same!

What’s even crazier is the reason why the natural family planning is considered acceptable.  It is the position of the Church that any method that makes procreation impossible is immoral.   So in effect natural family planning is a method that can fail, which is why it is allowed in the first place.

Let me repeat that. Control and limitations are agreed to by the Church because of endorsing natural family method. They have agreed to a goal and yet they set themselves up to fail.  There must always be a chance for children.

Despite all their recent protestations that condoms do not work the only reason why they do not allow it according to the Humanae Vitae is that it greatly impedes chances of fertilization.

Another thing, those who are only for natural family planning may not be as respectful as they claim to be but are actually disrespectful in a lawyerly sense, playing technicalities with God whom they claim to be all knowing and all powerful.

In paragraph 13 of Humanae Vitae it states, “If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life.”

If sex should equal children as God has intended then what is the difference between natural and artificial when it is the intent of both to limit children?  That’s Almighty God, not a Supreme Court judge, is it not?

Why are these supposedly obedient servants playing with words like lawyers? They say they are loyal then they should have avoided the idea of planning altogether.  Why worry when, as they always believe, God will always provide.

So here I am annoyed still seeing the Philippines still in a stalemate that should not be so. The state needs to provide action and yet it sits idly by. Virgins (presumed at least) now dare to lecture couples on marriage and ‘cold turkeys’ when the rule for many other situations might be ‘you don’t make the rules if you don’t play the game’.

What’s worse is that with this year’s election, with all the issues on corruption, economic trouble, human rights, and leadership, the Church recommends that candidates should be chosen because of condoms, of all things.

Why the stalemate? Why do people refuse to take action? Why the sorry state of affairs? Maybe one reason is that people have deluded themselves into seeing communion as a tool in getting to heaven or that they even need the Church to do what is right.

But do these ‘tools’ really make a good man?

Also seen in my blog.

Holy Mother Church: that’s how Catholics call the organization sometimes, never minding the fact that females are never allowed to rule it.

The Priests are referred to as father but I wonder why because they are neither a parent nor gods to deserve the title.

So it’s not surprising that the Church invoked the analogy of a parent giving advice to a child; rather, a parent choosing for a child regarding matters like this controversy over the Reproductive Health Bill. In their minds it’s enough to trample on the principle of separation of church and state (a principle their European counterparts seem to abide by) when the child, in this case the Philippines, needs to be straightened out.  Never mind if the surveys say a growing number want the bill to be passed, a parent should correct a child.

And never mind that we are not 100% catholic.

I suppose the first question would be who made them the parents.  Is it just because the Roman Catholic Church is the most powerful group in a predominantly Christian nation?  But we are not all catholic, we are not all religious; surely no child should follow someone who is not his parent.

Adapted child perhaps?  Maybe forcibly kidnapped is the word.

But ok, let’s give the parent analogy a chance.  How can the wishes and the views of a parent be so wrong however nagging and out of touch it may seem at some point.

It is hard to argue with a parent and we have all been there; a child with a mother and father. We have never gone astray with the choices our parents have made for us. Of course as a child we’ve never agreed to it, having little choices for the issues close to our hearts, but it played out well in the end.

We are where we are now because of our parents ‘nosing’ in our business.

And these choices are one or more of the following. I am not a parent admittedly but I was a son, also I have met other parents and I’m friends with people who are parents.

The choices include little things and big things such as: name, religion; time to sleep; clothes to wear; school to study in; going to school on a rainy day; brush their teeth or just watch TV and save it for the next morning; food to eat; course to take in college; places to go on weekends; friends; boyfriends/girlfriends; curfew; career….

The list goes on depending on the parent; depending on the style of parenting. While some of the above mentioned choices may be left to children, it is not too much to presume that had they made a bad one (or anything they disagreed with) the parents will be hot on their heels in correcting it.

They are good choices all, but then again maybe some of them went wrong.  And even if you disagreed with any in this list you are at least aware that good intentions were always behind in making it. There is nothing wrong in what parents do. There is nothing wrong in what motivates them.

In seeing that could it be enough to explain the passion of the Roman Catholic Church regarding this issue of birth control: a distraught parent correcting an errant child?  Should we accept the encroachment on national policy based on that analogy alone? For how can a parent be wrong in making their presence felt.  As for me, if I had known what I know now when I was 6 years old I might have yes all the way to what my parents wanted.

However, if you look at the analogy of parent and child from the point of view of just the child and there you will see what is wrong.

What does it say of the child who always depends on the decisions parents make?

If the child is young nothing at all, the child is just a child.  No expectations of greatness or criticisms of insufficiency.   But like any repetitive exercise it gets old like a child gets old.  When a certain age is reached then comes the more hurtful terms like mama’s boy or papa’s boy.

What truly makes a child great; what makes children bad; what makes people of value to society or a good human being; (and ok let’s do the church’s point of view) what makes them a good Christian, are the choices they made on their own.

Maybe you can call it an informed choice because parent’s opinions are always welcome and weighed along with others, but a choice made alone (for good or bad) is still of greatest value.

Outside of that a child is just a child.

So in the light of the Church’s encroachment on national policy like the RH Bill, you may have heard the Philippines being called the sick man of Asia, well this time try Mama’s Boy or maybe Papa’s boy since the Catholic Church is headed by a Pope.

But if you are truly upset on the encroachment there is still a better term for the Philippines: Retarded.

Also posted in my blog.

For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

– John 3:16.

I remember hearing it in the 3 p.m. prayers. It is used so often that it is fair to say that this is the closest thing Christianity has to an opening spiel.

The verse shows pride in a God – or at least the Son did – who abandoned all the trappings of omnipotence and lived as a human being.

Continue Reading

A traitor is someone who betrays.  Being a traitor requires first relationship. It can be as close as best friends; a husband and wife; an officemate; or the relationship can be as far as the Philippines is to a Filipino; or as an employee is to a company.

And because that person is a friend or an employee or of a particular nationality he or she is expected to act in the interest of the relationship which makes the proverbial knife in the back by this person to be one of the most painful assaults anyone can inflict another.

Continue Reading

“What god has put together let no man put asunder”.

Every priest knows that. You hear a lot of this phrase whenever the topic of marriage comes up especially on the question of ending it – meaning divorce.

But what every priest should also try to see is a thought that is hidden between the lines.

———————–

What God has put together let no man put asunder

In the same manner as the issue of ending a….

What God has put together let no man put asunder

Marriage, the married couple’s sex lives….

What God has put together let no man put asunder

Is also out of your business especially if you don’t have….

What God has put together let no man put asunder

One of your own!

What God has put together let no man put asunder

———————–

Also seen in my blog

I struggled how to write this review thinking how I can judge the movie independent of the book.   Eventually I accepted the fact that there is no other view that I can offer except that of a reader.  As a film Angels and Demons is a failure.

Yes it retained the usual elements; the murders; the stories of persecutions in history including the occasional unsolicited historical trivia coming from Robert Langdon. Of course they also retained secret codes and historically inspired puzzles.  Unfortunately, as great as the aforesaid elements may be they are not the heart and soul of the story.

The heart and soul of the story is challenging the status quo and perhaps unbeknownst to filmmakers it lay in two characters, Leonardo Vetra and the Pope. Both are priests and both are also pro-science which in real life is far from the norm.

Leonardo Vetra in the movie is Silvano Bentivoglio, partner to Vittoria Vetra.  After the character discovered antimatter he was murdered just 5 minutes into the film.  The Pope on the other hand is just dead.  Both he and the movie version of Leonardo were mentioned only verbally in the end.  Without any physical embodiment who they are and what they stood for was forgettable.

With the story’s theme of science versus religion, these two characters carried the argument at least for the book.  They do not strike anyone as the stereotypical priests and neither are they the villain.  Their beauty is that the credibility to stand in both sides of the argument with equal force.

But what really highlighted them was that they have families. Vittoria Vetra was an adopted daughter of Leonardo which in the movie was reduced to a research partner in Silvano.  The Pope was a deeply pious man who loved a woman and longed for a child.   That ambivalence was what drove him to love science especially he availed of in vitro fertilization.  To be part a father without violating the law of chastity was for him heaven sent.

Is it possible for science to explain God?   Is it right for a Pope to have fathered a child even without the sex?  Are they entirely wrong or are they entirely right?  Wrong or right, nothing truly makes you think than a controversial idea.

Without them all Angels and Demons the movie had are the extremes: the scientist who bit off more than he could chew or the religious zealot who could not accept the encroachment of modern science into what was during the middle ages their domain.   Obviously there is not much of a choice.  The attempt to verbally express the good qualities of science and religion which the two characters would have been effective in embodying was drowned in the murders, persecutions, and secret codes.

While those are indeed great elements to have any story can have murder.   History books have stories of persecutions and historically they can be more accurate.  Puzzles don’t make it special.  But how many stories dared challenge the status quo.  The true heart and soul of Dan Brown’s Robert Langdon is challenging Christianity and it went away along with the disappearance of Vetra and the Pope in the film.

As it is, Angels and Demons is a no brainer because it requires literally no brains.  It also answers the question why the church and religious groups did not put up a fight against its release.  The film is a tour of Rome and the Vatican City; it is an expensive way to kiss ass, nothing more.

While I agree that in most cases a film should have leeway in deviating from the book, however, that is no excuse from changing the essence of the story all together.  That is why Angels and Demons is a failure.

Also seen in my blog