After three hours of an emotional roller-coaster that went from balling to boring at every turn, Chief Justice Renato Corona steered the impeachment trial toward an upside down loop that made everyone breathless. He said that he would waive his right to secrecy on all his bank accounts, domestic and foreign, but only under one condition: all of his accusers in Congress should do it with him.

Reactions in the court of public opinion varied. Some thought that Corona was brave, a hero for having the courage to challenge government corruption by putting his own integrity on the line. Others, myself included, thought that far from heroic, the dilatory tactic betrayed cowardice, and by involving others, he revealed his fear of facing justice alone.

But while people were split on Corona’s conditional waiver, his subsequent walkout, and the drama that followed, practically brought supporters and critics to a consensus. Guilty or innocent, Corona should have known better than to walk out of an ongoing hearing, and for an acting Chief Justice his actions were just too unprofessional.

But I believe “unprofessional” would be putting it too kindly. The walkout, and everything that led up to and followed after it, deserves a different description, another adjective that Corona would surely disapprove of — childish.

Even before the consensus on the unprofessionalism of Corona’s walkout, people agreed that Corona was anything but a public speaker. He spoke like a university freshman, sometimes even worse than a high school student, and his communication skills — or lack thereof — did not suit someone who was supposedly the greatest judge of the land. How could someone embody all the complexities of justice when he couldn’t even articulate simple sentences well? And his ineptitude knew no borders — he spoke poorly as much in English as he did in his native tongue.

His sophomoric skills at communication was consistent with his argumentation skills, and as language books invariably teach, sloppy speaking is a symptom of sloppy thinking. For starters, Corona’s speech was so unnecessarily long that he resembled a student struggling to find fillers for his essay to reach a minimum wordcount: “Mr. Corona, in 10,000 words, why should we acquit you?”

His speech so closely resembled the papers of so many seatmates I peer-reviewed in composition classes. More than building a defense that rested on facts, his speech was like the all-too-common “How I Spent My Summer Vacation” assignment, complete with long and cliche descriptions of characters that was only appropriate in the context of a classroom.

And discovering that his speech would not save him from conviction, Corona used one of the most common tactics a student resorted to in front of a teacher who failed him — crying. I’m sure he was under a lot of mental and emotional stress, but I expected more from the way he so confidently spoke about what he’d do before the hearing. And I don’t think it’s too much to set a higher standard of dignity and decency from a chief justice.

As I’ve said, opinions are still split on Corona’s conditional waiver. If you think it’s such a dignified idea, I hope to change your mind by showing you how childish Corona’s move actually is. Think of two brothers who each have a dirty room. Mom is trying to discipline them by assigning them the cleaning as a chore instead of leaving it to a helper like she usually does.

Unfortunately for the younger one, big brother is having his summer vacation at camp, and he would have to be the first to taste this bitter medicine. Just doing it despite the perceived unfairness would no doubt make Mom and Dad proud, but the boy is just not there yet. At his level of maturity, it would not be unexpected to hear him say something like this:

“But mom, it’s so unfair! Kuya is having the time of his life while I’m stuck here, and worse, you’re forcing me to clean my room!”

Mom and Dad try to convince the boy, offering him to remove his grounded status — earlier the boy did not tell his parents that his uncle gave him some cash, breaking the promise that he’d tell them if such a thing happened. Excited about the possibility of going out to play, the boy reluctantly agrees to clean his room but only under one condition: he would only do it once Kuya got back, and they would have to do it together.

It would take a couple of months before Kuya got back from camp, which meant that the parents would have to live with two messy rooms instead of one. Mom and Dad would have none of it, and it showed in their faces. So the boy, wanting to avoid an argument against grownups he just can’t win, stormed out of his folks’ room, trying to rush outside the house. Too bad for the boy: his parents used the intercom too tell their security guard to lock the gate.

The boy would now surely get the talking of his life, and knowing this, he resorted to one of the all-purpose tricks that got him out of school or homework: he pretended to be sick. Mom and Dad had barely resisted the boy’s babyface as he made his conditional offer, but now he was a babyfaced boy whose asthma was acting up, a condition he’s had for a long time. The parents just could not resist their child, and it would border on child abuse to force him to speak despite his sickness.

I’m sure you’ve made all the connections necessary to relate this to Corona’s behavior, and the logic of the boy, at least in terms of manipulating his parents to get the result that he wanted is surely commendable. But in Corona’s case, a commendation is not in order for one simple reason: he’s chief justice of the Philippines, not some bratty boy.

To make our analogy fit more closely, we can add one detail to the story of the boy with the messy room: the parents are the progressive kind that would respect their children’s privacy, allowing them to not only keep the doors locked but also to keep the bedroom keys. For the parents to check whether the chore has been done, the boy would have to unlock his room to reveal it.

In this version of the boy story, the parents don’t know whether any of the rooms is messy, which is why they wanted to find out. The boy is still grounded for the summer, with big brother in camp, and the revelation of a clean room would grant him his freedom. All he has to do is unlock his door.

But the boy, despite all that he could gain from such a simple action, refused to do so unless his big brother faced the music of a possibly messy room with him. Tell me. Do you think little CJ has a clean room?

___

Note: I think little CJ’s room is messy — and so is big brothers — but this is my personal opinion; the Filipino Freethinkers do not have an official position on the Corona trial.

Image credits: 1, 2

MANILA, Philippines–The fire was over, but the worst was yet to come. After putting out the last of the flames, firemen began searching for survivors in the rubble of what was once the SM Mall of Asia concert grounds. This was where Lady Gaga performed a concert as part of her “Born This Way Ball” tour.

But what was supposed to be just another concert in the tour became one of the worst disasters the country has ever seen. An eyewitness is yet to be found, but surviving CCTV footage caught the unfortunate series of events.

It all started when Lady Gaga sang “Born This Way,” a song that has become an anthem of the LGBT community. Upon hearing the chorus, straight couples separated from each other and immediately French kissed the same-sex person closest to them.

With only minimal foreplay these same-sex couples fornicated on the ground, and to make matters worse, they used condoms. Soon there were threesomes and foursomes until there were several huge gay and lesbian orgy piles around the arena.

But it was when Lady Gaga sang “Judas” that all Hell broke loose. As soon as the song started, the now fully homosexual audience immediately stood up from the orgy piles.

The lighters, which were to be used for dramatic waving in unison, became weapons of arson, their lighter fluid sprinkled all over the venue, blessing the place with the unholy water of fire.

It is unsure who ignited it and what kind of Satanic lighter fluid they used, but soon the entire MOA concert grounds were engulfed in flames.

Bodyguards escorted the bewildered Lady Gaga out while her Filipino fans rushed like mindless rage zombies toward the exit.

Outside, they trampled and tripped over corpses of Christian fundamentalist protesters, who by the mere sound of Lady Gaga’s voice started to eat each other without even saying Grace.

Those who made it out alive followed a similarly demonic pattern according to consolidated witness testimonies, mostly from close friends and family who were shocked by the demonic transformation.

Married couples, who were now all homosexual, cited psychological incapacity and impotence for straight sex as they filed for annulment.

Pregnant women immediately got abortions and bought several boxes of birth control pills.

Those who were taking care of grandparents or loved ones on life support committed euthanasia shortly followed by acts of necrophilia.

Relatives urged these Lady Gaga fans to go to Church for confession, but all of them had apparently become atheists, preferring to stay home in their sex chapel worshiping their new god, Satan.

The police have captured one particularly violent fan who after the concert started kicking street dogs several times before having sex with them (wearing condoms, of course).

He reluctantly gave us a quick interview before he was taken to the vet for Rabies shots. We asked him, “What’s the reason for your gratuitously evil behavior and that of your fellow Lady Gaga fans?”

“I don’t know,” replied the man. “We’ve heard all her songs and watched all her music videos millions of times. We’ve even seen footage of other Lady Gaga concerts online.

“I guess there’s just something special that happens when you hold a Lady Gaga concert in predominantly Catholic Philippines.”

Image credits

Lady Gaga will perform in the Philippines, but not if some bigots can help it. Biblemode Youth Philippines has gone on Bible Mode, calling for the blasphemous concert to be canceled. Their protest leader, former Congressman Benny Abante, threatened to file a lawsuit if she sings “Judas,” a performance protesters consider obscene, and therefore, illegal.

Penal Censorship

Former Manila Mayor Jose Atienza agrees, saying that such obscenity is punishable by six months to six years in prison under the Revised Penal Code. According to Article 201 — which was also used against Mideo Cruz’s Jesus-Penis-Juxtaposition in Polyteismo — obscenity applies to immoral displays that

(1) glorify criminals or condone crimes;

(2) serve no other purpose but to satisfy the market for violence, lust or pornography;

(3) offend any race or religion;

(4) tend to abet traffic in and use of prohibited drugs; and

(5) are contrary to law, public order, morals, good customs, established policies, lawful orders, decrees and edicts.

Judas vs. Jesus

The music video of “Judas” depicts “Jesus and his disciples as a motorcycle gang and tells the story of Jesus’ betrayal, with Lady Gaga playing the role of Jesus’ girlfriend, who is torn between her loyalty to Jesus and her love for Judas.”

Out of the 5 criteria for obscenity, “Judas” is guilty — by my judgment — of just one: (3) offending any race or religion. (1) doesn’t count (unless the motorcycle gang Jesus belonged to was a criminal one). Nor does (2) because beyond the stunts and gimmicks, many people actually like her music. (4) is arguable but unlikely. And (5) refers to laws, public order, and other supposedly non-sectarian rules — not the doctrines and opinions of a single sect or religion.

Fans vs. Fanatics

Lady Gaga is no stranger to such controversy — South Koreans protested to prevent infecting the youth with “homosexuality and pornography,” and in Indonesia, the Islamic Defenders Front said “they were ready to die to stop the concert.”

But should the concert be canceled — like in Indonesia — or censored — like what could happen here — it’s not Lady Gaga who’ll be affected most — it’s the fans. The right to freedom of expression implies the right to freely access artistic expressions in their uncensored form. To defend their right to enjoy an artist they admire — and to protect the ideals of free speech in general — Lady Gaga’s fans should counter-protest, and I’m suggesting this is how they do it.

Gaga vs. Bible

They should file a case against Biblemode Youth Philippines for giving the youth access to the most obscene artistic expression ever made: the Bible. Compared to the Bible, a Lady Gaga concert looks like an episode of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. No one will dispute this, at least not anyone who has read the Bible — cover to cover, not just homily material. The Bible is so obscene that other than criterion (4), it is guilty of violating criteria (1), (3), and (5) many times over, and of (2) as well — unless you consider “being terrified of God” as a valid purpose.

The Bible is full of obscenity, filled with verses and verses not only of sex and violence, but every form of injustice, intolerance, and incitement of hatred against women, LGBTs, and even children.

I know many of you won’t read the Bible — especially if you’re a Bible-thumping Christian like Manny Pacquiao — so I’ll list just one example for each criterion of obscenity (except the fourth) to prove that more than Lady Gaga, the Bible is deserving of censorship, if not banning.

(1) glorify criminals or condone crimes

The Bible has many graphic stories that depict and even condone slavery, murder, genocide, torture, infanticide, and other atrocities that any non-psychopathic person would consider criminal. Here’s one.

To gain Saul’s approval, not to mention his daughter, Michal, David and his men not only killed a hundred Philistines, they also performed postmortem circumcisions, offering the Philistine foreskins — the 100 they individually counted — as bride price.

(2) serve no other purpose but to satisfy the market for violence, lust or pornography

Banging on a door, some wicked men wanted to gang rape a man, who was a guest in the house. The hospitable homeowner offered his own daughter and the guest’s concubine to be gang raped instead.

The wicked men didn’t agree, so the homeowner pushed the concubine out from the house into the wicked men. Gang rape ensues. The next morning the homeowner, finding the concubine dead, did the sensible thing and chopped up her body, limb from limb, into twelve parts before mailing them to all the areas of Israel.

Does the story have any other purpose “but to satisfy the market for violence, lust or pornography”? And even if this did teach some moral lesson (pray tell, what?), the violence is just too gratuitous for an allegory.

(3) offend any race or religion and (5) are contrary to law, public order, morals, good customs, established policies, lawful orders, decrees and edicts.

God hates the Midianites because they worship Baal of Peor. He told Moses to kill all Midianite leaders, or else, he’ll keep punishing them with a plague. So Moses ordered Israel’s judges to kill Israelites who converted to Baal worship.

One day, an Israelite man brought a Midianite woman into camp. Phinehas, not a judge, followed the couple into their tent. As they were having interracial interreligion sex, Phinehas thrust a sphere through both of their bodies. (Talk about double penetration.) For taking things into his own hands instead of letting the state (judges) enforce the law, God rewarded Phinehas and stopped His plague.

Child Pornography

Any one of these stories depicts something more immoral than any stunt Lady Gaga could pull, and this is but a small sample of similar stories scattered in both the Old and New Testament. What’s worse, the Bible does more than depict immorality — it condones and even justifies it.

Yet with all the pornography and gratuitous violence in the Bible, it’s probably the easiest book for anyone to access — children included. (It’s a good thing children generally think the Bible is boring. That old copy at home won’t be so dusty if the children knew there was enough sex and gore in it to make most video games dull in comparison.)

Some may argue that the stories aren’t so bad when read in context. But imagine what would happen if a fundamentalist studio were to show a movie depicting these scenes. Would it get a PG rating from the MTRCB? Would it be any different if there was narration that put the scenes into context? And what difference does putting it in book form make? Didn’t fundamentalist groups also call for the censorship of Harry Potter, Da Vinci Code, and the novels of Jose Rizal?

I’d be interested to see the outcome of such a case should Lady Gaga fans follow my suggestion. If they don’t, maybe it’s FF that should challenge the Bible’s immunity to censorship. In any case, somebody should do it. Think of the children.

Whenever I listen to Senator Sotto on the RH Bill, Manny Pacquiao on homosexuality, and the CBCP on pretty much everything, one word uncontrollably comes to mind: bigot. The impulse is almost as strong as God bless you! follows a sneeze.

In Catholic Philippines, it seems that some people can’t help sneezing, the most recent being former beauty queen Miriam Quiambao. And always, freethinkers everywhere can’t but say bigot! in response.

Recently, some conservatives have gone on the defensive, because intolerance is no longer as fashionable as it used to be back in the good old Dark Ages. Conservative cohorts of the CBCP are arguing that anti-LGBT Christians are being called bigots just because “it’s so cool” (it’s actually so mainstream that it’s not) and that their accusers are equally deserving of the accusation:

But you know, it’s so ‘cool’ these days to call Christianity bigotry… It’s funny, though, how those who scream and call for tolerance are the very same people who are the first to call ‘foul’ when their own beliefs, behaviors and/or lifestyles are challenged…

Let’s face it, anti-Catholicism/anti-Christianity is the last acceptable prejudice. Tolerance is only real when it goes both ways. The LGBT crowd have their own beliefs, let Miriam have hers.

In other words, calling out Christian bigotry is just as intolerant and prejudiced as being anti-LGBT in particular and anti-conservative-Christian in general. Thus, the critics themselves have become the bigots.

But is this true? Is harsh criticism of the Christian perspective a form of bigotry? If both progressives and conservatives can correctly call each other bigots, has the term bigot become meaningless? What does it really mean to be a bigot?

These questions are important to me because I’m guilty of being one of the first to call bigot! — sometimes even before whole sentences are formed — and I belong to an organization that recently gave out a Bigot of the Year award.

To answer them, I studied the word bigot: how it is defined, how it was formed, how it was originally used, and how related words clarify its meaning. By the end of this post, you’ll know who you can call a bigot and whether doing so makes you one.

Bigotefinition

The dictionary defines bigot as “a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.”

No one can be faulted for being opinionated, but bigotry lies not merely in having opinions but being devoted to them. Obstinate devotion means you believe something “in spite of reason, arguments, or persuasion.”

You might think that we’ve finally hit the nail on the head, but reason is another problematic word: everyone has their own criteria for what is rational, so it’s easy to accuse anyone of bigotry simply because you cannot persuade them with your reasoning.

When it comes to the second half of the definition, conservatives can deflect charges of hatred and intolerance with the usual excuses: “We hate the sin, not the sinner.” (Although there’s absolutely no excuse for inciting violence, the way Pacquiao recently did.)

At this point, some might think that “obstinate devotion” can equally apply to progressives, but this won’t be the case if you understand what it means to be devoted.  Devotion is more than mere commitment; it implies “religious fervor,” an act of “private worship.”

A bigot isn’t just passionate about an opinion — holding the opinion is a form of worship, a prayer to God. And as you’ll soon find out, it’s by God that we’ll separate the merely opinionated from the blatantly bigoted.

Bigotymology

There are three theories about bigot’s origin. The first is that it’s based on Visigothus, the name of a people in southern Gaul. The second is that it’s from the Germanic oath, “by God.” The third — my favorite — is that it came from the Spanish, bigote or mustache.

There’s not much evidence to support any theory, but they think the third is the strongest “by virtue of it not having any evidence against it.” (Maybe I’ll send them some articles on Sotto and pics of his signature ‘stache to cement the third theory’s position.)

Anyway, without no clear origin, we can focus on its original usage. Bigot was first used in the late 16th century to mean “sanctimonious person, religious hypocrite.” Bigotry (based on the French bigoterie) came in the late 17th century to mean “sanctimoniousness.”

A sanctimonious person is “hypocritically pious or devout” — he projects a righteous image through religiosity, a self-righteousness that is contradicted by his own actions. As hypothetical examples, consider an outwardly pious politician involved in the rape of Pepsi Paloma or a Bible-thumping boxer involved in an affair with Krista Ranillo.

Compared to its current usage, the earlier one lost this sanctimonious sense of hypocrisy, while retaining, however subtly, the sense of religiosity. In the original usage, a bigot projects a religious image through behavior; in the current one, he does so using belief.

It is this strong sense of religious belief that characterizes a bigot. This becomes even clearer when we examine bigot in relation to words with similar meanings.

Bigotesaurus

Searching Roget’s International Thesaurus (1922) online returns three words strongly-related to bigotry: credulity, certainty, and obstinateness. These words — and other related ones — illuminate how a bigot believes. As you look at the words below, think about whether it applies more or less to progressives or conservatives. I highlighted ones that are particularly revealing.

CREDULITY, credulousness &c. adj.; gullibility, cullibility [obs.]; gross credulity, infatuation; self-delusion, self-deception; superstition; one’s blind side; bigotry (obstinacy); hyperorthodoxy
BE CREDULOUS &c. adj.; jurare in verba magistri [L.]; follow implicitly; swallow, swallow whole, gulp · down; take on trust; take for -granted, - gospel; take on faith;

CERTAINTY; necessity [See Necessity]; certitude, sureness, surety, assurance; dead -, moral- certainty; infallibleness &c. adj.; infallibility, reliability, reliableness; indubitableness, inevitableness, unquestionableness.
gospel, scripture, church, pope, court of final appeal; res adjudicata, [L.], res judicata [L.]; ultimatum.
FACT; positive fact, matter of fact; fait accompli [F.].
BIGOTRY, positiveness, dogmatism, dogmatization; fanaticism.

OBSTINATENESS
BE OBSTINATE &c. adj.; stickle, take no denial, fly in the face of facts; opinionate [rare], be wedded to an opinion, hug a belief;
creed-bound; prepossessed, infatuated; stiff-backed, stiff-necked, stiff-hearted; hard-mouthed, hidebound; unyielding; impervious, impracticable, impersuasible, impersuadable, unpersuadable; untractable, intractable; incorrigible, deaf to advice, impervious to reason; crotchety [See Caprice] BIGOTRY, intolerance

A bigot is credulous: he believes things strongly, even superstition, to the point of self-deception because he takes things on faith.

A bigot is certain: he believes with such sureness the infallibility of his chosen authority to the point of dogmatism and fanaticism.

A bigot is obstinate: he believes even in the face of contradictory facts because he is married to his opinion and bound by his creed.

To a bigot, it’s not the opinion itself that has power; it’s the authority figure from whom the bigot received the opinion. Whether you believe by authority — especially religious ones — is ultimately what determines whether a believer is a bigot.

Bigotefinition Revisited;

I actually made a mistake and checked the thesaurus too early, entirely forgetting that the dictionary also provided related words: synonyms and antonyms, which can better define the boundaries of a word’s meaning. My dictionary lists the following related words:

Synonyms: dogmatist, dogmatizer, partisan (also partizan), sectarian
Related Words: doctrinaire, fanatic, purist; jingoist, nationalist; racialist, racist, supremacist; chauvinist, sexist
Near Antonyms: freethinker, latitudinarian, liberal

There’s so many here that we can use, but the first synonym and near antonym are more than enough.  A dogmatist takes dogma as fact, forming opinion based on it; A freethinker denies religious dogma, forming opinions independent of authority. Both form opinions; what differentiates them is whether they’re based on dogma. A bigot is a dogmatist, not a freethinker.

If the Bigote Fits

Let’s go back to our original question. Is harsh criticism of the Christian perspective a form of bigotry? If the criticisms are based on reason and not infallible dogma, then no. Criticizing Christianity, however harshly, is not a form of bigotry.

The term bigot has not lost its meaning. When examined closely, it correctly applies to only one side of the debate: the right (conservative) side.

Although both sides hold their opinions strongly, only one side does so because of their credulity, certainty, and obstinacy to believe the Bible and every authority that claims to represent their God.

Yet it’s not enough to call someone a bigot and just leave it at that. It’s better to explain why you think certain people are bigots — or at least hold bigoted beliefs. Doing so raises awareness not only of bad opinions but also of better opinions and the ways in which they are formed.

And who knows? Maybe someday Sotto or Paquiao or the CBCP will finally listen and learn. Even bigots deserve compassion. Remember: hate bigotry, not the bigot.

It’s a good time to be gay (and lesbian and bi and trans). Obama’s support for same-sex marriage came shortly after another LGBT win: Miriam Quiambao’s recent homophobic statements galvanized support for the LGBT community, raising awareness and even sympathy for their cause.

Momentum is on the LGBT community’s side, and with this week’s celebration of International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia (IDAHO), debates on marriage equality and other LGBT issues have reignited. Although an LGBT win is not guaranteed, the debate itself is a minor victory; the status quo is a defeat by default.

Dictating Definitions

To maintain the status quo, the Catholic Church and other conservative elements will try to dictate definitions — the terms of the debate. In the reproductive health (RH) debate, the most time-consuming distraction they use is the question, “When does life begin?” Pro-RH legislators would invariably fall into the trap of trying to define “life.” The anti-RH then argues as if it had a monopoly on the its meaning, which is to be expected from a group that has proclaims itself the “pro-life” side.

In the marriage equality debate, conservatives will use a similar tactic: they will try to monopolize the meaning of marriage. Marriage, they will argue, is a Catholic sacrament reserved for one man and one woman who love each other (unitive) and intend to have children (procreative) — to go beyond that definition bastardizes its meaning and endangers the institution of marriage itself. But even a brief look at history will show that the Catholic marriage is nothing but a modern invention.

What’s God got to do with it?

Long before God even created the world 6,000 to 10,000 years ago (if you’re a Young Earth creationist), people were getting married. The institution of marriage was invented before history was recorded reliably, and there’s as much variation in its practice as there are ancient cultures.

Back then, marriages were personal agreements that did not need the approval of the government or Church, and could easily be done informally — ceremonies were optional.

The Lesser Sacrament

It was only in the 12th century that Catholics started calling marriage a sacrament, and only in the 16th that they made the status official. And even then it was considered one of the lesser sacraments, and until the 10th century it was performed outside the Church. Priests didn’t officiate until the 13th century, a fact that mirrors the low esteem many Catholic leaders had for marriage.

Although Augustine believed that marriage was a sacrament, he thought that it delayed the coming of God’s kingdom. Jerome, a saint and Doctor of the Church, called marriage evil. Tertullian, called the founder of Western theology, said marriage “consists essentially in fornication.” Opinion varied, but it’s clear that marriage was viewed by early Catholic leaders as a necessary evil at worst and a lesser good at best.

What’s love got to do with it?

Far from the formal ceremony it is today, marriage was originally an agreement between individuals, a partnership — not a permanent commitment of love. It did not need the approval of the church or state, and it was often done informally — ceremonies were optional.

Rather than love or even lust, these agreements had more to do with money and power. Wives were not loved by their husbands and vice versa: women were simply child bearers; men, child supporters. As Demosthenes explained, “We have prostitutes for our pleasure, concubines for our health, and wives to bear us lawful offspring.”

When a man loves a woman

Before heterosexual marriage became the norm, same-sex marriages had been in existence for centuries. It was a socially recognized institution in Ancient Greece and Rome, in some regions of China, and in Ancient Europe.

The one-partner limit is also relatively new. In Old Testament times, husbands could take multiple wives at the same time. Solomon, with all his divinely inspired wisdom, thought it was a good idea — he had 700 wives and 300 concubines. It was only in 342 AD that Christian emperors enforced the one-woman-one-man rule and ordered the execution of those who disobeyed.

More than baby-making

Despite their differences, the Church version and the more traditional ones share having children as a goal. But unlike their other marriage restrictions (consanguinity, affinity, age, etc.) the intention to have children is impossible to check, and is therefore unenforceable anyway.

This is probably why marriage is evolving to be something more than just baby-making thanks in no small part to the rise of reproductive health services and education around the world.

Traditional Marriage?

This review of the history of marriage is hardly comprehensive, yet it sufficiently shows how marriage has changed. If we include in our scope the various versions of marriage practiced today, it will make one thing clear: there is no individual or organization that can monopolize the meaning of marriage.

Giving the LGBT community the freedom to marry is not a break from tradition but a return to it. To be more precise, although it is different from the Catholic tradition, it is part of an older one, and if history is any justification, it’s just as valid. So the next time somebody protests that same-sex marriage destroys the traditional one, ask them: which tradition?

___

Image Sources: 1, 2

May is Masturbation Month. You probably didn’t know, but I bet you’ve been celebrating anyway. As the saying goes, 99% of us are masturbators — the other 1% are liars.

OK, so those stats aren’t accurate, but they’re close enough: in one survey 89% of women and 95% of men admitted to masturbating at least once.

So it’s not a stretch to say that your mother, father, brother, sister, teacher, professor, supervisor, boss — practically everyone you’ve come into contact with masturbates. So talking about it shouldn’t be a big deal. Right?

Masturbation’s Champion

In 1993, then US President Bill Clinton made Jocelyn Elders the United States Surgeon General, the first African American and the second woman to hold the prestigious position. This was a milestone in both the civil rights and women’s rights movement. Unfortunately, Elders would discover that the sexual revolution wasn’t quite there yet.

In 1994, she spoke at a UN conference on AIDS. Someone asked whether promoting masturbation could prevent the youth from engaging in riskier sexual activities. “I think that it is part of human sexuality,” Elders answered, “and perhaps it should be taught.”

This simple statement led to Elders’ termination. In fairness to Clinton, Elders’ had been rubbing him the wrong way on so many issues for so long. Yet it was masturbation that forced Clinton to come out and finally fire her. By then Elders’ had already suggested legalizing drugs, teaching 5-year-olds to use condoms, and my favorite, telling Catholics “to get over this love affair with the fetus and start worrying about children.”

Masturbation Month

Jocelyn’s career as surgeon general may have ended, but her advocacy continued, encouraging others to promote masturbation in the mainstream.

In 1995, Good Vibrations, a leading company in sex-positive culture and education, protested Elders’ firing by declaring May to be National Masturbation Month. They aimed to raise awareness about masturbation in particular and sexual health in general, encouraging positive discussion about topics many still considered taboo.

In 1998 they followed-up by launching the Masturbate-a-thon, wherein participants massturbate (sorry) to raise awareness about self-love, raise money for charity, and raise maturity against the shame usually associated with the activity.

Mainstreaming the “M” Word

Today, there’s still a taboo on discussing masturbation in public, especially in public policy where the mere suggestion is still met with controversy. Yet despite its divisiveness, masturbation, Jocelyn Elders tells us, can even bring us together:

Masturbation, practiced consciously or unconsciously, cultivates in us a humble elegance — an awareness that we are part of a larger natural system, the passions and rhythms of which live on in us. Sexuality is part of creation, part of our common inheritance, and it reminds us that we are neither inherently better nor worse than our sisters and brothers. Far from evil, masturbation just may render heavenly contentment in those who dare.

- Jocelyn Elders, “The Dreaded ‘M’ Word”

Natural and normal, healthy and harmless, masturbation is one of the few activities we can do with little effort and at no expense. Rich or poor, man or woman, theist or atheist, straight or LGBTQIA, it’s something we can all share. We shouldn’t be ashamed, and dare I say, we should even be proud, especially when we can do it without guilt or shame.

Let’s dispel the hate linked to masturbation once and for all. As the late Whitney Houston once said, it’s easy to achieve. After all, learning to love yourself — it is the greatest love of all. Happy Masturbation Month, fellow masturbator! Accept as a gift this infographic from Pleated-Jeans.

___
Jocelyn Elders Image source

 

Raymart Santiago, together with Claudine Barreto, close friends, and family, called a press conference yesterday to present undeniable proof of their innocence despite lack of CCTV footage.

In a statement read by Atty. Alex Avisado, legal counsel of Santiago, God corroborated Santiago’s recent statements:

“My most precious child, Raymart Santiago, has recently said that I, God, whose name shall not be taken in vain except when one is really, really in trouble, am on his side. This is the Truth.

“I was in Heaven talking to Jesus when I heard Raymart’s pious prayer. I appeared in the airport as the Holy Spirit where I witnessed — swear to Myself — Mon Tulfo hurting and harassing Raymart and his family, like the Pharoah persecuting My people. Tulfo totally started it.

“As with Moses, I gave Raymart, the strength to overcome Tulfo’s persecution and protect his loved ones. Raymart’s strength and righteousness is proof that I was on his side. He is a faithful servant, like Jeremy Lin and Tim Tebow. And also a good actor.

Santiago hopes the statement convinces fellow Christians of his innocence and Tulfo’s guilt. “We may not have CCTV footage,” said Santiago, “but our faith in God’s Word is more than enough. If God is on our side, He can’t be on Tulfo’s.”

“The Philippines is a predominantly Catholic country.” Church leaders, anti-choice groups, and many others have made this a mantra, some using it to ward off the specter of secularism, others to respect their religious roots, and most out of mere routine — they’ve just heard it and said it so many times that it feels unnatural to think otherwise.

A Country of Catholics

But is it true? It depends. What does it mean to be a predominantly Catholic country? For some, it simply means that Philippine citizens are mostly Catholic. In this sense, it is true: around 80% of Filipinos do identify as Catholic. But what that Catholic identity implies is another story.

What bishops and anti-RH individuals think it means — or would like it to mean — is that as a country of Catholics, the Philippines is led by Catholic bishops: the Philippines is their Church, and they are its pastors. This interpretation — or some version of it — is the reason organizations such as the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) are still respected even by established institutions.

Unfortunately, one of those institutions is the Philippine government. Although secularism is enshrined in its Constitution, politicians pander to the Church out of the belief that bishops are also representatives of their Catholic constituents: Pandering is the respect paid by one representative to another.

This pandering is most apparent during elections, when candidates cower in fear of the Catholic Vote. Although many have shown that it is a myth, it is true in the way that matters: politicians behave as if it were real, and the bishops get what they want: politicians who perpetuate their version of a Catholic country.

But again, the Catholic Vote is in fact a myth. Catholics generally do not vote in block, and if past elections are any indication, nor do they obey bishops when it comes to voting. This is because most Filipino Catholics are cafeteria Catholics.

Cafeteria Catholics

Also referred to as eclectic Catholics, cafeteria Catholics choose what they believe independently from Church constraints, in the same way that a cafeteria customer would order food from different stalls instead of buying everything from a single one. I’ve never met someone who doesn’t believe something that is at odds with the Church, and even those who seem orthodox or traditional (the katoliko sarado) would reveal after some conversation that their views are not completely consistent with the Vatican’s.

Filipinos tend to hold beliefs inconsistent with Catechism — karma, reincarnation, feng shui, astrology, the Secret — and this attitude extends beyond religion into politics. The most salient example is the RH Bill, supported by 70-80% of Filipinos. The percentage is even higher if we consider Catholics alone.

The Philippines as a country obedient to bishops does not exist. It would be more correct to say that the Philippines is a cafeteria Catholic country.

The Church is a Country

Despite their differences with the bishops, cafeteria Catholics, especially the most progressive ones, can’t seem to leave the Church. I believe it’s because of different views of what the Catholic Church is.

One view is that the Church is an organization for people who share the same convictions. When your convictions change, you leave the organization. This is the implicit understanding of pro- and anti-RH groups: when you start supporting the other side, you leave. Obviously, this is not how Filipinos see the Catholic Church. If it were, there would be little to no Catholic Church to speak of.

Instead, many Filipinos see the Church as the country they’re born into, and Catholicism is their nationality. Most people — not only Filipinos — do not leave the country of their birth, and most — again, not only Filipinos — do not change the religion they’re born with. Once a Filipino, always a Filipino; once a Catholic, always a Catholic. Citizens criticize public officials, Catholics criticize their bishops, but rarely is leaving, let alone changing their national or religious identity, a valid option.

Yes, it takes more money and resources to emigrate. But even if leaving religion shouldn’t cost you a Peso, it can be just as difficult, if not more. By the time the average Filipino Catholic feels disappointed enough at their Church to leave it, they’ve already invested so much — mental energy spent on stress and sacrifice, time spent on Sundays and sacraments, and for even the poorest of the poor, money spent on tithing and other religious obligations.

Rooted in Catholicism

It’s not so much that the Philippines has Catholic roots — we are as much a Pagan country if heritage is the criteria. Filipinos just routinely root themselves in Catholicism so thoroughly that uprooting seems too painful a process.

So for many Filipinos, leaving the Church is unimaginable — on one hand, because it’s so unusual that many can’t imagine it; on the other, leaving has so many negative consequences that many don’t even want to imagine it. This is especially true for those who have nightmares of being tortured by Satan for all eternity — leaving the Church is a sin worthy of automatic excommunication, which is practically a one-way ticket to Hell.

I don’t have the numbers, but I’d wager that more Filipinos have changed countries than religious identities. (In case you do, please leave a link in the comments section.) Of course there are those who do leave Catholicism, but as with emigrating, it’s usually to a place that’s not too far away: a different Christian denomination, another Judeo-Christian religion, or a spirituality that’s thematically consistent with Catholicism.

And in most (if not all) cases, what the Catholic bishops think is not a consideration. Does anyone consider their Congressman or President when they make a decision about emigrating? They do, however, consider the culture — traditions, laws, economic and political structure — of their future country, and this brings us back to our main point: Filipino Catholics treat their Catholicism as a country they’ve grown used to, a nationality they’re born with — not as an obligation to, or even a membership in an institution.

A Secularizing Country

With all this in mind, calling the Philippines a Catholic country seems to be as trivial as saying that the Philippines is a tropical country. Filipinos have no more choice in their religious identity than our 7,107 islands do their distance from the equator. Politicians should recognize that the bishops claiming to dictate Catholic behavior is just as senseless as cartographers claiming to move the islands. They might have all the maps, but the islands are moved by a more powerful force.

When it comes to Filipino attitude toward religion, this force seems to be secularization, which sociologist see as part of an ever bigger movement toward modernization. Catholics are starting to see the value of religion less in divine commandments and heavenly promises, and more in human needs and real-world benefits.

It is a slow yet steady process, and sociologists have found it as inevitable as the drifting of the islands. But as with any movement toward progress, the Catholic bishops will try to stop it, doing everything in their power to remain representatives of their constituents, repeating, like a mantra, “The Philippines is a predominantly Catholic country.”

___
Image sources: 1, 2, 3

Despite disagreeing with bishops on almost every political issue of controversy — contraception, LGBT rights, etc. — many progressives maintain their Catholic identity for one reason: primacy of conscience. But this doctrine is misunderstood, as I elaborated in my previous post on primacy.

Long story short, primacy of conscience means that a Catholic must always act consistently with her conscience. However, a Catholic’s first duty is to always have a conscience that’s consistent with the Church. Taken out of context, primacy seems to grant Catholics freedom. Taken in context, however, primacy gives Catholics freedom to do only what the Church tells them — which is not really freedom at all.

I strongly suggest that you read the entire post; I believe it has enough good reasons to convince most that primacy is a fallacy (at least in the way progressives usually understand it). Yet some still refuse to accept that a Catholic’s first duty is to obey, and I can sympathize; it implies that Catholics are intellectually enslaved.*

If the post doesn’t convince you, nothing I say will be enough. But maybe the Vatican’s recent actions will change your mind.

Progressive Nuns of the United States

While continuing to protect pedophile priests around the world, the Vatican is waging a war on nuns.

Why? After some investigation, the Vatican concluded that the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR)**, the largest group of nuns in the States, are apparently “radical feminists” who neglect their Catholic duty to fight contraception, defeat the gay agenda, and publicly agree with bishops’ political positions. (They were apparently too distracted by such relatively insignificant goals as feeding the poor and healing the sick.)

The LCWR’s offenses are so complex and countless that they’ve been assigned a babysitter supervising bishop and given up to 5 years to make their organization more consistently bigoted Catholic.

This space may not be enough, so instead of expounding, I’ll let former Nun Mary Johnson, who served with billionaire hypocrite Mother Teresa for 20 years, summarize the situation (emphasis added):

“The main complaint is that sisters are thinking for themselves,” she says. “No one says it in those words, but that’s the bottom line: you’re thinking for yourself, and we don’t like that.”

“The Catholic Church has long recognized that an individual’s first duty is to obey his or her conscience, but the bishops say that any conscience that conflicts with their teaching is a conscience in error.”

“Any questioning is seen as disloyal, even heretical—bishops aren’t used to being questioned.”

“The Vatican works like a dictatorship. They want blind obedience, as opposed to thoughtful ideas. The bishops insist that a faithful Catholic must submit to them.”

Don’t Think, Just Obey

The Vatican’s message to the US nuns — and to every progressive Catholic — can’t be any clearer. There may be some progressive theologians who disagree, but there’s a reason all they’re allowed is speculation and theory.

In practice, liberal bishops, dissenting priests, and progressive nuns know that the Vatican preaches only one kind of primacy: the primacy of obedience.

—

* The word “heretic” comes from the Greek “hairetikos,” which means “able to choose.” Heretics are those who choose their own beliefs, despite the doctrines of the Church. Following this definition, is a Catholic then one who is “disabled to choose”?

Although the worst punishment for a heretic is now excommunication — essentially being sentenced to Hell — the Church used to be so impatient that they’d start eternal damnation while the heretic is still alive, inventing all kinds of torture to simulate Hell on Earth.

** The way the Vatican is treating the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (and women in general), they probably think LCWR stands for “Let’s Crap on Women’s Rights”

Comic source: http://stmedia.startribune.com/images/548*425/sack043012.jpg

Miriam Quiambao offended many LGBT individuals with her allegedly homophobic statements at a recent episode of Bottomline. She later apologized through Twitter with such tweets as

“Homosexuality is not a sin but it is a lie from the devil.”

Despite her apology, many individuals and organizations continue to criticize Quiambao, calling the apology an even worse insult. But one organization has released a statement showing their support for the former beauty queen.*

The statement was written by Jose Shamalan, spokesperson of the Catholic Revolution Against Prejudice (CRAP). “Miriam’s recent tweet [that homosexuality is a lie from the devil] clearly shows that she loves the LGBT community,” said Shamalan. “She’s not prejudiced against Mr. Bemz Benedito or any LGBT person,” he wrote. “How can it be prejudice if her opinion is already formed before she even met Mr. Benedito? Miriam obviously respects and accepts Mr. Benedito. She just doesn’t think it’s right to call him a ‘Miss’.”

Aside from defending Quiambao, Shamalan reiterated her sentiments. “Indeed, homosexuality is not a sin,” said Shamalan. “It is just a transgression against God’s moral law. Although it is OK to react with strong disgust and hatred toward this behavior, homosexuals are not abominations.”

Shamalan also called for tolerance and equality toward LGBTs. “They deserve equal rights to marry someone they choose that is of the opposite sex.”

The CRAP statement closed with a message for the LGBT community. “God’s love is inclusive,” said Shamalan. “The gates of Heaven are wide open to each and every homosexual who changes their ways.”

Image from https://www.facebook.com/media/albums/?id=552172613

I’ve been outed. In a recent interview, Bishop Bacani revealed the truth that although I identify as an atheist, I actually believe in God:

Bacani insists that many atheists still believe in God and just don’t know it:

These so-called atheists love with a great altruism, they really love their fellow man and even have a passion for justice and what is right and good,” he said. “Those people really believe in God in their hearts, but they will not admit that (emphasis added).
- Bishop Bacani, Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP)

In short, if I do good, my actions betray the fact that I’m more religious than I realize — I’m really a theist in my heart.

I wouldn’t have admitted it to myself without the help of Bacani, so I feel indebted to him. And as a good theist, who believes in God in his heart, I’ll return the favor by paying it forward.

In the spirit of great altruism — and justice, and what is right and good — I will help some who work in the non-religious sector realize that they are more religious than they know or choose to admit.

These so-called parents, teachers, and other authority figures, who betray the trust of the children under their care by sexually abusing them — they’re really Catholic priests in their hearts.

These so-called crime syndicates, corrupt government officials and military personnel, who abuse their power to commit and cover up their crimes — they’re really Catholic bishops in their hearts.

These so-called dictators, such as the late Kim Jong Il, who coerce their followers to fear and obey them and to believe that what they say is Truth — they’re really Popes in their hearts.

And what about so-called Bishop Bacani? Although he likes to meddle in legislation, he’s actually more political than he realizes. Because the way he parades his piety and makes a show of moral superiority, while showing nothing but prejudice, intolerance, and bigotry toward those who don’t accept his Truth — Bishop Bacani is really a Senate Majority leader in his heart.

—-

* There are so-called Catholic priests and bishops who refuse to spread the Church’s anti-women, anti-science, and anti-choice dogma, and instead choose to focus on helping parishioners with the things that will truly help them in life. These so-called Catholic leaders may not know it, but it’s obvious that they’re actually nuns in their hearts.

The Hypothetical Case of Corona

Imagine that by some miracle, the prosecution managed to provide overwhelming evidence that could convict Corona. But for some reason, the senator-judges arrive at a surprising verdict: not guilty.

When Senator-Judge Enrile (still our hypothetical presiding officer) is asked about it, he explains that like the other Senators, he, too, was convinced that Corona should be convicted. However, Enrile explains, conviction was impossible.

Why? Because if Corona is guilty, it would mean that Ex-President Arroyo made a mistake in appointing him Chief Justice. And if Arroyo made a mistake, it means that presidents aren’t perfect. And if presidents aren’t perfect, then democracy is doomed. Therefore, Corona is not guilty.

Unless you are a Corona cultist, you’d think that such a verdict is insane. Corona himself would admit guilt instead of letting such a mockery of the legal system stand. (OK, maybe not.) In any case, you’ll surely admit that no one would find such insanity reasonable.

Yet many find insanity reasonable when done in the name of religion. This is what happened when Pope Paul VI confirmed that contraceptives were evil.

The Actual Case of Contraception

In the early 60s, many Catholics started suspecting the innocence of an old teaching: the evil of contraception. They expressed dissent so strongly that Pope John XXIII (and later Pope Paul VI) formed a commission to investigate the original teaching’s innocence, so to speak.

After 6 years on trial, the commission reached their verdict:

• 9 of 12 bishops found the original teaching wrong
• 15 of 19 theologians found the original teaching wrong
• 30 of 35 lay members found the original teaching wrong

The commission had found evidence — from Scripture and Tradition to Science and Experience — to conclude that the original teaching on contraception was wrong; contraception was not always evil.

The commission submitted their official report, and Pope Paul VI agreed with it — contraceptives were not inherently evil. I emphasize “official report” because a small group of conservatives unofficially submitted what is now called (mistakenly) the minority report. Regardless of its official standing, the other report contained the argument that changed the Pope’s mind.

Infallible Defense

While the official report was comprehensive and complex — arguing from different perspectives, providing both traditional and modern evidence — the other report was simple and single-minded. It relied primarily on an old (yet relatively recent) Catholic teaching: that Popes can’t be wrong when it comes to faith and morals because Jesus magically protects them from the mere possibility.

All the rational and scientific arguments of the official report were trumped by the other one’s appeal to the miraculous. And the writers of the unofficial report were unashamed of resorting to this defense:

If we could bring forward arguments which are clear and cogent based on reason alone, it would not be necessary for our Commission to exist, nor would the present state of affairs exist in the Church… The Church could not have erred through so many centuries, even through one century, by imposing under serious obligation very grave burdens in the name of Jesus Christ, if Jesus Christ did not actually impose these burdens.

As one minority member put it, if the original teaching is wrong, what will happen to all those Catholic souls the Church previously sent to Hell ? To this a member of the majority had the perfect response: “Father Zalba, do you really believe that God has carried out all your orders?”

Pope John Paul II, then a Cardinal who was also part of the conservative minority, argued as follows:

If it should be declared that contraception is not evil in itself, then we should have to concede frankly that the Holy Spirit had been on the side of the Protestant churches in 1930 (when the encyclical Casti Connubii was promulgated), in 1951 (Pius XII’s address to the midwives), and in 1958 (the address delivered before the Society of Hematologists in the year the pope died). It should likewise have to be admitted that for a half century the Spirit failed to protect Pius XI, Pius XII, and a large part of the Catholic hierarchy from a very serious error.

This would mean that the leaders of the Church, acting with extreme imprudence, had condemned thousands of innocent human acts, forbidding, under pain of eternal damnation, a practice which would now be sanctioned. The fact can neither be denied nor ignored that these same acts would now be declared licit on the grounds of principles cited by the Protestants, which popes and bishops have either condemned or at least not approved.

When he became pope, he explained why infallibility was crucial to Catholicism:

I am convinced that the doctrine of infallibility is in a certain sense the key to the certainty with which the faith is confessed and proclaimed, as well as to the life and conduct of the faithful. For once this essential foundation is shaken or destroyed, the most basic truths of our faith likewise begin to break down.

In short, the conservatives used logic similar to that of our hypothetical Corona case:

1. If the original teaching on contraception is wrong, then 2 previous popes were wrong.
2. If 2 previous popes were wrong, then there’s no such thing as infallibility.
3. If there’s no such thing as infallibility, then the Catholic Church is doomed.
4. Therefore, the original teaching is correct.

Of course, other arguments were used in the so-called minority report. But those were the same arguments that had already been refuted by the commission. In the end, infallibility was the only argument left unanswered.

Unimpeachable Dogma

To this day, the Catholic Church still stands by its anti-contraceptive stance, and on the doctrine of infallibility that defended it. If the same kind of insane defense were to clear Corona’s name, an EDSA III would not be unlikely. Although surveys show that many Filipinos have already lost interest, I’m sure such an attack on common sense would motivate even the most apathetic to action.

Regardless of how the actual impeachment trial turns out, Filipinos should already be thankful for one thing: our public officials — unlike Catholic doctrines — are impeachable.

“The Devil lives in the Vatican. He has won over the confidences of people but naturally its difficult to find proof but the consequences are visible.”

– Father Gabriel Amorth, Chief Exorcist of Pope Benedict XVI

If Satan possessed the Pope, and his horde of demons took over every priest, bishop, and archbishop in the Vatican, would Catholics find out? What kind of evidence would be necessary to prove such a claim? And would any Catholic investigate or even suspect that such Satanic control is the case? What if this has been the case for hundreds or even thousands of years?

This is not a conspiracy theory. As a naturalist, I don’t believe in demons or Satan or any of the creatures and characters in Catholic mythology. What I do believe is that regardless of your religious beliefs, skepticism and doubt is necessary, especially when it comes to claims made by religion. I hope to convince you with the following intellectual exercise that even if you believed in God, you’d be better off believing as a freethinker.

If you’re a nonbeliever like I am, please humor me by playing along. If you’re a believer, however, I hope you’ll agree that the question is of utmost importance.

What if the deity you’re praying to is the Devil? What if the tenets you’ve been told to believe and the orders you’ve been told to obey have been devised to sound convincing but calculated to result in more evil than good? If faith can be used to justify belief in Satan in the same way it’s used to justify belief in God, can you possibly tell the difference?

The Devil’s Best Trick

“The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.” This line from The Usual Suspects is a rephrasing of a line from a prose poem by Charles Baudelaire titled “The Generous Gambler.” In the story, the Devil says that the only time he feared for his power was when a preacher exposed his best trick: convincing others of his nonexistence.

But I think Baudelaire doesn’t give the Devil enough credit. What would suit the Devil more is if he managed to convince the world that he and his minions were God’s representatives, and that God’s true representatives were sinners and demons.

If Satan existed, this would be his most effective tactic to win the War on Heaven. And he’d be doing it in a way that would insult God the most: What could be more blasphemous than glorifying Satan and demonizing God?

If Satan is as devious as he’s made out to be, then it’s exactly the kind of thing he would do. If he’s as powerful as he’s made out to be, then he could certainly do it. And if Satan could and would do such a thing, how can anyone tell whether he’s already done it?

The Satan Hypotheses

For the sake of this intellectual exercise, let’s consider the following hypotheses:

1. Satan exists and he is extremely evil and extremely powerful.
2. Satan and his demons are disguised as the Catholic Church hierarchy in the Vatican.
3. Satan has been convincing Catholics of this fact since the first century.
4. Satan would do everything in his power to maintain the deception.
5. Satan’s goal is not to bring the world to a perfectly evil state but to keep the world at its most evil state possible at all times.

I’m sure that many of you would think that such things are so implausible they’re not even worth considering. But remember that even the Vatican considered the possibility: The Vatican’s resident expert on demons said that the clerical child abuse scandals were caused by Satan infiltrating the Church:

‘The Devil lives in the Vatican. He has won over the confidences of people but naturally its difficult to find proof but the consequences are visible.

‘We have cardinals who don’t believe in Christ, bishops connected with demons. Then we have these stories of pedophilia. You can see the rot when we speak of Satan’s smoke in the holy rooms.’

‘The Devil is invisible, he is a pure spirit. But in the people he possesses he can be seen through pain and blasphemies but he can also remain hidden.

The Vatican takes Satan seriously, and will surely agree with my first hypothesis: Satan is extremely evil and powerful. And if our other hypotheses are true, saying that their no. 1 goal is to defeat Satan is a good tactic because it effectively deflects suspicion.

Aside from the clerical abuse scandals, there are historical atrocities — such as the Crusades and the Inquisition — that are so evil they can easily be attributed to Satanic infiltration or influence. There are also atrocities like slavery and the Holocaust that, although not directly done by the Church, were condoned or justified through Catholic dogma. On an interesting note, Father Amorth said that Pope Pius XII attempted a long distance exorcism of Hitler.

One thing these atrocities do is counter a common objection to the Satan hypotheses: God will never let anything so evil happen. If history has taught us anything, it’s that regardless of the possibility of God’s existence, great evil is not only a possibility, it’s a reality.

Another objection to the Satan hypotheses would be a similar theistic response to the Problem of Evil: God allows evil so that good can be done. Although some good certainly came out of these — people learning lessons, helping others, etc. — Satan’s goal is not to prevent all good but to lead others to commit a lot of evil. And seen from the perspective of the Satan hypotheses, such an objection is the kind of justification consistent with Satan’s deception. What would be a more devious way of promoting evil than convincing people that Evil is good for Good?

Now consider the fact that even though such evils were caused by the Church, Catholics still believe that the Vatican represents the voice of God. This fact would still be consistent with our hypotheses. And if Satan has been using his power to deceive Catholics since the first century, then ignoring Catholic evils (or interpreting them as good) would be the response we could expect of Catholics who’ve been brainwashed for centuries.

“But what about the Bible?” some would object. “If such a thing were possible, wouldn’t God warn us by writing it in his Holy Book?”

Remember that if this scheme is to work, Satan would have been there from the beginning. And convincing people would have been a lot easier back then when people were more credulous and skepticism was not held as a virtue. All Satan would have to do would be to convince uneducated desert-dwellers I’m certain that even the least educated modern-day criminal is capable of such deception. What more the Prince of Deception himself? Even if Satan managed just this and then kept his distance, time and tradition could have done the rest. What more if his influence was present in each step of a process that took two thousand years?

I’m sure that more than a few Catholics reading this will start to feel some doubt. What if all this is true? What if I’ve been praying to Satan all my life?! Most — if not all — will probably respond with the following word: faith. If you doubt anything that the Church teaches, you fight it with faith. If you can’t do something the Church commands, you fight it with faith. If you doubt the Church — let alone Jesus or God himself! — you fight it with faith.

If our hypotheses are true, how do you think faith would fit into the picture? Would Satan convince people of the virtues of having faith? Would Satan’s scheme work better with people having faith in the Church?

Consider the following statement: I don’t fully understand what the Church commands, and it runs contrary to my logic and common sense, but I have faith that God — in his own mysterious way — has a reason, so I will believe, I will obey. Is this the kind of statement that would support our hypothetical Satan’s scheme?

The God Hypothesis

If a good God existed (in addition to the version of Satan above) he would know what his adversary was up to and would try to counter it. He would also know that his adversary would try to distort whatever teaching he tried to impart. So this good God would beat Satan by embedding in his human creation something to counter Satan’s deception: doubt.

And he wouldn’t have to take a thousand years (and countless lives) to write a single book to hold all his teachings. It would be enough to give short and simple reminders such as this:

“It is proper for you Kalamas [the people of the village of Kesaputta] to doubt, to be uncertain; uncertainty has arisen in you about what is doubtful. Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another’s seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, ‘The monk is our teacher.’ Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are bad; these things are blameable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill, abandon them.

“…Do not accept anything by mere tradition… Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures… Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your pre-conceived notions… But when you know for yourselves—these things are moral, these things are blameless, these things are praised by the wise, these things, when performed and undertaken, conduce to well-being and happiness—then do you live acting accordingly.”

This is taken from the Kalama Sutta, what one Theravada monk calls the Buddha’s Charter of Free Inquiry. I’m not trying to say that Buddha is God and Buddhism is the right religion. But within the context of our hypotheses above, this type of religious message makes Satanic infiltration less plausible. And even if people religiously adhered to this kind of message, I’m sure more good than evil would come of it.

But what does the Catholic Church think of such messages? Right from the start, such relativistic and individualistic ideas have been demonized — the first infallible pope included such statements in the Syllabus of Errors. Which is exactly what we’d expect if the Satan hypotheses were true.

If You Worshipped Satan, Would You Know?

If you’re a Catholic, I’m sure you’d agree that there’s something to gain by knowing how to verify that you are indeed praying to the proper God. Ask your priest and I’m sure they’d agree that such skepticism is a good idea. If they don’t, then, well…

If you do find a way to disprove the Satan hypotheses (even if you’re not Catholic) please post it in the comments section below. I have sincerely tried to think of a way to disprove them, but have failed. In the end, all I could think of was faith.

 

UPDATE: A fellow freethinker told me that Stephen Law has posed a similar challenge earlier as the Evil-God hypothesis. I haven’t read it entirely, but it seems like a more comprehensive and sophisticated version of the Satan hypotheses above. You can read about the Evil-God hypothesis here.

The Reproductive Health Advocacy Network (RHAN) sent each legislator a copy of the Valentine’s Day card below.

Click for larger image

 

Click for larger image