MANILA, Philippines — Following Archbishop Oscar Cruz’s benevolence in allowing a lesbian woman and a gay man to marry each other under the auspices of the most Holy Roman Catholic church because “The anatomy is there. The possibility of conception is there”, Bishop Jose M. Ilya of the CBCP’s Jesus All Knowing Of Life Tribunal told the assembled press that Catholic marriage ceremonies will now include a sperm count at the altar to ensure that the marriage will result in procreation.

“Before the Catholic church puts two people together in holy matrimony we must ensure that the couple can actually procreate, even if they are a gay man and a lesbian woman, because procreation is the only reason ever for people to marry. We will ensure this even if the couple is straight, and not just for the gay and lesbian couples who wish to take up Archbishop Oscar Cruz’s kind love offering. As guardians of morality, we have to be consistent in our morals. Why do you think we’ve stood by biblical morality for so long?”

Responding to a question on whether this practice discriminates against couples who cannot conceive, Bishop Jose M. Ilya said, “Perhaps, but along with my colleague Archbishop Oscar Cruz’s allowance, I see this as the dawn of a more equal Catholic church. Instead of just discriminating against the gays, the Catholic church will also be discriminating against the straights, hence equality.”

He continues, “Besides, infertile couples who are already married will be grandfathered in. Well, obviously they still can’t be grandparents but, well, you get what I mean. I mean, they’re already married right? It’s not like we can do anything about an existing marriage that is based on love and not on making life. I mean, we don’t even allow divorce.”

The flustered Bishop Jose M. Ilya quickly concluded the press conference by leading a beautiful prayer espousing couples not to marry out of love and commitment to each other but for their mutual baby making.

While this is a satire piece, the actual doctrines of the Catholic church regarding conception and consummation in marriage is actually more absurd. Damnit Catholic church, stop standing up my satire pieces.

With the Papal elections winding down in the Vatican, most pinoys are beginning to focus their attention on our very own parade of horribles: The May 2013 Elections.

The people will be voting for candidates who most closely adhere to their wants and needs, and they’ll be very interested in what the various candidates’ opinion on hot topics such as same-sex marriage.

It goes without saying that as a religiously conservative country, the Philippines has not been supportive of gay marriage, with an overwhelming amount of senatoriables voicing their opposition to the measure.

The question is, does their opposition to gay marriage hold any water? For the benefit of the people still undecided on this matter – and since I’m a mean-spirited blackheart with nothing better to do – I’ll be presenting some of the crazier reasons these people are against gay marriage…and why they’re bullshit.

“It’s against natural law. Ang lalaki, ang mapapangasawa niya ay babae, at sila’y mag-aanak at dadami ang sangkatauhan. ‘Yan ang naturang batas at hindi kailanman nagkaroon sa natural law na pwede ‘yung parehong babae, parehong lalaki… Walang pamilya! Hindi naman ‘yan magkakaanak.” – Lito David

Malayo ‘yan. Tayo’y ginawa ng Diyos na [ang] pag-aasawa [ay] para magkaroon ka ng anak, procreation, para magkaroon ka ng happiness. Kung para sa happiness lang, ‘wag na kayong magpakasal. Kung dalawa kayong lalaki, dalawa kayong babae, gusto n’yong magsama, puwede naman. So bakit kailangang magpakasal pa? – Dick Gordon

Marriage is for propagating family, but it is high time for registered partnerships. – Ricardo Penson

First off, there is nothing in our laws that makes having children a legal requirement for couples to marry. If this were the case, then marriage should be illegal for the sterile and the elderly. Strangely enough, lesbian couples can still skirt this requisite through the magic of science.

This argument was also used during the deliberations to repeal California’s Proposition 8. Prop 8 has since been repealed, with several states in the US beginning to legalize gay marriage, which goes to show you just how effective the argument was.

Furthermore, if David and Gordon are going to argue against gay marriage on the grounds that “It’s not natural,” they’re going to have to explain swans, seagulls, bonobos, dolphins, vultures, pigeons, ducks, sheep, and hyenas. All of the above have exhibited homosexual behavior in the wild.

Taking the naturalistic fallacy further, we shouldn’t be using “unnatural” things, such as modern medicine, cars, smartphones (of which David has taken to backfisting), and computers.

I’d include clothes, but do we really want to regularly see Mr. David’s junk, or Dick’s…well, you get the idea.

“I don’t think that’s a marriage. They can just live together if they want. No need to flaunt it.” – Jun Magsaysay

I think that is a joke of a proposal. I don’t know where that idea came from, but marriage is between a man and a woman so maybe the laws can be liberalized in such a way that the property relations of people of the same sex who decided to live together can be governed by law but let us not call that marriage. Madali naman yan sa partnership, we can let the government code govern that or the laws on partnership, not the family code. – Koko Pimentel

It’s more than just being able to live together and “flaunting it”. Marriage ensures that the partners involved receive the same legal protections as straight couples, such as the on the matter of hospital visitation rights. There’s also the myriad of laws under the family code that protect the right to property of both people entering a marriage, in the event of the death of the spouse.

This isn’t about granting “special” rights to the LGBT community, as Pimentel implies. This is about granting them EQUAL rights, under the same family code that protect all straight marriages in the Philippines. And on a more sentimental note, it is about two men or women who have entered a long-term relationship, being able to proudly say “We’re married!” instead a word salad like “We’re under a recognized civil union!”

Pimentel should brush up on history, so that he’ll understand why his plea for things to be “Separate but equal,” should be ignored, if not outright ridiculed. Just like his stance on reproductive rights.

“Ang paniniwala ko pa rin between man and woman yung marriage.” – Nancy Binay

Sa akin, parang ‘di maganda dahil man and woman ang marriage. – Samson Alcantara

I don’t have anything against gay people… they were probably born that way but this should not be sanctified by marriage. Some of my friends are gay but marriage to me is a sacred institution. – Bal Falcone

We are still a Catholic nation. If we look at the Bible, the marriage of two persons is always man and woman. It’s always been Adam and Eve. Wala namang Adan at Adan. Wala ring Eba at Eba – JV Ejercito Estrada

Marriage is not the exclusive property of the Catholic Church. Furthermore, it’s not as if legalizing same-sex marriage will require RCC churches to marry gay couples; The couples can always get married in churches that support gay marriage.

And really, the “some of my friends are X” defense is a crapshoot argument. Would it be any more sensible if Mr. Falcone said “Some of my friends are black, but I think segregation is a sacred institution”? Is it any surprise that most of the arguments against gays sound similar to the tired rhetoric of the proponents of the Jim Crow laws?

Furthermore, Mr. Estrada, the Philippines is not a “Catholic Nation.” While it is true that most of the people here are Catholic, that doesn’t give them the right to impose their religion on all other non-Catholics; Even constitutionalist Fr. Bernas considered this a very bad idea.

And assuming we limit our definition of marriage to consenting adults, the one-man, one-woman definition can also be disputed. Polygamy is also a widely accepted form of marriage among numerous cultures, such as Islam.

Lastly, it’s a PERSONAL belief – nobody is forcing you to have a gay marriage. However, it also follows that you don’t have a right to impose your personal belief of what marriage is on gays. It’s not your job to force your “paniniwala” on the people – it’s your job to defend their basic rights. And if you don’t understand that, you don’t have any business running for senate.

Totally against that. Equal rights are guaranteed by the United Nations Charter on Human Rights. There is really no need to expand the concept of human rights. I respect the human rights of gays and lesbians, but when you allow same sex marriage, there is no purpose whatsoever as to the objective of that. – JC Delos Reyes

JC failed to mention that as of 2011, the United Nations passed a resolution opposing discrimination or violence against the gay community.

That discrimination doesn’t necessarily have to come in the form of laws that directly oppress the LGBT community. It can be as simple as denying them the right to marry the person they love, and wish to spend the rest of their life with. A right straight people like me can enjoy, and most often take for granted. JC has no business claiming to agree with the UN if he can’t even acknowledge that gays deserve to be protected by the same range of laws that protect everybody else in RP.

On a related note, he certainly has no right to be claiming to be in support for the UN charter on human rights, given his attempts to block every woman’s right to RH medicine and education, which are supported by the UN.

JC also claimed to be anti-imperialist, and against the influence of internationa groups, so what’s he doing agreeing with the UN in the first place? Fucking hypocrite.

“I am for the protection and respect ng political rights ng lahat, regardless of gender. Pero pagdating sa marriage of same sex, sabi ng Good Book, huwag gayahin ‘yung nangyari sa Sodom and Gomorrah dahil darating ang paggunaw sa isang bansa pag ‘yun ay ginawa.” – Eddie Villanueva

We saved the best for last.

The gist of Bro. Eddie’s argument is that he’s for equal rights, unless it goes against the teachings of his good book. The problem is that even a cursory reading of the bible shows that it’s anything but a “good” book. From its endorsement of genocide and slavery to unleashing bears on kids who make fun of baldies, the bible’s text goes anywhere from morally questionable, to the sort of religiously-motivated actions that would make even Kratos take pause and say “Whoa there! Isn’t that getting a bit excessive? ”

As a parting note, I advise all voters reading this to go through their favorite candidate’s stances on various social concerns before voting. It’s your responsibility, and privilege.

Hey people! It’s election season! I’m not talking about the local elections though. It’s also the campaign season in the Vatican, thanks to the recent vacancy of the Iron papal throne.

The Philippines is of course abuzz with talk of our very own Cardinal Tagle being one of the favourites to ascend to the throne of infallibility, but what Philippine political campaign is complete without an election jingle? Youtube user ‘latigorapper’ has taken it upon himself to create a jingle for Cardinal Tagle… and oh my.

It. Is. So. Fabulous.

If you listened to the jingle, I am so so sorry. If you spared yourself, the jingle is set to The Village People’s YMCA. Which some of you may know as a popular gay anthem. So, you know…fabulous!

If Cardinal Tagle becomes the next pope, can we credit the LGBT community for the win?

Seriously though, Filipinos should reconsider being so supportive of Cardinal Tagle becoming pope if they want to see change in the Catholic church. The church is not a democracy (no shit Sherlock) and the leadership has made it very clear that they’re not looking to change the moral stances of the church.

Instead, ask yourself if you can stay in a church that is clearly morally backwards while it claims to be your moral guardian. Can you stand to stay in a church that is fighting to keep allowing use of religion as an excuse for governments to not stop violence against women? Can your moral needs be fulfilled by a church that would choose to shield sexual abusers from legal prosecution while it throws the book at people who offend their religious feelings? If your own moral compass cannot agree with the morals handed down by the papacy, is there any reason to stay with the church?

Oh, and because I hate my readers, here are the lyrics to the jingle:

Cardinal Tagle, Our Next Pope
By: Latigo
Lyrics By: Latigo
Original Song: YMCA by the Village People.

I

Tagle, i know he is the one
i say Tagle, he is a soldier of god
i say Tagle, he won’t do any bad
and he’ll lead us to do good things

Tagle, a man of love and care
i say Tagle, he is just and fair
i say Tagle, i know he will be there
for the churches of all nations

CHORUS:

our next pope should be Cardinal Tagle
our next pope should be Cardinal Tagle eh

he will do what he can, as a shepherd of men
to bring peace to our land

our next pope should be Cardinal Tagle
our next pope should be Cardinal Tagle eh

he will listen to us, he’s a man we can trust,
he will pray for all of us

II

Tagle, he’s a healthy young man
i say Tagle, he’s a righteous man
i say Tagle, he’s a moral man
and he’ll spread the gospel in our world

Tagle, looks out for everyone
i say Tagle, will pick us up when we’re down
i say Tagle, and the lost will be found
and he’ll guide us all to heaven

CHORUS:

our next pope should be Cardinal Tagle
our next pope should be Cardinal Tagle eh

he will do what he can, as a shepherd of men
to bring peace to our land

our next pope should be Cardinal Tagle
our next pope should be Cardinal Tagle eh

he will listen to us, he’s a man we can trust,
he will pray for all of us

III

Tagle, an inspiration for all
i say Tagle, will heed jesus’s call
i say Tagle, cause he will stand tall
he’ll defend his flock from evil

Tagle, a good samaritan
i say Tagle, he helps fellow men
i say Tagle, will talk to god everyday
so he can show us all the right way

CHORUS:

our next pope should be Cardinal Tagle
our next pope should be Cardinal Tagle eh

he will do what he can, as a shepherd of men
to bring peace to our land

our next pope should be Cardinal Tagle
our next pope should be Cardinal Tagle eh

he will listen to us, he’s a man we can trust,
he will pray for all of us

I am so so sorry.

_{P.S.: The jingle is seriously not ours and is not satire.
P.P.S: Seriously, seriously, I know FF is known for doing satire but this is not a satire post.}

MANILA, Philippines—It was recently discovered that the Philippines is the world’s most emotional country. This has sparked many violent reactions from the Filipino community, most notably from those who drown themselves daily in celebrity drama on television. The following are some tweets that were collected a few hours after the findings were released to the public:

The process behind the research was reportedly very complex, involving nanobots being installed into subjects’ eyes through their pupils. These small robots measured the tear level of the subject and compiled their measurements into tiny nanoreports. These were then transmitted wirelessly using their itty bitty nanocomputers. The original procedure, which involved installing WiFi adapters directly into subjects’ brains, was scrapped in favor of this one. The stated reason was that too many subjects were exhibiting death upon installation of the new hardware, prompting the researchers to speculate that the human brain was not as compatible with computer hardware as previously thought.

The nanobots were also able to determine the exact reasons for sudden surges in emotion. The following pie chart illustrates how strongly the five most common reasons affect people:

The whole Philippine government was reportedly so enraged that it decided to have a BF (Bureau of Feels). “We will oversee all the emotions in this country and ensure that they always fall within accepted bounds,” says BF Spokesperson Lino Luha. Their proposed method of measuring public feelings is mandatory annual heart-weighing for all Filipino citizens.

According to Luha, the budget for the Bureau of Feels will be allotted as soon as the commissioner and the financial officer find it in themselves to put the past behind them and start talking to each other again. When asked exactly what past he was talking about, Luha declined to answer and instead ran out of the room, sobbing uncontrollably with his palms to his face.

No, the world is not going to end this week. That belief is too unfounded to be even worth a rebuttal.

Now that we have that out of the way, let us talk about more productive things, like how to really end the world. But before we can start with our crash course on world ending, let us first look at what people usually mean when they say the end is nigh. Based on a survey done by a reputable organization composed solely of the author of this article, when people say “the world is ending” they usually mean one the following things:

1. they lost their iPhone;
2. human civilization will collapse or people will be wiped out from the face of the Earth;
3. all or a significant portion of life on Earth will end;
4. the universe will end.

Since no one really cares if some hipster lost his iPhone, I hope everyone agrees that we can skip the first item. Let us now take a look at how we can successfully bring about the other three world-ending scenarios.

[Image credit: memegenerator.net]

Bye Bye Humans

Here’s how you end human civilization: you do nothing. Or, to be more precise, you just allow humans to keep on doing what they are doing right now. I’m not kidding; just let them carry on with their lives. They’re already civilization-destroying forces just as they are.

How does this work? Here’s how it goes. If humans live as they live right now, then the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere will just keep on going up. This will have the effect of further messing up the Earth’s climate. If humans do not change, the climate will.

[Image credit: wwf.be]

But how can climate change end human civilization? When it gets hot in here, can’t people just follow Nelly’s advice and take off all their clothes? Excellent as Nelly’s advice is (and I surely recommend it to some of more well-endowed human specimens), it simply wouldn’t do because the Earth’s systems are just so damned complicated. Even a mere 1-degree increase in global average temperature can ruin the whole delicate balance of the Earth’s life-supporting systems.

“I’ve got the solution to global warming y’all!” [Image credit: sandgent.co.uk]

Let me mention just a few of the many possible nightmare scenarios that can be brought about by climate change.

First, sea level will rise significantly, causing many major cities to get flooded. If fishes want Manila City, they could inherit it someday, although I already here them saying “Thanks, but no thanks.” Students of UST know for a fact that nature has already been doing not-so-dry runs of this thing, and for those who wish to see the end of human civilization it’s all looking good.

Second, many ecosystems will be messed up and might even crash. Scientists who study the details of this nightmare scenario usually get a lot less sleep at night. But just to give you an idea, when an important ecosystem crashes, farms will fail, the sea  will give up providing fishes (and I’m not even talking about overfishing yet), and the creatures that provide humans with much needed oxygen might simply call it quits.

If those scenarios have not impressed you yet, then this one might. Some scientists think that climate change might cause the ocean’s thermohaline circulation to stop. The thermohaline circulation acts as the ocean’s conveyor belt, distributing oxygen, carbon dioxide and nutrients throughout the ocean’s many levels. If this circulation stops, then much of the ocean will be reduced to a big puddle of stagnant water. When this happens, many ecosystems in the ocean will get messed up, and we’re back to the scenario discussed in the previous paragraph.

Well, that’s just climate change. There are other things that can cause the crash of human civilization without any help from a malevolent Loki figure, like the world’s oil reserves running dry, or overpopulation causing a population crash just like what happened to the reindeer of St. Matthew Island.

If you want to be more proactive in bringing about the demise of human civilization, then you might want to introduce a microbial pathogen that is downright nasty, spreads fast, and is quick to mutate and develop resistance to drugs, quite like the virus that caused SARS. Since international flights are so common nowadays, this pathogen will find it easy to go global. And while you’re at it, why not make it a virus that attacks the human immune system? In other words, why not make a nastier version of the HIV? Also, if you feel a little creative and sadistic, try to go for a zombie apocalypse virus. Although making it spread globally could be a bit tricky considering how strict airport authorities are when it comes to passengers who bite their airplane seatmates.

“I’m sorry ma’am, but the seat belt sign is turned on. I’m afraid I’ll have to ask you to sit down.”

Hurtling Hunks of Rock

But if you really want to end a world, why just go for just one species out of the hundreds of thousands, possibly millions that call the Earth their home? When humans go extinct, will bad ass tardigrades give a damn? No.

Tardigrade: “Human civilization has collapsed? Do I look like I care?” [Image credit: sciencephoto.com]

Species come and go all the time; extinction is a part of life on Earth and it is the ultimate fate of all species that exist. Dodos and dinosaurs are not losers for going extinct, they just got there before humans did. (Although at the rate humans are going, they won’t be far behind.) Scientists estimate that around 99.9% of all species that have ever existed have now gone extinct. In fact, every few million years several species go extinct.

However, for us who want to see the world end, several extinctions every few million years are not enough. What we want is a mass extinction event, a massive blowout where up to 90% of all species on Earth bid goodbye to existence within a very short span of time. (And by “very short” we mean around a few million years.) Feel free to choose any of the following means to bring about your desired mass extinction event:

• Send a big hunk of rock (an asteroid, a comet or a big meteor) hurtling towards the Earth. If this hunk of rock is big and fast enough, its collision with the Earth can release the energy contained in millions of tons of TNT. How much energy is that? Well, just enough to boil much of the ocean. It will also be enough send tons of dust into the air, covering the Sun for years on end and causing the Earth’s climate to change – and we’re back to climate change, yay!
• Your big hunk of rock does not really need to hit the Earth to cause a lot of damage. If it’s big enough, even a close encounter with the Earth can cause a drastic change in the Earth’s orbital tilt, rate of rotation or distance from the Sun. If any of the mentioned things happen, creatures everywhere will suddenly find themselves in places too hot, too cold, too humid or too dry for them. Once this happens, many of the more choosy creatures – which is, well, most of them – will say goodbye to existence, and a cascade of extinctions will ensue.
• Turn up the Sun. Or, alternately, turn in down. Just do it quickly. The Sun has been having mood swings for billions for years now. However, it’s been doing it slowly enough that a lot of the Earth’s creatures were able to adapt to many of them. A sudden overabundance of sunlight, or a sudden lack of it, will surely change the climate drastically. Yes, you’ll never go wrong with climate change, fellow world-ender.
• Let the Sun go red giant. It will do this a few billion years from now, anyway, so why prolong the suffering of all earthlings? Go ahead and let their star become a big red ball that will boil all their oceans and possibly even consume their planet.

[Image credit: astronomynotes.com]

•  Help the humans do their work of causing the sixth mass extinction. Scientists have discovered five mass extinction events in the 4.5-billion year history of the Earth. The most popular of the five is the one that led to the demise of all non-avian dinosaurs. Nearly all scientists agree that it was caused by an asteroid impact around 65 million years ago. (If you want to sound smart, call this the K-Pg mass extinction event. K-Pg stands for Cretaceous-Paleogene. It was between these two periods that the extinction event happened. It used to be called the K-T event, for Cretaceous-Tertiary.) The greatest of the five, however, was the Permian extinction event, also known as the Great Dying (dun dun dun!). The Great Dying (dun dun dun!) involved, well, a great amount of dying. 90% of all the species on Earth alive at the time, to be more precise. Many scientists think that a sixth extinction event is on the way, and it is caused by the joy humans derive from cutting down trees and polluting the seas. Hence, if you want to see the end of the world as we know it, you might give these Homo sapiens a little help in their endeavor.

[Photo credit: i.chzbgr.com]

• Life on Earth is resilient. The cosmos has been sending all sorts of nasty stuff to Earth for billions of years, and yet life goes on. If you really want to obliterate life on Earth, you might want to send a rogue black hole to the Solar System. The black hole will gulp up the Sun and all its planets and that’s the end of it goodbye thank y’all.
• If you want to be a bit more dramatic, you can make a supernova explode a few light-years from the Sun. Even though it’s billions of kilometers away from Earth, it will still incinerate all the planets of the Solar System, ending life in this sector of the galaxy for good.

Crunching and Heat

Yes, yes, I know, with billions upon billions of planets in the universe some of you might find it lame to end life in just one planet. You want to end all life in the galaxy, even in the universe, right? Well, unfortunately for us, the universe is such damned big place. How big, you ask? Well, damned big. If you want numbers, the observable universe is about 46 billion light years or 4,300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 meters across. Good luck with trying  to comprehend that.

One way of ending something this huge is by adding enormous amounts of matter to it. You can even add dark matter, if you’re into that sort of thing. If you add enough matter, this will cause the universe to become closed. In a closed universe that lacks dark energy, there will be enough matter to stop the current expansion. This will lead to a universal contraction and an eventual Big Crunch, which is just a delicious name for the opposite of the eve more deliciously-named Big Bang.

The Big Crunch

Unfortunately for those who like to crunch, the universe has a lot of this thing they call dark energy. Scientists know very little about dark energy, but whatever it is, it seems to exert a repulsive force that accelerates the expansion of the universe. If this is indeed the case, the only way for the universe to “end” is by undergoing a heat death. The heat death of the universe will happen when all the energy in the universe will be converted to useless energy, that is, energy that cannot be used to do work. This is given by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which says that as time goes by, the energy in the universe gets more evenly distributed. Evenly distributed energy is heat, which is energy that cannot be exploited to do anything useful. Since life requires energy that can be used to do work, the head dead universe will not be able to support life of any kind.

Now to the important question, how can you bring about the heat death of the universe? Answer: you do nothing; let the Second Law of Thermodynamics do its work. Give it time. Be patient.

Take Home

So there you go, a teaser course on how to end the world. By now I think you would’ve noticed that it’s not really that difficult helping the world reach its demise. With lots of humans caring greatly about trivial things and little about things that matter, the world needs little help to meet its destruction. As a matter of fact, tremendous effort is expected not from those who want to end the world, but from those who want to pass it on the next generation. Even more effort is required from those who want to see a better tomorrow for their descendants. So it’s time to stop reading this article and start help building a better world for all of us. After all, the world is not ending anytime soon.

On the second reading of the RH bill in congress, many incredible things were said on the floor of the Batasan in a vain attempt to stop the RH bill. Can you spot which ones were actually said by Congress Representatives and which are just attempts to live up to their crazy?

1. “Napakaswerte ko dahil nung kinasal ang magulang ko, walang RH law”
2. “Only God has the right to stop life. A big no to RH bill.”
3. “The RH bill does not care much about family/marriage but concerned with giving couples safe,satisfying sex life”
4. “We stand for the yearning that somehow, some higher power binds us to follow the light to goodness, righteousness”
5. “Without our population, we would not have large remittances. I believe RH bill is not good for our country, our population.”
6. “Sagot ba ang condom sa taong walang makain ngayon?”
7. “Our big population makes it so that the Filipino people can give more glory to God. Therefore, no to the RH bill.”
8. “RH bill directly violates fundamental law of the land, religious freedom; directly assaults Catholic Church”
9. “Nanaginip po ako kagabi na nagpakita sa akin ang Mahal na Birhen na may dalang isang aborted na fetus. Paano po kung kayo yung fetus na ‘yon? Hindi po pwedeng magka-RH Bill!”
10. “We don’t play dice with God.”
11. “There’s something wrong when bill disrespects religious beliefs, reduces to plain argument denial of right to life”
12. “Who stands to benefit most if this bill is passed? Hindi ko pwede isuko ang aking pagka-Katoliko”
13. “With the RH Bill, my wife would be so lonely at home without children to take care of.”
14. “Myth of overpopulation has been debunked.”
15. “They said that the RH bill is for the women, but that’s not true. The RH bill is for those men who can’t control their urges. It is always the men who want sex, never the women. If husbands will just abstain from sex when they don’t want their wives to get pregnant, there will be no unwanted children. I vote no to the RH bill.”

Highlight below for the answers

Real:
1) Rep Unico, 3) Rep. Garcia, 4) Rep. Gullas, 5) Rep. Antonino, 6) Rep. Tiangco, 8) Rep. Rufus Rodriguez, 10) Rep. Javier, 11) Rep. Del Mar, 12) Rep. Mikey Arroyo, 14) Rep. Karlo Nograles

Fake:
2, 7, 9, 13, 15

Source: ANC report, “#RHBill: How They Voted”

Hi guys. Could I talk to you all for a minute?

So there’s this guy named Pedro. I don’t know him personally. I mean, I know him, I definitely know him, but I never met him in real life because he’s technically from Guam, plus he lived in the 1600s, so there’s that. But I know the guy, and everyone says he’s awesome, and I think he’s awesome, too.

He’s actually so awesome that he brought this woman from Leyte back to life, and he—Pedro—was already dead! No, I’m serious! What I mean to say is that this whole miracle thing happened in 2002—way, way, WAY after Pedro’s time. Seriously, 2002! And he was from the 1600s! So how did he do it? Well, this woman, she died, right? I mean, she was clinically dead, two hours after a heart attack. And then her doctor prayed to Pedro and then BAM! She’s ALIVE again! I mean, honestly, how else could she have gotten that chance, right? OF COURSE you get to live again when your doctor prays to someone who died centuries ago! Duh! What else could it have been? Go Pedro!

So the Vatican, they’re going to name Pedro a saint because they said he performed a miracle from the grave, miles and miles and centuries away, okay? Okay, so the thing is, this Pedro, who lived most of his life in Guam, was born in the Philippines, so OBVIOUSLY that means he’s a real Filipino and we should all be super proud of him and use him as an example of why we’re the BEST COUNTRY EVER. Sounds good, right? But here’s the thing: we kind of need 60 million pesos from you guys.

Seriously, we need 60 million. We’re going to be celebrating Pedro, and we’re going to need a little extra cash for the tarps, and maybe an AVP. Balloons, if we can find a decent supplier. I mean, this is going to be HUGE, guys. Like, it’s going to be the EVENT OF THE YEAR. TIME is going to STOP on Canonization Day. I mean, people from all over the country are just going to drop what they’re doing—their jobs, their families, their hopes, their dreams—and come over to Manila and par-tay, you know? I mean, I don’t even need to tell you to mark your calendars, because God has already marked them for you. And an event like that calls for a little glitz, don’t you think?

So, yeah. Could you spare some change, friends? I mean, we’re not asking for much. I know most of you can barely afford to feed yourselves, let alone your 10 children, but this is a once-in-a-lifetime event, you know? And ultimately, it’s all for God. For God, guys. Wouldn’t you want to do something nice for God, for once? I mean, He’ll like you a whole lot more if you help us out. Like, bless your life and save you from hell and stuff.

And about the 18 billion pesos we already have, well, we can’t really spend it for this. Well, we can, but do you seriously think we should, given this godawful recession? Come on, guys. It is tempting to dip into the funds just a little, but you know what they say about temptation. We’re just trying to be frugal here. Live a simple life. Earn a billion here, maybe a hundred million there, then stow it all away for a rainy day. It’s the thing to do. You know how it is. You all understand.

So, do we have a deal? Yes? Okay? We’d definitely prefer cash over checks, by the way. (The Pope’s not too hot on paper trails these days.) Just leave the envelopes with the guard at the CBCP gate

We really look forward to all your help, guys. This means more than you’ll ever know. You have no idea how happy this will make us. And seriously, rest assured that there will be a very, very good return on investment. You’ll definitely get what you deserve. This is a solid deal, guys. Real solid. Serious stuff. Totes legit. It’s going to be the smartest thing you’ve ever done. Seriously. I swear it. I swear to God.

–

Image from http://www.travel-images.com/pht/phil37.jpg

When Christopher Hitchens died in December of last year, the atheist community echoed to the point of cliché that the world had lost a voice of reason. But, there was really no other way to put the loss of Hitchens. Hitchens was a prolific writer, with over a dozen published books, along with regular columns published on Vanity Fair, Slate, and The Atlantic. Even the toll of metastatic cancer could only do so much to diminish his output.

Hitchens died after over a year of battling esophageal cancer. Or rather, as he puts it, cancer fighting him. He wrote missives from the land he called Tumortown with the wit and vigor, however slowed by chemotherapy, that was unique to him. These dispatches were published in Vanity Fair, which comprise the bulk of Hitchens’ posthumously published book, Mortality.

Mortality begins with a foreword from Hitchens’ longtime editor at Vanity Fair, Graydon Carter. Carter gives us a glimpse of Hitchens’ writing method as he recounts one typically indulgent drinking session, after which Hitchens banged out a 1000 word column “of near perfection” in about 30 minutes. He talks about the story behind the iconic photo of Hitchens riding a bike, feet in the air—apparently breaking one of the odd laws of New York. Carter remembers Hitchens as the consummate writer, taking on assignments however frightening (such as a date with the waxing parlor), while declaring with nervous enthusiasm, “In for a penny…”

The “living dyingly” by an atheist, of which Hitchens wrote in his final days, served as a real depiction and acceptance of mortality. After all, dying is no more real to anyone but atheists who believe that this life is all that there is and all that there will be. Hitchens, however, warned of the “permanent temptation” of self-centeredness and solipsism that stems from cancer victimhood and a looming end of life. As a matter of “etiquette,” Hitchens imposed on himself not to inflict on others the torment of indulgence expected from people dealing with the dying. He pointed out in particular the well-loved Randy Pausch, of The Last Lecture and Oprah fame. He remarked, “It ought to be an offense to be excruciating and unfunny in circumstances where your audience is almost morally obliged to enthuse.” Unflinching takedowns such as this remind us of the cheeky audacity that the world lost when Hitchens died.

Despite his near-stoic bravery as he journeyed through the land of malady, Hitchens admits that he would sometimes falter and throw the banal challenge to the universe of “why me?”, of course, Hitchens’ clear rationality sternly admonishes him with the obvious “why not?” Mortality shows how Hitchens maintained his humor despite the understandable irritation of the courtesies when interacting with people from “the country of the well.” When asked, “How are you?,” he would give different playful responses, from “A bit early to say” to “I seem to have cancer today.”

Most heartbreaking is how Hitchens relayed the eventual loss of his legendary voice, “If I had been robbed of my voice earlier, I doubt that I could have ever achieved so much on the page.” He related the vocal cord, which is not at all a cord in its strict sense, to the musical chord and how there must lie a deep relationship between the etymology and how the human voice evokes emotion. Speaking was at the core of Hitchens’ identity and he saw its loss as “assuredly to die more than a little.”

Hauntingly, Hitchens recalled the time when he was waterboarded in order to write about the experience, which he describes as being slowly drowned. It’s quite revealing for a dying man to have an action the United States government denied was torture in his last recollections. Having pneumonia as one of the many perils of his disease, Hitchens would have fits of panic with the feeling of water filling his lungs, summoning back his experience with torture.

Among the most memorable passages of Mortality was one of the first Hitchens published after being diagnosed. He spoke of his plans that were interrupted by cancer. Valiantly, he expressed his desire of outlasting the “elderly villains,” Kissinger and Ratzinger. But, Hitchens’ disappointment was clearest and most moving when he disbelievingly lamented, “Will I really not live to see my children married?”

The closing chapter of Mortality allows us a quick look at Hitchens’ thought processes before they were laid out in crisp British prose. We see little notes that echo some of the previous chapters, which were the fleshed out beats from what Hitchens had jotted down.

As a prominent atheist, many believers pined, even threatened, for his conversion. This theme recurred in his final public appearances, when he assured people that should he ever convert, “I hereby state that while I am still lucid that the entity thus humiliating itself would not in fact be ‘me.’” In the closing notes of Mortality, Hitchens elaborates in one fragmentary passage, “If ever I convert it’s because it’s better that a believer dies than an atheist does.” I would have loved to have seen that line bloom into a full polemic.

At just around 100 pages of previously-published material, Mortality leaves readers wanting. And, perhaps, that is just the hazard for people who have lived lives such as Hitchens. However, having all the material in one place provides a solemn context to Hitchens as he allowed the public to watch an atheist die and, as he saw it, cease to exist. Mortality encapsulates the resolute bravery of Hitchens in the face of death, refusing the comforting delusions of religion, as well as secular, but no less self-indulgent, sentimentality.

Hitchens’ widow, Carol Blue, closes the book with her own stories about her husband. She recalls how Hitchens scribbled notes in his books and how, even after Hitchens died, she would revisit them. And then Christopher Hitchens would always have the last word.

_{Mortality by Christopher Hitchens is published by Twelve.}

_{Image Credit: Vanity Fair}

Photo by Stephen Ainsley

It all started when I pulled one loose thread from the fabric of the belief that had been woven around me when I was growing up. This fabric had protected me, warmed me and gave me comfort when I was yet a child and had not yet formed my own convictions.

I guess I was around 14 or 15 at that time when I noticed a few loose ends. It was at a national inter-church summer camp in Baguio City. I tugged a bit at those ends. I had a long discussion with my best friend. We threw around questions like “Why would an all-knowing God create Lucifer in the first place when he knew he would rebel against him? How come God put the forbidden fruit in the garden when he already knew that man would fail the test and take a bite from it? What if you were born in a remote place and you never heard about Jesus? Would it be fair for God to throw you in hell because of that?”

We went back and forth with these questions, trying to find answers from the Bible, from our own experience, and from what we had heard from other church leaders. We discussed these issues until way past midnight and even brought them up to a pastor the next day.

Looking back, my goal at that time was not so much to seek the truth no matter what, but to find a position of defensible comfort within my belief system. And so when the pastor replied with — “You know, I look at it this way. We are like people standing behind an expert painter creating a masterpiece. While he is still working on the painting, we don’t understand it. We see that some parts are dark and some strokes look ugly. But when the master is done and the final work is revealed, we will marvel at how wonderful it is” — I accepted that reply even if it really didn’t answer the question. I was contented enough with it and accepted that my puny mind could never comprehend the infinite wisdom of God. I ignored those loose ends and left them there, assured that all will be revealed and make sense when I died and went to heaven.

Fast forward to a just a few years ago. I was in my mid-thirties, had gone through  tremendous swings in my spiritual journey, had married and had 3 kids, had experienced dealing with many different kinds of people, had a richer and wider view of reality than I had when I was a pimply teenager. I saw those loose threads. They were still there. They didn’t go away no matter how I tried to ignore them.

So I started to pull again. I started asking questions in an earlier blog I made. So now I had a wider audience — not just Christians and pastors but really different people with different beliefs. And I found out two things — one is that there were many people like me, on their own journey of unraveling the threads of their beliefs, and the other is that the Christian answers to the questions were more or less the same ones I had received as a teen — and they no longer satisfied me. To paraphrase from the Apostle Paul — the answers were milk when what I needed was meat. It was like feeding baby food to an adult.

Because I wasn’t satisfied, I continued pulling and it became a bit scarier because the fabric was beginning to tear and my skin was showing beneath it. I worried about how others would see me. I wondered about those who read my blog and what they thought about me: “Oh he’s backsliding” or “he’s being deceived by the devil” or “he should really stop this or God will stop blessing him.”

I think I stopped pulling for a while when I began to get numerous reactions, even calls from close relatives and friends who were “concerned” and “praying for me.” I didn’t want to rock the boat that much yet.

But in the end, my desire for truth outweighed everything else. Jesus rightly said, “the truth will set you free,” and I wanted so badly to be free. And so I decided to pursue the truth — even if that truth said that the Jesus I believed in was a lie. I started pulling harder at the strings and fabric unraveled faster. I might have lost a few relationships because of this but those that have remained no matter what, I cherish as true friends.

Now, only a few tatters remain from the tapestry of faith that once covered me, but I have never felt happier, have never felt more joy and at peace with myself. I no longer wonder whether what I do is God’s will for me or not. I am no longer tormented by guilt that I have not prayed enough or have not nurtured my relationship with God enough. The responsibility for my life is mine alone. I accept it and lay blame at no one’s feet when things go wrong. No more asking, “Why God?” No more clutching at false hope and prayer, but simply accepting what comes today and then moving forward to create a better tomorrow.

My only regret, perhaps, is not pulling those strings sooner and having tasted this freedom earlier in my life, because the unraveling of my belief has left me stark naked to all the wonder the universe has to offer.

The truth has finally set me free.

—–

This article also appears in zenbananas.com

Intramuros, Manila — The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) held a review hearing yesterday for the party list “Ang Patay.” The hearing ended with the panel’s rejection of the party’s application for recognition. “Ang Patay was founded to ensure that the dead are represented in the legislative branch of government,” said Ang Patay Spokesperson Randy Cabaong. He says that “with [Ang Patay's] rejection, the government is basically saying that the departed are of no importance to them!”

“The deceased are not only underrepresented in public office,” according to Atty. Leoric Calansay, one of Ang Patay’s candidates. “They are also marginalized by society in general.” When asked for examples of marginalization, he is quoted as saying that “the recent zombie pop culture craze discriminates against the dead by focusing too much on the interactions between the living and the undead.”

A field full of Ang Patay supporters

However, COMELEC Commissioner Dennis Romualdez pointed out some technicalities with their application. “For one, none of the people in Ang Patay, however lifeless they may seem, have actually died. It is unfortunate for them that representatives are required to be a part of the sector they claim to represent,” says Romualdez. He also goes on to say that “the COMELEC does not even recognize dead people as people anymore.”

Some members of the Deny Universal Rights Party (DURP) were also present during the hearing. Kurt Tang, a representative of DURP, said that they were there to monitor the proceedings. “We’re here to make sure that dead people never get rights because they are a horrible sector of society,” says Tang. “They just lie there and do nothing but rot all day, costing our economy billions of pesos a year in wake and burial costs. In our view, they deserve to be disqualified for representation in office.”

Upon overhearing these statements during our interview, one of the members of Ang Patay shouted at Tang that “your mother should have killed you!”

Image from ww2cemeteries.co.uk

The Balagtas University of Local Legislation, along with its sister-school, the Santiago-Hernando Institute of Technology, have announced a new course offering aimed at those with ambitions of serving as political aides to legislators, called Plagiarism 101.

“Contrary to popular opinion, plagiarism is not an absolute evil,” says school dean, Nympha Luz Otana. “We have discussed this matter with top political aides and even they say that copying is a common practice among them. They do it for their bosses’ speeches as well as the bills they pass. Therefore, it is a necessary skill for these aspiring aides. Our aim as an educational provider is to give our students the best training and technological competence possible in the art of copying.”

“For example,” she elaborates, “One of the course modules is entitled Keyboard Shortcuts. 80% of people who use computers copy and paste text by right-clicking on the selected text, choosing ‘Copy’ then moving to the destination, right-clicking and choosing ‘Paste’, but this is very slow and tedious especially if you are copying large amounts of text. The more efficient way would be to use the keyboard shortcut Ctrl-C for copy and Ctrl-V for paste. This simple tip can save countless hours for a legislative researcher who has to scour hundreds of blogs to put together his boss’ privilege speech. Oh, and if you want to copy the full text, you don’t have to use your mouse to select and then drag the selection all the way down. You can just press Ctrl-A. You understand, of course, that I am talking about Windows shortcuts which are more common. We have a separate module that deals with Mac shortcuts for Mac users. And as with the Mac, it comes at a premium price suited for their discerning tastes.”

Although the course primarily deals with skills, it also allocates several hours to philosophy and psychology. “Students need to get rid of the impression that they are doing something wrong and all the mental baggage that comes along with that,” explains Professor Giacobo Bolarte, a veteran teacher in the university. “They have to unlearn all the conditioning that other teachers have impressed upon them — that it is wrong to simply copy other people’s works without proper attribution. You know, politics is a whole different arena with a different set of rules. We cannot expect our lawmakers to keep citing their sources or to verify their information. Why do that when you can simply copy from a blog and assume that it is correct? Besides, how can a senator sound credible if he keeps saying ‘according to such and such a blog who cited Dr. so-and-so?’ Don’t you see how ridiculous and long-winded that would be?”

When asked how the other teachers and parents thought of this, Professor Bolarte replied, “Well, there are naturally a number of them that protested. But I think they are hypocrites. There is no new idea in the world. We are all just copying from past ideas and past discoveries. Look at the Bible. We would not have the Bible if the monks did not copy them from older documents. And even we humans are just copied from the image of God. See? There is nothing wrong with copying. Even God did it. So who are we to go against God?”

Image credit: http://blog.sagoma.com/il-download-e-il-mio-pastore-non-manco-di-nulla/i-love-ctrl-c-ctrl-v_t/

I, Dustin Celestino, the number one authority on anti-RH arguments, have been mentioned in a recent article by Sun Star Baguio. In this article, my arguments against the RH Bill have been justly juxtaposed with the arguments of none other than the principal author of the RH Bill, congressman Edcel Lagman.

Here’s paragraph #4:

Dustin Celestino, a critic, said, “[The] RH bill is wrong because it then assumes that the Philippines is overpopulated; it assumes that contraceptives are good for mankind and women; the RH Bill will put Filipinos into extinction; it assumes that reproductive education and contraceptives will effectively reduce cases of abortion; and assumes that parents don’t teach their children about sex.”

Here’s paragraph #5:

But Lagman fortified and added, “Reproductive Health Bill promotes information and access to both natural and modern family planning methods, which are medically safe and legally permissible. It assures an enabling environment where women and couples have the freedom of choice on the mode of family planning they want to adopt based on their needs, personal convictions and religious beliefs. He added “the bill does not have any bias for or against natural or modern family planning. Both modes are contraceptives methods and their purpose is to prevent unwanted pregnancies.”

Let me repeat, in this article, the Pro-RH side is represented by the principal author of the RH Bill, Edcel Lagman. The Anti-RH argument is represented by the number one authority on Anti-RH arguments, me.

It’s truly a clash of the titans because my opinions for why the RH bill is bad (dinosaurs are extinct because they used condoms, therefore people will become extinct if they used condoms) bear as much weight as any scientific study that proves how the RH Bill could be beneficial to our country.

I’m very proud of what I’ve accomplished as the number one authority on anti-RH arguments. I would like to thank my friends and family for their support. I would like to thank all the Catholics who quoted me, especially St. John the Baptist Parish of Taytay, Rizal for making a virtual poster based on my gospel:

But I have a confession to make: I’M NOT ANTI-RH.

I never thought I’d be quoted by Anti-RH people (and media!) to make arguments against the RH Bill, because the article I wrote (“Why the RH Bill is Bad”) was satire. It’s even categorized as humor. I thought this was obvious because:

1. No, you can’t live on the ocean floor.

2. No, dinosaurs didn’t use condoms.

3. No, women can’t have abortions if they’re not pregnant.

4. No, priests don’t have the most knowledge and experience with sex and reproduction… well, that point is debatable.

In any case, there is a reason why people thought that the article was serious. The formal term for the effect is called Poe’s Law.

The core of Poe’s law is that a parody of something extreme by nature becomes impossible to differentiate from sincere extremism. A corollary of Poe’s law is the reverse phenomenon: sincere fundamentalist beliefs being mistaken for a parody of that belief.

People can’t tell if the article I wrote was a parody or not because they’ve probably met people online and elsewhere that have made statements that are just as, if not more, absurd. As Red Tani has mentioned in his article “Satire and Straw Man,” “Some anti-RH arguments are so stupid that satirizing them is almost too easy.”

What’s interesting to me, however, is some people’s insistence on quoting me and pointing to my article as a credible source of Anti-RH arguments. Did they actually think that dinosaurs used condoms? It seems to me that a lot of Catholics read my article in the same way they read their Bible – they only quote and remember stuff they agree with while ignoring every other fallacy found in the same document.