I hate to admit this but my mind is pretty impenetrable. After reading what passes for a “stand” on legalizing same-sex marriage in the Philippines, my opinion on the matter remains the same. I just can’t (and I probably never will) understand why anyone would want to vote against gay people getting married.

I hate hearing people say that same-sex marriages will destroy the sanctity of that union. On the top of my head, here are 5 things that are currently destroying the sanctity of marriage:

1. Domestic violence.
2. Non-consensual non-monogamy (or infidelity with deliberate deceit).
3. Getting married because of economic reasons.
4. Getting married because someone got knocked up.
5. Getting married under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

Nobody’s asking me but I don’t think marriages were ever sacred. Most marriages in the good old days were done to acquire land, to obtain financial security, to improve social status, to gain more political power…  pretty much the same reasons why most people are getting married today. Romantic love is a fairly recent invention but as far as myths go, it’s also a fairly good thing to put your faith in. I get very giddy when I see couples holding hands while walking because even though it doesn’t seem to exist for me, it’s nice to see that it is real for some people. They’re not hurting me, unless I’m particularly hormonal that day and I start wondering why I’m still single.

I’m also perpetually perplexed by people who cry foul for their divine being of choice. Take the people who believe in Judeo-Christian god for example. You’ll occasionally find them protesting on the streets carrying “God hates fags” posters (even though their god allegedly created everything – hell included because, as you might know, Lucifer came from heaven too). I envy them because they have so much time in their hands, as I’m pretty sure it takes a while to organize a protest. It takes time and effort to create banners and posters but I suppose nothing bonds people closer than a common enemy. All that hate must have the kick of a million energy drinks.

Anyway, it perplexes me because if they hate “fags” so much… why not just let them burn in hell? What’s all the fuss trying to save damned souls? Don’t you people want more space in heaven? I’m pretty sure all your efforts have already been recognized by the bearded one upstairs. Do good and be good, that’s all you need to do right? I checked the Bible and from what I can tell, there are only two things that will guarantee safe passage to hell: suicide and doubt. So unless you killed yourself and/or you’re an atheist, all you need to do is to ask for forgiveness and you’re all set to go up.

Marriage isn’t as sacred as you want to think it is and the promise of hell for other people seems desirable if you hate them, which leaves us with… it’s unnatural?

Do you know what I think is unnatural? Wearing clothes. Animals don’t wear clothes. Why don’t we legislate a law against wearing clothes? Especially hideous ones like leopard prints. And glittery shoes. Why do people wear these things? Sometimes together. It’s just unnatural. Let’s ban it.

Oh, what’s that? I’m using my own subjective opinion of what is fashionable? You mean to say that I can continue to disapprove of them without depriving them the pleasure of being dressed horribly? And what’s that? They think my outfits are just as bad? Wait, wait, wait. Do you mean to tell me that we can coexist being poorly dressed and disapproving of each other without having to ban anything?

Alright, alright. I have to be honest. The reason why I’m this close-minded is because I like humans. Not women, not men: humans. Have I kissed a girl and liked it? Indeed I have. She was a very beautiful, very intelligent but also very silly adult female and we never had sex but I loved her for seven years and we didn’t hurt anyone but each other.

I know it’s hard to look at something you find unsightly. I really, really find leopard print and glittery shoes ugly but here’s a trick that addresses the problem: turn away. No one is asking me to approve, no one is asking me to change my opinion about it, but I’m very aware that I don’t have the right to tell them that they should stop wearing that abominable print simply because I find it weird. I don’t think anyone has the right to tell anyone that they are not allowed to love someone simply because they happen to be of the same sex.

On the top of my head, here are 3 pairings that need more negative attention than same-sex couples:

1. “Consensual” pedophilia. I’m pretty close-minded about this too. I don’t think it’s proper to sexualize children.
2. People afflicted with Stockholm Syndrome.
3. Rape victims who are forced to marry their rapists.

There’s just so much suffering in the world. I just don’t see the point of depriving anyone of some modest amount of joy, no matter how temporary it may be or even if I get nothing out of it. I don’t plan on ever getting married so this really doesn’t concern me. I’m pretty sure it doesn’t concern straight people either so I don’t see why they have so much say in it. Pardon my ignorance.

I remember staying up into the wee hours of April 20, 2005, watching CNN, eagerly anticipating the new pope. I was Catholic then and the only pope I had ever known was John Paul II. He had reigned for 26 years, and suddenly, my Church had no earthly leader.

When Benedict stepped out of the curtains that morning and into the balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica, I choked up. I believed I was witnessing God’s hand, active in the world. While John Paul I began the tradition of eschewing the extravagant papal triple tiara, popes were still kings—and we had a new one. Popes are absolute monarchs of the Mussolini-established Vatican state. At the same time, popes are vicars of Christ. That is to say, they take the place of the Son of God on Earth. For Catholics, popes aren’t really elected by the College of Cardinals. Rather, popes are chosen by the Holy Spirit—the third person of the triune God. This gives the pope supernatural powers to rein in a billion-strong flock.

Unlike the popes that came before him for hundreds of years, Benedict quit his post. He quit being Jesus Christ’s human representative. Had I stayed Christian, his leaving would have deeply troubled me. Here was a man who was throwing away a divinely ordained commission because he was, as he says, too sick to go on. Too sick to be supported by God, apparently.

Looking from the outside now, it is patently obvious how utterly human the entire Catholic institution is. And, no, not the humanity that the Church peddles as sharing in human experience. It is human in the mortal and parochial sense. For all its lofty claims, the Catholic Church is really an earthly business run by a small cabal of conservatives. Benedict’s resignation made this clear and it is made entirely transparent by the election of Jorge Bergoglio, a 76 year-old Jesuit of Italian descent from Argentina. Latin America, once a bastion of Catholicism, is now seeing a dwindling Church losing political influence—one a South American pope just might rectify.

It always struck me as strange when Catholics hope for the new pope to reform the Catholic Church. That is like asking God Himself to change his mind. (And, of course, what are petitionary prayers for but to ask God to suspend his divine plan for your insipid request?) If one truly believes that the Holy Spirit guides the pope and, in turn, guides the Church, why would one even think about reforms?

Bears defecate in the woods, and popes are Catholic. It therefore comes as no shock that the new Pope Francis, just like the old pope, is an enemy of equal rights for the LGBT. Apart from allegations of colluding with the Argentinian military junta in the 70’s, including hiding political prisoners from an international delegation (an evil not as easily dismissible as Joseph Ratzinger’s membership in the Hitlerjugend), Bergoglio was also a staunch opponent of the marriage equality initiative in Argentina. Belying supernatural intervention, Argentina is the first Latin American nation to allow same-sex couples to enjoy equal rights with opposite-sex couples. Bergoglio called the initiative a “destructive attack on God’s plan,” which of course includes stopping gay marriage.

Benedict XVI is my last pope. I left the Church under his reign when I saw how much suffering it had caused the world—suffering my Catholicism indefensibly and directly supported. Francis has now replaced Benedict after 7 years of reigning. At Francis’ age, he will probably be replaced just as soon. Cardinals are keenly aware of how young popes tend to stymie ambition with long reigns. Behind the pomp and circumstance of white smoke and secret conclaves, the pope is the leader of an organization that stands enemy to human rights, all the while touting humanitarian causes. Apologists complain that skeptics like to emphasize the flaws of the Church and that we should not expect a perfect organization. But, at some point, when you claim that your club is divine, faults as egregious as those the Church is guilty of simply cannot be excused.

I didn’t wake up early this time to hear the new bishop of Rome address the city and the world. It is no longer a supernatural event to me. But, the Catholic Church is still important, despite my complete rejection of it, as long as it continues to dictate so many things about our lives. I, now an atheist, maintain hope that perhaps this new pope will take that miraculous tiny first step towards joining the world here in the 21^st century. Forgive me this one delusion.

_{Image Credit: National Geographic}

Imagine this hypothetical situation:

The progressive Catholics have split from the Vatican to form their own church. They’ve called it the New Catholic Church.

A handful of progressive bishops have taken the place of the Pope as its leaders, and none of them call themselves infallible. Completing the clergy are progressive priests and theologians, mostly Jesuits, who feel exhilarated by the freedom to openly air their opinions without fear of being censured, excommunicated, or fired.

Unlike the Roman Catholic Church, the New Catholic bishops are in constant dialogue with their priests. Theologians thrive as their expertise is sought sincerely. Best of all, the laity are also given a voice. They’re invited to pastoral committee hearings on relevant social issues such as contraception, women’s rights, LGBT rights, and freedom of conscience. It seems like for the first time in centuries, progress is possible.

Progressive Church

Because most Roman Catholics were progressive, the New Catholic Church now outnumbers the Roman Catholic one significantly. And because the Roman Catholic Church is no longer the predominant religion, few politicians pander to them. The drop in donations has forced them to start using their billions in investment, which they have also been using to settle clerical abuse cases. More families are pressing charges with the New Catholic Church urging and supporting them to speak out.

Meanwhile, the New Catholic Church, being the biggest religion, has a steady flow of donations that has allowed them to build simple churches, unlike the luxurious Roman Catholic ones. Most of their funds are spent on charity instead of partisan political campaigns and causes. And none of it is used to settle abuse cases out of court; they report the rare offender to the police and fully cooperate with the authorities so that justice is ensured.

Having learned from the dangers political meddling, the New Catholic Church focuses on the well-being of its flock, avoiding partisan politics and fully respecting the separation of church and state. This has allowed legislation to proceed more smoothly, with the blackmail and fear mongering of the Roman Catholic Church falling on the ears of few conservative politicians.

New Catholics are thriving in their new religion, where they agree with the moral position of their priests and bishops, never again having to withhold tithes or walk out of sermons. Their personal views no longer conflict with their Church’s teachings, and educating the youth is now a cooperative effort between parents, teachers, and priests, each lesson based on scientific evidence and humanistic ethics.

Now. In this hypothetical future, if you are a progressive Catholic who still belongs to the Roman Catholic Church, would you join the New Catholic Church? Remember that the progressive priests and theologians who have made your religion bearable have already left to join this new one. Most of your progressive friends and relatives have also converted.

Would you remain a Roman Catholic when your views on so many social issues are at odds with the clergy? Would you tithe and pay for sacraments in a conservative church when you could so easily get the same experience in its progressive counterpart? What good reasons are there to remain Roman Catholic?

Hans Kung, one of the most prominent Catholic theologians today, has long urged progressive Catholics to revolt, but to no avail.

Stalemate

I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that most progressive Catholics would convert to this New Catholicism in a heartbeat. I believe that this is the ideal situation every progressive Catholic hopes would happen inside the Roman Catholic Church. The only problem is, this is not going to happen.

The conservatives in the Vatican are in full control, and because they’re a dictatorship, the opinions of the majority don’t matter. The only way progressive Catholics can get their ideal situation is by forming their own institution outside the Roman Catholic Church.

And this is precisely the problem. To make the New Catholic Church possible, they have to leave the Roman Catholic Church. Every person has to leave on their own. And someone has to start it. But who would begin such an exodus?

The youth would probably be the most willing. But their youth might be a turnoff to those who are so used to getting guidance from more mature men.

The older progressives are more authoritative, but they’re probably too settled into their Roman Catholic routine, with careers and families taking up most of their time, that taking on such a big change would be too much to ask. Not to mention they still wouldn’t be authoritative enough for those who look for a sense of the sacred in their leaders.

Progressive priests and theologians would have this holy authority. But compared to the laity, they would be risking their careers, their livelihoods. They would need to rely on their savings because while starting a new religion they wouldn’t have a source of income.

Bishops probably have enough saved up. But the way the Vatican has been screening bishops since Vatican II, finding even one progressive bishop is a challenge in itself, and such a person would be risking the most in terms of the wealth and influence he would have to give up.

That leaves no one.

Conservative Church

I believe that every individual needed for this New Catholic Church is already here. Majority of Roman Catholics who now have more progressive views than their conservative counterparts and clergy. A group of dissenting priests and theologians who have been expressing their progressive ideals more and more publicly. Enough ideological and theological conflict in many core beliefs to make forming a new religion necessary. And enough shortcomings of the Roman Catholic Church to make leaving it, ceasing to further support its bigotry, an ethical necessity.

But progressive Catholics have to start somewhere. Each of them would join this New Catholic Church if it is ever formed. But few, if any, of them would be willing to leave the Roman Catholic Church to start it.

Progressive Catholics will be content to bear their burden together, comforting each other with their shared dissent, hoping for change but knowing in their hearts that it will never come. Meanwhile, the Vatican thrives with power, arrogance, and impunity, never having to worry about the progressive church that will never come.

So the whole Pedro Calungsod canonization thing did its damage and you’d think that it’s all over for now, right? Wrong. The Catholic Church, it would seem, is not content with digging into the pockets of its faithful. It’s now going to continue doing what it’s been doing pretty consistently for the past hundreds of years: breaching secularism.

Apparently, Pedro Calungsod paper bills are slated to go into circulation this year by none other than the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. That’s right folks, they’re gonna be using state money to put their poster boy on, well, state money. State money, which I might remind you, came from citizens Catholic and non-Catholic alike.

All this blatant asking-for-money and spending-money-that-isn’t-even-theirs is really getting on my nerves, but not so much that I lose it and post something as tasteless as this video:

Good riddance, Papa Ratzi.

And as if that wasn’t enough, they exceeded their monthly political meddling quota by putting up a giant poster that tells Catholics who to vote for. Aside from endorsements, the billboard included a blacklist and both had lists of senators and party lists. As for what they used to separate the good from the evil, they looked to the handy dandy ever-black-and-whitening Reproductive Health Law. (And just in case you’ve been living under a rock, the Catholic Church is against this particular piece of legislation.)

Personally, I appreciate their very anarcho-communistic choice of colors.

Although the Bacolod diocese that put up this tarp was ordered by the Comelec to take it down for being oversized, they chose to attempt a technical ploy and simply cut the poster in half. Assuming, however that the original poster really was 6 ft. x 10 ft. as reported, I’m having quite a lot of trouble understanding how the halves would fit into the prescribed 2 ft. x 3 ft. areas*. Oh, right! They don’t because it’s physically impossible.**

Original area = 6 ft. x 10 ft. = 60 sq. ft.

Prescribed area = (2 ft. x 3 ft.) x 2 = (6 sq. ft.) x 2 = 12 sq. ft.

(☞ﾟ∀ﾟ)☞ 60 sq. ft. > 12 sq. ft.

What wonders you can do with basic math!

It’s pretty telling, though, how the state’s reason for having the posters taken down is a mere issue of size when it’s a blatant violation of the requirements for tax exemption. The government seems to shy from the fact that the Catholic Church is not entitled to tax exemption, although they clearly act like it. To keep their tax-exempt status, they must comply with the law*** and only use their tax-exempt properties for their stated religious and/or charitable purposes. And to play in politics without having to pay the associated fees is simply not fair, especially given how this institution is chock-full of money. With this, I think it’s high time we started taxing the Church. Don’t you?

* The clauses that I’ve seen (online, at least) say “with an area exceeding two feet by three feet” while it’s enumerating “Lawful election propaganda”, which seems to be missing a “not” before the word “exceeding”. I’m just going to assume sloppy proofreading and not that our lawmakers have such horrible eyesight that they chose to ban anything smaller than 2 ft. x 3 ft.

** It’s pretty disappointing how nobody else seems to have seen or pointed out this technicality, even going so far as to imply that what the diocese did actually worked in this article.

*** Article VI Section 28 (3) of the Philippine Constitution states: “Charitable institutions, churches and personages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and improvements, actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious, charitable, or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation.”

=======

Image from Rappler

This is the first article for my debut column entitled “Freethinking Me,” which appeared in SunStar Davao last Feb 22, 2013. In my column, I hope to explore issues and educate the public regarding reason, science, and secularism in the country. You can check out “Freethinking Me” every Friday. 

“IF THE earth were 10 feet closer to the sun, we would all burn to death. And if it were 10 feet further out, we would all freeze.”

Fact or Fiction?

I have seen this posted around the internet, and in the past, have heard quite a few speakers tout this “fact” as a testament to the precision and perfection of God’s design in creation. The listeners are astounded and nod their heads in agreement to the wonder of it all.

Read the rest of my article here.

–

Image from Wikimedia Commons

A Violent Kind of Envy

“Try protesting inside a MOSQUE and let’s see if you can keep your head on your shoulder.”

I have heard this said several times to argue against Carlos Celdran’s actions in the Manila Cathedral in 2010, and I think it is nothing but veiled Islamophobia, not to mention unfair to a group of people who happen to practice a different religion from the Filipino majority.

Saying this actually suggests that ALL our Muslim brothers and sisters are a bunch of violent, vindictive terrorists who will kill anyone who disrespects their faith. I find this offensive because I have Muslim friends and office-mates who are peaceful, reasonable, progressive, and in many ways, better than so many so-called Christians who react violently when someone disagrees with them. Shame on those people for even suggesting that all Muslims will immediately resort to violence. They probably don’t know that many Muslims, and I doubt if they are good friends with one.

‘Fatwa envy’ is the term used for the phenomenon of people complaining that criticism of their religion or political beliefs is wrong because the criticism would never be directed at Muslims for fear of violence or death, according to Rational Wiki (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fatwa_envy).

(image source: V-forVictory)

 ‘Proper’ Way of Protesting? 

You can drive out a person who says or does rude things inside your house, but you don’t sue them or send them to prison. It shows how emotionally immature you are. I am of the opinion that there are times when some people need a rude awakening, especially when social niceties and outward politeness are numbing and sheltering them from the fact that they are rudely over-stepping their boundaries.

(image source: FSTDT.com )

The CBCP and their ultra-conservative Catholic cohorts are over-stepping their boundaries, getting access to public privileges without paying taxes, violating the separation of church and state and shutting down art exhibits and protest actions that they find offensive. They can’t surrender pedophile priests to the public, they amass wealth by the billions in a country full of hungry, poor people, they get to ask a former president for gifts of SUVs, and they exercise political influence like it is their birthright. Barging into their church meetings to protest their political meddling is an act of defiance, an act of rebellion against the bigger evil that they are perpetuating, and is a nonviolent way of bringing to light the fact that they are not exercising the same respect that they are now demanding from everyone else.

A Stomping Ground For Stomping on Non-Catholics

It reminds me of the public high school that I went to years ago. Our government-employed Catholic principals and teachers required that all students attend a Catholic catechism class, and not attending will cost you your grade in Values Education. The cathecist teachers they allowed to come in and teach were from the local parish that the school administrators go to every Sunday. These cathecists would routinely ask each student, in the presence of the whole class, whether they are Catholic or not. When they learn that some of us are from ‘born-again’ families, they would proceed to joke that we are ‘burned again’, in reference to the hellfire punishment for apostates. Before we graduated, we were compelled to attend a Catholic mass. Some of our teachers even threatened us that we will not get diplomas if we do not attend.

(image source: Mostphotos.com)

The Catholic Church in our neighbourhood has a tall loudspeaker that rudely blares their prayers and sermons all over the place every Saturday and Sunday afternoon, at the expense of the non-Catholics who also reside in the area. Every Lenten season, messengers claiming to be from the same neighbourhood Catholic church would knock on our gates and ask for donations for the Holy Week celebrations, and we get dirty looks when we tell them that we are not Catholics.

Another incident was when my wife was confined in a Catholic hospital in Manila years ago when she gave birth to our son. We had no choice but to rush her there because it was the nearest hospital in the vicinity. The hospital’s priest visited our room while my wife was still recovering from a Cesarean surgery, asked us if we were Catholics. When we said we aren’t, he told us that we have lost our way and that God welcomes lost sheep when they go back to the fold. He said it in front of my visiting mother, who is a life-long ‘Born-Again’ Protestant deacon. It was a disconcerting experience for my mother and my wife, to say the least.

So a strangely-dressed man with a placard sign saying ‘Damaso’ walks in on an ecumenical church meeting that the CBCP bishops are attending and tells them to stop meddling in politics. For all the rude violations that the ruling Catholic majority keep doing at the expense of those who do not share their beliefs, is it that damnable when a man like Carlos Celdran gets fed up and goes directly to them, to tell them to their faces to stop?

In the New Testament account, an angry Jesus goes into the Temple to turn over the tables of merchants who jack up their prices to rip off the faithful, and whipped the traders with a rope to drive them out of their own legal territory. (Gospel of John 2: 13-16)

(image source: http://revbriceatjourney.blogspot.com)

Now You Do What They Told Ya, Now You’re Under Control

In connection to this, I happen to like punk and metal bands that use rude language to get their messages across, and I have often observed that it has a more immediate impact than any politely-worded political treatise out there because it gets into the heart of the issue. Rage Against The Machine’s “Killing In The Name Of” comes to mind.

To paraphrase fellow freethinker Sass Sasot, polite behaviour is often dictated by those who are in power, the oppressor, to control the oppressed. What we call ‘polite behaviour’ depends on what a certain group of people find acceptable. Who dictates the norm for polite behaviour? If those who are in power are the only ones allowed to decide what proper behaviour is, or what a proper venue for protest is, then the minority is already being restricted by this dictate and are only being bullied to the point of silence. Restrictions imposed by social rules of propriety only serve to delay the efforts of the person complaining of injustice. As Martin Luther King, one of the modern fathers of civil disobedience, would say, “Justice too long delayed is justice denied.” (from Letter From Birmingham City Jail)

Polite society often tells us to obey its rules at the expense of things with bigger consequences and to obscure bigger issues that should be addressed. My answer to that is “Fuck you, I won’t do what you tell me!“, as RATM would put it.

“The Filipino Freethinkers is an organization that only talks about religion during their meetups.” This is probably the biggest misconception of friends who hesitate to accept my invitation to join our bi-monthly afternoon gatherings.

Topics

Consider the topics of our last meetup. They ranged from President Aquino’s 2 million peso bounty for the New-Year-reveler that shot into the air, killing a six year-old, to answering the following question: How many dates would you advise your children to go on before they have sex with their partner? The survey of 30 or so people in the room yielded answers from 0 to 365, with most people answering 1, 3, or 7. As a new parent myself, I said 10, but after the discussion was willing to revise down to 5.

We also had a speaker talk about internet security and cybercrime, part of our RSS (Reason Science Secularism) Talks, which have become part of every meetup.

Participants

It is true that many participants are agnostics or atheists, but there are also progressive Catholics, Episcopalians, Christians of other churches, Buddhists, Muslims (well, one Muslim I’ve counted so far), as well as Jews (I’ve met two on two separate occasions), pagans, and people who just believe in a higher power.

Religion is sometimes brought into the conversation, but not always, and it was not discussed at all in the last meet up. Newcomers who introduce themselves are asked to talk about what they believe in, as well as how they arrived at their current belief. But they are never attacked or criticized for it. The purpose of the meet up is just to talk, listen, and learn. 

Advocacy and activism

The Freethinkers however, do have more politically-oriented activities. They fought hard for the RH Law, and they stand up whenever the opportunity rises for LGBT rights. But such activities are specifically planned actions that are completely separate from the meetups. There is also a lot of discussion that is encouraged on their website, and in their open Facebook page, which of course, feature intelligent as well as banal opinions from a range of people, many of whom we have never met.

But neither the protests nor the online writing are required of the people who show up to our twice-a-month gatherings. Participants aren’t even required to talk at all. We simply ask that people who do share their opinions on our topics do so in a clear manner.

The meetups are most interesting when we have intelligent participants of differing opinions, because those with open minds may have their perspectives changed.

Controversy

Naturally, religion does enter the discussion from time to time. The next meet up, for example, is supposed to include Carlos Celdran’s case. There’s nothing wrong with someone arguing that Carlos deserves to spend some time in jail for breaking the law.

Undoubtedly, someone else would argue that it’s an unjust law, and here is where they may be a debate on the benefits of this law for protecting the range of Filipino citizens, of keeping the peace.

Or we’ll discuss how this law needs to be implemented more often, for example, with church leaders who offend the religious feeling of the laity by failing to act according to the words of the Good Book. Actually, it’s silly for me to speculate what the discussion will be like because it will take a life of its own depending on who is there and how they interact with each other.

Might you be interested in bringing that discussion to life? If so, join us on Sunday at 2:30 at The Holy Trinity Episcopal Church, McKinley Road, Makati, just across from the San Antonio Shopping Arcade.

Filipino Freethinkers turns four today, and as usual, I’ll mention some milestones (at least from my limited perspective — and memory):

• My Bottomline interview. I was told by a producer that it’s one of their most successful episodes ever. I didn’t get a single negative message about it — and I got a lot of messages.
• The first RSS Forum. Not only did we honor some of our heroes, we gave Sen. Sotto his first Bigot of the Year award, and it made the news. On GMA.
• Pro-life party list opposition. We registered as a non-stock, non-profit organization so that we could take legal action as Filipino Freethinkers, inc. We heard some judges take that stuff seriously.
• Philippine Internet Freedom Alliance. Together with allies in the fight to repeal the Cybercrime Law, we formed PIFA and made noise — and silence — both online and on the ground.
• Sottocopy. Our site featured proof of Sotto’s plagiarism for the first time in social and mainstream media. We also joined a group that filed a formal complaint against Sotto with the Senate Ethics Committee.
• Marching as Memes. Our 4th Pride March was our most successful, not only in terms of the size of our contingent, but the number of people who took photos with our props.
• RH Law. It’s been a pleasure to work with some of the most sincere and passionate advocates of women’s and human rights, and it’s an honor to share this victory with them.
• Mainstream relevance. For the first time, we were featured in the news at least once a month for each month of the year. I heard it’s now mainstream to hate mainstream, so hipsters need not worry.
• Social media savvy. Our website exceeded 1 million page views, and our FB page passed 20,000 fans. We consistently rank high on Top Blogs, and are often #1. (Currently #1 above two CBCP sites.)
• Warm bodies. With the introduction of RSS talks and the raunchy topic of the week, meetups have become more educational and entertaining than ever. Plus they’re still regular and well-attended.

2012 gave us a lot of reasons to celebrate, but I’m ambivalent about celebrating. I still feel bad about what happened a few days ago: Carlos Celdran, one of our closest allies, was found guilty of offending religious feelings. Yet it opens up the possibility of repealing Article 133, removing that archaic blasphemy law and clearing Carlos’ name. That’s one milestone I want to report next year.

It will surely be a challenge. The Catholic Church hierarchy and its conservative cohorts will surely oppose us at every turn. But if 2012 has taught me anything, it’s that Carlos is no longer alone. We’re no longer alone. More and more Filipinos are realizing the importance of reason, science, and secularism, no longer content to let bigotry and traditionalism dominate public discourse.

This growing appreciation of secular ideals helped us reach milestones and fight battles in 2012 that were unimaginable when we started in 2009, and it’s why I’m sure that 2013 will be even more awesome.

***

To celebrate our 4th year of offending religious feelings, we’re going back to where it all started:

Friday, Feb 1, 2013. EDSA Shangri-la mall.
6:00-8:30 Meetup in Shangri-la Starbucks near cinemas (where we had our first meetup in Feb 2009)
8:30-9:30 Dinner somewhere in Shangri-la (attend the meetup to find out where!)
9:30-11:10 Movie: Warm Bodies

There will still be a meetup this Sunday, Feb. 3. And while you’re at it, mark Feb. 16 on your calendar — we’re planning a bigger than usual event for Darwin Day.

With Carlos Celdran having been convicted and sentenced to jail time for the crime of ‘offending religious feelings’, reactions online have ranged from triumphalist anti-RH diatribes to sympathy to outrage to concern over the curtailing of freedom of speech. There also seems to have been a resurrection, so to speak, of the old discussion back when he first walked into that mass with the Damaso sign in support of separation of church and state. Did he have a right to do so? Isn’t he just getting what he deserves? Sure, maybe he doesn’t deserve jail time, but as a Christian I’m still offended, and shouldn’t that count for something?

The short answer is no, under international conventions to which the Philippines is a signatory, the shared possible offense to us Christians does not count for anything, nor should it. While there is currently some debate ongoing, the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in its General Comment No. 34, Article 19 clearly laid out that freedom of speech is incompatible with blasphemy laws like the one Carlos was convicted of violating. In this, the UN has essentially enshrined being able to commit blasphemy as a human right.

The reason for this is admittedly somewhat counter-intuitive, but there are documented historical examples of how badly laws banning blasphemy backfired in India that I’ve included in the links section below. I think it is summed up nicely by US President Obama in a speech explaining why he didn’t ban a video that offended Muslims (it should be noted that our constitution enshrines the same right to free speech he is talking about here):

“I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs.

Moreover, as President of our country, and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so. Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views — even views that we disagree with.

We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our Founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views, and practice their own faith, may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics, or oppress minorities. We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech — the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.”

One argument I often hear religious people throw at advocates of free speech in an attempt to get at the non religious sensibilities said advocates presumably hold, is ‘how would you feel if someone insulted your father or your mother?’

As an Episcopalean myself, I don’t even need to make that hypothetical leap. I can ask myself directly, how would I feel if Carlos Celdran walked into my church and held up that sign?

I’d want to know why. Though I might be annoyed at the interruption, I would genuinely be curious as to what this obvious act of protest was trying to get at. I’d say that the interruption of a single mass might be worth it, if it was to be made aware of something vitally wrong with the institution I literally put my faith in. I have been blessed in having been born and baptized into a loving and supportive church whose stance on social issues are in line with mine (pro-RH, pro-LGBT, pro-secularism), and which holds a tradition of relatively democratic involvement by the laity in church affairs. With the exception of the actions of some rogue, roundly publicy decried elements in Africa, I took the effort to research and make sure that it is not engaged in any activities I have a problem with. If it was, both as a member of the congregation and as a serving member of the church vestry council, I would want to know about it and work with the rest of the congregation, our parish priest and if need be the diocesan assembly and our presiding bishop to see what could be done to rectify it.

And that is what confuses me most about people who assert that they’re offended by Carlos Celdran’s action. If I found out that my bishops were bullying politicians to kill legislation that would save mother’s lives -and- reduce abortions, I wouldn’t want to attend a mass with those bishops in it anyway. Where is their offense and outrage over the lies being spread about how condoms supposedly don’t work, leading to more AIDS cases? Where is their offense and outrage at the ivory smuggling, or the bribes they took to keep quiet through all the corruption perpetrated by former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo? Why do they keep giving money to an organization that not only can’t seem to stop raping nuns and children, but keeps spending that money to cover it up?

What really offends my religious feelings are people who go out, declare themselves holy, and then spread hate and fear and lies and pain in the name of God and Christ. I am deeply offended at how the words and deeds of the Catholic Bishop’s Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) are giving us Christians a bad name, and that is why I actively and openly fight them. I live in hope that someday more Catholics, like Carlos used to be before they banned him from San Agustin, may rise up to do the same.

source links

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/GC34.pdf

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/austin-dacey/un-blasphemy-laws_b_1915920.html

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/09/26/president-obama-to-united-nations-we-do-not-ban-blasphemy/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/10/us-usa-catholic-abuse-idUSBRE8391HF20120410

http://opinion.inquirer.net/9239/’that-she-may-dance-again‘

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/01/us/pennsylvania-priest-abuse-trial/index.html

It is the function of a good university to turn out an educated and informed citizenry, trained in the skills of critical thought necessary in building and growing an electoral democracy such as ours. This is why it is with gladness that I would like to invite students of the University of Santo Tomas to attend the forum whose details appear below, wherein upcoming national Senatorial candidates have been invited to a public debate on the vital issues of health, population and development.

I am particularly heartened at the courage and forward thinking of the student officers that took the initiative to organize the forum, and the school administration that must have approved it, which as we know has a history of silencing any open discussion on national reproductive health issues unless it is in line with strict Catholic Church doctrine. Now that we have an RH Law, I am glad that the UST school admin decided to lead its students by example on how to work with national government towards the greater good. It is only fitting that a school such as UST, with its prominent medical education program, should take the lead on learning the stand of potential lawmakers on health issues.

…Wait, WHAT? The school administration had it canceled? Because ProLIFE Philippines, a group that has no problem having a punchdrunk thug like Lito David running for them, complained that Risa Hontiveros, a proRH advocate would be going?

Well, God forbid we should have an open intellectual discussion in the middle of a university! My parents went to UST. They met there. They used to be proud of it. And I think the students there who fight for their right to be informed should be proud of themselves as individuals. I’m aware that as a privately run institution those in charge of it can stuff their student’s heads with whatever they want. As generally conceived, however, a school, especially a university, is supposed to be a place for the mind’s liberation, not its indoctrination. Until those in charge of UST can remember that, those university leaders have only themselves to blame for outsiders like myself thinking of their school as a shitty pseudouniversity run by petty, small minded cowards.

Invitation to #YouthVote 2013

A few months away from the national elections, the Student Council Alliance of the Philippines and the Forum for FP and Development invite you to the first of a series of forums for national and local candidates for 2013 starting with the First Senatorial Forum on Health, Population and Development, January 11, 12nn-2pm at UST College of Medicine Auditorium.

Mainstreaming youth issues, sentiments and policy recommendations for the 2013 elections, the youth leaders spearheading this movement nationwide would like to champion responsible voting, challenge traditional politics and make politics work for the youth and the Filipino people as a whole.

Confirmed guests in the forum are: Ms. Risa Hontiveros, Ms. Grace Poe Llamanzares, Mr. Richard Gordon, Ms. Jamby Madrigal and Rep. Sonny Angara. The event will also be inter-active and on live stream in Bicol University and University of the Philippines Cebu powered by SMART

Details:

Now Trending: #YOUTHVOTE2013

1st Senatorial Debates on Health, Population and Development

January 11, 2013

12:00nn – 2:00pm

College of Medicine Auditorium, University of Santo Tomas

–

Image from varsitarian.net

Welcome to the second entry in our Meet a Freethinker series, where we introduce prominent members of the Filipino Freethinkers, and give you an idea about their motivations and beliefs (or lack of), and other interesting tidbits of info on who they are.

This entry will be about Antonio Pe Yang III, a 29-year digital content editor who’s been with the group since 2009.

He’s also into ponies. Deal with it.

How would you define a freethinker?

In the story of The Emperor’s New Clothes, when the emperor is celebrating his “new” wardrobe by marching around town, there’s a kid in the crowd who’s laughing and saying his ruler doesn’t have clothes. The kid doesn’t care that townsfolk are telling him to shut up, or that he’s drawing attention to himself. All he knows is the naked (pardon the pun) truth – that the new “clothes” are a figment of the emperor’s imagination.

Freethinkers are that kid – we are the ones who aren’t afraid to speak up when people make extraordinary (and oftentimes ridiculous) claims about our world based on their religious beliefs or superstition, but are unable to back up their assertion with any solid evidence or facts. A lot of us also happen to be huge sci-fi, comic book, RPG, video game, and ‘toon geeks, so you could say there’s an extra layer to that metaphor.

I also don’t think being a freethinker is contrary to being open-minded. The latter means being able to analyze all possible data, and weighing which ones best explain the topic in question. My problem with people who demand that I be open-minded is that they almost always do so while pushing a superstitious explanation for something, while ignoring all other options. Such as claiming a statue of the Virgin Mary is crying, when it’s just simple physics.

What belief system do you subscribe to?

I follow deism as defined by Thomas Paine. I don’t believe in a “revealed” god, as stressed by the Abrahamic religions, or a god that directly interferes in human affairs or demands worship. I see god as something abstract, a “something” that’s the sum of all of the laws of physics that keep our world working. Think of it as “The Force” or “Data Overmind,” if you’re into that sort of thing. I also believe that the best way to better understand this God is through scientific study of our surroundings.

I say “something” here as an umbrella term, since I’m not sure whether it’s “a” god or a myriad of gods (for lack of a better term).

What was the funniest or most interesting reaction you got from a person after you told him or her that you were a freethinker?

Not a specific person per se, but back when I was becoming more vocal during the height of the RH Bill debates and RCC child abuse scandals, people on the net began calling me out for being a freethinker despite, according to them, me being a proud graduate of Ateneo de Manila University.

I was apparently shaming my school because I dared to criticize the Catholic Church on several matters, like its intellectual dishonesty in the RH debates, its sheltering of child rapists, and its vocal opposition to gay rights. It was funny because it’s exactly because of my upbringing in ADMU that I learned to start asking questions and to be honest with what I said – anything less would.

It was also in ADMU that I began to understand that the RCC’s decline was the result of its own history of corruption and greed, and was neglecting its obligation to uplift poor and oppressed.

When you make students sit though a semester’s worth of lectures on Nietzche, Sarte, and Liberation Theology, what do you think is going to happen?

In what way has being part of a freethinking community benefited you?

When I discovered the Filipino Freethinkers, I’d had just left Catholicism because of some insanely stupid things the church had done – like excommunicating a medical team that performed an abortion to save a child’s life. The meetups helped me learn the ropes on what it meant to be a freethinker, particularly the importance of being truthful, and always, ALWAYS backing up everything with hard facts.

Being involved with the Filipino Freethinkers also gave me access to some my biggest critics – I can count on them to be the first to call me out if I say something out of line, and they’ll always present the facts proving why I’m wrong. This constant exposure to opposition has shaped me for the better, particularly my views on gender and LGBT equality, religious bias, and the importance of science in society, while giving me a drive to always learn more.

You’re very vocal online. What motivates you in engaging in online discussions?

If I had to pick a word: Rage.

I’ve become vocal because I got tired of having to put up with the sort of inanity religious conservatives here in RP think they can say with impunity, such as claiming that natural disasters are God’s punishment for whatever transgressions, or that the RH Bill is a harbinger of destruction, debauchery, and immorality (hint: It’s not).

I felt that as somebody who knew better, I had an obligation to call out the shit they were feeding everybody, partly for the satisfaction of destroying a poor argument, and partly to spread the word. Plus I seemed to write better angry.

So every time I speak up, I use direct language to drive my points home, and I prefer not to say “Fuck you, cockbreath!” or its myriad of variations until I feel I’ve categorically proven in the exchanges that the unfortunate sumbitch on the receiving end deserves to be bludgeoned with harsh language (Read: False positives). Just because I play by the rules doesn’t mean I have to play nice.

As a freethinker, do you look up to anyone as a particular role model?

Terry Pratchett. While he’s not as science-ish as Neil deGrasse Tyson and Carl Sagan, or as profound as Dawkins or Hitchens, through his Discworld novels, Sir Pratchett’s taught me much about how people work. His books are a hilarious but insightful take on just how complicated human society could be, and never failed to drive home topics as sensitive as gender equality (among dwarves, to boot!) and atheism (through golems!) while still playing them for laughs.

Sir Pratchett’s books also gave me a lot of pointers on how to handle god-bothering idiots and other people like them. I’ve realized that a lot of what fundies will say are already inane enough as it is, and all it takes is a nudge (or a little sarcasm) to turn them from today’s fiery rhetoric into this week’s lol-worthy meme.

Every belief system has a dark side, what is the dark side of your belief system?

Honestly, I don’t really know. I haven’t read that far into famous deists, so I’m not familiar with the darker aspects of my belief that might manifest. Thomas Paine himself was something of a troublemaker, although I’m not sure how much of what he did and said was a product of his deism, rather than Paine just being a pain in the ass.

It didn’t involve anything as ludicrous as shooting lightning from his hands or crushing somebody’s crotch with his mind, if that’s what you were hoping for, sorry.

No two freethinkers are exactly alike; a group of freethinkers contains a great diversity of perspectives, so there is no one, official perspective shared among all of them. This makes the freethought community a truly vibrant source of ideas and opinions!

In this light, Meet a Freethinker is our brand-new series featuring freethinkers of all backgrounds and perspectives. We want to introduce you guys to the people who make up the proverbial melting pot of this growing movement.

Our first freethinker is Marguerite de Leon, a 27-year-old social media executive. She was baptized Catholic, and became part of the Filipino Freethinkers in 2010.  

1)     How would you define a freethinker?

A freethinker is someone who chooses not to tolerate bullshit. They don’t immediately believe in something because someone from a position of authority told them to; or because that’s what most people have always believed in for so long; or because there’s some man-made rule that tells you to. They adhere to empirical evidence; they only believe in something if there is actual, tangible, measurable proof that such a belief makes sense. If there is no such proof, then they will continue questioning this belief and searching for the truth.

2) What belief system do you subscribe to?

I am an atheist. This means that I do not believe in the existence of a god or gods. So in terms of religious beliefs, I have none. The closest thing I do have to a belief system is secular humanism, which basically means being a good human being, no religious strings attached.

3)     What was it like when you first seriously questioned the dogma you were told to believe?

The defining moment was when I outright asked my mom and grandmother if I could skip Sunday masses and pray at home instead. I even offered to do the chores, or whatever other good deed they felt like assigning me. I found masses excruciatingly tedious and pointless (those scary rebultos didn’t help, either), and thought it sensible that I do something beneficial to others on Sundays instead of just sitting in a church staring at the clock. I also figured that praying to god directly was more sincere than sitting around reciting words lifelessly.

But no dice. Both my mom and grandmother got incredibly upset with me, and the afternoon ended in tears. They said I was being disrespectful. But no matter how hard they chastised me, however, I still knew I made sense. What I’ve been told to do and to believe just didn’t add up. Soon enough, religion started to look more and more inane and insincere, and I eventually wanted no part of it.

4)     What’s the biggest misconception people have about you as a freethinker?

That I’m holding on to the excuse that I can think however I want, no matter how inane or removed from reality it may be, like some post-modern, “anything-goes-let’s-all-believe-in-magic” kind of thing. That’s definitely not what freethought is. True freethinking has very strict criteria. My beliefs need to be backed up by reason and evidence, and should not be beholden to authority, tradition, or dogma.

5)     What was the funniest or most interesting reaction you got from a person after you told him or her that you were a freethinker?

“So that means you’re smart, right?”

Yes and no.

I’d consider freethinkers smart in that they try their very best to think well—that is, logically and rationally. Having said that, it’s not like I have a PhD, have a bazillion awards under my belt, or refuse to watch films in color or English. For the record, I love trash TV like The Voice, and would much rather read a fashion magazine than a Borges short story. It’s just that when I’m faced with situations like the CBCP telling me to fear the Pill, I don’t blindly follow them. I get my facts straight first and make my own decisions based on what I’ve learned. You don’t need to be cum laude to figure that out.

6)     In what way has being part of a freethinking community benefited you?

I finally found something I truly believed in and wanted to fight for 100%. I’d been pretty apathetic before then, mainly because I could never fully relate to any of the causes and concerns being trumpeted around me. Most charities and groups I’d encountered had an underlying religious bent to it—you’re doing all these good things for god, or because we are all god’s children, etc. I would feel like a poser or a hypocrite joining such groups.

The Filipino Freethinkers, on the other hand, was a group against bullshit, against people being sheep, against shitty excuses to be horrible people. It was right up my alley. I’d never felt more purposeful, more excited to do things for others.

7)     Would you date someone who was a fervent follower of your old religion?

Let’s just put it this way: If he WERE a truly fervent, by-the-book follower of Catholicism, then he would not have sex with me until we were married; he would prohibit me from using artificial contraceptives; he would have our kids baptized and sent to gender-exclusive Catholic private schools; he would force me to go to mass every Sunday; he would remind me to be miserable and penitent on Good Friday because god just died; he would keep me from meeting up with my LGBT friends; he would donate part of our hard-earned money to the church; he would delete most of my videos and music and throw away most of my books; etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

So, no. Unless, of course, he looked like either Frank Mir, Robert Downey Jr., Tom Hardy, or Ryan Gosling. Then all bets are off.

Sen. Pia Cayetano & Rep. Edcel Lagman: two of the many individuals we have to thank for our purple Christmas.

If there’s one thing reproductive health (RH) advocates want for Christmas, it’s the passage of the RH Bill. Many have been speculating that President Aquino will sign the bill into law as his Christmas present to the Filipino people — all 94,852,030 of them.

When you think about one person giving gifts to so many people, one mythical figure comes to mind: Santa Claus. Many have worked hard throughout the years to give Filipinos an RH law. And among them, none other reminds me of Santa than Rep. Edcel Lagman. His white hair and round figure are complemented by the constantly cool and humorous nature he displayed throughout the process of RH legislation.

But there’s more to the analogy than appearance and attitude. Because the historical figure Santa Claus was based on had something more in common with Lagman. According to Adam C. English, associate professor of religion and author of “The Saint Who Would Be Santa Claus: The True Life and Trials of St. Nicholas of Myra,” Santa had a soft spot for poor women.

He tells the following story, which he finds so “strange and surprising… that historians assume it must be based to a large degree on fact”:

It is the tale of three poor daughters.

Nicholas had been aware of a certain citizen of Patara – in Lycia, modern-day Turkey – who had once been an important and wealthy man of the city but who had fallen on hard times and into extreme poverty. The man grew so desperate that he lacked the very essentials of life.

The poor man reasoned that it was impossible to marry off his three beautiful daughters because they lacked dowries for proper marriages to respectable noblemen. He feared they would each in turn be forced into prostitution to support themselves.

Nicholas heard this heartbreaking news and resolved to do something about it. He bagged a sum of gold and in the dead of night, tossed it through the man’s window. The money was used as a dowry for the first daughter.

Sometime later, Nicholas made a second nighttime visit so that the second daughter might marry. Later tradition reported that, finding the windows closed, he dropped the bag of gold down the chimney, where it landed into one of the girl’s stockings that was hanging to dry.

When Nicholas returned to deliver anonymously the third bag of gold for the last daughter, the curious father was ready. When he heard a bag hit the floor, the father leapt to his feet and raced outside, where he caught the mysterious benefactor.

Nicholas revealed his identity to the father but made him swear never to tell anyone what he’d done. He did not want praise or recognition for his generosity.

Thus the legend of Santa Claus was born. Although millions recognize the legendary figure, few know that it all came from the story of how a rich old man did his part to help three women, each less fortunate than he was, have the opportunity to live better lives.

The people who made this purple Christmas possible are too many to mention, each of them deserving of our thanks and congratulations. But I think it’s OK to start with Rep. Edcel Lagman, the Santa Claus of the 15th Congress, who in his final term did his part to pass the RH Bill, giving every Filipino, especially the poor, the opportunity to live healthy, educated, and dignified lives.

Image from facebook.com/RHnow

***
INB4: In the context of my Santa — Edcel analogy, it’s quite ironic that St. Nicholas was a bishop, and that Santa Claus is most commonly depicted in red.