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.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
ang dapat nating lahat isipin ay ang 300 year rule ng mga espanyol. dba pinapatay natin sila dati? at sila ay walang habas na pinatay ang mga nuno natin? si rizal nga e dba. depicted damaso as such? so if free thinker ka. u should know better.
lgbt nnmn. nak nang. empowered na masyado ang mga bakla.
Your comment must be approved by the site admins before it will appear publicly.
ano to? akala ko ba malayang makakapag post dito gaya ng sa yahoo?
Freethinkers know nothing yet. :/
eh? the Damaso guy here is clearly trolling so why take the bait guys..
"love, Damaso" sells it all. the name itself should be suspected. give him/her the attention but certainly not the sound reply.
if given that Muslims in the Philippines were as adherent as others to the Sharia law, they will certainly not survive the culture here. this culture Filipinos share with other south east asians and not found in south and west(edited) asia. besides, why bring that up when it is clear they are not meddling with the government like the cbcp do?
would i reserve respect to the delusional is a violation of my right to freedom to blaspheme. and if celdran offended the feelings of those inside the cathedral that time, that's because he was long offended by the intrusion of these priests in his own religious right to have an undermined government. another, the altar, the pulpit, has been a place of exercise of democracy – the cbcp's advocacies. what is left there to be sanctified?
ultimately, this complexity had been the result of our government's failure to observe its own constitution – that it should be free from any influence other than the welfare of its people, not of a particular group. now, it threatens to jail any person who will make a desperate action because of its impotence. the message here is that, minorities will have to suffer. and we are back to the Dark Ages brought to you by the church. that law is rather too old obviously.
Art. 133. Offending the religious feelings. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon anyone who, in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.
I'm an atheist, yet I think he was wrong to interrupt a mass to make his point. He could have waited outside and shouted his message while the assembly was leaving the church. Even the Westboro Baptist Church, the most reviled religious group in America and known for picketing funerals with signs like "God Hates Fags," etc, would follow local laws and ordinances in their protests. These horrible people at least did their protesting a good distance away from the actual funeral… Celdran himself has apologized for his method…which I suppose means he realizes at least some wrongdoing on his part. Frankly, if he really believes in his cause, I think he should be willing to pay the price. We can debate about how just the law is, but as it stands, he clearly broke it,
Much as I hate the phrase "offending religious feelings," the specifics of the law, I have to admit, are quite reasonable. Whether he deserves to actually go to jail for an extended period of time over it is another matter… Personally, I think jail term of about a week or even just a fine should do…
Let's be clear, though: the ceremony was *not* a mass, but an ecumenical gathering. How much that affects your perception of Celdran's offense, though, is a different matter altogether.
I thought it was not a mass too…but the news and eyewitness accounts seem to describe an actual celebration of the Eucharist. The mayor and other laymen were in attendance. Also, even if it wasn't a mass, he still did it smack in the middle of "a place devoted to religious worship." While I feel like the law should not have been labelled as such and should be made more secular, it's understandable why it's there. I'm sure we wouldn't want people barging into our FF meetings and disrupting the agenda…
While of course, disrupting an FF meeting as you described would be terrible, the current law does *not* protect an FF meeting the same way it would protect a mass or religious service because an FF meetup in Starbucks Anson's is clearly not a religious gathering in a place of worship.
Which essentially highlights another problem altogether about the law: that it implicitly means non-religious individuals are SOL when it comes to having their gatherings being harrassed willy-nilly.
Well, I don't know all our laws…maybe there's one that protects secular gatherings as well…
So I guess we both agree that the principle of the law is basically sound (and thus Celdran's punishment…which I hope will not be too severe…better yet if he is pardoned). It's just a matter of wanting the law to be expanded so that it covers secular gatherings as well.
We do not have a law protecting secular gatherings though we have provisions for rallies, pickets, and protests which are labor-related.
For Public gatherings (EDSA, etc), we also have guidelines and special rulings. Permits apply too.
BUT… for FF gatherings, since this is private and does not include any publicly owned facilities, the government has no provision for such.
Indeed, if priests or other, hmm, theists, try to sabotage our FF gatherings by standing in front of us with posters saying "GO TO HELL" – we'd ask them why and engage them into a good conversation. I am quite sure they will be leaving sooner than expected.
HOWEVER – if anyone – would dare lift a finger or hurt even one of our members out of spite- it's another thing. We would deal with it with due process.
IF anyone would bring a gun and decide killing one of us is for his or her best interests, then we trust the law would provide justice.
—
Since indeed, the current law lacks provisions, these should be changed to equalize things even for the "minority". I have cross-posted a similar thought in Garrick's entry- there should indeed be a change in constitution with the changing times.
Thanks.
This is a matter of legal strategies and legal research. Art 153 can be used to protect secular gatherings. Just find a good cause of action and you can sustain a trial. Like what CBCP did with the Celdran Case. I think they made a very good cause of action, probable cause. Idiotic, but good enough to sustain the trial and get a conviction.
"the current law does *not* protect an FF meeting the same way it would protect a mass or religious service because an FF meetup in Starbucks Anson's is clearly not a religious gathering in a place of worship. "
Why should we be religious-centric here? Disrupting an FF meeting can faal under Art 153 of the Revised Penal Code:
"Tumultuous
disturbance or interruption liable to cause disturbance. — The penalty of
arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum
period and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any
person who shall cause any serious disturbance in a public place, office, or
establishment, or shall interrupt or disturb public performances, functions or
gatherings, or peaceful meetings, if the act is not included in the provisions
of Articles 131 and 132."
Provided of course that such disruption can be qualified as "tumultuous". That threshold is very difficult to establish though, and in Art 133 "notoriously offensive" is also a quite fair threshhold.
So there is a secular version of Art 133…kinda makes 133 redundant…
i still cant absorb this thinking that Celdran offended those laymen and parishioners within their own territory and therefore he deserves to be punished thing.
the fact that there is a law that protects you from being offended is absurd. if this happens to me(us), like some here are always throwing like some valid point, i'll just drag the guy out and continue with what i'm(we're) doing. put into consideration why did the guy do it in the first place. he was also offended. and it is not a sole right by any to feel this as a privilege. nor a right to jail others because of it.
there was no physical threat. the right to be protected from being humiliated within your own premises is trespassing, and that's it. you don't take away the person's right to speak and to humiliate you as you could have answered with an equal degree.
Again, the phrase "offending religious feelings" is absurd, but the specifics of the actual law are quite reasonable. Barring people from protesting inside a place of worship isn't really an infringement on our freedom expression (no more than banning people from protesting and disrupting the funeral of a loved one). He could have done it outside, on a public sidewalk. The capacity to simply drag out every protester is not a viable solution to the problem. What if 30, big, muscular guys barged in on one of our meetings to protest and shit?
I think we can agree, on some level, that the law is a reasonable one. Just a matter of changing it's absurd phrasing and expanding it to be more secular.
//What if 30, big, muscular guys barged in on one of our meetings to protest and shit?//
then the case is assault/harassment. the threat there is evident.
but the guy is alone – with a placard in his hands. if the case was trespassing the cathedral, celdran is definitely guilty. by any right they could sue him by that. but it's not. the act of dragging a person out has given him his share of humiliation actually.
gatecrashing a funeral is alarm and scandal. no law points to them offending the feelings of the family (put emphasis here).
my point is simple…celdran is wrong for intruding the cathedral and jail him by that reason alone. what benefit will a law protecting its people from feeling offended give? oversensitive citizens. martyrs take-it-all.
article 133 is too Catholic to be swallowed by me. at least its personal.
When I gave the example of 30, big, muscular guys, I meant in relative peaceful protest… just to illustrate that the option of just dragging our a protester is not viable in a lot of instances, thus needing the protection of law.
Again, I guess we are all in agreement that Celdran should receive some punishment for his actions. We just want Article 133 to be revised and rephrased in a way that makes it more secular.
the were indeed inside a place of religious worship but they were not conducting worship rites. in fact, the very bishops themselves were desecrating the place for conducting other activities inside a church which is a place of worship. it's only for prayers as jesus has said. i doubt whether the priests are also following jesus' teachings.
my only point, article 133 should be taken out from the penal code. i respect differences of opinion and beliefs. but in celdran's case, when he interrupted the meeting, no religious rite was going on. it so happens it was inside a church.
now you tell me, why doesn't any of the priests/bishops involved corrected the news account falsely reporting that there was a mass being held when it happened? because they are liars themselves.
and as i've said in another post, interrupting or disrupting someone or a group is not a crime.
"be imposed upon anyone who, in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony "
A place devoted to religious worship OR during the celebration… not AND.
Courts do not interpret the law based on its grammatical structure. Otherwise, we can just ask an english teacher to do that for us.
If some priests and/or nuns were doing some spring cleaning inside a church and someone disrupted or interrupted them, would that be offending their religious feelings? Obviously, it isn't. At the time Celdran interrupted or protested to that group of priests and laymen inside the church, no religious ceremony was going on and henceforth, no religious feelings were offended. Only their egos were affected.
Just like the pharisees during Jesus' time. Their egos were hurt because Jesus was smarter. So they sent him to be sentenced to death.
My main beef is that article 133 should not be in our penal code and also that the judge erred in interpreting it.
"Courts do not interpret the law based on its grammatical structure. Otherwise, we can just ask an english teacher to do that for us." -this argument has no merit. The first sentence is just plain wrong. There is a HUGE difference between "and" and "or." It's not simply grammar, it's the meaning of the law and courts are surely capable of knowing the difference. Laws are created and interpreted by very thorough processes that take grammar very seriously so as to make the meaning of the law as clear as possible and to avoid misunderstanding. Previous judgments on that law have shown that courts are strict about what constitutes "notoriously offensive" and the exact premises of the law. The second sentence makes no real logical sense.
Yes, if someone entered a church during spring cleaning and did something that can be called "notoriously offensive" (like what Celdran did or started screaming obscenities), he could be found guilty of Art. 133. As a former Catholic, I do recall that churches are considered sacred ground and people in it are expected to speak in whispers. If you really think about it, if someone busted into a church during cleaning, it would be at time when the church would be CLOSED for that purpose. He would be trespassing. If that person did it during regular hours but with no mass going on, he would be offending the people who came there to pray or for quiet contemplation. So yeah, I'm not gonna defend people's "right" to enter churches for their protests.
I'm not convinced Jesus was necessarily smarter…actually still on the fence about whether he actually really existed or not…
I do agree with you that perhaps 133 should not be in our penal code since we have Article 153 (under which Celdran would still be guilty). However, the judge's interpretation of the law is not an error. I just hope Celdran gets the minimum penalty.
Well bible stories portray that Jesus was a smart guy and that got him in trouble. Let's leave it at that. And I don't find anything bad to the teachings attributed to Jesus.
The pharisees at that time subscribed to a particular religion, Judaism, did not find Jesus amusing. These days, I believe most people would say Jesus was wronged.
The situation has reversed and the pharisees of today are the "followers" of Jesus. Celdran was just speaking his mind (just as Jesus did) and certain groups which have means to manipulate power did so to their advantage.
Actually, pharisees are politicians and in charge of implementing Jewish laws. Our priests and bishops also behave like politicians rather than being leaders of a church.
Currently studying the New Testament…and I am not particularly convinced of his intelligence…lots of bad teachings too…like Matt. 10:34-37 or the part where he says he intentionally speaks in parables to confuse people while he discloses their meanings only to a select few, or how he insensitively tells a man who just lost his father "Let the dead bury the dead," or the fact that he did not seem capable of writing down his teachings instead of letting people write about them DECADES later…heck, the whole God turning himself human (via teen pregnancy) so he could die and save people from the hell he created (save people from himself) is beyond me… Yes, he was indeed critical of religious teaching at that time, but I'm not sure he belongs in this discourse…we'd end up going really off-topic discussing it…
And are you seriously comparing Celdran to Jesus? haha
The just "speaking his mind" argument is very weak (can you barge into a wedding, call the bride a whore and the groom a dickless bastard and then defend yourself by saying you were just speaking your mind?). He did not have to do it the way he did. He violated two laws. I just think he should be charged and punished under Art 153 instead of 133.
I don't know how saying "just speaking his mind" is a weak argument since everyone, including you, who is participating in this discussion, are just speaking their minds.
Besides, Celdran was protesting – not insulting. Your examples don't even come close to being relevant in this discussion.
<div id="idc-comment-msg-div-562458949" class="idc-message"><a class="idc-close" title="Click to Close Message" href="javascript: IDC.ui.close_message(562458949)"><span>Close Message</span> Comment posted. <p class="idc-nomargin"><a class="idc-share-facebook" target="_new" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Ffilipino-freethinkers-22d5b3.ingress-earth.easywp.com%2F2013%2F01%2F29%2Fwhat-offends-my-religious-feelings%2F%23IDComment562436028#IDComment562458949&t=I%20just%20commented%20on%20What%20Offends%20My%20Religious%20Feelings%20%7C%20Filipino%20Freethinkers" style="text-decoration: none;"><span class="idc-share-inner"><span>Share on Facebook</span></span> or <a href="javascript: IDC.ui.close_message(562458949)">Close Message My examples (although absurd), are to illustrate how "just speaking his mind" is a weak argument. Whether it's an insult or a protest (which may involve insults), both involve speaking ones mind. My example, although extreme, shows how such an act, like Celdran's, can be very inappropriate and cannot be defended by saying one is JUST speaking his mind.
"I don't know how saying "just speaking his mind" is a weak argument since everyone, including you, who is participating in this discussion, are just speaking their minds. " – this doesn't make sense (are you trolling? haha). I have nothing against the act of speaking ones mind in general. The fact that we are all speaking our minds in this discussion cannot be used as a way of defending Celdran's actions since the context is vastly different. He could have spoken his mind in many different legal ways, but he didn't.
My argument remains: Celdran's actions were inappropriate, in violation of both Art 133 and 153, and deserving of punishment. I just hope he gets the minimum penalty or simply fined.
Again I don't know how that turned out to be MY argument. You must have misinterpreted me. When I said Celdran was just speaking his mind, I was just stating a fact. Speaking out, in any form or any place, is not a crime in our country.
My main argument, if you want to call it that, is Article 133 should not be in the penal code or any code whatsoever. But I would be amenable if it is moved to the civil code. Blurting out slurs or invectives is not speaking your mind because that emanates from hatred and when a person is in a state of hate, he is not sane.
For me, speaking out one's mind should emanate from a state of lucidness and eruditeness. Not an emotional outburst. I was describing Celdran to be in that state of lucid-thinking when he did it.
I was not arguing with your stand. That's your opinion. When I reply to you in this forum or anywhere else, it is more a matter of me sharing what I think. Nothing more, nothing less. Although I also hope I can change your mind or everyone else and agree with me. Because I have done so myself. I don't want to be caught in a state where I am not open to other ideas. I only maintain a set of principles that don't change. But ideas, as long as they don't contradict my principles, I welcome.
"Speaking out, in any form or any place, is not a crime in our country.
" – This is false. HOW you speak out matters (I'd also like to point out that "speaking out" is a very general term that could include doing so in a manner that even you would find immensely improper). Speaking out in the way described in Article 153 is a crime.
"My main argument, if you want to call it that, is Article 133 should not be in the penal code or any code whatsoever. But I would be amenable if it is moved to the civil code." – I will agree with you on this. I do think 133 is redundant since we have Article 153. I think Celdran deserves some punishment for his actions. Even he thinks he did some wrong in protesting the way he did.
"Blurting out slurs or invectives is not speaking your mind because that emanates from hatred and when a person is in a state of hate, he is not sane. " – unless you can cite a legal or psychological or lexicographic article supporting this, I don't think this is factual.
We all have opinions. However, contrary to popular belief, not all opinions are equal or correct (sometimes a knowledge claim like "evolution is a hoax" is called an opinion…so even when proven wrong, the one holding the belief considers it untouchable since it's his/her "opinion"). In discussion like this, we share our opinions with each other. When our opinions contrast with each other, we debate to find whose opinion is better grounded on logic, reason, and evidence. In process, as open-minded people we maintain opinions that are tenable and discard those that are not.
And also I did not compare Celdran to Jesus. What made you think that? What happened to Jesus has happened to Celdran. That's what I meant and that's totally different to comparing Celdran to Jesus.
Celdran is not holy, so how and why on earth should I equate him to Jesus?
I am not arguing, I am just answering your question.
"And also I did not compare Celdran to Jesus. What made you think that? What happened to Jesus has happened to Celdran. " -dude, guess what, YOU JUST MADE A COMPARISON. Haha. A comparison is defined as "a statement or estimate of similarities and differences." When you earlier said "just as Jesus did," that was also a statement of a similarity and thus a comparison. Anyway, no big deal. When I think about it, I don't really mind…
Since when did interrupting someone or some group became a crime?
And with regards to offending religious feelings, what if I'm not catholic (and I belong to another religion), got offended by the parade of the black nazarene because it got me stuck in a traffic jam, does that give me ammunition by way of Article 133 to sue the catholic church?
No you wouldn't since the catholics in your scenario did not violate your place of worship nor did they interrupt a religious ceremony…
You've missed the point of my post man. It's about the law not supposed to be selective on a particular sector. No law on crime should be made that specifically targets or protects a sector of society because that violates the basic principle of equality for all.
This law doesn't benefit a person who doesn't subscribe to any religion. Some people don't have the protection of Article 133 when they got stuck in traffic because of a religious procession or gathering.
Article 133 should not be in the penal code. It can be in our civil or common laws if the religious insists.
Well, there is Article 153 that Celdran could still be charged with (and should since the punishment there is lesser).
I agree that Art 133 doesn't benefit a person who doesn't subscribe to religion. I am also of the opinion that, with the existence of Art 153, Art 133 is redundant and should not be in the penal code.
I just think that Celdran did is still a crime and he should meet some punishment for it. And while I will agree with you that 133 should be repealed because of its redundancy and favoritism, I think it is basically a harmless law since no decent person would intentionally disrupt a religious ceremony or do something notoriously offensive in a place of worship. Such a law isn't an infringement on the freedom of expression. To put a rather absurd example, there could be a law that specifically prohibits (with a long prison term as punishment) one from willfully and intentionally interrupting a mass, throwing the holy wafer of the Catholics on the floor, and pissing on it. Such a law offers specific protection and has no benefit to nonbelievers. I'd find it ridiculous, but I wouldn't go out of my way to repeal it.
Totally agree with you briankarateguy, we're on the same boat.
Now, Celdran "willingly" disrupted the religious ceremony. Catholic ceremonies are announced, some of them are actual holidays, so it's your fault if your schedule gets disrupted by these. We've been living in this country for too long to do the blame game. I'm a non-believer and like briankarateguy, there's no point in provoking or offending their belief, for some reason it actually strengthens them. Someday, we'll see the change, but not by aggressive actions.
Thanks! 🙂
Yeah, there really is not much to gain by provoking them. I believe in New Atheism and how atheism should not be something anyone should be ashamed of. Still, like they say, the opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. Eventually, the influence of religion should end not thru hatred, but by increasing indifference and skepticism to their claims,
it depends on what to hate. and it's not true provoking results in little gain.
i would always hate the idea of putting supernaturalism side by side with science as if they are equals. that science is just an alternative explanation of reality. i would always be intolerant of mambo jumbos that retard the growth of critical thinking and promote false hopes. if indifference to these ideas is key to achieve overcoming ignorance, heck, where will that lead to? it's not wrong to hate a belief of 72 virgins per suicide. nor to hate a belief that virgin sex cures aids. the belief that hate leads to blood war is wrong either. mine fuels me to educate in all avenues that i know.
they've been provoked by numerous prominent atheist, but it is only in this generation that they are being provoked by common people through the internet and public opinion. that makes others aware that irreligious people can make sense and we are as human as they are. provoking them often results in reflection of the true foundations of why they hold such faith – in your words – skepticism.
You know what, such aggressive actions (like protesting inside the church and interrupting people who just came there to worship) will just hurt our own cause.
" personally, i won't piss on that wafer either. but doing nothing is just the same." – the logic of this escapes me…. How is doing nothing the same as scandalously pissing on their holy wafers?
"conforming on rules of politeness established by the dominant religion and on implementers of a law largely based from this religion" – fuck religion, this is about common decency. People are not allowed to make noise and cause a ruckus inside a library…would you consider that an infringement of anyone's freedom of speech? And again, even if we threw Article 133 out of the window, Celdran would still be guilty of the much more secular Article 153…are you saying Article 153 should be repealed too?
We have every right to be atheists and to promote atheism and to criticize all the fictional fancies of religion. However, we must do so in a fashion that does not trample on people's rights. Remember, we live in a country that protects freedom of religion (unless you're against that too and want to force everyone to be atheist or something). Heck, the UN Declaration of Human Rights also says as much:
Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Though Celdran's cause is just, there's is no defending his actions. Again, we have Article 153, which upholds another article in the UN Declaration of Human Rights:
Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
With all the avenues available to us to promote atheism and to fight the ills of religious superstition, why choose one that diverts the debate away from the real issue?
i find this ^ sound 🙂 though the other day when i scanned this thread, i saw an "ad hominem" type of appeal that you said i opened. i didn't. i was shedding light to this form of atheism i was not familiar with. it's nothing personal.
//You know what, such aggressive actions (like protesting inside the church and interrupting people who just came there to worship) will just hurt our own cause. //
i was like this before. and like what ive said, i won't piss on their wafer too. to put it simply, i won't even care. and before i was like "if they're not disturbing others while they waste themselves – let them be." but it's wrong. all wrong. when you know someone is poisoning himself little by little, you can't just stand and announce you're clean.
//Remember, we live in a country that protects freedom of religion (unless you're against that too and want to force everyone to be atheist or something). Heck, the UN Declaration of Human Rights also says as much: //
i agree. this is our reality now. but like i said, these laws were entirely based on the foundation thought of every society that religion has value. that we could have never gone to where we are w/o religion. this is also a belief that religion teaches. and any society can never be free of it if we allow them to think it's right. if there's anything that religion has shown, it's the things we ought better not to do again. mistakes made us better, true, but to cling on things that made us collapse as if they are a necessity is not healthy. yes im implying that the current state of laws is arguable. it should always be, isn't it?
provocation and aggressive argumentation should not be equated to physical violence nor the cause of it. it's the mere reaction and the way people retaliate to being educated by others that should be put into check. in our present condition, it badly needs an overhaul. this is why i don't agree that jailing an "offender of thought" or "offender of feeling" is an educated response.
lastly, //" personally, i won't piss on that wafer either. but doing nothing is just the same." – the logic of this escapes me…. How is doing nothing the same as scandalously pissing on their holy wafers? //
letting them waste themselves (doing no offensive/provocative action) is the same in degree as allowing someone to piss the wafer. it strengthens them – as flesheater's word. i said that on that very comment. i won't piss on the wafer, like you – but i won't just allow their ruckus unchecked/unprovoked either. maybe it's their right, but that's the same right as anyone who wants methamphetamine in his system. we constantly offend drug addicts by prohibiting the thing they want. why fear offending people of the same degree of addiction to religion by prohibiting the thing they crave? because the society is not ready to admit – yet. and i refuse to go with that flow.
Your arguments are quite a stretch there…will address it directly when I have more time…
My main point is that even if we were to completely remove all manner of respect for or decency towards religion and religious activities (which we shouldn't since that would make us as intolerant as the worst religious fanatics), what Celdran did violates SECULAR rights and sensibilities as well.
Again there's Article 153 (everyone seems to overlook this so I keep repeating it) and there is the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association…both secular values that have been violated by Celdran.
eheh i can't help overlook some laws because i do believe no law is absolute, they are guides to a much better society but they are, in their sense, in need continuous polishing. they are mere reflections of the present and should not be hailed one generation to another. when we accept unchanging rules for an ever changing world, we'll become dogmatists in the end.
and im sure you guys would agree that we are being called back as bigots/intolerant ourselves. but the comparison is outrageously awkward. they can't pass the ball of human and cultural intolerance to opinion/ idea inacceptance. we have our grounds in reason and evidence. they have their hearsay story. not equals to me.
No law may be "absolute" and it's true that through legal discourse we may change our laws. However, that doesn't really answer my argument. You need to justify why certain laws need changing.
My argument is that Celdran's actions have violated SECULAR rights and sensibilities. He violated Article 153 and he infringed on people's right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. Unless you think Article 153 should be repealed and people should NOT have the right to freedom of peaceful assembly, then Celdran should face some punishment for his actions.
reading the article(153), Celdran's action cannot be categorized as tumultuous. not even inciting rebellion nor sedition. the act itself did not even prove to be hindrance to their assembly. thanks for making me read that.
it should be noted that article III section 4 puts freedom of speech and expression, above all rights and law. and to me what happened then was the essence of what freedom of speech is.
Read the law again. An action does not have to be tumultuous nor does it have to incite rebellion or sedition. The law says "Tumultuous disturbance or interruption liable to cause disturbance." Take note of the "OR." It goes on to describe the crime as " or in such place shall display placards or emblems which provoke a disturbance of the public order." Are you saying that Celdran did not cause any disturbance whatsoever? That he did not interrupt or disturb the gathering in an offensive way?
Article III section 4 of what? No, any freedom is limited in the sense that it should not trample over another person's freedom. If you will declare that the freedom of speech and expression is "above all rights and law." then you have declared war on all manner of decency. People can punch their bosses and say they were merely expressing themselves. Students can go on and shout in the library. Heck, perhaps you would welcome people gatecrashing the funeral of a loved one…imagine mourning while people with placards call your dead friend/relative all sorts of insults. Your argument opens the floodgates of chaos.
Again, are you saying people shouldn't have the right to peaceful assembly? Are you saying people shouldn't have a place they could meet up in without being harassed?
on celdran's case, witnesses described it in their testimonials as something they thought part of the program – until they were enlightened what was actually going on, what "damaso" actually means. to me, this is far from being a disturbing act as based from witnesses account. they were offended after realizing their ignorance, not because of the act itself.
freedom of speech and expression should not be confused to physically harming others. the definition I agree upon is this "Right to express one's ideas and opinions freely through speech, writing, and other forms of communication but without deliberately causing harm to others' character."
Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/free…
the "harm" in the definition is done by deliberate lying and by the use of inappropriate words. DAMASO is an understatement considering that the character has no capacity to torment and threaten the leader of the land in the story. so the use was never demeaning but actually short of the true intent.
insulting a funeral is highly possible – given that the insult is true and not harming the reputation of the dead. placards protesting a dead murderer, rapist, molester, etc should not be limited and taken as a criminal act on the part of the victims – though offending the family of the dead. i once compared this to Celdran's case where the protester seemingly offending is actually appealing for the grievances he felt.
No, gatecrashing a funeral and hurling insults at a grieving assembly is NEVER okay and is NOT an acceptable practice that can be defended as the practice of ones freedom of expression. Again, even the Westboro Baptist Church had the sense to follow the law and do their self-righteous protests AWAY from the actual funeral/burial.
Again, Celdran violated secular laws with his act. He could easily have done his protesting on a public sidewalk outside the church. His deed should NOT be seen as an example to follow. If we want to protest the abuses of the church or of the government, we must do so through legal means and not through practices that cause controversy and divert attention away from the actual issue.
You have not really adequately addressed my point that Celdran violated secular principles. I will again cite Article 153 of our RPC (just because it wasn't tumultuous or wasn't in a way that disturbed absolutely everyone, doesn't mean it wasn't disruptive and grossly inappropriate), Article 18 if the UNDHR ("Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance), and Article 20 of the same ("Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association."). Defending his actions by simply saying that not everyone was offended is a very weak argument.
atheism has its flavors now. i see.
conforming on rules of politeness established by the dominant religion and on implementers of a law largely based from this religion will take this "new atheism" of a bit wanting if not lame.
first, i don't believe teaching by force or achieving goals by strength and numbers. but in case of religions, it's a different talk.
please hear yourselves:
//Catholic ceremonies are announced, some of them are actual holidays, so it's your fault if your schedule gets disrupted by these. We've been living in this country for too long to do the blame game.//
//Such a law isn't an infringement on the freedom of expression. To put a rather absurd example, there could be a law that specifically prohibits (with a long prison term as punishment) one from willfully and intentionally interrupting a mass, throwing the holy wafer of the Catholics on the floor, and pissing on it.//
giving bearing and equal importance to any religion and respecting their sacred cows is not reinforcing? that's what you two (flesheater and briankarateguy) are implying here. personally, i won't piss on that wafer either. but doing nothing is just the same. it allows them to think their nonsense are deserving of recognition and reverence. civil protests are still offending. and in front of a religion, there's no way you'll not offend unless you become one of them.
what you are forgetting is the absolute fact that any significant change in our society – was brought by an offending idea. an idea that refuses to conform what the majority thinks. an idea that offends what is generally accepted.
Atheism has flavors? What you fail to understand is that your atheism is the "new atheism" whatever you call it. Being enlightened doesn't give me the right to implant or force what I've learned into other people. I use various mediums, for example the net, instead of protesting.
Your stand is all about being a self-righteous savior who won't get satisfied until he drills the idea in everyone's head. Basically, you'd trample on other people's right just to prove them wrong. People, being an atheist or a free thinker doesn't make you part of an elite group of super heroes. We're all on the same boat of humanity with diverse beliefs. Being the people that you believe you are, you should have the much better understanding.
again i don't find anything wrong being disrespectful and intolerant towards any idiotic idea. we are wrong at times, but humiliating a ridiculous thought is the best way to stop it from growing. at least that's the taste of atheism that i know. i may hurt and trample feelings, but it is inevitable. people tie feelings and aspirations to their beliefs which, retards the quest for truth and why scientific reason is superior. i admit my shortcomings too at least when pointed out correctly.
also…please be careful about your use of the term "absolute fact" (which is also a redundancy) and how it refers to "any significant change" in our society… I'm quite sure a lot of significant changes happened gradually as well, without shockingly offending people…
He was *not* arrested for interrupting *anything*. Read the court ruling. He was arrested for blaspheming in a church. The law is essentially an anti-blasphemy law. Since when are anti-blasphemy laws "reasonable"?
If he won't be charged with Art. 133, then he could be charged with Art 153 (which kinda makes 133 redundant).
I call it "reasonable" since people have the right to worship in peace in a place specifically set for that purpose. If you read the law, it just bans people from committing notoriously offensive acts inside a church or during a religious ceremony. Very few people have been charged with this crime in the past…and even fewer (if any) were actually found guilty. So far, it seems, the law has not been abused to favor religion groups too much. Even Carlos Celdran acknowledges the error of his method.
A law that protects religious gatherings and not secular ones is unreasonable enough to begin with, even if there are no abuses of that law.
You know what, even if we repealed Art. 133, he could still be charged under Art. 153. There's a proper way to voice protest and the way he did it is clearly not something that should be emulated. Again, I support what he was protesting about, but such methods will just give a cause a bad name.
And like some people here are saying, if the case against him was trespassing or public disturbance, it wouldn't be a much of a problem. And from what I understand of Article 153, the duration of penalty should be 1 month and 1 day to 6 months, whereas Celdran was given 2 months and 21 days to a year. How is article 133 reasonable when offending religious feelings have double the penalties of public disturbance? (I hope I'm right in my interpretation of the articles)
I have to agree with you on that regard (the penalty). I think even 6 months would be rather severe (unless he did something like stomp on their holy wafers before crapping on the holy chalice). Art. 133 should be repealed since it is basically a redundant law. I only said it was "reasonable" since, in my opinion, a reasonable person would not feel the need to protest inside a church or intentionally disrupt religious worship.
However, as far as Celdran is concerned, I think he should still face some punishment for his crime. Just not so severe a punishment. It would actually do the CBCP good to drop the charges since all they're doing is making him some sort of weird martyr… (although I understand how, with the separation of church and state, it's conceivable that they would forgive him yet push for his punishment according to law).
"However, as far as Celdran is concerned, I think he should still face some punishment for his crime. Just not so severe a punishment. It would actually do the CBCP good to drop the charges…"
Unfortunately, it's too late to do that now. Let's just hope the appeal will turn out for good
And again, I'd like to make the same argument…but with different wording: Do we really want to promote the disruption of religious services (especially INSIDE a place of worship) as a RIGHT? Perhaps it's okay to protest during funeral services too if nothing is sacred (and this is coming from an atheist, haha).
you are an athiest? wala ka din palang ipinagkaiba sa mga taong kinasusuklaman mo…sa talino mong yan, sarado na rin pala ang utak mo. :/
Unless you clearly explain your ad hominem argument, I can just as easily accuse you of being close-minded as well (since the criteria behind such a claim are undefined). So unless you're just trolling, please do explain. 🙂
@Kenneth Keng:
Try protesting inside a MOSQUE and lets see if you can keep your head on your shoulder.
So much for your self-righteous rant.
Love,
Damaso.
//Try protesting inside a MOSQUE and lets see if you can keep your head on your shoulder.//
Your Fatwa envy is noted, called out, and now being mocked, motherfucker.
Seriously, you think insinuating that just because Muslims are less tolerant of criticism, that gives self-righteous turds like you the right to be intolerant?
Shame on you.
this is the reason why you freethinker-kuno cowards are afraid to protest inside the mosque. you are afraid to lose your bag of wind on your shoulder.
Well, Mr Celdran deserves it.
And you cry foul because you are helpless to overturn his conviction.
SHAME ON YOU, COWARD!
love,
DAMASO
"this is the reason why you freethinker-kuno cowards are afraid to protest inside the mosque. you are afraid to lose your bag of wind on your shoulder."
Why would we waste time protesting inside the mosque? The local Muslim community in general does not disrespect universal human rights the same way the local Catholic Church does.
"And you cry foul because you are helpless to overturn his conviction."
There are only a few of us and there are over thousands of you; still, you could not stop the now RH LAW and all your rallies against it were like the ghostly echoes of a dilapidated Cathedral. Now, define "helpless," pretty please. ;}
"SHAME ON YOU, COWARD!"
Oh my goodness, that really cuts, bro. I'm, LIKE, totally gonna kill myself now. XD
you now resort to name-calling.
how low can you get. pathetic.
Yes, just because Catholics dont use guns to get what they want, then you have less respect for them.
Good luck dhimmi.
Why use guns, when you can twist the arm of morally bankrupt politicos who are willing to do the bidding of the bishops to gain their favor?
You need to think big, my friend – your ilk doesn't necessarily need bullets to do harm.
https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2012/10/22/bullet…
You are getting quite boring. Self-righteous Catholic turds like you haven't been up to par since you had your asses collectively kicked when the RH Bill was passed into law.
What's the matter – having trouble recruiting fresh blood?
It doesn't count as an ad hominem when the label is accurate – that's calling a spade a spade. Objective truth.
I do apologize for calling you a motherfucker – that was inaccurate.
What I meant to say was "hypocritical, holier-than-thou asswipe"
It's how "How" low can you "go", not get,
If you're going to be condescending, at least use proper grammar. Dumbass.
I would say, "Repost". Then again.
Please do not degrade Muslims and think of them as barbarians. Indeed, as followers of the faith and as a conservative religion, they will definitely react BUT not to that extend.
As a previous delegate in a Christian-Muslim organization, I am well aware that Muslims in the Philippines are more civil than what you perceive them to be. (Yes, I am mentioning a quantifier, as admittedly, Muslims in other countries really stick to Sharia )
So yeah – so much for your self-righteous, discriminating comment.
Back at you, sir.
YEAH RIGHT. You have less respect to Catholics and bash them whenever you want because they dont use guns to get what you want.
Goodluck Dhimmi.
That's "less respect *FOR* Catholics…"
For somebody who acts like a know-it-all pharisee, your english proficiency is sorely lacking.
Just stringing together more than two sentences together must be pure agony for you. I can see why you're so frustrated.
Just because I told you to respect the Muslims doesn't mean I do not respect the Catholics. Your argument is invalid, Sir. Goodbye.
"You have less respect to Catholics and bash them whenever you want because they dont use guns to get what you want."
"THEY" don't use guns to get what "YOU" want? You have less respect "TO" Catholics?
LOL. I will not be surprised if you are indeed a student from a particular Catholic school which gives plus points in exams just by expressing your love for God on your test sheet.
Hi Kenneth,
Two questions
1) Isn't it just to reserve a space for the religious where they can practice their belief and worship, without any threats from other people? Specifically, do you not agree with reserving a place, particularly for the purpose of expressing religious belief without any possibility of anyone offending those religious belief?
2) Are you suggesting that there is a precedence among basic rights, ie, Freedom of Speech trumps Freedom of Expressing Religion?
1) Yes to reserving a space for belief and worship, but no arresting anyone who shows up to them with a nonviolent dissenting opinion. When you make it illegal to be offended, all you end up with is legitimizing attacks against people who think differently from you, as has been demonstrated by how blasphemy legislation has only made religious violence worse around the world and made it harder for those of differing faiths to practice their beliefs. Also, how weak would one's faith have to be that they need to be sheltered from anyone who disagrees with them?
2) I consider them two names for the same thing. Suppress one and you suppress the other. The thinking behind your questions only works if you live in a society where there is only one demonstrably true religion that everyone agrees on.
I disagree. Please do not connect the issue with the RH Bill because there is a universe of differences between them. It’s just inflaming anti-clerical sentiment. What is central to this issue is the form of expression. He has the right but his right to express himself ends with yother people’s right to freely practice their religion
Tell us Joseph, at what point did Celdran's actions directly prevent these massgoers from practicing mass?
Did he tie them up and gag them?
He broke the law, and the court has spoken. Period.
"An unjust law is no law at all." – St. Augustine of Hippo
I may have gathered wrong information here, but didn't he stand in front of the altar and wasn't he shouting during the mass? I mean, I'm all for offending religious feelings, but shouldn't gatherings (secular or otherwise) in their respective places be protected by the law from harassment and disruptions?
1) I agree with you, especially with this "Yes to reserving a space for belief and worship, but no arresting anyone who shows up to them with a nonviolent dissenting opinion. " It can be argued that it was wrong when police arrested Carlos right there and then, first, because police might have thought that Carlos is doing a crime inflagrante delicto which may or may not have been a crime; and, the priests may have acted over their boundaries by perhaps ordering the police to arrest Carlos.
however, I do not agree with you that Art 133 qualifies as "blasphemy legislation" mainly because the provision is not directed, but may cover, at blasphemy per se. It only covers "notoriously offensive" acts done at place of worship or during religious celebretation. Come to think of it thought, "notoriously offensive" is quite a lower threshold compared to "blasphemy". Had Art 133 provided for "blasphemous act" than "notoriously offensive" act, it will be more difficult to prosecute the case.