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.
I find this post of yours very funny at the least. You point out things that border hypocrisy. For example:
1. 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. -> This act reflects what Celdran did. Yes it was a disconcerting experience for everyone doing their worship.
2. 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 -> If someone does something bad inside my house, I'd definitely sue them or have them jailed. It's your house and no one has the right to destroy your property or insult you. It's not showing immaturity if you sue them or have them jailed, it's actually your responsibility. If you don't, you're just lazy and condoning those types of acts. What a shame.
It's also funny that you mention Fatwa Envy when your post actually points to being a Born Again hating on Catholics.
Good day to you sir.
your comparison in #1 fails in many points. one being the family having no idea of threatening that priest for a criminal case. another is that Celdran is not being an ego tripper that moment unlike that priest. it was a clear delivery of protest and not a lecture on who's right and superior. third is, whom is the message addressed to? perhaps the main point missed by the "Damaso" case. the protest was addressed to the cbcp hierarchy, not the belief nor the religion itself. why offending religious feelings was brought up is the real funny thing. the priest in the hospital on the other hand, utter those words in a sublime insult of the "other" faith in front of him. that is the essence of offending religious feelings IMO.
number 2 is a bad case of defining "rude". of course there's a line in taking reactions on your own and making a legal action. if you find suing as a gift then fine. but don't think other people are that immature to sue for something like picking a mango from their tree without consent, trespassing their garden to catch a loose rooster, and even throwing rocks on their roof because the house owner molested some kid. if it's laziness not to sue such happenings, then i say people who have the guts to do so are either petty if not undignified.
#1 If the protest was targeted to the CBCP alone then why would he disrupt a religious gathering? Why didn't he protest in front of the actual CBCP office? He's certainly sending a different message one that borders that he can do what he want, he wants to offend and clearly it boosts his already big ego. You also pointed out that it's not a lecture on who's right and superior, so what was the whole point?
Overall you're saying that what he did was a senseless act and he only wanted to offend people.
#2 You're missing the entire point. I'm quite amused that you compared someone disrupting a gathering from someone picking up mangoes at other people's property. You're taking everything I said in a different context.
The main point of what I said was when someone is in your property doing "bad/rude" stuff, you have the right to sue them or drive them away. Of course any intelligent man would also inquire on why it happened. Apparently for Celdran, he went inside a church bearing the "Damaso" sign that clearly states something very bad. That is very far from someone catching a loose rooster.
if i tell you you're DAMASO will you be offended? again our definition of "bad" leads us to our difference of opinion about the case. calling someone CRAZY and in fact he really is is not name calling or demeaning. it's an adjective – use it. same way with DAMASO which is a metaphoric comparison of what is obvious. if it's bad to shout what is true, then wow. there goes freedom of expression.
let our facts be straight. those who said it was a religious gathering were the ones suing celdran. celdran claimed it's not. the way i see the picture alone of a line up of bishops and other church high ops – is not an ordinary "religious ceremony". is that always the case? or is it they are meeting with other groups about spreading bibles in schools and public? and by the way, you always brought up that he(celdran) intruded a private property and thus deserves jail time. but is it really a private property? they pay no taxes for it. if other people interprets that the pulpit and altar is a place of advocacy, there's none better to blame than the people who utter sermons about government policies as part of their religious mumbling.
if it's not about who is right and superior, maybe informing and making the other party reflect should come to mind. that's how a scientific debate resolves to a common conclusion – something impossible to the self-righteous.
should he protest in front of the cbcp office? why would he choose an inferior way if a better one is viable?
and those things about mangoes and roosters are there to show my idea of what is petty. my answer to your point of suing every case of intrusion to private property. am i implying that celdran's protest was a petty act of noble cause? in front of a mature and intelligent audience, im sure it was. it's easy to forgive when you know you're dignified yourself.
First, who was Damaso? He has a member of the religious order who committed vile acts in the book of Rizal. Of course I will not be offended because I'm not a member of the religious order. It's not just a matter of name calling, it's actually more than that. He was saying that all members of the religious order are "Damasos". It's not exercising freedom of speech, it's abusing it.
Regarding the venue of his actions, you're saying that you're agreeing with Celdran even if you weren't there at all. I'm seeing blind idolatry in here. A private property is not also limited to "being taxed", it's pretty obvious that he invaded another territory on which he should know the repercussion of his actions.
Informing other parties is far different from what he did. What he did was a bigoted idea. He was already pointing out something like it's absolute which isn't true at all. And why would protesting outside the CBCP office be inferior? They're the ones who he's complaining in the first place, I fail to understand what your saying. So instead of directing to the root cause of the problem, he has to disrupt parties that aren't even involve? That is petty.
Again with the mangoes and roosters, I did not say I will sue everyone who intrudes in my home. I said you have the "right" to sue them if given just cause. People who get caught picking mangoes or even chasing roosters at your home actually speak up and ask for forgiveness if get caught, unlike Celdran, who did it willingly with strong intention of offending. At the end, he said sorry out of "pressure" which even looks sarcastic.
//He was saying that all members of the religious order are "Damasos". It's not exercising freedom of speech, it's abusing it.//
and there are exceptions? then they must be heard out. if they truly are somewhere in the scene then there was no need for private citizens to get involved in the first place. but they remain conforming, submissive members of their order, and an indirect "Damaso" which doesn't entitle them being innocent of the entire Catholic work.
//it's pretty obvious that he invaded another territory on which he should know the repercussion of his actions.//
and i can say the exact same thing when the clergy misinform their parishioners about matters they have no expertise.
protesting outside the CBCP will have no advantage on the side of the protester. rallies are conducted where they can get the most attention. it's common sense why. it is your argument i don't understand. why would a protest be conducted in a manner that will give convenience to the side of the protested? celdran should have gone to this place instead to that, celdran should've been more polite to what he wants to raise? not my idea of protest.
if all protesters are in fear of offending the ones they are protesting at. it would destroy the idea of what democracy is. that's why i don't believe in jailing someone on the ground of offending feelings. you're led into offending because you too were offended emotionally. so why would a law take one side and jail that party? simple. that law evaded modernity. and if someone tells me it's just to be there to protect religions from offenders, is it not right to think that these offenders were offended by the religion to begin with?
Every time I hear this tired old fatwa envy argument, my brain translates it into something like this:
"How DARE you criticize us! Be grateful that we're just going to throw you behind bars, instead of shooting you in the face!"
Nice post, Eric! This, once and for all, answers the "do that in a mosque" argument. Haha. Anyway.
Celdran protested in a "holy place" being run and shitted by half-men who go against human rights, collect money (and stocks and many more) for their personal interests, and whore themselves for attention and political favors-
– The same way that Jesus protested in a "temple" being run by the same people.
These were the men who incited the crowd to drive Jesus off the cliff (Luke 4: 38 – 40) before. These are the same people he called robber later on (Luke 19:45 – 47). And… eventually, are the same league who pushed for his death sentence.
I am not glorifying Celdran as a modern Jesus, or Rizal – but his act is just "just" if we are to use the bible's example for standing up against the church's wrongs. He stood up to point out their sins and got punished for doing what is right.
And it is a good example of what Christ-based religions should never do.
The only thing that offends me is that Carlos had to apologize to these hypocrites…
yeah same here. i was shocked but he's not to be blamed. we don't know the pressures he's against.