Catholic church is for equality, unless you're gay

or a woman.  

CBCP wants anti-discrimination bill cleansed of provisions on gay rights

"Ronald Reyes, a lawyer of the CBCP, said they had no qualms about the bill before but became concerned when the bill was amended and “sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity” were included.

“It’s opening the door for same sex marriages, which our country doesn’t allow,” Reyes told reporters."

 Which is a stupid thing to say, since if you are correct and this bill allows gay marriage, then you're argument that the country does not allow gay marriage is moot.

And of course Atty. Imbong, has to speak up too

"Another CBCP lawyer Jo Imbong said the LGBT (lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgender) should not be considered the same as the elderly, the handicapped, and the poor."

Because of course gays are not people like the elderly, the handicapped and the poor.  What about elderly, handicapped or poor gays?  Would people be allowed to discriminate against them too?  But no,  for Atty Imbong, people should be allowed to discriminate against gays because

"“These people are disadvantaged not by their own choice. But the third sex, they choose this. How can you give protection to a choice like that?” Imbong said."

Which of course would mean that Atty. Imbong is pushing for the removal of religion from among those protected by the bill since people also choose their own religion.  Right?  Right Atty. Imbong?  But in the end, Atty. Imbong goes to the heart of their objection to the bill.  It's because the Catholic church want to discriminate against people they don't like.

"The bill would hinder the Church from teaching what it believed to be right or wrong, Imbong said."

It's fun pointing out the hypocrisy of the CBCP,  but as I tried to research more on this subject,  I found out some disturbing news. 

1. I can't find a copy of the bill, the closes one is the one filed by Sen. Legarda without the amendments approved by the Senate that are being objected to by the CBCP.
2. But in her sponsorship speech in the Senate, Sen. Legards had this example as a punishable act under the bill.
   

   "To give teeth to this measure, a person who is found guilty--for instance, of the act of a media personality using the name of an ethnic group in a joke for a television program--shall serve between nine months and twelve years in prison, and/or will be obliged to pay between Php100,000 to Php500,000."

   This is patently an anti freedom of expression law.  I can understand prohibiting discrimination when it comes to employment opportunities, but jokes?
3. Also from the sponsorship speech is this little gem.
   

   "We must strive to transform our society into an open-minded and sensitive community where no child is subjected to name-calling because of his distinct looks;"

   WTF,  how do you even think you can do this?
   

Maybe it's just Loren Legarda,  maybe the Supreme Court will strike down this patently anti-speech provision in the law if it ever comes to pass.  But as it is, I have this suspicion that this bill, if it becomes law, will only be used by religious bigots like Atty. Imbong to crackdown on the critics of the catholic church.

The reason we should all defend freedom of expression

Iran actress sentenced to one year in jail

 "Actress Marzieh Vafamehr has been sentenced to a year in jail and 90 lashes for her role in a film about the limits imposed on artists in the Islamic republic, an Iranian opposition website reported Sunday.

"A verdict has been issued for Marzieh Vafamehr, sentencing her to a year in jail and 90 lashes," Kalameh.com reported"

 Religious limits to freedom of expression should not be allowed.

TANGINA THIS! VIDEO! # 4

A ruling the Catholic church would love

Russian Court Bans Alexander Savko Painting With Mickey Mouse's Head On Jesus' Body

A court in the Kaluga Region of Russia has ruled that a painting of Jesus Christ with the head of Mickey Mouse is offensive and banned it from being exhibited. The courts called the work "extremist," and ruled that it was "religiously offensive" under Article 282.

Russian news source Ria Novosti reports that, "unless the Kaluga Region court's ruling is successfully appealed, the painting will be banned from exhibitions, newspapers, magazines or television. The case was heard in the Kaluga Region after a local complained to the authorities."

via Dispatches from the Culture Wars

Quote of the day

Just love this quote from Ricky Gervais

“Just because you are offended doesn’t mean you are right,” Gervais said of his critics. “People fall into this myth that I’m a shock comedian. I’ve never been that. People say I crossed the line but I didn’t draw the fucking line, you did.”

if only the censorious catholics understand this.

Ramon Tulfo on free speech

It should not have surprised me that Ramon Tulfo, somebody who deliberately makes people mad for a living is a defender of free expression. 

We pride ourselves as being an ideal democratic country, and yet we want to bludgeon to death an artist who offends our religious sensibilities.

We are a society of hypocrites!

We got our hypocrisy from the Spanish friars who taught us fornicating was a mortal sin, and yet impregnated many women.

*  *  *

If Mideo Cruz depicted Jesus of Nazareth with a penis protruding from his face on a painting, leave him alone.

If we crucify Cruz because we are offended by his work of “art,” we are just like the Jews who nailed Jesus on the cross because His teachings were radical.

Cruz’s work may be “immature and juvenile”—as National Artist Francisco Sionil Jose describes it—but must we punish him for being different?

Let us not forget, my dear friends and readers, that we live in a democracy.

Some wags say democracy—defined as government of, by and for the people—is “demo-crazy.”

Anyone can make a fool of himself just as long as they don’t do physical harm to others.

 I think the entire column is worth reading

Isa pang hirit

Pasensiya na ngayon ko lang nabasa itong article na ito kung saan nagwawala si Cardinal Rosales
Speaking on Church-run Radio Veritas, Rosales said the exhibit of Mideo Cruz “abused” freedom of expression and urged the faithful to “rise up” in protest against it.

“It’s an abuse of freedom because the use of freedom must respect responsibilities. There’s a responsibility not to destroy culture, civilization or the good conduct of persons,” Rosales said.

Kasi babagsak ang sibilisasyon dahil sa ginawang bagay ni Cruz.  Haha, over acting ka naman masyado Cardinal.

“Let me just ask, can he (Cruz) do that to his own father (or) to (national hero Jose) Rizal? …you will never do that to somebody you respect (like) your parents or to a hero like Jose Rizal. Why did you do that to the Son of God?” Rosales said.

Baka po hindi niya kinikilala si Jesus bilang anak ng diyos?  baka po hindi niya nirerespeto yung diyos na nirerespeto niyo?  Bakit kailangan niyo pilitin irespeto ng isang tao ang hindi niya nirerespeto?

Eto namand si Bishop Pabillo

Manila Auxiliary Bishop Broderick Pabillo said it was wrong for a person to “play” with objects considered holy by a religion.

“Art should enhance life…Freedom of expression has a limit because that freedom involves our duty to respect the stand, the opinion and the culture of others,” Pabillo said.

Aasahan ko na ipagbabawal na ng simbahang katoliko ang pagkain ng baboy, kasi bawal yan sa kultura at relihiyon ng mga Muslim.  Siguro ipagbawal na rin nila ang pagkain ng baka, bawal kasi yun sa kultura at relihiyon ng mga Hindu.  Yung shellfish pala kailangan din ipagbawal, bawal yun sa mga Hudyo.  Araw araw may ginagawa ang mga katoliko na taliwas sa kultura at relihiyon ng madaming tao,  bakit kailangan bigyang priority ang simbahang katoliko?

Why appeasement does not work

Because zealots do not understand appeasement,  they see it as a sign of weakness not compromise.  They will try to eliminate everybody they deem to have opposed them.

Sana Matuloy

Gusto ko matuloy itong kaso na isasampa nina Atty. Jo Imbong sa CCP para magkaroon na once and for all ng ruling.  Either ma deem unconstitutional ang blasphemy laws ng Pilipinas o makita ng buong mundo na medieval pa rin ang bansa natin.

Update:

The United Nations Human Right Committee in an opinion pronounced that blasphemy laws violate the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the Philippines ratified in 1966.

via Dispatches from the Culture Wars

Sacred Cows

In his column defending while criticizing the CCP exhibit Conrado de Quiros revealed that his defense of freedom of expression is limited only to those he finds acceptable.  Expressions he finds unacceptable should be censored

"I grant there should be limits to free expression. You may not flash the dirty finger in public, as Rodrigo Duterte is wont to do, or the very thing the dirty finger is meant to represent, to say “f–k you” at the world. You may not piss on the flag in public to say you are pissed off with this country or its leaders. I myself do not think Cruz’s “RH series” belongs to this box, it is an attempt to say something serious, however what it has to say discombobulates the faithful."

The Philippine Daily Inquirer itself in an editorial states

"Violence should not be condoned, but the vandalism inflicted on Mideo M. Cruz’s “Polytheism” art work at the Cultural Center of the Philippines last Aug. 4—an unidentified couple smashed a penis-motif wooden ashtray glued onto the poster, and tried but failed to set fire to the collage that formed part of the installation—is understandable. The work is deeply offensive to Catholics, and even non-Catholic Christians are shocked and disgusted at the installation’s wooden cross with a movable penis and condom. If all of this does not constitute sacrilege, blasphemy or attack on religion, we don’t know what is."

These two institutions that can only do their work under the constitutional protection on freedom of expression blatantly supports limits to the freedom of other people.  Apparently, it's ok to have freedom of expression as long as you don't express things they find objectionable.

De Quiros' column is entitled "It's Complicated" only underlines his fear of religion

"First off, I’d say that as a general principle, one should be respectful of other people’s religious beliefs. One should be appreciative of, or sensitive to, the passions they generate. At the very least that is so because of the catastrophic consequences of not doing so. The capacity of slights to religion, real or imagined, to cause mayhem, or even war, is plentifully in evidence."

The fact that some religious people do violence because of perceived slight to their religion should not be a reason to tiptoe around religious feelings.  It should be a reason to ruthlessly prosecute any religious person that causes mayhem.  It should give us more reason to mock their religion so that they become inured (kumapal ang balat) to mockery.

The PDI's editorial is titled "Art as Terrorism", because putting a penis in a picture is equivalent to killing people.  The editorial is full of apologia for angry catholics and ad hominem attacks on the artist.

"Predictably enough, Cruz also misrepresents Catholic iconography in order to suit his self-serving and ultimately erroneous thesis. Whatever the excesses of Filipino folk religiosity, it must be said Catholics do not worship images; they venerate them as sensual channels to the divine. Catholics worship God; they accord the Blessed Trinity “latria,” Greek for adoration. They don’t worship the Blessed Mother and the saints. To the latter, they accord “dulia,” Greek for veneration; to the former they accord “hyperdulia,” a higher form of veneration. Therefore, Catholics don’t practice polytheism. Cruz not only misrepresents Catholics’ monotheistic practice; he insults it by using Catholic iconography to poke fun at it."

What is the difference between venerating saints and worshiping them? The end result is the same,  people pray to the saints, the the various incarnations of the Virgin Mary.  Disagreeing with one's interpretation of catholic dogma does not necessarily mean that the other person's interpretation is self serving. 

The funny thing is about the editorial is that it shoots itself.

In the end, Cruz is an “iconoclast.” His art smashes perceived false idols. The danger here is that his art could become arrogant and terror-prone. The Church has experienced a tumultuous history of iconoclastic revolutions across the centuries (the Byzantine iconoclastic outbursts in the first millennium and the Protestant revolts in the second) that have destroyed priceless items in man’s cultural heritage. And the Church is not alone among religions victimized by iconoclasm. Closer to our day, we witnessed how the Muslim Taliban dynamited in 2001 the ancient giant mountain carvings of Buddhas of Afghanistan, a terrorist blow to the cultural patrimony of humanity. 

 It styles itself as trying to protect the cultural heritage of the Philippines (presumably) because the exhibit will rile up Filipinos who will destroy catholic artifacts because they are Taliban (I think).  When in fact, the Taliban destroyed the cultural artifacts of Afghanistan because they perceived them as an affront to their one true religion, which is Islam.

I will give them this though, 

"It is unfortunate that the furor over “Polytheism” has obscured the fact that it’s just one of the works in a larger exhibit, “Kulo,” mounted by curators, artists and writers who have studied at the University of Santo Tomas in connection with its 400th anniversary this year."

it is unfortunate that a single artists work was zeroed in the catholic zealots which  led the closure of the exhibit including the works of other artists.  

On the CCP Exhibit

Kung nababastusan kayo sa exhibit, wag niyong tingnan.  Wala namang nakatutok na baril sa ulo niyo na pumipilit sa inyo na tingnan niyo yung exhibit.  Kailangan niyo bumiyahe papuntang CCP para makita yung exhibit, wala siya sa gitna ng sala niyo.  Kunwari pa kayo nababastusan kayo tingin naman kayo ng tingin.  Hayaan niyong yung hindi nababastusan ang tumingin.  Kung gusto niyo gumawa din kayo ng exhibit na mababastusan yung ibang tao, walang pumipigil sa inyo.

Pati si Imelda Marcos pumapapel na, tae.

How will the Catholic church react?

`Blasphemous’ art vandalized

An unidentified couple smashed a penis-motif wooden ashtray glued onto the poster and tried but failed to set fire to the entire collage, said Karen Flores, visual arts department chief of the Cultural Center of the Philippines.

One of the vandals then gave a lecture on morality to the lone guard assigned to the exhibit and other visitors before the couple casually walked out of the government building, Flores told Agence France-Presse."