2 Hot 4 8List: 8 Questions I Always Get Asked About Marriage Equality

.:2 Hot 4 8List: 8 Questions I Always Get Asked About Marriage Equality:.

I try my best to be a moderate when it comes to my personal opinions. Most people know what they are, but I try my best not to be combative about them when I encounter someone who doesn't share the same opinion as I. This blog post will not be as charitable, because I've allowed a lot of people to get in their myopic jabs on the topic for long enough. This hopefully addresses most of those so-called issues they raise.

Here now are 8 questions I always get asked about marriage equality, especially in light of the recent SCOTUS ruling that recognizes LGBT marriage to be on the same legal footing as heterosexual marriage.

8. Why are the LGBT redefining marriage? 

First of all, marriage has been redefined so many times over the centuries that it's not even funny anymore. The idea that marriage is a union of love has been a fairly recent idea. There isn't really a "traditional" marriage, to begin with. Otherwise, all rape survivors will be required to marry their aggressor, just as the Bible stated.

In its current form, aside from the idea of one person loving another person for the rest of their life, marriage is understood to also come with concurrent rights. These rights are the crux of what marriage equality advocates are fighting for. It's something under the domain of the government, and in the case of the Philippines and America, the government is supposedly a secular one. What this means is simple: defining marriage as "biblical marriage," while not only problematic because of how the Bible itself defines marriage, also alienates the people who are not subscribers to the Bible.

TL;DR - marriage can stay the same for your church, but the government, in the interest of equal rights for all, needs to reassess marriage in order to live up to this secular ideal.

7. Why are the LGBT forcing people to bake them wedding cakes? How is this equality?

Oh. You mean that story in America of how a gay couple sued a bakery for refusing to bake them a cake for their wedding, then subsequently got awarded over $100,000 in damages afterwards?

First of all, you might not have read the entire story: this bakery didn't just "politely" decline this couple, they also doxxed (that is, they released the identity and private information) of these people when they complained about being refused service. People gloss over this fact, yet when you realize that the doxxing caused them anguish (they were given death threats) and extended that anguish to their adopted kids (they were also given death threats), suddenly, it doesn't seem like the bakery was fined nearly enough for what they did.

There's nothing "polite" about calling people an "abomination," okay? This is every bit as manipulative as saying that the old lady who sued McDonald's over their coffee was being frivolous (she received 3rd degree burns, not just some booboo someone can kiss to go away).

Also, remember how big a deal it was when people would refuse service to black people? Well, why would it suddenly be okay to refuse service to gay people just because? Are they not entitled to the same rights as black people in the first place?

Nobody was demanding this bakery to get gay married or to preside over the gay marriage of a couple that they already did business with before, prior to finding out about their orientation. That's plain discrimination, and it boggles the mind how people could think that discrimination is okay just because you claim that your God told you so. "God" has "told" people to do the Crusades. "Allah" has "told" extremists to fly a couple of planes into the World Trade Center. None of this was cool. A "lesser" offense hung on the same conceit isn't, either.

6. Why am I being called a bigot for not sharing the same opinion about LGBT marriage? My freedom of speech is being impinged!

First of all, when someone calls you a bigot, they are also exercising their free speech. We see a lot of people confused with that all the time, including certain bloggers who block people who call them out on their hypocrisy when they start cyber-lynching someone.

Still applicable, huh?

Secondly, let's get one thing straight here: your freedom to say whatever you want doesn't mean you are going to be free from consequences. If you lose your job because you went on a racist tirade, I'm sorry, but that's the consequence of you exercising your freedom of speech. Just ask Hulk Hogan, even if I feel bad for the guy.

To be fair, he's too orange to be a white supremacist.

If you can't take the heat, then get out of the kitchen. The only thing freedom of speech entails is that you won't be arrested by the government for saying whatever, although in the Philippines, we don't even have that level of freedom, since libel is a criminal offense here. Just ask Fashion Pulis.

Don't confuse our Philippine laws with American laws. This isn't an argument about tradition but legality.

Lastly, when you call someone an "abomination," do you even think being a "bigot" is remotely comparable to what you just called an LGBT person? Learn to check your privilege before you make these kinds of complaints, because you're working from the assumption that nothing is wrong with insulting the very being of an LGBT person by calling them an "abomination" all because your "God" "told" you so.

5. So does this mean I can't believe that God doesn't approve of LGBT marriage anymore?

Of course not! You're free to keep believing this, the same way some people still believe that slavery, or women's suffrage, or interracial marriage are all horrible things God would shun, too.

What you can't do, though, is to conflate your religious beliefs with the legal demand for equal rights for everyone, including LGBT people, to marry the one they love, who just so happen to have the same genitals as they do.

Godwinned!

Your church can continue to never marry LGBT couples to each other, but if the government decides marriage equality is a thing, you can't pretend that the law has to conform to your religion, because it doesn't work that way.

4. Why does this matter so much to you if you're straight?

Well, wow. I didn't realize that empathy is a bad thing now! Do I even need to dignify this question with an answer?

3. Aren't you afraid of Sodom and Gomorrah happening to us if we let marriage equality happen?

No. No, I'm not afraid of Sodom and Gomorrah, because Canada has had marriage equality for a decade now, and they're doing pretty okay. And why does your God turn into the hellfire and brimstone version only when it comes to gay marriage, but He's all loving and kind and benevolent and forgiving when it's little crimes like murder or rape or plunder? That's mighty selective, don't you think?

You also might want to read up on why Sodom and Gomorrah was actually condemned in the first place. You might be surprised how little it had to do with homosexuality.

2. So what next? We can now do polygamy? Incest? Bestiality? Marry kids off to pedophiles?

Well, that escalated quickly. It's very clear that the premise of marriage equality is that two consenting adults decide to spend the rest of their lives with each other. All three of these words are integral to the definition of marriage equality. Animals can't legally give consent. Kids are obviously not adults and can't legally give consent, either. Consent is fuzzy when there are power dynamics in play with blood relatives, such as mother vs son, etc. In polygamous situations, the transfer of rights is ridiculously complicated, but if the law were able to dynamically adapt, then so long as all parties involved are consenting, why should it be legally disallowed?

Some Muslims already marry multiple women, as it stands. The reason that marriage equality advocates aren't particularly happy about this is that it's clear that the male is dominant in this setup, and as such, implies there's little "equality" to be expected in the first place.

Ultimately, when two gay people marry each other, how would this affect you? It doesn't. So let them mind their own business as you mind yours. Nobody is forcing you to get married to the same gender.

1.If the LGBT are asking for tolerance, why can't they tolerate people who don't want to tolerate them? Shouldn't they give it before they ask for it?

Tolerance of intolerance is self-defeating, and accomplishes nothing. It also reeks of privilege, because here, we demand the LGBT kowtow to our feelings while we refuse to give even a semblance of respect to theirs. The LGBT are fighting for equality. If we can legally marry the one we love, why can't they? If we can stay in the ICU with our spouse as they lay there in critical condition, why can't they? The law is the great equalizer that levels the playing field for when there is an inherent disadvantage for a marginalized class.

This is why it's so ludicrous to wonder why straight people don't have any "straight pride" parades,  because they don't need one. Nobody is oppressing them systematically for being straight. It's also why nobody is particularly impressed when Tim Tebow professes his Christianity. This is the norm. This is the default. How is this a shocker? When people tell him to "keep it to himself," does it ever stop him from professing his faith? Of course not. It doesn't even stop him from continuing to express his beliefs in public, because freedom of speech allows him to keep doing it, just as much as his critics are enabled by the very same freedom.

Not pictured: a fair comparison.

On the other hand, when you see someone like Caitlyn Jenner come out as a transgendered woman (who is still very much into women, by the way), you will see people praise her because it takes guts to do that, and let's not pretend she didn't get any negative backlash for it. She certainly did.

It's all about false equivalence, and privilege. When you have the luxury of living your life normally without people condemning you for the religion you happen to belong to and for the sexual orientation you happen to possess, it becomes difficult to see why it takes courage when someone who doesn't subscribe to the norm has to come forward and express themselves.

In short, Christians, you are not the persecuted class in this story. I understand how nice it is to pretend you're the underdog, but between a bunch of people who get called "abominations" with regularity, and a bunch of people who have to stretch the definition of "oppression" to claim it, I think it's easy to see who's really being persecuted. You're Floyd Mayweather. You're John Cena. You're the '96-'98 Chicago Bulls. Any backlash you get is because people know you're going to win in the end, and there's nothing wrong with that: you're just being who you are.

When the dust has settled, marriage equality doesn't affect you if you have zero plans of getting married to someone of the same gender. So why should it be any of your business if the government, the one that's supposed to protect everyone, and not just you, eventually decides that gay people are deserving of the equal rights they should have gotten in the first place?

You don't get to debate human rights, because they're just that: human rights.

And in the end, in all this hoopla about the "dignity" of marriage, there is yet another oppressed minority being pushed to the side...

What about us single people? Are we not deserving of "dignity," too? Alas, that is a discussion to be had some other day.

The Cult Of Personality

.:The Cult Of Personality:.

Look in my eyes, what do you see? The cult of personality.

It isn't like I hate the Pope, or anything of the sort. In fact, unlike most other Filipino Freethinkers, I actually outright like the guy. I just didn't think it was very smart to project what I think makes for a great Pope on a person who was still going to be irrevocably Catholic.

Was he going to approve of gay marriage? Of course not. Was he going to say contraception and family planning is the key to a good life? Dream on. However, it was good to know that for every single time he would reinforce these Catholic positions, he would talk about more pressing issues ten times first: corruption and opulence in lieu of sexual immorality. Compassion and understanding instead of denouncing contraception. It may just be me being optimistic, but that's the case of someone who's finding it in him to agree to disagree. Which, I realize, is sometimes the best way to settle things.

Although I agree that this stupid meme should have died years ago.

It's not going to happen, guys. The Catholic church will not sanction marriage equality, nor will they promote contraceptives as a way to manage a growing family. But you know what can be done? For them to not stand in the way of a secular society who wants it. Teach what you want to teach in church. That is your right. But to demand the government fall in line, lock and step with your values that are not necessarily shared by everyone else, even if the others are a minority? Then yes, we have a problem.

Notice that most of the time, when the Pope makes a statement that could potentially earn the ire of progressives, he makes it to the clergy? That makes a lot of sense to me. He emphasizes this for their benefit, but sees no purpose in doing the same in the general public. Some might say that's a cop-out for him to do. I say, on the other hand, that it's a good idea to do it that way.

I know your anger, I know your dreams. I've been everything you want to be.

It's high time we stopped projecting on the Pope, as progressives. This is no different from projecting on our leaders, be they PNoy or Obama, to do the things we want for us. It's nice if they could, but it does appear that a lot of the legwork still ultimately hinges upon our initiative, more than anything else. And when secular society has finally decided that the church is not to be listened to when it comes to family planning and who should be legally allowed to marry whom? Then they will be forced to re-examine themselves and ask themselves if these particular issues they have been holding onto for so long really matter in the grand scheme of things. Are they relevant, really? Or is the church simply risking irrelevance by turning a blind eye to these changes?

Is it really a deal-breaker to a Divine being if two dudes like each other enough to promise to live as one? Or two ladies? Is it really a horrific thing to consider that raising a child when the parents are ready is infinitely more responsible than the typical "lay and pray" method (and I don't mean the MMA thing.).

I can understand why it gets confusing, though.

So no, I don't think that's his job. I do find that he needs to step up on being harsh on punishing members of the clergy who molest children, though, because while defrocking and laizing a priest as punishment may seem like a big deal to the Catholic church, the rest of the world hardly gives a damn, because what they are looking for is a way to send these assholes to prison. Not removing their priestly powers and privileges. Not house arrest. Prison. Where they certainly deserve to go if proven guilty.

It's also his job to tend to the poorest of the poor: a job that he has been doing fairly excellently, so hats off to him for that.

Ultimately, I like Pope Francis because he is willing to shelf an issue in favor of more important things. Sometimes, not fighting a battle is more important than trying to win it, and he has chosen his battles well, for the most part. Is this a calculated PR move? Most likely. That doesn't invalidate it, in my eyes, though.

If people hear less about condemning gay people and contraception and hear more about compassion for the poorest of the poor, then maybe we could actually be doing more positive things. If people focus on the more important issues the Catholic church has on its plate, then maybe these sticking points could gain traction in the secular world, where the Catholic church should, in theory, not dominate.

It isn't that progressives are trying to say that they know better, though admittedly, some could fall prey to that. It's simply an openness to the possible that there are valid options here that shouldn't be thrown away all for the sake of currying the favor of religion. I'm not here fighting for marriage equality because I don't think gay people can do it themselves. I'm not here advocating reproductive health because I think poor people shouldn't procreate and I find it my business to tell them what to do in their bedrooms. I advocate these things because it's the right thing to do. It isn't a special privilege to do the right thing. It's a categorical imperative.

I'm the cult of personality. Like Mussolini, and Kennedy.

And yes, we should heed the Pope when he reminds us that he shouldn't be worshiped. Because he really shouldn't. Nor should we worship the altar of SCIENCE! for that matter, as if it were a religion unto itself, either. It's simply about finding that sweet spot where we can all agree: we want people to be happier. We don't want anyone to get hurt. Isn't that where we should work towards, before anything else?

It's easy to fall into the cult of Pope Francis's personality. Regardless of his flaws, here's a man who genuinely means well. But it's also easy to just point at him and call him the devil. What isn't hard is to find that there is a nuanced tale in between, and that narrative is something I hope to find and follow.

The Case of the Ridiculous "Research" Paper

.:On "Oplan: Discredit The Preacher":.

Wait, what?

It was hilarious enough the first time this cropped up. I wrote an article on the 8List about scandals I believed to be worse than Chito Miranda, and then saw that same list blow up when it was featured by Yahoo.

And yes, that was the sorta-hilarious but also sorta-scary point where I realized that my time in the 8List could very well yield some death threats. Crazy, I know.

But you know what's crazier? That someone who I don't remotely even know would go out there, do a "research" paper on me, and get his dose of daily exercise by running his mouth and jumping to conclusions. So if you ever end up reading this, Toto Onato, come at me, bro. I'm ready for you.

En garde.

Let's take a look at the drivel he wrote, then. And no, I won't even bother correcting his grammar or spelling. Too much work.

Toto opens with the supposed "background" on the list that I wrote...

Background: On August 16, 2013, a certain Kel Fabie published on Yahoo! News an article entitled “8S candals Far Worse Than Chito Miranda’shttp://ph.news.yahoo.com/8-scandals-far-worse-chito-miranda-104528051.html. (Chito Miranda, Jr., incidentally, is a Filipino lead singer for the band “Parokya ni Edgar ”. On August 3, 2013, video snippets of Miranda having sex with his girlfriend Neri Naig were leaked and became viral hits in many social media sites but Fabie, in his article,did not consider it even a scandal of sort).  

Right there, you see that we are operating from starkly differing points of view. As far as I'm concerned, I've made it very clear that I don't find any scandal in a rock star who happens to have sex with his girlfriend. When I pitched this for the 8List, I came in with the intention of diverting attention from what I found to be a worthless distraction, and instead make people pay more attention to what I found were truly scandalous things, in varying degrees. Let's face it: between two consenting adults screwing each other, and Janet Napoles screwing the entire nation over, I'm more inclined to have actual f*cks to give about the latter than the former.

So Toto goes on, and says that he will investigate me further: except it's clear that he doesn't, because at no point does he ever stumble upon the 8List, which would have provided him with a whole lot of context for why I write what I write.

Save for one (1) religious preacher who landed in the number 8 position from the list, all theothers are either past or present government officials, politicians and associates involved in large scale graft and corruption in government and other forms of criminal acts. The author’s strange inclusion of a lone religious personality from the list of scandals in politics and governance had placed his intention in serious doubt, hence, the consistency and integrity of his work necessitates further scrutiny.In the spirit of fairness, this report aims to present an impartial assessment on the credibility of his article and to ferret out the probability of an ulterior motive behind the publication of his own preferential list of scandals.

I'm not a journalist. I'm opinionated, I do ruffle feathers, and in case it hasn't been so obvious yet, when I make lists, I like throwing in some choices from out of left field. But no, I'm  not a journalist. Of course the list would be subjective, and the "ulterior motive" you speak of is to remind people that Chito Miranda's scandal is the least of our problems. That it just so happened to be Brother Eli at this point instead of, say, the multiple instances of pedophilia or sexual harassment demonstrated by some of the Catholic clergy, is just par for the course.

It's laughable how he keeps on placing disclaimers "in the spirit of fairness" that this is an "impartial assessment" regarding the credibility of my list, when all he ever does is play mind-reader and question my motives without ever once refuting the evidence I have linked to regarding Brother Eli Soriano's case. Which is a thing. That exists. 

So he quotes my list in the next section of his "paper" and completely misses the fact that the list was designed as a wake-up call to people who seem more preoccupied with what consenting adults do in their bedroom than the people we supposedly call our leaders.

From there, he quoted some information that he would actually care about, as he is clearly a member of Ang Dating Daan:

Bro. Eli had been facing numerous libel cases in various courts in the Philippines and they were all filed by the Manalos’ church Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC). The INC also filed sometime in 2001 a frustrated murder case and in 2004, a rape case against Bro. Eli. The frustrated murder case was dismissed during the early part of 2010 while the rape case had been ongoing.Complainants Bernardo Santiago in frustrated murder case and Daniel Veridiano in rape casewere former members of ADD who were excommunicated for adultery in the case of Santiago and multiple rape and malverzation of funds in the case of Veridiano. The moment they became privileged members of the INC, that was the time they filed their respective complaint against him. Incidentally, the rape case had been previously dismissed at the level of the Fiscals’ office in Pampanga but the surprise intervention of the Department of Justice then under Secretary Raul Gonzales who was under Manalo’s sphere of influence, hastily reversed the earlier resolution and ordered the subsequent re-filing of the dismissed rape case. References:1)http://truthhuntsman.wordpress.com/2012/06/15/the-nightmare-of-false-prophets-part-2-hated-by-inc-in-gods-name/2)http://totoonato.newsvine.com/_news/2010/09/23/5163361-indecent-political-affair-and-injustices-to-remember?threadId=1086017

Notice the part where he said that there's still a warrant for arrest out there for Brother Eli? How about the part where Brother Eli is still technically a fugitive evading arrest, much like Senator Lacson was a few years ago? Oh, he didn't mention any of that? Strange. I thought he said he was being "impartial?"

I feel so betrayed.

So from this point, he then launches into his "findings," and points out that yes, 7 out of 8 entries were all politically related, without at any point being cognizant of the fact that at no point did I promise that all 8 of the scandals would be political in nature...

Moreover, the statement from the author himself: “if he is innocent, this is a scandal of clear religious oppression” is a manifestation that he is not fully convinced that Bro. Eli is liable. Therefore, such “benefit of doubt” should have effectively deprived the author of anymore valid reason and resolve to proceed with the odd inclusion of the lone preacher on the list.Instead of being reasonably guided however, the author even presented the purported scandal list in reverse order from 8th to 1st so that the name of Bro. Eli appears to be the banner headline.

And here, he displays his complete lack of research, which puts his credibility into question, more than anything else: I included #8 because it was a two-way scandal. If it were true, it's a scandal on Brother Eli's part. If it were false, it was a scandal of religious oppression. Either way, it is a scandal, and one that people should be very aware of.

He makes it even worse by being oblivious to the notion of a countdown, which is the standard practice for all lists on the website, barring very few exceptions. But since he doesn't even know that the 8List exists because he never bothered to actually do any research for his "research" paper, it becomes pretty obvious why he makes this conjecture, and proceeds to assume this was done because of SEO, rather than an increasing order of relevance for the average person as we approach the #1 item.

So mad, you guys.

At this point, he drops all pretense of scholarly restraint, and proceeds to lay this doozy down...

Noticeably, the author even managed to use blog links sympathetic to Bro. Eli apparently in a feigned attemptto project himself as not being biased in reporting. In short, the author’s temerity for trickery and pretentiousness to project image of objectivity and fairness is obvious. Nonetheless, it can never erase the evident shadow of his devious and malicious intention against Bro Eli, who, in reality, is his article’s main target personality. (emphasis mine)

Oy, vey.

Brother Eli was far from my main target. In fact, he was the token non-political guy I threw into the list for the sake of a bit of diversity. The main target was, and obviously always has been, Janet Napoles. A cursory look at the multiple lists I've written or co-written should tell you as much, but of course doing any minute amount of "research" on this "research" paper is way too much work for Toto, isn't it?

And to think I found out about this paper from a frigging vanity search.

His conclusion? Even worse.

Conclusion:

Kel Fabie article about his so-called 8 scandals is obviously nothing more than a poorly executed propaganda plot against Bro. Eli Soriano (apparently sponsored by his detractors) which should have been entitled instead as “OPLAN: DISCREDIT THE PREACHER”. 

Discredit the preacher? Do you think I even care about your preacher's credibility as much as I care about the fact that he is involved in a high-profile rape allegation case and is still evading arrest? Do you think this is the face of someone who gives a sh*t?

Not pictured: the face of someone who gives a sh*t.

Hey, Toto! You know the only reason people ended up really remembering why your fearless leader (who's apparently in hiding from cops looking to serve him a warrant of arrest) is still being accused of having raped a dude? Because people like you think people like me give a sh*t. Newsflash: I'm a religious egalitarian. I hate 'em all equally.

There is no plot, and it would have been cool if I were paid by Brother Eli's detractors to write a list I would have totally written for my job anyways, but nope, that didn't happen either. Newsflash: the world doesn't f*cking revolve around you.

Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah.

I also find it laughable that other people in the comments "defended" Soriano from being called "homophobic" because all he did was cite the Bible. You mean, just because the apparently homophobic verses are from the Bible, they're magically not homophobic somehow? It doesn't work that way.

Ultimately, it's pretty pathetic that you feel so compelled to defend your great leader when he isn't even willing to face the music and do it himself.

Project 52 (25/52): On Dismissing Issues (Because They Don't Matter To Us)

.:Project 52 (25/52): On Dismissing Issues (Because They Don't Matter To Us):.

Two issues recently came to my attention the past week: the so-called bill to "ban God in the government" by Kabataan Party-List representative Mong Palatino, and internationally, the Kickstarter project "Tropes vs. Women in Videogames." Yeah, they seem to be as disconnected as can be, that is, until you take a gander at the kind of opposition both undertakings are currently facing.

In the Philippines, an editorial denouncing this secularist bill was published, and has found a lot of support from people who never even read the contents of the bill to begin with. Oh, look! It's exactly like the RH Bill all over again: knee-jerk alarmists who still think that Catholics are the victims when it is clear that they are the privileged group in society.

On the internet, Anita Sarkeesian was met with an unbelievable amount of vitriol over a video project she hasn't even done yet. Of course, it was awesome that she made nearly thirty times the $6,000 she initially required to carry out her project. Despite that, I don't think being subjected to the kind of online abuse she had to endure could possibly be justified even to the tune of $150,000++. Other Kickstarter projects have had similar success without nearly the same amount of cyberbullying.

When you look at these seemingly disjointed issues, you see an obvious, common thread: the opposition is mounted by people in positions of privilege. The average Catholic does not get discriminated against in the Philippines the way the average agnostic or atheist would. The average male would not get regular sexual harrassment while online solely because they're male. In both cases, the privileged classes, the ones whose entrenchment is both put into question and challenged, are fighting back. And how!

I. The Great Divide Over Secularism

This image never gets old.

Some people questioned the relevance of this proposed bill, saying that this does not represent the constituency of the Kabataan Party-List representative. Except it actually does. The youth are part of a global village more than the old guard are, and as such, should be more sensitive to secularism.

Not only is it relevant, it also simply upholds what should already be common sense as what our constitution has provided for: why is the government giving special treatment to a particular religion? Why does it have public prayers that naturally exclude non-believers, chapels funded even by Muslim taxpayers, and so on?

At no point does this proposed bill say that religion should be abhorred at all costs. What this bill is proposing is a level playing field: that the default assumption about a person doesn't involve their religious affiliation being Catholic, which, I am quite certain, you will notice happening a lot all around us.

Is this really so bad? This bill respects people's freedom to have their own religion. All it does is prevent certain religions from dominating the government's domain when church and state should actually be separate. You want to pray? Pray without the state having to enforce it. You want to go to church? Do it in a church that wasn't paid for with tax money.

It's simple: the minute you spend for a single Catholic church from tax money, it becomes valid for every other religion to ask for the same kind of consideration. So, in the interest of fairness, either all religions should receive consideration from the state, or not one religion should receive consideration from the state.

The reason religious people, especially Catholics, are pushing back against this bill is clear: they don't like not having these special considerations. They are so used to assuming that the default setting of every person they meet is Catholic unless established otherwise that when the default is changed to religious-neutral, they suddenly lose their privilege.

The kind of privilege that has allowed an archbishop nigh immunity from legal repercussions for multiple cases of sexual harassment. The kind of privilege that means we begin every session in congress with a prayer as if agnostics and atheists didn't exist, and as if a moment of silence wasn't sufficient for people of all creeds to pray to whomever they wish to pray to. The kind of privilege that allows a former president to lie through her teeth about her promise to not run for president again because "God told her to run."

Well, cry me a river.

We keep on claiming we want to live in a just and fair society, yet we are so willing to throw people who don't share our beliefs under the bus because it's convenient for us? This is just and fair? Really?

Look at it this way: if Christianity is true, then non-believers are already going to Hell after they die. Is that not enough? Why do we need to make the rest of their lives a living Hell by forcing upon them things they already do not believe in, to begin with?

You want to be a missionary? You want to crusade for your God? You are free to do so. Nobody's stoning those bus preachers, right? Just don't expect government backing while you're doing it. Check your privilege at the door, and use the exact same tools available to every other person who wants to become evangelists for their own belief systems, or even their lack of one.

The problem with some religious people is that they are so focused on the martyrs of old that they now forget they are no longer the underdogs: they are now part of the dynasty.

II. Misogynists Assemble!

A woman outside the kitchen? SEIZE HER!

A great number of male gamers called it unfair that feminists keep on harping on the issues of sexism in video games, either by denying this is an issue altogether while hurling sexist commentary at the feminists without a hint of irony, or derailing the discussion altogether by citing instances where men were supposedly also being discriminated against.

Here's the funny thing: nobody was telling them they can't talk about problematic depictions of men in video games. They were clearly just bringing these issues up to silence a woman who dared speak up about her issues. We can't have that going on, no siree.

Why don't these men who feel their rights are also being trampled upon start their own kickstarter? One of two things: they're either too lazy, or they themselves realize their problems aren't actually worth fighting for. And you know why not? Because the straight male is privileged, and virtually every discrimination that happens against a man comes with them not being "man enough" (Whatever the Hades that means.), not simply because they're a man.

Yes: misandry is brought about by misogyny, yet again! How dare a man become a *gasp* woman?!? Shocking!

It was like a beacon call just happened without anyone noticing it, and next thing you know, Anita Sarkeesian was swarmed by misogynists. It was a staggering effort, and it makes you wonder how much good these neckbeards could have accomplished if they did something better with their energy.

Nobody's saying that men don't have issues, but why are we shoehorning these in a discussion about women's issues? Some people dismissed this project as some kind of attention grab, all the while being oblivious to the fact that the men who want to shift the discussion to male issues are the ones trying to grab attention! They can always discuss their issues in their space. Why do they need to bring it to the one space set up by a woman for the explicit intention of discussing women's issues? Why the overwhelming need to dominate the conversation with our own agenda without giving quarter to the Other's agenda?

The trolls who wanted to silence Anita were doing so because the status quo was being challenged: oh, noes! No more sexy girl characters! Ridiculous. Men and women alike can all be sexy without having to be objectified. If a little sensitivity, just a tad consideration, can make the gaming experience of a girl gamer just a wee bit more enjoyable, is that really so much to ask?

Well, apparently, if you're one of these guy gamers, then yes, that's too much to ask! You know why it's too much? Because it puts in jeopardy the privilege males have had ever since society became a patriarchy.

It's the kind of privilege that has allowed Aris Bakthanians to harrass his own teammate and not so much as be slapped with legal action for it. It's the kind of privilege that has allowed men to not have to worry about random people asking them "dick or gtfo" while they're playing their MMORPG. It's the kind of privilege that has allowed men to say "women should be grateful they can even vote" as if this excuses every other instance of institutionalized unequality between men and women. Ever.

Well, cry me a river.

We keep on claiming we live in a just and fair society, yet whenever a woman gets on her soapbox to say something, instead of actually debating her, we just try to shut her up. Why is that? is it because she has something to say that could possibly upset us?

Here is a prime opportunity for dialogue. A chance to look at what a woman feels are problematic depictions of women in video games, that, if addressed, could possibly allow women to be somewhat less uneasy about playing video games. It could result in better sales for games, and by extension, better motivation to create more well-rounded and thoughtful games.

And we address this opportunity by telling her to shut up? Really? Really?!?

III. No, Really

Well, screw it. Maybe the issue of secularism isn't important to a huge swath of Filipinos out there, but it's important to me. And as a Filipino who pays his taxes, I believe I have just as much of a say in this lawmaking process as everyone else who also pays their taxes.

Maybe the issue of women portayal in video games isn't important to a huge swath of gamers out there, but it's clearly important to Anita Sarkeesian, and 6,968 people who gave money to make the project happen. As people who put their money where their mouth is, I think they have just as much of a say in this entire process as everyone else who disagrees with them. And yeah, this topic is pretty important to me, too, so count me in as someone who actually wants to see this series get produced.

It's beside the point whether you agree or disagree with either issue. The point is that there is room for dialogue for both issues. Sure, you're free to dismiss them (I did dismiss the whole Corona issue, after all.). However, this doesn't mean that your opinion on the matter will have a magical binding effect on stopping this dialogue from happening anyways (My lack of enthusiasm for the Corona issue didn't stop it from happening, after all.).

Privilege is only cool if you're the one benefiting from it. The more people realize that not everyone gets the same deal, the sooner we'd all be able to finally get to working towards a fair and just society, and not just some vestigial mockery of it.

Farewell, Christopher Hitchens: A Catholic Thanks You

.:Christopher Hitchens: 1949-2011:.

How do you pray for the soul of a man who doesn't believe in a soul or in prayers? Simple. You don't. You celebrate his life.

To say that the name Christopher Hitchens has a lot of weight upon me would be the understatement of the year, knowing full well that his famed debate with Douglas Wilson was one of the key components of my Masters thesis. Of course, back then, I only knew Hitchens as a name, and generally sided with the notion that theistic morality takes a very direct and universal form that atheistic morality is simply incapable of doing.

It wasn't really easy trying to defend that position in light of Christopher's eloquence when it came to defending his side. Regardless, since then, any mention of his name elicited interest from me.

As recently as two weeks ago, I was contemplating buying his most recent book: a compilation of his essays sold for a trifle 640 pesos at Fully Booked. I didn't purchase it at the last minute because I considered getting the book from iBooks instead, but I sorta resolved to buy it sometime next week after finding out that he has passed. A digital copy is nice, but holding one of his last published works in my hands physically just seems right.

It's funny, really, because nobody could possibly say I'm an atheist, no matter how pluralistic I am. I still firmly identify as Roman Catholic, despite all my misgivings about the system and the people within it. I'm a firm believer in the notion that if your faith makes you a better person, or if a lack of faith would do it, then carry on in that way. By better person, I think the most basic of definitions would be: if your faith or lack of it makes you less of a dick to other people, then it's definitely making you a better person.

That being said, I can't eulogize so much about a man I have never met or spoken to, much less followed on Twitter, assuming he had an account. I liked his writing style, I liked his ability to tackle the sacred cows few people were willing to take on, such as Mother Teresa or Bill Clinton. Ultimately, I saw in him the ability to stand up for something he truly believed in, and never succumbing to outside pressure, opposition, or ridicule, because he believed he was right, and he made more than minor headway into proving his point without having to resort to boorishness or barbarism at worst. He was a gentleman of a contrarian, to put it succinctly.

Considering how brash most theists find the Hitchens or the Penn and Tellers of the world less because of how they say anything but more because of what they are saying, it's sad to realize that one of them is no longer with us. In a world where the heart is given undue primacy over the mind at far too great a price, it was good to know that he and his ilk were there to keep people in check. It was good to know he was willing to ask the questions nobody else was willing to ask. With him passing away, it's good to know that there are more than enough people who are willing to take up his cudgels and trudge on in the path he has helped blaze.

I have always believed one's faith or lack thereof is a personal matter, but there has always been room for non-fanatical evangelization, in my opinion. It may come as a surprise to theists, though, that this should also mean that atheists are just as entitled to "evangelize" every bit the theists are, no matter how much they think this offends them. Secularism is the great equalizer: ironically fulfilling the very words of the Judeo-Christian God when it was said that all are created equally and in His likeness. How much more equal can it be when both those with faith and without faith have the choice and have the ability to educate in the proper avenues?

I find it ironic and amusing that secularism is doing more to follow the core of Judeo-Christian values than fundamentalism and radicalism can ever hope to. It is with this knowledge that I raise my glass (With a predictably non-alcoholic drink in it.) to the late Christopher Hitchens and give him a wink and my gratitude for being a great human being, which is truly a great accomplishment in the kind of world we find ourselves mired in today.

He will most certainly be missed.

Fun With Fundies Once More!

.:Incubus Paranoia!:.

Why do guys named Brandon get all the chicks?

I'm not a really huge fan of the group, but I must say, Incubus is a pretty good band, and I'm especially fond of their single, "Megalomaniac". I also think that song called "Talk Shows On Mute" is a work of art.

It's actually cool to hear that they're performing in Manila on July 28. With so many international acts making waves in the Philippines this year, it's been a pretty awesome year for live musical entertainment in this country, whether you like foreign acts like Justin Bieber, Kylie Minogue, and The Script, or you prefer local acts like Itchyworms, Sarah Geronimo + Martin Nievera, and Sugarfree (sniff).

And then, the religious fundies attacked.

In what has got to be the most ignorant thing since claiming Magic: The Gathering was Satanic, a bunch of fundies decided to text everyone to boycott the concert because an Incubus, in mythology, is the male version of the Succubus. Without getting into gory details, the Incubus seduces women in their sleep. Sorta like how some guys use Roofies to achieve the same thing at present.

Apparently, because Brandon Boyd and company picked a band name that they themselves didn't even know the meaning of, they are now the spawns of Satan.

Hey, listen. If you've never heard a single song from Incubus, then you're being plain stupid. That's like saying this product was in any way racist...

Umm... yeah.

Anyways. It's just ridiculous what kind of stupid uproar people raise over the craziest things. We had moral panics over Dungeons and Dragons, Pokemon, Harry Potter, and now, apparently, Incubus. This, despite the fact that these fundies have obviously never even bothered listening to a single song of the band. Just because they have an unfortunate name ala supot.ph doesn't really mean they're out to seduce women in their sleep.

I actually have it on good authority that Brandon Boyd on his own attracts more women's underwear being hurled in his direction than Tila Tequila, so he's perfectly capable of seducing women while they're awake.

Abs-olutely!

Project 52 (16/52): Everything's All Right - Jesus Chris Superstar OST

.:Project 52 (16/52): Everything's All Right - Jesus Christ Superstar OST:.

With Holy Week and all being this week, I turn to one of my favorite songs, "Everything's All Right," from one of my favorite musicals of all time - Jesus Christ Superstar. It would be an understatement for me to say that I loved this musical to shreds, considering I can sing the entire soundtrack of JC Superstar from beginning to end, which is astounding when you consider that I've seen the full version only once, as opposed to the edited for TV version, which I watched almost daily every summer from when I was 9 to about 14. Yes, I knew where "Then We Are Decided" and "Could We Start Again, Please?" actually belong in the sequence of songs even if I've only seen that version once.

Jesus Christ Superstar features one of the only two actors who performed Jesus Christ in major releases without going nuts afterwards (Jim Caviezel of "The Passion Of The Christ" being the other exception.). I especially liked the way the whole play or film was laid out, and the (it's my interpretation and I'm sticking by it) obviously subversive use of a black man as Judas Iscariot, whose singing voice was rivaled only by Jesus Christ himself.

I like "Everything's All Right" because it's a great song to sing to someone to go to sleep. It's a very quiet, uplifting lullaby, so long as you tune out when Judas comes into the song to make it just a bit louder. I can assure you that listening to a music-only track can really calm you, though.

This Holy Week, I don't really want to pontificate or evangelize or anything of the sort. It really isn't my place to. I'm just a bit amused though at certain attempts to make the (physical) church more accessible than it already is (as opposed to Her actual personnel) downright seems to open themselves up to the ridiculous Jesus in banal situations memes people are poking fun at Christians with. After all, nothing says "I love God above all else" quite like making out with your girlfriend while taking a leisurely stroll around the stations of the cross display in Bonifacio High Street before you take her home to bang her with that little glow-in-the-dark Sto. Nino eerily leering over you from your bedside table.

And you wonder why atheists laugh at us.

Oh, yeah. The song. Well, regardless of your religious beliefs, I'd have to say that JC Superstar is one of the better musicals out there, and this song is one of my favorites, not least because sans Judas, it wouldn't feel terribly out of place in any other musical not involving Jesus Christ. It has a universal feel to it, enhanced by the fact that it's a genuinely catchy song, to begin with.

So for this Holy Week, if you have those few precious days to think upon things and reflect, whether you are a believer or not, those few precious days are the best times to try not to get worried, try not to turn onto, problems that upset you. All of us could really use the tranquility.

A Call For Holy Disobedience

.:A Call For Holy Disobedience:.

Dear fellow Catholics, fellow Christians, believers in other faiths, agnostics, and atheists,

We cannot deny that the Philippines is statistically a Catholic nation. With 80% of the country’s citizens representing the Catholic church, there is no ignoring the kind of influence the church exerts on everyone within her sphere of influence. This is true. This is incontrovertible.

However, politically, the Philippines is not a Catholic nation. You see, we are a democratic country. Democracy is, at its purest form, a government by the people, for the people, and is as all-inclusive as possible to all sensibilities housed under this melting pot we call the Philippines.

The Philippine Constitution is the highest law of the land. Emphasized in it is the separation of Church and state. This state does not have an official religion. As such, any attempts by the Roman Catholic Church to pressure the state into going its way or the highway is only every bit as valid as the attempts by other groups to pressure the state into going the exact opposite way. The Roman Catholic Church, by virtue of our democracy, has a voice. What they are forgetting, though, is that those of us who do not agree with their opinion also have a voice. Furthermore, this alternative voice is every bit as valid as the church’s in the political plane.

If you are still reading after the cursory introduction to my main point, then you know you’re about to hit the good part of this whole thing.

In recent news, the Roman Catholic Church (Henceforth merely referred to as “church,” with no prejudice aimed towards any other churches of any other religions.) has been more than mildly vocal against the Reproductive Health Bill, all the while emphasizing that only abstinence and the rhythm method should be used for family planning. In a hilarious example of slippery slope logic, they believed that it was only a matter of time before abortion would then be legalized.

Even more hilarious is the fact that more than a few of the people against the RH Bill have never even read the bill in question.

As a response, the church has made a call for “civil disobedience” in case this law were to ever see the light of day. They want all the good Catholics out there to actively break the law of the Reproductive Health bill to protest that *gasp*, finally, we would have a basic attempt at actually giving people the option to plan their families.

In case the church hasn’t been paying attention, the RH bill was not designed to promote rampant promiscuity with no regard for the consequences. It was designed to help families plan their families. The spirit of the law is very clearly aimed in this direction, and not to cater to the worst fears of the CBCP.

Historically, the church has been notorious for preventing progress. From Galileo, to outright lying that condoms don’t stop aids, to what is going on at present, one cannot help but stare blankly at how anti-poor the church has been, all for this vague concept of “moral ascendancy.” Like the fear-mongers that they are, they claim that the RH Bill will destroy the very moral fibre that holds this nation together.

Really, CBCP? Pray tell, exactly how will this happen? What countries, upon adapting so much as basic reproductive health legislation (Which, make no mistake about it, is precisely what the RH Bill is: a basic piece of legislation.) suddenly fallen into the gaping chasm of Satan’s pit? Or have we simply ignored the fact that people would still have sex whether or not there are condoms, so the least we could do is make them aware exactly what happens when they have sex?

Worse, there’s even the implicit threat of excommunication being levied against the president. R-ight. Did the Italian president get excommunicated by the Vatican when they legalized abortion? Nope, didn’t think so, either.

Stop with the knee-jerk moral crusade, and get acquainted with the facts: we have a population control issue. A poor family with eleven kids will not magically stop being poor if they had a twelfth kid. The gift of life should come with the gift of a liveable life, and without the RH Bill in place, that’s obviously not going to happen.

Do you even know the history of your own leadership? Did you even realize that had he not died less than a month into his papacy, Pope John Paul I would have made sweeping changes to how the church would accept and understand hot-button topics like contraception? If even a Pope could have that kind of opinion, then surely, contraception is far from the all-damning evil that the church has been making it out to be.

So if you’re a person who doesn’t believe in how our Catholic Taliban is trying to run our country for us, and if you’re a person who doesn’t think that (supposedly) celibate men should be telling us lay people how to get laid, then I call upon you to act out our holy disobedience. Obviously, Carlos Celdran beat us all to the punch, but yes, we must stand against this act of bullying being carried out by the church.

A holy disobedience is every bit as valid an act of protest as the kid who refused to pledge allegiance to the flag until gays have equal rights. After all, where is this “liberty and justice for all” if gay rights are still being trampled upon?

Similarly, whenever the priest tells you to “believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church. The communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting,” then you are morally imposed to not respond “Amen,” because it is not so. Where is this forgiveness? Where is this resurrection? Where is this peace that we supposedly give signs of? And in fact, if 90% of the priests out there will just use their homily as a chance to do political commentary, why even bother going to church when you can get better political commentary from The Professional Heckler? Pushing a political agenda is not part and parcel of what the church was set up to do. Pushing a political agenda also ignores the fact that not everyone is a catholic, and not everyone who is a catholic follows the CBCP’s line of (il)logic.

CBCP, why do you have such a huge grudge against progress? Worse, why do you have such a huge grudge against women, who stand to benefit the most from the RH Bill? Has it ever occurred to you that the only reason you feel it absolutely unnecessary to have an RH Bill is because unlike women, altar boys don’t get pregnant?

We have no desire to be stripped of our choices and our rights. What the church would have us do is to waive our choices in order for us to become morally upright people, never mind the fact that only a clear, conscious, and informed choice can be construed as a truly moral one. When your spiritual leaders tell you that “It is morally incorrect for people to decide right and wrong based on their needs,” then you know that they are seriously out of touch with reality now. What is right and wrong is perfectly determinable by the individual, and that the government will not stand in the way of what is not illegal should also imply that people who wish to be “moral” would have every chance to prove that they are because the other option is right there for the picking.

Or is the CBCP trying to say that when a “morally incorrect” option is presented to their average believer, then they are more likely to choose it than the morally correct one, which would be the only conceivable scenario where the “thorough moral degradation of the Philippines” is even remotely possible?

Well, if it is, then it only goes to show what kind of character the church has been building within its flock. Perhaps they should tend to it more than they tend to politics, which they shouldn’t have a say in, since they aren’t even paying any taxes.

We want our right to choose. The right to choose to do the right things. The right to choose to do the wrong things. The right to know what these choices entail, and the right to determine which choice is which.

In case the church has forgotten, God Himself gave us that right to screw up. Who are we to challenge His own design?

So dear CBCP, yes, you can call for "civil disobedience" if you so desire. However, this also means that we have every right to call for a "holy disobedience" as an appropriate response to your asinine and backwards beliefs that we wouldn't have had a problem with if only you didn't shove it down our throats.

(No penis metaphors were intended in the previous paragraph.)

On Tolerance And Standup Comedy

.:Tolerance:.

As I was watching this video, I felt pretty happy to read about how a Muslim man wants to uplift the image of his own religion not merely for the sake of people who do not share in his faith, but to actually for his own brothers in his faith. I like that he’s doing it without proselytizing or preaching, but simply by demonstrating heroism that knows no racial or religious boundaries.

It’s so easy to get mired in stereotyping people just because of what they believe in, and I was very glad to see someone who knew that it was not the right image to project to the world and to themselves at large. Any religion need not be inherently violent, passages in their holy books be damned. And it’s not like Christianity, what with the Crusades, the Inquisition, and a host of other atrocities, is completely blood-free, either, so you see, religions are all in the same boat here.

As a pluralist, I’ve found it difficult to explain to fundamentalists why I am so accepting of other points of view, and why I am tolerant of these things, even if they appear to run contrary to my own belief system. That my tolerance extends all the way to issues of race and sexuality can bewilder a lot of rather close-minded people in my life as well.

But see, it’s not about being a morally superior person, but about opening up my world to more people based on who they are and what they do, not who they pray to and what they do in the bedroom.

It’s easy to be intolerant of others, because most people fail to ever really put themselves in the shoes of the Other. Ultimately, though, this point of view has saved me a lot of headaches – although it does stress me out every now and then, particularly when you read the comments in the video I linked to right there.

Here’s a man who’s trying to uplift the Muslim image, and commenters have nothing better to do than to insist that Muslims are vile, evil people. Way to go, guys! Way to demonstrate how “forgiving” and how “understanding” your “God” is.

Sometimes, I find myself holding much more in common with atheists than self-righteous, iniquitous men of “faith”. And mayhap that is just as well: I would rather be considered a blank slate than one riddled with intolerance and narrow-mindedness.

.:Go For The Gold!:.

Joined the Cartel yet again last Friday in Votre bar for their second fundraiser for the Hong Kong Comedy Festival, where GB, Raffy, Eri, and Noel will be going in order to represent our country in a comedy competition for the ages.

It was quite an unusual experience to see none other than Tim Tayag open the show, so I knew that going in, I had a tough act to follow, as I was second in the lineup. Nonetheless, I carried myself well that night, and did amuse people with my patented performance of the Shanghai Shackles. From there on, the who’s who of the Comedy Cartel hit the stage, and it was, overall, a great show.

After the show, it was crazy, because with the disdain some comics had for the tougher-than-usual audience, we just holed up in our corner of the bar and had our own jam session whilst the musician outside had his with the other patrons. It was pretty funny, because half the time, the song playing inside, unbeknownst to us, was also the song playing outside.

.:Bringing It All Together:.

Comedy and tolerance are two topics that tend to not play well with each other. More often than not, we have encountered comedians who have crossed the lines of decency and sensibilities: comedians who are woefully unaware that even an open-minded audience has its limits, and what may sound funny to other people is a grave insult to the very audience they are performing for.

In cases like these, I have learned to more and more err on the side of caution, but I cannot speak for others, as I am certainly following my own sensibilities and my own body of experience as a performer. If I feel for one minute that I might get into trouble for what I’m about to do, at the risk of taking away the teeth from my performance, I’d rather do it. My job is to entertain: not to proselytize, much less to aggravate. Perhaps it’s because I have confidence that to a large extent, I can entertain, but ultimately, a non-performance of that function, while terrible, would be immensely less problematic than doing the exact opposite of entertaining someone – offending them. I’d rather stay at zero balance than at the negative, but that’s just me.

Oh, don’t mind me. I just felt compelled to bring together two completely unrelated topics, like I’m wont to do.

Back On The Soapbox

.:Errmm... Yeah:.

It makes so much sense now!

So everyone’s talking about the John Lloyd Cruz and Shaina Magdayao “debacle”, and since I wanted to jump on the bandwagon, I guess I couldn’t help but feel very indifferent to the whole thing, except for the obvious and easy punchlines that one can come up with because of the situation.

Nonetheless, it’s great to see that the issue is slowly dying a natural death. Still, considering how the media managed to keep a lid on this stupid non-issue for a whole two weeks, it does make one wonder why they couldn’t keep a lid on covering Rolando Mendoza for one frigging day.

Priorities, beeyotches. You don’t has it.

.:Great Going, Pope!:.

The Pope likens atheism to Nazism. Brilliant, your Holiness. Just bloody brilliant. You mean we’re just supposed to forget about this?

Godwin called it.

As a pluralist Catholic apologist, your Holiness, you are giving me a lot of things to apologize for. It’s bad enough that you have gone ahead and regressed on the progressive work that has been set forth by your predecessor, John Paul II, but did you have to just really emphasize exactly why everyone who doesn’t drink your Kool-Aid is nothing short of wary of the Catholic leadership?

While you shove your beliefs down people’s throats, you go and insist on accusing other people of doing precisely what you do. You promote intolerance of homosexuality, other religions, and choose to denigrate women to uphold your patriarchal system, and even condone the numerous abuses of the clergy upon children instead of actively denouncing such practices.

As a Catholic, I choose to believe in what this institution stands for, not what it has turned into: a cesspool of iniquitous, overbearing men who are exactly like the Pharisees and Scribes that they lecture against every Sunday. A congregation of believers who don’t know what they believe and nor have any idea why they’re fighting for the survival of their dying ways, when it’s their very nature that is driving their own movement down into the ground, as they refuse to accept that they are out of time and out of touch.

I could’ve sworn Christ did what he did to save people, not so we could go out of our way to condemn people all over again.

I don’t know who made this, but this sums up how I feel lately...

The Popemobile: Nothing says "I have faith in God" like 3-inch bulletproof glass. - Bill Hicks

Barking Up Only One Tree... And The Wrong Tree, At That!

.:Barking Up Only One Tree: The Law Applies To All, Otherwise, To None At All:.

First of all, as a guy known for the straight edge lifestyle, let’s face it: I’m not a patron of Flesh Asia Daily, as I honestly don’t have much use for their material.

However, I believe in the saying, “Walang basagan ng trip!” While I may not be a patron of the fine arts of FAD, I do not hold it against anyone who does, and given how my understanding of the entire Hayden Kho hoopla has resulted in me being far more sympathetic to one Maricar Reyes than one Katrina Halili, I do have a certain stand on the issue, albeit it mostly boils down to this: we’re spending too much energy on this.

Suddenly, piracy busts have been exclusively for the extermination of the scandal videos. Never mind the stacks upon stacks of pirated DVD’s they’re rummaging through, but the minute they find one scandal vid, it’s gone.

Why is the law being selectively enacted now? Why the special treatment? Quite frankly, I find that this only underscores the politicking and grandstanding at work nowadays, what with everyone trying to jump on the “Lynch Hayden” bandwagon, never mind that there are other pressing issues that need to be addressed.

The recent attempt to pretend that something’s happening has resulted in Mike Chanco’s residence being raided, and subsequently charges being prepared against him, all the while ignoring the pressing issue: why are we seemingly ignoring this man’s rights? Why the sudden arbitrary enactment of a law that is, currently, at best, only vaguely tangential to what has truly transpired?

I don’t know Mike Chanco. I don’t owe him anything, nor does he owe me anything. But as a fellow Filipino, I see that his rights to due process are obviously being trampled upon, and I look at that and feel: dammit, that could be me, next time. I don’t think I wish to be in a country where caprice and arbitrariness determine the law of the land. I honestly feel that is dangerous to the rights and liberties our forefathers have fought and had board meetings about.

I can’t help but facepalm over the trolls over at Jester’s and One Tamad’s blogs who are acting with even less morals than Hayden Kho, resorting to a stream of four-letter words, and internet tough-guy posturing from behind a computer.

Newsflash, kiddies: “lust” is but one of the seven deadly sins. The way you’re frothing at the mouth right now, you’re pretty much guilty of “wrath”, “pride”, and by the looks of how you talk so big only behind an anonymous nick, probably “sloth” and “gluttony”, too. Nothing makes you look more of a hypocrite than hiding behind anonymity, hurling invectives, all the while pretending to be guardians of morality. Thanks for completely missing the point of Jester’s post: it was never about saying porn is cool and okay. It was the fact that someone’s rights were apparently trampled upon, and we cannot allow for shortcuts in due process just because we don’t like somebody. Justice is supposed to be blind.

As an ethicist as opposed to a moralist, I have no say on the nobility of FAD’s site. I wouldn’t know, it’s not my cup of tea. It’s not my place to judge, but let’s face it: the rain falls on the just and the licentious alike. If for some reason they believe Mr. Chanco is guilty of whatever they’re trying to trump up against him, why are they barking up only one tree?

Oh, right. Because it’s posturing, more than actual action. While we still don’t know who killed Nida Blanca, we already know who sent the first video to FAD. Doesn’t this seem rather off to you?

Stop making it an issue of morality, when it is primarily an issue of due process. Even if it were an issue of morality, since when did being immoral guarantee you jail time? Erap had how many mistresses again? Even from a Christian standpoint, Christ didn’t come down to save the righteous. They don’t need saving now, do they? He came down to save the sinners. It’s funny how these zealots thump their Bibles so much, they forget to read it from time to time.

We worry so much about the immorality of one website, when the gross immorality of our current dispensation should alarm us more. The Puritanist values should really be given a rest already.

Unless the NBI people are willing to play nice, and willing to give this due process, then I guess it’s obvious what the cry has to be... FREE FAD!

Yet Another Political Lambaste...

.:You Go, Mo!:.

I think it’s obvious that strictly based on preference, I am more of a Chico and Delle fan than a Mo Twister fan, but Mo’s clever line of questioning was just amazing and made of win. It’s not every day you get one Matt Defensor to implicitly admit that our dear president isn’t clean.

.:When Armida Speaketh...:.

Armida Siguion-Reyna’s recent commentary about the CBCP is certainly right on the money. It appears the church is more concerned about meddling with what people do in the bedroom than with the fact that we have other demons to battle: demons that lurk at the highest of the high, exerting their will and power over the rest of us who simply have no power to fight back.

And it just got me to thinking why I find much disdain over the lack of relevance the church, my church, the one I’ve been apologist for all of my life, is displaying, seeing it fit to meddle in politics and to meddle in the RH Bill, and at times, to even outright spread lies about contraceptives, all in hopes of protecting the almighty and sacred sperm. Sperm is good, sperm is great. If you waste any, God gets very irate. I’m sure Monty Python would agree.

So riddle me this, dear CBCP: while you are so busy trying to dissuade people from knowledge and education the way you forced Galileo to recant about what he has discovered, how does this save souls? How does this alleviate poverty? How does this combat the evils of this world, or hey, as Ms. Siguion-Reyna was so blunt to point out, corruption, or what looks to be an illegitimate rule that has been far too long already?

You say that you wish to make Christ relevant to all these people, yet you could only refer to lame rhetorics and traditions to back you up, all the while fearing progress and ignoring the truth, from your absurd obstinacy in believing in creationism, to your insistence that man was made for woman, and not man for man, never mind the biological proof staring you in the face.

I’m not a moral crusader. I am a crusader for equity and respect for the human person. What bewilders me is that you, dear CBCP, a group of distinguished church leaders who have committed yourselves to be a “church for the poor” as of Vatican II, still live in ivory towers, yet choosing to impose a double standard whenever you see fit. Castigate leaders who may take advantage of a political rally, but not so much as condemn the cheating that has occurred in 2004, one that our dear president has “apologized” for.

Do we even need to remind you that our dear president used the Lord’s name in vain when she said “God made her change her mind,” resulting in her going back on her word and actually running in 2004 after promising she wouldn’t?

What other people do in the bedroom should be none of your concern. What other people do with a country you swore to help save, on the other hand, should be at the top of your issues. What worth is a morally upright citizenry when its leadership sees it fit to rape and exploit this citizenry in whatever way they see fit?

You are in a better position than I am to do something good for this country. As such, I implore you, as a person who still believes that this church is worth being a part of: open your eyes, open your minds. Would a good God truly tolerate such wickedness in his midst? Did He not cast them out of His temple?

The Reproductive Health Bill is small fry. It is the least of our worries, dear CBCP. Seriously.

.:There Are No Words:.

I can’t believe I’m writing yet another political post. Then again, the government seems to be cranking its craziness factor.

Why are we letting a convicted child rapist run around establishing a theme park for kids with our esteemed president’s name plastered all over it? That’s like asking Triumph The Insult Comic Dog to walk your poodle!

I don’t know how blind people have to be to let this glaring error of judgment pass. Romeo Jalosjos was convicted for acts of lasciviousness and statutory rape. Why are we letting him run an establishment that would put him in a position to have more potential victims? Are you going to let R. Kelly babysit your daughters? I think not.

When Good Times Manila poked fun at the possibility of Jalosjos founding an exclusive school for little girls, I chuckled at the sheer absurdity of it. Finding out about Gloria’s Fantasyland, well, I can’t help but facepalm because this time, it’s not a joke.

What’s wrong with these people? Why are we allowing these dolts to run roughshod over the justice system? What about the girl who was raped? Did anyone ask her if she thought her oppressor should run free? Wasn’t it bad enough that he was living like a king in jail?

There are no words for the sheer injustice we are witnessing happening right before our eyes. One wishes we can do more, but for now, perhaps writing about this, and sharing my indignance, will show more and more that contrary to what our esteemed officials may think, people do care what’s going on in this country, and it’s not all about serving our own selfish interests all the frigging time.

In Observance Of Good Friday...

... my blog posts will have to wait.

Have a blessed Good Friday, everyone. Remember... this is a commemoration of Jesus's death. Jesus is not dead. Saying so is an insult to his ultimate sacrifice for us.

Don't Miss This!

.:Who Killed Vince McMahon?:.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a suspect.

.:More Fundie Madness…:.

Now, Creationist theory really is on thin ice and hinges on a literal interpretation of scripture, which is not always the brightest idea when considering that the writers of the Bible weren’t really scientists.

When Creationists, at least, the hardcore ones, make an attempt to explain away evolution, we get Museum Of Ignorance like this one.

Gotta love the snarky comments with each photo.

.:Fantastic Four 2…:.

Well, it was at least better than the first film. That’s for sure. I’m glad Rowena and I got to watch it today, and I’m a heckuva lot more glad that we dodged running into her mom, who was actually there in Trinoma as well. That would’ve been a load of trouble for my Beloved and I…

That being said, it’s one of those off days for her. I’m trying to get used to those days. Really, I am. It’s just so difficult, but in spite of the pain, I still do love her because I’ve never felt this… right about a relationship. I appreciate that she said I was “wonderful”, though. Nobody’s ever said that of me before, and it means a lot coming from my Beloved.

I just pray that it’s not just me again. I really hope not.

.:Don’t Miss Out On ToyCon ’07, Because…:.

Kel Fabie is more easily recognized as Kel the Mushroom, one half of the Insomaniacs at WAVE 89.1, from Tuesdays to Fridays, 2-6 in the morning. However, he has been slowly building a name for himself in quite a different path.

As a friend to quite a few members of the Philippine Cosplay community, he has been seen hosting last year’s TOEI-nty Group Cosplay competition at Eastwood City, and has been a constant presence in other conventions such as UP’s AME Matsuri, Hero Channel’s Hataw Hanep Hero, and the recently-concluded launch of Mangaholix in SM Mall of Asia, to mention a few.

Lately, however, Kel has been making quite a name for himself as a magician and mentalist, having performed for parties and audiences organized by the likes of Richard Merck, Mapua University, and presidential daughter Luli Arroyo, and his unique and versatile brand of prestidigitation has extended to the Philippine cosplay committee, as he has performed “crash magic” (The term “crash magic” is courtesy of The Story Circle.) for the people on-the-spot, for the entertainment of those watching.

No stooges. No pre-show setup. Obviously, no camera tricks. Kel Fabie’s repertoire will amaze and astound you, and baffle the mind, as he tells you that anything he can do, you can do. All it takes is unlocking a sense of wonder and gaining an insight into the human psyche. From cards to rings to forks, you will be entertained and astounded at what he has to offer, and all you have to do is show up and watch!

This year’s Philippine Toy Convention will be the next venue for Kel’s “crash magic”, as he does walkaround magic for the audiences on Saturday and Sunday, culminating in a rare onstage appearance as he performs his show-stopping effects, topped off by one that must be seen to be believed! Don’t miss out on it, because all you have to do is go to the ToyCon, and you get grade-A mentalism along with the other excellent highlights of the convention, all for the price of entry!

Get ready to unlock your sense of wonder.

For those interested in booking Kel Fabie for shows, get in touch with him via e-mail: mistervader@gmail.com.