Don't Force Your Niqab On Us, CBCP

It's supposed to be a personal choice.

(Courtesy of onislam.net)

Did you hear about the woman in Egypt who was assaulted and whose hair was forcibly cut?

On Sunday, a Christian woman had her hairstyle forcibly changed by two women in Egypt (who happened to be wearing niqabs), in an apparent attempt to instill the notion that ALL Egyptian women should be wearing the niqab when in public.

(See http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/women-assault-cut-hair-christian-woman-metro for more details.)

The niqab is the veil or face covering that Islam requires of its' female members to wear in certain instances. (Not to be confused with the burka.)

The Christian woman was called an "infidel", and was pushed off the train (they were in the metro/train station) which broke her arm.

It brought to my mind what the CBCP is doing in our own country.

Specifically, with the RH Bill.

You see, the niqab wearing women confused their religious choice as being the standard to follow for all of Egypt - it has been established that the woman they assaulted was a Christian, but that didn't matter one whit to them: all they can think of was, if you are a woman in Egypt, you should wear a niqab.

Similarly, our bishops are confusing the entire Philippines as being Catholic.

They don't seem to care that under our form of government, a democracy that is secular in nature, anyone is free to choose their religion. It means you can choose to be a Catholic. It also means you can choose to be a non-Catholic, however that fact is manifested (one chooses another religion or no religion at all).

Once these facts are clearly established, it becomes incomprehensible why the CBCP is so adamant in insisting that their view on the RH Bill - particularly as to which forms of contraception they deem "acceptable" and "moral" - is the only "way to go".

I think it's because they have gotten away with it for so long, this "unchallenged" position that they have occupied in this country as the religious majority.

They don't care that this country has a sizable religious minority. They make threats - both veiled and obvious - to our lawmakers regarding their political mortality if they will approve of the RH Bill. The lawmakers who are against the bill have reasons like "it is against our faith", clearly a statement of intolerance, one that presumes and assumes that we have a uniform faith and a singular religion.

Being the religious majority does not give you the right to run roughshod over everyone else, the way these two Islamic women in Egypt broke the arm of the Christian woman.

Being the religious majority does not give you the right to assault our beliefs or non-belief as "immoral", the way these two Islamic women in Egypt thought of the Christian woman for not wearing a niqab..

Being the religious majority does not give you the right to change the laws in this land to suit your taste, the way these two Islamic women in Egypt tried to change the Christian woman's hairstyle.

Don't force your niqab on us.

More Right Than Others

Solemn or intrusive?

(Courtesy of scientificamerican.com)

The recent editorial of The Varsitarian was hardly something surprising to someone who has been labeled an outcast by the religious majority of this country.

It is symptomatic of what can really be described as religious superiority, only this time, being asserted on those who are deemed to have strayed from "the one true path", by the ones who think they are truly faithful.

It begs a question that I have long asked, whenever the ugly condescension I experienced  from those of this country's dominant religion would raise its ugly (though bejewelled) head:

Since when did one's faith become a matter of public discourse and policy?

In this latest incarnation, the school paper of the University of Santo Tomas sought to publicly castigate the professors from two other universities, Ateneo de Manila and De La Salle, who have declared their support for the Reproductive Health Bill. The position papers of these professors made it clear that they were doing this apart from the official stances of their respective institutions.

As a non-Catholic, all I can do is chuckle at the faith infighting because what it all boils down to me is this: I am more Catholic than you are.

I am more religious than you are.

I am better than you are.

The fact that one party is addressing this to people who belong to the same faith lends it a rather comical air. I grew up basically on the same receiving end of this stick, as someone who is not Catholic, and from what I have seen all my life as the actions of certain Catholics - who unfortunately are its so-called leaders - I won't be inclined to join its ranks for the forseeable future. 

I recently read that some local Catholic officials are decrying the lack of enthusiasm of the younger generation for the faith they represent, and this was even briefly touched on by the Varsitarian editorial. So, if even the hierarchy admits that they have somehow lost their luster with the people who will be the eventual torchbearers of the faith, you don't have to imagine how outsiders like me look at the current state of Catholicism.

I have friends from all three universities, and the response from all of them - no exceptions - is that they regret this had to come to pass, and are one in denouncing, in their own ways, the level and tone of writing of the editorial in question. Those who come from UST are the most expressive, with the common theme centering on "this doesn't represent the majority of UST students!"

Let me be clear: I have always held the position that in a democracy, one's faith - if one chooses from the many faiths competing for membership - should be a matter of privacy, borne out of personal conviction and contemplation. 

It has always come as a shock to me when anyone uses their faith - a personal, private matter and affair - to insult, denigrate, humiliate and shame others who should necessarily be entitled to the same choice.

This use of Catholicism as a weapon to bend others to its will is so pervasive, no one even questions our legislators who say "I can't approve of the Reproductive Health Bill because it is against my religion": the inability to separate secular matters from personal faith is so ingrained that anyone who dares question this state of public affairs is seen as "offensive". (I'm sure non-Catholics like myself are labeled much worse, seeing as how the editorial calls other Catholics as "interlopers" and "lemons".) 

Until we impress the idea that faith should be a private decision, it will continue to interfere with public policy, laws and even our very interactions.

And sadly, faiths, which are supposedly sources of love, acceptance and compassion, will continue being the very thing they are supposed to be railing against.

All because they wish to prove how right they are.

Well, more right than anyone outside their faith. And even to some within their own.

Using Guilt As A Weapon

(Or how you become a topic for a blogpost.)

One finger out, four fingers back at you.

(Courtesy of neillneill.com)

After my breakfast in Greenbelt, I decided to take the less frantic route back to work (read: through the mall, and not the pedestrian walkways) since the mall would be open by the time I finished my meal.

As expected, there was a "sleepy" feel walking through Greenbelt, as shops were just beginning to open. As I got closer to the escalator, I noticed that some people were frozen in their spots. (About less than half of the people in my range of view.) Everyone else was either strolling through or getting to their shops for work.

Curious as to why some people were rooted where they are, I became cognizant that something was blaring through the mall speakers: a prayer that was asking for blessings for the day's shoppers, and the mall workers. Since there is a Catholic chapel in the midst of Greenbelt, I concluded that this was a Catholic prayer. I proceeded on my way to the escalator as originally planned.

Fortunately for my blog, I had to pass a group of "rooted" middle-aged ladies. Their heads were supposedly bowed down, but they would look furtively from side to side to see what everyone else was doing. In my mind, I described them as not really being that deep in prayer if they had time to survey their surroundings while going through the motions and appearance of being "prayerful", but that's their life, not mine.

Perfectly content with not minding them, I was not returned with the same courtesy.

The lady standing in the middle started giving me the evil eye, and nudged her companion to her left, shaping her mouth like an aardvark's towards me. And as I was about to step on the escalator, they both lifted their heads to audibly say, "Bastos. Di nagdadasal." (So rude, not praying.)

I smiled back, and said "I'm not Catholic."

As my ride was getting higher, the one on the left tried to have her parting shot: "Dasal parin to. (This is still a prayer.) You should have prayed."

In one fell swoop, she has outlined the problem with organizations like the CBCP (Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines) in the current RH Bill debates: they don't care if you're Catholic or not, they have to get their way.

I could hear the prayer still being said over the speakers. And since writers should have the last word, I motioned my finger to my ear, and hollered back:

"You're a Catholic, why aren't you praying?"

That shut them up.

A Low Blow Amidst High Waters

We certainly don't need any of those given the terrible weather conditions.

Divine wrath?

(Courtesy of daylife.com)

Unfortunately, it was an opportunity too good to pass up to those who feel they have a direct line to God. (And how eagerly He supposedly agrees to anything they say.)

After yesterday's historic vote in Congress that ended the debates regarding the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill, an unusually large amount of rainfall characterized most of today, so much so that it has already exceeded the rainfall produced during typhoon Ondoy last 2009, which is viewed as the worst storm we've had in the country in recent years.

(See http://www.rappler.com/nation/10004-rainfall-over-metro-surpasses-ondoy-record for more details.)

Given the weather, most of us were "grounded" at home, giving us the time to stay online much more than normally possible (read: during work days). It also afforded us time to see posts from those against the RH Bill, claiming that "justice" is now being done from "high above".

"Heaven is letting out tears for the RH Bill."

"This is God speaking through nature for approving of immorality approved by Congress!"

"Maybe now you will understand that we will not be ignored! Down with the RH Bill! Let the rains wash it away!"

These are just a few of the online comments I have read, linking the heavy rainfall with the ending of the RH debates. Or, as these comments show, these posters believe the rains to be "God's response" for the RH Bill vote.

I don't know about you, but I would be very careful about claiming to speak for an all-powerful and all-knowing deity. If there's anything that stories about gods have shown us, it's that they don't need to justify anything they do: they do it precisely because they simply can.

You see that when Zeus had his way with any number of women. You see that in the God of the Christian Bible, who suddenly gave Abraham and his wife a son in their old age, only to tell them to kill their son as a sacrifice - all for a test. In modern day (psychology) terminology, we would call Zeus a rapist and the Christian God a sadist.

Their comments also disregard the fact that we have typhoons every year, aside from various weather disturbances not considered as a full-blown typhoon. Not to mention, when the anti-RH forces were having their "prayer rally", it was raining as well: we can quibble about the amount of rainfall, but if I followed their so-called "logic", God hates both those who are for and against the RH Bill?

But more importantly, it betrays who they are and what their priorities are: they disregard the suffering caused by the rains, and would rather gloat about their supposed moral superiority than trying to extend help to those who are directly affected by the rains.

They have painted their God as vengeful (for their cause), capable of causing loss and damage to innocent people, and quite frankly, petty, if a God so all-powerful didn't directly punish the lawmakers who supposedly "disobeyed His will."

Are they trying to drive people away from their religion? Well, they're doing a marvelous job.