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.

"World Peace" According To Miriam

As a country obsessed with beauty pageants, I have little doubt that most Filipinos know the stock answer of every beauty pageant contestant, should a "difficult" question come up during their Q and A portion, oftentimes the deal breaker, determining who gets to be coronated as the winner in the said contest.

"World Peace."

I have made my feelings patently clear about these sorts of pageants, in my previous posts - anyone who uses physical attributes to replace the concept of their own self worth must not have a very substantial emotional or mental life - and while the issue of "allowing" transgenders in the Miss Universe contest is all the "rage" these days, I paid nominal attention to it as beauty contests are as relevant to my life as Mikey Arroyo claiming to be the representative of tricycle drivers and security guards.

Getting home late last night, I come in to find Arthur watching Tonight with Arnold Clavio, and the show's topic: Transgenders and beauty pageants.

I internally started rolling my eyes, but then he said: "I don't like what she (Miss Universe 1st runner up Miriam Quiambao) is saying and how she's saying it. It reeks of condescension."

To those who argue that beauty contests are "substantial", I rest my case.

(Courtesy of codamon.com)

Which immediately laid my eye-rolling to rest: A fortunate receipient of the adulation of this country's obsession with physical appearances finds something to be condescending about?

The guests that night were Quiambao and STRAP (Society of Transsexual Women of the Philippines) Chairperson Naomi Fontanos.

As I am watching the show almost near its end, I really only have the segment I viewed to comment on, so the context will be based purely on that. (I am giving no weight to either participants' statements before the part I did catch.)

Fontanos talks about how she knows she was born with male organs, but that she has always felt a woman on the inside. And when Clavio cheekily asks whose "fault" it was for her predicament (of feeling like a woman despite being born a man organ wise), she responds humorously "yung doktor".

Later, Miriam takes the hand of Naomi, and starts off her "We Are The World" monologue: how she understands where Naomi is coming from, how in Naomi's mind these feelings are perfectly valid, and then she begins to veer away from it by saying that there are only two classifications of human beings: man and woman, and that her "beliefs" validate this view. (She's not saying the word "religion" although it is clear this is what she meant, and she will reveal this later.)

Fontanos responds by saying that she also respects Quiambao's view, and is hoping that Quiambao will return the same respect when she states how she feels internally. In short, she - paradoxically - is the better representative to espouse that oft-quoted "World Peace" line, where she advocates allowing people to have their own belief systems and not to let one's personal beliefs dictate how and what others should do in their own lives.

Alas, Miriam does not take this sitting down - I imagine the dialogue in her head to be something along the lines of "How dare this transgender talk to me, and lecture me about acceptance and tolerance! I, an almost-Miss Universe winner in 1999, who recently posed for the cover of Playboy, who knows and was trained how to verbalize World Peace in more than one way, being schooled about the "World Peace" concept!"

She does the next "logical" thing: she invokes her God.

"Pero, hindi naman yan katotohanan ko, katotohanan yan ng Diyos." (But it is not my truth, it is the truth of God.)

And as we all "know", once a person invokes "God", you supposedly cannot make any more rebuttals or criticisms, as that would be akin to "attacking" a person's religion.

I'd laugh harder at this kind of "reasoning", if only the consequences weren't so dire for us who have to live with this level of intolerance whilst those who claim "religious freedom" as their cornerstone for sprouting hateful missives adopt some illusory mantle of moral superiority and continue - pun intended - lording it over everyone else they deem inferior by the mere fact that others choose not to believe in the same god they do.

Hey, Miriam, religion is a choice. Get over yourself. Get off your soapbox.

I will not delve into the pros and cons of "allowing" transgenders into superficial pursuits. Even Naomi admits that beauty pageants are shallow and demean women. That pro-and-con list has been dissected over and over and most everyone has give their 5 (Philippines) pesos worth of opinions on.

You may have your own religious beliefs, Miriam, that is guaranteed under our Constitution, and under the laws of any democratic country. It is the very reason why - sorry, CBCP (Catholic Bishops's Conference of the Philippines) - there is no "state religion" in any democracy, as it infringes on an individual's right to choose what belief systems would be most compatible with their particular, individual lives.

In the same breath, you do not have the right to impose your own beliefs onto someone else, and force them to conform to something you have elected to subscribe to as a matter of personal faith. You may think Naomi is "lower" than you, that she is "not a real woman", and I'm sure your religion says much more delightful things about her, more than I can think of if I had to spend a whole day thinking of demeaning things to say under the imprimatur of "religious righteousness".

You're not an actress, Miriam, so don't bother trying to pass this off as a "misunderstanding" of your stance. The fact that you can smile while sprouting off such intolerant statements makes me cringe, but then again, we've had our local CBCP, Falwell, Santorum, Palin, Bush and many other religious zealots giving us practice on this very act: having an innocent, plastered grin while telling those who don't believe "in the same way as I do" that they will be put to death "in the next life".

One of the "heavy" arguments mentioned to me against allowing transgenders to join beauty pageants is that a popular question of this circuit is "what is the essence of a woman?", and the most deemed "correct" response is "to be a mother", and since transgenders are biologically unable to do so, then they should be barred from the contest.

So barren and reproductively challenged women are not "real women" as well?

And a woman who clings to her "religious beliefs", the ones that tell her that sex outside of marriage or artificial insemination are "sins", who do not have children given their particular situations, they are also "not real women"?

Should Miriam herself be declared "not a real woman" since, you know, she hasn't given birth? (Strangely, as Jessica Zafra pointed out in her recent piece, beauty pageant winners are stripped of their titles if they become pregnant during their "reign". Talk about mixed messages.)

And if you're going to be all huffy about being "right with God", you better make sure you've never signed divorce papers, effectively having your marriage "torn asunder".

Was this approved by your religion, too?

(Courtesy of getitfromboy.net)

Hey, if you can dish it, you should be able to take it. And the fact that you can't even uphold your own religious guidelines (I don't think getting a divorce and appearing on the cover of a "men's magazine" qualify you for your religion's Best Representative position..unless there are loopholes, yet again?), that's just a bonus.

Akala ko pa naman "world peace" ang isinusulong ng mga contests na to. (And here I thought "world peace" was a central thrust of contests like this.)

Just more magnificently applied lipstick-covered lip service.

Rorscharch Blots, Philippine Edition

I'm seeing a couple of pictures on Facebook right now that, in light of the recently concluded religious holiday, are bound to raise the local temperature even higher. And no, this has nothing to with sex. It has to do with the other topic bound to get one, uhm, hot.

I grabbed these off various friends' Facebook accounts, and all these pictures had the link named Duke Erwin. I saw one more shot as well (below), which wasn't too well "publicized".

Having grown up with Madonna (the pop singer), Sinead O'Connor, and other artists who view blasphemy as an individual right - one that is affirmed by the United Nations - I do not find these images shocking, in the least bit. (See http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=39170&Cr=human+rights&Cr1= to view the General Comment of the UN.)

What I found interesting, however, were the reactions of those who, shall we say, consider themselves defenders of religion/s, with an implicit assumption of being morally superior.

"One retarded asshole!"

"May kulang sa larawan...pako!" (Missing from the photo...nails!)

"Sna buong ktwn n nya mpko pra msya" (Her entire covered in nails would be fun.)

"B*tch!"

"Sarap ipukpok ang krus sa pepe nya!" (It would be delightful to hammer that cross in her vagina!)

Side note, something I've thought previously: Wouldn't the biggest blasphemers be someone from a different religion than yours? I would think that the underlying statement would be "No, I don't believe in your God, because my God is the real deal." And another meta-message of someone with another religion would be "Your God is fake. Mine is the only one worthy of praise." It is strange that those who feel that strongly about their faith do not wage war against other religions.

Oh, wait a minute. They do.

Carry on, then.

What Happened One Holy Friday

Would you force a vegetarian to eat meat?

(Courtesy of en.wikipedia.org)

I asked this question to my mom more than two decades ago. I was confronted with a situation that first exposed me to a side of religion I was not made aware of, but proved to be a defining moment for me why I have all these uneasy feelings about outward displays of religiosity.

Holy Week activities as a child consisted of going out of town with relatives or family friends. Please take note that I was raised as a non-Catholic so I don't have any idea what people (Catholics in particular) mean when they talk about concepts like the Eucharist (although I must admit a fascination with the concept of transubstantiation). Whenever this particular four-day holiday would come around, I knew well enough to remember to pack the suntan lotion, some beach or swimming wear, and the salbabida (lifesaver).

It was in one such "outing" and holiday that I knew what it meant to be a vegetarian being forced to ingest "the dead, unpleasant carcass resulting from brutal violence", as a vegetarian friend once described meat consumed.

We were at a rest house of a family friend. We swam at the pool, horsed around with the other children. Then I heard the bell.

It was a signal to pray. Specifically, it was an in-house version of the Stations of the Cross. We were all tasked to surround a replica of the Virgin Mary and baby Jesus, as well as another replica of a bloodied Jesus Christ. It all sounded like a slow, droning monotonous chanting that went on and on. Thankfully, since I was one of the last one out of the pool, my mom and I were situated at the back of the pack.

I then turned to her after a few minutes of witnessing this.

"Mom, what are we doing? How come everyone knows what to say but us?"

"Shhh. Lower your voice."

I responded as she requested. "So, I still don't get it. What are we doing?"

My mom turns to me and says "We are doing a Catholic ritual. But instead of going out, we are doing it here at their (family friend) home."

I ponder this bit of information, then asked her: "But...we're not Catholic, right? Didn't you tell me that bowing down before a graven image was explicitly condemned in the Bible?"

"Shhh. Quiet."

"We're still doing it."

She turns to me and pulls me over to a side that was near a corner, almost hidden from everyone's view. "Yes, I know. Yes, I've told you what I've told you, it's still condemned. But we are guests at their house. we have to obey their rules and do what they do."

"Isn't that wrong? Why should we do Catholic rituals if we're not Catholic? What if someone broke all those graven images because it was against what we believe?"

"Those statues aren't ours. So we don't have a right to break them."

"But they also don't have the right to ask us to pray a prayer we don't believe in, right?"

"Look. Just go along, nod your head, and we will get through this like nothing happened."

"But that's like forcing meat down someone who doesn't eat it. Aren't they forcing us to do something against our religion?"

"Basta. Keep quiet. Take my lead, don't make a scene, and don't ask these questions to our host."

We went back to the back of the pack. There were lighted candles, there was usage of rosaries, some people knelt on the hard concrete. More prayers and unintelligible mumblings  from the others. (I was straining to hear what everyone else was saying, I really couldn't catch it.)

Right after, our hostess told us that it was time for dinner. I noticed that it was all vegetables, and someone had a special fish dish prepared, none of which were particularly palatable to a child at my age that time. So I asked my mom if there were any hotdogs.

The hostess looks straight at me sternly, and says, "Oh, no. We don't consume meat during Holy Week. It's a time of sacrifice and reflection. Besides, it's rude not to eat what a host serves you."

Apparently, she overheard the conversation my mom and I had.

My mom looked at me and gave me a look that signaled me to just eat my food.

Later that night, as I got up to get a glass of water, I espied a group of men playing cards and having a grand time - and slurred speech from the amount of liquor consumed. I also saw the hostess who told me off smoking a cigarette near their laundry area (which I had a view of on the way to the bathroom).

So much for sacrifice and reflection, I guess.

We never went back to that rest house.

And we were never invited again.

That is what happened one Holy Friday, more than twenty years ago.