I Lost Lucy

Representative Lucy Torres-Gomez just showcased how our legislators have a problem differentiating their personal beliefs and their work as lawmakers in a secular democracy.

Morality's muse.

(Courtesy of southernleytetimes.com)

On a morning show hosted by anchor Karen Davila, she expressed her concern about the country's "moral fiber" - more specifically, what would happen to it should the RH (Reproductive Health) Bill be passed. She also mentions her faith as the force that drives her to oppose the said measure, claiming that the Philippines is a religious country and that she cannot make a decision that will go against it.

I don't know about you, but my first, instinctive reaction was to laugh out loud. (A real life LOL.)

See, the representative makes it no secret that she is devoted and loyal to the Catholic Church in the country. All one needs to do is to Google "Lucy Torres Gomez anti RH", and what comes out are articles that juxtapose the terms "RH", "CBCP", "church", "Catholic" and her name, as proof of this.

Clearly, the moral standard she is advocating or sees as "golden" is the morality as approved by the Catholic hierarchy in the country.

And let's not forget - how can we, when the CBCP reminds us every chance it gets - that a majority of this country identifies itself as Catholic, when asked for religious affiliation.

So why did I LOL?

The question is, how can anyone not laugh at the absurdity highlighted by such a devotion to the so-called Catholic "moral fiber", compared with what is happening around us? After centuries of Catholic "superiority", what moral tempertaure can be felt in this bastion of Christianity in Asia? (Full disclosure: I am not a Catholic.)

We are constantly rated as one of the most corrupt nations in the world.

We have priests - supposedly sworn to celibacy - who have sired offspring.

The pictures of priests surrounding former President Macapagal-Arroyo and former Chief Justice Renato Corona speak volumes: their eerie silence while various anomalous, highly questionable transactions happened and blatant disregard for public calls for accountability can render even the sharpest of hearing aids inutile.

We have the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Southeast Asia.

You can find vendors selling concoctions that are supposed to induce abortion right outside one of the country's most flocked Catholic churches.

Hundreds of thousands of abortions are performed in the country, every year.

News reports about a dead fetus showing up in a trash can have become staples in broadsheets, they have since desensitized us from the initial shock value.

Journalists are killed left and right in this country, making it one of the most dangerous places in the world to practice this vital profession, moreso in a democracy.

Our jails are packed to the rafters.

We have a mayor overly concerned with the supposedly "satanic" lyrics from a foreign performer, who earned revenue for the city by playing her concert in a place known for its sex dens, with permits to operate issued by the mayor's office.

We have elevated undisciplined behavior into a dubious art: public vehicles that unload passengers in the middle of the road, pedestrians who play roulette with their lives by crossing underneath a pedestrian overpass, throwing our plastic waste and cigarette butts wherever we please, motorists slapping traffic enforcers who try to do their jobs, and policemen who extort money from drivers, to start with.

And who could forget the priests who were satirically referred to as "Mitsubishops", an obvious reference to the car manufacturer, for even more obvious reasons?

Or politicians who like to claim the "high road", when they (1) run in their husband's place because the husband was disqualified from running; (2) post tarpaulins of their faces and supposed projects in public places, as if these were theirs to do so, some of whom even place pictures of their "Chief of Staff", someone who was not even elected; (3) appear in television commercials, and even host morning shows and "amazing" specials, while being a full-time legislator?

How can we not mention a special legislator who thinks nothing of plagiarism, under the pretext that it is not explicitly stated as illegal in our laws, who translates a famous American speech in the vernacular and claims no copying took place, all the while acting like some maligned defender of the "unborn" - yes, you may commence eye-rolling - and perched ever so highly secured in a self proclaimed mantle of superiority?

Given these facts, it becomes hideously indefensible - and indubitably laughable - to oppose the RH Bill on the absurd notion that its approval would cause the country's "Catholic morality" to be under attack.

Again, let me ask Rep. Torres-Gomez: what "moral fiber"?

This country that you claim as "religious" (let's not forget: most people here are Catholics) is so morally bankrupt, it surprises me that you would parade its Catholic credentials in so righteous a manner. One of your religion's recently deceased leaders has proclaimed your faith as "200 years" out of sync with the present time. I think he was even being charitable with that description.

How can a religion that has been described as misogynistic, homophobic and intolerant of any other views other than its own be considered a morality manual, at a time in the world where women are slowly catching up to the opportunities and earning potential of men (some even surpassing the men in "their own game"), where gay people are (glacially) gaining rights, denied for so long, but accorded every other human being, and where religious leaders like the Dalai Lama are saying that religion may no longer be solely sufficient to be the basis for ethical behavior?

In "I Love Lucy", the entire cast seemed to be in suspended ditziness, which is where it got its comic power, but at the end of the day, we know that it's only a show, it's just for fun, and it will end after half an hour.

It cannot be said in this case, where real lives are affected, it's called survival, and the end to suffering is nowhere in sight.

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.

On Lady Gaga And The RH Bill

Unless you've been living under a rock these past few years, you would know who Lady Gaga is by now. Her "blood soaked" performance at the Grammy Awards, the sure-to-be-talked about "clothes" (the meat dress, the bubble wrap ensemble, literally wearing Kermit the Frog), her music videos that leave viewers wondering "What the...?!?". Anything and everything she does is almost guaranteed to keep people buzzing.

She's not blood soaked here.

(Courtesy of izismile.com)

As a child of this generation, the pop star has utilized platforms like Facebook and Twitter almost fully to her advantage: based on sheer online influence and reach, last year, she was named Time Magazine's Most Powerful Celebrity, knocking Oprah Winfrey off the top spot. It underscores the importance of social media in this day and age. (News for news and other media outfits who are still not on the cyberspace wagon: Get on it. Remember the dinosaurs.)

In what universe would she and the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill be sharing the same space?

The unlikely answer comes from Indonesia.

News reports have indicated that Indonesian authorities have revoked Lady Gaga's license to perform in that country (she was slated to perform there in June as part of her Born This Way Ball tour) after preselling 30,000 concert tickets. The reason: three Islamic groups have registered their protest and displeasure at the upcoming event, accusing the singer of promoting "satanic teaching".

(More here: http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/entertainment/05/15/12/lady-gaga-gagged-indonesia-after-islamic-opposition)

I initially dismissed the news item as a sad consequence of living in a theocratic country, until I read it further: did you know that Indonesia is a secular state?

Just like we are. Supposedly. But reading another news item yesterday - a priest urging people not to vote for lawmakers who support the RH Bill in 2013 - I began to see that, however unlikely, Lady Gaga and the RH Bill are actually occupying the same boat, on a route to nowhere. All because they both offend the sensibilities of a particular religious group.

Ever since our colonization from Spain, we have been subjugated by one sector long after the Spaniards have left us, and that is the Catholic Church. They have been so interwoven into our lives, they are already considered part of Philippine "culture", and no one blinks anymore at their blatantly direct involvement in politics. You can't get any more "direct" than stating to your religious flock who not to vote for.

As if you needed more proof of this meddling, the RH Bill has been languishing in Congress for decades. The most vociferous critic of the proposed measure is the said religion, with both overt and implied threats of their "voting power", rendering legislators largely immobilized by fear that they won't be voted into power for another term.

Most of the opposition of the Catholic Church stems from its reading of the RH Bill as a measure that supposedly will push people into having sexual encounters 24 hours a day, because artificial contraception is the "hidden" agenda of the bill. Online commenters who openly oppose the bill on the same religious grounds usually have the same retort: Bakit? Makakain ba ang condoms?!? (Can condoms be eaten?!?) It proves that there is a myopic, constricted view of what the bill is all about: sex.

It's not so different from one of the Indonesian religious leaders protesting Lady Gaga, who said that "she's a vulgar singer who wears only panties and a bra when she sings".

This obsession about sex reminds me of a statement by Stephen Fry, comparing it with people on a restricted food diet, who, because of the unnatural state, are naturally the ones most obsessed about food.

Dieters don't expect everyone else to go on the same restriction just because they voluntarily do it, do they? This analogy pretty much answers which group is most obsessed about sex.

Reading through the RH Bill and its provisions (there are several sites online that you can peruse), it is overwhelmingly a bill that pushes for education about reproductive health, and a measure that respects people's choices, religion being one of the bases for those choices. It will not, as one comment I've read puts it so animatedly, "sasaksakin yung condoms sa baga natin" (shove the condoms down our lungs).

But then again, most of the major world religions are not fond of the terms "education" and "choice". How could they, when they all insist that their body of knowledge - such as it is - is the only way to go, and any deviation from their religious code is an affront to their deity and beliefs?

At least, in Lady Gaga's case, all that will be affected will be her ticket sales. She earned $90 million last year, so I doubt her non-concert in Indonesia will cause a blip in her financial standing.

But what is the cost for the non passage of the RH Bill? We now have the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Southeast Asia. I saw a newsmagazine show over the weekend that featured a town filled with teenage moms, one of whom was still playing with dolls because she was still a child herself, barely a teenager.

Without education, there is no way people can arm themselves.

And as for choice? Well, the 30,000 tickets that were presold proves that Lady Gaga has fans even in conservative Indonesia. Similarly, in survey after survey conducted by reputable firms, people in "the Catholic bastion of Asia" favor the passage of the RH Bill.

People can live without seeing a Lady Gaga concert.

Wearing animal rights on your sleeve. Or body.

(Courtesy of squidoo.com)

But people are dying needlessly while the RH Bill gets kicked around as a political-religious football.

It is time for the government to score a goal for the RH Bill.

Miriam As Homophobia Indicator

Question to everyone who criticized 1999 Miss Universe 1st Runner-Up Miriam Quiambao for her homophobic stance:

Were we not seeing the big picture when we came down on her for making her unfriendly-to-LGBT remarks?

(Courtesy of juicyexpress.com)

I am led to ask this because now that she has apologized for the comments (in her way) over Twitter, there seems to be a backlash against the group Ladlad, spilling over to the entire LGBT community, that is "demanding" that she give a more forceful and demonstrative apology in relation to her recent tweets.

From where I sit, and see, people have come out in droves defending Miriam, calling her "principled", "righteous" and "morally correct".

And the big picture is, we are a homophobic country.

How can anyone think otherwise, seeing all these comments online?

"GAYS NOWADAYS ARE THE SUCCESSORS OF THE GAYS THAT SURVIVED SODOM AND GOMORRAH. GOD ANNIHILATED THAT TOWN, ACCORDING TO BIBLE. GOD MISSED SOME OF THEM SO NOW THEIR SUCCESSORS ARE ALL OVER THE GLOBE AND UNSTOPPABLE! THESE GAYS ARE SINNERS, AND SINNERS MUST BE PUNISHED! DEATH TO ALL SINNERS! DEATH TO ALL GAYS!!!!! WHO IS WITH ME? COME ON! I KNOW SOMEONE HERE WANTS ALL GAYS DEAD!!!"

"Dapat kasi sa Planet Mercury nalang manirahan ang LGBT ng sila ay masunog na.haha! Peace" (The LGBT should live in Planet Mercury so they can be incinerated.haha! Peace)

"Sakit sa pag-iisip ang homosexuality!!!" (Homosexuality is a mental illness!!!)

"KILLING A GAY IS NOT JUST JUSTICE. IT IS CONTINUING THE CRUSADE OF GOD TO PURIFY THIS LAND FROM GAYS AS HE DID IN SODOM AND GOMORRAH."

"Is it not too harsh to ask her to make a public apology?"

"Whoever on this thread chooses to side with the LGBT is either gay or a retard..=))"

"apology for what? For saying the Truth funny"

"SALOT ANG MGA GAY PARA SILANG GREMLINS KAPAG NABABASA DUMADAMI" (Gays are a curse, like Gremlins that multiply when rained upon)

"I PREFER A NEW PLANET FOR GAYS ONLY! IT SHOULD BE MERCURY OR VENUS! SO THEY WOULD NOT SURVIVE EITHER WAY!"

This is just a sampling of homophobic comments, some advocating for the outright murder of the LGBT in the name of religion, in a single thread of a major network's news item about Miriam's "apology".

(http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/video/118413/mga-kontrobersyal-na-tweet-ni-miriam-quiambao-binatikos-ng-mga-lgbt)

In truth, these comments make what Miriam said seem benign and saccharine - she really was sugarcoating how some people really feel about the LGBT community, and what "actions" they have in mind to eradicate the, uhm, problem.

This country recently was adjudged to be the most religious/spiritual, where over 90% believe in the concept of God.

If God is in the details, then I do not like what I see.

FYI, Miriam

Miriam Quiambao has apparently appointed herself God's messenger. Or feels that she has been appointed as one. In any case, her "job", as far as I can ascertain from her recent statements, is to direct a message of "love" to the members of the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) community, which I can summarize in two sentences.

God commands me to hate who you are. I am just the messenger, spreading love.

The face and look of love.

(Courtesy of starmometer.com)

To say that her recent tweets have become controversial is an understatement similar to "Manny Pacquiao is a boxer Pinoys are fond of." The one that started it all was this: "Homosexuality is not a sin but it is a lie from the devil. Do not be deceived. God loves gays and wants them to know the truth."

A cursory glance at her Twitter account leads me to believe that she must be taking up Divinity studies: Almost every single one of them involves a Bible verse, how she loves those who believe in what she believes in (calling them her siblings), or how she has finished chapters, assignments or books written by Christian authors.

And before you pounce at me, yes, I know, it is her right to believe what she wants to believe in. It's when she - and others who think like her - insist that we should believe in what she does, or risk being damned for eternity, that I have to digress: Save it for your prayer circle, church or "meeting". You can be as bigoted as you want in your own religious haven. But when you post something on Twitter, you mean to spread what you believe, and are not content in having the freedom to choose your own beliefs unless others are subjugated with those same beliefs.

I got a text message from a good friend last night: "Who knew Miriam was such a redneck?"

Who, indeed? For someone who is supposed to espouse "world peace", being a beauty queen has become her platform to parade her own brand of intolerance. News flash: It's 2012, and intolerance is something to be ashamed of, not bandied around like some badge of honor.

FYI (For Your Information), Miriam, as you seem oblivious to some facts. And I don't mean facts the way you do (you will be rewarded in an afterlife), I mean facts in a verifiable, historical, scientific way, aka in this life, right now.

1. Your right to your own beliefs means others have that same right.

You are thoroughly convinced that your God hates gay people, condemns them to hell, justifies your message of hatred masked as "love", ad nauseum. I have no quarrel in your right to believe in those, er, principles, which you take as gospel truth. (Literally.)

Well, OK, you did say "God loves gays", but only if they remain celibate or refrain from having a romantic relationship. (Don't do a Michele Bachmann.) I have to ask, did "God" tweet this to you, or do you have "God" on speed dial?

See, your desire to force others to believe in the same way you do infringes on other people's right to believe what they want to. One of your tweets reads: "The truth remains and I will stand by God's truth."

Question: Which "God" are you referring to?

"According to David B. Barrett, the researcher who compiles religious population estimates for the Encyclopedia Britannica and World Almanac, there are about 10,000 distinct religions in the world today.

Within Christianity, he counts 33,830 denominations." 

(Sources: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=285942

               http://www.adherents.com/misc/WCE.html)

You may think yours is the "true" and "valid" one. Again, that is your right. But 10,000 other religions and billions of people will disagree with you, and that is also their right. As stated in Barrett's research, in Christianity alone - which I believe is the religion you proudly parade, correct me I'm wrong - you are just one in 33,830 denominations. That means, there are 11,829 other "versions" of the same faith you profess.

When you claim to be "the only true one", be prepared to back it up with verifiable facts. And that is the problem (a problem with regards to the scientific method) with some religions: Most "facts" that are heralded as "absolute truths" are only verifiable when you are buried six feet under in this life.

Here's a fun question: Based on your current religion, what does it say about Catholics and their state of the afterlife? If they are going to burn in Hell for believing differently from you, aren't you "burdened" into telling them that your way is the "right way"? I mean, think of how many brownie points you will amass. Instead of focusing on gay people, you may want to change targets for "saving". More than 80% of this country identifies itself as Catholic. Isn't it your "duty" to tell them that they're headed to a fiery place once they die?

My video camera is set up for the ensuing events.

2. Using "God" to propagate hate does not absolve you of your actions.

After your infamous tweet that sparked this brouhaha, here is a collection of your subsequent tweets:

"I am not judging you."

"I have nothing against the LGBT."

"No offense to the LGBT but the TRuth is the Truth that comes from God. Take it or leave it. We will all face the judgement seat of God."

"I'm sorry that the truth offends some people but it is truth that comes from God. The truth will set you free. Love you."

"I can't save everyone but Jesus can."

Whenever people preface their statements with "No offense, but..." it usually means there will be an egg splattered across the intended audience's face in a mere moment. Quite simply, it just means the speaker is about to say something offensive but wants to disavow responsibility for it.

That is what you are doing, Miriam.

I would prefer speakers like Rush Limbaugh, who hate gay people, make no apologies for it, feel smug about it, and can sign their name across their own work. No matter what your intentions are, Miriam, you are responsible for what you say and do. Period. Don't say mean things then end your statements with "Love you".

Limbaugh essentially does not condemn parents aborting babies who will be genetically determined to be gay, should there be such a way to determine it at that level. He merely opines that pro-choice advocates would turn pro-life so fast should this method of determining sexual orientation come true. His silence on those who would choose to abort potentially gay fetuses is deafening. 

Now that is being proud of one's hateful stance. You should take a cue from him.

(See http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/homophobia-rush-limbaughs-top-anti-gay-quotes/discrimination/2009/03/05/517 for more delightful quotes from Rush.)

3. The Bible has been used to justify personal biases. Always.

There was a time when women couldn't vote. A time when it was "proper" to own slaves. A time when interracial marriages where deemed immoral, sickening and against "religion".

The one thread that connected all of them was this: Defenders of these atrocious stances leaned on the Bible to justify their own hateful biases. Thinking that it cloaked them with moral ascendancy, these champions of human rights violations claimed the Bible gave them the moral persuasion to deny other people their rights.

"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (1 Corinthians 11:8-9)

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (1 Corinthians 14: 34-35)

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ." (Ephesians 6:5)

"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." (Exodus 21:20-21)

"God...hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation..." (Acts 17:24-26)

"Can an Ethiopian change the color of his skin? Can a leopard take away its spots? Neither can you start doing good, for you have always done evil." (Jeremiah 13:23)

An infamous case involving interracial marriages, Loving v. Virginia, had the Bible as basis for part of its ruling to justify racial segregation, and specifically, the ruling includes this passage:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with this arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races show that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Your statements against gay people are also rooted in the Bible, Miriam - you yourself keep reiterating that is is "God's truth". That you have no choice but to obey.

If we are to follow every word of your morality manual, you should have a gag order, as women are not "permitted" to "teach or have authority over a man, but to be in silence." (1 Timothy 2:12)

Notice, many of these Bible verses are from the New Testament. Defenders of the Bible like to point out that the Old Testament is worlds apart from the loving provisions of the New Testament, and as these verses show, not really.

And before anyone accuses me of cherry picking the Bible, I don't. I believe the Bible was a collection of books written by different people, all men, and not a magic book that dropped out of the sky. All of it was written by men. Again, I've also  heard how these have been "divinely inspired" to justify their authority.

It does not change the fact that is was written by humans.

And humans cannot help their biases. Obviously.

How else can you explain eating shellfish, wearing gold or pearls or taking a loan to be "abominations"? (It's an entire chapter in Leviticus, a list of all that's "abominable".) If we were to take that chapter literally word for word, no one is going to heaven.

Comforting thought.

4. Your life story excludes you from being a "proper representative" for any religion.

Seriously. You had a divorce, you posed for a "men's magazine", you used your body and looks to gain fame and fortune, you find nothing "wrong" with parading your body in a swimsuit televised for millions of viewers to see, you are fine with being judged solely on your physical attributes.

I don't know of any religion that would state these qualities as part of their tenets or beliefs. 

I was told that you are a born-again Christian (correct me if this information is wrong). I was raised as a conservative Baptist, and let me tell you, based on my childhood religion, you have sinned over and over and over again.

To defend yourself, part of your tweets says "I never said I'm clean." 

There's saying it, and there's there's living and acting it. Clearly, you have no compunction to do the latter. You remind me of anti-gay zealots like US Senator Larry Craig, who championed for "family values" in legislation and opposed all legal measures to give equal rights to gay people.

He was caught soliciting gay sex from a Minneapolis airport bathroom.

He publicly declared opposing gay sex, but secretly enjoyed it. You publicly declared you are imperfect, but act like you are the very definition of perfection.

I see no difference.

5. Know your limits.

You are the perfect teacher for those who want to know what it takes to win a beauty contest. You were first runner-up in what is believed to be the most "prestigious" of all beauty contests, and even though Venus Raj and Shamcey Supsup are currently celebrated for being in the top 5 of the same contest, beauty contest "experts" never fail to remind everyone that you were the closest to clinching the Miss Universe crown since Margie Moran did it in the 70's.

Although you have not "academically" studied for it, you earned your dues in this area of life - a shallow, vain one, but one that is a collection of industries that earn billions of dollars - with your experience and achievements in this field, to grant you a legitimate status as an "elder" to those who are just now entering this same superficial world.

And anyone who is considered an expert in outer appearances  is generally not the best person to consult in matters of the internal life, ethics, religion, faith, morals, all of which require deep reflection on what's inside as opposed to what's outside. I won't be asking "the meaning of life" from somebody who values a 36-24-36 figure as her crowning achievement to date.

You have made a living - scratch that, you have made a life dedicated to extolling the "virtues" of having a "perfect" outer shell. Focus on that. 

Let me be clear: you are free to believe what you want. You can even state this publicly, as part of your right as a citizen of this democratic country. 

But it is also our right, those who do not believe in the same way you do, and in what you do, to declare your statements a big bag of hooey. And when other people criticize, make fun of and generally treat your statements as meaningless, that is part of what you should expect when you make a public declaration over a forum as wide as Twitter.

Isn't democracy wonderful?

Hypocrites, Hypocrites Everywhere

While channel surfing the other day, I chanced upon the TLC reality show of former Alaskan Governor, former US Vice Presidential Candidate (2008) and currently a 2012 possible contender to replace Obama, Sarah Palin, entitled "Sarah Palin's Alaska".

The show depicts her "normal day", as well as a mini-travelouge for the state, though it wasn't quite clear what exactly it was she does in an official capacity. In the particular episode I saw, she went white water rafting, signed the chainsaw of a lumberjack, and "fake argued" with her daughter who wanted a car for her 16th birthday.

One thing that struck me was when she talked about her daughter Bristol, the one who got pregnant, she  mentioned that she wanted to take her away from the spotlight, as Bristol had received negative comments in general from the press and public.

So, of course, Sarah does the most logical thing: star in a reality show, and have her daughter Bristol appear in it as well.

HELLO. Is there no one else seeing the problem with this picture?

But then, how could we not see this coming? During the 2008 US presidential debates (when she got introduced for the first time to the national and international stage as McCain's running mate), she fervently espoused the efficiency of abstinence as a birth control method - and mere moments (in politics) later, her underage unwed daughter showed up with a baby bump, with an annnouncement that she would marry the father's child.

I guess when she batted for abstinence, she failed to check her own backyard.

Why is it so much fun to see the conservatives go down? And why do they enjoy the taste of feet so much?

She is but one in a long line of hypocrites who act so sanctimonious and so better-than-all-of-us, yet are guilty or party to an act that conservatives have long called "immoral".

Locally, how can we forget Bishop Teodoro Bacani?

When he appeared in the GMA "Grand Debate" earlier this year, proclaiming his sadness that in the RH Bill debates, the dimension of morality has been discarded, all everyone can think about was the news item that starred him, in 2003.

"Bacani faces sexual harassment charge." (See http://www.newsbreak.ph/tag/bishop-teodoro-bacani-sexual-harassment-complaint/)

It wasn't enough that he laughed maniacally at his opponents in the debate, at every chance he could muster. It didn't matter that his arguments were nothing short of stupendous - stupendously out of touch with reality. He deigned to lecture everyone on the pitfalls of moral bankruptcy - that's rich. I'm not a saint, I know that, I never claimed to be one. But at least I've never been accused of ever forcing anyone in a sexually compromising manner. If the self-proclaimed "guardians of morality" cannot seem to refrain from their own amorous advances, on what laughable grounds can they now impose "holding off sex" as something doable for those they wish to consign to a life of celibacy as well?

We should also mention the former U.S. Senator Larry Craig.

A staunch opponent of everything "gay-friendly", the senator was caught in a now infamous bathroom scene in 2007 in Minneapolis, soliciting sex from a male police officer, making him such a go-to joke for the late night talk show circuit. He still vehemently denies that he is gay or has done anything "gay" in his life, decides to resign from the Senate because of the backlash his arrest could have on his political career, then withdraws that resignation, and continues finishing his term.

Right. Okay, we believe you. We also believe that child molestation is a consensual act.

And let's not forget on this list, Shirley Phelps Roper. The spokesperson of the Westboro Baptist Church, her church, headed by her father, Fred Phelps, espouses the belief that every word in the Bible must be followed to the end, and any and all "ills" in the world can be traced to ayone loving or supporting a homosexual.

(Picture above shows them picketing the funeral of Heath Ledger, who they say was "killed by God" for "potraying homosexuals in a positive light".)

Some time ago, they agreed to have their daily lives filmed by a British interviewer (BBC's Louis Theroux). He filmed them "ala reality show", a camera following them around as they proceeded to sing in church, or making picket signs, etc. Theroux was able to ascertain that Shirley herself had a child out of wedlock, and when he commented that it was rather hypocritical that she wished to impose her religious views on the world, when she herself could not "follow to the letter" what it was she was preaching, she then invoked the "I have made my peace with my God" line.

Since they have continued preaching their gospel, I thought it would be enlightening to see what fruits their sermons have borne. (Please note that the WBC's members are primarily the (extended) family only, with only a very few who can be considered "outsiders".)

Doesn't this give you a gooey, warm, fuzzy feeling inside? (Video clip above courtesy of youtube.com, uploaded by OnKneesForJesus. Again, my question was both rhetorical and sarcastic - it surprises me how many people are irony-challenged.)

I don't know about you, but if this is a sampling of what valuable lessons we can learn from the so-called "paragons of morality", then I'd rather not take anything these "leaders" say with any weight nor value.

How unfortunate then that many people still do not see them for who they truly are: Hypocrites.

Someone has commented that I seem to take a hard line on hypocrites - something I can't really deny - but then that person made the mistake of adding "well, maybe you should consider that you're not also perfect". Excuse me. I never claimed to be perfect, nor an angel, nor any other virtuous label that ever existed. The problem is that these people above did. And my next problem is that they are seen as some authority on what to consider as right and wrong. In the end, we all have to make our own moral decisions, but I certainly will not be getting help from these four - and countless others like them - in making them.

I hope you are having a wonderful Sunday.