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.

That Nefarious RH Bill

Dear Faithful,

We write this message to you on the wings of eternal goodwill. We fervently hope that this finds you well, for the contents of this communication is anything but.

Now is the time when all that we have predicted is coming to pass...Attend now!

Yes, it also caused your baby to bawl.

(Courtesy of drmomma.org)

Yes, we are referring to that nefarious Reproductive Health (RH) Bill!

It must be stopped! It is evil, and it is the handiwork of unearthly creatures! An unprintable document of abominable proportions, it is! Even now, its' influence and reach has found a new nesting place - do not laugh, it is not yet law yet it already has this effect, how dare you think this is a matter of levity! - it has come to roost...in Monsignor Trisngobal Narnia. (MTN - My True Nature)

Have you noticed the timing of that article in International Geographical (IG)? It imputed the good monsignor as someone who advocates the use of "a certain substance" to make religious images! How dare they imply malice on our part! We cannot help it because (1) we didn't kill the animals in the process of collecting "a certain substance", at least not firsthand! (2) we only get quality products, for worship purposes!... and (3) we will show you a way to get "a certain substance" for yourself.

We had nothing but good intentions, and a willingness to be open, but IG paints us in so devious a manner, they have deceived us! We are soiled in the eyes of believers!

A sex case? Nonsense! There is no recording, just the whiny accounts of some imaginative and overactive bell boys! Why, they were the ones who "seduced" MTN! Besides, if it was not meant to happen, it wouldn't have happened! All is predestined! All is well!

Do you now see? The RH Bill is responsible for maligning our good name! Who will you believe...IG? The press? The government? All of them are foreign powers! They seek to destroy our national identity! They seek to inject us with...with...foreign ideas, from foreign sources of foreign lands! We must protect ourselves!...Yes, our faith is also foreign, but it is the harbinger of truth, so it is exempted from this tirade!

What? You dare to doubt how the RH Bill is doing this?

Because we said so! Kneel before us! We are the molders of your morality, we would never lie to you! We would never use an unrelated subject to distract you from what's really happening...of course not! We represent the light, the truth, and all that is good! Yes, the RH Bill is responsible for making you think that MTN has any responsibility for the things he is charged with, and the very reason why we are investigating him! It is nothing but RH propaganda!

If it is not stopped, the RH bill will bring to life your worst nightmares! Thunderstorms, why you slipped on your bathroom floor, the prices of bus fares, an accident on the highway involving 10 cars, world wars...these and so many more are the evil deeds of one thing alone: the RH Bill!

Blame it on the RH Bill!

Stand strong, oh, faithful one!

Rejoice for you now know why you have nothing to eat - yes, it is the RH Bill's fault! - and possession of this truth and knowledge will warm your insides with the force of ten hotel buffets!

We fight, we struggle against it, and we will win!

We will overcome the RH Bill and its notorious effects!

We cannot do it without you, for you are our soldiers, and we fight for righteousness!

Until we see each other again,

Your Moral Leaders.
Unquestionable,
Unassailable, and
Easily Offended.


--------------------


Disclaimer: None of the people, events, places and anything else in the above post is meant to refer to anyone or anything in real life, and any similarities with real people, places, events, etc., are merely coincidental and not intentional.

In other, real news: http://globalnation.inquirer.net/51554/bishops-ivory-sex-abuse-controversies-related-to-rh-bill

An Atrocious Response

I am referring to how the CBCP (Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines) "rationalized" how embattled priest Monsignor Cristobal Garcia could possibly be "forgiven", with regards to his involvement is a sex abuse case.

This should be good enough?

(Courtesy of watchdogblog.dallasnews.com)

Garcia has been in the news as of late, thanks to a National Geographic article (in their October 2012 issue) by Bryan Christy. In it, the writer tries to trace the ivory trade route, and stumbled upon our country as a port from where ivory is then brought to other destinations. Christy is led to Cebu, where Garcia is stationed, and the priest, a collector of religious figurines, some of which are made of ivory, regales the writer on how to effectively smuggle ivory.

(See http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2012/10/ivory/christy-text )

Now comes the news that the Catholic hierarchy has stripped Garcia of his official functions and responsibilities, and the CBCP says it has nothing to do with the NatGeo story. 

Apparently, this removal of duties stems from the fact that the Vatican is still in the midst of an ongoing investigation in Garcia's involvement in a sex abuse case. After that story broke, Garcia flew back to the Philippines. He also claimed that it was he who was "seduced and raped", and not the other way around. This is validation for Brooks Egerton, who initially reported about Garcia's case, back in 2005.

(See http://watchdogblog.dallasnews.com/2012/09/vatican-finally-suspends-priest-who-admitted-sex-with-boys.html/)

In the CBCP press conference, it was inevitable that this issue would be brought up; Monsignor Acilles Dakay, Cebu Archdiocese media liaison officer, gave this response:

"What happened in the States could be a crime. If it was also a sin on his part, it was forgiven. He had repented."

(See http://globalnation.inquirer.net/51430/vatican-sacked-cebu-priest-months-ahead-of-ivory-scandal-says-church-exec)

I will leave it up to you how you would view this response. The title of my post puts it clearly what I think of this: heaping atrocious indignation on top of this unimaginable atrocity. (Dakay's response is clearly an admission that it happened, otherwise, what is there to be "repented" for?) Nowhere in the article does it indicate that the priest will be turned over to civil authorities.

We've heard it all before: it's an internal matter. We'll handle it ourselves. No need to concern yourselves with this. We know how best to deal with one of our erring members. In the vernacular, kami na bahala, wag na kayo makialam. (We'll take care of it, don't interfere.)

How utterly convenient. How throughly unacceptable.

It smacks of an arrogance I am all-too-familiar with, as this country has more than its fair share of religious zealots, the kind who exact some nefarious glee in judging others, but when the moral spotlight is turned on them, steadfastly cling to a single dialogue: I will not be judged by men, only by my God.

There's a word for people like that. And yes, it will "offend religious sensibilities".

The truth has certainly been getting a bad rap these days.

Explaining Secular Democracy To Tito

Hello, public officials of the Republic of the Philippines,

Some things to clear about us.

(Courtesy of iconarchive.com)

In recent days, there has been much intermingling of politics and religion (one in particular) in the news, particularly where the RH (Reproductive Health) Bill is concerned.

We've heard of a legislator invoking his deity should the bill pass. We've heard of another legislator saying certain provisions in the bill should be stricken out because it goes against religion (one in particular). And we've heard of a legislator aiming for a "compromise" by meeting with religious leaders (one in particular) to draft an "acceptable" version of the same bill.

Now, I realize that even though you are duly elected or appointed public servants, no one has explicitly informed you of the framework by which our government operates. Imagine my surprise when I did not see a Cliffs Notes version about this at all! (In my day - a long time ago - students who failed to write their term papers or book reviews were routinely saved by this creation, a condensed version of mostly literary works.)

Here, then, is my attempt to provide such a service.

(1) This country is a secular democracy.

For those who ran for their positions, you know this very well, having partaken of an important part in this type of government: the election of public officials.

A democracy is popularly known as a government "for, of and by the people", one where citizens have a say as to who should be running the government through elections, what bills are needed through its representatives, and an expectation of a fair hearing in disputes, through its judges. (Formally, the three branches of a democratic government.)

Ultimate power in this government lies in its citizenry, not officials, who are also called public servants. Officials are given certain powers to carry out their duties in the service of the citizens. (It was never meant to be used to enrich oneself or one's family.)

There is no requirement that says you have to belong to a religion (one in particular) to run for office or be appointed as one. This is enforced in our very Constitution, the document that gives life to our way of government. Something about "no religious test will be required", blah, blah - the lawyers can explain this better, because this is supposed to be the shorthand version, so we won't go into detail.

This also means that someone who says "I don't belong to any faith-based group" is eligible to run for public office, as eligible as someone who goes to a place of worship (one in particular) twice a day, seven days a week, and gives money to religious leaders (one in particular) when a collection plate goes by.

Secular, therefore, simply means we don't care about your religious status. A simple test for this would be: are you barred from voting based on your religion, or lack of it?

(2) It follows, then, that our laws should be secular and democratic.

Legislators create/amend laws, executives enforce it, and judges interpret it (and hand out punishments for those who go against it). That is how it works in a democracy. (For those who think this is too simplistic - condensed version, hello. I highlight the big things, don't worry.)

Since our rights as citizens are not in any way hampered by our choice of religion (one in particular) - see above example on voting - then the laws we have governing everyone should also be equally unhampered by any religion (one in particular), and should be applied equally regardless of religion.

In this respect, in a secular democracy, government laws trump any religion's (one in particular) beliefs. A simple test would be: since citizens are guaranteed the right to happiness, can a religion (any which one) get away with, say, raping a virgin, since it is "demanded" by its religious rules? Obviously no, the government can press rape and assault charges on those who claim that raping a young maiden is their "religious right".

And that goes for all so-called "religious rights".

I often hear rebuttals from theists about how they "answer to a higher power" and that they "will be judged in an afterlife". That is a personal call, guaranteed by our secular laws, our freedom to each choose our own religion. If it makes you feel "superior", kindly gloat in your own home, and wait until after your last breath to do so - the freedom to choose my own religion also means I don't have to believe in your specific interpretation of a higher power or your version of an afterlife.

Anyone can create a religion, just to prove that point.

(3) Religious leaders (one religion in particular) should stay out of formulating secular laws.

Time to drill the point home: public officials are not required to belong to any religion (one in particular), and laws cannot be made with any religion (one in particular) in mind.

It stands to reason, then, that anyone affiliated with any particular faith as its leader cannot be "in charge" of making laws in a government that allows you to choose your own religion. That would contravene - go against - the principle of being able to freely choose your own religion,  because that particular leader would make into secular law what he personally believes as a matter of faith.

Thereby, forcing a person of a different faith to follow that particular leader's religious rules.

As an example: vegetarianism is self imposed by some faiths because they believe that animal cruelty is heinous. (I find that reasoning odd - what about cruelty to plants, then? - but we'll save that for another time.) If a leader of such a faith became, I don't know, Secretary of Trade and Industry, would that person, based on his or her religious beliefs, be allowed to ban livestock trading because it "offends" his or her faith?

(4) It cannot be a numbers game.

One particular religion is saying that since they claim the most number of adherents in this country, "majority wins".

Aside from the reasons already stated, here's another one: what if that particular religion became number two in terms of claiming their "number of sheep"? If laws were enacted and made to suit that particular religion, should we overhaul these laws and repeal them if they aren't "top dog" in terms of membership?

Already, this one particular religion is losing members - just Google the statistics - because of its flock losing faith in its human leaders, child molestation cases, inability to follow their own advice to members about frugality and the temporary nature of earthly riches, and so many more reasons. It is not at all farfetched - maybe not in this country but worldwide - to think that they will soon be toppled off their supposed vaunted position and standing.

As my friend who voiced this out said, ano to, magririgodon tayo depende kung anong relihiyon ang inaangkin ng mayorya? (what's this, will we go on a carousel depending on which is the most "popular" religion?)

Secular laws - by definition free from any religious bias - should be able to withstand on its own regardless of where the faith-based winds may howl.

(5) Secular democracy is essentially agreeing to disagree.

Since we all have different "views" about beliefs, to each his or her own. Secular laws are the ones we all agree upon regardless of religious affiliation.

I hope that this very short primer on our way of government will help you conduct yourself in matters of the State.

While I do not claim to be an expert who can make perfect arguments, as a reasonably intelligent member of this country, I feel it is my duty to let you know how I think and feel.

Any mistake in my interpretation of our existing laws and social systems can be traced to the fact that I am not a lawyer or a social scientist by trade. It does not mean that I cannot participate in legal matters or cannot be a social observer, in the same way that not all our senators are lawyers, or how astute observations can come from the unlikeliest of sources.

It only means that I care for the direction that this country is headed.

Sincerely,
A Citizen of a Secular Democracy (known as the Republic of the Philippines)

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.

Let's Get "Real" About The RH Bill

Last Saturday, the Catholic Church mounted its forces and called for a "prayer rally" in order to make a statement to the government that they are prepared to fight tooth and nail in opposing the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill.

I don't even know what to say to this.

(Courtesy of raissarobles.com)

I know of many friends who are actually against the RH Bill. I cannot and will not begrudge them their opinion, based on their religious beliefs and what their (religious) leaders have told them, based on what they perceive the bill to be all about. I don't know if any of them actually managed to make it to the said show of protest at the EDSA Shrine, which was befitting as the event venue since it was clearly a religious-based opposition.

I am directing my comments and questions to the Catholic leadership in this country.

As can be gleaned by various news articles and pronouncements, there is an overwhelming support by various sectors for the passage of this bill. 

The United Nations figures in today's headline of the country's most read paper, recognizing how family planning contributes to development.

(http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/243039/un-weighs-in-on-ph-birth-control-dispute)

Nobel prize winning economist George Akerlof has come out to refute how his words have been presented to suit the needs and biases of those against the bill, with special mention of the CBCP.

(http://www.rappler.com/move-ph/33-editors-pick-moveph/9859-nobel-prize-winner-contradicts-cbcp)

Business groups have publicly declared their support for the measure.

(http://www.interaksyon.com/business/39510/big-business-calls-on-congress-to-pass-rh-bill)

As this is a democracy, there are other religious groups existing as well, and some of them have given their support for the RH Bill.

(https://www.facebook.com/efraim.tendero/posts/10151161259219612)

Survey after survey have shown that majority of Filipinos want the bill to pass.

(http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20101201-306256/Pulse-69-favor-RH-bill)

My questions/comments, then, are:

(1) If you are truly against contraception, why do you support natural methods of family planning?

This has always been my biggest concern (if that's the word I should be using) whenever the prelates would start preaching against the condom, the pill, the IUD.

Why are you so vigorously opposed to modern methods of preventing conception, calling it "anti-life" even, when they have exactly the same end as the natural methods?

I never understood why you always seemed to be on some moral high ground. I remember how, in an online forum, one of your defenders was haughtily proclaiming that because of some Catholic doctrine and how natural methods are "open to life", it is perfectly fine to push these methods.

I countered that I am not a Catholic, so I am just going by what I see as someone "not immersed": Isn't that hypocrisy?

You are basically saying that one method is better than the other, but you do realize that both those methods have the same end? Namely, not letting the egg meet the sperm. It is spelled out clearly in the term contraception.

Contra = Against

Ception = Conception

It would be akin to someone defending his method to kill another person using his bare hands ("natural" method) to wring out the life of the intended target, but saying that he is morally superior to someone who employs a gun or a hacksaw (using weapons) to achieve the same end: murdering someone.

How can you sit on your moral high horse? I see no difference.

(2) You do know that the government and (any) church are separate in any democracy?

I need to point this out because whenever you make your pronouncements on how candidates should fear your "influence" should any of them decide to vote for the RH Bill's passage, you are clearly establishing a threat - it's not even a subtle one - that secular lawmakers in a democratic country have to bow down to one specific religion's doctrine.

Or else.

Do you understand what the terms "secular" and "democracy" even mean?

Yes, even though you are in denial of it, it means one thing: You in the Catholic leadership are in the same position as every other religion in the country. You are on equal footing, no one religion is supposed to be "better", and neither is one supposed to be favored. You only have an advantage in that Catholicism - imported via Spain - has been here since Magellan landed so you have almost 5 centuries of a headstart.

And I deliberately inserted the fact that Catholicism is a foreign concept to these islands, as many of your defenders like to say that it is "foreign influence" that is pushing for the modern methods of family planning. If these same people are so adamant about being "controlled" by concepts that are from other shores, they should be renouncing Catholicism this very instant.

The silence - and the hypocrisy - is deafening.

(3) Have you tried raising children or ever applied for a job?

I mean that question in the most non-antagonistic way possible.

Going with this post's title, it behooves me to wonder how is it that you think yourselves so well-versed in advising people on the ways of family life, or making claims like "contraception leads to corruption", as mentioned in last Saturday's rally.

Have you ever had a baby wake you up at night? Have you had 10 children simultaneously asking you where your next meal will be coming from? Have you had to fend off feelings of guilt, knowing in the pit of your stomach you can only send one of them to school, and just to elementary school at that? Have you tried walking around in the searing sun and horrendous rains, handing out your resumes and not hearing about a positive development in your job hunt for weeks, months, and even years? Have you even worried about where to sleep or what to wear?

The posturing, as if you had such a wealth of experience in these matters, is what is most offensive to my eyes, ears and most of all, heart.

Millions of people in this country - almost 100 million as of last count - are struggling to make it through the next day, even the next meal. Until you have come face to face with those stark realities, in an authentic way, that you have actually experienced and lived through, all your platitudes just come off as armchair pronouncements, one that is devoid of real world experience.

(4) Do you think subsidizing the distribution of modern methods of family planning is a waste of money?

Then you should be equally consistent and call for the immediate end of all subsidies provided for by government.

I highlight this because I read an online comment, saying that "condoms are legal and can be purchased anyway, don't use tax money to buy them, anyone who wishes to buy them should pay full price!"

Following that logic, we should tear down all public schools, demolish public hospitals, declare public health centers as a large deficit contributor, and so on.

These services have been provided because in a democratic government, it falls on the state to ensure that each citizen has a fighting chance of getting educated, having good health services, and everything else that make one not only have an existence, but a life. And they are given to support the most financially disadvantaged of its citizens.

Let me repeat that: it is the duty of the State to empower and equip its citizens with the right and basic tools to make it through life, whatever and however a person fashions that life to be. It is also responsible for managing the taxes it collects to fund these services - these are not "Catholic money", as some of your supporters claim they do not wish to "fund condoms" (as if that is the only thing the RH Bill provides). Public money, tax money - these are all property of the government, our "admission price" for being citizens in a democratic country. No religion can dictate a secular, democratic government what to do with it.

The RH Bill is meant to provide information and services regarding reproductive health for the country's poorest, those who don't even know where to get their next meal, much in the same way that public schools are meant for those who cannot afford it. You do not say "everyone should pay full price!" - have you seen what Catholic schools charge as tuition fees?

5. Lastly, the Philippines is not Catholic property. Deal with it.

The Blessing Of Angelica Jones

The bad weather forced me to stay home, which in turn gave me the chance to see bad TV, some of it, the good kind. (Get it?)

Enter Angelica Jones, erstwhile local actress and board member of some province.

Never a dull moment, for sure.

(Courtesy of listal.com)

I saw her years ago, and two things struck me off the bat: (1) why is she so TH (trying hard) to affect an American slang when she could speak freely in the vernacular and (2) is she on something? The phrase "train of thought" doesn't seem to register with her, she flits from one topic to another and really ends up making no sense whatsoever.

Which makes me erupt in a fit of giggles.

After her interview just now in a showbiz show (hosted by Lolit Solis and Joey de Leon), those same things still struck me, but with a third question: will her child be needing therapy?

Lolit Solis only had one question: bakit nauna ang pagbubuntis kaysa sa pagpapakasal? (Why did your pregnancy take place before the marriage?)

Angelica begins her response. It is so drawn out that it was the only question that was asked of her.

She begins by mentioning the father of her child, a doctor also in the province.

She then regales viewers with their plans for marriage.

She recounts how she has myoma, and how painful it is that she couldn't sleep some nights.

She threw in her position as part of some league of young legislators or public officials.

She also ate some fruit courtesy of Mike Velarde, as treatment for her myoma.

She went to many churches.

She then goes back to her wedding plans, scheduled for January 2013.

She makes a grim face, and proceeds to recount how she and the doctor haven't been together since Marsh. Yes, that is how she pronounces March.

She blames the "others" who do not want to see them happy as a couple, then also says that the doctor is not used to her celebrity stature so the "pressure" and "media" might have scared him off.

And when Lolit sarcastically remarks that after all of these (the long winded tale of her life thus far) that didn't really answer the question, she was still able to become pregnant, Angelica then uses the blanket statement:

It's a blessing.

The hosts were forced to cut her off because of the time she consumed, and while Lolit was loudly saying, "Bye! Bye!", you could hear Angelica trying to talk over Lolit (no small feat for anyone who knows the voice of Lolit Solis), thanking constituents from various places.

And my fit of giggles continues.

Salamat, Angelica, for the good bad TV I had the fortune of witnessing this damp, dreary, flood filled day.

Isn't Katie A Non-Entity?

As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, that is.

Reminds one of Groucho Marx.

(Courtesy of cwebnews.com)

Even if you were the least bit interested in showbiz news, anyone who is wired and connected the way this generation has become to the online world cannot escape a recent buzz: the divorce of Katie Holmes from actor Tom Cruise, who is considered a "senior" member of the Church of Scientology, if what I heard on a news item was correct.

Speculations were rife (they still are, even though the Church has issued a denial) that the biggest reason for the separation was the belief system of Cruise. There is no official word from either of the divorcing parties, hence the free-wheeling speculations.

But now comes the news that Katie has "registered" (is that the right term) as a Catholic "again" (this was the religion of her childhood and she converted to Scientology, and apparently, now wants out).

(More here: http://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/katie-holmes-turns-back-on-scientology-by-registering-with-catholic-church-7935580.html)

I'm not a Catholic, so help me out here.

If you get a divorce, doesn't that make you non-existent in the eyes of the Catholic Church?

If you're not considered "existing", how does that same person get a membership?

Anyone? 

Anyone at all?

Kowtowing To Religion

That is what "Chiz" Escudero, Philippine Senator, is doing.

Religious considerations outweigh politics - for this senator.

(Courtesy of talakayanatkalusugan.com)

In a recent forum, the senator, who is separated from his wife, declared that he is not in favor of divorce. As has been noted many times, the Philippines - apart from the Catholic Dreamland known as Vatican City - is the only country in the world that does not have a divorce law.

(See http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/213255/separated-senator-says-no-to-divorce)

It is a rather odd stance for someone who did not have a successful marital relationship to be the first to oppose divorce. But, listening to his reason, it becomes clear that the Senator does not understand the separation clause of our Constitution.

"In my view, there is a serious disagreement between the government, Congress and the (Catholic) Church (emphasis mine), so this is not the right time to exacerbate this (rift)."

Say what?

Since when did the Catholic Church become part and parcel of making laws?

Have these facts occurred to the senator?

(1) You can have a civil marriage, legal and binding, without going to any church.
(2) A church wedding isn't legal/binding until the parties sign a civil contract.

I have been consistent in arguing for secularization where our secular, democratic laws are concerned. My stance is hinged on the irrefutable fact that in a democracy, RELIGION IS A CHOICE. Why is the Catholic Church now considered a stakeholder in the discussions regarding bills like Reproductive Health and divorce?

If the argument is that "they have the highest number of adherents in the country", that becomes a gateway for our democracy to be turned into a Catholic theocracy. It should not matter how many "believers" a certain faith has, it still does not give that religion the right to dictate what is to be inscribed into our secular laws, for the very simple reason that by doing so, it negates the concept of having the right to choose your own religion under a democracy, and would force people who choose another faith to follow the tenets of the "most adherents" religion, which presently is the Catholic Church.

Yes, the "presently" is deliberate, because Escudero, in all probability, has not read the following articles.

http://ncronline.org/news/people/young-millennials-losing-faith-record-numbers
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=11211
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/cw/post.php?id=565

The last link, on a site called Catholic News Agency, has for its' title Don't Leave The Church, an outright admission that Catholics are, indeed, leaving the faith.

I expected Escudero, being an elected representative of the people, to be especially wary of intermingling politics and religion, and be the very first to contest any religious interference in the making of our laws, that being his principal duty as a public official.

I also expected him to be especially sensitive to the needs of couples whose marriages did not work, not being successful in his own marriage. No, I'm not being "judgemental" , this is a statement of fact.

Are these particularly high expectations?

Notes On The Gaga Protest

The anti-Christ is supposed to be cute and cuddly?

(Courtesy of fashionisstupid.com)

(1) Are you aware that the Philippines is a democratic country?
   
     - Yes, they drilled that to us in Social Studies. And I vote, so, yes.
     - No. Only on paper. In reality, we are a theocracy. Sssh.
     - YOU'RE NOT CHRISTIAN?!? YOU MUST BE BURNED!!!

These must be the strings of hell?

(Courtesy of diyfashion.about.com)

(2) People are free to choose their religion in the Philippines. Agree?


     - Yes. It's part of democracy. Also the reason we have action stars for senators.
     - No. If you're not Christian, you have to convert. If you don't, your civil rights will be revoked.
     - THERE IS NO DISCUSSION!!! YOU WILL BE PUT TO DEATH, UNBELIEVER!!!

The look that makes people satanic?

(Courtesy of musictitans.com)

(3) How has Lady Gaga affected your life?


     - I don't like her music. But that also means I don't give her money. Or attention.
     - Those costumes, that hair, those dancers...abnormal. She must be mental.
     - SHE IS THE DEVIL'S LOVE CHILD WITH THE HARLOT!!! DEATH!!!!!!

You still think she's innocent?

(Courtesy of diyfashion.about.com)

(4) If you could say one thing to Lady Gaga...
     
     - It's cool that you lobby against bullying. I don't have to download your tunes, do I?
     - Do you know that membership in our fellowship is only 1,000 pesos a month?
     - CHILD OF THE UNDERWORLD!!!! YOU ARE EVIIIIIILLLLLL!!!!!!!!

She killed animals for her clothes!?!

(Courtesy of parentdish.com)

(5) What is your reason for wanting to ban her from performing here?


     - I don't. I told you, I don't care for her music. I like the Kermit costume though.
     - Years of guidance/indoctrination will be undone with one song of hers! Hello!
     - WE WILL STAB YOU WITH THORNS BEFORE YOU STEP ON OUR SOIL!!!

Foreign manananggal?

(Courtesy of jennyhow.com)

(6) Are you saying that she has more influence than your deity...she's more powerful?


     - Kulit ha. (So repetitive.)
     - It's a slippery slope. One song, OK. Two songs, danger. The whole album, my child is a satanist!
     - WE BACKMASKED YOUR DIGITAL FILES!!!!! YOU FILTHY DEMON!!!!!!!!

Need we say more?

(Courtesy of idolator.com)

(7) How does she compare with Madonna?


     - She has some catching up to do with Madge. But she's racking up points. I'm not interested ha.
     - They dress in almost nothing, therefore they must have been sexually active at 9 onwards.
     - FIE! YOU DARE SAY THAT OTHER NAME!!!! WE WILL TEAR YOU APART!!!!!

The princess of the underworld?

(Courtesy of izismile.com)

(8) How does she offend your religion?


     - How can something I don't pay attention to bother me? Duh.
     - She isn't Christian. Everyone should be. That is true freedom, when no one has a choice.
     - JUDAS' CONSORT!!! DESPICABLE HOMOSEXUAL ENABLER!!!! DIE!!!!!!!!!!

This is what she will wear in the underworld?

(Courtesy of wihu.net)

(9) Isn't what you're doing an infringement of the rights of others who don't share your beliefs?


     - Obviously. You do know I read books, yes?
     - No. God's law is supreme...Free Will? No, I don't believe that. Only God's will.
     - YOUR FORKED TONGUE IS HONEY ON A RAZOR!!!! OFF WITH YOUR HEAD!!!!!!

The scepter is the proof?

(Courtesy of starpulse.com)

(10) If your deity is all-powerful, wouldn't it be simpler to zap Gaga into smithereens?


       - Which deity? There are thousands.
       - It is according to his plan. We filed a case, all part of his plan. We march, part of his plan.
       - YOU DISGUSTING UNBELIEVER!!! DE CROSS!!!! DE CROSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!

Evil has to bathe?

(Courtesy of digitaljournal.com)

A Bible Quiz To Help Manny

This quiz may be beneficial to your new "quest".

(Courtesy of politico.com)

Your objective:

(1) Spot how many biblical prohibitions are being committed.
(2) Support these with bible verses, otherwise they are inadmissible.
(3) Show what penalties are applicable, if any.

Bonus points: Identifying the offense clearly - e.g. abomination, displeasing, etc.

YOUR QUIZ WILL BE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING EXCERPT.

"Mom, can we please go to the mall with you and dad?"

Carla Rutherford looks at the pleading eyes of her children, Samson and Melanie. (Known collectively as S and M.) She thought to herself, how can I resist those big, dopey eyes?

"Alright...but Sammie, you must stop by Broono's while we're there, your hair is too long. And Mel, how about we take a mani-pedi session while Dad goes to his usual hardware store, otherwise known as his fantasy place?"

The children look at each other and nod vigorously. Mel pulls on Samson's arms like she usually does as the ate (older sister): "Don't go running off to the arcade again! I will not go look for you!"

Sammie makes a face and sticks his tongue out, and both kids go running to change their clothes, leaving Carla to do the same. She walks over to her jewelry collection, and sees the wedding ring from her first marriage. She sighed wistfully, remembering the time when her married name was still Carla Manalo. As Pablo was a seaman, she was used to him being away for long stretches of time. But when he never bothered checking up on her for almost a year, she started to get frantic.

That was more than 10 years ago. Calls to the company he worked for resulted in one lead: he left the ship when it docked in Greece and was never seen again. A court had ruled that her marriage was now null and void, having had no contact with Pablo for years. On the day it became official, she decided to go to Rack Well and buy something nice for herself, determined to mark the end of her sadness. That was when Patrick Rutherford happened to be strolling the same mall as well, and the rest is history.

It was only when she had fallen - hard - for him, that he revealed he was in the process of divorcing his wife, whom he married straight from high school. (California laws make divorce very complicated.) But she stuck by him, and Carla convinced him to "turn Catholic" (even if only for show) so that everything would be aboveboard when they faced a priest in what both would call their second marriage.

While perusing through her closet, she saw the rows of cotton-polyester shirts her husband loves to purchase more than wear, and spotted an unusual color that reminded her of steamed crabs. She used her palm to hit her head, remembering just then to call for reservations at their all-you-can-eat crustacean place, which was definitely standing room only on a weekend.

"Ma'am Carla!" A familiar voice greets her, their favorite waiter, Rod. "Wag kayo magalala. (Don't worry) Your table will be ready by the time you all get here. And para ke (for) Sammie-boy, double porkchops, as usual?"

"Salamat, Rod. Oo, kasi allergic sya sa alimango, eh." (Thank you, Rod, yes, because he's allergic to crabs.)

After putting the phone down, she spots her favorite pair of jeans and decides to wear it, since she will be getting down and dirty using her hands, anyway. She snaps on her pearl earrings, and steps on the weighing scale. She decides to read it in kilos, because she never likes the figure when it is in pounds.

END OF EXCERPT.




------------------------------------------------------------


Answer Key:


(1) Getting a haircut.
     "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard."
     (Leviticus 19:27)
     No punishment stated.

(2) Women are not permitted to teach men. (2 counts: Mel to Sammie, Carla to Patrick)
     "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man, she must be quiet."
     (1 Timothy 2:12)
     No punishment stated.

(3) Gold and pearls are forbidden to be worn.
     "I also want women to dress modestly...not with braided hair...or gold or pearls..."
     (1 Timothy 2:9)
     No punishment stated.

(4) Secular declarations of nullity are of no consequence in unions "presided by God".
     "So then, they are no longer two but one flesh...what God has joined together, let no man separate."
     (Matthew 19:3)
     No punishment stated.

(5) Carla and Patrick are committing adultery, since the Bible hardly acknowledges divorce.
     "If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both of them die."
     (Deuteronomy 22:22)
     Death.

(6) More than one fabric on clothes is not allowed.
     "Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material."
     (Leviticus 19:19)
     No punishment given.

(7) Crabs do not have fins or scales.
     "Anything living in the water that does not have fins or scales is to be regarded as unclean by you."
     (Leviticus 11:12)
     No punishment given.

(8) Pork is also forbidden.
     "And the pig...it is unclean for you...you must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses."
     (Leviticus 11: 7-8)
     No punishment given.

(9) Women must not wear pants, as it is manly.
     "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man...all that do so are abomination..."
     (Deuteronomy 22:5)
     No punishment given.

(10) The weighing scale is abominable when it shows kilos and pounds.
       "Diverse weights...and measures, both of them alike are abomination to the Lord."
       (Proverbs 20:10)
       No punishment given.


--------------------------------------------------

So, Manny, how did you do?

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?