Attention your head

When alone in the hotel I turn on the TV and start clicking the remote like crazy. It's an almost automatic and rather futile exercise but I can't help it. The reason behind the mindless clicking is that Im hoping that by some miracle, I'll finally understand what theyre saying, or at least land on someone speaking something I understand -- a phrase, a word, anything. They do have an English-language news channel and every Tuesday night, the movie channel shows an English language movie, but I clamor for more. (Some of the stuff on the English language news channel reminds me of those government ads, paid for by taxpayer money, proclaiming, "Ramdam ko ang asenso.") There's one channel that regularly shows foreign language movies all day, really bad ones, but beggars can't be choosers. On second thought, yeah I can be choosy. If the movie's exceedingly bad, I turn on the TV's Tetris mode and play. (I now have the official high score of all the residents of Room 208; the top three scores in fact.) The thing that struck me the most about going back to Nanjing after a 3-year absence, aside from the ubiquitous Pinoy brand Oishi in the supermarkets, is the presence of Filipino movies on Chinese television. Dubbed in Chinese of course. These are mostly 80s and 90s era action movies. So far, Ive seen a Ronnie Ricketts movie and a Zoren Legazpi movie. It's remarkable how similar they are to the Hong Kong action movies of the same era, stylized choreographed deaths and all.

But you can't fault the food in this place. Even if the hole-in-the-wall restaurants dont look all that inviting, they sure can cook. (If youre fussy about your food, try no to look at the chef -- he'll almost always look dingy, if not outright unhygienic.) I especially like the fried mushrooms. I dont know how they do it but it has the taste and texture of chicharon. The bagnet kind from Ilocos. My officemate has what everyone calls the 'magic book', a notebook with popular dishes written in Chinese, given to us by our Nanjing officemates three years ago. It is passed on from employee to employee; everyone who'll be assigned here for any length of time. When I first came here, we didnt have that book and didnt even think of getting the Chinese colleagues to write something like that for us. We were having too much fun walking into restaurants not knowing how to order. What we'd do is look at other tables and ask the waitress to bring us whatever the people at other tables were having. Sometimes she'd go over to the other table, point, and say 'Chi ge?' And we would walk over and say, 'Yes' to the utter amusement (or perplexity) of the eating patron. Now isnt that more fun than having a magic book?

Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!

Rom of Smoke reminds us that it's Earth Day today.

Happy Earth Day! Dont waste resources. Dont waste energy. Or else there won't be any left for rich countries to waste. We Third Worlders really ought to have a heart and pity the poor industrialized nations whose profligate lifestyles are under threat from the coming crisis. Imagine, no more private jets, no more 12-cylinder Ferraris. Al Gore will be forced to live in a house whose energy consumption doesnt equal the energy consumption of an entire African village for 500 years.*

So I enjoin you, fellow Third Worlders, for the sake of the industrialized nations, do what you can. Dont let their culture disappear. For our sake, for our children's sake, and for our children's chlidren's sake.

Mother Earth thanks you.



===============
*I pulled that statistic out of my ass, but you get the point, dont you?

Update, 23 April 2008. Here are some numbers I didnt pull out of my ass:

According to this site, the average American household consumes 10,892 kWh per year. If Al Gore consumes that amount in a month, we'll come to 130,704 kWh per year for his house.

In 2005, the average electricity consumption of a Filipino household is 946 kWh. That's for the entire year. That means it'll take the average Filipino household 138 years to consume as much energy as Gore's house does.

Human nature

I came across this quote from Professor Stephen Hawking.

I think computer viruses should count as life. I think it says something about human nature that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. We've created life in our own image.

That's pretty dramatic of Steve, and far be it from me to disagree with one of the world's smartest humans, but Im not that negative about the forms of life we humans have created. If computer viruses count as life, then other less destructive software also should count as life. Packet sniffers, for instance, perform pretty complex things and yet they arent usually destructive unless purposely designed to be so. One might argue that packet sniffers arent self-replicating, but I have argued that a living thing doesnt have to be self-replicating in order to be considered alive. To be considered alive, one needs only to be able to process information, both internally and those coming from the outside, that is, information coming from the environment. Ive played with that idea here.

Professor Hawking has reason of course to be negative about human nature, scientist that he is. He is aware that his profession has given mankind the tools with which to destroy itself. In fact another of mankind's inventions, aided by science, has been responsible for more slaughter than any other institution invented by man, and that invention is Government, that institution which demands that we bow to it, give up our freedoms for it, give it our children to fight its wars. Science and government can be a lethal one-two punch as it has proven numerous times in the past.

Im rich! Rich!

I received this in my mail:

British National Lottery,
28 Tan Field Road,
Croydon,London.
Ref: UK/9420X2/68
Batch: 074/05/ZY369
Dear Selected winner,
We are pleased to inform you of the final announcement today, 20th of
April, 2008 of winners of the UK NATIONAL LOTTERY ONLINE PROMO, held on the 28th of January,2008.You have therefore been approved for a lump sum payout of
£753,437 (Seven Hundred and Fifty Three Thousand, Four Hundred and Thirty Seven Pound Sterling) in cash credited to file XYL/26510460037/04.To file for your claim, please contact our claims agent:

Mr Phil Catford
Email:uknlclaimsdpt7@live.com
Tel: +447045718587
Provide him with the information below:
1.Full Name:
2.Full Address:
3.Marital Status:
4.Occupation:
5.Age:
6.Sex:
7.Nationality
8.Country Of Residence:
9.Telephone Number:

Thank you for being part of our online promotional lottery program.
Yours Truly,
Sir Steven Smith.

Let's see... GBP753,437.00 is about PHP 63,124,476.51. Mother of pearl!!

I have to think about taxes, though. With taxes, that could come to about 30M PHP. Still not bad. My schengen visa's still valid. Hmmm. Maybe I'll take that trip to Italy Ive always wanted to take. Nope. No cars. Too predictable. Unless it's a classic like a Kombi van or a Hillman Hunter or something like that. Something really ugly and cool. I'll probably buy a farm and stock it with carabaos and make mozarella and ricotta cheese. Why? Because I want to, that's why. I can afford it.

I'll need a new wardrobe. Something understated and says, "I dont care what Im wearing because Im rich you Gucci-wearing pretender." Crispa t-shirts. Plain, no prints. And jeans. Corduroys.

A will. I'll need a will. Ah, lots of stuff to do. Lots of stuff to plan.

Thank you, British National Lottery. I did not buy a ticket but you picked me just the same. I'll be eternally grateful. You'll be hearing from me, Sir Steven Smith. See you at the Round Table or wherever it is you knights hold court nowadays.

So long, peasants. You can reach me over on Easy street.

This is just too effing funny

What's even funnier is that Richard Dawkins himself can't figure it out.

It's satire, sir. And it's aimed at you.

Hell, yeah! =snort= Hwaaaak-ptooey!

Created by OnePlusYou

An Easter Reflection on Original Sin and the Secular State

Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?"

And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'"

But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." (Genesis 3:1-5)

Original means ‘first’ I reckon, not ‘origin’ or font of all sin, although a strong case could be made for that, for it is through this first sin that mankind continues to screw itself, mucking about ineptly through life. Looking at the verses above one might be forgiven to think that the first sin was gullibility. We are gullible if we are unsure of the source of our information, or lack faith in that same source. (Was it Chesterton who said that if Man stops believing in God, he doesn’t believe in nothing. He would believe anything?) I don’t know the reason Eve chose to believe in the serpent but it is pretty obvious that she found the serpent’s case – that God had reason to lie to her and Adam – compelling. Notice that Eve said, “…neither shall you touch [the tree]…”. God didn’t warn against touching the tree. Either Eve added this herself, or it was Adam who told her this to, as rabbis put it when talking about the Talmud, put a hedge around God’s word to make sure that one doesn’t transgress. Or perhaps she had some help believing it; it certainly isn’t too far-fetched to think that the serpent has been working on her for sometime. This calls to mind the admonition in Revelation to take care not to add or subtract from what is written in the book. In Adam Clarke’s commentary, he said Jewish writers wrote that as soon as Eve said this, the serpent pushed her against the tree and said “See, thou hast touched it, and art still alive; thou mayest therefore safely eat of the fruit, for surely thou shalt not die.”

And eat she did and gave some of the fruit to her husband and their eyes were opened, and they became ‘like God, knowing good and evil’. With history as our guide, we can surmise that ‘knowing good and evil’ means that man can define good and evil, that is, formulate his own standards of what is good and what is evil – to create his own morality apart from the standards of God – for history has shown that it is when man defines good and evil on his own, he has come to grief. Man then, when Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, became their own god. Jesus himself did not deny the godhood of man. In John 10:34, when the Pharisees accused him of blasphemy ("It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.") Jesus quoted Psalm 82:6 to them ("Is it not written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'?”) who were created in the image and likeness of God. In trying to formulate their own standards of morality, mankind runs smack into the first commandment: “You shall have no other gods before (or above) me.” No other gods, not even ourselves. And it makes sense, for it is the height of folly to place man as the ultimate authority on anything concerning morals because of our tendency to screw things up. Every attempt at man-made utopia here on earth has ended in disaster.

Which brings us now to the Secular State which we have been made to believe is the best way to run things. I believe this as well but with caveats which we will be looking at in a bit. In the present political crisis, the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) have been roundly criticized for their half-assed pronouncements against the scandal-ridden Arroyo administration which just goes to show that what they have to say still matters. We are still a long way off from weaning ourselves from the influence of the Catholic Church. But this is not so elsewhere. In Europe for instance they have more or less succeeded in stigmatizing any profession of faith in the public sphere. In the recent debate over the preamble of the European Constitution, they were quite determined to deny the role Christianity played in the formation of European culture. It was as if Christianity didn’t exist. They finally settled on acknowledging the role ‘religion’ played in the forming of Europe. The seeming phobia against Christianity borders on the ridiculous and is in marked contrast with what is going on in our other ‘parent culture’, the United States, where the so-called ‘religious right’ is a political force to be reckoned with. Why the disparity? It could be because the leaders of present day Europe grew up in the turmoil of the 60s and 70s when Europe’s youth flirted with Communism and its concomitant rejection of religion. This flirtation with Communism and rejection of religion could be because historically, the Church has allied itself with the oppressive power of the State in Europe. In America on the other hand, Christian denominations have been a force against the abuses of the State. They were at the forefront of the fight for freedom from the British Crown, the abolition of slavery, and the fight for civil liberties for all regardless of race. Here at home of course the close association of the Church with the Spanish occupation and with the subsequent secular political leadership in both the national and local scenes has seen the growth of the Protestant churches, but anticlericalism has failed to take hold in any significant way which I can only attribute to the innate spirituality of the Filipino. Dean Jorge Bocobo of Philippine Commentary points out that the revered Jaime Cardinal Sin was a fixture of the Marcos government, making beso-beso with Imelda in her numerous ribbon-cutting ceremonies – moderating the greed, one might say – until the murder of Ninoy Aquino. It was probably those heady days of EDSA I when the Filipinos appreciated the Church again as a major force in social change. Before that they were mostly in the background, especially the bishops, even while the rank-and-file priests in the countryside spoke out in sermons against military abuses against human rights. It has always been the priests and nuns at the forefront; the bishops the slowest to react. But it was enough to save the Catholic hierarchy in the eyes of the people.

But the recent events in both America and the Philippines have the Church seemingly siding with the State and is fomenting an anti-religious backlash. In America, the religious right continues to be the backbone of the War Party’s political support, while here in the Philippines, the CBCP is seen as propping up the Arroyo administration. Although I believe that the chances for European style secularism to arise here in our country are slim, I would like to point out that those who hold to this No-Religion-Allowed philosophy have got it wrong. I am all for a Secular State, one that accepts all religions, but I’m not for banning religion from the public sphere.

The most wrong-headed argument against Christianity in the public sphere I have heard is that it might ‘offend’ those of other religions and those with no religion. They might feel excluded and all that. That to me is poppycock. I remember a recent blog exchange about an atheist’s feeling of ‘exclusion’ from a prayer in a public event. I remember pointing out that it was a prayer, so of course those who do not share the belief in the Christian God are excluded and indeed would prefer to be excluded from participating in the communal prayer. But that doesn’t mean they are excluded from the community of citizens. As Christians we are expected to accept everybody as brothers created in the image and likeness of God no matter what their faith (or un-faith) is because that is what God wants us to do. A Christian nation can and should tolerate other faiths. ‘Tolerate’ I’ve read somewhere requires discipline. It isn’t indifference to other religions, but is an act of will. I choose to tolerate you and your faith (or un-faith) because you are my brother, my fellow human being. The Secular State need only to accept that society is made up of different faiths and guarantees that each and every one of its citizens is free to practice that faith. Now there’s a rather glaring rub here. What if my religion requires me to sacrifice babies once every 20 years during the Festival of Kukurukuku? Is the Secular State required to tolerate me? If the answer is No, then I have to ask why. By what right does the State prevent me from practicing my religion? It is quite difficult to answer that question without appealing to a higher power that says it’s wrong. If for example the State says it’s illegal because the lawmakers whom the people voted for have passed a law declaring baby sacrifice illegal, I could argue that the constitution of the Secular State guarantees freedom of religion in the Constitution (I’m assuming of course that the Secular State is a liberal, progressive one.). Anyway, fine, I say. If the law says it’s illegal then it’s illegal, never mind if it tramples upon my constitutional rights. But since the laws are made by man, then it’s all relative. If for example as years pass, the demographics change, and more and more people become adherents of my faith, and less and less people think it is wrong, then there will come a day when the law will be enacted to make it legal to sacrifice babies. And it wouldn’t be wrong because lawmakers whom the people voted for in a free and fair election have passed the law decriminalizing baby sacrifice. (The example is of course absurd but the principle isn’t so far-fetched. Secular Western Europe is slowly becoming extinct as they refuse to reproduce, while the Islamic population continues to grow through immigration and because of the fact that these people continue to reproduce. In a few decades, we may see the rise of an Islamic Europe.)

The Secular State needs God, a higher power, an ultimate authority beyond the authority of man, to which citizens can appeal to because everybody recognizes it. (Note that I'm not arguing here for the existence or non-existence of God. I am arguing for the necessity of a higher power to form a civilization.) Men have tried to form a Secular State without God, to replace the morality from God with a new man-made morality, where the ultimate authority is the Secular State and those that run it. Utopia! Imagine there’s no heaven, no countries, no religion too. A world government under man and the world will live as one. Except that isn’t what happened. Once God was eliminated, the utopian dream turned into a nightmare: the Holocaust, pogroms, the gulag, the cultural revolution, the killing fields. (To be fair, Hitler wasn’t an atheist in the strictest sense. He was a pagan, a New Ager, if you will. In any case, like the atheist Communists, he sought to replace the ultimate authority of God with his own ultimate authority, and Christianity with a new religion based on the superiority of the Aryan race.)

Here in the Philippines, we have gotten it right. Our Constitution recognizes God, a tacit admission that he is our higher authority to which citizens can appeal if the State becomes abusive and enacts laws that trample upon our God-given freedom; if the institutions of government tramples upon the powerless and ravishes the defenseless. It is only a belief in God that can guarantee our freedom since freedom is from God. The dignity of a human being comes from God, his right to life. Without God there is no reason to believe we have these rights. Without God our rights are no different from the rights of a chicken. Indeed that’s the whole philosophy of Peter Singer and PETA. It is the only rational thing to believe in if one denies the existence of the source of our rights. Scratch that, without God, it is also rational to believe that we don’t have to respect other people’s rights. We would have no reason to believe in right and wrong in any moral sense. We can reject all these rights and morals. The French atheist philosopher Michel Onfray suggests just that. And it’s rational. Absent the mythical moral authority of some divine Flying Spaghetti Monster in heaven, all things are permissible and may the fittest survive. The greatest good for the greatest number and tough luck if you’re in the minority. It is not the irrationality of the atheism of Richard Dawkins that is dangerous (He likes singing Christmas carols – how irrational!) but it is the rational atheist that we have to watch out for. That’s why it’s easy to tolerate Filipino atheists. You know that they grew up with Christian morals and would still live by them even though they deny the authority that is its source. And it is easy to work for the attainment of the Filipino Secular State if we can be sure that it will not banish God from the public sphere.