Ang Mga Liham ni Screwtape ni C.S. Lewis, Liham Blg. IV

Notes: First of all, my apologies for neglecting this project. But thanks to Senator Sotto's translation work on one of Robert F. Kennedy's speeches, I was inspired to revive it. I will provide links to the previous chapters later but for now, feel free to use the label Screwtape at the bottom of the post. As always, this attempt at translation will be tinkered with.

Letter No. IV in its original language is here.

Mahal kong Wormwood,

Yung mga mungkahi mong puno ng iyong pagkabagito ay nagsilbing hudyat na panahon na upang lumiham sa iyo tungkol sa napakasakit na paksa ng pananalangin. Hindi mo na sana binanggit na ang payo ko sa iyo tungkol sa mga panalangin niya para sa kanyang ina ay “napatunayang walang kinahinatnan”. Ang mga bagay na iyan ay hindi dapat nililiham ng isang pamangkin sa kanyang tiyuhin – maging ng isang mas manunuksong may mababang ranggo sa pangalawang kalihim ng kagawaran. Pinakikita rin nito ang hindi kaaya-ayang pagnanais na ibaling sa iba ang reponsibilidad; dapat kang matutong pagbayaran ang iyong mga pagkakamali. 

Ang pinakamainam mong magagawa, hangga’t maaari, ay pigilan ang iyong pasyente sa kanyang taimtim na pagnanais na manalangin. Kung ang pasyente ay nasa wastong idad at kakapanumbalik pa lamang sa partido ng Kalaban, tulad ng tao mo, ang pinakamabisang paraan ay hikayatin siyang alalahanin, o ipagpalagay na alalahanin, yaong mga mala-lorong pamamamaraan ng pananalangin noong siya’s paslit pa lamang. At bilang pangontra sa mga ganitong uri ng pananalangin, maaari mo siyang mahikayat na tumbukin ang paraang hindi planado, tumitingin sa kaloob-looban ng kanyang sarili, hindi pormal, at walang sinusunod na patakaran; at ang kahulugan nito sa isang baguhan ay ang pagpupunyagi na mabuo sa sarili ang isang tila baga mapagpanalanging lagay ng loob kung saan ang buo ng kanyang kalooban at talino ay walang kinalaman. Isa sa kanilang mga makata, si Coleridge, ay naisulat na hindi siya nananalangin “na kumakawag na mga labi at nakamanikluhod ang mga tuhod”  bagkus mayroong “paglinang ng kaluluwa sa pagmamahal” at palayawin sa sarili ang “pakiramdam ng pagsusumamo”. Iyon mismo ang panalangin na nais natin; at dahil sa panlabas na anyo ay tila may pagkakahawig ito sa tahimik at taimtim na panalangin na siyang gawi ng yaong mga malalim na ang pagkadalubhasa sa paglilingkod sa Kalaban, yaong mga pasyenteng mautak at tatamad-tamad ay maaaring malinlang nito sa matagal na panahon. Ang pinakamababang mahihita natin dito, maari natin silang mahimok na walang kinalaman ang asta ng katawan sa kanilang mga panalangin; pagka’t madalas nilang nakalilimutan, na siya mo naming dapat laging naaalala, na sila’y mga hayop at kung ano man ang asta ng kanilang katawan ay nakaaapekto sa kanilang kaluluwa. Nakatatawa na pinapalagay ng mga mortal na ang ginagawa natin ay ang maglagay ng kung anu-ano sa kanilang isipan: sa katotohanan, ang pinakamahusay nating ginagawa ay ang pagpigil ng kung anu-anong pumasok. 

Kung ito man ay mabigo, kailangan mong bumalik sa mas pinong paraan ng panliligaw ng kanyang hangad. Kung sila man ay umaasikaso sa Kalaban mismo talo na tayo, nguni’t mayroon pang paraan upang mapigil sila. Ang pinakasimple ay sa pamamagitan ng pagbaling ng kanilang tingin palayo sa Kanya at tungo sa kanilang mga sarili. Panatiliin mo silang nakapako ang kanilang mga mata sa kanilang sariling isipan at bumuo ng damadamin dito sa pamamagitan ng kanilang mga kalooban. Kung ang layon nila ay humingi sa Kanya ng pagkakawanggawa, hayaan mo silang bumuo ng damdaming makapagkawanggawa para sa kanilang sarili at huwag mapansin na ito ang kanilang ginagawa. Kung ang layon nila ay manalangin para sa katatagan ng loob, hayaan mo silang bumuo ng damdaming matapang. Kapag ang sinasabi nila’y nananalangin sila para sa kapatawaran, hayaan mo silang buuin sa kanilang sarili ang damdaming sila’y napatawad. Turuan mo silang ihanay ang halaga ng bawat panalangin sa tagumpay nilang bumuo ng katumbas na damdamin; at huwag na huwag mo silang hahayaang paghinalaan na ang tagumpay o pagkabigo nila patungkol dito ay depende sa kung sila ay malusog o maysakit, nakapagpahinga o pagod, sa mga sandaling iyon. 

At asahan mo na ang Kalaban ay abala rin habang nangyayari ang mga ito. Kapag mayroong panalangin, may panganib ng Kanyang agarang pagkilos. Siya ay buong mapagmataas sa pagkawalang-pakialam sa karangalan ng Kanyang kinalalagyan, at ng kinalalagyan natin, bilang purong espirito, at sa mga mortal na hayop binubuhos Niya ang kamalayan sa paraang kahiya-hiya. Subali’t kahit na matalo Niya ang iyong unang tangkang panliligaw, may mas tuso tayong sandata. Ang mga tao ay hindi nagsisimula sa tuwirang pagkakakilala sa Kanya, na siya namang, sa kamalasan natin, hindi natin maiiwasan. Wala silang kamalay-malay tungkol sa kalagim-lagim na liwanag, yaong nakasisilaw na liwanag na tila mga punyal na tumatagos sa atin at siyang bumabalot sa ating buhay ng walang humpay na hapdi. Kung pagmamasdan mo ang isipan ng iyong pasyente habang siya’y nananalangin, hindi mo iyon matatagpuan. Kung iyong susuriin ang pinagtutuunan niya ng pansin, makikita mo na ito’s isang bagay na puno ng di-iilang katawa-tawang mga sangkap. Mayroong mga larawang hango sa mga larawan ng Kalaban noong Siya’y nagpakita noong kahiya-hiyang kabanatang kilala bilang Pagkakatawangtao: mayroong mas di malinaw – marahil tunay na mabangis at di pinag-isipan – na larawan nauugnay sa dalawa pang Persona. At maaaring mayroon ding larawan ng kanyang sariling pagpipitagan (at kaakibat nitong mga damdamin ng kanyang katawan) kinatawan at ipinangalan sa bagay na pinagpipitagan. Mayoon akong alam na ilang kaso kung saan ang tinatawag ng pasyente na kanyang ‘Diyos’ ay matatagpuan – sa taas at sa kaliwang kanto ng kanyang silid, o sa loob ng kanyang kukote, o sa isang krus sa pader. Nguni’t kung ano man ang katangian ng pinaghalo-halong bagay na yaon, kailangan mong panatiliing doon siya nananalangin – doon sa bagay na kanyang ginawa, at hindi sa Pagkatao na siyang gumawa sa kanya. Maari mo ring himukin siyang kabitan ng malaking pagpapahalaga sa pagtama at pagpapabuti ng kanyang pinaghalo-halong bagay, at panatiliin ito sa kanyang imahinasyon habang siya’y nananalangin. Pagka’t kung sakali mang pumasok sa isip niya ang pagkakaiba, kung sakali mang sadyain miyang manalangin “Hindi ayon sa aking pagkakakilala sa Iyo bagkus ayon sa Iyong pagkakakilala sa Iyong sarili”, ang ating kinatatayuan, sa sandaling ito, ay gipit. Sa sandaling lahat ng kanyang pag-iisip at anyo ay isinantabi, o kung sakali mang pinanatili, pinanatili na may buong kamalayan na ang katangian ng mga ito’y pansarili niya lamang, at pinauubaya niya ang kanyang sarili sa ganap na tunay, labas-sa-sarili, at hindi nakikitang Presensiya, doon kasama niya sa kanyang silid, at kailanman ay di niya lubos na makikilala tulad na pagkakakilala nito sa kanya – isang kaganapang di natin matatantiya ay maari ngang magyari. Sa pag-iwas sa kaganapang ito – itong tunay na pagkahubad ng kaluluwa sa pananalangin – makatutulong sa iyo na ang mga tao mismo ay hindi ito ninanasa ng mas higit pa sa inaakala nila. Yaon bang tila mas malaking problema pa ang idinulot ng bagay na inaasam nila.

Lubos na nagmamahal,
Ang iyong Tito Screwtape

Plagiarism is not theft

By now you've probably heard that Senator Tito Sotto has been exposed as a plagiarist because a speech he gave contained sentences lifted wholesale, copy-pasted, from an American blogger's blog post, one Sarah Pope. Asked for comment, Ms. Pope accused the senator of being a 'lying thief'.On the lying bit, Tito Sen's pronouncements in the aftermath certainly demonstrated evasiveness, outright condescension ('Blogger lang yan.'), and dishonesty when he initially claimed he didnt plagiarize. But what exactly did he steal?

First, let's try to define what plagiarism is. Dictionary.com defines it thus:

pla·gia·rism   [pley-juh-riz-uhm, -jee-uh-riz-]
noun
1.
an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author: It is said that he plagiarized Thoreau's plagiarism of a line written by Montaigne. Synonyms: appropriation, infringement, piracy, counterfeiting; theft, borrowing, cribbing, passing off.
2.
a piece of writing or other work reflecting such unauthorized use or imitation: “These two manuscripts are clearly plagiarisms,” the editor said, tossing them angrily on the floor.

Ok, lots of gray areas there because the dictionary definition omitted the element of malice, but anyway... include malicious intent (to defraud, to mislead) into that definition and we're all set. What is clear at this point is that Sotto's staff-member did a copy-paste of paragraphs from Ms. Pope's blog post. If, as Senator Sotto claims, he made 'an umbrella attribution', that is, if he did not intend to pass off the ideas or words as his own, in my opinion he's off the hook as far as the 'representation of that author's work as one's own' bit is concerned, if just barely. Let's give the senator the benefit of the doubt. But even if he didnt make that umbrella attribution, even if he passed off the words and ideas as his own, in other words, even if he is guilty as hell of plagiarism, what exactly did he steal?

Let me illustrate. Suppose I wrote a blog post, maybe this very one, and someone else sees it on the web, copies it, tacks his name on it as author, and posts it on his own blog site. We can conclude two things: 1) He is a dick, and 2) I didnt lose anything. We can call him a liar -- and lying is not a crime unless youre committing perjury -- but we can't call him a thief because I didnt lose anything.

Suppose further that said dick copies my blog post, tacks his name onto it as author, sells it to a magazine, and gets paid 1000 pesos for it. In this case, we can conclude that he is both a liar and a thief. But still the fact remains that I did not lose anything. The magazine publisher did. The plagiarist defrauded the publisher and stole 1000 pesos from him, but not from me. In other words, he plagiarized me, but he stole from the publisher. I have no claim to that 1000 pesos, the publisher does.

Now this whole plagiarism affair in the Senate, where it seems not only Senator Sotto is guilty, has got that august body thinking of ways to protect bloggers from plagiarism through some sort of law. In other words, theyre mulling ways for making plagiarism a crime. When Senator Sotto in a privilege speech said that plagiarism is not a crime in this country, our lawmakers, true to their busybody nature, took that to mean it should be. To protect bloggers, they said.

For all its good intentions, a proposed plagiarism bill is not only unnecessary, but it could be inimical to the free flow of ideas. It is the nature of ideas to have sex, to combine with other ideas and spawn new ideas. Ideas, in other words, are sluts. It is possible to overprotect the so-called 'intellectual property' of some person or corporation such that it is prevented from boinking with other ideas. There is nothing new under the sun. Every so-called new idea came from something else. The Lord of the Rings borrowed heavily from Der Ring des Nibelungen. Darna was 'plagiarized' from Wonder Woman. In an episode of The Simpsons, Itchy and Scratchy studio head Roger Myers had this to say:

“If it weren’t for someone plagiarizing the Honeymooners, we wouldn’t have the Flintstones. If someone hadn’t ripped off Sgt. Bilko, there’d be no Top Cat. Huckleberry Hound, Chief Wiggum, Yogi Bear? Hah! Andy Griffith, Edward G. Robinson, Art Carney! Your honor, you take away our right to steal ideas, where are they gonna come from?”

There is of course a difference between taking ideas from someone else and doing something creative with them, and maliciously taking ideas with intent to defraud. I suppose it is the latter that the ladies and gentlemen of the Senate want to protect bloggers from, but there is no need for that. We already have laws against fraud. A law criminalizing plagiarism will only result in confusion and claims of plagiarism that could lead to unjustly impugned reputations and court backlogs. The issue of plagiarism is something for ethics committees and not courts of law, something for society and not the State. The blogging community has dealt with plagiarism with the age-old method of shaming scoundrels in public, be they unknown Joe Schmoes or 'literary giants'. Even if I suspect more than a few bloggers would welcome a plagiarism law, I say they would be better off without it. The plagiarist after all is harming himself more than anyone else.

Beasty Accompany

(Or 'It's been a year since I had something to say and I still don't')
(Or 'Is this plagiarism?')

iPad Fat Toward Mow 
iPad fat toward mow aching cafe-ing a Hassan 
Bunny beanie co-signer main tinder Hun 
Harlem conga youngling Zion nag cat tugboat
Moneyed fire ants a yore aye awning lore mayo 
iPad fat toward mow, hark a myna goo glue Hun 

Jicamas easy narra coy pegged act Hun 
Genie doff hatter corps pad tea walla Hun 
Harlem conga youngling Zion nag cat tugboat
Moneyed fire ants a yore aye awning lore mayo 
iPad fat toward mow, myna hark guitar agog. 

Ahh, myna hark guitar agog 
Aah, myna hark guitar agog 
iPad fat toward mow, ohh 

Myna hark guitar, ahh
Agog agog, ahh

Sun anemone pad fat toward mow 
Hang molar bees knack abolition core
Moneyed angle hat nanny toyed ought to owe 

iPad fat toward mow 
Ahh, myna hark guitar agog
iPad fat toward mow
Ahh, myna hark guitar agog

A Wee Thing More
Oolong give up hangs a sheriff
Surf add teething in a nothing
Shunner eye dinner mag workers
A thong a whitening Porky Pig

A whit nothing eye wagging wag monk alley mutant
Panarcho-core no manner laggy gang punky kingdom
Mug parquet land man

Angle sang Porky Pig
Hyperion lung Sagan
Napalmed allower Hun
Kayak sour thing a whit
Tie away mug be Gaean

Oh-oh-oh, ahhh a wee thing more
Up I saw Sawyer go
Oh-oh-oh, ahhh a wee thing more
Up I saw Sawyer go
Ahh, ahh, ahh... Ohhh

Bonus: Bucket Bag Onion (also recorded by Beasty after being recorded by Dinner Boner Bee)

Bucket bag onion
Honey beg coil orgy camp vagueness stand
An umlaut tamaraw airing defrags a sour ant
Anion gutter neon
Dumb damning curly bungee bar
Bastard coffee link cursing tar

Erehwon core, bucket bag onion
Dumb damning coiled a Mayan tinder Hun
Kale an anon Porky Pig maw
The hills are a coin dug mama halls o'yore
Bug Mulan hunky time a killer law

Bucket bag onion
Convention I know who hotels Aqaba
Corps Peggy caker usurp gnaw
Moneyed lumber lurkers Anglo of Coney cay knocker tower

Erehwon core, bucket bag onion
Dumb damning coiled a Mayan tinder Hun
Kale an anon Porky Pig maw
The hills are a coin dug mama halls o'yore
Bug Mulan hunky time a killer law

And the hype around tawa-tawa is back

A good a time as any to repost a piece I did on this blog about a year ago.

It turns out that components in tawa-tawa actually inhibit platelet aggregation. This could be useful in other diseases, but this isnt what you want when you have DHF. You want your platelets aggregating. It may be fortunate that the decoction of tawa-tawa given to DHF patients doesnt have the concentrated amount of the platelet suppressants that the extract form contains, or else it may have done more harm than good.

Like I said, the evidence for the efficacy of tawa-tawa presented in the articles by Aspiras and Yuson, and the blog post by Zafra are anecdotal. Although I do hope that there is indeed something in tawa-tawa that alleviates the symptoms of DHF, at this time I strongly suspect that the evidence presented are of the post hoc ergo propter hoc variety. Person had DHF, person takes tawa-tawa tea, person feels better. Ergo, tawa-tawa cures DHF.

Still no studies are being cited. (Oh, wait. 'Studies' are being cited. Unnamed and unattributed mystery studies, that is.) No clinical test results. Nothing.

We need these studies. For all we know, E. hirta is the medical breakthrough the world has been waiting for, or is just a poppycock potion. We either confirm it as a cure (or at least a palliative) or junk it altogether. Either way, we need it confirmed scientifically. Don't these hospitals like St. Luke's and Makati Med which none of us can afford have labs? Surely they'd have the wherewithal, the facilities, and the personnel to take the lead in this.

In the meantime, 2.5 billion people worldwide remain at risk.

Why Catholics should stand up for freedom of expression

All in all, a good couple of weeks with the Philippine online community offering their views on art and freedom, topics that very few people cared about in their day-to-day existence before, let along understood. This was of course triggered by the Kulo exhibit which included Mideo Cruz's Poleteismo piece at the Cultural Center of the Philippines (CPP). It all turned ugly when someone tried to destroy the piece. Eventually, the exhibit was shut down due to, in the words of the CCP, "numerous emails, text messages and other letters sent to various offficers of the CCP, and to the artists themselves, with an increasing number of threats to persons and property". And if that wasnt enough, cases were filed against Cruz and the CCP citing Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code with its provision against offending any race or religion. Artists are of course upset about this whole development crying 'censorship' and 'repression'.

Let's get one thing out of the way first. Although artists have freedom of expression, they do not -- do not -- have the right to be exhibited at the CCP, or any other gallery for that matter. It is absolutely abhorrent of course that the CCP had to shut down the Kulo exhibit because of threats, but let's get rid of the notion that getting kicked out of the CCP constitutes censorship and repression. (In fact, if one national artist had his way, Mideo Cruz's work wouldnt have made it to the CCP at all.) Censorship and repression are charges more properly leveled at the actions of the State, and in this case, although the head of state and therefore CCP's boss President Aquino expressed disapproval at the Cruz's piece, he didnt order the exhibit shut down. But even if he did, that doesnt constitute censorship nor repression. It's just saying, 'Exhibit somewhere else'. Poleteismo continues to be free to be exhibited elsewhere, complete with ashtray dick on the Jesus icon's forehead. This is not of course to excuse the vandals who tried to destroy the piece and issued threats against the person of the artist.

Now then... As with Carlos Celdran's Damaso stunt, Catholics have every reason to be outraged by the desecration of a revered icon. In fact I question the Catholicism of any Catholic who wasnt outraged by Poleteismo's execution of whatever it is it intended to say. But to use the power of the State on one man, to actually wish the artist jailed, is over the top and inimical to Catholic teaching on the gift of freedom and all God-given rights for that matter. The CBCP for instance, maintains that 'that freedom of expression is not absolute, especially if his method of expression offends other people.' This betrays a grave misunderstanding of the right to free expression because the right to free expression is absolute. To say that it is not absolute is to say that all other God-given natural rights are not absolute as well, and subject to State control, as they want the freedom of expression to be. This includes the right to life. Is the right to life not absolute? The theologians of the Salamanca school for instance, in asserting that freedom is a gift from God, recognize that one of the consequences of this gift is that it is not assured that man will freely choose good over evil. What the CBCP wants perhaps is for the State to step in and ensure that man will only choose the good on pain of being subjected to a lengthy jail sentence. It is the powerful that has a vested interest in controlling the right to free expression, and the Catholic Church in the Philippines does exercise a lot of power. The State welcomes this freedom-of-expression-is-not-absolute interpretation and will run with it, use it as justification for its various anti-sedition laws, and national security restrictions on people's access to information. In fact in his statement regarding the CCP exhibit, President Aquino said, 'There is no freedom that is absolute' implicitly admitting that all God-given freedoms are subject to State control, and if need be, suppression. The Church itself had a taste of this when President Aquino threatened anti-RH citizens with sedition charges for calling for a civil disobedience campaign if the RH Bill passes. So by their stand in limiting freedom of expression, the Church is shooting itself in the foot.

If that weren't enough reason for the Philippine Church to stand up for Mideo Cruz's rights, consider these cases in the UK:

A Christian woman working for British Airways who wears a cross round her neck is asked to remove it for fear of offending other people. A nurse who prays with a patient in hospital is committing an almost criminal act. Catholic adoption agencies which disapprove of gay adoptive parents on religious grounds have their licences taken away.

Filipino Catholics have it easy. They constitute a powerful majority here. What if one day they find themselves in the minority? What would they think of their own bishops' statement that 'the freedom of expression is not absolute' hurled right back in their faces? One could imagine the glee they felt when Aquino issued his statement on the CCP exhibit that probably put the nail in the coffin of its expulsion: "You have rights but when you already trample on the rights of others, there’s already something wrong." They probably didnt question exactly what those rights are that were being trampled upon. The fact is the CCP exhibit was trampling on some people's sensibilities but it wasnt trampling on any rights. By agreeing with Aquino's statement, they implicitly agree that the State can invent all sorts of rights like what the RH Bill does in their elevation of reproductive health as a basic human right (which it isnt -- it's an entitlement) which implies that any health professional who refuses to dispense artificial birth control methods said health professional doesnt approve of because of the dictates of conscience is a human rights violator and could lose the license to practice. Catholics have to realize that by fighting for Mideo Cruz's rights to free expression, they are fighting for the rights of all, including Catholics everywhere in the world. They can do this by asking those lay organizations who want to see Cruz jailed to stand down and offer to pray for him instead. The use of State power to harass one man who could not do any harm to them is just distasteful.

The case will probably not prosper anyway. In its ruling on Ang Ladlad's petition against COMELEC's disqualification, the Supreme Court said:

Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society, and this freedom applies not only to those that are favorably received but also to those that offend, shock, or disturb. Any restriction imposed in this sphere must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. Absent any compelling state interest, it is not for the COMELEC or this Court to impose its views on the populace. Otherwise stated, the COMELEC is certainly not free to interfere with speech for no better reason than promoting an approved message or discouraging a disfavored one.

If for no other reason than to spare itself of the embarrassment when the courts throw its petition out, the Catholic hierarchy should tell its most zealous adherents to withdraw the case and end this bullying, but I'd rather they withdraw it for the right reasons: that the freedom of expression is God's gift to us.

The libertarian ideal

A couple of weeks ago, a news report came out wherein firefighters in Tennessee refused to come to the aid of a homeowner whose house was burning down because the homeowner hasnt paid the annual fee of USD 75.00. (The fire department serviced a particular community for 'free'. For those outside it, they charge an annual fire services fee.) Even after promising to pay whatever fee is due after the fire has been put out, the fire department refused. As a result of this callous act, one family lost their home. Statists from all over weighed in warning that this is what would happen if limited government people, libertarians, anarchists, and Randians had their way. "The free market is evil," they cried. "We need government to provide these services. Only government could be trusted to protect our lives and property."

"The libertarian ideal," said a pal on my plurk timeline. That's what they say this illustrates, implying that those who hold libertarian views are amoral, selfish cranks. But is it the libertarian ideal?

Let us forget the fact that the fire department was a government agency, not a private one. The fee has been in place for 20 years. The fee in question was a government fee and the charging of the fee was government policy. Leaving that aside, why is this being used as an illustration of the 'libertarian ideal'? It is because we grew up thinking that government is good. That's what they teach us in school. So we better let them confiscate a huge chunk of our earnings to spend on whatever it is they deem for 'the common good'. And woe unto those who refuse.

In the libertarian ideal where the market is free, there would be no monopoly. Here was a homeowner who was irresponsible enough to forget to pay for fire insurance. A fire begins to destroy his home. Before the fire does a lot of damage, he calls his fire protection service provider, who refuses to help him. He then promises to pay whatever fee is due. The provider still refuses. In the present system, that's the end of that. His house burns down, his family loses a home. This will not happen in 'the libertarian ideal'. In the libertarian ideal, the homeowner simply calls another fire protection agency and tells them of his plight. This provider wouldnt have refused simply because he would welcome the opportunity to get another customer for his services and wouldnt want the bad publicity of refusing to help a family to get around the market-place. The house would be saved, the provider gets a new customer and adds to his income (and continues to employ firefighters), and after word gets around about how the previous provider refused to aid the family in dire need, they would begin to lose clients to other providers and eventually closes shop. That is the libertarian ideal.

More on the penal code's archaic Article 133

First of all, I apologize if this post is unformatted or looks weird in any way. Im sending it though email and I can't see if it came out right. In fact I can't see if it came out at all. You see Im in a country where blogger is blocked (along with Twitter, Plurk, Facebook, etc. -- a good reason to switch to WordPress which isnt blocked). Chi-cough-na, cough.

Anyway, an interesting piece by well-known lawyer Jose C. Sison came out in the Philippine Star site today in which he defends Article 133 of the Penal Code. He does this by arguing that the law is right in affording special status to religious rites in the eyes of the law so disruption of religious rites, in this case Catholics' view of the mass, is especially reprehensible.

Anyone who disrupts the mass like that Intramuros tourist guide (his name is not worth mentioning) certainly deserves to be imprisoned. His act can never be justified by his deep resentment against the prelates who oppose the RH bill. It is willfully, willingly and feloniously done during a rite most sacred to Catholics and therefore punishable under the RPC. Muslims and Buddhists would also feel offended if such disruption was committed against them. There is no reason why disruption of a Catholic ritual should be treated differently.

First of all, I agree. As a former Catholic, I recognize that the holy sacrifice of the Mass is indeed the centerpiece of Catholic faith and worship -- lex orandi, lex credendi. It is where the bread and wine is changed into the real and actual substance of the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ and where Catholics remember his sacrifice for all mankind. Disrespecting the mass is more than insulting to the Catholic; direspecting the mass is an insult to Jesus Christ himself. As a former Catholic I felt the insult. The Church's outrage against Carlos Celdran's act (he says it wasnt premeditated, let's give him the benefit of the daw) is in my opinion, more than justified; it was absolutely warranted. Any Catholic who wasnt outraged by that act does not deserve to call himself Catholic.

But that is neither here nor there. According to Atty Sison's piece, there is no reason to remove Art. 133 from the Code because religion is special, and that the law should recognize that it is special. I disagree. I believe the law should be neutral when it comes to religion. I do not have to remind anyone that there are different religious and irreligious beliefs in our country and our law guarantees these beliefs and protects the right of its citizens to hold them. That is why there is Article 153 in the Code which punishes any disruption of peaceful assemblies and meetings. But here Atty. Sison is arguing that a disruption of religious service deserves a greater punishment than a disruption of, say, a homeowner's association meeting. Section 5 of the Constitution is clear: No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights. No religious test. In looking at a disruption of a peaceful assembly, the law should not ask what kind of assembly was disrupted, whether it was religious or secular. It should not care.

Let us look at the spirit of these laws. Why were the laws created? It is so that the powerless can be protected from the powerful. The citizens for instance should be protected from the abuses of the State, a peaceful man from a violent man. Section One of the Penal Code, to which Article 133 inexplicably belongs, contains prohibitions against public officers and employees. In the comment section of one of his blogposts, Manuel Buencamino (he doesnt think 133 is archaic either) surmised that Article 133 was enacted to protect smaller denominations from disruption by bigger ones; for example, if Catholics disrupted a religious service of Rizalistas. Let's take a look at Carlos Celdran's case. Atty. Sison thinks he deserves to be imprisoned and certainly the letter of the law says he deserves, according to Atty. Sison, imprisonment from 6 months to 2 years and 4 months. (In my previous post, I said the punishment was 6 months. I defer to the member of the Bar. It is up to 2 years and 4 months, which makes it all the more draconian -- a law enacted by tyrants. We'll get to that in a bit.)

But is this a case of the powerful oppressing the weak? Carlos Celdran was one unarmed man in a Rizal costume (Manuel Buencamino said he was in a Charlie Chaplin outfit). He was yelling against a powerful organization. He did not prevent his fellow Catholics from worshiping. Indeed he didnt have the power to. The Catholics' freedom of worship was not harmed one iota. Officers of the State took him away and the Mass went on. What he was guilty of was offending them. Just that. He did not damage Church property, he did not physically harm anybody. Atty. Sison believes this is sufficient reason to take Carlos Celdran's freedom away for 2 years and 4 months. And if the Church leaders do not withdraw the charges, they agree. In fact, 230 bishops think this deserves to have a man lose his livelihood. As mentioned earlier, Manuel Buencamino thinks that the Article 133 is there to protect small sects from bigger sects who might do them harm. I dont know about that. What is more plausible to me is that this law was used to 'protect' the powerful Spanish Catholic hierarchy from being offended by those pesky Indios.

Atty. Sison then turns to the subject of rights:

They may have the freedom to express their own views but they must also respect the customs, practices and the rights of others to express contrary views. They have no right to denigrate, defile and blaspheme those who do not agree with them.

Actually there is an abuse of freedom in our society today. People now think that they have the absolute right to act and speak freely even to the extent of trampling upon the rights of others or of imposing their individual rights over and above the rights promoting the common good.

One doesnt have the right to be free from being offended. On the contrary. The freedom to express views comes with the license to offend. One may use or not use that license as one sees fit, but the license is there, the license to denigrate, defile, and blaspheme. Imagine how offensive Rizal's writings were to the Spanish authorities or indeed Jesus' words were to the Pharisees and Sadducees. If the freedom of speech did not come with a license to offend, if we only spoke agreeably, if we dont have the license to satirize and insult, if we only had the right to speak in a politically correct manner, then speech wouldnt have sparked revolutions that set us free. The powerful can insult us, denigrate us, and blaspheme our beliefs. We the weak must have the right to do likewise to them. Rightly or wrongly, this is the right that Carlos Celdran claimed: that of the weak speaking to the strong. Of course common decency behooves us to behave with respect towards our fellowman and the views they hold, no matter how disagreeable they or their views seem to us. But common decency cannot be legislated without curtailing freedoms as well. And yes, freedom of speech has its limits. There's this famous saying by that famous Greek philosopher Anonymous that goes, "Your freedom ends where my nose begins." Freedom of speech should not cause harm to one's person. Shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater for example. Everything else is fair use of rights.

Im with Atty Sison's view of religion. Religion in society at its best is important and it is indeed special.  While it is true that -- to paraphrase Christopher Hitchens -- religion poisons some things, at its best it allows the flowering of our society. Our rights and freedoms came from the grand notion that God createdl Man in his own image and are therefore all equal and have inalienable rights, a patently unscientific belief. It is atheism -- the idea that no authority is higher than the authority of Man -- that poisons everything. The only reason to trust secularists today is because they have been imbued with ideals that came from religious faith. Once they unshackle themselves from these 'irrational' beliefs, that is the time we can view them as the enemy of society. Carlos Celdran is not the enemy, and he does not deserve to go to jail, no matter what the letter of the law says.