The Monotheistic Republic of the Philippines

On one side of all debates about Separation of Church and State in the Philippines, the most quoted provision of the 1987 Philippine Constitution is its Preamble:

We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to build a just and humane society, and establish a Government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity, the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution.

For example former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban (now a regular newspaper columnist) in a public address to seminarians of the Royal Pontifical University of Sto. Tomas  (Feb. 19, 2002 UST Martyrs Hall and reproduced in his book Saving the Constitutional System) defends his creation and imposition of The Centennial Prayer of the Courts which precede every Philippine Court session [sic!] :

Many people, including some men and women of the cloth, are surprised why the Supreme Court has an official prayer. They ask: is this not a violation of the separation of church and state? The answer is "no." Let me explain.

The Philippines is theist, not atheist, not even agnostic. In fact, it is monotheist; it worships one God.  [emphasis DJB's]

That is why our Constitution begins with this significant first phrase: "We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God x x x." You may want to know that both houses of Congress and the Cabinet also preface their sessions with prayers.

So there you have it folks! The Monotheistic Republic of the Philippines. From the pen of no less than its distinguished former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. My rebuttal after the jump...

How COMELEC Violated Separation of Church and State in the Ang Ladlad Case

The title may puzzle some readers since the present controversy does not involve any Church or religious  issue as such. Instead it has to do with a gay rights organization being denied participation in the 2010 Party List election on the grounds that it's political program is immoral and a danger to the Youth; that it's members have been living immoral lives; and that they have even been dishonest about these alleged facts of their personal and collective immoralities in filings for accreditation as a party list organization.  Yet these judgments of disqualifying immorality were arrived at by three Comelec commissioners explicitly as the result of applying not one, but two religious tests based on Biblical and Quranic scriptural quotations about homosexuality.  This is contrary to Law and a grave abuse of discretion since the exercise of civil and political rights is specifically protected against the application of such religious tests--

The 1987 Philippines Constitution's Bill of Rights  Article III Section 5 defines the Principle of the Separation of Church and State in three key provisions:

No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. (Nonestablishment Clause) 

The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. (Freedom of Religion clause). 

No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights. (No Test clause)

In SPP 09-228 the Comelec denied a petition to run in the 2010 Party List elections from  Ateneo Professor Danton Remoto, and the Ang Ladlad LGBT Party, (a sectoral organization of self-described Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgender persons) on the ground of IMMORALITY.  A Petition for Certiorari has been filed before the Supreme Court assailing the Comelec resolution.

Everybody should care about this case because it is about what the State can and cannot do to anybody under the Constitution.

Based on commonly accepted statistics, the chances are that you, dear Reader, would not identify yourself as a lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender person (although the chances that you might identify as LGBT--are not necessarily imponderable or even small.)  Of course there are no official statistics since these categories are not part of the population census, which goes as far as distinguishing males and females but not sexual preferences or personal practices.

Nevertheless, anybody who is not a hermit knows of, works, lives with, or is related to someone who is homosexual. In every historical epoch and every civilization, homosexuals have constituted some fraction of the human population. In Philippine society, some of our most famous personalities in show biz and politics are homosexuals (both male and female). Recently the Comelec Chairman Jose Melo even claimed that homosexuals are well represented in the Congress--which might've been a better excuse for disqualifying Ang Ladlad--by claiming they do not represent a marginalized sector of society!

The SEPARATION of CHURCH and STATE is a favorite topic of mine.

Nowhere else does the Law approach the wit of Poetry than when it defines the relationship between Government and Organized Religion in the Nonestablishment clause; between Theology and Morality in the No Religious Test clause; and upholds a Freedom of Religion so broad it protects the pious and devout's Freedom OF Religious Profession and Worship with dedication equal to that of the Atheists' Freedom FROM Religion.

The American roots of 1987 are quite obvious in the corresponding US Constitution of 1787.
The No Religious Test clause of the United States Constitution is found in Article VI, section 3 where it appears in the context of qualifications for public office:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but, no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

This principle evidently predates the so-called Establishment Clause in the US First Amendment (Bill of Rights, Freedom of Religion, Speech and of the Press)--

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Several things are immediately noteworthy in comparing US and RP formulations:

(1) Both Constitutions define Separation of Church and State as a series of PROHIBITIONS upon the State regarding what it can and cannot do with regard to religion.

(2) Freedom of Religion is inextricably linked to Freedom of Speech and Expression and is indeed a proper subset of that much larger body of personal and common liberty guaranteed by both Constitutions.

(3) The No Religious Test provision of the US Constitution, which largely applies to the qualifications for government officials, is vastly expanded under the 1987 Philippine Constitution to cover "the exercise of civil and political rights". This much stronger principle amounts to a No Theology Clause and is the inspiration for this blog's motto that "Democracy is all Morality but no Theology."

RECENT DUST-UPS

Separation of Church and State has lately figured prominently in three fresh controversies.

The first involves Danton Remoto and the Ang Ladlad LGBT Party of "Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgenders" which has been denied participation in the Party List system of representation in Comelec Resolution SPP 09-228 "on moral grounds".

What are these "moral grounds"?

First, Comelec cites Ang Ladlad's own description and definition of its LGBT membership and their sexual orientation as

"a person's capacity for profound emotional, affectional and sexual attraction to, and intimate and sexual relations with, individuals of a different qender, of the same gender, or more than one gender."

Comelec asserts that,

"This definition of the LGBT sector makes it crystal clear that petitioner tolerates immorality which offends religious beliefs."

Comelec finds that the Petitioner maintains IMMORAL BELIEFS whose offensiveness to religious beliefs Comelec demonstrates by quoting from the Christian Bible and the Islamic Q'uran passages that condemn to "fire and brimstone" various forms of homosexuality.

In a Comment from the Comelec's own Legal Dept,

"The 'ANG LADLAD' apparently advocates sexual immorality as indicated in the Petition's par. 6F: 'Consensual partnerships or relationships by gays and

(2) serve no other purpose but to satisfy the market for violence, lust or pornography; (3) offend any race or religion; (4) tend to abet traffic in and use of prohibited drugs; and (5) are contrary to law, public order, morals and good customs, established policies, lawful orders, decrees and edicts;

(3) Those who shall sell, give away or exhibit films, prints, engravings, sculpture or literature which are offensive to morals. (As amended by PD Nos. 960 and 969)."

Next, Comelec finds that Ang Ladlad Party has been UNTRUTHFUL,

"Petitioner should be denied accreditation not only for advocating immoral doctrines but likewise for not being truthful when it said that it "or any of its nominees/party-list representatives have not violated or failed to comply with laws, rules, or regulations relating to the elections".

But the resolution does not mention which laws, rules or regulations relating to elections the Petitioner has not complied with.

Third, and most seriously , the Comelec rules that allowing Ang Ladlad LGBT to participate in the Party List elections would result in spiritual and moral degradation of the Youth by exposing them to an immoral and corrupting environment:

Furthermore, should this Commission grant the petition, we will be exposing our youth to an environment that does not conform to the teachings of our faith. Lehman Strauss, a famous bible teacher and writer in the U.S.A said in one article that ''older practicing homosexuals are a threat to the youth"11. As an agency of the government, ours too is the State's avowed duty under Section 1312, Article II of the Constitution to protect our youth from moral and spiritual degradation.

We are not condemning the LGBT, but we cannot compromise the well-being of the greater number of our people, especially the youth.

Commentary:
COMELEC has opened a Pandora's Box of Trouble by declaring as IMMORAL the doctrines, emotional preferences and sexual practices of the Ang Ladlad Party of self-described lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender members.

Surely its own ruling obligates Comelec to ensure that NOBODY else filing a COC is guilty of the same immoral doctrines, emotional preferences and sexual practices it has condemned in Ang Ladlad's LGBTs. Moreover, I don't see how they could look the other way at heterosexual immoralities, infidelities, indiscretions of individuals and party lists.

In effect, SPP 09-228, the Resolution denying Ang Ladlad accreditation, imposes novel standards of SEXUAL MORALITY that must be met by all candidates--local, provincial and national -- to participate in the 2010 elections.

It would be grossly discriminatory to apply the new Morality Test only to Ang Ladlad. So I think the Comelec en banc will see the wisdom of reversing this Resolution and accredite Ang Ladlad.

The conclusions of Comelec about the immoral beliefs and practices of the Ang Ladlad Party were quite clearly reached as the result of applying RELIGIOUS TESTS to the perceived lifestyles and beliefs of the LGBT community (which Comelec's Chairman Melo claims is a large subset of the population well-represented even in Congress!).

A justifiable suspicion that Comelec has GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION in this case arises now that such RELIGIOUS TESTS have resulted in the denial of civil and political rights to participate in the Party List system of representation

No Religious Test Shall Be Required For The Exercise of Civil and Political Rights

The 1987 Constitution's Bill of Rights upholds Freedom of Religion

1987 Article III Section 5. (1) No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

(2) The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed.

(3) No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.

The SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE is concretely defined in Section 5(3) above--in the form of a clear and unequivocal PROHIBITION against the State putting the exercise of civil and political rights to religious tests.  By this is meant that the State may not appeal to religious faith or religious dogma as a means of adjudging the moral, ethical and legal worthiness of any particular citizen or group of citizens to exercise rights and privileges to be enjoyed by everyone under the Constitution.      


Note the last sentence above which constitutes a clear and unequivocal PROHIBITION against the State's application of any "RELIGIOUS TEST" as a requirement for the exercise of civil or political RIGHTS.  I think the Comelec has brazenly violated this prohibition in a recent ruling on an application to run in the Party List System.

DEAN MARVIC LEONEN (U.P. College of Law) points to Comelec Resolution 09-228 which rejects the Petition for Party List Accreditation of Ang Ladlad, a well-known association of self-described "lesbian, gays, bisexuals and transgender" (LGBT)  persons who want to exercise certain civil and poliltical rights under the Party List system and the 1987 Constitution.

However, in its Resolution, the Comelec dismisses the Petition of Ang Ladlad "on moral grounds" stating that the "Petitioner tolerates immorality" in the very definition it gives of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender constituency sought to be represented--

xxx a marginalized and under-represented sector that is particularly disadvantaged because of their sexual orientation and gender identity."

and proceeded to define sexual orientation as that which:

       "xxx refer to a person's capacity for profound emotional, affectional and sexual attraction to, andintimate and sexual relations with, individuals of a different qender, of the same gender, or more than one gender."

Comelec's judgment that Petitioner tolerates immorality appears to be based on the reading and application of not ONE but TWO scriptural religious TEXTS, one Judeo-Christian and the second Islamic as the Comelec Resolution quotes from both the Christian Bible and the Quran of Islam

"For this cause God gave them up into vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet". [Romans 1:26]

"For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women "ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds." (7.81). "And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone): Then see what was the end of those who indulged in sin and crime!" (7:84) "He said: "0 my Lord! Help Thou me against people who do mischief!" [Quran]

Should this matter ever come before Judicial Review, there will surely be ample reason to ask respondent Comelec to explain the following disposative declaration in its Resolution rejecting Ang Ladlad:

Furthermore, should this Commission grant the petition, we will be exposing our youth to an environment that does not conform to the teachings of our faith.

Which faith exactly, would OUR FAITH be, the Court should ask the Comelec!

It does not take too much to see in plain view the grave abuse of discretion that the Comelec has just committed, a brazen violation of the Separation of Church and State in which we see the Comelec culpably applying not ONE but TWO religious scriptural tests to deny Ang Ladlad Party List application to run under the Party List system of representation.

Our Constitution upholds Morality, but it can never be based on any Theology or even Theologies!  I think that is the plain meaning of Separation of Church and State.

The Religious Exception

Just a little over a month after Republic Act No. 9710, otherwise known as the Magna Carta of Women, has been approved, the Catholic Church is already laying the basis for an exemption from the full application of the law. In a speech during the Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines (CEAP) national convention, Monsignor Gerardo Santos, the association's president, said the CEAP will seek exemption from the provision of the law outlawing the expulsion or non-readmission of women employees or the non-admission of women in schools, on account of pregnancy outside of marriage.

Monsignor Santos is asserting CEAP member-schools' right to academic and religious freedom and vows he will see to it that such exemption is inserted in the law's implementing rules and regulations.

If and when a case involving this issue reaches the Supreme Court it will be the second of its nature. The first that landed on the Supreme Court is the 2003 case of Estrada v. Escritor (A.M. No. P-02-1651). For the first time in Philippine jurisprudence, Escritor laid down the rule on exemption of religious conduct from the application of a generally-applicable law. Briefly, the case involves a court employee, Escritor, who has been living with a man for years without the benefit of marriage. This man also happens to be married, although separated, with another woman. When an administrative complaint for immorality was filed against Escritor, she raised as a defense that her cohabitation with another man is sanctioned by the tenets of her religion and was with the knowledge and approval of her congregation's religious leaders.

In a lengthy and exhaustive opinion that is more of a dissertation rather than a court decision, then Associate Justice Reynato Puno, writing for the majority, said that the free exercise of religion clause of the Constitution protects the rights of individuals to engage in certain religious conduct - even if contrary to the provisions of existing law (read as exemption) - as long as it is based on sincerely-held religious belief and the state has no compelling interest to burden the exercise of such religious conduct. Three years after remanding the case to the Office of the Court Administrator (Supreme Court office that investigates complaints against court employees) - to determine the sincerity of the belief and its centrality to the professed believer's faith and allow the government adduce proof of a compelling state interest to penalize the non-marital relationship - the Supreme Court found for Escritor by ruling that the freedom of religion or free exercise clause of the Constitution exempts her from the provisions of the Revised Administrative Code penalizing immoral conduct.

While the Supreme Court recognized the state's legitimate interest in protecting the institution of marriage and the family, it refused to accept the government's claim of compelling state interest on such broad and general principles; it wanted more narrow or specific interests of the government that will be subverted if the non-marital union of Escritor with another man is not penalized.

The Supreme Court laid down the following important criteria when courts can carve out an exemption from a law of general applicability based on religious conduct, namely: (1) the law burdens religious freedom; (2) claimant's sincerity in his/her religious belief; (3) there is no compelling state interest involved; and (4) the burden on religious freedom is the least intrusive means of achieving the government's objective.

It is clear from the foregoing criteria that the fact that a law burdens a religious belief and its exercise, and such belief is sincerely-held by a person, if there is a compelling state interest involved and there are no alternative means of pursuing that interest, the claim of religious exemption will fail. Thus, in the American case of US v. Lee the Supreme Court of the United States found a compelling state interest in sustaining the fiscal viability of the social security system through mandatory contributions when it denied the Amish religious group's claim of religious freedom in refusing to pay social security taxes. On the other hand, the need to maintain peace and order and punish violent crimes would be a compelling state interest that would defeat a claim of religious freedom in, for example, religious practices involving human sacrifices.

The compelling state interest test is, therefore, a check on pleas for religious exemption, while at the same time it guarantees religious freedom under the free exercise clause by requiring only the strictest scrutiny of regulations, although secular in nature and are of general applicability, that incidentally burden religious freedom.

CEAP will undoubtedly rely on the criteria enunciated in Escritor in seeking the exemption from the Magna Carta of Women. Whether or not there is a compelling state interest in burdening the Catholic Church's moral doctrine as applied to unwed mothers will be a question the courts will have to address. But what is clear is that Escritor has paved the way for religious groups in seeking exemption from a law which, although is religion-neutral on its face, has the incidental effect of burdening the exercise of religious freedom.


SOURCE: Philippine Commentary

Science and Religion in Philippine Education

Science and religion is a big issue in the United States, and increasingly in other developed countries such as Australia, Canada and the UK. In other countries of the European Union, it was until recently a non-issue. During the early years of John Paul II's pontificate, the well known evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould who described himself as agnostic Jew, was invited to give a talk in the Vatican for priests who do science. He was the only layman non-Catholic billeted in a seminary within sight of Saint Peter's with two elderly Jesuits who asked him "Why is evolution STILL an issue in America?" Gould who stereotypically believed that Catholic priests are anti-evolution, was dumbfounded. Thus even in the center of the Vatican, evolution is a non-issue. Darwinian Theory is the litmus test to gauge acceptance of science in society.

Thus in America, many studies have tried to gauge acceptance of science and strength of religious belief. A recent issue of Scientific American estimates acceptance of evolution in the USA as around 33%, the lowest among OECD countries. The USA is a paradox. It is the most scientifically advanced nation but has the least acceptance of scientific truth. While the courts have struck down attempts of religious groups to give "equal time" to creationism and intelligent design in school as violative of the separation of church and state principle, the movement to do so continues.

In the Philippines, we do not have any quantitative and published data to show acceptance of science in society. If I recall correctly, the Ateneo de Manila once had a project to survey the misconceptions in science teaching in basic education. The intersection of religious belief and acceptance of scientific principles was part of this project. I don't know if the results have been released.

The Astronomical League of the Philippines and the Rizal Technological University (RTU) Astronomy Department sponsored a study to measure acceptance of scientific principles in astronomy among basic education teachers. The study conducted by Professor Jesus Rodriguez Torres surveyed 102 teachers' attitudes to certain astronomical concepts. In the question "Is the Earth the center of the universe" 31.37% of respondents said the "earth was immovable as stated in the Psalms" and 32.35% said that the writer of the Biblical passage couldn't have known that the Earth moves. Only 6.86% said the Bible was erroneous.

Prof. Torres was disturbed by respondents answer to the question "How long was the process of the formation of the universe?" 20.58% responded "six days" and 46.07% responded "6000 years based on 2 Peter 3:8"

The reader can download the pdf file and read the findings in their totality. What should make science teachers like me think about is that there is this reluctance TO CHALLENGE RELIGION when it comes to science. There is this reluctance to SAY THE BIBLE AND CHURCH ARE wrong when it comes to scientific fact.

There was a time when a student organization invited a creationist to speak at the Ateneo. The university allowed it but the Jesuit scientists lead by Fr Dan McNamara conducted a talk on science the next day and the day after explaining what the Catholic position on science is. A Catholic can say the Church is wrong when it says something scientific since the Church is not in the business of determining what is scientific or not even if it has priests who are scientists!

Readers may have misgivings on how the questions were framed but Torres' study is the first one published to tackle a previously "untouchable" subject in Philippine education. Even at the secular University of the Philippines, science professors are loathe to confront students' religious beliefs and how this affects their understanding of science. However once I had to warn a student that he will get a grade of 5.0 if he insisted on using religious explanations to answer a science exam and in oral reports in class. I warned him that preaching of a religion in class is inadmissable at UP and I won't hesitate to lodge a complaint. He dropped the course accordingly. But this case is extremely rare.

The one thing that disturbs me is that Torres' subjects are science teachers. Some students who belong to fundamentalist sects tell me that they are instructed by their ministers to just keep quiet, answer the questions as needed to pass the course and not to believe. Science teachers cannot impose belief but should be able to teach students to consider scientific concepts as plausible hypotheses. With a Bible Christian biology student, we came to this position after she talked to me about her quandaries. If she doesn't accept evolution as a hypothesis, then it is her own lookout for after she has logically considered the arguments, this affects how she understands nature.

However while Professor Torres and I are loathe to confront fundamentalism directly, there are instances when we have to do so.

Sto. Nino de Bernas, Conyo

This essay has also been posted at Filipino Voices today.

[R-18: Please do not touch me if for some reason you find a discussion of wooden, costumed idols personally offensive. More so avoid it, if you find a discussion of human, costumed idols offensive.]

Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J. was wearing his friar's zuccheto, a touch akimbo, in yesterday's column about the Sto. Nino feast and Chief Justice Reynato Puno where he says,

"The feast of the Sto. Niño reminds us that the earliest preachers of Christian values were lay soldiers...More than that, however, it is also a reminder that the destiny of this nation depends very much on the restoration and the strengthening of the values which Christianity first planted in the Philippines—the values of honesty, morality and love of neighbor."

One is forced to ask in all earnestness and concern: Does the good Father Bernas believe that before Christianity was planted in the Philippines that there were no honest and moral human beings who felt love for their neighbor?? Before the Catholic Taliban arrived, were we all dishonest, immoral savages, with hatred and enmity in our wild hearts?



Fray Bernas' entire rhetorical point in this column resides in a simile between Reynato Puno and famous "lay soldiers", in particular, Ferdinand Magellan--to prove the admirable point that laymen can be moral leaders too and it is not only to the Catholic Bishops that we ought to look for such leadership.

The unfortunate thing for Fray Bernas' simile is that Chief Justice Reynato Puno becomes the Right Reverend Reynato Puno every Sunday, when HE puts on the costume of a Methodist Minister! How do we know this? Well read Reynato Puno's speech at Siliman University where he mentions his Sunday morning activities.

Fray Bernas parabolically compares Chief Justice Puno first to St. John Baptist (who was the cousin of Jesus Christ, and therefore the Nephew of God the Father.) Then, lightly skipping over the Holy Roman Empire and the Dark Ages to around 1521, he finds traces of Ferdinand Magellan in the character and agenda of Reynato Puno's call for moral leaders to lift their "veil of invisiblity"

Magellan was met by King Humabon and his family, his courtiers and his followers. Filled with missionary zeal, Magellan preached to them about accepting Christianity. In their simplicity they responded and many of the natives were baptized together with the royal family.

On this occasion, as was the practice of conquistadors, Magellan left gifts behind. It is almost certain that one gift he offered was an image of the Sto. Niño.

That was in 1521. But as we know Magellan and his crew were driven away by the natives.

Well this is definitely one for the Textbook Crusaders like Antonio Calipje Go! Listen to what AMBETH OCAMPO says in his column of 14 January 2009:

Humabon Conversion Wasn't For Religion!
Historically, the image of the Santo Niño venerated in Cebu is the oldest image in the Philippines, unless this is challenged by the image of the Virgin of Ermita that was also found or “recovered” in the islands by the Legaspi expedition in the 16th century. The image of the Santo Niño was presented to the wife of Rajah Humabon when she was baptized in 1521. She was shown a crucifix and an image of the Virgin Mary but the Queen of Cebu, who was baptized and given the name Juana, was attracted to the Santo Niño and asked for it. Magellan was happy to part with it and after the Battle of Mactan, the Santo Niño remained in Cebu and was found by one of Legazpi’s men in 1565. We will go into the historical details about the Santo Niño in a succeeding column because when I re-read the account of the conversion of Humabon, as narrated by Antonio Pigafetta, chronicler of the Magellan expedition, I realized there was nothing religious about it at all. Magellan threatened the “heathens” who refused to be converted with bodily harm; on the other hand, he promised aid and power to the king so that the latter could subdue his enemies.

Pigafetta described Magellan and Humabon embracing and later sitting on chairs of red and violet with chieftains and other notables on cushions: “The captain told the king through the interpreter that he thanked God for inspiring him to become a Christian; and that (now) he would more easily conquer his enemies than before. The king replied that he wished to become a Christian, but that some of his chiefs did not wish to obey.… Then our captain had all the chiefs of the king called, and told them that, unless they obeyed the king as their king, he would have them killed, and would give their possessions to the king.… The captain told the king that he was going to Spain but that he would return again with so many forces, that he would make him the greatest king of those regions, as he had been the first to express a determination to become a Christian.”

I have not read myself Pigafetta's diary of the Magellan voyage. But I think Ambeth's interpretation, based on just such a direct reading is more true-to-life. The boastful Magellan had convinced Humabon he would take care of Lapu-lapu. Instead he was, in the understatement of Fray Bernas, "driven away by the natives."

However, Magellan's death at the hands of Lapu-lapu is definitely proof-positive that he was an honorable man and that his pledge to Humabon to defeat his enemies was in earnest (after all he had threatened Humabon with the same if he did not convert!) Thus, when the survivors of the expedition (who had been dirven away by the natives) limped back to Spain and forty years later Miguel Lopez de Legaspi came calling, what should he find but the emblem of Magellan's compact with Humabon, the miraculous wooden idol, the Sto. Nino de Bernas, err, Cebu.

Now of course, Joaquin Bernas is better known as a "Constitutional Expert" and Dean of the Ateneo de Manila Law School, if I am not mistaken. He should stick to that and avoid trying to become a Catechism-cum-History teacher because this is most undignified and embarrassing for him. Why he mounted such a pathetic attempt to explain that it is okay for laymen to call for moral regeneration, is beyond my powers of Ignatian discernment. Does he really think the Catholic Church represents "moral leadership" to the Filipinos when their entire appreciation of History and their role in it is perverse and conceited.

But with the Swinging Door of Observation slightly ajar, let me call everybody's attention to the fact that although both Bernas and Ocampo are OpEd columnists, they are both widely cited as authoritative references by teachers and textbooks. But I wager that Bernas' take on Magellan will miseducate many more Filipinos about their history than Ambeth Ocampo's allergy-ridden sojourns into dusty libraries could ever remold. PDI's website claims millions of readers daily, both online and in print.

Sto. Nino de Bernas, conyo!

Catholic Miracles and the Delusional Nation

Catholic Bishop of Bacolod, Vicente Navarra claims that divine intervention is what saved Ces Drilon from the Abu Sayyaf kidnappers who held her for ransom over ten days recently in Sulu. This of course after he prayed for just such a happy outcome...

"This should also remind you that this is a very clear intervention of God in your behalf. So be always grateful to Him and dedicate your life and your work for the glory of God and for the advancement of the Filipino people," said Navarra.

I wonder WHICH God the good Bishop is referring to? Yahweh, Allah, Bathala (or someone who looks uncannily like Ninoy Aquino on lots of paper bills in a duffel bag?) Or maybe the Goddess Worshippers would like us to believe God is someone in skirts like Loren Legarda?

I wonder who's been giving the Catholic Bishops all this great anti-terrorist intel? Could it be this miraculous stone with the image of the Virgin Mary that is growing in Bicol whose miraculous "growth" has been definitively confirmed by yet another holy Man in a funny hat?

A Catholic bishop has confirmed the existence of a ‘miraculous,’ "growing" stone in Catanduanes which bears the image of the Blessed Virgin Mary and is said to heal illnesses.

“What is unexplainable is not that the stone grew in size over the years, but the fact that the image of the Virgin was never distorted as it grew," Virac Bishop Manolo A. De Los Santos said in a news report posted on the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) website Friday.

Bishop De Los Santos said the stone has been in Barangay Paloway in San Andres town, Catanduanes for over a century now.

Maybe bishop De Los Santos should sit upon this rock and establish a new Church of the Stoned there.

Meanwhile the Philippine Army has posted a 5 million peso reward for a Fr. Frank Fernandez, a Catholic priest who heads the CPP-NPA in Negros (the same bishopric where divine intervention was prayed for and apparently secured for Ces Drilon by his old bishop?).

Col. Francisco Patrimonio, deputy commander of the Army's 303rd Infantry Brigade, said the offer will hopefully lead to the immediate capture of Fernandez and his group, which allegedly carried out a series of atrocities in the province of Negros Occidental.

These Roman Catholic hierarchs are one of the principal causes for the delusional state in which the hapless Filipinos have found themselves for centuries, (despite Jose Rizal's and William Howard Taft's most fervent efforts to save them). Every Sunday they want people to believe that by uttering a few choice Latin incantations they literally ARE turning a cracker and some Mompo into divine flesh and blood.

Is it any wonder that it seems you can fool most of the people all of the time around here while they fervently kneel in supplication for "divine intervention"?

Of course, everything is explained by the Catholic Church as some kind of miracle from Edsa One to Edsa Two to whenever it rains because the bishops have prayed for it. And of course overpopulation is the Devil's handiwork, not theirs.

At Philippine-American Commentary, Rizal Day is in June, not December when the Spanish Taliban annually murder's the excommunicated national hero. Happy Birthday, Pepe!

Darwin's Rottweiler

STATISTICS show that about a third of humanity adheres to Christianity (2.1 billion), next comes Islam with 1.5 billion adherents. A surprisingly strong third with 1.1 billion are "Secularists/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist". The reigning etiquette since Galileo's time, (claims Blackshama in the last Comment Thread), has been for scientists to stay out of Theology and for theologians to stay out of Science. Under this dispensation, there is a kind of detente between Science and Religion where each side pretends that the questions addressed by the other are not of any abiding interest, that each is exploring a different region of the Universe, or some different aspect of reality between which there are not supposed to be any conceptual or fundamental contradictions resulting from the answers each side develops.

For a while a kind of uneasy truce is possible, sometimes under the auspices of Deism, which holds that God created the Universe and established its Laws, but once having set it in motion, He does not interfere with History. Thus scientists can go on exploring the "natural world" as long as they leave enough breathing room for theologians to happily inhabit supernatural or praeternatural realms and Religion be safe from Science, like different departments in a large and generous University.

But as genres of human rhetoric, I think that both Science and Religion fall into the category of ULTIMATE EXPLANATIONS of reality and inevitably there is bound to be trouble since the answers have been in wild contradiction to one another, leading to entirely incompatible explanations about everything, and having practical, political and social consequences when such matters affect public policy. These are manifested in the reality of Philippine life in the weighty matters of overpopulation, public education, social justice and even in the popular morals and ethics promoted and tolerated by established religion.

The end of the era of polite detente between Science and Religion is marked by the emergence of a New Atheism, in a crusade led by RICHARD DAWKINS, the evolutionary biologist and Oxford University's Professor for the Public Understanding of Science who wants atheists to "come out of the closet" and stand up to "the religious lobbies."

Statistics have it that about 75% of Americans believe in a personal God, while the exact same proportion of Britons do not, with similar results for Western Europe. He addresses this observation the BBC documentary The Blind Watch Maker by Richard Dawkins...

It was Oxford theologian Alistair MacGrath who first called RICHARD DAWKINS "Darwin's Rottweiler"- for his vigorous defense of scientific orthodoxy and a remarkably pugnacious brand of atheism lately celebrated in the publishing success of The God Delusion (1.5 million copies sold in over 31 languages) -- by far his most popular book. In it, Dawkins pointedly describes religious faith as "a persistent false belief held in the face of strong, contradictory evidence." Dawkins is the author of The Selfish Gene in which he coins the celebrated and controversial term "meme" to refer to viral ideas that hijack human brains.

As Charles Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins has been leading a global crusade to get atheists "to come out of the closet" (much as the Gay Pride movement did a generation or so ago) about their nonreligious beliefs and actively challenge the religious lobbies in the public sphere over substantial cultural and educational issues. I've been following his recent exploits asynchronously through the wonders of podcasting.

---

UPDATES:

---

ART PANGANIBAN agonizes over Separation of Powers!

"I firmly believe that maintaining public trust in the Supreme Court’s independence and integrity is by far the most important judicial reform. What does it profit the Court to gain all the money it desires if it loses its credibility?

Do tell!

---

Did Albert Einstein Believe In God?

A LETTER from ALBERT EINSTEIN to the philosopher ERIC GUTKIND in 1954 has been sold at auction in London for $404,000 to a private collector.  

In the letter, according to the A.P. account, he wrote that “the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”

As for his fellow Jews, he said that Judaism, like all other religions, was “an incarnation of the most childish superstitions.”

He claimed a deep affinity with the Jewish people, he said, but “as far as my experience goes they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything ‘chosen’ about them.”

The letter should add to the controversies created by certain statements of Einstein's, such as: 

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."

The winning buyer of the 1954 letter to Gutkind is identified only as somone having " a passion for theoretical physics and all that that entails.”

Among the wishful bidders for such a rare Einsteinian relic who were quickly abashed by the unexpectedly generous offers for it,  was evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins,  Oxford University's Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, whose ongoing crusade is to get atheists "to come out" -- much as gays once "came out of the closet."

Dawkin's intellectual posse includes some impressive thinkers and communicators like Steven Pinker, Daniel Dennet and Michael Schermer who are openly challenging the polite treatment of what they plainly regard as religious superstition involving institutions such as churches, schools and government. 

Only the State Can Violate Separation of Church and State

OR: Why Rep. Danilo Suarez Is An Ignorant Hick From the Land of Coconuts

I think that government officials who don't understand Separation of Church and State should be disqualified from public office until they admit that it is a proper and sacred subset of Freedom of Speech--nothing more, nothing less! The Catholic Church is NON-GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION (NGO) that is given the widest latitude to teach and believe in their religion, no matter how silly or profound it is, on which account it is further forbidden that their civil or political rights be suppressed.

Holy Communion from Lingayen Archbishop Oscar Cruz's blog (first Bishop blogrolled on Philippine Commentary years ago, even if I disagree with him a lot, because I learn the most from those who disagree!) Today I rise in his defense. I encourage the most dedicated anti-gambling crusader in the Philippines to expose the complicity of the Pagcor in the political and financial subordination of the Philippine Catholic Church hierarchy to that Ministry of Vice and Immorality.

ABSCBN has the news on Archbishop Oscar Cruz :

Lingayen-Dagupan Archbishop Oscar Cruz said "public sinners" should not be given the Holy Sacrament of Communion including, he said, President Arroyo. "I would not give communion to somebody receiving communion in public whom I know is a public sinner. I am sorry. I could be wrong and may God forgive me but I cannot do it," Cruz said. "It’s like throwing the body and blood of Christ into the garbage," Cruz said.

Lawmakers want Bishop sanctioned: Arroyo loyalist Rep. Danilo Suarez (Quezon province, land of the coconuts) wants to complain to the Vatican and urges the CBCP to sanction Cruz for "lying in public" --

"The CBCP should consider that lying, especially when committed by priests or Church officials, is a grave sin that should merit Cruz the very action he threatened the President and her family with – a denial of Holy Communion, Suarez said. He lamented that Cruz has been mixing politics with religion in violation of the constitutional provision on the separation of the church and the state."

It appears that Rep. Danilo Suarez is spreading falsehoods of his own. In the first place, the Separation of Church and State is a prohibition ONLY ON THE STATE against interfering in any way with the exercise of freedom of religion, a subspecie of the freedom of speech. Separation of Church and State CANNOT be violated by Churches or Churchmen because such violation can only be committed by the State or its agents, like Danilo Suarez.

I do hereby accuse one Rep. Danilo Suarez of ignorance, and a culpable attempt to violate this sacred provision in the Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution:

Bill of Rights Article III Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.

Danilo Suarez and his patroness, the whole Congress, Judiciary, army and police altogether CANNOT cause the sanction of Archbishop Oscar Cruz for a plainly partisan political purpose. No more than they can cause the suppression of rallies, editorials or blogs that call them the spadeful of graft and corruption and obsequious banality that they are, in my humble frickin' opinion.

Now since we are talking about LYING IN PUBLIC, there is an important point of principle that needs clarification. It is the concept of the Public's Right to the Truth, the subject of much controversy really since Edsa Dos (the biggest LIE of all!

The word "TRUTH" is found exactly twice in the 1987 Constitution:

PREAMBLE: We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to build a just and humane society, and establish a Government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity, the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution.

The second occurrence of the word "TRUTH" is not in the Bill of Rights but in the special section on Social Justice and Human Rights under the powers of the Commission on Human Rights which is empowered to:

ART. XIII Sec. 17 (8) Grant immunity from prosecution to any person whose testimony or whose possession of documents or other evidence is necessary or convenient to determine the truth in any investigation conducted by it or under its authority.

More attention ought to be paid to the latter provision of the Philippine Constitution, which to me is actually nothing less than the most solid Constitutional basis for a comprehensive
WHISTLE-BLOWER protection law.

Previous Post: There is no right to the truth under Freedom of Religion

Today is the 35th anniversary of the infamous Supreme Court Decision, Javellana v. Executive Secretary which basically legitimated the Fascist Dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos My post in 2006 was Javellana at 33.

2010: The Second Coming of Church-Backed Fascist Dictatorship

How it feels like 1971!

MANUEL L. QUEZON III has been right all along about how PGMA cannot possibly step down peacefully and Constitutionally in 2010. He makes bloggers and writers proud! Today he turns in an admirable essay (The Interdiction of a Witness) in which he valiantly uses the Church's own teachings to criticize Ricardo Cardinal Pidal, err, Vidal, for last week's disingenuity on the matter of his relations with the Palace. All of course, in the proper exercise of the Freedom of Speech and Religion, in which the Catholic Church, truly the country's single largest and dominant political party of which Lakas and Kampi and all the others are mere factions. In 1971, when MLQ3 was only one year old, I too wrote a piece just like his brilliant essay. Mine also had the depth of feeling but not quite the erudition and eloquence of my good friend, as I was only eighteen then, and the essay was a mere editorial in The LaSallian, De La Salle University's radically anti-Marcos student newspaper, not the country's largest daily newspaper. But the gist of the attempt was the same: to make the pious priests feel guilty over violating their own teachings and Church Law. It was futile then, I'm sorry to tell Manolo, it is probably futile now. I also made a prediction then, that within a year Marcos would declare martial law and the Catholic Church would be one of his partners in that crime. Jaime Cardinal Sin, who was the object of my ire in 1971, just as Ricardo Cardinal Pidal is MLQ3's in 2008, would go on to spend a quarter of a century, (less two weeks in February 1986), as Marcos' main sanctifier and Imelda's pet ribbon cutter for her Edifice Complex. There is no doubt that "People Power" in 1986 was genuine and spontaneous, but by 2001, the Edsa crowd was just a prop for the judicial-military coup d'etat that would sweep Erap of the democratic stage and install the current clerico-fascist regime that Edsa Dos diehards must suffer until they wake up to its reality. Gud AM, Manolo!

It is because, in the earthly realm of politics, the clerics do not feel obliged to do what mere mortals urge as the right and just thing. I discussed the relevant democratic principle in There is no Right to the Truth under Freedom of Religion. In other words, don't expect to get "the Truth" from the Men who wear Funny Hats and claim all sorts of silly miraculous powers with a straight face, even as they feed at the Pagcor trough, accept envelopes full of money like Congressmen, swill food and drink wine, even as they claim to daily handle divine Flesh and Blood. The center of stye, the boil that ought be lanced is the entirely irregular, I would say immoral feeding at the Pagcor Trough that the Bishops have had to substitute for the lack of contributions from ordinary human beings and institutions. As such, they are captives of a political Mafia and addicts to the illegal drug of easy charity. Thus the hierarchy can get its hands on resources through Politics that it can no longer manage with mere Religion.

Then there is the truly ugly matter of how they are being blackmailed over personal, uhmm, delectations and indiscretions...but I cannot yet bear to be the destroyer of merely imperfect men, whom I do not believe deserve what they are about to get now from those in the know about their deepest, darkest secrets!

UPDATE: Please see Jego's correction of my recollections in the Comment Thread.

Usama bin Laden Threatens Europe and Pope Benedict Over Danish Cartoons

You can listen to a reading of Benedict at Regensberg in this post.
Speaking in a newly released audio tape to "the intelligent ones" in Europe, Al Qaeda's Osama bin Laden directly threatens the European Union with a "severe reckoning" over those cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed published by the Danish newspaper Jyllands Postens. Publishing the cartoons "... came in the framework of a new Crusade in which the Pope of the Vatican has played a large, lengthy role," Vatican security officials are reportedly worried because of the Pope's numerous public appearances during the Christian Holy Week. Also in April, Pope Benedict XVI is scheduled to visit the United States (Homeland of the Infidels!). Filipinos will recall that in 1995 Al Qaeda plotted with the Iraqi intelligence agents Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Ramzi Youssef to kill Pope John Paul II. That plot was foiled when the two, posing as playboys and living it up in Manila's Red Light districts, burned their shawarma in the apartment across where the Pope would've stayed and Philippine intelligence discovered their entire operation including Bojinka, the precursor to 9/11. Here is an analysis and a transcript of the new audio tape:

May Our Mothers Be Bereaved Of Us
If We Fail To Help Our Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him)
by Shaykh Usama bin Ladin
As-Sahab Production

In the name of Allah, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful.

To the intelligent ones in the European Union: Peace be upon he who follows the guidance.

This talk of mine is to you and concerns the insulting drawings and your negligence in spite of the opportunity presented to take the necessary measures to prevent their being repeated.

To begin, I tell you: Hostility between human beings is very old, but the intelligent ones among the nation in all eras have been keen to observe the etiquettes of dispute and morals of fighting. This is best for them, as conflict is ever changing and war has its ups and downs. However, you, in your conflict with us, have abandoned many of the morals of fighting in practice, even if you hold aloft its slogans in theory. How it saddens us that you target villages with your bombing: those modest mud villages which have collapsed onto our women and children. You do that intentionally, and I am witness to that. All of this (you do) without right and in conformity with your oppressive ally who – along with his aggressive policies - is about to depart the White House.

And it is no longer hidden from you that these savage acts haven’t ended the war, but rather, increase our determination to cling to our right, avenge our people and expel the invaders from our country. And (you also know now) that these massacres are never erased from the memory of the peoples, and the effect of this are not hidden. Although our tragedy in your killing of our women and children is a very great one, it paled when you went overboard in your unbelief and freed yourselves of the etiquettes of dispute and fighting and went to the extent of publishing these insulting drawings.

This is the greater and more serious tragedy, and reckoning for it will be more severe. And I bring your attention to a telling matter, which is that despite your publishing of the insulting drawings, you haven’t seen any reaction from the one and a half billion Muslims which includes an insult to the Prophet Allah, Jesus the son of Mary (peace and prayers of Allah be upon him). We believe in all of the Prophets (peace and prayers be upon them), and whoever detracts from or mocks any one of them is an apostate unbeliever.

And here it is worth pointing out that there is no need to use as an excuse the sacredness you accord freedom of expression and the sacredness of your laws and how you won’t change them. If so, then on what basis were American soldiers exempted from being subject to your laws on your land? And on what basis do you suppress the freedom of those who cast doubt on the statistics of an historical event?

In addition, you know that there is one man who can put an end to these drawings, if it mattered to him: the crownless king in Riydah, who ordered your legal institutions to stop their investigations into the embezzlement of billions from the al-Yamamah deal, and Blair carried this out, and he is today your representative in the quartet. To sum up, then, the laws of men which clash with the legislations of Allah the Most High are null and void, aren’t sacred, and don’t matter to us. And in addition, your practical stance towards the al-Yamamah deal requires you admit that there are some values which are greater than your values.

In closing I tell you: If there is no check on your freedom of words, then let your hearts be open to the freedom of our actions. And it is amazing to make light of others that you talk about tolerance and peace at a time when your soldiers perpetrate murder even against the weak and the oppressed in our countries. Then came your publishing of these drawings, which came in the framework of a new Crusade in which the Pope of the Vatican has played a large, lengthy role.

And all of that is confirmation on your part of the continuation of the war, as well as a testing of the Muslims in their religion: is the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) more beloved to them than themselves and their wealth? The answer is what you see, not what you hear, and may our mothers be bereaved of us if we fail to help the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). And peace be upon he who follows the guidance.

If anyone doubts the claim of President George W. Bush that this enemy hates us for our freedoms, those doubts are once more rigorously dispelled by Shayk Scumbag's demand for Civilization to get rid of Freedom of Expression and submit to his murderous Caliphate. And when he accuses us of murdering Muslims, let there be no doubt who in Iraq and Afghanistan kill Muslims at a rate of 100 to 1 over Coalition Forces: it's Al Qaeda of the Two Rivers and their insurgent allies.

Pope Benedict XVI had OBL's number at Regensberg in this Lecture delivered in 2006 (read by DJB Rizalist):

Pope Benedict XVI at Regensberg:

Part One:

Part Two:

Part Three:

Part Four:

Part Five:

Equal Opportunity Terrorism

The telecommunications infrastructure of the Philippines is a favorite target of the New People's Army. The ubiquitous cell sites that serve the country's favorite utility and pastime are often attacked, burned, or otherwise damaged and destroyed as part of the NPA's extortion of "revolutionary taxes." Thus whenever you read a headline like, "NPA Attacks Cell Site" -- most likely it is because the celco refused to pay up. A frequent reader of Philippine Commentary recently emailed to tell me that there is glaring disparity in the number of times the NPA attacks Smart and Globe cell-sites. So I decided to google the search phrase NPA attack "GLOBE Cell Site" -- which yielded 242 references. Googling on NPA attack "SMART Cell Site" yields a surprising 6 references. So what's going on here? Judging by the news coverage anyway, it appears that in an overwhelming majority of the cases over the years, the NPAs attack Globe cell sites far, far more than Smart facilities. Is Smart/PLDT paying revolutionary taxes to the New People's Army to secure its cellphone transmission system? Maybe free cellphones and credits for the poor suffering comrades--the better to coordinate their attacks on...Globe!

[Via MLQ3] John Nery of the Newsstand Blog (with the help of Wendy Kaminer) discovers that there is NO right to be offended if we uphold democratic free speech--

She laments the transformation of universities and colleges from bastions of academic freedom, where free speech and the arts of argument are considered essential to education, to fortresses of political correctness, where the distinction between words and actions is fudged, and censorship trumps freedom of speech...even though some uses of language can be offensive, we shouldn't place any limits at all on free speech, that it should in fact be [a] "free for all."

Hmmm...I seem to recall a number of PDI editorials and column pieces on "responsible journalism" that bear looking at now, with irony. But I must send this to Fleming Rose and the Danish cartoonists at Jyllands Postens. They will see it as progress and perhaps even thank Benedict for the lesson of Regensberg, and its salutary libertarian effects on our responsible Media.

Oh, but poor Rina Jimenez David has had her day of sightseeing in the Khyber Pass and intense haggling at the suqs and shopping bazaars of Peshawar interrupted by a terrorist suicide bombing--

A Taste of Terror: The minute we arrived in Peshawar, on a delayed flight from Karachi, we heard the news. A total of 42 army recruits, many of them still in their teens, were killed when a suicide bomber ran into their midst in a schoolyard and detonated himself. About 20 others were injured.

That'll teach'em for wanting to become soldiers, eh Rina?

Manila Bulletin carries the approbation of US Ambassador Kirstie Kenney and Asst. Secretary Dr. John Hillen for the "legacy of reform" that resigned Sec. Nonong Cruz leaves. It is the strongest signal yet that the US wants those reforms to continue because it really is in the US national interest that the Philippine Military become professionalized and freed from the clutches of the politicians so it can do its real job: to defend the country and secure the people. For example, I think the US wants the Philippine Military to be concentrating on the joint training and planning exercises scheduled this year and next, rather than getting involved in the 2007 elections, because we are due, we are due! I notice Dulmatin and Bali Bombers have probably escaped, and the Filipino people even have to pay for the air fare of demure Mrs. Dulmatin back into the arms of the Jemaah Islamiyah. I hope the right people get the picture, like alleged Garci General Hermogenes Esperon, who was there to see Ambassador Kenney painting a clear picture for him, in case he hasn't been listening lately.

Senator-Judge Joseph Estrada? If the return of Atong Ang wearing a bullet-proof vest marked "NBI" doesn't get Joseph Estrada off his arse in Tanay, probably nothing will. Manila Times reports. But I think the Filipino people deserve liberation from the long-festering case of Erap, which the Philippine Star editorial recently called a "national embarrassment." It is a nontrivial conundrum however, because who will deny that Joseph Estrada has lost an essential element of due process because he has been denied the presumption of innocence and cannot be given a fair trial. Inasmuch as the Edsa Dos Supreme Court of Hilario Davide claimed the 2001 regime change to be "Constitutional throughout," Erap's current plunder trial cannot even be given the cover of "frontier justice" or "victor's justice" that the Iraqi court trying Saddam Hussein is accused of. Yet, even I must admit, deep in my heart, I do believe Erap Estrada WAS guilty of plunder and corruption. It is a classic case of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem apparently being applicable to the Law itself! Erap cannot get a fair final judgment from the Supreme Court that he accuses of illegally overthrowing him. In such a case, IS there a higher court than the Supreme Court? I claim there is: the Filipino people themselves. Trial by election. Joseph Estrada could legally run for the Senate in 2007, and be in time to become a Senator-Judge for GMA's impeachment trial.

Apologize? For what and to whom?

The Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) says the strangest and most paradoxical things about Pope Benedict's Regensburg Lecture.

"We wish to invite our brothers and sisters of whatever religious sentiment to read the said address that is readily available (in the website). Reading the address in the full context will greatly help in understanding the message of Pope Benedict XVI, " the CBCP urged.

"It may be good to note that upon objectively reading said address, one realizes that it was not the intention of the Holy Father to undertake a comprehensive study of the jihad and of Muslim ideas on the subject -- much less to offend the sensibilities of the Muslim brothers and sisters," it said.

"On the contrary, the Holy Father warns especially the Western culture to avoid "the contempt for God and the cynicism that considers mockery of the sacred to be an exercise of freedom," the CBCP said.

"A just consideration of the religious dimension is, in fact, an essential premise for a fruitful dialogue with the great cultures and religions of the world," it added.

I say strange and paradoxical because the CBCP not only denies the fact that Benedict WAS addressing "jihad and the Muslim ideas on the subject" when he condemned violent conversion as alien to the nature of religion. But what is worse is that the CBCP claims the actual target of the Holy Father's criticisms was actually...ta dah!...cyncial Western culture! Someone is bending over awful far to be politically correct...or at least consistent with the equally erroneous position someone took during the Danish cartoon controversy!

But not all Catholic Bishops are constrained to conform to the prevailing cant of "responsible papacy" or "responsible journalism"...

BISHOP TEODORO BACANI thinks it is a critical time for the Pope but uprightly defends him:

"Muslims should not exaggerate what fault they may see in the Pope’s speech. Untempered rage and violent reprisals may only show the rest of the world that the words of the emperor quoted by the Pope have indeed some justification. Once the Pope has explained that it was not his intention to hurt their feelings, and once he has made clear that he does not share in the exaggeratedly negative assessment of the person he cited, it would advance the cause of mutual understanding and peace if the Muslims who felt hurt would graciously accept the Pope’s gesture."

In the demagagosphere, the heavyweight Catolico cerrados have not yet weighed in (dumbstruck?). But the atheists are speaking up...Manila Standard columnist ANTONIO C. ABAYA ("Papal Bull") describes the reaction in the "Muslim press" as "predictably scathing" and immediately quotes the BBC. How apt! Abaya ends up wagging his finger at the Pope by praising Saladin's recapture of Jerusalem, writing:

By contrast, when Saladdin recaptured Jerusalem from the Crusaders in 1187, the 60,000 Christian survivors of the battle were freed on ransom from the English king; captured Christian defenders were reunited with their wives and daughters; Christian pilgrims were guaranteed safe passage to and from the Holy Land.

Muslims feel they do not need any lectures on right conduct and morals from any Christian leader.

(And so the interfaith dialogues begin...just as President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo suggested during her recent trip to Europe...Seems at least that the Pope has obliged her at Regensberg!)

The Jakarta Post's KORNELIUS PURBA,an Indonesian Catholic asks,

As the supreme leader of the Catholic church, was it wise to discuss such a sensitive issue amid the growing distrust between Christianity and Islam, regardless of the truth or untruth of his observations? It will be more difficult now to argue there is no "clash of civilizations" between the West (Christianity) and Islam. It will also be more difficult for the Catholic church to continue an effective interfaith dialog with Islam if Muslims suspect the sincerity of the church's leader."

The difficulty of such a dialog, if it is even at all possible, cannot be avoided by sweeping the substantial issues under the rug. If anything I must agree with the New York Sun's
DANIEL JOHNSON ("Understanding Benedict")who writes:

"By now, the answer to these questions is clear: churches firebombed in the West Bank and Gaza, a nun murdered in Somalia. Such persecution is, alas, routine in many Muslim lands, and Catholics are not the only victims. But it is clear that Muslim leaders — even those of "pro-Western" countries such as Turkey or Pakistan — are not yet ready for the "frank" dialogue proposed by the pope. By pointing out that violence is a part of medieval Islam, not a "distortion," as Western liberals like to think, Benedict has touched a raw nerve.

"No, this pope is not naïve. It is our liberal, theologically illiterate politicians who are naïve. We are already at war — a holy war, which we may lose.

"Nor is he inconsistent. The Ratzinger of old, his skill in disputation honed over many years of patiently defending Catholic orthodoxy against liberal or secular opponents, was never going to duck the long-postponed doctrinal confrontation with Islam. In his subtle, scholarly way, he is urging the rest of us to face the fact that if we have no faith, we cannot hope to withstand the onslaught of a resurgent Islam.

"Benedict is well aware of the risks, not least to his own life, of speaking out. Like his great Polish predecessor, this "German shepherd" has the courage of his convictions. Thank God he does: Without convictions, our courage will surely fail us."

I suppose way over at the other end of the spectrum are the reported statements of Al Qaeda in Iraq which calls on the West to surrender now, convert to Islam, or surely die by the sword. Here is coverage from the SITE Institute on statements by Iraqi insurgent groups on the Pope's Regensburg comments.

Neocon Pope?

ROMAN CATHOLIC POPE BENEDICT XVI is at the center of a growing global controversy for his recent remarks about Mohammed and Islam at the University of Regensberg, Germany last Tuesday. A complete transcript is available from the following Vatican link:

APOSTOLIC JOURNEY OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
TO MÜNCHEN, ALTÖTTING AND REGENSBURG
(SEPTEMBER 9-14, 2006)

MEETING WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF SCIENCE

LECTURE OF THE HOLY FATHER

Aula Magna of the University of Regensburg
Tuesday, 12 September 2006

Faith, Reason and the University
Memories and Reflections

I just got done reading the Papal Lecture and urge all Philippine Commentary readers to do the same. It's quite a deep and complex meditation on a number of important topics, including his remarks on Islamic jihad and the use of violence to compel obedience or conversion to religion. Here is the offending passage that has gotten all the screaming headlines and sound bites from the above Lecture in which Pope Benedict discusses the conversations of Byzantine Emperor Manuel Paleologus II in the 14th Century with an unnamed "Persian interlocutor:"

POPE BENEDICT: The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (F×< 8`(T) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".

The Pope's upcoming visit to Turkey may be imperilled as today there are riots over his recent statements. His effigy already burns in various places in Pakistan as strident demands for apology swell from Muslim clerics and the leaders of Islamic nations. It feels like the early days of Jyllands Postens Danish cartoon controversy. I wonder how long before we see photographs like this ?

Although the Vatican was at great pains to deny any intention to insult Islam or Muslims, the riots, vituperative statements and growing violence of the reported reactions around the world, will unavoidably recall the Mohammed Cartoon controversy that erupted last year.
Moreover, not only is Pope Benedict quite a bit more significant than the Jyllands Postens cartoonists, his statements were not graphic renditions of, but direct statements about the Prophet Mohammed and his most essential teachings. I suspect the Pope is already being condemned as an infidel blasphemer and fatwas for his execution, along with cars and money as bounty rewards, will soon be offered by flamboyant radical clerics advertising their madrassahs and mosques.

CHRISTIANITY AND CULTURAL PLURALISM There is far more, actually to the Benedict Lecture than what has so far been reported on jihad. The rest of the Lecture is a contemplation upon the relationship between Reason and Faith as seen in the historical encounter between Christian faith and Greek philosophical inquiry.

POPE BENEDICT: This inner rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek philosophical inquiry was an event of decisive importance not only from the standpoint of the history of religions, but also from that of world history - it is an event which concerns us even today. Given this convergence, it is not surprising that Christianity, despite its origins and some significant developments in the East, finally took on its historically decisive character in Europe. We can also express this the other way around: this convergence, with the subsequent addition of the Roman heritage, created Europe and remains the foundation of what can rightly be called Europe.

Mourning a "dehellenization" process he espies in the modern age, the Pope stands by the idea that Reason is a part of Faith and the religious experience. He rejects the idea of a God not accountable to Himself...

POPE BENEDICT: In the light of our experience with cultural pluralism, it is often said nowadays that the synthesis with Hellenism achieved in the early Church was a preliminary inculturation which ought not to be binding on other cultures. The latter are said to have the right to return to the simple message of the New Testament prior to that inculturation, in order to inculturate it anew in their own particular milieux. This thesis is not only false; it is coarse and lacking in precision. The New Testament was written in Greek and bears the imprint of the Greek spirit, which had already come to maturity as the Old Testament developed. True, there are elements in the evolution of the early Church which do not have to be integrated into all cultures. Nonetheless, the fundamental decisions made about the relationship between faith and the use of human reason are part of the faith itself; they are developments consonant with the nature of faith itself.

In so doing Pope Benedict has now enraged the Muslim world and those who proclaim that Islam--unlike Christianity--does not accept the right of Unbelievers to continue to Disbelieve. The Pope rejects the notion that the Christian Faith would countenance murderous intolerance in the name of culture or religion. I find in the Regensberg Lecture a continuation of many ideas the Pope expounded upon in his Inaugural Encyclical Deus Caritas Est in which he strongly affirms democratic principles of religious freedom, the separation of the Church and State and toleration among all faiths.