The Gay Marriage Conundrum: What is it all about?

Last March 26, 2013, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear questions on the legality of same-sex marriage. It was whether the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 and California's Proposition 8, which outlawed same-sex marriage in the state, were constitutional and legal respectively. A judge in California previously ruled that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional as it discriminates based on sexual orientation.

The debate on same-sex marriage really started to alight in 2001, when the Netherlands became the first country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage, since then, nine other countries have followed suit such as Belgium (2003), Spain (2005), Canada (2005), South Africa (2006), Sweden (2008), Norway (2009), Portugal (2010), Iceland (2010), and Argentina (2010). In the United States, only nine states (Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont and Washington) recognize same-sex marriage plus the District of Columbia.

The opposition to same-sex marriage has been vociferous because of the involvement of conservative, right wing religious Christians who oppose it based on questions of morality and of course, because it is, according to the Bible, an abomination. Indeed, the Bible even abhors transvestism, in Deut. 22:5 it says: "Women are not to wear men's clothing, and men are not to wear women's clothing: the Lord your God hates people who do such things." And homosexuality is clearly prohibited, to wit Lev. 18: 22 "No man is to have sexual relations with another man; God hates that."

Many conservatives oppose gay marriage in addition to the moral argument because for them, it will destroy the foundations of marriage, corrupt children, degrade society and pervert the purpose of marriage, which for them is the procreation of children.

Without a doubt, the opposition to same-sex marriage in Christian countries, at least where such conversation can still be had, is based on moral and biblical grounds. Using the deconstructionist theory of the French philosopher Jacques Derrida, I will break down the arguments commonly propounded by conservatives against the concept of same-sex marriage.

1. The Moral Argument

Opposition to same-sex marriage based on the moral argument is weak at best and flimsy at most. When conservatives oppose gay marriage, it is indubitably rested upon the Judeo-Christian moral argument. Of course, if we use the moral argument of the Judeo-Christian tradition, we would be brought to a really, really perplexing situation: remember, if we use the moral standards of the Bible, we would be committing unbelievable cruelty and gross inhumanity that can only be equated by the reprehensible acts of the Nazis. In fact, the Bible recommends the murder of those who engage in homosexual acts (Lev. 20: 13), demands that married women be subject to their husbands (1 Peter 3:1, Ephe. 5:22), considers women basically as the weaker vessel (1 Peter 3:7), promotes slavery (Ephe. 6: 5) among others. Clearly, the moral standards of a morality based on the Judeo-Christian tradition is at best immoral by modern standards of human conduct.

2. Same-sex marriage will destroy the traditional concept of marriage

What is the traditional definition of marriage? Throughout history, marriage was never about love or individual initiative, it was about power, money and alliance. This was most evident with women, who were never allowed to have a say in any marriage arrangement - they were married either to pay debts, to build alliance (Mary Antoinette being married to King Louis XVI), to maintain wealth within the family (the Habsburg's of the Holy Roman Empire) or simply to gain political influence over a territory (Philipp II of Spain's marriage to  Queen Mary I of England) or bear heirs, preferably male ones (Henry VIII of England who had serial wives with the sole purpose of finding one who will bear him a male heir). Is that the traditional concept of marriage that conservatives of the 21st century are trying to protect? A concept of marriage that essentially treats women as nothing more than chattel to be traded at will and by necessity.

In addition, opposition to gay marriage is also prefixed on the assumption that it will destroy marriage itself. Which is to say that marriage itself is in the first place weak and superficial as it can be destroyed by the mere marriage of two persons who belong to the same sex who nevertheless love each other. These conservatives are therefore admitting that marriage is a weak institution for if it were strong and stable, then surely two people marrying because they love and care for each other will only strengthen the concept of marriage as an institution that is built on love and commitment.

3. Same-sex marriage will corrupt children

Yeah right! Like only gay people have the exclusive capacity to mess up children's lives. Is it then impossible for heterosexual couples to abuse and exploit their own flesh and blood. Maybe these conservative nutbags should visit orphanages, shelters for abused and abandoned children and the like - were these children not victims of heterosexual couples, a number of whom are legally married? And these conservatives also insist that gay people who are married and who are allowed to rear children can influence the sexual orientation of their adopted children, yet studies after studies have shown that there is no significant effect on the sexuality of children who were raised by same-sex couples.

4. Marriage is for the procreation of children

Nonsense. So it goes to say then that heterosexual couples who do not want children or who are unable to bear children do not have real marriages?

Same-sex marriage is about equality, justice and respect. Surely love is beyond the confines of beauty (Will we allow only beautiful people to marry?), wealth (Should we restrict marriage to those who are financially capable only?) or intelligence (Should we prohibit those whose IQ are below 100 from marriage?), for such are mere superficialities of what it is to be human (just like the physical sex), what counts is that people engage in marriage because they feel a sense of completeness, wholeness and of being alive. That is what is important, that is what counts - modern societies cannot neglect the rights of the few, especially if such rights do no harm, imposes no danger or creates no chaos other than the upholding of the entrenched prejudice perpetrated by the closed and rigid moral standards of a bygone era.

Marriage is a human right. A right beyond the mere physicality of our bodies. Respect it.

ROH and Honesty

In vino veritas,
So the ancient Romans say
But does it really bring honesty?
Or merely inhibits the shame
That comes with the truth?
And as they say
The truth always hurts
But frees and liberates
Liberates and emancipates
And always, always it brings
A sense of fulfillment
That after all,
Honesty indeed, and only honesty
Makes one truly feel good.
ROH is the juice of the gods
Not the evil it is always portrayed to be
For in the end
What is the truth
But those which we wished were not otherwise were.

Crisis in Cyprus: The Eurocrush of a Small Country

I was actually surprised that the Euro, Europe's monetary experiment at unity survived passed September 2012. At the earlier part of 2012, the Euro was beset by problems spurned by the insolvent Greek economy, the teetering Spanish and Italian economies not to mention the sovereign rescues of Portugal, Ireland, Greece and on a partial manner, the financial lifeline extended to the Spanish banking system.

And then came Cyprus, which was on the brink of bankruptcy following the massive losses of its two largest banks, which have invested heavily, apparently without financial basis, on Greek bonds, which as we know now, are practically in the doldrums. The Cypriot banking system is roughly twice the size of the 18 billion USD Cypriot economy, which is supported by its tourist and banking sectors. Russia is reported to have massive deposits in Cyprus, attracted by its low 10% corporate tax rate, which is half that of other European countries. The troika, composed of the ECB, the IMF and the European Commission is said to have arm-twisted the Cypriots into finding a way to raise EUR 5 billion in order to receive a cash infusion of EUR 10 billion to save Cyprus' banking sector, essentially its economy. The now infamous decision to tax the deposits to achieve such that was widely derided by economists across the world and most especially by the ordinary Cypriot depositor. Such plan was eventually rejected by the Cypriot parliament. However, the damage has been done, and until now the banks in Cyprus are still closed, and when it does open sometime this week, a possible bank run will not be an impossibility. A possibility that the Cypriot government can delay by limiting daily withdrawals, but such will only delay the inevitable, the eventually collapse of trust in the Cypriot banking system.

The original bailout plan suggested by the troika was to tax all deposits, this was in turn changed to protect deposits of less than EUR 100,000 but imposing a tax of between 20-25% on larger deposits. As of now, the Cypriot government is still hammering out new strategies of coming up with the required money without stealing from depositors.

We are still waiting how the Cypriot government will actually solve this problem, and frankly, even if they come up with a moderately reasonable solution for the matter, investors the world over will have been scarred by the experience of the last two weeks and will take necessary precautions from then on. This could put a dampen on the euro as a viable currency. Indeed, some pundits have already sounded the death knell for the euro, predicting for example that before or by the year 2020, the Euro may have to be extinct. This view was articulated by none other than Jim O'Neill, a Goldman Sachs economist. O'Neill asserts that by 2020, Germany will be exporting twice as much to China as to France, essentially making the euro useless and irrelevant. Indeed, the euro was suggested by France to dampen the overwhelming power of the German economy which, incidentally, was wholly embraced by Germany as it made its exports to other eurozone countries more competitive than it otherwise would have been without the euro. It cannot be denied that if there was ever a country in Europe who has substantially benefited form the adoption of the euro, it would undoubtedly be Germany. As always, Germany continues to have export surpluses with the rest of the eurozone, making its exports virtually cheap and affordable, not to mention of good quality and craftmanship. This was because of the euro, which made Germany actually export more since the euro made German products cheap than if the Deustchmarks were used.

The euro conundrum then is - with the impending problematic financial situation that Cyprus is in - will the euro even be worth its benefits? Cyprus will be a petridish for this eventuality. Whatever happens in Cyprus will forever determine the fundamental viability and raison d'etre of the euro itself and may herald, as O'Neill predicts, an earlier than expected EUROCALYPSE.

MOVIE REVIEW: Jack Reacher (2012)

Tom Cruise stars as Jack Reacher, a former U.S. Army Military Police Corps Officer and a drifter called upon by James Barr, a former U.S. Army sniper who is framed for the murder of five people. Reacher eventually arrives in Pittsburg after seeing news footagge of Barr and the shooting. Reacher sees Barr in a ospital in a coma after fellow inmates brutally attacked him while being trasported in a prison van. There he meets Helen Rodin, a lawyer who is trying to save Barr from the death penalty. Jack was previously denied access to the evidence against Barr but Helen promises him to arrange for him to see the evidence if he agrees to be her investigator. Reacher initially refuses and informs Helen that Barr actually did kill some people while in Iraq although he was never prosecuted for such act. Eventually Reacher agrees with Helen's plan but only if she visits the victim's families to learn about them. After visiting the scene of the crime, Reacher discovers inconsistencies and casts doubts on Barr's participation in the crime. Helen tells Jack that a local owner of a construction company was actually the intended victim and the others were mere collaterals to cover up the crime.

After figuring in a bar fight, Reacher realizes that someone is trying to prevent him from pursuing the investigation and discovers that the perpetrators were members of a Russian gang posing as legitimate businessmen. The head of the gang is known as Zec, a Russian who previously served prison time in a Soviet Gulag. The gang kidnaps Helen with the aid of the police investigator Emerson. With the assistance of Sgt. Cash, a shooting range owner where Barr did practice shooting, he rescues Helen and eventually kills Zec. Barr eventually wakes up from his coma and confesses to the killings. Jack disappears after Helen's rescue, leaving Helen to clear his name.

Not just a traditional guns and shooting type of movie, the piece delivered suspense, thrill, cunning and creativity that will intellectually stimulate the viewer and cast doubts about the possible scenarios that could happen. Tom Cruise still has the a-game with his combination of James Bond style charisma while never losing the bravado and physical deft of Vin Diesel or Jason Statham.

The end seems to suggest that everything is not over as Zec emphasized that he is only the tip of the iceberg. Could there be a sequel? Let's see.

MOVIE REVIEW: Burlesk King (1999)

I have heard of the movie since it was released in 1999 but never actually got the chance to see it until now. I actually think the movie was well written, reasonably acted and accurately portrayed the realities of life in the Philippines, at least on the seedier side but nevertheless a part and a parcel of its national psyche, I dare say even of our national experience.

The movie follows the story of Harry (Rodel Velayo) who was born to a Filipina prostitute mother Betty (Elizabeth Oropesa) and an American abusive father who pimped him to foreign customers as a young boy. On a planned escape on night, Harry and his mother were caught by his father as they were living the shanty they were living in. Harry's mother was beaten unconscious, which prompted Harry to run away to Manila where he met James (Leonardo Litton), who introduced him to Manila's gay bar scene. Eventually, Harry learned to work the ropes and became a male stripper in the club James worked.

Harry met a petite young prostitute Brenda (Nini Jacinto) on whom he eventually fell in love with. They would eventually bear a child towards the end of the movie. The ups and downs of the sex trade eventually catches up with James and he is murdered one night. Harry is devastated with the death of James and moves out of the house he lived with James and his sister, Aileen (Elizabeth Oropesa), who is a lesbian and living with a woman. Harry decides to return to Olongapo City where he was born to finally settle score with his father and discovers that his dad is dying of AIDS. He also meets by accident his mother who he thought was killed when he was young. They re-unite and eventually move-in with Brenda.

Mario, a gay writer Harry met in the strip club and on whom he established a good friendship finally gets the love and full attention of his erstwhile uncommitted doctor boyfriend. Towards the end of the movie, Harry is convinced by Betty to bring home his father, finally closing his lingering issues with him.

I never thought that the movie was more than just about the carnal escapades of Manila's night life, it was actually a heart warming movie of family struggles, friendship, commitment, forgiveness, love and the search for happiness. It is definitely a must watch for the mature audience and clearly presents in a human and non-judgemental way the struggle for acceptance. In the end, the movie presents the timeless and perennial theme of human life, that love indeed does conquer all, that friendships matter and that family is family, no matter what.

China will be the largest World Economy by 2016

The OECD in a recent report indicated that by 2016, China will surpass the United States as the world's preeminent economy. This is no surprising, considering that for the past 40 years, China has been growing at more than 7% per year. 2016 is the year the dragon will finally come to roost. The bigger question is what does China want when it will, for all intents and purposes, finally be the world's number 1 economy? China's recent spats with its Asian neighbors has clearly demonstrated that like past empires and civilizations, it will flex its muscles, it will step where it wants, when it wants and however it wants. The only thing that smaller nations will have to do is to be constructive and creative in their responses. The Philippines is one such nation, of course, the country can never really confront a megalith like China, even now. It is simply too powerful, too large and too ambitious.

The Philippine government must be resourceful and adroit therefore, in defending and safeguarding its interests, especially its territorial integrity. The country might be small, weak and fragmented, but there is one thing I have always admired about us Filipinos, we are the perennial 'can do' guys. If we really want it, really crave it, really desire it, we have always, and always, against all odds, been able to accomplish what needs to be done.

China will ever more become enmeshed and entwined with the rest of the world. Even now, China produces almost every consumer goods sold in all countries. In fact, 75% of all the toys produced in the world today are made in China. The world will do well to welcome with prudence once again the rise to top of China, the incidentally also the world's longest continuing civilization.

The Pulpit of Ignorance: Pedophilia and Cardinal Napier

Facebook was abuzz about a week ago after a certain Cardinal Napier, from the Catholic Church of South Africa, articulated that pedophilia is not, as seen from the above picture, a criminal condition but rather a mental illness. Many people were, from the Facebook posts I saw, seething with heavenly indignation after hearing such moronic and obtuse insinuations. And rightly so, such medieval perspective are intolerable and expletive inducing in a contemporary 21st century milieu simply because most nations that believe in the rights of the children actually have enacted laws that criminalize having sexual intercourse, consensual or otherwise, with persons who are at in most countries below 18 years old.

From the way Cardinal Napier stated his words, I am just wondering whether he seems to imply that since it is "not" in his view a criminal offense, that such acts be nevertheless not condemned? And by extension, should then be left unpunished?

Assuming, arguendo, that indeed pedophilia is not a criminal offense, hence not a criminal condition, say in South Africa (maybe because they do not have criminal statutes punishing sexual intercourse with children below 18 years old), then he cannot suffuse to say that it is not A criminal offense and condition in other countries, lest of all most countries. Of course, I am assuming here that what Cardinal Napier actually meant was that pedophilia is even considered NORMAL in ALL countries. Most countries in fact consider sex with a certain group of people below a certain age, in most cases, as stated beforehand, below 18 years old. Except probably for some Muslim countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, where children as young as 8 can be legally married (hence in these countries it is NOT a criminal "condition" to actually copulate with a, say 9 year old, as long as of course the parties are married as defined by their tribal and religious tradition), most countries actually consider it a criminal condition.

Psychologists and psychiatrists are one in saying that although it is in fact a mental illness, most civilized people's also consider it a criminal condition in that it infringes on the rights of the child to adequately develop a normal self-concept and most of all, children have yet to develop a mature decision making perspective to adequately consent to sexual intercourse, especially since almost all sexual intercourse with children involves violence, fraud, intimidation, threat and abuse of trust and confidence of the one initiating the sex. This is what civilized peoples are trying to protect, the innocence of those of our society who have yet mastered the requisite skills to fend for what is best for them.

Such tragedy that such prince of the church would say something so uneducated and callous. Much like Benedict XVI's pronouncements in the early part of his papacy that the use of condoms actually SPREAD HIV-AIDS. The problem with the Catholic Church is that it keeps on making pronouncements in realms where it has no expertise to begin with.

CBCP's Non-sequiturs: The RH Boon

Fr. Melvin Castro, executive secretary of the CBCP's-Episcopal Commission on Family and Life was reported to have said that "priests had noticed a 'general trend' among young Catholics to seek forgiveness through confession for using artificial contraceptives." The report added if there was anyone to be thanked for for such phenomenon, Edcel Lagman would be the man. For those who are not by now familiar with the personalities behind the RH Law, it was Lagman who originally authored the bill.

What can I say? As usual, the church cherry-picks facts and circumstances to fit its ideology. Maybe Fr. Castro should also have presented independent researches made around the world that clearly indicate that the use of contraceptives also decrease the transmission of diseases, yes the operative word here is decrease. Not total prevention, but then again, its better than no protection, but the church would want us to believe that since it does not guarantee full protection, at least with regards the use of condoms, then it should not be used at all. It's just like saying that since we can't guarantee that cancer patients who undergo chemotherapy will get cured, then maybe they should not undergo the procedure in the first place. Geez! The church talaga, for all its historical experience, it seems resistant to even the most elementary form of learning.

If there is one thing that the aforesaid article brings to the fore, its the fact that even from a "religious perspective," the RH Law indeed did bring good tidings. In fact, aside from the fact that it will lessen the incidence of unwanted pregnancies, not to mention empowering women to have a say in their reproductive lives, and limiting the spread of STD's, it has increased confessional attendance! So after all, the RH Law was a boon, even for the church that fanatically opposed its enactment. What hypocrisy here!

Kristel Tejada and the Philippine Educational System

A UP student named Kristel Tejada took her own life after being forced on leave for her failure to pay the tuition balance of P10,000 she owed the state institution. She was only 16 years old. A former colleague of mine when I taught in a conservative Catholic school in Cebu City said that there is no reason, absolutely no reason to commit suicide. I beg to disagree, no one has the right and the moral right to condemn people for the acts that they do, especially if those acts do no harm to anyone, save probably the mental torture and grief of the person's immediate family. We are free to do our own in this world, as long as those acts do not directly harm, injure, infringe upon and violate the rights of others. I cannot in good conscience condemn Kristel for what she did because I do not know her life experiences and how those experiences shaped the person she was. Not even her family can claim to know they understood everything about Kristel.

Her suicide is undeniably tragic. A symptom of the social malaise of our country, where hypocritical religiosity and outward, superficial expressions of solidarity are mere covers for a bankrupt moral system suffused by the toxic indoctrination of organized religion and the comprehensive control of the vested narrow elites. There is tragedy in the Philippines everyday, tragedy for the failure of our educational system to inculcate radical, out-of-the-box and critical thinking responsive and relevant to the needs of the Filipino experience. An educational system that regurtitates information rather than fire-up the spark of intellectual curiosity and intellectual adventurism will breed a society of unequals and unevens content with the status-quo yet aspiring for a better result.

The Filipino people must decide what we want for our future. Such decision will begin with the May 2013 elections. Unless the people will define what it wants for its future and to pursue such dreams, we will as a nation rot in a pool of our intellectual and social inaction to perpetuate a society full of have-nots while the few oligarchs suck upon the resources of this blessed nation.

The Brutality of a Heavenly Concept

How indeed can reasonable men and women believe in such a self-laudatory and cruel concept? Only the intolerant grasp of religious fervor can so dramatically numb and dumb the mind into a state of stuporous self-righteousness as to believe that only by one's beliefs, and as what Christopher Hitchens would call in his book God is not Great, beliefs which are essentially "plagiarism of a plagiarism of a hearsay of a hearsay, of an illusion of an illusion extending all the way back to a fabrication of a few nonevents."

Heaven and hell is the here and now, man creates it. Humanity can achieve heaven when reason and science become the instrument of understanding and hell, well, hell is the invention of those who want others to believe in their own delusions. The great philosopher Jean Paul-Sartre once said, "Hell is other people." He was certainly right, and when religious bigotries become the norm, hell incarnates itself in the form of unrequited violence and oppression against women, LGBT's and the simply different.

Man against the backdrop of the Universe

We are mere accidents in the enormity of space and time, insignificant and ephemeral but evolved to possess a unique capacity, reason. Let us use it to build a better place for all of us. There is no need to hope and cling to a heavenly diety who is just a mere figment of man's fears at an earlier time in his history. A time of uncertainty, mystery and complexity. It is still a world of uncertainty, mystery and complexity - but science and reason offers us the best possibility for a better future, a peaceful future and a future of inclusive progress for all humanity.

The Intolerance of Islam: The University College Incident

The University College in London recently banned an Islamic Student Organization for attempting to segregate men and women in a debate sponsored by the said organization, the Islamic Education and Research Academy (iERA). The debate, on the subject matter ‘Islam or Atheism: Which Makes More Sense?’ 

One of the speakers, Dr. Lawrence Krauss, threatened to walk out of the debate after organizers attempted to segregate men and women. He was jeered upon as he walked out of the debate table. It was reported that the debate continued after the organizers abandoned the planned "sexual apartheid."

The university is forever banning the said organization from ever conducting activities in campus as it has, according to school officials, " '...their interests are contrary to UCL’s ethos and that we should not allow any further events involving them to take place on UCL premises.'"

IERA spokesman Mr. Saleem Chagtai that such procedure (the segregation of the sexes) is normal and accepted in Islamic societies. Adding, ‘There were a number of ladies who used their free will and didn’t want to sit with the opposite sex.’ To which I would add, then WHY THE HELL DO YOU NEED TO IMPOSE IT IF WOMEN WANT TO SEPARATE THEMSELVES. IF THEY WANT TO, THEN THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO SIT SEPARATELY from men. THERE IS NO NEED TO ACTUALLY ENSURE THAT EVERYONE ACTUALLY BE SEPARATED. LET THE WOMEN CHOOSE WERE THEY SIT. YOU don't tell people WHERE THEY will SIT.

This is actually the fundamental problem of Islam, it really is a bigoted, misogynistic, intolerant, backward and brutal ideology masquerading as a faith. As Sam Harris would say, the problem with Islam is not the Islamic fundamentalists but the fundamentals of Islam itself, I am not Islamic scholar but I have read and listened to various literary pieces and talks on Islam, indeed, you only have to read the Koran to know that it institutionalizes violence and bigotry.

Do you need a Ghost Writer?

Summer is on the horizon! For those of you who need assistance: students, professionals, businessmen or simply the working graduate student, if you need a ghost writer, you are looking at his blog. Message me and I'd be glad to be of service. I can write literary, philosophical, nursing-related, historical and scientific articles, as well as those dealing with pedagogy, theology, linguistics and culture.

Mars Curiosity Rover finds Water

Something exciting for the scientifically inclined happened recently, the Curiosity rover discovered sulphur, nitrogen, carbon dioxide and oxygen in Mars. Although evidence for life was not directly examined, the "life soup" for life certainly was there in Mars' ancient past.

It's exciting what else will be discovered in the days and years ahead, but one thing is for sure, man is discovering new things as he continues to explore the vastness of the universe. Bravo to all the NASA scientists and engineers who were part in this mission, humanity will forever be grateful for your contribution to the advancement of human knowledge.

Samsung Introduces Galaxy SIV

Samsung recently introduced its newest smartphone, the Galaxy SIV in New York. It's in my opinion a revolutionary phone in that you can scroll through the menu icons without actually touching the screen, configure the screen to stop playing when you look away while watching a video and its quite light, only 130 grams considering that it has a five-inch high resolution screen among other features. The phone will heat stores in 155 countries by April 2013.

This is Samsung's counter-attack to nip at Apple's dominance of the U.S. market and who knows, it might as well achieve what it was made for. Personally though, I would still prefer the iPhone in that it is more classy, more user friendly and has more apps available. Of course, one thing I really like about the iPhone is that it can work seamlessly with your iPad through iTunes and iCloud. That is something that Android phones do not, at the moment have. In addition, the iPhone is much comfortable to work with in that it seems to have been designed to make its use as efficient and as trouble-free as possible.

I am actually a new iPhone user, my mother recently gave me an iPhone 3Gs, and although a bit older, is still functional and practical. That is something I don't see happening with Android phones, in fact, other smartphones depreciate much faster and look much "prehistoric" after only a few years, especially when new product releases are eventually launched. Apple products however like the iPhone, iPad, iPod and iTab have a much longer life span and is still perceived as reasonably decent, indeed useful, even if new models are later on released. I would say that Apple products retain their luster even after a few years, and one reason might be that you can actually easily and conveniently upgrade its software over the internet.

So if you ask me, I'd still go for the red fruit rather than the jelly bean, pun intended.

North Korea's Bellicose Posturing

Foreign Policy recently reported that North Korea is threatening to conduct a "pre-emptive" nuclear strike against the United States. As usual, the regime of Kimg Jong-Un, as has those before him, are heavy on cantankerous verbosity reflecting its innate vulnerability and insecurity, if anything, such jingoistic outbursts highlights its incessant need to assert itself on the international stage, much like a toddler would throw tantrums to get attention and feed its need to express wants.

Kim Jong-Un, being foreign educated, he is reputed to have studied in Switzerland, would somehow act more dignified and respectable that would in some ways, bring North Korea into the fold of the international community. Such is the perpetual rut in which North Korea is that any reasonable hope of having a constructive and progressive dialogue is almost a far-off possibility. Indeed, the North Koreans seems ever more moving to the bizarre and outright outlandish antics befitting a spoiled child. I suspect that the people behind the regime is catering only to the narrow interests of the vested elite and not surprisingly though, at the cost of impoverishing the populace.

I really, really hope that the regime on which the North Korean nation is founded would slowly unravel under the weight of its own delusions and schizophrenic machinations. Of course, as it stands nowadays, such is still far from even a remote reality. Who knows, the North Korean people may just give the more a welcome surprise?

Pope Francis: A Pope of many Firsts

Last March 13, 2013, Argentinian Jesuit Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected as the 266th Roman Pontiff and assumed the name Francis. He is the first pope born from the Southern Hemisphere, the first pope from Latin America, the first Jesuit pope, the first pope outside of Europe since St. Gregory III and the first to use a new, non-regnal name since Pope Lando (913-914).

pope Francis will be the second pontiff of the 21st century, a time when the Catholic Church is buffeted by scandal after scandal of priestly abuse of children, contraception, women in the priesthood, LGBT rights among others. Francis will have to deal with these issues and his response will determine if the church is willing and flexible enough to adopt to changing times and needs, otherwise, it will slowly precipitate the slow, steady and sure decline of its moral ascendancy over many parts of the world who may still be nominally Catholic.

The Church through Pope Francis will have to decide whether it will continue to serve its dogma and worldview or integrate its teachings into the ordinary life of the 21st century. This is the challenge, a difficult one indeed, but one that will somehow define the role and significance that the church will play in the 21st century. A radical shift in perspective, in what Thomas Kuhn referred to as a "paradigm shift" is urgently needed as the church traverses the path of increasing intellectual fluidity. The advent of the information age has meant that the church is no longer seen as the sole and only source of knowledge and information for all matters of life - the internet has democratized and made readily available the spread of knowledge and information, formerly the exclusive preserve and domain of the church.

The church will have have to confront the rights of LGBT persons, women in the priesthood and the use of artificial contraceptives. It it continues to insist for example on the rigid and essentially exclusionist view it espouses with regards to  LGBT's, then the church will have perpetrated a centuries old hypocrisy and discrimination. Women in the priesthood is another thorny issue that the church will have to deal with, why exclude women in the priesthood? Why insist on their secondary status in church leadership positions? Finally, contraceptives, the church has to look at scientific studies which shows that the use of contraceptives has a significant role in reducing the spread of diseases, infection and other maladies and most of all, helps families plan in a responsible and reasonable way the size of their families. Insistence on theological constructs when confronted by incontrovertible scientific and provable evidences to the contrary will just make the church reactionary, ideological and simply blind to the realities of the 21st century. These are the choices Pope Francis will have to face, and answer to. His actions will determine if the church is truly a church for the modern man.

Muslim mob's burn Christian Homes in Pakistan

On Sunday, March 10, 2013 CNN reported that a Muslim mob ransacked, pillaged and burned Christian properties in the city of Lahore, Pakitan. The report indicated that Muslims were outraged by a blasphemy charge against a Christian, Sawan Masih, in his early 20's. Masih is reputed to have been accused to have committed blasphemy after a drinking incident in which he was accused of blasphemy over an argument. His drinking companions then threatened to file such charges.

Pakistan is indeed not only a feudal, retrograde and brutal society, it is, for all intents and purposes, a medieval country in the 21st century. Anyone in Pakistan can be accused of blasphemy simply for disagreeing about something else which a Muslim finds disagreeable. Is this society even remotely humane? Blasphemy laws in Pakistan have been and are frequently used to harass minority religious believers. And for disagreeing, even for matters unrelated to religion, a non-Muslim or a Muslim for that matter who gets into an argument about somebody else who is a Muslim, most likely but not always a brute, can be potentially sentenced to death. 

This reminds me of a video by Ayaan Hirsi Ali in which she asserted that Islam is a "philosophy of death," and that it values and gives premium on those who kill simply for not agreeing with what the Prophet Muhammad preached. Such is the violence inherent in a faith borne out of violence and war among largely desert, rural and illiterate Arab tribes. It reminds me of how Christopher Hitchens is so right about so many wrongs that religion seems to beget.

BOOK REVIEW: God is not Great (2007)

A very compelling read indeed. One of the great intellectual products of modern times with a critical presentation of the case against the mythologies of religion and god. Hitchens culls the sociological, economic and philosophical implications and underpinning of religion and the belief in god. If anything, the book is an acerbic refutation of the great monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, their unholy and historically gruesome role in the subjugation of women, the exploitation of children, and the brainwashing of men for reasons of "god." Hitchens is that writer that minces no words when decrying and refuting the unreason that is religion and how its absurdities have retarded human civilization, bastardized respectable thinking by numbing believers into carrying out reprehensible cruelty engendered by hypocritical religiosity.

In nineteen chapters Hitchens chronicles the rise to power of the three major monotheistic religions of the Judeo-Christian tradition and its rapacious conquests for mind and wealth across the ages, its impossible demands, its brutality, its unholy beliefs and its divinely cloaked murderous brutality. Reading Hitchens is like changing old, worn out clothes for something light, liberating, enlightening and most of all, useful and practical. He quotes Simon Blackburn in echoing the latter's assertion that "religion is a fossilized philosophy," stuck in a rigid, uncompromising, delusional and plainly irrational worldview and according to Blackburn, a "philosophy without logic."

God is not Great is written in plain and easily ascertainable English, in fact, it would be within the grasp of any college educated person, easily within reach of any high schooler but of course, its wide references to a panoply of thinkers over the ages requires, for a better appreciation, a reader who is well-read and well-versed in the liberal arts.

In typical Hitchens fashion, the book ends with a memorable quote which reads: "...monotheistic religion is a plagiarism of a plagiarism of a hearsay of a hearsay, of an illusion of an illusion, extending all the way back to a fabrication of a few nonevents."

PRO-LIFE Philippines' Letter of Desperation

PRO-LIFE Philippines Foundation, Inc. released a letter essentially praising the 79 members of the Philippine House of Representatives who voted against the enactment into law of RH 10354 otherwise known as "The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012."

It began with the emotionally tearjerker "It is not titles that honor men, but men that honor titles." Such anachronism smacks of the long and powerful position in Philippine society that the Catholic Church has always enjoyed but is increasingly being challenged by a more rational, practical, nationalist and patriotic Philippines, a nation no longer swayed by machinations, schemes and manipulations of a hierarchy more concerned with the implementation of a dogma rather than the practical needs and conditions of a nation.

PRO-LIFE Philippines is appealing to the emotional nature of Filipinos, now at a stage in what Elizabeth Kubler-Ross would call acceptance. It knows that the Filipino is slowly coming of age, is starting to think, and to think rationally about his place in the world. Actually, the Filipino is tired and exasperated by the reticence, arrogance and single-mindedness of a church seemingly disconnected with the real versus the theoretical-dogmatic needs of the Filipino. The Catholic Church, as reflected by the pathetic letter defecated by PRO-LIFE Philippines Foundation, is convulsing at its slow, steady and guaranteed slide into irrelevance. A mere relic of its once overarching tyranny in the life of the Filipino.

PRO-LIFE Philippines was THANKING, PRAISING and EXTOLLING the 79 house members who actually sided with the dogmatic and irrational demands of the Catholic Church against the needs and demands of the Filipino people who elected them. These 79 congresspeople were serving the narrow and vested interests of a church bent on holding on to whatever power, influence and sway it still has, and it sure has a lot of power as represented by these 79 members of congress who not only gave as their reason the opposition of the Catholic Church to RA 10354 as their raison d'etre why they opposed the bill in the first place.

PRO-LIFE Philippines further praised these congressmen by saying "they stood for the truth, for principles and values foreign to others...." Truth? Are you freaking kidding me! These so-called truths the Church so fanatically advanced were mere hogwash, do you call "truth" the Church's stance that contraceptives for example actually spread HIV-AIDS? What scientific research even support such feckless, immoral and fraudulent claim?

Does PRO-LIFE Philippines call "truth" the assertion by the Church and its minions in congress as personified by the 79 congresspeople that RA 10354 would promote murder, increase promiscuity, destroy the family, tear the value-fabric of Filipino society? Where have we found scientific and verifiably credible sources of data that supports such assertions?

The so-called truths PRO-LIFE Philippines is so adamant about is nothing more than the dogmatic and baseless assertions of the Catholic Church. "Truth" fro PRO-LIFE Philippines is nothing more than obeying blindly the demands of the Catholic Church. That is the truth that they so fanatically push into our faces!

PRO-LIFE Philippines does not even have the decency to admit that what they have written was nothing more than the whims and caprices of the church, indeed, I suspect that the Church even ordered the letter be written, indirectly or otherwiese, to give these re-electionist congressmen a "mandate." A so-called "moral high-ground."

And speaking of moral high-ground, the Catholic Church has lost whatever it has. The recent spate of pedophilia cases involving priests and children is a testament to the hypocrisy and schizophrenic tendency of its clergy. Clean your house first before you make demands on a nation struggling with the reins of chronic poverty and economic and social abuse! In addition, the gargantuan, really unholy wealth that the Catholic Church in the Philippines and its various religious orders and affiliates holds is another glaring proof that like any human institution, it is corrupt, abusive and prone to misrepresentation.

PRO-LIFE Philippines continues on in their extollation of the 79 congressmen by saying "you...gave more than due honor not only to your title as our people's representative but above all to our Christian and patriotic heritage..." In fact, by largely opposing RA 10354 based on the Church's stance and some bogus scientific "data," these lawmakers brought only shame, betrayal and tragedy! The Philippines does not only have a Christian heritage, it has a Muslim, animist and secular heritage too, we should not just honor what the majority has, we have to take into consideration what is good for all, after all, the Philippines is a secular, democratic republic - open to all, respectful of all but certainly not only for the Catholic Church. By pointing out these fanatical statements, PRO-LIFE Philippines does not even deserve a modicum of respect for calling itself PRO-LIFE, it should call itself PRO-CATHOLIC CHURCH. It's blind, uncritical and imbecile approach to reality is worthy of a medieval mindset out of place, out of touch, out of relevance in a modern, complex, liberal democracy our country is trying out to be.

Not content, PRO-LIFE Philippines rants further by saying to these unholy congressmen "You showed our country and the world that despite all the seemingly insurmountable problems we face, there is still hope for the future after all. By your unwavering stand against the RH bill, you showed our people that we still have men and women in our midst who can  make this country what it deserves to be...." If there is one thing these congressmen CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY SHOWED, it is that there are actually men in the halls of congress who stoop to an outdated, baseless, irrational, immoral mindset as espoused by the rigid, uncompromising and fossilized beliefs of a church increasingly reactionary, defensive and ever-more rendered useless!

PRO-LIFE Philippines increasingly shows itself to be nothing more than a mere vessel of propaganda at the throat and ass of the Catholic Church raucously pretentious of its self-deluding, self-appointing mission of promoting respect for life when in reality it is only really fighting for the enforcement of an anachronistic vestige of medieval thought.

Melittin: A Hope in the Fight for HIV Cure

It has been reported lately that researchers at Washington University School of Medicine have discovered that Melittin, a component in bee venom, can destroy HIV cells by forming "pore-like attack complexes" which then ruptures the envelope surrounding the HIV cell, causing cell death. The melitting is carried by nanoparticles which in turn are equipped with "bumpers" so that when it encounters normal cells, which are larger than HIV cells, the nanoparticles are just bumped out of the way. This way, normal cells are not harmed by melittin. However, when nanoparticles come into contact with HIV cells, the latter, being small, slides between the bumpers and comes into contact with the melittin found in the nanoparticles.

What is so potentially revolutionizing about this research is that there is no way, at least theoretically, for the virus to adapt to the melittin. The new discovery could be distributed in the form of a gel.

This development brings substantial progress in the fight to find a cure for HIV-AIDS. Previous drugs used to combat HIV-AIDS are basically focused on controlling the reproduction of HIV cells, this new discovery actually kills them off. Hopefully, this research can be further studied, verified and finally marketed as soon as possible. Kudos to the scientists at Washington University!

What if Cardinal Tagle becomes Pope?

A recent report published by a Philippine based news organization identified Cardinal Tagle as one of only two papabile who would serve as a good pope in terms of dealing proactively with the child sex abuse currently dogging the church for the last 10 years or so. The Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) identified Cardinal Tagle, together with Vienna Archbishop Christoph Schonborn as "most promising candidates."

While such assessment is initially flattering, especially as a Filipino patriot and nationalist, this has far-reaching implication for the Philippines if in fact Cardinal Tagle becomes a pope. A scenario that would not be impossible for example would be a scaling back of many progressive initiatives in the Philippines, among which is the recently enacted into law The Reproductive and Healthcare Law of 2012. The Catholic Church in the Philippines is still powerful as it is, and a Filipino pope in the Vatican would enable the Catholic Church in the Philippines to substantially bully and hold the necks of Filipino politicians. The government would then become merely a lacky of the Vatican, subject to its whims and caprices and potentially inhibiting progressive reforms that are already the talk of Philippine intellectual circles.

A Tagle papacy would also be a blow to LGBT and women's rights, secularization of Filipino society and independence of the Philippine government from the suffocating and resolute conservatism of the Catholic Church. It goes without saying therefore that a Tagle papacy would be a blow to a more secular, liberal and progressive Philippines. In fact, the Philippines could be set back another 30 years, considering that Cardinal Tagle is only in his early fifties.

Love and All

Let it be clear
That sleepless nights and unsettling days
Of constant thinking and endless ogling
That this aching heart, bleeding ego
Seeking being, longing creature
Endures and endures still
Just to beg and hope
Plead and beseech
For none but your attention
Silent eyes and quivering lips
Clammy skin, pulsating heart
Let it be clear
I am smitten and smitten to no one
Yes but only and ever to you.

The Art of Teaching

Teaching is an art
Like a painter with a brush
The teacher works with the mind
As a painter works on a blank canvass
A teacher molds impressionable minds
Whereas a painter uses paint
A teacher uses words
To paint the greatest work of art
The future minds of man.

The People's Man: Hugo Chavez Dies

I have always been fascinated, sometimes, piqued, by the man most Latin Americans would consider a "people's man." Indeed, such sobriquet would fit a man who essentially, as CNN would put it, united a nation but divided minds. He was a radical who was actually in power. Changed the Venezuelan Constitution to allow himself to run again, and again. He was also, the "people's dictator." Empowered by the masses to snuff out their own freedoms in exchange for a leader who would champion their needs. And the people of Venezuela got it: Chavez subsidized food, gas and other basic necessities. In addition, he nationalized foreign controlled corporations and limited their power to profit from the Venezuelan consumer. He also send money to various leftist Latin American countries, notably Cuba and Bolivia.

Hugo Chavez was brazen as he was courageous. He called George W. Bush the "devil" in no less than the United Nations. A radical, leftist president without a doubt he was, and his legacy, I believe, will be mixed with the complex panorama that is Latin America. His successor would have to fill his shoes, whether he likes it or not, he will rule under the shadow of a popular president, a popular Latin American head of state, at least for those who espouse a radical, militant political ideology.

So like most dictators, death was his ultimate enemy. Like most dictators, he lived large, he lived high, he lived to enliven, in a good and in a bad way, depending of course on your persuasion, political that is, he was and always will be remembered in that corner of the world as the saviour of the masses. Saved probably from the cycle of poverty, hopelessness and bitterness that is a constant in the developing world.

What will be Chavez's lasting legacy? Honestly, I do not know. For the ideology he espoused was militancy for militancy's sake, radical without being thoughtful, ideological rather than practical. The world is too dynamic for reactionary leaders to plant the seeds of lasting stability. He may have solved for the mean time the pressing concerns of the ordinary man, but did he sow the foundations of a mature, dynamic social order responsive to the percolating enigma of modern life? You decide.

Conversations with a Freethinker

One of my teachers failed to show up for school today, and while waiting for the next class I had a very interesting talk with one of my classmates who I recently learned to be an agnostic. We had a very interesting and educational talk about many things: religion, life, existence, homosexuality, emotions, meaning and death.

Although a BA in Communications graduate, she was more than adept and familiar with many philosophers and thinkers, especially literary geniuses among the likes of Dostoevsky and Goethe. It's always a hundred times more interesting, more enlightening, more exciting and more educational to talk to freethinkers compared to religious believers, probably because freethinkers understand the human situation on an as is basis and not deny or glorify or denigrate the human creature.

In our talk, she encouraged me to create a society or organization or something of that nature in our city as there is currently no organization where freethinkers can congregate and share their ideas, experiences and thoughts on a variety of topics, issues and concerns. Hopefully, come summer, I can have the guts the actually organize the first freethinking group in Tacloban City. That would be a good beginning to a potentially great amalgamation of thinkers in Eastern Visayas.

Gunning for the best this summer!!!

Jurgen Habermas' Ethics of Communicative Action

Jurgen Habermas is one of my favorite contemporary philosophers. I was first introduced to his ideas way back when I was a philosophy student in college. According to wikipedia, Jurgen Habermas is a German sociologist and philosopher who was born on June 18, 1929 in Dusseldorf, Germany. Habermas is known for many notable ideas such as Discourse Theory, Theory of Truth and Knowledge and the Theory of Communicative Action among others.

What attracted me most to Habermas' ideas are his thoughts on Communicative Action, especially as applied to ethics. In communicative action, participants "coordinate their action and pursuit of invididual (or joint) goals on the basis of a shared understanding that the goals are inherently reasonable or merit-worthy." In addition, "communicative action succeeds insofar as the actors freely agree that their goal (or goals) is reasonable, that it merits cooperative behavior." Therefore, "communicative action is thus an inherently consensual form of social coordination in which actors 'mobilize the potential for rationality' given with ordinary language and its telos of rationally motivated agreement."

Habermas' Ethics of Communicative Action (ECA) is therefore a social endeavour, played by the influence of thte populace over social institutions which in turn actualize what is the acceptable or unacceptable standards of conduct. In Habermas' ECA, we find the dynamic and social nature of standards of conduct, the only difference of ECA with religious based ethical standards is that in religious based morality, stability and inflexibility results as it insists on its perpetual applicability and demandability. Cursory check however of religious based morality reveals that it is itself based on the social norms and peculiarities of the culture in which it is based and has in fact in most cases been influenced by the prevailing social norms of the time or in certain cases, as a rejecting reaction against it.

What is therefore the implications of Habermas' ECA in modern life? ECA ensures that social issues, as they become ever more complex, variegated and requires the involvement multiple disciplines, are looked at from and analyzed through multiple lenses of scrutiny. Indeed, modern human life is not as simple as it once was, we can no longer afford to pigeon-hole social problems into cleanly separate bins of categories. Religious based morality therefore has to be slowly relegated to make way for a more open, responsive, democratic, and inclusive meta-framework which will serve as a skeleton as we ponder on the pressing ethical conundrums of modern life.

The Ignorance of an Oligarch: Cynthia Villar and the Filipino Nurse

I have recently come across a horrible, basically reprehensible video posted in Youtube during a question and answer forum involving candidates for senator who will be on the ballot come the May 2013 elections. This one involves, as usual, a main staple of Philippine politics, a classic incarnation of an oligarch who is disconnected, unaware, uncaring, insensitive and essentially removed from the realities of 21st century Philippine social conditions.

When initially asked why the members of a nursing regulatory body resigned en masse for her refusal to close down nursing schools who are essentially milking the Filipino of money for substandard, useless and incompetent instruction, Cynthis Villar gave the answer that in effect essentially meant the errant school's were not closed because money has already been invested in such schools and that money is important more than the good of the Filipino public. On a follow-up question about her seeming preferential bias to the rich (she is indeed very rich, in fact, the richest member of congress!), she in effect, as shown by the picture above, belittled, insulted, degraded and slapped the face of the Filipino nurse, professional's who make-up a significant number of Filipino OFW's. Professionals who, like many Filipinos, have to reluctantly work and toil (and sometimes die) in foreign, most often repressive lands just to live a respectable life for them and their families because politicians like CYNTHIA VILLAR are more concerned about making money, making more money and making even more money for themselves and their business associates, families and relatives at the expense of the suffering, bullied and harassed Filipino populace.

This is an example of how Filipino politicians barely have a reasonable, much less realistic grasp of the realities of Filipino life. The Filipino people should speak with an unequivocal voice, and reject old school politicians so as to usher in a more responsive and grassroots rooted set of political cadre that will truly work for and in the best interest of the Philippines.

REJECT CYNTHIA VILLAR FOR SENATOR!!!!

The Invention of God: Delusions and Psychoses of Religion

In Psychiatry, a delusion is a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact. Psychoses according to dictionary.com is characterized by a set of symptoms such as delusions or hallucinations.

Religions from the ancient to modern times have always made spectacular claims. These claims vary from the supernatural to the unbelievable to the outright impossible and preposterous. The Abrahamic traditions is most known for making such claims. The Torah, which consist of the first five books of the Christian bible, is replete with claims that are in today's world, plainly untruths passed as absolute facts. If the Torah is to be taken at its plain word, then the god of Abraham is a god who created the world in seven days (why not in an instant if he is that powerful?), who gets angry and jealous (like any normal human being), who sent the flood to wipe out everything that he created in the first place and who commanded a man to stuff all the creatures of the world in a boat 45 feet in height, 450 feet in length, 75 feet in width, made of wood and held 50,000 animals, 2 million insects, 7 people, a 600 year old man and enough provisions for its inhabitants for one year! As unbelievable as it sounds, there are actually people who would take it literally as having actually happened.

Any holy book of any religion is not exempted from such pompous, self-laudatory, fantastically out of this world claims yet none claims such arrogant self-confidence and self-righteousness about its truth than the Abrahamic faiths, most especially the Christian bible and the Islamic Koran. For all its claims of a merciful and just god, such god is also harsh, cruel and even murderous. Take for example the exhortations of god to kill all homosexuals in Leviticus 20:13, the murder, rape and pillage of whole groups of people in Numbers 31:7-18, and actually gives instructions on how to enslave people as described in Leviticus 25:44-46. The Koran is even more graphic, it actually gives instructions on how homosexuals are killed, what to do to disobedient wives among others.

Religions turn otherwise rational, sentient human beings into absolute mindless, obedient, subservient and irrational creatures. It erodes man's sense of humanity in its absolutism and unmitigated cruelty against those who do not conform to its idealized version of the good life.

The systematic slaughter of perceived witches, heretics and simply the different in Christian Europe from the 12th century to the middle part of the 19th century attests to the delusional brutality and psychotic nature of organized religion, especially the Abrahamic traditions. Although Judaism and Christianity have since outgrown their violent and certainly genocidal past, the cudgel has been in modern times been taken by Islamic radicals who envision the forced Islamization of the world.

The lack of dynamic reflection and the active suppression of dialogue in the Islamic world has brought Islam back to its violent, militant and militarist past. As articulated by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, no modern organized religion has implemented a clear goal of establishing its political, social and religious inclinations than Islam. The silence of the vast majority of Muslims, who are against intolerance and violence, been overtaken by the fundamentalist Islamists with their repressive and dictatorial brand of Islam. The delusion is no more clearer than their insistence that their brand of interpretation is the only interpretation. Dissent is violently suppressed, critical thinking is blunted with rote memorization of Koranic verses and infused with the insecure and immature interpretations of a few but nonetheless influential cadre of radical clerics.

Modern society is at a peril from fundamentalism in all religions and in all ideas. Claims of absolutism, be the idea religious or secular, begets violence, engenders fear, provokes wars, births mistrust, stirs animosity and enslaves peoples. When absolutism is claimed by religion, the implications are widened, broadened and deepened because then, any act is possible, all excuses are allowable, no compromise is possible and only its fulfillment is permissible.

The Invention of God: The Mythology of Suffering

The Abrahamic faiths were born from suffering.

The major theme of the Judeo-Christian tradition is the mythologization of suffering and serves as a gateway to heaven. Indeed, the death of Jesus Christ is a testament to the value given suffering. Candida Moss in her new book The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom testifies to this phenomenon. The early Christians made suffering a cornerstone of their faith - to die for Christ. They were so enveloped in that concept that Moss' book shows how they even provoked Roman official's into killing them! Sounds familiar, this is precisely the same reason why during the Intifada young Palestinian men willingly, actually happily blew themselves up apart. To these young men, brainwashed by the machinations of their mullahs as well as the purpose-giving life provided by Hamas and the PLO, dying for Allah means a direct route to heaven and a welcoming committee of no less than 71 virgins. It is also safe to say that these men were as much motivated by the concept of the 71 virgins as meeting god himself, I think even more than god himself. It also shows that these men, more than anything, and despite everything they think they believe, are actually sex starved and sexually repressed.

I was born into Catholicism, and Catholicism is very good at instilling the value of suffering. It actually glorifies suffering in an almost masochistic manner.It's obsession with pain, suffering and guilt is its crowning achievement - it's symbol, the cross, is an unequivocal signpost of Christianity's passionate embrace of pain and suffering.

When I was in college studying for my first degree, philosophy, I went on evening walks for one month with a German SVD professor of mine who gave a few bags of food every night to some really poor people who lived around our school. One night, we visited an old lady in her ramshackle, really nothing more than cardboard boxes for walls, a few used corrugated sheets for a roof and almost nothing else except the clothes on her body. Approaching her "house," which was really more of a toy house in fact, I greeted her and exchanged a few felicitations as is customary in the Philippines. I asked her how is everything and her curt but telling reply was: "I am good, this is what god has given me so I have to accept it." Suffering, again glorified into needless heights in the name of god. This is what religion is, this is what the Abrahamic faiths are good at.

This obsession with suffering, really institutionalized sado-masochism, is sickening and immoral. Karl Marx captured this well when he said that "...religion is the opium of the people." Religion makes suffering ok, to accept it with joy and surrender even. The Islamic faith actually induces its adherents to die if need be, to die to defend Islam, to die to ensure that those who question its tenets die too!

This fetish with suffering engendered by religion, especially by Christianity and most recently, by Islam, is also the root cause of the institutionalization of violence. Violence then becomes a tool, a sacred tool in the defense of the faith. Because suffering is given a pedestal in the pantheon of religious beliefs as incarnated in the bible and the koran, violence becomes a god-instrument in the proselytization process. Although Christianity has outgrown its psychotic, murderous past, Islam has nonetheless taken its place, apostates are fair game. The koran actually encourages their murder, and this is extended to gays, women who disobey their husbands, women who do not cover themselves up (especially in Muslim countries were Sharia law is the law) and those who do not readily convert to Islam.

According to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, if the west adopts a philosophy of life, Islam subscribes to a philosophy of death, and I might add, Christianity believes in a philosophy of pain and suffering. The Abrahamic faiths values and cherishes pain, suffering, and death because of its obsession with an afterlife. That is the fundamental distinction of the "people's of the book." A tradition rooted in the early lives of a largely rural, poor, largely illiterate desert people making sense of the world around it.

As a secular humanist, I subscribe only to the idea that man is what is important, science and philosophy is what will provide us with the best answer to the riddles of existence, the amelioration of our sufferings, the cultivation of our potentialities, the maintenance of the environment and the fulfillment of a meaningful and happy life. As the great French existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre once said, we are brought into this world to create our own meaning. The meaning we create is what will determine who we become, what we can become, what we are and what we hope to be.

The Invention of God: Morality and Religion

I have recently discovered a thinker who is actually, or was rather, a former Muslim, African by birth, black and a woman. And for those of us who take the time and effort to read, listen and learn about the smorgasbord of menu on the religious table will have, at one moment or another, discovered by now Ayaan Hirsi Ali. On one of her talks she discusses the rationale as to why Islamic induced violence has been a staple of Muslim history throughout the ages and why Islamic radicalism will stay with modern man for quite some time I dare say.

Moving on to another topic, I would be talking today about morality and religion. Theists would often assert that the lack of a belief in god puts into question an individual's moral life. For them, morality comes from religion and the absence of which necessarily implies the too the absence of any moral life, hence, atheists are prone to violence and a meaningless life.

Of course, it would be easy to say that if religion is really a good source, much more excellent source of morality, then the countless wars,crimes, injustices and violence - especially one directed against women and LGBT's, and still more specifically gays, perpetrated throughout history and are actually still being perpetrated up to now in the name of religion and a god in various scales across nations throughout the world were just anomalies? Any rational, sentient, thinking human being will think otherwise, indeed, a religiously based morality is not only obscene, brutal, insensitive and callous, they are at times even inhuman and yes, immoral.

The Judeo-Christian tradition is replete with violence perpetrated against those that it sees as ungodly behaviors. The Bible for example, under Leviticus 20:13 states: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death." Is this the morality that modern human beings really have to follow?

In Deuteronomy 17: 12, it says "Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the Lord your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel." Imagine if this were followed to the letter, modern society would be held under the yoke of religious tyranny. There are many other instances were violence is not only encouraged, it even puts the blame on the victims simply because they hold views that are dissimilar to what the Bible considers "moral."

The argument that morality is the exclusive domain of religion finds its absolute death knell in no other organized religion than Islam. As pointed out by Ayaan in the video mentioned at the beginning of this article, the Koran is a book of violence and unbridled brutality, inconsistent with and contrary to, the modern concept of humanism and plain common sense. The Koran (30:21 in Ayaan's video) exactly prescribes for example, how the killing of homosexuals should be done. Is this even morality in the humanistic sense? Is this humane? Just?

Morality is the product of human culture, religion is a product of human culture. In fact, the history of religions is the history of the morality of the places in which such religions were born. Religion itself actually gets its morality in the culture of the place it was founded. Even a cursory reading of the Torah, the Bible and most specially the Koran, one will find the creeping influence of the cultural mores of the people in the places in which those religious texts were written.

Therefore, rejecting religion does not mean a rejection of morality. Morality is the prevailing social mores of a society, and society itself decides its standards. Absolute morality is nonsense, there are however, universal moral concepts like justice, freedom, liberty and respect among others. The manifestations of such moral constructs however, vary from society to society across cultures over time. Religion however, absolutizes a certain moral construct from one period in a people's historical journey.

Jurgen Habermas advocates for an "Ethics of Communicative Action." That is, an ethics borne of reasoning, consultation, dynamic discussion, creative interplay of ideals and experience but always responsive to and ultimately subservient to the fundamental needs of man - the promotion of well-being and the maintenance of justice. That is the morality that is advocated in most part by secular humanists. It is humane, reasonable, democratic and dynamic. It is not hostaged to a rigid worldview of absolutes and eternals but rooted in humanity and caring.

A morality devoid of religion is a morality more attuned to the diversity of the human experience and always takes into consideration what is the best for man, in the historical milieu he is born to and the dynamism that is life itself.