Howling dogs, buzzing insects
Cloudy skies, falling rain
Swaying leaves, crawling lizards
Swooshing bats, running rats
Tapping keyboards, viewing sights
Swirling mind, sleepy eyes
Screeching cars, whistling wind
Reaching branches, hustling whispers
Ringing phones, dripping water
Cheery laughs, pouting lips
Snobby poses, inviting eyes
Shapely bodies, nibbling thoughts
Fearful hearts, hoping spirits
Screaming night
Lunes, Enero 14, 2013
Linggo, Enero 13, 2013
The U.S. Gun Debate
After the massacre at Newtown, Connecticut, the on again, off again conversation about the need to regulate the sale and distribution of automatic weapons has once again flared up in America. The powerful gun lobby NRA, which has consistently funded politicians who are pro-gun, vehemently sent expressed its displeasure, through the emotional outburts of its most dedicated, dare I say, fanatical members. Among this is the fearsome, almost rabid Alex Jones, whose tirade in the CNN Pier's Morgan show clearly showed that these so-called Second Amendment Defenders are as dogmatic as any religious zealot can be.
Despite proven statistics that says that among rich countries with fewer guns, fewer gun related violence exists. The NRA and its minions insist that keeping guns, and arming more people will ensure a better protected society. Of course, if you look at the statistics between Japan and the U.S., this is clearly not the case. In Japan, gun ownership is a tough endeavor, potential gun applicants will have to pass a series of rigorous psychological, practical and financial hurdles even being given a license to own one, and that is just a handgun. Annual crime rates related to guns in Japan number less than 20, in the U.S., 12,000 gun related violence and deaths were reported in 2011 alone.
But of course, if you talk to the likes of Alex Jones, you will never go anywhere except be badgered by their own insistence that despite all proofs to the contrary, more guns means keeping the peace! They somehow see the world only in the eyes of their fanatical, religious zealot-like conviction that guns never really kill people, people do. And so providing access to guns to people is not the problem, the problem is preventing people with mental problems from accessing them.
The problem with this argument is that the mental status of people change depending on the circumstances of their lives. Indeed, a perfectly sane, at least from a clinical point of view, person who has legally acquired and owned gun can out of the blue become temporarily insane as to use that gun to discharge pent-up emotions at someone or somebody for perceived slights, emotional outburts and the like.
Unless the American people, at least those that truly care about societal stability, should ask themselves if allowing the sale of military grade weapons is really necessary in a rich country with a credible police force and efficient government institutions. It is so easy to acquire weapons in America that the Mexican drug-cartels shops for them there and uses its deadly effects on the people of Mexico. So there, more weapons indeed for a better society!
Despite proven statistics that says that among rich countries with fewer guns, fewer gun related violence exists. The NRA and its minions insist that keeping guns, and arming more people will ensure a better protected society. Of course, if you look at the statistics between Japan and the U.S., this is clearly not the case. In Japan, gun ownership is a tough endeavor, potential gun applicants will have to pass a series of rigorous psychological, practical and financial hurdles even being given a license to own one, and that is just a handgun. Annual crime rates related to guns in Japan number less than 20, in the U.S., 12,000 gun related violence and deaths were reported in 2011 alone.
But of course, if you talk to the likes of Alex Jones, you will never go anywhere except be badgered by their own insistence that despite all proofs to the contrary, more guns means keeping the peace! They somehow see the world only in the eyes of their fanatical, religious zealot-like conviction that guns never really kill people, people do. And so providing access to guns to people is not the problem, the problem is preventing people with mental problems from accessing them.
The problem with this argument is that the mental status of people change depending on the circumstances of their lives. Indeed, a perfectly sane, at least from a clinical point of view, person who has legally acquired and owned gun can out of the blue become temporarily insane as to use that gun to discharge pent-up emotions at someone or somebody for perceived slights, emotional outburts and the like.
Unless the American people, at least those that truly care about societal stability, should ask themselves if allowing the sale of military grade weapons is really necessary in a rich country with a credible police force and efficient government institutions. It is so easy to acquire weapons in America that the Mexican drug-cartels shops for them there and uses its deadly effects on the people of Mexico. So there, more weapons indeed for a better society!
Sabado, Enero 12, 2013
MOVIE REVIEW: Zero Dark Thirty
The movie has received a lot of attention lately from members of the U.S. Congress. Some senators are questioning the historical accuracy of the use of torture, which opens the movie, in finding Usama bin Laden. The producers of the show has however stood their ground on the issue and has insisted that the movie is not a "documentary." Such incident will only fuel interest in the movie and could help it attract more moviegoers. Some sort of a talking point will always serve the dollar making potential of any movie.
Anyway, going to the movie, the opening was quite slow and dragging for me. The torture scenes were, well, tortuous to watch. It lacked urgency, terror (pun intended), and fear. The camera angles were weak such that the emotional aspect of the scenes were not quite communicated to the audience. The rest of the movie rambles upon scenes of the process of finding people linked to bin Laden with interposing of the different bombings incidents that happened after 9-11 like the London Bus bombings, the Marriott Hotel bombing in Pakistan among others.
I'm not quite blown away by the movie, for a long movie, running at two hours and thirty-six minutes, the excitement that is supposed to be present and the anticipation gripping the audience at the thought that the most infamous terrorist the world has probably ever seen is about to be found was absent. The movie could not present a sense of WOOH. Indeed, even the scene were the special ops guys comb through the compound was lacking that combat excitement. For a movie that claims not to be a documentary, it sure looked like one. In fact, I have seen more exciting documentaries!
However, the one redeeming part of the movie was the last scene. In it, Maya, the female protagonist, is transported off to some location, presumably to return to the U.S., alone in a giant C-130 Hercules transport plane. It somehow symbolizes her importance in the finding of bin Laden and she knows that she did a good job. Her importance could not be more represented by the fact that she was travelling alone in a big plane, as big as her contributions were to the final termination of a brutal terrorist.
And I always wondered why the movie was titled "Zero Dark Thirty", Maya answered it for me in a scene were she looks at the clock at 00:30 as the troops land in bin Laden's compound in the now famous Abbotabad, Pakistan.
Anyway, going to the movie, the opening was quite slow and dragging for me. The torture scenes were, well, tortuous to watch. It lacked urgency, terror (pun intended), and fear. The camera angles were weak such that the emotional aspect of the scenes were not quite communicated to the audience. The rest of the movie rambles upon scenes of the process of finding people linked to bin Laden with interposing of the different bombings incidents that happened after 9-11 like the London Bus bombings, the Marriott Hotel bombing in Pakistan among others.
I'm not quite blown away by the movie, for a long movie, running at two hours and thirty-six minutes, the excitement that is supposed to be present and the anticipation gripping the audience at the thought that the most infamous terrorist the world has probably ever seen is about to be found was absent. The movie could not present a sense of WOOH. Indeed, even the scene were the special ops guys comb through the compound was lacking that combat excitement. For a movie that claims not to be a documentary, it sure looked like one. In fact, I have seen more exciting documentaries!
However, the one redeeming part of the movie was the last scene. In it, Maya, the female protagonist, is transported off to some location, presumably to return to the U.S., alone in a giant C-130 Hercules transport plane. It somehow symbolizes her importance in the finding of bin Laden and she knows that she did a good job. Her importance could not be more represented by the fact that she was travelling alone in a big plane, as big as her contributions were to the final termination of a brutal terrorist.
And I always wondered why the movie was titled "Zero Dark Thirty", Maya answered it for me in a scene were she looks at the clock at 00:30 as the troops land in bin Laden's compound in the now famous Abbotabad, Pakistan.
Biyernes, Enero 11, 2013
Economic Freedom in the Philippines
The Heritage Foundation recently released its latest report on the freest economies of the world. Of 177 countries, the Philippines ranked 97th worldwide and 17th out of 41 in the Asia-Pacific Region. The countries were ranked according to the following categories: Rule of Law, Regulatory Efficiency, Limited Government, and Open Markets. With a score of 58.2, it was ranked under the Mostly Unfree group.
This data shows how much the Philippines has to catch up to with the rest of the world in providing a better life for its people. Even Cambodia did better, ranked 95th worldwide with a score of 58.5.
It goes without saying that in order for the Philippines to really join the ranks of the world's economic miracles, the following has to be implemented:
1. Eliminate corruption in the government. Billions of pesos are lost each year to corruption, and this causes a strain on the ability of businesses to thrive and to invest further. Corruption also makes goods and services expensive and prohibitive at times to the ordinary Filipino. I once talked to a colleague who owned an apartment and told me that in order to fumigate her apartment as a requirement for renewal of license, she had to pay the fumigating company P 5,000. When she asked why it was expensive, the company said that part of the money will be earmarked as bribes to the regulatory government agency overlooking such things - I think it was the City Health Office.
2. Efficient and independent judiciary. The Philippine judiciary is very slow, inefficient, corrupt and bureaucratic. Judges are appointed based on patronage given by politicians. Hence, they are prone to manipulation and control. The slow and glacial pace of litigation is unbelievable. Cases are decided at times after 30 years.
3. Control population growth. The recent passage of the long overdue Reproductive Law (RA 10354) will hopefully put a lid on the high population growth rate of the country relative to its ASEAN neighbors. Indeed, the chronically high population growth of the Philippines saps economic growth and creates a social strain as jobs are scarce, few and far-between. This feeds the proliferation of homeless, uncared for and malnourished children that is visible and rampant in cities across the Philippines. The strain this phenomenon puts on an already weak and inefficient government bureaucracy ensures that such street children remain outside the core of society and prone to exploitation by criminal organizations. The dearth of jobs, quality at that has forced millions of Filipinos to work abroad, breaking families and straining the social fabric. As if this is not enough, the obstructionist tactics of the powerful Catholic Church virtually locks the Philippines in a perpetual cycle of poverty.
4. Improve education. Education must be redirected to focus on the STEM subjects (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math), elementary and high school teachers must be incentivized to pursue graduate degrees in their chosen fields of study, medium of instruction must be based on the local language up to Grade 3, Filipino from then onwards. English of course will be a part, but it cannot be the only emphasis. Progress also means creating in the people a sense of nation and unity, which will ultimately ensure that we are emotionally invested in our country strong enough to fight for its betterment.
The Philippines has much to do and much to work on, but I believe that the future of the country lies in its people, and rightly so, as it is the people who creates the nation. Therefore, once the Filipino people aspire to greater heights for themselves, then true change and progress will dawn on the country.
This data shows how much the Philippines has to catch up to with the rest of the world in providing a better life for its people. Even Cambodia did better, ranked 95th worldwide with a score of 58.5.
It goes without saying that in order for the Philippines to really join the ranks of the world's economic miracles, the following has to be implemented:
1. Eliminate corruption in the government. Billions of pesos are lost each year to corruption, and this causes a strain on the ability of businesses to thrive and to invest further. Corruption also makes goods and services expensive and prohibitive at times to the ordinary Filipino. I once talked to a colleague who owned an apartment and told me that in order to fumigate her apartment as a requirement for renewal of license, she had to pay the fumigating company P 5,000. When she asked why it was expensive, the company said that part of the money will be earmarked as bribes to the regulatory government agency overlooking such things - I think it was the City Health Office.
2. Efficient and independent judiciary. The Philippine judiciary is very slow, inefficient, corrupt and bureaucratic. Judges are appointed based on patronage given by politicians. Hence, they are prone to manipulation and control. The slow and glacial pace of litigation is unbelievable. Cases are decided at times after 30 years.
3. Control population growth. The recent passage of the long overdue Reproductive Law (RA 10354) will hopefully put a lid on the high population growth rate of the country relative to its ASEAN neighbors. Indeed, the chronically high population growth of the Philippines saps economic growth and creates a social strain as jobs are scarce, few and far-between. This feeds the proliferation of homeless, uncared for and malnourished children that is visible and rampant in cities across the Philippines. The strain this phenomenon puts on an already weak and inefficient government bureaucracy ensures that such street children remain outside the core of society and prone to exploitation by criminal organizations. The dearth of jobs, quality at that has forced millions of Filipinos to work abroad, breaking families and straining the social fabric. As if this is not enough, the obstructionist tactics of the powerful Catholic Church virtually locks the Philippines in a perpetual cycle of poverty.
4. Improve education. Education must be redirected to focus on the STEM subjects (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math), elementary and high school teachers must be incentivized to pursue graduate degrees in their chosen fields of study, medium of instruction must be based on the local language up to Grade 3, Filipino from then onwards. English of course will be a part, but it cannot be the only emphasis. Progress also means creating in the people a sense of nation and unity, which will ultimately ensure that we are emotionally invested in our country strong enough to fight for its betterment.
The Philippines has much to do and much to work on, but I believe that the future of the country lies in its people, and rightly so, as it is the people who creates the nation. Therefore, once the Filipino people aspire to greater heights for themselves, then true change and progress will dawn on the country.
Huwebes, Enero 10, 2013
The Delusions of the Anti-RH Advocates
After the spouses Imbong filed a motion for a temporary order against RA 10354's implementation, another such similar action was filed by the Alliance for the Family Foundation Philippines, Inc. or ALFI through lawyer and ALFI president Maria Concepcion Noche on the grounds "that (the RH law) allows the use of abortifacient devices (such as intrauterine devices) and the purchase of abortifacient substances using taxpayers' money." Second, that "(Republic Act) 10354 violates the right to religious freedom as it
mandates health providers to provide reproductive (health) services even
if (these are) against their religious convictions."
I will herein prove again, that these arguements are not only lame, baseless and absurd, it is already bordering on the psychotic-paranoid-delusional-immaturity scale.
On the first argument, that RA 10354 allows the use of abortifacient devices is clearly a manifestation that Ms. Concepcion has not understood the wording of the law, or cannot see in clear and level-headed manner (probably because her brain is swimming in a stew of dopamine induced delusions) that there are multiple statements in the said law specifically, constantly, categorically stating that it does not condone the use of abortifacient methods, to wit:
Section 2, paragraph 5:
"The State likewise guarantees universal access to medically-safe, NON-ABORTIFACIENT, effective, legal, affordable, and quality reproductive health care services, methods, devices...."
Clearly, unequivocally, the word non-abortifacient is stated. That is plain and simple. It goes without saying that neither does the law allow the purchase of such substances. PAMBIHIRA!!!
As if to underscore that RA 10354 is really serious about non-abortifacients, it is again stated in no uncertain terms in Section 3, paragraph d:
As to the second assertion of Ms. Concepcion, that RA 10354 violates religious freedom as it mandates healthcare workers to provide reproductive services against the religious convictions of the person is TRASH to say the least! In Section 3, paragraph h it states:
Why do we need to provide reproductive services to women and families? Because it is a human right, I have explained this thoroughly already in a previous post. Reproductive health is a public necessity because it has far-reaching and profound implications for society - indeed, it affects the health and well-being of the family over the long term. Of course, the Catholic Church and its minions will not see it that way as they are consumed MORE WITH THE PRESERVATION OF A DOGMA RATHER THAN THE STARK REALITIES OF WHAT IT MEANS TO LIVE AND TO PROVIDE FOR A SECURE AND COMFORTABLE FUTURE FOR ALL MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY.
I will herein prove again, that these arguements are not only lame, baseless and absurd, it is already bordering on the psychotic-paranoid-delusional-immaturity scale.
On the first argument, that RA 10354 allows the use of abortifacient devices is clearly a manifestation that Ms. Concepcion has not understood the wording of the law, or cannot see in clear and level-headed manner (probably because her brain is swimming in a stew of dopamine induced delusions) that there are multiple statements in the said law specifically, constantly, categorically stating that it does not condone the use of abortifacient methods, to wit:
Section 2, paragraph 5:
"The State likewise guarantees universal access to medically-safe, NON-ABORTIFACIENT, effective, legal, affordable, and quality reproductive health care services, methods, devices...."
Clearly, unequivocally, the word non-abortifacient is stated. That is plain and simple. It goes without saying that neither does the law allow the purchase of such substances. PAMBIHIRA!!!
As if to underscore that RA 10354 is really serious about non-abortifacients, it is again stated in no uncertain terms in Section 3, paragraph d:
"The provision of ethical and medically safe, legal,
accessible, affordable, non-abortifacient, effective and quality reproductive
health care services and supplies is essential in the promotion of people’s
right to health, especially those of women, the poor, and the marginalized, and
shall be incorporated as a component of basic health care;"
Under Section 9, paragraph 1:
"The
National Drug Formulary shall include hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine
devices, injectables and other safe, legal, non-abortifacient and effective
family planning products and supplies."
Once again, only non-abortifacient family planning drugs are allowed. HOW DIFFICULT IS THAT TO UNDERSTAND!!!
IUD's are inserted by doctors and must be monitored by them. Hormonal IUD can cause pregnancy in 2 out of 1000 women in the first year while for copper IUD, it is about 6 in 1000 women during the first year. IUD's are not 100% effective and therefore pregnancies can occur, and in those that do, it is because "the IUD is pushed out of (expelled from) the uterus unnoticed. IUDs are most likely to come out in the first few months of IUD use, after being inserted just after childbirth, or in women who have not had a baby."
IN SUCH RARE CASES WHEN A WOMAN DOES BECOME PREGNANT, IT HAS TO BE REMOVED (IUD) BECAUSE IT CAN CAUSE MISCARRIAGE OR PRETERM BIRTH (so there is a possibility that the fetus can be born - IUD's are not even 100% abortifacients!!!). Ms. Concepcion SHOULD CHECK HER FACTS FIRST BEFORE ASSERTING CLAIMS WITH NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS, IT SAVES HERSELF AND EVERYONE AROUND HER ORGANIZATION FROM THE EMBARRASSMENT OF GROSS IGNORANCE.
As
to the question, are Intrauterine Devices (IUD) abortifacient? Let us answer
first what are IUD's. IUD's are "a small, T-shaped plastic device that is
wrapped in copper or contains hormones." There are two types of IUD's.
Hormonal and Copper IUD. The first releases a substance called levonorgestrel
that prevent pregnancy for at least five years. The second is a wire that
prevents sperm from reaching the ovaries and can stay in place for 10 years.
IUD's are inserted by doctors and must be monitored by them. Hormonal IUD can cause pregnancy in 2 out of 1000 women in the first year while for copper IUD, it is about 6 in 1000 women during the first year. IUD's are not 100% effective and therefore pregnancies can occur, and in those that do, it is because "the IUD is pushed out of (expelled from) the uterus unnoticed. IUDs are most likely to come out in the first few months of IUD use, after being inserted just after childbirth, or in women who have not had a baby."
IN SUCH RARE CASES WHEN A WOMAN DOES BECOME PREGNANT, IT HAS TO BE REMOVED (IUD) BECAUSE IT CAN CAUSE MISCARRIAGE OR PRETERM BIRTH (so there is a possibility that the fetus can be born - IUD's are not even 100% abortifacients!!!). Ms. Concepcion SHOULD CHECK HER FACTS FIRST BEFORE ASSERTING CLAIMS WITH NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS, IT SAVES HERSELF AND EVERYONE AROUND HER ORGANIZATION FROM THE EMBARRASSMENT OF GROSS IGNORANCE.
As to the second assertion of Ms. Concepcion, that RA 10354 violates religious freedom as it mandates healthcare workers to provide reproductive services against the religious convictions of the person is TRASH to say the least! In Section 3, paragraph h it states:
"The State shall respect individuals’ preferences and choice
of family planning methods that are in accordance with their religious
convictions and cultural beliefs, taking into consideration the State’s
obligations under various human rights instruments;"
Without a doubt, the individual's preferences are enshrined and ensured to be respected, that includes the person's religious beliefs and cultural inclinations.
Why do we need to provide reproductive services to women and families? Because it is a human right, I have explained this thoroughly already in a previous post. Reproductive health is a public necessity because it has far-reaching and profound implications for society - indeed, it affects the health and well-being of the family over the long term. Of course, the Catholic Church and its minions will not see it that way as they are consumed MORE WITH THE PRESERVATION OF A DOGMA RATHER THAN THE STARK REALITIES OF WHAT IT MEANS TO LIVE AND TO PROVIDE FOR A SECURE AND COMFORTABLE FUTURE FOR ALL MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY.
Miyerkules, Enero 9, 2013
To Where Will I Go
To where will I go
But to peace and quiet
Far and away in limbo
Reflecting, longing, thinking.
To where will I go
In this so noisy and troublesome world
Yoked by worries and summons
Of so demanding a world.
To where will I go
If not for you and with you
To rest my weary mind and heart
In the soothing embrace of your touch.
To where will I go
Confused and angry
Frustrated and scared
To where will I go.
But to peace and quiet
Far and away in limbo
Reflecting, longing, thinking.
To where will I go
In this so noisy and troublesome world
Yoked by worries and summons
Of so demanding a world.
To where will I go
If not for you and with you
To rest my weary mind and heart
In the soothing embrace of your touch.
To where will I go
Confused and angry
Frustrated and scared
To where will I go.
Martes, Enero 8, 2013
The Blessings of Atheism
I recently came upon an article entitled "The Blessings of Atheism" by Susan Jacoby posted through one of my favorite websites, Filipino Freethinkers and realized that atheists are everywhere yet they are nowhere as much as their numbers suggest. Modern society, as postulated by Jacoby, seems to regard atheists as incapable of doing good, of making positive contributions to society. Jacoby is right in her observation that atheists preference to sit behind the sidelines and watch as religious nutbags frolic in the social spectrum has contributed to the aforesaid perception about atheists. I also believe that since atheists are not emotionally attached or hostaged by any "divine concept," they are less likely to go about and make their thoughts known. Unlike "believers," atheists are more secure, more comfortable about their psycho-emotional and intellectual state that they are not threatened, nor the least disturbed, that people do not share their framework. As such, they see no need to "proselytize."
I have observed through the years, and having been once a Catholic seminarian myself, that "believers" feel this need to actually go about and change other people's perception to match and fit their own in the guise of bringing them into the fold of God. They seem to be restless and uncomfortable about the perceptions and beliefs of "non-believers" so much so that they spend a great amount of time convincing them that only through God, by way of the Bible or through the Catholic Church in my experience, can a meaningful life truly be achieved. I believe that if one is secure about one's beliefs, there is really no need for you to go "nuts" that others do not share you inclinations. We know from scientific studies that bullies do what they do because of their emotional insecurities. Children who are emotionally mature, well-adjusted and come from open, secure and supportive families simply go about their lives, doing what they like without hurting or trampling on the feelings or physical conditions of their fellow children. They are also better able to read the emotions and facial expressions of other kids so much so that they are able to identify if the other child is happy, sad, nervous, apprehensive and so on. They can play with other children without problems, know how to negotiate and compromise and are generally liked by their peers.
Religion seems to blunt the capacity of man to think about reality and to substitute it for inflexible dogmas that are to most extent, harsh and inconsiderate to the specific conditions of modern man. A case in point when in 2009, durin a visit to Cameroon, Pope Benedict XVI he asserted that condoms could actually make the crisis of HIV in Africa worse. In that same article, it was reported that in 2005, he told the Catholic clergy in Africa that although HIV is a "cruel epidemic," IT COULD NOT BE CURED THROUGH CONDOMS (emphasis supplied by the author). ARE YOU KIDDING!!! Of course condom could not cure AIDS, but it surely can limit the SPREAD of HIV! As of the writing of this article, no drug has yet been formulated to cure AIDS, but some have been created to control the its damaging effects, retrovirals among them. Sometime in the middle of 2012, the US FDA approved the drug TRUVADA, it was reported to lessen the risk of HIV infection.
Pope Benedict XVI has since changed his views regarding condoms, but only with regards to male prostitutes. In a report published in the Guardian website, Benedict asserted that condom use is acceptable to be used only in certain cases, and this case is if used by male prostitutes. Although a significant improvement from previous church stance on condoms, this is still half-baked because essentially he is saying that it is only acceptable IN THAT SITUATION. It also implies that if used outside of those situations, it cannot prevent the spread of HIV.
Only science and philosophy can make man truly reach his potentials on earth. We should not worry about the afterlife if this earthly life of ours is as complex as it already is. Obsessing about something no one has been to and been back is useless, distracting and unnecessary. The history of religions will unequivocally tell us that after everything has been said and done, religion is nothing but a product of human imagination, borne of man's incessant need to make sense of this cruel and harsh world. Jean Paul-Sartre was right when he said that we create our own meaning, we have to because we were thrown into this world without our consent. To make sense of this life, Sartre further states, is man's ultimate longing. Somehow religion fulfills this Sartrian imperative, for indeed, as Bertrand Russell famously said: "Religion is a defensive reaction against the destructive forces of nature."
To be an atheist indeed is to be truly free, to face the world with one's own courage is nothing short of standing up to the inexplicable mystery that is existence.
I have observed through the years, and having been once a Catholic seminarian myself, that "believers" feel this need to actually go about and change other people's perception to match and fit their own in the guise of bringing them into the fold of God. They seem to be restless and uncomfortable about the perceptions and beliefs of "non-believers" so much so that they spend a great amount of time convincing them that only through God, by way of the Bible or through the Catholic Church in my experience, can a meaningful life truly be achieved. I believe that if one is secure about one's beliefs, there is really no need for you to go "nuts" that others do not share you inclinations. We know from scientific studies that bullies do what they do because of their emotional insecurities. Children who are emotionally mature, well-adjusted and come from open, secure and supportive families simply go about their lives, doing what they like without hurting or trampling on the feelings or physical conditions of their fellow children. They are also better able to read the emotions and facial expressions of other kids so much so that they are able to identify if the other child is happy, sad, nervous, apprehensive and so on. They can play with other children without problems, know how to negotiate and compromise and are generally liked by their peers.
Religion seems to blunt the capacity of man to think about reality and to substitute it for inflexible dogmas that are to most extent, harsh and inconsiderate to the specific conditions of modern man. A case in point when in 2009, durin a visit to Cameroon, Pope Benedict XVI he asserted that condoms could actually make the crisis of HIV in Africa worse. In that same article, it was reported that in 2005, he told the Catholic clergy in Africa that although HIV is a "cruel epidemic," IT COULD NOT BE CURED THROUGH CONDOMS (emphasis supplied by the author). ARE YOU KIDDING!!! Of course condom could not cure AIDS, but it surely can limit the SPREAD of HIV! As of the writing of this article, no drug has yet been formulated to cure AIDS, but some have been created to control the its damaging effects, retrovirals among them. Sometime in the middle of 2012, the US FDA approved the drug TRUVADA, it was reported to lessen the risk of HIV infection.
Pope Benedict XVI has since changed his views regarding condoms, but only with regards to male prostitutes. In a report published in the Guardian website, Benedict asserted that condom use is acceptable to be used only in certain cases, and this case is if used by male prostitutes. Although a significant improvement from previous church stance on condoms, this is still half-baked because essentially he is saying that it is only acceptable IN THAT SITUATION. It also implies that if used outside of those situations, it cannot prevent the spread of HIV.
Only science and philosophy can make man truly reach his potentials on earth. We should not worry about the afterlife if this earthly life of ours is as complex as it already is. Obsessing about something no one has been to and been back is useless, distracting and unnecessary. The history of religions will unequivocally tell us that after everything has been said and done, religion is nothing but a product of human imagination, borne of man's incessant need to make sense of this cruel and harsh world. Jean Paul-Sartre was right when he said that we create our own meaning, we have to because we were thrown into this world without our consent. To make sense of this life, Sartre further states, is man's ultimate longing. Somehow religion fulfills this Sartrian imperative, for indeed, as Bertrand Russell famously said: "Religion is a defensive reaction against the destructive forces of nature."
To be an atheist indeed is to be truly free, to face the world with one's own courage is nothing short of standing up to the inexplicable mystery that is existence.
Mag-subscribe sa:
Mga Post (Atom)