Only the banana has a heart
April 2, 2007 by mlq3
Filed under Daily Dose
The exodus to the countryside has begun, and anyone left in metropolitan areas is distracted and not focused on anything to do with current events. To be sure, there’s some news but who are we kidding? The week before, the week of, and the week after, Holy Week, very little, if at all, gets done. Carl Rove rapping is about as serious as I’m willing to get. I’d rather be examining Venn Diagrams.
So no politics for this week and in fact, this blog’s going on vacation. Over in the Inquirer Current blog, my entry is on the great debates that have surrounded the choice for the date of Easter.
Congratulations are in order for the winners of the Philippine Blog Awards (an event, according to FriskoDude, on par with Guns n’Roses’ surprise concert in Bangkok!), which I had the honor of judging for, though I was unable to attend the awards ceremony. On a related note (to Easter and the religious festival it’s part of) the event was apparently not without incident, as Atheista complained about the content of the invocation (not having an invocation per se) that began the program (in Bayanihan Blogs Network, though, the invocation was described as witty). Personally, I have no problems with invocations, provided they are preceded, and not followed by, the national anthem.
Anyway, the vacation, whether one goes out of town or not, is usually spent catching up on reading, viewing, and listening (and eating). So here are some lighter things you might want to look at.
Vanity Fair has a cover story on the The Sopranos, the landmark angst-ridden mobster series, which bows out this year. Here are some amusing things to view: caffeine sparks points to movie dialogue, courtesy of Mark Lapid: and how others have copied it. Through the blogger behind The Mad Tea Party, I learned of what is probably the wierdest vintage Filipino film to get a second life: watch a 1970s Filipino dwarf James Bond. They say the makers of Casino Royale were sent the clip and loved it.
When it comes to food, I love to eat, but can’t cook, so sometimes I comfort myself by enjoying food vicariously: Slice, for pizza fanatics, brings you to a recent pizza festival, for example; A Hamburger Today discusses perhaps the most insane (and sinful) hamburger ever, the Luther burger, which uses a Krispy Kreme donut as a bun (for a really focused look at McDonalds, on the other hand, there’s McChronicles, though another Hamburger Today entry is disturbing: McDonald’s burger surviving unrefrigerated for 18 years! ).
Wierd Meat focuses on the disturbing: deep fried sand worms, for example. Speaking of fried: kottke.org points to goldfish in Japan that live in a functioning, deep fat fryer!
Lovingly and I must say comfortingly, delicious, is kitchen cow, to which I’ve linked before, but really, it’s the prettiest food blog ever.
For music, check out Last.fm – The Social Music Revolution, while very kind of cultural podcast is covered by a great blog, Open Culture, which can consume hours of bandwidth (read: downloading) time. Downloading Is a Packrat’s Dream is how you’ll end up if you’re not careful, though.
Happy vacation to all! See you on Monday.
I think this photo says it all. For a few days, at least, let’s hope everyone’s minds will be on lighter things.
(Image from The Straightlaced Bohemian.)
Delicious
Facebook
Flickr
LinkedIn
Technorati
Twitter
Loading ...
benj on Mon, 2nd Apr 2007 6:12 pm
Just to clarify, I did not complain because there was an invocation.It was the content of the invocation that made me see it as something very inappropriate.
Jeg on Mon, 2nd Apr 2007 6:35 pm
This prayer?
Why was it inappropriate for the occassion?
benj on Mon, 2nd Apr 2007 7:09 pm
It wasn’t a christian event and not all bloggers blog to remind to be steadfast in their Christian commitment that visitors may find in our blogs a source of encouragement and inspiration.
Not all bloggers blog to lead us closer to You.
Ninety percent of the prayer was funny and witty. The remainder reeked of insensitivity and bad taste.
Apathy Towards Zealotry Is Not An Option on Mon, 2nd Apr 2007 7:35 pm
[...] against christians praying in events – I’m afraid people might get this idea due to the way Manolo presented my dissent. Although a lot of christians are considerate enough to concede that a moment of silence would have [...]
mlq3 on Mon, 2nd Apr 2007 7:39 pm
benj, fixed the entry.
benj on Mon, 2nd Apr 2007 7:41 pm
Thanks man.
The Ca t on Mon, 2nd Apr 2007 7:44 pm
My opinion, if it matters.
1. benj is right, it is not a Christian event.
2. Fr. Cuyos, however can not be faulted for delivering such kind of invocation because he is a Catholic priest.
3. I am a Catholic but I respect other people’s belief.
4. In a place where, there is a diversity of religion, even the greeting of Merry Christmas is substituted with politically correct holiday greetings so the word Christian should have been omitted because we may never know if among the audience/bloggers, there are Muslims, Jews and members of other religion.
5. Except for this observation, I concur with others that the prayer was witty.
vic on Mon, 2nd Apr 2007 11:20 pm
benj commented in other site that the Speech (invocation) was 90 % witty and delivered with ramrkable candor, but the rest was reek with bad taste and political correctness.
and I added:
And that 10% is enough to defeat the whole 100% of the speech. I neither find it funny asking the Almighty to forgive us for the things that we should not do in the first place, if you are that religious. Or even you are an atheist but a law abiding citizen..
links for 2007-04-02 « PinoyBlurker on Mon, 2nd Apr 2007 11:20 pm
[...] Manuel L. Quezon III: The Daily Dose » Blog Archive » Only the banana has a heart [...]
vic on Mon, 2nd Apr 2007 11:35 pm
sorry typo errot should be “political incorrectness” sorry to benj and the rest.
Marcvill on Tue, 3rd Apr 2007 6:22 am
How can you blame Fr. Cuyos, a Catholic priest, for expressing his Christian belief thru the invocation? “Non-believers” should also respect the belief of others, right. And to blame the organizers does not sound fit as well since the PBA’07 opened its doors to all bloggers who would care to volunteer – believers and non beleivers alike.
To Benj and others who got offended, I’m sure the organizers as well as Fr. Cuyos did not intend this to happen. Next year’s event will be bigger and better!! Things like this can be prevented the second time around. Cheers!
baycas on Tue, 3rd Apr 2007 8:49 am
Only the banana has a heart…
naah, a nonbeliever has a heart too…i.e., the sensitive kind. he chose to differ among the rest but is offended when he is left out. yes, fr. stephen didn’t mean to hurt him and leaving out the others (of different faiths and non-faiths) possibly is an unintentional sin of omission.
i’m sure the organizers are now wiser. an invocation of silence is the best invocation of all…men with faith silently praying and men without faith keeping silent…even long after the event…
benj on Tue, 3rd Apr 2007 8:49 am
Marcvill, given this scenario, mutual respect has to be observed. The only way to do that is to keep the prayer devoid of potentially polarizing elements like generalizations and presumptuous claims regarding the purpose of the attendees blogs.
I do hope that changes are put into place next year.
benj on Tue, 3rd Apr 2007 8:56 am
It’s nice that you’re standing up to make sure that the religious bullies are recognized and counted. Good for you.
Jeg on Tue, 3rd Apr 2007 10:43 am
Benj: It wasn’t a christian event…
But was it a private event? And were the organizers Christian? If Im throwing a private event and Im a Christian, I have a right to invite to speak whomever I please, do I not?
…and not all bloggers blog to remind to be steadfast in their Christian commitment that visitors may find in our blogs a source of encouragement and inspiration. Not all bloggers blog to lead us closer to You.
Therefore that invocation was only addressed to those bloggers who have a Christian commitment to blah-blah, etc, etc. If you werent one of those bloggers, then the invocation wasnt about you and you can ignore it. I still dont see that as inappropriate.
Unless you were somehow offended. Again I see no reason why you would be. Youre an atheist, therefore the invocation means nothing to you. The priest might have been reciting Humpty Dumpty for all you care. If youre offended, then youre offended about nothing.
But I see where youre coming from, benj. Youre claiming some sort of ‘victimhood.’ This isnt the way to deal. I mean, if I were in an Islamic community, and one of the events I attended (for example, the Saudi Arabian Blog Awards) included an invocation to Allah in the name of the Prophet Mohammed, I wouldnt complain about it. I see no reason to.
Our constitution, which protects the rights of atheists, isnt itself atheist. But under the constitution, you and I have equal rights even though Im a theist and youre not. The way to deal then is by claiming equal rights and not by claiming victimhood and persecution. The state gestapo arent hauling atheists into death camps, but once they do, Im sure theists in this country will stand up and defend you.
But your pronouncements that an invocation is somehow insensitive and in bad taste worries theists. If for example one day the atheists come into power, they worry that you would take away their right to freely practice their religion. They cant pray in private gatherings like blog awards for example.
Stop claiming victimhood. Stop being overly sensitive over a little invocation that means nothing to you. Be an equal. If you want to advance the cause of atheism for example, issue a call to your fellow atheists and put up a charitable institution to help the less fortunate. The theists have Mother Teresa, Gawad Kalinga, and the Salvation Army. The atheists have…? This is your chance. The atheists could make a difference in our country by doing the same thing. Put up a Rational Army, or something like that. Join civil society instead of campaigning for political correctness. Political correctness is for wimps.
That’s my Holy Week message to atheists, my fellow Filipinos.
Ninety percent of the prayer was funny and witty.
Frankly I found it banal, but it’s the thought that counts.
cvj on Tue, 3rd Apr 2007 11:58 am
Yeah Benj, just grin and bear it.
Back in College, i assigned one of my groupmates to lead the opening prayer during an organization event. Only much later did i discover that she was an atheist. Now, that was insensitive.
UPn student on Tue, 3rd Apr 2007 12:20 pm
So has anyone heard of an invocation that pledges allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines?
UPn student on Tue, 3rd Apr 2007 12:20 pm
Or is this so un-religious a pledge as to be unreligious?
UPn student on Tue, 3rd Apr 2007 12:21 pm
maybe even blasphemy?
UPn student on Tue, 3rd Apr 2007 12:23 pm
Come to think of it… can anyone recount the instances as what the Filipino priest said when this Filipino priest pledge allegiance to the bangsa ng mga Pilipino ?
cvj on Tue, 3rd Apr 2007 12:44 pm
UPn Student, wouldn’t that be the Philippine National Anthem?
bote on Tue, 3rd Apr 2007 1:37 pm
He’s an atheist. Even a moment of silence will offend him because that will still be praying.
Jeg on Tue, 3rd Apr 2007 1:42 pm
UPn, if by invocation we mean calling for the aid of a deity, then I suppose the Constitution would qualify.
Jeg on Tue, 3rd Apr 2007 2:24 pm
He’s an atheist. Even a moment of silence will offend him because that will still be praying.
To be fair to atheists, not all of them are offended when people pray. Ive encountered a few in real life and on the internet and benj is the first one Ive encountered who felt offended by people praying. I suspect he’s a new convert to atheism so the zeal is still there. (Please correct me if Im wrong, benj.)
hvrds on Tue, 3rd Apr 2007 3:39 pm
Men without faith are atheists? But being an atheist requires faith and convictions in ones beliefs. Faith in nothingness is a belief system. If there is faith in nothing then there is no belief system and hence it approaches nihilism.
The Christian principles and ideals are faith, justice and peace. A faith based belief system in a Deity.
Atheists also have faith in nothing. A dogma in nothing is necessary for one to be considered an atheist. Pure rationalism where nothing is assumed. The dogma of life without assumptions. A fundamentalist rationale.
However Christians instead call it the continuing rationale of the mystery of the faith. Dogma in believing that even the physical scientific universe is too vast, unending and seemingly eternal to comprehend what more the spiritual side of existence.
In essence the Christian faith is about discovery about all humanity and that includes atheists so where is the contradiction?
Shaman of Malilipot on Tue, 3rd Apr 2007 4:02 pm
benj’s taking offense is misplaced. His ridicule of the invocation’s content is out of line. An invocation is a religious act. So, what did he expect Fr. Cuyos to say? Read the instruction manual on how to operate a PC?
It just so happened that the event’s organizers were, I suppose, mostly believers so they found it appropriate to include an invocation. I’m sure benj knew beforehand that there would be an invocation, so he could have stepped out of the room while it was being made to spare his sensibilities.
If I found myself, a believer, in an event organized by atheists, the absence of an invocation would not offend me because to force atheists to make an invocation would be oppression. To prevent believers from making an invocation would be oppression, too.
sparks on Tue, 3rd Apr 2007 5:27 pm
hvrds,
When will you put up your blog????
The Ca t on Tue, 3rd Apr 2007 6:13 pm
When people are able to travel and go out of their cocoon, they will find out that religious beliefs are not only limited to Christianity and Islam.
Even the Catholic faith is divided into Orthodox and the Roman.
Invocations can be made by just using the “Generic” name of the Almighty. But as I have said, Fr. Cuying cannot be faulted because he is a Catholic priest.
The observance of moment of silence does not necessarily mean uttering prayers. It is a call to remember events, people or do some reflections.
Again, I reiterate, it is not a Christian event, since, it is not about spiritual retreat, neither it is a church congregation or a Christian celebration.
It is a congregation of bloggers which at this year may be composed of one hundred per cent Christians. As the Philippine blogosphere expands, there will be more joining who may be coming from different faiths, beliefs and religious orientations. Are we going to exclude them?
The word Christian by Fr. Cuying is a start to include non-Catholics. Why is a non-exclusion of non-Christians an issue?
The Ca t on Tue, 3rd Apr 2007 6:30 pm
Reading benj, I understand that he is not against the invocation per se.
This is not an issue between atheism and Christianity. This is more of acknowledging diversity of FAITH among men and respect.
It is not only between Christians and Moslems. But it is also about people who are practising Buddhism, Hinduism.
Yoga is actually a meditation of Buddhists but it was introduced as non-religious cleansing exercise because the religious incantations are made generic.
If Benj, the atheist is going to desecrate a symbol of my faith like what one blogger did, I will not hesitate to speak my mind.
Jeg on Tue, 3rd Apr 2007 6:57 pm
I dont get it, C at. Who was being excluded? Father Cuying was praying for Christian bloggers. He wasnt excluding non-Christian bloggers from the blogging community. How can he? His prayer won’t prevent Benj and other atheists (and Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, pagans) from continuing to blog, nor should it. And including atheists in the invocation will not make atheists feel better. Im sure they would much rather be left out of the invocation. This, the priest did. That’s why Benj’s taking offense at the contents of the invocation was a bit baffling to me since it wasnt about him. It looked like a claim to victimhood or at least a claim for political correctness which, come to think of it, might be the same thing. We’re all different but we’re one in that we belong to a community. E pluribis unum.
benj on Tue, 3rd Apr 2007 7:04 pm
some people here have chosen to make comments without reading more than one sentence. : |
I have always been clear in saying that I am not against prayers per se. I really hate it when I’m being misrepresented – wittingly or unwittingly.
Jeg, I was never aligned with any religion, nor did I have an overwhelming belief in the existence of a god. Kindly keep your assumptions to yourself especially if they have something to do with me. I mean that in the most respectful way.
AGAIN, THE ACT OF PRAYING DID NOT OFFEND ME. Manolo has already made the necessary corrections regarding that. It’s the act of presumptuously assuming that everyone’s blog was supposed to used for the forwarding of the interests of Christianity that set me off.
READ PEOPLE!!! READ!!!!! I NEVER SAID THAT PEOPLE SHOULDN’T PRAY. I didnt even raise the entire idea of the moment of silence – the christians on my blog were the ones who advocated that.
I think it’s ok to give thanks for the event, attendance, venue, etc. I think that’s still within the boundaries of common decency. Assuming that everyone inside the venue was christian and was blogging for the “greater glory of their religion/god” was very presumptuous and downright discriminatory.
vic on Tue, 3rd Apr 2007 7:05 pm
“He’s an atheist. Even a moment of silence will offend him because that will still be praying”.
Observance of moment of Silence is not a prayer all the time. We do observe a few moments of silence every year, most notable the llth hour of the llth day of the llth month to Remember and To Honour those who gave the ultimate sacrifice in the plains and ridges of Europe so we can have our Freedom of Religions and that includes everyone of all Faiths, including non-believers. And after the moment of silence, everyone are free to say their prayers and everyone are free to listen or not.
But to deliver an invocation in a gathering that is not for religious purposes, where attendee may come from different faiths and no prior warning to those who may get offended is not only a breach of common sense, but imposing your own on others and it may not be illegal or unconstitutional, but just poor judgement….
Jeg on Tue, 3rd Apr 2007 7:09 pm
Jeg, I was never aligned with any religion, nor did I have an overwhelming belief in the existence of a god.
Got it, benj. Like you said it was an assumption. I accept the rebuke.
benj on Tue, 3rd Apr 2007 7:18 pm
yay! no harm no foul jeg.
bote on Tue, 3rd Apr 2007 7:33 pm
if the intent was just to point out what was wrong with the proceeding, there should not have been a problem.
a moment of silence is normally preceeded by a prayer, the only thing there is it is done in silence.
benj on Tue, 3rd Apr 2007 7:46 pm
Anyway, why aren’t we talking about Mark Lapid? that clip is sensational as well. hahahaha.
bote: a moment of silence is done in place of a prayer. The University of the Philippines often does this. In times that they choose to forego this, they usually have a choir singing hymns.
baycas on Tue, 3rd Apr 2007 8:21 pm
despite the obvious non-equivalence in paradigms (of atheists and theists), there are still more things that fall within the common ground*.
…mark lapid’s saging lang ang may puso is one of the common grounds. truly sensational…just read the viewers’ comments at youtube…
—–
*from benj’s website
Happy Faith - blog & podcast of Stephen, MSC » Blog Archive » Praying Is Good on Tue, 3rd Apr 2007 9:19 pm
[...] my prayer has sparked a lively debate in the blogosphere. The liveliest, I think, is the one found here and of course here.. It’s Holy Week after all and it’s a time for us to confront [...]
Fr. Stephen Cuyos, msc on Tue, 3rd Apr 2007 9:26 pm
Peace everyone. I am the author of the prayer. If you want to know about my take on the lively discussions here, please go to: http://www.stephencuyos.com/?p=282
john marzan on Tue, 3rd Apr 2007 9:35 pm
wtf is joakim noah talking about?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58JsDoQDzTA
ex bush aide matthew dowd says he lost faith in Dubya.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/washington/01adviser.html?em&ex=1175659200&en=fdd5063f3666423f&ei=5087
The Ca t on Wed, 4th Apr 2007 11:17 am
With these statements of yours, I give you F in Logic.
And who sez, his prayer is stopping non-Christians not to continue their blogs.
Kapareho mo rin yong nagcomment doon sa blog ni Father CUyos na narrow minded ang mga nag-object sa parte ng dasal kung saan Christian ang ADJECTIVE na ginamit para sa mga bloggers.
Ang narrow-minded ay ang iniisip ay ang dasal ay para sa Kristiyano lang.
When I was lecturing in Indonesia, the attendees were mostly Moslems. But that lecture did not make it a Muslim event. We observed moment of silence before the start of every session. At 12:00, they were excused to say their prayers.
When my Jewish father-in-law died, there was a memorial. It was for the Jewish community, therefore prayers were in Jewish.It was a Jewish event.
But because he was a Head of Pathology Department of a hospital, a separate memorial was done by the employees and friends. Invocation did not mention anything about specific religion.
There is such a thing as INTERFAITH PLURALISM, people of little BrainFaith
Shaman of Malilipot on Wed, 4th Apr 2007 11:17 am
benj, if you’re not against the act of praying, why do you want to dictate on what other people want to pray for? Why begrudge Christians if they want to advance Christianity through blogging? You have as much right to advance atheism through blogging, and I won’t begrudge you for it.
My Jesuit mentors have taught me to humanize Christian endeavors and Christianize human endeavors (like blogging. If you cannot acept that, have you heard of the word “tolerance”?
Jeg on Wed, 4th Apr 2007 12:33 pm
Hell C at. Your post on April 3rd, 2007 at 6:13 pm was about exclusion.
Perhaps it was your writing that I found incomprehensible. To wit: You assumed that the attendees were 100% Christian despite the fact at least one atheist was there. You mentioned as the community expands there will be more joining from different faiths and rhetorically ask, “Are we going to exclude them?” implying that there is exclusion. [Which led me to ask, Who was being excluded?]
My point was that the prayer, a Christian prayer, ‘excluded’ no one from the blog awards ceremony, if youll recall.
You equivocate the Blog Awards with the Blogosphere, hence my confusion. And yet later on you write, ‘Why is non-exclusion of non-Christians an issue?’ which misses the whole point entirely. The ‘issue’, if there ever was one–and I submit the issue is a non-issue–is the exclusion of atheists in the prayer. I said, if youll recall, that the atheists prefer that they not be included in the prayer. They are deliberately excluded in the prayer which, I suspect, what they want. An atheist would not want any part of that prayer. So the issue of exclusion is really an non-issue. Such is the gist of my message to benj.
Do I get an A now?
Jeg on Wed, 4th Apr 2007 12:34 pm
Ooops. I meant Hello, C at. Not Hell C at. Sorry.
The Ca t on Wed, 4th Apr 2007 5:22 pm
I wrote:
It is a congregation of bloggers which at this year
composed of one hundred per cent Christians.
Take note of the word
I wrote:
As the Philippine blogosphere expands…
I am not referring to PBA. I am really referring to blogosphere particularly the bloggers. Bloggers in the Philippine blogosphere do not only include Christian Pinoy bloggers. There are many who have already adopted other religious beliefs.
The Ca t on Wed, 4th Apr 2007 5:38 pm
Again, I will tell you, the word Christian excludes other faiths or non-faith.
It is also like saying Filipino foods. The word Filipino excludes other foods.
When I was having a conference with some foreigners in a tall building some years ago, the earthquake struck.
All of us prayed for safety uttering the two words MY GOD SAVE US…the Muslims could have invoked their Allah and the Jews their Yahweh and the Buddhists, their Buddha.
After the earthquake, we managed to
everyone about saying
– that is owning GOD for our salvation.
Do Not Let Religion Divide Us: The Debate on Invocations During Secular Gatherings at Prudence and Madness on Wed, 4th Apr 2007 6:25 pm
[...] M. L. Quezon III: Personally, I have no problems with invocations, provided they are preceded, and not followed by, the national anthem. [...]
PinoyBlogosphere.Com » Blog Archive » Do Not Let Religion Divide Us: The Debate on Invocations During Secular Gatherings on Wed, 4th Apr 2007 6:29 pm
[...] M. L. Quezon III: Personally, I have no problems with invocations, provided they are preceded, and not followed by, the national anthem. [...]
Now What, Cat? » Blog Archive » The Controversial Ca t and Prayer on Wed, 4th Apr 2007 6:55 pm
[...] mouse, I never planned to take this up in my blog. I thought that expressing my view at MLQ3’s comment box is enough. I do not attempt to be controversial. I am already controversial. Since this Cat landed [...]
UPn student on Thu, 5th Apr 2007 1:03 am
Religion … Fr. Cuycos can comment again…. but is it not religion’s purpose to divide… and that those who “have the gift” also have the understanding that they may be asked to separate brother from brother, or children from parents, when necessary?
UPn student on Thu, 5th Apr 2007 1:13 am
Fr. Stephen Cuycops… And is it true, or is it not true, that all members of the Philippine Catholic priesthood have the duty to spread the faith…. and to separate wheat from chaff? [ The females have dispensation to be good citizens only --- taking care of orphans and sick -- without need to 'divide'. ]
But of course… all in jest.
bote on Thu, 5th Apr 2007 7:13 pm
yes, these days of political correctness, it’s secular in nature. But, let’s not kid ourselves. moment of silence was derived from prayers, it is prayer in disguise. true atheist are supposed to be against this practise.
rp excluded, i’ve never been to a meeting, seminars or a conferences that starts, or ends, the proceeding with a “moment of silence”. then again, i have never been out of ASIA. pardon my ignorance.
benj on Thu, 5th Apr 2007 9:11 pm
Since when did “true atheism” equate to being against everything that has something to do with religion? I think you’re confusing fundamentalism (in the atheist sense) vs political correctness. I don’t think atheism necessarily translates to being an anti-establishment mentality towards all religions. Limiting the definition of atheism to a religion-hating individual is totally false matter. I have no idea where you’re drawing your “tenets” of real atheism. Atheism is denying the existence of god. that’s it. anything else that the person does doesn’t make him a real, ‘unreal’ or ‘virtual’ atheist. I’m atheist – not a member of Al Qaeda.
bote, go to UP. Twenty pesos says it’s in Asia.
Shaman of Malilipot: Again, the speaker made an effort to include everyone in attendance and assumed that everyone was christian.
Jeg: I am not aware of what other atheists want, so I’m sticking to what’s logically sensible to me. Having myself (and my blog) lumped into a pile of “vessels that would lead closer to the christian god” is a bit too presumptuous.
benj on Thu, 5th Apr 2007 9:14 pm
Shaman of Malilipot : I have nothing against christians who advance their religions via blogging. Once they take advantage of a secular event and hijack it as if it were a christian extravaganza, I think it’s no longer proper.
watchful eye on Fri, 6th Apr 2007 12:17 am
SC Justice Sandoval-Gutierrez told law grads from Bulacan State University to be “prayerful,†is that problematic too?
What about when Ate Glue once said that an ideology for national unity could be based on “Christian Democracy,†was that poor taste too? hmmm.
benj on Fri, 6th Apr 2007 12:33 am
of course it is. LAKAS used to be NUCD only – the NUMD just followed later. I don’t think there needs to be a debate on whether or not the church has a strong influence in politics and society.
cvj on Fri, 6th Apr 2007 12:42 am
I think ‘hijacked’ is the right word. Secular events should not have ‘invocations’. It’s not the proper venue to display one’s religion (or lack of it).
missingpoints on Fri, 6th Apr 2007 9:28 am
[delurking]
If Justice Gutierrez was a guest speaker, then she’s free to speak her opinion. They got her for her advice. However, if this “prayerfulness” is found in a state university’s mission statement, then it is problematic.
bote on Fri, 6th Apr 2007 7:10 pm
benj, i said “rp excluded”.
jusst want to say something about the “Hijacked” thing. The man was invited to do the invocation, he’s a catholic priest, the organizers knew that. You don’t expect him to deliver an invocation that will be against the his practice and belief, do you?
Anyway, you’ve made your point and the organizers said it won’t happen again.
happy holidays, man! peace!
realist on Sat, 7th Apr 2007 12:59 am
Pinoy movies reflects pinoy mentality – Hilaw! Totoo yan, saging lang ang may puso, Bwahahaha!
The Ca t on Sat, 7th Apr 2007 7:39 pm
Rp is just but a dot in the world map. The world is not only dominated by Christian faith. It is not too late to acknowledge new facts for your life. Time to educate yourself.
Bencard on Sat, 7th Apr 2007 8:55 pm
long ago, in my philosophy class, the professor asserted that atheism presupposes the existence of God because how can you deny something that doesn’t exist? I believe him then and I believe him now. Existence of anything does not depend on one’s belief or unbelief. God exists no matter what you think, but you can disbelieve only at your peril. After the Fall (eating the “forbidden fruit”), man was invested the freedom to deny his creator and thereby suffer eternal perdition.
UPn student on Sun, 8th Apr 2007 1:30 am
Here are some statistics:
– less than 3% of Filipinos do not believe in God; same with Poles : 3% atheists;
– 65% of Japanese do not believe in god; 1 in 4 Canadians do not believe in god;
– 1 in 4 Taiwanese are atheists; 8 in 10 Swedes; 43% French atheists;
– 45% South Koreans; 30% Israelis atheists; 45% Germans atheists;
People interested may read:
Justin Barrett : “Why Would Anyone Believe in God?”
Scott Atran : “In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion”
Both these 2 books explore the relationship between religion and science (anthropology, cognitive behavior, psychology, evolution).
–
As for God of Filipinos…. why does He let miserable things happen?
UPn student on Sun, 8th Apr 2007 1:38 am
Justin Barrett arrives at the conclusion that believing-in-God is self-evident
and is the natural conclusion to things (I suppose he says that all countries
will eventually be like the Philippines or Poland — atheists being the 5%-or-less
very insignificant minority).
Scott Atran posits that God is a spandrel. [Those interested can do a
Google-search with keywords spandrel Scott Atran New York Times
to find several sites that has the New York Times article on
Scott Atran and others' discussion of how human-evolution has
meshed the God-concept into their beliefs. ]
missingpoints on Sun, 8th Apr 2007 9:49 am
@bencard: your philo prof is using an outdated definition of atheism. Today atheism is simply lack of belief in god. Why should we deny something that does not exist?
Bencard on Sun, 8th Apr 2007 10:08 am
missingpoint, if you don’t believe in “nothing” why even talk of not believing. The idea (of unbelief) is so repugnant, it is a waste of time expressing it.
UPn student on Sun, 8th Apr 2007 11:57 am
Bencard… believing in “nothing” is totally rational, or at least commonplace, especially in its many variations. For example, many Filipinos believe that they have “no future”. There are also many others who believe that imperatrix GMA has “no legitimacy”, and you can bet your retirement check that they will talk to you about it if you will listen.
As always, being able to articulate clearly one’s thoughts (be it “believing in”, or “lack of belief in” X-Y-Z) makes for interesting conversations… or yelling and screaming and name-calling.
All in jest.
benj on Sun, 8th Apr 2007 3:10 pm
I don’t believe in leprechauns. Oh noes. They exist. I rest my case.
cvj on Sun, 8th Apr 2007 4:33 pm
I believe that line of argument falls under the category of sophistry.
Bencard on Sun, 8th Apr 2007 8:46 pm
there you go once again,cvj. out of context. you know i was not talking of general “unbelief”. i was talking about belief in the existence of God which the atheist denies.
benj on Sun, 8th Apr 2007 10:13 pm
You can deny the existence because there is an existing paradigm wherein the existence of a god is forwarded without much substantiation.
cvj on Sun, 8th Apr 2007 10:53 pm
Bencard, we’re on the same page, neither was i talking about general unbelief. Your line of argument where you state that the “idea of [unbelief in God] is so repugnant, it is a waste of time expressing it” is a form of sophistry. Repugnance in itself does not invalidate an idea.
Bencard on Mon, 9th Apr 2007 1:25 am
benj, “without much substantiation”? how much is “much”? where there is an effect, there HAS to be a cause. when a light bulb lights, you know there is electricity even though you don’t see or feel it (unless you touch it and perish in the process). There may be an infinite chain of causes but there has to be a FIRST cause that is ITSELF uncaused – God, Allah, Yahweh, Buddha,or simply the “Force” or whatever you want to call it. If you want to articulate your denial, you may want to substantiate it too beyond a conclusory: “I don’t believe it”.
cvj, you are a creature and you must have a “creator”. You did’nt come into this world by sheer accident or ‘big bang” or magic, black or otherwise, or the mere action of your parents. Unbelief in your Creator’s existence is denying your own. How weird (repugnant) can that be since you are there blogging every which way you can.
cvj on Mon, 9th Apr 2007 1:58 am
Unlike perhaps in the courtroom, you cannot establish scientific fact by merely manipulating words (i.e. ‘creature’/'creator’). Aristotle was a far greater philosopher (than any of us), but he got a lot of things wrong about the world because he was simply reflecting and manipulating words (i.e. speculating) and not doing honest to goodness scientific investigation. To be scientific, the existence of a ‘Creator’ must be proven within the context of a given theoretical framework. We cannot take it as a given – that’s why it’s called faith, and i’m ok with that as long as we’re able to separate one from the other.
Bencard, if we were to go about this scientifically, the burden of proof would be on you. Also for an ‘infinite chain’ to have ‘first cause’ is a contradiction in terms.
Bencard on Mon, 9th Apr 2007 3:26 am
cvj, again i don’t want to engage you in an interminable argument which benefit neither of us. i concede that there is an unbridgeable chasm between our points of view in most, if not all, issues that come up in this blog. remember, i was the first one who complained, and repeated time and again, about your habit of “manipulating” words and concocting “theories” reflecting ideas of others, both known and unknown, in the hope of giving them some credibility or profundity.
GOD will not be if HIS’/HER’S/IT’S existence is subject to scientific proof or non-proof. I don’t think you appreciate that the concept of God is beyond the realm of human reason and understanding and it would be the height of presumptuousness to hold otherwise. The problem is you think of God in terms of human paradigms and rationalizations.
I used “infinite chain” to illustrate what, in human terms, is the mind-boggling evidence of God’s presence. i guess you are right, though, that “infinite chain” contradicts the FIRST CAUSE description. Therefore, I would restate it to read “incomprehensible chain”.
cvj on Mon, 9th Apr 2007 4:02 am
Then why did you demand that Benj ’substantiate’ his denial?
Didn’t i just say above that’s why it’s called faith, and i’m ok with that as long as we’re able to separate one from the other?
Bencard on Mon, 9th Apr 2007 5:27 am
see that manipulation…. I said “if you want to articulate your denial, you may want to substantiate it too beyond a conclusory: “I don’t believe it”. Did I DEMAND “substantiation” of God’s existence?
Bencard on Mon, 9th Apr 2007 6:30 am
so you’re ok with faith, then what’s your problem? “separate” faith from what?
cvj on Mon, 9th Apr 2007 11:18 am
You’re quibbling.
Separate faith from science (and act accordingly).
Shaman of Malilipot on Mon, 9th Apr 2007 11:53 am
Benj, Fr. Cuyos was invited to play a role in the event, to do a job, if you will. Now, he is a Christian, and as he explained it in his blog, necessarily his invocation had a Christian flavor. It couldn’t have been any other way. If someone of another faith delivered the invocation, it would have had a different flavor.
And you exaggerate. How long was the invocation? Two minutes? Three minutes? Five minutes? How could a 5-minute invocation turn the whole event into a “christian extravaganza”?
Now, you had a choice on how to react to Fr. Cuyos. You had the choice to let the invocation bounce off you, or to get offended. You chose to get offended. You had a problem because of the choice you made. If you insulted me, I could make the choice of not being offended. Then I wouldn’t have any problem. Even if you complimented me, I still could make the choice of not letting that flatter me either. Do you get the drift?
So, the next time you find yourself in an event with an invocation, you know you’ll have a choice: you can choose to either have a problem or not. You’ll only have yourself to answer to for your choice. Nobody else.
And please don’t be so arrogant as to try to bend others to your will.
cvj on Mon, 9th Apr 2007 12:40 pm
Shaman, i hope you’re not advocating self-censorship. I don’t think the length of the invocation matters. It’s like having a fly swimming in the soup. It does not matter how small the fly is. We all have the right to be offended and in the case of Benj, he expressed his offense by blogging about it. That’s a plain and simple act of free speech. Taking offense is one of the safeguards against tyranny of the majority.
Here in Singapore, they have ‘Out of Bounds markers’ that indicate what topics are not permissible to be discussed (e.g. in the interest of racial and religious harmony). That’s something i don’t care much for.
Shaman of Malilipot on Mon, 9th Apr 2007 4:31 pm
cvj, what damage did the invocation do to benj except ruffle his sensibilities? Is making a Christian invocation in a convocation where an atheist is present a crime? Is it against public morals? Is it even against good manners and right conduct? Was there tyranny, really? Was benj forced to say the prayer? Was he forced to listen? As I’ve said earlier, when he knew that an invocation was coming, he could have stepped out of the room and no one would have prevented him from doing so. Was his right to non-belief in a Deity violated?
What was benj’s purpose in blogging about his taking offense? To simply express his displeasure publicly or to advocate the elimination of invocations in public gatherings? I know of a religion that proscribes the singing of the national anthem or pledging allegiance to the flag. Should the singing of the national anthem now be eliminated from public gatherings on the chance that a member of that religion might be in attendance?
My point is that this is something that is best left tolerated. Religion to me is my personal relationship with my God. I’ll talk to you about it only if you want me to. Otherwise, I’ll not impose myself on you. Whenever I hear something against my Christian belief, I always say it’s not for me, it doesn’t concern me, period. No quarrel. Tolerance equals peace. But how many wars have been waged because of religious intolerance?
So, you’ll never catch me arguing about religion. Religion is based on faith. You either have the grace of having it or you don’t. You either believe in God or you don’t. No use arguing. And the fact of the matter is that it’s only when we die that we’ll find out who is right. But then it would be too late.
Those who seek God at the 11th hour die at 10:30.
cvj on Mon, 9th Apr 2007 6:54 pm
Shaman, it’s a matter of principle. At the very least, it was an act of insensitivity by the majority Catholics towards the minority non-Catholics (whether atheists or people of other faiths). As Ecclesiastes 3:1 says, “To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven” The time and place for engaging in a conversation with God (via an invocation) is in private or within a community of like-minded individuals. An event where you are bound to have a diverse lot of individuals which include nonbelievers like Atheista, Sassy or BryanBoy, such collective expression is out of place and smacks of in your face proselytizing. A personal relationship with God is best kept personal.
By contrast, singing of the national anthem is ok since the event was held on Philippine soil and even foreigners have to respect that.
Praying Is Good « stephencuyos on Mon, 9th Apr 2007 8:38 pm
[...] my prayer has sparked a lively debate in the blogosphere. The liveliest, I think, is the one found here and of course here. It’s Holy Week after all and it’s a time for us to confront [...]
UPn student on Mon, 9th Apr 2007 9:21 pm
I still return to my thesis that an underlying purpose of Catholic priests is to separate chaff from wheat. The priest intended the speech that he delivered.
And for those who don’t seem to know it exists, there are many examples on the Web, and you yourself can write them and practice delivering them — inspirational speeches without the religious themes.
Shaman of Malilipot on Mon, 9th Apr 2007 10:08 pm
cvj, I hope you’re not advocating a tyranny of the minority. I never thought that a little prayer could do so much harm. Wow! In a democracy, the minority is forced to bend to the will of the majority, and no one complains. At least, no one should. Here in a little act of prayer, delivered in the context of “to whom it may concern”, you are not even required to do anything except to be tolerant for a few minutes. Is it asking too much?
Personally, I offer everything I do, in private or in public, for the greater glory of God. What if I went to a gathering of a majority of atheists and demanded that, as a matter of principle, there should be an invocation, otherwise it would be an act of insensitivy on their part? I could be as intolerant, couldn’t I?
You see, this thing can cut both ways. And I again hold that tolerance is the best response to any given situation. What better thing is there to ensure racial and religious harmony (even in Singapore) than tolerance? Without tolerance on everyone’s part, things can be taken to extremes of absurdity. That’s when conflicts arise.
cvj on Mon, 9th Apr 2007 11:16 pm
Shaman, in a democracy, the minority has to accept the will of the majority as long as it does not violate their own rights. The event was a secular one, so prayer is out of place. We Catholic Filipinos just feel it’s normal because we’re so used to it, but at some point our insular culture has to change so we can catch up with the rest of the outside world.
As to your counterexample, if you were inside a church or if it were a religious event, then perhaps you are within your rights to force the atheists to sit through an invocation, but not in any other public or secular space.
justice league on Tue, 10th Apr 2007 12:13 am
When the anniversary of EDSA 1 was still attended by a lot of people, I remember that ecumenical services were done by representatives of different religions.
I don’t exactly remember what those representatives said but they took their turns in saying them. (Maybe worthwhile if anybody remembers what was actually stated in those prayers)
There was a discussion here once regarding an alleged insult to the Chritian faith. I remarked then that if the intention of those involved were to insult the Christians; would the Christians be at fault if they indeed took it as an insult?
Fr. Cuyos implies that he did not intend to offend anybody. If anyone took the content of the prayer as offensive, well I can only surmise that they view their own reasons as valid.
But please let us remember that even the concerned blogger has no problem with an invocation and nor that an invocation was included. Clearly even in a secular event, he didn’t consider a prayer out of place. The alleged problem is supposed to be in the content.
Shaman of Malilipot on Tue, 10th Apr 2007 2:27 am
Well, cvj, in a democracy the minority does lose some rights; the right to pursue a different policy or course of action, for instance.
But, here, we are talking more about sensibilities than about rights. Hearing an invocation doesn’t make anyone lose his right to be an atheist. I don’t know about the Christian Brothers, but the Jesuits taught me to glorify God in all places and in all the things that I do, yes, even in a public or secular space. So, I prefer to make an act of offertory every time I start an activity. Don’t tell me I don’t have the right to do that.
Now, what you are saying is that as a Christian, I should not demand that atheists must be considerate of my sensibilities by allowing an invocation to be made (even if they have to step out of the room for a few minutes). But, you are also saying that it’s perfectly all right for an atheist to demand that Christians must be considerate of his sensibilities by preventing them from saying a little piece of prayer (not even if he has to step out of the room for a few minutes). Are the atheists’ sensibilities superior to those of the theists’? Is the public domain the exclusive territory of the atheists? See how this thing can go the way of absurdity?
You have not said anything about the value of tolerance. Remember that the secular state, where the theists and the atheists can co-exist, can only be made possible because of tolerance. Intolerance engenders constant conflict. It produces either a theocratic state or a godless society in the extreme. Neither of which, I suppose, you want.
Democracy, if you look at it closely, is essentially based on tolerance.
Shaman of Malilipot on Tue, 10th Apr 2007 2:54 am
justice league,
Precisely because benj didn’t have a problem with an invocation being said, although he didn’t believe in it and it was meaningless to him, he should not have cared about its content. Did he really expect Fr. Cuyos, who is a Catholic, to pray as an atheist? It’s impossible. It’s a contradiction.
As I have earlier said, everyone present had a choice of how to react to what Fr. Cuyos had said, either to get offended or not. They even had the choice to listen to him or not. Why should Fr. Cuyos be faulted for someone else’s choice?
vic on Tue, 10th Apr 2007 6:50 am
Why should Fr. Cuyos be faulted for someone else’s choice? – shaman
Please ask Father Cuyos that he too has that choice not to offend anyone, but he chose to and he intended to deliver the invocation knowing it. But I’m still glad he did it, at least we now, is debating an issue that we here long ago figured out already that it was not in the best interest of harmonious relationships among diverse social fabrics of our society.
vic on Tue, 10th Apr 2007 7:47 am
Take a look at this article and at this day and age, any thing that offends any segment of society is unacceptable.
http://www.thestar.com/article/200265
Bencard on Tue, 10th Apr 2007 11:53 am
vic, from the facts we know, it doesn’t appear that Fr. Cuyos “knew” that he was offending anyone, and there was no reason for him to assume that.
cvj on Tue, 10th Apr 2007 11:58 am
Shaman, in the Philippine setting, we may find it normal to have invocations at secular events, but what is normal in own little world is actually considered archaic or even backward practice in the more developed countries. We have to decide what kind of society we would be. Would we like to be more like the Catholic version of Iran, that the friars and their successors want us to remain as, or do we want to go further down the road to enlightened civilization? As per Corinthians 13:11 “When I was a child I spoke as a child I understood as a child I thought as a child; but when I became a man I put away childish things.” It will take awhile but i find the presence of atheists and their restlessness as a sign that our society is moving forward.
cvj on Tue, 10th Apr 2007 11:59 am
Bencard, at least now he knows, and i hope he learns from this and acts accordingly in the future.
missingpoints on Tue, 10th Apr 2007 12:31 pm
Shaman: the problem is that the Christians aren’t even aware that they’re offending anybody. Now, thanks to Benj, the PBA and other groups who have read about this issue are now conscious of the fact that they need to be more ecumenical when formulating invocations. Fr. Cuyos can’t pray as an atheist, but he should’ve been aware that there are people of other/no faith. He could’ve been more inclusive and should not have assumed that everyone present is there for the glory of his god. Bryanboy’s blog is proof enough of that.
Shaman of Malilipot on Tue, 10th Apr 2007 4:03 pm
Up to now, no one has taken me up on the value or virtue of tolerance.
micketymoc on Tue, 10th Apr 2007 4:15 pm
How does a Catholic invocation in mixed company demonstrate the value or virtue of tolerance?
Shaman of Malilipot on Tue, 10th Apr 2007 5:08 pm
The virtue of tolerance is in the non-Catholic who does not take the Catholic invocation as an affront to his sensibilities; in the Catholic who does not take a Koran reading as an attack on his faith; in an atheist who does not take prayer as an assault on his godlessness.
Tolerance is not an attribute of the stimulus (a Catholic invocation) but a response or reaction of the receiver to the stimulus.
Don’t you think that there will be more peace, less conflicts, if people can only be more tolerant of each other?
Shaman of Malilipot on Tue, 10th Apr 2007 5:24 pm
“Would we like to be more like the Catholic version of Iran, that the friars and their successors want us to remain as, or do we want to go further down the road to enlightened civilization?” – cvj
I’m preaching tolerance precisely because I don’t want extremism (intolerance) to produce a theocracy nor a godless society.
missingpoints on Tue, 10th Apr 2007 5:43 pm
Re: tolerance as attribute of the response
It goes both ways. The stimulus bears responsibility, too. If you want to espouse a “tolerant” society, you must learn to say things that are tolerable.
vic on Tue, 10th Apr 2007 5:44 pm
Tolerance could only exists in society where all parties accept that differing views and beliefs and religions are accepted and respected. You may expound or promote your view, your religion or your belief in an acceptable manner and accept the fact that in doing so, sometimes it may offend others and in the process learn from that mistake.
From my own experience, years ago, anyone exercising the freedom of speech can promote his or her view even to detriment or promoting hatred to a particular race or group in particular the aborigine, blacks, asian, the homosexuals, the jews, the muslims and others. Until such limitations to that rights was enacted into law and the Anti-Hate law was passed under the Criminal Code, mere preaching of Tolerance and lips service meant nothing.
Now everyone knows where they stand. The religious leaders know that they still have all the freedom of speech in the context of Religious Freedom and even exempted from anti-hate law for the discussion in the subject of religion, but they can not violate the rights of others of different faith and belief, also under the fundamental rights of Freedom of Conscience and Religion.
Like Respect, Tolerance is a Two-Way Street…
Shaman of Malilipot on Tue, 10th Apr 2007 6:16 pm
Speech that promotes hatred is patently evil and can never be tolerated. But, what possible harm can a prayer invoking blessings for a gathering of people do? What can be so intolerable about it? Is it really that difficult to simply say, “Let it be”, or, “Thanks, but no thanks”, and leave it at that?
vic on Tue, 10th Apr 2007 6:56 pm
Being offended doesn’t equate to getting harm. When I said limitations, I don’t only meant hates (criminal offense), but discrimations of all kinds (constitutional violations).
Shaman of Malilipot on Tue, 10th Apr 2007 7:16 pm
Vic, choosing not to be offended by a harmless thing, or should I say, being offended by a harmless thing but letting it go, is a good meaning of tolerance. Believe me, it can blow away a lot of turmoil within you. But you seem to insist on being intolerant.
Let me just say that I am tolerant of your intolerance.
vic on Tue, 10th Apr 2007 7:28 pm
Shaman, I don’t believe your are tolerant by insisting I am intolerant. But one thing I can tell you, I don’t know where you are residing now, but to experience tolerance and living it, I did and enjoying it. again thank you and with this I ended my own debate on this issue…
micketymoc on Tue, 10th Apr 2007 8:58 pm
I would also add to your list, Shaman, “The virtue of tolerance is in the Catholic who does not misconstrue a moment of silence as an attack on his faith.” Benj and other atheists don’t mind having a brief moment of silence as a compromise – isn’t that the mark of a tolerant society, one where compromises are made to ensure that everybody gets their fair share of breathing space?
Is such a compromise intolerant? How do you define “tolerance”, anyway? I share A.C. Grayling’s point of view that tolerance is “an ethical demand that everyone should respect everyone else’s rights and liberties†– not just a form of laissez-faire that allows the growth of exclusivistic and intolerant modes of thought.
“Tolerance is not a demand to license just anything whatever, least of all behaviour that threatens the rights of others,” explains Grayling.
Tolerance, in Grayling’s view, imposes on its adherents an active opposition to intolerant behavior, not just a meek acceptance of inflicted intolerance. Because a prayer can be more than a prayer; “harmless” might be the wrong description for some people. It can be a sly effort at proselytization, it can be an act of exclusion, it can be indoctrination of a captive audience, it can be all three at the same time.
Because public prayer – in certain circumstances, like in the bloggers’ event – can be seen as intolerant, to follow the ethical demand of tolerance is to seek acceptable compromises that deny religionists the chance to exclude or indoctrinate others, but allow everyone the space to give thanks to their supreme being if they should so wish. Why would you deny non-Catholics that space?
sparks on Tue, 10th Apr 2007 9:11 pm
Hay ’susmaryosep. Di pa ba natatapos ito???? :-p
justice league on Tue, 10th Apr 2007 10:24 pm
Shaman,
I feel that you are reacting to my 4th and/or 5th paragraph.
I am not really countering your statements then. But right now I don’t want the burden of proving whether or not certain people should feel insulted. (as if I could)
Right now I can only surmise that they view their reasons as valid for feeling offended by the content of the prayer.
Bencard on Tue, 10th Apr 2007 11:28 pm
” Bencard, at least now he knows, and I hope he learns from this and act accordingly in the future.” -cvj.
If anybody is offended by something written in this blog,what’s he gonna do about it? Shoot the writer? Rant, rave and maglupasay sa sahig”? Who cares?
This society is messed-up enough without its members worrying obout oversensitive characters who react foolishly to perceived wrongs done to them. So-called political correctness has been taken to extremes, such that no one can say or do anything without fear of ruffling the feathers of the guy next to him.
I say, you can only demand political correctness if you have political clout, as when politicians pander to you for political favors that they think you can give. This is not saying, though, that one does not have a “choice” to feel offended. But if he does make that choice, that’s his personal problem and no one else’s
I fully agree with Shaman on tolerance.
justice league on Tue, 10th Apr 2007 11:54 pm
Benj,
I visited your blog and noticed a remark by a certain Dra. Tess Termulo regarding an incident in UST where she took her course. The incident supposedly reminded her how non-Christians can be treated in this society predominated by Christians.
I tried to open her blog which initially opens but then keeps registering an error so please forward this to her.
I was planning to post this on your blog but that article is so old that you might not notice it and so not be able to forward the post to her.
The incident concerned a non-Christian student who decided to remain seated while every one else stood for the opening prayer of her class. She related that the non-Christian student was later reprimanded by their professor for having “disrespected” the prayer.
If a prayer is to be delivered in such a situation; would it be disrespectful or not for non Christians to remain seated when the prayer is held standing up (as indicated in her story)?
If it is considered as disrespectful; being in a professor-student relationship (Whoa, I sure hope that comes out right), would it be proper for the professor to point out any supposed improper conduct by the student?
If in the Philippine Blog Awards in lieu of an invocation, people call for a moment of silence instead and certain persons deliberately ignore that and remain to be “not silentâ€; should those persons be considered as being “disrespectful†to the call for silence?
Thanks in advance.
cvj on Wed, 11th Apr 2007 12:13 am
In a society where people only listen to the language of power, that’s true. But it does not have to be that way.
justice league on Wed, 11th Apr 2007 1:35 am
Oooopppsss.
I think part of my previous post will be clearer and more appropriate if it reads:
“If a prayer is to be delivered in such a situation; would it be disrespectful or not of Christians and non Christians to remain seated when the prayer is held standing up (as indicated in her story)?”
UPn student on Wed, 11th Apr 2007 5:56 am
For an example of what tolerance/intolerance & religious freedom (including the right to criticize the majority religion), do your blogging, then send your complaints to the Egyptian Embassy. FREE KAREEM!!!!
A translation from Kareem’s final blog post in October 2006 reads, “The mere existence of legal provisions that criminalize freedom of thought, and threaten with imprisonment anyone who criticizes religion in any way, is a grave defect in the law.” Shortly thereafter, Kareem was arrested, and is now in an Egyptian jail.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9075938
micketymoc on Wed, 11th Apr 2007 10:40 am
Interesting stand. Would you agree, then, that Christians in Malaysia should simply put up with the many restrictions on their spiritual practice? After all, like you said, they have no political favors to give to the majority Muslim population! Using your logic, their position in society is their personal problem and no one else’s! Right?
missingpoints on Wed, 11th Apr 2007 11:09 am
^ Only if it disturbs the class. As in parang nagpapapansin ka pa. In DLSU (more than a decade ago), most profs still had student lead prayers to start the class. I’d decline when asked to lead but I still stood up out of respect for my classmates who prayed and since I knew I was enrolled in a Catholic school.
Sometimes, I’d lead the prayer in Latin, just to freak them out. The Prayer of St. Benedict rocks, especially when you look at the prof and shout “Vade Retro Satana!”
justice league on Wed, 11th Apr 2007 12:57 pm
missingpoints,
Are you in effect stating that you would feel that you would be disrespecting your classsmates and/or your catholic school if you did not stand up along with your classmates while they prayed?
(I’m not trying to push you to a corner but I’m trying to find out why Dra. Termulo felt the way she did.)
Bencard on Wed, 11th Apr 2007 8:39 pm
micketymok, you know i’m not advocating that. I’m just stating a reality, a hard fact of life. You can dispute that fact, but that is not my “stand”.
Bencard on Wed, 11th Apr 2007 10:01 pm
p.s. “personal problem” refers to his choice to be “offended”, not his position in society.
missingpoints on Fri, 13th Apr 2007 4:10 pm
justice league: I basically just didn’t want to cause a fuss. When in Rome…
Shaman of Malilipot on Fri, 13th Apr 2007 5:52 pm
With your indulgence, Sparks, let me just say a few more words and I’m done. Promise.
Vic, I’m happy for you that you experienced tolerance and enjoyed it. I tell you, if people could be more tolerant of each other, there would be greater peace and happiness in this world.
Justice League, of course, those who felt offended thought they had valid reasons. But as Fr. Cuyos has said, there was never an intention to offend. If only those who were offended could be more tolerant, they would have been spared a lot of ill-feelings. Ask Vic about the virtues of tolerance. He has experienced it and enjoyed it.
Also, remaining seated while others stand and pray only shows one’s lack of good manners. Talking in the face of a request for silence bespeaks one’s lack of good breeding.
Thank you, Bencard. As you have rightly said, political correctness, if taken to extreme, would only mean paralysis. Or else, people could never be their authentic selves anymore in public. Magkakaplastikan na for fear of “offending” somebody, even if one never had the intention to offend. Human beings would be reduced to walking mannequins. Life would become just one big Theatre of the Absurd.
No, the world is too beautiful to be reduced to absurdity.
As promised, I’m done.
justice league on Fri, 13th Apr 2007 7:23 pm
Missingpoints,
You didn’t want to cause a disturbance. Yes. I understand.
Shaman,
Too bad you’re done. So I’ll have to content myself in infering that since it seems to be a lack of manners; then it would be proper for the professor to point out such behavior and try to correct it. OK.
And I actually understand the need for tolerance. I remember that I wrote here about the saga of Dwayne Simonton. I believe his ordeal was a terrible story of discrimination and lack of tolerance of his officemates.
elsphit on Sat, 29th Mar 2008 1:24 pm
But I see where youre coming from, benj. Youre claiming some sort of ‘victimhood.’ This isnt the way to deal. I mean, if I were in an Islamic community, and one of the events I attended (for example, the Saudi Arabian Blog Awards) included an invocation to Allah in the name of the Prophet Mohammed, I wouldnt complain about it. I see no reason to.
_____________
elsphit
http://naoko-sushi-roma.blogspot.com/
Atheista » Apathy Towards Zealotry Is Still Not An Option - One Year To The Day on Tue, 1st Apr 2008 10:54 pm
[...] Manolo [...]