Have the friars won?
Update: Wow this book is riveting! We started reading it last night and got halfway through. It’s a 19th century novel AND it was originally in Spanish so it does get florid (especially during the romantic portions, which we just zip through). But this is way more compelling than we remember from when we were compelled to read it. Noli me tangere starts out sharp and funny as Rizal satirizes the institutions of his time (which were already fossilized, and which hold sway to this day), and gets progressively infuriating (Nakakagalit!) as it portrays the abuses of the frailes. The way Rizal zeroes in on his targets—no wonder he got shot.
We feel bad for Carlos Celdran, but not that bad because we know that he knew what he was getting into. Mostly we’re flummoxed at the discovery that We Live In Medieval Times.
Our reading group is supposed to be doing Proust right now, but Swann’s Way is not under threat. Noli Me Tangere is. The Filipino nation would not exist without Jose Rizal’s masterpiece: a novel that sets out to offend religious feelings.
So years and years after reading Rizal under duress in P.I. 100 class, we’re going to read Noli again. Not just because we have to, but because we want to.
Carlos, we owe you a drink.
Answers to questions you might be asking, unless you wandered onto this site purely by accident >>>
January 29th, 2013 at 12:15
I guess this means that if my Muslim friend feels offended when I eat pork in his presence, he can sue me. Or if I, a Protestant, am meditating and a Catholic walks in on me with a rosary around his neck, I can sue.
This was a stupid verdict, and I do hope it gets overturned.
If the basis for the verdict was “public disturbance,” I probably would find that easier to swallow.
But “offending religious feelings?” In this day and age? What a load of bull. Not only is it too vague and broad and subjective, but it discriminates against the non-religious and the atheists.
One thing this does show us though: Carlos just proved his cause right about the Damasos with this turn of events.
January 29th, 2013 at 13:48
He goes to jail because he “offended religious feelings”???
Absurd. Just absurd!
January 29th, 2013 at 18:51
I hope that this catalyzes the executive and legislative branches of the government to amend if not repeal the law — it should be pretty straightforward.
Noli Me Tangere deserves a good Les Miserables-style musical theatre treatment — strong characters, riveting plot, plenty of emotional and dramatic scenes. There was a Ryan Cayabyab stage musical version over twenty years ago, but it felt unfinished, and might have benefited from some rewriting and even more music. I wonder if there are any plans to put out a new production. Young Filipino composers and songwriters should definitely give it a stab.
January 29th, 2013 at 19:49
Don’t freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and separation of church and state trump that law?
January 29th, 2013 at 22:01
Also, by this reasoning can we outlaw those born-again preachers on the bus because they offend Catholic feelings, especially when they distribute those creepy Jack Chick mini-comics (translated in Tagalog)? Can the INC take us to court when we serve dinuguan in fiestas?
So this is how they play it: we’ve won the RH battle but lost this case? What kind of government do we have? Hindi ko na-gets.
January 29th, 2013 at 22:06
I’m a catholic and I am pro-RH. If I remember it right, he did his thing during a concelebrated mass. Celdran is a catholic too ang he knew the Catholic church’s unwavering and uncomprising stance against RH bill. Padre Damaso is everything a man of god is not and calling the church hierarchy as such in a public place already offensive to them but to do it the way he did? He knew the concequences. Hindi pwedeng slap in the wrist lang ang mangyayari. Kaya lang, up to a year… sobra naman!
@allancarreon – eating pork in front of a muslim is not offensive(me kakalase ako sa UST na muslim. Kumakain siya minsan sa canteen ng baon niya while my other classmates were eating ham sandwiches) but try convincing them that it is not unclean – mag-aaway kayo!
January 30th, 2013 at 00:26
offending religious feelings?!… natatawa ako, hihi-hihi!..
January 30th, 2013 at 09:09
Who knew we have such a law?
And with thousands of religions out there, including the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (proud Pastafarian here–may His Noodly Appendages bless us all), how can we avoid not offending any religious feelings?
We need a sort of introduction to Article 133, a guide on how not to violate this [air quotes] “law”; we need “Article 133 and You–How To Avoid Hurting the Feelings of the Religious”.
And on a totally unrelated note, I just finished Atonement last night.
I feel privileged to have read this book. Many times, as I was reading, I felt the urge to stand up, and give those words a round of applause.
How elegant they looked, sitting gracefully on those pages.
And what stories they tell!
It is disconcerting how the author easily takes me inside the head of a thirteen year old girl.
January 30th, 2013 at 13:47
I was wondering how far along everybody else was on Swan’s Way. It’s my first time to read Proust and I’ve discovered I might have a very impressionable mind because now almost everything I do triggers an involuntary memory, which is sort of my excuse for why I haven’t managed reading beyond several pages.
I’m beginning to think Tamaru was right about Proust :))
January 30th, 2013 at 14:32
@allancarreon – This is Article 133: “Offending the religious feelings. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon anyone who, in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.”
To reiterate, the requisites of the article include performance of the act in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony. Unless meditation by a Protestant is recognized by the courts as a celebration of a religious ceremony, I believe the above article does not apply to the two hypothetical cases you gave.
January 30th, 2013 at 18:43
@betson: “@allancarreon – eating pork in front of a muslim is not offensive.”
I am 100% fully aware of this. I have Muslim friends, and we eat out together, with me eating pork in their presence. I also have two people in my staff at work who are Muslim. No, they don’t eat pork, but they’re not averse to eating in non-Halal places.
I also would not be offended, even as a Protestant, if a Catholic walked in on me with a rosary around his neck while I am meditating, given that my father’s side of the family is devoutly Catholic and that I studied in a Jesuit school for my elem and HS education.
I was simply trying to make a point about how stupid “offending religious feelings” is as the reason for the verdict, even if it it technically legal. It’s unfortunate you weren’t able to detect my sarcasm. :)
I do not disagree that Carlos also had some fault. As Jessica put it, he knew what he was getting into. Also, freedom of speech, like most (if not all) freedoms, has limits – if it infringes on the rights of others. If he did that in a mosque or an INC church, reaction would probably have been worse.
My concern is the use of “offending religious feelings” as a basis for any verdict. No wonder it hasn’t been used since the 1930s. “Offending religious feelings” lends to too much subjectivity. As I pointed out in my (sarcastic) examples, anyone can theoretically cry out “my religious feelings have been offended” for trivial things, then sue.
If Carlos had been charged with something like “public disturbance” (or whatever analogous law we have for such, I’m not sure as I’m not a lawyer), it would be more understandable and easier to accept.
There is still separation of church and state, and I was actually surprised that that clause on “religious feelings” existed because it lends to a bias on people who have religions. Are atheists devoid of feelings and therefore not protected from being offended?
And while I whole-heartedly agree to freedom of religion, I always thought “freedom of religion” referred to one’s freedom to practice the religion that he/she chooses. I do not believe it should refer to being protected from criticism by others who do not practice that religion. Everyone has the right to their opinion, and as my friend also put it, “People get offended all the time. Such is life.”
(This is also why all the arguments of anti-RH people claiming that it violates their freedom of religion is silly. No one is forcing them to use condoms if it violates their religious beliefs, but they have no right to tell others what to do. There is no religious freedom being infringed in the RH Law.)
P.S. the Celdran incident is misreported as having happened in a mass. It did not. It happened during a pre-mass event/ceremony. Doesn’t make it any much different since it still happened within a church, but just need to clear that one out.
January 30th, 2013 at 23:13
ManilaBeans: All this talk of madeleines has made us crave madeleines, but we don’t know where to get good madeleines (they used to have them at Delifrance but those weren’t memorable) here although every blasted bakeshop has macarons.
January 31st, 2013 at 08:01
@ada – as mentioned previously, the hypothetical cases I presented are (hyperbolic) sarcasm. The point being, “offending religious feelings” is outdated, too broad, vague, subjective, and also discriminates against the non-religious (why is there no protection for the non-religious?).
And if you wish for a more accurate hypothetical example, then imagine if I create a very new religion with a follower base of just 2 people, have a religious ceremony that we invented on the fly in a rented public room, and someone disturbed us. Oh yeah, we can sue. See how silly that is?
Also, what is “notoriously” offensive? Is there “mildly offensive,” and if something is mildly offensive, does the accused get acquitted? Again, subjective. What is offensive to someone in that church may not be offensive to another.
Again, removing the religious aspect is probably better in this day and age. Charge him with “disturbing of the peace” or “public disturbance” if it must be done. But freedom of religion does not mean the religion, any religion, cannot be criticized.
Just my two cents :)
@Jessica – I honestly have never tried madeleines, but I will swear by the silvanas of Sans Rival in Dumaguete. Last time I went there, I came back with 24 boxes that was the equivalent of about a medium sized balikbayan box. :)
January 31st, 2013 at 08:28
Also, an interesting piece about the Celdran case. This did make me think more thoroughly on the matter:
http://opinion.inquirer.net/45917/celdran-jailed-for-offending-political-feelings
January 31st, 2013 at 11:33
so what version of Noli are you reading? :)
January 31st, 2013 at 13:45
The English translation by Soledad Lacson-Locsin, published by Bookmark in the 1990s.
Benedict Anderson has noted that the Leon Ma. Guerrero translation is bowdlerized.
We hear the Penguin version by Harold Augenbraum is good, but wonder how he deals with the Filipinisms (Dona Victorina, etc).
January 31st, 2013 at 21:56
@allancarreon Yes, in all those hypothetical cases, you can sue. And when I say that you can sue, it doesn’t necessarily mean that I’m saying your suit will prosper. :)
“Offending Religious Feelings” as crime under the Revised Penal Code does not speak of “acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful” in all possible situations, its limitations being the requisites I reiterated above. In that sense, the article is not too broad. However, like most laws, it also allows space for court interpretation.
For example, in the last case you gave, the courts will have to determine if what you formed can be considered as a religion.
February 1st, 2013 at 07:26
hmmm, Soledad Lacson-Locsin, eh? i only (kinda, sorta) skimmed through the leon ma. guerrero version in high school. okay then, lemme pick up a copy in national. thanks!
February 1st, 2013 at 09:14
@ada: “For example, in the last case you gave, the courts will have to determine if what you formed can be considered as a religion.”
And that’s the point. No one can really say otherwise. Religion is a very personal thing at the end of the day. I do not think that’s something any court can or should be the one to decide. There may be thousands of religions amongst our indigenous tribes that no one has discovered yet or understood. It is highly arrogant for any court (or anyone, for that matter) to decide who has a working religion versus who has not. Just because some form of organization or spirituality is not registered or has very little following does not automatically make it invalid.
This is exactly why religion should be separate from state.
February 1st, 2013 at 17:35
@allancarreon If we are to maintain the Constitutional protection of the freedom of religion – and that protection, of course, includes the freedom of non-religion – the Supreme Court inevitably would have to interpret what religion covers. I believe it already did, in several cases. This interpretation is required as well for the separation of church and state. This also applies to other rights under our laws which require the courts to look into concepts, even those which are “personal”, in order for the protection to be upheld.
Whatever interpretation (or doctrines) the Court renders on concepts like this, it may still overturn, taking into consideration factors such as legal developments, customs and practices. It will be hard to demand that laws be so specific so that the courts don’t have to interpret them based on both theoretical and practical grounds. (What are courts for, anyway?) Otherwise, too much time and resources will be wasted on amendments or revisions.
Article 133, as well as the decision on the Celdran case, is not without fault. But if we have to attack a law, it is good to use stronger grounds. As I have previously noted, being “too broad” seems weak as an argument against this statutory provision.
February 1st, 2013 at 23:10
I like boys.
February 2nd, 2013 at 21:52
@ada: we will have to agree to disagree. If a person has his own valid religious ways that do not conform to the norm, the state (or anyone for that matter) cannot deny that person his/her basic right to define it otherwise. (I say “valid” to differentiate it from crackpots who “create” religions to dupe the unsuspecting and swindle them).
If someone proclaims that a certain act has offended his religious feelings, but it turns out the state has not defined that person’s religion based on its criteria, it is unjust to disregard the person’s valid religiosity.
Also, in my opinion, the “religious feelings” provision is broad not just because of “religion” but also because of “feelings,” another subjective and broad idea. The same goes for “notoriously offensive,” particularly “notoriously.” This is probably why this article has not been used since the 1930s.
These also pretty much sum up my thoughts on it:
http://www.interaksyon.com/article/54070/mel-sta–maria–though-deserving-of-censure-carlos-celdran-is-no-criminal
http://opinion.inquirer.net/45917/celdran-jailed-for-offending-political-feelings
The second link hits it on the head in that Carlos did not really quite offend religious feelings as he did “political feelings.”
If we are talking about offending religious feelings, it’s curious why the artist (I forget the name) who placed a penis on Jesus did not get sued nor convicted. Okay, technically, it wasn’t in a religious ceremony, as the article provides for, but let’s look at the spirit of the provision rather than the technicality: if there was an act more offensive to Catholic dogma, it was probably the penis-on-Jesus moment as compared to Celdran’s act.
(Mind, I think that artist had every right to his own artistic freedom and more power to him. All I’m saying is, if we compare, that one probably has more grounds for offending religious feelings than Carlos’ act.)
Celdran’s act was not religious but political in nature, and the truth is that it offended not religious feelings nor dogma but rather political feelings of the bishops.
—
In any case, I do not think we will ever agree on this matter, so this will be my last say on it for now, and we will have to agree to disagree.