The Height of Stupidity of Filipino Fascists
A rabid supporter of a fascist bill called the Reproductive Health bill and credulous anti-population advocate pulled a cheap, pathetic stunt in front of the Manila Cathedral altar during a mass with Manila Mayor Alfredo Lim and several Catholic bishops present. This Filipino fascist held a sign bearing the word “Damaso”, a reference to the diabolical friar from Jose Rizal’s famous novel “Noli Me Tangere”. To call the attention of the modern-day friars who perhaps represent Rizal’s ‘Padre Damaso’, this atheist protester then screamed: “Stop getting involved in politics.” He was seized by the police and taken to a nearby detention center.
This neo-fascist named Carlos Celdran, a tour guide, successfully yet pathetically got what he wanted: publicity and free promotion for his neo-fascist RH bill advocacy. In a country where most people are ignorant of the proper, valid concept of rights, Celdran was called a ‘hero’ by those who share his passion and nihilist moral and political beliefs. His Facebook page tells it all: his fans fully support his rights-violating “Damaso” protest. To them what this neo-fascist did was heroic and commendable, and it’s not really surprising that he now gets more “unthinking” fans.
Let me address several issues here before I get misunderstood by some of my blog readers. First, I don’t agree with the crime stated under Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code. The provision of Article 133 states:
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 commit such an act, one must (1) perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful, (2) such an act must be intentional and the purpose of which is to offend the feelings of the faithful, (3) and it must be committed in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony. There is no doubt that Celdran intentionally and fully committed this prohibited act. However, I believe this provision in the RPC must be repealed for being non-objective. There is no such thing as “religious feelings.” What are the tests now to determine what constitutes “religious feelings.” What constitutes “offensive acts”?
But this does not mean that this fascist Celdran did not commit any wrong against the complaining party. He did commit a so grave a wrong that fully reveals his being a fascist, outright stupidity and lack of foresight. He violated the property rights of the Catholic Church. I don’t have any problem with Celdran’s right to practice free speech, but I have a problem with the way he practiced it. You cannot practice your right to free speech by violating the property rights (and other fundamental rights) of others.
JOIN OUR FACEBOOK GROUP: FILIPINOS AGAINST REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE BILL
Like persons or individuals, artificial or juridical entities like corporations, establishments and even churches ( Catholic Church of course included) are entitled to property rights. This right and all other inalienable rights (e.g. rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of one’s happiness) are duly recognized and protected by the Constitution. The ‘right to speech’ is an indispensable antecedent to our rights to life and liberty. Without man’s right to life, it means that he cannot support his life by his own work, but it does not mean that his neighbors must provide him with the necessities of life. On the other hand, the right to liberty means the absence of physical coercion. This means that every individual has the right to express his opinions and ideas without danger of punitive action, interference or oppression by the government, but it does not mean that others must provide him with a venue to express his ideas.
However in the case of Celdran, he violated the property rights of the church in order to practice free speech. The right to property means that an individual has the right to carry out and perform actions necessary to earn property. It means that he has the right to use it and to dispose of it, but it does not mean that others must provide him with property. Therefore, a property rights owner has the right to exclude others from his property. In the present case, the purpose of the property right of the Catholic church is to use it for religious ceremonies and celebrations and all other purposes necessary to practice the right to freedom of religion. In our country, the right to freedom of religion and to practice it is fully guaranteed and protected by the Constitution.
Now there are two issues involved here:
One, whether or not Celdran has the right to violate the Catholic church’s rights to property and to practice religion;
Two, whether or not Celdran can validly and justifiably practice his right to free speech in order to violate the rights of the Catholic church.
The answer to these issues must be in the negative. What this fascist RH bill proponent did would have been justifiable had he practiced his right to free speech beyond the church’s premises. To illustrate my point, here’s a good analogy:
Consider this case of the Macerich Management Co. v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters that is now pending in the U.S. Supreme Court. One of the fundamental issues in this actual case is whether malls are public places or spaces, which make it perfectly legal and OK to hold demonstrations and public protests within mall premises. In other words, do we have the right to practice our right to free speech by violating the property rights of others or by forcing others to provide us with our venue to practice such a right? In a civilized society, the answer to this issue is NO. No, we don’t have the right to violate the rights of others in order to perform our rights.
To further understand the concept of property rights with respect to our right to free speech, let me quote Tom Bowden:
On private land, the owner rightfully limits how others can use it. Do you want to talk on your cell phone? Don’t expect the movie theater to allow it while the show is running. Do you seek Israel’s destruction? Don’t expect a synagogue to tolerate your passing out pamphlets. In all such cases, no one’s rights are violated. There is no right of free speech on someone else’s land. A proper legal system protects each person’s freedom to speak his mind on and with his own property. There’s no need for politicians and judges to “balance” opposing rights, because there are no opposing rights.
When private property is protected by law, those who violate property rights should expect to be arrested (or sued). Most certainly, a crowd of people seeking the financial ruin of a shopping mall by boycott should not expect the mall’s management to stand aside nonchalantly while an organized campaign seeks to drive customers away. It makes no difference that a given shopper might be receptive to the boycott message. The shopper has no more rights than the boycotter in the matter. Both are standing on mall property by permission, on whatever terms the owners have defined. If an individual isn’t willing to observe those terms, no one is forcing him to shop there—he can shop elsewhere, having lost nothing that was his to begin with.
It is true that the Catholic Church and other religions interfere with our political affairs. I believe in total, absolute separation of church and state, and it is this noble concept that ended centuries of religious wars in the past. But this concept of ‘separation of church’ and state does not mean we must violate the rights of others to religion and to worship whatever they want in their own way. It only means that the government must not establish religion or must not allow itself to be influenced by any religious establishment. This is guaranteed under Article III, Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution:
No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibitng the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious professiona nd worship, without discrimination or prefernce, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.
Let me state here then that Celdran must not be held liable under 133 of the Revised Penal Code for offending the Catholic Church’s “religious feelings.” Instead, he must be held responsible for other possible violations of rights he intentionally committed.
I mentioned above that Celdran is a neo-fascist. Facsism is a form of collectivist-totalitarian ideology. The underlying purpose of fascism is to impose state controls (control of private property, free speech, and other freedoms and rights) for the sake of common good. The RH bills authored by socialists and neo-fascists in Congress seek to control the medical profession and the whole industry by sacrificing health care providers and businessmen for the sake of what they call “greater good.”
While Celdran was right in protesting that the Catholic Church’s unjustifiable involvement in politics, the manner by which he performed his disgust of religion was legally unjustifiable. There are other ways to criticize the Church’s breach of the concept of “separation of church and state”. The best way is to educate the people by teaching them the value of reason, individualism, and capitalism. However, it seems that Mr. Celdran and his ilk reject these ideals because of their secular mysticism, as they promote liberalism and socialism, as well as the virtue of altruism and self-sacrifice.
Fascist Celdran, the Filipino Free-Farters (Freethinkers) and their ilk don’t know that they are engaged in a battle of ideas. Yes, the Church is against birth control, abortion, etc., but it has no power to coerce individuals who use contraceptives and who violate its mystical protocols. Yes, the Church tries to influence our stupid politicians, but the only way to counter its mystical influence is to vote out these stupid politicians and spread the virtue of reason, individualism and capitalism. Let the Church issue “fatwa” or excommunication decrees against its “infidels” or those who violate its religious decree. We are still a semi-free country. The people have the choice whether or not to violate or abide by the Church’s decrees. This is what these Free-Farters and RHB advocates missed! The only way to counter religion is to spread the RIGHT IDEA: reason, individualism and capitalism. Celdran’s “Damaso stunt” is so cheap, barbaric and hilarious!
I do not share the Catholic Church’s argument against the RH bill. Their argument is founded on faith, therefore, it must fail. The best argument against this socialist legislative proposal must be grounded in individual rights and freedom.
Related Blog Articles:
However, this doesn’t mean that I’m not in favor of abortion. I am an atheist for the very reason that I don’t want to destroy reason. Most atheists in this country, the free-FARTERS in particular, are the most ardent supporters of this anti-population bill. But this doesn’t mean that all women in this country must undergo abortion. I believe that every human being is responsible for his/her own body. Any woman who has no capacity- physically, financially, emotionally, intellectually or psychologically- to deliver and/or raise a child has the right to demand abortion. An embryo is not a person. This means that any society has no right to deprive any woman of her right to undergo abortion.
Apart from surrounding himself with well-known Marxists and progressives, President Noynoy Aquino recently showed his determination to support the fascistic, evil Reproductive Health bills authored by socialists in Congress. Reports said Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. said he is prepared to face the rage of the Catholic church in making sure the bills on reproductive health pending in the House of Representatives are tackled extensively and voted on by lawmakers.
As the old saying goes, ‘you know one when you see one. And this is exactly the case as the most ardent advocates of population control have compiled a list of politicians running for public office this May 10 national elections who made an either expressed or implied support to the controversial Reproductive Health bill that would force both employers and doctors to provide RH services to designated beneficiaries against their will.
The staunch supporters of the Reproductive Health bill authored by some communist politicians in Congress peddled a number of altruistic grounds and rationalization to ensure the passage of their socialist proposal. Some of their grounds are the following: a) to provide the needed reproductive health care services for women; b) to help the poor; and c) to curb the alleged population explosion in the country.
Today the issue of population control in this country is widely seen as the battle between the anti-population mystics who support an altruist legislative proposal and the religionists, who tied their arguments to Biblical grounds. Unfortunately, none of the opponents of this legislative proposal—the Reproductive Health Bill authored by socialist representatives in Congress—offered a proper, rational argument to counter the assumptions of the anti-population cultists. This is the reason why the RH bill debate is gaining more supporters than opponents—and this is also the reason why this country is moving toward complete collectivism.
My fundamental premise is this: I don’t believe the government has the right to coerce anyone under the concept of common good or social welfare to provide for the needs of others, and I also don’t believe that need is a claim or a license to enslave a particular group of people. First, it is important to understand that we’re not yet talking about the legality of this bill, because its proponents are still in the campaign process. The wave of public opinion determines the life or death of this legislative proposal, and I’ve heard that the Arroyo regime ordered its temporary confinement.
IT seems that a lot of people in this country, particularly those who ardently support a leftist bill being pushed by Leftist politicians in Congress, have miserably inflated their flawed logic and way of thinking. They accused all Filipinos who expressed their opposition to the controversial Reproductive Health Bill as religionists or Christians. These misguided supporters of the legislative proposal firmly believe that anyone who is against it is a believer of a non-existent mystic entity they call God.
I oppose RH Bill not on the grounds of religious argument (that it is anti-Life), but because it is not part of the function of a government to institutionalize slavery, by sacrificing one group to another group. I do not share the sentiments of the religionists and the Catholics that this bill is pro-abortion or against the sanctity of life. I believe this proposition is anti-Life, but I do not agree with the religious position and definition of the term. To me it is anti-Life in the sense that it kills man’s motivation to achieve and the value of man’s achievement.
The State upholds and promotes responsible parenthood, informed choice, birth spacing and respect for life in conformity with internationally recognized human rights standards. The State shall uphold the right of the people, particularly women and their organizations, to effective and reasonable participation in the formulation and implementation of the declared policy.