Modern-Day Damaso Celdran Found “Guilty” of Offending Religious Feelings
- NOTE: I first posted the following as a Facebook note.
And the 2013 Darwin Award goes to this guy for being too stupid.
I disagree with the anti-free speech, politically correct crime called “offending religious feelings”. But what this Carlos Celdran did is utterly moronic or stupid. To me, Celdran disrespected the CBCP’s or the Catholic Church’s property rights.
Imprisonment is way too harsh. The alleged crime should be made a civil liability.
I respect Celdran’s right to disagree with the CBCP’s position on the RH law, but I don’t agree with his deliberate, wanton violation of, or disrespect for, the Church’s property rights.
Can you justifiably storm the property or house of your enemy to express your complaint, disgust, or grievances?
However, I believe that imprisonment as punishment for stupidity is way too harsh.
But yes, Celdran and the Filipino Freefarters who supported the recently passed RH law are the real modern-day Damasos who shamelessly, naively use state power to disrespect and breach other people’s inalienable rights.
I stated here the following:
Today’s Damasos are these pro-RH bill people who call on the government to make the state the benevolent provider of people’s needs. The kind of theocracy during Rizal’s time gave the state the power to rule people’s lives in the name of God and revelations. However, the kind of creeping fascism or dictatorship that we have today is being supported by the modern-day Damasos who seek to impose their will on others. According to these real-world Damasos, the government must provide the people, especially the poor, with their needs at the expense of other people, especially the businessmen and health care providers who would be immolated and sacrificed in the name of the common good.
Celdran went to twitter to tweet the court’s decision:
From this site:
Celdran was charged with violating Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code (offending religious feelings) after he disrupted a service at the Manila Cathedral on Sept 30, 2010. Clad as the Filipino national hero Jose Rizal, the outspoken reproductive health advocate held up a sign with the words “Damaso,” in reference to the villainous priest in Rizal’s famous novel “Noli Me Tangere.”
As expected, the Human Rights Watch assailed the decision as “a setback for free speech in the Philippines, which prides itself in being a democracy.”
Though I’m an atheist, I was among those who mocked Celdran’s publicity stunt to promote his neo-fascist RH bill advocacy in 2010.
With regard to this case, I stated the following:
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.
… 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.
Celdran the bully…
Look what I found. Some Facebook photos defending Celdran and attacking the CBCP